Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
interestrateripoff

Oil And Gas Fields In Uk Could Become Co2 Dumps, Say Mps

Recommended Posts

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-27488744

The UK's exhausted oil and gas fields in the North Sea could be transformed into a lucrative dump for Europe's CO2 emissions, MPs say.

The Energy and Climate Change Committee says nearby nations could capture the emissions from their power stations, then transport the CO2 offshore in pipes.

North Sea rocks that have been sucked dry of oil and gas could be pumped full of the unwanted CO2.

Critics say the idea is fanciful.

But Tim Yeo, the committee's chair, told the BBC that "the key to carbon capture and storage is economics".

"The UK's geology under the North Sea is a potential asset to exploit and if we can find ways of getting another income stream by accepting someone else's unwanted CO2 it might move forward the date when CCS (carbon capture and storage) in the UK is commercially viable," he added.

So do they think other nations will pay us to store CO2 under the sea?

Will we now be privatising our unused gas fields?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The idea has been around for ages.

Problem is that capturing the CO2, transporting it hundreds of miles out to sea and injecting it into oil and gas fields costs a lot of money (and a fair amount of energy).

Coal industry likes it, generally because they can keep throwing a bit of spare change towards an idea that is unlikely to go anywhere but does allow them to go on about Clean Coal and carry on business as usual.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's pretty dangerous! What about that Indonesian village, where a (perfectly natural) bubble of carbon dioxide came out of the ground and killed hundreds!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's pretty dangerous! What about that Indonesian village, where a (perfectly natural) bubble of carbon dioxide came out of the ground and killed hundreds!

Thought that was an African lake, although something similar may have happened elsewhere. How dangerous this would be at sea I've no idea (no valleys to contain it, would it spread out in a thin cover or come out quickly enough to at least be bad for anyone in a nearby boat?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CO2 sequestration. The kind of idiotic idea that only fanatics and chancers could come up with. Still it should boost GDP in a pointless sort of way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CO2 sequestration. The kind of idiotic idea that only fanatics and chancers could come up with. Still it should boost GDP in a pointless sort of way.

I'm with the "disgraced" David Bellamy on this! Just let it into the air! It will be used by plants! I'm not sure Doctor Bellamy was as much "disgraced" , as sidelined, for I miss his cheerful beard!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm with the "disgraced" David Bellamy on this! Just let it into the air! It will be used by plants! I'm not sure Doctor Bellamy was as much "disgraced" , as sidelined, for I miss his cheerful beard!

Very much so. CO2 is a small part of the atmosphere, Mother Earth and nature will deal with it. It's all part of the scam. Like house price inflation, the money could be better spent elsewhere. Of course, given the state of the real economy, it will be borrowed. The irony of 'saving' the planet for our children whilst destroying their futures.

It really makes me angry that this nonsense has any traction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The idea has been around for ages.

Problem is that capturing the CO2, transporting it hundreds of miles out to sea and injecting it into oil and gas fields costs a lot of money (and a fair amount of energy).

Coal industry likes it, generally because they can keep throwing a bit of spare change towards an idea that is unlikely to go anywhere but does allow them to go on about Clean Coal and carry on business as usual.

Yes, and the equation looks even less attractive as less accessible sources of fossil fuels are exploited. Even if it could be made to be reliable, CO2 sequestration will bring forward the point at which EROEI reaches unity. It would make a lot more sense to simply leave as much of the stuff under the ground as possible.

Edited by snowflux

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could we tell the other countries that we'll store their CO2 safely, then once we've got their money just dump it in a layby 1/2 mile up the road? After all it worked for asbestos and used tyre disposal businesses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   206 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.