Storing carbon dioxide underground by turning it into rock

From the AMERICAN CHEMICAL SOCIETY, an idea that might actually work in a few places, but won’t really matter in the larger scheme of global CO2 volume. I also wonder about saturation. It seems they’d continuously have to drill new wells as the porosity of the basalt would be reduced close to the well casing, and eventually new CO2 being injected would likely not penetrate after awhile. Ironically, injecting “dangerous chemicals” into the ground is the cornerstone of the fracking objection, and since the same people who often protest fracking also protest CO2 as a “dangerous chemical” you’d think they would be against something that would turn mother Gaia to stone. We shall see.

Storing carbon dioxide underground by turning it into rock

In November, the Paris Climate Agreement goes into effect to reduce global carbon emissions. To achieve the set targets, experts say capturing and storing carbon must be part of the solution. Several projects throughout the world are trying to make that happen. Now, a study on one of those endeavors, reported in the ACS journal Environmental Science & Technology Letters, has found that within two years, carbon dioxide (CO2) injected into basalt transformed into solid rock.

basalt-co2-stone
A core sample from a carbon storage project in Washington state showed that carbon dioxide injected deep underground into basalt rock turned into the carbonate mineral ankerite in less than two years (inset). CREDIT American Chemical Society

Lab studies on basalt have shown that the rock, which formed from lava millions of years ago and is found throughout the world, can rapidly convert CO2 into stable carbonate minerals. This evidence suggests that if CO2 could be locked into this solid form, it would be stowed away for good, unable to escape into the atmosphere. But what happens in the lab doesn’t always reflect what happens in the field. One field project in Iceland injected CO2 pre-dissolved in water into a basalt formation, where it was successfully stored. And starting in 2009, researchers with Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and the Montana-based Big Sky Carbon Sequestration Partnership undertook a pilot project in eastern Washington to inject 1,000 tons of pressurized liquid CO2 into a basalt formation.

After drilling a well in the Columbia River Basalt formation and testing its properties, the team injected CO2 into it in 2013. Core samples were extracted from the well two years later, and Pete McGrail and colleagues confirmed that the CO2 had indeed converted into the carbonate mineral ankerite, as the lab experiments had predicted. And because basalts are widely found in North America and throughout the world, the researchers suggest that the formations could help permanently sequester carbon on a large scale.

###

The authors acknowledge funding from the U.S. Department of Energy; the National Energy Technology Laboratory; the Big Sky Carbon Sequestration Partnership; Shell Exploration & Production Company; Portland General Electric; and Schlumberger Inc.

The paper’s abstract will be available on Nov. 18 here: http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acs.estlett.6b00387

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

141 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
November 19, 2016 2:45 pm

Why would you want to store a harmless gas, like CO2, beneficial to plants and animals, deep underground at great expense, when the cold oceans are doing that for you for free?

rbabcock
November 19, 2016 3:47 pm

We grow oysters.. lots of shells and you can eat them a variety of different ways. Can you eat Basalt?

michael hart
November 19, 2016 4:48 pm

I think they’re going to have to massively frack basalt strata with nuclear explosives to make them permeable enough to absorb meaningful amounts of CO2 compared to human output. And then there is the cost involved…
It’s another fail, fail, fail.

Reply to  michael hart
November 20, 2016 1:14 am

No, they must have scoria basalt. Continental sheet flows and olivine basalts are just solid. You can frack fractured rock and essentially pump in surfactants to increase oil flow, but you cannot pump in air or water to frack solid rock like basalt. That is like saying you can frack a block of concrete by drilling a hole and pouring in water or air.

November 19, 2016 5:37 pm

Nobody has ever shown that CO2 can effect ANY changes to climate – and very little to ocean acidification. That’s because it can be shown that it CANNOT (as shown on my site; you’ll need a bit of Science).

H. D. Hoese
November 19, 2016 6:43 pm

The science seems settled according to two sources.
http://www.nationalacademies.org/annualreport/Report_to_Congress_2015.pdf
Besides sequestration they suggest reflecting sunlight might be more efficient (see page 20). One has to wonder about their credibility for other subjects covered.
On the Wall Street Journal Report on Energy for November 14, all of seven subjects with “invited advocates on each side” were clearly searching for solutions other than that above. Number one on the front page was “Is Nuclear Power Vital to Hitting Emissions Targets.” The three about the oil and gas industry were one about OPEC, “Does the OIl-and-Gas Industry Still Need Tax Breaks” and “Are Low Oil Prices Good for the Economy.” The last one was “Insights on Climate Change and Carbon Pricing.” Not sure I covered everything in the article, but decades ago when this sort of thing came up the response was “Let the %$#%$ freeze in the dark.” Sad thing is that rational discussions about our complete energy future would be logical in a world actually concerned.

wws
November 19, 2016 7:42 pm

I think something is going to turn up which is going to Trump this plan.
although I can’t for the life of me think what it will be.

jim heath
November 20, 2016 12:35 am

Silly me I thought that was called coal.

November 20, 2016 1:11 am

The picture is infilled vesicular basalt. That is a very specific kind. Most basalt is not vesicular, and when it is, it is already filled with something else like the chalcedony that is pictured. Second, it better be highly fractured basalt, and oceanic tholeiitic flows have no chance to store anything. Essentially, you have to find a scoria formation. However, scoria rock is probably fractured to the surface, so injection just leaks out. That means you need a good solid caprock over it. So the analysis for each site will be costly and complex to get all the right conditions. Of course, your well is going to immediately foul. Enormous amounts of carbon energy will be required to constantly punch holes in the right flow and pump it down.

Robin Hewitt
November 20, 2016 2:50 am

I just hope they do not do anything which cannot be undone should it prove a terrible mistake.

John
November 20, 2016 4:04 am

Another stupid green idea. Why rob nature from its source of life?

Karl Roebling
November 20, 2016 10:58 am

Turn CO2 into clean, fresh O2. Plant a tree.

PiperPaul
November 20, 2016 12:53 pm
jjs
November 20, 2016 7:56 pm

John, robbing is the whole purpose of the green movement.

willhaas
November 21, 2016 4:46 am

Mother Nature has been converting CO2 to carbonate rocks for at least hundreds of millions of years. The problem is that the process removes Carbon from the biosphere and hence threatens life on this planet as we know it. Rather than trying to remove even more carbon from the biosphere we should be searching for the most efficient way returning carbon that is currently locked up in carbonate rocks, to the biosphere.

November 21, 2016 6:10 pm

Maybe someone has already noted this (I haven’t read all the posts), but the injection of CO2 into basalt to form ankerite (Ca,Fe[CO3]2) etc., entails a significant volume increase, which could result in various unwanted ramifications, such as uplift and fracturing, leading to earthquakes. Has this been considered at all?

Al Campbell
November 21, 2016 6:21 pm

This is in response to Menicholas who wrote on Nov. 19: In your second sentence you stated that there had never been a bad outcome from a warming planet or excess CO2 in the atmosphere. How would you like to live on the planet Venus? Don’t get me wrong I’m pretty much on your side in this argument but I think you may have overstated your position.

Reply to  Al Campbell
November 21, 2016 9:50 pm

“never been a bad outcome from a warming planet or excess CO2 in the atmosphere”
The surface of Venus is not hot because of a runaway GHG effect caused by CO2 as they would have you believe, but due to a runaway cloud effect and an atmosphere that weighs nearly as much as Earth’s oceans. You might be able to protect yourself from the temperature, but not the pressure …

Steve Hawk
November 25, 2016 3:15 pm

Another liberal idea which costs huge amounts of money and doesn’t accomplish anything.