How the Pathways carbon storage project would work, if built (www.cbc.ca)

submitted 1 day ago by ValueSubtracted@startrek.website to c/canada@lemmy.ca

4 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] ValueSubtracted@startrek.website 4 points 1 day ago

I'm extremely skeptical of the whole thing, but I'm trying to learn more. The article you shared says:

Many geologists (myself included) believe there are places on Earth where long-term CO2 storage could be safely achieved, but it would require what scientists call “site characterization.” That means studying the location in enough detail to be confident that things put there will stay there. For example, the U.S. currently stores military radioactive waste in low-permeability salt formations in New Mexico, and there are numerous pending proposals to store CO2 in sandstones overlain by low-permeability shales in North Dakota.

Okay, so the CBC article seems to suggest that the site in question has been studied.

At the storage hub, the gas would be injected deep underground in the Basal Cambrian Sandstone formation, which sits one to two kilometres below the surface. The sponge-like sandstone has spaces that can be filled with CO2.

Above that formation is thick, non-porous rock salt that can act as a barrier to keep the carbon dioxide in the ground.

I have no idea whether it's been studied sufficiently, but the author of the article you shared seems to think it can be effective if that step is taken.

And I think even the most optimistic proponents of carbon storage argue that it's a means of mitigating the effects of heavy industry, not of making a meaningful difference in other ways. But they seem to think those mitigating effects can be important, and maybe even necessary?

[-] grte@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

I have no idea whether it’s been studied sufficiently, but the author of the article you shared seems to think it can be effective if that step is taken.

I also can't say whether the site was studied sufficiently, but the timelines talked about in the article combined with bill C-15 allowing ministers to exempt entities from environmental laws if they are pursuing something deemed as encouraging economic growth pushes me well beyond the point where I'm willing to give the government the benefit of the doubt.

the most optimistic proponents of carbon storage argue that it’s a means of mitigating the effects of heavy industry, not of making a meaningful difference in other ways. But they seem to think those mitigating effects can be important, and maybe even necessary?

Maybe, but unfortunately the reality is that:

nearly all CCS projects in the U.S. are actually enhanced-recovery projects that keep the oil and gas flowing, and every new barrel of oil and cubic foot of gas sold and burned is putting more CO2 into the atmosphere. So not only do these kinds of projects not help, but they perpetuate our use of fossil fuels at a critical moment in history when we need to do the opposite.

Which is also why O&G advocates like Danielle Smith support it.

[-] ValueSubtracted@startrek.website 3 points 1 day ago

I also can’t say whether the site was studied sufficiently, but the timelines talked about in the article combined with bill C-15 allowing ministers to except entities from environmental laws if they are pursuing something to be deemed as encouraging economic growth pushes me well beyond the point where I’m willing to give the government the benefit of the doubt.

Fair enough - the article you linked described the study of Yucca Mountain as a storage for nuclear waste as having taken about 20 years, whereas as near as I can tell, they started exploratory drilling in Cold Lake in 2022. That's...less than 20 years, no doubt about it.

nearly all CCS projects in the U.S. are actually enhanced-recovery projects that keep the oil and gas flowing

This is undoubtedly the case for his project, as well. Even the most optimistic viewpoint seems to be that it would make the effects of continued drilling and export of oil "less bad," and do nothing to actually stop climate change.