Previously on SDA about small dead animals in a gravel pit. Now is the Time at SDA When We Juxtapose.
DeSmogBlog 19Jan11:
It also seems reasonable that when a potential breach is identified, Cenovus and the PTRC would rush in the troops to actually do research on the ground, rather than take a quick look at the report and dismiss its lack of evidence out of hand.
Sure, that’s slightly embarrassing. But it isn’t grounds to declare the entire library of climate science a fraud. The IPCC’s findings have been validated and substantiated by assessments conducted by leading scientific institutions the world over.
Bonus: Petroleum Research Technology Centre response (PDF, 8pp)
In summary, there is no substantiated evidence in the Petro‐Find report to support their claim that “the source of the high concentrations of CO2 in soils of the Kerr property is clearly the anthropogenic CO2 injected into the Weyburn reservoir.” The phenomena observed at the Kerr property can be explained by near surface processes including microbial generation of soil CO2 and methane.
Course, a finding like that breaks a main tenet of the enviro-whacko’s faith; the Sin of the Petro-Dollar.
Here’s the key statement:
“The anhydrite cap has retained over 1.4 billion barrels of oil in the Weyburn reservoir for millions of years. Moreover, for leakage to reach the surface this would require breaching a further 1,500 m of strata, including 5 major geological barriers totaling 800 m in thickness. In addition, for CO2 to migrate 2 km south it would have to move counter to mapped formation‐water flow and the natural tendency of CO2 to migrate up dip, north and away from the Kerr property.”
In other words, in between the time of the first wells drilled in the area and the CO2 injection,
a massive displacement of earth would have to occur through almost a mile of rock under the surface — without anyone noticing on the surface — and the CO2 would have to flow in the reservoir in the opposite direction of how water and hydrocarbon have been observed since production began.
So, either the geological principle of superposition and the laws of physics had both been suspended, or there might be a more reasonable explanation for the reported incident.
“…pumping CO2 in the ground and locking it into aquifers recently emptied of oil and natural gas will provide a way to mitigate the damaging effects of the increasing concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.”
When did oil and gas start to come from “aquifers”?
When is my well going to make me rich?
Smart folks over there at DeSmog.
Oh, man, that’s a nice read. B1tch-slapped, and hard.
I figured the conclusion was unwarranted, but I didn’t have enough information when this came out. I’d forgotten about the Watrous Fm; that’s some impermeable stuff. And you can tell that this guy didn’t pay attention in his obviously-limited geology classes. The Williston Basin is very tectonically stable, and a 1500m near-vertical fault would have been noticed long before now.
Money well spent.
@mitchell: if they’ve been emptied of hydrocarbons, water replaces them in the emptied pore spaces. It’s the signal the well’s done (“watering out”). So, technically correct, if perhaps misapplied.
Several times deSmog refers to the “climate denial industry”. I’m sure the idiot knows full well there isn’t any climate denial industry for the simple reason the tens of thousands of voices against AGW are not getting paid. These people simply seek the truth. It’s the global warming industry that receives hundreds of millions of dollars from various governments that have a vested interest in keeping the scam going,
AGW Progress Report.
Mao Stlong’s Red-Green* fraud exposed.
Link at WUWT goes to CTV: imagine.
CTV closes Comments:
“Comments are now closed for this story”.
Red-Green Mao Stlong* is Liberal leader Bob Rae’s* Uncle Mo Strong.
CTV/CBC will not expose the links between Rae and Strong.
…-
“AAAS withdraws “impossible” global warming paper”
“Complaints over “impossible conclusions” cited as the reason.
“from CTV:”
“EurekAlert withdraws climate change paper
A study warning that the planet would warm by 2.4C by 2020, creating deadly consequences for the global food supply, is being debunked as false and impossible.
The study came from a little-known, non-profit group based in Argentina, called the Universal Ecological Fund. An embargoed copy of the study appeared on Eurekalert!, a news service operated by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) that’s followed by many journalists.
The study was picked up by a number of international news organizations Tuesday. But it appears the study’s claims were erroneous.
The AAAS says that after receiving complaints that the study’s conclusions were impossible, it has removed all references to the study from its website.
Continue reading →”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/
CTV:
http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20110119/climate-change-study-110119/
c.c. Blue Like You
@dastardly: Someone over there wrote a book tracing money to/from prominent people in the skeptic camp. They’ve perfected the smear by proximity tactic.
The PTRC report ought to settle the question once and for all, whatever was fizzing on the old Kerr place wasn’t CO2 from down in the reservoir. I thought when I first heard about it that it was an attempt by disgruntled residents to try to make a quick buck. The journalist played right into their hands, and the consultant was probably having a slow month, but to have the PTRC come down on your findings like that can’t help his reputation at all.
Every time I read anything from DeSmug blog, my blood starts to boil, what a bunch of spin.
Kaboom. There was supposed to be a Kaboom by now.
Turn of the century = Y2K (the original)
Above quote was from May 1982.
Ecological Disaster Feared
As an old rig pig who has a rudimentary understanding of geology….thanks for the info from those in the know.
Lance, it breaks an even bigger part of the global warmers’ cause. The key statement in the PTRC report is the finding of no evidence of human origin of CO2. It has long been contended by skeptics that global warming theory had no proper quantification of all natural inputs and removals of CO2. There was therefore no evidence to claim that all of the rise in CO2 concentration was solely from our fossil fuel emissions.
In seeking to defend sequestration, Hoggan and his gang of fools have just blown the doors off the CO2 quantification problem. After all, if CO2 is naturally leaking out in Weyburn, where else is it gushing up unnoticed and unquantified?
Desmog Blog has just shot themselves through both knees. Given that Jim Hoggan is such a self-righteous creep, it couldn’t happen to a better guy. Mind you, given his utter lack of understanding of the science of global warming, he’s too stupid to notice.
Crank science: the conclusion is invariant under changes in data and argument. E.g. AGW.
One would expect that the isotopic evidence should be fairly strong in the Weyburn CO2 emissions.
If not, why not? is the question to ask of Cenovus.
I wish all these environmentalist would see that the third world is going to poison this earth long before my truck ever warms it up.
Drink tap water in China or India? Or straight out of the south Saskatchewan downstream of the sewer treatment plant?
syncro: As a rig pig, did you ever work the southeast? If you did, you should remember what it’s like to drill through anhydrite and the Red Beds on the way into the limestones, and what it’s like to get a kick on the string. Just that bit of experience puts you ahead in understanding the geology out there, compared to the guy that did the original assessment.
John: Why should we be asking Cenovus about Petro-Find’s inability to prove provenance?
Based on the PTRC smack-down of the analyst, there was little scientific activity going on here. This was about sticking it to the man. Ignoring controls and base-lines to the data, ignoring contrapuntal research, using graduate theses, cherry-picking extreme samples…hmm…where have we heard that before?
Sigh. I hate it when “scientists” give science a bad name.
Great links.
I’ve been sending links to the Great Global Warming Swindle to everyone I know lately.
Thanks Another Calgary Marc, I was going by this definition.
“An aquifer is a wet underground layer of water-bearing permeable rock or unconsolidated materials (gravel, sand, silt, or clay) from which groundwater can be usefully extracted using a water well.”
mitchel: yes, by that definition, the other guy is incorrect. I tend not to include anything from the word “from” in your definition, because aquifers as I understand them can exist at any depth in suitable rock, many of which are saline (due to containing ancient sea water).
One example of a really nifty one I was given some years ago is a Jurassic-aged sandstone (IIRC) aquifer that is charged by rainfall and other precipitation in the Rockies, dives under Alberta and Saskatchewan, and returns to surface with the rising layers somewhere in Manitoba. I think it was being touted as the deepest, fresh-water aquifer, but I could be wrong. I don’t remember the name of the stratum.
Also, mitchel, I forgot to mention that useful hydrocarbon reservoirs and aquifers largely have the same properties, in that they must be able to store fluids and be permeable enough, either naturally or artificially, to allow production from them once penetrated. One difference is a reservoir must have a trapping mechanism of some type in place, whereas an aquifer need not have one.
What I find bizarre is the flatout declaration that an area glaciated perhaps several times, lacks any “faults”.
Post-glacial isostatic rebound(s) have faulted the formidable granite Pre-Cambian Shield.
Good points about aquifers, Marc, basically, aquifers are any porous, permeable strata that contain water, potable or otherwise. Oil and gas are generally found in aquifers, but these are aquifers that you wouldn’t want to drink the water from. An aquiclude does not allow the flow of water or fluids, and the overlying Midale Evaporite is an aquiclude. It acts as the upper seal to the oil reservoir. Even without further reports or investigation, I am pretty sure that the seal on the reservoir has not been breached. The phenomena reported from the Kerr’s farm likely have another explanation. If it was CO2 from the reservoir, I think the flow would get worse over time, and there would be associated oil, gas and salt water that would be unmistakable.
Sasquatch, there are actually a large number of small faults, fractures and offsets nearly everywhere, including that part of Saskatchewan. They occur due to tidal effects as well as from glacial loading/unloading. Certain formations, including the anhydrite of the Midale Evaporite, tend to reseal these small-scale faults. Shales generally do the same. I think the reference to faults was about large continuous faults that could reach the surface from the depth of the reservoir, some 1.5 km down. Usually that size of fault is a result of tectonic activity. This part of Saskatchewan has been quite tectonically stable for a long time.
I agree, Sexton Beetle. 2-D and 3-D seismic in that area are like railroad tracks at shallow depths. A general regional trend downwards toward the centre of the Basin, but very minor faulting (if any) the closer you get to surface.