home
goals
about sensor
why sensor?
who's fastest?
p10 p50 p90
SensorPx
bayes and markov
drainage radius
dca
frac conductivity
capillary pressure
miscible
spe10
parallel?
gridding
fd vs fe
map2excel
plot2excel
third party tools
services
publications
q & a
ethics
SPE CCUS
contact us
Dr. K. H. Coats

 

 

SPE Carbon Dioxide Capture, Utilization and Storage (CCUS) Technical Section

January 4, 2017

This is another problem of many regarding substantiation of claims using the scientific method, and it involves some of the most important issues facing the world today.  See Requirements for Substantiation:

The reliability of our literature and of our methods is falling due to the lack of any imposed requirement and failure by most for substantiation of claims made in publications, which eliminates the ability of our editors and our industry to distinguish fact from fiction.  Our competence as engineers and scientists is in decline because of inability to use and follow the scientific method (and the simple rules of rational scientific debate), which requires use of the simplest possible logic and reproducible examples, tests, or experiments in the analysis of problems and in the substantiation of claims, methods, and solutions.

The Conference of Engineering Societies of Western Europe and the United States of America defined "professional engineer" in 1960 as follows [Engineering Identities, Epistemologies and Values: Engineering Education and Practice in Context, Volume 2, p. 170, at Google Books]:

"A professional engineer is competent by virtue of his/her fundamental education and training to apply the scientific method and outlook to the analysis and solution of engineering problems..."

Problems obviously must first be analyzed before they can be solved.  Professional engineers do not try to solve problems that cannot be proven to exist.  And they do not prevent rational scientific debate regarding any problem or solution.

Our replies in very important discussions in this SPE Technical Section are being censored and not allowed, so we are forced to post them here.  Existing and proposed regulation is causing great harm to our economy and the public for no known reason.  There is absolutely no valid evidence of the need or benefit for CO2 storage.  Proof of that is the inability of anyone to answer any of our questions in these discussions, in SPE censorship of our responses, in the responses of those who support it (including the Section Chairman, who suggests that we should take action "while we await consensus" based on the unsubstantiated claims of fraudulent government "climate scientists")*, and in the incompetent PRMS definitions and rules, on which SPE's SRMS effort is based (see Reserves Definitions).  Those efforts also clearly violate our ethical guidelines by not giving the names of their authors.

There is no industry interest in the subject of CO2 capture and storage, other than by those who wish to profit from unnecessary regulation and destruction of the petroleum industry.  Evidence of that is the lack of any discussion in this Technical Section since it was formed.  Further proof is the intentional elimination of the coal industry and destruction of our economy with the Clean Power Plan* and other regulation that has reduced the value of all US coal reserves and all reserves in federal waters to 0 while eliminating hundreds of thousands of jobs.  Intentional destruction of our economy is counter to the Fifth Amendment of our Constitution prohibiting the confiscation of private property.

The discussions are (SPE login and group membership are required):

 "CO2 utilization vs. storage: why store it?"

"Does anthropogenic global warming exist?"

"Does anthropogenic global warming exist?"  (created in response by Section Chairman)

"Draft of SPE SRMS Document - Please review and comment by 12\20"

Some of our blocked responses and our original posts in these discussions are copied below.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Brian Coats

To: SPE CCUS Technical Section

Date: 12/23/2016

Subject: Who is blocking my replies in this section?

This is obvious fraudulence.  If my replies to Matteo, George, and Daniel do not appear and you continue to disallow my replies, this one and the others will be published elsewhere including our website, which will be very embarrassing for you and SPE.  I really donít want to do that but I will be forced to by our primary ethical responsibility to protect the public interest, which is violated by any definitions, rules, practices, or requirements for CO2 storage, as I can easily continue to demonstrate, either here or elsewhere.

It is not SPEís mission to establish or create definitions and rules for regulation of the energy industry that cannot be proven to be in the public interest, or to take any positions on politically and technically controversial subjects, or to support invalid methods and practices, or to censor our opinions and rational debate regarding them.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Brian Coats

To: SPE CCUS Technical Section

Date: 01/02/2017

Subject: Re: "Does anthropogenic global warming exist?"

Matteo,

Thanks very much for your comments.

Does the Feldman paper quantify the greenhouse temperature increase due to increase of CO2 composition from .03 to .04%? What exactly is that temperature increase? That's what I mean by "quantify".

I agree that atmospheric oxygen is decreasing much faster than CO2 is increasing. This may be due to the low k-value of CO2. That's why a complete model of the ecosystem/planet/solar system is needed to model any changes in climate.

Climate is weather, the distinction is simply a matter of time scale. It is constantly changing on all scales.

If you can point to any published description of any climate model, I'm sure I can show why its assumptions do not apply.  There's no way that these models even approach the capabilities of our reservoir models.  If a valid one were developed by government then it should certainly be publicly available and published in detail.  You're right that no reservoir model description is correct because our reservoirs are mostly unknown systems (that's why probabilistic solutions are required).  Climate models don't have that problem, at least not to the same extent (the system can be observed, except for the subsurface).  They would have to be 3d models in spherical coordinates and include the entire topography of the earth (and its subsurface to the core) including all bodies of water, and would have to be thermal compositional models including all components involved in all relevant processes, including solar and orbital considerations.  It's simply far beyond the current capabilities of man (simulation).  I don't even believe that there is any climate model capable of accurately calculating a global average temperature.

The point of my last post regarding the theory of dying oceans is that without a very complex climate/world/stellar model for testing, itís impossible to prove or disprove any such theory (or the need or benefit of CO2 storage).  I was simply pointing out that there are alternate explanations for the symptoms that we are observing, such as rapidly changing atmospheric composition.

Sorry to add another question to the list.  I donít think any of them have been answered yet, and theyíre all related to the main topic under discussion.

1. Where are the results of the simplest possible experiment demonstrating (or allowing calculation of) the greenhouse temperature increase due to increasing CO2 concentration from .03 to .04%?  Can the results of any of the mentioned experiments or any other be used to calculate it?

2. Why is there any concern over a 1 degree temperature change in a century? (given the interpreted ice core temperature oscillations of 3-5 degrees F on the order of a century or two for the last 15000 years)

3. Why does anyone believe in anthropogenic global warming, or in the need or benefit of CO2 storage?

4. Why would anyone want to waste CO2 by storing it (significantly increasing the cost of energy) rather than use it for (primary or EOR) miscible or near-miscible recovery (potentially giving an order-of-magnitude increase in recovery efficiency, not counting capture and transportation costs)?

5. Can anyone point to the published formulation of any global climate model (or the userís manual)? I could be wrong but I canít find any that are publicly available for examination or use, which would indicate that no robust global climate model exists.  I don't think that there is any such model capable of calculating an accurate global average temperature change over the last century, or for any given time period.  If using surface temperature measurements, that would minimally require continuous input temperature data over 200 years, integrated over time using the same methods for each of the same weather stations on a fine grid over the entire earth, which I don't think we have.  Examination of any model's formulation or userís manual should easily tell us whether or not any robust global climate models exist.

Best Regards,

Brian

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Brian Coats

To: SPE CCUS Technical Section

Date: 01/03/2016

Subject: Re:  "CO2 utilization vs. storage: why store it?"

Hi Herberth,

Can you give any substantiation of the claim that man is causing global warming?  Can you answer any of my questions about it?

1. Where are the results of the simplest possible experiment demonstrating (or allowing calculation of) the greenhouse temperature increase due to increasing CO2 concentration from .03 to .04%? Can the results of any of the mentioned experiments or any other be used to calculate it?

2. Why is there any concern over a 1 degree temperature change in a century? (given the interpreted ice core temperature oscillations of 3-5 degrees F on the order of a century or two for the last 15000 years)

3. Why does anyone believe in anthropogenic global warming, or in the need or benefit of CO2 storage?

4. Why would anyone want to waste CO2 by storing it (significantly increasing the cost of energy) rather than use it for (primary or EOR) miscible or near-miscible recovery (potentially giving an order-of-magnitude increase in recovery efficiency, not counting capture and transportation costs)

5. Can anyone point to the published formulation of any global climate model (or the userís manual)? I could be wrong but I canít find any that are publicly available for examination or use, which would indicate that no robust global climate model exists. I don't think that there is any such model capable of calculating an accurate global average temperature change over the last century, or for any given time period.  If using surface temperature measurements, that would minimally require continuous input temperature data over 200 years, integrated over time using the same methods for each of the same weather stations on a fine grid over the entire earth, which I don't think we have.  Availability and examination of any model formulation or userís manual should easily tell us whether or not any robust global climate models exist.

Regards,

Brian

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Brian Coats

To: SPE CCUS Technical Section

Date: 01/04/2016

Subject: Please post my latest replies to Matteo and Herberth

If you don't post my replies I'll be forced to make the new page available under a "CCUS" tab on our website, SPE Carbon Dioxide Capture, Utilization and Storage (CCUS) Technical Section

I suggest that you post them today, but if not, it's a great new web page that I'm sure will be very popular, and thanks very much for your contributions to proof of my claims.  I'll add this one (Jan. 4, 2017 12:50 pm).

Regards,

Brian

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Original posts:

From: Brian Coats

To: SPE CCUS Technical Section

Date: 12/15/2016

Subject: CO2 utilization vs. storage: why store it?

CO2 capture and usage as a miscible flood solvent makes much more sense than storage, since CO2 is generally the best known solvent for oil. Miscible flooding as a primary recovery method could make energy production far more efficient, even including capture and transportation costs (as opposed to primary depletion followed by waterflooding followed by miscible or other EOR method), where it is applicable - which is generally to light to intermediate-weight oils. Unfortunately, it seems that convention (definitions/practices of primary, secondary, tertiary recovery) and policy and regulation effectively prevent it.

Miscible recovery is limited only by sweep efficiency. The simple wag (water-alternating-gas) flood in SPE5 (Killough, J., and Kossack, C., "Fifth SPE Comparative Solution Project: Evaluation of Miscible Flood Simulators", SPE 16000, presented at the 9th SPE Symposium on Reservoir Simulation, San Antonio, TX, Feb. 1-4, 1987) demonstrates that Ė it gives about 79% (primary) recovery of an initially undersaturated oil, and about the same recovery if we change the rich injected gas to CO2. Water is injected alternately to reduce gas mobility and override of the oil. And, if anyone believes that itís important, at the end of the CO2 primary wag flood 90% of the injected CO2 is sequestered. If the original problem is changed to first deplete, then waterflood, and then wag flood (20 year depletion, bhp=1000, followed by 20 yr waterflood, bhpp=3000, bhpi=4500, followed by 20 year WAG flood), simulated oil recovery is only 74% in total (27.1% in primary and 60.2% after waterflood). Depletion and waterflooding destroy the possibility for very high miscible recovery because they eliminate the possibility for uniform and high sweep efficiency. Recoveries are on the high side here because of the light oil and because of the confining quarter-five spot (reflecting recovery by wells in interior patterns).

My question related to miscible recovery and CCS, is if youíre going to go to all the expense of capturing and transporting CO2, why would anyone want to waste it by storing it underground rather than use it for miscible or near-miscible (primary or EOR) recovery?

Regards,

Brian

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Brian Coats

To: SPE CCUS Technical Section

Date: 12/15/2016

Subject: Does anthropogenic global warming exist?

This is one of the most controversial issues of our time. I think that the US government will soon adopt the opposite of its present (affirmative) position.

I donít think that there is any valid evidence of anthropogenic global warming. Our climate has been constantly changing since the earth was formed.  I also donít believe that thereís any need or rationale for CO2 storage   And, I donít think that thereís even a remote possibility of affecting the weather by doing so, as Marco Rubio also claims.

I think that we can determine the answer to the main question here through rational scientific debate.   Engineers and scientists use the scientific method to validate or refute any claim or method.  That means that we use simple logic and the simplest possible examples or tests to substantiate our claims and methods.  ďRationalĒ means that if one is asked a simple question regarding his position and he is unable or unwilling to respond, then his position is lost.  This is what makes these discussion forums so important Ė they allow such rational debate to pursue and possibly prove the truth on any subject.  Publications do not allow the possibility of timely debate and resolution of controversial subjects.

Proponents claim global warming due to greenhouse effect resulting from a 100 ppm increase in CO2 that can be attributed to man. Where are the results of the simplest possible experiment demonstrating it?  The difference in equilibrium temperature in 2 tanks exposed to the same amount of radiation with a 100 ppm difference in CO2 would demonstrate the effect (initialize the tanks equally, withdraw gas from one and add CO2 to establish the 100 ppm difference).  I think that experimental results canít be found because the effect is negligible, and because weíve mostly forgotten how to substantiate or refute a claim using the scientific method.  Endless debate is the result of ignoring it.

We must of course minimize pollution, but CO2 is not a pollutant. Increased levels are in fact beneficial to plant and animal life.

Search for "ice age cycle" and look at the interpreted data from ice cores showing the last 5 or 6 ice ages on a cycle of 80 to 120 thousand years (the Malankovitch cycle, thought to be caused by variations in the earthís orbit). Every annual orbit of the earth around the sun is different due to variation in gravitational forces on the scale of the solar system.  Also look at the 5 degree F oscillations in interpreted global average temperature on a cycle of a century or two over the last 15 thousand years, far greater than the 1 degree change over the last century noted by proponents.  This oscillation dies out before that because the interpretations become less accurate as the older and deeper ice layers become more difficult to distinguish due to compaction.  Why is there any concern over a claimed 1 degree temperature change in a century?

It is actually impossible to compute a global average temperature from sparse surface measurements. Any claim of accurately doing so is false.  A fine grid over the entire surface of the earth monitored 24/7 would be required, to integrate temperature data over time and accurately compute a global average temperature (how is temperature at the ocean surfaces covering most of the earth accounted for?).  Satellite imagery can be used but it isn't by NASA/NOAA because it doesn't reflect any warming at all, according to a number of sources.  Even if global warming currently exists, I donít think that there is any valid evidence that itís due to man.  Since our climate is constantly changing, either global warming or cooling is constantly occurring to some degree.  Climate is guaranteed to be constantly changing at every point on the surface of the earth on the scale of hours, days, years, and geologic time.

I and many others believe that anthropogenic global warming is no more than a current government and UN agenda to increase regulation and control of business. I find the whole idea of carbon sequestration and storage to be nonsensical.  I donít think we can possibly store enough CO2 to have a significant effect.  I donít even think that we even produce enough to have a significant effect!  Our climate is constantly changing over geologic time and is controlled by forces on the scale of the planet and moon and solar system that are far beyond the control or influence of man.

Itís certainly important that we minimize pollution, and I believe that our most important current environmental concern by far is the dumping of trash and toxic chemicals into our lakes, rivers, and oceans, since man was able to stand.

Why does anyone believe in anthropogenic global warming, or in the need or benefit of CO2 storage? Iíve looked through the references given by this technical section and all technical papers on the subject that I can find, and I find no proof of it.  I find much valid evidence against it, including the extremely valuable potential use of CO2 for (primary or EOR) miscible flooding.

Regards,

Brian

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

* Also see ClimateGate: The Fix is In  -  concluding "This is the scandal of the century", and

Climategate 2.0: New E-Mails Rock The Global Warming Debate

Obama Delivers Deathblow to Coal with Clean Power Plan


© 2000 - 2017 Coats Engineering, Inc.