SPE Carbon Dioxide Capture,
Usage, and Storage (CCUS) Technical Section
January 4, 2017
This page represents our compliance
with all engineering ethics including our primary responsibility to protect
the public in matters related to our work.
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 don’t 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 SPE’s 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, it’s 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 don’t think any of them have been answered
yet, and they’re 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
user’s manual)? I could be wrong but I can’t 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 user’s 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: 01/03/2017
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 user’s
manual)? I could be wrong but I can’t 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
user’s 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: 01/04/2017
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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
And from the SPE Reservoir Technical Section:
From: Brian Coats
To: SPE RESERVOIR Technical Section
Date: 12/29/2017
Subject: Reservoir
Role in Climate Change
Thanks for the references Neil. It took very little time to see that the
Nasa model is completely insufficient to model climate change, since it does
not take into account major factors such as variations in the earth's
orbit. Our climate has been changing on all time scales since the earth was
formed. The first sentence of the description is:
"The Goddard Institute for Space Studies General Circulation Model II,
described fully in
Hansen et al. (1983),
is a three-dimensional
global climate model that solves numerically the physical
conservation equations for energy, mass, momentum and moisture as well as
the equation of state."
It seems that there are thousands of important biological and physical
processes and factors affecting our climate that are not mentioned in the
model description. For example, the model would need to include estimates
in the decline in O2 generation by plant life in the oceans which is thought
to generate from 55 to 80% of the world's oxygen. Some estimates indicate
that plankton populations have dropped by more than half since the
mid-1950's due to ocean pollution. I still believe that including all
relevant processes in any earth climate model is far beyond the capabilities
of man.
Reservoir simulators are the most advanced physical models in existence.
Those who know how to run them know about gridding and control of numerical
dispersion. The size of the 3d grid needed in order to control numerical
dispersion (error in the numerical solution of the conservation equations)
on Nasa's global model would be so large as to be unsolvable by any computer
or set of computers.
Your second reference is to a project with the goal of measuring temperature
changes. A uniform system on a fine grid taking constant measurements would
be required, which obviously this project can not achieve. And remember,
the question is not whether or not the climate is changing - it is
constantly changing on all time scales. The question is whether or not any
climate change is due to man.
Maybe the NASA model can be used to try to answer some simple questions. We
have to use the simplest possible tests and experiments to answer our
questions and verify our methods and solutions. Can the NASA model be used
to answer my very simple question no. 1? If anyone has time, please try it
and let us know what you find.
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 – 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 it’s 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 destroys the possibility for
very high miscible recovery because it creates a free gas cap and eliminates the
possibility for uniform and high sweep efficiency by solvent. 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 you’re 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 don’t think that there is any
valid evidence of anthropogenic global warming. Our climate has been
constantly changing since the earth was formed. I also don’t believe that
there’s any need or rationale for CO2 storage And, I don’t think that
there’s 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.
“Rational” 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 – 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 can’t be found because the effect is negligible, and
because we’ve 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 earth’s 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 don’t think that there is any valid
evidence that it’s 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 don’t think we can
possibly store enough CO2 to have a significant effect. I don’t 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.
It’s 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? I’ve
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 |