Company To Harvest Green Hydrogen From Underground Oil Fires (sciencemag.org) 107
sciencehabit shares a report from Science Magazine: This month, on the frozen plains of Saskatchewan in Canada, workers began to inject steam and air into the Superb field, a layer of sand 700 meters down that holds 200 million barrels of thick, viscous oil. Their goal was not to pump out the oil, but to set it on fire -- spurring underground chemical reactions that churn out hydrogen gas, along with carbon dioxide (CO2). Eventually, the company conducting the $3 million field test plans to plug its wells with membranes that would allow only the clean-burning hydrogen to reach the surface. The CO2, and all of its power to warm the climate, would remain sequestered deep in the earth. Markets are growing for hydrogen as a fuel for power, heat, and transport, because burning it only releases water. But most hydrogen is made from natural gas, through a process that spews carbon into the air, or by electrolyzing water, which is pricey. Proton Technologies says it can cut costs by relying on oil reservoirs shunned by drillers because they are water-logged or because their oil is too thick.
Interesting Harvest Green Hydrogen gas (Score:4, Interesting)
"along with carbon dioxide (CO2). "
Just my 2 cents
Re:Interesting Harvest Green Hydrogen gas (Score:5, Funny)
What could possibly go wrong?
Re: (Score:2)
What could possibly go wrong?
Supervolcano. Everyone falls down a well at once. Seagulls all get handguns.
https://xkcd.com/2261/ [xkcd.com]
Re: Interesting Harvest Green Hydrogen gas (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Poorly contained live bobcat.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Human sacrifices; dogs and cats, living together; mass hysteria!
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
"Their goal was not to pump out the oil, but to set it on fire..."
My goal was always to get rich without working.
Goals and reality are not the same.
Y'know... (Score:1)
Just sayin'.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
The thing that scares me the most -- how do you put out the fire, should you need to do that? I don't think there's any practical way to put out the one in Centralia, for instance.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The thing that scares me the most -- how do you put out the fire, should you need to do that?
You put out the fire by depriving it of oxygen, as in stop pumping in the steam it needs for the oxygen and produces the hydrogen they are "mining".
I don't think there's any practical way to put out the one in Centralia, for instance.
That is a fire burning coal near the surface where air can get to it, these proposed wells are for burning oil that are several kilometers under the surface. Very different circumstances, therefore very different levels of risk.
Re: some real questions here... (Score:4)
Re: (Score:2)
From the fine article:
Geoffrey Maitland, a chemical engineer at Imperial College London, says he is a "great fan" of the concept, which treats the oil reservoir as a hot, naturally pressurized reactor. "This chemistry is well-proven at the surface," he says. "The challenge is controlling these processes several kilometers underground."
They clearly intend to use this process on oil that is far deeper than the pilot site.
Just wondering - would you support making this process even greener by using safe, clean nuclear weapons to set fire to the oil reserves in an Operation Ploughshare arrangement? If not, why not?
Re: (Score:2)
So, was the above a paid comment or part of a personal agenda?
Why does someone always have to be a shill or have an agenda. The most likely answer is that people are ignorant and don't read. Welcome to the internet where hitting the reply button is more important than reading what you are replying to.
Re: (Score:2)
So, was the above a paid comment or part of a personal agenda?
Nah, if it wasn't pro-nuclear, it couldn't be in blindseer's agenda.
Re: (Score:2)
The thing that scares me the most -- how do you put out the fire, should you need to do that?
You put out the fire by depriving it of oxygen, as in stop pumping in the steam it needs for the oxygen and produces the hydrogen they are "mining".
Finally, someone who knows (at least a little) of what they're talking about in this thread. Many, if not most, here are letting their fears & ignorance drive the discussion. Ah well.
Re: (Score:2)
The thing that scares me the most -- how do you put out the fire, should you need to do that?
Nuke it from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.
Re: (Score:2)
This is Canada. AFAIK we don't have nukes. But if we do need to put out the fire, you can be sure it will receive a strongly worded letter!
Re: (Score:2)
And then an apology for the strong words.
Re: (Score:2)
The thing that scares me the most -- how do you put out the fire, should you need to do that?
This seems like the least problematic issue. There isn't any oxygen down there to enable combustion; if there were, we'd already see underground oil fires in any area with geothermal activity to provide the necessary heat. The only way that fire flooding [wikipedia.org] works is if you pump O2 down to where the oil is, so stopping the fire is as simple as turning off the pumps. This is already well-understood and well-trod gound. The difference is that instead of using fire flooding to push oil to wellheads, they want
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No you wouldn't. You'd see the pressure increase in the oil (or gas - most natural oil deposits contain many more molecules of gas than they do of oil, often hundreds of times as many) deposit until it naturally fractures the crest of the trapping structure (where the pressure difference across the rock is greatest) and vents to surface. If it ignites at surface is a question of availability of lightnin
Re:some real questions here... (Score:4, Informative)
Their goal was not to pump out the oil, but to set it on fire -
Speaking as an American, You're treading on dangerous, dangerous ground here.
"Fire flooding" has been used for decades as an enhanced recovery technique in oil fields everywhere. I think it's safe to say they've got things figured out.
Re:some real questions here... (Score:5, Informative)
Speaking as Australian, I think they are also treading on very dangerous ground - or will be.
We had a mob out here that set fire to underground coal seams, with the goal of creating a series of reactions that lets them turn it into oil. It would have been fine if it all stayed underground I guess, but some of the products of the reactions reached the surface. They sort of had to, because getting the products to the surface is the only way to extract the oil.
The end result was a 10 km exclusion zone around the site [processonline.com.au], the companies CEO on charges [afr.com], and the company itself went bankrupt, of course.
Re: (Score:2)
Careful with the hyperbole. The case you are citing is a specific example of groundwater contamination in one site by one dodgy company. Compare that with the many thousands of coal seam gas wells using the same process that operate just fine.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What's this go to do with coal seam gas?
Coal seam gas just pulls the existing gas out of the coal seam. They don't deliberately set fire to the coal, injecting air so they get the temperature really high to get the reactants they want. This mob can't actually see what is happening in their fire of course - it's 500m under ground, under pressure, cracking rocks and reacting with god-knows-what. Even g
Re: (Score:2)
But at the end of the day adding [something] and heat to [something in the ground] to produce [something else] and [more heat] is always susceptible to stopping adding the first [something]. You do need to instrument the process reasonably carefully, but that's do-able. The political/ commercial willpower to actually shut down an operation
Re: (Score:3)
Dinosaurs were sequestered, a Latin word meaning "made to be someone else's problem"
Re:some real questions here... (Score:5, Funny)
Burning oil is the new green.
Re: (Score:3)
H2 is one of the smallest molecules (I think Helium is smaller). Materials and seals which are watertight and airtight, are usually not hydrogen-tight. This is one of the biggest engineering challenges facing hydrogen-powered cars. The stuff leaks through pipes, hoses, and joints. So a "membrane" which allows H2 through while blocking CO2 sho
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know if the younger generation know about that mine fire. And that was not a dig towards them in that it is no longer in the news.
Re: (Score:2)
Their goal was not to pump out the oil, but to set it on fire -
Speaking as an American, You're treading on dangerous, dangerous ground here. Centralia, a small ghost town in Pennsylvania, was home to the largest mine fire in the US. It still burns, underground, to this day. The town has been abandoned since 1992 with dangerous CO levels and horror stories of people slipping into fiery sinkholes in their own back yard. Canadians would be wise to learn from our mistake.
The Soviets also did such mistake.
Darvaza [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Here's a thought... (Score:3)
Why not try harvesting the hydrogen from an *existing* underground oil fire first? Before starting new ones? You know, just in case it turns out not to be practical, so you don't have any new fires you can't put out?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'd think I'd rather see more current generation nuclear plans... Those would seem more controllable...
A cattle stamped is more controllable than an underground oil fire. This is clearly green-washed nonsense. Especially since existing coal fires already exist. Even RBMK reactors (the infamously bad Russian design), are far far far more controllable. Especially since the control rods no longer are tipped with a moderator.
Re:Here's a thought... (Score:4)
Why not try harvesting the hydrogen from an *existing* underground oil fire first?
Because there are no "existing" underground oil fires. You're thinking of coal seam fires.
Re: (Score:2)
Why not try harvesting the hydrogen from an *existing* underground oil fire first?
That's like asking why BP didn't just start capturing the oil from the Macondo blowout and start using it. The reality is there are very different engineering challenges at play in different scenarios, and that's assuming that there actually is a viable underground oil fire which meets the requirements that this project is trying to replicate.
Whenever you say "Why doesn't {insert something easier}" the answer is almost universally: they thought about it and it doesn't work.
Hydrogen isn't green (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
It's green because it sucks oxyegn out of the atmosphere, hey wait up a second, we breathe oxygen, how much oxygen are they planning on sucking out of the atmosphere. Want clean hydrogen burning, genetically create very non-resistant algae (everything eats it, it escapes, it dies), that produces a lot more free hydrogen and oxygen from carbon dioxide and water, burn and condense, cool it and feed it back into the system. That's green, what they are talking about is insane, creating a toxic time bomb and suc
Re: Hydrogen isn't green (Score:1)
Wow, youâ(TM)ve just gotta be a trump supporter if you believe that level of bullshit.
Re: Hydrogen isn't green (Score:1)
Anyone who wants to protect the environment from bat shit crazy mad science schemes is a deplorable Trump supporter!!
Re: (Score:2)
If a hydrogen greens in the clear atmosphere, did anyone really see it?
Re: (Score:2)
I've seen hydrogen, it's not green, it's clear.
I've seen people use language. Their understanding is everything but clear.
Can't see this ending well (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Not to mention, palladium is fucking EXPENSIVE.
It currently sits at about $2300/oz. Gold, for comparison, is ~$1500/oz.
You're looking at insane costs for these membranes. Plus the environmental damage caused by extracting and refining palladium.
Green my ass.
Re: (Score:2)
That gas would have a long way to cool coming up from deep underground - potentially multiple KM. That's a fairly large heatsink they have available.
Literally... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
So how are they gonna put it out when they've finished with it?
They put it out the same way they've been doing it for decades - they stop pumping oxygen into the well.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure all of their best engineers haven't even remotely considered those cases. Thank god you're here.
Setting it on fire underground. (Score:3, Funny)
I'm sure nothing could possibly go wrong.
Not green. (Score:3)
This is not green hydrogen. They are just doing a water-gas shift reaction. It's not green on the surface, and it's going to be a disaster underground (assuming they can keep the waste there).
Re: (Score:2)
Well it's organic.
This sounds idiodically complex (Score:1)
Make ammonia (Re:This sounds idiodically complex) (Score:2)
Do you have a paragraph allergy or something?
I tried to read that but it gave me a headache, all I got from that was a near hatred of fuel cells. There's more than one way to get electricity from hydrogen. We can simply burn the hydrogen, and from that we can boil water for steam turbines, burn the hydrogen in a turbine engine, or both like we do regularly with natural gas in a combined cycle gas turbine power plant.
We also don't need to burn the hydrogen. Instead we can use this process to get hydrogen
Is it cost effective? (Score:5, Interesting)
There's 200M barrels of oil (worth around $8B at current prices for sour crude) in that field. But how much of it's extractable using this method and how much of the hydrogen will be captured, and what's the value of that hydrogen? Is worth the environmental risk? Is there any reason to believe that a significant of CO2 will remain sequestered, or is it going to leak to the surface eventually and this whole scheme is just a way to burn more oil while making it sound "green"?
Re: (Score:2)
and what's the value of that hydrogen
The value of a decent hydrogen supply in the industry is quite high as it's a main feedstock for converting heavy oil products into light ones and for treating distillated components. 200M barrels of oil is practically worthless in terms of oil field size and would barely provide a couple of years of production even if you assumed you could extract it all at normal rates.
So the question of the environmental risk: We're making hydrogen, already either directly by burning nasty shit (POX reaction gasifying he
Seems like an excellent idea (Score:3)
This month, on the frozen plains of Saskatchewan in Canada, workers began to inject steam and air into the Superb field, a layer of sand 700 meters down that holds 200 million barrels of thick, viscous oil. Their goal was not to pump out the oil, but to set it on fire -- spurring underground chemical reactions that churn out hydrogen gas, along with carbon dioxide (CO2).
I mean honestly, simply setting fire to 200 million barrels (that's nearly a trillion gallons, oil barrels are 42 gallons each [aoghs.org], BTW) rather than putting it to productive use on the surface. Of course, they promise - pinky-swear even - that they will be able to keep the resulting greenhouse gases in the ground FOR EVER, while creating a quantity of useful fuel for some other purpose...
Imagine their surprise when all those greenhouse gases hit the atmosphere - and I'm certain that someday they will - i wonder if they'll be able to buy enough carbon credits to offset that little whoopsie?
Re: (Score:2)
This month, on the frozen plains of Saskatchewan in Canada, workers began to inject steam and air into the Superb field, a layer of sand 700 meters down that holds 200 million barrels of thick, viscous oil. Their goal was not to pump out the oil, but to set it on fire -- spurring underground chemical reactions that churn out hydrogen gas, along with carbon dioxide (CO2).
I mean honestly, simply setting fire to 200 million barrels (that's nearly a trillion gallons, oil barrels are 42 gallons each [aoghs.org], BTW) rather than putting it to productive use on the surface. Of course, they promise - pinky-swear even - that they will be able to keep the resulting greenhouse gases in the ground FOR EVER, while creating a quantity of useful fuel for some other purpose...
Imagine their surprise when all those greenhouse gases hit the atmosphere - and I'm certain that someday they will - i wonder if they'll be able to buy enough carbon credits to offset that little whoopsie?
It's worth noting here that 200 million barrels of oil is about two days' worth of global oil consumption, nearly all of which is burned, and we also burn lots of other fossil fuels. So while unintentionally releasing the gases produced by burning all of that Superb field oll would be bad, it would be a minor blip compared to all of the other gases released every day.
Re: (Score:2)
"The ship is already sinking, what difference is it going to make if I just flush a few hundred buckets worth of water into it?"
Re: (Score:2)
"The ship is already sinking, what difference is it going to make if I just flush a few hundred buckets worth of water into it?"
Pretty much. It's about like adding a few hundred buckets of water to the sinking Titanic. It's not a good idea, but it won't make a noticeable difference.
Re: (Score:2)
In this case, they're attempting to create a fuel using a process that should add "zero buckets" of greenhouse gas to our boat/planet. If that hydrogen ends up being used to displace fossil fuels, they'll have actually reduced the amount of greenhouse gasses being released.
If they succeed, they can turn a massive deposit of oil into green energy (while also ensuring it will never be extracted as oil). If they fail, the worst case is adding two days worth of carbon emissions to the atmosphere. Not ideal, but
Re: (Score:2)
rather than putting it to productive use on the surface
You're assuming you can extract it and bring it to the surface. 200M barrels doesn't sound like a very healthy production field.
Imagine their surprise when all those greenhouse gases hit the atmosphere
Yeah I guess we should continue making hydrogen the old fashioned way by ... burning oil in POX reactor, or by burning natural gas in a SMR.
Re: (Score:2)
We're talking Saskatchewan, a barrel of oil is 160 litres or in the old measure, 35 gallons.
I note that most of your links history doesn't state what size gallon was used, and there's been a few standards before we standardized on a gallon of 10 pounds of water containing 160 fl oz. Litre is easier as we all agree on its size.
Green hydrogen? (Score:2)
H2 for auto use is dead (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's not dead, but it will never surpass battery electric.
The technology will be used in military vehicles, and the same automakers that produce it for them will try probably well past futility to push it on the public as a way to get even more profit out of it. As long they can get the governments to subsidize the fueling infrastructure, it can be profitable on that basis.
Re: (Score:2)
H2 fuel cells are probably going to be getting bigger for grid power storage and balancing as renewables take over for fossil fuels for the base load. Vehicles that use electric charging will indirectly benefit.
Why not switch to nukes? (Score:2)
I also heard from the Soviets that popping a few nuclear bombs in underground coal deposits can do wonders.
Am I missing something here? (Score:2)
It seems like they just invented "eco"-fracking.
Someday we will wise up on better H2 sources (Score:4, Interesting)
The oil industry is desperate for hydrogen. Well, really it's the industrial chemical industry but this has landed in the realm of the oil and gas industry because we get most of our hydrogen from natural gas, and some portion of this (I'm not sure how much) ends up being used to "upgrade" heavy oil into lighter hydrocarbons for sale as gasoline and jet fuel.
There's plenty of this natural gas sourced hydrogen that's being used to make fertilizers, and some ends up as rocket fuel. If we could find a source of hydrogen other than natural gas then maybe we would not need to drill for so much of it.
We know how to make hydrogen from low carbon energy, but whenever the most practical energy source for this is mentioned then a lot of people try to find excuses not to use it. Well, someday these idiots that are holding up nuclear power will find their nonsense excuses exposed as nonsense and we can stop trying to start underground fires to get this valuable hydrogen.
One use for hydrogen is the production of carbon neutral hydrocarbon fuels. This might be where some of this "green" hydrogen from oil burned underground might end up. They can burn the oil underground to keep the CO2 there, then extract CO2 from the air to combine with the hydrogen and energy produced to create carbon neutral fuels. That might seem rather complicated, and I would agree, which is why it is something I don't believe will happen.
What is far more practical is to use nuclear power to drive this process, with hydrogen from cracking water, CO2 from the air. This gives us our carbon neutral hydrocarbons. We know how to make airplanes fly on hydrocarbons, but not so much on any other kind of fuel. To maintain our transportation sector, and get to net zero carbon, will require carbon neutral hydrocarbon fuels.
This process of getting hydrogen out of oil burned underground is some very interesting engineering, and I find it fascinating. I also believe this is trying real hard to avoid having to use nuclear power. There are no technical problems keeping us from nuclear power right now, it is the safest and lowest CO2 energy source known to us. The only problems are political, and those are far simpler problems to solve than trying to get airplanes to fly on solar power.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Moving to hydrogen for the oil and gas industry is a natural progression. Distribution and dispensing of hydrogen for fuel cell cars is a mostly solved problem for oil and gas companies, as it's a matter of swapping out gas tankers for hydrogen tankers and upgrading the pumps. Okay, that's actually a pretty big deal, but the logistics are worked out already, which is not an inconsequential problem.
For all the talk of restricting our CO2 output with costly measures, I've never seen a cost estimate or even a
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss (Score:2)
Moving to hydrogen for the oil and gas industry is a natural progression. Distribution and dispensing of hydrogen for fuel cell cars is a mostly solved problem for oil and gas companies, as it's a matter of swapping out gas tankers for hydrogen tankers and upgrading the pumps.
The transportation of hydrogen is not a natural progression from hydrocarbons. Hydrogen is a different kind of gas that will embrittle many metals and the oil and gas companies appear to prefer to produce the hydrogen on site where it is needed than try to move it anywhere. They move hydrogen by having the hydrogen atoms attached to carbon atoms.
Remember two things about the oil and gas industry, they are hated for the CO2 they produce but loved because they make everything move. If they can find a way t
Some people just want to watch the world burn. (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
In this case, you can be sure it's not the mole people!
burning stuff is green (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Burning copper is green.
Re: (Score:2)
Did you not read the blurb, By keeping the CO2 trapped underground to be sequestered with the ground.
plans to plug its wells with membranes that would allow only the clean-burning hydrogen to reach the surface. The CO2, and all of its power to warm the climate, would remain sequestered deep in the earth.
I would like to know how efficient this is at producing the hydrogen. Even if it's better than how hydrogen is produced now from water, which isn't at all.
Re: (Score:2)
How is burning stuff green by any means? Have a look at Australia.
I know. I for one think we need to send a firetruck to the sun and put that out. I mean all that fire up there can't be green!
Seriously? (Score:1)
Does anyone remember Centralia mine fire? (Score:3)
Sure, we have the fire under control. Absolutely, it won't spread further and further.
Just saying.
Re: (Score:2)
a) there's a big difference between a coal seam fire and an oil fire. b) there are thousands of controlled coal seam fires all over the world doing just fine as the basis for coal seam gas production.
I personally think we should ban hydroelectric dams because wikipedia has a page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
"The CO2 would remain sequestered" (Score:1)
The CO2, and all of its power to warm the climate, would remain sequestered deep in the earth.
Do people exist who are dumb enough to believe that?
Re: (Score:3)
Good luck with that membrane. All that CO2 is just an earth quake away from getting into the atmosphere. If they can build a membrane that's earth quake resistant, they should build terrestrial buildings and bridges with it.
Re: (Score:2)
Do people exist who are dumb enough to believe that?
Lots of them. [wikipedia.org] Geologic carbon sequestration is a viable solution to the problem of CO2 emissions into the atmosphere. Environmental risks are low as long as the storage site's geology is well understood - which is mostly the case given that they propose using depleted oil reservoirs.
Re: (Score:1)
Humans suck dirt (Score:2)
Strange Idea (Score:2)
Water vapour is a greenhouse gas (Score:2)
People that say that "hydrogen fuel cells just produce water so are environmentally friendly" need to take into account that water vapour is a strong greenhouse gas. If the hydrogen is not generated from water then there will be a net increase in water which can transform into water vapour via the water cycle. Therefore, the generation of water can be viewed as environmentally unfriendly when the hydrogen is generated from hydrocarbon based sources.
Petrol and diesel vehicles also produce some water vapour.