The UK government is backing a plan to capture a good part of 12 million tpa CO₂ produced by power generators and other industrial produces along the Yorkshire half of the M62 corridor. Disposal will be via the existing coastal gas pipeline infrastructure at Easington out to a subsea saline aquifer.

BBC Link

PS Primary target is one of my old workplaces

Edited October 30Oct 30 by sethoflagos
Tidy

Not sure how accurate the numbers are. When I was there over thirty years ago, Drax at full load pumped out around 50 million tpa CO₂ with the adjacent Eggborough and Ferrybridge together producing a similar amount.

How times change.

5 minutes ago, sethoflagos said:

Not sure how accurate the numbers are. When I was there over thirty years ago, Drax at full load pumped out around 50 million tpa CO₂ with the adjacent Eggborough and Ferrybridge together producing a similar amount.

How times change.

Drax has been converted to burning wood pellets I understand, ostensibly making it close to carbon neutral. However there has been a prolonged campaign by Private Eye claiming these wood pellets are far from carbon neutral in reality. I'm guessing that this project could be partly to allay that criticism and partly as a pathfinder project. The steel industry in that part of the world must be a considerable emitter, I'd have thought, even if the blast furnace at Redcar has gone. And in any case, even if the wood pellet burning really is carbon neutral, the net carbon capture can be offset against other net emissions for the governments targets.

I remain uneasy about burying CO2 underground. I just have this horrible feeling it will eventually find its way back to the surface. I have not come across any description of mineral chemistry to suggest it would be absorbed by the rocks.

1 hour ago, exchemist said:

I remain uneasy about burying CO2 underground. I just have this horrible feeling it will eventually find its way back to the surface. I have not come across any description of mineral chemistry to suggest it would be absorbed by the rocks.

It's a pretty stable part of the world. The O&G reserves have sat there in the Kimmeridge quite happily for 150 million years.

44 minutes ago, sethoflagos said:

It's a pretty stable part of the world. The O&G reserves have sat there in the Kimmeridge quite happily for 150 million years.

True, though that was before we came along and started drilling holes in it……😉

Carbon capture and burial still smells scammy to me. Expensive, and that money is better spent on green energy installations.

Pellets are a scam, causing deforestation up and down the Eastern US. "Strip miner" operations are jumping on the pellet bandwagon and using various loopholes to dodge replanting that would match the harvesting.

There was a BBC programme about mines in Northumberland and Durham being extended under the North Sea and carbon being sunk in them.

This has been successfully ongoing for several years now.

But I think it is another crying shame waste of billions of public money because our great and good leaders will not pay out for alternatives that will carry on into the indefinite future without the need for carbon sinking.

Carbon sinking in any location obviously has a limited life.

It has already cost billions to convert Drax and there was indeed a scandal when a huge contract to supply the pellets from cutting down areas of the Brazilian rain forest.

2 hours ago, studiot said:

But I think it is another crying shame waste of billions of public money...

Others may see it as much needed investment in an area of the country whose engineering and manufacturing base took a battering under the Thatcher regime, and has been largely neglected in the decades since.

To describe such investment as a 'waste' flies in the face of historical evidence such as the economic recovery of Western Europe post WWII.

2 hours ago, studiot said:

... because our great and good leaders will not pay out for alternatives that will carry on into the indefinite future without the need for carbon sinking.

Such as, say, the 8+ GW now being generated off the Yorkshire coast by the Dogger Bank Wind Farms, effectively more than replacing the peak outputs back on the day of Drax, Ferrybridge, and Eggborough - the heart of the National Grid?

You now have a Government with a very progressive commitment to renewables. I really don't understand why you refuse to acknowledge that.

51 minutes ago, sethoflagos said:

To describe such investment as a 'waste' flies in the face of historical evidence such as the economic recovery of Western Europe post WWII.

Just as HS2 , the Millenium Dome and other glory projects have diverted money from truly worthwhile projects, some of these in deprived areas so failure to replace Drax (I did say replace) is having the same effect.

Those North Sea wind farms, though far better than Drax2, are not as sustainable as say a Severn or Irish sea tidal project.
But they could be used to provide the energy to convert Keilder to a pumped storage scheme.
Furthermore such schemes would have the added benefit of bringing the country back together rather than driving it further and further apart.

We should be thinking at least 100 years ahead.

5 hours ago, TheVat said:

Carbon capture and burial still smells scammy to me. Expensive, and that money is better spent on green energy installations.

Manufacturing industry cannot decarbonise overnight (other than shutting down operations) so I think there must be a place for interim, stop-gap projects to yield some significant reductions in atmospheric caron release while industry steadily adapts to non-fossil fuel energy sources over a normal generational rebuilding period of 25 years.

And carbon storage within an established O&G field is not so expensive. Existing production pipelines can be repurposed with flow in the reverse direction, and most production wellheads can be converted to injection wells quite simply. This is common practise within the O&G industry for boosting the pressure of depleted reservoirs.

36 minutes ago, sethoflagos said:

Manufacturing industry cannot decarbonise overnight (other than shutting down operations) so I think there must be a place for interim, stop-gap projects to yield some significant reductions in atmospheric caron release while industry steadily adapts to non-fossil fuel energy sources over a normal generational rebuilding period of 25 years.

And carbon storage within an established O&G field is not so expensive. Existing production pipelines can be repurposed with flow in the reverse direction, and most production wellheads can be converted to injection wells quite simply. This is common practise within the O&G industry for boosting the pressure of depleted reservoirs.

Ok. Will check that out. Though wasn't there this same patter about the need for interim projects while moving towards wind/solar...25 years ago? Seems like we've all had a generation to get off fossil fuel and that steady adaptation hasn't happened because the big energy companies really didn't embrace renewables - it's drilling and pumping that keeps shareholders comfy.

3 hours ago, TheVat said:

Ok. Will check that out. Though wasn't there this same patter about the need for interim projects while moving towards wind/solar...25 years ago? Seems like we've all had a generation to get off fossil fuel and that steady adaptation hasn't happened because the big energy companies really didn't embrace renewables - it's drilling and pumping that keeps shareholders comfy.

The major sharehuder in Dogger Bank Wind Farm is StatOil, (wouldn't you know).

9 hours ago, TheVat said:

Ok. Will check that out. Though wasn't there this same patter about the need for interim projects while moving towards wind/solar...25 years ago? Seems like we've all had a generation to get off fossil fuel and that steady adaptation hasn't happened because the big energy companies really didn't embrace renewables - it's drilling and pumping that keeps shareholders comfy.

I think this is unduly cynical, at least where the European oil majors are concerned. (I realise that in US industry, naked, short term self interest is much more the norm.) Steady adaptation has happened as soon as government have taken steps to enable it. What you can't expect capitalism to do, in a free market economy, is to get companies voluntarily do things to make themselves uncompetitive. You need the whole playing field to be tilted towards the change you want to bring about, so that competitive advantage comes from changing. That is government's job.

And the issue of interim solutions remains obviously important. Just as we can't phase out IC vehicles overnight, due to the investment society has made in them over a century, so we can't jump immediately to fossil fuel free power gen or home heating. The move to replace coal and oil by gas has been one interim move that my former employer has embraced with gusto, due to its strength in gas. That is self-interest sure but it is not evil or cynical, it is beneficial. The European oil companies have been trying for at least a couple of decades now to reposition themselves as energy companies, to ensure they still have a place in a zero carbon economy.. There is, as @sethoflagos points out, a huge investment in offshore wind by these energy companies. Here is a Shell one off the Netherlands:

Where I agree with you is that with Trump on the scene, companies in the US are certainly scaling back their commitments to change. That goes for the motor industry just as much as the oil and gas business.

4 hours ago, exchemist said:

think this is unduly cynical, at least where the European oil majors are concerned. (I realise that in US industry, naked, short term self interest is much more the norm.) Steady adaptation has happened as soon as government have taken steps...

Agree, and I mos def was referring to O&G in the States. And I know the shift to NG as a bridge has been a major carbon stepdown. My major complaint, as always, is with governments...and their unwillingness to sign and honor international protocols - the treaties which should be getting all global industry on the same page. But that's a bit OT, so will leave that for now.

Oil companies will drill for as long as they can make a dime off the last barrel extracted but the writing is on the wall and those that don't adapt will get government bailouts and subsidies until they finally go out of business. As to the OP I'm with Exchemist on this in that I feel a lot of unproven assumptions are being made about stability and safety of capture enclosures, especially in places where fracking has been allowed. For about the same cost or not much more (all mostly way less over time tho), sources that don't require carbon storage could be installed.

10 minutes ago, npts2020 said:

Oil companies will drill for as long as they can make a dime off the last barrel extracted but the writing is on the wall and those that don't adapt will get government bailouts and subsidies until they finally go out of business. As to the OP I'm with Exchemist on this in that I feel a lot of unproven assumptions are being made about stability and safety of capture enclosures, especially in places where fracking has been allowed. For about the same cost or not much more (all mostly way less over time tho), sources that don't require carbon storage could be installed.

Yes, I’m never convinced by arguments that a particular suboptimal solution should not be pursued, on the grounds that others are the same or lower cost.

While I have some nervousness about CCS in particular, I think in principle that the world needs to pursue a large number of these countermeasures in parallel, especially if they are funded commercially rather than by government (i.e. by taxation). We simply can’t know yet which ones will be the commercial winners and therefore will get taken up at scale (cf. VHS v. Betamax). Also it may be that different solutions are viable in different circumstances, e.g. geography. On CCS specifically I am not a petroleum geologist so maybe I can be reassured by experts that it won’t leak.🙂

While you are right that oil companies will continue to drill if it remains profitable, I think we should all remember that that will remain the case while you and I still drive IC vehicles and heat our homes with gas. To be honest, I get a bit fed up when some people sanctimoniously blame oil companies and then sit back as if the problem is nothing to do with them, when it is all our lifestyles and legacy technology that continues to demand oil and gas. That is why it needs government action: we all have to change and that needs political input.

3 hours ago, exchemist said:

... Also it may be that different solutions are viable in different circumstances, e.g. geography. On CCS specifically I am not a petroleum geologist so maybe I can be reassured by experts that it won’t leak.🙂

I can't claim to be an expert but l can tell you a little about the southern North Sea gas fields and the importance of the crucial Zechstein Group that caps them.

Most of the gas is contained at a depth around 2,500 feet (I think) within permeable Permian strata called the Rotliegend which was marks a low lying depositional area where a sea was starting to form. The area was near the equator at the time, and the sea was either landlocked, or perhaps had a limited connection to the Tethys Ocean in the south around southern Poland. Evaporation rates were high, leading to an overlying deep series of evaporites extending beyond the areal limits of the Rotliegend as the proto North Sea increased in size. This is the Zechstein Group. It's mainly halite, continuous, highly impermeable, and within broad limits, immune to faulting as it self-heals.

Things are a little different further north as the salt becomes diapiric and tends to migrate upwards where it forms the cap rock for the younger oil fields.

Having said that, the report didn't say how deep the 'saline aquifer' was that they were going to use for storage, or exactly where it was. So that's important info to look out for. If they're putting it under the Zechstein, then there isn't really an issue here I think.

4 hours ago, exchemist said:

... While you are right that oil companies will continue to drill if it remains profitable, I think we should all remember that that will remain the case while you and I still drive IC vehicles and heat our homes with gas. To be honest, I get a bit fed up when some people sanctimoniously blame oil companies and then sit back as if the problem is nothing to do with them, when it is all our lifestyles and legacy technology that continues to demand oil and gas. That is why it needs government action: we all have to change and that needs political input.

A very timely report of an about turn in Dutch policy wrt wind farms.

10 hours ago, sethoflagos said:

I can't claim to be an expert but l can tell you a little about the southern North Sea gas fields and the importance of the crucial Zechstein Group that caps them.

Thanks for that info.

I don't know if the Dutch elections will change the second point.

+1

5 hours ago, studiot said:

Thanks for that info.

The Zechstein actually outcrops 10 miles west of York as magnesian limestone at Tadcaster (Latin name Calcaria) where I went to secondary school. It's an excellent building stone used in the construction of York's Roman walls and the Minster.

Our history, geography, and chemistry courses all referenced it to some degree as a relevant local feature, and being fascinated by geology from primary school days, the Zechstein and overlying Bunter sandstone sequences are my 'home turf'.

7 minutes ago, sethoflagos said:

The Zechstein actually outcrops 10 miles west of York as magnesian limestone at Tadcaster (Latin name Calcaria) where I went to secondary school. It's an excellent building stone used in the construction of York's Roman walls and the Minster.

Our history, geography, and chemistry courses all referenced it to some degree as a relevant local feature, and being fascinated by geology from primary school days, the Zechstein and overlying Bunter sandstone sequences are my 'home turf'.

The Bunter sandstone would be a particularly fat stratum, presumably? 😁. Yaroo........

1 hour ago, exchemist said:

The Bunter sandstone would be a particularly fat stratum, presumably? 😁. Yaroo........

😄

I understand that it means 'colourful' in the German source name Buntsandstein.

It may well be over there, but the bits we dug up in the subsoil at Askham Bryan were just a uniform buff.

On 10/30/2025 at 10:21 AM, sethoflagos said:

The UK government is backing a plan to capture a good part of 12 million tpa CO₂ produced by power generators and other industrial produces along the Yorkshire half of the M62 corridor. Disposal will be via the existing coastal gas pipeline infrastructure at Easington out to a subsea saline aquifer.

BBC Link

PS Primary target is one of my old workplaces

I am deeply dubious of the viability of CCS and have an overabundance of cynicism for schemes that seem intended for saving fossil fuels from global warming.

2 to 3 tons of CO2 for each ton of fuel (which seems an underestimate given production emissions are greater than what happens at end use combustion and that burning is inefficient but un-burned 'wastes' probably decompose later to produce more emissions), where the costs of dealing with the CO2 will almost certainly exceed the combined CCS and fuel costs, that are ongoing?

And of course the very long term integrity of the storage is a question. One that those doing it won't be around to see a conclusive answer.

If the fuel is woodchips and CO2 drawdown by forest regrowth is the carbon capture and it is in balance (which is not necessarily the case) it would be zero emissions and the argument would surely be that doing CCS is superfluous - or else paid for by taxpayers as part of a wider CO2 drawdown program (which I am also deeply doubtful of).

The amount of infrastructure investment and ongoing running costs (including significant energy requirements) seem very large. And there are opportunity costs - what could have been with the same resources. Right now it looks like investment in solar, wind and batteries get more for the same money than any other options - and most directly displaces the sources of emissions.

Edited November 1Nov 1 by Ken Fabian

5 hours ago, Ken Fabian said:

I am deeply dubious of the viability of CCS and have an overabundance of cynicism for schemes that seem intended for saving fossil fuels from global warming.

Me too. But forgive me if I go on to play devil's advocate for what follows

7 hours ago, Ken Fabian said:

If the fuel is woodchips and CO2 drawdown by forest regrowth is the carbon capture and it is in balance (which is not necessarily the case) it would be zero emissions and the argument would surely be that doing CCS is superfluous -

Are you seriously suggesting that going beyond nett zero and removing CO₂ out of the atmospheric cycle is undesirable? Why?

7 hours ago, Ken Fabian said:

... or else paid for by taxpayers...

Why are you introducing this neoliberal BS? Unlike a household economy, the UK government has the Royal Mint. If it needs money for capital investment, it can print it.

7 hours ago, Ken Fabian said:

2 to 3 tons of CO2 for each ton of fuel

For wood chips? How do you arrive at these figures? The UK no longer produces power from coal (and please give them credit for that landmark achievement).

7 hours ago, Ken Fabian said:

(which seems an underestimate given production emissions are greater than what happens at end use combustion and that burning is inefficient but un-burned 'wastes' probably decompose later to produce more emissions)

How does the project in question impact fuel transport costs or combustion efficiency?

7 hours ago, Ken Fabian said:

... where the costs of dealing with the CO2 will almost certainly exceed the combined CCS and fuel costs, that are ongoing?

There are no ongoing CCS costs. What fuel costs are ongoing remain unchanged by the project and are therefore irrelevant to the topic. What point are you trying to make here?

8 hours ago, Ken Fabian said:

And of course the very long term integrity of the storage is a question. One that those doing it won't be around to see a conclusive answer.

Over 250 million years of self-evident containment of the southern North Sea gas fields not long term enough? This is no more than an argument from incredulity. And flies in the face of hard geological evidence.

8 hours ago, Ken Fabian said:

The amount of infrastructure investment and ongoing running costs (including significant energy requirements) seem very large.

After decades of neoliberal economic austerity and the severe negative impact on growth of Brexit, some would argue that this is a good thing.

8 hours ago, Ken Fabian said:

And there are opportunity costs - what could have been with the same resources.

Another neoliberal mantra. More of a Keynesian myself.

8 hours ago, Ken Fabian said:

Right now it looks like investment in solar, wind and batteries get more for the same money than any other options - and most directly displaces the sources of emissions.

Right now, the UK is paying for wind farm capacity simply as rolling reserve to offset the recent large reductions of power generation rotating mass to maintain mains frequency and keep the grid stable. This will become an even more critical issue as the transition to EV proceeds. A holistic approach isn't just a matter of preference; under the circumstances, it's obligatory.

Sorry for taking you to task a little here, but do you think the 'other side' would be less robust in their arguments?

Interestingly the compare on our local radio just described here student days working night shift in a tomato packing factory assiciated with Drax.

Apparantly they used hot water from the power station, I think in assisting the tomato ripening.

There should be more of this type of integration/coordination.

1 hour ago, studiot said:

Interestingly the compare on our local radio just described here student days working night shift in a tomato packing factory assiciated with Drax.

Apparantly they used hot water from the power station, I think in assisting the tomato ripening.

There should be more of this type of integration/coordination.l

Yup. Acres of greenhouses using the waste heat in the cooling water.

Just to put this CCS project in perspective, some back of envelope calculations.

12 million tonnes per annum of CO₂ is:

1 million tonnes per month, ~36,000 tonnes per day, 1,500 tonnes per hour, 25 tonnes per minute, ~400 kg/s.

Picking a liquid CO₂ density of 800 kg/m³ off the top of my head, that's 0.5 m³/s. For a pipeline velocity of 1 m/s, internal x-section of 0.5 m² sounds very much like bog standard 36" ND pipeline.

200 bar sounds like a reasonable pressure, so 2*10⁷ N/m² * 0.5 m³/s = 10 MW

Couple of Siemens multistage barrel pumps?

In the greater scheme of things, this is a very typical pipeline job. A single operating company could easily take this in their stride. For a G7 nation? Peanuts.