Carbon sequestration in the ocean

Introduction
Method of carbon sequestration Advantage of
carbon sequestration Role of marine plankton in
sequestration of carbon Conclusion!

Carbon sequestration is the process that involves carbon capture and the long-term
storage of atmospheric carbon dioxide to either mitigate or defer global warming and
avoid dangerous climate change. It may specifically refer to:
The process of removing carbon from the atmosphere and depositing it in a
reservoir. When carried out deliberately, this may also be referred to as
carbon dioxide removal, which is a form of geo-engineering.
Carbon capture and storage, where carbon dioxide is removed from flue gases
(e.g., at power stations) before being stored in underground reservoirs.
Natural biogeochemical cycling of carbon between the atmosphere and
reservoirs, such as by chemical weathering of rocks.
Artificial processes have been devised to produce effects similar to the natural
biological, chemical and physical processes that capture Carbon dioxide (C0 2). These
processes include large-scale, artificial capture and sequestration of industrially
produced C02 using subsurface saline aquifers, reservoirs, ocean water, aging oil
fields, or other carbon sinks.

Fig 1: Carbon cycle showing movement of carbon between land, atmosphere and
oceans in
billions of tons of carbon per year. (Yellow numbers are natural fluxes, red are
human
contributions in billions of tons of carbon per year. White numbers indicate stored
carbon.)
A carbon sink is a natural or artificial reservoir that accumulates and states
some carbon-containing chemical compound for an indefinite period. The
process by which carbon sinks remove carbon dioxide (CO?) from the
atmosphere is what is known as carbon sequestration. Public awareness of
the significance of C02sinks has grown since passage of the Kyoto Protocol,
which promotes their use as a form of carbon offset. There are also different
strategies used to enhance this process.
Naturally occurring sinks are formed through absorption of carbon dioxide by
the oceans via physicochemical and biological processes and photosynthesis
by terrestrial plants. Natural sinks are typically much bigger than artificial
sinks which are mainly formed through Landfills and Carbon capture and
storage.

Advantages of carbon capture and sequestration or storage (CCS)

Carbon dioxide (CO2) capture and sequestration (CCS) could play an
important role in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, while enabling lowcarbon electricity generation from power plants. As estimated in the US.

Inventory of Greenhouse Cas Emissions and Sinks , more than 40% of

CO2 emissions in the United States are from electric power generation. CCS
technologies are currently available and can dramatically reduce (by 80-90%)
CO2 emissions from power plants that burn fossil fuels. Applied to a 500 MW
coal-fired power plant, which emits roughly 3 million tons of CO2 per year,
the amount of CHC emissions avoided (with a 90% reduction efficiency)
would be equivalent to:
Planting more than 62 million trees, and waiting at least 10 years
for them to grow.
Avoiding annual electricity-related emissions from more than 300,000
homes.

CCS could also viably be used to reduce emissions from industrial process
such as cement production and natural gas processing facilities.
Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) is a vital tool in the global fight against
climate change. With its important application to the capture and storage of
carbon dioxide emissions from power stations, CCS has a crucial role to play
in tackling greenhouse gas emissions whilst maintaining security of supply.
The International Energy Agency (IEA) has estimated that to halve global
emissions by 2050 (widely believed to be required to limit the temperature
rise to 2C), CCS will need to contribute one; fifth of the required emissions
reductions, both in the power sector as well as the industrial sector. In
addition, the IEA have found that attempting to halve global emissions by
2050 without CCS, would increase costs by more than 70% per year.
To meet global 2050 goals, the IEA has projected that we will need 100 CCS
projects around the world by 2020 and more than 3000 by 2050. This is a
significant scale-up from current ambitions. There are very major benefits
arising from the deployment of CCS in addition to climate mitigation.
When considering the capital investment in capture, transport and storage
that will be needed to build these projected CCS projects, a picture emerges

of a global market for CCS worth more than $5 trillion by 2050 (similar to the
oil industry). In the UK alone, the government has estimated that CCS could
be worth up to 6.5bn per year by 2030, creating up to 100,000 jobs.
Although it must be said that CCS projects are large, capital intensive
projects, they provide extremely good value for money both in terms of cost
per tonne of CO2 saved and per unit of clean electricity. For example, the
costs of early demonstration projects has been estimated at 60-90 per tonne
of CO2 with costs reducing to around 30-45 per tonne of CO2 by 2030.
There are also significant social benefits from the deployment of CCS. The
supply chain for CCS will create a large variety of jobs for those communities
living near a capture ^lant, pipeline or storage facility. Jobs will be required in
core engineering and manufacturing sectors, as well as pipeline design,
management and operation and a host of skills related to C02 storage,
including exploration and site characterisation, injection well construction and
management. Many energy intensive manufacturing industries will in future
be seen to be unsustainable without CCS. So the application of CCS will
protect jobs and prosperity related to these industries. Developing networks
of CCS pipeline networks will enable local prosperity through the longevity of
regional industries.
The development and deployment of CCS will be very significant in ensuring
that we are able to meet increasing energy demand and keep the lights on
whilst minimising the environmental damage. The market for CCS is likely to
be measured in the $trillions with the creation of a large variety of specialist
jobs.

The role of marine plankton in the sequestration of carbon

The world ocean is the major sink for carbon dioxide and is estimated to
contain more than 90% of the inventory. In a time (potentially, at least) of
global warming, it is obviously imperative to understand the carbon flux
within the world ocean and the parameters which may influence it.
Plankton that generate calcium or siliconcarbonate skeletons, such
as diatoms, coccolithophores and foraminifera. account for most direct carbon
sequestration.
The ocean is home to huge populations of these simple, single-celled
organisms which are known to play an important role in sequestering carbon

dioxide that dissolves into the sea from the atmosphere, via photosynthesis.
This mechanism is believed to be responsible for the removal of about half of
CO2 produced by the burning of fossil fuels; a larger proportion than that
consumed by the world's rainforests and all of the other terrestrial systems
combined.
A research was published in PLoS Biology on 21st June and focussed on a
group of phytoplankton known as coccolithophores. These organisms have the
ability to form a protective layer of calcium carbonate (CaCC>3) inside their
cells on the cell surface. Globally, this calcification represents a very
significant carbon flux from the seas surface waters to the seabed. As these
organisms die, the calcium carbonate that they contain sink to the ocean
floor as a component of marine sediment called marine snow.
Carbon can be biologically fixed in the form of the calcium carbonate used
as a protective coating for many planktonic species (coccolithophores,
foraminifera) as well as larger marine organisms (mollusk shells). While this
form of carbon is not directly taken from the atmospheric budget, it is formed
from dissolved forms of carbonate which are in equilibrium with CO2 and then
responsible for removing this carbon via sequestration.
C02 + H20 - H2CO3 - H+ + HC03"
Ca2+ + 2HC03 - CaC03 + C02 + H20
While this process does manage to fix a large amount of carbon, two units of
alkalinity are sequestered for every unit of sequestered carbon, thereby
lowering the pH of surface water and raising atmospheric CO2. The formation
and sinking of CaC03 drives a surface to deep alkalinity gradient which
serves to raise the partial pressure of dissolved CO2 in surface waters and
actually raise atmospheric levels. In addition, the sequestration of CaC03
serves to lower overall oceanic alkalinity and again raise atmospheric levels.

The researchers have found that coccolithophores use a similar mechanism to

that observed in some cells from vertebrate organisms to aid the calcification
process. The organisms are capable of transporting bicarbonate and calcium
into their cells which then form the calcium carbonate protective layer. The
calcification process generates hydrogen ions (protons) within the cell and
could lead to metabolic acidosis - the acidification of the cell - unless the
organism had a mechanism to regulate this. The researchers were able to
show that coccolithophores eliminate excess protons via specialised protein
pores, or ion channels and to identify the responsible gene. The mechanism
allows the organism to maintain an acceptable cellular pH-whilst allowing the
calcification process to continue.
"These H+ [proton] channels belong to a unique group of transport proteins

that were discovered quite recently in certain types of animal cells that
experience metabolic acidosis. It turns out that H+ channel genes are also
present in other groups of phytoplankton... [which] belong to groups that are
not closely related to either plants or animals. Our discovery shows that H+
channels are more widespread than previously thought and that they serve a
critical function in regulating cellular pH during a range of cellular processes
in evolutionarily distant organisms" Glen Wheeler, co-author of the study
explained.
Co-author Colin Brownlee of the Marine Biological Association, explained that
"A key finding of the work is that H+ channel activity in coccolithophores is
dependent on external pH. The findings will ultimately allow a better
understanding of how [phytoplankton] respond to changes in ocean chemistry
due to increased dissolution of atmospheric carbon dioxide in the oceans'
surface waters."
The calcification process in these organisms is strongly pH-dependent. There is
widespread belief within the marine science community that the sea is
becoming increasingly acidic due to dissolution of CO2 (which forms carbonic
acid). The calcification process in phytoplankton species could be directly
affected by such a change.

Biological and physical pumps of carbon dioxide

co2
/v
0
0

0 0 00
0 00
0
0
V
V

00000000
0
0
0
V

C 02

<1

0
0
0

Fig 2. Biological and physical(solubility) pumps of carbon dioxide

In general, this whole biologically driven sequestration of carbon from the
atmosphere to the deep sea by the action of marine plankton is known as the
biological pump. The biological pump also has a physico-chemical counterpart
known as the solubility pump.
However, the biological pump is not believed to play a significant role in the
net uptake of CO2 by oceans. This is because the biological pump is primarily
limited by the availability of light and nutrients, and not by carbon. This is in
contrast to the situation on land, where elevated atmospheric concentrations
of CO2 may increase primary
2,200 GtC in the terrestrial biosphere. As a result, the amount of carbon that
would cause a doubling of the atmospheric concentration would change the
ocean concentration by less than 2%. In addition, discharging C02 directly to
the ocean would accelerate the ongoing, but slow, natural processes by which
almost 85% of present-day emissions will ultimately enter the ocean
indirectly, thus reducing both peak atmospheric C02 concentrations and their
rate of increase. Ocean sequestration of C02 by direct injection assumes a
relatively pure C02 stream has been generated at a power plant or chemical
factory. To better understand the role the ocean can play, we address the
capacity of the ocean to sequester C02, its effectiveness at reducing
atmospheric C02 levels, how to inject the C02, and possible environmental
consequences.
CAPACITY
How much carbon can the ocean sequester? Based on physical chemistry, a
large quantity of C02 (far exceeding the estimated available fossil energy
resources of 5,000 -10,000 GtC) may be dissolved in deep ocean waters.
However, a more realistic criterion needs to be based on an understanding of
ocean biogeochemistry. After some time, injected carbon would be distributed
widely in the oceans and any far-field impact of the injected C02 on the
oceans would be similar to the impact of anthropogenic C02 absorbed from
the atmosphere. It is thought that, at the C02 concentrations that would be
typical of the far field, the primary environmental impacts would be
associated with changes in ocean pH and carbonate-ion concentration.
As points of reference, the pH of the surface ocean has been reduced by
about 0.1 units in since preindustrial times. Adding 1300 GtC (about 200 years
of current emissions) to the ocean would decrease average ocean pH by about
0.3 units. The impacts of such change are poorly understood. The deep ocean
environment has probably been quite stable and it is unknown to what extent

changes in ocean pH would affect these organisms or their ecosystems; But it

is important to recognize that the far-field changes in ocean pH would
ultimately bp much the same whether the C02 is released into the
atmosphere or the deep-ocean. Moreover, in the shorter-term, releasing the
C02 in the deep ocean will diminish the pH change in the nearsurface ocean,
where marine biota are most plentiful. Light is plentiful in the near-surface
ocean, so the microscopic plants that form the base of the food chain grow,
supporting; vigorous ecosystems. Thus, direct injection of C02 into the deep
ocean could actually reduce adverse pH impacts presently occurring in the
surface ocean.
EFFECTIVENESS
Carbon dioxide is constantly exchanged between the ocean and atmosphere.
Each year the ocean and atmosphere exchange about 90 GtC, with a net
ocean uptake
currently about 2 GtC. Because of this exchange, questions arise as to how
effective ocean sequestration will be at keeping the C02 out of the
atmosphere.
production because land plants are able to improve their water-use efficiency
(ie decrease transpiration) when CO2 is easier to obtain.
Methods
CARBON SEQUESTRATION VIA DIRECT INJECTION
The build-up of carbon dioxide (C02) and other greenhouse gases in the
Earth's atmosphere has caused concern about possible global climate change.
As a result, international negotiations have produced the Framework
Convention on Climate Change (FCCC), completed during the 1992 Earth
Summit in Rio de Janeiro.
The treaty, which the United States has ratified, calls for the "stabilization of
greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would
prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system."
The primary greenhouse gas is C02, which is estimated to contribute to over
two-thirds of any climate change. The [iBmary source of C02 is the burning
of fossil fuels, specifically gas, oil, and coal. Therefore, efforts are being made
to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels through improved efficiency
and the introduction of non-fossil energy sources like solar and nuclear.

However, it is becoming clear that while these strategies may slow the buildup
of atmospheric C02, they will not reduce emissions to the level required by
the FCCC. In other words, the fossil fuels, which currently supply over 85%
of the world's energy needs, are likely to remain our primary energy source
for the foreseeable future. This has led to increased interest in a new strategy
termed carbon management and sequestration.
Carbon sequestration is often associated with the planting of trees. As they
mature, the trees remove carbon from the atmosphere. As long as the forest
remains in place, the carbon is effectively sequestered. Another type of
sequestration involves capturing C02 from large, stationary sources, such as a
power plant or chemical factory, and storing the C02 in underground
reservoirs or the deep ocean. This article explores the applicability of the
deep ocean
as a sink for atmospheric carbon.
Why is the ocean of interest as a sink for anthropogenic C02? The ocean
already contains an estimated 40,000 GtC (billion tonnes of carbon) compared
with 750 GtC in the atmosphere and

production because land plants are able to improve their water-use efficiency (ie
decrease transpiration) when CO2 is easier to obtain.
Methods
CARBON SEQUESTRATION VIA DIRECT INJECTION
The build-up of carbon dioxide (C02) and other greenhouse gases in the Earth's
atmosphere has caused concern about possible global climate change. As a result,
international negotiations have produced the Framework Convention on Climate
Change (FCCC), completed during the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro.
The treaty, which the United States has ratified, calls for the "stabilization of
greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent
dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system."
The primary greenhouse gas is C02, which is estimated to contribute to over twothirds of any climate change. The primary source of C02 is the burning
of fossil fuels, specifically gas, oil, and coal. Therefore, efforts are being made to
reduce our dependence on fossil fuels through improved efficiency and the
introduction of non-fossil energy sources like solar and nuclear. However, it is
becoming clear that while these strategies may slow the build-up
by the FCCC. In
of atmospheric C02, they will not reduce emissions to the
other
level required words, the fossil fuels, which currently
supply over 85%
of the world's energy needs, are likely to remain our primary energy source for the
foreseeable future. This has led to increased interest in a new strategy termed
carbon management and sequestration.
Carbon sequestration is often associated with the planting of trees. As they mature,
the trees remove carbon from the atmosphere. As long as the forest
remains in place, the carbon is effectively sequestered. Another type of
sequestration involves capturing C02 from large, stationary sources, such as a
power plant or chemical factory, and storing the C02 in underground reservoirs or
the deep ocean. This article explores the applicability of the deep ocean as a sink for
atmospheric carbon.
Why is the ocean of interest as a sink for anthropogenic C02? The ocean already
contains an estimated 40,000 GtC (billion tonnes of carbon) compared with 750 GtC
in the atmosphere and
3

Figure 1. Percent

of injected CO2 that is

permanently sequestered from the atmosphere as
a function of the atmospheric concentration of
CO2 calculatedfrom one-dimensional ocean models
at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. The
concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere today is
about 370 ppm, while an atmospheric
concentration of550 ppm represents a doubling of
preindustrial levels.

concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere today is about 370 ppm,

meaning that over 80% of any carbon sequestered in the ocean today
would be permanent. Even at an atmospheric concentration of 550 ppm
(double pre-industrial levels), just under 80% of C02 injected into the
ocean would be permanently isolated from the atmosphere.

Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Concentration (ppm)

The amount of time over which the remaining 20% of the injected C02
would leak depends on the location and depth of the injection. Figure 2
shows the effect of injection depth on leakage for an ocean site with
typical temperature and salinity profiles and no major upwelling or
downwelling currents. It can be seen that the deeper the injection, the
longer it takes for the 20% of the C02 to return to the atmosphere. Also,
to make sure the leakage does not significantly exceed the long-term
value of 20% in the shorter-term, injection depths should be greater than
1000 m. This is because the 1000 m depth is roughly the bottom of the
thermocline, which is the layer of the ocean that is stably stratified by
large temperature and density gradients, thus inhibiting vertical mixing
and slowing the leakage of CC^. beyond injecting C02 deeper, the
amount of leakage could potentially be minimized by injecting the C02 in
a way that would maximize interaction with carbonate sediments or by
purposefully enhancing the dissolution of carbonate minerals.

Specifically, is the sequestration permanent and, if not, how fast does the
C02 leak back to the atmosphere. Because there has been no long-term C02
direct-injection experiment in the ocean, the long-term effectiveness of direct
C02 injection must be predicted based on observations of other oceanic
tracers (e.g., radiocarbon) and on computer models of ocean circulation and
chemistry. In this section we will show that about 80% of the C02 will be
sequestered permar|ently, with the rest taking several hundred years to
return to the atmosphere. The fraction of injected carbon that is permanently
sequestered depends on the atmospheric C02 concentration, through the
effect of atmospheric C02 on surface-ocean Chemistry (see Figure 1). The
2
concentration of C02 in the atmosphere today is about 370 ppm, meaning that over
80% of any carbon sequestered in the ocean today would be permanent. Even
at an atmospheric concentration of 550 ppm (double pre-industrial levels),
just under 80% of C02 injected into the ocean would be permanently isolated
from the atmosphere.
Percentage of Carbon Dioxide Permanently Sequestered (%)
100 80 60 40 20
0 Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Concentration (ppm)
250 500 750 1000 1250 1500 1750 2000
Figure 1. Percent of injected C02 that is permanently sequestered from the
atmqsphere as a function of the atmospheric concentration of C02 calculated
from one-dimensional ocean models at Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory. The concentration of C02 in the atmosphere today is about 370
ppm, while an
atmospheric concentration of 550 ppm represents a doubling of preindustrial levels.
The amount of time over which the remaining 20% of the injected C02 vvould
leak depends on the location and depth of the injection. Figure 2 shows the
effect
of injection depth on leakage for an ocean site with typical temperature and
salinity profiles and no major upwelling or down welling currents. It can be
seen that the deeper the injection, the longer it takes for the 20% of the C02
to return to the atmosphere. Also, to make sure the leakage does not
significantly
exceed the long-term value of 20% in the shorter-term, injection depths
3

should be greater than 1000 m. This is because the 1000 m depth is roughly
the

Fraction of injected C02 in the atmosphere

as a function of injection depth and year
(background atmospheric pC02 = 550 patm)

Figure 2. The

percent of injected CO2 that

would leak back to the atmosphere as a
function of time. Calculatedfrom onedimensional ocean models at Lawrence
Livermore National Laboratory for an
atmospheric concentration of350ppm
(similar to todays level). The results
suggest that injection should be below the
thermocline at depths over 1000 m.

The time that it would take for carbon to mix from the deep ocean to
the atmosphere is roughly equal to the time required for carbon to mix
from the atmosphere to the deep ocean. This can he estimated through
observations of radiocarbon (carbon-14) in the oceans. Radiocarbon is an
isotope of carbon with a half-life of 5730 years, produced in the
stratosphere by the bombardment of nitrogen by cosmic rays.
Radiocarbon mixes through the atmosphere, is absorbed by the oceans,
and is transported to the deep sea, undergoing radioactive decay as it
ages. About 24% of the original radiocarbon has decayed in the middepth waters of the North Pacific, indicating that these are the oldest
waters in todays ocean. Taken at face value, this would indicate
isolation from the atmosphere for over 2200 years. However, this is an
overestimate because the source of this water is from Southern Ocean
waters which have not equilibrated isotopieally with the atmosphere.
Considering this, the age of North Pacific deep water is in the range of
700 to 1000 years. Other basins, such as the North Atlantic, have
characteristic over-turning times of 300 years or more. Collectively, these
data suggest that outgassing of the 20% of injected carbon would occur
on a time-scale of 300 to 1000 years.
The issue of how much carbon will be permanently sequestered away
from the atmosphere and how long it will take the remaining fraction to
return to the atmosphere has been explored in several modeling
3

bottom of the thermocline, which is the layer of the ocean that is stably
stratified by large temperature and density gradients, thus inhibiting
vertical
mixing and slowing the leakage of C02. Beyond injecting C02 deeper, the
amount of leakage could potentially be minimized by injecting the C02 in a
way
that would maximize interaction with carbonate sediments or by purposefully
enhancing the dissolution of carbonate minerals.
3
Figure 2. The percent of injected C02 that would leak back to the atmosphere
as a function of time. Calculated from one-dimensional ocean models at
Lawrence
Livermore National Laboratory for an atmospheric concentration of 350 ppm
(similar to today's level). The results suggest that injection should be below
the thermocline at depths over 1000 m.
The time that it would take for carbon to mix from the deep ocean to the
atmosphere is roughly equal to the time required for carbon to mix from the
atmosphere
to the deep ocean. This can be estimated through observations of radiocarbon
(carbon-14) in the oceans. Radiocarbon is an isotope of carbon with a half-life
of 5730 years, produced in the stratosphere by the bombardment of nitrogen
by cosmic rays. Radiocarbon mixes through the atmosphere, is absorbed by
the
oceans, and is transported to the deep sea, undergoing radioactive decay as it
ages. About 24% of the original radiocarbon has decayed in the mid-depth
waters of the North Pacific, indicating that these are the oldest waters in
today's ocean. Taken at face value, this would indicate isolation from the
atmosphere for over 2200 years. However, this is an overestimate because
the source of this water is from Southern Ocean waters which have not
equilibrated
isotopically with the atmosphere. Considering this, the age of North Pacific
deep water is in the range of 700 to 1000 years. Other basins, such as the
North Atlantic, have characteristic over-turning times of 300 years or more.
Collectively, these data suggest that outgassing of the 20% of injected carbon
would occur on a time-scale of 300 to 1000 years.

The issue of how much carbon will be permanently sequestered away from the
atmosphere and how long it will take the remaining fraction to return to the
atmosphere has been explored in several modeling

studies. The first studies used relatively simple one-dimensional models.

These models are valuable tools for exploring problems that do not
depend on geographical particulars. Later, three-dimensional studies have
used ocean general circulation models (OGCMs) from the Max Planck
Institut fur Meteorologie in Hamburg (MPI), the Institut Pierre Simon
Laplace (IPSL), and elsewhere. Results of a simulation made at
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory are shown in Figure 3. These
modeling studies generally confirm inferences based on considerations of
ocean chemistry and radiocarbon decay rates. However, the threedimensional models yield information that is not directly accessible from
other sources. For example, model results indicate that for injection at
1500 m depth, the time scale of the partial C02 degassing are very
sensitive to the location of the injection, but results at 3000 m are
relatively insensitive to injection location. Furthermore, present-day
models disagree as to the degassing time scale for particular locations.
For example, the MPI model predicts that Tokyo would be a better
injection site than New York, whereas the IPSL model predicts the
opposite. Clearly, three- dimensional models must be improved and
carefully evaluated if they are to be useful in siting direct injection
facilities.

Figure 3. Simulated CO2 injection at 1750 m depth off the East coast of
the United States using a three-dimensional Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory ocean model. The contours represent the concentration of the
injected carbon relative to the concentration in the grid cell containing the
injection point. Results are for 20 years after the start of injection and at
the injection depth, showing the CO2 is advected southward with the
countercurrent running beneath the Gulf Stream.
studies. The first studies used relatively simple one-dimensional models.
These models are valuable tools for exploring problems that do not depend
on

geographical particulars. Later, three-dimensional studies have used ocean

general circulation models (OGCMs) from the Max Planck Institut fur
Meteorologie
in Hamburg (MPI), the Institut Pierre Simon Laplace (IPSL), and elsewhere.
Results of a simulation made at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory are
shown
in Figure 3. These modeling studies generally confirm inferences based on
considerations of ocean chemistry and radiocarbon decay rates. However, the
three-dimensional
models yield information that is not directly accessible from other sources. For
example, model results indicate that for injection at 1500 m depth, the

time scale of the partial C02 degassing are very sensitive to the location of
the injection, but results at 3000 m are relatively insensitive to injection
location. Furthermore, present-day models disagree as to the degassing time
scale for particular locations. For example, the MPI model predicts that Tokyo
would be a better injection site than New York, whereas the IPSL model
predicts the opposite. Clearly, three-dimensional models must be improved
and carefully
evaluated if they are to be useful in siting direct injection facilities.
Figure 3. Simulated C02 injection at 1750 m depth off the East coast of the
United States using a three-dimensional Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory
ocean model. The contours represent the concentration of the injected carbon
relative to the concentration in the grid cell containing the injection point.
Results are for 20 years after the start of injection and at the injection depth,
showing the C02 is advected southward with the countercurrent running
beneath the Gulf Stream.

INJECTION METHODS
Most methods suggested to inject C02 into the ocean involve producing
relatively pure C02 at its source and transporting it to the injection point.
Several
specific injection strategies that have been suggested are (see Figure 4):

INJECTION METHODS

Most methods suggested to inject C02 into the ocean involve producing relatively
pure CO2 at its
source and transporting it to the injection point. Several specific injection
strategies that have been
suggested are (see Figure 4):

1. Droplet Plume - liquid C02 injected below 1000 m from a

manifold lying on the ocean bottom and forming a rising droplet
plume.

2. Dense Plume - a dense C02-seawater mixture created at a depth

of between 500 and 1000 m forming a sinking bottom gravity
current.
3. Dry Ice - dry ice released at the ocean surface from a ship.
3

4. Towed Pipe - liquid C02 injected below 1000 m from a pipe towed
by a moving ship and forming a rising droplet plume.

5. C02 Lake - liquid C02 introduced to a sea floor depression forming a

stable "deep lake" at a depth of about 4000 m.

Figure 4. Five suggested methods to inject CO2 into the deep ocean.
Goals are to minimize costs, leakage, and environmental impacts.

To better understand these methods, some background information is

required on the C02-seawater system. At typical pressures and
temperatures that exist in the ocean, pure C02 would be a gas above
approximately 500 m and a liquid below that depth. In seawater, the
liquid would be positively buoyant (i.e., it will rise) down to about 3000
m, but negatively buoyant (i.e., it will sink) below that depth. At about
3700 m, the liquid becomes negatively buoyant compared to seawater
saturated with C02. In seawater-C02 systems, C02 hydrate (C02*nH20,
6<n<8) can form below about 500 m depth depending on the relative
compositions of C02 and H20. C02 hydrate is a solid with a density
about 10% greater than that of seawater.
The droplet plume and towed pipe methods are probably the most viable
in the short-term. Both methods rely on commercially available
technology and inject the CO2 below the thermocline for effective
sequestration. In addition, the resulting plumes can be made to have high
dilution to minimize any local environmental impacts due to increased
C02 concentration or reduced pH. Researchers in the US are looking

more closely at pipe transport, while Japanese researchers examine ship

transport more closely. Although the means of delivery are different, the
plumes resulting from these two options would be quite similar.
Figure 5 shows a sketch of two droplet plumes that would result from
discharging C02 from adjacent ports of a bottom-mounted manifold.
Proper design would call for separating the ports so as to minimize
interaction between adjacent plumes, illustrated here for conditions with
little or no ambient current. Each plume consists of a core of buoyant
C02 droplets that dissolve as they rise. As the droplets rise, they entrain
seawater into the plume. The dissolved C02, combined with ambient
density stratification, increases the density of the plume water, until it
ultimately peels away from the droplets, sinks, and then intrudes into the
ambient at a level of neutral buoyancy. The maximum height of rise, the
level of intrusion and the concentrations of dissolved C02 depend strongly
on the flow rate of C02 per port, the initial droplet size, and the extent
to which hydrates, formed on the droplet-seawater interface, impede mass
transfer. The dynamics of hydrate formation are not completely
understood, and represent an area of intense current study.

1. Droplet Plume - liquid C02 injected below 1000 m from a manifold lying
on the ocean bottom and forming a rising droplet plume.
2. Dense Plume - a dense C02-seawater mixture created at a depth of
between 500 and 1000 m forming a sinking bottom gravity currenf.
K____

3. Dry Ice - dry ice released at the ocean surface from a ship.
4. Towed Pipe - liquid C02 injected below 1000 m from a pipe towed by a
moving ship and forming a rising droplet plume.
5. C02 Lake - liquid C02 introduced to a sea floor depression forming a
stable "deep lake" at a depth of about 4000 m.
Figure 4. Five suggested methods to inject C02 into the deep ocean. Goals are
to minimize costs, leakage, and environmental impacts.
6 To better understand these methods, some background information is
required on the C02- seawater system. At typical pressures and temperatures
that exist in the ocean, pure C02 would be a gas above approximately 500 m
and a liquid below that depth. In seawater, the liquid would be positively
buoyant (i.e. ,it will rise) down to about 3000 m, but negatively buoyant (i.e.,
it will sink) below that depth. At about 3700 m, the liquid becomes negatively
buoyant compared to seawater saturated with C02. In seawater-C02 systems,
C02 hydrate (C02*nH20, 6<n<8) can form below about 500 m depth
depending on the relative compositions of C02 and H20. C02 hydrate is a
solid with a density about 10% greater than that of seawater.
The droplet plume and towed pipe methods are probably the most viable in
the short-term. Both methods rely on commercially available technology and
inject the C02 below the thermocline for effective sequestration. In addition,
the resulting plumes can be made to have high dilution to minimize any local
environmental impacts due to increased C02 concentration or reduced pH.
Researchers in the US are looking more closely at pipe transport, while
Japanese researchers examine ship transport more closely. Although the

means of delivery are different, the plumes resulting from these two options
would be quite similar.
Figure 5 shows a sketch of two droplet plumes that would result from
discharging C02 from adjacent ports of a bottom-mounted manifold. Proper
design would call for separating the ports so as to minimize interaction
between adjacent plumes, illustrated here for conditions with little or no
ambient current.
Each plume consists of a core of buoyant C02 droplets that dissolve as they
rise. As the droplets rise, they entrain seawater into the plume. The dissolved
C02, combined with ambient density stratification, increases the density of
the plume water, until it ultimately peels away from the droplets, sinks, and
then intrudes into the ambient at a level of neutral buoyancy. The maximum
height of rise, the level of intrusion and the concentrations of dissolved C02
depend
strongly on the flow rate of C02 per port, the initial droplet size, and the
extent to which hydrates, formed on the droplet-seawater interface, impede
mass transfer. The dynamics of hydrate formation are not completely
understood, and represent an area of intense current study.
Figure 5 Schematic of buoyant droplet plumes from adjacent ports of a
manifold lying on a sloping seafloor.
The concept of a C02 lake is based on a desire to minimize leakage to the
atmosphere and exposure to biota. This would require more advanced
technology and perhaps higher costs. Led in part by the oil industry, great
strides have been made in undersea off-shore technology. It is becoming
routine to work in depths approaching 2000 m. However, technical challenges
still exist in going deeper. The depth of the lake must be at least 3000 m, the
depth at which C02 becomes negatively buoyant (i.e., sinks) in seawater. The
C02 in the lake would be mostly in the form of solid hydrates. This would slow
the dissolution of C02 into the water column, further slowing leakage to the
atmosphere from that shown in Figure 2, which assumes the C02 is injected
into the water column.
The two other methods that have been discussed for injecting C02 are dry ice
released at the ocean surface from a ship and a dense C02-seawater mixture
created at a depth of between 500 and 1000 m forming a sinking bottom
gravity current. The former is probably too expensive due to the production
and handling of dry ice, while the later has many questions concerning
environmental impact due to the highly concentrated nature of its plume.
As discussed earlier, the deep-ocean equilibrates with the surface-ocean on

the scale of 300 - 1000 years, and by injecting anthropogenic C02 into the
deep ocean, the surface-to-deep mixing time-scale is effectively bypassed.
Anthropogenic C02 also equilibrates with carbonate sediments, but over a
much longer time, about 6000 years. It has been suggested that technical
means could also be used to bypass this time-scale, thereby increasing the
effectiveness and diminishing environmental impacts of intentional storage of
carbon dioxide in the ocean.
C02 reacts with carbonate sediments to form bicarbonate ions (HC03-) in
solution. Seawater could be brought into contact with flue gases in a reactor
vessel at a power plant, and that C02- rich water could be brought into
contact with crushed carbonate minerals; which would then dissolve and form
bicarbonate ions. Drawbacks of this approach are the cost due to the need for
large amounts of water and carbonate minerals. The principle of carbonatedissolution could be utilized in conjunction with direct C02 injection.
Carbonate minerals could be mined on land, and then crushed, or fine-grained
lime mud could be extracted from the sea floor. These fine-grain carbonate
particles could be suspended in the water column upstream from the C02-rich
plume emanating from direct C02 injection site. The suspended carbonate
minerals could then be advected with the ambient seawater into the plume,
where the minerals could dissolve, increasing the effectiveness ocean C02
storage and diminishing the pH impacts of direct injection.

environmental impacts were discussed from the global viewpoint. Here,

we examine the environmental impacts near the injection point.

Several reviews have identified potential impacts, with the most

significant deriving from lowered pH resulting from the reaction of CO2
with seawater. Impacts would occur principally to non-swimming marine
organisms (e.g., zooplankton, bacteria and benthos) residing at depths of
about 1000 m or greater and their magnitude will depend on both the
level of pH change and the duration of exposure. Figure 6 summarizes
data showing that organisms can tolerate small pH excursions for many
days, but must limit exposure to larger excursions to a matter of hours.
The data shown in Figure 6 involve organisms found in the surface
waters. There is a need for similar data on deep water organisms to see
if the same pattern holds and whether the deep water organisms are
more or less sensitive to pH than those in the surface.
33
44.5 -

(a) Browning,
1980
(b) Grice
and
Wiebe,
(d)
1971
(c) Rose
and
>51
Williams,
1977
10
1
(d) Bomber,
1
5
1987
fish larvae
(e)
Calabrese
0
small
and Davis,
*
(a)
clams (d)
1909
(0
Bomber,
frf
musse1990
brown
t
61
^^Porunann, 1970
^lets
(i)
l '75
ls (f)
3
shrimp (g)
O
copepods M
;
1 *60
7
*T"1
(b)
l
* 5?l(b),/
f
*6
1
I
(3
1
copcpods oyster
small
tftllft
5
lOft
45 60
0
t
0
Oft
lt
5
ft
(c)
larvae
(c)
clams
(d)
ft
ft
1 UM]

6-

63
737 --

Figure 6. Mortality

time (hr l

rates for various marine organisms plotted as a function ofpH

and time of exposure. The plot show that impacts will depend on both the
level of pH change and the duration of exposure.
The pH of seawater which is saturated with CO2 is less than 4, but an injection
system designed to promote efficient mixing would produce minimum pH values of
about 7 near the discharge, gradually returning to an ambient value of about 8 away
from the injection point. Available data suggest that acute

Environmental impacts may be the most significant factor determining the

acceptability of ocean storage, since the strategy is predicated on the notion
that impacts to the ocean will be significantly less than the avoided impacts of
continued emission to the atmosphere. In the Capacity Section above,
environmental impacts were discussed from the global viewpoint.
Here, we examine the environmental impacts near the injection point. Several
reviews have identified potential impacts, with the most significant deriving
from lowered pH resulting from the reaction of C02 with seawater. Impacts
would occur principally to non-swimming marine organisms (e.g., zooplankton,
bacteria and benthos) residing at depths of about 1000 m or greater and their
magnitude will depend on both the level of pH change and the duration of
exposure. Figure 6 summarizes data showing that organisms can tolerate
small pH excursions for many days, but must limit exposure to larger
excursions to a matter of hours. The data shown in Figure 6 involve organisms
found in the surface waters. There is a need for similar data on deep water
organisms to see if the same pattern holds and whether the deep water
organisms are more or less sensitive to pH than those in the surface.
Figure 6. Mortality rates for various marine organisms plotted as a function of
pH and time of exposure. The plot show that impacts will depend on both the
level of pH change and the duration of exposure.
The pH of seawater which is saturated with C02 is less than 4, but an injection
system designed to promote efficient mixing would produce minimum pH
values of about 7 near the discharge, gradually returning to an ambient value
of about 8 away from the injection point. Available data suggest that acute
impacts associated with pH change can be completely avoided if the injection
is properly designed to disperse the C02 as it dissolves.
The viability of ocean storage as a greenhouse gas mitigation option will also
hinge on social and political considerations. In view of public precaution
toward the ocean, the strategy will require that all parties (private, public,
non-governmental organizations) be included in ongoing research and debate.

RESEARCH ACTIVITIES
In order for ocean sequestration of C02 to become a viable option, much
research must be done in the areas of ocean modeling, environmental
assessment, engineering analysis, and public outreach. Several significant
efforts are underway, but we are just at the beginning of the journey. Listed
below is a description of several on-going research efforts into ocean
sequestration of C02.

DOE Center for Research on Ocean Carbon sequestration (DOCS). DOCS has
been established as a center to conduct, focus, and advance the research
necessary to evaluate and improve the feasibility, effectiveness and
environmental acceptability of ocean carbon sequestration. The

Center will address fertilization and direct injection, and other ocean carbon
sequestration strategies. It will advance our understanding of the biological,
chemical, and physical processes that are critical to the ocean carbon cycle
and help us understand the effects of proposed sequestration strategies on this
system. The Center is directed by the Lawrence Berkeley and Lawrence
Livermore National Laboratories. Participants include the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology, Moss Landing Marine Labs, the Pacific International
Center for High Technology Research, Rutgers University and the Scripps
Institution of Oceanography. International field experiment. Many of the
important physical, chemical and biological processes related to ocean
sequestration of C02 cannot be scaled, which means that more experimental
research must eventually be conducted in the field. To this end, Japan, Norway,
and the United States signed a Project
O
Agreement for International Collaboration on C02 Ocean Sequestration in
December 1997; since that time, Canada, Australia, and Switzerland have
joined the project. The objective of the project is to investigate the technical
feasibility of, and improve understanding of the environmental impacts from,
C02 ocean sequestration in order to minimize the impacts associated with the
eventual use of this technique to reduce greenhouse gas concentrations in the
atmosphere. The project will continue through March 31, 2002, with a field
experiment to take place in the summer of 2001 off the Kona Coast of Hawaii.
The implementing research organizations are the Research Institute of
Innovative Technology for the Earth (Japan), the Norwegian Institute for Water
Research (Norway), and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (United
States). The general contractor for the project will be the Pacific International
Center for High Technology Research in Hawaii. Based on the results of this
effort, a Phase II may be initiated to investigate longer-term acute and chronic
biological impacts conducted at a semi-enclosed site such as a fjord.
The C02 ocean sequestration project in Japan. In April, 1997, a five year
national program looking at ocean sequestration of C02 began in Japan. Annual
funding is in excess of 10 million USD per year. The lead research institutes for
this program are the Research Institute of Innovative Technology for the Earth
and the Kansai Environmental Engineering Center. The R&D agenda includes
studying the behavior of liquid C02 released in the ocean, developing an
engineering system for C02 injection, assessing the impacts of C02 on marine
organisms, developing a near field environmental impact assessment model,
predicting the long-term fate of the sequestered C02, and participation in the
international field experiment.
Comparison of ocean carbon cycle models. The International Geosphere-

Biosphere Programme initiated the Ocean Carbon-cycle Model Inter-comparison

Project (OCMIP) in 1995 through the Global Analysis, Interpretation, and
Modeling task force. OCMIP is an international project devoted to improving
marine carbon cycle models by comparing them with each other and by
evaluating them using observational data sets. The European research
program on Global Ocean Storage and Anthropogenic Carbon participates in
OCMIP and will also look at global scientific aspects of the deep-ocean C02
sequestration issue. Specifically, the researchers will
compare models of dispersion of C02 from seven hypothetical point sources in
order to get a better understanding of sequestration efficiency. The U.S.
component of OCMIP is positioned to perform the same set of analyses
contingent on obtaining funding for this task. Experiments at the Monterey Bay
Aquarium Research Institute (MBARI). Researchers at MBARI have conducted
several small scale field experiments to observe the reaction of C02 with
seawater at various depths. For example, in April 1998, they carried out a
controlled experiment with a 9 liter liquid C02 release at a depth of 3650 m (insitu temperature about 1.6oC) from their ROV Tiburon.
For several hours they observed the transformation of liquid C02 into solid
hydrate. Future plans call for a series of biological response experiments.
LIST OF SYMBOLS AND ACRONYMS
C02 Carbon Dioxide DOCS DOE Center for Research on Ocean Carbon
Sequestration FCCC Framework Convention on Climate Change GtC Gigatonnes
(billion metric
tons) Carbon H20 Water HC03- Bicarbonate Ion IPSL Institut Pierre Simon
Laplace m meters MBARI Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute MPI Max
Planck
Institut fur Meteorologie OCMIP Ocean Carbon-cycle Model Inter comparison
Project OGCM Ocean General Circulation Model ppm parts per million ROV
Remotely Operated Vehicle
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Auerbach, D. I, Caulfield, J. A, Adams, E. E. and Herzog, H. J., 1997. "Impacts of
ocean C02 disposal on marine life: a toxicological assessment integrating
constant-concentration laboratory assay data with variable-concentration field
exposure", Environmental Modeling and Assessment 2: 333
343.
Caulfield, J. A., Adams, E. E., Auerbach, D. I., and Herzog, H.J, 1997. "Impacts of
ocean C02 disposal on marine life: probabilistic plume exposure model

used with a time-varying dose-response analysis", Environmental Modeling and

Assessment 2: 345-353.
Herzog, H., Drake, E., and Adams, E. E., 1997. C02 Capture, Reuse and Storage
Technologies for Mitigating Global Climate Change, A White Paper, prepared
for U.S. Deptartment of Energy by the MIT Energy Laboratory
[web.mit.edu/energylab/www/].
Herzog, H., Eliasson, B., Kaarstad, 0., 2000. "Capturing Greenhouse Gases",
w
Scientific American (February).

TECHNICAL REPORT ON STUDENTS

INDUSTRIAL WORK
EXPERIENCE SCHEME (SIWES)
AT

THE AQUACULTURE UNIT, BOTANICAL

AND ZOOLOGICAL
GARDEN, UNIVERSITY OF LAGOS,
AKOKA, YABA.
0-OCb

(NOVEMBER 2015 - JANUARY, 2016)

COMPILED AND SUBMITTED
BY

4033
120811368=

TO

THE DEPARTMENT OF MARINE

SCIENCES,
FACULTY OF SCIENCE, UNIVERSITY OF
LAGOS, AKOKA
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE
REQUIREMENT FOR
THE AWARD OF BACHELOR OF
SCIENCE (B.Sc.) DEGREE
(MARINEHBiOfcOGY) TO THE SIWES,
UNIVERSITY OF
LAGOS, NIGERIA.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

My deep gratitude is to God for his unending love, protection and guidance
throughout my industrial work experience and also to my parents and siblings for
their moral support and financial assistance.
I am grateful to the members of staff of the Botanical and Zoological garden
and the Department of Marine Sciences as a whole for the love and lessons
given to me during my training period.
Special thanks to my Industry-basecj^supervisof Mrs Seriki , Mr. Akapo Monday,
Mrs Oluwole, Mr Jubril Institution-based supervisor Dr. M.O Lawal for all the
knowledge imparted to me and preferential- teachings given to me. I have duly
benefited from you all in regards to the work experience scheme and; also
general office practice and lifes experience as a whole.
Special thanks, also to my friends and colleagues whoflassrsted me m-a3ferent
ways during my Industrial Work Experience, most especially Avinhu Benjeinnen,
Adebajo F^mi,/ Adetisan Adenivi, Neveer Stephen, Williams Olakunte, Aaekjmle
Adekem/f Ojmbi Abioaun,/jii0h retail Darnel, Aderoke, Oyetoroolalekan:

Finally^ I must not forget to thank the SI WES Unit of the University of Lagos,
for organizing this programme which has helped me in a lot of ways and has
broadened the scope and knowledge of my field.
May God bless you all.