Talk:Direct deep-sea carbon dioxide injection

Lujain Al-Dabbas Peer Review
The first thing I noticed is the absence of an introduction: what is the simplest definition of deep ocean storage, when did this technology first show up on the global screen, what is it used for/mention uses related to CCS to help give the reader an idea of what they're about to read.

I'm not sure if there is any accessible information on the types of injection machinery/technologies that are specifically employed for the ocean injection of CO2, but I think that would help the reader better visualize what the scale of this process is and be able to relate based off of the description. Also, maybe mentioning any sites that have been selected thus far as good examples of deep/shallow injection sites.

The section on environmental impact was well written. However, I did feel like it read more like a research journal than a causal Wikipedia article. Perhaps find an external source/another Wikipedia article that will discuss the impacts of CO2 and pH changes on organisms and the environment (there is a very comprehensive Wikipedia page on CO2, it might have some of this covered already...). Finally, because this section focuses entirely on the harmful effects associated with CO2 ocean injection, I felt it didn't quite maintain a neutral voice. Maybe presenting a counter argument as a balance in presenting the concerns and possible hindrances of implementing this method would help here (also, what about the fate of all marine and terrestrial organisms as global land and ocean temperatures rise? don't need to necessarily answer this but just let the reader know there are two sides to consider...).

In the last section, maybe a very brief definition/introduction about CO2 lakes/plumes at the beginning of the current paragraph would help (what are they exactly). have there been any cases where these formations developed? are they dangerous? if unpleasant, can they be prevented? what would this mean for CCS and keeping high levels of CO2 out of the atmosphere?

Overall, I think the article is solid, it seems very well thought through and I'm excited to see the final public page. Good Luck!

LDabbas (talk) 16:23, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Keisha Anastasia Chrismanto's Peer Review
There are definitely a lot of useful informations posted here!

A few things to improve your article :

A simple sentence that connects the paragraph with your introduction or previous paragraph would help the readers to get a better understanding of your topic.

It could be better if you mention why in the first place deep sea sequestration is considered as a solution to solve carbon issues.

Most of your paragraphs talk about the negative impacts of deep-sea sequestration, having a balance between negative and positive impacts may improve the overall quality of your post.

The paragraphs you talk about CO2 lakes is indeed informative. But, I don’t think it elaborates enough whether these CO2 lakes is a positive sign or negative sign.

If these sections would be published in a single Wikipedia page, they could be arranged in a better order to provide the readers with an article that has an easy flow to follow.

Overall, this is a highly informative page. You just need to make connecting sentences that connect each paragraph. There are some inconsistency in your wording (CO2, Co2, co2). Correcting those details may make the page better even more. Nice work, Ariel! Love your topic! Keishach (talk) 04:15, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

santosojonathan's Peer Review
Sounds like an interesting article! Several run-on sentence in the paragraph Deep Sea, but that should be an easy fix! I also fixed the inconsistent CO2 to its proper subscript (as mentioned above by Keisha). Santosojonathan (talk) 05:50, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Savannah's Peer Review
I will review by section:

“Dilute Ocean storage” section: The first section is clear and I don’t see many changes needed. You may want to include numbered citations instead of links to the IPCC pdf.

“The release of solid carbon dioxide at a depth” section: This section needs more than one citation, and it should be listed after more than one sentence. You may want to start with just “Solid CO2 is...” and get rid of “the”.

“Environmental Impacts of DSOS” section: The lead section is clear and makes sense, but you may want to start with a definition or summary type statement such as “Deep-sea ocean sequestration is the process of xyz” or “Environmental impacts of deep-sea ocean sequestration involve xyz”. The intro paragraph would also benefit from a conclusion statement(s) that summarize or list the following sections. “Especially in the deep-sea where there is very limited knowledge as to what organisms and ecosystems exist in this unexplored area and the interdependence of such ecosystems.” is a sentence fragment that needs a subject. You may want to start the fragment with: “Sequestration is especially difficult in the …”

“Deep Sea” section: The amount of content and depth of content in this section is great. You may consider switching this sentence from passive to active voice by leading with the subject instead of verb as well as fixing the tense of “exposed” and plurality of “its” to “their” (Most organisms have evolved with very little disturbance and have been exposed to minimal levels of carbon dioxide because of their limited contact with the atmosphere). The use of “nor” requires the use of “neither, nor”. Add the word neither to your sentence “Deep sea ecosystems do not have rapid reproduction rates nor give birth to many offspring because of their limited access to oxygen and nutrients” to correct this. Overall this section is very detailed.

“pH vs CO2” section: This section is well written. Does CO2 accumulate in tissues due to water intake through gills? Or also the mouth? I assume CO2 does not transfer through scaled/outer body cover. You might want to clarify that (Although, I’m just interested in this. Your paragraph is already clear).

“Long term effects” section: This section has a few passive statements you may want to change to active, such as: (It is necessary to understand the long-term impact that this practice would have on marine life if DSOS becomes a common practice) This section needs more citations.

“Carbon dioxide plumes” section: Weird tenses here. “Research has shown” should be used. “This occurs if the plume...” Overall good but needs citations.

“CO2 Lakes” section: Weird tense again.. “CO2 lakes form on..” “Sites are chosen...” No citations?

***Overall: The organization and structure of the article is balanced and in a good sequence. Content is neutral and extensive. You've written a good amount, I liked reading your article, and I feel like I learned a lot from reading it :). I made some minor corrections, I hope it’s alright with you all that I went into english-paper editing mode. It’s hard to write out science summaries and your group did well. The only real issue with the article is it needs many more citations/sources. Blake.CCS (talk) 07:09, 30 November 2018 (UTC)Savannah

Serene Kuramarohit's peer review
This is a very informative article and I can see that y'all did a lot of research and productively added to the existing information.

Some things to consider:

Dilute CO2 Injection and storage. Clarify if dilute injection disperses CO2 as a supercritical fluid or gas. Is the CO2 injected as a dilute solution in water? Or is the injection inherently dilute because it is dispersed into such a large body of water. Please clarify.

The Release of Solid Carbon Dioxide at Depth. Consider making the title more compact/clear, such as Solid Carbon Dioxide storage in Deep Ocean. Also, how is the solid CO2 delivered into the ocean?

Ocean Chemistry. Consider rewording the second and third sentence. Carbonic acid, not carbonate, increases H+ concentration in the ocean. Consider including a balanced equation to more clearly show how the ocean chemistry is constantly at equilibrium with CO2, carbonic acid, and carbonate.

Environmental Impacts of Deep-Sea Ocean Sequestration. This section is quite well written. It is also very interesting. One suggestion, in the Effects of pH vs. CO2, you can mention how decreased concentrations of carbonate ions also affects the shells of some marine creatures, degrading them and making them more difficult to form. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Serene.kuramarohit (talk • contribs) 04:32, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Isn't this article really about "ocean-based carbon dioxide removal and sequestration"?
I think that this article should be renamed to ocean-based carbon dioxide removal and sequestration and that it needs further work to reduce overlap with other articles such as ocean acidification, iron fertilization, carbon sequestration. Also it needs to be made clearer which of the technologies mentioned here actually have potential and which are "pie in the sky" research projects. Pinging User:Clayoquot and User:Chidgk1 in case they have an interest in this topic. This publication looks like a useful source for this article: A Research Strategy for Ocean-based Carbon Dioxide Removal and Sequestration. EMsmile (talk) 14:28, 12 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi EMsmile, I'm interested in the topic but I unfortunately I know very little about it at this time. If you think the article needs work, would it make sense to add it to the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Climate_change#Writing_and_improving_articles ? Clayoquot (talk &#124; contribs) 04:24, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Clayoquot. (same here about being interested but knowing too little about it yet) :-) EMsmile (talk) 20:37, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I've asked the same expert who's helping me review the article on ocean acidification (see talk page there) and she wrote: "This page is problematic for many reasons, and I would suggest it be deleted. However, to clarify your quoted phrase, utilizing the ocean as a carbon sink is actually a solution to the climate crisis. So the quoted phrase is correct, rather this page is problematic because it does not use any of the appropriate terminology of the field, does not cite any of the current literature, and only mentioned a mere handful of the technologies that exist. I worry it will spread a lot of misinformation about a burgeoning field." And "The article on carbon sequestration is much more sound than the previous one and I support creating some linkages between the pages. However, the issue is that there is a larger number of ocean CDR technologies than there are technologies that mitigate ocean acidification." EMsmile (talk) 20:37, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I've reworked the article now. I've actually reduced its scope because there was too much overlap with several other articles, for example with carbon sequestration and blue carbon. I've condensed it and think it should only focus on those engineering solutions that try to do CO2 removal and safe storage in the oceans (which will likely not be possible). I no longer think that the article should be renamed to "ocean-based carbon dioxide removal and sequestration" but maybe a better title could still be found to stress the engineering aspects and that it's a deliberate attempt to store CO2 in the oceans safely, not the process that is taking place "on its own" and that is leading to ocean acidification. EMsmile (talk) 00:09, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

New article title needed?
Like I mentioned above, I think this article needs a new title to make it clearer that it's not about all the other ocean-based mitigation options, which are covered in blue carbon and in carbon sequestration (with overlap there that still needs sorting out). Maybe Technologies for safe carbon storage in oceans or Carbon dioxide injection in oceans? Pinging User:Clayoquot and User:Femke as this is related to our conversations at climate change mitigation. EMsmile (talk) 10:09, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I've taken a quick look but I don't know this topic area well enough to comment, unfortunately. Clayoquot (talk &#124; contribs) 17:25, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for checking in. How about User:Epipelagic, could you help please? I should point out that we have content about carbon removal from oceans in several places so it's hard to keep track:


 * Climate change mitigation
 * Carbon sequestration
 * Ocean acidification
 * Blue carbon
 * Two more people to ping could be User:ASRASR and User:Baylorfk. EMsmile (talk) 00:30, 24 November 2022 (UTC)


 * I agree it needs renaming. Maybe Ocean carbon storage technology? — Epipelagic (talk) 02:05, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi User:Epipelagic, thanks for replying here. I've taken another look and I think I've figured this article out. It's really all about carbon dioxide injection into the ocean and I think it's an outdated proposal which is no longer being actively pursued, e.g. not included in the AR 6 WG III report here. (seems anyway a bit of a crazy idea to artificially inject more CO2 into the ocean when the ocean is already suffering from too much CO2 and thus ocean acidification). So I think the article should be named carbon dioxide injection into the ocean and generally be demoted a bit, e.g. not linked prominently from climate change mitigation. The term "ocean storage of carbon dioxide" might become freed up and be used for a new article later. Or one that is called "Ocean-based carbon sequestration" (currently located within carbon sequestration). Do you think my new proposed title of carbon dioxide injection into the ocean would work? I wasn't sure whether it should be Dilute carbon dioxide injection into the ocean or Liquid carbon dioxide injection into the ocean to be more precise. EMsmile (talk) 00:10, 26 November 2022 (UTC)


 * It seems the parent article here is Carbon capture and storage. But that article doesn't look much at storage in the ocean. Instead, it states, . But that's not really the end to the matter. There are ways of storing carbon in the ocean that don't involve increased acidification. Carbon sequestration has a very relevant section called Sequestration techniques in oceans. Of particular interest would be ways to bury carbon in subduction zones of the ocean, where carbon can move into the Earth's crust and become part of the deep carbon cycle. So I think there is a case for a stand-alone article here. But Ocean storage of carbon dioxide doesn't do it. It talks mainly about technologies that have become firmly sidelined. It would need both renaming and rewriting, or in other words, a new article. — Epipelagic (talk) 07:47, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Maybe might like to comment, as lead contributor to Carbon capture and storage? — Epipelagic (talk) 01:26, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I think it will help us if we first rename this article to carbon dioxide injection into the ocean and "demote" it to make it very clear that this approach is no longer being pursued (and unlink it from other articles if it's still being linked). I'll try to find some references for that. I think what usually happens is that there is a flurry of publications that investigate a new idea and then, when it becomes clear that the idea won't work, the publications just dwindle out. I'll see if I can find one that clearly states "this idea won't work". Either way, by renaming it, it would free up the article name "ocean storage of carbon dioxide" which is perhaps necessary/useful as a new overview article to pull together the content that is currently scattered around:


 * Carbon capture and storage
 * Climate change mitigation
 * Carbon sequestration
 * Ocean acidification
 * Blue carbon EMsmile (talk) 11:24, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Tim Jickell's comment (via e-mail) on this issue was: "I tend to agree that CO2 injection into the ocean, rather than into rocks beneath the ocean, sounds bonkers" EMsmile (talk) 11:51, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Found something useful here on page 262:

"in the early 2000s, scientists were researching injecting CO2 directly into the mid-depth ocean using small-scale experiments. In 1997 in Kyoto, during UNFCCC COP-3, an international project agreement was signed for the study of direct CO2 injection, with sponsors from the U.S. Department of Energy, the New Energy and Industrial Technology Development Organization of Japan, and the Norwegian Research Council; researchers from Australia, Canada, and Switzerland also joined. However, the research faced criticism from local civil society organizations as well as larger organizations such as Greenpeace, and planned experiments off the coasts of Hawaii and Norway were halted, with the Norwegian Environmental Minister stating that using deep marine areas as future storage places for CO2 required more international discussion and the clarification of legal implications (de Figueiredo, 2003). Within the scientific community, there was discussion of what research could be done to identify potential harms to deep-sea biology, with some recommending very aggressive research to provide information on impacts on deep-sea organisms within a relevant time frame (Seibel and Walsh, 2003). In other words, direct deep-sea CO2 injection faced external social showstoppers and may have also faced potential scientific, internal showstoppers, should it have proceeded further." Will add that to the article. - And perhaps the new article title should thus be Direct deep-sea CO2 injection. EMsmile (talk) 11:58, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I've done a bit more research about it by digging through the sequence of IPCC reports. Basically this technology used to be called "ocean storage" in those older IPCC publications but has now completely disappeared from the toolbox of mitigation options. "Storing carbon" is now used in different ways, see e.g. in the blue carbon article. More in the context of sequestration. I've added some more explanations into the article. EMsmile (talk) 13:09, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I propose that the new title is Direct deep-sea carbon dioxide injection. Would that be OK by you, Epipelagic and ? EMsmile (talk) 13:28, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * No objections but could we merge it into another article and shorten it? So no one nowadays suggests this as an emergency temporary quick fix like SRM? Chidgk1 (talk) 14:16, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Maybe SRM is cheaper? Could we bury this article at the deep bottom of another article - if so which? Chidgk1 (talk) 14:24, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I think once we've changed the name and removed any wrong wikilinks to it (e.g. I've taken it out of several templates earlier today) then it will be very "hidden" and become very obscure and won't show up prominently anywhere. Its pageviews have always been low by the way. Then there's no need to spend more time and effort on it. But interesting that in the 2005 IPCC report is was still quite prominent, also it was included in the 4th Assessment Report but then quietly dropped and not mentioned in the 5th and 6th Assessment Reports anymore. EMsmile (talk) 16:58, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I like your hatnote by the way, good idea! EMsmile (talk) 16:59, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

I've now removed almost all the links from other articles to this one. Only left the one link from carbon sequestration which I think is OK to have. See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Ocean_storage_of_carbon_dioxide EMsmile (talk) 17:32, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I've changed the article title now. I've changed the redirect from ocean storage of carbon dioxide to carbon sequestration for now. We could think about whether it should redirect to a particular section inside of that article or redirect to something else, like oceanic carbon cycle? EMsmile (talk) 17:39, 28 November 2022 (UTC)


 * This technology is not "now abandoned" as stated in the opening paragraph: https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/oil-output-peaks-us-gulf-mexico-makes-room-carbon-capture-2023-05-01/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:602:87F:993C:A818:26A4:F83B:6D99 (talk) 15:46, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * You're confusing that with carbon capture and storage. That one is indeed alive and kicking. EMsmile (talk) 08:06, 2 May 2023 (UTC)