Is it fair to brand carbon sequestration as a mining activity? It is sort of mining in reverse: putting something into the ground instead of taking it out. Taken to its logical extreme, we could brand putting high-level radioactive waste into Yucca Mountain as reverse-mining, and even filling of open pits with household solid waste as reverse-mining. Or are these activities simply a manifestation of sustainable mine development and de-development?
Regardless of the nomenclature (verbal acrobatics) involved, the idea is interesting. I refer specifically to the article at this link. As this figure shows, the article is about work done at Los Alamos to compile a computer code to study carbon sequestration in natural systems.
The thing I found so bizarre about the article is the fact that the authors, staff at Los Alamos sound more like salesmen for GoldSim than disinterested researchers. Good for GoldSim, bad for academic independence. Good for global warming (cooling actually), and bad for…ah well, that’s the way it works in commerce and the absence of atomic bomb development. Let’s be grateful for those mercies at least.