Let us know your concerns, what your group is doing to stop it, etc.
If you have one of these experiments going on in your area please let us know your location!
We do NOT consider this to be "Green Technology" - it is an EXPERIMENT and WE are the Guinea Pigs! It is an experiment that risks our health, safety and environment - funded mostly by YOUR tax dollars - Let's not leave this EXPERIMENT for future generations to clean up!. This site was created for people all over world opposed to CO2 sequestration (CCS) Join the movement - email - StopExperimentalCO2Projects@yahoo.com
Legal dangers for the state in permitting CO2 sequestration projects
If the state approves a CO2 sequestration project and it leaks into the neighboring property - that property owner could bring a large-scale suit against the state and business owner......
Building legal framework to protect THE STATE
“We have to consider how this would affect surface owners,” Webster said. “In other words, if they own the land, the mineral rights are asserted for someone else that they have no legal right to. Do we inadvertently impose liability on them?”
“When I talk about landowners, I think industry shares those same concerns,” Webster said. She said no one wants unfunded liabilities 30 years down the road.
“It is the unknown that is causing people to pause,” she said.
Discussion about some industries want more assurances about liabilities - suggestions include the state taking on liability or creating a superfund"
"Issues surrounding CO2 storage are similar to the debate over nuclear waste storage"
The need for a bill to clarify the ownership of pore space under land and water.
From an article by Chad Livengood • email@example.com • March 25, 2009Jefferson City - Fearing the federal government may soon start taxing carbon emissions, Missouri utility companies are seeking caps on legal liability for injuries sustained from the process of carbon sequestration.
July 30, 2008
On July 25, EPA published in the Federal Register its proposed rule to regulate the underground injection of carbon dioxide (CO2) for long-term storage, a process known as geologic sequestration. ...........EPA issued the rule under the Underground Injection Control (UIC) program. This program is implemented by EPA and the states under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) to regulate the injection of fluids into the subsurface so that these activities do not endanger current or future underground sources of drinking water. The public comment period ends on November 24, 2008.
While CO2 has been injected into the subsurface for purposes of enhanced oil and gas recovery for some time under “Class II” UIC permits, carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology has not been demonstrated at the commercial scale within the US. EPA issued guidance last year to provide that EPA regions, states, territories and tribes should, in the near-term, issue permits for pilot, non-commercial scale sequestration projects under its existing UIC permit classification for experimental technologies (Class V). (See “Class V Experimental Technology Well Guidance for Pilot Geologic Sequestration Projects,” EPA, March, 2007). EPA indicated that a Class V permit would be inappropriate for commercial-scale projects.
In contrast, the proposed rule is intended for commercial-scale sequestration projects. Although CCS technology has not been demonstrated at the commercial scale within the U.S., EPA decided to propose a separate UIC well classification for commercial-scale projects (Class VI), in part to reduce regulatory uncertainty that might hinder development of and investment in such projects."
(Who are they protecting? Us or BIG BUSINESS?)
"Importantly, in proposing the rule, EPA made clear that it does not have authority under the SDWA to do either of the following:
EPA made clear that sequestration projects could also trigger additional requirements under federal statutory regimes governing hazardous waste and releases of hazardous substances, finding that:
Click here for EPA’s proposed rule.
The seventh annual Conference of Carbon Capture and Sequestration featured presentations promising that untested carbon capture and control technology will reduce power plant emissions of carbon dioxide. The protesters barged in on the gathering to say they didn't think so.
As they released the black and yellow balloons in the Sheraton Station Square Hotel ballroom, Beverly Braverman, executive director of the Mountain Watershed Association in Fayette County, told the 600 conference attendees that federal tax money shouldn't be used to subsidize the development of a technology that perpetuates dependence on coal.
"We object to carbon capture and sequestration because the technology is unproven, it's expensive and its use ignores all of the other damage done to coalfield communities," said Ms. Braverman.""After a police officer escorted Ms. Braverman and the other protesters from the ballroom, Mr. Kupfer announced that the Bush administration has allocated $648 million for coal-related research this year, and $125 million over the next 10 years for two new carbon capture demonstration projects in Ohio and California. Four other demonstration projects were awarded more than $250 million last year."
"But even as the idea gains traction in the coal and power industries and with the Bush administration, which recently set a goal of stopping the growth of carbon emissions by 2025, environmental groups have increasingly questioned the wisdom of spending billions of dollars of public money to develop the technology.
A Greenpeace report released Monday says there are major questions about carbon capture technology's effectiveness and cost.
The report says it won't be commercially available until 2030 at the earliest, that 70 percent of the power plants operating in 2050 won't be able to use the technology and that it will require power plants to produce 10 percent to 40 percent more electricity to operate the collection apparatus. That will increase coal consumption by one-third over today's level.
The report also says that carbon capture could double the operating costs of power plants and lead to price hikes of 21 percent to 91 percent.
Rebecca Tarbotton, Rainforest Action Network global finance campaign director and a speaker at the conference, said the government subsidies will prolong the nation's and the world's dependence on coal.
"We don't want the technology and its development used as an excuse for continued reliance and expansion of coal use," she said."
Look for Citizens Against CO2 Sequestration at the Great Darke County Fair - in both the Democrat & Republican Booths!
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available in an effort to advance understanding of issues of environmental and humanitarian significance. In many cases we have included the full text of the article rather than a simple link because we have found that links frequently go "bad" or change over time. We believe this constitutes a "fair use" of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without fee or payment of any kind to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.