SEISMIC SURVEY WORK PLAN FOR MRCSP PHASE III TAME SITE

Below is the link for the Seismic testing work plan for Darke County, OH - the plant is located in Greenville, OH. The seismic testing is part of the process of preparing this community to be the site of the proposed large-scale CO2 EXPERIMENT to inject 1 M tons of supercritical CO2 underground - this "experiment" comes with MANY RISKS - including death from asphyxiation should a large amount of it escape. CO2 sequestration is expensive, unproven technology - paid for largely by TAXPAYERS. The citizens in this county were given NO VOTE - we were never asked if we wanted to take on this risk.

Would YOU want to move into a community that accepts this for its RESIDENTS?
OF COURSE NOT!

What new business would want to locate here?
What family would feel safe moving into a community with this experiment going on?

Once the CO2 is underground it is there FOREVER!

If CO2 were REALLY such an issue - isn't the LOGICAL SOLUTION to require the COAL COMPANIES to find alternative sources for energy - to stop polluting the air with CO2 (which by the way, is NOT a toxic greenhouse gas)

CO2 sequestration allows the Coal Industry to burn MORE COAL for electricity- up to 40% more to capture the CO2 for sequestration and even more to put it in the ground under pressure.

In Greenville, OH this proposed CO2 Experiment is to capture relatively "clean" CO2 from our ethanol plant and put that in the ground. Wouldn't it make more sense to do this experiment on a COAL PLANT? What they are "cleaning up" here is a problem we didn't even have until the ethanol plant appeared.... we are NOT fighting the ethanol plant, we are asking them to be a good community partner and STOP THIS EXPERIMENT from happening here!

Below is the link to the Daily Advocate article on the Seismic Testing -
http://www.dailyadvocate.com/ftp/pdf/TAMESeismicWorkPlan2.pdf

Write your elected officials and state Representative & Senator - Tell them you object to this experiment -

NO CO2 Dumping In Darke!

HOW SAFE IS DETONATING EXPLOSIVES FOR SEISMIC TESTING?

I was able to quickly find this report of a fatality which is proof that they are not mini- explosives = they are powerful!
http://ncsp.tamu.edu/reports/GA/seismic_explode.pdf


Below is a link that talks about the issues involved with seismic testing when it's done without the "shaker trucks" along the areas that the trucks can not travel on = for these areas they use explosives....... this article includes how long the explosives that don't fire as they are supposed to ... how long they can remain live and what can detonate them.
https://www.cagc.ca/_files/practices/pdf/Misfired_Charges.pdf

Seismic testing and Homeowners Insurance

This happened in Wyoming, could it happen in YOUR area? Do you know your homeowner's insurance policy for seismic testing? Please check with them and let us know.

This is a very interesting article......... it will make you angry!

Wyoming Landowners Face Condemnation or Loss of Homeowners' Insurance
http://www.earthworksaction.org/cvRenner.cfm

Western KY Drilling of Test Well underway

This information comes from the Kentucky Geological Survey site
Click on the link to be taken to the this article on their web site
http://www.uky.edu/KGS/announce/joint_project.htm

Joint project involves state, public and private participants

Fifteen months after project planning began, drilling has started in Hancock County, Ky., for a test well to research the permanent storage of carbon dioxide (CO2) deep underground in western Kentucky. The 8,300-foot well will help determine the feasibility of injecting CO2 into geologic formations to help reduce emissions of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. The project is the result of a joint effort between Kentucky state government agencies, the Kentucky Geological Survey (KGS), and a consortium of public and private participants.

This project was made possible by a $5 million grant awarded to the geological survey from the Kentucky Department for Energy Development and Independence as a result of appropriations from the Kentucky General Assembly. A portion of this grant is used for the west Kentucky project, with substantial matching funds provided by industry partners. The KGS recruited corporate partners who have contributed the majority of the funding and services crucial to completing the project.

NorAm Drilling, Inc. of Houston, Texas, has been selected to drill the well, a task that is expected to take 45 to 60 days. To protect shallow groundwater and oil and gas resources of the drilling site, the upper 3,800 feet of the well will be lined with steel casing.

Project plans call for drilling through the Knox and Mount Simon formations to test their potential to permanently store CO2. Studies have indicated these formations may have characteristics needed for such storage. The well will penetrate Precambrian basement rocks at its total depth. Samples of geologic formations will be taken for testing and analysis, and up to 1,500 tons of carbon dioxide will be injected into deep formations to further the understanding of the feasibility of commercial CO2 storage.

State grant funding will also be used for a similar deep carbon dioxide storage test in eastern Kentucky and enhanced oil/enhanced gas recovery projects. Progress reports on all of these projects are available at the website of the Kentucky Consortium for Carbon Storage, www.kyccs.org.

TENTATIVE PROJECT TIMELINE:

• Spring 2009: Drilling phase. (Drilling expected to take 45 – 60 days; well of about 8,300 feet will be cored in intervals, geophysical surveys completed and interpreted and prepared for injection testing.)
• Spring - Summer 2009: Start of injection testing with brine and CO2. Deeper porous zones will be tested for injection capacity.
• Summer - Winter 2009: Post-injection monitoring of well site. Interpretation of drilling and testing results and preparation of final reports. Project completed, and well plugged and abandoned per Kentucky and U.S. EPA specifications. Environmental monitoring to continue over the next several years.

PARTICIPANTS IN THE PROJECT:

• Kentucky Geological Survey
• University of Kentucky
• Commonwealth of Kentucky
• Kentucky Energy and the Environment Cabinet
• Western Kentucky Carbon Storage Foundation: (Members: ConocoPhillips, E.ON US, Peabody Energy)
• Illinois Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity
• Tennessee Valley Authority
• Schlumberger Carbon Services
• GEO Consultants, LLC
• Sandia Technologies, LLC
• Smith Management Group
• Wyatt, Tarrant, and Combs

Risks Related to CO2 Sequestration, - LOTS OF RISKS

This is a great link to a web page that has A LOT OF INFORMATION about the risks associated with CO2 sequestration, also referred to as Geosequestration or "GS" - scroll up and down... you will find it addresses things like - risks to workers, the public, ecosystem, microbes in the ground, drinking water and the contamination it is likely to cause, it is one of the most complete sources of risks that I have seen for CCS ( Carbon Capture and Sequestration)

Click below -
This link is WELL WORTH YOUR TIME!


ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Below -from the web site:
http://solveclimate.com/blog/20090320/ccs-cant-make-tar-sands-clean
Click on the link to read the entire article... bold print is my emphasis.

"Chasing CCS is a money burner and an energy hog, and it may not deliver much carbon savings. The whole reactive proposition raises extreme security and liability issues for industry and taxpayers alike.

It Takes Energy to Bury CO2

The chief obstacle to CCS is cost. Right now, no country buries lots of CO2 because it is not economical. John Pavlish, a senior U.S. researcher on CCS at North Dakota's Energy and Environmental Research Center, notes that CCS would raise the cost of a power plant by 35 to 100 percent which, in turn, would increase electric bills by 30 to 80 percent. Without a $40 to $80 price tag on a tonne of CO2, not much carbon will ever get buried.

It takes a lot energy to capture, compress and inject CO2 into the ground. In fact 30, percent of the power generated by a coal-fired facility or tar sands power plant would be cannibalized by a CO2 retrofit.

That’s great news for coal companies because CCS demands that utilities burn more coal instead of building windmills.

Storage problems

Security of storage is also a concern. Not too many places in North America are suitable for carbon burial due to earthquake risks or high density oil and gas drilling. Improperly sealed wells or faulty cement jobs could invite great volumes of CO2 back to the surface. Leaks could also acidify groundwater.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, for example, dutifully notes that Alberta is a pin cushion. With more than 350,000 oil and gas wells, it is one of the most intensely drilled landscapes in the world. In other words, CO2 could find its way back to the surface and into people’s basements and wells.

CO2 injection may also cause man-made earthquakes. The rapid depletion of gas wells and the water flooding of oil wells have caused a series of documented earthquakes in Alberta, Texas and the Netherlands. Geologists call it “induced seismicity.” The largest earthquakes ever recorded in Alberta were triggered by oil and gas activity. Natural Resources Canada recently studied a series of earthquakes caused by sour gas removal at the Strachan gas plant in Rocky Mountain House.

Although the technology for capturing, compressing and piping carbon is doable, not much is known about rapid CO2 injection into old oil reservoirs or salty aquifers.

Independent research by University of Calgary engineer Minzghe Dong shows that each and every reservoir behaves differently and has to be carefully prepared. If most of the oil and water isn’t removed, the reservoir will chemically react with CO2 and limit the amount of disposal space. Scientists have yet to show that the rock cap sealing salt aquifers can actually safely contain CO2.

Liability is no small cross in the carbon cemetery either. Buried CO2 must be monitored for thousands of years, a task few regulators really want to undertake. Industry doesn’t want to invest in CCS until government (read taxpayers) assumes the liabilities of leaks and groundwater contamination. Wyoming, the largest coal producing state, wisely passed legislation that places the liability for the unintended consequences of CCS on the utility or oil company that injects it.

It is reactive program, not a proactive one. The technology costs too much and won't scale up in time to make a difference. It directly robs taxpayers and subsidizes the world’s wealthiest industry. And it steals dollars from renewable programs. What CCS does is give coal and oil companies taxpayer money to accelerate hydrocarbon consumption by nearly one third."