Wednesday, July 7, 2010
Quote about Truth
“During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act” _George Orwell
High CO2 concentrations can turn fish into daredevils
High CO2 concentrations can turn fish into daredevils
High carbon dioxide concentrations in the ocean may turn fish into reckless daredevils, according to a study published in PNAS this week. When scientists exposed two different species of fish larvae to elevated carbon dioxide levels, the fish began to ignore the smell of predators, multiplying their mortality rate up to nine times the current level. The oceans are predicted to have high enough concentrations to completely impair the fishes' predator detection as early as the end of this century.
Carbon sequestration too leaky to stop global warming
Source - http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2010/07/carbon-sequestration-too-leaky-to-stop-global-warming.ars?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=rss
Carbon sequestration too leaky to stop global warming
Carbon dioxide sequestration isn't a great global warming solution unless we develop less leaky equipment or commit to regular re-sequestering, according to a paper published in Nature Geoscience. If the containers used don't leak less than one percent every thousand years, atmospheric carbon would have to be monitored carefully and resequestered on a regular basis over tens of thousands of years in order to match the effects of reducing carbon emissions. Otherwise, sequestration would only slow the warming, not stop it.
To study the long-term effects of carbon sequestration, Dr. Gary Shaffer modeled several scenarios and methods of storing carbon, both underground and in the ocean, as well as various combinations of the two.
He noted that current methods for both types of sequestration have leakages rate that are too high, and would only lead to a delayed warming of the atmosphere. According to his calculations, any method of sequestration would have to leak less than 1 percent of its volume every one thousand years in order to fully prevent global warming.
Technical Announcement: New Method to Gauge Nation’s CO2 Storage Potential Released: 7/6/2010
A new methodology to assess the nation's potential to store carbon dioxide (CO2) is available.
The U.S. Geological Survey will commence a national assessment of CO2 storage potential now that its assessment methodology is complete. This research can be used to plan for the long-term storage of CO2 to help lessen the impacts of climate change.
“The estimation of domestic or global CO2 storage resource in geologic formations is challenging,” said USGS Energy Resources Program Coordinator Brenda Pierce. “This methodology utilizes innovative calculation tools with robust geologic interpretation and allows for an assessment that can characterize the storage potential in a uniform manner across the United States.”
The new methodology identifies a means to assess the mass of CO2 that can be retained within the pore space in underground rocks. The process of injecting liquid CO2 into subsurface rocks is known as geologic carbon sequestration.
Stop PurGen Coal Plant Needs YOUR Help
www.stoppurgencoalplant.org
An experimental coal/chemical plant and carbon dioxide storage project, called PurGen, has been proposed for Linden, New Jersey.
SCS Energy, a Massachusetts based company, has proposed to build a 750MW IGCC coal plant with unproven carbon capture and sequestration technology in one of the most densely populated areas of the country.
SCS plans to process coal for energy in Linden and then send a trillion pounds of pressurized, liquid carbon dioxide waste via a 100-mile pipeline through the Raritan Bay and out into the seabed off Atlantic City.
SCS says the carbon dioxide will stay in the ocean floor forever, but they have no proof or scientific evidence to back up their claims.
For additional information call 609.656.7612 or e-mail info@stoppurgencoalplant.org
New Research From Niels Bohr Institute
ADenother new piece of research coming out of Denmark, this time from the most respected Niels Bohr Institute, by professor Gary Shaffer.
See following links:
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v3/n7/abs/ngeo896.html
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2010/06/geological-storage-co2-emissions-only-viable-leakage-less-than-1-percent-1000-years.php
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/06/100627155110.htm
See following links:
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v3/n7/abs/ngeo896.html
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2010/06/geological-storage-co2-emissions-only-viable-leakage-less-than-1-percent-1000-years.php
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/06/100627155110.htm
NEW REPORT: STORING CO2 UNDERGROUND WILL ADD TO CO2 IN THE ATMOSPHERE
The brief report provides new analysis of why carbon capture and storage is a false climate solution that can’t deliver the emissions reductions its industry and government backers worldwide are claiming.
The report can be downloaded via this link: http://ccs-info.org/, which is the NOAH Friends of the Earth Denmark website dedicated to CCS solely.
They publish a quarterly magazine and 2-3 books in Danish each year. Their main national campaigns concern transportation, dioxins and biotechnology.
They are participating in the following FoE campaigns: "European campaign to halt GM pollution" and "New Local Partners for Sustainability". They have and are, still working on the Sustainable Europe and Environmental Space concepts.
NOAH Friends of the Earth Denmark Shows that Capturing CO2 and Storing It Underground Is Not a Solution to Climate Change
Only 46 billion tonnes of CO2 or 11% of CO2 emissions will be avoided between 2010 and 2050. Until 2030 only 7 billion tonnes of CO2 will be avoided despite a fast deployment of CCS.
The report can be downloaded via this link: http://ccs-info.org/, which is the NOAH Friends of the Earth Denmark website dedicated to CCS solely.
NOAH / Friends of the Earth Denmark
NOAH is a grassroots organization founded in 1969. We became a member of FoE in 1988.They publish a quarterly magazine and 2-3 books in Danish each year. Their main national campaigns concern transportation, dioxins and biotechnology.
They are participating in the following FoE campaigns: "European campaign to halt GM pollution" and "New Local Partners for Sustainability". They have and are, still working on the Sustainable Europe and Environmental Space concepts.
COPENHAGEN, DENMARK, June 2, 2010 –
The technology known as 'Carbon Capture and Storage' (CCS) cannot deliver the reductions in CO2 emissions that the proponents of CCS are claiming, according to a report published today by NOAH/ Friends of the Earth Denmark.[1]
The technology known as 'Carbon Capture and Storage' (CCS) cannot deliver the reductions in CO2 emissions that the proponents of CCS are claiming, according to a report published today by NOAH/ Friends of the Earth Denmark.[1]
If CCS is chosen as a major strategy to mitigate carbon emissions from coal power plants and coal fuelled industries, nearly 90% of emissions expected between 2010 and 2050 from the large coal fuelled plants would reach the atmosphere anyway, according to the new report.
Palle Bendsen, spokesperson for NOAH / Friends of the Earth Denmark said, “When CCS technology is observed over time and across the sectors where it is planned to be applied – when we watch the whole film as opposed to the single snapshot of one power plant or a single year in the far future – it is obvious that CCS cannot deliver. Institutions like the International Energy Agency and IPCC must take into consideration the whole picture and review their assessment of this dubious technology”
The available global carbon budget is so small that global emissions must peak before 2015 if we want to avoid catastrophic climate change. That is a clear message from recent scientific studies. From 2015 onward, emissions must decline rapidly. Any mitigation tool must be seen from this perspective. However, carbon capture and storage cannot fit into such a scenario because it is impossible to deploy early enough. On top of that, CCS will be ineffective and extremely costly.
Countries like China, the US, Germany, Spain, Australia and South Africa, among others, plan to use CCS to try to mitigate the contribution of fossil fuel emissions to global warming. EU has set large sums aside to finance 12 demonstration plants over the next 10 years. The climate law proposed in the US has similar provisions for CCS.
Palle Bendsen said: “Financing CCS is doomed to be a huge misuse of public funds. Our report shows why. EU and governments should direct their subsidies exclusively to energy conservation, energy efficiency and renewables, as well as finance development of sustainable energy supply systems in developing countries. That’s the way to secure decreasing emissions.”
“CCS will lock in coal. Though far from being commercially ready, CCS is being used as an excuse to continue to build coal power plants that are 'CCS-ready.' But such plants will be preserved unchanged for many years to come. ‘CCS-ready’ is a meaningless term,” he added.
“It is obvious that CCS is competing with renewables for R&D resources and capital, thus preventing the rapid development of sustainable energy supply systems.. What we need is a fossil free future. We must reduce energy demands in rich countries with high emissions, and we must increase energy efficiency.” Palle Bendsen added.
CCS is often called a “bridging technology,” connecting a dirty fossil fuel present with a bright green future. This is a false picture. It will take a very long time before CCS would be able to deliver any significant reductions.
CCS is a technology to keep the fossil fuel industries in business with large public subsidies.
CCS is a technology to keep the fossil fuel industries in business with large public subsidies.
Main findings of the report:
More than 350 billion tonnes CO2 will be emitted from coal plants to the atmosphere despite a fast deployment of CCS in a scenario with CO2-emissions decreasing to 50% by 2050.
Emitting 350 billion tonnes of CO2 will make demand on 90% of the remaining budget for CO2 from all fossil fuels 2010-2050. (Coal represents only 42% of emissions from all fossil fuels).
For more information please contact:
Palle Bendsen, climate spokesperson for NOAH / Friends of the Earth Denmark,
Palle Bendsen, climate spokesperson for NOAH / Friends of the Earth Denmark,
+45 98 14 76 95, palle(at)noah.dk
Kim Ejlertsen, climate spokesperson for NOAH / Friends of the Earth Denmark,
Kim Ejlertsen, climate spokesperson for NOAH / Friends of the Earth Denmark,
+45 57 52 75 92, kim(at)noah.dk
NOAH/Friends of the Earth Denmark’s website exclusively dealing with CCS: http://ccs-info.org (in English)
NOTES:
[1] The report by NOAH/ Friends of the Earth Denmark, “An assessment of cumulative CO2 reductions from carbon capture and storage on coal fuelled plants in a carbon constrained world,” is available at http://ccs-info.org/ Alternative scenario without CCS:
"Europe’s Share of the Climate Challenge: Domestic Actions and International Obligations to Protect the Planet"
A study prepared by Stockholm Environment Institute in partnership with Friends of the Earth Europe showed that emission reductions of at least 40% below 1990 levels within Europe by 2020, and cuts of 90% by 2050, are possible without CCS, nuclear, agrofuels and offsetting.
"Europe’s Share of the Climate Challenge: Domestic Actions and International Obligations to Protect the Planet"
A study prepared by Stockholm Environment Institute in partnership with Friends of the Earth Europe showed that emission reductions of at least 40% below 1990 levels within Europe by 2020, and cuts of 90% by 2050, are possible without CCS, nuclear, agrofuels and offsetting.
Apart from this the downsides of carbon capture and storage technologies are many:
a. CCS will not only mean a prolongation but even entail an increase in the use of coal of 25-40%, which in itself is linked with serious negative social, health and environmental impacts.
b. CCS applied worldwide would according to IEA require infrastructure for transport (pipelines and ships) that is much larger than the present transport infrastructure for all commodities put together.
c. CCS will require much more water per produced kWh, thus competing for a vital resource already in great demand. This especially disqualifies CCS as a technology to be applied at inland facilities with freshwater cooling in countries like China, India, Spain, South Africa and the US.
d. CCS will be extremely expensive. The chain of costs of a coal-fired CCS plant involve: extraction and transport of approximately 40% more coal, construction of the CCS plant, capture of CO2, construction of transport infrastructure, transport of captured CO2, injection and storage of captured CO2, safeguarding storage, monitoring and control of storage facilities. This is why CCS will require large-scale public co-financing. There is no way it could be commercially viable to introduce CCS without this.
e. The environmental, social and health damages due to extraction of coal is most often incurred upon people not benefitting from the energy services that rely on coal as fuel. The same goes for the risks related to possible leakages from underground storage.
f. The long time liability concerning carbon storage is an issue that remains unsolved. According to the EU-directive on CCS, private operators can transfer liability to governments only 20 years after the storage site is sealed and closed.
g. CCS will not work well together with an energy supply system with a large share of renewables. The costs of CCS would mean that the plants will be set to deliver base load at full steam, thus not working well with oscillating renewables like wind and solar.
h. Last but not least, as CCS competes with renewables for R&D resources and capital, CCS will in itself prevent the rapid development of sustainable energy supply systems for an energy efficient future with reduced energy demands.
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
NETL Report - Degradation of Wellbore Cement Due to CO2 Injection
This NETL report may be found on the web -http://www.netl.doe.gov/publications/factsheets/rd/R%26D044.pdf
MORE
Background
The majority of locations that are being considered for carbon dioxide (CO2) injection
and sequestration are typically found in areas that have a history of oil, natural gas,
and/or coalbed methane production. This is due to value-added opportunities such
as enhanced oil recovery (EOR), enhanced gas recovery (EGR), and enhanced coal
bed methane (ECBM) recovery. There also exists a greater knowledge base for saline
formations that lie either above or below oil and gas reservoirs due to well logging
and exploration activities. As a result of human activity, these formations are typically
punctured by a significant number of wells from both exploration and production.
No matter how impermeable an overlying caprock is, the sealing integrity may be
compromised by the presence of wells. Well bores thus represent the most likely route
for leakage of CO2 from geologic carbon sequestration.
Abandoned wells are typically sealed with cement plugs intended to block vertical
migration of fluids. In addition, active wells are usually lined with steel casing,
with cement filling the outer annulus (Note: in oilfield terminology, an annulus is a
ring-shaped hole which extends the length of the well bore) in order to prevent
leakage between the casing and formation rock. The permeability and integrity of
the cement will determine how effective it is in preventing leakage.
After CO2 is injected into a saline formation, it may continue
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
Stop PurGen Coal Plant - NJ
Our friends in NJ would like your support to stop the PurGen Coal Plant there.... please go to their web site to read more about their situation and the earthquakes that have happened in this area in the past.
Once again, if we were moving to alternative energy sources instead of catering to the coal industry CCS would not be an issue. Please support them.
Stop PureGen
NJ Earthquake information http:/stoppurgencoalplant.org/nj-earthquakes-could-shake-purgens-foundation
Once again, if we were moving to alternative energy sources instead of catering to the coal industry CCS would not be an issue. Please support them.
Stop PureGen
NJ Earthquake information http:/stoppurgencoalplant.org/nj-earthquakes-could-shake-purgens-foundation
Figuring out where to put the carbon
Figuring out where to put the carbon:
"Such estimates are complicated because there are several different mechanisms by which the CO2 can spread out from the point where it is released underground, and additional mechanisms that allow it to eventually become trapped. The spreading can occur by natural groundwater flows or by migration upward along a sloping aquifer, and the trapping can be caused by the CO2 dissolving in the water in deep aquifers, or by seeping through capillary action into cracks in the rock.
Juanes said his system accounts for all of the major known mechanisms by which carbon dioxide can get trapped in these underground formations. But for future research, he added, “The key uncertainty is the potential migration of CO2 vertically across geologic layers.” For instance, the pressure of the injected CO2 might produce faults and fractures in the rock, and this could create pathways to the surface and into the atmosphere. Juanes says his team is now working to better understand this potential mechanism."
"Such estimates are complicated because there are several different mechanisms by which the CO2 can spread out from the point where it is released underground, and additional mechanisms that allow it to eventually become trapped. The spreading can occur by natural groundwater flows or by migration upward along a sloping aquifer, and the trapping can be caused by the CO2 dissolving in the water in deep aquifers, or by seeping through capillary action into cracks in the rock.
Juanes said his system accounts for all of the major known mechanisms by which carbon dioxide can get trapped in these underground formations. But for future research, he added, “The key uncertainty is the potential migration of CO2 vertically across geologic layers.” For instance, the pressure of the injected CO2 might produce faults and fractures in the rock, and this could create pathways to the surface and into the atmosphere. Juanes says his team is now working to better understand this potential mechanism."
Carbon Capture Viable for Indiana?
Carbon Capture: Viable for Indiana?:
"The two Indiana University professors that helped organize the summit were John A. Rupp, assistant director for research with the Indiana Geological Survey, and Kenneth Richards, associate professor in the School of Public and Environmental Affairs. The summit's fndings, recommendations and presentations can be downloaded from http://www.in.gov/oed/2573.htm."
"Some of the recommendations from the summit have begun to be implemented: the task force to assess state policy issues has been established, some technical challenges are being addressed by demonstration projects and the state is involved in investigations of several options for transportation of captured CO2. Two regional consortia that include the Indiana Geological Survey -- the Midwest Geological Sequestration Consortium and the Midwest Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership -- are investigating the technical challenges in the region by conducting deep subsurface injection projects in or near Indiana to examine the feasibility of underground CO2 storage."
Read the full article here
"The two Indiana University professors that helped organize the summit were John A. Rupp, assistant director for research with the Indiana Geological Survey, and Kenneth Richards, associate professor in the School of Public and Environmental Affairs. The summit's fndings, recommendations and presentations can be downloaded from http://www.in.gov/oed/2573.htm."
"Some of the recommendations from the summit have begun to be implemented: the task force to assess state policy issues has been established, some technical challenges are being addressed by demonstration projects and the state is involved in investigations of several options for transportation of captured CO2. Two regional consortia that include the Indiana Geological Survey -- the Midwest Geological Sequestration Consortium and the Midwest Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership -- are investigating the technical challenges in the region by conducting deep subsurface injection projects in or near Indiana to examine the feasibility of underground CO2 storage."
Read the full article here
Monday, March 1, 2010
Great Indiana map - Geographic Information Systems
IndianaMap.org is the public source for map data in Indiana. It includes the information people need most in a format that is accessible to both the general public and expert geographic information systems (GIS) users.
The four layers that provide county-based framework data (including address points, street centerlines, land parcels, and governmental boundaries) have been updated. The layers were compiled from data maintained by various county agencies in Indiana, as part of the IndianaMap Data Sharing Initiative between Indiana Geographic Information Council (IGIC), Indiana Office of Technology (IOT), Indiana Geographic Information Office (GIO), Indiana Department of Homeland Security (IDHS), Indiana Geological Survey (IGS) and participating Indiana counties. The layers named "Address Points (IDHS)" and "Street Centerlines (IDHS)" can be found in the following folder: INFRASTRUCTURE > Roads. The layers named "Land Parcels (IDHS)" and "Government Boundaries (IDHS)" can be found in the following folder: DEMOGRAPHICS > Political & Other Boundaries.
This map and information comes from this web site - http://inmap.indiana.edu/index.html
NOTE: All four layers are also NOW AVAILABLE FOR DOWNLOAD in ESRI Shapefile format.
NOTE: These new layers represent the fifth set of data harvested through the ongoing Data Sharing Initiative program by IDHS from local government sources on February 2, 2010. As a preliminary data set, these data have not been completely quality control checked for completeness, accuracy or content and are provided for program demonstration purposes only. These partial data are provided "as-is" and are not to be used for any official or business purpose. Be sure to read the metadata for each layer.
The four layers that provide county-based framework data (including address points, street centerlines, land parcels, and governmental boundaries) have been updated. The layers were compiled from data maintained by various county agencies in Indiana, as part of the IndianaMap Data Sharing Initiative between Indiana Geographic Information Council (IGIC), Indiana Office of Technology (IOT), Indiana Geographic Information Office (GIO), Indiana Department of Homeland Security (IDHS), Indiana Geological Survey (IGS) and participating Indiana counties. The layers named "Address Points (IDHS)" and "Street Centerlines (IDHS)" can be found in the following folder: INFRASTRUCTURE > Roads. The layers named "Land Parcels (IDHS)" and "Government Boundaries (IDHS)" can be found in the following folder: DEMOGRAPHICS > Political & Other Boundaries.
This map and information comes from this web site - http://inmap.indiana.edu/index.html
NOTE: All four layers are also NOW AVAILABLE FOR DOWNLOAD in ESRI Shapefile format.
NOTE: These new layers represent the fifth set of data harvested through the ongoing Data Sharing Initiative program by IDHS from local government sources on February 2, 2010. As a preliminary data set, these data have not been completely quality control checked for completeness, accuracy or content and are provided for program demonstration purposes only. These partial data are provided "as-is" and are not to be used for any official or business purpose. Be sure to read the metadata for each layer.
Indiana Petroleum Database Management System (PDMS)
From the web site http://igs.indiana.edu/pdms/index.cfm
The Petroleum Database Management System (PDMS) is a web application designed to distribute petroleum-related information from the Indiana Geological Survey (IGS). The database contains information on more than 70,000 petroleum-related wells drilled in Indiana. The data include information on well locations, completion zones, logs, operators, lease names, tests, hydrocarbon shows, samples, cores, geologic formations and tops, and much more. The PDMS is built around three modules: 1) the Well Record Tables; 2) the Map Viewer, which together with the Well Record Tables, provide two interfaces for viewing petroleum well information; and 3) the Fields and Production summaries, which summarize oil, gas, and gas storage fields, and historical oil production.
You can check the various boxes to look at different data... very cool... Ohio doesn't have this.
http://igs.indiana.edu/arcims/pdmsims/pdmsFlash_new.cfm
Indiana CCS Summit, Carbon Capture & Storage - Fall 2008
Another link you will want to review is the summit's fndings, recommendations and presentations - all of these can be downloaded from http://www.in.gov/oed/2573.htm
A quote from the report referenced above -
"Some of the recommendations from the summit have begun to be implemented: the task force to assess state policy issues has been established, some technical challenges are being addressed by demonstration projects and the state is involved in investigations of several options for transportation of captured CO2. Two regional consortia that include the Indiana Geological Survey -- the Midwest Geological Sequestration Consortium and the Midwest Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership -- are investigating the technical challenges in the region by conducting deep subsurface injection projects in or near Indiana to examine the feasibility of underground CO2 storage."
Sunday, February 28, 2010
CO2 Capture and Storage Gains a Growing Foothold - Feb 2010
From the web site -
http://globe-net.com/articles/2010/february/22/co2-capture-and-storage-gains-a-growing-foothold.aspx?id=4446
The Mountaineer plant in West Virginia is the first power plant in the world to capture and store underground a portion of its CO2 emissions. The Philip Sporn power plant is visible in the distance.But just beyond Sporn's waste ponds stands the steaming cooling tower of American Electric's Mountaineer Power Plant, which burns 12,000 tons of coal a day to produce steam in a single massive boiler and generate up to 1,300 megawatts of electricity. Roiling white water vapor billows out of its 100-story smokestack, a visible sign of the scrubbers and other technology that remove as much as 98 percent of the plant's sulfur dioxide emissions and 90 percent of its nitrogen oxides.
And to top it off, since October, an oversized chemistry set employs baker's ammonia (ammonium carbonate) to strip more than 90 percent of the CO2 from a small portion of the Mountaineer plant's waste gas and turn it into ammonium bicarbonate. Heat and pressure in another part of the carbon-capture machine turn that back into baker's ammonia, delivering a nearly pure stream of CO2 gas that is compressed into a liquid and pumped into two wells that drop 1.5 miles beneath the earth. There, the captured CO2 is stored permanently between grains of rock..
Mountaineer's chilled ammonia unit collects about 1.5 percent of the plant's flue gas and runs it through a chemical process to capture more than 90 percent of the carbon dioxide.
If Sporn represents the dirty past of coal-fired electricity generation, Mountaineer is the future - the first power plant in the world to both capture and store underground any part of its CO2 emissions.
At this point, Mountaineer stores less than 2 percent of the more than 500,000 metric tons of CO2 pumped out each month by the power plant, which generates enough electricity for 1 million American homes
Read the full article here
Call to Action - Join the Fight Against CO2 Sequestration in Randolph County, Indiana
Join the fight against CO2 Sequestration in Randolph County on Tuesday, March 2nd.
The open forum is at 6:30 p.m. in the Community Room on Columbia Street in Union City, Indiana.
Every voice matters.
The open forum is at 6:30 p.m. in the Community Room on Columbia Street in Union City, Indiana.
Every voice matters.
Potential impacts of CCS to underground sources of drinking water
CO2 sequestration is also known as "CCS" or "GCS" - for geological carbon sequestration.
Risks to our drinking water -The following quotes come the article linked at the end of this posting.
"There are several potential scenarios by which a USDW may be impacted by GCS activities. Potential pathways include upward migration, fractured cap rock, faults, trace contaminants included in the CO2 stream, a microannulus outside the final casing, and the mobilization of metals from native minerals."
"The success of GCS relies on the structural integrity of confining units, for trapping CO2 in underlying permeable formations. Injection of CO2 into the receiving aquifer has the potential to cause deformation, trigger seismicity, reactivate faults, and compromise seals in wells. Each of these processes could increase the risk of leakage jeopardizing containment and the protection of groundwater quality."
"Risk is typically defined as the product of the probability of occurrence of an event and the negative consequence of the event. There are concerns that there is limited likelihood data concerning the consequences of GCS, which might result in either over or underestimation of chances of occurrence. Water purveyors take pride in meeting their mandate to protect the public health by providing safe clean drinking water.Read the full article here
While the probability of a USDW being significantly impacted may be low, the negative consequences of any such incident have the potential to be very high. The proposed rule requires operators of GCS facilities to provide financial assurances adequate for corrective actions, plugging and abandonment of wells, post injection site care and closure, and emergency response for failed injection wells. The question of how to structure liability for long-term risks to USDWs associated with the geologic sequestration of CO2 has not yet been resolved."
Shell CO2 stocking plans under fire in the Netherlands
Our friends in the Netherlands are in the midst of a battle with Shell Oil to stop a CO2 project under their densely populated city - whenever a government and/or company want to do something that impacts the environment, the people living there should have a say.... they oppose it. We hope Shell respects the wishes of the people who live there - Barendrecht is their HOME.
A carbon capture and storage facility that is planned in the Netherlands faces harsh criticism and active protesting.
A plan by oil giant Shell to store 300,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide a year in a depleted gas reservoir beneath the Dutch city of Barendrecht has drawn the ire of residents and local officials who have vowed to thwart it.
"We are going to do everything to oppose this project," declared Barendrecht deputy mayor Simon Zuurbier, who voiced fears for the safety of the city's 50,000 inhabitants.
"We are taking legal action to get it cancelled and we'll approve none of the required permits."
Read the full article here
A carbon capture and storage facility that is planned in the Netherlands faces harsh criticism and active protesting.
A plan by oil giant Shell to store 300,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide a year in a depleted gas reservoir beneath the Dutch city of Barendrecht has drawn the ire of residents and local officials who have vowed to thwart it.
"We are going to do everything to oppose this project," declared Barendrecht deputy mayor Simon Zuurbier, who voiced fears for the safety of the city's 50,000 inhabitants.
"We are taking legal action to get it cancelled and we'll approve none of the required permits."
Read the full article here
Carbon dioxide capture and storage (CCS) in geological formations in INDIA
I've included this article that is specific for INDIA because it does a nice job of explaining the process and has several links at the end.
http://cdm.unfccc.int/about/ccs/docs/CCS_geo.pdf
http://cdm.unfccc.int/about/ccs/docs/CCS_geo.pdf
Diagnostic Monitoring of Biogeochemical Interactions of a Shallow Aquifer in Response to a CO2 Leak
A grant to watch -
http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncer_abstracts/index.cfm/fuseaction/display.abstractDetail/abstract/9053/report/0
EPA Grant Number: R834503Title: Diagnostic Monitoring of Biogeochemical Interactions of a Shallow Aquifer in Response to a CO2 Leak
Institution: Columbia University in the City of New York
Project Period: September 1, 2009 through August 31, 2012
Project Amount: $899,882
RFA: Integrated Design, Modeling, and Monitoring of Geologic Sequestration of Anthropogenic Carbon Dioxide to Safeguard Sources of Drinking Water (2009)
Research Category: Drinking Water
Objective:
CO2 injection into deep geological formations capped by low permeability formations is one of the most promising alternatives for mitigation of anthropogenic climate change. Several deep pilot and demonstration projects are underway. However, the upward leakage of CO2 or mobilized brines through the cap rock could lead to vulnerability of shallow, overlying drinking water aquifers. Elevated levels of dissolved CO2 might affect microbial community dynamics and mobilize natural-radioisotopes, metals, and other non-potable elements and compounds. The proposed research will investigate a shallow potable water aquifer system in sand/clay sequences of the Newark Basin group using laboratory and in situ methods and test how it would respond to a high-level CO2 condition caused by a hypothetical leakage of CO2 from deep injection reservoirs. In particular, we will (1) determine metal release rates as a function of pCO2 and pH under laboratory and field conditions, (2) measure microbial community dynamics as a function of increased acidity and dissolved metal concentrations, (3) determine the role and persistence of microbial communities in the mobilization or immobilization of metallic elements, (4) measure in situ/ex situ mobilization and immobilization of metals under high-level CO2 conditions, (5) determine the extent to which leaked CO2 is geochemically trapped in the aquifer, and (6) develop diagnostic monitoring techniques to advance assessments of groundwater contamination risks and water quality deterioration due to a CO2 leakage event.
Approach:
We will conduct a series of geochemical and microbiological laboratory experiments using rock and water samples extracted from a shallow aquifer. We will also add CO2 (pCO2 up to 5 bars) to local groundwater, re-inject it into the aquifer, and then sample and monitor the elevated-CO2 aquifer water in a series of in situ push-pull and forced-gradient experiments.
Expected Results:
Results from these coupled laboratory and field experiments will greatly improve our understanding of the geochemical and microbiological reactions under low pH - high CO2 stress. We anticipate that this research will: (1) provide criteria for site selection for geological CO2 sequestration, (2) identify aquifers that would be least vulnerable to risks of CO2 leakage and subsequent contamination, and (3) provide a small number of diagnostic testing parameters that may be used in other potable aquifer systems associated with deep CO2 injection.
Supplemental Keywords:
sequestration, pollution prevention, metals, pathogens, groundwater,
More CO2 storage than previously thought for Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan and Ohio
Despite the fact that CCS is extremely expensive, risky, and hard to monitor and is very controversial --- the studies and push for CCS continues. It simpley makes no sense to me.....now we find a report from December 2009 that says we can store about 74% more! NO THANK YOU!
As a reminder - In Ohio, a large portion of the Mt Simon Sandstone sits below one of the largest fresh water aquifers in the world - our most precious resource. States are running out of water...
Much of the proposed CO2 to be used for CCS in the midwest comes from ethanol plants..... in our area we had a great harvest last year with the extra CO2 - if CCS is so "safe" why are there no plans to inject it under the cities that produce the bulk of it?
I do remember reading a study done in Ohio that said it would not happen in Columbus, Ohio because "it was too urban and densely populated".
The quote below is from the article that is linked below...
As a reminder - In Ohio, a large portion of the Mt Simon Sandstone sits below one of the largest fresh water aquifers in the world - our most precious resource. States are running out of water...
Much of the proposed CO2 to be used for CCS in the midwest comes from ethanol plants..... in our area we had a great harvest last year with the extra CO2 - if CCS is so "safe" why are there no plans to inject it under the cities that produce the bulk of it?
I do remember reading a study done in Ohio that said it would not happen in Columbus, Ohio because "it was too urban and densely populated".
The quote below is from the article that is linked below...
The total storage capacity for the region, calculated, using efficiency factors of 0.01 and 0.04, is estimated to be 37.8 and 151.2 billion metric tons of CO2 respectively. This is approximately 74 percent higher than the values of 21.7 and 86.9 billion metric tons of CO2 estimated by the MRCSP for the capacity of the Mount Simon Sandstone in the states of Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, and Ohio.
Read the abstract here...
FROM EOR TO CCS: THE EVOLVING LEGAL AND REGULATORY FRAMEWORK FOR CARBON CAPTURE AND STORAGE
Below is the link to this article.... if you scroll down to page 10 you will find a map with CO2 pipelines as of 2008.
FROM EOR TO CCS: THE EVOLVING LEGAL AND REGULATORY FRAMEWORK FOR CARBON CAPTURE AND STORAGE
FROM EOR TO CCS: THE EVOLVING LEGAL AND REGULATORY FRAMEWORK FOR CARBON CAPTURE AND STORAGE
Friday, February 26, 2010
Scientists Target East Coast Rocks for CO2 Storage
January 4, 2010
Power Plants Might Pipe Emissions Under Seabed
Scientists say buried volcanic rocks along the heavily populated coasts of New York, New Jersey and New England, as well as further south, might be ideal reservoirs to lock away carbon dioxide emitted by power plants and other industrial sources. A study this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences outlines formations on land as well as offshore, where scientists from Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory say the best potential sites may lie.
Underground burial, or sequestration, of globe-warming carbon dioxide is the subject of increasing study across the country. But up till now, research in New York has focused on inland sites where plants might send power-plant emissions into shale, a sedimentary rock that underlies much of the state. Similarly, a proposed coal-fired plant in Linden, N.J. would pump liquefied CO2 offshore into sedimentary sandstone. The idea is controversial because of fears that CO2 might leak. By contrast, the new study targets basalt, an igneous rock, which the scientists say has significant advantages.
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
From our Friends in France - TOTAL CO2 stocking - France - Petition against CCS for European Parliament
TOTAL Cie is planning, for the first time in France, the stocking of 150 000 tonnes of CO2 over the two following years in an inhabited and cultivated city called Jurançon (in the Pyrenees). This pilot project is to be largely industrialized and globalized over the world. This project is sold as "environmental"! But this project is absolutely NOT an environmental one ! And TOTAL will be disengaged from any responsibility in 2013!
Clearly, the capture and stocking of CO2 has three major interests in the eyes of the industrialists :
1. Not being taxed on the emissions of greenhouse gases due to be buried
2. Getting rid of such waste under the guise of environmental projects
3. As a bonus, gain maximum financial benefits from the commercialization of these patents
Alongside these issues, the security of the population, and the richness of local environment, have little value!
A petition is available at http://co2.jurancon.blog.free.fr designed to the European Parliament (Your signature is important because social acceptance is central to the project, and Total has done everything not to communicate on the subject locally) - NOTE - the site it links to is in FRENCH
Let's protect our environment locally and globally, but more importantly, let's do someting against such nonesense projects! Because, once again, this project is anything but "environmental"! (Online explanatory articles).
Clearly, the capture and stocking of CO2 has three major interests in the eyes of the industrialists :
1. Not being taxed on the emissions of greenhouse gases due to be buried
2. Getting rid of such waste under the guise of environmental projects
3. As a bonus, gain maximum financial benefits from the commercialization of these patents
Alongside these issues, the security of the population, and the richness of local environment, have little value!
A petition is available at http://co2.jurancon.blog.free.fr designed to the European Parliament (Your signature is important because social acceptance is central to the project, and Total has done everything not to communicate on the subject locally) - NOTE - the site it links to is in FRENCH
Let's protect our environment locally and globally, but more importantly, let's do someting against such nonesense projects! Because, once again, this project is anything but "environmental"! (Online explanatory articles).
Monday, February 22, 2010
Indiana bill would give CO2 pipeline firms right to take private land
From the web site - http://www.indianaeconomicdigest.net/main.asp?SectionID=31&SubSectionID=227&ArticleID=52240
1/25/2010 7:15:00 PM
Indiana bill would give CO2 pipeline firms right to take private land
By Chris O'Malley, The IBJ
comally@ibj.com
A bill filed in the Indiana General Assembly would give companies building pipelines to carry carbon dioxide the right to take private land in their path.
A consumer group opposing Senate Bill 115 argues the measure is yet another concession to the developer of a coal-to-methane plant proposed in Rockport, as well as to coal-fired electric utilities that may opt to transport CO2 to underground storage sites.
The measure declares that the transportation of CO2 by pipeline "is declared to be a public use and service, in the public interest, and a benefit to the welfare of Indiana," citing its potential to reduce carbon emissions and to promote economic development.
"Granting eminent domain to a private entity is reason enough, we think, to oppose this bill," said Kerwin Olson, program director for Indianapolis-based Citizens Action Coalition.
The group said the measure is to benefit Indiana Gasification, which in 2006 proposed building a $1.5 billion plant in Spencer County to convert high-sulfur coal to gas. Utilities could use the gas for heating and to generate electricity.
MORE
1/25/2010 7:15:00 PM
Indiana bill would give CO2 pipeline firms right to take private land
By Chris O'Malley, The IBJ
comally@ibj.com
A bill filed in the Indiana General Assembly would give companies building pipelines to carry carbon dioxide the right to take private land in their path.
A consumer group opposing Senate Bill 115 argues the measure is yet another concession to the developer of a coal-to-methane plant proposed in Rockport, as well as to coal-fired electric utilities that may opt to transport CO2 to underground storage sites.
The measure declares that the transportation of CO2 by pipeline "is declared to be a public use and service, in the public interest, and a benefit to the welfare of Indiana," citing its potential to reduce carbon emissions and to promote economic development.
"Granting eminent domain to a private entity is reason enough, we think, to oppose this bill," said Kerwin Olson, program director for Indianapolis-based Citizens Action Coalition.
The group said the measure is to benefit Indiana Gasification, which in 2006 proposed building a $1.5 billion plant in Spencer County to convert high-sulfur coal to gas. Utilities could use the gas for heating and to generate electricity.
MORE
Saturday, February 20, 2010
Geologic Carbon Dioxide Sequestration: An Analysis of Subsurface Property Law by Elizabeth J. Wilson and Mark A. de FigueiredoGeologic Carbon Dioxide Sequestration: An Analysis of Subsurface Property Law
Geologic Carbon Dioxide Sequestration: An Analysis of Subsurface Property Law
by Elizabeth J. Wilson and Mark A. de Figueiredo 2006
by Elizabeth J. Wilson and Mark A. de Figueiredo 2006
Thursday, February 18, 2010
Exploratory study of some potential environmental impacts of CO2 sequestration in unmineable coal seams
From the web site - http://inderscience.metapress.com/app/home/contribution.asp?referrer=parent&backto=issue,10,14;journal,28,88;linkingpublicationresults,1:110851,1
| International Journal of Environment and Pollution | ||
| Issue: | Volume 29, Number 4 / 2007 | |
| http://inderscience.metapress.com/link.asp?id=68533067269455g4 | ||
An initial investigation into the potential environmental impacts of CO2 sequestration in unmineable coal seams has been conducted, focusing on changes in the produced water during enhanced coalbed methane (ECBM) production, using a CO2 injection process (CO2-ECBM). A high volatile bituminous coal, Pittsburgh No. 8, was reacted with synthetic produced water and gaseous carbon dioxide at 40C and 50 bar to evaluate the potential for mobilisation of toxic metals during CO2-ECBM/sequestration. Microscopic and X-ray diffraction analysis of the post-reaction coal samples clearly show evidence of chemical reaction and chemical analysis of the synthetic produced water shows substantial changes in composition. These results suggest that changes to the produced water chemistry and the potential for mobilising toxic trace elements from coal beds are important factors to be considered when evaluating deep, unmineable coal seams for CO2 sequestration.
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Bad Utility Legislation in the 2010 Indiana General Assembly:
From our friend in Indiana -
www.citact.org
Bad Utility Legislation in the 2010 Indiana General Assembly:
The Taxpayer Wallet and the Ratepayer Wallet are Still the Same Wallet!
http://www.citact.org/pdfs/fact_sheets/01-10/01-11-2010_2010_Leg_Session_Bad%20Bills.pdf
Current Bad Bills
HB 1081: Various Utility Matters
Authors: Dale Grubb, Eric Koch
Status: In the House Commerce, Energy, Technology and
Utilities Committee
Summary: CAC opposes this bill. Indiana utilities know they are going to have to move toward renewables and energy efficiency, so they want to define the term “renewable” to suit their needs. This bill defines coal as renewable, and would also force us to pay for all electric transmission lines and gas pipelines needed for biofuels facilities to go online in Indiana. Ratepayers pay for electrical service, not to subsidize industries that have nothing to do with the delivery of electricity to our homes. This bill is also loaded with trackers, which allow the utilities to raise our rates when their costs go up without having to lower our rates when their costs go down.
SB 69: Low-carbon and non-carbon dioxide emitting plants
Authors: Phil Boots
Status: In the Senate Utilities and Technology Committee
Summary: CAC opposes this bill. Non-carbon or low-carbon is industry code for nuclear power as well as the pipe dream known as Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS). This bill would expand Indiana's definition of Construction Work in Progress (CWIP) to include nuclear power plants and CCS. This means that we would be forced to pay for the construction of excessively expensive power plants before they produce any electricity, or even if they never produce any electricity. This bill assumes that we have nothing better to do with our money than to finance utility CCS experiments or provide interest-free loans so that utility companies can build unneccessary and enormously expensive power plants (the starting cost of a new nuclear power plant is $10 billion). This bill also allows the utilities to pad their pockets with more trackers.
The Great Indiana Carbon Pipeline
SB 115: Eminent domain for carbon dioxide pipeline
Authors: Beverly Gard
Status: In the Senate Corrections, Criminal and Civil Matters Committee
SB 211: Carbon dioxide storage and transportation
Authors: Beverly Gard
Status: In the Senate Energy and Environmental Affairs Committee
Summary: CAC opposes these bills. The utilities know that they are going to begin being held accountable for their carbon dioxide emissions, and they want to make sure that they can pass all of the costs and liability onto us. They are working to set the stage to begin Carbon Capture and Sequestration. The idea is to shoot the carbon dioxide deep into the ground, under our homes, businesses, and farms, and hope that it stays there. They have no idea how this will impact our health or our environment, so SB 211 proclaims that carbon dioxide is safe, forces us to pay for the transportation and “storage” of it, and forces us to be liable in the event of a catastrophe. It also removes regulatory authority from the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission. SB 115 allows them to claim eminent domain and take our property if it is in the
way of building a pipeline to get the carbon to the place where they want to “store” it. They are also using the "divide and conquer" strategy, by placing SB 115 in the Corrections, Criminal, and Civil Matters Committee, and SB 211 in the Energy and Environmental Affairs Committee. It was the Senate Utilities and Technology Committee that discussed and vetted this issue this summer during the Regulatory Flexibility Committee hearings, but the utilities know that they have a better chance of sneaking these bills through if they present it to legislators that have never dealt with this complicated and controversial issue.
Take Action!
Write, call, or e-mail your legislators, as well as the Chairs of the House and Senate Utility Committees!
• Tell the Senators to vote no on SB 69, SB 115, and SB 211!
• Tell the Representatives to vote no on HB 1081!
• Make sure to remind them that the taxpayer wallet and the ratepayer wallet are the same wallet and that if they don’t want to raise taxes, they should not consider legislation that will raise utility rates for unnecessary investments on behalf of utility profits!
• Let them know that coal and nuclear are NOT renewable energy!
• Tell them that the best investments for energy in Indiana are in energy efficiency,
wind, solar, and geothermal.
These are the technologies that will create jobs, and benefit the health, environment, and pocketbooks of ALL Hoosiers!
To look up and/or e-mail your legislators, visit:
http://www.in.gov/apps/sos/legislator/search/
www.citact.org
Bad Utility Legislation in the 2010 Indiana General Assembly:
The Taxpayer Wallet and the Ratepayer Wallet are Still the Same Wallet!
http://www.citact.org/pdfs/fact_sheets/01-10/01-11-2010_2010_Leg_Session_Bad%20Bills.pdf
Current Bad Bills
HB 1081: Various Utility Matters
Authors: Dale Grubb, Eric Koch
Status: In the House Commerce, Energy, Technology and
Utilities Committee
Summary: CAC opposes this bill. Indiana utilities know they are going to have to move toward renewables and energy efficiency, so they want to define the term “renewable” to suit their needs. This bill defines coal as renewable, and would also force us to pay for all electric transmission lines and gas pipelines needed for biofuels facilities to go online in Indiana. Ratepayers pay for electrical service, not to subsidize industries that have nothing to do with the delivery of electricity to our homes. This bill is also loaded with trackers, which allow the utilities to raise our rates when their costs go up without having to lower our rates when their costs go down.
SB 69: Low-carbon and non-carbon dioxide emitting plants
Authors: Phil Boots
Status: In the Senate Utilities and Technology Committee
Summary: CAC opposes this bill. Non-carbon or low-carbon is industry code for nuclear power as well as the pipe dream known as Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS). This bill would expand Indiana's definition of Construction Work in Progress (CWIP) to include nuclear power plants and CCS. This means that we would be forced to pay for the construction of excessively expensive power plants before they produce any electricity, or even if they never produce any electricity. This bill assumes that we have nothing better to do with our money than to finance utility CCS experiments or provide interest-free loans so that utility companies can build unneccessary and enormously expensive power plants (the starting cost of a new nuclear power plant is $10 billion). This bill also allows the utilities to pad their pockets with more trackers.
The Great Indiana Carbon Pipeline
SB 115: Eminent domain for carbon dioxide pipeline
Authors: Beverly Gard
Status: In the Senate Corrections, Criminal and Civil Matters Committee
SB 211: Carbon dioxide storage and transportation
Authors: Beverly Gard
Status: In the Senate Energy and Environmental Affairs Committee
Summary: CAC opposes these bills. The utilities know that they are going to begin being held accountable for their carbon dioxide emissions, and they want to make sure that they can pass all of the costs and liability onto us. They are working to set the stage to begin Carbon Capture and Sequestration. The idea is to shoot the carbon dioxide deep into the ground, under our homes, businesses, and farms, and hope that it stays there. They have no idea how this will impact our health or our environment, so SB 211 proclaims that carbon dioxide is safe, forces us to pay for the transportation and “storage” of it, and forces us to be liable in the event of a catastrophe. It also removes regulatory authority from the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission. SB 115 allows them to claim eminent domain and take our property if it is in the
way of building a pipeline to get the carbon to the place where they want to “store” it. They are also using the "divide and conquer" strategy, by placing SB 115 in the Corrections, Criminal, and Civil Matters Committee, and SB 211 in the Energy and Environmental Affairs Committee. It was the Senate Utilities and Technology Committee that discussed and vetted this issue this summer during the Regulatory Flexibility Committee hearings, but the utilities know that they have a better chance of sneaking these bills through if they present it to legislators that have never dealt with this complicated and controversial issue.
Take Action!
Write, call, or e-mail your legislators, as well as the Chairs of the House and Senate Utility Committees!
• Tell the Senators to vote no on SB 69, SB 115, and SB 211!
• Tell the Representatives to vote no on HB 1081!
• Make sure to remind them that the taxpayer wallet and the ratepayer wallet are the same wallet and that if they don’t want to raise taxes, they should not consider legislation that will raise utility rates for unnecessary investments on behalf of utility profits!
• Let them know that coal and nuclear are NOT renewable energy!
• Tell them that the best investments for energy in Indiana are in energy efficiency,
wind, solar, and geothermal.
These are the technologies that will create jobs, and benefit the health, environment, and pocketbooks of ALL Hoosiers!
To look up and/or e-mail your legislators, visit:
http://www.in.gov/apps/sos/legislator/search/
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Indiana Take Action Today!!! Eminent Domain Bill
http://www.ibj.com/bill-would-give-co2-pipeline-firms-right-to-take-private-land/PARAMS/article/15967
Bill would give CO2 pipeline firms right to take private land
January 25, 2010
A consumer group opposing Senate Bill 115 argues the measure is yet another concession to the developer of a coal-to-methane plant proposed in Rockport, as well as to coal-fired electric utilities that may opt to transport CO2 to underground storage sites.
The measure declares that the transportation of CO2 by pipeline “is declared to be a public use and service, in the public interest, and a benefit to the
welfare of Indiana,” citing its potential to reduce carbon emissions and to promote economic development.
“Granting eminent domain to a private entity is reason enough, we think, to oppose this bill,” said Kerwin Olson, program director for Indianapolis-based Citizens Action Coalition.
The group said the measure is to benefit Indiana Gasification, which in 2006 proposed building a $1.5 billion plant in Spencer County to convert high-sulfur coal to gas. Utilities could use the gas for heating and to generate electricity.
Indiana Gasification, which planned to sell gas to Merrillville-based NIPSCO and Evansville-based Vectren, shelved plans in late-2008 after failing to reach long-term gas supply contracts with utilities, which feared such contracts could impair their long-term credit.
But last March, Gov. Mitch Daniels signed into a law a bill that would allow the Indiana Finance Authority to act as contracting agent between the gasification plant developer and the utilities buying its gas. Daniels has been a supporter of so-called clean-coal technology as an economic development tool and to protect the state’s coal and electric utility industries in the face of punitive carbon-mission regulations contemplated by Congress.
Olson said this marks the fourth year Indiana Gasification has sought various incentives from the state. The principal player in the venture, New York-based Leucadia National Corp., has sought more than $3.6 billion in federal loan guarantees from the Department of Energy for potential gasification plants.
“You’ve got a multi-billion dollar, multi-national corporation that is mandating their agenda through legislation because the business model just doesn’t support it,” Olson said of the proposed plant.
The measure could potentially grant eminent domain powers to numerous firms that plan to ship carbon dioxide trough pipelines.
Duke Energy is studying whether to inject underground the carbon dioxide to be produced at its $2.35 billion Edwardsport electric-generating plant, now under construction. Duke is looking at potential underground storage sites within 50 miles of the plant, but also has looked at piping CO2 to oil wells in southern Illinois as a way to enhance oil extraction.
In addition, Indiana is among Midwest states where Texas-based Denbury Resources is looking to run a 500-mile CO2 pipeline. It could receive carbon from power plants in the state and move it to oil fields in the Gulf of Mexico.
The sponsor of Senate Bill 115, Beverly Gard, R-Greenfield, could not be reached for comment.
Meanwhile, another measure co-sponsored by Gard is drawing fire from CAC. SB 211 would exclude the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission from ratemaking jurisdiction over private firms that operate carbon-storage facilities or pipelines. Public utilities that hired the private firms could file ask the commission for permission to recover costs from ratepayers.
Moreover, SB 211 declares that carbon dioxide “is not considered a pollutant, a nuisance, a hazardous waste or a deleterious substance.”
CAC argues that the release of CO2 from deep-underground storage sites or from pipelines poses unknown health and environmental risks.
Bill would give CO2 pipeline firms right to take private land
January 25, 2010
A consumer group opposing Senate Bill 115 argues the measure is yet another concession to the developer of a coal-to-methane plant proposed in Rockport, as well as to coal-fired electric utilities that may opt to transport CO2 to underground storage sites.
The measure declares that the transportation of CO2 by pipeline “is declared to be a public use and service, in the public interest, and a benefit to the
welfare of Indiana,” citing its potential to reduce carbon emissions and to promote economic development.
“Granting eminent domain to a private entity is reason enough, we think, to oppose this bill,” said Kerwin Olson, program director for Indianapolis-based Citizens Action Coalition.
The group said the measure is to benefit Indiana Gasification, which in 2006 proposed building a $1.5 billion plant in Spencer County to convert high-sulfur coal to gas. Utilities could use the gas for heating and to generate electricity.
Indiana Gasification, which planned to sell gas to Merrillville-based NIPSCO and Evansville-based Vectren, shelved plans in late-2008 after failing to reach long-term gas supply contracts with utilities, which feared such contracts could impair their long-term credit.
But last March, Gov. Mitch Daniels signed into a law a bill that would allow the Indiana Finance Authority to act as contracting agent between the gasification plant developer and the utilities buying its gas. Daniels has been a supporter of so-called clean-coal technology as an economic development tool and to protect the state’s coal and electric utility industries in the face of punitive carbon-mission regulations contemplated by Congress.
Olson said this marks the fourth year Indiana Gasification has sought various incentives from the state. The principal player in the venture, New York-based Leucadia National Corp., has sought more than $3.6 billion in federal loan guarantees from the Department of Energy for potential gasification plants.
“You’ve got a multi-billion dollar, multi-national corporation that is mandating their agenda through legislation because the business model just doesn’t support it,” Olson said of the proposed plant.
The measure could potentially grant eminent domain powers to numerous firms that plan to ship carbon dioxide trough pipelines.
Duke Energy is studying whether to inject underground the carbon dioxide to be produced at its $2.35 billion Edwardsport electric-generating plant, now under construction. Duke is looking at potential underground storage sites within 50 miles of the plant, but also has looked at piping CO2 to oil wells in southern Illinois as a way to enhance oil extraction.
In addition, Indiana is among Midwest states where Texas-based Denbury Resources is looking to run a 500-mile CO2 pipeline. It could receive carbon from power plants in the state and move it to oil fields in the Gulf of Mexico.
The sponsor of Senate Bill 115, Beverly Gard, R-Greenfield, could not be reached for comment.
Meanwhile, another measure co-sponsored by Gard is drawing fire from CAC. SB 211 would exclude the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission from ratemaking jurisdiction over private firms that operate carbon-storage facilities or pipelines. Public utilities that hired the private firms could file ask the commission for permission to recover costs from ratepayers.
Moreover, SB 211 declares that carbon dioxide “is not considered a pollutant, a nuisance, a hazardous waste or a deleterious substance.”
CAC argues that the release of CO2 from deep-underground storage sites or from pipelines poses unknown health and environmental risks.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
