Health, Safety and Environmental Risks of Underground CO2 Sequestration

CO2 Sequestration poses many risks - this UNPROVEN technology is still experimental and the public has every right to be concerned and opposed to being part of such a risky experiment which includes such risks as man-made earthquakes, contamination of freshwater aquifer, asphyxiation.....and it goes on and on.


Currently, large-scale "demonstration" projects are being implemented in communities with the opportunity to no vote - educate yourself and your community on the risks and lack of rewards... take a stand! Fight back to protect your community!

I believe it was the Dutch who said, "After you put it under Manhattan you can put it here"

In the U.S. these projects are financed largely with taxpayer money - money that could have been spent on renewable energy.

This essay addresses health, Safety, and environmental risks that need further research.
tp://manhaz.cyf.gov.pl/manhaz/links/COAL_BASED_NEW_TECHNOLOGIES/e2003-30.pdf

Risk of Arsenic getting into groundwater

The link to the article from which this information was taken is here



POTENTIAL RISKS
Since supercritical CO2 is buoyant at the relevant crustal pressures and temperatures, it will seek the Earth’s surface in most settings. A large CO2 accumulation would exert forces on the reservoir, cap rock, faults, and wells. CO2 must also be injected at pressures above reservoir pressures, creating a pressure transient during and after injection. In addition, dissolved CO2 forms carbonic acid, which can alter rock and well-bore properties and composition. Therefore, despite confidence in the storage mechanisms discussed above, the possibility of leakage from storage sites remains.

These risks were recently highlighted by geochemical analysis and laboratory experiments carried out at a pilot injection in South Liberty, Texas (Hovorka et al. 2006). Kharaka et al. (2006) observed rapid dissolution of some minerals, chiefly carbonate, oxide, and hydroxide minerals. Although this population represented a small fraction of the rock volume (<2%),>.

These studies suggest that while Kharaka et al. (2006) may have discovered a new element of risk, that element does not appear to represent a major concern to CO2 storage. The geomechanical response to CO2 injection may still cause concerns. In a parallel set of studies, Johnson et al. (2005) simulated large pressure excursions from CO2 injection. They concluded that under certain conditions, such excursions lead to fracture dilation, with some seepage of CO2 into overlying units. In the case of most cap rocks, which have both fractures and reactive minerals (e.g. chlorite), this creates a competing rates problem between dilation of fracture and precipitation of reactive minerals in fracture voids. In this system, fracture closure or dilation is sensitive to CO2 diffusion distance and reaction rate. In addition, the pressure transient from injection could lead to fault-slip-induced fluid migration (e.g. Wiprut and Zoback 2002). While it is generally possible to predict the conditions under which this might occur (e.g. Chiaramonte et al. 2006), effective storage will require proper system calibration and injection management.


As mentioned previously, achievement of substantial CO2 emissions reductions through GCS will require hundreds to thousands of large-volume injection facilities distributed around the world. Each existing large project and some small projects (e.g. the Frio Brine Pilot; Hovorka et al. 2006) have provided some demonstration of effectiveness, monitoring technologies, and operational economics. Importantly, each existing large project also has revealed an important aspect of the geology that was not previously known or in some cases incorrectly characterized. For example, at Sleipner, the importance of small flow heterogeneities was not anticipated but was clearly seen (Arts et al. 2004). At Weyburn, CO2 migrated in unexpected ways along secondary fractures (Wilson and Monea 2004). Such features would not have been revealed through a small-scale (<100,000 style="font-weight: bold;">CO2 Dissolution and Precipitation Kinetics
The rate at which CO2 dissolves in brines of varying composition, temperature, pressure, and mixing degree greatly affects the long-term trapping mechanisms (i.e. the formation of carbonic acid, bicarbonate, and new minerals). These issues in turn affect other important concerns, such as the configuration and infrastructure of storage reservoir engineering (e.g. Keith et al. 2005) or the long-term fate of CO2 (Ennis-King and Paterson 2003). Although there has been some work on the controls of dissolution rate (e.g. interfacial effects; Yang et al. 2005) more could be done.
Similarly, knowledge of CO2-brine-mineral dissolution and precipitation kinetics is limited. Recent years have seen many experimental studies on individual minerals or classes of minerals (e.g. Carroll and Knauss 2005 and references therein). Still, much remains to be learned about rock systems, including true multiphase chemistry, mineral–CO2 equations of state, and minerals that may represent only a small volume of the rock but have rapid dissolution kinetics
(e.g. metal oxides or hydroxides).

As a subtopic, most GCS work on mineral reaction kinetics has focused on pure CO2–rock–brine systems. Very little work has been done on gas streams with small concentrations of other gases, in particular SOx, NOx, and H2S. These co-contaminant gases have the potential to dramatically alter the chemical response of a gas–brine–rock system, even if very small amounts of these gases are present (Knauss et al. 2005). Because the capture and separation of trace gases with CO2 may save capital and operating expenses, investigation of reactions in such systems may prove useful in the near future to determine if mixed-gas systems present additional concerns or risks.
Groundwater

The majority of sequestered CO2 will be stored in saline formations at depth. CO2 stored in these formations should have little or no effect on groundwater. However, if CO2 were to reach the surface along some fast pathway, then CO2 might enter fresh groundwater systems. It is highly unlikely that the rate or volume of CO2 would present a problem. However, the results of Kharaka et al. (2006) have raised the possibility that rapid local reactions could release unwanted elements and compounds into groundwater. Again, for most reservoirs this may have no effect. However, some reservoirs have elevated levels of natural arsenic. In such a system, even a small release of CO2 might result in an increase in local arsenic concentrations that could bring a municipal water supply out of compliance with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency regulations. Similarly, widespread deployment of GCS could potentially displace enough water to create saline groundwater intrusions in contiguous formations.

Wells
Wells almost certainly present the greatest risk to leakage because they are drilled to bring large volumes of fluid quickly to the Earth’s surface. In addition, they remove the aspects of the rock volume that prevent buoyant migration. Well casings and cements are susceptible to corrosion from carbonic acid. When wells are adequately plugged and completed, they are likely to trap CO2 at depth effectively. However, large numbers of orphaned or abandoned wells may not be adequately plugged, completed, or cemented (Ide et al. 2006), and such wells represent potential leak points for CO2. One analog site is particularly well suited for study. Crystal Geyser, Utah (Shipton et al. 2005), is a well that penetrated a natural CO2 accumulation in 1936, was poorly completed, and has erupted CO2 ever since (FIG. 3). Eruptions are episodic and vary in size. Measurements of individual and sequential eruptions suggest that large events bring tens of tonnes of CO2 to the surface, with an average daily flux of 40–50 tonnes (Gouveia et al. 2005). During the eruptions, atmospheric concentrations of CO2 were not recorded at or above dangerous levels. While this style of eruption does not appear to present a substantial risk (Bogen et al. 2006), more study is needed to understand how representative of well leakage this site may be.

Little is known about the probability of escape from a given well, the likelihood of such a well existing within a potential site, or the risk such a well presents in terms of potential leakage volume or consequence. Current approaches involve statistical characterization of many wells and semiquantitative analysis (Celia et al. 2006), or modeling and simulation of features and processes in well-bore environments (Gerard et al. 2006). Work in understanding the key features of wells (e.g. fracture geometry and character), the chemical response of well components to CO2 systems, and the evolution of natural and engineered interfaces could provide both better estimates of well-bore integrity risk and potential mitigation and remediation strategies (IPCC 2005).

Carbon Dioxide Capture and Sequestration - Hype or Hope?

This is a video of a talk given by Stanford University professor, Sally Benson -

Universities are partners in many of the CO2 sequestration projects....... (follow the dollar) you know that story.

Is Public Acceptance REALLY part of the plan?

She is for CO2 sequestration.......... but she talks about the dangers of CO2 sequestration (worker safety, brine migration into drinking water aquifer, ecosystem, public safety - well blow out, pipeline leak, structural damage (earthquakes, etc). About 1 hour and 2 minutes into this talk, she addresses the need for public acceptance and says, "We're not going to do this if people don't want it, either philosophically or if they don't want it in their backyard."

I can't imagine ANYONE wanting a CCS project, especially a large-scale project, in their community. I certainly DO NOT WANT IT IN MINE...nor do I want it in YOURS.

Speak up, write your elected officials, talk to your friends and neighbors, write letters to the editor. Speak up for those who can't or won't - children and the elderly.

From the web site - http://www.counterpunch.org/blair01232007.html

January 23, 2007

King Coal's Latest Con Job

Clean Coal is Not Clean

By JOHN BLAIR

Proponents of Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) technology like that Duke and Vectren desire to use at Edwardsport, Indiana, loudly proclaim that IGCC is the answer to global warming since the technology makes its easier to capture carbon dioxide. Once captured, their pitch is that it can be "sequestered" for thousands of years in deep geological formations. Out of sight, out of mind.

In December 2006, the US Department of Energy finally admitted in a supplement to an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for an IGCC plant in Pennsylvania that, "DOE has considered the potential to reduce project CO2 emissions using geologic sequestration. This is not a reasonable option because sequestration technology is not sufficiently mature to be implemented at production scale during the demonstration period for the proposed facilities."

This admission is consistent with most recent research done by government and private sources as it relates to sequestration. In fact, most recent research tells a story that makes the whole idea of sequestration questionable, at best, and perhaps even dangerous for those who may live near the areas where CO2 is dumped underground.

Three areas of concern have emerged in recent studies.

1. CO2 injected near earthquake faults like the region of SW Indiana which is in the New Madrid fault zone, may actually increase the potential for earthquakes due to CO2's ability to lubricate geologic plates, making it easier for them to move when subjected to pressure from beneath the earth's surface.

2. Injection of CO2 can ultimately damage groundwater used for drinking by a chemical conversion when the CO2 is injected causing an increase in acidity which leaches dangerous chemicals like metals out of the formation. Those contaminants often find their way to groundwater. Such a chemical conversion could render entire aquifers unusable as drinking water which people depend upon.

3. Huge financial and energy investment in sequestration. Most of the debate about IGCC has evolved around whether it is possible to convert coal to a synthesis gas in a manner that can be used to generate electricity more cleanly than conventional technology called pulverized coal. The real reason utilities are seeking to build these plants is to capture enormous federal and state taxpayer funded subsidies. For instance, Duke and Vectren were recently awarded more than $133 million in federal tax credits to build their costly and dirty plant.

This wrongly labeled "clean coal" has proven to be somewhat cleaner from an air pollution standpoint than pulverized coal but missing from the debate has been a real assessment of what to do with the captured chemicals that are by-products of the process, what the cost of actually building and operating these facilities will be on a commercial scale, how much of the energy produced will be required to run the sophisticated chemical processes required thus reducing the overall efficiency of the plants and what is the actual cost of capturing the CO2 and permanently storing it in some underground geological formation.

As it currently stands, not a single one of these IGCC proposals addresses any of these issues in any great detail. Not only that, but most IGCC proposals are not even promising carbon capture, let alone sequestration.

Add to that the fact that the costs of building proposed IGCC plants has completely gone through the roof. In Minnesota, government documents have recently revealed the cost of Excelsior's Mesaba IGCC has gone to at least $2.155 billion for a 603 MW facility. That's a whopping $3.5 million per megawatt, higher than projected cost for nuclear plants these days. It is also true in Indiana where Duke Energy president, Jim Rogers told the media a couple of months ago that the cost of their Edwardsport IGCC plant had increased in cost to build from $1.3 billion in early 2006 to what is now in excess of "$2 billion" for 630 megawatts. That is a per MW cost of $3.17 million and rising. Neither of these facilities have projected the cost to capture and sequester carbon which most estimates suggest will be at least another 50% in construction costs and a big unknown as to what it will cost to actually capture and store the CO2 in operational costs.

Using the conservative 50% figure, the cost of the Edwardsport plant to construct could rise to $4.75 billion or more than $7.5 million/MW. Contrast that with the ill fated Marble Hill Nuclear plant which was forced to stop construction in 1984 due to its rising costs. PSI (now Duke) said originally in 1973 that Marble Hill would cost $700 million for 2,260 MW ($309,000/MW). When it finally went through hearings in 1977, the cost had doubled to $1.4 billion ($619,000/MW). When the state of Indiana forced PSI to stop construction by telling them they would not guarantee that they would allow the plant to be placed into PSI's rate base, the construction costs had risen to $10 billion ($ 4.4 million/MW).

The comparison with IGCC technology and nukes is valid. Both were risky ventures that required significant government support to be economically feasible at all. Both stood to make their sponsors extremely high profits since they are guaranteed a profit based on their level of investment. (With Marble Hill the allowed rate of return was about 8%, now Duke and Vectren seek a 12% rate of return.)

When the cost of building coal plants rises to a certain level, ALL alternatives should be on the table. Ecological destruction when mined, multiple health problems when burned and contaminating our drinking water when the waste is dumped into aquifers and streams are abundant reasons why alternatives to coal should be pursued.

Who can list a single "Coal community" as prosperous? Indeed, it is the opposite. Coal is the bane of those forced to live near coal, not our economic salvation.

John Blair is president of the environment health advocacy group, Valley Watch and earned a Pulitzer Prize for news Photography in 1978. He can be reached at: Ecoserve1@aol.com

Have An Experimental CO2 Sequestration in YOUR Area?

Opposed to CO2 Sequestration ( PERMANENT DEPOSITING OF CO2 UNDERGROUND)?

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!

Email -

StopExperimentalCO2Projects@yahoo.com

Missouri utilities seek cap on liability from carbon sequestration

From an article by Chad Livengood • clivengood@news-leader.com • March 25, 2009

Jefferson 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.

Carbon sequestration is the process of capturing carbon dioxide emissions from smoke stacks and injecting the harmful greenhouse gas into geological formations.

City Utilities of Springfield is currently leading a $3 million pilot project to test the viability of the emerging technology at its 1,000-acre power plan on the city's southwest side. "


"CU officials and lobbyists for municipal and investor-owned power companies testified Tuesday before a House committee in favor of a bill limiting liabilities for potential accidents resulting from this technology to $2 million per site and $300,000 per individual."

It goes on to say -

"Supporters of the legislation say there is no harm in the process of drilling down 2,000 and pumping carbon dioxide emissions into Missouri's sandstone deposits.

But critics of the legislation questioned why the utility companies need legal liability protection if there's no danger involved.

“If there's no risk, there's no harm. If there's no harm, then there's no liability. If there's no liability, then there's no need for a waiver of liability,” said David Klarich, a lobbyist for the Missouri Association of Trial Attorneys."