Adaptive Management for Carbon Capture and Sequestration

The quotes below come from this web site -
http://www.netl.doe.gov/publications/proceedings/07/carbon-seq/data/papers/ElizabethWilson.pdf


"Long term care… all agree public assumption of liability is necessary in the long term
When? (1 year to 30)
Based upon what? (performance, time limit, $$$)"

"Public Assumption of Responsibility (and public perception risk…)
Concern: Requiring public assumption of liability too early may undermine
public confidence"

"General sentiment: “if it is as safe as you say, why do you want the government to take responsibility?”

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

Legislature Enters the Fray on Carbon Cleanup

The full-article is here

It's an interesting read............ includes things like -

How to protect government from liability

Legal dangers for the state in permitting CO2 sequestration projects

If the state approves a CO2 sequestration project and it leaks into the neighboring property - that property owner could bring a large-scale suit against the state and business owner......

Building legal framework to protect THE STATE

CO2 sequestration - more study is needed

“We have to consider how this would affect surface owners,” Webster said. “In other words, if they own the land, the mineral rights are asserted for someone else that they have no legal right to. Do we inadvertently impose liability on them?”

“When I talk about landowners, I think industry shares those same concerns,” Webster said. She said no one wants unfunded liabilities 30 years down the road.

“It is the unknown that is causing people to pause,” she said.

Discussion about some industries want more assurances about liabilities - suggestions include the state taking on liability or creating a superfund"

"Issues surrounding CO2 storage are similar to the debate over nuclear waste storage"

The need for a bill to clarify the ownership of pore space under land and water.

The conversation on CO2 sequestration will only grow, Webster said. “It’s bigger than West Virginia. There are national people who can’t answer these questions,” she said.

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."

EPA Issues Proposed Rule Governing CO2 Sequestration

Taken from the article found here

July 30, 2008

On July 25, EPA published in the Federal Register its proposed rule to regulate the underground injection of carbon dioxide (CO2) for long-term storage, a process known as geologic sequestration. ...........EPA issued the rule under the Underground Injection Control (UIC) program. This program is implemented by EPA and the states under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) to regulate the injection of fluids into the subsurface so that these activities do not endanger current or future underground sources of drinking water. The public comment period ends on November 24, 2008.

While CO2 has been injected into the subsurface for purposes of enhanced oil and gas recovery for some time under “Class II” UIC permits, carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology has not been demonstrated at the commercial scale within the US. EPA issued guidance last year to provide that EPA regions, states, territories and tribes should, in the near-term, issue permits for pilot, non-commercial scale sequestration projects under its existing UIC permit classification for experimental technologies (Class V). (See “Class V Experimental Technology Well Guidance for Pilot Geologic Sequestration Projects,” EPA, March, 2007). EPA indicated that a Class V permit would be inappropriate for commercial-scale projects.

In contrast, the proposed rule is intended for commercial-scale sequestration projects. Although CCS technology has not been demonstrated at the commercial scale within the U.S., EPA decided to propose a separate UIC well classification for commercial-scale projects (Class VI), in part to reduce regulatory uncertainty that might hinder development of and investment in such projects."

(Who are they protecting? Us or BIG BUSINESS?)

"Importantly, in proposing the rule, EPA made clear that it does not have authority under the SDWA to do either of the following:

• Establish or provide mechanisms for addressing the liability of a UIC well operator for damages to public health (e.g., people), natural resources (e.g., air and ecosystems), or private property.
• Provide for the transfer of liability from one entity to another."

EPA made clear that sequestration projects could also trigger additional requirements under federal statutory regimes governing hazardous waste and releases of hazardous substances, finding that:

• If hazardous constituents are present in the injected CO2 stream due to the combustion source’s fuel source, additives, and other factors, the CO2 stream may constitute a federal RCRA “hazardous waste.” This would cause the injection to be subject to more stringent “Class I” UIC requirements.
• If hazardous substances are present in or created by the injected CO2 stream, its sequestration could also trigger potential liability under the federal Superfund law. While injection of hazardous substances in compliance with a UIC permit is deemed a “federally permitted release” exempt from liability under Superfund, EPA made clear that “Class VI requirements and permits will need to be carefully structured to ensure that they do not ‘authorize’ inappropriate hazardous releases.” 73 Fed. Reg. at 43504. Thus any release of subsurface migration which is not authorized by the permit could trigger liability under Superfund for response costs and/or natural resource damages (e.g., damages to an underground aquifer). Further, EPA raised the prospect of Superfund liability for the reaction of injected CO2 with the environmental media into which it is injected.

EPA has proposed a 50-year default period for post-injection site care during which monitoring and related activities would be required. The EPA Administrator or the director of the approved state program could either lengthen or shorten this period, depending on whether monitoring indicates that the CO2 plume movement and pressure front have ceased, and the Administrator or Director can determine that the injected CO2 does not pose a risk to underground sources of drinking water (with EPA noting that the period “could be extended for 100 years (or longer)”).

Click here for EPA’s proposed rule.