Tuesday, December 15, 2009

Please help the Netherlands STOP CO2 under Barendrecht

Dutch "green" minister favors Shell at the expense of Barendrecht guinea pigs.

BEWARE - "Black" project will be sold as "green" in Copenhagen.

The Dutch Minister of Environmental Affairs and former Shell Director, Jacqueline Cramer, has not forgotten her friends at Shell. She offers Shell a subsidy of 30 million Euro for a very profitable Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) project with storage under the town of Barendrecht (50.000 inhabitants). The Dutch government has recently chosen for an old-fashioned Coal future, building four new Coal-fired power stations. In order to reduce the negative effects the Dutch government promotes a CCS policy by storing CO2 throughout The Netherlands. Because of this policy a fifth Coal-fired power station will be needed, or else the equivalent energy amount has to be imported. Minister Cramer will sell this policy at the Copenhagen Conference as "green". She will not reveal that her policy is a Coal future for the next 30 years.

Minister Cramer defends the project by showing expert reports, concluding the experiment is a safe one. However, all these reports have been commissioned by her own department and are heavily criticized by independent and authoritative experts.

The inhabitants of the town of Barendrecht have protested for more than a year now, recently at a town hall visit of the minister. The people are outraged! The Stichting CO2isNEE (“CO2 is NO” Foundation) has been founded to protect the citizens from this irresponsible experiment. However, the stubborness of both the minister and the Dutch Government promises the fight to be a long one.

We, the people of Barendrecht, ask you to forward this message to as many people as possible in order to help us in our fight against this project of the Dutch Government. We are grateful for your help.

Contact: e-mail: stichtingCO2isNEE@gmail.com

I wish I knew what this video said.... but since it is not in English I don't know - I'm including it here for those who know the language

Friday, November 13, 2009

DOE targets rural Indiana geologic formation for CO2 storage field test

Source: National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL)

Nov. 13, 2009
Read the article here

Wednesday, September 23, 2009

CO2 Injection Started at Mountaineer Plant across Ohio River

September 22, 2009

Refitted to Bury Emissions, Plant Draws Attention

NEW HAVEN, W.Va. — Poking out of the ground near the smokestacks of the Mountaineer power plant here are two wells that look much like those that draw natural gas to the surface. But these are about to do something new: inject a power plant’s carbon dioxide into the earth.

A behemoth built in 1980, long before global warming stirred broad concern, Mountaineer is poised to become the world’s first coal-fired power plant to capture and bury some of the carbon dioxide it churns out. The hope is that the gas will stay deep underground for millenniums rather than entering the atmosphere as a heat-trapping pollutant.

The experiment, which the company says could begin in the next few days, is riveting the world’s coal-fired electricity sector, which is under growing pressure to develop technology to capture and store carbon dioxide. Visitors from as far as China and India, which are struggling with their own coal-related pollution, have been trooping through the plant.

The United States still depends on coal-fired plants, many of them built decades ago, to meet half of its electricity needs. Some industry experts argue that retrofitting them could prove far more feasible than building brand new, cleaner ones.

Yet the economic viability of the Mountaineer plant’s new technology, known as carbon capture and sequestration, remains uncertain.

The technology is certain to devour a substantial amount of the plant’s energy output — optimists say 15 percent, and skeptics, 30 percent. Some energy experts argue that it could prove even more expensive than solar or nuclear power.

And as with any new technology, even the engineers are unsure how well it will work: will all of the carbon dioxide stay put?

Environmentalists who oppose coal mining and coal energy of any kind worry that sequestration could simply trade one problem, global warming, for another one, the pollution of water supplies. Should the carbon dioxide mix with water underground and form carbonic acid, they say, it could leach poisonous materials from rock deep underground that could then seep out.

Given the depths to which workers have drilled, they also fret that the project could cause earthquakes, although experts at theEnvironmental Protection Agency discount the risk of catastrophe.

More broadly, some environmentalists argue that the carbon storage effort could give corporations and consumers another excuse to drag their heels in supplanting coal dependence with an embrace of renewable energy sources like the sun and wind.

“Coal is the drug of choice of a major industry with a lot of political power,” said David H. Holtz, executive director of Progress Michigan, an environmental group.

Instead of adopting carbon capture, which Mr. Holtz likens to a methadone cure for addiction, he argues that the industry would do better to go cold turkey.

“There’s no evidence that burying carbon dioxide in the earth is a better strategy than aggressively pursuing other alternatives that clearly are better for the environment and will in the long run be less costly,” Mr. Holtz said.

But power company officials say the effort is the energy industry’s best hope of stanching carbon dioxide emissions over the next few decades.

“I really believe, in my heart of hearts, that coal is going to be burned around the world for years to come,” said Michael Morris, chairman and president of American Electric Power, which owns the plant here. “Retrofitting is going to be essential.”

American Electric Power is the nation’s largest electricity producer, with a coal-fired grid stretching across 11 states.

If all goes smoothly, this week engineers will begin pumping carbon dioxide, converted to a fluid, into a layer of sandstone 7,800 feet below the rolling countryside here and then into a layer of dolomite 400 feet below that.

The liquid will squeeze into tiny pores in the rock, displacing the salty water there, and assume a shape something like a squashed football, 30 to 40 feet high and hundreds of yards long.

American Electric Power’s plan is to inject about 100,000 tons annually for two to five years, about 1.5 percent of Mountaineer’s yearly emissions of carbon dioxide. Should Congress pass a law controlling carbon dioxide emissions and the new technology proves economically feasible, the company says, it could then move to capture as much as 90 percent of the gas.

For now the project consists of the two wells and a small chemical factory. In the factory, smoke diverted from the plant’s chimney is mixed with a chilled ammonia-based chemical. The chemical is then heated, releasing the carbon dioxide, which is pumped deep into the wells.

American Electric Power is spending $73 million on the capture and storage effort, which includes half the cost of the factory. Alstom, the manufacturer of the new equipment, paid for the other half of the factory, hoping to develop expertise that will win it a worldwide market. Alstom would not say what it spent, but public figures indicate that the two companies are jointly spending well over $100 million.

For energy planners, a crucial question is how much this technology would cost if refined and installed on a bigger scale. The answer remains elusive.

Still, many scientists emphasize that Mountaineer is within a dozen miles of four other big coal plants with a combined capacity of 6,000 megawatts, a concentration so great that industry insiders have nicknamed the area Megawatt Alley. If the technology spread to all of them in a cost-effective way, many say, it could have a broad impact on the coal industry.

S. Julio Friedmann, leader of the carbon management program at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California, calls this corner of the Ohio River Valley a “must win” region for carbon dioxide storage.

Robert Socolow, a Princeton University engineering professor, echoed that sentiment. The nation’s fleet of coal-burning plants “completely dominates our national emissions,” Professor Socolow said.

It is also far easier to corral several million tons flowing from a single chimney than a comparable amount coming from tens of millions of car tailpipes or home heating systems, experts point out.

Far larger projects for capturing and storing carbon dioxide underground have been under way for several years in Europe and North Africa. In North Dakota, the Great Plains Synfuels plant, which converts methane to natural gas, takes the leftover carbon dioxide and pumps it through a pipeline to Canada to stimulate oil production there. But Mountaineer is the world’s first electricity plant to capture and store carbon dioxide.

A state permit issued to American Electric Power limits the pressure it can use to inject carbon dioxide into the rock. This is to reduce the risk that the injection will crack rock layers above that engineers are counting on to keep the carbon dioxide in place.

A nonprofit research group, Battelle Memorial Institute, has installed monitoring wells around the rock that will measure changes in pressure and temperature. Engineers can also send energy pulses through the earth between the wells and measure how fast these travel, as a guide to how the carbon dioxide is spreading.

Asked whether the injections of carbon dioxide could increase the frequency or magnitude of the small earthquakes that are common in the area, an E.P.A. official said it seemed unlikely.

“With proper site selection and good management, we should be able to implement this safely,” said Dina Kruger, director of the agency’s climate change division. Ms. Kruger also emphasized that the carbon dioxide would be monitored to see if it was seeping.

Some local residents are skeptical.

“It doesn’t matter to me if a scientist says it may or may not leak,” said Elisa Young, an anti-coal activist who lives nearby on the Ohio side of the river. “That’s not going to stop it from leaking when push comes to shove.”

At the same time, many others in this coal-dependent region suggest that the notion that carbon dioxide is a menace has been overplayed.

Charles A. Powell, the manager of the Mountaineer plant, who has worked there since it opened three decades ago, pointed out that the gas is given off by every human and animal.

“You are breathing out?” he asked a visitor dryly.

Monday, September 21, 2009

Dangers of Carbon Sequestration Why it Should not Be Used excessively

© Sudheendra Dhulipala

This article discusses the negative effects of carbon sequestration and why it's not a perfect solution to excessive carbon gas emission problems.

CO2 Transport Versus the 50-State Sequestration Strategy, Pa

Current Administration and congressional climate proposals depend heavily on geological sequestration to reduce CO2 emissions from coal-fired power plants and other major sources and tend to presume that sources in every state will have access to nearby underground storage capacity. This is the second post in a three-part series reviewing obstacles to a 50-state sequestration strategy and suggesting the need for a national infrastructure to support medium to long-range transport of CO2.

Even if additional research and site characterization could resolve geological uncertainties regarding widespread local CO2 storage, companies also will have to overcome the public and political opposition that locally undesirable land use (LULU) energy projects engender. While CO2 sequestration provides important global benefits, local communities are likely to balk at hosting a sequestration project injecting millions of tons of liquid CO2 as a waste product under or near their communities.

The saga of Used Nuclear Fuel Storage at Yucca Mountain in Nevada illustrates the challenge of siting even one nationally-important, but locally-opposed, facility. First identified as the nation’s prospective high-level nuclear waste storage site in 1987 and approved by Congress in 1994, the Yucca Mountain high-level nuclear waste storage facility received over 9 billion dollars in funding through 2008 despite vociferous opposition from local stakeholders and, in some cases, key federal constituencies. In early 2009, the Obama Administration proposed to defund the project. While only Congress can cancel the project, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) has committed to doing just that. Irrespective of the merits of the decision to defund Yucca, it is a significant setback for the domestic nuclear energy industry, as the reversal leaves the nation twenty years behind in developing a long-term disposal strategy for high-level nuclear waste.

Even relatively innocuous renewable energy projects face siting difficulties. Indeed, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce recently initiated a campaign to document the wide variety of energy projects that have been stopped or delayed across the nation by local opposition. The siting challenge illustrates an important reality check for policymakers and investors: a prospective site may contain optimal subsurface geologic characteristics, but if developers cannot negotiate the local siting process, the technical feasibility of a location is irrelevant.

Siting CCS facilities on federal lands may be one way to reduce the ability of local opposition to stop a project. The Department of Interior has estimated that 5.5 percent of the onshore U.S. CO2 storage capacity is beneath potentially leasable Federal lands. But, federal lands bring limitations of their own. First, federal lands are not uniformly distributed across regions and states, and many areas of the country (e.g., the northeast, southeast and midwest) lack large swaths of federal lands on which facilities could be sited. The disconnect is even more significant when major emissions sources are considered. According to a recent DOE Report, while 65% of emissions come from east of the Mississippi River, 83% to 86% of storage capacity on federal lands lies west of the Mississippi River. In other words, a siting strategy that relies on federal lands for citing will require investment on CO2 transport to match source generation to sequestration capacity.

Second, federal lands are subject to a variety of restrictions and extensive regulatory review requirements on the use of federal lands. Any commercial-scale sequestration funded by federal dollars or constructed on federal lands will be subject, at a minimum, to the environmental review requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act and the historic review requirements of the National Historic Preservation Act. These statutes delay construction schedules, create potential avenues for litigation from opposing parties, and inject risk and expense into large-scale projects. The federal government would also have to determine that the proposed sequestration projects would be consistent with other approved uses for a federal land, a determination that can involve many different federal agencies working through multi-year planning processes.

Whether CCS project developers use federal, state, or privately-owned land for sequestration projects, they will have to demonstrate that their siting choices are safe for the local communities, safe for the local environment, and consistent with the legal standards governing such land-use. While well-funded, well-planned, and well-organized projects will be capable of overcoming these obstacles, such approvals will come at a financial and political cost. Policymakers need to factor in the realistic costs of addressing community concerns and project approvals into their policy calculus if they are to develop a realistic understanding of when, where, and how the U.S. will be able to site the sequestration capacity needed to meet carbon mitigation goals - at a financial and political price that the public will bare.


Geological Sequestration Projects Hitting Public Opposition Wall

Last year, Swedish Company Vattenfall announced its plans to go on-line with a major pilot program to test carbon capture and sequestration at a coal-fired power plant. The company recently acknowledged that permitting snags fueled by local opposition render it unable to commence geologic sequestration of captured CO2. Vattenfall intended to begin capturing CO2 at its 30-megawatt Schwarze Pumpe facility, located in Spremberg, Germany, and sequestering it in the nearby Altmark depleted gas field by March or April 2009. Residents of the host-city, however, have expressed concerns about the safety of geological sequestration, preventing the final permitting approval for the site and creating questions about when - or if - the site could be available for any CCS operations.

Vattenfall’s experience at this project is not an isolated incident. Vattenfall reported delays in obtaining approvals for one of its Danish storage projects pointing, in part, to public opposition by local stakeholders. In June, German news sources reported that activists were protesting plans by electric utility RWE to transport captured CO2 by pipeline from a powerplant near Cologne to a sequestration site on Germany’s North Sea Coast. The Wall Street Journal also reported in April that Royal Dutch Shell had run into challenges siting a sequestration facility in Barendrecht, Netherlands, due to grass roots opposition from local residents.

Public opposition is likely to be a critical strategic and legal consideration for US projects. On Friday, August 21, Battelle, the lead partner in a Midwest Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership project announced that it was abandoning plans to participate in a $92 million public-private demonstration project to site a geological sequestration project in Western Ohio. While the partner cited only “business reasons” for its decision, the reported public opposition to the project could not have helped.

These setbacks illustrate the significant challenges that the siting and permit-approval process can pose, particularly in the face of public opposition, to an otherwise promising project. This will be particularly true during the early stages of a CCS deployment. US policymakers and investors would do well to watch and learn from these early case studies, and to ensure that they devote the legal, political and community relations resources needed to ensure that proposed projects move forward in a realistic and timely fashion.

Link to the above article


Saturday, September 19, 2009

Battelle Back in Darke County and now Mercer Co too

Battelle is once again looking at Darke County, Ohio, this time including Mercer County, Ohio, our neighbors to the north and home of State Rep. Jim Zehringer, who bitterly opposed the proposed CO2 sequestration project for Darke County. This time they are asking to do seismic testing for gas and oil recovery - aka "EOR" Enhanced Oil Recovery. Ahem.

When the Darke County project was canceled by Battelle, they were going to Edwardsport, IN. We understand, from our friends in IN, that it was not suitable and they are looking at eastern IN and are now back in our area of Ohio - this time requesting to do seismic testing "for EOR to recover oil and gas."

Many articles/studies suggest EOR is the easiest way to get into a community without Public Opposition - as a way to fly under the radar, so to speak.

An study from the University of Texas at Austin suggests it is way to be accepted by a community while building CO2 storage.

Wouldn't transparency be easier and build trust?

There is a lot of money to be made for the companies who successfully developed CCS - and a lot of risks for the communities who have the large-scale CO2 projects.

Perhaps the companies, colleges and universities pushing Carbon Capture and Sequestration could put it in their urban area instead of rural America. On this blog is a study that involved Judith Bradbury, our liaison with Battelle, in which she said Columbus, OH was too densely populated and too urban to get a CCS project.

If it's not safe for Columbus, OH.........it isn't safe for rural America.

Every dollar spent on CCS is a dollar wasted - money that should have been spent on developing renewable energy.

The World's Largest CO2 Storage Research Project with EOR

Note - "CO2 Storage with EOR" -- Storage = Sequestration


Duke Energy CEO Questions Viability of ‘Clean’ Coal Technology, Future of Coal

"Jim Rogers, CEO of Duke Energy, raised questions on Wednesday about the viability of capturing and storing carbon dioxide emissions from coal plants underground, and suggested that coal may not even be part of the energy mix by 2050.

“I actually can see a future where coal is not in the equation in 2050,” Rogers told reporters at an event in Washington.

He argued that it’s unlikely that the United States will be able to develop and bring to scale carbon-capture-and-storage – often called “clean coal” technology. “I think there’s no way we can scale in this country,” he said. “It’s more likely that China will develop and bring CCS to scale. I’d like to be China for a day so we can get CCS done. They’re more likely to get it scaled and deployed than we are. We’re going to be buying their technology.”

He also acknowledged that concerns about coal extraction methods like mountaintop removal may make coal more expensive in the near-term. “I’m under incredible pressure on moutaintop mining,” said Rogers. “Most of the coal we use in the southern part of the country is from mountaintop mining. I’m doing the math now and looking to determine my contracts and posing the question to my team, what if we made a policy decision that we’re not going to buy coal as a consequence of mountaintop mining.”

Read the rest of the story here............

The Role of CO2 Enhanced Oil Recovery In Ohio’s Economy and Energy Future


The original article does not contain bold or highlighted text, that has been added by this blogger.

Other entries on this blog refer to EOR as the easiest way to get CO2 into a community without their opposition so they can go ahead and build their CO2 storage areas. Please read past entries to find those entries. EOR is suspect.

Note the reference to CO2 used for EOR - "Storage" = Sequestration

From the above link (2008)

I. Purpose of the study

"The Pew Center on Global Climate Change seeks to explore the potential development and use of coal gasification and carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology in Ohio. Primary benefits of developing and deploying CCS in Ohio include power generated using readily available coal while achieving substantial reductions in greenhouse gas emissions from this generation. Additional benefits include many chemical by-products, especially captured CO2 which can be used commercially for Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR). Prior research completed by Kleinhenz & Associates for the Pew Center analyzed the economic activity factors related to coal gasification and how the location of a number of key support industries in Ohio could provide the state with a competitive advantage in this area.i This prior research did not address injection of CO2 into deep saline formations (sequestration), or storage of CO2 in association with EOR. The study also did not offer an estimate of the required pipeline network or the industries and employment affiliated with development of an Ohio CO2 market. Ohio firms have been major suppliers of the heavy equipment utilized in the oil and gas industry throughout North America. A CO2 EOR and sequestration industry would utilize similar types of heavy equipment in large volumes.

Further development of coal-gasification plants in Ohio depends upon a full understanding of the development of a CO2 market. The CO2 byproduct can be captured during the gasification process and transported via pipeline and injected in an oil or gas well to enhance recovery. With minor modifications to the process, volumes of CO2 stored through EOR can be documented. Carbon dioxide might also be sequestered (long-term) in a suitable underground reservoir containing no hydrocarbons (deep saline formation). Texas serves as a good example of a state in which the commercialization of CO2 for enhanced oil recovery as well as state regulations are well defined, while the CO2 industry in Ohio is neither defined nor commercialized. However, the Ohio House and Senate recently adopted an energy bill that would establish a regulatory framework for CO2,ii and provide credits to utilities that installed equipment for capturing carbon dioxide."

Again note - "Potential CO2 sinks" -- Sinks = CO2 Sequestration (Storage)

"Estimating the potential impact on Ohio-based industries requires a framework that includes the creation of a conceptual Ohio CO2 pipeline network. This network links proposed major sources of CO2 – such as coal gasification plants and biofuel plants – to some potential CO2 sinks with strong potential as EOR sites."

Thursday, September 3, 2009

Saturday, August 29, 2009

Ohio EPA has a new site and new look


Monday, August 24, 2009

From our friends in the Netherlands - the opposition group

Lid worden banner

In June 2009 the city council of Barendrecht, a small city south of Rotterdam, voted against the plans to store large quantities of CO2 in the underground of the village. This local decision was based on facts not on emotions. The three most important arguments for the local CDA party to vote against CO2 storage are:

  • There are no guarantees for the safety of the residents, nor are all questions regarding the safety of CO2 storage answered. Especially because of the infinite period of storage.
  • There are questions whether the scientific research concerning CO2 storage in Barendrecht is objective and unbiased.
  • There is no basis, nor support for CO2 storage in Barendrecht.

The Dutch national government can overrule the decision of the local government. Whether or not the national government will overrule Barendrecht will be clear in the autumn of 2009 when the minister of Economic Affairs and the minister for the Environment will decide to continue with CO2 storage in and under Barendrecht.

If you have questions or want more local information feel free to send us an e-mail: \n Dit e-mail adres is beschermd door spambots, u heeft Javascript nodig om dit onderdeel te kunnen bekijken "> CO2@cdabarendrecht.nl

De gemeenteraad van Barendrecht heeft op 29 juni 2009 definitief nee gezegd tegen het demonstratieproject ondergrondse CO2 - opslag in Barendrecht. De gemeenteraad heeft het besluit gebaseerd op feiten, cijfers en argumenten. De veiligheid voor onze bewoners en toekomstige generaties is niet maximaal gewaarborgd.

Consequenties Principebesluit 29 juni 2009

Het college en de klankbordgroep van de gemeenteraad hebben verder besproken welke concrete consequenties het principebesluit van 29 juni (nee tegen het CO2-project) heeft voor het gemeentelijke beleid. Geconcludeerd is dat de gemeente niet meewerkt aan onderzoeken en geen vergunningen verleent die op een of andere manier kunnen worden beschouwd als voorbereiding op de CO2-opslag. Indien de gemeente wordt verzocht gegevens of rapportages te verstrekken, worden die slechts verstrekt indien de gemeente dit op grond van de Wet openbaarheid van bestuur (Wob) verplicht is.

Besluit provincie en ministers
De verwachting is dat de provincie en de minsters eind 2009 een definitief besluit nemen over de plannen in Barendrecht.

Friday, August 21, 2009

Midwest Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership cancels Ohio CCS project despite DOE funding

The 35-member Midwest Regional Carbon Sequestration Project (MRCSP) has cancelled a $92.8m proposal to inject one million tons of carbon dioxide over four years from an ethanol plant in Greenville, western Ohio.

Battelle Memorial Institute, a major, non-profit research and development organisation which manages MRCSP, issued a terse communiqué saying the decision was based on “business considerations.”

“That’s all I can tell you,” Katy Delaney, a Battelle spokeswoman says in response to queries from Recharge.

The move came after the US Energy Department in May 2008 awarded MRCSP $61m to fund the third phase of carbon capture and storage research over 10 years at the Greenville site.

The CO2 would have been injected into the Mount Simon Sandstone formation, which is more than 3,000 feet beneath the surface. It stretches across much of the Midwest region and has the potential to store more than 100 years of CO2 emissions from major point sources in the region, according to DOE.

Specifically, the third phase, for which MRCSP members would have contributed almost $32m, was to validate that the injection and storage could be done on a safe, permanent and economic basis.

Local officials and state representatives had increasingly opposed the project fearing it would lower property values and increase seismic activity.

Click here to continue

As Paul Harvey would say, click here for "the rest of the story"

Thursday, August 20, 2009

Protesters Win CO2 Battle In Darke County, Ohio

Protesters Win CO2 Battle In Darke Co.

As soon as we received word that the project was canceled, we started a phone chain to get our committee on the circle to take a photo for the Advocate - even during the tornado warnings!
In a little over 90 minutes the majority of us were there, in our green shirts, celebrating!

We hope to have a big celebration and engage our community - after the fair is over!

See us on WHIOTV by clicking here. Many thanks to WHIOTV for your coverage!

Posted: 6:35 am EDT August 20, 2009Updated: 3:52 pm EDT August 20, 2009

A vocal group of citizens in Greenville are celebrating a victory in their efforts to keep tons of CO2 waste from being pumped into the ground in Darke County.The Columbus-based Battelle Research Center announced that Greenville is no longer being considered for a carbon sequestration project.In a news release, Battelle said, “Due to business considerations, Greenville, Ohio, is no longer being considered for a carbon sequestration project.”The news ended 14 months of protest by Citizens Against Carbon Sequestration. The group protested the unknowns of what the future could bring if CO2 waste would be allowed 3.500 feet below ground.The group used yard signs, public meetings and commission meetings, along with a prayer rally to gain public support.A recent poll showed that more than 90 percent of those who participated in the poll were against carbon sequestration.

Darke County CITIZENS CELEBRATE - MRCSP Phase III CO2 Project in Greenville Ohio - WILL NOT HAPPEN

Battelle announced today that Greenville, OH was no longer on the list for consideration of a large-scale CO2 project. A jubilant committee celebrates on the town "circle" - this community has never been so united! Look for us in both the Democrat and Republican booths at the Great Darke County Fair.......


Read the full article here!

Tuesday, August 18, 2009

PowerPoint - Property & Regulatory Issues CO2 Sequestration


National Mining Association Carbon Capture and Storage - Barriers to CCS

http://www.nma.org/pdf/fact_sheets/ccs.pdf Read entire article here

I find this to be an interesting statement - Avoiding application of the federal Superfund program to in• jections of CO2;

At present, uncertainty over siting requirements and long-term liability issues associated with the underground storage of CO2 have deterred project developers, financiers and insurers from moving forward with CCS. However, CCS as a tool for mitigating CO2 emissions and ensuring a secure and affordable energy supply for America represents a vital public interest that merits a federal-level program to clarify and resolve these long-term liability issues and to clear the way for the rapid and widespread commercialization of the technology. Some of the key issues that must be resolved in order to foster widespread commercialization of CCS include:
Determining responsibility for post-closure monitoring;•
Avoiding application of the federal Superfund program to in• jections of CO2;
Avoiding characterization of CO• 2 as a waste and CCS activities as waste disposal to avoid triggering expensive “cradle to grave” regulations of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA); and
Resolving property rights issues, including pore space owner• ship, trespass and interstate issues relating to CO2 transportation and placement.

Property Rights Issues Could Stymie Geologic Carbon Sequestration, an Industrial Info News Alert

SUGAR LAND, TX--(Marketwire - August 17, 2009) - Written by John Egan for Industrial Info Resources (Sugar Land, Texas) -- Efforts in the U.S. to geologically sequester carbon-dioxide emissions could be delayed or derailed unless state and federal governments find a way to address property rights issues, lawyers at Stoel Rives LLP (Portland, Oregon) told Industrial Info. The Waxman-Markey energy bill, currently being considered by the U.S. Senate, awards bonus carbon-dioxide allowances to utilities that will deploy carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) technologies at coal-fired power plants by 2015. Property rights are critical to geologic carbon sequestration, because the underground areas needed to store carbon dioxide are extremely large and could cross state borders. The potential interstate nature of carbon sequestration projects means that the federal government could take a leading role in creating a consistent legal framework for acquiring the property rights for these projects.

For details, view the entire article by subscribing to Industrial Info's Premium Industry News at http://www.industrialinfo.com/showNews.jsp?newsitemID=149353, or browse other breaking industrial news stories at www.industrialinfo.com.

Industrial Info Resources (IIR) is the leading provider of global market intelligence specializing in the industrial process, heavy manufacturing and energy related markets. For more than 26 years, Industrial Info has provided plant and project opportunity databases, market forecasts, high resolution maps, and daily industry news. For more information send inquiries to powergroup@industrialinfo.com or visit us online at www.industrialinfo.com.

Monday, August 17, 2009


Lawrence Solomon: Carbon disaster
Posted: August 15, 2009, 1:38 AM by NP Editor


Don’t worry about the risks of earthquakes or suffocation or water contamination. Carbon capture is good, really

By Lawrence Solomon


f you live in or near a community that manufactures chemicals or cement, or that has a refinery or a coal or natural gas electricity generating station, or that has abandoned mines or other suitable geological formations, you may soon be asked to save the planet from global warming by hosting an underground carbon dioxide storage facility.

You and your neighbours will be told not to worry about carbon dioxide poisoning your water supplies. Yes, ruptures or large leaks of the gas could not only make the water undrinkable for you but also kill vegetation and aquatic life, the authorities will acknowledge, but inventors are working on new, improved technology that will prevent underground pipes and other infrastructure from leaking.

Village of Arcanum Resolution Against CO2 Sequestration

Arcanum, Ohio is located in Darke County, about 7 miles from Greenville, they have recently started their own branch of Citizens Against CO2 Sequestration to protect their area of the county. THANK YOU ARCANUM! And a huge thank you to the leadership for drafting a resolution to oppose CO2 Sequestration in Arcanum, Ohio!

Click on the photo to enlarge the resolution.

Posted by Picasa

Saturday, August 15, 2009

State Representative Jim Zehringer Opposes Large-Scale CCS Project

To read the lettter - click on it and it will enlarge

Greenville, OH (Darke County) is the proposed site for one on the 7 large-scale CO2 sequestration demonstration projects (EXPERIMENTS) to bury 1 Million tons of CO2 Waste in the saline aquifer (aka Mount Simon Sandstone) FOREVER - on the site of the The Andersons Marathon Ethanol Plant aka TAME.

The citizens of Darke County OPPOSE this project - with each passing week the number of yard signs opposing the project increases. The citizens have NO VOTE.

This is OUR HOME - the people and companies involved do not live here.

This county, along with the city and every elected official oppose this project. Recently, State Representative Jim Zehringer wrote a letter to the Ohio Department of Transportation stating his "bitter" opposition to this proposed project, asking them to honor the request of the community and not allow the seismic testing trucks to use the roads under their control in Darke County. With only one exception, the landowners have refused to allow the seismic testing on their private property.

(Note- the seismic testing is a necessary part of preparation to apply for the UIC permit - the last permit they need before injection)

On behalf of the people of Darke County, THANK YOU, Representative Zehringer, not only your support but for standing up to protect your constituents from this unproven experiment that comes with many risks and no benefits.

Friday, August 14, 2009

CO2 Opposition Yard Signs

Wednesday afternoon we received another 100 yard signs, less than 48 hours later they are GONE!

More on the way!

900 up..........and counting!

Darke County, Ohio OPPOSES CO2 Sequestration ------ as State Representative, Dick Adams said last evening to the attendees at the High School in Arcanum, OH - "I haven't met ONE PERSON who is for this project! We need to protect our environment and agriculture in Ohio!"

We are very fortunate to have the support of our elected officials!

Thursday, August 13, 2009

Greenpeace Hot Air Balloon Delivers Message - NO FUTURE IN COAL

Click here to read full article

Hunter Valley, Australia — Prime Minister Rudd wants to stop dangerous climate change and we want to give him the chance to show that all his talk is not just hot air. So, at dawn today, the Greenpeace hot air balloon delivered a message to Kevin in spectacular fashion: "Save the climate - No future in coal".

The balloon flew over two coal-fired power stations in the New South Wales Hunter Valley, launched by a team of Greenpeace staff and volunteers camped in the Hunter Valley. As the eyecatching aircraft flew above coal stacks, it attracted plenty of attention on the ground.

CCS enables COAL to have a future AND burn even MORE coal! OPPOSE CCS - too expensive, too risky, unproven!

30,000 Australians sign a petition against CCS

See the link here

30 000 Australians signed a statement against CCS, and backing a new international report on carbon capture and storage (CCS)., which calls for world governments to stop the climate crisis by urgently investing in renewable energy and energy efficiency rather than CCS. Today the petition was delivered to Treasurer Wayne Swan at the Treasury offices, Canberra, Australia

Read more here

"Faith into Action" Community Meeting - August 12, 2009

Advocate Photo - click here to be taken to The Daily Advocate for the full story

Wednesday, August 12, 2009
7 pm
Harmon Field, Greenville, OH

Tuesday, August 11, 2009

City of Greenville, Ohio Opposed to Large-scale CO2 Sequestration Project - City Officials Put On the Spot

Greenville Officials Put on The Spot at Tuesday Council Meeting

From WTGR Radio in Greenville, OH (Link to the story is here)

“I have been against this project from the beginning. There are a thousand other options available to reduce CO2 emissions.”

Those were the words of Greenville Councilman John Baumgartner at Tuesday’s council meeting as council and other city officials were challenged to give their personal opinions of the potential carbon sequestration project at the ethanol plant in Greenville. One by one, every official in the room did just that during the public hearing portion of the meeting as two Greenville citizens, Lynn Bliss and Enid Goubeax, put officials on the spot in front of a packed council room, filled with members of the Citizens Against Carbon Sequestration. Though neither Bliss or Goubeaux were directly representing the group on Tuesday, they shared the same sentiment that the city’s recent official press release did not go far enough in addressing the controversial issue. Those present also took issue with a particular phrase in the press release that they felt was inaccurate. That statement indicated that there was a “rift in the community” over the project.

“We want to show that there is no rift in the community, but there may be a rift between the community and its’ government. The community, though, has been untied by this issue”, stated Bliss.

Goubeaux added that she had lived in the community since 1961 and had never seen area residents as untied as they are currently in their opposition to this potential project. What Goubeaux said next, however, is what began perhaps the lengthiest public hearing portion of a council meeting in many years…

“We are going to be calling each of you in the next few days to ask you to express your personal view (on this project)”, said Goubeaux, “ A no comment will be interpreted as a vote of support.”

Though reactions to the aggressive tactic varied by official, all present opted not to wait for the phone call and answered directly on Tuesday evening.

All the statements indicated that city officials are against the project for many of the same reasons that residents have expressed. Councilman Leon Rogers stated, “I am more against it the more that I learn about it.” Referring to the fact that the federal government may play a role in the final decision he said, “If it will be anywhere, it should be under Washington D.C.”

That was one of many statements that drew applause from attendees. However, much of the discussion during the evening was heated as officials stated they took offense to the indication that they had not researched the issues. Rogers asked residents yesterday not to mistake silence for indifference, saying, “We have been doing what you were doing, gathering information. ”

During dialogue between Anne Vehry, a founder of The Citizens Against Carbon Sequestration and City Law Director Jeff Amick, Amick expressed what other officials had already indicated- that the city may be powerless to stop the project. However, when asked what chance he thought there was of The Andersons moving forward with the project, he guessed it was less than 20%, “I can tell you, they don’t have any intention of the project going thru at this time. But until there is an actual project to stop, we can’t do anything. If we initiate legislation, we will have the burden of proof that the project is a public nuisance. “

Amick said that might be difficult to prove and would certainly be expensive. He added, as other officials did on Tuesday, that The Anderson’s was the most ethical and honest company with which he had ever done business. One common theme did emerge from the statements, and it was one that many did not want to hear. Most officials present, who have been researching the project for over a year, stated they thought carbon sequestration was likely inevitable even if the drilling was stopped here in Greenville.

“We are on the Mount Simon Sandstone. It covers numerous states and I believe that whether CO2 is pumped in at the Andersons in a test program or whether it’s pumped in the ground in Michigan or Indiana, the City of Greenville is going to be on top of sequestered CO2”, explained Greenville Safety/Service Director John Schmidt, “I just don’t want the test wells to be here”.

"Faith Into Action" - Wednesday, August 12, 7 PM

The Citizens Against CO2 Sequestration are inviting everyone to join them (rain or shine) at their county-wide “Faith Into Action Gathering” on Wednesday, August 12 from 7:00 to 8:00 p.m. at the Greenville High School Football Stadium.

Including music, prayer and an update from members of the group, the gathering will also feature Hershel Fee, Pastor of the Lighthouse Christian Church; Pete Kontra, Pastor of the Oakland Church of the Brethren; and Bill Lyle, Pastor of the EUM Church.

When the Citizens Against CO2 formed less than six months ago, little did they know that a “miracle” was about to occur. After starting with a group of twelve, their message spread and their numbers grew. Today, thousands of Greenville and Darke County residents have joined their quest to stop the sequestration of carbon dioxide (CO2) at the Andersons Marathon Ethanol Plant in Greenville’s Industrial Park. At no time has their quest been against the plant or its operation. Instead, it has been against the experimental sequestration project only.

As if the increase in their numbers is not miracle enough, other citizens’ action groups are forming in Arcanum and in Gettysburg. It is expected that more groups will follow.

During their first Citizens Action meeting at the Lighthouse Christian Center, 1,000 residents attended to show their support. Almost as many turned away because there was no place left to park outside and only standing room was left inside. As traffic lined up to turn into the center, Sebring Warner Road and State Route 127 were blocked for two miles or more. By their huge attendance, residents stated in no uncertain terms that they do not want the high-risk experimental sequestration of CO2 to take place near their communities or in their county.

Speaking at that meeting were Nachy Kanfer, Associate Regional Representative of the Sierra Club; Kathleen Boutis, President of the Green Coalition; and Kerwin Olson, Project Director and Lobbyist for Citizens Action of Indiana. They all agreed the Citizens Against CO2 Sequestration have accomplished in months what few citizens-action groups have accomplished in years.

Darke County Engineer Jim Surber said he has not seen this much community support since he first moved to Darke County over 32 years ago. He, Mike Bowers, Mayor of Greenville, and the Greenville, Neave, and Van Buren Township Trustees, have temporarily halted seismic testing along county and township roads. Seismic testing is the preliminary step to the beginning of the sequestration process.

On Tuesday, August 4, The Greenville City Council and Administration were asked to state their opinions individually on the proposed CO2 sequestration project. They had already issued a collective statement earlier.

Expressing concerns for the city and its residents as well as for their children and future generations, council members and administrative officers unanimously agreed that although it had risks and was wrong for Greenville, they felt powerless to stop it because it is being funded by the Federal Government on private land. Jeff Amick, Attorney for the city, said that he, more than anyone, has studied ways to prevent this project. He said he would wear a green shirt and ride a bus to Washington D.C. if he could stop it. John Schmidt said he did not want to look back one day as people pointed to Greenville as the place where a CO2 experiment had gone wrong.

Because of the overwhelming opposition of Darke County residents, the Darke County Commissioners passed a Resolution in late July, stating they are in opposition to the sequestration project due to its unknown risks and potential harm to Darke County. They also asked The Andersons Marathon Ethanol Plant officials to honor their request to halt the proposed CO2 project. Although plant officials have since responded, their response has not offered any definite assurance that the project will be discontinued.

Working hard to stop the sequestration project in Greenville, Jan Teaford, who is co-chairman of the Citizens Against CO2 Sequestration, has used her computer skills to set up web and blog sites. At the blog site, she and several other members of the group have provided links that lead to scientific and geological information concerning CO2 sequestration. As a result, they have brought the proposed sequestration site to the attention of the world. Not only has the blog site been visited by persons from throughout the nation, including Washington D.C., but it is not unusual to see visitors from Australia, Japan, Great Britain, and other countries as well. Some have sent back words of encouragement, giving their support to the movement against CO2 sequestration. This blog site can be located at http://citizensagainstco2sequestration.blogspot.com/

The more the group studies, the more they know that CO2 is definitely an experiment with risks. From the contamination of fertile crop land to the pollution of two major aquifers, from injection-induced earthquakes to the de-evaluation of homes and properties- -the risks threaten both livelihoods and lives while offering no compensation, no protection, and no guarantees against future liabilities.

Making these risks known to the public hasn’t been easy. Some of the members have spent long hours reading and studying both national and international scientific reports. Many of the members credit God for directing them, faith for sustaining them, and prayer for inspiring them to keep going. As Rita McCans said, “We turned our faith into action which has resulted in thousands of Darke County citizens coming together for the common good of all.”

Regardless of their political, religious or sociological backgrounds, these Darke County citizens are working together peaceably to achieve a common goal – the goal of stopping the CO2 sequestration project. As they work toward this goal, they are putting aside their differences to do what they think is best for not only their county but for the communities in which they live.

While they have accomplished much, they know if they are to accomplish more, they need still another “miracle” - - the “miracle” of a growing grassroots movement that can stand up to and stop a Federally-funded project, which they know can cause more problems that it can ever solve.

As thousands of citizens come together at Harmon field on August 12, they will by their presence be speaking with one voice to send a clear message to Washington D.C. that they oppose this project. More importantly, they will be putting into action the very foundation upon which the United States of America was founded, “In God We Trust.”

Anne Vehre, Co-Chair

Carbon Sequestration - Not likely

Carbon Sequestration: Not Likely
by Peter Montague
This article comes from the disove

Back to the depths
Among the experimental carbon sequestration projects is in Texas, where liquid carbon would be injected into ancient super-salty water a mile underground.

How Carbon Capture Works

How Carbon Offsets Work

Top 10 Worst Effects of Global Warming

THE SCOOP: Big energy producers are looking at capturing carbon emissions from their fossil fuel burning and burying it deep underground. That way it stays out of the atmosphere and doesn't contribute to global warming. Here's what Peter Montague, executive director of Environmental Research Foundation, has to say about the idea. For a very different perspective, check out Discovery Tech [link here].

Whenever we burn fossil fuels (gasoline, natural gas, oil, or coal) we emit carbon dioxide (CO2) as a waste product. This waste CO2 contributes to two big problems:

(1) The earth is getting warmer, producing more and bigger storms, more floods, and worse droughts, thus disrupting food production and water supplies. This is serious.

(2) The oceans are growing more acid (CO2 plus water = carbonic acid). Many creatures at the base of the oceanic food chain live inside a thin, hard shell -- and carbonic acid attacks their shell, threatening the base of ocean life. This too is serious.

The ideal solution would be to stop making waste CO2 by phasing out fossil fuels and getting our energy from solar power in all its forms (direct sunlight, wind, and hydro dams). We know how to do this today but solar power remains somewhat more expensive then fossil fuels.
Solar has three big advantages -- (1) the sun shines everywhere so it provides "energy independence" for everyone; (2) using solar creates little or no CO2 wastes; and (3) the supply is endlessly renewable, so we won't run out. The sun doesn't shine at night but the wind blows at night and a "smart grid" with diverse power storage can keep the energy flowing everywhere 24/7. Today, the sun can provide the "base-load" power we need.

What prevents us from adopting renewable solar power is not the cost; it's the political muscle of the fossil fuel companies (oil and coal). Obviously they want us to keep burning fossil fuels because they're heavily invested.The people who run these companies aren't dumb -- they know CO2 is a big problem, so recently they devised an end-of-pipe solution: they propose to capture the CO2 and pressurize it until it turns into a liquid, then send it by pipeline to a suitable location and pump it a mile or so underground, hoping it will stay there forever. They call this "carbon capture and storage," or CCS for short.

What's wrong with this plan? In a nutshell:

1) The plan entails as many as 10,000 separate disposal sites in the U.S. alone. This would require creation of a hazardous-waste-CO2 disposal industry as big as the oil industry.

2) CCS itself would require lots of energy. For every four power plants, we would have to build a fifth power plant just to capture and store CO2. This would waste even more coal and oil.

3) Every engineer knows that avoiding waste is far better than managing waste. So CCS is fundamentally bad design.

4) Creating and running an enormous CO2 hazardous-waste disposal industry would roughly double the cost of fossil-fueled electricity. But this would make solar energy cost-competitive, so why not invest in renewable solar power now instead of investing in a dead-end CO2-waste disposal industry?

5) It would take decades to build this huge new CCS industry -- but we need solutions to the CO2 problem soon. Solar power plants can be built much faster than this experimental CCS plan could develop.

6) Instead of solving the CO2 problem that we've created, CCS would pass the problem along to our children and their children and their children's children. Basically buried CO2 could never be allowed to leak back out. We should take responsibility for our own problems, not pass them to our children to manage.

7) Scientists paid by the fossil fuel companies say the CO2 will never leak back out of the ground. What what if they're mistaken? Then our children will inherit a hot, acid-ocean, ruined world.

8) Sooner or later we're going to run out of fossil fuels -- all of them -- so eventually we have to adopt solar power. CCS just delays the inevitable -- a huge waste of time and money. We should skip CCS and go solar today.

Peter Montague, Ph.D., is the executive director of Environmental Research Foundation in New Brunswick, N.J. Since 1986 he has published Rachel's News weekly (www.rachel.org), providing information about environmental health issues to grass-roots community groups.

Monday, August 10, 2009

German Grassroots Opposition Movement with local political support

To our allies in Germany fighting CO2 sequestration - we are cheering you on!

Click here to be taken to the story

"It was meant to be the world’s first demonstration of a technology that could help save the planet from global warming – a project intended to capture emissions from a coal-fired power station and bury them safely underground.

But the German carbon capture plan has ended with CO2 being pumped directly into the atmosphere, following local opposition at it being stored underground."

Sunday, August 9, 2009

Goldman Sachs: "New Carbon Market Presents Major Opportunity"

A recent Goldman Sachs report on the Waxman-Markey climate bill confirms it would result in one of the largest commodity markets in the world subject to significant speculation and have relatively marginal impacts on the renewable power industry.

A Goldman Sachs report on the Waxman-Markey climate bill, recently issued to Goldman Sachs' clients, confirms Breakthrough Institute analysis showing the legislation would result in one of the largest commodity markets in the world subject to significant speculation by financial firms, and would have relatively marginal impacts on the renewable power industry.

Titled "Carbonomics: Measuring impact of US carbon regulation on select industries" (not publicly accessible), the report concludes that "A new carbon market presents a major opportunity for exchanges and clearinghouses, especially as more allowances and offsets trade over time."

In a section titled "Carbon exchanges -- build it, and they will (must) come to trade," it estimates the bill would grow the global carbon market to become one of the largest in the world, with trading volume of 175 to 263 million contracts per year -- larger than the oil and gas markets combined and approximately the third largest commodity market in the world after U.S. interest rates and stock indexes. The analysts estimate the profit margin for financial firms resulting from this new carbon market could reach $2 billion per year globally.

Read the full story ............more

Pressure build-up during CO2 storage in partially confined aquifers

YagnaDeepika Orugantia and Steven L. Bryant

"As the number or proximity of faults increases, the injectivity decreases slightly. In contrast to injectivity, contours of elevated pressures are sensitive to faults. They extend farther as the number or proximity of faults increases, increasing the area of influence and thus the risk of failure (seal fracture, fault activation) significantly. Thus well placement relative to known faults is an important design consideration. The effect of aquifer depth on pressure build-up due to injection is also investigated. The variation of fluid viscosity with pressure and temperature (brine viscosity is much more sensitive than CO2 viscosity) is the dominant effect on injectivity and pressure build-up. An important overall message is that contours of elevated pressure extend much farther into the aquifer than the CO2 plume itself. Thus risk assessment that focuses exclusively on CO2 may underestimate actual project risk."

The link to this abstract is here

Strong Oppostion to CO2 storage project in Denmark

A group of landowners in northern Jutland have collectively dug in their heels to stamp out a power company’s plans to establish a giant underground carbon dioxide storage chamber in Jammerbugten.

The power company has been promoting the argument that carbon dioxide is no more harmful than water and insists the resident have nothing to fear from the project. Vattenfall also points out that the European Union has indicated it wants 10-12 full-scale CCS projects at power plants across the continent within the next few years.

But even scientists at the Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland are at odds over the process.

Villy Fenhann, senior researcher at GEUS, is one of those who believes CCS diverts money from other, more viable climate solutions, such as renewable energy and energy efficiency.

‘We should be investing in the most environmentally friendly solutions and not in a method that is 50 percent more expensive,’ said Fenhann. ‘I wouldn’t feel safe with a CCS chamber in my backyard, either.’

Yet Fenhann’s colleague at GEUS, Thomas Vangkilde-Pedersen, said he didn’t see any danger with the project and that Jammerbugten was a perfect area to begin a new pilot.

But about 25 landowners in the area have now united under the banner ‘No to CO2 Storage Association’ to fight the project.

Vattenfall has offered Jammerbugten landowners 3,700 kroner each plus 1,000 kroner per hectare in compensation to get them ‘on side’ with the project. So far, 306 area residents have agreed to the project.

But according to the association of landowners opposed to the project, Vattenfall has also threatened to use the expropriation law to get around those who refused.

05/08-2009 Read more at The Copenhagen Post.