Sunday, June 28, 2009

Citizens Against CO2 Sequestration - Call to Action Meeting

Citizens of Darke County and others who are interested, are urged to attend our "Call to Action" meeting tomorrow night at Lighthouse Christian Center, on Sebring Warner Road - it will begin promptly at 7 pm and the program is expected to run until 9 pm.

Darke County is the site of the one of the 7 large-scale CO2 "DEMONSTRATIONS" . The citizens of this county do not get to vote on this issue but they can take action!

Yard Signs and T-shirts will be for sale at the event. Additionally, the signs are available from Isabel (David) Culbertson with a limited number of signs available at Tropical Isle Tanning Salon.


Adaptive Management for Carbon Capture and Sequestration

The quotes below come from this web site -

"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?”

Saturday, June 27, 2009


The information on this page comes from this link

The origins of Ohio earthquakes, as with earthquakes throughout the eastern United States, are poorly understood at this time. Those in Ohio appear to be associated with ancient zones of weakness in the Earth's crust that formed during continental collision and mountain-building events about a billion years ago. These zones are characterized by deeply buried and poorly known faults, some of which serve as the sites for periodic release of strain that is constantly building up in the North American continental plate due to continuous movement of the tectonic plates that make up the Earth's crust.

"Seismic risk in Ohio, and the eastern United States in general, is difficult to evaluate because
earthquakes are generally infrequent in comparison to plate-margin areas such as California. Also, active faults do not reach the surface in Ohio and therefore cannot be mapped without the aid of expensive subsurface techniques."

"A great difficulty in predicting large earthquakes in the eastern United States is that the recurrence interval--the time between large earthquakes--is commonly very long, on the order of hundreds or even thousands of years. As the historic record in most areas, including Ohio, is only on the order of about 200 years--an instant, geologically speaking--it is nearly impossible to estimate either the maximum magnitude or the frequency of earthquakes at any particular site.
Earthquake risk in the eastern United States is further compounded by the fact that seismic waves tend to travel for very long distances. The relatively brittle and flat-lying sedimentary rocks of this region tend to carry these waves throughout an area of thousands of square miles for even a moderate-size earthquake. Damaging ground motion would occur in an area about 10 times larger than for a California earthquake of comparable intensity."

"An additional factor in earthquake risk is the nature of the geologic materials upon which a structure is built. Ground motion from seismic waves tends to be magnified by unconsolidated sediments such as thick deposits of clay or sand and gravel. Such deposits are extensive in Ohio.

Geologic mapping programs in the state geological surveys and the U.S. Geological Survey are therefore critical to public health and safety."


Friday, June 26, 2009



By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Friday, June 26, 2009 4:20 PM PT

Climate Change: A suppressed EPA study says old U.N. data ignore the decline in global temperatures and other inconvenient truths. Was the report kept under wraps to influence the vote on the cap-and-trade bill?

Read More: Global Warming

This was supposed to be the most transparent administration ever. Yet as the House of Representatives prepared to vote on the Waxman-Markey bill, the largest tax increase in U.S. history on 100% of Americans, an attempt was made to suppress a study shredding supporters' arguments.

On Friday, the day of the vote, the Competitive Enterprise Institute said it was releasing "an internal study on climate science which was suppressed by the Environmental Protection Agency."

In the release, the institute's Richard Morrison said "internal EPA e-mail messages, released by CEI earlier in the week, indicate that the report was kept under wraps and its author silenced because of pressure to support the administration's agenda of regulating carbon dioxide."

Reading the report, available on the CEI Web site, we find this "endangerment analysis" contains such interesting items as: "Given the downward trend in temperatures since 1998 (which some think will continue until at least 2030), there is no particular reason to rush into decisions based on a scientific hypothesis that does not appear to explain most of the available data."

What the report says is that the EPA, by adopting the United Nations' 2007 "Fourth Assessment" report, is relying on outdated research by its Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The research, it says, is "at best three years out of date in a rapidly changing field" and ignores the latest scientific findings.

Besides noting the decline in temperatures as CO2 levels have increased, the draft report says the "consensus" on storm frequency and intensity is now "much more neutral."

Then there's one of Al Gore's grim fairy tales — the melting of the Greenland ice sheet and glaciers the size of Tennessee roaming the North Atlantic. "The idea that warming temperatures will cause Greenland to rapidly shed its ice has been greatly diminished by new results indicating little evidence for operations of such processes," the report says.

Little evidence? Outdated U.N. research? No reason to rush? This is not what the Obama administration and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi were telling us when they were rushing to force a Friday vote on Waxman-Markey. We were given the impression that unless we passed this cap-and-tax fiasco, polar bears would be extinct by the Fourth of July.

We have noted frequently the significance of solar activity on earth's climate and history. This EPA draft report not only confirms our reporting but the brazen incompetence of those "experts" that have been prophesying planetary apocalypse.

"A new 2009 paper by Scafetta and West," the report says, "suggests that the IPCC used faulty solar data in dismissing the direct effect of solar variability on global temperatures. Their report suggests that solar variability could account for up to 68% of the increase in Earth's global temperatures."

The report was the product of Alan Carlin, senior operations research analyst at the EPA's National Center for Environmental Economics (NCEE). He's been with the EPA for 38 years but now has been taken off all climate-related work. He is convinced that actual climate observations do not match climate change theories and that only the politics, not the science, has been settled.

Thomas Fuller, environmental policy blogger with the San Francisco Examiner, wrote Thursday in a story developed in conjunction with Anthony Watts' Web site "A source inside the Environmental Protection Agency confirmed many of the claims made by analyst Alan Carlin, the economist/physicist who yesterday went public with accusations that science was being ignored in evaluating the danger of CO2."

All this is particularly interesting because of the charges by Al Gore, NASA's James Hansen and others that the Bush administration and energy companies actively suppressed the truth about climate change.

One of the e-mails unearthed by CEI was dated March 12, from Al McGartland, office director at NCEE, forbidding Carlin from speaking to anyone outside NCEE on endangerment issues such as those in his suppressed report.

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

Saturday, June 20, 2009

Groundwater, Saline Aquifers, and Proposed CCS Project s

Darke County, Ohio is the proposed site of one of the large-scale Carbon Capture and Storage projects. (CCS - aka CO2 Sequestration) Greenville, OH has been selected as the site for the MRCSP's Phase III "Demonstration Project" in which they plan to bury 1 Millon Tons of CO2 in the Supercritical Form known as Supercritical CO2.

This area is a strong agricultural area and it sits on top of a sole source aquifer

Technology has advanced rapidly, whoever thought we'd have this technology in our lifetime?

I question why anyone would want to inject supercritical CO2 into our saline aquifer and destroy the possibility of it being used in the future. What potential mess are we leaving for future generations to clean up?

The quotes below are from the web site -

Assessing the impacts of future demand for saline groundwater on commercial deployment of CCS in the United States
Casie L Davidsona*, James J Dooleyb, Robert T Dahowskia
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, 902 Battelle Avenue, Richland, Washington 99354, USA
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, 8400 Baltimore Avenue, Ste 201, College Park, MD 20740, USA

This is a very important article - it addresses the potential impact that CCS might have on the future demand for groundwater within the United States especially as these projects increase in number. A number of areas of the U.S. are very dependent upon their groundwater - many are over-utilized or depleted or moving towards depletion as demand grows.

This geological formation in the western Ohio area is known as the Mount Simon Sandstone and it is this same saline aquifer that is considered to be an ideal formation for CO2 waste pumped into the earth as the final deposit for CO2 sequestration projects. It is deposited in the geological formation forever, not stored to be retrieved at a later date.

Water is our most precious resource.

The bold areas in red are excerpts from the article referenced below. They have been enhanced in red for those who skim articles. The excerpts are from random paragraphs and may or may not be in order... please read the entire article.

Please be sure to read the entire article

"The need to meet future water demands may lead some parts of the nation to consider supplementing existing supplies with lower quality groundwater resources, including brackish waters that are currently not considered sources of drinking water but which could provide supplemental water via desalination. In some areas, these same deep saline-filled geologic formations also represent possible candidate carbon dioxide (CO2) storage reservoirs. The analysis presented here suggests that future constraints on CCS deployment – due to potential needs to supplement conventional water supplies by desalinating deeper and more brackish waters – are likely to be necessary only in limited regions across the country, particularly in areas that are already experiencing water stress."

(Please see map of Ohio on the above web site)

"As Figure 1 illustrates, some areas of the U.S. use very little groundwater to supply their populations with drinking water. In particular, Appalachia, the Northeast and certain areas in the Midwest and Pacific Northwest rely predominantly on surface waters to meet their public supply needs. In other areas, however – particularly the Southwest, Gulf Coast and Florida, and certain other parts of the Midwest – groundwater provides a large fraction of the total public water supply, well over 50 percent in many areas. It is also worth noting that the use of groundwater to supply public drinking water appears to be on the rise. In 1985, 379 counties in the U.S. supplied more than 80 percent of their population with groundwater; in 1995 there were 436, a 15 percent increase [9]."
"3.5. Ohio River Valley Aquifers
Because the most promising CO2 storage resource in the Ohio River Valley does not underlie a major drinking water aquifer system in many areas of interest for CO2 storage, there are unlikely to be significant conflicts regarding saline water use for CCS. However, the Mt. Simon Formation, one of the key CO2 storage targets in this region, shallows to the northwest, in northern Illinois, where formation waters are fresh and the aquifer is an important groundwater source."

Greenville, Ohio sits on a freshwater sole source aquifer)
"Adapting to growing populations, declining water levels within key aquifers, and changing precipitation patterns may further strain heavily used groundwater resources in areas already impacted by water supply issues. Within certain regions of the nation, water scarcity concerns may prompt further consideration for targeting nearby high salinity or brackish water in deep aquifers for treatment by desalination technologies to augment more conventional supplies. Deep geologic formations that could be used as a permanent repository for anthropogenic CO2 in climate change mitigation efforts via CCS contain highly brackish waters that in select regions might represent potential targets for future waters supplies (particularly if they are below the salinity of seawater, approximately 35,000 mg/L TDS). This possibility might present a competing use for these deep geologic formations, and should be examined to estimate the potential probability, location, and magnitude, of such impacts."
"The likelihood that deep, saline groundwaters exceeding the USDW salinity threshold may be demanded as future sources of drinking or irrigation water increases in areas where groundwater currently supplies a significant portion of the region’s water supply; in areas with already constrained water supplies, such as the High Plains / Ogallala region; in areas where significant population growth is expected to overburden current surface and groundwater resources within the near- to mid-term, such as in parts of the Southwestern U.S. and areas of Texas; and in areas where there are limited other sources of saline waters (i.e., seawater) nearby."
' In areas that meet one or more of these criteria and also have a significant potential demand for deep geologic CO2 storage, there exists the possibility for differences of opinion regarding the best use of the saline groundwater underlying these regions. In such cases, permitting or garnering public acceptance for proposed CCS projects will require regulators and potential CCS operators to strike a balance between the future needs for high quality drinking and agricultural water, and the use of CCS in a given area as a climate change mitigation strategy."

CO2 Sequestration - Liability and States

As you research CO2 sequestration projects and the liability issues you often see articles that mention the state should take ownership after a certain time has passed. I wondered WHY a state would ever consider that option. Liability follows ownership...

Read both articles - VERY ENLIGHTENING.

This second link is to a PowerPoint Presentation by Ian Duncan, Bureau of Economic Geology University of Texas at Austin, to me, it tells the real story of CO2 sequestration -( see link below)

Check it out - not one word about how it cleans up the atmosphere, protecting us from the dangers of CO2 as a Green House Gas - No, it tells the real tale - how to get it done, even if it means doing a EOR project for public acceptance - to put dollars in deep pockets! (and at the time putting a false sense of security in the minds of their constituents with the sovereign immunity issue!

"CO2 EOR Is not “The Answer”…but CO2 EOR is a great beginning
• Economic or near economic in current market, depending on cost of CO2
• Acceptable to public
• Other major benefits (domestic energy production, taxes, employment)
• Build infrastructure that can be used long term for large volume CO2 disposal =
stacked storage

Could CO2 Sequestration Storage Volume in the Gulf Coast be valuable in the future?
~ 222 Billion Tons of CO2 at $30 to $80 a ton (based on economists projects)
…. You do the math!"

I couldn't help but hear the words of Paul Harvey in my ear as I read it, "and now you know the rest of the story".
And they wonder WHY communities object to this experimental technology?

Monday, June 15, 2009

Local Opposition to Proposed CO2 Sequestration Project Grows in Darke County OH

Photo by Lyn Bliss /Advocate Photo

Darke County, OH (Greenville, OH)

Citizens Against CO2 Sequestration - the grassroots movement in Darke County, Ohio is growing to send raise public awareness of the proposed large-scale CO2 sequestration EXPERIMENT planned for Darke County and the risks to their community.

Signs are going up all over the county.

Thank you to all who are showing your opposition to the EXPERIMENTAL CO2 Sequestration project planned for our community! Talk to your friends and neighbors, plan to attend The Stop CO2 Sequestration rally and our Call To Action Meeting on Monday, June 29, at the All Seasons Place on Sebring Warner Road at 7 PM.

A public Stop CO2 Sequestration Rally is planned for Saturday morning - June 27 - Annie Oakley Park in downtown Greenville at 10 am - more details coming soon. Signature Petitons, information will be available as well as Yard Signs. Yard Signs can be purchased for $5 each.
Plan to Attend - Homemade signs welcome.

Signs are available from Isabel Culbertson or by emailing -

Click on this link to read the article in The Daily Advocate and to access their CO2 blog.

If you know of other newspapers hosting their own blog about CO2 sequestration projects please let us know. To date, we believe The Daily Advocate in Greenville, Ohio is the only one.

Clean-coal test is a go in Ohio- and it will be in Greenville, OH

From the Columbus Dispatch - this large-scale CO2 project was announced to the public May 6, 2007 and Battelle was already the question is, when did that deal really begin?

Sen. George V. Voinovich, R-Ohio
announces Large Scale CO2 Project for Darke County

Clean-coal test is a go in Ohio
Feds' $61.1 million will pay to pump CO{-2} underground
Wednesday, May 7, 2008 3:15 AM

WASHINGTON -- The federal government said yesterday that it will spend $61.1 million for a clean-coal project in Ohio, a major step in deciding whether it is commercially feasible to burn Midwest coal without emitting the carbon dioxide thought to cause global warming.

The money will be funneled to a demonstration project in the Mount Simon Sandstone formation in Darke County in western Ohio.

About 1 million tons of carbon dioxide from an ethanol facility will be injected 3,000 feet into the sandstone formation.

Proponents contend that the process, known as carbon sequestration, is crucial for the future of Ohio coal. If electric utility plants can burn coal without causing global warming, it would provide a major boost to Ohio's coal industry.

Sen. George V. Voinovich, R-Ohio, said in a statement that "this award is a vitally important step forward in our nation's commitment to crafting a comprehensive solution to climate change."

To read the entire article click here

Midwest Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership—Development Phase

Sunday, June 14, 2009

Briefing for the Public and Media Greenville, OhioMRCSP Phase III Geologic Test at the Andersons/Marathon Ethanol Plant

Briefing for the Public and Media
Greenville, Ohio
August 13, 2008

NETL Workshop of Gasification Technologies June 2008

Click here to be taken to the PowerPoint presentation

Carbon Sequestration: Risks, Opportunities, and Protection of Drinking Water

Statement by Ian Duncan
Bureau of Economic Geology
University of Texas at Austin
July 24, 2008
Carbon Sequestration: Risks, Opportunities, and
Protection of Drinking Water

Cranfield Mississippi - Case Study: Monitoring an EOR Project to Document Sequestration Value

Slide 1
Large volume, Phase III via existing pipelines - EOR project

Click here to be taken to the PowerPoint

From the SECARB site:

The project will inject CO2 at the rate of one million tons per year, for up to 1.5 years, into brine up to 10,000 feet below the land surface near the Cranfield oil field about 15 miles east of Natchez, Miss. Experimental equipment will measure the ability of the subsurface to accept and retain CO2. The study will be supported by Denbury Resources’ CO2 enhanced oil recovery operations at Cranfield. Denbury Resources will supply CO2 from its Jackson Dome.

Class V Experimental Well Permit Process Items & Potential Issues for Western Kentucky CO2 Storage Project

From July 2008

The above presentation describes the Process for a Class V Experimental Well Permit scheduled for Western KY

Saturday, June 13, 2009

MRCSP Project- Greenville, Ohio - Darke County

To find the latest information regarding the Darke County (Greenville) project please continue to check The Daily Advocate CO2 blog. This is a special blog set up to keep residents informed.

The proposed seismic testing area can be found there - they have a map and have listed the streets and off-road areas involved.

A special thanks to The Daily Advocate for this service to your community.

Injection Induced Earthquakes AND Special Considerations Supercritical Liquid Properties

When most people think about Carbon Capture and Storage they think it means putting bubbles in the ground or carbonation, like we find in soda pop. The reality is not even close to anything resembling bubbles and it is dangerous.

Before the CO2 they capture can be put into the ground it must be transformed into SUPERCRITICAL CO2 which is considered a Supercritical Liquid - which is a supersolvent and comes with a lot of risks.

The article below comes from:
Joel Sminchak and Neeraj Gupta

I could not find a date on this abstract. Some random quotes from it are listed below.

Please read the entire article - I have just excerpts here.

The live link to this article is here
(bold areas in the quoted material below have been done by me to help those who skim over articles)

Consequently, the injected CO2 must be addressed as a multiphase system. Special considerations for underground disposal of CO2 are mostly related to the unique properties of supercritical CO2.

"Formation Dissolution/Weakening
Supercritical CO2 has the potential to dissolve, weaken, or transform the minerals in the injection formation. In the supercritical state, CO2 becomes a “supersolvent.” Thus, there is potential for the fluid to dissolve and weaken the rocks in the injection formation. If the rock formation is weakened, the potential for hydraulic fracturing increases. Dissolution of minerals precipitated along a fault will reduce the strength of the fault, possibly moving the fault to frictional sliding conditions where failure is more likely to occur."

Case Study: Seismic Aspects of Deep Well Injection in Ohio
Deep well injection practices and seismic activity in Ohio were examined to determine the potential for induced seismicity in the state. All five active deep well injection systems in Ohio have been investigated for seismic hazards to some extent.
Most faults in Ohio are associated with Precambrian basement rocks at depths over 1 km below land surface. Several faults have been identified in northwestern Ohio, while relatively few faults have been identified in the rest of the state. The Anna Seismogenic Region is one of the most active seismic zones in Ohio (Figure 4). The zone is located in west-central Ohio. (Note by me - Greenville, OH is considered to be part of the Anna fault)

"In general, most seismic activity indicates strike-slip movement along steeply dipping faults. Based on the USGS Seismic Hazard mapping project, there is a low probability for damage from earthquakes for Ohio, except in the Anna Seismic Area, which has a moderate hazard.

The Anna Seismic Seismogenic Region in west-central Ohio has been identified as one of the most active seismic areas in the Midwest. The area has a substantial history of seismic activity dating back to the mid-1800s. The largest earthquake observed in the area had a Modified Mercalli intensity of VIII in 1937. In general, seismic activity indicates northeast-southwest strike-slip movement oriented perpendicular to the predominant stresses in the area."

"A number of faults have been proposed in the area, but most activity appears to occur near the trend of the proposed Anna-Champaign Fault. Overall, the Anna Seismic Area is considered a seismically active area."

Acknowledgement: The work presented here was conducted with funding from the U.S. Department of Energy’s National Energy Technology Laboratory as part of project number DEAF26-99FT0486."

To read the entire abstract click here

A Fluid--Injection Triggered Earthquake Sequence in Ashtabula, Ohio: Implications for Seismogenesis and Hazard in Stable Continental Regions (SCR)

From the web site:

A persistent earthquake sequence in northeast Ohio includes many distinct fore--main--aftershock sub--sequences, illuminates two faults, and was triggered by fluid injection. The first known earthquake from within 30~km of Ashtabula was an mb(Lg)~3.8 mainshock that shook the downtown area in 1987. Seismicity has continued at an average of about one felt event per year. The largest magnitude so far, mb(Lg)~4.3, caused slight damage (MMI VI) 26 Jan. 2001. The latest subsequence started July 2003 with mb(Lg)~2.6. Accurate hypocenters and focal mechanisms are available from three local seismograph deployments in 1987, 2001, 2003 and from regional broadband seismograms. These hypocenters are in the Precambrian basement, 0--2 km below the 1.8~km deep Paleozoic unconformity, and illuminate two distinct planar E-W striking sources zones 4 km apart, one in 1987 about 1.5~km long, the other in 2001 and 2003 about 5 km long. We interpret them as steep sub--parallel faults slipping left--laterally in the current regime. Like many of the faults that ruptured in hazardous SCR earthquakes, these faults were previously unknown and probably have small post--Precambrian displacements. The 1987 source was active a year after onset of class 1 fluid injection only 0.7~km north of the fault. The second fault, 5 km south of the injection well, became active in 2000, while the 1987 source was inactive. The well injected about 164 m3/day of waste fluid into the 1.8 km-deep basal sandstone with about 100 bars of well head pressure from May 1986 to June 1994. An annular high pore--pressure anomaly is expected to expand along this hydraulically confined horizon at the top of the basement even after injection ends and pressure drops near the well. Over 16 years, seismicity has shifted southward from ˜1 to 5--8~km from the point of injection. It seems to initiate when and where a significant pore pressure rise intersects pre--existing faults close to failure and to be turned off when pressure starts dropping back. The largest earthquakes postdated the end of injection at both Ashtabula and at the Rocky Mountain Arsenal near Denver, Colorado. Anthropogenic earthquake hazard may thus persist after the causative activity has ceased but can generally be closely monitored. High--stress and low strain rates in the eastern US and other SCRs can account for a larger proportion of triggered earthquakes in these regions than in active ones. Unlike hazard from natural SCR earthquakes, hazard from potential sources of anthropogenic earthquakes could generally be precisely identified in time and space. Anthropogenic triggering may have raised significantly the overall level of SCR seismicity during the last half century. Models that assume constant seismicity through the historic period may thus underestimate the overall hazard.
Keywords: 7209 Earthquake dynamics and mechanics, 7223 Seismic hazard assessment and prediction

Friday, June 12, 2009

Texas Drills - then has earthquakes

Many thanks to one of our members (Roger) for this heads up!

Fracking - are these earthquakes related to recent fracking activity in TX? Seems odd they had no earthquakes in the last 140 years and suddenly, after drilling starts so do the quakes!

CLEBURNE, Texas – The earth moved here on June 2. It was the first recorded earthquake in this Texas town's 140-year history — but not the last. There have been four small earthquakes since, none with a magnitude greater than 2.8. The most recent ones came Tuesday night, just as the City Council was meeting in an emergency session to discuss what to do about the ground moving.

The council's solution was to hire a geology consultant to try to answer the question on everyone's mind: Is natural gas drilling — which began in earnest here in 2001 and has brought great prosperity to Cleburne and other towns across North Texas — causing the quakes?

"I think John Q. Public thinks there is a correlation with drilling," Mayor Ted Reynolds said. "We haven't had a quake in recorded history, and all the sudden you drill and there are earthquakes."

At issue is a drilling practice called "fracking," in which water is injected into the ground at high pressure to fracture the layers of shale and release natural gas trapped in the rock.

There is no consensus among scientists about whether the practice is contributing to the quakes. But such seismic activity was once rare in Texas and seems to be increasing lately, lending support to the theory that drilling is having a destabilizing effect.

On May 16, three small quakes shook Bedford, a suburb of Dallas and Fort Worth. Two small earthquakes hit nearby Grand Prairie and Irving on Oct. 31, and again on Nov. 1.

The towns sit upon the Barnett Shale, a geologic formation that is perhaps the nation's richest natural gas field. The area is estimated to have 30 trillion cubic feet of recoverable gas and provides about 7 percent of the country's supply.

Click here to read the full story

From: Chapter 12 of, State of Texas Hazards Analysis, by the Governor's Division of Emergency Management, Department of Public Safety, Austin, Texas, 1998.

Finally, some human activities are known to cause or trigger earthquakes. These include the injection of fluids into the earth for waste disposal or petroleum production, and the filling of deep lakes or reservoirs. In Texas, there have been earthquakes associated with oil and gas production at a number of fields. These include the Wortham field in Freestone County, the East Texas and Longview fields in Upshur and Gregg Counties, the Cogdell field in Scurry and Kent Counties, and the Fashing and Jourdanton fields in Atascosa County. None of these quakes have been very damaging or very large; the largest had magnitude 4.7. And, usually petroleum production does not cause earthquakes; in Texas there are more than two thousand oil and gas fields but only about five seem to have generated earthquakes. Nevertheless, wherever there is considerable petroleum production, and especially when there is fluid injection to enhance recovery of to dispose of waste, people should be aware that induced earthquakes are possible.

Wednesday, June 10, 2009

Texas Blasts Federal Efforts to Fight Global Warming

Texas elected officials Tuesday railed against federal efforts to curb global warming, claiming it would throttle the state's economy -- one of the few that generated job growth last year.

State comptroller Susan Combs said that if passed, a landmark climate change bill winding its way through Congress could cost the state 164,000 jobs and shave some $25 billion per year, or 2%, off the state's total economic output.

"Texas is the kitchen of the country. We cook up all of the products that are used elsewhere," said Ms. Combs, a Republican, referring to the state's large petrochemical and plastics industry. "The recipe for disaster is being cooked up in Washington D.C.," she added.

"I happen to think that what they are discussing could wreck our traditional energy industry and put a very serious dent in our economy," said Mr. Perry. He repeated his view that the proposed provisions that recently passed out of committee in the House of Representatives amounted to the largest tax increase in history. The provisions would put a limit on emissions of the gasses blamed for climate change and require companies to pay for permits to pollute. As a result, "Every American that uses any source of energy would see their bills go up," he said.

The impact would be felt acutely in Texas, home to a giant refining complex. Refineries under the legislation would be forced to purchase emissions permits, driving up the cost of producing fuel. It is also home to the corporate headquarters of the world's largest oil company, Exxon Mobil Corp., and the largest refining company based on refining capacity, Valero Energy Corp., as well as another major oil company, ConocoPhillips.

Ms. Hutchison, however, also stands against a carbon cap-and-trade system. "A cap and trade approach to address climate change is onerous and misguided, and it will raise energy prices for consumers and adversely impact workers and small businesses during a time of economic hardship," she said Tuesday in a statement.

Western Kentucky CO2 test well drilling begins storage

From the web site

June 10 2009 (Carbon Capture Journal)

- Fifteen months after project planning began, drilling has started in Hancock County, Kentucky for a test well to research the permanent storage of CO2.

The 8,300-foot well will help determine the feasibility of injecting CO2 into geologic formations to help reduce emissions of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere.

The project is the result of a joint effort between Kentucky state government agencies, the Kentucky Geological Survey (KGS), and a consortium of public and private participants.

The project was made possible by a $5 million grant awarded to the geological survey from the Kentucky Department for Energy Development and Independence as a result of appropriations from the Kentucky General Assembly.

A portion of this grant is used for the west Kentucky project, with substantial matching funds provided by industry partners. The KGS recruited corporate partners who have contributed the majority of the funding and services crucial to completing the project.

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

Project plans call for drilling through the Knox and Mount Simon formations to test their potential to permanently store CO2. Studies have indicated these formations may have characteristics needed for such storage.

The well will penetrate Precambrian basement rocks at its total depth. Samples of geologic formations will be taken for testing and analysis, and up to 1,500 tons of carbon dioxide will be injected into deep formations to further the understanding of the feasibility of commercial CO2 storage.

State grant funding will also be used for a similar deep carbon dioxide storage test in eastern Kentucky and enhanced oil/enhanced gas recovery projects.


* Spring 2009: Drilling phase. (Drilling expected to take 45 – 60 days; well of about 8,300 feet will be cored in intervals, geophysical surveys completed and interpreted and prepared for injection testing.)

* Spring - Summer 2009: Start of injection testing with brine and CO2. Deeper porous zones will be tested for injection capacity.

* Summer - Winter 2009: Post-injection monitoring of well site. Interpretation of drilling and testing results and preparation of final reports. Project completed, and well plugged and abandoned per Kentucky and U.S. EPA specifications. Environmental monitoring to continue over the next several years.


* Kentucky Geological Survey

* University of Kentucky

* Commonwealth of Kentucky

* Kentucky Energy and the Environment Cabinet

* Western Kentucky Carbon Storage Foundation: (Members: ConocoPhillips, E.ON US, Peabody Energy)

* Illinois Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity

* Tennessee Valley Authority

* Schlumberger Carbon Services

* GEO Consultants, LLC

* Sandia Technologies, LLC

* Smith Management Group

* Wyatt, Tarrant, and Combs

Kentucky Geological Survey

Community Acceptance of Carbon Capture and Sequestration Infrastructure: Siting and Public Acceptance Challenges

This information comes from the web site:

Please click on the link to their site to read the full article.

"Congressional policy makers are becoming aware that a national program of carbon capture and sequestration could require an extensive new network of carbonrelated infrastructure. Carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) is a three-part process involving a carbon dioxide (CO2) source facility, CO2 pipelines, and a permanent CO2 sequestration site. A key consideration in the development of such infrastructure is community acceptance, which may ultimately determine whether, where, and how anticipated CCS projects may be built. Although the general public is still largely unfamiliar with CCS, there are early indications that community acceptance may prove a significant challenge to the siting of CCS infrastructure in the United States."

Recent federal statutes and legislative proposals related to CO2 control have only obliquely addressed public acceptance of CO2 infrastructure or related siting issues. The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-140) requires a report recommending procedures for "public review and comment" and protection of "the quality of natural and cultural resources" related to the siting of sequestration projects on public land. The Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act of 2008 (S. 3036) would require a CCS construction feasibility study examining "any barrier or potential barrier ... including any technical, siting, financing, or regulatory barrier" relating to the development of CO2 pipelines or geological sequestration sites for CCS. The Carbon Capture and Storage Technology Act of 2007 (S. 2323) would fund CCS demonstration projects in locations that "represent a range of population densities" and are "in close proximity to ... utilities and industrial settings."

(Note- S. 2323 This item is from the 110th Congress (2007-2008) and is no longer current.)

"The research available suggests that the public is ambivalent towards CCS. At the policy level, this ambivalence may cause concern among legislators seeking to promote carbon control strategies that could impose significant costs on local communities or the U.S. economy overall. At the project level, this ambivalence may become outright opposition as community residents incorporate local considerations in their evaluation of a proposed CCS development."

"But understanding public acceptance of CCS takes on greater urgency in light of proposals to curb CO2 emissions quickly and the scale of CCS infrastructure required to do so. The most prominent CO2 proposals in the 110th Congress seek reductions of nationwide CO2 emissions to 1990 levels or lower by 2030. Given such goals for reducing U.S. emissions of CO2, and the potential contribution of CCS to reaching them, the issue of community acceptance of CCS infrastructure may prove challenging."

Related Bills: S.3036 S.2323

Sunday, June 7, 2009

‘Speed Schmooze’ - Their Attempt to Build Trust

There are many studies online that were done to help prevent public opposition to Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS or CO2 Sequestration). The same studies also address dealing with public opposition when the communication "schmooze" campaign back-fires.

These studies are clearly done to sell the public on CCS knowing no one who understood it would want it in their community. This blog has referenced many of these reports in previous entries.

Those who stand to make a financial gain see the value of investing money to to do a study to come up with a plot to schmooze the public into accepting CO2 sequestration as something good for the environment and their community.

This entry deals with yet another communication effort to gain public acceptance for CO2 sequestration projects. Below are a few quotes from a workshop on Carbon Capture and Storage that was hosted by Climate Change Central in partnership with the Institute for Sustainable Energy, Environment and Economy (ISEEE) and the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD).

Carbon Capture and

"We must be prepared to manage public communications to ensure we do not destroy years of hard work on CCS, and to help make it a reality. It is never too early
to seek public acceptance."

"Another suggestion for improvement at a future event is the provision of additional
networking opportunities including the suggestion of a ‘speed schmooze’ to lay the
foundation for constructive dialogue."

"Communication and engagement are key elements of effective stakeholding. There are a number of tools that decision makers can use to increase their chances that stakeholders become part of the solution rather than part of the problem."

"Despite internal calls for accelerating the stakeholder outreach, a public relations firm was hired instead. The PR firm addressed the issue as a technical (or Type I) problem and set out to inform the community that the issues were minor. To prove this they showed the results of an Environmental Assessment that had a "finding of no significant impact.” However, by the time this official research was communicated, the surfer community had started a bumper sticker campaign “Stop CO2 Dumping,” and anger had been generated in the local population. This put a big damper on ocean research, not just in Hawaii, but everywhere,despite the fact that the ocean is the largest carbon sink on the planet."

This blog was started to help communities around the globe find a lot of information in one place with links to web sites so they can educate themselves and form their own opinion. It is my hope that they will then organize a strong, public opposition grassroots movement to stand up for their community and fight back!

If you are a homeowner, call your insurance company now and tell them your community has been "chosen" as a site of a CO2 sequestration demonstration project. Ask them if you will be covered in the event there is an earthquake. You will most likely get the same answer we did - NO, NO COVERAGE. At our public meeting with the EPA and Battelle in the summer of 2008 they recommended we buy earthquake insurance.

Is it any wonder the companies doing these projects have so many studies on gaining public trust? If CO2 sequestration is such a good thing for communities we should see communities bidding to get them into their community instead of working hard to keep these projects from going forward.

"A small group of thoughtful people could change the world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has." ~Margaret Mead

"The great aim of education is not knowledge but action.
" ~ Herbert Spencer

The time to get active is NOW - If Margaret and Herbert were here today I'm sure they'd be cheering us on!

Ohio EPA approves TAME Project Seismic Plans

From the Daily Advocate blog in Greenville, Ohio. ( A huge thank you to our local paper for going the extra mile to inform residents, many communities have not had this support from their local newspaper.)

Heather Lauer, Media Relations Coordinator for the Ohio EPA said that Batelle’s TAME Project Seismic Plans were approved on June 1, 2009.

A letter was drafted to David Ball, Project Manager, Battelle Memorial Institute that read:

Re: TAME Project Seismic Plans

Dear Mr. Ball:

The underground Injection Control (UIC) Unit of the Ohio EPA’s Division of Drinking and Ground Waters (DDAGW) has reviewed the proposed seismic reflection survey plan for The Andersons Marathon Ethanol, LLC (TAME) carbon dioxide (CO2) sequestration project. The original seismic plan was submitted by Batelle Memorial Institute (Battelle) on April 27, 2009. A revised plan was submitted May 4, 2009, and reviewed in accordance with Ohio Administrative Code (OAC) 3745-34-40. The seismic plan, with revisions, is approved as submitted.

The TAME project is a Phase III Midwest Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership (MRCSP) development and demonstration project of geologic sequestration. The MRCSP is a consortium of Midwestern states, geological surveys, non governmental and private companies led by Battelle and funded by the Department of Energy (DOE). The seismic survey is designed to help ascertain geologic conditions at the TAME site.

You are hereby notified that this action of the Director is final and may be appealed to the Environmental Review Appeals Commission pursuant to Section 3745.04 of the Ohio Revised Code. The appeal must be in writing and shall set forth the action complained of and grounds upon which the appeal is based. the appeal must be filed with the Commission within thirty (30) days after notice of the Director’s action. The appeal must be accompanied by a filing fee of $70.00 which the Commission, in its discretion, may reduce if by affidavit you demonstrate that payment of the full amount of the fee would cause extreme hardship. Notice of the filing of the appeal shall be filed with the Director within three (3) days of filing with the commission. Ohio EPA requests that a copy of the appeal be served upon the Ohio Attorney General’s Office of Environmental Enforcement Section. An appeal may be filed with the Environmental Review Appeals Commission at the following address:

Environmental Review Appeals Commission

309 South Fourth Street, Room 222

Columbus, Ohio 43215

If you have any questions regarding this correspondence please contact either Lindsay Taliaferro or Chuck Lowe of my staff at (614) 644-2752.


Chris Korleski


Friday, June 5, 2009

Darke County (Greenville, OH) Drilling to begin July 2009

Clicking on the link below takes you to the NETL presentation. At the end, the last page says, "Any questions?"

I have a lot of questions, here are a few:

We do NOT want this in our community, how do we stop this?

If this goes forward -

In researching other 'demonstration projects" it appears many are "designed to test failure
scenarios". We don't like secrets and want to know up-front if this is part of your plan and if so, what risks you are planning to take with our families, homes, economy, drinking water etc.

How many local people will be hired in this process?

How many Battelle employees, contractors and subcontractors will be buying homes in Greenville? In Darke County?

Who attended the planning meetings for this project? Were they publicized and listed as open to the public? If so, many of us missed those notices but I'm sure our local newspaper has them in their archive.

Who were/are the local decision makers? I don't think any of us who live here really know.

Going forward, when are the meetings? A number of us would like to be there.

Should we have an earthquake - how will you cover the loss of our homes, belongings, jobs?

This community has a lot of elderly, what provisions have you made to accommodate them?

Please click the link below
Sequestration Program Overview
Bob Kleinmann, PhD
National Energy Technology Laboratory

Scroll down to page 59

• Located at TAME Facility (Greenville, OH)
Drilling to begin ≈7/2009
• Injection to begin 2010

The time to be vocal is NOW - talk to your friends and neighbors, your elected officials - the people voted into office to act on your behalf with your best interest at heart.

From the MRCSP site -

"In the early stages of the first two-year period, the study team will also conduct a site characterization to gather detailed information about the site. This will include a seismic survey of the area to determine the nature of geologic layers and ensure that the area is free from the type of faults that could provide pathways for leakage. The team will drill a test well to gather geologic data about the storage potential in the injection zones and the ability of the overlying caprock layers to contain the carbon dioxide. The well is constructed of the several layers of steel casing and concrete to protect the drinking water supplies near the surface.

3. During this time also, the team will install site infrastructure improvements, including a carbon dioxide compression facility and a pipeline. This line will transport the carbon dioxide a short distance of several hundred feet from the ethanol vent stack to the compression site and eventually to the injection wells, located on site.

4. Before injecting carbon dioxide, the MRCSP must prepare an application for a permit to the regulators at the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The EPA requires an operational plan which will include factors such as maintaining the integrity of the well and the injection volume and pressure. The EPA also requires a plan for monitoring the safety of the operations. Before the permit becomes final, the EPA will issue a draft for public review and comment. These activities are expected to take place during 2009 and 2010.

5. After obtaining a permit, the research team will begin injecting carbon dioxide. This is expected to occur in 2010 and continue for four years.

6. As required by the permit and for research purposes, the MRCSP research team will monitor activities at all stages, including after injection, to track the condition of the well and the injected carbon dioxide.

7. After completing the injection test, the team will continue to monitor the stored carbon dioxide and evaluate the results for the remainder of the Phase III project."

Fracking - CO2

Legislation pending to allow EPA control over CO2 “fracking” (protection of drinking water)

Fracking (fracturing) is a procedure identical to CO2 sequestration used by the oil industry to drive gas/oil to the surface.

Wall Street Journal Friday June 5, 2009

Energy Industry Lobbies to Avert Drilling Rules

On Thursday, June 4th Democratic Reps. Diana DeGette of Colorado and Maurice Hinchey of New York said they plan to introduce legislation to allow the EPA to regulate fracking under the Safe Drinking Water Act, which would repeal a 2005 law that exempted it from EPA oversight.

Submitted article -

The “Fracking” CO2 Sequestration must to be stopped!

Please excuse the “crude” (as in oil) language but:

“Fracking” (fracturing) is the term used in the oil and gas industry that involves the injection of millions of gallons of water and chemicals into oil and gas wells at high pressure. Fracking is used to fracture or crack open dense rock formations thousands of feet underground allowing trapped gas to flow to the surface. That description should give you a clear vision of the dangerous potential of a million of tons of liquid CO2 has as it emerges through a “frack” (fracture). Unlike water, liquid CO2 will expand by over 100-fold with explosive force as it emerges toward the surface. For this reason CO2 is preferred over water for fracking. According to the calculations of Darke County Engineer Jim Surber, the proposed CO2 sequestration could amount to a fraction of a cubic mile of the gas. This fact grossly underestimates the potential for such an event to kill. For most people breathing 5-10% CO2 (certainly the elderly and children) will prove fatal. Therefore this volume must be multiplied by a factor of 10-20. Furthermore since CO2 is of a greater density than air it will spread horizontally as it emerges, thus potentially putting several square miles at risk. Indeed fracking, which is used by the oil and gas industry to drive gases to the surface, is the same process used to permanently sequester the gas CO2 underground. Can this be? The fracking process and CO2 sequestration are identical procedures– except for the fact that fracking is vented by wells reducing the risk of explosive pressures developing. CCS is not vented but capped like a carbonated drink. Due to hydraulic pressure this cap can be “fracked” at any point of time followed by the explosive release by the expanding CO2. Indeed such a thing has happened on numerous occasions in the oil industry.

Thursday, June 4, 2009

Earthquakes - Potential Side effect of CCS (CO2 sequestration)

There is no time like the present to educate yourself about earthquakes - this link was sent to me and so I am passing it on to our readers in hopes no one ever needs this information

More Issues with Supercritical CO2

The quotes below come from the comments section on web site -

"First off, CO2 has what is known in the industry as a "triple point". A point on the temperature/pressure curve at which all three phases (liquid, solid, and gas) can co-exist. This is a dangerous situation because solids can plug up pipelines, liquids are incompressible, and gasses at that pressure are bombs waiting to blow. It is not at all uncommon for a pipeline to plug up due to a solid dry ice plug, burst due to the sudden spike in pressure from the incompressible liquids pumped in behind it, then flash to gas and cause an explosion. That is one reason it is not often used for oil well fracturing/stimulation, liquid nitrogen is far safer to handle/pump."

"The other issue is one of metallurgy. CO2, in the presence of water turns into carbolic acid. Carbon steel as well as most higher strength stainless steels are subject to severe pitting corrosion from carbolic acid. I have a piece of pipe that was in an oil well for two weeks in wet CO2 environment. It quite literally looks like a piece of wood that termites have been eating. Pitting corrosion is the most dangerous kind of corrosion because it is random and unpredictable in how deep it will go. Therefore you cannot build in a "corrosion allowance" into your designs to compensate for it the way you can with general corrosion. A corrosion allowance is when you specify a thicker wall for a pressure vessel than needed to account for the lost thickness due to corrosion over the vessel's life. But since pitting is localized and can go very deep very quickly, you cannot compensate for it in that manner."

"Carbolic acid also attacks the cement used to plug and case wells as well.

The way to compensate for it is to use group IV corrosion resistant materials. These materials are invariably very high Chrome, Nickel, Cobalt, and Molybdenum content materials. These are as you can imagine not cheap or plentiful, and were generally not used to drill or case the original oil wells that are to be used as CO2 injection wells. They also tend to present operational issues due to their propensity to gall. You cannot inject CO2 into a reservoir that has carbon steel cased wells that intersect it for there is a high likelihood that those capped wells may blow out later due to corrosion. Therefore using old oil wells is extremely problematic. Sure, it will work for a short time, but long term, those wells are ticking time bombs."

"Another issue is the energy required to capture, purify, liquefy, transport and pump the CO2. That energy has both a carbon and a financial cost associated with it. What good does it serve to sequester 1 MMCF of CO2 if you generate 1.25 MMCF in the process?

For example, carbonic acid in groundwater can dissolve limestone to form natural caves. We don't know what type of effect pumping such a volume of CO2 into the ground would have, so saying there could be an off-the-shelf system in the near-term is not reasonable."

Below are excerpts from the web site -

"Potential problems

Beside the problem of carbon dioxide leaking out of old abandoned wells, there are other concerns.

Forcing carbon dioxide under pressure into rock formations could force natural gas and salt water out of those formations in unpredictable and undesirable ways – into shallow water wells, for example or to the surface, spilling natural gas (a potent greenhouse gas) into the atmosphere, or pushing brine into fresh water aquifers.

And in an ironic reversal, pumping gas under pressure into some rock formations could cause the surface of the ground to actually rise – as opposed to land subsidence caused by deep mining coal – damaging structures and affecting streams and drinking water aquifers.

Leaking carbon dioxide could find its way into drinking water aquifers, and while this sounds like it could produce club soda from the kitchen faucet, it would make the water more acidic, dissolving calcium and other minerals and creating a hard water problem, or in some cases dissolving toxic metals, raising trace elements to dangerous levels."

Wednesday, June 3, 2009


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

Would YOU want to move into a community that accepts this for its RESIDENTS?

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

Once the CO2 is underground it is there FOREVER!

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

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

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

Below is the link to the Daily Advocate article on the Seismic Testing -

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

NO CO2 Dumping In Darke!


I was able to quickly find this report of a fatality which is proof that they are not mini- explosives = they are powerful!

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

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

Western KY Drilling of Test Well underway

This information comes from the Kentucky Geological Survey site
Click on the link to be taken to the this article on their web site

Joint project involves state, public and private participants

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

Risks Related to CO2 Sequestration, - LOTS OF RISKS

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

Click below -

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Below -from the web site:
Click on the link to read the entire article... bold print is my emphasis.

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

It Takes Energy to Bury CO2

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

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

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

Storage problems

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

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

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

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

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

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

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