Have An Experimental CO2 Sequestration in YOUR Area?

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

Let us know your concerns, what your group is doing to stop it, etc.

If you have one of these experiments going on in your area please let us know your location!

Email -

StopExperimentalCO2Projects@yahoo.com

Legislature Enters the Fray on Carbon Cleanup

The full-article is here

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

How to protect government from liability

Legal dangers for the state in permitting CO2 sequestration projects

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

Building legal framework to protect THE STATE

CO2 sequestration - more study is needed

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Take ACTION Against CO2 Sequestration (CCS)

• Watch this video from www.theclean.org
• Join national groups working together to stop CCS
• Join your community group to stop CCS projects, not just in YOUR neighborhood, but in everyone's
• Write letters to the editor
• Talk to your friends and neighbors
• Realize that the time to act is NOW before it is in the ground FOREVER
  
• Get educated - Carbon Sequestration is driven by the coal industry and is just another way to fund the coal industry - not only does it consume MORE of it, it adds to pollution and consumes MORE of our most precious resource - Fresh Drinking Water.
  
• Write your elected officials - vote for those who work to stop CCS - remember, as an elected official they are working on YOUR behalf........let them hear your voice!
  

As is so often the case.......... the push for big business initiatives - (money makers) is stronger than the case for education about what each of us can do to reduce OUR carbon footprint and the push for clean, renewable energy.

In the end........the earth is polluted, the disadvantaged poor and elderly suffer even greater hardships and money that could be spent on developing clean renewable technology is wasted.

The time to be heard is NOW!

Missouri utilities seek cap on liability from carbon sequestration

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

Jefferson City - Fearing the federal government may soon start taxing carbon emissions, Missouri utility companies are seeking caps on legal liability for injuries sustained from the process of carbon sequestration.

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

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


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

It goes on to say -

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

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

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

EPA Issues Proposed Rule Governing CO2 Sequestration

Taken from the article found here

July 30, 2008

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Click here for EPA’s proposed rule.

Coal reps, protesters clash at conference - Pittsburgh 2008

The full article can be found by clicking here
Wednesday, May 07, 2008

By Don Hopey, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

" Governmental regulators, scientists, academics and power industry representatives attending a conference here were interrupted yesterday morning when two dozen protesters with hundreds of balloons bearing the message "Coal is dirty" crashed their meeting.

The seventh annual Conference of Carbon Capture and Sequestration featured presentations promising that untested carbon capture and control technology will reduce power plant emissions of carbon dioxide. The protesters barged in on the gathering to say they didn't think so.

As they released the black and yellow balloons in the Sheraton Station Square Hotel ballroom, Beverly Braverman, executive director of the Mountain Watershed Association in Fayette County, told the 600 conference attendees that federal tax money shouldn't be used to subsidize the development of a technology that perpetuates dependence on coal.

"We object to carbon capture and sequestration because the technology is unproven, it's expensive and its use ignores all of the other damage done to coalfield communities," said Ms. Braverman."

"After a police officer escorted Ms. Braverman and the other protesters from the ballroom, Mr. Kupfer announced that the Bush administration has allocated $648 million for coal-related research this year, and $125 million over the next 10 years for two new carbon capture demonstration projects in Ohio and California. Four other demonstration projects were awarded more than $250 million last year."

"But even as the idea gains traction in the coal and power industries and with the Bush administration, which recently set a goal of stopping the growth of carbon emissions by 2025, environmental groups have increasingly questioned the wisdom of spending billions of dollars of public money to develop the technology.

A Greenpeace report released Monday says there are major questions about carbon capture technology's effectiveness and cost.

The report says it won't be commercially available until 2030 at the earliest, that 70 percent of the power plants operating in 2050 won't be able to use the technology and that it will require power plants to produce 10 percent to 40 percent more electricity to operate the collection apparatus. That will increase coal consumption by one-third over today's level.

The report also says that carbon capture could double the operating costs of power plants and lead to price hikes of 21 percent to 91 percent.

Rebecca Tarbotton, Rainforest Action Network global finance campaign director and a speaker at the conference, said the government subsidies will prolong the nation's and the world's dependence on coal.

"We don't want the technology and its development used as an excuse for continued reliance and expansion of coal use," she said."