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