Stop PurGen Coal Plant - NJ

Our friends in NJ would like your support to stop the PurGen Coal Plant there.... please go to their web site to read more about their situation and the earthquakes that have happened in this area in the past.

Once again, if we were moving to alternative energy sources instead of catering to the coal industry CCS  would not be an issue.  Please support them. 

Stop PureGen

NJ Earthquake information http:/stoppurgencoalplant.org/nj-earthquakes-could-shake-purgens-foundation

Figuring out where to put the carbon

Figuring out where to put the carbon:


"Such estimates are complicated because there are several different mechanisms by which the CO2 can spread out from the point where it is released underground, and additional mechanisms that allow it to eventually become trapped. The spreading can occur by natural groundwater flows or by migration upward along a sloping aquifer, and the trapping can be caused by the CO2 dissolving in the water in deep aquifers, or by seeping through capillary action into cracks in the rock.

Juanes said his system accounts for all of the major known mechanisms by which carbon dioxide can get trapped in these underground formations. But for future research, he added, “The key uncertainty is the potential migration of CO2 vertically across geologic layers.” For instance, the pressure of the injected CO2 might produce faults and fractures in the rock, and this could create pathways to the surface and into the atmosphere. Juanes says his team is now working to better understand this potential mechanism."

Carbon Capture Viable for Indiana?

Carbon Capture: Viable for Indiana?:

"The two Indiana University professors that helped organize the summit were John A. Rupp, assistant director for research with the Indiana Geological Survey, and Kenneth Richards, associate professor in the School of Public and Environmental Affairs. The summit's fndings, recommendations and presentations can be downloaded from http://www.in.gov/oed/2573.htm."

"Some of the recommendations from the summit have begun to be implemented: the task force to assess state policy issues has been established, some technical challenges are being addressed by demonstration projects and the state is involved in investigations of several options for transportation of captured CO2. Two regional consortia that include the Indiana Geological Survey -- the Midwest Geological Sequestration Consortium and the Midwest Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership -- are investigating the technical challenges in the region by conducting deep subsurface injection projects in or near Indiana to examine the feasibility of underground CO2 storage."

Read the full article here

Indiana CCS Summit, Carbon Capture & Storage - Fall 2008

Here is the link to this report -  http://www.in.gov/oed/files/ccs-summit-print.pdf

Another link you will want to review is the summit's fndings, recommendations and presentations - all of these can be downloaded from http://www.in.gov/oed/2573.htm


A quote from the report referenced above -

"Some of the recommendations from the summit have begun to be implemented: the task force to assess state policy issues has been established, some technical challenges are being addressed by demonstration projects and the state is involved in investigations of several options for transportation of captured CO2. Two regional consortia that include the Indiana Geological Survey -- the Midwest Geological Sequestration Consortium and the Midwest Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership -- are investigating the technical challenges in the region by conducting deep subsurface injection projects in or near Indiana to examine the feasibility of underground CO2 storage."

Call to Action - Join the Fight Against CO2 Sequestration in Randolph County, Indiana

Join the fight against CO2 Sequestration in Randolph County on Tuesday, March 2nd.

The open forum is at 6:30 p.m. in the Community Room on Columbia Street in Union City, Indiana.

Every voice matters.

Potential impacts of CCS to underground sources of drinking water

Water is our most precious resource - one we often take for granted.  Much of the United States is predicted to have a water shortage.... we need to take great measures to protect it.

CO2 sequestration is also known as "CCS"  or "GCS" - for geological carbon sequestration.

Risks to our drinking water -

The following quotes come the article linked at the end of this posting.

"There are several potential scenarios by which a USDW may be impacted by GCS activities. Potential pathways include upward migration, fractured cap rock, faults, trace contaminants included in the CO2 stream, a microannulus outside the final casing, and the mobilization of metals from native minerals."


"The success of GCS relies on the structural integrity of confining units, for trapping CO2 in underlying permeable formations. Injection of CO2 into the receiving aquifer has the potential to cause deformation, trigger seismicity, reactivate faults, and compromise seals in wells. Each of these processes could increase the risk of leakage jeopardizing containment and the protection of groundwater quality." 

"Risk is typically defined as the product of the probability of occurrence of an event and the negative consequence of the event. There are concerns that there is limited likelihood data concerning the consequences of GCS, which might result in either over or underestimation of chances of occurrence. Water purveyors take pride in meeting their mandate to protect the public health by providing safe clean drinking water.

While the probability of a USDW being significantly impacted may be low, the negative consequences of any such incident have the potential to be very high. The proposed rule requires operators of GCS facilities to provide financial assurances adequate for corrective actions, plugging and abandonment of wells, post injection site care and closure, and emergency response for failed injection wells. The question of how to structure liability for long-term risks to USDWs associated with the geologic sequestration of CO2 has not yet been resolved."

Read the full article here

Diagnostic Monitoring of Biogeochemical Interactions of a Shallow Aquifer in Response to a CO2 Leak

A grant to watch -

http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncer_abstracts/index.cfm/fuseaction/display.abstractDetail/abstract/9053/report/0

EPA Grant Number: R834503
Title: Diagnostic Monitoring of Biogeochemical Interactions of a Shallow Aquifer in Response to a CO2 Leak
Institution: Columbia University in the City of New York
Project Period: September 1, 2009 through August 31, 2012
Project Amount: $899,882
RFA: Integrated Design, Modeling, and Monitoring of Geologic Sequestration of Anthropogenic Carbon Dioxide to Safeguard Sources of Drinking Water (2009)
Research Category: Drinking Water

Objective:
CO2 injection into deep geological formations capped by low permeability formations is one of the most promising alternatives for mitigation of anthropogenic climate change. Several deep pilot and demonstration projects are underway. However, the upward leakage of CO2 or mobilized brines through the cap rock could lead to vulnerability of shallow, overlying drinking water aquifers. Elevated levels of dissolved CO2 might affect microbial community dynamics and mobilize natural-radioisotopes, metals, and other non-potable elements and compounds. The proposed research will investigate a shallow potable water aquifer system in sand/clay sequences of the Newark Basin group using laboratory and in situ methods and test how it would respond to a high-level CO2 condition caused by a hypothetical leakage of CO2 from deep injection reservoirs. In particular, we will (1) determine metal release rates as a function of pCO2 and pH under laboratory and field conditions, (2) measure microbial community dynamics as a function of increased acidity and dissolved metal concentrations, (3) determine the role and persistence of microbial communities in the mobilization or immobilization of metallic elements, (4) measure in situ/ex situ mobilization and immobilization of metals under high-level CO2 conditions, (5) determine the extent to which leaked CO2 is geochemically trapped in the aquifer, and (6) develop diagnostic monitoring techniques to advance assessments of groundwater contamination risks and water quality deterioration due to a CO2 leakage event.


Approach:
We will conduct a series of geochemical and microbiological laboratory experiments using rock and water samples extracted from a shallow aquifer. We will also add CO2 (pCO2 up to 5 bars) to local groundwater, re-inject it into the aquifer, and then sample and monitor the elevated-CO2 aquifer water in a series of in situ push-pull and forced-gradient experiments.

Expected Results:
Results from these coupled laboratory and field experiments will greatly improve our understanding of the geochemical and microbiological reactions under low pH - high CO2 stress. We anticipate that this research will: (1) provide criteria for site selection for geological CO2 sequestration, (2) identify aquifers that would be least vulnerable to risks of CO2 leakage and subsequent contamination, and (3) provide a small number of diagnostic testing parameters that may be used in other potable aquifer systems associated with deep CO2 injection.

Supplemental Keywords:
sequestration, pollution prevention, metals, pathogens, groundwater,

More CO2 storage than previously thought for Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan and Ohio

Despite the fact that CCS is extremely expensive, risky, and hard to monitor and is very controversial  --- the studies and push for CCS continues.  It simpley makes no sense to me.....now we find a report  from December 2009 that says we can store about 74% more!  NO THANK YOU!

As a reminder - In Ohio, a large portion of the Mt Simon Sandstone sits below one of the largest fresh water aquifers in the world -  our most precious resource. States are running out of water...

Much of the proposed CO2 to be used for CCS in the midwest comes from ethanol plants.....  in our area we had a great harvest last year with the extra CO2 -  if CCS is so "safe" why are there no plans to  inject it under the cities that produce the bulk of it? 

I do remember reading a study done  in Ohio that said it would not happen in Columbus, Ohio because "it was too urban and densely populated".

The quote below is from the article that is linked below...

The total storage capacity for the region, calculated, using efficiency factors of 0.01 and 0.04, is estimated to be 37.8 and 151.2 billion metric tons of CO2 respectively. This is approximately 74 percent higher than the values of 21.7 and 86.9 billion metric tons of CO2 estimated by the MRCSP for the capacity of the Mount Simon Sandstone in the states of Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, and Ohio.

 Read the abstract here...

Scientists Target East Coast Rocks for CO2 Storage

January 4, 2010

 

Power Plants Might Pipe Emissions Under Seabed

Scientists say buried volcanic rocks along the heavily populated coasts of New York, New Jersey and New England, as well as further south, might be ideal reservoirs to lock away carbon dioxide emitted by power plants and other industrial sources. A study this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences outlines  formations on land as well as offshore, where scientists from Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory say the best potential sites may lie.

Underground burial, or sequestration, of globe-warming carbon dioxide is the subject of increasing study across the country. But up till now, research in New York has focused on inland sites where plants might send power-plant emissions into shale, a sedimentary rock that underlies much of the state. Similarly, a proposed coal-fired plant in Linden, N.J. would pump liquefied CO2 offshore into sedimentary sandstone. The idea is controversial because of fears that CO2 might leak. By contrast, the new study targets basalt, an igneous rock, which the scientists say has significant advantages.

Read more

From our Friends in France - TOTAL CO2 stocking - France - Petition against CCS for European Parliament

TOTAL Cie is planning, for the first time in France, the stocking of 150 000 tonnes of CO2 over the two following years in an inhabited and cultivated city called Jurançon (in the Pyrenees). This pilot project is to be largely industrialized and globalized over the world. This project is sold as "environmental"! But this project is absolutely NOT an environmental one ! And TOTAL will be disengaged from any responsibility in 2013!

Clearly, the capture and stocking of CO2 has three major interests in the eyes of the industrialists :
1. Not being taxed on the emissions of greenhouse gases due to be buried
2. Getting rid of such waste under the guise of environmental projects
3. As a bonus, gain maximum financial benefits from the commercialization of these patents

Alongside these issues, the security of the population, and the richness of local environment, have little value!

A petition is available at http://co2.jurancon.blog.free.fr designed to the European Parliament (Your signature is important because social acceptance is central to the project, and Total has done everything not to communicate on the subject locally) - NOTE - the site it links to is in FRENCH

Let's protect our environment locally and globally, but more importantly, let's do someting against such nonesense projects! Because, once again, this project is anything but "environmental"! (Online explanatory articles).

Indiana Take Action Today!!! Eminent Domain Bill

http://www.ibj.com/bill-would-give-co2-pipeline-firms-right-to-take-private-land/PARAMS/article/15967
Bill would give CO2 pipeline firms right to take private land
January 25, 2010

A consumer group opposing Senate Bill 115 argues the measure is yet another concession to the developer of a coal-to-methane plant proposed in Rockport, as well as to coal-fired electric utilities that may opt to transport CO2 to underground storage sites.

The measure declares that the transportation of CO2 by pipeline “is declared to be a public use and service, in the public interest, and a benefit to the
welfare of Indiana,” citing its potential to reduce carbon emissions and to promote economic development.

“Granting eminent domain to a private entity is reason enough, we think, to oppose this bill,” said Kerwin Olson, program director for Indianapolis-based Citizens Action Coalition.

The group said the measure is to benefit Indiana Gasification, which in 2006 proposed building a $1.5 billion plant in Spencer County to convert high-sulfur coal to gas. Utilities could use the gas for heating and to generate electricity.

Indiana Gasification, which planned to sell gas to Merrillville-based NIPSCO and Evansville-based Vectren, shelved plans in late-2008 after failing to reach long-term gas supply contracts with utilities, which feared such contracts could impair their long-term credit.

But last March, Gov. Mitch Daniels signed into a law a bill that would allow the Indiana Finance Authority to act as contracting agent between the gasification plant developer and the utilities buying its gas. Daniels has been a supporter of so-called clean-coal technology as an economic development tool and to protect the state’s coal and electric utility industries in the face of punitive carbon-mission regulations contemplated by Congress.

Olson said this marks the fourth year Indiana Gasification has sought various incentives from the state. The principal player in the venture, New York-based Leucadia National Corp., has sought more than $3.6 billion in federal loan guarantees from the Department of Energy for potential gasification plants.

“You’ve got a multi-billion dollar, multi-national corporation that is mandating their agenda through legislation because the business model just doesn’t support it,” Olson said of the proposed plant.

The measure could potentially grant eminent domain powers to numerous firms that plan to ship carbon dioxide trough pipelines.

Duke Energy is studying whether to inject underground the carbon dioxide to be produced at its $2.35 billion Edwardsport electric-generating plant, now under construction. Duke is looking at potential underground storage sites within 50 miles of the plant, but also has looked at piping CO2 to oil wells in southern Illinois as a way to enhance oil extraction.

In addition, Indiana is among Midwest states where Texas-based Denbury Resources is looking to run a 500-mile CO2 pipeline. It could receive carbon from power plants in the state and move it to oil fields in the Gulf of Mexico.

The sponsor of Senate Bill 115, Beverly Gard, R-Greenfield, could not be reached for comment.

Meanwhile, another measure co-sponsored by Gard is drawing fire from CAC. SB 211 would exclude the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission from ratemaking jurisdiction over private firms that operate carbon-storage facilities or pipelines. Public utilities that hired the private firms could file ask the commission for permission to recover costs from ratepayers.

Moreover, SB 211 declares that carbon dioxide “is not considered a pollutant, a nuisance, a hazardous waste or a deleterious substance.”

CAC argues that the release of CO2 from deep-underground storage sites or from pipelines poses unknown health and environmental risks.

CO2 Injection Started at Mountaineer Plant across Ohio River

September 22, 2009

Refitted to Bury Emissions, Plant Draws Attention

By MATTHEW L. WALD

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.

CO2 Transport Versus the 50-State Sequestration Strategy, Pa

June 22, 2009 2:45 PM in Carbon Capture & Sequestration • GHG Regulation • Research & Development | Paul Gutermann, Charles Franklin & Roseanna Baber Hill | ShareThis

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.

http://climateintel.com/2009/06/22/co2-transport-versus-the-50-state-sequestration-strategy-part-2-not-under-my-back-yard/

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

http://politicalecology.xyvy.info/?p=1566

The World's Largest CO2 Storage Research Project with EOR

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

http://www.cslforum.org/publications/documents/IEAGHGWeyburnProjectPoster0307.pdf

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

http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/KleinhenCO2_Enhanced_Oil_Rec_rpt%208%2008_.pdf

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."

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.

Carbon DISASTER

Lawrence Solomon: Carbon disaster

Posted: August 15, 2009, 1:38 AM by NP Editor

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/08/14/lawrence-solomon-carbon-disaster.aspx

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

By Lawrence Solomon

I

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.

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.