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

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.

30,000 Australians sign a petition against CCS

See the link here

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

Read more here

RISKS - What They DON'T Want You To Know!

Do you have a CCS Project targeted for your community?

Do your research!

Many companies pushing this "technology" have done, or participated in, studies to determine how to gain public acceptance and trust. Some of the information include statements referencing when and if to tell the public.... (some suggesting you should tell when VISIBLE)

Other companies and consultants do risk analysis.....

Development of Risk Log -

16 experts and stakeholders rank priority and cost for each event and damage - with the results tabulated and assessed"

GENERAL TYPES OF DAMAGES

Harm to Workers
Harm to the Public
Environmental Damages
Cautionary Events
Property Damage
Project Delays/Cost Overruns

To see a PowerPoint that addresses this issue, click here

Note Page 15 on the above PowerPoint - "Short term, the potential for low probability/high cost events is problematic because it is not zero"

Workshop Summary - Long Term Liability Potentially Associated with Carbon Capture and Sequestration

The excerpts below are from the following web site and the entire article can be found there. Click here to go to live link -

Workshop Summary

Long Term Liability Potentially Associated
with Carbon Capture and Sequestration

1 November 2007

Review of Priority Ranking of Risks - done so they can step back and look at CCS projects with an investors eye..... to make sure they will fund the projects.

Click here to go to the WRI site

--

From National Commission on Energy Policy- CCS

Read the full article here - http://www.energycommission.org/ht/action/GetDocumentAction/i/3054
Below are a few excerpts from the National Commission on Energy Policy -

Although the theoretical carbon-storage capacity of underground geological repositories in the United States is plentiful, large-scale deployment of CCS would nevertheless require significant investments in infrastructure, possibly including thousands of miles of dedicated carbon dioxide pipelines.

In addition, under optimistic deployment scenarios, many thousands of wells could be required to inject carbon dioxide into underground repositories.

Whether this type of infrastructure would be likely to encounter significant obstacles related to siting and public acceptance is an open question. The limited research available on this topic—most of which has focused on general perceptions of CCS, rather than on likely public reaction if new wells and reservoirs are proposed for a specific community— suggest that CCS is not well known or understood by the public. When introduced to CCS along with a range of other options, most respondents prefer what they consider to be alternatives such as energy efficiency or renewable energy for reducing emissions.45

In sum,efforts to educate the public about CCS and to provide for public input on related siting and other decisions are likely to be critical to advancing this technology.

No provisions are in place, however, to regulate the long-term storage of carbon dioxide which—because it would require measures to prevent venting back to the atmosphere—could involve
new provisions for risk assessment, for monitoring the performance of wells, for assuring the permanence of the carbon stored, and for managing long-term liability if a reservoir leaks.

Large-scale CCS projects would likely also require the assessment of additional risks, including the risk of large releases of carbon dioxide to nearby population centers, risks to groundwater quality, and risks from reactivity with underground minerals and solutions.

Well Construction and Mechanical Integrity Testing

Synthesis, Evaluation and Assessment of
USEPA Technical Workshop on Geosequestration:
Well Construction and Mechanical Integrity Testing

Jerry Thornhill, P.G.
Consultant to Shaw Environmental, Inc.
Randall Ross, Ph.D.
Steven Acree, P.G.

National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Prepared under contract to Shaw Environmental, Inc.
Contract Number 68-C-03-097

www.regulations.gov/search/redirect.jsp?objectId...disposition..

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Injection and monitoring wells employed for the geologic sequestration of CO2 may be
required to operate for timescales that go beyond the operating lifespan traditionally
considered by the oil and gas industry. Lessons learned from pilot studies and
conventional injection practices may provide some general guidance for the geologic
sequestration of CO2. However, the special problems related to the unique properties of
supercritical CO2 and proposed massive injection volumes may ultimately require the
development of new materials and tools to reduce the risk of failure and, possibly, new
regulations to manage the risks.
Several key issues regarding well construction and MIT with respect to geological
sequestration of CO2 were identified during this workshop.
Well Completion
Although well integrity is the cornerstone for successful injection well projects, an
integral part of a successful project is the initial well completion program (i.e., drilling
the hole, setting and cementing casing, setting tubing, etc.). This is vital to the successful
operation of any injection well project. The choice of casing and tubing material, cement
type, amount, and proper emplacement is the starting point for the success of the injection
well.

During the workshop, it was stated that,
“Wellbore integrity problems do exist in oil and gas operations and are often due
to cementing practices.”

This statement was apparently based on information from meetings of the International
Energy Agency (IEA) Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme. Key findings from the IEA
March 2006 meeting (IEA, 2006) included, “Well integrity may be a current issue within the oil and gas industry. A detailed study on production wells in the Gulf of Mexico indicated that up to 60% of wells had casing pressure problems, which could indicate that the integrity of the wells
had been compromised.

Experience from the Permian basin in the USA indicated that when fields were changed over to CO2 floods that significant remedial work was needed to pull and re-cement wells that had not seen exposure to CO2. It was considered that many of the problems in both the Gulf of Mexico and the Permian basin resulted from poor well completions at the outset.”

An injection well must be completed in such a manner that underground sources of
drinking water (USDWs) are protected initially, during long-term injection operations,
and following the period of injection. This includes well completion to provide protection
of ground water from naturally occurring salt-water zones; well completion to keep the
injectate in the proposed injection zone and capability to detect any equipment failure
resulting from such things as corrosion, inadequate or unsuccessful cement emplacement,
channeling around an initially successful cement sheath, or mechanical failure.

A specific concern of the participants in the Well Construction breakout session was the
casing metallurgy/coatings in view of the corrosive nature of the CO2. This is especially
critical for the long string casing, tubing and packers that would be in contact with the
injectate.

Participants in the Well Construction breakout section generally felt that the
Underground Injection Control (UIC) Class I requirements “may” be sufficient for CO2
geologic sequestration. It is recommended that Class I requirements be the minimum
standard considered for CO2 injection.

It has been determined that Portland-based cements react with CO2, leading to cement
degradation. Research has indicated that interaction between cement and CO2 follows a
three-step process - carbonic acid diffusion, dissolution/carbonation, and leaching. This
generally leads to loss of density and strength and an increase in porosity.

From the Los Alamos National Laboratory
Key issues identified by the Network include:
• Wellbore integrity problems exist in oil and gas operations and are often related to
cementing practices.
• Research is needed on reactivity of CO2 and cement to reconcile effects of key
variables.
• Methods for determining performance of new CO2-resistant cements are needed.
• Corrosion of tubulars and casing can be more rapid than cement degradation.
• More sensitive field monitoring tools for diagnosing well integrity are needed.
• Numerical models of wellbore geochemistry and geomechanics are needed.
• Numerical models incorporating realistic well permeability distributions are
needed to evaluate leakage potential.
• Evaluation of existing fields with long term CO2 exposure are needed to develop
more effective methods for logging/monitoring for evaluating mechanical
integrity.
• Mining of existing data from private companies and regulatory authorities should
be a priority for development of a statistical basis for evaluating wellbore
performance.


CO2-Cement Interaction: From the Lab to the Well
Matteo Loizzo, Schlumberger Carbon Services Engineering

The presentation summarized research on CO2/cement reactions and the development of CO2-resistant cement. The interaction between Portland cement and CO2 is a 3-step process:
• Carbonic acid diffusion,
• Cement (portlandite) dissolution and carbonate precipitation, and
• Leaching (calcium carbonate dissolution).
Cement sheath defects would cause acceleration of the degradation process. Potential
defects include:
• Inadequate placement of cement resulting in channels or mud films,
• Channels caused by gas migration during cement hydration,
• Cracks caused by cement failure in compression/traction, and
• Microannuli caused by lack of bonding at the interfaces with casing and/or rock.

Research is being conducted on a CO2-resistant cement formulation. It was concluded that sound cement design is required, both for the placement and post-placement phases.

Selecting Sites for Geological Sequestration: Wellbore Integrity and Other Criteria Jason Heath, New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology

The presenter, representing the Southwest Carbon Sequestration Partnership, described the efforts of the Partnership regarding selection of sites for geological sequestration. One of the key aspects for site selection is the identification of the best sink for each CO2 source.The presenter provided an example of the well integrity analysis at a test site, the Aneth Unit in southern Utah, where well construction deficiencies may potentially affect a pilot test of CO2 injection.
Analysis of well construction deficiencies included:
• Calculation of the top of cement,
• Temperature and cement bond logs, and
• Information on the depth of surface or intermediate casing.
Wells vulnerable to interformational migration of fluids were identified by the screening analysis described above. However, no monitoring has been performed in wells identified as vulnerable.


Well Construction
• Industry has developed recommended practices and protocols for well
construction. However, much of the research upon which the protocols are based
is confidential.
• Experience from EOR and acid gas operations provides a good working basis for
well construction.
• Pilot tests with real-world volumes of CO2 are needed.
• Performance-based construction standards may be appropriate.
Research Need: Development of lower cost materials that perform as well as high-cost materials.

Casing
• Abandonment procedures may need to be more stringent for geological
sequestration.
• Casing specifications depend on possible impurities, formation brine, pressure,
temperature, and operational conditions.
• Casing options include chrome tubing, expandable tubing, titanium casing,
fiberglass casing, and inhibited packer fluid for additional protection.
Research Need: Study the impacts of injection at varying depths.
Cementing
• Cement specifications depend on CO2 impurities; formation brine; and pressure,
temperature, and operational conditions.
• Cement should run the entire length of the wellbore.
Research Need: Alternative (non-Portland) cements.

The research needs determined from this group primarily centered on a review of
laboratory, field, and modeling studies concerning:

• Cement-related microannuli self-enhancing (enlarging) vs. self-healing (sealing),
that have been conducted by the industry,
• Impact of CO2 phase changes on mechanical integrity testing of wells,
• Impact of injectate impurities on the mechanical integrity of wells,
• MIT failure rates for new vs old wells,
• The phenomenon of a cold injection fluid opening up or enlarging gaps within the well system,
• Impact of large temperature differentials between injectate and well system/formation on
pressure tests,
• Monitoring methods/MITs that could detect rates and volumes of fluid movement along the
casing, and
• Time frames of MI changes and necessary MIT frequency.


Mr. Kobelski noted that EPA is currently assessing options for a management framework for
CO2 injection for the purposes of GS. GS presents many technical challenges that go beyond
those associated with CO2 injection for enhanced oil and gas recovery (EOR/EGR). For
example, GS will involve a variety of geologic settings apart from oil and gas reservoirs (e.g.,
saline aquifers and unmineable coal seams). In addition, the CO2 from coal-fired power plants will contain impurities (i.e., sulfur and nitrogen oxides, and metals such as mercury) that are not typically found in the CO2 used in EOR/EGR operations, and GS will involve significantly greater volumes and longer storage times.



Schlumberger Carbon Services - Schlumberger Public
CO2 reaction effects on well integrity
• Carbonation
• Matrix reacts: Portlandite/CSH → Calcite
•Water release
• At an early stage, may affect marginally matrix permeability (10-4→10-3 mD)
• May lead to mechanical instability (Calcite molar volume increase) •
• ¾” in 7-10 months, 1 m in 2000 years
•CO2 diffusion in water: ¾” in 3 days, 1 m in 20 years
• Leaching
• Strong dependency on local Ca2+ concentration gradient
• Cement effectively dissolves •


Cement sheath defects – effects on scale
• Fluid flow vs. matrix diffusion
• Preferential path of fluid flow bridges the scales
• Issue not limited to CO2: 15%-20% of wells may show hydraulic communication to surface
• Carbonation healing/plugging may be effective only at small scales
• Karst
• Positive feedback effect from enhanced leaching on defect walls

Assuring cement integrity over the well life
• Risk factors and scales
• Casing corrosion
• Leakage to shallower formations or to surface
• Multiple layers of risk mitigation
• Especially when repair is difficult
• Cement system selection and optimization
• Minimize or eliminate cement sheath defects
• Minimize or eliminate cement degradation
•Not necessarily cement reaction!


Well Construction: Potential Effects on Pilot Test
Potential impact of construction deficiencies:
Construction deficiencies could “provide a potential pathway for fluid migration between aquifers where there exists a differential in hydraulic head between aquifers.”
“Because the De Chelly aquifer hydraulic head exceeds the Navajo aquifer head in much of the Aneth Field area, saline water from the De Chelly Aquifer could potentially migrate upward into the Navajo aquifer through the partially cemented wellbores.”

How “risky” for CO2 migration are the wells that are vulnerable to communication between the Upper Paleozoic Aquifer and the Navajo Aquifer?
We think that the integrity and reactivity of the cement at/above/below the target reservoir (e.g., at the Paradox Formation in this case) is very important. If CO2 can leak through these “vulnerable” cement zones (e.g., the Paradox Formation here), then superjacent groundwater reservoirs may be impacted. Well cements must be sampled and characterized, and the conditions recorded and implemented in associated reservoir models for quantifying potential risk.

Notes about mechanical integrity testing:
The current portfolio of Regional Partnership pilot tests are small enough, in terms of injection rates, that special mechanical integrity testing is not necessary. Only “routine” mechanical testing is being done for these tests.

For Phase III, which will involve injection of over 1,000,000 tons/year in relatively few wells, plans are in place to include in situ tiltmeters and strain gauges (San Juan Basin). Water
injection pressure transient tests will be carried out prior to CO2 injection to characterize state-of-stress and response.

Bees, Balloons and CO2 Sequestration

Carbon sequestration buzz: Bees and balloons looking for leaks

URL http://cleantechnica.com/2009/07/21/carbon-sequestration-buz
z-bees-in-balloons-looking-for-leaks/

By Jeff Kart

You've heard of the canary in the coal mine as an indicator of a toxic
environment.

The U.S. Department of Energy is using bees and helium balloons to
make sure carbon dioxide is staying put in sequestration sites.

How? Researchers at the National Energy Technology Lab are using
chemical tracers to fingerprint CO2, then comparing it to pollen
collected by the bees.

“Researchers will determine if pollen collected by bees contains
measurable quantities of tracer or if bees bring back tracer from
direct contact with foliage. They will use balloons to determine
atmospheric variations in tracer content to assess the effectiveness
of CO2 storage sites,” the DOE reports:
http://www.ornl.gov/info/news/pulse/no291/feature.shtml

The agency is working with researchers from Michigan State University,
which by the way, makes its own honey.

Michigan is home to a carbon sequestration test site in Gaylord, part
of a larger project called the Midwest Regional Carbon Sequestration
Partnership.

Earthquakes - one of the dangers of CCS

Vulnerability Evaluation Framework for Geologic Sequestration of CO2

• Identifies and evaluates vulnerabilities that could
result in adverse impacts to human health and the
environment

Is not a probabilistic risk assessment
• Focuses on geologic sequestration (does not include
capture, transport)

• May inform but does not include well construction
and operation

• Attempts to provide flexibility by identifying multiple
options to reduce vulnerability

Get the complete link here

What's a Life Worth?

Click here to read it on the Washington Post site

Ever wonder how corporations and governments assess risks to our health, safety and lives?

It's all based on the dollar.... click on the link above to read what a life is worth. Often it is less expensive to pay for damages, wrongful deaths, etc than it is to be proactive with our best interest in mind.

CCS - Not safe for urban areas ?

Excerpts on this page come from the report below.
To read the entire abstract please click on the link below -

The Role of Social Factors in Shaping Public Perceptions of CCS: Results of
Multi-State Focus Group Interviews in the U.S.

Judith Bradbury1* Isha Ray2 Tarla Peterson3 Sarah Wade4 Gabrielle Wong-Parodi2
Andrea Feldpausch

"Over the last decade, many of the experts and advocates working in climate change have recommended further research into whether carbon dioxide (CO2) capture and sequestration (CCS) may be a viable and important technological response to climate change. However, all new technologies face challenges with respect to social acceptability, especially those that may involve new risks, large-scale infrastructure, and significant government involvement—all features of CCS. Some of the most critical challenges to social acceptability may come from theperceptions and preferences of communities near whom CCS infrastructure may be located. Thus, it is important to evaluate what might explain and influence the views of communities that may be directly impacted by the siting of this technology."

"Public acceptability is recognized as an important aspect of the program; outreach activities and research into public perceptions of the technology are a funded component. This paper reports on a collaborative social research effort among three partnerships—the West Coast Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership, (WESTCARB), Southwest Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership (SWP), and the Midwest Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership (MRCSP).
Researchers from these three partnerships conducted a series of focus groups in the states of California, Ohio, Texas, New Mexico and a test interview in Washington, D.C. The results were considered for their insights into particular concerns within each region, and they were also compared to see if common themes emerged from the multi-state effort."

"In all cases, social factors, such as existing low socioeconomic status, desire for compensation, benefits to the community and past experience with government were of greater concern than concern about the risks of the technology itself."

"MRCSP selected a community that would be unlikely to host a sequestration project because of population and urban density but was located in a state with significant sequestration potential and historically dependent on coal for electrical power generation. MRCSP conducted two focus groups in Columbus, Ohio."

"The focus group communities differed in demographic characteristics. The WESTCARB and SWP communities were rural; MRCSP’s was urban".

It should be noted that MRCSP's study was done in a urban area with well-educated individuals- a "community that would be unlikely to host a sequestration project because of population and urban density", I question how these individuals could speak for, or reflect,the values of acommunity that must deal with the reality of a CCS project as these projects are clearly put in community's that are rural and have a much different demographic composition.

Additionally, as one who lives in a community that has been selected for a Phase III, large-scale CO2 sequestration experiment, I find it very offensive to suggest that an urban area would be an unlikely host because of "population and urban density" - suggesting their lives, health, safety, environment and economy should have a higher priority than those of us who live in the communities in which these risky experiments are conducted!

Read the entire article here

Risk Assessment for Future CO 2 Sequestration Projects

The link to this information is here

"This paper is the first of a series that attempts to assess the possible health and safety risks associated with large scale CO2 sequestration in deep brine reservoirs. The approach is based on analysis of available data on the operational track record from CO2 transportation and injection associated with enhanced oil recovery (CO2 -EOR) in the US.

Some of these risks are based on the oil and gas industry and enhanced oil recovery - which is not the same thing as Carbon Capture and Sequestration for geologic storage. According to Stephen

Connolly, (Health and Safety Executive) “There is relatively little experience worldwide in managing the risks associated with CO2, compared with oil and gas.”

This information comes from -

Risk assessment for future CO2 Sequestration Projects

Based CO2 Enhanced Oil Recovery in the U.S

presented at the

9th International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies

(GHGT-9), Washington, D.C., November 16-20, 2008

Ian J. Duncan, Jean-Philippe Nicot, Jong-Won Choi

"This paper is particularly concerned with identification of the main business risks facing a company engaged in geological sequestration. Such risks include: (1) the operational risks of capturing, compressing, transporting and injecting CO2 ; (2) the risk of blowouts or very rapid CO2 release from wells; (3) the risk that CO2 put into long term geologic storage will leak into shallow aquifers and contaminate potable water by lowering pH and increasing dissolved metals and other components; and (4) the risk that sequestered CO2 (and possibly associated methane gas) will leak into the atmosphere reversing the climate change benefits of sequestration and perhaps requiring repayment of CO2 sequestration credits."

“On the Free State pipeline, two leak incidents occurred soon after pressurizing the line and were caused by manufacturing imperfections in welds. Both these leaks were too small to be detected by the flow measurement imbalance. A landowner called the toll-free number on the pipeline signage to alert the control room of unusual white smog emerging from the ground where the pipeline was located on his property, triggering a response from Denbury’s Operations group. The third incident on the Tinsley 8” line, occurred when an excavator accidentally cut the line. Company personnel were onsite for immediate dispatch to isolate the system. On the Barksdale 6-3 #1 flowline incident (cement lined pipe rupture due to inadequate weld pre-heating), automatic shut-downs and alarms worked as designed. In the fifth incident at a pump station was minimal and observed by on-scene personnel. On the Free State pipeline, each leak caused minimal release but a controlled release of 75 MMCF (each) was required to depressurize the pipeline segment for repair.”

CO2well blowouts

The blowout of a well occurs when the operator of the well loses control of the pressure in the well resulting in fluid flow out of the well. Damen et al. [10] have suggested that the largest risk associated with CO2 injection for sequestration in deep brine reservoirs is well failure. Such failures result from a failure to adequately control pressures in the injection system. This is typically due to mechanical failure of a component or an external event directly affecting the well. This results in temporary loss of control of the process and the pressure of the reservoir drives CO2 and other entrained fluids upwards out of the well.

In most cases blowouts are caused by mechanical failures beyond human control, for example the failure of a back-flow preventer. This loss of containment immediately results in the pressure release vaporizing the supercritical CO2.In this context a blowout is driven by the high expansibility of the released gas resulting in a vigorous eruption of the vapor up the well bore (with the likely entrainment of particles of solid debris). If this occurs during drilling into a CO2 reservoir the rapidity of this phenomenon may make it a challenge to activate manual Blowout Prevention devices (BOPs) in time to prevent a blowout. Adiabatic cooling of CO2 during this rapid expansion leads to the gas being cooled below the freezing point (the triple point for CO2 being at -63°F and 76 psi). This results in the nucleation of dry ice and/or solid ice-like CO2-hydrates. These solids

can result in a blowout becoming a spray of solid particles. Such icy particles could damage pipes and other infrastructure in the path of the spraying particles. Whether this phenomenon is less risky than the CO2 irrupting as a fountain of dense CO2remains to be determined. If much of the CO2in a large blowout is in a frozen form then the risks posed by the initial blowout to the local are probably lowered.

Blowouts of oil production wells within CO2-EOR reservoirs are a known hazard (Lynch et al. [11]; Skinner [13]). In 2003,Skinner in a paper in “World Oil” focusing on blowouts in the CO2-EOR industry in the US suggested that there had been an “increased frequency of CO2 blowouts in injection projects.”

Read the full article - http://www.beg.utexas.edu/gccc/bookshelf/2008/GHGT9/08-03i-Final.pdf

Adaptive Management for Carbon Capture and Sequestration

The quotes below come from this web site -
http://www.netl.doe.gov/publications/proceedings/07/carbon-seq/data/papers/ElizabethWilson.pdf


"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?”