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

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

How long has Darke County (Greenville), OH been on the MRCSP radar?

FACT SHEET FOR PARTNERSHIP FIELD
VALIDATION TEST
Midwest Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership
(MRCSP)
NETL Cooperative Agreement DE-FC26-05NT42589

Submitted by Battelle
November 2007





Apparently, much longer than we were aware of...... this report mentions a geological study being done in 2002 and many more "interesting" facts about the Battelle-led MRCSP Phase III large-scale project, including some of these:

Test Location Primary Site:
The Andersons Marathon Ethanol (TAME) Plant, Greenville,Ohio.

Optional Site:
Duke IGCC plant, Edwardsport, Indiana

"CO2 storage simulations have been carried out in earlier research by members of the MRCSP
team for the Mt. Simon in west-central Ohio near the TAME Ethanol site (Gupta et al 2002).
While these early models were not in the exact same location as the proposed projects, the
results are similar to what may be expected for these general areas. Key input parameters in the
simulations were based on best available regional data, and the parameters are not site specific,
but they are fairly reasonable for the Mt. Simon in the respective area. These initial models indicate that injection rates of over 1 million tons of CO2 per year may be sustained in the Mt. Simon at the TAME site."

"Emissions from large point sources in the MRCSP region are approximately 765 million metric tons CO2"

"Continues to develop and establish a CCS framework in the region with ongoing geologic framework, regional carbon sequestration exploration, and outreach efforts. "


http://www.netl.doe.gov/publications/proceedings/07/rcsp/factsheets/5-MRCSP_Large%20Scale%20CO2%20Storage%20in%20Mt.%20Simon%20Reservoir.pdf

Department of Energy and NETL Web Sites

DOE and NETL web sites, and those of their seven Carbon Sequestration Regional Partnerships, have a wealth of information on all aspects of CCS. These sites can be accessed directly or through http://www.energy.gov and http://www.NETL.gov. NETL’s Sequestration Roadmap can be found on http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/carbon_seq/refshelf/project%20portfolio/2007/2007Roadmap.pdf
DOE/NETL’s National Carbon Sequestration Database and Geographical Information System (NatCarb) is especially valuable and can be accessed through http://www.natcarb.org. The seven Carbon Sequestration Regional Partnerships web sites can be accessed directly:
 Big Sky Partnership (Big Sky) at http://www.bigskyco2.org
 Midwest Geological Sequestration Consortium (MGSC) at http://www.sequestration.org
 Midwest Regional Partnership (MRCSP) at http://www.mrscp.org
 Plains Partnership (PCOR) at http://www.undeerc.org/pcor/
 South East Partnership (SECARB) at http://www.secarbon.org
 South West Partnership (SWP) at http://www.southwestcarbonpartnership.org
 West Coast Partnership (WESTCARB) at http://www.westcarb.org
USCSC educational papers on CCS can be accessed at http://www.uscsc.org

Public Interest Groups Oppose Carbon Capture Scam

Unproven technology, Ridiculous Risk, Exorbitant Cost
Oppose industry-driven plans for carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) to keep COAL burning. Read this article

The time to stop these projects is BEFORE COAL, and its friends, enter your community!

It's time to find alternatives - every dime spent on CCS is a dime spent on COAL and NOT Renewable Energy. Not only does CCS keep the coal industry going, it requires up to 40% MORE ENERGY - MORE COAL !

Citizens Against CO2 Sequestration has taken a stand in our community to oppose Carbon Capture and Sequestration.

Our Community is opposing one of the 7 DOE large-scale CO2 sequestration demonstrations (experiments) targeted for our community - the MRCSP Phase III project. This grassroots movement of concerned citizens understands the risks and finds them unacceptable for our community - and yours.

700+ Opposition Yard Signs are up - with more on the way!

Darke County is an agriculturally strong community, ranking #1 and #2 in most areas. Our Farmers' Union has taken a stand to oppose CCS! (Thank you Darke County farmers!)

Protect health, safety and environment - Take A Stand AGAINST CCS

Fighting a CCS (Carbon Capture and Sequestration) project in your community?
Contact us.

StopExperimentalCO2Projects@yahoo.com


DO MORE
Click Here to Access the Sierra Club Web Site

To Sign the Petition and Add Your Name to Oppose Coal

America needs more clean energy jobs and less pollution--and President Obama's EPA already has the power to act. Sign their petition to your Senators asking them to urge President Obama to create rules that regulate coal ash, mercury, soot and carbon pollution.

CO2 Sequestration Poll for Darke County on DarkeJournal.com

Thank you, Darke Journal for conducting this poll - and many thanks to our residents who voted in the poll against the proposed CO2 sequestration project in Greenville, Ohio.

www.darkejournal.com

As you will recall, The Daily Advocate, did a poll prior to our Call to Action Meeting the end of June.... results below

Click here to be taken to the poll


PLEASE NOTE: This poll was conducted prior to the past month’s concerted effort to educate and inform the public regarding the proposed sequestration.



***



Published July 1, 2009



Recently, The Daily Advocate sent out a Reader’s Poll to online newsletter subscribers about the proposed carbon sequestration project in Greenville. The poll consisted of 10 questions based on concerns the newspaper was receiving from local residents.



The poll was sent out to 2,268 subscribers and received 161 responses.

Of the 161 responses, 73 percent felt that there should be a public vote on the proposed project.



“How do we stop this project? The people of the county should decide what happens,” wrote on respondent.



“A public vote is the best way to go. Why? Because the co2 sequestration affects all our properties, all our jobs, and all of our community not just a select few government leaders who ‘should’ be representing the county,” wrote another.



“This project should be voted on by the public.We the public and our children will be the ones who will have to live with the after effects for years and years to come,” said another.



Many others (40 percent) felt that the project needed local government approval to move forward.



Concerns were other big issues. Fifty-nine percent said that local farmers should be concerned about the impact of the project.



And, 36 percent said that the project would impact their property’s value. Fifty percent said that the project was dangerous.



“I do not feel this project is in the best interest of OUR community! It’s an experiment with too many risk factors, especially when it’s messing with our fresh water supply,” states one individual.



“This is a threat to our lifestyle and our community and me and my family are strongly opposed to anything to do with this project. Battelle can take this project back to the city with them,” another person strongly stated.



The majority did not feel that the project was a good idea for the community (59 percent) or that it would make our community more ‘green’ (50 percent).



Respondents strongly agreed that they needed more information about the project (55 percent) and that Battelle, the company proposing the project, did not seem very committed to the well being of the

community (44 percent). Thirty-eight percent of respondents said that the project should provide a reward to the community for taking the risk.



Read more comments from the respondents on the Web site at

http://www.advocate360.org

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

Over 1,000 Darke County Residents Protest Proposed Large-Scale CO2 Sequestration DEMONSTRATION (EXPERIMENT)

CALL TO ACTION MEETING - 1,000+ Residents Oppose CO2 Sequestration

Thank you for answering our call to action!

The photos speak louder than words!

The Residents of Darke County, OH DO NOT WANT THIS IN THEIR COMMUNITY!

Darke County is the proposed bulleye for one of the 7 large-scale CO2 Sequestration "demonstrations" -
1 MILLION tons of Supercritical CO2 is scheduled to be injected into this agriculturally strong farming community 32 miles NW of Dayton, OH. The residents are fighting back, showing their opposition.

We agree with the Sierra Club's coal initiative - Companies and governments that impact the environment should NOT allowed in communities without the vote by the people who live in that community.

It brings MANY POTENTIAL RISKS - NO REWARDS
and MAYBE 2 or 3 jobs!

As Julie Monnin said, "Folks, if this were a good thing, Greenville would NOT be getting it."

Carbon Capture & Sequestration is an UNPROVEN technology with risky consequences that endanger our lives, health, safety, environment, & economy.

One of the potential consequences -
man-made earthquakes
NOT COVERED
by most homeowners insurances


Thank You to our Speakers:
Kerwin Olsen, Indiana Citizens Action

Kathleen Boutis - Green Environmental Coalition

Jim Surber - Darke County Civil Engineer

Judge Julie Monnin - Municipal Court

Representative Jim Zehringer

Nachy Kanfer, Sierra Club

& our own, Anne Vehre!

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

Photo by Lyn Bliss /Advocate Photo


Darke County, OH (Greenville, OH)

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

Signs are going up all over the county.

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

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

Signs are available from Isabel Culbertson or by emailing - StopExperimentalCO2Projects@yahoo.com

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

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

MRCSP Project- Greenville, Ohio - Darke County

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

http://blogville.dailyadvocate.com/co2/

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

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

MRCSP Greenville, OH Project Update

This information is taken from the MRCSP web site - click here to access the information for Greenville on their web site

"Proposed Phase III Test at the Greenville Ethanol Plant

As a focal point of the third phase of its development and demonstration of geologic sequestration technology, the MRCSP is proposing to inject a larger amount of carbon dioxide for a longer time period than in the Phase II tests. In this proposed test, the carbon dioxide would be obtained from an ethanol production facility located near Greenville, Ohio that is owned by The Andersons Marathon Ethanol, LLC, a joint venture between The Andersons, Inc. and Marathon Petroleum Company. The carbon dioxide would be stored permanently deep below the ground under the plant. "

"In this proposed test, the carbon dioxide produced as a byproduct of ethanol fermentation will be taken from the ethanol plant to a new compression facility to be installed on site specifically for the MRCSP project. There, it will be compressed into a supercritical state (i.e., a dense, liquid-like form). It will then be injected about 3,500 feet underground into the saltwater-filled, geologic formation called the Mount Simon Sandstone. At that depth, the carbon dioxide will be thousands of feet below drinking water supplies, which are typically within 100 or 200 feet below the surface in this area. The carbon dioxide is effectively trapped from moving upward by a primary cap rock that is about 500 feet thick in this location and several additional layers that provide secondary containment. Injected carbon dioxide diffuses at slow speeds. Several methods for monitoring and tracking the behavior of the injected carbon dioxide will be evaluated during the field test."

The State of Ohio has regulatory oversight for injection wells in this area. The MRCSP has informed the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (Ohio EPA) of its proposal.

Spring 2009

Earlier this spring, their researchers and the survey company they chose, Appalachian Geophysical, visited Greenville to talk with local officials about necessary approvals to access the public roadways and terrain in the vicinity of the proposed test site.

Step 1: Based on that review, a survey plan is being developed and permits are being obtained. If the survey will cross private land, permission will be obtained from the landowner. Landowners DO NOT have to give them permission, they have plan B in case permission is denied.

This survey is an important step in characterizing a potential site for carbon sequestration because it will help researchers to understand the thickness and depth of different rock layers, and reveal any faults or fractures in those rock layers.

Step 2 - Surveying the actual route to determine elevations and to make the calculations needed to measure the sound waves accurately.

Step 3 Involves laying out sensitive microphones, called geophones, along the survey route. Geophones are temporarily attached to the ground by stake and removed when the test is done.

Step 4 - Involves generating the sound waves with a "Vibroseis" truck and recording the data."