We do NOT consider this to be "Green Technology" - it is an EXPERIMENT and WE are the Guinea Pigs! It is an experiment that risks our health, safety and environment - funded mostly by YOUR tax dollars - Let's not leave this EXPERIMENT for future generations to clean up!. This site was created for people all over world opposed to CO2 sequestration (CCS) Join the movement - email - StopExperimentalCO2Projects@yahoo.com
This is a great link to a web page that has A LOT OF INFORMATION about the risks associated with CO2 sequestration, also referred to as Geosequestration or "GS" - scroll up and down... you will find it addresses things like - risks to workers, the public, ecosystem, microbes in the ground, drinking water and the contamination it is likely to cause, it is one of the most complete sources of risks that I have seen for CCS ( Carbon Capture and Sequestration)
"Chasing CCS is a money burner and an energy hog, and it may not deliver much carbon savings. The whole reactive proposition raises extreme security and liability issues for industry and taxpayers alike.
It Takes Energy to Bury CO2
The chief obstacle to CCS is cost. Right now, no country buries lots of CO2 because it is not economical. John Pavlish, a senior U.S. researcher on CCS at North Dakota's Energy and Environmental Research Center, notes that CCS would raise the cost of a power plant by 35 to 100 percent which, in turn, would increase electric bills by 30 to 80 percent. Without a $40 to $80 price tag on a tonne of CO2, not much carbon will ever get buried.
It takes a lot energy to capture, compress and inject CO2 into the ground. In fact 30, percent of the power generated by a coal-fired facility or tar sands power plant would be cannibalized by a CO2 retrofit.
That’s great news for coal companies because CCS demands that utilities burn more coal instead of building windmills.
Storage problems
Security of storage is also a concern. Not too many places in North America are suitable for carbon burial due to earthquake risks or high density oil and gas drilling. Improperly sealed wells or faulty cement jobs could invite great volumes of CO2 back to the surface. Leaks could also acidify groundwater.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, for example, dutifully notes that Alberta is a pin cushion. With more than 350,000 oil and gas wells, it is one of the most intensely drilled landscapes in the world. In other words, CO2 could find its way back to the surface and into people’s basements and wells.
CO2 injection may also cause man-made earthquakes. The rapid depletion of gas wells and the water flooding of oil wells have caused a series of documented earthquakes in Alberta, Texas and the Netherlands. Geologists call it “induced seismicity.” The largest earthquakes ever recorded in Alberta were triggered by oil and gas activity. Natural Resources Canada recently studied a series of earthquakes caused by sour gas removal at the Strachan gas plant in Rocky Mountain House.
Although the technology for capturing, compressing and piping carbon is doable, not much is known about rapid CO2 injection into old oil reservoirs or salty aquifers.
Independent research by University of Calgary engineer Minzghe Dong shows that each and every reservoir behaves differently and has to be carefully prepared. If most of the oil and water isn’t removed, the reservoir will chemically react with CO2 and limit the amount of disposal space. Scientists have yet to show that the rock cap sealing salt aquifers can actually safely contain CO2.
Liability is no small cross in the carbon cemetery either. Buried CO2 must be monitored for thousands of years, a task few regulators really want to undertake. Industry doesn’t want to invest in CCS until government (read taxpayers) assumes the liabilities of leaks and groundwater contamination. Wyoming, the largest coal producing state, wisely passed legislation that places the liability for the unintended consequences of CCS on the utility or oil company that injects it.
It is reactive program, not a proactive one. The technology costs too much and won't scale up in time to make a difference. It directly robs taxpayers and subsidizes the world’s wealthiest industry. And it steals dollars from renewable programs. What CCS does is give coal and oil companies taxpayer money to accelerate hydrocarbon consumption by nearly one third."
But critics and experts say there are geological risks, it's a waste of taxpayers' money and the 'economics are deadly.'
By Bea Vongdouangchanh
Carbon capture and storage of Canada's greenhouse gas emissions is still 12 to 20 years from being commercialized, but it's being oversold as a panacea and a silver bullet, however, it's a waste of taxpayers' money, there are geological risks to storing carbon dioxide underground and the economics "are deadly," say experts and critics who believe the federal government should be investing in other environmental solutions such as renewable energy and energy efficiency.
Jack Century, a Calgary-based retired petroleum, minerals and environmental geologist with more than 50 years of experience in the industry, told The Hill Times last week that carbon capture and storage (CCS) procedures—burying greenhouse gas emissions—could cause induced earthquakes or "micro seismicity" which risk CO2 leakage. He said injecting any gas or liquid into the ground without very carefully studying the geology could become a hazard.
"If you're not careful, you can inject it higher than the natural pressures in the reservoir you're injecting into," he said, noting that if the reservoir is over a fault line or very close to one, it could cause an earthquake. "It isn't just earthquakes that are a problem, but it's when you start injecting fluids into the earth and you don't know what you're doing, you can start small seismic events, we call them micro seismicity and they can cause fractures, and the fractures themselves can interfere with the reservoir and violate the integrity of the reservoir and cause leakage. It doesn't become a hazard in terms of earthquakes but it becomes a hazard in terms of escaping liquids and you don't know where they're going to go."
..........Even CCS proponents admit that carbon dioxide injected deep underground could find its way back to the surface after an earthquake or via groundwater channels."
Mr. Nikiforuk is a fierce critic of CCS, saying, "Creating an energy intensive burial system to hide a problem that could be solved by conserving fossil fuels is morally bankrupt. CCS is a last-ditch survival effort that defies economics and shirks logic."
"The economics of CCS are deadly," he said.
"NDP MP Linda Duncan (Edmonton Strathcona, Alta.) said "it's a waste of taxpayer money" to invest in CCS. "If it's not a proven technology to safe-keep it, then the public should not be bearing the liability," she said last week."
"It's true that this technology will not be effective everywhere. It can only work in places where it's matched with the right geology. Co2 is a very dangerous gas, and there have been stories about natural leaks of carbon dioxide that have caused death, so its very important that this technology is monitored and regulated very closely," she said, adding that CCS is "very expensive" which means governments will not pay for CCS projects entirely.
This information is from the following web site:
http://www.hse.gov.uk/carboncapture/carbondioxide.htm
"At room temperature and ambient pressure CO2 is a colourless, odourless gas that will not support combustion or human life. CO2 has been recognised as a workplace hazard for over a century. It is significantly heavier than air and many fatalities from asphyxiation have resulted from entry into pits, tanks, sumps or cellars where CO2 has accumulated and displaced oxygen.
It is also possible for dangerous levels of CO2 to form out-of-doors in trenches, depressions or valleys. This is particularly likely when the gas is colder than the surrounding air, which may occur following pressurised release.
In 2000, a US Environmental Projection Agency study on CO2 related incidents in fire scenarios reported that since 1975 there were 51 recorded incidents involving the discharge of CO2 fire extinguishing systems resulting in 72 deaths and 145 injuries.
There is no significant inherent human response to CO2 that could be useful as a detection mechanism. Human response to hydrogen sulphide by smell occurs at very low (ppm) concentrations, similarly with ammonia and sulphur dioxide.
In contrast, CO2 is present in the air we breath (0.037%). This may cause problems with instrumented detection because the 'background' CO2 levels are so high. In addition, the cooling effects of a pressurised CO2 leak may have an adverse effect on the accuracy and operability of CO2 gas detection systems.
The recognition of the dangers of CO2 has prompted much research into its toxicity in both human volunteers and animals. It is now known that, in addition to the problem of asphyxiation due to the displacement of oxygen, the inhalation of elevated concentrations of CO2 can increase the acidity of the blood triggering adverse effects on the respiratory, cardiovascular and central nervous systems. Data from published research reports has been used by HSE to quantify the toxicity of CO2 in the form of Dangerous Toxic Load (DTL)1 values.
The DTLs have been used in calculations by the Health and Safety Laboratories (HSL) to demonstrate that CO2 exhibits major accident potential, when transported by pipeline in large quantities at ambient temperature and at a pressure of 7 bar or more, well below the dense phase or supercritical region. It is not yet clear whether controls should be applied to the transport of CO2 in this context but pending further research, it is possible that HSE will propose amending the Pipelines Safety Regulations to include CO2 as a dangerous fluid.
Additional hazards of dense phase or supercritical carbon dioxide
For economic and technical reasons it is likely CO2 will be handled close to or above its critical pressure (73.82 bar) where many of its properties are similar to that of a liquid. In this state it is often referred to as a dense phase fluid, whereas above critical temperature (31.04oC) and pressure it is referred to as supercritical. Most of the additional hazards associated with dense phase or supercritical CO2 arise when this pressure suddenly falls or is lost completely.
Scale of the thermal cooling envelope
In the event pf a major pressure loss, e.g a pipe rupture or containment failure, the depressurisation will result in an increase in the volume occupied by the CO2 of several hundred fold as the escaping fluid undergoes a rapid expansion (and phase change) as a proportion essentially 'boils' and becomes a gas while the remainder forms solid particles. This rapid, violent expansion causes the temperature of escaping CO2 to fall very rapidly, frequently below -80°C. while the particles of solid CO2 formed (dry ice) will result in projectiles expelled at very high velocities.
Cryogenic burns and impact injuries from extremely cold jet of gas and entrained missiles are serious hazards to personnel. Cryogenic embrittlement of structural steelwork and adverse effects from the impingement of extremely cold gas jets on safety-critical equipment are major threats to the structural and functional integrity of nearby plant unless appropriately designed or protected.
Toxic contamination effects
Supercritical CO2 is a highly efficient solvent. When supercritical CO2 undergoes a significant pressure reduction it moves from its supercritical state with super solvent properties to a gaseous state with virtually no solvent capability. In any environment where other substances are present with supercritical CO2 their solvation will occur resulting in fluid medium or "solution" containing various compounds or elements many of which may be extremely toxic. Any toxic substance held in such a pressurised 'solution' will 'precipitate' out on loss of pressure or containment and is likely to result in harmful human exposure or environmental damage due to the contamination of the area of deposition unless appropriate measures are taken.
Dry Ice 'grit blasting effects'
Where captured CO2 may be present with solid particles such as reservoir-derived sand and other solid debris, loss of containment may result in these combining with the dry ice formed to produce particles of a much greater abrasive capability than dry ice alone. This would enhance the erosion effects on process pipework and vessels adjacent to the leak which could lead to further damage to equipment and hence risk to people.
Specific challenges associated with dense phase or supercritical carbon dioxide
Whilst the processes that make up Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) are not novel in themselves there is relatively little experience worldwide in managing the risks associated with CO2, compared with oil and gas. The major accident hazards presented by handling high pressure CO2 offshore or onshore need to be considered in the context of about 10,000 years' operating experience in managing hazards associated with hydrocarbon processing offshore alone, and probably much more if onshore processes are included2. In comparison there are probably less than 100 operating years for handling CO2 and significantly less in dealing with supercritical CO2.
Modelling dense phase/supercritical CO2 releases
The ability to anticipate foreseeable major accident scenarios and accurately predict the consequences of these hazardous events is a fundamental element in the assessment of the risk. A lack of substantial operation experience in a novel process or technology generally leads to significant difficulties in identifying accurately the hazards associated with that process or technology.
We do not yet fully understand the behaviour of CO2 when released from dense phase. Industry is researching appropriate models which will need to be validated. There is a need for appropriate scale experimental work to provide HSE and duty holders with a thorough understanding of how CO2 behaves during foreseeable large releases.
Containment and integrity
Whilst there are applicable general engineering standards, there is a lack of internationally recognised standards and codes of practice specifically for dense phase or supercritical CO2 plant and equipment. When designing, fabricating and maintaining plant for handling and transporting CO2 it is important that the full significance its physical properties, at the temperatures, pressures and inventories required are fully recognised and managed accordingly. Where applying standards developed for other substances including hydrocarbons, such as natural gas, extreme caution is advised as even the highest standards for many other substances may not be sufficient to ensure adequate containment for CO2 under the expected, and unexpected operating envelope(s).
Until recently, however, few cared so much about how long the carbon dioxide stayed put.
That is starting to change. Since 2000, the North American energy company EnCana Corp. has boosted oil production 50% at Weyburn, Canada, by injecting millions of tons of surplus CO2 from North Dakota. Plans call for at least 20 million tons in all to be sequestered permanently there in coming decades -- an amount equal to the annual emissions of 6.8 million cars.
So far, monitoring indicates that most of it will stay underground but, by one report, about 2,500 tons a day bubble to the surface where it must be recaptured and re-injected.
Critics of the storage operations worry about the long-term safety of the reservoirs. No one knows whether excess carbon dioxide will remain stable underground for hundreds or thousands of years.
"If it can find any well, crack or conduit in the rock, it will escape," said Harvard carbon storage researcher Kurt Zenz House.
With more than 3.5 million oil wells drilled in the U.S. since petroleum exploration began in earnest 150 years ago, there is no shortage of potential leaks.
Experts also worry how so much carbon dioxide will alter the chemistry of the storage formations themselves. Bubbles composed of millions of tons of sequestered CO2 could form an acid that could etch away the confining rocks or erode the concrete caps on well heads.
To test the effects of carbon dioxide storage, researchers funded by the U.S. Department of Energy recently injected 2,000 tons -- about half a day's power plant emissions -- into a mile-deep well northeast of Houston.
After monitoring the site for two years, researchers at the U.S. Geological Survey found no leaks.
But in a study made public in July, they did discover that the buried CO2 increased the acidity of the saltwater in the rock enough to dissolve the surrounding minerals. Should enough minerals be eaten away, the gas could seep slowly into the atmosphere again, they reported. The acidic solution also could combine with trace metals and organic compounds to contaminate groundwater."
How safe is CO2 sequestration? How much do the experts really know?
Remember - the largest portion of these experiments are paid for by taxpayers!
Article #1) January 24, 2007 - "Participants were asked to formulate questions and identify research needs to be addressed as EPA prepares to develop a scientifically-sound management strategy for CO2 injection."
(they are listed in the article - several pages of questions) -
Article #2) THREE months later -An announcement saying the well was ready for CO2 sequestration in Shadyside, OH
At that time, there were already MORE "CO2 sequestration Demonstration" projects on the radar for Ohio....... and all over the world...with many more in progress.
"State Regulators Workshop on Geologic Sequestration of CO2 The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), in coordination with the Department of Energy’s National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL), and the Ground Water Protection Council (GWPC) held a workshop on geologic sequestration of carbon dioxide (CO2) on
January 24, 2007 in San Antonio, Texas. At the workshop, representatives of state governments, EPA Regions, DOE research laboratories and Regional Partnerships, industry, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), academia, and other interested parties met in small groups to discuss issues associated with CO2 injection for the purposes of geologic sequestration (GS).
Participants were asked to formulate questions and identify research needs to be addressed as EPA prepares to develop a scientifically-sound management strategy for CO2 injection. The participants were organized into groups of 8 to 10 people, with each group having a mix of representatives from EPA regions, states, industry, research institutions, academia, and NGOs, to allow for sharing various points of view. The group discussed the following topics: site characterization; modeling; area of review (AoR); injection well construction; mechanical integrity testing (MIT); measuring, monitoring, and verification (MMV); closure and post-closure care; and liability and financial responsibility."
"Regional Partnership Completes 8,000-foot Well for Critical Carbon Sequestration Assessment
Midwest Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership Prepares for Test of Geologic Carbon Sequestration in Appalachian Basin
Washington, DC - The Midwest Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership (MRCSP) has completed an 8,000-foot well at FirstEnergy's R. E. Burger Plant near Shadyside, Ohio, in preparation for a geologic sequestration field test. Sponsored by the Office of Fossil Energy's National Energy Technology Laboratory, the field test will determine the feasibility of storing CO2 in deep saline formations in the Appalachian Basin.
"The carbon sequestration field test in the Appalachian Basin is an important step in turning the promise of carbon sequestration into a reality," said Acting Assistant Secretary for Fossil Energy Tom Shope. "By assessing carbon storage in an area of the country that produces 20 percent of the nation's electricity, the test helps pave the way toward a future in which America's abundant fossil resources can be used to produce energy without contributing to global climate change."
Carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) is a critical strategy proposed for combating climate change. It involves the injection of CO2, a greenhouse gas, generated by coal-fired power plants and industrial facilities deep beneath the earth's surface for long term storage.
There are potential significant issues with CCS, including:
1. Pollutants from the plant mixing with the CO2 that is injected leading to contamination of water supplies;
2. Potential mobility of CO2 once it is injected; and
3. Corrositivity of CO2 may result in release of subsurface contaminants into drinking water supplies
The Department of Energy and Coal State's are betting heavily on the success of carbon sequestration. Federal funds are supporting some 25 projects around the country that will investigate the feasibility of CCS.
To address the concerns with CCS, U.S. EPA and the States are beginning to develop regulations for CCS projects. This Summer major developments include release of U.S. EPA's rules and the issuance of an Underground Injection Control (UIC) permit by Ohio EPA for an Ohio test site.
Beginning this month, the Midwest Regional Carbon Sequestration Project (MRCSP) is utilizing FirstEnergy's R.E. Burger Plant as a test site for injection of up to 3,000 tons of CO2. As reported on the MRCSP web page, the period of injection could vary from three to eight weeks, depending on the properties of the injection zones and the time needed for experimental set-up, regulatory oversight and monitoring.
Injection will occur at three different geologic locations- the intervals range from 5,923 feet to 8,274 feet below surface. The intervals are selected to prevent mobility of the injected CO2.
Closure financial responsibility- Total project closeout including closure of the well in accordance with regulatory requirements were estimated at $75,000 to $100,000. This amount only covers sealing of the well. No money is set aside in the event any other issues arise. Some may question whether this is sufficient financial assurance if it was anything other than a test site.
Monitoring of Injected Fluids- On a quarterly basis, the injected material will be analyzed for various contaminants including SO2, NOx, particulate matter, and mercury. The monitoring is an attempt to verify contaminants from the plant are not mixed with the injected CO2.
Issuance of the permit precedes finalization of U.S. EPA proposed rules governing regulation of carbon sequestration projects. U.S. EPA's proposed rules and Ohio EPA's permit rely on similar legal authority on the Safe Drinking Water Act (SWDA). The permit together with the proposed rules give insight into how CCS projects could be regulated in the future. Areas covered by both the permit and U.S. EPA's proposed rule include:
Geologic site characterization to ensure that wells are appropriately sited
Requirements to construct wells in a manner that prevents fluid movement into unintended zones;
Periodic re-evaluation of the area around the injection well to verify that the CO2 is moving as predicted within the subsurface;
Testing of the mechanical integrity of the injection well, ground water monitoring, and tracking of the location of the injected CO2 to ensure protection of underground sources of drinking water;
Extended post-injection monitoring and site care to track the location of the injected CO2 and monitor subsurface pressures; and
Financial responsibility requirements to assure that funds will be available for well plugging, site care, closure, and emergency and remedial response.
While the regulations and permitting of CCS are moving forward, not everyone is embracing CCS. In recent testimony before the U.S. House of Representatives Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Environment and Hazardous Materials, serious concerns were raised by the American Water Works Association (AWWA) about the potential effect CCS technology may have on the nation's underground sources of drinking water. Strong regulations and successful pilot tests will go a long way to addressing these concerns.
"At room temperature and ambient pressure, CO2 is a colourless, odourless gas that supports neither combustion nor life. It is not just an asphyxiant but also has toxicological effects and has been recognised as an occupational health hazard for more than a hundred years.
Dense phase and supercritical CO2 give rise to additional hazards particularly when the pressure suddenly falls or is lost completely."
Further information on the cryogenic, traumatic and toxicological effects
General hazards of carbon dioxide
At room temperature and ambient pressure CO2 is a colourless, odourless gas that will not support combustion or human life. CO2 has been recognised as a workplace hazard for over a century. It is significantly heavier than air and many fatalities from asphyxiation have resulted from entry into pits, tanks, sumps or cellars where CO2 has accumulated and displaced oxygen.
It is also possible for dangerous levels of CO2 to form out-of-doors in trenches, depressions or valleys. This is particularly likely when the gas is colder than the surrounding air, which may occur following pressurised release.
In 2000, a US Environmental Projection Agency study on CO2 related incidents in fire scenarios reported that since 1975 there were 51 recorded incidents involving the discharge of CO2 fire extinguishing systems resulting in 72 deaths and 145 injuries.
There is no significant inherent human response to CO2 that could be useful as a detection mechanism. Human response to hydrogen sulphide by smell occurs at very low (ppm) concentrations, similarly with ammonia and sulphur dioxide.
In contrast, CO2 is present in the air we breath (0.037%). This may cause problems with instrumented detection because the 'background' CO2 levels are so high. In addition, the cooling effects of a pressurised CO2 leak may have an adverse effect on the accuracy and operability of CO2 gas detection systems.
The recognition of the dangers of CO2 has prompted much research into its toxicity in both human volunteers and animals. It is now known that, in addition to the problem of asphyxiation due to the displacement of oxygen, the inhalation of elevated concentrations of CO2 can increase the acidity of the blood triggering adverse effects on the respiratory, cardiovascular and central nervous systems. Data from published research reports has been used by HSE to quantify the toxicity of CO2 in the form of Dangerous Toxic Load (DTL)1 values.
The DTLs have been used in calculations by the Health and Safety Laboratories (HSL) to demonstrate that CO2 exhibits major accident potential, when transported by pipeline in large quantities at ambient temperature and at a pressure of 7 bar or more, well below the dense phase or supercritical region. It is not yet clear whether controls should be applied to the transport of CO2 in this context but pending further research, it is possible that HSE will propose amending the Pipelines Safety Regulations to include CO2 as a dangerous fluid.
Additional hazards of dense phase or supercritical carbon dioxide
For economic and technical reasons it is likely CO2 will be handled close to or above its critical pressure (73.82 bar) where many of its properties are similar to that of a liquid. In this state it is often referred to as a dense phase fluid, whereas above critical temperature (31.04oC) and pressure it is referred to as supercritical. Most of the additional hazards associated with dense phase or supercritical CO2 arise when this pressure suddenly falls or is lost completely.
Scale of the thermal cooling envelope
In the event of a major pressure loss, e.g a pipe rupture or containment failure, the depressurisation will result in an increase in the volume occupied by the CO2 of several hundred fold as the escaping fluid undergoes a rapid expansion (and phase change) as a proportion essentially 'boils' and becomes a gas while the remainder forms solid particles. This rapid, violent expansion causes the temperature of escaping CO2 to fall very rapidly, frequently below -80°C. while the particles of solid CO2 formed (dry ice) will result in projectiles expelled at very high velocities.
Cryogenic burns and impact injuries from extremely cold jet of gas and entrained missiles are serious hazards to personnel. Cryogenic embrittlement of structural steelwork and adverse effects from the impingement of extremely cold gas jets on safety-critical equipment are major threats to the structural and functional integrity of nearby plant unless appropriately designed or protected.
Toxic contamination effects
Supercritical CO2 is a highly efficient solvent. When supercritical CO2 undergoes a significant pressure reduction it moves from its supercritical state with super solvent properties to a gaseous state with virtually no solvent capability. In any environment where other substances are present with supercritical CO2 their solvation will occur resulting in fluid medium or "solution" containing various compounds or elements many of which may be extremely toxic. Any toxic substance held in such a pressurised 'solution' will 'precipitate' out on loss of pressure or containment and is likely to result in harmful human exposure or environmental damage due to the contamination of the area of deposition unless appropriate measures are taken.
Dry Ice 'grit blasting effects'
Where captured CO2 may be present with solid particles such as reservoir-derived sand and other solid debris, loss of containment may result in these combining with the dry ice formed to produce particles of a much greater abrasive capability than dry ice alone. This would enhance the erosion effects on process pipework and vessels adjacent to the leak which could lead to further damage to equipment and hence risk to people.
Specific challenges associated with dense phase or supercritical carbon dioxide
Whilst the processes that make up Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) are not novel in themselves there is relatively little experience worldwide in managing the risks associated with CO2, compared with oil and gas. The major accident hazards presented by handling high pressure CO2 offshore or onshore need to be considered in the context of about 10,000 years' operating experience in managing hazards associated with hydrocarbon processing offshore alone, and probably much more if onshore processes are included2. In comparison there are probably less than 100 operating years for handling CO2 and significantly less in dealing with supercritical CO2. For Example, the Sliepner CO2 disposal project has been operational since about 1996 while in the USA, CO2 injection into wells has only been carried out over the last ~40 years.
Modelling dense phase/supercritical CO2 releases
The ability to anticipate foreseeable major accident scenarios and accurately predict the consequences of these hazardous events is a fundamental element in the assessment of the risk. A lack of substantial operation experience in a novel process or technology generally leads to significant difficulties in identifying accurately the hazards associated with that process or technology.
We do not yet fully understand the behaviour of CO2 when released from dense phase. Industry is researching appropriate models which will need to be validated. There is a need for appropriate scale experimental work to provide HSE and duty holders with a thorough understanding of how CO2 behaves during foreseeable large releases.
Containment and integrity
Whilst there are applicable general engineering standards, there is a lack of internationally recognised standards and codes of practice specifically for dense phase or supercritical CO2 plant and equipment. When designing, fabricating and maintaining plant for handling and transporting CO2 it is important that the full significance its physical properties, at the temperatures, pressures and inventories required are fully recognised and managed accordingly. Where applying standards developed for other substances including hydrocarbons, such as natural gas, extreme caution is advised as even the highest standards for many other substances may not be sufficient to ensure adequate containment for CO2 under the expected, and unexpected operating envelope(s).
These excerpts are taken from the same, well-written article I referenced in the last two posts. I have broken this article into bite-size pieces for your convenience. Click here to read the entire article.
"While deepwell injection of liquids has occurred safely for over 20 years, there is less experience with injecting gasses like CO2. While most CO2 injections for enhanced oil recovery have occurred safely, problems that have occurred illustrate the unique hazards that utilities and regulators must consider. A few of these potential hazards include the following.
Blowout Well blowouts occur when gas escapes through old or unknown wells. In January 2001,a natural gas leak from a cracked gas well casing leading to salt caverns and used as a natural gas storage facility resulted in an initial gas explosion below two stores in downtown Hutchinson, KS. The initial gas explosion was followed by an eruption of natural gas and water geysers two miles east of the initial explosion later that day and for several days thereafter. Two people residing in a trailer home were killed as a result of one of the explosions. The gas leak originated from a cracked well casing at a depth close to 600 feet and proceeded to migrate horizontally, traveling along abandoned brine wells and ultimately reaching the surface some distance away from the initial explosion.62
In another case involving CO2, a blowout occurred during drilling at a production well in March 1982 causing the free flow of CO2 at the well head and leakage from ground fractures directly above the site. The high rate of CO2 from the well caused containment not to occur until the following month.63
The report issued a number of recommendations including: determining the potential for CO2 migration along unsealed fault and fracture zones; the potential for magmatic or seismic activity to cause damage to sealing caps resulting in CO2 releases; the potential for wells to transport CO2 to the surface; and implementation of public education and CO2 monitoring programs to minimize impact to human health and the environment from releases.65
The risk of blowout is hard to quantify since there is little information on the number of abandoned wells in the United States. It is difficult to estimate the number of these wells since some do not have observable caps or metal casings that can be detected through sensors. Texas estimates that there are approximately 11,000 orphan abandoned wells that it is gradually closing through a state program.66
Operators of CCS injection wells will have to find, close, and cap abandoned wells within the Area of Review.62
Economic Damage The saline formations in Texas produce some oil and gas in formations nearby or overlaying the potential injection formations. In addition to well blowout, less apparent seeps from the injection zone into oil and gas producing layers can dilute the value of these deposits and ultimately return the CO2 to the atmosphere.67
Corrosion As CO2 rises to the top of the injection layer, it may contact closed wells or the cement casings of older wells. If the CO2 reacts with water to form acidic compounds, these acids could start to erode the concrete. As more is eroded, the process accelerates, creating a reinforcing-negative cycle that could allow the CO2 to rise up the abandoned well to drinking water layers. While this problem can be prevented through different well closure approaches, the potential problem will increase the cost of an applicant’s Area of Review study and demonstration.68
This paper does not outline the necessity to deal with other issues such as amending state drinking water laws or amending federal environmental laws such as the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA); Endangered Species Act ESA), Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), and CERCLA’s Natural Resource Damage Assessment Act (NRDA). These issues have been addressed by other APPA papers located at www.appanet.org/files/HTM/ccs.html"
Greenville, OH project has been CALLED OFF BY BATTELLE - A Community Celebrates!! The large-scale CO2 Demonstration project WILL NOT HAPPEN! For more information email StopExperimentalCO2Projects@yahoo.com
Search This Blog
Where Does YOUR electricity come from? Think Mountaintop Mining doesn't effect you? Think Again!
It is time we learn more about environmental justice in relation to energy consumption and economic development with a focus on personal responsibility as well as outward awareness and action regarding the origination and lifecycle of energy resources. What lives and places are impacted by our energy use, and in what way?
When we turn on the light, or plug in our microwave, where does that energy come from, and what is the political and social economy surrounding the source of that energy? How does our energy consumption affect other individuals, and how do those other individuals live? How does our energy consumption impact the freedom of others to choose the lifestyle they desire? Think before you consume.
See you at the fair!
Look for Citizens Against CO2 Sequestration at the Great Darke County Fair - in both the Democrat & Republican Booths!
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available in an effort to advance understanding of issues of environmental and humanitarian significance. In many cases we have included the full text of the article rather than a simple link because we have found that links frequently go "bad" or change over time. We believe this constitutes a "fair use" of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without fee or payment of any kind to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
Advocate Photo - click here to be taken to The Daily Advocate for the full story
"Chasing CCS is a money burner and an energy hog, and it may not deliver much carbon savings. The whole reactive proposition raises 
