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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 Read the abstract here...

Groundwater, Saline Aquifers, and Proposed CCS Project s

Darke County, Ohio is the proposed site of one of the large-scale Carbon Capture and Storage projects. (CCS - aka CO2 Sequestration) Greenville, OH has been selected as the site for the MRCSP's Phase III "Demonstration Project" in which they plan to bury 1 Millon Tons of CO2 in the Supercritical Form known as Supercritical CO2.

This area is a strong agricultural area and it sits on top of a sole source aquifer

Technology has advanced rapidly, whoever thought we'd have this technology in our lifetime?

I question why anyone would want to inject supercritical CO2 into our saline aquifer and destroy the possibility of it being used in the future. What potential mess are we leaving for future generations to clean up?




The quotes below are from the web site - http://www.pnl.gov/gtsp/publications/2008/papers/2008_davidson_impacts_future_demand.pdf

Assessing the impacts of future demand for saline groundwater on commercial deployment of CCS in the United States

Casie L Davidsona*, James J Dooleyb, Robert T Dahowskia
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, 902 Battelle Avenue, Richland, Washington 99354, USA
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, 8400 Baltimore Avenue, Ste 201, College Park, MD 20740, USA

This is a very important article - it addresses the potential impact that CCS might have on the future demand for groundwater within the United States especially as these projects increase in number. A number of areas of the U.S. are very dependent upon their groundwater - many are over-utilized or depleted or moving towards depletion as demand grows.

This geological formation in the western Ohio area is known as the Mount Simon Sandstone and it is this same saline aquifer that is considered to be an ideal formation for CO2 waste pumped into the earth as the final deposit for CO2 sequestration projects. It is deposited in the geological formation forever, not stored to be retrieved at a later date.

Water is our most precious resource.

The bold areas in red are excerpts from the article referenced below. They have been enhanced in red for those who skim articles. The excerpts are from random paragraphs and may or may not be in order... please read the entire article.

Please be sure to read the entire article http://www.pnl.gov/gtsp/publications/2008/papers/2008_davidson_impacts_future_demand.pdf

"The need to meet future water demands may lead some parts of the nation to consider supplementing existing supplies with lower quality groundwater resources, including brackish waters that are currently not considered sources of drinking water but which could provide supplemental water via desalination. In some areas, these same deep saline-filled geologic formations also represent possible candidate carbon dioxide (CO2) storage reservoirs. The analysis presented here suggests that future constraints on CCS deployment – due to potential needs to supplement conventional water supplies by desalinating deeper and more brackish waters – are likely to be necessary only in limited regions across the country, particularly in areas that are already experiencing water stress."

(Please see map of Ohio on the above web site)

"As Figure 1 illustrates, some areas of the U.S. use very little groundwater to supply their populations with drinking water. In particular, Appalachia, the Northeast and certain areas in the Midwest and Pacific Northwest rely predominantly on surface waters to meet their public supply needs. In other areas, however – particularly the Southwest, Gulf Coast and Florida, and certain other parts of the Midwest – groundwater provides a large fraction of the total public water supply, well over 50 percent in many areas. It is also worth noting that the use of groundwater to supply public drinking water appears to be on the rise. In 1985, 379 counties in the U.S. supplied more than 80 percent of their population with groundwater; in 1995 there were 436, a 15 percent increase [9]."

"3.5. Ohio River Valley Aquifers
Because the most promising CO2 storage resource in the Ohio River Valley does not underlie a major drinking water aquifer system in many areas of interest for CO2 storage, there are unlikely to be significant conflicts regarding saline water use for CCS. However, the Mt. Simon Formation, one of the key CO2 storage targets in this region, shallows to the northwest, in northern Illinois, where formation waters are fresh and the aquifer is an important groundwater source."

(Note- Greenville, Ohio sits on a freshwater sole source aquifer)

"Adapting to growing populations, declining water levels within key aquifers, and changing precipitation patterns may further strain heavily used groundwater resources in areas already impacted by water supply issues. Within certain regions of the nation, water scarcity concerns may prompt further consideration for targeting nearby high salinity or brackish water in deep aquifers for treatment by desalination technologies to augment more conventional supplies. Deep geologic formations that could be used as a permanent repository for anthropogenic CO2 in climate change mitigation efforts via CCS contain highly brackish waters that in select regions might represent potential targets for future waters supplies (particularly if they are below the salinity of seawater, approximately 35,000 mg/L TDS). This possibility might present a competing use for these deep geologic formations, and should be examined to estimate the potential probability, location, and magnitude, of such impacts."

"The likelihood that deep, saline groundwaters exceeding the USDW salinity threshold may be demanded as future sources of drinking or irrigation water increases in areas where groundwater currently supplies a significant portion of the region’s water supply; in areas with already constrained water supplies, such as the High Plains / Ogallala region; in areas where significant population growth is expected to overburden current surface and groundwater resources within the near- to mid-term, such as in parts of the Southwestern U.S. and areas of Texas; and in areas where there are limited other sources of saline waters (i.e., seawater) nearby."

' In areas that meet one or more of these criteria and also have a significant potential demand for deep geologic CO2 storage, there exists the possibility for differences of opinion regarding the best use of the saline groundwater underlying these regions. In such cases, permitting or garnering public acceptance for proposed CCS projects will require regulators and potential CCS operators to strike a balance between the future needs for high quality drinking and agricultural water, and the use of CCS in a given area as a climate change mitigation strategy."

Injection Induced Earthquakes AND Special Considerations Supercritical Liquid Properties

When most people think about Carbon Capture and Storage they think it means putting bubbles in the ground or carbonation, like we find in soda pop. The reality is not even close to anything resembling bubbles and it is dangerous.

Before the CO2 they capture can be put into the ground it must be transformed into SUPERCRITICAL CO2 which is considered a Supercritical Liquid - which is a supersolvent and comes with a lot of risks.

The article below comes from:
ISSUES RELATED TO SEISMIC ACTIVITY INDUCED BY THE INJECTION
OF CO2 IN DEEP SALINE AQUIFERS
Joel Sminchak and Neeraj Gupta

I could not find a date on this abstract. Some random quotes from it are listed below.

Please read the entire article - I have just excerpts here.

The live link to this article is here
(bold areas in the quoted material below have been done by me to help those who skim over articles)

Consequently, the injected CO2 must be addressed as a multiphase system. Special considerations for underground disposal of CO2 are mostly related to the unique properties of supercritical CO2.


"Formation Dissolution/Weakening

Supercritical CO2 has the potential to dissolve, weaken, or transform the minerals in the injection formation. In the supercritical state, CO2 becomes a “supersolvent.” Thus, there is potential for the fluid to dissolve and weaken the rocks in the injection formation. If the rock formation is weakened, the potential for hydraulic fracturing increases. Dissolution of minerals precipitated along a fault will reduce the strength of the fault, possibly moving the fault to frictional sliding conditions where failure is more likely to occur."

Case Study: Seismic Aspects of Deep Well Injection in Ohio
Deep well injection practices and seismic activity in Ohio were examined to determine the potential for induced seismicity in the state. All five active deep well injection systems in Ohio have been investigated for seismic hazards to some extent.
Most faults in Ohio are associated with Precambrian basement rocks at depths over 1 km below land surface. Several faults have been identified in northwestern Ohio, while relatively few faults have been identified in the rest of the state. The Anna Seismogenic Region is one of the most active seismic zones in Ohio (Figure 4). The zone is located in west-central Ohio. (Note by me - Greenville, OH is considered to be part of the Anna fault)

"In general, most seismic activity indicates strike-slip movement along steeply dipping faults. Based on the USGS Seismic Hazard mapping project, there is a low probability for damage from earthquakes for Ohio, except in the Anna Seismic Area, which has a moderate hazard.

The Anna Seismic Seismogenic Region in west-central Ohio has been identified as one of the most active seismic areas in the Midwest. The area has a substantial history of seismic activity dating back to the mid-1800s. The largest earthquake observed in the area had a Modified Mercalli intensity of VIII in 1937. In general, seismic activity indicates northeast-southwest strike-slip movement oriented perpendicular to the predominant stresses in the area."


"A number of faults have been proposed in the area, but most activity appears to occur near the trend of the proposed Anna-Champaign Fault. Overall, the Anna Seismic Area is considered a seismically active area."


Acknowledgement: The work presented here was conducted with funding from the U.S. Department of Energy’s National Energy Technology Laboratory as part of project number DEAF26-99FT0486."

To read the entire abstract click here