Carbon capture and storage 'being oversold as a panacea'

The Hill Times, April 13, 2009

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.

The Hill Times

http://www.hilltimes.com/html/index.php?display=story&full_path=2009/apr...

CO2 Sequestration - who assumes the liability?

"CO2 is highly compressible, its density influenced by pressure and temperature.At injection depths, pressure is approximately 1,500 pounds per square inch (102 atmospheres) and the temperature is approximately 130°F. Under these conditions, 2,000 tons of CO2 would have a volume of about 200,000 cubic feet or about the size of a football field 3.5 feet deep." Lawrence Berkeley National

Think about this..... how safe does THIS sound? It goes into the earth forever, has a list of risks associated with it and Guess Who assumes the liability? I think you'll be surprised...... and even more unsettled when you read this!

The large-scale CO2 sequestration projects are putting 1 million tons of CO2 into the earth!!! Would you call this "safe"? They do.

Ratepayers of the electric companies will pay for Capture with higher rates.

Failure to Manage Liability Puts Taxpayers at Risk

Read the story here - Advancing Carbon Sequestration
Research in an Uncertain Legal and
Regulatory Environment
A Study of Phase II of the DOE Regional Carbon
Sequestration Partnerships Program
Craig A. Hart

January 2009

General hazards of carbon dioxide

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).

Deep-Sixing CO2 Emissions

http://articles.latimes.com/2006/sep/03/science/sci-northsea3?pg=2

"By Robert Lee Hotz
September 03, 2006

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."

CO2 Sequestration - How Secure Does This Make You Feel?

I think this is frightening - 2 Articles

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."

Click here for the entire article You will WANT TO READ this article.



Then - just 3 months later -

Issued on: April 24, 2007

"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."

Read the rest of the article here

Skating to the dark side on thin ice

http://www.bloomingtonalternative.com/node/9368

by Peter Montague

June 29, 2008

When burned, coal produces three times its own weight in carbon dioxide (CO2) -- making it far dirtier than any other energy source, per unit of usable energy. Carbon dioxide is the main human contributor to global warming, so as more people worry about the future of human civilization in a hothouse world, new coal plants are being canceled across the country.

To protect its enormous investment in land, equipment, politicians and environmental groups, the coal industry has bet its future on an untried technology called "carbon capture and storage" (CCS). The idea is to capture the carbon dioxide emitted by burning coal, compress it into a liquid and bury it a mile below ground, hoping it will stay there forever.

The coal industry's fanciful name for this is "clean coal," a.k.a. carbon sequestration. And even though clean coal does not actually exist anywhere on Earth, the industry has sold the idea so effectively that more than 60 percent of Americans say they favor it.

To gain permission to build new coal plants, the coal and electric power industries are now promising the moon: "This new coal plant will be 'capture-ready.' Just let us build this plant now, and we'll add a CCS unit onto the back end as soon as CCS technology has matured and is affordable."

In other words, the industry is saying, "Let us build 'capture-ready' coal plants now, and someday, eventually, maybe, we'll be able to capture the CO2 and bury it in the ground, where we hope it will remain forever."

This is precisely the situation at Duke Energy's 'capture-ready' plant being proposed at Edwardsport in Knox County, upwind of Bloomington.

The 630-megawatt Edwardsport plant will emit an estimated 4,300 tons of CO2 per year (unless and until CCS is tacked onto the plant). Therefore, during its 40-year lifetime, the plant will produce an estimated 172,000 tons, or 344 million pounds, of CO2.

Duke Energy executives insist that the deep earth beneath Edwardsport is ideal for storing hazardous liquid CO2. At least one major environmental group -- the Clean Air Task Force, headquartered in Boston -- agrees with them.

A recent news report in the Herald-Times says, "Clean Air Task Force representative John W. Thompson describes the Duke carbon sequestration initiative as a pioneering effort that could provide a template for other companies and countries to ameliorate global warming by safely storing carbon dioxide..."

When Duke Energy officials met with the editorial board of the Herald-Times, the Clean Air task Force tagged along to provide Duke Energy a patina of green.

Indiana earthquakes so powerful they shake the ground in New Hampshire

Edwardsport lies in Knox County in southwestern Indiana, about 55 miles north of Evansville. Southwestern Indiana lies atop a geologic feature known as the "Wabash Seismic Zone." Because it was only discovered in recent decades, the Wabash Seismic zone is not nearly so well known as the nearby "New Madrid Seismic Zone."

The New Madrid Seismic Zone is famous for the earth-shattering quakes it spawned during 1811 and 1812 -- some quakes registered a magnitude 8 on the Richter scale and were felt in New Hampshire and rang church bells in Washington, D.C., according to the Indiana Geological Survey.

Here's what the Central United States Earthquake Consortium has to say about the Wabash Seismic Zone:

"Recent studies have indicated that the New Madrid Seismic Zone is not the only 'hot spot' for earthquakes in the Central United States. On June 18, 2002, a 5.0 magnitude earthquake struck Evansville, with an epicenter between Mt. Vernon and West Franklin in Posey County, in an area that is part of the Wabash Valley Seismic Zone. ...

"The Wabash Valley Seismic Zone is located in Southeastern Illinois and Southwestern Indiana, and it is capable of producing 'New Madrid' size earthquake events. ..."

Just two months ago, on April 18, a magnitude 5.2 earthquake shook the Wabash zone, with its epicenter only 34 miles from Edwardsport. Since then nearly three dozen earthquakes have occurred in the Wabash zone, 29 of them strong enough for local people to feel.

In other words, the Wabash zone is very active: "A magnitude 1.0 earthquake is probably happening once a week somewhere in the Wabash seismic zone," says Michael Hamburger, an IU professor of geological sciences.

Lubricating the geology

Read the rest of the article here

Interesting Aspects of the CO2 Sequestraion Pilot Project - R.E. Burger Plant -- Ohio

The web site for this article can be found here

You'll want to scroll down and read these.........amazing isn't it?

Carbon Sequestration Regulation and Permitting Moves Forward

Posted on September 24, 2008 by Joe Koncelik

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. 1. Pollutants from the plant mixing with the CO2 that is injected leading to contamination of water supplies;
2. 2. Potential mobility of CO2 once it is injected; and
3. 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.

The injection follows Ohio EPA's issuance on September 2, 2008 of a permit to allow the installation and pilot testing of the underground injection well for purposes of carbon sequestration. This is the first permit issued in Ohio that would allow injection of CO2 subsurface for purposes of carbon sequestration. Some interesting aspects of the permit include:

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.

Risk of Arsenic getting into groundwater

The link to the article from which this information was taken is here



POTENTIAL RISKS
Since supercritical CO2 is buoyant at the relevant crustal pressures and temperatures, it will seek the Earth’s surface in most settings. A large CO2 accumulation would exert forces on the reservoir, cap rock, faults, and wells. CO2 must also be injected at pressures above reservoir pressures, creating a pressure transient during and after injection. In addition, dissolved CO2 forms carbonic acid, which can alter rock and well-bore properties and composition. Therefore, despite confidence in the storage mechanisms discussed above, the possibility of leakage from storage sites remains.

These risks were recently highlighted by geochemical analysis and laboratory experiments carried out at a pilot injection in South Liberty, Texas (Hovorka et al. 2006). Kharaka et al. (2006) observed rapid dissolution of some minerals, chiefly carbonate, oxide, and hydroxide minerals. Although this population represented a small fraction of the rock volume (<2%),>.

These studies suggest that while Kharaka et al. (2006) may have discovered a new element of risk, that element does not appear to represent a major concern to CO2 storage. The geomechanical response to CO2 injection may still cause concerns. In a parallel set of studies, Johnson et al. (2005) simulated large pressure excursions from CO2 injection. They concluded that under certain conditions, such excursions lead to fracture dilation, with some seepage of CO2 into overlying units. In the case of most cap rocks, which have both fractures and reactive minerals (e.g. chlorite), this creates a competing rates problem between dilation of fracture and precipitation of reactive minerals in fracture voids. In this system, fracture closure or dilation is sensitive to CO2 diffusion distance and reaction rate. In addition, the pressure transient from injection could lead to fault-slip-induced fluid migration (e.g. Wiprut and Zoback 2002). While it is generally possible to predict the conditions under which this might occur (e.g. Chiaramonte et al. 2006), effective storage will require proper system calibration and injection management.


As mentioned previously, achievement of substantial CO2 emissions reductions through GCS will require hundreds to thousands of large-volume injection facilities distributed around the world. Each existing large project and some small projects (e.g. the Frio Brine Pilot; Hovorka et al. 2006) have provided some demonstration of effectiveness, monitoring technologies, and operational economics. Importantly, each existing large project also has revealed an important aspect of the geology that was not previously known or in some cases incorrectly characterized. For example, at Sleipner, the importance of small flow heterogeneities was not anticipated but was clearly seen (Arts et al. 2004). At Weyburn, CO2 migrated in unexpected ways along secondary fractures (Wilson and Monea 2004). Such features would not have been revealed through a small-scale (<100,000 style="font-weight: bold;">CO2 Dissolution and Precipitation Kinetics
The rate at which CO2 dissolves in brines of varying composition, temperature, pressure, and mixing degree greatly affects the long-term trapping mechanisms (i.e. the formation of carbonic acid, bicarbonate, and new minerals). These issues in turn affect other important concerns, such as the configuration and infrastructure of storage reservoir engineering (e.g. Keith et al. 2005) or the long-term fate of CO2 (Ennis-King and Paterson 2003). Although there has been some work on the controls of dissolution rate (e.g. interfacial effects; Yang et al. 2005) more could be done.
Similarly, knowledge of CO2-brine-mineral dissolution and precipitation kinetics is limited. Recent years have seen many experimental studies on individual minerals or classes of minerals (e.g. Carroll and Knauss 2005 and references therein). Still, much remains to be learned about rock systems, including true multiphase chemistry, mineral–CO2 equations of state, and minerals that may represent only a small volume of the rock but have rapid dissolution kinetics
(e.g. metal oxides or hydroxides).

As a subtopic, most GCS work on mineral reaction kinetics has focused on pure CO2–rock–brine systems. Very little work has been done on gas streams with small concentrations of other gases, in particular SOx, NOx, and H2S. These co-contaminant gases have the potential to dramatically alter the chemical response of a gas–brine–rock system, even if very small amounts of these gases are present (Knauss et al. 2005). Because the capture and separation of trace gases with CO2 may save capital and operating expenses, investigation of reactions in such systems may prove useful in the near future to determine if mixed-gas systems present additional concerns or risks.
Groundwater

The majority of sequestered CO2 will be stored in saline formations at depth. CO2 stored in these formations should have little or no effect on groundwater. However, if CO2 were to reach the surface along some fast pathway, then CO2 might enter fresh groundwater systems. It is highly unlikely that the rate or volume of CO2 would present a problem. However, the results of Kharaka et al. (2006) have raised the possibility that rapid local reactions could release unwanted elements and compounds into groundwater. Again, for most reservoirs this may have no effect. However, some reservoirs have elevated levels of natural arsenic. In such a system, even a small release of CO2 might result in an increase in local arsenic concentrations that could bring a municipal water supply out of compliance with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency regulations. Similarly, widespread deployment of GCS could potentially displace enough water to create saline groundwater intrusions in contiguous formations.

Wells
Wells almost certainly present the greatest risk to leakage because they are drilled to bring large volumes of fluid quickly to the Earth’s surface. In addition, they remove the aspects of the rock volume that prevent buoyant migration. Well casings and cements are susceptible to corrosion from carbonic acid. When wells are adequately plugged and completed, they are likely to trap CO2 at depth effectively. However, large numbers of orphaned or abandoned wells may not be adequately plugged, completed, or cemented (Ide et al. 2006), and such wells represent potential leak points for CO2. One analog site is particularly well suited for study. Crystal Geyser, Utah (Shipton et al. 2005), is a well that penetrated a natural CO2 accumulation in 1936, was poorly completed, and has erupted CO2 ever since (FIG. 3). Eruptions are episodic and vary in size. Measurements of individual and sequential eruptions suggest that large events bring tens of tonnes of CO2 to the surface, with an average daily flux of 40–50 tonnes (Gouveia et al. 2005). During the eruptions, atmospheric concentrations of CO2 were not recorded at or above dangerous levels. While this style of eruption does not appear to present a substantial risk (Bogen et al. 2006), more study is needed to understand how representative of well leakage this site may be.

Little is known about the probability of escape from a given well, the likelihood of such a well existing within a potential site, or the risk such a well presents in terms of potential leakage volume or consequence. Current approaches involve statistical characterization of many wells and semiquantitative analysis (Celia et al. 2006), or modeling and simulation of features and processes in well-bore environments (Gerard et al. 2006). Work in understanding the key features of wells (e.g. fracture geometry and character), the chemical response of well components to CO2 systems, and the evolution of natural and engineered interfaces could provide both better estimates of well-bore integrity risk and potential mitigation and remediation strategies (IPCC 2005).

Do we or do we not have a CO2 problem? NASA is looking for MISSING CO2?

Perhaps they (32,000 Scientists Dissent from Global Warming Concensus) are correct, perhaps we don't have a CO2 problem and this is all a scam to create jobs and look like we are doing something proactive to stop pollution while allowing the coal industry to burn even more coal and make more profit - not just for them but for those who have jumped on the Carbon Capture and Storage wagon. Many believe that the need to quickly remove CO2 from the atmosphere was created to take the focus off environmental pollution and eco-system degradation and destruction.

Whether the weather debate is true or not, man IS making a contribution to the polluting of Mother Earth and Carbon Capture and Sequestration is an experiment that is paid for largely by tax dollars....an experiment that comes with a lot of risks.

The purpose of this blog is not to hash out whether global warming is real or a scam - it's here to help others doing their own independent research on CO2 sequestration so they can form their own educated opinion.



Click here to read the article

"UPDATED: Can NASA's New Climate Detective Find the Missing Carbon Dioxide?"

We're missing a whole lot of carbon dioxide. Scientists can measure how much CO₂ human and nonhuman activities pump into our atmosphere, and they know how much carbon dioxide contributes to global warming as a greenhouse gas. Because Earth is absorbing more carbon dioxide than climatologists predicted, the planet isn't heating up as quickly as it could be, despite recent, unanticipated escalations in carbon emissions worldwide. That extra CO₂ is hiding somewhere, and tomorrow from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California, NASA will launch a brand-new observatory dedicated to finding it—the Orbiting Carbon Observatory.

Only 40 percent of the carbon humans have emitted since 1750—a whopping 466 billion tons—remains in the atmosphere. The destination of the remaining 60 percent CO₂ vexes atmospheric researchers. "We can't figure out exactly where it's going," says Mike Miller, vice president of science and technology satellite programs for Orbital Sciences, which built the observatory. The missing portion presumably has been absorbed by carbon sinks, Miller says—oceans and land-based vegetation that sequester, or take in, carbon from the atmosphere. "It's the way the Earth breathes," Millers says. About half of the missing carbon has been traced to the oceans, but scientists have an incomplete understanding of how land sequesters the other half. If the observatory can locate the missing carbon sinks, he says, it could not only help climate modelers more accurately predict how fast the Earth will warm, but it would indicate which natural areas are in need of the greatest protection.

The rest of the article..........

Another interesting read - Geoengineering and the New Climate Denialism

Carbon Dioxide Capture and Sequestration - Hype or Hope?

This is a video of a talk given by Stanford University professor, Sally Benson -

Universities are partners in many of the CO2 sequestration projects....... (follow the dollar) you know that story.

Is Public Acceptance REALLY part of the plan?

She is for CO2 sequestration.......... but she talks about the dangers of CO2 sequestration (worker safety, brine migration into drinking water aquifer, ecosystem, public safety - well blow out, pipeline leak, structural damage (earthquakes, etc). About 1 hour and 2 minutes into this talk, she addresses the need for public acceptance and says, "We're not going to do this if people don't want it, either philosophically or if they don't want it in their backyard."

I can't imagine ANYONE wanting a CCS project, especially a large-scale project, in their community. I certainly DO NOT WANT IT IN MINE...nor do I want it in YOURS.

Speak up, write your elected officials, talk to your friends and neighbors, write letters to the editor. Speak up for those who can't or won't - children and the elderly.

From the web site - http://www.counterpunch.org/blair01232007.html

January 23, 2007

King Coal's Latest Con Job

Clean Coal is Not Clean

By JOHN BLAIR

Proponents of Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) technology like that Duke and Vectren desire to use at Edwardsport, Indiana, loudly proclaim that IGCC is the answer to global warming since the technology makes its easier to capture carbon dioxide. Once captured, their pitch is that it can be "sequestered" for thousands of years in deep geological formations. Out of sight, out of mind.

In December 2006, the US Department of Energy finally admitted in a supplement to an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for an IGCC plant in Pennsylvania that, "DOE has considered the potential to reduce project CO2 emissions using geologic sequestration. This is not a reasonable option because sequestration technology is not sufficiently mature to be implemented at production scale during the demonstration period for the proposed facilities."

This admission is consistent with most recent research done by government and private sources as it relates to sequestration. In fact, most recent research tells a story that makes the whole idea of sequestration questionable, at best, and perhaps even dangerous for those who may live near the areas where CO2 is dumped underground.

Three areas of concern have emerged in recent studies.

1. CO2 injected near earthquake faults like the region of SW Indiana which is in the New Madrid fault zone, may actually increase the potential for earthquakes due to CO2's ability to lubricate geologic plates, making it easier for them to move when subjected to pressure from beneath the earth's surface.

2. Injection of CO2 can ultimately damage groundwater used for drinking by a chemical conversion when the CO2 is injected causing an increase in acidity which leaches dangerous chemicals like metals out of the formation. Those contaminants often find their way to groundwater. Such a chemical conversion could render entire aquifers unusable as drinking water which people depend upon.

3. Huge financial and energy investment in sequestration. Most of the debate about IGCC has evolved around whether it is possible to convert coal to a synthesis gas in a manner that can be used to generate electricity more cleanly than conventional technology called pulverized coal. The real reason utilities are seeking to build these plants is to capture enormous federal and state taxpayer funded subsidies. For instance, Duke and Vectren were recently awarded more than $133 million in federal tax credits to build their costly and dirty plant.

This wrongly labeled "clean coal" has proven to be somewhat cleaner from an air pollution standpoint than pulverized coal but missing from the debate has been a real assessment of what to do with the captured chemicals that are by-products of the process, what the cost of actually building and operating these facilities will be on a commercial scale, how much of the energy produced will be required to run the sophisticated chemical processes required thus reducing the overall efficiency of the plants and what is the actual cost of capturing the CO2 and permanently storing it in some underground geological formation.

As it currently stands, not a single one of these IGCC proposals addresses any of these issues in any great detail. Not only that, but most IGCC proposals are not even promising carbon capture, let alone sequestration.

Add to that the fact that the costs of building proposed IGCC plants has completely gone through the roof. In Minnesota, government documents have recently revealed the cost of Excelsior's Mesaba IGCC has gone to at least $2.155 billion for a 603 MW facility. That's a whopping $3.5 million per megawatt, higher than projected cost for nuclear plants these days. It is also true in Indiana where Duke Energy president, Jim Rogers told the media a couple of months ago that the cost of their Edwardsport IGCC plant had increased in cost to build from $1.3 billion in early 2006 to what is now in excess of "$2 billion" for 630 megawatts. That is a per MW cost of $3.17 million and rising. Neither of these facilities have projected the cost to capture and sequester carbon which most estimates suggest will be at least another 50% in construction costs and a big unknown as to what it will cost to actually capture and store the CO2 in operational costs.

Using the conservative 50% figure, the cost of the Edwardsport plant to construct could rise to $4.75 billion or more than $7.5 million/MW. Contrast that with the ill fated Marble Hill Nuclear plant which was forced to stop construction in 1984 due to its rising costs. PSI (now Duke) said originally in 1973 that Marble Hill would cost $700 million for 2,260 MW ($309,000/MW). When it finally went through hearings in 1977, the cost had doubled to $1.4 billion ($619,000/MW). When the state of Indiana forced PSI to stop construction by telling them they would not guarantee that they would allow the plant to be placed into PSI's rate base, the construction costs had risen to $10 billion ($ 4.4 million/MW).

The comparison with IGCC technology and nukes is valid. Both were risky ventures that required significant government support to be economically feasible at all. Both stood to make their sponsors extremely high profits since they are guaranteed a profit based on their level of investment. (With Marble Hill the allowed rate of return was about 8%, now Duke and Vectren seek a 12% rate of return.)

When the cost of building coal plants rises to a certain level, ALL alternatives should be on the table. Ecological destruction when mined, multiple health problems when burned and contaminating our drinking water when the waste is dumped into aquifers and streams are abundant reasons why alternatives to coal should be pursued.

Who can list a single "Coal community" as prosperous? Indeed, it is the opposite. Coal is the bane of those forced to live near coal, not our economic salvation.

John Blair is president of the environment health advocacy group, Valley Watch and earned a Pulitzer Prize for news Photography in 1978. He can be reached at: Ecoserve1@aol.com