The Public Opinion - CO2 Sequestration

If all we read about public acceptance being an important precondition to CO2 sequestration projects is to be believed then YOU and I have a VOICE that needs to be heard to STOP CO2 Sequestration in our respective areas. The time to speak up is NOW - BEFORE IT STARTS.... EVERY VOICE COUNTS!

Look around the country - these projects are NOT going in major metro areas - they are going in small communities - communities that may not be aware of the risks and even more important - communities that are not likely to speak up to oppose CCS - not likely to form a grassroots group to protect their communities and the quality of life they currently enjoy.

Many opposition groups take the stand that only when they put under Manhattan or a major city will they consider it "safe".

Below are some quotes about public acceptance and CCS ( also known as CO2 sequestration or geosequestration)

"The public acceptance of CCS is an important precondition for the large-scale deployment of these technologies. At present it can be assumed that the majority of the public is neither for nor against CCS, because the level of awareness among the public is very low or virtually nonexistent." Read the full article here

Reports - they study the public for best practices to get them to accept CCS
This is a link to reports from Europe

From the Dutch ( who oppose CCS)

Ecological Impact of Seismic Testing

Before seismic testing can be done they must first get permission from the land owners and a permit from the county. If land owners will not give them permission they often have "Plan B" which will allow them to still do the test but often changes their path.

Published on Wildlands CPR (http://www.wildlandscpr.org)

The number of seismic tests for oil and gas conducted on public lands in the United States is increasing, and this should concern anybody interested in conserving wildlife, plants and vegetation, soil, and the very character of these lands. As domestic oil and natural gas exploration increases, geophysicists seek to map and understand underground deposits that may hold valuable hydrocarbon resources.

Seismic testing is their preferred method, and one result is a proliferation of linear barriers across the landscape Seismic testing evolved from the discovery that when earthquakes occur, it is possible to capture the sound waves created and use the data to map geophysical features that lie underground. Much of what we know about the Earthøs core, mantle, and crust is the result of this discovery, and it follows that man-made seismic, or sound, waves can also be used to map subsurface geologic formations and locate stores of oil and natural gas. However, as seismic tests become more prevalent, there is growing concern about their impacts -- seismic testing requires intensive cross-country travel, often with vehicles that weigh 60,000 to 80,000 pounds.

How Itøs Done

To conduct a test using the preferred Three-dimensional (3-D) seismic method, long cables are first laid along a îreceiver line." Next, dynamite blasts or Thumper trucks (also called vibrasise trucks) are used along a îsource line" to create what is essentially a man-made earthquake, sending energy into the earth. The energy waves bounce off of the subsurface formations and back to the surface where they are captured by îgeophones," which are connected by the receiver lines to a îdoghouse," or data receiving truck. Knowing the frequency at which the energy is created, it is possible to analyze the frequency of the returning waves and create a map of the subsurface area.

An earlier testing method, 2-Dimensional (2-D) seismic, is conducted by placing a receiver line across an area of land, and creating energy along that same line. In other words, the receiver line and the 3-D seismic yields a picture that shows a volume of earth, which is much more valuable. In conducting a 3-D test, a number of receiver lines are placed parallel to each other across a landscape. The lines run at an angle (often perpendicular) to the source line1, in a îbrick pattern." To create the necessary energy, two methods are generally employed. In the vibrasise method, four trucks move in tandem along the source line, stop at a predetermined point, lower a self-contained platform, and vibrate in unison, sending energy into the earth. This is repeated hundreds or thousands of times in the course of one test. If dynamite is used, a drill rig creates a îshot hole" (50-100 feet deep) along the source line, into which a charge is placed. The charge is set off to create energy in what is called the îshot hole" method, and this process is repeated over the entire testing area. In addition to source vehicles, ATVs are also used during each test. These are driven along the receiver lines to troubleshoot problems.

Clearly, seismic testing is a vehicle-intensive process. In order to collect the most valuable data, it is not possible for the source lines to run along existing roads. With both methods (shothole and vibrasise) it is necessary for a number of vehicles to drive cross-country, causing potentially severe ecological impacts.

Under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), federal agencies are required to analyze the potential impacts of proposed activities. In all seismic projects studied for this review, Environmental Assessments (EAs) were conducted, which are less thorough than Environmental Impact Statements (EISs). These documents outline the potential impacts to wildlife, soil, and vegetation, among others, and offer mitigation methods to minimize the effects.

A review of EAs conducted by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for projects in the Moab, UT and Green River Basin, WY areas reveals that BLM findings of no significant impact draw largely on anecdotal evidence and do not rely on verified science or cited references. In these EAs, interviews, internal agency documents, and observations from past projects are used to conclude that the impacts from seismic testing will be temporary and non-severe. In contrast, the documented science on linear disturbances like ORVs and roads is quite extensive, and suggests that long-term damage is occurring.

Ecological Impacts

Use of ORVs, for example, destroys habitat and forage for wildlife and disturbs threatened and endangered species. The impacts to soil and vegetation include compaction, which causes erosion and reduced plant growth, as less water is able to penetrate the surface. Ruts may also be caused if vehicles operate when the ground is wet, which can cause even greater problems with compaction and water runoff. The heavy vehicles used in 3-D seismic testing create twotracks that run across the landscape. If these tracks are not eliminated, unauthorized use of recreational ORVs may occur once testing has ended, and the impacts to wildlife, soil, and vegetation will be even more pronounced.

ORV use is known to destroy vegetation that serves as natural soil-protective elements, even after one pass of a vehicle (Wilshire 1983). This impact becomes more significant as the number of trips over an area increases (Payne et al. 1983). In arid regions, ORVs have been found to increase water runoff and erosion (Hinckley et al. 1983), a result of soil compaction and decreases in soil porosity and infiltration capacity (Webb 1983). Impacts were found even when use of such vehicles was slight, and the first passes of a vehicle over a landscape were found to be the most damaging (Iverson et al. 1981). It is estimated that recovery from soil compaction and a natural return to bulk density, strength and infiltration capacity make take a century to occur. In addition, invasive vegetative species were found in compacted areas within a few years, but native species were much slower to return (Webb & Wilshire 1980).

The impacts of roads, seismic lines and other linear disturbances have a number of impacts on wildlife populations, including individual disruption, habitat avoidance, social disruption, habitat disruption or enhancement, direct and indirect mortality, and effects on population. These impacts have received substantial treatment and attention (Jalkotzy, et al. 1997). Studies also show the dramatic effects that roads have on the movement and mortality of wildlife (Forman & Alexander 1998; Trombulak & Frissell 2000), and the balance of this evidence is so strong that policies have been enacted to reduce road densities in national forests to protect wildlife (Hourdequin 2000).

Impacts of seismic testing have been largely ignored. This is starting to change, however, as more attention is paid in areas where the testing is most prevalent, especially Utah and Wyoming. It is important that the lack of understanding and information about the processes and impacts of these projects be solved, and greater public pressure placed on the federal agencies conducting these reviews. Given the documented impacts of ORV use on wildlife, soils, and vegetation, it is imperative that the BLM and other federal agencies pay greater attention to these projects and the effects they are having on our federal lands. It also needs to be determined whether the two-tracks created during seismic testing are used for recreational purposes once testing is completed.

The absence of scientific research on these issues is disturbing, and until more study is done, it is hard to justify that these impacts are short-term and unimportant. One way this might be corrected is to force the BLM to conduct EISs when considering seismic projects, which would result in much greater scrutiny and require a higher threshold of scientific evidence before determining that a project will have no impact.

Footnotes

1. Actual cables are placed along a receiver line, but a source line is a theoretical line along which vibrasise trucks will drive or dynamite blasts will be placed to create the energy necessary.

Seismic testing generates waves of concern

Roadblock for seismic testing thumper trucks?

http://www.riverreporter.com/issues/08-09-18/news-thumpers.html

By FRITZ MAYER

NARROWSBURG, NY — “They create earthquakes underground.” That’s how one official described the activity of thumper trucks, though their actual mission is to engage in seismic testing to help drilling companies understand the makeup of the various layers of materials deep underground.

Essentially, thumper trucks come equipped with a large metal foot, which stomps on the ground. The action creates seismic waves that bounce off the rocks below and are then recorded and measured by instruments on the ground. This information is then sold to drilling companies to help determine the best place to drill for gas or oil.

The Town of Tusten is holding a public hearing on September 29 to hear comments about whether the town should declare a six-month moratorium on seismic testing on the roads of Tusten. The four other towns that are working with Tusten on performing road assessments in advance of what will likely be a lot of gas drilling in the region, are also addressing the issue; the towns are Highland, Delaware, Cochecton and, most recently, Lumberland.

Tusten supervisor Ben Johnson said the testing activity will come before the drilling activity begins, so the town board decided the issue needed to be addressed soon. The fact that a thumper truck operator showed up at the town hall on September 8, seeking a permit to work, added a bit of urgency to the matter.

Johnson said the board would use the six-month moratorium time to write an ordinance that would cover seismic-testing activity.

Johnson said seismic activity has been done in the past with no problem, back in the ’60s and ’70s, but the board wanted to be sure that should any problems arise the town would be protected. Of specific concern is any possible damage to wells or the Narrowsburg sewer system. Also, the board wants to be sure town roads are protected against excessive wear. He added that after the moratorium, a permit will be needed to conduct seismic tests.

Along with possible damage, however, is another question being asked not only here, but in neighboring counties: who actually owns the right to the data gathered by the thumpers. The trucks not only get information from under the road or parcel on which they’re located, but also from neighboring properties.

Farmers in New York’s Southern Tier have been arguing that collecting data from underneath their property without their permission and without compensation is tantamount to theft.

Representatives from the gas companies have argued that the information is similar to gas itself, and that if they can get it out of the ground, it’s there for the taking.

Others say many people are attempting to profit from gas drilling in one way or another, and landowners should be compensated for information taken from under their land, especially information that helps gas companies strike it rich.

Wes Gillingham, program director of Catskill Mountainkeeper, said the information collected by seismic testing could give one side a bargaining advantage. “Suppose you’re a landowner and testing from outside your property shows that you’re in a real sweet spot for drilling. The gas company isn’t going to give you that information, so that would give the gas company an advantage.”

Some people are taking the issue very seriously. According to an article in the Press & Sun-Bulletin, Bradd Vickers, president of the Chenango County Farm Bureau, recently chased away a caravan of thumpers from a road in the Town of Preston after a brief test of wills.

Vickers wants towns to require the testing companies to get permission from landowners as part of the process of getting a permit.

Private investment in CCS not possible without public support

Please visit the link below to read the complete article
http://www.reuters.com/article/GCA-GreenBusiness/idUSTRE54S4UF20090529

MONGSTAD, Norway (Reuters) - Industry refuses to invest in carbon capture and storage (CCS) projects without strong state support because of a lack of clarity on future emissions rules, Norway's StatoilHydro said on Friday.

Seismic testing causes concern

This article was published on May 29, 2009 in The Daily Advocate.

Ann Vehre
Citizen Jornalist

editor@dailyadvocate.com

GREENVILLE - Jim Surber, Darke County Engineer, and Jed Smith, Van Buren township trustee, announced on May 19 a seismic survey involving vibroseis trucks has been halted within the jurisdictions of Greenville, Neave, and Van Buren Townships, the Ohio Department of Transportation, and Darke County.
The trucks would have traveled within a four to seven mile cross section surrounding The Andersons Marathon Ethanol Plant in Greenville’s Industrial Park. As they traveled the area, vibrating platforms would have been lowered to the ground, emitting sound waves deep within the earth’s surface. In recent seismic brochures the Battelle-led Midwest Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership (MRCSP) has put on display in the Greenville Public Library and throughout the area, it is explained that as sound waves bounce from the rock surfaces below, they are recorded above to determine if there are existing faults and fractures that could generate earthquakes from seismic activity.
Battelle selected the ethanol plant site as part of a $93 million experiment funded in part by a grant from the U.S. Department of Energy and matching funds from MRCSP’s thirty-six partners. The purpose of the experiment is to determine if one million tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) can be injected safely and easily into the Mount Simon Sandstone Reservoir throughout a four-year period. They said it would also determine the storage potential of the reservoir, which will have broad importance to the region.
The seismic survey would have been the first in a series of tests that must take place on and around the plant site before the experimental injection of one million tons of CO2 can begin. This is necessary, they said, because the injection of 1,500 lbs per sq inch of CO2 under pressure could cause subsurface rocks to slip, resulting in an earthquake. A second test, if permitted, would require drilling several bore holes through the bottom of a major freshwater aquifer to obtain rock samples from the Mount Simon Sandstone reservoir. This reservoir is 3,500 feet below the Earth’s surface.
According to Surber, the decision to halt the seismic survey occurred after Christopher Jones of QC Geophysical in Millersburg, and Evan Zeller of Battelle asked him and the Neave, Van Buren, and Greenville Township Trustees for permission to conduct seismic tests on the roads and land in their jurisdictions. After conferring with a representative from District 7 of the Ohio Department of Transportation, Surber said that he and the trustees felt there were too many unanswered questions regarding liability and responsibility issues from possible tile, road, property and other damages that might occur as a result of the seismic tests.
Their major concern, however, was for the public’s safety and welfare, particularly because the planned survey and testing route, was in close proximity to the Vectren high-pressure gas transmission line. “I notified Vectren and now they are quite concerned as well,” Surber said.
During an earlier meeting with the township trustees, Surber expressed another concern he has, which is in regard to explosive charges in shot holes where the vibroseis trucks could not be used if the ground happened to be too soft or hilly. Instead of the trucks being used to produce sound waves, the charges would be used instead. “I was told the charges would be no stronger than those put off by cherry bombs,” he said, adding, “Let me tell you right now, it would take a charge a lot bigger than a cherry bomb to produce vibrations that could reach the depths they are talking about.”
As a result of the concerns expressed and the questions that remained unanswered, Surber and Smith sent a letter to Jones Geophysical stating they could not entertain entering into any agreements to permit any vibroseis surveys/testing to be done on any public roads or public facilities located on private property in the respective jurisdictions.
With this letter, Surber said they have stopped the seismic survey - - at least for the time being.

Freshwater Aquifer Risk - water ,our most precious resource -at risk

The information on this page comes from the Ohio EPA - Division of Drinking and Ground Waters- click here to be taken to their site


Sole Source Aquifers -

Greenville, Ohio is the proposed site of one of the 7 large-scale CO2 Sequestration Demonstration projects - to pump 1 M tons of CO2 into the saline aquifer - AND it is one of the areas that sits on top of a Sole Source Aquifer - an even greater reason consider the risks involved with burying supercritical CO2 underground FOREVER!

One of the most important aquifers, in regards to contamination is a Sole Source Aquifer. The contamination of any aquifer, not just sole source aquifers, greatly effects surrounding communities.

The Great Miami Aquifer, that Greenville is part of, is one of the nation's LARGEST drinking water aquifers.

"U.S. EPA defines a Sole Source Aquifer (SSA) as an aquifer that supplies at least 50 percent of the drinking water consumed in the area overlying the aquifer. These areas may have no alternative drinking water source(s) that could physically, legally and economically supply all those who depend on the aquifer for drinking water.

The Sole Source Aquifer designation protects an area's ground water resource by requiring U.S. EPA to review certain proposed projects within the designated area. All proposed projects receiving federal funds are subject to review to ensure that they do not endanger the water source."

"For convenience, all designated sole or principal source aquifers are referred to as "sole source aquifers" (SSA). " The designation of an aquifer as a sole source aquifer "provides EPA with the authority to review federal financially assisted projects planned for the area to determine their potential for contaminating the aquifer. Federally funded projects reviewed by EPA under the SSA program may include, but not be limited to, highway improvements and new road construction, public water supply wells, transmission lines, wastewater treatment facilities, construction projects involving disposal of storm water, and agricultural projects involving management of animal waste."

Greater Miami Sole Source Aquifer
http://www.epa.state.oh.us/ddagw/Documents/greatmiami-ssa.pdf

The Great Miami Buried Valley Aquifer (GMBVA) is an extensive sand and gravel aquifer that extends in a southwesterly direction from Indian Lake, north of Dayton, Ohio, to the Ohio River, generally following the course of the Great Miami River.

The GMBVA is classified by the United States EPA as a "Sole Source Aquifer" which applies only to aquifers serving as the sole or principal source of drinking water for the petitioned area and which, if contaminated, would create a significant hazard to public health. For this reason all Federal financially assisted projects constructed in the Great Miami River Valley and its principal recharge zone are subject to USEPA review to insure that the projects are designed and constructed in a manner that does not a significant hazard to public health.(Source http://www.gwconsortium.org/GMBVA.html)

Below is a VERY informative link to a document entitled: Hydrology, Aquifers, Geology - and it talks about how aquifers are contaminated.In order to understand the critical role groundwater plays to society and the importance of removing contamination, we must first understand the role of hydrology.

Hydrology is the branch of geology that deals with the occurance, distribution and effect of groundwater. Contrary to popular belief, groundwater is typically NOT FOUND underground in a body of water similar to a lake or river. It is most often contained in the cavities, pores and voids interspersed among rocks, gravel, sand and soil in the earth's subsurface. When useful quantities of extractable water are found in these geological formations the area is known as an aquifer - "water bearer".

Additionally, this site references The Mound and the Fernald Plants and their impact on The Great Miami Aquifer and the need to keep our aquifers safe by implementing independent, "rigorous monitoring regimes" that are "adequately funded and free of the bias of the DOE - an agency that wants to downplay problems and gloss over errors of the past."

http://www.ananuclear.org/Portals/0/documents/Water%20Reportwaterreporthydrology.pdf


http://oh.water.usgs.gov/miam/Ground_Water.html

Transport of agricultural chemicals in five watersheds across the U.S.

Plan for "Cleanest" Power Plant Abandoned Near Los Angeles

"abandoned due to opposition by environmentalists"
Great job, L.A!!!!!
You not only saved your community from the risks - you saved tax-payer dollars!
I hope you help with others who are fighting to keep their families and communities safe!

To read the entire article click here, parts of it are listed below.

"A plan to build the "cleanest and greenest" power plant near Los Angeles has been abandoned due to opposition by environmentalists, according to a newspaper report on Monday.

"The 1-billion-dollar project in Carson, a South Los Angeles suburb, would have been an early test of carbon-capture technology, in which carbon dioxide emissions are permanently stored underground, according to local newspaper the Daily Breeze.

It was billed as the "cleanest and greenest" power plant when plans for construction were announced in 2006.

But the companies involved in the project said they encountered opposition from environmentalists. The project exposed a rift between some environmentalists who say that carbon-capture technology poses risks to surrounding communities and those who say it is essential to mitigating climate change."

Carbon sequestration: bury the idea, not the CO2

I'm a long way from the Dutch town of Barendrecht but I feel the same way.........Not under MY backyard.....and I'll go the extra mile and say..........OR YOURS!!!

Carbon Capture and Storage does ONE THING successfully - it allows the Coal Industry to keep on burning coal..................that is the real goal, isn't it now?

________________________________________________________________


Dutch Stand Up to Shell’s Plan to Bury CO2 (Update1)
( link to the complete story is included below)

By Fred Pals

April 20 (Bloomberg) -- The Dutch town of Barendrecht has a message for Royal Dutch Shell Plc: Not under my backyard.

The oil company and the Netherlands government intend to build the first of a new generation of carbon-dioxide storage facilities in two depleted natural-gas fields in Barendrecht. The plan is to capture emissions from a gasification hydrogen plant at Shell’s nearby Pernis refinery and then store the CO2 more than a mile below area homes, preventing the greenhouse gas from reaching the air and harming the environment.

“I don’t think this is the solution to the CO2 problem,” said 53-year-old resident Gerard van Gils. “Why do a project in a residential area and not offshore? The atomic bomb wasn’t tested under Manhattan. To me this means: Not under my backyard.”

Barendrechters like Van Gils say they’re concerned about safety and a possible drop in property values. Governments around the world want energy companies to store CO2 instead of releasing it, to combat global warming. The Netherlands aims to bury 30 million tons of CO2 by 2030 and is spending about 750 million euros ($980 million) in three years on CO2 reduction.

Carbon capture and storage, or CCS, involves extracting CO2 from power generation and industrial projects, compressing it and injecting it into depleted oil and gas fields or saline aquifers. The technology would allow prolonged use of coal for electricity generation while reducing greenhouse pollution.

Environmental Assessment

An independent environmental assessment this month will determine whether the project at Barendrecht, on the outskirts of Rotterdam, addresses all concerns. The city council, which so far has opposed the plan, will deliver a final decision by June 29. That can still be overruled by the Dutch government, which commissioned the project.

In its preliminary finding, the council said public support was “lacking” and asked Environment Minister Jacqueline Cramer to halt the venture.

“This project is an experiment, and we don’t think that it is a good idea to have that in a densely populated area,” Simon Zuurbier, alderman of the city council, said in an interview. “It would be better to do it somewhere else.”

Test Projects

The Barendrecht project is one of two Dutch prototypes for a pair of larger facilities that must be up and running by 2015 for the country to cut emissions by 30 percent in 2020.

The second prototype is being developed in the southern province of Limburg, where a unit of French utility GDF Suez SA and Dutch chemical company Royal DSM NV plan to store at least 2 millions tons of CO2 in the next decade.

Civic opposition to the Barendrecht facility may make the project a test case for similar projects elsewhere in Europe. The European Union plans to make 9 billion euros available for CCS pilot projects near power plants in the 27-nation bloc to prove the commercial viability of the technology.

Shell plans to store 400,000 tons of CO2 a year at Barendrecht, the equivalent to 5.4 million euros worth of European Union carbon dioxide permits, based on the April 17 spot price of 13.40 euros a ton on the BlueNext exchange.

Shell Netherlands CEO Peter de Wit said the Barendrecht project is the quickest way to gain experience for large-scale CO2 storage in the Netherlands.

International Efforts

“Given its geologic resources and its position as a gas supplier, it is commendable that the Netherlands take a leadership role in trying to build global consensus on a liability and regulatory solution for CCS,” the IEA said in a February review of the Dutch energy policy.

In Barendrecht, Van Gils isn’t so sure. He said he’s concerned that his apartment, which is next to an elementary school and above the perimeter of the proposed storage site, may be prone to gas leaks or shifting earth. More than a 1,000 people showed up to question the government and Shell on the project at town hall meetings in February, according to the city council’s Web site.

“The vast majority doesn’t want this,” Van Gils said. “It has to take something to get people in Barendrecht out of their homes and attend such a meeting.”

Last Updated: April 20, 2009 Read the complete link - The link to the above article is here

A REGIONAL CONCEPT FOR A CO2 PIPELINE NETWORK

https://www.purdue.edu/discoverypark/energy/pdfs/cctr/presentations/Lambeck-CCTR-June08.pdf

Mr. Klaus Lambeck
Public Utilities Company of Ohio is a member of the National Coal Council - link below.

http://www.nationalcoalcouncil.org/

Memorial Day in the Darke/Green region

** A time to remember all those who have passed on from friends and family.

** A time to remember all those who have died for the ideals of this great country.

And for members of the Citizens against CO2 Sequestration

** A time to remember all those who died in our coal mines - and now a much greater

group has been added - those in the dangerous mines fueling the gadget driven

industrial economies of India and China (combined far exceeds US in CO2 and

toxic emissions).

**And for all those in this country and world-wide who died breathing the unnecessary
toxic-Beijing smog generated by our coal-fueled industries.

**And for ourselves, that leaders will recognize that we deserve the same consideration
that athletes received when China cut back on its coal fired industries prior to the Olympic
games.

Help us appreciate that by “fighting CO2 Sequestration” in the Darke/Green region, we by
serendipity have joined the world in a fight for a healthier safer environment for all mankind.

Charles E. Reier, MD
Rebecca A. Reier
May 25, 2009