GOVERNMENT REPORT CRITICIZES U.S. PLANS FOR CARBON DIOXIDE BURIAL

This information comes from the web site: http://www.camp-site.info/ccs.html


Rachel's Democracy & Health News, October 16, 2008

GOVERNMENT REPORT CRITICIZES U.S. PLANS FOR CARBON DIOXIDE BURIAL

[Rachel's introduction: The U.S. is planning to bury enormous quantities of carbon dioxide in the ground to reduce the threat of global warming. However, a new government report says the plan is plagued by serious technological, economic, legal and regulatory problems.]

RACHEL'S DEMOCRACY & HEALTH NEWS - October 16, 2008 - 60 KB pdf
Full GAO Report - 2.4 MB pdf

By Tim Montague

In the U.S. today we burn coal to make half of all our electricity. This coal emits about 1.9 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) per year, which is 33% of all U.S. CO2 emissions.[1] CO2 is the main culprit in the global warming problem. Rather than eliminate the problem by weaning ourselves off fossil fuels (coal, oil, and natural gas), government and industry are proposing an end-of-pipe solution -- they intend to solve the global warming crisis partly by capturing and storing CO2 emissions from coal-fired power plants. The CO2 would be captured as a gas, pressurized until it turned into a liquid, transported by pipeline to a suitable location, and pumped a mile or so below ground, intending for it to stay there forever.

This is called CCS, short for carbon capture and storage, and it is the coal and electric power industry's strategy for allowing the continued use of coal. If CCS never happens on a large scale, then the global warming CO2 emissions from burning coal will eventually kill the coal industry.

The basic problem, according to climate experts like the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), is that we need to reduce CO2 emissions by something like 80% by 2030 if we want to avoid runaway global warming. To do this, we could generate electricity using machines that don't emit very much CO2 (wind, solar, geothermal) or we could add end-of-pipe filters to smoke stacks to capture CO2. According to some engineering projections, CCS filters could trap up to 90% of the CO2 from coal burning power plants. However, to make a dent in the global warming problem, the International Energy Agency estimates that as many as 6,000 CCS projects would be needed, each injecting a million metric tons of CO2 a year into the ground.[2] In other words, this end-of-pipe approach would require creation of a major new waste disposal industry devoted to CO2.

How far along are we toward actually burying CO2 in the ground? Last month the Government Accountability Office -- the investigative arm of the U.S. Congress -- released a report [2.4 MB PDF] that looks at the state of CCS in the U.S.

The GAO took a broad survey of government officials, scientists, non-profits, and fossil company executives to find out just how far along CCS is in the U.S. and what needs to be done to help it expand.

They concluded that CCS faces serious technological, economic, legal and regulatory barriers.

The GAO report says that CCS entails five steps: 1) Carbon capture and compression into liquid C02; 2) transport to a storage location; 3) injection and storage deep underground; 4) long term monitoring to verify that the CO2 stays put; 5) remedial measures in case leakage occurs.[3]

Technological and Economic Barriers

The vast majority of coal power plants in operation today burn "pulverized" (powdered) coal to produce heat to create steam to drive a turbine to make electricity. Capturing the CO2 from the smoke stack of these power plants is difficult and costly, but not impossible. CO2 makes up just 15% of the waste stream from a coal plant, so it takes a lot of energy to concentrate the CO2 into a pure form that can be compressed and stored. There are currently no commercial-scale coal plants that do this. The world's first demonstration-scale pulverized coal power plant to capture and store its CO2 emissions went online in Germany this Fall.

Here in the U.S., the DOE (Department of Energy) began studying CCS in 1997. However, the DOE program has largely ignored the capture of CO2 from existing pulverized coal plants; instead, DOE has focused on "next generation" power plants employing IGCC (integrated gasification combined cycle) -- a new technology that doesn't burn pulverized coal. An IGCC coal plant resembles a chemical factory -- it treats coal with lots of heat and steam to break it into hydrogen and CO2 -- and then burns the hydrogen to make electricity and disposes of the other byproducts, including CO2. Capturing and burying the CO2 from IGCC plants is cheaper, in theory, than from a pulverized coal plant. But again, CCS from an IGCC plant has never been taken to commercial scale -- there are just two small demonstration IGCC plants in the U.S. today (near Tampa, Fla., and West Terra Haute, Ind.) and neither of them captures its CO2 emissions. Commercial scale IGCC (500 megawatt) plants are not expected until around 2020. (p.16)

Either way, capturing carbon, compressing it into liquid CO2, then transporting it and pumping it deep underground requires a lot of expensive equipment and energy. The GAO report says, "The cost of electricity production would increase by 35 percent for newly constructed IGCC plants with CO2 capture, compared to a 77 percent increase for newly constructed pulverized coal power plants equipped with CO2 capture." (pg. 19) Perhaps because the DOE has largely ignored existing pulverized coal plants, the GAO report doesn't give specific costs for adding CCS filters to existing power plants.

With the exception of the two small IGCC plants mentioned above, all U.S. coal-fired power plants burn pulverized coal; and one new pulverized coal plant is being built each week around the world today. So the GAO report strongly encourages the DOE and industry to stop focusing so much attention on IGCC plants and to get serious about capturing carbon from pulverized coal plants: "The outlook for widespread deployment of IGCC technology is questionable and the agency's funding related to IGCC technology has substantially exceeded funding for technologies more applicable to reducing emissions from existing coal-fired power plants," the GAO report says. (p. 31) In other words, the DOE has essentially ignored the biggest part of the problem.

Legal and Regulatory Barriers

As we have seen, to make a difference in the global warming problem, CCS would require creation of a major new waste disposal industry devoted to CO2. The GAO report says government needs to develop rules governing all aspects of this new industry -- transporting, injecting and storing vast quantities of CO2. And government needs to clarify what existing laws apply to stored CO2. GAO says, "Key regulatory and legal issues will need to be addressed if CCS is to be deployed at commercial scale. Among these issues are (1) confusion over the rules for injecting large volumes of CO2, (2) long-term liability issues concerning CO2 storage and potential leakage, (3) how property ownership patterns may affect CO2 storage." (p. 23)

The Safe Drinking Water Act says the EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) should protect public health by preventing waste- injection wells from endangering underground sources of drinking water. "However," the GAO report says, "the injection of CO2 for long- term storage raises a new set of unique issues related to its relative buoyancy, its corrosiveness in the presence of water, and large volumes in which it would be injected." (p. 23)

The "new set of unique issues" arises from the main CCS plan, which is to bury CO2 in places where the deep earth is comprised of sandstone saturated with water not suitable for drinking. CO2 pumped into the ground will push the water aside and fill the pores in the sandstone with liquid CO2. In these situations, the injected CO2 will be "buoyant" -- meaning it will constantly be trying to move upward. The plan is to select underground locations where an impervious layer of rock, or "caprock," prevents CO2 from rising back to the surface. However, any water in contact with CO2 will turn into carbonic acid and begin to eat away minerals in the rocks. Finally, to make a dent in the global warming problem would require burial of tremendous quantities of CO2. The GAO report says "it is likely that thousands or tens of thousands of injection wells would need to be developed and permitted in the United States." (pg. 40)

Each of these burial wells would need to be approved by government, but the well owners would be liable for any harm their well might cause. In July of 2008, the EPA issued a 'proposed rule' under the Safe Drinking Water Act, which says in part "that well operators remain responsible indefinitely for any endangerment of underground sources of drinking water." (p. 39)

The EPA is clearly concerned about the safety of underground storage of CO2. But it is still unclear whether U.S. hazardous waste laws will apply to CCS. The GAO says, "RCRA [Resource Conservation and Recovery Act] and CERCLA [Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act] could pose similar complications for CCS projects. RCRA authorizes EPA to establish regulations governing the treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous waste. A hazardous waste is generally defined as a solid waste that either (1) exhibits certain characteristics (ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, or toxicity) or (2) has been listed as a hazardous waste by EPA." (p. 41)

CERCLA established the Superfund program to clean up hazardous waste dumps. But CO2 is not listed as a hazardous substance under CERCLA. "However," GAO says, "the [EPA] rule's preamble cautions that injected CO2 streams could contain hazardous constituents that would make these streams 'hazardous.'" (p. 41)

One might ask, if CO2 is not hazardous, why go to all the trouble of burying it deep in the ground?

According to the GAO, the federal government and other parties might be held liable if CO2 stored below public lands leaked onto adjoining property. "If CO2 was injected for geologic storage and it migrated underground into neighboring mineral deposits, for example, it could interfere with the adjacent mineral owners' abilities to extract those resources, and the injection well's operator could be held liable for nuisance, trespass, or another tort." (p. 25)

An even bigger concern, according to the GAO, is the absence of a national strategy to reduce CO2 emissions, "...without which the electric utility industry has little incentive to capture and store its CO2 emissions." (p. 3) This really cuts to the heart of the matter. Why would any coal power executive invest in expensive and experimental technology to capture and store CO2 when all it's going to do is hurt their bottom line?

Public Opposition

The GAO report touches on an important issue for toxics and climate justice activists. A 2005 study of the general population of the U.S. found that just 4 percent of respondents were familiar with carbon capture and storage. And, "Thus far at least, there has been little public opposition to the CO2 injections that have taken place in states such as Texas to enhance oil recovery." (p. 48) But the GAO warns that the public health hazards and public opposition to large scale CCS could stifle its progress. Hazards like suffocation from leaking CO2, contamination of drinking water, or increased risk of earthquakes are just some of the concerns associated with CCS. So the GAO recommends that public agencies "immediately develop, in consultation with other agencies, a public outreach effort to explain carbon capture and sequestration." (p. 49)

In sum, the coal industry's future depends upon rapid development of a large new CCS industry. If the goal is to reduce U.S. CO2 emissions by something like 80% by 2030, just 22 years from now, then existing power plants -- most of which would still be functional in 2030 -- will need CCS to eliminate the bulk of their emissions, or they will need to be replaced by solar, wind and geothermal plants. The present slow pace of development of CCS for existing coal plants is probably keeping coal and electric utility executives awake at night. On the other hand, if CCS were deployed more rapidly and something went seriously wrong in an early demonstration, you could forget the grand- scale deployment of CCS that the coal and electric power industries are counting on.

==============

[1] A metric ton = 2200 pounds. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), in the U.S. in 2006, CO2 emissions totaled 5890.3 million metric tons (mmt). Of this, the electric power industry emitted 2343.9 mmt, or 39.8% of the total; of this 2343.9 mmt, coal accounted for 1937.9 mmt, or 82% of the electric power sector's total CO2 emissions and 32.9% of the nation's total CO2 emissions. See the Excel spreadsheet tab labeled "All,ElecPwr_CO2" at http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/gg rpt/excel/historical_co2.xls

[2] International Energy Agency, Near-term Opportunities for Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage; Global Assessments Workshop in Support of the G8 Plan of Action (Paris, France: International Energy Agency, 2007), pg. 7. Available at http://www.precaution.org/li b/iea_global_assessments_wkshop.070601.pdf

[3] See page 9, but also see pg. 39 where the GAO acknowledges the need for "site closure and emergency and remedial response."

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/