Vulnerability Evaluation Framework for Geologic Sequestration of CO2

• Identifies and evaluates vulnerabilities that could
result in adverse impacts to human health and the
environment

Is not a probabilistic risk assessment
• Focuses on geologic sequestration (does not include
capture, transport)

• May inform but does not include well construction
and operation

• Attempts to provide flexibility by identifying multiple
options to reduce vulnerability

Get the complete link here

What's a Life Worth?

Click here to read it on the Washington Post site

Ever wonder how corporations and governments assess risks to our health, safety and lives?

It's all based on the dollar.... click on the link above to read what a life is worth. Often it is less expensive to pay for damages, wrongful deaths, etc than it is to be proactive with our best interest in mind.

CCS - Not safe for urban areas ?

Excerpts on this page come from the report below.
To read the entire abstract please click on the link below -

The Role of Social Factors in Shaping Public Perceptions of CCS: Results of
Multi-State Focus Group Interviews in the U.S.

Judith Bradbury1* Isha Ray2 Tarla Peterson3 Sarah Wade4 Gabrielle Wong-Parodi2
Andrea Feldpausch

"Over the last decade, many of the experts and advocates working in climate change have recommended further research into whether carbon dioxide (CO2) capture and sequestration (CCS) may be a viable and important technological response to climate change. However, all new technologies face challenges with respect to social acceptability, especially those that may involve new risks, large-scale infrastructure, and significant government involvement—all features of CCS. Some of the most critical challenges to social acceptability may come from theperceptions and preferences of communities near whom CCS infrastructure may be located. Thus, it is important to evaluate what might explain and influence the views of communities that may be directly impacted by the siting of this technology."

"Public acceptability is recognized as an important aspect of the program; outreach activities and research into public perceptions of the technology are a funded component. This paper reports on a collaborative social research effort among three partnerships—the West Coast Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership, (WESTCARB), Southwest Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership (SWP), and the Midwest Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership (MRCSP).
Researchers from these three partnerships conducted a series of focus groups in the states of California, Ohio, Texas, New Mexico and a test interview in Washington, D.C. The results were considered for their insights into particular concerns within each region, and they were also compared to see if common themes emerged from the multi-state effort."

"In all cases, social factors, such as existing low socioeconomic status, desire for compensation, benefits to the community and past experience with government were of greater concern than concern about the risks of the technology itself."

"MRCSP selected a community that would be unlikely to host a sequestration project because of population and urban density but was located in a state with significant sequestration potential and historically dependent on coal for electrical power generation. MRCSP conducted two focus groups in Columbus, Ohio."

"The focus group communities differed in demographic characteristics. The WESTCARB and SWP communities were rural; MRCSP’s was urban".

It should be noted that MRCSP's study was done in a urban area with well-educated individuals- a "community that would be unlikely to host a sequestration project because of population and urban density", I question how these individuals could speak for, or reflect,the values of acommunity that must deal with the reality of a CCS project as these projects are clearly put in community's that are rural and have a much different demographic composition.

Additionally, as one who lives in a community that has been selected for a Phase III, large-scale CO2 sequestration experiment, I find it very offensive to suggest that an urban area would be an unlikely host because of "population and urban density" - suggesting their lives, health, safety, environment and economy should have a higher priority than those of us who live in the communities in which these risky experiments are conducted!

Read the entire article here

Over 1,000 Darke County Residents Protest Proposed Large-Scale CO2 Sequestration DEMONSTRATION (EXPERIMENT)

CALL TO ACTION MEETING - 1,000+ Residents Oppose CO2 Sequestration

Thank you for answering our call to action!

The photos speak louder than words!

The Residents of Darke County, OH DO NOT WANT THIS IN THEIR COMMUNITY!

Darke County is the proposed bulleye for one of the 7 large-scale CO2 Sequestration "demonstrations" -
1 MILLION tons of Supercritical CO2 is scheduled to be injected into this agriculturally strong farming community 32 miles NW of Dayton, OH. The residents are fighting back, showing their opposition.

We agree with the Sierra Club's coal initiative - Companies and governments that impact the environment should NOT allowed in communities without the vote by the people who live in that community.

It brings MANY POTENTIAL RISKS - NO REWARDS
and MAYBE 2 or 3 jobs!

As Julie Monnin said, "Folks, if this were a good thing, Greenville would NOT be getting it."

Carbon Capture & Sequestration is an UNPROVEN technology with risky consequences that endanger our lives, health, safety, environment, & economy.

One of the potential consequences -
man-made earthquakes
NOT COVERED
by most homeowners insurances


Thank You to our Speakers:
Kerwin Olsen, Indiana Citizens Action

Kathleen Boutis - Green Environmental Coalition

Jim Surber - Darke County Civil Engineer

Judge Julie Monnin - Municipal Court

Representative Jim Zehringer

Nachy Kanfer, Sierra Club

& our own, Anne Vehre!

Risk Assessment for Future CO 2 Sequestration Projects

The link to this information is here

"This paper is the first of a series that attempts to assess the possible health and safety risks associated with large scale CO2 sequestration in deep brine reservoirs. The approach is based on analysis of available data on the operational track record from CO2 transportation and injection associated with enhanced oil recovery (CO2 -EOR) in the US.

Some of these risks are based on the oil and gas industry and enhanced oil recovery - which is not the same thing as Carbon Capture and Sequestration for geologic storage. According to Stephen

Connolly, (Health and Safety Executive) “There is relatively little experience worldwide in managing the risks associated with CO2, compared with oil and gas.”

This information comes from -

Risk assessment for future CO2 Sequestration Projects

Based CO2 Enhanced Oil Recovery in the U.S

presented at the

9th International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies

(GHGT-9), Washington, D.C., November 16-20, 2008

Ian J. Duncan, Jean-Philippe Nicot, Jong-Won Choi

"This paper is particularly concerned with identification of the main business risks facing a company engaged in geological sequestration. Such risks include: (1) the operational risks of capturing, compressing, transporting and injecting CO2 ; (2) the risk of blowouts or very rapid CO2 release from wells; (3) the risk that CO2 put into long term geologic storage will leak into shallow aquifers and contaminate potable water by lowering pH and increasing dissolved metals and other components; and (4) the risk that sequestered CO2 (and possibly associated methane gas) will leak into the atmosphere reversing the climate change benefits of sequestration and perhaps requiring repayment of CO2 sequestration credits."

“On the Free State pipeline, two leak incidents occurred soon after pressurizing the line and were caused by manufacturing imperfections in welds. Both these leaks were too small to be detected by the flow measurement imbalance. A landowner called the toll-free number on the pipeline signage to alert the control room of unusual white smog emerging from the ground where the pipeline was located on his property, triggering a response from Denbury’s Operations group. The third incident on the Tinsley 8” line, occurred when an excavator accidentally cut the line. Company personnel were onsite for immediate dispatch to isolate the system. On the Barksdale 6-3 #1 flowline incident (cement lined pipe rupture due to inadequate weld pre-heating), automatic shut-downs and alarms worked as designed. In the fifth incident at a pump station was minimal and observed by on-scene personnel. On the Free State pipeline, each leak caused minimal release but a controlled release of 75 MMCF (each) was required to depressurize the pipeline segment for repair.”

CO2well blowouts

The blowout of a well occurs when the operator of the well loses control of the pressure in the well resulting in fluid flow out of the well. Damen et al. [10] have suggested that the largest risk associated with CO2 injection for sequestration in deep brine reservoirs is well failure. Such failures result from a failure to adequately control pressures in the injection system. This is typically due to mechanical failure of a component or an external event directly affecting the well. This results in temporary loss of control of the process and the pressure of the reservoir drives CO2 and other entrained fluids upwards out of the well.

In most cases blowouts are caused by mechanical failures beyond human control, for example the failure of a back-flow preventer. This loss of containment immediately results in the pressure release vaporizing the supercritical CO2.In this context a blowout is driven by the high expansibility of the released gas resulting in a vigorous eruption of the vapor up the well bore (with the likely entrainment of particles of solid debris). If this occurs during drilling into a CO2 reservoir the rapidity of this phenomenon may make it a challenge to activate manual Blowout Prevention devices (BOPs) in time to prevent a blowout. Adiabatic cooling of CO2 during this rapid expansion leads to the gas being cooled below the freezing point (the triple point for CO2 being at -63°F and 76 psi). This results in the nucleation of dry ice and/or solid ice-like CO2-hydrates. These solids

can result in a blowout becoming a spray of solid particles. Such icy particles could damage pipes and other infrastructure in the path of the spraying particles. Whether this phenomenon is less risky than the CO2 irrupting as a fountain of dense CO2remains to be determined. If much of the CO2in a large blowout is in a frozen form then the risks posed by the initial blowout to the local are probably lowered.

Blowouts of oil production wells within CO2-EOR reservoirs are a known hazard (Lynch et al. [11]; Skinner [13]). In 2003,Skinner in a paper in “World Oil” focusing on blowouts in the CO2-EOR industry in the US suggested that there had been an “increased frequency of CO2 blowouts in injection projects.”

Read the full article - http://www.beg.utexas.edu/gccc/bookshelf/2008/GHGT9/08-03i-Final.pdf

SOME, not all of the potential leakage routes and remediation techniques for CO2 injected into saline formations

Click below to see 7 ways CO2 can leak from a saline formation... and it doesn't even include leaking around the injection point, well blow-out etc.

http://www.greenfacts.org/en/co2-capture-storage/figtableboxes/figure-8.htm

Health, Safety and Environmental Risks of Underground CO2 Sequestration

CO2 Sequestration poses many risks - this UNPROVEN technology is still experimental and the public has every right to be concerned and opposed to being part of such a risky experiment which includes such risks as man-made earthquakes, contamination of freshwater aquifer, asphyxiation.....and it goes on and on.


Currently, large-scale "demonstration" projects are being implemented in communities with the opportunity to no vote - educate yourself and your community on the risks and lack of rewards... take a stand! Fight back to protect your community!

I believe it was the Dutch who said, "After you put it under Manhattan you can put it here"

In the U.S. these projects are financed largely with taxpayer money - money that could have been spent on renewable energy.

This essay addresses health, Safety, and environmental risks that need further research.
tp://manhaz.cyf.gov.pl/manhaz/links/COAL_BASED_NEW_TECHNOLOGIES/e2003-30.pdf

Danger - CCS Injection and Leakage

The article, from which these quotes were taken, can be found on the link below (words enhanced to help readers who skim articles)
http://mydocs.epri.com/docs/CorporateDocuments/EPRI_Journal/2007-Spring/1014795_CO2Storage.pdf

While the concept of geologic storage seems simple enough, a CO2 injection well is a surprisingly complicated system. Multiple cement casings and provisions for monitoring are required to ensure that the supercritical fluid reaches only appropriate storage formations and stays there. In particular, steps must be taken to keep the CO2 from interfering with sources of drinking water at shallower depths. In the injection zone itself, special cement must be used to prevent damage to the casing from acids that form when CO2 reacts with the in situ saline solution.

A variety of measurement, monitoring, and verification (MMV) technologies will also need to be incorporated into a complete storage system to make sure the CO2is not leaking into the surrounding environment. Some off-the-shelf technologies,such as seismic imaging of subterranean formations, are already being used to trackthe underground migration of injected CO2, and sampling of groundwater couldprove useful for detecting leakage directly. Detecting small rates of leakage over long periods of time, however, will require higher-resolution measurements and the development of highly precise baseline data. More-sensitive MMV techniques thatcan measure the actual amount of CO2 in storage may also be needed for purposes of greenhouse gas mitigation reporting.

The issue of leakage is critical from both global and local perspectives. Even gradual leakage from numerous sites may provide enough CO2 reentering the atmosphere to undermine efforts to stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations. Locally, leakage from an underground storage site could present an immediate hazard to humans and ecosystems.

The most dramatic type of CO2 release would come from a blow-out at an injection well, which could produce high enough concentrations (7–10%) of the gas in the vicinity to endanger human life.

Undetected leakage from a faulty well or through ground fractures would probably be more diffuse and primarily affect groundwater and surface ecosystems. In particular, aquifers used as a source of drinking water could be harmed, either by acidification resulting from direct contact with large amounts of CO2 or by the seepage of brines displaced by CO2 during the injection process.

Because CO2 is heavier than air, it also could accumulate in lowlying geographic areas or in basements and potentially threaten human health.
Research is currently under way to improve CO2 leak detection and develop possible
remedial measures. Specifically, MMV technologies are needed that would detect
potential leaks long before they pose any danger to water supplies or surface ecosystems.

Seismic imaging, for example, can reveal deep subsurface faulting and abandoned
wells that might permit leakage by providing a route to the surface, and this
type of examination is expected to become a routine part of storage site evaluation. In addition, some experiments are under way to begin to investigate leakage rates for different types of storage and under a variety of injection conditions.

Several kinds of remediation techniques also need to be explored, including the extraction and purification of contaminated groundwater, the interception and reinjection of leaking CO2, and the removal of stored CO2 for injection elsewhere.

“The available monitoring methods are promising, but more experience is needed to establish detection levels and resolution."

”

OPPOSE CO2 Sequestration Projects - the Power of the Pen

CONTACT INFORMATION FOR GOVERNMENT , COMPANIES AND ORGANIZATIONS with regards to the proposed large-scale CO2 demonstration project in Darke County, Ohio - (Greenville)

The two most powerful tools you have to oppose this project are your voice and your written word. We urge you to use them... WRITE and CALL the contacts on this list. Tell them you oppose this project and list your reasons.

Keep writing....... keep calling - don't give up!

U.S. SENATOR

Sherrod Brown

713 Hart Senate Office Building

Washington, D. C. 20510

(202) 224-2315

Email: http://brown.senate.gov

U.S. SENATOR

George Voinovich

524 Hart Senate Office Building

Washington, D. C. 20510

(202) 224-3353

Email: http://voinovich.senate.gov

U.S. CONGRESSMAN (8^TH District)

John Boehner

1011 Longworth House Office Building

Washington, D. C. 20515

(202) 225-6205 Or toll free: (800) 582-1001

Email: www.johnboehner.house.gov

OHIO SENATOR (5^TH District)

Fred Strahorn

Senate Building, #128 First Floor

Columbus, Ohio 43215

(614) 466-6247

Email: senatorstrahorn@maild.sen.state.oh.us

OHIO SENATOR (12^TH District)

Keith Faber

Senate Building, #138 First Floor

Columbus, Ohio 43215

(614) 466-7584

Email: SD12@senate.state.oh.us

OHIO REPRESENTATIVE (77^TH District)

James J. Zehringer

77 South High Street - 11^TH Floor

Columbus, OH 43215-6111

(614) 466-6344

Email: district77@ohr.state.oh.us

OHIO REPRESENTATIVE (79^TH District)

Richard Adams

77 South High Street -10^TH Floor

Columbus, Ohio 43215-6111

(614) 466-8114

Email: district79@ohr.state.oh.us

OHIO EPA

Southwest District Office

401 East Fifth Street

Dayton, Ohio 45402

(937) 285-.6357

Email: http://www.epa.state.oh.us

Ohio EPA Public Interest Center

P. O. Box 1049
Columbus, Ohio 43216-1049
(614) 644-2160
Fax: (614) 644-2737

Email: Erika.Wiggins@epa.state.oh.us

OHIO DEPT OF NATURAL RESOURCES

Water Resources Section

2045 Morse Road, Building B

Columbus, Ohio 43229-6693

(614) 265-6740 and (614) 265-6610

Email: dswc@dnr.state.oh.us

Email: water@dnr.state.oh.us

OHIO SIERRA CLUB

131 North High Street

Columbus, Ohio 43215

(614) 461-0710

Email: nkanfersc@earthlink.net

BATTELLE HEADQUARTERS

Battelle Columbus Operations
505 King Avenue
Columbus, OH 43201-2693

Switchboard: (614) 424-6424

Email: judith.bradbury@pnl.gov

DARKE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

Diane Delaplane

Darke County Court House

504 South Broadway

Greenville, Ohio 45331

(937) 547-7370

Email: ddelaplane@co.darke.oh.us

Terry Haworth

Darke County Court House

504 South Broadway

Greenville, Ohio 45331

(937) 547-7370

Email: thaworth@co.darke.oh.us

Mike Rhoades

Darke County Court House

504 South Broadway

Greenville, Ohio 45331

(937) 547-7370

Email: mrhoades@co.darke.oh.us

GREENVILLE ELECTED OFFICIALS

Mike Bowers (Mayor)

1 Public Square

Greenville, OH 45331

(937) 548-1819

Email: mbowers@cityofgreenville.org

John Burkett (Council President)

1 Public Square

Greenville, OH 45331

(937) 548-0805

Email: jkburkett@woh.rr.com

Kathleen Floyd (1^st Ward)

1 Public Square

Greenville, OH 45331

(937) 548-5079

Roy Harrison (2^nd Ward)

1 Public Square

Greenville, OH 45331

(937) 548-7889

Leon Rogers (3^rd Ward)

1 Public Square

Greenville, OH 45331

(937) 548-0510 (unverified)

Todd Oliver (At Large)

1 Public Square

Greenville, OH 45331

(937) 548-1173

E-mail: oliverto1969@hotmail.com

Doug Schmidt (At Large)

1 Public Square

Greenville, OH 45331

(937) 548-8543

Email: dschmidt3@woh.rr.com

Tracy Tryon (At Large)

1 Public Square

Greenville, OH 45331

(937) 417-3488

E-Mail: t_tryon@hotmail.com

John Baumgardner (4^th Ward)

1 Public Square

Greenville, OH 45331

(937) 548-6585

E-mail: baumgardner@woh.rr.com

GREENVILLE TOWNSHIP OFFICIALS

Township Office

5366 Ohio 571

Greenville, OH 45331

(937) 548-2356

George Luce Jr. (Trustee)

339 West Fourth Street

Greenville, Ohio 45331

(937) 547-0596

Mike Stegall (Trustee)

6380 Fairway Court

Greenville, Ohio 45331-9264

(937) 547-0183

William Kelley (Trustee)

5843 U. S. Route 36 East

Greenville, Ohio 45331

(937) 547-0773

Barbara Anthony (Clerk)

6490 Country Club Drive

Greenville, Ohio 45331

(937) 548-0401

All other township trustees names and telephone numbers may be found at: http://www.co.darke.oh.us/trustees.htm