Saturday, August 1, 2009

Storing carbon underground can have unintended consequences



From Greenpeace - "FALSE HOPE


One of the key challenges for CCS is the safe and permanent storage of captured carbon. Even very small leakage rates could completely undermine any climate mitigation efforts.

The world has no experience of the long-term storage of anything, let alone CO2.
As the results of a 2006 United States Geological Survey (USGS) field experiment1 show, there is every chance that carbon dioxide will behave in ways that are totally
unexpected. The USGS scientists were testing deep geological disposal of carbon dioxide at a pilot project in Frio, Texas.

The researchers were surprised when the buried CO2 dissolved large amounts of the surrounding minerals responsible for keeping it contained. The CO2 reacted with salty water (brine) in the geological formation turning it as acidic as vinegar. This acidified brine then dissolved other minerals, including metals such as iron and manganese, organic material and relatively large amounts of carbonate materials. Carbonates naturally seal pores and fractures in geological sites; the reaction of the acidic brine with them is extremely concerning. Carbonate is also found in the cements used to plug abandoned oil and gas wells. If these open, CO2 could leak into the atmosphere and/or the contaminated brine could leak into the aquifers that supply drinking and irrigation water.

In an interview with Greenpeace, lead scientist Yousif Kharaka warned that the results are “a cautionary note: for detailed and careful studies of injection sites, and a well thought out monitoring program to detect early study show that we simply do not know enough about how stored carbon will behave to be able to assure its safe and permanent storage.

1 Kharaka Y K, Cole D R, Hovorka S D, Gunter W D, Knauss K G & Freifeld B M, ‘Gas-water-rock interactions in frio formation following CO2 injection:
Implications for the storage of greenhouse gases in sedimentary basins’, Geology, vol., 34, no. 7, 2006, pp. 577–580.
2 Kharka, Yousif, 2007, USGS, Research Hydrologist, Interview conducted over e-mail.

Ohio Earthquakes - Two point of views


Battelle has a report about Injection- Induced Earthquakes
ISSUES RELATED TO SEISMIC ACTIVITY INDUCED BY THE INJECTION OF CO2 IN DEEP SALINE AQUIFERS - it says the Anna fault earthquakes happen at 10 kilometers or deeper - this link also talks about the effect of supercritical CO2 on geology

This next link to the OhioSeis site (The Ohio Seismic Network ) - it says earthquakes in Ohio happen at a depth of 3 - 6 miles ...... which is much closer to the depth of the proposed injection well for our area.

http://www.dnr.state.oh.us/Portals/10/pdf/EL/el09.pdf

Both of these articles are worth reading

Injection Induced Earthquakes - NE Ohio


Camp, Mark J.; Roadside Geology of Ohio; Mountain Press, Missoula, Montana, 2006 , 411 pp.

Northeast Ohio Earthquakes page 315

A Jesuit priest, Reverend Frederick L. Odenbach, set up the first seismograph in Ohio in Cleveland in 1900. It was one of the first in the United States. Ohio was not a center of earthquake activity, but seven weak to mild shocks had struck Ashtabula, Cuyahoga, Lake Portage, and Summit Counties in the 1800’s. Father Odenbach’s pioneering work allowed researchers to record about a dozen moderate quakes during the 1900’s. The most notable quake in the area, however, occurred much later, on January 31, 1986, southeast of Painesville. It registered about 5 on the Richter scale. Two people suffered minor injuries; items fell off store shelves in Chardon, Mentor, and Painesville; windows and plaster walls cracked; and area well water reportedly changed color and taste. Portable seismographs placed around the area the day after the main quake recorded at least thirteen aftershocks as high as 2.4 Richter magnitude. The great interest in this quake was probably related to the fact that a nuclear power plant operates in nearby Perry.

Small faults are common in Devonian-age rocks in northeastern Ohio. Other, more ancient ones lie more than a mile below the surface in Precambrian rocks. All these faults experience periodic adjustments, caused by the release of stress or pressure in the subsurface, which are recorded as earthquakes at the surface.

On January 25, 2001, a quake registering 4.6 magnitude rattled the Ashtabula area. This was only one of dozens that had shaken the area since 1987. Injection of waste fluids down a 6,000-foot-deep well into the Cambrian Mt.Simon sandstone from 1987 to 1993 has been linked to this seismic activity. The injected fluids seep along cracks in the sandstone, leading to slips along faults. The faults have been there for hundreds of millions of years and have just come to life in recent years because of artificial lubrication.

Mark J. Camp has a PhD in geology from The Ohio State University.

Bold italics by Jane Staley

NETL Report - April 2009 MRSCP TAME Project - Greenville, OH


http://www.netl.doe.gov/publications/factsheets/project/Proj599.pdf

NATCARB Project


This site is very well done.......


"The National Carbon Sequestration Database and Geographical Information System (NATCARB) started as a joint project among the State Geological Surveys of five midwestern states (Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, and Ohio). The project was later expanded to include the seven Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnerships and a prototype to integrate databases for terrestrial carbon sequestration with databases on geologic sequestration.

The purpose of NATCARB is to assess the carbon sequestration potential in the United States and to develop a national Carbon Sequestration Geographic Information System (GIS) and relational database covering the United States and parts of Canada. This digital spatial database allows users to estimate the amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) emitted by sources (such as power plants, refineries and other fossil fuel consuming industries) in relation to geologic formations that can provide safe, secure sequestration sites over long periods.
Objectives

The objectives of this project are to:
• Develop a national carbon sequestration geographic information and relational database management system covering the U.S. and operating through a portal maintained by the National Energy Technology Laboratory website.
• Develop online tools to provide real-time display and analysis of CO2
sequestration data.

Accomplishments

The NATCARB map server is active and currently running on the internet, and can be utilized by accessing the following web address: http://www.natcarb.org. Reliable communication among the various servers has been established, and tools have been developed to query, display, and analyze CO2 source, sink, and transportation data.
Tools allow clients to query and plot emissions or production through time for a single source or a combination of sources across a region. Tools are also available
to determine the solubility or physical properties of CO2 under various conditions.
Not only is the NATCARB server connected to all seven Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnerships but data on states not included in any of the Partnerships has been entered into the database. To provide national coverage, data in real- time is being pulled from public servers including the U.S. Geological Survey’s Center for Earth Resources Observation & Science (USGS-EROS) and from the Geography Network. Major CO2 sources have been obtained from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency databases, and data on major coal basins and coalbed methane wells was obtained from the U. S. Department of Energy’s Energy Information Agency. Though it is available through the NATCARB site, the databases are stored and managed by the Regional Partnerships.
Plans

NATCARB intends to generate high quality national sale maps and begin development of a new version of the Carbon Sequestration Atlas of the United States and Canada."

PARTNERS
University of Kansas
West Virginia University
Kansas State University
The state geological surveys in:
Illinois, Indiana, Kansas Kentucky, and Ohio
The DOE Regional CO2 Partnerships


Cost Total Project Value
$5,934,736
DOE/Non-DOE Share
$4,548,688 / $1,386,048


http://www.netl.doe.gov/publications/factsheets/project/Proj305.pdf

Department of Energy and NETL Web Sites

DOE and NETL web sites, and those of their seven Carbon Sequestration Regional Partnerships, have a wealth of information on all aspects of CCS. These sites can be accessed directly or through http://www.energy.gov and http://www.NETL.gov. NETL’s Sequestration Roadmap can be found on http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/carbon_seq/refshelf/project%20portfolio/2007/2007Roadmap.pdf
DOE/NETL’s National Carbon Sequestration Database and Geographical Information System (NatCarb) is especially valuable and can be accessed through http://www.natcarb.org. The seven Carbon Sequestration Regional Partnerships web sites can be accessed directly:
 Big Sky Partnership (Big Sky) at http://www.bigskyco2.org
 Midwest Geological Sequestration Consortium (MGSC) at http://www.sequestration.org
 Midwest Regional Partnership (MRCSP) at http://www.mrscp.org
 Plains Partnership (PCOR) at http://www.undeerc.org/pcor/
 South East Partnership (SECARB) at http://www.secarbon.org
 South West Partnership (SWP) at http://www.southwestcarbonpartnership.org
 West Coast Partnership (WESTCARB) at http://www.westcarb.org
USCSC educational papers on CCS can be accessed at http://www.uscsc.org

Friday, July 31, 2009

House Hearing On Carbon Sequestration & Drinking Water Protection


Click here to be taken to this article

July 2008

Jul 24: The House Energy & Commerce Committee, Subcommittee on Environment and Hazardous Materials, Chaired by Representative Gene Green (D-TX), held a hearing entitled, Carbon Sequestration: Risks, Opportunities, and Protection of Drinking Water. Witnesses testifying at the hearing included Benjamin Grumbles, Assistant Administrator Office of Water for U.S. EPA, and representatives from: Energy Resources Team U.S. Geological Survey National Center; Strategic Center for Coal of U.S. Department of Energy (DOE); Oil and Gas Commission; American Water Works Association (AWWA); Bureau of Economic Geology, University of Texas at Austin; Environmental Defense Fund (EDF); and the Coal Utilization Research Council.

In opening remarks, full Committee Chairman John Dingell (D-MI) said, "Water is critical to growth and economic development in many areas of the country, and will become even more so in future years. In pursuing the goal of carbon capture and storage, a system must be in place that protects the quality of drinking water sources and assures the public that this is a safe way to proceed. Approximately one week ago EPA released proposed regulations under the Safe Drinking Water Act designed to achieve these goals [
See WIMS 7/15/08]. I look forward to EPA’s testimony and the views of our other witnesses on the adequacy of the proposed regulations and any gaps that remain to be addressed.

EPA testified that geologic sequestration associated with Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) is a promising technology that provides an innovative solution for reducing emissions of (CO2) to the atmosphere, while safeguarding our country’s underground sources of drinking water. EPA said the UIC program is focused on protecting public health by preventing injection wells from contaminating underground sources of drinking water. EPA’s proposed regulations build on more than 35 years of experience in the UIC program of safely injecting fluids, either liquid, gas or slurry, including CO2, into the subsurface. Annually, billions of gallons of fluids are injected underground through wells authorized under State and Federal UIC Programs. This includes approximately 35 million tons of carbon dioxide that are injected for the purposes of enhancing oil and gas recovery.

The buoyancy of CO2, its potential corrosivity when in water, the potential presence of impurities in captured CO2, its mobility within subsurface formations, and the large injection volumes anticipated at full scale deployment, have all been considered in requirements tailored to the new practice of injecting CO2 for long-term storage. EPA’s proposal would create a new well type -- a Class VI UIC well. EPA said, "We believe we have developed a framework that will ensure safe injection in the present and safe storage in the future."

USGS testified that Section 711 of the Energy Independence and Security Act (P.L. 110-140), enacted into law in December 2007, authorized the Secretary of the Interior, acting through the Director of the USGS, to develop an assessment methodology and conduct a national assessment of geological storage capacity in collaboration with the Secretary of Energy, the Administrator of EPA, and the State geological surveys. USGS will collaborate with DOE to incorporate the results of the assessment into future revisions of the DOE “Carbon Sequestration Atlas of the United States and Canada”. The cumulative advances from these earlier USGS studies and DOE-funded activities provide a basis for developing a methodology to assess the national capacity to store CO2 and understand the potential impacts of large-scale deployment of geologic sequestration.

DOE testified that the 2006 Carbon Sequestration Atlas contains information on major CO2 emission point sources, geologic formations with sequestration potential, and some terrestrial ecosystems that offer the potential for enhanced carbon uptake – all referenced to their geographic location to enable analysis of CO2 sources and storage sites. An interactive version of the Atlas is publicly available through the National Carbon Explorer (NATCARB) website [See below]. DOE is funding a network of seven Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnerships to help develop technology, infrastructure, and best practices/protocols for implementing CO2 sequestration in different geologies of the Nation. This approach includes engaging local organizations and citizens to contribute expertise, experience, and perspectives that represent their concerns and goals.

AWWA testified, "Our overarching concern regarding geologic carbon sequestration is the potential contamination of underground sources of drinking water (USDW) from such activities and the potential for other unintended, and possibly harmful, consequences. AWWA is particularly concerned about the potential for contamination of sole source aquifers and suggests that these aquifers be provided with special protective measures. An aquifer receives the designation of “sole source aquifer” if it is located in an area where there are few or no alternative sources to the ground water resource, and where if contamination occurred, using an alternative source would be extremely expensive. AWWA urges caution on the implementation of large-scale, commercial geologic carbon sequestration, as little data are available regarding the potential effects of this technology on drinking water resources. . . AWWA recommends that commercial-scale carbon sequestration not be deployed until the results of the large-scale Department of Energy pilot projects have been received and reviewed. . . "

AWWA also draws attention to the significant issue of long-term liability resolved. EPA’s proposed geologic carbon sequestration rule cannot address financial responsibility of the sequestration site after the formal period of post-injection site care has ended (default of 50 year length). AWWA says Congress must develop legislation that will address the issue of who has to assume financial responsibility of the sequestration site after the site closure requirements have been fulfilled and anticipates a means by which drinking water utilities could recover any costs incurred as a result contamination.

Wednesday, July 29, 2009

Public Interest Groups Oppose Carbon Capture Scam


Unproven technology, Ridiculous Risk, Exorbitant Cost
Oppose industry-driven plans for carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) to keep COAL burning. Read this article

The time to stop these projects is BEFORE COAL, and its friends, enter your community!

It's time to find alternatives - every dime spent on CCS is a dime spent on COAL and NOT Renewable Energy.
Not only does CCS keep the coal industry going, it requires up to 40% MORE ENERGY - MORE COAL !


Citizens Against CO2 Sequestration has taken a stand in our community to oppose Carbon Capture and Sequestration.

Our Community is opposing one of the 7 DOE large-scale CO2 sequestration demonstrations (experiments) targeted for our community - the MRCSP Phase III project. This grassroots movement of concerned citizens understands the risks and finds them unacceptable for our community - and yours.

700+ Opposition Yard Signs are up - with more on the way!

Darke County is an agriculturally strong community, ranking #1 and #2 in most areas. Our Farmers' Union has taken a stand to oppose CCS! (Thank you Darke County farmers!)

Protect health, safety and environment - Take A Stand AGAINST CCS

Fighting a CCS (Carbon Capture and Sequestration) project in your community?
Contact us.

StopExperimentalCO2Projects@yahoo.com


DO MORE

Click Here to Access the Sierra Club Web Site

To Sign the Petition and Add Your Name to Oppose Coal

America needs more clean energy jobs and less pollution--and President Obama's EPA already has the power to act. Sign their petition to your Senators asking them to urge President Obama to create rules that regulate coal ash, mercury, soot and carbon pollution.


Evaluating Geological CO2 Sequestion Sites (Permanent Storage)


"This report describes a screening and ranking framework (SRF) developed to evaluate
potential geologic carbon dioxide (CO2) storage sites on the basis of health, safety, and environmental (HSE) risk arising from possible CO2 leakage. The approach assumes that HSE risk due to CO2 leakage is dependent on three basic characteristics of a geologic CO2 storage site: (1) the potential for primary containment by the target formation, (2) the potential for secondary containment if the primary formation leaks, and (3) the potential for attenuation and dispersion of leaking CO2 if the primary formation leaks and secondary containment fails. The framework is implemented in a spreadsheet in which users enter numerical scores representing expert opinions or general information available from published materials, along with estimates of uncertainty to evaluate the three basic characteristics in order to screen and rank candidate sites. Application of the framework to the Rio Visa Gas Field, Ventura Oil Field, and Mammoth Mountain demonstrates the approach."

The full report can be accessed here

CO2 Sequestration - Does NOT work


Ike Solem says:

Read the full story here


The reality is not quite as rosy as it looks. This same issue arose in 2007, when the nuclear industry tried to force $50 billion in loan guarantees through. Historically, nuclear and coal and oil have received giant federal subsidies in the form of loan guarantees, tax breaks, and direct subsidies via zero-oversight federal contracting deals. Despite popular pressure to roll back these subsidies and promises by politicians to do so, they largely remain intact – only gross expansions of these subsidies have been defeated – and according to reports, the $2 billion for the FutureGen “clean coal” project remains in the bill.

That’s $2 billion for one generation plant using an apparently failed technology. (The U.S. federal budget for ALL solar photovoltaic research is about 1/20th of that, $100 million) The technology is secret and proprietary and is controlled by a financial consortium of private coal interests (i.e. Southern, Peabody, BHPBilliton, etc.) and military government contractors (Battelle, the primary organizer). There are no published papers on the technology, which they refuse to talk about because it is proprietary. Try asking the technical advisers about it:

http://www.futuregenalliance.org/alliance/advisors.stm

Battelle is the world’s largest private research corporation, who manages five National Labs for the Department of Energy and plays the leading role in the U.S. biological warfare program, as well as in many other areas of military and commercial R&D. They are the proprietary controllers of FutureGen technology, and they’ve never published anything on it either. Despite the public financing of the project, Battelle insists that only “non-proprietary performance data” can be released, whatever that means. Fraud is the most likely story here.

The fact of the matter is that carbon sequestration-based coal combustion does not work, and will never work, on simple physical arguments. There’s also no prototype – for example, a car that drives down the road while capturing all CO2 emissions in the trunk. Try sticking a potato in the tailpipe – that’s what all CO2 sequestration involves – massive power losses. It’s likely that if you could design a coal plant that captured 90% of its CO2 emissions, it would only produce 10% of the power (per ton of coal) that a dirty modern coal plant does. There’s no way around it, especially if the coal is loaded up with sulfur and mercury and arsenic, as is typical.

What we don’t see is $2 billion to build an integrated wind-solar power system with backup biomass generations in some city as a test case. They are doing this in Germany – but not here. The reason for that is that the Democratic politicians from the coal states are dedicated supporters of the coal industry, and yes, that does include Obama and Dick Durbin, as well as Jeff Bingaman.

The last thing the coal industry wants to see is a city anywhere in the U.S. that operates entirely on renewable power – but it can be done, and it would be the perfect example. $2 billion would be a good initial investment – but there would be howls from the fossil fuel industry, that’s for sure – and they own Congress, more or less. You don’t see oil executives and coal executives being hauled before Congress the way the auto and finance executives were, do you? And no one is asking financiers why they are investing their bailout money in fossil fuels and not in renewables, either. (Bloomberg reported that Morgan Stanley and Citigroup were buying oil up and storing it in supertankers – a way to drive up the price, or to reserve oil for when prices rise – and these banks are also invested in fossil fuels, thanks to the repeal of Glass-Steagall banking rules c.1999 – and that’s why those rules were put in place – banks should not be able to loan their customer’s money to firms that they hold shares in, period).

I would put the celebrations on hold – this stimulus package is the equivalent of a band aid on a shark bite. There’s a whole lot of work to be done still, and the issues are very complicated. This was not a defeat for coal interests – they lost nothing, and even gained a little something. It would be a lot easier if the press would honestly cover this story, but they haven’t.