Has anyone been following EPA's carbon sequestration rule? I understand that now it is going to be proposed purely under SDWA and skirt climate chnage althogether.

I just participated in an EPA webcast, and it appears that although the carbon sequestration rule will be proposed under SDWA, it's EPA's attempt at a climate change mitigation strategy in its water programs. It's not so surprising that it would be introduced under the SDWA - the underground injection control regs are in the water bureau, and EPA says that the main reason its under SDWA is to make sure drinking water is protected with the GHG strategy of sequestration. EPA says to expect the publishing of the proposed rulemaking in July 2008.

I don't know if it matters where it's proposed, as long as people are asking the right questions about the dangers and benefits of the strategy. Just because carbon has been stored underground naturally for millions of years doesn't mean that it necessarily follows that so much should be stored there unnaturally. We'll see when the rule comes out I guess.

To perform carbon sequestration, carbon gas needs to be liquefied through compression.  That’s a costly and energy-intensive process.  The liquid then needs to be transported to the right geological formation.  Some people believe the best approach is to just build the power plant right near the spot where injection can occur.  But that doesn’t account for the thousands of existing plants that are nowhere near potential wells.  Trucking or piping liquefied carbon has its own environmental and economic drawbacks.  In any case, injecting carbon deep enough so it doesn’t even pose a risk to ground water or other ecosystems (ocean-bed injection is one high-risk ecological scenario) is an excruciatingly complex, expensive, and uncertain proposition when one considers the number of U.S. fossil fuel power plants.   In my opinion, carbon sequestration as an approach to climate change falls far behind renewable energy and nuclear power. 

FYI - the proposed carbon sequestration rule was announced today. Grumbles described it as a "promising yet unproven technology." A little scary. When asked at the press conference about what remediation steps would be taken if a well was malfunctioning (aka polluting groundwater or drinking water), and Grumbles responded that the owner or operator would have to stop injection, but he couldn't say what else would be done. Which isn't really helpful if the pollution already occurred!

First let me identify myself by saying I am in the oil and gas industry.  That being said, I also have some experience in sequestering CO2 into subsurface formations.  CO2 injection into reservoirs that contain oil is another way to get more oil and gas out of the ground that would otherwise be left behind.  After primary production we normally produce around 30% of the oil in place.  Then we go to what is called secondary production and get anywhere from 20 to 30% more of the original oil in place.  Percentages vary depending on the type of reservoir rock we are producing from.  Now we can inject slugs of water followed by slugs of CO2 into the reservoir. This sweeps more oil from around the injection wells over to the producing wells.  Again, depending on the type of reservoir rock we can get upwards to another 20 to 30% of the original oil inplace.  This greatly enhances the amount of oil we can produce.  It is not cheap to do this, but the value of the oil out weighs the cost of gathering the CO2, compressing it and injecting it into the ground.  Eventually, the CO2 "breaks through" to the producing wells.  We separate the gases from the oil and water produced by the wells.  We sell the oil and we re-inject the water and the CO2 to repeat the process.

 While I am not a believer in man-induced global warming I am a believer in the use of CO2 as a tertiary means to produce more oil.  It works and the country is better off for the technology.  As for environmental damages to the groundwater, today's wells are drilled and completed to protect all groundwater sources.  The industry takes it very seriously when it comes to protecting the environment despite what the national press may tell you.  I've dealt with the press several times I can attest to the fact the majority have no clue what they are talking about, be it oil or other environmental issues.  There are seveal layers of steel casing cemented into the ground to protect ground and surface waters.  We do not want to risk endangering anyone's drinking water and we do not want to throw away money in the form of lost oil and gas or the costs to remediate contaminated soils and water.  As for getting the CO2 to our wells, we can pipeline it to the fields.  This is being done every day just as we pipe natural gas to your homes and businesses.  We very seldom have releases to the atmosphere and should a leak occur we have blocking valves to isolate the leaks in a line until repairs can be made.  It is very safe and reliable.  I have no qualms about using CO2 as a means to produce more, much needed, domestic oil and we can do it safely and responsibly.

Normal 0 MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman";} A very thoughtful comment from JE9LHY.  My understanding also is that Class II underground injection control (UIC) wells have been operated safely and effectively by the oil and gas industry.  But there are several key differences between using CO2 for enhanced O&G extraction and injecting the vast amounts of CO2 that are anticipated under any carbon sequestration program.  The primary difference, I think, is the areas into which CO2 is injected.  As JE9LHY points out, the CO2 in the Class II process is handled under very controlled conditions and even recirculated for use.  We cannot send all the CO2 generated by fossil fuel power plants to the O&B industry for enhanced recovery.  It needs to be spread out around the country and injected into a wide variety of underground geologic formations.  Basically, it must remain permanently stored in these formations; if it leaks out, there are no plans to make use of it.  If it gets into ground water, there are no plans to deal with that either.  We know that CO2 has been stored for millions of years underground under natural conditions.  But there is simply no experience (except for limited pilot projects now ongoing) about how injected CO2 will behave.  When you consider the scope of what it contemplated here, ultimately billions upon billions of tons of CO2 injected, the prospects of all this not working out are very scary.  As I said, the real key is to find energy alternatives and not take the very substantial risks associated with carbon sequestration.