By Barbara Brandom
Have you seen the report by David Hess, in PA Environmental Digest 1, about the “Statement Regarding Emerging-Technologies that Represent False Solutions to the Climate Crisis” from the new No False Solutions PA Coalition? 2 It was delivered to Pennsylvania legislators, regulators and Governor Shapiro on January 8th, 2024. The lead authors of this 47 page document are Sandy Field and Karen Elias, both members of the Climate Reality Project of the Susquehanna Valley, PA. The document “was compiled to educate and inform . . . about emerging technologies that claim to be solutions to the climate crisis but in fact exacerbate the climate crisis, damage the environment, and/or harm public health and do not offer more effective or economically viable solutions than those offered by renewable energy and renewable energy storage technologies.” Other writers also express the concern that Pennsylvania is “falling behind” in the energy transition. January 2, 2024 the Philadelphia Inquirer published Patrick McDonnell’s commentary, including the statement, “Pennsylvania tightly embraces the fossil fuel industry, preventing sustainable economic growth, energy diversification, and a cleaner future, particularly for young people.” 3
The report by Field and Elias discusses the continued extraction and use of fracked gas, hydrogen, advanced recycling of plastics, carbon capture and sequestration, as well as regulatory/policy concerns. The document opens with recognition of Pennsylvania’s history of extraction and ends with conclusions which point toward changes that will move Pennsylvania faster to the benefits of green energy production. Links to references in the text are listed alphabetically following the conclusion.
I will not summarize further the contents of this document, because you can easily pick from the topics listed on its page 4 to jump to the subjects of most interest to you now. One should refer to this document every time facts could be used in reply to an irresponsible letter from a Pennsylvania legislator regarding the future of energy development in this state.
I wish to return to the subject of carbon sequestration and storage (CCS), discussed in pages 17 to 20 of this report. We can hope that the economic forces already in play will soon reduce support for more extraction of fossil fuels. Burning of fossil fuels has already put so much carbon dioxide into our atmosphere that climate scientists predict an inevitable rise in sea levels by at least 4 to 6 feet by 2100. 4
So even if no more fossil fuel is extracted, there will be motivation to remove carbon dioxide (CO2) from air however possible and put supercritical carbon dioxide deep underground. Doubts about the efficacy of CCS are discussed on page 19. Note that Equinor, an international company partnered with Shell in supporting Team PA’s bid for a hydrogen hub, 5 was the developer of those two CCS projects in Norway and of another in Algeria.6 The Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis published a report describing these sites in June 2023. 7 In Algeria injected CO2 migrated upward, as expected, and was stopped by the cap rock, as planned. However, the force of the expansion of CO2 was so great that the surface of the land over this area was deformed up to 20 to 25 mm even though the storage site was one km underground. Such movement could damage the foundation of any structure in that area. Imagine what would happen to the delicate roots of trees in the forest. Injection of CO2 was halted before enough damage to the cap rock occurred that CO2 could escape into the atmosphere at that time. Because Algeria has no restrictions on discharging CO2 directly into the atmosphere, that is the course that was taken. Equinor abandoned its attempts to sequester CO2 under the Algerian desert.
The conclusions (page 42 in footnote #7) are sobering. These include “ . . . even after steadfast study and monitoring using top-level technology and engineers, injected CO2 can move to unexpected places and behave in unexpected ways even years after . . . replacement plans may need to be implemented with speed in order to avoid catastrophe . . . to assure long-term secure CO2 storage, ongoing monitoring and verification of storage site integrity is imperative. Backup plans must always be available in case storage formations do not behave as anticipated. The companies that invest in and operate these fields need to have the financial and technical resources at the ready to address deficiencies, deviations and unexpected performance. Above all, clear regulations and requirements are necessary across the entire CCS life cycle to maintain integrity.”
It has not been proven that CO2 will remain sequestered. “Are the formation’s boundaries sealed, or faulted such that the CO2 has a path to move? The truth is that no engineer or scientist, let alone corporate executive or politician, can answer the question definitively. That is because, even using the best technology and techniques available today, the hard science is limited to statistically based expectations derived from costly and resource-intensive samples of subsurface data that are, by their nature, conjectures of what is going on underground. Subsurface assessment technologies are improving, but they likely will never provide a complete and foolproof picture of what nuances, exceptions, deviations, inclusions, or limits are above and within subsurface structures.“ (page 42 in footnote # 7)
One may hope that Equinor and its partners have greatly improved techniques of site assessment and injection of carbon dioxide in recent years. In November 2023 the US Department of Energy announced plans to support 16 carbon sequestration projects across 12 states. 8 No sites in Pennsylvania are under development for CCS yet. However, the PA Senate Committee of Environmental Resources and Energy has approved Senate Bill 831, 9 describing the use of ‘pore space’, the potential spaces underground into which fluids, such as supercritical carbon dioxide, may be injected. This Bill is described as, “An Act providing for the injection of carbon dioxide into an underground reservoir for the purpose of carbon sequestration, for the ownership of pore space in strata below surface lands and waters of the Commonwealth, for conveyance of the surface ownership of real property; imposing duties on the Department of Environmental Protection; and establishing the Carbon Dioxide Storage Facility Fund”.
We must take this opportunity to educate our legislators about the dangers of CCS. Many very important details must be clarified. How will holders of surface rights be involved in permitting class VI wells (for injection of CO2)? Should agreement of 60% or 80% of the owners of pore space, usually the holders of surface rights, be required for all of the space to be declared within the storage facility? To what extent will users of pore space be liable for damages to surface structures, including forest and groundwater? Note that seismic studies will be performed at all proposed storage sites and “The storage operator shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the property owner for all claims arising out of entry onto the property by the storage operator. . .” What is the duration of the long term monitoring and management that the state commits to? Given that previous CCS projects did not meet planned goals, how will completion of CO2 injections be defined? There is nothing in Bill 831 to guarantee that there will be optimal siting of class VI wells. Igneous and metamorphic rocks have more potential for carbon mineralization, as opposed to porous sedimentary reservoirs. In sedimentary reservoirs, injected carbon dioxide dissolves into deep saline groundwaters.
Injected carbon dioxide will inevitably push upwards if it is not mineralized. Thus the details of carbon sequestration underground will affect the monitoring that is needed for much more than 10 years. Remember the conclusions drawn by Equinor.
What has Equinor invested in recently, since the time of its CCS failures in Norway and Algeria?
In 2022 Equinor started backing a 3-year, $3-million pilot project to grow carbon capturing seaweed. Equinor and Swedish Lundin are betting that seaweed farming can be a viable alternative to industrial-scale carbon capture and storage. In July 2022 Sweden’s Lundin Energy became known as Orrön Energy after the company announced it finalized its divestment of its oil assets to focus on renewable energy projects. Pennsylvania is heading down a very dangerous path in the energy transition.
Notes:
1.http://paenvironmentdaily.blogspot.com/2024/01/no-false-solutions-pa-coalition-issues.html
2.https://nofalsesolutionspa.org/no-false-solutions-pa/
3.https://www.inquirer.com/opinion/commentary/energy-coal-renewables-pennsylvania-rggi-20240102.html
4.https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2018/06/underwater-analysis-full-report.pdf
5.https://teampa.com/2022/11/team-pennsylvania-serves-as-lead-applicant-on-hydrogen-hub-concept-paper-submitted-to-u-s-department-of-energy/
6. Energy Procedia. The In Salah CO2 storage project: Lessons learned and knowledge transfer. Ringrose et al. Volume 37. 2013, p. 6226-6236.
7.https://ieefa.org/articles/norways-carbon-capture-and-storage-projects-augur-geological-risks-global-aspirations-bury
8.https://www.energy.gov/articles/biden-harris-administration-invests-444-million-strengthen-americas-infrastructure
9.https://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/billinfo/billinfo.cfm?syear=2023&sind=0&body=S&type=B&bn=831