assuring ohio’s competitiveness in a carbon …...chapter 4: task 2, part 4: geologic carbon...

1Chapter 4: Task 2, Part 4: Geologic Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS) Opportunities

ASSURING OHIO’S COMPETITIVENESS IN A CARBON-CONSTRAINED WORLD:A Collaboration between Ohio University and The Ohio State University

Chapter 4: Task 2, Part 4: Geologic Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS) Opportunities

‘

Prepared by: Kyle Gumto, Research Associate, The Voinovich School of Leadership and Public Affairs, Ohio University

© 2011 Ohio University. Assuring Ohio’s Competitiveness in a Carbon-Constrained World: A Collaboration between Ohio University and The Ohio State University. Ohio University and The Ohio State University. Prepared for the Ohio Department of Development.

For the complete report and work product, visit: www.ohioenergyresources.com

Acknowledgment: “This material is based upon work supported by the Department of Energy under Award Number DE-EE0000165.”

Disclaimer: “This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof.”

Chapter 4: Task 2, Part 4: Geologic Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS) Opportunities 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

II. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

III. Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

IV. CCS/EOR History as Learned from the Oil and Gas Industry . . . . . . . . . . 14

V. Risk Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

VI. Liability and Legal Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

VII. Suitable Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

VII.A. Ohio Site Potential . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

VII.B. Current Ohio Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

VIII. MRCSP Projects in Ohio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

VIII.A. Non-MRCSP Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

VIII.B. Future Injection Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

IX. Public Outreach and Acceptance of CCS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

X. Business Development Opportunities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

XI. Pros and Cons of CCS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

XII. Ohio Future Policy Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

XIII. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

Appendix 4-1: Ohio Legal and Regulatory Inventory for Carbon Capture

and Storage & Analogues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57


Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS) is gaining

momentum as a technology that could potentially answer

imminent concerns about increasing fossil fuel emissions.

The State of Ohio continues to be a top emitter of carbon

dioxide (CO2) emissions due to its heavy reliance on coal-

fired energy generation. As a top emitter, Ohio may be

greatly impacted by federal and/or statewide regulations

that focus on emission reductions policies. Understanding

and implementing Ohio’s carbon reduction options using

advanced CCS technology could significantly alter and

diversify Ohio’s current and future energy requirements.

Nationwide research efforts are seeking to further define the nation’s deep geology to identify potential sites for CCS. Few large scale projects are underway, but additional deep wells and carbon-injection research projects are producing useful results and information. No two projects are identical due to subsurface geology; however, best practices and regulatory guidance are evolving from these experiences. As with any new technology, there are pros and cons as the research develops and advances.

“The main benefit of carbon capture and sequestration is that it allows the continued use of the low-cost, abundant fossil energy sources that are also the main sources of GHGs. These fossil energy sources account for about 86 to 88 percent of U.S. and world energy consumption today, and those numbers are not expected to change much over the next 2 decades. In its 2007 Annual Energy Outlook, DOE’s Energy Information Administration (EIA) forecasts increases in all fossil energy use, including a growing market share for coal in electricity

I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY


generation at the expense of natural gas—a less carbon-intensive fuel. Today, coal provides about half of our Nation’s electricity, and EIA projects that share will rise to 60 percent by 2030.”1

CCS technology benefits from the support and knowledge of the oil and gas industries, as similar procedures are followed when searching for, extracting and storing oil and natural gas. For example, Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) shows great potential for oil wells once thought to hold expensive and inaccessible reserves.

“According to the Oil and Gas Journal, CO2 Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) is the fastest growing form of enhanced oil recovery in the United States, producing an estimated 206,000 barrels per day in 2004, mostly in the Permian Basin of West Texas and New Mexico, representing 4 percent of the Nation’s crude oil production. This experience, plus the innovative CO2 EOR project at the Weyburn field in Saskatchewan, Canada, could lead the way in helping to overcome the risks and economic barriers to applying this technology to recover “stranded oil” in other basins.” 2

State and regional efforts have identified areas for CO2 sequestration potential in varying strata of Ohio and regional geology. Refined estimates are being updated and released as test wells and initial injection projects collect and analyze project data. The Department of Energy Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership is “tasked with determining the most suitable technologies, regulations and infrastructure needs for carbon capture, storage, and sequestration in different areas of the country.”3 Ohio’s CCS potential is being determined with oversight from the Midwest Region Carbon Sequestration Partnership. The National Energy Technology Laboratory oversees the National Carbon Sequestration Database and Geographic Information System4

(NATCARB) to provide a national view of CCS potential in the U.S. and Canada with potential CO2 storage locations. Sequestration potential and additional CCS topics are addressed throughout this chapter.

1 U.S. Department of Energy. National Energy Technology Laboratory. Carbon Sequestration Facts. Retrieved from http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/carbon_seq/FAQs/benefits.html

2 U.S. Department of Energy. Offices of Fossil Energy & Oil and Natural Gas. (2006). Recovering “Stranded Oil” Can Substantially Add to U.S. Oil Supplies. Fact sheet. 1-2. Retrieved from http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/oilgas/publications/eor_co2/C_-_10_Basin_Studies_Fact_Sheet.pdf

3 U.S. Department of Energy. National Energy Technology Laboratory. Regional Partnership definition. Retrieved from http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/carbon_seq/partnerships/partnerships.html

4 U.S. Department of Energy. National Energy Technology Laboratory. NATCARB Technologies. Retrieved from http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/carbon_seq/natcarb/index.html


II. INTRODUCTION

Because of Ohio’s national ranking as a top emitter of CO2

emissions, it will be impacted by future carbon regulations

or policies. Coal’s popularity as a primary electricity source

in Ohio is a result of its relatively easy access, backed by a

large and established industry with existing infrastructure

to extract and transport it. It has relatively low costs

compared to other fuel sources, and has the ability to meet

a high base load demand. Negative environmental and

human health impacts have often been a consequence in

the quest for cheap electricity. While renewable energy

resources are coming online at a remarkable pace, they too

have strategic advantages and disadvantages, and cannot

yet fully supply the large base load capacity that is needed

throughout Ohio and other states. The current need centers

on using advanced technology to satisfy economic growth

and meet future energy demand.

Energy diversification with renewables is a necessary component to future energy policy, but in the interim, Ohio’s base load is likely to be supplied with reliable, on-demand fuel resources such as coal. For Ohio’s foreseeable future, a heavy reliance on fossil fuels necessitates the reduction and mitigation of emissions from carbon intensive fuels. Currently, heavy investment and pilot programs across the globe are supporting the advancement of carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) technologies. Ohio is seeing an increased assessment of CCS viability within the state, as an increase of deep well tests are conducted and Ohio’s subsurface geology is methodically analyzed. Further research and the progression of successful test facilities will determine if CCS will be a viable and cost-effective option for the region.


On February 3, 2010, President Obama established the Interagency Task Force on Carbon Capture and Storage, co-chaired by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and involving 14 executive departments and federal agencies. This task force is responsible for developing and overcoming existing barriers to the widespread, cost-effective deployment of CCS over the next 10 years. In order to meet their goal of bringing 5-10 commercial demonstration projects online by 2016, monumental action is underway. This group studied early challenges facing projects, as well as the many factors that could inhibit global commercial deployment of CCS.5 Special task forces for CCS are being deployed in other countries as well to address the growing issue of a clean energy future.

“Around the world countries are moving aggressively on investing in clean energy,” said Energy Secretary Steven Chu. “The U.S. has the ability to develop clean energy innovation here at home. Rather than sending billions overseas to pay for clean technologies, we should invest these dollars here–in America’s workers, industries, and innovations.”6

“According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the United States emitted roughly 6.2 billion tons of CO2 in 2006 due to the combustion of fossil fuels. Nearly 40 percent of these emissions were due to combustion of fossil fuels to generate electricity.”7

It is certain that the successes and failures of early pilot scale CCS projects will impact future initiatives. This is one reason why superior research, development, communication and understanding on the topic are critical for shaping the future of this industry. The CCS industry has already produced lessons and best practices from existing projects that are now available for the benefit of future endeavors.

“CCS can play an important role in domestic GHG emissions reductions while preserving the option of using abundant domestic fossil energy resources.

5 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2010). Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) Interagency Task Force Report. Retrieved from http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/downloads/CCS-Task-Force-Report-2010.pdf

6 U.S. EPA. (2010, Aug. 12). Federal Task Force Sends Recommendations to President on Fostering Clean Coal Technology/ Interagency report marks an important step forward on administration priority. News release. Retrieved from http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/d0cf6618525a9efb85257359003fb69d/535ab312623245f78525777d0052cc06!OpenDocument

7 U.S. EPA. (2008). Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2006. Table 2-5: CO2 Emissions For Fossil Fuel Combustion By End Use Sector. Washington, D.C. Retrieved from http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/downloads/08_CR.pdf


However, barriers hamper near-term and long-term demonstration and deployment of CCS technology. While the largest of these barriers is the absence of a Federal policy to reduce GHG emissions, the Interagency Task Force on Carbon Capture and Storage has outlined specific actions the Federal government could take under existing authority and resources to address these barriers. For widespread cost-effective deployment of CCS, additional action may be needed to address specific barriers, such as long-term liability and stewardship. Timely development of cost-effective CCS could reduce the costs of achieving our Nation’s climate change goals.”8

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) states, “…to continue to extract and combust the world’s rich endowment of oil, coal, peat, and natural gas at current or increasing rates, and to release more of the stored carbon into the atmosphere, is no longer environmentally sustainable, unless CCS technologies currently being developed can be widely deployed.”9 This section of the report aims to address CCS progress in Ohio and on the global front, as well as explain the technology and how it can play a role in the near- and long-term advancing energy economy.

8 U.S. EPA. (2010). Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) Interagency Task Force Report. 8. Retrieved from http://fossil.energy.gov/programs/sequestration/ccstf/es_ccstf_2010.pdf

9 Metz, B, Davidson, O. R., Bosch, P. R., Dave, R., & Meyer, L. A. (eds). (2007). Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cam-bridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press & New York, NY: USA. Retrieved from http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg3/ar4-wg3-ts.pdf


III. BACKGROUND

With global energy demand on the rise, alternative

options must be addressed at a scale commensurate with

those anticipated future demands. While alternatives and

renewable energy resources are being developed to play a

larger role, the current, predominant use of fossil fuels will

likely continue, despite concerns about rising levels of GHG

emissions. New developments in research and technology

present options to sequester CO2 at feasible levels, solving

some problems yet creating others. To remain a global

economic and energy leader, the U.S., and moreover

Ohio, must remain on the cutting edge of installed energy

technology.

Despite the challenges of an ageing energy infrastructure and economic uncertainties, governments and private business in the U.S. and other nations have begun large-scale projects to address issues on energy and emissions. Carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) is emerging as a controversial topic, and CCS R&D is working to ensure that the theory behind the technology matches its actual implementation in pilot projects. This is necessary to lay the groundwork for economically-feasible, larger scale-ups of the process. This chapter aims to specifically address CCS on multiple levels, including its history and use in the oil and gas industry, liability issues, risk management concerns and findings from initial studies of the current projects.

In addressing Ohio’s new energy economy, CCS has been identified as a technology with the potential to offset emissions from power generation. While it is an emerging field of study, there exists significant background on CCS from extensive oil and gas exploration and data from emerging research projects around the world.


CCS is a grouping of existing technologies that incorporates four stages: CO2 capture, transport, sequestering in geologic formations, and monitoring to ensure secure placement.10 Once CO2 is captured and separated from other fossil fuel emissions, it can then be transported and sequestered. The designated piping infrastructure supporting the transport of the CO2 will play a role in the cost, reliability and security of these long-term projects. Once CO2 reaches the injection well, it either can aid in Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR), or it can be stored underground and consequently out of the atmosphere. This is where expert understanding of deep well geology is key to predicting the secure placement and retention of CO2.

10 International Energy Agency. (2009). Carbon Capture and Storage. Full-scale Demonstration Progress Update OECD/EIA. 3. Retrieved from http://www.iea.org/G8/docs/ccs_g8july09.pdf

Source: http://www.dnr.state.oh.us/geosurvey/tabid/17870/Default.aspx


“Carbon dioxide is injected into the subsurface as a separate fluid phase that is less dense than formation water, migrates by buoyancy, and is retained in the subsurface by capillary forces. CO2 will rise buoyantly until it encounters a rock unit that has a capillary entrance pressure that is greater than the buoyancy or hydrodynamic forces. Additional CO2 will accumulate until the buoyancy force exceeds the capillary entrance pressure of the pore space vertically or laterally adjacent to the CO2 plume. If the overlying rock unit has sufficiently high capillary entrance pressure, it will act as a seal, allowing CO2 to accumulate in any structural or stratigraphic feature that has both vertical and lateral seals… A mass of CO2 injected into a volume of rock will form a plume that migrates buoyantly and will continue to migrate after injection stops.”11

“Today, 22 billion tonnes of CO2 are emitted into the atmosphere from man-made sources. Worldwide, approximately one third of emissions are from electricity production, one third from transportation, and the rest primarily from heating buildings and industrial processes. Oil, coal, and natural gas are the source of these emissions, and these fossil fuels provide for over 85% of the world’s energy needs. Over the next hundred years, demand for energy is expected to more than double. Growth will be particularly critical in developing nations where industrialization and improved quality of life will increase demand. Representative scenarios designed to predict future emissions estimate that by 2100, annual emissions of CO2 from fossil fuels will range from 16 billion to 110 billion tonnes per year, with many scenarios indicating a doubling of CO2 emissions by 2050.”12 Figure 1 outlines U.S. CO2 emissions resulting from the combustion of fossil fuels.

11 Brennan, S. T., Burruss, R. C., Merrill, M. D., Freeman, P. A. & Ruppert, L.F. (2010). A probabilistic assessment methodology for the evaluation of geologic carbon dioxide storage. U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2010–1127. 5. Retrieved from http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2010/1127

12 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). (2000). Special Report on Emissions Scenarios. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.


Figure 1. Sources for CO2 Emissions in the United States from Combustion of Fossil Fuels

Sources CO2 Emissions* Percent of Total**Electricity generation 2,273.3 41%Transportation 1,856.0 33%Industrial 862.2 15%Residential 326.5 6%Commercial 210.1 4%Total 5,583.0 100%

Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2006, Table ES-3.

* CO2 emissions in millions of metric tons for 2006; excludes emissions from U.S. territories. ** Total does not sum to 100% because of rounding.

“Secure, reliable and affordable energy supplies are needed for sustainable economic growth, but increases in associated carbon dioxide emissions, and the associated risk of climate change, are a cause of major concern. The International Energy Agency (IEA) analysis in Energy Technology Perspectives 2008 (ETP) projects that the CO2 emissions attributable to the energy sector will increase by 130% by 2050 in the absence of new policies or supply constraints as a result of increased fossil fuel usage.”13 This increase in energy use will demand a diverse technology revolution involving alternative energy, increased energy efficiency, expanding renewable energy, and the reduction of fossil fuel-based power generation.

“Fossil fuel usage is expected to continue to play a major role in delivering global energy supply, with the latest IEA projections showing a global increase in fossil fuel usage through 2030. The only technology available to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions from large scale fossil fuel usage is carbon dioxide capture and storage.”14

Advanced energy technologies like CCS are showing promise to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions fossil fuel generation. These technologies need to continue to be aggressively addressed as technology and innovation take time to be implemented, tested, understood and widely accepted and deployed on a large scale.

13 International Energy Agency. (2009). G8 Summit report from the International Energy Agency. Carbon Capture and Storage, Full Scale Demonstration Progress Update.

14 Ibid.


“Government support is also needed for the larger-scale demonstration of new technology, reducing the risks of the first stage of commercialization. There is an urgent need for the full-scale demonstration of coal plants with CCS.” 15

“The Environmental Protection Agency and Energy Information Administration assessments of recent climate and energy legislative proposals show that, if available on a cost-effective basis, carbon capture and storage can over time play a large role in reducing the overall cost of meeting domestic emissions reduction targets. By playing a leadership role in efforts to develop and deploy CCS technologies to reduce GHG emissions, the United States can preserve the option of using an affordable, abundant, and domestic energy resource, help improve national security, help to maximize production from existing oil fields through enhanced oil recovery (EOR), and assist in the creation of new technologies for export.”16

15 International Energy Agency. (2008). Energy Technology Perspectives 2008. Scenarios & Strategies to 2050. p. 44.

16 Interagency Task Force on Carbon Capture and Storage. (2010). Interagency Task Force Report. p. 7. Retrieved from http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/downloads/CCS-Task-Force-Report-2010.pdf


The creation of additional jobs in the CCS field will boost local economies and energy-related businesses. Jobs will be created to cover research, application, monitoring, construction and managing these monumental projects. As CCS projects develop they will have additional energy demands to address in order to capture, separate, transport, compress and inject the CO2 deep underground. This additional energy use comes in addition to the predicted growth in global consumption of fossil fuels.

“With worldwide energy demand forecast to increase by as much as seventy percent over the next twenty-five years, the future is very bright for the coal industry in Ohio. Recent pronouncements in both Washington D.C. and Columbus are pointing to the increased use of coal. It is important to understand that coal is, and will remain, the most abundant domestic resource to power our economy for many years to come. The question facing our region and our nation is how we intend to make sure we’re not destined to repeat the mistakes of the past.” 17

As with any emerging technology, safeguards are being reviewed to protect against any negative consequences of its use. New rules have been finalized by the U.S. EPA that govern the protection of drinking water and track the amount of CO2 sequestered from facilities.18 The drinking water protection regulations include requirements for geologic sequestration of carbon dioxide, including the development of a new class of injection well called Class VI, established under EPA’s Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program. These requirements are calculated to ensure that wells used for CCS are appropriately permitted, sited, constructed, tested, monitored, sealed and closed. This UIC Program was established under the authority of the Safe Drinking Water Act.19

EPA also finalized a rule on the GHG reporting requirements for facilities that carry out geologic sequestration. Information gathered under the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program will enable EPA to track the amount of CO2 sequestered. The program was established in 2009 under the authority of the Clean Air Act and requires reporting of GHGs from various source categories throughout the United States.20

17 Miller, S. (2007). Of Place: King Coal. Retrieved from http://ce3.ohio.edu/NewsUpload/king_coal.pdf18 Buildings. (2010, Nov. 24). EPA Finalized Carbon Dioxide Rules. Retrieved from http://www.buildings.

com/ArticleDetails/tabid/3321/ArticleID/11083/Default.aspx19 Ibid.20 Ibid.


IV. CCS/EOR HISTORY AS LEARNED FROM THE OIL AND GAS INDUSTRY

Carbon dioxide has a long history of use in the oil and gas

industry’s Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) process. When

injected into active oil or gas fields, the CO2 forces out the

remaining oil in the reservoir after the primary extraction

has taken place. Gas injection into oil fields and reservoirs

in the U.S. began in 1972 in Texas.21 Since then, many

companies in the oil and gas industry have been developing

and expanding the field of gas injection, specifically CO2

injection, for EOR. As of 2007, over 70 EOR sites existed

worldwide, and more than 1 billion barrels of oil were

produced from this process alone.

Ohio’s Division of Geological Survey is currently in charge of the research and mapping of Ohio’s oil and gas reservoirs. The division is trying to characterize the reservoirs for more efficient production of oil and gas and for possible use as CO2 wells. They are forming partnerships and acquiring the funding necessary to investigate the effectiveness of using specific Ohio reservoirs for EOR with CO2.

22

In 1989, researchers working at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Laboratory for Energy and the Environment began to research CCS under the Carbon Capture and Sequestration Technologies Program (CCSTP).23 However, it wasn’t until 1992, when the First International Conference on Carbon Dioxide Removal (ICCDR-1) was held in Amsterdam, that CCS for purposes other than EOR gained much attention. This conference was attended by more than 250

21 U.S. Department of Energy. (2011, Jan. 13). Enhanced Oil Recovery/CO2 Injection. Retrieved from http://fossil.energy.gov/programs/oilgas/eor/

22 Wickstrom, L. (2007). Geologic Sequestration of Carbon Dioxide in Ohio: Ohio Geology, Ohio Depart-ment of Natural Resources, Division of Geological Survey. 5. Retrieved from http://www.dnr.state.oh.us/Portals/10/pdf/newsletter/oh_geo_07_no_2.pdf

23 Curry, T. E. (2004). Public Awareness of Carbon Capture and Storage: A Survey of Attitudes toward Climate Change Mitigation. p. 15. Retrieved from http://sequestration.mit.edu/pdf/Tom_Curry_Thesis_June2004.pdf


scientists and engineers from 23 countries and encouraged collaboration on CCS research and technology, laying the groundwork for future CCS research.24

DOE and other agencies and industry have created many CCS research and technology programs. Researchers in the CCSTP authored a white paper for DOE in 1997 that explored the state of CCS knowledge to date and proposed future direction for study and funding.25 This action catapulted research on a macro level in the United States, as many of the national R&D initiatives were started soon thereafter.

In October 1996, a large commercial CCS operation by Statoil, an international oil and gas company, began. The CCS operation named Sleipner, is taking place in the North Sea on a natural gas platform off the coast of Stavanger, Norway. The operation was created to help “avoid a carbon emission tax imposed by the Norwegian government.”26 The site currently leads the way as the largest commercial operation of CCS, as it has sequestered about 1 million metric tons of CO2 every year since it began in 1996.27

Japan has been investing in CCS research as well. It is estimated that between 1990 and 2001, Japan was spending more money than the U.S. (or any other country in the world) on CCS research and technology. The Research Institute of Innovative Technology for Earth (RITE) was created in July 1990 and is the main institute involved with CCS research throughout Japan.28 Since its establishment in 1990, RITE has successfully performed injection operations at Japan-based facilities.

As for the United States, many programs run through the DOE are performing CCS R&D. The DOE’s primary CCS program is known as the Carbon Sequestration Core Program. It consists of three key elements for technology development, including core R&D, infrastructure building, and global collaboration. The main initiatives or programs that are leading the way to research and deployment of CCS in the United States fit under the three key elements of the Carbon Sequestration Core Program.

24 Herzog, H. J. (2001). What Future for Carbon Capture and Sequestration? Environmental Science and Technology, 35,7: 148A–153A. Retrieved from http://sequestration.mit.edu/pdf/EST_web_article.pdf

25 Curry, T. E. (2004). Public Awareness of Carbon Capture and Storage: A Survey of Attitudes toward Climate Change Mitigation, p.15, http://sequestration.mit.edu/pdf/Tom_Curry_Thesis_June2004.pdf

26 Statoil. (2007). Retrieved from http://www.statoil.com/en/TechnologyInnovation/ProtectingTheEnviron-ment/CarboncaptureAndStorage/Pages/CarbonDioxideInjectionSleipnerVest.aspx

27 Folger, P. (2009). Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS) .Congressional Research Service Reports. Retrieved from http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL33801.pdf

28 Herzog, H. J. (2001). What Future for Carbon Capture and Sequestration? Environmental Science and Technology, 35,7: pp.148A–153A. Retrieved from http://sequestration.mit.edu/pdf/EST_web_article.pdf


• The Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnerships (RCSPs) are carrying out the infrastructure section of the DOE’s main Carbon Sequestration Program. The RCSPs consist of seven partnerships that include:

- Big Sky Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership (Big Sky)

- Plains CO2 Reduction Partnership (PCOR)

- Midwest Geological Sequestration Consortium (MGSC)

- Midwest Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership (MRCSP)

- Southeast Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership (SECARB)

- Southwest Regional Partnership on Carbon Sequestration (SWP)

- West Coast Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership (WESTCARB)

• Global collaboration for CCS technology is being encompassed by the Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum (CSLF), the North American Energy Working Group, and the Asian Pacific Partnership (APP).29 The main goal of achieving global collaboration is to use “collaborative learning to help advance CCS overall at a lower cost and quicker timeframe.”30 While global collaboration remains a large task, it holds great potential benefits.

In February 2010, President Obama established an Interagency Task Force on Carbon Capture and Storage. The goal was to propose a plan in which the U.S. could “overcome the barriers to the widespread, cost-effective deployment of CCS within ten years, with a goal of bringing five to ten commercial demonstration projects online by 2016.” The task force was co-chaired by DOE and EPA and consisted of over 100 federal employees from 14 executive departments and federal agencies. When finished, the report met its goal, to provide President Obama with recommendations on how to overcome barriers of CCS. It included suggestions for support of technological development, legal and regulatory clarity and support, and public outreach. The report also concluded that “CCS can play an important role in domestic GHG emissions reductions while preserving the option of using abundant domestic fossil energy resources.”31

29 U.S. Department of Energy. National Energy Technology Laboratory. Carbon Sequestration Program Overview. Retrieved from http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/carbon_seq/overview/index.html

30 U.S. Department of Energy. NETL Carbon Sequestration. Retrieved from http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/carbon_seq/index.html

31 U.S. EPA. (2010). Executive Summary: Report of the Interagency Task Force on Carbon Capture and Stor-age. p. 10. Retrieved from http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/sequestration/ccstf/es_ccstf_2010.pdf


V. RISK MANAGEMENT

Risk management and safety considerations are a critical

component to the implementation of CCS technology.

CO2 can be considered as a safe and nontoxic inert gas,

however exposure to elevated concentrations can lead

to adverse consequences. Since CO2 is much denser than

air, a hazardous situation can occur when large quantities

accumulate and displace oxygen. These dangers often occur

in confined spaces, low-lying areas, and poorly ventilated

zones.

If large quantities of CO2 were accidentally released from pipes, transportation infrastructure, injection wells, or long-term storage sites, it could become a situation considered “Immediately Dangerous to Life or Health” (IDLH), and carry environmental harm. Even if small leaks arise, the need for an emergency action plan will need to be activated. If small leaks do not constitute an IDLH situation, they will still cause environmental degradation, and proper leak prevention/remediation should be required. “Persistent leaks could suppress respiration in the root zone or result in soil acidification and eventually lead to tree-kills such as those associated with soil gas concentrations in the range of 20%–30% CO2 which have been observed at Mammoth Mountain, CA, where volcanic out gassing of CO2 has been occurring for several decades.”32

Historically, the underground injection of seasonal storage of natural gas, EOR, acid gas injection, and disposal of liquid wastes prove that such procedures can be carried out safely. In the cases where leaks have been detected, they are mostly caused by leakage from the injection well, or other surrounding wells that have not been properly sealed and closed.33 These abandoned wells are

32 Benson, S. M. & Surles, T. (2006). Proceedings of the IEEE: Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage: An Overview With Emphasis on Capture and Storage in Deep Geologic Formations, Vol. 94.

33 Gasda, S. E., Bachu, S. & Celia, M.A. (2004). The potential for CO2 leakage from storage sites in geological media: Analysis of well distribution in mature sedimentary basins. Environ. Geol., Vol. 46, no. 6–7, pp. 707–720.


very common and thus the identification of all area wells will be critical. Proper sealing of these will need to be guaranteed and investigated to ensure safety remains a top priority.

There are clear current limitations to studying the long-term effects of carbon sequestration on the proposed injection sites; however, naturally occurring gas reservoirs have shown to maintain reservoir integrity after many years. “…The risk of CO2 leakage from properly sited oil and gas reservoirs is very low.”34 For example, “evidence from natural systems demonstrates that reservoir seals exist that are able to confine CO2 for millions of years and longer.”35 However, the ability of the cap rock to maintain reservoir integrity will depend on the number of wells that penetrate the area and their sealing methods at the time of their closure.36 In addition, “mining or drilling in areas with CO2 storage sites may pose a long-term risk after site abandonment if institutional (regulator) knowledge and precautions are not in place to avoid accidentally penetrating a storage formation.”37

Often if leaking wells can be identified and located they are able to be resealed by pumping additional cement into them. This problem of old, abandoned, leaking wells remains one of the biggest challenges to the field of CCS in the U.S. and Canada because of their long history of drilled exploratory wells. Regulations guiding proper well capping, sealing and site remediation were not in place when the very first wells were drilled. This is seen as an additional challenge to CCS—over the past century, before modern safety guidelines were developed, many wells were drilled for oil, gas and mineral exploration and extraction. While recent technology has provided geologic testing to locate many of these historic wells, the possibility of finding additional private wells that have little to no documentation still exists. This is additional evidence that each site and the possible boreholes must be completely evaluated and sealed before beginning underground CO2 injection operations.38 Each site location will provide unique challenges to the CCS industry. The regulating bodies must be prepared to address each of them.

34 Ingelson, A., Kleffner, A. & Nielson, N. (2010). Long Term Liability for Carbon Capture and Storage in Depleted North American Oil and Gas Reservoirs – A Comparative Analysis. Energy Law Journal, 31, pp. 431- 437. Retrieved from http://www.felj.org/docs/elj312/20_431_ccs_liability.pdf

35 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2005). Special Report on Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage. Retrieved from http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/special-reports/srccs/srccs_wholereport.pdf

36 Ibid.37 Ibid.38 Gasda, S. E, Bachu, S. & Celia, M. A. (2004). The potential for CO2 leakage from storage sites in

geological media: Analysis of well distribution in mature sedimentary basins. Environ. Geol., 46, (6–7), pp. 707–720.


Recognizing the risks involved in oil and gas reservoir storage is essential. The IPCC has recommended the following development and risk management practices:

• Careful site selection, including performance and risk assessment and socio-economic and environmental factors;

• Monitoring to provide assurance that the storage project is performing as expected and to provide early warning in the event that it begins to leak;

• Effective regulatory oversight; and

• Implementation of remediation measures to eliminate or limit the causes and impact of leakage.39

There is limited experience with commercial-scale geologic sequestration today. However, closely related and well-established industrial experience and scientific knowledge can serve as the basis for appropriate risk management strategies. Key components of a risk management strategy include:

1. Appropriate site selection based on thorough geologic characterization;

2. A monitoring program to detect problems during or after injection;

3. Appropriate remediation methods if necessary; and

4. A regulatory system to protect human health and the environment.

Potential pathways exist for CO2 to migrate from the target geologic formation to shallower zones, ground water resources, other neighboring oil or gas reservoirs or back to the atmosphere. Pathways for CO2 leakage include escape through the cap rock (if it is compromised by high pressures or chemical degradation), an undetected or reactivated fault, or an artificial penetration such as a poorly plugged abandoned well. These conduits for CO2 leakage could be largely avoided through proper site characterization, selection and regulatory site evaluations. In addition to careful site selection, a proper monitoring program can help ensure that CO2 does not escape from the storage site. A monitoring system would detect movement of CO2 into shallower formations and allow time to take corrective action to reduce potential impacts to human health and the environment.

39 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2005). Special Report on Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage. pp. 251-252. Retrieved from http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/special-reports/srccs/srccs_wholereport.pdf


As discussed above underground injection of CO2 for the purpose of sequestration is regulated by the Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program under the Safe Drinking Water Act. The program ensures that injection activities are performed safely and do not endanger current or future sources of drinking water.40 However, underground sources of drinking water could be affected both by CO2 leaking directly into an aquifer and by saline groundwater that enters an aquifer as a result of being displaced by injected CO2.

The risk of these impacts can be minimized through appropriate management strategies. Additional management strategies should incorporate the public as a partner and should update them about risks and impacts throughout the process. Early public outreach and involvement at multiple stages of the planning process could address safety and reliability concerns of local citizens and advocacy groups. It is likely that varying views over long-term CCS will arise and a proper strategy for addressing these will be required. The topic of public outreach is addressed later in this chapter.

40 U.S. EPA. (2011). Climate Change-Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Overview of Geologic Sequestration. Retrieved from http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/co2_gs_tech.html#transport


VI. LIABILITY AND LEGAL ISSUES

Liability will remain a great concern with today’s emerging

CCS research and implementation. Many issues, often

shaped by the community, stakeholders and shareholders,

must be addressed before CCS becomes a practical and

acceptable method for reducing carbon emissions from

fossil fuels. The legal framework behind CCS will likely be

extensive, and it is still being shaped and restructured.

Some examples of the questions surrounding liability and legal issues in the CCS field are as follows:

• Who will claim responsibility if a release of sequestered CO2 occurs?

• How long can sequestered CO2 be expected to remain underground?

• Who is liable for a well failure if the drilling company has gone out of business many years in the future?

• How would an emergency response plan be activated in case of an accidental release?

• How is long-term monitoring and verification to be undertaken, regulated, and reported?

• Safety regulations, acceptable levels of risk, and regulatory and permitting requirements will affect deployment and need to be defined.

• Can insurance and bonds to cover CCS liability be secured for such long-term storage projects (as the ideal storage of CO2 will be indefinite)?

• Additional questions are likely to arise with the development of test injection projects and deep well tests.

Accidental releases could irreversibly damage the emerging industry’s image so safety must be a top priority. “Such releases could be associated with surface facilities, injection wells, or leakage from the storage formation itself.”41 Within

41 Benson, S. M. & Surles, T. (2006). Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage: An Overview With Emphasis on Capture and Storage in Deep Geological Formations. Earth Sci. Div., Lawrence Berkeley Nat. Lab., CA.


this industry, there will certainly be unforeseen issues that will only emerge over time and once projects are scaled up.

Additional questions arise regarding the injection site both during and after the project. These could include the following:

• Is there an environmental remediation requirement for areas that have been exposed to test wells, or that have experienced negative environmental effects?

• Will future risk assessments be completed and updated based on contingency plans?

These concerns, among others, need to be addressed in legally binding contracts with all parties involved in the CCS process.

It will certainly take time for all federal policies and regulations to be set into motion to govern the emerging CCS industry, and the governments of Canada and the United States have yet to produce specific CCS legislation. Some states have decided to self govern many of these emerging complex topics to encourage the development of the technology, ensure safety metrics are standardized, and to provide long-term stability in their state for emerging CCS operations.

To date the jurisdictions of Alberta, Kansas, Montana, and Wyoming have developed some of the most inclusive liability rules in North America. As the legal framework of CCS is under construction, more reviews and differing legislation will continue to be produced to best fit the needs of each jurisdiction. A more in-depth analysis of each state’s CCS position and specific rationale for current CCS legislation can be reviewed in the Energy Law Journal.

One particular article that outlines “Long Term Liability for CCS”42 serves as an excellent reference point for the formation of liability laws. This article addresses state legislation in North America focused on long-term liability for damage arising from the possible release of CO2 after CCS has reached the long-term storage and monitoring phase. Wyoming, Kansas, Montana, the European Union (EU), and Australia are addressed in the article as they have implemented management plans for long-term liability with CCS. “As has been the practice in some jurisdictions in the North American petroleum industry, if the CCS developer/operator is either required to purchase and maintain third party liability insurance, or to post a bond or other form of security with the

42 Ingelson, A., Kleffner, A. & Nielson, N. (2010). Long Term Liability for Carbon Capture and Storage in Depleted North American Oil and Gas Reservoirs – A Comparative Analysis. Energy Law Journal, 31, pp. 431-437. Retrieved from http://www.felj.org/docs/elj312/20_431_ccs_liability.pdf


government for site remediation and reclamation, such an approach will help to minimize the long-term liability for the government and taxpayers. However, in the case of CCS, given the extraordinarily long duration of the risk associated with carbon storage, it is by no means certain that either insurance or bonds can be purchased for such an extended time period. We recommend a pooling approach to the management of remediation and reclamation funds based largely on arguments that it is more economically efficient to do so. While it would be theoretically possible for such a pool to be private, it is likely that the need for independent oversight will result in a governmental entity assuming the management function for such a liability/compensation scheme.”43

Another issue raised with CCS is ownership of the subsurface pore space that the CO2 would be injected into. Ownership and the rights of the property owner are discussed in the Wyoming Law Review in a 2009 article titled “Geologic CO2 Sequestration: Who Owns the Pore Space?”44

Another expansive resource to utilize when formulating a state’s CCS legislative future is the Midwestern Governors Association (MGA). In March 2009, the MGA produced a “Toolkit for Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS): Statutory and Regulatory Issues.”45 This article addressed Ohio-specific cases in which hazardous waste case law served as an analogue for ownership issues and private ownership versus public interests in resources. The Ohio Supreme Court ruling that addresses the issue of just compensation is also discussed as it relates to the MGA Regulatory Inventory for Ohio. The MGA has also released a very comprehensive report that provides a state-by-state review of regulations of relevance to CCS and how state governments are already positioned to handle CCS issues. See Appendix 4-1 for the valuable Ohio case study.46

43 Ibid. 44 Anderson, O. L. (2009).Geologic CO2 Sequestration: Who Owns the Pore Space? Wyoming Law

Review, p.9. Retrieved from http://www.stcl.edu/cle/cle_library/2009_09_F01_ENRG_TOC.pdf 45 Midwestern Governors Association. (2009). Toolkit for Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS): Statutory and

Regulatory Issues. Retrieved from http://www.midwesterngovernors.org/Energy/Toolkit.pdf 46 Midwestern Governors Association. (2009). Energy Security and Climate Stewardship Platform for the

Midwest: Legal and Regulatory Inventory for Carbon Capture and Storage & Analogues. Retrieved from http://www.midwesterngovernors.org/Energy/Inventory.pdf


VII. SUITABLE SITES

Specific site CCS suitability will depend on multiple

factors that are evaluated for project feasibility. Extensive

information on subsurface geology exists from the extraction

history of oil and gas across the globe. Advances in

technology provide greater understanding of key locations

of significance. This has led to new opportunities for further

mineral location, extraction, EOR, and carbon sequestration.

Individual site assessments for CCS feasibility are necessary, regardless of their location. CO2 injection sites mostly related to EOR have been successful in western Texas and eastern New Mexico, and other sites are being pursued across Kansas, Mississippi, Wyoming, Oklahoma, Colorado, Utah, Montana, Alaska and Pennsylvania.47 Projects are popping up globally as well. “A study commissioned by the Global CCS Institute (2010) identified 80 large-scale integrated projects at various stages of development around the world. Notable efforts from both government and industry can be found in the United States, the European Union, particularly the United Kingdom, Canada and Australia. Five large-scale CCS projects are in operation, all commissioned prior to the 2008 G8 Summit. From the pool of 80 projects, one new project, the Australian Gorgon project, has been launched and is proceeding to construction.”48

47 U.S. Department of Energy. (2008). Enhanced Oil Recovery/CO2 Injection. Retrieved from http://fossil.energy.gov/programs/oilgas/eor/

48 International Energy Agency. (2010). IEA/CSLF Report to the Muskoka 2010 G8 Summit. Carbon Capture and Storage: Progress and Next Steps, p. 5. Retrieved from http://www.iea.org/papers/2010/ccs_g8.pdf


INTERNATIONAL CCS PROJECTS

SLEIPNER

(StatoilHydro) The Sleipner project began in 1996 when Norway’s Statoil began injecting more than 1 million tonnes a year of CO2 under the North Sea. This CO2 was extracted with natural gas from the offshore Sleipner gas field. In order to avoid a government-imposed carbon tax equivalent to about USD 55/tonne, Statoil built a special offshore platform to separate CO2 from other gases. The CO2 is re-injected about 1,000 meters below the sea floor into the Utsira saline formation located near the natural gas field. The formation is estimated to have a capacity of about 600 billion tonnes of CO2, and is expected to continue receiving CO2 long after natural gas extraction at Sleipner has ended.

IN SALAH

(BP, Sonatrach, StatoilHydro) In August 2004, Sonatrach, the Algerian national oil and gas company, with partners BP and Statoil, began injecting about 1 million tonnes per year of CO2 into the Krechba geologic formation near their natural gas extraction site in the Sahara Desert. The Krechba formation lies 1,800 meters below ground and is expected to receive 17 million tonnes of CO2 over the life of the project.

SNØHVIT

(StatoilHydro) Europe’s first liquefied natural gas (LNG) plant also captures CO2 for injection and storage. Statoil extracts natural gas and CO2 from the offshore Snøhvit gas field in the Barents Sea. It pipes the mixture 160 kilometers to shore for processing at its LNG plant near Hammerfest, Europe’s northernmost town. Separating the CO2 is necessary to produce LNG and the Snøhvit project captures about 700,000 tonnes a year of CO2. Starting in 2008, the captured CO2 is piped back to the offshore platform and injected in the Tubåsen sandstone formation 2,600 meters under the seabed and below the geologic formation from which natural gas is produced.


RANGELY

The Rangely CO2 Project has been using CO2 for enhanced oil recovery since 1986. The Rangely Weber Sand Unit is the largest oilfield in the Rocky Mountain region and was discovered in 1933. Gas is separated and re-injected with CO2 from the LaBarge field in Wyoming. Since 1986, approximately 23-25 million tonnes of CO2 have been stored in the reservoir. Computer modeling suggests nearly all of it is dissolved in the formation water as aqueous CO2 and bicarbonate.49

WEYBURN-MIDALE

(EnCana) About 2.8 million tonnes per year of CO2 are captured at the Great Plains Synfuels Plant in the U.S. State of North Dakota, a coal gasification plant that produces synthetic natural gas and various chemicals. The CO2 is transported by pipeline 320 kilometers (200 miles) across the international border into Saskatchewan, Canada and injected into depleting oil fields where it is used for EOR. Although it is a commercial project, researchers from around the world have been monitoring the injected CO2. The IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme’s Weyburn-Midale CO2 Monitoring and Storage Project was the first project to scientifically study and monitor the underground behavior of CO2. Canada’s Petroleum Technologies Research Centre manages the monitoring effort. This effort is now in the second and final phase (2007-2011), of building the necessary framework to encourage global implementation of CO2 geological storage. The project will produce a best-practices manual for carbon injection and storage. Source: Adapted from Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme IA (2008b).”

Source: International Energy Agency (IEA). (2010) IEA/CSLF Report to the Muskoka 2010 G8 Summit. Carbon Capture and Storage: Progress and Next Steps. p. 12. Retrieved from http://www.iea.org/papers/2010/ccs_g8.pdf

49 Though Rangely uses CO2 for EOR, it is considered a CCS project insofar as it follows a monitoring, mitigation and validation program plan that satisfactorily assesses the viability of the long-term storage of the CO2.


VII. A. OHIO SITE POTENTIALIt is clear that there is a global push for R&D of CO2 mitigation projects underway. CCS projects throughout the U.S. and in Ohio are also developing at a quickening pace to meet and address the emerging carbon markets. A multi-state partnership, the Midwest Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership (MRCSP), established by DOE, has been analyzing data from tens of thousands of wells and creating many maps of viable Ohio sequestration reservoirs and cap rocks. As of 2007, data estimated that Ohio could sequester approximately 45 billion tons of CO2, which is roughly 350 years of Ohio’s current output of CO2 from stationary points. These estimates are constantly adjusting as updated projects near varying phases of completion.

Research on the geology of Ohio suggests that the possibility of carbon sequestration in Ohio varies greatly across the state. Some regions contain reservoirs with high carbon sequestration potential, while other areas carry little to no sequestration potential. Diverse geologic reservoir systems are found throughout the state including:

• Deep saline formations;

• Oil and gas fields;

• Unmineable coal beds;

• Organic rich shales; and

• Basalt formations.

Currently, deep saline and oil and gas fields show high potential for large amounts of carbon sequestration, as additional applied studies on sequestration in unmineable coal beds, organic rich shale, and Basalt formations become available.

Deep saline reservoirs are the natural saltwater-bearing intervals of porous and permeable rocks that occur beneath the level of potable groundwater.50 For carbon sequestration in these reservoirs, “CO2 is injected under pressure down a specially constructed well into the reservoir where it displaces and mixes with saline water and fills the pore spaces between the mineral grains of the rocks

50 Wickstrom, L. (2007). Geologic Sequestration of Carbon Dioxide in Ohio: Ohio Geology, Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Geological Survey. p. 2, 4. Retrieved from http://www.dnr.state.oh.us/Portals/10/pdf/newsletter/oh_geo_07_no_2.pdf


in the reservoir.”51 The CO2 is then trapped within the rock matrix. Currently, a number of saline formations in Ohio are used for waste-fluid disposal.

Ohio has a technological and regulatory framework regarding underground injection that can be applied to CO2 injection. There are numerous existing saline reservoirs in Ohio, most of which are in very close proximity to large CO2 emitters and are thought to have the appropriate size pore volumes for injection.

“Deep saline rock formations are, by far, the MRCSP region’s largest resource for long-term geologic CO2 storage. The estimated CO2 storage resource for the region is very large compared to the present-day emissions, enough to accommodate CO2 emissions from large point sources for hundreds of years. NATCARB research suggests storage resource of 45,700 million to 183,000 million metric tons (50,375 million to 202,000 million tons) within deep saline rock formations in the MRCSP region. Saline formations in the MRCSP region are widespread, close to many large CO2 sources, and are thought to be suitable for future storage needs. Storage capacity is not evenly distributed across the region.”52 Much more research needs to be done on the depth, permeability, injectivity, pressure, reservoir integrity, and water chemistry to evaluate the full potential of deep saline reservoirs in Ohio. Also, more research on the deep geology of areas surrounding the reservoirs needs to be completed to ensure proper capping.

CCS research on a multitude of levels is underway at multiple facilities throughout Ohio. For example, “Engineers at Ohio University’s Institute for Corrosion and Multiphase Technology, a world leader in CO2 and H2S (hydrogen sulfide) corrosion research, are hoping to give the power and oil-and-gas industries a better handle on the technology they may need, if they plan to sequester CO2 in geologic formations. Institute researchers are creating a model that would allow engineers in industry to predict corrosion problems they’ll face with each chemical profile of CO2 they’re working with, explains Yoon-Seok Choi, the institute’s associate director for research.”53 Additional carbon sequestration research projects in the State of Ohio can be found in the DOE Fossil Energy R&D Project Data Base.54

51 Ibid.52 U.S. Department of Energy. Office of Fossil Energy. National Energy Technology Laboratory. (2010).

Carbon Sequestration Atlas III of the United States and Canada. Retrieved from http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/carbon_seq/refshelf/atlasIII/2010atlasIII.pdf

53 Phillips, J. (2010, Oct. 29). Conquering CO2: To alleviate global warming, engineers design new ways to remove, store, and neutralize the problem gas. Ohio University Office of Research Communications. Retrieved from http://www.ohio.edu/research/communications/corrosion.cfm

54 U.S. Department of Energy. Fossil Energy R&D Project Data Base. Retrieved from http://fossil.energy.gov/fred/feprograms.jsp?prog=all&state=OH


Oil and gas reservoirs are layers of porous rock formations that have trapped crude oil or natural gas for millions of years. An impermeable, overlying rock formation forms a seal that traps the oil and gas; the same mechanism would apply to CO2 storage.55 Many oil and gas fields in the Appalachian basin, which cuts across eastern and southeastern Ohio, serve as natural geologic traps for natural gas and possibly CO2. Such large volumes of gas storage capacity in this area and other areas in the MRCSP region strongly suggest that CO2 gas, similar to natural gas, can be successfully managed in the subsurface reservoirs of Ohio.

Carbon can be sequestered in both active and depleted oil and gas fields. When carbon is sequestered in depleted fields, it is injected into the reservoir and fills the remaining pore volume space that was left after the extraction of oil or gas. The injected CO2 is then trapped in the reservoir, just as the oil and gas had been. This method of carbon sequestration is strongly possible in some areas throughout Ohio. “Since [1859], the MRCSP region has produced over 5 billion bbl of oil and more than 50 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. In addition, the MRCSP region includes four of the top seven natural gas storage States in the Nation. Such large volumes of gas storage resource (both natural and engineered) strongly suggest that CO2 gas can be successfully managed in

55 U.S. Department of Energy. National Energy Technology Laboratory. Carbon Sequestration FAQ Informa-tion Portal. Retrieved from http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/carbon_seq/FAQs/carbon-seq.html


subsurface reservoirs within the region. There also is potential for value-added production of oil and natural gas associated with CO2 storage. The oil and gas fields in the region are most concentrated in the Appalachian and Michigan sedimentary basins. NATCARB research suggests that oil and gas fields have a potential storage resource of 16,800 million metric tons (18,500 million tons) of CO2. Much of this resource is intermixed with deep saline formations. In fact, it may be difficult to differentiate the two in many areas.”56

In general, further research needs to be done on the volume, permeability, injectivity, pressure, reservoir integrity, water chemistry, the nature of the cap rock or reservoir seal just as in the deep saline reservoirs. However, with oil and gas field reservoirs, it is also necessary to conduct very detailed research on the history of production in the area before proceeding with injection. This is necessary because many undocumented wells could exist within the range of other documented oil fields, leaving the risk of possible leaks. The Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR) supports an abandoned mine office that will be a critical partner in the future of injection well locating and permitting.

While not a prime candidate for CCS, the third geologic reservoir system for possible carbon capture in Ohio is the injection of CO2 into unmineable coal beds. Coal beds are “unmineable” when they are too deep or their coal seams are too thin to be mined and extraction costs far out-weigh the benefits. When carbon is injected into unmineable coal beds, it utilizes the pore space and bonds to the carbon in the coal residing in the bed. As the CO2 is injected, it displaces methane from within the coal bed and there is a possibility for enhanced recovery of coal bed methane (CBM) with the process. Research and analysis of the MRCSP Region has found it is possible that the unmineable coal beds in the Appalachian Basin area may be able to sequester up to 1,000 million metric tons of CO2.

57 Carbon sequestration in unmineable coal beds has been demonstrated in limited field tests, but additional studies will need to be completed before it becomes a widespread possibility for Ohio.

Deep organic rich shales have many different roles in sequestration. They act as “seals for underlying reservoirs, as source rocks for oil and gas reservoirs,

56 U.S. Department of Energy. Office of Fossil Energy. National Energy Technology Laboratory. (2010). Carbon Sequestration Atlas III of the United States and Canada. Retrieved from http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/carbon_seq/refshelf/atlasIII/2010atlasIII.pdf

57 U.S. Department of Energy. Office of Fossil Energy. National Energy Technology Laboratory. (2007). Carbon Sequestration Atlas II of the United States and Canada. (Updated to Atlas III 12/2010). Retrieved from http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/carbon_seq/refshelf/atlas/ATLAS.pdf


and as unconventional gas reservoirs themselves.”58 Injection into organic shale has the possibility of enhancing gas production. Also, the shale will absorb the CO2 for storage at relatively shallow depths. “Organic-rich shales are thickest in Kentucky, Ohio, West Virginia, and portions of Pennsylvania. In addition, shales are present throughout the Michigan Basin. Analysis of these rock formations indicates that they may have the CO2 storage resource of 2,230 million to 29,680 million metric tons (2,460 million to 32,720 million tons). While laboratory research based on adsorption data from organic-rich gas shales suggests CO2 storage is possible and may provide a mechanism for EGR, these processes have not been demonstrated with field projects in the MRCSP region.”59 Additional research and field tests will be necessary to better determine sequestration potential and feasibility. However, it is worth noting that Ohio contains some of the thickest organic shale in the MRCSP Region.

Basalt formations from solidified lava are now being researched for their sequestration potential as they may hold a unique chemical structure that could convert injected CO2 into a solid mineral.60 Research is ongoing to determine feasibility. “Most basalts have high amounts of calcium (Ca), which can react with CO2 to form a mineral, calcite (CaCO3 ‘calcium carbonate’), resulting in permanent CO2 storage.”61

The following graph depicts the conservative estimates of potential carbon storage in North America within the Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership (RCSP) regions. More research in each region will confirm additional possible storage sites in the future. The following estimates for carbon sequestration presented in Figure 2 were calculated in billion metric tons, or Gigatonnes.

Figure 2. RCSP Estimates for Potential Carbon Storage in North America62

Reservoir Types Low (Billion Metric Tons) High (Billion Metric Tons)Saline Formations 1,653 20,213Unmineable Coal Areas 60 117Oil and Gas Reservoirs 143 143

Source: NETL The Energy Lab Carbon Sequestration, CO2 Storage

58 U.S. Department of Energy. Office of Fossil Energy. National Energy Technology Laboratory. (2010). Carbon Sequestration Atlas III of the United States and Canada. p. 65. Retrieved from http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/carbon_seq/refshelf/atlasIII/2010atlasIII.pdf

59 Ibid. 60 National Energy Technology Laboratory. The Energy Lab Carbon Sequestration and Storage.

Retrieved from http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/carbon_seq/core_rd/storage.html 61 U.S. Department of Energy. Office of Fossil Energy. National Energy Technology Laboratory. (2010).

Carbon Sequestration Atlas III of the United States and Canada. p. 15. Retrieved from http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/carbon_seq/refshelf/atlasIII/2010atlasIII.pdf

62 U.S. Department of Energy. National Energy Technology Laboratory. Carbon Sequestration Storage. Retrieved from http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/carbon_seq/core_rd/storage.html


VII.B. CURRENT OHIO SITESOne current CCS evaluation project, the Ohio River Valley CO2 Storage Project, is an ongoing evaluation of the region’s shared deep saline formations that hold potential for geological CO2 sequestration. Geologic formations that hold possibility for storage of CO2 are between 2,500 ft. and 9,000 ft. Well depths will likely increase as advanced technology increases and injection into deeper zones become necessary or cost efficient.

Potential injection zones include the Rose Run Sandstone and other adjacent formations located under and near the Mountaineer Power Plant (1.3 GW) in New Haven, West Virginia. The Rose Run Sandstone is located approximately 2,350 meters (7,710 ft.) below the surface in surveyed areas and spans across

Source: http://fossil.energy.gov/programs/sequestration/overview.html


the Appalachian Basin in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Kentucky, and West Virginia.63 “During the site characterization, several potential injection zones were identified based on permeability and porosity logs. Out of these, three zones were selected for further assessment.”64 “Two zones are located in dolomites with secondary permeability and porosity. One of these is at a depth of about 2,260 m (7,414 ft.) in the Ordovician Beekmantown Dolomite, and the other is in the Cambrian Copper Ridge Dolomite at about 2,490 m (8,169 ft.). The third zone is in the Ordovician Rose Run Sandstone from about 2,355 m to 2,388 m (7,726-7,834 ft.).”65

Other Ohio deep well projects are underway reaching unprecedented depths, despite the long history of wells for resource mapping, extraction and underground gas storage. Underground storage of gas is currently governed by the ODNR Division of Mineral Resources Management per Ohio Revised Code (ORC 1571), which controls Ohio’s 22 underground gas storage reservoirs.66 Ohio deep well project sites are located throughout the state and the site specific characterization of carbon storage potential at these wells are being researched by the MRCSP.

The Ohio Coal Development Office and the ODNR Division of Geological Survey have worked with Battelle on the Ohio Stratigraphic Borehole (Ohio Strat. Test) which began in 2007.67 The purpose of the project is to develop profiles of the subsurface rocks, including porosity, permeability and storage capacity. This site has no current plans to sequester CO2, but only to analyze the data representative of eastern Ohio.

63 Lucier, A., Zoback, M., Gupta, N. & Ramakrishnan, T. S. (2006) .Geomechanical Aspects of CO2 Se-questration in a Deep Saline Reservoir in the Ohio River Valley Region. Environmental Geosciences, 13, (2). p. 85.

64 Gupta, N., Jagucki, P., Meggyesy, D., Spane, F., Ramakrishnan, T. S. & Boyd, A. (2005). Determining Carbon Sequestration Reservoir Potential at a Site Specific Location within the Ohio River Valley Region, in Rubin, E.W., Keith, D. W. & Gilboy, C.F. (eds.). Proceedings of the 7th International Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies (GHGT-7), v. 1: Vancouver, Canada, Elsevier, pp. 511-520.

65 Lucier, A., Zoback, M., Gupta, N. & Ramakrishnan, T. S. (2006). Geomechanical Aspects of CO2 Se-questration in a Deep Saline Reservoir in the Ohio River Valley Region. Environmental Geosciences, 13, (2). p. 87.

66 The Midwest Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership. (2005). Phase I Final Report. Retrieved from http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/carbon_seq/partnerships/phase1/pdfs/MRCSP_Phase_I_Final.pdf

67 Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Midwest Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership and Battelle. (2007). The Ohio Borehole Project. Retrieved from http://www.dnr.state.oh.us/portals/10/ogcim/Ohio%20Strat%20Test%20Fact%20Sheet_21Mar2007.pdf


ASSESSING A SALINE AQUIFER FOR CCS

“Typical top-down regional assessments of CO2 storage feasibility are sufficient for determining the maximum volumetric capacity of deep saline aquifers. However, they do not reflect the regional economic feasibility of storage. This is controlled, in part, by the number and type of injection wells that are necessary to achieve regional CO2 storage goals… The CO2 storage capacity of an aquifer is a function of its porous volume as well as its CO2 injectivity. For a saline aquifer to be considered feasible in this assessment it must be able to store a specified amount of CO2 at a reasonable cost per ton of CO2.

The proposed assessment workflow has seven steps that include:

1. Defining the storage project and goals,

2. Characterizing the geology and developing a geomechanical model of the aquifer,

3. Constructing 3D aquifer models,

4. Simulating CO2 injection,

5.-6. Evaluating CO2 injection and storage feasibility (with and without injection well stimulation), and

7. Determining whether it is economically feasible to proceed with the storage project.

“The workflow was applied to a case study of the Rose Run sandstone aquifer in the Eastern Ohio River Valley, USA. The research found that it is feasible in this region to inject 113 Mt CO2/year for 30 years at an associated well cost of less than US $1.31/t CO2, but only if injectivity enhancement techniques such as hydraulic fracturing and injection induced micro-seismicity are implemented.”

Source: Luciera, A. and Zoback, M. (2008). Assessing the Economic Feasibility of a Regional Deep Saline Aquifer CO2 Injection and Storage: A Geomechanics-Based Workflow Applied to the Rose Run Sandstone in Eastern Ohio, USA. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control. Retrieved from http://science.uwaterloo.ca/~mauriced/earth691-duss/CO2_Gen-eral%20CO2%20Sequestration%20materilas/CO2_Zoback_Geomechanics_2008.pdf or http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2007.12.002


VIII. MRCSP PROJECTS IN OHIO

Currently, the Midwest Regional Carbon Sequestration

Partnership (MRCSP) is one seven regions organized by

DOE to carry out a strategic plan to develop cost-effective

options for mitigating CO2 emissions which contribute to

climate change. The MRCSP region was created to “assess

the technical potential, economic viability, and public

acceptability of carbon sequestration within its region” and

consists of Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, Ohio,

Pennsylvania, West Virginia, New York and New Jersey.68

The research is led by Battelle Memorial Institute, and

is incorporating the research of state geological surveys,

universities, nongovernmental organizations, and private

companies.

The MRCSP program is split into three phases to ensure the accuracy and thoroughness of the results. Phase I was the “characterization phase,” where an understanding of CO2 sources and sequestration opportunities in the MRCSP region were studied and mapped. This phase was completed in September 2005.69 In Phase II, or the “validation phase,” many geologic and terrestrial field tests were conducted throughout the MRCSP region. This phase incorporated three small-scale field tests, discussed in the following paragraphs, which demonstrated the “safety and effectiveness of geologic sequestration systems.” 70 This phase was completed in 2010, however ongoing research and data continue to come from the sites. Phase III or the “development phase” is working to “increase our scientific knowledge in preparing for future commercialization” and use information gained from the Phase II small-scale

68 Midwest Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership. MRCSP. Retrieved from http://216.109.210.162/Mrcsp.aspx

69 Ibid.70 Ibid.


field tests to successfully deploy large-scale CO2 injection in the region.71 This phase began in 2008 and is scheduled to last 10 years.

Two of the three small-scale field tests performed in Phase II included parts of Ohio. FirstEnergy’s R.E. Burger Plant, located in Shadyside, Ohio, provided pertinent information on the geological characterization of this region. In this field test, a deep well test was conducted in 2007. The test well was drilled 2,555m deep into the Upper Ordovician Queenston Shale. The geophysical log and sample analyses on the well determined that there is “limited porosity” in the Oriskany Sandstone, Middle Salina Carbonate Unite, and Medina (Clinton) Sandstone area.72 After injection of CO2 in three injection sites, it was determined that the area and target zones chosen were not viable choices for large-scale CO2 injection. More research needs to be done in the surrounding areas to determine the likelihood of large-scale CO2 injection in those other sites.

Duke Energy’s East Bend power generation facility is located on the western side of the Cincinnati Arch in Rabbit Hash, Kentucky. The purpose of this site was to find potential reservoirs in the region and characterize their injection abilities. Because it lies beneath most of the Midwestern region and is thought to hold large carbon storage potential, the Mt. Simon Sandstone was chosen as the injection site. The project consisted of the injection of 1,000 tons of CO2 into a deep saline reservoir in the Mt. Simon Sandstone. The region in which the CO2 was injected provided “good injectivity,” and a motive for future large-scale tests in the area. Battelle’s Vice President of Carbon Management Chuck McConnell stated in response to the CO2 injection, “this test bodes well for the potential of long-term carbon dioxide storage in the Mt. Simon reservoir in this area. We predicted good things and good things happened.”73

71 Ibid.72 Wickstrom, L. H., Gupta, N., Ball, D. A., Barnes, D. A., Rupp, J. A., Greb, S. F., Sminchak, J. R. & Cum-

ming, L. J. Geologic storage field demonstrations of the Midwest regional carbon sequestration partner-ship. Retrieved from http://www.dnr.state.oh.us/portals/10/pdf/Posters/AAPGNatl2009_Wickstrom.pdf

73 Battelle. (2009). Success Marks CO2 Injection Into Mt. Simon Sandstone MRCSP demonstration validates promising CO2 storage candidate in Ohio Valley Region. News release. Retrieved from http://216.109.210.162/userdata/Press/No_51_East_Bend_Injection_press_release.pdf


VIII.A. NON-MRCSP PROJECTSThere are other carbon sequestration test sites in Ohio outside the purview of the MRCSP that are helping to inform Ohio’s geology and carbon sequestration opportunities. These include:

1. A deep test well in Tuscarawas County, otherwise known as the Ohio Stratigraphic Borehole Test (Ohio Strat. Test);

2. Characterization of the Silurian “Clinton” sandstone in an East Canton Oil Field;

3. The Baard Energy Ohio River Clean Fuels Project in Wellsville, Ohio; and

4. The evaluation and testing of potential carbon storage with AEP’s 1300 MW Mountaineer Power Plant outside of New Haven, West Virginia.

The Ohio Stratigraphic Borehole is located nearly two miles east of Port Washington in Salem Township, Ohio. This site was selected “because its geology is representative of the largest portion of eastern Ohio, in an area where no wells have been drilled this deep, and could therefore contribute most to building our regional knowledge.”74 The depth of the geologic regions in the area also allowed for very economical drilling. While numerous well holes populate any given area throughout Ohio, very few have reached depths to which CCS research and implementation would occur.

The goal of the East Canton Oil Field (ECOF) project is to evaluate using EOR with CO2 to extract the remaining oil out of the reservoir. The ECOF has already produced about 100 million barrels of oil from the Silurian “Clinton” Sandstone and is currently the largest “still-producing” oil field in Ohio.75 With the use of EOR it is thought that an additional 76 to 279 million barrels could be produced from the ECOF.76 To test the injectivity and estimate the diffusion or possible outflow of CO2 through surrounding wells, a CO2 cyclic test, also known as a “Huff-n-Puff” test, was conducted on an oil-producing well in the area. In this test, “eighty-one tons of CO2 (1.39 MMCF) were injected over a 20-hour period, after which the well was shut in for a 32-day “soak” period

74 Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Midwest Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership and Bat-telle. (2007). The Ohio Borehole Project. Retrieved from http://www.dnr.state.oh.us/portals/10/ogcim/Ohio%20Strat%20Test%20Fact%20Sheet_21Mar2007.pdf

75 Wickstrom Riley Ohio Geological Survey. (2008). The Importance of Secondary and Enhanced Recovery Technologies in Ohio. Ohio Oil and Gas Association And Ohio SPE Fall Technical Meeting. Retrieved from http://www.ooga.org/docs/08FallTech/Wickstrom-Riley-OOGA%209- 08%20enhanced%20recov-ery.pdf

76 Riley, R. A., Wicks, J. L. & Perry, C. J. (2010). Silurian ‘Clinton’ Sandstone Reservoir Characterization for Evaluation of CO2-EOR Potential in the East Canton Oil Field. Retrieved from http://www.osti.gov/bridge/purl.cover.jsp;jsessionid=1A2BA9B90AB521DE576BDCAA4080823D?purl=/983930-0gfr2V/


before production was resumed. Results demonstrated injection rates of 1.67 MMCF of gas per day, which was much higher than anticipated and no CO2 was detected in gas samples taken from eight immediately offsetting observation wells.”77 The resulting data was then used in a reservoir characterization study to help develop a geologic model to estimate how much of the reservoir would be released with the injection of large quantities of CO2.

The project in Wellsville, Ohio involves the construction of Baard Energy’s Ohio River Clean Fuels (ORCF) plant where many different activities encompassing EOR and CO2 sequestration are proposed to take place. Baard Energy is involved in the development, financing, construction and operation of alternative fuel projects that consist of ethanol, biopolygen, coal biomass-to-liquids and biomass to liquids.78 The ORCF plant in Wellsville, Ohio is a coal and biomass-to-liquids facility. Research will be conducted at this plant to evaluate EOR and carbon sequestration in the surrounding area. The project hopes to pin-point future CO2 and hydrocarbon pipeline routes and create manageable designs for

77 Ibid.78 Board Energy. Welcome. Retrieved form http://www.baardenergy.com/


the region. Another focus of the project is to make “an assessment of life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions associated with the plant.”79 The information gained from sequestration in the reservoirs surrounding the plant will help researchers and regional stakeholders better understand the potential sequestration and EOR application in the Appalachian Basin.

VIII.B. FUTURE INJECTION SITESFuture CCS project sites will depend on multiple concerns and factors, including public acceptance, proper permitting, superior geology formation that will accept and maintain well injection integrity, location of proximal fault zones, distance from CO2 source (i.e., coal power plant), the distance from a suitable sequestration site, rules and regulations controlling the industry, and costs incurred with each project. No two projects will be exactly alike, therefore each project should anticipate challenges unique to its situation.

“Locating CO2 sequestration sites in close proximity to large point sources…can significantly reduce the total cost of sequestration by minimizing the associated transportation costs. Failure to find sites with acceptable storage capacity in the vicinity of these CO2 sources could make geologic sequestration an impractical option for mitigating greenhouse gas emissions in a large part of the conterminous United States.”80

The transport of the CO2 and the location of its related infrastructure will also be a factor in site selection. Pipelines for fuel, gases, chemicals and liquids currently span vast distances across the United States. Ohio also sustains miles of multiple-use pipeline for supporting industry, manufacturing and consumer-based needs. “There are approximately 3,400 miles of existing CO2 pipeline in the United States, which have been operating for over four decades. The Government of Canada and the Province of Alberta announced that they would provide approximately USD $500 million for the first phase of a pipeline project the Enhance Energy Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) Project to link oil sands and petro-chemical operations with EOR opportunities in Alberta.”81 While this is a large network of pipeline, this number would need to dramatically increase for

79 U.S. Department of Energy. Office of Fossil Energy. National Energy Technology Laboratory. (2009). Carbon Management for a Coal/Biomass to Liquids Plant in Northeast Ohio Project Facts. Retrieved from http://www.netl.doe.gov/publications/factsheets/project/Proj606.pdf

80 Lucier, A., Zoback, M., Gupta, N., & Ramakrishnan, T. S. (2006). Geomechanical Aspects of CO2 Se-questration in a Deep Saline Reservoir in the Ohio River Valley Region. Environmental Geosciences, 13 (2). p. 86.

81 International Energy Agency and the Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum. (2010). Carbon Capture and Storage: Progress and Next Steps. IEA/CSLF Report to the Muskoka 2010 G8 Summit., 23.


CCS because the proposed carbon capture sites may not be near the proposed sequestration sites. Existing and aging CO2 infrastructure will need to be monitored for safety and replaced/updated accordingly.

Information about current and proposed CCS projects worldwide is collected and displayed in the CCS Database by National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL). “Information in the database regarding technologies being developed for capture, evaluation of sites for sequestration of carbon dioxide (CO2), estimation of project costs and anticipated dates of completion for projects are sourced from publicly available information. This database provides the public with information regarding efforts by various industries, public groups, and governments towards development and eventual deployment of CCS technology. This is an active database that will be updated as information regarding these or new projects are released to the public.”82

Sequestration sites located within Ohio will need to meet a myriad of conditions from land owners, the local, state, and federal government, developers, and investors. Site-specific geology will play the largest role in locating future injection sites, while economic feasibility, public acceptance and potential hazards could easily shutter a project.

82 U.S. Department of Energy. National Energy Technology Laboratory. Carbon Capture and Storage Data-base Version 2. Retrieved from http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/carbon_seq/database/index.html


IX. PUBLIC OUTREACH AND ACCEPTANCE OF CCS

In 2009, project leader Battelle called off an early-stage

large-scale CCS project slated for Greenville, Ohio after

opposition from local citizens, economic considerations, and

business decisions rendered its continuation undesirable.

Despite DOE funding, the 35-member MRCSP83 cancelled

the $92.8 million proposal to inject one million tons of CO2

from the local Andersons Marathon Ethanol plant over a

four-year test period more than 3,000 feet underground.

Local opposition arose from public officials and community

organizations who were concerned about perceived

negative impacts on property values and risks of increased

seismic activity from the injection activities. The plan was

abandoned at the Greenville site, and Battelle is evaluating

alternative sites for the project.84

Public acceptance plays a key role in the future CCS projects. Community members embracing a “Not In My Back Yard” (NIMBY) approach to CCS projects hold the potential to make or break projects. Project developers should gauge community sentiment and aim to work with local stakeholders in every stage of the process. Results of test wells and pilot scale CCS projects will also help to better inform interested stakeholders—this information needs to be made easily accessible and be presented in an unbiased and minimally technical way for broad dissemination and consumption. CCS industry transparency will be critical for understanding and acceptance of the technologies and methods involved. Community engagement and involvement will be an integral part of future CCS projects.

83 The MRCSP consists of seven contiguous states: Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and West Virginia.

84 The Global CCS Institute. Strategic Analysis of the Global Status of Carbon Capture and Storage. Re-port 4: Existing Carbon Capture and Storage Research and Development Networks around the World. Retrieved from http://www.canadiancleanpowercoalition.com/pdf/CCS3%20-%20Foundation-Report-4-rev2.pdf


“Early CO2 storage projects have been highly visible and their success will likely impact future CO2 storage projects. The primary lesson learned from the Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnerships experience is that public outreach should be an integrated component of project management. Conducting effective public outreach will not necessarily ensure project success, but underestimating its importance can contribute to delays, increased costs, and community ill will. Effective public outreach involves listening, sharing information, and addressing concerns through proactive community engagement.”85

“The Global Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) Institute has developed a comprehensive approach to advancing both project and regional public-engagement strategies. The Institute’s approach is based on advancing social research, practical project support and improving regional communications. The Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum86 (CSLF) promotes collaborative research, development, and demonstration projects that reflect members’

85 U.S. Department of Energy. National Energy Technology Laboratory. (2009). Best Practices for: Public Outreach and Education for Carbon Storage Projects. p. 9.

86 Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum. And in the News. Retrieved from http://www.cslforum.org/


priorities. The purpose of this program is to build public confidence in the viability of using fossil fuel resources to meet increasing future energy needs while reducing CO2 emissions through CCS. The International Energy Agency has taken steps to increase understanding of the role of CCS by publishing the IEA CCS Technology Roadmap, which outlines milestones for research, development, demonstration and deployment. The IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D Program87 (IEAGHG) operates a communications research network that studies and evaluates technologies that can reduce GHGs emissions from fossil fuels. In January 2010, the National Energy Technology Laboratories at the U.S. Department of Energy issued its Best Practices for: Public Outreach and Education for Carbon Storage Projects.88 These guidelines were developed from the experiences of the seven U.S. Carbon Regional Sequestration Partnerships.”89

The report to the Muskoka 2010 G8 Summit, “Carbon Capture and Storage: Progress and Next Steps,” identifies best practices in the industry and should be utilized as a resource when addressing future CCS projects. Reports like this will be critical to formulating future CCS projects so as to not repeat past mistakes and to further develop successes when addressing CCS and public opinion on new and emerging technologies.

“The Best Practices Manual presents the lessons learned and experience gained by the RCSPs during the Validation Phase (Phase II) small-scale CO2 storage projects and commencement of Development Phase (Phase III) larger-scale projects. Early CO2 storage projects will be highly visible and their success will likely influence public receptiveness to future CO2 storage projects. The primary lesson from the RCSPs’ experience is that public outreach should be an integral component of project management. Although conducting effective public outreach will not necessarily ensure project success, it can make important contributions to schedule adherence, cost controls, and community goodwill. Effective public outreach involves listening to individuals, sharing information, and addressing concerns through proactive community engagement. The RCSPs have developed the following best practices as a way to share the experience gained to date and to inform future project developers.”

87 IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme. IEAGHG R&D Programme. Retrieved from http://www.ieaghg.org/

88 U.S. Department of Energy. National Energy Technology Laboratory. (2009). Public Outreach and Education for Carbon Storage Projects. Retrieved from http://www.bigskyco2.org/sites/default/files/outreach/BPM_PublicOutreach.pdf

89 International Energy Agency. (2010). Carbon Capture and Storage: Progress and Next Steps. IEA/CSLF Report to the Muskoka 2010 G8 Summit, 21. Retrieved from http://www.iea.org/papers/2010/ccs_g8.pdf


The Best Practices outlined by the RCSP are as follows:

1. Integrate Public Outreach in Project Management

2. Establish a Strong Outreach Team

3. Identify Stakeholders

4. Conduct and Apply Social Characterization

5. Develop an Outreach Strategy and Communication Plan

6. Develop Key Messages

7. Develop Outreach Materials Tailored to the Audiences

8. Actively Oversee and Manage the Outreach Program throughout the Life of CO2 Storage Project

9. Monitor the Performance of the Outreach Program and Changes in Public Perceptions and Concerns

10. Be Flexible – Refine the Public Outreach Program as Warranted90

Communities are able to shape the outcome of CCS projects in varying stages, and thus their input and support is necessary for improving project operation. Communities and the public need to be considered and treated as partners in project development. The World Resources Institute (WRI) has published their report “CCS and Community Engagement: Guidelines for Community Engagement in Carbon Dioxide Capture, Transport and Storage Projects” which serves as an excellent resource to be utilized when planning CCS projects. This report builds on the WRI’s prior “Guidelines for Carbon Dioxide, Capture, Transport, and Storage: A Technical Guide for CCS Projects” paper which reviews expert accounts of CCS from around the world. Case studies of CCS projects that were reviewed across these documents reveal common themes and lessons learned. “It is evident that effective community engagement cannot happen where the community has the impression—correct or incorrect—that the decision to move forward with a project has already been made without engagement and consultation. A community’s real or perceived lack of ability to influence the decision making process was exacerbated when engagement focuses only on one way information exchanges. Getting the trust of the community is key to successful engagement.”91

90 U.S. Department of Energy. National Energy Technology Laboratory. (2009). Public Outreach and Education for Carbon Storage Projects. Retrieved from http://www.bigskyco2.org/sites/default/files/outreach/BPM_PublicOutreach.pdf

91 World Resources Institute. CCS and Community Engagement: Guidelines for Community Engagement in Carbon Dioxide Capture, Transport, and Storage Projects. p. 52.


X. BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES

With its long-standing history for EOR, CO2 can be

regarded as a commodity that can be purchased, traded,

and potentially have a price assigned to it. There is an

existing legal framework in many states regarding carbon

sequestration due to the use of CO2 in EOR. For example,

Texas, Kansas, New Mexico and Oklahoma have existing

regulations and relevant models for Ohio policymakers. The

gas and oil industry have pushed for legislation so that EOR

could be used in states which proved to be most promising.

Ohio’s large volumes of oil and gas that were challenging to

access have been made attainable through the utilization of

EOR.

Over 75% of the costs of CCS are related to the capture and compression of CO2, while the rest can be attributed to transportation and underground storage.92 Each capture and compression technology will be site-specific and depend strongly on the scale of the operation. Additional costs still vary widely for the application of CO2 capture and storage from coal power plants. “These costs are mainly dependent on the capture technology and concentration of CO2 in the stream from which it is captured.”93 “This metric is useful for comparing the cost of CCS with other methods of reducing CO2 emissions. Another metric is the increase in costs of electricity generation. Costs would increase from ($0.01/kWh to $0.05/kWh),94 with typical cost of $0.025/kWh, depending on the design of the power plant and number of site-specific factors, or the equivalent of about a 50% increase in the costs of base-load power

92 Benson, S. M. & Surles, T. (2006). Proceedings of the IEEE: Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage: An Overview with Emphasis on Capture and Storage in Deep Geological Formations, 94, (10). p. 1802. Retrieved from http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=4016413&tag=1

93 Gale., J. & Kaya, Y. (eds.). (2004). Uncertainties in CO2 Capture Project, V. Capture and Sequestra-tion Costs. Proc. Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies 6th International Conference (GHGT-6), 1. pp. 1119-1124.

94 Metz, B., Davidson, O., deConick, H., Loos, M. & Meyer, L. (eds.). (2006). Special Report on Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.


generation from a newly constructed power plant.”95

The DOE conducted 10 basin studies in which it determined the possible oil available for recovery by EOR. These studies found that approximately 89 billion barrels of “technically recoverable resource”’ are available, and 4 to 47 billion barrels of “economically recoverable resource” exist in the United States.96 “Traditional oil recovery methods will leave behind an estimated 390 billion barrels of already discovered oil resources in the ten basins studied. Such

“stranded oil” provides a substantial target for EOR technology, representing about two-thirds of the region’s original oil in-place in discovered, producing fields. The ten assessments evaluated 1,581 large oil reservoirs to identify those that screen favorably for CO2 EOR. Extrapolating this sample to all reservoirs in the ten regions demonstrated that nearly 89 billion barrels of additional oil are technically recoverable with today’s state-of-the art CO2 EOR technology. Advanced EOR technologies could significantly increase this oil recovery potential.”97 CCS could serve two advantageous purposes when it is utilized for EOR and stable sequestration.

In a 2008 study by McKinsey & Company on CCS cost, they determined that capture costs accounted for the majority of CCS costs estimated for different stages of plant development. Figure 3 shows the McKinsey & Company cost estimates for three different stages of CCS development in new coal-fired power plants.

Figure 3. Estimates of CCS Costs at Different Stages of Development(dollars per metric ton of CO2, for new coal-fired power plants)

Stage Capture Transport Storage TotalInitial Demonstration $73-$94 $7-$22 $6-$17 $86-$133Early Commercial $36-$46 $6-$9 $6-$17 $48-$73Past Early Commercial* - - - $44-$65

Source: McKinsey & Company. Carbon Capture and Storage: Assessing the Economics. Sept. 22, 2008.98 Notes: Source provided cost estimates in Euros. Euros converted to dollars at 1 Euro = $1.45, rounded to nearest dollar.

*Cost ranges for capture, transport, and storage components for past early commercial-stage plants are not available from this study.

95 Benson, S.M. & Surles, T. (2006). Proceedings of the IEEE: Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage: An Overview with Emphasis on Capture and Storage in Deep Geological Formations, 94, (10). p. 1802. Retrieved from http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=4016413&tag=1

96 Moore, M. E. (2010). KSU Winter Intersession 2010: Carbon Sequestration Policy, Business Development, 2010. p. 16. Retrieved from http://www.engg.ksu.edu/CHSR/events/che670/201001/docs/Session4b-Moore.pdf

97 U.S. Department of Energy. Office of Fossil Energy. Office of Oil and Natural Gas. (2006). Recovering Stranded Oil Can Substantially Add to U.S. Oil Supplies Project Facts. pp. 1-2. Retrieved from http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/oilgas/publications/eor_co2/C_-_10_Basin_Studies_Fact_Sheet.pdf

98 McKinsey & Company. (2008). Carbon Capture and Storage: Assessing the Economics. Retrieved from http://www.mckinsey.com/clientservice/sustainability/pdf/CCS_Assessing_the_Economics.pdf


This McKinsey & Company study suggested that retrofitting aging power plants would lead to more expensive CCS costs as compared to new plants for the following reasons:

1. “The added expense of adapting the existing plant configuration for the capture unit;

2. A shorter lifespan for the capture unit compared to new plants;

3. A higher efficiency penalty compared to new plants that incorporate CO2 capture from the design stage; and

4. The generating time lost when an existing plant is taken off-line for the retrofit. Retrofitted plants could be less expensive if capture technology is installed on new plants that were designed “capture-ready,” or if an older plant was already due for extensive revamping.”99

“As these cost estimates indicate, capturing CO2 at electricity-generating power plants would likely require more energy, per unit of power output, than is required by plants without CCS, reducing the plant efficiency. The additional energy required also means that more CO2 would be produced, per unit of power output. Improving the efficiency of the CO2 capture phase would likely produce the largest cost savings and reduce CO2 emissions. Costs for each

99 The Encyclopedia of Earth. (2009). Carbon capture and storage. Retrieved from http://www.eoearth.org/article/Carbon_capture_and_storage


CCS project would probably not be uniform, however, even for those employing the same type of capture technology. Other site-specific factors, such as types and costs of fuels used by power plants, distance of transport to a storage site, and the type of CO2 storage, would likely vary from project to project.”100

“A financial gap exists as a result of the additional costs for CCS, above a conventional plant, being higher than the revenue from the relevant market plus the additional benefit from CO2 reduction. This gap will decline as experience with the technology increases resulting in cost reduction, and as the revenue from the relevant markets and the benefit for CO2 reduction increases. Recently, the price level in CO2 markets was in the range of USD $15 to USD $35 per tonne of CO2, which is insufficient to make CCS competitive employing today’s technology. As with any new technology, early CCS projects face an array of technical and commercial risks that require the sharing of costs and risks between public and private sectors. The investment disincentives and risks associated with “first-of-their-kind” projects, coupled with an uncertain regulatory landscape, will require that governments take an active role to facilitate most early projects.”101

100 Ibid.101 International Energy Agency and the Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum. (2010). Carbon Capture

and Storage: Progress and Next Steps. IEA/CSLF Report to the Muskoka 2010 G8 Summit. p.18.


XI. PROS AND CONS OF CCS

Any relatively new technology carries with it many

unanswered questions—to answer these questions, testing

and research needs to be conducted. In the case of CCS,

much research has already been done or is underway.

Therefore, it is mainly the long-term effects that remain

unknown.

The use of carbon dioxide has been safely playing a role in many different industries for numerous years. The hazards posed by carbon dioxide and management plans are well known because of this extensive use and study.102 Additional knowledge from pilot tests is needed for developing specific regulations relating to the emerging CCS industry. Also, with the uncertainties of long-term risks related to CO2 injection, regulatory, investment, and insurance frameworks needs to be put into place. As more pilot tests are performed, possible pros and cons can be confirmed or dismissed, but it is not until the actual testing is done and the long-term effects are evident, that either of these can be considered characteristic of CCS as a whole.

Although there is an existing understanding of carbon dioxide and its management as a gas, there are many unknowns when it comes to the long-term storage of CO2 underground. These uncertainties may pose risks to humans and the environment alike. One of these “unknowns” is the impact of underground injection of CO2 on the “biological communities” living near the storage sites. CO2 at super critical phases takes on much different properties at the depths needed for storage, and such research is still emerging. As for the primary potential risks that would directly affect humans, CO2 leakage, potable aquifer contamination, and earthquakes due to underground movement of displaced fluids are the most evident.103

102 Benson, S. M. (2006). Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage: Assessment of Risks from Storage of Carbon Dioxide in Deep Underground Geological Formations. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. Earth Sciences Division. Version 1. Retrieved from http://www.southwestcarbonpartnership.org/_Resources/PDF/Geologi-calStorageRiskAssessmentV1Final.pdf

103 Union of Concerned Scientists. Policy Context of Geologic Carbon Sequestration. Retrieved from http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/global_warming/geo_carbon_seq_for_web.pdf


Other risks may occur from the injection of CO2 into geologic formations in the deep sub-surface. For instance, if the injected carbon dioxide re-releases from the ground, it would increase atmospheric levels of CO2. Also, the innovation of CCS condones a continued global reliance on fossil fuels, which continues the detrimental environmental effects of extracting and burning fossil fuels. As CCS does not have the ability to eliminate all the CO2 released by point sources, the operations connected to fossil fuel use will still have detrimental environmental impacts due to the nature of their operations. With the expansion of the CCS industry comes the development of infrastructure and land use, and this too can have a negative effect on the surrounding environment. For example, the transfer of CO2 from point sources to deposition sites requires the expansion of pipeline facilities, which can negatively affect the surrounding environment and ecology. As more research, large-scale pilot tests, and commercial projects are deployed, an accurate estimate of the price of carbon and the process of sequestration remains to be determined. However, without widespread commercial deployment of CCS, the price of CCS remains very high.

“CCS is the only technology that can reduce CO2 emissions from present sources as well as avoid future emissions. Also, today’s CCS technology is expensive it adds over 70% to electricity cost (new plant basis).104

The legislative framework behind CCS is currently seen as a major impediment to large-scale CCS deployment. As the governmental regulating bodies issue standards and guidelines, commercial and private companies will develop strategies to abide by this legal framework.

“Deterrents to sequestration are primarily an uncertain legal framework and unconstrained operator liability, as well as environmental concerns. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is proposing to regulate CCS under a modified rule of the Safe Drinking Water Act’s Underground Injection Control program. This approach falls short of the comprehensive scheme necessary. It fails to address long term environmental and financial liabilities unique to CCS and fails to take into account how existing laws and regulations may impede CCS development. This article recommends that CCS be exempted from key federal environmental statutes and regulations and that a wholly unique statutory and regulatory framework be developed as part of a broader effort to curb climate change. Such a framework would limit the

104 Markowsky, J. J. (2010, Oct. 19). Carbon Capture and Storage: Addressing the Challenges to Coal in a Carbon-Constrained Future. Presentation. TechGROWTH Ohio.


long-term liability of injectors to encourage development while offering greater protections for the public and environment against loss and impairment during the highest-risk phases of CCS.”105

With the push for CCS as a viable solution to help curb climate change, the possible advantages may be tempering the risks. Much more research and development on CCS is being completed, in hopes that new technologies will make the commercial deployment of CCS a cost-effective, safe option for oil recovery and reducing domestic GHG emissions.106 If used at the commercial level as an option to lower GHG emissions, it is possible that CCS can prevent gigatons of CO2 from entering the atmosphere.107 It is hoped that EOR will continue broadly to make the extraction of oil and gas as productive as possible. The oil and gas extracted from EOR may also play a key role in helping to minimize the price of CCS. Other opportunities for CO2 injection include the injection of CO2 in unminable coal beds with the prospect of coal bed methane recovery,108 and tax reductions on CO2 emissions if taxes on CO2 emissions were implemented.

“[The] widespread cost-effective deployment of CCS will occur only if the technology is commercially available at economically competitive prices and supportive national policy frameworks are in place.”109

105 Rankin, A.G. (2009). Geologic Sequestration of CO2: How EPA’s Proposal Falls Short. Natural Resources Journal, vol. 49. Retrieved from http://lawlibrary.unm.edu/nrj/49/3-4/883-942.pdf

106 U.S. Department of Energy. National Energy Technology Laboratory. Carbon Sequestration Frequently Asked Questions Information Portal. Retrieved from http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/carbon_seq/FAQs/benefits.html

107 Union of Concerned Scientists. Policy Context of Geologic Carbon Sequestration. Retrieved from http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/global_warming/geo_carbon_seq_for_web.pdf

108 U.S. Department of Energy. National Energy Technology Laboratory. Carbon Sequestration Frequently Asked Questions Information Portal. Retrieved from http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/carbon_seq/FAQs/benefits.html

109 Report of the Interagency Task Force on Carbon Capture and Storage. (2010). Retrieved from http://fossil.energy.gov/programs/sequestration/ccstf/es_ccstf_2010.pdf


XII. OHIO FUTURE POLICY CONSIDERATIONS

1. Ohio could consider addressing Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS) head-on as it is a growing industry and holds the potential for long-term jobs throughout the state. Policies supporting in-state manufacturing of CCS components using an in-state workforce could be considered. This effort would benefit utilities, manufacturing, and the CCS supply chain to create CCS products, systems and components of value.

2. Ohio could maintain and update its Ohio Deep Well Database Informational Map to keep stakeholders informed of deep well project activities throughout the state and in their own counties. This would also include CCS-related activities at facilities and injection sites.

3. The state could develop a program to inform citizens of their property rights regarding subsurface mineral rights and their rights pertaining to geologic carbon sequestration below their land. This would have the added benefit of preparing landowners on leasing options related to the shale gas industry as well as other subsurface extraction activities.

4. The state should consider continuing to fund and publicize detailed analyses of Ohio’s deep geologic features to identify the opportunities for CCS and associated studies on the linkages and potential impacts of CCS on shallow subsurface geologic features such as aquifers and mine complexes as well as surface features including industrial mineral operations, active and orphaned wells, roads, pipelines, flora and fauna and more.

5. Ohio could further incentivize pilot-scale CCS projects to provide drilling, process and research jobs. This would help the state better understand the subsurface geology and open up greater opportunities for expanding CCS and related technologies within the state. (The American Electric Power CCS Validation Project at the Mountaineer Plant in New Haven, WV, was termed a success by Alstom Power after completing successful testing and operation of a chilled ammonia CCS project.110 “The project, one of the world’s first facilities to capture and store CO2 from a coal fired power plant, represents a scale-up of 10 times the size of previous field pilots, such as WE Energies Pleasant Prairie and EON’s Karlshamn power plants.”111 Despite early successes, this project is on hold due to carbon policy uncertainties.)

110 Alstom Power. (2011, May 5). Alstom Announces Successful Results Of Mountaineer Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS) Project. Press release. Retrieved from http://www.alstom.com/us/news-ande-vents/press-releases/alstom-announces-successful-results-of-mountaineer-ccs/

111 Ibid.


6. Ohio policymakers could develop a state-specific monitoring, mitigation and validation plan to establish baseline conditions to assess impacts of storage, to identify CO2 plumes and migration, and to ensure public and environmental safety.

7. Ohio state law could consider clarifying the classification of CO2 as a waste or resource (i.e., a beneficial product or process) which will be important for future extractive activities and the regulation of those activities.

9. Ohio should monitor the results from the “Scientific Investigations Report 2010-5233,” the assessment of carbon storage, carbon sequestration, and fluxes of the three principal GHGs for U.S. ecosystems as they are made available from the U.S. Department of Interior and the USGS.112 Findings from this report can help guide Ohio policymakers on carbon storage, sequestration regulations and emissions.

10. Ohio has strategic assets in oil and gas drilling and well development experience. This state expertise may be relevant to developing CCS infrastructure. CCS infrastructure is unique and different from other forms of transmission infrastructure and therefore, requires individualized legislation and regulation.

112 Zhu, Z. (ed.) et al. (2010). A Method for Assessing Carbon Stocks, Carbon Sequestration, and Green-house-Gas Fluxes in Ecosystems of the United States Under Present Conditions and Future Scenarios. Report 2010-5233. U.S. Geological Survey. Retrieved from http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2010/5233/


11. Ohio may have geology attractive to CCS projects. (U.S. DOE has assessed this potential, and the Future Gen project bid provided some supportive work to build upon this analysis.) Ohio policymakers should become familiar with the substantial in-state, CCS-relevant formations available and inventoried including various types of reservoirs, producing and non-producing, onshore and offshore, and formations located on state-owned lands. To the extent that additional research is required to fully understand these subsurface features, Ohio should conduct this work in order to capitalize upon the opportunities in this growth area.

12. Ohio could support policies that couple CCS with other energy-related technologies (e.g., natural gas electricity generation, hydraulic fracturing, combined heat and power, integrated gasification combined cycle) to diversify the state’s ability to generate energy-efficient and/or low-emissions electricity.

CCS technology is costly and requires significant amounts of energy to capture and sequester the CO2. A complete cost analysis must be undertaken to determine if CCS is a viable option in Ohio. Additional policy considerations will undoubtedly arise as more is understood about the sequestration potential for the state and region.


XIII. CONCLUSION

Begun in 2007, the Ohio Stratigraphic Borehole Project in

Tuscarawas County is being conducted by ODNR and Battelle

to better map and identify Ohio’s deep subsurface geology.

A test well was drilled to a depth of 8,600 ft. to conduct a

series of geologic tests. Currently, these tests do not involve

CO2 injection, but rather are used to further characterize the

subsurface rock properties of Ohio.113

Projects like the Ohio Strat. Test will need to continue if further MRCSP mapping will take place in Ohio and to promote better understanding, classification and identification of future injection sites. By mapping and classifying the subsurface, it will open up greater opportunities for the state’s involvement with CCS technologies.

“Overcoming the barriers to the wider use of CO2-EOR technologies may entail:

• Bringing state-of-the-art CO2-EOR technology to oil fields in regions where it is currently not yet applied.

• Lowering the risks inherent in applying new technology to complex oil reservoirs, by conducting research, pilot tests and field demonstrations of CO2-EOR in geologically challenging oil fields.

• Providing a package of “risk mitigating” actions, such as state production tax incentives, federal investment tax credits, and royalty relief, to reduce potential oil price and market risks and to improve the economic competitiveness of pursuing this domestic oil resource. (U.S. Basins/Regions Studied for Future Potential for CO2-EOR.)

• Establishing low-cost, reliable “EOR-ready” CO2 supplies from both natural and industrial sources. In the near-term, this could include high-concentration CO2 emissions from refinery hydrogen plants, gas processing

113 Midwest Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership. Other Projects. Retrieved from http://216.109.210.162/OtherProjects.aspx


facilities and other industrial sources. In the longer-term, this could include capturing low CO2 concentration emissions from electric power generation plants and other sources.”114

The considerations detailed in this report represent the need for a nationally consistent and comprehensive effort to assess results in order to determine a range of policies and CO2 mitigation options. The field of CCS will be under close public and national supervision and scrutiny to ensure the technology can truly meet the nation’s demands of long-term sequestration.

Extensive incentives for advanced emissions reduction technologies will be necessary to commercialize CCS at scale; however, before these are in place, there is a need to provide financing and regulatory frameworks for early large-scale demonstration projects. Ohio’s regulatory framework must provide clear guidance and support about the future of in-state CCS for the industry to have long-term success. Studying existing legislation produced by other states could better position Ohio as it makes similar decisions.

While a CCS industry will spur job growth, the exact technology remains in its infancy compared to the time frame that the carbon dioxide must remain safely sequestered. Additional research and work will be required to ensure safe, economical and publically-accepted CCS systems. Ohio’s plans for energy diversification and emission reductions will be critical under new state and national energy policies. CCS advanced technology in Ohio will have a role to play in expanding future strategies that grow the state and local economies, increase jobs, and address statewide emissions.

114 U.S. Department of Energy. 10 Basin Studies Fact Sheet for CO2 EOR Resource Potential. Retrieved from http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/oilgas/publications/eor_co2/C_-_10_Basin_Studies_Fact_Sheet.pdf


APPENDIX 4-1: OHIO LEGAL AND REGULATORY INVENTORY FOR CARBON CAPTURE AND STORAGE & ANALOGUES

Source: Midwestern Governors Association. (2009, Mar.). Energy Security and Climate

Stewardship Platform for the Midwest: Legal and Regulatory Inventory for Carbon Capture and

Storage & Analogues. Available at http://www.midwesterngovernors.org/Energy/Inventory.pdf

assuring ohio’s competitiveness in a carbon …...chapter 4: task 2, part 4: geologic carbon...

Documents