From the “nobody could convince them it was a bad idea in the first place” department…
UPDATE: More details now emerging – see below the read more line
The Canadian Press – ONLINE EDITION
Carbon injected underground now leaking, Saskatchewan farmer’s study says
By: Bob Weber, The Canadian Press
A Saskatchewan farm couple whose land lies over the world’s largest carbon capture and storage project says greenhouse gases that were supposed to have been injected permanently underground are leaking out, killing animals and sending groundwater foaming to the surface like shaken-up soda pop.
Cameron and Jane Kerr, who own nine quarter-sections of land above the Weyburn oilfield in eastern Saskatchewan, released a consultant’s report Tuesday that claims to link high concentrations of carbon dioxide in their soil to the 8,000 tonnes of the gas injected underground every day by energy giant Cenovus in its attempt to enhance oil recovery and fight climate change.
“We knew, obviously, there was something wrong,” said Jane Kerr.
Cameron Kerr, 64, said he has farmed in the area all his life and never had any problems until 2003, when he agreed to dig a gravel quarry.
That gravel was for a road to a plant owned by EnCana — now Cenovus — which had begun three years earlier to inject massive amounts of carbon dioxide underground to force more oil out of the aging field.
Cenovus has injected more than 13 million tonnes of the gas underground. The project has become a global hotspot for research into carbon capture and storage, a technology that many consider one of the best hopes for keeping greenhouse gases out of the atmosphere.
By 2005, Cameron Kerr had begun noticing problems in a pair of ponds which had formed at the bottom of the quarry. They developed algae blooms, clots of foam and several colours of scum — red, yellow and silver-blue. Sometimes, the ponds bubbled. Small animals — cats, rabbits, goats — were regularly found dead a few metres away.
Then there were the explosions.
“At night we could hear this sort of bang like a cannon going off,” said Jane Kerr, 58. “We’d go out and check the gravel pit and, in the walls, it (had) blown a hole in the side and there would be all this foaming coming out of this hole.”
Read the entire story here
UPDATE: The Winnepeg Free Press has far more details in this story here
He said provincial inspectors did a one-time check of air quality. Eventually, the Kerrs paid a consultant for a study.
Paul Lafleur of Petro-Find Geochem found carbon dioxide concentrations in the soil last summer that averaged about 23,000 parts per million — several times those typically found in field soils. Concentrations peaked at 110,607 parts per million.
Lafleur also used the mix of carbon isotopes he found in the gas to trace its source.
“The … source of the high concentrations of CO2 in the soils of the Kerr property is clearly the anthropogenic CO2 injected into the Weyburn reservoir,” he wrote.
“The survey also demonstrates that the overlying thick cap rock of anhydrite over the Weyburn reservoir is not an impermeable barrier to the upward movement of light hydrocarbons and CO2 as is generally thought.”
It reminds me of this 1965 sci-fi movie:
h/t to WUWT reader AnonyMoose
Update: Reader _Jim finds the trailer:
The folly of one man is the fortune of another.
Author: Francis Bacon
Folly is a good way to describe this undertaking.
The most depressing part of this story is that …”The United States has committed $3.4 billion for carbon capture and storage.” $3.4 billion!!! For something that will have NO impact on climate (or anything else). Taxpayers – please remember this when government officials state that we must raise taxes to fund “essential programs”…
Another Ian:
At January 11, 2011 at 2:18 pm you report to me:
“http://blogs.news.com.au/couriermail/andrewbolt/index.php/couriermail/comments/flannerys_investment_cools/
Getting “green” power by pumping water onto hot rocks deep below the surface will be not just a blessing but a doddle, claims Alarmist of the Year Tim Flannery”
etc.
Yes, my point was that ‘hot rocks’ trials and underground coal gasification trials are scams that politicians fall for repeatedly. And that was why I concluded my post at January 11, 2011 at 12:44 pm by saying;
“So, the disaster reported in the above article reports a result of pointless CCS that was conducted in a manner which was likely fail as it did and when a cheaper option for the storage exists and would probably work.
But I suppose some politicians fell for the boondoggle. I hope somebody will tell me who those politicians are because I would like to them to fund a project I have for obtaining energy from ‘hot rocks’. “
Richard
This is most alarming! It seems as if the proponents of the project are not taking this serious enough. This area of Saskatchewan has a high concentration of gravel deposits formed during the last glacial period. The gravel deposits will act as a conduit for the migration of the CO2.
If the farmers discovered dead animals associated with a CO2 seep, doesn’t it follow that CO2 can seep into basements with the same results on humans? Are the area residents going to have to keep a canary in the basement as a CO2 detector? I would be very afraid!
I put the following together last November as a possible solution to the problem:
CO2 Sequestering Simplified (sarc on)
Recently released (Oct 2010) was an alarming study by Duke University which indicates that the greatest hope of sequestering CO2 produced by coal fired power plants, the injection of CO2 into underground formations, has a high likelihood of leaking from the formations and contaminating aquifers. That kills what seemed like a good idea, but there is another approach.
Some folks have suggested that since the oceans quite naturally sequester vast amounts of CO2 already, if one could find a way to speed up the process just a little, you might keep up with the human combustion of fossil fuel.
The same natural sequestration of CO2 is also true for shallow fresh water ponds with their prolific algal growth in the summer. I see a huge potential for a green, sustainable (not to mention utopian) lifestyle growing up around coal fired power plants. Infrastructure costs to establish such communities are minimal. All that is required is that shallow fresh water pools be installed with piped in CO2 from the power plant for accelerated plant growth. Warm water containing the waste heat from the power plant would also be injected into the pools to maintain a constant warm temperature during the colder months.
Seed the water with the most prolific and nutritious algae species. For floral diversity and as a human habitat construction resource, plant willows around the shore. Within two years you will have a Garden of Eden.
Willows are easily woven so could be used to make both the rafts and paddles to be used by the inhabitants for recreation, exercise and food gathering. The first two of those activities will have to become an essential element of the culture of the inhabitants since agitation of the water is needed to accelerate algal growth. Willows will also be used to make the structural skeletons of the wattle and daub dwellings for the inhabitants. The architectural concepts conceived of by J.R.R. Tolkien could be adapted to the wattle and daub technology to provide very cozy living spaces. Young willow shoots can also be woven into baskets and sandals.
The staple food for the inhabitants will be the algae collected from the pond. It can easily be gathered and set out in mats to dry in the sun. The dried mats would be cut up into convenient sized biscuits for later consumption. Thus, the use of fire for food preparation is not needed thereby avoiding generating any CO2 from cooking. The use of fire to provide personal warmth is also not needed since there is the immediate availability of the warm pond as a refuge in the cold winter months just as the Japanese Macaque monkeys have learned to do.
The power plant sponsoring each pond community should grant half acre or acre homesteads to the pioneers who come to live there. This will imbue a pride of ownership in the inhabitants and encourage them to be good custodians of the environment in which they live.
For those who are of a spiritual bent, a single oak or cypress tree could be planted in each community to provide a focal point for worship and social events. To prevent backsliding or succumbing to the temptations of the material world, each community should have an enclave set aside and inhabited by a cadre of spiritual leaders. The minimum qualification for such leaders is that they be bona fide AGW proponents, having published at least one peer reviewed paper on the subject. Subaltern ranks of the spiritual leader class could be filled by environmental reporters who have kept the faith and been martyred by skeptics.
Immigration into the communities should be limited to those who are young and idealistic and can be expected to have children to sustain the community in coming generations. Aging hippies should be discouraged from homesteading in the community – they are the class of people most likely to introduce mind altering plants and animals to a clear headed population. The community could not survive with half the population licking cane toads and soaking in the warm pool. It needs a vibrant young population out on the pond paddling around, agitating the algae and gathering the fruits of the earth.
By the turn of the century such communities would be in their third or fourth generation and have developed such diverse and quaint customs that they would necessarily attract a considerable tourist trade. The associated power company could profit from the tourist trade and as a consequence provide electricity to their customers at a reduced price. This is a win-win solution for all concerned with the issue. The first coal fired power plant in Britain, Australia or California in many years would surely be quickly permitted if such a plan were proposed. If necessary, we may have to compromise and not exclude the aging hippies and cane toads. The hippies’ horticultural skills at growing hemp could be an asset in providing the community with a source of fiber for clothing, floor mats and rope for sale to tourists.
This idea is a patentable invention but I, like Benjamin Franklin and his lightning rod invention, am here-by donating the invention to the world for the benefit of all mankind. Feel free to forward my invention to anyone you know who is as concerned about the problem as I am.
I mapped the Weyburn oil field during its CO2 injection beginnings. It is not “sequestration”, by the way, but a CO2 gas-flood, intended to dissolve into the remaining oil to increase reservoir pressure and recover more oil. It is a tertiary recovery scheme: the first or “primary” is by present gas/water-drive energies, the secondary is by injection of water to push more out, and the tertiary is a gas-injection scheme. Other times a low-weight liquid hydrocarbon is injected to reduce viscosity and increase reservoir pressures (a miscible flood, as opposed to a water, immiscible flood).
The Weyburn oil field is not a simple, one layer or one zone oil reservoir. There are about 6, stacked carbonate layers that have their own lateral porosity limits and updip depositional limits. To think that we knew where the CO2 would go in detail is nonsense; all technical people knew that only with time would we know where the gas would go. This is standard: some areas get huge pressures, and others, none. Pressures are monitored – in theory – for efficiencies and subsequent modification. In practice, once the field is producing approximately what is expected, the engineers in charge have a hands-off approach. Requests for pressure info or redesign falls on unhappy ears: the desire is to move on and do something else. It is a human nature problem, not a technical one, and not really a bureaucratic one, though no department head wants to admit his decisions of the past need review and changes.
The area is known to have small faults that can be seen seismic to come to, or near to, the surface. The faults are generally sealed, ie. nothing goes up them, but when you push a lot of high energy CO2 into a small area, the gas will head for the lowest pressure point it can. Again, pressure work in the area would identify this – or could. Like climate scientists, oil and gas engineers (and geologists) don’t like to talk about the actual uncertainties in their work. There are a lot. Also, the idea that fluids move vertically is anathema in this business: modelling for 3D movement would be very difficult, and it would alarm the government agencies who want to avoid zone-to-zone contamination and cross-flow. Fact is, there is not a lot of cross-formation flow. But it exists.
The CO2 story is not necessarily from the Weyburn injection, anyway. The fellow dug a gravel pit. The Weyburn area has little glacial cover in general, so he is probably in an outwash valley (or on the side of it). A lot of plant material lies buried in the post-glacial muds, sands and gravels. Also there are thin coals in the upper rock layers. Any of these could be producing his gas. A C14 isotope test would identify an injection/swamp gas differnce. A compositional gas analysis would identify if coals were the result.
The oil and gas industry immediately gets blamed when there is a problem in the vicinity of their operations. There are often good reasons for this. But not always. I’ll bet we don’t hear what the outcome of this story is, and then you’ll know that Big Bad Oil is not to blame.
Re: Engchamp says:
Or just pressure. Volcanos manage to explosively outgas with some very loud bangs. What sorts of pressure would injected CO2 be at though in typical enhanced recovery or CCS applications? Neat example of bursting the big oil bubble though. Get paid to sequester ‘harmful’ CO2 and get paid again for the oil it helps extract. Can’t think why oil companies may be keen on promoting CO2 as a threat when they stand to gain by helping solve the problem, even if the solution may have a few flaws.
LazyTeenager:
At January 11, 2011 at 4:31 pm concerning yet another failed ‘hot rocks’ trial you say;
“Also the plant is a pilot plant. Pilot plants are meant to pick up failure modes and a corrosion failure mode is a straight forward thing to deal with. It does not affect the feasibility of the idea.”
Oh, goody! You are the chap I have been looking for.
You see, as I said above, I have this idea for yet another ‘hot rocks’ trial and I need somebody to fund it. Since you think there is no doubt about “the feasibility of the idea” perhaps you would be willing to put your money into it?
And while you are about it, perhaps you would like to contribute to my plan to conduct yet another trial of underground coal gasification, too?
If you and your chums were willing to get together and put up the monies then it would avoid governments using tax-payers money for these trials. And the record indicates that many, many more are likely.
Richard
Frank K. said:
January 11, 2011 at 4:57 pm
The most depressing part of this story is that …”The United States has committed $3.4 billion for carbon capture and storage.” $3.4 billion!!! For something that will have NO impact on climate (or anything else). Taxpayers – please remember this when government officials state that we must raise taxes to fund “essential programs”…
=========
The United States committed $250 BILLION for a high-speed rail system from Tampa to Orlando, that won’t support itself, and leave the tax payers to foot the bill for the employees pay and upkeep of the train unless a private investor takes it over.
If they have an ounce of sense they’ll know it won’t make a profit.
Oil and gas fields commonly leak – surface oil seeps are used as an initial indicator of oil at depth in new untested areas. Seismic profiles of gas-rich fields can show disruption of the overlying rock units due to escaping gas plumes. The faults don’t have to be major structures, just enough to breach the seal. The seal can be as small as a few metres or tens of metres and may not show up on seismic sections.
G
Re:
Vorlath says:
January 11, 2011 at 10:43 am
“…Norway has been injecting carbon dioxide into the sea floor since 1996…”
Wait a minute… Norway? Sea Floor? Carbon dioxide injection?
I presume that they have taken the potential consequences of that into consideration. From the Wikipedia entry on the Storegga slides (considered to be amongst the largest known landslides, the latest was around 6100 BC)
“Earthquakes, together with gases (e.g. methane) released from the decomposition of gas hydrates, are considered to be the likely triggering mechanisms for the slides. Another possibility is that the sediments became totally unstable and failed perhaps under the influence of an earthquake or ocean currents.”
Now… if Norway has a sequestration issue similar to the Saskatchewan problem… what could be the consequence?
FYI on parasitic losses to run CO2 capture equipment on a coal plant:
Up thread Hu was discussing how much power it takes to operate the sequestering equipment. I work for AEP at their nuke site. For the record I speak for myself NOT AEP. We have a successful pilot project operating at our Mountaineer Plant on a small flue gas slipstream injecting CO2 into local geology. We are attempting to upscale this to a larger portion of the total plant output while limiting parasitic losses to 10-15% of output. Just today I read something on our intranet that said we are having challenges achieving this 10-15% goal. Just an update but the clear moral of this story is that if we choose to do this we will burn A LOT of fossil fuels to sequester CO2.
In defence of R. Gates, let me suggest he is more to be pitied than censured, ignorant of fluid-layering by density, the role of oxygen in respiration, etc. Let us just hope that that he never hears the voodoo that CO2 has a significant effect on atmospheric temperature. He might be the type to fall for it, despite 800,000 of highly resolved phase evident in ice cores and the general decline of temperature since the Holocene optimum, even as CO2 has continually risen for the last 8,000 years.
@BioBob
January 11, 2011 at 11:13 am
Good one. Maybe this before your two? It clarified the connection – for me at least.
LazyTeenager says:
January 11, 2011 at 4:51 pm
Bob Kutz scoffs:
January 11, 2011 at 2:52 pm
About two para. before the end of the full article (on the link) the author states “Carbon dioxide is not poisonous, . . .”
Hmmm . . . . gotta love environmental journalists. Their enthusiasm outweights their knowledge to the point of being dangerous, and they are more than happy to exhibit their ignorance at every opportunity. Would it really be so difficult for a journalist to determine the veracity of that statement? Lazy.
————
Gotta luv climate skeptics: they share the same propagandizing tricks with
Econuts.
Bob, the journalist was correct. You’re the lazy one.
Let’s get this clear: poisonous is not a synonym for dangerous.
E.g. Water is dangerous because it will asphyxiate you. But water is not poisonous.
E.g. CO2 is dangerous because it will asphyxiate you. But CO2 is not poisonous.
E.g. Pure nitrogen is dangerous because it will asphyxiate you. But N2 is not poisonous.
E.g. A truck is dangerous because it will run over you. But Truck is not poisonous.
I hope this clears things up for you.
Hey Lazy T,
I’m afraid you’re wrong on this, CO2 IS a poison:
http://www.ehow.com/how-does_4695252_carbon-dioxide-poisoning-kill-human_.html
http://www.spaceacts.com/Apollo_13_CO2_filter.htm
Try these out if you can get up the energy.
Doug Badgero says:
January 11, 2011 at 6:03 pm (Edit)
FYI on parasitic losses to run CO2 capture equipment on a coal plant:
One other electrical generating plant (at the pilot project stage right now) is under construction in the US to also provide high pressure CO2 for a nearby oil field recovery: Roughly 1/3 of its final electrical output will be required to run the CO2 separation and CO2 pressurization processes.
Granted that the actual purpose of the plant is to generate HP CO2 for the oil recovery, it is noteworthy that so much power is required (wasted really at any commercial power plant built for power generation!) for the CAGW-popularized sequestration.
Now, the “good” news is that the CO2 process train in a commercial power plant can be “turned off” and that power used for useful energy once the CAGW scam is revealed. (If the media ever decides to reveal it. ) Unfortunately, the CAGW-dominated DOE/EPA/NASA-GISS/NOAA/etc still have control of the regulatory strings, and will require the waste of the extra equipment and wasted design and wasted material and energy building it.
There are a couple of subthreads above concerning toxicity. Some numbers:
400 parts per million (0.04%) current concentration
2000 parts per million (0.2%) estimated result if we burned all fossil fuel at once
8000 parts per million (0.8%) US Navy’s limit for atmosphere in submarines
40,000 parts per million (4%) concentration in your breath, toxic environmentally
We have little to fear from this particular plant food. Just don’t hang around in pits where this relatively heavy gas collects…
Doug Proctor says:
January 11, 2011 at 5:18 pm
Doug nice piece of real intelligence on the post. Thank you. pg
Hopefully this project will be shut down with the lesson learned. I fear that instead they will look for a better, more impervious geological structure. This is likely to be even more dangerous. Pump in enough CO2 and every structure will break. Hopefully a slow leak that allows the the gas to diffuse. A really tight structure is more likely to blow catastrophically and could fill an entire river valley with CO2. The faster the gas escapes the colder it will be. I wonder if we well see a huge mound of CO2 snow if there is a massive blowout.
Question. If you are the manager of a CO2 site that has been operating for 30 years, what evidence would you have that the site is nearing the maximum capacity? How much pressure would there be to keep operating even if the pumping pressure shows a slight increase or drop? Its time for a remake of “Crack in the World.” Can I play the character, Dr. Ted Rampian, trying to warn the world of the danger?
This is getting far too dangerous.
Stop the world!
I do want to get off.
Matt says:
January 11, 2011 at 3:05 pm (Edit)
We should believe scientists. In fact, we have to, because they have studied this stuff much longer than we ever could. We’re going to either have to believe the scientists that work for the universities or the scientists that work for the energy companies.
Why would a university scientist have our best interests in mind any more or less than a BP scientist, a Koch Industries scientist or an Exxon scientist?
What would they have to gain from trying to convince everyone that the fuel that everyone including them depends on is running low and is changing our atmosphere for the worse?
It would take a conspiracy theory bigger than a faked moon landing, a covered up alien invasion and a fake 9/11 combined to solve this question on a global scale.
Or it could just be that the money the fossil fuel companies like Koch Industries give to scientists is enough to make them say what they want. Would you say that the Earth is flat for $5 million?
Er, uhm, no. I would NOT take 5 million to create a lie.
And neither have any of the scientists you blindly accuse of taking oil money to create a skeptical position against the CAGW propaganda. And you can find NO evidence ANYWHERE worldwide at ANY time to show that ANY skeptical position or paper or study has been influenced by “oil money”.
To continue.
However, if YOU confidently accuse skeptics of fabricating lies with NO evidence of either any oil money payoffs or falsifying research by taking money, then I can confidently state that YOU do believe “scientists” DO take money to falsify reports and falsify research to further their own interests and to reward those who pay them. Further, by making the accusation based on your “beliefs” in CAGW so confidently and so stridently, then I am led to believe you actually have evidence that scientists have falsified research to reward those who pay them.
So, since you know scientists change research based on who pays them how much money, who has falsified research and slanted scientific claims when over 80 billion is paid to the GAGW “scientists” and political groups BY those who get rewarded by grants and political power (1.3 trillion in proposed taxes, control of the House of Representatives, control of the White House, and control of the Senate was paid for by a CAGW-induced energy recession starting in 2007!) … and THAT buys a “lot” of political power!
So – Put up. What evidence do you have that CAGW-paid-off scientists have falsified their research for political power and grants and publishing privileges? What evidence do you have that ANYONE paid off scientists to have falsified their research for skeptical positions? Please note: Merely receiving money from an oil company one time does NOT “prove” any one falsified their results for that oil company.
When ten oil companies each give 100 million each year to environmental groups (to pay them off for their silence?), do you complain about the enviro groups being “bought off”? Big Business and Big Power (Exelon, BP, GE, GM, Siemens, Duke Energy, etc.) has to use their power and money to influence CAGW legislation to stay in business by aiding the democrat/liberal/socialist government CAGW schemes – or face being shut down and taxed to death. And, by the way, power companies in democrat-controlled districts face different Cap-and-Trade taxes and penalties than do those using the same technology in republican districts. (Only those who are in republican districts are paying – the others are exempt.) See anything wrong with that?
Oh … ““It would take a conspiracy theory bigger than a faked moon landing, a covered up alien invasion and a fake 9/11 combined to solve this question on a global scale.”
No – It would take only the twenty members on the “Team” who supported the Hockey Stick Illusion, who co-authored each other’s papers, who co-reviewed each other’s papers anonymously and who fired editors and rejected unbiased writers on six “scientific” journals. Those twenty co-chaired and railroaded each other through the IPCC “process” and used their government-paid jobs to maintain private blogs and propaganda efforts/riots/protests worldwide to further their CAGW agenda.
The small dead animals site has an interesting post by a “Doug Protor”.
http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/015787.html#c566475
It’s worth the read for additional information.
*********************
I am a geologist who mapped the Weyburn field at the time it was undergoing CO2 injection. There are multiple, layered reservoirs of dolomite, separated vertically by thin, non-permeable rock and limited laterally by facies changes and local erosional events. Where the gas goes cannot be predicted with any detail. It is possible that a portion has been jammed into one pod and built up pressures greater than the caprock could stand. There are also small faults that rise to the surface or near-surface, visible in seismic: an unsealed fault could be the problem here.
etc.
********************
Follow the money … through Obama’s democrat/liberal Chicago connections for this hometown scheme, then ask who “might” falsify research for a few billion dollars?
Following from http://www.futuregenforillinois.com/
PRESS RELEASES:
Department of Energy Takes Another Step Forward on FutureGen Project in Mattoon, IL
U.S. Department of Energy, July 14, 2009
Washington, D.C. – The Department of Energy today issued a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Record of Decision to move forward toward the first commercial scale, fully integrated, carbon capture and sequestration project in the country. The Department’s decision is based on careful consideration of the proposed project’s potential environmental impacts, as well as the program goals and objectives.
“The carbon capture and sequestration technologies planned for this flagship facility is vitally important to America and the world,” said Energy Secretary Steven Chu. “This step forward demonstrates the Administration’s commitment to developing clean energy technologies, creating jobs, and reducing emissions of greenhouse gases.”
The Record of Decision and a cooperative agreement signed by DOE and the FutureGen Alliance allow the Alliance to proceed with site-specific activities for the project. Over the next eight to ten months, the Alliance will complete a preliminary design, refine its cost estimate, develop a funding plan, expand the sponsorship group, and, if needed, conduct additional subsurface characterization.
Following these activities, which will be completed in early 2010, the Department and the Alliance will decide whether to continue the project through construction and operation. Both DOE and the FutureGen Alliance agree that a decision to move forward is the preferred outcome and anticipate reaching a new cooperative agreement for the full project. Funding will be phased and conditioned based on completion of necessary NEPA reviews.
The Department of Energy’s total anticipated financial contribution for the project is $1.073 billion, $1 billion of which would come from Recovery Act funds for carbon capture and sequestration research. The FutureGen Alliance’s total anticipated financial contribution is $400 million to $600 million. The total cost estimate of the project is $2.4 billion, consequently, the Alliance, with support from DOE, will pursue options to raise additional non-federal funds needed to build and operate the facility, including options for capturing the value of the facility that will remain after conclusion of the research project, potentially through an auction of the residual interests in the late fall.
When fully operational, the facility will use integrated gasification combined cycle technology with carbon capture and sequestration into a deep saline geologic formation. It will be designed to capture 90% of the carbon emissions by the third year of operations but may be operated at 60% capture in the early years to validate plant integration and sequestration capability. This technology should sequester one million tons of CO2 annually when it reaches full commercial operations.
Download the press release
The Record of Decision can be found online at: http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/powersystems/futuregen/futuregen_rod_071409.pdf
LATEST NEWS:
Exelon Joins Illinois ‘Clean-Coal’ Demonstration Plant
CNNMoney
(Adds comments from the FutureGen Alliance’s CEO and government officials.)
By Mark Peters
Of DOW JONES NEWSWIRES
NEW YORK (Dow Jones)-The biggest U.S. nuclear-power generator joined the federal government’s flagship initiative to clean up coal-fired electricity generation in the face of climate change, signing onto a project other utilities have abandoned.
Chicago-based Exelon Corp. (EXC) said Saturday it intends to join the FutureGen Alliance, a U.S. government-backed project to capture and store greenhouse-gas emissions from a coal-fired power plant planned for Mattoon, Ill. The company’s participation could serve as a shot in the arm for a project that’s already collapsed once before and suffered the defections of key corporate members even after being rejuvenated under the Obama administration last year.
Exelon has moved away from coal-fired generation in recent years, but the company sees the large role the fuel plays in producing electricity in the U.S. and says it wants to support efforts to cut emissions. Comprehensive federal legislation to fight climate change is stalled in the Senate, but Exelon’s heavy reliance on nearly emissions-free nuclear power leaves it poised to thrive if nationwide rules to curb emissions are put in place, making it more expensive to emit carbon dioxide.
“It is critical that we explore the most promising technologies for reducing– and even eliminating–harmful emissions at coal-fired power plants,” John Rowe, chairman and chief executive of Exelon, said in a statement.
The company’s participation comes after American Electric Power Co. (AEP) and Southern Co. (SO), two of the nation’s biggest coal-burning utilities, pulled out of FutureGen to pursue their own projects to capture and store the CO2 emissions from coal-fired generation. Their exit left FutureGen without a U.S. utility among its members, leaving only large coal companies and foreign power companies. Alliance members include coal companies Peabody Energy Corp. (BTU) and BHP Billiton Ltd. (BHP), and utilities E.ON AG (EOAN.XE), which has operations in the U.S., and China Huaneng Group.
The Obama administration has worked to revive the project, committing more than $1 billion. This came after the Bush administration in early 2008 backed out of funding plans after costs almost doubled. Although it’s a government- backed project, FutureGen still requires considerable private funding, with American Electric Power last summer saying its exit was a financial decision. FutureGen has indicated it would like to add several more partners to the project.
“Today’s announcement will help to further discussions that the Alliance is having with other companies who have expressed interest in FutureGen membership,” FutureGen Alliance CEO Michael Mudd said in a press release.
Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn and Sen. Dick Durbin (D., Ill.) noted in the same release that the company’s backing comes ahead of a pending announcement from the Department of Energy on the next stage of the project, with final go-ahead dependent on the alliance bringing in more members and cutting costs. Final approval will release $1.1 billion of federal stimulus funds to restart the project.
FutureGen envisions the construction of a power plant that would capture and permanently store underground CO2 emitted in combustion. The plant would test the technology on a commercial level, a critical step for an approach that hasn’t been tried on a large scale. Coal-fired plants provide nearly half the nation’s power while having the highest CO2 emissions among various generation sources. Developing a commercially viable means to clean up coal-fired power generation is seen by many as a vital–and politically expedient–way to limit climate change.
Quinn, Durbin and Rowe in their statements nodded to project’s location in the company’s home state, where it owns both generation and a large power-delivery utility.
“Exelon is very familiar with the needs of our state,” Durbin said. “Because of that connection to Illinois, they bring a lot to the table as the FutureGen Alliance and the Department of Energy enter into the final stage of negotiations. I am confident that this is the first of many new members–from Illinois and around the world.”
-By Mark Peters, Dow Jones Newswires; 212-416-2457; mark.peters@dowjones.com
(Mark Long and Jane Hexham in New York contributed to this article.)
(END) Dow Jones Newswires
01-30-10 1658ET
Copyright (c) 2010 Dow Jones & Company, Inc.
Link to the article.
OFFICIAL STATEMENTS: July 14, 2009
Senator Dick Durbin’s Statement Regarding Release of FutureGen Record of Decision
Illinois Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity Director Warren Ribley reacts to DOE’s issuing of Record of Decision
OFFICIAL STATEMENTS: June 25, 2009
Senator Dick Durbin’s Statement Regarding FutureGen Alliance
OFFICIAL STATEMENTS: June 12, 2009
To read official statements from Senator Dick Durbin, Congressman Tim Johnson, Congressman Jerry Costello, Congressman John Shimkus and Director Warren Ribley, please view the links below:
(Download PDFs):
Senator Dick Durbin’s, Congressmen Tim Johnson’s, Congressman Jerry Costello’s and Congressman John Shimkus’ Statements
Illinois Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity Director Warren Ribley reacts to FutureGen announcement
To read the official statement from U.S. Secretary of Energy, Dr. Steven Chu, please view the link below:
Secretary Chu Announces Agreement on FutureGen Project in Mattoon, IL
U.S. Department of Energy, June 12, 2009
OTHER ARTICLES:
Caterpillar joins backers of power plant project
Associated Press, Forbes, February 8, 2010
Caterpillar joins in FutureGen Alliance
Herb Meeker, Journal Gazette and Times-Courier, February 8, 2010
Caterpillar announces plans to join FutureGen project
Tim Landis, The State Journal-Register, February 8, 2010
If I may, I nominate:
“We knew, obviously, there was something wrong,”
for Quote of the Week. I realize there have been many good ones this week, what with the Met brouhaha and all, but that one is so universal that I think it deserves special commendation.
They’ll probably come up with an idea soon where they float a giant platform in space and run a massive hose down to the ground and siphon off carbon dioxide directly into space.
Sounds like the 1-800 “Bad Drug” lawyer guys need to expand their vision.