Great Falls Tribune

March 29, 2009

Schweitzer, Canadian leader push pricey sequestration demonstration

By JOHN S. ADAMS Tribune Capitol Bureau

HELENA — Gov. Brian Schweitzer and Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall are turning to taxpayers to help fund a massive carbon sequestration demonstration project they say could be a major first step in solving the global carbon crisis.

"Almost 99.999 percent ... of the coal plants produce their electricity through a pulverized coal process, which means once the coal is burned, then lots of things go up the smokestack," said Schweitzer, one of the nation's most vocal proponents of so-called "clean coal" technology. "Everybody who is studying this knows that if we want to decrease CO2 in a meaningful way, we have to attack those existing smokestacks."

According to Schweitzer, here are the basics of what the proposed $250-million Canadian-Montana project would entail:

Capture about 1,000 tons of the CO2 emitted from SaskPower's Poplar River coal-fired generating station near Coronach, Saskatchewan.

Pipe the captured CO2 about 50 miles to northeastern Montana.

Inject the pressurized and liquefied CO2 about 6,000 feet deep into the earth into a geological formation called the Bowdoin Dome in northeastern Montana.

Monitor the CO2 once it's sequestered beneath the earth.

After scientists are satisfied that the CO2 will stay in place and not pollute groundwater or migrate to the surface, pump the CO2 back out of the ground and use it for advanced oil recovery in the Bakken oil fields. Injecting the CO2 into oil-bearing stratum would push oil into the piping network and up to the surface.

But some observers say Montana isn't ready for a project like this because Montana lacks the regulatory framework for dealing with the complexities of sequestration and it's extremely expensive to do.

"Sequestration might be an alternative, but it is going to be very expensive and the potential danger from doing it poorly could have a significant impact not only on public health and the environment, but also on property rights and water quality," says Anne Hedges of the Montana Environmental Information Center in Helena. "If we're going to go down this path, we should do it with extreme caution and with our eyes wide open."

Proponents of the idea say something has to be done now to address the millions of tons of CO2 pouring out of existing smokestacks around the globe.

Schweitzer says Canadian researchers at the University of Regina have developed technology that will separate "pure CO2" from other stack pollutants. He says the proposed project would benefit Montana while addressing the carbon crisis.

"Think of a big tank down there," Schweitzer says of the Bowdoin Dome."We pump a lot of CO2 in and we keep it there for several years and we continue to measure it. After we have demonstrated that, yes, you can geologically store (CO2)...we will be able to now take that CO2 back out and pipe it over to the Bakken oil field where we will get enhanced oil recovery and we will increase oil production by hundreds of millions of barrels."

Schweitzer says he wants to secure about $100 million for the project from the $3 billion set aside in the federal economic stimulus package for sequestration research. He says the Canadian government and private energy companies would partner in the project, though he wouldn't disclose the names of those companies because of "proprietary agreements with the Saskatchewan government."

Environmentalists caution that the state lacks the necessary regulatory framework for dealing with large-scale subterranean CO2 storage, and that it may not be a wise investment given global economic circumstances.

"I think that we have to look at all options for controlling carbon emissions, and I think that sequestration will be a part of the puzzle," says Hedges. "But I think when we consider the issues, we have to consider the costs and the benefits. And we have to take a look at alternatives that may be more cost effective."

Why sequestration?

Those who working to address the world's growing energy crisis realize that if humans want to continue to enjoy all of the conveniences of the modern industrialized world then we're going to need a lot more energy in the future.

The federal government estimates that world energy consumption will rise by nearly 50 percent from 2005 levels by 2030, and more than half of the electricity we consume in this country comes from coal, the United States'—and Montana's—most abundant fuel source.

But generating electricity from coal comes with serious drawbacks. Coal-fired power plant produce tremendous amounts of CO2, the greenhouse gas most scientists agree is responsible for global warming.

While scientists are debating the extent to which human-caused CO2 is impacting the globe, lawmakers in Washington, D.C., and Helena are preparing for what they say will be an inevitable regulatory cap on CO2 emissions.

Plans for new coal-fired power plants have stalled throughout the country as investors wait to see what kind of carbon regulations come out of Washington, D.C. and how costly it will be for polluters to pump CO2 into the atmosphere.

With Democratic President Barack Obama in the White House and Democrats in control of Congress, most observers say legislation that penalizes CO2 polluters is on the horizon, likely through a carbon tax or a cap and trade system whereby the biggest polluters buy carbon credits from smaller emitters.

The Legislature

If developers are going to burn coal, they're going to need to find a way to deal with the CO2 other than pumping into the air.

With that in mind, lawmakers in Helena are considering a bill by Sen. Keith Bales, R-Otter, that would put a state carbon sequestration program under the supervision of the state Board of Oil and Gas Conservation.

"Whether or not you believe in global warming being caused by CO2, I think it's inherent upon us to have a program in place to sequester CO2," Bales said about Senate Bill 498 earlier this month.

After initially vowing to veto the measure because it didn't define ownership of the "pore space" beneath the surface where the CO2 would be stored, Schweitzer now says he supports the bill. A compromise version of the measure gives surface owners the ownership rights to the pore space beneath their land, Schweitzer says.

Under the legislation, developers would have to get a permit from the Board of Oil and Gas before they drill and inject carbon into the earth. Twenty years after pumping is complete, the companies could hand off liability and ownership of the CO2 reservoir to the state.

The measure was approved by the Senate and awaits a hearing in the House energy committee.

A bill that would regulate CO2 pipelines is also in the works. Rep. Duane Ankney, R-Colstrip, has proposed a measure that would give "common carrier" status to CO2 pipelines similar to oil and gas pipelines. House Bill 338 would allow private companies to use eminent domain to take private property to build the CO2 pipelines.

That bill passed the House and on Saturday easily cleared a key vote in the Senate. A final Senate vote is expected this week and then the bill heads to the governor where it will likely be signed.

Hedges says lawmakers are hastily acting on sequestration legislation without considering the possible long-term drawbacks of their actions.

"The path we're on should be to proceed with caution," says Hedges. "So often that gets lost in the heat of a legislative session where everybody is just thinking about today. That's unfortunate because these are long-term issues and you're potentially saddling the state with long-term consequences."

And Hedges says those consequences could be catastrophic.

But Schweitzer says the time is now to begin testing the future of carbon sequestration, and Montana can be a leader.

"We have coal. We need to clean up the coal and get the CO2 out of it," Schweitzer says. "We can demonstrate that we can use (CO2) for enhanced oil recovery and along the way we can develop the technology to for geologically storing CO2."

But Hedges says the state would be wise to consider alternatives before embarking on costly sequestration projects. She cautions against foregoing other opportunities such as funding for consumers to make homes more efficient with ground source heat pumps, solar panels and wind mills.

"Ultimately, sequestration is just a bridge technology to a more efficient future that is more reliant on renewable energy," Hedges says. "We can decide to make the enormous investment in sequestration and then move forward with these efficient and renewable technologies, or we can just move straight to efficiencies and renewables."

gci_osstslen; i++) { if(i==0) s.prop17=gci_ossts[i]; // section if(i==1) s.prop18=gci_ossts[i]; // subsection if(i==2) s.prop19=gci_ossts[i]; // topic if(i==3) s.prop20=gci_ossts[i]; // Subtopic } DM_tag(); // Sets the "rsi_segs" cookie in GCION domain if (gdn_enable_bt) { if (GDN.Cookie.Exists(GDN.Cookies.Session.Name)) { var updateBtCookie = (!GDN.IsNullOrEmpty(GDN.Cookies.Session.GetValue("ubt"))) ? GDN.Cookies.Session.GetValue("ubt") : "1"; if (updateBtCookie == "1" && !GDN.IsNullOrEmpty(rsinetsegs)) { GDN.Rpc.Send(GDN.RegUrl("q=5&Segment=" + escape(rsinetsegs.join('|')))); GDN.Cookies.Session.SetValue("ubt", "0"); } } } } }