In a message dated 1/3/2009 2:41:12 PM Eastern Standard Time, william.depaulo@gmail.com writes:
I have stated earlier my belief that we should not object, per se, to the issuance of the permit. However, I believe we should insist on complete transparency, i.e., total access by all to the data collected to see if this well effectively captures CO2.
Please let me know what thoughts you have on this issue.
BILL, ET AL........... SEEMS TO ME THAT SOMEONE OR SOME ORGANIZATION SHOULD OBJECT BECAUSE OF THE FOLLOWING CONSIDERATIONS.
I BELIEVE THAT CO2 SEQUESTRATION HAS NOT BEEN DEMONSTRATED TO BE AN AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGY (TECHNICALLY FEASIBLE), PRACTICAL (ECONOMICALLY FEASIBLE), SAFE ( NEAR TERM RELIABLE), OR PERMANENT (LONG TERM RELIABLE).
THEREFORE, IF THIS APPROACH WERE APPROVED BY THE P.S.C., IT WOULD BE AT SUBSTANTIAL PERIL TO THE STATE. IT WOULD INDICATE TO THE WORLD THAT OUR STATE IS OUT OF TOUCH WITH REALITY. SUCH APPROVAL WOULD MAKE IT POSSIBLE FOR A.E.P. TO BUILD THE FACILITY AND THEN TAKE THE POSITION THAT THEY WOULD THEN PRACTICE SEQUESTRATION AS SOON AS IT BECOMES FEASIBLE AND RELIABLE, AND WHO KNOWS WHEN OR WHETHER THIS WILL EVER BE THE CASE.
duane nichols
**************New year...new news. Be the first to know what is making headlines. (http://www.aol.com/?ncid=emlcntaolcom00000026)