ATTACHED IS TITLE 47, SERIES 13 OF THE STATE REGS RELATING TO UNDERGROUND INJECTION CONTROL.
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: William V. DePaulo, Esq. william.depaulo@gmail.com Date: Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 9:10 AM Subject: Re: Carbon Sequestration - UIC permitNotice - County - Mason - AEP To: James Kotcon jkotcon@wvu.edu
How do we know anything works? Monitoring? How would we know it doesn't? Same thing, no?
I think this is a very sensitive question, politically, and how we respond publicly will be very important. If there is no way to determine if it works, that leads to one set of questions. If there *is* a way that leads to another set.
It is certainly a fair position to state that no such thing as "clean coal" exists, and totally defensible to assert that development of carbon sequestration and storage technology is so remote a possibility that we should not invest a significant portion of finite resources into an improbable solution.
But confronted with a concrete proposal to "try it" the question changes....coal advocates will take the position that opponents of the proposal are simply trying to avoid their own inconvenient truths.
Secondly, if you engage all cynicism sensors, you'd conclude that -- having denied there was even a carbon problem -- once the sucker is built, the coal industry will claim to have "solved" the formerly non-existent problem.
I think we should be involved in this, big time, but I also think we should be prepared to let AEP spend any amount of its own money it wants trying to demo a solution...so long as the experiment is conducted in a way that its results are scientifically verifiable. In other words, insist on transparency, controls, immediate access to raw data unfiltered by AEP or its scientists. This is where, in my view, this battle should be fought. It is the high ground scientifically and politically.
Any other attitude on our part invites criticism, valid criticism, that we won't eve consider the theoretical possibility that we're wrong. The flip side of the coin is that if it fails, or succeeds only marginally, "clean coal" evaporates as an idea. Chu, Obama's nominee for DOE secretary raises questions about leakage and "bubbles" that are quoted in today's Gazette. See attached. And there will be more. But I do not think we should oppose this proposal on a knee jerk basis. Properly conducted, the test may sustain our position. Inartfully opposed, it will prove theirs.
On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 8:31 AM, James Kotcon jkotcon@wvu.edu wrote:
How about insisting that this one and only one be permitted and designated an experimental injection or something similar?
Jim Sconyers jim_scon@yahoo.com 603.969.6712
Remember: Mother Nature bats last.
________________________________ From: "William V. DePaulo, Esq." william.depaulo@gmail.com To: WV Chapter Energy Committee EC@osenergy.org Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2008 10:45:32 AM Subject: [EC] Fwd: Carbon Sequestration - UIC permitNotice - County - Mason - AEP
ATTACHED IS TITLE 47, SERIES 13 OF THE STATE REGS RELATING TO UNDERGROUND INJECTION CONTROL.
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: William V. DePaulo, Esq. william.depaulo@gmail.com Date: Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 9:10 AM Subject: Re: Carbon Sequestration - UIC permitNotice - County - Mason - AEP To: James Kotcon jkotcon@wvu.edu
How do we know anything works? Monitoring? How would we know it doesn't? Same thing, no?
I think this is a very sensitive question, politically, and how we respond publicly will be very important. If there is no way to determine if it works, that leads to one set of questions. If there is a way that leads to another set.
It is certainly a fair position to state that no such thing as "clean coal" exists, and totally defensible to assert that development of carbon sequestration and storage technology is so remote a possibility that we should not invest a significant portion of finite resources into an improbable solution.
But confronted with a concrete proposal to "try it" the question changes....coal advocates will take the position that opponents of the proposal are simply trying to avoid their own inconvenient truths.
Secondly, if you engage all cynicism sensors, you'd conclude that -- having denied there was even a carbon problem -- once the sucker is built, the coal industry will claim to have "solved" the formerly non-existent problem.
I think we should be involved in this, big time, but I also think we should be prepared to let AEP spend any amount of its own money it wants trying to demo a solution...so long as the experiment is conducted in a way that its results are scientifically verifiable. In other words, insist on transparency, controls, immediate access to raw data unfiltered by AEP or its scientists. This is where, in my view, this battle should be fought. It is the high ground scientifically and politically.
Any other attitude on our part invites criticism, valid criticism, that we won't eve consider the theoretical possibility that we're wrong. The flip side of the coin is that if it fails, or succeeds only marginally, "clean coal" evaporates as an idea. Chu, Obama's nominee for DOE secretary raises questions about leakage and "bubbles" that are quoted in today's Gazette. See attached. And there will be more. But I do not think we should oppose this proposal on a knee jerk basis. Properly conducted, the test may sustain our position. Inartfully opposed, it will prove theirs.
On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 8:31 AM, James Kotcon jkotcon@wvu.edu wrote:
If it doesn't, how would anyone know?
JBK
william.depaulo@gmail.com 12/16/2008 5:50 PM >>>
What if it works????????? Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
-----Original Message----- From: "James Kotcon" jkotcon@wvu.edu
Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2008 17:20:03 To: EC@osenergy.org Subject: [EC] Fwd: [wvec-board] Fw: Carbon Sequestration - UIC permit Notice - County - Mason - AEP
Yess!!!! We needed one more thing to do.
Word is that this one may be mostly science fiction. Anyone know anything about these things?
JBK
"cindyrank" clrank@hughes.net 12/16/2008 4:23 PM >>>
The underground injection (UIC) permit application for carbon sequestration by AEP in Mason County
To operate and maintain underground injection (UIC) permit to inject carbon dioxide through injection wells into the subsurface located in Mason County.
cindy
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----- Original Message ----- From: dep.online@wv.gov To: clrank@hughes.net Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2008 4:10 PM Subject: DEP Public Notice - County - Mason - Applicant - American Electric Power - Application No. 1189-08-053
_______________________________________________ EC mailing list EC@osenergy.org http://osenergy.org/mailman/listinfo/ec
AEP's Mountaineer plant has been the site of carbon capture and sequestration research funded by US-DOE for some time, at least 5 years. Last year, AEP signed an agreement to test a chilled ammonia capture system there. It would capture 200,000 tons per year, or the equivalent of about 20 MW of the 1300 MW Mountaineer plant. The web site below lists more details.
http://sequestration.mit.edu/tools/projects/aep_alstom_mountaineer.html
I am operating under the assumption that this is the project being permitted, however, perhaps we should wait till we see the actual permit.
JBK
Jim Sconyers jim_scon@yahoo.com 12/17/2008 4:30 PM >>>
How about insisting that this one and only one be permitted and designated an experimental injection or something similar?
Jim Sconyers jim_scon@yahoo.com 603.969.6712
Remember: Mother Nature bats last.
________________________________ From: "William V. DePaulo, Esq." william.depaulo@gmail.com To: WV Chapter Energy Committee EC@osenergy.org Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2008 10:45:32 AM Subject: [EC] Fwd: Carbon Sequestration - UIC permitNotice - County - Mason - AEP
ATTACHED IS TITLE 47, SERIES 13 OF THE STATE REGS RELATING TO UNDERGROUND INJECTION CONTROL.
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: William V. DePaulo, Esq. william.depaulo@gmail.com Date: Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 9:10 AM Subject: Re: Carbon Sequestration - UIC permitNotice - County - Mason - AEP To: James Kotcon jkotcon@wvu.edu
How do we know anything works? Monitoring? How would we know it doesn't? Same thing, no?
I think this is a very sensitive question, politically, and how we respond publicly will be very important. If there is no way to determine if it works, that leads to one set of questions. If there is a way that leads to another set.
It is certainly a fair position to state that no such thing as "clean coal" exists, and totally defensible to assert that development of carbon sequestration and storage technology is so remote a possibility that we should not invest a significant portion of finite resources into an improbable solution.
But confronted with a concrete proposal to "try it" the question changes....coal advocates will take the position that opponents of the proposal are simply trying to avoid their own inconvenient truths.
Secondly, if you engage all cynicism sensors, you'd conclude that -- having denied there was even a carbon problem -- once the sucker is built, the coal industry will claim to have "solved" the formerly non-existent problem.
I think we should be involved in this, big time, but I also think we should be prepared to let AEP spend any amount of its own money it wants trying to demo a solution...so long as the experiment is conducted in a way that its results are scientifically verifiable. In other words, insist on transparency, controls, immediate access to raw data unfiltered by AEP or its scientists. This is where, in my view, this battle should be fought. It is the high ground scientifically and politically.
Any other attitude on our part invites criticism, valid criticism, that we won't eve consider the theoretical possibility that we're wrong. The flip side of the coin is that if it fails, or succeeds only marginally, "clean coal" evaporates as an idea. Chu, Obama's nominee for DOE secretary raises questions about leakage and "bubbles" that are quoted in today's Gazette. See attached. And there will be more. But I do not think we should oppose this proposal on a knee jerk basis. Properly conducted, the test may sustain our position. Inartfully opposed, it will prove theirs.
On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 8:31 AM, James Kotcon jkotcon@wvu.edu wrote:
If it doesn't, how would anyone know?
JBK
william.depaulo@gmail.com 12/16/2008 5:50 PM >>>
What if it works????????? Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
-----Original Message----- From: "James Kotcon" jkotcon@wvu.edu
Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2008 17:20:03 To: EC@osenergy.org Subject: [EC] Fwd: [wvec-board] Fw: Carbon Sequestration - UIC permit Notice - County - Mason - AEP
Yess!!!! We needed one more thing to do.
Word is that this one may be mostly science fiction. Anyone know anything about these things?
JBK
"cindyrank" clrank@hughes.net 12/16/2008 4:23 PM >>>
The underground injection (UIC) permit application for carbon sequestration by AEP in Mason County
To operate and maintain underground injection (UIC) permit to inject carbon dioxide through injection wells into the subsurface located in Mason County.
cindy
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----- Original Message ----- From: dep.online@wv.gov To: clrank@hughes.net Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2008 4:10 PM Subject: DEP Public Notice - County - Mason - Applicant - American Electric Power - Application No. 1189-08-053
_______________________________________________ EC mailing list EC@osenergy.org http://osenergy.org/mailman/listinfo/ec
-
James Kotcon -
Jim Sconyers -
William V. DePaulo, Esq.