PA’s big stake in carbon sequestration tests

The nation’s energy crisis would be yesterday’s news if so-called, clean-coal technology can be proven to work effectively and economically.

That’s a big ‘if’ –perhaps a long shot–but it would provide an enormous economic boost to coal-producing states like Pennsylvania, which:

* Has anthracite coal reserves in excess of 7 billion tons
* Is the nation’s second largest exporter of electricity, and
* Generates 55 percent of its electricity from coal

The Bush Administration, to the chagrin of some environmental groups, is committed to the technology and is spending millions on projects to test the viability of “carbon sequestration.”

What is it? Simply put, it’s the process whereby greenhouse gas-producing carbon dioxide emissions from power plants would be captured (rather than escaping to the atmosphere) and injected into old coal mines, salt mines and other below-surface cavities.

Will is work? And at what environmental and financial cost?

At present, large-scale carbon sequestration is as much concept as reality, but Congress has appropriated funds to test whether it can provide a real-world solution to the world’s CO2 emissions problem.

Yesterday, the Department of Energy announced awards of more than $126.6 million for carbon sequestration tests in California and Ohio–the Department’s fifth and sixth large-scale projects.

“The formations to be tested during the third phase of the partnerships program are the most promising of the major geologic basins in the United States. Collectively, these formations have the potential to store more than 100 hundred years of CO2 emissions from all major point sources in North America,” said Acting Deputy Secretary of Energy Jeffrey Kupfer.

“Tests like these will help provide the confidence and build the infrastructure necessary to commercialize these technologies, and will enable the U.S. to continue using its vast resources of coal while protecting the earth for future generations.”

According to the DOE, the new projects are designed to demonstrate the entire CO2 injection process – pre-injection characterization, injection process monitoring, and post-injection monitoring – for large scale injections of one million tons or more to test the ability of different geologic settings to permanently store CO2. The Department says it plans to invest $126.6 million in the two projects over the next 10 years, while “industry partners will provide $56.6 million in cost-shared funds to make these projects a success.”

More information on the DOE projects is available here.

Many in the environmental community see the funding as a wasteful diversion from more promising technologies, like solar, wind and cellulosic ethanol.

Greenpeace on Monday released a study called “False Hope: Why carbon capture and storage won’t save the climate.”

Is carbon sequestration research a good use of your federal taxes? Let us know what you think about this or related energy issues by clicking on the “comment” line below.

MORE:
Anthracite coal mining in Pennsylvania
Southeast Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership
The Status of Carbon Sequestration – Cleantech Blog
Putting the genie back in the bottle – Bizmology blog

PA’s big stake in carbon sequestration tests Read More »

LNG platforms – A northeast update

On April 10, New York Governor David Paterson announced he was rejecting a plan by Broadwater Energy to to build a floating liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminal nine miles off the coast of Long Island. The news delighted environmentalists, fishermen and other lovers of Long Island Sound. NY nixes LNG platform; focus shifts to NJ

This week, Broadwater (a joint venture of Shell Oil and the TransCanada Corporation) was back in the news, announcing that it would appeal to the U.S. commerce secretary. A decision could take up to a year. If the appeal is successful, it no doubt would trigger law suits that could drag on for some time.

In the meanwhile, the focus has shifted to New Jersey where the battle lines are being drawn over two separate proposals to erect LNG terminals off the coast.

The first, “Safe Harbor Energy,” comes from Atlantic Sea Island Group, a group of private investors who propose to build a man-made island for a LNG facility 13 miles off Long Beach, NY, and 19 miles off Sea Bright, NJ. The second, “Blue Ocean Energy,” is ExxonMobil’s plan for a floating LNG terminal located 30 miles off Long Island and 20 miles east of New Jersey. (Video)

The Jersey-shore organization, Clean Ocean Action, used Earth Day to formally launch its campaign against both proposals, staging a rally on the beach in Sea Bright which was attended by long-time supporter Rep. Frank J. Pallone Jr., D-N.J.

“If it’s not good enough for Long Island Sound, it’s sure as hell isn’t good enough for our “Clean Ocean Zone,’ ” declared the group’s executive director Cindy Zipf.

If the title of a subsequent Asbury Park Press editorial, LNG proposals pose new threat , left any doubt on where the paper stood, the opening sentence made it crystal clear :

“Plans to build two liquefied natural gas plants about 20 miles off the Monmouth County coast deserve to sink under the weight of major safety and environmental concerns.”

But, unlike his fellow governors in New York and Connecticut who sided with opponents of the Broadwater plan, New Jersey’s Jon Corzine “realizes that we have a growing generation gap when it comes to our power needs in New Jersey, and LNG facilities must be considered as we move forward in crafting a long-term energy strategy for the state,” according to his press secretary Lilo Stainton.

Bergen Record columnist James Ahearn expanded on the Stainton quote on Sunday, declaring: ” “Corzine, faced with a confrontation between environmental activists and corporate interests, did not hesitate to choose growth.”

What’s the smart-money pick in this enviro-political dog fight?

Hard to say. New Jersey’s LNG contest is still in the early innings. Let’s wait to see were other key state and federal lawmakers line up and whether ExxonMobil and the Atlantic Sea Island Group can do a better job than Broadwater did in articulating their projects’ public benefits.

Continuously rising energy prices could help them. Any serious pollution incidents at Jersey beaches this summer, related to LNG or not, could hurt.
___________________________________________________

Related
:

Feds urged to overturn OK of Broadwater facility Federal energy regulators are being formally urged by state and local officials and environmentalists in New York and Connecticut to reverse a decision approving the Broadwater liquid natural gas facility.

In TransCanada profit soars, the Toronto Globe and Mail reports that the Power and pipeline company reports a profit of $449 million for the first quarter of 2008 despite a $27 million writedown on previously capitalized costs on the Broadwater project.

In Broadwater’s wake. The apparent loss of the Long Island Sound project was not cheered by all. Suffolk Life says that, although Broadwater’s project’s managers “did a lousy job of selling the concept of a liquefied natural gas platform,” the plan did offer benefits, including a $12 million in-lieu of tax payment to Riverhead Town whose school district could use the money because of the town’s small industrial tax base.

WSJ Says: Don’t Bet on LNG to Reduce US Natural Gas Prices – Commentary from a blog named It’s Getting Hot in Here

LNG platforms – A northeast update Read More »

Week’s top environmental & political news: April 21-25 ’08

Every day, we select a few of the top environmental and political stories appearing in our newsletter, EnviroPolitics, and post them to our website for free public use.

Click the links below to view stories for New Jersey, Pennsylvania, New York–and beyond– that appeared during the past week.

April 21 2008
April 22 2008
April 23 2008
April 24 2008
April 25 2008

To receive free daily alerts when our Environmental & Political News page is updated, simply send a blank email to: eptopdailynews@aweber.com

Week’s top environmental & political news: April 21-25 ’08 Read More »

Week’s top environmental & political news

Every day, we select a few of the top environmental and political stories appearing in our newsletter, EnviroPolitics, and post them to our website for free public use.

Click the links below to view stories for New Jersey, Pennsylvania, New York–and beyond– that appeared during the past week.

April 18 2008
April 17 2008
April 16 2008
April 15 2008

To receive free daily alerts when our Environmental & Political News page is updated, simply send a blank email to: eptopdailynews@aweber.com

Week’s top environmental & political news Read More »

The NJ-DEP’s newest enforcement powers

Those who fear that the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) already has more than enough environmental enforcement clout are advised to skip to some other topic on this blog. The analysis we are about to recommend could ruin your day.

On January 4, 2008, Governor Jon Corzine signed into law the “Environmental Enforcement Enhancement Act” which gives the NJDEP sweeping new enforcement authority under 10 separate environmental statutes.

Three environmental attorneys at the law firm of K&LGates–Dawn M. Monsen, John F. Spinello, and Mary Theresa S. Kenny — have analyzed the new law and find that it…

“… substantially increases the maximum civil penalties NJDEP may seek, authorizes NJDEP to commence administrative enforcement proceedings and assess administrative penalties, establishes third degree crimes for certain violations, allows NJDEP to recover legal costs and natural resource damages, and record deed notices for certain alleged violations.”

They predict that the new authority granted to the DEP by the Act…

“will have the most pronounced effect in the NJDEP’s enforcement of the land use and water resource programs, and may affect pending, as well as new cases commenced by the NJDEP.”

The attorneys review the Act’s background and purpose, provide a detailed examination of its key provisions and revised penalties, and offer their conclusions as to its likely effects.

You’ll find it all in this K&LGates Environmental, Land Use and Natural Resources Alert.

The NJ-DEP’s newest enforcement powers Read More »

NY nixes LNG platform; focus shifts to NJ

Environmentalists, fishermen, boaters and others who for months have been fighting a proposal to build a floating liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminal nine miles off the coast of Long Island breathed a sigh of relief today when Governor David Paterson gave the project his official thumbs down. (Newsday story and video)

John Hritcko, senior vice president and regional project director of Houston-based Broadwater Energy said the project isn’t necessarily dead, since its backers, Shell Oil and the TransCanada Corporation, might appeal the decision to the federal Commerce Department and, failing that, could go to court.

Despite the potential for appeals, the governor’s decision takes the project off the front burner and shifts attention to New Jersey where two other developers are proposing separate off-shore LNG projects.

The first, “Safe Harbor Energy,” comes from Atlantic Sea Island Group (ASIG), a group of private investors who propose to build a man-made island for a LNG facility 13 miles off Long Beach, NY, and 19 miles off Sea Bright, NJ.

The second, “Blue Ocean Energy,” is ExxonMobil’s plan for a floating LNG terminal located 30 miles off Long Island and 20 miles east of New Jersey. (Video)

It will be interesting to see how the lessons of Broadwater are applied in New Jersey, both by the developers and project opponents.

In New York and Connecticut, environmental opponents won the support of key politicians (most notably Connecticut’s governor and attorney general), bloggers, newspaper columnists and editorial boards (including the New York Times).

Broadwater tried to counter with a survey that claimed to find widespread public support for its project. But this came late in the game, long after the court of public opinion had clearly rendered an unfavorable opinion.

In New Jersey, ExxonMobil and ASIG have been quietly pursuing federal approval for their projects and so far have not mounted any noticeable public relations campaigns.

Opposition likely will be lead by Clean Ocean Action, a Jersey shore environmental organization which hasn’t wasted any time is using its web site and a “fact sheet” to educate its members and supporters about the alleged shortcomings of both projects.

We’ll be watching the action from shore and brining you periodic updates. Let the PR games begin!

NY nixes LNG platform; focus shifts to NJ Read More »

Verified by MonsterInsights