HomeNewsSportsMoreWeatherAnnouncementsClassifiedsMy Trib.ComMy CityJobsHomesCars
Advanced Search
 

Putting gas in the ground


Story Tools

Print this story

E-mail this story

Rate this story

Text Size

Share This Story:
del.icio.usdiggNewsVine




trib.popular


CHEYENNE -- Questions about how to regulate underground storage of captured carbon emissions in Wyoming are proving tricky.

A legislative panel Tuesday delayed action on two carbon sequestration bills because of lingering questions about the complicated legislation.

Gov. Dave Freudenthal and other policy makers are pushing to make the state a leader in carbon capture and sequestration technology and policy. Underground disposal of carbon dioxide gas, believed to be a contributor to global warming, is seen as critical to the continued success of the state's coal economy.

“What we're trying to do is get ahead of the game,” said Sen. Tony Ross, R-Cheyenne, a co-chairman of the Legislature's Joint Interim Judiciary Committee, which is crafting the bills for the upcoming budget session.

The bills cover two areas: who owns underground carbon dioxide storage areas, also called “pore areas,” and which agencies should be in charge of regulating carbon sequestration. The ownership issue is the most important.

At question is whether the pore spaces belong to surface holders or mineral owners. Wyoming split-estate laws provide separate ownership for each.

The legislation in its current form would grant ownership to surface holders. That's largely because court decisions across the nation hold that pore space created by the extraction of oil and gas belongs to the surface owner.

Spokesmen for the Wyoming Farm Bureau Federation and the Wyoming Stock Growers Association spoke out in support of the ownership bill.

Wyoming Mining Association spokesman Marion Loomis asked the committee to differentiate between pore spaces used for carbon sequestration and other purposes, such as the storage of other materials. The committee declined to act on Loomis' recommendation.

Two agencies, the Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission and the state Department of Environmental Quality, have expressed interest in regulating carbon sequestration. After much deliberation, the committee opted to withhold a decision.

The committee is carefully crafting the bills so they don't infringe on the state's long-standing extraction traditions.

“Our point here is to help clarify the law without destroying 100 years of oil and gas production,” Rep. Mary Throne, D-Cheyenne, said.

But lawmakers say carbon sequestration technology and regulations are urgently needed. Without them, Wyoming coal may become less viable as the political tide turns against coal-fired power plants and other carbon gas emitters, officials said.

“This is about jobs,” Rep. Tom Lubnau, R-Gillette, said.

Geological formations such as the Rock Springs Uplift have been offered as locations where millions of tons of gas could be injected and stored long term.

Mark Northam, director of the University of Wyoming School of Energy Resources, told the committee that Wyoming is positioned to be a leader in carbon sequestration.

“We have an opportunity in Wyoming to set precedents if we do this correctly,” said Northam, who painted a picture of carbon sequestration as a complex and somewhat uncharted field of geological science.

He said the major environmental concerns are interactions with fluids and other subsurface minerals and potential groundwater contamination. He said the risk of accidental discharge is minimal.

He explained that injections of carbon dioxide will displace ancient reservoirs that will then be in flux for centuries.

Once underground, the gas can spread upward and outward in massive plumes that will require long-term monitoring to make sure it stays in place, Northam said.

He said it can take hundreds of years for the gas to find its permanent resting place beneath the earth's surface, and regulations should be crafted accordingly.

“This is a much longer-term issue than we are used to dealing with in the oil and gas field,” Northam said.

The Joint Interim Judiciary Committee will take up both bills when it meets again in January.

Support of two-thirds of the House or Senate will be needed to introduce the bill during the upcoming budget session.

Reach capital bureau reporter Jared Miller at (307) 632-1244 or at jared.miller@trib.com.


Previous   Next
Backing a fellow coal state   Report touts wildlife refuges

Article Rating

Current Rating: 2.3 of 3 votes!Rate File:

Reader Comments

There are 9 comment(s)

Comments to this story.

WYNative wrote on Nov 28, 2007 12:34 PM:

" The Rock Springs Uplift is not a geologic formation...it is a geologic structure that is made up of many different geologic formations. Please, please, please do some real research next time. "

flounder wrote on Nov 28, 2007 1:01 PM:

" That's just rich. When pore spaces were created that no one wanted, they were dumped on surface owners. Now that there might be some uses for them, they want to take them from surface owners. Typical big business ploy of trying to change the free market to their own liking. "

Global Warming Debunker wrote on Nov 28, 2007 1:22 PM:

" This plan is completely idiotic, and is typical of government stupidity. Will the governor put up his private financial assets as collateral to cover the costs of environmental remediation to groundwater supplies after their deep core sequestration plan fails, and CO2 contaminates aquifers, making it into fizzy water, creating turbidity issues, damaging aquifers and groundwater supplies? If the state really wants to be taken seriously about carbon dioxide (plant food) reduction from power plants, then the state should look at investing money in a company currently perfecting methods of utilizing waste CO2 (plant food) emissions from power plants, chemically altering it with sodium hydroxide, baking the mixture with waste heat generated by the power plant, turning the waste CO2 (plant food) into marketable, better than food grade baking soda. (http://www.news.com/Can-baking-soda-curb-global-warming/2100-13838_3-6220127.html) Once perfected, this method would easily pay for itself in the long run, it is harmless to the environment and it creates a useful product from CO2 (plant food) combustion gases. Then the Global Warming Doomsday Cultists won't be able to whine about coal power plants and who knows, Wyoming's taxpayers may even have their taxes reduced with a good profit margin (yeah, I know, tax reductions are a laughable prospect with our current government), if the state chose to invest in forward thinking inventors, instead of proposing wasting millions, upon millions of our hard earned tax dollars to pump harmless CO2 (plant food) underground. Only government and "big science" government grant winners could come up with such stupidity. Regardless, of what method of removing plant food from the environment is used, temperatures are still beginning to come down around the planet, due to natural cycles of La Nina, and reversing Arctic Ocean Oscillations. "

Judge S wrote on Nov 28, 2007 4:15 PM:

" Actually, the legislation specifically says the porespaces belong to the surface owner. "

NUTS! wrote on Nov 28, 2007 8:18 PM:

" Gove Dave has completely lost it. "

George M. wrote on Nov 29, 2007 9:47 PM:

" The undergound storage of gas is a common and mature technology. It is commonly used for storage on natural gas. The commonest techniques are pore/fracture storage either in formations which are isolated naturally such as a lenticular sandstone deposit which surrounded by impermeable shales or an area which has been isolated by injected slurry walls to prevent horizontal or vertical migration of the gas. Alternatively, large caverns may be dissolved in salt deposits. ---- Because natural gas is a valuable commodity the gas companies do not want it escaping. The same techniques will work for any other gas such as CO2. All it takes is more money for selection of a site or site preparation before injection. You don't just pick a spot, drill a hole, and start pumping. "

Wheatland wrote on Nov 30, 2007 3:00 PM:

" flounder, No matter what anyone proposes it will be wrong won't it? So brilliant one, what is your plan that won't ruin the economy or the environment? Back to caves hippie boy? Back to the dunce chair for you loud and ignorant one. "

flounder wrote on Dec 4, 2007 10:53 AM:

" Actually, anything Marion Loomis proposes will be wrong. I am open to other ideas. And how would letting the precedent that surface owners own pore spaces "ruin the economy"? I would like to see more carbon sequestration (I think we can do more tertiary oil and gas recovery with it, like at Salt Creek Field), I just don't want to see the "economy" ruined for the surface owners, that is all. "

George M. wrote on Dec 5, 2007 10:51 AM:

" Marion Loomis articulates the position of the Wyoming Mining Association very well and has been an effective advocate of the WMA for many years. Sometimes the interests of the members of the WMA are the same as those of the public but many times they are as parochial and self-centered as any other special interest group. Just because a particular special interest group is in favor of something does not mean there should be a knee jerk reaction against it any more that there should be automatic favorable reaction. What's good for the WMA is not necessarily good for the State of Wyoming but neither is it automaticlly bad for the State. ---- Wheatland: Your posting to Flounder on 11/30 is a textbook example of a "ad hominem" argument. That is where you attack the person rather than the position that person is taking. It is considered to be a fallacious argument and is an indication that the person making it cannot effectively argue against the position itself and has to resort to a personal attack. "

Submit a Comment

We encourage your feedback and dialog, all comments will be reviewed by our Web staff before appearing on the Web site.
(optional)
   
Please note: We provide our story commenting feature in order to solicit feedback, debate and discussion on topics of local interest. Please keep in mind that civility is a necessary component of productive conversation. All blatantly inflammatory or otherwise inappropriate comments (i.e. vulgarity, marketing, etc.) are subject to rejection and/or removal. Comments will appear if and when they are approved. Thanks for reading, and thanks for participating.