A win against carbon sequestration idiocy

Good. That's another blow to trash Billy Nungesser and his buddy Landry trying to line their pockets too.

On a second topic, why does Billy Nungesser look like the mayor in Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs?

quote:

---

Kelo

---

Arguably one of the worst decisions in Supreme Court history

quote:

---

I thought they changed their name to Louisiana Gateway Port

---

That's down by St. Bernard I believe.

quote:

---

The crooked thing about this saga is the public entities are trying to usurp landowners rights to the "pore space" under their land, instead of offering up compensation similar to mineral rights.

---

Got it. That makes sense.

quote:

---

How is it possible that these two questions came to mind when reading my post?

---

Well if you understood biology you would know that carbon is not bad, it's essential. And if you understand that it's essential for life, you'd understand that it doesn't need to be captured and stored underground.

quote:

---

This does nothing to answer my question.

---

I explained it to you.

You're going to have to do the understanding part yourself.

quote:

---

What exactly is the opposition to the carbon capture stuff?

It seems to outrage people but I haven't ever seen an explanation for what people are so upset about.

---

In the general sense there are two categories:

1. Junk science/scare tactics
2. Property rights and responsibilities

For the purposes of this discussion, CCS is the removal of CO2 created from industrial processes, pressurizing it until it's in a liquid form, then dropping it down a very, very, very deep well (up to 10k feet for class VI wells) in order to stop global warming. There are shitloads of posts about the junk science aspect so I'm going to focus on the second point for now.

The proponents of CCS need the pore rights (mineral rights deals with the ownership of the actual minerals, pore rights deals with the empty spaces which exist underground) of the land under which they will be injecting the liquid CO2.

The more they pump in, the farther out from the well site the CO2 oozes into the pore spaces. This movement is referred to as its plume and a plume map shows how far they expect it to move over segments of years (5, 10, 20, etc. with the map for my family's farm going out to 120 years).

This is only feasible due to the federal government's 45Q tax credits. The credits pay $85 per metric ton for Class VI well injections. The Port of Plaquemines proposal would have been ~550k tons injected per year (~$46,750,000 per year). This is only for injection, there are no annual payments for storage.

The way programs like this are supposed to work is that the company works with geologists to find where they think an area can hold the CO2, they then have to purchase the pore rights from the property owners.

In 2024 the legislature gave the Office of Conservation the authority to create CO2 storage "units" made up of chunks of properties in an area where CCS would be taking place. If 75% of the property owners in the unit agree, the remaining 25% can be forced into the unit. Anyone in a unit must be given "just and equitable compensation" for their pore space.

Understand this: "unitization of pore space" is nothing more than an attempt to pull a linguistic end-run around the law against the government expropriating property for an "economic good" by calling it something different.

The state has created no formula as yet for determining the compensation.

Once this is in the ground, if there is ever a leak there is a $500k cap on damages per event. Let's say a leak happens under a hospital, school, etc. and 100 people die. That's one event, so 100 families split only $500k.

Fifty years after the last injection, the post-injection closure period ends and the CCS company is no longer liable for any issues from leaks, etc.

So for a one-time payment for buying (or taking, in the case of a minority of owners in a unit who refuse), landowners will likely (going off prices paid in other CCS projects) get a one-time payment of anywhere from $50-$300 per acre for warehousing the liquid CO2 forever. Meanwhile, the CCS companies will hire relatively few people, make at least 10s of millions of dollars per year, have significant legal cover against potential liabilities and then those liabilities (but not the coverage against them) will be shuffled off onto the landowners.

quote:

---

What exactly is the opposition to the carbon capture stuff?

---

Me, personally, I don't think taxpayer money should be funding these boondoggles.

Now, there are a large segment of folks who are jumping up and down about it being unsafe and going to cause environmental disasters and dangers to life. Industry has been handling vast amounts for CO2 safely for decades, though, and in some instances, sequestering it. I would be worried about some fly by night operator, which is why states should have high bonding requirements, but outfits like Exxon, Chevron, Occidental, etc know what they're doing.

But yes, it is a scam on the taxpayers, that many of Louisiana's elected leaders, including MAGA Governor Jeff Landry, seem to be in favor of.

quote:

---

“Junk science/scare tactics”
Have you heard Brad LeBlanc presentation.?
If so do you think he is promoting junk science?
Serious question,not being snarky.

He scares the shite out of me.He says it’s not a question of if it’s going to leak,it’s a question of when.

---

I have not, but I think I would probably agree with him.

The early theory from geologists is that the earthquakes in NW La are from waste water injected into the ground for fracking.

1. If waste water is the cause, why wouldn't liquified CO2 cause it as well?

2. If there were such an earthquake caused by liquified CO2 being injected into the ground, what guarantees are there that it wouldn't create fissures in the Wilcox formation (being looked at as a reservoir in central North La) which would allow the CO2 to escape up one of the abandoned (and sometimes uncapped) wells?

3. There's absolutely zero guarantee there isn't already fissures or cracks in the formation which would allow such seepage.