- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Carbon Capture Meetings
Posted on 4/27/25 at 7:14 am to Trevaylin
Posted on 4/27/25 at 7:14 am to Trevaylin
quote:
All govt support is temporary.
Definitely true, but I would guess that if the government agrees to pay us to store CO2; we spend a hundred million dollars developing a reservoir; and then they renege, they would be liable for those costs at the very least.
1
Posted on 4/27/25 at 7:21 am to TigerTatorTots
quote:
It is beneficial for the state's economy
How exactly? A couple chemical plants along the Mississippi River?
Posted on 4/27/25 at 7:23 am to LSUA 75
quote:
My biggest fear is that if these injection well that CO2 is pumped into begin to leak into the aquifers above them( and they will leak) the Co2 in water will form carbonic acid and ruin the water in the aquifers. In Grant parish all our water comes from deep wells,I would hate to see it all ruined.
This is a valid concern. The state doesn’t even know where all the old oil wells are located. It would only take one.
Posted on 4/27/25 at 7:24 am to Penrod
So you would be ok with them storing under your home and where you get your drinking water?
Posted on 4/27/25 at 7:27 am to KamaCausey_LSU
quote:
I think there are a few bills in the House right now addressing this.
Still have the insane cost of drilling through the zone after it’s injected. No one is going to risk it.
Posted on 4/27/25 at 7:30 am to SallysHuman
There are CO2 pipelines already running all over Louisiana and Mississippi. And natural gas, and ethane, and ethylene.
Penrod’s post was quite accurate. The permitting process for these wells is exhaustive, as are the monitoring requirements once operational. Louisiana and Texas are prime spots because the geology that gave us oil and gas is the geology that is best suited for sequestration. And some of the largest, most appropriate sources of clean CO2 are ammonia and LNG plants, so sequestering close to those means short distances transferring the CO2. This isn’t some sinister plot to pick on our state.
All that said, it’s greenwashing at its finest, and wouldn’t be happening if the 45Q tax credits weren’t at $90. Anthropogenic sources aren’t the most significant contributor to the total in the atmosphere, and the climate has been changing since the dawn of time. It wasn’t coal fired power plants that killed the dinosaurs. “Green” Energy, other than efficiency improvements, is all BS that would not exist without massive subsidies (Ethanol, EV, Wind, Solar) and is nothing more than more wealth transfer.
Penrod’s post was quite accurate. The permitting process for these wells is exhaustive, as are the monitoring requirements once operational. Louisiana and Texas are prime spots because the geology that gave us oil and gas is the geology that is best suited for sequestration. And some of the largest, most appropriate sources of clean CO2 are ammonia and LNG plants, so sequestering close to those means short distances transferring the CO2. This isn’t some sinister plot to pick on our state.
All that said, it’s greenwashing at its finest, and wouldn’t be happening if the 45Q tax credits weren’t at $90. Anthropogenic sources aren’t the most significant contributor to the total in the atmosphere, and the climate has been changing since the dawn of time. It wasn’t coal fired power plants that killed the dinosaurs. “Green” Energy, other than efficiency improvements, is all BS that would not exist without massive subsidies (Ethanol, EV, Wind, Solar) and is nothing more than more wealth transfer.
Posted on 4/27/25 at 7:30 am to Penrod
quote:
but I would guess that if the government agrees to pay us to store CO2; we spend a hundred million dollars developing a reservoir; and then they renege, they would be liable for those costs at the very least.
Pays who? The landowners aren’t getting shite.
Posted on 4/27/25 at 7:35 am to Deaux boi
The geological formations are WAY below any drinking water aquifers. And the risk is very low, and monitored very closely when the wells are operational, both for leaks in the injection string, and from any other potential pathways.
And I’d certainly rather have CO2 leak into my water (how do you think beverages are carbonated?) than oil or gas, and those have been extracted under pressure for many decades without any contamination, other than once it’s been brought to the surface due to mishandling.
And I’d certainly rather have CO2 leak into my water (how do you think beverages are carbonated?) than oil or gas, and those have been extracted under pressure for many decades without any contamination, other than once it’s been brought to the surface due to mishandling.
Posted on 4/27/25 at 7:40 am to loogaroo
quote:
The landowners aren’t getting shite
This is just wrong. Do you think companies like Weyerhaeuser and Exxon are actively seeking out deals to sequester under land that they own without making money off of it? And the LDENR negotiates deals for sequestration under State lands, with final approval by the State Mineral Board.
If private landowners aren’t getting good royalties, then they just didn’t negotiate very well.
Posted on 4/27/25 at 7:42 am to ragincajun03
quote:
Some spots in Allen Parish have never produced any real paying quantities of O&G, though. If I were a landowner in one of those pockets, I’d be ok with a sequestration lease. I’d ask for AT LEAST $2/ton, though, and an escalator in case our Federal government gets even dumber and increases 45Q even more.
You have to own a lot of land for that to be lucrative enough to risk losing future production. The Austin Chalk runs through there and they are just getting good at fracking the tight chalk.
Posted on 4/27/25 at 7:49 am to Icansee4miles
quote:
This is just wrong. Do you think companies like Weyerhaeuser and Exxon are actively seeking out deals to sequester under land that they own without making money off of it? And the LDENR negotiates deals for sequestration under State lands, with final approval by the State Mineral Board. If private landowners aren’t getting good royalties, then they just didn’t negotiate very well.
$250 per acre and $1.50 per metric ton is the going rate for private landowners near the pipelines.
What’s the state getting?
Posted on 4/27/25 at 7:56 am to loogaroo
quote:
Pays who? The landowners aren’t getting shite.
I meant the developers who spent all of that money. In that scenario the landowners would obviously be paid nothing because they are out nothing if the projects are canceled.
Posted on 4/27/25 at 7:57 am to Icansee4miles
quote:
And I’d certainly rather have CO2 leak into my water (how do you think beverages are carbonated?) than oil or gas, and those have been extracted under pressure for many decades without any contamination, other than once it’s been brought to the surface due to mishandling.
It is probably safe with extremely rare exceptions.
People within the industry have concerns about the reaction to salt water in the zone it’s being injected into and unknown faults or potential faults. The same thing that can help or hurt oil and gas production. Except you are not extracting, you are injecting.
To me the money isn’t worth encumbering your land forever.
Posted on 4/27/25 at 8:11 am to Penrod
quote:
You say it’s high risk, but why? There is nothing very risky about carbon capture. Example: Right now the ammonia plants take their CO2 waste stream and discharge it into the air. With carbon capture they will pipe it to compressors which will pressurize it into a dense phase and send it down a pipeline. That sounds much better than what we’re doing now. So is it CO2 sequestration you are concerned about? The storing of that dense phase CO2 in underground reservoirs? That’s very safe, too. We pipe it to Class VI wells and inject it into a reservoir that has been thoroughly checked out for permeability, and it has monitoring wells that detect if the underground CO2 plume is approaching a fault or the edge of a rock cap. It’s extremely safe and low risk.
The biggest issue in the CO2 pipeline industry right now is brittle and ductile fracture control. It’s an inexact science because the grain structure and metallurgical content of steel is not as homogeneous as people understand. To control a fracture the arrest pressure needs to be greater than the dense phase saturation pressure. Another issue with emissions from Ammonia plants as you mentioned is the impurity hydrogen. Albeit it is in very low concentrations (<0.1%) from ammonia plants the issue over time is hydrogen embrittlement. Hydrogen embrittlement causes steel to weaken.
Brittle and ductile fracture control is covered for natural gas pipelines for a specification method call the BattelleTwo Curve method. It has a very good track record for helping specify steel pipelines for natural gas service however according to DNV it is a non conservative method for dense phase CO2 pipelines.
IMO the solution is simple, (because it the heterogeneous nature of steel grain structure), PHSMSA needs to mandate that pipelines designed for dense phase CO2 service need to be designed with a design factor of 0.5 and all pipe shall meet API 5L PSL2 spec. This will increase the steel cost for each project by at least 31%, but it probably pays for itself in the long run by avoiding accidents.
Posted on 4/27/25 at 8:15 am to GumboPot
Excellent post (assuming it’s correct 
)
)Posted on 4/27/25 at 8:24 am to Penrod
Pipeline operators can design to the required 0.72 design factor and specify the thoughtless (in Joules or foot-pounds) but the problem is the DNV method is so conservative steel mills have a hell of a time meeting that spec. It’s just not practical. So instead of making the steel tougher, make the wall thicker. That’s what a 0.5 design factor does.
With that said to mandate a 0.5 design factor for all dense phase CO2 pipelines will probably take an act of congress, due to the SCOTUS Chevron ruling.
With that said to mandate a 0.5 design factor for all dense phase CO2 pipelines will probably take an act of congress, due to the SCOTUS Chevron ruling.
Posted on 4/27/25 at 8:26 am to Icansee4miles
quote:
sequestration. And some of the largest, most appropriate sources of clean CO2 are ammonia and LNG plants, so sequestering close to those means short distances transferring the CO2
Why are we even doing this anyway? The trees, pastures and rice fields in Allen parish naturally sequester more carbon than this scheme could ever hope for
Posted on 4/27/25 at 8:28 am to Midtiger farm
quote:
Why are we even doing this anyway?
The greenies voted to give Big Oil tax credits making Big Oli more profitable.
Posted on 4/27/25 at 8:37 am to GumboPot
quote:
The greenies voted to give Big Oil tax credits making Big Oli more profitable.
Posted on 4/27/25 at 8:37 am to TigerTatorTots
quote:
Then why are the prog left NGO's the loudest opposition against it in Louisiana?
Because it's largely O&G or petrochem industry outfits doing these projects. If it were "Doctor" John, PhD., professor of Climate & Humanities at Loyola doing this, those leftist NGOs like Floodlight would be all in support.
But Professor John doesn't have the technical know-how or real life experience to be part of such an operation, because he's a career teacher since his subject PhD isn't marketable in the real world.
Page 3 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News