1. Issues and Options for the BLM
Geologic Carbon Dioxide Capture and Sequestration
Issues and Options
for the BLM
Angela Zahniser Air Resource Specialist, Soil, Water, and Air Group Bureau of Land Management

2. What is CCS?
Geologic CCS is a technique that consists of capturing and separating carbon dioxide (CO2) from point sources such as fossil fuel power plants, condensing it to a liquid with pressure and density, transporting it through pipelines, injecting it into suitable geologic storage facilities, and finally providing monitoring and verification of its sequestration.
The technology for the first step, capturing and separating CO2 from other emissions, already exists and is accessible, though it may not yet be economically viable.
Pipeline technology for transportation to a suitable injection site is also widely available. In fact, CO2 pipeline infrastructures already stretch across hundreds of miles of landscape in the U.S. The last step before monitoring and verification is injection of CO2 into suitable geologic formations.

3. 4 Methods of Deploying CCS:
-2 millimeters-
Green = water
Red = Rock
Black = CO2
1. Deep Saline Formations
2. Oil Wells for Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR)
3. Depleted Oil and Gas Reservoirs
4. Unmineable Coal Seams
Four kinds of geologic reservoirs have the potential to store and sequester CO2:
1.) deep saline formations
2.) oil wells for enhanced oil recovery (EOR)
3.) depleted oil and gas reservoirs
4.) unmineable coal seams
Once injected, the CO2 does not remain as a ‘bubble’ or a ‘pool’ underneath the earth’s surface. Rather, it is usually injected as a supercritical fluid and absorbs into the surrounding pore space made of rocks, minerals, and water. Eventually, it is reincorporated into the carbon cycle through rock absorption and mineral carbonation.
Thus, proper site selection and characterization is extremely important. It involves an assessment of pore space and permeability, among other things. Measuring the amount of CO2, monitoring it, and verifying that it stays underground and has not leaked is also a long-term yet critical part of the CCS process.
Green = CO2

4. Enhance Oil Recovery with long term CO2 storage in rock formation
Talk more about this later

5. Greenland ice Melting 1992, 2002, and 2005
Greenland summer surface melting,
Greenland ice Melting 1992, 2002, and 2005
Why CCS? Climate change mitigation. Why do we need climate change mitigation measures on such a large scale so quickly?
Just a few pictures will illustrate this. Take a look at Greenland and the rapidly shrinking ice.
1992
2002
2005
In 1992 scientists measured this amount of melting in Greenland as indicated by red areas on the map
Ten years later, in 2002, the melting was much worse
And in 2005, it accelerated dramatically yet again
Source: ACIA, 2004 and CIRES, 2005

6. Shrinking Mountain Glaciers
High-elevation ice and snow near the equator does not vary much except when climate is changing globally.
The decline between 1912 and 2000 was 81%
Now take a look at Mt. Kilimanjaro. This decline in ice occurred over only a 7 year period.

7. Coastal Glaciers are Retreating
Muir Glacier, Alaska,
August 1941
August 2004
And here is one more example of Muir Glacier in Alaska. What was once an ice field turned into a lake in 63 years.
NSIDC/WDC for Glaciology, Boulder, compiler. 2002, updated Online glacier photograph database. Boulder, CO: National Snow and Ice Data Center.

8. Science, Politics, and CO2
The United States is moving toward a national mandatory carbon dioxide emissions reduction policy.
As of December 2007, there have already been several formally submitted carbon-constraining bills of the 110th Congress.
Once a bill becomes law, businesses in the U.S. will be operating in a carbon constrained economy; this will undoubtedly have widespread economic impacts, and will affect the way the BLM administers its business.

9. Continued… Desired ppmv to avoid > 2o C change: 450 ppmv Emissions
World 2004: about 25,600 Mt CO2
(U.S. = 5790 Mt CO2, about 22%)
World BAU by 2030: 44,000 Mt CO2
(U.S.> 7950 Mt CO2)
World BAU by 2050: 51,000 Mt CO2
World BAU: by 2100: > 72,000 Mt CO2
World Stabilization Target Emissions by 2100:
<7,700 Mt CO2
To achieve a desired atmospheric CO2 concentration, world emissions should be no more than 7,700 Mt CO2 by the year However, under business as usual (BAU) conditions, emissions are projected to increase to more than 72,000 Mt CO2 by Large amounts of abatement and sequestration need to occur, and very quickly.

10. Why CCS?
Has great potential to mitigate a large amount in a short period of time
NOT a long-term solution, but buys time for integration of renewable energy sources into the economy
CCS could provide 15 to 55% of the cumulative mitigation effort worldwide until 2100
Potential to store 220, ,000,000 MtCO2 cumulatively up to 2100
Estimated Storage Capacities in U.S. Geological Formations:
Geologic Formation Estimated Capacity
in Mt CO2
Onshore Deep Saline Formations ,730,000
Onshore Saline Basalt Formations ,000
Depleted Gas Fields ,000
Deep Unmineable Coal Seams ,000
Depleted Oil Fields with EOR potential ,000
TOTAL: ,000,000 Mt CO2
While there is no single silver-bullet solution to resolving the atmospheric CO2 problem, I hope to show that geologic CCS may be a promising tool that could be the key element which allows for the necessary sequestration of large amounts of carbon dioxide while renewable and alternative energy and energy efficiency measures are realistically integrated into the economy.
CCS has been estimated to have the theoretical potential to sequester an amazing 3,000,000 Mt CO2 in the U.S. alone. In a world with abundant coal reserves, a dependence on fossil fuels, and a greater demand forenergy, achieving a safe level of CO2 is an impossible scenario in the absence of immediate and serious mitigation measures.
Has great potential to mitigate a large amount in a short period of time

11. CCS is relatively new, but not so new
Approved by IPCC in September 2005
Published December 2005
Written by over 100 authors from 30 countries, all continents
Extensively reviewed by over 200 experts
Presented at UNFCCC COP-11/ Kyoto COP/MOP-1 in Montreal
CCS is being extensively studied by high-profile environmental organizations and energy companies, governments, universities, scientists, etc.
Is in the news, Science journals and pubs., is being extensively studied, tried, and tested.
Recent boom in media coverage, because it has such a large potential to mitigate future emissions

12. Now I just want to briefly highlight CO2 EOR and what it means.
You are all familiar with EOR, and some of you may have even used CO2 as a medium for Enhanced Oil Recovery. Basically, CO2 is useful for EOR because it is miscible with oil and has a fairly efficient sweep throughout the reservoir.
It has the potential to double or even triple the amount of recoverable resource. It is a common practice in some areas of the U.S. Most EOR operations are regulated under State and Federal Underground Injection Control regulations regarding Class II wells.
However, CCS EOR is unique from traditional EOR practices because there is an ideological shift from CO2 usage in traditional EOR operations. CCS EOR would involve using the greatest amount of CO2 possible, rather than the least amount, as occurs in traditional EOR. Unlike traditional EOR, CCS EOR has dual purpose of long-term CO2 sequestration and enhanced oil production. In traditional EOR, there was no need to address long-term management, monitoring, verification, and liability aspects, unlike CCS EOR.
For CCS EOR, the project developer could choose to inject the CO2 evenly and systematically during production operation, or could use traditional EOR practices, but inject the maximum storageable amount prior to decommissioning and then seal the reservoir.
CCS EOR would also mean that project developers would buy anthropogenically produced CO2 rather than the cheapest available (which is often naturally occurring CO2).
The issues of crediting, monitoring, verification, and liability for long-term storage are also integral parts of CCS EOR. Traditional EOR practices operate under state and/or national guidelines set for oil operations. These guidelines have generally been formed for operational well years, have well abandonment requirements, and do not require the type of long-term monitoring and measuring procedures that are necessary with CCS EOR.

13. CCS EOR vs. Traditional EOR
Dual Purpose: Enhanced Oil Production AND CO2 Sequestration
Use human-produced CO2
Use greatest amount possible
Need to address:
Long-term management
Monitoring
Verification
Liability
Possible Crediting

14. Risks Human Leakage, movement of metals to potable aquifers
Only in high concentrations
Environmental
Leaks could be detrimental to plants, subsurface animals
CO2 pipelines: similar to or lower than those posed by hydrocarbon pipelines
Geological storage:
comparable to risks of current activities (natural gas storage, EOR, disposal of acid gas)
Risks:
Like any industrial operation, there are local human and environmental risks associated with accidents, leaks, and other unforeseen circumstances.
CO2 leakage can be abrupt or gradual.
Human: A sudden burst of large amounts of CO2 would pose a threat to human health, but only if the concentration is more that 7 – 10%. It is also important to remember that CO2 is a naturally occurring gas, is something humans breathe in and out every day, and is harmful only in high enough concentrations.
Environmental: Elevated concentrations from leaks could be a detriment to plants, subsurface animals, and possibly contaminate groundwater.
The biggest issue of contention with saline aquifers surrounds the environmental acceptability and safety of CO2 migration. There has been some concern that the CO2 will migrate up to the earth’s surface or that it could contaminate drinking supplies by “freeing up” other metals in the earth and allowing them to travel to potable aquifers. Scientific research is ongoing to more accurately predict and characterize the behavior of CO2 in aquifers.
However, proper siting and operations produce projects that are no more risky than common industrial operations such as underground natural gas storage or oil production. Accident risks associated with pipeline transport are low and are comparable to those associated with existing hydrocarbon pipeline. The IPCC states that “Observations from analogues suggest that the fraction of CO2 retained in appropriately selected and managed geological reservoirs is very likely to exceed 99% over 100 years.”
“With appropriate site selection…a monitoring program to detect problems, a regulatory system, and the appropriate use of remediation methods to stop or control CO2 releases if they arise, the local health, safety and environment risks of geological storage would be comparable to risks of current activities such as natural gas storage, EOR, and deep underground disposal of acid gas.”

15. Barriers Lack of a Regulatory Framework
Short and Long term liability measures, including siting, leakage and permanence
Economic Viability (including who will pay for equipment as well as property rights and values)
Establishing Pore Space Ownership/Management
Ensuring Public Acceptability
Labeling CO2 as a commodity versus a waste
One person’s trash is another person’s treasure
Scientific and technological readiness
BARRIERS: National laws and regulations that govern all aspects of CCS implementation do not currently exist in the U.S.
Some feel that more demonstration projects are needed to help shape policy, while project developers want policy as a precursor to large-scale project implementation. Most likely, it would require more supporting science and an economic incentive to spur widespread demand of CCS deployment, which would in turn bolster adoption of a regulatory framework. However, the science is advancing daily and the technology required for separation is ongoing, is advancing, and is becoming more economically viable. Policy aspects that need to be addressed include: (read slide)

16. Who’s Doing What?
Three industrial-scale (on the order of 1 MtCO2 per year) storage projects are in operation: the Sleipner project in an offshore saline formation in Norway, the Weyburn EOR project in Canada, and the In Salah project in a gas field in Algeria. Others are planned .
Name Country Injection start Daily injection (tCO2/day) Total planned storage (tCO2) Reservoir type
Weyburn Canada , ,000 20,000,000 EOR
In Salah Algeria , ,000 17,000,000 Gas field
Sleipner Norway , ,000,000 Saline formation
DOE/NETL 7 Regional Partnerships: to find sites for carbon burial and measure its effectiveness.
This year will begin three test sequestration projects - San Juan basin of New Mexico, the Paradox basin of Utah, the Permian basin of Texas.
Today, there are over 80 CO2 EOR projects in existence in the US, and more than 230,000 BOPD are being produced by CO2 injection

18. Why the BLM? Vast Land Area Site Selection and Suitability
Capacity: Land Area. In addition to its surface acreage, BLM also administers 700 millions subsurface mineral estate acres beneath its surface acreage as well as all that beneath FS, FWS, NPS Department of Defense/Army Corps of Engineers lands. This translates into BLM managing 13% of the nation’s surface acreage and 31% of the nation’s subsurface acreage. Compare this map with the CCS Storage Capacity map, and it is easy to see that much of the estimated storage capacity in the U.S. lies on lands administered by the BLM.
Site Suitability. Many BLM lands are located in rural areas with low population density. Once a storage unit has been deemed geologically suitable, deployment in areas of low population density is attractive because the public acceptability is likely to be much higher simply because the perceived risk of danger is smaller, whether or not that risk concern is actually valid.

19. Benefits of CCS on BLM Lands
Capacity, Site
Selection & Suitability
Property Rights
Revenue/Royalty
Public Good
Public Interest
Scientific Interest
BLM Experience
Energy Security
EPAct 2005
Property Rights. By virtue of its vast, often sweeping segments of land, BLM lands are particularly attractive to CCS developers because the BLM has manages surface and subsurface acreage over large areas. Typically, underground storage sites for CCS projects are larger than the typical size of a single unit of private property, and often cross the boundaries of several property owners. The determination of surface rights vs. subsurface rights can be complex, differs by state, and has the potential to significantly delay project implementation. It is likely that this would issue would be more minimal on BLM lands than on ; this benefit should not be underscored, and is another reason why BLM may be called upon to be a primary implementer of CCS projects.
Revenue and Royalty. The ability to sequester carbon dioxide will become a commodity in a carbon-constrained economy. Although the unit price of carbon and the price of underground pore and storage space will not be determined by the BLM, royalties will be charged for storing volumes of CO2. Typically, the U.S. government charges much less than the private market when providing for public goods. This will make Federally administered lands a very attractive option for large emitters. Therefore, it is likely that the BLM will receive proposals to use its lands for CCS.
Deployment of CCS EOR may also be good for the Federal and State governments by giving the agency the opportunity to provide revenue for them.
Public Good and Public Interest. Managing public lands for the public good is certainly not the least of the BLM’s mission goals. Deploying CCS would be an action for the public good as a whole by aiding in atmospheric CO2 sequestration. It could also provide the additional benefit of improving the agency’s public image in the face of what a large and growing population sees as the U.S.’s responsibility to combat global warming.
While CO2’s behavior in smaller-scale deployment projects such as with EOR is well-studied, established, large-scale geologic sequestration in saline aquifers and basalt formations is relatively new. Therefore scientists have had only a few opportunities to study large-scale implementation. Because of the barriers described earlier large scale deployment in the U.S. would likely be delayed without more supporting scientific study. Yet the global climate problem is so immense and so urgent that scientists and policy makers need to learn as much as possible as quickly as possible. CCS shows enormous capacity for CO2 mitigation; and because of this there is an urgent need to validate if safe, effective, transparent, well-informed, large-scale deployment is a viable mitigation tool. BLM lands, by virtue of the aforementioned qualities, could provide a grand public service by deploying one or two large-scale projects for expedited and more extensive scientific study.
Capacity
Mt CO2
U.S.
3,900,000
Australia
700,000
Africa
430,000
Canada
1,300,000

20. Benefits: BLM Experience
In NM, CO, and WY the BLM has allowed the production, sale, pipeline transport, and/or injection of carbon dioxide, mostly for use in traditional enhanced oil recovery.
McElmo Dome in Colorado produced 298 million cubic feet of naturally occurring CO2 in 2006
These activities are important to note because:
The BLM is experienced in the leasing of land for CO2 extraction
BLM has permitted such activities, has administered rights of way, and has collected royalties when CO2 is seen as a commodity.
The BLM performed NEPA procedures when it approved the installation of pipelines across its lands
The BLM’s organic act, the Federal Land Policy Management Act of 1976, defines the BLM’s role as a multiple-use land management agency. It calls for lands to be “utilized in the combination that will best meet the present and future needs of the American people.”
utilizing BLM managed lands for sequestration of carbon dioxide fits well within the multiple-use concept, and represents a ready opportunity for applying climate change related mitigation efforts to be achieved within the context of its mission.
The BLM has considerable experience in many of the processes required for CCS implementation. For example, in New Mexico, Colorado, and Wyoming, the BLM facilitates the production, sale, transport, and injection of CO2, primarily for use in traditional Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR).
These activities are important to note for many reasons. First, the BLM is experienced in leasing and permitting the production of CO2. In addition, the BLM has collected royalties from CO2 where it is treated as a commodity, and it has administered rights of way for CO2 pipelines. The BLM performed National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) procedures when it approved the installation of pipelines across its lands.
In these ways, permitting pipelines for the transportation of CO2 on BLM administered lands does not present a radically new activity, the processes by which to do so already exist. The BLM currently considers CO2 the same as it does natural gas and, under the Minerals Leasing Act, it imposes a common carrier requirement for CO2 pipelines. The current process for granting rights of way is sufficient for siting future CO2 pipelines for CCS. Therefore, the BLM would be able to draw on its current regulations, rules, policies and practices to tailor them to include elements specific to CCS deployment.
Exxon's Shute Creek facility serves as the supply source for all carbon dioxide (CO2) enhanced oil recovery projects within the Rocky Mountain region.

21. Benefits: Energy Security and EPAct 2005 Size and nature of original, developed and undeveloped domestic onshore and offshore oil resources.
Energy Security. Deployment of CCS could enhance the country’s national energy security in a number of ways. First, large scale CCS will allow for the continued use of fossil fuels while still allowing the U.S. to meet future carbon emission reductions needs/requirements. Secondly, if CCS EOR is deployed, it could help to enhance the nation’s existing energy resources.
Since the year 2000, there have been 154 proposed and new coal power plants, forty-five of which are in states where BLM primarily operates. This could likely increase proposals for CCS on BLM lands, as emissions sequestration from coal-fired powered plants grows as a mitigation strategy.
EPAct Furthermore, Section 364 of the EPAct 2005 promotes CCS and EOR. The purpose of section 364 is “(A) to promote the capturing, transportation, and injection of produced carbon dioxide…for sequestration into oil and gas fields; and (B) to promote oil and natural gas production form the outer Continental Shelf and onshore Federal lands under lease by providing royalty incentives to use enhanced recovery techniques using injection of [carbon dioxide].”[iv]

22. Considerations for CCS on BLM Lands
Get Involved
Identify Prime CCS Locations
Establish Monitoring and Verification Measures
Establish Clear Siting Procedures
Establish Clear Leasing Procedures
additional issues regarding CCS should also be considered. In doing so, the following considerations would facilitate the BLM’s ability to address the issue of CCS deployment.
Get Involved. The BLM should become actively involved in CCS discussions, have representation at conferences and workshops, and join the other Federal agencies in the ongoing CCS dialogue. The BLM should especially involve participants from the major oil and gas producing states, as these would likely be the areas where CCS deployment is requested first.
Identify Prime Locations. anticipate and identify where geologic CCS proposals are most likely to occur first. Collaborating with the U.S. Geological Survey and other Carbon Sequestration Partnerships to map the underground storage potential of public lands would be beneficial. For example, in Wyoming, there are approximately 50 mature oil fields in BLM-administered areas that may be candidates for EOR.
Establish Clear Siting Procedures. Proper siting of CCS projects is the most critical aspect of ensuring long-term safety. BLM should establish clear regulations rules, guidance and siting procedures for permitting CCS projects on public lands based on available best practice guidelines.
Establish Clear Leasing Procedures. BLM may need to modify its leasing and reservoir management requirements to include and/or call for CO2 injection and storage projects when and where appropriate. Gas storage and resource extraction are currently permitted separately. CCS EOR may require a new category that encompasses an agreement that addresses both resource extraction and gas storage. Necessary lease determinations may include establishing management of underground pore and reservoir space, rights of way, applications for permits to drill, and gas storage units.
Gas storage regulations and royalty payments are determined separately from resource extraction, and may require a transfer from an oil lease to a gas storage lease in the case of CCS EOR. In preparation, BLM could modify its leasing requirements to include and/or call for CO2 injection and storage when appropriate.
Establish Monitoring and Verification Measures. A critical portion of CCS is the establishment of long-term monitoring and verification to ensure that the CO2 has not leaked. Setting a standard set of bureau-wide guidelines would alleviate much confusion and/or tension that may arise with such a variety of likely participants.

23. Considerations for CCS on BLM Lands
Establish Clear Leasing Procedures
Modify reservoir management requirements to include and/or call for CO2 injections and storage projects
New category that encompasses both resource extraction and gas storage?
Lease Determination May Include Establishing Management Of:
Underground Pore and Reservoir Space
ROWs
APDs
Gas Storage Units

24. Considerations for CCS on BLM Lands
Outline NEPA Process for CCS projects.
Identify and Expand Staff Capacity
Engage With the Public
Establish Pore Space Ownership/Management
Address Liability
Outline NEPA Processes. The NEPA process could range from 6 months to a year or more. In the long run, NEPA is an important tool that provides the legal and scientifically substantive support for which to justify action. The BLM has experience in performing NEPA with respect to CO2 extraction and pipeline, so for many offices, several portions of the NEPA process would be familiar. This would include ensuring that land leases conform to the Resource Management Plan.
Look For Technical Expertise in New Hires. as the core of the agency’s expertise departs, the BLM would be strategic in hiring newcomers with expertise in state-of-the-science and innovative technology and mitigation options regarding energy minerals, including CCS. The oil and gas industry is quickly adding the limited supply of experts to their workforce, and it would behoove BLM to do the same. This knowledge and awareness alone could increase the viability and support of such projects.
Ensure Public Acceptability. Because it is a relatively new entrant into the field of carbon mitigation strategies, the public is generally unaware of the processes, risks, and benefits of CCS. As CCS demonstration projects generate more experience in minimizing risk, public support will grow. Before wide-scale deployment on federal lands, BLM should work early and transparently with the public by engaging affected communities.
Establish Pore Space Ownership/Management : Let the solicitors figure this out.

25. Risk Profile and Liability
Address Liability. Because CCS differs from traditional EOR activities in its goal of permanent CO2 sequestration, creating liability mechanisms will be necessary. While federal ownership of storage reservoirs simplifies the liability structure, BLM must consider the liability implications of long-term management and ownership of injected CO2. There are several well-studied options and existing recommendations on a liability structure. The BLM could require operators to set up long-term contingency trust funds, or could require a significant bond specifically with respect to CO2 to make sure funds are available for cleanups in the case of spills, leaks, or other unforeseen problems. The BLM could fashion liability measures according to the concept that early stage deployment projects have the highest risk; yet as time passes and more projects come into effect, the public acceptability has a chance to grow, and the liability risk should sharply decrease.
Sally Benson, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

26. Recommendation: CCS EOR
In addition, CCS EOR could help to:
establish a more robust pipeline infrastructure for facilitating possible future larger scale projects
shape future legislation, protocols, and best management practices
establish public confidence
in the safety and security of geological storage
stimulate cooperation between Federal, non-government, and private organizations
While one or two large-scale deployment projects would provide a remarkable opportunity for scientific study as noted above, the best option for systematic early-stage deployment is the adoption of Enhanced Oil Recovery projects using CCS (CCS EOR). BLM’s CO2 operations thus far have been limited to the oil and gas industries rather than larger-scale geologic sequestration, and CCS EOR poses the least risk.
In addition to the aforementioned benefits, CCS EOR could help to : (read slide)
Recall that of the US geologic capacity 12,000 Mt CO2 is the estimated potential for use in enhanced oil recovery.
Click----
----Why CO2 and not other gases?
CO2 is the primary component of EOR because it is miscible with oil, meaning that it lowers the viscosity and allows the oil to flow easier, thereby increasing production. It has the lowest pressure to achieve desired results. Other gases, such as oxygen or nitrogen are rarely, if ever, used because unwanted chemical reactions occur with their use. The CO2 changes the oil properties such that it flows more easily and has a fairly efficient sweep throughout the reservoir. The behavior of CO2 in oil and gas reservoirs is well understood.
U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Fossil Energy. Summary report of assessment prepared by Advanced Resources International. February 2006.

27. QUESTIONS ??
(left) CO2 post-combustion capture at a plant in Malaysia. This plant employs a chemical absorption process to separate 0.2 MtCO2 per year from the flue gas stream of a gas-fired power plant for urea production.
(right) CO2 pre-combustion capture at a coal gasification plant in North Dakota, USA. This plant employs a physical solvent process to separate 3.3 MtCO2 per year from a gas stream to produce synthetic natural gas. Part of the captured CO2 is used for an EOR project in Canada.