Recently, Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS) bills were introduced in the Ohio House of Representatives and the Ohio Senate. H.B. 170 is sponsored by Rep. Monica Robb Blasdel (R-Columbiana) and Rep. Bob Peterson (R-Sabina), and S.B. 136 is sponsored by Sen. Tim Schaffer (R-Lancaster) and Sen. Brian Chavez (R-Marietta). 

At first glance, it might seem that capturing and storing carbon dioxide emissions is a good idea, but a deep dive into studies and research reveals that this technique is extremely ineffective. CCS relies on enormous tax subsidies from the government and citizens; it doesn’t sequester the carbon dioxide as promised; it encourages more fossil fuel usage; it poses risks to local communities; it isn’t a solution to stop climate change, and once again marginalized communities of the region will be facing more pollution from this process and taxpayers will be footing the bill.

These bills would “give the division of oil and gas sole and exclusive authority to regulate carbon sequestration and storage facilities within the state”.  These bills also allow the Ohio Department of Natural Resources chief to force non-consenting property owners to use the “pore space” under their private property.  “A storage operator who has obtained consent of 70 percent of the pore space proposed can submit a consolidation application for the operation of the entire proposed storage facility.” This is similar to the unitization procedure used to force private landowners into oil and gas leases. 

Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS) is a process which captures carbon dioxide from industry emissions and injects the CO2 deep into the ground via Class VI injection wells.  It is an unproven technology at scale and relies on tax-payer subsidies to be affordable. 

One of many risks associated with CCS is potential leakage of carbon dioxide. These leaks would negate any climate benefits that CCS might provide, and have the potential to asphyxiate people and animals who are exposed. Several factors could contribute to leaking of the supercritical CO2 gas from the underground storage locations. One of these is seismic activity. “The presence of seismic activity, both natural and induced, is of great importance when evaluating CO2 sequestration potential. Extensive fault zones may provide leakage pathways along which CO2 could migrate.” Additionally, the very act of injecting high-pressure CO2 into continental crusts could induce earthquakes and jeopardize carbon storage. “Deep borehole stress measurements at the Mountaineer coal-burning power plant on the Ohio River in West Virginia indicate a severe limitation on the rate at which CO2 could be injected without the resulting pressure build-up initiating slip on preexisting faults.”

The 2022 report by the Department of Energy, Carbon Capture Transport, and Storage, researches the supply chain needed to create what the DOE refers to as a “carbon pollution-free power sector” by 2035.  The supply chain includes necessary materials, energy, and infrastructure. One of the materials needed is the chemical monoethanolamine MEA (monoethanolamine). “Through 2050, the United States’ CCS program will require 13.7 million tons of MEA, which is made from ethane gas obtained from fracking. It is the absorbent solvent used to trap the carbon dioxide from industrial emissions. This compound, as well as an intermediate chemical in the process, ethylene oxide, are extremely dangerous. CCS would mandate that these compounds be produced, stored, and used in our communities.

The Materials Safety Data Sheet says of MEA, “It is harmful if swallowed or comes in contact with skin or if inhaled. It causes severe skin burns and eye damage. May cause respiratory irritation. Harmful to aquatic life with long lasting effects. Avoid release to the environment.” 

In addition, CCS infrastructure in the USA will require 632 kilotons of triethylene glycol. This compound, which also relies on ethane from fracked gas, can cause irritation upon contact with skin, eyes, and respiratory tract, and may be toxic if ingested. Additionally, 24-32 million tons of steel will be required for the infrastructure. The carbon footprint of steel is 1.4-1.8 tons of CO2 per ton of steel manufactured. For cement, the footprint for  1.1 million tons of cement would be 1.1 million tons of carbon dioxide. The production of these materials will add even more carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere. 

CCS does not remove any existing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere but rather captures carbon dioxide from industrial processes, including ethanol fermentation, methane reforming, Portland cement production, gasifying fuels like waste plastics, and fossil fuel power plants. CCS will therefore not lower the current amount of CO2 in the air; only direct air capture could do that. 

CCS is not a climate solution, and CCS employed on power plants will require 30 percent additional energy output.  This is at a time when AI is positioned to require enormous amounts of additional energy. CCS will also require  two times the amount of water usage for power plants.  “New research shows that CCS could stress water resources in about 43% of the world’s power plants where water scarcity is already a problem. Further, the technology deployed in these water-scarce regions matters, and emerging CCS technologies could greatly mitigate the demand CCS places on water consumption.” Our region saw a record drought in 2024.

CCS tax credits will be rewarding companies for their pollution using tax-payers’ money. The Inflation Reduction Act established rates per ton of CO2 sequestered at $85/ton. Considering that a large coal power plant emits 15 million tons of CO2 per year; the subsidy would be 1.25 billion tax-payer dollars per year for one power plant.

Tenaska, a company out of Omaha, Nebraska, has set up offices in the tri-state area and is creating what it calls a carbon hub. The amount of carbon dioxide they claim can be stored per year in this hub area is just over 5 million tons. This pales in comparison to the amounts of carbon dioxide emitted by local industry. Additionally, the company claims, “A CCS storage field can coexist with oil and gas production.” But peer reviewed studies state the opposite. “Production of natural gas from shale and other tight formations involves fracturing the shale with the explicit objective to greatly increase the permeability of the shale. As such, shale gas production is in direct conflict with the use of shale formations as a caprock barrier to CO2 migration.”

Another consideration is that the Ohio Valley’s geology is like Swiss cheese; containing hundreds of old vertical oil wells, unplugged orphan oil wells, and underground coal mines. The previous extraction of oil and coal has poked holes into the bedrock and now companies want to inject high pressure (1000 psi) carbon dioxide in these areas hoping it will remain underground in perpetuity. These old wells will need to be permanently plugged before any carbon sequestration can occur. “The cost of plugging an oil or gas well varies, but states report average costs between $3,500 and $80,000 per well.”

Although industries try to claim over 50 years of experience in CCS, the methods they have used are primarily enhanced oil recovery, not the injection of a known asphyxiant under farmlands and forests. Failures of two CCS projects run by Norwegian state-owned energy company Equinor ASA, shine light on the reliability of CCS. 

The Sleipner, running since 1996, and Snøhvit, running since 2008, were said to be success stories of CCS. “But Sleipner struggled with carbon dioxide unexpectedly migrating upwards by 220 meters from the original underground storage site, while Snøhvit saw storage capacity cut from an estimated 18 years to less than two years once the operation was underway, according to a review of studies by Grant Hauber of the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis.”

Some additional questions that tax-payers need to consider are: Who keeps track of the carbon credits? What happens when government subsidies dry up? Who will monitor these Class VI wells into the future? What happens if the carbon dioxide migrates from one property owner to another? How will liability issues be managed? All crucial questions that have yet to be answered.

The real proof of the failure of CCS is “as of 2024, approximately 50 million metric tons of carbon dioxide were captured annually by operational CCS facilities worldwide. This accounts for roughly 0.1 percent of global CO₂ emissions.” U.S. capacity to capture CO2 is 22 million metric tons per year. This full capacity is only about 0.4% of the country’s annual CO2 emissions. We need to turn off the tap for carbon emissions. CCS is ineffective and dangerous.

This article was originally published by Herald Star.

Dr. Randi Pokladnik was born and raised in the Ohio Valley. She earned an associate degree in Environmental Engineering, a BA in Chemistry, and an MA and Ph.D. in Environmental Studies. She is a retired research chemist and teacher. Dr. Pokladnik is an active writer and a member of FaCT, a faith-based organization educating people about fracking and climate change. She is also a volunteer teacher for Mid-Ohio Valley Climate Action and a volunteer for Save Ohio Parks. She has received several environmental awards, including the Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition’s Fracktivist of the Year. Dr. Pokladnik has been an environmental activist in the Ohio River Valley for over 50 years. She resides with her husband in an eco-log home on Tappan Lake.