In recent months, I’ve offered up a number of articles on the topic of Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS) in Louisiana.    I’ve tried to provide a broad-based analysis of why this process concerns me and should concern all Louisianans.   While I await anyone refuting my concerns, I think it is time to offer up a more specific set of concerns related to the safety of this activity.    Without caveat, I maintain that capturing carbon at all if it is tied to a climate initiative is a fool’s errand, and will not drop earth’s temperature regardless of the amount of money expensed.   But in this moment, I think it is time to really speak to the dangers that might loom for our people if we go forward with a full embrace of CCS in Louisiana.   I’m going to peer into this topic from a realistic and hopefully scientific framework.

There are a number of reasons why purposefully injecting industrial or even natural carbon dioxide to a resting place below ground should be concerning. There are risks directly related to the physical, chemical, and geological processes involved, as well as risks to human life and the environment.

The five most concerning risks associated with this activity are (1) Leaks or uncontrolled movement of the carbon; (2) Natural or man-induced disruption of the earth’s surface or subsurface;  (3) Structural and/or integrity failure of the storage location; (4) Contamination of groundwater; and (5) Leaks or flaws in the piping infrastructure

1. Below-Ground Leakage Through Faults, Fractures, or Abandoned Wells: Carbon dioxide injected beneath the earth’s surface could escape back to the surface or into shallow aquifers through natural faults, fractures, or poorly sealed abandoned oil and gas wells. In our State of Louisiana there are hundreds of thousands of locations where wells have been drilled successfully and unsuccessfully and there may simply be holes in the ground that captured carbon can and will follow the path of least resistance towards the abandoned or “legacy” wells. This is a major concern.    Of real concern is older wells plugged before current standards (pre-1950s) that may have degraded over time, creating pathways for carbon to travel.

Unrestrained movement of CO2 is bad, and potentially very dangerous.  While industry may suggest that  well-managed sites retain over 98% of CO2, Louisiana has a dense and not well-mapped network of wells and aquifers.   Further, we must also face the reality that our oil and gas industry might not have been the most tightly regulated business in the country.

2. Natural or man-made seismic activity or movement: Injecting large volumes of CO2 increases subsurface pressure, which can trigger earthquakes by reactivating faults. This risk is similar to wastewater injection from CO2’s distant cousin, fracking.   There are reports where Oklahoma experienced a surge in quakes after 2009, including a magnitude 5.8 event in 2016 tied to injection.

In western Louisiana, where a number of CO2 storage facilities are envisioned (by people who don’t live there), the ground routinely is shaken by training activities on Fort Johnson (formerly known as Fort Polk).   The Department of Defense has an enormous training range where artillery, air-delivered munitions, and significant static detonations take place during live-fire training of American and allied forces.    Homes shake for miles in every direction of the three live fire zones, and word has it that two of the planned sites are in very close proximity to the live fire ranges.

Small tremors might not cause surface damage but could fracture caprock (the sealing layer), allowing CO2 to escape. Larger quakes could disrupt infrastructure or communities.   Pipelines above and below ground will be shaken by the live fire detonations without doubt.

The soil in western Vernon Parish is not like the soft sedimentary basins on the Gulf Coast, so the dangers are different in different locations of the State.

3. Structural or integrity failure of the storage location: While impermeable caprock layers seal for a certain time period, historical findings indicate there are no perfect seals. Oil and gas exploration ventures fail because of blown hydrocarbon traps that once held hydrocarbons but drilling results prove the imperfect nature of reservoir seals. This happens all too often. Testimony from explorationists state that seismic data is far from perfect mainly because all it takes to create a seismic gas anomaly is a small percentage of remaining gas imbedded within the sand pores.

A ruptured or even slightly cracked caprock along an active fault zone could lead to rapid CO2 leakage, reversing any supposed benefits of storage. Alleged CO2 mineralization also may be fractured beyond allowing CO2 leakage across an active fault zone. Whoever is signing up to this from an oversight or legal perspective will be ultimately responsible for appropriate pre-injection analysis.   Untested or rushed projects are dangerous and the consequences could be dire.

In Louisiana, the Commissioner of Conservation has the legal authority to specify where a deposit of CO2 will be emplaced.   He specifies a defined area, known as a unit and supposedly that’s where carbon dioxide will be first sequestered and then buried. The buried CO2 is referred to as a CO2 plume.   If the Commissioner creates/allows a 10,000-acre area for a CO2 storage unit, what guarantees that the CO2 will not travel to adjacent areas?   The science behind predicting the movement of the substances that make up the plume is not perfect.   And if seismic data is used to track the CO2 plume movement how certain will the Commissioner be that the seismic boundaries were adequately set to cover the actual CO2 plume size? Further, if an oil and gas well is drilled inside of this unknown plume a significant blowout could occur. When a natural gas well blows out the gas is lighter than air and escapes upward. But when a CO2 well blows out the gas can easily create a cloud that sits close to the ground because CO2 is heavier than air. This is a realistic risk that needs to be considered. The State Mineral Code states that the Commissioner cannot be held responsible or sued, yet the Commissioner is calling all the shots for CO2 operators.  There is a LOT to talk about here.

4. Threat to Groundwater: When CO2 meets water it forms carbonic acid, lowering pH and potentially mobilizing heavy metals or brine from saline aquifers. If this migrates to potable aquifers, it could poison drinking water. Acidified water might not kill humans or wildlife directly, but chronic exposure to contaminants like arsenic could. The US Geologic Survey (USGS) notes this risk is higher near shallow injection sites or where barriers between aquifers are thin.

Available research indicates that deep injections (over 3,000 feet) minimize this, but in places like Louisiana, with complex aquifer systems, the margin for managing errors shrinks. Once again, active faults that travel to the surface of the ground occur all over Louisiana. If these unknown CO2 plumes migrate upwards along a fault boundary into our cherished drinking water system, crawfish or fish ponds, then no amount of fines levied from the Commissioner will correct the damage done to the livelihoods of our local farmers, families or other businesses.

5. Pipeline and Injection Well Failures: Transporting and injecting carbon dioxide involves high-pressure pipelines and wells, which can rupture or corrode, especially if CO2 contains impurities like sulfur dioxide or water vapor. An event in Satartia, Mississippi in 2022 highlighted pipeline risks, while well blowouts have occurred in other states (notably Texas) due to lax oversight. The pipeline rupture right here in Louisiana (Sulphur) in April 2024 was caused by a corroded pig-trap seal. If CO2 can be corrosive to pipe due to moisture forming carbonic acid, then certainly all types of pig-trap seals are vulnerable.

The dangers associated with these potential failures are significant.   Surface releases could asphyxiate nearby residents and or cause environmental damage. A geyser-like blowout could also release stored CO2.    As mentioned earlier, the high volume of high explosive events on Fort Johnson’s ranges will only exacerbate this in western Louisiana.   While modern and improved engineering standards might reduce the risk, aging infrastructure or cost-cutting increases vulnerability.

There are other concerns related to CO2 storage, such as long-term liability and monitoring issues.     In a future article we’ll look more deeply into these issues and really take a hard look at the idea of eminent domain.   We also need to examine what the proponents of CCS really want to achieve.

In fairness, it must be admitted there are places on earth where carbon is being stored and done so in a safe fashion, but these are often former oil and gas reservoirs that have since been depleted leaving adequate void space for CO2 storage.   Nature stores carbon and has held and contained natural gas and CO2 for centuries.   Many of these CO2 reservoirs exist as four-way closures, where the structure is dipping away from the apex in all directions, and these naturally occurring CO2 reservoirs usually always have an impermeable seal directly above the reservoir. There are projects in Norway and Iceland that have had some success and man-made storage facilities, but their environments are entirely different from Louisiana ENTIRELY.

Finally, it needs to be noted that our esteemed flagship university (LSU) is conducting very important research into carbon sequestration. I’m looking into the specifics of this research and am anxious to know what they are trying to explore or find out.    What worries me is that we seem to be rushing in to embrace something that is both dangerous on the face and not easily understood.   If we still are researching CCS, we don’t need to be shoving any of it into the ground.

PS CLOSING CAVEAT:  I am not speaking of using carbon in the process of Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR).  As I am told, EOR has been used and there is an economic purpose and benefit to it.   CCS is a process similar to EOR, with the main differentiation being EOR results in an economic benefit and CCS simply creates a waste site with limited to no economic benefit.     While some people in the oil industry have upbraided me for not just accepting the fact that the process of injecting carbon is already being done, the goals and volumes of the two items are very different.   Relatively small amounts of carbon are injected in EOR wells and these injections are in finite and well understood locations. EOR is utilized on a calculated benefit ratio.  Current information shows that ~0.30 Metric tons of CO2 is used to extract 1 barrel of oil within oil producing formations. Also, in EOR the resource (oil or Natural Gas) is replaced with the CO2 (basically a media/product exchange).  In the proposed activity the state is looking at millions, if not billions of tons of CO2 injection.  Industry will keep injecting carbon based on profit. Additionally, in the proposed activity they are proposing to inject it into empty porous areas (no media/product exchange). One way to look at this is like holding a sponge under a water faucet.  The sponge will continue to allow its porous space to be filled until it can’t hold any more and then release water outside it’s “target” collection space.   Where that release will go is anyone’s “guess”.   Thus the danger and the concern.

More to follow.