There have been significant changes in certain EPA programs under the new administration. Some have been emphasized, and others have changed their direction. Class VI projects are regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act, and states are attempting to ensure that, to the extent possible, they are using local resources to address local challenges, as carbon sequestration in Texas differs from that in California or West Virginia.
This is why the federal government says it encourages states to take primacy. It is believed that this will remove regulatory barriers to permitting these projects, streamline the process, and expedite it, resulting in a better outcome for permittees because local decision-makers may better understand and can address any issues.
The EPA has granted primacy for Class VI underground injection control (UIC) wells to four states: Wyoming (2018), North Dakota (2020), Louisiana (2024), and West Virginia (2025). Arizona and Texas are pending approval – expected in 2025. Here, we cover several states with primacy, moving toward primacy, or with local influences to illustrate what makes each state particularly attractive or challenging for carbon sequestration project developers. We’ll also provide some key recommendations for mitigating challenges with navigating a carbon sequestration project within each state.
Texas is interesting – the EPA retains primacy as it transitions to the state.
When you submit a Class VI project to Texas, you’re submitting it to both EPA Region 6 and, by Texas state law, to the Texas Railroad Commission. You also need a no-harm determination letter from the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. Each agency has jurisdiction in different ways.
Some of our clients in Texas are receiving three sets of questions or requests for clarification on these permits from three different agencies. With the transition to the state, this process is expected to be simplified relatively quickly after the memorandum of understanding completes the public comment period.
For those in the Lone Star State, it is advisable to consider approaches to solving technical issues, as Texas law requires. For example:
Louisiana got its primacy a year ago, but using public lands is an issue.
Louisiana is a state with a significant petrochemical industry and numerous potential permits. Notably, part of Louisiana’s process for Class VI wells involves leasing public lands, specifically the pore space beneath public lands. Pore space is the empty space within rocks, soils, and sediments, essentially the gaps between particles or within fractures. Pore space serves as storage for injected carbon dioxide. It is one of many factors examined in geological formations and processes like carbon capture and storage.
Public lands, such as state wildlife refuges, have been considered for carbon sequestration. The state leases pore space beneath these lands for 99-year periods or some long-term lease for developing a project. The underlying issue we see in Louisiana’s approach is that they’ve chosen to lease public land as a framework for many of their project developers and as a means to raise money and pay for carbon sequestration. There’s a tussle between different stakeholders who view things differently.
If you’ve worked on any number of these projects, education is paramount to the permitting process; the public needs to feel confident in the protection of the environment and their drinking water resources. As our projects in Louisiana progress, we continually talk about the safety of deep geologic storage on drinking water resources, monitor potential reevaluations, and stay ahead of opportunities to educate and inform the public. SCS employs conservative design philosophies and utilizes the most up-to-date scientific information on materials to prevent unexpected problems in wells. Robust testing and monitoring programs ensure that operations remain functional and safe. It may be that the state will have to choose a different way to implement Class VI reviews.
Illinois does not have primacy, but it passed a bill and a moratorium this year.
The bill SB1723 doesn’t replace the EPA Region 5 rule for carbon sequestration but adds bans or exemptions based on local geology requirements. The map shown here is of the subsurface Mahomet Aquifer, ranging from 300 to 500 feet deep. The bill prohibits penetrating this aquifer for geologic sequestration (typically 5,000 to 6,000 feet deep) to protect the aquifer if there is a leak. Redundant controls help to mitigate any compromise of integrity and escape of CO2.
Champaign County has also put a county-wide moratorium on wells for a year using Zoning Case 157-AT-24. When evaluating project feasibility in Illinois, there are federal-level regulations, plus state, county, and, in some cases, city regulations. These are very specific regulations about whether or not wells are acceptable on certain types of land. Understanding the federal-level landscape and the local stakeholders is vital for Underground Injection Control (UIC) consideration.
Arizona’s primacy was recently announced.
Primacy is a big step for Arizona with its deep sedimentary rocks. One interesting thing about Arizona is the proposed fee structure, which may make it an attractive area for injection wells. The Arizona Department of Environmental Quality administers the UIC program. It plans for its fee-for-service model to cover operating expenses of carbon sequestration projects.
Arizona’s power generation includes coal-fired power plants and management of post-combustion waste streams alongside sources like natural gas and nuclear power, which make carbon sequestration in Arizona an attractive option.
West Virginia is considered a sustainable option.
West Virginia is nestled in the Appalachian Mountains and contains strata that make the state particularly attractive and cost-effective for developing UIC projects. The geologic media combination of porous sedimentary rock formations, impermeable shale layers, and primacy streamlines project permitting while maintaining the highest levels of safety.
Case Studies and Carbon Sequestration Challenges
As we mentioned previously, education is paramount to successful projects. To be transparent and educate all stakeholders, which include the public and all agencies, science, data, and a long-term approach must back any carbon sequestration-designed solution. Developers must be able to support a client’s project to fruition and beyond monitoring and control to foresee challenges and maintain safety throughout the carbon sequestration lifecycle.
In the Midwest, the EPA issued draft permits for a Class VI project supporting a cement kiln operation. The project site is located a little bit away from the source of the actual carbon dioxide produced; thus, a short stretch of pipeline is involved.
Some of their nearby stakeholders raised this appeal for the permit in the public comment period, and they had several different claims, including the post-injection site care period, the time frame after which the injection of carbon dioxide ceases.
Facility operators are required to monitor during the post-injection period and site closure. The standard default period is 50 years. A 10-year post-injection monitoring period was proposed for this site as adequate. The EPA responded by requesting a more detailed analysis to back the request, remanding it back to Region 5 for further evaluation.
In our experience, there are many technical reasons why a shorter than the standard default period is extremely hard to demonstrate that it is safe. Issues with plume, stability, movement, and geologic stability are just the beginning. Of all the things to ask for during permitting, a short post-injection period does not seem to be fruitful, and for truly sustainable projects, it doesn’t save much in the long term. Monitoring is one of the least expensive and valuable safety precautions of carbon sequestration.
In the West, Environmental Quality Acts
Kern County hosts a carbon sequestration project in California, which is interesting because of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and proposed climate laws within SB-253 and SB-261. Plaintiffs contend that the project did not fully analyze their potential carbon dioxide sources, claiming that the carbon capture and sequestration through California Resources Corporation’s (CRC) project will attract carbon dioxide-producing operations to the site that would not otherwise have come to the county. It’s now a land use matter.
The project illustrates the need for clients to look at the ties between their sources of carbon dioxide (producers) and their geographical location, along with the geologic storage capability. This is project siting, a standard part of a feasibility analysis conducted before a carbon sequestration project is developed. Sustainable projects are a combination of safety, environmental protection, and economic feasibility in the long term.
When evaluating a potential project, we inquire whether there are sustainable sources of carbon dioxide that a developer can effectively compete for. Unless the sources of carbon dioxide and storage capabilities are considered in the feasibility stage, the proposed project may be considered speculative. In short, early consideration of these factors reduces the perception that carbon sequestration is only a business venture and devalues the fact that it reduces atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations, significantly mitigating climate change.
Pipelines and their relationship to permitting carbon dioxide capture.
South Dakota is the latest in a history of pipelines and their relationship to carbon dioxide projects. The state enacted a ban on eminent domain for carbon dioxide pipelines.
Ethanol production, which generates almost pure carbon dioxide, has been a potential source of capture and sequestration. It’s easy to obtain, concentrated, and pure as a source for capture. The challenge is balancing the amount generated in an individual plant versus the amount of economically reasonable geologic storage.
It seems very basic, but they’re sometimes not in balance. For example, the output of 15 to 20 ethanol plants and a strategy to chain them together by pipelines was proposed to minimize transportation costs. Pipeline transport of carbon dioxide is inexpensive, so it seemed to make sense that a pipeline network could dispose of it all at one site.
The pipeline network has caused many problems for the industry regarding public opposition to pipelines, largely because the pipelines would run through farmland. Then, it brings in all sorts of additional permitting and safety issues as well.
It’s not simply an issue in South Dakota but nationwide. Under the Safe CCS Act, Illinois enacted a two-year moratorium on pipeline development until further evaluation of pipeline safety. Although an extension, the same challenges cause clients to look at alternatives.
Unique to each project, a developer might recommend right-sizing the facility or creating a smaller group of facilities rather than one networked superhub. It avoids landholder objections and pipeline issues while sizing the storage capacity to sources. It may seem more expensive in the short term, but in the long term, it may not.
Another thing we’ve been looking at that seems less objectionable is rail transport instead of pipeline transport. The bottom line is that your developer should be able to propose and analyze alternatives with you to ease the permitting process.
There are different arguments to make on one side or the other. Still, looking for alternatives to connecting a large regional pipeline across the Midwest is advisable because eminent domain issues drive firms to reevaluate spending time and resources when developing a project that relies on a large or multi-state pipeline.
About the Author: Charles Hostetler, Ph.D., is a project manager and subject matter expert in geochemistry, hydrogeology, risk assessment, environmental regulations and permitting, and natural resources assessment. He provides clarity for prospective project owners interested in developing carbon sequestration solutions, low-carbon intensity products, and environmental due diligence for the energy sector. His core competencies include project management, groundwater modeling, multimedia environmental monitoring, and wetland permitting, construction, and monitoring.
Dr. Hostetler Recommends these Resources:
Graphyte is a carbon removal and sequestration firm backed by Bill Gates’s Breakthrough Energy Ventures. Operations began at its Arkansas-based plant in February 2024. What is notable about this carbon sequestration solution is its price, which is considerably lower and can work faster than other sequestration solutions.
Carbon removal is essential to fighting climate change. Billions of tons of carbon dioxide need to be removed from the atmosphere annually by 2050 to achieve climate change goals, but unfortunately, the world is not on track to make the goal. In the spirit of doing more with less, SCS Engineers supports Graphyte’s new solution to capture more carbon. As a leading environmental engineering firm in the Americas, we are experts in designing and implementing safe and long-lasting solutions that reduce, reuse, or store waste.
How Graphyte’s Carbon Casting Works
By-products of the timber and agriculture industries, otherwise burned or left to decompose, are collected. These by-products are considered biomass, dried to stop decomposition, and then condensed into dense blocks. The blocks wrapped with an impermeable polymer sheet make them environmentally safe and ensure that decomposition does not restart.
Then, the blocks are stored in state-of-the-art sites with sensors and tracers, enabling robust long-term monitoring. Storage sites can serve multiple purposes, such as solar farms or agricultural land, designed to last up to 1,000 years.
Sustainable Solution
Industries and businesses are moving to be as carbon-neutral or carbon-negative as possible, looking at carbon sequestration as an attractive reduction solution because it ticks so many boxes that make it sustainable. It sequesters carbon and does it for centuries while meeting environmental, social, and economic considerations that are extremely important. To be sustainable, a solution’s return on investment must be reasonable so customers can still afford the product or service.
Closing the Gap Between Plans and Results
Many industries and businesses combine sequestration with additional strategies that lower their produced carbons. For example, landfills and municipalities encourage diversion and recycling programs to lower methane and produce useful by-products from a large portion of what remains. Energy audits identify how to run facilities and processes more efficiently and may incorporate renewable energy from organic material, methane, or solar to power facilities.
Carbon removal is necessary to manage Climate Change and ultimately save the planet. Using an upstream and downstream approach, Graphyte offers a safe, affordable, and scalable way to sequester carbon dioxide as North America implements more reuse and recycling infrastructure to lower waste generation upstream.
Additional Resources for Carbon Mitigation and Sequestration
On May 26, 2024, Illinois passed legislation aimed at regulating carbon capture and storage projects at the state level. The Safety and Aid for the Environment in Carbon Capture and Sequestration Act (SAFE CCS Act) has a broad scope, bipartisan support, and support from industry, environmental advocacy groups, and other Illinois stakeholder groups.
SCS Engineers believes the SAFE CCS Act will impact schedule, cost, and scope in Illinois’s permitting, operation, and post-closure phases of Class VI projects.
Please join long-time Illinois Deep Well Practitioners Stephanie Hill, Charles Hostetler, and Kacey Garber for a look at how SCS will apply our state-level experience to help Project Developers, Owners, and Operators focus their permitting, operational, and reporting practices to navigate these complexities and minimize Class VI project risk.
Click on Additional CCS Resources:
Click to Read CCS Articles:
Geologic Media for Carbon Sequestration and Deep Well Injection Projects – Always Building UIC Knowledge
SCS Engineers provides turnkey underground injection control (UIC) services for the deep injection and permanent geologic storage of liquid waste (Class I UIC) and carbon dioxide (Class VI UIC). The ability to interpret and correlate deep well logs is fundamental to developing the geologic site characterization and subsurface modeling components of our deep well injection and carbon sequestration projects. We ultimately use the data gathered from these logs to construct geologic maps, cross sections, and static geologic models during the pre-permitting and permitting phase of these UIC projects. This allows us to explore optimal injection strategies for safe and efficient projects.
Recently, a group of scientists from the SCS Carbon Sequestration and Deep Well Injection Team gathered at our office in Wichita, Kansas, to attend a three-day course on deep well log interpretation and correlation. Dr. Ali Jaffri, the CEO of Applied Stratigraphix, a Denver, CO-based consulting and training firm, led the course. They offer a variety of training workshops and field courses focused on subsurface geologic interpretation, primarily for oil and gas industry geologists.
The course covered topics including:
The course devoted considerable time towards getting hands-on experience working together on interpreting and correlating well logs, including logs from our current UIC project areas, and discussing how we can apply the concepts we learned in other regions. We highly recommend this unique training for geologists in carbon sequestration.
We never stop learning, innovating, and sharing.
SCS is incorporating the content from this course and other published resources into developing updated and refined standard operating procedures for producing geologic deliverables for our deep well injection and carbon sequestration clients. As our subsurface geology team continues to expand as we meet the needs of this rapidly growing market, we are committed to operating as a high-performance team to provide quality geologic deliverables to our clients on every project.
Kacey Garber arranged the training event, contact her on LinkedIn for more information.
Learn more about Carbon Sequestration and UIC here.
Since the 1980s, the USEPA and state regulatory agencies have made great strides to regulate wells and have a robust list of requirements that industrial, municipal, commercial, and manufacturing applicants must adhere to for installing and operating a deep injection well.
Despite the regulations, many communities fear injection wells, and who can blame them? Cutting through the misinformation and online “studies” makes understanding the facts and science difficult. The myriad of groundwater concerns making headlines can become overwhelming. This video, by our team of environmental and injection well experts, takes you through the critical elements and regulations when considering injection wells. And how they help create a safe well site acceptable to regulatory authorities, communities, and industry.
Our presenter is Kokil Bansal, a licensed professional engineer with experience in landfill redevelopment site assessments, geologic sequestration, wastewater permitting, and advising her clients on proven sustainability practices. She holds a Bachelor’s in Chemical Engineering and a Master’s in Environmental Engineering. Ms. Bansal works on the SCS Engineers’ team of licensed engineers, geologists, hydrogeologists, and scientists dedicated to safe and sustainable environmental solutions for industry.
Ms. Bansal reviews the significance of the following factors for a USEPA “safe” deep injection well:
Number one is proactive engagement; it is critical to talk to all stakeholders, including community organizations, the public, and local environmental advocacy groups, about the well installation plan covering the ‘how and where.’ Early involvement in the process leads to a better understanding of the benefits and factors you, as an applicant and local business, are implementing for the public. ~ Kokil Bansal
Additional Resources
Commercial Carbon Capture and Sequestration in the US
The US is home to the largest number of commercial carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) projects worldwide, with approximately 50 new projects announced in 2021, according to the Global CCS Institute. SCS contributes expertise to several ongoing and groundbreaking carbon dioxide geologic sequestration projects. These projects have highly advanced permitting and monitoring requirements.
Research published in a report by the Congressional Research Service defines three main types of sites ideal for underground CO2 injection and sequestration: depleted oil and gas reservoirs, deep saline reservoirs, and un-mineable coal seams. In each case, CO2 in a supercritical state is injected into a porous rock formation below ground that holds, or previously held, fluids. When injected at depths greater than half a mile, the pressure keeps the injected CO2 entrained within the formation fluids, where the CO2 will subsequently dissolve.
Selecting a Site
The target geological injection interval must have an overlying impermeable caprock, such as shale, so the injected CO2 doesn’t migrate into overlying formations, most specifically, the underground source of drinking water. Fortunately for geoscientists and engineers, most of the technology used to assess the subsurface was initially developed by the petroleum industry, including a variety of geophysical techniques, including seismic reflection.
Using Seismic Reflection Technology
At SCS, our team uses the same seismic reflection technology and methodology developed by the oil and gas industry to evaluate the subsurface. Seismic reflection is a powerful tool when used properly and allows us to interpret the depositional background of the system and identify permeable and impermeable units. Seismic reflection involves generating seismic waves (the source) and measuring the two-way travel time taken for the waves to travel from the source, reflect off an interface, and be detected by an array of receivers at the surface. The reflected signal is based on the density-velocity contrast at the interface. Depending upon the type of source and receivers, seismic reflection, once recorded and processed, provides 2 or 3-D imagery of stratigraphic boundaries and geologic structure –all at depths ranging from hundreds of meters to several kilometers.
In-house experts enable SCS to utilize this amazing tool, which enables teams across the organization to see where the best areas for injection are by interpreting seismic stratigraphy. We can determine the continuity of a layer and the presence (or absence) of faults and fractures. The data can also help us determine the type of fault and whether it is a sealing or a transmissive fault. For example, a fault-bound anticline (when the rocks push up from stress changes) may provide a stratigraphic trap for hydrocarbon and can potentially store CO2.
We use seismic reflection in the initial phases of a project to determine the depths and lateral extent of known lithology. We employ previously mapped lithologic units to correlate the “images” created in seismic profiles to existing formations and, in doing so, perform a “check” on the seismic interpretation.
Long Term Benefits
Seismic reflection provides significant input when choosing a reservoir or siting a well; however, its use doesn’t end with an initial site assessment. The technology provides robust methods for monitoring the CO2 plume and interpreting changes to the subsurface during and post-injection. SCS has two Class VI injection projects where seismic reflection data was employed to identify the target injection zones and seals. The next step will be using the data to look at the subsurface relative to the injection well using downhole sensors, a process known as vertical seismic profiling.
The requirements surrounding the Class VI permitting process are complicated, but SCS has in-house experts with the skills to employ seismic reflection. Teams continue to hone their skills in this area as clients value and trust partners who can demonstrate a thorough understanding of permitting carbon sequestration projects.
The Class VI permit application typically takes 18 to 24 months to receive approval. The process is laborious and expensive. Demonstrating expertise here is critical as SCS Engineers continues to play an integral role in advancing supercritical CO2 projects throughout North America.
Additional Resources and Educational Materials:
Did you miss the 2022 Annual GWPC & UIC Conference in Salt Lake City? We welcome you to view SCS Engineers’ presentation by Kacey Garber entitled “Sensitivity of Aquifer Chemistry to Changes in Carbon Dioxide Partial Pressure: Implications for Design of Groundwater Monitoring Protocols,” where Kacey discusses permitting requirements for groundwater monitoring for carbon sequestration and storage sites.
In her technical presentation, Kacey Garber of SCS Engineers discusses the great care taken in the design and operation of the injection of carbon compounds to ensure that the sequestration is effective and permanent. Each injection site also has permitting requirements for groundwater monitoring in any overlying aquifer as a protective measure. Because the injection and sequestration periods are long, CSS solutions need a cost-effective groundwater monitoring program with a robust sensitivity to detect any leakage. By establishing a groundwater monitoring protocol specific to the site, sensitive to changes in the partial pressure of carbon dioxide, and relatively insensitive to natural variability and hydrochemical facies changes, implementing optimal and cost-effective groundwater protection is possible. Using a case study, Kacey tells us how her team did this in detail.
Kacey Garber is an experienced groundwater project manager for active and closed landfills, including routine groundwater monitoring and statistical analyses; reports and permit applications; designing sampling and analysis plans; special groundwater studies; and conducting groundwater well construction planning and design.
Corporate Headquarters
3900 Kilroy Airport Way Suite 300
Long Beach, CA 90806
Telephone
1 (800) 767-4727
1 (562) 427-0805 | FAX
Contact Us
