Saturday, October 10, 2009

Germans and Europeans miss the “fracking” truth regarding Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS)

It is difficult to believe that the erudite Europeans and the German “task-masters of precision” would gullibly buy into the sloppy pseudo-science of “climate change” alias anthropogenic global warming (AGW). The proposed solution to the hypothesized problem is CCS - a process referred to, in the oil and gas industry, as CO2 fracking. This label is based on the ability of supercritical carbon dioxide (SCC) to fracture dense rock and free oil and gas by expansion and displacement. The promoters of CCS, using the identical process, presume that SCC will somehow behave differently and that the sequestered carbon dioxide pumped deep under rocks will remain there peacefully for millennia. Furthermore they imply the physically impossible – that SCC will never displace brine into the freshwater aquifers or bad gases like methane and radon nor fracture dense rock causing seismic events. Therefore the fear that leak-back of CO2 and other gases to the surface could asphyxiate the little people in little towns like Greenville (Darke County) Ohio has never crossed their mind.

Perhaps the most serious oversight is the fact that a power plant employing CCS over a 30-year period will have sequestered, in the form of SCC, the energy equal to the Hiroshima atomic bomb . CO2 used in much lesser amounts to frack depleted oil and gas wells has been considered to cause seismic events recently in Texas.

Under the guise of environmental protection, the new plants will consume 25 – 30 percent more coal and thus increase their toxic residues including heavy metals, sulfates and a whole host of complex organic compounds some of which are carcinogenic. The process increases the amount of heat of combustion by the same percentage, therefore directly increasing AGW if it is occurring.

Our purpose in reviewing these issues is not to celebrate our victory over Battelle/MRCSP but to encourage you to continue the fight in behalf of little people in little towns around the world. Although these schemes and their supporting data are spawned in Copenhagen, Berlin, London, Paris, Washington DC (DOE) and Columbus, Ohio (Battelle), the risk and burden of experimental CCS is consistently placed on the shoulders of little people in little towns. Is it because little uneducated people (as implied by J. Bradbury of Battelle) are considered expendable?

We feel there is a desperate need to attack these elitist schemes that are coming out of in Copenhagen, Berlin, Paris, London and Washington DC.


  1. So, my question is this: Why do the majority of Republicans and Democrats in the US Senate support CCS? Remember, the DOE grant idea for CCS came out of the Bush Administration so this is not some far out left wing liberal agenda.

  2. To: Anonymous 10/11/09 12:43 pm
    From: the Authors

    You posed a very good question, and made an astute observation i.e. that although CCS came out of the US DOE during the Bush-Chaney administration, it is now a part of the centerpiece Democratic “cap and trade”. We believe the answer for this paradox is money and Wall Street sponsored carbon credits. This party switch has occurred before. An example is the prescription drug benefits policy that was conceived and promoted by the Democrats but was enacted by the Bush administration with a Republican majority – even at the very time the Republicans claimed to be worried about the solvency of Medicare.

    As you will note in the last sentence, we referred to CCS as an “elitist scheme” as opposed to Democrat/Republican, conservative/liberal, or right wing/left wing.

    Regarding CCS locally, an interesting paradox occurred. The Darke County Chamber of Commerce, by its silence, supported CCS while the National Chamber of Commerce was vehemently against “cap and trade”, and obviously CCS an important tool.

    Elitists, by our definition, bear no allegiance to country or state, liberals/conservatives, or, for that matter, even right or wrong. As a result they contribute large amounts of funds to opposing candidates as a method of covering all bets and buying power.
    In summary, we agree with you -this is not a left wing liberal agenda but an "elitist" agenda.

  3. Now we need to EDUCATE Mike Rhoades who actually believes that Battelle is working in Mercer County and Jay County along the Darke County border, under the guise of looking for oil. No Mike, they are still doing CCS. They are lying to people as usual. WAKE-UP!

  4. Why has nobody approached Sharon Deschabeau to get an explanation of her position?


Featured Posts

/* Track outbound links in Google Analytics */