The NY Times Doesn’t Have to Live With the Stuff Buried in Their Back Yard – Veto SB 498

by jhwygirl

A NYTimes article, Big Sky State makes play to be a CO2 importer reminds us of another environmental disaster-in-waiting SB498 sits awaiting signature from Governor Schweitzer.

Yeah! Let’s take Canada’s carbon dioxide! /snark

Ugh. Let’s hope the Governor goes “veto” on this one.

With recent EPA declarations regarding the regulation of CO2 – one has to wonder if its wise to attempting to regulate an untested process when the federal government has just declared its intention to regulate the same?

I must, once again, direct readers to two excellent posts on the subject of carbon sequestration: Button Valley Press’ Captive Carbon? and CO2 Going To The Birds. Both of those posts do a good job at explaining why injecting carbon dioxide into the ground is a stupid, stupid thing – but how nonsensical it is to build pipe and infrastructure all for additional processing of a pollutant in search of “clean coal”.

The feds have been halting all carbon dioxide emitting plants for months now – which is why the Highwood plant withdrew its plans for burning coal – clearly coal is receiving attention from the Obama administration, and consideration is being given as to what “clean coal” really means, and how do we get there?

Until that process is worked out – and clearly, the EPA declaration is going to take some time to work out – the state would do well to wait before acting. Investors are going to have to do the same…and the actions taken at Highwood confirm that wait-and-see approach.

SB498 has “scary” parts too – the sequestration (transport drilling piping and storage of carbon dioxide) would be be regulated by the Board of Oil & Gas – not DEQ which most would say are much better equipped both administratively and legislatively – to deal with regulating the transport of pollution.

An appointed board – that ovesees the industry that has to deal with this CO2. Conflict of interest, anyone?

Another “scary”? This is actually written into this bill:

(8) Solely for the purposes of administering carbon dioxide injection wells under this part, carbon dioxide within a geologic storage reservoir is not a pollutant, nuisance, or a hazardous or deleterious substance.”

Let’s hope for a veto on this one….I know I am.

  1. Lucky

    Anne Hedges said, “It is premature to say we are going to allow a Canadian pollutant to be injected into the geology of Montana and potentially contaminate groundwater,” but, “carbon dioxide within a geologic storage reservoir is not a pollutant,” Presto!

    Hey, even if sequestration never proves up, studying the process is setting up to be a real economic stimulus for Montana. $80 million to MSU (and that gas goes to Wyoming, so who cares), $100 Million for the Bowdoin project and maybe a good slice of the $1.5 billion federal money. We’re in the money!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

  • Pages

  • Recent Comments

    Miles on A New Shelter for Vets or an E…
    success rate for In… on Thirty years ago ARCO killed A…
    Warrior for the Lord on The Dark Side of Colorado
    Linda Kelley-Miller on The Dark Side of Colorado
    Dan on A New Shelter for Vets or an E…
    Former Prosecutor Se… on Former Chief Deputy County Att…
    JediPeaceFrog on Montana AG Tim Fox and US Rep.…
  • Recent Posts

  • Blog Stats

    • 1,675,899 hits
  • Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

    Join 2,737 other followers

  • April 2009
    S M T W T F S
  • Categories

%d bloggers like this: