AngryToxicologist is a scientist in the public health sector, knows plenty about toxicology, and is occasionally angry about it all. Drop me a line at Let's just put it in a hole
CO2 sequestration has been going forward but only approved as research class wells. The EPA is proposing regulations on how to do it full scale and correctly. This is necessary because the CO2 may have nasty impurities, can move around, is corrosive with water, and is a weak acid. In other words, mixing with water supplies is bad.
You mean if I screw up, I've got to fix it? That's un-American!
The main contentious issue here is what are industries' responsibilities after the well is filled and capped. How much should they have to put up for financial assurances in case drinking water is acidified or the CO2 leaks out? Who should be responsible for monitoring? For how long? The arguement is somewhere inbetween 0 and 300 years. That's quite a gap to close. This reminds me of mining a lot. Hmm...that's not a good thing; most of the problem mines in the west had bonds put up for future remediation and they are never even close to enough, leaving the citizens to foot the bill. The Agency is taking comments and I think I may express my own desire not to foot the remediation bill. I'll keep my eye out for the public hearing and let you know about that when it comes.
Environment
Having problems commenting? (UPDATED)