There have been [1] warnings before this, but as the article identified farther down shows, Saskatchewan now, too, finds that CO2 injected underground leaks to the surface, but why should anyone be surprised?  [2] Blowing CO2 down Mother Earth’s derriere is not a good idea.

In [3] the case of the Shell CCS Project in Alberta, it is not even done to increase oil production.  Shell will do it for no other reason than to use up money (a billion dollars of taxpayer money) to alleviate superstitious hype and hysteria.  Shell intends to do it in Alberta so as to appease bureaucratic pressure fueled by political expediency.  Not only that, but Shell’s “solution” is a condition for receiving the operating permit for their Scottford Upgrader Project.  Shell would surely not bother with their [4] CCS Project if they would not be pressured into it.  Still, why not?  It is the taxpayers who will be paying the lion’s share of the cost.  That is “free” money, isn’t it?

The Canadian Press - ONLINE EDITION

Land fizzing like soda pop: farmer says CO2 injected underground is leaking

By: Bob Weber and Jennifer Graham, The Canadian Press

Posted: 01/11/2011 10:22 AM

A Saskatchewan farm couple whose land lies over the world’s largest carbon capture and storage project says greenhouse gases seeping from the soil are killing animals and sending groundwater foaming to the surface like shaken soda pop.

The gases were supposed to have been injected permanently underground.

Cameron and Jane Kerr own nine quarter-sections of land above the Weyburn oilfield in eastern Saskatchewan. They released a consultant’s report Tuesday that links high concentrations of carbon dioxide in their soil to 6,000 tonnes of the gas injected underground every day by energy giant Cenovus (TSX:CVE) in an attempt to enhance oil recovery and fight climate change….([5] Full Story)

A couple of the comments provided by readers of the article identify that CO2 is an essential plant food and that the Earth is currently in a CO2 dearth, which is correct, as plant growth will shut down when the atmospheric CO2 level drops to 150 ppm or less.  However, the vast majority of the comments are not confidence-inspiring and indicate an astounding lack knowledge about the role of CO2 in the environment.

Lack of knowledge is of course the reason why the proponents of environmental alarmism can get away with pulling the wool over people’s eyes.

Thanks to [6] wattsupwiththat.com for the tip on this article.  If you wish to gain a realistic understanding of what is involved, don’t bother reading the reader comments at the Winnipeg Free Press, but read instead the [7] comments at wattsupwiththat.com.  See for instance this exchange at wattsupwiththat.com:

R. Gates says:

[8] January 11, 2011 at 11:08 am

I’m skeptical that CO2 could kill any animals as the effect would be logarithmic and would amount to very little effect even at high concentrations. I would look toward solar or ocean influences…it’s natural variation.

REPLY: You also aren’t very good at looking beyond your nose:

[9] http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/27/quote-of-the-week-36-carbon-sequestrations-fatal-flaw/

CO2 is of course heavier than air, the gravel pit [in Weyburn] makes a perfect trap for small animals and unsuspecting humans.

Read up on [10] Lake Nyos and [11] Lake Kivu. Note the pictures of the dead animals [12] here.

Then tell us again how CO2 in high concentrations leaking out of the ground aren’t a problem. CO2 bubbling out of the ground from any source, be it natural or sequestered, will find any low spots on the surface, and any living things in that low spot have the potential to be killed by asphyxiation. Even something as simple as [13] making wine can kill you if you allow the CO2 to collect around you. It only takes [14] 8% air concentration to kill you in about 10 minutes. See this [15] hazmat source.

However, I predict you’ll try to save face and come up with some lame excuse as to why your version of “no worries” is right and we are wrong to be concerned.

-Anthony

It will without a doubt be interesting to watch for what will happen next, but it seems to me that Richard Courtney, a frequent commenter at wattsupwiththat.com, has [16] a good idea on what to do about cheap and practical CO2 disposal if that should ever be necessary.  In the meantime, until the necessity for that arises, if it ever does, why not just release CO2 into the air? After all, [17] it does wonders for increasing agricultural productivity, the greening of the Earth and solving world hunger. We would save a lot of money that way, and no one would have to worry about anyone getting killed by it.