[House Hearing, 117 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


             THE OPPORTUNITIES AND RISKS OF OFFSHORE 
              CARBON STORAGE IN THE GULF OF MEXICO

=======================================================================

                           OVERSIGHT HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                       SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND
                           MINERAL RESOURCES

                                 OF THE

                     COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
                     U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                             SECOND SESSION

                               __________

                        Thursday, April 28, 2022

                               __________

                           Serial No. 117-19

                               __________

       Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources
       
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]       


        Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov
                                   or
          Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov
          
                              __________

                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE                    
47-431 PDF                 WASHINGTON : 2022                     
          
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------           
          
          
          
                     COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES

                      RAUL M. GRIJALVA, AZ, Chair
                JESUS G. ``CHUY'' GARCIA, IL, Vice Chair
   GREGORIO KILILI CAMACHO SABLAN, CNMI, Vice Chair, Insular Affairs
                  BRUCE WESTERMAN, AR, Ranking Member

Grace F. Napolitano, CA              Louie Gohmert, TX
Jim Costa, CA                        Doug Lamborn, CO
Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,      Robert J. Wittman, VA
    CNMI                             Tom McClintock, CA
Jared Huffman, CA                    Garret Graves, LA
Alan S. Lowenthal, CA                Jody B. Hice, GA
Ruben Gallego, AZ                    Aumua Amata Coleman Radewagen, AS
Joe Neguse, CO                       Daniel Webster, FL
Mike Levin, CA                       Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon, PR
Katie Porter, CA                     Russ Fulcher, ID
Teresa Leger Fernandez, NM           Pete Stauber, MN
Melanie A. Stansbury, NM             Thomas P. Tiffany, WI
Nydia M. Velazquez, NY               Jerry L. Carl, AL
Diana DeGette, CO                    Matthew M. Rosendale, Sr., MT
Julia Brownley, CA                   Blake D. Moore, UT
Debbie Dingell, MI                   Yvette Herrell, NM
A. Donald McEachin, VA               Lauren Boebert, CO
Darren Soto, FL                      Jay Obernolte, CA
Michael F. Q. San Nicolas, GU        Cliff Bentz, OR
Jesus G. ``Chuy'' Garcia, IL         Vacancy
Ed Case, HI                          Vacancy
Betty McCollum, MN
Steve Cohen, TN
Paul Tonko, NY
Rashida Tlaib, MI
Lori Trahan, MA

                     David Watkins, Staff Director
                       Luis Urbina, Chief Counsel
               Vivian Moeglein, Republican Staff Director
                   http://naturalresources.house.gov
                                 ------                                

              SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES

                      ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, CA, Chair
                    PETE STAUBER, MN, Ranking Member

A. Donald McEachin, VA               Yvette Herrell, NM
Mike Levin, CA                       Doug Lamborn, CO
Katie Porter, CA                     Garret Graves, LA
Diana DeGette, CO                    Thomas P. Tiffany, WI
Betty McCollum, MN                   Vacancy
Jared Huffman, CA                    Bruce Westerman, AR, ex officio
Debbie Dingell, MI
Raul M. Grijalva, AZ, ex officio

                                ------                                
                                
                                
                                CONTENTS

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page

Hearing held on Thursday, April 28, 2022.........................     1

Statement of Members:

    Lowenthal, Hon. Alan S., a Representative in Congress from 
      the State of California....................................     1
        Prepared statement of....................................     3
    Stauber, Hon. Pete, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Minnesota.........................................     4

Statement of Witnesses:

    Meckel, Tip, Senior Research Scientist, Bureau of Economic 
      Geology, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas..     6
        Prepared statement of....................................     9
    Milito, Erik, President, National Ocean Industries 
      Association, Washington, DC................................    34
        Prepared statement of....................................    35
    Muffett, Carroll, President and CEO, Center for International 
      Environmental Law, Washington, DC..........................    16
        Prepared statement of....................................    17
    Saunders, Nichole, Director and Senior Attorney, Energy 
      Transition, Environmental Defense Fund, Austin, Texas......    26
        Prepared statement of....................................    28

Additional Materials Submitted for the Record:

    Submissions for the Record by Representative Lowenthal

        Best Management Practices for Offshore Transportation and 
          Sub-Seabed Geologic Storage of Carbon Dioxide--BOEM 
          2018-004...............................................    53

    Carbon Capture Coalition, Statement for the Record...........    54

    Clean Air Task Force, Statement for the Record...............    58



 
  OVERSIGHT HEARING ON THE OPPORTUNITIES AND RISKS OF OFFSHORE CARBON 
                     STORAGE IN THE GULF OF MEXICO

                              ----------                              


                        Thursday, April 28, 2022

                     U.S. House of Representatives

              Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources

                     Committee on Natural Resources

                             Washington, DC

                              ----------                              

    The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:33 a.m., in 
room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Alan S. 
Lowenthal [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
    Present: Representatives Lowenthal, Porter; Stauber, 
Herrell, and Graves.

    Dr. Lowenthal. Good morning everyone. The Subcommittee on 
Energy and Mineral Resources will come to order.
    We are meeting today to hear testimony on the opportunities 
and the risks of storing carbon dioxide offshore in the Gulf of 
Mexico.
    Under Committee Rule 4(f), any oral opening statements at 
hearings are limited to the Chair and the Ranking Minority 
Member, or their designees. This will allow us to hear from our 
witnesses sooner and help Members keep to their schedules.
    Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that all other Members' 
opening statements be made part of the hearing record if they 
are submitted to the Clerk by 5 p.m. today or at the close of 
the hearing, whichever comes first.
    Hearing no objection, so ordered.
    Without objection, the Chair may also declare a recess, 
subject to the call of the Chair.
    Without objection, we may have other Members, which we will 
hear from later on today, to ask questions of witnesses in 
today's meeting.
    As described in the notice, statements, documents, or 
motions must be submitted to the electronic repository at 
[email protected]. Members physically present should 
provide a hard copy for staff to distribute by e-mail.
    Please note that Members are responsible for their own 
microphones. As with our fully in-person meetings, Members can 
be muted by staff only to avoid inadvertent background noise.
    Finally, Members or witnesses experiencing technical 
problems should inform Committee staff immediately.
    With that, I will begin my opening statement.

 STATEMENT OF THE HON. ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
             CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

    Dr. Lowenthal. It is, for me, a very interesting hearing. I 
will start with the Biden administration has set goals for the 
United States to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by at least 50 
percent by 2030 and to reach net-zero emissions no later than 
2050. According to the international scientific community, if 
countries worldwide reach net-zero emission by mid-century, we 
can prevent the worst impacts of climate change from occurring.
    We have no time to waste and reaching these goals will take 
a whole-of-government approach. We need to eliminate greenhouse 
gas pollution from every sector of the U.S. economy, including 
heavy industries that are critical to our economy but are very 
difficult to decarbonize. I am talking about heavy industries 
like manufacturing, chemical processing, and refining.
    One potential tool for these hard-to-decarbonize industries 
is carbon capture and storage. But capturing the carbon dioxide 
before it enters the atmosphere is just one side of the 
equation, and a complicated one at that. That carbon must then 
be stored and monitored for decades to come, which brings us to 
the subject of today's hearing.
    The Outer Continental Shelf of the Gulf of Mexico has 
tremendous potential to permanently store large amounts of 
carbon dioxide that would otherwise be emitted into the 
atmosphere. State governments, industry, and academics have all 
expressed interest, thanks to the Gulf's unique geology and 
close proximity to heavy industries that emit significant 
amounts of carbon pollution.
    The Gulf region is also home to a highly trained offshore 
oil and gas workforce whose skills and expertise are directly 
transferable to this emerging industry.
    And it makes sense. Instead of pumping oil out of the 
seabed, they would be pumping carbon dioxide into it.
    However, offshore carbon storage is most certainly not 
without risk, and it is no silver bullet climate solution. 
Carbon capture and storage does not give highly polluting 
facilities a license to increase emissions of carbon dioxide or 
the many other dangerous pollutants that they can spill into 
the air.
    The Gulf region is home to over 1,000 industrial facilities 
that disproportionately impact minority and low-income 
communities. These types of facilities emit enormous amounts of 
pollution that are harming our planet and hurting human health.
    We must also gain a better understanding of the impacts of 
offshore carbon storage on marine environments and the safety 
hazards posed by carbon dioxide pipelines, which will be 
essential for moving carbon from where it is captured and into 
the undersea storage reservoirs.
    In 2020, a ruptured carbon dioxide pipeline in Mississippi 
led to the evacuation of 200 residents and the hospitalization 
of 45 people. That is why the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law 
directed the Department of the Interior to issue new safeguards 
for development of carbon storage projects on the Outer 
Continental Shelf, in addition to other provisions to support 
this industry.
    It is critical that these regulations developed by the 
Department of the Interior prioritize the health and safety of 
Gulf communities, set strong industry standards, and provide 
protections for taxpayers.
    Before I turn it over to Ranking Member Stauber, I want to 
emphasize that carbon capture and storage could be one piece, 
albeit a small piece, of our overall efforts to reduce 
pollution that is destroying our planet and harming the health 
of fellow Americans.
    However, I would like to say usually when we have Majority 
witnesses, they all agree, generally, on the topic, and the 
Minority witnesses are usually in opposition. But this hearing, 
our Majority witnesses have different takes on this, on carbon 
capture and storage.
    One esteemed scientist says that carbon capture and storage 
in the Gulf is not a want, but a need. It has to be done, 
really.
    Another one says that carbon storage is not a silver 
bullet. And that before we do it, we really must take into 
account that lots of issues must be solved.
    And our third witness says carbon capture and storage is a 
false solution.
    So, I look forward to an exciting hearing and one that I 
hope will educate me greatly. I want to hear how realistic some 
of these carbon capture and storage projects really are in the 
near term.
    I personally remain cautiously optimistic, but I also still 
believe that transitioning away from fossil fuel is the most 
effective strategy for saving the planet for our children and 
for our grandchildren, and it is going to remain a focus of 
this Subcommittee. Although, this is a very fascinating subject 
that we also need to look at.

    [The prepared statement of Dr. Lowenthal follows:]
 Prepared Statement of the Hon. Alan S. Lowenthal, a Representative in 
                 Congress from the State of California
    The Biden administration has set goals for the United States to 
reduce greenhouse emissions by at least 50 percent by 2030 and reach 
net-zero emissions no later than 2050. And according to the 
international scientific community, if countries worldwide reach net-
zero emissions by mid-century, we can prevent the worst impacts of 
climate change from occurring.
    We have no time to waste, and reaching these goals will take a 
whole-of-government approach. We need to eliminate greenhouse gas 
pollution from every sector of the U.S. economy, including heavy 
industries that are critical to our economy but very difficult to 
decarbonize. I'm talking about heavy industries like cement, 
manufacturing, chemical processing, and refining.
    One potential tool for these hard-to-decarbonize industries is 
carbon capture and storage. But capturing the carbon dioxide before it 
enters the atmosphere is just one side of the equation, and a 
complicated one at that. That carbon must then be stored and monitored 
for decades to come.
    Which brings us to the subject of today's hearing. The Outer 
Continental Shelf of the Gulf of Mexico has tremendous potential to 
permanently store large amounts of carbon dioxide that would otherwise 
be emitted into the atmosphere.
    State governments, industry, and academics have all expressed 
interest thanks to the Gulf's unique geology and close proximity to 
heavy industries that emit significant amounts of carbon pollution. The 
Gulf region is also home to a highly trained offshore oil and gas 
workforce whose skills and expertise are directly transferable to this 
emerging industry.
    And it makes sense. Instead of pumping oil out of the seabed, they 
would be pumping carbon dioxide into it.
    However, offshore carbon storage is most certainly not without 
risk, and it is no silver bullet climate solution. Even if carbon 
capture and storage moves forward in some manner, that does not mean 
that highly polluting facilities should get a free pass to increase 
their carbon emissions or the many other dangerous pollutants that they 
spill into the air.
    The Gulf region is home to over 1,000 industrial facilities that 
disproportionally impact minority and low-income communities. These 
types of facilities emit enormous amounts of pollution that are harming 
our planet and hurting human health.
    We must also gain a better understanding of the impacts of offshore 
carbon storage on marine environments and the safety hazards posed by 
carbon dioxide pipelines, which will be essential for moving carbon 
from where it is captured and into the undersea storage reservoirs.
    In 2020, a ruptured carbon dioxide pipeline in Mississippi led to 
the evacuation of 200 residents and the hospitalization of 45 people.
    That is why the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law directed the 
Department of the Interior to issue new safeguards for development of 
carbon storage projects on the Outer Continental Shelf, in addition to 
other provisions to support this industry.
    It's critical that these regulations developed by the Department of 
the Interior prioritize the health and safety of Gulf communities, set 
strong industry standards, and provide protections for taxpayers.
    Before turning it over to Ranking Member Stauber, I want to 
emphasize that carbon capture and storage could be just one small piece 
of our overall efforts to reduce pollution that is destroying our 
planet and harming the health of fellow Americans.
    Transitioning away from fossil fuels is still the most effective 
strategy for saving the planet for our children and grandchildren, and 
it will remain a focus of this Committee.
    I also hope to hear from our witnesses today about just how 
realistic some of these carbon capture and storage projects really are 
in the near term. Carbon capture technology has been researched for 
years, and a decade ago was pushed aggressively by coal companies to 
prop-up polluting power plants. But the practice never took off, mainly 
because removing carbon dioxide from smokestacks is so incredibly 
expensive and uneconomic.
    If capturing carbon doesn't make financial sense--and to my 
knowledge, it currently doesn't without generous tax incentives--we 
need to be careful about supporting just another fossil fuel industry 
boondoggle.
    However, while I have concerns with the capture technology and cost 
side of this issue, today's hearing is more generally about storing 
carbon offshore in the Gulf of Mexico.
    With that, I look forward to the testimony from our witnesses.

                                 ______
                                 

    Dr. Lowenthal. With that, I look forward to the testimony 
of our witnesses, and I now recognize Ranking Member Stauber 
for his opening statement.

    STATEMENT OF THE HON. PETE STAUBER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
              CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MINNESOTA

    Mr. Stauber. Thank you very much, Chairman Lowenthal. I 
look forward to being with you in person at the next hearing. 
And as you know, I value our friendship.
    Today, I am excited to discuss an exciting new branch of 
the Energy and Minerals Resources Subcommittee jurisdiction: 
carbon capture, utilization, and storage. CCUS involves 
capturing carbon dioxide from emissions streams, whether it be 
right at the point of emission or from the air. Carbon is then 
condensed and stored underground, or reused in other 
applications.
    This technology has the potential to revolutionize the 
industrial sector. It is a great example of innovation that is 
already deployed by firms in energy generation, steelmaking, 
and many others.
    For starters, various forms of carbon capture and storage 
are already in effect and development in the United States on 
land. Meanwhile, the Gulf of Mexico provides opportunities for 
CCUS development offshore, where the favorable geology under 
the sea floor offers just the right situation for storage. We 
will therefore today explore the potential for offshore carbon 
capture and sequestration.
    But first, I would be doing a disservice to the American 
people if I did not again discuss the damage inflicted on the 
livelihoods of Americans by Joe Biden's policymaking, or lack 
thereof. Just last week, I was able to join my close friend and 
colleague, House Minority Whip Steve Scalise, to an offshore 
oil rig off the Louisiana coast, the Appomattox. I saw 
firsthand how the oil and gas workers value safety and 
environmental responsibility, while developing the resources we 
need to keep energy affordable, reliable, and clean for 
American families.
    The issue is clear: the Administration must offer oil and 
gas lease sales both onshore and offshore. The only offshore 
lease sale held, Lease Sale 257, was directed by a Louisiana 
court and was a resounding success. It would have generated 
record revenues for the United States and would generate even 
more over the life of the lease, which we would deposit into 
conservation funding. However, it was predictably challenged by 
activists, fundraising, and legal organizations, who were able 
to win an unlawful pause.
    And to make matters worse, we are only 64 days from BOEM's 
current 5-year plan expiring, with no replacement in sight. 
This Administration needs to follow the law and complete a 
replacement plan by the July 1st deadline.
    Meanwhile, onshore, the Administration was dragged kicking 
and screaming into offering one single lease sale. I am happy 
for the roughnecks in the West who may get a little relief, but 
it does come at a cost: a higher royalty rate and an 80 percent 
reduction in land offered, as the Interior Department bragged 
in a recent press release.
    This is what Joe Biden envisioned when he promised to end 
fossil fuels as a candidate: less American resources, more 
foreign imports, more expensive lives for Americans, especially 
as the summer driving season is upon us. But don't take my word 
for it. The White House Press Secretary recently said that the 
President's policy is, and I quote, ``to ban additional 
leasing.'' This is unacceptable. Joe Biden must get on the side 
of American energy.
    With that being said, I can now turn back to the core of 
the hearing today. There are several Federal policy issues in 
the offshore CCUS space for us to consider.
    Last November, Interior was authorized to lease lands and 
grant rights-of-way and easements for carbon storage on the 
Outer Continental Shelf. The law requires regulations to be 
issued within a year of enactment, and we are now only 7 months 
away. As the Administration develops this framework, we have 
several issues to consider.
    For example, we need to ensure lease terms and long-term 
viability. Carbon has the potential to be stored permanently. 
Therefore, what will happen to the leased area? How will we 
monitor for safety, long term? How can we ensure the waters 
remain viable for multiple use?
    And just like any industrial application, leasing and 
regulatory certainty is paramount. We need to ensure operators 
know their lease terms so they can plan, raise capital, and 
invest. Unlike other sectors, carbon storage doesn't create a 
commodity that can be bought and sold on a market. Firms cannot 
be expected to make these massive investments without having a 
baseline expectation of liability and certainty.
    And lastly, we need to have a robust pipeline 
infrastructure to transport carbon from point source to 
sequestration. We therefore need a thoughtful and forward-
thinking policy on ocean pipelines.
    Given the general attitude toward pipelines by this 
Administration and the Committee Majority who, for example, 
advance short-sighted legislation like the Offshore Pipeline 
Safety Act, it is imperative we build consensus-driven, 
bipartisan solutions.
    In closing, I look forward to diving into the prospect of 
capturing, transporting, and storing carbon offshore.
    I look forward to the testimony. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and 
I yield back.

    Dr. Lowenthal. Thank you, Ranking Member Stauber.
    I believe that Ranking Member Westerman will not be making 
an opening statement.
    Mr. Stauber. That is correct, Mr. Chair.
    Dr. Lowenthal. Then I am going to now introduce today's 
witnesses.
    Dr. Tip Meckel is a Senior Research Scientist for the 
Bureau of Economic Geology at the University of Texas at 
Austin.
    Mr. Carroll Muffett is the President and CEO of the Center 
for International Environmental Law.
    Ms. Nichole Saunders, who is joining us remotely, is the 
Director and Senior Attorney for Energy Transition at the 
Environmental Defense Fund.
    And Mr. Erik Milito is the President of the National Ocean 
Industries Association.
    Let me remind the witnesses that under our Committee Rules, 
they must limit their oral statements to 5 minutes, but that 
their entire statement will appear in the hearing record.
    When you begin, the timer will begin, and it will turn 
orange when you have 1 minute remaining.
    I recommend that Members and witnesses joining remotely pin 
the timer so that it remains visible.
    After your testimony is complete, please remember to mute 
yourself to avoid any inadvertent background noise.
    I will allow the entire panel to testify before questioning 
the witnesses.
    The Chair now recognizes Dr. Meckel for 5 minutes.

 STATEMENT OF TIP MECKEL, SENIOR RESEARCH SCIENTIST, BUREAU OF 
 ECONOMIC GEOLOGY, THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN, AUSTIN, 
                             TEXAS

    Dr. Meckel. Thank you. Subcommittee Chair Lowenthal, 
Ranking Member Stauber, and Subcommittee members, thanks for 
the invitation today to provide testimony related to the 
opportunities and risks of offshore carbon storage in the Gulf 
of Mexico.
    I serve as a Senior Research Scientist at the Gulf Coast 
Carbon Center at the Texas Bureau of Economic Geology at the 
University of Texas at Austin. My expertise is in geology and 
geophysics, with a specialty in carbon dioxide storage.
    During my 15 years working full-time on carbon capture and 
geologic storage, I have worked closely with the U.S. 
Department of Energy National Energy Technology Laboratory 
under the Office of Fossil Energy and Carbon Management. My 
colleagues and I have led a half dozen CCS demonstration 
projects, utilizing over $70 million in Federal funding. Our 
center has also interacted with many companies that are 
actively developing CCS projects, including offshore, both in 
the United States and internationally.
    Beginning in 2010, I initiated a research program to 
evaluate the offshore Gulf of Mexico for carbon capture and 
storage. I have completed three multi-year, offshore CCS 
storage research projects to date, with one ongoing for the 
western Gulf of Mexico.
    We now have the first example of a successful state lease 
in Texas for offshore CO2 storage, indicating 
commercial market interest and viability of IRS Section 45Q tax 
credits for accelerating project deployment.
    Lastly, my colleagues and I at the Center are currently in 
regular dialogue with the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management and 
the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement on topics 
related to offshore CCS.
    In the United States and globally, we are faced with the 
unprecedented challenge of providing abundant, affordable, and 
reliable energy, while simultaneously mitigating the effects of 
climate change associated with industrial emissions.
    Both the International Panel on Climate Change and the 
International Energy Agency have stated repeatedly over the 
last decade that trying to address our energy needs and 
associated industrial emissions will be both more expensive and 
less effective without carbon capture and geologic storage. 
Simply put, CCS is not a want, it is a need.
    But it is important for the Subcommittee to recognize that 
while CCS is a relatively new topic for the offshore in the 
United States, it has been active internationally for over a 
decade, and there are over 20 years of experience in developing 
and deploying CCS technology in the United States, a recognized 
leader in CCS. Multiple examples of successful industrial 
projects exist. The primary technology components needed are at 
a very high technology readiness level, and projects can 
proceed safely and effectively today.
    With regard to subsurface storage capacity, the Offshore 
Continental Shelves represent the national end-game for 
effective CCS deployment at the scale needed to mitigate 
existing and future emissions. In particular, the Gulf of 
Mexico Basin is one of the most studied geologic regions in the 
world. Currently available subsurface data are sufficient to 
initiate storage projects today. Multiple technical studies 
identify hundreds of gigatons of storage capable of addressing 
national emissions for decades.

     Considering the opportunities that offshore CCS affords, 
it is important to recognize the following:

        An offshore CCS industry would facilitate the 
        mitigation of significant quantities of CO2 
        emissions from industrial point sources and would 
        increase the nation's ability to reach stated 
        greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets.

        The development of a successful offshore CCS industry 
        will both retain, as well as create, significant long-
        term, diverse, and high-paying jobs.

        Development of offshore CCS will lead to international 
        competitiveness in a rapidly evolving global energy 
        transition.

        Offshore CCS can be an important part of addressing 
        environmental justice issues related to the energy 
        transition.

        The opportunity exists to repurpose existing 
        infrastructure nearing the end of its production cycle 
        for CCS and avoid decommissioning costs.

     Considering the risks that CCS presents, the following 
points are critical to understand:

        CCS science is mature, and subsurface injection of 
        CO2 for emissions abatement is demonstrably 
        safe and effective.

        Primary risks include migration of buoyant fluids 
        toward the surface and marine environment via legacy 
        wellbores or geologic pathways.

        The management of induced pressure in the subsurface 
        associated with CO2 injection is important 
        for understanding the project location and adjacent 
        proximity, while minimizing potential for induced 
        seismicity.

        The technologies needed for effective monitoring of 
        subsurface CO2 injection projects are mature 
        and exist today.

        The costs of CCS are currently quite high. Current IRS 
        tax credits, valued at $39 a ton, are capable of 
        initiating some projects, but tax credit values closer 
        to $85 a ton would generate a significant additional 
        increase in project development.

        Public perception of CCS is uneven, although many have 
        become more supportive once they are provided 
        additional information on benefits and risks.

    In conclusion, I believe the Gulf of Mexico represents the 
single best opportunity for developing a CCS industry in the 
United States that can effectively address national emission 
reduction strategies at the required scale. The opportunities 
are economically impactful, can significantly mitigate 
emissions for reaching our national targets, and the risks are 
manageable and monitoring is mature. We are ready to proceed.
    I encourage the Subcommittee to recognize the ability to 
simultaneously address future abundant, affordable, and 
reliable energy needs, while reducing industrial emissions and 
addressing climate change by establishing permitting and 
regulations needed for safe and timely development of an 
offshore CCS industry in the OCS, specifically in the Gulf of 
Mexico.
    Thank you for the opportunity to provide these 
perspectives, and I am happy to field any questions as time 
allows.

    [The prepared statement of Dr. Meckel follows:]
  Prepared Statement of Dr. Timothy A. `Tip' Meckel, Senior Research 
             Scientist, CCS Expert, Geology and Geophysics
     Bureau of Economic Geology, The University of Texas at Austin
    Subcommittee Chair Alan Lowenthal, Ranking Member Pete Stauber, and 
Subcommittee Members: Thank you for inviting me today to provide 
testimony to the House Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources 
oversight hearing titled: ``The Opportunities and Risks of Offshore 
Carbon Storage in the Gulf of Mexico.''
    I serve as a Senior Research Scientist at the Gulf Coast Carbon 
Center at the Texas Bureau of Economic Geology at The University of 
Texas at Austin. My expertise is in geology and geophysics, with a 
specialty in carbon dioxide storage.
    During my 15 years working full time on Carbon Capture and Geologic 
Storage (CCS), I have worked closely with the U.S. Department of 
Energy--National Energy Technology Laboratory under the Office of 
Fossil Energy and Carbon Management. My colleagues and I have led a 
half dozen CCS demonstration projects utilizing over $70 million 
dollars in Federal funding. Our Center has also interacted with many 
companies that are actively developing CCS projects, including 
offshore, both in the United States and internationally.
    Beginning in 2010, I initiated a research program to evaluate the 
offshore Gulf of Mexico for CCS. I have completed three multi-year 
offshore CCS storage research projects to date, with one ongoing for 
the western Gulf of Mexico. We now have the first example of a 
successful State lease for offshore CO2 storage, indicating 
commercial market interest and viability of IRS Section 45Q tax credits 
for accelerating project deployment.
    Lastly, my colleagues and I at the Center are currently in regular 
dialog with the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) and the Bureau 
of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) on topics related to 
offshore CCS.
    In the United States, and globally, we are faced with the 
unprecedented challenge of providing abundant affordable and reliable 
energy, while simultaneously mitigating the effects of climate change 
associated with industrial emissions.
    Both the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the 
International Energy Agency (IEA) have stated repeatedly over the last 
decade that trying to address our energy needs and associated 
industrial emissions will be both more expensive and less effective 
without carbon capture and geologic storage. Simply put, CCS is not a 
`want', it is a `need'.
    It is important for the subcommittee to recognize that while CCS is 
a relatively new topic for the offshore, there are over 20 years of 
experience in developing and deploying CCS technology in the United 
States, a recognized leader in CCS. Multiple examples of successful 
industrial projects exist. The primary technology components needed are 
at a very high Technology Readiness Level (TRL), and projects can 
proceed safely and effectively today.
    With regard to subsurface storage capacity, the Offshore 
Continental Shelves (OCS) represent the national end-game for effective 
CCS deployment at the scale needed to mitigate existing and future 
emissions. In particular, the Gulf of Mexico basin is one of the most 
studied geologic regions in the world. Currently available subsurface 
data are sufficient to initiate storage projects today. Multiple 
technical studies identify hundreds of gigatons of storage capable of 
addressing national emissions for decades.

    Considering the opportunities that offshore CCS affords, it is 
important to recognize the following:

     An offshore CCS industry would facilitate the mitigation 
            of significant quantities of CO2 emissions from 
            industrial point sources, and would increase the nation's 
            ability to reach stated greenhouse gas emissions reduction 
            targets.

     The development of a successful offshore CCS industry will 
            both retain and create significant long-term, diverse, and 
            high-paying jobs.

     Development of offshore CCS will lead to international 
            competitiveness in a rapidly evolving global energy 
            transition.

     Offshore CCS can be an important part of addressing 
            environmental justice issues related to the energy 
            transition.

     The opportunity exists to re-purpose existing 
            infrastructure nearing the end of its production cycle for 
            CCS and avoid decommissioning costs.
    Considering the risks that CCS presents, the following points are 
critical to understand:

     CCS science is mature and subsurface injection of 
            CO2 for emissions abatement is demonstrably safe 
            and effective.

     Primary risks include migration of buoyant fluids toward 
            the surface and marine environment via legacy wellbores or 
            geologic pathways.

     The management of induced pressure in the subsurface 
            associated with CO2 injection is important for 
            understanding project location and adjacent proximity, 
            while minimizing potential for induced seismicity.

     The technologies needed for effective monitoring of 
            subsurface CO2 injection projects are mature.

     The costs of CCS are currently quite high. Current IRS tax 
            credits (similar in structure to those for solar and wind 
            development) valued at $39/ton are capable of initiating 
            some projects, but tax credit values closer to $85/ton 
            would generate a significant additional increase in project 
            deployment.

     Public perception of CCS is uneven, although many become 
            more supportive once they are provided additional 
            information on the benefits and risks.

    In conclusion, I believe the Gulf of Mexico represents the single 
best opportunity for developing a U.S. CCS industry that can 
effectively address national emission reduction strategies at the 
required scale. The opportunities are economically impactful, can 
significantly mitigate emissions for reaching our national targets, and 
the risks are manageable and monitoring is mature. We are ready to 
proceed.
    I encourage the subcommittee to recognize the ability to 
simultaneously address future abundant affordable and reliable energy 
needs while reducing industrial emissions and addressing climate change 
by establishing permitting and regulations needed for safe and timely 
development of an offshore CCS industry in the OCS.
    Thank you for the opportunity to provide these perspectives, and I 
am happy to field any questions you may have as time allows.

                                 *****

                         SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL

    CONCEPTUALIZATION--Offshore storage components related to CCS 
project development are shown below. Not all projects will have all 
these components, but this image provides a sense of what types of 
infrastructure can be involved. Image courtesy of the Global CCS 
Institute.
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


JOBS

    The Gulf of Mexico offshore oil and natural gas industry is 
estimated to support around 370,000 jobs per year. In 2019, the Gulf of 
Mexico oil and natural gas industry contributed an estimated $28.7 
billion of to the U.S. economy. Developing a CCS industry in the Gulf 
of Mexico will maintain and expand similar employment levels and 
provide similar impact to the national economy. Throughout the Gulf, 
the offshore energy industry employs thousands of surveyors, engineers, 
geologists, technicians, and scientists and indirectly supports 
thousands of contractors and support service employees. The CCS 
industry is expected to rival the size of the current hydrocarbon 
production industry.

INTERNATIONAL COMPETITIVENESS

    Many countries have already undertaken offshore CO2 
capture and geologic storage projects, most notably Norway, UK, Brazil, 
and Japan. Other countries are actively developing capabilities, 
including Indonesia, Malaysia, Australia, Netherlands, and South 
Africa. Energy development in these countries is currently strongly 
linked to emissions abatement in service of national stated targets for 
2030 and 2050.

    In the Gulf Coast, we have already seen some LNG export shipments 
rejected from European ports due to their high environmental impact. 
Many of these export companies are now positioning to provide LNG 
exports (as well as hydrogen and ammonia) that have reduced carbon 
intensity, which they see as a competitive advantage. The technologies 
associated with development in these export industries are 
internationally significant, including development of offshore 
CO2 storage.

    Many industrial ports are currently recognizing the importance of 
incorporating CCS into their future port competitiveness. For example, 
the Port of Corpus Christi in Texas (the largest energy port in the US) 
is actively developing CCS, and has established Memoranda of 
Understanding with international ports such as Rotterdam, to rapidly 
provide CCS to the port's industrial tenants.

INTERNATIONAL COMPETITIVENESS

    We are already witnessing a transition to lower carbon intensity in 
the LNG export industry, but the associated patents and technology 
development have global significance. US companies can lead in this new 
technology landscape.

    The Gulf of Mexico can become the lowest-cost and largest-scale 
storage province in the world, establishing a dominant role for CCS 
similar to its hydrocarbon production history.

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE

    Environmental justice issues have become an important focal point 
for all aspects of the energy transition. Many of the communities 
directly affected by current unabated CO2 emissions will 
benefit from CCS activities that improve local air quality while 
reducing greenhouse gas emissions to the atmosphere. The development of 
CCS will have additional benefit of improving emissions attainment 
targets for many of the local communities most affected by industrial 
emissions. In addition, by developing offshore storage, project 
development will not directly impact local communities, while providing 
additional jobs to those areas.

REPURPOSING EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE

    The Gulf of Mexico is one of the largest infrastructure 
decommissioning markets in the world. The possibility to re-purpose 
existing infrastructure (pipelines, rights-of-way, and platforms) would 
avoid costly decommissioning, while allowing for accelerated CCS 
deployment. This topic is rapidly developing, but provides a potential 
opportunity to leverage existing infrastructure in rapidly developing 
CCS in offshore settings.
DATA AVAILABILITY

    There is a significant amount of current data availability on the 
OCS that can be leveraged for developing CCS projects. The pink areas 
in the maps below show data available in the continental US (left) and 
in the Gulf of Mexico (right). These data cover hundreds of thousands 
of square miles.

[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


EXPERIENCE

    Over the last 20 years, the US Department of Energy has spent 
billions of dollars developing CCS technology, which is now at a high 
technology readiness level and ready for widespread deployment.

[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

   The summary images below illustrate the current state of CCS in 
the Americas as determined by the Global CCS Institute.

[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    All of the components of CCS currently have some technologies 
at high Technology Readiness Level (TRL) in the deployment phase. Each 
component also has many technologies at lower TRL level that will 
continue to be developed for fit-to-purpose projects. The image below 
is from the National Petroleum
    Council Report: Meeting the Dual Challenge--A Roadmap to At-Scale 
Deployment of Carbon Capture, Use, and Storage. The report was provided 
to the Secretary of Energy in 2019.
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


COSTS
    The costs of CCS are high, mostly related to emissions capture 
engineering, but also including transport and subsurface storage. The 
costs of capture technology are falling, as is typical for all 
technologies as they move from demonstration to commercial deployment. 
The National Petroleum Council study provides the graphic below for 
considering the amount of CO2 abatement possible (horizontal 
axis--millions of tons of CO2), and the approximate costs 
for mitigating incremental amounts of CO2 emission. The 
current IRS Section 45Q tax credit is around $39/ton and consideration 
is underway to raise that to $85/ton. At $85/ton credit value, NPC 
estimates that approximately 150 million tons of CO2 could 
be abated. Currently, companies are paying as much as $600/ton for 
carbon offsets, suggesting the value of carbon may eventually rise to 
allow for mitigation of billions of tons of CO2, which would 
be a significant portion of the national targets by 2050.
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

INDUCED PRESSURE

    Decades of wastewater injection in the onshore counties of the Gulf 
of Mexico geologic basin indicate that risks of induced seismicity in 
Gulf of Mexico geology are low and unlikely to replicate our onshore 
experience in older and more brittle onshore geologic basins.

    Examples of giga-ton scale storage are illustrated by this 
wastewater injection experience, illustrating the value of Gulf of 
Mexico geology (and OCS in general) as a CO2 storage 
resource.

MIGRATION OF BUOYANT FLUIDS

    The offshore region has lower density of legacy wells than onshore, 
and those wells are generally younger with better documented 
engineering.

    Prior experience onshore managing CO2 retention has been 
accomplished in projects involving hundreds of CO2 injection 
wells. Offshore projects will benefit from this experience.

MONITORING

    Using Department of Energy funding, I have personally led the 
deployment of 3D seismic subsurface imaging technology for CCS 
monitoring both in the Gulf of Mexico and in Japan. New technologies 
will evolve, but we know how to monitor injection sites for safe 
operation today.

    European experience with CO2 monitoring of both offshore 
subsurface and marine ecosystems provides a strong background for work 
in the US offshore.

SELECT REFERENCES
Department of Energy--National Energy Technology Laboratory, Offshore 
Characterization Field Projects, https://www.netl.doe.gov/carbon-
storage/offshore

Meckel, TA, and RT Trevino, 2014, Gulf of Mexico Miocene CO2 
Site Characterization Mega Transect--Final Scientific Technical Report, 
submitted to US Department of Energy, 682 p. https://www.osti.gov/
biblio/1170172-gulf-mexico-miocene-co-site-characterization-mega-
transect

National Petroleum Council, 2019, Meeting the Dual Challenge--A to At-
Scale Deployment of Carbon Capture, Use, and Storage: https://
dualchallenge.npc.org/downloads.php

Ringrose, PS, and TA Meckel, Maturing global CO2 storage 
resources on offshore continental margins to achieve 2DS emissions 
reductions, Nature--Scientific Reports, 9:17994 https://www.nature.com/
articles/s41598-019-54363-z

Smyth RC, Hovorka SD. 2018. Best management practices for offshore 
transportation and sub-seabed geologic storage of carbon dioxide. 
Sterling (VA): US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy 
Management. OCS Study BOEM 2018-004. 259 p. https://espis.boem.gov/
final%20reports/5663.pdf

Trevino, RT, and TA Meckel, 2017, Geological CO2 
sequestration atlas of Miocene strata, offshore Texas state waters, 
Bureau of Economic Geology, Report of Investigations No. 283, Seven 
chapters, 1 appendix, 74 p. https://store.beg.utexas.edu/reports-of-
investigations/3415-ri0283-atlas.html

Vidas, H., B. Hugman, A. Chikkatur, B. Venkatesh. 2012. Analysis of the 
Costs and Benefits of CO2 Sequestration on the U.S. Outer 
Continental Shelf. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean 
Energy Management. Herndon, Virginia. OCS Study BOEM 2012-100. https://
www.boem.gov/sites/default/files/uploadedFiles/BOEM/
Oil_and_Gas_Energy_Program/Energy_Economics/External_Studies/
OCS%20Sequestration%20Report.pdf

                                 ______
                                 

    Dr. Lowenthal. Thank you, Dr. Meckel.
    The Chair now recognizes Mr. Muffett for 5 minutes.

  STATEMENT OF CARROLL MUFFETT, PRESIDENT AND CEO, CENTER FOR 
        INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL LAW, WASHINGTON, DC

    Mr. Muffett. Chairman Lowenthal, Ranking Member Stauber, 
members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to 
address you today.
    Since 1989, the Center for International Environmental Law 
has used the power of law to protect the environment, promote 
human rights, and ensure a just and sustainable society. Carbon 
capture and storage advances none of those objectives.
    Opposition to CCS is growing rapidly. The White House 
Environmental Justice Advisory Council says CCS will not 
benefit communities. Climate Action Network International, the 
world's largest network of climate organizations, says CCS is 
not a viable solution to the climate crisis.
    Last summer, hundreds of organizations urged congressional 
leaders to reject CCS as a false and dangerous solution to 
climate change. In its latest report, the Intergovernmental 
Panel on Climate Change recognized the heavy reliance on CCS in 
many climate plans, but warned of its serious risks and 
limitations and identified CCS as among the highest cost, 
lowest potential of all climate mitigation options.
    And communities across the Gulf Coast, the Midwest, the 
Ohio Valley, and beyond are mobilizing and litigating to stop 
CCS projects. Why? Because CCS is not a climate solution.
    Despite decades of industry experience, existing CCS 
projects capture less than \1/10\ of 1 percent of 
CO2 emissions and have been marked by repeated and 
conspicuous failures.
    CCS is energy intensive, making facilities that use it more 
costly and less efficient.
    When renewable energy is already the cheapest source of new 
energy for most people, CCS just makes the bad economics of 
fossil fuels even worse.
    The industry's only economical carbon storage solution is 
using captured carbon to produce even more oil. More than 95 
percent of U.S. CCS capacity and development is designed to 
increase oil production, not reduce emissions.
    Nor can the need to decarbonize industries justify massive 
new CCS infrastructure. An analysis of the CCS potential at 
more than 1,500 industrial facilities in the United States 
found CCS technically and economically feasible at only 123 of 
them, just 8 percent of the total. Even if CCS worked, building 
a massive new infrastructure for CCS would raise profound 
environmental, health, and safety risks for communities across 
the United States, with disproportionate impact on communities 
of color.
    The roughly 5,000 miles of existing CO2 
pipelines are heavily concentrated in remote oil fields. CCS 
proponents call for 65,000 miles or more of new pipelines, 
including in heavily populated areas, putting communities at 
significant risk.
    Compressed CO2 is highly corrosive, increasing 
the risks of leaks and pipeline ruptures. Co2 is also an 
intoxicant, an asphyxiate. At high concentrations, it can 
result in unconsciousness, coma, and death. A CO2 
pipeline rupture near Satartia, Mississippi sent dozens to the 
hospital, with first responders reporting people frothing at 
the mouth and wandering around like zombies.
    The Gulf Coast of Texas and Louisiana are among the few 
places that combine large-scale CO2 storage 
potential with a dense concentration of high-emitting 
facilities. As a result, risky CCS infrastructure is being 
heavily targeted on communities that have already suffered 
decades of environmental injustice. CCS will only increase the 
burdens on those communities.
    When CO2 is injected into saline aquifers, 
failure to manage reservoir pressures can cause earthquakes, 
contamination of drinking water, and the potential failure of 
storage sites, resulting in CO2 leaks into the 
environment and atmosphere. Managing these pressures may 
require pumping enormous amounts of saline brines from 
CO2 storage reservoirs, creating a massive and 
potentially hazardous new waste stream.
    These risks are compounded when CO2 is injected 
below the ocean. Experience with natural gas demonstrates that 
offshore pipelines are at higher risk of failure than those 
onshore. Eighty years of drilling has left the Gulf of Mexico 
pockmarked with 27,000 abandoned oil and gas wells. The Bureau 
of Ocean Energy Management acknowledges that it does not know 
how many of those wells are already leaking, and leakage from 
old wells is one of the most likely failure points for offshore 
CO2 storage.
    Keeping global warming below 1.5 degrees requires cutting 
global CO2 emissions in half by 2030. Publicly 
subsidized CCS will undermine emission reduction efforts, 
squander resources, lock in fossil fuel infrastructure, and 
expose communities in the Gulf Coast and beyond to potentially 
catastrophic health, safety, and environmental risks, 
compounding the environmental injustice borne by people of 
color and low-income communities.
    CCS is a false solution, a dangerous distraction, and a new 
but completely avoidable chapter in this country's long history 
of environmental injustice and systemic racism.
    Thank you.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Muffett follows:]
 Prepared Statement of Carroll Muffett, President and CEO, Center for 
                    International Environmental Law
    Chairman Lowenthal, Ranking Member Stauber, and members of the 
Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to address you today on the 
issue of carbon capture and offshore carbon dioxide storage.
    Since 1989, the nonprofit Center for International Environmental 
Law (CIEL) has used the power of law to protect the environment, 
promote human rights, and ensure a just and sustainable society. As 
part of that mission, CIEL has undertaken legal and policy research on 
the causes, consequences, and responses to the climate crisis for more 
than three decades. This work includes active and ongoing research into 
the role of fossil fuels in driving the climate crisis, the history of 
carbon capture technologies, the potential role of such technologies in 
addressing the drivers of the climate crisis, and the corresponding 
risks to communities and the environment.
    The proposed large-scale, publicly subsidized, deployment of carbon 
capture and storage (CCS) and carbon capture utilization and storage 
(CCUS) (herein collectively referred to as ``CCUS'') is neither a 
necessary nor an appropriate strategy for addressing the climate crisis 
and the enormous, systemic, and unjust pollution burdens the fossil 
economy imposes on frontline and fenceline communities across the 
United States, particularly on communities of color. Despite billions 
of dollars of investment and decades of development, deployment of CCUS 
has consistently proven ineffective, uneconomic, and counter-productive 
for the needed transition to fossil-free energy. Existing CCUS 
facilities have the capacity to capture only approximately one-tenth of 
one percent (00.1%) of annual global CO2 emissions from 
energy combustion and industrial processes.\1\ Proposals to massively 
expand CCUS and build enormous new networks of CO2 pipelines 
and storage sites across the United States are not only unrealistic, 
but risky for people and the environment. Offshore storage of 
CO2 poses heightened environmental and health risks, 
particularly in the Gulf of Mexico. The complexity of monitoring and 
managing geologic pressure underground is only magnified when injection 
takes place subsea at great depths, and interaction with existing oil 
and gas production and ill-maintained legacy wells in the Gulf only 
increases the risk of leak and accident.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Global CCUS Institute, Global Status of CCUS (2021), at 12 
(describing the current installed capacity of CCUS as 40 Mtpa), https:/
/www.globalccsinstitute.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/2021-Global-
Status-of-CCUS-Report_Global_CCUS_Institute.pdf. Global CO2 emissions 
from energy combustion and industrial processes were approximately 36.3 
billion tons CO2 in 2021. International Energy Agency (IEA), Press 
Release, Global CO2 emissions rebounded to their highest level in 
history in 2021 (Mar. 8, 2022), https://www.iea.org/reports/global-
energy-review-co2-emissions-in-2021-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    As a result, CCUS faces significant and growing public opposition. 
The White House Environmental Justice Advisory Council called out CCUS 
as a ``type[] of project that will not benefit a community,'' noting 
that ``it would be unreasonable to have any climate investment working 
against historically harmed communities.'' \2\ The 1,500 member-
organizations of Climate Action Network (``CAN'') International adopted 
a shared position statement declaring that the members ``do[] not 
consider currently envisioned CCUS applications as proven sustainable 
climate solutions.'' \3\ In July 2021, over 500 international, U.S., 
and Canadian organizations sent an open letter to lawmakers calling on 
them to reject CCUS as a ``dangerous distraction.'' \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ White House Environmental Justice Advisory Council, Justice40 
Climate and Economic Justice Screening Tool & Executive Order 12898 
Revisions: Interim Final Recommendations at 57, 59 (May 13, 2021), 
https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2021-05/documents/whiteh2.pdf.
    \3\ CAN Position: Carbon Capture, Storage, and Utilization, Climate 
Action Network Int'l at 9 (2021), https://climatenetwork.org/resource/
can-position-carbon-capture-storage-and-utilisation/.
    \4\ Letter from Center for International Environmental Law et al. 
to Joseph Biden, Nancy Pelosi & Chuck Schumer re: Carbon capture is not 
a climate solution (July 19, 2021), https://www.ciel.org/wpcontent/
uploads/2021/07/CCUS-Letter_FINAL_US-1.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carbon Capture is Not a New Technology

    The technology for capturing carbon dioxide from smoke stacks and 
waste streams has been well known for more than half a century. A 
patent application filed by Standard Oil (now Exxon) researchers in 
1949 described the process of removing CO2 from flue gases 
as ``perfectly workable, but cumbersome'' and energy intensive.\5\ As 
early as 1980, internal Exxon documents acknowledged that the industry 
had the technology to cut CO2 emissions from flue gases by 
up to 50%, but asserted that doing so was simply too expensive.\6\ 
Similarly, oil and gas companies patented the first technologies for 
injecting CO2 into the ground at least fifty years ago, for 
the purpose not of addressing the climate crisis but of producing more 
oil.\7\ Even as it downplayed the value of carbon capture for combating 
climate change, however, the oil industry spent decades expanding its 
infrastructure to capture and inject CO2 for use in Enhanced 
Oil Recovery (EOR).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ See Production of Pure Carbon Dioxide, www.smokeandfumes.org, 
https://www. smokeandfumes.org/documents/61 (last visited Apr. 26, 
2022); Production of Pure Carbon Dioxide, U.S. Patent No. 2,665,971 
(issued Jan. 12, 1954). See also Method for Recovering a Purified 
Component From a Gas, www.smokeandfumes.org, https://
www.smokeandfumes.org/documents/48 (last visited Apr. 26, 2022); 
Petroleum Recovery With Inert Gas, www.smokeandfumes.org, https://
www.smokeandfumes.org/documents/62 (last visited Apr. 26, 2022); 
Process For The Removal of Acidic Gases From a Gas Mixture, 
www.smokeandfumes.org, https://www.smokeandfumes.org/documents/49 (last 
visited Apr. 26, 2022).
    \6\ Imperial Oil, Review of Environmental Protection Activities for 
1978-1979, at 2 (available at https://www.climatefiles.com/exxonmobil/
1980-imperial-oil-review-of-environmental-protection-activities-for-
1978-1979/) (internal document of Esso (now ExxonMobil) subsidiary 
Imperial Oil acknowledging that there is ``no doubt'' that fossil fuel 
usage was ``aggravating the potential problem of increased CO2 in the 
atmosphere''; and stating that ``Technology exists to remove 
CO2 from stack gases, but removal of only 50% of the CO2 
would double the cost of power generation.''); see also, Anthony 
Albanese & Meyer Steinberg, Environmental Control Technology for 
Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide, Energy Vol, 5 (7) (July 1980) 641-664 
(available at https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/
0360544280900444).
    \7\ See Petroleum Recovery With Inert Gas, www.smokeandfumes.org, 
https://www.smokeandfumes.org/documents/62 (last visited Apr. 26, 
2022); Petroleum Companies with Inert Gas, U.S. Patent No. 3,193,006 
(issued July 6, 1965).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    EOR--using captured carbon to produce more oil and gas, which 
itself will emit more CO2 when burned--is fundamentally 
incompatible with responding to the climate emergency. The vast 
majority of captured carbon to date has been used for EOR. In the 
United States, more than 95% of all CCUS capacity is designed for 
EOR,\8\ meaning ``CO2 waste products from a fossil fuel-
burning activity are used to generate more fossil fuels.'' \9\ In other 
words, the one use of captured CO2 that has scaled, EOR, 
generates more CO2 emissions than what is captured because 
of the oil it subsequently produces.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ See Global CCUS Institute, Global Status of CCUS 2021 62-63 
(2021), https://www.globalccsinstitute.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/
2021-Global-Status-of-CCUS-Report_ Global_CCUS_Institute.pdf.
    \9\ Center for International Environmental Law, Confronting the 
Myth of Carbon Free Fossil Fuels: Why Carbon Capture is Not a Climate 
Solution 8 (2021), https://www.ciel.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/
Confronting-the-Myth-of-Carbon-Free-Fossil-Fuels.pdf. Globally, 73% of 
the CO2 captured globally each year is used for EOR 
projects. Global CCUS Institute, Global Status of CCUS 63 (2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CCUS Is Not Carbon Negative, or Even Carbon Neutral

    CCUS is not carbon negative, or even carbon neutral. Proponents of 
point-source CO2 capture, which involves collecting 
emissions from a polluting facility, often claim that CCUS can remove 
carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. But CCUS is not carbon removal. At 
best, even if CCUS functioned in practice as it does in theory, it 
could only prevent some emissions from being released, not eliminate 
those already in the atmosphere.
    In practice, however, CCUS projects around the world have 
consistently failed to meet even those partial emission reduction 
targets. Indeed, the history of CCUS is riddled with failures. High-
profile projects such as Petra Nova,\10\ Boundary Dam,\11\ and Archer 
Daniels Midland's Illinois Industrial Carbon Capture and Storage 
Project \12\ have all failed to meet capture or performance targets. 
These failures apply to pre-combustion capture as well. The Gorgon gas 
separation plant in Australia is the country's only commercial-scale 
CCUS project and one of the largest in the world. In July 2021, 
Chevron, operator of the project, admitted that the project failed to 
meet its five-year capture target of 80% CO2, and is now 
seeking a deal with regulators on how to make up for millions of tons 
of CO2 emitted.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\ See Nichola Groom, Problems plagued U.S. CO2 
capture project before shutdown: document, Reuters (Aug. 6, 2020), 
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-energy-carbon-capture/problems-
plagued-u-s-co2-capture-project-before-shutdown-document-idUSKCN2523K8.
    \11\ See Carlos Anchondo, CCUS `red flag?' World's sole coal 
project hits snag, E&E News (Jan. 10, 2022), https://www.eenews.net/
articles/ccs-red-flag-worlds-sole-coal-project-hits-snag/.
    \12\ See Jonathan hettinger, Despite hundreds of millions in tax 
dollars, ADM's carbon capture program still hasn't met promised goals, 
Midwest Center for Investigative Reporting (Nov. 19, 2020), https://
investigatemidwest.org/2020/11/19/despite-hundreds-of-millions-in-tax-
dollars-adms -carbon-capture-program-still-hasnt-met-promised-goals/.
    \13\ See Graham Readfearn, Australia's only working carbon capture 
and storage project fails to meet target, The Guardian (Nov. 11, 2021), 
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/nov/12/australias-only-
working-carbon-capture-and-storage-project-fails-to-meet-target.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Proponents of CCUS have all but admitted that projects cannot 
achieve a 75% minimum capture rate, let alone the 90-95% capture rates 
promised in project proposals and assumed in scientific models.\14\ 
During the recent debate over the Build Back Better Act, a proposal was 
included to require electricity-generating facilities to capture 75% of 
their carbon emissions to qualify for tax credits under section 45Q. A 
letter from CCUS proponents challenged this requirement, noting that 
75% capture would be difficult to guarantee and would impede any 
projects from receiving financing.\15\ Clearly, the 90% or greater 
capture rates promised by the industry--and relied on in models 
demonstrating the value of CCUS--are simply aspirational.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \14\ The latest report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 
Change (IPCC) indicates that models depicting deployment of CCUS assume 
a capture rate of 90-95%. IPCC, 2022: Climate Change 2022: Mitigation 
of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Sixth 
Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 
[P.R. Shukla, J. Skea, R. Slade, A. Al Khourdajie, R. van Diemen, D. 
McCollum, M. Pathak, S. Some, P. Vyas, R. Fradera, M. Belkacemi, A. 
Hasija, G. Lisboa, S. Luz, J. Malley, (eds.)]. Cambridge University 
Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA. doi: 10.1017/9781009157926, 
available at https://report.ipcc.ch/ar6wg3/pdf/
IPCC_AR6_WGIII_FinalDraft_FullReport.pdf [hereinafter, WGIII report], 
at n. 37, SPM-20 (``In this context, capture rates of new installations 
with CCUS are assumed to be 90-95% +'') & n. 55, SPM-36 (``In this 
context, `unabated fossil fuels' refers to fossil fuels produced and 
used without interventions that substantially reduce the amount of GHG 
emitted throughout the life-cycle; for example, capturing 90% or more 
from power plants, or 50-80% of fugitive methane emissions from energy 
supply.'').
    \15\ See Benjamin Storrow, Big payout, more CO2: Greens 
split over Dems' CCUS plan, E&E News (Dec. 16, 2021), https://
www.eenews.net/articles/big-payout-more-co2-greens-split-over-dems-ccs-
plan/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Contrary to industry portrayals, point-source carbon capture may 
actually increase life cycle greenhouse gas emissions and criteria 
pollutants due to the increased energy needed to operate the energy-
intensive capture equipment. Energy penalties associated with carbon 
capture can increase the energy used by the underlying facility by 20-
30% or more,\16\ requiring additional combustion of fossil fuels which 
in turns produces significant additional emissions of other 
pollutants.\17\ The additional energy required by CCUS also increases 
upstream emissions from the additional oil and gas production or coal 
mining required to fuel the process. A study examining the life cycle 
impacts of CCUS at fossil fuel power plants found that even if 
facilities achieved a 100% capture rate, the social cost would still be 
greater than replacing fossil fuels with renewable energy, which 
reduces air pollution and avoids the expense of capture equipment.\18\ 
In other words, the life cycle pollution and social harms from CCUS at 
fossil fuel-fired powerplants result in more harm than good.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \16\ See IPCC, WGIII, Ch. 6, at 6-38 (noting that the energy 
penalty from CCUS ``increases the fuel requirement for electricity 
generation by 13-44%''); Budinis, S., Krevor, S., MacDowell, N., 
Brandon, N., Hawkes, A. (2018). An assessment of CCUS costs, barriers 
and potential. Energy Strategy Reviews, Vol. 22, November 2018, pp. 61-
81, at 67-68 (discussing energy and efficiency penalty estimates for 
coal and gas), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esr.2018.08.003.
    \17\ See also Clark Butler, IEEFA, Carbon Capture and Storage Is 
About Reputation, Not Economics at 4 (2020), https://ieefa.org/wp-
content/uploads/2020/07/CCUS-Is-About-Reputation-Not-Economics_July-
2020.pdf.
    \18\ Taylor Kubota, Stanford Study casts Doubt on Carbon Capture, 
Stanford News (Oct. 25, 2019), https://news.stanford.edu/2019/10/25/
study-casts-doubt-carbon-capture/, citing Mark Z. Jacobson, The health 
and climate impacts of carbon capture and direct air capture, 12 Energy 
Envt. Sci. 3567 (2019), https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/
2019/ee/c9ee02709b/unauth#!divAbstract.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Large-scale CCUS Is Neither Viable nor Necessary

    The unproven scalability of CCUS technologies and their prohibitive 
costs mean they cannot play any significant role in the rapid reduction 
of global emissions necessary to limit warming to 1.5+C. Despite the 
existence of the technology for decades and billions of dollars in 
government subsidies to date, most notably through the 45Q tax credit, 
deployment of CCUS at scale still faces insurmountable challenges of 
feasibility, effectiveness, and expense. As an analyst from JP Morgan 
Chase put it, ``The highest ratio in the history of science'' is ``the 
number of academic papers written on CCUS divided by real-life 
implementation of it.'' \19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \19\ Eye on the Market, Annual Energy Paper May 2021, p. 22 (2021), 
https://am.jpmorgan.com/content/dam/jpm-am-aem/global/en/insights/eye-
on-the-market/future-shock-amv.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    CCUS is exceedingly expensive and projects routinely face 
substantial cost overruns. A study by the Government Accountability 
Office of nine CCUS projects funded by the Department of Energy since 
2009 (of which only three ever became operational) identified 
significant cost overruns and poor economic prospects as key obstacles 
to CCUS deployment.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \20\ See U.S. Government Accountability Office, Carbon Capture and 
Storage: Actions Needed to Improve DOE Management of Demonstration 
Projects (2021), https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-22-105111.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The latest report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 
Change (IPCC) concurs, ranking CCUS as one of the highest cost, lowest 
potential options for reducing greenhouse gas emissions this 
decade.\21\ The cost of emissions reductions from wind and solar by 
2030 may be as much as $50-$200 cheaper per ton of CO2 
equivalent than the cost of emissions reductions through CCUS.\22\ The 
IPCC found that ``The capital cost of a coal or gas electricity 
generation facility with CCUS is almost double one without CCUS. 
Additionally, the energy penalty increases the fuel requirement for 
electricity generation by 13-44%, leading to further cost increases.'' 
\23\ Ultimately, as the IPCC notes, CCUS ``always adds cost.'' \24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \21\ WGIII report, at Figure SPM.7, SPM-50.
    \22\ Id.
    \23\ WGIII report, Ch. 6, at 6-38.
    \24\ WGIII report, Ch. 6, at 6-39.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Research has shown that the cost reductions seen in recent years 
for clean renewable energy will further erode the value of CCUS in 
decarbonization efforts.\25\ The necessity of CCUS is even more suspect 
since investment in carbon capture directly competes with renewable 
energy generation, diverting financial resources away from proven, 
available, fossil-free solutions to technology that has consistently 
demonstrated itself to be infeasible from both an economic \26\ and 
technical standpoint.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \25\ Neil Grant et al., Cost reductions in renewable can 
substantially erode the value of carbon capture and storage in 
mitigation pathways, 4 One Earth 1588 (2021), https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.oneear.2021.10.024.
    \26\ Clark Butler, IEEFA, Carbon Capture and Storage Is About 
Reputation, Not Economics at 4 (2020), https://ieefa.org/wp-content/
uploads/2020/07/CCUS-Is-About-Reputation-Not-Economics _July-2020.pdf; 
Mai Bui et al., Carbon capture and storage (CCUS): The way forward, 11 
Energy & Envtl Science 1062 at 1062, 1132, 1138, 1193 (2018), https://
pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2018/EE/C7EE02342.
    \27\ Food & Water Watch, The Case Against Carbon Capture: False 
Claims and New Pollution (2020), https://foodandwaterwatch.org/wp-
content/uploads/2021/04/ib_2003_carboncapture-web. pdf; Hydrogen's 
Hidden Emissions, Global Witness (Jan. 20, 2022), https://
www.globalwitness.org/en/campaigns/fossilgas/shell-hydrogen-true-
emissions/ (Shell's CCUS fitted fossil fuel derived hydrogen plant 
produced more GHG emissions than it captured).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hard-to-Abate Industrial Emissions Do Not Justify Large Scale CCUS 
        Buildout

    Applying CCUS to high-emitting industrial activities, like 
petrochemical, steel, or cement manufacturing, is not economical. GHG 
emissions from these industries come from a diverse array of sources, 
including electricity consumption, on-site fossil fuel combustion, and 
process emissions, which make installing and operating CCUS even more 
complex and generally more costly than it is in the power sector.
    A 2020 study, co-authored by a Chevron researcher, of the potential 
application of carbon capture to industrial facilities in the United 
States found that a shockingly small percentage of industrial emissions 
were economically suitable for carbon capture. Out of more than 1,500 
industrial facilities identified by the US Environmental Protection 
Agency, the researchers identified only 123 facilities that could 
capture carbon economically, even with full use of available federal 
subsidies and enhanced oil recovery.\28\ Even at this fraction of 
industrial facilities only a portion of greenhouse gas emissions could 
feasibly be captured.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \28\ See H. Pilorge et al., Cost Analysis of Carbon Capture and 
Sequestration of Process Emissions from the U.S. Industrial Sector, 
54(12) Envtl. Sci. Tech. 7524-7532 (2020), https://pubs.acs.org/doi/
abs/10.1021/acs.est.9b07930.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The petroleum refining industry is the largest source of industrial 
emissions other than fossil fuel production itself, yet less than 19 
percent of refinery emissions were amenable to carbon capture. For 
metals processing, including steel, only a quarter of process emissions 
were amenable to CCUS.\29\ In total, the researchers identified only 
68.5 metric tons of CO2 per year from industrial process 
emissions that could be economically captured,\30\ representing just 8 
percent of all industrial emissions in the US.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \29\ Id. at Supporting Information, S8.
    \30\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CCUS Perpetuates Fossil Fuel Systems and Impacts

    Carbon capture fundamentally exists to prolong the life of fossil 
fuel burning infrastructure, and in doing so extends the fossil fuel 
era. CCUS also presents new and additional serious environmental, 
public health, and safety risks.
    CCUS allows polluting facilities that already harm fenceline 
communities to continue operating, rather than close and be replaced by 
less harmful infrastructure. This concern is neither abstract nor 
hypothetical but borne out in operating facilities. The Boundary Dam 
Power Station, the sole remaining coal-fired power plant with carbon 
capture operating in North America, would have been shut down but for 
its retrofit with carbon capture.\31\ Instead, its owner and operator 
hope to extend its operating life an additional thirty years.\32\ A 
similar plan to extend the life of a coal plant in North Dakota, rather 
than retire it, is currently underway.\33\ Prolonging the use of coal 
and other fossil fuels is not only inconsistent with the imperative to 
avoid catastrophic levels of warming; it is also at odds with 
protecting public health and the environment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \31\ Kevin Rives, Only still-operating carbon capture project 
battled technical issues in 2021, S&P Global (Jan. 6, 2022), https://
www.spglobal.com/marketintelligence/en/news-insights/latest-
newsheadlines/only-still-operating-carbon-capture-project-battled-
technical-issues-in-2021-68302671.
    \32\ Id.
    \33\ Dan Gearino, Sale of North Dakota's Largest Coal Plant Is 
Almost Complete. Then Will Come the Hard Part, Inside Climate News 
(Jan. 15, 2022), https://insideclimatenews.org/news/15012022/sale-
ofnorth-dakotas-largest-coal-plant-is-almost-complete-then-will-come-
the-hard-part/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Although CCUS is often touted as pollution abatement, the process 
itself is a source of pollution. Carbon capture is detrimental to the 
health of nearby communities--something even major companies have 
recognized. As noted above, CCUS incurs a significant ``energy penalty. 
The resulting increased fuel consumption also increases the production 
and potential release of several criteria pollutants, such as 
particulate matter, volatile organic compounds, and nitric oxides, in 
proportion to the additional fuel consumed.\34\ Amine-based carbon 
capture units (the most common type) also use large amounts of 
chemicals for the capture process, leading to additional releases of 
ammonia.\35\ Notably, several companies--including Chevron 
Phillips,\36\ Dow Chemical,\37\ and ExxonMobil,\38\--have cited the 
increased pollution load with CCUS as a reason not to incorporate CCUS 
into industrial facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \34\ Carbon capture and storage could also impact air pollution, 
European Environment Agency (last modified Nov. 23, 2020), https://
www.eea.europa.eu/highlights/carbon-capture-and-storage-could.
    \35\ Council on Environmental Quality, Report to Congress on Carbon 
Capture, Utilization, and Sequestration at 40 (2021), https://
www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/CEQ-CCUSPermitting-
Report.pdf.
    \36\ U.S. EPA, Archive Document: ``PSD Greenhouse Gas Permit 
Application'' at 11 (Mar. 19, 2012), https://archive.epa.gov/region6/
6pd/air/pd-r/ghg/web/pdf/chevron_response031912.pdf.
    \37\ U.S. EPA, Archive Document: ``PSD Greenhouse Gas Permit 
Application Revision'' at 37 (Sept. 12, 2013), https://archive.epa.gov/
region6/6pd/air/pd-r/ghg/web/pdf/dowchemical-lh9-app-09202013.pdf.
    \38\ U.S. EPA, Archive Document: ``Exxon Mobile Baytown Olefins 
Plant Response'' at 22 (Oct. 16, 2012), https://archive.epa.gov/
region6/6pd/air/pd-r/ghg/web/pdf/exxonmobil-olefins-response. pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    CCUS therefore not only entrenches polluting activities but 
exacerbates their impacts, contrary to the principles of environmental 
justice. Polluting activities are already disproportionately 
concentrated in Black, Brown, Indigenous and low-income communities, 
and these same communities are again being targeted as sites for CCUS 
deployment. CCUS proponents have targeted Southern Louisiana for what 
would be among the largest CCUS projects in the world, despite those 
areas being heavily overburdened by decades of toxic pollution and 
ongoing industrial accidents.\39\ In Texas, ExxonMobil is leading a 
consortium of companies planning to develop a large-scale carbon 
capture and storage zone along the Houston Ship Channel,\40\ a zone 
that already suffers from some of the worst air pollution in the 
country, which is ``disproportionately shouldered by people of color, 
people living in poverty, and limited-English households.'' \41\ 
Project developers are reportedly eyeing both onshore and offshore 
storage sites for the captured carbon,\42\ but have identified the Gulf 
of Mexico as holding the largest potential for CO2 
storage.\43\ California's Central Valley is also being targeted for 
CCUS, despite already having the state's worst air quality.\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \39\ See, e.g., Gulf Coast Sequestration Makes Initial Filing to 
Obtain EPA Permit for CCUS Project, Gulf Coast Sequestration (Oct. 13, 
2020), https://gcscarbon.com/media/gulf-coast-sequestration-makes-
initial-filing-to-obtain-epa-permit-for-ccsproject/; see also Andrea 
Robinson, Wednesday's explosion marks second in four months for 
Westlake Chemical, KPLC (Jan. 27, 2022), https://www.kplctv.com/2022/
01/28/wednesdays-explosion-westlakechemical-marks-second-four-months/; 
Heather Rogers, Erasing Mossville: How Pollution Killed a Louisiana 
Town, Intercept (Nov. 4, 2015), https://theintercept.com/2015/11/04/
erasing-mossville-howpollution-killed-a-louisiana-town/.
    \40\ See Sabrina Valle, Exxon plans hydrogen and carbon-capture/
storage plant near Houston, Reuters (Mar. 1, 2022), https://
www.reuters.com/business/sustainable-business/exxon-plans-hydrogen-
carbon-capturestorage-plant-near-houston-2022-03-02/; Heather Richard & 
Carlos Anchondo, CCUS in the Gulf: Climate solution or green washing?, 
E&E News (Jan. 31, 2022), https://www.eenews.net/articles/ccs-in-the-
gulf-climate-solution-or-green-washing/; Press Release, ExxonMobil, 
Industry support for large-scale carbon capture and storage continues 
to gain momentum in Houston (Jan. 202, 2022), https://
corporate.exxonmobil.com/News/Newsroom/News-releases/2022/
0120_Industry-support-for-large-scale-carbon-capture-and-storage-gains-
momentum-in-Houston.
    \41\ Yukyan Lam et al., Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) & 
Texas Environmental Justice Advocacy Services (TEJAS), Toxic Air 
Pollution in the Houston Ship Channel: Disparities Show Urgent Need for 
Environmental Justice (2021), https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/
air-pollution-houston-ship-channel-ib.pdf.
    \42\ Sabrina Valle, Exxon plans hydrogen and carbon-capture/storage 
plant near Houston, Reuters (Mar. 1, 2022), https://www.reuters.com/
business/sustainable-business/exxon-plans-hydrogen-carbon-
capturestorage-plant-near-houston-2022-03-02/.
    \43\ Heather Richard & Carlos Anchondo, CCUS in the Gulf: Climate 
solution or green washing?, E&E News (Jan. 31, 2022), https://
www.eenews.net/articles/ccs-in-the-gulf-climate-solution-or-green-
washing/ (quoting an ExxonMobil spokesperson who stated ``ExxonMobil 
believes the greatest opportunity for CO2 storage in the 
United States is in the Gulf of Mexico'').
    \44\ See, e.g., State of the Air: Most Polluted Cities, American 
Lung Association, https://www.lung.org/research/sota/city-rankings/
most-polluted-cities (last visited Apr. 12, 2022) (listing the nation's 
most polluted cities, where three of the top five are in California's 
Central Valley); see also Taylor Kubota, Stanford Study casts Doubt on 
Carbon Capture, Stanford News (Oct. 25, 2019), https://
news.stanford.edu/2019/10/25/study-casts-doubt-carbon-capture/, citing 
Mark Z. Jacobson, The health and climate impacts of carbon capture and 
direct air capture, 12 Energy Envt. Sci. 3567 (2019), https://
pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2019/ee/c9ee02709b/
unauth#!divAbstract.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carbon Dioxide Transportation and Injection--Whether Onshore or 
        Offshore--Threaten Communities & the Environment

    Transporting and injecting captured carbon dioxide, whether onshore 
or offshore, pose growing and poorly understood threats to communities 
and the environment. Those risks are borne disproportionately by 
marginalized communities, such as those in the Gulf South, already 
subject to environmental racism and heightened toxic burdens from the 
fossil fuel, petrochemical, and agriculture industries, now targeted 
for CCUS buildout.
Transportation Risks

    Transporting carbon dioxide by pipeline between the point of 
capture and the site of use, injection, or storage presents 
environmental, health, and safety risks. Carbon dioxide is a hazardous 
substance and an asphyxiant that can be fatal at high 
concentrations.\45\ To facilitate mobility, captured carbon dioxide is 
compressed and transported in a supercritical state, at pressures far 
higher than natural gas pipelines.\46\ Depending on the source of 
capture, compressed CO2 may be mixed with other contaminants 
such as hydrogen sulfide, increasing the risks of pipeline corrosion, 
leaks, and rupture, and compounding the resultant health risks from 
exposure. Carbon dioxide leaks from pipelines pose a potential hazard 
for people and other animals. ``CO2 is denser than air and 
can therefore accumulate to potentially dangerous concentrations in low 
lying areas,'' displacing oxygen, and ``any leak transfers 
CO2 to the atmosphere.'' \47\ These risks became reality in 
February 2020, when a CO2 pipeline rupture in Mississippi 
led to the evacuation of hundreds and hospitalization of dozens of 
residents,\48\ with harms including extreme disorientation, 
unconsciousness, and seizures.\49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \45\ See U.S. EPA, Appendix B: Overview of acute health effects 
associated with carbon dioxide (2015), https://www.epa.gov/sites/
default/files/2015-06/documents/co2appendixb.pdf. The Department of 
Transportation (DOT) lists and classifies the gaseous, liquid and solid 
forms of Carbon Dioxide as hazardous materials for purposes of 
transportation. See 49 CFR 172.
    \46\ See National Petroleum Council, Meeting the Dual Challenge 6-
8, 6-11 (2021), https://dualchallenge.npc.org/files/CCUS-Chap_6-
030521.pdf.
    \47\ IPCC, Chapter 4: Transport of CO2, in Special Report on Carbon 
Dioxide Capture and Storage (2005), at 188 (noting that CCUS ``will 
require a large network of pipelines.'').
    \48\ Pipeline Ruptures in Yazoo County, Dozens Rushed to the 
Hospital, Miss. Emergency Mgmt. Agency (Feb. 23, 2020), https://
www.msema.org/news/pipe-ruptures-in-yazoo-county-dozens-hospitalized/.
    \49\ Sarah Fowler, `Foaming at the mouth': First responders 
describe scene after pipeline rupture, gas leak, Clarion Ledger, Feb. 
27, 2020, https://www.clarionledger.com/story/news/local/2020/02/27/
yazoo-county-pipe-rupture-co-2-gas-leak-first-responders-rescues/
4871726002/; Dan Zegart, The Gassing of Satartia, Huffington Post (Aug. 
26, 2021), https://www.huffpost.com/entry/gassing-satartia-mississippi-
co2-pipeline_n_60ddea9fe4b0ddef8b0ddc8f.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Until now, most of the approximately 5,000 miles of CO2 
pipelines in the United States have been in relatively sparsely 
populated areas, primarily designed to service oil and gas fields.\50\ 
But the CCUS buildout plans under discussion today project the massive 
expansion of the pipeline network into populous areas, magnifying the 
safety and health risks. One study calls for the development of a 
65,000-mile CO2 pipeline system in the United States, with a 
throughput capacity greater than that of the country's existing oil 
network, which has taken a century to build.\51\ These projections are 
both unrealistic and risky.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \50\ Congressional Research Service, Carbon Capture and 
Sequestration (CCUS) in the United States 8 (2021), https://
sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/R44902.pdf.
    \51\ Eric Larson et al., Net-Zero America: Potential Pathways, 
Infrastructure, and Impacts 10 (2020), https://
netzeroamerica.princeton.edu/img/
Princeton_NZA_Interim_Report_15_Dec_2020_ FINAL.pdf. See also Eye on 
the Market, Annual Energy Paper May 2021, p. 22 (2021), https://
am.jpmorgan.com/content/dam/jpm-am-aem/global/en/insights/eye-on-the-
market/future-shock-amv.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The existing federal regulatory framework for pipelines is already 
failing. As Congresswoman Jackie Spier observed, the Pipeline and 
Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (``PHMSA'') ``does not have 
the teeth--or the will--to enforce pipeline safety in this country.'' 
\52\ Beyond weak enforcement, the regulatory framework itself is 
insufficient. A recent report by the Pipeline Safety Trust concluded 
that ``existing federal regulations do not allow for the safe 
transportation of CO2 via pipelines'' because ``[t]he way 
regulations currently consider and mitigate for the risks posed by 
hydrocarbon pipelines in communities are neither appropriate nor 
sufficient for CO2 pipelines.'' \53\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \52\ Press Release, Congresswoman Speier Calls for Improved 
Pipeline Safety: ``PHMSA is a Toothless Tiger'' (Apr. 14, 2015), 
https://speier.house.gov/2015/4/Congresswoman-speier-calls-improved-
pipeline-safety-phmsa-toothless.
    \53\ Pipeline Safety Trust, CO2 Pipelines--Dangerous and Under-
Regulated (2022), https://pstrust.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/CO2-
Pipeline-Backgrounder-Final.pdf, citing Accufacts Inc., Accufacts' 
Perspectives on the State of Federal Carbon Dioxide Transmission 
Pipeline Safety Regulations as it relates to Carbon Capture, 
Utilization, and Sequestration within the U.S. (2022), https://
pstrust.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/3-23-22-Final-Accufacts-CO2-
Pipeline-Report2.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The inadequate regulatory framework and enforcement regimes 
applicable to CO2 pipelines are particularly concerning 
given proposals to retrofit existing gas pipelines, such as those in 
the Gulf, for use in transporting CO2. Such retrofits would 
create additional hazards, as gas pipelines are typically not built to 
withstand the intense pressure and corrosive nature of compressed 
CO2.\54\ Moreover, the hazard risk of CO2 
released affects larger areas than the typical gas pipeline explosion, 
and the location of existing pipelines if retrofitted for use in 
CO2 transportation could present significant new risks for 
those in the surrounding areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \54\ See National Petroleum Council, Meeting the Dual Challenge 6-
10-11 (2021), https://dualchallenge.npc.org/files/CCUS-Chap_6-
030521.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Storage risks

    Storing CO2 underground is far from a simple, permanent 
fix. Injecting CO2 underground in depleted oil and gas 
reservoirs or saline formations, whether onshore or offshore, involves 
complex pressure management to prevent leakage, displacement, and other 
disruptions to the geologic formation. As carbon dioxide is stored in 
underground saline reservoirs, it increases the pressure in the 
geologic formations. The pressure buildup is an important source of 
risk and a limitation on storage capacity, often overlooked in 
projections of potential sequestration sites.\55\ If not properly 
managed, this excess pressure can lead to earthquakes (``induced 
seismicity''), create fractures that could release the carbon dioxide 
back into the environment, or cause CO2 and displaced brine 
to leak into shallow freshwater aquifers.\56\ Managing that pressure 
requires the removal of displaced brine, also known as ``produced 
water.'' \57\ But such brines, which can be saltier than seawater and 
may contain toxic metals and radioactive substances, have to be 
reinjected into the subsurface or otherwise disposed of properly, to 
prevent adverse impacts to local aquifers, soils, and ecosystems. 
Reinjection and disposal of brines is costly and adds a further 
challenge to CCUS buildout.\58\ The pumping, transportation, treatment 
and disposal of the produced brine also can be ``environmentally 
challenging''.\59\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \55\ Steven T. Anderson and Hossein Jahediesfanjani, Estimating the 
net costs of brine production and disposal to expand pressure-limited 
dynamic capacity for basin-scale CO2 storage in a saline 
formation, International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 102 (2020) 
103161, at 1 of PDF.
    \56\ See, e.g., Thomas A. Buscheck et al, Pre-Injection Brine 
Production for Managing Pressure in Compartmentalized CO2 Storage 
Reservoirs, 63 Energy Procedia 5333, 5333 (2014), https://
reader.elsevier.com/reader/sd/pii/
S1876610214023807?token=1A5DFFA48E91CC072D4AEC9297 
02C2253323F976B14AC07378B7C298D2FC87BC5F2FB2C7F1F0AD2B36DA3C61984A6D83& 
originRegion=us-east-1&origin Creation=20220424204627; see also Ernesto 
Santibanez-Borda et al., Maximising the Dynamic CO2 storage Capacity 
through the Optimisation of CO2 Injection and Brine 
Production Rates, Int'l J. of Greenhouse Gas Control 80 (2019), 76-95, 
at 76, https://reader.elsevier.com/reader/sd/pii/
S175058361830118X?token=A19D9EBFC6574B7FC4E74021E 
6271F4FC3E3D96DD57CEB52BCCC93CBE8D536AFB3D1825B7FAB206D4D1AD379050CD4D6 
&originRegion=us-east-1&originCreation=20220425200024.
    \57\ Anderson and Jahediesfanjani, at 1 of PDF (``Pressure 
management via production of in situ brine from saline formations could 
be necessary to safely increase CO2 storage capacities to 
targeted levels.'').
    \58\ See generally Anderson and Hossein, supra (discussing the 
costliness and challenges of managing brine (produced waters) to manage 
pressure in CO2 storage sites).
    \59\ Santibanez-Borda et al, at 77.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    These challenges apply with equal if not greater force to offshore 
storage. The complexity of that management and the difficulty of 
monitoring sites for leakage or other disturbances is only magnified 
when CO2 is injected underwater, particularly at great 
depths.
Offshore Carbon Dioxide Storage Presents Additional Risks

    The above risks and hazards are especially acute in the context of 
offshore storage, particularly in the Gulf of Mexico, where risks are 
magnified by the extreme difficulty of the engineering environment and 
the preexisting footprint and ongoing impact of oil and gas production.
    Storing carbon dioxide under the Outer Continental Shelf would 
require the development of a new system of offshore CO2 
pipelines. Even in the best of circumstances, the construction and 
operation of these pipelines could have a significant adverse impact on 
ocean ecosystems and the coastal communities that depend on and are 
affected by them. At worst, they present significant risks of rupture 
and leakage.
    The poor track record with monitoring and maintenance of existing 
offshore oil and gas pipelines and wells raises concerns about capacity 
to ensure that offshore CCUS would not face similar issues. The 
Government Accountability Office has identified problems with pipeline 
integrity and weakness in oversight of existing offshore oil and gas 
infrastructure.\60\ Monitoring injection sites and managing underground 
pressure are substantially more difficult undersea than on land, and 
the dynamics are largely untested and unknown. The deeper the injection 
sites, the lower the likelihood of detection and the more difficult 
repair. Experience with leaking pipelines in the Gulf demonstrates that 
undersea pipelines face significant risks of corrosion and failure.\61\ 
The external risks to offshore infrastructure will only be magnified as 
climate impacts accelerate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \60\ Government Accountability Office (GAO), Offshore Oil and Gas: 
Updated Regulations Needed to Improve Pipeline Oversight and 
Decommissioning (Mar. 2021), https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-21-293.pdf.
    \61\ See Ian J. Duncan, Developing a Comprehensive Risk Assessment 
Framework for Geological Storage of CO2, Report to the US Dept. of 
Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory (December 2014), at 240-
41 and passim Section 10, https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1170168.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Leakage from offshore CO2 injection and storage could 
have a profound effect on the surrounding marine environment, such as 
making seawater more acidic and threatening sensitive marine species. 
Both the U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) and the IPCC 
have recognized that the marine impacts of CO2 leakage could 
be significant, from acidification to increased salinity, and that they 
remain poorly understood. Knowledge gaps about the risks of leakage and 
prospects for their prevention must be filled before any offshore 
CO2 storage is deployed.
    In a 2018 report, BOEM identified diverse risks that CO2 
leakage from a reservoir via an injection well or a preexisting plugged 
and abandoned oil or gas well could pose to ``(1) other sub-seabed 
resources, (2) the ocean water column, (3) environmental resources in 
the water column and on the seafloor, or (4) platform workers, and 
result in emissions to the atmosphere.'' \62\ The IPCC has recognized 
that deliberate offshore injection of CO2 could alter ocean 
chemistry, exacerbating ocean acidification: ``Injection up to a few 
GtCO2 would produce a measurable change in ocean chemistry 
in the region of injection, whereas injection of hundreds of 
GtCO2 would eventually produce measurable change over the 
entire ocean volume.'' \63\ Beyond the adverse biological impacts that 
dissolved CO2 may have on ocean bottom and marine 
organisms,\64\ if leakage of CO2 from offshore storage sites 
reaches the ocean surface, it could pose a hazard to offshore platform 
workers, particularly in the event of a large or sudden release, and 
may reach the atmosphere, undercutting climate impacts.\65\ Moreover, 
as discussed above, improper management of displaced brines could 
increase seawater salinity, which may present another environmental 
shock to marine organisms.\66\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \62\ Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), Best Management 
Practices for Offshore Transportation and Sub-Seabed Geologic Storage 
of Carbon Dioxide (2018), https://espis.boem.gov/final%20reports/
5663.pdf, at 34.
    \63\ IPCC Special Report on Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage 
(2005), Chapter 6: Ocean Storage, at 279, https://www.ipcc.ch/site/
assets/uploads/2018/03/srccs_chapter6-1.pdf.
    \64\ IPCC Special Report, 279.
    \65\ IPCC Special Report on Carbon dioxide Capture and Storage, at 
243, available at: https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/
srccs_chapter5-1.pdf.
    \66\ European Commission, Sub-seabed CO2 Storage: Impact on Marine 
Ecosystems (ECO2), Final Report Summary, at 16, https://
cordis.europa.eu/docs/results/265/265847/final1-eco2-265847-final-
publishable-summary-report.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The greatest risk of leakage from offshore storage sites comes from 
their interaction with existing oil and gas wells. As BOEM notes, there 
is ``widespread consensus that the highest risk for CO2 
migration from a reservoir zone to the shallow subsurface or atmosphere 
is associated with previously existing wellbores.'' \67\ This risk also 
applies to containment failure in offshore settings.\68\ The Gulf, 
which has been heavily targeted for offshore CO2 storage, is 
pock-marked with legacy wells and dry well bores from decades of 
drilling and extraction. This raises significant concerns that subsea 
storage of CO2 in the Gulf may be particularly susceptible 
to leakage.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \67\ Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), Best Management 
Practices for Offshore Transportation and Sub-Seabed Geologic Storage 
of Carbon Dioxide (2018), https://espis.boem.gov/final%20reports/
5663.pdf, at 37.
    \68\ Id. (citing IPCC 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Last week was the twelfth anniversary of the Deepwater Horizon 
spill. It's a stark reminder that when things go wrong offshore it's 
hard to fix. While the risks of transporting CO2 are 
distinct from those associated with oil and gas, they are significant 
and must be thoroughly assessed, and adequate mitigation measures, 
monitoring systems and requisite financing in place before any permits 
are granted.
Conclusion

    The IPCC has issued a clear warning that humanity must cut global 
emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases by roughly 50% 
in the next decade to have any chance of keeping planetary warming 
below 1.5C. The production and combustion of fossil fuels for energy, 
transport, and industrial processes is the overwhelming driver of the 
climate crisis. Ending reliance on fossil fuels is thus the fastest, 
cheapest, most effective way to reduce emissions. Far from contributing 
to that critical goal, the proposed massive deployments of publicly 
subsidized CCUS projects threaten to delay urgently needed climate 
action, undermine emission reduction efforts, squander limited 
resources, lock-in fossil fuel infrastructure, and expose communities 
across the Gulf Coast and throughout the United States to new and 
potentially catastrophic health, safety, and environmental risks. In so 
doing CCUS threatens to compound the already heavy burdens the fossil 
economy has imposed for decades on people of color and low-income 
communities. CCUS is a false solution, a dangerous distraction, and a 
new but completely avoidable chapter in this country's long history of 
environmental injustice and systemic racism. The Congressional response 
to CCUS must reflect and respond to that reality.

                                 ______
                                 

    Dr. Lowenthal. Thank you, Mr. Muffett.
    The Chair now recognizes Ms. Saunders for 5 minutes.

 STATEMENT OF NICHOLE SAUNDERS, DIRECTOR AND SENIOR ATTORNEY, 
  ENERGY TRANSITION, ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND, AUSTIN, TEXAS

    Ms. Saunders. Chairman Lowenthal, Ranking Member Stauber, 
and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity 
today to discuss carbon storage in the Gulf of Mexico with you. 
My name is Nichole Saunders, and I am a Director and Senior 
Attorney with Environmental Defense Fund in Austin, Texas.
    I am echoing the Chairman now on this point, but carbon 
capture and storage is not a silver bullet climate solution. 
These projects are complex, highly technical, costly, and 
challenging. But most experts and models do agree we will need 
this tool in our toolbox if we are to meet emission reduction 
targets. And as much as 75 percent of captured carbon will 
likely need to be injected for long-term storage in deep 
underground reservoirs like those in the Gulf of Mexico. But 
this process cannot be done successfully by just anyone, or 
take place just anywhere.
    There are three crucial minimum conditions that must be met 
to ensure this practice works for both the environment and 
society: First, these technologies cannot be a substitute for 
parallel work to lessen our dependence on fossil fuels; Second, 
and importantly, environmental justice and equity 
considerations must be central to decision making on projects, 
not only through thoughtful consultation and collaboration, but 
also through affirmative actions and solutions directly aimed 
at mitigating disproportionate burdens; and Third, policies, 
incentives, and regulatory programs must be designed to ensure 
the environmental integrity and safety of geologic storage 
projects, including the associated infrastructure and 
transport, minimizing the potential for leaks or other harms to 
both the climate and marine ecosystems.
    In the absence of these conditions, the perceived 
opportunity of carbon storage may fail to overcome the risk 
that these projects do not live up to their climate promises. 
The United States has an opportunity to showcase global 
leadership on this complex issue if it can meet these 
conditions.
    My testimony today centers on that third condition: 
ensuring the environmental integrity of carbon storage 
reservoirs in the Gulf. The technical issues surrounding this 
challenge are of a particular and timely relevance, given the 
Department of the Interior's active rulemaking on this issue.
    As directed by Congress through the recent Infrastructure 
Investment and Jobs Act, Interior is currently developing 
regulatory programs for the purpose of long-term carbon 
sequestration on the Outer Continental Shelf. The agency has 
until November to do this, and it will be no easy task. In its 
report released just this month, the Intergovernmental Panel on 
Climate Change concluded with high confidence that if the 
geologic storage site is appropriately selected and managed, it 
is estimated that the carbon dioxide can be permanently 
isolated from the atmosphere.
    And while that concept of site selection and management may 
seem straightforward, appropriately meeting these objectives 
is, in fact, immensely complex. Carbon storage projects can 
serve their role if, and only if, they are sited, designed, 
managed, and regulated in a manner that unequivocally and 
transparently ensures and demonstrates the long-term technical 
and environmental integrity of sequestration.
    So, what exactly does that look like? Environmental Defense 
Fund has a long history of collaborative engagement on well 
integrity issues. Building on this experience and numerous 
domestic and international references, we work together with 
industry, academic, legal, and policy experts to build a set of 
initial principles we believe are core to demonstrating long-
term secure storage offshore. They include the need to select 
and characterize good storage locations, including carefully 
assessing potential leakage pathways, safely construct and 
operate wells, conduct comprehensive testing and monitoring, 
develop data, modeling, and reports that demonstrate the carbon 
is securely stored and expected to stay there 1,000 years or 
more, ensuring proper plugging and closure processes, require 
accurate and transparent accounting of sequestration claims, 
and other details that are found more comprehensively in my 
written testimony.
    Some may argue for reduced regulatory protections, given 
the remote offshore environment. But this argument simply does 
not hold water, as there remains much to protect in the Gulf. 
These standards are vital not only for the prevention of 
atmospheric releases, but also for the protection of marine 
ecosystems, water column chemistry, and other unique 
environmental, ecological, and biogeochemical features, 
fisheries, and economies.
    In conclusion, the Gulf may offer a unique geologic 
opportunity to store large volumes of captured CO2. 
Whether it can be done successfully, in a way that respects 
coastal communities, protects marine resources, prevents leaks 
and releases, and earns public trust as a valid solution 
remains to be seen. Ensuring that the United States is 
committed to developing oversight programs that address the 
principles for secure storage included in my testimony would be 
a good start.

    [The prepared statement of Ms. Saunders follows:]
  Prepared Statement of Nichole Saunders, Director & Senior Attorney, 
                       Environmental Defense Fund
    Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss 
offshore carbon storage in the Gulf of Mexico. Environmental Defense 
Fund (EDF) is a non-profit environmental research and advocacy 
organization working to identify science- and market-based solutions to 
major environmental challenges.
    Capture of industrial and atmospheric carbon dioxide 
(CO2) has been identified in numerous scientific reviews as 
a potentially useful and even essential tool in achieving timely de-
carbonization. For it to work, however, safe and reliable sequestration 
methods, standards, and practices must be identified, implemented, and 
proven to ensure captured carbon stays where it's stored for a 
meaningful time.

    Carbon storage in the Gulf may eventually serve a useful role in 
reducing emissions and in meeting net-zero objectives; however, there 
are three crucial, minimum conditions that must be acknowledged and 
addressed to ensure this practice is done responsibly,\1\ and that it 
works for both the environment and society:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ White House Council on Environmental Quality: Carbon Capture, 
Utilization, and Sequestration Guidance, 87 FR 8808 (proposed Feb. 16, 
2022).

  1.  These technologies are utilized as only one of many possible 
            tools for advancing de-carbonization and for cutting our 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            heavy dependence on fossil fuels;

  2.  Environmental justice and equity considerations must be central 
            to decision-making on projects, not only through thoughtful 
            consultation and collaboration, but also through proactive 
            actions and solutions directly aimed at mitigating 
            disproportionate burdens; and

  3.  Policies, incentives, and regulatory programs must be designed to 
            ensure the environmental integrity and safety of geologic 
            storage projects in the ocean environment, including 
            associated infrastructure and transport operations--
            minimizing the potential for leaks or other harms to the 
            climate, marine ecosystems, and the economy.

    In the absence of these conditions, carbon storage may fail to live 
up to its hoped-for promise. Currently, the U.S. has an opportunity to 
showcase global leadership on this complex issue if it can meet these 
conditions.
    EDF's testimony today centers on one core component of the third 
condition--ensuring the environmental integrity of geologic carbon 
storage reservoirs in the Gulf. The technical issues surrounding this 
challenge are of particular and timely relevance, as is this hearing, 
as the Department of Interior (DOI) is actively considering a 
rulemaking on the issue.
Geologic Sequestration of CO2 and Environmental Integrity--
        The DOI Rulemaking

    As directed by the recent Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act 
(IIJA) amendments to the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OSCLA), DOI 
is currently developing regulatory programs ``for the purpose of long-
term carbon sequestration'' on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) 
through processes that ``prevent the carbon dioxide from reaching the 
atmosphere.'' \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ H.R. 3684 Sec. 40307(a)(4) and 43 U.S.C. Sec. 1337(p)(1).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The agency has until November to do this. It will be no easy task.

    Recent models suggest that as much as 75% of carbon dioxide 
captured via carbon capture systems including direct air capture, will 
likely be sequestered in geologic reservoirs.\3\ Moreover, the 
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), in its 2005 Special 
Report on CCS, concluded that well-selected, designed, and managed 
geological storage sites will likely exceed 99% retention of 
sequestered gases over 1,000 years.\4\ In its recent 2022 report, IPCC 
built on additional research and went a step further to simply state 
with ``high confidence'' that ``[i]f the geological storage site is 
appropriately selected and managed, it is estimated that the 
CO2 can be permanently isolated from the atmosphere.'' \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ The Environmental Defense Fund (2021). Summary for 
Policymakers: Carbon Management in Net-Zero Energy Systems. https://
www.edf.org/sites/default/files/documents/CM%20Summary 
%20for%20Policymakers_FINAL.pdf.
    \4\ IPCC (2005): IPCC Special Report on Carbon Dioxide Capture and 
Storage. Prepared by Working Group III of the Intergovernmental Panel 
on Climate Change [Metz, B., O. Davidson, H.C. de Coninck, M. Loos, and 
L.A. Meyer (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United 
Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, p. 14. https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/
uploads/2018/03/srccs_wholereport-1.pdf.
    \5\ IPCC (2022): Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2022: 
Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the 
Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 
Change [P.R. Shukla, J. Skea, R. Slade, A. Al Khourdajie, R. van 
Diemen, D. McCollum, M. Pathak, S. Some, P. Vyas, R. Fradera, M. 
Belkacemi, A. Hasija, G. Lisboa, S. Luz, J. Malley, (eds.)]. Cambridge 
University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA, p. 37. doi: 
10.1017/9781009157926.001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    While the concept of site selection and management may seem 
straightforward, appropriately meeting these objectives is, in fact, 
immensely complex. Failure on this front can cause unexpected outcomes 
and compromise projects.\6\ Geologic carbon storage projects can only 
serve a meaningful role in reducing emissions if--and only if--they are 
sited, designed, managed, and regulated in a manner that unequivocally 
and transparently ensures and demonstrates the long-term technical and 
environmental integrity of sequestration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ See e.g., White, J., Chiaramonte, L., Ezzedine, S., et al. 
(2014). Geomechanical behavior of the reservoir and caprock system at 
the In Salah CO2 storage project. PNAS 111(24), 8784-8752. https://
doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1316465111 (presenting a case study of the In 
Salah CO2 storage project, suggesting that operational 
injection pressures fractured the reservoir and lower caprock, allowing 
for pressure and likely CO2 to move into the caprock. 
Although overall storage integrity wasn't compromised, the project 
stopped injection. The authors and many others underscore the field 
experience as a core example of the importance of careful site 
selection and monitoring.)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    That is DOI's challenge.

    Getting this right is paramount for U.S. leadership on emissions 
reduction and climate mitigation. A DOI rulemaking that does anything 
less than establish a leading global standard for the environmental and 
climate integrity of geologic sequestration offshore will not only 
increase the risk of failures that return carbon to the atmosphere and 
contaminate ecosystems, but it would also undermine and further weaken 
public faith in the validity and strength of the U.S.'s carbon 
sequestration capabilities and climate mitigation commitments, 
including the 45Q tax credit.
    Finally, establishing a new regulatory program and implementing and 
enforcing that program comes with significant resource and human 
capital considerations. Agencies must not only have adequate staff and 
resources to complete reviews, but also the knowledge, expertise, and 
training to do their jobs effectively. This need has been made clear in 
EPA's experience onshore. It is vital that as DOI stands up this 
program, it has adequate resources and training--needs that could be 
met not only by funding, but also by more direct collaboration with 
other expert state and federal agencies. EDF supports the appropriation 
of necessary funds for this capacity building.
Marine Environments Offshore Must be Protected Just as Drinking Water 
        Resources are Onshore

    Onshore, geologic storage of CO2 projects are regulated 
by EPA's Underground Injection Control (UIC) Class VI program \7\--an 
extensive regulation finalized by EPA in 2011 after years of technical 
analysis and stakeholder engagement. EPA's authority to adopt this rule 
derived from its responsibility to protect underground sources of 
drinking water (USDW), but the rule is fundamentally about secure 
storage of CO2 and the prevention of disaster. Some may 
argue for minimal regulatory oversight offshore and a rollback of the 
advanced protections of Class VI due to the absence of USDWs and 
communities on the OCS, but this technicality does not equate to a lack 
of risk or a sound reason to reduce regulatory protections offshore. 
While the technical implementation of certain regulations and 
operational principles may require adaptation for the offshore 
environment, none of the below recommendations regarding secure storage 
are unique to the need to protect drinking water; rather, they are 
well-studied, foundational principles for ensuring containment in the 
intended reservoir.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ Class VI--Wells used for Geologic Sequestration of Carbon 
Dioxide, EPA.GOV, https://www.epa.gov/uic/class-vi-wells-used-geologic-
sequestration-carbon-dioxide.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    A containment failure either from the reservoir, or in the 
transport or other handling of captured CO2, would have 
likely implications not only with respect to a return to atmosphere and 
reversal of climate gains, but also for marine ecosystems and water 
column chemistry. In-depth study and peer-reviewed literature on this 
issue is limited, reducing current understanding of the environmental 
and climate consequences of water column CO2 releases. What 
is known raises enough concern to know that consequences of both slow 
leaks and catastrophic releases during transport or other operations 
should be taken seriously. For example, a catastrophic release of 
CO2 directly into the ocean water column from a pipeline or 
ship--a hazard unique to geologic storage in the subseafloor--could 
temporarily acidify seawater to 100 times its natural levels, for tens 
of kilometers in all directions, with potentially dire consequences for 
fish and other components of marine ecosystems, including the 
industries and livelihoods that depend on those resources.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ See, e.g., Siegel, D.A., DeVries, T., Doney, S.C., & Bell, T. 
(2021). Assessing the sequestration time scales of some ocean-based 
carbon dioxide reduction strategies. Environmental Research Letters, 
16(10), 104003. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ac0be0; Phelps, 
J.J.C., Blackford, J.C., Holt, J.T., & Polton, J.A. (2015). Modelling 
large-scale CO2 leakages in the North Sea. International Journal of 
Greenhouse Gas Control, 38, 210-220. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ijggc.2014.10.013; Hofmann, G.E., Barry, J.P., Edmunds, P.J., Gates, 
R.D., Hutchins, D.A., Klinger, T., & Sewell, M.A. (2010). The Effect of 
Ocean Acidification on Calcifying Organisms in Marine Ecosystems: An 
Organism-to-Ecosystem Perspective. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, 
and Systematics, 41(1), 127-147. https://doi.org/10.1146/
annurev.ecolsys.110308.120227; Jones, D.G., Beaubien, S.E., Blackford, 
J.C., Foekema, E.M., Lions, J., De Vittor, C., et al. (2015). 
Developments since 2005 in understanding potential environmental 
impacts of CO2 leakage from geological storage. International Journal 
of Greenhouse Gas Control, 40, 350-377. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ijggc.2015.05.032; Rastelli, E., Corinaldesi, C., Dell'Anno, A., 
Amaro, T., Greco, S., Lo Martire, M., et al. (2016). CO2 leakage from 
carbon dioxide capture and storage (CCS) systems affects organic matter 
cycling in surface marine sediments. Marine Environmental Research, 
122, 158-168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marenvres.2016.10.007; and 
Molari, M., Guilini, K., Lott, C., Weber, M., de Beer, D., Meyer, S., 
et al. (2018). CO2 leakage alters biogeochemical and ecological 
functions of submarine sands. Science Advances, 4(2), eaao2040. https:/
/doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aao2040.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The ocean environment itself comes with numerous additional and 
unique risk factors for geologic sequestration operations that are not 
present onshore. For example, while not covered by the scope of this 
testimony, in many cases, CO2 will need to be safely 
transported through or upon the ocean by pipelines or ships before it 
can be injected, often at significant hydrostatic pressures that vary 
due to seabed depth. Indeed, comprehensive reviews \9\ of scientific 
and policy concerns surrounding geologic storage have identified 
transport and initial injection as the phase of projects associated 
with greatest risk, underscoring further the need to cautiously address 
unique transport safety considerations in the ocean environment. 
Additionally, the 2020 Atlantic hurricane season brought a record-
breaking eleven storms to the U.S. coastline, four of which came ashore 
in Louisiana alone.\10\ The 2021 hurricane season was also above 
average.\11\ It is predicted that a warming climate will result in more 
intense Atlantic hurricanes with higher rainfall rates.\12\ This 
increasing risk \13\ for industrial operations in the Gulf of Mexico 
must also be taken into consideration in establishing regulations 
regarding the infrastructure and operational requirements for carbon 
storage projects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\ See, e.g., de Coninck, H., & Benson, S.M. (2014). Carbon 
dioxide capture and storage: Issues and prospects. Annual Review of 
Environment and Resources, 39(1), 243-270. https://doi.org/10.1146/
annurev-environ-032112-095222.
    \10\ U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (2020). 
Record-breaking Atlantic hurricane season draws to an end. https://
www.noaa.gov/media-release/record-breaking-atlantic-hurricane-season-
draws-to-end.
    \11\ U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (2020). 
Active 2021 Atlantic hurricane season officially ends. https://
www.noaa.gov/news-release/active-2021-atlantic-hurricane-season-
officially-ends.
    \12\ Tom Knutson, Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (2021). 
Global Warming and Hurricanes: An Overview of Current Research Results. 
https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes/.
    \13\ Marianna Parraga, Explainer: Stronger storms test aging U.S. 
offshore oil facilities, REUTERS, https://www.reuters.com/business/
energy/stronger-storms-test-aging-us-offshore-oil-facilities-2021-09-
07/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    EDF strongly supports CEQ's recent recommendation that the 
Department of Energy, EPA, DOI, and National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Association collaborate on studies ``that are needed to better monitor 
and verify CCUS results and understand the impacts to living marine 
resources associated with geologic sequestration and monitoring efforts 
on the OCS.'' \14\ In addition to this research and implementation of 
the below principles for secure storage, EDF also encourages these 
agencies to collaborate now on putting forth regulatory language that 
ensures proactive marine protections are in place in the currently 
active DOI rulemaking to the furthest extent of current scientific and 
technical knowledge. Work to understand and monitor these impacts 
cannot only occur long after DOI adopts and implements a leasing and 
permitting program. Where gaps exist, provisions requiring additional 
monitoring and study should be incorporated into the regulatory and 
permitting program, alongside a process for modifying permit conditions 
as new, actionable information about risks and risk control options 
arise.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \14\ White House Council on Environmental Quality: Carbon Capture, 
Utilization, and Sequestration Guidance, 87 FR 8808 (proposed Feb. 16, 
2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    EDF scientists are actively reviewing and synthesizing existing 
knowledge surrounding the possible ocean environment consequences that 
may arise from subseafloor geologic storage, and we look forward to the 
opportunity to share our findings on an ongoing basis.
Collaboratively Developed Proposed Principles for Demonstrating Secure 
        Storage

    Secure storage in the offshore environment demands a precautionary 
approach. The remainder of this testimony focuses on a set of technical 
principles EDF believes are vital to ensuring that injected carbon 
stays where it is put for a meaningful period of time--a thousand years 
or more. In fact, ``long-term carbon sequestration'' is now a statutory 
requirement for offshore geologic carbon storage projects.\15\ Proof of 
this outcome is vital not only for prevention of atmospheric releases 
and public trust in carbon storage projects, but also for the 
protection of marine ecosystems, water column chemistry, and other 
unique environmental, ecological, and biogeochemical features that 
could be affected by a potential release of stored or transported 
CO2 into seawater. The below principles are core to 
demonstrating the security of storage and reducing the likelihood of 
leakage and other impacts from subsurface reservoirs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \15\ H.R. 3684 Sec. 40307(a)(4) and 43 U.S.C. Sec. 1337(p)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    EDF developed these principles in consultation with leading 
industry, academic, policy and legal experts. The principles build on 
existing domestic and international regulations, standards, and 
guidelines designed to ensure and require documentation for safe, long-
term containment of CO2.\16\ Where applicable, specific 
sections of these references are included as footnotes and can be 
consulted for both technical analysis as well as exemplary regulatory 
language.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \16\ References cited include: (1) EPA's Underground Injection 
Control Program for Carbon Dioxide Geologic Sequestration [hereinafter 
Class VI Rule], 40 C.F.R. pt. 146; (2) International Organization for 
Standardization (2017). Carbon dioxide capture, transportation and 
geological storage--Geological storage [hereinafter ISO Standard No. 
7914:2017], available at https://www.iso.org/standard/64148.html; (3) 
International Organization for Standardization (2019). Carbon dioxide 
capture, transportation and geological storage--Carbon dioxide storage 
using enhanced oil recovery (CO2-EOR) [hereinafter ISO Standard No. 
27916:2019], available at https://www.iso.org/standard/65937.html 
(relevant as an approved means for demonstrating secure storage to the 
Internal Revenue Service (IRS) for Section 45Q (86 FR 4728); (4) The 
European Parliament and the Council of the European Union (2009). 
Directive 2009/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 
the European Union on the geologic storage of carbon dioxide and 
amending Council Directive 85/337/EEC, European Parliament and Council 
Directives 2000/60/EC, 2001/80/EC, 2004/35/EC, 2006/12/EC, 2008/1/EC 
and Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006. [hereinafter EU Directive], available 
at https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/
?uri=CELEX:32009L0031; (5) U.S. Internal Revenue Service (2009), Notice 
2009-83: Credit for Carbon Dioxide Sequestration under Section 45Q. 
https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/n-09-83.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    EDF believes that Congress can and should monitor the development 
of the offshore storage regulatory program to ensure that each of these 
issues is addressed in DOI's active rulemaking. Recognizing the 
technical nature of these principles, we would welcome an opportunity 
to provide further briefing, and our experts would be happy to work 
with Members as you analyze and assess the forthcoming DOI proposal or 
relevant legislative issues.
EDF's Recommended (and Abbreviated) Principles: \17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \17\ A full, technical version of the principles has been submitted 
to the Department of Interior.

     Limit Carbon Dioxide Stream Contents: Section 40307 of the 
            Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act requires that a 
            carbon dioxide stream consist overwhelmingly of carbon 
            dioxide. We recommend consulting EPA's Class VI definition 
            of carbon dioxide stream for language that will make sure 
            that any other substances included are incidental and not 
            added for the purposes of disposal.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \18\ Class VI Rule 40 CFR 146.81(d) & 146.90(a); ISO 27914: 2017 
3.7; ISO 27916: 2019 3.7; EU Directive 2009/31/EC 12.1.

     Select and Characterize Good Sites: Proper site selection 
            and site characterization is a fundamental step toward 
            containment assurance. It is needed to confirm that sites 
            have sufficient storage capability and trapping means to 
            enable long-term containment. At each site, 
            characterization must include a robust identification of 
            potential leakage pathways in order to enable a site-
            specific monitoring program and set the stage for an 
            eventual determination of whether long-term storage can be 
            achieved with high confidence.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \19\ Class VI Rule 40 CFR Sec. 146.83 (a); IRS Notice 2009-83 
5.02(b)(i)(A); ISO 27914: 2017 5.1; ISO 27916: 2019 5.2 ; EU Directive 
2009/31/EC Art. 4, Annex I.

     Select and Characterize Good Reservoirs. Storage should 
            only be allowed in reservoirs that have sufficient areal 
            extent, thickness, porosity, and permeability to receive 
            the total anticipated volume of the carbon dioxide stream 
            and that also have a confining zone and other necessary 
            containment means sufficient to prevent loss of 
            CO2 from the storage reservoir.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \20\ Class VI Rule 40 CFR Sec. 146.83 (a)(1) & (2); ISO 27914: 2017 
5.4; ISO 27916: 2019 3.10, 5.2; EU Directive 2009/31/EC Art. 4.3, Annex 
I.

     Identify and Assess Leakage Pathways: An area of review 
            (AOR) should be delineated using computational modelling 
            that accounts for the physical and chemical properties of 
            the injected CO2 stream and displaced formation 
            fluids, and should be based initially on available site 
            characterization, monitoring, and operational data. 
            Regulatory requirements should provide for adjustment of 
            the area as each project and its site's characteristics are 
            better understood. Using these data, the modelling should 
            project the lateral and vertical migration of carbon 
            dioxide and formation fluids in the subsurface from the 
            commencement of injection activities until long-term 
            containment is demonstrated and closure requirements are 
            otherwise met. Regulations should require the 
            identification and formal risk assessment of potential 
            leakage pathways associated with the AOR.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \21\ Class VI Rule 40 CFR Sec. 146.84; ISO 27914: 2017 3.3, 4.2.3, 
6.1; ISO 27916: 2019 6.1.1, 6.1.2; IRS Notice 2009-8 3.02(b)(i)(B).

     Safely Construct and Operate Wells: Construction and 
            completion requirements should prevent the movement of 
            fluids into or between unauthorized zones. Wells should be 
            spaced to avoid unplanned pressure interference from other 
            injection wells. Older wells should only be allowed to 
            transition to geologic sequestration purposes if they were 
            engineered and constructed to fully prevent the movement of 
            fluids into or between any unauthorized zones. For 
            operations, regulations should ensure that injection does 
            not initiate new fractures or propagate existing fractures 
            in the confining zone and that internal and external 
            mechanical integrity is appropriately maintained. 
            Documentation of well monitoring should be required in 
            order to track whether appropriate pressures and integrity 
            are maintained. Operational requirements should include 
            alarms, automatic down-hole shut-off systems, and 
            procedures for rapid response in case of a shut-off.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \22\ Citations for well construction: Class VI Rule 40 CFR 
Sec. 146.86 (a); ISO 27914: 2017 Clause 7; ISO 27916: 2019 Clause 7; 
Citations for well operation: Class VI Rule 40 CFR Sec. 146.88; ISO 
27914: 2017 Clause 8; ISO 27916: 2019 Clause 6.

     Require Comprehensive Testing and Monitoring Plans: Permit 
            applications should be supported by testing and monitoring 
            plans based on formal risk assessments. They should be 
            designed to detect potential unintended migration of 
            CO2 streams into unauthorized formations, the 
            sea, or the atmosphere through potential leakage pathways. 
            Monitoring should be risk-based and should adapt over time 
            since monitoring needs will change during different phases 
            of the project. Permitting staff should be equipped with 
            tools and knowledge necessary to independently review and 
            approve the monitoring plan and its amendments.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \23\ Class VI Rule 40 CFR Sec. 146.90; ISO 27914: 2017 8.5 & Clause 
9; ISO 27916: 2019 Clause 6; EU Directive 2009/31/EC Article 13, Annex 
II 2.

     Require Emergency and Remedial Response Plans: Require an 
            emergency and remedial response plan that is keyed both to 
            deviations in project conformance and to monitoring network 
            indications of leakage.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \24\ Class VI Rule 40 CFR Sec. 146.94; ISO 27914: 2017 4.3.4, 
4.5.3, 6.6(g), 8.3.5; ISO 27916: 2019 6.1.1(g).

     Require and Define Post-Injection Site Care (PISC): Post-
            injection monitoring and modelling should continue as long 
            as necessary to confirm that CO2 plumes are 
            behaving as predicted and gather enough data to ensure 
            secure storage. This process should reinforce: (1) 
            understanding of the subsurface geologic storage system as 
            measured by agreement between model forecasts and 
            measurements of static and dynamic filed data, and (2) 
            ability of the system to contain CO2 while 
            remaining within acceptable, projected risk thresholds.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \25\ Class VI Rule 40 CFR 40 CFR Sec. 146.93(a); ISO 27914: 2017 
9.2.4; ISO 27916: 2019 Clause 10; EU Directive 2009/31/EC Article 17.

     Demonstrating and Verifying Secure Storage. Containment 
            assurance should include preventing leakage of 
            CO2 from the entire storage complex (both the 
            storage reservoir and the containment seals), thereby 
            preventing leakage to both the water column and the 
            atmosphere. There must also be assurance that formation 
            fluids capable of harming aquatic life do not enter the 
            water column. Demonstration of secure storage should 
            include both the absence of detectable leakage and 
            sufficient documentation to demonstrate with high 
            confidence that injected CO2 and formation 
            fluids will be safely contained long-term--it's EDF 
            perspective that this should be at least 1000 \26\ years. 
            Regulations should require review and verification of this 
            demonstration.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \26\ IPCC (2005): IPCC Special Report on Carbon Dioxide Capture and 
Storage. Prepared by Working Group III of the Intergovernmental Panel 
on Climate Change [Metz, B., O. Davidson, H.C. de Coninck, M. Loos, and 
L.A. Meyer (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United 
Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, p. 14. https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/
uploads/2018/03/srccs_wholereport-1.pdf.
    \27\ Class VI Rule 40 CFR Sec. 146.84(c)(1) & (2); ISO 27914: 2017 
6.5, 6.7.2.2, 9.1; ISO 27916: 2019 5.1, Clause 6, 10.4.

     Plugging the Well: Prior to closure, wells should be 
            required to be plugged in accordance with an updated 
            approved plugging plan.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \28\ Class VI Rule 40 CFR 40 CFR Sec. 146.92; ISO 27914: 2017 
9.2.4; ISO 27916: 2019 7.2.

     Closure: Site closure (the end of normal post-injection 
            monitoring) should be approved only after an operator 
            provides modelling backed by high-quality data that 
            demonstrates long-term containment of CO2 and 
            provides assurance against migration of CO2 or 
            formation fluids to the sea or atmosphere. Closure 
            authorizations should not relieve an operator from ongoing 
            responsibility for leaks or other harms caused by an 
            operator's failure to adhere to regulatory requirements or 
            approved plans regarding construction, operation, or 
            closure of the project.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \29\ Class VI Rule 40 CFR 40 CFR Sec. 146.93 (b)(2); ISO 27914: 
2017 Clause 10; ISO 27916: 2019 Clause 10; EU Directive 2009/31/EC 
Article 18; Texas 81(R) HB 1796 Sec. 382.508(a) (2009).

     Financial Assurance: Financial assurance requirements must 
            be sufficient to cover updated estimated costs of emergency 
            and remedial response, corrective action, well plugging, 
            and post-injection site care and closure.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \30\ Class VI Rule 40 CFR Sec. 146.85(a); EU Directive 2009/31/EC 
Art. 9.9, Art. 19.

     Assure Safety: Operations must be conducted in a safe 
            manner to protect against harm or damage to life (including 
            fish and other aquatic life), property, natural resources 
            of the OCS (including any mineral deposits both in areas 
            leased and not leased), the National security or defense, 
            or the marine, coastal, or human environment. This includes 
            protecting against potential harms resulting indirectly 
            from CO2 injection, such as the migration of 
            CO2 or subsurface brine to the sea floor that 
            would harm sea life or lead to deleterious changes in water 
            chemistry.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \31\ 30 CFR Sec. 250.400.

     Transparency and Reporting: Ensure accountability for 
            geologic sequestration claims and U.S. carbon accounting 
            programs such as the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program 
            (GHGRP) by requiring public comment on completed 
            applications and proposed permits and public reporting of 
            both CO2 volumes sequestered and associated 
            documentation of their security. Further, it's EDF's belief 
            that a plain reading of the EPA Greenhouse Gas Reporting 
            Program (GHGRP) Subpart RR \32\ makes clear that its 
            provisions apply to all wells that inject a CO2 
            stream for long-term containment in subsurface geologic 
            formations, including offshore facilities that are not 
            subject to the Safe Drinking Water Act. As such, reporting 
            requirements as well as provisions regarding the proposal 
            and review of Monitoring, Reporting, and Verification (MRV) 
            plans should be applicable to geologic sequestration 
            facilities authorized by DOI. EDF recommends that DOI and 
            EPA coordinate in order to foster efficient compliance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \32\ 40 CFR pt. 98.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusion

    While carbon capture and geologic storage is a critically important 
building block in reducing emissions, it is not a silver-bullet climate 
solution. It is a complex, highly technical, costly, and challenging 
venture that if done correctly can help us address industrial 
emissions. But geologic carbon sequestration cannot be done 
successfully by just anyone or take place anywhere.
    The Gulf of Mexico does potentially offer a unique geologic 
opportunity and capacity to store large volumes of captured 
CO2. Whether it can be done successfully--in a way that 
respects coastal communities, protects marine resources, prevents leaks 
and releases, and earns public trust as a valid solution remains to be 
seen. Ensuring that the U.S. is committed to developing oversight 
programs that address the principles for secure storage included here 
would be a good start.

                                 ______
                                 

    Dr. Lowenthal. Thank you very much, Ms. Saunders.
    The Chair now recognizes Mr. Milito for 5 minutes.

STATEMENT OF ERIK MILITO, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL OCEAN INDUSTRIES 
                  ASSOCIATION, WASHINGTON, DC

    Mr. Milito. Chairman Lowenthal, Ranking Member Stauber, and 
members of the Subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to 
testify. My name is Erik Milito, and I am President of the 
National Ocean Industries Association (NOIA).
    At NOIA, we represent all segments of the offshore energy 
industry. Our members include not just energy developers, but 
also the businesses, large and small, that do the work of 
building, supplying, and maintaining these projects. Hundreds 
of companies are involved in the construction and operation of 
offshore energy projects, providing high-paying jobs and 
ensuring reliable supplies of affordable energy for Americans.
    The same U.S. companies in the supply chain that have built 
out the U.S. offshore oil and gas sector are already 
participating in the build-out of the U.S. offshore wind sector 
and will play a significant role in the emerging offshore 
carbon sequestration sector. Geophysical companies, engineering 
design firms, health and safety consultancies, offshore service 
vessels, marine construction companies, drilling contractors, 
and a myriad of other service and supply companies will be 
integral to U.S. leadership in offshore CSS.
    Our industry recognizes the risks of climate change and the 
need for continued action. As innovators, our industry is 
committed to contributing solutions to optimally balance 
societal and environmental needs. Energy policy must 
incorporate principles of innovation, efficiency, conservation, 
mitigation, resiliency, and adaptation as part of a systematic 
approach to addressing climate change. To do that, U.S. energy 
policy should support the development of all forms of abundant, 
reliable, and affordable domestic energy supplies, while 
continuously driving down emissions.
    U.S. energy policy should seek to achieve meaningful GHG 
reductions across all sectors of the economy and balance 
energy, environmental, economic, social, and national security 
needs. When it comes to mitigating emissions, which 
fundamentally must be the focus of climate policy, energy 
policy should support the advancement of emission mitigation 
technologies, and specifically carbon capture and storage.
    The widespread deployment of CCS will be critical for 
achieving the climate ambitions and goals that have been 
established by a diverse group of stakeholders around the 
world.
    According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), 
reaching net-zero emissions will be virtually impossible 
without CCS. The IEA also says CCS is the only group of 
technologies that contributes both to directly reducing 
emissions in critical economic sectors and to removing 
CO2 to balance emissions that cannot be avoided, a 
balance that is at the heart of net-zero emissions goals.
    According to Secretary of Energy Jennifer Granholm, ``Some 
emissions sources, like cement plants, can't be phased out 
immediately, or they don't have non-fossil-fuel options even 
available . . . that is where carbon capture and storage comes 
into play.''
    The U.S. Gulf of Mexico offshore region provides tremendous 
advantages for an emerging U.S. CCS sector. The Gulf of Mexico 
is characterized by vast geologic prospects for CO2 
storage, extensive and established energy infrastructure along 
the Gulf Coast and throughout the Outer Continental Shelf, a 
proximity to industrial centers for capturing emissions, and an 
accessible engineering and energy knowledge base and workforce. 
The Gulf Coast region is distinctly situated to emerge as a 
global hub for CCS. The Gulf Coast is home to the full supply 
chain of energy companies with the engineering experience, 
expertise, and vision to deploy projects with the scale and 
efficiency necessary for success.
    As with any capital-intensive industry, the U.S. CCS sector 
requires certainty and predictability in the regulatory system. 
Fortunately, Congress has provided Interior with authority to 
regulate the transport and sequestration of carbon dioxide in 
the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf. And the Department is 
currently working to develop the regulatory regime to provide 
for the safe storage of CO2 in the offshore region.
    We also urge Congress to expand the 45Q tax credit as a 
means of incentivizing and supporting a durable offshore CCS 
sector in the United States.
    As stated by the National Petroleum Council, CCS is an 
essential element in the portfolio of solutions needed to 
change the emissions trajectory of the global energy system. 
The U.S. Gulf of Mexico stands out as a premier region for 
global leadership and success in the emerging CCS sector.
    One thing I would like to add: an article by Columbia 
University Climate School makes the point that, based on data 
collected over the last several decades, there is a wide 
consensus among experts, engineers, and geologists alike that 
it is safe to permanently inject and store carbon dioxide.
    Thank you, and I would be happy to take your questions.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Milito follows:]
Prepared Statement of Erik Milito, President, National Ocean Industries 
                              Association
        ``To reach the President's ambitious domestic climate goal of 
        net-zero emissions economy-wide by 2050, the United States will 
        likely have to capture, transport, and permanently sequester 
        significant quantities of carbon dioxide (CO2) . . . 
        [It] is likely to be especially important for decarbonizing the 
        industrial sector, where high-temperature heat can be difficult 
        and expensive to electrify and where there are significant 
        emissions . . .''

        --  The White House Council on Environmental Quality Report to 
        Congress on Carbon Capture, Utilization and Storage. June, 2021 
        \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/CEQ-CCUS-
Permitting-Report.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    I appreciate the opportunity to testify today on behalf of the 
National Ocean Industries Association (``NOIA''). Now in our 50th year 
as an organization, NOIA represents all segments of the offshore energy 
industry. We are the voice and advocate for offshore oil and natural 
gas, offshore wind, offshore carbon capture and storage, and offshore 
mineral mining. Critically, our members include not just project 
developers, but also the businesses large and small that do the work of 
building, supplying, and maintaining infrastructure and projects in the 
domestic marine environment. Our members are energy companies, and 
their work is essential for providing the investment and jobs to 
generate the technologies and energy necessary for the U.S. and global 
economies to maintain a high quality of life and reduce poverty. We 
represent countless thousands of blue-collar and white-collar employees 
across the nation, stretching from New England to the Gulf Coast and to 
the West Coast. Indeed, we have confirmed that our member companies not 
only create jobs in the states of every member of this Committee, but 
in every state in the Union.\2\ Together, we are working toward an 
affordable, reliable, safe, and low carbon energy system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ https://www.noia.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/The-Gulf-of-
Mexico-Oil-Gas-Project-Lifecycle.pdf.

    Progress toward addressing the climate challenge will depend upon 
increased innovation, conservation, efficiency, resiliency, mitigation, 
and adaptation. Carbon capture and storage (CCS) is an innovative 
approach to mitigating greenhouse gas emissions. The wide-spread 
deployment of CCS will be critical for achieving the climate change 
ambitions and goals that have been established by a diverse group of 
stakeholders around the world. CCS can serve as an important tool for 
balancing environmental, economic, and energy needs. U.S. leadership in 
CCS will help ensure the availability of abundant, reliable, and 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
affordable domestic energy, while continuously driving down emissions.

The Basics of CCS:

    As its name suggests, CCS involves the capture of CO2 
from either large point sources--including power generation or 
industrial facilities--or directly from the atmosphere. The captured 
CO2 is then compressed and transported to either be injected 
into deep geological formations which permanently trap the 
CO2 or is used in a range of applications. CCS uses a robust 
supply chain and combines various technologies to effectively reduce 
the amount of carbon dioxide that is emitted into the air, thus 
mitigating against warming effects and the impacts of greenhouse gases 
in the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide is the most common greenhouse gas, 
and it is emitted through various industrial processes and the 
transportation sector, among others. Industrial processes include 
emissions from power plants, industrial furnaces and stoves, steel 
blast furnaces, cement plants, and others.
    The below infographic \3\ from the International Energy Agency does 
an excellent job of showing the basics of the concept and the ways in 
which carbon can be transported and ultimately used or stored.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ https://www.iea.org/reports/about-ccus.

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Figure 1: An IEA Infographic Explaining The Basics of CCUS

The Challenge and Opportunity

    While we continue to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions 
throughout our economy and the energy system, CCS will be key to 
achieving our climate ambitions. As Secretary of Energy Jennifer 
Granholm has discussed with regard to transitioning the economy toward 
lower emissions, ``Some emissions sources, like cement plants, can't be 
phased out immediately or they don't have non-fossil-fuel options even 
available . . . that is where carbon capture and storage comes into 
play.'' \4\ In other words, CCS will play a critical role in further 
reducing carbon dioxide emissions from hard to decarbonize industries 
and meeting the challenge of climate change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ https://twitter.com/secgranholm/status/1423023737289408512.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Importantly, as federal policymakers consider options for domestic 
CCS, we applaud the increasing recognition that the U.S. Gulf of 
Mexico's outer continental shelf offers tremendous advantages and can 
accelerate the emerging U.S. CCS sector and strengthen American 
leadership.
    The Gulf aligns key drivers for success in CCS in the United 
States. First, the Gulf Coast is home to the full supply chain of 
energy companies with the engineering experience, expertise, and vision 
to deploy CCS projects with the scale and efficiency necessary for 
success. As the Greater Houston Partnership notes,\5\ the Houston area 
alone is home to more than twenty energy-focused R&D centers, sixty-
seven energy technology companies, six hundred exploration and 
production firms, 1,100 oilfield service companies, 180 pipeline 
transportation firms, and the fourth largest concentration of 
engineers. Likewise, neighboring Louisiana is also a key area for the 
Gulf's energy economy. In 2020, the energy sector provided some $73 
billion in state GDP and nearly a quarter of a million jobs--almost 
one-ninth of employment in the state.\6\ Clearly, the region has a 
massive supply chain and a deep bench of technical expertise upon which 
to rely.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ https://www.houston.org/why-houston/industries/energy.
    \6\ https://www.lmoga.com/assets/uploads/documents/LMOGA-ICF-
Louisiana-Economic-Impact-Report-10.2020.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Second, the Gulf of Mexico is situated in close proximity to 
substantial industrial centers along the coastline for capturing 
emissions.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ https://www.colliers.com/en/news/houston/petrochemical-and-
plastics-industry-2019-houston-economic-outlook.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Third, the Gulf is characterized by vast geologic prospects for 
CO2 storage. As the National Petroleum Council reported, 
``One of the largest opportunities for saline formation storage in the 
United States can be found in federal waters, particularly in the Gulf 
of Mexico.'' \8\ In fact, estimates have pointed to storage capacity 
along the Gulf Coast large enough for 500 billion metric tons of 
CO2, which would equal about 130 years of industrial and 
power generation emissions in the U.S. as of 2018.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ Meeting the Dual Challenge: A Roadmap to At-Scale Deployment of 
Carbon Capture, Use, and Storage, The National Petroleum Council, 
December 2019, p. 27.
    \9\ https://corporate.exxonmobil.com/News/Newsroom/News-releases/
2022/0120_Industry-support-for-large-scale-carbon-capture-and-storage-
gains-momentum-in-Houston.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Fourth, an extensive and established energy infrastructure along 
the Gulf Coast and throughout the outer continental shelf will enable 
logistical efficiencies for transporting CO2 from emissions 
sources to storage locations.

Foreign Examples and Domestic Announcements Of Offshore CCS

[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

              Figure 2: The North Sea's Sleipner Field

    The technical and commercial feasibility of large offshore storage 
projects is being proven on the global stage. For example, the Sleipner 
project, led by NOIA member company Equinor, has been in operation 
since 1996. It involves the capture of CO2 from industrial 
sites onshore in Norway and then the transport and geologic storage in 
saline aquifers off the coast, in volumes of approximately one million 
tons per year.\10\,\11\ By comparison, the average American 
car emits 4.6 tons of CO2 each year.\12\ There are other 
examples of offshore geologic storage as well, such as Equinor's second 
project--Snohvit--in the far-north of Norway, Chevron's Gorgon project 
in Australia, a project in Brazil's Santos Basin operated by Petrobras, 
and another in the South China Sea operated by CNOOC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\ https://www.globalccsinstitute.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/
Global-Status-of-CCS-2021-Global-CCS-Institute-1121.pdf.
    \11\ https://www.equinor.com/en/news/2019-06-12-sleipner-co2-
storage-data.html.
    \12\ https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/greenhouse-gas-emissions-
typical-passenger-vehicle#:: text=typical%20passenger%20vehicle%3F-
,A%20typical%20passenger%20vehicle%20emits%20 about%204.6%20metric%20 
tons%20of,8%2C887%20grams%20of%20CO2.s.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Projects with engineering transferability to the Gulf of Mexico are 
also underway. With operations beginning in 2024, Northern Lights is a 
new CCS project under construction that will initially store up to 1.5 
million tonnes of CO2 per year with the goal to achieve five 
million tonnes of CO2 per year by 2027. The Northern Lights 
project is part of a larger carbon capture and storage initiative that 
will capture CO2 from industrial sources within Norway, ship 
liquid CO2 from capture sites to an onshore terminal on the 
coast, and then transport the CO2 by pipeline to an offshore 
storage site below the North Sea in water depths of more than 300 
meters and total depth to injection of 2,500 to 3,000 meters. In the 
U.S., the Gulf of Mexico is well suited for the development of projects 
like Northern Lights.
    Fortunately, there have been recent decisions and announcements 
related to the emergence of a domestic CCS industry in the Gulf of 
Mexico. Talos Energy, a NOIA member company, has moved ahead with a 
joint venture called Bayou Bend CCS LLC, which has formally executed a 
lease from the State of Texas' General Land Office as part of an effort 
to undertake CCS projects off the coast of Texas in state waters near 
the industrial corridor around Beaumont and Port Arthur.\13\ The lease 
covers some 40,000 acres and encompasses a formation which has the 
potential to store as much as 275 million metric tons of 
CO2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \13\ https://www.offshore-mag.com/regional-reports/us-gulf-of-
mexico/article/14241614/talos-energy-announces-formal-execution-of-
carbon-capture-lease-site.

    Further, fourteen companies have joined forces to establish Houston 
as a hub for large scale carbon capture and storage.\14\ The group is 
forming a public-private partnership which could invest $100 billion to 
capture tens of millions of tons of CO2 near the Houston 
ship-channel.\15\ According to the consortium:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \14\ https://houstonccs.com/.
    \15\ https://cleanenergynews.ihsmarkit.com/research-analysis/
exxonmobil-unveils-vision-for-100billion-carbon-capture-hub.html.

        With the appropriate government, industry and community 
        backing, we believe we could help safely capture and store 
        about 50 million metric tons of carbon dioxide a year from the 
        area's petrochemical, manufacturing and power generation 
        facilities by 2030, then double that to remove 100 million 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        metric tons a year by 2040.

        We believe we could create tens of thousands of new jobs and 
        protect existing ones that are important to Houston's economy 
        while promoting long-term economic growth in Southeast Texas 
        and beyond. We also believe carbon capture and storage could 
        position Houston as a leader in future lower-carbon businesses 
        like hydrogen, and help put the city well on its way to 
        reaching its goal of being carbon-neutral by 2050.

    The members of the group include Air Liquide, BASF, Calpine, 
Chevron, Dow, ExxonMobil, Ineos, Linde, LyondellBasell, Marathon 
Petroleum, NRG, Phillips 66, Shell, and Valero.

    These are just examples, and there are countless companies with a 
history in the Gulf of Mexico exploring opportunities for offshore CCS. 
NOIA's membership alone includes dozens of companies throughout the 
supply chain with established experience or interest in participating 
in the build-out of the U.S. CCS sector.
Policy Action Necessary for Offshore CCS

    As with any capital-intensive industry, the U.S. CCS sector 
requires certainty and predictability in the regulatory system, both at 
the state and federal level. Improvements must be made in U.S. laws and 
regulations to foster growth and enable success in U.S. CCS.

    On January 12, 2022, NOIA released its Offshore CCUS Policy Paper, 
and this document included our public policy recommendations. This 
document is provided for your reference. The top priorities include:

  1.  Legislation to expand the 45Q tax credit, with direct pay option;

  2.  BOEM regulations for reasonable and predictable access to OCS 
            geologic storage through leasing, permitting and approvals;

  3.  BSEE regulations for safety and environmental oversight of OCS 
            transportation and sequestration;

  4.  Clear regulatory requirements for secure geologic storage in the 
            OCS for purposes of qualifying for 45Q;

  5.  Prompt and thorough NEPA reviews for OCS storage program, 
            leasing, projects, and infrastructure;

  6.  Consideration of related tax credits, such as 45X on hydrogen, 
            and their interplay with 45Q; and
    Fortunately, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act of 2021 
(P.L. 117-58) included Sec. 40307, explicitly authorizing the 
Department to grant leases, easements, or rights-of-way on the outer 
continental shelf for the purposes of long-term storage. It also 
directed the Secretary to issue regulations to that effect within one 
year of enactment. NOIA understands that Interior is in the process of 
developing the regulatory framework for offshore sequestration as 
directed by the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. It will be 
important for Congress to ensure adequate funding for Interior to 
fulfill its responsibilities for leasing and regulating the activity.

    There is also a need for a stable tax credit environment, 
particularly in the early years. The 45Q tax credit has been vital in 
driving domestic onshore CCS, and it should be extended and expanded to 
ensure a runway toward a viable and durable offshore CCS program.

Safety and Environmental Protection

    America's offshore energy industry, including the carbon capture 
and storage sector, is characterized by the continued advancement of 
technology and systems integrity, the application of extensive industry 
technical standards, and a robust regulatory regime. The industry 
continues to develop and improve upon technologies designed to ensure 
that a safety or environmental incident never occurs, and this includes 
everything from the materials used in offshore operations, the 
development of software and control systems to manage operations, the 
development, production, and deployment of modern vessels, drill ships, 
and facilities to drill wells and sequester carbon dioxide in the 
offshore environment, and the design and manufacture of monitoring 
equipment, subsea safety valves, and other safety equipment.

    Furthermore, the vast experience of the oil and gas industry 
throughout the world, and specifically in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico, in 
the field of health, safety, and environmental will enable the U.S. 
government and industry to move forward, at the outset, with a strong 
foundation for safe and environmentally responsible offshore carbon 
capture and storage. As discussed by the Bureau of Ocean Energy 
Management in its 2018 OCS Study, ``Since at least 2005, it has been 
recognized that storage of CO2 in the offshore sub-seabed 
geological formations will use many of the same technologies developed 
by the oil and gas (O&G) industry.'' The industry's experience in risk 
assessments, project planning and execution, monitoring, mitigation, 
inspections, and response are transferable and will be applied in the 
offshore carbon and storage setting. In fact, the industry already has 
experience in developing and applying these practices in offshore 
carbon capture and storage projects throughout the world.

    The United States, through its established regulatory oversight 
authorities within the Department of the Interior and other agencies 
within the federal family, is well positioned to develop a strong 
regulatory regime for leasing, permitting, oversight, and enforcement 
for carbon sequestration throughout the U.S. outer continental shelf. 
As discussed above, the success of a U.S. offshore carbon capture and 
storage sector will be contingent upon clear and predictable 
regulations that enable investment and protect the health and safety of 
workers, the public, and the environment. Interior has decades of 
experience in regulating offshore oil and gas operations and this 
established system of rules, along with institutional knowledge and 
practical application of engineering principles, is--in many respects--
transferable to the development and execution of operational and 
regulatory requirements for offshore carbon capture and storage. As 
directed by Congress, Interior has begun the process for developing the 
regulations, and the industry remains committed to working with 
Interior and the entire federal family to establish a solid regulatory 
framework. Congress also should facilitate the necessary authorizations 
and funding for Interior to capably manage and oversee the safety and 
environmental requirements for offshore sequestration.

    The combination of an experienced industry and an established 
regulator puts the United States in a unique position for confidently 
and effectively managing and overseeing safe and environmentally 
responsible carbon capture and storage in the U.S. outer continental 
shelf.
Continued Innovation and Development of Clean Energy Technologies

    The Gulf of Mexico is a recognized energy center, with a vast 
ecosystem of companies and a workforce dedicated to developing all 
forms of abundant, reliable, and affordable energy, while continuously 
decreasing emissions. The offshore energy industry is uniquely situated 
to deploy energy projects at the scale and sophistication necessary to 
help lead the world in developing low carbon solutions. Many 
engineering projects and technologies can be integrated to provide a 
pathway to low carbon energy. This includes CCS and hydrogen. According 
to the International Energy Agency:

        Carbon capture, utilisation and storage (CCUS) technologies 
        offer an important opportunity to achieve deep carbon dioxide 
        emissions reductions in key industrial processes and in the use 
        of fossil fuels in the power sector. CCUS can also enable new 
        clean energy pathways, including low-carbon hydrogen 
        production, while providing a foundation for many carbon 
        dioxide removal (CDR) technologies.

    Policy makers should recognize the homegrown expertise and the vast 
infrastructure throughout the Gulf of Mexico as we seek to secure the 
U.S. as a leader in global decarbonization efforts.
Conclusion

        ``CCUS is an essential element in the portfolio of solutions 
        needed to change the emissions trajectory of the global energy 
        system. In its Fifth Assessment Report, the IPCC concluded that 
        the costs for achieving atmospheric CO2 levels 
        consistent with holding the average global temperature to 2 
        degrees Celsius--referred to as a ``2 degree Celsius world''--
        will be more than twice as expensive without CCUS.'' \16\----
        The National Petroleum Council
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \16\ Meeting the Dual Challenge: A Roadmap to At-Scale Deployment 
of Carbon Capture, Use, and Storage, The National Petroleum Council, 
December 2019, p. 12.

    We have an opportunity to set the stage for a 21st century in which 
carbon is responsibly captured and transported for long-term geologic 
storage or beneficial use. The offshore, and particularly the Gulf of 
Mexico, present one of the most advantageous opportunities in the 
United States and the world. The success of this nascent industry will 
be closely connected to the development and implementation of clear and 
predictable leasing, permitting, and regulations, along careful 
coordination among federal, state, and local authorities. NOIA and its 
members stand ready to work with policy makers to establish this 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
important industry.

                                 ______
                                 

    Dr. Lowenthal. Thank you, Mr. Milito.
    I want to thank all the panelists for their testimony. I 
think we now have a wide range of opinions on both the safety 
and the effectiveness of carbon capture and storage, although 
today we are talking more about the storage part.
    I want to remind Members that Committee Rule 3(d) imposes a 
5-minute limit on questions.
    The Chair will now recognize Members for any questions they 
may wish to ask the witnesses.
    I am going to recognize myself for 5 minutes of questions. 
My first question is to Dr. Tip Meckel.
    Dr. Meckel, according to the Interior Department, most Gulf 
of Mexico storage potential is found in either depleted oil and 
gas reservoirs or saline aquifers. What is the difference 
between these two, and does one formation make a better storage 
location than the other?
    And the second part of that question is, should the 
Interior Department consider slightly different rules and 
regulations for each type of formation, or would a one-size-
fits-all approach work in this case?
    Dr. Meckel. Thank you for your question. The geology 
beneath depleted oil and gas reservoirs and the geology that is 
in a saline formation, or one that is filled with salt water, 
can be very similar. The geology doesn't care if it is full of 
saline water or oil and gas. I would say that each of those 
sites requires site-specific characterization to allow for safe 
and effective storage.
    In a depleted oil and gas setting, what we are really 
talking about is an oil field or a gas field that has reached 
its productive end of life. That would be injecting 
CO2 back into a depleted reservoir. So, to be clear, 
this isn't injecting CO2 into currently productive 
reservoirs. Those depleted reservoirs do have a demonstrable 
geologic seal for retaining buoyant fluids in the subsurface, 
which is a huge advantage for understanding the ability to 
retain CO2.
    You do also have a lot of production experience, which can 
help you understand how fluids are moving in that subsurface 
geology in the past and, therefore, how they will likely move 
in the future.
    Furthermore, there is some existing infrastructure there 
that might be leveraged to develop projects more effectively.
    And the one issue with the depleted oil and gas fields is 
they tend to have quite a number of legacy wells. And legacy 
wells can be a weak point in the retention system.
    On the saline aquifer side, this is a much, much larger 
proportion of the subsurface. Consider that oil and gas is only 
accumulated in a percent or less of the available subsurface. 
So, the vast majority of our storage potential is actually in 
saline reservoirs. They do have few or no legacy wells in their 
background, so they present less of a well risk.
    They do have an untested seal in some regards, or retention 
interval. So, that may be one of the liabilities of developing 
a saline storage project that would require additional 
attention.
    You asked if the rules should be the same, and I would 
agree that, overall, there doesn't need to be much of a 
distinction between these two. But they should perhaps have 
different emphases on these different risks that each presents, 
legacy well versus retention in a seal.
    Dr. Lowenthal. Thank you, Dr. Meckel.
    Ms. Saunders, onshore carbon storage has been happening for 
years in the United States. How should the Interior Department 
apply what we have learned from onshore carbon storage to 
offshore carbon storage in the Gulf of Mexico when writing 
these new regulations?
    Ms. Saunders. Thank you, Chairman. As an initial matter, I 
think I would say that it is absolutely in Interior's best 
interest to consult heavily with experts like those at the 
Department of Energy that have funded and led leading research 
on carbon storage for many years now through programs like 
Carbon Safe, and, of course, experts at EPA, who developed and 
now have the experience of implementing a fully parallel 
program through Class VI onshore.
    There is not necessarily a need to fully reinvent the wheel 
here. Yes, adaptations are definitely going to be necessary for 
the unique conditions of the offshore environment. And there 
have also been important lessons learned in the process with 
Class VI. But I would hope and expect to see a rule from 
Interior that really closely parallels the protections that 
were developed onshore, and perhaps expands them in light of 
the unique circumstances and perhaps the scale of operations in 
the Gulf.
    And I would also note that Interior can learn from 
international references on this point, as well, particularly 
those that have been utilized in active offshore projects like 
the EU's directive on carbon storage and the international 
standards out of ISO. Both of those are applicable in the 
offshore context and could provide useful information. They are 
also cited in the principles in my testimony.
    Dr. Lowenthal. Thank you. I see I have run out of time. I 
am hoping that we will have a second round, or maybe even more, 
since many Members are not here.
    I now turn to Representative Stauber for 5 minutes of 
questions.
    Mr. Stauber. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Milito, great to see you. Thanks again for agreeing to 
be our witness.
    As discussed in my opening statement, the 5-year leasing 
plan is set to expire on June 30, just 64 days from now. The 
clock is ticking. What could the impact on future investments 
in offshore CCUS be without a 5-year plan in place?
    Mr. Milito. That could be devastating. We have recently put 
out our own study that shows that if we do not have a leasing 
program in place, it could result in the average loss of 
500,000 barrels a day through 2040. And if you think about the 
amount we were importing from Russia, it was about 500,000 
barrels a day. So, if we don't produce it here in the United 
States, we have to get it from somewhere else. We will be 
looking at an average loss of 50,000 jobs.
    And we have had our member companies, service companies who 
have facilities and operations along the Gulf Coast at several 
ports. They are now having to talk about whether or not to move 
those investments to other parts of the world. So, it is 
happening right now. It is having an impact, and it is going to 
really hurt our everyday Americans because the price at the 
pump is related to supplies, and supply is not keeping up with 
demand. And one way to increase supplies is through production 
of U.S. oil and gas.
    Mr. Stauber. Should no offshore lease sales be held, what 
happens to potential acreage for CCUS operations?
    Mr. Milito. That is a good question. The general 
understanding is that most of the CCS opportunities in the 
Outer Continental Shelf will be on the shelf in the shallower 
water. And the production in the Gulf of Mexico right now, 92 
percent or more is coming from deep water. So, either way, you 
are likely going to have significant opportunities for carbon 
capture and storage projects in the Gulf of Mexico.
    What could be a negative impact, though, is if we start to 
lose the talent and expertise, and they start to move to other 
parts of the world, because we need that workforce, we need 
that engineering expertise to be able to move forward, design, 
and implement those projects here in the United States, rather 
than lose that knowledge to other parts of the world.
    Mr. Stauber. And by your estimates, what is the potential 
for American job creation in the Gulf, if we were to scale up 
CCUS?
    Mr. Milito. We don't have any studies that have modeled the 
job impacts of that. We do have 370,000 jobs supported by the 
Gulf of Mexico oil and gas sector today. That is not just along 
the Gulf Coast. Every state in the country has companies and 
jobs that are supported by the Gulf of Mexico. As I said, the 
majority are along the Gulf Coast. Those are the types of jobs 
that would feed into the carbon capture and storage sector in 
the Gulf of Mexico.
    So, it would be additive. Their high-paying jobs are 
generally paying 30 percent or more than the average wages 
across the country. A lot of blue collar jobs, and our 
membership, we have minority-owned companies, Native American-
owned companies, companies led by women, and those are the 
types of companies that will play a role in the CCS build-out.
    Mr. Stauber. And in your testimony, you outlined the vast 
oil and gas operations and other long-standing industrial and 
commercial activities that occur in the Gulf of Mexico.
    While the development of CCUS is promising, we need to 
consider ways to ensure multiple use of submerged lands in the 
OCS. We want it to continue.
    How can we be sure that all uses of submerged lands are 
equally valued as BOEM considers regulations in the carbon 
capture sector?
    Mr. Milito. That is a great question and a great point. We 
have a lot of opportunities to do a lot of different things in 
the Gulf of Mexico.
    We had our first approval for alternative use of an 
offshore facility recently for aquaculture. We know that 
hydrogen can be used in conjunction with CCS. We want to make 
sure that we can pursue that. We have to make sure we are 
continuing to pursue oil and gas opportunities, because it is a 
transition. We are talking about 2040, 2050. We are not talking 
about the transition to 2024. So, we have to make sure we are 
taking advantage of those opportunities. That can be done 
through the Federal agencies, the Federal family, to make sure 
that when we are doing environmental impact statements, we are 
minimizing conflicts.
    But the Gulf of Mexico has a long history of compatible 
use. We have commercial and recreational fishing there. We have 
Rigs to Reefs. If you go around these facilities, these are 
ecosystems that are flourishing and that are now home to red 
snapper that wasn't there before. We have tourism, we have 
Department of Defense, and we have oil and gas and, hopefully, 
soon going to have wind. So, it all can work together, it is 
just a need to manage it from a multiple-use perspective, and 
do that through the NEPA process.
    Mr. Stauber. Thank you very much. I just have one last 
question to Dr. Meckel.
    You had mentioned the pipes that are already on the ocean 
floor. Is that a viable use for transmission of CCUS?
    Dr. Meckel. So, if I understand your question correctly, 
you are thinking about the existing pipelines on the sea floor.
    Mr. Stauber. Yes.
    Dr. Meckel. Some of those are idle. Many of them are still 
moving fluids. The ones that are idle are up for consideration 
for repurposing for CO2 transport. We do have 
examples of converting natural gas lines onshore into CCS 
lines. That was done in Mississippi. So, there is some 
consideration for utilizing that infrastructure.
    If it has been abandoned, it is probably unlikely that they 
will be re-utilizable. But the ones that are idle currently--
and there are many--there is a huge opportunity to repurpose 
those going forward.
    Mr. Stauber. And then one last question. I know I am over 
time, Mr. Chair, just indulge me for a moment.
    One of the questions that I have is about multiple use. 
Could you envision where there would be a carbon capture? Let's 
say there is an abandoned well, for example, on the ocean 
floor. You are putting the carbon in. Can you envision a law or 
a rule that would then say you couldn't drill for oil within a 
certain distance from that? In your professional conversations, 
is that part of it?
    Dr. Meckel. It is part of the conversation. But actually, 
what we are seeing in some of the state level considerations is 
that CCS is not developed at the expense of traditional oil and 
gas exploration. So, there are some considerations about the 
ability to drill through an existing CCS project to reach 
deeper hydrocarbons that may yet be undiscovered.
    But in most cases, they are compatible activities. Again, 
they just need to be managed correctly in terms of their 
proximity.
    Mr. Stauber. Thank you very much.
    Mr. Chair, I yield back.
    Dr. Lowenthal. Thank you. I now recognize Representative 
Herrell for 5 minutes of questions.
    Ms. Herrell. Great. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you 
for having this hearing, and for all of our witnesses being 
here in person, I really appreciate that. And the timeliness of 
this hearing is amazing.
    I mean, the carbon storage, it is important. It is an 
important issue, certainly important in southern New Mexico, 
where I am from. Obviously, we don't have any of the offshore 
drilling where I come from, but the companies that I represent 
are, obviously, looking at new technologies not only to store 
carbon, but to use it in such things as enhanced oil recovery.
    But the biggest issue and hurdle that we have is the 
cumbersome permitting process by the Federal agencies. This is 
the biggest impediment we have, because now we are seeing wait 
times of up to 450 days to receive our Federal permits. And, 
obviously, we can all understand how that would prohibit 
business as usual, if you will.
    I do have a question for Mr. Milito--and I hope I am saying 
that right.
    Can you give the Committee a glimpse at what your members 
are experiencing? I mean, what are some of the wait times for 
offshore operators and the experiences that they are having in 
terms of getting their permits approved?
    And how do you think that will translate to permitting 
practices for offshore carbon storage?
    Mr. Milito. Yes. Generally, applications for permits to 
drill have continued to get processed and approved.
    One area where there has been a huge backlog is in 
geophysical permitting, and that is kind of driven by the 
approvals that come out of the Department of Commerce through 
National Marine Fisheries Service. So, for companies to be able 
to pursue offshore oil and gas projects, they need to run the 
geophysical surveys to really understand the geology and the 
rock to make that happen. And that allows them to actually 
shrink the environmental footprint, because they are better to 
target the prospects, because these technologies are highly 
advanced.
    I mean, you could really pinpoint where you want to target 
for producing oil and gas. Those same technologies will 
generally be required to be used for carbon capture and 
storage. So, we need to make sure that we are streamlining the 
ability to get permits to run geophysical surveys.
    The other area is in leasing. There hasn't been a lease 
sale that has gone through finalization and issuance of the 
leases since late 2020. And as we have recognized and 
understand, in order to produce any kind of energy and to move 
forward with any type of energy project like CCS, you need 
acreage. To get acreage, you need leases. If you don't have 
lease sales, you can't do the activity, you can't produce 
energy, or you can't store carbon capture and storage. So, they 
do have some parallels, and we are highly concerned about the 
inability to get leases in the offshore.
    Some of that production can come on-line rather quickly. If 
you have a lease that you would like to secure and it is close 
to an existing facility, you can bring that production on-line, 
sometimes within 12 months, which would help us in a situation 
like we are in today with high prices and the geopolitics of 
the Russian invasion of Ukraine. So, there are concerns.
    I am confident that Interior is going to move forward and 
put together CCS regulations. They are working on it. We have 
had some engagement with them to let them have the opportunity 
to hear from our experts. But there are Federal laws and 
regulations in place that could hold things up.
    Ms. Herrell. OK, that is great. And you actually already 
answered the next question I was going to ask. It is kind of 
like did you have my notes? Because actually, I was going to 
ask how the lack of Federal lease sales also plays such an 
important role, and you just touched on that.
    In New Mexico--obviously, again, not any of the offshore--
but just to give an example of the slowdown or the kind of the 
process, in New Mexico, we have a 95 rig count. In Texas, where 
the land is largely private versus Federal lands, there are 
249.
    So, again, I just think the technologies could 
revolutionize the energy industry as a whole, and benefit the 
environment. I think it is timely, because many of our 
Committee hearings stem from environmental justice and what we 
can do to protect the environment. And certainly this is proof 
that technologies are moving forward to protect not only the 
industry, but the people that live in and around those 
industries and the company assets.
    So, with that, those are all of my questions. Mr. Chairman, 
I yield back. Thank you for this hearing.
    Dr. Lowenthal. Thank you.
    Are there any Members who have not had their 5 minutes, or 
seek recognition to ask questions?
    Not hearing any, I would like to have a second round to 
give us some more time, if that is OK with the other Members. 
Well, I am going to do it anyway. I am going to begin and 
recognize myself.
    Mr. Muffett, it is critical to monitor the carbon dioxide 
injected into the earth to verify it doesn't leak back into the 
atmosphere or migrate into areas where it might cause damage. 
Tell me what you think about the Gulf of Mexico. Why don't the 
unique challenges that we are going to find there to monitoring 
and verifying that carbon dioxide injected into the deep--that 
monitoring will be able to successfully understand what is 
happening to the carbon dioxide?
    And how should the Interior plan for such challenges about 
the damage that carbon dioxide might cause in their 
regulations?
    Mr. Muffett. I think that there are a number of challenges 
to consider.
    Analysis of experience with offshore natural gas pipelines 
has demonstrated that offshore pipelines pose a higher risk of 
failure than onshore pipelines, and the increased corrosion 
risk from CO2 increased those risks of failure, even 
beyond the challenges of managing pressure in subsea storage.
    With respect to managing and monitoring pressure, and 
monitoring leakage in subsea storage facilities in subsea 
reservoirs, I think the challenge is that the technologies are 
not yet developed. There are experimental measures. You read 
the scientific papers, and there are pilot projects that are in 
testing. But the means of doing this are not well understood. 
And it is important to recognize that our experience with 
abandoned oil and gas wells proves that point.
    A document released by the Bureau of Ocean and Energy 
Management, just in 2021, covering the 2022 to 2023 research 
year, focuses on the Bureau's need to develop methodologies to 
determine whether existing abandoned oil and gas wells are 
leaking, because the Bureau does not know. And if the Bureau 
cannot tell you whether existing abandoned oil and gas wells 
are leaking, given the existing experience with those wells, I 
think the potential for monitoring leakage and monitoring 
pressure from CO2 storage is even more complex and 
even more limited.
    Dr. Lowenthal. Thank you.
    Ms. Saunders, can you speak on the importance of involving 
the public, especially that live in the Gulf Coast region, in 
the Interior Department's carbon storage rulemaking in any 
future CCS activities and projects in the Gulf of Mexico?
    Ms. Saunders. Thank you, Chairman. I would be happy to.
    I don't think that the importance of public involvement can 
really be overstated here. Our normal kind of rulemaking notice 
and comment processes just simply aren't going to be enough in 
this instance, given the weight of the decision at hand. So, 
proactive outreach is going to be very important.
    EDF recently participated in a dialogue involving numerous 
interested environmental NGO stakeholders with Interior, and I 
also understand from that conversation that they are actively 
working to conduct similar outreach to environmental justice 
leaders and organizations, particularly those that are 
representing communities on the Gulf Coast.
    From source to sink, we are talking about a lot of 
infrastructure, a lot of lives, a lot of land, a lot of 
ecosystems that might be touched and otherwise impacted by 
these operations. So, everyone in that chain, and in particular 
the communities that have already been disproportionately 
impacted and burdened by industrial development, really need a 
chance not only to be heard, but to be proactively involved in 
decisions that will impact them down the line.
    I also believe, actually, that in guidance with EPA's Class 
VI program, there are numerous instances where public 
engagement and communication should occur both formally and 
informally in the actual individual project and permit process. 
So, I would hope that Interior would also look at those 
procedures and adopt something similar, as well.
    Dr. Lowenthal. All right. I have one more question, and I 
am going to ask Mr. Muffett.
    Does the track record of carbon capture projects in the 
United States make you optimistic or pessimistic that capturing 
carbon and storing it in the Gulf of Mexico will be an 
economical way to reduce carbon emissions?
    Mr. Muffett. It is important to recognize that CCS is not a 
new technology. The oil industry invented and patented 
technologies to remove carbon from waste streams in the 1950s 
and 1960s. By 1980, ExxonMobil was acknowledging that it had 
the technology to remove carbon from waste streams, but that it 
was simply too expensive, and the industry didn't want to do 
it. Exxon said in an internal document, ``We could remove 50 
percent of the emissions from waste streams, but doing so would 
double the cost of the underlying industry.''
    So, the challenge for CCS is not one of technology on the 
capture side. The challenge has always been one of economics. 
And this has been demonstrated over and over again with CCS 
projects. The history of CCS projects in the United States and 
worldwide is a history where industry and proponents over-
promise emission reductions and systematically under-deliver.
    Chevron's Gorgon project in Australia is a case in point. 
It is one of the largest CCS projects in the world, and Chevron 
is currently having to repay massive fines to the Australian 
Government because it failed to capture remotely what it had 
committed to capture. And we have seen this happen again and 
again, and I think this is really important.
    When rules were proposed----
    Dr. Lowenthal. Can you make it brief. We are over in time.
    Mr. Muffett. Oh, OK, thank you.
    Dr. Lowenthal. Thank you.
    I now recognize the Ranking Member for another 5 minutes of 
questions.
    Mr. Stauber. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Milito, can you briefly explain the purpose of seismic 
surveying, and why it is needed to properly site locations for 
CCS or CCUS operations?
    And what would happen if seismic permits weren't granted in 
a timely fashion?
    Mr. Milito. Well, seismic surveys are fundamentally 
scientific research. They are used to understand the geology, 
both onshore and offshore. They are used for a multitude of 
purposes for understanding the faults, the potential for 
earthquakes, the potential for any kind of activity within the 
geology itself. Seismic surveys are used for locating sand for 
beach renourishment. They are used for siting wind turbines. It 
is just fundamentally a scientific research activity.
    But what it does, it allows you to obtain a very vivid 
image of the geology underneath the sea floor, so you can 
understand where and how best to either develop energy 
resources or to find the best sites for injecting carbon 
dioxide into a reservoir. It is really about delineating the 
reservoir and understanding which are the best locations for 
storing carbon dioxide when it comes to CCS.
    Mr. Stauber. Currently, is the Biden administration 
processing seismic permits in a timely and predictable fashion?
    Mr. Milito. No, and this has gone back several years. We 
have been looking for regulations to be in place. The 
regulations were finally put into place. And they are working 
contrary to the needs of Americans and for offshore energy 
development, because the permits are piling up. It relates to 
the incidental take authorizations, and companies are finding 
themselves in a real bind to be able to get these seismic 
permits, these geophysical permits, so they can do the 
geological work to best move forward with projects.
    Mr. Stauber. And then one of the long-term questions is 
about liability. Who is responsible for monitoring if carbon is 
stored forever?
    Mr. Milito. Well, the operator of the project is going to 
have the responsibility to monitor during the life of the 
project.
    The question becomes about when you have a lease, whether 
it is wind, or oil and gas, or carbon capture and storage, at 
some point you are done using it. It goes back to the 
government. Leases have a fixed term, and they go back. 
Production ends, the lease goes back. So, when it comes to 
carbon capture and storage, this is still an open question.
    The National Petroleum Council recommended that the 
government, through DOE, put together a forum to really have a 
discussion to consider all the issues around liability. And 
that is one approach we think should need to be taken, because 
companies aren't going to want to invest when they don't have 
the certainty around what the liability will be.
    In Europe, at some point the liability transfers back to 
the government. That is one model. It is after you are able to 
demonstrate, after a certain number of years, that you have 
secured geologic storage permanently in place. So, different 
ways of looking at it, but it is something that must be sorted 
out.
    Mr. Stauber. Do any panelists have any ideas or 
recommendations to that question on how long should carbon 
storage lease terms be?
    Doctor?
    Dr. Meckel. Yes, I have some opinions on that. Typically, 
if you are going to invest in a project of this scale, you are 
going to want the project to be active for anywhere from 15 to 
30 years. So, a lease agreement needs to have that much 
flexibility.
    Mr. Stauber. And who should be responsible for the carbon 
storage after a certain period of time, in your opinion?
    Dr. Meckel. Well, under the current regulation in the 
United States onshore, it is under UIC Class VI well 
regulations, and you are required to monitor to demonstrate 
containment in order to be in compliance with your well permit. 
That, in turn, allows you to apply for the 45Q tax credit. So, 
the operator will always have the incentive to monitor the 
project, because it is tied directly to the economics of the 
project.
    I agree with the former statement that understanding when 
that project ends and the timeline into transferring the 
liability back to a State or Federal Government is yet to be 
defined. But at least in the case of the state of Texas, in the 
state offshore, they are considering taking back over the 
CO2 ownership at a given time. It is just not yet 
defined.
    Mr. Stauber. OK, thank you.
    Ms. Saunders. I could make some contributions, as well, 
Representative. I apologize, it is hard to jump in virtually.
    Mr. Stauber. Yes. Go ahead, ma'am.
    Ms. Saunders. I did want to kind of engage that this is an 
issue that EDF has been actively thinking about.
    So, the traditional regulatory legal principles around 
liability, like those that apply in oil field operations, EPA 
has also indicated apply in the Class VI context. And they are 
designed to hold operators accountable when they fail to live 
up to their responsibilities, encouraging them to do as good of 
a job as possible.
    And what we are concerned about is the potential for 
liability transfer done too early in the process or without the 
right characteristics to reopen it that might create a moral 
hazard, or create a situation where operators lack an incentive 
to decrease their exposure risk because they are not going to 
face significant consequences if projects eventually fail or 
have negative effects. For example, in the EU, there is a 
transfer of liability provision, but that framework also gives 
the authorities ability to reopen liability in the case of 
deficient data, negligence, failure to exercise diligence, and 
more.
    So, I think an operator in Class VI EPA has also said, even 
though a transfer might occur, the operator might still be 
liable for regulatory non-compliance under certain 
circumstances, even after site closure is approved. For 
example, if they provided erroneous data to support approval, 
or it is necessary to protect health if a leak threatens USDW 
water.
    I think there is some specificity here in terms of not 
wanting to create liability relief that lessens the motivation 
of operators to really do their due diligence in the name of 
helping for investment. Because, as we have seen in Texas, 
where the statute actually expressly provides that storage 
operators keep their liability for their mistakes offshore, we 
are still seeing projects and investment there, as well.
    So, I think we have to be committed to the long game here 
and seeking early liability relief. And speaking at the same 
time to the safety and demonstrated safety of operations 
doesn't help public trust here. I think there is a solution 
that we need to find somewhere in the middle.
    Mr. Stauber. I thank you, ma'am.
    My time is up. I yield back, Mr. Chair.
    Dr. Lowenthal. Thank you, Ranking Member.
    Before we conclude, I would like to ask each witness if 
there was one question that you were not asked today, but would 
have liked to have been asked by the Subcommittee, what is that 
question, and what would your answer have been?
    Let's start with Dr. Meckel. Is there any question we 
should have asked, or you would have liked us to have asked 
you?
    Dr. Meckel. A question I am often asked by industrial 
entities considering pursuing these projects is how do I know 
that I can actually inject the CO2?
    And the answer is, we have existing examples of injecting 
billions of barrels of waste fluid into these similar geology 
for decades. And it has led to almost no incidents. So, we know 
today there are 1,500 wastewater injection wells in the Gulf 
Coast that are injecting the equivalent of a gigaton of 
CO2--if you were to convert that water into a 
CO2 equivalent--a gigaton, 1,500 wells. We know that 
those wells are capable of injecting a million tons a year 
equivalent today. We expect wells to be able to do even more of 
that.
    So, we expect that the development of CCS to effectively 
address emissions will develop on the order of thousands of 
wells in the OCS that will be injecting gigatons of 
CO2 by 2050. That is a significant reduction in the 
U.S. emissions profile.
    Dr. Lowenthal. Thank you.
    Ms. Saunders, I ask you the same question: What question 
were you not asked today, but would have liked to have been 
asked by the Subcommittee, and what would your answer have 
been?
    Ms. Saunders. Well, I have been fascinated and grateful to 
participate in this hearing because it represents a wide swath 
of perspectives on both the benefits and the most challenging 
risks and potential downsides of CCS in the Gulf. And the 
nuance here is exceptionally challenging.
    So, at the moment, I want to share that the risk I am most 
focused on is that Interior has maybe 6 or 7 more months left 
to draft, propose, take comment, and finalize and complete a 
regulatory framework for offshore carbon storage on the OCS. It 
is absolutely imperative that those rules cut zero corners for 
the sake of expediency, not only on principles to demonstrate 
and secure storage of carbon, but also for many, many other 
aspects of a regulatory program, such as consulting and working 
with environmental justice communities and leaders on the Gulf 
Coast.
    So, I am just really pleased that you have chosen to focus 
a hearing on this subject right now, because our current 
reality is that American companies are rapidly lining up to 
make decarbonization and net-zero commitments. Just this past 
week, we saw companies like Google and Meta committing massive 
sums of money to support ventures for carbon removal. All of 
this carbon, whether it is industrial capture, carbon removal, 
or otherwise has to go somewhere essentially permanently. And 
many experts direct much of those volumes to geologic storage.
    And it is likely that carbon storage in geologic formations 
like those in the Gulf Coast may be part of meeting those 
targets. But before we roll out the red carpet and allow this 
practice at scale, we have to come to agreement on the 
conditions that need to be met to ensure that it will be done 
in a way that is not only safe, but can clearly demonstrate the 
permanence of storage.
    So, that is why I am here. That is what I wanted to share 
my testimony about. And we desperately need more voices like 
all of yours here today focusing on how important that 
sequestration part is of this equation, and that we 
comprehensively monitor, report, and verify that we ensure our 
regulatory system holds carbon storage operations accountable 
for not just the safety of their operations, but the validity 
of their claims for sequestration. Otherwise, this whole 
process really fails to provide that benefit.
    Dr. Lowenthal. OK, thank you.
    Mr. Muffett, can you answer what question you were not 
asked today that you would have liked to have been asked, and 
what would your answer have been?
    Mr. Muffett. I think the question we should all be asking 
is what conceivable rationale is there for investing untold 
billions of dollars of public money in a technology that will 
capture only a tiny fraction of emissions, even from industrial 
sources, when the most direct route to addressing the climate 
crisis is to accelerate the transition from fossil fuels?
    We have the tools and technologies to do that right now. 
And increasingly, those tools and technologies are cheaper than 
fossil fuels.
    And I would like to highlight that the fundamental lack of 
economics is demonstrated by the fact that the industry says 
they cannot do this without those massive public subsidies that 
they are asking again here today for the government to 
increase. And they are asking for further subsidies by asking 
the government and the American public to waive the liabilities 
that would result from potential accidents far into the future, 
which is what matters when we are talking about injecting 
CO2 into the ground and keeping it there for 
decades, to centuries, to millennia. Thank you.
    [Pause.]
    Mr. Milito. Sir, I think you are on mute. I guess it is my 
turn.
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Milito. OK, thank you. I think one of the leading 
questions here is, how do we put together a framework of 
regulation for the safe, secure, and permanent geologic 
storage?
    I look at the EDF testimony from Ms. Saunders. I think it 
really lines up in a very excellent way the components of 
regulations that need to be put in place. We need to have a 
risk-based approach for the full life cycle design of these 
systems that looks at things like site characterization, 
characterization of reservoirs, assessing leakage pathways, 
constructing and operating wells, testing and monitoring 
response, post-injection site care, and demonstrating and 
verifying security. These are all elements that this industry 
has great experience doing, and we want to have regulations 
that put certainty around that to make sure it is done in that 
way.
    One other thing I would add is, when it comes to 
monitoring, we have a long history of being able to monitor. If 
you look at the Sleipner project, offshore Norway, it has been 
around since 1996, over 25 years. It has captured over 20 
million tons of carbon dioxide, and they have monitoring in 
place there. The monitoring is off the shelf. These are 
downhole instruments, gauges that allow companies to monitor 
pressures and temperatures to know if there is an abnormality.
    So, our industry can do it, we are ready to do it. And we, 
as NOIA, are here to help and be a resource to Congress, to 
this Committee.
    We thank you for allowing us to appear, and we look forward 
to further conversation on this key topic for addressing the 
climate challenge.
    Dr. Lowenthal. Thank you. I want to thank the witnesses for 
their valuable testimony and Members for their questions.
    This concludes our hearing. The members of the Committee 
may have some additional questions for the witnesses, and we 
will ask you to respond to these in writing. Under Committee 
Rule 3(o), members of the Committee must submit witness 
questions within 3 business days following the hearing, and the 
hearing record will be held open for 10 business days for these 
responses.
    If there is no further business, without objection, the 
Subcommittee stands adjourned.

    [Whereupon, at 10:54 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

            [ADDITIONAL MATERIALS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD]

Submission for the Record by Rep. Lowenthal

                               OCS Study


                             BOEM 2018-004


                    U.S. Department of the Interior


                   Bureau of Ocean Energy Management


                      Headquarters (Sterling, VA)


 Best Management Practices for Offshore Transportation and Sub-Seabed 
                   Geologic Storage of Carbon Dioxide


                                 *****


     Available at: https://espis.boem.gov/final%20reports/5663.pdf


                                ------                                

                        Statement for the Record
                        Carbon Capture Coalition

    The Carbon Capture Coalition appreciates the opportunity to submit 
this statement for the record for the House of Representatives Natural 
Resource Committee's Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources 
hearing on offshore carbon storage. Carbon management technologies are 
essential tools to achieving the nation's midcentury climate goals, 
while preserving and creating middle class jobs that pay family 
sustaining wages, providing environmental and other benefits to 
communities, and supporting regional economies across the country.

    The Carbon Capture Coalition is a nonpartisan collaboration of more 
than 100 companies, unions, conservation and environmental policy 
organizations, dedicated to building federal policy support to enable 
economywide commercial scale deployment of the full suite of carbon 
management technologies, which includes carbon capture, removal, 
transport, utilization, and storage. Widespread adoption of carbon 
capture at existing industrial facilities, power plants and future 
direct air capture facilities is critical to achieving net-zero 
emissions to meet midcentury climate goals, strengthening and 
decarbonizing domestic energy, industrial production and manufacturing, 
and retaining and expanding a high-wage jobs base. Convened by the 
Great Plains Institute, Coalition membership includes industry, energy, 
and technology companies; energy and industrial labor unions; and 
conservation, environmental, and clean energy policy organizations.

    This statement outlines the safety and effectiveness of secure 
geologic storage of captured carbon dioxide (CO2) and its 
critical importance in realizing essential emissions reductions targets 
by midcentury. Carbon capture, transport and storage technologies have 
been proven at commercial scale in the United States for decades and 
industry has more than 50 years' experience safely transporting and 
permanently storing CO2. Increased interest in using 
offshore resources in the U.S. among members of Congress and key 
stakeholders to enable a clean energy economy, along with recent 
federal investments in carbon management and industrial decarbonization 
through the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, have provided a 
very near-term opportunity to scale commercial carbon capture, direct 
air capture and clean hydrogen projects, associated infrastructure, and 
geologic storage in the offshore environment.

    Commercial interest in carbon management technologies and projects 
is growing rapidly, with nearly 90 publicly announced projects 
throughout the United States. More than 70 percent of these announced 
projects intend to store captured CO2 deep underground 
safely and permanently in saline geologic formations. The potential for 
saline geologic storage is enormous and represents a long-term, 
scalable climate solution. While carbon capture and storage is only one 
piece of the climate solution, estimates of domestic saline storage 
capacity represent over 1,000 years' worth of U.S. CO2 
emissions.

    What remains clear is that large-scale carbon management must play 
a central role in meeting midcentury global temperature targets, 
including through carbon capture at industrial facilities and power 
plants, and direct air capture facilities. In its' most recent WGIII 
Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change report, the 
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) estimates that carbon 
capture, removal and storage technologies will account for up to 12 
gigatons of CO2 captured and stored annually by midcentury--
further underscoring the urgent need to scale up carbon management 
technologies to capture and store CO2 at scale by 
midcentury. Additionally, of the seven pathways that IPCC uses to 
reflect different decarbonization strategies, only one excludes 
deployment of carbon capture and removal technologies. This same 
scenario estimates that global energy demand will be cut in half over 
the next 30 years, which is unrealistic and unachievable in world where 
billions of people seek improved standards of living.

    Safe and permanent injection and storage of CO2 in deep 
geologic formations represent a well-understood and commercial practice 
in the U.S. and worldwide. In the U.S., EPA regulates and permits 
geologic storage projects using the Underground Injection Control 
Programs' Class II and Class VI wells. Through these programs, EPA and 
established state primacy programs maintain a robust system of 
monitoring, reporting and verification to validate secure geologic 
storage to claim the 45Q tax credit, the cornerstone policy enabling 
the scale up of carbon management projects. Furthermore, 45Q is a 
performance-based tax credit, meaning that projects must demonstrate 
that the captured carbon oxide (CO2 or it's precursor, CO) 
is permanently stored or utilized to receive the credit. No other 
energy technology must prove carbon dioxide mitigation to receive a tax 
credit--wind, solar and other technologies receive federal tax credits 
based on production--regardless of total CO2 emissions 
reduced.

    While commercially practiced today, scaling up development and 
permitting of secure geologic storage at gigaton scale is key to 
getting industries on track to be able to reach net-zero emissions 
targets and midcentury climate goals. Domestically, the Great Plains 
Institute estimates that there is the potential to capture and store 
more than 300 million metric tons of CO2 emissions per year 
from existing industry and power sources by 2035. To date, over a 
quarter billion tons of CO2 emissions have been successfully 
stored globally in saline geologic formations. Commercial saline 
storage began with the Sleipner Project in Norway in 1996, which has 
stored approximately 1 million tons of CO2 annually captured 
from natural gas processes and injected deep under the bed of the North 
Sea. In the U.S., the industry is capturing and storing 22 million 
metric tons of CO2 per year. At the Archer-Daniels-Midland 
(ADM) in Decatur, IL annually stores approximately 1 million tons of 
CO2 in captured from ethanol fermentation, in the first 
active Class VI well.

    With more than 60 publicly announced carbon management projects 
declaring their intent to store CO2 through dedicated saline 
storage, ensuring that EPA's Class VI permitting program, which 
provides specific regulations for dedicated geologic storage of 
CO2, has adequate resources to properly and expeditiously 
permit projects is increasingly important. The anticipated increase in 
project applications to the Class VI Well program highlights the 
importance of federal and state efforts to provide key support for 
project development to meet midcentury climate goals. According to the 
Great Plains Institute, EPA has permitted two Class VI wells to date, 
with well permit applications for an additional four wells as pending.

    While it's true that the offshore environment presents unique 
circumstances relative to the onshore environment, relevant federal 
agencies should support the same rigor of monitoring, verification and 
reporting for secure, long-term storage of CO2 when 
promulgating rules governing the offshore environment. Additionally, 
these same agencies should ensure the same level of transparency 
through reporting, monitoring and verification and transparency 
measures required by Subpart RR of the EPA Greenhouse Gas Reporting 
Program in the onshore environment. Ensuring transparency and 
accountability mechanisms for the offshore storage environment are 
integral to maintain public confidence in the integrity of the 45Q tax 
credit.

    Secure geologic storage is not only essential for reaching 
midcentury climate targets, but in enabling domestic industries to 
capture and manage their carbon emissions. In addition to playing a 
central role in decarbonizing domestic industry, manufacturing and 
energy, the deployment of carbon management technologies, coupled with 
the necessary development of CO2 transport and storage 
infrastructure, will help safeguard current high-paying jobs at 
existing facilities, while creating tens of thousands of new jobs and 
generating tens of billions in capital investment, according to 
analysis conducted by the Rhodium Group. The deployment of carbon 
capture, direct air capture, carbon utilization and associated 
CO2 transport and storage projects provide some of the most 
desirable clean energy, industrial and manufacturing jobs for American 
workers, as they consistently pay above-average local wages that 
support families and communities.

    Federal policymakers have recently demonstrated their foresight and 
recognition of the essential role that CO2 transport and 
storage infrastructure must play in putting our nation on a path to 
reaching net-zero emissions by midcentury with the enactment of the 
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA). The bipartisan package 
included foundational investments in the buildout of regional 
CO2 transport and storage infrastructure with the complete 
inclusion of the Storing CO2 and Lowering Emissions (SCALE) 
Act. Much like the development of other vital infrastructure systems, 
the SCALE Act positions the federal government to partner with private 
capital to invest in both regional and national CO2 
transport and storage infrastructure networks.

    The SCALE Act provisions enacted through the IIJA include funding 
for geologic storage permitting at $25 million during FY22-26 and $50 
million during FY22-26 for state permitting program grants. Effective 
implementation of these modest but vital permitting resources could be 
transformative. These resources can provide the adequate federal and 
state permitting capacity required for a critical mass of carbon 
management projects to move forward over the next decade.
    Enabling deployment at scale would ensure that the far greater 
federal investments in both the infrastructure bill and the 2018 
bipartisan reform and expansion of the federal 45Q tax credit achieve 
their full climate potential. However, while these incremental gains 
remain important to realizing economies of scale, Congress now must 
deliver the broad portfolio of federal policy support for carbon 
management in forthcoming budget reconciliation legislation, including 
direct pay and multi-year extension of the 45Q tax credit, increased 
credit values for industry, power and direct air capture, and 
dramatically reduced annual capture thresholds. Combined with the 
investments made in the infrastructure law, these enhancements to the 
45Q tax credit would result in an estimated 13-fold increase in carbon 
management capacity and annual CO2 emissions reductions of 
210-250 million metric tons by 2035 as well as creating hundreds of 
thousands of jobs in the carbon capture and direct air capture 
industries.

Conclusion

    Carbon capture, removal, utilization, transport and storage 
technologies are essential tools to decarbonize the hardest-to-abate 
sectors, increase domestic energy production, protect and grow a high-
wage jobs base, and fulfil our climate obligations. The groundbreaking 
provisions to scale deployment of associated CO2 transport 
and storage infrastructure enacted as part of the bipartisan 
infrastructure law are essential to placing America's energy, 
industrial and manufacturing sectors on track to reach net-zero 
emissions by 2050. At the same time, these will ensure the long-term 
viability of vital industries that provide millions of existing high-
wage jobs, which represent the lifeblood of American workers, their 
families and communities, and regional economies. Analyses by the 
Rhodium Group reveals the potential for creating tens of thousands and 
hundreds of thousands of jobs and generating hundreds of billions in 
investment from carbon capture and direct air capture deployment, 
respectively, if these technologies are deployed at levels needed to 
meet net-zero targets.

    The Carbon Capture Coalition appreciates the opportunity to comment 
on the important topics of today's hearing and the Committee's support 
in advancing federal policies to enable greater deployment of carbon 
management technologies and infrastructure to meet midcentury climate 
goals. We look forward to working with the Committee in a bipartisan 
manner to participate in the rulemaking process for secure offshore 
geologic storage of CO2.

    Should you have any questions about anything outlined in this 
statement, please contact Madelyn Morrison, External Affairs Manager.

                                 ______
                                 

                          CLEAN AIR TASK FORCE

                                                     April 28, 2022

Hon. Alan Lowenthal, Chair
Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources
U.S. House Committee on Natural Resources
1324 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Re: Subcommittee Hearing: The Opportunities and Risks of Offshore 
        Carbon Storage in the Gulf of Mexico, Statement for the Record 
        of Clean Air Task Force, Inc.

    Dear Chairman Lowenthal:

    Clean Air Task Force (CATF) thanks you for holding today's Hearing 
on the important question of permanent subseabed geologic storage of 
industrial carbon dioxide in the Gulf of Mexico.

    CATF is a global nonprofit organization working to safeguard 
against the worst impacts of climate change by catalyzing the rapid 
development and deployment of low-carbon energy and other climate-
protecting technologies, including carbon capture and permanent storage 
and direct air capture and permanent storage technologies. CATF has 
offices in Boston, Washington D.C., and Brussels, with staff working 
virtually around the world. CATF's global carbon capture team consists 
of technology and policy experts and lawyers with decades of experience 
in carbon dioxide capture, transport, removal, and storage. The team's 
expertise stems from the regular contact we maintain with carbon 
capture project developers, investors, innovators, and regulators in 
addition to policy advocates and academic modelers. CATF's carbon 
capture team specializes in analyzing the effect of regulation and 
policy options, to discern the most cost-effective means to scale up 
carbon capture, transport, removal, and permanent storage technologies 
to achieve mid-century decarbonization goals.

    CATF recognizes the critical role of carbon capture and permanent 
storage technologies in meeting mid-century decarbonization goals. IPCC 
Working Group III assessed 97 pathways to keep global warming to 1.5+C 
with limited or no overshoot and found an average of 665 gigatons (Gt) 
of carbon capture and storage will be needed between now and 2100, 
while emphasizing that carbon capture and storage is particularly vital 
for reducing hard-to-abate industrial emissions (e.g., cement, steel, 
and chemicals).\1\ Many of these hard-to-abate industrial sources are 
located within the Gulf Coast region and have limited viable carbon 
dioxide emission mitigation options outside of carbon capture and 
storage. Injection of carbon dioxide deep below the seabed in areas 
offshore of these regions, both beneath state waters and on the Outer 
Continental Shelf (OCS) in the Gulf of Mexico represents a significant 
and viable gigaton-scale resource for permanent storage of captured 
carbon dioxide from industrial sources in the Gulf Coast region.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability, 
Working Group II Contribution to the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report 
(2022), https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg3/.
    \2\ P.S. Ringrose & T.A. Meckel, Maturing global CO2 
storage resources on offshore continental margins to achieve 2DS 
emissions reductions, 9 Sci. Rep. 17944 (2019).

    Geologic storage, both onshore and offshore, is a well-understood 
and commercial practice in the U.S. and worldwide, with commercial 
operations dating back to the 1970s. To-date, in the United States 
alone, over 31 million metric tons (Mt) of CO2 emissions 
have been safely and permanently stored in deep geologic formations 
regulated under the EPA's Subpart RR.\3\ Commercial saline storage 
began with the Sleipner Project in Norway in 1996, which has stored 
approximately 1 Mt of captured CO2 annually for over 20 
years deep in the subseabed of the North Sea.\4\ The Sleipner Project's 
multi-decade record of large-scale, safe and permanent storage of 
captured CO2 provides precedent that subseabed geologic 
storage can be effectively and safely performed, provided that 
appropriate site characterization, design, monitoring, reporting and 
verification are undertaken. Additionally, the existence of naturally 
occurring, large hydrocarbon accumulations in the Gulf of Mexico 
provides evidence that this offshore region has appropriate subsurface 
geology and conditions for retaining large volumes of fluids over 
geologic time scales.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ 40 C.F.R. Sec. Sec. 98.440-98.449 (subpart RR).
    \4\ Anne-Kari Furre et al., 20 Years of Monitoring CO2-
injection at Sleipner, 114 Energy Procedia 3916 (2017).

    For permanent subseabed geologic storage to be implemented safely, 
a strong regulatory framework must be established. When properly 
characterized, deep [more than 1,000 ft below the seafloor] \5\ 
geologic reservoirs are ideal locations for permanent carbon dioxide 
storage and can ensure that injected captured carbon dioxide will not 
be released to the atmosphere. The operator must also demonstrate that 
injection and post-injection activities are sufficient to avoid 
releases, including through monitoring and reporting of amounts 
injected, pressures, and other specific parameters that should be 
included in regulatory requirements for this activity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ U.S. Dep't of Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, OCS 
Study BOEM 2018-004, Best Management Practices for Offshore 
Transportation and Sub-Seabed Geologic Storage of Carbon Dioxide (Dec. 
2017), https://espis.boem.gov/final%20reports/5663.pdf.

    Existing rules under the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) 
Underground Injection Control program regulate geologic storage of 
CO2 onshore and under the offshore seabed in state 
jurisdictions. The EPA also regulates the air monitoring of onshore 
geologic storage operations, under its Clean Air Act authority, to 
ensure that there is no release to the atmosphere. These regulations 
are based on the need for protections for underground sources of 
drinking water (USDWs). While USDWs are not present in the OCS, the key 
principles of EPA's UIC Class VI well regulations are otherwise still 
largely suitable for regulating subseabed storage activities beyond 
state jurisdiction in the OCS. Moreover, following the principles of 
EPA's UIC Class VI program will be equally imperative to prevent 
CO2 releases to the ocean water column and the ensuing harm 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
that could be caused to the ocean's flora and fauna.

    The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act requires the Bureau of 
Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) to establish rules for deep subseabed 
storage of carbon dioxide under the OCS by November 15, 2022. BOEM and 
its sister agency the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement 
(BSEE) are working now to develop a robust regulatory framework for 
subseabed carbon dioxide storage. This effort will require close 
coordination and collaboration between EPA and BOEM/BSEE to ensure that 
any new rule adheres to existing key principles of EPA's UIC and Clean 
Air Act programs governing onshore geologic storage activities. BOEM 
and BSEE will also require financial support as they work to develop a 
suite of robust technical subseabed storage rules in a short time 
frame.

            Sincerely,

                                       Clean Air Task Force

                             [all]