summit power

===

<a href="http://priceofoil.org/2014/09/04/cashing-in-on-carbon-subsidy-spotlight/">http://priceofoil.org/2014/09/04/cashing-in-on-carbon-subsidy-spotlight/</a>

The dirt roads of Penwell, Texas, criss cross overgrown lots littered

with the detritus of a bygone oil boom that petered out in the 1940s.

But as early as next summer, this ghost town 16 miles southwest of

Odessa will become the site of a new coal power plant facility––funded

in large part by taxpayers––that could play a major role in not only

helping prolong the life of a dying coal industry, but in fueling an oil

boom that’s just getting started in the Permian Basin region of West

Texas.

The <a href="http://www.texascleanenergyproject.com">Texas Clean Energy Project (known as TCEP)</a>

is a proposed coal gasification plant that will generate electricity

while attempting to capture 90 percent of the carbon dioxide emitted in

the process. That’s according to <a href="http://www.summitpower.com">Summit Power Group</a>, the Seattle-based company behind the project.

TCEP is <a href="https://sequestration.mit.edu/tools/projects/index_capture.html">one of four U.S. power plants in the planning stages</a> that would use Carbon Capture and Sequestration technology, which comes with an <a href="http://oilprice.com/Energy/Coal/Report-Says-Clean-Coal-Tech-Not-Present-Day-Reality.html">unproven track record</a> and an <a href="http://www.taxpayer.net/user_uploads/file/Energy/Coal/2012/Carbon%20Capture%20and%20Storage%20Factsheet%20Jan%202012.pdf">exorbitant price tag</a> for taxpayers…not to mention the impacts of mining the coal in the first place. A <a href="http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/03/carbon-capture-coal-plant-EPA-mississippi">fifth such plant is already under construction in Mississippi. </a>

Rather than diverting CO2 emissions into permanent storage as the

technology’s name implies (a risky venture in its own right), four out

of the five plants would repurpose the captured gas for use in oil

extraction — that is, to help extract more carbon out of the ground.

Petroleum companies in Texas are lining up to buy Summit’s CO2 and

inject it into declining oil fields where it will act as a lubricant and

a source of pressure, forcing more oil to flow into the wells there.

The process of using CO2 to coax more oil from old wells is called Carbon Dioxide Enhanced Oil Recovery, or <a href="http://energy.gov/fe/science-innovation/oil-gas-research/enhanced-oil-recovery">CO2-EOR</a>.

In other words, the Texas Clean Energy Project is a power plant that,

once operational, will burn coal and then sell its emissions to allow

for the extraction of hard to reach oil, which in turn will be refined

and burned.

This paradoxical strategy of capturing carbon emissions only to

unearth more fossil fuels has made its way to the forefront of the

federal government’s plans for tackling climate change, thanks in part

to support from a plethora of industries whose pollutive practices would

be threatened by a widespread shift to renewable energy.

But the biggest financial supporters of CO2-EOR are taxpayers. Since 2008, Congress has allocated <a href="http://democrats.energycommerce.house.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Memo-OI-DOE-Oversight-Clean-Coal-2014-2-10.pdf">$6 billion</a>

to research and development of Carbon Capture and Sequestration

technologies. And yet its taxpayers who are impacted by the continued

mining of coal, the effects of burning more oil, and the dangers posed

by extreme fossil fuel extraction methods, like fracking, with which

CO2-EOR is interconnected.

Through grants, tax breaks, and loan guarantees, the public is paying

the financial costs––while shouldering the consequences––of re-shaping

the carbon cycle to justify the continued use of dirty fuels and

dangerous methods under the auspices of mitigating climate change.

<h2>Cashing in on carbon</h2>

There are several ways that taxpayers foot the bills for a project

like the Texas Clean Energy Project, according to a report by Oil Change

International, <a href="http://priceofoil.org/2014/07/09/cashing-in-on-all-of-the-above-u-s-fossil-fuel-production-subsidies-under-obama/">Cashing in on All of the Above: U.S. Fossil Fuel Production Subsidies Under Obama</a>.

In 2011, $587 million in federal funding was allocated to research

and development for projects that included enhanced oil recovery, carbon

capture and sequestration, and coal fuels. In 2013, companies took

advantage of $400 million in tax credits for investment in so-called

“clean coal” facilities (of course, the “clean coal” moniker is one

that’s been <a href="http://quitcoal.org/clean-coal">debunked </a><a href="http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2009/02/16/203701/james-hansen-coal-greatest-threat-civilization-all-life-on-our-planet/">time</a> and <a href="http://www.thenation.com/article/dirt-clean-coal">again</a>).

That same year, $60 million went towards CO2-EOR, and oil companies

were allowed $7 million in deductions for the costs of “fluids, gases

and other chemicals used for enhanced oil recovery.”

For its part, Summit has <a href="http://www.texascleanenergyproject.com/category/uncategorized/">received a $450 million grant from the Department of Energy and $600 million in tax breaks</a>,

mostly in the name of the still unproven carbon sequestration. But

because that proposed sequestration goes hand-in-hand with enhanced oil

recovery, some 47 percent of the CO2 injected into the ground by the

project will likely be released when the petroleum it helps to extract

is burned for fuel, <a href="http://www.energyjustice.net/coal/eor">according to the Energy Justice Network</a>.

Summit will be among the first to sell industrially produced CO2 for

the purpose of enhance oil recovery. The company is poised to meet a

high demand; the market for CO2 has ballooned as the result of a recent

oil boom spurred by the <a href="http://ecowatch.com/2013/03/18/obamas-all-of-the-above-energy-policy/">All of the Above Energy policy</a> and the increased use of hydraulic fracturing technology, or <a href="http://priceofoil.org/campaigns/extreme-fossil-fuels/no-extreme-fossil-fuels-fracking/">fracking</a>.

Since 2007, oil production in the region has doubled from roughly

800,000 barrels per day to over 1.6 million. It’s currently the highest

producer in the country, just ahead of the Bakken oil field in North

Dakota and Eagle Ford in East Texas––both hotbeds of fracking activity.

<h2>A pumpjack on every block and a flare every half mile</h2>...

==
reason mag bs

But

hundreds of other companies have raked in billions of dollars in direct

grants. Along with Iberdrola, NextEra Energy, NRG Energy, Southern

Company, Summit Power, and SCS Energy all have reaped more than $1

billion in federal largess, often receiving payments through programs

meant to boost renewable energy. At the same time, many coal companies

have taken huge sums from Washington through grants and coal production

tax credits. So, as with farm programs—some of which subsidize farmers

to farm more and some of which pay farmers to not farm at all—Washington

thwarts its own objectives by subsidizing both renewable fuel sources

and the fossil fuels they’re supposed to replace.

==
<a href="http://www.summitpower.com/">http://www.summitpower.com/</a>

bs
Summit Power Group, LLC develops and manages many types of large-scale

energy projects, including carbon capture projects for enhanced oil

recovery, natural gas, coal, wind, solar and other energy-intensive

industrial projects using proven technologies. Summit also works with

select new technology companies in related areas. Summit has led or had

significant involvement in the successful development of more than 9,250

megawatts (MW) of projects either operating, in construction or in late

stage development, and has over 5,500 MW of projects in early state

development that, when completed, will represent over $12 billion in

investment.

==