Report on Proposed Carbon Sequestration Feasibility Study in Iberville Parish

Introduction

A proposal by ExxonMobil to establish a Class V injection well in Iberville Parish, Louisiana, marks an initial phase toward a potential large-scale carbon capture and storage (CCS) project. This initiative has created a division between industrial proponents and a coalition of community and environmental stakeholders. The project’s development, objectives, and the subsequent opposition carry significant implications for several United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly those concerning climate action, clean water, sustainable communities, and industrial innovation.

Project Scope and Relation to Sustainable Development Goals

Phase I: Exploratory Well and Data Collection

The initial application is for a Class V injection well, a crucial step in assessing the geological suitability for carbon sequestration. This phase directly relates to goals for responsible industrial development and climate mitigation.

• Purpose: The well will be used exclusively for scientific data collection to determine the viability of the site for permanent carbon dioxide storage.
• Exclusion: According to ExxonMobil, this Class V well will not be used for the injection of carbon dioxide.
• Location: The proposed site is located in the southern part of Iberville Parish, near White Castle.

Alignment with SDG 9 (Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure) and SDG 13 (Climate Action)

The project is framed as a significant investment in innovative infrastructure designed to combat climate change by capturing and storing industrial emissions.

1. Technological Innovation (SDG 9): Carbon capture represents an advanced technological approach to mitigate the environmental impact of industrial processes. The project, if deemed feasible, would involve constructing new infrastructure, including pipelines and storage facilities.
2. Climate Change Mitigation (SDG 13): The ultimate objective of the potential CCS project is to remove CO2 emissions from the atmosphere and store them underground, directly addressing a key target of SDG 13.
3. Projected Timeline: Should the site prove suitable after a two-year permitting process for a Class VI well, a full-scale CCS operation could commence by 2028 or 2029.

Stakeholder Opposition and Conflicts with SDG Targets

Concerns for Community and Environmental Health (SDG 6 & SDG 11)

Local residents and environmental organizations have raised significant concerns that highlight a potential conflict with goals for safe, healthy, and sustainable communities.

• Water Security (SDG 6: Clean Water and Sanitation): There is expressed fear regarding the potential for the project to contaminate local drinking water sources.
• Community Safety (SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities): The risk of accidents associated with CO2 transport pipelines is a primary concern for community safety and resilience.

Critique of the Project’s Contribution to Climate and Energy Goals (SDG 7 & SDG 13)

Critics, including international research groups like Zero Carbon Analytics, question the project’s effectiveness as a climate solution and its impact on energy transition.

• Energy Transition (SDG 7: Affordable and Clean Energy): A major criticism is that CCS technology may prolong the economic viability and use of fossil fuels, thereby delaying a necessary transition to renewable energy sources.
• Comprehensive Impact Assessment (SDG 13: Climate Action): Opponents argue that the environmental impact assessment should not be limited to the exploratory Class V well but must consider the full lifecycle of the intended Class VI sequestration project, including associated pipelines.

Challenges to Inclusive Governance (SDG 16)

The process of public engagement has been criticized, pointing to challenges in achieving the principles of SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions).

• Public Access to Decision-Making: The scheduling of a public hearing at 3 p.m. on a weekday was protested by groups like the Sierra Club as a barrier to participation for working residents.
• Inclusive Institutions: This scheduling raises questions about the commitment to ensuring responsive, inclusive, and representative decision-making processes for infrastructure projects with significant community impact.

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

SDG 6: Clean Water and Sanitation

• The article highlights residents’ concerns about the potential “contamination of drinking water” from the carbon capture and storage project, directly linking the industrial activity to the safety and quality of water resources.

SDG 7: Affordable and Clean Energy

• The project involves carbon capture, which the article describes as an effort related to energy production. It is presented as a technology for “cleaner fossil-fuel” use. However, the article also notes the criticism that this practice may be “prolonging the use of fossil fuels,” which raises questions about its alignment with a transition to truly clean energy.

SDG 9: Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure

• The article focuses on a major industrial infrastructure project: the construction of a “Class V injection well” as a precursor to a larger carbon capture and storage facility. This represents an investment in new, albeit controversial, technology aimed at making industrial processes more sustainable.

SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities

• The project’s location in “Iberville Parish, near White Castle” and the concerns of local “Louisiana communities” place the issue within the context of community sustainability. Residents’ fears about the “potential for pipeline accidents” and water contamination relate directly to the safety and resilience of human settlements.

SDG 13: Climate Action

• The core purpose of the “carbon capture and storage project” is to mitigate climate change by “removing emissions from the air.” The entire initiative is a direct response to the need to reduce greenhouse gases, making climate action the central SDG addressed.

SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

• The article discusses the public participation process, noting that residents and environmental groups “protested the timing of the public hearing on the issue, which was scheduled at 3 p.m. on a Tuesday.” This highlights a conflict over ensuring inclusive and participatory decision-making by public institutions.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

SDG 6: Clean Water and Sanitation

• Target 6.3: By 2030, improve water quality by reducing pollution, eliminating dumping and minimizing release of hazardous chemicals and materials. This target is relevant due to the expressed community concern over the “contamination of drinking water,” which the project could potentially cause.

SDG 7: Affordable and Clean Energy

• Target 7.a: By 2030, enhance international cooperation to facilitate access to clean energy research and technology, including… advanced and cleaner fossil-fuel technology. The carbon capture project described is a direct example of an “advanced and cleaner fossil-fuel technology” aimed at reducing the environmental impact of emissions.

SDG 9: Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure

• Target 9.4: By 2030, upgrade infrastructure and retrofit industries to make them sustainable… and greater adoption of clean and environmentally sound technologies. The plan to build a “carbon capture and storage project” is an attempt to retrofit industrial processes with what is presented as a “clean and environmentally sound” technology to manage emissions.

SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities

• Target 11.b: …implementing integrated policies and plans towards… mitigation and adaptation to climate change, resilience to disasters… This target is relevant as the project is a climate mitigation plan, but the community’s concern about the “potential for pipeline accidents” points to the need for disaster resilience to be integrated into such plans.

SDG 13: Climate Action

• Target 13.2: Integrate climate change measures into national policies, strategies and planning. ExxonMobil’s project, whether private or publicly supported, represents the integration of a climate change mitigation strategy into industrial planning and investment.

SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

• Target 16.7: Ensure responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative decision-making at all levels. The criticism from the Sierra Club organizer that holding a public hearing at “3 o’clock in the afternoon when most people are working” is “not a good time” directly addresses whether the decision-making process for the well permit is inclusive and participatory.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

SDG 6 / Target 6.3

• Indicator: Water quality measurements. While not explicitly stated, the concern about “contamination of drinking water” implies that progress would be measured by testing water sources for pollutants related to the injection well’s activities to ensure they remain safe.

SDG 7 / Target 7.a & SDG 9 / Target 9.4

• Indicator: Investment in and implementation of cleaner fossil-fuel technology. The article points to the “Class V injection well” and the potential “Class VI well” as tangible steps. The amount of “significant investment in Iberville Parish” and the eventual volume of “injection of carbon dioxide” would serve as direct indicators.

SDG 11 / Target 11.b

• Indicator: Number and impact of industrial accidents. The “potential for pipeline accidents” is a key risk mentioned. An indicator for this target would be the number of safety incidents, leaks, or accidents related to the carbon capture infrastructure once operational.

SDG 13 / Target 13.2

• Indicator: Amount of greenhouse gas emissions reduced or sequestered. The primary indicator for the project’s climate action goal is the amount of carbon dioxide emissions “removing emissions from the air” and storing them underground.

SDG 16 / Target 16.7

• Indicator: Level of public participation in decision-making processes. The article implies this indicator through its critique of the “public hearing” schedule. The number of attendees, the accessibility of the meeting time for working residents, and the consideration of public feedback in the final permit decision would measure progress toward this target.

4. SDGs, Targets and Indicators Table

Source: theadvocate.com