New Research on CO2 Release from Newly Exposed Organic-Rich Rocks Upends Carbon Cycle Models: Watersheds with Mountain Glaciation and Higher Erosion Rates Yield More Oxidative Weathering

 

     A new paper in Nature by researchers at Oxford University challenges the long-held belief that rock weathering is always a carbon sink. The research concludes that under certain circumstances rock exposed to weathering can be a significant source of CO2. The authors did note that the amount of global CO2 being emitted from this source globally amounts to about 1% of that emitted by burning fossil fuels. Thus, the new findings suggest that the anthropogenic effects on atmospheric CO2 are only about 1% less than previously thought. That is not quite negligible but not very significant either. The new findings will likely, however, change carbon cycle modeling considerably. This carbon source is not included in many current carbon cycle models but that is changing as the net carbon source becomes better quantified on a global level.

     The chemical weathering of silicates is a known carbon sink. The weak carbonic acid in rainwater takes up CO2 from the atmosphere into several types of rocks. Enhanced chemical weathering is a CO2 mitigation solution that has been utilized in pilot projects with certain rocks like basalt and olivine and mine tailings that can take up CO2. Erosion of organic carbon in terrestrial vegetation also acts as a carbon sink by moving that organic carbon to rivers and through time burying it in sediment.

     One aspect of the geologic carbon cycle is the CO2 emissions from volcanoes. The new research suggests that the amount of annual uncounted CO2 emissions from newly exposed organic-rich rocks is equivalent to the annual CO2 emissions spewed from volcanoes. The newly exposed organic-rich rocks mainly occur high up in some of the Earth’s youngest mountain ranges, such as the Himalayas, the Andes, and the Rockies. When rocks formed on ancient seafloors that accumulated large amounts of organic matter are exposed, they react with oxygen in the air, and this results in the release of CO2. The chemical reactions are basic organic carbon oxidation reactions and oxidation reactions with sulfide minerals. The new paper notes: “Hotspots of CO2 release are found in mountain ranges with high uplift rates exposing fine-grained sedimentary rock, such as the eastern Himalayas, the Rocky Mountains and the Andes.”

     This research is not exactly new but has been better quantified. In 2017, a paper in Science Advances showed that higher rates of erosion mountain glaciation environments in New Zealand and other places are associated with these newly defined atmospheric CO2 sources: “Oxidative weathering fluxes are two to three times higher in watersheds dominated by valley glaciers and exposed to frost shattering processes, compared to those with less glacial cover; a feature that we also observe in mountain watersheds globally. Consequently, we show that mountain glaciation can result in an atmospheric carbon dioxide source during weathering and erosion, as fresh minerals are exposed for weathering in an environment with high oxygen availability.”  

 

The graph shows that percentage of glacial cover in a watershed strongly affects whether that watershed will be a net carbon sink or a net carbon source. Source: Mountain glaciation drives rapid oxidation of rock-bound organic carbon. Kate Horan, Robert Hilton, David Selby, Chris J. Ottley, Darren R. Grocke, Murray Hicks, and Kevin Burton. Science Advances. October 4, 2017. Vol 3, Issue 10.

 

     In 2020 an article in Nature Reviews Earth & Environment resulted in the following key points.

·        Erosion resulting from mountain building increases transfer of carbon between the atmosphere and storage in rocks.

·        The traditional view has focused on carbon dioxide (CO₂) drawdown by silicate weathering, and its links to climate and erosion.

·        An emerging view also considers CO₂ drawdown by organic-carbon burial and CO₂ emissions from oxidative weathering of both rock organic carbon and sulfide minerals.

·        CO₂ sources and sinks increase with erosion, and the net balance has now been quantified in a handful of locations.

·        Climate (temperature, hydrology) regulates inorganic and organic CO₂ sinks, with complex interdependency on erosion.

·        Lithology is important: a mountain range composed of sedimentary rocks may be a weak CO₂ sink (or CO₂ source), but volcanic rocks favour CO₂ drawdown.

This 2020 paper also contained a schematic of the textbook view of net carbon cycle effects of weathering in these environments compared to the new emerging view as shown below.  Unfortunately, I could not get clear images as the full paper is behind a paywall.

Source: Mountains, erosion and the carbon cycle. Robert G. Hilton & A. Joshua West. Nature Reviews Earth & Environment volume 1, pages284–299 (2020). June 9, 2020. Mountains, erosion and the carbon cycle | Nature Reviews Earth & Environment

 

Rock organic carbon oxidation CO2 release offsets silicate weathering sink. Jesse R. Zondervan, Robert G. Hilton, Mathieu Dellinger, Fiona J. Clubb, Tobias Roylands & Mateja Ogrič. Nature (2023). Rock organic carbon oxidation CO2 release offsets silicate weathering sink | Nature

Researcher Robert G. Hilton of the Department of Geography, Durham University, Durham, UK was an author of all three of the papers referenced in this post. In all three papers, the researchers utilized the dissolved levels of the introduced trace element rhenium to estimate the level of oxidation of organic carbon. Total organic carbon (TOC) contents of black shales in the USGS Rock Geochemical Database were utilized in the modeling, which was done by a supercomputer. In the discussion of limitations and uncertainties in the 2023 paper, I found the following statement to be interesting: “Anthropogenic land-use change has doubled erosion and weathering since the early 1900s (ref. 63); hence, our global scale estimates of OCpetro oxidation rates reflect the combined influence of natural and anthropogenic activities on global weathering rates, which cannot be deconvolved in this present study.” In any case, this line of research shows that modeling of the geologic carbon cycle is evolving to better account for these differing sink/source ratios associated with different geologic environments.

 

References:

Ancient carbon in rocks releases as much carbon dioxide as the world’s volcanoes. University of Oxford. October 4, 2023. Science Daily. Ancient carbon in rocks releases as much carbon dioxide as the world's volcanoes | ScienceDaily

Rock organic carbon oxidation CO2 release offsets silicate weathering sink. Jesse R. Zondervan, Robert G. Hilton, Mathieu Dellinger, Fiona J. Clubb, Tobias Roylands & Mateja Ogrič. Nature (2023). Rock organic carbon oxidation CO2 release offsets silicate weathering sink | Nature

Mountain glaciation drives rapid oxidation of rock-bound organic carbon. Kate Horan, Robert Hilton, David Selby, Chris J. Ottley, Darren R. Grocke, Murray Hicks, and Kevin Burton. Science Advances. October 4, 2017. Vol 3, Issue 10. Mountain glaciation drives rapid oxidation of rock-bound organic carbon | Science Advances

Mountains, erosion and the carbon cycle. Robert G. Hilton & A. Joshua West. Nature Reviews Earth & Environment volume 1, pages284–299 (2020). June 9, 2020. Mountains, erosion and the carbon cycle | Nature Reviews Earth & Environment

 

Greenflation is Here, Painful, and Directly Proportional to the Speed and Depth of Decarbonization

 

     Greenflation, or decarbonization-induced inflation, is an indisputable fact of the energy transition. While there are many other causes of total inflation, the cost of decarbonization is one of them. As a currently unemployed energy professional, I can attest that inflation is painful. I have learned to be extremely cost conscious and to “pinch pennies.” I have no choice. Inflation affects the poor more simply because any increase in the cost of anything is a greater percentage of their income and/or assets.

     Environmental protection is a public good. In the same way greenhouse gas emissions reductions are a public good. However, these types of goods can only be achieved in wealthy societies since they are not primary goods associated with basic survival. They are costly and beyond the means of the poor. I first encountered the idea that environmental protection is higher on Maslow’s hierarchy of needs from the 2007 book Breakthrough: Why Saving the Earth Should Not Be Left to Environmentalists by Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger. This is based on psychologist Abraham Maslow’s pyramid of human needs where basic necessities like food, shelter, and clothing make up the base and more refined needs make up the higher sections. Environmental protection is up there near the top with self-actualization. In any case, it is well established that wealth correlates with environmental protection and greenhouse gas emissions reduction.

     It is also indisputable that decarbonization increases energy and power costs. The same is true of pollution abatement. Of course, we need both pollution abatement and decarbonization at certain levels. In the case of decarbonization we are faced with a need for speed according to the majority of climate scientists and climate policy wonks due to the possibility of dangerous impacts. Even so, that need for speed must compete with other human needs. There is another set of scientists and policy folks that think we can prioritize adaptation and keep the pace of decarbonization slow enough that phenomena like greenflation don’t outpace our capabilities to deal with cost increases. I am in that camp and I also think if we keep our natural gas and oil production and oil refinery capacity up, we can offset some of the greenflation with lower heating costs and lower fuel costs. There is abundant evidence that low natural gas costs have already offset and in effect masked rises in electricity prices due to higher grid penetration of renewables.  

     It is also no secret that wealthier individuals can and do take advantage of the vast majority of clean energy incentives available to individuals. When I had more money, I was able to get tax credits for a hybrid vehicle, a hybrid plug-in vehicle, and a set of rooftop solar panels. I can’t even consider something like that now. The bottom line here is that clean energy incentives to individuals don’t help the poor.

     In 2021 BlackRock CEO Larry Fink noted that policymakers are moving to phase out fossil fuels while demand for them is still growing, which he called an unsustainable endeavor. He also said this: “Short-term policies related to environmentalism in terms of restricting supply of hydrocarbons has created energy inflation, and we're going to be living with that for some time.” I don’t think that is wholly true because I think we can increase the supply of hydrocarbons to meet demand to keep prices reasonable. There are several factors that influence hydrocarbon prices: energy security issues as the Russian invasion of Ukraine showed, lack of investment (which is a feature of the aforementioned policies mentioned by Fink), and OPEC+ policies to keep prices high, to name a few.

     Renewables advocates used to say high fossil fuel prices are good because they make renewables more competitive. They often cite the societal costs of the negative externality of emissions as a true cost of fossil fuels, but that does not help the poor people who must pay more for them. I know that the costs of gas and electricity can be worrisome. If and when renewables begin to take up more of the power grid and EVs take up more of transport, then theoretically the cost of fossil fuels should drop as demand for them drops. That has not happened yet, and it is unclear if and when it will happen.

     In the meantime, in places where renewables are heavily pursued, incentivized, and mandated, electricity costs are often the highest. These are often also places where fossil fuels are higher priced such as Europe and California so renewables there are more competitive as well. The following section is from my 2022 book Natural Gas and Decarbonization.

 

 

Greenflation: We Can’t Escape It, But We Can Manage It Smartly

 

     The relationship between inflation and high fuel prices is generally pretty simple, although reasons can vary a bit. High fuel prices lead to higher prices for everything since everything uses fuel. High natural gas prices lead to high electricity prices. High oil prices make it cost more to fuel transport. In the case of electricity, the low natural gas prices of the past decade have masked rising costs from integrating renewables, storage, and other decarbonization measures, so that electricity costs have been steady. Underinvestment in oil and gas over the last few years has several causes: the 2020-early 2021 coronavirus drop in demand and low prices, the push to repay shareholders, avoidance of oversupplying the market, regulatory feasibility, competitive spending on decarbonization and other ESG considerations, and of course, commodity price volatility. In the US, as long as winters are not highly predictable there will be seasonal price volatility. Regulatory feasibility is a big uncertainty for big infrastructure projects like pipelines, LNG facilities, mines, and offshore projects, many of which have long time frames.

     In an interesting article in the Breakthrough Journal, Greenflation Is Real: Corporate Sustainability Has a Price, and Environmentalists Must Take It Seriously, sustainability policy analyst Michael Moran writes that net-zero pledges and ESG commitments will likely lead to inflation. If companies must spend more money on decarbonization that is not profitable or less profitable, which it is by nature, aside from efficiency investments with good payback times, then their profit margins will shrink, their overall costs will rise, and they will pass those costs onto their customers. Higher prices are no fun if your own margins are thin. It may turn out to be good that post-COVID inflation is giving us a taste of higher prices the likes of which we have not seen for some time, as it can give us pause for over-spending in the near term on accelerating decarbonization, which is likely to bring more inflation in the future. He writes: “Dismissing outright the likelihood of disruption or inflation as the world transitions away from carbon is just not credible.” Just a glance at household electricity prices vs. electricity generation sources shows a direct relationship between renewables on the grid and electricity prices. Other cost increases beckon for commodities like critical minerals and rare earth elements if decarbonization accelerates too quickly. Supply chain disruptions are also much more likely in an accelerated scenario.

 

 

Greenflation Will Endure but There Are Some Ways to Slow the Bleeding

 

     While many of the causes of the current cycle of inflation will ease in time, greenflation will not. It will continue as long as clean energy is more expensive than fossil fuels. Until then, it is inescapable. Many sources point out that the cost of green energy like wind and solar is less than the cost of fossil fuels. While there is some truth to that if you look at it in a certain way, if it were really true there would not be greenflation. Solar and wind make cheaper electricity due to massive subsidization, by being given primacy on grids when available, and by slightly lower lifetime costs. However, upfront costs are significantly higher, and the costs of ensuring system reliability and integrating onto the grid systems more than offset the lower power production costs of them when they are available. Greenflation has also had social impacts such as protests against carbon taxes on fuel. This happened in 2018 with the yellow vest protests in France and similar backlash has since occurred in many other countries. Only some can afford these taxes. One issue put forth is fuel vouchers for those who qualify economically but such measures require additional management and bureaucracies to keep them functional. Some favor more direct economic redistribution measures like dividends to the “have-nots.” There have long been advocates of revenue-neutral carbon taxation that aims to subsidize consumers who must buy greener energy. Of course, conservatives in the U.S. would call such schemes more entitlement spending. In the past, I would have more or less agreed with them that this is not the answer but now I tend to take an interest in anything that would put more money in my empty pockets. Of course, one of the best and most sensible ways to keep greenflation from getting out of hand is to keep the energy transition at a reasonable pace. However, that is difficult with all the net zero pledges and chatter about the climate crisis and the climate emergency.     

 

 

Source: Greenflation: The Achilles Heel of the Green Economy? Paul Pernot. Council on Business & Society Insights. June 8, 2022. Greenflation: The Achilles heel of the green economy? – Council on Business & Society Insights (cobsinsights.org)

Examples of Greenflation Abound

 

     There are endless examples of greenflation. Here are a couple of recent ones:

 

While the cost of solar and wind energy had been dropping steadily over the last few decades, that trend discontinued beginning in 2021. From 2021 to 2023 the levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) for offshore wind shot up from $77.30 per MWh to $114.2 per MWh. This has made some projects uneconomical to continue and others are doing power purchase agreement renegotiations. The New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) estimates that renegotiations alone will lead to 4% increases, or $4.67 per month increases, for power customers. Solar costs and onshore wind costs have gone up as well. There are multiple reasons for these cost increases including supply chain disruptions, cost increases of materials and metals, regulatory costs, and logistical issues.

     In January 2024 the EU’s emissions trading system (ETS) is set to be extended to the shipping industry. While shipping has been decarbonizing through several means over the past decades: lower sulfur fuel requirements, LNG replacing diesel, hydrogen fuel cells, methanol, ammonia, some electrification, and diesel-electric hybrids, there is still a long way to go. As shipping is included as a cost in the transport of a large amount of goods and a wide variety of goods, this is expected to add to inflation in the EU. This will undoubtedly contribute to inflation, said Bertrand Chen, CEO of the Global Shipping Business Network, who was speaking at CNBC's East Tech West conference. The ETS is effectively a carbon tax that will be passed down to consumers as all such taxes are.

   

 

References:

‘No question’ that the decarbonization of shipping will contribute to inflation, says industry CEO. Lucy Handley. CNBC. October 18, 2023. ‘No question’ that the decarbonization of shipping will contribute to inflation, says industry CEO – NBC New York

Egan, Matt, October 27, 2021. Energy crisis will set off social unrest, private-equity billionaire warns. CNN. Energy crisis will set off social unrest, private-equity billionaire warns | CNN Business

Moran, Michael, November 30, 2021. Greenflation Is Real. The Breakthrough Journal No. 15, Winter 2022. The Breakthrough Institute. The Breakthrough Institute | Greenflation Is Real: Corporate…

As Orsted, others seek up to 71% hike in clean energy contract prices, NYSERDA warns of rate increases. Ethan Howland. Utility Dive. August 31, 2023. As Ørsted, others seek up to 71% hike in clean energy contract prices, NYSERDA warns of rate increases | Utility Dive

Greenflation: The Achilles Heel of the Green Economy? Paul Pernot. Council on Business & Society Insights. June 8, 2022. Greenflation: The Achilles heel of the green economy? – Council on Business & Society Insights (cobsinsights.org)

Natural Gas and Decarbonization: Key Component of the Lower Carbon, Reasonable Cost Energy Systems of the Future: Strategies for the 2020s and Beyond. Kent C. Stewart. March 2022. Amazon Publishing.

BP-Owned Archaea Energy Deploys First Modular Landfill Gas-To-RNG Plant with Six-Fold RNG Production Increase Planned by 2030: And Some RNG Data and Forecasts

     BP’s Archaea Energy just announced the commissioning of its first modular landfill gas-to-renewable natural gas (RNG) plant. I like to keep track of modular energy developments since modularity often means efficiency and solutions that tend to work well. This new plant is in Medora, Indiana, adjacent to a landfill owned by waste management company Rumpke. Archaea’s proprietary Archaea Modular Design (AMD)—is equipped to capture and process 3,200 cu ft/min. of landfill biogas into RNG, according to BP. That equates to 4.6MMCF/day of capturing and processing power if operating at 100% for 24 hours, which is unlikely since downtime can be significant. Archaea’s design allows plants to be built on skids with interchangeable components. They plan to put several more of these modular plants online this year and increase their LNG production by more than six times by 2030. BPO purchased Archaea Energy in October 2022 for $4.1 billion. Below is an image from an Archaea investor presentation before BP’s purchase showing modular components.

 

 Source: Archaea Energy: Renewable Energy Redefined. Second Quarter 2022. Earnings Presentation. August 16, 2022. 2022.08.16+Archaea+Energy+2Q+Earnings+Investor+Presentation+vF.pdf (d1io3yog0oux5.cloudfront.net)

     RNG is processed biogas. Biogas can be processed to varying degrees and RNG is the most processed so that it becomes pipeline quality. It is much more expensive to produce and process than fossil natural gas due to impurities and difficulty of capture. Since it is captured from sources being generated into the atmosphere its capturing is considered to be mitigation of otherwise vented methane. As of the beginning of 2022 it was estimated by Wood MacKenzie that the U.S. was producing 212 MMCF/day of RNG. That amounts to just 0.2% of U.S. natural gas production. Since RNG is captured and considered to serve the function of mitigating a major greenhouse gas it commands premium prices. Those high prices are needed to make capturing and processing economical. Through the past few years to early 2022 RNG pricing averaged from $7 to $25 per MCF while fossil natural gas averaged from $2.50 to $3.50 per MCF. Thus, the premium above fossil gas probably averages about 3 to 6 times it. Estimates are that RNG production will increase by 10 times by 2040, but even then, it probably won’t make up much more than 1-1.5% total U.S. natural gas production, although some estimates are as high as 3%. It is desirable as a means of carbon offsetting so companies will continue to purchase it at premiums for this purpose. State mandates are also a factor. The EPA periodically sets values for RINs, renewable energy credits which are traded. Thus, the economics of RNG fluctuate in a number of ways. Different sources of RNG have different carbon intensities but also differing costs to produce. For example, RNG made from manure has very low carbon intensity, much lower than RNG from landfill gas, but is much more costly to produce.  

    

Source: Natural Gas Intelligence.

     As the following graphs show, landfill gas makes up the vast majority of feedstocks for RNG and that will likely continue to be the case going forward. Other sources include agriculture & livestock, food waste, and wastewater at treatment plants. Landfills are a major source of vented methane, producing about 17% of methane emissions according to the EPA. This may be a significant underestimation according to some sources. Landfills also emit significant amounts of CO2. Landfill gas is often roughly 50% methane and 40-50% CO2, with small amounts of other gases, some of them toxic. The high CO2 content makes it attractive for CCS since the CO2 is already captured and separated. All that is left is to transport it and sequester it. Archaea is interested in this as well as using RNG as a feedstock for blue hydrogen where the CO2 from pre-combusted RNG during steam reforming would be captured and sequestered as well.  

Source: Boston Consulting Group

Source: Seeking Alpha

 

Source: Boston Consulting Group

References:

bp’s Archaea Energy starts up novel renewable gas plant in Indiana. Robert Brelsford. Oil & Gas Journal. October 4, 2023. bp’s Archaea Energy starts up novel renewable gas plant in Indiana | Oil & Gas Journal (ogj.com)

US RNG approaches maturity as lenders eye 50% production growth by 2024. Dylan Chase. Ed. Richard Rubin. S&P Global. January 6, 2023. US RNG approaches maturity as lenders eye 50% production growth by 2024 | S&P Global Commodity Insights (spglobal.com)

Renewable Natural Gas: Attracting Significant Capital, Seeking Alpha. October 4, 2022. Renewable Natural Gas: Attracting Significant Capital | Seeking Alpha

Analysis Shows Rapid Growth In US RNG Production. Energy Vision. Biomass Magazine. March 6, 2022. Analysis shows rapid growth in US RNG production | Biomass Magazine

Is Renewable Natural Gas Poised for Future Growth or Doomed to Decline? Ilshat Haris, Laura Borland, Anusha Paliwal, and Gonzalo Caballeri. Boston Consulting Group. June 2023. us-rng-article-v16.pdf (bcg.com)

Archaea Energy to be Acquired by bp for Approximately $4.1 Billion. Archaea Energy. October 17, 2022. Archaea Energy to be Acquired by bp for Approximately $4.1 Billion :: Archaea Energy Inc. (LFG)

Archaea Energy: Renewable Energy Redefined. Second Quarter 2022. Earnings Presentation. August 16, 2022. 2022.08.16+Archaea+Energy+2Q+Earnings+Investor+Presentation+vF.pdf (d1io3yog0oux5.cloudfront.net)

Natural Gas and Decarbonization: Key Component and Enabler of the Lower Carbon, Reasonable Cost Energy Systems of the Future: Strategies for the 2020s and Beyond. Kent C. Stewart. March 2022, Amazon Publishing.

U.S. RNG Production Growing ‘Dramatically,’ but Nationwide, Future Still Uncertain. Morgan Evans. Natural Gas Intelligence. May 18, 2023.  1 Message! (naturalgasintel.com)

 

 

Concerns About Solar Panel Waste and Toxicity Unwarranted: It’s a Manageable Problem (For Now)

 

     Many articles in the late 2010s and early 2020s were sounding the alarm about the upcoming deluge of solar panel waste but the reality is that the amount of waste produced by solar panels is manageable and makes up about 5% of the total waste generated as e-waste. Solar panel waste is often considered a form of e-waste. A new paper in Nature Physics by researchers at the NREL and the Colorado School of Mines forecasts that it will make up from 2.9% to 8.5% of the total e-waste by 2050. The total amount of all e-waste in 2050 is expected by the authors to make up just 4% of the total coal ash waste. The graphic below from the paper shows the various waste streams by volume. If the graphic is anywhere near accurate it shows that the volume of solar waste won’t be a major issue.

Source: Unfounded concerns about photovoltaic module toxicity and waste are slowing decarbonization. Heather Mirletz, Henry Hieslmair, Silvana Ovaitt, Taylor L. Curtis & Teresa M. Barnes. Nature Physics volume 19, pages1376–1378 (2023). Unfounded concerns about photovoltaic module toxicity and waste are slowing decarbonization | Nature Physics

 

     A 2017 article in The National Review cited Michael Shellenberger’s Environmental Progress (EP) report about solar panel waste, which noted that solar panels produce 300 times more toxic waste per unit of energy than nuclear power plants. This is not surprising since nuclear waste volumes are very small compared to other waste streams and nuclear energy is extremely energy-dense while solar is not. However nuclear waste is clearly far more toxic. Solar panels often contain cadmium, chromium, and lead. The EP researchers pointed out that panels were often burned to extract the copper wires for salvage value (a problem with many types of e-waste) creating carcinogenic smoke. The solar industry disputed the dangers then as it does now. It said then that solar panel waste could be disassembled without burning and the materials recycled, or the panels could be reused in other applications. The National Review article also mentioned the use of smartphones replacing many other consumer electronics having the net effect of reducing e-waste volumes. Smartphones are a great example of a phenomenon known as dematerialism where they can replace in a single electronic device what in the past would have required many other devices: calculators, cameras, video cameras, flashlights, home phones, radios, TVs, PCs, watches, GPS systems, magnifying glasses, audio recorders, and many more devices. Solar panel manufacturing also produces contaminated water and sludge which is disposed of at hazardous waste facilities.

     Shellenberger, in a 2018 Forbes article, harped on the dangers of cadmium washing out of broken solar panels by rainwater. That is a concern with some solar waste. Most can be disposed of in regular landfills, but some require hazardous waste landfills. At the time, solutions to help mitigate solar panel e-waste included fees in producers for future disposal costs and recycling mandates. A huge amount of e-waste has been shipped overseas where it is picked through by human salvagers.

 

Recycling Solar Panels

     Solar panel recycling is a fledgling industry now, but it is expected to grow significantly in the coming years. One issue with solar panel waste recycling vs. e-waste recycling is that standard processes for e-waste recycling often don’t work with solar panel recycling. Silver and silicon recovery are important in solar panel recycling and require special methods to extract. Research is ongoing by the DOE and others to find breakthroughs in solar recycling. By late summer 2020, the EU had solar panel recycling mandates in place and Japan, Australia, and India had plans for requirements. The U.S. only had mandates in Washington state. According to a 2020 article in Wired (originally in Grist) “Right now, we’re pretty confident the number is around 10 percent of solar panels recycled,” said Sam Vanderhoof, the CEO of Recycle PV Solar, one of the only US companies dedicated to PV recycling. The rest, he says, go to landfills or are exported overseas for reuse in developing countries with weak environmental protections.” The article cites others who say the cost to recycle solar panels exceeds the revenue by as much as 10 to 1. A more recent article suggests that the cost difference is about 4 to 1, $5 to dispose of in a landfill vs. $20 to recycle. Efficient extraction of the silver and silicon could improve the economics, Veolia in France shreds and grinds the panels and uses an optical technique to recover low-grade silicon. Recycle Solar is using a process from their European partners that extracts 95% of low-purity silver and silicon. New heat and chemical recycling techniques aim to increase extraction and lower costs.

     Another approach is to design solar panels with recyclability, refurbishment, and remanufacturing in mind. Now, in 2023, NREL estimates that less than 10% of solar panels are being recycled. Recycling requires specialized facilities. Over 90% end up in municipal landfills simply because it is cheaper. There are too few solar recycling facilities in operation now in the U.S., only five. Even in the EU, the recycling rate is just 10%. That is fine for now, but more recycling capacity will be needed in the future as the amount of retired solar panels increases in the 2030 to 2050 period. The graph below is from a 2016 analysis but is expected to remain close to reality. With a big thrust in solar deployment in the mid-late 2020s there will be a corresponding big thrust in solar panel waste in the 2050s. By then, we should have the efficiencies of recycling worked out much better.

 

     The International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) 2016 report estimated the value of recovered materials from recycling solar panels at $15 billion by 2050. A later study by Rystad Energy predicts the value will hit $15 billion by the late 2030s and nearly $80 billion by 2050. The most abundant materials in solar panels are aluminum and glass. Glass makes up nearly 80% of most solar panels by weight. However, the glass quality is often not good enough to have resale value to glass companies. Glass also has the most potential for reuse where crushed solar panel waste can be used to replace sand as aggregate in certain concrete applications such as pavement. One study found that glass from spent solar panels could replace aggregate or cement by up to 10% in concrete used for pavement construction without negatively affecting compressive strength. Imperfect glass blends can be used in glass sandblasting. Silicon, silver, and copper only make up 3% by weight but have most of the resale value. Recovered silver and aluminum are expected to have the highest values by volume, followed by copper.

     While the development of a circular economy is often hyped, without incentives and mandates it will be slow to develop. In the meantime, the process of recycling is not economical so if that were to happen now, the question arises as to who will pay for it. It would make solar more expensive for the consumer as costs were passed on.

     It used to be said that the average life of a solar panel was 20-25, sometimes 30 years. More recently it is pegged at 30-40 years. Some of that extended life could be due to reusing old and degraded panels for other applications. That longer life would mean less waste.

 

Re-Using Old and Degraded Solar Panels

     Solar panels from decommissioned utility-scale solar farms often have plenty of life left in them and can be resold at a great discount to certain buyers. RV owners can buy refurbished solar panels for a bargain that may have 10 years of life left in them. Of course, their efficiency is degraded. Sellers use photo luminescence to check for integrity issues like cracks. The panels need a thorough inspection to assess resale value. Since many grid-scale projects likely have regular panel replacement schedules built into their economic models when their efficiency drops to a certain level, large sets of panels of similar age and level of degradation are likely obtainable and fairly easily prepped for resale.  There are also markets for used or refurbished solar panels overseas in developing countries, where they are unlikely to ever be recycled for materials, aside from possibly copper.  

 

Retired Solar Panel Toxicity

     The degree of toxicity of used-up solar panels is still in dispute and mired in uncertainty. That creates issues for the disposers, who are not sure if their waste is toxic or not. The IEA determined that the risk to human health of non-hazardous or hazardous landfill disposal of panels from leaching of cadmium, lead, and selenium was low, but they did not directly endorse the process. NREL is still working on risk assessments. Older solar panels, those retiring now, are more likely to be toxic, although just a small percentage of them. The authors of the Nature Physics paper did not find any examples of utility-scale solar panels that contained arsenic, gallium, germanium, or hexavalent chromium. A small share of panels contained trace amounts of cadmium, but in a stable form of it, not considered a danger to human health. The cadmium toxicity risk is thus likely overblown. There are different types of solar panels with different chemical compositions. Whether they are determined to be hazardous wastes or not depends on the composition of the panels and their condition. Broken panels are more likely to be considered hazardous.

     The Florida Department of Environmental Protection has a fact sheet on managing unwanted or broken solar panels that involves the determination of whether they should be considered hazardous or not. Basic components of all electronic devices are considered as well. Potential toxicity depends on levels of hazardous components:

 

“In general, data shows that older silicon panels can be hazardous due to lead solder. Some older silicon panels are hazardous for hexavalent chromium coatings. Cadmium tellurium (CdTe) panels are typically hazardous due to the cadmium. Gallium arsenide (GaAs) panels can be hazardous due to the arsenic. Thin film panels, such as copper indium gallium selenide (CIS/CIGS) panels, can be hazardous due to the selenium.”

 

“The electronic components associated with the solar panels (e.g., drivers, inverters, circuit boards) contain all of the common electronic device hazardous constituents such as lead, arsenic, cadmium, selenium and chromium.”

 

Dangers Overblown

 

Anti-renewable energy activists and pundits like to emphasize the problem and dangers of solar panel waste and toxicity, but it does appear that this is mostly a myth and a manageable problem, at least for now.

 

References:

A Reality Check About Solar Panel Waste and the Effects on Human Health. Dan Gearino. Inside Climate News. October 12. 2023. A Reality Check About Solar Panel Waste and the Effects on Human Health - Inside Climate News

Unfounded concerns about photovoltaic module toxicity and waste are slowing decarbonization. Heather Mirletz, Henry Hieslmair, Silvana Ovaitt, Taylor L. Curtis & Teresa M. Barnes. Nature Physics volume 19, pages1376–1378 (2023). Unfounded concerns about photovoltaic module toxicity and waste are slowing decarbonization | Nature Physics

Solutions for Solar Panel Waste Are Just Beginning to Surface. Tree Meinch. Discover Magazine. August 3, 2023. Solutions for Solar Panel Waste Are Just Beginning to Surface | Discover Magazine

NREL Explodes Solar Panel Waste Myths. Steve Hanley. Clean Technica. October 13. 2023. NREL Explodes Solar Panel Waste Myths - CleanTechnica

If Solar Panels Are So Clean, Why Do They Produce So Much Toxic Waste? Michael Shellenberger. Forbes. May 23. 2018. If Solar Panels Are So Clean, Why Do They Produce So Much Toxic Waste? (forbes.com)

A Clean Energy’s Dirty Little Secret. Julie Kelly. National Review. June 28, 2017. Solar-Panel Waste: Environmental Threat from Clean Energy | National Review

Solar panel waste is not the worst thing that’s ever happened. Jon Smieja. Green Biz. June 24, 2022. Solar panel waste is not the worst thing that’s ever happened | GreenBiz

Solar Panel Recycling Is About To Become BIG Business! Steve Hanley. Clean Technica. July 17, 2022. Solar Panel Recycling Is About To Become BIG Business! - CleanTechnica

Making Solar Energy as Clean as Can Be Means Fitting Square Panels Into the Circular Economy. Emma Peterson and Wyatt Myskow. Inside Climate News. October 9, 2023. Making Solar Energy as Clean as Can Be Means Fitting Square Panels Into the Circular Economy - Inside Climate News

Solar Panels Are Starting to Die, Leaving Behind Toxic Trash. Maddie Stone. Wired. August 22, 2020. Solar Panels Are Starting to Die, Leaving Behind Toxic Trash | WIRED

As Millions of Solar Panels Age Out, Recyclers Hope to Cash In. Jon Hurdle. Yale Environment 360. February 28, 2023. As Millions of Solar Panels Age Out, Recyclers Hope to Cash In - Yale E360

Managing Unwanted or Broken Solar Panels in Florida. Florida Department of Environmental Protection. MANAGING UNWANTED OR BROKEN SOLAR PANELS IN FLORIDA (floridadep.gov)

Solar panels replace sand in concrete production. Henry Ballard. Quarry Magazine. January 28, 2022. Solar panels replace sand in concrete production - Quarry (quarrymagazine.com)

Applications of Solar Panel Waste in Pavement Construction—An Overview. Malindu Sandanayake 1, Le Li, Junhai Zhao, and Paul Joseph. Sustainability. 2022, 14(22), 14823. November 10, 2022. Sustainability | Free Full-Text | Applications of Solar Panel Waste in Pavement Construction—An Overview (mdpi.com)

 

Injected Water Migration from Wastewater Injection Wells to Nearby Gas Producing Wells in Southeastern Ohio and the Possibilities of Fresh Water Contamination

     This particular subject is relevant to me for a number of reasons. First, I am a geologist who has worked with the subsurface formations of southeastern Ohio for a number of years, decades in fact. Second, my work has been in the oil & gas industry. Third, I am currently seeking employment at either the ODNR or the Ohio EPA where I could possibly be involved in injection well investigations. If so, I would not write about anything here about what I may be involved with at that time. Fourth, I actually know some of the people who strongly oppose these injection wells and even one I reference here. Fifth, I live within 10-15 miles of these injection wells, and my water comes from wells even closer to them. I received a letter several years ago from my local water company that expressed concern about the wells, stating that they did not test for some of the things that could possibly come from injection wells. I was not concerned at the time from what I know about injection wells and the local geology. However, I do now believe concern should be predicated on the volume of water being injected daily, the allowable injection pressures, the number of wells in an area, which reservoirs are receiving water, and the history of issues of concern that have occurred regarding these wells and other injection wells in the region. There is quite a lot of water being injected at significant pressures, and some of it is shallower, and thus closer to aquifers. Much of the water comes from the Utica Shale in Ohio and the Marcellus Shale in Pennsylvania. The Appalachian Basin Marcellus and Utica Shale operations have the highest frack water recycling rates in the country, 93% in Pennsylvania in 2021, but there is now more water being injected per frac stage and per well than before and thus more water returning to surface per well during flowback than in previous years.  

     Batelle led a study around 2015-2016 and possibly beyond that sought to develop a framework for brine disposal wells in the Appalachian Basin oil and gas region. I was able to hear one of the presentations at a summer 2015 Onshore Technology Conference in Pittsburgh presented by the Research Partnership to Secure Energy for America (RPSEA). The study noted that injection pressures drive fluid migration. They acknowledged: “The geologic and reservoir parameters of injection zones poorly understood - planned assessment is required to meet long-term demand.” The study generalized that injected water was usually confined to areas about 3000ft from the wellbore. Apparently, that generalization does not hold in the case of the Athens County/Rome Township wells where injected water was found to migrate 1-1.5 miles, presumably 5280-7820ft or more from the wellbore, significantly more than twice the distance suggested in the study and in another situation where injected water is thought to have moved laterally as much as five miles. I believe the migration study utilized mostly the Clinton/Medina Formation, which consists of tight, low-porosity sandstones, and the so-called “Ohio” Newburg or Lockport Dolomite Formation which consists of low-medium porosity dolomite formed from the recrystallization of limestone which takes up less space than the original limestone. However, the Athens/Rome wells inject into the Devonian Ohio Shale formation where the space in the rock consists of fractures made by a regional jointing system. In most of the reservoirs, nearby wells that were hydraulically fractured may have enhanced the fracture porosity in the rocks. The Ohio Shale is also shallower and thus, closer to the freshwater aquifers up hole. Of course, this does not mean freshwater aquifers are at risk of being contaminated by injected water. The migration occurs in the same formation and moves more or less laterally along the geological structure which is nearly flat. However, nearby wells producing gas from the Devonian Ohio shale are bringing up water from the injection wells along with the gas. This is a problem. These Class II injection wells are designed to sequester produced water from other wells. The fact that injected water is being produced from nearby wells makes it necessary that either the injection wells be shut in or the producing gas wells be shut in and of course, it would be unfair to the gas producers to shut in their wells as the injection wells are causing them economic harm. According to Dani Kington’s Sept. 13 article in Athens County Independent:

 

“On May 1, ODNR Division of Oil and Gas Resources Management ordered the suspension of a Class II injection well in Rome Township on grounds that its operator, Reliable Enterprises LLC, violated an Ohio Administrative Code section that bars operators from contaminating or polluting surface land and surface or subsurface water. In late June, three wells in Torch operated by K&H Partners were suspended on the same grounds.”

 

“Applications for new Class II injection wells from both Reliable Enterprises and K&H were denied because of the suspensions. K&H’s application for a fourth well at its $43 million facility in Torch generated controversy when it was proposed in 2018.”

 

ODNR noted in one of the denied applications: “an Ohio shale injection zone poses a substantial risk” for migration. The ODNR order stated that these wells “endanger and are likely to endanger public health, safety, or the environment.” The danger is that the nearby producing wells would continue to produce water at higher pressures that would need to be managed and that need to manage it would increase the likelihood of spills. I don’t think the danger is high for spills but clearly, it is an untenable situation and the ODNR made the right decision to suspend the wells. The order calls for the suspension to continue until the conditions that caused the suspension are fixed. In August an ODNR administrator noted that “ODNR has received no evidence or reports that any groundwater, surface water, or water wells have been impacted.”

     K&H argued that there was no evidence that the water production in the nearby gas wells was from their wells and not naturally occurring. However, from my experience water testing could probably reasonably determine that from analysis of the chlorides and other components of the produced water. “The Chief's Preliminary Order explained that an increase of brine at the nearby shut-in production wells cannot be plausibly explained as naturally originating and, based on the Division's investigation, the brine is migrating from the K&H Wells. The Chief's Preliminary Order also explained why K&H's evidence of non-migration was flawed. For example, even if the 2020 report prepared by K&H's consultant ALL Consulting supports K&H’s argument that the brine is not migrating radially (pooling around the injection sites), the report is nonetheless consistent with the more likely scenario that brine is migrating through fractures or conduits. It does not undermine the Division's findings.” Environmentalists continue to state that there may be freshwater aquifer contamination for local water well owners but aside from spills, there is not a readily available geological or physical mechanism for water to climb through the stratigraphic section since there are many impermeable sealing formations between producing/injecting formations and freshwater aquifers. Thus, their argument that water can migrate “outside of the permitted injection zone” is highly unlikely under most circumstances. They don’t seem to understand and should understand that fluids migrating laterally within a permeable reservoir is not the same as fluids migrating vertically through different rock formations with differing grain sizes, porosities, and permeabilities. However, there is a possibility that undocumented abandoned, idle, or orphaned wells in the area could take on migrating water and leak or spill water into aquifers or even to the surface. Thus, there is indeed some potential risk. There is a more remote possibility that a conducting fault could move fluids up stratigraphy, but these are not found in the area in general. ODNR adopted a precautionary approach based on the evidence at hand and the potential for permanent aquifer damage in the event of injected water somehow entering an aquifer: “Accordingly, when an injection well is showing signs of migration, the Chief cannot and does not wait for evidence that the migration has actually impacted an aquifer before issuing an order suspending operation. If he did so, it would be too late.” Below is a map showing the positions of the injection wells and the nearby producing wells.

 

 

 

     In January 2023, two injection wells in nearby Noble County injecting into the deeper Clinton and Medina formations at about 6000ft below the surface were suspended due to migration into other Clinton/Medina wells as far as five miles away that were being plugged or worked over. The distance of the migration is quite surprising – up to 10 times that of the Battelle study but still confined to the Clinton/Medina, which is a fluvial-deltaic depositional environment in this area with compartmentalized reservoirs thought to be common. As the producing wells were extensively hydraulically fractured there may be new induced fracture patterns combined with the geology that led to the long distance and very linear migration pattern. The map below shows the linear pattern of the injected water migration. Pressures and volumes in those wells were much higher than regional water pressures and volumes. Thus, it is quite likely that the injection wells are responsible for those higher pressures and volumes. Just as in the Ohio Shale wells, the owners of the producing wells have a legitimate complaint that they are being harmed economically by the water encroachment reducing their gas production and increasing their water handling costs. They should not have to pay to re-inject the water. Clearly, there is too much water being injected at too high pressures if indeed it is the case that injection, as thought, that injection pressures drive fluid migration.

 

 Source: Ohio Department of Natural Resources

 

     I have actually prospected some Ohio Shale wells in the immediate area of Athens County for gas production. Gas production there is quite spotty and naturally fractured areas with good production are not easy to delineate. There are dry holes as well as isolated good to very good gas wells. Pressure in the Ohio shale is quite low, so it is considered under-pressured compared to deeper reservoirs, which aids its ability to take in injected water. However, as the overall fracture porosity and permeability in the area is spotty and unpredictable it stands to reason that the overall volume available for water injection is also spotty and unpredictable.  

 

 

State Primacy is Not the Main Reason Ohio Has More Injection Wells

 

     Environmental activists have long been calling for the US EPA to take over regulation of wastewater injection wells from the Ohio Department of Natural Resources, which was given primacy by the US EPA, with its rules considered to be equal to or more stringent than the EPA’s rules. State primacy is common in many regulatory areas and is not considered less effective at all. In fact, it is often better. It is also more efficient and known for faster regulatory decisions as state agencies are better staffed, more local, and more knowledgeable of the conditions particular to that state. State primacy does, however, lead to faster permit approval times. The U.S. EPA can take years to approve injection wells. Activists have long favored delay. Delay is often the goal when banning is not an option. West Virginia has state primacy and does have more injection wells than Pennsylvania but far less than Ohio. The desire among environmental activists to revoke the ODNR’s primacy is not shared by the US EPA to my knowledge. An article in Energy News Network pointed out the views of a coalition of environmental activists and community groups: “Ohio’s Class II well program contains numerous technical deficiencies that have allowed for underregulated oil and gas waste disposal which has resulted in serious consequences to human health and the environment,” attorneys from EarthJustice, the Sierra Club of Ohio, and various community groups say in their petition to the EPA asking them to begin the rulemaking process to revoke Ohio’s primacy over its Class II program “due to the longstanding and systemic failures.” I do not think this is true. Their argument includes the fact that Ohio takes most of the injected water from Pennsylvania and West Virginia as well as Ohio. This is not due to primacy as often suggested but due to the favorability of Ohio geology compared to West Virginia and Pennsylvania geology. Ohio has an abundance of under-pressured reservoirs and saline reservoirs that will take in injected water. While spills can and do happen at abandoned wells and while injected water can migrate and come to the surface through nearby producing wells, there is no evidence that any freshwater or surface water has been contaminated by injected wastewater or that any contamination is imminent or likely.

 

 

Activists and Their Scientist Allies Want to Do Citizen Science to Find a Smoking Gun That They are Not Likely to Find

 

     Organized activists have long been opposing wastewater injection wells in Southeast Ohio. Induced seismicity used to be a major concern but a better understanding of what leads to it, how to prevent it, and a better state seismograph network have resulted in few additional induced seismicity events since the early 2010s as I predicted in a blogpost in 2015. Another issue touted by activists is radioactivity. The Marcellus Shale is more radioactive than the Utica. Typically, the radioactivity levels are not considered threatening as long as it is not entering surface or groundwater. There is, however, some concern with the use of this saltwater as a road treatment to melt snow. It should end up quite diluted by rainwater, snow, etc., but activists elevate it as a big concern. Theoretically, it could increase the radioactivity, salt, or chemical content of local water where it is not sufficiently diluted and water testing could detect elevated levels of contaminants, though likely below allowable limits. Thus, it may not be the best water to use for snow melt.

     The activist groups along with their volunteer Ph.D. soil scientist/geologist Julie Weatherington-Rice, who works in environmental consulting, advocate for citizen science to look for a “smoking gun” of surface water or groundwater contamination. Wastewater as road salt is not likely to yield enough contamination. They believe that subsurface contamination is there to find but there is no real mechanism for it aside from spills and leaking wells. Thus, spill prevention and monitoring of wells is important. All existing wells near injection wells should be monitored for water encroachment. Ideally, there would be less water being injected in a given area so new injection well permits adjacent to areas already injecting millions of barrels of water should be scrutinized heavily. The permeable space in these reservoirs in a given area is considerable but not infinite. There are plenty of areas in the state where injection wells could be constructed or converted and having them spaced out could make injected volumes in a given area less of a problem. Public opposition to such wells may be one reason why this is not happening.  According to the ODNR 34 million barrels of wastewater were injected into Ohio wells in 2022, 22 million barrels (65%) from Ohio wells, and 12 million barrels, (35%) from out-of-state wells (WV and PA).   

     Weatherington-Rice emphasizes subsurface uncertainty in arguing that injected water can move upward through geology toward aquifers. Higher volumes and higher pressures can certainly make water move and there is plenty of evidence that it moves laterally and no evidence that it moves vertically. Open conducting faults are very rare to non-existent in the area due to existing tectonic stresses, but joint systems do occur that provide space for fluids to move in certain reservoirs. She also said: “the state is “owned by oil and gas” and that its chances will depend on whether citizen scientists can find a smoking gun.” I do not think that is true about the state and I doubt a smoking gun will be found, aside from spills or possibly a leaking well. The activists concede that they are limited by the cost of water testing in their quest to find their smoking gun. In late 2015 and early 2016 Ohio University and Athens County paid for water well testing within a 2-mile radius of the Rome Township injection wells. No contamination was found, just a trace of naturally occurring methane. I am reasonably confident that will continue to be the case if and when future tests are done, again, with the possible exception of a spill or leaking well. Ideally, the company operating the injection wells should periodically pay for nearby water well testing as well as compensate nearby gas producers for water encroachment issues.

 

References:

Ohio Injection Wells Suspended Over ‘Imminent Danger’ to Drinking Water. Dani Kington. Athens Independent. Inside Climate News. September 13, 2023. Ohio Injection Wells Suspended Over ‘Imminent Danger’ to Drinking Water - Inside Climate News

Ohio Injection Wells Suspended Over ‘Imminent Danger’ to Drinking Water. Dani Kington. Dani Kington. Athens Independent. September 7, 2023. Local injection wells suspended over 'imminent danger' to drinking water – Athens County Independent (athensindependent.com)

Alleging continual pollution, advocates ask U.S. EPA to take over Ohio injection well permitting. David DeWitt / Ohio Capital Journal. Energy News Network. October 20, 2022. Alleging continual pollution, advocates ask U.S. EPA to take over Ohio injection well permitting | Energy News Network

Ohio Environmentalists, Oil Companies Battle State Over Dumping of Fracking Wastewater. John Hurdle. Inside Climate News. May 14, 2023. Ohio Environmentalists, Oil Companies Battle State Over Dumping of Fracking Wastewater - Inside Climate News

ODNR Issues Permit for K&H 3 Injection Well Without Considering Concerns. A Story of Lies and Willful Ignorance. April 7, 2015. Bernhard Debatin. Slow Down Fracking & Injection Wells in Athens County (Blog). Slow Down Fracking & Injection Wells in Athens County | Providing Information and a Forum for Discussion on Fracking and Injection Wells (wordpress.com)

Development of Subsurface Brine Disposal Framework in the Northern Appalachian Basin. Joel R. Sminchak & Dr. Naraj Gupta. PIOGA Presentation Slides. July 29, 2015. Development of Subsurface Brine Disposal Framework · PDF fileDevelopment of Subsurface Brine Disposal Framework in the Northern ... • We did work with operators to monitor wellhead - [PDF Document] (vdocuments.mx)

Regional modeling of class II wastewater injection wells, Appalachian Basin. Tom Sparks. Kentucky Geological Survey Annual Seminar. May 13, 2016. Kentucky Well Sample and Core Library. annualSeminar2016_Sparks.pptx (live.com)

The Current Local Controversy Over Waste-Water Injection Wells in Southeastern Ohio and the Unlikelihood of Further Induced Seismicity in the State. Kent C. Stewart. Blue Dragon Energy Blog. August 27, 2015. Blue Dragon Energy Blog: The Current Local Controversy Over Waste Water Injection Wells in Southeastern Ohio and the Unlikelihood of Further Induced Seismicity in the State

2023-02 Deeprock Disposal Solutions LLC 9896 Suspension of Injection Operations_1067446. Ohio Department od Natural Resources. January 9, 2023.  2023-02 Deeprock Disposal Solutions LLC 9896 Suspension of Injection Operations_1067446 - DocumentCloud

Ohio's Grassroots Environmentalists: We Told You This Would Happen, and You Didn't Listen. The Buckeye Environmental Network and Ohio Brine Task Force. September 5, 2023.  Press Release on Chief's Orders 8-28-2023.docx (3).pdf - Google Drive

6/30/23 ODNR motion to dismiss. Ohio Department of Natural Resources. 6/30/23 ODNR motion to dismiss - DocumentCloud