DOE/EA-1625 

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 

Southeast Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership 

(SECARB) Phase III Early Test 

March 2009 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

NATIONAL ENERGY TECHNOLOGY LABORATORY 
U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test 

National Energy Technology Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ 

Table of Contents i March 2009 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

TABLE OF CONTENTS i 

LIST OF TABLES iv 

LIST OF FIGURES iv 

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS v 

USE OF SCIENTIFIC NOTATION ix 

1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 

1.1 Summary 1 

1.2 Purpose and Need 5 

1.3 Legal Framework 8 

2.0 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES 15 

2.1 Proposed Action 15 

2.1.1 Project Location 15 

2.1.2 First Stage: Drilling and Characterization 17 

2.1.3 Second Stage: CO2 Injection and Monitoring 21 

2.1.4 Decommissioning 23 

2.2 No-Action Alternative 23 

2.3 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Analysis 24 

2.4 Issues Considered and Dismissed 25 

3.0 THE ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS APPROACH 26 

3.1 Approach to the Analysis 26 

3.2 Analysis of Significance 31 

4.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL 

EFFECTS 33 

4.1 Air Quality 33 

4.1.1 Description 33 

4.1.1.1 Climate and Weather 33 

4.1.1.2 National Ambient Air Quality Standards and Attainment Status 33 

4.1.1.3 Local Ambient Air Quality 34 

4.1.1.4 Greenhouse Gasses and Global Warming 35 

4.1.2 Effects of Proposed Action 35 

4.1.2.1 Estimated Emissions and General Conformity 36 

4.1.2.2 Regulatory Review 37 

4.1.2.3 Greenhouse Gasses and Global Warming 37 

4.1.3 Effects of No-Action 38 

4.1.4 Cumulative Effects 38 

4.2 Geology and Soils 38 

4.2.1 Description 38 

4.2.2 Effects of Proposed Action 43 

4.2.3 Effects of No-Action 45 

4.2.4 Cumulative Effects 45 

4.3 Water Resources 46 

4.3.1 Description 46 

4.3.2 Effects of Proposed Action 47 

4.3.3 Effects of No-Action 47 
U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test 

National Energy Technology Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ 

Table of Contents ii March 2009 

4.3.4 Cumulative Effects 47 

4.4 Wetlands and Floodplains 48 

4.4.1 Description 48 

4.4.2 Effects of Proposed Action 52 

4.4.3 Effects of No-Action 53 

4.4.4 Cumulative Effects 53 

4.5 Terrestrial Vegetation 53 

4.5.1 Description 53 

4.5.2 Effects of Proposed Action 55 

4.5.3 Effects of No-Action 56 

4.5.4 Cumulative Effects 56 

4.6 Wildlife 56 

4.6.1 Description 56 

4.6.2 Effects of Proposed Action 58 

4.6.3 Effects of No-Action 59 

4.6.4 Cumulative Effects 59 

4.7 Land Use 59 

4.7.1 Description 59 

4.7.2 Effects of Proposed Action 61 

4.7.3 Effects of No-Action 61 

4.7.4 Cumulative Effects 61 

4.8 Socioeconomic Resources 62 

4.8.1 Population 62 

4.8.1.1 Description 62 

4.8.1.2 Effects of Proposed Action 63 

4.8.1.3 Effects of No-Action 63 

4.8.1.4 Cumulative Impacts 63 

4.8.2 Employment and Income 64 

4.8.2.1 Description 64 

4.8.2.2 Effects of Proposed Action 64 

4.8.2.3 Effects of No-Action 65 

4.8.2.4 Cumulative Impacts 65 

4.8.3 Infrastructure 65 

4.8.3.1 Description 65 

4.8.3.2 Effects of Proposed Action 66 

4.8.3.3 Effects of No-Action 66 

4.8.3.4 Cumulative Impacts 66 

4.8.4 Parks and Recreation 67 

4.8.4.1 Description 67 

4.8.4.2 Effects of Proposed Action 67 

4.8.4.3 Effects of No-Action 67 

4.8.4.4 Cumulative Impacts 68 

4.8.5 Visual Resources 68 

4.8.5.1 Description 68 

4.8.5.2 Effects of Proposed Action 68 

4.8.5.3 Effects of No-Action 68 
U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test 

National Energy Technology Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ 

Table of Contents iii March 2009 

4.8.5.4 Cumulative Impacts 69 

4.8.6 Noise 69 

4.8.6.1 Description 70 

4.8.6.2 Effects of Proposed Action 70 

4.8.6.3 Effects of No-Action 72 

4.8.6.4 Cumulative Impacts 72 

4.8.7 Environmental Justice 72 

4.8.7.1 Description 73 

4.8.7.2 Effects of Proposed Action 73 

4.8.7.3 Effects of No-Action 74 

4.8.7.4 Cumulative Impacts 74 

4.9 Human Health and Safety 74 

4.9.1 Description 74 

4.9.2 Effects of Proposed Action 76 

4.9.3 Effects of No-Action 79 

4.9.4 Cumulative Effects 80 

4.10 Cultural Resources 80 

4.10.1 Description 80 

4.10.2 Effects of Proposed Action 82 

4.10.3 Effects of No-Action 83 

4.10.4 Cumulative Effects 84 

4.11 Waste Management 84 

4.11.1 Description 84 

4.11.2 Effects of Proposed Action 85 

4.11.3 Effects of No-Action 86 

4.11.4 Cumulative Impacts 86 

5.0 CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION 88 

5.1 Preparation for Development of this Environmental Assessment 88 

5.2 Agency Coordination 88 

5.2.1 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 88 

5.2.2 State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) 88 

5.2.3 Bureau of Indian Affairs 88 

5.3 Public Involvement 89 

6.0 LIST OF PREPARERS 90 

6.1 Mangi Environmental Group 90 

6.2 Wiebe Environmental Services 90 

7.0 REFERENCES 91 

8.0 GLOSSARY 99 

Appendices

Appendix A Air Emission Calculations 103 

Appendix B Fish and Wildlife Service Consultations 107 

Appendix C Noise Calculations 118 

Appendix D SHPO Consultation 120 

Appendix E Contact with the Bureau of Indian Affairs and Tribal Councils 127 
U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test 

National Energy Technology Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ 

Table of Contents iv March 2009 

LIST OF TABLES 

Table 1.1. Comparison of Impacts 3 

Table 2.1.2. Materials Used and Produced During the Project 19 

Table 2.3. Alternatives Considered and Dismissed 24 

Table 3.2. Impact Significance Thresholds 31 

Table 4.1.1.3. NAAQS and Monitored Air Quality Concentrations 34 

Table 4.1.2.1. Proposed Action Emissions Compared to Applicability Thresholds 36 

Table 4.1.2.3. Net CO2 Emissions for the Proposed Action 37 

Table 4.2.1. Legend for NRCS Generated Map of Soil Series at SECARB Test Site 43 

Table 4.5.1. State Listed Plant Species in Adams and Franklin Counties, MS 54 

Table 4.6.1. Federal & State Listed Wildlife Species in Adams & Franklin Counties, MS 57 

Table 4.7.1-1. USGS Land Cover Classes for SECARB Phase III Early Test Project Area 60 

Table 4.7.1-2. NRCS Prime Farmland Classes for SECARB Phase III Early Test Project Area 60 

Table 4.8.2.1. Household Income for 1999 64 

Table 4.8.6. Common Sounds and Their Levels 69 

Table 4.8.6.1. Estimated Existing Noise Levels at Nearby Noise Sensitive Areas 70 

Table 4.8.6.2. Noise Levels Associated with Outdoor Construction 71 

Table 4.9.1. Comparison of Natural Gas Pipelines to CO2 Pipelines from 1995 to 2005 76 

LIST OF FIGURES 

Figure 1.2. Map of Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnerships 7 

Figure 2.1.1. Phase III Early Test Study Area and Adjacent Land Use 16 

Figure 2.1.2. Location of Proposed and Existing Wells 18 

Figure 3.1-1. Cause-Effect-Questions Part 1 27 

Figure 3.1-2. Cause-Effect-Questions Part 2 28 

Figure 3.1-3. Cause-Effect-Questions Part 3 29 

Figure 3.1-4. Cause-Effect-Questions Part 4 30 

Figure 4.2.1-1. Generalized Stratigraphic Sections/Hydrological Functions as Related to the 

SECARB Project 40 

Figure 4.2.1-2. NRCS Generated Map of Soil Series at SECARB Test Site 42 

Figure 4.4.1-1. Water Bodies and Wetlands in the Project Area 49 

Figure 4.4.1-2. Floodplains in the Project Area 51 

Figure 4.10.1. Map of Cultural Resources in Proximity of the Proposed Action 81 
U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test 

National Energy Technology Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________

Acronyms and Abbreviations v March 2009 

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS 

°C Degrees Celsius 

°F Degrees Fahrenheit 

μg/m3 Micrograms per Meter Cubed 

3-D Three Dimensional 

AERCB Alberta Energy Resources Conservation Board 

ANSI American National Standard Institute 

APC Mississippi Air Permit Program Regulations 

AQCR 005 Mobile-Pensacola-Panama City-Southern Mississippi 

AQCR Air Quality Control Region 

ATSDR Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry 

asl Above Sea Level 

BEG Texas Bureau of Economic Geology 

BLS Bureau of Labor Statistics 

BMPs Best Management Practices 

CAA Clean Air Act 

CARB California Air Resources Board 

CCAR California Climate Action Registry 

CCS Carbon Capture and Storage 

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality 

CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act 

(Superfund) 

CF Center Frequency 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

cfs cubic feet per second 

CH4 Methane 

CO Carbon Monoxide 

CO2 Carbon Dioxide 

CWA Clean Water Act 

dB Decibel 

dBA A-weighted decibel 

de minimus of Minimal Importance 

Denbury Denbury Resources International Company (Denbury Resources) 

DNL Day-night Average Sound Level 

DOE U.S. Department of Energy 

e.g. Exempli gratia, for example 

EA Environmental Assessment 

EDR Environmental Data Resources 

EIA Energy Information Administration 

EIS Environmental Impact Statement 

EIV Environmental Informational Volume 

EOR Enhanced Oil Recovery 

EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency 

EPCRA Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act 

ESA Endangered Species Act 
U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test 

National Energy Technology Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________

Acronyms and Abbreviations vi March 2009 

et al. et alia, and others 

et seq. et sequens, and the following one or ones 

etc. et cetera, and so on 

FAA Federal Aviation Administration 

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency 

FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact 

Ft Feet or Foot 

ft3

/sec Cubic Feet Per Second 

gal. Gallons 

GHG greenhouse gas 

Gt Gigaton 

HFCs hydrofluorocarbons 

hp horsepower 

HW Mississippi Hazardous Waste Management Program Regulations 

Hz Hertz 

kg Kilogram 

km Kilometer 

km2 Square Kilometer 

kW kilowatt 

kWh kilowatt hour 

i.e. id est, that is 

IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 

L Liter 

lbs Pounds 

Ldn equivalent day night level 

Leq Equivalent Sound Level 

LW Mississippi Licensing of Well Contractors Program Regulations 

Lw sound power levels 

m Meter 

m3

 cubic meter 

MARIS Mississippi Automated Resource Information Service 

mD millidarcy 

MDAH Mississippi Department of Archives and History 

MDEQ Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality 

MDOT Mississippi Department of Transportation 

mg/L Milligrams Per Liter 

mi2

 Square Miles 

mm Millimeter 

MMV Measurement, Mitigation, and Verification 

MSNHP Mississippi Natural Heritage Program 

MSOGB Mississippi State Oil and Gas Board 

MW Megawatt 

N2O Nitrous Oxide 

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act 

NETL National Energy Technology Laboratory 
U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test 

National Energy Technology Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________

Acronyms and Abbreviations vii March 2009 

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act 

NIOSH National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health 

NO2 Nitrogen Dioxide 

NOx Nitrogen oxides 

NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

NPS National Park Service 

NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service 

NRHP National Register of Historic Places 

NSA Noise Sensitive Area 

NSPS New Source Performance Standards 

NSR New Source Review 

O3 Ozone 

OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration 

Pb Lead 

PFCs Perfluorocarbons 

PM10 Particulate Matter Less Than 10 Microns in Diameter 

PM2.5 Particulate Matter Less Than 2.5 Microns in Diameter 

ppm Parts per Million 

PSD Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

PUBHh Palustrine, Unconsolidated Bottom, Permanently Flooded, 

Diked/Impounded wetland 

PWL Power Level 

R&D Research and Development 

R2USA Riverine, Lower Perennial, Unconsolidated Shore, Temporarily Flooded 

RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 

Rd. Road 

SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act 

sec second 

SECARB Southeast Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership 

SF6 Sulfur Hexafluoride 

SHPO State Historic Preservation Office (Officer) 

SIP State Implementation Plan 

SO2 Sulfur Dioxide 

SOx Sulfur Oxides 

SSEB Southern States Energy Board 

SW Mississippi Non-hazardous Solid Waste Program Regulations 

T&E Threatened and Endangered 

TDS Total Dissolved Solids 

THPO Tribal Historic Preservation Officer (Office) 

TL Transmission Loss 

tpy Tons Per Year 

UIC Underground Injection Control 

UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change 

USC United States Code 

USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency 

USGS United States Geological Survey 
U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test 

National Energy Technology Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________

Acronyms and Abbreviations viii March 2009 

USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service 

VOC Volatile Organic Compounds 

VSP Vertical Seismic Profiling 

WPC State of Mississippi Water Pollution Control Law 

yd3 cubic yards 
U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test 

National Energy Technology Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________

Use of Scientific Notation ix March 2009 

USE OF SCIENTIFIC NOTATION 

Very small and very large numbers are sometimes written using scientific notation rather than as 

decimals or fractions. This notation uses exponents to indicate the power of 10 as a 

multiplier (i.e., 10n

, or the number 10 multiplied by itself n times; 10-n, or the reciprocal of the 

number 10 multiplied by itself n times). 

For example: 103 =10 x 10 x 10 =1,000 

 ______1___ 

 10-3= 10 x 10 x 10 =0.001 

In scientific notation, large numbers are written as a decimal between 1 and 10 multiplied by the 

appropriate power of 10: 

4,900 is written 4.9 × 103 = 4.9 × 10 × 10 × 10 = 4.9 × 1,000 = 4,900 

0.049 is written 4.9 × 10-2 

1,490,000 or 1.49 million is written 1.49 × 106 

A positive exponent indicates a number larger than or equal to one; a negative exponent indicates 

a number less than one. 
U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test 

National Energy Technology Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ 

Introduction 1 March 2009 

1.0 INTRODUCTION 

1.1 Summary 

Carbon dioxide (CO2) is a natural and important component of the atmosphere: animals and 

plants produce CO2 during respiration, and plants need it for photosynthesis; however, high 

concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere can exert a “greenhouse” effect that traps heat within 

the Earth’s atmosphere. Global emissions of CO2 from human activity have increased from an 

insignificant level two centuries ago to over twenty-one billion metric tons per year by 2003 

(DOE, 2007a). The most notable human activity associated with the generation of CO2

emissions is the combustion of carbon-based fuels (including oil, natural gas, and coal). Many 

scientists, including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), recognize a danger 

that even a modest increase in the Earth’s temperature (called “global warming”) could alter the 

global climate and cause significant adverse consequences for human health and welfare (DOE, 

2007a). 

In one of many governmental efforts to address the concerns outlined above, the Department of 

Energy (DOE) established the Carbon Sequestration Program in 1997 with the focus of 

conducting research and development (R&D) activities to evaluate and develop carbon 

sequestration technologies. Carbon sequestration involves capturing and storing CO2 emissions 

prior to release into the atmosphere, as well as enhancing natural carbon uptake and storage 

processes. Geologic sequestration involves the permanent storage of CO2 in deep unmineable 

coal seams, depleted oil and gas reservoirs, or saline (saltwater-filled) formations. Impermeable 

caprocks and/or geologic structural or stratigraphic traps retain the CO2 in the formation similar 

to natural gas storage trapping mechanisms. As a part of this program, DOE formed a nationwide 

network of regional partnerships to help determine the best approaches for capturing and 

permanently storing gases that can contribute to global climate change. The Regional Carbon 

Sequestration Partnerships are a government/industry effort tasked with determining the most 

suitable technologies, regulations, and infrastructure needs for carbon capture, storage, and 

sequestration in different areas of the country. The Regional Partnerships’ initiative is being 

implemented in three phases: 

• Phase I, Characterization (2003-2005): Characterized opportunities for carbon 

sequestration, including potential geologic storage formations and trapping mechanisms; 

• Phase II, Validation (2005-2009): Small scale field tests are currently under way to verify 

the injection rates, storage media, and trapping mechanisms; and 

• Phase III, Deployment (2008-2017): Conduct large volume carbon storage validation 

tests. 

Geographical differences in fossil fuel use and available sequestration sinks across the United 

States dictate regional approaches to sequestration of CO2 and other greenhouse gases. The 

seven partnerships that currently form this network include over 350 state agencies, universities, 

and private companies, spanning 41 states, two Indian nations, and four Canadian provinces. In 

addition, agencies from six member countries of the Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum are 

participating in the Validation Phase field tests. The Southeast Regional Carbon Sequestration 

Partnership (SECARB) is one of these regional partnerships and this Environmental Assessment 

(EA) focuses on one of its proposed projects. 
U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test 

National Energy Technology Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ 

Introduction 2 March 2009 

Early data collection and characterization done through Phases I and II have shown that the 

Lower Tuscaloosa Massive Sand Unit is a large, regionally extensive saline formation with the 

potential to hold centuries of CO2 emissions in the Southeast (SECARB, 2008; Hill, 2007). The 

Tuscaloosa Group is estimated to have a CO2 storage capacity of 10,760 million metric tons to 

43,040 million metric tons (SECARB, 2008). The Lower Tuscaloosa Formation is a key 

component of a larger, regional group of similar formation called the Gulf Coast Wedge 

(SECARB, 2008; Hill, 2007; NETL, 2008a). The Gulf Coast Wedge is estimated to have 

enough capacity to store the estimated regional annual CO2 emissions of 1.1 billion short tons (1 

billion metric tons) for 300 to 1,200 years (NETL, 2008a). SECARB’s Phase III project would, 

if funded, further test this geologic formation at two sites: 1) the Cranfield Oilfield, located near 

Natchez, Mississippi (the “Early Test”); and 2) at a Southern Company CO2 capture test location 

(yet to be determined). The Early Test is the only focus of this EA. 

The DOE proposes to co-fund a project to inject and closely monitor the flow of approximately 

1.7 million short tons (1.5 million metric tons) of supercritical carbon dioxide into the brinebearing Tuscaloosa Formation in an area within the lease boundaries of the Cranfield Unit 

oilfield, about 12 miles (19 kilometers (km)) east of Natchez, Mississippi (Figure 2.1.1). The 

project team would be led by the Southern States Energy Board (SSEB), and include the Texas 

Bureau of Economic Geology (BEG) at the University of Texas at Austin as a subcontractor. 

The host site for the proposed project is owned by Denbury Resources International Company 

(Denbury). This field experiment is known as the SECARB Phase III Early Test project. The 

proposed injection period for this Phase III Early Test is 18 months followed by at least one year 

of post-injection monitoring. 

Under the Proposed Action, three existing injection wells would be utilized and a fourth well 

would be drilled to extend below the oil-brine interface. These four primary injection wells (the 

three existing and a proposed new well) would use existing well pads used during the previous 

production at the Cranfield Unit and directionally drilled to the desired down-hole locations in 

the saline portion of the formation below the oil-brine interface. Two observation wells would 

also be drilled from one of the reconditioned well pads and will be dedicated full time to 

continuous monitoring of the formation response to the CO2 flood. Two additional water wells 

would be drilled to approximately 200 feet (61 meters (m)) using a truck-mounted drilling rig to 

evaluate the performance of shallow groundwater monitoring strategies. 

CO2 now being transported from a natural source at Jackson Dome (near Jackson, Mississippi) to 

Cranfield through the existing commercial Denbury Sonat pipeline (Figure 2.1.2) as part of an 

ongoing enhanced oil recovery (EOR) operation would be used for this proposed project. 

Injection will occur primarily in existing wells. Three existing wells would be used and one new 

well would be drilled to extend into the brine layer in the down-dip water leg of the formation. 

The focal point of the proposed activity is monitoring of the injected CO2 to understand its 

subsurface flow mechanisms. The existing completions would remain open in the injection and 

monitoring wells for approximately 1 year to allow for continued monitoring of the subsurface 

CO2 flow after final injection. 
U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test 

National Energy Technology Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ 

Introduction 3 March 2009 

The decision for DOE is to either fund or not fund the Proposed Action which includes data 

acquisition and the additional drilling and injection activities associated with that data 

acquisition. Denbury intends to conduct EOR activities at this location regardless of DOE’s 

decision to participate or not participate. Table 1.1 below is based on that premise and illustrates 

that there is little difference in potential environmental impacts between the Proposed Action and 

the No-Action alternative. 

Table 1.1. Comparison of Impacts 

Resource No-Action Alternative Proposed Action 

Air Quality Some temporary de minimus decrease 

in localized air quality due to 

increased emissions of diesel engines 

used during EOR activities; however, 

the project is not expected to produce 

emissions that would impede the 

area’s conformity with the State 

Implementation Plan under the Clean 

Air Act. 

Same as No-Action. 

Geology and Soils Some long-term increase in subsurface 

pressures due to CO2 injection may 

occur as part of EOR activity; 

however, the Proposed Action is not 

expected to cause measurable leakage 

of CO2 from the storage formation to 

the surface or into another area in the 

subsurface, and there is no more than 

an imperceptible risk of inducing 

seismic events due to increased 

reservoir pressure. 

There is the potential for higher 

pressure in the reservoir due to the 

additional amount of CO2 injection 

called for beyond EOR activity. 

Water Resources Any changes to water quality and 

quantity would be expected to occur at 

the lowest detectable levels. Full 

recovery would occur in a reasonable 

time. 

Some modest increase in water usage 

is expected due to the drilling of 

injection and monitoring wells 

specific to NETL’s data needs. 

Wetlands and 

Floodplains 

No significant impacts to local 

wetlands and/or floodplains are 

expected and any impacts to wetlands 

and/or floodplains would be confined 

to the immediate project area and 

would not cause any regional impacts. 

Same as No-Action. 
U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test 

National Energy Technology Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ 

Introduction 4 March 2009 

Table 1.1. Comparison of Impacts 

Resource No-Action Alternative Proposed Action 

Terrestrial Vegetation Some minor removal of trees around 

the perimeter of old well sites will 

occur; however, any changes to native 

vegetation would be limited to a small 

area and would not be expected to 

affect the viability of the resources. 

Full recovery would occur in a 

reasonable time, considering the size 

of the project and the affected 

resource’s natural state. 

Same as No-Action. 

Wildlife Some local disturbance and 

displacement of wildlife may occur as 

a result of EOR activity; however, any 

changes to wildlife would be limited 

to a small portion of the population 

and would not be expected to affect 

the viability of the resource. Full 

recovery would occur in a reasonable 

time, considering the size of the 

project and the affected species’ 

natural state. 

Same as No-Action. 

Land Use Any change in land use would be 

limited to a small area and would not 

noticeably alter any particular land use 

at the project site or in adjacent areas. 

The affected areas would fully recover 

in a reasonable time once the project is 

completed. 

Same as No-Action. 

Population and 

Employment 

Changes to the normal or routine 

functions of the affected community 

are expected to be short-term and are 

not expected to alter existing social or 

economic conditions in a way that will 

be disruptive or costly to the 

community. 

Same as No-Action. 

Infrastructure The project will not noticeably affect 

or disrupt the normal or routine 

functions of public institutions, roads, 

electricity and other public utilities 

and services in the project area. 

Same as No-Action. 
U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test 

National Energy Technology Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ 

Introduction 5 March 2009 

Table 1.1. Comparison of Impacts 

Resource No-Action Alternative Proposed Action 

Parks & Recreation Any disturbance would be minor, 

temporary in duration, and in character 

with existing uses of the study area. 

Same as No-Action. 

Visual Resources The EOR activity, along with planned 

mitigation, will not permanently 

change the visual landscape, because a 

number of wells have existed in the 

area since the 1940s. 

Same as No-Action. 

Noise Noise levels in the project area will 

not exceed ambient noise level 

standards as determined by the 

Federal, State, and/or local 

government. 

Some additional localized noise may 

occur due to utilization of an 

additional compressor; however, this 

noise will not exceed ambient noise 

level standards as determined by the 

Federal, State, and/or local 

government. 

Environmental 

Justice 

Neither minority nor low-income 

groups within the affected community 

will experience proportionately greater 

adverse effects than other members of 

the community. 

Same as No-Action. 

Human Health and 

Safety 

The project, with current and planned 

mitigation measures, would pose no 

more than a minimal risk to the health 

and safety of on-site workers and the 

local population. 

Same as No-Action. 

Cultural Resources The action would not affect the 

context or integrity features (including 

visual features) of a site listed or 

eligible for listing on the National 

Register of Historic Places or of other 

cultural significance. 

Same as No-Action. 

Waste Management The action, along with planned 

mitigation measures, would not cause 

air, water, or soil to be contaminated 

with hazardous material that poses a 

threat to human or ecological health 

and safety. 

Same as No-Action.

1.2 Purpose and Need 

The DOE’s National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) has a mission to implement a 

research, development, and demonstration program to resolve the environmental, supply, and 
U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test 

National Energy Technology Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ 

Introduction 6 March 2009 

reliability constraints of producing and using fossil energy sources. One aspect of that mission, 

the resolution of environmental constraints to producing and using fossil fuels, now requires 

NETL to review, and where possible, mitigate projected impacts to global climate change caused 

by the use of fossil fuels. One possible mitigation technique under review is the capture and 

long-term removal of CO2 from the atmosphere through a process called carbon sequestration. 

NETL is implementing the DOE Carbon Sequestration Program, which was established in 1997 

to evaluate and develop carbon sequestration technologies. The focus of this Carbon 

Sequestration Program involves capturing and storing CO2 emissions prior to release into the 

atmosphere, as well as enhancing natural carbon uptake and storage processes. The principal 

goal of the Carbon Sequestration Program is to gain a scientific understanding of carbon 

sequestration options and to provide cost-effective, environmentally-sound technology options 

that ultimately may lead to a reduction in greenhouse gas intensity and stabilization of 

atmospheric concentrations of CO2 (DOE, 2007a). One of those options, geologic sequestration, 

is the placement of CO2 or other greenhouse gases into subsurface porous and permeable rocks 

in such a way that they remain permanently stored. 

In 2003, DOE selected seven Regional Partnerships to evaluate and pursue opportunities for 

carbon sequestration infrastructure development (Figure 1.2 below). The proposed Southeast 

Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership (SECARB) Phase III Early Test project is part of the 

Carbon Sequestration Program. The purpose of Phase III is to test the application of large 

volume sequestration of CO2 in different geological formations in North America (DOE, 2007a). 

Specifically, the SECARB Phase III Early Test will evaluate high rate/high volume injection of 

CO2 into a sandstone formation with properties similar to those found in other locations across 

the nation that may be suitable for sequestration. This test is a key component needed to increase 

scientific understanding of geological carbon sequestration and to test modeling and monitoring 

techniques to make sure that these technologies are available. Reliable modeling and monitoring 

are required to assure that geologic sequestration is an effective method for reducing atmospheric 

concentrations of CO2 (DOE, 2008a). 

Although the processes of geologic sequestration are relatively well known, there is a need for 

additional research to: fill gaps in our scientific understanding of carbon sequestration; ensure 

the protection of human health and the environment; reduce costs; and facilitate the full-scale 

deployment of this technology. Extensive laboratory investigations, modeling studies, and 

limited small-scale field studies have been completed to assess how CO2 geologic sequestration 

would work in the subsurface. Comparing predictions from bench scale tests and numerical 

models with field results is necessary to validate the models and demonstrate that scientific 

understanding is correct (DOE, 2008a). 

While the oil and gas industry has years of extensive experience with CO2 injection for enhanced 

oil recovery (EOR), this information is inadequate for this validation because the fate of the 

injected CO2 has not been routinely quantified. CO2 injected for EOR can be absorbed in the oil, 

held by capillary forces in pore space, trapped by buoyancy forces in stratigraphic or structural 

compartments, dissolved in pore water, produced and reused, or leaked from the injection zone 

through the soils and/or penetrations. The absence of data to account for CO2 fate in the 

complex EOR system leaves a gap in scientific understanding. 
U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early T

National Energy Technology Laboratory Final Environmental Assessm___________________________________________________________________________Introduction 7 March 2

Figure 1.2. Map of Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnerships 
U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test 

National Energy Technology Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ 

Introduction 8 March 2009 

Another significant experience gap between EOR and the validation needed for full-scale 

geological CO2 sequestration is related to the type of host rock best suited for sequestration. 

Geologic formations that could most easily receive and retain the large volumes of CO2, 

approximately 1 to 4 billion short tons/year (1 to 4 gigaton (Gt)/year), are thick, porous, and 

permeable sandstones (DOE, 2008a). Unfortunately, CO2 these sandstones have not been 

monitored during EOR operations, due to the remoteness of the locations or other barriers to 

testing. For example, CO2 is injected into thick, porous, and permeable sandstone beneath the 

North Sea, but it is not feasible to closely observe reservoir performance and CO2 fate because 

monitoring wells are not an economic possibility in an offshore setting. Hovorka and others 

(2000) have inventoried 21 geologic formations in the onshore U.S. that might serve as host 

injection reservoirs for CO2 (DOE, 2008a). A large-scale test using these onshore sandstones in 

locations where extensive monitoring can also be conducted is needed. 

To address these experience and data gaps, DOE is proposing to co-fund a field experiment in a 

regionally significant formation similar to those that could eventually be used to sequester large 

volumes of CO2. This project would be onshore so that it could be closely monitored to 

determine whether the CO2 remains within the injection zone and to maximize scientific 

understanding. Testing is being conducted in a formation that is being subjected to CO2 

injection, so CO2 fate and movement within the formation is somewhat already known. The 

demonstration would: (1) ensure that health and safety and environmental risks are minimized, 

(2) obtain results quickly so that experience can be used in moving to large pilots in other parts 

of the world, and (3) minimize costs during this phase before stakeholders are ready for full scale 

deployment. The test location would provide an opportunity for matching numerical model 

results with field observations under conditions of high volume injection at a scale similar to 

what would be done if CO2 from a power plant was captured and sequestered. 

1.3 Legal Framework 

The legal framework for this EA involves both substantive legal requirements (what must be 

done or not done) and procedural legal requirements (how the agency must carry out its 

responsibilities). DOE has prepared this EA in accordance with the Council on Environmental 

Quality (CEQ) “Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of the National 

Environmental Policy Act,” codified in Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations in Parts 1500 

through 1508 (40 CFR 1500-1508) and DOE’s regulations for implementing National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (10 CFR 1021). These regulations implement the procedural 

requirements of the NEPA, found in Title 40 of the United States Code in Section 4321 and 

following sections (42 USC § 4321 et seq.). 

NEPA requires federal agencies to consider the potential environmental consequences of a 

Proposed Action in their decision-making processes. NEPA encourages federal agencies to 

protect, restore, or enhance the environment through well-informed federal decisions. The CEQ 

NEPA regulations specify that an EA be prepared to: 

• Provide sufficient analysis and evidence for determining whether or not to prepare an 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) or a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). 

• Aid in an agency's compliance with NEPA when no EIS is deemed necessary. 
U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test 

National Energy Technology Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ 

Introduction 9 March 2009 

• Facilitate EIS preparation when one is necessary. 

Further, the CEQ NEPA regulations encourage agencies to integrate NEPA requirements with 

other environmental review and consultation requirements. Relevant environmental 

requirements are contained in other federal statutes, such as the Clean Air Act and the Clean 

Water Act, and their state counterparts. The following federal and state statutes and regulations 

are relevant to this EA. Federal and state permits that may be required are also listed. 

Clean Air Act 

The Clean Air Act (CAA), 42 USC § 7401 et seq., establishes the National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards (NAAQS) developed by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

for the pervasive pollutants sulfur dioxide (SO2), carbon monoxide (CO), ozone (O3), nitrogen 

dioxide (NO2), lead (Pb), and particulate matter (both PM10 and PM2.5). The NAAQS are 

expressed as concentrations of the criteria pollutants in the ambient air, the outdoor air to which 

the general public is exposed. The CAA also contains emission control permit programs to 

protect the nation’s air quality and establishes New Source Performance Standards that establish 

design standards, equipment standards, work practices, and operational standards for new or 

modified sources of air emissions. Where the NAAQS emphasize air quality in general, the New 

Source Performance Standards focus on particular industrial categories or sub-categories (e.g., 

fossil fuel fired generators, grain elevators, steam generating units). Regulations implementing 

the CAA are found in 40 CFR Parts 50-95. Mississippi has been delegated CAA authority under 

Title 49 Chapter 17 of the Mississippi Code, and its relevant regulations are found in APC-S-1 

through APC-S-10 (see: 

http://www.deq.state.ms.us/newweb/MDEQRegulations.nsf?OpenDatabase). 

Clean Water Act 

The Clean Water Act (CWA), 33 USC § 1251 et seq., establishes a comprehensive framework of 

standards, technical tools, and financial assistance to address “point source” pollution from 

municipal and industrial wastewater discharges and “nonpoint source” pollution from urban and 

rural areas. Applicants for federal licenses or permits to conduct any activity that may result in a 

discharge to navigable waters must provide the federal agency with a state CWA Section 401 

certification that the discharge will comply with applicable provisions of the CWA. CWA 

Section 404 establishes a permit program to regulate the discharge of dredged and fill material 

into waters of the United States, including wetlands. CWA Section 402 establishes the National 

Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), which requires point sources of pollutants to 

obtain permits to discharge effluents and storm water to surface waters. Regulations for 

implementing relevant CWA programs are found in 33 CFR Parts 320-331 and 40 CFR Parts 

400-503. Mississippi has been delegated CWA authority under Title 49 Chapter 17 of the 

Mississippi Code, and its relevant regulations are found in WPC-1 through WPC-6 (see: 

http://www.deq.state.ms.us/newweb/MDEQRegulations.nsf?OpenDatabase). 

Safe Drinking Water Act 

The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), 42 USC 300 et seq., gives EPA the responsibility and 
U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test 

National Energy Technology Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ 

Introduction 10 March 2009 

authority to regulate public drinking water supplies by establishing drinking water standards, 

delegating authority for enforcement of drinking water standards to the states, and protecting 

aquifers from hazards such as injection of wastes and other materials into wells. Important for 

this EA are the SDWA provisions relating to injection wells. Congress passed the Safe Drinking 

Water Act in 1974. In part, the SDWA requires EPA to develop minimum federal requirements 

for Underground Injection Control (UIC) programs and other safeguards to protect public health 

by preventing injection wells from contaminating underground sources of drinking water. 

Mississippi has been delegated SDWA authority under the Mississippi Safe Drinking Water Act, 

Title 41 Chapter 26 of the Mississippi Code, and its relevant regulations are found in LW-1 and 

LW-2 (see: http://www.deq.state.ms.us/newweb/MDEQRegulations.nsf?OpenDatabase). UIC 

comes under the Mississippi State Oil and Gas Board at rule 63 of the MSOGB Rules of 

Procedure (see: http://www.ogb.state.ms.us/rulebook.htm). 

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 

The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), 42 USC § 6901 et seq., regulates the 

treatment, storage, and disposal of solid and hazardous wastes. RCRA sets “cradle to grave” 

standards for both solid waste and hazardous waste management. Certain wastes, such as 

domestic sewage and septic tank waste, agricultural wastes, industrial discharges, some nuclear 

wastes, and mining overburden are specifically excluded because they are regulated under other 

statutes. RCRA regulations are found in 40 CFR Parts 239-282. Mississippi has been delegated 

RCRA authority under Title 49 Chapter 31 of the Mississippi Code, and its relevant regulations 

are found in SW-1 through SW-9 and HW-1 through HW-3 (see: 

http://www.deq.state.ms.us/newweb/MDEQRegulations.nsf?OpenDatabase). 

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act/Emergency 

Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act 

The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), 42 

USC § 9601 et seq., also known as “Superfund,” established a tax on the chemical and petroleum 

industries and provided broad federal authority to respond directly to releases or threatened 

releases of hazardous substances that may endanger public health or the environment. CERCLA 

also establishes requirements for closed and abandoned hazardous waste sites, provides for the 

liability of persons responsible for the release of hazardous substances, and established a trust 

fund to pay for orphan facility cleanup and closure. Regulations for implementing CERCLA are 

found in 40 CFR Parts 300-312. 

The Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA), 42 USC § 1001 et seq., 

requires federal agencies to provide information on hazardous and toxic chemicals to state 

emergency response commissions, local emergency planning committees, and EPA. EPCRA’s 

goal is to provide this information to ensure that local emergency plans are sufficient to respond 

to unplanned releases of hazardous substances. Regulations implementing EPCRA are found in 

40 CFR Parts 350-374. Mississippi’s EPCRA authority is found in Title 49 Chapters 31 and 35 

of the Mississippi Code. 
U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test 

National Energy Technology Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ 

Introduction 11 March 2009 

National Historic Preservation Act 

The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), 16 USC § 470 et seq., requires DOE to consult 

with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) prior to any construction to ensure that no 

historical properties would be adversely affected by a proposed project. DOE must also afford 

the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation a reasonable opportunity to comment on the 

proposed project. Regulations for implementing NHPA are found in 36 CFR 800-812. 

Mississippi’s historic preservation authority is found in Title 39 Chapter 7 of the Mississippi 

Code. 

Archaeological Resources Protection Act 

The Archaeological Resources Protection Act, 16 USC § 470aa et seq., requires a permit for 

excavation or removal of archaeological resources from publicly held or Native American lands. 

The Act requires that excavations further archaeological knowledge in the public interest, and 

that the resources removed remain the property of the United States. Regulations for 

implementing the Act are found in 43 CFR 7 and 36 CFR 296. Mississippi’s archaeological 

protection authority is found in Title 39 Chapter 7 of the Mississippi Code. 

American Indian Religious Freedom Act 

The American Indian Religious Freedom Act, 42 USC § 1996, establishes policy to protect and 

preserve the inherent and Constitutional right of Native Americans to believe, express, and 

exercise their traditional religions. The law ensures the protection of sacred locations, access of 

Native Americans to those sacred locations and traditional resources that are integral to the 

practice of their religions, and establishes requirements that would apply to Native American 

sacred locations, traditional resources, or traditional religious practices potentially affected by 

construction and operation of proposed facilities. Regulations for implementing the Act are also 

found in 43 CFR 7. Mississippi’s Native American protection authority is found in Title 39 

Chapter 7 of the Mississippi Code. 

Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act 

The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, 25 USC § 3001, directs the 

Secretary of the Interior to guide the repatriation of federal archaeological collections and 

collections that are culturally affiliated with Native American Tribes and held by museums that 

receive federal funding. DOE would follow the provisions of this Act if any excavations 

associated with the proposed construction led to unexpected discoveries of Native American 

graves or grave artifacts. Regulations for implementing the Act are found in 43 CFR 10. 

Mississippi’s Native American protection authority is found in Title 39 Chapter 7 of the 

Mississippi Code. 

Endangered Species Act 

The Endangered Species Act (ESA), 16 USC 1531 et seq., establishes a national program for the 

conservation of threatened and endangered species of fish, wildlife, and plants, as well as the 
U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test 

National Energy Technology Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ 

Introduction 12 March 2009 

preservation of the ecosystems on which they depend. ESA Section 7 requires any federal 

agency authorizing, funding, or carrying out any action to ensure that the action is not likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species or threatened species, or result in 

the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat of such species. Regulations 

implementing the ESA interagency consultation process are found in 50 CFR Part 402. 

Mississippi’s endangered species protection authority is found in Title 49 Chapter 5 Sections 

101-119 of the Mississippi Code. 

Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act/Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act 

The Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act, 16 USC § 2901 et seq., encourages federal agencies to 

conserve and promote conservation of non-game fish and wildlife species and their habitats. In 

addition, the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, 16 USC § 661 et seq., requires federal agencies 

undertaking projects affecting water resources to consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

and the state agency responsible for fish and wildlife resources. Compliance with these statutes 

is internalized in the DOE NEPA process. Mississippi’s fish and wildlife authority is found in 

Title 49 Chapters 3 through 5 of the Mississippi Code. 

Noise Control Act 

The Noise Control Act of 1972, 42 USC § 4901 et seq., directs federal agencies to carry out 

programs in their jurisdictions to the fullest extent within their authority and in a manner that 

furthers a national policy of promoting an environment free from noise that jeopardizes health 

and welfare. This would involve complying with applicable municipal noise ordinances to the 

maximum extent practicable. 

Farmland Protection Policy Act 

The Farmland Protection Policy Act, 7 USC § 4201 et seq., directs federal agencies to identify 

and quantify adverse impacts of federal programs on farmlands in order to minimize the 

unnecessary and irreversible conversion of agricultural land to non-agricultural uses. 

Regulations implementing the Act are found in 7 CFR 658. Mississippi’s farmland protection 

authority is contained in Title 69 Chapter 28 of the Mississippi Code. 

Occupational Safety and Health Act 

The Occupational Safety and Health Act, 29 USC § 651 et seq., requires employers to furnish 

employees employment and a place of employment that are free from recognized hazards that are 

causing or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm to his employees, and to comply 

with occupational safety and health standards promulgated by the Occupational Safety and 

Health Administration (OSHA). OSHA standards are implemented under regulations found in 

29 CFR Parts 1900-2400. Mississippi regulates OSHA requirements through its Department of 

Employment Security. 
U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test 

National Energy Technology Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ 

Introduction 13 March 2009 

Pollution Prevention Act 

The Pollution Prevention Act, 42 USC § 13101 et seq., establishes a national policy for waste 

management and pollution control that focuses first on source reduction, and then on 

environmentally safe waste recycling, treatment, and disposal. Three executive orders provide 

guidance to agencies to implement the Pollution Prevention Act: Executive Order 12873, 

“Federal Acquisition, Recycling, and Waste Prevention,” Executive Order 13101, “Greening the 

Government through Waste Prevention, Recycling, and Federal Acquisition” and Executive 

Order 13148, “Greening the Government through Leadership in Environmental Management.” 

Federal Aviation Administration Act 

49 USC § 106(f) and (g) give the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) a 

number of powers, including the authority to regulate objects affecting navigable airspace. 

Regulations requiring FAA notification if any structure of more than 200 feet (approximately 60 

m) high would be constructed are found in 14 CFR Part 77. The FAA then determines if the 

structures would or would not be an obstruction to air navigation. Mississippi regulates 

navigable airspace under Title 61 of the Mississippi Code. 

Executive Orders 

A number of presidential executive orders, in addition to those noted above, provide additional 

guidance in developing this EA. The most relevant of them include: 

• Executive Order 11514, “Protection and Enhancement of Environmental Quality” 

• Executive Order 11988, “Floodplain Management” 

• Executive Order 12856, “Right to Know Laws and Pollution Prevention Requirements” 

Executive Order 12898, “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority 

Populations and Low-Income Populations” 

• Executive Order 13112, “Invasive Species” 

• Executive Order 13186, “Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory 

Birds” 

• Executive Order 13423, “Strengthening Federal Environmental, Energy, and 

Transportation Management” 

Federal executive orders can be accessed at: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/

codification/. 

Federal and State Permitting 

The following are potentially applicable federal and state permitting requirements to construct 

and operate the proposed facilities. 

• Acid Rain Permit, 40 CFR Part 72 

• Airspace Obstruction Control Permit, 14 CFR Part 77 

• Clean Air Act Prevention of Significant Deterioration permit, Acid Deposition Control 

permit, and Operating Permit, 40 CFR Parts 50-96 
U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test 

National Energy Technology Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ 

Introduction 14 March 2009 

• Clean Water Act, Section 401 Certification, Section 402 NPDES Permit, Section 404 

Wetlands Permit, and Pretreatment Authorization for Discharge of Wastewater to 

Municipal Collection System, 40 CFR Parts 104-140, 403 

• Safe Drinking Water Act Underground Injection Control Permit, 40 CFR Part 144 

• Rivers and Harbor Act Permit, 33 CFR Part 322 

• Notice to the Federal Aviation Administration, 14 CFR Part 77 

• Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), 40 CFR Parts 239 through 299 

• Sales Tap Approval, 18 CFR 157.211. Approval would be required to tap into or modify 

existing interstate gas pipelines. 
U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test 

National Energy Technology Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ 

Proposed Action and Alternatives 15 March 2009 

2.0 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES 

2.1 Proposed Action 

The Proposed Action is for the DOE to provide 69 percent of the funds necessary to complete the 

project, to SECARB for a project led by the SSEB), in cooperation with Denbury, to inject and 

closely monitor the flow of approximately 1.7 million short tons (1.5 million metric tons) of 

supercritical carbon dioxide (CO2) into the brine-bearing Tuscaloosa Formation on the flank of 

the structure, downdip of the oil-bearing zone (Noceti, 2008a). The proposed injection period 

for the Phase III Early Test is 18 months followed by at least one year of post-injection 

monitoring. This proposed field experiment is known as the SECARB Phase III Early Test 

project. 

2.1.1 Project Location 

The proposed activities would take place in an area of approximately 2 square miles (mi2) (5 

square kilometers (km2)) within the lease boundaries of Denbury’s Cranfield Unit, an oil and gas 

field that was largely abandoned in 1965. The site is about 4 miles (6 km) northeast of Cranfield, 

Mississippi and about 12 miles (19 km) east of Natchez, Mississippi (Figure 2.1.1). Denbury is 

currently undertaking a commercial CO2 flood of this field (using the subsurface injection of 

CO2 to enhance the recovery of oil). The Cranfield Unit is in a large, closed domical structure at 

depths greater than 10,000 feet (3,000 m) with a gas-tight geologic seal. This work will be done 

under Denbury’s existing Class II Underground Injection Control (UIC) Permit. 

The target injection zone is described as sandstone, which is overlain by a series of relatively 

impermeable shale zones of the Middle Tuscaloosa Formation. The Middle Tuscaloosa 

Formation is a closed domical structure, expected to be at least 300 feet (approximately 90 

meters) thick in the injection area. Further impermeable confining shale formations are the 

Midway-Navarro-Taylor, about 6,500 to 8,500 feet (1,981 – 2,591 m) below grade, and the 

Cockfield/Cook Mountain shale formation at 1,600-2,800 feet (488 – 853 m) depth. 

In addition, the Selma-Austin chalks and marls provide a buffering system below the MidwayNavarro-Taylor. Any carbon dioxide that may escape the first confining layer would be reactive 

with the calcium carbonate, which would reduce any further escape. Above the MidwayNavarro-Taylor shale formations, the previously produced and partially depleted Wilcox group 

of sands will provide a pressure sink due to earlier extraction of oil and gas. This pressure sink 

would serve to attract and hold any gases that may escape other entrapment. 
U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early T

National Energy Technology Laboratory Final Environmental Assessm___________________________________________________________________________Proposed Action and Alternatives 16 March 2

Figure 2.1.1. Phase III Early Test Study Area and Adjacent Land Use 
U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test 

National Energy Technology Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ 

Proposed Action and Alternatives 17 March 2009 

2.1.2 First Stage: Drilling and Characterization 

The Proposed Action calls for the use of four injection wells. Three of these wells have already 

been drilled by Denbury as a part of ongoing EOR operations. These three wells extend below 

the oil-brine interface into the deeper brine-bearing Tuscaloosa Formation below 10,000 feet. 

An additional injection well would also be drilled to the same depth. These four primary 

injection wells would use existing well pads used during the previous production at the Cranfield 

Unit and directionally drilled to the desired down-hole locations. The three wells already 

completed as a part of ongoing EOR are identified as selected study wells in Figure 2.1.2. The 

fourth well will be drilled from one of two previous well pad sites, depicted as optional study 

wells in the southeast section of the study area (Figure 2.1.2). The selection of the well pad for 

this fourth well would be determined by Denbury based on cost, accessibility, and other factors 

unrelated to the study. 

Since the well pads were abandoned in the mid-1960s, Denbury will recondition them to support 

drilling operations. This reconditioning will include land clearing of approximately one acre or 

less (0.4 hectare), leveling and fill activities, rebuilding access roads, laying connector pipelines, 

and extending other infrastructure services as needed. The drilling, site preparation, and 

infrastructure construction must be permitted by the Mississippi Oil and Gas Board (MSOGB) 

and conducted in compliance with all applicable federal and state regulations and acceptable 

industry practices for environmental protection. All planned well pad, pipeline, and road 

construction activity will be conducted as part of the EOR activity and will occur whether DOE 

funds the Proposed Action or not (i.e., No-Action alternative). 

 
U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early T

National Energy Technology Laboratory Final Environmental Assessm___________________________________________________________________________Proposed Action and Alternatives 18 March 2

Figure 2.1.2. Location of Proposed and Existing Wells 
U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test 

National Energy Technology Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ 

Proposed Action and Alternatives 19 March 2009 

Denbury is conducting all activities related to the drilling of the injection wells as part of current 

commercial operations. Under the Proposed Action, the wells would be drilled further than 

necessary (“extended”) for normal EOR operations. This “extension” of three of the four 

primary SECARB injection wells into the water leg of the formation has been completed and the 

fourth well will require only minor additional resources (approximately 3 percent longer casing, 

more drilling mud, and higher fuel consumption during drilling). Table 2.1.2 lists the quantities 

of materials to be used. 

Table 2.1.2. Materials Used and Produced During the Project 

Materials Used Materials Produced 

Material Quantity Material Quantity 

Water 500,000 – 840,000 

gallons (gal). 

(1.8 – 3.2 million Liters 

(L)) 

Wastewater 1.39 – 2.31 million gal. 

(5.3 – 8.7 million L) 

Diesel fuel 20,000 – 42,000 gal. 

(76,000 – 159,900 L) 

Solid waste 6,000 – 10,000 pounds 

(lbs). 

(2,700 – 4,500 

kilograms (kg)) 

Steel pipe 738 short tons 

(670,000 kg) 

Drill cuttings Approximately 

70,000 cubic yards 

(yd3

) 

(53,519 cubic meters 

(m3

) 

Explosives 33 pounds for wellbore 

stimulation 

(15 kg) 

 

Gravel 5,000 – 9,000 yd3

(3,800 – 6,900 m3

) 

 

Drilling mud 90,000 – 150,000 lbs 

(40,800 – 86,000 kg) 

 

An additional compressor for the injection of the increased volume of CO2 would be installed in 

conjunction with current compressors along existing Denbury pipelines if the Proposed Action is 

funded. The injected volume of CO2 under the Proposed Action (1.7 million short tons or 1.5 

million metric tons) is twice the amount needed for EOR, which means that Denbury under the 

No-Action alternative would only inject half of that amount (DOE, 2008a). The collocation of 

the additional compressor at an existing compressor station should minimize any incremental 

increase in noise levels. The integrity of new well completions would be tested to assure that 

wells do not become leakage pathways. All existing wells in the area will be identified and a 

search of publically available records completed. Plug and abandonment records provide 

evidence that old wells in the study area have been properly plugged and abandoned and should 

not become leakage pathways. 

Two observation wells would also be drilled from one of the reconditioned well pads and would 

be dedicated full time to continuous monitoring of the formation response to the CO2 flood. The 

final selection of well pads for the locations of the two monitoring wells has not been 
U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test 

National Energy Technology Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ 

Proposed Action and Alternatives 20 March 2009 

determined, but they would be sited close to one or more of the four injection wells. The 

monitoring wells would be used to characterize the subsurface formations and to improve 

evaluation and modeling of the proposed injection plume. The subsurface characterizations 

conducted during the drilling operations are to assess formation and fluid conditions, evaluate 

permeability and other modeling parameters of the injection formation, revise numerical models, 

and refine plans for injection operations. Shallow groundwater quality and soil conditions would 

also be evaluated to establish baseline near-surface conditions in the study area. 

Two additional water wells would be drilled to approximately 200 feet (approximately 61 m) 

using a truck-mounted drilling rig to evaluate the performance of surface-monitoring strategies. 

Near-Surface-monitoring activities planned during the first stage include soil-gas surveys, 

groundwater-level measurements, groundwater geochemical measurement, and/or acoustic 

geophysical measurements, and tracer injections. A gravel access road and drilling pad would 

not be required for these two wells. Cuttings from each of the water wells would result in less 

than 200 yd3

 (153 m3) based on the volume of 6-inch well to a depth of 200 feet. Materials 

would be land farmed at permitted facilities within the Cranfield Unit similar to other wells 

constructed by Denbury in the area. 

The construction of all six of the primary deep wells for this study, including the four injection 

wells and the two observations wells, would require a total of an estimated 500,000 – 840,000 

gallons (2 to 3 million L) of additional make-up water that would be obtained from existing 

Denbury water wells. All four injection wells, the three already completed and the planned 

fourth, were always a planned part of Denbury’s commercial EOR operations even if the 

SECARB study is not conducted (i.e., No-Action alternative). Only about one-third of this total 

water usage, or approximately only 167,000 – 280,000 gallons (approximately 632,000 L to 1.1 

million L) of makeup water, will be used for the drilling of the two deep observation wells which 

are being constructed solely for this study. 

Labor requirements beyond those to be employed by Denbury for its on-going commercial 

operations would be limited to the crews needed to drill the observation and groundwater 

monitoring wells. SECARB staff and contractors would conduct monitoring and maintenance of 

sampling equipment. The drilling of the observation wells would take approximately 6 weeks 

and would be conducted by contractors already employed by Denbury for other deep well 

construction. Typical crews consist of 12 drilling crew workers on a 24-hour per day schedule 

for 2 weeks and 6 completion crew workers on a 12-hour per day schedule for 4 weeks. 

The drilling of the shallow groundwater monitoring wells would take approximately 1-2 days 

and would be conducted by a local, state-licensed operator contract by SECARB. A crew of 2-5 

people is required for these temporary rigs. 

On-going operation and maintenance of monitoring equipment would be performed by SECARB 

personnel and contractors on a periodic, non-continuous basis approximately 4 times during the 

study period. Monitoring crews consist of 8 researchers working for 2 weeks during each of the 

4 study intervals.
U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test 

National Energy Technology Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ 

Proposed Action and Alternatives 21 March 2009 

The construction of the deep wells for this study would require a total of an estimated 20,000 – 

42,000 gallons (75,708 – 158,987 L) of diesel fuel and an estimated 90,000 – 150,000 pounds 

(40,823 – 68,039 kg) of drilling mud. Of this usage, only an estimated 7,000 – 14,000 gallons 

(26,498 – 52,996 L) of diesel fuel and 30,000 – 50,000 pounds (13,608 – 22,680 kg) of drilling 

mud would be used for drilling the two deep observation wells; the remaining materials will be 

used for Denbury’s commercial EOR operations even if the SECARB study is not conducted 

(i.e., No-Action alternative). 

Drilling mud used for the construction of the observation wells would be treated and disposed of 

by Denbury in accordance with MSOGB regulations. Water-based bentonite drilling muds are 

sent by pumper trucks for reuse if possible or disposed of on-site in permitted cutting pits. 

Specialty muds that cannot be recycled would also be disposed of at on-site permitted oilfield 

waste disposal sites. Existing MSOGB regulations adequately protect the environment with 

strict standards of construction, operation, and maintenance; and provide for penalties and 

appropriate remedial actions for failure to comply.

Power would be brought to the observation well site on poles or by buried conduit from nearby 

domestic power lines. Fences will be placed as needed to keep livestock away from wellheads. 

Approximately 55,000 barrels of water would be produced during well development. Produced 

freshwater would be land farmed and saline water would be disposed of in existing MSOGB 

permitted oilfield disposal wells following best available practices. 

Up to 2.31 million gallons (8,706,447 L) of wastewater will be produced and collected in 

portable tanks and shipped by truck to an authorized disposal site as part of the ongoing EOR. 

Up to 10,000 lbs. (4,536 kg) of solid waste will be disposed of at local commercial landfills. 

Using tank trucks with 6,000-8,000 gal capacity, it would require between 300- 400 truck trips to 

transport wastewater. Denbury disposal wells are at the Cranfield Unit; therefore, wastewater 

that would be generated as a result of the proposed project would likely not require transport on 

public roadways. Non-drilling, non-hazardous solid waste is projected to be picked up by a 

commercial service on a monthly basis throughout the construction period and transported to a 

local permitted landfill. Figure 2.1.2 shows the location of the eight wells to be drilled for the 

Proposed Action. 

 

2.1.3 Second Stage: CO2 Injection and Monitoring 

As part of the ongoing EOR, the CO2 will be transported from a natural source at Jackson Dome 

(near Jackson, Mississippi) to Cranfield through the commercial Denbury Sonat pipeline (Figure 

2.1.2), which is a former natural gas pipeline that Denbury retrofitted for CO2 transport in 2007. 

Distribution lines and compression will be developed by Denbury to bring CO2 from the pipeline 

head to the injection wells (i.e., No-Action alternative). The total distance from Sonat pipeline to 

the 4 proposed injection wells varies from 2 to 5 miles depending upon the selected route (which 

has not been determined). The connector lines will be 2 5

/8 or 3 inch in diameter with a 

construction corridor of a maximum of 30 feet wide. 

CO2 injection will be regulated at the surface by controlling pressure and volume of injection 
U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test 

National Energy Technology Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ 

Proposed Action and Alternatives 22 March 2009 

using standard industry practices. Denbury has previously conducted four other CO2 floods into 

the Lower Tuscaloosa in Mississippi, which provide the best practices under which this test 

would be conducted. The CO2 injection technology and methodologies used for EOR have been 

used by the oil and gas industry for many years, and Denbury has over 10 years of successful 

experience. Existing industry practices along with MSOGB regulations, have proven adequate to 

ensure the safe and reliable operation of injection wells for several decades. Preliminary 

modeling shows that the footprint (maximum horizontal extent in the subsurface), as well as 

maximum pressure buildup of the CO2 plume, will be controlled by pressure drawdown at 

production wells in the oil-producing rim. Down-dip spread of the plume is expected to be 

limited, with most of the plume moving up-dip toward the oil-producing area. 

The injection rate and volume of CO2 that is proposed for this study would primarily be through 

three existing EOR wells along with a fourth well that would be drilled. Three of these injection 

wells now extend into the brine layer in the down-dip water leg of the formation. The injection 

rate would be increased to attempt to inject the full 1.0 million metric tons/year (1.0 billion kg) 

into these four wells. However, if an adequate injection volume cannot be achieved within 

regulated safety limits to avoid fracturing of the formation, other injection wells at the Cranfield 

Unit could also be used to inject the CO2 necessary to achieve the target 1.0 million metric 

tons/year (1.0 billion kg) volumes required for the study. 

The focal point of the proposed activity would be monitoring of the injected CO2 to understand 

its subsurface flow mechanisms. The monitoring program would evaluate the movement of CO2

and evaluate the performance of seals to assure CO2 is retained within the target injection zone. 

Tracers (10 kg) would be injected with the CO2 in minor amounts, and both the injection and 

monitoring wells would be sampled to identify the tracer and CO2 concentrations. Geochemical 

tracer techniques would include isotopic profiles of injected CO2, introduced noble gases, and 

introduced perfluorocarbons. 

Subsurface monitoring in the four injection wells, two observation wells, and selected other 

wells in the field will use wire-line and tubing-conveyed instruments to assess pre-injection fluid 

and rock properties. Monitoring would include down-hole pressure and temperature 

measurements, time-lapse logging, tilt and acoustic measurements, cross-well tomography, and 

fluid-sampling tools. Water level and quality would be sampled quarterly to semi-annually from 

existing and newly drilled municipal and make-up water wells located locally. Borehole 

geophysical (wire-line) logging would be conducted in the injection formation and above the 

injection zone, to verify that CO2 is being properly contained. Repeat Vertical Seismic Profiling 

(VSP) and/or repeat three dimensional (3-D) seismic surveys would assess the maximum lateral 

spread of CO2. 

Planned surface monitoring activities at the two newly drilled near-surface water monitoring 

wells would include soil-gas surveys, groundwater-level measurements, groundwater 

geochemical measurement, experimental and/or acoustic geophysical measurements, and tracer 

injections. Soil gas, pore water, and shallow groundwater will be sampled and analyzed to 

establish background CO2 concentrations. Because background values vary seasonally with 

changes in biologic activity, sampling will be repeated. These points will also be monitored 
U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test 

National Energy Technology Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ 

Proposed Action and Alternatives 23 March 2009 

throughout the injection and post-injection phases. Shallow auger holes will be used to sample 

soil gas. 

The existing well completions would remain open in the injection and monitoring wells for 

approximately 1 year to allow post-injection monitoring. Monitoring would include pressure and 

temperature measurements and well logging, cross-well or surface seismic surveys, and 

geochemical sampling and analyses. Fluid monitoring frequency would decrease as changes in 

pressures and concentrations become minimal, indicating equilibration of the subsurface physical 

environment. This stabilization is anticipated to occur less than one (1) year after the beginning 

of injection. Shallow groundwater dissolved gas and soil-gas concentrations would be monitored 

throughout this time at sample points established during pre-injection field activities. Waste 

formation brine resulting from surface seismic surveys and geochemical sampling would be 

transported to an existing MSOGB-permitted Class 2 disposal well. 

2.1.4 Decommissioning 

It is not anticipated that a full decommissioning of the site would be required after cessation of 

the proposed project. The site is part of an existing petroleum production area and will be 

decommissioned as part of that operation. In addition, Denbury would have the choice, after the 

proposed project, of incorporating the observation wells into its EOR project (some wells may 

need to be re-completed for this option). 

Pipelines are regulated in Mississippi by the Public Safety Commission which enforces the rules 

and regulations of the Minimum Federal Safety Standards in 49 CFR 192 (Walden, 2008). With 

or without the implementation of the Proposed Action, wells will be abandoned according to 

Mississippi Oil & Gas Board per Rule 63, Underground Injection Control, Section 10, Plugging 

and Abandoning regulations. The pipelines would continue to be used by Denbury after the 

study for EOR operations. Denbury will eventually abandon the pipelines at the completion of 

the EOR operation, but the exact abandonment methods will be determined by Denbury in 

accordance with the applicable state and federal regulations at the time of abandonment (Walden, 

2008). 

 

Other equipment may be recycled or re-conditioned for future use or sale. 

2.2 No-Action Alternative 

The No-Action alternative means that DOE funds would not be used to support the proposed 

data collection at the target site. Without DOE funds, the data collection proposed would not 

occur because such data collection is unnecessary for the purposes of EOR at this site. With no 

intent to collect the proposed data set, those wells specific to such data collection would be 

unnecessary. Not conducting such tests would delay by several years the development of 

information needed to assess technological options for geologic carbon sequestration. From an 

overall perspective, therefore, the No-Action alternative within the SECARB region would 

adversely affect the ability to provide options to help meet national objectives for greenhouse gas 

emission reductions by using sequestration as a mitigation option. Also, increased understanding 

of subsurface behavior of CO2 would not be gained, and the possibility of an example of 
U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test 

National Energy Technology Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ 

Proposed Action and Alternatives 24 March 2009 

successful and safe sequestration within the SECARB region could not be offered for 

consideration by the public, policy makers, and regulators during any future consideration of 

regional CO2 sequestration proposals. In the absence of an adequate base of knowledge, the 

complexities of future projects could result in long delays for public and regulatory approval, 

thereby jeopardizing goals for action on climate change issues. 

The Proposed Action would be conducted in an oilfield in association with a planned EOR 

program by Denbury Resources. The proposed Cranfield Unit site was drilled and oil and gas 

extracted beginning in the 1940s and running through the 1960s. The proposed site is in an area 

where drilling and other subsurface activities familiar to the surrounding communities have 

occurred for many decades in a mature oilfield setting that provides abundant subsurface data. It 

is the intention of Denbury Resources to implement oil and gas removal at this site using CO2

injection, with or without the data collection proposed by DOE. In other words, those potential 

environmental impacts associated with this EOR project would occur even if DOE were not 

involved. In fact, one of the primary reasons for selecting this site for the Proposed Action was 

to take advantage of the infrastructure developed for CO2-EOR efforts by the field operator. 

This presents SECARB with the opportunity to inject approximately 1.7 million short tons (1.5 

million metric tons) of CO2 over 1.5 years in the down-dip leg of an oil reservoir in order to test a 

number of commercial and experimental monitoring protocols for carbon sequestration. Thus, 

the No-Action alternative represents a lost opportunity to utilize the cost-savings, background 

data, and limited additional environmental impacts associated with using the established oilfield. 

Choosing the No-Action alternative would delay development of technological options for 

geological CO2 sequestration and possibly result in increased CO2 emissions before any 

stabilization efforts could be started. 

2.3 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Analysis 

In order to evaluate the alternatives provided below, it is necessary to appreciate the fact that the 

decision under review in this EA is for the DOE to either fund or not fund the Proposed Action. 

The alternatives offered below were considered by the SECARB partnership with a preferred 

option chosen and submitted to DOE for funding. 

Two additional alternatives were available for satisfying DOE’s need for developing information 

on potential technological solutions for geological carbon sequestration in this region. 

Alternatives to the Proposed Action include: (1) conducting the experiment at another field site 

in the same sedimentary basin and (2) conducting the experiment in another geographic area 

(different sedimentary basin). These alternatives to the Proposed Action are listed in Table 2.3 

below, along with the primary reason for dismissing them from detailed analysis. 

Table 2.3. Alternatives Considered and Dismissed 

Alternative Reason for Dismissal 

Alternative location in 

same basin 

Any other alternative looses the advantages of working within an 

active oilfield EOR setting that also has a long history of data 

acquisition. 

Injection in a different 

basin 

As above, this alternative would lack comparable subsurface data 

and oil industry infrastructure. 

 
U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test 

National Energy Technology Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ 

Proposed Action and Alternatives 25 March 2009 

Many other basins in the Gulf Coast region contain formations suited to geological CO2

sequestration (Hovorka et al., 2000). However, few of these basins are characterized by a high 

concentration of both man-made and natural CO2 sources and an abundance of available 

subsurface data in the form of well logs and 3-D seismic data. Fewer still have a robust on-site 

oil and gas industry presence, which would reduce Proposed Action costs. 

The proposed early test would be conducted in the down-dip “water leg” of the Cranfield Unit 

operated by Denbury Resources, which is the Proposed Action. Large volumes of CO2 can be 

delivered by Denbury’s Sonat Pipeline, which is supplied by abundant natural CO2 from the 

nearby Jackson Dome. Denbury recently leased the mineral rights and unitized the necessary 

lands. Conducting the Proposed Action at this site would allow collection of high-quality data 

from a large volume CO2 injection site. No other location offers these data collection and cost 

savings opportunities in this region, which is why other locations in this and other basins within 

the region were dismissed from further consideration by SSEB. 

2.4 Issues Considered and Dismissed 

The Purpose and Need section above highlighted the importance of the overall program of 

evaluating carbon capture and storage (CCS) as one tool among many to address global climate 

change while providing this nation with a secure energy future. Because of the lack of potential 

impact to certain issues due to the specific characteristics of the Proposed Action, the following 

issues were considered but dismissed from detailed analysis: 

• Right-of-Way Acquisition – There was no need for additional right-of-way. 

• Forest Fragmentation – This is a site that was initially fragmented in the 

1940s and no additional significant forest clearing 

will be necessary. 

• Increase Local Govt. Expenditures – The expected population dynamics of the temporary 

 workforce are not expected to impose additional 

local govt. expenditures through need for new 

roads, schools, etc. 

• Impact Property Values – This is a minor expansion of an existing industrial 

facility and not a new construction on a green-field 

site. 

• Alter Local Hydrology Patterns – None of the proposed construction would impact 

 drainage in the local watershed. 

• Wild and Scenic Rivers – No listed Wild and Scenic rivers are within the 

general area of the proposed project site. 
U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test 

National Energy Technology Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ 

The Environmental Analysis Approach 26 March 2009 

3.0 THE ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS APPROACH 

This chapter describes how the environmental review team analyzed the potential impacts of this 

Proposed Action (i.e., injection and analysis of potential for geologic storage of CO2 in 

conjunction with enhanced oil recovery). Chapter 4 provides a description of the affected 

environment and the potential environmental effects of the Proposed Action along with an 

analysis of environmental effects if the Proposed Action was not implemented. 

3.1 Approach to the Analysis 

An Environmental Assessment is intended to be a clear, focused analysis of impacts. It is not 

intended to be merely a compilation of encyclopedic information about the project or about the 

environment. Accordingly, the environmental review team used a systematic approach to 

identifying, and then answering, the relevant impact questions. 

The initial step was to develop a detailed description of the components of the EOR process to be 

used at this oil field site along with those components that would be added by NETL to study the 

potential of geologic sequestration of CO2 along with EOR at this site. This description was 

presented in Chapter 2. 

For each project component, (e.g., underground injection of CO2) the team sought to identify all 

the types of direct effects which that activity could cause on any environmental resource. For 

example, clearing a site of vegetation could cause soil erosion. In doing this preliminary 

identification of the types of impacts that potentially could occur, the team drew upon their 

experience with previous projects. 

For each potential direct effect, the team then sought to identify the potential indirect effects on 

other environmental resources. For example, soil erosion could cause sedimentation in nearby 

streams, which could in turn harm the fish and other species in the stream. 

 

In some cases, the team identified multiple effects on the same resource which are shown in the 

diagram (Figure 3-1). Figure 3-1 is the overall Cause-Effect-Question diagram for the entire 

project. This served as the framework of the analysis of impacts. That is, the team focused their 

efforts on answering these questions as to whether these effects would in fact occur, and if so, 

how extensive, how severe, and how long-lasting they would be. 

Note that Figure 3.1 (the next 4 pages) contains references to the specific section of the 

document where each impact is addressed. Also, note that most of the actions presented in the 

diagram relate to the EOR activity that will occur at the project site whether the DOE chooses to 

fund or not fund the Proposed Project (i.e., No-Action alternative); no questions relating 

specifically to study actions are identified. 

 Site clearing could 

cause 

 Soil erosion? which could 

cause

 Site clearing Damage to stream species? could 

cause 

 Soil erosion? which could 

cause

 Damage to stream species? 
U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early T

National Energy Technology Laboratory Final Environmental Assessm___________________________________________________________________________The Environmental Analysis Approach 27 March 2

Site Selection, 

Preparation, & 

Construction 

for CO2

Injection

with EOR

Remove and 

Disturb Soils?

Section 4.2

Damage Wetlands?

Section 4.4

Generate Dust and 

Emissions?

Section 4.1

Generate 

Noise?

Section 4.8

Increase Soil Erosion?

Section 4.2.2

Increase Run-off?

Section 4.3.2

Decrease in Soil Productivity?

Section 4.7.2

Degrade Water Quality?

Section 4.3.2

Increase Sedimentation?

Section 4.3.2

Contaminate 

Surface Water?

Section 4.3.2

Harm Human Health & S

Section 4.9.2

Degrade Air 

Quality?

Section 4.1.2

Degrade Water Quality?

Section 4.3.2 Increase Turbidity? Section 4.3.2

Harm Human Health and Safety? Section 4.9.2

Harm Wildlife? Section 4.6.2 Harm Protected Species? Section 4.6.2

Disturb/Displace Wildlife? Section 4.8.6.2

Increase in Traffic Related Noise? Section 4.8.3

Limit Future Land Use? Section 4.7.4

Loss of Prime Farmland? Section 4.7.2

Increase Risk for 

Chemical/ Fuel 

Spills?

Section 4.9

Contaminate the Soils? Section 4.2.2

Harm Vegetation? Section 4.5.2

Harm Wildlife? Section 4.6.2

Contaminate Surface or Groundwater? Section 4.3.2

Heavy 

Equipment will 

be Used during 

Construction

Damage 

Archeological 

or Cultural 

Resources?

Section 4.10

Removal of 

Vegetation?

Section 4.5

Loss of Habitat? Section 4.5.2 Harm Wildlife? Section 4.6.2 Harm Protected Species? Section 

Harm Protected Species? Section 4.6.2

Harm Human Health and Safety? Section 4.9

Increase Run-off? Section 4.5.2 See above

Drilling 

Disposal of Waste 

Mud/Debris?

Section 4.11

Disposal of Waste Water? Section 4.11

Generate Noise/Vibrations? Section 4.8.6 See Site Selection, preparation, & construction of CO2 injection with EOR

Degrade Habitat?

Section 4.11.2

Harm Aquatic Biota? Section 4.3.2

Disturb/Displace Wildlife? Section 4.6.2 Harm Protected Species? Section 

Figure 3.1-1. Cause-Effect-Questions Part 1
U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early T

National Energy Technology Laboratory Final Environmental Assessm___________________________________________________________________________The Environmental Analysis Approach 28 March 2

Site 

Selection, 

Preparation, 

& 

Construction 

of CO2

Injection 

with EOR

(continued)

Increase Income and Spending 

in the Local Area?

Section 4.8.2

Increase Local Jobs? Section 4.8.2

Increase Local Tax Revenues?

Section 4.8.2

Purchase of 

Materials and 

Equipment

Alteration of Land Surface? Section 4.7 , 4.2.2, & 4.5.2

There will be 

a commitment 

of land

Section 4.7

Loss of Prime Farmland?

Section 4.7

Change in Land Use?

Section 4.7

Degrade Visual/Aesthetics?

Section 4.8.5

Environme

Sectio

Create local jobs?

Section 4.8

Increase in Local Spending? Section 4.8.2

Increase Local Population? Section 4.8.2

Damage to Local Roads? Section 4.8.3

Increased Risk to Pedestrians and Other Vehicular Traff

Increase in Traffic?

Section 4.8.3

Transport of 

Equipment, 

Materials, and 

Personnel To 

and From Site

Increase in Congestion/Delays? Section 4.8.3

Create Temporary Roads?

Section 4.4 & 4.5

Harm Wetlands/Wildlife? 

Section 4.4 & 4.6

See Heavy Equipment above

Increased Noise? Section 4.8.6

Figure 3.1-2. Cause-Effect-Questions Part 2 
U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early T

National Energy Technology Laboratory Final Environmental Assessm___________________________________________________________________________The Environmental Analysis Approach 29 March 2

Operation 

and 

Maintenance 

of CO2

Injection 

Facilities

Visibility Changes?

Section 4.8.5

Changes to Human Health and Sa

Section 4.9

Changes in Contribution to Clima

Section 4.1.2

Transport, 

Storage, and 

Handling of CO2

for Injection

Degrade Air Quality?

Section 4.1

Increase in Energy 

Usage?

Section 4.8.3

Increase Risk for Accidents or Spills?

Section 4.9

Increase Local Traffic?

Section 4.8.3

Harm Human 

Se

Contaminate S

Increase in Noise and 

Light Emissions 

Disturb or Displace Wildlife?

Section 4.6

Disturb Adjacent Property Owners or Sensitive Receptors?

Section 4.8.6

Prepare CO2 Prior to 

Injection

Dehydration of CO2 Prior to Injection?

Section 2.1.3

Disposal of Condensate?

Section 4.11

Air Emissions Generated at 

the Facility will Change

Harm Protected 

Species?

Section 4.6

Production 

of Oil

Dispose of Waste 

Mud/Debris?

Section 4.11

Disposal of Waste Water?

Section 4.11

Generate Noise/Vibrations?

Section 4.8.6 See Site Selection, preparation, & construction of CO

Degrade Habitat?

Section 4.4 & 4.5

Harm Aquatic Biota?

Section 4.3 & 4.6

Disturb/Displace Wildlife?

Section 4.6

Harm 

S

See Site Selection, preparation, & c

injection with EO

Figure 3.1-3. Cause-Effect-Questions Part 3 
U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early T

National Energy Technology Laboratory Final Environmental Assessm___________________________________________________________________________The Environmental Analysis Approach 30 March 2

Subsurface 

Injections of CO2 in 

Conjunction with 

Enhanced Oil 

Recovery

Heavy Equipment will be Used During 

Injection

See Site Selection, preparation, & construction of CO2 Purchase of Materials and Equipment injection w

Transport of Equipment, Materials, and 

Personnel To and From Site

Changes to Local 

Employment 

Availability

Disturb/Displace Wildlife? Section 4.6

Increases in 

Noise and 

Light 

Disturbances

Injection of 

CO2 

Underground

Increased Risk of CO2 Leaks?

Section 4.9

Degrade Strata Stability?

Section 4.2

Change Aquifer Dynamics?

Section 4.2

Harm Ve

Secti

Harm Hu

S

Se

Increases in 

Produced Water 

Management 

Issues at the 

Surface

Increased Risk of Leaks and Spills?

Section 4.9

Harm Health and Human Safety?

Section 4.9

Increased Risk of Waste Water Containing VOCs?

Section 4.9 & 4.11

Increased Risk of Hole Stability and Flow 

Control Problems in Older Wells?

Section 4.2 & 4.9

Alter Underground Pressure Gradients?

Section 4.2

Degrade Potable Water 

Supply?

Section 4.3

Increase Return to the Surface of CO2 with Oil?

Section 4.2

Disposal of Waste Water

Degrade Water Quality?

Section 4.3

Degrade Air Quality

Section 4.1 See Site Selection, preparation, & construction of CO2 injection with EOR

Degrade Air Quality?

Section 4.1

Degrade Water Quality?

Section 4.3

See Site Selection, preparation, & 

CO2 Cause Soil Interactions? injection with EO

Section 4.2

Cause Leaks of CO2? Section 4.9

Changes 

to Clim

Sec

See Above

Increase in Oil Production Increase in CO2 and Other Air Pollutants? Section 4.1.2

Figure 3.1-4. Cause-Effect-Questions Part 4 
U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test 

National Energy Technology Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ 

The Environmental Analysis Approach 31 March 2009 

3.2 Analysis of Significance 

The review team used a systematic process to evaluate the significance of the predicted impacts. 

This process involved comparing the predictions to the significance criteria established by the 

team and set out below in Table 3.2. These significance criteria were based on legal and 

regulatory constraints and on team members’ professional technical judgment. 

Table 3.2. Impact Significance Thresholds 

Impact Significance Thresholds 

Resource Area An impact would be significant if it EXCEEDS the following conditions 

Air Quality 

The project would not produce emissions that would impede the area’s 

conformity with the State Implementation Plan under the Clean Air Act. 

Geologic Formations 

The Proposed Action would cause no measurable leakage of CO2 from the 

storage formation to the surface or into another area in the subsurface, and 

there is no more than an imperceptible risk of inducing seismic events due to 

increased reservoir pressure. 

Soils 

Any changes in soil stability, permeability, or productivity would be limited 

in extent. Full recovery would occur in a reasonable time*, considering the 

size of the project. Mitigation, if needed, would be simple to implement and 

proven to be effective in previous applications. 

Surface Water 

Any changes to surface water quality or hydrology would be confined to the 

immediate project area. Full recovery would occur in a reasonable time, 

considering the size of the project and the affected area’s natural state. 

Groundwater 

Any changes to groundwater quality and quantity would be at the lowest 

detectable levels. Full recovery would occur in a reasonable time. 

Mitigation, proven to be effective in previous applications, would be 

implemented, if needed. 

Wetlands and 

Floodplains 

Any impacts to wetlands and/or floodplains would be confined to the 

immediate project area and would not cause any regional impacts. Planned 

mitigation measures would fully compensate for lost wetland values in a 

reasonable time. 

Terrestrial 

Vegetation 

Any changes to native vegetation would be limited to a small area and would 

not affect the viability of the resources. Full recovery would occur in a 

reasonable time, considering the size of the project and the affected 

resource’s natural state. Mitigation, proven to be effective in previous 

applications, would be implemented, if needed. 

Wildlife 

Any changes to wildlife would be limited to a small portion of the population 

and would not affect the viability of the resource. Full recovery would occur 

in a reasonable time, considering the size of the project and the affected 

species’ natural state. 

Threatened or 

Endangered Species 

Any effect to a federally listed species or its critical habitat would be so small 

that it would not be of any measurable or perceptible consequence to the 

protected individual or its population. This negligible effect would equate to 

a “no effect” determination in U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service terms. 
U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test 

National Energy Technology Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ 

The Environmental Analysis Approach 32 March 2009 

Land Use 

Any change in land use would be limited to a small area and would not 

noticeably alter any particular land use at the project site or in adjacent areas. 

The affected areas would fully recover in a reasonable time once the project 

is completed. 

Population and 

Employment 

Changes to the normal or routine functions of the affected community are 

short-term or do not alter existing social or economic conditions in a way that 

is disruptive or costly to the community. 

Infrastructure 

The project would not noticeably affect or disrupt the normal or routine 

functions of public institutions, roads, electricity, and other public utilities 

and services in the project area. 

Parks and Recreation Any disturbance would be minor, temporary in duration, and in character 

with existing uses of the study area. 

Visual Resources 

The action, along with planned mitigation, would not permanently change the 

visual landscape in a way that is objectionable to a number of local residents 

or frequent visitors. 

(or) 

The action, along with planned mitigation, would not change the visual 

resource classification of the affected area. 

Noise 

Noise levels in the project area would not exceed ambient noise level 

standards as determined by the Federal, State, and/or local government. 

Environmental 

Justice 

Neither minority nor low-income groups within the affected community will 

experience proportionately greater adverse effects than other members of the 

community. 

Human Health and 

Safety 

The project, with current and planned mitigation measures, would pose no 

more than a minimal risk to the health and safety of on-site workers and the 

local population. 

Cultural Resources 

The action would not affect the context or integrity features (including visual 

features) of a site listed or eligible for listing on the National Register of 

Historic Places or of other cultural significance. Following consultations 

with the SHPO/Tribal Historic Preservation Officer (THPO) and 

consultations with any other potentially affected groups including Indian 

Tribes, local governments, and the National Park Service (NPS), the 

determination of effect under Section 106 of the NHPA would be no adverse 

effect. 

Waste Management 

The action is unlikely to cause air, water, or soil to be contaminated with 

hazardous material that poses a threat to human or ecological health and 

safety. 

* Recovery in a reasonable time: Constant, sustainable improvement is apparent and measurable when the site is 

routinely observed, and full recovery is achieved over a period of no more than several years. 
U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test 

National Energy Technology Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ 

Description of the Affected Environment 33 March 2009 

& Environmental Effects 

4.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND 

ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS 

4.1 Air Quality 

4.1.1 Description 

This is a description of regional climate, ambient air quality with respect to attainment of 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), and identification of applicable air quality 

regulations. 

4.1.1.1 Climate and Weather 

The SECARB Phase III study area is located in the humid subtropical climate division 

characterized by high humidity (especially in summer) and typically mild winters. The area has 

no dry season; even the driest summer month receives at least 1.2 inches (30 millimeters [mm]) 

of rain. Precipitation is rather evenly distributed throughout the year, but is markedly greater 

during summer or early spring, especially during frequent thunderstorms. Tropical hurricanes 

strike the coastal areas occasionally, and can bring very heavy rains. Snow fall is rare and melts 

almost immediately. January, historically the coldest month, temperatures range from an 

average low of 38.8 degrees Fahrenheit (° F) (3.8 degrees Celsius (° C)) to an average high of 

58.3° F (14.6° C). In July, historically the warmest month, temperatures range from an average 

low of 72.1° F (22.3° C) to an average high of 91.0° F (32.8° C). 

4.1.1.2 National Ambient Air Quality Standards and Attainment Status 

USEPA Region 4 and the State of Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ), 

regulate air quality in Mississippi. The Clean Air Act (CAA) (42 USC 7401-7671q), as 

amended, gives USEPA the responsibility to establish the primary and secondary NAAQS (40 

CFR Part 50) that set acceptable concentration levels for seven criteria pollutants: fine particulate 

matter (PM10), very fine particulate matter (PM2.5), sulfur dioxide (SO2), carbon monoxide (CO), 

nitrous oxides (NOx), ozone (O3), and lead. Short-term standards (1-, 8-, and 24-hour periods) 

have been established for pollutants contributing to acute health effects, while long-term 

standards (annual averages) have been established for pollutants contributing to chronic health 

effects. Based on the severity of the pollution problem, non-attainment areas are categorized as 

marginal, moderate, serious, severe, or extreme. Each state has the authority to adopt standards 

stricter than those established under the federal program; however, the State of Mississippi 

accepts the federal standards. 

Federal regulations designate Air-Quality Control Regions (AQCRs) in violation of the NAAQS 

as “non-attainment” areas. Federal regulations designate AQCRs with levels below the NAAQS 

as “attainment” areas. “Maintenance” AQCRs are areas that have previously been designated 

“non-attainment,” and have been redesignated to “attainment” for a probationary period through 

implementation of maintenance plans. The SECARB Phase III study area is completely within 

the Mobile-Pensacola-Panama City-Southern Mississippi AQCR (AQCR 005) (40 CFR 81.144). 

Federal regulations designate AQCR 005 as an attainment area for all criteria pollutants (40 CFR 
U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test 

National Energy Technology Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ 

Description of the Affected Environment 34 March 2009 

& Environmental Effects 

81.338). Notably, the study area is also located more than 150 miles away from the nearest Class 

I visibility area (Breton Wilderness Area, Louisiana). Because the SECARB Phase III study area 

is in an attainment region, the air conformity regulations do not apply. Although the area is in 

attainment, and the air conformity regulations do not apply, the project’s emissions of criteria 

pollutants and the applicability thresholds under the general conformity rules were carried 

forward for more detailed analysis to determine the level of impact under NEPA. 

4.1.1.3 Local Ambient Air Quality 

Worst case ambient air quality conditions can be estimated from measurements conducted at airquality monitoring stations (Table 4.1.1.3). It should be noted that the cited stations provide data 

from urban and industrial counties, such as Harrison County (Gulfport) and Jackson County 

(Pascagoula) and are not representative of the more rural study area. They are used here to 

demonstrate overall air quality in the region. Hence the levels outlined on Table 4.1.1.3 can be 

considered a conservative worst case. 

With the exception of the eight-hour O3 standards, air-quality measurements are below the 

NAAQS (USEPA, 2008). The reported maximum of 0.091 parts per million (ppm) for the eighthour level exceed the standards of 0.08 ppm within the region. However, the 3-year average of 

the fourth highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentrations over each year has not 

exceeded 0.08 ppm; hence, the attainment status. 

Table 4.1.1.3. NAAQS and Monitored Air Quality Concentrations 

Pollutant and Averaging Time Primary 

NAAQS1

Secondary 

NAAQS1 Monitored Data2 Location of Station 

CO 

8-Hour Maximum3 (ppm) 9 (None) (no data available) 

1-Hour Maximum3 (ppm) 35 (None) (no data available - 

NO2

Annual Arithmetic Mean (ppm) 0.053 0.053 0.006 Jackson County 

Ozone

8-Hour Maximum4 (ppm) 0.08 0.12 0.091 Harrison County

PM2.5

Annual Arithmetic Mean5 (μg/m3) 15 15 14.8 

24-Hour Maximum6 (μg/m3) 35 35 35 

Lauderdale 

County 

PM10

Annual Arithmetic Mean7 (μg/m3) 50 50 22 

24-Hour Maximum3 (μg/m3) 150 150 42 Jackson County 

SO2

Annual Arithmetic Mean (ppm) 0.03 (None) 0.002 

24-Hour Maximum3 (ppm) 0.14 (None) 0.011 Jackson County 

3-Hour Maximum3 (ppm) - 0.5 0.034 

1 - Source: 40 CFR 50.1-50.12. 

2 - Source: (USEPA, 2008) 

3 - Not to be exceeded more than once per year 

4 - The 3-year average of the fourth highest daily maximum 8-hour average O3 concentrations over each year must 

not exceed 0.08 ppm. 

5 - The 3-year average of the weighted annual mean PM2.5 concentrations from must not exceed 15.0 μg/m3

. 
U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test 

National Energy Technology Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ 

Description of the Affected Environment 35 March 2009 

& Environmental Effects 

6 - The 3-year average of the 98th percentile of 24-hour concentrations at each population-oriented monitor must not 

exceed 65 μg/m3

. 

7 - The 3-year average of the weighted annual mean PM10 concentration at each monitor within an area must not 

exceed 50 μg/m3

. 

ppm = parts per million 

μg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter 

NO2 = Nitrogen dioxide 

4.1.1.4 Greenhouse Gasses and Global Warming 

Greenhouse gases (GHG) are components of the atmosphere that contribute to the greenhouse 

effect and climate change. Some greenhouse gases occur naturally in the atmosphere, while 

others result from human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels. Federal agencies, states, 

and local communities address climate change by preparing GHG inventories and adopting 

policies that will result in a decrease of GHG emissions. According to the Kyoto Protocol and 

California Climate Action Registry (CCAR), there are six GHGs: carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrous 

oxide (N2O), methane (CH4), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur 

hexafluoride (SF6) (UNFCCC, 2007;CARB, 2007a). Although the direct GHG (CO2, CH4, and 

N2O) occur naturally in the atmosphere, human activities have increased their atmospheric 

concentrations. From the pre-industrial era (i.e., ending about 1750) to 2004, concentrations of 

CO2 have increased globally by 35 percent. Within the United States, fossil fuel combustion 

accounted for 94 percent of all CO2 emissions released in 2005. On a global scale, fossil fuel 

combustion added approximately 30 x109 short tons (27 x109 metric tons) of CO2 to the 

atmosphere in 2004, of which the United States accounted for about 22 percent (USEPA, 2007a). 

DOE’s Energy Information Administration (EIA) report indicates that U.S. CO2 emissions have 

grown by an average of 1.2 percent annually since 1990 and energy-related CO2 emissions 

constitute as much as 83 percent of the total annual CO2 emissions (DOE, 2007b). 

Since 1900, the Earth's average surface air temperature has increased by about 1.2 to 1.4oF since. 

The warmest global average temperatures on record have all occurred within the past 10 years, 

with the warmest year being 2005 (USEPA, 2007b). With this in mind, DOE while preserving 

their core operations is poised to support climate-changing initiatives to reduce GHG emissions. 

4.1.2 Effects of Proposed Action 

Short-term minor impacts to air quality would be expected with the implementation of the 

Proposed Action. Direct and indirect air emission would not be expected to exceed applicability 

thresholds, be “regionally significant,” or contribute to a violation of any federal, state, or local 

air regulation. Therefore, expected emissions from the Proposed Action would not impede the 

area’s conformity with state air emission standards. Air emissions would be limited to 

temporary diesel emissions from drilling and construction equipment during well development as 

part of the SECARB Phase III Early Test. These activities are in addition to Denbury’s on-going 

commercial operations in the area. No emissions would result from injection or monitoring 

operations during the SECARB Phase III Early Test. 
U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test 

National Energy Technology Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ 

Description of the Affected Environment 36 March 2009 

& Environmental Effects 

4.1.2.1 Estimated Emissions and General Conformity 

The general conformity rules require federal agencies to determine whether their action(s) would 

increase emissions of criteria pollutants above preset threshold levels (40 CFR 93.153(b)). 

These de minimis (of minimal importance) rates vary depending on the severity of the nonattainment and geographic location. Because AQCR 005 is in attainment, the general conformity 

regulations do not apply. However, all direct and indirect emissions of criteria pollutants were 

estimated and compared to applicability threshold levels of 100 short tons (91,000 kg) per year 

(tpy) to determine whether implementation of the Proposed Action would cause significant 

impacts. The proposed project actions would be only a small part of overall site actions related 

to EOR; therefore, the total direct and indirect emissions associated with the following activities 

include both ongoing EOR operations and projected proposed project actions were accounted 

for: 

• Site preparation & construction; 

• Construction and operation of transport pipeline; 

• Operation and maintenance of injection facilities, and 

• Subsurface injections of CO2. 

Construction emissions would primarily be due to the use of diesel drilling rigs, mud pumps, 

diesel generators and motors, heavy construction equipment, deliveries to the site, the application 

of architectural coatings, and fugitive dust. Drill rig operations during well construction are 

anticipated to occur 24 hours per day and 7 days per week for no more than three months. There 

are no planned operational activities along the proposed pipeline or at the well sites that would 

generate emissions of criteria pollutants. 

The total direct and indirect emissions associated with the Proposed Action would not exceed 

applicability threshold levels (Table 4.1.2.1). Because AQCR 005 is an attainment area, there is 

no existing emission budget. However, due to the limited size and scope of the Proposed Action, 

it is not anticipated that the estimated emissions would make up 10 percent or more of regional 

emissions for any criteria pollutant and not be regionally significant. A detailed breakdown of 

drilling and construction emissions is located in Appendix A. 

Table 4.1.2.1. Proposed Action Emissions Compared to Applicability Thresholds 

Annual emissions (Short Tons Per Year) 

Activity (Year) CO NOx VOC SOx PM10 PM2.5

De 

minimis

threshold 

(Short 

Tons Per 

Year)

Would 

emissions 

exceed 

applicability 

thresholds? 

[Yes/No] 

Drilling and 

Construction (2008) 4.8 8.7 1.2 0.0 0.4 0.4 

Operational 

Emissions 

<none> 

100 No 

Notes: VOC is volatile organic compounds, and SOx is sulfur oxides. 
U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test 

National Energy Technology Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ 

Description of the Affected Environment 37 March 2009 

& Environmental Effects 

4.1.2.2 Regulatory Review 

New stationary sources of emissions may be subject to both federal and state permitting 

requirements. These requirements include, but are not limited to, New Source Review (NSR), 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD), and New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) 

for selected categories of industrial sources. These regulations are outlined in Mississippi 

Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ), Air Emission Regulations for the Prevention, 

Abatement, and Control of Air Contaminants, APC-S-1 through 8. In addition, the prevention 

and elimination of waste by the pollution of air is prohibited through the guidelines set out in the 

Mississippi State Oil and Gas Board (MSOGB), Rule Book 4, Rule 45. The guidelines reiterate 

that all gas that is being vented shall be processed in a manner so that emissions do not exceed 

applicable standards. This is consistent with the state and federal regulations governing air 

pollution. In addition, the guidelines state all non-combustible gas, such as carbon dioxide 

(CO2), etc., which is not being used for a useful purpose, shall be returned to the subsurface 

stratum from which it was originally produced if emissions to the atmosphere would exceed 

applicable standards (MSOGB, 2007). The proposed SECARB Phase III site is located in an 

attainment area and would not introduce any new stationary sources of air emissions. Therefore, 

it is unlikely that any of the above stated regulations would apply. 

All drilling and construction would be accomplished in full compliance with the Mississippi 

Regulations for the Control and Abatement of Air Pollution. The necessary facilities shall be 

constructed in a manner such as to prevent the solids from becoming windborne and to prevent 

the materials from entering state waters without the proper environmental permits. The 

construction shall be performed in such a manner so as to reduce fugitive dust emissions from 

construction activities to a minimum. 

4.1.2.3 Greenhouse Gasses and Global Warming 

Direct and Indirect CO2 Emissions. For the proposed project, CO2 would be transported from a 

natural source at Jackson Dome (near Jackson, Mississippi) to Cranfield Unit and sequestered. It 

is anticipated that 1,650,000 short tons (1,500,000 metric tons) of CO2 would be sequestered 

during the project injection period. However, the overall amount of CO2 generated as a result of 

Proposed Action related activities would increase by approximately 70,000 short tons (63,500 

metric tons) due to the burning of diesel fuel during drilling, the additional electrical demand 

[estimated at 7.5 megawatt (MW)], and worker commutes. This constitutes a net decrease of 

approximately 1,580,000 short tons (1,430, 000 metric tons) of CO2 emissions over the life of the 

project (Table 4.1.2.3). Notably, this is less than 0.0001% of the global CO2 emissions. 

Table 4.1.2.3. Net CO2 Emissions for the Proposed Action 

Activity/Source Emissions (Short Tons) 

Drilling and Construction 154 

Electricity Usage 70,342 

Worker Commutes 362 

Sequestration (1,653,450) 

Total Emissions (1,582,592) 
U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test 

National Energy Technology Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ 

Description of the Affected Environment 38 March 2009 

& Environmental Effects 

Fugitive CO2 Emissions and Compressor Blowdown. Because transport and compression of 

CO2 is an integral part of activities for the Proposed Action, fugitive air emissions of CO2 could 

occur during routine operations. Sources of emissions during sequestration operations could 

include injection and monitoring wells; and aboveground valves, piping, and well heads that 

comprise the transmission pipeline. In addition, compressors are often equipped with automatic 

blowdown valves that depressurize compressors, bottles, separators, and interconnecting lines in 

the event of a shutdown. 

CO2 that could be expected to be vented from the area during this proposed project are similar in 

quantity to emissions that would otherwise have occurred from the compression unit, pipeline, 

and wells that will be in place due to EOR. Therefore, these sources of fugitive emission would 

not increase overall CO2 emissions.

4.1.3 Effects of No-Action 

Selecting the No-Action alternative could have minor indirect impacts to air quality. No-Action, 

meaning that this project is not carried out in any setting, would delay planned larger-scale 

sequestration projects by perhaps several years. The increased understanding of subsurface 

behavior of CO2 would not be gained, nor could an example of successful and safe sequestration, 

on any scale, be offered to the public in support of a larger, more expensive project. The 

complexities of a larger pilot might translate to long delays in public and regulatory approval, 

thereby jeopardizing goals of rapid action on climate change issues. A 3-year delay in initiating 

large-scale sequestration efforts would lead to an increase CO2 emissions by approximately 5% 

and atmospheric concentrations of CO2 would increase by as much as 6 ppm before any 

stabilization effort would be started. 

4.1.4 Cumulative Effects 

The State of Mississippi takes into account the effects of all past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable emissions during the development of the State Implementation Plan (SIP). The State 

of Mississippi accounts for all significant stationary, area, and mobile emission sources in the 

development of this plan. Estimated emissions generated by the Proposed Action would be de 

minimis and would not be regionally significant. Therefore, it is anticipated that the Proposed 

Action would not impede the area’s conformity with the state’s air emissions standards and is not 

expected to exceed the impact significance threshold. 

4.2 Geology and Soils 

4.2.1 Description 

The SECARB test site is topographically heterogeneous, consisting of undulating hills with 

flatter, lower-lying areas. Elevations across the test site span measured in feet above sea level 

(asl) are between 280 feet (asl) (85.3m) and 400 feet (ft) (asl) (121.9 m) (DOE, 2008a). The 

South Fork of Coles Creek subdivides the test site providing surface drainage to the hilly uplands 

on both north and south aspects of the site. 
U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test 

National Energy Technology Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ 

Description of the Affected Environment 39 March 2009 

& Environmental Effects 

The upper geology of the Cranfield area (Thompson, 1969), listed from youngest to oldest is: 

• Pleistocene and Holocene alluvial sediments and loess 

• Pascagoula – Hattiesburg – Catahoula (Miocene – Oligocene) 

• Cockfield (Eocene) 

• Sparta (Eocene) 

• Wilcox (Eocene – Paleocene) 

• Midway – Navarro – Taylor (Paleocene) 

• Selma – Austin chalk (Upper Cretaceous) 

• Tuscaloosa (Upper Cretaceous) 

• Washita – Fredericksburg (Lower Cretaceous) 

The geology consists of inter-bedded sandstone and shale formations in the upper sections with 

marl and chalk beds becoming more prevalent into the Cretaceous deposits (Bicker, 1969). 

Limestone and salt deposits appear in the Lower Cretaceous and Jurassic deposits. Several 

unconformities are present throughout the geological column. This likely reflects cyclical 

transgression and recession events. The target injection zone is located in the Mississippi Salt 

Basin and is comprised of the deep saline Tuscaloosa Formation. The generalized subsurface 

geology of the Tuscaloosa Formation indicates a predominate presence of shale interspersed with 

highly-porous, lenticular sandstone strata. The regional stratigraphy indicates that the CO2

injection site will be into the Lower Tuscaloosa Formation, sealed by the overlying Middle and 

Upper Tuscaloosa units. Beneath the injection site, the Washita-Fredericksburg Groups provide a 

seal from downward movement of injected CO2. 

Sand and shale units of the Tuscaloosa Group are over 1,000 ft (305m) thick (Chacko et al., 

1997) and represent a complete depositional cycle. The Tuscaloosa Group comprises three units. 

The lower Tuscaloosa represents a transgressive stage of the depositional cycle and consists of 

an arenaceous and argillaceous lower unit. The marine shale forms the middle Tuscaloosa unit 

and represents the inundated phase of the depositional cycle. The marine shale is mostly gray to 

black, fissile and sandy at some locations thickening down-dip. In Pike County, Mississippi the 

marine shale is 500 ft (152 m) thick increasing to 800 ft (243 m) in the south-central area of 

Washington Parish, Louisiana (Chacko et al., 1997). The project area is approximately 50 miles 

(80 km) northwest of these marine shale deposits. The upper Tuscaloosa sands and clays 

represent the regressive phase of the depositional cycle (Mancini and Puckett, 2005). It is 

difficult to distinguish the upper Tuscaloosa from the overlying Eutaw Formation because of 

their lithological similarity. The permeability of the lower Tuscaloosa Formation varies from 35 

millidarcy (mD) to over 2000 mD with a porosity varying from 25% to 30%. The permeability 

of the Tuscaloosa shale, the first upper seal, is from less than 0.01 mD to 0.06 mD with 

porosities from 2.3% to 8.0%. 

The 350 ft (106 m) to 560 ft (171 m) (Curry, 1934) lower seal of the Washita Group has low 

permeability with porosities of 10% to 20% (Goddard, 2001). Other seals such as the Austin 

chalk range in thickness from 200 ft to 600 ft (McNulty, 1976) with permeability from 0.05 mD 

to 2 mD with porosities of 2% to 5% (Goddard, 2001). 

Structurally the test site is located within the Adams County High on the western slopes of the 

Leedo salt dome (Thompson, 1988). There are no apparent fault zones within the area. 
U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test 

National Energy Technology Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ 

Description of the Affected Environment 40 March 2009 

& Environmental Effects 

However, faults in the Tuscaloosa Formation are evident approximately 60 miles (96.6 km) to 

the east. The dip of the Tuscaloosa Formation in the immediate area of the proposed injection 

site is to the west (Thompson, 1988). Any migration as a result of CO2 buoyancy would 

therefore be updip to the east and the apex of the Leedo salt dome located approximately 20 

miles (32 km) to the east. 

. 

Figure 4.2.1-1. Generalized Stratigraphic Sections/Hydrological Functions as Related to the 

SECARB Project 

Source: (DOE, 2008a). 
U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test 

National Energy Technology Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ 

Description of the Affected Environment 41 March 2009 

& Environmental Effects 

Information on soil types in the SECARB test region are mapped by the Natural Resources 

Conservation Service (NRCS) as presented in Figure 4.2.1-2 (DOE, 2008a). The test region is 

characterized by heterogeneous soil series consisting of both upland and floodplain soil groups 

(NRCS, 2008a). Adjacent to the South Fork of Coles Creek, the soil type is predominantly 

Collins silt loam which is described as being very deep and moderately drained and permeable 

and subject to flooding. Additionally, Crevasse-Bruno complex, Tippo, and Memphis silt loams 

are also present. The Bruno complex and Memphis series are particularly well-drained, produce 

negligible runoff and are moderately to highly permeable. The higher elevation ridges and 

hilltops along the South Fork of Coles Creek and predominantly throughout the test site is 

Memphis silt loam, although some intermixed smaller amounts of Lucy-Memphis and 

Smithdale-Lexington-Memphis associations are present. The Memphis series soils are described 

as very deep, moderately permeable and well drained. Runoff potential for these soil types are 

described as being medium to high. Given the heterogeneous nature of soil types throughout the 

test site, the soil properties and thus runoff response is highly variable and dependent on land 

use/cover (NRCS, 2008a). 
U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early T

National Energy Technology Laboratory Final Environmental Assessm___________________________________________________________________________Description of the Affected Environment 42 March 2

 & Environmental Effects 

Figure 4.2.1-2. NRCS Generated Map of Soil Series at SECARB Test Site 

Source: (DOE, 2008a). 
U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test 

National Energy Technology Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ 

Description of the Affected Environment 43 March 2009 

& Environmental Effects 

Table 4.2.1. Legend for NRCS Generated Map of Soil Series at SECARB Test Site

Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name 

Bv Bruno and Vicksburg soils 

Co Collins silt loam 

Cx Crevasse-Bruno complex 

Fa Falaya silt loam 

Gu Gullied land 

LME Lucy-Memphis association, hilly 

MeA Memphis silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes 

MeB2 Memphis silt loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes 

MeC2 Memphis silt loam, 5 to 8 percent slopes 

MeD2 Memphis silt loam, 8 to 17 percent slopes 

MeF2 Memphis silt loam, 17 to 60 percent slopes 

MGE Memphis-Gullied land association, hilly 

MnF Memphis-Natchez complex, 17 to 60 percent slopes 

TaA Tippo silt loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes 

Vc Vicksburg silt loam, local alluvium 

W Water 

Wa Waverly silt loam 

10 Ariel silt loam, occasionally flooded 

14 Gillsburg silt loam, occasionally flooded 

30B2 Memphis silt loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes 

30C2 Memphis silt loam, 5 to 8 percent slopes 

30F2 Memphis silt loam, 8 to 40 percent slopes 

56A Bude silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes 

70F Smithdale-Lexington-Memphis association, 5 to 40 percent slopes 

73F1 Lorman silt loam, 15 to 35 percent slopes 

94 Trebloc silt loam, frequently flooded 

 Source: (NRCS, 2008a) 

4.2.2 Effects of Proposed Action 

Geology: The Proposed Action would increase the pressure gradients within the Tuscaloosa 

Formation resulting in the movement of multi-phase fluids. Hydrocarbon recovery will develop 

an emulsion of hydrocarbons, saline water and gasses including CO2. The likelihood of 

accidental surface releases increase slightly with the collection and disposal of saline water and 

gasses at the surface. Increasing formation pressures may, to a minor extent, increase the 

likelihood of well casing failures and gas migration resulting in potential leakage from aging 

wells. However, if operational protocols are followed, the activities planned for this CO2 storage 

and EOR operations are not expected to cause measurable leakage of CO2 from the storage 

formation to the surface. 

Soils: Actual and potential impacts to soils would occur at all stages of this project. During the 

first stage, all major activities that would impact soils would occur as part of Denbury’s 
U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test 

National Energy Technology Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ 

Description of the Affected Environment 44 March 2009 

& Environmental Effects 

commercial EOR operations even if the SECARB study is not conducted (i.e., No-Action 

alternative). These activities would include the traffic of heavy equipment and light vehicles to 

reopen roads and drilling pads and lay pipelines. Re-established forest would be cleared and 

right of ways established for new high pressure CO2 injection lines. Drilling muds and drill 

cuttings (containing additives and oily saline cuttings) would be produced and land treated. 

There is a potential for fuels, lubricants, coolants, drilling muds and produced fluids to be spilled 

to ground. First stage activities would be undertaken in cleared (vegetation removed) areas, in 

undulating terrain consisting of heterogeneous (mix of properties) silt loam soils, and in an 

environment which receives heavy rains from tropical storms. Liquids released to the ground if 

not “cleaned up” would either be washed into the surrounding surface water or leached into the 

soil. While land treatment areas may be difficult to manage in this environment, Denbury has 

had over 10 years of experience in similar drilling and EOR operations in this area and has 

successfully managed land treatment in accordance with environmental regulations. 

To mitigate potential soils and subsurface geology impacts from the construction stage if the 

Proposed Action is implemented, Denbury plans to: 

• Re-establish oil production infrastructure on pre-disturbed lands thereby minimizing the 

development footprint to reconditioned well pads and flow lines within a total area of 

approximately 2 mi2 (3.21 km2). 

• Establish SECARB wells and infrastructure in forested areas away from land developed 

for agriculture crops. 

• Integrate the SECARB project into their own EOR development thereby minimizing 

infrastructure and operational requirements. 

• Directionally drill additional injection wells from existing (re-established) former well 

pads. 

• Extend four injection wells into the brine water leg down dip formation thereby reducing 

the incremental impact of the SECARB project from drilling. 

• Handle and dispose of drilling mud and associated waste according to MSOGB rules and 

regulations. 

• Install an additional compressor for the SECARB project in-line with existing pipelines 

minimizing soil disturbance. 

• Drill two observation wells from re-conditioned well pads already being used for EOR 

injection wells. 

• Use smaller/lighter drilling and sampling equipment to establish groundwater monitoring 

wells. 

• Collect and then dispose of any brinish water produced to a permitted Class II injection 

well. 

During the second phase, the impacts would be restricted to light vehicles accessing injection 

and monitoring locations to maintain operations and record observations. Impacts to soils could 

result from spillage of lubricants and fluids from the compressors or very minor loss of fluids 

collected from the sampling program. Leakage from the injection formation up into the soil 

profile is a possibility and could result from pipeline ruptures, casing leaks or formation 

fracturing. CO2 gas accumulations in soil can cause root function inhibition and oxygen 

deprivation to soil microbes and surface vegetation. 
U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test 

National Energy Technology Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ 

Description of the Affected Environment 45 March 2009 

& Environmental Effects 

To minimize impacts to soils and subsurface geology if the operational phase of the SECARB 

Study is implemented, Denbury and SECARB plan to: 

• Verify abandoned well integrity through the review of plug and abandonment records. 

• Integrate SECARB operations into Denbury operations and maintenance into the EOR 

project to gain operational efficiencies. 

• Monitor well casing vent flows. 

• Test well completion integrity. 

• Undertake soil-gas surveys using shallow auger holes resulting in minimal surface soil 

disturbance. 

• Properly plug and abandon observation wells at the end of the SECARB study to help 

prevent CO2 and saltwater migration up to the surface. 

• Monitor the site at least one (1) year after the SECARB injections have been terminated. 

• Collect and then dispose of any brinish water produced as a result of sampling to a 

permitted Class II injection well. 

4.2.3 Effects of No-Action 

Denbury plans to develop the EOR regardless of the implementation of the SECARB Phase III 

Early Test. 

Geology: The only difference between a full implementation of the SECARB project and no 

implementation, from a geological perspective, would be the establishment of two deep 

observation wells by drilling into the brine water leg down dip of the target formation, the 

establishment of two shallow groundwater monitoring wells, and the injection of the additional 

volume of CO2. 

Soils: Surface disturbance would be similar except for the disturbance and infrastructure needed 

to establish deep observation wells, shallow groundwater wells, the compressor site, and the tests 

associated with operational monitoring of soils throughout the life of the SECARB project. 

4.2.4 Cumulative Effects 

Geology: The Proposed Action would cause an increase in pressure gradients within the 

Tuscaloosa Formation resulting in the movement of multi-phase fluids. Hydrocarbon recovery 

brought on by implementation of the Proposed Action could develop additional emulations of 

hydrocarbons, saline water and gasses including CO2. The collection and disposal of saline 

water and gasses increases the likelihood of accidental releases. Increasing formation pressures 

could increase the likelihood of well casing failures and gas migration resulting in potential 

leakage from aging wells. 

At the termination of CO2 sequestration, the injection and monitoring wells would need to be 

properly abandoned to prevent potential releases both at the surface and along the well bore. The 

retained pressure in the target formation may result in a restriction with respect to future 

development of any remaining oil and gas resources or CO2 disposal activities. 
U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test 

National Energy Technology Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ 

Description of the Affected Environment 46 March 2009 

& Environmental Effects 

Soils: The SECARB study developed in conjunction with the EOR project would result in the 

following potential additional impacts to soil: 

• The additional use and eventual land treatment of 33% more drilling mud (30,000 to 

50,000 lbs. or 13,608 to 22,680 kg) plus cuttings with associated impacts to the receiving 

soils and potentially the surrounding area (the lower sections of the wells are in oil and 

salt water bearing strata). 

• Increased traffic (soil compaction and disturbance) due to establishment of groundwater 

monitoring wells and implementation of soil and geological monitoring programs. 

• The potential for spillage to the soil surface of additional 167,000 to 280,000 gallons 

(631,978 to 984,207 L) of water (potentially including additives and oil/salts from the 

subsurface formations) needed for the observation well drilling program. 

Provided there are no spills or there is timely and effective spill response the cumulative impact 

to the soils of the Cranfield Oil and Gas Field development will be negligible. All activities by 

Denbury and SECARB including the construction, operation, maintenance, and closure of wells, 

compressors, and related facilities would be required to meet all MSOGB requirements. Existing 

MSOGB regulations adequately protect the environment with strict standards to prevent and 

contain spills, erosion, waste, and release of other materials; and provide for penalties and 

appropriate remedial actions for failure to comply. 

Given the predicted impacts of the CO2 injection to the geological formations at the SECARB 

site, we do not expect that they would exceed the impact significance threshold. Provided there 

are no spills or there is timely and effective initiation of spill response, the cumulative impact to 

the soils of the Cranfield Oil and Gas Field development would be negligible. 

4.3 Water Resources 

4.3.1 Description 

The regional topography is dominated by the drainage basin of the South Fork of Coles Creek. 

The creek transects the area entering along the eastern boundary and flows northwest. Tributary 

ephemeral streams enter the creek from the upland areas to the north and southwest. Natchez 

Lake is located approximately 1 mile (1.6 km) to the west of the area and the Mississippi River is 

located approximately 10 miles (16.1 km) to the west. 

Flow from the South Fork Basin is monitored by the United States Geological Survey (USGS). 

Hydrometric records from 1999 to 2004 indicate peak discharge volumes of 22,500 cubic feet 

per second (ft3

/sec) (637.1 m3/sec) (USGS, 2005). Water quality data collected on the South 

Fork of Coles Creek (1961-1982) indicate that the surface water is a moderately soft, sodium 

bicarbonate type (USGS, 2008a). The Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality 

(MDEQ) lists the South Fork of Coles Creek (MS454E) as an impaired water body in its 2008 

Section 303(d) List of Impaired Water Bodies (MDEQ, 2008). 

Two major fresh water aquifer systems have been noted in the area. A phreatic (or unconfined) 

aquifer is located within the recent quaternary surficial deposits, while confined aquifers are 

located in the older, yet shallow Miocene and Oligocene geologic age deposits. The USGS 
U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test 

National Energy Technology Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ 

Description of the Affected Environment 47 March 2009 

& Environmental Effects 

determined that the elevation of the aquifer (base) where total dissolved solids (TDS) less than 

1,000 milligrams per liter (mg/L) (less than 1,000 ppm) is at approximately 600ft (183m) (Gandl, 

1982). Where TDS less than 3000 mg/L (less than 3,000 ppm), the base of useable-water quality, 

is between 1,200 and 1,400 ft (366-427m) depth. The depth of the potentially useable-quality 

water (less than 10,000 ppm/TDS) is between 1,400 and 1,600 ft depth (427-488m) (DOE, 

2008a). 

The fresh water aquifers are underlain by the confining Cockfield Formation. The Cockfield 

Formation represents a major regional aquifer system which has been declining (both in quality 

and quantity) in recent years (USGS, 2005). The results of water quality testing have shown an 

increasing trend (5-year) in the levels of chloride in the Cockfield Formation in Washington 

County, north of the SECARB test site and the Cockfield Formation is not a part of USDW in 

the study area. It was also reported that groundwater flow in this formation is complex and 

largely affected by anthropogenic behavior, indicated by the falling potentiometric levels and 

shifting well draw downs (Mason, 2001). 

4.3.2 Effects of Proposed Action 

Production of emulsions of hydrocarbons, saline water and gasses increase the potential for 

casing and pipeline failures, potentially increasing the number of spills. The effect of casing 

failures could be the migration of fluids into confined domestic use aquifers. Surface spills could 

result in infiltration to phreatic aquifers and flow to surface water bodies. 

To minimize soil and therefore groundwater and surface water impacts during the operational 

phase of the SECARB Study, Denbury would implement, develop, maintain, monitor and 

abandon the SECARB project following the strategy outlined in Section 2.0 above. 

4.3.3 Effects of No-Action 

Denbury plans to develop the area for EOR regardless of whether the SECARB Phase III Early 

Test is implemented or not; therefore, the effect of the No-Action alternative would be a lower 

probability of impacts to surface and groundwater resources as a result of less oil production and 

CO2 sequestration infrastructure development and operational activity. 

4.3.4 Cumulative Effects 

The potential cumulative effects of the Proposed Action are similar to those outlined in Section 

4.2.4 above for soils: 

• The land treatment area would be a potential source of both surface and groundwater 

contamination. The heterogeneous soils in this area make the land treatment area 

development specifications very site specific (soils range from being very permeable to 

subject to severe erosion). The SECARB development would add 33 % to the volume of 

drilling mud potentially available for treatment. 

• The potential spillage of an additional 167,000 to 280,000 gallons (631 978 to 984 207 L) 

of drilling waste water could impact both surface and groundwater quality. 
U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test 

National Energy Technology Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ 

Description of the Affected Environment 48 March 2009 

& Environmental Effects 

• The drilling of two additional observation wells could potentially provide a conduit for 

CO2 and salt water migration into the aquifer above. 

• Containment of compressors leaking lubricants and coolants will be required. 

Containment will be necessary for both the compressor itself and oil and coolant 

reservoirs to prevent spillage to the ground and surface and groundwater impacts. 

Other than observation well water samples, the SECARB project would produce negligible 

quantities of produced water. If there is soil erosion as a result of field re-development the 

incremental impact of the SECARB project would have a negligible influence on overall soil 

erosion and potential surface water impacts. Operationally, SECARB would not need any make 

up water. 

Provided there are no spills, or there is a timely and effective spill response, the cumulative 

impact to the surface and groundwater of the Cranfield Oil and Gas Field development would be 

negligible and therefore is not expected to exceed the impact significance threshold. 

4.4 Wetlands and Floodplains 

4.4.1 Description 

Regionally, marshes, lakes, and swamps are numerous (Bailey, 1995), although none are found 

in the study area. One perennial stream, South Fork of Coles Creek, crosses the study area, as 

well as several intermittent streams and four small freshwater ponds (Figure 4.4.1-1). Although 

some riverine wetlands occur in the study area, no jurisdictional wetlands have been recorded in 

the National Wetlands Inventory within the project boundaries (USFWS, 1982). 

National Wetlands Inventory map units of the site are classified as PUBHh and R2USA 

(USFWS, 1982). The PUBHh units are the freshwater ponds classified as palustrine 

unconsolidated bottom permanently flooded diked/impounded units (USFWS, 2008). Palustrine 

system designations include all non-tidal wetlands dominated by trees, shrubs, persistent 

emergents, emergent mosses or lichens. The R2USA units are the riverine wetlands associated 

with the South Fork of Coles Creek classified as riverine lower perennial unconsolidated shore 

temporarily flooded (USFWS, 2008). Riverine system designations include all wetlands and 

deepwater habitats contained in natural or artificial channels periodically or continuously 

containing flowing water or which forms a connecting link between the two bodies of standing 

water. The lower perennial subsystem is characterized by a low gradient and slow water 

velocity. 
U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early T

National Energy Technology Laboratory Final Environmental Assessm___________________________________________________________________________Description of the Affected Environment 49 March 2

 & Environmental Effects 

Figure 4.4.1-1. Water Bodies and Wetlands in the Project Area 
U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test 

National Energy Technology Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ 

Description of the Affected Environment 50 March 2009 

& Environmental Effects 

Additionally, there is a small 100 year floodplain in the project area associated with the South 

Fork of Coles Creek (Figure 4.4.1-2) (FEMA, 1977; FEMA, 1989). Normal and peak stream 

flows of Coles Creek in this area are known from operation of a stream-gauging station near 

Fayette, MS (U.S. Geological Survey station 07290870) approximately 10 miles north of the 

project site. The drainage area for Coles Creek above the Fayette stream-gauging station totals 

257 square miles. The gauge datum is 67.3 feet above mean sea level. Maximum discharge 

measured at the Fayette gauge between 1961 and 1995 was 75,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) on 

April 12, 1974, which corresponded to a gauge height of 31.96 feet. Thus, the peak flood 

elevation near Fayette from 1961 to 1995 was 99.26 feet above sea level. This peak flood 

elevation is sufficient to inundate the lowland floodplains of Coles Creek; however, water 

elevations of the creek during high floods, such as in 1974, are more than 90 feet below the landsurface elevation of 190 feet above sea level at the project site (USGS, 2008b). 
U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early T

National Energy Technology Laboratory Final Environmental Assessm___________________________________________________________________________Description of the Affected Environment 51 March 2

 & Environmental Effects 

Figure 4.4.1-2. Floodplains in the Project Area 
U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test 

National Energy Technology Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ 

Description of the Affected Environment 52 March 2009 

& Environmental Effects 

4.4.2 Effects of Proposed Action 

If the northern optional study well is selected (see Figure 2.1.2) as the fourth injection well, it is 

possible that the small freshwater pond located nearby (see Figure 4.4.1-1) and any associated 

wetlands would be affected since the well pad site is located very close to the pond. Since the 

existing well pad was abandoned in the mid-1960s, it would be reconditioned to support drilling 

operations to include land clearing of approximately one acre or less, leveling and fill activities, 

rebuilding access roads, laying connector pipelines, and extending other infrastructure services 

as needed. These activities increase the likelihood of soil erosion and sediment delivery to the 

small pond through the disturbance of surface soils. The effects to the pond and wetland water 

quality and hydrology would be adverse and short-term. Best management practices to control 

erosion and sediment release would be utilized during all construction activities. 

It is also possible that construction activities could destroy some wetland surface area. However, 

while clearing land and installing other infrastructure, efforts would be made to avoid direct 

wetland damage. 

Diesel fuel products would be needed for construction of the deep well located near the 

freshwater pond; therefore, there is some risk of an accidental fuel spill, which could adversely 

affect water quality if the spill were to enter the wetland. Again, best management practices 

would be used during handling of fuel to minimize the risk of spills. 

The construction of Denbury pipelines and roadways may cross streams or run adjacent or 

through wetlands. Disturbance of road surfaces and embankments caused by excavation and 

grading during installation of pipeline and roadways would likely cause soil erosion and 

sediment delivery to the streams and wetlands. Construction activities that would take place 

within stream channels or wetlands would result in potential contamination (i.e., fuel or oil 

spills) of riparian and/or wetland vegetation and sedimentation, which could disturb organisms 

and raise water temperatures. Effects to stream and wetland water quality and hydrology could 

be adverse and short-term lasting only during construction activities. These activities, which will 

occur regardless of SECARB participation, would be conducted in accordance with best 

management practices of the industry and comply with all federal and state environmental 

regulations to minimize impacts. 

Since none of the injection wells would be located in or near the floodplain of the South Fork of 

Coles Creek, construction activities would not cause any impacts to this floodplain. Conversely, 

flooding of the South Fork of Coles Creek would not reach or damage the well sites. As 

described for wetlands above, pipeline and roads which may cross floodplains could disturb 

floodplain soils and cause soil erosion. However, floodplain structure and function would not be 

altered or compromised. 

The unlikely event of leakage of injected CO2 to the surface could pose detrimental effects on 

wetlands and floodplains near or at some distance from the project site. Wetland vegetation and 

water quality could be impacted by increased concentrations of CO2, possibly resulting in 

changes in species composition, plant death, changes in pH and water quality (International 

Energy Agency, 2007). 
U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test 

National Energy Technology Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ 

Description of the Affected Environment 53 March 2009 

& Environmental Effects 

Although leakage of CO2 to the surface affecting wetlands and floodplains in a widespread area 

is possible, it is more likely that any impacts to wetlands would be confined to the immediate 

project area and would not cause any regional impacts. Thus, impacts on wetlands and 

floodplains by the Proposed Action would not be expected to exceed the significance threshold. 

4.4.3 Effects of No-Action 

Under the No-Action alternative, the Southeast Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership Phase 

III Early Test project would not be implemented. No additional impacts to wetlands or 

floodplains would occur as a result of this alternative beyond impacts that would occur 

regardless of SECARB participation. 

4.4.4 Cumulative Effects 

Past oil and gas development in the Cranfield Unit has likely resulted in impacts to area wetlands 

and floodplains. Wetlands and floodplains are subject to damage from ongoing activities in the 

area including hunting, cattle grazing, and timber harvest operations; these activities are likely to 

continue in the future, along with Denbury’s commercial enhanced oil recovery operations. The 

proposed project could pose some threats to wetlands and floodplains, including soil erosion and 

sediment delivery, destruction of some wetland surface area, and risk of accidental fuel spills. It 

is also possible that an unlikely leakage of CO2 to the surface would have wider spread 

consequences on wetlands and floodplains. However, given the larger impacts to wetlands and 

floodplains from past, present, and future activities, cumulative impacts contributed by the 

proposed project would not exceed the significance threshold. 

4.5 Terrestrial Vegetation 

4.5.1 Description 

The proposed new CO2 injection wells and observation wells would be located in an area 

characterized by the Bailey Ecoregion classification as the Southeastern Mixed Forest Province 

of the Subtropical Division (National Atlas, 2008). The area consists of wooded hills with 

deciduous and evergreen forests and flatter areas used for agriculture, consisting of pasture and 

row crops. Forest tree species include loblolly and shortleaf pine, oak, hickory, and some 

adjacent gum and cypress. The main grasses are bluestem, panicums, and longleaf uniola. 

Dogwood, viburnum, haw, blueberry, American beautyberry, youpon, and numerous woody 

vines are common (Bailey, 1995). Moderate to high amounts of forest fragmentation occur in 

isolated areas near the South Fork of Coles Creek. 

A beech-magnolia forest in a recovering loess ravine habitat that has been listed as a natural 

community of concern by Mississippi Natural Heritage Program (MSNHP) has been reported in 

an isolated area near Highway 84 immediately south of the study area. The only other natural 

community of concern listed by the MSNHP near the study site is in Natchez State Park. These 

sites are approximately one mile from the outer boundaries of the study area and more than two 

miles from the proposed injection well sites. 
U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test 

National Energy Technology Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ 

Description of the Affected Environment 54 March 2009 

& Environmental Effects 

No critical habitats or federally listed plant species exist in the vicinity of the project site or in 

Adams and Franklin counties. Table 4.5.1 lists the Mississippi state listed species that occur in 

Adams and Franklin counties, but not necessarily at the project location. The U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service reviewed the project location and has determined that no federally listed or 

proposed threatened or endangered plant species are likely to occur at the project site, and that 

the project site would not be located within officially designated critical habitat. Copies of the 

review request and the determination letter are included in Appendix B. 

Table 4.5.1. State Listed Plant Species in Adams and Franklin Counties, MS 

Scientific Name Common Name Global Rank State Rank 

Adams County 

Antennaria solitaria Single-headed pussytoes G5 S3? 

Carex decomposita Cypress-knee sedge G3 S3? 

Celastrus scandens Climbing bittersweet G5 S2S3 

Dryopteris australis Southern wood fern G3 S1 

Erythrodes querceticola Low erythrodes G3G5 S1? 

Herbertia lahue ssp. caerulea Herbertia G4G5 S2 

Mikania cordifolia Florida Keys hempvine G5 S3S4 

Pachysandra procumbens Allegheny spurge G4G5 S3 

Phacelia dubia Small-flower 

scorpionweed 

G5 S? 

Platanthera cristata Crested fringed orchid G5 S3 

Schisandra glabra Scarlet woodbine G3 S3? 

Stewartia malacodendron Silky camellia G4 S3S4 

Trillium foetidissimum Fetid trillium G3 S3 

Franklin County 

Antennaria solitaria Single-headed pussytoes G5 S3? 

Hookeriopsis heteroica Trachyxiphium moss G2? S1? 

Lobelia appendiculata Appendaged lobelia G4G5 S2S3 

Mikania cordifolia Florida Keys hempvine G5 S3S4 

Schisandra glabra Scarlet woodbine G3 S3? 

Stewartia malacodendron Silky camellia G4 S3S4 

Trillium foetidissimum Fetid trillium G3 S3 

Source: (MSNHP, 2008). (Note: Ranking definitions are as follows: 

G3 - Either very rare or local throughout its range or found locally in a restricted range or vulnerable to extinction 

from other factors. 

G4 - Apparently secure globally (may be rare in parts of range). 

G5 - Demonstrably secure globally. 

S1 - Critically imperiled in Mississippi (5 or fewer occurrences or less than 1000 individuals) because of extreme 

rarity or because of extreme vulnerability to extinction due to some natural or man-made factor. 

S2 - Imperiled in Mississippi because of rarity (6 to 20 occurrences or less than 3000 individuals) or because of 

vulnerability to extinction due to some natural or man-made factor. 

S3 - Either very rare and local in Mississippi (21-100 occurrences or less than 10,000 individuals) or found 

locally in a restricted range or vulnerable to extinction from other factors. 

S4 - Apparently secure in Mississippi (may be rare in parts of range)) 
U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test 

National Energy Technology Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ 

Description of the Affected Environment 55 March 2009 

& Environmental Effects 

4.5.2 Effects of Proposed Action 

Construction activities associated with the Proposed Action would necessitate removal of plants 

where land is cleared for well reconditioning, and for installation of roads, pipelines, and power 

lines; however, much of the project area has already been disturbed during past oil and gas 

activities. Trees and ground cover would be removed for site preparation. Repeated disturbance 

of vegetation (i.e., due to vehicle passes or foot traffic) during construction, injection, and 

monitoring in areas where plants are not cleared would cause damage to plants and destruction of 

the vegetation mat. 

It is estimated that a total of one to two acres of vegetation would be disturbed by installation of 

wells, roads, pipeline, and power lines. The majority of disturbance would occur in previously 

disturbed areas, minimizing adverse impacts on vegetation. Well reconditioning would include 

land clearing of approximately one acre or less, which would occur regardless of SECARB 

participation. A gravel access road and drilling pad would not be required for the two water 

wells, so no additional land would be cleared. Construction of roads, pipeline, and power lines 

would require some additional land clearing, but likely not more than one acre. There would 

also be localized vegetation disturbance from foot traffic during installation, injection, and 

monitoring; however, this area would likely be minimal and limited to the areas immediately 

surrounding the equipment. 

Exotic plants or seeds could be brought to the site with fill material or on equipment. New 

introductions could allow for exotic plants to become established and spread, especially in areas 

where the ground is disturbed by construction activities. Exotic plants currently growing in the 

area can also become established and spread on newly disturbed substrates. However, mitigation 

to ensure that imported material does not contain exotic plant material would be implemented. 

As no critical habitats or federally listed plant species exist in the vicinity of the project site, 

there would be no impacts on threatened or endangered species. 

The unlikely event of leakage of injected CO2 to the surface could pose detrimental effects on 

vegetation near or at some distance from the project site. Although atmospheric CO2 promotes 

plant growth, increased concentrations in the soil could lead to root asphyxiation and plant death 

(International Energy Agency, 2007). Impacts of seepage on on-shore ecosystems could also 

include altered biological diversity and changes to the composition and numbers of species in the 

local environment. The range of effects on terrestrial ecosystems could extend to entire 

ecosystems and could be chronic, acute, or lethal depending on species affected and 

concentrations of CO2. 

Any changes to native vegetation would be limited to a small area and would not affect the 

viability of the resources. Full recovery would occur in a reasonable time, considering the size 

of the project and the affected resource’s natural state. Therefore, impacts on terrestrial 

vegetation would not be expected to exceed the significance threshold. 
U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test 

National Energy Technology Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ 

Description of the Affected Environment 56 March 2009 

& Environmental Effects 

4.5.3 Effects of No-Action 

Under the No-Action alternative, the Southeast Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership Phase 

III Early Test project would not be implemented. No impacts to terrestrial vegetation would 

occur as a result of this alternative beyond impacts that would occur regardless of SECARB 

participation. 

4.5.4 Cumulative Effects 

Vegetation in the Cranfield Unit has been previously cleared for construction of wells, roads, and 

related infrastructure as part of past oil and gas operations. The area has and continues to be 

used for hunting, cattle grazing and timber harvest. Each of these activities involves removal, 

trampling, or destruction of vegetation and disturbance of ground cover. Additionally, if 

enhanced oil recovery by Denbury is successful, other oil fields in the general area of the project 

site may be worked over again, contributing to vegetation impacts in the region. Land clearing 

as part of the proposed project would be limited to well pad sites of one acre or less, associated 

road construction or reconditioning necessary to provide access to the sites, and pipeline 

construction for CO2 and product recovery. Most of this activity would occur on property 

already disturbed by prior drilling and other activities and would be conducted as part of 

Denbury’s commercial enhanced oil recovery operations. It is also possible that an unlikely 

leakage of CO2 to the surface would have wider spread consequences on vegetation. Overall, 

cumulative impacts from the proposed project when added to other past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions would not exceed the significance threshold. 

4.6 Wildlife 

4.6.1 Description 

Common mammals that occur in rural areas east of the Mississippi River include white-tailed 

deer, beaver, raccoon, skunk, rabbit, squirrel, mole, and shrew. Common birds include bobwhite 

quail, mourning dove, meadowlark, robin, hawks, and owls. Black bass, bluegill, and catfish are 

commonly found in area streams. Common snakes include cottonmouth moccasin, copperhead, 

rough green snake, rat snake, coachwhip, and speckled kingsnake. Fence and glass lizards are 

also found, as is the slimy salamander. 

The closest wildlife refuge, St. Catherine Creek National Wildlife Refuge, is a protected area for 

the bald eagle and least tern. This refuge is located approximately 20 miles (32 km) southwest of 

the project area on the east bank of the Mississippi River about 10 miles (16 km) south of the 

City of Natchez, Mississippi. 

Table 4.6.1 lists the federal and state listed species for Adams and Franklin counties. The U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service reviewed the experiment location and has determined that two 

federally listed threatened or endangered wildlife species and one recently de-listed species could 

be found on or near the project area. Copies of the review request and the determination letter are 

included in Appendix B.
U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test 

National Energy Technology Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ 

Description of the Affected Environment 57 March 2009 

& Environmental Effects 

Table 4.6.1. Federal & State Listed Wildlife Species in Adams & Franklin Counties, MS 

Scientific Name Common Name Global Rank State Rank Federal Status 

Adams County

Cyprinella whipplei Steelcolor shiner G5 S3 

Graptemys 

ouachitensis 

Ouachita map 

turtle 

G5 S4? 

Paravitrea 

significans 

Domed supercoil G? S? 

Potamilus capax Fat pocketbook G1 S1 Endangered 

Scaphirhynchus 

albus 

Pallid sturgeon G1 S1 Endangered 

Ursus americanus 

luteolus 

Louisiana black 

bear 

G5 S1 Threatened 

Franklin 

Alloperla natchez Natchez stonefly G2 S2 

Crystallaria asprella Crystal darter G3 S1 

Haploperla chukcho Chukcho stonefly G2 S2 

Homoeoneuria 

cahabensis 

Cahaba sandfilterning mayfly G2 S1S3 

Picoides borealis Red-cockaded 

woodpecker 

G3 S1 Endangered 

Procambarus penni Pearl blackwater 

crayfish 

G3 S3 

Uniomerus declivis Tapered 

pondhorn 

G5 S2 

Ursus americanus 

luteolus 

Louisiana black 

bear 

G5 S1 Threatened 

Source: (MSNHP, 2008; USFWS, 2005). (Note: Ranking definitions are as follows: 

G1 - Critically imperiled globally because of extreme rarity (5 or fewer occurrences or less than 1000 individuals) 

or because of extreme vulnerability to extinction due to some natural or man-made factor. 

G2 - Imperiled globally because of rarity (6 to 20 occurrences or less than 3000 individuals) or because of 

vulnerability to extinction due to some natural or man-made factor. 

G3 - Either very rare or local throughout its range or found locally in a restricted range or vulnerable to extinction 

from other factors. 

G5 - Demonstrably secure globally. 

S1 - Critically imperiled in Mississippi (5 or fewer occurrences or less than 1000 individuals) because of extreme 

rarity or because of extreme vulnerability to extinction due to some natural or man-made factor. 

S2 - Imperiled in Mississippi because of rarity (6 to 20 occurrences or less than 3000 individuals) or because of 

vulnerability to extinction due to some natural or man-made factor. 

S3 - Either very rare and local in Mississippi (21-100 occurrences or less than 10,000 individuals) or found 

locally in a restricted range or vulnerable to extinction from other factors. 

S4 - Apparently secure in Mississippi (may be rare in parts of range). 

The federally listed threatened Louisiana black bear occurs primarily in bottomland hardwood 

and floodplain forests along the Mississippi River and the southern part of the state. The 

Louisiana black bear can survive under a range of habitat types, but some necessary habitat 

requirements include hard mast, soft mast, escape cover, denning sites, forested corridors, and 

limited human access. Den trees, bald cypress, and tupelo gum with visible cavities with a 
U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test 

National Energy Technology Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ 

Description of the Affected Environment 58 March 2009 

& Environmental Effects 

minimum diameter at breast height of 36 inches (0.9 m) occurring along water bodies should be 

preserved if possible. 

The red-cockaded woodpecker, federally listed endangered, excavates nesting cavities in mature 

pine trees. All cavity trees, active and inactive, are important and should be avoided. 

Additionally, older pine stands within a half-mile (0.8 km) of roosting trees is considered 

foraging habitat and should not be disturbed. 

Although the bald eagle was officially removed from the federal list of threatened and 

endangered species in 2007, it continues to be protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and 

the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. Bald eagles nest in Mississippi from December 

through mid-May in mature trees near marshes or open water. 

4.6.2 Effects of Proposed Action 

Construction activities for installation of wells, roads, pipeline, power lines, and vehicle traffic, 

lighting during night work, and human presence would cause temporary displacement and 

disturbance of resident wildlife for the 18 months duration of the construction and injection 

period and one year of monitoring. Species are expected to return to the area after construction 

and injection is completed, although there may still be some minimal disturbance during the 

additional year of monitoring and during decommissioning activities. These impacts would be 

localized and limited to the immediate area of the project site. 

It is estimated that a total of one to two acres of wildlife habitat would be disturbed by 

installation of wells, roads, pipeline, and power lines. Well reconditioning would include land 

clearing of approximately one acre or less, which would occur regardless of SECARB 

participation. A gravel access road and drilling pad would not be required for the two water 

wells, so no additional land would be cleared and no habitat lost in their installation. 

Construction of roads, pipeline, and power lines would require some additional land clearing, but 

likely not more than one acre. There would also be localized habitat disturbance from foot 

traffic during installation, injection, and monitoring; however, this area would likely be minimal 

and limited to the area immediately surrounding the equipment. 

Two federally listed threatened or endangered wildlife species and one recently de-listed species 

could occur in the vicinity of the project site. It is possible that proposed activities in the area 

could cause impacts to Louisiana black bear habitat by increasing human disturbance, 

fragmenting forests, and removing den trees. Similarly, proposed activities could disturb redcockaded woodpecker foraging habitat or cavity trees, and bald eagles are vulnerable to 

disturbance during courtship, nest building, egg laying, incubation, and brooding. However, if 

any habitat for these three species exists in the area, it has likely been disturbed by past oil and 

gas operations, and land clearing under the Proposed Action would be minimal. Mitigation 

measures would be in place to avoid removing black bear den trees, red-cockaded woodpecker 

cavity trees, or bald eagle nest trees. These species would be subject to the same temporary 

displacement and disturbance as other wildlife species from activities associated with the 

Proposed Action; however, if any of these species are actually found in the vicinity of the project 
U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test 

National Energy Technology Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ 

Description of the Affected Environment 59 March 2009 

& Environmental Effects 

area, mitigation measures would be in place to minimize such disturbance, for example, ceasing 

all activity near a den, cavity or nest tree. Therefore, adverse impacts on threatened or 

endangered species could occur, but would be minimized. 

The unlikely event of leakage of injected CO2 to the surface could pose detrimental effects on 

wildlife near or at some distance from the project site. Effects of a leak would decrease in 

severity in a series of concentric rings, with those organisms closest to the leak suffering from 

acute or even lethal concentrations of CO2 (International Energy Agency, 2007). Changes in 

subsurface biogeochemical processes could lead to changes in soil pH with associated negative 

effects on microbial populations, leading to a change in nutrients present which would progress 

up the food chain. Changes in the quality of groundwater could have serious consequences on 

water resources. Both food chain and water resource impacts would likely have detrimental 

effects on animal health. Additionally, prolonged exposure to high CO2 concentrations may 

result in increased risk of asphyxiation for some wildlife (International Energy Agency, 2007). 

Any impacts on wildlife from the Proposed Action would be limited to a small portion of the 

population and would not affect the viability of the resource. Full recovery would occur in a 

reasonable time, considering the size of the project and the affected species’ natural state. 

Therefore, impacts on wildlife would not be expected to exceed the significance threshold. 

4.6.3 Effects of No-Action 

Under the No-Action alternative, the Southeast Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership Phase 

III Early Test project would not be implemented. No impacts to wildlife would occur as a result 

of this alternative beyond impacts that would occur regardless of SECARB participation. 

4.6.4 Cumulative Effects 

Wildlife and habitat in the Cranfield Unit have been, and continue to be, subject to disturbance 

and damage from hunting, timber harvest, traffic, Denbury’s commercial enhanced oil recovery 

operations, and past oil and gas operations. Habitat disturbance associated with infrastructure as 

part of the proposed project would be limited, and wildlife displacement and disturbance would 

be temporary lasting only for the duration of the construction, injection, and monitoring period. 

Similar impacts could occur to any threatened and endangered (T&E) species if they are present 

in the area. It is also possible that an unlikely leakage of CO2 to the surface would have wider 

spread consequences on wildlife and habitat. Cumulative impacts from the proposed project 

when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions would be limited to 

a small portion of the wildlife population and would not affect the viability of the resource. 

Recovery of this resource from any temporary change would occur in a reasonable period of time 

and not exceed the impact significance threshold 

4.7 Land Use 

4.7.1 Description 

The Southeast Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership Phase III Early Test project would be 
U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test 

National Energy Technology Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ 

Description of the Affected Environment 60 March 2009 

& Environmental Effects 

situated in an approximately two square mile (5.2 km2

) area within the northeast corner of 

Adams County and northwest corner of Franklin County in southwestern Mississippi. The 

project area is approximately twelve miles (approximately 19 km) east of Natchez, Mississippi, 

and four miles northeast (approximately 6 km) of the unincorporated village of Cranfield. The 

setting of the project area can be characterized as rural. Land cover classes identified by the U.S. 

Geological Survey and the percentage of cover types within the study area are displayed below 

in Table 4.7.1-1. 

Source: (USGS, 2001) 

Approximately 80% of the Southeast Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership Phase III Early 

Test project area would be located within the boundaries of the Cranfield Oil and Gas field. Oil 

and Gas recovery operations began at Cranfield in 1943 and, and soon became Mississippi’s 

second largest oil and gas field (Cockrell, 2005). By 1965, the field was largely abandoned. 

However, Denbury currently is conducting commercial operations in the project area, including 

well drilling and access road construction (DOE, 2008a). 

Currently, predominant land uses in the project area and in the immediate vicinity include timber 

production, gravel quarrying, and oil production, in addition to some farming for crops such as 

cotton, corn, soybean, grain, and hay/pasture (DOE, 2008a). Major transportation arteries 

providing access to the project area include U.S. Highways 61 and 84. Direct access to well sites 

is provided by a network of local and private gravel roads. Recreational lands in direct 

proximity to the project area include Natchez State Park. 

The Natural Resources Conservation Service has identified areas of prime farmland within the 

project area. Descriptions of prime farmland types and the percentages of these types within the 

study area are displayed below in Table 4.7.1-2. 

Table 4.7.1-2. NRCS Prime Farmland Classes for SECARB Phase III Early Test 

Project Area 

Prime Farmland Class Percentage of Study Area 

All Areas are Prime Farmland 9% 

Prime Farmland if Drained 6% 

Prime Farmland if Protected from Flooding 8% 

Prime Farmland of Statewide Importance 8% 

Not Prime Farmland 69% 

 Source: (NRCS, 2008b) 

Table 4.7.1-1. USGS Land Cover Classes for SECARB Phase III Early Test Project Area 

Land Cover Type Percentage of Study Area 

Forest 76% 

Scrub/Shrub 14% 

Developed Open Space 4% 

Pasture/Hay 3% 

Crops 3% 

Wetlands less than 1% 
U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test 

National Energy Technology Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ 

Description of the Affected Environment 61 March 2009 

& Environmental Effects 

4.7.2 Effects of Proposed Action 

Under the Proposed Action, four injection wells would be repositioned and drilled to extend 

below the oil-water interface into the deeper brine-bearing Tuscaloosa Formation. These four 

primary injection wells would be drilled from existing well pads used during the previous 

production at the Cranfield Unit and directionally drilled to the desired down-hole locations. 

Three of these wells have already been completed as part of ongoing EOR. The fourth well 

would be drilled from one of two previous well pad sites. Because, the well pads were 

abandoned in the mid-1960s, Denbury will recondition them to support drilling operations. This 

reconditioning will include land clearing and leveling activities of less than one acre, as well as 

the construction of a gravel access road to safely operate a drilling rig. Two groundwater 

monitoring wells would also be drilled but would not require a road or pad, as they could be 

drilled with a truck-mounted rig. Additionally, a CO2 compressor would also be installed in 

conjunction with an existing Denbury compressor station. Fences may be installed on an asneeded basis to keep livestock away from wellheads. No permanent surface facilities would be 

required. 

Because of the project area’s historical use as an oil and gas field, the relatively small amount of 

land clearing that would take place as part of the Southeast Regional Carbon Sequestration 

Partnership Phase III Early Test project would not likely have a substantial impact on land use 

within the project area. The small well pads, requiring less than one acre of land clearing, are 

similar to other well pads in the Cranfield Unit and would not likely have a substantial impact on 

the forest, pasture, or prime farmland resources in the project area. Additionally, all of the land 

clearing activities associated with the Southeast Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership 

Phase III Early Test project will be conducted by Denbury regardless of the implementation of 

the Phase III Early Test project. As such, activities associated with the Phase III Early Test 

project would likely be consistent with current land uses in the project area, and would not 

substantially alter land use patterns. Furthermore, because monitoring and injection operations 

would take place in subsurface formations at depths of up to 10,000 feet (approximately 3,000 

m), impacts to surface land use would not likely exceed the significance threshold. 

4.7.3 Effects of No-Action 

Under the No-Action alternative, the Southeast Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership Phase 

III Early Test project would not be implemented. No impacts to land use would occur as a result 

of this alternative beyond impacts that would occur regardless of SECARB participation. 

4.7.4 Cumulative Effects 

Because of the project area’s historical use as an oil and gas field within the Cranfield Unit, as 

well as Denbury’s ongoing commercial enhanced oil recovery efforts, any cumulative effects to 

land use within the project area as a result of implementation of the Southeast Regional Carbon 

Sequestration Partnership Phase III Early Test project would not likely alter any particular land 

use at the project site or in adjacent areas. Because land clearing activities associated with the 

Phase III Early Test project is a component of Denbury’s current commercial operations and are 
U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test 

National Energy Technology Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ 

Description of the Affected Environment 62 March 2009 

& Environmental Effects 

a small spatial percentage of the overall study area, cumulative impacts to other adjacent land 

uses (such as timber production, farming, and recreation) would not likely be substantial as a 

result of implementation of the Phase III Early Test Project. 

4.8 Socioeconomic Resources 

This socioeconomic assessment considers how the proposed project activity would affect people, 

institutions, communities, and the local economy, as well as larger infrastructure, social and 

economic systems. This section describes the socioeconomic conditions that may be affected by 

implementation of SECARB and addresses the potential impact that may result from actions 

undertaken as a part of this project. 

4.8.1 Population 

4.8.1.1 Description 

The study area includes portions of two counties in Southwestern Mississippi, Franklin and 

Adams, which together constitute the larger, geographic boundaries for the assessment of 

socioeconomic effects. Major concentrations of population located in or near the study area 

include the incorporated communities of Roxie (population 569), approximately six miles east of 

the study area boundary in Franklin County, and the city of Natchez (population 18,464), 

approximately 12 miles (approximately 19 km) west of the study area boundary in Adams 

County. Several smaller unincorporated settlements (population under five hundred residents) 

are also present, including Hamburg, Orange, Fayette, Leesdale, and Cranfield. Census block 

data indicate a total of 135 individuals living in 67 housing units dispersed in areas adjacent to 

the study area. 

Franklin is an almost entirely rural county with a 2000 population of 8,448 (Census, 2007). 

Since 2000, the estimated population shows a decline of 2.1 percent to a 2006 estimate of 8,269. 

Franklin County supports a total of 4,119 housing units with an average density of 7.3 units per 

square mile and a population density of 15.0 persons per square mile (Census, 2000a). For the 

year 2000, the occupancy rate for all units in the county was 78 percent (Census, 2000b). The 

median age of Franklin County residents, 37 years, is slightly higher than that for the state as a 

whole, 33.8 years. Approximately 72.7 percent of the population is 18 years or older, with 6.5 

percent under the age of five and 15.2 percent aged 65 and over (Census, 2000b). 

Located to the west of the study area, Adams County contained a population of 34,340 residents 

in 2000. Estimates for 2006 indicate that the county population has declined by five percent to 

32,626 (Census, 2007). In 2000, there were a total of 15,175 housing units in the county, with an 

occupancy rate of 90.1 percent and an average density of 33 units per square mile. Population 

density for 2000 was 74.6 persons per square mile (Census, 2000a). With a median age of 38.1 

years, the county population is older than that of the state. Residents aged 18 years and older 

comprise 73.2 percent of the population. Children five years of age and younger represent 6.8 

percent of the county’s population and persons 65 years of age and older account for 15.6 

percent (Census, 2000c). 
U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test 

National Energy Technology Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ 

Description of the Affected Environment 63 March 2009 

& Environmental Effects 

4.8.1.2 Effects of Proposed Action 

Implementation of the Proposed Action would be expected to require only minimal additional 

labor requirements beyond that already established as part of Denbury’s current operations. 

Additional employment under this alternative would be limited to drilling crews for the 

observation and monitoring wells and personnel to perform ongoing maintenance of sampling 

equipment. Drilling companies already contracted by Denbury for EOR operations would likely 

be used for the construction of the deep observation wells. A local water well driller would be 

contracted to drill the shallow groundwater monitoring well. As a result, no substantial impact 

would be associated with changes in the community character, demographic composition, or 

housing availability beyond that already existing for Denbury’s ongoing operations in the 

Cranfield Unit. A slight but temporary increase in local population may be experienced during 

the construction phase; however, any such increase would be small and of short duration. Ongoing operation and maintenance of monitoring equipment would be performed by SECARB 

personnel and contractors on a periodic, non-continuous basis approximately 4 times during the 

study period. Monitoring crews consist of 8 researchers working for 2 weeks during each of the 

4 study intervals. Local resources and accommodations would not be substantially affected and 

no change to community character and setting would be anticipated. 

4.8.1.3 Effects of No-Action 

The study area is an established oil field setting where drilling and other subsurface activities 

familiar to the surrounding communities have occurred for several years. Current and planned 

activity at this site would be conducted as a part of Denbury’s current commercial operations and 

would be expected to continue irrespective of any additional data collection activities. Current 

operations may be expected to have a minor influence on local employment and correspondingly 

on local residential patterns. However, any such increase would be expected to be small and of 

no substantial consequence to the size and composition of the local population. Since ongoing 

activities at the Cranfield Unit would be similar to those already existing at the site, no 

substantial impact to community character and setting would be anticipated. 

4.8.1.4 Cumulative Impacts 

The cumulative effects resulting from the addition of the Proposed Action to ongoing Denbury 

commercial activities would be limited to the additional temporary workforce required during the 

drilling phase and some minimal addition of labor during the operation and maintenance phase. 

These requirements are minimal and would not be expected to stress local resources and 

accommodations. The proposed activity is in character with existing operations at the site and 

would add only minimally to existing conditions in the study area. None of these impacts could 

be expected to exceed the significance threshold. Therefore, no substantial impact would be 

associated with the Proposed Action when taken into consideration with other current or future 

actions proposed for the site. 
U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test 

National Energy Technology Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ 

Description of the Affected Environment 64 March 2009 

& Environmental Effects 

4.8.2 Employment and Income 

4.8.2.1 Description 

The economy of Franklin County is characterized by its relative size and diversity, with 

manufacturing, information services and retail trade among the leading economic sectors (BLS, 

2006). In 2006 Franklin had a per capita personal income of $20,628 (BEA, 2006). 

Employment statistics for March 2008 indicate that the county supported a total labor force of 

3,332 workers, with an unemployment rate of 6.4 percent. This represents a decrease of 0.6 

percent from the 2007 annual average unemployment (BLS, 2008). The largest occupational 

categories for the Franklin County workforce in 2000 were sales and office occupations – 24.2 

percent; management, professional, and related occupations - 23.3 percent; and production and 

transportation – 20.3 percent (Census, 2000d). Median household income in 2000 was $25,234. 

A summary of income distribution by household is presented in Table 4.8.2.1. 

Table 4.8.2.1. Household Income for 1999 

Franklin County Adams County 

Number Percent Number Percent 

Less than $10,000 702 21.7 2,928 21.4 

$10,000 to $14,999 312 9.7 1,480 10.8 

$15,000 to $24,999 606 18.8 2,382 17.4 

$25,000 to $34,999 442 13.7 2,041 14.9 

$35,000 to $49,999 450 13.9 1,828 13.3 

$50,000 to $74,999 496 15.4 1,585 11.6 

$75,000 to $99,999 125 3.9 761 5.6 

$100,000 to $149,999 58 1.8 324 2.4 

$150,000 to $199,999 7 0.2 109 0.8 

$200,000 or more 30 0.9 255 1.9 

Total Households 3,228 100.0 13,693 100.0 

Source: (Census, 2000d) 

Leading sectors of the Adams County economy include construction, mining, retail trade and 

accommodation and food services. Per capita personal income for the county in 2006 was 

$27,413 (BLS, 2006). As of March 2008, the county’s civilian labor force totaled 13,963 with 

an unemployment rate of 6.2 percent. This represents a slight increase over the early part of the 

year, but is down 0.1 percent from the 2007 annual average (BLS, 2008). The largest 

occupational categories for the Adams County workforce were management, professional, and 

related occupations - 27.8 percent; sales and office occupations - 26.4 percent; and service 

occupations - 18.5 percent. Median household income was $25,234 (Census, 2000d). Income 

distribution for Adams County is presented in Table 4.8.2.1. 

4.8.2.2 Effects of Proposed Action 

The addition of the SECARB test activities to the current Denbury oil recovery operations at the 

Cranfield Unit would be expected to result in minimal change to the conditions of the local 

economy. Labor requirements, beyond those already identified for ongoing operations, would be 
U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test 

National Energy Technology Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ 

Description of the Affected Environment 65 March 2009 

& Environmental Effects 

small and would be limited to the crews necessary to drill the observation and groundwater 

monitoring wells and necessary personnel for ongoing maintenance and monitoring activity. 

These would not be expected to contribute substantially to overall labor and income growth in 

the local economy. Resource demands from the local economy would not be sufficient to stress 

any currently existing supply levels. The provision of additional CO2 by Denbury will add only a 

small increment to its existing income from the Cranbury unit. As a result, no substantial impact 

to the local economy would be expected under this alternative. 

4.8.2.3 Effects of No-Action 

Denbury’s commercial operations at the site represent the existing conditions for the local 

economy. Any resource and labor requirements associated with site operations have already 

been incorporated into the local economy and do not have a substantial adverse effect. This 

would be expected to result in an overall beneficial effect from expenditures for supplies, 

materials, construction services and labor to the extent that they are available from the local 

economy. Since Denbury operations at the Cranfield Unit have been ongoing for decades, it is 

likely that several new business entities have been developed in the local market to supply 

needed goods and services. These entities would experience a direct benefit. However, the 

extent to which resources and labor are supplied from the local economy is dependent on need, 

availability, and price at the time the requirement is experienced. Some additional expenditure 

outside the two-county area may be required for materials and services not locally available. 

Current Denbury operations at the Cranfield Unit are pre-existing in that they would occur 

whether or not the SECARB project is implemented. Existing recovery operations would be 

expected to continue and potentially expand at the Cranfield Unit. The costs of operations at the 

Cranfield Unit include 26 well workovers (production wells) at an estimated $570,000 each 

(total: $14.82 million) and 20 injection wells at an estimated cost of $1.3 million each (total: $26 

million), totaling $40.82 million. Current labor availability and existing unemployment rates 

would indicate that requirements for employment at the Cranfield site would not stress the local 

labor market or the provision of services and accommodations in the local area. 

4.8.2.4 Cumulative Impacts 

Cumulative effects are the result of the incremental impact of the Proposed Action when added 

to the other past present or reasonably foreseeable future actions. The site selected for the 

Proposed Action is an existing commercial oil field that has been in operation for several 

decades. The Proposed Action would add only incrementally to the existing conditions and 

therefore would not be expected to contribute substantially to any significant change in 

employment, labor market conditions, services and resource availability, or local income 

generation. Therefore, it would not exceed the significance threshold. 

4.8.3 Infrastructure 

4.8.3.1 Description 

The road system in and around the study area is a mixture of highway, paved secondary roads 
U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test 

National Energy Technology Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ 

Description of the Affected Environment 66 March 2009 

& Environmental Effects 

and unpaved service roads. The study area itself is traversed by two primary local roads: Tate 

Road (Rd.), running north to south through the western portion of the study area; and Moss 

Grove Rd., intersecting with Tate Rd. and running east to west across the Adams County portion 

of the Study area. A network of unpaved roads services the various operating units within the 

study area. 

Three major highways are located in the near vicinity of the study area. These roads represent 

the primary surface access routes for the Cranfield site. U.S. Highways 98/84 runs east-west 

approximately two miles (approximately 3 km) to the south of the study area. Traffic count data 

from the Mississippi Department of Transportation (MDOT) estimates the average annual daily 

traffic to be 4600 vehicles per day for this segment. U.S. Highway 61 runs southwest to 

northeast approximately three miles north of the study area with an average volume of 6500 

vehicles per day. To the west of the study area, State Route 33 runs north-south, intersecting 

with U.S. Highway 84 in Franklin County and U.S. Highway 61 further to the north in Jefferson 

County. Average daily estimates for this segment are calculated at 1100 vehicles per day 

(MDOT, 2006). 

There are no utility transmission lines within the boundaries of the study area. A single pipeline 

crosses the southwest corner of the study area in Adams County (Figure 2.1.2). 

4.8.3.2 Effects of Proposed Action 

The introduction of the proposed SECARB activity to the existing conditions at the Cranfield site 

would add only minimally to current levels of traffic and road use. Any increases would be 

temporary and would not be expected to substantially alter existing patterns. 

4.8.3.3 Effects of No-Action 

Current operations at the Cranfield Unit have not resulted in a substantial impact to local traffic. 

However, some temporary increase in heavy truck traffic may be experienced along the major 

highways and local service roads as equipment and supplies are transported to the site during 

construction activities. No substantial disruption to local traffic or degradation of service is 

anticipated along these major roadways. Some minor disruption of local traffic may occur on 

unpaved service roads as heavy trucks are moved to the site. There are no public utilities at the 

site which might be disturbed during either the construction or ongoing operations phase of the 

project. 

4.8.3.4 Cumulative Impacts 

Cumulative impacts associated with implementation of the proposed alternative would be 

temporary and minimal, if noticeable at all. The area and its associated road network have been 

part of ongoing oil and gas field operations for several decades. There are no planned or 

reasonably foreseeable actions proposed for the area that may affect local road use or traffic 

patterns. The introduction of a temporary increase in traffic during construction operations can 

be easily accommodated by the existing road system with only minor disruptions. The project 

would not noticeably affect or disrupt the normal or routine functions of public institutions, 
U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test 

National Energy Technology Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ 

Description of the Affected Environment 67 March 2009 

& Environmental Effects 

roads, electricity, and other public utilities and services in the project area. Continuing 

operations of the SECARB wells following construction would have no additional impact and 

would not exceed the impact significance threshold. 

4.8.4 Parks and Recreation 

4.8.4.1 Description 

The two Mississippi counties that contain the study area offer a variety of park, national forest 

and dispersed outdoor recreational opportunities. Facilities in the Franklin County area include: 

• The Homochitto National Forest – 189,000 acres located to the south of the study area 

with the nearest piece to the project area boundary being approximately 2 miles (3 km), 

extending west into Adams county and north into Jefferson, Lincoln, and Copiah 

counties; 

• The Clear Springs Recreation area – (approximately 13 miles (21 km) to the southeast of 

the project area boundary) a part of the Homochitto National Forest, activities include 

camping, swimming, fishing and picnicking; 

• Okhissa Lake is approximately 19 miles (31 km) to the southeast of the project area 

boundary; and 

• The Homochitta River – (approximately 14 miles (23 km) to the south of the project area 

boundary) suitable for canoeing, river rafting, swimming, and fishing.

Located immediately, as in sharing a border with the project area, to the northwest of the study 

area in Adams County, the Natchez State Park includes scenic trails and facilities for picnicking, 

swimming, boating, fishing and overnight lodging. Within the vicinity of the proposed project 

site, a number of private holdings offer hunting excursions and overnight lodging for guests. 

4.8.4.2 Effects of Proposed Action 

Additional drilling operations related to the SECARB project would be expected to generate only 

minimal impact to recreational activities in the immediately surrounding area of the Cranfield 

Unit. Some disruption of hunting activity during the construction phase may be anticipated as 

equipment, materials, supplies and workers are moved throughout the site. However, any such 

disruptions would be temporary and easily accommodated by the landowners who, for the most 

part, also hold mineral rights to the properties involved. No disruption would be expected during 

the ongoing maintenance and monitoring phase. 

4.8.4.3 Effects of No-Action 

Parks and recreational opportunities in the surrounding region and within the study area itself 

have existed along with Denbury drilling operations and extraction operations for several years. 

No additional impact would be anticipated form current oil and gas recovery operations at the 

site. 
U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test 

National Energy Technology Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ 

Description of the Affected Environment 68 March 2009 

& Environmental Effects 

4.8.4.4 Cumulative Impacts 

The addition of the proposed SECARB action to ongoing activities at the Cranfield Unit and in 

the surrounding area would have no substantial impact to the use of National Forest lands, state 

parks, or other recreational opportunities in the two-county area. As noted under the Proposed 

Action, some temporary disruption may occur in the study area itself during drilling operations. 

However, any disturbance would be minor, temporary in duration and in character with existing 

uses of the study area and is not expected to exceed the impact significance threshold. 

4.8.5 Visual Resources 

4.8.5.1 Description 

There are no scenic vistas or aesthetic landscapes in the vicinity of the proposed project. The 

Cranfield Unit where the study is located is an oil and gas field that was largely abandoned in 

1965. The field site is adjacent to the site where Phase II SECARB research is now under way. 

Facilities constructed under the proposed project would not contrast with the present landscape 

as gravel roads and well sites are common in the vicinity of the study area and are consistent 

with existing timber, gravel, and oil production uses. 

4.8.5.2 Effects of Proposed Action 

Under the Proposed Action, installation of two observation wells and two shallow water wells, a 

network of distribution pipelines to individual well sites, and associated land clearing, access 

roads, and power lines would minimally alter the visual elements of the project area as it is 

located in an abandoned oil and gas field. The wooded nature of the area would furthermore 

provide a tree buffer to shield any new visual elements from off-site viewers. Additionally, the 

four injection wells and related pads, pipelines, and access roads would be constructed regardless 

of SECARB involvement. 

Facilities constructed under the proposed project would not contrast with the present landscape 

as gravel roads and well sites are common in the vicinity of the study area. The proposed project 

would not interfere with visual resources, eliminate scenic views, or alter the present landscape. 

The unlikely event of leakage of injected CO2 to the surface could pose detrimental effects on 

terrestrial ecosystems, having impacts on visual resources if areas of vegetation are altered. Any 

minor changes that may result from implementation of the Proposed Action in species 

composition, frequency and density of plants, or vegetation dieback are not expected to alter 

visual elements in the landscape and viewsheds. 

Overall, it is not likely that the Proposed Action would change the visual landscape in a way that 

would be objectionable to local residents or frequent visitors; thus impacts on visual resources 

would not be expected to exceed the significance threshold. 

4.8.5.3 Effects of No-Action 

Under the No-Action alternative, the Southeast Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership Phase 
U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test 

National Energy Technology Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ 

Description of the Affected Environment 69 March 2009 

& Environmental Effects 

III Early Test project would not be implemented. No impacts to visual resources would occur as 

a result of this alternative beyond impacts that would occur regardless of SECARB participation. 

4.8.5.4 Cumulative Impacts 

Visual quality at the Cranfield Unit has been predominantly altered by the past oil and gas 

operation under which drilling rigs and wells were installed and then abandoned, land was 

cleared, and gravel roads were constructed. Other ongoing activities which have affected the 

visual quality of the area are hunting camps and removal of trees as part of timber harvest 

operations. Additionally, Denbury’s current commercial enhanced oil recovery operations could 

potentially further alter the visual elements of the area. Given the larger impacts to visual 

resources from past, present, and future activities, cumulative impacts added from the proposed 

project would not change the visual resource classification of the affected area and not exceed 

the impact significance threshold. 

4.8.6 Noise 

Noise is defined as any sound that is undesirable because it interferes with communication, is 

intense enough to damage hearing, or is otherwise intrusive. Human response to noise varies 

depending on the type and characteristics of the noise, distance between the noise source and the 

receptor, receptor sensitivity, and time of day. Noise is often generated by activities part of 

everyday life, such as construction or vehicular traffic. 

Sound varies by both intensity and frequency. Sound pressure level, described in decibels (dB), 

is used to quantify sound intensity. The dB is a logarithmic unit that expresses the ratio of a 

sound pressure level to a standard reference level. Hertz (Hz) are used to quantify sound 

frequency. The human ear responds differently to different frequencies. A-weighing, described in 

a-weighted decibels (dBA), approximates this frequency response to express accurately the 

perception of sound by humans. Sounds encountered in daily life and their approximate level in 

dBA are provided in Table 4.8.6. 

Table 4.8.6. Common Sounds and Their Levels 

Outdoor 

Sound level 

(dBA) Indoor 

Snowmobile 100 Subway train 

Tractor 90 Garbage disposal 

Noisy restaurant 85 Blender 

Downtown (large city) 80 Ringing telephone 

Freeway traffic 70 TV audio 

Normal conversation 60 Sewing machine 

Rainfall 50 Refrigerator 

Quiet residential area 40 Library 

 Source: (Harris, 1998) 

The dBA noise metric describes steady noise levels. Although very few noises are, in fact, 

constant; therefore, a noise metric, Day-night Sound Level (DNL) has been developed. DNL is 
U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test 

National Energy Technology Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ 

Description of the Affected Environment 70 March 2009 

& Environmental Effects 

defined as the average sound energy in a 24-hour period with a 10-dB penalty added to the 

nighttime levels (10 P.M. to 7 A.M.). DNL is a useful descriptor for noise because (1) it averages 

ongoing yet intermittent noise, and (2) it measures total sound energy over a 24-hour period. In 

addition, Equivalent Sound Level (Leq) is often used to describe the overall noise environment. 

Leq is the average sound level in dB. 

The Noise Control Act of 1972 (Public Law 92-574) directs federal agencies to comply with 

applicable federal, state, interstate, and local noise control regulations. In 1974 the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) provided information suggesting that continuous 

and long-term noise levels in excess of DNL 65 dBA are normally unacceptable for noisesensitive land uses such as residences, schools, churches, and hospitals. The State of Mississippi 

has no state-wide noise regulation. The closest towns of Natchez and Roxie have local nuisance 

noise ordinances. However, both are greater than 5 miles away (8 km) from the study area. 

4.8.6.1 Description 

Existing sources of noise near the pipeline and drilling site include local road traffic, highaltitude aircraft overflights, and natural noises such as leaves rustling, and bird vocalizations. 

The areas surrounding these locations can be categorized as very quiet rural area. The noise 

environment consists of very light traffic conditions where very few automobiles and trucks pass. 

The background sound is likely distant traffic noise from Interstate 84. Existing noise levels 

(DNL and Leq) were estimated for the proposed sites and surrounding areas using the techniques 

specified in the American National Standard Quantities and Procedures for Description and 

Measurement of Environmental Sound Part 3: Short-term measurements with an observer 

present. Table 4.8.6.1 outlines the closet Noise Sensitive Areas (NSAs) such as residents, 

schools, churches, and hospitals, and the estimated existing noise levels at each location. 

Table 4.8.6.1. Estimated Existing Noise Levels at Nearby Noise Sensitive Areas 

Closest 

Noise Sensitive Area (NSA) 

Estimated Existing 

Sound Levels (dBA) 

Distance Direction Type 

Land Use 

Category DNL 

Leq 

(Daytime) 

Leq 

(Nighttime) 

8800 ft 

(2680 m) SSW Residence 

4400 ft 

(1340 m) E Residence 

Very quiet, 

sparse 

suburban or 

rural 

residential 

areas 

45 43 37 

 Source: (ANSI, 2003) 

4.8.6.2 Effects of Proposed Action 

Short-term and long-term minor adverse effects to the noise environment would be expected 

with the implementation of the Proposed Action. The effects would be primarily due to heavy 

equipment noise during construction and drilling of the injection, observation and groundwater 

monitoring wells, and the operation of an additional proposed compressor as part of the 
U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test 

National Energy Technology Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ 

Description of the Affected Environment 71 March 2009 

& Environmental Effects 

SECARB Phase III Early Test. These activities would be in addition to Denbury’s on-going 

commercial operations in the area. 

Construction Noise. There would be some form of moderate to heavy construction at the well 

locations. Individual pieces of construction equipment typically generate noise levels of 80 to 90 

dBA at a distance of 50 feet. Table 4.8.6.2 presents typical noise levels (dBA at 50 feet) that 

USEPA has estimated for the main phases of outdoor construction. 

Table 4.8.6.2. Noise Levels Associated with Outdoor Construction 

Construction Phase Leq (dBA) at 50 feet from Source 

Ground Clearing 84 

Excavation, Grading 89 

Foundations 78 

Structural 85 

Finishing 89 

Source: (USEPA, 1974) 

With multiple items of equipment operating concurrently, noise levels can be relatively high 

during daytime periods at locations within several hundred feet of active construction sites. The 

zone of relatively high construction noise levels typically extends to distances of 400 to 800 feet 

(122 – 244 m) from the site of major equipment operations. Locations within 1000 feet (305 m) 

would experience substantial levels (greater than 62 dBA) of construction noise. However, there 

are no NSAs within 1000 feet (305 m) of the construction sites. These effects would be 

temporary, and would be considered minor. The equipment mufflers would be properly 

maintained and in good working order to reduce these already limited effects. 

Drilling Noise. The Proposed Action would involve drilling operations for the monitoring wells. 

Components of the drilling equipment include the drill rig, mud pumps, and diesel generators. 

Drilling equipment is expected to operate twenty-four hours per day, seven days per week, for up 

to three months. The nearest NSA is 4400 feet (ft) [1340 meters (m)] east of the closest well 

location. A DNL of 43 dBA and a Leq of 37 dBA were estimated for the drilling operations at 

this distance. This is less than or equal to the estimated background level for this area and would 

not likely be audible. These effects would be temporary, and would be considered minor. 

Detailed noise calculations are located in Appendix C. 

The generator and combined diesel driven systems would have the standard exhaust muffles. 

Barriers can be installed around the noisy components to diminish the noise, but would not likely 

be necessary given the distance to the nearest NSA. Drilling noise would be expected to 

dominate the soundscape for all on-site personnel. Personnel, and particularly equipment 

operators, would don adequate personal hearing protection to limit exposure and ensure 

compliance with federal health and safety regulations. 

Operational Noise. The only major noise-producing equipment that could be expected during the 

operation stages of the study is an additional in-line CO2 compressor. This compressor would 

operate 24 hours per day 7 days per week during the injection phase. The exact location of the 
U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test 

National Energy Technology Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ 

Description of the Affected Environment 72 March 2009 

& Environmental Effects 

compressor is unknown and associated manufacturers specifications have not been finalized. 

Dresser-Rand will supply CO2 compressors to Denbury for injection operations at Cranfield. 

Compressors already in use or ordered for the operations are 2,325 horsepower models 2HHEVG-2. Since the additional compressor to be used for the SECARB study would be collocated 

with existing Denbury compressors, the incremental increase in noise levels will be less 

noticeable. For analysis purposes, a 10,000 horsepower (hp) [7462 kilowatt (kW)] 

reciprocating compressor was chosen to represent a worst case noise scenario. This is both the 

largest and loudest off-the-shelf compressor use for CO2 pipeline applications (Ariel 

Corporation, 2008; Bies, 2003). A compressor of this size and type would be loud enough to 

generate a DNL greater than 65 at all NSA within approximately 1200 feet (approximately 366 

m) of its location. Based on the pipeline route in the study area, it is unlikely that any NSAs 

would be within 1200 feet (approximately 366 m) of the compressor. In addition, because of the 

remote location it is unlikely that there would be a violation of the local noise ordinances. In the 

final design stages, extra care would be taken to insure the size, type, and location of the 

compressor is consistent with all federal, state, and local guideline with respect to noise. 

4.8.6.3 Effects of No-Action 

The No-Action alternative would have no impacts to noise because no additional drilling would 

occur, and no additional equipment would be installed. Noise levels would remain consistent 

with that attributable to activities that will be completed by Denbury as part of their EOR 

operations regardless of the implementation of the SECARB Phase III Early Test. As a result, 

minimal differences exist between the build and no build scenarios with respect to noise. 

4.8.6.4 Cumulative Impacts 

The Proposed Action would introduce long-term incremental increases the noise environment. 

All noise associated with the project would be in addition to Denbury’s on-going commercial 

operations in the area. These increases would be relatively small and have a minor cumulative 

effect on the overall noise environment but would not be expected to exceed ambient noise 

standards beyond the proposed project boundary. 

4.8.7 Environmental Justice 

Executive Order 12898 “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority 

Populations and Low-Income Populations” (The White House, February 11, 1994), requires that 

Federal Agencies consider as a part of their action, any disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects to minority and low income populations. Agencies are 

required to ensure that these potential effects are identified and addressed. 

The Environmental Protection Agency defines environmental justice as; “the fair treatment and 

meaningful involvement of all people regardless or race, color, national origin, or income with 

respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, 

regulations, and policies.” For purposes of assessing environmental justice under NEPA, the 

CEQ defines a minority population as one in which the percentage of minorities exceeds 50 
U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test 

National Energy Technology Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ 

Description of the Affected Environment 73 March 2009 

& Environmental Effects 

percent or is substantially higher than the percentage of minorities in the general population or 

other appropriate unit of geographic analysis (CEQ, 1997). 

Consideration of the potential consequences of the Proposed Action for environmental justice 

requires three main components: 

• A demographic assessment of the affected community to identify the presence of 

minority or low income populations that may be potentially affected; 

• An assessment of all potential impacts identified to determine if any result in significant 

adverse impact to the affected environment; and 

• An integrated assessment to determine whether any disproportionately high and adverse 

impacts exist for minority and low-income groups present in the study area. 

4.8.7.1 Description 

 

In 2000, minority populations constituted 37.2 percent of the total population of Franklin 

County, or 3,143 individuals. This is slightly lower than the 38.6 percent minority component 

for the population of the State of Mississippi as a whole. Hispanic or Latino populations (of any 

race) represented 0.5 percent of the total population, or 45 individuals. Socioeconomically 

disadvantaged individuals, those living at or below the poverty line, constituted 24.1 percent of 

the population or 2,010 individuals in 2000 as compared with a 19.9 percent rate for the state as a 

whole (Census, 2000b). 

Minority populations make up approximately 54 percent of the total population of Adams 

County, or 18,531 individuals. Hispanic or Latino residents (of any race) constitute 0.8 percent 

of the total population or 273 individuals. In 2000 there were 8,775 individuals living at or below 

the poverty level, or 25.9 percent of the population. As a result, Adams County displays a higher 

minority percentage of its population and a higher percentage of persons living at or below 

poverty than the State of Mississippi as a whole (Census, 2000c). 

Of the two incorporated communities near the study area, the town of Roxie, in Franklin County 

contains a resident minority population of 60.3 percent, or 337 individuals (Census, 2000e) and 

the city of Natchez in Adams County includes a minority population of 44.2 percent or 10,189 

individuals (Census, 2000f). Individuals living at or below the poverty level constitute 25.5 

percent and 28.6 percent of these communities’ populations respectively. Census block data for 

the areas in and immediately surrounding the study area indicate a minority population of 74 

individuals or 55 percent of the total population of 135 residents (Census, 2000g). 

4.8.7.2 Effects of Proposed Action 

Minority and lower income groups are generally present in the study area and the immediately 

surrounding communities in greater numbers than for either county or for the State of Mississippi 

as a whole. However, both direct and indirect effects associated with the implementation of this 

alternative would be anticipated to be minimal for all populations in the immediate study area 

and for the surrounding communities of Franklin and Adams Counties. Therefore, no 

disproportionately high or adverse impacts to minority or low income communities would be 

expected. 
U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test 

National Energy Technology Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ 

Description of the Affected Environment 74 March 2009 

& Environmental Effects 

4.8.7.3 Effects of No-Action 

The present level of activity associated with Denbury’s current commercial operations would be 

expected to continue with little or no additional adverse impact to the local community, its labor 

force, employment patterns, demographic characteristics, level of diversity, infrastructure or 

economic characteristics. Current operations may be expected to have a minor influence on the 

local social community, but any changes would be small and in keeping with the character of the 

existing community. 

4.8.7.4 Cumulative Impacts 

The proposed activity considered by this assessment would add only minimally to existing 

conditions in the study area and surrounding communities. As a result, any incremental impact 

would not be sufficient to constitute a substantial impact and would most likely be experienced 

evenly across all populations. Therefore, neither minority nor low-income groups within the 

affected community will experience proportionately greater adverse effects than other members 

of the community. 

4.9 Human Health and Safety 

4.9.1 Description 

Section 4.1 above discusses the potential for local air quality impacts as a result of the Proposed 

Action. Air pollution causes human health problems. Air pollution can cause breathing 

problems; throat and eye irritation; cancer; birth defects; and damage to immune, neurological, 

reproductive, and respiratory systems (USEPA, 2007c). National and state ambient air quality 

standards represent the maximum allowable atmospheric concentrations that may occur and still 

protect public health and welfare with a reasonable margin of safety. In addition, OSHA 

regulations specify appropriate protective measures for all employees. 

Spills from the construction of the facility and operation are also a source of possible impacts to 

human health and safety. Spills can introduce soil contamination and allow exposure pathways 

to workers and the public. The risks and effects of a spill depend on its composition. A common 

material used in construction and operation at this site that can be spilled is diesel. Diesel 

irritates the lungs and is a skin irritant. Enough diesel exposure can cause death or nervous 

system damage (ATSDR, 2007). Similarly, waste management also is a source of possible 

human health and safety risks from exposure to contaminants (See Section 4.11). 

One potential impact to human health and safety within the project site is CO2 leaks. CO2 is 

heavier than ambient air, colorless, and odorless, which makes it an invisible hazard (DOE, 

2007a). Since it is denser than ambient air, leaked CO2 will typically pool in hollows and 

confined spaces until dispersed by wind or other ventilation methods (DOE, 2007a; IPCC, 2005). 

CO2 under pressure or at high concentration levels can cause suffocation and permanent brain 

injury from lack of air (DOE, 2007a). Headache, impaired vision, labored breathing, and mental 

confusion also can occur from exposure to CO2 (IPCC, 2005). The pressure drop from CO2
U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test 

National Energy Technology Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ 

Description of the Affected Environment 75 March 2009 

& Environmental Effects 

leaks from vessels (pipes) creates a cold hazard, which even the vapor can cause frostbite (IPCC, 

2005). Generally, the pooling and large, rapid releases of the CO2 are the situations of concern 

for human health and safety instead of small gradual leaks due to concentration level differences 

(IPCC, 2005; DOE, 2007a). 

No general CO2 exposure standards exist yet for the general public (DOE, 2007a). The 

immediately dangerous to life and health level of exposure for CO2 is 5% or 40,000 ppm. For up 

to several hours, exposure to 0.5 to 1.5% CO2 in the air typically is not harmful for people with 

normal health. However, people with impaired health (such as cerebral disease), children, and 

people involved in complex tasks are more susceptible to the effects of CO2 exposure. CO2

exposure impedes people’s performance of complex tasks by causing labored breathing, 

headache, and mental confusion. The occupational standard of maximum allowable 

concentration of CO2 in air for eight hours of continuous exposure is 0.5%, and for a short 

period, it is 3.0% (IPCC, 2005). 

CO2 leaked in high concentrations can cause human health issues in the water as well as air. 

CO2 underground injection can contaminate groundwater if the CO2 migrates to underground 

aquifers (See Section 4.3). This contamination can occur by the CO2 causing the mobilization of 

chemicals such as metals in the soil into the aquifers. Despite monitoring and permitting 

requirements (USEPA’s UIC program), the risk to human health from potable water 

contamination still exists from underground injection. Similar to air emissions of CO2, gradual 

releases of CO2 into water sources typically do not cause substantial harm to human health, but 

rapid releases could (DOE, 2007a). 

Since CO2 is neither toxic nor explosive, emergency procedures need only be rudimentary. The 

worst case would be a sudden, complete failure of pipe. This would release all the CO2 in the 

pipe. The result would be dry ice formation at the break due to the sudden expansion, plus 

release of a large gas cloud as the supercritical fluid is converted to CO2 gas. The gas is nontoxic, but a sudden, large release might displace air for nearby workers at the Cranfield Unit, but 

is unlikely to present a hazard at the village of Cranfield. 

This scenario, though highly unlikely, will be modeled, taking into account the sudden release 

and its atmospheric dispersion. If the modeling, contrary to expectations, suggests a possibility 

of negative health effects due to air displacement, Denbury would install further automatic lowpressure shut-downs. High pressure shut-downs would be included. The effect of this would be 

to limit the amount of carbon dioxide that could escape in a sudden, complete failure of the pipe. 

This technique is in wide use for public protection in the sour gas industry in Alberta, where 

large amounts of highly toxic hydrogen sulfide might be released during a line break. It is 

evidently successful; although a few sour gas line breaks have occurred, there have never been 

fatalities or injuries among the public over the last 5 decades (AERCB, 2008). 

The integrity of the system against carbon dioxide release will be dependent on the following: 

• Continuous corrosion testing, with corrosion coupon testing as a minimum. 

• Frequent moisture testing of the dehydrated gas supplied by the Sonat pipeline. 

• Continuous pressure monitoring of the flow lines, with automatic shut-down systems at 

strategic locations within the facilities. 
U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test 

National Energy Technology Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ 

Description of the Affected Environment 76 March 2009 

& Environmental Effects 

Between 1994 and 2006, there were 31 CO2 pipeline accidents reported, and there were no 

injuries or fatalities from these incidents in the United States (DOE, 2007c). Some historical 

causes of CO2 pipeline incidences are relief valve failure (4 failures), weld/gasket/valve packing 

failure (3 failures), corrosion (2 failures), and outside force (1 failure). The incident rate from 

1990 to 2002 for CO2 pipelines in the United States was 0.0002 mile-1

 yr

-1 (0.00032 km-1

 yr

-1) 

(IPCC, 2005). This rate of failure is comparatively small. For comparison with natural gas 

pipelines, see Table 4.9.1. 

Table 4.9.1. Comparison of Natural Gas Pipelines to CO2 Pipelines from 1995 to 2005 

Category Natural Gas CO2

Miles of Pipeline 304,001 (in 2003) 

490,000 km 

3,300 

5,300 km 

# of Incidents 960 12 

Property Damage per Incident $484,000 $42,000 

Injuries from Incidents 82 0 

Fatalities 29 0 

Source: (DOE, 2007a) 

The workers on the project would be subject to the same types of health risks that are generally 

associated with their professions (DOE, 2007a). There is a rate of 15.2 deaths per 100,000 for 

construction workers, which is the third highest rate of death from injury (NIOSH, No date). 

The construction incident rate of total recordable cases of non-fatal occupational injuries and 

illnesses in 2006 was 5.9 per 100 full-time workers (BLS, 2007). 

4.9.2 Effects of Proposed Action 

The Proposed Action includes pipe-laying; construction and operation of compression units; 

transportation of CO2; drilling of observation wells; and injection of supercritical CO2 much of 

which will be conducted by Denbury even if the SECARB study is not implemented.(See 

Section 2.1). These all present risks to human health and safety. The materials and equipment 

used for construction and operation would meet prescribed standards (DOE, 2008b). Having a 

general public outreach program to inform the audiences about CO2 sequestration could reduce 

the risks and consequences of health and safety issues like accidents. 

The equipment that would be used for the implementation of the Proposed Action represents 

only minimal risks to human health and safety under normal operating conditions (DOE, 2007a). 

Thus, if Best Management Practices (BMPs), maintenance, and regulations are followed, the 

equipment should pose little impact to human health and safety. Drilling into pressurized 

formations could release flammable gases like methane. Preventative measures to minimize well 

blowouts or venting of dangerous gases should be implemented. Measures to avoid the 

equipment failure caused by high pressure would be executed (DOE, 2007a). 

Since most of the construction and operation activities of the Proposed Action are on Denbury 

property, the increase in traffic from workers and delivery of equipment and materials would be 
U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test 

National Energy Technology Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ 

Description of the Affected Environment 77 March 2009 

& Environmental Effects 

partially limited to onsite, which reduces risk to pedestrians and the general public. However, 

the Proposed Action would still represent an increase in traffic, which increases the potential for 

accidents. However, this incremental increase in traffic would be very limited and would be a de 

minimus increase to the larger and more frequent movement of materials for Denbury’s EOR 

operations. The additional worker travel trips to and from the site would be limited to the 6 – 12 

crew members during the 6 weeks of drilling operations. Minor additional travel would occur 

during the 4 (four), 2-weeks periods when the researchers are on site for monitoring activities. 

Primary access to the site for delivery and commute trips would be from Highway 84 onto the 

gravel roads (Tate and Moss Grove Roads) to the well locations. None of the local access roads 

go through or near the Natchez State Park. Minor gravel road extensions (estimated at less than 

3 miles total) may be required to reach re-conditioned well sites. Additional travel would not 

substantially increase the volume of traffic on local roadways as described in Section 4.8.3 and 

should not impact human health and safety concerns. 

Air emissions from the Proposed Action are not anticipated to be regionally significant (See 

Section 4.1). The CO2 used by Denbury does not contain significant concentrations of 

contaminants. Denbury receives weekly analyses of the CO2 from the provider. This reduces 

the risk of additional air pollutants from the contaminants in case of a leak. Following the 

mitigation measures and BMPs will reduce any impacts to human health from air quality. 

Further, workers would follow OSHA procedures, which would further reduce the impact to 

human health. Denbury has performed similar activities for over a decade without major 

incident. Therefore, the risks to human health and safety due to air emissions would be expected 

to be below the impact significance thresholds. 

The soils in the area are erodible (See Section 4.2); however, with BMPs in place, water 

contamination, which could lead to human health and safety risks, would not be expected to be a 

major issue (DOE, 2008b) (See Section 4.3). Since construction involving oil and gas 

development is exempt from NPDES permitting, no NPDES construction permit will be 

obtained. However, BMPs would be followed to minimize storm water pollutants (DOE, 

2008a). Further, produced freshwater would be used for farming, and saline water would be 

disposed of in existing permitted oilfield disposal wells following BMPs. Wastewater would be 

collected in portable tanks and shipped to authorized disposal sites by truck (DOE, 2008b). This 

would reduce the risk of impacts to human health from wastewater. Therefore, the overall effect 

of the Proposed Action to surface water quality would be expected to be below the significance 

threshold. 

No hazardous or toxic materials are used in the Denbury EOR operations at Cranfield, and none 

would be used during the study. If safety procedures and BMPs are followed, spills and leaks 

from equipment and processes would be of low concentrations as well as non-hazardous and not 

toxic. This would represent a low risk to human health and safety (DOE, 2007c). Under normal 

conditions, hazardous and toxic materials can be used safely when appropriate safety precautions 

are followed (DOE, 2007a). The CO2 used in the Proposed Action has no substantial 

concentrations of VOC or other contaminants. Analyses of the composition of the CO2 occur 

weekly, and Denbury receives these results from the CO2 provider. Therefore, impacts to human 

health due to spills and leaks would be below the significance threshold. 
U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test 

National Energy Technology Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ 

Description of the Affected Environment 78 March 2009 

& Environmental Effects 

The design of the Proposed Action’s measurement, mitigation, and verification (MMV) plan is to 

avoid, detect, and correct any unintended CO2 emissions. The geological seals of project site 

make CO2 migration highly unlikely (DOE, 2008a) (See Section 4.2). However, groundwater 

monitoring would still occur to detect problems and initiate corrective action if necessary (DOE, 

2008a; DOE, 2008b) (See Section 4.3). This would allow for early detection and appropriate 

measures to be initiated if there were any problems. This reduces the risk to human health and 

safety. The maximum surface injection pressure would be balanced with the anticipated fracture 

pressure for the area. This reduces the possibility of air and water contamination by CO2 from 

fractures (See Section 4.2). 

The Proposed Action calls for soil gas monitoring (DOE, 2008b). Pipeline inspection and 

monitoring would reduce the risks of failures and thus to human health. One of the major 

concerns regarding pipeline safety is water and other contaminants causing corrosion leading to 

pipe failure (DOE, 2007a). However, the CO2 would be conditioned to reduce the risk from 

pipeline failure. As part of its commercial EOR operation, Denbury dewaters the CO2 at the 

Jackson Dome source and ships it dry through the pipeline. No significant moisture or 

contaminants are present in the CO2 that would increase the risk of corrosion. Pipelines are 

operated in accordance with the MSOGB regulations and include appropriate shut off systems in 

case of rupture. All the monitoring for CO2 (Section 2.1.3) will reduce the risk for CO2 leaks, 

and the mitigation measures will reduce the consequences of any incidents. 

The Health and Safety Plan for the Cranfield Unit would be updated to include the Proposed 

Action activities should DOE choose to fund the Proposed Action. BMPs would be followed 

(DOE, 2008a; DOE, 2008b). One item in the Health and Safety Plan calls for backup alarms that 

must be operable on all equipment (Denbury, No date). This monitoring system will help detect 

and prevent further leaks from the system (DOE, 2008b). The workers on the project would be 

subject to the same types of health risks that are generally associated with their professions 

(DOE, 2007a). Protective equipment such as hard hats, safety shoes, hearing protection (ear 

plugs), gloves, and safety glasses will be worn (DOE, 2008b). Any further safety equipment 

needed for the possible hazards would be used such as a respirator or dust mask for someone 

working with equipment that generates dust. Following safety protocols would minimize 

occupational hazards (DOE, 2007a). 

The risks to human health and safety from a rapid release of CO2 as a result of activities 

associated with the Proposed Action would depend on amount released and conditions (such as 

wind direction and strength) at the time of the release (DOE, 2007c). A sudden and rapid release 

of CO2 from equipment, such as a wellhead being removed, would likely be detected quickly. 

The processes for containing well blow-outs would be employed to stop such a release. Workers 

on-site would be the primary group affected. If concentrations of CO2 greater than 7 to 10% in 

the air were created, it would cause immediate danger to humans. Depending on the amount 

released and the pressure, the leak could take hours to days to contain, but it could take as little 

as minutes (IPCC, 2005; Heinrich et al., 2004). However, the leaked CO2 amount is likely to be 

minimal compared to the amount injected due to dispersion of CO2 in the ground away from 

injection site (Heinrich et al., 2004; IPCC, 2005). Once the release is over, no lingering effects 

would occur (Heinrich et al., 2004). Since CO2 injection would occur even in the No-Action 
U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test 

National Energy Technology Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ 

Description of the Affected Environment 79 March 2009 

& Environmental Effects 

alternative, the increased risk from short-term testing and monitoring under the Proposed Action 

is minimal. Further, the oil and gas industry employs engineering and administrative controls to 

manage these types of hazards regularly (IPCC, 2005). Therefore, while the risk of accidents 

exists, the risks to human health and safety, with the proper response plans and monitoring, 

would be below the significance threshold. 

There are buffers around the Denbury project area of undeveloped, wooded lands. This reduces 

the impacts to the general public as it allows more time to respond to leaks and space to vent 

CO2 before it affects the general public (DOE, 2008b). A local emergency response plan would 

help reduce the risk of impact to the workers and the general public (DOE, 2007a). The primary 

human health risk from the Proposed Action to the general public would be pipeline leaks 

releasing CO2 (DOE, 2007a). A rapid release of CO2 has a very low probability due to 

monitoring, proper siting, and BMPs (DOE, 2007a). The risks would be minimized by having 

appropriate safety and operating procedures currently in place for gas processing facilities and 

pipelines including monitoring and inspections (DOE, 2007a). In general, CO2 injection has 

occurred safely for over twenty years with oil and gas activities (NETL, 2008b). The injection 

associated with the Proposed Action does not present much additional risk than current Denbury 

CO2 injection for the past ten years. Therefore, with proper safety procedures and plans, the risk 

to the general public should not exceed the significance threshold. 

4.9.3 Effects of No-Action 

Under the No-Action alternative, Denbury Resources would still continue oil recovery using 

EOR techniques. Thus, the construction and operational activities from the EOR, such as the 

drilling of injection wells, CO2 compression and pipelines, and use of heavy machinery, would 

still occur under the No-Action alternative. These activities represent a potential risk to human 

health and safety as described previously. However, the data would not be collected for CO2

storage research. Thus, the infrastructure for the data collection and increased volume of CO2

injected, such as the extra compressor and the observation wells, would not occur. Overall, this 

would result in less construction and operation activities, which provides fewer opportunities to 

for risks to human health and safety. 

As the types of activities in the No-Action alternative and Proposed Action are the same, the 

risks to human health and safety of the No-Action alternative are similar to the Proposed Action. 

The No-Action alternative activities are at reduced potential risk to human health and safety as 

the scale of the project is smaller under the No-Action alternative. Therefore, all of the risks to 

human health and safety are less than those under the Proposed Action. The exception would be 

in regards to the fact that the Proposed Action’s purpose is to further the research for options in 

preventing global climate change. Possible deaths from sea levels rising, deaths from increased 

severity of storms, increase respiratory diseases, and increased deaths from heat are some of the 

wide variety of potential human health and safety impacts from global climate change (Miller, 

2003). However, as many other projects are in operation or being proposed to assist in the 

reduction of risk for global climate change, not all of the global climate change risks are 

attributable to the No-Action alternative. Nevertheless, the No-Action alternative does represent 

some risk to human health and safety, but not a substantial one. 
U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test 

National Energy Technology Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ 

Description of the Affected Environment 80 March 2009 

& Environmental Effects 

4.9.4 Cumulative Effects 

Because of the overlying impervious seams above the injection zone, it is not likely that injected 

CO2 would find its way to the surface or into freshwater aquifers after sequestration at greater 

than 10,000 feet (approximately 3,000 m). The main issues concerning human health and safety 

from EOR (whether the Proposed Action or No-Action alternative is chosen) are operational 

integrity ones, such as ensuring high quality cement work in the wells. The only reasonable 

manner in which carbon dioxide could escape back to surface and/or affect potable water 

resources is by way of operational error or inadequacy, such as flow of gas behind cement or 

poor well abandonment, exceedance of fracture pressures or fracture gradients, or overpressuring 

of flowlines. 

The cumulative impacts of existing activities in and around the project area with the 

implementation of the Proposed Action does not represent a substantial risk to human health and 

safety with existing and upcoming mitigation and safety procedures in place. Therefore, there 

are no substantial cumulative effects from the Proposed Action. As described in the previous 

section, not funding the Proposed Action (the No-Action alternative) could have an adverse 

impact to the progress towards solutions for global climate change. However, since this is a 

single project of many, the cumulative impacts to human health and safety of the No-Action 

alternative would not exceed the significance threshold. Therefore, both the No-Action and the 

Proposed Action would pose no more than minimal risk to the health and safety of on-site 

workers and the local population with BMPs and mitigation in place and thus not exceed the 

impact significance threshold. 

4.10 Cultural Resources 

Cultural and historic resources are protected by a variety of laws and regulations, including the 

National Historic Preservation Act, as amended, and the Archaeological Resources Protection 

Act. Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and implementing regulations (36 

CFR 800) outline the procedures to be followed in the documentation, evaluation, and mitigation 

of impacts to cultural resources. The Section 106 process applies to any federal undertaking that 

has the potential to affect cultural resources. The Mississippi Department of Archives and 

History is the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) for Mississippi (MDAH, No date). 

4.10.1 Description 

Within two miles of the proposed project area, no known archeological or cultural sites are listed 

in state and federal records (EDR, 2008; MARIS, 2008; DOE, 2008a). The closest site on the 

National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) is Bedford Plantation, approximately 1.8 miles 

(approximately 2.9 km) to the north from the project boundary (MARIS, 2008). However, there 

are three cemeteries within the project area, Tate, Farrar, and Hickory Grove. 
U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early T

National Energy Technology Laboratory Final Environmental Assessm___________________________________________________________________________Description of the Affected Environment 81 March 2

 & Environmental Effects 

Figure 4.10.1. Map of Cultural Resources in Proximity of the Proposed Action 
U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test 

National Energy Technology Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ 

Description of the Affected Environment 82 March 2009 

& Environmental Effects 

There are no known Native American or Tribal areas within or near the project area (EDR, 2008; 

DOE, 2008a; MARIS, 2008). The closet one is over 100 miles (approximately 160 km), which 

is the Bogue Homa community that is land owned by the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians 

(MARIS, 2008). The Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indian Reservation, which consists of 

multiple scattered communities and lands such as the Bogue Homa community, is approximately 

200 miles (approximately 300 km) northeast, near Philadelphia, Mississippi. No federally 

recognized tribes have land claims or reservations in the two counties of the project area 

(Lavallee, 2006). Some recognized Native American Tribes with cultural interest in Mississippi 

according to the SHPO are Chickasaw, Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma, Mississippi Band of 

Choctaw Indians, Jena Band of Choctaw Indians, Quapaw Tribe of Oklahoma, and TunicaBiloxi Indians of Louisiana. Consultation letters were sent to the Tribes (Appendix E). Only the 

Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma responded, and the consultation resulted in no objection to the 

project. 

No surveys of the study area have been performed to date. A survey would provide more 

definitive information regarding the actual presence or absence of cultural resources including 

archeological. 

Regarding the potential for fossils in the area; fossils are formed in sedimentary rock. Because 

there is no surface sedimentary rock in the project area, there are no expected accessible fossils 

in the project area (See Section 4.2). 

4.10.2 Effects of Proposed Action 

The potential for impacts to cultural resources would be greatest during the construction phase. 

Discovery of previously unknown cultural resources can occur during construction activities in 

historically undisturbed areas. The construction noise and earthmoving activities can also 

deteriorate the use of the area for Native American activities (DOE, 2007a). 

Some construction activities occurring under the Proposed Action have the potential to disturb 

cultural resources such as land clearing, transporting equipment, leveling, drilling, and laying 

pipelines. These earthmoving activities could cause an adverse impact to cultural resources by 

altering drainage patterns, creating fugitive dust, and crushing the resources. Altered drainage 

patterns and runoff could deteriorate the artifacts or move them. Fugitive dust could cover and 

remove, in the case of paintings, artifacts. Spills from refueling equipment could also damage 

cultural resources, which could reduce the information potentially gained by the items. Further, 

construction activities could alter or destroy the context of the cultural resources. Operational 

impacts include use of heavy equipment, which is described above, and improved access to the 

area, which increases the possibility of illegal collection of properties (DOE, 2007a). 

There would be limited additional construction occurring under the Proposed Action compared 

to the No-Action alternative. Thus, the Proposed Action could be expected to cause only a 

limited increase in potential for disturbance for cultural resources. The project area is a 

previously disturbed site (DOE, 2008a). Consequently, since no cultural resources have been 
U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test 

National Energy Technology Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ 

Description of the Affected Environment 83 March 2009 

& Environmental Effects 

found to date, there is less possibility for discovering cultural resources during the Proposed 

Action. 

As there is no surface sedimentary rock, the risk to fossils (paleontological resources) that could 

be used for scientific/educational purposes is negligible (See Section 4.2). Due to the trees on 

the project site and distance to the nearest NRHP site (1.8 miles or 2.9 km), there would be no 

substantial visual resources impacts to any known eligible or existing NRHP site. Consultation 

letters were sent to the Tribes, and no Tribal objections were voiced (Appendix E). There are 

three cemeteries in the project area, which would need consideration. 

A consultation letter was sent to the SHPO (Appendix D). The only concern raised by the SHPO 

was regarding two burial sites, one off of Rice Road and one near Sibley, Mississippi. Both of 

these are away from the project area. Thus, the SHPO consultation resulted in no objections to 

the project (Noceti, 2008b). 

If cultural resources were discovered during the construction, the construction would be stopped, 

and SHPO, any relevant Tribes, or other agencies consulted. If the cultural resources were found 

to be substantial, then the construction component would need to be sited elsewhere or other 

acceptable mitigation performed as SHPO and any relevant Tribes or agencies dictate. 

Based on the information above, the Proposed Action would not be expected to exceed the 

significance threshold for cultural resources. 

4.10.3 Effects of No-Action 

Under the No-Action alternative, Denbury Resources would still continue oil recovery using 

EOR techniques. Thus, the construction and operational activities from the EOR, such as the 

drilling of injection wells and use of heavy machinery, would still occur under the No-Action 

alternative. These ground-disturbing activities represent a potential risk to cultural resources as 

described previously. However, data would not be collected for CO2 storage research. Thus, the 

infrastructure for the data collection and increased volume of CO2 injected, such as the extra 

compressor and the observation wells, would not be needed. Overall, this would result in less 

ground disturbance and provides fewer opportunities to disturb cultural resources. Further, most 

of the sites for the No-Action alternative are already disturbed, which reduces the possibility of 

finding previously unknown cultural resources (DOE, 2008a). 

As the types of activities in the No-Action alternative and Proposed Action are the same, the 

risks to cultural resources under the No-Action alternative are similar to the Proposed Action. 

The No-Action alternative activities are at reduced potential risk to cultural resources as the scale 

of the project and disturbance is smaller under the No-Action alternative. 

As there is no surface sedimentary rock, the risk to fossils (paleontological resources) that could 

be used for scientific/education purposes is negligible. Due to the trees on the project site and 

distance to the nearest NRHP site (1.8 miles or 2.9 km), there should be no substantial visual 

resources impacts to any known eligible or existing NRHP sites. Consultation letters were sent 

to the Tribes (Appendix E). No Tribal objections were voiced about this project. As mentioned 
U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test 

National Energy Technology Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ 

Description of the Affected Environment 84 March 2009 

& Environmental Effects 

in Section 4.10.2, a letter was sent to the SHPO (Appendix D). The SHPO consultation resulted 

in no objections to the project. There are three cemeteries in the project area, which would need 

consideration. 

If cultural resources were discovered during the construction, the construction would be stopped, 

and SHPO, any relevant Tribes, or other agencies consulted. If the cultural resources were found 

to be substantial, then the construction component would need to be sited elsewhere or other 

acceptable mitigation performed as SHPO and any relevant Tribes or agencies dictate. 

Based on the information above, the No-Action alternative is not expected to exceed the 

significance threshold for cultural resources. 

 

4.10.4 Cumulative Effects 

Currently, the only projected types of activities in the project area will be other oil and gas 

activities; therefore, the Proposed Action and the No-Action alternative will be only a small 

component to potential cumulative impacts. Since there are no substantial impacts to cultural 

resources, the Proposed Action and the No-Action alternative do not substantially contribute to 

the cumulative impacts to cultural resources in the vicinity of the project area. As impacts to 

cultural resources are generally local (heavy machinery crushing resources, etc.), the Proposed 

Action and the No-Action alternative both are unlikely to contribute to impacts to cultural 

resources outside the vicinity of the project area and would not exceed the significance threshold. 

4.11 Waste Management 

4.11.1 Description 

Whether the Proposed Action is implemented or not, a number of wastes would be generated due 

to ongoing EOR which could potentially include: 

• Slash from tree clearing and drilling pad redevelopment, 

• lubricating oils and greases, 

• used solvents, 

• used hydraulic fluid, 

• metal parts, wire and cable, 

• oily rags, 

• domestic sewage, 

• domestic solid waste, 

• contaminated soil from spills, 

• discarded cement, 

• containers (metal, wood, plastic, etc.), 

• produced water (oily and/or saline), and 

• drilling mud and cuttings. 

The project Environmental Information Volume (EIV) (DOE, 2008a), indicates that Denbury 

plans to dispose of associated drilling wastes generated by drilling operations in accordance with 
U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test 

National Energy Technology Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ 

Description of the Affected Environment 85 March 2009 

& Environmental Effects 

MSOGB regulations. As appropriate, wastes may either be injected into permitted Class II UIC 

wells or land-farmed onsite within the Cranfield Unit. 

According to the EIV (DOE, 2008a) Denbury, on behalf the SECARB project (were the 

Proposed Action implemented), is to inject 0.5 million metric tons of CO2, in addition to 1 

million metric tons of CO2 that will be injected as part of the commercial EOR operations. 

The project EIV (DOE, 2008a) further states that during the second stage (monitoring and 

injection operations) there would be no fuel or waste storage areas anticipated and solid or 

hazardous waste would be not produced. However, the second stage would require added 

compression capacity for the SECARB injection wells. The operation of a compressor would 

generate waste products which could include: 

• Used lube oil, 

• Wastewater (wash water), 

• Spent glycols 

• Used metal parts, 

• Used gaskets, 

• Oily rags, 

• Filters, 

• Containers, 

• Contaminated soils from spills and leaks, and 

• Domestic wastes. 

In addition, as a part of the geochemical monitoring, sampling tracers will be used and there may 

be some waste formation brine produced through observation well sampling. These activities 

will generate: 

• Tracer containers, and 

• Small volumes of produced water 

All wastes generated during operation of drilling, compression, or other facilities at the study site 

will be disposed of in accordance with MDEP regulations. Existing MSOGB regulations 

adequately protect the environment with strict standards for the collection, containment, and 

disposal of solid waste; and provide for penalties and appropriate remedial actions for failure to 

comply. 

4.11.2 Effects of Proposed Action 

Four injection wells will be completed as a result of Denbury’s commercial EOR operations even 

if the SECARB project is not conducted. Extending the four injection wells into the water leg 

down-dip of the Lower Tuscaloosa Formation required for the SECARB project will create only 

minor additional drilling muds and cuttings which would easily be managed with the wastes 

from the commercial EOR operations. The impacts related to these additional wastes would not 

be expected to exceed the significance threshold. 

The drilling of the two deep SECARB project observation wells and the extension of four 

injection wells would require the use of 30,000 to 50,000 pounds (13,600 – 23,000 kg) of 

additional drilling mud. The EIV (DOE, 2008a) indicates that Denbury plans to dispose of 
U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test 

National Energy Technology Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ 

Description of the Affected Environment 86 March 2009 

& Environmental Effects 

associated drilling wastes generated by drilling operations in accordance with MSOGB 

regulations. Drilling wastes may either be injected into permitted Class II UIC wells or landfarmed on site within the Cranfield Unit. 

The operation of one additional compressor would be completed as part of the SECARB project 

and would be used to inject CO2 through the four injection wells. The SECARB project calls for 

an addition 0.5 million metric tons added to the 1 million metric tons of CO2 to be transported 

and injected as part Denbury’s commercial EOR operations. The National Energy Technology 

Laboratory’s (DOE, 2007a) “Carbon Sequestration Program Environmental Reference 

Document” estimates that 0.006 gallons (0.02 L)/metric ton CO2 of used oil would be generated 

and 3.3 gal. (12.5 L)/metric ton CO2 of wastewater would be generated from the compression 

and transportation of CO2 by pipeline to injection wells (DOE, 2007a). Based on these numbers 

it is estimated that the SECARB project would generate 3000 gallons (11,350 L) of used oil from 

the dedicated compressor and a further 1.65 million gallons (6.2 L) of wastewater could also be 

generated from dehydration and preparation of the CO2 for transport at its source. These waste 

streams, however, should not pose substantial waste management problem as they are not unique 

to the oil production industry and could be handled with wastes created as part of Denbury’s 

commercial EOR program. 

 

Geochemical tracer techniques would include (1) isotopic profiles of injected CO2, (2) 

introduced noble gases, and (3) introduced perfluorocarbons. Noble gases and perfluorocarbons 

have no known human or eco-toxicity (DOE, 2007a). Disposal of the associated containers 

should not pose any substantial risk. 

Any waste formation brine resulting from geochemical sampling of observation wells as 

proposed in the EIV (DOE, 2008a) would be transported to a MSOGB-permitted Class II 

disposal well. 

4.11.3 Effects of No-Action 

Denbury plans to develop the commercial EOR program regardless of the implementation of the 

SECARB project and only minor reductions in drilling waste would result with No-Action by not 

drilling the two observation wells. Any drilling wastes created from the drilling of the two deep 

SECARB project observation wells would not be created under the No-Action alternative. 

The additional compressor that would allow for increased injection volumes of CO2, 0.5 million 

metric tons (0.5 million short tons) associated with the SECARB project would not be installed. 

Therefore, no associated used oil, wastewater or other waste products would be generated from 

its operation. 

 

Under the No-Action scenario no tracers would be injected; and, no waste formation brine from 

geochemical sampling would be produced. 

4.11.4 Cumulative Impacts 

Potential cumulative impacts related to drilling the observation wells include disposal of 
U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test 

National Energy Technology Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ 

Description of the Affected Environment 87 March 2009 

& Environmental Effects 

produced brines in permitted Class II injection wells and the handling and management of 

additional drilling muds. Provided all regulatory requirements are met the cumulative waste 

impacts, related to the drilling requirements of the SECARB project, would not be expected to 

exceed the significance threshold. 

Potential cumulative impacts related to the waste products from the compression and injection of 

additional CO2 for the SECARB project relate to the volumes of lube oil and wastewater 

generated. Due to the Denbury’s commercial EOR infrastructure and other resources available 

to handle these waste streams, it is not anticipated that these waste streams would have any 

cumulative effects that would exceed the significance threshold. 

There are likely to be negligible cumulative impacts regarding wastes related to sampling and 

monitoring of the wells due to the small volumes of waste generated. 

Overall, the proposed SECARB project would not cause air, water or soil to be contaminated 

with hazardous materials (assuming appropriate drilling waste management and compressor 

waste containment strategies are in place), to a degree that would pose a threat to human or 

ecological health and safety. 
U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test 

National Energy Technology Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________

Consultation and Coordination 88 March 2009 

5.0 CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION 

5.1 Preparation for Development of this Environmental Assessment 

A kick-off meeting was held on May 14, 2008, at the NETL office in Morgantown, West 

Virginia, with representatives from NETL, the University of Texas, and Mangi Environmental 

Group, to formally begin the EA process. 

Subsequent to that meeting a review was made of available information necessary for the 

completion of the EA and data gaps were submitted to NETL. 

A site visit was made in May 22, 2008 by members of the team charged with the development of 

this EA. 

5.2 Agency Coordination 

The Council on Environmental Quality’s regulations for implementing NEPA allows federal 

agencies to invite comment from tribal, state, and local agencies, as well as other federal 

agencies in the preparation of EAs. The purpose of this coordination is to obtain special 

expertise with respect to environmental and cultural issues in order to enhance interdisciplinary 

capabilities, and otherwise ensure successful, effective consultation in decision-making. 

5.2.1 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

The mission of the USFWS is to conserve, protect, and enhance fish, wildlife, and plants and 

their habitats for the continuing benefit of American people. Analysis addressed issues raised by 

USFWS in the body of the document. 

See Appendix B for letters sent to and received from agency. 

5.2.2 State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) 

The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) requires DOE to consult with the SHPO prior to 

any construction to ensure that no historical properties would be adversely affected by a 

proposed project. DOE must also afford the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation a 

reasonable opportunity to comment on the proposed project. As stated in Section 4.10, DOE 

reviewed issues with SHPO, and the SHPO had no objections to the project. 

See Appendix D for letter sent to and received from the SHPO. 

5.2.3 Bureau of Indian Affairs 

The American Indian Religious Freedom Act, 42 USC § 1996, establishes policy to protect and 

preserve the inherent and Constitutional right of Native Americans to believe, express, and 

exercise their traditional religions. The law ensures the protection of sacred locations, access of 

Native Americans to those sacred locations and traditional resources that are integral to the 
U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test 

National Energy Technology Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________

Consultation and Coordination 89 March 2009 

practice of their religions, and establishes requirements that would apply to Native American 

sacred locations, traditional resources, or traditional religious practices potentially affected by 

construction and operation of proposed facilities. Only one Tribe responded (Choctaw Nation of 

Oklahoma), and the results of the consultation were no objection. 

See Appendix E for letters sent to and received from the Bureau of Indian Affairs and Tribal 

Councils. 

5.3 Public Involvement 

The public comment period on the Draft EA was August 25 to September 25, 2008. An article 

informing the public of the availability of the Draft EA at the Natchez Public Library ran in the 

Natchez Democrat on August 24th and 31th and September 7th, 14th, and 21st. DOE received no 

comments from the public (Noceti, 2008c). 
U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test 

National Energy Technology Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ 

List of Preparers 90 March 2009 

6.0 LIST OF PREPARERS 

6.1 Mangi Environmental Group 

Jim Mangi; Contract Management 

Randy Williams; Program Manager, SECARB Project Manager, No-Action, Alternatives 

Dick Wildermann; Alternate Project Manager, Proposed Action, Purpose and Need, Threshold 

Significance Criteria, Project Location 

Meghan Morse; Associate Project Manager, Document/Administrative Record Management, 

Human Health and Safety, Cultural Resources; Cause-Effect-Questions 

Eveline Martin; Wetlands, Wildlife, Terrestrial Plants, Visual Resources 

Tim Lavallee; Air Quality, Noise 

Bud Watson; Legal Framework 

Rick Heffner; Socioeconomics 

Mark Blevins; Land Use, GIS 

6.2 Wiebe Environmental Services 

 

Jason Breakey; Operations/Program Manager 

Ed Osborne; Project Management, Soils 

John Railton; Review for Threshold Impact and Public Significance 

Harald Thimm; Construction, Operation and Decommissioning. 

Craig Robertson; Hydrology and Geology 

Kai Nielsen; Waste Management 

Kate Forbes; Background Research and Report Preparation. 
U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test 

National Energy Technology Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ 

References 91 March 2009 

7.0 REFERENCES 

(ANSI, 2003). American National Standards Institute. 2003. American National Standard 

Quantities and Procedures for Description and Measurement of Environmental Sound. Part 3: 

Short-term measurements with an observer present. New York: Acoustical Society of America. 

(AERCB, 2008). Alberta Energy Resources Conservation Board. 2008. The Public Interest: 

Health Effects of Sour Gas. Accessed June 2008 at 

http://www.ercb.ca/portal/server.pt/gateway/PTARGS_0_0_315_247_0_43/http%3B/ercbConten

t/publishedcontent/publish/ercb_home/public_zone/sour_gas/the_public_interest/HealthEffects.a

spx. 

(Ariel Corporation, 2008). Ariel Corporation. 2008. KBB & KBV Gas Compressor. Accessed 

June 2008 at http://www.arielcorp.com/ariel_products.aspx?id=49. 

(ATSDR, 2007). Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. 2007. ToxFAQsTM

: 

Automotive Gasoline. Accessed June 2008 at http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/tfacts72.html. 

(Bailey, 1995). Bailey, R.G. 1995. Descriptions of the Ecoregions of the United States. Accessed 

June 2008 at 

http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/emrrp/emris/emrishelp2/bailey_s_ecoregions_map.htm. 

(BEA, 2006). Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. Department of Commerce. 2006. Regional 

Economic Accounts. Accessed June 2008 at 

http://www.bea.gov/bea/regional/bearfacts/action.cfm. 

(Bicker, 1969). Bicker, A.R., Jr. 1969. Geologic Map of Mississippi: Mississippi Office of 

Geology. Accessed October 2008 at 

http://www.deq.state.ms.us/MDEQ.nsf/pdf/Geology_GeologicMapofMississippi/$File/Surface_

Geology_MS.pdf?OpenElement. 

(Bies, 2003). Bies, David A. 2003. Engineering Noise Control. New York: Spoon Press. 

(BLS, 2008). U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2008. Local Area Unemployment Statistics 

Information and Analysis. Accessed June 2008 at http://www.bls.gov/lau/home.htm#data. 

(BLS, 2007). U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2007. Incidence rates of total recordable cases of 

nonfatal occupational injuries and illnesses by quartile distribution and employment size, private 

industry, 2006. Accessed June 2008 at http://www.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/osh/os/ostb1769.pdf. 

(BLS, 2006). U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor. 2006. Quarterly 

Census of Employment and Wages, 2006. Accessed June 2008 at 

http://data.bls.gov/LOCATION_QUOTIENT/servlet/lqc.ControllerServlet. 

(CARB, 2007a). California Air Resource Board. 2007. Regulation for the Mandatory Reporting 

of Green House Gas Emissions (Draft). Proposed Subchapter 10, Article 1, Sections 95100 to 
U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test 

National Energy Technology Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ 

References 92 March 2009 

95133, Title 17, California Code of Regulations. Accessed June 2008 at 

http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2007/ghg2007/modifications.pdf. 

(CARB, 2007b). California Air Resource Board. 2007. Air EMission FACtors (EMFAC) Model.

Accessed July 2008 at http://www.arb.ca.gov/msei/onroad/latest_version.htm. 

(Census, 2007). U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division. 2007. Table 1, Annual Estimates of 

the Population for Counties of Mississippi: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2006 (CO-EST2006-01-28). 

Accessed June 2008 at http://www.census.gov/popest/counties/tables/CO-EST2006-01-28.xls. 

(Census, 2000a). U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division. 2000. GCT-PH1. Population, 

Housing Units, Area, and Density: 2000. Accessed June 2008 at 

http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/GCTTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=04000US28&-

_box_head_nbr=GCT-PH1&-ds_name=DEC_2000_SF1_U&-format=ST-2. 

(Census, 2000b). U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division. 2000. Census 2000 Demographic 

Profile Highlights: Franklin County Mississippi, Summary File 1 (SF 1) and Summary File 3 (SF 

3) 100-Percent Data. Accessed July 2008 at 

http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/SAFFFacts?_event=Search&geo_id=&_geoContext=&_stree

t=&_county=Franklin&_cityTown=Franklin&_state=04000US28&_zip=&_lang=en&_sse=on&

pctxt=fph&pgsl=010&show_2003_tab=&redirect=Y. 

(Census, 2000c). U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division. 2000. Census 2000 Demographic 

Profile Highlights: Adams County Mississippi, Summary File 1 (SF 1) and Summary File 3 (SF 

3) 100-Percent Data. Accessed July 2008 at 

http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/SAFFFacts?_event=Search&geo_id=05000US28037&_geoC

ontext=01000US%7C04000US28%7C05000US28037&_street=&_county=Adams&_cityTown=

Adams&_state=04000US28&_zip=&_lang=en&_sse=on&ActiveGeoDiv=geoSelect&_useEV=

&pctxt=fph&pgsl=050&_submenuId=factsheet_1&ds_name=DEC_2000_SAFF&_ci_nbr=null

&qr_name=null®=null%3Anull&_keyword=&_industry=. 

(Census, 2000d). U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division. 2000. Census 2000 Summary File 3, 

DP-3.Profile of Selected Economic Characteristics: 2000. Accessed October 2008 at 

http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/QTTable?_bm=y&-context=qt&-

qr_name=DEC_2000_SF3_U_DP3&-ds_name=DEC_2000_SF3_U&-tree_id=403&-

redoLog=true&-all_geo_types=N&-_caller=geoselect&-geo_id=05000US28001&-

geo_id=05000US28037&-search_results=01000US&-format=&-_lang=en. 

(Census, 2000e). U. S. Census Bureau, Population Division. 2000. Census 2000 Demographic 

Profile Highlights: Roxie town, Mississippi, Summary File 1 (SF 1) and Summary File 3 (SF 3) 

100-Percent Data. Accessed July 2008 at 

http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/SAFFFacts?_event=Search&geo_id=05000US28037&_geoC

ontext=01000US%7C04000US28%7C05000US28037&_street=&_county=Roxie&_cityTown=

Roxie&_state=04000US28&_zip=&_lang=en&_sse=on&ActiveGeoDiv=geoSelect&_useEV=&

pctxt=fph&pgsl=050&_submenuId=factsheet_1&ds_name=DEC_2000_SAFF&_ci_nbr=null&q

r_name=null®=null%3Anull&_keyword=&_industry=. 
U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test 

National Energy Technology Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ 

References 93 March 2009 

(Census, 2000f). U. S. Census Bureau, Population Division. 2000. Census 2000 Demographic 

Profile Highlights: Natchez city, Mississippi, Summary File 1 (SF 1) and Summary File 3 (SF 3) 

100-Percent Data. Accessed July 2008 at 

http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/SAFFFacts?_event=Search&geo_id=16000US2864080&_ge

oContext=01000US%7C04000US28%7C16000US2864080&_street=&_county=NAtchez&_city

Town=NAtchez&_state=04000US28&_zip=&_lang=en&_sse=on&ActiveGeoDiv=geoSelect&_

useEV=&pctxt=fph&pgsl=160&_submenuId=factsheet_1&ds_name=DEC_2000_SAFF&_ci_n

br=null&qr_name=null®=null%3Anull&_keyword=&_industry=. 

(Census, 2000g). U.S. Census Bureau. 2000. Summary File 1 (SF 1) 100-Percent Data, Detailed 

Tables. Accessed July 2008 at 

http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DTGeoSearchByListServlet?ds_name=DEC_2000_SF1_U&

_lang=en&_ts=234886326406. 

(CEQ, 1997). Council on Environmental Quality. 1997. Environmental Justice Guidance Under 

the National Environmental Policy Act. Executive Office of the President. Washington, D.C. 

December 10, 1997. 

(Chacko et al., 1997). Chacko J.J, Jones, B.L., Moncrief J.E., Bourgeois, R. and Harder B.J. 

1997. An Unproven Unconventional Seven Billion Barrel Oil Resource - the Tuscaloosa Marine 

Shale. Baton Rouge, Louisiana: Basin Research Institute, Louisiana State University. 

(Cockrell, 2005). Cockrell, A. 2005. Drilling Ahead: The Quest for Oil in the Deep South, 1945-

2005. University Press of Mississippi. Accessed on June 2008 at 

http://books.google.com/books?id=9bd9n1VvYgwC&printsec=frontcover&dq=cockrell+drilling

+ahead&sig=ACfU3U09AzSvQTnL5PJPu_Y2anKfDYDcvg#PPP1,M1. 

(Curry, 1934). Curry, W.H., 1934. Fredericksburg-Washita (Edwards-Georgetown) Contact in 

Edwards Plateau Region of Texas: Geological Notes. AAPG Bulletin. 18(12): 1698-1705. 

(Denbury, No date). Denbury Resources. No date provided. Health and Safety Plan: Cranfield 

Phase II Monitor Well-Sandia Project No. 956-BEGA. 70 pp. 

(DOE, 2008a). U.S. Department of Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory. 2008. 

Environmental Information Volume (EIV) for the Southeast Regional Carbon Sequestration 

Partnership Phase III Early Test. 24 pp. 

(DOE, 2008b). U.S. Department of Energy National Energy Technology Laboratory. 2008. 

Environmental Questionnaire (EQ) for the Southeast Regional Carbon Sequestration 

Partnership Phase III Early Test. 19 pp. 

(DOE, 2007a). U.S. Department of Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory. 2007. 

Carbon Sequestration Program Environmental Reference Document. Accessed June 2008 at 

http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/carbon_seq/refshelf/nepa/index.html. 
U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test 

National Energy Technology Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ 

References 94 March 2009 

(DOE, 2007b). U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration. 2007. 

International Energy Outlook 2007. Accessed June 2008 at http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/. 

(DOE, 2007c). U.S. Department of Energy. 2007. FutureGen Environmental Impact Statement. 

Accessed on June 2008 at http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/coalpower/futuregen/EIS/. 

(EDR, 2008). Environmental Data Resources (EDR). 2008. EDR NEPACheck® for Tate Road & 

Moss Grove Rd, Roxie, MS 39661. Inquiry Number 2237507.2s. 32 pp. 

(FEMA, 1989). Federal Emergency Management Agency. 1989. Flood Insurance Rate Map, 

Adams County, Mississippi and Incorporated Areas. Accessed July 2008 at 

https://msc.fema.gov. 

(FEMA, 1977). Federal Emergency Management Agency. 1977. Flood Insurance Rate Map, 

Franklin County, Mississippi. Accessed July 2008 at https://msc.fema.gov. 

(Gandl, 1982). Gandl, L.A. 1982. Characterization of Aquifers Designated as Potential Drinking 

Water Sources in Mississippi (USGS Open File Report 81-550). 90 pp. 

(Goddard, 2001). Goddard, D.A. 2001. Quick Look Handbook Onshore Louisiana Petroleum 

Producing Formations. Accessed July 2008 at 

http://www.enrg.lsu.edu/pttc/publications/finalquicklook.PDF. 

(Harris, 1998). Harris, Cecil M. 1998. Handbook of Acoustical Measurement and Noise Control. 

New York: Acoustical Society of America. 

(Heinrich et al., 2004). Jason J. Heinrich, Howard J. Herzog, and David M. Reiner. 2004. 

Environmental Assessment of Geologic Storage of CO2. Accessed July 2008 at 

http://sequestration.mit.edu/pdf/LFEE_2003-002_RP.pdf. 

(Hill, 2007). Hill, Gerald R. 2007. Factsheet for Partnership Field Validation Test. Accessed 

July 2008 at http://www.netl.doe.gov/publications/proceedings/07/rcsp/factsheets/3-

SECARB_Large%20Scale%20Saline%20Formation%20Demo.pdf. 

(Hovorka et al., 2000). Hovorka, S.D., Romero, M.L., Treviño, R.H., Warne, A.G., Ambrose, 

W.A., Knox, P.R., and Tremblay, T.A. 2000. Sequestration of Greenhouse Gases in Brine 

Formations. Accessed June 2008 at 

http://www.beg.utexas.edu/environqlty/co2seq/dispslsaln.htm. 

(International Energy Agency, 2007). International Energy Agency. 2007. Study of Potential 

Impacts of Leaks from Onshore CO2 Storage Projects on Terrestrial Ecosystems. Greenhouse 

Gas R&D Programme Technical Study. Report Number: 2007/3. 

(IPCC, 2005). Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2005. IPCC Special Report on

Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage. Accessed on June 2008 at 
U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test 

National Energy Technology Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ 

References 95 March 2009 

http://www.mnp.nl/ipcc/pages_media/SRCCSfinal/IPCCSpecialReportonCarbondioxideCaptureandStorage.htm. 

(Lavallee, 2006). Lavallee, J. 2006. Native American Consultation Database Search (NACD).

Accessed June 2008 at http://home.nps.gov/nacd/. 

(Mancini and Puckett, 2005). Mancini E.A. and Puckett, T.M. 2005. Jurassic and Cretaceous 

Transgressive-Regressive (T-R) Cycles, Northern Gulf of Mexico, USA. Stratigraphy. 2 (1): 31-

48. 

(MARIS, 2008). Mississippi Automated Resource Information Service. 2008. Download Data: 

Statewide Themes. Accessed June 2008 at 

http://www.maris.state.ms.us/HTM/DownloadData/Statewide-Theme.htm. 

(Mason, 2001). Mason, P.G. 2001. Monitored Salinity and Water Levels in the Cockfield Aquifer, 

Washington County, Mississippi. Hydrologic Investigations Report. Accessed June 2008 at 

http://www.deq.state.ms.us/MDEQ.nsf/page/L&W_Index?OpenDocument. 

(McNulty, 1976). McNulty, C.N. Jr. 1976. Globotruncana fornicata Zone of Upper Austin Group 

(Cretaceous), Northeast Texas: GEOLOGIC NOTES. AAPG Bulletin. 60(11): 2058-2062. 

(MDAH, No date). Mississippi Department of Archives and History. No date provided. Historic 

Preservation. Accessed June 2008 at http://mdah.state.ms.us/hpres/. 

(MDEQ, 2008). Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality. 2008. Total Maximum Daily 

Load Section. Accessed July 2008 at 

http://www.deq.state.ms.us/MDEQ.nsf/page/TWB_Total_Maximum_Daily_Load_Section?Open

Document. 

(MDOT, 2006). Mississippi Department of Transportation, Office of Intermodal Planning. 2006. 

Annual Average Daily Traffic, 2006. Accessed June 2008 at 

www.gomdot.com/divisions/intermodalplanning/Resources/Maps/TrafficVolumeMaps.aspx. 

(Miller, 2003). Miller, G. Tyler. 2003. Environmental Science. 9th edition. Pacific Grove, 

California: Brooks/Cole-Thomson Learning. 

(MSNHP, 2008). Mississippi Natural Heritage Program. 2008. MMNS: Science: Natural 

Heritage Program: Search Online Data-NHP Online Data. Accessed October 2008 at 

http://museum.mdwfp.com/science/nhp_online_data.html. 

(MSOGB, 2007). Mississippi State Oil and Gas Board. 2007. Rule Book. Accessed June 2008 at 

http://www.ogb.state.ms.us/docs/RuleBook06-2007.pdf. 

(National Atlas, 2008). National Atlas. 2008. Map Layers. Accessed June 2008 at 

http://nationalatlas.gov/maplayers.html?openChapters=chpbio#chpbio. 
U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test 

National Energy Technology Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ 

References 96 March 2009 

(NETL, 2008a). National Energy Technology Laboratory. 2008. Program Facts: Carbon 

Sequestration: Southeast Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership—Deployment Phase. 

Accessed July 2008 at http://www.netl.doe.gov/publications/factsheets/project/Proj493.pdf. 

(NETL, 2008b). National Energy Technology Laboratory. 2008. Lake Nyos and Mammoth 

Mountain: What Do They Tell Us about the Security of Engineered Storage of CO2

Underground? Accessed July 2008 at 

http://www.netl.doe.gov/publications/factsheets/program/Prog064.pdf. 

(NIOSH, No date). National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). No date 

provided. NIOSH Topic: Construction Safety. Accessed June 2008 at 

http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/constructionsafety/. 

(Noceti, 2008a). Noceti, P. NEPA Document Manager, NETL. 2008. Personal Communication. 

Consistency between the EAs and some outstanding issues. July 25, 2008. 

(Noceti, 2008b). Noceti, P. NEPA Document Manager, NETL. 2008. Personal Communication.

Fwd: Non-issue- Burial sites near Proposed Southeast Regional Carbon Sequestration 

Partnership (SECARB) Phase III Early Test. August 4, 2008. 

(Noceti, 2008c). Noceti, P. NEPA Document Manager, NETL. 2008. Personal Communication. 

Public Comments to Public Draft EA. September 26, 2008. 

(NRCS, 2008a). Natural Resources Conservation Service, Soil Survey Staff United States 

Department of Agriculture. 2008. Official Soil Series Descriptions. Accessed June 2008 at 

http://soils.usda.gov/technical/classification/osd/index.html. 

(NRCS, 2008b). Natural Resource Conservation Service. 2008. Digital Soil Survey Geographic 

(SSURGO) Database for Adams and Franklin Counties, Mississippi. Accessed June 2008 at 

http://soildatamart.nrcs.usda.gov/County.aspx?State=MS. 

(SECARB, 2008). Southeast Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership. 2008. Phase III Early 

and Anthropogenic CO2 Injection Field Tests. Accessed July 2008 at 

http://www.secarbon.org/nonpublic/secarbfactsheetssebIII.pdf. 

(Thompson, 1988). Thompson, D.E., 1988. Structural Features of Mississippi. Accessed June 

2008 at 

http://www.deq.state.ms.us/mdeq.nsf/pdf/Geology_StructuralFeaturesMapofMississippi/$File/St

ruc_Feat_MS.pdf?OpenElement. 

(Thompson, 1969). Thompson, D.E. 1969. Geological Age Map of Mississippi. Accessed June 

2008 at 

http://www.deq.state.ms.us/mdeq.nsf/pdf/Geology_GeologicalAgeMapofMississippi/$File/Geol

ogic_Age_MS.pdf?OpenElement. 
U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test 

National Energy Technology Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ 

References 97 March 2009 

(UNFCCC, 2007). United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. 2007. Kyoto 

Protocol Reference Manual on Accounting of Emissions and Assigned Amounts. Accessed June 

2008 at 

http://unfccc.int/files/national_reports/accounting_reporting_and_review_under_the_kyoto_prot

ocol/application/pdf/rm_final.pdf. 

(USEPA, 2008). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2008. USEPA AirDATA Website. 

Accessed June 2008 at http://www.epa.gov/oar/data/. 

(USEPA, 2007a). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2007. Inventory of US Greenhouse 

Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990–2005. EPA 430-R-07-002. April 15, 2007. U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency. Washington, D.C. 

(USEPA, 2007b). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2007. Climate Change. Accessed June 

2008 at www.epa.gov/climatechange/basicinfo.html#emissions. 

(USEPA, 2007c). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2007. Basic Information: Air and 

Radiation. Accessed June 2008 at http://www.epa.gov/air/basic.html. 

(USEPA, 1974). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1974. Information on Levels of 

Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin 

of Safety. Accessed October 2008 at 

http://www.nonoise.org/library/levels74/levels74.htm#table%20of%20contents. 

(USFWS, 2008). United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008. Wetlands Geodatabase. 

Accessed June 2008 at http://wetlandsfws.er.usgs.gov/NWI/codes.html. 

(USFWS, 2005). United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005. Mississippi List of Threatened 

and Endangered Species by County. Accessed June, 2008 at 

http://www.fws.gov/southeast/jackson/MSspecieslist10-05.pdf. 

(USFWS, 1982). United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 1982. National Wetlands Inventory: 

Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the Conterminous United States - Mississippi. Accessed 

June 2008 at http://wetlandsfws.er.usgs.gov/NWI/download.html. 

(USGS, 2008a). United States Geological Survey. 2008. Water Quality Samples for the Nation, 

USGS 07290860 South Fork Coles Creek NR Church Hill, MS. Accessed June 2008 at 

http://nwis.waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/qwdata?site_no=07290860&agency_cd=USGS&begin_date

=&end_date=&TZoutput=0&format=html_table&qw_attributes=0&inventory_output=retrieval

&rdb_inventory_output=value&qw_sample_wide=wide&rdb_qw_attributes=0&date_format=Y

YYY-MM-DD&rdb_compression=file&submitted_form=brief_list. 

(USGS, 2008b). United States Geological Survey. 2008. USGS Surface-Water Data for the 

Nation. Accessed July 2008 at http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/sw. 
U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test 

National Energy Technology Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ 

References 98 March 2009 

(USGS, 2005). United States Geological Survey. 2005. Water Resources Data Mississippi Water 

Year 2004: Water-Data Report MS-04-01. Accessed June 2008 at 

http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/usgspubs/wdr/wdrMS041. 

(USGS, 2001). U.S. Geological Survey. 2001. National Land Cover Database (NLCD 2001). 

Accessed June 2008 at http://www.mrlc.gov/nlcd_multizone_map.php. 

(Walden, 2008). Walden, S. Consultant. 2008. Personal Communication. DOE SECARB EA 

Questions. July 28, 2008. 
U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test 

National Energy Technology Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________

Glossary 99 March 2009 

8.0 GLOSSARY 

Ambient – The natural surroundings of a location. 

Anthropogenic – Man-made. 

Asphyxiation – A condition of severely deficient supply of oxygen to the body that arises from 

being unable to breathe normally. 

Attainment areas – A zone within which the level of a pollutant is considered to meet United 

States National Ambient Air Quality Standards. 

A-weighted decibels – An expression of the relative loudness of sounds in air as perceived by the 

human ear. 

Best management practices – Innovative, dynamic, and improved environmental protection 

practices applied to oil and natural gas drilling and production to help ensure that energy 

development is conducted in an environmentally responsible manner. 

Brine – Water saturated or nearly saturated with salt. 

Capillary forces – Capillary motion, or wicking is the ability of a substance to draw another 

substance into it. 

Carbon Sequestration – The capture and storage of carbon long-term in an effort to avoid release 

of that carbon as carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. 

CO2 flood – If a well has been produced before and has been designated suitable for CO2

flooding, the first thing to do is to restore the pressure within the reservoir to one suitable for 

production. This is done by injecting water (with the production well shut off) which will restore 

pressure within the reservoir to a suitable pressure for CO2 flooding. Once the reservoir is at this 

pressure, the next step is to inject the CO2 into the same injection wells used to restore pressure. 

The CO2 gas is forced into the reservoir and is required to come into contact with the oil. This 

easier movement of oil to the production well. Normally the CO2 injection is alternated with 

more water injection and the water acts to sweep the oil towards the production zone. 

Criteria pollutants – The Clean Air Act requires EPA to set standards for six common air 

pollutants. These commonly found air pollutants (also known as "criteria pollutants") are found 

all over the United States. They are particle pollution (often referred to as particulate matter), 

ground-level ozone, carbon monoxide, sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides, and lead. 

Cumulative effects – Those effects on the environment that result from the incremental effect of 

the action when added to past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of 

what agency (federal or nonfederal) or person undertakes such other actions. 
U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test 

National Energy Technology Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________

Glossary 100 March 2009 

Day-night Sound Level – The A-weighted equivalent sound level for a 24 hour period with an 

additional 10 dB imposed on the equivalent sound levels for night time hours of 10 p.m. to 7 am. 

Decibel – A unit of measurement that expresses the magnitude of a physical quantity (usually 

intensity) relative to a specified or implied reference level. The decibel is useful for a wide 

variety of measurements in science (for this application, it is sound). 

Directionally drilled – Wells that are drilled intentionally to a location other than directly beneath 

the wellhead location. 

Downdip – Located down the slope of a dipping plane or surface. In a dipping (not flat-lying) oil 

and gas reservoir that contains gas, oil and water, the gas is updip (above) the gas-oil contact 

location. This oil-gas contact location is downdip (below) the gas, and the oil-water contact 

location is still farther downdip. 

Downhole – A location in the geologic strata that is lower/below a designated location. 

EA – (Environmental Assessment), A concise public document, prepared in compliance with the 

National Environmental Policy Act, that briefly discusses the purpose and need for an action, 

alternatives to such action, and provides sufficient evidence and analysis of impacts to determine 

whether to prepare an environmental impact statement or finding of no significant impact (40 

CFR 1508.9). 

EIS – (Environmental Impact Statement), A detailed written statement required by Section 

102(2) (C) of the National Environmental Policy Act, analyzing the environmental impacts of a 

Proposed Action, adverse effects of the project that cannot be avoided, alternative courses of 

action, short-term uses of the environment versus the maintenance and enhancement of longterm productivity, and any irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources (40 CFR 

1508.11). 

Environmental Justice – The confluence of social and environmental movements, which deals 

with the inequitable environmental burden born by groups such as racial minorities, women, or 

residents of developing nations. 

Equivalent Sound Level – The level of a steady-state noise without impulses or tone components 

which is equivalent to the actual noise emitted over a period of time. 

Erodible – The erodibility of soils can be described as their sensitivity to the effects of wind and 

water on the soil structure. This property is expressed as an erodibility index, where low values 

indicate high susceptibility to erosion, and high values correspondingly indicate a low 

susceptibility to erosion. The erodibility index is determined by combining the effects of slope 

and soil type, rainfall intensity and land use. These aspects are represented by terrain 

morphology (soil and slope), mean annual rainfall, and broad land use patterns. 

FONSI – (Finding of No Significant Impact), A document prepared in compliance with the 

National Environmental Policy Act, supported by an Environmental Assessment, that briefly 
U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test 

National Energy Technology Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________

Glossary 101 March 2009 

presents why a Federal action will have no significant effect on the human environment and for 

which an environmental impact statement, therefore, will not be prepared (40 CFR 1508.13). 

Greenhouse gas – Greenhouse gases are the gases present in the earth's atmosphere which reduce 

the loss of heat into space and therefore contribute to global temperatures. 

Hazardous Waste/Materials – Waste substances which can pose a substantial or potential hazard 

to human health or the environment when improperly managed. 

Hertz – The frequency of sound waves. 

Kilowatt – A measurement of electric power. 

Leachate – The liquid that drains from an area. 

Median Household Income – The median household income is commonly used to provide data 

about geographic areas and divides households into two equal segments with the first half of 

households earning less than the average household income and the other half earning more. 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards – Standards established by the EPA that apply for 

outdoor air throughout the country. Primary standards are designed to protect human health, 

with an adequate margin of safety, including sensitive populations such as children, the elderly, 

and individuals suffering from respiratory disease. 

NEPA – (National Environmental Policy Act), Requires all agencies, including Department of 

Energy, to examine the environmental impacts of their actions, incorporate environmental 

information, and use public participation in the planning and implementation of all actions. 

Federal agencies must integrate NEPA with other planning requirements, and prepare 

appropriate NEPA documents to facilitate better environmental decision making (40 CFR 1500). 

New Source Performance Standards – Are pollution control standards issued by the EPA. The 

term is used in the Clean Air Act Extension of 1070 to refer to air pollution emission standards, 

and in the Clean Water Act referring to standards for discharges of industrial wastewater to 

surface waters. 

Nonattainment Areas – The Clean Air Act and Amendments of 1990 define a "nonattainment 

area" as a locality where air pollution levels persistently exceed national standards or that 

contributes to ambient air quality in a nearby area that fails to meet standards. Designating an 

area as nonattainment is a formal rulemaking process, and EPA normally takes this action only 

after air quality standards have been exceeded for several consecutive years. 

Nonpoint Source Pollution – Water pollution affecting a water body from diffuse sources, rather 

than a point source which discharges to a water body at a single location. 

Palustrine – Non-tidal wetlands. 
U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test 

National Energy Technology Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________

Glossary 102 March 2009 

Particular Matter – Small solid particles and liquid droplets in the sir. 

Perfluorocarbons – (PFCs), Compounds derived from hydrocarbons by replacement of hydrogen 

atoms by fluorine atoms. PFCs are made up of carbon and fluorine atoms only. 

Permeability – Formations that transmit fluids readily, such as sandstones, are described as 

permeable and tend to have many large, well-connected pores. 

Petroliferous – Containing petroleum. 

pH – The measure of the acidity or alkalinity of a solution. 

Phreatic – The term is used in geology to refer to matters relating to groundwater below the static 

water table. 

Point Source Pollution – single identifiable localized source of air, water, thermal, noise, or light 

pollution. 

Porosity – a measure of the void spaces in a material. 

Potentiometric – A potentiometric sensor is a type of chemical sensor based on the measurement 

of a potential under no current flow. The measured potential may then be used to determine the 

analytical concentration of some components of the analyte gas or solution. 

Quaternary Surficial – Pertaining to or occurring on or near the earth's surface and related to a 

specific geologic period in time. 

Riparian – The interface between land and a flowing surface water body. 

Stakeholders – A person, company, group of people, etc., that have a concern and financial 

interest in an issue. 

Standard Industry Practices – Activities in an industry that are considered a usual practice. 

Stratigraphic – A branch of geology, studies rock layers, and layering. 

Supercritical CO2 – Carbon dioxide that is in a fluid state while also being at or above both its 

critical temperature and pressure. 

Tomography – Imaging by sections. 

Unitize – To separate, classify, or package in discrete units. 
U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test 

National Energy Technology Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________

Appendix A 103 March 2009 

APPENDICES 

Appendix A Air Emission Calculations 

Table A-1. Drilling Emissions

Heavy Equipment Use 

Equipment Type 

Number of

Units

Days on 

Site

Hours Per 

Day

Operating 

Hours

Bore/Drill Rigs 2 60 24 2880

Generator Sets 4 60 24 5760

Other Construction Equipment 3 60 24 4320

 

Drilling Equipment Emission Factors 

(lbs/hour) 

Equipment CO NOx VOC SOx PM10 PM2.5

Bore/Drill Rigs 0.5281 1.3416 0.1295 0.0017 0.0591 0.0591

Generator Sets 0.3461 0.6980 0.1075 0.0007 0.0430 0.0430

Other Construction Equipment 0.4504 1.1575 0.1215 0.0013 0.0503 0.0503

Source: (CARB, 2007b) 

 

Drilling Equipment Emissions 

(tons) 

Equipment CO NOx VOC SOx PM10 PM2.5

Bore/Drill Rigs 0.7605 1.9319 0.1865 0.0025 0.0851 0.0851

Generator Sets 0.9968 2.0103 0.3095 0.0020 0.1238 0.1238

Other Construction Equipment 0.9728 2.5002 0.2624 0.0027 0.1087 0.1087

Total Equipment Emissions 2.7300 6.4424 0.7585 0.0073 0.3176 0.3176

 

Drilling Worker Commutes 

Number of Workers 30

Number of Trips 2 

Miles Per Trip 30

Days of Drilling 90

Total Miles 162000

Pollutant CO NOx VOC SOx PM10 PM2.5

Emission Factor (lbs/mile) 0.0105 0.0011 0.0011 0.0000 0.0001 0.0001

Total Emissions (lbs) 1708.85 178.67 174.83 1.74 13.78 8.57

Total Emissions (tons) 0.8544 0.0893 0.0874 0.0009 0.0069 0.0043

Source: (CARB, 2007b) 

 

Total Drilling Emissions (tons) 

Activity/Source CO NOx VOC SOx PM10 PM2.5

Heavy Equipment 2.7300 6.4424 0.7585 0.0073 0.3176 0.3176

Worker Commutes 0.8544 0.0893 0.0874 0.0009 0.0069 0.0043

Total Drilling Emissions 3.5845 6.5318 0.8459 0.0081 0.3245 0.3219
U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test 

National Energy Technology Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________

Appendix A 104 March 2009 

Table A-2. Construction Emissions

Construction Equipment Use 

Equipment Type 

Number 

of Units 

Days 

on 

Site 

Hours 

Per 

Day Operating Hours 

Graders Composite 1 90 7 630 

Excavators Composite 1 90 7 630 

Rubber Tired Dozers Composite 1 90 7 630 

Off-Highway Trucks Composite 1 90 7 630 

Air Compressors 1 60 4 240 

Cement & Mortar Mixers 1 60 7 420 

Cranes 1 60 7 420 

Generator Sets 1 60 7 420 

Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 60 7 420 

Construction Equipment Emission Factors (lbs/hour) 

Equipment CO NOx VOC SOx PM10 PM2.5

Graders Composite 0.6561 1.6191 0.1936 0.0015 0.0840 0.0840

Excavators Composite 0.5828 1.3249 0.1695 0.0013 0.0727 0.0727

Rubber Tired Dozers Composite 1.5961 3.2672 0.3644 0.0025 0.1409 0.1409

Off-Highway Trucks Composite 0.8499 2.7256 0.2730 0.0027 0.0989 0.0989

Air Compressors 0.3782 0.7980 0.1232 0.0007 0.0563 0.0563

Cement and Mortar Mixers 0.0447 0.0658 0.0113 0.0001 0.0044 0.0044

Cranes 0.6011 1.6100 0.1778 0.0014 0.0715 0.0715

Generator Sets 0.3461 0.6980 0.1075 0.0007 0.0430 0.0430

Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 0.4063 0.7746 0.1204 0.0008 0.0599 0.0599

Source: (CARB, 2007b) 

 

Construction Equipment Emissions (tons) 

Equipment CO NOx VOC SOx PM10 PM2.5

Graders Composite 0.2067 0.5100 0.0610 0.0005 0.0265 0.0265

Excavators Composite 0.1836 0.4173 0.0534 0.0004 0.0229 0.0229

Rubber Tired Dozers Composite 0.5028 1.0292 0.1148 0.0008 0.0444 0.0444

Off-Highway Trucks Composite 0.2677 0.8586 0.0860 0.0008 0.0312 0.0312

Air Compressors 0.0454 0.0958 0.0148 0.0001 0.0068 0.0068

Cranes 0.1262 0.3381 0.0373 0.0003 0.0150 0.0150

Generator Sets 0.0727 0.1466 0.0226 0.0001 0.0090 0.0090

Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 0.0853 0.1627 0.0253 0.0002 0.0126 0.0126

Total Equipment Emissions 1.4904 3.5582 0.4151 0.0032 0.1683 0.1683

 

Delivery of Equipment and Supplies 

Number of Deliveries 2 

Number of Trips 2 

Miles Per Trip 60 

Days of Construction 90 

Total Miles 21600 

Pollutant 

(pounds/mile) CO NOx VOC SOx PM10 PM2.5

Emission Factor (lbs/mile) 0.0219 0.0237 0.0030 0.0000 0.0009 0.0007
U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test 

National Energy Technology Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________

Appendix A 105 March 2009 

Total Emissions (lbs) 474.10 512.19 64.64 0.55 18.49 15.97

Total Emissions (tons) 0.2371 0.2561 0.0323 0.0003 0.0092 0.0080

Source: (CARB, 2007b) 

 

Worker Commutes 

Number of Workers 20 

Number of Trips 2 

Miles Per Trip 40 

Days of Construction 90 

Total Miles 144000 

Pollutant 

(pounds/mile) CO NOx VOC SOx PM10 PM2.5

Emission Factor (lbs/mile) 0.0105 0.0011 0.0011 0.0000 0.0001 0.0001

Total Emissions (lbs) 1518.97 158.82 155.40 1.55 12.25 7.62

Total Emissions (tons) 0.7595 0.0794 0.0777 0.0008 0.0061 0.0038

Source: (CARB, 2007b) 

Total Construction Emissions (tons) 

Activity/Source CO NOx VOC SOx PM10 PM2.5

Construction Equipment 1.4904 3.5582 0.4151 0.0032 0.1683 0.1683

Delivery of Equipment and 

Supplies 0.2371 0.2561 0.0323 0.0003 0.0092 0.0080

Worker Commutes 0.7595 0.0794 0.0777 0.0008 0.0061 0.0038

Total Construction Emissions 2.4869 3.8937 0.5251 0.0042 0.1837 0.1801
U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test 

National Energy Technology Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________

Appendix A 106 March 2009 

 

Table A-3. CO2 Emission Calculations

Drilling and Construction 

Total Fuel 14000 Gallons

Total Fuel 52995.6 Liters

Emission Factor 2.6304 kg CO2 per liter

Total Emissions 139399.6 kg

Total Emissions 154 Tons

 

Electricity Usage 

Electricity Usage (Compressor) 7462 kW

Hours 13140 Hours

Power 98050680 kWh

Emission Factor 0.6510 kg CO2/kWh

Total Emissions 63830993 kg

Total Emissions 70342 Tons

 

Worker Commutes 

Number of Workers 20 Workers

Number of Trips 2 Trips

Miles Per Trip 30 Miles

Days of Operation 549 Days

Total Miles 658800 Miles

Emission Factor 1.1 lbs/mile

Total Emissions 724371.8 lbs

Total Emissions (tons) 362.2 tons

Source: (CARB, 2007b) 

 

Total CO2 Emissions (tons) Emissions (tons)

Activity/Source 

Drilling and Construction 154 

Electricity Usage 70342 

Worker Commutes 362 

Sequestration (1653450)

Total Emissions (1582592)

Note: kWh is kilowatt hour. 
U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test 

National Energy Technology Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________

Appendix B 107 March 2009 

Appendix B Fish and Wildlife Service Consultations 
U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test 

National Energy Technology Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________

Appendix B 108 March 2009 
U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test 

National Energy Technology Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________

Appendix B 109 March 2009 
U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test 

National Energy Technology Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________

Appendix B 110 March 2009 
U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test 

National Energy Technology Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________

Appendix B 111 March 2009 
U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test 

National Energy Technology Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________

Appendix B 112 March 2009 

Figure 1 

SECARB Phase III Study Area 
U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test 

National Energy Technology Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________

Appendix B 113 March 2009 

Figure 2 

SECARB Phase III Topographic Map
U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test 

National Energy Technology Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________

Appendix B 114 March 2009 

Figure 3 

SECARB Phase III Aerial Map 
U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test 

National Energy Technology Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________

Appendix B 115 March 2009 

Description of the Proposed Action 

SOUTHEAST REGIONAL CARBON SEQUESTRATION PARTNERSHIP (SECARB) PHASE III EARLY 

TEST

The proposed action is for DOE to provide, through a cooperative agreement with the Southern 

States Energy Board (SSEB), financial assistance for the injection of 1.5 million metric tons of 

supercritical CO2 into the Cranfield Unit, an active oilfield owned by Denbury Resources 

International Company (Denbury). The CO2 would be injected into the brine-bearing Tuscaloosa 

Formation on the flank of the structure, down-dip of the oil-bearing zone. The proposed injection 

period for the Phase III Early Test is 18 months, followed by at least one year of post-injection 

monitoring. The primary subcontractor will be the Bureau of Economic Geology (BEG) at the 

University of Texas at Austin. 

Activities will take place in a rural area in southwestern Mississippi about 4 miles northeast of 

the unincorporated village of Cranfield and approximately 12 miles due east of Natchez, 

Mississippi. Elevations within the Cranfield Unit range from just under 280 feet above sea level 

near the perennial stream (South Fork of Coles Creek) in the north part of the area up to 400 feet 

just south of State Highway 84. The Cranfield Unit is an oil and gas field that was largely 

abandoned in 1965. Denbury is undertaking a commercial CO2 flood of this field, which is in a 

large, closed domal structure at depths greater than 10,000 feet with a gas-tight geologic seal. 

This field experiment, known as SECARB Phase III Early Test, is in a high-porosity, highpermeability formation similar to those that could eventually be used to sequester large volumes 

of CO2. This project will be closely monitored to document that the CO2 remains within the 

injection zone. This project is being implemented in two stages: 

1) The first stage is the drilling and characterization stage when injection wells, deep 

observation wells, and shallow groundwater wells will be drilled; a compressor will 

be installed; and various tests will be conducted to verify and refine information 

regarding the subsurface structure of the study area. The injection well drilling, site 

preparation, infrastructure construction, wastewater disposal, and other activities will 

be permitted by the Mississippi Oil and Gas Board (MSOGB) and conducted in 

compliance with all applicable federal and state regulations and acceptable industry 

practices for environmental protection. 

2) The second stage is the injection and monitoring stage when increased volumes of 

CO2 (twice or 2X the volume which would be normally used by Denbury for their 

enhanced oil recovery (EOR) operation) will be injected into selected deep 

(completed greater than 10,000 ft below surface) wells by Denbury at the Cranfield 

Unit for a period of 18 months. SECARB will conduct rigorous monitoring of the 

deep injection, groundwater quality, and soil-gas conditions to assess and document 

the results of the study. 

The injection of CO2 for the Phase III Early Test will occur at wells already being permitted and 

drilled by Denbury for EOR purposes. The drilling, site preparation, and infrastructure 

construction will be permitted by the MSOGB and conducted in compliance with all applicable 

federal and state regulations and acceptable industry practices for environmental protection. The 
U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test 

National Energy Technology Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________

Appendix B 116 March 2009 

vast majority of the project’s tasks and subsequent impacts will be completed by Denbury 

regardless of the implementation of the SECARB Phase III Early Test. Denbury has agreed to 

extend at least four, but not to exceed eight, of its CO2 injection wells into the brine water leg 

downdip of the formation for use in the SECARB study. Additional EOR/CO2 injector wells 

injecting at the oil/brine interface at the Cranfield Unit may also be used if necessary to achieve 

the target CO2 injection volume of 1.0 million metric tons per year required for the study. The 

wells will be directionally drilled from existing or former well pads that will be reconditioned by 

Denbury as part of its commercial EOR operation. 

Two observation wells will also be drilled from one of the reconditioned well pads and will be 

dedicated full time to continuous monitoring of the formation response to the CO2 flood. 

Surface-monitoring activities planned include soil-gas surveys, groundwater-level 

measurements, groundwater geochemical measurement, experimental EM and/or acoustic 

geophysical measurements, and tracer injections. Two shallow water wells drilled to 200 feet are 

proposed to evaluate the performance of surface-monitoring strategies. 
U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test 

National Energy Technology Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________

Appendix B 117 March 2009 
U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early T

National Energy Technology Laboratory Final Environmental Assessm___________________________________________________________________________Appendix C 118 March 2

Appendix C Noise Calculations 

Table C-1. Drilling Noise

Feet Meters

NSA 1 4400 1341

Octave Band Center Frequency, Hz 

Source 31.5 63 125 250 500 1000 2000 

Drill Rig (@25 Feet) 93 97 94 91 92 91 88 

Power Level (PWL) 121 125 123 120 121 120 116 

Transmission Loss (TL) Enclosure (1/2" wood) 0.5 -5.5 -11.5 -17.5 -23.5 -29.5 -35.6 

PWL with enclosure 122 23 17 11 5 -1 -7 

Mud Handling (Shaker and Pump) (@25 Feet) 89 90 88 81 79 78 75 

PWL 118 119 117 110 108 107 104 

Generators (Light Plant) 325 435.5 CF 5 9 3 7 15 19 25 

Exhaust Noise Lw 145.1 140.1 136.1 142.1 138.1 130.1 126.1 120.1 

Muffler 

Correction 25 25 29 29 27 25 24 

 PWL 115.1 111.1 113.1 109.1 103.1 101.1 96.1  CF 4 11 13 13 12 9 8 

Inlet Noise Lw 107.6 PWL 103.6 96.6 94.6 94.6 95.6 98.6 99.6 

 CF 22 14 7 7 8 6 7 

Casing Noise Lw 118.1 PWL 96 104 111 111 110 112 111 

Excavator (@25 Feet) 84 85 81 81 81 78 

PWL 29 113 114 110 110 110 107 

Total Sound Intensity 2.4907 1.0575 1.0167 0.3944 0.2741 0.3185 0.2104 

Total PWL 124 120 120 116 114 115 113 

Hemispherical Spreading -76 -76 -76 -76 -76 -76 -76 Atmospheric Absorption 0 0 0 -1 -4 -7 -12 Flat Sound Level 47 44 43 38 34 32 25 Octave Band AWeighted Correction -39 -26 -16 -9 -3 0 1 
U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early T

National Energy Technology Laboratory Final Environmental Assessm___________________________________________________________________________Appendix C 119 March 2

A-Weighted Sound Level 8 18 27 29 31 32 26 Notes: Calculations based on available data from typical equipment set-ups, actual equipment would vary dependent on results of geotechnical evaluation and 

site specific design. Calculations do not account for effect of topographic features, reflection, and natural barriers Note: Lw is sound power level, CF is center frequency, and Ldn is equivalent day night level. 

Table C-2. Compressor Noise

 Feet Meters Critical Distance Calculation 1200 366

Octave Band Center Frequency, Hz 

Source 31.5 63 125 250 500 1000 2000 

Reciprocating Compressor 10000.0 CF 11 15 10 11 13 10 5 

Lw 128.7 PWL 118 114 119 118 116 119 124 

Total Sound Intensity 0.5923 0.2358 0.7457 0.5923 0.3737 0.7457 2.3581 

Total PWL 118 114 119 118 116 119 124 

Hemispherical Spreading -65 -65 -65 -65 -65 -65 -65 Atmospheric Absorption 0 0 0 0 -1 -2 -3 Octave Band A-Weighted Correction -39 -26 -16 -9 -3 0 1 A-Weighted Sound Level (without barrier) 14 23 37 43 47 52 56 
U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test 

National Energy Technology Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ 

Appendix D 120 March 2009 

Appendix D SHPO Consultation 
U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test 

National Energy Technology Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ 

Appendix D 121 March 2009 

Figure 1 

SECARB Phase III Study Area 
U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test 

National Energy Technology Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ 

Appendix D 122 March 2009 

Figure 2 

SECARB Phase III Topographic Map
U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test 

National Energy Technology Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ 

Appendix D 123 March 2009 

Figure 3 

SECARB Phase III Aerial Map 
U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test 

National Energy Technology Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________

Appendix D 124 March 2009 

Description of the Proposed Action 

SOUTHEAST REGIONAL CARBON SEQUESTRATION PARTNERSHIP (SECARB) PHASE III EARLY 

TEST

The proposed action is for DOE to provide, through a cooperative agreement with the Southern 

States Energy Board (SSEB), financial assistance for the injection of 1.5 million metric tons of 

supercritical CO2 into the Cranfield Unit, an active oilfield owned by Denbury Resources 

International Company (Denbury). The CO2 would be injected into the brine-bearing Tuscaloosa 

Formation on the flank of the structure, downdip of the oil-bearing zone. The proposed injection 

period for the Phase III Early Test is 18 months, followed by at least one year of post-injection 

monitoring. The primary subcontractor will be the Bureau of Economic Geology (BEG) at the 

University of Texas at Austin. 

Activities will take place in a rural area in southwestern Mississippi about 4 miles northeast of 

the unincorporated village of Cranfield and approximately 12 miles due east of Natchez, 

Mississippi. Elevations within the Cranfield Unit range from just under 280 feet above sea level 

near the perennial stream (South Fork of Coles Creek) in the north part of the area up to 400 feet 

just south of State Highway 84. The Cranfield Unit is an oil and gas field that was largely 

abandoned in 1965. Denbury is undertaking a commercial CO2 flood of this field, which is in a 

large, closed domal structure at depths greater than 10,000 feet with a gas-tight geologic seal. 

This field experiment, known as SECARB Phase III Early Test, is in a high-porosity, highpermeability formation similar to those that could eventually be used to sequester large volumes 

of CO2. This project will be closely monitored to document that the CO2 remains within the 

injection zone. This project is being implemented in two stages: 

1) The first stage is the drilling and characterization stage when injection wells, 

deep observation wells, and shallow groundwater wells will be drilled; a 

compressor will be installed; and various tests will be conducted to verify and 

refine information regarding the subsurface structure of the study area. The 

injection well drilling, site preparation, infrastructure construction, wastewater 

disposal, and other activities will be permitted by the Mississippi Oil and Gas 

Board (MSOGB) and conducted in compliance with all applicable federal and 

state regulations and acceptable industry practices for environmental 

protection. 

2) The second stage is the injection and monitoring stage when increased 

volumes of CO2 (twice or 2X the volume which would be normally used by 

Denbury for their enhanced oil recovery (EOR) operation) will be injected 

into selected deep (completed greater than 10,000 ft below surface) wells by 

Denbury at the Cranfield Unit for a period of 18 months. SECARB will 

conduct rigorous monitoring of the deep injection, groundwater quality, and 

soil-gas conditions to assess and document the results of the study. 

The injection of CO2 for the Phase III Early Test will occur at wells already being permitted and 

drilled by Denbury for EOR purposes. The drilling, site preparation, and infrastructure 

construction will be permitted by the MSOGB and conducted in compliance with all applicable 
U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test 

National Energy Technology Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________

Appendix D 125 March 2009 

federal and state regulations and acceptable industry practices for environmental protection. The 

vast majority of the project’s tasks and subsequent impacts will be completed by Denbury 

regardless of the implementation of the SECARB Phase III Early Test. Denbury has agreed to 

extend at least four, but not to exceed eight, of its CO2 injection wells into the brine water leg 

downdip of the formation for use in the SECARB study. Additional EOR/CO2 injector wells 

injecting at the oil/brine interface at the Cranfield Unit may also be used if necessary to achieve 

the target CO2 injection volume of 1.0 million metric tons per year required for the study. The 

wells will be directionally drilled from existing or former well pads that will be reconditioned by 

Denbury as part of its commercial EOR operation. 

Two observation wells will also be drilled from one of the reconditioned well pads and will be 

dedicated full time to continuous monitoring of the formation response to the CO2 flood. 

Surface-monitoring activities planned include soil-gas surveys, groundwater-level 

measurements, groundwater geochemical measurement, experimental EM and/or acoustic 

geophysical measurements, and tracer injections. Two shallow water wells drilled to 200 feet are 

proposed to evaluate the performance of surface-monitoring strategies. 
U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test 

National Energy Technology Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________

Appendix D 126 March 2009 
U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test 

National Energy Technology Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ 

Appendix E 127 March 2009 

Appendix E Contact with the Bureau of Indian Affairs and Tribal Councils 
U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test 

National Energy Technology Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ 

Appendix E 128 March 2009 
U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test 

National Energy Technology Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ 

Appendix E 129 March 2009 
U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test 

National Energy Technology Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ 

Appendix E 130 March 2009 
U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test 

National Energy Technology Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ 

Appendix E 131 March 2009 
U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test 

National Energy Technology Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ 

Appendix E 132 March 2009 
U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test 

National Energy Technology Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ 

Appendix E 133 March 2009 
U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test 

National Energy Technology Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ 

Appendix E 134 March 2009 
U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test 

National Energy Technology Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ 

Appendix E 135 March 2009 
U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test 

National Energy Technology Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ 

Appendix E 136 March 2009 
U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test 

National Energy Technology Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ 

Appendix E 137 March 2009 
U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test 

National Energy Technology Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ 

Appendix E 138 March 2009 
U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test 

National Energy Technology Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ 

Appendix E 139 March 2009 
U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test 

National Energy Technology Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ 

Appendix E 140 March 2009 
U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test 

National Energy Technology Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ 

Appendix E 141 March 2009 
U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test 

National Energy Technology Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ 

Appendix E 142 March 2009 
U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test 

National Energy Technology Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ 

Appendix E 143 March 2009 
U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test 

National Energy Technology Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ 

Appendix E 144 March 2009 
U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test 

National Energy Technology Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ 

Appendix E 145 March 2009 
U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test 

National Energy Technology Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ 

Appendix E 146 March 2009 
U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test 

National Energy Technology Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ 

Appendix E 147 March 2009 

Figure 1 

SECARB Phase III Study Area 
U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test 

National Energy Technology Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ 

Appendix E 148 March 2009 

Figure 2 

SECARB Phase III Topographic Map
U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test 

National Energy Technology Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________ 

Appendix E 149 March 2009 

Figure 3 

SECARB Phase III Aerial Map 
U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test 

National Energy Technology Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________

Appendix E 150 March 2009 

Description of the Proposed Action 

SOUTHEAST REGIONAL CARBON SEQUESTRATION PARTNERSHIP (SECARB) PHASE III EARLY 

TEST

The proposed action is for DOE to provide, through a cooperative agreement with the Southern 

States Energy Board (SSEB), financial assistance for the injection of 1.5 million metric tons of 

supercritical CO2 into the Cranfield Unit, an active oilfield owned by Denbury Resources 

International Company (Denbury). The CO2 would be injected into the brine-bearing Tuscaloosa 

Formation on the flank of the structure, downdip of the oil-bearing zone. The proposed injection 

period for the Phase III Early Test is 18 months, followed by at least one year of post-injection 

monitoring. The primary subcontractor will be the Bureau of Economic Geology (BEG) at the 

University of Texas at Austin. 

Activities will take place in a rural area in southwestern Mississippi about 4 miles northeast of 

the unincorporated village of Cranfield and approximately 12 miles due east of Natchez, 

Mississippi. Elevations within the Cranfield Unit range from just under 280 feet above sea level 

near the perennial stream (South Fork of Coles Creek) in the north part of the area up to 400 feet 

just south of State Highway 84. The Cranfield Unit is an oil and gas field that was largely 

abandoned in 1965. Denbury is undertaking a commercial CO2 flood of this field, which is in a 

large, closed domal structure at depths greater than 10,000 feet with a gas-tight geologic seal. 

This field experiment, known as SECARB Phase III Early Test, is in a high-porosity, highpermeability formation similar to those that could eventually be used to sequester large volumes 

of CO2. This project will be closely monitored to document that the CO2 remains within the 

injection zone. This project is being implemented in two stages: 

1) The first stage is the drilling and characterization stage when injection wells, 

deep observation wells, and shallow groundwater wells will be drilled; a 

compressor will be installed; and various tests will be conducted to verify and 

refine information regarding the subsurface structure of the study area. The 

injection well drilling, site preparation, infrastructure construction, wastewater 

disposal, and other activities will be permitted by the Mississippi Oil and Gas 

Board (MSOGB) and conducted in compliance with all applicable federal and 

state regulations and acceptable industry practices for environmental 

protection. 

2) The second stage is the injection and monitoring stage when increased 

volumes of CO2 (twice or 2X the volume which would be normally used by 

Denbury for their enhanced oil recovery (EOR) operation) will be injected 

into selected deep (completed greater than 10,000 ft below surface) wells by 

Denbury at the Cranfield Unit for a period of 18 months. SECARB will 

conduct rigorous monitoring of the deep injection, groundwater quality, and 

soil-gas conditions to assess and document the results of the study. 

The injection of CO2 for the Phase III Early Test will occur at wells already being permitted and 

drilled by Denbury for EOR purposes. The drilling, site preparation, and infrastructure 

construction will be permitted by the MSOGB and conducted in compliance with all applicable 
U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test 

National Energy Technology Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________

Appendix E 151 March 2009 

federal and state regulations and acceptable industry practices for environmental protection. The 

vast majority of the project’s tasks and subsequent impacts will be completed by Denbury 

regardless of the implementation of the SECARB Phase III Early Test. Denbury has agreed to 

extend at least four, but not to exceed eight, of its CO2 injection wells into the brine water leg 

downdip of the formation for use in the SECARB study. Additional EOR/CO2 injector wells 

injecting at the oil/brine interface at the Cranfield Unit may also be used if necessary to achieve 

the target CO2 injection volume of 1.0 million metric tons per year required for the study. The 

wells will be directionally drilled from existing or former well pads that will be reconditioned by 

Denbury as part of its commercial EOR operation. 

Two observation wells will also be drilled from one of the reconditioned well pads and will be 

dedicated full time to continuous monitoring of the formation response to the CO2 flood. 

Surface-monitoring activities planned include soil-gas surveys, groundwater-level 

measurements, groundwater geochemical measurement, experimental EM and/or acoustic 

geophysical measurements, and tracer injections. Two shallow water wells drilled to 200 feet are 

proposed to evaluate the performance of surface-monitoring strategies. 
U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test 

National Energy Technology Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________

Appendix E 152 March 2009 
U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test 

National Energy Technology Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________

Appendix E 153 March 2009 
U.S. Department of Energy SECARB Phase III Early Test 

National Energy Technology Laboratory Final Environmental Assessment

______________________________________________________________________________

Appendix E 154 March 2009