Denial strategy #2 - Absolute denial

Couple says toxic gas leaks caused by project under land

Source: Winnipeg Free Press

 

Since 2000, Cenovus has injected about 16 million tonnes of carbon dioxide underground to force more oil from an aging field. Unfortunately, practically all hydrocarbon reservoirs leak. 

 

Anomalous carbon dioxide concentrations were found in the soil near the Kerr farm in Southern Saskatchewan, which lies above a large underground CO2 storage experiment.  The geochemical consulting firm Petro-Find Geochem found that CO2 averaged about 23,000 parts per million (ppm), and peaked at 110, 607 ppm (baseline ~4,300 ppm in this case).  The anomalies were confined to small geographic areas.  Stable carbon isotope evidence indicated injected CO2 as the source.  Find a pdf of the report here.

 

Cenovus spokesperson responded that the company doubts those findings as they contradict years of research from other scientists. However the actual response from the scientists at the PTRC, was more cautious:

 

"The report Geochemical Soil Gas Survey conducted by Paul Lafleur of Petro‐Find Geochem, Ltd and submitted to Cameron and Jane Kerr is currently in the process of review by the PTRC.  A response to this report will be provided once it has been thoroughly reviewed."  - link to source 

 

Meanwhile, the Kerrs moved to another residence because "it was getting too dangerous to live there."(Cameron Kerr).  I've never met the family, but I'd bet it'd be hard to convince them that the accumulation of dead mammals on their property and the cause of it is not a problem.

 

Personally, I see the Cenovus response as an attempt at denial (strategy # 2 - Absolute denial).  Typical form of this type of argument: Problem? What problem? Our scientists say there isn't one...  

 

From my perspective it looks like the monitoring methods used by the PTRC may not be intensive enough (geographically) to conclude that leaks do not occur.  On the flip-side, the Petro-Find Geochem methods were not performed on a large enough scale to prove that CO2 sequestration doesn't work.  Neither of these conclusions are mutually exclusive of one another, however both sides have been polarized because of vested interests in the outcome. 

 

After all, raw data doesn't contradict itself; but interpretations of it can...

 

My guess is that both are telling their version of the truth but that neither side has all the answers.  What I DO KNOW however is that it is premature to conclude that there is no problem.  Thus Cenovus' refusal to acknowledge that there could be is unfounded.  Their assertion that the new study somehow contradicts the existing science is an attempt to focus attention on the scientists rather than address the problem at hand.  It is a strategy of denial that confuses and distracts.

 

Alternately, could blaming (denial strategy # 5) Cenovus be polarizing and thus a distraction in itself from larger issues such as the viability of carbon capture and storage, climate change, and the pace of development.  

 

How can a constructive outcome be achieved from this?