CO2 Sequestration "Not Practical", "Erroneous"

The only accurate reportage on this new study, concerning the Carbon Dioxide Sequestration Scam, we could find was in the United Kingdom's Guardian, as linked above.
 
Web searches for it turn up little else but published cries of outrage, and editorials that twist it's words and meanings. We found a direct link, supposedly, to the paper itself, but that link would not function for us.
 
Most meaningful, to us, is that the research was put together by some honest Texas academics, one of whom, Michael Economides, we have previously cited in our posts concerning Carbon conversion technologies. 
 

Comment follows:
 
""US research paper questions viability of carbon capture and storage
Document from Houston University claims governments overestimated CCS value
Terry Macalister; GuardianUK; April 25, 2010
A new research paper from American academics is threatening to blow a hole in growing political support for carbon capture and storage as a weapon in the fight against global warming.
The document from Houston University claims that governments wanting to use CCS have overestimated its value and says it would take a reservoir the size of a small US state to hold the CO2 produced by one power station.
Previous modelling has hugely underestimated the space needed to store CO2 because it was based on the "totally erroneous" premise that the pressure feeding the carbon into the rock structures would be constant, argues Michael Economides, professor of chemical engineering at Houston, and his co-author Christene Ehlig-Economides, professor of energy engineering at Texas A&M University
"It is like putting a bicycle pump up against a wall. It would be hard to inject CO2 into a closed system without eventually producing so much pressure that it fractured the rock and allowed the carbon to migrate to other zones and possibly escape to the surface," Economides said.
The paper concludes that CCS "is not a practical means to provide any substantive reduction in CO2 emissions, although it has been repeatedly presented as such by others."
Projects are proceeding in the US, such as the experimental coal-fired Mountaineer plant in New Haven, West Virginia, which began small-scale carbon capture last year, as well as in Canada, China and other countries.
The British Geological Survey confirmed it was looking at the Economides findings and was hoping to shortly produce a peer-reviewed analysis.
Economides, who has a PHD from Stanford University, said he had seen the arguments against his paper from the API and dismissed them as "nonsense" saying vested interests are protecting a new concept foisted on the world by geologists without proper thought.
"I was a [practising] petroleum engineer for many years and soon realised that geologists did not understand flow and the laws of physics, against which you can't argue.""
----------
As in "it would take a reservoir the size of a small US state to hold the CO2 produced by one power station", above, other reports we were able to access indicate the state named specifically by Economides was Rhode Island, the smallest state. Still, how many Rhode Islands would fit into, say, Texas? And, how many coal-fired power plants do we have in the United States?
Moreover, why does it matter anyway since, as we have documented from other sources, pumping the Carbon Dioxide into the Earth fractures the surrounding rock, if it isn't already broken, and the CO2 could then, as above, "migrate to other zones and possibly escape to the surface"?
Actually, we don't think the Texas oil patch operators will give the CO2 time to escape. Once we've got an infrastructure set up to both collect the gas, as it's generated in Coal Country power plants, and ship it to Texas, all at our Coal-use industry's expense, they'll start pumping it back out of the ground and converting it, via one of the several technologies we've been documenting for you, into Methane and higher hydrocarbons, and selling it back to us.
We could be doing the conversion, here, ourselves, in Coal Country. Why aren't we?