Should we open our WV parks to industrial development?
Senate Bill 627 looks innocent enough on first reading. It would amend a law (§20-1-22) that prohibits leasing pore spaces in West Virginia state parks. Pore spaces are assigned to contractors who would use the space to drill a well. The law in question is specific to what are now classified by the Environmental Protection Agency as Class VI wells, intended for the sequestration of carbon.
Sequestration is designed to permanently and safely store, for example, the carbon dioxide produced by coal fired electricity generating plants. In 2023, coal accounted for 86% of our electricity, so the state produces a lot of carbon dioxide, a recognized pollutant contributing to global warming. Injection wells are designed to get rid of this excess carbon by pumping it more than a mile underground below the water table and any aquifers and in geologically stable zones.
This is a relatively new technology and there are not many such operating wells in the whole country, partly because EPA, which licenses these wells, has to be assured that a well will not seep or leak carbon into the water supply and contaminate it. It’s a long process because there are risks involved.
EPA, however, does allow states to apply for what is called “primacy” to allow the state to oversee the licensing of Class VI wells and bypass EPA review. West Virginia was just granted primacy, the fourth state to do so. The oversight of Class VI wells will now rest with the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection. In a FOIA request to WVDEP, I was told that there are at this time no functioning Class VI wells in the state and there are no pending applications. Meaning we have no experience in licensing, constructing, or maintaining any such wells.
The senators proposing SB 627 do not have any basis of experience in understanding what the impact on our state parks would be by freeing up pore spaces within them. How much park acreage would be required per site? How much disruption to the park would be involved in manufacturing the well? How would carbon be transported to the well head? By truck or pipeline? How much heavy traffic would be involved on a daily basis? How would the well be protected from park visitors? How would one or more wells in the park impact the visitors’ recreational experience?
SB 627 is certainly premature and maybe just plain wrong. Do we really want our state parks to become industrial sites too?
PS: This article was submitted as an op-ed to the Charleston Gazette-Mail on May 7, 2025. It did not publish it. No reason was given.