It is safe to assume that none of you have seen the trailer for this movie so here it is.
The basis for the movie is that CO2 from a Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) project will somehow escape from the earth and kill people in a low-lying valley. CO2 is heavier than air, odorless, colorless, and can displace breathable air to the point of asphyxiation.
The trailer of the movie claims that the movie is based on true events from around the world which is an intentionally misleading statement. The event to which they are referring was a natural catastrophe at Lake Nyos located in western Cameroon. A large amount of CO2 built up in the bottom of the lake, and something caused about 1.6 million tonnes of CO2 to destabilize and come out of solution rapidly. The CO2 spilled over the edge of the crater and killed around 3500 people. Smaller events have been observed in lakes around Lake Nyos, but nothing of that magnitude. In the US small events in Yellowstone have been known to kill bison, but the reasons for the high CO2 concentrations are different.
To date, there have been no recorded CO2 leaks from CCS sites anywhere in the world, and there only a handful operating. The CCS projects are uses as a proof of concept to show that large scale CO2 sequestration is feasible. Teams of scientist and engineers work together to characterize all geologic sites being considered for CO2 Injection, and there is almost no question of whether CO2 will stay in the ground. Even if a freak event were to occure and the CO2 somehow managed to find a direct path back to the surface the leak should be slow enough to pose little danger to the environment.
Why? Currently, the largest CCS injection demonstrations are injecting just over 1 million tonnes of CO2 a year which nicely reflect the approximate amount of CO2 a small coal fire plant produces in a year. If a Lake Nyos size event were to occur it would require releasing more than years worth of CO2 all at one time. That scenario is effectively impossible because injection sites are constantly monitored for the development of leaks, and if a leak started it would be like trying to empty lake superior through a straw. The flue gas coming out of the stack of a coal power plant does not directly kill anyone and a leak from a sequestration project wouldn’t either.
If you would really like to know our current status regarding Carbon Capture and Storage check out some of these links. There is a lot of science that goes into making CCS decisions.
Everything:
http://www.undeerc.org/PCOR/newsandpubs/default.aspx
Simplified Information:
http://www.undeerc.org/PCOR/newsandpubs/atlas.pdf
Videos:
http://www.undeerc.org/PCOR/documentary/
Easy Reading:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_capture_and_storage/
Update: It appears that the movie has been put on hold as they have run out of money. 🙂 Hopefully they never get the money to finish it.
Hi, I came across your posting and appreciated your thoughts (and actual data) on the topic. I… I should introduce myself. I’m Adam Starr, I wrote the screenplay for CO2 and helped produce the film. I definitely agree that CCS is a reasonably stable approach as you delineated. When the trailer suggests that the film is based on actual events, we’re saying it from the perspective of: a large scale (natural) event took place that smothered a valley (yes, in Cameroon as you presumed) – and that there have been small blow-back events in locations where CO2 has been pumped into the ground by humans. If the film has a basis in possible reality, it’s that if small blow-back events can and have occurred with small amounts of sequestered CO2, then pumping massive volumes of the same material into similar spaces – especially when adding in the human error/corruption factor (think Massey Energy)- could potentially spawn a larger event. My purpose in writing the film, was to illuminate the always present “what if” and unintended consequences of technological solutions. Additionally, I felt if was a unique scenario for an adventure film: a gas that’s not a poison, but can kill you – and prevents any vehicle from running that depends upon fuel combustion. Simply put, I felt it was “plausible enough” and a highly original challenge to place characters into. But that said, after doing the research, I did come to feel that CCS is a pretty darn stable way to lock the CO2 away – especially when done in layers of basalt – which can chemically lock the CO2 in place as well – though at what rate to remain safe, we don’t yet know. AS an adventure film scenario however, I’ll admit that it was tricky to “pump-up” the tension as the film progressed, because under normal conditions, I think the danger would tend to mitigate over time as opposed to intensify – but I think we managed it well enough in the story to keep the audience engaged. If you do have a chance to see the film at some point, I’d earnestly appreciate your thoughts.
Adam,
I wouldlove to see your movie but unfortunately I can not locate it anywhere. Any thoughts on where i can purchase this movie?
You can watch it on Amazon Prime….!
I just watched this film last night and I gotta tell you I absolutely LOVED it. I loved Ethen character, such a sweetheart, and Lauren, I think, who stepped up and took charge of getting them thru what had to be done, the actress did a great job… anyway , I really enjoyed the movie.. thank you for the entertainment
Hello 👋 I appreciate your efforts in bringing to light a “what if” scenario in your film. It certainly caught my attention and enlighten myself to something I would of never thought of. Thanks for your hard work, five star film in my book. Good job👍
Oh, I noticed you wrote something about the film being on hold. Not sure what spawned that notion. It finished up fine and we sold the rights in about a dozen EU territories so far. Not sure if we’ll actually MAKE any money on it. Indy films are generally done for the love of the medium. But we’re pleased that people so far seem to enjoy the film. The way you wrote that you hoped that we would never finish the film was a bit mean-spirited. I think that anything that gets people talking about and thinking about our collective future is a good thing. It’s a shame that people tend to try to squelch dialog instead of encouraging it from all points of view (as long as they’re not self-hypocritical, dis-honest or mean-spirited points of view). Don’t be that kind of person – the world has too many already. 😉
I’d still appreciate your thoughts if you ever do see the film.
Loved the movie wondering where it was filmed
“The way you wrote that you hoped that we would never finish the film was a bit mean-spirited.”
The comment was not particularly mean-spirited. It was made out of concern for all the people who have dedicated large portions of their lives identifying, characterizing, and engineering CCS sites.
People have a hard time differentiating fact from fiction. I still feel that the release of the film is premature as CCS has yet to be proven on an industrial scale. I won’t name any names, but my experience with the companies and people trying to make CCS a reality has been good so far. There is still a lot of science and engineering that needs to be done, and I do expect there will be a leak at one of the test sites at some point. Whether or not it is your intention, your movie could be a pivotal point in undermining years of research.
Realistically, a leak should not cause much of a problem, and it may even be fixable, but movies like yours could cause an over reaction by the public at the news of a leak.
I will make a point to see the film.
Thanks for the comments.
Sorry for the delay in my response, been a bit busy.
I’ve often wondered about what the “message” of our film may be… or at least what its impact on the public may be. As an independent film, the answer to the latter will likely be “not much”, but as for the message? I’m really not sure it has a clear “call to ______”. It’s a film about a possible (albeit unlikely) event which I felt proposed unique and not-before-seen challenges for the characters. But it’s not really a film AGAINST the idea of CCS. There’s a very mild clean-tech feel towards the end. But beyond that, the film isn’t there to shout, “run from coal – go nuclear!” My GOD, I live in the shadow of a nuke plant in VT and am actively looking to move due to the constant violations, leaks and the litany of revealed cover-ups that have occurred there. A nuclear future (run by the same error/greed prone humans that have traditionally run energy companies) is not a future I’d look forward to.
If there’s any message I’d “like” for people to come away with after watching the film it’d be, “Complex technology doesn’t always work exactly as planned – there are always eventually failures – be cautious.” If you’re against coal burning, it should be because of the issues related to the criminal levels of political co-option, the environmentally horrendous extraction methods (especially post Bush 2), the processing (sludge lagoons, local air pollution), the working conditions of the men and women who work in and near the mines, and the particulates that are NOT scrubbed from the exhaust. As for the CCS itself, I think the more troubling issues are with groundwater and other issues arising from the chemical soup that is pumped into the earth along with the CO2. Blow-back itself is a trifling amusement compared to these actual and near endemic issues related to coal.
But I do agree wholeheartedly that CCS is a very stable technology. If someone’s looking for a reason to be anti-coal, I’d advise that CCS should not be anywhere near the top of their list.
I’ll let you know when CO2 becomes available. I actually found your site searching to see whether I could buy a copy from one of our EU distributors – which so far, one cannot – waiting…
Again, excellent website. I wish I’d come across it when I was researching the film 2 years ago. I had to search far and wide to locate all of what you’ve collected together here in one convenient place!
There wasn’t much on this site two years ago, and I didn’t know a much about CCS at the time.
I look forward to when your film becomes available. I will probably host a little party for people who will be very interested in the film content.
Hey Ben, well, if you Youtube search CO2 movie, you’ll find links to Russian websites that have pirated the film (for your viewing convenience). They actually cut a trailer that I feel might be superior to the one I cut for the film. Anyways, thanks for the reply and thanks for being among the most educated and well spoken people to critique our film.
Lucky for you I’m not a big fan of watching things with a Russian Dub.
Try to get it posted in the US and I will even pay for it.
Holy crap! Get over yourself! It’s a freaking MOVIE! They took the ACTUAL happenings in Cameroon, combined it with the CCS that actually exists, and said “Hey! What if this happened?” That’s why it says “the movie is based on true events from around the world”. It doesn’t say it actually DID or even WOULD happen. That’s what movies are about, fantasy. There’s nothing that makes me more furious than some self-important twit degrading a movie because “The science isn’t right”. OF COURSE NOT! If it were real, it would be a Documentary, not a MOVIE! Movies are about FUN, and nothing sucks the fun out of ANYTHING faster than an over-educated, anal retentive douche-bag pointing out why something wouldn’t really work. Guess what? WE DON’T CARE! We watch these movies to be entertained, not learn science
I think the writer of this particular article should (I noticed they don’t actually sign their NAME to this rant):
1)Take him/herself a LOT less seriously
2)Try pulling their head out of their a$$, and breathing some fresh air for a while.
As for Mr Adam Starr, I hope he continues to use his imagination to make more entertaining films in the future. I hope the childish whining of this insipid jerk doesn’t deter you from what I’m sure will be a successful career in film-making.
I’ve got nothing against Adam Starr, and I wish him well.
“(I noticed they don’t actually sign their NAME to this rant)” Last time I checked “The Wizzard” isn’t exactly a legal name either.
This post was made for people who have a hard time distinguishing movies from reality, and there are plenty of people in the world who fit that description.
Hi Wizard, I appreciate your support, but I disagree with your suggestion that Ben shouldn’t speak his mind about the safety of CCS. It really is a very stable approach and we had to create a number of very particular givens for the film’s little “science experiment” to play out in a plausible way. It’s people like Ben that are helping to drag our society kicking and screaming into the 21st century. But again – THANK YOU for re-raising my point of “It’s a freaking movie.” If there can be dozens of films about extinction sized meteors striking the earth in the modern era, we can have one film about CCS. And did you hear recently what’s been in the news about natural gas drillers lubricating fault lines – that’s in our film too – and we filmed it BEFORE she was popular! Anyways, thanks for the support – don’t be too hard on Ben, and feel free to check out our film on the litany of Russian websites that have pirated it.
Pull the “based on a true story” angle and it becomes a “fun what if” film.leave it in and it’s a misleading agenda piece.
I just came across this film on VUDU. I have to agree with you. I watch movies to be entertained. If I want to learn something I watch a documentary.
Hi guys. I just watched the movie. I streamed from Amazon. I truly enjoyed it. Back in 2011 most were not aware of the earthquakes that were brought on by fracking. Here we are 2016 and it has been proven fracking is the cause. My point is never say what can’t happen just because it hasn’t.
I expect you are referring to the nearly constant earthquakes in Oklahoma.
To clarify your statement. It is known that fracking can cause earthquakes, but under normal circumstances they are very small and are not felt at the surface. I have worked in the oil fields of North Dakota, and I have worked as a research scientist for the state. It is absolutely possible to frack in a safe and responsible manner.
That said… There are real risks with fracking and there are places where it should be banned due to overly complex geology.
What is happening in Oklahoma has to do with waste water injection into the formation just above the “basement rock.” Basement rock is the foundation of the continent. It is very old metamorphic and volcanic rock. Most places it is highly fractured and contains faults. The faults are usually inactive because the system has had millions or billions of years to become stable. In Oklahoma, you have a careless state government that allowed drillers to dispose of waste water in the zone that contacts the basement rock. The injected water destabilized and lubricated faults that had been stable for all of recorded history… The best part is they ignored evidence for years and allowed injection to continue. Kansas was more proactive so they do not have much of a problem even though the same thing was starting to happen there.
Where’s the so called overwhelming proof then huh Mimi? If you know ANYTHING about what causes earthquakes, you’d know that fracking cannot,and does not cause,earthquakes or anything similar to it,despite what you’ve been told by all the environmental groups out ther who are all full of it. Earthquakes occur when two tectonic plates push against each other,thereby causing the pressure to be released in the form of a tremor,again NOT because of fracking. It’s just like when you shake a can of pop before you open it,all that pressure built up inside. Therefore when you open it(or release the pressure)you’ve created a reaction. The point is that science, while it may have proven things here and there,along with geology and geographical studies,are all flawed. Earthquakes are not human caused,despite what some people tell you. They are naturally recurring events over time. So again unless there’s overwhelming proof,not just guesses by a small percentage of environmental zealots,then you have no proof,just conjectures and theories.
Your response is just dangerous as Mimi. There is a gray area. Humans often trigger Earthquakes, but you are sort of correct in saying we don’t “cause” earthquakes. The energy that causes the earthquake was always there. We just give it a little bump.
There are many reasons for added stress beside plate boundaries. The most common: Some minerals can spontaneously change structure under the right conditions. Overlying weight can be removed or added.
Example: In much of Montana, Wyoming, and North Dakota there are thousands of feet of rock missing from the rock record. All of that material has been transported over millions of years. The movement of the material slowly changes the stress fields in the rocks…
Melt a glacier? A mile of ice missing would change the stress on rocks too (& High pressure water from the melt can lubricate cracks). Even rain events can have an affect on earthquakes. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/11/111215-rainfall-hurricanes-typhoons-earthquakes-science-earth/
The oil and gas industry injecting high pressure water into a crack that is metastable can easily trigger earthquakes. Once you trigger one earthquake you have completely changed the stress field that made the entire area metasable. You now have a scenario where it may take thousands of years for the system to become metastable again. (Many thousands of earthquakes later.) If you are lucky they will be small earthquakes, but that all depends how much energy is available to start with and we don’t really have a good way to measure the potential energy in an area.
Other industries have also caused significant earthquakes. Hydro thermal power, dams, and large tunnels just to name a few.
I just watched the movie. The scene on the bridge, ugh people in the background being held up to cross it, due to filming, all sorts of them wandering around, watch the filming. A couple scenes later, a nice boat trolling around.. And then the wife blinked when the son finds her dead. I realize you have a budget, but how did you miss this.
I also saw a vehicle driving in the background around the time that they were being summoned on the street as they were questioning themselves to either help the towns people or leave, because they had only so much air in their tanks. The vehicle was coming from the “left”, from a side-street and turning right on to the street they were walking down. It almost looked like the vehicle was following them, (kind of like a safety vehicle etc…). LOL.
I remember when we shot that scene. The police allowed us to shoot for 2-3 minutes and then had to let traffic through. It was a pretty difficult environment to shoot in with so many stops and starts. We were so lucky to have been able to shoot on that bridge though.
Hey Josie, I was just uploading this film to Youtube because we’re finally free of all the distribution agreements we’d locked ourselves into when the film first launched. I was trying to download the text describing the film’s plot to use and I found your comment. I edited that scene with the bridge crossing and I never noticed the people in the background of the shot. All I can say is that I was editing on a not particularly large monitor and we were in a bit of a deadline rush at the end. I’ll take a look at that scene again and see if I can find the people in the background. As for the blinking… IDK rigor mortise?? 😉
Thanks for inncrduoitg a little rationality into this debate.