Exposé, Part I: Cracks in the Promise — What the Science Really Shows About CCS
Louisiana officials repeat it often: “We’re going to look at the science.” But when we examine the latest independent, peer-reviewed research, the story is not one of reassurance. It is one of risk.
A 2025 study published in Scientific Reports modeled what happens when carbon dioxide (CO₂) is injected underground for carbon capture and storage (CCS). Using advanced simulations, scientists tested three different geological formations — all with cracks or faults in the rock layers meant to trap CO₂.
What they found should stop every elected official, regulator, and citizen in Louisiana in their tracks.
The Findings Are Clear
- Cracks equal leaks. When CO₂ was injected under an anticline dome (a common geological structure in Louisiana), the gas pooled and leaked through nearby cracks at far higher rates than in flatter formations.
- Even “good” sites aren’t foolproof. In flatter formations, CO₂ still escaped through weaknesses — tens of thousands of kilograms per year in the early decades.
- Stair-step formations still leaked. More complex topography slowed leakage but didn’t eliminate it.
- Groundwater is at risk. Dissolved CO₂ dropped water pH and created conditions that, in other studies, have released toxic metals like arsenic, lead, and uranium into aquifers.
Why This Matters for Louisiana
These findings confirm what citizens across Louisiana have been warning: our aquifers are one crack away from contamination. The Chicot Aquifer — drinking water for 15 parishes — is not a lab experiment. It is our lifeline.
Every town hall meeting we’ve attended carries the same questions from residents:
- What happens if CO₂ leaks into our water wells?
- What happens when companies abandon these sites?
- What happens to us when the federal subsidies run out, but the risk remains?
Industry representatives never answer these directly. They fall back on the same phrase: “The science says it’s safe.”
But the science — the independent science — shows something else.
A Legacy of Leaks
Louisiana is no stranger to underground risks. Thousands of abandoned oil and gas wells puncture our landscape, many poorly sealed or forgotten. These wells can act as pathways for migrating CO₂, connecting deep injection zones with shallow groundwater.
Add in Louisiana’s fault lines and fractured geology, and the “ideal storage sites” described in glossy presentations begin to look like Swiss cheese.
If a peer-reviewed simulation shows leakage in perfect conditions, what happens here, where conditions are far from perfect?
The Scale of the Risk
One of the most revealing parts of the study is how small leaks still matter.
Even a leakage rate of just 1–2% over time undermines the entire purpose of CCS. Billions in tax credits are handed out to bury carbon underground. If that carbon slips back into the atmosphere or poisons aquifers, Louisiana communities are left with the danger, while corporations keep the profits.
And let’s be clear: CO₂ leakage isn’t just about climate. High concentrations of CO₂ are deadly. In confined areas, it displaces oxygen. The Lake Nyos disaster in Cameroon killed over 1,700 people when naturally stored CO₂ erupted into the air. That was a natural release. We are proposing to manufacture those risks here in Louisiana.
Citizens Are Paying Attention
Across Allen, Vernon, Rapides, Livingston, and other parishes, residents have become researchers in their own right. They trade maps, pore over permits, and consult independent geologists who volunteer their time to explain risks.
A mother in Vernon Parish put it simply at a recent meeting:
“We live here. We drink this water. They are asking us to gamble with our lives for tax credits. That’s not science. That’s greed.”
Her words echo the central truth: CCS may be profitable, but that does not make it safe.
The False Sense of Reassurance
At nearly every public forum, state officials assure citizens that “everything will be monitored” and that “injection wells are carefully regulated.”
But history tells a different story. Communities around Lake Maurepas were kept in the dark until pipelines were already underway. Hearings are often scheduled quietly in Baton Rouge, miles away from the communities most affected.
The people are left out of the process, while the narrative of “scientific safety” is broadcast from well-funded institutions with deep ties to industry.
Looking at the Real Science
This is where the new Scientific Reports study cuts through the spin. Unlike industry-sponsored reports, this was not written by consultants paid by Exxon or Oxy. It was peer-reviewed, published openly, and designed to test whether cracks and faults matter.
The conclusion is unavoidable: they do.
Cracks and faults are not hypothetical. They are everywhere in Louisiana geology. Ignoring them is not science — it’s wishful thinking.
The Transition to Part II
If independent science shows CCS is a gamble, why do Louisiana citizens always hear the opposite from officials?
The answer lies in who controls the narrative. On one side, unpaid geologists and citizen advocates spend their free time raising alarms. On the other side, the Center for Energy Studies at LSU — led by Dr. Greg Upton — produces polished reports that always emphasize safety.
What’s the difference? The Center for Energy Studies is funded by the very corporations pushing CCS. ExxonMobil. Oxy. CapturePoint. And six of the largest oil and gas companies sit directly on its advisory board, alongside two of Louisiana’s most powerful lobbying groups.
When your paycheck depends on saying something is safe, how often will you find risks?
A Call to Action
This is why CO₂ Chronicles exists. We are independent. We are fearless. We are supported 100% by citizens — not corporations, not lobbyists, not politicians.
If you want the truth — the facts that no one else in Louisiana is willing to report — you are in the right place.
👉 Part II of this exposé, “Science for Sale,” will reveal exactly how industry money is shaping the science that parishes and legislators rely on. You won’t see it in the Advocate. You won’t see it on the evening news. But you will see it here.
To read Part II and support truly independent reporting, become a subscriber today.
[ Subscribe Now to Unlock Part II → ]
Part II — Science for Sale: How Industry Money Shapes the “Facts” About CCS in Louisiana
When communities ask for the science, they expect studies that are independent, peer-reviewed, and transparent. What they have often been handed instead are polished reports, slide decks, and reassuring testimony produced or promoted by institutions that accept millions from the very companies selling carbon capture projects. That’s not a small detail — it’s the central conflict of interest driving Louisiana’s CCS debate.
The independent simulation study published in Scientific Reports demonstrates the core technical problem: caprock morphology and cracks change everything. In anticline (dome) scenarios, CO₂ pools and can escape rapidly through a nearby crack; even in flatter formations, CO₂ spreads and still finds faults that allow leakage. Leakage rates in the model reach tens of thousands of kilograms per year in early decades — not infinitesimal figures. The researchers also show CO₂ dissolving into formation water reduces pH, a chemical shift known to mobilize toxic metals in groundwater. These are not abstract possibilities — they are modelled outcomes under realistic injection scenarios.
Yet at public meetings across Louisiana, citizens repeatedly hear that “the science shows CCS is safe.” Who is presenting that science — and who paid for it?
The Money Trail: LSU, Industry, and the Appearance of Neutrality
The Center for Energy Studies (CES) at LSU — the state’s go-to institution for energy analysis — is positioned as the authoritative voice on Louisiana energy policy. Its reports are routinely cited by state agencies and shown at parish meetings where CCS projects are discussed. Dr. Greg Upton, CES Executive Director, has been a visible presence in testimony and public forums. (LSU)
But recent reporting has documented a pattern that should make any citizen uneasy: the same companies building or planning CCS projects — Shell, ExxonMobil, Oxy, CapturePoint, and others — have provided major funding to LSU programs, and in some cases to new institutes that sit alongside CES. Investigations and public records reporting by outlets such as The Lens and The Guardian describe donation structures and partnership agreements that grant industry influence over research priorities and advisory boards. In one widely reported example, Shell’s large gift to LSU’s energy institute created a template for industry-university partnerships that allowed donor firms a voice in setting research agendas. The Lens and The Guardian show how Exxon paid to become a strategic partner and how these arrangements can include input — and in effect, power — over the direction of energy research. (The Lens)
LSU’s own Center for Energy Studies notes it takes sponsored research and offers sustaining-member opportunities; the center’s website invites industry partners to become sustaining members and to support research. That structure creates a routine path for corporations to fund studies and programs that may later be presented to local officials as neutral analysis. (LSU)
This is not to say every single report from LSU is unreliable. But funding sources and institutional governance matter. When a center’s budget is supported in part by firms with a clear financial interest in CCS, the results of that research — and what gets emphasized at public forums — deserve independent verification.
How Funding Touches What Communities Hear
The influence of industry funding on public-facing science shows up in three predictable ways:
- Framing the Question. Funders can influence what gets studied. If a study asks “what are economic opportunities?” rather than “what are long-term leakage risks to aquifers?”, the answer will predictably favor economic outcomes. Public reports from industry-funded groups emphasize jobs, tax revenues, and technical feasibility — not worst-case leakage pathways.
- Selective Emphasis. Reports may downplay scenarios that model leakage through fractures or abandoned wells — the exact conditions many independent scientists find problematic. The Scientific Reports simulation explicitly tested fractures and found measurable leakage tied to caprock morphology; independent, peer-reviewed work like that rarely receives the same headline space at parish hearings.
- Advisory Influence. Donors may gain seats on advisory boards or privileged access to steer research priorities. Journalistic reporting shows LSU’s fundraising model opened pathways for industry influence through strategic donations, partnerships, and advisory roles — mechanisms that can limit truly independent inquiry. (The Guardian)
Independent Geologists: The Other Side of the Story
In parish halls and volunteer networks, a different group of experts has been quietly working: independent, often unpaid geologists who spend nights reviewing permits, poring over seismic reports, and explaining local geology to families who worry for their wells. These private geologists are not paid by industry; they are paid in minutes and coffee and, often, by the gratitude of their neighbors.
Their message — supported by peer-reviewed simulations and real-world lessons — is blunt: faults, fractures, and legacy wells create pathways that are not easily mapped or guaranteed sealed. The Scientific Reports simulations validate those warnings by showing how a crack near an anticline can focus CO₂ migration and raise leakage substantially.
That independent perspective should be central to any honest assessment. Yet it is frequently squeezed out of public processes by better-funded presentations and “neutral” slides provided by institutions with industry ties.
What “Peer Review” Means — and Why It Doesn’t Always Solve the Problem
Industry supporters will point to “peer review” and internal monitoring plans as proof that everything is fine. Peer review matters — the Scientific Reports study was peer-reviewed and openly published, which is why its findings deserve attention.
But peer review alone doesn’t remove conflicts of interest from applied research agendas. A study paid for and framed by an oil company will rarely test the scenarios that would make investors nervous — unless independent academics insist on those tests. If industry funds the testing and the advisory board that picks projects, then the scope of what is “peer reviewed” is narrowed before the reviewers even see the draft.
Real-World Failures: Why Modeling Matters — and Why Models Can Surprise Us
Models are simplifications of reality. The Scientific Reports paper used high-quality simulations across thousands of years to expose how caprock shape and fractures control leakage. It shows what happens when assumptions are relaxed and realistic cracks are included — and the results were clear: leakage is non-trivial and persists.
Louisiana’s geology complicates the models further: abandoned wells, shallow faults, and variable sedimentary layers all produce more uncertainty than the clean domains in a lab. If an independent model finds leakage at realistic rates, regulators must treat that as a red flag — not a footnote.
What Citizens Can Demand — Concrete Steps
If the “science” presented to communities is incomplete or influenced by industry funding, residents have a right to demand better. Here’s a checklist of practical, verifiable demands citizens and parish councils can make right now:
- Independent Peer-Reviewed Studies. Require at least one independent, peer-reviewed risk assessment (paid for by neutral public funds or an independent grant process) before any permit is issued.
- Full Funding Disclosures. Require full disclosure of funding sources and advisory board memberships for any institution presenting at public hearings. If a center accepts money from firms proposing projects in Louisiana, that must be disclosed upfront.
- Third-Party Monitoring. Insist on independent, third-party monitoring and publicly accessible monitoring data (not just industry reports).
- Abandoned Well Inventory. Demand a complete, parish-level inventory of legacy wells — and require remediation or conservative setbacks where risks remain.
- Binding Financial Assurances. Require corporations to post bonds or long-term funds sufficient to cover monitoring, remediation, and potential groundwater cleanup decades into the future. The current 5 million trust fund would not scratch the surface.
- Community Vetting. Create local scientific advisory panels that include independent geologists and water scientists — paid and given access to data — so communities have experts who are accountable to them, not to donors.
The Bottom Line
Science can be an instrument of truth — or, when shaped by money and institutional incentives, an instrument of persuasion. The Scientific Reports simulation offers a sober, peer-reviewed view of how cracks and caprock morphology create realistic leakage pathways and groundwater risks. When that science is sidelined in favor of industry-funded reassurances, communities pay the price.
Closing Dedication
This exposé is dedicated to Governor Jeff Landry and every elected official in Louisiana who has said they want to “look at the science.” The science is here. Independent, peer-reviewed research shows that cracks, faults, and abandoned wells create real risks to our aquifers — the lifeline of our people. What remains to be seen is whether our leaders will stand with industry assurances or with the citizens whose water and future are at stake.
Thank You for Standing With Us
If you’ve read this far, you are not just a reader — you are a supporter of independent journalism. Your subscription keeps the CO2 Chronicles alive. It means we can investigate without fear, publish without corporate filters, and hold billion-dollar industries accountable to the people of Louisiana.
Every article we publish exists because of citizens like you. Your support tells us that truth still matters.
👉 Please take one more step: share the CO2 Chronicles with your family and friends. Forward Part I, send them our homepage, and invite them to join this community of watchdogs and truth-tellers.
Together, we are building a movement of informed citizens who refuse to be silenced. From kitchen tables to parish halls to the state capitol, your voice and your support are making a difference.
With gratitude,
Renee’ Savant
Founder & Editor, CO2 Chronicles
