Causes and financial consequences of geologic CO2 storage reservoir leakage and interference with other subsurface resources

Bielicki, Jeffrey M.; Pollak, Melisa F.; Fitts, Jeffrey P.; Peters, Catherine A.; Wilson, Elizabeth J.

doi:10.1016/j.ijggc.2013.10.024

Cited by 43 publications

(30 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…LRiMM includes a three-dimensional geospatial representation of the sedimentary basin, a semi-analytical model for estimating leakage (Celia et al 2011), and the Leakage Impact Valuation (LIV) method that estimates the economic consequences of leakage (Bielicki et al 2014). For detailed model descriptions, we refer readers to the original paper (Bielicki et al 2016).…”

Section: The Leakage Risk Monetization Model and Study Areamentioning

confidence: 99%

“…There are potential obstacles to large-scale CCS deployment, including the possibility of leakage from GCS reservoirs (Bielicki et al 2014(Bielicki et al , 2015Blackford et al 2013;Fitts and Peters 2013;Hepple and Benson 2005;Herzog 2011;Leung et al 2014). The economic implications of leakage have been investigated, some using integrated assessment models, by considering the economic burden that would fall on future generations or lost carbon credits when leaked CO 2 returns to the atmosphere (Gerlagh and van der Zwaan 2012;Ha-Duong and Keith 2003;Keller et al 2008;Teng and Tondeur 2007;Gerlagh 2009, 2016;van der Zwaan and Smekens 2009).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For example, previous work has investigated leakage risk in sedimentary basins by simulating worst-case scenarios of reservoir siting and leaking-well permeabilities (Bielicki et al 2015(Bielicki et al , 2016. One major finding is that, even at unrealistically high well permeability, leaked CO 2 is very unlikely to be released to the atmosphere because of the interception by overlying geologic strata (Bielicki et al 2016), which was termed as Bsecondary trapping.P revious studies have also examined the unique economic consequences that can result from four leakage outcomes (Bielicki et al 2014(Bielicki et al , 2016: leaked fluids may (1) accumulate in formations overlying the storage reservoir, but remain isolated from other subsurface activities; (2) interfere with another subsurface activity (e.g., natural gas storage, deep-well injection of wastes); (3) cause groundwater contamination; or (4) reach the land surface and escape into the atmosphere. The first outcome could be considered Bbenign leakage^.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Leakage risks of geologic CO2 storage and the impacts on the global energy system and climate change mitigation

et al. 2017

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study investigated how subsurface and atmospheric leakage from geologic CO 2 storage reservoirs could impact the deployment of Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) in the global energy system. The Leakage Risk Monetization Model was used to estimate the costs of leakage for representative CO 2 injection scenarios, and these costs were incorporated into the Global Change Assessment Model. Worst-case scenarios of CO 2 leakage risk, which assume that all leakage pathway permeabilities are extremely high, were simulated. Even with this extreme assumption, the associated costs of monitoring, treatment, containment, and remediation resulted in minor shifts in the global energy system. For example, the reduction in CCS deployment in the electricity sector was 3% for the Bhigh^leakage scenario, with replacement coming from fossil fuel and biomass without CCS, nuclear power, and renewable energy. In other words, the impact on CCS deployment under a realistic leakage scenario is likely to be negligible. We also quantified how the resulting shifts will impact atmospheric CO 2 concentrations. Under a carbon tax that achieves an atmospheric CO 2 concentration of 480 ppm in 2100, technology shifts due to leakage costs would increase this concentration by less than 5 ppm. It is important to emphasize that this increase does not result from leaked CO 2 that reaches the land surface, which is minimal due to secondary trapping in geologic strata above the storage reservoir. The overall conclusion is that leakage risks and associated costs will likely not interfere with the effectiveness of policies for climate change mitigation.

show abstract

Section: The Leakage Risk Monetization Model and Study Areamentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Leakage risks of geologic CO2 storage and the impacts on the global energy system and climate change mitigation

et al. 2017

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Long-term storage of CO 2 in deep underground reservoirs requires careful assessment of the reservoir integrity, well and fault susceptibility for potential leakage pathways, and consideration of the impact of leaks into the atmosphere or on shallow groundwater sources (Bachu, 2008;Bielicki et al, 2014;Herzog et al, 2003;Wolaver et al, 2013).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Key factors for determining groundwater impacts due to leakage from geologic carbon sequestration reservoirs

Carroll

Keating

Mansoor

et al. 2014

International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control

112

106

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

a b s t r a c tIn this paper we describe potential impacts to groundwater quality due to CO 2 and brine leakage, discuss an approach to calculate thresholds under which "no impact" to groundwater occurs, describe the time scale for impact on groundwater, and discuss the probability of detecting a groundwater plume should leakage occur. To facilitate this, multi-phase flow and reactive transport simulations and reduced-order models were developed for two classes of aquifers, considering uncertainty in leakage source terms and aquifer hydrogeology. We targeted an unconfined fractured carbonate aquifer based on the Edwards Aquifer in Texas and a confined alluvium aquifer based on the High Plains Aquifer in Kansas, which share characteristics typical of many drinking water aquifers in the United States. The hypothetical leakage scenarios centered on the notion that wellbores are the most likely conduits for brine and CO 2 leaks. Leakage uncertainty was based on hypothetical injection of CO 2 for 50 years at a rate of 5 million tons per year into a depleted oil/gas reservoir with high permeability and, one or more wells provided leakage pathways from the storage reservoir to the overlying aquifer. This scenario corresponds to a storage site with historical oil/gas production and some poorly completed legacy wells that went undetected through site evaluation, operations, and post-closure.For the aquifer systems and leakage scenarios studied here, CO 2 and brine leakage are likely to drive pH below and increase total dissolved solids (TDS) above the "no-impact thresholds"; and the subsequent plumes, although small, are likely to persist for long periods of time in the absence of remediation. In these scenarios, however, risk to human health may not be significant for two reasons. First, our simulated plume volumes are much smaller than the average inter-well spacing (1-2.6 wells/km 2 ) for these representative aquifers, so the impacted groundwater would be unlikely to be pumped for drinking water. Second, even within the impacted plume volumes little water exceeds the primary maximum contamination levels. These observations point to: BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/). 154 S.A. Carroll et al. / International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 29 (2014) 153-168• The potential utility of uncertainty quantification methods to evaluate the risk of leakage and inform monitoring and corrective action plans of a potential site for long-term CO 2 storage by capturing storage reservoir, leakage pathway, and aquifer heterogeneity. • The importance of establishing baseline groundwater chemistry that captures the pre-injection variability of underground sources of drinking water (USDW) above the reservoir because the EPA has adopted a "no net degradation" policy toward the protection of groundwater resources. • The need to test and develop spatially diverse monitoring techniques capable of detecting leakage early to employ effective mitigation strategies, and more importantly to add confidence to as...

show abstract

“…Few technologies exist to fix leaks associated with a wellbore, limiting injection interruption and avoiding permanent well shutdowntwo of the greatest risks to an economically viable geologic CO2 storage projects. 113 Technologies that fix leaks within the annulus between the steel casing and cement (along with compromised caprock) to solid caprock matrix are especially limited.…”

Section: C-s-h Interaction With Co2mentioning

confidence: 99%

Storing and Securing Carbon Dioxide in Depleted Shale Formations

Tao¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Hydraulically fractured shale formations are being developed widely for oil and gas production. These fractured shales have a number of characteristics that could make them attractive candidates for geological carbon sequestration (GCS) once the formations have been depleted of oil and gas. They generally exist deep in the subsurface and have low permeability beyond the artificial fracture network that was created during well completion suggesting that they could be permanent repositories. In addition, gas pipeline and handling infrastructure at the surface that are used to produce gas/oil may be repurposed to inject CO2, minimizing economic and environmental burdens. In spite of this promise, there are a number of technical questions about the viability of this approach.This dissertation seeks to answer critical geochemical and systems-level questions related to the carbon storage capacity in shale formations and strategies to mitigate the leakage risks associated with this technology.To understand the overall CO2 storage capacity of depleted shale wells, a computational method was developed that is based on a unipore diffusion configuration to characterize governing gas-transport processes. The gas diffusion coefficient was estimated using historical production decline data while the ratio of adsorbed gas to free phase gas, water saturation and gas adsorption isotherms were obtained from the literature. The results suggest that the Marcellus Shale in the Eastern United States could store about 12 Gt of CO2 in 13 years, which is over 1/3 of total US CO2 emissions from stationary sources (e.g., power plants) over the same time period. The mass transfer kinetics of the system indicate that injection of CO2 would proceed several times faster than production of CH4, ii which for the Marcellus Shale is on the order of several decades. The model is found to be most sensitive to the ratio of adsorbed gas to the total gas which includes both adsorbed and free phase gas. The extension of the model to other locations, together with the harmonization of the results from all the published literature relevant to carbon storage in shale formations, reveals that the major shale formations in US could all store more than 30 Gt of CO2. Different shale formations have distinct petrophysical properties, including their rank, that would affect their storage potential.To secure the injected CO2 in the fractured shale, a new method was developed to control the fluid flow properties in fractured shale formations. The approach is based on the injection of Ca-based silicate minerals into the fractures and pores as a cation donor.When reacted with CO2, it could alter the fluid conductivity or seal leakage pathways by leveraging the reactivity and kinetics of carbonation reactions of silicates at the depths and pressures of the shale formation. These silicate minerals could be added as either proppant materials during well completion or immediately before shutting down a well.Our results show that the pressures and temperatures of most sh...

show abstract

Causes and financial consequences of geologic CO2 storage reservoir leakage and interference with other subsurface resources

Cited by 43 publications

References 26 publications

Leakage risks of geologic CO2 storage and the impacts on the global energy system and climate change mitigation

Leakage risks of geologic CO2 storage and the impacts on the global energy system and climate change mitigation

Key factors for determining groundwater impacts due to leakage from geologic carbon sequestration reservoirs

Storing and Securing Carbon Dioxide in Depleted Shale Formations

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About