Looking for leakage or monitoring for public assurance?

Feitz, Andrew; Leamon, Gregory; Jenkins, Charles; Jones, David G.; Moreira, Amanda Aleixo; Bressan, Lia Weigert; Melo, Clarissa Lovato; Dobeck, L.; Repasky, Kevin S.; Spangler, Lee H.

doi:10.1016/j.egypro.2014.11.418

Cited by 25 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This means that leakage monitoring has to be capable of detecting such small targets, whilst the surface footprint of areas above CO 2 storage sites is large (up to hundreds of km 2 ) (Feitz et al, 2014b;RISCS, 2014).…”

Section: Implications For Monitoringmentioning

confidence: 99%

Developments since 2005 in understanding potential environmental impacts of CO2 leakage from geological storage

Jones

Beaubien

Blackford

et al. 2015

International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper reviews research into the potential environmental impacts of leakage from geological storage of CO 2 since the publication of the IPCC Special Report on Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage in 2005. Possible impacts are considered on onshore (including drinking water aquifers) and offshore ecosystems. The review does not consider direct impacts on man or other land animals from elevated atmospheric CO 2 levels. Improvements in our understanding of the potential impacts have come directly from CO 2 storage research but have also benefitted from studies of ocean acidification and other impacts on aquifers and onshore near surface ecosystems. Research has included observations at natural CO 2 sites, laboratory and field experiments and modelling. Studies to date suggest that the impacts from many lower level fault-or well-related leakage scenarios are likely to be limited spatially and temporarily and recovery may be rapid. The effects are often ameliorated by mixing and dispersion of the leakage and by buffering and other reactions; potentially harmful elements have rarely breached drinking water guidelines. Larger releases, with potentially higher impact, would be possible from open wells or major pipeline leaks but these are of lower probability and should be easier and quicker to detect and remediate.

show abstract

Section: Implications For Monitoringmentioning

confidence: 99%

Developments since 2005 in understanding potential environmental impacts of CO2 leakage from geological storage

Jones

Beaubien

Blackford

et al. 2015

International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Data interpolation for locating leakage points with a high confidence level requires many more monitoring locations [40] and less than 100-200 m interspace between points for statistical soundness. With this spatial density of sampling, only small areas can be surveyed at limited scale; to date, examples rely on induced CO 2 leakage in near-surface environments [27,41,42], or on the spots of natural CO 2 seeps [40,41].…”

Section: Choices Of the Methods: What Has Been Done And What Has Notmentioning

confidence: 99%

Soil-Gas Concentrations and Flux Monitoring at the Lacq-Rousse CO2-Geological Storage Pilot Site (French Pyrenean Foreland): From Pre-Injection to Post-Injection

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Soil-gas concentrations and flux were measured during 20 separate measurement campaigns at the TOTAL Lacq-Rousse carbon capture and storage (CCS) pilot site, southern France, where 51,000 tons of CO2 were injected in a depleted natural gas field. Baseline data (September 2008 to December 2009) are compared to monitoring data from the injection (March 2010 to March 2013) and post-injection (February 2014 to December 2015) periods. CO2 soil-gas concentrations varied from atmospheric concentrations to more than 16% vol. with 1.4% as median value. Summer data showed high CO2 concentrations in the soil that remained quite high during winter. Median CO2 flux at the soil/atmosphere interface was close to 4.4 cm3·min−1·m−2. Carbon-isotope ratios measured on CO2 in soil gas had a mean value of −23.5 ± 3.1‰, some deviation being due to atmospheric CO2. Comparison between different gas species and the influence of temperature, pressure and soil-water content suggest that gases in near-surface environments are produced locally and naturally, and are unrelated to CO2 ascending from the storage reservoir. Monitoring of CO2 injection and the use of threshold levels is discussed as part of a practical approach considering specific regulations for the Lacq-Rousse CCS pilot experiment and constraints for the site operator.

show abstract

“…Legislation and guidelines developed for CCS have set performance requirements to minimize leakage risk (Dixon et al, 2015) and to quantify and remediate any leaks that arise (Dixon et al, 2015;IEAGHG, 2012IEAGHG, , 2015. Leakage of CO 2 would impact on a number of stakeholders, incurring financial and environmental costs, and also challenge public acceptance of the technology (Dixon et al, 2015;Feitz et al, 2014). Site selection for geological storage seeks to maximise containment and minimise risk of leakage (Miocic et al, A C C E P T E D M A N U S C R I P T 2016).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

An experimental investigation into quantifying CO2 leakage in aqueous environments using chemical tracers

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Chemical tracers can be an effective means of detecting, attributing and quantifying any leaks to the surface from geological CO 2 stores. CO 2 release experiments have found it difficult to ascertain the fate, or quantify the volume of CO 2 without the application of tracers. However, a significant proportion of global CO 2 storage capacity is located offshore, and the marine environment poses constraints that could limit the success of using tracers. These constraints include uncertainties in the behaviour of tracers in marine sediments and the water column and sampling challenges. However, to date there have been few experimental investigations to address these uncertainties. Here, we used a benchtop experimental setup to explore how effectively methane, a common constituent of captured CO 2 and of reservoir fluids, can aid the quantitation of CO 2 leakage in aqueous environments. The experiment simulated gas leakage into sediments that mimic the seabed, and we measured the partitioning of co-released gases under different environmental conditions and injection rates. We find that the style of seepage and the fate of the CO 2 are affected by the presence of a sand layer and the injection rate. We discuss the implications for leak monitoring approaches, including how tracers may be used to quantify the leak rates and fate of CO 2 in aqueous environments. Our work contributes to ongoing efforts to develop robust offshore monitoring system that will assure operators, regulatory bodies and the public of CO 2 storage integrity.

show abstract

Looking for leakage or monitoring for public assurance?

Cited by 25 publications

References 31 publications

Developments since 2005 in understanding potential environmental impacts of CO2 leakage from geological storage

Developments since 2005 in understanding potential environmental impacts of CO2 leakage from geological storage

Soil-Gas Concentrations and Flux Monitoring at the Lacq-Rousse CO2-Geological Storage Pilot Site (French Pyrenean Foreland): From Pre-Injection to Post-Injection

An experimental investigation into quantifying CO2 leakage in aqueous environments using chemical tracers

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About