Potential on-shore and off-shore reservoirs for CO ₂ sequestration in Central Atlantic magmatic province basalts

Abstract

Identifying locations for secure sequestration of CO 2 in geological formations is one of our most pressing global scientific problems. Injection into basalt formations provides unique and significant advantages over other potential geological storage options, including large potential storage volumes and permanent fixation of carbon by mineralization. The Central Atlantic Magmatic Province basalt flows along the eastern seaboard of the United States may provide large and secure storage reservoirs both onshore and offshore. Sites in the South Georgia basin, the New York Bight basin, and the Sandy Hook basin offer promising basalt-hosted reservoirs with considerable potential for CO 2 sequestration due to their proximity to major metropolitan centers, and thus to large industrial sources for CO 2 . Onshore sites are suggested for costeffective characterization studies of these reservoirs, although offshore sites may offer larger potential capacity and additional long-term advantages for safe and secure CO 2 sequestration.Eastern United States | greenhouse gas | Jurassic | lavas | rift I n recent years, scientific interest in targeting geological reservoirs for CO 2 sequestration in order to stabilize our increasing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere has been growing. Among these targets, the injection of industrial CO 2 into deep saline aquifers or depleted oil and gas reservoirs with large potential storage capacity and geographic ubiquity are common choices (1-5). Several basalt and ultramafic rock reservoirs also have been proposed in a variety of tectonic settings, including, for example, midoceanic islands (6, 7), deep-sea basalt crust (8), and continental flood basalts (9). The effectiveness of any of these reservoirs depends strongly on the storage capacity, retention time, reservoir stability, and the risk for leakage (10, 11). Basalt and ultramafic sequestration targets provide unique advantages over other geological storage options due to their potential for chemical reaction of injected CO 2 with the host formation to produce stable, nontoxic ðCa þþ ; Mg þþ ; Fe þþ ÞCO 3 void-filling minerals. In nature, the same processes occur in association with serpentinization and surface weathering in ultramafic and mafic rocks exposed to water, the breakdown of silicates into clays, and the precipitation of carbonates (12, 13). Such geochemical conversion decreases the risk of leakage over the long term, so long as sufficiently large volumes of CO 2 can be stored in these formations and retained long enough to allow for the chemical reactions and mineral precipitation to occur (14, 15). Several pilot injection projects in basalt rock provinces are currently underway-such as the CarbFix project in Iceland (6) and the Columbia River plateau in the United States (9)-that will provide critical new information about the injectability and rates of CO 2 -water-rock reactions in basalt-hosted reservoirs.Several additional challenges remain for geological sequestration in basalt aquifers, including (i) adequ...

Carbon sequestration via reaction with basaltic rocks: Geochemical modeling and experimental results

“…Carbon dioxide capture and storage (CCS) is a major component of a portfolio of advanced energy technologies required to mediate the rise in concentration of atmospheric CO 2 . In particular, sequestration of CO 2 as geochemically stable solid carbonates of Ca, Mg, and Fe through reaction with basaltic rocks has been tendered as a possible permanent sink for CO 2 (Seifritz, 1990;McGrail et al, 2006;Alfredsson et al, 2008;Oelkers et al, 2008;Gislason et al, 2009;Goldberg et al, 2009;Shikazono et al, 2009;Schaef et al, 2010). Immense basalt provinces exist worldwide in: Iceland, Hawaii, the Columbia River Plateau and India's Deccan Volcanic Province (McGrail et al, 2006;Prasad et al, 2009).…”

Geochemical Implications of CO2 Leakage Associated with Geologic Storage: A Review

“…Although oil and gas reservoirs (Kovscek 2002;Bachu and Shaw 2003;Hovorka et al 2009;Esposito et al 2010;Zhang et al 2011) and unmineable coal seams (White et al 2005;Faiz et al 2007a;Kronimus et al 2008a) formations have been identified as potential geologic repositories for CO 2 , deep (often saline) nonpotable aquifers are preferred and are the most widely studied. Reasons include ubiquity, availability of mature technology, high storage capacities, and the potential for CO 2 conversion to carbonate minerals (Bachu and Adams 2003;Goldberg et al 2008Goldberg et al , 2010McGrail et al 2006). Estimates for CO 2 storage capacity in single, deep nonpotable aquifers range from 10 -2 to 10 4 Gt (Herzog 2001;McGrail et al 2006;Goldberg et al 2008;Gislason et al 2010;Donda et al 2011;Medina et al 2011) and would be sufficient for storing decades to centuries of future CO 2 emissions.…”

Physical constraints on geologic CO2 sequestration in low-volume basalt formations

“…For example, the Deccan Traps in central and western India have an estimated storage capacity of 150 Gt CO 2 (Jayaraman, 2007). Similarly, the storage capacity of the Columbia River Basalt Group in the northwestern United States has been estimated to be on the order of 100 Gt CO 2 (McGrail et al, 2006), and offshore basalt formations within the Juan de Fuca plate and Central Atlantic magmatic province hold potential for CO 2 disposal on comparable scales (Goldberg et al, 2008(Goldberg et al, , 2010.…”