The state of the art in monitoring and verification—Ten years on

Abstract

a b s t r a c tIn the ten years since publication of the IPCC Special Report on CCS, there has been considerable progress in monitoring and verification (M&V). Numerous injection projects, ranging from small injection pilots to much larger longer-term commercial operations, have been successfully monitored to the satisfaction of regulatory agencies, and technologies have been adapted and implemented to demonstrate containment, conformance, and no environmental impact. In this review we consider M&V chiefly from the perspective of its ability to satisfy stakeholders that these three key requirements are being met. From selected project examples, we show how this was done, and reflect particularly on the nature of the verification process. It is clear that deep-focussed monitoring will deliver the primary requirement to demonstrate conformance and containment and to provide early warning of any deviations from predicted storage behaviour. Progress in seismic imaging, especially offshore, and the remarkable results with InSAR from In Salah are highlights of the past decade. A wide range of shallow monitoring techniques has been tested at many sites, focussing especially on the monitoring of soil gas and groundwater. Quantification of any detected emissions would be required in some jurisdictions to satisfy carbon mitigation targets in the event of leakage to surface: however, given the likely high security of foreseeable storage sites, we suggest that shallow monitoring should focus mainly on assuring against environmental impacts. This reflects the low risk profile of well selected and well operated storage sites and recognizes the over-arching need for monitoring to be directed to specific, measureable risks. In particular, regulatory compliance might usefully involve clearer articulation of leakage scenarios, with this specificity making it possible to demonstrate "no leakage" in a more objective way than is currently the case. We also consider the monitoring issues for CO 2 -EOR, and argue that there are few technical problems in providing assurance that EOR sites are successfully sequestering CO 2 ; the issues lie largely in linking existing oil and gas regulations to new greenhouse gas policy. We foresee that, overall, monitoring technologies will continue to benefit from synergies with oil and gas operations, but that the distinctive regulatory and certification environments for CCS may pose new questions. Overall, while there is clearly scope for technical improvements, more clearly posed requirements, and better communication of monitoring results, we reiterate that this has been a decade of significant achievement that leaves monitoring and verification well placed to serve the wider CCS enterprise.Crown

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

“…A good understanding of natural/background variability in soil gas, flux and atmospheric gases is important for identifying anomalous values of gas concentration or flux that might be indicative of seepage, as part of near surface monitoring above CO 2 storage sites (Jenkins et al, 2015). The baseline range of these parameters is also useful for identifying areas with enhanced CO 2 levels that might be impacted as a result of leakage.…”

“…The converse is also true, in that sites where the main objective was the study of ecosystem impacts had, of necessity, to monitor the concentration and flux of CO 2 and other parameters to assess the impacts and so have helped to develop monitoring methods (Jenkins et al, 2015).…”

Characteristic length measurement of a subsurface gas anomaly—A monitoring approach for heterogeneous flow path distributions

“…A large number of potential technologies for CO 2 monitoring already exist, as summarized in the literature (e.g. Chadwick, 2008;Chadwick et al, 2009;Jenkins et al, 2015;Litynski et al, 2012;Liu, 2012). Technologies and methods available for near-surface and surface monitoring include: groundwater monitoring (e.g.…”

“…a repository, natural source). This spatial sampling problem with point-wise monitoring is discussed, e.g., by Jenkins et al (2015).…”

Progress in monitoring strategies for risk reduction in geologic CO2 storage

“…While many monitoring tools can address all three, each driver may have different value of information (Eiken et al, 2011;Jenkins et al, 2015). For example, operational direct monitoring places importance on well head and down-hole pressures, flow rate, gas composition sampling, and direct optical monitoring of the seafloor.…”