Zero is the only acceptable leakage rate for geologically stored CO 2 : an editorial comment

Ha-Duong, Minh; Loisel, Rodica

doi:10.1007/s10584-009-9560-z

Cited by 21 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Small amounts of CO2 leakage could be tolerated without negating the cost-effectiveness of CCS from both climate change mitigation and financial perspectives (Hepple andBenson, 2005, Zwaan andGerlagh, 2009), and the migration of CO2 or brines from the CO2 store may beneficially relieve reservoir fluid pressure (Cihan et al, 2013). However unintended leakage of CO2 or formation fluids would effect a number of stakeholders, incurring economic and financial costs (Bielicki et al, 2014), environmental impact (Jones et al, 2015) and also challenge the social and political acceptability of the technology (Ha-Duong and Loisel, 2009). As such any incidence of leakage from engineered stores could have ramifications for the CCS industry on a global scale, and so the viability of CCS depends on the reliable containment of injected CO2 in the subsurface.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

What have we learnt about CO2 leakage from CO2 release field experiments, and what are the gaps for the future?

Roberts

Stalker

2020

Earth-Science Reviews

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Legislation and guidelines developed for Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) have set performance requirements to minimize leakage risk, and to quantify and remediate any leaks that arise. For compliance it is necessary to have a comprehensive understanding of the possible spread, fate and impacts of any leaked CO 2 , and the ability to detect and quantify any CO 2 seepage into marine or terrestrial environments. Over the past decade, a number of field scale CO2 release experiments have been conducted around the world to address many of the uncertainties regarding the characteristics of near-surface expression of CO 2 in terms of the impact and quantitation of CO2 leaks. In these experiments, either free phase or dissolved CO2 was injected and released into the shallow subsurface so as to artificially simulate a CO2 leak into the near-surface environment. The experiments differ in a number of ways, from the geological conditions, surface environments, injection rates and experimental set-up -including the injection and monitoring strategy. These experiments have provided abundant information to aid in the development of our scientific understanding of environmental impacts of CO2 while assessing state of the art monitoring techniques.We collated a global dataset of field-scale shallow (depths < ~25 m) controlled CO2 release experiments. The dataset includes 14 different field experiment locations, of which nine intended to release CO2 to the surface, and the remaining sites intended for CO2 to remain in the shallow subsurface. Several release experiments have been conducted at half of these sites, and so in total, 42 different CO2 release tests have taken place at the 14 sites in our dataset. We scrutinized our dataset to establish: (i) the range of experimental approaches and settings explored to date (such as the environment, subsurface conditions, injection strategy and whether gaseous or dissolved CO2 were injected and in what quantities); (ii) the range of CO2 injection and surface release rates at these experiments; (iii) the collective learnings about the surface and subsurface manifestation of the CO2 release, the spread and fate of the CO2, rates of CO2 flux to surface, and methods of measuring these; (iv) the strengths and limitations of current approaches for detecting and quantifying CO2. This allowed us to highlight where uncertainties remain and identify knowledge gaps that future experiments should seek to address. Further, drawing on the collective experiences, we have identified common issues or complications which future CO2 release experiments can learn from.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

What have we learnt about CO2 leakage from CO2 release field experiments, and what are the gaps for the future?

Roberts

Stalker

2020

Earth-Science Reviews

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…5) are determined to be acceptable by stakeholders of the project, this potential would expand the remedial response options available and increase the likelihood of a successful injection operation. The levels of leakage risk that are acceptable to different parties (site operators, permit reviewers, and the public) can be quite different, however, and the need to consider different perspectives about leakage risk will remain a significant consideration for GCS site operation 81 . Based on the need to protect underground sources of drinking water, we consider—for the context of this study—brine leakage into and TDS plume development within the freshwater aquifer as outcomes that must be avoided.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A quantitative risk assessment approach for developing contingency plans at a geologic carbon storage site

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Geologic carbon storage (GCS) is an increasingly important technology for reducing carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions to the atmosphere. The leakage risks associated with GCS are an environmental and human health concern, however, and site operators must develop contingency plans that thoroughly consider leakage risks and identify potential mitigation strategies. Here, we use a GCS system model (the National Risk Assessment Partnership's Open‐Source Integrated Assessment Model, NRAP‐Open‐IAM) to evaluate different contingency plans for a hypothetical GCS site. In the scenario considered, an unplugged legacy well is discovered near the site after 5 years of CO2 injection. Our simulations show that the planned operation has a relatively high chance of causing brine leakage through the legacy well and into the two overlying aquifers, the shallower of which has potable water—an unacceptable outcome. To reduce this risk, we consider five remedial response scenarios that manipulate reservoir pressures through brine extraction, injection rate reduction, and early injection stopping. NRAP‐Open‐IAM is used to quantify the degree to which each scenario reduces the probability of brine leakage at the site amidst reservoir uncertainty. Evaluation of the different scenarios suggests that reduction of injection rates effectively reduces leakage risks while maintaining a substantial fraction of the initially intended cumulative CO2 storage. In the event of an emergency, the reservoir pressure management strategies considered here can provide operators more time while they pursue a more permanent solution. The analyses demonstrated here fit into a larger workflow we propose for evaluating the contingency plans of GCS sites. © 2023 Society of Chemical Industry and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

show abstract

“…Most studies across all categories did not focus on the engineering and technical factors, although they often discussed them, acknowledging that they may have a large impact on environmental, economic, and social indicators. Indeed, there are studies focused specifically on assessing CO 2 leakage from geological reservoirs and its impacts (e.g., Van der Zwaan and Gerlagh ; Van der Zwaan and Smekens ; Ha‐Duong and Loisel ; Little and Jackson ). In the broader assessment studies, CO 2 leakage was generally not explicitly included in the analysis, either because of the lack of data or because it was outside the scope of those studies.…”

Section: Assessment Of Carbon Capture and Storage Articlesmentioning

confidence: 99%

An Interdisciplinary Perspective on Carbon Capture and Storage Assessment Methods

Choptiany

Pelot

Sherren

2014

J of Industrial Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary Climate change is one of the most serious threats facing humankind. Mitigating climate change will require a suite of actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Carbon capture and storage (CCS) is a new technology aimed at mitigating climate change by capturing and storing carbon dioxide, typically in deep geological reservoirs. CCS has risks characteristic of new technologies, as well as risks unique to this technology and its application. Large‐scale CCS decision making is complex, encompassing environmental, social, and economic considerations and requiring the risks to be taken into consideration. CCS projects have been cancelled as a result of inadequate assessments of risks. To date, studies assessing CCS have been limited mostly to environmental, social, and economic fields in isolation from each other, predominantly using life cycle assessments (LCAs), cost benefit analyses (CBAs), or surveys of public perception. LCAs, CBAs, and surveys of public perception all have limitations for assessing difficult multifaceted problems. Incompatibilities across CCS assessment methods have hindered the comparison of the results across these single‐discipline studies and limited the possibility of drawing broader conclusions about CCS development. More standardization across assessment methods, study assumptions, functional units, and assessment criteria for CCS could be beneficial to the integration of multiple study results. We propose a set of criteria, which decision analysts could use to develop CCS‐project–specific criteria lists in order to comprehensively assess a CCS project's viability. This list was created by determining the frequency of use of each criterion in recent studies, with a focus on their use across disciplines.

show abstract

Zero is the only acceptable leakage rate for geologically stored CO 2 : an editorial comment

Cited by 21 publications

References 5 publications

What have we learnt about CO2 leakage from CO2 release field experiments, and what are the gaps for the future?

What have we learnt about CO2 leakage from CO2 release field experiments, and what are the gaps for the future?

A quantitative risk assessment approach for developing contingency plans at a geologic carbon storage site

An Interdisciplinary Perspective on Carbon Capture and Storage Assessment Methods

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About