An assessment of near surface CO2 leakage detection techniques under Australian conditions

Feitz, Andrew; Jenkins, Charles; Schacht, U.; McGrath, Andrew; Berko, H.; Schroder, Ivan; Noble, Ryan; Kuske, Tehani; George, Suman; Heath, Charles; Zegelin, Steve; Curnow, Steve; Zhang, Hui; Sirault, Xavier; Berni, J.A.J.; Hortle, Allison

doi:10.1016/j.egypro.2014.11.419

Cited by 49 publications

(29 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Hyperspectral investigation of plant stress was combined with microbial soil genomics at Ginninderra (Feitz et al, 2014a). Crops of field pea, wheat and barley were visibly impacted by the CO 2 with patches of yellowing or drying out of the plants.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

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

100

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: Introductionmentioning

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

100

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…3a), an unsupervised classification approach shows a high degree of spatial correlation between the hot spot locations identified using hyperspectral data in 2009 with hot spots previously identified using soil flux techniques in 2008 [38]. In the case of the Ginninderra data, conventional spectral indices have been found to delineate the damage to vegetation caused by CO 2 [14]. Figure 3c is an image obtained by forming a ratio of the reflectance at a wavelength of 1500 nm to that at 500 nm, and by comparison with Figure 3d, it can be seen that the region of leakage is detected.…”

Section: High Risk Zones and Broad-scale Detection At The Surfacementioning

confidence: 97%

“…Field experiments at CO 2 controlled release facilities, in different parts of the world, show that established near surface environmental monitoring techniques are effective for characterising "known leaks"; providing insights into near surface plume migration, impact on groundwater chemistry, mapping the lateral extent of a leak, and demonstrating CO 2 leakage quantification techniques [9][10][11][12][13][14]. Table 1 compares four controlled release sites where shallow CO 2 release experiments have been conducted through an undisturbed overburden, and where leakage has been detected at the surface.…”

Section: Leakage Surface Expressionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Looking for leakage or monitoring for public assurance?

et al. 2014

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Monitoring is a regulatory requirement for all carbon dioxide capture and geological storage (CCS) projects to verify containment of injected carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) within a licensed geological storage complex. Carbon markets require CO 2 storage to be verified. The public wants assurances CCS projects will not cause any harm to themselves, the environment or other natural resources. In the unlikely event that CO 2 leaks from a storage complex, and into groundwater, to the surface, atmosphere or ocean, then monitoring methods will be required to locate, assess and quantify the leak, and to inform the community about the risks and impacts on health, safety and the environment. This paper considers strategies to improve the efficiency of monitoring the large surface area overlying onshore storage complexes. We provide a synthesis of findings from monitoring for CO 2 leakage at geological storage sites both natural and engineered, and from monitoring controlled releases of CO 2 at four shallow release facilities -ZERT (USA), Ginninderra (Australia), Ressacada (Brazil) and CO 2 field lab (Norway).

show abstract

“…This type of monitoring has been emphasised in small-scale pilot projects with a research focus, although it might also form a minor component of the monitoring suite in larger commercial projects. An advance since the Special Report has been the development of controlled release projects Cohen et al, 2013;Feitz et al, 2014;Jones et al, 2014;Lewicki et al, 2007;Spangler et al, 2010;Taylor et al, 2014), which assess the response of environments to introduction of CO 2 (simulating leakage) and the efficacy with which these responses might be monitored. Testing leakage detection in field settings has been an important contribution of the controlled release projects.…”

Section: Environmental Impact Monitoringmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Jenkins

Chadwick

Hovorka

2015

International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control

Self Cite

187

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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

show abstract

An assessment of near surface CO2 leakage detection techniques under Australian conditions

Abstract: E-mail address:

Cited by 49 publications

References 16 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

Looking for leakage or monitoring for public assurance?

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About