Can We Treat CO2 Well Blowouts like Routine Plumbing Problems? A Study of the Incidence, Impact, and Perception of Loss of Well Control

Porse, S.; Wade, Sarah; Hovorka, Susan

doi:10.1016/j.egypro.2014.11.751

Cited by 11 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…An important example is the characterization, remediation, and surveillance of performance of the many wells in a typical EOR system. Reporting of these data to regulatory authorities is typically inadequate to support a monitoring programme (Gan and Frohlich, 2013;Porse et al, 2014). It is important to implement a protocol to make data from the operator's confidential records available for the monitoring programme.…”

Section: Ccus Projects and 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

Section: Ccus Projects and 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

show abstract

“…Statistics of onshore well blowout incidents and associated risk perception, including blowouts from steam injection wells, have been analyzed as a way of inferring blowout risk for a future widespread implementation of onshore GCS. 11,12 Maps of near-offshore oil and gas fields in the Gulf of Mexico and elsewhere show very high densities of old wells subject to potential individual and collective leakage including blowouts. 13 As part of evaluating the GCS potential of the offshore Gulf of Mexico region, it is necessary to evaluate the consequences of potential major CO 2 well blowouts.…”

Section: Prior Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Major CO₂ blowouts from offshore wells are strongly attenuated in water deeper than 50 m

Oldenburg

Pan

2019

Greenhouse Gases

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Growing interest in offshore geologic carbon sequestration (GCS) motivates evaluation of the consequences of subsea CO2 well blowouts. We have simulated a hypothetical major CO2 well blowout in shallow water of the Texas Gulf Coast. We use a coupled reservoir‐well model (T2Well) to simulate the subsea blowout flow rate for input to an integral model (TAMOC) for modeling CO2 transport in the water column. Bubble sizes are estimated for the blowout scenario for input to TAMOC. Results suggest that a major CO2 blowout in ≥50 m of water will be almost entirely attenuated by the water column due to CO2 dissolution into seawater during upward rise. In contrast, the same blowout in 10 m of water will hardly be attenuated at all. Results also show that the size of the orifice of the leak strongly controls the CO2 blowout rate. © 2019 Society of Chemical Industry and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

show abstract

“…Duncan et al (2009) studied the 35-year history of CO 2 -EOR in the United States (at the time) and suggested that the probability of leakage was very low. Leakage of CO 2 through old boreholes has occurred in relation to EOR projects in the United States, 3 but Porse et al (2014) suggest that the perceived risk of CO 2 well blowouts in EOR operations is greater than the technical risk. Kü hn et al (2013) tested 12 legacy boreholes for a possible enhanced gas recovery project in the depleted Altmark natural gas field in Germany, and the authors found that these existing wells would still maintain integrity after injecting 100,000 t of CO 2 .…”

Section: Risk Scenario Cmentioning

confidence: 99%

Risk, Liability, and Economic Issues with Long-Term CO2 Storage—A Review

Anderson

2016

Nat Resour Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Given a scarcity of commercial-scale carbon capture and storage (CCS) projects, there is a great deal of uncertainty in the risks, liability, and their cost implications for geologic storage of carbon dioxide (CO 2 ). The probabilities of leakage and the risk of induced seismicity could be remote, but the volume of geologic CO 2 storage (GCS) projected to be necessary to have a significant impact on increasing CO 2 concentrations in the atmosphere is far greater than the volumes of CO 2 injected thus far. National-level estimates of the technically accessible CO 2 storage resource (TASR) onshore in the United States are on the order of thousands of gigatons of CO 2 storage capacity, but such estimates generally assume away any pressure management issues. Pressure buildup in the storage reservoir is expected to be a primary source of risk associated with CO 2 storage, and only a fraction of the theoretical TASR could be available unless the storage operator extracts the saltwater brines or other formation fluids that are already present in the geologic pore space targeted for CO 2 storage. Institutions, legislation, and processes to manage the risk, liability, and economic issues with CO 2 storage in the United States are beginning to emerge, but will need to progress further in order to allow a commercial-scale CO 2 storage industry to develop in the country. The combination of economic tradeoffs, property rights definitions, liability issues, and risk considerations suggests that CO 2 storage offshore of the United States may be more feasible than onshore, especially during the current (early) stages of industry development.

show abstract

Can We Treat CO2 Well Blowouts like Routine Plumbing Problems? A Study of the Incidence, Impact, and Perception of Loss of Well Control

Cited by 11 publications

References 17 publications

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

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

Major CO₂ blowouts from offshore wells are strongly attenuated in water deeper than 50 m

Risk, Liability, and Economic Issues with Long-Term CO2 Storage—A Review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Can We Treat CO2 Well Blowouts like Routine Plumbing Problems? A Study of the Incidence, Impact, and Perception of Loss of Well Control

Cited by 11 publications

References 17 publications

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

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

Major CO2 blowouts from offshore wells are strongly attenuated in water deeper than 50 m

Risk, Liability, and Economic Issues with Long-Term CO2 Storage—A Review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Major CO₂ blowouts from offshore wells are strongly attenuated in water deeper than 50 m