CO2    sequestration monitoring and verification technologies applied at Krechba, Algeria

Mathieson, Allan; Midgley, J.; Dodds, Kevin J.; Wright, Iain; Ringrose, Philip; Saoul, Nabil

doi:10.1190/1.3304827

Cited by 128 publications

(45 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In this paper, we examine three commercial-scale sites where CO 2 is stored at rates approaching or greater than 1 megatonne (Mt) of CO 2 per y: the Sleipner Field in the Norwegian North Sea (9); the Weyburn Field, Central Canada (10); and the In Salah Field, Algeria (11). These represent three of the most significant commercial-scale CCS projects, although further demonstration projects are likely to commence in the coming decade (12).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of geomechanical deformation induced by megatonne-scale CO ₂ storage at Sleipner, Weyburn, and In Salah

Verdon

Kendall

Stork

et al. 2013

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

195

101

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Geological storage of CO 2 that has been captured at large, point source emitters represents a key potential method for reduction of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. However, this technology will only be viable if it can be guaranteed that injected CO 2 will remain trapped in the subsurface for thousands of years or more. A significant issue for storage security is the geomechanical response of the reservoir. Concerns have been raised that geomechanical deformation induced by CO 2 injection will create or reactivate fracture networks in the sealing caprocks, providing a pathway for CO 2 leakage. In this paper, we examine three large-scale sites where CO 2 is injected at rates of ∼1 megatonne/y or more: Sleipner, Weyburn, and In Salah. We compare and contrast the observed geomechanical behavior of each site, with particular focus on the risks to storage security posed by geomechanical deformation. At Sleipner, the large, high-permeability storage aquifer has experienced little pore pressure increase over 15 y of injection, implying little possibility of geomechanical deformation. At Weyburn, 45 y of oil production has depleted pore pressures before increases associated with CO 2 injection. The long history of the field has led to complicated, sometimes nonintuitive geomechanical deformation. At In Salah, injection into the water leg of a gas reservoir has increased pore pressures, leading to uplift and substantial microseismic activity. The differences in the geomechanical responses of these sites emphasize the need for systematic geomechanical appraisal before injection in any potential storage site.carbon sequestration | geomechanics | InSAR | microseismic monitoring C arbon capture and storage (CCS)-where CO 2 is captured at large point source emitters (such as coal-fired power stations) and stored in suitable geological repositories-has been touted as a technology with the potential to achieve dramatic reductions in anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions (1, 2). However, its success is dependent on the ability of reservoirs to retain CO 2 over long timescales (a minimum of several thousand years). If CCS is to make a significant impact on global emissions, more than 3.5 billion tons of CO 2 per year must be stored (3), which at reservoir conditions will have a volume of ∼30 billion barrels (4).Secure storage of such large volumes of CO 2 requires more than just the availability of the appropriate volumes of pore space. CO 2 is buoyant in comparison with the saline brines that fill the majority of putative storage sites. Therefore, injected CO 2 will rise through porous rocks and return to the surface, unless trapped by impermeable sealing layers (such as shales and evaporites). Preliminary estimates have tended to indicate that, from a volumetric perspective at least, sufficient storage capacity exists for many decades of CO 2 emissions in deep-lying saline aquifers that have suitable sealing capability (5).It is equally important that the integrity of the seal is not compromised by injection activitie...

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of geomechanical deformation induced by megatonne-scale CO ₂ storage at Sleipner, Weyburn, and In Salah

Verdon

Kendall

Stork

et al. 2013

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

195

101

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Near surface monitoring programs should be informed using a risk-based approach, first surveying areas of higher risk such as operational and abandoned wells [25]. Human observation (e.g.…”

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

confidence: 99%

Looking for leakage or monitoring for public assurance?

et al. 2014

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

“…The relevance of CO 2 -EOR has also become more widely recognized, with information from the long history of this activity becoming more widely accessible. Examples of storage projects developed during this decade for which detailed and publically accessible M&V results are available include K12-B (van der Meer et al, 2009K12-B (van der Meer et al, , 2005, Ketzin (Martens et al, 2013;Würdemann et al, 2010), Lacq (Aimard et al, 2007;Prinet et al, 2013) and Snøhvit from Europe, In Salah Mathieson et al, 2010;Ringrose et al, 2013) from Africa, Nagaoka (Kikuta et al, 2005) from Japan, Otway (Cook, 2014;Jenkins et al, 2012) from Australia and a number of US projects: Frio Test (Hovorka et al, 2006), Mountaineer, Cranfield (Hovorka et al, 2013c), Illinois Basin, Decatur (Finley, 2014b), Bell Creek, Michigan pinnacle reefs and other R&D projects under the US Regional Carbon Sequestration Regional Partnership program. In Canada, Aquistore has just begun operations (Worth et al, 2014).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 98%

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

Jenkins

Chadwick

Hovorka

2015

International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control

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

CO2 sequestration monitoring and verification technologies applied at Krechba, Algeria

Cited by 128 publications

References 5 publications

Comparison of geomechanical deformation induced by megatonne-scale CO ₂ storage at Sleipner, Weyburn, and In Salah

Comparison of geomechanical deformation induced by megatonne-scale CO ₂ storage at Sleipner, Weyburn, and In Salah

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

CO2 sequestration monitoring and verification technologies applied at Krechba, Algeria

Cited by 128 publications

References 5 publications

Comparison of geomechanical deformation induced by megatonne-scale CO 2 storage at Sleipner, Weyburn, and In Salah

Comparison of geomechanical deformation induced by megatonne-scale CO 2 storage at Sleipner, Weyburn, and In Salah

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

Comparison of geomechanical deformation induced by megatonne-scale CO ₂ storage at Sleipner, Weyburn, and In Salah

Comparison of geomechanical deformation induced by megatonne-scale CO ₂ storage at Sleipner, Weyburn, and In Salah