Earthquake triggering and large-scale geologic storage of carbon dioxide

Zoback, Mark D.; Gorelick, Steven M.

doi:10.1073/pnas.1202473109

Cited by 727 publications

(400 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

394

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…carbon sequestration | induced seismicity | overpressure | climate change | CO 2 leakage Z oback and Gorelick (1) claim that geologic carbon storage in deep saline formations is very likely to trigger induced seismicity capable of damaging the caprock, which could ruin the objective of keeping CO 2 stored deep underground. According to them, the main reason for this is that overpressure will be excessively high and failure conditions will be reached because the upper crust is critically stressed, i.e., close to failure.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Geologic carbon storage is unlikely to trigger large earthquakes and reactivate faults through which CO₂could leak

Vilarrasa

Carrera

2015

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

182

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Zoback and Gorelick [(2012) Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 109(26): [10164][10165][10166][10167][10168] have claimed that geologic carbon storage in deep saline formations is very likely to trigger large induced seismicity, which may damage the caprock and ruin the objective of keeping CO 2 stored deep underground. We argue that felt induced earthquakes due to geologic CO 2 storage are unlikely because (i) sedimentary formations, which are softer than the crystalline basement, are rarely critically stressed; (ii) the least stable situation occurs at the beginning of injection, which makes it easy to control; (iii) CO 2 dissolution into brine may help in reducing overpressure; and (iv) CO 2 will not flow across the caprock because of capillarity, but brine will, which will reduce overpressure further. The latter two mechanisms ensure that overpressures caused by CO 2 injection will dissipate in a moderate time after injection stops, hindering the occurrence of postinjection induced seismicity. Furthermore, even if microseismicity were induced, CO 2 leakage through fault reactivation would be unlikely because the high clay content of caprocks ensures a reduced permeability and increased entry pressure along the localized deformation zone. For these reasons, we contend that properly sited and managed geologic carbon storage in deep saline formations remains a safe option to mitigate anthropogenic climate change.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Geologic carbon storage is unlikely to trigger large earthquakes and reactivate faults through which CO₂could leak

Vilarrasa

Carrera

2015

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

182

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This overpressure evolution induced by CO 2 injection significantly differs from that generated by water injection. Recently, the feasibility of geologic carbon storage to significantly reduce CO 2 emissions has been put in doubt because it was compared with wastewater disposal [37], which is inducing a large number of large earthquakes (magnitude greater than 4) in the central US [38]. However, the geomechanical response of CO 2 injection will be completely different to that of wastewater disposal, making geological carbon storage a safe option for mitigating climate change [15,39].…”

Section: Caprock Geomechanical Stabilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Two-phase flow effects on the CO₂injection pressure evolution and implications for the caprock geomechanical stability

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Geologic carbon storage is considered to be one of the main solutions to significantly reduce CO2 emissions to the atmosphere to mitigate climate change. CO2 injection in deep geological formations entails a twophase flow, being CO2 the non-wetting phase. One of the main concerns of geologic carbon storage is whether the overpressure induced by CO2 injection may compromise the caprock integrity and faults stability. We numerically investigate the two-phase flow effects that govern the overpressure evolution generated by CO2 injection and how this overpressure affects the caprock geomechanical stability. We find that fluid pressure increases sharply at the beginning of injection because CO2 has to displace the brine that fills the pores around the injection well, which reduces the relative permeability. However, overpressure decreases subsequently because once CO2 fills the pores around the injection well, CO2 can flow easily due to its low viscosity and because the relative permeability to CO2 increases. Furthermore, the pressure drop that occurs in the capillary fringe due to two-phase flow interference decreases as the CO2 plume becomes larger. This overpressure evolution induced by CO2 injection, which remains practically constant with time after the initial peak, is very beneficial for maintaining caprock stability. Thus, the sealing capacity of the caprock will be maintained, preventing CO2 leakage to occur across the caprock.

show abstract

“…For example, a fault that extends from the underside of the storage reservoir downward may not be identified (even during a careful storage site characterization), yet still be large enough to pose a significant risk of induced seismicity if (re)activated by injection of CO 2 and pressure buildup in the reservoir (Rutqvist 2012;NAS 2013;Birkholzer et al 2015;Pawar et al 2015;. Zoback and Gorelick (2012) argue that injecting large volumes of CO 2 into the brittle rocks that are typical for DSFs in continental interiors could trigger earthquakes that threaten seal integrity, even if they might not possess enough magnitude to cause significant harm or structural damage on the surface. Vilarrasa and Carrera (2015) contend with part of this conclusion by claiming that the caprock at depths of 1-3 km (that are typically discussed for CO 2 storage) is considerably more ductile than the deeper crystalline basement and may not be critically stressed; pressure buildup could be limited by displaced brines flowing through the caprock and CO 2 dissolving in the brines; and that the time of the greatest risk is during active injection, when the risks can be most easily mitigated.…”

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

Earthquake triggering and large-scale geologic storage of carbon dioxide

Cited by 727 publications

References 20 publications

Geologic carbon storage is unlikely to trigger large earthquakes and reactivate faults through which CO₂could leak

Geologic carbon storage is unlikely to trigger large earthquakes and reactivate faults through which CO₂could leak

Two-phase flow effects on the CO₂injection pressure evolution and implications for the caprock geomechanical stability

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Earthquake triggering and large-scale geologic storage of carbon dioxide

Cited by 727 publications

References 20 publications

Geologic carbon storage is unlikely to trigger large earthquakes and reactivate faults through which CO2could leak

Geologic carbon storage is unlikely to trigger large earthquakes and reactivate faults through which CO2could leak

Two-phase flow effects on the CO2injection pressure evolution and implications for the caprock geomechanical stability

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Geologic carbon storage is unlikely to trigger large earthquakes and reactivate faults through which CO₂could leak

Geologic carbon storage is unlikely to trigger large earthquakes and reactivate faults through which CO₂could leak

Two-phase flow effects on the CO₂injection pressure evolution and implications for the caprock geomechanical stability