Induced seismicity and carbon storage: Risk assessment and mitigation strategies

White, Joshua A.; Foxall, W.; Bachmann, C. E.; Chiaramonte, Laura; Daley, Thomas M.

doi:10.2172/1378542

Cited by 4 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 91 publications

(108 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These assumptions assigned a low risk of induced seismicity to the study area. 28 Because data from rock-core porosity data and well testing were unavailable at the time of the feasibility phase of the case study, we bounded the uncertainty by considering three cases for porosity-low (12%), mean (22%), and high (30%). Corresponding permeability cases used in EASiTool as inputs were 0.1 md (millidarcys), 33 md, and 664 md, respectively.…”

Section: Phase 1-feasibility-using Available Data To Assess Feasibili...mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…To assess the risk of induced seismic events, the stratigraphic test well should also measure the geologic section's principal state of stress magnitudes and orientations by using well known well tests and logging tools. 28 An injection test (i.e., a diagnostic fracture injection test, DFIT) in the test well should be conducted to test and upgrade maximum allowable surface-injection pressure (MASIP) calculation used in the flow model. Geomechanical properties should be measured on core and image logs to help characterize fractures.…”

Section: Phase 4 -Focused Investment To Collect Needed Data For Injec...mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In the case study, 0.6 psi/ft (i.e., equivalent to 90% below fracture gradient) for maximum allowable injection pressure was used as the EASiTool input on the basis of typical GoM Miocene section geomechanics and state‐of‐stress assumptions, which are supported by work from the US Geological Survey. These assumptions assigned a low risk of induced seismicity to the study area 28 …”

Section: Phase 1—feasibility—using Available Data To Assess Feasibili...mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

A phased workflow to define permit‐ready locations for large volume CO₂ injection and storage

Trevino,

Hovorka,

Dunlap

et al. 2023

Greenhouse Gases

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To‐date, only two UIC Class VI permits have been issued by the US Environmental Protection Agency. We illustrate a four‐phase workflow to first identify regional storage resources and then down‐select sites to yield permit‐ready locations that can accept and store large volumes of CO2. Specific permit requirements should guide objectives and define deliverables of respective workflow phases. In the first phase we used available regional data and screened structure and injection zones to locate resources that match CO2 volumes planned to be captured. Available data were also used to assess presence and depth of usable groundwater, the key resource being protected via permitting. We then used advanced, closed‐form, analytical solutions (EASiTool) to estimate CO2 injectivity into each hydrologically connected injection compartment. In the second phase we acquired and conditioned additional wireline logs and leased available seismic datasets. We interpreted the depositional systems from wireline well‐log character and mapped sandbody geometry to interpolate injection and confining‐zone distribution. Using available data, we mapped faults and locations of freshwater and overpressure (or other capacity‐limiting geologic parameters) in more detail. In the third phase, we used the augmented geologic data to develop a static model for the selected area, extracted the areas of highest interest, and generated and ran dynamic (flow) models. In a fourth phase, we reduced major uncertainties identified in earlier phases. Our case study indicates that to complete preparation of a permit application requires (1) improved lithologic characterization information (thicknesses and horizontal and vertical connectivity) and (2) better definition of poorly defined local faults. © 2023 The Authors. Greenhouse Gases: Science and Technology published by Society of Chemical Industry and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

show abstract

Section: Phase 1-feasibility-using Available Data To Assess Feasibili...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Phase 4 -Focused Investment To Collect Needed Data For Injec...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Phase 1—feasibility—using Available Data To Assess Feasibili...mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A phased workflow to define permit‐ready locations for large volume CO₂ injection and storage

Trevino,

Hovorka,

Dunlap

et al. 2023

Greenhouse Gases

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

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

Fracture network characterization through fractal dimension and Gutenberg–Richter parameter: Decatur open‐source dataset as a study case

Pavez‐Orrego,

Pastén,

Estay

2024

Geophysical Prospecting

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The fractal formalisms are well known for providing new understandings regarding the geometrical, spatial, and temporal behaviour of seismicity. Particularly, the fractal dimensions give information about the seismic events self‐organization and self‐similarity. On the other hand, the Gutenberg–Richter value, known as the b‐value, has shown through the years to give handy information regarding the statistical distribution of earthquakes, on‐site physical parameters, and geomechanical inputs. The Gutenberg–Richter value (b) and the capacity and correlation fractal dimensions, (D0 and D2), of the spatial distribution of earthquake hypocentres interact mathematically for micro‐ and macro‐events. From this interaction, it is possible to obtain new insights into the fracture network development and the microseismicity source characterization in terms of single fractures, fault planes, or densely fractured volumetric spaces. Here we show this interaction for the open‐source Decatur CO2 project seismicity catalogue, comparing it with the results obtained for a natural earthquake catalogue of Illinois, in the United States. The fractal dimension D0 is calculated using two different methodologies: box‐counting and correlation integral partitioning. This last method is also used to calculate D2. The results presented in this study allow us to describe how the fracture network geometry influences the earthquake complexity. Together with the calculation of the b‐value, we present clear indications which show that seismicity recorded in the Illinois tectonic environment partially follows the Aki relationship D0 ∼ 2b, which is not the case for induced events. In addition, the induced earthquake dataset shows that D2 > D0, an anomalous behaviour in terms of the fractal formalisms. All these facts might be used to establish spatial fracture network control techniques and seismicity‐type distinctions in CO2 injection sites located in highly active tectonic areas, respectively.

show abstract

Induced seismicity and carbon storage: Risk assessment and mitigation strategies

Cited by 4 publications

References 91 publications

A phased workflow to define permit‐ready locations for large volume CO₂ injection and storage

A phased workflow to define permit‐ready locations for large volume CO₂ injection and storage

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

Fracture network characterization through fractal dimension and Gutenberg–Richter parameter: Decatur open‐source dataset as a study case

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Induced seismicity and carbon storage: Risk assessment and mitigation strategies

Cited by 4 publications

References 91 publications

A phased workflow to define permit‐ready locations for large volume CO2 injection and storage

A phased workflow to define permit‐ready locations for large volume CO2 injection and storage

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

Fracture network characterization through fractal dimension and Gutenberg–Richter parameter: Decatur open‐source dataset as a study case

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

A phased workflow to define permit‐ready locations for large volume CO₂ injection and storage

A phased workflow to define permit‐ready locations for large volume CO₂ injection and storage