Management of water extracted from carbon sequestration projects

Harto, Christopher B.; Veil, J. A.

doi:10.2172/1009368

Cited by 29 publications

(53 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, the costs of GCS will be significantly higher if the operator needs to extract, process, and dispose of formation fluids, and filling even a fourth of the TASR with CO 2 may not be economically feasible Szulczewski et al 2012;IEAGHG 2014). Harto and Veil (2011) estimated that the average net costs of water management for CO 2 storage could be about $1.50 per barrel of produced waters (at current prices between 1992 and 2006), and that this would correlate to costs of between $12/t and $14/t of stored CO 2 . The authors estimated these costs under the assumptions that saline waters (brines) have to be extracted at a ratio of 1:1 per volume of CO 2 injected, the produced waters have to be transported, waste waters have to be processed before disposal, and that there are no commercial uses for the brines.…”

Section: Formation Fluid Extractionmentioning

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

Section: Formation Fluid Extractionmentioning

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

show abstract

“…The cost of well disposal reinjection ranges from inexpensive, $--0.6/mt--CO2--injected, to The costs associated with evaporation pond disposal, disposal wells, offsite commercial treatment and disposal, and landfill disposal were adapted from regional industrial waste and produced water disposal cost estimates (Table 2) (Veil et al 2004;Puder et al 2006;Clark et al 2009;Harto and Veil 2011). Costs, initially in $/bbl were converted to $/mt--CO2--injected assuming a 1 to 1 ratio of extracted brine to injected CO2 and assuming CO2 has an in depth density of 500 mt/L.…”

Section: Evaporation Pits Disposal Wells Shallow Reinjectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessment of Brine Management for Geologic Carbon Sequestration

Breunig¹

2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Geologic carbon sequestration (GCS) is the injection of carbon dioxide (CO2), typically captured from stationary emission sources, into deep geologic formations to prevent its entry into the atmosphere. Active pilot facilities run by regional United States (US) carbon sequestration partnerships inject on the order of one million metric tonnes (mt) CO2 annually while the US electric power sector emits over 2000 million mt--CO2 annually. GCS is likely to play an increasing role in US carbon mitigation initiatives, but scaling up GCS poses several challenges. Injecting CO2 into sedimentary basins raises fluid pressure in the pore space, which is typically already occupied by naturally occurring, or native, brine. The resulting elevated pore pressures increase the likelihood of induced seismicity, of brine or CO2 escaping into potable groundwater resources, and of CO2 escaping into the atmosphere. Brine extraction is one method for pressure management, in which brine in the injection formation is brought to the surface through extraction wells. Removal of the brine makes room for the CO2 and decreases pressurization. Although the technology required for brine extraction is mature, this form of pressure management will only be applicable if there are cost--effective and sustainable methods of disposing of the extracted brine.Brine extraction, treatment, and disposal may increase the already substantial capital, energy, and water demands of Carbon dioxide Capture and Sequestration (CCS). But, regionally specific brine management strategies may be able to treat the extracted water as a source of revenue, energy, and water to subsidize CCS costs, while minimizing environmental impacts. By this approach, value from the extracted water would be recovered before disposing of any resulting byproducts. Until a price is placed on carbon, we expect that utilities and other CO2 sources will be reluctant to invest in capital intensive, high risk GCS projects; early technical, economic, and environmental assessments of brine management are extremely valuable for determining the potential role of GCS in the US.We performed a first order feasibility and economic assessment, at three different locations in the US, of twelve GCS extracted--water management options, including: geothermal energy extraction, desalination, salt and mineral harvesting, rare--earth element harvesting, aquaculture, algae biodiesel production, road de--icing, enhanced geothermal system (EGS) recharge, underground reinjection, landfill disposal, ocean disposal, and evaporation pond disposal. Three saline aquifers from different regions of the US were selected as hypothetical GCS project sites to encompass variation in parameters that are relevant to the feasibility and economics of brine disposal. The three aquifers are the southern Mt. Simon Sandstone Formation in the Illinois Basin, IL; the Vedder Formation in the southern San Joaquin Basin, CA; and the Jasper Interval in the 3 eastern Texas Gulf Basin, TX. These aquifers are candidates for GCS due ...

show abstract

“…Probably Indonesia has failed to provide the answer for the fact that security threats in Indonesia is very complex. Probably Ba'asyir is only the scapegoat of government failures in knowing the root causes of terrorism in Indonesia [35].…”

Section: XXXIIImentioning

confidence: 99%

Anti-Terrorism Cooperation between the National Agency for Contra Terrorism and Civil Society: Study Case of Muhammadiyah Disengagement

Putri¹

2013

J Def Manag

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This research is about anti-terrorism cooperation between the National Agency for Counter terrorism (Badan Nasional Penanggulangan Terorisme/BNPT) and civil society, study case Muhammadiyah disengagement in the signing of Memorandum Of Understanding between BNPT and Islamic organizations in 2011. The theory applies are Terrorism, Security sector reform and Cooperation. As civil society, Muhammadiyah has conducted antiterrorism efforts through its structural and cultural roles in politic, socio-economic, diplomatic and education aspect. Unfortunately, there has not been any framework of cooperation established between Muhammadiyah and BNPT, due to several hindering factors. Firstly, Muhammadiyah and BNPT have different perspective in addressing issues on terrorism and anti terrorism methodology. Secondly, political conflict. Thirdly, BNPT's constraints in time, human resources and funding. Forthly, lack of BNPT's political will. Actually, Muhammadiyah possess ideological and organisational potential that may facilitate the dissemination of anti terrorism more effective and efficient. Therefore, this study recommends the need for BNPT and Muhammadiyah to strengthen organisational commitment and to start building communication. In addition, the concept of deradicalization applied by BNPT needs to be evaluated and developed. This study is a qualitative research and using descriptive analysis method.

show abstract

Management of water extracted from carbon sequestration projects

Cited by 29 publications

References 9 publications

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

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

Assessment of Brine Management for Geologic Carbon Sequestration

Anti-Terrorism Cooperation between the National Agency for Contra Terrorism and Civil Society: Study Case of Muhammadiyah Disengagement

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About