Improving monitoring protocols for CO2 geological storage with technical advances in CO2 attribution monitoring

Abstract Existing monitoring protocols for the storage of carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) in geologic formations are provided by carbon dioxide capture and geological storage (CCS)-specific regulations and bodies including the 2006 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, the European Union (EU) CCS and Emission Trading Scheme (ETS) Directives, United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) Final Rules, and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) Modalities and Procedures (for developing countries). These protocols have varying levels of detail but similar principles and requirements for monitoring, and all include the need to quantify emissions and measure environmental impacts in the event of leakage to the surface. What they do not all include is the clarification that quantification monitoring should only be undertaken in cases where CO 2 has been attributed to leakage and not when leakage is only suspected. Quantifying suspected emissions is a significant monitoring challenge and undertaking, and may rely on acquiring large data sets over long time periods. This level of effort in monitoring would be unnecessary if the source of CO 2 detected at the surface is attributed to natural sources rather than from leakage, but a step to attribute CO 2 source is either missing from these protocols or is outdated in technical scope. Regulatory bodies call for protocols to be updated based on technical advances, and ongoing technical advances into leakage monitoring have now benefited from a first-ever public claim of leakage over a geologic CO 2 storage site in Saskatchewan, Canada, bringing more emphasis on the role of attribution monitoring. We present a brief update of some of the newest technical advances in attribution and suggest that CO 2 ‘attribution monitoring’ could now be included in monitoring protocols to avoid unnecessary and costly quantification monitoring unless it is fully warranted. In this context, this paper describes an option to improve the existing protocols for monitoring CO 2 at geological storage sites made possible because of recent developments in near-surface attribution monitoring techniques.

[1]  Cal Cooper.  A technical basis for carbon dioxide storage , 2009 .

[2]  Stefan Schlömer,et al.  Baseline soil gas measurements as part of a monitoring concept above a projected CO2 injection formation—A case study from Northern Germany , 2014 .

[3]  Salvatore Lombardi,et al.  The Importance of Baseline Surveys of Near-Surface Gas Geochemistry for CCS Monitoring, as Shown from Onshore Case Studies in Northern and Southern Europe , 2015 .

[4]  Timothy H. Dixon,et al.  CCS Projects as Kyoto Protocol CDM Activities , 2013 .

[5]  R. Redondo,et al.  Determination of CO2 origin (natural or industrial) in sparkling bottled waters by 13C/12C isotope ratio analysis , 2005 .

[6]  Yiqi Luo,et al.  Soil respiration and the environment , 2006 .

[7]  Timothy H. Dixon,et al.  International marine regulation of CO2 geological storage. Developments and implications of London and OSPAR , 2009 .

[8]  Michael J. Whiticar,et al.  Carbon and hydrogen isotope systematics of bacterial formation and oxidation of methane , 1999 .

[9]  Katherine D. Romanak,et al.  Assessment of Alleged CO2 Leakage at the Kerr Farm using a Simple Process-based Soil Gas Technique: Implications for Carbon Capture, Utilization, and Storage (CCUS) Monitoring☆ , 2013 .

[10]  Karen Kirk,et al.  CO2 leakage from geological storage facilities: environmental, societal and economic impacts, monitoring and research strategies , 2013 .

[11]  Charles Jenkins,et al.  Soil gas monitoring of the Otway Project demonstration site in SE Victoria, Australia , 2014 .

[12]  Stuart M.V. Gilfillan,et al.  The application of noble gases and carbon stable isotopes in tracing the fate, migration and storage of CO2☆ , 2014 .

[13]  Zoe K. Shipton,et al.  He and Ne as tracers of natural CO2 migration up a fault from a deep reservoir , 2011 .

[14]  Ryan Noble,et al.  An assessment of near surface CO2 leakage detection techniques under Australian conditions , 2014 .

[15]  Ernie Perkins,et al.  A Review of Tracers in Monitoring CO2 Breakthrough: Properties, Uses, Case Studies, and Novel Tracers , 2009 .

[16]  Gregg Marland,et al.  The Carbon Cycle: Carbon Dioxide Emissions from Fossil Fuel Consumption and Cement Manufacture, 1751–1991, and an Estimate of Their Isotopic Composition and Latitudinal Distribution , 1994 .

[17]  Rebecca C. Smyth,et al.  Greensites and brownsites: Implications for CO2 sequestration characterization, risk assessment, and monitoring , 2013 .

[18]  Susan D. Hovorka,et al.  Monitoring a large-volume injection at Cranfield, Mississippi—Project design and recommendations , 2013 .

[19]  Linda Stalker,et al.  Tracers - Past, present and future applications in CO2 geosequestration , 2013 .

[20]  S. Graziani,et al.  Monitoring of near surface gas seepage from a shallow injection experiment at the CO2 Field Lab, Norway , 2014 .

[21]  Salvatore Lombardi,et al.  Monitoring of near-surface gas geochemistry at the Weyburn, Canada, CO2-EOR site, 2001–2011 , 2013 .

[22]  B. Scanlon,et al.  8 Soil Gas Movement in Unsaturated Systems , 2002 .

[23]  T Dixon.  International legal and regulatory developments for carbon dioxide capture and storage: From the London Convention to the Clean Development Mechanism , 2009 .

[24]  Timothy H. Dixon,et al.  Trials and tribulations of getting CCS in an ETS. Principles for CCS in an ETS from UK work for the EU ETS , 2009 .

[25]  Garret Veloski,et al.  Atmospheric tracer monitoring and surface plume development at the ZERT pilot test in Bozeman, Montana, USA , 2010 .

[26]  Katherine D. Romanak,et al.  Near-Surface Monitoring of Large-Volume CO2 Injection at Cranfield: Early Field Test of SECARB Phase III , 2013 .

[27]  S. D. Humphries,et al.  Novel MVA tools to track CO2 seepage, tested at the ZERT controlled release site in Bozeman, MT , 2010 .

[28]  Katherine D. Romanak,et al.  Process-based soil gas leakage assessment at the Kerr Farm: Comparison of results to leakage proxies at ZERT and Mt. Etna , 2014 .

[29]  Salvatore Lombardi,et al.  D20 Report : Soil Gas surveys in the Weyburn oil field (2001-2003) , 2004 .

[30]  Aie,et al.  Energy Technology Perspectives 2012 , 2006 .

[31]  Katherine D. Romanak,et al.  Process‐based approach to CO2 leakage detection by vadose zone gas monitoring at geologic CO2 storage sites , 2012 .

[32]  Ray Leuning,et al.  Atmospheric monitoring and verification technologies for CO2 geosequestration , 2008 .

[33]  Franz May,et al.  Tasks and challenges of geochemical monitoring , 2014 .

[34]  Vladimir Alvarado,et al.  Enhanced Oil Recovery: An Update Review , 2010 .

[35]  H. Kaieda,et al.  Detection and impacts of leakage from sub-seafloor deep geological carbon dioxide storage , 2014 .

[36]  S. Mackintosh,et al.  Using 3He/4He isotope ratios to identify the source of deep reservoir contributions to shallow fluids and soil gas , 2012 .

[37]  A. Bahr,et al.  A review of continuous soil gas monitoring related to CCS - Technical advances and lessons learned , 2013 .

[38]  Lincoln Paterson,et al.  Overview of the CO2CRC Otway Residual Saturation And Dissolution Test , 2013 .

[39]  Rebecca C. Smyth,et al.  Assessing risk to fresh water resources from long term CO2 injection- laboratory and field studies , 2009 .

[40]  Andy Chadwick,et al.  Getting Science and Technology into International Climate Policy: Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage in the UNFCCC , 2013 .