Geophysical Monitoring Methods Evaluation for the FutureGen 2.0 Project

Strickland, Chris E.; USA, Richland Washington; Vermeul, Vince R.; USA, Richland Washington; Bonneville, Alain; USA, Richland Washington; Sullivan, E. Charlotte; USA, Richland Washington; Johnson, Tim C.; USA, Richland Washington; Spane, Frank A.; USA, Richland Washington; Gilmore, Tyler J.; USA, Richland Washington

doi:10.1016/j.egypro.2014.11.474

Geophysical Monitoring Methods Evaluation for the FutureGen 2.0 Project

Journal Article · Wed Dec 31 00:00:00 EST 2014 · Energy Procedia (Online)

DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2014.11.474· OSTI ID:1209004

Strickland, Chris E. ^[1]; USA, Richland Washington; Vermeul, Vince R. ^[1]; USA, Richland Washington; Bonneville, Alain ^[1]; USA, Richland Washington; Sullivan, E. Charlotte ^[1]; USA, Richland Washington; Johnson, Tim C. ^[1]; USA, Richland Washington; Spane, Frank A. ^[1]; USA, Richland Washington; Gilmore, Tyler J. ^[1]; USA, Richland Washington

Pacific Northwest National Laboratory

A comprehensive monitoring program will be needed in order to assess the effectiveness of carbon sequestration at the FutureGen 2.0 carbon capture and storage (CCS) field-site. Geophysical monitoring methods are sensitive to subsurface changes that result from injection of CO₂ and will be used for: (1) tracking the spatial extent of the free phase CO₂ plume, (2) monitoring advancement of the pressure front, (3) identifying or mapping areas where induced seismicity occurs, and (4) identifying and mapping regions of increased risk for brine or CO₂ leakage from the reservoir. Site-specific suitability and cost effectiveness were evaluated for a number of geophysical monitoring methods including: passive seismic monitoring, reflection seismic imaging, integrated surface deformation, time-lapse gravity, pulsed neutron capture logging, cross-borehole seismic, electrical resistivity tomography, magnetotellurics and controlled source electromagnetics. The results of this evaluation indicate that CO₂ injection monitoring using reflection seismic methods would likely be difficult at the FutureGen 2.0 site. Electrical methods also exhibited low sensitivity to the expected CO₂ saturation changes and would be affected by metallic infrastructure at the field site. Passive seismic, integrated surface deformation, time-lapse gravity, and pulsed neutron capture monitoring were selected for implementation as part of the FutureGen 2.0 storage site monitoring program.

Research Organization:: Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL), Richland, WA (United States)

Sponsoring Organization:: USDOE

Grant/Contract Number:: AC05-76RL01830

OSTI ID:: 1209004

Journal Information:: Energy Procedia (Online), Journal Name: Energy Procedia (Online) Journal Issue: C Vol. 63; ISSN 1876-6102

Publisher:: ElsevierCopyright Statement

Country of Publication:: United States

Language:: English

References (7)

Geophysical monitoring of the Weyburn CO2 flood: Results during 10 years of injection White, D. J. Energy Procedia, Vol. 4 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2011.02.293	journal	January 2011
Combined use of steady-state fluorescence emission and anisotropy of merocyanine 540 to distinguish crystalline, gel, ripple, and liquid crystalline phases in dipalmitoylphosphatidylcholine bilayers Franchino, Hannabeth A.; Johnson, Brett C.; Neeley, Steven K. PMC Biophysics, Vol. 3, Issue 1 https://doi.org/10.1186/1757-5036-3-14	journal	November 2010
Time-lapse crosswell seismic and VSP monitoring of injected CO2 in a brine aquifer Daley, Thomas M.; Myer, Larry R.; Peterson, J. E. Environmental Geology, Vol. 54, Issue 8 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00254-007-0943-z	journal	July 2007
Integration of well-based subsurface monitoring technologies: Lessons learned at SECARB study, Cranfield, MS Butsch, Robert; Brown, Alan Lee; Bryans, Bradley International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, Vol. 18 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2013.06.010	journal	October 2013
Three-dimensional controlled-source electromagnetic and magnetotelluric joint inversion Commer, Michael; Newman, Gregory A. Geophysical Journal International, Vol. 178, Issue 3 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-246X.2009.04216.x	journal	September 2009
Monitoring and volumetric estimation of injected CO2 using 4D seismic, petrophysical data, core measurements and well logging: a case study at Ketzin, Germany: Monitoring and volumetric estimation of injected CO2 using 4D seismic Ivanova, Alexandra; Kashubin, Artem; Juhojuntti, Niklas Geophysical Prospecting, Vol. 60, Issue 5 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2478.2012.01045.x	journal	April 2012
Uncertainties in passive seismic monitoring Eisner, Leo; Duncan, Peter M.; Heigl, Werner M. The Leading Edge, Vol. 28, Issue 6 https://doi.org/10.1190/1.3148403	journal	June 2009

Similar Records

FutureGen 2.0 Monitoring Program: An Overview of the Monitoring Approach and Technologies Selected for Implementation

Journal Article · Tue Dec 30 19:00:00 EST 2014 · Energy Procedia · OSTI ID:1209514

FutureGen 2.0 Monitoring Systems Design Basis and Technology Selection: Geohydrologic, Geochemical and Geophysical Considerations

Technical Report · Sat Nov 01 00:00:00 EDT 2014 · OSTI ID:1986341

Evaluating the Suitability for CO₂ Storage at the FutureGen 2.0 Site, Morgan County, Illinois, USA

Journal Article · Mon Aug 05 00:00:00 EDT 2013 · Energy Procedia · OSTI ID:1111208

Related Subjects

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
58 GEOSCIENCES
carbon capture and storage
carbon sequestration
geophysics
monitoring

Geophysical Monitoring Methods Evaluation for the FutureGen 2.0 Project

Citation Formats

References (7)

Similar Records

Related Subjects