skip to main content
OSTI.GOV title logo U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information

Title: CarbonSAFE Rocky Mountain Phase I: Ensuring Safe Subsurface Storage of Carbon Dioxide in the Intermountain West

Technical Report ·
DOI:https://doi.org/10.2172/1559990· OSTI ID:1559990
 [1];  [2];  [3];  [4];  [5];  [6];  [7]
  1. University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT (United States)
  2. New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology, Socorro, NM (United States)
  3. Los Alamos National Lab. (LANL), Los Alamos, NM (United States)
  4. Utah Geological Survey, Salt Lake City, UT (United States)
  5. Sandia National Laboratories (SNL-NM), Albuquerque, NM (United States)
  6. PacifiCorp, Portland, OR (United States)
  7. Schlumberger, Houston, TX (United States)

An integrated CCS pre-feasibility study, CarbonSAF E Rocky Mountain Phase I, was conducted by the U niversity of Utah and its partners as part of the US D epartment of Energy’s Carbon Storage Assurance a nd Facility Enterprise (CarbonSAFE) program. The a ssembled project team consisted of academic, indus try and governmental agencies covering the technic al and non- technical challenges of a commercial-sc ale CO2 storage facility capable of storing 50 million tonnes of anthropogenically-sourced CO2. The Rock y Mountain CarbonSAFE team identified the Hunter Power Plant in central Utah as the primary source of CO2 on which this study would be focused. The nea rby Huntington power plant, also operated by Rocky Mountain Power, was evaluated as a secondary sou rce of CO2. The Hunter plant was chosen because o f an interest in CO2 capture technology by the plant operator, Rocky Mountain Power, and also because i t is a representative example of a typical coal-fired g enerating station in the Rocky Mountain west. Amine -based and cryogenic-based capture assessments w ere performed for approximately 3 million tonnes per year for one of the boiler units at the Hunter plant, yi elding cost of capture estimates of $$\$$56$/tonne and $$\$$4 1.50$/tonne. Transportation and intermediate compre ssion would increase the per tonne costs, but will be highly dependent on specific injection locations and available rights-of-way. A high-level technical sub-ba sinal evaluation was performed on the area surround ing the Hunter and Huntington power plants to verify CO2 storage capacity and integrity. Initial geologic c haracterization efforts focused on sites immediately adjacent to the Hunter plant, including the deep eolia n Permian White Rim Sandstone, which in outcrop a nd core from other locations indicates high permeabi lity and high porosity. However, petrophysical logs fr om wells near Hunter indicate porosity of only 2-4%. As a result, potential injection sites were moved stru cturally down-dip (to the west), into the high permea bility (~200 mD) and high porosity (20%) Navajo san dstone. A comprehensive analysis of the reservoir a nd seals was conducted, providing data to the model , simulation and risk assessment groups on the proje ct. CO2 capacity estimates for the Navajo Sandston e approximately 18 kilometers from the Hunter plant are well in excess of the 50 million tonnes goal of the project. Area of Review Delineation and Risk Asse ssment on the Navajo, associated seals and shallow groundwater aquifers identified the most significant risks and mitigation options. A non-technical assessment to a commercial-scale CO2 storage facility in central Utah was conducted. EPA Underground Injection Control Class VI and National Environmental Policy Act permitting present particularly challenging issues related to the development of any saline aquifer for CO2 storage, including the area around the Hunter plant. While surface and subsurface ownership and ri ghts are not straightforward, especially on any privat e land, many of the stakeholders in central Utah are accustomed and open to oil/gas/mineral-related activities similar to what would be required for CO2 storage sites.

Research Organization:
Univ. of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT (United States)
Sponsoring Organization:
USDOE Office of Environmental Management (EM), Acquisition and Project Management; USDOE Office of Fossil Energy (FE), Clean Coal and Carbon Management
DOE Contract Number:
FE0029280
OSTI ID:
1559990
Report Number(s):
DOE_UUTAH_FE0029280
Country of Publication:
United States
Language:
English