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

Title: Progress in monitoring strategies for risk reduction in geologic CO2 storage

Abstract

Commercial, demonstration and pilot geologic CO2 storage (GCS) projects have provided a wealth of practical experience in monitoring technologies. In this manuscript we review a few key projects, specific geophysical methods, well-based methods, geophysical workflows and some suggested best practices. These practices are often driven and governed by regulatory requirements (e.g. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [US-EPA] Class VI underground injection regulation) and the need for effective reservoir management of pressures and volumes as well as the site-specific risks to containment, plume migration, and underground sources of drinking water. Reducing uncertainty in monitoring is likely to lead to reducing uncertainty in risk. One of our conclusions is the need for field experiment testing that is risk-driven. It is notable that GCS pilot projects have been designed for safe storage, and to date they have been successful. Technical challenges at all geologic CO2 storage sites include assuring injectivity and capacity predictions are reliable, the fate and subsurface topology of the CO2 plume is acceptable, regulatory permitting and compliance are accomplished in a timely manner, needed business assurances are supported by quantitative technical data, and the storage operation is acceptable to stakeholders. There is risk associated with all of these challenges necessitating amore » monitoring program utilizing both direct and indirect monitoring methods. Geophysical monitoring is viewed as a key component in approaching risk assessment because of the direct association of risk and monitoring in GCS. In this review we provide a framework for monitoring and then present some specific monitoring tools that may be useful for regulatory compliance, as well as technologies that are applicable to leakage detection. Since the Department of Energy National Risk Assessment Program (DOE NRAP) is focused on quantitative risk assessment, we focus on quantitative geophysical monitoring. Important concepts for a successful integration of monitoring and risk assessment include the following: Characterization of key parameters of risk and methods to monitor those parameters, the feedback between risk and monitoring, and the development of risk-based strategies to assess and update monitoring plans and tools. Here, we briefly review current work in assessing uncertainty in important monitoring technologies, such as seismic and electrical geophysical surveys, and acknowledge that there is both temporal and spatial uncertainty in monitoring, in addition to the measurement uncertainty of specific tools. In our opinion monitoring approaches for subsurface imaging, such as 3D-reflection seismic, 3D-Vertical Seismic Profiling (VSP), cross well seismic, electromagnetic and electrical technologies, and well-log based measurements produce proxies for saturation and mass that, when properly calibrated and interpreted, are robust quantitative estimates of these key storage parameters. Understanding the uncertainty in these proxies is important in risk-driven monitoring. The cost of high-potential geophysical monitoring technologies impacts application of these methods to quantitative risk assessments. We therefore examine the concept of value of information (VOI) that is expected to play a role in selection of monitoring tools. In conclusion, we also conclude that monitoring of leakage scenarios has had minimal field validation and thus quantifying and reducing risk will require dedicated experiments that probe and test uncertainty in fault/fracture-zone and wellbore leakage.« less

Authors:
 [1];  [2];  [3];  [4]; ORCiD logo [5]
  1. Univ. of Pittsburgh, PA (United States)
  2. Lawrence Berkeley National Lab. (LBNL), Berkeley, CA (United States)
  3. National Energy Technology Lab. (NETL), Pittsburgh, OR (United States)
  4. Pacific Northwest National Lab. (PNNL), Richland, WA (United States)
  5. Los Alamos National Lab. (LANL), Los Alamos, NM (United States)
Publication Date:
Research Org.:
Los Alamos National Lab. (LANL), Los Alamos, NM (United States)
Sponsoring Org.:
USDOE Office of Fossil Energy (FE)
OSTI Identifier:
1458935
Alternate Identifier(s):
OSTI ID: 1325324
Report Number(s):
LA-UR-16-21814
Journal ID: ISSN 1750-5836
Grant/Contract Number:  
AC52-06NA25396; AC02-05CH11231
Resource Type:
Accepted Manuscript
Journal Name:
International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control
Additional Journal Information:
Journal Volume: 51; Journal Issue: C; Journal ID: ISSN 1750-5836
Publisher:
Elsevier
Country of Publication:
United States
Language:
English
Subject:
58 GEOSCIENCES; Earth Sciences; Geologic CO2 storage; Carbon dioxide; Geophysical monitoring; Uncertainty; Risk assessment; Area of review; Post injection site care; Value of information; Regulatory compliance

Citation Formats

Harbert, William, Daley, Thomas M., Bromhal, Grant, Sullivan, Charlotte, and Huang, Lianjie. Progress in monitoring strategies for risk reduction in geologic CO2 storage. United States: N. p., 2016. Web. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2016.05.007.
Harbert, William, Daley, Thomas M., Bromhal, Grant, Sullivan, Charlotte, & Huang, Lianjie. Progress in monitoring strategies for risk reduction in geologic CO2 storage. United States. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2016.05.007
Harbert, William, Daley, Thomas M., Bromhal, Grant, Sullivan, Charlotte, and Huang, Lianjie. Wed . "Progress in monitoring strategies for risk reduction in geologic CO2 storage". United States. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2016.05.007. https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1458935.
@article{osti_1458935,
title = {Progress in monitoring strategies for risk reduction in geologic CO2 storage},
author = {Harbert, William and Daley, Thomas M. and Bromhal, Grant and Sullivan, Charlotte and Huang, Lianjie},
abstractNote = {Commercial, demonstration and pilot geologic CO2 storage (GCS) projects have provided a wealth of practical experience in monitoring technologies. In this manuscript we review a few key projects, specific geophysical methods, well-based methods, geophysical workflows and some suggested best practices. These practices are often driven and governed by regulatory requirements (e.g. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [US-EPA] Class VI underground injection regulation) and the need for effective reservoir management of pressures and volumes as well as the site-specific risks to containment, plume migration, and underground sources of drinking water. Reducing uncertainty in monitoring is likely to lead to reducing uncertainty in risk. One of our conclusions is the need for field experiment testing that is risk-driven. It is notable that GCS pilot projects have been designed for safe storage, and to date they have been successful. Technical challenges at all geologic CO2 storage sites include assuring injectivity and capacity predictions are reliable, the fate and subsurface topology of the CO2 plume is acceptable, regulatory permitting and compliance are accomplished in a timely manner, needed business assurances are supported by quantitative technical data, and the storage operation is acceptable to stakeholders. There is risk associated with all of these challenges necessitating a monitoring program utilizing both direct and indirect monitoring methods. Geophysical monitoring is viewed as a key component in approaching risk assessment because of the direct association of risk and monitoring in GCS. In this review we provide a framework for monitoring and then present some specific monitoring tools that may be useful for regulatory compliance, as well as technologies that are applicable to leakage detection. Since the Department of Energy National Risk Assessment Program (DOE NRAP) is focused on quantitative risk assessment, we focus on quantitative geophysical monitoring. Important concepts for a successful integration of monitoring and risk assessment include the following: Characterization of key parameters of risk and methods to monitor those parameters, the feedback between risk and monitoring, and the development of risk-based strategies to assess and update monitoring plans and tools. Here, we briefly review current work in assessing uncertainty in important monitoring technologies, such as seismic and electrical geophysical surveys, and acknowledge that there is both temporal and spatial uncertainty in monitoring, in addition to the measurement uncertainty of specific tools. In our opinion monitoring approaches for subsurface imaging, such as 3D-reflection seismic, 3D-Vertical Seismic Profiling (VSP), cross well seismic, electromagnetic and electrical technologies, and well-log based measurements produce proxies for saturation and mass that, when properly calibrated and interpreted, are robust quantitative estimates of these key storage parameters. Understanding the uncertainty in these proxies is important in risk-driven monitoring. The cost of high-potential geophysical monitoring technologies impacts application of these methods to quantitative risk assessments. We therefore examine the concept of value of information (VOI) that is expected to play a role in selection of monitoring tools. In conclusion, we also conclude that monitoring of leakage scenarios has had minimal field validation and thus quantifying and reducing risk will require dedicated experiments that probe and test uncertainty in fault/fracture-zone and wellbore leakage.},
doi = {10.1016/j.ijggc.2016.05.007},
journal = {International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control},
number = C,
volume = 51,
place = {United States},
year = {2016},
month = {6}
}

Journal Article:

Citation Metrics:
Cited by: 3 works
Citation information provided by
Web of Science

Save / Share:

Works referenced in this record:

High-resolution characterization of a CO2 plume using crosswell seismic tomography: Cranfield, MS, USA
journal, October 2013

  • Ajo-Franklin, J. B.; Peterson, J.; Doetsch, J.
  • International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, Vol. 18
  • DOI: 10.1016/j.ijggc.2012.12.018

Analysis of EOR projects and updated screening criteria
journal, October 2011


Analysis of exploitation‐induced gravity changes at Wairakei Geothermal Field
journal, August 1986

  • Allis, Richard G.; Hunt, Trevor M.
  • GEOPHYSICS, Vol. 51, Issue 8
  • DOI: 10.1190/1.1442214

Monitoring gas production and C O2 injection at the Sleipner field using time-lapse gravimetry
journal, November 2008

  • Alnes, Håvard; Eiken, Ola; Stenvold, Torkjell
  • GEOPHYSICS, Vol. 73, Issue 6
  • DOI: 10.1190/1.2991119

The challenges of monitoring CO2 storage
journal, September 2011

  • Arts, Rob; Vandeweijer, Vincent
  • The Leading Edge, Vol. 30, Issue 9
  • DOI: 10.1190/1.3640526

Large-scale impact of CO2 storage in deep saline aquifers: A sensitivity study on pressure response in stratified systems
journal, March 2009

  • Birkholzer, J.; Zhou, Q.; Tsang, C.
  • International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, Vol. 3, Issue 2
  • DOI: 10.1016/j.ijggc.2008.08.002

Using HEM surveys to evaluate disposal of by-product water from CBNG development in the Powder River Basin, Wyoming
journal, May 2008

  • Lipinski, Brian A.; Sams, James I.; Smith, Bruce D.
  • GEOPHYSICS, Vol. 73, Issue 3
  • DOI: 10.1190/1.2901200

Synthetic Aperture Radar Interferometry to Measure Earth’s Surface Topography and Its Deformation
journal, May 2000

  • Bürgmann, Roland; Rosen, Paul A.; Fielding, Eric J.
  • Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Vol. 28, Issue 1
  • DOI: 10.1146/annurev.earth.28.1.169

A quantitative discussion on time‐lapse repeatability and its metrics
conference, May 2012

  • Cantillo, Juan
  • SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts 2011
  • DOI: 10.1190/1.3628075

Principles of AVO crossplotting
journal, April 1997

  • Castagna, John P.; Swan, Herbert W.
  • The Leading Edge, Vol. 16, Issue 4
  • DOI: 10.1190/1.1437626

Framework for AVO gradient and intercept interpretation
journal, May 1998

  • Castagna, John P.; Swan, Herbert W.; Foster, Douglas J.
  • GEOPHYSICS, Vol. 63, Issue 3
  • DOI: 10.1190/1.1444406

Quantitative analysis of time-lapse seismic monitoring data at the Sleipner CO2 storage operation
journal, February 2010

  • Chadwick, Andy; Williams, Gareth; Delepine, Nicolas
  • The Leading Edge, Vol. 29, Issue 2
  • DOI: 10.1190/1.3304820

Monitoring aquifer recharge using repeated high-precision gravity measurements: A pilot study in South Weber, Utah
journal, November 2008

  • Chapman, D. S.; Sahm, E.; Gettings, P.
  • GEOPHYSICS, Vol. 73, Issue 6
  • DOI: 10.1190/1.2992507

Time-lapse VSP data processing for monitoring CO2 injection
journal, February 2010

  • Cheng, Arthur; Huang, Lianjie; Rutledge, Jim
  • The Leading Edge, Vol. 29, Issue 2
  • DOI: 10.1190/1.3304824

Probabilistic geomechanical analysis of compartmentalization at the Snøhvit CO 2 sequestration project
journal, February 2015

  • Chiaramonte, Laura; White, Joshua A.; Trainor‐Guitton, Whitney
  • Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, Vol. 120, Issue 2
  • DOI: 10.1002/2014JB011376

Probabilistic evaluation of shallow groundwater resources at a hypothetical carbon sequestration site
journal, March 2014

  • Dai, Zhenxue; Keating, Elizabeth; Bacon, Diana
  • Scientific Reports, Vol. 4, Issue 1
  • DOI: 10.1038/srep04006

Time-lapse crosswell seismic and VSP monitoring of injected CO2 in a brine aquifer
journal, July 2007


Monitoring CO2 Storage at Cranfield, Mississippi with Time-Lapse Offset VSP – Using Integration and Modeling to Reduce Uncertainty
journal, January 2014


Time-lapse gravity monitoring: A systematic 4D approach with application to aquifer storage and recovery
journal, November 2008

  • Davis, Kristofer; Li, Yaoguo; Batzle, Michael
  • GEOPHYSICS, Vol. 73, Issue 6
  • DOI: 10.1190/1.2987376

Elastic-wave sensitivity propagation
journal, May 2010


Improving monitoring protocols for CO2 geological storage with technical advances in CO2 attribution monitoring
journal, October 2015


Developing a monitoring and verification plan with referenceto the Australian Otway CO2 pilot project
journal, July 2009

  • Dodds, Kevin; Daley, Tom; Freifeld, B.
  • The Leading Edge, Vol. 28, Issue 7
  • DOI: 10.1190/1.3167783

Constraining CO2 simulations by coupled modeling and inversion of electrical resistance and gas composition data
journal, October 2013

  • Doetsch, Joseph; Kowalsky, Michael B.; Doughty, Christine
  • International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, Vol. 18
  • DOI: 10.1016/j.ijggc.2013.04.011

Lessons learned from 14 years of CCS operations: Sleipner, In Salah and Snøhvit
journal, January 2011


Nonlinear subsidence rate estimation using permanent scatterers in differential SAR interferometry
journal, January 2000

  • Ferretti, A.; Prati, C.; Rocca, F.
  • IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, Vol. 38, Issue 5
  • DOI: 10.1109/36.868878

A New Algorithm for Processing Interferometric Data-Stacks: SqueeSAR
journal, September 2011

  • Ferretti, Alessandro; Fumagalli, Alfio; Novali, Fabrizio
  • IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, Vol. 49, Issue 9
  • DOI: 10.1109/TGRS.2011.2124465

Subsurface development of CO2 disposal for the Gorgon Project
journal, February 2009


The U-tube: A novel system for acquiring borehole fluid samples from a deep geologic CO 2 sequestration experiment
journal, January 2005


Time-lapse pressure–saturation discrimination for CO2 storage at the Snøhvit field
journal, November 2013


Seismic reflection data processing of 3D surveys over an EOR CO2 injection
journal, January 2011


Injection of CO2 into saline formations: Benchmarking worldwide projects
journal, September 2011

  • Hosa, Aleksandra; Esentia, Mina; Stewart, Jamie
  • Chemical Engineering Research and Design, Vol. 89, Issue 9
  • DOI: 10.1016/j.cherd.2011.04.003

Measuring permanence of CO2 storage in saline formations: the Frio experiment
journal, June 2006

  • Hovorka, Susan D.; Benson, Sally M.; Doughty, Christine
  • Environmental Geosciences, Vol. 13, Issue 2
  • DOI: 10.1306/eg.11210505011

Monitoring a large-volume injection at Cranfield, Mississippi—Project design and recommendations
journal, October 2013

  • Hovorka, Susan D.; Meckel, Timothy A.; Treviño, Ramón H.
  • International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, Vol. 18
  • DOI: 10.1016/j.ijggc.2013.03.021

Safe storage and effective monitoring of CO2 in depleted gas fields
journal, December 2011

  • Jenkins, C. R.; Cook, P. J.; Ennis-King, J.
  • Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 109, Issue 2
  • DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1107255108

The state of the art in monitoring and verification—Ten years on
journal, September 2015

  • Jenkins, Charles; Chadwick, Andy; Hovorka, Susan D.
  • International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, Vol. 40
  • DOI: 10.1016/j.ijggc.2015.05.009

New and established techniques for surface gas monitoring at onshore CO2 storage sites
journal, February 2009


Developments since 2005 in understanding potential environmental impacts of CO2 leakage from geological storage
journal, September 2015

  • Jones, D. G.; Beaubien, S. E.; Blackford, J. C.
  • International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, Vol. 40
  • DOI: 10.1016/j.ijggc.2015.05.032

Seismic repeatability, normalized rms, and predictability
journal, July 2002

  • Kragh, Ed; Christie, Phil
  • The Leading Edge, Vol. 21, Issue 7
  • DOI: 10.1190/1.1497316

Monitoring subsurface CO2 emplacement and security of storage using muon tomography
journal, November 2012

  • Kudryavtsev, Vitaly A.; Spooner, Neil J. C.; Gluyas, Jon
  • International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, Vol. 11
  • DOI: 10.1016/j.ijggc.2012.07.023

Discrimination between pressure and fluid saturation changes from marine multicomponent time‐lapse seismic data
journal, September 2003

  • Landrø, Martin; Veire, Helene Hafslund; Duffaut, Kenneth
  • GEOPHYSICS, Vol. 68, Issue 5
  • DOI: 10.1190/1.1620633

Discrimination between pressure and fluid saturation changes from time‐lapse seismic data
journal, May 2001


Surface CO 2 leakage during two shallow subsurface CO 2 releases
journal, January 2007

  • Lewicki, J. L.; Oldenburg, C. M.; Dobeck, L.
  • Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 34, Issue 24
  • DOI: 10.1029/2007GL032047

CO2 sequestration monitoring and verification technologies applied at Krechba, Algeria
journal, February 2010

  • Mathieson, Allan; Midgley, John; Dodds, Kevin
  • The Leading Edge, Vol. 29, Issue 2
  • DOI: 10.1190/1.3304827

Surface Deformation Monitoring As a Cost Effective MMV Method
journal, February 2009


Carbon capture and storage (CCS) demonstration projects in Canada
journal, January 2011


A study of injection-induced mechanical deformation at the In Salah CO2 storage project
journal, March 2011

  • Morris, Joseph P.; Hao, Yue; Foxall, William
  • International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, Vol. 5, Issue 2
  • DOI: 10.1016/j.ijggc.2010.10.004

Origin of the patchy emission pattern at the ZERT CO2 release test
journal, January 2010

  • Oldenburg, Curtis M.; Lewicki, Jennifer L.; Pan, Lehua
  • Environmental Earth Sciences, Vol. 60, Issue 2
  • DOI: 10.1007/s12665-009-0442-5

Recent advances in risk assessment and risk management of geologic CO2 storage
journal, September 2015

  • Pawar, Rajesh J.; Bromhal, Grant S.; Carey, J. William
  • International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, Vol. 40
  • DOI: 10.1016/j.ijggc.2015.06.014

Integrating velocity measurements in a reservoir rock sample from the SACROC unit with an AVO proxy for subsurface supercritical CO2
journal, February 2010

  • Purcell, Christopher; Mur, Alan; Soong, Yee
  • The Leading Edge, Vol. 29, Issue 2
  • DOI: 10.1190/1.3304823

Stochastic inversion of InSAR data to assess the probability of pressure penetration into the lower caprock at In Salah
journal, August 2014


Modeling of deep fracture zone opening and transient ground surface uplift at KB-502 CO2 injection well, In Salah, Algeria
journal, January 2013


Monitoring the geologic storage of carbon dioxide using multicomponent SAR interferometry
journal, January 2013

  • Rucci, Alessio; Vasco, D. W.; Novali, Fabrizio
  • Geophysical Journal International, Vol. 193, Issue 1
  • DOI: 10.1093/gji/ggs112

Optimal designs of time-lapse seismic surveys for monitoring CO2 leakage through fault zones
journal, September 2012


A shallow subsurface controlled release facility in Bozeman, Montana, USA, for testing near surface CO2 detection techniques and transport models
journal, December 2009

  • Spangler, Lee H.; Dobeck, Laura M.; Repasky, Kevin S.
  • Environmental Earth Sciences, Vol. 60, Issue 2, p. 227-239
  • DOI: 10.1007/s12665-009-0400-2

Near-surface monitoring for the ZERT shallow CO2 injection project
journal, December 2009

  • Strazisar, Brian R.; Wells, Arthur W.; Diehl, J. Rodney
  • International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, Vol. 3, Issue 6, p. 736-744
  • DOI: 10.1016/j.ijggc.2009.07.005

Geophysical Monitoring Methods Evaluation for the FutureGen 2.0 Project
journal, January 2014


Applying underground gas storage experience to geological carbon dioxide storage: A case study from Australia’s Otway Basin
journal, January 2011


Value of information methodology for assessing the ability of electrical resistivity to detect CO2/brine leakage into a shallow aquifer
journal, October 2013

  • Trainor-Guitton, Whitney J.; Ramirez, Abelardo; Yang, Xianjin
  • International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, Vol. 18
  • DOI: 10.1016/j.ijggc.2013.06.018

Long-term assessment of geochemical reactivity of CO2 storage in highly saline aquifers: Application to Ketzin, In Salah and Snøhvit storage sites
journal, January 2014

  • Trémosa, Joachim; Castillo, Christelle; Vong, Chan Quang
  • International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, Vol. 20
  • DOI: 10.1016/j.ijggc.2013.10.022

The Gorgon CO2 Injection Project – 2012 Update
journal, January 2013


Estimating permeability from quasi-static deformation: Temporal variations and arrival-time inversion
journal, November 2008

  • Vasco, D. W.; Ferretti, Alessandro; Novali, Fabrizio
  • GEOPHYSICS, Vol. 73, Issue 6
  • DOI: 10.1190/1.2978164

Geomechanical behavior of the reservoir and caprock system at the In Salah CO2 storage project
journal, May 2014

  • White, J. A.; Chiaramonte, L.; Ezzedine, S.
  • Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 111, Issue 24
  • DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1316465111

Greensites and brownsites: Implications for CO2 sequestration characterization, risk assessment, and monitoring
journal, November 2013

  • Wolaver, Brad D.; Hovorka, Susan D.; Smyth, Rebecca C.
  • International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, Vol. 19, p. 49-62
  • DOI: 10.1016/j.ijggc.2013.07.020

Uncertainty quantification of CO2 saturation estimated from electrical resistance tomography data at the Cranfield site
journal, August 2014

  • Yang, Xianjin; Chen, Xiao; Carrigan, Charles R.
  • International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, Vol. 27
  • DOI: 10.1016/j.ijggc.2014.05.006

InSAR monitoring of ground deformation due to CO2 injection at an enhanced oil recovery site, West Texas
journal, October 2015

  • Yang, Qian; Zhao, Wenliang; Dixon, Timothy H.
  • International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, Vol. 41
  • DOI: 10.1016/j.ijggc.2015.06.016

Monitoring CO2 migration in a shallow sand aquifer using 3D crosshole electrical resistivity tomography
journal, November 2015

  • Yang, Xianjin; Lassen, Rune N.; Jensen, Karsten H.
  • International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, Vol. 42
  • DOI: 10.1016/j.ijggc.2015.09.005

Double-difference elastic-waveform inversion with prior information for time-lapse monitoring
journal, November 2013


Characterization of a fracture zone using seismic attributes at the In Salah CO2 storage project
journal, May 2015


    Works referencing / citing this record:

    Statistical based hydromechanical models to estimate poroelastic effects of CO 2 injection into a closed reservoir
    journal, November 2019

    • Raziperchikolaee, Samin; Mishra, Srikanta
    • Greenhouse Gases: Science and Technology, Vol. 10, Issue 1
    • DOI: 10.1002/ghg.1956