Search Menu
DOE PAGES title logo U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information
Search Scholarly Publications

This content will become publicly available on Tue Apr 30 00:00:00 EDT 2024

Title: Mapping existing wellbore locations to compare technical risks between onshore and offshore CCS activities in Texas

Abstract

Carbon dioxide capture and geologic storage (CCS; geologic sequestration) is a promising technology for reducing anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions to the atmosphere from industrial point sources. Aspects of CCS have been investigated for over two decades, and many large- and small-scale geologic storage field demonstration projects are now underway globally. Interest in offshore CCS has been increasing in recent years (e.g., European Union, Australia, Japan, and the United States). Deep geologic storage in offshore settings is analogous to onshore CCS activities in many respects (i.e., geologic and geotechnical aspects), but is distinct from previously explored seabed sediment CO2 storage) or deep marine dissolution). Given the large subsurface geologic storage volumes available in offshore settings, much discussion of offshore CCS is focused on the benefits and risks of such activity compared to onshore settings. Similar to onshore settings, existing (legacy) wells likely present the most direct migration pathway and largest risk of noncontainment in offshore settings. As part of current studies to evaluate geologic storage options in offshore settings along the Texas coast and greater Gulf of Mexico (GoM), mapping of the geographic distribution and ages of wells in a region containing coastal counties and extending 30 miles offshore Texas indicatesmore » that both well spatial density and well age decrease moving from onshore to offshore. Results suggest reduced risk of leakage owing to more rigorous and documented well completion and abandonment practices for these generally younger wells (although many are decades old). A result of decreased well density is that larger areas are available for leasing for CCS projects that avoid legacy wells altogether (> 1 mile from any existing well). The one-mile designation is used as an arbitrary convention, and while it is recognized that this is smaller than a typical area of review (AoR) for permitting, each site will have a different AoR radius for consideration. Finally, the combination of large subsurface storage volumes under control of a single landowner and reduced risks from legacy wells makes offshore CCS attractive in the GoM.« less

Authors:
 [1];  [1];  [1];  [1]
+ Show Author Affiliations
  1. Univ. of Texas, Austin, TX (United States)
Publication Date:
Research Org.:
Univ. of Texas, Austin, TX (United States)
Sponsoring Org.:
USDOE Office of Fossil Energy (FE), Clean Coal and Carbon Management
Contributing Org.:
Bureau of Economic Geology; Gulf Coast Carbon Center
OSTI Identifier:
1992527
Grant/Contract Number:  
FE0031558
Resource Type:
Accepted Manuscript
Journal Name:
Greenhouse Gases: Science and Technology
Additional Journal Information:
Journal Volume: 13; Journal Issue: 3; Journal ID: ISSN 2152-3878
Publisher:
Wiley
Country of Publication:
United States
Language:
English
Subject:
58 GEOSCIENCES; carbon storage; offshore; legacy wells; Gulf of Mexico; CCS; Texas; offshore storage; well density

Citation Formats

Meckel, Tip A., Treviño, Ramón H., Hovorka, Susan D., and Bump, Alex P. Mapping existing wellbore locations to compare technical risks between onshore and offshore CCS activities in Texas. United States: N. p., 2023. Web. doi:10.1002/ghg.2220.
Copy to clipboard
Meckel, Tip A., Treviño, Ramón H., Hovorka, Susan D., & Bump, Alex P. Mapping existing wellbore locations to compare technical risks between onshore and offshore CCS activities in Texas. United States. https://doi.org/10.1002/ghg.2220
Copy to clipboard
Meckel, Tip A., Treviño, Ramón H., Hovorka, Susan D., and Bump, Alex P. Sun . "Mapping existing wellbore locations to compare technical risks between onshore and offshore CCS activities in Texas". United States. https://doi.org/10.1002/ghg.2220.
Copy to clipboard
@article{osti_1992527,
title = {Mapping existing wellbore locations to compare technical risks between onshore and offshore CCS activities in Texas},
author = {Meckel, Tip A. and Treviño, Ramón H. and Hovorka, Susan D. and Bump, Alex P.},
abstractNote = {Carbon dioxide capture and geologic storage (CCS; geologic sequestration) is a promising technology for reducing anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions to the atmosphere from industrial point sources. Aspects of CCS have been investigated for over two decades, and many large- and small-scale geologic storage field demonstration projects are now underway globally. Interest in offshore CCS has been increasing in recent years (e.g., European Union, Australia, Japan, and the United States). Deep geologic storage in offshore settings is analogous to onshore CCS activities in many respects (i.e., geologic and geotechnical aspects), but is distinct from previously explored seabed sediment CO2 storage) or deep marine dissolution). Given the large subsurface geologic storage volumes available in offshore settings, much discussion of offshore CCS is focused on the benefits and risks of such activity compared to onshore settings. Similar to onshore settings, existing (legacy) wells likely present the most direct migration pathway and largest risk of noncontainment in offshore settings. As part of current studies to evaluate geologic storage options in offshore settings along the Texas coast and greater Gulf of Mexico (GoM), mapping of the geographic distribution and ages of wells in a region containing coastal counties and extending 30 miles offshore Texas indicates that both well spatial density and well age decrease moving from onshore to offshore. Results suggest reduced risk of leakage owing to more rigorous and documented well completion and abandonment practices for these generally younger wells (although many are decades old). A result of decreased well density is that larger areas are available for leasing for CCS projects that avoid legacy wells altogether (> 1 mile from any existing well). The one-mile designation is used as an arbitrary convention, and while it is recognized that this is smaller than a typical area of review (AoR) for permitting, each site will have a different AoR radius for consideration. Finally, the combination of large subsurface storage volumes under control of a single landowner and reduced risks from legacy wells makes offshore CCS attractive in the GoM.},
doi = {10.1002/ghg.2220},
journal = {Greenhouse Gases: Science and Technology},
number = 3,
volume = 13,
place = {United States},
year = {Sun Apr 30 00:00:00 EDT 2023},
month = {Sun Apr 30 00:00:00 EDT 2023}
}
Copy to clipboard
Journal Article:
Free Publicly Available Full Text
This content will become publicly available on April 30, 2024
Publisher's Version of Record
https://doi.org/10.1002/ghg.2220
Copyright Statement
Other availability
Search WorldCat Search WorldCat to find libraries that may hold this journal
Save / Share:
Export Metadata
Save to My Library
You must Sign In or Create an Account in order to save documents to your library.

Works referenced in this record:

Permanent carbon dioxide storage in deep-sea sediments
journal, August 2006

  • House, K. Z.; Schrag, D. P.; Harvey, C. F.
  • Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 103, Issue 33
  • DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0605318103

Peer Reviewed: What Future for Carbon Capture and Sequestration?
journal, April 2001

  • Herzog, Howard J.
  • Environmental Science & Technology, Vol. 35, Issue 7
  • DOI: 10.1021/es012307j

Long-term performance of a mudrock seal in natural CO2 storage
journal, January 2009

  • Lu, Jiemin; Wilkinson, Mark; Haszeldine, R. Stuart
  • Geology, Vol. 37, Issue 1
  • DOI: 10.1130/G25412A.1

Geological reservoir characterization of a CO2 storage site: The Utsira Sand, Sleipner, northern North Sea
journal, July 2004

Pilot CO2 injection into an onshore aquifer in Nagaoka, Japan
journal, January 2007

  • Tanase, Daiji; Kimishima, Susumu
  • Journal of the Japanese Association for Petroleum Technology, Vol. 72, Issue 2
  • DOI: 10.3720/japt.72.205

Tomakomai CCS Demonstration Project of Japan, CO2 Injection in Process
journal, July 2017

U.S. Department of Energy’s Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership Program: Overview
journal, February 2009

Pore space ownership issues for CO2 sequestration in the US
journal, February 2009

International marine regulation of CO2 geological storage. Developments and implications of London and OSPAR
journal, February 2009

Major CO 2 blowouts from offshore wells are strongly attenuated in water deeper than 50 m
journal, November 2019

  • Oldenburg, Curtis M.; Pan, Lehua
  • Greenhouse Gases: Science and Technology, Vol. 10, Issue 1
  • DOI: 10.1002/ghg.1943

Quantification of dissolved CO2 plumes at the Goldeneye CO2-release experiment
journal, July 2021

20 Years of Monitoring CO2-injection at Sleipner
journal, July 2017

Storage of CO2 in saline aquifers–Lessons learned from 10 years of injection into the Utsira Formation in the Sleipner area
journal, February 2009

High-resolution 3D seismic acquisition at the Tomakomai CO2 storage project, offshore Hokkaido, Japan
conference, August 2019

The physics of gas chimney and pockmark formation, with implications for assessment of seafloor hazards and gas sequestration
journal, January 2010

Field study and laboratory experiments of bubble plumes in shallow seas as analogues of sub-seabed CO2 leakages
journal, May 2010

Efficient marine environmental characterisation to support monitoring of geological CO2 storage
journal, July 2021

  • Blackford, Jerry; Romanak, Katherine; Huvenne, Veerle A. I.
  • International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, Vol. 109
  • DOI: 10.1016/j.ijggc.2021.103388

Utilizing Sustained Casing Pressure Analog to Provide Parameters to Study CO2 Leakage Rates Along a Wellbore
conference, November 2009

  • Huerta, Nicolas John; Checkai, Dean; Bryant, Steven Lawrence
  • SPE International Conference on CO2 Capture, Storage, and Utilization, All Days
  • DOI: 10.2118/126700-MS

Identifying Potential Conflict Associated with Oil and Gas Exploration in Texas State Coastal Waters: A Multicriteria Spatial Analysis
journal, August 2006

  • Brody, Samuel D.; Grover, Himanshu; Bernhardt, Sarah
  • Environmental Management, Vol. 38, Issue 4
  • DOI: 10.1007/s00267-005-0265-4

Semianalytical Solution for CO 2 Leakage through an Abandoned Well
journal, January 2005

  • Nordbotten, Jan Martin; Celia, Michael A.; Bachu, Stefan
  • Environmental Science & Technology, Vol. 39, Issue 2
  • DOI: 10.1021/es035338i

Model for CO 2 Leakage Including Multiple Geological Layers and Multiple Leaky Wells
journal, February 2009

  • Nordbotten, Jan M.; Kavetski, Dmitri; Celia, Michael A.
  • Environmental Science & Technology, Vol. 43, Issue 3
  • DOI: 10.1021/es801135v

Spatial characterization of the location of potentially leaky wells penetrating a deep saline aquifer in a mature sedimentary basin
journal, June 2004

Evidence of episodic fluid, gas, and sediment venting on the northern Gulf of Mexico continental slope
journal, December 1997

Natural emissions of CO2 from the geosphere and their bearing on the geological storage of carbon dioxide
journal, July 2007

Flow processes and pressure evolution in aquifers during the injection of supercritical CO 2 as a greenhouse gas mitigation measure
journal, February 2009

Carbon capture, utilization, and storage hub development on the Gulf Coast
journal, May 2021

  • Meckel, T. A.; Bump, A. P.; Hovorka, S. D.
  • Greenhouse Gases: Science and Technology, Vol. 11, Issue 4
  • DOI: 10.1002/ghg.2082
    Sort by:
    [ × clear filter / sort ]

    Similar Records in DOE PAGES and OSTI.GOV collections: