Basic Research Needs for Geosciences - Energetics Meetings and ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

APPENDIX 1: TECHNICAL PERSPECTIVES RESOURCE DOCUMENTand Australia (Allis et al. 2001; Czernichowski-Lauriol et al. 2002; Watson et al. 2004). In theseregions, accumulations have held large volumes of CO 2 for tens of millions of years. Thesesystems show evidence of CO 2 leaks through fault networks, natural CO 2 springs, and evidenceof fossil leakage (e.g., Shipton et al. 2005) but apparent cap-rock fractures have been sealedthrough mineral precipitation and porosity reduction (Wilson and Monea 2004). Ultimately,these are either time-integrated or steady-state systems, and as such, information concerning thephysical and chemical transients related to CO 2 storage can only be inferred from these systems.Large uncertainties remain in the behavior of coal exposed to CO 2 . Many experiments haveproduced coal adsorption isotherms, which underlie estimates of enhanced coal bed methanepotential. However, most experiments have used powdered coals instead of continuous plugs,and have only preliminarily characterized the physical and chemical response to gas exchange.For example, CO 2 adsorption causes coals to swell, which in turn reduces permeability withincleats (coal fractures) and micropores (e.g., Reeves et al. 2003). This in turn affects totalinjectivity, capacity, and economic potential. Some workers also theorize or observe structuralchanges in the coal matrix, plasticization, which reduces transmissivity, and adsorption (e.g.,Larsen 2004). These uncertainties present challenges to operations, prediction, and simulation ofcoal-CO 2 systems.Current evaluations for risk estimation must be based on present understanding of trappingmechanisms through experimentation, analog analysis, and simulation. Specifically, it isestimated that more than 99.9% of injected CO 2 can be reliably stored over 100 years, and it islikely that 99% of CO 2 can be reliably stored for 1000 years (Benson and Cook 2005). Whilethese estimates are predicated on the assumption of careful siting and due diligence beforeinjection, it reflects the view that the crust contains sites that are generally well configured tostore CO 2 effectively.Other potential geological target classes have been proposed and discussed by various workers.These include oil shales, flood basalts, and salt domes (Figure 2). They will require substantialscientific inquiry and verification before commercial deployment because the storagemechanisms are less well tested and understood and there is much less commercial technology orexperience for the tasks of simulation, monitoring, verification, and risk assessment (see below).Monitoring and verification (M&V)Once injection begins, a program for monitoring and verification of CO 2 distributions will berequired. Scientific objectives in the short term will require such monitoring to understandtrapping mechanisms, validate previous simulations and their predictions, and to discover newand important local features, events and processes. Longer term monitoring and verification willserve additional technical, regulatory, and economic needs:• Provide constraints for probabilistic risk assessments• Manage the injection process• Delineate and identify leakage risk and surface escape pathways• Provide early warnings of failure near the wellbore or above the reservoir• Provide assurances to insurers and investors in geological carbon sequestration operations• Verify storage for accounting and creditingAppendix 1 • 12Basic Research Needs for Geosciences: Facilitating 21 st Century Energy Systems
APPENDIX 1: TECHNICAL PERSPECTIVES RESOURCE DOCUMENTMonitoring and verification studies are thus a chief focus of many applied research efforts. TheUS Department of Energy has defined M&V technology development, testing, and deploymentas a key element to their technology roadmap, and one new European Union program(CO2ReMoVe) has allocated 20 million for monitoring and verification. The InternationalEnergy Agency has established an M&V working group aimed at technology transfer betweenlarge projects and new technology developments. Because research and demonstration projectsare attempting to establish the scientific basis for geological sequestration, they will require moreinvolved M&V systems than future commercial projects.Monitoring and verification must detect and track CO 2 in the deep subsurface near injectiontargets, in the shallow subsurface, and above ground. Some form of M&V will be required atcommercial sites, but the extent of monitoring required by regulators, operators, or financiersremains uncertain.Tools and approachesA number of methods to monitor CO 2 near the reservoir and the near-surface have beenproposed, deployed, tested, and validated to varying degrees. Perhaps surprisingly in the contextof these and other research efforts, there has been little discussion of what are the most importantparameters to measure and in what context (research/pilot vs. commercial). Rather, the literaturehas focused on the current ensemble of tools and their costs. This discussion is limited to a smallset of the broad and expanding list of possible M&V tools and approaches.Time-lapse (4D) reflection seismic surveys: 4D seismic has emerged as the standard forcomparison, with 4D surveys deployed at Sleipner, Weyburn and likely to be deployed at InSalah (e.g., Arts et al. 2004). This technology excels at delineating the boundaries of a free-phaseCO 2 plume, and can detect small saturations of conjoined free-phase bubbles that might be anindicator of leakage. Results from these 4D-seismic surveys are part of the grounds for belief inthe ability to monitor the long-term effectiveness of geological sequestration.Other geophysical methods: Several other approaches have been tried with varying degrees ofsuccess. These include other acoustic methods (vertical seismic profiling and cross-wellseismic), potential field measurements (microgravity), electrical surveys (electrical resistancetomography and induced electromagnetic induction), ground deformation (tilt-meter andinterferometric synthetic aperture radar) and passive teleseismic surveys (microseismic) (e.g.,Daley and Korneev 2006). These have not yielded outstanding results, but neither have theymade large-scale efforts to design highly tailored systems focused on specific sites.Tracers: A number of tracers have been proposed for co-injection with CO 2 . These includeperfluorocarbons, SF 6 , noble gases, and stable isotopes (Phelps et al. 2006). Limited fielddeployments suggest that tracers could serve to identify both cross-well migration and smallleakage volumes; however, none has been validated adequately for those unique purposes.Surface surveys: The most comprehensively tested surface detection method is soil-gas surveys,which have been deployed at the Weyburn and Rangely fields as well as the Frio pilot. Airborneand truck-mounted aeromagnetic surveys have proved to have value in identifying lost ormislocated boreholes that may become leakage pathways, but they do not identify CO 2 leakagesites. Other surface methods include airborne hyperspectral surveys, LIDAR-based detection,and atmospheric eddy-covariance towers (e.g., Benson and Cook 2005; Miles et al. 2005).Basic Research Needs for Geosciences: Facilitating 21 st Century Energy Systems Appendix 1 • 13
Page 6 and 7:
TABLE OF CONTENTSBasic Science Chal
Page 9 and 10:
TABLE OF CONTENTSTechnology Impacts
Page 13 and 14:
EXECUTIVE SUMMARYpurpose of linking
Page 15 and 16:
INTRODUCTIONINTRODUCTIONWorldwide e
Page 17 and 18:
INTRODUCTIONway into the rock forma
Page 19 and 20:
PANEL REPORTSMULTIPHASE FLUID TRANS
Page 21:
PANEL REPORT: MULTIPHASE FLUID TRAN
Page 24 and 25:
Page 26 and 27:
Page 28 and 29:
Page 30 and 31:
Page 32 and 33:
Page 34 and 35:
Page 36 and 37:
Page 38 and 39:
PANEL REPORT: CHEMICAL MIGRATION PR
Page 40 and 41:
Page 42 and 43:
Page 44 and 45:
Page 46 and 47:
Page 48 and 49:
PANEL REPORT: SUBSURFACE CHARACTERI
Page 50 and 51:
Page 52:
Page 56 and 57:
Page 58 and 59:
Page 60 and 61:
Page 62 and 63:
Page 64 and 65:
PANEL REPORT: MODELING AND SIMULATI
Page 66 and 67:
Page 68 and 69:
Page 70 and 71:
Page 72 and 73:
Page 74 and 75:
Page 76 and 77:
Page 78 and 79:
Page 80 and 81:
66 Basic Research Needs for Geoscie
Page 82 and 83:
GRAND CHALLENGE: COMPUTATIONAL THER
Page 84 and 85:
Page 86 and 87:
Page 88 and 89:
Page 90 and 91:
Page 92 and 93:
Page 94 and 95:
GRAND CHALLENGE:INTEGRATED CHARACTE
Page 96 and 97:
Page 98 and 99:
Page 100 and 101:
Page 102 and 103:
Page 104 and 105:
Page 106 and 107:
Page 108 and 109:
Page 110 and 111:
GRAND CHALLENGE: SIMULATION OF MULT
Page 112 and 113:
Page 114 and 115:
Page 116 and 117:
Page 118 and 119:
Page 120 and 121:
106 Basic Research Needs for Geosci
Page 122 and 123:
PRIORITY RESEARCH DIRECTION:MINERAL
Page 124 and 125:
Page 126 and 127:
Page 128 and 129:
PRIORITY RESEARCH DIRECTION:NANOPAR
Page 130 and 131:
Page 132 and 133:
Page 134 and 135:
Page 136 and 137:
PRIORITY RESEARCH DIRECTION:DYNAMIC
Page 138 and 139:
Page 140 and 141:
Page 142 and 143:
Page 144 and 145:
Page 146 and 147:
PRIORITY RESEARCH DIRECTION: TRANSP
Page 148 and 149:
Page 150 and 151:
Page 152 and 153:
Page 154 and 155:
PRIORITY RESEARCH DIRECTION:FLUID-I
Page 156 and 157:
Page 158 and 159:
Page 160 and 161:
PRIORITY RESEARCH DIRECTION:BIOGEOC
Page 162 and 163:
PRIORITY RESEARCH DIRECTION:BIOGEOC
Page 164 and 165: PRIORITY RESEARCH DIRECTION:BIOGEOC
Page 166 and 167: PRIORITY RESEARCH DIRECTION:BIOGEOC
Page 168 and 169: 154 Basic Research Needs for Geosci
Page 170 and 171: CROSSCUTTING ISSUE:THE MICROSOPIC B
Page 172 and 173: CROSSCUTTING ISSUE:THE MICROSOPIC B
Page 174 and 175: CROSSCUTTING ISSUE:HIGHLY REACTIVE
Page 180 and 181: CROSSCUTTING ISSUE:THERMODYNAMICS O
Page 182 and 183: CROSSCUTTING ISSUE:THERMODYNAMICS O
Page 184 and 185: REFERENCESBenner, S.G., Hansel, C.M
Page 186 and 187: REFERENCESChen, J., Hubbard, S., Pe
Page 188 and 189: REFERENCESEnnis-King, J., Preston,
Page 190 and 191: REFERENCESHolman, H.-Y., Perry, D.L
Page 192 and 193: REFERENCESLi, L., and Tchelepi, H.A
Page 194 and 195: REFERENCESNeal, A.L., Techkarnjanar
Page 196 and 197: REFERENCESReeves, P.C., and Celia,
Page 198 and 199: REFERENCESSteefel, C.I., DePaolo, D
Page 200 and 201: REFERENCESZachara, J.M., Ainsworth,
Page 202 and 203: AppendicesBasic Research Needs for
Page 204 and 205: APPENDIX 1: TECHNICAL PERSPECTIVES
Page 258 and 259: APPENDIX 2: WORKSHOP PROGRAMThursda
Page 260 and 261: Basic Research Needs for Geoscience
Page 262 and 263: Basic Research Needs for Geoscience
Page 264 and 265:
Basic Research Needs for Geoscience
Page 266 and 267:
Page 268 and 269:
Page 270 and 271:
Page 272 and 273:
Page 274 and 275:
Page 276 and 277:
Page 278 and 279:
Page 280 and 281:
Page 282 and 283:
Page 284 and 285:
Page 286:
APPENDIX 4: ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATI
show all

Basic Research Needs for Geosciences - Energetics Meetings and ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?