CCS Activities Being Performed by the U.S. DOE
2. DOE’s Carbon Sequestration Program
3. Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnerships
4. Development of the Carbon Sequestration Atlas of the United States and Canada and the NATCARB Database
5. Development of a Depositional Classification Scheme for CO2 Reservoirs
- Assist with an understanding of basic geological principles and terminology associated with potential CO2 geologic storage in formations.
- Show the importance of geologic depositional systems in determining the internal architecture of such formations, thus making it possible to predict the general behavior of the injected CO2.
- Establish the importance of using the geologic depositional system to assess existing and future research, design, and demonstration needs related to storing CO2 in different depositional environments.
- Focus the efforts of DOE on potential reservoirs in depositional environments that have not been previously investigated.
- Capacity, based on the porosity or openings within a rock, often called “pore space”.
- Injectivity, dependent on the permeability or the relative ease with which a fluid or gas can move within the pore space(s) of a rock.
- Integrity, the ability to confine a fluid or gas within a geologic unit, is of primary importance, because without impermeable seals, fluids will take the path of least resistance and move to a lower pressure area, including the surface.
6. Technology Transfer and the Development of Best Practice Manuals
Public Outreach and Education for Carbon Storage Projects
7. Site Screening, Site Selection, and Initial Characterization for Storage of CO2 in Deep Geologic Formations
8. Monitoring, Verification, and Accounting of CO2 Stored in Deep Geologic Formations
- Improve understanding of storage processes and confirm their effectiveness.
- Evaluate the interactions of CO2 with formation of solids and fluids.
- Assess environmental, safety, and health impacts in the event of a leak to the atmosphere.
- Evaluate and monitor any required remediation efforts should a leak occur.
- Provide a technical basis to assist in legal disputes resulting from any impact of sequestration technology (groundwater impacts, seismic events, crop losses, etc.).
- Pre-Operation Phase: Project design is carried out, baseline conditions are established, geology is characterized, and risks are identified.
- Operation Phase: Period of time during which CO2 is injected into the storage reservoir.
- Closure Phase: Period after injection has stopped (wells are abandoned and plugged, equipment and facilities are removed, and previously determined site restoration is accomplished). Only necessary monitoring equipment is retained.
- Post-Closure Phase: Period when ongoing monitoring is used to demonstrate that the storage project is performing as expected until it is safe to discontinue further monitoring. Once it is satisfactorily demonstrated that the site is stable, monitoring will no longer be required except in the unlikely event of release, regulatory requirements, or other matters that may require new information about the status of the storage project.
- Primary technologies are considered proven technologies capable of satisfying the monitoring requirements under the United States Environmental Protection Agencies underground injection control (UIC) regulations for Class I (non-hazardous), Class II(enhanced oil recovery operations), and Class V (experimental) injection wells and meet a goal of 99 percent containment by 2015. These technologies have been utilized in the petroleum industry and for geologic characterization.
- Secondary technologies are technologies that show promise but would need to demonstrate that they are sufficiently precise and quantitative to detect, locate, and quantify emissions as part of a CCS monitoring program.
- Potential additional MVA technologies are promising additional technologies being developed to better understand the long-term behavior of CO2 in a broad portfolio of potential reservoirs types. This also includes improvements of existing technologies to allow for detailed monitoring of CO2 in GS.
- Establishing baseline conditions from which the impacts of CO2 storage can be assessed.
- Assessing the integrity of shut-in, plugged, or abandoned wells.
- Monitoring to ensure injection effectiveness.
- Monitoring to detect the location of the injected CO2 plume.
- Comparing model predictions to monitoring data.
- Detecting and quantifying leakage from the storage formation to other strata or the surface.
- Assessing health, safety, and environmental impacts of leakage.
- Monitoring to detect micro-seismicity associated with CO2 injection.
- Monitoring to aid in the design and evaluation of remediation efforts, if needed.
- Evaluating interactions with, or impacts on, other geologic resources.
- Reassuring the public, where visibility and transparency are of prime importance3.
- Developing geologic models for the sequestration site that include the reservoir, the seals, and overlying geology, aquifer(s), vadose zone, and surface.
- Performing reservoir simulations of the sequestration processes of interest, such as prediction of changes and the distribution of fluid phases resulting from CO2 injection.
- Using the geologic model and results of reservoir simulations to perform numerical simulations to predict the response of candidate geophysical and geochemical monitoring techniques.
- Climate Change 2007—The Physical Science Basis; Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA, 2007.
- Energy Information Administration. Outlook for Future Emissions. Available online: http://www.eia.doe.gov/energyexplained/index.cfm?page=environment_outlook_for_emissions (accessed on 2 November 2010).
- Benson, SM; Gasperikova, E; Hoversten, GM. Overview of Monitoring Techniques and Protocols for GS Projects; IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D Program Report PH4/29; International Energy Agency Greenhouse Gas Research and Development Program: Gloucestershire, UK, 2004. [Google Scholar]
- Carbon Sequestration Technology Roadmap and Program Plan 2005; United States Department of Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory: Pittsburgh, PA, USA, May 2005.
- Carbon Sequestration Program Overview; United States Department of Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory: Pittsburgh, PA, USA, 2010. Available online: http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/carbon_seq/overview/index.html (accessed on 2 November 2010).
- Carbon Sequestration Program Goals; United States Department of Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory: Pittsburgh, PA, USA, 2010. Available online: http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/carbon_seq/overview/program_goals.html (accessed on 2 November 2010).
- Carbon Sequestration Atlas of the United States and Canada; United States Department of Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory: Pittsburgh, PA, USA, November 2010.
- Geologic Storage Formation Classification: Understanding Its Importance and Impacts on CCS Opportunities in the United States; United States Department of Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory: Pittsburgh, PA, USA, September 2010.
- Best Practices Manual for: Public Outreach and Education for Carbon Storage Projects; United States Department of Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory: Pittsburgh, PA, USA, December 2009.
- Draft Best Practices Manual for: Site Screening, Site Selection, and Initial Characterization for Storage of CO2 in Deep Geologic Formations; United States Department of Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory: Pittsburgh, PA, USA, June 2010.
- Best Practices Manual for: Monitoring, Verification, and Accounting of CO2 Stored in Deep Geologic Formations; United States Department of Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory: Pittsburgh, PA, USA, January 2009.
|Reservoir Depositional Classification Schematic|
|Rock Classification Lithology||Geoscience Institute for Oil and Gas Recovery Research Classification in 1991||DOE’s Oil Reservoir Classification from 1990’s||Sequestration Formation Classification 2010|
|Sedimentary||Clastic Reservoirs||Delta||Delta/Fluvial-Dominated||Class I Reservoirs||Deltaic||Shales (fine terrigenous materials—clays as well as from carbonates) Deposited in Lacustrine, Fluvial, Alluvial, Near Shore and Open Ocean Marine Environments|
|Fluvial||Fluvial/Braided Stream||Class 5 Reservoirs||Fluvial|
|Strandplain||Strandplain/Barrier Cores and Shorefaces||Class 4 Reservoirs||Strandplain|
|Turbidites||Slope-Basin||Class 3 Reservoirs||Turbidite|
|Eolian — Wind Blown: Clastics and/or Carbonates||Eolian||Evaporites (from various Lithology Deposited in Arid Settings)|
|Lacustrine — Lake Deposited: Clastics, Carbonates, Evaporites||Lacustrine|
|Carbonate (>50% Carbonate content but can contain Terrigenous materials — sand, feldspar, non-carbonate boulders and evaporites)||Shallow Shelf/Open||Dolomitization||Class 2 Reservoirs||Shallow Shelf|
|Geologic Formation Classes||High Potential||Medium Potential||Lower or Unknown Potential|
|Deltaic||Shelf Clastic||Shelf Carbonate||Strandplain||Reef||Fluvial Deltaic||Eolian||Fluvial & Aluvial||Turbidite||Coal||Basalt|
|Integrate Outreach with Project Management||By including outreach in the critical path of a CO2 storage project, outreach activities will be more effective, in sync with other key project stages, and beneficial to the overall project; a key component is building in the time necessary to accomplish the various steps in advance of engaging the public.|
|Establish a Strong Team||It is essential to establish a clearly defined structure that delineates roles and responsibilities covering both internal and external communication and includes individuals who are knowledgeable about the technical details of the project, as well as individuals who have backgrounds in communication, education, and community relations.|
|Identify Key Stakeholders||Early CO2 storage projects are being carried out in the context of national debates on climate change mitigation and, as a result, stakeholders may come from an area that extends beyond the project’s location and regulatory jurisdiction. It is critical to identify all stakeholders in the project lifecycle. At the local level, these may include elected and safety officials, regulators, landowners, citizens, civic groups, business leaders, media, and community leaders. At the national level, these may include Government agencies, Congressional leaders, committee/subcommittee chairs and key staff, environmental groups, and the financial and legal community.|
|Conduct Social Characterization||Social characterization is an approach for gathering and evaluating information to obtain an accurate portrait of stakeholder groups, their perceptions, and their concerns about CO2 storage. This approach can identify the factors that will likely influence public understanding of CO2 storage within a specific community. The information gathered will enable the project team to develop better insights into the breadth of diversity among community members, local concerns and potential benefits, and assist in determining which modes of outreach and communication will be most effective.|
|Develop a Strategy and Communication Plan||The outreach strategy and communications plan ties together the information, planning, and preparation. The outreach strategy is tailored to the stakeholder needs and concerns of a particular CO2 storage project. Specifics will include outreach objectives, outreach tasks, and events that coincide with the project stages, a timeline for outreach activities, and the roles and responsibilities of the outreach team. The outreach strategy will also identify key stakeholders and messages, and the timelines, roles, and responsibilities for producing outreach materials and managing outreach events. A component of the outreach strategy is a communications plan that focuses on representing the project directly to the public and through the media.|
|Develop Key Messages||CO2 storage involves advanced science related to climate change, geology, and other fields of study; public policy related to energy, environment, and the economy; and issues related to risk, safety, and financial assurance. Therefore, identifying a set of key messages that can be consistently repeated in outreach activities and materials can help stakeholders develop a clearer understanding of the project and how their concerns will be addressed.|
|Develop Materials Tailored to Audiences||The development of outreach materials involves consideration of the intended audience. The amount of information and level of technical detail provided must be tailored to match the audience’s degree of interest, education, and time constraints. Any concerns that have been identified, including perceived risks, should be addressed in language and formats suited to the intended audiences.|
|Proactively Manage the Program||Outreach programs should be actively managed to ensure that consistent messages are being communicated and that requests for information are fulfilled throughout the project lifecycle. The identification of an outreach leader or coordinator to manage, coordinate, and direct outreach is crucial for project success. The outreach lead will be supported in their efforts by the outreach team and other project team members. As a project unfolds, public perception will to be influenced by the extent to which the project and the project team are well coordinated and responsive.|
|Monitor the Program and Public Perceptions||Monitoring the performance of the outreach program allows the project team to stay abreast of how the community perceives the project and gauge the effectiveness of the outreach activities. Monitoring can also help identify any misconceptions about the project or CO2 storage and develop outreach strategies to correct them.|
|Refine the Program as Warranted||The outreach team must be ready to adapt to changes in information about the site, unexpected events, and other conditions that may have a strong influence on the public’s perception of CO2 storage during project implementation.|
|COMPONENT||ELEMENT||GUIDELINES FOR SITE SCREENING|
|Regional Geologic Data||Subsurface Data Analysis||Injection Formation(s)||Identify regional and sub-regional injection formation types. Utilize readily accessible data from public sources (e.g., state geological surveys, NATCARB, the Regional Sequestration Partnerships, published and open-file literature, academic sources) or acquired from private firms. Data gathered should include regional lithology maps, injection zone data (thickness, porosity, permeability), structural maps, information about structure closure and features that might compartmentalize the reservoir such as stratigraphic pinch outs, regional type logs, offset logs, petrophysical data, and regional seismicity maps.|
|Adequate Depth||Assessment of minimum depth of the injection zone to protect USDWs is required; in addition depths greater than 800 m generally indicate CO2 will be in a supercritical state and may be more cost-effectively stored. Shallow depths (generally <800 m) may add to the risk profile because (1) CO2 could be in gas phase and (2) the injection zone may be closer to USDW.|
|Confining Zone||Candidate injection zones should be overlain by a confining zone comprised of one or more thick and impermeable confining intervals of sufficient lateral extent to cover the projected aerial extent of the injected CO2. Confining zones can be identified on a regional basis from the same types of information used to identify injection formations. Wells that penetrate potential confining zones should be identified and included in the risk assessment; this information can be obtained from state oil and gas regulatory agencies. Faulting and folding information that may impact confining zone integrity should be mapped along with potential communication pathways. Confining zone integrity may be validated by presence of nearby hydrocarbon accumulations.|
|Prospective Storage Resources||Candidate CO2 storage formations should contain enough Prospective Storage Resources beneath a robust confining zone for the volume of CO2 estimated during Project Definition and the displaced fluids. Prospective Storage Resources (and injectivity if permeability data is available) should be estimated at the sub-regional scale utilizing existing data (e.g., NATCARB, and state geological surveys) to populate basic numerical models.|
|Regional Site Data||Regional Proximity Analysis||Protected and Sensitive Areas||Identify environmentally sensitive areas using U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Department of Interior, U.S. Forest Service and U.S. Bureau of Land Management GIS systems. Assess the potential for conflicts with siting of pipeline routes, field compressors and injection wells. In addition, evaluate potential for other surface sensitivities utilizing maps for other hazards (e.g., flood, landslide, tsunami).|
|Population Centers||Identify population centers using state and federal census data. Assess the potential for conflicts with siting of carbon storage projects.|
|Existing Resource Development||Identify existing resource development, including wells that penetrate the confining zone, using data from state and federal oil and gas, coal, mining and UIC and natural resource management offices. Assess the potential for conflicts between siting of carbon storage projects and existing or prospective mineral leases as well the availability of complementary or competing infrastructure.|
|Pipeline ROWs||Identify all pipelines and gathering lines/systems. Assess potential for conflicts in routing of pipelines to carbon storage projects as well as the potential for use or access to existing pipeline right-of-ways (ROWs). Identify other ROWs (e.g., powerlines, RR's highways) and assess potential for synergies or conflicts in siting carbon storage projects. This data can be found through commercial and government sources.|
|Social Data||Social Context Analysis||Demographic Trends||Describe communities above and near candidate Sub-Regions by evaluating readily available demographic data and media sources. To the extent possible, assess public perceptions of carbon storage and related issues; develop an understanding of local economic and industrial trends; and begin to identify opinion leaders.|
|Land Use: Industrial and Environmental History||Describe the trends in land use, industrial development and environmental impacts in communities above or near candidate Sub-Regions by evaluating sources such as online media sites, regulatory agencies, corporate websites, local environmental group websites, and other sources. Begin to assess community sensitivities to land use and the environment.|
|Complete Site Screening||Selected Area||Develop a list of potential Selected Areas and rank based on criteria established in Project Definition.|
© 2011 by the authors; licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open-access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/).
Dressel, B.; Deel, D.; Rodosta, T.; Plasynski, S.; Litynski, J.; Myer, L. CCS Activities Being Performed by the U.S. DOE. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2011, 8, 300-320. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph8020300
Dressel B, Deel D, Rodosta T, Plasynski S, Litynski J, Myer L. CCS Activities Being Performed by the U.S. DOE. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2011; 8(2):300-320. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph8020300Chicago/Turabian Style
Dressel, Brian, Dawn Deel, Traci Rodosta, Sean Plasynski, John Litynski, and Larry Myer. 2011. "CCS Activities Being Performed by the U.S. DOE" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 8, no. 2: 300-320. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph8020300