Next Article in Journal
Air Quality Monitoring and Total Factor Productivity of Polluting Firms in China
Previous Article in Journal
The Impact of Environmental, Social, and Governance Performance on the Total Factor Productivity of Textile Firms: A Meditating-Moderating Model
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Advances in Geochemical Monitoring Technologies for CO2 Geological Storage

1
School of Earth Sciences and Engineering, Sun Yat-sen University, Zhuhai 519000, China
2
Centre for Earth Environment and Resources, Sun Yat-sen University, Zhuhai 519000, China
3
Guangdong Provincial Key Lab of Geological Process and Mineral Resources, Zhuhai 519000, China
4
Guangzhou Institute of Geochemistry, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Guangzhou 510640, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2024, 16(16), 6784; https://doi.org/10.3390/su16166784
Submission received: 5 July 2024 / Revised: 3 August 2024 / Accepted: 5 August 2024 / Published: 7 August 2024

Abstract

:
CO2 geological storage, as a large-scale, low-cost, carbon reduction technology, has garnered widespread attention due to its safety. Monitoring potential leaks is critical to ensuring the safety of the carbon storage system. Geochemical monitoring employs methods such as gas monitoring, groundwater monitoring, tracer monitoring, and isotope monitoring to analyze the reservoir’s storage state and secondary changes after a CO2 injection. This paper summarizes the recent applications and limitations of geochemical monitoring technologies in CO2 geological storage. In gas monitoring, the combined monitoring of multiple surface gasses can analyze potential gas sources in the storage area. In water monitoring, pH and conductivity measurements are the most direct, while ion composition monitoring methods are emerging. In tracer monitoring, although artificial tracers are effective, the environmental compatibility of natural tracers provides them with greater development potential. In isotope monitoring, C and O isotopes can effectively reveal gas sources. Future CO2 geological storage project monitoring should integrate various monitoring methods to comprehensively assess the risk and sources of CO2 leakage. The incorporation of artificial intelligence, machine learning technologies, and IoT monitoring will significantly enhance the accuracy and intelligence of numerical simulations and baseline monitoring, ensuring the long-term safety and sustainability of CO2 geological storage projects.

1. Introduction

The rapid warming resulting from human CO2 emissions has disrupted the Earth’s climate regulation system, causing significant changes to the global climate and ecosystems. Controlling CO2 emissions has become an urgent necessity for all countries [1]. CO2 geological sequestration is currently the most significant form of artificial carbon sink and is a critical technology and safeguard to control global warming within 2 °C [2]. According to predictions, by 2030, the global average annual emission reduction through carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology needs to reach 490 million tons; by 2050, it must reach 4.66 billion tons [2,3]. However, there is a risk of leakage after CO2 is injected into underground reservoirs. The stored CO2 can increase the pore pressure in reservoir rocks, altering the original temperature, fluid pressure, and stress state, potentially causing surface uplift, fault activation, and CO2 leakage. Additionally, the stored CO2 may react chemically with reservoir minerals and groundwater, causing groundwater acidification and mineral dissolution, which compromises geological stability [4]. The leakage of CO2 from the reservoir can severely impact the ecological environment and human health [5]. Therefore, reducing the leakage risk is crucial for promoting CCS projects, and the continuous monitoring of CO2 geological sequestration sites is essential for ensuring the effectiveness and safety of sequestration.
Considering the movement, migration state, and phase changes in underground CO2, monitoring must be dynamic. This requires monitoring methods that not only provide continuous surveillance but also offer timely feedback and warnings [6]. Conventional geophysical monitoring methods have limitations in terms of their monitoring frequency and cost, which cannot meet the demands of long-term, low-cost monitoring [7,8]. Geochemical monitoring methods, by analyzing the chemical composition of gasses and water, tracers, and isotopes, can detect subtle geochemical changes or early warning signs of leakage. These methods help analyze the CO2 sequestration state, migration paths, and leakage scenarios [9], providing valuable information on the sequestration state and dynamic changes in CO2. Moreover, geochemical monitoring is relatively cost-effective, and the collected data can inform numerical simulations, assessing the model’s accuracy and reliability [10,11]. Recently, with the extensive implementation of CO2 geological sequestration projects, geochemical monitoring has become a standard part of monitoring due to its effectiveness and low cost [12,13,14,15].
This paper systematically reviews the principles and application progress of various geochemical monitoring technologies and their effectiveness in CO2 geological sequestration projects. However, with advancements in information technology, traditional methods require upgrades to meet new demands. Future research should focus on developing low-cost, routine geochemical monitoring, leveraging extensive existing data, and integrating the Internet of Things, artificial intelligence, and machine learning technologies to create predictive models for early warning and risk assessment. These findings will provide a reference for the future development of geochemical monitoring methods.

2. Overview of Geochemical Monitoring Techniques

Based on monitoring principles, geochemical monitoring techniques can be divided into direct and indirect types. Direct monitoring involves measuring changes in the chemical composition or concentration of water and gasses, directly reflecting changes in the underground environment, and the geochemical reactions and impacts during CO2 sequestration. For example, changes in CO2 concentration in groundwater can be monitored to assess CO2 migration and the effectiveness of sequestration. Indirect monitoring involves analyzing parameters such as the composition and distribution patterns of tracers or isotopes to infer or simulate information about the underground environment and the CO2 migration process. For instance, groundwater flow models and geochemical simulations can predict CO2 migration paths and underground reactions [16].

2.1. Gas Monitoring

Gas monitoring determines changes in the underground environment by measuring changes in the components and concentrations of gasses [17]. Techniques such as Infrared Gas Analyzer [18], Long Open Path IR [19], Eddy Covariance [20], Accumulated Chamber [21], and Light Detection and Ranging [22] are commonly used to monitor CO2 concentrations. Currently, monitoring systems integrating soil, surface, and low-altitude CO2 are used to analyze changes in the composition and concentration of gasses, providing information on the CO2 leakage pathways, diffusion range, and leakage scale [23]. However, due to the relatively high and fluctuating atmospheric CO2 concentrations [24], trace amounts of CO2 leakage in carbon sequestration projects may be obscured by background fluctuations. Additionally, geological sequestration areas are typically large and remote, limiting gas monitoring techniques’ stability, monitoring accuracy, and frequency, which may hinder the timely detection of leakages. To mitigate the impact of environmental changes, current gas monitoring research focuses on two aspects:
  • Enhancing the accuracy of CO2 concentration monitoring through sensor upgrades or data calibration. Sensors are critical components when collecting environmental parameters. In recent years, CO2 concentration monitoring equipment such as Fourier Transform Infrared Spectrometer (FT-IR) and Photoacoustic Spectroscopy (PAS) sensors have developed rapidly. FT-IR, combined with a long-path gas absorption cell, can improve detection sensitivity to the ppb level, meeting monitoring needs in complex environments such as high-temperature and high-humidity environments [25,26,27]. PAS can monitor multi-component mixed gasses with high sensitivity, making it ideal for online CO2 monitoring, although the stability of PAS still needs to be improved [28,29]. Since the precision components of sensors are susceptible to environmental influences (Figure 1a) [30,31,32], designs typically include temperature, humidity, and pressure compensation mechanisms or algorithms to correct the initial measurements and enhance the credibility of the data [30,31]. By integrating measurements from different sensors, reliable data under specific environmental conditions can be output based on algorithms, collectively representing the CO2 concentration changes in the region.
  • The coordinated monitoring of multiple gasses to indirectly reflect gas leakages. During biological photosynthesis and respiration, changes in O2 and CO2 concentrations have a good linear relationship, so the ratio of O2 to CO2 concentration changes can be used to determine whether CO2 leakage has occurred. If CO2 leakage occurs, there will be a significant abrupt leakage signal (Figure 1b) [33]. However, factors such as water–rock–CO2 interactions, methane oxidation, rock weathering, and groundwater flow can generate or consume CO2 or O2 [34,35]. Therefore, monitoring changes in the composition and concentration of multiple gasses, such as CO2, O2, N2, CH4, Ar, and He, is needed to assist in analyses of the CO2 source and corresponding geochemical processes (Figure 1c) [36]; this can reduce the impact of environmental background changes and achieve effective monitoring [37].
The development direction of gas monitoring is towards refinement, providing quantitative change trends. However, high-sensitivity sensors are expensive and have poor environmental tolerance [38]. Therefore, the future mainstream direction of gas monitoring should involve calibrating low-cost sensor monitoring data and the coordinated monitoring of multiple gasses.
Figure 1. (a) Temperature correction diagram of the infrared spectrum sensor (modified from [30]); (b) the variations in the relative concentration of CO2 and O2 (modified from [33]); (c) processes defined by relationships between O2 and CO2 [36].
Figure 1. (a) Temperature correction diagram of the infrared spectrum sensor (modified from [30]); (b) the variations in the relative concentration of CO2 and O2 (modified from [33]); (c) processes defined by relationships between O2 and CO2 [36].
Sustainability 16 06784 g001

2.2. Water Monitoring

Water monitoring assesses CO2 leakage and its scale by monitoring changes in the chemical composition, isotope ratios, and hydrogeological characteristics of groundwater and surface water. Overall, research on water monitoring has primarily focused on the direct impacts of CO2 leakage and its secondary changes. The direct impacts of CO2 leakage include a decrease in pH and an increase in the partial pressure of CO2 in water [39]. A significant decrease in water pH is one of the best diagnostic indicators of CO2 leakage [16]. Even a small amount of CO2 leakage into the water can cause the pH of the regional water to drop rapidly, by 1–2 [40,41]. Similar to gas monitoring, the composition and concentration of dissolved gasses in water may change when CO2 leakage occurs. For example, the concentration of dissolved CO2 increases, which may affect the concentrations of other dissolved gasses, such as N2, O2, and CH4. When CO2 dissolves, other dissolved gasses in the water may be released, causing changes in the concentration and composition of gasses in the water, indirectly indicating whether CO2 leakage has occurred [42]. Dissolved gas analysis can also provide information about the redox state of the underground environment. An increase in CH4 concentration might indicate microbial activity or other geochemical processes related to CO2 leakage [43,44]. The composition of dissolved gasses in water is also affected by environmental factors such as temperature and pressure, and requires a comprehensive comparison. Overall, monitoring the partial pressure of pH and CO2 is simple and highly accurate, and has good application prospects for determining the location and range of underground CO2 plumes and analyzing leakage pathways [39].
Monitoring the changes in ion composition due to pH changes is another mainstream direction in water monitoring. Since the water in carbon sequestration areas has been in long-term chemical equilibrium with the surrounding rocks, it is particularly sensitive to local equilibrium changes caused by the addition of large amounts of CO2. A decrease in water pH can dissolve surrounding rock or reservoir minerals, leading to changes in the ion composition and concentration, electrical conductivity, and redox properties of the water [45,46]. Numerous studies have examined the changes in ion composition caused by the dissolution of surrounding rock minerals following the intrusion of CO2 into groundwater. The research indicates that the dissolution of carbonate rocks can enrich elements such as Ca and Mg [40,47,48], while the dissolution of silicate rocks can release additional Si and Fe [49]. Other elements, such as Al, Si, Zn, Ni, Ba, As, U, Mn, and Sr, may also increase in concentration [16,40,41,50,51]. Recent studies suggest that rare earth elements can reflect the interaction between groundwater and surrounding rock caused by CO2 injection at the nanoscale. In CO2 leakage areas, heavy rare earth elements are more enriched compared to light rare earth elements, and the La/Yb and Y/Ho ratios change significantly after CO2 disturbance [40]. Do et al. [39] summarized the trends in the changes in certain elements after CO2 injection and classified them into three categories (Table 1): (1) pulse type, where ion concentrations rise rapidly when the CO2 plume arrives and decrease with continuous CO2 injection, such as HCO3, Ca, Mg, Na, K, Sr, and Ba; (2) delayed type, where ion concentrations in the water rise and fall relatively slowly, reaching a maximum at the end of the CO2 injection, such as SiO2 and Mn; (3) ion concentrations in the water rise quickly but fall slowly, such as Li. Changes in ion concentrations in the water are influenced by the scale of leakage, the properties of the surrounding rocks, and the buffering and clearing capacities of the underground aquifer [50,52]. Mechanisms for ion changes may include rock dissolution, ion exchange, the precipitation of secondary minerals, adsorption/desorption, and redox processes [40,53].
Overall, water monitoring is cost-effective and efficient. Combining water monitoring with geophysical methods, such as Electrical Resistance Tomography, holds significant potential [54].

2.3. Tracer Monitoring

Tracer monitoring involves the use of artificially injected compounds or markers to trace the migration and distribution of CO2 in underground reservoirs. Tracers are typically compounds with specific chemical properties or isotopic compositions that distinguish them from natural substances in the underground environment. This technology, widely employed in the oil, gas, and geothermal industries, provides insights into reservoir connectivity and flow pathways, and estimates of residual oil or native water saturation [13]. Tracers are valuable tools in the field of CO2 geological storage, offering low-cost solutions with high informational returns [4].
Tracers are categorized into chemical and natural types. Chemical tracers, such as sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and poly-fluoroalkyl substances, are synthetically produced compounds known for their low natural background concentrations and compatibility with CO2 plumes, making them viable for numerous storage projects. SF6, which has been widely used in meteorology and electrical industries for nearly 60 years [55], maintains a natural atmospheric concentration of approximately 1.0 × 10−11 (v/v) with a detection limit as low as 1.0 × 10−14 (v/v) [56]. Under various environmental conditions, about 300 kg of SF6 was added to an injected CO2 mixture of 100,000 tons the Otway site, Australia [57], while approximately 2 tons of SF6 were added to 300,000 tons of injected CO2 at the Shenhua storage site, China [58]. PFCs, which have a relatively low global warming potential and pose a minimal environmental hazard, have seen extensive use in regions like InSalah and the North Sea [59,60]. However, the environmental risks, high equipment costs, and challenges in terms of sustained field monitoring limit the widespread use of chemical tracers [13].
In contrast, natural tracers offer superior environmental compatibility, and naturally occurring elements are better suited as in situ tracers [39,46,61]. The injection of CO2 disrupts the geochemical equilibrium of the subsurface, causing changes in the chemical and/or isotopic signatures of specific fluid endmembers [61]. Metal elements, which migrate and transform in response to CO2 plumes or acidic waters, can serve as effective natural tracers for studying underground CO2 migration [46,62]. Joun et al. [63] improved pCO2 measurement systems and achieved recovery rates of 26%, 85%, and 95% for SF6, Kr, and U, respectively, demonstrating that uranium (U) is a particularly effective and conservative tracer. Lithium (Li), which shows a strong correlation with water CO2 at partial pressure, is useful for monitoring CO2 migration, pH, and conductivity changes in aquifers [39].
Additionally, rare gasses are commonly employed as natural tracers. These gasses are chemically stable, have low background concentrations, and migrate quickly, meaning that they are present in trace amounts in both natural and anthropogenic CO2 sources [14]. By analyzing the types and isotopic compositions of rare gasses in reservoirs, one can gain insights into CO2 migration paths, leakage, and groundwater flow. Rare gasses, such as helium (He), argon (Ar), and krypton (Kr), have been used effectively as tracers in various storage sites, including Cranfield and Otway, to reveal the extent of CO2 dissolution and assess changes in CO2 displacement efficiency [14,15]. Kr has historically been an early indicator of CO2 migration, while He and Ar are released in the initial stages of CO2 migration [64]. In experiments involving the injection of Kr and SF6 into CO2-containing groundwater, no gas loss to external systems was initially, although, later, the tracers were progressively diluted by groundwater (Figure 2) [63].
Overall, chemical tracers are a cost-effective and efficient monitoring method, but natural tracers with high environmental affinity are more likely to receive application approval. Tracer monitoring typically requires large-scale mass spectrometers or chromatographs, which are expensive and limit the feasibility of continuous monitoring. Natural tracers have multiple sources in nature, and there may be a natural accumulation of methane and rare gasses in the sequestration area [65], which can impact the efficiency of tracer monitoring due to leakage and site-specific conditions [66]. In the short term, chemical tracers remain indispensable for control purposes. For instance, in experiments conducted in the North Sea, Roberts et al. [13] found that tracers like SF6 and 14C are not viable monitoring methods due to their environmental impacts and cost constraints. To achieve a more detailed characterization of the sequestration conditions and develop a comprehensive geochemical profile of the sequestration site, further research is needed on the dissolution and distribution mechanisms of natural tracers in CO2 plumes. This includes understanding processes such as dissolution, residual gas capture, convective mixing, and vertical CO2 migration.

2.4. Isotope Monitoring

Isotope monitoring involves the use of the isotopic composition of compounds to passively track and assess the status of CO2 sequestration. Since CO2 consists of carbon and oxygen, monitoring carbon and oxygen isotopes is the most common method. Different sources of CO2 have varying abundances of carbon isotopes such as 12C, 13C, and 14C. For instance, CO2 from fossil fuel combustion lacks 14C, whereas biogenic CO2 has similar 14C levels to modern atmospheric levels [67]. Additionally, in biogenic CO2, the 13C composition varies depending on the source, making carbon isotopic composition one of the most precise tools for identifying CO2 sources [67,68]. Changes in the carbon isotopic composition of CO2, if the initial isotopic composition is known, can be used to infer the migration path and potential leakage scale of CO2 [69,70]. For example, in the Weyburn sequestration area, carbon isotopic analysis has been repeatedly used before and after CO2 injection to evaluate CO2 sources, migration paths, and the sequestration status [68,71]. This requires the carbon isotopic composition of the injected CO2 to be significantly different from the background CO2 sources, which typically include dissolved inorganic carbon, bedrock-derived carbon, and soil CO2, placing high demands on the background values of the sequestration environment [69].
Oxygen isotopes, including 16O, 17O, and 18O, generally maintain a constant ratio because the oxygen content in atmospheric CO2 is negligible compared to that in water. However, the injected supercritical CO2 becomes a major source of oxygen in the reservoir and can reach isotopic equilibrium with groundwater oxygen within a period ranging from hours to days. This results in rapid changes in isotopic values, which can reveal the CO2 migration processes [69]. Nonetheless, oxygen isotope monitoring is not a conservative tracer and may not accurately identify CO2 sources due to potential groundwater influences [59,72]. Therefore, it is essential to first evaluate the original C and O isotopic composition and abundance of the target sequestration site to determine its applicability [61]. The use of only carbon or oxygen isotopes for monitoring can be limited by the conditions at the sequestration site, so a combined approach using multiple isotopes, including carbon and oxygen, is more suitable.
In addition, the isotopic composition of noble gasses can provide insights into the storage conditions. Noble gasses show a strong correlation with CO2 [14], and the CO2/3He ratio in natural reservoirs typically ranges from 1 × 109 to 1 × 1010 [73]. A decrease in this ratio can indicate underground CO2 leakage [17]. The extent of CO2 dissolution can be assessed by examining changes in the isotopic composition of He. At the Cranfield storage site in the United States, the CO2/3He ratio suggests that approximately 0.2% (around 7 kt) of the 1 million tons of injected CO2 has dissolved into the formation water, with a pH of 5.8 [14]. Furthermore, noble gasses such as 20Ne, 36Ar, 84Kr, and 132Xe can be monitored alongside carbon isotopes to track CO2 dissolution in water and its interaction with residual oil [14]. The combination of noble gas and carbon isotope geochemistry can effectively identify short-term and long-term physicochemical processes in geological reservoirs. In the short term, the mass fractionation ratio of Ne and Ar isotopes serves as a reliable leakage indicator, with higher values indicating a faster gas flow. Over the long term, noble gas and carbon isotope tracers can identify dissolution and/or precipitation processes [74]. However, the water formation also contains noble gasses, and their concentration can be influenced by CO2–oil interactions. Thus, interpretations based on noble gas isotope ratios may affect the monitoring and tracking results of stored CO2 recovery.
Essentially, isotope monitoring functions as a natural tracer, utilizing the inherent isotopic composition of the subsurface environment for passive tracing. Although isotope monitoring is relatively costly, it can provide substantial information. Future research should integrate various isotope types to further refine the understanding of isotopic composition and changes during the storage process, elucidate the mechanisms of these, and account for environmental variables (Table 2).

3. Research Developments

3.1. Development of Monitoring Strategies

As previously mentioned, with the advancement of CO2 geological storage projects, various geochemical monitoring methods have been widely applied in these projects (Table 3). However, different geochemical monitoring methods vary in their mechanisms, scope, and duration. For example, geochemical monitoring mechanisms mainly include [75]: (1) physical effects (pressure effects or fluid displacement); (2) geochemical effects (the dissolution of reservoirs and cap rocks; the activation of heavy metals); and (3) shallow/surface effects (toxic compounds affecting the soil, microbial communities, and groundwater quality). Different mechanisms can lead to variations in monitoring results [15,64]. Additionally, the original geochemical properties of different storage sites can vary significantly, which may also impact the monitoring outcomes [13]. Clearly, given such complex conditions, a single monitoring method cannot meet the monitoring needs of all CO2 geological storage sites. Currently, a combination of multiple monitoring methods is generally employed to comprehensively characterize and determine the geochemical characteristics of the region. Therefore, developing effective monitoring strategies is a key focus of current research.
The development of monitoring strategies needs to meet various requirements. First, it is necessary to consider the constraints of the geological conditions, the hydrological conditions, the injection processes, environmental pollution, and budgets, among other factors. Different geological characteristics influence the migration and geochemical processes of CO2. For example, saline aquifers and oil and gas reservoirs, as different types of storage environments, show significant differences in their groundwater chemical composition and organic and inorganic geochemical properties. In marine carbon storage sites, monitoring methods must also account for seawater pressure, adsorption or dispersion, and environmental impacts. Terrestrial carbon storage sites are more affected by human activities, and background value changes can be more complex [13]. Additionally, specific monitoring objectives need to be achieved, such as determining the CO2 storage volume and distribution, tracking CO2 migration paths, identifying sources of CO2 leakage, and determining the scale of the leakage. Finally, considering the movement, migration state, and phase changes in underground CO2, the monitoring strategy must be dynamic. It should enable continuous monitoring and timely feedback and warnings [6]. Regular evaluations of monitoring effectiveness and storage status are also necessary, with timely adjustments to the monitoring strategy based on actual conditions to ensure the effectiveness and sustainability of the monitoring efforts [76]. For example, the adaptive monitoring strategy in the FutureGen 2.0 project continuously assesses the monitoring results and modifies the monitoring network as needed to identify the geochemical characteristics of CO2 or brine leakage. This continuous assessment throughout the project’s design and operation phases determines the need for additional near-surface monitoring methods, such as surface aquifers, surface water, soil gas, and atmospheric monitoring [8].
To meet the requirements of a monitoring strategy, almost all current CO2 geological storage projects employ multiple geochemical monitoring methods, including gas concentration, pH value, ion composition, chemical tracers, noble gasses, and isotopes (Table 3). The selection of specific monitoring types requires further comparison. For example, in the Cranfield storage area in the United States, noble gasses are minor natural components in the injected CO2. Geochemical monitoring in this area extensively uses noble gasses and their isotopic composition to monitor CO2-driven oil recovery efficiency and CO2 loss [77]. In controlled-release experiments in the North Sea, artificial tracers are more effective due to their very low concentrations in the marine environment [13]. These studies indicate that the choice of monitoring methods should be based on specific site factors.
Additionally, specific monitoring requirements must be met, encompassing two aspects: meeting the monitoring needs at different stages of the CCS project and fulfilling the overall project monitoring requirements, such as minimizing costs and maximizing safety. As shown in Figure 3, the risk of leakage varies significantly at different stages of the CCS project [78]. Therefore, during the low-risk background phase, a baseline monitoring of normal gas and water composition can be conducted, with periodic or continuous monitoring being carried out to meet the project’s needs. As the injection progresses, continuous monitoring with high-frequency sampling and analysis is required. Thus, continuous monitoring or high-frequency periodic monitoring is preferable. In the later stages of injection, when the risk decreases, low-frequency monitoring is sufficient.
The overall monitoring requirements of the project may include reducing costs, enhancing safety, and analyzing storage status. Different combinations should be used based on the objectives of the project. The quantitative evaluation of monitoring indicators is a promising direction, scoring various parameters such as stability, cost, and accuracy to assess the advantages and disadvantages of different indicators [79]. Li et al. [80] selected ten monitoring targets, including injection scale and storage efficiency, and assigned empirical values to different monitoring technologies to indicate their recommendation levels. While this method meets the basic needs of CO2 geological storage and allows for different monitoring combinations, it is overly subjective and lacks quantitative standards. The Weighted Sum Method (WSM) can reduce subjectivity by assigning weights to each target, converting the multi-objective problem into a single-objective problem. The weight ratio can be determined using the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) to establish a judgment matrix, with specific evaluation factors based on site characteristics. This method is simple and has been applied at the Shenhua CCS storage site [58]. However, WSM and the empirical assignment method share similar issues, being suitable for finding the optimal solution under a single target condition and potentially not finding the true optimal solution. In contrast, multi-objective optimization methods have broad prospects in geochemical monitoring. They can consider multiple evaluation indicators simultaneously, such as accuracy, sensitivity, cost, and time efficiency, providing a comprehensive evaluation framework for selecting and optimizing geochemical monitoring technologies. Depending on the specific monitoring objectives, such as minimizing false alarm rates, maximizing detection sensitivity, and minimizing monitoring costs, suitable multi-objective optimization algorithms can be chosen. Among them, Multi-Objective Simulated Annealing (MOSA) is popular for its ability to adapt to various constraints and achieve global optimization [81]. MOSA first randomly selects a set of initial solutions ƒ0 as the optimal solution, randomly alters the optimal solution to form a new solution ƒ1, and compares the new solution with the original optimal solution to determine a new optimal solution (Figure 4). The final solution of this algorithm does not depend on the initial solution’s selection. The objective function should reasonably reflect the overall optimization requirements of the problem and be easy to calculate, improving the efficiency of the algorithm. Applying the simulated annealing algorithm to multi-objective optimization problems, by accepting certain deteriorated solutions to escape local optima, is a feasible path for optimizing geochemical monitoring schemes in the future.
Additionally, there is a certain correlation between different indicators, and the possibility of substituting one indicator for another can be considered. For example, there is a high correlation between CO2 leakage concentration and radon isotope changes (r = 0.858) [82], and a good correlation between N2 and O2 concentrations and CO2 concentration [36]. Moreover, Risk et al. [37] introduced the potential signal–noise ratio (PSNR) to represent the ideal potential signal-to-noise ratio for comparison in the absence of leakage, with higher PSNR values indicating a better indicator performance (Figure 5). While methods like 4He/20Ne and 14C are effective, their high costs limit their routine use. Conversely, more affordable methods such as Ar and N2 monitoring also show high PSNR values. Therefore, to reduce costs, inexpensive indicators can provide a substitute for expensive monitoring methods. For instance, pH, alkalinity, Ca2+, Fe2+, and CO2 δ13C values are cost-effective indicators and proved to be the best monitoring parameters at the Pembina Cardium storage site in Canada [83].
Future research should focus on developing new monitoring methods tailored to the needs of geological storage sites, such as gas chromatograph–mass spectrometers for tracer monitoring and small CO2 detectors for gas concentration measurements. Additionally, it is important to combine existing monitoring methods effectively, such as integrating gas and water monitoring to directly reflect changes in the subsurface environment and the geochemical reactions and impacts during CO2 storage, providing real-time feedback on underground changes. Indirect methods like tracers and isotopes can be used to quantify and map CO2 leakage, offering precise quantitative data, predicting and simulating subsurface environmental changes, and assessing the long-term effectiveness of CO2 storage. He isotopes, Xe isotopes, PFCs, and CD4 are viable options due to their stable geochemical behavior, low environmental impact, and cost-effectiveness [13]. A suitable monitoring plan can be both effective and cost-efficient, but in cases of suspected leakage, clear and definitive indicators should be employed. This approach allows for streamlined monitoring, ensuring that effective monitoring does not need to be excessively expensive [37].

3.2. Storage State and Leakage Assessment

With continuous technological advancements, geological storage monitoring techniques have become more refined and are moving toward quantitative characterization. The quantitative characterization of storage state and leakage assessments is crucial for ensuring the safety and effectiveness of storage projects and is a key focus in the current geochemical monitoring research.
Research on storage state can analyze the effectiveness of the CO2 storage system. Geochemical monitoring evaluates the storage capacity and distribution of CO2 by monitoring the concentration of CO2 in underground rocks. Differences in oxygen isotope compositions between formation water and CO2, based on oxygen isotope similarity calculations, can quickly determine the residual saturation within the storage area [84]. The combination of carbon and oxygen isotopes can indicate the presence of CO2 and determine the storage mechanisms. In the Pembina Cardium CO2 monitoring project in Canada, the equilibrium isotope exchange relationship and CO2 solubility were used to calculate the saturation of fluids and gasses in the pore space (0.05~0.60), qualitatively and quantitatively determining the presence of CO2 around observation wells [85]. Fluid and gas monitoring can also be used to trace the injected CO2. By quantifying the mass of CO2 injected as HCO3, the scale of CO2 storage in reservoir fluids can be estimated. Studies show that the ionic capture of injected CO2 is the most important source of HCO3 in the Weyburn storage area, with the dissolution of carbonate minerals being a secondary source. A reconstruction of the measured data based on reservoir conditions indicates that approximately 185,000 tons of injected CO2 is stored in reservoir fluids [71].
Geochemical monitoring can provide data on changes in CO2 concentrations in underground rocks and groundwater, assessing CO2 storage rates and stability. At the Cranfield storage site, rare gasses are minor components of the injected CO2. The He isotope ratio and 40Ar*/4He ratio are significantly correlated with CO2 concentrations and can serve as tracers for CO2 [77,86]. Using rare gasses like Ar and He to trace the dissolution of CO2 in formation water and its interaction with residual oil, the gas composition and rare gas isotope composition in different regions were measured, showing that the CO2 stripped inert gasses from the formation water [14,86]. The He isotope composition indicates that about 0.2% (about 7 kt) of the injected CO2 dissolved in formation water. Ne isotope composition was used to determine the isotope composition of natural gas. Using rare gas composition and isotope analysis to trace and quantify CO2 concentration at the site during continuous injection, it was found that a significant portion of the CO2 in gas phase samples collected from production wells lost inert gasses, with 22~96% of the CO2 being lost in individual wells (Figure 6, Table 4). This suggests that inert gasses effectively quantified the CO2 storage potential [14,86]. Analyzing the migration paths and sources of CO2 can help to determine the causes of leakage events, the scale of the leakage, and the means of the underground propagation of leakage substances, which is significant for reducing the risk related to storage systems and ensuring their sustainability and safety. Many scholars have used synthetic chemical tracers and naturally occurring elements, such as stable isotopes of light elements (18O, D, 13C, 34S, and 15N), rare gasses (He, Ne, Ar, Kr, and Xe), and radioactive isotopes (such as tritium, 14C, 36Cl, 125I, and 131I), to analyze the migration paths and sources of CO2 [15,16,57,70].
The analysis of CO2 migration pathways involves tracking CO2 concentrations in groundwater and rocks by injecting tracers or isotopic markers. CO2 leakage typically affects the chemical characteristics of groundwater, such as the changes in pH, dissolved oxygen levels, and ion concentrations. Changes in the chemical components related to CO2 leakage in subsurface rocks can be used to identify the CO2 source. The migration and transformation of pre-existing trace metals caused by CO2 plumes or acidified waters can reveal the movement of underground CO2 [46,62]. In addition to CO2, other gasses’ compositions can also provide valuable information. For instance, some hydrocarbons have significantly higher solubility in supercritical CO2 than in water [87], so monitoring organic gasses or volatile organic compounds (VOCs) can also indicate CO2 leakage. During migration, the composition of various rare gasses changes. The clear relationship between rare gasses and CO2 plumes shows that degassing and mixing mainly control CO2 retention in shallow groundwater. Kr is an early indicator of CO2 migration, while He and Ar are diluted and vary with the CO2 migration pathways [64]. Combining rare gas isotope ratios (4He/20Ne) can indirectly indicate the source of leaked CO2 [88]. Integrating CO2 plume isotopes with trace gas compositions to track the fate of injected gasses in storage projects can identify unintended CO2 migration to a shallow subsurface or surface [89]. For example, Flohr et al. [59] simulated the leakage of CO2 from a seabed reservoir in the North Sea, releasing CO2 along with various natural tracers (13C, 18O) and added non-toxic tracer gasses (PFC, SF6, Kr, methane). The results revealed that the solubility of CO2 in sediment pore water ranged from 35% at the lowest injection rate to 41% at the highest injection rate. Between 22% and 48% of the injected CO2 left the seabed at the lowest and highest injection rates, respectively, while the remaining CO2 accumulated in sediment gas pockets. These methods quickly confirmed the CO2 leakage source analysis and other aspects of the analysis (Table 4).
The use of isotopic tracer technology is an effective method for determining CO2 sources. CO2 from different sources usually has a distinct isotopic composition. After determining the δ13C value of the storage environment, changes in regional δ13C values often accompany increases in CO2 or DIC concentrations, aiding in evaluating the movement of injected CO2 in the target reservoir and leakage at the CO2 storage site [69]. The sole reliance on 13C isotopes may not be sufficient for characterization. For example, 14CO2 can be used to assess CO2 leakage [37]. Although leakages are mainly composed of CO2, the high variability of natural-source CO2 makes it challenging to pinpoint leakage locations based solely on CO2 isotopes. Therefore, monitoring δ13C values, methane concentrations, and soil CO2 concentrations over time can help determine whether CO2 is leaking and the extent of the leakage [68]. Alternatively, coupling carbon isotopes with oxygen isotopes [90], hydrogen isotopes [72], and sulfur isotopes [71] can provide a comprehensive reflection of the leakage. The characteristics of the injected CO2 vary, and carbon isotope ratios are effective for tracking the movement and reactions of the CO2 in mature oil fields [91]. The monitoring of oxygen isotopes has been widely applied in storage projects such as the Otway project in Australia, Frio in the U.S., and Pembina in Canada, revealing the groundwater saturation levels at different injection stages [84]. The isotopic “fingerprint” formed by carbon and oxygen isotope ratios can track the fate of the injected CO2 in respective reservoirs [92]. By monitoring changes in CO2 isotope ratios in groundwater and rocks in the storage area, whether the CO2 originates from the storage site can be determined. For example, if CO2 isotope ratios are inconsistent with known CO2 sources in the storage area, this may indicate an external CO2 leakage. In the Weyburn and Pembina Cardium projects, the C and O isotope values of the injected CO2 differed significantly from the C and O isotope values of background reservoir CO2. This not only shows the fate of the injected CO2 in the reservoir but also allows for the future quantification of CO2 dissolution in the water based on the quantity of oxygen in the CO2 sources [93]. However, the use of oxygen isotopes alone is limited by their non-conservative nature. Karolyte et al. [90] found that water–rock reactions are unlikely to significantly affect observed δ18O values. Therefore, the displacement of δ18O values in water can be used to monitor CO2’s impact on shallow groundwater aquifers, provided there is sufficient CO2 and a difference between water δ18O values and CO2 δ18O values. Combining hydrogen isotopes with oxygen isotopes can also reflect the migration pathways of underground fluids [72], but current research on this is still relatively limited.

4. Outlook

4.1. Application of Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning

Recent advancements in artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) have introduced new opportunities and challenges for geochemical monitoring. AI and ML can potentially enhance numerical simulations and data analyses in geochemical monitoring. By integrating geochemical simulation technologies with data on groundwater flow and rock pore structures, we can model the migration pathways of underground CO2. These simulations help assess the migration and distribution of CO2, as well as the potential sources of CO2 leakage, by simulating different leakage scenarios. This approach typically combines groundwater flow models and rock pore structure models to predict the diffusion and transport of CO2.
Simulation experiments of CO2 injection and leakage are essential for evaluating the feasibility, safety, and effectiveness of various geological storage strategies. Repetitive simulation experiments provide extended time series data, improving the reliability of the monitoring methods [94]. Currently, field-based simulations are commonly used (Figure 7), including (1) CO2 controlled-release experiments, which model the underground environment’s response and surface changes during CO2 leakage from the storage site [59,95,96]; (2) CO2 injection experiments in underground aquifers, which simulate CO2 plume migration and storage mechanisms [40,64]; (3) the monitoring of natural CO2 leakage points, such as volcanic rock areas, with a focus on applying different monitoring techniques [97,98,99]. While these field simulation methods provide continuous data, such as the chemical and isotopic composition of groundwater and rocks, offering direct support to the research and verifying the storage effectiveness, they are conducted in open environments. Consequently, factors such as temperature, pressure, and solution composition cannot be controlled, meaning that the technique may not meet specific environmental requirements.
Numerical simulations can be performed in controlled environments to model specific underground geochemical processes and validate real-world scenarios, offering an effective complement to field simulations. They can also predict changes over several years to several decades based on geological conditions [100]. During numerical simulations, extensive geochemical data (such as major and trace elements and isotope values) can be used as input parameters, resulting in high consistency between the simulation results and actual measurements [12]. For example, Yang et al. [101] used Fluent to simulate CO2 leakage patterns in the Yanchang Oilfield under various scenarios. By comparing the monitoring data with simulation results, they validated the assumptions and parameters of their CO2 numerical simulation model and optimized the placement of monitoring points. The structured data generated from these simulations are valuable for refining and optimizing CO2 models and can be applied to similar scenarios [102]. Wang et al. [103] used a BP neural network to predict CO2 injection capacity in saline aquifers. Testing the model on projects like Sleipner, Quest, and Illinois showed that integrating numerical simulations with machine learning can significantly enhance calculation speed and accuracy. Uncertainty quantification methods enable accurate and rapid predictions of CO2 concentration distributions without traditional inversion modeling [104].
Geochemical monitoring generates vast amounts of data, which traditional processing methods often struggle to handle. AI and ML technologies, particularly deep learning, enable models with multiple processing layers to learn complex data representations, improving their processing efficiency and accuracy [105]. These technologies can build sophisticated geochemical models and prediction systems. By training neural network models, it is possible to simulate CO2 migration paths and changes in reservoirs and predict potential leakage locations and scales. This includes calculating parameters such as storage solubility, capture efficiency, and various capture indices [106,107,108]. Such predictive capabilities can help decision-makers take proactive measures to mitigate the environmental risks. AI and ML will increasingly play a role in integrating diverse data sources, including geological, geophysical, and chemical data. By merging these sources, AI algorithms can provide more comprehensive and accurate monitoring results and site selection criteria [109]. AI and ML technologies hold significant promise for geochemical monitoring at CO2 storage sites, enhancing efficiency and effectiveness in areas such as real-time data processing, model construction, automated monitoring, and anomaly detection.
In geochemical monitoring simulations, machine learning algorithms can analyze historical data to create anomaly detection models, quickly identifying anomalies in monitoring data. As illustrated in Figure 8, algorithms like artificial neural networks (ANN) and convolutional neural networks (CNN) are commonly used to predict CO2 storage properties, assess mechanical stability, and monitor CO2 plume migration and leakage [110,111,112]. Deep convolutional network algorithms, in particular, have shown a strong performance in analyzing complex geochemical data from groundwater and gas samples in offshore Brazil experiments, effectively detecting abnormal signals and potential CO2 leakage points [113]. Support vector machines (SVM) and support vector regression (SVR) methods are used for predicting rock properties and analyzing sensitivity to various factors [114,115]. Generative adversarial networks (GAN) and long short-term memory networks (LSTM) are employed for the real-time monitoring of CO2 migration and leakage [116,117,118]. Decision trees (DT) and random forests (RF) are used to develop risk assessment frameworks and decision analysis tools to estimate CCS success probabilities [110,119,120]. Overall, deep learning methods like CNN and GAN show promise in various scenarios in CCS storage sites and merit further exploration in the future.
Machine learning (ML) methods, with their distinct advantages and capabilities, are becoming increasingly important in various research areas of carbon capture and storage (CCS). To fully utilize the potential of machine learning and achieve the best results, it is essential to select the most suitable ML methods for specific research needs and to develop integrated models that combine different techniques. However, due to the significant geological variability and heterogeneity across regions, as well as the dynamic nature of underground CO2 migration, the application of machine learning and artificial intelligence technologies requires extensive data for effective training. Consequently, sites with limited monitoring data may struggle to make accurate predictions. Recently, the rapid growth in large-scale models has led to a proliferation of machine learning algorithms, some of which have limited intersections with geological disciplines. Future advancements must overcome challenges related to data volume, algorithm transparency, and standardization. By continuously refining the application processes of these technologies, the safety and effectiveness of CO2 geological storage can be further enhanced.

4.2. Baseline Survey and Internet of Things Monitoring

To ensure the long-term safe storage of CO2 underground, conducting a baseline survey is essential. This survey aims to evaluate the initial geochemical state of the storage site. A baseline survey involves a comprehensive and systematic assessment of the natural conditions of the target area before starting experiments or monitoring. This includes evaluating fundamental geological features, hydrological characteristics, and the environmental background [121]. Comparing the subsequent data with the baseline data allows for the timely detection of changes in water quality, atmospheric composition, and other factors, providing early warnings of environmental changes. Baseline monitoring serves as the foundation for both the initial monitoring efforts and ongoing environmental protection measures.
For instance, the Otway storage site initiated long-term environmental baseline monitoring before CO2 injection. Due to the influence of the Campbell Port Limestone, the natural baseline is complex. The long-term monitoring of groundwater composition, tracer compounds, CO2 levels, water levels, and seasonal variations in water flow rates and directions helped establish the connectivity, fluid composition, and migration timeline of the freshwater aquifer [122]. The Quest project established hydrological and geochemical baselines for four target aquifers. Based on existing water head data, well pumping tests, and aquifer characteristics, the inferred regional groundwater flow direction and velocity were calculated to determine if fluid and/or gas migration occurred in the reservoir [123]. In the Weyburn storage area in Canada, environmental benchmarks, including N2, Ar, He, and CO2/O2 ratios, were used to reduce the impact of background variability on monitoring indicators. Typically, after establishing baselines for water chemistry and carbon isotope composition, injection simulation experiments were conducted. The arrival of CO2 plumes in monitoring wells is determined by decreases in pH, increases in CO2 partial pressure, and changes in conductivity [39]. Column experiments have shown that calcium (Ca) is highly responsive to changes in CO2 flux, and once a baseline concentration is established, calcium (Ca) can be used as a parameter for monitoring CO2 leakage [48]. Baseline surveys are therefore a necessary part of the pre- and post-storage processes. However, these methods heavily rely on data-intensive baseline studies to identify anomalies. After establishing the baseline, comparing results from different monitoring dates can help detect leaks and identify potential leakage locations and scales (Figure 9). Nevertheless, predicting future leakages based on pre-injection baseline surveys is challenging due to natural variations in CO2 concentrations in the soil, the groundwater, and the atmosphere [124]. Thus, adjusting baseline values to account for the continuously changing environmental conditions will be a critical aspect of future baseline surveys.
In recent years, advancements in sensing, computing, and communication technologies have enabled the integration of computing, communication, and processing functions into low-cost, low-power sensors. Internet of Things (IoT) online monitoring technology uses wired or wireless communication to connect various types of sensors, forming wireless sensor networks (WSN) that transmit data over the internet for remote access. This allows for the simultaneous monitoring of parameters such as temperature, humidity, pressure, and spatial location (Figure 10) [126]. IoT online monitoring can continuously collect geochemical data, including groundwater chemical composition, gas concentrations, pressure, and temperature, providing a real-time, precise monitoring of environmental parameters. This continuous data collection captures dynamic changes in environmental parameters at storage sites, offering comprehensive baseline information, which is a key advantage in baseline surveys. Moreover, IoT online monitoring also has promising applications in routine monitoring post-storage. Given the large and remote nature of CO2 geological storage sites, deploying numerous sensors across these areas is necessary. Sensors with precise positioning capabilities allow for high-precision monitoring over extensive areas and enable adjustments in sensor density as needed [127].
Recent studies have explored the use of IoT online monitoring for baseline and routine monitoring in the geosciences. Wang et al. [128] developed a real-time monitoring system for urban soil pollution data using IoT. They integrated the Spring Cloud Alibaba microservice framework with the EMQX platform for soil data collection and storage, and created a WebGIS module for map rendering and soil concentration visualization, aiding in pollution prediction and warnings. Yang Hui et al. [129] used IoT to collect CO2 concentration data and other related information in the Junggar Basin and Turpan Basin of the Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region. They built a neural network model for a regression analysis of key factors like NDVI and topographic undulation, revealing high CO2 concentration accumulation in energy resource areas influenced by vegetation, meteorological conditions, and topography, and identifying varying correlations between NDVI, topographic undulation, and CO2 concentration across different regions [23]. Ma et al. [127] suggest that IoT online monitoring technology effectively meets the needs of geological storage sites, proposing sensor design ideas, and deployment strategies, and establishing a monitoring system that can be extended to geological engineering construction monitoring [130].
Although IoT online monitoring involves high initial costs for sensor deployment, it is a promising technology with significant potential when combined with long-term baseline and routine monitoring. Additionally, using machine learning to establish environmental baselines and analyze interactions between CO2 leakage and environmental factors such as temperature, humidity, and wind speed can help mitigate the impact of environmental changes [82]. Therefore, the use of IoT online monitoring technology with CO2 sensors, which is adaptable to monitoring range and frequency requirements, represents a promising direction for future development [23,131].

5. Conclusions

CO2 geological storage projects are critical technologies for addressing climate change. Geochemical monitoring is essential for the successful implementation of storage projects and for ensuring the safety and effectiveness of storage systems. This paper reviews methods such as gas monitoring, groundwater monitoring, and tracer monitoring, detailing the effectiveness of geochemical methods in various contexts. This highlights the role of geochemical monitoring in identifying leakage sources and scales, analyzing migration pathways, and characterizing storage conditions. Based on existing research and the strengths and limitations of these methods, the following recommendations to enhance monitoring strategies are offered:
  • Implement a comprehensive multi-method monitoring approach to improve accuracy and coverage.
  • Strengthen baseline surveys to establish reliable environmental reference standards.
  • Utilize Internet of Things (IoT) technology for real-time data collection.
  • Integrate artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) to enhance data processing and achieve more accurate anomaly detection.
  • Adjust monitoring plans dynamically based on the results obtained.
Combining IoT technology with AI and ML could lead to the development of advanced automated monitoring systems. At CO2 geological storage sites, sensor networks can provide real-time geochemical data, while AI algorithms facilitate automatic analysis and reporting, thereby greatly improving monitoring efficiency and responsiveness.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, J.M. and X.Y.; methodology, W.C.; software, Y.Z. (Yijun Zheng); validation, L.H., H.W. and L.N.; formal analysis, Y.Z. (Yongzhang Zhou); investigation, J.M.; funding acquisition, Y.Z. (Yongzhang Zhou). All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was financially supported by the National Key Research and Development Program of China (Grant No. 2022YFF0801201), the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. U1911202), and the Key-Area Research and Development Program of Guangdong Province (Grant No. 2020B1111370001).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

All data included in this study are available upon request by contacting the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to anonymous reviewers for their constructive reviews on the manuscript, and the editors for carefully revising the manuscript.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Mcculloch, M.T.; Winter, A.; Sherman, C.E.; Trotter, J.A. 300 years of sclerosponge thermometry shows global warming has exceeded 1.5 °C. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2024, 14, 171–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Zhang, X.; Yang, X.; Lu, X. China Carbon Dioxide Capture, Utilization and Storage (CCUS) Annual Report (2023); The Administrative Center for China’s Agenda 21, Global CCS Institute, Tsinghua University: Beijing, China, 2023. [Google Scholar]
  3. Global CCS Institute. Global Status of CCS 2023; Global CCS Institute: Melbourne, Australia, 2023. [Google Scholar]
  4. Ringrose, P.; Mathieson, A.; Wright, I.; Selama, F.; Hansen, O.; Bissell, R.; Saoula, N.; Midgley, J. The in Salah CO2 Storage Project: Lessons Learned and Knowledge Transfer. Energy Procedia 2013, 37, 6226–6236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Roberts, J.J.; Stalker, L. What have we learned about CO2 leakage from CO2 release field experiments, and what are the gaps for the future? Earth Sci. Rev. 2020, 209, 102939. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Ringrose, P.S.; Roberts, D.M.; Gibson-Poole, C.M.; Bond, C.; Wightman, R.; Taylor, M.; Raikes, S.; Iding, M.; Østmo, S. Characterization of the Krechba CO2 storage site: Critical elements controlling injection performance. Energy Procedia 2011, 4, 4672–4679. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Liu, E.; Zhu, L.; Raj, A.G.; McClellan, J.H.; Al-Shuhail, A.; Kaka, S.I.; Iqbal, N. Microseismic events enhancement and detection in sensor arrays using autocorrelation-based filtering. Geophys. Prospect. 2017, 65, 1496–1509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Vermeul, V.R.; Amonette, J.E.; Strickland, C.E.; Williams, M.D.; Bonneville, A. An overview of the monitoring program design for the FutureGen 2.0 CO2 storage site. Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control 2016, 51, 193–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Myers, M.B.; Roberts, J.J.; White, C.; Stalker, L. An experimental investigation into quantifying CO2 leakage in aqueous environments using chemical tracers. Chem. Geol. 2019, 511, 91–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Gassara, O.; Estublier, A.; Garcia, B.; Noirez, S.; Cerepi, A.; Loisy, C.; Le Roux, O.; Petit, A.; Rossi, L.; Kennedy, S.; et al. The Aquifer-CO2Leak project: Numerical modeling for the design of a CO2 injection experiment in the saturated zone of the Saint-Emilion (France) site. Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control 2021, 104, 103196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Cahill, A.G.; Jakobsen, R. Geochemical modeling of a sustained shallow aquifer CO2 leakage field study and implications for leakage and site monitoring. Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control 2015, 37, 127–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Cuoco, E.; Sacchi, E.; De Francesco, S.; Paolucci, V.; Maletic, E.L.; Darrah, T.H.; Sirna, M.; Tedesco, D. Groundwater mixing in a heterogeneous multilayer aquifer driven by geogenic CO2 fluxes: Evidence from chemical and isotopic composition of Ferrarelle waters (Riardo Plain, southern Italy). Appl. Geochem. 2020, 116, 104564. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Roberts, J.J.; Gilfillan, S.M.V.; Stalker, L.; Naylor, M. Geochemical tracers for monitoring offshore CO2 stores. Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control 2017, 65, 218–234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Györe, D.; Gilfillan, S.M.V.; Stuart, F.M. Tracking the interaction between injected CO2 and reservoir fluids using noble gas isotopes in an analogue of large-scale carbon capture and storage. Appl. Geochem. 2017, 78, 116–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Stalker, L.; Boreham, C.; Underschultz, J.; Freifeld, B.; Perkins, E.; Schacht, U.; Sharma, S. Application of tracers to measure, monitor and verify breakthrough of sequestered CO2 at the CO2CRC Otway Project, Victoria, Australia. Chem. Geol. 2015, 399, 2–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Benson, S.M.; Cole, D.R. CO2 Sequestration in Deep Sedimentary Formations. Elements 2008, 4, 325–331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Gilfillan, S.; Haszedline, S.; Stuart, F.; Gyore, D.; Kilgallon, R.; Wilkinson, M. The application of noble gases and carbon stable isotopes in tracing the fate, migration and storage of CO2. Energy Procedia 2014, 63, 4123–4133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Oldenburg, C.M.; Lewicki, J.L.; Hepple, R.P. Near-Surface Monitoring Strategies for Geologic Carbon Dioxide Storage Verification; University of California: Los Angeles, CA, USA, 2003. [Google Scholar]
  19. Oskarsson, N.; Pálsson, K.; Ólafsson, H.; Ferreira, T. Experimental monitoring of carbon dioxide by low power IR-sensors: Soil degassing in the Furnas Volcanic Centre, Azores. J. Volcanol. Geotherm. Res. 1999, 92, 181–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Lewicki, J.L.; Hilley, G.E. Eddy covariance mapping and quantification of surface CO2 leakage fluxes. Geophys. Res. Lett. 2009, 36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Lewicki, J.L.; Fischer, M.L.; Hilley, G.E. Six-week time series of eddy covariance CO2 flux at Mammoth Mountain, California: Performance evaluation and role of meteorological forcing. J. Volcanol. Geotherm. Res. 2008, 171, 178–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Radziemski, L.J.; Solarz, R.W.; Paisner, J.A. Laser Spectroscopy and its Applications; Routledge: London, UK, 1987. [Google Scholar]
  23. Yang, H.; Qin, Y.; Feng, G.; Ci, H. Online Monitoring of Geological CO2 Storage and Leakage Based on Wireless Sensor Networks. IEEE Sens. J. 2013, 13, 556–562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration ESRL. Trends in Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide. 2023. Available online: https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/gl_trend.html (accessed on 1 June 2024).
  25. Geng, Y.; Zhang, W.; Yan, X.; Zhang, F.; Xie, Y.; Zhou, C.; Yin, B.; Ge, H. Comparison and Analysis of Carbon Dioxide Online Monitoring System for Stationary Pollution Sources in Jinan City. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2023, 36, 58–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Jie, G.; Han, Z.; Yu, Z.; Qian, W.; Han, X. On-line Monitoring of Waste Incineration Flue Gas Based on Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy. China Instrum. 2018, 63–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Lin, Z.; Shao, S.; Liu, Y.; Dong, X.; Doing, X. Progress of research on infrared spectrometry in gas quantitative analysis. Anal. Instrum. 2009, 6–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Shi, J. Study on Detection System of Carbon Dioxide on Photoacoustic Spectrum; Zhejiang University of Technology: Hangzhou, China, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  29. Liu, K.; Guo, X.; Yi, H.; Chen, W.; Zhang, W.; Gao, X. Off-beam quartz-enhanced photoacoustic spectroscopy. Opt. Lett. 2009, 34, 1594–1596. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Liu, Q.; Wang, L.; Zhu, X.; Liu, Y.; Zhenyu, W. Temperature Compensation for Infrared Detection of Carbon Dioxide Concentration. Infrared Technol. 2023, 45, 671–677. [Google Scholar]
  31. Jun, L. High-temperature Compensation Method for Non-dispersiveInfrared Carbon Dioxide Based on Numerical Iteration. Instrum. Tech. Sens. 2017, 104–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Shuqin, L. Detection and Analysis System for CO2 Gas Based on TDLAS. Doctoral Dissertation, Harbin Institute of Technology, Harbin, China, 2013; p. 67. [Google Scholar]
  33. Ma, D.; Tan, W.; Zhang, Z.; Wang, X.; Xia, F.; Hu, J. Recognition of leak CO2 with wavelet analysis based on correlation monitoring between CO2 and O2 in atmosphere. Process Saf. Environ. Prot. 2018, 114, 64–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Beerling, D.J.; Leake, J.R.; Long, S.P.; Scholes, J.D.; Ton, J.; Nelson, P.N.; Bird, M.; Kantzas, E.; Taylor, L.L.; Sarkar, B.; et al. Farming with crops and rocks to address global climate, food and soil security. Nat. Plants 2018, 4, 138–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Berner, E.K.; Berner, R.A. Global Environment: Water, Air, and Geochemical Cycles, 2nd ed.; Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ, USA, 2012; Available online: http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctv30pnvjd (accessed on 1 June 2024).
  36. Romanak, K.; Dobeck, L.; Dixon, T.; Spangler, L. Potential for a process-based monitoring method above geologic carbon storage sites using dissolved gases in freshwater aquifers. Procedia Earth Planet. Sci. 2013, 7, 746–749. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Risk, D.; Lavoie, M.; Nickerson, N. Using the Kerr investigations at Weyburn to screen geochemical tracers for near-surface detection and attribution of leakage at CCSJEOR sites. Int. J. Greenh. Gas. Control. 2015, 35, 13–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Yuan, W.; Lu, S.; Guan, Y.; Yang, H. Open-path Halon 1301 NDIR sensor with temperature compensation. Infrared Phys. Technol. 2019, 97, 129–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Do, H.-K.; Yu, S.; Ryuh, Y.-G.; Ju, Y.; Kang, H.-J.; Ha, S.-W.; Yun, S.-T. Tracing CO2 leakage and migration using the hydrogeochemical tracers during a controlled CO2 release field test. Appl. Geochem. 2022, 143, 105390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Rillard, J.; Pourret, O.; Censi, P.; Inguaggiato, C.; Zuddas, P.; Toulhoat, P.; Gombert, P.; Brusca, L. Behavior of rare earth elements in an aquifer perturbed by CO2 injection: Environmental implications. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 687, 978–990. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Abbaspour, A.; Refahi, M.; Khalafi-Nezhad, A.; Soltani Rad, N.; Behrouz, S. Carbon composite–PVC based membrane coated platinum electrode for chromium determination. J. Hazard. Mater. 2010, 184, 20–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Lacroix, E.; de Donato, P.; Lafortune, S.; Caumon, M.-C.; Barres, O.; Liu, X.; Derrien, M.; Piedevache, M. In situ continuous monitoring of dissolved gases (N2, O2, CO2, H2) prior to H2 injection in an aquifer (Catenoy, France) by on-site Raman and infrared spectroscopies: Instrumental assessment and geochemical baseline establishment. Anal. Methods 2021, 13, 3806–3820. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Zhou, Z.; Zhang, C.-J.; Liu, P.-F.; Fu, L.; Laso-Pérez, R.; Yang, L.; Bai, L.-P.; Li, J.; Yang, M.; Lin, J.-Z.; et al. Non-syntrophic methanogenic hydrocarbon degradation by an archaeal species. Nature 2022, 601, 257–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Tyne, R.L.; Barry, P.H.; Lawson, M.; Byrne, D.J.; Warr, O.; Xie, H.; Hillegonds, D.J.; Formolo, M.; Summers, Z.M.; Skinner, B.; et al. Rapid microbial methanogenesis during CO2 storage in hydrocarbon reservoirs. Nature 2021, 600, 670–674. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Derakhshan-Nejad, Z.; Sun, J.; Yun, S.; Lee, G. Potential CO2 intrusion in near-surface environments: A review of current research approaches to geochemical processes. Environ. Geochem. Health 2019, 41, 2339–2364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Mcling, T.; Smith, W.; Smith, R. Utilizing Rare Earth Elements as Tracers in High TDS Reservoir Brines in CCS Applications. Energy Procedia 2014, 63, 3963–3974. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Lee, K.; Lee, S.H.; Yun, S.; Jeen, S. Shallow groundwater system monitoring on controlled CO2 release sites: A review on field experimental methods and efforts for CO2 leakage detection. Geosci. J. 2016, 20, 569–583. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Wei, Y. Effects of Pure and Impure Carbon Dioxide (CO2) on Soil Chemistry. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  49. Kasina, M.; Bock, S.; Würdemann, H.; Pudlo, D.; Picard, A.; Lichtschlag, A.; März, C.; Wagenknecht, L.; Wehrmann, L.M.; Vogt, C.; et al. Mineralogical and geochemical analysis of Fe-phases in drill-cores from the Triassic Stuttgart Formation at Ketzin CO2 storage site before CO2 arrival. Environ. Earth Sci. 2017, 76, 161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Lions, J.; Devau, N.; de Lary, L.; Dupraz, S.; Parmentier, M.; Gombert, P.; Dictor, M.-C. Potential impacts of leakage from CO2 geological storage on geochemical processes controlling fresh groundwater quality: A review. Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control 2014, 22, 165–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Emberley, S.; Hutcheon, I.; Shevalier, M.; Durocher, K.; Mayer, B.; Gunter, W.; Perkins, E. Monitoring of fluid–rock interaction and CO2 storage through produced fluid sampling at the Weyburn CO2-injection enhanced oil recovery site, Saskatchewan, Canada. Appl. Geochem. 2005, 20, 1131–1157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Jeong, J.; Jeen, S.; Hwang, H.; Lee, K. Changes in Geochemical Composition of Groundwater Due to CO2Leakage in Various Geological Media. Water 2020, 12, 2597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Zielinski, J.P.T.; Melo, C.L.; Iglesias, R.S.; Reginato, P.R. CO2-Shallow groundwater interaction and related hydrogeochemical mechanisms: A review on reduced-scale CO2 release field experiments. Green Gases 2023, 13, 829–859. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Bergmann, P.; Schmidt-Hattenberger, C.; Labitzke, T.; Wagner, F.; Just, A.; Flechsig, C.; Rippe, D. Five Years of CO2 Injection Monitoring at Ketzin, Germany, Using Electrical Resistivity Tomography. In Proceedings of the 78th EAGE Conference and Exhibition 2016, Online, 30 May–2 June 2016. [Google Scholar]
  55. Collins, G.F.; Bartlett, F.E.; Turk, A.; Edmonds, S.M.; Mark, H.L. A preliminary evaluation of gas air tracers. J. Air Pollut. Control. Assoc. 1965, 15, 109–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Mroz, E.J.; Alei, M.; Cappis, J.H.; Guthals, P.R.; Mason, A.S.; Rokop, D.J. Detection of multiply deuterated methane in the atmosphere. Geophys. Res. Lett. 1989, 16, 677–678. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Stalker, L.; Boreham, C.; Underschultz, J.; Freifeld, B.; Perkins, E.; Schacht, U.; Sharma, S. Geochemical monitoring at the CO2CRC Otway Project: Tracer injection and reservoir fluid acquisition. Energy Procedia 2009, 1, 2119–2125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Zhao, X.; Cui, Q.; Wang, B.-D.; Zhu, C.-X.; Li, Y.-L. Preliminary study on environmental monitoring assessment system for CO2 storage projects. Environ. Eng. 2018, 36, 15–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Flohr, A.; Matter, J.M.; James, R.H.; Saw, K.; Brown, R.; Gros, J.; Flude, S.; Day, C.; Peel, K.; Connelly, D.; et al. Utility of natural and artificial geochemical tracers for leakage monitoring and quantification during an offshore controlled CO2 release experiment. Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control 2021, 111, 103421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Mathieson, A.; Midgely, J.; Wright, I.; Saoula, N.; Ringrose, P. In Salah CO2 Storage JIP: CO2 sequestration monitoring and verification technologies applied at Krechba, Algeria. Energy Procedia 2011, 4, 3596–3603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Rock, L.; Villegas, E.I.; Becker, V.; Dalkhaa, C.; Humez, P.; Nightingale, M.; Shevalier, M.; Mayer, B.; Zhang, G. Investigation of Natural Tracers for MMV at the Quest Carbon Capture and Storage Project, Alberta, Canada. Energy Procedia 2014, 63, 4191–4198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Mcling, T.L.; Neupane, G.; Armstrong, L.T.; Smith, R.W. The use of environmental tracers to characterize a leaky CO2 CCS natural analogue site, Soda Springs, Idaho, USA. Greenh. Gases Sci. Technol. 2020, 10, 50–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Joun, W.-T.; Lee, K.-K.; Ha, S.-W.; Lee, S.-S.; Kim, Y.; Do, H.-K.; Jun, S.-C.; Kim, Y.; Ju, Y. A modified and rapid method for the single-well push-pull (SWPP) test using SF6, Kr, and uranine tracers. Water Res. 2023, 236, 119955. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Ju, Y.; Gilfillan, S.M.; Lee, S.-S.; Kaown, D.; Hahm, D.; Lee, S.; Park, I.-W.; Ha, S.-W.; Park, K.; Do, H.-K.; et al. Application of noble gas tracers to identify the retention mechanisms of CO2 migrated from a deep reservoir into shallow groundwater. Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control 2020, 97, 103041. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Karolytė, R. Migration and Retention of CO2 and Methane in the Otway Basin and South-East Australia: An Integrated Geochemical and Structural Analysis. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  66. Ju, Y.; Beaubien, S.E.; Lee, S.-S.; Kaown, D.; Hahm, D.; Lee, S.; Park, I.-W.; Park, K.; Yun, S.-T.; Lee, K.-K. Application of natural and artificial tracers to constrain CO2 leakage and degassing in the K-COSEM site, South Korea. Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control 2019, 86, 211–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Niu, Z.; Wang, P.; Wu, S.; Zhou, W. Atmospheric 14 CO2 observation: A novel method to evaluate carbon emissions. Bull. Chin. Acad. Sci. 2023, 38, 1866–1873. [Google Scholar]
  68. Mayer, B.; Shevalier, M.; Nightingale, M.; Kwon, J.-S.; Johnson, G.; Raistrick, M.; Hutcheon, I.; Perkins, E. Tracing the movement and the fate of injected CO2 at the IEA GHG Weyburn-Midale CO2 Monitoring and Storage project (Saskatchewan, Canada) using carbon isotope ratios. Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control 2013, 16, S177–S184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Mayer, B.; Humez, P.; Becker, V.; Dalkhaa, C.; Rock, L.; Myrttinen, A.; Barth, J. Assessing the usefulness of the isotopic composition of CO2 for leakage monitoring at CO2 storage sites: A review. Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control 2015, 37, 46–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Trumbore, S. Age of soil organic matter and soil respiration: Radiocarbon constraints on belowground C dynamics. Ecol. Appl. 2000, 10, 399–411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Raistrick, M. Using Chemical and Isotopic Data to Monitor Geological Carbon Dioxide Storage at the International Energy Agency Weyburn Carbon Dioxide Monitoring and Storage Project, Saskatchewan, Canada. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  72. Gumm, L.P.; Bense, V.F.; Dennis, P.F.; Hiscock, K.M.; Cremer, N.; Simon, S. Dissolved noble gases and stable isotopes as tracers of preferential fluid flow along faults in the Lower Rhine Embayment, Germany. Hydrogeol. J. 2016, 24, 99–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Marty, B.; Jambon, A. C3He in volatile fluxes from the solid Earth: Implications for carbon geodynamics. Earth Planet Sci. Lett. 1987, 83, 16–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Jeandel, E.; Battani, A.; Sarda, P. Lessons learned from natural and industrial analogues for storage of carbon dioxide. Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control 2010, 4, 890–909. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Stalker, L.; Noble, R.; Pejcic, B.; Leybourne, M.; Hortle, A.; Michael, K.; Dixon, T.; Basava-Reddi, L. Feasibility of monitoring techniques for substances mobilised by CO2 storage in geological formations. Energy Procedia 2012, 23, 439–448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Vermeul, V.R.; Strickland, C.E.; Thorne, P.D.; Bjornstad, B.N.; Mackley, R.D.; Kelly, M.E.; Sullivan, C.; Williams, M.D.; Amonette, J.E.; Downs, J.L.; et al. Future Gen 2.0 Monitoring Program: An Overview of the Monitoring Approach and Technologies Selected for Implementation. Energy Procedia 2014, 63, 4062–4070. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Györe, D. Noble Gases as Tracers of Injected CO2 in the Cranfield Enhanced Oil Recovery Field. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  78. Li, Q.; Liu, G. Risk Assessment of the Geological Storage of CO2: A Review. In Geologic Carbon Sequestration: Understanding Reservoir Behavior; Vishal, V., Singh, T.N., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2016; pp. 249–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Searchinger, T.D.; Wirsenius, S.; Beringer, T.; Dumas, P. Assessing the efficiency of changes in land use for mitigating climate change. Nature 2018, 564, 249–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  80. Qi, L.; Guizhen, L.; Jian, Z.; Li, J. Status and suggestion of environmental monitoring for CO2 geological storage. Adv. Earth Sci. 2013, 28, 718–727. [Google Scholar]
  81. Wang, X. Optimization and Application of Soil Samples for the County’s Cultivated Land Quality Evaluation; Nanjing University: Nanjing, China, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  82. Ortega Romero, M.; Rincones Salinas, M.Á.; Elio Medina, J.D.; Gutiérrez del Olmo, J.; Nisi, B.; Mazadiego Martínez, L.F.; Iglesias, L.; Vaselli, O.; Grandia, F.; García, R.; et al. Gas monitoring methodology and application to ccs projects as defined by atmospheric and remote sensing survey in the natural analogue of campo de calatrava. Glob. Nest J. 2014, 16, 269–279. [Google Scholar]
  83. Johnson, G.; Dalkhaa, C.; Shevalier, M.; Nightingale, M.; Mayer, B.; Haszeldine, S. Pre-, Syn- and Post-CO2 Injection Geochemical and Isotopic Monitoring at the Pembina Cardium CO2 Monitoring Pilot, Alberta, Canada. Energy Procedia 2014, 63, 4150–4154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Serno, S.; Johnson, G.; LaForce, T.C.; Ennis-King, J.; Haese, R.R.; Boreham, C.J.; Paterson, L.; Freifeld, B.M.; Cook, P.J.; Kirste, D.; et al. Using oxygen isotopes to quantitatively assess residual CO2 saturation during the CO2CRC Otway Stage 2B Extension residual saturation test. Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control 2016, 52, 73–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Johnson, G.; Mayer, B.; Shevalier, M.; Nightingale, M.; Hutcheon, I. Quantifying CO2 pore-space saturation at the Pembina Cardium CO2 Monitoring Pilot (Alberta, Canada) using oxygen isotopes of reservoir fluids and gases. Energy Procedia 2011, 4, 3942–3948. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Györe, D.; Stuart, F.M.; Gilfillan, S.M.V.; Waldron, S. Tracing injected CO2 in the Cranfield enhanced oil recovery field (MS, USA) using He, Ne and Ar isotopes. Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control 2015, 42, 554–561. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Brudi, K.; Dahmen, N.; Schmieder, H. Partition coefficients of organic substances in two-phase mixtures of water and carbon dioxide at pressures of 8 to 30 MPa and temperatures of 313 to 333 K. J. Supercrit. Fluids 1996, 9, 146–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Magnier, C.; Rouchon, V.; Bandeira, C.; Goncalves, R.; Miller, D.; Dino, R. Surface and Subsurface Geochemical Monitoring of an EOR-CO2 Field: Buracica, Brazil. Oil Gas Sci. Technol. 2012, 67, 355–372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Flude, S.; Györe, D.; Stuart, F.M.; Zurakowska, M.; Boyce, A.J.; Haszeldine, R.S.; Chalaturnyk, R.; Gilfillan, S.M.V. The inherent tracer fingerprint of captured CO2. Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control 2017, 65, 40–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Karolyte, R.; Johnson, G.; Serno, S.; Gilfillan, S.M.V. The influence of water-rock reactions and O isotope exchange with CO2 on water stable isotope composition of CO2 springs in SE Australia. stable isotope composition of CO2 springs in SE Australia. Energy Procedia 2017, 114, 3832–3839. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Johnson, G. Stable Isotope Approaches to Monitoring and Verification of Injected Carbon Dioxide at the Pembina Cardium Carbon Dioxide Monitoring Pilot, Alberta, Canada. Doctoral Thesis, The University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, UK, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  92. Humez, P.; Lions, J.; Negrel, P.; Lagneau, V. CO2 intrusion in freshwater aquifers: Review of geochemical tracers and monitoring tools, classical uses and innovative approaches. Appl. Geochem. 2014, 46, 95–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Johnson, G.; Raistrick, M.; Mayer, B.; Shevalier, M.; Taylor, S.; Nightingale, M.; Hutcheon, I. The use of stable isotope measurements for monitoring and verification of CO2 storage. Energy Procedia 2009, 1, 2315–2322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Donders, T.H.; Decuyper, M.; Beaubien, S.E.; van Hoof, T.B.; Cherubini, P.; Sass-Klaassen, U. Tree rings as biosensor to detect leakage of subsurface fossil CO2. Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control 2013, 19, 387–395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Blackford, J.; Bull, J.M.; Cevatoglu, M.; Connelly, D.; Hauton, C.; James, R.H.; Lichtschlag, A.; Stahl, H.; Widdicombe, S.; Wright, I.C. Marine baseline and monitoring strategies for carbon dioxide capture and storage (CCS). Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control 2015, 38, 221–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Gal, F.; Lions, J.; Pokryszka, Z.; Gombert, P.; Grellier, S.; Prevot, F.; Yacine, D.; Patrice, S. CO2 leakage in a shallow aquifer—Observed changes in case of small release. Energy Procedia 2014, 63, 4112–4122. [Google Scholar]
  97. Park, K.; Kim, C.Y.; Kirk, M.F.; Chae, G.; Kwon, M.J. Effects of natural non-volcanic CO2 leakage on soil microbial community composition and diversity. Sci. Total Environ. 2023, 862, 160754. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  98. Beaubien, S.E.; Graziani, S.; Annunziatellis, A.; Bigi, S.; Ruggiero, L.; Tartarello, M.C.; Lombardi, S. Spatial-temporal water column monitoring using multiple, low-cost GasPro-pCO2 sensors: Implications for monitoring, modelling, and potential impact. Energy Procedia 2014, 63, 3840–3847. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Gal, F.; Michel, B.; Gilles, B.; Frederic, J.; Karine, M. CO2 escapes in the Laacher See region, East Eifel, Germany: Application of natural analogue onshore and offshore geochemical monitoring. Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control 2011, 5, 1099–1118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Li, Z.; Yu, H.; Bai, Y. Numerical Simulation of CO2-ECBM Based on Multi-Physical Field Coupling Model. Sustainability 2022, 14, 11789. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Kang, Y.; Hong, Y.; Shen, Z.; Liu, Y.; Liang, Q.; Yang, Q.; Wang, H.; Yao, Z.; Wang, K.; Ma, Z. Numerical simulation of atmospheric diffusion of CO2 and optimization of monitoring points in Yanchang Oil Field. China Mining Magazine 2024, 33, 201–207. [Google Scholar]
  102. Zhou, Y.; Zuo, R.; Liu, G.; Yuan, F.; Mao, X.; Guo, Y. The Great-leap-forward Development of Mathematical Geoscience during 2010–2019: Big Data and Artificial Intelligence Algorithm are Changing Mathematical Geoscience. Bull. Mineral. Petrol. Geochem. 2021, 40, 556–573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Wang, Z.; Li, Y.; Liu, S.; Xu, J.; Fan, C. Prediction method of CO2 injectivity in saline aquifer based on BP neural network. J. Cent. South Univ. 2022, 53, 4678–4686. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Lu, D.; Painter, S.L.; Azzolina, N.A.; Burton-Kelly, M.; Jiang, T.; Williamson, C. Accurate and Rapid Forecasts for Geologic Carbon Storage via Learning-Based Inversion-Free Prediction. Front. Energy Res. 2022, 9, 752185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Lecun, Y.; Bengio, Y.; Hinton, G. Deep learning. Nature 2015, 521, 436–444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Davoodi, S.; Vo Thanh, H.; Wood, D.A.; Mehrad, M.; Rukavishnikov, V.S.; Dai, Z. Machine-learning predictions of solubility and residual trapping indexes of carbon dioxide from global geological storage sites. Expert Syst. Appl. 2023, 222, 119796. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Safaei-Farouji, M.; Thanh, H.V.; Dashtgoli, D.S.; Yasin, Q.; Radwan, A.E.; Ashraf, U.; Lee, K.-K. Application of robust intelligent schemes for accurate modelling interfacial tension of CO2 brine systems: Implications for structural CO2 trapping. Fuel 2022, 319, 123821. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Amar, M.N.; Ghahfarokhi, A.J. Prediction of CO2 diffusivity in brine using white-box machine learning. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 2020, 190, 107037. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Aviso, K.B.; Janairo, J.I.B.; Promentilla, M.A.B.; Tan, R.R. Prediction of CO2 storage site integrity with rough set-based machine learning. Clean Technol. Environ. Policy 2019, 21, 1655–1664. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Yao, P.; Yu, Z.; Zhang, Y.; Xu, T. Application of machine learning in carbon capture and storage: An in-depth insight from the perspective of geoscience. Fuel 2023, 333, 126296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Najafi-Marghmaleki, A.; Barati-Harooni, A.; Mohammadi, A.H. Impact of gas impurities on CO2 mole fraction: Application in carbon capture and storage (CCS) processes. Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control 2017, 57, 173–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Wu, H.; Lubbers, N.; Viswanathan, H.S.; Pollyea, R.M. A multi-dimensional parametric study of variability in multi-phase flow dynamics during geologic CO2 sequestration accelerated with machine learning. Appl. Energy 2021, 287, 116580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Hubert, P.; Padovese, L. A machine learning approach for underwater gas leakage detection. arXiv 2019, arXiv:1904.05661. [Google Scholar]
  114. Cao, C.; Liao, J.; Hou, Z.; Wang, G.; Feng, W.; Fang, Y. Parametric uncertainty analysis for CO2 sequestration based on distance correlation and support vector regression. J. Nat. Gas Sci. Eng. 2020, 77, 103237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. You, J.; Ampomah, W.; Sun, Q.; Kutsienyo, E.J.; Balch, R.S.; Dai, Z.; Cather, M.; Zhang, X. Machine learning based co-optimization of carbon dioxide sequestration and oil recovery in CO2-EOR project. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 260, 120866. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Deng, T.; Liu, F.; Jia, G. Prediction carbon dioxide solubility in ionic liquids based on deep learning. Mol. Phys. 2020, 118, e1652367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Wen, G.; Tang, M.; Benson, S.M. Towards a predictor for CO2 plume migration using deep neural networks. Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control 2021, 105, 103223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Zhong, Z.; Sun, A.Y.; Yang, Q.; Ouyang, Q. A deep learning approach to anomaly detection in geological carbon sequestration sites using pressure measurements. J. Hydrol. 2019, 573, 885–894. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Li, H.; Wang, S.; Bai, X.; Cao, Y.; Wu, L. Spatiotemporal evolution of carbon sequestration of limestone weathering in China. Sci. China Earth Sci. 2019, 62, 974–991. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Gerstenberger, M.; Nicol, A.; Stenhouse, M.; Berryman, K.; Stirling, M.; Webb, T.; Smith, W. Modularised logic tree risk assessment method for carbon capture and storage projects. Energy Procedia 2009, 1, 2495–2502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Graziani, S.; Beaubien, S.E.; Bigi, S.; Lombardi, S. Spatial and Temporal pCO2 Marine Monitoring Near Panarea Island (Italy) Using Multiple Low-Cost GasPro Sensors. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2014, 48, 12126–12133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  122. Hortle, A.; de Caritat, P.; Stalvies, C.; Jenkins, C. Groundwater monitoring at the Otway Project site, Australia. Energy Procedia 2011, 4, 5495–5503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Brydie, J.; Jones, D.; Jones, J.P.; Perkins, E.; Rock, L.; Taylor, E. Assessment of Baseline Groundwater Physical and Geochemical Properties for the Quest Carbon Capture and Storage Project, Alberta, Canada. Energy Procedia 2014, 63, 4010–4018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Romanak, K.; Dixon, T. CO2 storage guidelines and the science of monitoring: Achieving project success under the California Low Carbon Fuel Standard CCS Protocol and other global regulations. Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control 2022, 113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. de Donato, P.; Pironon, J.; Sterpenich, J.; Laurent, A.; Piedevache, M.; Pokryszka, Z.; Quisel, N.; Barrès, O.; Thomas, S.; Rampnoux, N. CO2 flow baseline: Key factors of the geochemical monitoring program of future CO2 storage at Claye-Souilly (Paris basin). Energy Procedia 2011, 4, 5438–5446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Weimer, J.E.; Sinopoli, B.; Krogh, B.H. A Relaxation Approach to Dynamic Sensor Selection in Large-Scale Wireless Networks. In Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems Workshops, Beijing, China, 17–20 June 2008; IEEE: New York, NY, USA, 2008; pp. 501–506. [Google Scholar]
  127. Ma, J.; Liu, J.; Zhou, Y.; Zheng, Y.; Lu, K.; Lin, X.; Wang, H.; Zhang, C. Online monitoring of CO2 using loT for assessment of leakage risks associated with geological sequestration. Earth Sci. Front. 2024, 31, 139–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Wang, H.; Zhou, Y.; Xu, Y.; Wang, W.; Cao, W.; Liu, Y.; He, J.; Lu, K. Study on IOT monitoring of urban soil pollution and visualized system based on microservice architecture. Earth Sci. Front. 2024, 31, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Yang, H.; Fan, H.; Xu, X.; Zhang, Y.; Wang, W.; Yan, Z.; Wang, C.; Wang, J.; Liu, L.; Wang, R.; et al. Analysis of spatio-temporal variations and influencing factors of atmospheric CO2 concentrations in energy resources development areas. Earth Sci. Front. 2024, 31, 147–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  130. Ma, J.; Zhou, Y.; Cao, W.; Liu, J. Research on a CO2 Internet of Things Online Monitoring System for Geotechnical Engineering Construction; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2024. [Google Scholar]
  131. Quattrocchi, F.; Cantucci, B.; Cinti, D.; Galli, G.; Pizzino, L.; Sciarra, A.; Voltattorni, N. Continuous/discrete geochemical monitoring of CO2 Natural Analogues and of Diffuse Degassing Structures (DDS): Hints for CO2 storage sites geochemical monitoring protocol. Energy Procedia 2009, 1, 2135–2142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 2. The ratios between SF6 and Kr are plotted with the empty circle mark depending on the elapsed time (min) (modified from [63]). An open system means that the tracer gas can leave the water, while a closed system means that the tracer stays in the water continuously.
Figure 2. The ratios between SF6 and Kr are plotted with the empty circle mark depending on the elapsed time (min) (modified from [63]). An open system means that the tracer gas can leave the water, while a closed system means that the tracer stays in the water continuously.
Sustainability 16 06784 g002
Figure 3. Risks and monitoring requirements at different stages of CCS projects.
Figure 3. Risks and monitoring requirements at different stages of CCS projects.
Sustainability 16 06784 g003
Figure 4. The flow of the simulated annealing algorithm.
Figure 4. The flow of the simulated annealing algorithm.
Sustainability 16 06784 g004
Figure 5. PSNR for all indicators. Error bars represent the standard deviation of PSNR value indicators (modified from [37]).
Figure 5. PSNR for all indicators. Error bars represent the standard deviation of PSNR value indicators (modified from [37]).
Sustainability 16 06784 g005
Figure 6. Plot showing the loss of CO2 from some 2009 well gasses calculated from the difference between measured 3He/4He and 40Ar/4He ratios and those predicted from the mixing lines [86].
Figure 6. Plot showing the loss of CO2 from some 2009 well gasses calculated from the difference between measured 3He/4He and 40Ar/4He ratios and those predicted from the mixing lines [86].
Sustainability 16 06784 g006
Figure 7. (a) Model of a push–pull test (modified from [64]); (b) distribution model of underground CO2 after 10 years, predicted by numerical simulation [100]; (c) natural CO2 leakage points on Panarea Island (modified from [98]).
Figure 7. (a) Model of a push–pull test (modified from [64]); (b) distribution model of underground CO2 after 10 years, predicted by numerical simulation [100]; (c) natural CO2 leakage points on Panarea Island (modified from [98]).
Sustainability 16 06784 g007
Figure 8. Application of different types of machine learning algorithms in CCS engineering (modified from [110]).
Figure 8. Application of different types of machine learning algorithms in CCS engineering (modified from [110]).
Sustainability 16 06784 g008
Figure 9. CO2 monitoring concentrations on different monitoring dates [125].
Figure 9. CO2 monitoring concentrations on different monitoring dates [125].
Sustainability 16 06784 g009
Figure 10. Frame diagram of the Internet of Things.
Figure 10. Frame diagram of the Internet of Things.
Sustainability 16 06784 g010
Table 1. Coefficient of the correlation (r) between log pCO2 and hydrogeochemical parameters (adapted from [39]).
Table 1. Coefficient of the correlation (r) between log pCO2 and hydrogeochemical parameters (adapted from [39]).
PeriodPre-InjectionSyn-InjectionPost-Injection
pHSustainability 16 06784 i001
Type 1Sustainability 16 06784 i002
Type 2Sustainability 16 06784 i003
Type 3Sustainability 16 06784 i004
Table 2. A summary of the potential tracers for CCS, and their properties, cost, and environmental impact (data from [13]).
Table 2. A summary of the potential tracers for CCS, and their properties, cost, and environmental impact (data from [13]).
TracersCostEnvironment ImpactType
Cost per Mt (CO2)Logistics CostGWP
(100 Years)
Biological ImpactBio-DegradableUse
Restricted
In CO2 Stream?In Storage Reservoir?
ArtificialSF6£1~100Acceptable22,850-UncertainYesNoNo
PFCs£1~100Acceptable9540PossibleYesNoNoNo
CD4£1000~10,000Acceptable>36PossibleYesNoNoNo
Natural14C (in CO2)£10,000~100,000Acceptable1Possible-YesYesNo
14C/12C£1~100Acceptable1Possible-YesYesNo
13C/12C£100,000~1,000,000Restrictive1No-NoYesYes
18O-Restrictive1No-NoYesYes
CH4£1000~10,000Acceptable36PossibleYesNoNoYes
3He/4He£100~1000AcceptableNoneNoNoNoYesYes
124,129Xe/130Xe£1000~10,000AcceptableNoneNoNoNoYesYes
80,83,86Kr/84Kr£100,000~1,000,000RestrictiveNoneNoNoNoYesYes
Table 3. Comparison of different geochemical monitoring methods.
Table 3. Comparison of different geochemical monitoring methods.
MethodPrincipleApplicationMain Mechanism TypesLeakage ScaleCO2 SourcesLeakage PathCycleAccuracyCase
gasgas flux and compositionsurface seepage or leakage spreadshallow/surface effectsdirectNoYescontinuous/regularnormalalmost all
waterpH, ion concentration, and compositioncap integrity, plume migrationgeochemical effectsindirectNoYescontinuous/regularnormalInSalah, Outway, CO2SINK, Weyburn, Cranfield
noble gasspecies and composition of noble gassesplume migration, sequestration statephysical effectsindirectYesYesregularhighOutway, Weyburn, Cranfield
isotopeisotopic valueunderground characteristics, storage stategeochemical effectsindirectYesYesregularhighOtway, Weyburn
tracerthe amount of tracerplume migration, sequestration stategeochemical effectsindirectYesYesregularhighSECARB (SF6, (PFCs), InSalah (PFCs), Outway (CD4), Weyburn (PFCs), Shenhua (SF6)
Table 4. The measured and reconstructed CO2 concentrations from different wells (data derived from [59,86]).
Table 4. The measured and reconstructed CO2 concentrations from different wells (data derived from [59,86]).
WellMeasured CO2Loss of CO2 from CO2 Mix (%)
3He/4He40Ar/4HeC3F8SF6KrCH4
28F-2 20090.9%9396////
29F-1 20093.3%8591////
44-2 20098.4%7786////
29-5 200940.0%3022////
27-5 200946.9%2842////
370-186 kg//27.934.640.042.1
370-286 kg//34.741.047.943.4
37286 kg//64.370.670.851.6
37386 kg//46.152.155.244.3
376143 kg//36.652.553.040.8
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Ma, J.; Zhou, Y.; Zheng, Y.; He, L.; Wang, H.; Niu, L.; Yu, X.; Cao, W. Advances in Geochemical Monitoring Technologies for CO2 Geological Storage. Sustainability 2024, 16, 6784. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16166784

AMA Style

Ma J, Zhou Y, Zheng Y, He L, Wang H, Niu L, Yu X, Cao W. Advances in Geochemical Monitoring Technologies for CO2 Geological Storage. Sustainability. 2024; 16(16):6784. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16166784

Chicago/Turabian Style

Ma, Jianhua, Yongzhang Zhou, Yijun Zheng, Luhao He, Hanyu Wang, Lujia Niu, Xinhui Yu, and Wei Cao. 2024. "Advances in Geochemical Monitoring Technologies for CO2 Geological Storage" Sustainability 16, no. 16: 6784. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16166784

APA Style

Ma, J., Zhou, Y., Zheng, Y., He, L., Wang, H., Niu, L., Yu, X., & Cao, W. (2024). Advances in Geochemical Monitoring Technologies for CO2 Geological Storage. Sustainability, 16(16), 6784. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16166784

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop