Grantee Research Project Results
2010 Progress Report: Expert-Based Development of a Site-Specifc Standard in CO2 Sequestration Monitoring Technology
EPA Grant Number: R834384Title: Expert-Based Development of a Site-Specifc Standard in CO2 Sequestration Monitoring Technology
Investigators: Nicot, Jean-Philippe , Hovorka, Susan D.
Current Investigators: Nicot, Jean-Philippe , Hovorka, Susan D. , Remington, Randy L , Sun, Alex , Yang, Changbing , Sava, Diana , Zeidouni, Mehdi , Mickler, Pat
Institution: The University of Texas at Austin
EPA Project Officer: Page, Angela
Project Period: December 1, 2009 through November 30, 2012 (Extended to November 30, 2013)
Project Period Covered by this Report: October 1, 2009 through September 30,2010
Project Amount: $899,958
RFA: Integrated Design, Modeling, and Monitoring of Geologic Sequestration of Anthropogenic Carbon Dioxide to Safeguard Sources of Drinking Water (2009) RFA Text | Recipients Lists
Research Category: Drinking Water , Water
Objective:
The purpose of this project is to provide information needed by project developers as they work with EPA and designated state UIC Directors to determine the most appropriate monitoring, reporting, and verification (MRV) approaches and strategies for a CO2 injection site. EPA has promulgated two regulations (Environmental Protection Agency, 2010a [Part RR and UU] and Environmental Protection Agency, 2010b[UIC] that require monitoring of greenhouse gases, including those injected into the subsurface, as part of a monitoring, reporting, and verification (MRV) plan. The study described here provides a technical basis to support decision-making that will be called for in guidance documents on how this required monitoring should be accomplished. Relevant guidance documents are now in development by EPA.
It is widely believed that the monitoring strategy should be tailored to the sequestration site and be based on the extensive site characterization that is the main tool to ensure that CO2 is retained in zone. In recently released rules, the EPA Regional Administrator or his/her delegates is given authority to develop a MRV plan that is optimized for the site specific characteristics. This study is designed to fill a gap in guidance on which the administrator and the project developer can build upon experience to determine how to match the site with the possible technologies within the latitude provided by the rules.
Specific objectives of the research are to:
- Quantitatively evaluate potential monitoring strategies to select an array of strategies and guidelines for application to specific sites;
- Test the results of evaluation against the growing array of field measurements, gathered from past and current test sites in the US and world
- Develop widespread consensus that these strategies are adequate when properly applied, and
- Compile a test/teaching set of cases for testing strategies and then train practitioners in applying the strategies to an array of sites.
Work has begun on the first three objectives during the first year, in three tasks: (1) developing contacts and input from experts in the field (Task A-1 of proposal); (2) selecting tools to be studied (Task B-1), (3) developing the process by which tools effectiveness can be quantitatively assessed (Task B-1).
Initial steps have been taken to update this study with respect to recently released EPA rules, however this processes is just beginning.
Progress Summary:
Background for Study
This study of monitoring technologies was developed in support of EPA’s climate change regulatory actions, in particular those that deal with reduction of atmospheric emissions of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide (CO2) through the process known as carbon capture and geologic storage (GS).
At the end of 2010, EPA issued two new rules related to GS. The Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gasses: injection and Geologic sequestration of Carbon Dioxide (Amendments to the Clean Air Act [CAA]) requires reporting which requires reporting of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from large sources and suppliers in the United States including those that inject CO2 underground (Environmental Protection Agency, 2010a). This is linked with a modification to the UIC rules to provide class VI which provide underground injection control (UIC) with respect to protection of Underground Sources of Drinking water (USDW) (Environmental Protection Agency, 2010b).
Both rules require monitoring. The CAA mandatory reporting rule requires a monitoring, reporting and verification (MRV) plan. In this plan the focus of GS monitoring and reporting is qualifying total annual volumes emitted by surface leakage. The monitoring method required to assess surface leakage are not specified in this rule, however the UIC rule in discussion implies that the CAA rule might require direct monitoring of the atmosphere. The UIC class VI rule refers to a testing a monitoring (T&M) plan focused quite strongly on GS and associated well infrastructure. The UIC class VI rule provides a number of detailed targets that should be attained by the T&M plan (Table1). Verification in CAA MVA plan is not separately defined, and in casual usage in the rule seems to apply to an auditing type activity conducted by EPA. Verification is used in context in the UIC class VI rule consistently with the meaning an activity build upon the T&M plan that verifies that the GS project is operating as permitted and not endangering USDW’s. The UIC Class VI rule requires numerical modeling, however it is not clear the extent to which formal history matching (multiple model runs to assess how T&M results validate or require modification of the numerical modeling). Both rules specify in detail the frequency and methodology of reporting, however in-depth content of the reports (in terms of type of output from monitoring tools) is not defined. In our report, we will refer to the data collection activity in geologic settings done in the field as “monitoring”, with awareness that it must be integrated with tests, reporting, and (model?) verification.
Both rules are aligned in leaving the EPA administrator or his/her delegate (under state primacy) many significant choices that will allow optimization of the protocols and processes that are used to collect monitoring data to respond both to the site-specific uncertainties and risk and to learning gained over time. Providing input useful to making these choices, especially in the geologically-oriented part of the arena, is the goal of our study.
Our study is led by researchers at the Gulf Coast Carbon Center (GCCC), an academic-industry partnership focused on geologic sequestration as a method for reducing atmospheric emissions of greenhouse gasses. The EPA funded study is supplemented by a parallel activities funded by the Carbon Capture Project (CCP). Other activities (table 2) of the GCCC as well as input from CCP have provided synergistic inputs to this study.
Table 1. Geologic storage (GS) elements of monitoring, reporting and verification (MRV) plan required by the CCA Mandatory reporting rule(EPA, 2010a) and the testing and the testing a monitoring (T&M) plan required by the UIC class VI rule (EPA, 2010b). This is list excludes numerous non-geologic components, reporting rules, or discussion of validation.
*Definition of pressure front of a CO2 plume is “the zone where there is a pressure differential sufficient to cause the movement of injected fluids or formation fluids into a USDW” EPA 2010b, page77232.
Table 2. Activities of the Gulf Coast Carbon Center that provide input to development of site specific monitoring programs.
*detail provided in table 3
Year 1 progress by Task
Developing contacts and input from experts in the field
The study undertakes to provide technical background information to support regulators and project developers in matching selected monitoring tools and protocols with sites and uncertainties at those sites. Because this arena of environmental activity is rapidly evolving and developing, we have expended significant effort drawing information from diverse sources, and discussing our ideas for providing input with many researchers and policy developers. Regulators, industries with potential CO2 supply, policy developers, and the public provide input on the areas of concern that should be considered in developing a monitoring program. Technical expertise is provided by tool developers and data reduction specialists, and monitoring experts with field experience provide information on performance in terms of durability and sensitivity of tools under actual field conditions.
The project team has collected input through several processes. Team members have attended more than 50 workshops, seminars, and public and closed meetings during 2010, and inventoried global progress on performance of monitoring tools as well as available information on best approaches (Table 3). Because of rapid evolution, in-person exchange of ideas has been essential, as publications have lagged. In addition, in-person presentations have provided feedback on the approaches discussed in the following tasks. In addition, our team has been working with a number of project developers (Table 1), which has sharpened our understanding of needs and issues exposed by developing monitoring plans at field sites. Also very important progress, also inventoried in Table 1 has occurred in the GCCC collection of monitoring results in the field. Two monitoring projects focused on techniques to document assurance have been completed in 2010, and one project has completed the first year of data collections. The learnings from these field projects that should inform future MRV plans are reflected in the content of the following tasks. Our first year activities on this study have therefor been heavily leveraged by other related GCCC activities that are conducted under separate funding but provide input into the recommendations in development for this study.
In addition to US and global networking, we selected a panel of experts (Table 4) to serve as advisor to this project. Collaboration with Carbon Capture Project (CCP) provides additional expert advice especially outside of the US and in the several subdissiplines of geophysics. In the first year we contacted experts and developed a panel to provide input into study design and provide field experience with monitoring tools. Initial expert panel meeting held in Natchez, Mississippi May 5, 2010, in conjunction with the IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme monitoring network meeting. In year 2 the results of year 1 will be circulated to the expert panel for comment and to solicit input.
Table 3. Workshops, lectures, seminars and outreach events attended during 2010 by the GCCC staff that provide input into this siting project.
Table 4. Expert panel assembled for this study.
Test tool selection
Selection of monitoring tools is a complex process that involves a number of factors, of which site-specific characteristics influences only a few. Table 5 reviews some of the variables that must be considered in monitoring tool selection. The process of T&M and MRV are still immature, with both active discussion of policy and regulatory needs and assessment via field tests and tool development very active. Therefore, in this study we attempt to make clear the process by which we made various decisions, so that those decisions can be revisited as experience and precedent grows and as EPA releases guidance documents.
Monitoring in the context of GS has been previously explored and considered with a number of summaries of approaches , e.g., Nicot and Hovorka, 2008; Benson and Cook, 2005; GEO-SEQ, 2004, DOE NETL Monitoring Best Practices, WRI Best Practices. The purposes of monitoring considered by these workers provide the background on which EPA’s recent rules are based and include the following monitoring program goals:
- Quantify the movement of injected fluids and the reservoir and confining system to validate model predictions made based on characterization that the reservoir conditions meet expectations for fluid retention.
- Trace pressure response of subsurface to assure that perturbation is in the acceptable range and distribution
- Establish baseline for aquifer and soil gas composition against which the hypothesis of no impact from injection can be demonstrated.
- Verify CO2 storage for accounting (mass balance)
- Confirm predictions of CO2 migration (breakthrough, plume movement, migration rates, and also pressure distribution)
- Provide early warnings of storage failure
Monitoring data can also be used to verify of the correctness of the assumption made based on characterization data that the geologic characteristics are such that long term sequestration is reasonable. One mechanism is though numerical model calibration (history matching) and subsequent model updates.
The IPCC (2005) special report provides the overview of monitoring technologies on which later workers have built. The British Geological Survey (BGS, 2006), contracted by the Greenhouse Gas group of the International Energy Agency (IAE-GHG), posted a Web-based searchable database, which is currently under revision. Sally Benson and co-workers (GEO-SEQ, 2004) have developed cost charts for monitoring methodology providing a “basic” and a “Cadillac” version, but not undertaken to tailor the techniques to the sites. DOE-NETL has completed an extensive review paper on “Monitoring, Verification, and Accounting” (MVA) protocol, authored by Ram Srivastava, that indexes many of the possible techniques that are in testing for use at geologic storage sites release on DOE’s resource bookshelf (DOE, 2008). Natural gas storage monitoring, especially in terms of pressure management, provides a useful basis for this tool type (Kalyanaraman, 2008). In addition comments on the role of monitoring in the recently completed guidelines for CCS (Carbon Capture and Storage) by WRI (2008) provide some initial consensus on expectations for the role of monitoring, but supporting data on how to select a tool set to accomplish these objectives are not available. In addition, many international groups (Australia, Canada, European Union, France, Germany, etc.) have also developed tools for assessing the large variety of monitoring techniques.
Although these documents highlight and rank some of the benefits of each tool type, none of them provide rigorous guidance on the limits of tool sensitivity needed to select a site-specific monitoring procedure. That is how, can measurements be combined to achieve project goals, reducing uncertainties to reduce risk and reach a high level of confidence that storage is permanent? In addition, no consistent view of how to monitoring has wide acceptance among the technical practitioners, leaving uncertainty in how to deploy an adequate monitoring program
The list of tools selected for this study should be considered neither an attempt to construct a comprehensive list nor a guideline for a monitoring program. Our goal is to develop, test, and gain widespread acceptance of an approach to assessing how monitoring tools can be selected within a T&M and MRV program. As the requirements of T&M plans become better defined of the next two years of the project, we will modify the tool information to better fit with the program needs. After the end of this project, the approach will serve as a model for others to adapt to show how monitoring tools can be assessed for sites as well as to fit the needs of the T&M plan.
Table 5. Variables considered in monitoring tool selection.
Considering uncertainty in the variables that will drive monitoring tools selection, three characteristics were considered in selecting the first tools for assessment.
- A reasonable body of relevant experience was available from which the sitespecific sensitivity of a tool can be assessed. In this category, we considered tools that had been tested in a list of past GS pilots that we consider “monitoring dense” and for which experts are available to consult (Table 6). We encourage readers to recognize that the selection of tools by these projects is research biased, that is influenced by the interests and specialties of the research team and by the motivation of the funding agency. The monitoring strategies used in research projects are not optimized for the purposes shown in Table 5 and there should be no expectation that the tools selection will be duplicated in commercial projects.
- From our current understanding, there is interest in using such a tool for monitoring. We considered both suite of rather similar projects that we are working on currently, as well as attempt to imagine some end member site types to provide a range of site properties. For example, we imagine structural closures and regionally extensive dipping (with respect to buoyant trapping of free-phase CO2), hydrologically closed and hydrologically open boundary conditions (with respect to brine displacement and pressure build-up, stratigraphically simple thick, uniform injection zones and highly heterogeneous injection zones; thick and thin injection zones; well-characterized seals and uncertain seals; injection at shallow (>2,000 feet) to deep (>10,000 feet), different surface conditions such as offshore, mountainous, wetland, urban, cropped, thickly forested, and different types of above injection zone geology. Next year models construction will more formally assess this diversity.
- As far as we understand what might be called on to be accomplished for T&M and MRV, the tools have been shown to be useful, sensitive to measuring needed parameters, and durable in the field. We did not select tools which are widely believed to be of questionable value. In addition, commercial tools which can be purchased from service companies or vendors were preferentially selected for the first assessments. This choice should not be interpreted to imply that new methods now in development will rise to the front, in fact we hope that this is true. We add to the end of the list several tools mentioned by UIC class VI as examples that represent future tool development.
Table 6. Selected monitoring-dense pilot projects that influenced tools selected for study in this project
Monitoring methods can be categorized in various ways, including indirect / non-intrusive or direct / intrusive or according to the property they measure, as follows:
- Hydrological / engineering (pressure and temperature, flow rate)
- Geochemical (composition of fluids in injection formation, in aquifers, in soil gas, in the atmosphere)
- Geomechanical (deformation)
- Geophysical (active geophysical in which a signal is generated such as seismic, electric, EM methods; passive geophysical in which a natural signal is measured such as gravity, acoustics methods). This large field can also be divided into surface geophysics or subsurface VSP / tomography.
We anticipate that during the course of this project and during the years following project completion, the list of tools selected will grow. However for this first year and for the methods development proposal to be submitted to the expert panelists early next year we proscribed the initial tools selected very narrowly, to assist in methodology development. If panalists make different assumptions about tools, for example assuming that research tools in development are deployed, realistic limitations of the tools may not be exposed. Table 7 identifies the compartment that the tool will test, cast into the language of UIC Class VI, the specific tool to be assessed and comments on the boundary conditions of the assessment.
In all cases the assumption made is that the monitoring tool is purchases from any one of a number of commercial vendors. In interviews with experts, it is clear that each expert believes that it is possible to improve tool performance. However, for this assessment, this believe is not included in the assumption. Possible improvements in standard practice are noted both to incentivize tool selection using best available technology and development of such technology.
Table 7. Tool characteristics
* Note that list of tools assessed in this study is not intended to be in conflict with the openness of tool selection that is recommended by EPA but is designed to narrow the scope investigation to provide a methodology to delve into the possible site-specific value of different approaches.
Process by which tools site specific effectiveness can be quantitatively assessed
A number of variables determine whether a tool is effective. In this study, we focus on those variables that are site-specific. However, to make a clear evaluation, we find it necessary to prepare a complete list of factors that influence if a tool is effective, so that those that are not site-specific can be dealt with via specifying best available technologies. Many variables interact to determine if a tool is effective, which adds complexity to out assessment. In this study we force a rather artificial single variable approach on the assessment. In addition we have initially selected sets of variables that we believe will have a strong effect on tool sensitivity, this is subject to revision as the assessment matures.
One major difficulty in determining the appropriateness of tools is to determine the appropriate signal threshold that it is desirable to detect. The EPA rules provide no threshold below which a leakage or mismatch with model results are considered negligible.
Table 8 provides, for each tool type, a preliminary list of site-specific and non-site specific variables that impact tool sensitivity. In the next year this matrix will be assessed more deeply via literature review, expert panel review, and where needed. numerical modeling of tool sensitivity.
Table 8. Preliminary inventory of site specific factors that influence tool sensitivity, compared to general factors that are the same at all sites. The methods assessed are described in more detail in Table 7.
* Sensitivity is quantifiable response to the specified signal
Year 1 Conclusions
This project is designed to provide information needed by project developers as they work with EPA UIC and air quality administrators to determine the most appropriate monitoring approaches and strategies for a CO2 sequestration site. The rules state that the monitoring strategy should be tailored to the sequestration site and be based on the extensive site characterization that is the main tool to ensure that CO2 is retained in zone. In recently released rules, the program administrator is given fairly broad authority to require appropriate monitoring approaches of operators. This study is designed to fill a gap in guidance on which the administrator and the project developer can build upon experience to determine how to match the site with the possible technologies within the latitude provided by the rules.
During the first year, a large body of information was collected on monitoring options, with sitespecific significance highlighted. Several methods were used, including convening an expert panel, conducting monitoring programs in the field, reviewing monitoring programs conducted by others, developing new plans for monitoring proposed GS sites.
A subset of possible monitoring technologies have been selected and draft site-specific parameters prepared. During the next year, the sensitivity of these parameters to site characteristics will be quantitatively assessed.
References:
Benson, S. and P. Cook, 2005, Underground geological storage. IPCC Special Report on Carbon dioxide. Capture and Storage; 5:196-276.
British Geological Survey (BGS), 2006, Interactive Design of Monitoring Programmes for the Geological Storage of CO2, released October 18, 2006, http://www.co2captureandstorage.info/co2tool_v2.1beta/index.php
Department of Energy (DOE-NETL), 2008, Monitoring, Verification, and Accounting, http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/carbon_seq/core_rd/mva.html.
GEO-SEQ, 2004. GEO-SEQ Best Practices Manual. Geologic Carbon Dioxide Sequestration: Site Evaluation to Implementation. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. Paper LBNL-56623. http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/carbon_seq/refshelf/GEO-SEQ_BestPract_Rev1-1.pdf
Environmental Protection Agency (part RR and UU)., 2010a, Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases: Injection and Geologic Sequestration of Carbon Dioxide, Federal Register CFR 40poarts 72, 78, and 98; http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2010/pdf/2010-29934.pdf
Environmental Protection Agency (UIC program),2010, Federal requirements under the underground injection control (UIC) program for carbon dioxide (CO2 ) geologic sequestration, (GS) wells, http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2010-12-10/pdf/2010-29954.pdf
IPCC, 2005. IPCC Special Report on Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage. Prepared by Working Group III of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Metz, B., O. Davidson, H. C. de Coninck, M. Loos, and L. A. Meyer (eds.), New York: Cambridge University Press.
Kalyanaraman, N., 2008, Evaluating the influence of seal characteristics and rate of pressure buildup on modeled seal performance and carbon sequestration economics, University of Texas at Austin Master’s thesis, 106p.
Nicot, J.-P. and S.D. Hovorka, 2008. Role of Geochemical Monitoring in Geologic Sequestration. Presented at the CO2 Geologic Sequestration Technical Workshop on Measurement, Monitoring, and Verification, January 16, 2008. New Orleans, LA.
World Resources Institute (WRI), 2008, Guidelines for Carbon Dioxide Capture, Transport, and Storage, http://www.wri.org/publication/ccs-guidelines
Journal Articles:
No journal articles submitted with this report: View all 17 publications for this projectProgress and Final Reports:
Original AbstractThe perspectives, information and conclusions conveyed in research project abstracts, progress reports, final reports, journal abstracts and journal publications convey the viewpoints of the principal investigator and may not represent the views and policies of ORD and EPA. Conclusions drawn by the principal investigators have not been reviewed by the Agency.