Environmental Geology

, Volume 47, Issue 4, pp 576–585 | Cite as

Geologic storage of carbon dioxide as a climate change mitigation strategy: performance requirements and the implications of surface seepage

  • R. P. Hepple
  • S. M. BensonEmail author
Original Article


The probability that storage of carbon dioxide (CO2) in deep geologic formations will become an important climate change mitigation strategy depends on a number of factors, namely (1) public acceptance, (2) the cost of geologic storage compared to other climate change mitigation options, and (3) the availability, capacity, and location of suitable sites. Whether or not a site is suitable will be determined by establishing that it can meet a set of performance requirements for safe and effective geologic storage. To date, no such performance requirements have been developed. Establishing effective requirements must start with an evaluation of how much CO2 might be stored and for how long the CO2 must remain underground to meet goals for controlling atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Answers to these questions provide a context for setting performance requirements for geologic storage projects.

According to the results presented here, geologic storage could be an effective method to ease the transition away from a fossil-fuel based economy over the next several centuries, even if large amounts of CO2 are stored and some small fraction seeps from storage reservoirs back into the atmosphere. An annual seepage rate of 0.01% or 10-4/year would ensure the effectiveness of geologic carbon storage for any of the projected sequestration scenarios explored herein, even those with the largest amounts of storage (1,000 s of gigatonnes of carbon-GtC), and still provide some safety margin. Storing smaller amounts of carbon (10 s to 100 s of GtC) may allow for a slightly higher seepage rate on the order of 0.1% or 10-3/year. Based on both the large capacity of geologic storage formation and the likelihood of achieving leakage rates much lower than the rates estimated here, geologic storage appears to be a promising mitigation strategy.


Carbon sequestration Carbon storage Performance requirements Mitigation Leakage and seepage 



The authors would like to acknowledge helpful comments from and discussions with colleagues Curt Oldenburg, Larry Myer, Chin-Fu Tsang, David Keith, and Peter Cooke. This work was supported by the Laboratory Directed Research and Development Program at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory under DOE Contract No.AC03–76SF00098.


  1. Allis R, Chidsay T, Gwynn W, Morgan C, White S, Adams M, Moore J (2001) Natural CO2 reservoirs on the Colorado Plateau and Southern Rocky Mountains: candidates for CO2 sequestration. In: Proceedings of the First National Conference on Carbon Sequestration. National Energy Technology Laboratory, US Department of Energy, Washington, DC, May 14–17
  2. Beecy DA, Kuuskraa VA, Schmidt C (2001) A perspective on the potential role of geologic options in a national carbon management strategy. In: Proceedings of the First National Conference on Carbon Sequestration. National Energy Technology Laboratory, Washington, DC, May 14–17Google Scholar
  3. Benson SM, Hepple RP, Apps JA, Tsang C-F, Lippmann MJ (2002) Comparative evaluation of risk assessment, management and mitigation approaches for deep geologic storage of CO2. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory report LBNL-51170Google Scholar
  4. Celia MA, Bachu S (2002) Geological sequestration of CO2: is leakage unavoidable and acceptable? In: Gale J, Kaya Y (eds) Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies, Research Institute of Innovative Technology for the Earth (RITE), Kyoto, Japan, October 1–4Google Scholar
  5. Hodgson SF (1980) Onshore oil and gas seeps in California. California Division of Oil and Gas, Publication No. TR26, 97 ppGoogle Scholar
  6. Holloway S (2001) Storage of fossil fuel-derived carbon dioxide beneath the surface of the earth. In: Annual Review of Energy and the Environment, 26, 145–166Google Scholar
  7. Houghton JT, Ding Y, Griggs DJ, Noguer M, van der Linden PJ, Dai X, Maskell K, Johnson CA (eds) (2001) Climate change 2001: The scientific basis, intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press, New York, NY, 881 ppGoogle Scholar
  8. IEAGHG (International Energy Agency Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme) (2001) Putting carbon back in the ground, Cheltenham, UK,
  9. Johnson DS (1990) Atlas of oil and gas fields, structural traps III. In: Foster NH, Beaumont EA (eds) AAPG Treatise of Petroleum Geology, Tulsa, OKGoogle Scholar
  10. Keith DW (2000) Geoengineering the climate: History and prospect. In: Annual Review of Energy and the Environment. 25, pp 245–284Google Scholar
  11. Kvenvolden KA, Harbaugh JW (1983) Reassessment of the rates at which oil from sources enters the marine environment. Environmental Research 10:223–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. McCarthy JJ, Canziani OF, Leary NA, Dokken DJ, White KS (eds) (2001) Climate change 2001: Impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, New York, NY, 1032 ppGoogle Scholar
  13. Metz B, Davidson O, Swart R, Pan J (eds) (2001) Climate change 2001: Mitigation. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, New York, NY, 752 ppGoogle Scholar
  14. Nakicenovic N, Grubler A, Gaffin S, Tong Jung T, Kram T, Morita T, Pitcher H, Riahi K, et al. (2000) Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (SRES), Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Cambridge University Press, New York, NY, 599 ppGoogle Scholar
  15. NETL (National Energy Technology Laboratory) (2001) Proceedings of the First National Conference on Carbon Sequestration. US Department of Energy, Washington, DC, May 14–17
  16. US DOE (2001) Carbon sequestration website,
  17. Wigley TML, Richels R, Edmonds JA (1996) Economic and environmental choices in the stabilization of atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Nature 379:240–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Lawrence Berkeley National LaboratoryEarth Sciences DivisionUSA

Personalised recommendations