Advertisement

CLEAN pp 131-167 | Cite as

Environmental and Process Monitoring

  • Dirk Schäfer
  • Said Al Hagrey
  • Esben Auken
  • Andreas Bahr
  • Matthias Beyer
  • Andreas Dahmke
  • Ingolf Dumke
  • Nikolaj Foged
  • Markus Furche
  • Michael Gräber
  • Jochen Großmann
  • Max Helkjaer
  • Ralf Köber
  • Jürgen Poggenburg
  • Gert Naue
  • Stefan Schlömer
  • Christian Seeger
  • Lars Tischer
  • Angelika Vidal
  • Carla Wiegers
  • Christian Wöhrl
Chapter
Part of the Advanced Technologies in Earth Sciences book series (ATES)

Abstract

For enhanced gas recovery (EGR) using CO2 as well as for CO2 storage in depleted gas fields it needs to be shown that injection and storage is save and neither population nor environment is exposed to risks during operation or afterwards. This requires the development and application of methods to monitor groundwater, vadose zone and atmosphere. Therefore, extensive investigations of the near-surface aquifers were performed to characterize the geological structure and the geochemical and hydraulic conditions as part of a baseline-monitoring and to specify input parameters for model simulations. If CO2 leakage should occur and CO2 migrates upwards from the storage complex, shallow freshwater aquifers are the first protected good that might be affected. Based on the model simulations, parameters that would be affected by leakages were specified and parameter changes as well as spatial extension of the expected changes quantified. A comparison of the model results with measured natural variabilities show that especially pH and TIC (total inorganic carbon), but under certain conditions also electric conductivity and aqueous calcium concentration (Ca) are most suited parameters for the detection of CO2 leakages based on observation wells in shallow aquifers. It was an important result that the temporal fluctuations of groundwater composition are generally small but spatial variations are large.

The simulation results demonstrate that CO2 gas and dissolved inorganic carbon should be expected and measured in the upper part of a confined aquifer. They also show that CO2 gas will follow the steepest gradient of the overlying aquitard and accumulate in anticlinal structures, while the dissolved inorganic carbon migrates in groundwater flow direction.

Since the area that can be monitored by observation wells and also the extension of leakage plumes are limited, it is advised to additionally use further, e.g. geophysical monitoring techniques, which are able to cover wider areas. The tested methods ERT (electrical resistivity tomography) and especially SkyTEM (helicopter borne electromagnetic survey) can provide quite comprehensive information about the aquifer down to a depth of 300 m. This is to image the geological structure, which would have the strongest influence on the distribution of rising CO2 gas and is therefore important for a site-specific monitoring concept. Repeated aero-electromagnetical measurements are so far the only method that could be used for an area-wide leakage monitoring on the relevant scale. All current laws and regulations demand an “adequate monitoring”, but it will be an iterative discussion in the future between operators, public, authorities and scientists to define what should be measured, how often and where.

In case of a large CO2 leakage rate the gas penetrates the shallow aquifer structures and migrates into the vadose zone. Here the CO2 can be measured before it discharges into the atmosphere. The CO2 concentrations in the soil are temporarily variable due to microbial degradation of organic carbon. Soil gas monitoring can be a suitable and sensitive additional method to detect non-natural CO2 concentrations in the vadose zone. The preconditions are the possibility to measure the CO2 concentration significantly below microbiologically active soil zones but above varying ground or tail water levels. Both constraints have to be tested by preliminary site investigations. Because of strong local and seasonal variations individual baselines for at least 2 years are required for interpretation of the CO2 concentration measurements.

CO2 might leak through the geological formation into the atmosphere, but it can also be released due to accidents in the surface facilities. Only very few investigations exist how CO2 spreads in the atmosphere and where hazardous concentrations are reached. Where CO2 is decanted or handled the potential hazards of CO2 release at the surface or around the facilities need to be considered. Calculations emphasize that the hazardous areas resulting from unwanted releases of CO2 cannot simply be estimated. Specific hazards must be determined in an event- and location-specific manner. Nevertheless, in that way site-specific prognoses and thus the introduction of specific monitoring and intervention measures are possible. The simulations demonstrate that simple recommendations can improve safety, like turning the exhaust of the safety valves vertically upwards to enhance mixing in the atmosphere.

It is outlined here that many different aspects with regard to the monitoring of atmosphere, vadose zone and groundwater need to be taken into account with regard to EGR and CO2 storage. In a future step a coherent monitoring concept needs to be defined now for a whole site on the demonstration scale. An intensive discussion between legal authorities and scientist will be required to harmonize what is technically feasible and what is socially and legally expected.

Keywords

Well Bore Electric Resistivity Tomography Vadose Zone Safety Valve Saline Water Intrusion 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Air Liquide (2010) Safety data sheets as per guideline 1907/2006/EG (REACH), Current as of 13.10.2010Google Scholar
  2. Auken E, Christiansen AV, Westergaard JH, Kirkegaard C, Fopged N, Viezzoli A (2009) An integrated processing scheme for high-resolution airborne electromagnetic surveys, the SkyTEM system. Explor Geophys 40:184–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. EU (2009) CCS Directive 2009/31/EG of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the geologic storage of carbon dioxideGoogle Scholar
  4. Großmann J, Naue G (2009) Expert opinion on malfunctions during CO2-RECOVERY in Altmark mining area. Internal, unpublished report, GICONGoogle Scholar
  5. Großmann J, Naue G (2010) CO2 release resulting from borehole damage. Internal, unpublished report, GICONGoogle Scholar
  6. Großmann J, Schreck A, Cotta F (2010) Tests on CO2 dispersal. Internal, unpublished report, GICONGoogle Scholar
  7. Großmann J, Schilling F, Dahmke A (2011) Zusammenfassende Darstellung zur Sicherheit und Umweltverträglichkeit der CO2-Speicherung, in Sicherheit und Umweltverträglichkeit der CO2-Speicherung. UBA – Umweltbundesamt, p 76Google Scholar
  8. EIGA (European Industrial Gases Association AISLB) (2009) CO2 Tanker Driver Manual, http://www.eiga.org/, IGC Doc 56/09/E
  9. IZ Klima (2010) Speicherung von CO2: Technologie für den Klimaschutz. Open publication, http://www.iz-klima.de/
  10. Köber R, Dahmke A (2011) Ableitung eines standortspezifischen Monitoringkonzepts für die CO2-Speicherung im Rahmen einer EGR- oder CCS-Maßnahme. Institut für Geowissenschaften, Christian-Albrechts-Universität zu Kiel, Kiel, p 96Google Scholar
  11. Köber R,Wiegers C, Schäfer D, Dahmke A, Großmann J, Tischer L, Beyer M (2011) Ableitung eines standortspezifischen Langzeit-Monitoringkonzepts für EGR unter Einbeziehung der rechtlichen und sicherheitstechnischen Vorgaben sowie hydrogeochemisches Monitoring im flachen Grundwasserleiter. Endbericht der Teilprojekte Mo1 und Mo3 im BMBF-Forschungsvorhaben CLEAN. Institut für Geowissenschaften, Christian-Albrechts-Universität zu Kiel, Kiel, 414 p.Google Scholar
  12. Kretzschmar H-J, Lubenau U, Müller-Syring G (2008) Expert system CO2 borehole integrity for the “COSMOS-Technology of CO2 storage, monitoring and safety” project as part of the BMBF/DFG Program GEOTECHNOLOGIEN, FreibergGoogle Scholar
  13. Lampe J, Schattka, D (2009) Brandeinsatz mit Kohlenstoffdioxidfreisetzung in einem Lagerbetrieb. Brandschutz - Deutsche Feuerwehrzeitung (9), p 747–753.Google Scholar
  14. Linde AG (2003) Safety guidelines for contact with CO2. Document 12/03.03/8459/0Google Scholar
  15. Naue G (2001) Free jet streams in crosswinds: contributions to fluid mechanics. Technische Universität Dresden, pp 245–252, ISBN 3-86005-276-4Google Scholar
  16. NETL (2009) Monitoring, verification, and accounting of CO2 stored in deep geologic formations. NETL – National Energy Technology Laboratory, Albany, p 132Google Scholar
  17. Parkhurst DL, Appelo CAJ (1999) User’s guide to PHREEQC (version 2) – a computer program for speciation, batch-reaction, one-dimensional transport, and inverse geochemical calculations. Water-Resources Investigations report 99–4259, U.S. Geological Survey, DenverGoogle Scholar
  18. Peter A, Hornbruch G, Dahmke A (2011) CO2 leakage test in a shallow aquifer for investigating the geochemical impact of CO2 on groundwater and for developing monitoring methods and concepts. Energy Procedia 4:4148–4153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Skinner L (2003) CO2 blowouts: an emerging problem. World Oil Magazine 224(1):38–42Google Scholar
  20. Sørensen KI, Auken E (2004) SkyTEM – a new high-resolution helicopter transient electromagnetic system. Explor Geophys 35:191–199Google Scholar
  21. Spangler LH, Dobeck LM, Repasky KS, Nehrir AR, Humphries SD, Barr JL, Keith CJ, Shaw JA, Rouse JH, Cunningham AB, Benson SM, Oldenburg CM, Lewicki JL, Wells AW, Diehl JR, Strazisar BR, Fessenden JE, Rahn TA, Amonette JE, Barr JL, Pickles WL, Jacobson JD, Silver EA, Male EJ, Rauch HW, Gullickson KS, Trautz R, Kharaka Y, Birkholzer J, Wielopolski L (2009) A controlled field pilot for testing near surface CO2 detection techniques and transport models. Energy Procedia 1:2143–2150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Spangler LH, Dobeck LM, Repasky KS, Nehrir AR, Humphries SD, Barr JL, Keith CJ, Shaw JA, Rouse JH, Cunningham AB, Benson SM, Oldenburg CM, Lewicki JL, Wells AW, Diehl JR, Strazisar BR, Fessenden JE, Rahn TA, Amonette JE, Barr JL, Pickles WL, Jacobson JD, Silver EA, Male EJ, Rauch HW, Gullickson KS, Trautz R, Kharaka Y, Birkholzer J, Wielopolski L (2010) A shallow subsurface controlled release facility in Bozeman, Montana, USA, for testing near surface CO2 detection techniques and transport models. Environ Earth Sci 60(2):227–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Xu T, Sonnenthal E, Spycher N, Pruess K (2006) TOUGHREACT-A simulation program for non-isothermal multiphase reactive geochemical transport in variably saturated geologic media: applications to geothermal injectivity and CO2 geological sequestration. Comput Geosci 32(2):145–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dirk Schäfer
    • 1
  • Said Al Hagrey
    • 1
  • Esben Auken
    • 2
  • Andreas Bahr
    • 3
  • Matthias Beyer
    • 4
  • Andreas Dahmke
    • 1
  • Ingolf Dumke
    • 3
  • Nikolaj Foged
    • 2
  • Markus Furche
    • 3
  • Michael Gräber
    • 5
  • Jochen Großmann
    • 4
  • Max Helkjaer
    • 6
  • Ralf Köber
    • 1
  • Jürgen Poggenburg
    • 3
  • Gert Naue
    • 4
  • Stefan Schlömer
    • 3
  • Christian Seeger
    • 3
  • Lars Tischer
    • 4
  • Angelika Vidal
    • 3
  • Carla Wiegers
    • 1
  • Christian Wöhrl
    • 3
  1. 1.Christian-Albrechts-Universität of KielKielGermany
  2. 2.Department of Earth SciencesUniversity of AarhusÅrhus CDenmark
  3. 3.Federal Institute for Geosciences and Natural Resources (BGR)HannoverGermany
  4. 4.GICON – Großmann Ingenieur Consult GmbHDresdenGermany
  5. 5.Geoserve – Angewandte GeophysikKielGermany
  6. 6.SkyTEM Surveys ApSBederDenmark

Personalised recommendations