Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Screening and ranking framework for geologic CO2 storage site selection on the basis of health, safety, and environmental risk

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Environmental Geology

Abstract

A screening and ranking framework (SRF) has been developed to evaluate potential geologic carbon dioxide (CO2) storage sites on the basis of health, safety, and environmental (HSE) risk arising from CO2 leakage. The approach is based on the assumption that CO2 leakage risk is dependent on three basic characteristics of a geologic CO2 storage site: (1) the potential for primary containment by the target formation; (2) the potential for secondary containment if the primary formation leaks; and (3) the potential for attenuation and dispersion of leaking CO2 if the primary formation leaks and secondary containment fails. The framework is implemented in a spreadsheet in which users enter numerical scores representing expert opinions or published information along with estimates of uncertainty. Applications to three sites in California demonstrate the approach. Refinements and extensions are possible through the use of more detailed data or model results in place of property proxies.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Benson SM, Hepple R, Apps J, Tsang C-F, Lippmann MJ (2002) Lessons learned from natural and industrial analogues for storage of carbon dioxide in deep geological formations. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Report LBNL 51170

  • Bowden AR, Rigg AJ (2004) Assessing risk in CO2 storage projects. Aust Pet Prod and Explorat Assoc J 44(1):677–702

    Google Scholar 

  • Burroughs E (1976) Rio Vista Gas Field. Summary of California oil fields, State of California, Department of Conservation, Division of Oil and Gas 53(2)-Part2:25–33

  • Farrar CD, Sorey ML, Evans WC, Howie JF, Kerr BD, Kennedy BM, King C-Y, Southon JR (1995) Forest-killing diffuse CO2 emission at Mammoth Mountain as a sign of magmatic unrest. Nature 376:675–677

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harden DR (1997) California geology. Prentice Hall, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson DS (1990) Rio Vista Gas Field-USA Sacramento Basin, California. In: Foster NH, Beaumont EA (eds) Atlas of oil and gas fields, structural traps III, AAPG treatise of petroleum geology, Atlas of Oil and Gas Fields. AAPG, Tulsa, pp 243–263

    Google Scholar 

  • Keeney RL (1980) Siting energy facilities. Academic, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Keeney RL, Raiffa H (1976) Decisions with multiple objectives: preferences and value tradeoffs. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Oldenburg CM (2005) Health, safety, and environmental screening and ranking framework for geologic CO2 storage site selection. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Report LBNL-58873

  • Qi J, Marshall JD, Matson KG (1994) High soil carbon dioxide concentrations inhibit root respiration of Douglas Fir. New Phytol 128:435–441

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rish WR (2005) A probabilistic risk assessment of Class I hazardous waste injection wells. In: Tsang C-F, Apps JA (eds) Underground injection science and technology, developments in water science 52:93–125

  • Savage D, Maul PR, Benbow S, Walke RC (2004) A generic FEP database for the assessment of long-term performance and safety of the geological storage of CO2, version 1.0. Quintessa document # QRS-1060A-1

  • Sorey M, Evans B, Kennedy M, Rogie J, Cook A (1999) Magmatic gas emissions from Mammoth Mountain. Calif Geol 52(5):4–16

    Google Scholar 

  • Sylvester AG, Brown GC (1988) Santa Barbara and Ventura Basins. Coast Geol Soc Guidebook 64

  • Wang S, Jaffe PR (2005) Dissolution of a mineral phase in potable aquifers due to CO2 releases from deep formations; effect of dissolution kinetics. Energy Convers Manage 45:2833–2848

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wildenborg AFB, Leijnse AL, Kreft E, Nepveu MN, Obdam ANM, Orlic B et al (2005) Risk assessment methodology for CO2 storage: the scenario approach. In: Thomas DC, Benson SM (eds) Carbon dioxide capture for storage in deep geologic formations, vol 2. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 1293–1316

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This paper benefited from the helpful comments of two anonymous reviewers and guest editors Jens Birkholzer and Chin-Fu Tsang. Earlier drafts were reviewed by Thomas E. McKone and Marcelo J. Lippmann (LBNL). I thank Larry Myer and Sally Benson (LBNL) for support and encouragement. This work was supported in part by WESTCARB through the Assistant Secretary for Fossil Energy, Office of Coal and Power Systems, through the National Energy Technologies Laboratory (NETL), and by Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory under Department of Energy Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11Z31.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Earth Sciences Division 90-1116, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, 94720, USA

    Curtis M. Oldenburg

Authors
  1. Curtis M. Oldenburg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Curtis M. Oldenburg.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Oldenburg, C.M. Screening and ranking framework for geologic CO2 storage site selection on the basis of health, safety, and environmental risk. Environ Geol 54, 1687–1694 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00254-007-0947-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00254-007-0947-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation