--> ABSTRACT: CO<sub>2</sub> Storage Resource Assessment Methodologies: Current Status and Comparative Analyses, by Popova, Olga H.; Small, Mitchell ; Thomas, Andrew C.; McCoy, Sean; Karimi, Bobak; #90142 (2012)

Datapages, Inc.Print this page

Click to view Extended Abstract.

CO2 Storage Resource Assessment Methodologies: Current Status and Comparative Analyses

Popova, Olga H.*1; Small, Mitchell 2; Thomas, Andrew C.3; McCoy, Sean 1; Karimi, Bobak 4
(1) Engineering and Public Policy Department, Canegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA.
(2) Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA.
(3) Department of Statistics, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA.
(4) Department of Geology and Planetary Science, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA.

Consensus on the need to address climate change is emerging, and carbon capture and storage (CCS) is a technology that provides a near-term means to reduce anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions to the atmosphere. The distribution and extent of storage resources will, in part, determine future deployment of the CCS technology. The need to make accurate assessments that can be communicated to stakeholders has never been greater. We compare three CO2 storage resource assessment methodologies: the approach applied by the DOE (2010), the modified USGS methodology (2010), and the CO2 Geological Storage Solutions methodology (CGSS, 2011).

This study is an effort to inventory and review the assessment methodologies and generate consistent assumptions across a wide range of data for estimating the geologic resource for storing CO2 in the underground, following with an example of storage resource calculations for the Oriskany sandstone. Results of comparative analysis indicate that there are some similarities and differences across the examined methodologies. The DOE and USGS methodologies use probabilistic approach and take uncertainty into consideration when estimate formation parameters. The CGSS methodology requires detailed geological data of evaluated formations and estimates formation parameters deterministically, based on the best science available. The investigated methodologies employ the volumetric method to estimate CO2 storage resource in permeable formations. However, the way of defining storage efficiency is specific for each methodology. In terms of physical processes the investigated methodologies use the structural and stratigraphic (buoyant) trapping and residual trapping mechanisms that operate in permeable sedimentary formations. Calculation results of CO2 storage resource for the Oriskany sandstone show that (1) the CGSS methodology provides the most conservative estimates and (2) the DOE methodology provides the higher estimates than the CGSS but under-predicts CO2 storage resource when compared to the USGS assessment.

 

AAPG Search and Discovery Article #90142 © 2012 AAPG Annual Convention and Exhibition, April 22-25, 2012, Long Beach, California