Katherine Romanak - Geologic CO2 Storage.pdf

Presented at June 6-7 Texas Alliance of Groundwater Districts Business Meeting

1. Safety and Environmental Impacts
of Geologic CO2 Storage
Dr. Katherine Romanak
Gulf Coast Carbon Center
Bureau of Economic Geology
The University of Texas at Austin
1
Regular Business Meeting
June 6-7, 2024

2. The Gulf Coast Carbon Center
•Bureau of Economic Geology, The
University of Texas at Austin
•Founded in 1998 By Sue Hovorka
•Stored >11Mt CO2 over multiple projects
•Monitored >100Mt injected
•Characterization and evaluation of
hundreds of sites

3. Seismic InterpretationEnergy
Economist
Michael
DeAngelo
Dallas
DunlapRamón
TreviñoRamon
Gil
Seyyed
Hosseini
Sahar
Bakhshian
Fluid-Flow Modeling
Hailun Ni
Surface or Deep Monitoring
Katherine
Romanak
Susan
Hovorka
Geologic Characterization
Alex BumpTimothy
Meckel
Mariana
Olariu
Carlos Uroza
Communications
Coordinator
Dolores
van der Kolk
Graduate Students
The Gulf Coast Carbon Center
We seek to impact global levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) by:
•Conducting studies in geological storage, retention and monitoring of CO2 in the deep subsurface
•Educating the public about the process of geological CO2 storage, the risks and mitigation
measures associated with carbon capture and storage deployment
•Enabling the private sector to develop an economically viable industry to store CO2 in the Gulf of
Mexico, across the U.S., and globally
Sawsan
Almalki
Ismail Halim
Faruqi
Richard Colt
Larson
Germán
Chaves Chinemerem
Okezie
Shadya
Taleb
Restrepo
Jose
Eduardo
Ubillus
Charlie
(Yu-Chen)
Zheng
Hongsheng
Wang
Reza
Ershadnia
Postdoctoral
Fellows
Maria Paula
Madariaga
Tim Dixon,
IEAGHG, UKCharles Jenkins
CSIRO, Australia
International Research Fellows
Tucker
Hentz
Zhicheng
(William)
Wang
Argenis
Pelayo
Sean
Avitt
Previna
Arumugam
Chris
Deranian

4. Understanding CCS
•Stakeholders have difficulty understanding geological CO2 storage
•Interface between the public and the project
•Is it safe? Will it leak?
•What will happen if it leaks?
•Stakeholder having a basic understanding is imperative for acceptance!
•People near projects
•Government decision makers and funders
•Overall social acceptance
UNFCCC COP-21 Paris – Official Side Event on Carbon Capture and
Storage - Photo by IISD

5. Stakeholder Perception Challenges
5
Lack of
trust in
industry
Putting
geologic scales
into
perspective
Time
Mass
Volume
Understanding
geologic
mechanisms
Injection,
Trapping
Mechanisms
“Hollywood”
view of risk
Socio-emotional
issues
Technical
Issues

6. Scale is Important
6

7. Capture, Transport, Storage
7
•Primary emissions
reduction
•Power generation
•Gas processing
•Iron and steel
production
•Cement production
•Carbon dioxide removal
•DACCS (direct air
capture)
•BECCS (biomass energy
with CCS

8. Hubs
8Source: Northern Lights Contribution to Benefit Realisation
Northern Lights/Longship Hub in Norway
•First application of a hub model
•Dedicated CO2 transport ships
•CO2 Sources - Norway
•Cement factory in Brevik
•Waste-to-energy facility in Oslo
•CO2 Sources - Cross-border – Denmark
•Ammonia and fertilizer plant
•Bio- Energy power plant

9. The Role of CCS
9NPC, 2019: https://dualchallenge.npc.org/

10. We Need to Upscale CCS Quickly
•We have already reached 1.5C warming
•We are at 425 ppm CO2
•In 20 years, <1 Gt stored
•Currently storing 0.04 Gt/year
•4 Gt/year by 2035 needed
•220 Gt needed by 2070•56% power generation•31% industry•14% negative emissions

11. IRA and BIL Energy
Transition Spending
•All carrots
(credits), no
sticks (taxes)
•CCS is very
significant, but
not the main
element by far.
Tip Meckel
Source: EIA, EPA, Joint Committee on Taxation, Inflation Reduction Act, BloombergNEF. Note: Left-hand chart only
captures tax credits and incentives, not grant programs or
loans. CCUS is carbon capture, utilization and storage.

12. Stimulating Projects
12

13. EPA Permit Tracker
13

14. EPA Permit Tracker
14

15. Current CO2 Storage Projects
15

16. Geological Storage of CO2 Is Not New
16
Sleipner - 25 MMt
Location: Norway, North Sea
Start Date: 1996
Size: 1 Mt/yr
Type: Brine
Snohvit = 10 MMT
Location: Barents sea,
offshore Norway
Start Date: 2008
Size: Up to 0.7 Mt/yr
Type: Brine
Weyburn = 30 MMT
Location: Saskatchewan,
Canada
Start Date: 2000
Size: 3 Mt/yr:
Type: CO2-EOR
SACROC = > 80 MMT
Location: Texas USA
Start Date: 1972
Size: unknown
Type: CO2-EOR
No leakage or environmental impacts to date

17. 25 years of CCS R&D in the USA

18. Global Guidance and Regulations are in Place
•Demonstrate that the CO2 remains stored
•Ensure environmental protection of drinking water aquifers, biosphere, marine environment
•Account for emissions reductions

Dixon and Romanak, 2015, International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control
Romanak and Dixon, in press, International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control

19. CO2 Storage Workflow
•Permitting – requires a high level of assurance
•Site Selection and Characterization
•Risk Assessment- Modeling identifies potential
unwanted outcomes
•Project Design – to minimize potential risk
•Monitoring Plan
•Deep Subsurface – Verification
Plume behavior conforms to predictions?
•Shallow Subsurface - Assurance
No unwanted outcomes to environment
Before, during, and after injection

20. Injection zone
CO2 injected via wells
into pore space at depths
> 800 m
CO2 is stored in pore space
over 1000’s of years
Trapped by many methods
•Structural trapping
•Residual trapping
•Dissolution and
mineralization
Capture
Land surface
> 800 m
CO2
Confining system limits CO
2 rise brine
Underground Sources of Drinking Water
Hovorka, 2021
Injection Zone
Brine
displaced
Pore-scale trapping
CO2
Brine
Sand grain
Hovorka, 2021
How Does It Work?

21. Science Addressing Questions
•Controlled Releases/Injections
•Deep Injection Projects
•Shallow Controlled Releases
•Natural Analogs
•Industrial Analogs
•Laboratory Experiments
•Geochemical and biological
•Numerical Modeling
21

22. Controlled Releases Examples
STEMM-CCS – North Sea
https://www.stemm-ccs.eu/
ZERT Montana USA
Spangler et al., 2009

23. Potential Groundwater Impacts
23
CO2
•pH decrease
•Mobilization of heavy metals
•Mineral dissolution
•Detachment of metals from
grain surfaceBrine
•Total dissolved solids

24. Evaluating Metal Mobilization
•Laboratory: Rapid trace metal mobilization followed by
decline. (Lu et. Al, 2009)
•Shallow Controlled Release (ZERT) Metals mobilized but
were below drinking water standards and transient
•Natural Analogs (Mammoth Mt., Vesuvius) Metals not
present in high CO2 environments. Metals are absorbed by
mineral precipitation.
•Modelling – Transient effects and below drinking water
standards
24
Conclusion: Metal mobilization is transient and self-remediates quickly. Most
times these metals do not rise above drinking water standards

25. Mechanisms of Impacts
•Transient and mild – metals rarely if ever are above drinking water standards
•CO2 lowers pH, carbonates dissolve, silicates not as fast
•Upon dissolution, trace metals can be released from within the mineral structure
•If pH not buffered, desorption and ion exchange surface reactions more likely
•When CO2 stops or water migrates away it reverses- precipitation of carbonate
and/or reabsorption on surfaces
Table 1. Affinity for mobilization and scavenging of various metals in groundwater. From Lions et al., 2014.

26. •Effects are spatially limited
•Plants and microbes can uptake substantial amounts of CO2
•Plant and microbial communities may change
to acid tolerant species.
•Impacts occur at about 10% soil gas at
shallow depth (20–30 cm).
•Plants with well-developed root systems are
most resilient
26
Terrestrial Ecosystem Impacts

27. science fiction
Technology Development Curve
27
Cost
Maturity
doable but prohibitively
expensive
makes sense in certain
circumstances
routine deployment
Alex Bump

28. Conclusions
•CO2 Storage has undergone decades of research and development and has been shown to be safe and effective. No projects have experienced any negative impacts
•Global regulations and guidance exist and are working.
•A basic technical understanding of CCS by non-technical stakeholders is currently lacking but critical for stakeholder perception and acceptance.
•Two orders of magnitude upscale is required to meet our climate targets and we are far behind our goals.
•We are currently at the beginning of the upscale resulting from Biden policies.
•Many approaches have been used to study the impacts of CO2 storage on groundwater. The risk of leakage is low and any resulting impacts appear mild and transient.
28

29. Keep Informed on CCS
in Texas and Louisiana
29
https://forms.office.com/r/pcbQJqdALu?origin=lprLink
•Share Expertise
•Assess Challenges
•Public Engagement
•Share Expertise
•Data collection & sharing

30. Thank You
Katherine Romanak
Bureau of Economic GeologyThe University of Texas at Austin
[email protected]
http://www.beg.utexas.edu/gccc/

31. Extra Slides
31

32. Saline Formations
32

33. Pipelines
33
Current = 6,500 km CO2 pipelines
Needed for scale = 80,000 km new CO2 pipelines needed
For reference = Currently 800,000 km hazardous liquid and
natural gas pipelines.

34. Current Class VI Projects
34

35. Planned Class VI Projects
35

36. Capture Projects
36

37. CarbonSAFE-50 MT Sites
https://netl.doe.gov/coal/carbon-storage/storage-infrastructure/carbonsafe

38. Removals
38
Currently 2 Gt/year
Permanence = 100 years
Ecological Co-benefits
Currently = 0
Potential = 5–40 Gt/yr
Permanence = 100,000 years
Air quality Co-benefits
Nature-Based Engineered

39. Class VI State Primacy
•Currently, only three states have primacy for Class VI wells:
•North Dakota applied for primacy in 2013, which EPA approved in 2018
•Wyoming formally applied in 2019 and was approved in 2020, but that
process was preceded by years of dialogue with EPA Region 8.24 Apr 2023
•Louisianasubmitted its application for Class VI primacy to the EPA on
September17, 2021 and it was approved December 28, 2023
•Texas, West Virginia, and Arizona have taken steps toward primacy
approval.
•Texas-RRC – may happen “soon.” The RRC submitted its primacy
application on December 19, 2022,
39

40. Expansion of US 45Q Tax Credits
40
NPC, 2019: https://dualchallenge.npc.org/