About This Item

Share This Item

The AAPG/Datapages Combined Publications Database

Environmental Geosciences (DEG)

Abstract

DOI:10.1306/eg.06011212002

Comparative analysis of carbon dioxide storage resource assessment methodologies

Olga H. Popova,1 Mitchell J. Small,2 Sean T. McCoy,3 A. C. Thomas,4 Bobak Karimi,5 Angela Goodman,6 Kristin M. Carter7

1Department of Engineering and Public Policy, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; [email protected]
2Department of Engineering and Public Policy, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania;
3International Energy Agency, Paris, France; present address: Department of Engineering and Public Policy, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
4Department of Statistics, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
5Department of Geology and Planetary Science, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
6National Energy Technology Laboratory, Department of Energy, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
7Bureau of Topographic and Geologic Survey, Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

AUTHORS

Olga Popova is a researcher and Ph.D. student at Carnegie Mellon University. She earned an M.S. degree in information management from the University of Washington and, prior to that, an M.S. degree in geology and geophysics from Novosibirsk State University. Her research focuses on stochastic modeling of sedimentary formations in regard to CO2 sequestration.

Mitchell Small received his Ph.D. from the University of Michigan in 1982. He joined Carnegie Mellon University at that time, where he is now the H. John Heinz III Professor of Environmental Engineering. Small's research involves mathematical modeling of environmental systems, environmental statistics, risk assessment, and decision support.

Sean McCoy is an analyst at the International Energy Agency and maintains an appointment as an adjunct assistant professor at Carnegie Mellon University. His research focuses on the interaction between regulation and energy technology. Sean earned a Ph.D. in engineering and public policy from Carnegie Mellon University and, prior to that, a B.Sc. degree in environmental engineering from the University of Waterloo.

A. C. Thomas received his Ph.D. from Harvard University in 2009 and currently serves as a visiting assistant professor in the Carnegie Mellon University Department of Statistics. His research interests include stochastic modeling of fields, surfaces, and networks, and computational statistical methods.

Bobak Karimi is a Ph.D. student at the University of Pittsburgh. His research focuses on geophysical modeling of tectonic settings including Turkey, Bolivia, and Pennsylvania. His research includes stress and strain accumulation through modeling and multidisciplinary validation, as well as three-dimensional construction of subsurface units as potential inputs for said models.

Angela Goodman is a physical scientist at the National Energy Technology Laboratory. She earned a B.A. degree and a Ph.D. in chemistry from Central College and the University of Iowa, respectively. Her research interests include CO2 sequestration in geologic reservoirs with respect to storage capacity; CO2 capture from power plants using metal organic frameworks; and characterization of gas, liquid, and solid interactions using infrared spectroscopy.

Kristin Carter has been a geologist with the Pennsylvania Geological Survey since 2001 and currently serves as Chief of the Petroleum and Subsurface Geology Section in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. She researches oil, gas, and subsurface geology for the Commonwealth and also enjoys petroleum history. Before her employment with the Pennsylvania Geological Survey, Kristin worked for nearly a decade in the environmental consulting field. Kristin received her M.S. degree in geological sciences from Lehigh University in 1993 and her B.S. degrees in geology and environmental science from Allegheny College in 1991.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This material is based on the work sponsored by the U.S. Department of National Energy Technology Laboratory under award no. FE0004000, CP-686, to Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. We thank Granger Morgan for key technical advice.

EDITOR'S NOTE

This manuscript was reviewed by three reviewers and accepted for publication by Michele L. Cooney.

ABSTRACT

Today, an increased emphasis on the distribution, potential volume, and cost to develop CO2 geologic sequestration resources exists. In the presence of climate change, the need to make accurate and clearly understandable assessments of carbon sequestration potential, which can be used by the government and industry to plan for technology deployment, has never been greater. We compare three CO2 storage assessment methodologies: the approach applied by the U.S. Department of Energy in its Carbon Atlas III, the modified U.S. Geological Survey methodology, and the CO2 Geological Storage Solutions methodology. All three methodologies address storage resources in porous geologic media in sedimentary basins, namely oil and gas reservoirs and saline formations. Based on our analyses, these methodologies are similar in terms of computational formulation. We find that each of the proposed methodologies is science and engineering based. As such, they are important in identifying the geographical distribution of CO2 storage resource and regional carbon sequestration potential at the national and basin-scale levels for use in energy-related government policy and business decisions. Policy makers need these high-level estimates to evaluate the prospective function that carbon capture and sequestration technologies can play in reducing CO2 emissions over the long term. The value of these high-level assessments of CO2 storage resource is to help inform decision makers in governments and industry as to whether carbon capture and sequestration is a climate mitigation option worth pursuing in particular regions.

Pay-Per-View Purchase Options

The article is available through a document delivery service. Explain these Purchase Options.

Watermarked PDF Document: $14
Open PDF Document: $24