Presenting to

IEA GHG Monitoring Network Meeting,

Potsdam, 7-9th June, 2011

Linda StalkerSenior Geochemist

Cooperative Research Centre

for Greenhouse Gas

Technologies (CO2CRC)

Feasibility of monitoring techniques for substances mobilised by CO2 storage in geological formations

© CO2CRC

All rights reserved

Outline

• Project participants

– Key points of the project

– Previous work

• Results

– Pressure and physical effects

– Geophysics

– Biosensors

– Cations, anions and pH

– Hydrocarbon Sensors

– CO2 Sensors

• Conclusions

Sample only

U-tube sampling facility at Otway.

Project Participants

• The Team

– Linda Stalker (PL - CSIRO & CO2CRC)

organic geochemistry

– Allison Hortle (CSIRO & CO2CRC) –

physical hydrogeology

– Karsten Michael (CSIRO & CO2CRC) –

physical hydrogeology

– Bobby Pejcic (CSIRO) – sensor

technology

– Ryan Noble (CSIRO) – inorganic

geochemistry

– Matthew Leybourne (GNS & CO2CRC)

– inorganic geochemistry

Team Members

Sample only

Key points being covered in the project

– Flow effects

• e.g. pressure, thermal, flow, density

– Geochemical effects

• Dissolution, diagenesis or chemical alterations

– Shallow/surface effects

• Toxicity on biosphere or microbial effects

– Capture gas compositions

• Power plants, LNG, industrial sources

• Built on previous work “Downhole monitoring of chemical changes associated

with CO2 Storage” Ross et al, 2007, CO2CRC RPT07-0749

Search CriteriaConsiderations Approx. Ranges

Depth soil surface to km

Temperature 4°C to ~150°C

Aqueous environ. yes

Power 240 V max.

Data transmission wire or wireless

Lifetime short to long-term

Self-calibration drift

Redundant/robust environ challenges

Relative cost indicative costs

Analytes Levels

CO2 ppb to percent

pH relative change

Hydrocarbons ppb to percent

Anions mMol

Cations mMol

Tracers ppb to ppm

Pressure/temp kPa / °C

Geophysicalproperties

varies with methods employed

Biological changes varies with methods employed

Contaminants varies with contaminant

Methods Used• Literature Search

– ISI Web of Science

– ISI Derwent Innovations

Index

– Google

– others

• Case Study Reviews

– Pembina, Canada

– Ketzin, Germany

– Cranfield, USA

– Frio, USA

– Otway, Australia

©CO2CRC

Flow and physical effects

• The pressure pulse propagates to a

larger footprint than the CO2 plume

that generates it

• Increases coverage of

reservoir/aquifer monitored

• Many tools monitor changes

• Sensors (dependent on type)

+ equipment is increasingly robust

- data volumes & interpretation

increasingly difficult, need for more

complex models

• Multiport systems increase data

information types

• Instrument drift improving

• Wider use of fibre optics

Flow and Physical Effects

Co

st

Suit

abili

ty a

t re

serv

oir

co

nd

itio

ns

Lon

g-te

rm

Do

wn

-ho

le

mo

nit

ori

ng

Shal

low

CC

S

Dee

p C

CS

Permanent Down-hole Gauges (PDG) H Y Y Y Y

Water Level Loggers L N Y Y NMulti-interval Logging M N Y Y NDTS H Y Y Y YRST H Y Y Y YDSI H Y Y Y YSP H Y Y Y YERT H Y Y N YFlowmeters M Y Y Y Y

= Appropriate

= Possible, requires more testing or development

= Possible, but unlikely

Geophysical

• For more detailed review refer

to IEA GHG “Quantification

Techniques for CO2 leakage”

• Focus on land-based tools and

those less covered by earlier

report

• Shallow groundwater changes

– Pressure, salinity increases, pH

reduction, metal mobilisation, Eh

reduction, temperature reduction

• Methods covered:

– Seismic methods, electromagnetics,

magnetotellurics, surface

deformation

– Other such as

• Magnetics, gravity, magnetic

resonance sounding, ground

penetrating radar

Geophysical

• Not widely used previously

– NMR (nuclear magentic

resonance) or MRS

– GPR (Ground

Penentrating Radar)

– Differential GPS

– Magnetics

• Airborne

• Ground

• Gradiometry

– Magnetotellurics/CSMT

Deep

Sh

allo

w

Plu

me lo

cati

on

/im

igra

tio

n

Fin

e-s

cale

pro

cesses

Leakag

e

Qu

an

tifi

cati

on

New

ad

dit

ion

3D/4D surface seismic

Time lapse 2D surface seismic

Multicomponent seismic

Boomer/Sparker

High resolution acoutstic imaging

Microseismic monitoring

4D Cross-hole seismic

4D VSP

Sidescan sonar

Multi beam echo sounding

Airborne magnetic

Magnetics* Ground magnetic

Magnetic gradiometry

Time lapse surface gravimetry

Time lapse well gravimetry

Surface EM

CSMT

Magnetotellurics

Sea bottom EM (CSEM)

Cross-hole EM/imaging

Permanenent borehole EM

Cross-hole ERT

ESP

Airborne hyperspectral imaging

Satellite interferometry

Airborne EM

Geophysical logs**

Pressure/temperature

Differential GPS

Tiltmeters

Magnetic Resonance Sounding

Borehole NMR

GPR - surface

GPR - borehole (tomography)

*Used to map faults/potential leakage points

** Geophysical logs included gamma, resistivity, neutron, gamma-gamma, induction and magnetic susceptibility

CSMT = Controlled Source Magnetotellurics

CSEM = Controlled Source ElectroMagnetics

Sonar Bathymetry

Gravimetry

Electrical/Electro-magnetic

Seismic Acoustic imaging

Well-based

Remote sensing

Others

Onshore only

Onshore & Offshore

Offshore only

Primary use Secondary use

New addition or change to table

Modified from Chadwick et al, 2007

Biological technology for monitoring CO2

Adapted from Maphosa et al., 2010

• The challenges

– Identifying new tools

– Understanding and characterising

the changes in microbial domains

caused by CO2 increase or

displacement of O2

• The tools

– Ecosystem /botanical monitoring,

microbiological monitoring, bacterial

counts, microbiological/metabolic

activity, selected enzyme/shift

sensors, PCR/DNA fingerprinting,

microarrays – (PhyloChip® &

GeoChip®), next generation DNA

(NGS) and ecogenomics

Biological

Hig

hth

rou

ghp

ut

Co

st

De

ep

CC

S

Shal

low

CC

S

Test

ed

De

ep

Test

ed

Shal

low

Test

ed

An

alo

gue

Plant species survey Y L X X

Plant counts Y L X X

Hyperspectral plant monitoring Y L X X

Bacterial counts Y L

Plating N L

ATP activity Y L

Metabolic profiles N L

Biosensors Y L

Phospholipid Fatty Acid Y L

Microcosms N H

PCR N M

Microarrays Y&N M

Pyrosequencing Y&N M

Ecogenomics N H

= Botanical

= Microbiological

Cost:

H= High, M=Moderate, L=Low

For CCS applications:

= suitable,

= less suitable

For method development:

= tested,

= limited testing,

= untested

X= not applicable

Geochemical Effects

• What to measure?

• Cations, Anions & pH

• Most promising tools include

– Oxidation/reduction potential

– Ion Selective Electrodes

• Challenges

– Lots of potential materials to

detect

– Relative vs absolute changes to

materials

– Sampling vs in situ monitoring

Figure from Walker et al., 2007

Hydrocarbons and Organics

• EOR/EGR relevance - CO2 as a

solvent

• Increased awareness of BTEX

mobilisation

• Capture gas contaminants

• Many tools out there

– Piezoelectric, chemiresistors,

IR, small scale sensors

• Tools are often non-selective

– More selective tools are less

robust (e.g. membranes)

– Drift and longevity are

untested

Hydrocarbon TransducerAnalytica

l range

Detection

limitComments

Various

aliphatic and

aromatic

compounds

Resistance NA

~100

ppmv

(gas)

Relatively cheap and

has a temperature

control feature.

Portable. Very little

information available of

selectivity

Various

aliphatic and

aromatic

compounds

Surface

acoustic waveNA ppb

Portable and compact.

Low power. Excellent

selectivity

Methane Near infrared10 ppm -

100 vol%~ppm

Portable. Fast response

time. Highly selective

Methane Near infrared NA ~100 ppm

Portable, rugged and

fast response time.

Highly selective

Various

aliphatic

hydrocarbons

Potentiometric

and

Resistance

NA ~ppm

Portable, rugged and

rapid response. Poor

selectivity.

Benzene,

toluene,

xylene

Resistance 1-10 ppm0.5 ppm

(toluene)

Portable and compact.

Low power. Affected by

humidity.

Hydrocarbons and Organics

Hig

h

thro

ugh

pu

t

Co

st

Suit

abili

ty a

t h

igh

te

mp

era

-tu

re&

pre

ssu

re

Do

wn

-ho

le

mo

nit

ori

ng

Gro

un

dw

ater

m

on

ito

rin

g

Shal

low

CC

S

De

ep

CC

S

Chemiresistor Y L Y

Potentiometer Y L Y

Quartz crystalmicrobalance

Y M

Surface acousticwave

Y M

Mid-infrared H

Near-infrared H

Fluorimeter Y H Y

Gas chromatography Y H X X X X X

Mass spectrometry Y H X X X X X

Cost:

H= High

M=Moderate

L=Low

Y = Yes

N = No

= has been tested

= has potential but requires

further testing

= untested

X= not applicable

CO2 sensing tools

• Update of report from 2007

• Increased interest in

– Optical (IR)

– Electrochemical (potentiometric)

tools

• Tools aim at

– Atmospheric research

– Vehicular/industrial/agricultural

processes

– Detection of dissolved CO2 in

water increasing

• Challenges of size, cost,

robustness, power and autonomy

still remain

From Barr et al., 2011

ZERT

Key Points

• Bad news

– This statement from Ross et al (2007) still applies “few suitable

sensing technologies … are available. … representing a significant

gap in technology … for large scale implementation of carbon capture

and storage”

– Data management and handling will be more problematic

• Good news

– “increasing number of tools … integrated multi-analyte sensors for real

time qualitative & quantitative analysis, along with data acquisition and

transfer. Some … are already relatively inexpensive, rugged, easily

miniaturised, low in power requirement and sensitive”.

– “Solid state devices … new generation pH probes … have the sort of

specifications required for deployment in deeper and more aggressive

environments”.

IEAGHG Monitoring Selection Tool

• Cross referencing with field trials essential

• Obtaining relevant data on tools deployed, depths, temperatures, duration

(etc.) all valuable information for assessing tools in the future

• Opportunities to deploy tools should be taken in all environments

Conclusions

• A range of maturity in different sensors and tools

– Geophysics is fairly mature – incremental changes to technology

– Biosensing – tested in other environments, only now testing in CCS

• The more rugged tools come from the petroleum industry

• Other tools are entering a ruggedization/miniaturisation phase for

deployment

• There is scope for developing multi-analyte tools in the future

• Field trials of tools and a database of the conditions and performance

is essential

• Data handling will be come a bigger issue due to volume of

information

• What we do with the assurance data is most important

Established & supported under the Australian Government’s Cooperative Research Centres Program

CO2CRC Participants

Supporting Partners: The Global CCS Institute | The University of Queensland | Process Group | Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

Government of South Australia | CANSYD Australia | Charles Darwin University | Simon Fraser University