1887
Volume 41, Issue 10
  • ISSN: 0263-5046
  • E-ISSN: 1365-2397

Abstract

Abstract

Identifying and screening subsurface carbon storage options requires knowledge of numerous elements that can be costly and time consuming to assess at the regional scale. To remediate this, we use Neftex® Predictions which has automated the process of screening its global geological content so that carbon storage fairway extents and storage resources can be readily assessed and compared. This frees the geoscientist from the burden of time-consuming data cleaning and geoprocessing workflows. Attributes that indicate suitability of the storage option are based on a bespoke Carbon Storage Adequacy Index, developed to assess the reservoir, seal and operational factors. This automated workflow enables rapid portfolio generation and comparison, with high ranked fairways being prioritised for further investigation. Once prioritised, areas within fairways that have the greatest storage potential are useful to identify, here termed ‘sweet spots’. An example of how to do this by creating distribution maps of volumetric Prospective Storage Resource is presented. This shows how the Neftex Predictions datasets, alongside third-party data, can enhance screening map generation, especially when inferring beyond available data control. Examples from the North Sea, the Mediterranean, and the Gulf of Mexico demonstrate the global applicability of the workflows.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.3997/1365-2397.fb2023081
2023-10-01
2025-12-13
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Al Baroudi, H., Awoyomi, A., Patchigolla, K., Jonnalagadda, K. and Anthony, E.J. [2021]. A review of large-scale CO2 shipping and marine emissions management for carbon capture, utilisation and storage.Applied Energy, 287, 116510.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Bachu, S. [2003]. Screening and ranking of sedimentary basins for sequestration of CO2 in geological media in response to climate change.Environmental Geology, 44, 277–289.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Bump, A.P., Hovorka, S.D. and Meckel, T.A. [2021]. Common risk segment mapping: Streamlining exploration for carbon storage sites, with application to coastal Texas and Louisiana.International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 111, 103457.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Burke, L.A., Kinney, S.A., Dubiel, R.F. and Pitman, J.K. [2012]. Regional map of the 0.70 PSI/ft pressure gradient and davelopment of the regional geopressure-gradient model for the onshore and offshore Gulf of Mexico Basin, U.S.A.GCAGS Journal, 1, 97–106.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Chadwick, R.A., Arts, R., Bernstone, C., May, F., Thibeau, S. and Zweigel, P. [2008]. Best practice for the storage CO2 in saline aquifers.British Geological Survey Occasional Publication, 14, pp. 267.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Ehrenberg, S.N., Nadeau, P.H. and Steen, O. [2009]. Petroleum reservoir porosity versus depth: Influence of geological age.AAPG Bulletin, 93, 1281–1296.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Equinor ASA, [2019]. Sleipner partnership releases CO2 data, https://www.equinor.com/news/archive/2019-06-12-sleipner-co2-storage-data, accessed August 2023.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Ewing, T.E. and Galloway, W.E. [2019]. Evolution of the Northern Gulf of Mexico Sedimentary Basin. In Miall, A.D. (Eds.), The Sedimentary Basins of the United States and Canada (Second Edition), 627–694.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. IEA [2020]. CCUS in Clean Energy Transitions, Energy Technology Perspectives 2020, Special Report on Carbon Capture, Utilisation and Storage, pp. 174, https://www.iea.org/reports/ccus-in-clean-en-ergy-transitions, accessed August 2023.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Garnett, A.J., Greig, C.R. and Oettinger, M. [2014]. Zerogen IGCC with CCS A case history.The University of Queensland, pp. 483, https://energy.uq.edu.au/files/1084/ZeroGen.pdf, accessed July 2023.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. GCCC, [2012]. Sequestration of Greenhouse Gases in Brine Formations, CO2 Brine Database.Bureau of Economic Geology. https://www.beg.utexas.edu/gccc/research/brine-main, accessed February 2023.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Gravestock, C., Jennings, J. and Simmons, M. [2022]. Estimating Saline Aquifer CO2 Storage Resources in Data Lean Regions.Subsurface Insights, October, pp. 8, https://www.landmarksolutions-us.com/subsurface-insights-article-october-2022, accessed August 2023.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Hansen, O., Gilding, D., Nazarian, B., Osdal, B., Ringrose, P., Kristoffersen, J.B. and Eiken, O. [2013]. Snøhvit: The history of injecting and storing 1 Mt CO2 in the fluvial Tubåen Fm.Energy Procedia, 37, 3565–3573.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Havercroft, I. and Consoli, C. [2018]. Is the world ready for carbon capture and storage?.Global CCS Institute, pp. 16, https://www.globalccsinstitute.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/CCS-Readiness-Index-2018_digital-1.pdf, accessed August 2023.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Royal Society [2022]. Locked away – Geological carbon storage policy briefing.Royal Society Publishing, pp. 60.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) [2015]. Carbon Storage Atlas, fifth edition, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Fossil Energy, https://www.netl.doe.gov/coal/carbon-storage/strategic-program-support/natcarb-atlas, accessed May 2023.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. OGCI [2022]. CO2 Storage Resource Catalogue Cycle 3 Report, March 2022, 31 pp. https://www.ogci.com/co2-storage-resource-catalogue/, accessed August 2023.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Ringrose, P.S. and Meckel, T.A. [2019]. Maturing global CO2 storage resources on offshore continental margins to achieve 2DS emissions reductions, Sci Rep, 9, 17944.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Ringrose, P., Andrew, J., Zweigel, P., Furre, A.-K., Hern, B. and Nazarian, B. [2022]. Why CCS is Not Like Reverse Gas Engineering, First Break, 40(10), 1365–2397.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Thibeau, S. and Adler, F. [2023]. Pressure-derived storage efficiency for open saline aquifer CO2 storage, Geoenergy, 1, 1–8.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. USGS [2004]. Oil and Gas Wells in Southern Louisiana that Penetrated the Upper Miocene Sequence, U.S. Geological Survey data release. https://www.sciencebase.gov/catalog/item/60ca4d95d34e-86b938a10722, accessed August 2023.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Vangkilde-Pederson, T., Anthonsen, K.L., Smith, N., Kirk, K., Neele, F., van der Meer, B., Le Gallo, Y., Bossie-Codreanu, D., Wokcicki, A., Le Nindre, Y-M., Hendriks, C., Dalhoff, F. and Christensen, N.P. [2009]. Assessing European capacity for geological storage of carbon dioxide – the EU GeoCapacity project.Energy Procedia, 1, 2663–2670.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Vazquez Anzola, D.A. [2023]. Adequate Estimation of CO2 Geological Storage Resources without Reservoir Models for Rapid Screening Turnaround.EAGE Workshop on Unlocking Carbon Capture and Storage Potential, The Westin Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 22nd-23rd August 2023, Abstract.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Young, S.C., Knox, P.R., Baker, E., Budge, T., Hamlin, S., Galloway, B., Kalbouss, R. and Deeds, N. [2010]. Hydrostratigraphy of the Gulf Coast Aquifer from the Brazos River to the Rio Grande.Texas Water Development Board, February 2010, pp. 203, https://www.twdb.texas.gov/publications/reports/contracted_reports/doc/0804830795_Gulf_coast_hydrostratigraphy_wcover.pdf, accessed August 2023.
    [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.3997/1365-2397.fb2023081
Loading
/content/journals/10.3997/1365-2397.fb2023081
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article

Most Cited This Month Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error