Abstract
Eighteen water samples collected from eight CO2-rich springs in the northern part of the Gyeongsang sedimentary basin (GSB), South Korea showed distinct hydrochemistry, in particular, pH, total dissolved solids (TDS), and Na contents, and they were classified into four groups: (1) Group I with low pH (average of 5.14) and TDS (269.8 mg/L), (2) Group II with high TDS (2681.0 mg/L) and Na-enriched (202.9 mg/L), (3) Group III with intermediate Na content (97.5 mg/L), and (4) Group IV with Na-depleted (42.3 mg/L). However, they showed the similar partial pressure of CO2 (0.47 to 2.19 atm) and stable carbon isotope ratios of dissolved inorganic carbon (−6.3 to −0.6‰), indicating the inflow of deep-seated CO2 into aquifers along faults. In order to elucidate the evolutionary process for each group of CO2-rich springs, a multidisciplinary approach was used combining stable hydrogen (δD), oxygen (δ18O) and carbon (δ13C), and radioactive carbon (14C) isotopic, geophysical, and hydrochemical data. The highest δD and δ18O ratios of water and the relatively young 14C ages in Group I and the lowest δD and δ18O in Group II indicated the short and long residence time in Group I and II, respectively. The electrical resistivity tomography (ERT) survey results also supported the fast rising through open fractures in Group I, while a relatively deep CO2-rich aquifer for Group III. Group II had high contents of Mg, K, F, Cl, SO4, HCO3, Li, and As, while Group I showed low contents for all elements analyzed in this study except for Al, which exceeded the World Health Organization (WHO) guideline for drinking-water quality probably due to the low pH. Meanwhile Group IV showed the highest Ca/Na as well as Ca, Fe, Mn, Sr, Zn, U, and Ba, probably due to the low-temperature dissolution of plagioclase based on the geology and the ERT result. The levels of Fe, Mn, and U exceeded the WHO guidelines in Group IV, while As in Group II. The different hydrochemistry suggests a distinct evolutionary process for each group. Group I seems to represent a fast discharge from the CO2-rich aquifer to a discharge point, experiencing a low degree of water-rock interaction, while Group II seems to represent a slow discharge with a high degree of water-rock interaction. GSB is a potential site for geological carbon storage (GCS), and injected CO2 may leak through various evolutionary processes given heterogenous geology as CO2-rich springs. The study result suggests that the combined use of pH, Na, K, Li, and Ca/Na are effective hydrochemical monitoring parameters to assess the leakage stage in silicate rocks in GCS projects. Besides, aluminum (Al) can be risky at the early stage of CO2 leakage, while Fe, Mn, U, and As at the later stage of CO2 leakage.
Highlights
Various efforts, including economic incentives and technology development, have been made to mitigate climate change by anthropogenic greenhouse gases (GHGs)
The other CO2 -rich water samples were further classified into three groups according to the Na content in Figure 2 because of its distinct difference (Table 1; Figure 3c): Na-enriched (Group II; n = 5 from G-2 and G-3) with the highest average Na content (202.9 mg/L), intermediate (Group III; n = 5 from G-4 and G-5) with the moderate average (97.5 mg/L), and Na-depleted (Group IV; n = 5 from G-6, G-7 and G-8) with the lowest average (42.3 mg/L)
Hydrochemical, 14 C, and hydrogen and oxygen isotopic results as well as the electrical resistivity tomography (ERT) survey result suggest that Group I is formed by fast ascending of CO2 along faults and/or fractures and experiences the CO2 dissolution into shallow groundwater but little water-rock interactions, whereas Group II (Na-enriched and high total dissolved solids (TDS)) ascends through less-connected fracture networks and experiences extensive CO2 -water-rock interactions
Summary
Various efforts, including economic incentives and technology development, have been made to mitigate climate change by anthropogenic greenhouse gases (GHGs). Among technologies to reduce the global emissions of GHGs, the geological carbon storage (GCS) is accepted as one of the most promising technologies [1,2,3,4]. The geological complexity of GCS sites causes environmental risks, including environmental damages due to CO2 leakage [5,6], there has been no harmful leakage at GCS sites until now. The public concern about potential risks of CO2 leakage from storage sites should be properly addressed for successful demonstration and commercialization of GCS. The artificial CO2 injection tests provide limited information about the long-term CO2 -water-rock interaction and the related changes in the subsurface environment (e.g., groundwater quality, porosity, permeability). The short history of GCS does not provide enough data to assure the possibility of CO2 leakage and its causes in GCS projects
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
