Abstract
Given a scarcity of commercial-scale carbon capture and storage (CCS) projects, there is a great deal of uncertainty in the risks, liability, and their cost implications for geologic storage of carbon dioxide (CO2). The probabilities of leakage and the risk of induced seismicity could be remote, but the volume of geologic CO2 storage (GCS) projected to be necessary to have a significant impact on increasing CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere is far greater than the volumes of CO2 injected thus far. National-level estimates of the technically accessible CO2 storage resource (TASR) onshore in the United States are on the order of thousands of gigatons of CO2 storage capacity, but such estimates generally assume away any pressure management issues. Pressure buildup in the storage reservoir is expected to be a primary source of risk associated with CO2 storage, and only a fraction of the theoretical TASR could be available unless the storage operator extracts the saltwater brines or other formation fluids that are already present in the geologic pore space targeted for CO2 storage. Institutions, legislation, and processes to manage the risk, liability, and economic issues with CO2 storage in the United States are beginning to emerge, but will need to progress further in order to allow a commercial-scale CO2 storage industry to develop in the country. The combination of economic tradeoffs, property rights definitions, liability issues, and risk considerations suggests that CO2 storage offshore of the United States may be more feasible than onshore, especially during the current (early) stages of industry development.
Highlights
The International Energy Agency (IEA) estimated that the electricity and heat generation sector combined with the industrial sector accounted for about 61% of the worldÕs carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions in 2013, and these two sectors accounted for 50% of total U.S emissions of CO2 during the same year (International Energy Agency 2015)
This article is published with open access at Springerlink.com some climate change goals may not be achievable without carbon capture and storage (CCS), possibly including a goal to keep global warming below 1.5–2 degrees Celsius and other goals that were set at the 21st session of the Conference of the Parties (2015 Paris Climate Conference) (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC] 2005, 2014; Climate Action 2015)
The probabilities of significant risk events associated with long-term CO2 storage could be extremely low (Pawar et al 2015), and national- and other high-level assessments of CO2 storage capacity (e.g., U.S Geological Survey Geologic Carbon Dioxide Storage Resources Assessment Team [United States Geological Survey (USGS)] 2013) typically assume that any risks will be mitigated through brine extraction, other forms of active pressure management, and(or) other risk-minimizing strategies
Summary
The International Energy Agency (IEA) estimated that the electricity and heat generation (power) sector combined with the industrial sector accounted for about 61% of the worldÕs carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions in 2013, and these two sectors accounted for 50% of total U.S emissions of CO2 during the same year (International Energy Agency 2015). For geologic storage of CO2, the impacts of greatest concern are those associated with two types of potential risk events: leakage of CO2, displaced fluids, and any mobilized hazardous elements out of the storage reservoir and Anderson induced ground motion, including induced seismicity. In order to minimize the risks associated with pressure buildup, storage reservoir pressure will need to be carefully managed at least until injection ceases, probably monitored for a significant amount of time after that, and possibly until all of the CO2 is immobilized. Over 95% of the potential CO2 storage capacity in the United States (and the vast majority in the world) is in DSFs (U.S Department of Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory [NETL] 2012; Dooley 2013; USGS 2013) In these extensive geologic formations, residual trapping could be the most relevant mechanism for immobilizing CO2, at least in the short term (tens to hundreds of years). Anderson decays shortly after injection ceases (Pawar et al 2015). Pawar et al (2014) estimated that the peak probability of the risk of leakage to the atmosphere per year was below 0.01
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
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.
