PNNL

Abstract

We assess the effectiveness of four surface-based geophysical methods and in situ monitoring of pressure and chemical changes for detecting brine and CO2 leakage from legacy wells into underground sources of drinking water (USDW) overlying a CO2 storage reservoir. This is the first such effort to evaluate and compare six monitoring methods for detection of CO2 leakage. This assessment, conducted in support of the USDOE National Risk Assessment Partnership (NRAP), utilizes 3000 synthetic data sets, generated in an uncertainty quantification (UQ) model framework. This framework combines the results of (1) a CO2 storage reservoir model of a hypothetical storage operation of 5 MT/yr for 50 years into the 1700-m deep Vedder Fm. at a site near Kimberlina, California with (2) wellbore leakage models of a legacy well and (3) multi-phase flow and reactive transport models of brine and CO2 plume migration in aquifer layers overlying the storage reservoir. Leakage drives subsurface changes, quantified by pressure plumes, CO2-saturation plumes, and total dissolved solids (TDS) plumes, the latter being related to changes in pH and species concentrations. Depending on the depth of leakage, aquifer permeability, and regional groundwater gradient, pressure plume volumes can become larger than the CO2 and TDS plumes; however, reaching detectable thresholds may take too long to be useful. For a single monitoring well located 500 m downgradient of a leaky legacy well, a depth of 570 m is found to be optimal for sampling pressure and chemical changes. We assess four surface-based geophysical monitoring methods: electrical resistivity tomography (ERT), magnetotellurics (MT), gravity, and seismic methods. Sensors cover a 4-km × 2-km area. Both ERT and MT methods are sensitive to changes in CO2 saturation and TDS concentration, whereas gravity and seismic methods detect changes in CO2 saturation. The six monitoring methods complement each other in space and time, and we find that a minimum of 20 kT of CO2 leakage is required for the leakage plume to be detected. Of the four surface-based geophysical methods, gravity monitoring appears to be the most sensitive to CO2 leaks, while the usefulness of in situ pressure and chemical monitoring will depend on the level of unfilterable background noise. Geophysical monitoring methods may detect a leak anywhere in a large area and in a large depth range, but the effectiveness of pressure and chemical monitoring depends on the number of monitoring wells, where those wells are located, and the depth of sampling. Surface-based geophysical monitoring methods are cost-effective alternatives to in situ pressure and chemical monitoring methods.