TCCS8, June 17-18, 2015 1

MItigation and Remediation of CO2 Leakage

Project granted underEU FP7 Energy – Theme 5.2

Mitigation and remediation of leakage from geological storagefilip.neele@tno.nl

www.mirecol-co2.eu

• Mark Wilkinson1, Katriona Edlmann1, Ivana Demic2 & Anna Korre3

• 1University of Edinburgh; 2NIS j.s.c. Novi Sad; 3Imperial College, London

MiReCOL: REMEDIATION OF SHALLOW LEAKAGE FROM A CO2 STORAGE SITE

June 17-18, 2015 2

Karas et al. (F2)

Lavrov (Poster)

Wilkinson et al. (F2)

Wiese et al. (F2)Loeve et al. (F2)Wessel-Berg et al. (F2)

Durucan et al. (F1)

What is ‘near surface’ ?

Depth range of typical remediation techniques used by the pollution clean-up industry rather than by the hydrocarbon industry.

What are we trying to achieve?• Stop the leak?• Recover the CO2 for ‘disposal’?• Protect crops or wildlife?• Protect habitations?• Protect drinking water?

– Minimise pH change?– Remove toxic metals?

• Understand the leak – desktop study

Relevant experience• Groundwater pollution control

– LNAPL (light non-aqueous phase liquids) – density < water– DNAPL (dense non-aqueous phase liquids) – density >

water• Dam foundation grouting• Natural analogues (e.g. Crystal Geyser, UT)• Oil / gas operations (including EOR / CO2 EOR)

– Routine / disaster

• CO2 production for EOR (e.g. Sheep mountain, CO)• Geothermal (e.g. Torre Alfina, Italy)• CCS!

Remediation techniques: Ground water cutoff wall

Fetter (1999)

10’s

m

Treatment walls / Permeable Reactive Barriers (PRB’s)

Roehl et al. (2005)For CO2 or toxic metals

Strategies: • Adsorb• Precipitate• Degrade

Materials: • Activated carbon (most common)• Phosphate minerals (fishbones!, Pb, Sb, U)

Houses: CO2, radon and methane

http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2010/5157/pdf/sir2010-5157.pdf

Houses demolished due

to gas ingress

Arkwright Town (1990’s) Methane

http://arkwright.web4yourself.com/Images/Documents/234-History-(Large).jpg

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-27905611

Bečej field, SerbiaEstimated costs (million EUR, 2014)

Monitoring groundwater 0.03

Drilling of shallow boreholes 0.05

Drilling of injecting boreholes 0.02

Drilling of remediation well Bc-X-1 1.15

Drilling of remediation well Bc-X-2 0.86

Pressure measurement 0.26

Consulting services 0.41

Workover on well Bc-X-1 0.25

Drilling and injection on well Bc-9 1.65

Workover on well Bc-X-1 0.01

Drilling of monitoring wells 0.04

Monitoring the effects of remediation 0.04

4.76 (0.16?)

Conclusions• Many ‘off the shelf’ techniques available

• Classified as ‘likely – intermediate - unlikely’ - most are costly!

• Will depend on value of asset being protected

• Future work: Assessment of consequences related to remediation methods

Thank you very much for your attention!

Financial support by the European Commission

and by our industry partners

www.mirecol-co2.eu