This document summarizes Neil Wildgust's presentation on carbon capture and storage (CCS) given at the University of Sonora in Hermosillo. It discusses geological storage of CO2, including trapping mechanisms like structural/stratigraphic, residual, solubility, and mineral trapping. It also covers site characterization methods like seismic surveys and predictive modeling. Monitoring, measurement and verification (MMV), risk assessment, and costs of storage are summarized. The importance of public outreach is highlighted.

1. Neil Wildgust
Global CCS Institute
INTRODUCTION TO CAPTURE, USE AND GEOLOGICAL STORAGE OF CO2
January 22-23 2015
University of Sonora, Hermosillo
SUPPORTED BY:

2. GEOLOGICAL STORAGE SCENARIOS
SUPPORTED BY:

3. EFFICIENT STORAGE IN DENSE PHASE
SUPPORTED BY:

4. TRAPPING MECHANISMS
SUPPORTED BY:

5. STRUCTURAL AND STRATIGRAPHIC TRAPPING
SUPPORTED BY:

6. CAPROCKS
SUPPORTED BY:
Principal types – shale and salt
Shales:
Clay-rich rocks
Variable, low permeability
May allow slow migration of formation brine to alleviate
pressurization
Salts:
Extremely low permeability
Combined with ductile properties – very secure caprock
Negligible scope for brine migration and pressure alleviation

7. RESIDUAL TRAPPING
SUPPORTED BY:
Courtesy of CO2CRC

8. SOLUBILITY TRAPPING
SUPPORTED BY:
• Temperature
• Pressure
• Brine salinity
• Hydrogeological systems
• Effects of reservoir
heterogeneity
Controlling Factors
Courtesy of CO2CRC

9. MINERAL TRAPPING
SUPPORTED BY:
• Potentially most secure
trapping mechanism
• Variety of minerals can
precipitate
• Long and uncertain
timescales
• Modelling complexity
• e.g. reservoir
heterogeneity

10. CO2 ENHANCED OIL RECOVERY
SUPPORTED BY:
Courtesy Kinder Morgan

11. SITE CHARACTERIZATION
SUPPORTED BY:

12. CHARACTERIZATION METHOD
SUPPORTED BY:
Courtesy of CO2CRC

13. SEISMIC SURVEYS
SUPPORTED BY:

14. PREDICTIVE MODELLING
SUPPORTED BY:
• Regulatory requirement
• Based on existing knowledge
e.g. reservoir engineering,
hydrogeology
• Flow simulations can be
coupled with other
processes e.g. geochemistry,
geomechanics etc
• Iterative process – re-
calibrate with monitoring
data
Courtesy Statoil

15. MMV
SUPPORTED BY:
• May be focused on the
reservoir or for environmental
protection
• Suite of existing technologies
available – choice should be
site-specific
• Baseline (pre-operational)
data required
• Cost-effective approaches for
commercial deployment
Courtesy BGS

16. RISK ASSESMENT
SUPPORTED BY:
• Regulatory requirement
• Framework for project
assessment and management
• Integrity of storage is paramount
consideration
• Key risk scenarios for deep
aquifers include capacity and
injectivity
• Key risk scenario for CO2-EOR is
wellbore integrity
Courtesy PTRC

17. STORAGE COSTS
SUPPORTED BY:
• Generally regarded as significant but minor portion of overall
costs for whole chain CCS
• Usually quoted in $/tonne (or Euros/tonne) over project lifecycle
• ZEP produced a comprehensive review of CCS costs including
storage
• http://www.zeroemissionsplatform.eu
• Compared to capture engineering: storage costs may be
relatively low, but storage is the most uncertain part of the CCS
chain and can be the longest to prove for an investment
decision……..
• CAPTURE IS MORE EXPENSIVE BUT STORAGE LESS CERTAIN

18. PUBLIC OUTREACH
SUPPORTED BY:
• Early engagement with
stakeholders is crucial
• Local opposition can stop
projects e.g. Netherlands
• Community outreach is
stipulated in emerging best
practices and standards
Courtesy CO2CRC