在地质碳储存地点制定应急计划的定量风险评估方法

IF 2.7 4区 环境科学与生态学 Q3 ENERGY & FUELS
Nate Mitchell, Greg Lackey, Brandon Schwartz, Brian Strazisar, Robert Dilmore
{"title":"在地质碳储存地点制定应急计划的定量风险评估方法","authors":"Nate Mitchell,&nbsp;Greg Lackey,&nbsp;Brandon Schwartz,&nbsp;Brian Strazisar,&nbsp;Robert Dilmore","doi":"10.1002/ghg.2219","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Geologic carbon storage (GCS) is an increasingly important technology for reducing carbon dioxide (CO<sub>2</sub>) emissions to the atmosphere. The leakage risks associated with GCS are an environmental and human health concern, however, and site operators must develop contingency plans that thoroughly consider leakage risks and identify potential mitigation strategies. Here, we use a GCS system model (the National Risk Assessment Partnership's Open-Source Integrated Assessment Model, NRAP-Open-IAM) to evaluate different contingency plans for a hypothetical GCS site. In the scenario considered, an unplugged legacy well is discovered near the site after 5 years of CO<sub>2</sub> injection. Our simulations show that the planned operation has a relatively high chance of causing brine leakage through the legacy well and into the two overlying aquifers, the shallower of which has potable water—an unacceptable outcome. To reduce this risk, we consider five remedial response scenarios that manipulate reservoir pressures through brine extraction, injection rate reduction, and early injection stopping. NRAP-Open-IAM is used to quantify the degree to which each scenario reduces the probability of brine leakage at the site amidst reservoir uncertainty. Evaluation of the different scenarios suggests that reduction of injection rates effectively reduces leakage risks while maintaining a substantial fraction of the initially intended cumulative CO<sub>2</sub> storage. In the event of an emergency, the reservoir pressure management strategies considered here can provide operators more time while they pursue a more permanent solution. The analyses demonstrated here fit into a larger workflow we propose for evaluating the contingency plans of GCS sites. © 2023 Society of Chemical Industry and John Wiley &amp; Sons, Ltd.</p>","PeriodicalId":12796,"journal":{"name":"Greenhouse Gases: Science and Technology","volume":"13 3","pages":"320-339"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A quantitative risk assessment approach for developing contingency plans at a geologic carbon storage site\",\"authors\":\"Nate Mitchell,&nbsp;Greg Lackey,&nbsp;Brandon Schwartz,&nbsp;Brian Strazisar,&nbsp;Robert Dilmore\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/ghg.2219\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Geologic carbon storage (GCS) is an increasingly important technology for reducing carbon dioxide (CO<sub>2</sub>) emissions to the atmosphere. The leakage risks associated with GCS are an environmental and human health concern, however, and site operators must develop contingency plans that thoroughly consider leakage risks and identify potential mitigation strategies. Here, we use a GCS system model (the National Risk Assessment Partnership's Open-Source Integrated Assessment Model, NRAP-Open-IAM) to evaluate different contingency plans for a hypothetical GCS site. In the scenario considered, an unplugged legacy well is discovered near the site after 5 years of CO<sub>2</sub> injection. Our simulations show that the planned operation has a relatively high chance of causing brine leakage through the legacy well and into the two overlying aquifers, the shallower of which has potable water—an unacceptable outcome. To reduce this risk, we consider five remedial response scenarios that manipulate reservoir pressures through brine extraction, injection rate reduction, and early injection stopping. NRAP-Open-IAM is used to quantify the degree to which each scenario reduces the probability of brine leakage at the site amidst reservoir uncertainty. Evaluation of the different scenarios suggests that reduction of injection rates effectively reduces leakage risks while maintaining a substantial fraction of the initially intended cumulative CO<sub>2</sub> storage. In the event of an emergency, the reservoir pressure management strategies considered here can provide operators more time while they pursue a more permanent solution. The analyses demonstrated here fit into a larger workflow we propose for evaluating the contingency plans of GCS sites. © 2023 Society of Chemical Industry and John Wiley &amp; Sons, Ltd.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12796,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Greenhouse Gases: Science and Technology\",\"volume\":\"13 3\",\"pages\":\"320-339\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Greenhouse Gases: Science and Technology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"93\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ghg.2219\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"环境科学与生态学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ENERGY & FUELS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Greenhouse Gases: Science and Technology","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ghg.2219","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ENERGY & FUELS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

地质碳储存(GCS)是一项日益重要的减少二氧化碳(CO2)排放到大气中的技术。然而,与GCS相关的泄漏风险是一个环境和人类健康问题,现场运营商必须制定应急计划,全面考虑泄漏风险并确定潜在的缓解策略。在这里,我们使用GCS系统模型(国家风险评估合作伙伴的开源综合评估模型,NRAP-Open-IAM)来评估假设GCS站点的不同应急计划。在考虑的场景中,经过5年的二氧化碳注入,在现场附近发现了一口未堵塞的旧井。我们的模拟表明,计划中的作业有相对较高的可能性导致盐水通过旧井泄漏到两个上覆含水层,其中较浅的含水层有饮用水,这是一个不可接受的结果。为了降低这种风险,我们考虑了五种补救方案,即通过抽取盐水、降低注入速度和早期停止注入来控制油藏压力。NRAP-Open-IAM用于量化在储层不确定的情况下,每种方案减少现场卤水泄漏概率的程度。对不同情景的评估表明,降低注入速率可以有效降低泄漏风险,同时保持最初预期累积二氧化碳储存量的很大一部分。在发生紧急情况时,本文所考虑的油藏压力管理策略可以为作业者提供更多时间,同时寻求更持久的解决方案。这里演示的分析适用于我们提出的用于评估GCS站点应急计划的更大工作流。©2023化学工业协会和John Wiley &儿子,有限公司
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A quantitative risk assessment approach for developing contingency plans at a geologic carbon storage site

Geologic carbon storage (GCS) is an increasingly important technology for reducing carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions to the atmosphere. The leakage risks associated with GCS are an environmental and human health concern, however, and site operators must develop contingency plans that thoroughly consider leakage risks and identify potential mitigation strategies. Here, we use a GCS system model (the National Risk Assessment Partnership's Open-Source Integrated Assessment Model, NRAP-Open-IAM) to evaluate different contingency plans for a hypothetical GCS site. In the scenario considered, an unplugged legacy well is discovered near the site after 5 years of CO2 injection. Our simulations show that the planned operation has a relatively high chance of causing brine leakage through the legacy well and into the two overlying aquifers, the shallower of which has potable water—an unacceptable outcome. To reduce this risk, we consider five remedial response scenarios that manipulate reservoir pressures through brine extraction, injection rate reduction, and early injection stopping. NRAP-Open-IAM is used to quantify the degree to which each scenario reduces the probability of brine leakage at the site amidst reservoir uncertainty. Evaluation of the different scenarios suggests that reduction of injection rates effectively reduces leakage risks while maintaining a substantial fraction of the initially intended cumulative CO2 storage. In the event of an emergency, the reservoir pressure management strategies considered here can provide operators more time while they pursue a more permanent solution. The analyses demonstrated here fit into a larger workflow we propose for evaluating the contingency plans of GCS sites. © 2023 Society of Chemical Industry and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Greenhouse Gases: Science and Technology
Greenhouse Gases: Science and Technology ENERGY & FUELS-ENGINEERING, ENVIRONMENTAL
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
4.50%
发文量
55
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: Greenhouse Gases: Science and Technology is a new online-only scientific journal dedicated to the management of greenhouse gases. The journal will focus on methods for carbon capture and storage (CCS), as well as utilization of carbon dioxide (CO2) as a feedstock for fuels and chemicals. GHG will also provide insight into strategies to mitigate emissions of other greenhouse gases. Significant advances will be explored in critical reviews, commentary articles and short communications of broad interest. In addition, the journal will offer analyses of relevant economic and political issues, industry developments and case studies. Greenhouse Gases: Science and Technology is an exciting new online-only journal published as a co-operative venture of the SCI (Society of Chemical Industry) and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信