GCCC Forums  

Go Back   GCCC Forums > Public Information

Forgot your password? Click here!


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 02-21-2013, 12:31 PM
changbing changbing is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 31
Default Response: Regulations avoid earthquakes from CCS

http://www.ieaghg.org/index.php?/201...-from-ccs.html

Response: Regulations avoid earthquakes from CCS

by Tim Dixon and Susan Hovorka


In a recent letter (1) and Perspective (2) Zoback and Gorelick argued that carbon capture and storage (CCS) is a ‘likely unsuccessful strategy for significantly reducing greenhouse gas emissions’ because there is a high probability that earthquakes will be triggered by injection of large volumes of CO2, threatening the seal integrity of CO2 cap rocks.

Their conclusion assumes that the injection of CO2 will be unregulated. In fact, dedicated regulations have been created specifically to ensure that CCS is undertaken in an environmentally sound way, including to ensure that injection of CO2 does not compromise the integrity of the cap-rock. The risk of triggering seismicity by fluid injection or withdrawal is well-documented and must be property assessed and managed in any injection project. This is taken into account in the existing regulations for CO2 geological storage. Notable regulations with wide applicability being the new US EPA’s Class VI Rule for Carbon Dioxide Geologic Sequestration Wells (2010) (3); the European Union’s Directive for Geological Storage of Carbon Dioxide (2009/31/EC) (4); and the UNFCCC’s Modalities and Procedures for Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage (Decision 10/CMP.7, 2011) (5). These restrict the allowable injection pressures so as to avoid the geomechanical scenarios discussed by Zoback and Gorelick.

Large-scale deployment of CCS will require the regulator to consider interactions among projects. This requirement exists in the US EPA rules, via the consideration of Area of Review, and in the European Directive for potential pressure interactions of sites in the same hydraulic unit. Regulators need to cumulate the impacts on pressure of many injection wells in many projects and model the aggregate pressure signal into the future. In cases where a seismically hazardous fault zone intersects the long-term large-scale area of slightly elevated pressure, the regulator should require responsive characterization, monitoring, and mitigation plans. Examples of characterization might be detailed assessment of the stress conditions near the fault zone; monitoring might be far-field pressure tracking during injection, and an example of mitigation might be brine withdrawal wells to diffuse the future pressure elevation if needed.

More research will be beneficial to further develop and provide tools which provide assurance as deployment of geologic sequestration grows to a widespread GHG reduction method. As noted by Zoback and Gorelick (1) some early projects favor sites with weak, ductile, and highly transmissive settings at which geomechanical risks are avoided, for example young sediments in the North Sea and the Gulf of Mexico. However, it is important also that incremental stages of injection into brittle, fractured, and faulted rocks are undertaken with appropriate monitoring of fault and fracture system response to pressure change so as to build experience in these settings and to calibrate predictive skills, and so assist regulatory decisions.

Hence the regulations for CCS are designed to ensure avoidance of the scenarios discussed by Zoback and Gorelick, and their paper and letter may be considered as a reminder to why CCS regulations contain such controls.



Tim Dixon,a,1 and Susan Hovorkab

a IEAGHG, Cheltenham, GL52 7RZ, UK

b Bureau of Economic Geology, The University of Texas at Austin, University Station, Box X, Austin, Texas 78713-8924



Zoback, MD, and Gorelick, SM. (2012) Reply to Juanes et al.; Evidence that earthquake triggering could render long-term carbon storage unsuccessful in many regions. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA, 10.1073/pnas.1215026109
Zoback, MD, and Gorelick, SM. (2012) Earthquake triggering and large-scale geological storage of carbon dioxide. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA, 109(26):10164-10168
EPA (2010) Federal Requirements Under the Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program for Carbon Dioxide Geologic Sequestration Wells 146.81
EC.(2009) EU Directive for Geological Storage of Carbon Dioxide (2009/31/EC)
UNFCCC (2011) Modalities and Procedures for Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage in Geological Formations as Clean Development Mechanism Project Activities . UNFCCC Decision 10/CMP.7 .



Author contributions: TD, SH wrote the paper

The authors declare no conflict of interest

To whom correspondence should be addressed: E-mail: tim.dixon@ieaghg.org
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:55 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.