To highlight the research and achievements of Australian researchers, the Global CCS Institute, together with Australian National Low Emissions Coal Research and Development (ANLEC R&D), will hold a series of webinars throughout 2017. Each webinar will highlight a specific ANLEC R&D research project and the relevant report found on the Institute’s website. This is the eighth webinar of the series and will present on basin resource management and carbon storage. With the ongoing deployment of CCS facilities globally, the pore space - the voids in the rock deep in sedimentary basins – are now a commercial resource. This is a relatively new concept with only a few industries utilising that pore space to date. This webinar presented a framework for the management of basin resources including carbon storage. Prospective sites for geological storage of carbon dioxide target largely sedimentary basins since these provide the most suitable geological settings for safe, long-term storage of greenhouse gases. Sedimentary basins can host different natural resources that may occur in isolated pockets, across widely dispersed regions, in multiple locations, within a single layer of strata or at various depths. In Australia, the primary basin resources are groundwater, oil and gas, unconventional gas, coal and geothermal energy. Understanding the nature of how these resources are distributed in the subsurface is fundamental to managing basin resource development and carbon dioxide storage. Natural resources can overlap laterally or with depth and have been developed successfully for decades. Geological storage of carbon dioxide is another basin resource that must be considered in developing a basin-scale resource management system to ensure that multiple uses of the subsurface can sustainably and pragmatically co-exist. This webinar was presented by Karsten Michael, Research Team Leader, CSIRO Energy.

1. Managing carbon geological storage and natural
resources in sedimentary basins
Webinar – Tuesday, 14 March 2017

2.  Karsten Michael has MSc and PhD degrees in Hydrogeology from the
Technical University Berlin and from the University of Alberta, respectively.
 He currently is the team leader of Basin Modelling in the CSIRO Energy
business unit and leader of the CCS-RD In-situ Laboratory project that
involves re-completing one of the wells at the South West Hub CCS Flagship
project in Western Australia for monitoring and testing purposes.
 In the past, Karsten was a project leader for Understanding CO2 storage in
Saline Aquifers in the CO2CRC. His main interest is the modeling of basin-
scale impacts of fluid production and injection on groundwater flow.
Research Team Leader, CSIRO Energy
Karsten Michael

3. QUESTIONS
 We will collect questions
during the presentation.
 Your Webinar Host will pose
these question to the
presenters after the
presentation.
 Please submit your questions
directly into the GoToWebinar
control panel.
.

4. ANLEC R&D is a not-for-profit agency, funded by the Australian Government Department Industry, Innovation and Science through the
National Low Emissions Coal Initiative, and by the ACA Low Emissions Technologies Ltd (ACALET) through the COAL21 Fund.
Enabling research to reduce greenhouse emissions from coal technologies
Australian National Low Emissions Coal Research
& Development
ANLEC R&D is an Australian National Research
Initiative to support Carbon Capture and
Storage (CCS) deployment in Australia.
$100M+ Invested
In one of the largest partnerships, the Australian
Coal Industry and the Australian Government
has deployed a research effort in over 25
institutions nationwide since 2010.
Our present focus supports CO2 storage across
3 Australian geological basins:
Surat Basin, Gippsland Basin, S Perth Basin
This Presentation;
Managing carbon geological storage and natural resources in sedimentary basins
For more information please visit www.anlecrd.com.au

5. K Michael, S Whittaker, S Varma, B Ciftci, J Hodgkinson, L Langhi, E. Bekele and B Harris
Managing carbon geological storage
and natural resources in sedimentary basins
CSIRO ENERGY

6. The authors wish to acknowledge financial assistance provided through Australian National
Low Emissions Coal Research and Development (ANLEC R&D). ANLEC R&D is supported
by Australian Coal Association Low Emissions Technology Limited and the Australian
Government through the Clean Energy Initiative.

7. Background
• Geological storage of carbon dioxide (CO2) has been identified
as one of the important elements of greenhouse gas reduction
strategies, projected to contribute about 20% reduction of CO2
emissions by 2050.
• Risk evaluation, monitoring and verification with respect to
containment security are of utmost importance to ensuring
the long term feasibility of a site for CO2 storage.
• Often, CO2 storage projects are located in resource-rich
sedimentary basins that may contain groundwater, oil and gas,
unconventional gas, coal, and/or geothermal resources.
• Interactions between various resources and CO2 geological
storage operations in a sedimentary basin need to be assessed
for evaluating the potential for either adverse impacts or
development synergies.

8. Common depth ranges for the development of various resources
(Modified from Field et al., 2013)

9. Underground Injection Control Program
http://www.epa.gov/safewater/uic/index.html
Hazardous waste Brines &
hydrocarbons
Solution
mining CO2 storage

10. Assessment workflow

11. CO2 geological storage suitability
Area in a sedimentary basin that:
• Has sufficient capacity for storing required volumes of CO2
• Has sufficient injectivity for required injection rate
• Provides sufficient containment with low potential for vertical
leakage or lateral migration out of storage zone/unit
• Has a permeable geological unit/formation
• at depth > 800,
• with ‘usable’ formation water and
• confined by low permeability unit/formation

12. CO2 geological storage suitability
Perth
Carnarvon
Canning
Bonaparte
Browne
Eromanga
Surat
Gippsland
Bass
Otway
Carbon Taskforce (2009)

13. Resource assessment and delineation
The definition, assessment and delineation of resources is very
different for groundwater, petroleum, coal & coal seam gas, and
geothermal resources. Some critical points are listed below:
• Depending on the development history of a specific sedimentary
basin, the information and data for delineating different resources
may vary.
• Resources are generally defined by techno-economic constraints
which may change over time; hence the areal delineation of a
resource may change over time.
• Different resources may co-exist with CO2 geological storage in the
same geographic area, if they are vertically separated by a
competent seal/aquitard and/or if their impacts are mutually
beneficial.

14. Resource assessment and delineation
SPE, WPC, AAPG, and SPEE (2007)
Lardelli (2008)
after BP (1996)

15. Resource assessment and delineation
Data source: Geoscience Australia
Geothermal Education Office (2005)
http://geothermaleducation.org/edmatl.html

16. Data requirements for characterisation of various resources
Required Not requiredUseful

17. High-level delineation of basin-scale resource potential
Resource
Resource / storage potential
Additional constraints
High Intermediate Low
Groundwater < 5 g/l 5 – 10 g/l > 10 g/l
Current usage, depth,
sustainable yield
Petroleum
Producing fields (proved
reserves)
Contingent &
prospective
reserves
Non-prospective
Petroleum system
analysis
Coal & CSG Depth < 1000m
Depth: 1000 -
2000m
Depth > 2000m
Coal thickness, vitrinite
reflectance, coal
permeability
Geothermal > 100oC 40 - 100oC < 40oC
Geothermal gradient,
producibility/injectivity
CO2 geological
storage
Depth > 800m
P, T, injectivity, seal
capacitySeal thickness > 100 m
Seal thickness
50 - 100 m
Seal thickness < 50 m

18. Petroleum production
Mine dewatering
CO2 storage
Geothermal (HSA)
Irrigation
High-level delineation of potential resource interactions

19. No overlaps (presently)
Possible overlaps
(w/petroleum & groundwater)
Existing overlaps
(w/petroleum)
High-level delineation of potential resource interactions
Goldie Divko et al. 2009: VicGCS Report 1

20. 100 Mt/year (5 injectors)
DP =100 kPa
100 Mt/year (5 injectors)
Taking into account
petroleum production
DP =100 kPa
Cumulative pressure impacts

21. Assessment workflow

22. The subsurface area, as projected to surface, beyond the physical presence of CO2, but in which
reservoir pressures are above ambient conditions. Pressures decrease rapidly outward along with the
potential to drive unwanted migration or impact other resources. This area would require targeted
characterisation and monitoring of identified potential leakage conduits (i.e. faults, old wells).
SURFACE PROJECTION OF CO2 PLUME
The subsurface area, as projected to the
surface, in which CO2 is present as a
physically distinct phase. Within this footprint,
reservoir pressures are highest and may be
sufficient to drive lateral or vertical migration of
CO2 and brine. This area requires the highest
standard regarding site characterisation,
monitoring and consideration of remediation
options.
SURFACE PROJECTION OF INCREASED PRESSURE
Area of Review

23. Contamination of groundwater due to:
 Changes in pH
 Re-mobilisation of heavy metals or
organic compounds
 Displacement of saltwater into
freshwater
 Pressure increase may mitigate
water level decline in ‘stressed’
aquifers
Detection:
 Water sampling, pH meter
 Temperature sensors
 Pressure sensors
Remediation options:
 Pump & treat
 Reactive/hydraulic barriers
 Additives to remove
contaminant
 Bioremediation
Potential impacts on groundwater resources

24. Potential impacts on petroleum resources
Contamination of petroleum resource:
 Increased potential for corrosion
 Increased cost due to CO2 separation
 Reduced marketability
 Sterilisation of undiscovered resources
Increased pressure:
 Fracturing of caprock - leakage
 Fault re-activation - leakage
 Hydrocarbon displacement
 Increased oil mobility (EOR)
 Pressure support for declining reservoirs
 Increased permeability/productivity
Detection:
 Geochemical
monitoring
 Temperature sensors
 Pressure sensors
 Seismic
Remediation options:
 Hydraulic barriers
 Additives to remove
contaminant
 Bioremediation
 Limit injection rate

25. Potential impacts on geothermal resources
CO2 migration into geothermal reservoir:
 Increased potential for corrosion
 Increased cost due to CO2 separation
 Decrease in heat production
 Sterilisation of undiscovered resources
Increased pressure:
 Fracturing of caprock
 Fault re-activation
 Pressure support
 Increased permeability/productivity
 CO2 as geothermal working fluid
Detection:
 Geochemical
monitoring
 Temperature
sensors
 Pressure sensors
 Seismic
Remediation options:
 Hydraulic barriers
 Limit injection rate

26. Potential impacts on coal resources
CO2 accumulation in mine
shafts
Induced seismicity – mine
instability
Enhanced coal seam gas
production
Detection:
CO2/methane sensors
Remediation options:
Ventilation
Pump & treat

27. Potential
impacts

28. Is the water salinity in the
aquifer less than 10,000 mg/l?
Low impact potential
Generic M&V program
Medium impact potential
Resource-specific M&V system
High impact potential
Unsuitable for CO2 storage
Yes
No

29. Is the water salinity in the
aquifer less than 10,000 mg/l?
Low impact potential
Generic M&V program
Medium impact potential
Resource-specific M&V system
High impact potential
Unsuitable for CO2 storage
Yes
No
Is the aquifer used for coal,
hydrocarbon or geothermal
energy production?
No
Is there potential for future
resource development in the
aquifer?
Yes
No
Is there resource development
above the aquifer?
Yes
No
Is there future potential for
resource development above
the aquifer?
Yes
No
Does the AOI encroach
on groundwater wells?
Yes
No
Is the aquifer used as a
groundwater resource?
Yes
No
Is there potential for
future groundwater
development in the
AOI?
YesNo
Is the intervening rock unit
a proven aquitard/seal?
Yes
No
Start over
Does the AOI encroach
on producing wells
(with negative
impact)?
Yes
No
Is the water salinity in the
aquifer less than 10,000 mg/l?
Yes
Is there potential for future
resource development in the
aquifer?

30. Is the water salinity in the
aquifer less than 10,000 mg/l?
Low impact potential
Generic M&V program
Medium impact potential
Resource-specific M&V system
High impact potential
Unsuitable for CO2 storage
Yes
No
Is the aquifer used for coal,
hydrocarbon or geothermal
energy production?
No
Is there potential for future
resource development in the
aquifer?
Yes
No
Is there resource development
above the aquifer?
Yes
No
Is there future potential for
resource development above
the aquifer?
Yes
No
Does the AOI
encroach on
groundwater wells?
Yes
No
Is the aquifer used as a
groundwater resource?
Yes
No
Is there potential for
future groundwater
development in the
AOI?
YesNo
Is the intervening rock unit
a proven aquitard/seal?
Yes
No
Does the AOI encroach
on producing wells
(with negative
impact)?
Yes
No
Is the water salinity in the
aquifer less than 10,000 mg/l?
Yes
Is there potential for future
resource development in the
aquifer?

31. Summary & conclusions
• Planning of a CO2 storage project in a sedimentary basin requires the consideration of
other resources and potential interactions
• Resource definitions are different for various resources and may change with time due
to socio-economic reasons and/or technology advancements
• Potential impacts of CO2 storage on other resource developments could be negative:
• Contamination of existing resources
• Sterilisation of future resources
• or positive:
• Enhanced oil/gas recovery
• CO2 as working fluid for geothermal projects
• Reversing aquifer depressurisation/land subsidence
• In case of potential overlaps, it is up to the regulator to prioritise, manage potential
conflicts and explore synergy options

32. The main report is available from the ANLEC R&D
website:
www.anlecrd.com.au/projects/resource-management-
and-carbon-storage
See also:
Michael et al., 2016. Framework for the assessment of Interaction between CO2
geological storage and other sedimentary basin resources: Environmental Science:
Processes & Impacts, v. 18, p. 164-175.
US EPA, 2008. Vulnerability evaluation framework for geologic sequestration of
carbon dioxide: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 85 p.

33. QUESTIONS / DISCUSSION
Please submit your questions in
English directly into the
GoToWebinar control panel.

34. Please submit any feedback to: webinar@globalccsinstitute.com