1. TCCS8, June 17-18, 2015 1 MItigation and Remediation of CO 2 Leakage Project granted under EU FP7 Energy – Theme 5.2 Mitigation and remediation of leakage from geological storage filip.neele@tno.nl www.mirecol-co2.eu filip.neele@tno.nl www.mirecol-co2.eu Mark Wilkinson 1, Katriona Edlmann 1, Ivana Demic 2 & Anna Korre 3 1 University of Edinburgh; 2 NIS j.s.c. Novi Sad; 3 Imperial College, London MiReCOL: REMEDIATION OF SHALLOW LEAKAGE FROM A CO 2 STORAGE SITE

2. June 17-18, 20152 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)

3. What is ‘near surface’ ? Depth range of typical remediation techniques used by the pollution clean-up industry rather than by the hydrocarbon industry.

4. What are we trying to achieve? Stop the leak? Recover the CO 2 for ‘disposal’? Protect crops or wildlife? Protect habitations? Protect drinking water? – Minimise pH change? – Remove toxic metals? Understand the leak – desktop study

5. 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 / CO 2 EOR) – Routine / disaster CO 2 production for EOR (e.g. Sheep mountain, CO) Geothermal (e.g. Torre Alfina, Italy) CCS!

6. Remediation techniques: Ground water cutoff wall Fetter (1999) 10’s m

7. Treatment walls / Permeable Reactive Barriers (PRB’s) Roehl et al. (2005) For CO 2 or toxic metals Strategies: Adsorb Precipitate Degrade Materials: Activated carbon (most common) Phosphate minerals (fishbones!, Pb, Sb, U)

8. Houses: CO 2, radon and methane http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2010/5157/pdf/sir2010-5157.pdf

9. 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

10. Bečej field, Serbia Estimated 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?)

11. 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

12. Thank you very much for your attention! Financial support by the European Commission and by our industry partners www.mirecol-co2.eu