DOCSLIB.ORG

Geologic Sequestration and Injection of Carbon Dioxide: Subparts RR

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Geologic Sequestration and Injection of Carbon Dioxide: Subparts RR GENERAL TECHNICAL SUPPORT DOCUMENT FOR INJECTION AND GEOLOGIC SEQUESTRATION OF CARBON DIOXIDE: SUBPARTS RR AND UU GREENHOUSE GAS REPORTING PROGRAM Office of Air and Radiation U.S. Environmental Protection Agency November 2010 Disclaimer The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations cited in this technical support document (TSD) contain legally-binding requirements. In several chapters this TSD offers illustrative examples for complying with the minimum requirements indicated by the regulations. This is done to provide information that may be helpful for reporters’ implementation efforts. Such recommendations are prefaced by the words “may” or “should” and are to be considered advisory. They are not required elements of the regulations cited in this TSD. Therefore, this document does not substitute for the regulations cited in this TSD, nor is it a regulation itself, so it does not impose legally- binding requirements on EPA or the regulated community. It may not apply to a particular situation based upon the circumstances. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use. While EPA has made every effort to ensure the accuracy of the discussion in this document, the obligations of the regulated community are determined by statutes, regulations or other legally binding requirements. In the event of a conflict between the discussion in this document and any statute or regulation, this document would not be controlling. Note that this document only addresses issues covered by 49 CFR part 98, subpart RR and subpart UU, which are being promulgated under EPA’s authorities under the Clean Air Act (CAA). Other statutory and regulatory requirements, such as compliance with Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) and Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program requirements1, are not within the scope of this TSD. Please see section I.D. of the preamble to the final rule for more information on the relationship between subpart UU, subpart RR and the UIC Program. 1 Please refer to EPA’s UIC Web site for more information: http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/wells_sequestration.cfm. 2 Table of Contents Disclaimer ...........................................................................................................................2 Table of Contents ...............................................................................................................3 Acronyms and Abbreviations ...........................................................................................6 1. Source Description.....................................................................................................8 1.1 Overview of Source Categories............................................................................ 8 1.1.1 Geologic Sequestration ................................................................................. 8 1.1.2 Enhanced Oil and Gas Recovery .................................................................. 8 1.1.3 Other Industries That Use CO2 ..................................................................... 9 1.2 Delineation of Facility........................................................................................ 10 2. Reporting Threshold Analysis ................................................................................16 3. Monitoring Methods for CO2 Received and CO2 Injected...................................23 3.1 Determining the Amount of CO2 Received Using Data from Sales, Contracts, Invoices, or Manifests Associated with Commercial Transactions.............................. 23 3.2 Determining the Amount of CO2 Received, Injected, or Produced Using Mass Flow Meters or Volumetric Flow Meters ..................................................................... 24 4. Overview of Monitoring Technologies for CO2 Leakage Detection and Quantification...................................................................................................................30 4.1 Monitoring of the Injection Well ....................................................................... 31 4.2 Monitoring of Subsurface CO2 Plume ............................................................... 32 4.3 Vadose Zone Testing.......................................................................................... 36 4.4 Soil Zone and Vegetation Testing...................................................................... 36 4.5 Atmospheric Monitoring.................................................................................... 39 4.6 Leakage Detection and Quantification in the Offshore Environment................ 44 4.7 Detection Range, Accuracy and Precision of Various Monitoring Technologies . ............................................................................................................................ 46 5. Monitoring, Reporting, and Verification Plans ....................................................49 5.1 Delineation of the MMA and AMA................................................................... 50 5.1.1 Maximum Monitoring Area (MMA) .......................................................... 52 5.1.2 Active Monitoring Area (AMA)................................................................. 53 5.2 Assessment of the Risk of Potential Leakage of CO2 to the Surface................. 54 5.2.1 Assessment of the Risk of Potential Leakage of CO2 through Wells......... 55 5.2.2 Assessment of the Risk of Potential Leakage of CO2 through Fractures, Faults, and Bedding Plane Partings .......................................................................... 58 5.2.3 Assessment of the Risk of Potential Leakage of CO2 based on the Competency, Extent, and Dip of the Confining Zone .............................................. 59 5.3 Strategy for Detecting and Quantifying any CO2 Leakage to the Surface......... 60 5.3.1 Detecting Leakage ...................................................................................... 60 5.3.2 Verifying Leakage ...................................................................................... 63 5.3.3 Quantifying Leakage................................................................................... 64 5.4 Strategy for Establishing the Expected Baselines.............................................. 67 5.4.1 Approaches for Establishing an Expected Baseline.................................... 68 5.4.2 Considerations in Establishing Expected Baselines ................................... 70 5.5 Site-Specific Variables for the Mass Balance Equation..................................... 73 5.6 Quality Assurance and Quality Control ............................................................. 76 3 5.7 Missing Data ...................................................................................................... 77 6. MRV Plan Approval Process Overview.................................................................78 6.1 Suggested Outline for the MRV Plan................................................................. 78 6.2 Notification of Receipt of MRV Plan ................................................................ 78 6.3 Completeness Check .......................................................................................... 78 6.4 Technical Review............................................................................................... 79 6.5 Issuance of EPA Decision.................................................................................. 80 6.6 Appeals Period ................................................................................................... 80 6.7 Resubmittal of MRV Plans ................................................................................ 80 7. Annual Monitoring Report and Records Retention .............................................81 7.1 Narrative History of Annual Monitoring Efforts ............................................... 81 7.2 Report of Non-Material Changes to the MRV Plan........................................... 81 7.3 Narrative History of Monitoring Anomalies...................................................... 82 7.4 Description of Surface Leakage ......................................................................... 82 7.5 Records Retention Requirements for MRV Plans.............................................. 83 Appendix A: Glossary .......................................................................................................84 Appendix B: U.S. Oilfields Using CO2 Injection for Enhanced Oil Recovery.................87 Appendix C: Summary of Other End Uses of Captured or Produced CO2 .......................90 Appendix D: Suggested Outlines for MRV Plans, MRV Plan Resubmittals, and Annual Monitoring Reports…........................................................................................................93 Appendix E: Sampling Considerations for Designing a Monitoring Strategy..................96 4 List of Figures Figure 1-1: Facility Example 1 ......................................................................................... 11 Figure 1-2: Facility Example 2 ......................................................................................... 12 Figure 1-3: Facility Example 3 ......................................................................................... 13 Figure 1-4: Facility Example 4 ......................................................................................... 14 Figure 1-5: Facility Example 5 ........................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Source-Rock Geochemistry of the San Joaquin Basin Province, California
    Petroleum Systems and Geologic Assessment of Oil and Gas in the San Joaquin Basin Province, California Chapter 11 Source-Rock Geochemistry of the San Joaquin Basin Province, California By Kenneth E. Peters, Leslie B. Magoon, Zenon C. Valin, and Paul G. Lillis HIO for all source-rock units except the Tumey formation of Contents Atwill (1935). Abstract-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------1 Thick, organic-rich, oil-prone shales of the upper Mio- Introduction------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 cene Monterey Formation occur in the Tejon depocenter in Methods----------------------------------------------------------------------------------2 the southern part of the basin with somewhat less favorable Discussion--------------------------------------------------------------------------------3 occurrence in the Southern Buttonwillow depocenter to the Upper Miocene Antelope shale---------------------------------------------------3 north. Shales of the upper Miocene Monterey Formation Eocene Tumey formation-----------------------------------------------------------4 Eocene Kreyenhagen Formation--------------------------------------------------4 generated most of the petroleum in the San Joaquin Basin. Cretaceous-Paleocene Moreno Formation--------------------------------------5 Thick, organic-rich, oil-prone Kreyenhagen Formation source Conclusions----------------------------------------------------------------------------- -5 rock occurs in the Buttonwillow
    [Show full text]
  • Lost Hills Oil Field (Kem County) Aquifer Exemption Record of Decision
    UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION IX 75 Hawthorne Street San Francisco, CA 94105-3901 May 20, 2019 Kenneth A. Harris Jr. State Oil and Gas Supervisor Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources California Department of Conservation 801 K Street, MS 18-05 Sacramento, CA 95814-3530 Re: Approval of Aquifer Exemption for the Lost Hills Oil Field, Kem County, California Dear Mr. Harris: Based on a thorough review of the supporting documents submitted by the California Department of Conservation, Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR) and the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) hereby approves the aquifer exemption request for portions of the Tulare Formation in the Lost Hills Oil Field in Kern County, California. In accordance with applicable regulations at 40 C.F.R. Parts 144, 145, and 146, we find that this aquifer exemption request is a non-substantial program revision, and the requested formations meet the following federal exemption criteria: • The portions of the formation proposed for exemption in the field do not currently serve as sources of drinking water; and • The portions of the formation proposed for exemption in the field cannot now and will not in the future serve as a source of drinking water because they are commercially hydrocarbon-producing. The approved aquifer exemption boundaries and depths, along with the EPA's analysis and rationale in support of the approval, are detailed in the enclosed Record of Decision. In addition, we are enclosing the application and other documents submitted by the DOGGR and SWRCB to the EPA that were considered in this approval decision.
    [Show full text]
  • CALIFORNIANS at RISK: an Analysis of Health Threats from Oil and Gas Pollution in Two Communities Case Studies in Lost Hills and Upper Ojai
    CALIFORNIANS AT RISK: An Analysis of Health Threats from Oil and Gas Pollution in Two Communities Case studies in Lost Hills and Upper Ojai January 2015 TM EARTHWORKS TM EARTHWORKS TM EARTHWORKS TM EARTHWORKS CALIFORNIANS AT RISK: An Analysis of Health Threats from Oil and Gas Pollution in Two Communities Case studies in Lost Hills and Upper Ojai January 2015 AUTHORS: Jhon Arbelaez, California Organizer, Earthworks Bruce Baizel, Energy Program Director, Earthworks Report available at: http://californiahealth.earthworksaction.org Photos by Earthworks ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This report is funded in part by a grant from The California Wellness Foundation (TCWF). Created in 1992 as a private independent foundation, TCWF’s mission is to improve the health of the people of California by making grants for health promotion, wellness education and disease prevention. We would also like to thank the Broad Reach Fund for its generous financial support for this investigation. Earthworks would like to thank The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation for its generous support of this report. The opinions expressed in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation. A special thank you to Rosanna Esparza at Clean Water Action/Clean Water Fund for her assistance with health surveys and continued grassroots backing in Kern County; and Andrew Grinberg and Miriam Gordon, Clean Water Action/Clean Water Fund for review and contributions to the report. Thank you to ShaleTest and Calvin Tillman for the use of the FLIR camera, and their guidance on community air testing. Thank you to Citizens for Responsible Oil and Gas (CFROG), for their knowledge and expertise in Ventura County.
    [Show full text]
  • APPENDIX E Hazards and Hazardous Materials Information
    APPENDIX E Hazards and Hazardous Materials Information PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT 12761 Schabarum Avenue Irwindale, CA 91706 Assessor’s Identification Number (AIN): 8546-031-090 Prepared for: Teresa Wolfe Kaiser Foundation Health Plan Inc. 393 Walnut Street, 4th Floor Pasadena, CA 91188 Prepared by: Stantec Consulting Services Inc. 290 Conejo Ridge Avenue Thousand Oaks, CA 91361 Project No.: 185803384.200.0001 January 29,2015 Sign-off Sheet and Signatures of Environmental Professionals This document entitled PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT was prepared by Stantec Consulting Services Inc. (Stantec) for the account of Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. The material in it reflects Stantec’s best judgment in light of the information available to it at the time of preparation. Any use which a third party makes of this report, or any reliance on or decisions made based on it, are the responsibilities of such third parties. Stantec accepts no responsibility for damages, if any, suffered by any third party as a result of decisions made or actions based on this report. All information, conclusions, and recommendations provided by Stantec in this document regarding the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) have been prepared under the supervision of and reviewed by the professionals whose signatures appear below. Prepared by (signature) Kai Pavel Geologic Associate I declare that, to the best of my professional knowledge and belief, I meet the definition of Environmental Professional (EP) as defined in § 312.10 of 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 312. I have the specific qualifications based on education, training, and experience to assess a property of the nature, history, and setting of the Property.
    [Show full text]
  • Groundwater Salinity and the Effects of Produced Water Disposal in The
    Groundwater salinity and the AUTHORS Janice M. Gillespie ~ California Water effects of produced water disposal Science Center, US Geological Survey (USGS), Sacramento, California; in the Lost Hills–Belridge oil [email protected] Jan Gillespie received her B.S. degree in fields, Kern County, California geology from Bemidji State University, Minnesota, her M.S. from South Dakota School Janice M. Gillespie, Tracy A. Davis, Michael J. Stephens, of Mines and Technology, and her Ph.D. from Lyndsay B. Ball, and Matthew K. Landon the University of Wyoming. Formerly a petroleum and hydrogeology professor in the Department of Geosciences at California State ABSTRACT University, Bakersfield, and a petroleum Increased oil and gas production in many areas has led to concerns over geologist in the San Joaquin Valley of California, she is now a research scientist for the USGS’s the effects these activities may be having on nearby groundwater regional aquifer monitoring project for quality. In this study, we determine the lateral and vertical extent California SB4 (the Well Stimulation Bill) of groundwater with less than 10,000 mg/L total dissolved solids delineating protected aquifers near oil – fi near the Lost Hills Belridge oil elds in northwestern Kern County, producing areas. California, and document evidence of impacts by produced water disposal within the Tulare aquifer and overlying alluvium, the primary Tracy A. Davis ~ California Water Science protected aquifers in the area. Center, USGS, San Diego, California; The depth at which groundwater salinity surpasses 10,000 mg/L [email protected] ranges from 150 m (500 ft) in the northwestern part of the study area to Tracy Davis received her B.S.
    [Show full text]
  • See Full Resume
    JAMES THOMPSON, SENIOR PROJECT PROFESSIONAL Education B.S. Geology, University of Kansas, 2008 Cume Laude M.S. Geology, University of Nevada Las Vegas (Course Work Completed, degree pending Thesis Completion) Professional Affiliations Pacific Section American Association of Professional Geologists San Joaquin Geological Society Professional Experience As a Senior Project Professional at SCS Engineers, Mr. Thompson provides geologic consulting, mapping, and technical writing for both environmental documents and petroleum industry compliance and permitting. Mr. Thompson has over five years of geologic experience working in the oil and gas industry as well as three years in environmental compliance which has afforded him a wide array of geologic mapping experience and knowledge of the software used to display and analyze geologic features and processes. A majority of projects worked on over the last three years at SCS, Mr. Thompson has performed geologic and hydrogeological analysis in order to prepare reports concerning the protection of shallow ground water aquifers throughout Santa Barbara, San Luis Obispo and Kern County. Mr. Thompson has also been a key contributor in preparing permit application packages that include projects such as oil and gas production plans, pipeline replacement plans and general land use permitting. This experience has helped Mr. Thompson maintain great working relationships with the state regulatory agencies. Mr. Thompson previously worked as a production geologist for Aera Energy, LLC for three years and following
    [Show full text]
  • Bureau of Land Management, Bakersfield Field Office
    UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT December 2020, Oil and Gas Lease Sale Environmental Assessment DOI-BLM-CA-C060-2020-0120 Table of Contents ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS .................................................................................................... V CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. 1 Background ............................................................................................................................................... 1 Purpose and Need ..................................................................................................................................... 1 Conformance with BLM Land Use Plans ................................................................................................. 2 Relationship to Statutes, Regulations and Other Plans ............................................................................. 5 National Environmental Policy Act ...................................................................................................... 5 Oil and Gas Laws and Regulations ....................................................................................................... 5 Federal Land Policy and Management Act ........................................................................................... 6 Clean Air Act .......................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Innovative Crude Oil Production Method Application: Chevron And
    California Low Carbon Fuel Standard §95489(c): Application for LCFS Credits for Producing and Transporting Crudes Using Innovative Methods Cahn Solar Plant Site Location: Chevron’s Lost Hills Oil Field SE SE SEC 4 27 21 Lost Hills, CA 93249 March 2020 Public Review Draft Executive Summary Chevron U.S.A. Inc. has contracted with SunPower Corporation to design and build a 29MWAC solar photovoltaic plant on approximately 220 acres of Chevron’s land adjacent to Chevron’s Lost Hills oil field in Kern County, California. Construction is near completion with an expected commercial operation date in March 2020. The plant design is also planned to incorporate lithium ion batteries with a 20 megawatt- hour (MWh) capacity that will be DC-coupled with the solar inverters. The addition of the battery storage component is currently undergoing a System Impact Study by PG&E and is expected to be constructed and online during the fourth quarter of 2020. Chevron will purchase all the output of the Solar Plant under a Power Purchase Agreement. The purchased electricity will partially displace the energy currently consumed from Pacific Gas & Electric with renewable solar energy generated on-site to be used by the oilfield operations. Solar energy generated in excess of Chevron’s real-time demand will be exported to Pacific Gas & Electric according to California’s Net Energy Metering 2.0 program. The battery modules will store energy generated by the solar arrays during peak solar output, reducing the excess power exported to the grid, and will dispatch it later when solar output is lower for consumption by the oil field.
    [Show full text]
  • United States Department of the Interior Geological
    UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Summary of Geology and Petroleum Plays Used to Assess Undiscovered Recoverable Petroleum Resources, San Joaquin Basin Province, California i o By Larry A. Beyer 1 and J, Alan Bartow Open-File Report 87-450Z This report is preliminary and has not been reviewed for conformity with U.S. Geological Survey editorial standards and stratigraphic nomenclature. Any use of trade names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the USGS. .S. Geological Survey, 345 Middlefield Rd., MS 999, Menlo Park, CA 94025 2 U.S. Geological Survey, 345 Middlefield Rd., MS 975, Menlo Park, CA 94025 1988 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION 1 II. GEOLOGICAL SUMMARY 1 A. Previous Work 1 B. Plate and Regional Tectonic History 3 1. Late Mesozoic 3 2. Paleogene 3 3. Neogene and Quaternary 4 C. Structural Setting and Stratigraphy 7 1. Northern Part of Sierran Block 7 2. Southern Part of Sierran Block 7 3. Northern Diablo Homocline 9 4. West-Side Fold Belt 10 5. Maricopa-Tejon Subbasin and South Margin Deformed Belt 11 D. Basin Evolution 12 E. Heat Flow, Subsurface Temperatures and Pore-Fluid Pressures 15 F. Petroleum Source Rocks 16 G. Diagenesis of Petroleum Reservoir Rocks 21 H. Porosity of Petroleum Reservoir Rocks 24 III. PETROLEUM PLAYS 26 A. PLAY I: Uppermost Miocene to Pleistocene Marine and Nonmarine Sandstones, South-Central and Southwest Area 26 B. PLAY II: Upper Miocene West- and Southwest-Sourced Channel and Turbidite Sands, Southwest Area 27 C. PLAY III: Middle and Upper Miocene Fractured Shales and Diatomaceous Rocks 27 D.
    [Show full text]
  • OFR 2019–1114: Multiple-Well Monitoring Site Adjacent to the Lost
    Prepared in cooperation with California State Water Resources Control Board Multiple-Well Monitoring Site Adjacent to the Lost Hills Oil Field, Kern County, California The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), in cooperation with the California State Study Area Water Resources Control Board, is evaluating several questions about oil and gas The LHSP is in the Kern development and groundwater resources in California, including (1) the location of County subbasin of the San Joaquin groundwater resources; (2) the proximity of oil and gas operations and groundwater and Valley groundwater basin situated the geologic materials between them; (3) evidence for or against fluids from oil and gas on the southern end of the Tulare sources in groundwater; and (4) the pathways or processes responsible when fluids from Lake Hydrologic Region (California oil and gas sources are present in groundwater (U.S. Geological Survey, 2019). As part Department of Water Resources, 2016; of this evaluation, the USGS installed a multiple-well monitoring site in the southern fig. 1). The LHSP is approximately San Joaquin Valley near Lost Hills, California, adjacent to the Lost Hills oil field 1,400 feet (ft) east and downgradient (fig. 1). Data collected at the Lost Hills multiple-well monitoring site (LHSP) provide from the Lost Hills oil and gas field information about the geology, hydrology, geophysics, and geochemistry of the aquifer administrative boundary. system, thus enhancing understanding of relations between adjacent groundwater and Primary water-bearing units that the Lost Hills oil field in an area where there is little groundwater data.This report comprise the major aquifers on the presents construction information for the LHSP and initial geohydrologic data collected west side of the Tulare Lake region from the site.
    [Show full text]
  • USGS Professional Paper 1713, Chapter 13
    1 Petroleum Systems and Geologic Assessment of Oil and Gas in the San Joaquin Basin Province, California Chapter 13 Miocene Total Petroleum System—Southeast Stable Shelf Assessment Unit of the San Joaquin Basin Province By Donald L. Gautier and Allegra Hosford Scheirer to present from Monterey Forma- Contents tion. Summary----------------------------------------------------------------------------------1 Existing Fields Ant Hill, Dyer Creek, Edison, Description------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 Edison Northeast, Fruitvale, Kern Source Rocks---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Bluff, Kern Front, Kern River, Maturation--------------------------------------------------------------------------------2 Mount Poso, Mountain View, Poso Migration--------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Creek, Rosedale Ranch, Round Reservoir Rocks------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Traps and Seals--------------------------------------------------------------------------3 Mountain, Union Avenue. Exploration Status and Resource Potential------------------------------------------ 3 Exploration Status Heavily explored (2.3 wells per References Cited------------------------------------------------------------------------4 square mile and 67 percent of all Figures------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 8 sections have at least one explor- Table-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------19
    [Show full text]
  • OFR 2019–1114: Multiple-Well Monitoring Site Adjacent to the Lost
    Prepared in cooperation with California State Water Resources Control Board Multiple-Well Monitoring Site Adjacent to the Lost Hills Oil Field, Kern County, California The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), in cooperation with the California State Study Area Water Resources Control Board, is evaluating several questions about oil and gas The LHSP is in the Kern development and groundwater resources in California, including (1) the location of County subbasin of the San Joaquin groundwater resources; (2) the proximity of oil and gas operations and groundwater and Valley groundwater basin situated the geologic materials between them; (3) evidence for or against fluids from oil and gas on the southern end of the Tulare sources in groundwater; and (4) the pathways or processes responsible when fluids from Lake Hydrologic Region (California oil and gas sources are present in groundwater (U.S. Geological Survey, 2019). As part Department of Water Resources, 2016; of this evaluation, the USGS installed a multiple-well monitoring site in the southern fig. 1). The LHSP is approximately San Joaquin Valley near Lost Hills, California, adjacent to the Lost Hills oil field 1,400 feet (ft) east and downgradient (fig. 1). Data collected at the Lost Hills multiple-well monitoring site (LHSP) provide from the Lost Hills oil and gas field information about the geology, hydrology, geophysics, and geochemistry of the aquifer administrative boundary. system, thus enhancing understanding of relations between adjacent groundwater and Primary water-bearing units that the Lost Hills oil field in an area where there is little groundwater data.This report comprise the major aquifers on the presents construction information for the LHSP and initial geohydrologic data collected west side of the Tulare Lake region from the site.
    [Show full text]