Return to NETL Home
 
Go to US DOE
 

Carbon Sequestration
FAQ Information Portal

Are there environmental or safety concerns related to carbon sequestration?

Q Are there environmental or safety concerns related to carbon sequestration?
A
 
Non-porous cap rock
 

Watch this video clip to learn more
about how carbon dioxide remains sequestered in underground storage sites.

With proper site selection based on available subsurface information, a monitoring and verification program, regulatory system, and appropriate mitigation to stop or control CO2 releases should they arise, environmental and safety concerns are minimal. Local health, safety, and environmental risks of geological storage would be less than the risks of current activities such as natural gas storage and enhanced oil recovery due to the fact that CO2 is not toxic, flammable, or explosive. More specific information related to environmental and safety concerns can be found below.
   
Q Is CO2 a waste product?
A CO2 is not a waste product in the ordinary sense. While CO2 is a major human-caused greenhouse gas, it also has commercial uses that set it apart. Industrial uses of CO2 include chemical and biological processes where CO2 is a reactant, such as those used in urea and methanol production, as well as technological applications that use CO2 directly - for example in the horticulture industry, refrigeration, food packaging, welding, beverages, and fire extinguishers. CO2 is valued for use for enhanced oil recovery and for coal bed methane extraction. Additionally, CO2 occurs in natural conditions and is not toxic, flammable, or explosive.
   
Q What is a geologic “seal?”
A In the context of geologic sequestration of CO2 in deep formations, the term “seal,” or “caprock,” is used as a general term for one or more layers of rocks that separate the CO2 injection reservoir from surrounding strata, especially the freshwater zones nearer the ground surface.  These relatively impervious layers overlie the injection reservoirs and act to prevent movement of CO2 and other fluids beyond the injection zones or immediate buffer zones.  These layers have very low permeability—that is, their ability to transmit fluids and gases is extremely low.  For example, many sandstones are good storage reservoirs because there is enough interconnected pore space between the sand grains that fluids, such as brine, or saltwater, flow easily through them.  On the other hand, most shales (made of smaller, clay particles) have very little interconnected pore space and thus do not readily allow fluid movement, making them a good sealing layer.
   
Q How do we know that geologic sequestration is safe?
A

In geologic sequestration, carbon dioxide would be stored in deep underground formations, such as depleted oil and gas reservoirs, unmineable coal seams, and deep saline formations.  Many of these formations have naturally stored carbon dioxide and other gases and fluids (i.e., petroleum) for millions of years, and have the potential to store hundreds of years’ worth of human-generated carbon dioxide emissions.

 
 
Geologic Model of Coal Seam Developed by NETL
 

CLICK TO SEE LARGER IMAGE

There is already a strong base of industry experience in enhanced oil recovery, where water and then carbon dioxide are pumped into depleted oil wells to re-pressurize wells and increase oil production.  Recent sequestration research is building on this experience.  Scientists know that storage sites need to be selected very carefully to ensure that they are located far away from drinking water supplies, that the cap rock is impermeable and leakage will not occur, and that the area is seismically inactive.  Additionally, scientists are examining the extent to which carbon dioxide moves within the formations, as well as the physical and chemical changes that occur.  Importantly, they are also developing ways to improve monitoring equipment and techniques to ensure that the carbon dioxide is secure.  The Department of Energy’s research program includes a portfolio of research projects to investigate the feasibility of safely performing carbon sequestration.  The network of seven Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnerships formed by the Department of Energy are important components of this broader program.
  Risk assessments will be made prior to making a decision to site a project in any location.  This comprehensive risk assessment will evaluate the health, safety and environmental risks for the entire sequestration process.  Risks will be identified and then decisions can be made in conjunction with the community on whether these risks can be managed through monitoring, mitigation, and verification techniques.  The process for assessing risks has been developed through research on other real-world sequestration operations.
   
Q How can we be sure that geologic seals will hold?
A As with all things in nature, nothing is absolutely sure; however, in the petroleum producing areas of the United States, oil and gas deposits, as well as naturally occurring CO2 gas, have been trapped within subsurface geologic formations for millions of years. With proper engineering design and monitoring, these same seals will also prevent the significant upward migration of CO2. Careful project siting will ensure that no geologic formation with an unsafe or uncharacterized seal will be used for CO2 sequestration.  The United States is also fortunate to have extensive experience with natural gas storage, where gas is injected underground during the summer and then recovered to heat homes in the winter. That geological and engineering experience can be applied to CO2 sequestration as well. CO2 is a much safer, non-combustible gas when compared to methane, the main component of natural gas used for heating homes, cooking, and home water heating.  By understanding where natural gas storage has been safe and successful, we can apply that knowledge to CO2.
   
Q Are there any environmental or safety concerns related to the Validation Phase of the Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnerships (RCSPs)?
A The Validation Phase uses field tests to validate the efficacy of carbon capture and storage technologies in a variety of geological and terrestrial storage sites. In addition, the RCSPs are verifying regional CO2 sequestration capacities, satisfying project permitting requirements, and conducting public outreach and education activities. The only large-scale injections possible in this phase are those where a commercial partner has obtained necessary approvals and is already injecting CO2 into depleted oil reservoirs and unworkable coal seams for EOR or enhanced coal bed methane (ECBM) recovery applications. The remaining projects involve injections of small amounts of CO2 into unworkable coal seams, oil and natural gas reservoirs, and saline formations, after being thoroughly discussed through public outreach activities and after obtaining all necessary permits. Following CO2 injections, DOE will monitor the stored CO2 with the type of equipment successfully used to monitor natural gas stored underground, and if any leakage should occur, it will be quickly contained and mitigated. One of the principal reasons for the field tests is to allow for testing and validation of monitoring technologies that will eventually be applied to full-scale projects.
   
Q Are there any environmental or safety concerns related to the Deployment Phase of the Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnerships (RCSPs)?
A The Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnerships are structured to address a variety of environmental and safety concerns: (1) Characterization Phase – site selection, characterization, National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) compliance, permitting, and infrastructure development; (2) Validation Phase – field scale CO2 injection and monitoring operations; and (3) Demonstration Phase - large scale CO2 injection and monitoring operations and site closure, post injection monitoring, and analysis. The federal NEPA process allows vetting of all of the aspects of the projects and provides opportunity for community input into the design, safety, and implementation of the project. Additionally, the Partnerships all solicit input on the use of carbon capture and storage as a strategy to mitigate greenhouse gas intensity in order to develop a basis for the design of projects in their regions.
   
Q How can you detect leaks? 
A
 
Plume Detection at Vertical Injection Site
 

CLICK TO SEE LARGER IMAGE

Techniques from the oil and gas industry have been used for over 50 years and provide a good basis for developing leak detection systems for geologic CO2 sequestration sites.  Advances in three-dimensional geophysical surveying techniques and mathematically based modeling and imaging of underground reservoirs are particularly helpful, as are commercial practices for CO2 injection to enhance oil recovery and the overall experience of the oil and gas industry with hydrocarbon reservoir monitoring.  Direct CO2 monitoring experience from relatively large CO2 sequestration demonstration projects in Canada and Norway also contribute to the knowledge base for CO2 leak detection.
  Monitoring wells can be drilled into shallow permeable and porous strata overlying the injected horizon.  Changes in pressure and water composition would indicate leakage through the seal.  We can also monitor vegetation stress using remote sensing data, but the primary objective would be to detect any leakage well before it even approaches the surface.  Tracers that can be monitored could be injected along with the CO2.  In this case, small volumes of non-toxic, non-radioactive perfluorocarbon compounds are added to the CO2 at the wellhead as the CO2 is being pumped underground.  The detection of the tracer compounds is possible to parts per quadrillion, making this technique sensitive to minor leaks of CO2 through the underlying strata.
   
Q What would be done if a leak were detected? 
A The geologic formations chosen for CO2 sequestration will normally be more than 2,000 to 2,500 feet underground.  There is, of course, the remote possibility of an undetected fault or fracture system that could allow CO2 to migrate upward toward the surface.  Such CO2 movement is expected to happen slowly due to the normally low permeabilities across many geologic strata.  In those cases, the migrating CO2 may not reach the Earth’s surface; instead, it can remain trapped or reacted with in many places along the upward migration pathways.  If slowly seeping CO2 were to reach the surface, it would usually be dissipated by the wind, which is what normally happens to CO2 vented by nature in volcanically active areas.  CO2 is not toxic, nor is it flammable or explosive.  But the potential for it to collect in unventilated subgrade structures or topographic depressions can be a concern.
  If a CO2 storage site were leaking in a way that posed an unacceptable risk of any type, the project operators would apply methods used to manage fluid movements in oil and gas reservoirs, or leak mitigation technologies.  These technologies have been tested in the oil and gas industry, and researchers are currently evaluating their applicability for sequestration and making any needed modifications.
   
Q Why not avoid creating CO2 in the first place?
A

Ideally, it would be best to avoid creating CO2 emissions.  But right now our energy systems are based on fossil fuels, and burning fossil fuels generates CO2 emissions.  That means when we drive a car, mow the grass, heat and cool our homes, or use electricity (unless it’s hydropower or nuclear power), we’re generating CO2.  U.S. policies such as the Global Climate Change Initiative are aimed at determining what we can do now to reduce CO2 through the use of sequestration, energy conservation, and renewables while we assess and develop improved energy systems that will put out less CO2.  The magnitude of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that must be offset to achieve atmospheric stabilization is daunting and requires that all options jointly contribute toward this reduction.  Sequestration and a host of other GHG mitigation options — as well as adaptive measures — must be aggressively explored in parallel so that the best mix of cost-effective solutions are found.

  As a practical matter, there is little prospect for a significant reduction in our need for fossil fuels over the next couple of decades.  DOE’s Energy Information Administration (EIA), in its 2007 Annual Energy Outlook, projects that fossil fuels will continue to provide the roughly 86 percent share of U.S. primary energy supply in 2030 that they did in 2005.  EIA sees the combined market share of renewable plus nuclear energy in the U.S. energy mix remaining stable at only 14 percent during 2005–2030, while coal actually gains in market share to 26 percent in 2030 from 23 percent in 2005.  But that’s for all forms of energy, transportation fuels included.  When just electricity generation is considered, coal’s market share is expected to jump to 57 percent in 2030, up from 50 percent in 2005 — and this scenario assumes that carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology will not be a factor, as no policies are in place yet to encourage its use.  In this projection, EIA sees the market outlook for renewables in electricity generation as staying relatively flat at about 9 percent through the forecast period, while nuclear power’s market share is expected to fall from 19 percent to 15 percent during 2005–2030.
  Despite technology improvements, rising fossil fuel costs, and public support, the contribution of renewable fuels to U.S. electricity supply will remain relatively small for another 25 years, EIA notes in its 2007 outlook.  Although conventional hydropower remains the largest source of renewable generation through 2030, environmental concerns and the scarcity of untapped large-scale sites limit its growth, and its share of total generation falls from 6.6 percent in 2005 to 5.3 percent in 2030.  Electricity generation from non-hydroelectric renewable fuels is projected to increase, however, bolstered by technology advances and state and Federal support.  EIA projects that the share of non-hydropower renewable generation will increase by 60 percent, from 2.3 percent of total generation in 2005 to 3.6 percent in 2030.  A projected market share of less than 25 percent for all low- or no-carbon technologies — nuclear and hydro included — does not suggest that rapid and widespread replacement of our fossil fuel infrastructure is technically, economically, or pragmatically feasible.
  The fossil fuel-based energy system that underpins our economy is the product of trillions of dollars of investment by the private sector and government over the last century.  The result is a mature energy infrastructure that delivers reliable supplies of energy at a reasonable price.  Such an infrastructure cannot readily be replaced overnight by a non-fossil fuel-based energy system, without wreaking economic havoc.  In an analysis of proposed legislation to require that a 25 percent share of electricity sales be produced from renewable sources by 2025, EIA concluded that reaching such a goal would require an almost 13-fold increase in non-hydropower renewable generation from 2005 levels.  Almost 70 percent of the generating capacity added in that period would have to be renewable technology.  The cost?  EIA estimates that consumers will spend an additional $65 billion for electricity during 2009–2030 if the 25 percent renewables standard is to be achieved.  U.S. gross domestic product losses from a 25 percent standard for renewables in electricity and transportation fuels markets would total $296 billion during 2009–2030.  Yet even under the 25 percent standard, U.S. energy-related CO2 emissions — while declining 14 percent to 2030 from EIA’s projected “business-as-usual” reference case — would still be 14 percent above 2005 levels.  This further illustrates the need for multiple and varied approaches to reducing GHGs.
  There are practical limitations to renewables achieving significantly accelerated penetration of energy markets as well.  Reaching a 25 percent renewables standard in electric power producers’ portfolios would require successful development and rapid deployment of new technologies that currently are not commercially available, according to EIA.  And deployment of even current technologies, such as wind power, engender significant uncertainties — for example, local opposition to siting of new facilities such as the political roadblocks thrown up against the proposed Cape Wind offshore wind farm development in Massachusetts’ Nantucket Sound.  There remains significant and widespread opposition to the installation of new nuclear or hydropower systems as well.
  Can we transition from a fossil fuel economy with significant CO2 emissions to an energy economy with limited CO2 in a way that does not put all our eggs in one basket by focusing on one area of new potential energy technologies and scrapping existing infrastructure?  Remember that our current energy mix has fossil fuels accounting for about 86 percent of our energy needs. So any strategy to reduce CO2 output will have to include a guarantee of an uninterrupted flow of energy while we reduce our dependence on technologies that yield CO2 as a combustion product and introduce new technologies that put out little or no CO2.  This means continuing the use of fossil fuel for the near future while we transition to new energy sources.  It could be accomplished by following a strategy of cutting back on CO2 emissions from existing sources and developing non-CO2-producing energy technologies.  Such an approach could include reducing the CO2 output of our existing facilities by using CCS technologies, investing in new technologies such as hydrogen and wind energy, building high-efficiency fossil fuel facilities, and encouraging energy conservation.  The climate change problem is big enough — meaning the needed reductions in GHG concentrations are large enough — that we will need both sequestration and aggressive development of renewable energy technologies to make a difference. 
  Developing CCS technologies for new and existing fossil energy systems, such as those under investigation by NETL and its partners, could be the ideal bridge to a low-carbon future.  That’s because CCS ultimately offers a potentially cost-effective approach versus that of heavily subsidized renewable fuels by focusing on reducing the cost and expanding the applicability of proven technologies instead of “reinventing the wheel” in a way that scraps our existing energy infrastructure.  And reducing the cost of CCS is key to NETL sequestration R&D.  NETL’s Carbon Sequestration Program’s overarching goal is to develop fossil fuel conversion systems that provide 90 percent CO2 capture with 99 percent storage permanence at less than a 10 percent increase in the cost of services.
  CCS technologies, if commercialized and widely deployed, would allow us to continue using fossil fuels in tandem with the existing energy infrastructure.  It would be great if we could flip a switch and become a non-CO2 emitting society overnight, but that’s not possible — even with massive investments.  Even the most optimistic estimates indicate that converting to a renewable energy economy would take many years and would not work as well in many cases as what we get with fossil fuels.  Even the most seemingly attractive renewable energies have their drawbacks as well — technical, practical, economic, and even environmental (e.g., the toll on avian wildlife by wind turbines).
  As we continue to use current fossil energy sources for years to come, we need ways to control CO2 emissions for the energy systems we’re using.  For example, if we can borrow a technology such as CO2 flooding from the oil industry and demonstrate it for an application in CO2 sequestration, we have a tool to apply soon that would reduce CO2 emissions for a number of facilities.   By attacking the problem from several fronts — energy conservation, expanded use of renewables, as well as CO2 emission controls including CO2 capture and sequestration, on existing and new systems — we have the best chance at reducing GHGs while maintaining a strong economy, which requires energy at a reasonable cost. 
   
Q Have there been tests to show the effects of high CO2 exposure in animals and/or humans? 
A

CO2 is not a poison like CO (carbon monoxide) and poses no health risk at ambient levels (350–500 parts per million, or ppm) or modestly elevated concentrations.  In fact, low levels of CO2 are necessary for all life.  Health organization guidelines for prolonged indoor exposure cite a maximum average CO2 concentration of 5,000 ppm.  Like other heavier-than-air gases that can accumulate and displace oxygen in sub-grade or enclosed areas, elevated concentrations of CO2 can cause asphyxiation.*  The severity of health effects depends on the actual CO2 concentration and length of exposure.  Exposure to concentrations of above 5,000 ppm to 30,000 ppm may cause headaches, dizziness, and other reversible side effects.  Unconsciousness can occur at concentrations above 50,000 ppm and concentrations above 100,000 ppm are considered to be life threatening.  There are safe-guards in place for industries that handle CO2.  Those safe-guards would protect workers who would likely come in contact with CO2, either in handling or during transport.

   
Q How can we be sure injecting CO2 in the ground won’t release toxins? 
A

First of all, the CO2 will be injected into sites at which the chance of leaking is very remote, based on field test results and site selection.  It is well known that CO2 makes water more acidic, which can dissolve minerals including some containing heavy metals.  In addition to dissolving some minerals, this type of geochemical environment can promote the deposition of other minerals in the sequestration host formation.  Reservoir studies at a test site in Weyburn, in Saskatchewan, Canada, have shown that material dissolving in one place has deposited in other places within the storage site deep underground.  If there is any movement out of the storage reservoir, it is likely to be further neutralized by dilution with brine in the intermediate buffer zones.  Since the formations used for sequestration are very deep and located so as to be remote and isolated from potable water aquifers, the chances of any mobilized chemicals reaching the drinking water zones are remote, if any at all.