Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Geologic Assessment Tool”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 19 records
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2022

GeoRePORT Protocol Volume II: Geological Assessment Tool

The GeoRePORT System is based on the concept that a geothermal system can be described both in terms of the quality of the geothermal resource as it relates to the potential to extract heat (resource grade) and the progress of research and development over the lifetime of the project (project readiness level). By assessing the major characteristics of a geothermal resource and categorizing the techniques used and how well the research technique was implemented, users can report a resource grade. The resource grade covers multiple geological, technological, and socioeconomic attributes that can be compared across play types and geothermal areas. Resource grade and project readiness level are reported for three assessment categories: geological, technical, and socioeconomic. This protocol document applies to the Geologic Assessment Tool and is intended for use with an excel-based spreadsheet tool, published separately.

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2022

GeoRePORT Protocol Volume VI: Resource Size Assessment Tool

GeoRePORT is based on the concept that a geothermal system can be described both in terms of the quality of the geothermal resource as it relates to the potential to extract heat ("Resource Grade") and the progress of research and development over the lifetime of the project ("Project Progress"). Resource grade and project progress are reported for three assessment categories: geologic, technical, and socio-economic. Each category has specific criteria and guidelines for assessing both resource grade and project progress, as outlined in each of the following assessment tools (and associated colors): (1) Geological Assessment Tool (representative colors: reds, oranges, browns); (2) Technical Assessment Tool (representative colors: blues, purples); (3) Socio-Economic Assessment Tool (representative colors: greens, yellows). Additionally, users may need to estimate the project size (often reported in MWe or MWth). The resource size assessment tool (RSAT) is an essential addition to GeoRePORT due to the economic and legal context of geothermal development. In order to utilize a geothermal resource, a competitive Power Purchase Agreement (PPA), or similar, often must be obtained, for which the resource's power capacity must be demonstrated. To determine that a geothermal heat or power project is worthy of development, investors or other funding mechanisms often require information on the anticipated heat and/or power potential of the reservoir. They might also be interested in the certainty of that estimate. However, proving the existence and size of a geothermal resource is comparatively expensive and risky relative to other renewable technologies; it can cost developers 5 to 10 million USD to demonstrate a financially viable geothermal resource (Young et al. 2017). GeoRePORT aims to address this barrier to development by providing a consistent and clear assessment of resource quality and certainty. The RSAT will enable GeoRePORT users to not only qualitatively report on a given a resource, but also to compare standard methodologies for quantitatively estimating a resource size in terms of potential heat and/or power output.

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2022

GeoRePORT 2.0 - Protocols and Reporting Tools

Version 2 of the GeoRePORT protocols and excel-based reporting tools. Software allows users to grade the geologic, technical, and socio-economic conditions at a geothermal resource location for both electricity generation and direct-use. Includes tool and protocols for: * Geologic Assessment Tool * Technical Assessment Tool * Socio-Economic Assessment Tool * International Socio-Economic Assessment Tool In addition, GeoRePORT now includes a Resource Size Assessment tool and protocol.

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2022

Computational Tools and Workflows for Quantitative Risk Assessment and Decision Support for Geologic Carbon Storage Sites: Progress and Insights from the U.S. DOE’s National Risk Assessment Partnership

The 2005 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Special Report on CCS raised the profile of CO2 capture and storage (CCS) as an important technology for reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. CCS is now recognized as a key component of most climate change mitigation scenarios. Since publication of that report the international research, development, and deployment (RD&D) community has advanced key technical aspects, clarified regulatory requirements, explored value chain and infrastructure solutions, and developed incentive paradigms to enable and promote large-scale deployment of CCS. These efforts have included research to better characterize geologic storage resources, to improve injection performance and storage efficiency, to assess and manage subsurface environmental risks, and to advance monitoring technologies to assure system conformance. These efforts have helped to build confidence in the viability of geologic carbon storage (GCS), but stakeholder concerns about long-term risks and liability associated with GCS remain a hurdle to broad acceptance and large-scale deployment of CCS. Since 2010, the U.S. DOE’s National Risk Assessment Partnership (NRAP) – a research collaboration between five contributing national laboratories – has worked to establish and demonstrate methods and tools to quantify and manage the subsurface environmental risks associated with GCS, amidst uncertainty. This work supports the Office of Fossil Energy and Carbon Management Carbon Transport and Storage Program’s goal of advancing safe and secure commercial-scale GCS deployment. To address the technical challenge of simulating the physical response of the GCS site to large-scale CO2 injection, NRAP has adopted an approach that relies on coupling computationally efficient reduced-order and/or data-driven proxy models of important system components (i.e., storage reservoir, sealing caprock, leakage pathways, intermediate formations, overlying groundwater aquifers, and the atmosphere) in integrated assessment framework. That integrated model of the physical system is complemented with fit-for purpose functionality to support site characterization and risk-related decisions. The recently released NRAP Phase II toolset includes the Open-Source Integrated Assessment Model (NRAP-Open-IAM) for evaluation of trends in leakage risk and potential impact, tools to support monitoring design optimization (Designs for Risk Evaluation and Management – DREAM v3.0 and Passive Seismic Monitoring Tool - PSMT), and tools for state of stress evaluation (State-of-Stress Analysis Tool - SOSAT) and forecasting induced seismicity risk. The NRAP team has also released a pair of reports describing conceptual workflows to incorporate physics-based, quantitative risk assessment into many of the design, planning, operation, and closure decisions for GCS projects. An online catalogue highlights published studies where these tools and methods are demonstrated. In this presentation, the utility of these products to assess risks and address key stakeholder questions will be highlighted through examples, and related insights about the safety and security of geologic carbon storage in qualified storage sites will be discussed. The prospect of rapid, large-scale deployment of GCS technology to aggressively reduce anthropogenic CO2 emissions requires careful consideration of interference between multiple commercial-scale storage projects within a basin. Going forward, NRAP is expanding and adapting site-scale risk quantification tools and methods to enable assessment of risks and inform management decisions for basin-scale deployment. Increasingly, this work will leverage next-generation approaches for surrogate modelling, fast prediction, and advanced visualization enabled by machine learning and artificial intelligence to promote virtual learning, scenario evaluation, and augment risk-based decision making.

quantitative risk assessment, geologic carbon stor↗
NASA NTRS1974

Assessment of ERTS-1 imagery as a tool for regional geological analysis in New York State

The author has identified the following significant results. Linear anomalies dominate the new geological information derived from ERTS-1 imagery, total lengths now exceeding 26,500 km. Maxima on rose diagrams for ERTS-1 anomalies correspond well with those for mapped faults and topographic lineaments. Multi-scale analysis of linears shows that single topographic linears at 1:2,500,000 may become dashed linears at 1:1,000,000 aligned zones of shorter parallel, en echelon, or conjugate linears at 1:5000,000, and shorter linears lacking any conspicuous zonal alignment at 1:250,000. Field work in the Catskills suggests that the prominent new NNE lineaments may be surface manifestations of dip slip faulting in the basement, and that it may become possible to map major joint sets over extensive plateau regions directly on the imagery. Most circular features found were explained away by U-2 airfoto analysis but several remain as anomalies. Visible glacial features include individual drumlins, drumlinoids, eskers, ice-marginal drainage channels, glacial lake shorelines, sand plains, and end moraines.

Isachsen, Y. W.↗
DOE OSTI2020

Evaluation of Containment and Geomechanical Risks at Integrated Mid-Content Stacked Carbon Storage Hub Sites

The U.S. Department of Energy is leading the development of CCS through collaborative projects and programs to not only develop and demonstrate the technology but to also quantify the risks and provide tools that site operators can use to develop a site-specific understanding of their risk to enable successful project operations. This report summarizes results and findings from the application of risk-assessment tools to an industrial-scale Geologic Carbon Storage (GCS) project. Specifically, we applied the National Risk Assessment Partnership’s (NRAP) Open Integrated Assessment Model (NRAP-Open-IAM) and State of Stress Assessment Tool (SOSAT) to two candidate sites being considered for storage by the Integrated Midcontinent Stacked Carbon Storage Hub (IMSCS-Hub) project team. These sites, Sleepy Hollow Field in Nebraska and Patterson Field in Kansas, have historical oil and gas production and thus are attractive candidates to store the 50 million metric tons (Mt), which is the CarbonSAFE objective. Because these sites have historical operations, they have a significant number of existing wells that pose a risk for well leakage. Additionally, the storage formations will undergo significant pore pressure perturbation (i.e., increase due to CO 2 injection). Hence, we have selected the two NRAP tools best suited to study the risks associated with well leakage and geomechanical risks. The objective of the study was not only to assess the risk at the site, but to also improve the NRAP tools through application using real site data on an ongoing project.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2021

Wabash CarbonSAFE (Subtask 3.1 - Application of the NRAP Tools to the Wabash CarbonSAFE Site for Risk Assessment Associated with Geologic Carbon Storage Activities)

This report documents a risk assessment of CO 2 containment loss and induced shear failure due to geologic carbon storage at the Wabash CarbonSAFE site. The operator, Wabash Valley Resources, has proposed adapting the onsite integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) facilities to produce hydrogen and injecting the byproduct CO 2 stream into the subsurface Potosi dolomite formation. The purpose of this study is to assess (1) CO 2 sequestration performance relative to the CarbonSAFE goals of storing 50 Mt over 30 years, (2) the risk of containment loss due to leakage along a wellbore and into an overlying aquifer, and (3) the state of stress and risk of reactivating existing fractures. This study relied upon the initial site characterization work performed by the Illinois State Geologic Survey (ISGS) along with analogue data collected from other carbon sequestration projects in the region.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
DOE OSTI2020

North Dakota Integrated Carbon Storage Complex Feasibility Study. Final report

In spring 2017, the Energy & Environmental Research Center (EERC) initiated an effort to determine the feasibility of developing a commercial-scale CO 2 geologic storage complex able to store 50+ million tonnes (Mt) of CO 2 in central North Dakota safely, permanently, and economically. The objective was to fulfill the goals of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Carbon Storage Assurance Facility Enterprise (CarbonSAFE) Initiative and address technical and nontechnical challenges specific to commercial-scale deployment of a CO2 storage project. The findings clearly show that the concept of capturing CO 2 from a lignite-fired electrical generation facility in central North Dakota and safely and permanently storing the CO 2 in the deep subsurface is indeed technically, economically, and socially feasible. This project evaluated two study areas and their respective geologic storage complexes located adjacent to separate coal-fired facilities in North Dakota: the Basin Electric Power Cooperative (BEPC)-owned Great Plains Synfuels Plant (GPSP) and the Minnkota Power Cooperative (Minnkota)-owned Milton R. Young Station (MRYS). These locations, one with CO 2 capture in place and an existing CO 2 pipeline, are bolstered by progressive North Dakota pore space ownership and long-term liability laws. These elements and a motivated team created an ideal synergistic scenario for ensuring success of the CarbonSAFE Initiative and promoting North Dakota’s statewide vision for carbon management. The project included drilling two new geologic characterization wells, integrating an existing 3-D seismic survey, creating a geologic model subsequently used for injection simulation, a risk assessment, public outreach, and generating a site development plan based on results. In addition, the performance of select National Risk Assessment Partnership tools was evaluated. The geologic characterization wells were drilled ~5600 feet deep to the Broom Creek Formation; ~350 feet of core was retrieved from each well. The core included the Broom Creek (targeted injection zone) and a portion of the overlying Opeche Shale (seal). The Flemmer-1 well, west of Beulah, North Dakota, yielded 169 feet of sandstone. The BNI-1 well located south of Center, North Dakota, yielded 124 feet of sandstone. In each case, laboratory analysis of the sandstone showed permeability in the 300–1000-mD range, with porosity of 20%–30%. The Flemmer-1 well was sited within the boundaries of an existing 3-D seismic survey. Colocating the well with the seismic survey maximized the relationship between new and legacy data and developed a first-of-its-kind interpretation of the geologic fabric of the Broom Creek. Geologic characterization data were integrated into a 5544-mi 2 geocellular model that encompassed both new wells and stratigraphy from the surface to the Amsden Formation (underlying the Broom Creek). The model was later expanded vertically to include the deeper Black Island–Deadwood interval to examine its potential viability as a storage target. The geocellular model provided the foundation for dynamic simulation of CO 2 into the Broom Creek. Results of the simulation suggest that the Broom Creek could accept the DOE target rate of 2 Mt/yr of CO 2 into as few as two wells. To bracket the expected capture from MRYS, simulations were also investigated for a 4-Mt/yr rate near MRYS. Although more wells are needed (two additional), the Broom Creek still has the storage resource to accept the CO 2 at the increased rate. A risk assessment exercise was conducted to identify and assess technical and nontechnical risks that could prevent potential candidate storage complexes within the study area from serving as commercial storage sites. The assessment identified and evaluated six technical risk categories: 1) CO 2 injectivity, 2) storage capacity, 3) lateral migration of CO 2 , 4) lateral pressure propagation, 5) vertical migration of CO 2 or formation brine, and 6) induced seismicity. Following two rounds of analysis and scoring, no risks were determined to preclude continued efforts to develop carbon capture, utilization, and storage (CCUS) in central North Dakota. The risk assessment results will be used to guide future site characterization, modeling and simulation, and monitoring activities. A specific nontechnical strategic risk based on challenges that may be realized in amalgamation of pore space resulted in vertically expanding the geologic model to incorporate the potential for stacked storage in multiple saline reservoirs. By including the Black Island–Deadwood interval (the basal sedimentary reservoir in this region), the amalgamated areal extent could be reduced by as much as 45%. Working with a smaller geographic area reduces risks and costs associated with monitoring and pore space leasing. An economic evaluation incorporating capture; transport (<5 mi); Class VI wells; permitting; and monitoring, verification, and accounting suggests implementing commercial-scale CCUS is economically attractive if the federal tax benefits of 45Q are included. This is validated by Minnkota’s continued pursuit of CO 2 capture and geologic storage at MRYS through its Project Tundra initiative, indicating that there is a business case for CCUS in central North Dakota. Currently, North Dakota is the only state with underground injection control (UIC) Class VI primacy. Built into the North Dakota Century Code is a series of regulatory requirements that guide the process to obtain a Class VI CO 2 storage facility permit. As part of this project, a site development plan was compiled to assure compliance with North Dakota’s requirements to permit a commercial-scale CO 2 storage operation and includes a prospective time line encompassing a general breakdown of activities. In total, an estimated 30 months would be needed to execute the necessary steps to attain a North Dakota CO 2 storage facility permit. Outreach was an integral part of the project and encompassed any project-related activity that had contact or exposure beyond the project team. The goals of outreach were to foster an environment from which stakeholders could make informed decisions about the project and gauge community receptiveness to a CCUS project. A consistent set of messages and outreach products were developed in conjunction with an outreach advisory board that integrated project partners and team members. To gauge public acceptability of geologically storing CO 2 , 5611 households in the project area were invited to participate in an online survey. The survey results indicate that the public attitude regarding CCUS is neutral to positive, with strong sentiment that CO 2 capture and storage may be an approach to maintain the economic vitality of the region. To achieve project objectives, critical support in the form of financial backing, engineering evaluations, site access, outreach collaboration, operations data, risk assessment/evaluation, and software access was provided by BEPC, the North Dakota Industrial Commission Lignite Research Council, ALLETE Clean Energy, BNI Energy, North American Coal Corporation, Minnkota, Prairie Public Broadcasting, Computer Modelling Group Ltd., and Schlumberger.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
DOE OSTI2020

Milestone Report for MS8: Extend Quantitative Brine and CO 2 Leakage Calculations

This report summarizes results of the risk analysis and characterization of CO 2 and brine leakage potential of Farnsworth Unit (FWU) wells. U.S. DOE’s National Risk Assessment Partnership (NRAP) program works on quantitatively assess long-term environmental risks amidst significant geologic uncertainty and variability. NRAP risk assessment and computational tools are developed to quantify uncertainties and calculate risk associated with geologic sequestration of carbon dioxide (CO 2 ). For this study, we have developed a workflow from University of Utah’s physics-based reservoir simulators to performing leakage calculations using NRAP Tools. NRAP tools (NRAP-IAM-CS, RROM-Gen) are used to conduct leakage risk analysis based on Eclipse simulation results, and characterize wellbore leakage at the Farnworth Site. This report summarizes results of the risk analysis and characterization of CO 2 and brine leakage potential of Farnsworth Unit (FWU) wells.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2024

New Matrix Framework to Determine Carbon Storage Technical Viability

Carbon storage is an integral component of reducing CO2 emissions. Research over the past two decades has developed workflows for volume assessments and economic project feasibility, providing necessary and useful tools to progress geologic carbon storage (GCS) projects. These workflows and assessments have focused primarily on determining the in-situ storage resource based on geologic and engineering parameters and do not integrate subsurface characterization with surface conditions, social factors, and environmental factors that may pose a benefit or impediment to the implementation of GCS. Furthermore, the data required to assess the technical viability of GCS are myriad and disparate. There is no current methodology that identifies technical viability criteria and systematically informs how to aggregate these factors for spatial assessments. To address this gap, the National Energy Technology Laboratory has developed a Carbon Storage Technical Viability Approach (CS TVA) Matrix that incorporates a wide variety of factors to inform and accelerate screening for GCS site selection in the United States.

Mulhern, Julia↗
DOE OSTI2024

Heuristic algorithms for design of integrated monitoring of geologic carbon storage sites

Designs for Risk Evaluation and Management (DREAM) is a tool developed under the National Risk Assessment Partnership (NRAP) to enhance geologic carbon storage safety and efficiency. Using potential leakage scenarios generated externally by the users preferred history-matching approach, DREAM constructs ideal combinations of sensor locations in the right place at the right time to detect as many leaks as possible, detect them as early as possible, and minimize cost. This user-friendly tool, developed in Java, features a window-based GUI for input and a 3D visualization tool for viewing the domain space and optimized monitoring plans. DREAM's latest version accommodates real-world usage by allowing for joint optimization of wellbore point sensor placements and surface geophysics survey geometries, and by using more efficient multi-objective optimization algorithms. We show an example where, these two improvements combined allow us to support containment assurance and go from detecting 80–90 % of the potential CO 2 leakage to +99.7 %, a step-change improvement that can make the deciding difference in whether a site is suitable for geologic carbon storage. Though developed for geologic carbon storage, this tool would be equally applicable in many surface or offshore environmental monitoring projects.

58 GEOSCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2022

NRAP-Open-IAM: NRAP Open Source Integrated Assessment Model

Note: This is the last version (a2.6.1) of NRAP-Open-IAM released during NRAP Phase II in 2022. The latest version of NRAP-Open-IAM is available here: https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/phase-iii-nrap-open-iam NRAP-Open-IAM is an open-source software product that enables quantification of containment effectiveness and leakage risk at storage sites in the context of system uncertainties and variability. NRAP-Open-IAM represents the next-generation in a line of systems-based computational models developed for quantitative geological carbon storage (GCS) risk assessment. The model comprises a set of reduced-order and analytical models of various components of the GCS system, potential leakage pathways, receptors of concern including impact to groundwater resources and the atmosphere, a framework to support stochastic simulation, time stepping, uncertainty quantification, other analytical functionality for scenario and risk-performance evaluation, and a basic graphical user interface to support scenario development, data input simulation definition, and basic post-processing and results display. As the NRAP Open-IAM functionality continues to evolve, we continue to add to its capability to develop quantitative, probabilistic, and time-dependent profiles of the evolution of risk at a GCS site and evaluate the influence of uncertain parameters on uncertainty in predicted risk. It can be used to quantify the dynamics of reservoir saturation plume and pressure-affected area, for evaluation of the area of potential groundwater impact (i.e., Area of Review) and monitoring requirements to support cost and regulatory analysis, and for consideration of different post-injection site care and closure scenarios. This submission contains the current version of NRAP-Open-IAM available for evaluation and testing. To use the NRAP-Open-IAM, download the source code (https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/08f396c8-bc5f-44ad-a028-6e98a6ea6d70/resource/4c24a3da-3b40-4ffe-9892-c807ae9f8760) then open the NRAP-Open-IAM user's guide (https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/08f396c8-bc5f-44ad-a028-6e98a6ea6d70/resource/8b27335a-343c-4836-b8a3-3ad0bdc9e669) to read more about the tool. Installation instructions for Windows, Mac, and Linux can be found in the "installers" folder of the extracted NRAP-Open-IAM folder and describe setup of environment (e.g., Python libraries) needed for proper work of the tool. Test of installation can be done by running "python openiam_setup_tests.py" in the "setup" folder. The installation test also runs a test suite to see if the NRAP-Open-IAM has been installed correctly. To run the test suite separately, run "python iam_test.py" in the "test" folder. User's guide: https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/08f396c8-bc5f-44ad-a028-6e98a6ea6d70/resource/8b27335a-343c-4836-b8a3-3ad0bdc9e669 Developer's guide: https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/08f396c8-bc5f-44ad-a028-6e98a6ea6d70/resource/3bc6ee7d-609d-4eb6-80ba-fa6130ee0313 Reservoir simulation data used in some examples distributed with NRAP-Open-IAM: - Kimberlina: https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/08f396c8-bc5f-44ad-a028-6e98a6ea6d70/resource/eb62cece-61b2-4037-9b6d-32407dde2ab8 - Kimberlina (compartmentalized): https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/08f396c8-bc5f-44ad-a028-6e98a6ea6d70/resource/366f9530-3b32-4b84-affe-ab2df1d9a8b5 - FutureGen 2.0: https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/futuregen-2-0-1008-simulation-reservoir-lookup-table NRAP-Open-IAM GitLab repository: https://gitlab.com/NRAP/OpenIAM Related publications: - Bacon, D., Yonkofski, C., Brown, C., Demirkanli, D. and Whiting, J., 2019. Risk-based post injection site care and monitoring for commercial-scale carbon storage: Reevaluation of the FutureGen 2.0 site using NRAP-Open-IAM and DREAM. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 90: 102784. - Bacon, D. Demirkanli, D., and White, S., 2020. Probabilistic risk-based Area of Review (AoR) determination for a deep-saline carbon storage site. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 102: 103153. - Harp, D., Oldenburg, C., and Pawar, R., 2019. A metric for evaluating conformance robustness during geologic CO2 sequestration operations. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 85: 100-108. - Lackey, G., Vasylkivska, V., Huerta, N., King, S., and Dilmore, R., 2019. Managing well leakage risks at a geologic carbon storage site with many wells, International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 88 :182-194. - Vasylkivska, V., Dilmore, R., Lackey, G., Zhang, Y., King, S., Bacon, D., Chen, B., Mansoor, K., and Harp, D., 2021. NRAP-Open-IAM: A flexible open-source integrated assessment model for geologic carbon storage risk assessment and management, Environmental Modelling & Software, 143: 105114. Presentations: - Chen, B., Harp, D., and Pawar, R., A data assimilation approach (ES-MDA) coupling with NRAP-Open-IAM for quantifying uncertainty reduction in geological CO2 sequestration. AGUFM 2019: T44A-02. - Chen, B., and Harp, D., Improving risk analysis precision for geologic CO2 sequestration by quantifying the uncertainty reduction before and after acquiring monitoring data. 14th Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies Conference, Melbourne, Australia, 2018, pp. 21-26. - Harp, D., National Risk Assessment Partnership Task 2: Containment Assurance. No. LA-UR-19-28654, Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL), Los Alamos, NM (United States), 2019. - Vasylkivska, V., King, S., Bacon, D., Harp, D., Chen, B., Mansoor, K., Onishi, T., Yang, Y., Zhang, Y., and Keating, E., NRAP-Open-IAM: An open-source integrated assessment model, poster, Mastering the Subsurface Through Technology Innovation, Partnerships and Collaboration: Carbon Storage and Oil and Natural Gas Technologies Review Meeting, Pittsburgh, PA, August 13-16, 2018. - Vasylkivska, V., Lackey, G., King, S., Wentworth, A., Huerta, N., Creason, C., DiGiulio, J., Yang, Y., and Dilmore, R., Long-term risk analysis of a geologic CO2 storage project during the post-injection period, SIAM Conference on Computational Science and Engineering, Spokane, WA, February 25-March 1, 2019. - Vasylkivska, V., Overview of the NRAP-Open-IAM tool for carbon storage (beta release), 2019 Annual NRAP Tool Users Meeting, Pittsburgh, PA, August 27, 2019. - Vasylkivska, V., Bacon, D., Chen, B., Dilmore, R., Harp, D., King, S., Lackey, G., Lindner, E., Liu, G., Mansoor, K. and Zhang, Y., NRAP-Open-IAM: A new, open-source code for integrated assessment of geologic carbon storage containment effectiveness and leakage risk, poster, American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting 2020 (virtual meeting), December 2020. - Vasylkivska, V., NRAP open-source integrated assessment model and relevant application, oral presentation, NRAP workshop "NRAP Tools for Geologic Carbon Storage Risk-Based Decision Making" held in conjunction with Groundwater Protection Council (GWPC) 2021 Annual Forum (virtual meeting), Salt Lake City, UT, September 2021. - Vasylkivska, V., NRAP-Open-IAM: open-source integrated assessment model, digital poster/demonstration, software demonstration session, 2022 Carbon Management Project Review Meeting, August 16, 2022

AoR↗
DOE OSTI2023

Legacy Well Leakage Risk Analysis at the Farnsworth Unit Site

This paper summarizes the results of the risk analysis and characterization of the CO 2 and brine leakage potential of Farnsworth Unit (FWU) site wells. The study is part of the U.S. DOE’s National Risk Assessment Partnership (NRAP) program, which aims to quantitatively evaluate long-term environmental risks under conditions of significant geologic uncertainty and variability. To achieve this, NRAP utilizes risk assessment and computational tools specifically designed to quantify uncertainties and calculate the risk associated with geologic carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) sequestration. For this study, we have developed a workflow that utilizes physics-based reservoir simulation results as input to perform leakage calculations using NRAP Tools, specifically NRAP-IAM-CS and RROM-Gen. These tools enable us to conduct leakage risk analysis based on ECLIPSE reservoir simulation results and to characterize wellbore leakage at the Farnsworth Unit Site. We analyze the risk of leakage from both individual wells and the entire field under various wellbore integrity distribution scenarios. The results of the risk analysis for the leakage potential of FWU wells indicate that, when compared to the total amount of CO 2 injected, the highest cemented well integrity distribution scenario (FutureGen high flow rate) exhibits approximately 0.01% cumulative CO 2 leakage for a 25-year CO 2 injection duration at the end of a 50-year post-injection monitoring period. In contrast, the highest possible leakage scenario (open well) shows approximately 0.1% cumulative CO 2 leakage over the same time frame.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗