Activities of the NoEActivities of the NoE „CO GeoNet“ in

Natural Analogue Studies fornear surface monitoring ofnear surface monitoring of

CO2 storage sites

Activities of the NoEActivities of the NoEActivities of the NoEActivities of the NoE„CO„CO22GeoNet“GeoNet“

in the Laacher See region, in the Laacher See region, Western GermanyWestern GermanyWestern GermanyWestern Germany

IEA-GHG workshop, September 15-17, 2008Ingo Möller et al.

Analogue Study „Laacher See“: NoE Partners involved

Keyworth,United Kingdom

Tom Barlow, Pat Coombs, Kay Green, David Jones, Bob Lister, Jonathan Pearce, Richard Shaw, Mick Strutt, Julian Trick, Ian Webster & Julia West

Federal Institute for Geosciencesand Natural Resources, Hannover, Germany

Martin Krüger, Franz May, Ingo Möller, Niklas Mundhenk, Birte Oppermann, Nicole Rann & Daniela Zoch

Bureau de Recherche Géologique et Minière, Orléans, France

Michel Brach, Marie-Christine Dictor, Gilles Braibant, Frederick Gal & Catherine Joulian

Istituto Nazionale di Oceanografiae di Geofisica Sperimentale,Trieste, Italy

Sergio Persoglia & Michela Vellico

Università di Roma „La Sapienza“,Rome, Italy

Giorgio Caramanna & Salvatore Lombardi

IEA-GHG workshop, September 15-17, 2008

The Laacher See region

• The Laacher See region repre• The Laacher See region repre-sents one of the volcanic centres of the East Eifel volcanic field

• Located at about 50°24’ N and 7°16’ E, west of the river Rhine in the uplifting Paleozoic Rhenish Massif the Devonian basementMassif, the Devonian basement of the Laacher See volcanic centre

• The Laacher See eruption at about 12900 yr bp is the only known large explosive eruption th t t k l i C t l Ethat took place in Central Europe during late Quaternary time


Survey areas in the Laacher See region

Study sitesStudy sites

1. Wehrer Kessel

2. Wassenach

3. Laacher See, NE

4. Laacher See, SW

5 Kellbachtal at5. Kellbachtal at Obermendig

Field campaigns

September 2007

June/July 2008

BGR:

December 2007

b‘ & ‘ 2008


Feb‘, May & Nov‘ 2008

Analogue Study „Laacher See“: Study Site• The lake has presently a maxi-

mum depth of 52 m, whereby its surface is at about 275 m asl

• No natural run-off, but in 1164 k f th b bbmonks of the nearby abbey con-

structed a tunnel through the southern crater wall to lower the lake level by ~10 my

• In 1844 new construction: Lowered lake level by another 5 m

• CO2-degassing related to upper 2 g g ppmantle anomalies (intrusion to lower crustal levels)

• Accompanying He and C isotopes point to a mantle signature (Griesshaber et al. 1991 & 1992)

• Estimated CO2-flux into the lake is at about 5000 t CO per yr


at about 5000 t CO2 per yr (Aeschbach-Hertig et al. 1996)

• Eddy covariance equipment:

Near surface CO2 monitoring, onshore: New technologies

• Eddy covariance equipment:

Purpose: Measuring CO2 flux at fixed sites continuously

Footprint > 100 x sensor height

Sensivity: 2-5 ppm

900 2

600

700

800

) 0.5

1

1.5

m2/

s?)

=130g/m2/day

300

400

500

CO

2 (p

pm)

1

-0.5

0

CO

2 flu

x (m

g/m

Concentration in blue

0

100

200

25/09/200 25/09/200 26/09/200 26/09/200 26/09/200 26/09/200 26/09/200 27/09/200 27/09/200 27/09/200 27/09/200-2

-1.5

-1Concentration in blueFlux in pink


7 14:24 7 19:12 7 00:00 7 04:48 7 09:36 7 14:24 7 19:12 7 00:00 7 04:48 7 09:36 7 14:24Date/Time

• Open path laser gas analysers:

Near surface CO2 monitoring, onshore: New technologies

• Open path laser gas analysers:Purpose: Rapid surveyingDetection limit/sensitivity

5 10 CO5 - 10 ppm CO2

0.1 - 1 ppm CH4

Readings every 1 sec←4

←5

Linked to GPS position←2

←3

←1


Near surface CO2 monitoring, onshore: Established technologies

• Registration of CO2 concentrations(incl. CH4 and H2S)

• Soil gas sampling, i.a. for δ13C analysis and g p g, ycomparative concentration measurements

• CO2 flux measurement(accumulation chamber methods)(accumulation chamber methods)

Purpose: Gettingexact information on soil gas characteristics for a given site


Established technologies: Selected results

CO2 concentration„Vent 2“ (BGS vent)

Traverse N from vent 2

CO2 concentrationand CO2 flux

„ ( )

Traverse N from vent 2

80

90

100

30

35

40

40

50

60

70

CO

2 (%

)

15

20

25

30

CO

2 flu

x pp

m/sCO2 concentration

CO2 flux

10

20

30

5

10

15


00 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Distance (m)

0


CO & Stable Isotopes Ratios (δ13C )CO2 & Stable Isotopes Ratios (δ13CCO2)

„Vent 1“

• Lowest δ13C values (=lightest C) correspond to highest CO2 concentrations• Lowest δ13C values closest to a “deep origin” component (upper mantle• Lowest δ13C values closest to a deep origin component (upper mantle

and/or lower crustal degassing) [-3.4 to -8 ‰; Taylor & Gerlach 1990]• Other measurements:

No interactions with organic matter or atmospheric CO2


Most likely some interaction with carbonate levels (enrichment)?


δ13C vs CO concentrationδ CCO2 vs. CO2 concentration

Location Laacher See, Western Shore

The higher the CO2 soil gas concentration the smaller the variability of the C isotope ratios


the easier the detection of the CO2 origin


Seasonal variability of natural ventsSeasonal variability of natural vents

100110

Sep. 07

60708090

ol%

)

Dez. 07

Feb. 08

Jul. 08

30405060

CO 2 (

Vo

01020

-25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

„Pumping effects“ (?)

-25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40Distanz vom Zentrum (m)Distance from the centre of the vent (m)


„Pumping effects (?)

Established technologies: Selected results ( Kellbachtal)

80

90

100

300.00

350.00

Concentration 15 cm depthConcentration 60 cm depthFlux

Comparison 26-27 Sept: Traverse 2

100

60

70

80

%) 200.00

250.00

/m2 /d

)

Flux

60708090

1007

Sept

30

40

50

CO

2 (%

150.00

CO

2 flu

x (g

/

y = 1.0448x + 0.6814R2 = 0.995520

30405060

CO

2 (%

) 27

10

20

30

50.00

100.00R 0.9955

010

0 20 40 60 80 100

CO2 (%) 26 Sept0

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Distance (m) from E end

0.00

CO2 (%) 26 Sept



Field measurements“ vs Soil gas sampling“

50

„Field measurements vs. „Soil gas sampling

R2 = 0,8969

R2 = 0,982930

40

(Vol

%)

,

10

20

CO 2 i

nsitu

(

0

10

0 10 20 30 40 50CO GC (V l%)

Wassenach

Wehrer Kessel

• Both methods give reliable information (well calibrated tools presumed)

• Errors are almost on the user side (handling of the instruments etc )

CO2 GC (Vol%)


• Errors are almost on the user side (handling of the instruments etc.)

Selected results: Determing factors of CO2 fluxes

in progress

-0.81 (n=6)

in progress …

( )-0.65 (n=5)

-0.63 (n=6)-0.98 (n=5)

-0.95 (n=6)-0.99 (n=5)


• Underwater gas collector:

Near surface CO2 monitoring, „offshore“: New technologies

• Underwater gas collector:Purpose: Measuring CO2 flux at fixed sites continuously

Footprint depends on diameter of the funnel

Sensivity: not known yety y

• ROV:Purpose: Fast interventionsPurpose: Fast interventions, rapid surveying (filming)

Temporary flux measurement


Gas sampling

Biological impact studies

• to investigate the environmental impact of CO leakage from• … to investigate the environmental impact of CO2 leakage from deep reservoirs into near-surface terrestrial environments

• … based on detailed knowledge on the abundance and diversity of plants microorganisms and microfaunaplants, microorganisms and microfauna

Monitoring techniques:

B i l (BGS)• Botanical survey (BGS)

• Bacterial counts (BGS, BGR, BRGM)

• ATP activity (BGS)y ( )

• Earthworms as bioassay for CO2 exposure (BGS)

• Microbial activities: Methane production, methane oxidation, sulfate reduction CO production (aerobic and anaerobic conditions) (BGR)reduction, CO2 production (aerobic and anaerobic conditions) (BGR)

• Bacterial diversity analysis using molecular fingerprinting tools (BRGM)

• Functional bacterial diversity: Denitrification activity (BRGM)


Botanical survey

• Recording of the coverage of identi• Recording of the coverage of identi-fied plant species/types at 0.5m intervals using a 0.5m x 0.5m grid

• TR1 at Laacher See showed parti-cular species (e.g. Polygonum arenastrum) associated with high CO t ti d fl tCO2 concentrations and flows at 24.5m – 40m

• TR2 in Kellbachtal had more plant pspecies than TR1.Succession plants e.g. tree seedlings where CO2 concentrations are <10%.P. arenastrum also found where CO2concentrations >70%.


Botanical survey

100

70

80

90

100yp

eShepherds purseOther speciesPolygonum arenastrumMoss

40

50

60

70

erag

e/pl

ant t

y

Bare Earth Die Back Grass fineGrass mediumGrass wide

10

20

30

40

% c

ove Grass wide

Clover

0

10

61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80

Transect Position( Survey point at every 0.5 m of transect )( Survey point at every 0.5 m of transect )

• Polygonum arenastrum appears as a local bioindicator of high CO2 soil gas

bi d ff t f t l d titi ( t / i h bit t )


• combined effect of tolerance and competition (extreme/pioneer habitats)

Microbiological survey (bacterial counts)

SRB S l h t R d i B t i

1,00E+09

1,00E+10

1,00E+11Archaea Bacteria SRB

SRB: Sulphate Reducing Bacteria

1,00E+07

1,00E+08

,

1,00E+05

1,00E+06

vent medium CO2 control

• Bacteria cell numbers highest with background CO2 soil content, but

Sulphate Reducing Bacteria and Archaea seem to be associatedSulphate Reducing Bacteria and Archaea seem to be associated with elevated CO2 concentrations

• Especially denitrificating Bacteria are most sensitive to elevated CO2


Biological impact studies: Conclusion

• Significant effects on the ecosystems• Significant effects on the ecosystems caused by elevated CO2 concentrations could be observed

• Ecosystems have adapted to the• Ecosystems have adapted to the different conditions through

• species substitution and

• species adaptation

• Possible candidates as bioindicators for elevated CO2 soil concentrations could 2be identified both in the botanical and microbial ecosystems

• Presence or absence of certain species might be an easily detectable indicator for CO2 leakage


for CO2 leakage

Upshots

Deployment of geological storage of CO implies the• Deployment of geological storage of CO2 implies the capability to detect possible leakage from reservoirs and eventual effects on the environment, especially the biosphere i l di h h lthincluding human health

• For the near surface monitoring of storage sites exist plenty of established and reliable methods and tools regardingof established and reliable methods and tools regarding

gas monitoring

bio monitoring (micro and makro cosmos)g ( )

eco monitoring (populations and systems)

• They represent a huge toolbox for confidence building:y p g g

confidence in technology with regard to markets and the public (confidence acceptance)


Upshots

What we need is:What we need is:

• Baseline monitoring (besides monitoring during operation) that

reveals natural (e.g. seasonal) variations for relevant objects

l i th d t i i f t f th i tiexplains the determining factors of these variations

seems to be specific for individual storage sites

starts well before the first CO2 injection just to havestarts well before the first CO2 injection just to have sufficient time for the interpretation of recorded data

But,

what we need as well is:

• to connect thoroughly/systemically/plausible the results of near surface and subsurface monitoring efforts


near surface and subsurface monitoring efforts

Documents

Activities of the NoEActivities of the NoE „CO GeoNet“ in