This report provides an analysis and evaluation of fluid seepage and habitats in two targeted areas of the Petrel Sub-basin, Bonaparte Basin, northern Australia, and provides scientific information on the seabed and shallow sub-surface geology as part of a study on the potential of this area for CO2 sequestration. The Petrel Sub-basin, located beneath the modern Joseph Bonaparte Gulf, has been assessed by Geoscience Australia as part of the Australian Government funded National Low Emissions Coal Initiative (NLECI) to accelerate the development and deployment of low emissions coal technologies including geological sequestration of CO2. This study is the first undertaken by Geoscience Australia that integrates seafloor and shallow sub-surface geology data to provide information on the potential to sequester CO2 in sub-surface geological reservoirs and their suitability for purpose. In particular, this work involved the integration of data from seabed habitat characterisation studies and sub-surface geological studies to determine if evidence for fluid seepage from depth to the seabed exists at the two study sites within the Petrel Sub-basin. No evidence for hydrocarbons from depth were found. However, fluid seepage at the seabed has been and potentially is occurring; this result stemming from observations on seabe geomorphology, sedimentology, chemistry, and acoustic sub-bottom profiles.

Phase two of the China Australia Geological Storage of CO2 (CAGS2) project aimed to build on the success of the previous CAGS project and promote capacity building, training opportunities and share expertise on the geological storage of CO2. The project was led by Geoscience Australia (GA) and China's Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST) through the Administrative Centre for China's Agenda 21 (ACCA21). CAGS2 has successfully completed all planned activities including three workshops, two carbon capture and storage (CCS) training schools, five research projects focusing on different aspects of the geological storage of CO2, and ten researcher exchanges to China and Australia. The project received favourable feedback from project partners and participants in CAGS activities and there is a strong desire from the Chinese government and Chinese researchers to continue the collaboration. The project can be considered a highly successful demonstration of bi-lateral cooperation between the Australian and Chinese governments. Through the technical workshops, training schools, exchange programs, and research projects, CAGS2 has facilitated and supported on-going collaboration between many research institutions and industry in Australia and China. More than 150 experts, young researchers and college students, from over 30 organisations, participated in CAGS2. The opportunity to interact with Australian and international experts at CAGS hosted workshops and schools was appreciated by the participants, many of whom do not get the opportunity to attend international conferences. Feedback from a CAGS impact survey found that the workshops and schools inspired many researchers and students to pursue geological storage research. The scientific exchanges proved effective and often fostered further engagement between Chinese and Australian researchers and their host organisations. The research projects often acted as a catalyst for attracting additional CCS funding (at least A$700,000), including two projects funded under the China Clean Development Mechanism Fund. CAGS sponsored research led to reports, international conference presentations, and Chinese and international journal papers. CAGS has established a network of key CCS/CCUS (carbon capture, utilisation and storage) researchers in China and Australia. This is exemplified by the fact that 4 of the 6 experts that provided input on the 'storage section of the 12th Five-Year plan for Scientific and Technological Development of Carbon Capture, Utilization and Storage, which laid out the technical policy priorities for R&D and demonstration of CCUS technology in China, were CAGS affiliated researchers. The contributions of CAGS to China's capacity building and policy CCUS has been acknowledged by the Chinese Government. CAGS support of young Chinese researchers is particularly noted and well regarded. Letters have been sent to the Secretary of the Department of Industry and Science and to the Deputy CEO of Geoscience Australia, expressing China's gratitude for the Australian Government's support and GA's cooperation in the CAGS project.

Covering an area of approximately 247 000km2, the Galilee Basin is a significant feature of central Queensland. Three main depocentres contain several hundred metres of Late Carboniferous to Middle Triassic sediments. Sedimentation in the Galilee Basin was dominated by fluvial to lacustrine depositional systems. This resulted in a sequence of sandstones, mudstones, siltstones, coals and minor tuff in what was a relatively shallow intracratonic basin with little topographic relief. Forty years or more of exploration in the Galilee Basin has failed to discover any economic accumulations of hydrocarbons, despite the presence of apparently fair to very good reservoirs and seals in both the Permian and Triassic sequence. Despite some relatively large distances (upwards of 500km) between sources and sinks, previous and ongoing work on the Galilee Basin suggests that it has potential to sequester a significant amount of Queensland's carbon dioxide emissions. Potential reservoirs include the Early Permian Aramac Coal Measures, the Late Permian Colinlea Sandstone and the Middle Triassic Clematis Sandstone. These are sealed by several intraformational and local seals as well as the regional Triassic Moolayember Formation. With few suitable structural traps and little faulting throughout the Galilee sequence, residual trapping within saline reservoir is the most likely mechanism for storing CO2. The current study is aimed at building a sound geological model of the basin through activities such as detailed mapping, well correlation, and reservoir and seal analysis leading to reservoir simulations to gain a better understanding of the basin.

The 2011 United Nations climate change meeting in Durban provided an historic moment for CCS. After five years without progress, the Cancun Decision (2010) put in place a work program to address issues of concern before CCS could be included under the Kyoto Protocol's Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) and so allow projects in developing countries to earn Certified Emission Reductions (CERs). The program - consisting submissions, a synthesis report and workshop - concluded with the UNFCCC Secretariat producing draft 'modalities and procedures describing requirements for CCS projects under the CDM. The twenty page 'rulebook' provided the basis for negotiations in Durban. The challenging negotiations, lasting over 32 hours, concluded on 9th December with Parties agreeing to adopt final modalities and procedures for CCS under the CDM. These include provisions for participation requirements (including host country regulations), site selection and characterisation, risk and safety assessment, monitoring, liabilities, financial provision, environmental and social impact assessments, responsibilities for long term non-permanence, and timing of the CDM-project end. A key issue was the responsibility for any seepage of CO2 emissions in the long-term (non-permanence). The modalities and procedures separate responsibility for non-permanence from the liability for any local damages resulting from operation of the storage site. In relation to the former, they allow for the host country to determine the responsible entity, either the host country or the country purchasing the CERs. Note that a CER which incorporates responsibility for seepage will be less attractive to buyers. Thus a standard is established for managing CCS projects in developing countries, which will ensure a high level of environmental protection and is workable for projects. It sets an important precedent for the inclusion of CCS into other support mechanisms.

As part of Australian Government's National Low Emission Coal Initiative (NLECI) and National CO2 Infrastructure Plan (NCIP), Geoscience Australia (GA) has been assessing offshore sedimentary basins for their CO2 storage potential. These studies, scheduled for completion by 30 June 2015, aim to identify potential sites for the geological storage of CO2 and provide pre-competitive information for the development of CO2 transport and storage infrastructure near major emission sources. The basins targeted for these studies are the Bonaparte Basin (Petrel Sub-basin), Browse Basin, Perth Basin (Vlaming Sub-basin) and Gippsland Basin. GA completed a series of marine surveys over the Petrel and Vlaming sub-basins and the Browse Basin during 2012-2013, that acquired 2D reflection seismic, multibeam bathymetry/backscatter and sub-bottom profiling data, and seabed samples and video footages. The datasets have been analysed to inform the assessment of potential CO2 storage capacity and containment for each study area. Integrated interpretation of the seabed, shallow subsurface and deep basin data has assisted the identification of potential fluid migration features that may indicate seal breach and the presence of migration pathways. Data on seabed environments and ecological habitats will provide a baseline for an assessment of the potential impacts of CO2 injection and storage, and associated infrastructure development.

Identification of major hydrocarbon provinces from existing world assessments for hydrocarbon potential can be used to identify those sedimentary basins at a global level that will be highly prospective for CO2 storage. Most sedimentary basins which are minor petroleum provinces and many non-petroliferous sedimentary basins will also be prospective for CO2 storage. Accurate storage potential estimates will require that each basin be assessed individually, but many of the prospective basins may have ranges from high to low prospectivity. The degree to which geological storage of CO2 will be implemented in the future will depend on the geographical and technical relationships between emission sites and storage locations, and the economic drivers that affect the implementation for each source to sink match. CO2 storage potential is a naturally occurring resource, and like any other natural resource there will be a need to provide regional access to the better sites if the full potential of the technology is to be realized. Whilst some regions of the world have a paucity of opportunities in their immediate geographic confines, others are well endowed. Some areas whilst having good storage potential in their local region may be challenged by the enormous volume of CO2 emissions that are locally generated. Hubs which centralize the collection and transport of CO2 in a region could encourage the building of longer and larger pipelines to larger and technically more viable storage sites and so reduce costs due to economies of scale.

Geoscience Australia (GA) conducted a marine survey (GA0345/GA0346/TAN1411) of the north-eastern Browse Basin (Caswell Sub-basin) between 9 October and 9 November 2014 to acquire seabed and shallow geological information to support an assessment of the CO2 storage potential of the basin. The survey, undertaken as part of the Department of Industry and Science's National CO2 Infrastructure Plan (NCIP), aimed to identify and characterise indicators of natural hydrocarbon or fluid seepage that may indicate compromised seal integrity in the region. The survey was conducted in three legs aboard the New Zealand research vessel RV Tangaroa, and included scientists and technical staff from GA, the NZ National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research Ltd. (NIWA) and Fugro Survey Pty Ltd. Shipboard data (survey ID GA0345) collected included multibeam sonar bathymetry and backscatter over 12 areas (A1, A2, A3, A4, A6b, A7, A8, B1, C1, C2b, F1, M1) totalling 455 km2 in water depths ranging from 90 - 430 m, and 611 km of sub-bottom profile lines. Seabed samples were collected from 48 stations and included 99 Smith-McIntyre grabs and 41 piston cores. An Autonomous Underwater Vehicle (AUV) (survey ID GA0346) collected higher-resolution multibeam sonar bathymetry and backscatter data, totalling 7.7 km2, along with 71 line km of side scan sonar, underwater camera and sub-bottom profile data. Twenty two Remotely Operated Vehicle (ROV) missions collected 31 hours of underwater video, 657 still images, eight grabs and one core. This catalogue entry refers to high-resolution imagery taken of piston cores. A total of 20 piston cores collected in water depths between 154-445 m on the continental shelf, were imaged using the Geotek GEOSCAN IV line scan camera. Each core section was imaged at 200 lines per cm, corresponding to a 50 micron pixel size, to produce a single JPG image for each section. For more information on how the piston cores were collected please refer to the post-survey report (follow link at right), or for more information on the MSCL-S please refer to the manual, (follow link at right).

The decision at the 2011 United Nations climate change meeting in Durban to accept CCS as a CDM project activity was truly historic and long overdue. The United Nations Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) allows emission reduction projects in developing countries to earn certified emission reduction (CER) credits, each equivalent to one tonne of CO2. CERs can be traded and sold, and used by developed countries to meet part of their emission reduction targets under the Kyoto Protocol. The intention of the mechanism is to stimulate sustainable development and emission reductions, while providing developed countries with some flexibility in how they achieve their emission reduction targets. The CDM allows developed countries to invest in emission reductions at lowest cost. Since its inception, the CDM has been identified as a means to reduce the cost of CCS projects and so initiate more projects. After five years of negotiations to get CCS accepted as a CDM project activity, the Cancun Decision (2010) put in place a work program to address issues of general concern before CCS could be included in the CDM. The 2010 work program consisted of submissions, a synthesis report, a technical workshop, and concluded with the UNFCCC Secretariat producing draft 'modalities and procedures' describing comprehensive requirements for CCS projects within the CDM. This twenty page 'rulebook' provided the basis for negotiations in Durban. The challenging negotiations, lasting over 32 hours, concluded on 9th December, 2012, with Parties agreeing to the text specifying the modalities and procedures for CCS as CDM project activities. The provisions of the Durban Decision (2011) cover a range of technical issues including site selection and characterisation, risk and safety assessment, monitoring, liabilities, verification and certification, environmental and social impact assessments, responsibilities for non-permanence, and timing of the CDM-project end. etc

Abstract for a Poster for the CO2CRC Symposium 2013: Atmospheric tomography is a CO2 quantification and localisation technique that uses an array of sampling points and a Bayesian inversion method to solve for the location and magnitude of a CO2 leak. Knowledge of a normalized three-dimensional dispersion plume is required in order to accurately model a leak using many meteorological parameters. A previous small scale (~20 m) study using a high precision Fourier Transform Infrared found that the emission rate was determined to within 3% of the actual release rate and the localisation within 1 m of the correct position. The technique was applied during the CO2CRC Otway Stage 2B residual saturation and dissolution test in August-October 2011. A network of eight independent CO2 sensors (Vaisala GMP343 CO2 probes) were positioned at distances ranging from 154 to 473 m from the well. A 3D sonic anemometer within the measurement area collected wind turbulence data. The results of the study indicate that, through careful data processing, measurements from the reasonably inexpensive (but lower accuracy and lower precision) CO2 sensor array can provide useful data for the application of atmospheric tomography. Results have found that the low precision of the sensors over time becomes a problem due to sensor drift. A reference measurement of CO2 helps to resolve this problem and improves the perturbation signal during data processing. Preliminary inversion modeling results will be shown to show the best estimation of locating a CO2 leakage source for the Otway Stage 2B residual saturation and dissolution test. CO2CRC Symposium 2013, Hobart

The Collaborative Research Centre for Greenhouse Gas Technologies (CO2CRC) Program 3.2 Risk Assessment is working toward a risk assessment procedure that integrates risk across the complete CCS system and can be used to meet the needs of a range of stakeholders. Any particular CCS project will hold the interest of multiple stakeholders who will have varied interests in the type of information and in the level of detail they require. It is unlikely that any single risk assessment tool will be able to provide the full range of outputs required to meet the needs of regulators, the general public and project managers; however, in many cases the data and structure behind the outputs will be the same. In using a suite of tools, a well designed procedure will optimize the interaction between the scientists, engineers and other experts contributing to the assessment and will allow for the required information to be presented in a manner appropriate for each stakeholder. Discussions of risk in CCS, even amongst the risk assessment community, often become confused because of the differing emphases on what the risks of interest are. A key question that must be addressed is: 'What questions is the risk analysis trying to answer?' Ultimately, this comes down to the stakeholders, whose interests can be broken into four target questions: - Which part of the capture-transport-storage CCS system? - Which timeline? (project planning, project lifespan, post closure, 1,000 years, etc) - Which risk aspect? (technical, regulatory, economic, public acceptance, or heath safety and environment) - Which risk metric? (Dollars, CO2 lost, dollars/tonne CO2 avoided, etc.) Once the responses to these questions are understood a procedure and suite of tools can be selected that adequately addresses the questions. The key components of the CO2CRC procedure we describe here are: etc