Matching of CO2 emission sources with storage opportunities or source/sink matching (SSM), involves the integration of a number of technical, social and economic issues. It requires identification of the optimal locations for both the emission source and storage site for CO2 emissions. The choice of optimal sites is a complex process and will not rest solely on the best technical site for storage, but will require a detailed assessment of source issues, transport links and integration with economic and environmental factors. Transport is one of the major costs in CO2 sequestration and in many instances it will strongly influence how locations are chosen, but itself will be dependent on what type of facilities are to be built, be they either onshore or offshore or a combination of both. Comparison of theoretical studies, and the numerous criteria they utilise in their assessments, with current or planned commercial operations indicates that it is only a few of the major criteria that determine site locations.

This web service shows the spatial locations of potential CO2 storage sites that are at an advanced stage of characterisation and/or development. The areas considered to be at an advanced stage are parts of the Cooper Basin in central Australia, a portion of the Surat Basin (Queensland), the offshore Gippsland Basin (Victoria), where the CarbonNet Project is currently at an advanced stage of development and the Petrel Sub-basin. This service will be presented in the AusH2 Portal.

This is a collection of conference program and abstracts presented at AOGC 2010, Canberra.

<div>Identifying potential basin areas for future Geological Storage of CO2 (GSC) exploration is essential to support Australia’s transition to a net zero emissions energy future. Geoscience Australia’s AFER Project has completed a play-based assessment of the GSC potential in the Pedirka and western Eromanga basins using regionally extensive aquifers containing saline to slightly brackish formation waters. There are currently no significant anthropogenic CO2 sources or associated storage projects in the assessment area. Understanding the area’s GSC potential does, however, assist in providing options for addressing CCS requirements in the central Australian region, including any future opportunities to remove anthropogenic CO2 using Direct Air Capture and Storage technologies. </div><div><br></div><div>The AFER Project’s assessments are underpinned by new geological insights into the basins and a supporting upscaled 3D geological model. A play-based common risk segment mapping approach has been applied to five potential storage (play) intervals to delineate basin areas with relatively high prospectivity based on four geological risk elements: injectivity, storage effectiveness, containment, and structural complexity. Results from this qualitative component of the assessment highlights a potentially prospective area for future GSC exploration extending across the Northern Territory, South Australia and Queensland. The most prospective interval on a geological probability of success basis is the Namur-Murta play interval. </div><div><br></div><div>Results from the qualitative GSC assessment have been used as a screening tool to delineate areas for quantitative modelling of the range of Estimated Ultimate Storage (EUS) volumes using deterministic and probabilistic methodologies. EUS volumes have been estimated in two model areas representing geological end members in storage interval heterogeneity and potentially prospective areas outside of the extents of current national parks. The EUS potential is high (10’s of gigatonnes) in the two model areas using both deterministic and probabilistic workflows, as expected for a regional assessment using very large pore volumes. Applying a geological probability of success based on injectivity and structural and stratigraphic containment reduces the volumes in the two model areas to a risked best estimate EUS of 13 Gt in the eastern area and a risked best estimate EUS of 2 Gt in the western area. Results from the quantitative assessment suggest that both model areas can support multiple industrial-scale CCS projects injecting 50 Mt CO2 over a 20-year period. However, heterogeneous reservoirs that extend over the eastern assessment area are likely to have greater storage efficiencies and an associated smaller project footprint of 29 km2 using three CO2 injection wells. Relatively homogenous reservoirs elsewhere in the assessment area have lower storage efficiencies due to a lack of intraformational seals within the Algebuckina Sandstone and have an associated larger project area of 49 km2 using three CO2 injection wells. Pressure management requirements are likely to be minimal in both model areas due to the thick and open nature of reservoirs. However, water production rates of up to 16,500 m3/day may be required where local lateral barriers to pressure dissipation occur. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</div><div><br></div><div>Results from the AFER Project's GSC assessment demonstrate the value of applying a play-based exploration workflow for a regional-scale energy resource assessment. Estimating the geological probability of success to the presence and repeatability of four mappable risk elements associated with GSC resources allows both relative prospectivity maps and risked EUS volumes to be generated. Prospectivity maps and EUS volumes can in turn be readily updated as new geological data are collected to infill data and knowledge gaps. Geoscience Australia is building a national inventory of GSC resources using this play-based exploration approach, with qualitative assessments now completed under the EFTF and TEGI programs in seven basin areas from central and eastern Australia.&nbsp;</div><div><br></div>

The Exploring for the Future program Showcase 2024 was held on 13-16 August 2024. Day 3 - 15th August talks included: <b>Session 1 – Hydrogen opportunities across Australia</b> <a href="https://youtu.be/pA9ft3-7BtU?si=V0-ccAmHHIYJIZAo">Hydrogen storage opportunities and the role of depleted gas fields</a> - Dr Eric Tenthorey <a href="https://youtu.be/MJFhP57nnd0?si=ECO7OFTCak78Gn1M">The Green Steel Economic Fairways Mapper</a> - Dr Marcus Haynes <a href="https://youtu.be/M95FOQMRC7o?si=FyP7CuDEL0HEdzPw">Natural hydrogen: The Australian context</a> - Chris Boreham <b>Session 2 – Sedimentary basin resource potential – source rocks, carbon capture and storage (CCS) and groundwater</b> <a href="https://youtu.be/44qPlV7h3os?si=wfQqxQ81Obhc_ThE">Australian Source Rock and Fluid Atlas - Accessible visions built on historical data archives</a> - Dr Dianne Edwards <a href="https://youtu.be/WcJdSzsADV8?si=aH5aYbpnjaz3Qwj9">CO2: Where can we put it and how much will it cost?</a> - Claire Patterson <a href="https://youtu.be/Y8sA-iR86c8?si=CUsERoEkNDvIwMtc">National aquifer framework: Putting the geology into hydrogeology</a> - Dr Nadege Rollet <b>Session 3 – Towards a national inventory of resource potential and sustainable development</b> <a href="https://youtu.be/K5xGpwaIWgg?si=2s0AKuNpu30sV1Pu">Towards a national inventory of mineral potential</a> - Dr Arianne Ford <a href="https://youtu.be/XKmEXwQzbZ0?si=yAMQMjsNCGkAQUMh">Towards an inventory of mine waste potential</a> - Dr Anita Parbhakar-Fox <a href="https://youtu.be/0AleUvr2F78?si=zS4xEsUYtARywB1j">ESG mapping of the Australian mining sector: A critical review of spatial datasets for decision making</a> - Dr Eleonore Lebre View or download the <a href="https://dx.doi.org/10.26186/149800">Exploring for the Future - An overview of Australia’s transformational geoscience program</a> publication. View or download the <a href="https://dx.doi.org/10.26186/149743">Exploring for the Future - Australia's transformational geoscience program</a> publication. You can access full session and Q&A recordings from YouTube here: 2024 Showcase Day 3 - Session 1 - <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ho6QFMIleuE">Hydrogen opportunities across Australia</a> 2024 Showcase Day 3 - Session 2 - <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ePZfgEwo0m4">Sedimentary basin resource potential – source rocks, carbon capture and storage (CCS) and groundwater</a> 2024 Showcase Day 3 - Session 3 - <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjsZVK4h6Dk">Towards a national inventory of resource potential and sustainable development</a>

The Petrel Sub-basin Marine Environmental Survey GA-0335 was acquired by the RV Solander during May 2012 as part of the Commonwealth Government's National Low Emission Coal Initiative (NLECI). The survey was undertaken as a collaboration between Geoscience Australia and the Australian Institute of Marine Science (AIMS) . The purpose was to acquire geophysical and biophysical data on shallow (less than 100m water depth) seabed environments within two targeted areas in the Petrel Sub-basin to support investigation for CO2 storage potential in these areas.<p><p>This dataset is not to be used for navigational purposes.

No abstract available

The geological storage of carbon dioxide (CO2) is the process whereby CO2 captured from power plants or other industrial facilities is transported by pipeline to a suitable location and then injected under pressure into a deep geological reservoir formation, where it remains permanently trapped and prevented from entering the atmosphere. The processes by which it is retained in the subsurface are generally those that have trapped oil, gas and naturally generated CO2 for millions of years. The geological formations that can be utilised for this trapping have the same characteristics as those that are able to act as reservoir rocks for petroleum. They have good porosity and permeability and have an overlying sealing formation, which will prevent the trapped fluids migrating out of the storage reservoir and possibly escaping to the surface. In addition, because of the phase behaviour of CO2, efficient storage requires that they are stored at depths greater than 800 below the surface. Unlike oil and gas, which rely primarily on a three dimensional structural trap to prevent them from ultimately rising to the surface, there are additional trapping mechanisms for CO2. Given a sufficiently long migration path within a formation, CO2 will ultimately be rendered immobile by dissolution into the formation water, residual trapping and potentially, over longer time scales, mineralisation. As groundwaters at these depths are generally saline, this type of storage is often termed deep saline aquifer storage. A recent nationwide review by Commonwealth and State geological surveys, as part of the Carbon Storage Taskforce, rated the suitability of geological basins across Australia for geological storage of CO2. The most geologically suitable basins are the offshore Gippsland and North Perth basins but several onshore basins also rate highly. These include the Eromanga, Cooper, Bowen, Galilee, Surat, Canning and Otway basins. The Victorian Government has recently released area for greenhouse gas storage exploration in the Gippsland Basin and the Queensland Government in the Galilee and Surat basins. The aquifers within these basins provide groundwater for human consumption, agriculture, mining, recreation and groundwater dependent ecosystems. The Surat Basin also contains oil and gas accumulations that are being exploited by the onshore petroleum industry. Understanding the existing the groundwater's chemistry and the connectivity between aquifers in the context of its current use is essential in order to determine whether prospective aquifers could be used for geological storage of CO2 without compromising other activities. The potential risks to groundwater from the potential migration of CO2 and changes to groundwater properties that might be expected will also be discussed. Current data gaps include poor hydrogeochemical data coverage for the deeper aquifers and particularly limited data on trace metals and organics. A comparison with experiences learned from enhanced oil recovery using CO2 in North America and the CO2CRC's pilot CO2 injection project in Western Victoria will illustrate some of the unique differences and opportunities for geological storage of CO2 in Australia. Oral presentation at "Groundwater 2010" conference, 31 October - 4th November 2010, Canberra

This web map service shows the key Australian petroleum producing basins ranked by their potential for CO2 enhanced oil recovery (CO2-EOR), based on a study completed by Geoscience Australia in 2020. Basin rankings result from the assessment of six parameters: the API gravity of the oil, temperature, pressure, reservoir quality (porosity, permeability), nearby CO2 sources and existing infrastructure. Higher rankings indicate greater potential for CO2-EOR. For further information see: Tenthorey, E., and Kalinowski, A. 2022. Screening Australia’s Basins for CO2-Enhanced Oil Recovery. Proceedings of the 16th Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies Conference (GHGT-16) 23-24 Oct 2022. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4294743 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4294743.

Questions often asked by the public in regard to the concept of CO2 storage include; "But won?t it leak?", and "How long will it stay down there?". The natural environment of petroleum systems documents many of the processes which will influence CO2 storage outcomes, and the likely long (geological) timeframes that will operate. Thousand of billions of barrels of hydrocarbons have been trapped and stored in geological formations in sedimentary basins for 10s to 100s of millions of years, as has substantial volumes of CO2 that has been generated through natural processes. Examples from Australia and major hydrocarbon provinces of the world are documented, including those basins with major accumulations that are currently trapped in their primary reservoir, those that have accumulated hydrocarbons in the primary reservoir and then through tectonic activity spilled them to other secondary traps or released the hydrocarbons to the atmosphere, and those that generated hydrocarbons but for which no effective traps were in place for hydrocarbons to accumulate. Some theoretical modelling of the likelihood of meeting stabilisation targets using geological storage are based on leakage rates which are implausibly high when compared to observations from viable storage locations in the natural environment, and do not necessarily account for the likelihood of delay times for leakage to the atmosphere or the timeframe in which geological events will occur. Without appropriate caveats, they potentially place at risk the public perception of how efficient and effective appropriately selected geological reservoirs could be for storage of CO2. If the same rigorous methods, technology and skills that are used to explore for, find and produce hydrocarbon accumulations are now used for finding safe and secure storage sites for CO2, the traps so identified can be expected to contain the CO2 after injection for similar periods of time as that in which hydrocarbons and CO2 have been stored in the natural environment.