A Bayesian inversion technique to determine the location and strength of trace gas emissions from a point source in open air is presented. It was tested using atmospheric measurements of nitrous oxide (N2O) and carbon dioxide (CO2) released at known rates from a source located within an array of eight evenly spaced sampling points on a 20 m radius circle. The analysis requires knowledge of concentration enhancement downwind of the source and the normalized, three-dimensional distribution (shape) of concentration in the dispersion plume. The influence of varying background concentrations of ~1% for N2O and ~10% for CO2 was removed by subtracting upwind concentrations from those downwind of the source to yield only concentration enhancements. Continuous measurements of turbulent wind and temperature statistics were used to model the dispersion plume. The analysis localized the source to within 0.8 m of the true position and the emission rates were determined to better than 3% accuracy. This technique will be useful in assurance monitoring for geological storage of CO2 and for applications requiring knowledge of the location and rate of fugitive emissions.

This geomechanical analysis of the Browse Basin was undertaken as part of the CO2CRC's Browse Basin Geosequestration Analysis. This study aims to constrain the geomechanical model (in situ stresses), and to evaluate the risk of fault reactivation. The stress regime in the Browse Basin is one of strike-slip faulting i.e. maximum horizontal stress (~ 28.3 MPa/km) > vertical stress (22 MPa/km) > minimum horizontal stress (15.7 MPa/km). Pore pressure is near hydrostatic in all wells except for two, which exhibit elevated pore fluid pressures at depths greater than 3500 m. A maximum horizontal stress orientation of 095' was considered to be most appropriate for the Barcoo sub-basin, which was the area of focus in this study. The risk of fault reactivation was calculated using the FAST (Fault Analysis Seal Technology) technique, which determines fault reactivation risk by estimating the increase in pore pressure required to cause reactivation. Fault reactivation risk was calculated using two fault strength scenarios; cohesionless faults (C = 0; ? = 0.6) and healed faults (C = 5; ? = 0.75). The orientations of faults with high and low reactivation risks is almost identical for healed and cohesionless faults. High angle faults striking N-S are unlikely to reactivate in the current stress regime. High angle faults orientated ENE-WSW and ESE-WNW have the highest fault reactivation risk. Due to the fact that the SH gradient was determined using frictional limits, the most unfavourably oriented cohesionless faults cannot sustain any pore pressure increase without reactivating. By contrast, using a cohesive fault model indicates that those same faults would be able to sustain a pore pressure increase (Delta P) of 9.6 MPa. However, it must be emphasized that the absolute values of Delta P presented in this study are subject to large errors due to uncertainties in the geomechanical model, in particular for the maximum horizontal stress. Therefore, the absolute values of Delta-P presented herein should not be used for planning purposes. Fault reactivation risk was evaluated for 10 faults with known orientations. All faults were interpreted as extending from below the Jurassic target reservoir formation to the surface. The dominant fault in the Barcoo sub-basin is the large fault which extends from Trochus 1 to Sheherazade 1 to Arquebus 1. This deeply penetrating, listric fault initially formed as a normal fault and was subsequently reactivated in thrust mode. Most of the faults in the Barcoo sub-basin trend broadly N-S and are therefore relatively stable with respect to increases in pore pressure. However, there are sections within some individual faults where fault orientation becomes close to optimal. In these sections, small increases in pore pressure (<5 MPa) may be sufficient to cause fault reactivation. If this were to occur, then significant risk of CO2 leakage would exist, as these sections cross-cut the regional seal.

This paper briefly summaries how intrinsic uncertainties in reservoir characterization, at the proposed Otway Basin Naylor Field carbon-dioxide geo-sequestration site, were risk managed by a process of creation and evaluation of a series of geo-models (term to describe the geo-cellular geological models created by PETREL software) that cover the range of plausible geological possibilities, as well as extreme case scenarios. Optimization methods were employed, to minimize simulation run time, whilst not compromising the essential features of the basic geo-model. For four different Cases, 7 geo-models of the reservoir were created for simulation studies. The reservoir simulation study relies primarily on production history matching and makes use of all available information to help screen and assess the various geo-models. The results suggest that the bulk reservoir permeability is between 0.5 - 1Darcy, the original gas-water-contact was about 2020 mSS and there is a strong aquifer drive.

A question and answer style brochure on geological storage of carbon dioxide. Questions addressed include: - What is geological storage? - Why do we need to store carbon dioxide? - How can you store anything in solid rock? - Could the carbon dioxide contaminate the fresh water supply? - Could a hydrocarbon seal leak? - Are there any geological storage projects in Australia?

Within the GEODISC program of the Australian Petroleum Cooperative Research Centre (APCRC), Geoscience Australia (GA) and the University of New South Wales (UNSW) completed an analysis of the potential for the geological storage of CO2. The geological analysis produced an assessment from over 100 potential Environmentally Sustainable Sites for CO2 Injection (ESSCI) by applying a deterministic risk assessment. Out of 100 potential sites, 65 proved to be valid sites for further study. This assessment examined predominantly saline reservoirs which is where we believe Australia?s greatest storage potential exists. However, many of these basins also contain coal seams that may be capable of storing CO2. Several of these coal basins occur close to coal-fired power plants and oil and gas fields where high levels of CO2 are emitted. CO2 storage in coal beds is intrinsically different to storage in saline formations, and different approaches need to be applied when assessing them. Whilst potentially having economic benefit, enhanced coal bed methane (ECBM) production through CO2 injection does raise an issue of how much greenhouse gas mitigation might occur. Even if only small percentages of the total methane are liberated to the atmosphere in the process, then a worse outcome could be achieved in terms of greenhouse gas mitigation. The most suitable coal basins in Australia for CO2 storage include the Galilee, Cooper and Bowen-Surat basins in Queensland, and the Sydney, Gunnedah, and Clarence-Moreton Basins in New South Wales. Brief examples of geological storage within saline aquifers and coal seams in the Bowen and Surat basins, Queensland Australia, are described in this paper to compare and contrast each storage option.

The middle to lower Jurassic sequence in Australia's Surat Basin has been identified as a potential reservoir system for geological CO2 storage. The sequence comprises three major formations with distinctly different mineral compositions, and generally low salinity formation water (TDS<3000 mg/L). Differing geochemical responses between the formations are expected during geological CO2 storage. However, given the prevailing use of saline reservoirs in CCS projects elsewhere, limited data are available on CO2-water-rock dynamics during CO2 storage in such low-salinity formations. Here, a combined batch experiment and numerical modelling approach is used to characterise reaction pathways and to identify geochemical tracers of CO2 migration in the low-salinity Jurassic sandstone units. Reservoir system mineralogy was characterized for 66 core samples from stratigraphic well GSQ Chinchilla 4, and six representative samples were reacted with synthetic formation water and high-purity CO2 for up to 27 days at a range of pressures. Low formation water salinity, temperature, and mineralization yield high solubility trapping capacity (1.18 mol/L at 45°C, 100 bar), while the paucity of divalent cations in groundwater and the silicate reservoir matrix results in very low mineral trapping capacity under storage conditions. Formation water alkalinity buffers pH at elevated CO2 pressures and exerts control on mineral dissolution rates. Non-radiogenic, regional groundwater-like 87Sr/86Sr values (0.7048-0.7066) indicate carbonate and authigenic clay dissolution as the primary reaction pathways regulating solution composition, with limited dissolution of the clastic matrix during the incubations. Several geochemical tracers are mobilised in concentrations greater than found in regional groundwater, most notably cobalt, concentrations of which are significantly elevated regardless of CO2 pressure or sample mineralogy.

The GEODISC Geographic Information System (GIS) Overview and Demonstration With the understanding that "better information leads to better decisions", Geoscience Australia has produced a Geographic Information System (GIS) that showcases the research completed within Projects 1, 2, and 8 of the GEODISC Program (Geological CO2 storage program in the Australian Petroleum Cooperative Research Centre, 1999-2003). The GIS is an interactive archive of Australia-wide regional analysis of CO2 sources and storage potential, incorporating economic modelling (Projects 1 and 8), as well as four site specific studies of the Dongara Gas field, Carnarvon Basin, Petrel Sub-basin and Gippsland Basin (Project 2). One of the major objectives of a collaborative research program such as GEODISC is to share results and knowledge with clients and fellow researchers, as well as to be able to rapidly access and utilise the research in future technical and policy decisions. With this in mind, the GIS is designed as a complete product, with a user-friendly interface developed with mainstream software to maximise accessibility to stakeholders. It combines tabular results, reports, models, maps, and images from various geoscientific disciplines involved in the geological modelling of the GEODISC site specific studies (ie geochemistry, geomechanics, reservoir simulations, stratigraphy, and geophysics) into one media. The GEODISC GIS is not just an automated display system, but a tool used to query, analyse, and map data in support of the decision making process. It allows the user to overlay different themes and facilitates cross-correlation between many spatially-related data sources. There is a vast difference between seeing data in a table of rows and columns and seeing it presented in the form of a map. For example, tabular results such as salinity data, temperature information and pressure tests, have been displayed as point data linked to well locations. These, in turn, have been superimposed on geophysical maps and images, to enable a better understanding of spatial relationships between features of a potential CO2 injection site. The display of such information allows the instant visualisation of complex concepts associated with site characterisation. In addition, the GEODISC GIS provides a tool for users to interrogate data and perform basic modelling functions. Economic modelling results have been incorporated into the regional study so that simple calculations of source to sink matching can be investigated. The user is also able to design unique views to meet individual needs. Digital and hardcopy map products can then be created on demand, centred on any location, at any scale, and showing selected information symbolised effectively to highlight specific characteristics. A demonstration of the GIS product will illustrate all of these capabilities as well as give examples of how site selection for CO2 sources and storage locations might be made.

In July 2010 Geoscience Australia and CSIRO Marine & Atmospheric Research jointly commissioned a new atmospheric composition monitoring station (' Arcturus') in central Queensland. The facility is designed as a proto-type remotely operated `baseline monitoring station' such as could be deployed in areas that are likely targets for commercial scale carbon capture and geological storage (CCS). It is envisaged that such a station could act as a high quality reference point for later in-fill, site based, atmospheric monitoring associated with geological storage of CO2. The station uses two wavelength scanned cavity ringdown instruments to measure concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), water vapour and the isotopic signature (?13C) of CO2. Meteorological parameters such as wind speed and wind direction are also measured. In combination with CSIRO's TAPM (The Air Pollution Model), data will be used to understand the local variations in CO2 and CH4 and the contributions of natural and anthropogenic sources in the area to this variability. The site is located in a region that supports cropping, grazing, cattle feedlotting, coal mining and gas production activities, which may be associated with fluxes of CO2 and CH4. We present in this paper some of the challenges found during the installation and operation of the station in a remote, sub-tropical environment and how these were resolved. We will also present the first results from the site coupled with preliminary modelling of the relative contribution of large point source anthropogenic emissions and their contribution to the background.

The economics of the storage of CO2 in underground reservoirs in Australia have been analysed as part of the Australian Petroleum Cooperative Research Centre's GEODISC program. The analyses are based on cost estimates generated by a CO2 storage technical / economic model developed at the beginning of the GEODISC project. They also rely on data concerning the characteristics of geological reservoirs in Australia. The uncertainties involved in estimating the costs of such projects are discussed and the economics of storing CO2 for a range of CO2 sources and potential storage sites across Australia are presented. The key elements of the CO2 storage process and the methods involved in estimating the costs of CO2 storage are described and the CO2 storage costs for a hypothetical but representative storage project in Australia are derived. The effects of uncertainties inherent in estimating the costs of storing CO2 are shown. The analyses show that the costs are particularly sensitive to parameters such as the CO2 flow rate, the distance between the source and the storage site, the physical properties of the reservoir and the market prices of equipment and services. Therefore, variations in any one of these inputs can lead to significant variation in the costs of CO2 storage. Allowing for reasonable variations in all the inputs together in a Monte Carlo simulation of any particular site, then a large range of total CO2 storage costs is possible. The effect of uncertainty for the hypothetical representative storage site is illustrated. The impact of storing other gases together with CO2 is analysed. The other gases include methane, hydrogen sulphide, nitrogen, nitrous oxides and oxides of sulphur, all of which potentially could be captured together with CO2. The effect on storage costs when varying quantities of other gases are injected with the CO2 is shown. Based on the CO2 storage estimates and the published costs capturing CO2 from industrial processes, the econ

No abstract available