Application of saline aquifers for underground storage of CO2 and energy in the Baltic countries: ongoing research, needs and prospect

Alla Shogenova &Kazbulat ShogenovTallinn University of Technology

Contact: alla.shogenova@taltech.eeThis poster is supported by the ENeRGNetwork and Horizon 2020 project CLEANKER and partly by Estonian targeted funding programme IUT 19-22

CLEANKER project is funded by the European Union's Horizon 2020

Framework Programme for research and innovation under Grant Agreement n°

764816

Introductiono Deep saline formations are reliable media for

underground storage of natural gas, CO2 andenergy storage in the form of CAES or Hydrogen.

o Underground natural gas storage (UGS) in salineformations are accepted worldwide practice (680UGS in the world), including Inčukalns UGS inLatvia, supporting Baltic States (BS - Latvia,Lithuania and Estonia) in peak demand seasons.

o Storage of CO2 and energy are effective tools forclimate change mitigation, but maturity and TRL ofthese technologies are different

Baltic Basin

References• Bauer S, Beyer C, Dethlefsen F, Dietrich P, Duttmann R, Ebert M, et al., 2013. Impacts of the use of the geological subsurface for energy storage: an investigation concept. Environ Earth Sci 2013; 70:3935–43. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-013-2883-0. • Buscheck, T. A., Bielicki, J. M., Edmunds, T. A., Hao, Y., Sun, Y., Randolph, J. B., & Saar, M. O., 2016. Multifluid geo-energy systems: Using geologic CO2 storage for geothermal energy production and grid-scale energy storage in sedimentary basins. Geosphere, 12(3), 678-696. • EPRI-DOE, 2003, “Handbook of energy storage for transmission and distribution applications”, EPRI, Department of Energy (DOE), Palo Alto, CA, Washington DC.• Griesbach H, Heinze F., 1996. Untergrundspeicherung: Exploration, Errichtung, Betrieb. Landsberg/ Lech: Verlag Neue Industrie; International Gas Union. • GCCSI, 2019. Policy Priorities to Incentivise Large Scale Deployment Of CCS. Report of GCCSI, 31 pp. • Haselton, T. M., 2019. Minijos Nafta Clean Energy Project. Presentation at the BCF2019, Tallinn.• Shogenov, K.; Shogenova, A., 2019. Cost-competitive and self-supporting geothermal energy, CO2-EOR and CO2 storage concept: case study of E6 structure in the Baltic Sea. SSRN: 14th Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies Conference Melbourne 21-26 October 2018 (GHGT-

14). Elsevier, 1−8, https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3366151. • Shogenova, A.; Uibu, M.; Gastaldi, D.; Shogenov, K.; Canonico, F.; Trikkel, A.; Kuusik, R.; Ivask, J.; Cinti, G.; Simmer, K., 2019. Transport, utilization and storage of CO2 emissions produced by cement industry: CCUS study of the CLEANKER project. 14th International Conference

on Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies, GHGT-14, Melbourne, Australia, 21-25 October, 2018. SSRN: Elsevier, . 1-9, https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3378578. • Letcher T., 2016. Storing Energy, Elsevier, 565 pp. • Shogenov, K., Gei, D., Forlin, E., Shogenova, A., 2016. Petrophysical and Numerical Seismic Modelling of CO2 Geological Storage in the E6 structure, Baltic Sea, Offshore Latvia. Petroleum Geoscience, 22, 153−164.10.1144/petgeo2015-017. • Shogenov, K.; Forlin, E.; Shogenova, A., 2017a. 3D geological and petrophysical numerical models of E6 structure for CO2 storage in the Baltic Sea. Energy Procedia, 114: GHGT-13, Lausanne, Switzerland, 14-18 November 2016. The Netherlands: Elsevier, 3564−3571,

10.1016/j.egypro.2017.03.1486. • Shogenova, A.; Shogenov, K., 2017. Integrated Use of Subsurface and CO2 for Enhanced Recovery of Resources - Way to Sustainable Development and Synergy with Renewable Energy. 79th EAGE Conference and Exhibition 2017: 79th EAGE Conference & Exhibition, Paris, France,

June 12–15, 2017.. EAGE, 1−5. (We P4 01).10.3997/2214-4609.201701375 . • Shogenov, K.; Shogenova, A., Forlin, E.; Gei, D., 2017b. Synergy of CO2 storage and oil recovery in different geological formations: case study in the Baltic Sea. Energy Procedia, 114: GHGT-13, Lausanne, Switzerland, 14-18 November 2016. The Netherlands: Elsevier,

7047−7054./doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2017.03.1846. • Shogenov, K.; Shogenova, A.; Vizika-Kavvadias, O., 2013. Petrophysical properties and capacity of prospective for CO2 geological storage Baltic offshore and onshore structures. In: Energy Procedia (5036−5045). Elsevier.10.1016/j.egypro.2013.06.417. • Tarkowski R., 2019. Underground hydrogen storage: Characteristics and prospects. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. Vol.105, May 2019, Pages 86-94.• Succar, S., 2011. Compressed air energy storage. In: Levine, J.G. (Ed.), Large Scale Energy Storage Systems Handbook. CRC Press, pp.111-152.

In the Baltic sedimentary basin salinity of the Cambrian Series 3Deimena Stage formations increases drastically from 20 g/l in RuhnuFormation at S-W of Estonia to 100-160 g/l in Deimena Formation incentral and western Latvia, up to 170-200 g/l in west Lithuania at 2-2.4 km depth. Such high salinity brines could be utilized as a storagemedia for captured and compressed CO2, storage of energy in theform of CAES or hydrogen.

Storage of energy and CO2 is not the same as storage of waste.Captured CO2 was removed from wastes regulations of EU countriesduring implementation of EU CCS Directive. Consequently, pure CO2

could be stored underground, but it could be also used for enhancedrecovery of resources and for grid-scale energy storage.

The largest CO2 storage capacity in saline aquifers of the Baltic Stateswas estimated in the Cambrian Series 3 Deimena Formationsandstones located in anticline structures onshore Latvia. Limitedpotential in Lithuania and no potential in Estonia were reported byEU GeoCapacity.

Later, offshore potential in Latvian-Lithuanian Cambrian sandstoneswas reported to be competitive to onshore and additional potentialof 200 mln tonnes of CO2 was unlocked in the residual oil zone inLithuania. Capacity in the Baltic States for storage of CO2 was alsoreported by FP7 CO2Stop project, and for energy storage by FP7ESTMAP project.

State of the arto CO2 has been already used for about 50 years for

enhanced recovery of oil in US.o CO2 storage in depleted oil and gas formations has

been demonstrated in US, Canada and Australia,but CO2 storage is more challenging and expensivein saline aquifers.

o Safe CO2 storage is demonstrated by Sleipnerproject in Norway since 1996 under the seabed inthe North Sea, supported by high national carbontax (storage is cheaper than paying the tax). 23mln tonnes of CO2 have been safely stored untilnow.

o CAES in saline formations was demonstrated in USin 1931. However the air stored for more thanthree months reacted with local pyrites in thesandstones, causing reduction in theconcentration of oxygen (Griesbach & Heinze,1996).

o 25 MW pilot plant was working in 1990 for several years in Sesta, Italy operated by ENEL. The tested storage was disturbed by geothermal extraction process nearby (Succar, 2011).

o Hydrogen storage is not yet demonstrated insaline formations.

o Experience available from UGS and CO2 storagecould help to develop large-scale regional energystorage projects connected to electric grids,however different properties of gases and manyother aspects including policy, regulations,economics, underground processes, risks, safetyand long-term monitoring should be considered.

Figure 1. (a) Structure map of the Baltic Basin. (b) Approximate location of onshore and offshore Latvian

and Lithuanian structures in the Cambrian aquifer prospective for CGS (CO2 storage potential exceeding

2 Mt), shown by red circles. The black line A–B represents the geological cross section shown in Fig. 1c.

(c) Geological cross section across Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. The cross section line A–B is shown in

Fig. 1b. Major aquifers are indicated by dots. Dotted vertical lines mark faults. Np3 – Ediacaran; Ca –

Cambrian; O – Ordovician; S1 – Lower Silurian (Llandovery and Wenlock series); S2 – Upper Silurian

(Ludlow and Pridoli series); D1, D2 and D3 – Lower, Middle and Upper Devonian, respectively; P2 –

Middle Permian; T1 – Lower Triassic; J – Jurassic; K – Cretaceous; Q – Quaternary (updated after

Shogenov et. al, 2013).

Technical parameters

Estonian Power PlantsTotal

Estonian share

Latvian share

Estonian-Latvian CCUS

Emissions sources

Kunda Nordic

Cement

Eesti EnergiaVKG

EnergiaCO2 use-

mineral carbonation of oil

shale ash

5 plants and CO2

use

Latv-energo,

TEC2

6 plants and CO2 use

Eesti Balti Auvere North

CO2 emissions per year, Mt

0.554 8.06 1.364 1.44 0.595 -0.7 11.313 0.653 11.966

Total CO2

emissions during 25 years,

Mt

13.85201.50

34.10 36.00 14.88 -17.50 282.83 16.33 299.15

Total CO2

emissions during 26 years,

%

4.6367.3

611.4 12.03 4.97 -5.85 94.54 5.46 100

Number of wells 0.5 7 0.5 - 8 0.5 8

Total transport, km

700 795 800 795 750 - 800 30+150 830

Transport share, km

32.4535.

591.2 95.6 37.3

-792 38.2 830.2

Pipeline diameter, mm

800 800 800 800 800-

800 300 800

Needs and prospects The knowledge about origin and evolution of the Baltic Cambrian brines could help to justify safety of CO2,

CAES and hydrogen storage in the deep saline aquifers and their structures. They should be discriminated and recommended for various applications, based on technical requirements

and storage risks, assessed using 3D geological, reservoir and numerical seismic modelling and laboratoryexperiments.

Discrimination of the prospective structures for various storage media could be combined with synergyscenarios for CO2 and energy storage. Large-scale cross-border energy storage scenarios in saline aquifers canprovide regional energy security for the Baltic States, support low-carbon economy and reaching nationalstrategic climate targets.

Figure 2. Some prospective structures studied recently (Shogenov & Shogenova et al, 2013, a, b, 2015)

Figure 3. 3-D geological and petrophysical static models of E6 structure offshore Latvia (Shogenov et al, 2017).

For the first time, we estimated theoreticalstorage capacity of the Upper OrdovicianSaldus Formation with different levels ofreliability at the end of CO2-EOR cycle:65–144 Mt, average: 110 Mt

Total capacity of the E6 structure in twodifferent formations (Saldus and Deimena)at the end of CO2-EOR cycle:

by optimistic approach: 320–745 Mtaverage: 490 Mt

by conservative approach: 170–385 Mt,average: 265 Mt

(Shogenov & Shogenova, 2017, 2019)Figure 4. Integrated Use of Subsurface and CO2 for Enhanced Recovery of Resources (Shogenov & Shogenova, 2017)

Figure 6. Baltic CCUS Scenario for the cement industry.

Table 1. Technical parameters of the Baltic CCUS Scenario for the cement industry

Fig. 5. (a) Contour maps and (b) 3D structure maps of the CambrianDeimena Formation in the North Blidene (above) and the Blidene(below) structures composed using Golden Software Surfer 15 software.Fault line is indicated with red polyline. The total optimistic capacity(min-max/mean) is 186-380/297 Mt (Shogenova et al, 2019).