Seabed mapping to support geological storage of carbon dioxide in offshore Australia

Research papers

Seabed mapping to support geological storage of carbon dioxidein offshore Australia

Andrew D. Heap n, Scott L. Nichol, Brendan P. BrookeGeoscience Australia, GPO Box 378, Canberra, ACT 2601, Australia

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 3 June 2013Received in revised form3 February 2014Accepted 9 February 2014

Keywords:Marine habitatsGeological sequestrationClean energySurrogates

a b s t r a c t

The geological storage of carbon dioxide (CO2) has the potential to provide future clean energy solutions.Geoscience Australia has demonstrated how its national seabed mapping programme can be successfullyapplied in assessing containment integrity in offshore basins. These assessments include targeted seabedresearch that aims to reduce uncertainty around the risks of CO2 storage by developing an integratedunderstanding of the physical relationships between the deeper basin structures, the shallow (o100 m)sub-surface and seabed environments. This paper presents an overview of the science strategy developedto undertake this work in the Australian context, with reference to case studies.

& 2014 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

1. Introduction

Australia must balance the needs of an increasing demand forenergy with meeting its internationally agreed greenhouse gasemission reduction targets (Australian Government, 2012). Thetargets set by the Australian Government are a 5 per cent reductionin CO2 emissions below 2000 levels by 2020 and an 80 per centreduction by 2050. This is in accordance with the InternationalEnergy Association's (IEA) target of 450 ppm carbon dioxide (CO2),which is modelled to limit the world to a 2 1C warming scenario.

In 2012 the Australian Government released its Energy WhitePaper which then set out the strategic policy framework to ensureall Australians have access to reliable, affordable and diverse sourcesof energy, while maintaining clean energy outcomes for the nation(Australian Government, 2012). Embodied in this framework werepolicies that promote the adoption and development of renewableenergy sources and carbon capture and storage (CCS). In practicalterms, these are the only options available for materially reducinggreenhouse gas emissions in countries that rely predominantly onfossil fuels to meet their energy demands (Tester et al., 2005).Australia is one such country, deriving 490% of its energy fromsignificant CO2-emitting sources (Geoscience Australia and ABARE(2010)), and in 2012 emitted a total of 552 Mt CO2-equivalent ingreenhouse gases (Australian Government, 2013). Australia is alsoone of the world's largest exporters of coal and holds almost 10% ofthe world's known reserves. Under the scenario of increasing

domestic and world energy demands and continued use of fossilfuels, Australia's future greenhouse gas emissions will continue toincrease, hence the need to find suitable CO2 storage sites to achieveits emissions reduction targets.

Geological storage of CO2 is recognised as a viable strategy toreduce greenhouse gas emissions on a global scale (Cook, 2012). Theprincipal geological storage options include: (i) depleted oil and gasreservoirs; (ii) deep unused saline water-saturated formations; (iii)application in enhanced oil or coal bed methane recovery; (iv) deeplyburied coal seams, and possibly; (v) igneous formations. Storage ofCO2 in saline formations, depleted oil and gas fields and its use forenhanced oil recovery and storage, are already proven storage options(International Energy Agency (IEA), 2008). However, it is clear thatsedimentary basins offer the greatest storage potential (Holloway,2001). The logistics and methodology of CO2 storage and containmentin sedimentary basins are also well understood, based on geologicaland engineering studies of depleted oil and gas reservoirs and salineformations (e.g., Johnson et al., 2004; Hawkes et al., 2005; Gozalpouret al., 2005; van der Meer, 2005; Birkholzer et al., 2009; Gaus, 2010;Juanes et al., 2010) and data from current CCS projects, including atSleipner and Snohvit (Norway), Weyburn (Canada), Labarge (USA), InSalah (Algeria), and Otway (Australia) (Michael et al., 2010).

In 2008, the Australian Government in conjunction withindustry commissioned a scientific programme to drive prioritisa-tion of, and access to, a national geological storage capacity toaccelerate development of CCS. This included a national assess-ment of Australia’s sedimentary basins for their CO2 storagepotential, with an estimated total potential capacity for Australia'soffshore basins of 253 gigatonnes (at the P50 level; i.e., at leasta 50% probability that the storage capacity is greater than this

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/csr

Continental Shelf Research

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.csr.2014.02.0080278-4343 & 2014 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

n Corresponding author.E-mail address: [email protected] (A.D. Heap).

Please cite this article as: Heap, A.D., et al., Seabed mapping to support geological storage of carbon dioxide in offshore Australia.Continental Shelf Research (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.csr.2014.02.008i

Continental Shelf Research ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎

www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/02784343

www.elsevier.com/locate/csr

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.csr.2014.02.008



mailto:[email protected]





amount) (Carbon Storage Taskforce, 2009). Following this assess-ment, sedimentary basins (onshore and offshore) deemed suitablefor CO2 storage and which are in close proximity to major currentand projected CO2 emission sources were identified for furtherstudy to improve knowledge of their reservoir capacity and sealintegrity. In the offshore, these studies included an assessment ofthe potential for leakage of CO2 into the marine environment. Theprimary approach adopted has been seabed mapping integratedwith the analysis of the storage potential of the underlying basin.

This paper presents an overview of the science strategy developedin Australia to apply seabed mapping techniques to address thenational challenge of geological CO2 storage. The seabed mappingscience strategy comprises mapping geomorphic features and habitatsand characterising their spatial and temporal processes to enable thedevelopment of conceptual models of seabed-basin connectivity andbenthic ecosystems. We demonstrate the applicability of this strategyfor providing relevant scientific information that supports the expan-sion of clean energy in Australia through offshore geological storage ofCO2. The strategy provides a robust framework for detailed casestudies that: (i) use seabed mapping to assess the risk of containmentloss through connectivity of the seabed with sub-surface CO2 reser-voirs (Nicholas et al., in this issue), and; (ii) assess a project'senvironmental significance through a review of the potential ecologi-cal impacts associated with the construction of CO2 storage infra-structure (Carroll et al., in this issue). The strategy represents aninnovative and novel application of seabed mapping beyond its wellestablished application in marine environmental management (e.g.marine protected area design and monitoring; Harris et al., 2008).

2. The Australian marine environment

The Australian marine jurisdiction covers 14.6 million km2,spanning approximately 601 of latitude from the tropics to theAntarctic and incorporating parts of the Indian, Southern andPacific Oceans (Heap and Harris, 2008). This vast area ranges inwater depth from o200 m on the continental shelf to 47000 min deep ocean trenches (Fig. 1). It comprises a diverse range ofgeomorphic features including submerged plateaus, seamountchains, submarine canyons and expansive plains (Heap andHarris, 2008).

Since the Neogene (�23 Ma), the western, southern and east-ern margins of the Australian continent have evolved in a passivetectonic setting. The northern margin is currently affected bycollision with the southern part of the Eurasian and Pacific Plates(Hillis and Muller, 2003). This relatively stable tectonic setting andthe divergent sedimentary basins that comprise the Australiancontinent and its margins provide suitable sites for geologicalstorage of CO2 (Bachu, 2003).

The collision of the Australian continent to the north around40 Ma has created the unique situation whereby the continentis bounded on both its eastern and western margins by warmwater, poleward-flowing boundary currents; the East Australianand Leeuwin currents, respectively (Brooke et al., 2012). As aresult, Australian waters are generally nutrient poor (oligotrophic)(Koslow et al., 2008; Condie and Harris, 2006). This uniquetectonic and oceanographic setting is expressed in relatively lowproductivity of the oceans and a marine biota that may not be as

Fig. 1. Map of Australia showing bathymetry across Australia's maritime jurisdiction, not including the Australian Antarctic Territory. (NT – Northern Territory,QLD – Queensland, NSW – New South Wales, ACT – Australian Capital Territory, VIC – Victoria, TAS – Tasmania, SA – South Australia, WA – Western Australia).

A.D. Heap et al. / Continental Shelf Research ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎2





resilient to stress and disturbance as those on more productivemargins.

3. Legislative context for management

Responsibility for the management of the Australian marineenvironment beyond three nautical miles of the coast rests withthe Australian Government; the marine area within three nauticalmiles is the jurisdiction of State and Territory governments. As isthe case in countries with similar governance arrangements, thisallows the Australian Government to develop a consistentapproach to management of national-scale issues for the marinejurisdiction. A key example is the marine bioregionalisation ofAustralia (Australian Government, 2005), products from which

supported the design of the 3.1 million km2 CommonwealthMarine Reserve (CMR) network, which was established in Novem-ber 2012 under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Con-servation Act 1999 (EPBC Act; Australian Government, 1999).Among the products used for the design of the CMR networkwere seabed maps depicting geomorphic features across the entireAustralian marine estate and conceptual models that summarisedkey benthic habitats and ecosystem processes. Indeed, the use ofseabed features is listed as one of the goals and principles for theestablishment of Australia's CMR network. In support of this, aseries of national seabed mapping programmes have been fundedby the Australian Government to meet key information require-ments for implementation of and decision making under sectionsof the EPBC Act and the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse GasStorage Act 2006 (Australian Government, 2006) (Table 1). The

Table 1Australian Government programmes since 2003 that have included seabed mapping, with application for CO2 storage assessment. GA¼Geoscience Australia, CSIRO¼Commonwealth Scientific, Industrial and Research Organisation, AIMS¼Australian Institute of Marine Science, NOO¼National Oceans Office.

Duration Programme AUD$ milliona Agencies No. of people

2003–2005 National Bioregionalisation 1 GA, CSIRO, NOO, Universities 4302007–2011 Offshore Energy Security Programme 15 GA, AIMS, Museums, Universities �502008–2011 Commonwealth Environment Research Facilities– Marine Biodiversity Hub 12 GA, AIMS, CSIRO, Museums, Universities, �1002011–2014 National Environmental Research Programme – Marine Biodiversity Hub 18 GA, AIMS, CSIRO, Museums, Universities �1002011–2013 National Low Emissions Coal Initiative (Petrel Sub-basin) 10 GA, AIMS, CSIRO 4202011–2015 National CO2 Infrastructure Plan 30 GA, AIMS, CSIRO 420

a Operating costs only.

Fig. 2. Map of Australia showing multibeam coverage for the area to the boundary of extended continental shelf. As of January 2013, the total mapped area was2.8 million km2 which represents 28% of the area shown.

A.D. Heap et al. / Continental Shelf Research ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎ 3





latter regulates the storage of CO2 in the offshore area (i.e., beyondthree nautical miles).

4. Science strategy for seabed mapping

4.1. Science goals

Geoscience Australia's seabed mapping science strategy hasthree broad goals. First, to better characterise seabed environ-ments and related ecosystems processes in priority regions – thisis achieved through high resolution mapping of seabed featuresand associated biota (e.g. Przeslawski et al., 2011). Second, todevelop models of physical surrogates of marine biodiversity –

achieved through quantification of statistically significant spatialand temporal relationships between seabed and oceanographicphysical properties and associated biota (e.g. McArthur et al., 2010;Radke et al., 2011; Huang et al., 2012). Third, predictive habitatmodelling throughout the contiguous Australian marine estate –

on the basis of the surrogacy relationships and maps of marineenvironmental variables, use geo-statistical techniques to predictthe location and character of seabed types and habitats, includingin data poor areas (e.g. Li et al., 2011; Huang et al., 2011a,b).

For CO2 storage assessments, seabed mapping can assist indetermining site suitability by revealing relationships betweenknown deeper geological structures and well defined physical andbiological seabed features. For example, the location of large-scaleseabed structures such as escarpments may point to recent and/oractive faulting, while subtle changes in seabed character such as

around pockmarks and hardground areas can indicate seepage ofgas and fluids from deep reservoirs. Combined with this, thespatial distribution of certain benthic species can provide addi-tional evidence for potential CO2 containment loss through theseabed (see Carroll et al., in this issue).

4.2. Methodology

To achieve the science goals of the seabed mappingprogramme, expertise in marine geology and geomorphology,geophysics (acoustics), geochemistry, ecology, oceanography andspatial modelling are brought together to undertake a compre-hensive analysis of the seabed and associated biota. This ensuresthe collection of multiple co-located datasets that describe to thefullest extent possible the spatial and temporal biophysical rela-tionships of the areas mapped. These relationships extend fromthe seabed to the shallow sub-surface and water column and areused to build conceptual models at local, regional and nationalscales.

Geoscience Australia accepts responsibility for storage of seabedsediment samples, multibeam echo sounder data (in conjunctionwith the Australian Hydrographic Service) and other acoustic data (i.e., side scan sonar, sub-bottom profiler, 2D and 3D seismic). It istherefore able to utilise all publically available data in its nationalholdings to address the science strategy goals. As of mid-2013, thesedatasets include: 2.8 million km2 of multibeam bathymetry for thearea to the extended continental shelf boundary (Fig. 2); 17,500 line-km of sub-bottom profiler, 2.78 million line-km and 227,000 km2 of

Fig. 3. Map of Australia showing the location of Commonwealth Marine Reserves (CMR) and sedimentary basins mentioned in the text.






2D and 3D seismic data, respectively; 12,500 seabed sedimentsamples and associated analyses (texture, composition, geochemis-try); 4260 h of underwater video and 73,500 digital still images. Inaddition, 36,800 specimens of benthic biota have been analysed(taxonomy to species, genera or family; infauna and epifauna) andcan be supplemented by holdings within other national repositories.These datasets are being used to derive products with regional andnational coverage that represent seabed form and biophysicalrelationships (e.g. predicted mud content, Li et al., 2010, 2011;seascapes, Heap et al., 2011; seabed disturbance regimes, Harrisand Hughes, 2012) integral to the assessment of the suitability ofselected offshore areas for CO2 storage.

5. Applications for CO2 storage assessment

In addition to the analysis of potential connectivity betweenthe seabed and underlying basin, investment in seabed mappingfor CCS by the Australian Government ensures that an adequateenvironmental baseline is compiled for all storage sites and assistswith the assessment of the risks to CO2 containment loss. Thisenables all stakeholders to make decisions using the most up-to-date and relevant environmental information. An environmentalbaseline also aids in evaluating the significance of storage projectsin a broader context. This information is vital because the OffshorePetroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act (2006) specifies that the

Fig. 4. High resolution multibeam bathymetry map for an area of seabed above the Petrel Sub-basin in the Timor Sea, northern Australia, with sub-bottom profile linesand seabed sampling stations indicated. This area was mapped by Geoscience Australia in 2012 as part of an assessment of CO2 containment risk associated with the PetrelSub-basin.






Australian Government will assume common law liability for atleast 15 years after a closing certificate is issued to a greenhousegas title holder.

5.1. Case studies

Below we describe how Geoscience Australia's seabed mappingprogramme has been designed to address the specific issues ofinfrastructure development and CO2 storage offshore northernAustralia through case studies. For these issues, the scientificinformation provided by seabed mapping has application inimproving our understanding of unique and sensitive habitatsfor protection, the nature and distribution of geohazards, andbiophysical connections between the seabed, subsurface andwater column.

The continental shelf of tropical northern Australia, extendingfrom the Joseph Bonaparte Gulf to the Timor Sea, supports a rangeof intersecting activities that utilise the rich natural resources ofthe region. Covering approximately 220,000 km2, the area sup-ports an active and expanding oil and gas industry, has thepotential for geological storage of CO2 and is recognised for itsrich marine biodiversity as recently demonstrated by the declara-tion of two Commonwealth Marine Reserves (Oceanic Shoals CMRand Joseph Bonaparte Gulf CMR; Fig. 3). To better inform theongoing use of the seabed by the offshore energy industry and themanagement of the marine reserves in this region, GeoscienceAustralia has undertaken a seabed mapping programme to collectnew and integrate existing information on seabed geomorphologyand associated benthic habitats (Przeslawski et al., 2011). With aninitial focus on potential geohazards (arising from faults, massmovements or fluid seepage) relevant to offshore infrastructure(pipelines, gas platforms) and unique and sensitive benthic com-munities, the work demonstrates the value of a multi-disciplinary

and regional approach to address the information needs of multi-ple stakeholders.

Given the extent of the study area and the requirement for site-specific information to identify potential geohazards and to docu-ment benthic communities, seabed mapping and sampling wasdesigned to provide high-resolution data that captured the likelydiversity of major habitat types and therefore could be usefully putinto a regional context. In practical terms, this was achieved bycollecting data in a series of four survey grids along a cross-shelftransect that represented the broad geomorphology of the shelf.This included carbonate banks and shoals, terraces and ridges,valleys and soft sediment plains. Data acquired within these gridsincluded multibeam sonar bathymetry and backscatter (gridded to10 m spatial resolution), acoustic sub-bottom profiles, underwatervideo and still images, plus samples of seabed sediments, benthicand epibenthic biota (Heap et al., 2010; Anderson et al., 2011). In2012, a similar dataset was collected from the western part of theOceanic Shoals CMR. In total, these site specific datasets cover anarea of 2450 km2 which equates to approximately 1% of the totalarea of the Joseph Bonaparte Gulf–Timor Sea region.

For the assessment of offshore sedimentary basins as potentialsites for the geological storage of CO2, such a site-specific approachis being used to collect integrated datasets on seabed habitats andthe shallow sub-surface for sites in northern, northwest, south-west and southeast Australia. For northern Australia, the sedimen-tary basin under assessment is the Petrel Sub-basin whichunderlies �150,000 km2 of the Joseph Bonaparte Gulf–Timor Searegion. Given the need to understand potential physical relation-ships between the deeper basin sedimentary units (i.e. 4800 mbelow the seabed) and the seabed environments at the local scale,a targeted sampling design was developed (Fig. 4). Targets for highresolution mapping included: locations where geological faultsmay have morphological expression on the seabed (e.g. scarps

Fig. 5. Conceptual model for an area of seabed above the Petrel Sub-basin in the Timor Sea, northern Australia, showing spatial relationships between physical seabedfeatures, seabed biota and sub-surface geology, as interpreted from sub-bottom profiles (see Fig. 3 for location). In this area, pockmarks are interpreted as evidence formigration of biogenic gas and fluids from unconsolidated Late Pleistocene to Holocene sediments (reproduced with permission from Nicholas et al. (in this issue)).






along ridges and banks); representative areas directly above thebasin reservoir, and; localities above the lateral pinch-out of thebasin and/or overlying seal unit. Together, these seabed mappingtargets provided for a comprehensive and detailed understandingof habitats (see Nicholas et al., in this issue). Importantly, theinformation obtained at these sites can be placed in the context ofthe regional models from previously published studies. Thistargeted seabed mapping approach is being used in other offshoresedimentary basins of high CO2 storage potential in Australia,including the Browse Basin (northwest margin), Vlaming Sub-basin (southwest margin) and Gippsland Basin (southeast margin),with work programmed to continue until mid-2015 (Fig. 3).

Key to the effective communication of these results has beenthe development of conceptual models that summarise the spatialdistribution of seabed features (e.g. scarps, pockmarks) andhabitats and their relationship to structural features, evident insub-bottom and seismic data (e.g. faults, gas chimneys), and tooceanographic processes (e.g. wave and tide generated currents).Presented as schematic diagrams, these models distil the site-specific information observed in geophysical data and samples andidentify the potential influence of major sedimentary processes onthe pattern of seabed biodiversity (Fig. 5). Importantly, the modelsalso provide a framework for further site-specific investigations.

6. Summary

For the past decade, the Australian Government, throughGeoscience Australia, has used information from seabed mappingstudies to better inform the management of natural resourceswithin its vast marine jurisdiction. While local in their extent,these studies are placed in regional contexts through the devel-opment of broad-scale integrated models of seabed habitat orgeomorphic diversity that include robust predictions in data-poorareas. In the most recent application, these regional seabedmapping studies have helped to inform assessments of thebiophysical character and suitability of potential offshore CO2

storage sites. Importantly, the combination of site-specific studiesand regional synthesis ensures that both government and industryare equipped with an improved information base and are there-fore better able to assess the broader and cumulative environ-mental effects of offshore energy developments.

In Australia, seabed mapping studies are firmly established as akey component in the development of a national marine environ-mental baselines. The focus is on current and potential producingregions to address national challenges such as sustainable man-agement of the marine estate, energy security and food security.To that end, seabed mapping studies integrate and complementCO2 storage assessment by focusing on the risk of containmentloss while providing fundamental environmental data. Thisapproach to offshore storage assessment provides a key suite ofscientific information to assist Australia reduce its greenhouse gasemissions to internationally agreed levels while also meeting itslong term energy needs.

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Dr Marita Bradshaw and Dr Clinton Foster ofGeoscience Australia and two anonymous reviewers for theirconstructive comments on an earlier version of the manuscript.Lachlan Hatch, Murray Woods and Olivia Wilson assisted with thepreparation of figures. This paper is published with permission ofthe Chief Executive Officer, Geoscience Australia.

References

Anderson, T.J., Nichol, S., Radke, L.C., Heap, A.D., Battershill, C., Hughes, M.G.,Siwabessy, P.J.W., Barrie, V., Alvarez de Glasby, B., Tran, M., Daniell, J., 2011.Seabed Environments of the Eastern Joseph Bonaparte Gulf, Northern Australia:GA0325/SOL5117 – Post Survey Report. Geoscience Australia Record 2011/08.Canberra, 61 pp.

Australian Government - Office of Parliamentary Counsel, 1999. EnvironmentProtection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/C2013C00539.

Australian Government - Office of Parliamentary Counsel, 2006. Offshore Petroleumand Greenhouse Gas Storage Act 2006. http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/C2014C00030.

Australian Government – Department of Industry, Innovation, Climate Change,Science, Research and Tertiary Education, 2013. Australian National GreenhouseAccounts – Quarterly Update of Australia’s National Greenhouse Gas Inventory.December Quarter 2012. Canberra. http://www.climatechange.gov.au/emissions.

Australian Government – Department of Resources, Energy and Tourism, 2012.Energy White Paper 2012 – Australia’s Energy Transformation. Canberra. http://www.energywhitepaper.ret.gov.au.

Australian Government – Department of the Environment and Heritage, 2005.National Marine Bioregionalisation of Australia. http://www.environment.gov.au/coasts/mbp/imcra/nmb.html.

Bachu, S., 2003. Screening and ranking of sedimentary basins for sequestration ofCO2 in geological media in response to climate change. Environ. Geol. 44,277–289.

Birkholzer, J.T., Zhou, Q., Tsang, C.-F., 2009. Large-scale impact of CO2 storage indeep saline aquifers: a sensitivity study on pressure response in stratifiedsystems. Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control 3, 81–194.

Brooke, B., Harris, P.T., Heap, A.D., Haese, R., Nichol, S.L., Sexton, J., Hazelwood, M.,Arthur, C., Radke, L.C., 2012. Living on the edge – waterfront views. In: Blewett,R. (Ed.), Shaping a Continent, Building A Nation: A Geology of Australia.Geoscience Australia, Canberra, pp. 275–331.

Carbon Storage Taskforce, 2009. National Carbon Mapping and Infrastructure Plan –

Australia: Full Report. Department of Resources, Energy and Tourism, Canberra.Carroll, A.G., Przeslawski, R., Radke, L.C., Black, J.R., Moreau, J.W., Picard, K., Haese, R.

R., Nichol, S. Environmental considerations for subseabed geological storage ofCO2. Cont. Shelf Res. (in this issue).

Cook, P.J., 2012. Clean Energy. Climate and Carbon. CSIRO Publishing, Australia 215.Condie, S.A., Harris, P.T., 2006. Interactions between physical, chemical, biological

and sedimentological processes in Australia's shelf seas. In: Robinson, A.R.,Brink, K.H. (Eds.), The Global Coastal Ocean: Interdisciplinary Regional Studiesand Synthesis. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.,pp. 1413–1449.

Gaus, I., 2010. Role and impact of CO2–rock interactions during CO2 storage insedimentary rock. Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control 4, 73–89.

Geoscience Australia and ABARE, 2010. Australian Energy Resource Assessment.Canberra. http://www.ga.gov.au.

Gozalpour, F., Ren, S.R., Tohidi, B., 2005. CO2 EOR and storage in oil reservoir. Oil GasSci. Technol. 60, 537–546.

Harris, P.T., Heap, A.D., Whiteway, T., Post, A.L., 2008. Application of biophysicalinformation to support Australia’s representative marine protected area pro-gramme. Ocean Coast. Manag. 51, 701–711.

Harris, P.T., Hughes, M.G., 2012. Predicted benthic disturbance regimes on theAustralian continental shelf: a modelling approach. Marine Ecol. Prog. Ser. 449,13–25.

Hawkes, C.D., Mclellan, P.J., Bachu, S., 2005. Geomechanical factors affectinggeological storage of CO2 in depleted oil and gas reservoirs. J. Can. Petrol.Technol., 44, http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/05-10-05.

Heap, A.D., Harris, P.T., 2008. Geomorphology of the Australian margin and adjacentseafloor. Aust. J. Earth Sci. 55, 555–585.

Heap, A.D., Przeslawski, R., Radke, L.C., Trafford, J., Battershill, C., 2010. SeabedEnvironments of the Eastern Joseph Bonaparte Gulf, Northern Australia:SOL4934 – Post Survey Report. Geoscience Australia Record 2010/09. Canberra,81 pp.

Heap, A.D., Anderson, T., Falkner, I., Przeslawski, R., Whiteway, T., Harris, P.T., 2011.Seascapes for the Australian Margin and Adjacent Seabed. Geoscience AustraliaRecord 2011/06, 91 pp.

Holloway, S., 2001. Storage of fossil fuel-derived carbon dioxide beneath the surfaceof the earth. Annu. Rev. Energy Environ. 26, 145–166.

Huang, Z., Brooke, B., Li, J., 2011a. Performance of predictive models in marinebenthic environments based on predictions of sponge distribution on theAustralian continental shelf. Ecol. Inform. 6, 205–216.

Huang, Z., Brooke, B., Harris, P.T., 2011b. A new approach to mapping marinebenthic habitats using physical environmental data. Continent. Shelf Res. 31,S4–S16.

Huang, Z., McArthur, M., Radke, L., Anderson, T., Nichol, S., Siwabessy, J., Brooke, B.,2012. Developing physical surrogates for benthic biodiversity using co-locatedsamples and regression tree models: a conceptual synthesis for a sandytemperate embayment. Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci. 26, 2141–2160.

Hillis, R.R., Muller, R.D., 2003. Evolution and Dynamics of the Australian Plate. GSASpecial Publication 22 and GSA Special Paper 372.

International Energy Agency, 2008. Energy Technology Perspectives 2008: Scenar-ios and Strategies to 2050. OECD/IEA.



http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/C2013C00539




http://www.climatechange.gov.au/emissions

http://www.climatechange.gov.au/emissions

http://www.energywhitepaper.ret.gov.au

http://www.energywhitepaper.ret.gov.au

http://www.environment.gov.au/coasts/mbp/imcra/nmb.html

http://www.environment.gov.au/coasts/mbp/imcra/nmb.html

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4343(14)00062-4/sbref1
























http://www.ga.gov.au










http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/05-10-05

http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/05-10-05

http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/05-10-05


















Johnson, J.W., Nitao, J.J., Knauss, K.G., 2004. Reactive Transport Modelling Of Co2Storage In Saline Aquifers To Elucidate Fundamental Processes, TrappingMechanisms, and Sequestration Partitioning. UCRL-JRNL-205627, LawrenceLivermore Laboratory. 31 pp.

Juanes, R., MacMinn, C.W., Szulczewski, M.L., 2010. The footprint of the CO2 plumeduring carbon dioxide storage in saline aquifers: storage efficiency for capillarytrapping at the basin scale. Transp. Porous Media 82, 19–30.

Koslow, J.A., Pesant, S., Feng, M., Pearce, A., Fearns, P., Moore, T., Matear, R., Waite,A., 2008. The effect of the Leeuwin Current on phytoplankton biomass andproduction off Southwestern Australia. J. Geophys. Res.: Oceans, 113, http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2007JC004102.

Li, J., Potter, A., Huang, Z., Daniell, J., Heap, A.D., 2010. Predicting seabed mudcontent across the Australian margin: comparison of statistical and mathema-tical techniques using a simulation experiment. Geoscience Australia Record2010/11, 146 pp.

Li, J., Heap, A.D., Potter, A., Huang, Z., Daniell, J., 2011. Can we improve the spatialpredictions of seabed sediments? A case study of spatial interpolation of mudcontent across the southwest Australian margin. Continent. Shelf Res. 31,1365–1376.

McArthur, M.A., Brooke, B.P., Przeslawski, R., Ryan, D.A., Lucieer, V.L., Nichol, S.,McCallum, A.W., Mellin, C., Cresswell, I.D., Radke, L.C., 2010. On the use of

abiotic surrogates to describe marine benthic biodiversity. Estuar. Coastal ShelfSci. 88, 21–32.

Michael, K., Golab, A., Shulakova, V., Ennis-King, J., Allinson, G., Sharma, S., Aiken, T.,2010. Geological storage of CO2 in saline aquifers – a review of the experiencefrom existing storage operations. Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control 4, 659–667.

Nicholas, W.A., Nichol, S.L., Howard, F., Picard, K., Radke, L., Carroll, A., Tran, M.,Siwabessy, J. Pockmark development in the Petrel Sub-basin, Timor Sea,Northern Australia: seabed habitat mapping in support of CO2 storage assess-ments. Continent. Shelf Res. (in this issue).

Przeslawski, R., Daniell, J., Anderson, T., Barrie, V., Heap, A., Hughes, M., Li, J., Potter,A., Radke, L., Siwabessy, J., Tran, M., Whiteway, T., Nichol, S., 2011. Seabedhabitats and hazards of the Joseph Bonaparte Gulf and Timor Sea. GeoscienceAustralia Record, Northern Australia 156 (2011/40).

Radke, L.C., Huang, Z., Przeslawski, R., Webster, I.T., McArthur, M.A., Anderson, T.J.,Siwabessy, P.J., Brooke, B.P., 2011. Including biogeochemical factors and atemporal component in benthic habitat maps: influences on infaunal diversityin a temperate embayment. Mar. Freshw. Res. 62, 1432–1448.

Tester, J., Drake, E., Driscoll, M., Golay, M., Peters, W., 2005. Sustainable Energy:Choosing Among Options, Cambridge, Massachusetts. MIT Press.

van der Meer, B., 2005. Carbon dioxide storage in natural gas reservoirs. Oil Gas Sci.Technol. 60, 527–536.







http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2007JC004102

http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2007JC004102

http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2007JC004102

http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2007JC004102




























Documents

Seabed mapping to support geological storage of carbon dioxide in offshore Australia