Basin-Scale Hydrological Impact of Geologic Carbon Sequestration in the Illinois Basin: A Full-Scale Deployment Scenario

Similar documents
Basin-scale Modeling of CO 2 Sequestration in the Illinois Basin Status Report

Preliminary TOUGH2 Model of King Island CO 2 Injection. Modeling Approach

ILLINOIS GROUNDWATER - BEDROCK

Source Sink Pipeline

An Assessment of Geological Carbon Sequestration in the Illinois Basin: The Illinois Basin-Decatur Site

The Impacts of Carbon Dioxide Storage in the Saline Arbuckle Aquifer on Water Quality in Freshwater Aquifers in Kansas

Chapter 2 Overview of Processes Occurring During CO 2 Geological Storage and Their Relevance to Key Questions of Performance

The Illinois Basin Decatur Project Decatur, Illinois USA: Overview and Impacts. Sallie E. Greenberg

By: Jared T. Freiburg Illinois State Geological Survey 5/17/ cm

ADM CCS Projects Experience and Lessons Learned

Illinois Industrial Carbon Capture & Storage Project

Kentucky Geological Survey Marvin Blan #1 Hancock County, Kentucky Geologic Review. J. Richard Bowersox David A. Williams Kentucky Geological Survey

Western Kentucky CO 2 Storage Test

Illinois Industrial Carbon Capture & Storage Project

Developments in Storage and Monitoring for CCUS

What is the scope for carbon capture and storage in Northern Ireland. Michelle Bentham

Development and Implementation of a Monitoring Plan at a 1-million Tonne CCS Demonstration: Decatur, Illinois USA

Western Kentucky Deep Saline Reservoir CO 2 Storage Test. Principal Investigators: J. Richard Bowersox - Lexington David A. Williams - Henderson

WESTCARB Regional Partnership

CO2 Storage- Project list

FRIO BRINE SEQUESTRATION PILOT IN THE TEXAS GULF COAST

Midwest Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership (MRCSP) Press Briefing. February 21, 2008

Current challenges at CO 2 Sites

Geologic and Reservoir Characterization and Modeling

Available online at ScienceDirect. Energy Procedia 114 (2017 )

Western Kentucky Deep Saline Reservoir CO 2 Storage Test. Principal Investigators: J. Richard Bowersox - Lexington David A. Williams - Henderson

Western Kentucky Deep Saline Reservoir CO 2 Storage Test. Principal Investigators: J. Richard Bowersox - Lexington David A. Williams - Henderson

WESTCARB Phase I Results Review

Geological CO 2 Storage Feasibility Study: Saline Aquifers and Depleted Oil Fields, Ordos Basin, Shaanxi Province

Effects of Injection Pressure on Geological CO 2 Storage in the Northwest Taiwan Basin

Energy From the Earth Geologic Carbon Storage: Feasibility, Technology, and Challenges

MIDWEST REGIONAL CARBON SEQUESTRATION PARTNERSHIP PHASE II STORAGE CAPACITY POTENTIAL OVERVIEW

THE UTILITY OF MULTILEVEL PRESSURE MEASUREMENTS IN MONITORING GEOLOGICALLY STORED CARBON DIOXIDE

5 IEAGHG CCS Summer School. Geological storage of carbon dioxide (a simple solution)

Modeling Fault Reactivation, Induced Seismicity, and Leakage during Underground CO2 Injection

West Coast Research. WESTCARB Technical Director California Energy Commission

APPLICATION OF 1D HYDROMECHANICAL COUPLING IN TOUGH2 TO A DEEP GEOLOGICAL REPOSITORY GLACIATION SCENARIO

Storage Capacity and Injection Rate Estimates for CO 2 Sequestration in Deep Saline Aquifers in the Conterminous United States

Geologic CO 2 Storage Options for California

Sleipner Benchmark Dataset and Model Comparison

Recommendations for Injection and Storage Monitoring

Large releases from CO 2 storage reservoirs: analogs, scenarios, and modeling needs

Determining In Situ Properties of Claystone Aquitards Using Pore Pressure Responses from Grouted-in Pressure Transducers

CO 2 Storage Potential in the Mt Simon Sandstone, Western Kentucky. Rick Bowersox January 22, 2008

Reservoir Modeling for Wabamun Area CO2 Sequestration Project (WASP) Davood Nowroozi

Modeling pressure response into a fractured zone of Precambrian basement to understand deep induced-earthquake hypocenters from shallow injection

WP 4.1. Site selection criteria and ranking methodology. Karen Kirk

A THREE-DIMENSIONAL GAS MIGRATION MODEL FOR THE LEROY NATURAL GAS-STORAGE FACILITY

Measurement, Monitoring and Verification (MMV)

Anatomy of a Coal Bed Fire

Methodology: Ranking, Site Assessments & Volumetrics

Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress

Midwest Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership

(Brown & Loucks, 2009)

Modelling of CO 2 storage and long term behaviour in the Casablanca field

region includes nine states and four provinces, covering over 1.4 million square miles. The PCOR Partnership

W. Lynn Watney and Saibal Bhattacharya. Kansas Geological Survey Lawrence, KS Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnerships Annual Review Meeting

Field Scale Modeling of Local Capillary Trapping during CO 2 Injection into the Saline Aquifer. Bo Ren, Larry Lake, Steven Bryant

SACCCS Test Injection Workshop

CO 2 Atlas Assessment of Geological Storage Potential

U.S. Geological Survey National Geologic Carbon Dioxide Sequestration Assessment. U.S. Geological Survey Department of the Interior

Surface Processes Focus on Mass Wasting (Chapter 10)

Geophysical Monitoring Researches for CO 2 Geological Storage. Shinsuke NAKAO Geological Survey of Japan, AIST

Saline Formations MRCSP and Mountaineer Update

1.72, Groundwater Hydrology Prof. Charles Harvey Lecture Packet #5: Groundwater Flow Patterns. Local Flow System. Intermediate Flow System

Available online at GHGT-9. Elsevier use only: Received date here; revised date here; accepted date here

Chapter 8 Fetter, Applied Hydrology 4 th Edition, Geology of Groundwater Occurrence

Seismic Data and Drilling in Hancock Co., Kentucky February 21, 2008

MODELING OF GAS MIGRATION THROUGH LOW-PERMEABILITY CLAY USING INFORMATION ON PRESSURE AND DEFORMATION FROM FAST AIR INJECTION TESTS

NUMERICAL STUDY OF STORAGE CAPACITY AND POTENTIAL GROUND UPLIFT DUE TO CO 2 INJECTION INTO KUTAI BASIN BY USING COUPLING HYDROMECHANICAL SIMULATOR

3D Time-lapse Seismic Modeling for CO2 Sequestration

CO2 storage modelling and capacity estimates for the Trøndelag Platform a basin modelling approach

Wisconsin s Hydrogeology: an overview

Is It Likely That Fracking the Organic-Rich Utica Shale Beneath Bowling Green, OH Would Be Environmentally Safe?

Deep Borehole Disposal Performance Assessment and Criteria for Site Selection

Exploration Significance of Unconformity Structure on Subtle Pools. 1 Vertical structure characteristics of unconformity

1. Why we need transboundary storage? Emissions versus storage capacity CCS Legislation Results versus emissions and storage capacity

Capabilities of TOUGH Codes for Modeling Geologic Sequestration and Leakage of CO 2

Geologic Considerations of Shallow SAGD Caprock; Seal Capacity, Seal Geometry and Seal Integrity, Athabasca Oilsands, Alberta Canada

Gulf of México Mapping NATCARB Atlas

Geologic Suitability of Coal Deposits in the Northern Great Plains Region of the United States for CO 2 Sequestration

S^aaav. DOE Award Number: DE-FG26-99FT E. Peabody Dr. Champaign, IL Champaign, IL Reservoir Characterization & 3D Models

Offshore Geosequestration Potential in the Gulf of Mexico. Carbon Sequestration Opportunities in the North Sea Conference March, 2010

Understanding Water Level Transducers. Texas Groundwater Summit San Antonio, TX 2018

Delineating and Assessing Saline Ground Water Resources

East Bend Test Site Core Team

SUCCESS. Critical Elements and Superior Strategy

Challenges of CCS in developing economics

Borehole Seismic Monitoring of Injected CO 2 at the Frio Site

Assessing our untapped energy resources. Derek Reay Geological Survey of Northern Ireland

MICHIGAN GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Coastal Navigator Training St. Joseph, Michigan What do we know about anthropogenic impact(s) to Lake Michigan shorelines?

IEAGHG Study Programme Update

P228 Geological Storage of CO2 Prospects in the Baltic States

Presentation on CCS Opportunities in Cambodia

Developments on Microseismic Monitoring and Risk Assessment of Large-scale CO 2 Storage

CO 2 storage capacity and injectivity analysis through the integrated reservoir modelling

Appendix D Fractured Rock Appendix

An Overview of Carbon Sequestration in Pennsylvania. John A. Harper Pennsylvania Geological Survey

Impact of CO 2 Injection in Deep Saline Aquifers: A study on Pressure Evolution in Stratified Formation of Qianjiang sag, China

Available online at ScienceDirect. Energy Procedia 114 (2017 )

Transcription:

Basin-Scale Hydrological Impact of Geologic Carbon Sequestration in the Illinois Basin: A Full-Scale Deployment Scenario Quanlin Zhou, Jens Birkholzer Earth Sciences Division Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA Hannes Leetaru, Edward Mehnert Illinois State Geological Survey, Champaign, IL Midwest Geological Sequestration Consortium (MGSC) Yu-Feng Lin Yu-Feng Lin Illinois State Water Survey, Champaign, IL

1.1. Scale and Magnitude of GCS Annual Produ uction/storage Rate ( 9 m 3 ) 50 40 30 20 CO 2 density under storage condition: 800 kg/m 3 World Oil Production (EIA) WorldCO 2 Emissionunder Storage Afactorof8.5 0 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 Year Annual Produ uction/storage Rate ( 9 m 3 ) 2 US Groundwater Extraction (Hutson et al., 2004) Natural 1 Gas US CO 2 Emission under Storage Coal Petroleum US Class II Brine Injection (EPA) 0 US Oil Consumption 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 Year World Oil Production in 2006: 4.3 9 m 3 (73.54 million barrel/day) World CO 2 Emissions in 2006: 36.5 9 m 3 (29.2 billion metric ton CO 2 /year) US Oil Consumption in 2006: 12 1.2 9 m 3 (7.55 billion barrels/year) US CO 2 Emissions in 2006: 7.4 9 m 3 (5.9 billion metric ton CO 2 /year) US Class II Brine Injection: 2.8 9 m 3 (2 billion gallons/day in 144,000 wells) US Groundwater Extraction ti in 2000: 117.0 9 m 3 (84.5 billion gallons/day) The Scale and Magnitude of GCS is unprecedented

1.2. DOE Regional Partnerships Site Characterization (2003-2005) Validation Phase (2006-2009) Demonstration Phase (2008-2017) Illinois Basin Full-Scale Deployment (?-?) with the goal to effectively to mitigate climate change

Cincin nnati Arch 1.3. Motivation and Objectives Wisconsin 00 Km 900 Iowa Mississippi River Arch Illinois Wisconsin Arch Groundwater Resource Region -500 m Kankakee Arch Indiana 800 ADM Site Illinois Basin 700 600 500 Ozark Dome Missouri Pascola Arch Core Injection Area -4300 m Kentucky m -300-700 -10-1500 -1900-2300 -2700-30 -3500-3900 -4300 800 900 00 10 1200 1300 Km (Birkholzer et al., IJGGC, 2009) Mt Simon Storage Capacity: 27-9 Gt CO 2 Large Stationary CO 2 Emissions: ~300 Mt/Year Average Updip Slope: 8 m/km

Table of Contents Site Characterization Groundwater Resources Development Natural Gas Storage Basin Hydrogeology Basin Geology Hydrogeologic Properties Pre-Injection Conditions Model Development Multi-Site CO 2 Storage Scenario (Hypothetical) Three-Dimensional Basin-Scale Model Simulation Results Plume-Scale Processes: CO 2 Trapping Mechanisms Basin-Scale Processes: Pressure Buildup + Brine Migration Environmental Impact on Groundwater Resources Environmental Impact on Groundwater Resources Summary and Conclusions

2. Site Characterization Site Characterization Oil and Gas Exploration and Production Deep geo-boreholes for oil exploration One order of magnitude in production rate/volume less than GCS Deep Waste Injection 33 wells at 18 sites in the Illinois i Basin, 18 of which h are into Mt Simon Injection rate of 1.2 million m 3 in Illinois in 1984 Natural Gas Storage (Analog) Groundwater Resources Development (Analog) Ongoing Geologic Carbon Sequestration Objectives To determine basin hydrogeology To have analogs for multiscale GCS processes To understand potential discharge/leakage pathways To know the scale of the problems

2.1 Basin Stratigraphy Top Coal Maquoketa Ironton ian Ordovic St. Peter brian Cam Eau Claire Mt. Simon Precambrian Granite Petroleum Production Bottom

2.2. Natural Gas Storage EIA, 2004 2006 USA Illinois + Indiana # of Aquifer Storage Fields 44 30 Storage Capacity ( 9 m 3, Standard T&P) 38.4 27.3 Storage Capacity ( 9 m 3, T=24 o C, P=5 bar) 0.29 0.21

2.2. Natural Gas Storage (Cont.) (5 km) Manlove Natural Gas Storage Field (18 km) Secondary Seals Herscher Natural Gas Storage Field (Figures from Morse & Leetaru, MGSC, 2003)

2.3. Groundwater Development 500 Annual Pu umping Ra ate ( 6 m 3 ) 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 0 50 0 Displaced Brine By Injected CO 2 (a) North-Central Illinois Metro-Chicago Region 1860 1870 1880 1890 1900 19 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 (a) CO 2 Storage Rate vs. Pumping Rate (Mandle and Kontis, 1992, Northern Midwest RASA)

3. Hydrogeology of the Illinois Basin Basin Geology (Deep Formations) Mount Simon Sandstone Eau Claire Formation Caprock Pre-Cambrian Granite Baserock Storage Formation (4 Units and 24 Layers) Formation Properties (Porosity and Permeability) Vertical Variability at 0.15 m scale from deep wells Spatial Variability Characterization ti Pre-Injection Temperature/Salinity Conditions

3.1. 3D GeoModel: Three Formations (a) Mt Simon Thickness (m): 60 Boreholes 00 Km 900 800 700 700 600 500 400 350 750 700 650 600 550 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 0 50 (b) Eau Claire Thickness (m): 98 Boreholes 80 120 40 160 200 200 180 160 140 120 0 80 60 40 20 600 0 200 300 500 Elevation (m) 0-00 -2000-3000 -4000 800 900 00 10 1200 1300 Overlying Formations Eau Claire Shale Site Site 9 Site 8 Mt Simon Sandstone Pre-Cambrian Granite 800 900 00 10 1200 1300Km Site 3 12 16 18 20 6 0 2 6 8 0-5000 600 700 800 900 00 Northing (km) 800 900 00 10 1200 1300 Easting (km)

3.1. 3D GeoModel: Four Mt Simon Units 00 km 900 800 700 600 500 4020 60 80 0 140 160 120 170 160 150 140 130 120 1 0 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 20 2200 Depth 2300 Upper Unit Eau Claire Moun ntsimon ) p ( 00 km 900 800 700 600 800 900 00 10 1200 1300 km (a) Upper Mt Simon Unit Thickness (m) 40 50 30 20 60 70 80 90 800 900 00 10 1200 1300 km (b) Arkosic Mt Simon Unit Thickness (m) 0 95 90 85 80 75 70 65 60 55 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 5 2400 Middle Unit 2500 Arkosic Unit PreCambrian 2600 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 Porosity -2 0 2 4 0 0.5 1 Permeability (md) Entry Pressure (bar) 500 Weaber-Horn #1 Well, with unit correlation with Hinton #7 Well in the Manlove Gas Storage Field

4. Basin-Scale Model Development A Hypothetical Storage Scenario for Full-Scale GCS Deployment 3D Mesh Generation Boundary d and Initial Conditions TOUGH2/ECO2N (Pruess, 2005) Runs Two-phase CO 2 -brine flow at the plume scale Single-phase brine flow at the basin scale

4.1. Hypothetical Storage Infrastructure and Scenario Hypothetical Storage Infrastructure (Most Suitable, Core Injection Area): Sufficient Depth (10 2500 m) Sufficient Thickness (300 700 m for MS, and >90 m for Caprock) No Known Large Faults >32 km Away from Gas Storage Fields in Operation 250 170 km = 24,000 km 2 in size Hypothetical Storage Scenario (Full-Scale Deployment) 900 850 800 1 4 Hinton #7 2 5 8 14 750 ADM Site 3 6 9 11 15 16 7 12 700 Core Injection Area 13 17 18 20-00 -1250-1500 -1750-2000 -2250-2500 -3000 19 20 Injection Sites with Spacing: 27 km in Easting + 30 km in Northing Injection Rate: 5 Mt CO 2 /year per site over 50 years 1/3 Large Stationary CO 2 Emissions 650 Weaber-Horn#1 600 850 900 950 00 50 10 Illinois Easting (km) Top Mt Simon Elevation (m) Contour

4.2. 3D Mesh Generation 00 km 900 800 700 600 500 800 900 00 10 1200 1300 km 2D Mesh: 20,408 Columns, ~60 Model Layers (Maximum Δz= m) 3D Mesh: 1,254,000 Gridblocks, 3,725,000 Connections

5. Simulation Results CO 2 Plume Evolution and Secondary Seal Effects Pressure Buildup Propagation and Interference Basin-Scale Pressure Buildup and Brine Migration Environmental Impact on Groundwater Resources

5.1. CO 2 Plume Evolution (1) 1200 0.55 0.5 1250 0.45 S -1800-2000 -2200-2400 (a) Case A: 5 years 1300 1350 1400 1450 0.4 Injection Rate: Injection Period: Formation Thickness: Porosity: Permeability: Homogeneous y Eau Claire N 3.8 Mt CO 2 /year 30 Years 250 m 0.12 0 mdarcy 00 2000 3000 4000 5000 Precambrian Mt Simon logk -12-12.5-13 -13.5-14 -14.5-15 -15.5-16 S (b) Case A: 25 years 0.7 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 N A typical gravity-override CO 2 sub-plume developed in the injection unit of high-k and high-porosity A pyramid-shaped sub-plume developed in the upper and middle units Preferential lateral flow occurring in high-k layers, with CO 2 accumulation A good correlation between CO 2 saturation ti and layer permeability and entry capillary pressure

5.1. CO 2 Plume Evolution (2) (c) Case A: 50 years (d) Case A: 200 years -1800-2000 -2200-2400 704 706 708 7 704 706 708 7 The CO 2 plume never reaches the top of Mt Simon, because of the assumed stratified system and secondary seal effects. After 150-year redistribution, most of the injected CO 2 is trapped as residual saturation (0.2~0.25). A small fraction CO 2 migrates in high- K layers along updip slopes.

5.1. CO2 Plume Evolution (3) 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 (a) 50 years (b) 200 years 1 9 15 Case A: Without Leverett Scaling Case B: With Leverett Scaling Immobile CO2 5 Fractional CO2 Mass Plume Size 3 CO2 Volume ( 0 m) 20 Immobile CO2 0.8 0.6 0.4 Mobile CO2 02 0.2 Dissolved CO2 Mobile CO2 0 0 50 0 150 Time (years) Since Injection Start 200 0 0 50 0 150 Time (years) Since Injection Start 200

5.1. CO 2 Plume Evolution (4): Analog Top Mt Simon Top Mt Simon Manlove Field Herscher Field (Figures from Morse & Leetaru, MGSC, 2003)

5.2. Pressure Buildup Interference (1) 10 km Cut-Off=0.1 bar (a) Case A: 0.5 year (b) Case A: 5 years 00 900 800 700 600 500 Near-Field Far-Field bar 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 800 900 00 10 1200 1300 km 800 900 00 10 1200 1300km

5.2. Pressure Buildup Interference (2) 40 35 50 years Center Sites (bar) 30 30 years Pr ressure Buildup 25 20 15 5 (c) years 5 years 0.5 year 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Injection Site Index Pre-Injection Pressure 136-279 bar Fractional Pressure Buildup 0.12-0.22 Gas-Storage-Used Value 0.13 Regulated Value 0.65 Fracturing Value 1.05 No Caprock Geomechanical Damage is Expected

5.3. Basin-Scale Pressure Buildup and Brine Migration (1) 10 km Cut-Off=0.01 bar (a) Case A: 50 years (b) Case A: 0years 00 900 800 700 600 500 25 30 20 1 0.2 800 900 00 10 1200 1300 km 800 900 00 10 1200 1300 km 8 1 2 0.2 4 6 bar 30 25 20 15 8 6 4 2 1 0.2

5.3. Basin-Scale Pressure Buildup and Brine Migration (2) Volume ofresidentbrine e ( 9 m 3 ) 6 5 4 3 2 1 (a) Volume of displaced brine Volume of stored brine by compressibilities Volume of out-flowing brine Volume of upward-migrated brine 0 0 50 0 150 200 Time (years) Since Injection Starts Brine Upward d-migration Rate ( 6 m 3 /year) 30 25 20 15 5 (b) Near-Field Area Total Rate Core Injection Area Far-Field Area 0 0 50 0 150 200 Time (years) Since Injection Starts Far- Field Near- Field Core- Injection Total Upward Migration Rate at 50 years ( 6 m 3 /y) 095 0.95 74 7.4 14.44 22.7 Upward Migration Rate at 200 years( 6 m 3 /y) 2.1 3.8 3.3 9.2 Volume at 50 years (x 9 m 3 ) 0.017017 014 0.14 033 0.33 049 0.49 Volume at 200 years (x 9 m 3 ) 0.36 1.21 1.57 3.14

5.4. Environmental Impact of GCS (a) GCS-induced Pressure Buildup (b) Pumping-induced drawdown (bar) in 2005 10 10 km Cut-Off=0.01 bar (a) Case A: 50 years 00 900 800 700 25 30 20 1 0.2 00 900 800 700 20 15 8 6 4 2 1 0.5 0.1 600 600 (b) 500 800 900 00 10 1200 1300 km 500 800 900 00 10 1200 1300 GCS has no impact on freshwater in updip Mt. Simon: brine migration velocity in Mt. Simon in northern Illinois is on the order of 0.1 m/year. Upward brine migration is <0.008 m/year on the regional scale, although brine migration rate and volume is large. GCS-induced pressure buildup is less significant than pumping-induced drawdown in northern Illinois. If there is no significant salinity change in the worst pumping scenario in the 1980-1990s, it is believed that GCS will not impact groundwater beyond that scenario.

5. Summary and Conclusions An integrated model was developed to represent a hypothetical fullscale deployment scenario of carbon sequestration in the Illinois Basin Simulated plume-scale behavior indicates favorable conditions for CO 2 storage in Mt Simon: High-K and high-φ Arkosic Unit provides Excellent CO 2 Injectivity in lower Mt Simon, Secondary seals Significantly Retards upward CO 2 migration, Thick, extensive Mt Simon provides Large CO 2 Storage Capacity, and Thick regional-scale e Eau Claire seal ensures es Long-Term CO 2 Containment t in the storage formation. Simulated basin-scale behavior indicates that High hydraulic diffusivity helps reduce pressure buildup in the core injection area, thus enhancing caprock geomechanical integrity, High regional caprock permeability allows for natural attenuation of pressure in the storage formation, thus enhancing storage capacity of Mt Simon, Brine upward migration occurs in the core injection area, into a thick series of overlying saline aquifers and aquitards, at a maximum velocity of ~8 mm/year

5. Summary and Conclusions (Cont.) Environmental Impact on Groundwater Resources Environmental concerns of brine migration into the updip Mt Simon in northern Illinois and southern Wisconsin may not be an issue, Moderate pressure buildup is obtained in northern Illinois, where upward brine migration might be a concern, if local seal imperfections exists, Impact of GCS on shallow freshwater resources in northern Illinois may be less than that induced by heavy pumping from overlying freshwater aquifers. Further research is needed to couple a regional groundwater flow model with the integrated t model for environmental impact assessment

Acknowledgment This work was funded by the Assistant Secretary for Fossil Energy, Office of Sequestration, Hydrogen, and Clean Coal Fuels, National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL), of the U.S. Department of Energy. The project is jointly coordinated by NETL and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).