[International Workshop on CO2 Geological Storage]
Feb20-21, 2006, Tokyo, Japan

ＣＯ２地中貯留実用化に向けたシステム的研究

Socio-economic and Environmental
Studies for CCS Technology
Toshimasa Tomoda, Kaoru Koyama,Kohko Tokushige
Systems Analysis Group, RITE

1International Workshop on CO２ Geological Storage , Japan ‘06

Socio-economic and Environmental Studies oｆCO2 Geological Storage Technology at RITE
(1) Evaluation of costs, potential etc.
Economic competitiveness against other technological options(2) Risk analysis(3) Study on public acceptance(4) Investigation on legal aspects
Compatibility with existing international and domestic laws?
Necessity of amendments/ new laws?
Accounting rule of CO2 emission inventory
Kyoto mechanism
2International Workshop on CO２ Geological Storage , Japan ‘06

Risk Analysis-- Objectives
Risk analysis
CO2 leakage
Impacts of CO2 leakage on human and environments
Sitedependency!

Analysis results to be
used forPreparation of Guidelines/Standards
Selection of storage site
Operation of CO2 injection
Post injection monitoring

etc.

Risk communication, PA promotion
3International Workshop on CO２ Geological Storage , Japan ‘06

Risk Analysis—3 Steps
1. How possibly does stored CO2 escape from the reservoir?
Identification of risk scenarios

2. How much and how fast does stored CO2 escape?
Quantitative evaluation of CO2 behavior for the identifiedscenarios
3. How much impacts of escaped CO2?
End point assessment (Human health, ecosystem,groundwater etc.)

4International Workshop on CO２ Geological Storage , Japan ‘06

Identification of Risk Scenarios
・How possibly does stored CO2 escape from the reservoir?
・No established methodology for the scenario identification
・Tentative use of FEP methodology
F, E and P are defined to describe the storage environment
Development of scenarios using FEPs to describe possible
future states of the storage environment－－＞ 網羅性、透明性

Feature; physically distinct entity, such as the rock or groundwater
Process; dynamic phenomenon that influence the evolution of thesystem, such as groundwater flow
Event; Process that take place over comparatively short timescales,such as earthquake
International Workshop on CO２ Geological Storage , Japan ‘06

5

Construction of FEP Database
Generic database by IEA GHG Program; 178 FEPs

+35 FEPs that are characteristic of Japanese geologicaland strata conditions
213 FEPs in total, each of which is provided with linking
function to other FEPs to generate risk scenarios
Examples in the original database
F; Reservoir geometry （リザーバー形状）、Soils and sediments（土壌・堆積物）
E; Bolide impact（隕石影響）、Accidents and unplanned events（事故・不慮の出来事）
P; Subsidence or uplift（陥没・隆起）、Effects of pressurization on cap rock（キャップロックへの加圧効果）

Examples of added FEPs
F; Magma chamber（マグマ溜り）、Fault zone（断層帯）、Plate boundary（プレート境界）
E; Seismic vibration（地震振動）、Pyroclastic flows（火砕流）P; Tilting（傾動）、Active folding（活褶曲）International Workshop on CO２ Geological Storage , Japan ‘066Assumed Storage Site
Injection wellXYmm

00G- 2 00

EFEE- 4 00D- 6 00- 1 2 00

D-800

CCBA

- 1 4 00

-400-600

D- 8 00- 1 0 00

-200

CB

B

-1 0 0 0-1 2 0 0

AA-1 4 0 0F-fault
f-faults

An off-shore site
Sea water depth: 50 m
Composed of sedimentary facies
from Neogene, Miocene toQuaternary period, Pleistocene
Syncline and anticline structure
向斜および背斜F-fault and f-faults across the fold

7International Workshop on CO２ Geological Storage , Japan ‘06Identification of Important Risk Scenarios
for the Assumed Site
[Tentative approach]
1. Selection of important FEPs from the database

Expert judgment!

a. Undetected faults （未検出断層）
b. Fault zone （断層帯）
c. Borehole/ Borehole abandonment （圧入井・廃坑）
d. Human intrusion（人的侵入）
2. Construction of all the risk scenarios that are associated with
one of the above 4 FEPs
3. Identification of important risk scenarios[Underway]

8International Workshop on CO２ Geological Storage , Japan ‘06

Quantitative Evaluation for a Risk
Scenario Associated with FEP cRisk scenario
1. Deterioration of the well bottom cement plug by chemical
reaction with groundwater containing CO2
2. Crack through the deteriorated plug
3. CO2 leakage from the reservoir through the deteriorated
plug having cracks
4. Accumulation of CO2 inside the well
Quantitative calculation
1. Cement plug deterioration; speed and magnitude
2. Leakage of CO2 into the well; pressure inside the well andits rise
3. Others when necessary
9International Workshop on CO２ Geological Storage , Japan ‘06

Deterioration of Cement Plug
Cement Material： Ca(OH)2, CSH, CaCO3

CO2 saturated
ground water

I.D of Well: 220.5 mmplug
plug

dissolution

At the contact surface of groundwater
Ca(OH)2 ＋ CO32- ＋ 2H+→ CaCO3 + 2H2O
⇒ dense material (CaCO3) is generated

dissolution

At the bottom of plug
CaCO3 ＋ 2H+ → Ca2+ ＋ H2CO3⇒ dissolution of main component

The plug deterioration is likely to continue.
10
International Workshop on CO２ Geological Storage , Japan ‘06

Permeability (md)Porosity (-)

Porosity and Permeability Changes dueto the Deterioration

Length (m)Reaction conditions: 50℃、100kg/cm2、pH: 3、CO32- diffusion coefficient (inside plug): 1×10-10、1×10-7 m2/s

Length (m)Based on USGS PhreeqC
11International Workshop on CO２ Geological Storage , Japan ‘06

CO2 Accumulation inside the Well
140

Top of injection bed120

2

圧力 (kg/cm )Pressure100

Top of well
80
60
4020

圧入層頂部
坑内トップ

00100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

移行経路形成後の経過期間(years) (year)Timeafter formation of migration channel
Permeability of cement plug 1,000 md, Permeability of crack 10,000 md, Area ratio of crack 10％
Simulation software GEM-GHG
12International Workshop on CO２ Geological Storage , Japan ‘06

Risk Analysis--Summary
1. “Generic” FEP database for CO2 geological storage inJapan was constructed
2. Four important FEPs were identified for important risk
scenarios of CO2 geological storage in a “typical” Japaneseaquifera. Undetected faults （未検出断層）
b. Fault zone （断層帯）
c. Borehole/ Borehole abandonment （圧入井・廃坑）
d. Human intrusion （人的侵入）

3. Quantitative evaluation for an important risk scenariothat is associated with “Borehole” revealed;a. Deterioration speed of cement plug is small and CO2 leakingout is very unlikely due to the deterioration
b. Monitoring of well top pressure may allow the detection ofthe anomaly of well bottom plugging, and necessary
13
countermeasures to be taken.
International Workshop on CO２ Geological Storage , Japan ‘06

Risk Analysis--Summary(2)4. Future work;a. Improvement in identification process ofimportant risk scenarios; Transparency
b. Identification of important risk scenariosc. Quantitative evaluation for the important riskscenarios

14International Workshop on CO２ Geological Storage , Japan ‘06

Study on Public AcceptanceObjectives/background•Gap between scientific knowledge and public perceptions• Public acceptance is formed through perceptions, value

judgment etc.
• Investigation of the effects of certain information on thepublic perceptions, public acceptanceTo know what kinds of information are effective tohelp increase the public acceptance

15International Workshop on CO２ Geological Storage , Japan ‘06

Investigation of Public Acceptance
Outline of questionnaire survey
Studies on;
1. Risk and benefit perceptions and acceptance of CO2
geological storage relative to other risk events,
technologies, activities etc.
2. Effects of following introductory information ona. global warming andb. CO2 geological storage, simultaneously
3. Effects of following information ona. natural analogues andb. field demonstrations of the technology,

2ndindividually survey

The same questions were asked before and after
the information supply.
International Workshop on CO２ Geological Storage , Japan ‘06

1stsurvey

16

Conduct of Questionnaire SurveyÖMethod : 7 point-scale SD method （意味的尺度法）
ÖRespondents :[First survey] 267 university students[Second survey] 423 university studentsÖAnalysis : factor analysis（因子分析）

17
International Workshop on CO２ Geological Storage , Japan ‘06

Questionnaire design (1st survey)
Evaluated 20 risk-associated items

Risk items
related toGlobalWarmingand GlobalWarming
Mitigation
options

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.

Global Warming
Nuclear Power
Fossil-fueled Power (Coal, Oil, Gas)
Hydroelectric Power (Dam)Phtovoltaics
Wind Power
Waste Residue Power (Biomass) :Use of heat produced by waste incineration.
CO2 Ocean Storage :CO2 is sequestered in the ocean for CO2 emission reduction.
CO2 Geological Storage :CO2 is stored in deep geological formations for CO2emission reduction.

10. Forestation
11. Greening of Deserts :Greening of deserts by use of genetically-modified plants.
12. Iron fertilization in Ocean :Photosynthesis of phytoplankton is accelerated by ironspray into the ocean for CO2 reduction.

Risk items
related toNIMBY
facilitiesand others

13. Industrial Waste Disposal Site (Landfill)
14. Geologic Disposal of High-level Radioactive Waste (HLW) :Liquid
waste with a high level of radioactivity from nuclear power plants is vitrified, and stored indeep geologic formations.

15. Gasoline-fueled Vehicle
16. Fuel-cell Vehicle (Hydrogen tank loading) :Only water is exhausted.
17. Genetically Modified Food
18. Smoking
19. Alcohol Beverage
1820. Bicycle

International Workshop on CO２ Geological Storage , Japan ‘06

Questionnaire design (1st survey)
Inquired 20 questions

Risk Perception(“Dread”and “Unknown”)

Benefit Perception

Public AcceptanceInternational Workshop on CO２ Geological Storage, Japan ‘06

1. Control over risk (ex anti)
2. Control over risk (ex post)
3. Severity of consequences
4. Dread
5. Ease of risk reduction
6. Avoidance of death risk
7. Observability
8. Immediacy of impacts
9. Scientific knowledge about risk
10.Newness
11.Social benefit
12.Personal benefit
13.Benefit to future generation
14.Contribution to society
15.Personal necessity
16.Personal acceptance
17.Not in my back yard（NIMBY）
18.Public acceptance19.Acceptance to the future
generation
20.Deployment

Items of Provided Information(1st survey)
Information on global warming

Information on CO2 geologicalstorage1.

1.

Cause of global warming

2.

Carbon cycle

3.

Greenhouse effect4.

Mechanism of globalwarming

5.

2.
3.
4.
5.

Projection of climatechange6.

6.

Global warming impact

7.

7.

Global warming mitigation

Overview of CO2 geologicalstorage technology
Geological formation forthe geological storageDrilling technology
Global warming mitigation
options
CO2 geological storage incarbon cycle
Risk of CO2 geologicalstorage
CO2 geological storage inglobal warming mitigation
scenario

Information supply; a sheet with illustrated explanation for each of the items
International Workshop on CO２ Geological Storage , Japan ‘06

20

Risk, Benefit Perceptions and AcceptanceÖ Public acceptance was well explained by therisk and benefit perceptions.

Benefit perception is more
influential than risk perception
on PA.

Forestation

Fuel-cell
Vehicle1.0
Photov oltaics
Gasoline-fueledVehicleBicy cle
Wind Pow er-2.0-1.0

Waste Residue
Pow erBenefit Perception[Public acceptance] = 0.90×[Benefit perception]
R2=0.92- 0.34×[Risk perception]

Fossil-fueled Pow er

Nuclear Pow er
Greening of Deserts

Hy droelectric
Pow er0

CO2 Geological Storage

1.5

GMO

Risk Perception

CO2 Ocean Storage
Alcoholic Bev erage

Landfill SiteFertilization
HLW

Ö The benefit perception of CO2 geological storage-1.0
was lower than those of most of the othermitigation options.

-2.0
SmokingInternational Workshop on CO２ GeologicalStorage , Japan ‘06-3.0Note) The diameter of the circle indicates the magnitude of public acceptance.

Global WarmingEffects of Information Supply onRisk, Benefit Perceptions and AcceptanceÖ The benefit perception and public acceptance of CO2 geological

Forestation

Fuel-cellVehicle

1.0
Photov oltaics
Gasoline-fueledVehicle

Bicy cle-2.0Wind Pow er

Waste Residue
Pow er

-1.00

Benefit Perception

storage increased significantly after providing the introductory
information, while the risk perception did not decrease very much.
Fossil-fueled Pow er
CO2 Geological Storage(after providing information)
Nuclear Pow er
Greening of Deserts

Hy droelectric
Pow er

CO2 Geological Storage(initial)

1.5GMO

Risk Perception

CO2 Ocean Storage
Alcoholic Bev erage

Landfill SiteFertilization
HLW

-1.0

Smoking-2.0(after providing information)
Global Warming(initial)-3.0Note) The diameter of the circle indicates the magnitude of public acceptance.
International Workshop on CO２ Geological Storage , Japan ‘06

22

Risk Perception Breakdown“Dread” and “Unknown”
Ö Risk perception was well broken down into “Unknown”[Risk perception] = 0.39×[Dread]+ 0.80×[Unknown]
R2=0.79

2.5“Dread” risk perception contributes less to therisk perception than that of “Unknown”

Ö The risk perception of CO2 geological storage

1.5

was more from the “Unknown” than from the“Dread”

Unknownrisk perception and “Dread” risk perception.

CO2 Ocean Storage

Greening ofDeserts

CO2 Geological Storage
Fertilization
GMO

Ö The “Unknown” risk perception ofCO2 geological storage was larger thanthose of other global warming Photov oltaics-2.0-1.0
mitigation options.

Waste Residue
Pow er0

Landfill SiteGlobal Warming

Hy droelectric
Pow er1.0
Fossil-fueled

Fuel-cell Vehicle
Wind Pow er

Forestation

Gasoline-fueled Vehicle-1.5
Bicy cle

International Workshop on CO２ GeologicalStorage , Japan ‘06

HLW

Alcoholic Bev erage

Smoking-2.5Note) The diameter of the circle indicates the magnitude of public acceptance.

2.0
Nuclear Pow er

DreadEffect of Information Supply onRisk Perception
geological storage decreased, while theunknown risk perception was almost
unchanged by the information supply.

2.5

1.5UnknownÖ The “Dread” risk perception of CO2CO2 Ocean Storage
CO2 Geological Storage(initial)

CO2 Geological Storage(after providing information)
Greening ofDeserts
Waste Residue
Pow erGMO

Landfill Site

Global Warming(initial)

Photov oltaics-2.0-1.00
Fuel-cell Vehicle

Wind Pow er

Forestation

Hy droelectric
Pow erAlcoholic Bev erage

International Workshop on CO２ Geological
Storage , Japan ‘06

1.0

Smoking-2.5Note) The diameter of the circle indicates the magnitude of public acceptance.

2.0

Fossil-fueled

Gasoline-fueled Vehicle-1.5
Bicy cle

HLW

Fertilization

Nuclear Pow er

DreadQuestionnaire design (2nd survey)
Inquired 34 questions

Risk Perception

Benefit Perception

1. Safety
2. Severity of consequences
3. Observability
4. Scientific knowledge about risk
5. Newness
6. Leakage of CO2 (marine environment)
7. Leakage of CO2 (land surface)
8. Blowout of CO2
9. Effects of earthquake
10.Leakage of CO2 (after a thousand years)
11.Destruction of facilities (by earthquakes)
12.Destruction of facilities (by corrosion)
13.Effects on ground environment
Same as in 1st survey
Same as in 1st survey

Public Acceptance
Risk related questions were specific to risks of CO2 geological storage.
International Workshop on CO２ Geological Storage , Japan ‘06

25

Items of Provided Information (2nd survey)•Information on natural

Information on field

analogues

demonstrations

Overview of natural
analogues•

Example: Greece•

Example: Hungary•

Example: France•

Example: Germany•

Overview of fielddemonstration/application•

Example: Nagaoka projectin Japan•

Example: Norway•

Example: Canada•

Example: Australia
The Information was just introduction tothe demonstrations and did not containany data regarding CO2 behavior.

26International Workshop on CO２ Geological Storage , Japan ‘06

Effects of Information Supply (2nd survey)
Ö The information on natural analogues and field demonstrations did notincrease the benefit perception as was not intended to.

worked to decrease the risk perception,and consequently to increase the public
acceptance.

0.1
Benefit Perception

Ö The information of natural analogues

Initial(providing introdactory information)

After providing information(Natural Analogue)-0.1

0Risk Perception0.1
After providing information(Field Demonstration)Note) The diameter of the circle indicates the magnitude of public acceptance.
-0.1
International Workshop on CO２ Geological Storage , Japan ‘0627

Study on Public Acceptance- -Summary
Ö Introductory information of CO2 geological storage

containing its role of global warming mitigation mayincrease the public acceptance significantly.

Ö The risk perception was more from the “Unknown” risk

perception, and therefore the supply of information on thebehavior of injected CO2, risk analysis results etc. isconsidered to be effective to decrease the risk perception.

Ö The information on natural analogues worked to decrease
the risk perception, and consequently to increase thepublic acceptance, while the simple introduction to fielddemonstration did not.

28
International Workshop on CO２ Geological Storage , Japan ‘06