The QICS project: Outcomes and implications
for the development of CCS
Jerry Blackford, jcb@pml.ac.ukHenrik Stahl, Jonathan M. Bull, Ian Wright, Rachael H. James, Steve Widdicombe, Jun Kita, Maxine
Akhurst, Toru Sato, Baixin Chen, Mark Naylor, Chris Hauton, Benoît J.P. Bergès, Melis Cevatoglu,
Douglas Connelly, Marius Dewar,Tom M. Gernon, Masatoshi Hayashi, Jason Holt, Hideshi Kaieda,
Timothy G. Leighton, Anna Lichtschlag, Dave Long, Jack Phelps, Jeff Polton, Kiminori Shitashima,Dave Smith, Masahiro Suzumura, Karen Tait, Peter Taylor, Mark E. Vardy, Paul R. Whiteand several more….

Funders and participants
Funders

UKParticipants

JapaneseParticipants

Regulatory landscapeLegislation to allow sub-seabed storage has been enshrined inthe London Protocol and Convention, offshore storage
requirements have been produced for the NE Atlantic through
OSPAR (Dixon et al., 2009; OSPAR, 2007), and much of theOSPAR regulations taken forward into the EU Directive on
geological storage of CO2 (European Union, 2009).
Regulation requires:“characterisation of site specific risks to the marine environment and collectionof baseline data for monitoring. The site operator must consider the risk ofadverse impacts and assess possible effects of leakage on the marine ecosystem
including human health and impacts on legitimate users of the marineenvironment. Site selection should consider the risk of adverse impacts on
sensitive, or endangered, habitats and species and natural resources.”
But the wording is vague:
But what constitutes “risk”, “baseline data”, “impacts”, “monitoring”….

Research Objectives
Challenges for CCS: Primarily risk and cost reduction.
Issues across the whole
CCS chain
Our focus is the marine
environment : location for
UK storage
Project Objectives
1. If CO2 leaked into the living marine environment what are the likely ecologicalimpacts, would they be significant?
2. What are the best tools, techniques and strategies for the detection andmonitoring of leaks – or assurance that leakage is not happening, in the vicinity ofthe sea floor

Research hypothesis and design
Initial hypothesis and questions:• CO2 flow will be impacted by the physical and chemical structure of thesediments.
• CO2 dispersion will be determined by complex tidally driven mixing.
• Impacts will be moderated by CO2 distribution and retention and by secondary
chemical processes.
• Impacts will be determined by a combination of physiology, ecosystem structure
and behaviour.
• Additionally we need to understand the initial stages of leakage in anenvironment related to UK storage sites.
Consequently we desired to recreate
a “leak-like” event in the naturalenvironment.
This requires injecting CO2 into sediments ina way that does not produce artificial
flow conduits.

Research Challenges
Two immediate challenges:
How to inject the CO2?
• Directional drilling at a very wellunderstood and constrained site.
• Expensive!

Recognising that the experiment can becharacterised as a deliberate pollution
event how to• get formal permission?
• and informal permission – i.e. not
upset public, environmentalists andmarine users?

Site identification
Site Requirements:• Geology suitable for drilling• Unconsolidated sediment depth > 5m
• Water column depth between 10-20m, to permit diving.
• Sediment type that is typical of UK shelf seas
• Sediment fauna that is reasonably typical, vigorous and diverse• Currents and tidal flow to be predictable and not excessive.
• Absence of other pressure such as fishing, pollution,• Absence of significant recreational or aquaculture use• Reasonably close to professional scientific diving expertise• Access to nearby land, suitable to mount drilling rig• Permission from landowner• Consent from local government & population.

Site selection
Release site: Ardmucknish Bay, Benderloch, Tralee Holiday ParkSAMS
Laboratory

Candidate sites

Site Characterisation
Site Characterisation involved:Geophysical surveys• to characterise the bed rock – required unfaulted geology
to de-risk drilling, no glacial till
• characterise the sediments – ensure no gas deposits,
appropriate depth of unconsolidated sediments• required significant seismic surveys
Benthic surveys• to characterise the sediment compositionand community structure

Hydrodynamic surveys• to characterise flow regimes

Permission and consent
Project proposal stage:
Contacted regulators (Marine Scotland and The Crown Estate), for informal support.
After project funding award: staged, local first approach
1. Identified the preferred site
2. Formal permission from regulators
3. Approached land owners andimmediate users, obtained consent
1. Approached local council
2. Pro-actively engaged local newspapers
3. Pro-actively engaged local population
4. Regional media
5. National media
Ongoing• Clearly stated project independence• Maintained facebook page
• 24/7 presence at release site with public
information including open day• Engaged local schools• Developed a stakeholder group

Communications and outreach
Stakeholder Group
IncludedThose interested in the conduct of the experimentThose interested in the outcomes of the experiment
Government & departments
RegulatorsLocal planning authorities
Oil & Gas companies
Power generators
Environmental NGOs
PublicScottish Environment Protection Agency
Marine Scotland
The Crown Estate
Marine Management Organisation

EON
Scottish & Southern Energy
BPShellScottish Natural Heritage
IUCN
Wildlife & Country Link
Greenpeace

Argyll and Bute Council
Scottish Shellfish Growers Association
Scottish Association of Marine Science
Local community

A world first experiment

Experimental Process

Animated procedure can be seen at www.qics.co.uk

Drilling operations
Drilling rig

Wash pit

SteelTerminal
pipeline diffuser

Drill bitManhole
Power unitOnshore laboratory

Sampling strategy
Land site

Zone 1: 10m

Zone 2: 25m
Zone 3: 75m
Zone 4: 450m

MayPre release
P-14

P-7

Injection
D7D14

SeptRecovery
D35

R7R30

R90

Observations and sampling
Diving surveys & sampling: >260 individual dives>300 water samples
taken

24 mussel cages
deployed>650 individual cores
collected

In situ sensors & measurements
Electrode array for self
potential and resistivity
measurements

pCO2, O2, CT & current

Ship-board measurements

Geophysics

78 individual benthic
chamber incubations

Injection

4.2 tonnes injected over 37 days
Increased flow rate slowly
200kg/d150kg/d20kg/d80kg/d~ abandoned well bore scenario

Injection outcomesVideo clip of CO2 gas emission at epicentre
please see www.qics.co.uk

Seismic imaging of sediment gas
Day 1

Day 7

Day 1: Gas propagation via pre-existent pathways.
Day 7: Clear chimney in muddy sediments, only.
Day 13: Area of reflectivity increased.

injection

Day 34: Narrower chimney from diffuser to surface.
Vigorous venting into water column

Day 13

Day 34

Seismic reflectance can “see” gas above a threshold. Flow mechanisms are complex
Flow became more focussed as chimneys developed through the sediment structure

Gas flow model & chemistry

Seawater
CO2 dissolution

pH decrease
CO2 + H2O → H2CO3 → H+ + HCO3pCO2 increase

CO2 dissolution

CO2 + H2O → H2CO3 → H+ + HCO3-pH buffering

CO2 gasbubbles

CaCO3 + H+ → Ca2+ + HCO3shell dissolution

Sediment

Sediment chemistry
Top 25 cm of sediment……..

xswxi• Strong evidence for buffering• Change in pH is limited, even reversed• Carbon isotopic composition is a clear indicator of source (xsw ≈ 2 / xi ≈ 20)

Sediment chemistry
Some evidence for mobilisation of heavy metals, but not to the extent ofexceeding environmental impact thresholds
Additional from anna / Pete

Lichtschlag et al, IJGGCSea floor flux, bubble acoustics

Hydrophones

Direct samplingHigh tide

Low tideDissolved fluxes••••

Measurements showed no dissolved fluxes across the seabed*
Acoustic detection and quantification – proof of concept
Gas flow was heavily influenced by the tidal state.
8-15% of injected CO2 was emitted at the sea floor in bubble form

Quantification using modelsMori, Sato et al, IJGGCModelled scenarios of sea floor flux in Ardmucknish Bay
Can observed pCO2 be explained by only gas bubble flow?
CaseGas %Dissolved %Remaining %A81775

B

84250

C

867

25

Quantification /plumeabClosest match toobservationscConcluded: Significant “invisible” dissolved flow had occurred.

CO2 in the water column
How far did the CO2 plume spread?

sensor down
1 m. a. b.

pCO2
sensor atsurface
Bubble zone
~30 m

EpicenterControl

Elevated CO2 concentrations in bottom water confined to release epicentreCO2 in the atmosphereCO2 concentration
at sea-surface
How high did the CO2 plume reach in the water column?

• CO2 bubbles visible all the way to surface during low tide
• Elevated concentrations of CO2 ~50cm above sea-surface

Water column dispersion
Small scale heterogeneity in observed pCO2

Measuring CO2 via pH/pCO2 can be very
dependent on sensor positioning:
ISFET sensor ~ 3cm from seabed
Day 23Day 36

1 meter apart

Optode sensor ~25cm from seabedBiological impacts - macrofaunaNumber ofSpecies Biodiversity

storm

Number ofIndividuals –Mortality /Emigration

Impacts only at the release site, recovery within ~3 weeks

Biological impacts, mega and micro fauna.
Megafauna• No evidence for impacts to the molecular ecophysiology of ion or CO2 regulationin tissues of surface-dwelling bivalves in the vicinity of a sub-seabed CO2 release
Mytilus edulis, Pecten maximus• No discernible abnormal behaviour was observed for megafauna, in any of thezones investigated, during or after the CO2 release. Virgularia mirabilis (Cnidaria),

Turritellacommunis (Mollusca), Asterias rubens (Echinodermata), Pagurus bernhardus (Crustacea), Liocarcinus depu-rator (Crustacea),and Gadus morhua (Osteichthyes).

Microbes• A temporary impact on both the abundance and activity of specific microbial
groups at the epi centre and 25m distant. Seasonality was the major factor with
only minor affects from CO2. This included a small increase in ammonia
oxidation linked to an increase in ammonia availability as a result of mineraldissolution.
ProvisoSmall short term leak with significant sediment bufferingDispersion and upscaling
Observations + modelling exercises
looking at leaks from 0.0001 to 10000
tonnes / day
Impacted area scales with flux, order ofmagnitude variability for leaks of thesame magnitude.
Impacted area is restricted.
Strong tidal mixing ensures rapid
dispersion and mitigates extremeimpacts.
Large difference between spring andneap tides, complex and dynamic
footprints.
Chemical recovery in the water column
once leakage has stopped is rapid. Hours
to few weeks.

Monitoring techniques, pros and cons
No single monitoring technique is sufficient:
Trade off between detection range / survey resolution / power consumption /deployment time / areal coverage
Passive acoustics: Listening for bubbles (if they exist)
Low power, needs high resolution
Detection and quantification
Shelf seas are acoustically complex
Active acoustics: Detecting gas plumes in sediments and water
Power hungry, require less resolution
Detection
Requires initial characterisation of area
Geochemistry: Sensors for pH and pCO2 in water column
Low power
Detection, confirmation, quantification
Requires detailed characterisation baseline
Biological indicators: Video or direct samplingDetection, mainly impact assessment
Requires detailed baseline and control, not automatedDynamic criteria

Modelling baselines

Insufficient observations: Using models to define biochemical baselines

Absolute pH thresholds

Annual pH range, modelled• pH chemistry is highly variable• Requires baseline quantification andidentification of absolute (fixed) anddynamic (rate of change)thresholds.
• Biochemical monitoring may benefit
from co-measuring O2, Nutrientsand temperature to identify naturalvariability.

Dynamic thresholds

Monitoring platforms
Benthic landers:
For specific at risk locations
Deployment and data retrieval challenging
Vulnerable to trawling

Autonomous underway vehicles:
Cover large areas, 1-6 month deployment.
Data retrieval challenging

Monitoring and baselines - approach
Monitoring strategy
1. Detect anomalies:• Wide area surveys on AUVs / Site specificlanders near “high-risk” sites• pH / pCO2 / bubble acoustics / active acoustics

2. Confirmation and attribution:

Baseline strategy
Sampling
frequency

Duration

Measurement

HourlyFew days
during main
growing season

Carbonate chemistry
Oxygen, Temperature
Pressure, Salinity

WeeklyDuring main
growing season
preferablywhole year

Carbonate chemistry
Oxygen, Temperature
Pressure, Salinity

Monthly

18 month
periodencompassing
two summers

Acoustics
Biological coring

Occasional

One or twosurveys with arepeat after a
few years

Geophysics
Imaging• Targeted sampling• CO2 assays, isotopic composition, tracers

3. Quantify leakage:• Targeted sampling• Bubble acoustics, benthic chambers

4. Assess impact:• Targeted sampling• Biological and biochemical surveys

Summary
Leaks can be detected but the target may be relatively small,
dynamic and complex.
There are no absolute indicators of leakage.
Multiple monitoring methodologies in a staged approach arerecommended.
Comprehensive baseline data will be required.
The impact of a small CO2 leak is minimal and recovery rapid.
Larger leaks could have more severe but still relatively local
impacts.
Quantification of leakage will be challenging.
The emerging understanding synthesising footprint, impact andrecovery implies that, augmented by thorough monitoring andbaseline activities, impacts of CCS leakage should not be seen as
an impediment to the development of full scale CCS.

Outputs

www.qics.co.uk

Special issue~20 researchpapers~Feb 2015

http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2381

Key findings

VideoFactsheetsOutputs
123456789101112131415

A novel sub-seabed CO2 release experiment informing monitoring and impact assessment for geological carbon storage.
Peter Taylor, Henrik Stahl, Mark E. Vardy, Jonathan M. Bull, Maxine Akhurst, Chris Hauton, Rachel H. James, Anna Lichtschlag, Dave Long, Dmitry Aleynik,Matthew Toberman, Mark Naylor, Douglas Connelly, Dave Smith, Martin D.J. Sayer, Steve Widdicombe, Ian C. Wright, Jerry Blackford.
Doi:10.1016/j.ijggc.2014.09.007
Marine baseline and monitoring strategies for Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage (CCS) .
Jerry Blackford, Jonathan M. Bull, Melis Cevatoglu, Douglas Connelly, Chris Hauton, Rachael H. James, Anna Lichtschlag, Henrik Stahl, Steve Widdicombe, Ian C.
Wright. Doi:10.1016/j.ijggc.2014.10.004
Modelling Large-Scale CO2 Leakages in the North Sea.
Phelps, J.J.C, Blackford, J.C., Holt, J.T., Polton, J.A. Doi:10.1016/j.ijggc.2014.10.013
Dynamics of rising CO2bubble plumes in the QICS field experiment. Part 2 – Modelling.
Dewar M., Sellami N., Chen B. Doi:10.1016/j.ijggc.2014.11.003
Effect of a controlled sub-seabed release of CO2 on the biogeochemistry of shallow marine sediments, their pore waters, and the overlying water column
Lichtschlag A., James R.H. Stahl H., Connelly D. Doi:10.1016/j.ijggc.2014.10.008
No evidence for impacts to the molecular ecophysiology of ion or CO2 regulation in tissues of selected surface-dwelling bivalves in the vicinity of a sub-seabed
CO2 release.
Pratt N., Ciotti B.J., Morgan E.A., Taylor P., Stahl H., Hauton C., Doi:10.1016/j.ijggc.2014.10.001
Optical assessment of impact and recovery of sedimentary pH profiles in ocean acidification and carbon capture and storage research.
Queirós A.M., Taylor P., Cowles A., Reynolds A., Widdicombe S., Stahl H. Doi:10.1016/j.ijggc.2014.10.018
Impact and recovery of pH in marine sediments subject to a temporary carbon dioxide leak.
Taylor, Peter, Lichtschlag, Anna, Toberman, Matthew, Sayer, Martin D.J., Reynolds, Andy, Sato, Toru and Stahl, Henrik Doi:10.1016/j.ijggc.2014.09.006.
Detection of CO2 leakage from a simulated sub-seabed storage site using three different types of pCO2 sensors.
Dariia Atamanchuk, Anders Tengberg, Dmitry Aleynik, Peer Fietzek, Kiminori Shitashima, Anna Lichtschlag, Per O.J. Hall, Henrik Stahl.
Doi:10.1016/j.ijggc.2014.10.021
Response of the ammonia oxidation activity of microorganisms in surface sediment to a controlled sub-seabed release of CO2.
Yuji Watanabe, Karen Tait, Simon Gregory, Masatoshi Hayashi, Akifumi Shimamoto, Peter Taylor, Henrik Stahl, Kay Green, Ikuo Yoshinaga, Yuichi Suwa, Jun Kita.
Doi:10.1016/j.ijggc.2014.11.013
Local perceptions of the QICS experimental offshore CO2 release: Results from social science research.
Leslie Mabon, Simon Shackley, Jerry C. Blackford, Henrik Stahl, Anuschka Miller. Doi:10.1016/j.ijggc.2014.10.022
Benthic megafauna and CO2 bubble dynamics observed by underwater photography during a controlled sub-seabed release of CO2.
Jun Kita, Henrik Stahl, Masatoshi Hayashi, Tammy Green, Yuji Watanabe, Stephen Widdicombe. Doi:10.1016/j.ijggc.2014.11.012
Rapid response of the active microbial community to CO2 exposure from a controlled sub-seabed CO2 leak in Ardmucknish Bay (Oban, Scotland).
Karen Tait , Henrik Stahl, Pete Taylor, Stephen Widdicombe. Doi:10.1016/j.ijggc.2014.11.021
Numerical study of the fate of CO2 purposefully injected into the sediment and seeping from seafloor in Ardmucknish Bay.
Chiaki Mori, Toru Sato, Yuki Kano, Hiroyuki Oyama, Dmitry Aleynik, Daisuke Tsumune, Yoshiaki Maeda. Doi:10.1016/j.ijggc.2014.11.023
Phosphorus behavior in sediments during a sub-seabed CO2 controlled release experiment.
Ayumi Tsukasaki, Masahiro Suzumura, Anna Lichtschlag, Henrik Stahl, Rachael H. James. doi:10.1016/j.ijggc.2014.12.023

Status of CCS in the UK

CCS in the UK
UK CCS competition
Two applicants for fundingPeterhead-Goldeneye(Shell)
Gas firedDepleted gas reservoir
10 MT

White Rose
(Alstrom, Drax, BOC,National Grid)
Coal fired
Saline aquifer
2MT/AWhat next?
Project demonstrates scientific and operational relevance of multidisciplinary real-world manipulations.
What next?
Feeding into monitoring system design
Re run the experiment, longer duration

Testing of (pre-)operational monitoring tools and strategies
Collaboration with SMEs / Tech developers / Industry
Test the utility of the recommend baseline
Test tracers as aids for attribution and quantification.
Improved dispersion models
Full quantification of CO2 flows
Understand carbonate buffering potential
Investigate sediment saturation capacity and bubble flow
Investigate longer-term biological impacts

Thank you

Jerry Blackford, jcb@pml.ac.uk