2.4.2 Ranking criteria for hydrocarbon fields and coal beds

As with saline aquifers, site ranking for hydrocarbon fields and coal beds is in principle based on the results of screening and storage capacity estimations that form the preliminary characterisation and storage safety assessment, together with the assessment of potential conflicts of use, which are not so numerous in this case (Tab. 2-10).

For the preliminary screening of hydrocarbon fields, Tab. 2-2 presented earlier is completed while for coal beds Tab. 2-3 is appropriate. Then, following the CO2QUALSTORE guidelines, the following risks have to be addressed:

  • legal and regulatory (is it possible to obtain storage permit; document the screening results; avoid conflicts of use of the subsurface for other resources/applications; no conflicts with land use);
  • geological and environmental (reservoirs, tectonics, hydrogeology and natural hazards are evaluated; review the industrial history of the sites considered; storage capacity and injectivity may be known sufficiently; existing Wells should be identified as they may pose possible leakage paths (Fig. 2-13); possible impact to vulnerable natural resources are identified including potable aquifers, protected areas).

E. Fig . 2-13

Fig. 2-13: conventional well abandonment normally practised at hydrocarbon fields (IPCC, 2005).

Tab. 2-10: Possible conflicts of use for depleted hydrocarbon fields and un-mineable coal beds (after IPCC, 2005).

Type

Hydrocarbon fields (depleted/depleting)

Coal beds ("un-mineable" at present)

Possible conflicts (with)

Gas storages

Technology developments would make coal mining for the beds in question cost efficient, underground coal gasification