Characteristics analysis of CO2 environmental background baseline for potential carbon sequestration sites in Yellow River Delta
WANG Xinwen1,2,3, ZHU Yutong1,3, LI Cai1,3, GUO Chaobin1,3, ZHANG Baojian1,3, HE Qingcheng1,3, YANG Lichao1,3
1. Chinese Academy of Geological Sciences, Beijing 100037, China; 2. China University of Geosciences, Beijing 100083, China; 3. Technology Innovation Center for Carbon Sequestration and Geological Energy Storage, MNR, Beijing 100037, China
Abstract：The large-scale sequestration of CO2 may result in leakage, which could intrude into the shallow subsurface and cause environmental impacts. Due to the complex changes of natural processes, accurately determining baseline values and distributions is crucial for monitoring and controlling near-surface leakage. This study utilized portable devices along scheduled path to conduct mobile and field monitoring and sampling laboratory test, and monitored and analyzed atmospheric and soil gas components and CO2 concentrations at potential sequestration sites in Yellow River Delta to determine baseline values and distributions. The results indicate that: ① in the monitoring maps of three different layers, CO2 concentration data from the portable monitoring method are consistent with the continuous monitoring data from the fixed monitoring points, indicating the periodic fluctuation characteristics of the monitored CO2 concentration. Additionally, the statistically significant relationship between $\delta^{13} \mathrm{C}_{\mathrm{CO}_{2}}$ and CO2 and O2 content confirms the reliability of the portable monitoring method.② Two environmental background baseline values are established. The first is $\delta^{13} \mathrm{C}_{\mathrm{CO}_{2}}$ and δ13COC baseline, with the soil $\delta^{13} \mathrm{C}_{\mathrm{CO}_{2}}$ isotope values of -14.35‰~-20.95‰, atmospheric $\delta^{13} \mathrm{C}_{\mathrm{CO}_{2}}$ values of -16.92‰~-19.89‰, and soil δ13COC values of -20.59‰~-24.79‰. These values revealed the range of carbon isotope values produced by biological activity in temperate climates. The second is atmospheric and soil CO2 concentration baseline, with the atmospheric CO2 concentration of 219.20~416.4 ppm, soil CO2 concentrations at 30 cm depth of 1 002.793~14 808.13 ppm, and soil CO2 concentrations at 50 cm depth of 1 497.26~19 658.59 ppm. The environmental CO2 concentration and isotope baseline of shallow surface in potential carbon sequestration sites of Yellow River Delta were confirmed in this research, providing reference benchmarks and monitoring scheme recommendations for future surface monitoring after large-scale CO2 sequestration.
[1] IEA.Global energy and climate model:scenario analysis of future energy trends[R].Paris:IEA,2023. [2] 李采,郭朝斌,李霞,等.地质调查助力碳达峰碳中和目标实现的路径浅析[J].中国地质调查,2021,8(4):1-12. Li C,Guo C B,Li X,et al.Analysis of the role of geological survey on the roadmap design for realizing the goal of carbon emissions peak and carbon neutrality[J].Geological Survey of China,2021,8(4):1-12. [3] Mortezaei K,Amirlatifi A,Ghazanfari E,et al.Potential CO2 leakage from geological storage sites:advances and challenges[J].Environmental Geotechnics,2021,8(1):3-27. [4] Beaubien S E,Jones D G,Gal F,et al.Monitoring of near-surface gas geochemistry at the Weyburn,Canada,CO2-EOR site,2001-2011[J].International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control,2013,16(S1):S236-S262. [5] Beaubien S E,Ruggiero L,Annunziatellis A,et al.The importance of baseline surveys of near-surface gas geochemistry for CCS monitoring,as shown from onshore case studies in northern and southern Europe[J].Oil & Gas Science and Technology-Rev.IFP Energies nouvelles,2015,70(4):615-633. [6] Chiba T,Haga Y,Inoue M,et al.Measuring regional atmospheric CO2 concentrations in the lower troposphere with a non-dispersive infrared analyzer mounted on a UAV,Ogata Village,Akita,Japan[J].Atmosphere,2019,10(9):487. [7] Salmawati S,Sasaki K,Sugai Y,et al.Estimating a baseline of soil CO2 flux at CO2 geological storage sites[J].Environmental Monitoring and Assessment,2019,191(9):563. [8] Schloemer S,Furche M,Dumke I,et al.A review of continuous soil gas monitoring related to CCS-technical advances and lessons learned[J].Applied Geochemistry,2013,30:148-160. [9] Lewicki J L,Hilley G E,Oldenburg C M.An improved strategy to detect CO2 leakage for verification of geologic carbon sequestra-tion[J].Geophysical Research Letters,2005,32(19):L19403. [10] Gornitz V.Encyclopedia of Paleoclimatology and Ancient Environments[M].Dordrecht:Springer,2009. [11] Humez P,Négrel P,Lagneau V,et al.CO2-water-mineral reactions during CO2 leakage:Geochemical and isotopic monitoring of a CO2 injection field test[J].Chemical Geology,2014,368:11-30. [12] Klusman R W.Comparison of surface and near-surface geochemical methods for detection of gas microseepage from carbon dioxide sequestration[J].International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control,2011,5(6):1369-1392. [13] Miller S M,Michalak A M,Yadav V,et al.Characterizing biospheric carbon balance using CO2 observations from the OCO-2 satellite[J].Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics,2018,18(9):6785-6799. [14] Davidson E A,Janssens I A.Temperature sensitivity of soil carbon decomposition and feedbacks to climate change[J].Nature,2006,440(7081):165-173. [15] Smith P,Martino D,Cai Z C,et al.Greenhouse gas mitigation in agriculture[J].Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B:Biological Sciences,2008,363(1492):789-813. [16] Gal F,Pokryszka Z,Labat N,et al.Soil-gas concentrations and flux monitoring at the Lacq-Rousse CO2-geological storage pilot site (French Pyrenean foreland):from pre-injection to post-injection[J].Applied Sciences,2019,9(4):645. [17] Tarakki N,Risk D,Spafford L,et al.A meta-analysis of the surface soil gas measurement monitoring and verification (MMV) program at the Aquistore project[J].International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control,2018,75:189-197. [18] Schacht U,Jenkins C.Soil gas monitoring of the Otway Project demonstration site in SE Victoria,Australia[J].International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control,2014,24:14-29.
2024, Vol. 11 
