Skip to main content
  • Submit
  • About
    • Editorial Board
    • PNAS Staff
    • FAQ
    • Rights and Permissions
    • Site Map
  • Contact
  • Journal Club
  • Subscribe
    • Subscription Rates
    • Subscriptions FAQ
    • Open Access
    • Recommend PNAS to Your Librarian
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Main menu

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current
    • Latest Articles
    • Special Features
    • Colloquia
    • Collected Articles
    • PNAS Classics
    • Archive
  • Front Matter
  • News
    • For the Press
    • Highlights from Latest Articles
    • PNAS in the News
  • Podcasts
  • Authors
    • Information for Authors
    • Purpose and Scope
    • Editorial and Journal Policies
    • Submission Procedures
    • For Reviewers
    • Author FAQ
  • Submit
  • About
    • Editorial Board
    • PNAS Staff
    • FAQ
    • Rights and Permissions
    • Site Map
  • Contact
  • Journal Club
  • Subscribe
    • Subscription Rates
    • Subscriptions FAQ
    • Open Access
    • Recommend PNAS to Your Librarian

User menu

  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Home
Home

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current
    • Latest Articles
    • Special Features
    • Colloquia
    • Collected Articles
    • PNAS Classics
    • Archive
  • Front Matter
  • News
    • For the Press
    • Highlights from Latest Articles
    • PNAS in the News
  • Podcasts
  • Authors
    • Information for Authors
    • Purpose and Scope
    • Editorial and Journal Policies
    • Submission Procedures
    • For Reviewers
    • Author FAQ

New Research In

Physical Sciences

Featured Portals

  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Sustainability Science

Articles by Topic

  • Applied Mathematics
  • Applied Physical Sciences
  • Astronomy
  • Computer Sciences
  • Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences
  • Engineering
  • Environmental Sciences
  • Mathematics
  • Statistics

Social Sciences

Featured Portals

  • Anthropology
  • Sustainability Science

Articles by Topic

  • Economic Sciences
  • Environmental Sciences
  • Political Sciences
  • Psychological and Cognitive Sciences
  • Social Sciences

Biological Sciences

Featured Portals

  • Sustainability Science

Articles by Topic

  • Agricultural Sciences
  • Anthropology
  • Applied Biological Sciences
  • Biochemistry
  • Biophysics and Computational Biology
  • Cell Biology
  • Developmental Biology
  • Ecology
  • Environmental Sciences
  • Evolution
  • Genetics
  • Immunology and Inflammation
  • Medical Sciences
  • Microbiology
  • Neuroscience
  • Pharmacology
  • Physiology
  • Plant Biology
  • Population Biology
  • Psychological and Cognitive Sciences
  • Sustainability Science
  • Systems Biology

Geologic carbon storage is unlikely to trigger large earthquakes and reactivate faults through which CO2 could leak

Victor Vilarrasa and Jesus Carrera
PNAS May 12, 2015 112 (19) 5938-5943; published ahead of print April 20, 2015 https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1413284112
Victor Vilarrasa
aEarth Sciences Division, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA 94720;bSoil Mechanics Laboratory, Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, 1015 Lausanne, Switzerland; and
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: victor.vilarrasa@upc.edu
Jesus Carrera
cGrup d'Hidrologia Subterrània (GHS), Institute of Environmental Assessment and Water Research, Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas, 08034 Barcelona, Spain
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  1. Edited by M. Granger Morgan, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, and approved March 25, 2015 (received for review July 13, 2014)

This article has a reply. Please see:

  • To prevent earthquake triggering, pressure changes due to CO2 injection need to be limited
  • Article
  • Figures & SI
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Significance

Geologic carbon storage remains a safe option to mitigate anthropogenic climate change. Properly sited and managed storage sites are unlikely to induce felt seismicity because (i) sedimentary formations, which are softer than the crystalline basement, are rarely critically stressed; (ii) the least stable situation occurs at the beginning of injection, which makes it easy to control; (iii) CO2 will dissolve into brine at a significant rate, reducing overpressure; and (iv) CO2 will not flow across the caprock because of capillarity, but brine will, which will reduce overpressure further. Furthermore, CO2 leakage through fault reactivation is unlikely because the high clay content of caprocks ensures a reduced permeability and increased entry pressure along localized deformation zones.

Abstract

Zoback and Gorelick [(2012) Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 109(26):10164–10168] have claimed that geologic carbon storage in deep saline formations is very likely to trigger large induced seismicity, which may damage the caprock and ruin the objective of keeping CO2 stored deep underground. We argue that felt induced earthquakes due to geologic CO2 storage are unlikely because (i) sedimentary formations, which are softer than the crystalline basement, are rarely critically stressed; (ii) the least stable situation occurs at the beginning of injection, which makes it easy to control; (iii) CO2 dissolution into brine may help in reducing overpressure; and (iv) CO2 will not flow across the caprock because of capillarity, but brine will, which will reduce overpressure further. The latter two mechanisms ensure that overpressures caused by CO2 injection will dissipate in a moderate time after injection stops, hindering the occurrence of postinjection induced seismicity. Furthermore, even if microseismicity were induced, CO2 leakage through fault reactivation would be unlikely because the high clay content of caprocks ensures a reduced permeability and increased entry pressure along the localized deformation zone. For these reasons, we contend that properly sited and managed geologic carbon storage in deep saline formations remains a safe option to mitigate anthropogenic climate change.

  • carbon sequestration
  • induced seismicity
  • overpressure
  • climate change
  • CO2 leakage

Zoback and Gorelick (1) claim that geologic carbon storage in deep saline formations is very likely to trigger induced seismicity capable of damaging the caprock, which could ruin the objective of keeping CO2 stored deep underground. According to them, the main reason for this is that overpressure will be excessively high and failure conditions will be reached because the upper crust is critically stressed, i.e., close to failure. It is true that an excessive overpressure may induce microseismicity and even felt seismicity (2). It is also true that a felt seismic event could stop CO2 sequestration projects, as happened with the geothermal project Basel Deep Heat Mining Project in Switzerland (3). However, there is no evidence from the existing CO2 storage projects that CO2 has the potential of easily inducing large earthquakes (4).

No felt seismic event has been reported to date at either pilot or industrial CO2 storage projects (4⇓⇓⇓–8). Even at In Salah, Algeria, where a huge overpressure was induced, no felt seismic event has been induced (7, 9). CO2 storage in depleted gas fields has also been proven to be a safe option both at Otway, Australia (6) and at Lacq, France (5, 8). Actually, CO2 storage operates under conditions similar to natural gas storage, which has not induced felt seismicity for decades (10⇓–12). The recent induced seismic events at Castor, Spain (13) appears to be the only exception. However, too little is known about this site to extract any lesson. In fact, the very ignorance about what happened at Castor suggests that site understanding and management may be the critical issues.

We argue that large induced earthquakes related to CO2 injection in deep saline formations are unlikely because (i) sedimentary formations are rarely critically stressed; (ii) the least stable conditions occur at the beginning of injection; (iii) CO2 may dissolve at a significant rate, reducing overpressure; and (iv) brine will flow across the caprock, lowering overpressure in the reservoir. For these reasons we believe that geologic carbon storage in deep saline formations remains a safe option for mitigating climate change.

It Is Not True That the Whole Upper Crust Is Critically Stressed

It is generally accepted that the crystalline basement is critically stressed at some depth intervals (14⇓–16). However, CO2 will be injected in shallow (1–3 km deep) sedimentary formations, which are much softer than the brittle and stiff crystalline basement. As such, stress criticality, i.e., mobilized frictional coefficients, μ, in the range of 0.6–1.0 (17), is not usually observed at shallow depths within sedimentary formations (16, 18⇓⇓–21). We have compiled effective stress data of sedimentary formations and they fall within values of mobilized frictional coefficients around 0.4, i.e., the actual deviatoric stress is lower than the critical one (Fig. 1). This value is moderately low compared with the frictional coefficients around 0.6–0.8 of the critically stressed crystalline basement. In particular, the mobilized friction coefficients of sedimentary rocks where CO2 is being, has been or is planned to be injected is always lower than the critical value of 0.6. This means that there is a wide margin before CO2 injection might induce failure conditions and therefore, trigger a seismic event.

Fig. 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 1.

Maximum versus minimum effective stress measured in wellbores at depth in both crystalline (black squares) and sedimentary rocks (hollow circles). Sedimentary rocks where CO2 is being, has been or is planned to be injected are marked with black circles. The lines corresponding to several mobilized friction coefficients, μ, are included as a reference. Note that whereas crystalline rocks are critically stressed, sedimentary rocks are usually not.

To illustrate that sedimentary formations are unlikely to be critically stressed, we have built a simple model of the upper crust in a typical intraplate setting. The shallowest 2.5 km represent sedimentary rocks and the rest, down to 16 km deep, is crystalline rock. The sedimentary rock is softer than the crystalline rock (see SI Text for details). The stress state is initially isotropic, i.e., the mobilized friction coefficient equals 0. We impose a typical intraplate strain rate of 10−17 s−1 (22). As a result, the crystalline rock becomes critically stressed (μ = 0.6) after 6 Myr. However, the sedimentary rock remains less stressed (μ = 0.4) because of its lower stiffness (Fig. 2). This numerical result is consistent with the low frequency of intraplate seismic events and with the effective stress data compiled in Fig. 1 that evidences that the whole upper crust is not critically stressed. In particular, the shallow ‘soft’ sedimentary formations are far from critically stressed.

Fig. 2.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 2.

Mobilized friction coefficient as a function of depth after 6 Myr of applying a strain rate typical of plate tectonics (10−17 s−1) in the upper crust considering that the stress field is initially isotropic (see inlet for a sketch of the model). Note that whereas the crystalline basement becomes critically stressed, the sedimentary rocks remain far from being critically stressed.

Some support for this simple model results from the fact that it yields the maximum mobilized frictional coefficient at a depth between 5 and 6 km (Fig. 2). This means that shallow earthquakes are most likely to occur in the crystalline basement at this depth. Interestingly, this depth of maximum occurrence of earthquakes is consistent with observations of frequency-depth distribution of earthquakes in continental intraplate regions such as Haicheng, China; Thessaloniki, Greece; Hansel Valley, Utah; Pocatello Valley, Idaho; Wasatch, Utah; Coso geothermal field, California (23) and Galicia, Spain (24); and in the plate boundary of the San Andreas Fault, California (23, 25, 26).

The evidence that sedimentary rocks are not critically stressed (Figs. 1 and 2) appears to contradict the large magnitude earthquakes induced by wastewater injection in sedimentary formations in 2011 at Oklahoma, Ohio and Arkansas. These earthquakes have been used as an argument against geologic carbon storage (1). However, the earthquakes were induced in the critically stressed crystalline basement and not in the sedimentary formations where wastewater was injected. Wastewater was injected into the basal aquifer, which led to the pressurization of faults in the crystalline basement (27⇓–29). In the case of the earthquakes of Guy and Greenbrier, Arkansas, wastewater was injected into the Ozark aquifer (3 km deep), which is placed right above the crystalline basement. Wastewater leaked into a deeper fault, inducing four earthquakes of magnitude M > 3.9, with a maximum magnitude of 4.7, at around 6 km deep (30). This finding highlights (i) the need for proper characterization and (ii) the importance of a seal below the storage formation, to isolate the critically stressed crystalline basement from CO2 injection in sedimentary formations.

It has been conjectured that if an induced earthquake similar to those triggered by wastewater injection in 2011 occurred in a CO2 storage site, fault reactivation would lead to CO2 leakage (1). We contend that close analysis of fault zone architecture reveals that CO2 will not easily penetrate into the portions of the fault contained within shale rocks (31). Fault permeability, which is highly variable in reservoir-caprock sequences (32, 33), decreases several orders of magnitude for increasing clay content, leading to a much lower permeability in the caprocks than in the reservoirs (34, 35). Rocks with low clay content, like reservoirs, tend to fracture, increasing the width of the damaged zone and usually increasing permeability in response to shear (34). However, clay-rich rocks, like caprocks, tend to concentrate shearing in the fault core, which reduces the grain size by friction, thus reducing fault permeability (34). Therefore, shear slip will usually increase fault permeability in the reservoir, but decrease it in the caprock, increasing the permeability contrast in the vertical direction (31, 36). Indeed, numerical simulations show that CO2 leakage is negligible when accounting for this heterogeneity in permeability in the vertical direction within faults undergoing shear displacement (37). Even assuming constant permeability in the vertical direction within the fault, no correlation has been found between shear slip and CO2 leakage (38). Furthermore, capillary entry pressure increases with both clay content and reduced pore size, which is what ultimately hinders CO2 penetration into the fault (39).

Overpressure Evolution

The evolution of overpressure induced by CO2 injection is significantly different from that of water (or wastewater) injection. Water injection at a constant mass flow rate through a vertical well into an extensive (infinite) confined formation induces an overpressure that increases linearly with the logarithm of time (40). Therefore, overpressure will become large for very long injection times. This was the case at Paradox Valley, Colorado, where overpressure increased more than 16 MPa over a decade of injecting a constant volume of saline water (29). On the other hand, the low viscosity of CO2 implies that overpressure caused by CO2 injection peaks at the beginning of injection and drops slightly afterward (41⇓⇓⇓⇓⇓⇓–48) (see inlet Fig. 3). This difference makes CO2 injection particularly interesting because the most critical state occurs at the beginning of injection (41, 49) (Fig. 3). This initial critical situation is illustrated by what happened at Weyburn, Canada, where around 200 microseismic events were induced at the beginning of CO2 injection, but no more events were measured afterward (50). In fact, initial microseismicity may be reduced by progressively increasing the CO2 injection rate to avoid the peak in overpressure at the beginning of injection.

Fig. 3.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 3.

Caprock stability and overpressure evolution in the reservoir at the injection well when injecting a constant mass flow rate of CO2 (2 Mt/y) through a vertical well. The shadowed region in the inlet indicates the range of overpressures calculated by varying hydromechanical properties. Note that, initially, the stress state is far from failure conditions and that the less stable conditions occur at the beginning of injection.

Storage formations need not be extensive or fully confined, as assumed in the above discussion. Overpressure induced by CO2 injection may increase over time if the pressure perturbation cone reaches a flow barrier, such as a low-permeability fault. In such case, or in a compartmentalized reservoir (51), the reservoir storage capacity could be limited by the maximum sustainable injection pressure, defined so as to avoid induced seismicity (52). Fluid pressure must be monitored to identify the presence of flow barriers and to adopt mitigation measures to avoid an excessive overpressure that could lead to induced seismicity and make the operation uneconomical. Nevertheless, the reservoir will never be totally closed and overpressure will dissipate with time, helping to maintain fault stability and hinder postinjection induced earthquakes.

Overpressure will extend tens to hundreds of km for the time scales of CO2 storage projects, i.e., 30–50 y (53). At these spatial scales, the effective caprock permeability can be two orders of magnitude higher than that of the core scale due to the existence of discontinuities (54). Thus, caprock permeability can become relatively high, i.e., up to 10−16 m2 (55). Because the caprock seals brine by permeability, but it seals CO2 by capillarity, brine, but not CO2, can flow through the caprock (56). Fig. 4 shows that overpressure can be significantly lowered for relatively permeable caprocks, which would reduce the risk of inducing seismic events through fault reactivation due to the lower overpressure. Furthermore, the lateral extent of the pressure perturbation cone will also be significantly reduced (Fig. 4), which increases the reservoir storage capacity (57) and reduces the number of fractures and faults that will undergo stability changes. Indeed, a steady state could be reached in which the flow rate of brine flowing through the caprock equals the injected flow rate. Using leaky aquifers theory (58), and the geological setting of Fig. 4, the steady state would be reached after some 200 y of injection if the permeability of the seals is 10−18 m2, but only after 21 y if the permeability of the seals equals 10−17 m2. Thus, this steady state may take place at some CO2 injection sites before the injection finishes.

Fig. 4.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 4.

Radial distribution of the overpressure at the top of the reservoir as a function of the caprock permeability after injecting 2 Mt/y during 2,000 d into a 50-m-thick formation with a permeability of 10−13 m2.

CO2 Dissolution

CO2 dissolution reduces the total fluid volume filling the pores, thus reducing overpressure (59) and the risk of induced seismicity. The high solubility of CO2 makes dissolution one of the main trapping mechanisms in the long term. For instance, it has been observed in carbonate-dominated reservoirs containing naturally occurring CO2 that up to 90% of this CO2 can dissolve at the millennial timescale (the remaining 10% would be trapped in precipitated minerals) (60).

CO2 dissolution also operates over relatively short timescales and provides a significant storage capacity (61, 62). CO2-rich brine is denser than the native brine, which causes the brine immediately beneath the CO2 plume to be denser than the brine below. This situation is hydrodynamically unstable and leads to the formation of CO2-rich gravity fingers that sink to the bottom of the formation and bring fresh brine upwards, forming convective cells that enhance CO2 dissolution rate (63⇓⇓⇓–67).

CO2 dissolution is likely to occur quickly for high vertical permeability (k > 10−13 m2), which will lower overpressure significantly. Indeed, Elenius et al. (68) calculated that up to 50% of the injected CO2 at Sleipner (k = 2 · 10−12 m2), Norway, becomes rapidly dissolved when the formation brine has no dissolved CO2. Furthermore, they estimated that between 7 and 26% of the total 15 Mt of CO2 injected in the period 1996–2011 is already dissolved. These results are in agreement with our calculations (SI Text), which predict a dissolution rate at Sleipner of 12% of the injected CO2. Still, these calculations may underestimate the actual rate at which CO2 dissolves because they neglect the effect of dispersion, which significantly accelerates the onset of gravitational fingering (64). Furthermore, mass transfer is enhanced by convection in inclined aquifers, which are common in sedimentary basins (69). However, dissolution becomes negligible for low vertical permeability. For instance, at In Salah (k = 10−14 m2), Algeria, only 0.03–0.1% of the injected CO2 dissolves into the brine (68). Therefore, only when vertical permeability is high, CO2 dissolution will contribute to significantly reduce overpressure with time, progressively leading to a mechanically more stable situation.

Discussion and Conclusions

We have given evidence that sedimentary formations are not, in general, critically stressed (recall Figs. 1 and 2). Furthermore, overpressure will be relatively small when injecting CO2 because (i) it peaks at the beginning of injection and afterward drops slightly (recall Fig. 3); (ii) CO2 dissolution may occur quickly and at a significant rate, if the vertical permeability of the reservoir is high, contributing to reduce overpressure; and (iii) because brine, but not CO2 because of capillarity, can flow through the caprock, overpressure will be lowered significantly and a steady state may be reached at some sites within the injection period (recall Fig. 4). The combined effect of a noncritically stressed storage formation and a small overpressure make geologic storage a safe strategy to reduce emissions of greenhouse gasses to the atmosphere.

This conclusion is not meant as an unqualified approval of any site for storage. Every site requires a proper suitability study. To this end, numerous best practices manuals are available (see ref. 70 for a review). The key issue is site characterization (71), which includes proper structural geology understanding and a good hydromechanical testing (72). Characterization may lead to dismissal of some reservoirs. Still, the point is that suitable sedimentary basins to store huge volumes of CO2 are abundant around the world (62, 73, 74).

Experience with CO2 storage is still limited, so few generalizations can be made. Instead, some lessons can be learnt from geothermal operations, despite the fact that these tend to concentrate in regions of anomalous thermal gradients, which are more prone to instability. For instance, fluid injection in sedimentary rocks within the overpressure ranges that are reasonable for CO2 injection, i.e., ΔP < 10 MPa, do not usually induce seismicity (3 sites with seismic events greater than magnitude 2 out of 23 injection sites reviewed by ref. 16). Induced seismicity is much more likely in crystalline rocks (3 sites with seismic events greater than M 1.9 out of 3 injection sites in granites when the injection pressure was lower or equal than 11 MPa) (16). These data confirm that, contrary to crystalline rocks, sedimentary rocks are rarely critically stressed (recall Figs. 1 and 2).

Natural seismicity should also be considered in site selection (74). Fluid injections at European sites with low natural seismicity have not produced felt events (16). Acknowledging that earthquake frequency tends to peak at plate boundaries (75, 76) further supports the suitability of most sedimentary basins due to their low natural seismicity. Furthermore, earthquake magnitude increases with depth (77⇓⇓⇓⇓⇓–83) and therefore, large induced earthquakes (M > 4) that might jeopardize the caprock sealing capacity are unlikely to be triggered at the shallow depths at which CO2 will be injected (recall Fig. 2).

In addition to a proper site characterization, overpressure management will contribute to avoid felt induced earthquakes (52, 84), as proposed by Zoback (85) for wastewater disposal. Numerical simulations have shown that CO2 injection in closed reservoirs without a proper control of overpressure, i.e., allowing overpressure to exceed the maximum sustainable injection pressure, has the potential of triggering earthquakes of up to magnitude 4.5 in critically stressed faults (86). However, the magnitude of the simulated induced earthquakes becomes smaller than 3 when considering more realistic stress fields for sedimentary formations, with shear displacements of up to 6 cm (86, 87). These numerical studies highlight the importance of overpressure management for avoiding felt induced seismicity.

Even if a seism of sufficient magnitude occurs, CO2 may not necessarily leak because fault permeability is reduced and entry pressure increased in faults across rocks containing clay (37). Moreover, a self-healing mechanism that prevents CO2 leakage has been observed in argillaceous limestones (88). We conjecture that these mechanisms, together with increased buoyancy, may explain why CO2 natural analogs often leak at shallow depths (less than 700 m, where CO2 is gaseous), but deep natural CO2 deposits rarely do (89).

Coupled thermo-mechanical effects also deserve attention. CO2 will generally reach the storage formation at a temperature lower than that of the rock (90). In fact, injecting liquid (cold) CO2 and maintaining liquid conditions along the wellbore is energetically advantageous (and therefore, it is likely to become a common practice) because it significantly reduces compression costs (91). Cold injection will cause a cold region around the injection well, which will induce thermal stress reduction. This stress reduction may lead to fracture instabilities within the reservoir (92), where induced microseismicity may be beneficial as it enhances injectivity. However, cold CO2 injection improves caprock stability in normal faulting stress regimes because the caprock tightens as a result of stress redistribution, even in the presence of stiff caprocks (93). Thus, injection of cold CO2 should further improve stability in tectonically stable regions.

Zoback and Gorelick (1) concluded that large-scale geologic carbon storage will be extremely expensive and risky. Economic issues fall beyond our expertise and the scope of this review (but it seems evident that economic feasibility will depend on the prize of CO2 emissions). However, we have provided abundant evidence to state that large-scale CO2 storage is not risky and, thus, will be a safe option to mitigate anthropogenic climate change.

Acknowledgments

This work was funded by the Assistant Secretary for Fossil Energy, Office of Natural Gas and Petroleum Technology, through the National Energy Technology Laboratory under US Department of Energy Contract DE-AC02-05CH11231. This work was supported by the “TRUST” (trust-co2.org) and “PANACEA” (www.panacea-co2.org) projects (from the European Community’s Seventh Framework Programme FP7/2007-2013 Grants 309607 and 282900, respectively).

Footnotes

  • ↵1To whom correspondence should be addressed. Email: victor.vilarrasa{at}upc.edu.
  • Author contributions: V.V. and J.C. designed research; V.V. performed research; V.V. and J.C. analyzed data; and V.V. and J.C. wrote the paper.

  • The authors declare no conflict of interest.

  • This article is a PNAS Direct Submission.

  • This article contains supporting information online at www.pnas.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1073/pnas.1413284112/-/DCSupplemental.

References

  1. ↵
    1. Zoback MD,
    2. Gorelick SM
    (2012) Earthquake triggering and large-scale geologic storage of carbon dioxide. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 109(26):10164–10168.
    .
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  2. ↵
    1. Hsieh PA,
    2. Bredehoeft JD
    (1981) A reservoir analysis of the Denver earthquakes: A case of induced seismicity. J Geophys Res 86(B2):903–920.
    .
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  3. ↵
    1. Häring MO,
    2. Schanz U,
    3. Ladner F,
    4. Dyer BC
    (2008) Characterization of the Basel 1 enhanced geothermal system. Geothermics 37:469–495.
    .
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  4. ↵
    1. IEAGHG
    (2013) Induced Seismicity and Its Implications for CO2 Storage Risk. Report 2013/09, (International Energy Agency Greenhouse Gas R&D Program (IAEGHG), Cheltenham, UK).
    .
  5. ↵
    1. Lescanne M,
    2. Hy-Billiot J,
    3. Aimard N,
    4. Prinet C
    (2011) The site monitoring of the Lacq industrial CCS reference project. Energy Procedia 4:3518–1525.
    .
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  6. ↵
    1. Jenkins CR, et al.
    (2012) Safe storage and effective monitoring of CO2 in depleted gas fields. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 109(2):E35–E41.
    .
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  7. ↵
    1. Rutqvist J
    (2012) The geomechanics of CO2 storage in deep sedimentary formations. International Journal of Geotechnical and Geological Engineering 30:525–551.
    .
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  8. ↵
    1. Prinet C,
    2. Thibeau S,
    3. Lescanne M,
    4. Monne J
    (2013) Lacq-Rousse CO2 capture and storage demonstration pilot: Lessons learnt from two and a half years monitoring. Energy Procedia 37:3610–3620.
    .
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  9. ↵
    1. Gemmer L,
    2. Hansen O,
    3. Iding M,
    4. Leary S,
    5. Ringrose P
    (2012) Geomechanical response to CO2 injection at Krechba, In Salah, Algeria. First Break 30(2):79–84.
    .
    OpenUrl
  10. ↵
    1. Nagelhout ACG,
    2. Roest JPA
    (1997) Investigating fault slip in a model of underground gas storage facility. Int J Rock Mechanics, Mining Sci Geomechanical Abstr 34:212.
    .
    OpenUrl
  11. ↵
    1. Rutqvist J,
    2. Stephansson O
    (2003) The role of hydromechanical coupling in fractured rock engineering. Hydrogeol J 11:7–40.
    .
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  12. ↵
    1. Teatini P, et al.
    (2011) Geomechanical response to seasonal gas storage in depleted reservoirs: A case study in the Po River basin, Italy. J Geophys Res 116:F02002.
    .
    OpenUrl
  13. ↵
    1. Cesca S, et al.
    (2014) The 2013 September–October seismic sequence offshore Spain: A case of seismicity triggered by gas injection? Geophys J Int 198:941–953.
    .
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  14. ↵
    1. Cornet FH,
    2. Jianmin Y
    (1995) Analysis of induced seismicity for stress field determination and pore pressure mapping. Pure Appl Geophys 145:677–700.
    .
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  15. ↵
    1. Townend J,
    2. Zoback MD
    (2000) How faulting keeps the crust strong. Geology 28(5):399–402.
    .
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  16. ↵
    1. Evans KF,
    2. Zappone A,
    3. Kraft T,
    4. Deichmann N,
    5. Moia F
    (2012) A survey of the induced seismic responses to fluid injection in geothermal and CO2 reservoirs in Europe. Geothermics 41:30–54.
    .
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  17. ↵
    1. Byerlee JD
    (1978) Friction of rocks. Pure Appl Geophys 116:615–629.
    .
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  18. ↵
    1. Haimson BC
    (1977) Crustal stress in the continental United States as derived from hydrofracturing tests. Geophysical Monograph Series 20:576–592.
    .
    OpenUrl
  19. ↵
    1. McGarr A,
    2. Gay NC
    (1978) State of stress in the earth's crust. Annu Rev Earth Planet Sci 6:405–436.
    .
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  20. ↵
    1. Dahm T, et al.
    (2010) How to discriminate induced, triggered and natural seismicity. Proceedings of the Workshop Induced Seismicity, eds Ritter J, Oth A (Centre Européen de Géodynamique et de Séismologie, Luxembourg), Vol 30, pp 69–76.
    .
  21. ↵
    1. Gunzburger Y
    (2010) Stress state interpretation in light of pressure-solution creep: Numerical modelling of limestone in the Eastern Paris Basin, France. Tectonophysics 483(3):377–389.
    .
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  22. ↵
    1. Zoback MD,
    2. Townend J,
    3. Grollimund B
    (2002) Steady-state failure equilibrium and deformation of intraplate lithosphere. Int Geol Rev 44:383–401.
    .
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  23. ↵
    1. Meissner R,
    2. Strehlau J
    (1982) Limits of stresses in continental crusts and their relation to the depth-frequency distribution of shallow earthquakes. Tectonics 1:73–89.
    .
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  24. ↵
    1. Martin-Gonzalez F, et al.
    (2012) Seismicity and potencially active faults in the Northwest and Central-West Iberian Peninsula. Journal of Iberian Geology 38:52–69.
    .
    OpenUrl
  25. ↵
    1. Tse ST,
    2. Rice JR
    (1986) Crustal earthquake instability in relation to the depth variation of frictional slip properties. J Geophys Res 91:9452–9472.
    .
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  26. ↵
    1. Magistrale H,
    2. Zhou H
    (1996) Lithologic control of the depth of earthquakes in Southern California. Science 273(5275):639–642.
    .
    OpenUrlAbstract
  27. ↵
    1. Keranen KM,
    2. Savage HM,
    3. Abers GA,
    4. Cochran ES
    (2013) Potentially induced earthquakes in Oklahoma, USA: Links between wastewater injection and the 2011 Mw 5.7 earthquake sequence. Geology 41(6):699–702.
    .
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  28. ↵
    1. Zhang Y, et al.
    (2013) Hydrogeologic controls on induced seismicity in crystalline basement rocks due to fluid injection into basal reservoirs. Ground Water 51(4):525–538.
    .
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  29. ↵
    1. Ellsworth WL
    (2013) Injection-induced earthquakes. Science 341(6142):1225942.
    .
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  30. ↵
    1. Kerr RA
    (2012) Seismology. Learning how to not make your own earthquakes. Science 335(6075):1436–1437.
    .
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  31. ↵
    1. Caine JS,
    2. Evans JP,
    3. Forster CB
    (1996) Fault zone architecture and permeability structure. Geology 24(11):1025–1028.
    .
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  32. ↵
    1. Takahashi M
    (2003) Permeability change during experimental fault smearing. J Geophys Res Solid Earth 108(B5):2235.
    .
    OpenUrl
  33. ↵
    1. Egholm DL,
    2. Clausen OR,
    3. Sandiford M,
    4. Kristensen MB,
    5. Korstgård JA
    (2008) The mechanics of clay smearing along faults. Geology 36(10):787–790.
    .
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  34. ↵
    1. Bense VF,
    2. Person MA
    (2006) Faults as conduit ‐ barrier systems to fluid flow in siliciclastic sedimentary aquifers. Water Resour Res 42:W05421.
    .
    OpenUrl
  35. ↵
    1. Crawford BR,
    2. Faulkner DR,
    3. Rutter EH
    (2008) Strength, porosity, and permeability development during hydrostatic and shear loading of synthetic quartz-clay fault gouge. J Geophys Res Solid Earth 113:B03207.
    .
    OpenUrl
  36. ↵
    1. Weber K,
    2. Mandl G,
    3. Pilaar WF,
    4. Lehner F,
    5. Precious RG
    (1978) The role of faults in hydrocarbon migration and trapping in Nigeria growth fault structures. Offshore Technology Conference 10:2643–2653.
    .
    OpenUrl
  37. ↵
    1. Rinaldi AP,
    2. Jeanne P,
    3. Rutqvist J,
    4. Cappa F,
    5. Guglielmi Y
    (2014) Effects of fault-zone architecture on earthquake magnitude and gas leakage related to CO2 injection in a multi-layered sedimentary system. Greenhouse Gases: Science and Technology 4:99–120.
    .
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  38. ↵
    1. Rinaldi AP,
    2. Rutqvist J,
    3. Cappa F
    (2014) Geomechanical effects on CO2 leakage through fault zones during large-scale underground injection. Int J Greenh Gas Control 20:117–131.
    .
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  39. ↵
    1. Manzocchi T,
    2. Childs C,
    3. Walsh JJ
    (2010) Faults and fault properties in hydrocarbon flow models. Geofluids 10:94–113.
    .
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  40. ↵
    1. Cooper HH,
    2. Jacob CE
    (1946) A generalized graphical method for evaluating formation constants and summarizing well field history. Am Geophys Union Trans 27:526–534.
    .
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  41. ↵
    1. Vilarrasa V,
    2. Bolster D,
    3. Olivella S,
    4. Carrera J
    (2010) Coupled hydromechanical modeling of CO2 sequestration in deep saline aquifers. Int J Greenh Gas Control 4:910–919.
    .
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  42. ↵
    1. Henninges J, et al., CO2SINK Group
    (2011) P-T-ρ and two-phase fluid conditions with inverted density profile in observation wells at the CO2 storage site at Ketsin (Germany). Energy Procedia 4:6085–6090.
    .
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  43. ↵
    1. Okwen RT,
    2. Stewart MT,
    3. Cunningham JA
    (2011) Temporal variations in near-wellbore pressures during CO2 injection in saline aquifers. Int J Greenh Gas Control 5:1140–1148.
    .
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  44. ↵
    1. Zhang Z,
    2. Agarwal RK
    (2012) Numerical simulation and optimization of CO2 sequestration in saline aquifers for vertical and horizontal well injection. Comput Geosci 16:891–899.
    .
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  45. ↵
    1. Martens S, et al., The Ketzin Group
    (2012) Europe’s longest-operating on-shore CO2 storage site at Ketzin, Germany: A progress report after three years of injection. Environmental Earth Sciences 67:323–334.
    .
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  46. ↵
    1. Vilarrasa V,
    2. Carrera J,
    3. Bolster D,
    4. Dentz M
    (2013) Semianalytical solution for CO2 plume shape and pressure evolution during CO2 injection in deep saline formations. Transp Porous Media 97:43–65.
    .
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  47. ↵
    1. Martinez MJ,
    2. Newell P,
    3. Bishop JE,
    4. Turner DZ
    (2013) Coupled multiphase flow and geomechanics model for analysis of joint reactivation during CO2 sequestration operations. Int J Greenh Gas Control 17:148–160.
    .
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  48. ↵
    1. Vilarrasa V
    (2014) Impact of CO2 injection through horizontal and vertical wells on the caprock mechanical stability. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 66:151–159.
    .
    OpenUrl
  49. ↵
    1. Yamamoto S,
    2. Miyoshi S,
    3. Sato S,
    4. Suzuki K
    (2013) Study on geomechanical stability of the aquifer-caprock system during CO2 sequestration by coupled hydromechanical modelling. Energy Procedia 37:3989–3996.
    .
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  50. ↵
    1. Verdon JP,
    2. Kendall J-M,
    3. White DJ,
    4. Angus DA
    (2011) Linking microseismic event observations with geomechanical models to minimise the risks of storing CO2 in geological formations. Earth Planet Sci Lett 305:143–152.
    .
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  51. ↵
    1. Castelletto N,
    2. Gambolati G,
    3. Teatini P
    (2013) Geological CO2 sequestration in multi ‐ compartment reservoirs: Geomechanical challenges. J Geophys Res Solid Earth 118(5):2417–2428.
    .
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  52. ↵
    1. Rutqvist J,
    2. Birkholzer JT,
    3. Cappa F,
    4. Tsang C-F
    (2007) Estimating maximum sustainable injection pressure during geological sequestration of CO2 using coupled fluid flow and geomechanical fault-slip analysis. Energy Convers Manage 48:1798–1807.
    .
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  53. ↵
    1. Birkholzer JT,
    2. Zhou Q
    (2009) Basin-scale hydrogeologic impacts of CO2 storage: Capacity and regulatory implications. Int J Greenh Gas Control 3:745–756.
    .
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  54. ↵
    1. Neuzil CE
    (1986) Groundwater flow in low-permeability environments. Water Resour Res 22(8):1163–1195.
    .
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  55. ↵
    1. Neuzil CE
    (1994) How permeable are clays and shales? Water Resour Res 30(2):145–150.
    .
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  56. ↵
    1. Birkholzer JT,
    2. Zhou Q,
    3. Tsang C-F
    (2009) Large-scale impact of CO2 storage in deep saline aquifers: A sensitivity study on pressure response in stratified systems. Int J Greenh Gas Control 3:181–194.
    .
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  57. ↵
    1. Chang KW,
    2. Hesse MA,
    3. Nicot JP
    (2013) Reduction of lateral pressure propagation due to dissipation into ambient mudrocks during geological carbon dioxide storage. Water Resour Res 49(5):2573–2588.
    .
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  58. ↵
    1. Hantush MS
    (1960) Modification of the theory of leaky aquifers. J Geophys Res 65(11):3713–3725.
    .
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  59. ↵
    1. Mathias SA,
    2. Gluyas JG,
    3. Gonzalez Martinez de Miguel GJ,
    4. Hosseini SA
    (2011) Role of partial miscibility on pressure buildup due to constant rate injection of CO2 into closed and open brine aquifers. Water Resour Res 47:W12525.
    .
    OpenUrl
  60. ↵
    1. Gilfillan SM, et al.
    (2009) Solubility trapping in formation water as dominant CO(2) sink in natural gas fields. Nature 458(7238):614–618.
    .
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  61. ↵
    1. MacMinn CW,
    2. Szulczewski ML,
    3. Juanes R
    (2011) CO2 migration in saline aquifers. Part2. Capillary and solubility trapping. J Fluid Mech 688:321–351.
    .
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  62. ↵
    1. Szulczewski ML,
    2. MacMinn CW,
    3. Herzog HJ,
    4. Juanes R
    (2012) Lifetime of carbon capture and storage as a climate-change mitigation technology. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 109(14):5185–5189.
    .
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  63. ↵
    1. Riaz A,
    2. Hesse MA,
    3. Tchelepi HA,
    4. Orr FM Jr
    (2006) Onset of convection in a gravitationally unstable boundary layer in porous media. J Fluid Mech 548:87–111.
    .
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  64. ↵
    1. Hidalgo JJ,
    2. Carrera J
    (2009) Effect of dispersion on the onset of convection during CO2 sequestration. J Fluid Mech 640:441–452.
    .
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  65. ↵
    1. Neufeld JA, et al.
    (2010) Convective dissolution of carbon dioxide in saline aquifers. Geophys Res Lett 37:L22404.
    .
    OpenUrl
  66. ↵
    1. Pau GSH, et al.
    (2010) High resolution simulation and characterization of density-driven flow in CO2 storage in saline aquifers. Adv Water Resour 33(4):443–455.
    .
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  67. ↵
    1. Elenius MT,
    2. Johannsen K
    (2012) On the time scales of nonlinear instability in miscible displacement porous media flow. Comput Geosci 16:901–911.
    .
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  68. ↵
    1. Elenius MT,
    2. Nordbotten JM,
    3. Kalisch H
    (2012) Effects of a capillary transition zone on the stability of a diffusive boundary layer. IMA J Appl Math 77:771–787.
    .
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  69. ↵
    1. Tsai PA,
    2. Riesing K,
    3. Stone HA
    (2013) Density-driven convection enhanced by an inclined boundary: Implications for geological CO2 storage. Phys Rev E Stat Nonlin Soft Matter Phys 87(1):011003.
    .
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  70. ↵
    1. CO2CRC (Cooperative Research Centre for Greenhouse Gas Technologies)
    (2011) A Review of Existing Best Practice Manuals for Carbon Dioxide Storage and Regulation: A Desktop Study Prepared for the Global CCS Institute, (Cooperative Research Centre for Greenhouse Gas Technologies, Canberra, Australia).
    .
  71. ↵
    1. Juanes R,
    2. Hager BH,
    3. Herzog HJ
    (2012) No geologic evidence that seismicity causes fault leakage that would render large-scale carbon capture and storage unsuccessful. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 109(52):E3623–E3623, author reply E3624.
    .
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  72. ↵
    1. Vilarrasa V,
    2. Carrera J,
    3. Olivella S
    (2013) Hydromechanical characterization of CO2 injection sites. Int J Greenh Gas Control 19:665–677.
    .
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  73. ↵
    1. Hitchon B,
    2. Gunter WD,
    3. Gentzis T,
    4. Bailey RT
    (1999) Sedimentary basins and greenhouse gases: A serendipitous association. Energy Convers Manage 40:825–843.
    .
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  74. ↵
    1. Bachu S
    (2003) Screening and ranking of sedimentary basins for sequestration of CO2 in geological media in response to climate change. Environmental Geology 44:277–289.
    .
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  75. ↵
    1. Stein S,
    2. Wysession M
    (2003) An Introduction to Seismology, Earthquakes, and Earth Structure (Blackwell, Oxford).
    .
  76. ↵
    1. Kanamori H,
    2. Brodsky EE
    (2004) The physics of earthquakes. Rep Prog Phys 67:1429–1496.
    .
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  77. ↵
    1. Scholz CH
    (1968) The frequency-magnitude relation of microfracturing in rock and its relation to earthquakes. Bull Seismol Soc Am 58(1):399–415.
    .
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  78. ↵
    1. Raleigh CB,
    2. Healy JH,
    3. Bredehoeft JD
    (1976) An experiment in earthquake control at rangely, colorado. Science 191(4233):1230–1237.
    .
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  79. ↵
    1. Das S,
    2. Scholz CH
    (1983) Why large earthquakes do not nucleate at shallow depths. Nature 305:621–623.
    .
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  80. ↵
    1. Scholz CH
    (1988) The critical slip distance for seismic faulting. Nature 336:761–763.
    .
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  81. ↵
    1. Mori J,
    2. Abercrombie RE
    (1997) Depth dependence of earthquake frequency ‐ magnitude distributions in California: Implications for rupture initiation. J Geophys Res Solid Earth 102(B7):15081–15090.
    .
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  82. ↵
    1. Majer EL, et al.
    (2007) Induced seismicity associated with enhanced geothermal systems. Geothermics 36(3):185–222.
    .
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  83. ↵
    1. Yang W,
    2. Hauksson E
    (2011) Evidence for vertical partitioning of strike-slip and compressional tectonics from seismicity, focal mechanisms, and stress drops in the east Los Angeles basin area, California. Bull Seismol Soc Am 101(3):964–974.
    .
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  84. ↵
    1. Streit JE,
    2. Hillis RR
    (2004) Estimating fault stability and sustainable fluid pressures for underground storage of CO2 in porous rock. Energy 29:1445–1456.
    .
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  85. ↵
    1. Zoback MD
    (2012) Managing the seismic risk posed by wastewater disposal. Earth Magazine 57(4):38–42.
    .
    OpenUrl
  86. ↵
    1. Cappa F,
    2. Rutqvist J
    (2011) Impact of CO2 geological sequestration on the nucleation of earthquakes. Geophys Res Lett 38:L17313.
    .
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  87. ↵
    1. Mazzoldi A,
    2. Rinaldi AP,
    3. Borgia A,
    4. Rutqvist J
    (2012) Induced seismicity within geologic carbon sequestration projects: Maximum earthquake magnitude and leakage potential. Int J Greenh Gas Control 10:434–442.
    .
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  88. ↵
    1. Noiriel C,
    2. Made B,
    3. Gouze P
    (2007) Impact of coating development on the hydraulic and transport properties of argillaceous limestone fractures. Water Resour Res 43:W09406.
    .
    OpenUrl
  89. ↵
    1. Miocic JM,
    2. Gilfillan S,
    3. McDermott C,
    4. Haszeldine RS
    (2013) Mechanisms for CO2 leakage prevention–A global dataset of natural analogues. Energy Procedia 40:320–328.
    .
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  90. ↵
    1. Paterson L,
    2. Lu M,
    3. Connell LD,
    4. Ennis-King J
    (2008) Numerical modeling of pressure and temperature profiles including phase transitions in carbon dioxide wells. SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, September 21–24, 2008, Paper SPE 115946, (Society of Petroleum Engineers (SPE), Denver).
    .
  91. ↵
    1. Vilarrasa V,
    2. Silva O,
    3. Carrera J,
    4. Olivella S
    (2013) Liquid CO2 injection for geological storage in deep saline aquifers. Int J Greenh Gas Control 14:84–96.
    .
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  92. ↵
    1. de Simone S,
    2. Vilarrasa V,
    3. Carrera J,
    4. Alcolea A,
    5. Meier P
    (2013) Thermal coupling may control mechanical stability of geothermal reservoirs during cold water injection. Phys Chem Earth 64:117–126.
    .
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  93. ↵
    1. Vilarrasa V,
    2. Olivella S,
    3. Carrera J,
    4. Rutqvist J
    (2014) Long term impacts of cold CO2 injection on the caprock integrity. Int J Greenh Gas Control 24:1–13.
    .
    OpenUrlCrossRef
View Abstract
PreviousNext
Back to top
Article Alerts
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on PNAS.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Geologic carbon storage is unlikely to trigger large earthquakes and reactivate faults through which CO2 could leak
(Your Name) has sent you a message from PNAS
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the PNAS web site.
Citation Tools
Geologic carbon storage remains a safe option
Victor Vilarrasa, Jesus Carrera
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences May 2015, 112 (19) 5938-5943; DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1413284112

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Request Permissions
Share
Geologic carbon storage remains a safe option
Victor Vilarrasa, Jesus Carrera
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences May 2015, 112 (19) 5938-5943; DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1413284112
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Mendeley logo Mendeley

More Articles of This Classification

Physical Sciences

  • Structural analysis of transient reaction intermediate in formic acid dehydrogenation catalysis using two-dimensional IR spectroscopy
  • Large changes in biomass burning over the last millennium inferred from paleoatmospheric ethane in polar ice cores
  • Detecting and explaining why aquifers occasionally become degraded near hydraulically fractured shale gas wells
Show more

Environmental Sciences

  • Detecting and explaining why aquifers occasionally become degraded near hydraulically fractured shale gas wells
  • Smoke radiocarbon measurements from Indonesian fires provide evidence for burning of millennia-aged peat
  • Episodic organic carbon fluxes from surface ocean to abyssal depths during long-term monitoring in NE Pacific
Show more

Related Content

  • In This Issue
  • CO2 can be done safely
  • Pressure due to CO2 injection need to be limited
  • Scopus
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited by...

  • Reply to Zoback and Gorelick: Geologic carbon storage remains a safe strategy to significantly reduce CO2 emissions
  • To prevent earthquake triggering, pressure changes due to CO2 injection need to be limited
  • Scopus (65)
  • Google Scholar

Similar Articles

You May Also be Interested in

Cultural and scientific challenges suggest that the notion of restoring significant amounts of carbon to soils is an overly optimistic and inherently flawed proposition. Image courtesy of ScienceSource/Jerry Irwin.
Opinion: Soil carbon sequestration is an elusive climate mitigation tool
Cultural and scientific challenges suggest that the notion of restoring significant amounts of carbon to soils is an overly optimistic and inherently flawed proposition.
Image courtesy of ScienceSource/Jerry Irwin.
Efforts to look for microbial life on other worlds got off to a rocky start in the 1970s. But space agencies now have multiple heavenly bodies in their sights, from Mars to Europa to Enceladus. Image courtesy of NASA/JPL/Space Science Institute.
Inner Workings: Hunting for microbial life throughout the solar system
Efforts to look for microbial life on other worlds got off to a rocky start in the 1970s. But space agencies now have multiple heavenly bodies in their sights, from Mars to Europa to Enceladus.
Image courtesy of NASA/JPL/Space Science Institute.
Chryssa Kouveliotou describes her efforts to compile a detailed X-ray map of the galactic plane.
Mapping the galactic plane in X-rays
Chryssa Kouveliotou describes her efforts to compile a detailed X-ray map of the galactic plane.
Listen
Past PodcastsSubscribe
PNAS Profile
PNAS Profile of NAS member and biochemist Julian I. Schroeder
Wild Cannabis plant, near Bura, Kazakhstan. Image courtesy of David Poché.
Sand flies appear to have affinity for marijuana
Blood-sucking sand flies from disparate global regions have a predilection for feeding on the marijuana plant (Cannabis sativa), and the findings hint at a potential avenue for controlling sand flies, which can transmit leishmaniasis.
Image courtesy of David Poché.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences: 115 (46)
Current Issue

Submit

Sign up for Article Alerts

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • It Is Not True That the Whole Upper Crust Is Critically Stressed
    • Overpressure Evolution
    • CO2 Dissolution
    • Discussion and Conclusions
    • Acknowledgments
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & SI
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Site Logo
Powered by HighWire
  • Submit Manuscript
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • RSS Feeds
  • Email Alerts

Articles

  • Current Issue
  • Latest Articles
  • Archive

PNAS Portals

  • Classics
  • Front Matter
  • Teaching Resources
  • Anthropology
  • Chemistry
  • Physics
  • Sustainability Science

Information

  • Authors
  • Editorial Board
  • Reviewers
  • Press
  • Site Map

Feedback    Privacy/Legal

Copyright © 2018 National Academy of Sciences.