Search

In order to define the offshore solution, the first step was to identify the ports along the Danube which have the necessary infrastructure to facilitate the transport of CO2 by ship to the Black Sea. 17 ports have been identified, from which 11 are only fluvial, 3 are fluvial-maritime, and 3 maritime. The offshore solution considers transporting captured CO2 from the Oltenia region for utilization in the Black Sea. At the current knowledge level, the most favorable region for CO2 geological storage is Histria Depression. This depression comprises five hydrocarbon fields (discovered so far) located on an NW-SE alignment on its northern flank. These fields are: •Lebada Est, discovered in 1980, with oil in Albian and Upper Cretaceous rocks and gases in Eocene deposits; •Lebada Vest, discovered in 1984, with oil in Albian, Upper Cretaceous, and Eocene reservoirs; •Sinoe, discovered in 1988, with oil in Albian reservoirs; •Delta, discovered in 2007, with oil in Albian reservoirs; •Pescarus, discovered in 1999, with oil in Upper Cretaceous (Cenomanian) reservoir. From these fields, only Lebada East and Lebada West can be used for CO2-EOR operations and CO2 storage purposes. These fields already have injection wells that are used for enhanced recovery operations (not involving CO2). The East Lebada deposit was discovered in 1980, following the development and exploitation of the associated oil and gas deposit between July 1984 and January 1991, on three production platforms. Initially, the deposit has produced in May 1987, in its eastern part, in natural mode. Secondary exploitation by water injection began after about 2 months. There are defined 3 deposits, superimposed vertically, cantoned in Albian reservoirs, Upper Cretaceous and Eocene. In the oil field, of the Albian age, East Lebada, two porous-permeable zones were divided, separated by two compact zones. The productive area comprises only the upper porous-permeable range. West Lebada deposit was discovered in 1984 with the 82 Lebada West Probe that produced oil and associated gases from two Albian collectors. The drilling program comprised 9 production wells and 2 injection wells, production starting in April 1993. During the operation, it was found that apart from the two A3 and A4 collectors belonging to Albian, there is another dated collector on top of them. Vraconian, a distinct hydrodynamic unit, characterized as a narrow-band gas field of crude oil. Within the Albian formation, four porous-permeable intervals were separated, characterized by different porosity values. The A3 and A4 layers, the productive ones, are located in the upper part of the Albian and have medium to good porosity and permeability values. The ranges noted A1 and A2 are located in the lower part of the Albian and have very small porosities and permeabilities. The mechanism of the trap is complex with both structural and stratigraphic components. A combination of factors acts in the formation of the A4 layer trap, namely: an erosional truncation to the west, tapering to the north, structural to the east, and facies compaction to the south. On the structure of the Lebada Vest deposit was identified a crude oil field with a primary gas head, enclosed in Eocene detritus rocks. The Eocene reservoir contains two porous-permeable layers E3, E4, with average porosity and good respectively. The closure of the E4 layer trap is made by erosion and erosion truncation in the east and by compaction in the west. The closure of the E3 trap is achieved by erosion and erosion truncation in the East and North and by structural closure and facies change in the West and South. The screen of the two layers E4 and E3 is represented by the Oligocene clays. Within the Black Sea, the major structural unit that accommodates oil reservoirs and potential storage structures and the only structure investigated so far from the CO2 storage perspective are Histria Depression. The oil reservoirs that can be used for injection and utilization of captured CO2 for EOR are Lebada Vest and Lebada Est, Sinoe, Portia, Pescarus, and Delta.

The study of natural laboratories for CO2 geological storage is still important as it can reveal important aspects related to environmental impacts of a potential CO2 leakage from an anthropic reservoir and can contribute to further understanding of CO2 migration pathways. Furthermore, natural laboratories are a good opportunity for testing innovative monitoring methods. Although not specified in any database of natural laboratories for the study of CO2 geological storage, Romania has many areas with natural CO2 emissions that can be used for this purpose. In the framework of a national project (financed by the Ministry of Education and Research), we have started to inventory, evaluate and make a selection of best candidate sites for further study in two zones, Banat (western part of Romania) and Harghita (eastern part of Romania). The two zones have different geological structures, and the origin of CO2 emissions in the two areas is related to the magmatic activity, the magmatism of the Eastern Carpathians in Harghita and the neogene magmatism of the Apuseni Mountains in Banat. The structural model of Banat is closely correlated with the strong tectonization of the sedimentary cover (with a maximum thickness of 5000 m). The overall picture is that of horsts and grabens. The tectonic blocks are separated by active, deep faults, confirmed by the occurrence of thermal and mineral water springs (Biled, Calacea, Timișoara, Buziaș, Pișchia, Lipova, Ivanda) and mofettes (Buziaș, Seceani), with releases of CO2, radon, helium, argon and other gases of crustal origin. Harghita zone is included in the mofettic aureola of the Eastern Carpathians. The deep geological structure of the zone is dominated by three fault systems comprising crustal, regional and local faults. These fault systems facilitate the migration and distribution of post-volcanic emissions, reaching the surface as mofettes or in mineral water springs. Based on review of existing literature and previous studies on greenhouse gases natural emissions, we made a preliminary inventory of relevant sites that can constitute natural laboratories for the study of CO2 geological storage. In order to confirm sites suitability, we conducted two field campaigns, one for each zone, in September and October 2019. Within these campaigns, apart from localization of the sites, we also made soil gas and high precision GPS measurements for the assessment of CO2 emissions. In Harghita zone, we investigated the following sites with natural CO2 emissions: Harghita Bai, Selters, Sântimbru Bai, Baile Apor, Sulphur Cave, Lazarești and Tușnad. Apart from Baile Apor (Balvanyios) and Lazarești, all the other sites presented covered mofettes, built as dry spas. It is worth mentioning that these mofettes constitute important points of touristic attraction within the spas developed over centuries around them and the carbo-gazeous springs. The CO2 concentration in these mofettes, as measured during the field campaign, exceeds 98% CO2. In Baile Apor (Balvanyios) site, the mofettes are not covered and present high CO2 concentrations, but the site is an important touristic attraction of the area and of the country and is highly frequented by tourists, therefore its use as laboratory can be problematic. The only site that we found suited as natural laboratory in Harghita is Lazarești, in the Cozmeni commune. Within this site we have localized several dry and wet mofettes, with CO2 concentrations exceeding 40%. For Banat zone, we investigated only three sites: Buziaș, Sacoșu Mare and Seceani. For Buziaș, the two mofettes are included in the spa facilities of a hotel and used for therapeutic purposes, under strict medical supervision. At Sacoșu Mare, although preliminary indicated as natural CO2 emission site, we were unable to localize any mofette. South of Seceani village (north of Timișoara city) we have identified as potential natural laboratory a partially marshy area with a large areal extent. On this area we have found several mud volcanoes and dry mofettes. The CO2 emissions are low, mainly due to the seasonal character of mud volcanoes activity which, according to previous findings, has its peak in the spring and a low in autumn, when the field measurement campaign took place. The activity of the mud volcanoes and therefore the mofettic emissions are strongly connected to the hydrological regime. In the selected natural laboratories, Lazarești for Harghita zone and Seceani for Banat zone we intend to make in the next two years a complex geological, geochemical, geophysical and environmental study. The objectives are to define the local geophysical model and improve the geological model, identifying all the migration pathways for the mofettic gases, to make an integrated environmental impact assessment and to identify early indicators for the presence of CO2.

Storage pre-feasibility study for the Romanian CCS Demo Project, CCS team has performed static modeling activities for the two sites selected in “Zone 1” and “Zone 5”. These activities were split in two steps for each site: structural modeling and property modeling. The data available at the time of the building of the static models consisted of the following:241 2D seismic lines across the entire Turceni area, 58 wells with some associated logs, of which notably -16 in “Zone 1”, of which 9 are “deep wells” (crossing the entire Sarmatian sequence) and 44 in “Zone 5”, of which 16 are “deep wells”. Some of these wells are shallow wells according with the TD and according with the bottom hole formation (they drilled only the upper part of the Sarmatian). All the others are deep wells, they have drilled almost the entire Sarmatian sequence, some of them found the Tertiary base. In the ‘wells with logs’ groups there are 16 deep wells and 28 shallow wells in Zone 5, 9 deep wells and 7 shallow wells in Zone 1 respectively. Using the logs, geological markers from the wells and all the geological information from the bibliography, technical reports and other sources, the Sarmatian deposits have been divided into several layers (Sa2, Sa3, Sa4, Sa5, Sa5a, Sa6, Sa7, Sa8), each of them characterized by different characteristics as can be seen on the wells correlations. The seismic lines have been acquired and processed according with the different technologies according with the available methods from the time when they have been acquired. In the area there are seismic lines acquired from 1973 till 2005. Some of the old seismic data have been reprocessed later on but due to the quality of the raw data the quality of the processed seismic lines did not improve too much. The Sarmatian deposits are characterized by parallel, horizontal seismic horizons with good continuity and variable amplitude according with lithological and fluid content changes. The faults are developed on different seismic lines but was very difficult to correlate from a line to another and in such a way to define if it is a fault with major importance and extension or is very local ones. Some of faults are developed only in the tertiary sequences that means that these are formed by gravitational processes done by differential compaction of lithological columns with different thickness which in general decrease in net slip in the upper part. Such kind of faults have a local development and because they affected an unconsolidated or poor consolidate geological formations they are close faults and not create an open space and in general these faults are formed above the uplifted blocks or a prominent high of the relief. Most of these wells have lithological marker information (well tops) and resistivity logs (including SP). However these logs have not been made available. One well has a GR log, 2 wells have a sonic log, 2 wells have a neutron log; 7 wells have checkshot information. While the seismic coverage appears sufficient to build a structural model with a reasonable level of detail for this stage, it is evident that the scarcity of petrophysical information is likely to affect the reliability of the property models. The static model from zone 1and zone 5 have been created using: fault modeling, pillar gridding, make horizons, make zones, layering, facies calculation, scale up well logs, facies modeling, properties modeling. The facies modeling, reflects the knowledge of the depositional environment of the site. The “regional” (depositional) facies respects the assumptions of the source rock and sedimentation direction; the methods chosen to model the lithofacies (“newfacies”), conditioned to each of depositional facies types defined above, appear adequate for the environment distribution of petrophysical properties (porosity and permeability) has been modeled separately for each facies type (petrophysical model conditioned to facies model). This is the recommended way to capture the lithological variations previously modeled. The source for these properties is normally the corresponding upscaled well logs. However, this is apparently not the case for the static models reviewed here: only the minimum and maximum values for each facies type were input in the petrophysical modeling process. Using the static model created for the two zones, 1 and 5, two injection areas have been selected for CO2 injection. The selection of these CO2 injection areas took in consideration the lithological content of geological formations from Sarmatian deposits, depth of the reservoirs, the existence of a proper seal rocks above the reservoirs.

Both focus group discussions and information-choice questionnaires (ICQs) have previously been used to examine informed public opinions about carbon dioxide capture and storage (CCS). This paper presents an extensive experimental study to systematically examine and compare the quality of opinions created by these two research techniques. Depending on experimental condition, participants either participated in a focus group meeting or completed an ICQ. In both conditions participants received identical factual information about two specific CCS options. After having processed the information, they indicated their overall opinion about each CCS option. The quality of these opinions was determined by looking at three outcome-oriented indicators of opinion quality: consistency, stability, and confidence. Results for all three indicators showed that ICQs yielded higher-quality opinions than focus groups, but also that focus groups did not perform poor in this regard. Implications for the choice between focus group discussions and ICQs are discussed.

The representative survey studies provide a comprehensive database on the public awareness and perception of CCS in six selected European countries. Our results provide insights into the public understanding and knowledge of energy related issues and CCS topics. The embedded experimental research provides insights into how information affects CCS perceptions. The results discuss implications for CCS communication methods.

In the frame of the EU - based GeoCapacity project11EU/EC Contract # 518318 under the 6th Framework Programme, Assessing European Capacity for Geological Storage of Carbon Dioxide, EU GeoCapacity. Start -up date: 01 January 2006. Coordinator : Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland, Copenhagen, Denmark., the capacity for CO2 geological storage is being estimated for 23 countries of Europe. This project supplements the FP5 GESTCO project covering the whole area of E urope and the countries under study have been classified in three (3) groups for easy of work. The Central - East group of countries comprises Greece (update of GESTCO estimates), Albania, FYROM, Bulgaria, Romania and Hungary. The paper give s an overview o f the work and results of which - since January 2006 - has been focussing on mapping large CO2 point sources, infrastructure and potential for geological storage in this group of European countries.From up today results it is evident that the annual emis sions, the type of sinks, suitable for CO2 storage, and the estimated potential varies largely between the countries of the group.The annual CO2 emissions from large point sources (> 0. 1 Mt) were recorded and in decreasing order are as follows per co untry: Romania 80 Mt, Greece 69 Mt, Bulgaria 52 Mt, Hungary 26 Mt, FYROM 4 Mt, Albania 0,3 Mt. The type of suitable sinks for CO2 storage and the estimated potential varies significantly. The largest potential has been estimated in saline and fresh aquifer s followed by hydrocarbon reservoirs and for some countries in coal seams. The storage capacity has been estimated by using the standard methodology developed for the project. The highest capacity occurs in Hungary in onshore aquifers and hydrocarbon and coal fields where the quality of storage is poor. Bulgaria has a high potential in aquifers, low in hydrocarbon fields and very low in coal seams. The same is true for Greece. Romania has a very high storage potential in aquifers and high in hydrocarbon fi elds (both offshore and onshore). FYROM has a high capacity of CO2 storage in one aquifer which can host the emissions (low in quantity) for many decades (under the present rate). Finally Albania presents a low potential in hydrocarbon fields and aquifers but a big one in the salt domes. Given the very low quantity of Albania’s annual CO2 emissions, this limited potential can accommodate the present emissions for many decades.For each of the six countries of the group, 1 -2 case studie s are under compilation and they will be studied under some scenarios of source - sink matching, using the Decision Support System (D.S.S.) developed for the project.

Directive 2009/31/EC of the European Parliament on the geological storage of carbon dioxide, entered into force on June 25th 2009. By the end 2013 the CCS Directive has been fully transposed into national law to the satisfaction of the EC in 20 out of 28 EU Member States, while six EU countries (Austria, Cyprus, Hungary, Ireland, Sweden and Slovenia) had to complete transposing measures. In July 2014 the European Commission closed infringement procedures against Cyprus, Hungary and Ireland, which have notified the EC that they have taken measures to incorporate the CCS Directive into national law. Among other three countries Sweden has updated its legislation and published a new law in their country in March 2014, permitting CO2 storage offshore. The evaluation of the national laws in Poland, which were accepted at national level in November 2013, and Croatia, which entered the EU on 7 July 2013 and simultaneously transposed the CCS directive, is still ongoing in 2014. The first storage permit under the Directive (for the ROAD Project in the offshore Netherlands) has been approved by the EC. While CO2 storage is permitted in a number of European countries, temporary restrictions were applied in Czech Republic, Denmark and Poland. CO2 storage is prohibited except for research and development in Estonia, Finland, Luxembourg, two regions in Belgium and Slovenia due to their geological conditions, but also forbidden in Austraia, Ireland and Latvia. The size of exploration areas for CO2 storage sites is limited in Bulgaria and Hungary. In Germany, only limited CO2 storage will be permitted until 2018 (up to 4 Mt CO2 annually). Several challenges still remain for the large-scale implementation of CCS projects in Europe. These include high investment costs and lack of public and consequently political support for onshore storage (particularly in Denmark, Germany, and The Netherlands). An European atlas matching all storage sites and capacities is still required. Among six projects supported by European Energy Programme for Recovery only Spanish project Compostilla was active and only UK submitted their application for CCS project to the NER300 second call in 2013 receiving support in 2014. The most active countries in pilot and demonstration projects research and development activities in Europe were Norway and the largest CO2 emitters in EU (Germany, UK, Italy, France, Spain and The Netherlands). The most promising driving force for CCS implementation is to combine it with CO2 use, including EOR-CCS, mineral carbonation options and geothermal-CCS, which will cause more trust among Green NGOs and general public. Research on CCUS has started in many countries, including Geothermal-CCS project in France, Norway and Germany.

Previous research has shown that public knowledge and awareness of carbon dioxide capture and storage (CCS) is very limited. As a result, traditional surveys designed to collect public opinions about CCS do in fact assess so-called pseudo opinions. Pseudo-opinions are of very low quality because they are mostly unstable and inconsistent. Therefore, they are not predictive for actual and future public support for or opposition against CCS. As compared to pseudo opinions, opinions expressed after the public has been provided with factual information about CCS are likely to be of higher quality. Focus group discussions and Information-Choice Questionnaires (ICQs) are two research techniques frequently used in the CCS literature that aim to collect such informed public opinions. In this study, we examined which of these two research technique leads to the highest quality opinions (i.e., to opinions that are consistent, stable, and that people are confident about). Our results showed that ICQs yielded higher-quality opinions than focus group discussions. Practical implications and recommendations are discussed.

The selection of the monitoring methods to be included in the monitoring plan will be madeby analyzing each potential method in relation with the characteristics of the storage area and the degree of applicability in monitoring a CO2 storage site. Will be determine for each monitoring technique the specific parameters for planing the monitoring surveys and the associated costs. A special focus will be put on several specific monitoring techniques and on the way that these can be used for monitoring storage sites similar with the ones from Oltenia region where the Getica Demo Project is located. These techniques are InSar, gravimetry and soil-gas measurements. Although these techniques were applied successfully in a few CO2 storage projects, their feasibility as monitoring methods in the field of CCS was not yet fully demonstrated. The project Geticawill examine the feasibility of these potential monitoring techniques through geophysical,geological and terrain models based on the characteristics of the storage complex and on the predicted CO2 behaviour in the reservoir. The models will rely also on the field data acquired prior to injection. The InSAR phase difference is proportional to the change in range or distance between the antenna (satellite) and the ground surface. This change can be transformed in a precise vertical component and a less precise horizontal one knowing the inclination of the satellite antenna. It returns a map of deformation over a large spatial area with a spatial resolution of the pixels size (which usually converts in about 20 meters for the ESS satellites). A gravity survey is a set of measurements of the gravitational field at a series of different locations over an area of interest. The objective in exploration work is to associate variations with differences in the distribution of densities and hence rock types. Occasionally the whole gravitational field or derivatives of the gravitational field are measured, but usually the difference between the gravity field at two points is measured.