Science of Sequestering Carbon Dioxide in Oceanic CrustLDRD- ID – xxxxxxxxER
Background
From proposal call: Define the context for this proposal by relating it to other work, both at the Laboratory and elsewhere, including any preliminary studies. Set the stage to answer the question: “What is innovative in the proposal and how does it advance the state-of-the-art in the field?” The following information should be provided:
• One to three references to key publications by others that describe the state-of-the-art in the area of science proposed;
• Identification, if possible, of connections of the proposed research to programmatic activities (current and future) at the Lab;
• Identification of other current or recent/past LDRD projects that are related to, or may have led to, the proposal;
• Specific mention of areas where there are gaps in the current state of our knowledge.
In past ER cycles, successful proposals tend to be those that communicate effectively the innovation and excitement of the ideas for the proposed research.
Advice from Julianna: Ideas to present up front, in first paragraph: 1) huge source for potential storage; 2) favorable geology (rock type, brine w/ cations, etc.); and 3) not funded by doe (different from anything in the carbon program, in future could be supported by carbon programs)
Here is a start at following advice from Julianna to tie to grand challenges: This project tackles two Laboratory Grand Challenges: Carbon-Neutral Fuel Cycles and Complex Natural Systems….
Advice from Julianna: identify our niche by 1) identify other work/workers in the area and what they are doing and where they are going wrong or leaving holes to fill (LDEO, continental basalts at pnnl)…define the competition 2) specify our previous work in lab with Tom; and 3) specify our (unfunded) collaboration with LDEO
Here is a start at describing our previous work in lab with Tom: Kaszuba’s GRA, T. Carpenter, has completed preliminaryhydrothermal experiments on seawater-CO2±ocean crustto simulate CO2 injection and determine the extent of brine-rock reaction with CO2. Silicate minerals dissolved, as shown by pitting and etching of the mineral surfaces, and developed talc (Mg3Si4O10(OH)2) overgrowths (Fig 1). Magnesite (MgCO3) and anhydrite(CaSO4) crystallized, and the experiments exhibited a pressure decrease following CO2injection as a result of dissolution and mineralization of CO2. Our results suggest that injection of CO2 into oceanic crust may be a viable means of sequestering anthropogenic carbon but also raise important scientific questions. The most important are the relationship between the chemical activity of Mg and Si and the crystallization of talc (serpentine is the usual product of peridotite alteration). In addition, our experiments are necessarily preliminary because we worked with fresh (unaltered) mineral fragments and powders. Relevant experiments must account for the clays and other alteration products that typically form on rocks and minerals comprising oceanic crust.
Here is a start at identifying other work/workers in the area and what they are doing and where they are going wrong or leaving holes to fill: PNNL is performing laboratory experiments to investigate geochemistry of sequestering co2 in continental basalts of the Pacific Northwest(reference McGrail paper). These experiments are preliminary in that they look at reaction kinetics of fresh (unaltered) mineral powders. LDEO is performing field experiments looking at injection of CO2-saturated groundwater into a subsurface basalt intrusion the Palisades Sill, NY (reference Matter’s G3 paper). LDEO is also beginning to look at field experiments at sea. They have proposed to the IODP to inject CO2 in the Juan de Fuca Ridge (could reference their Carbon Conference abstract). Their initial proposal was rejected because of lack of supporting science, specifically, lack of sophisticated modeling to evaluate reactive transport in the fracture systems of oceanic crust, precisely the kind of modeling we propose to integrate with experiments in this project.
Here is a start at describing my (unfunded) collaboration with LDEO: We have begun collaborative activities with LDEO in several ways. With LDEO’s help we have obtained a sample of basalt that was previously collected from the seafloor of the Caribbean (photo here or on website). We have outlined preliminary experiments to perform on this basalt and are beginning to identify LDEO students to come to LANL to do experimental and/or modeling work. Kaszuba will submit an IGPP proposal with Goldberg as co-investigator, to fund an LDEO student who can begin to address scientific questions identified in the IODP proposal.
Hypotheses, Research Objectives and Goals
From proposal call: Clearly state your hypothesis. Concisely define your research goals and describe how accomplishment of the research goals would help to validate the hypothesis and bridge one or more gaps in the knowledge and understanding of the relevant S&T community.
R&D Approach, Expected Scientific and Technical Results
From proposal call: The detailed science of the proposal should be laid out. Give the rationale for the approach, describe the design of your projects and the methods you will use, and outline the expected results. Be clear about how your project will advance the state-of-the-art. While it is recognized that in the most innovative R&D, it will be hard to predefine concrete milestones, the authors should, nonetheless, describe specific scientific accomplishments they might expect over the duration of the project.
Here is a start on experimental approach: Laboratory experiments will use rocking autoclaves and flexible Au reaction cells (reference)capable of investigating in-situfluid-rock reactions and processes to 600ºC and 1.6 kbar. Unlike standard apparatus such as Parr©-type vessels, flexible cells permit 1) manipulation of pressure and temperature without liquid-vapor phaserestrictions; and 2) in-situ fluid/gas sampling to gauge reaction progress. Our ability to introduce aqueous and CO2 fluids to ongoing experiments (reference Kaszuba expt’l papers) allows us to manipulate laboratory conditions to simulate actual fluid-rock interactions. Two aspects of the LANL laboratory are truly unique. First, we are one of only 12 laboratories in the USthat actively maintains and uses this apparatus. Second, we have a total of 12autoclavesrated toat least 400ºC and 0.6 kbar, well within the range of temperatures and pressures of the problem. To our knowledge, we are the only laboratory in the USwith this capability. All other USlaboratories are limited to two or four autoclaves. Our enhanced capability permits investigation of a large number of synergistic projects. We are able to commit resources to this project and honor other programmatic commitments. Capability also gives a time advantage (516 day exp’t recently quenched). Describe flow thru apparatus.
Key Deliverables
From proposal call: For each of the three years of the project list the key deliverable(s) you expect to accomplish. Clearly state the scientific and technical impact of this project based upon the listed deliverables.
References
1
P Stauffer