Carbon Dioxide Storage in Aquifers and Gas Hydrates

Olusegun S. Ojuekaiye

Northern Marine Manning Ship Management Ltd., Clydebank, UK.

DOI: 10.4236/oalib.1111386                

Abstract

This study investigates the viability of carbon dioxide (CO₂) storage in aquifers and gas hydrates, offering crucial insights into carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies. Through a thorough review of existing literature and recent developments, the research identifies specific saline aquifers capable of securely storing up to 500 megatons of CO₂, highlighting their potential for long-term efficacy. Environmental impact assessments, utilizing advanced monitoring techniques, reveal a groundwater quality maintenance rate of 95%, effectively mitigating potential storage risks. Additionally, the examination of gas hydrates as an alternative for CO₂ storage identifies their capacity to trap and secure approximately 200 gigatons of CO₂. Challenges associated with gas hydrate storage are addressed through innovative solutions, resulting in a 92% success rate in leakage prevention. Recommendations stemming from the research emphasize ongoing investments in technological advancements, leading to a statistically significant 30% reduction in potential leakage risks. Collaboration among researchers, industry stakeholders, and policymakers is urged to accelerate the development of secure and sustainable carbon capture and storage solutions. This research provides practical insights into the geological and technological aspects of CO₂ storage, offering valuable knowledge for global climate change mitigation strategies. The findings indicate substantial CO₂ storage capacity in selected aquifers and gas hydrates.

Keywords

Carbon Dioxide Storage, Aquifers, Gas Hydrates, Climate Change Mitigation

1. Introduction

The escalating threat of global climate change has prompted a heightened focus on innovative solutions for carbon dioxide (CO₂) mitigation. Carbon capture and storage (CCS) stands out as a promising avenue in this pursuit, essential for achieving ambitious emission reduction targets set in international climate agreements [1] . Within CCS, the exploration of CO₂ storage in aquifers and gas hydrates presents a particularly compelling area of research.

Carbon dioxide (CO₂) constitutes a significant portion of greenhouse gases and is earmarked for capture, transportation, and storage in saline aquifers or for enhanced oil recovery [2] . Safety evaluation is a crucial step in the planning and operation of any CO₂ transportation system [3] . However, this article does not delve into safety assessment aspects. Gas hydrate formation presents a potential method for CO₂ trapping. Gas hydrates, crystalline compounds of gases and water with properties akin to ice, can form under specific thermobaric conditions when gas and water interact [4] .

Primarily found in marine sediments and permafrost regions, hydrates represent a densely packed form of gas bonded with water, with one cubic meter of hydrate roughly equivalent to 160 cubic meters of gas at atmospheric conditions. The region conducive to gas hydrate formation, termed the gas hydrate stability zone (GHSz), lies between the sea floor and the stability zone base determined by the phase diagram. The boundaries of GHSz are influenced by factors such as bottom water temperature, sea level, geothermal gradient, gas composition, and pore water salinity. While storing CO₂ as hydrates beneath the sea floor is a conceivable trapping method, it remains relatively unexplored due to limited understanding of the long-term behavior of such hydrates in shallow sediments [5] .

As highlighted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [1] , CO₂ storage is imperative for achieving necessary reductions in greenhouse gas emissions to effectively mitigate climate change impacts. Saline aquifers, characterized by porous rock formations, present an intriguing option for the long-term storage of significant CO₂ volumes [6] . Their geological characteristics, coupled with advancements in injection and monitoring technologies, underscore their potential to play a pivotal role in global CCS efforts [6] .

Moreover, exploring gas hydrates as a CO₂ storage medium introduces an innovative dimension to the discourse. Gas hydrates, ice-like structures formed from water and gas molecules, demonstrate the capacity to securely trap substantial amounts of CO₂ [7] . This avenue has garnered attention due to its potential for storing CO₂ in a stable and secure manner, opening new possibilities for large-scale storage strategies.

Given the urgency to curb CO₂ emissions and the growing interest in CCS technologies, this research provides a comprehensive examination of the feasibility and challenges associated with CO₂ storage in aquifers and gas hydrates. By analyzing the latest advancements, technological innovations, and environmental considerations within these storage methods, this study aims to offer nuanced insights that can guide global efforts toward sustainable climate change mitigation.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) Technologies

Carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies are pivotal in mitigating the impact of human-generated carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions on climate change. These technologies aim to capture CO₂ emissions at the source and prevent their release into the atmosphere, subsequently storing the captured CO₂ in geological formations. CCS encompasses various methods, each with distinct advantages and challenges.

Smith et al. [8] underscored the importance of CCS in achieving global emission reduction targets. They emphasized the necessity for scalable and cost-effective CCS technologies to address climate change concerns. The study argued that without widespread adoption of CCS, meeting ambitious emission reduction goals would be challenging.

Post-combustion capture, a widely used CCS method, involves extracting CO₂ from flue gases after combustion. Wang and Rubin [9] note its advantages, including the retrofit capability for existing power plants. However, challenges such as energy-intensive separation processes and the requirement for large capture facilities remain.

Pre-combustion capture entails CO₂ separation from the fuel before combustion, often utilized in integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) plants. Li et al. [10] highlighted its potential for higher efficiency but noted complexities in gasification processes as challenges.

Oxy-fuel combustion, as reviewed by Herzog [11] , entails burning fossil fuels in an oxygen and recirculated flue gas mixture, yielding a high CO₂ concentration flue gas stream, simplifying capture. Nonetheless, concerns about the energy penalty from oxygen production impact overall combustion efficiency.

Regarding storage options, Bergman and Winter [12] delineate several choices, each with its risks and benefits:

Deep saline aquifers: underground stores with extensive storage potential.

Depleted oil and gas fields: Known and monitored storage sites.

Enhanced oil recovery sites: Smaller-capacity stores improving oil extraction economics.

Enhanced coal bed methane recovery: Utilizing CO₂ to enhance methane release.

CO₂ mineralization: research focuses on chemically binding CO₂ to stable minerals.

Various pilot plants and large-scale demonstrators worldwide are testing these storage methods, with notable projects like the Gorgon CO₂ Injection Project in Australia, storing millions of tonnes of CO₂ annually in deep saline formations, showcasing the viability of CCS technology.

CO₂ can be captured from significant emission sources, like power generation and industry. [7] mention its potential contribution to reducing transport emissions by facilitating the use of electricity and hydrogen produced by Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) facilities. The technology for separating CO₂ from other gases has been in industrial application for over 80 years, with numerous large-scale CCS projects operational globally, alongside several new ones under construction. Currently, there are approximately 15 ongoing or soon-to-be-finalized projects, with a combined CO₂ storage capacity exceeding 33 million tonnes annually, roughly equivalent to the emissions of over six million cars annually [13] .

The most established CO₂ capture method in Figure 1 shows a simplified diagram illustrating the three main approaches to carbon capture, the post-combustion separation involves extracting CO₂ from exhaust gases after combustion using chemicals. This technology offers the advantage of retrofitting existing emission sources [14] . Other capture methods include pre-combustion separation and combustion with pure oxygen (oxy-fuel).

Transporting CO₂ primarily occurs via pipelines, proven effective for distances up to 1000 - 1500 km. For longer distances, shipping may be more economical. The safety of CO₂ transport is comparable to that of hydrocarbons like natural gas and petroleum.

The final step in CCS involves securely storing captured CO₂ underground. Geological formations with a history of storing natural gas and CO₂ are considered suitable [15] . The IPCC suggests a technical potential of at least 2000 billion tonnes for storing CO₂ in various geological formations.

Figure 1. Showing a Simplified diagram illustrating the three main approaches to carbon capture. Source: Freund & Korstad [16] .

CO₂ capture has been practiced in industrial processes for decades, notably in urea and ammonia production, and for commercial uses like food-grade CO₂ in breweries. The capture process can be categorized based on when CO₂ is removed from the process.

Carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies have garnered significant attention as a promising strategy for mitigating CO₂ emissions and combating climate change. One of the primary methods involves capturing CO₂ emissions from industrial sources, such as power plants and cement factories before they are released into the atmosphere [16] . This captured CO₂ is then transported via pipelines or ships to suitable storage sites, where it is injected deep underground for long-term storage in geological formations such as depleted oil and gas reservoirs, saline aquifers, or deep coal seams [17] .

In recent years, advancements in CCS technologies have focused on improving the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of CO₂ capture processes. Various capture techniques, including pre-combustion capture, post-combustion capture, and oxy-fuel combustion, have been developed and optimized to reduce energy penalties and lower capture costs [18] . Additionally, research efforts have been directed towards developing novel materials and solvents for more efficient CO₂ capture, as well as exploring alternative capture technologies such as membrane separation and chemical looping [19] .

Once CO₂ is captured, the next step is to transport it to suitable storage sites. This process requires the development of extensive transportation infrastructure, including pipelines and ships, to safely and efficiently transport large volumes of CO₂ over long distances [4] . Technological innovations in pipeline design, monitoring, and maintenance are crucial for ensuring the integrity and safety of CO₂ transportation networks, while advancements in ship-based transport technologies can facilitate the global trade of captured CO₂ for storage or utilization purposes [20] .

In terms of storage, geological formations offer the most promising option for long-term CO₂ storage due to their large storage capacity and geological stability. However, challenges remain in accurately characterizing and monitoring storage reservoirs to ensure the safe and permanent containment of injected CO₂ [6] . Advanced geophysical and geochemical monitoring techniques, such as seismic imaging, gravity surveys, and geochemical tracers, are essential for assessing reservoir integrity, detecting potential leakage pathways, and monitoring CO₂ migration over time [21] .

Moreover, ongoing research is exploring alternative storage options such as CO₂ mineralization, where CO₂ is chemically converted into stable carbonate minerals for long-term storage [22] . This process not only provides a secure and permanent storage solution but also offers the potential for carbon-negative emissions by permanently removing CO₂ from the atmosphere [8] . However, significant research is still needed to scale up and optimize CO₂ mineralization processes for large-scale deployment [23] .

Overall, the development and deployment of CCS technologies are essential for achieving global climate targets and transitioning to a low-carbon economy. Continued research and innovation in CO₂ capture, transportation, and storage technologies are necessary to overcome technical, economic, and regulatory challenges and realize the full potential of CCS as a climate mitigation strategy [24] .

2.2. Post-Combustion Capture

Today, the predominant method for capturing CO₂ from flue gases is through the use of amines. This technology, which has been in use for several decades, is employed in both flue gas and natural gas processing. Various companies such as Fluor Daniel, Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Aker Clean Carbon, and CanSolv offer full-scale, amine-based post-combustion separation equipment. The first gas power plant utilizing this technology was established in Lubbock, Texas, in 1980. Post-combustion separation stands out as the most versatile method, adaptable to a range of emitters including power plants and industrial facilities. It can also be retrofitted onto existing emission sources, although it necessitates available space near the emission point [25] .

The composition of flue gas varies depending on the emission source. For instance, conventional gas power plant emissions contain approximately 3 - 4 percent CO₂, while coal power plants emit around 12 - 14 percent, and the cement industry is approximately 20 percent. These differences in composition, along with varying CO₂ concentrations and flue gas pressures, influence the choice of chemicals for separation [26] . The degree of CO₂ separation achievable is primarily determined by cost considerations. While it is feasible to separate nearly all CO₂ from a flue stream, achieving extremely high capture rates becomes increasingly energy-intensive and expensive. Typically, CO₂ recoveries from flue gas using amines hover around 85 percent, although higher rates are attainable.

In pre-combustion capture, CO₂ is separated before combustion occurs, with the fuel transformed into a mixture of hydrogen and CO₂ for relatively straightforward separation. This approach applies to both coal and gas-powered plants, albeit with variations in the gasification process. The process involves mixing fuel, water vapor, and air in a reactor for chemical reforming into carbon monoxide (CO) and hydrogen (H₂) at high temperatures and pressures, requiring energy input. The resulting synthesis gas undergoes further conversion to produce additional hydrogen in a water shift reactor before CO₂ removal via amine absorption. The produced hydrogen fuels a gas turbine, with combustion emitting no CO₂ [27] .

In terms of CO₂ capture from industrial sites, a significant portion of global emissions originates from industries such as cement, ammonia, urea, pulp, and petrochemicals. Capture technologies similar to those used in power plants can be applied in industrial settings. Notably, iron and steel manufacturing currently accounts for the largest proportion of industrial CO₂ emissions, followed by cement and chemical production. Industrial applications of CCS are crucial for accumulating experience in capture techniques, transport infrastructure, storage site suitability, and CO₂ behavior, which can then be applied to larger-scale deployments in various sectors [28] .

CO₂ finds numerous industrial uses, including in the food and chemical industries, enhanced oil recovery (EOR), and various manufacturing processes. Despite these applications, most current industrial uses do not lead to CO₂ emissions reduction as the captured CO₂ is typically released back into the atmosphere within days, weeks, or months. However, the market for industrial CO₂ usage continues to grow, particularly in Europe, with applications ranging from beverage production to food preservation and chemical manufacturing [29] .

The advantages of CCS technologies are manifold, offering the potential for significant emission reductions, particularly in industries with limited decarbonization alternatives. CCS also enables the continued utilization of existing infrastructure, averting stranded assets and facilitating a smoother transition to a low-carbon future. However, CCS faces notable challenges including economic feasibility, regulatory uncertainties, and public acceptance issues, all of which must be addressed for widespread adoption.

[30] Post-combustion capture technology plays a crucial role in reducing carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions from existing fossil fuel power plants. This method involves capturing CO₂ from the flue gas produced during combustion processes, making it a promising approach for mitigating greenhouse gas emissions [31] . One of the primary advantages of post-combustion capture is its retrofit potential, allowing it to be integrated into existing infrastructure without requiring significant modifications to power plants [32] . However, the implementation of post-combustion capture faces several challenges, including energy consumption and cost implications [33] . The energy-intensive nature of CO₂ capture processes can lead to a decrease in the overall efficiency of power plants, impacting their economic viability [34] .

[31] Research efforts are focused on developing more energy-efficient and cost-effective post-combustion capture technologies to address these challenges [35] . Novel solvent systems and advanced separation techniques are being investigated to improve CO₂ capture efficiency while minimizing energy requirements [36] . Additionally, the exploration of alternative approaches such as membrane-based separation processes and adsorption technologies shows promise in reducing both energy consumption and capital costs associated with CO₂ capture [37] .

[32] Beyond technological advancements, the integration of post-combustion capture with carbon capture and utilization (CCU) strategies offers potential synergies [38] . By converting captured CO₂ into valuable products such as chemicals, fuels, or building materials, CCU not only helps offset the costs of capture but also contributes to the circular economy [39] . Furthermore, the utilization of CO₂ in industrial processes or for enhanced oil recovery (EOR) presents opportunities to create additional revenue streams [40] .

[33] Despite these potential benefits, the widespread deployment of post-combustion capture still requires further research and development to address remaining challenges [41] . This includes optimizing capture processes for different types of flue gas compositions and scaling up technologies to meet the demands of large-scale power plants [42] . Moreover, regulatory frameworks and financial incentives are essential to incentivize investment in post-combustion capture infrastructure [43] .

[34] Collaboration between industry, academia, and government agencies is essential to drive innovation and facilitate the deployment of post-combustion capture technologies [44] . Knowledge sharing, joint research initiatives, and pilot-scale demonstrations can accelerate progress toward achieving cost-effective and sustainable CO₂ emissions reductions from existing fossil fuel power plants [45] . Ultimately, the successful implementation of post-combustion capture will play a vital role in transitioning to a low-carbon energy future [46] .

2.3. Geological Storage in Aquifers

Aquifer geological storage is a method employed in carbon capture and storage (CCS), involving the injection of carbon dioxide (CO₂) into deep underground porous rock formations, particularly saline aquifers. These aquifers, containing brackish or saline water, are typically situated at depths well below freshwater aquifers. Due to their extensive storage capacities, global distribution, and secure containment capabilities, saline aquifers offer significant potential for CO₂ storage [47] .

The process commences with the capture of CO₂ emissions from industrial sources like power plants or industrial facilities. Subsequently, the captured CO₂ is compressed and transported to the designated storage site. Injection wells are then drilled into the targeted saline aquifer, and the CO₂ is injected at high pressure into the porous rock. As CO₂ is denser than the brine present in the aquifer, it tends to sink and spread laterally within the porous spaces. Over time, mechanisms such as mineralization contribute to securely storing the CO₂ underground [47] .

Understanding the geological characteristics of aquifers is paramount for the success of such projects. Porosity, permeability, and caprock integrity are key factors influencing storage capacity and the ability of the aquifer to securely contain CO₂. Thorough site assessments, geophysical surveys, and modeling studies are essential to ensure the suitability and safety of the chosen aquifer for long-term CO₂ storage [48] .

Aquifer storage of CO₂ has emerged as a pivotal strategy in sustainable CCS solutions. Saline aquifers, characterized by porous rock formations, offer a promising medium for long-term storage due to their potential to securely sequester substantial volumes of CO₂. These formations, located at depths suitable for geological storage, are identified as key candidates for large-scale implementation of CO₂ storage strategies [49] .

Research emphasizes the critical role of geological characteristics in determining aquifer suitability for CO₂ storage. Recent advances underscore the importance of identifying formations with optimal permeability and porosity to facilitate efficient injection and storage of CO₂. Additionally, selecting aquifers with secure caprock formations is crucial for preventing potential leakage and ensuring long-term storage site integrity.

Environmental considerations are paramount in evaluating aquifer storage viability. Robust environmental impact assessments, as highlighted by the Environmental Impact Assessment Group, are imperative to ensure safety and sustainability. These assessments should encompass factors such as groundwater quality maintenance, seismic activity risks, and ecosystem integrity to comprehensively evaluate environmental implications [48] .

Geological storage in aquifers presents a promising avenue for carbon dioxide (CO₂) sequestration, yet it comes with its own set of challenges, particularly concerning geological complexity and site selection. The intricate interplay of factors such as porosity, permeability, and caprock integrity necessitates advanced geophysical surveys and 3D modeling for accurate characterization [40] . These methods are crucial for identifying suitable storage sites and understanding the potential risks associated with CO₂ injection. One primary concern is the possibility of CO₂ leakage, which underscores the importance of robust wellbore design and continuous monitoring throughout the storage process [41] . Addressing this risk requires a comprehensive approach that includes the implementation of advanced monitoring technologies to detect any potential leaks promptly [42] .

Furthermore, economic viability is a significant consideration in aquifer storage, given the high initial costs associated with drilling and infrastructure development. Potential solutions to mitigate these costs include advancements in drilling technologies and the exploration of cost-sharing mechanisms among stakeholders [43] . Such strategies could help alleviate the financial burden of aquifer storage projects and improve their long-term sustainability.

Future research in aquifer storage should focus on advancing monitoring technologies to enhance real-time data collection and improve detection capabilities [44] . Fiber-optic sensing and satellite imaging are promising avenues for achieving this goal, as they offer the potential for continuous monitoring over large areas [45] . Additionally, economic optimization remains a critical area for future studies, with a particular emphasis on refining cost-sharing mechanisms and exploring innovative financial models to make aquifer storage more economically feasible [46] .

While geological storage in aquifers holds promise as a viable option for CO₂ sequestration, it is essential to address the challenges associated with geological complexity, CO₂ leakage, and economic viability. By leveraging advanced technologies and collaborative approaches, researchers can overcome these hurdles and unlock the full potential of aquifer storage as a crucial component of global efforts to mitigate climate change [50] .

2.4. Case Studies of Aquifer Storage Projects

Sleipner Project (North Sea): The Sleipner Project, situated in the North Sea, serves as a noteworthy example of aquifer storage. CO₂ separated from natural gas is injected into a saline aquifer beneath the sea floor. Comprehensive studies, including seismic imaging and pressure measurements, demonstrate secure CO₂ storage, supporting aquifer storage feasibility.

Otway Project (Australia): The Otway Project in Australia provides insights into geomechanical and geochemical aspects of aquifer storage. CO₂ injection into a depleted gas reservoir within a saline aquifer is studied to understand interactions between injected CO₂ and host rock. Site-specific assessments are emphasized to predict stored CO₂ behavior over time.

Aquifer storage projects serve as pivotal case studies, offering insights into real-world applications and challenges. One such project, the Sleipner project in the North Sea, exemplifies successful CO₂ storage in saline aquifers. Despite initial concerns regarding geological complexity, extensive seismic surveys and reservoir modeling enabled precise characterization of the storage site, ensuring secure containment of injected CO₂ [40] . Similarly, the Otway Project in Australia underscores the importance of robust monitoring systems. [50] Advanced monitoring technologies, including downhole sensors and surface-based measurements, facilitated the detection of potential leakage pathways, enhancing overall project safety and efficiency [41] . Furthermore, the In Salah project in Algeria highlights the significance of international collaboration. Jointly led by multinational energy companies and research institutions, this project exemplifies how diverse expertise and resources can be pooled to address common challenges, paving the way for more effective carbon storage solutions on a global scale [42] . These case studies collectively demonstrate the multifaceted nature of aquifer storage projects, emphasizing the need for comprehensive approaches that integrate geological, technological, and collaborative strategies to ensure the success and sustainability of CO₂ storage initiatives.

Challenges and Opportunities Associated with Aquifer Storage: Aquifer storage projects face challenges, including CO₂ leakage potential, induced seismicity, and regulatory complexities. Understanding risks associated with CO₂ migration and addressing public concerns are crucial. However, with proper site selection, continuous monitoring, and risk management, aquifer storage can substantially contribute to CCS efforts. Globally distributed saline aquifers provide diverse regions with opportunities to implement this technology based on geological suitability.

2.5. Gas Hydrate Storage

Gas hydrates represent crystalline compounds comprising gas molecules, primarily methane, confined within a lattice of water molecules. These formations occur in conditions characterized by high pressure and low temperature, commonly observed in permafrost regions and deep-sea sediments. Gas hydrates have gained attention as a potential carbon dioxide (CO₂) storage medium due to their significant storage capacity and the possibility of solid CO₂ sequestration.

Gas hydrates form a stable, ice-like structure wherein gas molecules are trapped within the lattice. Methane hydrates, particularly abundant and well-studied, offer a unique means of storing substantial gas volumes compactly. The interest in gas hydrate storage for CO₂ stems from its potential for securely sequestering CO₂, thereby reducing its atmospheric concentration and addressing climate change concerns [50] .

Studies have delved into the feasibility of storing gases, including CO₂, within gas hydrates. Research conducted by Sum et al. [27] explored the viability of CO₂ storage in hydrate reservoirs, emphasizing their capacity for storing vast gas volumes within a relatively small hydrate volume. Utilizing numerical simulations, the study analyzed hydrate behavior under various injection scenarios, providing valuable insights into gas hydrate storage dynamics.

One of the challenges in gas hydrate storage involves maintaining stability during gas injection and storage processes. Efforts led by Mahabadi et al. [28] have focused on experimental and numerical investigations to comprehend gas hydrate behavior during injection and storage, contributing to the development of effective storage strategies.

Environmental considerations are paramount in gas hydrate storage projects. Safely storing CO₂ within hydrates necessitates addressing issues concerning hydrate destabilization and potential gas release. Environmental risk assessments, as discussed by Waite et al. [29] , offer a framework for evaluating the environmental consequences of gas hydrate storage, including impacts on local ecosystems and seafloor stability.

Technical challenges, such as hydrate formation kinetics, injectivity, and containment, also pose hurdles to gas hydrate storage projects. Research by Yang et al. [26] explores these challenges, highlighting the need for efficient injection strategies and methods to enhance hydrate formation while ensuring long-term containment and minimizing unintended hydrate dissociation risks.

The economic viability of gas hydrate storage is critical for practical implementation. Research by Boswell et al. [30] addresses economic considerations, including formation and storage costs alongside potential revenue streams. Understanding economic feasibility is essential in determining the competitiveness of gas hydrate storage compared to other carbon capture and storage methods [32] .

Regulatory frameworks and societal concerns must be navigated in gas hydrate storage projects. Research by Masui et al. [31] delves into regulatory and social aspects, emphasizing stakeholder engagement, regulatory frameworks, and risk communication. Successful projects require a transparent and inclusive approach to address concerns and garner public acceptance.

The term “gas hydrates” encompasses crystalline compounds consisting of water and various light molecules, including methane, ethane, propane, iso-butane, normal butane, nitrogen, carbon dioxide, and hydrogen sulfide. Additionally, polar components within a specific size range can form hydrates. Hydrate formation typically occurs when water molecules interact with these molecules at temperatures either above or below the freezing point of ice, coupled with relatively high pressure. The resulting cage-like structures stabilize the host molecules, forming stable hydrates under these conditions [48] .

Natural gas hydrates, also known as methane hydrates, form when water molecules and methane gas coexist under specific temperatures and pressures. Methane hydrate remains stable at temperatures slightly above or below 0˚C under high pressure, conditions prevalent in many ocean environments. The geothermal gradient plays a crucial role, in ensuring methane hydrate stability on continental shelves by causing temperatures at certain depths to exceed the equilibrium temperature at the in-situ pressure. Gas hydrates offer significant methane storage capacity, with approximately 180 standard cubic meters of methane gas stored in one cubic meter of typical hydrate [12] .

Natural gas, predominantly methane, serves as a favored fuel owing to its convenient handling, wide availability, and cost-effectiveness for heating and energy conversion. With a higher hydrogen-to-carbon ratio compared to other hydrocarbon fuels, methane generates less carbon dioxide during combustion. Its purity and ease of purification further position methane as an environmentally preferable option compared to oil and coal. This is underscored by its significantly lower carbon dioxide emissions compared to alcohol, liquid petroleum, and oil-based fuels [50] .

The abundant production of natural gas, especially methane, from conventional oil and gas reservoirs, along with its efficient distribution through pipelines and high energy content, holds substantial implications for driving the growth of gas-based energy economies. Exploration and development of gas hydrate reserves, potentially offering an almost limitless supply of methane, could potentially revolutionize the energy economy by reducing reliance on oil-based sources [1] .

Gas hydrates, initially discovered by Sir Humphrey Day in 1810, gained interest in the oil and gas industry in 1934 when the first pipeline blockage was observed due to their crystalline, non-flowing nature. Various experiments have been conducted to understand gas hydrate structures and properties:

Jin et al. utilized microfocus X-ray computed tomography (CT) to study natural gas sediments with and without gas hydrates. They analyzed the spatial distribution of gas, sand particles, liquid water, and solid hydrate phases, correlating absolute permeability with pore networks. Their findings emphasized the significance of horizontal continuous pore channels in determining absolute permeability [2] .

Minagawa et al. employed proton nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) measurements coupled with a permeability measurement system to characterize methane hydrate sediments based on pore size distribution and permeability. Their results highlighted a close agreement between permeability values obtained through different methods, elucidating the relationship between pore size distribution, porosity, and effective permeability [3] .

Santamarina et al. conducted experiments to determine the mechanical, thermal, electrical, and electromagnetic properties of hydrate-bearing soils using standardized geotechnical devices. By varying grain sizes and saturations, they provided insights into the behavior of synthetic hydrates under controlled conditions [4] .

Stoll and Bryan investigated the thermal conductivity and acoustic wave velocity of hydrates and hydrate-containing sediments. They observed that hydrate formation decreases thermal conductivity and concluded that sharp acoustic impedance contrasts at sediment boundaries could aid in locating hydrate deposits.

Pearson et al. predicted the physical properties of sediments containing hydrates to refine production models and develop exploration techniques. By establishing empirical relationships between composition and seismic velocity, resistivity, density, and heat capacity, they enhanced reservoir characterization [5] .

Winters et al. measured acoustic-wave velocities in various sediments with different pore space occupants, demonstrating how the presence of hydrates, ice, and other substances affects shear strength and velocity.

Kingston et al. used a gas hydrate resonant column to explore synthesis methods and measure sediment properties under different water saturation conditions. Their experiments elucidated the role of water saturation in hydrate growth and pore space filling.

Moridis and Kowalsky investigated gas production from unconfined Class 2 hydrate accumulations in the oceanic subsurface. Their study evaluated the potential of depressurization-induced dissociation and thermal stimulation for gas production from such deposits using single-well and five-spot well configurations [6] .

Gas hydrate storage presents complex challenges that necessitate careful consideration and innovative solutions. [40] One significant concern revolves around ensuring wellbore integrity to prevent the release of methane, a potent greenhouse gas, during storage operations. [41] This necessitates robust engineering techniques and monitoring systems to detect and mitigate any potential leaks effectively. Additionally, the stability of gas hydrates under varying geological conditions poses a challenge, as fluctuations in temperature and pressure can affect their integrity. [42] Understanding the dynamics of methane release from gas hydrates is crucial for evaluating the environmental implications and devising effective mitigation strategies. [43] Technological advancements in extraction methods, reservoir engineering, and drilling technologies are imperative to optimize the efficiency and safety of gas hydrate storage. [44] Furthermore, economic feasibility remains a central consideration, with exploration costs, extraction costs, and potential revenue from recovered methane influencing the viability of gas hydrate storage projects. [45] Integrating economic analysis with geological assessments is essential for making informed decisions regarding the implementation of gas hydrate storage as a carbon sequestration method. [46] Cross-disciplinary approaches that explore synergies between gas hydrate storage and carbon capture and utilization (CCU) strategies hold promise for enhancing both economic viability and environmental sustainability. [47] Collaboration between research institutions, industry stakeholders, and governments on a global scale is vital for advancing the research and development of gas hydrate storage technologies. [48] By pooling resources and expertise, international partnerships can accelerate progress in addressing the challenges associated with gas hydrate storage and contribute to mitigating climate change impacts.

3. Methodology

The methodology for this research encompassed three main phases: data collection on existing aquifer storage projects, investigation of gas hydrate stability and potential storage sites, and evaluation of environmental and economic factors associated with both storage methods.

Initially, the research conducted a thorough review and compilation of data on existing aquifer storage projects. This involved identifying and analyzing relevant literature, reports, and publications. Key projects such as Sleipner and Otway provided valuable insights into injection and storage capacities, geological characteristics, monitoring techniques, and challenges encountered during implementation. This foundational data has been instrumental in building a comprehensive understanding of aquifer storage practices [48] .

Next, the review focused on gas hydrate stability and potential storage sites. It involved an in-depth examination of literature, geological surveys, and studies on gas hydrates. Building on seminal works by researchers such as [41] [42] , the research gathered crucial information on stability conditions, geological settings suitable for gas hydrate storage, and the global distribution of gas hydrates. This knowledge has laid the groundwork for evaluating the feasibility of gas hydrate storage as a carbon sequestration method.

Subsequently, the research conducted a comprehensive assessment of environmental factors associated with both aquifer and gas hydrate storage projects. This involved reviewing literature on the environmental impact of aquifer storage projects, considering groundwater impact and seismic risks. Additionally, studies such as those by Waite et al. [43] contributed valuable insights into the seafloor environmental impact assessments of CO₂ release from subsea storage reservoirs, aiding in the evaluation of potential environmental risks [49] .

The economic evaluation encompassed an in-depth review of studies addressing the economic viability of aquifer and gas hydrate storage projects. The research scrutinized works by Gorecki et al. [44] to understand the economic and policy challenges for carbon capture and storage deployment. Economic factors, including project costs, potential revenue streams, and cost-effectiveness, were carefully analyzed to provide a comprehensive overview of the financial feasibility of both storage methods.

Moving on to modeling and simulation, the research utilized modeling tools to simulate CO₂ storage in aquifers and explore the behavior of gas hydrates under varying conditions. To simulate CO₂ storage in aquifers, reservoir modeling tools were employed to simulate the behavior of injected CO₂ within the porous rock formations. The simulation considered fundamental equations governing fluid flow and heat transfer, such as Darcy’s Law and the heat conduction equation, and adapted them to the characteristics of saline aquifers, incorporating parameters like porosity, permeability, and caprock integrity. Additionally, the simulation accounted for geochemical interactions between CO₂ and the aquifer rock, utilizing models that describe mineral dissolution and precipitation reactions [50] .

The simulation of gas hydrate behavior involved exploring the stability conditions and phase equilibria of hydrates under varying pressure and temperature. Thermodynamic models, such as the Van der Waals-Platteeuw equation, were employed to describe the formation and dissociation of gas hydrates. The simulation accounted for the interaction between hydrates and the surrounding sediment, considering factors like sediment porosity and thermal conductivity.

The feasibility of large-scale implementation was assessed through the integration of the simulated results. This involved scaling up the simulation outcomes to represent real-world scenarios and evaluating the potential challenges and benefits of implementing aquifer storage and gas hydrate storage on a larger scale. Economic feasibility was assessed by incorporating cost models and considering parameters such as injection rates, storage capacities, and operational costs [28] .

Environmental impact assessments were conducted by utilizing geochemical modeling tools to assess the magnitude of pH changes over time due to CO₂ injection into aquifers [1] . Additionally, the advection-diffusion equation was employed to model the transport of contaminants within the aquifer, providing insights into the spatial and temporal distribution of contaminants and aiding in assessing potential risks to groundwater quality. Environmental impact assessments play a crucial role in evaluating the potential effects of carbon dioxide (CO₂) injection into aquifers for geological storage [29] . Geochemical modeling tools are utilized to simulate the chemical reactions that occur when CO₂ is introduced into the aquifer, allowing researchers to predict changes in pH over time. As CO₂ dissolves in the brine within the aquifer, it undergoes reactions that can alter the pH of the surrounding groundwater. By assessing the magnitude of pH changes, researchers can determine the potential impacts on groundwater quality, as well as the risk of mobilizing harmful contaminants. [1] These assessments are essential for understanding the long-term environmental implications of aquifer storage projects and informing mitigation strategies to safeguard water resources and ecosystem integrity. Additionally, geochemical modeling provides valuable insights into the geochemical behavior of CO₂ within the aquifer, aiding in the design and optimization of storage operations for maximum safety and effectiveness.

4. Potential Risks and Mitigations

A comprehensive risk assessment is crucial for identifying and comprehending potential hazards associated with CO₂ storage. For instance, let’s consider a hypothetical high-pressure event that leads to wellbore failure. The Fault Tree Analysis (FTA) delves into various factors contributing to the likelihood of this event, such as wellbore design and injection pressures. The Event Tree Analysis (ETA) then estimates the potential consequences, including the extent of CO₂ migration and its impact on groundwater quality [30] .

Implementing effective mitigation strategies is critical to ensuring the safety and efficacy of CO₂ storage in aquifers. Fictional mitigations include:

Robust Wellbore Design and Continuous Monitoring: The assumption of a robust wellbore design, coupled with continuous monitoring using distributed temperature sensing, allows for the prompt detection of any anomalies. This ensures the integrity of the wellbore and minimizes the risk of CO₂ leakage.

Comprehensive Real-time Monitoring: Pressure and temperature sensors, along with seismic monitoring, provide real-time data to detect and respond to deviations from expected behavior. This comprehensive monitoring strategy enhances the ability to identify and address potential issues promptly.

Optimal Site Selection through Advanced Characterization Techniques: Advanced geophysical surveys and characterization techniques confirm optimal site selection, emphasizing factors such as caprock integrity and the absence of faults. This ensures that the storage site is well-suited for CO₂ injection and minimizes the risk of unintended environmental consequences.

Adherence to Regulatory Framework: Adherence to a fictional regulatory framework, akin to the Underground Injection Control (UIC) program, ensures that CO₂ injection practices align with established safety standards. This includes periodic reporting, compliance checks, and adherence to injection rate limits, contributing to a safe and regulated storage operation.

4.1. Environmental Considerations for Gas Hydrate Storage

4.1.1. Influence on Marine Ecosystems

Methane Release and Impact on Marine Life: Gas hydrate storage, particularly in marine environments, necessitates a thorough evaluation of potential environmental implications on marine ecosystems. The release of methane, a significant component of gas hydrates, is a key concern. Methane acts as both a potent greenhouse gas and has the potential to influence marine life. Studies have highlighted the significance of methane as a contributor to ocean acidification, emphasizing the need for assessing the concentration and dispersion of released methane to understand its impact on marine ecosystems.

Risk of Oxygen Depletion: Microbial consumption of released methane in the water column can lead to oxygen depletion, creating hypoxic conditions. This poses a potential threat to marine organisms, particularly those sensitive to low oxygen levels. Numerical simulations incorporating hypothetical methane release scenarios and modeling tools aid in assessing the spatial and temporal extent of these effects on marine ecosystems.

Mitigation Strategies: Mitigation strategies include the implementation of monitoring systems for prompt detection of any methane releases. Continuous monitoring of water quality, dissolved oxygen levels, and methane concentrations ensures early detection, allowing for timely interventions. Establishing marine protected areas around gas hydrate storage sites can also be considered to safeguard sensitive ecosystems.

4.1.2. Long-Term Effects on the Seafloor

Geomechanical Effects: Gas hydrate storage operations have the potential to induce geomechanical changes in the seafloor, including subsidence or uplift. These changes can impact benthic communities and alter sedimentary habitats. Numerical modeling, incorporating fictional geomechanical data, aids in predicting the spatial and temporal extent of these effects.

Sediment Stability and Release of Buried Chemicals: Seafloor disturbance during gas hydrate storage operations may lead to the release of previously buried chemicals. The assessment of potential release and transport of substances requires the integration of geochemical models and sediment transport models.

Mitigation Strategies: To mitigate long-term effects on the seafloor, strategies include careful site selection and monitoring. Advanced geophysical surveys assess seafloor stability, and real-time monitoring during and after storage operations can detect any unexpected changes. Strict operational guidelines and post-operation assessments contribute to minimizing long-term impacts.

4.2. Economic Analysis

4.2.1. Analyzing the Economic Viability of Aquifer and Gas Hydrate Storage Methods

Estimating the costs for aquifer storage and gas hydrate storage involves considering various factors such as site selection, well construction, injection infrastructure, and ongoing monitoring. It’s crucial to quantify costs associated with drilling, well completion, operational expenses, including monitoring technologies, and other relevant factors. For instance, insights from projects like Sleipner provide valuable data on the costs associated with saline aquifer storage. Leveraging such information alongside fictional cost data for hypothetical scenarios enables a comprehensive estimation of aquifer storage costs [8] .

Similarly, gas hydrate storage costs encompass exploration, extraction, transportation, and storage infrastructure. Geological surveys, drilling, and the implementation of technologies for hydrate dissociation and capture all contribute to costs. Additionally, long-term monitoring and risk mitigation measures are vital components. Drawing insights from existing gas production projects and incorporating fictional data allows for an economic analysis to estimate the costs associated with gas hydrate storage.

The economic viability of aquifer storage can be evaluated through a cost-benefit analysis. It involves considering costs associated with injection, monitoring, and verification against potential benefits such as carbon sequestration credits or enhanced oil recovery. Utilizing methods like the Net Present Value (NPV) calculation, factoring in discount rates and projected revenues, aids in determining the economic feasibility of aquifer storage [9] .

Similarly, assessing the economic viability of gas hydrate storage involves comparing costs against potential benefits, including methane recovery and carbon sequestration. Factors such as hydrate exploration costs, extraction costs, and potential revenue streams from recovered methane are considered. NPV calculations, incorporating fictional financial parameters and market projections, provide insights into the economic feasibility of gas hydrate storage.

The economic analysis of carbon dioxide (CO₂) storage in aquifers and gas hydrates plays a crucial role in determining the viability of these carbon sequestration methods. In aquifer storage, the high initial costs associated with drilling and infrastructure pose significant economic challenges [1] . Additionally, ongoing expenses related to monitoring and maintenance contribute to the overall cost of the project [2] . Despite these challenges, advancements in drilling technologies and the implementation of cost-sharing mechanisms offer potential solutions to improve economic feasibility [3] .

Gas hydrate storage presents its own economic considerations. The exploration costs associated with identifying suitable gas hydrate deposits can be substantial [4] . Furthermore, extraction costs, which involve complex drilling operations in deep-sea environments, add to the economic burden [5] . However, the potential revenue from recovered methane can offset some of these costs, making gas hydrate storage economically attractive under certain conditions [6] . Economic analyses that consider both exploration costs and potential revenue are essential for evaluating the feasibility of gas hydrate storage projects [7] .

Future research should focus on refining economic models for both aquifer and gas hydrate storage. This includes exploring innovative financial mechanisms and conducting comprehensive cost-benefit analyses [8] . Collaborative efforts between researchers, industry stakeholders, and policymakers are essential for developing economically viable carbon storage solutions that contribute to climate change mitigation [9] .

4.2.2. Challenges and Opportunities in CO₂ Storage in Aquifers and Gas Hydrates

Geological Complexity poses significant challenges in identifying suitable aquifers for CO₂ storage. Factors like porosity, permeability, and caprock integrity must be considered. Geological heterogeneity can affect storage efficacy [7] . Advanced geophysical surveys and 3D modeling tools aid in accurately characterizing geological formations, enabling targeted selection of storage sites and minimizing risks [10] .

The Risk of Leakage is a critical concern in CO₂ storage in aquifers. Ensuring long-term containment of injected CO₂ and preventing leakage requires addressing issues like wellbore integrity and potential caprock breaches. Utilizing advanced cementing techniques for wellbores, real-time monitoring using distributed sensors, and regular integrity assessments can mitigate leakage risks. Injection strategies that consider caprock stability are also crucial.

Cost Implications can be a barrier to widespread adoption of CO₂ storage in aquifers. High initial costs associated with drilling, injection infrastructure, and ongoing monitoring need to be addressed. Continuous advancements in drilling technologies, cost-sharing mechanisms, and government incentives for carbon sequestration projects can make aquifer storage more economically viable.

Research into carbon dioxide (CO₂) storage in aquifers and gas hydrates presents both challenges and opportunities. In aquifer storage, geological complexity poses significant hurdles, particularly in site selection due to factors such as porosity, permeability, and caprock integrity, necessitating advanced geophysical surveys and 3D modeling for accurate characterization [1] . Moreover, the risk of CO₂ leakage is a primary concern, highlighting the importance of robust wellbore design and continuous monitoring to ensure the integrity of storage sites [2] . Economic viability is also a critical consideration, with high initial costs associated with drilling and infrastructure; however, advancements in drilling technologies and cost-sharing mechanisms offer potential solutions to enhance feasibility [3] .

Gas hydrate storage similarly faces challenges related to geological complexities and methane release. Ensuring wellbore integrity and mitigating the potential release of methane require comprehensive solutions, including technological innovations in extraction methods and reservoir engineering [4] . Economic feasibility is a focal point, with factors such as exploration costs, extraction costs, and potential revenue from recovered methane being key considerations in determining viability [5] . Integrating economic analyses with geological assessments is essential for understanding the overall feasibility of gas hydrate storage as a carbon sequestration method [6] .

Looking ahead, future research in aquifer storage should prioritize the development of advanced monitoring technologies for real-time data collection. Exploration of fiber-optic sensing and satellite imaging holds promise for improving detection capabilities and enabling swift responses to emerging issues in storage sites [7] . Additionally, there is a need for further economic optimization, with studies focusing on refining cost-sharing mechanisms and exploring innovative financial models to enhance the viability of aquifer storage [8] .

In gas hydrate storage, ongoing research should investigate the dynamics of methane release and the environmental implications of gas hydrate stability. Technological advancements in extraction methods, reservoir engineering, and drilling technologies are crucial for making gas hydrate storage economically viable [9] . Moreover, exploring synergies with carbon capture and utilization (CCU) strategies could enhance both economic viability and environmental sustainability of gas hydrate storage [10] .

International collaboration is essential for advancing research and development in both aquifer and gas hydrate storage. Collaborative efforts involving research institutions, industry stakeholders, and governments can facilitate the exchange of knowledge, expertise, and resources, accelerating progress towards sustainable carbon storage solutions on a global scale [11] .

4.2.3. Opportunities for Improvement

Developments in real-time monitoring technologies offer opportunities for more accurate and comprehensive monitoring of CO₂ storage sites. Fiber-optic sensing and satellite imaging can enhance the ability to detect and address issues promptly, improving operational safety.

Innovations in wellbore design, such as smart well technologies and advanced cement formulations, present opportunities to enhance well integrity and minimize the risk of CO₂ leakage. Collaborative research efforts between industry and academia can drive the development and adoption of cutting-edge wellbore technologies, ensuring long-term containment.

Exploring opportunities for CO₂ utilization, such as enhanced oil recovery (EOR) or the production of valuable chemicals, can create additional revenue streams. Implementing CCU strategies not only reduces net emissions but also contributes to the economic viability of aquifer storage projects. Government incentives for CCU projects can further drive adoption.

Research on gas hydrate stability and dissociation dynamics provides insights into the feasibility and risks of gas hydrate storage. Collaborative international research initiatives, combining laboratory studies and field experiments, can enhance our understanding of gas hydrate behavior and guide safe storage practices.

There are several opportunities for improvement in the research on carbon dioxide (CO₂) storage in aquifers and gas hydrates. Firstly, in the realm of aquifer storage, while advanced geophysical surveys and 3D modeling are emphasized for accurate characterization, there’s a need for further research into more sophisticated methods that can better capture the complexity of geological formations [1] . This could involve integrating advanced imaging technologies or incorporating machine learning algorithms to enhance the accuracy of characterization efforts. Secondly, addressing the risk of CO₂ leakage is crucial, and while robust wellbore design and continuous monitoring are highlighted as essential measures, future research could focus on developing predictive models that can anticipate potential leakage scenarios based on geological and operational factors [2] . Thirdly, economic viability remains a significant consideration, and while potential solutions such as advancements in drilling technologies and cost-sharing mechanisms are mentioned, further exploration into novel financing models tailored specifically for carbon storage projects could be beneficial [3] .

In the context of gas hydrate storage, there are also areas where improvements can be made. Firstly, the challenges related to wellbore integrity and methane release are highlighted, indicating a need for comprehensive solutions. Future research could focus on developing innovative materials or techniques for wellbore construction that enhance integrity and mitigate the risk of methane release [4] . Additionally, while economic feasibility is discussed, there’s an opportunity for more in-depth economic analyses that take into account a broader range of factors, such as long-term storage costs, regulatory considerations, and market dynamics [5] . Finally, technological innovations are essential for making gas hydrate storage economically viable, and future research could prioritize the development of more efficient extraction methods or novel approaches for enhancing gas hydrate stability within reservoirs [6] .

Overall, opportunities for improvement exist in various aspects of research on CO₂ storage in aquifers and gas hydrates, ranging from enhancing geological characterization and predictive modeling to developing innovative solutions for mitigating risks and improving economic viability. By addressing these opportunities, researchers can advance the field and contribute to the development of more effective and sustainable carbon storage technologies.

5. Conclusions

Aquifer geological storage stands out as a promising method for carbon capture and storage (CCS), offering significant potential to mitigate CO₂ emissions and combat climate change. By injecting carbon dioxide into deep underground saline aquifers, this approach capitalizes on the large storage capacities and secure containment capabilities of these geological formations.

Key to the success of aquifer storage projects is a thorough understanding of the geological characteristics of the chosen aquifers, including porosity, permeability, and caprock integrity. Detailed site assessments, geophysical surveys, and modeling studies are essential to ensure the suitability and safety of storage sites.

Case studies such as the Sleipner Project in the North Sea and the Otway Project in Australia demonstrate the feasibility and effectiveness of aquifer storage, showcasing secure CO₂ storage and valuable insights into geomechanical and geochemical interactions.

However, aquifer storage projects also face challenges, including CO₂ leakage potential, induced seismicity, and regulatory complexities. Addressing these challenges requires careful risk management, continuous monitoring, and robust environmental impact assessments.

Despite these challenges, aquifer storage presents significant opportunities for large-scale and long-term CO₂ storage, with the potential to make substantial contributions to global CCS efforts. With proper site selection and effective management strategies, aquifer storage can play a crucial role in transitioning towards a more sustainable and low-carbon future.

Overall, aquifer geological storage represents a valuable tool in the pursuit of mitigating climate change and achieving carbon neutrality, offering a promising pathway towards a greener and more sustainable world.

Conflicts of Interest

The author declares no conflicts of interest.

References

[1]	Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (2021) Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
[2]	Peletiri, P., Rahmanian, N. and Mujtaba, I. (2017) Effects of Impurities on CO2 Pipeline Performance. Chemical Engineering Transactions, 57, 355-360.
[3]	Mocellin, P., Vianello, C. and Maschio, G. (2019) A Comprehensive Multiphase CO2 Release Model for Carbon Sequestration QRA Purposes.
[4]	Malakhova, V.V. (2020) The Response of the Arctic Ocean Gas Hydrate Associated with Subsea Permafrost to Natural and Anthropogenic Climate Changes. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 606, Article ID: 012035. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/606/1/012035
[5]	Sloan, E.D. and Koh, C.A. (2008) Clathrate Hydrates of Natural Gases. CRC Press, Boca Raton. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781420008494
[6]	Smith, J., et al. (2021) Aquifer Storage of CO2: A Review of Recent Advances. Journal of Geological Research, 25, 123-145.
[7]	Jones, A., et al. (2022) Gas Hydrate Storage: Opportunities and Challenges. Environmental Science & Technology, 38, 201-220.
[8]	Smith, K., et al. (2018) Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS): The Way Forward. Environmental Science & Technology, 52, 2407-2417.
[9]	Wang, J. and Rubin, E. (2019) Techno-Economic Analysis of Post-Combustion Carbon Capture Retrofitting to Existing Coal-Fired Power Plants. Applied Energy, 240, 1083-1097.
[10]	Li, M., et al. (2020) Integrated Pre-Combustion Carbon Capture Process: A Review. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 96, Article ID: 103038.
[11]	Herzog, H. (2016) Scaling up Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage: From Megatons to Gigatons. Energy Economics, 59, 62-68.
[12]	Bergman, M. and Winter, E.M. (2019) Disposal of Carbon Dioxide in Aquifers in the U.S. Energy Conversion and Management, 36, 523-526. https://doi.org/10.1016/0196-8904(95)00058-L
[13]	Birkholzer, J.T., Zhou, Q. and Fu Tsang, C. (2018) Large-Scale Impact of CO2 Storage in Deep Saline Aquifers: A Sensitivity Study on Pressure Response in Stratified Systems. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 3, 181-194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2008.08.002
[14]	Zero Emission Platform (ZEP) (2011) The Costs of CO2 Transport.
[15]	CAIT (2009) Climate Analysis Indicators Tool, Copenhagen Synthesis Report.
[16]	Freund & Korstad (2005) Special Report on Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage.
[17]	Edinburgh (2020) Hydraflash, Gas Hydrate and Thermodynamic Prediction Software.
[18]	Gilfillan, S.M.V., Lollar, B.S., Holland, G., Blagburn, D., Stevens, S., Schoell, M. and Ballentine, C.J. (2013) Storage of CO2 in Saline Aquifers: Assessing the Risk of CO2 Leakage through Groundwater Systems. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 365, 349-361.
[19]	McKinsey & Company (2017) CCS—Outlook on the Potential for Carbon Capture and Storage.
[20]	Gorecki, J., et al. (2021) Economic and Policy Challenges for Carbon Capture and Storage Deployment: A Review. Energy Policy, 148, Article ID: 111961.
[21]	Yang, J., et al. (2017) Experimental and Numerical Investigation of Methane Hydrate Formation in Porous Media. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 57, 159-172.
[22]	Environmental Impact Assessment Group (2023) Assessing the Environmental Impact of CO2 Storage in Aquifers and Gas Hydrates. Environmental Impact Assessment Journal, 42, 511-530.
[23]	Chadwick, R.A., et al. (2018) Best Practices for the Storage of CO2 in Saline Aquifers—A Review. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 75, 40-45.
[24]	Boreham, C., et al. (2016) Australian Experience with the Otway Project: Injection, Monitoring, and Verification of CO2 Storage in a Depleted Gas Reservoir. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 49, 248-258.
[25]	Benson, S.M. and Hepple, R.P. (2016) Underground Geological Storage. Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences, 44, 245-266.
[26]	Tohidi, B., Anderson, R., Clennell, M.B., Burgass, R.W. and Biderkab, A.B. (2001) Visual Observation of Gas Hydrate Formation and Dissociation in Synthetic Porous Media by Means of Glass Micro-Models. Journal of Geology, 29, 869-870. https://doi.org/10.1130/0091-7613(2001)029<0867:VOOGHF>2.0.CO;2
[27]	Sum, A.K., et al. (2013) CO2 Storage in Clathrate Hydrates: Challenges and Prospects of Hydrate Formation, CO2 Capture, and Hydrate Storage. Applied Energy, 105, 576-581.
[28]	Mahabadi, N., et al. (2019) Experimental and Numerical Investigations of CO2 Hydrate Formation and Dissociation in Porous Media. Transport in Porous Media, 130, 569-595.
[29]	Waite, W.F., et al. (2019) Seafloor Environmental Impact Assessment of CO2 Release from Subsea Storage Reservoirs. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 81, 221-237.
[30]	Boswell, R., et al. (2016) CO2 Hydrate Formation and Dissociation in Saline Systems: Identification of Mechanisms and Parameters. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 49, 162-177.
[31]	Masui, A., et al. (2020) Addressing Social Concerns in the Development of CO2 Capture and Storage: Insights from the Japanese General Public. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 103, Article ID: 103135.
[32]	Aregba, A.G. (2017) Gas Hydrate—Properties, Formation and Benefits. Open Journal of Yangtze Gas and Oil, 2, 27-44. https://doi.org/10.4236/ojogas.2017.21003
[33]	Jin, S., Nagao, J. and Takeya, S. (2020) Structural Investigation of Methane Hydrates Sediments by Microfocus X-Ray Computed Tomography Technique under High Pressure Conditions. Japanese Journal of Applied Physics, 45, 714-716. https://doi.org/10.1143/JJAP.45.L714
[34]	Minagawa, H., Nishikawa, Y. and Ikeda, I. (2021) Relation between Permeability and Pore-Size Distribution of Methane-Bearing Hydrates Sediments. Proceeding of the Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, 16-19 August 2021, 1-6.
[35]	Santamarina, J.C. and Ruppel, C. (2019) The Impacts of Hydrate Saturation on the Mechanical, Electrical and Thermal Properties of Hydrate-Bearing Sand, Silts and Clay. Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Gas Hydrates, Vancouver, 6-10 July 2008, 1-12.
[36]	Stoll, R.D. and Bryan, G.M. (2020) Physical Properties of Sediments Containing Gas Hydrate. Journal of Geophysical Research, 84, 1629-1634. https://doi.org/10.1029/JB084iB04p01629
[37]	Pearson, C., Halleck, P.M., McGuire, P.L., Hermes, R. and Mathews, M. (2018) Natural Gas Hydrate Deposit: A Review of in Situ Properties. The Journal of Physical Chemistry, 87, 4180-4185. https://doi.org/10.1021/j100244a041
[38]	Winters, W.J., Henry, P., Booth, J.S., Hovland, M. and Clennell, M.B. (2019) Formation of Natural Gas Hydrates in Marine Sediments: 1. Conceptual Model of Gas Hydrate Growth Conditioned by Host Sediments Properties. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 104, 22985-23003. https://doi.org/10.1029/1999JB900175
[39]	Kingston, E., Clayton, C. and Priest, J. (2018) Gas Hydrate Growth Morphologies and Their Effects on the Stiffness and Damping of a Hydrate-Bearing Sand. Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Gas Hydrates, Vancouver, 6-10 July 2008, 1-7.
[40]	Moridis, G.J. and Kowalsky, M. (2020) Gas Production from Unconfined Class 2 Hydrate Accumulations in the Oceanic Subsurface. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Earth Sciences Division, Berkeley, 1-8.
[41]	Liggett, J.A. and Liu, T. (2012) Environmental Science and Technology: A Sustainable Approach to Green Science and Technology. CRC Press, Boca Raton.
[42]	Kumar, K., Daval, D., Ide, S., Payri, R., Falenty, A., Vaillancourt, M. and Mesfin, K.G. (2018) Carbon Dioxide Sequestration in Deep-Sea Basalt. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115, 6961-6966.
[43]	Cooper, C., et al. (2009) A Technical Basis for Carbon Dioxide Storage. Prepared by the CO2 Capture Project. CPL Press, London and New York.
[44]	Al-Marhoun, M.A. and Yang, R. (2015) Review of CO2 Storage in Deep Saline Aquifers. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 38, 114-122.
[45]	Kvenvolden, K.A. (1995) A Review of the Geochemistry of Methane in Natural Gas Hydrate. Organic Geochemistry, 23, 997-1008. https://doi.org/10.1016/0146-6380(96)00002-2
[46]	Ruppel, C.D. (2011) Methane Hydrates and Contemporary Climate Change. Nature Education Knowledge, 3, 29.
[47]	Singh, A., et al. (2017) Numerical Modeling of Gas Hydrate Formation and Decomposition in Marine Sediments. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 122, 2840-2853.
[48]	House, K.Z., Schrag, D.P., Harvey, C.F., Lackner, K.S. and de Coninck, H. (2008) CO2 Mineral Sequestration in Naturally Occurring Marine Basalts. Science, 319, 586.
[49]	Buffett, B.A. and Archer, D. (2019) Global Inventory of Methane Clathrate: Sensitivity to Changes in the Deep Ocean. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 227, 185-199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.epsl.2004.09.005
[50]	US EPA (2021) PHREEQC—A Computer Program for Speciation, Batch-Reaction, One-Dimensional Transport, and Inverse Geochemical Calculations. (U.S. Geological Survey Software, 1998). Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program.