i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 3 ( 2 0 1 8 ) 4 4 0 1 e4 4 1 4

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

ScienceDirect

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/he

Screening and ranking framework for underground

hydrogen storage site selection in Poland


Joanna Lewandowska-Smierzchalska a
, Radosław Tarkowski b,
Barbara Uliasz-Misiak a,*
a
AGH University of Science and Technology, Faculty of Drilling, Oil and Gas, Mickiewicza 30 Ave., 30-059 Krakow,
Poland
b
Mineral and Energy Economy Research Institute PAS, Wybickiego 7, 31-261 Krakow, Poland

article info abstract

Article history: This paper proposes the use of the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) in order to select the
Received 30 November 2017 potential underground hydrogen storage sites. The preliminary selection and evaluation of
Received in revised form hydrogen storage sites may be considered as a multi-criteria decision-making process. The
11 January 2018 use of a decision model based on 5 (for aquifers) or 6 geological criteria (in the case of salt
Accepted 14 January 2018 and hydrocarbon deposits) has been proposed. A ranking of salt structures, aquifers, and
Available online 9 February 2018 crude oil and natural gas reservoirs, previously identified as the potential hydrogen storage
sites in Poland, has been presented. The obtained results have confirmed that the AHP-
Keywords: based approach can be useful for preliminary selection of potential underground
Hydrogen storage hydrogen storage sites. The proposed method enables one to objectively choose the most
Site selection satisfactory decision, from the point of view of the adopted decision-making criteria,
Analytic hierarchy process regarding the choice of the best structure.
Aquifer © 2018 Hydrogen Energy Publications LLC. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Salt
Hydrocarbon deposit

energy production and transport. Various methods of

Introduction
Underground energy storage in the form of heat, compressed
air or hydrogen allows it to be stored in various amounts and
time intervals [1e6]. Nowadays, energy storage is considered a
key element of the energy supply chain. It contributes to
improving the stability of energy grids, increasing the share of
renewable energies, improving the efficiency of energy sys-
tems, fossil fuel resources conservation and reducing the
environmental impact of energy generation [2,7,8].
Most analyzes indicate that hydrogen will play an impor-
tant role in solving technological and ecological problems of
hydrogen production and its energy processing are being
studied [9e13]. The most promising opportunities are identi-
fied as the use of fuel cells for stationary and mobile appli-
cations [10,12,14].
The development of hydrogen economy is also focused on
using the energy from renewable sources for its production
[7,8,15e17]. This will require the development and imple-
mentation of new ways of hydrogen storage. Implementation
of this technology will allow to regulate the supply and de-
mand for energy and regulate energy prices as well as gas
sales to, refineries, transport etc. [18e23]. The use of this
technology will also contribute to the decarbonisation of

* Corresponding author.


E-mail addresses: joannal@agh.edu.pl (J. Lewandowska-Smierzchalska), tarkowski@min-pan.krakow.pl (R. Tarkowski), uliasz@agh.
edu.pl (B. Uliasz-Misiak).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2018.01.089
0360-3199/© 2018 Hydrogen Energy Publications LLC. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
4402 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 3 ( 2 0 1 8 ) 4 4 0 1 e4 4 1 4
energy, which is important in the case of countries such as
Poland, which economy is based on coal [24,25].
Geological structures are used in different ways, depending
on their depth of deposition and characteristics (e.g. the
storage of fuel, natural gas, hazardous or radioactive waste,
and, more recently, the storage of carbon dioxide) [26]. From a
geological point of view, the underground space is also suit-
able for the storage of massive amounts of energy in the form
of hydrogen [18,23,27,28]. In such a case, the largest possible
amount of gas injected to the underground storage facility
(artificial accumulation of gas in the subsurface) shall be
withdrawn from the storage site without losses due to
leakages.
Underground hydrogen storage is increasingly popular, as
evidenced by numerous scientific publications. They relate to
different aspects, some of which include: the use of under-
ground space for energy storage [2,19,26,29], hydrogen energy
storage technologies [7,8,20], technological aspects [23,30e33]
and the assessment of the potential and possibilities of large-
scale underground hydrogen storage in selected countries
[27,28,34,35].
The three basic options (sites) for hydrogen underground
storage (HUS) are considered: salt caverns, deep aquifers, and
depleted hydrocarbon deposits (crude oil and natural gas)
[18,20,34,36,37].
Salt caverns (artificial underground chambers in salt de-
posits) are suitable for storage of various substances, in
particular high pressure gases. These chambers are used
worldwide for the storage of natural gas and petroleum
products. Salt has physical properties which are suitable for
underground hydrogen storage, guaranteeing long-term sta-
bility and storage integrity. Salt cavern walls are substantially
impermeable to this gas, and the plastic properties of salt
protect the cavern against the emergence and spread of cracks
and thus the loss of tightness. Hydrogen is already success-
fully stored in several salt caverns in the United Kingdom and
the United States; this technology does not differ significantly
from the underground storage of natural gas, practiced on a
large scale by the oil companies for about a hundred years, or
underground storage of carbon dioxide [18,28].
The aquifers are made of porous and permeable rocks
containing the pore water of different mineralization. They
are common in all sedimentary basins and can be an alter-
native to underground storage of hydrogen in the areas where
depleted hydrocarbon deposits or salt caverns are not avail-
able. They have also been used for many years for natural gas
storage.
Natural gas and crude oil reservoirs occur in suitable
geological structures, where hydrocarbons are accumulated
within the pore spaces between rock grains (e.g. sandstones)
or in fractures and fissures (e.g. limestones). Accumulations
are sealed with low-permeable, compact and non-fractured
rocks. The occurrence in the hydrocarbon deposit confirms
the tightness of the geological structure. Depleted oil and gas
reservoirs can be used to store hydrogen instead of hydro-
carbons. The geological properties of the depleted reservoirs
are well known, while the existing production wells and sur-
face equipment can be (at least partially) reused.
Setting the requirements and conditions for choosing the
geological structure for the underground hydrogen storage
should be based on the detailed geological analysis and
reservoir engineering. The most important parameters
include: geological structure (depth, area, thickness, tight-
ness, reservoir pressure, reservoir properties - porosity and
permeability, geomechanical characteristics of rocks) and the
proper characteristics of the overburden rocks. The main cri-
terion that must be met by the hydrogen storage site is
geological tightness. In addition, technical, environmental,
legal, economic, and other criteria are also of great importance
[18,20,38].
Despite the fact that underground gas storage has been
used since the beginning of the last century, and years of
experience in this field, there are few publications presenting
the criteria used when selecting sites for the gas storage.
Depleted natural gas reservoirs, which are most often used
for underground storage, are selected on the basis of a suf-
ficiently large volume of pore space, tightness, (preferably
high) permeability of reservoir rocks, the absence of gas
admixtures such as hydrogen sulphide, or the possibility of
additional well drilling [39,40]. The situation is much better
when it comes to the studies on the selection of sites for
underground storage of CO2; their findings may be useful in
identifying similar sites for the storage of hydrogen. This is
done based on the geological, reservoir, and technical criteria
that must be met by a geological structure in order to be used
as a gas storage site, while taking into account the specific
properties of carbon dioxide. In the literature, there are no
uniform criteria for selection of sites for underground stor-
age of carbon dioxide. In most methodologies, the criteria
used when choosing carbon dioxide storage sites include: the
depth of reservoir, their thickness, porosity, permeability,
water mineralization, and thick, low permeable overburden
rocks. These criteria allow for pre-selection of structures not
only of adequate capacity but also ensuring the safety of the
storage process [41e49]. Some of the methods include addi-
tional (technical, environmental, or sociological) criteria
[44,49]. Different authors use different (positive, negative, or
warning) indicators [41,42,47,48] points (0 e the worst, 1 e
the best) [46] or weights [49] assigned to the individual
criteria. In a few cases, structuring is based on workflow
[43,45]. Some methodologies refer to the assessment and
classification of geological structures used for the storage of
carbon dioxide and breaking them down by country, sedi-
mentation basin or storage site [45,46]. The latest method-
ology developed by the National Energy Technology
Laboratory in 2017 [44] introduces algorithms for preliminary
evaluation, selection, and characterization of geological
structures for CO2 storage according to the CSA Z741 stan-
dard (2011). Llamas and Cienfuegos (2012) [50] proposed a
different approach to the problems related to the selection of
CO2 storage sites. They propose the use of a multi-criteria
decision-making system based on two groups of criteria:
technical criteria (geology, tectonics, hydrogeology, capacity,
and CO2 state) and socioeconomic criteria (quality and
quantity of geological data, CO2 sources, location, population
density, and environmental aspects). The Analytic Network
Process (ANP) method was used to select structures suitable
for geological storage of CO2 in China [51]. A method using
fuzzy logic to select carbon dioxide storage sites has also
been developed [52].
 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 3 ( 2 0 1 8 ) 4 4 0 1 e4 4 1 4
From the point of view of the presented ranking of
geological structures for underground hydrogen storage, the
results obtained during the HyUnder project [18] are especially
interesting. One of its goals was to identify those geological
storage options that have the greatest potential for the prac-
tical implementation of hydrogen storage. A comparative
analysis of different hydrogen storage options (salt caverns,
hydrocarbon deposits, aquifers, lined rock caverns, unlined
rock caverns, abandoned salt, limestone, and coal mines, tube
mills), using different criteria, has been performed. The first
place in the ranking was taken by the option of storing
hydrogen in salt caverns. The high integrity and tightness of
salt rock, high flexibility in gas storage (reception) and the
relatively low investment and operating costs were high-
lighted. However, it was highlighted that the use of salt cav-
erns for storage requires the availability of appropriate salt
formations. The second place was taken by depleted gas res-
ervoirs, most commonly used for the underground storage of
natural gas. Finally, the third position in the ranking was
taken by aquifers, which require numerous and expensive
geological investigations, especially for determining the
integrity of the deposit/structure [18].
The presented paper proposes a methodology that allows
the classification of suitable geological structures (aquifers,
hydrocarbon deposits, and salt structures) for hydrogen
storage based on the decision support system. Choosing a
geological structure for hydrogen storage involves the se-
lection process and is aimed at selecting the best structure
from the decision maker point of view or the so-called the
most preferred alternative. In order to choose the best
structure, two approaches were used. The first one, the so-
called qualitative ordering, is used when only the order of
alternatives, i.e. the knowledge whether a given alternative
is more favorable than the others from the point of view of
the chosen criterion, is required. The second, quantitative
ordering, is used when additional information on to what
extent a given alternative (option) it better than the other, is
required. The developed methodology is implemented in
four stages: defining the problem, the evaluation based on
the comparison of the selection criteria and the available
options considered, the determination of global and local
preferences, and the classification of decision-making al-
ternatives. The use of this methodology allowed obtaining a
ranking of geological structures for hydrogen storage located
in Poland. The ranking of the best sites for hydrogen storage
was developed for three types of reservoirs present in most
parts of Poland: salt deposits, aquifers and, hydrocarbon
deposits.
The methodology of ranking structures
Decision support methods can be used when examining the
possibility of using geological structures [53,54] or when
selecting CO2 storage sites [50e52].
The proposed methodology for the selection of geological
structures for hydrogen storage is based on the decision
support system. It is based on qualitative and quantitative
ordering, used when the order of alternatives, a quantitative
ranking using numerical values, is required.
4403
The decision-making process consists of several steps:
➢ the formulation of the main goal,
➢ defining the selection criterion/criteria and the possible list
of constraints that cause some goals to be unreachable
(some decisions cannot be taken),
➢ determining the value of the criteria that will affect the
decision,
➢ the development of possible decision-making alternatives,
➢ selection, by reference to the selected criteria, of the most
favorable decision-making alternative, and obtaining the
ranking of alternatives.
In the presented methodology, the use of the Analytic Hi-
erarchy Process (AHP) was proposed, while the analysis was
conducted in four stages [55,56] (Fig. 1):
1. The construction of a hierarchical model. Decomposition
of the decision problem and the construction of a hierarchy
of criteria and alternatives affecting the solution to the
problem (boxes A, B and C e Fig. 1).
2. The evaluation by pairwise comparison. Collecting the
comparison assessments with pairs of criteria and alter-
natives, by applying the relative dominance scale adopted
in the AHP method (boxes D and G e Fig. 1).
3. Setting global preferences and weight of each criterion.
Define mutual priorities (significance) in relation to criteria
and alternatives (boxes E, F, H and I e Fig. 1).
4. Classification of decision alternatives - determining the
order of decision-making alternatives taking into account
their contribution to the achievement of the main goal (box
J e Fig. 1).
In the proposed methodology, the decomposition of the
decision-making problem is presented using a hierarchical
decision-making structure where the selection of the best
geological structure for the storage of hydrogen (the main
objective), suitable geological structures, the main criteria
for sites evaluation, and decision-making options are
determined. The main objective of the discussed decision-
making process is to identify the most suitable geological
structure for underground hydrogen storage (box A e Fig. 1).
The next step is to formulate the decision criteria used in
the decision-making problem (box C Fig. 1). The geological
criteria characterizing the structure (salt structures, aqui-
fers, and hydrocarbon deposits) are taken into account when
solving the decision-making problem. These criteria were
proposed based on the author's experience (expert experi-
ence) and the literature on the question of selecting
geological structures suitable for the underground gas stor-
age. They relate to the geological conditions of the analyzed
structures and are different for salt structures, aquifers, and
hydrocarbon deposits. In the case of aquifers and hydro-
carbon reservoirs, the criteria were as follows: the volume of
the reservoir, overburden lithology, tectonic activity, the
depth of occurrence, and the stage of exploration. In addi-
tion, in the case of hydrocarbon deposits and aquifers, the
mineral type and overburden thickness were also analyzed,
respectively. For salt structures, in addition to the common
criteria adopted for hydrocarbon deposits and aquifers, the
4404 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 3 ( 2 0 1 8 ) 4 4 0 1 e4 4 1 4

A Main goal indentification and definition

Development of decision-making alternatives

B a1,......an

C Defining of selection criteria c1,......cn

Criteria evaluation
D using the comparison matrix

E Ranking of criteria c=(c1,......cn)

Determinig of prefernces beetwen

F each alternatives in refernce
to criteria based on geological data

Alternatives evaluation
G using the comparison matrix

a1 wm
Ranking of alternatives a1i i= 1, ....., n Ranking of alternatives ami
H for criterion c1
I for criterion cn
w1, ,i a1 wm,1, am
aggregation

choosing of the best alternative

DECISION J Obtaining the final ranking of alternatives

Fig. 1 e Decision system scheme to selection potential underground hydrogen storage sites: w e weight, c e criterion, a e
alternative, 1, …m e number of alternative, 1, …n e number of criterion.

geothermal gradient and the form of salt deposit were also
taken into account. Alternatives, that are the analyzed
geological structures, are the final element in the hierar-
chical decision-making structure (box B e Fig. 1).
In the next step, the comparison matrices for criteria were
determined using pairwise comparisons of the individual
criteria (box C e Fig. 1). They were made using the nine-step
scale suggested by Saaty [57]. Their validity was determined
on the basis of the expert opinion of the authors of this article.
Determining the validity of individual elements follows the
principles of the pairwise comparison method by determining
the dominance of one over the other (Fig. 2). The comparison
matrices for criteria were made for salt structures, aquifers,
and hydrocarbon reservoirs, respectively.
For the adopted decision-making criteria, based on the
comparison matrices, the weight vectors were calculated. The
calculated priorities for criteria used for individual geological
structures allow indicating the most important decision-
making criteria from the point of view of the main goal (that
is choosing the best structure for hydrogen storage). In the
case of salt structures, the above mentioned criterion is the
stage of exploration (Fig. 3). For aquifers this is tectonic ac-
tivity (Fig. 4). On the other hand, the most important criterion
for hydrocarbon deposits is the lithology of overburden rocks
(Fig. 5) (box D e Fig. 1).
The weight vectors were verified according to the AHP
method. For this purpose, the consistency indexes of the
analyzed matrices were calculated (see Fig. 2). When the
consistency indices are lower than the assumed threshold
value of 0.1, the expert opinions collected in the comparison
matrices for decision-making criteria are consistent and the
resulting weight vectors can be used in further decision
analysis. If consistency indices are above 0.1, it means that
rank values (indicated by experts) in the comparison matrix in
pairs outside this range do not make sense, because they are
questionable in terms of “quality” and “consistency” of data.
 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 3 ( 2 0 1 8 ) 4 4 0 1 e4 4 1 4 4405

Fig. 2 e Relative weights of a set of criteria.

Fig. 3 e Ranking of criteria for salt deposits.

In this case, the assessments should be reviewed and all or
some comparisons repeated to eliminate the non-conformity
of the weight vectors.
The next step in the AHP method is to evaluate the indi-
vidual alternatives, taking into account the adopted criteria
(box H, I e Fig. 1). For each criterion, all variants are evaluated.
As a result, the priorities, representing the validity of indi-
vidual alternatives (taking into account various criteria), are
calculated on the basis of the comparison matrices (box G e
Fig. 1). In order to determine the comparison matrices for in-
dividual options, each criterion was assigned a score, based on
the predetermined range of numerical or verbal values of a
given criterion for each decision-making alternative. The in-
dividual criteria were assigned specific numerical values on a
scale from 1 to 9. The assumed values were different for the
different types of structures and criteria considered (box F e
Fig. 1).
The specific values for the stage of exploration, depth of
occurrence, and the volume of pore space were adopted for all
structure types (Tables 1e3). The value of geothermal gradient
for salt structures has also been adopted. For the remaining
criteria, values on a scale from 1 to 9 were assigned. In the case
of the lithology of the overburden and tectonic activity, hy-
drocarbon deposits and aquifers were assigned the same
values. In the case of lithology, the lowest value was attributed
to well-permeable rocks (sandstones, limestones, and dolo-
mites), while the highest to rocks of low permeability (clay-
stones, clay shales, Ca-sulphate rocks, and salt rocks). The
lowest value was assigned to structures containing faults,
which pass into overburden rocks, while the highest to
4406 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 3 ( 2 0 1 8 ) 4 4 0 1 e4 4 1 4

Fig. 4 e Ranking of criteria for structures in aquifers.

Fig. 5 e Ranking of criteria for hydrocarbon deposits.

structures without faults. The reservoir type criterion is of a
qualitative nature; oil reservoirs were assigned the lowest
value, while the highest value was assigned to natural gas
reservoirs. In the case of reservoir lithology, the lowest value
was attributed for rock salts with a high content of anhydrite
and potash-magnesium salts, while the highest for rock salts
with a few anhydrite and potash-magnesium salts inserts. For
the “deposit form” criterion, values from 1 (for salt domes near
the surface) to 9 (stratiform deposits of relatively low tectonic
activity) were assigned.
Table 1 e Values assigned of criteria for salt deposits: for qualitative criteria - according to the rating scale from 1 to 9, for quantitative criteria - actual numerical values.
Parameter 1 3 5 7 9
Reservoir volume numerical values
Reservoir lithology rock salts with large rock salts with small rock salts with average share of rock salts with few inercalations rock salts without inercalations
share of anhydrites share of anhydrites anhydrites and/or potash-magnesium of anhydrites and/or potash-magnesium of anhydrites and/or

i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 3 ( 2 0 1 8 ) 4 4 0 1 e4 4 1 4
and/or potash-magnesium and/or potash-magnesium salts salts potash-magnesium salts
salts salts
Depth numerical values
Geothermal gradient numerical values
Stage ofexploration numerical values
Type of salt deposit salt domes pierced Mezozoic salt domes non-pierced highly tectonised salt tectonised stratiform salt deposits Poorly tectonised stratiform
and Kenozoic deposits Mezozoic and deposits with small thickness salt deposits
Kenozoic deposits

Table 2 e Values assigned of criteria for structures in aquifers: for qualitative criteria - according to the rating scale from 1 to 9, for quantitative criteria - actual numerical
values.
Parameters
Pore volume of reservoir
Overburden rocks lithology
Tectonic activity
Depth
Stage of exploration
1 3 5 7 9
numerical values
sandstones, limestones, clayey sandstones, limestones, sandstones with siltstones and mudstones and shales claystones, Ca-sulphate
dolomites dolomites; sandstones mudstones in similar proportions; rocks, salt rocks
(predominate) marls
with siltstones and mudstones
intercalations
faults in a reservoir go faults ending in a reservoir numerous faults in the basement Single faults in the basement without faults
into overburden
numerical values
numerical values

4407
4408 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 3 ( 2 0 1 8 ) 4 4 0 1 e4 4 1 4

After assigning specific numerical values using the adop-

Table 3 e Values assigned of criteria for hydrocarbon deposits:for qualitative criteria - according to the rating scale from 1 to 9, for quantitative criteria - actual numerical

Ca-sulphate rocks, salt rocks

ted scale, it was possible to determine the suitability of the
discussed alternatives from the decision maker's point of

claystones, clay shales,

view. According to the AHP method, the suitability of indi-
vidual alternatives for each criterion is determined by using
9

without faults
pairwise comparisons of the individual criteria and deter-

gas deposit
mining their dominance according to the Saaty scale. The
comparison of alternatives is based on the difference between
the criteria values. After calculating all the partial vectors of
suitability, it is possible to obtain the final aggregated prefer-
ence vector for the examined decision-making options, i.e. the
mudstones and

Single faults in

final ranking of alternatives (box J e Fig. 1).

the basement
mud shales
7

Results and discussion

Potential sites for underground storage of hydrogen in

mudstones in similar proportions; marls

Poland
numerous faults in the basement

Potential sites for underground storage of hydrogen in Poland

sandstones with siltstones and

and their preliminary characteristics were presented by Tar-

kowski (2017) [28]. In the case of rock salt deposits from the
Upper Permian and Neogene (Miocene) formations, the sug-
5

gested sites for underground storage included rock salt de-

posits in Leba, Fore-Sudetic Monocline, Carpathian Foredeep,
and salt structures (salt domes) of the Polish Lowlands (19
locations). In deep aquifers of the Polish Lowlands, geological
structures (anticlinal structures) in the Lower Cretaceous and
Lower Jurassic formations, previously selected for under-
ground storage of carbon dioxide, were proposed (19 loca-
tions). In the case of depleted oil and natural gas reservoirs in
dolomites; sandstones (predominate)

the Polish Lowlands, the Carpathians, and the Carpathian

Foredeep, dozens of potential storage sites were selected (39
clayey sandstones, limestones,

with siltstones and mudstones

locations).
faults ending in a reservoir

The presented list was the basis for further detailed con-
siderations aimed at indicating, while taking into account the
3

adopted ranking criteria, the best and most appropriate sites

numerical values

numerical values
numerical values

for underground storage of hydrogen in Poland. For the pur-

intercalations

pose of this publication, the above-mentioned storage sites

have been verified taking into account their location in rela-
tion to nature conservation areas and their current state of
development (gas and fuel underground storage sites, aban-
doned hydrocarbon deposits).
sandstones, limestones,

Taking into account the above assumption, 47 out of the

faults in a reservoir go

total of 77 structures (see Ref. [28]) were selected for further

consideration. These include:
into overburden
1

1. 11 salt deposits (Fig. 6):

oil deposit
dolomites

B the Leba deposit,

B stratiform salt beds in the Fore-Sudetic Monocline,

Overburden rocks lithology
Pore volume of reservoir

Pore volume of reservoir

B salt domes in the Polish Lowlands,

B stratiform salt bed in the Carpathian Foredeep,

Tectonic activity

2. 14 tectonic structures in aquifers (Fig. 6): Bielsk-Bodzanow,

Deposit form
Parameters

Byslaw, Chelmza, Sierpc, Strzelno, Turek, Tuszyn, Wart-

values.

kowice, Chabowo, Jezow, Konary, Marianowo, Suliszewo,

Depth

and Trzebiez,
 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 3 ( 2 0 1 8 ) 4 4 0 1 e4 4 1 4 4409

Fig. 6 e Location of potential hydrogen storage sites in salt deposits (1e11) and in tectonic structures in aquifers in the Polish
Lowlands (12e25): 1 e Leb salt deposit, 2 e Gubin region, 3 e Nowa Rola region, 4 e Nowa Sol region, 5 e Gora region, 6 e
Rogozno salt dome, 7 e Damaslawek salt dome, 8 e Izbica Kujawska salt dome, 9 e Lubien salt dome, 10 e Lanieta salt
dome, 11 e Wojnicz salt deposit, 12 - Bielsko-Bodzanow, 13 e Byslaw, 14 e Chelmza, 15 e Sierpc, 16 e Strzelno, 17 e Turek,
18 e Tuszyn, 19 e Wartkowice, 20 e Chabowo, 21 e Jezow, 22 e Konary, 23 e Marianowo, 24 e Suliszewo, 25 e Trzebiez.

3. 22 hydrocarbon deposits (Fig. 7): Ranking of the hydrogen storage site

B 4 oil deposits: Brzezowka, Grobla, Jastrzabka Stara and
Plawowice,
B 18 natural gas deposits: Brzostowo, Wiewierz W, Wie-
wierz E, Wysocko, Zalecze, Zuchlow, Sanok-Zablotce,
Brzezowiec, Dabrowka, Grady Bochenskie, Jaroslaw,
Kanczuga, Lubaczow, Mirocin, Przemysl, Tarnow
(Jurassic), Uszkowce, and Wygoda.
The ranking of the best sites for hydrogen storage was
developed for three types of reservoirs: salt deposits, aquifers
and, hydrocarbon deposits. These structures are present in
most parts of Poland (the Polish Lowlands, the Carpathian
Foredeep, and the Carpathians).
Fig. 8 shows the final ranking (the aggregated suitability
vector for the analyzed alternatives) of salt structures. The
4410 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 3 ( 2 0 1 8 ) 4 4 0 1 e4 4 1 4

Fig. 7 e Location of potential hydrogen storage sites in depleted hydrocarbon deposits (oil fields (1e4) and gas fields (5e22)):
1 e Brzezowka, 2 e Grobla, 3 e Jastrzabka Stara, 4 e Plawowice, 5 e Brzostowo, 6 e Wiewierz W, 7 e Wiewierz E, 8 e
Wysocko, 9 e Zalecze, 10 e Zuchlow, 11 e Sanok-Zablotce, 12 e Brzezowiec, 13 e Dabrowka, 14 e Grady Bochenskie, 15 e
Jaroslaw, 16 e Kanczuga, 17 e Lubaczow, 18 e Mirocin, 19 e Przemysl, 20 e Tarnow (Jurassic), 21 e Uszkowce, 22 e Wygoda.

Fig. 8 e Sorted weight vectors (final ranking) for salt deposits.

 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 3 ( 2 0 1 8 ) 4 4 0 1 e4 4 1 4
vector of weights based on the AHP calculations has shown
that the Gora region, with a decisive advantage over the others
(rank: 0.1904), is the best possible salt structure for hydrogen
storage. The highest ranking of this reservoir is related to the
appropriate reservoir lithology (halite) and well established
structure (respectively the most important and the second
most important criterion for salt structures). The next three
positions in the ranking were taken by Nowa Sol, Gubin, and
Leba, respectively, while the differences between the ranks
are relatively small. Due to the fact that the three structures
have similar geological characteristics, and the criteria have
similar values. The other alternatives were ranked low, with
the lowest value of 0.0346 for Izbica Kujawska. This demon-
strates that some criteria (deposit form, pore volume of
reservoir and stage of exploration) for these salt structures
were ranked low due to weaker parameters in terms of
hydrogen storage.
Fig. 9 shows the final aggregated suitability vector for the
analyzed aquifers. In the case of deep aquifers, the vector of
weights based on the AHP calculations has shown the Cha-
bowo T as the best site for hydrogen storage (rank 0.1904). The
next place is taken by the Marianowo T anticline, while the
difference between the ranks is low (rank 0.0933). Both
structures are characterized by a lack of tectonic activity (the
most important criterion for aquifers) and a good seal (the
second most important criterion). In the case of the next five
places, the differences between the ranks are relatively small.
These include the following structures: Marianowo J, Cha-
bowo J, Turek, Suliszewo, and Jezow T. The differences be-
tween the ranks are relatively small also for alternative
Fig. 9 e Sorted weight vectors (final ranking) for structures in aquifers.
4411
solutions (ranging from 0.0706 to 0.0624). These structures
have similar characteristics for tectonic activity and recogni-
tion status (1 and 3 criteria in terms of importance, respec-
tively). Their further position in the ranking results from
worse seal properties (criterion on item 2). The other alter-
natives were ranked low, with the lowest value of 0.0207 for
the Byslaw anticline. This demonstrates that certain criteria
for these aquifers were ranked low due to weaker parameters
in terms of hydrogen storage.
Fig. 10 presents the ranking of hydrocarbon deposits. The
vector of weights based on the AHP calculations has shown
that the Przemysl natural gas reservoir, with a decisive
advantage over the others (rank: 0.0839), is the best possible
site for hydrogen storage. The highest position of this deposit
in the ranking results from a large volume of pore space and
the type of deposit (gas field) as well as good assessments of
other criteria. The next three positions in the ranking were
taken by oil reservoir Grobla, natural gas reservoir Mirocin and
oil reservoir Plawowice, respectively, while the differences
between the ranks were relatively small (ranging from 0.0722
to 0.0626). The high ranking of the Grobla and Plawowice oil
deposits (a type of reservoir not suitable for hydrogen storage)
results from the large pore space in these deposits, good
sealing and lack of tectonic activity. In the case of the Mirocin
reservoir, the third position in the ranking results from a good
sealing (criterion on item 1), lack of tectonic activity (criterion
on position 2) and the type of the deposit - natural gas reser-
voir (criterion on item 3). In the case of the next positions,
taken by 12 hydrocarbon deposits (7 natural gas reservoirs and
5 crude oil reservoirs), the differences between the ranks are
4412 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 3 ( 2 0 1 8 ) 4 4 0 1 e4 4 1 4
Fig. 10 e Sorted weight vectors (final ranking) for hydrocarbon deposits.
small. The differences between the ranks for these alternative
solutions are also relatively small (ranging from 0.0536 to
0.0404). The obtained results may indicate that criteria (over-
burden rocks lithology and tectonic activity) for these hydro-
carbon deposits were ranked low due to weaker parameters in
terms of hydrogen storage. The remaining alternatives
received very low ranks, with the second lowest: 0.0273 for the
Sanok-Zablotce oil reservoir and the lowest: 0.0175 for the
Wygoda oil reservoir. This may indicate that these structures
have little potential (little possibility of using them for
hydrogen storage). These deposits have: a weak seal, tectonic
activity and a small volume of pore space.
Summary and conclusions
The criteria used when selecting sites for underground stor-
age of gas were analyzed for the pre-selected structures (salt
deposits, aquifers, and oil and gas reservoirs). Some of the
criteria were used for all the three types of structures (the
volume of the reservoir, the depth of deposition, and the stage
of exploration). In addition, in the case of aquifers and hy-
drocarbon reservoirs, the assumed criteria included the
overburden lithology and tectonic activity. In addition, in the
case of hydrocarbon deposits and aquifers, the mineral type
and overburden thickness were also analyzed, respectively.
For salt deposits, in turn, the geothermal gradient and the
form of salt deposit were also taken into account. The ranking
of the criteria has shown that the lithology of the reservoir
and, secondly, the stage of exploration are among the most
important features in the case of salt structures. Another
criterion is the form of salt deposits. In the case of aquifers
and hydrocarbon reservoirs, the most important criteria,
determining the safety of hydrogen storage, are: tectonic ac-
tivity and the overburden lithology; for aquifers and hydro-
carbon deposits, the most important are the stage of
exploration and the volume of the reservoir, respectively.
The use of these criteria in the developed decision-making
system allowed carrying out the ranking of individual types of
geological structures.
The decision maker (expert) assigned the highest prefer-
ence score to the salt structure in the Gora region. It has been
found the most satisfactory from the standpoint of all
decision-making criteria. In the case of deep aquifers and
hydrocarbon deposits, the decision maker assigned the high-
est preference score to the Chabowo T and Przemysl natural
gas fields.
The developed system enables a combined analysis of
measurable and non-measurable criteria, an aggregate eval-
uation of alternatives, the analysis of the impact of individual
values on the final decision, while mitigates the effects of bias
and the effects of manipulation on the decision-making pro-
cess. The system is universal and can be used to evaluate
geological structures irrespective of their location. The ques-
tion of structures for hydrogen storage, formulated as a multi-
criteria problem of ranking the alternatives, allows the in-
terests of many parties and various aspects of the problem to
be taken into account.
 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 3 ( 2 0 1 8 ) 4 4 0 1 e4 4 1 4
Funding
This work was supported by the Ministry of Science and
Higher Education; statutory works Mineral and Energy Econ-
omy Research Institute PAS (4448/E-275/S/2017/43/2017) and
statutory works AGH University of Science and Technology,
Faculty of Drilling, Oil and Gas (No 11.11.190.555).
references
[1] Briola S, Di Marco P, Gabbrielli R, Riccardi J. Sensitivity
analysis for the energy performance assessment of hybrid
compressed air energy storage systems. Appl Energy
2017;206:1552e63.
[2] Delmastro Ch, Lavagno E, Schranz L. Energy and
underground. Tunn Undergr Space Technol 2016;55:96e102.
[3] Mahlia TMI, Saktisahdan TJ, Jannifar A, Hasan MH,
Matseelar HSC. A review of available methods and
development on energy storage; technology update. Renew
Sustain Energy Rev 2014;33:532e45.
[4] Park H, Baldick R. Integration of compressed air energy
storage systems co-located with wind resources in the
ERCOT transmission system. Int J Electr Power Energy Syst
2017;90:181e9.
[5] Rohit AK, Devi KP, Rangnekar S. An overview of energy
storage and its importance in Indian renewable energy
sector part I e technologies and comparison. J Energy Storage
2017;13:10e23.
[6] Xu Q, Dubljevic S. Model predictive control of solar thermal
system with borehole seasonal storage. Comput Chem Eng
2017;101:59e72.
[7] Sgobbi A, Nijs W, Miglio de R, Chiodi A, Gargiulo M, Thiel Ch.
How far away is hydrogen? Its role in the medium and long-
term decarbonisation of the European energy system. Int J
Hydrogen Energy 2016;41:19e35.
[8] Zhang F, Zhao P, Niu M, Maddy J. The survey of key
technologies in hydrogen energy storage. Int J Hydrogen
Energy 2016;41:14535e52.
[9] Ball M, Wietschel M. The future of hydrogen e opportunities
and challenges. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2009;34:615e22.
[10] Dincer I, Acar C. Innovation in hydrogen production. Int J
Hydrogen Energy 2017;42:14843e64.
[11] IEA Hydrogen Implementing Agreement 2005 Hydrogen
production and storage, R&D priorities and gaps.
International Energy Agency; 2005. http://www.iea.org/
publications/freepublications/publication/hydrogen.pdf.
[Accessed 20 December 2017].
[12] Technology roadmap - hydrogen and fuel cells.
International Energy Agency; 2015. https://www.iea.org/
publications/freepublications/publication/
TechnologyRoadmapHydrogenandFuelCells.pdf.
[Accessed 21 December 2017].
[13] Winter CJ. Into the hydrogen energy economy e millstones.
Int J Hydrogen Energy 2005;30:681e5.
[14] Curtin S, Gangi J. Fuel cell technologies market report 2016.
DOE; 2016. https://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2017/10/f37/
fcto_2016_market_report.pdf. [Accessed 21 December 2017].
[15] Acar C, Dincer I. Comparative assessment of hydrogen
production methods from renewable and non-renewable
sources. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2014;39:1e12.
[16] Godula-Jopek A. Hydrogen production by electrolysis. Berlin:
Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH; 2015.
[17] Holladay JD, Hu J, King DL, Wang Y. An overview of hydrogen
production technologies. Catal Today 2009;139:244e60.
4413
[18] Grant agreement no. 303417. Executive Summary
Assessment of the potential, the actors and relevant
business cases for large scale and seasonal storage of
renewable electricity by hydrogen underground storage in
Europe23. HyUnder; June 2014.
[19] Audigane P, Bader AG, Gentier S, Beccaletto L, Bellenfant G.
The role of the underground for massive storage of energy: a
preliminary glance of the French case. Vienne, Austria: EGU
General Assembly; 2014 (hal-0096815).
[20] Bai M, Song K, Sun Y, He M, Li Y, Sun J. An overview of
hydrogen underground storage technology and prospects in
China. J Pet Sci Eng 2014;124:132e6.
[21] Bünger U, Michalski J, Crotogino F, Kruck O. Large-scale
underground storage of hydrogen for the grid integration of
renewable energy and other applications. In: Ball M, Basile A,
Veziroglu TN, editors. Compendium of hydrogen energy 4:
hydrogen use, safety and the hydrogen economy. Woodhead
Publishing; 2016. p. 133e63.
[22] Lord AS, Kobos PH, Borns DJ. Geologic storage of hydrogen:
scaling up to meet city transportation demands. Int J
Hydrogen Energy 2014;39:15570e82.
[23] Panfilov M. Underground and pipeline hydrogen storage.
In: Gupta RB, Basile A, Veziroglu TN, editors. Compendium
of hydrogen energy, volume 2: hydrogen storage.
Distribution and infrastructure. Woodhead Publishing;
2016. p. 91e115.
[24] Muray ML, Seymour EH, Rogut J, Zechowska S. 2008 e
stakeholder perceptions towards the transition to a
hydrogen economy in Poland. Int J Hydrogen Energy
2008;33:20e7.
[25] Stygar M, Brylewski T. Towards a hydrogen economy in
Poland. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2013;38:1e9.
[26] Uliasz-Misiak B, Przybycin A. Present and future status of the
underground space use in Poland. Environ Earth Sci
2016;75:1e15.
[27] Le Duigou A, Bader A-G, Lanoix J-C, Nadau L. Relevance and
costs of large scale underground hydrogen storage in France.
Int J Hydrogen Energy 2017;42:22987e3003.
[28] Tarkowski R. Perspectives of using the geological subsurface
for hydrogen storage in Poland. Int J Hydrogen Energy
2017;42:347e55.
[29] Bartel S, Janssen G. Underground spatial planning e
perspectives and current research in Germany. Tunn
Undergr Space Technol 2016;55:112e7.
[30] Amid A, Mignard D, Wilkinson M. Seasonal storage of
hydrogen in a depleted natural gas reservoir. Int J Hydrogen
Energy 2016;41:5549e58.
[31] Ozarslan A. Large-scale hydrogen energy storage in salt
caverns. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2012;37:14265e77.
[32] Pottier JD, Blondin E. Mass storage of hydrogen. In: Hydrogen
energy system, vol. 295 of the series NATO ASI series; 1995.
p. 167e79.
[33] Reitenbach V, Ganzer L, Albrecht D, Hagemann B. Influence
of added hydrogen on underground gas storage: a review of
key issues. Environ Earth Sci 2015;73(11):6927e37.
[34] Iordache I, Schitea D, Gheorghe AV, Iordache M. Hydrogen
underground storage in Romania, potential directions of
development, stakeholders and general aspects. Int J
Hydrogen Energy 2014;39:11071e81.
[35] Simon J, Ferriz AM, Correas LC. HyUnder e hydrogen
underground storage at large scale: case study Spain. Energy
Proced 2015;73:136e44.
[36] Ebigbo A, Golfier F, Quintard M. A coupled, pore-scale model
for methanogenic microbial activity in underground
hydrogen storage. Adv Water Resour 2013;61:74e85.
[37] Panfilov M. Underground storage of hydrogen: in situ self-
organisation and methane generation. Transp Porous Media
2010;85:841e65.
4414 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 3 ( 2 0 1 8 ) 4 4 0 1 e4 4 1 4
[38] Polit J, Mazurowski M, Gałek G. Preconditions for strategy of
development of underground gas storages in Poland. Nafta
Gaz 2010;66:892e7. Polish.
[39] Bennion DB, Thomas FB, Ma T, Imer D. Detailed protocol for
the screening and selection of gas storage reservoirs. SPE
2000;59738.
[40] Lord AS. Overview of geologic storage of natural gas with an
emphasis on assessing the feasibility of storing hydrogen.
Sandia 2009. Report SAND2009-5878.
[41] Chadwick RA, Arts R, Bernstone C, May F, Thibeau S,
Zweigel P. Best practice for the storage of CO2 in saline
aquifers. Keyworth, Nottingham: Br Geol Surv Occas Pub;
2008.
[42] Delprat-Jannaud F, Korre A, Shi JQ, McConnell B, Arvanitis A,
Boavida D, et al. State-of-the-art state of the art review of
CO2 storage site selection and characterisation methods. In:
Korre A, McConnell B, Delprat-Jannaud F, editors. CGS
Europe report no. D3.3; September 2013.
[43] DNV. Guideline for selection, characterization and
qualification of sites and projects for geological storage of
CO2. Det norske veritas; 2010. Report No 2009-1425,
CO2QUALSTORE.
[44] DOE/NETL. Site screening, selection, and initial
characterization for storage of CO2 in deep geologic
formations. 2017. National Energy Technology DOE/NETL
June 2017; June 2017. p. 117. DOE/NETL-2017/1844.
[45] IEA GHG. CCS site characterisation criteria. IEA Greenhouse
Gas R&D Programme 2009/10; July 2009. p. 112.
[46] Kaldi JG, Gibson-Polle CM. Storage capacity estimation, site
selection and characterisation for CO2 storage projects.
Canberra: Cooperative Research Centre for Greenhouse Gas
Technologies; 2008. CO2CRC Report No. RPT08-1001.
[47] Smith M, Campbell D, Mackay E, Polson D. CO2 aquifer
storage site evaluation and monitoring. Edinburgh: Heriot-
Watt University; 2011.
[48] Tarkowski R, Marek S, Uliasz-Misiak B. Preliminary
geological analysis of structures to store CO2 within the
Belchatow area. Gospod Surowcami Miner 2009;25:37e45.
Polish.
[49] Vangkilde-Pedersen T, Neele F, Wo
jcicki A, Bossie-
Codreanu D. Storage capacity standards. Report EU
GeoCapacity deliverable D24. 2008. p. 48.
[50] Llamas B, Cienfuegos P. Multicriteria decision methodology
to select suitable areas for storing CO2. Energy Environ
2012;23:249e64 (2/3-Special Issue: Carbon Dioxide Capture
and Storage (CCS)).
[51] Hsu CW, Chen LT, Hu AH, Chang YM. Site selection for
carbon dioxide geological storage using analytic network
process. Separ Purif Technol 2012;94:146e53.
€
[52] Devecia M, NÇ Demirel, John R, Ozcanb E. Fuzzy multi-
criteria decision making for carbon dioxide geological
storage in Turkey. J Nat Gas Sci Eng 2015 Nov;27:692e705.


[53] Lewandowska-Smierzchalska J. Zastosowanie
wielokryterialnych modeli decyzyjnych do oceny potencjału
struktur geologicznych [dissertation]. Krakow: AGH
University of Science and Technology; 2016. p. 48. Polish.


[54] Lewandowska-Smierzchalska J, Uliasz-Misiak B. Application
of AHP method to assess the possibilities of using of
geological structures located in the aquifers as underground
storage sites. AGH Drill Oil Gas 2017;34:361e74.
[55] Downarowicz O, Krause J, Sikorski M, Stachowski W.
Application of AHP method for evaluation and safety control
of a complex technical system. In: Downarowicz O, editor.
Wybrane metody ergonomii i nauki o eksploatacji. Gdan
sk:
Politechnika Gdan
ska; 2000. p. 7e42. Polish.
[56] Chojnacki A, Szwedo O. An AHP method to ERP system
selection. Biul Inst Syst Inform 2010;5:13e22. Polish.
[57] Saaty TL. Decision making with the analytic hierarchy
process. Int J Serv Sci 2008;1:83e98.