www.slb.com/carbonservices

CO2 Storage

Dr AK (Tony) Booer,

Schlumberger Carbon Services, Abingdon, UK

11 Jan, 2012 UKCCSC Winter School @ Cambridge, UK

Sch

lum

berg

er P

ub

lic

© 2012 Schlumberger. All rights reserved. An asterisk is used throughout this presentation to denote a mark of Schlumberger. Other company, product, and service names are the properties of their respective owners.

Sch

lum

berg

er P

ub

lic

CO2 Storage

● Finding Geological Storage

● Accessing the Storage Formation

● Monitoring Injection & Storage

● A Real Example

● Summary

Sch

lum

berg

er P

ub

lic

Sch

lum

berg

er P

ub

lic

Geological Storage

Sch

lum

berg

er P

ub

lic

What do we need?

Finding the right Storage Site

…the best risk reduction approach is to choose the right site in the first place

Capacity:

The amount of

CO2 that can

be safely

stored

Injectivity:

The ease with

which the CO2

can be injected

Containment:

The ability to

store CO2

safely and

permanently

Other:

• Environment

• Infrastructure

• Regulation

• Public opinion

• Finance

Sch

lum

berg

er P

ub

lic

Finding the right Storage Site

Sch

lum

berg

er P

ub

lic

Modeling & Measurement to reduce Uncertainty

Sch

lum

berg

er P

ub

lic

Storage Options

Stored in geological formations:

● Depleted oil or gas fields

● Deep saline formations

TWO KEY POINTS:

Storage sites are NOT huge caverns…

…but „solid rocks‟ like a sponge.

CO2 is NOT a gas, at depth,

but like a dense liquid.

Storage

reservoir

Primary

seals

Secondary

seals

Depth:

1,500 – 3,000m

5,000 – 10,000ft

„Enhanced Oil Recovery‟ is NOT the same as storage.

Sch

lum

berg

er P

ub

lic

Storage sites evolve over time...

● Structural & stratigraphic trapping

● Residual – in pore space

● Solubility – in water

● Mineralisation – “turned to stone”

Oil & gas fields demonstrate storage times of millions of years.

Storage mechanisms & containment

from IPCC, 2005

Natural accumulations of CO2 have

been safely stored for millions of years.

Sch

lum

berg

er P

ub

lic

Source for Figure:

Pöyry Energy Consulting Study on CCS costs,

commissioned by UK Government

North Sea offers storage options for UK & Europe

North Sea has an abundance of

depleted oil & gas reservoirs and

deep saline formations.

● Should we go for many small

stores or a few large ones ?

● Which ones should they be ?

● Studies for pipeline networks

(need to know where to go!)

Sch

lum

berg

er P

ub

lic

Containment

Injectivity

Capacity

Depleted Oil and Gas reservoirs or saline formations ?

Depleted Oil or Gas reservoir:

Location known

Capacity known, limited

Injectivity known

Low pressure

Containment works for oil/gas

Caprock properties unknown

Lots of wells, integrity unknown

Saline Formation:

Location known roughly

Capacity less known, larger

Injectivity unknown

Normal pressure

Containment not proven

Caprock properties unknown

Few wells

Sch

lum

berg

er P

ub

lic

CO2 Storage already done on an industrial scale

12 Courtesy of IEA Weyburn CO2 Storage and Monitoring Project , BP, Sonatrach, and Statoil

Weyburn

Canada, at end

of 200km

pipeline

Sleipner

Norwegian

North Sea

In Salah

Sahara desert,

Algeria

each

~1 M-tonne

of CO2 per

year

CO2 can be

transported

long distances

by pipeline

Carbon

taxes

work!

Remote

regions have

fewer public

awareness

issues

Sch

lum

berg

er P

ub

lic

CO2 Enhanced Oil Recovery versus Storage

Enhanced Oil Recovery

● CO2 rate depends on

production strategy

● CO2 recycled

● Legislation under

petroleum industry

● Operational Monitoring only

● Revenue from hydrocarbon

Storage

● CO2 rate determined by source

(eg. power station)

● CO2 in long-term storage

● Legislation under new CO2 regime

(high public awareness)

● Long-term monitoring

● Revenue from price of carbon

(eventually – current projects

government subsidized)

Significant experience in CO2 pipelines and

injection wells gained from US EOR

activities in the last 30+ years.

Sch

lum

berg

er P

ub

lic

Sch

lum

berg

er P

ub

lic

Accessing the Storage Formation

Image courtesy of MGSC, all rights reserved.

Sch

lum

berg

er P

ub

lic

CarbonWorkFlow

Pre Selection

Appraisal /

Characterization

Development

CO2 Injection

Closure

Post closure

Post liability transfer

Performance Management

& Risk Control

Pre-injection Injection Post-injection

*Mark of Schlumberger

CarbonWorkFlow* process for long-term CO2 storage enabling assessment and

management of risk in every phase of a project.

Sch

lum

berg

er P

ub

lic

Wellbore Integrity – the challenge

Not just a „hole in the ground‟

―a complex hydro-mechanical system designed to fulfil many requirements: • Shape: really strange (2km long, 20cm wide → 10,000 : 1 aspect ratio)

● Connects the surface to storage formation

● Holds the borehole open

● Long-lasting

● Unaffected by CO2

● Materials – steel, cement, elastomers, fluids

● Barriers for fluid flow

● Economical – cost effective

● Repairable

● Geologically compatible

● Environmentally acceptable

● Retirement strategy – „plug and abandon‟

6 inch line, 1pt = 432 : 1

Sch

lum

berg

er P

ub

lic

Regulation – a well also has to be legal

US Environmental Protection Agency, Class VI well guidelines

Major goal is to

protect

underground

sources of

drinking water

(USDWs)

Sch

lum

berg

er P

ub

lic

CO2 well integrity – it‟s not just the injection well

Pressure

relief

well Abandoned

well

Monitoring

well

CO2

injection

well

USDW

wells

Sch

lum

berg

er P

ub

lic

1. wellhead

2. USDW boundary

3. borehole – cement

4. cement – casing

5. casing – annulus

6. annulus – tubing

7. tubing – CO2

8. packer – casing & tubing

9. caprock – storage formation

10. well – storage (perforations)

Interfaces – some critical points

From US Environmental Protection Agency, Class VI well guidelines

Sch

lum

berg

er P

ub

lic

Possible leakage paths across a single cemented annulus

What can go wrong?

● no isolating material where required ― (wrong volumes) ― losses during placement

● incomplete isolating material coverage ― “mud channel”

● improper bond with formation ― “mud removal”

● improper bond with tubular ― “micro-annulus”

● isolating material not performing ― contamination during placement ― mechanical failure during well life

Injection

tubing

Casing

Contaminated

cement

Vertical

fracture

Formation

debonding Mud

channels

Pipe

debonding

Sch

lum

berg

er P

ub

lic

Mitigation of leakage through wells

A full well design based on risk assessment

● Position of well components

● Definition of overlaps

● Where to use each cement system /

completion materials

● Providing secondary barriers

as much as possible

● Robust construction practices required

Sch

lum

berg

er P

ub

lic

Sch

lum

berg

er P

ub

lic

Monitoring Injection & Storage

Sch

lum

berg

er P

ub

lic

CO2 Monitoring – 3 objectives

Pressure

relief

well Abandoned

well

Monitoring

well

CO2

injection

well

USDW

wells

#1: Watch stored CO2

#2: Watch possible leakage paths

#3: Monitor the environment

Detection & Quantification

Sch

lum

berg

er P

ub

lic

Sch

lum

berg

er P

ub

lic

A Practical Example: Illinois Basin – Decatur Project

Sch

lum

berg

er P

ub

lic

Acknowledgements

The Midwest Geological Sequestration Consortium (MGSC)

is funded by the U.S. Department of Energy through

the National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL)

via the Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership Program

(contract number DE-FC26-05NT42588)

and by a cost share agreement with

the Illinois Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity,

Office of Coal Development through the Illinois Clean Coal Institute.

The Midwest Geological Sequestration Consortium

is a collaboration led by the geological surveys of

Illinois, Indiana, and Kentucky

Sch

lum

berg

er P

ub

lic

DOE‟s Carbon Sequestration Program Goals

Develop Technology Options by 2020 That...

Deliver technologies & best practices that provide

Carbon Capture and Safe Storage (CCSS) with:

● 90% carbon dioxide (CO2)

capture at source

● 99% storage permanence

● < 10% increase in

Cost of Energy (COE)

― Pre-combustion capture (IGCC)

● < 35% increase in COE

― Post-combustion capture

― Oxy-combustion

Sch

lum

berg

er P

ub

lic

Illinois Basin – Decatur Project Phase III Awarded December 2007

Major Project Elements:

● Underground Injection Control (UIC) permitting: January 2008 – November 2011 ― application, hearing, minor modification, major modification, completion reports…

● Injection well drilled: February 14 - May 4, 2009

● Geophone well drilled: November 2009

● Baseline 3D seismic survey completed: January 2010

● Compression / dehydration / pipeline facility ― design, procurement, construction, testing, February 2009-October 2011

● Monitoring well drilled, cased: Sept-Nov 2010

● Monitoring well completion: May-June 2011

● Completion Report to Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): August 2011

● Permission to Inject: November 2011

● Initiate injection: November 16, 2011

● Operating injection at a rate of 1000 tonnes/day

27

Sch

lum

berg

er P

ub

lic

Illinois Basin – Decatur Project Scope

A collaboration of

● Illinois State Geological Survey

● MGSC

● Archer Daniels Midland Company (ADM) ― CO2 source + site location

● Schlumberger Carbon Services ― Storage and monitoring

● Trimeric ― Compression & dehydration

● and other subcontractors to inject 1 million metric tons of anthropogenic CO2 at a depth of ~7,000 ft (~2,000 m) to test geological carbon sequestration in a saline formation at a site in Decatur, Illinois

28

Sch

lum

berg

er P

ub

lic

MGSC Illinois Basin – Decatur Project (IBDP) Site

MGSC Injection and geophone wells

MGSC monitoring well

0.5 mile

photo by Illinois Dept.

of Transportation,

8 November 2010

Sch

lum

berg

er P

ub

lic

Illinois Basin – Decatur Project Test Site (on ADM industrial site)

A. Dehydration / Compression

facility location

B. Pipeline route

C. Injection well

D. Verification/ monitoring well

E. Geophone well

30

A

B

C

D

800 m

A

B

C

D

800 m

D

E

C

B

A

IDOT Image 19-May-2010

Sch

lum

berg

er P

ub

lic

31

Surface Facilities: Dual 550 TPD Reciprocating Compressors with Dehydration

Inlet separator Dehydration inlet separator

Dehydration

unit contactor

Blower

Discharge separator

Blower aftercooler

Suction scrubber

Shell and tube heat exchangers

Cooling water

Supply & return

Compressor

Motor

Pipeline to wellhead

Sch

lum

berg

er P

ub

lic

32

March 2010

September 2010

December 2010

Compressor Installation

Images courtesy of MGSC, all rights reserved.

Sch

lum

berg

er P

ub

lic

Wellhead Installed, Pipeline Constructed, Injection Begun!

Supply end at compressors

January 2010 Injection day – November 2011

Images courtesy of MGSC, all rights reserved.

Sch

lum

berg

er P

ub

lic

Monitoring Framework

34

Sch

lum

berg

er P

ub

lic

35

Baseline 3D Geophysical Survey Completed January 2010

Sch

lum

berg

er P

ub

lic

Surface Measurement Components

● Pipeline Pressure & Temperature

● Ambient Meteorological Data

―Wind speed & direction

―Barometric pressure

―Relative Humidity

―Rainfall

● CO2 Mass Flow Rate

● Vented CO2 Mass Flow Rate

Sch

lum

berg

er P

ub

lic

Shallow Measurements

Red: groundwater well

Yellow: soil flux rings (118)

Blue: shallow resistivity points

37

Injection

well

Soil flux measurements

Sch

lum

berg

er P

ub

lic

Groundwater Monitoring Wells Installed

13 groundwater wells:

● 4 for regulatory purposes

● 9 for research purposes

38

0

25

50

75

100

125

150

175

Ma

y-0

9

Ju

n-0

9

Ju

l-0

9

Au

g-0

9

Se

p-0

9

Oct-

09

No

v-0

9

De

c-0

9

Ja

n-1

0

Fe

b-1

0

Ma

r-1

0

Ap

r-1

0

Ma

y-1

0

Ju

n-1

0

Ju

l-1

0

Au

g-1

0

Co

nce

ntr

atio

n, m

g/L

Calcium Magnesium Potassium

Sch

lum

berg

er P

ub

lic

Three Deep Wells – Subsurface Monitoring

Injection Well (7,230 ft)

● Wellhead Pressure & Temperature

● Annulus Pressure & Fluid Volume ― Monitors integrity of

tubing & packer

● Fiber-optic (DTS) Temperature ― Temperature profile

along tubing

● Microseismic Geophones (PS Platform* PS3) ― 3-levels, 4-component

packages ― Monitors near-wellbore

seismicity

● Bottomhole Pressure & Temperature

Geophone Well (3,500 ft)

● Multi-level Geophone Array ― 31-levels,

3-component packages ― 4D Vertical Seismic

Profile Surveys ― Cemented in place ― Additional passive

seismic data

● Many of these measurements integrated in a real-time on-site monitoring system

Monitoring Well (7,272 ft)

● Wellhead/Tubing Pressure

● Tubing-Casing Annulus Pressure

● Westbay* multilevel groundwater characterization and monitoring system ― Modular multi-packer

design ― Pressures &

Temperatures ― Fluid sampling ports ― Quality Assurance (QA)

Zone ● Two zones above

caprock ● One in caprock ● Nine in storage

formation

* Mark of Schlumberger

Sch

lum

berg

er P

ub

lic

Earth Tide Cycles Observed in Reservoir Pressure

• Pressure/Temperature gauge in injection well tubing @ 6,325‟ (MD)

• Fluctuations in reservoir pressure caused by gravitational influences of sun and moon

Pre-injection Background Monitoring

Sch

lum

berg

er P

ub

lic

Lithology-Influenced Geothermal Gradient

• Notable changes in thermal gradient associated with transitions in lithology

• Indicative of thermal properties of various formation types

Pre-injection Background Monitoring

0.6 °F/100-ft

1.6 °F/100-ft

0.7 °F/100-ft

Sch

lum

berg

er P

ub

lic

Monitoring Data Flow

Diagram from G. Picard

Sch

lum

berg

er P

ub

lic

Sch

lum

berg

er P

ub

lic

Summary

Sch

lum

berg

er P

ub

lic

CO2 Storage - Summary

● Finding Geological Storage ― Capacity, Injectivity, Containment + non-technical aspects ― Depleted reservoir, or saline formation ? ― CCS not the same as CO2 EOR

● Accessing the Storage Formation ― A well is not just a “hole in the ground” ― Consider existing wells and new ones ― Quality of execution is essential over and above good design and materials

● Monitoring Injection & Storage ― Monitoring is critical part of storage design ― Large number of technology options – not all applicable everywhere ― Requirement to monitor for many years after injection ceases

● A Real Example ― Illinois Basin – Decatur Project ― 4 years from funding decision to injection ― In operation NOW.