cranfield large scale co injection-- monitoring 3.5 million tons...cranfield large scale co 2...
TRANSCRIPT
Cranfield Large Scale CO2 Injection-- Monitoring 3.5 Million Tons
Susan Hovorka, PI
Ramón Treviño, project manager
Tip Meckel, geologist
Michael Young, Associate Director
Bureau of Economic Geology
Jackson School of Geosciences
The University of Texas at Austin
Carbon Storage R&D Project Review Meeting
Developing the Technologies and Building the Infrastructure
for CCUS : U.S. Department of Energy
National Energy Technology Laboratory
August 23, 2012
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Federal collaborators Via FWP
Separately funded Stanford, Princeton, U Edinburgh, UT PGE & ICES (CFSES), U. Tennessee, USGS RITE, BP, CCP , Durham, AWWA
2
Gulf Coast Carbon Center Bureau of Economic Geology
Jackson School of Geosciences The University of Texas at Austin
Sandia Technologies Monitoring Systems Design, Installation,
HS&E
Denbury Resources Field owner and injection system
design, management, 4-D
survey, HS&E
LBNL Well-based geophysics, U-tube and lab design
and fabrication
LLNL ERT
ORNL PFT, Stable isotopes
NETL Rock-water interaction
USGS Geochemistry
Environmental Information Volumes
Walden Consulting
SSEB
50 Vendors e.g. Schlumberger Vendors
e.g. local landman
Vendors e.g. equipment
MSU UMiss Hydro & hydrochem
Core Lab UT DoG
Anchor QEA
NRAP VSP&
analysis
SECARB Anthropogenic Test At Plant
Barry/Citronelle
Curtin University, Perth
Organization
Real-time monitoring – BHP, BHT, AZMI, DST
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
Mil
lio
n
metr
ic
ton
s C
O2
Baseline 3-D
Repeat 3-D
VSP
Cross well
Baseline
VSP
Cross well
Start DAS
injection
Start
Phase 3
injection Start
Phase 2
injection
Geochemical monitoring
1 million
ton/year
rate
Surface monitoring
Logging
5
4
3
2
1
0
Project Status
Research-based Cranfield Monitoring Plan
• Research-based: not regulatory- or risk-based
– Scoped, designed, and budgeted 2006, prior to regulation
– Operator holds risk
• Designed to respond to DOE programmatic questions
Lessons learned are derived products not processes to be duplicated
Cranfield Geologic Setting
Natchez
Mississippi
Mississippi River
Illustration by Tip Meckel
Oil and gas field
Discovery 1943
Depth 3000 m
15 m thick lower Tuscaloosa Fm.
Heterogeneous fluvial sandstones
Pipeline CO2 from Jackson Dome
@ 1 Million metric tones/year
Mississippi
DAS
Seismic line from 3-D survey, Cranfield reservoir, Mississippi
interpretation Tip Meckel BEG
Tu
scalo
os
a F
m
Tuscaloosa D-E oil reservoir
Oil-water contact
Tuscaloosa confining system
W E
Stacked Storage: Use in early stages (Now!) provides
access to long term storage
Step 1 Extract oil via
CO2 EOR with storage Step 2 Storage in
adjacent brine-filed
pore volumes
Regional Carbon Sequestration Program goal: Improve prediction of storage
capacities
7
Production history 37,590,000 Stock tank
barrels oil 672,472,000 MSCU
gas (Chevron, 1966)
7,754 acres x 90 ft net pay x 25.5% porosity
(Chevron, 1966)
Existing data
on reservoir
volumetrics
X E [pore volume occupancy (storage efficiency)] = Storage capacity
injection rate – limited by pressure response?
Measure saturation during multiphase plume evolution
Increase predictive capabilities by
validating numerical models
Observation: pore volume occupancy
was rate and dependent: not a
single number
Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership program
goal: Evaluate protocols to demonstrate that CO2 is
retained
Oil and gas trapped
over geologic time
High confidence in storage permanence through characterization
Uncertainty and risk assessment
P&A well performance in retention?
Limited analogy between injected and natural fluid retention
AZMI pressure
IZ pressure Microseismic
4-D Seismic 4-D VSP
Research
Questions
Selected
assessment
approach
Material Risk
of failing to
retain
Well-pad vadose
gas
Ground water chem.
shallow
deep
Semi-quantitative assessment
via Certification Framework
Off structure migration?
Response to pressure elevation?
Protocol
Sensitivity &
reliability
Monitoring layout
9
Phase II
Pipeline head&
Separation facility
5km
GIS base Tip Meckel, BEG
Psite
EGL-7
Detail Area
Study
(DAS)
Injector
Producer
(monitoring point)
Observation Well
4-D seismic
RITE Microseismic
Monitoring Innovations
• Groundwater monitoring
• Soil gas monitoring Aquifer and USDW
Atmosphere
Biosphere
Vadose zone
CO2 plume
Shallow groundwater
• Pressure in above-zone
monitoring interval
• Process-based vadose zone-
gas method
• In situ rock-water-CO2
interaction test.
• Contaminated site approaches
• Stacked storage demonstration
• Cross-well ERT at depth
• Bore hole gravity
• Methane exsolution
• RITE microseismic
Monitoring Design
Soil gas
Atmosphere
Area tested Whole plume Focus study
Not tested Not tested
Active and P&A well pads
Groundwater
Shallow production
AZMI
Injection zone
Not tested
EGL-7 UM test well, Push-pull test
Not tested
Not tested
Geochemistry breakthrough
Geo- mechanics
RITE micro seismic study
GMT(failed)
“P site” methodology assessment
Monitoring well at each injector
DAS pressure and EGL 7 pressure + fluids
DAS multi-well multi tool array
12
Detail Area
Study DAS
H Zeng, BEG 10cm
5km
Seismically non-unique interpreted form lines
Lower Tuscaloosa sand and conglomerate fluvial depositional environment
M. Kordi , BEG
Ambrose
Fluvial Facies concept
30-m apart
Time lapse seismic analysis DAS DAS
DAS
2007 Pre-injection 2010 1 year of injection about 1/4
million metric tons this area
Difference
Rui Zhang, CFSES & UTIG
Detailed Area Study (DAS) Injector
CFU 31F1
Obs
CFU 31 F2
Obs
CFU 31 F3
Above-zone
monitoring F1 F2 F3
Injection Zone
Above Zone Monitoring
10,500 feet BSL
Closely spaced
well array to
examine flow in
complex reservoir
68m
112 m
Petrel model Tip Meckel
Tuscaloosa D-E
reservoir
LLNL Electrical Resistance Tomography- changes in response with saturation
F2 F3
C. Carrigan, X Yang, LLNL
D. LaBrecque Multi-Phase Technologies
F1
Fluid sampling via U-tube yields data on flow processes
• Small diameter sampler with N2 drive brings fluids quickly and high frequency to surface with tracers intact
• High labor effort
• Unique data on fluid flow
UTDoG,
Adding tracer
As injection rate increased, plume thickness increased
112 m
Injection at 1/8 million ton/year
8 days
Injection at 1/4 million ton/year
4 days? 8 days
March-April 2010 tracer studies:
Jiemin Lu, Changbing Yang, GCCC
Tommy Phelps ORNL
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
-1.E-06
5.E-21
1.E-06
2.E-06
3.E-06
4.E-06
5.E-06
4/12 4/17 4/22 4/27 5/2 5/7 5/12 5/17 5/22 5/27
Kg/
min
Inj. rate
SF6
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
-1.E-06
0.E+00
1.E-06
2.E-06
3.E-06
4.E-06
4/12 4/17 4/22 4/27 5/2 5/7 5/12 5/17 5/22 5/27
Kg/
min
SF6
Inj. rate
CFU31F-2, 68 m away from injector
CFU31F-3, 112 m away from injector
Travel time = 317 h
Travel time = 319 h
SF6
SF6
2nd SF6 on May 9
255 h
Arrive on May 20
Arrive on May18 211 h
Jiemin Lu, GCCC
Continuous field data from dedicated monitoring well • Large perturbations obvious
• Even small perturbations observable (100’s tons/day flux from 1 km)
• Fault observed to be sealing
Meckel et al., in review
surface
Surface casing
Cemented in
Cement to
isolate
injection
zone
AZMI Above zone monitoring interval Time
Pre
ssu
re
Injection
zone
AMZI
Confining = No fluid communication
Using above AZMI pressure to assess storage permanence
Pressure Monitoring
CO2 Injection Zone
Above-Zone Monitoring Interval (AZMI) – leakage detection
Within Injection Zone (IZ) reservoir management
Daily injection rate
2000
1000
30 m
Metric ton/day
300
310
AZMI
bars
300
350
400
IZ
bars
T. Meckel BEG
Groundwater monitoring strategy
Characterize shallow groundwater geochemistry
Identify a set of geochemical parameters for detecting CO2 leakage
Lab experiments
Field experiments
(Push-pull tests)
Numerical modeling
Test and validation
Groundwater
chemistry
monitoring for
detecting CO2
leakage
Application
Changbing Yang BEG
Groundwater Monitoring
• Each injection well has a 200-300 ft deep groundwater well
• Quarterly geochemical monitoring by University of Mississippi,& Mississippi State
• Sensitivity studies: lab to field
CO2 injection
Changbing Yang,
BEG
Using a push-pull field test to validate models under insitu redox conditions
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0 5000 10000 15000 20000
As
(µg
/l)
Water volume pumped out during the
pulling phase
Mixing Meas.
bkg. inj.
Changbing Yang, BEG (AWWA)
4.5
5.0
5.5
6.0
6.5
7.0
0 5000 10000 15000 20000
pH
Water volume pumped out during the
pulling phase
Mixing Meas.
bkg. inj.
Vadose Zone Monitoring via Process Accounting
Katherine Romanak BEG
Leak
Mask signal
Soil moisture
Soil carbonate
Dampen signal
Organics → CO2
Plant activity
Produce CO2
Concentrate CO2
Consume CO2
Disperse CO2
Produce,
consume,
redistribute
CO2
Background
“noise”
Weather fronts
Challenges to Near-Surface Monitoring
Stored CO2
Failed
containment
Vadose
zone
Katherine Romanak BEG
Soil gas composition - Unique leakage signal
CH4 < 34 vol. %
CO2 < 45 vol.
%
N2 42-85%
O2 2- 21%
Soil gas distribution
CH4+2O2 CO2+ 2H2O
CH2O+ 2O2 CO2+ H2O
Methane oxidation
Org. oxidation
Katherine Romanak BEG
CO2 concentrations at different depths CO2 concentration alone may not reliable indicator for leakage
detection
• CO2 concentrations show variations in depth, average CO2 conc.
~350 ppm in the atmosphere, ~630 ppm at depth of 1.5 m below
surface show, and ~99000 ppm at depth of 3 m over the
observation time period
12/3/09 0:00 1/22/10 0:00 3/13/10 0:00 5/2/10 0:00 6/21/10 0:00
300
400
500
600
700
800
CO
2 (
pp
m)
90000
100000
110000
120000
CO
2(p
pm
)
at 1.5m
at 3m
at atmosphere
Near-surface observatory
Katherine Romanak Changbing Yang
Remaining Activities
• Knowledge sharing – Technical and public and policy
• Analysis of data collected – Joint/comparative inversions
– NRAP
– SIM-SEQ
– Basic Energy Sciences – EFRC’s
• Continued data collection – Report volumes injected and pressure response
– Continue groundwater and soil gas observation
– EGL7 deconstruction (DOE-Schlumberger Carbon Services)
• RITE microseismic array – collect microseismic data
• Use of DAS obs. well for DOE-LBNL CO2 geothermal test
• Support for CCUS concept
Conclusions • Stacked Storage Demonstrated
• Project objectives attained
– Long term monitoring continues
• Innovative techniques for permanence assessment:
– AZMI pressure
– Groundwater testing to determine sensitivity
– Fixed gas soil gas method
• Capacity is rate dependent
Gulf Coast Carbon Center (GCCC)
Scott Tinker
Michael Young
Sue Hovorka
Tip Meckel
J. P. Nicot
Rebecca Smyth
Ramon Trevino
Sigrid Clift
Katherine Romanak
Seyyed Hosseini
Changbing Yang
Vanessa Nunez
Dave Carr
Brad Wolaver
Alex Sun
Jiemin Lu
Jong Won Choi
Ian Duncan
Carey King
Mehdi Zeidouni
students and others
LNL
LBNL
LLNL
ORNL
SNL
Mississippi State U
U of Mississippi
SECARB
UT-PGE
UT Chem-E
CFSES- BES
UT- CIEEP
UT- DoGS
BEG- CEE
JSG – EER
Univ. Edinburgh
Univ. Durham
RITE
CCP -BP
CO2-CRC
AWWA
Collaborators IA sponsors
China Petroleum
Co. Taiwan
Bibliography
Please see www.gulfcoastcarbon.org
“bookshelf”
Special volume of International Journal of
Greenhouse Gas Control on Cranfield.
33