south west hub carbon storage to change imagedmp.wa.gov.au/documents/petroleum/rec-oa-109d.pdf ·...

South West Hub

Carbon Storage

Presented byDominique Van Gent

Coordinator Carbon Storage

TO CHANGE IMAGERight click and select “Change

Picture…”

Overview

Location Technical Workflows Uncertainty Mapping

The project is supported through the Australian Commonwealth Government CCS Flagship Program through the Department of Industry, Innovation and Science (DOIIS); The West Australian State Government through theDepartment of Mines, Industry Regulation and Safety (DMIRS); The Australian National Low Emissions Coal R&D Program; and The local community in the south west of Western Australia.

Historical Context Modelling Results

LOCATION : Near Industrial Centres

In the heart of South West industry

Agricultural and lifestyle area

Project does not compete with potable water

Stratigraphy: Regional & in the Area of Interest (AOI)

Perth Basin

Eroded

Eroded

AOI

Unconformity

No basin resource conflict - absence of Yarragadee freshwater aquifer is critical to site selection

Yalgorup Member 800 meters thick

Wonnerup Member 1500metres thick

Lesueur Sandstone

Focus on Process

Assess & Select

Screen

Define

Execute

Operate

Close

M1

M2

M5

M6

Milestones

1) Begin site screening

2) Shortlist storage sites

3) Select site & engineering concept

4) Storage permit application

5) Initiate construction

6) Initiate CO2 injection

7) Qualify for site closure

8) Initiate decommisioning

Qualification Statements

1) Statement of storage feasibility

2) Certificate of fitness for storage

3) Certificate of fitness for closure

Permits issued by Regulator

EP – Exploration Permit

SP – CO2 Storage Permit

TOR – Transfer of Responsibility

EP1

SP2

M7

TOR

3

M3

M4

M8

DNV CO2QualStoreEU Directive 2009/31/EC and Australian Legislation have similar structures

South West Hub Project Concept

Primary Migration

and Immobilisation of CO2

No CO2 movement outside the

Yalgorup Member

WonnerupMember

YalgorupMember

• Storage Concept: Containment through residual trapping and dissolution− Injection at depth (2,500-3,000m) in

the ~1,500m thick Wonnerup Member− Secondary sealing potential through

thick heterogeneous paleosol and silt sequences in overlying Yalgorup Member

New Data Acquisition with Extensive Community Consultation

2011 2D Seismic

2012 GSWA Harvey-1

2013 3D Seismic

2015 DMP Harvey-2 DMP Harvey-3DMP Harvey-4

Extensive Core and Log Data/Analyses

Well Run Services

Harvey-21 Gamma-Resistivity-Dipole Sonic

2 Seismic VSP

Harvey-4

1 Gamma-Resistivity-Dipole Sonic-Neutron-Density

2 XRMI Image

1 Gamma-Resistivity-Dipole Sonic-Neutron-Density

2 XRMI Image

CSNG Compensated Spectral Gamma

3 MRIL Nuclear Magnetic Resonance

4 RDT Reservoir Description Tool

5 Seismic VSP

Harvey-3

1 Gamma-Resistivity-Sonic-Neutron-Density



2 HSFT Formation Tester

3 Seismic VSP

> 2km of Core obtainedClays preserved

Routine Core Analysis (RCA)• Grain volume and grain density• Porosity and Permeability• Permeability to brine• Threshold Pressure to Carbon Dioxide

Special Core Analysis (SCAL)• Flow studies• Mercury Injection Analysis• Geomechanical Analysis

Depositional Environment: Analogue

Two Fluvial Facies Used:

High and Low Energy

“Paleosols”

Brahmaputra, India

Episodic pulses of flow and sediment

Braided fluvial system

Decision Making: Modelling Considerations

Single well models to investigate whether greater than P50 level of confidence can be achieved • to inject >800,000 tonnes per annum over 30 years (average injectivity of 100,000 tonnes per

annum per well)• that no more than 10 wells in total would be required

A suite of full field simulation models which cover uncertainties and demonstrate plume profiles • injection at 800,000 tonnes per annum of CO2 over 30 years • over 1,000 years modelling for containment confidence evaluation that will enable a Go/No

Go decision on additional data acquisition• Well count to achieve the above

Multiple Scenarios: A number of models to be constructed to investigate the effects of the reservoir uncertainties and the location of the CO2 plume

Timeline Model Complexity Comments

Generation 1 (Gen 1) Models: 2010

100 layers, 1 million cells Initial Uncertainty Identification: Coarse screening model based on offset data from region


357 layers, 30 million cellsUncertainty Rationalisation based on new 2D seismic and data from well Harvey 1


1,100 layers, 214 million cells

Uncertainty Parameterisation based on new 3D seismic and new data from wells Harvey 2, 3 and 4.


(Just Completed)

1,100 layers, 256 million cells

Uncertainty Parameterisation based on reinterpreted 3D seismic and integration of all available data,

Dynamic Model 1.96 million cells 1.2 million active cells (containing formulae)

Four Generation of Models

With each iteration more data is acquired and uncertainties reduced

Static Model – Porosity Distribution

Reference Case: Plume Distributions

800,000 tonnes per annum injected for 30 years i.e. 24 million tonnes

Plume profile after 1000 years

Plume movement effectively stops within 500 years

mT

VD

ss

Axes are in metres

Axes are in metres

Plume is ~6.4km long and 3.2 km wide

Aerial

View

Side View

Looking South

Reference Case: Top View of Plume Movement

Axes are in metres

Reference Case: Looking South - Plume Movement

Axes are in metres

CO2 Material Balance (1000 Years After Shut-in)

Trapped Gas Mobile Free Gas

Total CO2

Dissolved Total CO2

(moles) (moles) (moles) (moles)

Gas Material Balance 3.54E+11 2.37E+08 2.13E+11 5.68E+11

% of Injected 62.4% 0.0% 37.5% 100.0%

Supercritical CO2

(Reference Case - Compositional Model)

Dynamic Modelling - Scenarios

Objective: To test under what conditions the success criteria can be breached

• Multiple Cases (Scenarios) Modelled

• Ranges of uncertainties considered

• Combination of uncertainties considered as “stress” cases

Case Case Name Geological Model Description

Reference 3Well Reference

800,000 tpa.

Brine salinity=45600 ppm (NaCl Equivalent)

SgT based on Land Correlation C=1.95

1 3Well_NoPC Reference

800,000 tpa.


No capillary pressures


2 3Well_highkrg Reference

800,000 tpa.


Krg=0.25


3 3Well_bland Wonneup is homogeneous

800,000 tpa.



4 3Well_Hiperm Permeability in I, J and K directions mulitipled by 1.4

800,000 tpa.

Faults not sealing



5 3Well_LowSgt Reference

800,000 tpa.



6 3Well_HighSalt Reference

800,000 tpa.

Faults not sealing



7 3Well_highKv Kv=0.8*K Horizontal

800,000 tpa.

Faults not sealing



8 3Well_lowKv Kv=0.1*K Horizontal

800,000 tpa.

Faults not sealing



9 3Well_001Faults Fault Transmissibility * 0.01

800,000 tpa.



10 3WELL_holey_wonnseal

Cells adjacent to faults have the vertical permeability

increased by 10 times. Wonnerup and Yalgorup in

communication through the faults.

800,000 tpa.



11 3WELL_holey


increased by 10 times. Communication between

Wonnerup and Yalgorup through faults and sand-on-sand

contact.

800,000 tpa.



12 3WELL_holey_NoYal


increased by 10 times. No communication between

Wonnerup and Yalgorup through faults or sand-on-sand

conact.

800,000 tpa.



13 3Well_holey_wonnseal_lowsol


increased by 10 times. Wonnerup and Yalgorup in

communication through the faults.

800,000 tpa.



Plume remains inside storage complex in all modelled cases

Limited spread of plume compared to reference case: 6.5km X 3.5km

Only under few conditions does the plume enter the secondary containment zone

Recap : Current Context

Gen 3 Model results were positive and prompted additional interpretation work with existing data

Peer Reviewed Project UMP finalised in February 2017

• Uncertainties mapped

• Recommended workscope aimed at extracting the maximum information from all available data

Gen 4 workscope activities started in July 2017

• Completed and results Peer Reviewed June 2018

• UMP Updated and key aspects Reviewed

• Recommendations for New Data Acquisition

QA Process for Technical Assurance

Multiple Reviews

Industry experts• Chevron (Gorgon team), ENI, Independents (ex

Santos), Osaka Gas

• Other CCS Projects - CTSCo

Government experts• GA, GSWA

Research experts• CSIRO, UWA, Curtin University

• ANLEC R&D

• International: University of Alberta, Lawrence Berkeley National labs

Example: Detailed map of uncertainties in UMP

1 2 3 4 5

5

4

3

2

1

Range of Uncertainty

Imp

act

of

Un

cert

ain

ty

• Structure/Formation Dip

• Compartments

• Rock strength parameters (LOT)

• Yalgorup/Wonnerup Communication

• Formation Salinity

• Paleosol Efficacy

• Vertical Migration through Faults

Qualitative ranking but colour code. Not prioritised

Need for New Data

• Deep Reservoir Properties and Diagenesis• Heterogeneity ( Vertical and Horizontal)• Compartmentalisation

• Dynamic Reservoir Response• Vertical Versus Horizontal

migration of plume

• Dept. Environment Interpretation

• Facies Prediction Using 3D Seismic

• Fault Interpretation

UMP: Visualising the Key Uncertainties

“Gen1”

“Gen2”

“Gen3”

“Gen4”

MODEL

UMP: Visualising the Key Uncertainties over time

Hig

hLo

w

Imp

act

Leve

lM

id

1

2/3

4

4

4

1/4

Gen

1: S

LB –

Off

set

wel

l dat

a an

d 1

99

1 2

D s

eism

icG

en 2

: SLB

–H

arve

y 1

, 20

11

2D

G

en 3

: OD

IN –

3D

Sei

smic

(V

ELSE

IS)

Gen

4: O

DIN

–R

ep

roce

ssed

3D

Sei

smic

(C

UR

TIN

)

1/3

1/2 1

2

4

2

1

4

2

1

3/4

33/4

1/21/3

4 4

2

1

33

3

2

1

4

3

Rel

ativ

e p

erm

eab

ility

h

yste

resi

s

Salin

ity

CO

2

dis

solu

tio

n

rate

Ab

solu

te

per

mea

bili

ty

Het

ero

gen

eity

In

c. k

v/kh

Stru

ctu

ral d

ip

Seal

th

ickn

ess

and

ext

ent

Seal

cap

acit

y

Frac

ture

/fau

lt

Loca

tio

n/d

ensi

ty

Frac

ture

/fau

lt

flo

w p

ote

nti

al

Tab

le It

em N

o.

and

Par

amet

er

#4 #4&11 #11 #3 #3 #8 #8

BH

P

(Ro

ck S

tren

gth

)

Yalg

oru

p/W

on

C

on

nec

tivi

ty

2

1

3

4

1

2

3

4

South West Hub Project Concept: Containment in a Thick Reservoir

Primary Migration

and Immobilisation of CO2

No CO2 movement outside the

Yalgorup Member or above 800M

WonnerupMember

YalgorupMember

Storage Concept: Containmentthrough residual trapping and dissolution within Storage Complex

S800M

S

1500M

Why is the SW Hub Relevant?

In reservoirs such as the Lesueur, containment may be assured through residual trapping and dissolution

Confidence built over 4 generations of models (2010-2018) with increasing complexity and data• 4 wells, seismic and core data

Main Remaining Gaps To be Addressed: • Lack of information in the deep Wonnerup• Gap in understanding of exactly how the fluid will flow • Lack of dynamic reservoir (flow test) information in target injection

reservoir If proven , absence of a traditional shale cover should not prematurely

screen-out reservoirs for CO2 storage• SW Hub can widen the available sites for CCS consideration worldwide

Located in the heart of the S-W industrial belt proximal to multiple emissions sources

The Lesueur represents the best opportunity for CCS in the South West

The absence of the Yarragadee (potable water) is critical

In the South West

Thank You

www.dmp.wa.gov.au/ccs

www.dmp.wa.gov.au/wapims

www.ngl.org.au

www.anlecrd.com.au

http://www.dmp.wa.gov.au/ccs

http://www.dmp.wa.gov.au/wapims

http://www.ngl.org.au/

http://www.anlecrd.com.au/

south west hub carbon storage to change imagedmp.wa.gov.au/documents/petroleum/rec-oa-109d.pdf ·...

Documents