u.s. doe/netl carbon storage program goals...u.s. department of energy’s carbon storage program...

National EnergyTechnology Laboratory

Traci D. Rodosta

Carbon Storage Technology Manager

U.S. DOE/NETL

Carbon Storage Program Goals

U.S. Department of Energy’s

Carbon Storage Program Mission and Program Drivers

Develop effective and economically viable enabling technologies — then validate them in small- and large-scale (extensive monitoring) field projects to ensure safe and permanent storage of CO2 from power and industrial sources

2




Validate technological capability to assess, monitor and mitigate storage risks ensuring safe and permanent storage of CO2 throughout the U.S.(December 2010 EPA Regulations)

3





Demonstrate that Carbon Storage is a viable technology solution that can be implemented on a large-scale and is safe for the environment(Public Perception)

4






Development or integration of new or adapting existing technologies, such as seismic monitoring, to be cost-effective in order to reduce overall storage project costs (Commercial Toolbox)

5






Development or integration of new or adapting existing technologies, such as seismic monitoring, to be cost-effective in order to reduce overall storage project costs (Commercial Toolbox)

Ensure technologies are ready for wide-scale deployment of CCS allowing a diverse energy portfolio (Fossil Fuels)

6

U.S. DOE’s Carbon Storage Program

7

MVA Technology Area

• Atmospheric Monitoring and remote sensing technologies

• Near -Surface Monitoring of soils and vadose zone

• Subsurface Monitoring in and near injection zone

• Intelligent Monitoring Systems for field management

U.S. DOE’s Carbon Storage ProgramCore R&D Key Technology Areas (TRL 2-5)

Geologic Storage Technology Area(Storage Technologies and

Simulation and Risk Assessment)

• Wellbore construction and materials

• Mitigation technologies for wells and natural pathways

• Fluid flow, reservoir pressure, and water management

• Potential Geochemical effects on formation, brine, and microbial communities

• Potential Geomechanical impacts on reservoirs-seals and basin-scale coupled models; microseismic monitoring

• Risk Assessment databases and integration into operational design and monitoring

CO2 Use/Reuse Technology Area

• Chemicals

• Polycarbonate plastics

• Minerals and cements (building products)

• EOR, EGR, and ECBM

8

• Program began in 1997

– Broad in nature and included: capture, storage, ocean sequestration, terrestrial sequestration, and advanced biological and chemical approaches.

• In 1999, the goal of the first Carbon Sequestration R&D Roadmap:

– “Have the potential to sequester a significant fraction of 1 GTC/year in 2025 and 4 GTC/year in 2050.”

• Goals from 2007 Carbon Sequestration Technology Roadmap and Program Plan:

– 90% CO2 capture

– 99 percent storage permanence

– 10% increase in the cost of energy services

– By 2012, have pilot scale performance results from a combination of CO2

capture, MM&V, that when integrated would collectively meet the previously stated goals.

U.S. DOE’s Carbon Storage ProgramBrief History of Program Goals

9

• Develop and validate technologies to ensure 99 percent storage permanence.

• Support industry’s ability to predict CO2 storage capacity in geologic formations to within ±30 percent.

• Develop technologies to improve reservoir storage efficiency while ensuring containment effectiveness.

• Develop Best Practice Manuals for monitoring, verification, accounting, and assessment; site screening, selection and initial characterization; public outreach; well management activities; and risk analysis and simulation.

10

U.S. DOE’s Carbon Storage ProgramCurrent Program Goals

• Originally based on 2005 IPCC Special Report on Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage

– “Observations from engineered and natural analogues as well as models suggest that the fraction retained in appropriately selected and managed geological reservoirs is very likely to exceed 99% over 100 years and is likely to exceed 99% over 1,000 years“

• Later versions:

– “Develop technology applications that enable recognition of leakage to the atmosphere and shallow subsurface in order to ensure 95 percent retention of stored CO2 in 2008 and 99 percent retention of stored CO2 in 2012” – 2009 DOE/NETL Best Practices Manual Monitoring, Verification and Accounting of CO2

Stored in Deep Geologic Formations

– “(By) 2015 develop MVA technologies that enable 99 percent of stored CO2 to be credited as net emissions reductions” - 2010 DOE/NETL CO2 Capture and Storage R&D Roadmap

– “Develop and validate technologies to measure and account for 99 percent of injected CO2 in the injection zones”

Evolution of CS Program Goals99 Percent Storage Permanence

11

• Based on discussions with industry experts; reflects level of confidence in predicting CO2 retention in EOR reservoirs; then focusing goal on saline formations

• Appeared as goal in 2010 DOE/NETL CO2 Capture and Storage R&D Roadmap– “(By) 2015…. demonstrate ability to predict CO2 storage capacity with plus

or minus 30 percent accuracy”

Evolution of CS Program GoalsSupport Industry’s Ability to Predict CO2 Storage Capacity

in Geologic Formations to within+/- 30 Percent

12

• Based on the need to reduce uncertainty in estimates of the storage capacity and minimize the size of the CO2 plume.

• Related to goal in 2010 DOE/NETL CO2 Capture and Storage R&D Roadmap– “(By) 2015 validate enhanced CO2 trapping and storage capacity at

pre-commercial scale”

Evolution of CS Program GoalsDevelop technologies to improve reservoir storage

efficiency while ensuring containment effectiveness

13

• Sharing of lessons learned and best practices from R&D projects is essential for the deployment of CCS

• Lessons learned from the Carbon Storage program’s sponsored activities, particularly the field projects, are integrated into a series of BPMs

• Appeared as goal in 2010 DOE/NETL CO2 Capture and Storage R&D Roadmap– “(By) 2017 update all Best Practice Manuals with the lessons learned

from the core R&D RCSP Development Phase and other large-scale field projects”

Evolution of CS Program GoalsDevelop Best Practice Manuals for Monitoring, Verification, Accounting, and Assessment; Site Screening, Selection and

Initial Characterization; Public Outreach; Well Management Activities; and Risk analysis and Simulation

14

• Starting point: flux chambers, eddy covariance towers– Limitation: costly for large areal coverage

needed for large scale storage

– Flux chambers are manually intensive

– Eddy covariance - large number of towers; fewer tall expensive towers

• Current advancements: open path optical detection systems (LIDAR)– Resolution of about 20ppm

– Field testing underway

• Next steps: improved resolution, processing of optical systems

Advancing the State-Of-The-ArtSurface Monitoring for Potential Leakage

Flux chamber

Field deployable DIAL instrument (ZERT Testing site)

15

• Starting point: wireline logging, single purpose measurement systems

– Limitations: discrete measurements over time; difficult to obtain multiple types of data in one location

• Current advancements: integrated instrument packages for continuous measurement

– Instrument packages for multi-zone fluid sampling, pressure, temperature, seismic sensing

• Next steps: advanced fiber optic multi-property systems

Advancing the State-Of-The-ArtMonitoring the Wellbore and Near-Wellbore

Instrument package deployed atSECARB test site

16

• Starting point: seismic – Limitations: doesn’t work well in all geologic

environments; non-unique correlation between signal and properties (lithology, fluid composition, saturation, pressure, etc)

• Current advancements: improved seismic analysis, integration of other geophysics– Surface deformation for pressure (InSAR)

– Gravity

– Joint inversion

• Next steps: further advancements in integration of multiple types of monitoring data and modeling

Advancing the State-Of-The-ArtGeophysics

17

• How do the CCS goals compare internationally?

• Are the drivers for goals similar or different?

• Have the drivers changed over time?

• Is there agreement on the technical justification for goals, how far can we advance these technologies?

• Can goals be modified based on knowledge gained to date for future revisions?

CCS Monitoring InternationallyDiscussion Questions

18

the ENERGY lab

Backup Slides(Technology Accomplishments)

BIG SKY

WESTCARB

SWP

PCOR

MGSC

SECARB

MRCSP

Regional Carbon Sequestration PartnershipsDeveloping the Infrastructure for Wide Scale Deployment

Phase II Validation Projects:

Completed 18 Field Project s injection ~1.2 MMTSaline Formations (3,000 to 60,000 MT)Oil and Gas Reservoirs (50 to 500,000 MT)Unmineable Coal (200 to 18,000 MT)Basalt Formation (1,000 MT)

RCSP Geologic ProvinceInjection Volume

(metric tons MT)

BIG SKYKevin Dome-

Duperow FormationTBD

MGSCIllinois Basin-

Mt. Simon Sandstone>500,000

MRCSPMichigan Basin-

Niagaran Reef>200,000

PCOR

Powder River Basin-

Muddy SandstoneInjecting

Horn River Basin-

CarbonatesTBD

SECARB

Gulf Coast -

Tuscaloosa

Formation

>3,000,000

Gulf Coast –

Paluxy Formation>75,000

SWPAnadarko Basin-

Morrow SandstoneSept 2013

WESTCARB Regional Characterization

Seven Regional Partnerships400+ distinct organizations, 43 states, 4 Canadian Provinces

Compression FacilityCO2 Pipe to Injection Well

• First large scale (1MMT) saline test on land

• 1MMT from ethanol fermentation facility

• Dehydrated and compressed to 1500 PSI

• Injecting 1,000 MT per day since Nov 2011

• Over 500,000 MT injected to date

• Geology

– Storage Formation: Mount Simon Sandstone

– Seal: 500ft of Eau Claire Shale

• Designed to meet UIC Class VI requirements

Midwest Geological Sequestration ConsortiumIllinois Basin Decatur Project

Plains CO2 Reduction Partnership Bell Creek Field Project

Injection of 1 MMT of CO2 to commence in early 2013

Extensive MVA plan to account for stored CO2 in the injection zone:

• Based in Site Characterization, Modeling, and Risk Assessment

• Surface, near-surface and subsurface monitoring

Goals of Extensive MVA program:

• Verify site security and identify any potential fluid migration pathways

• Track CO2 plume movement to determine ultimate fate of CO2

• Evaluate efficiency of CO2 Storage in an active EOR field

• Many countries do not appear to have specific carbon storage program goals like the US. • However most countries have project specific monitoring goals. • For example, in Australia, CO2CRC research aims to further understand and model the

sedimentary architecture, geomechanical behavior and likely fluid flow at potential storage sites.

• In addition, CO2CRC is developing suitable technologies and strategies for managing CO2 injection together with monitoring and verification technologies to show that CO2 storage is safe.

• On the other hand, the EU Carbon Storage Directive contains the following elements that apply to all projects:– Image / measure CO2 in the reservoir– Monitor containment risks– Show site is currently performing as expected– Constrain predictions of long-term site behavior– Enable site closure

• The following visual provides a detailed description of various demonstration projects in the EU along with their associated monitoring objectives. http://www.acupofcoffee.nl/ccs/visual1/.

Sample International Carbon Storage Goals

http://www.acupofcoffee.nl/ccs/visual1/

u.s. doe/netl carbon storage program goals...u.s. department of energy’s carbon storage program...

Documents