Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
RECS
Prepared by:
11
Disclaimer
This presentation is based upon work supported by the Department of Energy
National Energy Technology Laboratory under DE-FC26-05NT42590 and was
prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States
Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof,
nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or
assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or
usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or
represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference
herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name,
trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply
its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States
Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors
expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States
Government or any agency thereof.
2
2
Background
Storage Overview
Project Schedule and Milestones
The CO2 capture unit at Alabama Powers
(Southern Co.) Plant Barry became operational
in 3Q 2011.
A newly built 12 mile CO2 pipeline from Plant
Barry to the Citronelle Dome was completed in
4Q 2011.
A characterization well was drilled in 1Q 2011
to confirm geology.
Injection wells were drilled in 3Q 2011.
114k metric tons were injected into the Paluxy
formation beginning in the 3Q 2012.
Injection operations were terminated
September 3Q 2014
3 years of post-injection monitoring.
Project Objectives
1. Support the United States largest commercial prototype CO2 capture and transportation
demonstration with injection, monitoring and storage activities;
2. Test the CO2 flow, trapping and storage mechanisms of the Paluxy Formation, a regionally
extensive Gulf Coast saline formation;
3. Demonstrate how a saline reservoirs architecture can be used to maximize CO2 storage
and minimize the areal extent of the CO2 plume;
4. Test the adaptation of commercially available oil field tools and techniques for monitoring
CO2 storage (e.g., VSP, cross-well seismic, cased-hole neutron logs, tracers, pressure,
etc.);
5. Test experimental CO2 monitoring activities, where such technologies hold promise for
future commercialization;
6. Begin to understand the coordination required to successfully integrate all four components
(capture, transport, injection and monitoring) of the project; and
7. Document the permitting process for all aspects of a CCS project.
6
Geology
Geologic Characterization
Baseline Reservoir Characterization:
Analysis of over 80 existing oilfield
well logs for porosity, thickness
and depositional style.
Sand mapping to determine open
or closed sand units.
Extrapolated Continuity of
Upper Paluxy Sandstones
At Citronelle Southeast Unit
Northwest - Southeast
11
Paluxy Sandstone
Section of the D-9-7#2 core (9,598 to 9,607ft)
1.6
Darcy
680
mD
1
Darcy
730
mD
1.8
Darcy
12
1.1
Darcy
0.27
mD
279
mD
860
mD
600
mD
D-9-9 #2
Core: 9,424 - 9,434
8.56%
0.004
mD
7.76%
0.004
mD
7.23%
(Perm n/a)
Paluxy
Mudstone
Low permeability mudstones
provide local confining layers
and flow baffles between
reservoir sandstones.
Shale Rock Properties (D-9-9#2)
CO2 Adsorption Isotherm Test
TOC
8.99%
0.006
mD
7.76%
0.002
mD
8.62%
0.008
mD
8.96%
0.011
mD
7.43%
0.06 mD
13
Permitting
14
Permitting Outline
National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA)
15
16
18
19
A Class V Experimental Well permit was sought for the following reasons
After comments by EPA, most Class VI (CO2 sequestration well) standards were applied
20
Monitoring
21
MVA Method
Shallow
Soil flux
Groundwater sampling (USDW)
PFT survey
Deep
CO2 volume, pressure & composition
Reservoir fluid sampling
Injection, temperature & spinner logs
Pulse neutron logs
Crosswell seismic
Vertical seismic profile (VSP)
Experimental
Distributed Temperature Sensing (DTS)
Comparative fluid sampling methods
MBM VSP
Distributed Acoustic Sensing (DAS)
MBM VSP & OVSP Seismic
22
Continuous
Monthly
Quarterly
Annual
Milestone
(Baseline,
Injection,
Post)
23
Shallow MVA
USDW Groundwater Sampling
3 - Background Monitoring Events:
January 2012 (N=1) through July 2012
(N=3)
10 - Injection Period Monitoring Events:
November 2012 (N=4) through February
2015 (N=13)
PFT Survey
24
Inoculation
Testing
Well/Sample AUG 2012 JUN 2013 NOV 2013
D-9-1
ND
ND
ND
D-9-2
ND
ND
ND
D-9-3
ND
ND
ND
D-9-6
ND
ND
ND
D-9-7-1
ND
ND
ND
D-9-8
Invalid Data
ND
ND
D-9-9
ND
ND
ND
D-9-10
Invalid Data
ND
ND
D-9-11
ND
ND
ND
Air Blank 1
ND
NST
NST
System Blank
ND
ND
Deep MVA
CO2 Injection History
CO2 Stream composition data (%)
CO2
O2
N2
Total
Nov-13
99.968
0.003
0.029
100
Oct-13
99.971
0.002
0.027
100
Sep-13
99.950
0.007
0.043
100
Aug-13
99.984
0.003
0.013
100
Jul-13
99.893
0.031
0.076
100
Jun-13
99.893
0.031
0.076
100
May-13
99.976
0.003
0.021
100
Apr-13
99.977
0.003
0.020
100
Mar-13
99.977
0.003
0.020
100
Feb-13
99.977
0.003
0.020
100
Jan-13
99.978
0.004
0.018
100
Dec-12
99.981
0.016
0.003
100
Nov-12
99.984
0.014
0.002
100
Oct-12
99.984
0.014
0.002
100
Sep-12
99.979
0.011
0.010
100
Aug-12
Aug-13
99.975
0.004
0.021
100
average
99.965
0.010
0.025
25
Deep MVA
D-9-8#2 Downhole Pressure
D9-8#2
D4-14
In Zone
D4-13
Above
Confinement
CO2 Injected
26
Deep MVA
Plume Image Comparison with Spinner Surveys
Time-lapse image
shows CO2 plume
located primarily in
Paluxy sands F-H
J
I
H
G
F
E
C
B
27
Sand Sand Unit Properties (ft) Nov 2012 Aug 2013 Oct 2013
Unit Bottom Top Thickness Flow % Flow % Flow %
J
9,454 9,436
18
14.8
18.7
16.7
I
9,474 9,460
14
8.2
20.4
19.6
H
9,524 9,514
10
2.8
7.4
7.7
G
9,546 9,534
12
2.7
2.1
0.9
F
9,580 9,570
10
0.0
1.2
1.2
E
9,622 9,604
18
26.8
23.5
30.8
D
9,629 9,627
2
0.0
0.0
0.0
C
9,718 9,698
20
16.5
11.8
10.3
B
9,744 9,732
12
4.9
0.6
0.4
A
9,800 9,772
28
23.3
14.3
12.4
Deep MVA
Comparison of Crosswell Reflectors
Baseline
Tomogram
Weak and/or
discontinuous reflectors
Strong, continuous
reflectors
Repeat
Tomogram
Injection Zone
Confining Zone
No reflector was
detected at or
near the top of
the CO2 where
one should be
present
Reflection data from the repeat survey are of poor quality and limited use.
Likely cause is interference by tube waves moving up and down the well
28
No significant negative
velocity anomalies
Confining Zone
Injection Zone
Decrease in velocity
(negative anomaly)
30
Map of
VSP
shot
points
31
Reservoir Modeling
32
Model 3D View
Monitoring
Well D9-8#2
33
Perforation Data
Sand Perforated
Name Intervals (ft)
9460
9520
9540
9570
9620
9670
9710
9740
9800
9840
9900
9970
10030
10040
10100
10130
10310
10370
10400
10470
10500
34
9436 - 9454,
9460 -9474
9514 -9524
9534 - 9546
9570 - 9580
9604 - 9622,
9627 - 9629
N/A
9698 - 9718
9732 - 9744
9772 - 9800
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
9460 A1
9460 A2
9460 A3
9460 B
9460 C
9460 D
9460 E
Interburden 9460 to
9520
9520 A1
9520 A2
Total Perf
Footage
9520 B1
9520 B2
9520 C
Interburden 9520 to
9540
9540 A
28
9540 B1
9540 B2
9540 C
Interburden 9540 to
9570
9570 Top
9570 B
9570 C
Interburden 9570 to
9620
10
12
10
20
N/A
20
12
28
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Perforated intervals
respected in the model
9620 A1
9620 A2
9620 B
9620 C1
9620 C2
9620 C3
9620 D
9620 E
Interburden 9620 to
9670
9670
Interburden 9670-9710
9710 A
9710 B
9710 C
Interburden 9710 to
9740
9740 A
9740 B
9740 C
Interburden 9740 to
9800
9800 A
9800 B
9800 C
9800 D
9800 E
Depth from
Model
9420.1
9428.0
9436.0
9443.9
9453.4
9461.1
9472.9
Thickness
from Model
7.93
7.93
7.93
9.5
7.7
11.8
9.6
Model
Layer
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
9482.5
22.9
13
9505.4
9512.9
9520.3
9524.8
9529.3
7.45
7.45
4.5
4.5
4.1
14
15
16
17
18
9533.4
3.3
19
9536.7
9541.7
9547.3
9552.9
5
5.6
5.6
4.4
20
21
22
23
9557.3
12.5
24
9569.8
9576
9584.7
6.2
8.7
4.1
25
26
27
9588.8
8.6
28
9597.4
9602.9
9608.4
9616.7
9620.9
9625.2
9629.4
9638.1
5.5
5.5
8.3
4.2
4.2
4.2
8.7
5.7
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
9643.8
16.4
37
9660.2
9687.5
9700.1
9718.1
9721.3
27.3
12.6
18
3.2
5.1
38
39
40
41
42
9726.4
6.8
43
9733.2
9739.9
9743.9
6.7
4
16.3
44
45
46
9760.2
20.6
47
9780.8
9785.4
9790.1
9803.4
9813.0
4.6
4.7
13.3
9.6
48
49
50
51
52
Perforated
Layer
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Layer
9460 A1
9460 A2
9460 A3
9460 B
9460 C
9460 D
9460 E
Interburden 9460 to 9520
9520 A1
9520 A2
9520 B1
X
X
9520 B2
9520 C
Interburden 9520 to 9540
9540 A
9540 B1
X
X
9540 B2
9540 C
Interburden 9540 to 9570
9570 Top
9570 B
9570 C
35
Perforated Model
Model
Layer Porosity Permeability
0.178
14.1
0.195
56.9
X
0.169
12.5
X
0.190
45.0
X
0.200
187.5
X
0.208
37.6
0.212
40.1
0.185
0.185
0.217
0.217
0.170
1.2
1.2
17.2
17.2
0.7
0.208
0.195
0.195
0.161
18.9
4.4
4.4
0.5
Layer
Interburden 9570 to 9620
9620 A1
9620 A2
9620 B
9620 C1
9620 C3
0.150
0.130
0.150
1.3
1.6
1.9
67.1
48.1
48.1
48.1
493.8
87.5
66.9
35.6
0.170
3.3
0.191
0.195
0.180
28.8
20.0
16.5
X
X
0.179
0.200
0.191
7.0
23.6
14.4
X
X
X
0.185
0.196
0.175
0.187
0.143
42.0
76.5
23.0
47.0
2.4
X
X
X
X
9620 D
9620 E
Interburden 9620 to 9670
9670
Interburden 9670-9710
9710 A
9710 B
9710 C
Interburden 9710 to 9740
9740 A
9740 B
9740 C
Interburden 9740 to 9800
9800 A
9800 C
9800 D
9800 E
Model
Permeability
0.218
0.193
0.193
0.193
0.210
0.183
0.200
0.167
9620 C2
9800 B
Perforated Model
Layer
Porosity
Sample
8H
8V
28H
28V
29H
29V
46H
46V
49H
49V
52V
55V
59H
59V
61H
61V
Depth
Number
9577.20
9577.4 9577.50
9597.35
9597.45 9597.65
9598.35
9598.45 9598.70
9614.65
9615.05 9615.30
9617.65
9618.1 9618.25
9621.2 9621.35
9624.25 9624.45
9627.65
9627.8 9628.10
9629.75
9630.05 -
Net Confining
Porosity
Stress (psig)
(%)
Permeability
Klinkenberg (md)
1200.00
1200.00
17.38
17.21
34.71
17.78
1200.00
1200.00
21.62
22.04
496.23
462.93
1200.00
1200.00
20.20
19.90
74.82
14.14
1200.00
1200.00
20.27
18.07
167.32
32.27
1200.00
1200.00
17.71
16.83
52.28
6.98
1200.00
20.83
756.16
1200.00
20.42
535.71
1200.00
1200.00
13.70
20.74
26.50
612.96
1200.00
1200.00
17.06
12.37
223.67
0.80
Kr
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0
37
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
Sw
0.6
0.7
0.8
Simulation Krw
Simulation Krg
Krg Sample 36
Krw Sample 36
Krg Sample 46
Krw Sample 46
0.9
10,000,000
8,000,000
6,000,000
4,000,000
2,000,000
0
7/1/2012
7/1/2013
Simulation Injection Rate
38
7/1/2014
Actual Injection Rate
Pressure, psia
4,440
4,420
4,400
4,380
4,360
4,340
4,320
4,500
4,300
4,480
4,460
D9-8 Bottom Gauge
Simulation Data
Pressure, psia
4,440
4,420
4,400
4,380
4,360
4,340
4,320
4,300
39
Simulation Data
D 4-14 Bot
4400
D 4-14 Simulation
Pressure, psia
4350
4300
4250
D 4-14 Top
D 4-13 Bot
D 4-13 Simulation
4200
4150
D 4-13 Top
4100
4050
4000
Jun-12
Sep-12
Dec-12
Mar-13
Jul-13
Oct-13
Jan-14
May-14
4500
Aug-14
4450
Date
D4-14 Top
D4-13 Bottom
D4-13 Simulation
4400
D4-14 Bottom
D4-14 Simulation
D 4-14 Bot
D 4-14 Simulation
4350
Pressure, psia
D4-13 Top
4300
4250
4200
D 4-14 Top
D 4-13 Simulation
D 4-13 Bot
4150
D 4-13 Top
4100
4050
4000
Jun-12
Dec-12
Jul-13
Jan-14
Aug-14 Feb-15
Sep-15
Apr-16
Oct-16 May-17
Date
40
D4-13 Top
D4-13 Bottom
D4-14 Bottom
D4-14 Top
D4-13 Simulation
D4-14 Simulation
1200 feet
286,000
287,000
GasInj1
1200 feet
286,000
41
D_9_8
0.00
255.00
510.00 feet
0.00
80.00
160.00 meters
0.80
0.73
0.65
0.58
0.50
0.43
0.35
0.28
0.20
0.13
0.05
287,000
D 9-7
D 9-8
1200 feet
286,000
287,000
GasInj1
1200 feet
286,000
42
D_9_8
0.00
255.00
510.00 feet
0.00
80.00
160.00 meters
0.80
0.73
0.65
0.58
0.50
0.43
0.35
0.28
0.20
0.13
0.05
287,000
D 9-7
D 9-8
Summary
We have a good capacity, injectivity, and no apparent
formation damage
The injected CO2 volume is accounted for
There is no evidence of CO2 at the off-set monitoring wells
MVA results indicate the CO2 is contained
Data, data, & more data
When deploying non-commercial MVA protocols, redundancy
with more commercial tools is necessary to ensure the data
quality
Every potential storage project is different & MVA should be
site specific in design
Regulators may add to a projects MVA plan
43
44
Why Standards?
Because they are not laws
Standards & regulations can work
together
Not Mandated
Typically initiated by industry
And therefore better received and
used by industry because they are
part of the process
Demonstrate regulatory
compliance
Streamline the regulatory process
Harmonize across jurisdictions
46
47
Participants
48
Canada &
China
Countries
P-Member
Nations
O-Member
Nations
Liaisons
NGOs &
Liaisons
WG1
Capture
49
WG2
Transportation
WG3
Storage
WG4
Q&V (MVA)
WG5
Cross-Cutting
WG6
CO2-EOR
RCSP Members
~40% of expertise
50
Andrew Duguid
Jim Ekman
Sarah Forbes
Scott Frailey
Sallie Greenberg
Randall Locke
Sarah Wade
Mark Woods
Thank You!
Washington, DC
4501 Fairfax Drive, Suite 910
Arlington, VA 22203
Phone: (703) 528-8420
Fax: (703) 528-0439
Houston, TX
11931 Wickchester Lane
Suite 200
Houston, TX 77043-4574
Phone: (281) 558-6569
Fax: (281) 558-9202
Advanced
Resources
International
www.adv-res.com
51
Cincinnati, OH
1282 Secretariat Court
Batavia, OH 45103
Phone: (513) 460-0360
Knoxville, TN
1202 Kenesaw Ave
Knoxville, TN 37919-7736