Dr. Douglas Patchen WVU Energy Institute s NRCCE Director, Appalachian Region for PTTC PSU Extension Webinar January 18, 2018

Transcription

1 GEOLOGIC OPTIONS FOR SUBSURFACE STORAGE OF UTICA MARCELLUS NGLS Dr. Douglas Patchen WVU Energy Institute s NRCCE Director, Appalachian Region for PTTC PSU Extension Webinar January 18, 2018

2 DISTRIBUTION OF HYDROCARBON PRODUCTION FROM APPALACHIAN SHALES Utica & Marcellus yield oil, wet gas, dry gas Distribution is a function of thermal maturity Places oil up dip from wet gas and dry gas In conventional plays, oil is down dip from gas 2

3 Modified from Trenton and Black River Playbook, 2008

4 Source: R.T. Ryder, USGS OFR

5 UTICA & MARCELLUS PRODUCTION TRENDS 5

6 BACKGROUND Liquid-rich Marcellus and Utica Shale production in the tri-state area of OH, PA and WV Desire to move natural gas liquids (NGLs) from wet gas areas to petrochemical sites throughout the greater Appalachian region A proposed 6-pack pipeline from Monaca, PA to northeastern KY and Charleston, WV along the Ohio & Kanawha rivers Subsurface storage will be a necessary component along the pipeline route; created a need for the study

7 AONGRC SELECTED FOR THE STUDY Evaluate the storage potential of subsurface rocks along the pipeline route from SW PA to NE KY and SW WV This defined the Area of Interest (AOI) Study period: 1 year (August 1, 2016 July 31, 2017)

8 RESEARCH TEAM MEMBERS Ohio Geological Survey Pennsylvania Geological Survey West Virginia Geological Survey WVU Energy Institute s National Research Center for Coal & Energy

9 FUNDING SOURCES The Claude Worthington Benedum Foundation provided 50% of the funds; our thanks to them Matching funds provided by Industry partners AEP, Antero Resources, Blue Racer, Charleston Area Alliance, Chevron, Dominion, EQT, First Energy/Team NEO, Mountaineer NGL Storage LLC, Noble Energy, Southwestern Energy, XTO Energy, WVONGA Additional cost share (30%)from the Research Team Members

10 STUDY GOAL Complete a geologic study of all potential options for subsurface storage of NGLs along and adjacent to the Ohio River from southwestern Pennsylvania to eastern Kentucky, including a similar study along the Kanawha River in West Virginia Stratigraphic correlation of key units Mapping thickness and structure of key units Reservoir characterization studies Development and application of rating and ranking criteria Area of Interest (AOI)

11 TODAY S CONTENT This was a TECHNICAL STUDY, and what you will hear will be the TECHNICAL RESULTS of the Study; nothing on business or economics I will briefly summarize the various portions of the Study that eventually led us to our conclusions & recommendations The final report can be found at

12 RESEARCH PLAN Compile a regional data base; legacy & new data Conduct a regional subsurface stratigraphic study Identify potential candidates for storage containers Characterize the Potential Reservoirs (3 types) Develop Criteria with which to Rate & Ultimately Rank Candidates (distance, thickness, depth, etc) Continue to Drill Down from the Regional to the Prospect Level to characterization of a reservoir

13 PART 1: THE STUDY DATABASE Legacy sources & data derived specifically for this work, have been organized and assimilated into the Study website Raw datasets, analyses and derived data utilized by the Research Team to complete the Study The rating and ranking methodologies specifically developed by the Research Team to evaluate subsurface storage prospects in the Study area The final report, with subsurface geology and reservoir characterization findings, storage recommendations, and tables, figures and appendices

14 PART 2: REGIONAL STRATIGRAPHIC STUDY Why? Get all 3 Surveys on the same page Consistent picks for all stratigraphic units on well logs Correlate the units on cross sections across state lines Map the thickness and extent, including thicker units Identify thin reservoirs within the thicker intervals Interpretations based on available information Allows you to know what to expect beneath your property

15 GEOLOGIC INTERVALS OF INTEREST Mined-rock caverns Greenbrier Limestone (>40 ft thick; depths of 1, ft) Solution-mined caverns Salina Group salts (>100 thick) Gas Reservoirs Keener sandstone to Berea Sandstone Upper Devonian sandstones (Venango, Bradford, Elk) Oriskany Sandstone Newburg sandstone Clinton-Medina Group through Tuscarora Sandstone Rose Run and Upper Sandy Member of the Gatesburg Formation

16 16 REGIONAL STRATIGRAPHIC CORRELATION 10 geologic intervals (red) Lateral variations in lithology, facies and nomenclature Variations in depth and thickness of units based on depositional environment and post-depositional processes Thousands of pieces of data used to correlate lithostratigraphy throughout the AOI

17 DEVONIAN SILURIAN AGE ROCKS S N N S Oriskany Sandstone is bound by unconformities on both top and base in the western portion of the AOI. The Salina salt basin is centered along West Virginia panhandle. Salina F4 salt is ~100 ft thick in this area of the AOI. Newburg sandstone is equivalent to the Salina C and developed in southwestern West Virginia. Clinton/Medina Group is present throughout the AOI. 17

18 18 Appalachian Storage Hub (ASH) Study Appalachian Storage Hub (ASH) Study

19 Appalachian Storage Hub (ASH) Study Appalachian Storage Hub (ASH) Study 29

20 17 Appalachian Storage Hub (ASH) Study Appalachian Storage Hub (ASH) Study

21 PART 3: DETERMINING KEY CRITERIA FOR THE THREE OPTIONS FOR NGL STORAGE Mined-rock caverns (carbonate rock) Solution-mined caverns (bedded salt) Depleted gas fields(siliciclastic units, mainly sandstones) 21

22 OPTION#1: MINED-ROCK CAVERNS - GREENBRIER LIMESTONE Essentially, not all limestones are the same They differ in grain size, pore space, etc. due to variations in where and how they were deposited Our goal was to find the best type of limestone for storage lithology is important! A mined-rock cavern needs a good seal, so overlying/underlying unit properties are also important 22

23 GREENBRIER LIMESTONE (MINED- ROCK CAVERNS) Prepare regional structure and isopach contour maps Optimum net thicknesses 40 ft Optimum depths 1,800 2,000 ft

24 Wynn, 2003 Wynn, 2003

25 2 GREENBRIER LIMESTONE THREE FACIES Appalachian Storage Hub (ASH) Study Appalachian Storage Hub (ASH) Study Appalachian Storage Hub (ASH) Study Figure 7. Net thickness map of the Greenbrier lime mudstone facies package.

26 OPTION 2: SOLUTION CAVITIES IN SALINA SALT Salt itself is the sealing mechanism for this container Therefore, we need thick intervals of pure salt Need a large area to create the cavity away from the edge of the salt Thickness, purity, extent are key factors

27 SALINA F4 SALT Interval comprised of relatively thick salt (salmon), punctuated by thin anhydrite and dolomite zones (light blue) Underlying salt bed (light pink) separated from F4 Salt by anhydrite/dolomite (light blue) 27

28

29 OPTION #3: DEPLETED GAS FIELDS - SANDSTONE RESERVOIRS Drilling down really applies here Began with >2,700 reservoirs/fields in the AOI, ~1,500 of which occurred at depths of 2,000 ft or more Preliminary screening of the 1,500 fields yielded 125 fields Detailed rating efforts yielded 30 fields/areas Preferred field will have good thickness, porosity, permeability, areal extent, seals (upper, lower and lateral) and be close to pipeline infrastructure Dry holes or wells with salt water facilitate delineation of container extents 29

30 PART 4: RATING CRITERIA & FINAL RANKING PROCEDURE Needed to determine the most critical parameters to be used to score a field Different criteria for the three types of containers were used for rating purposes Ultimately, those criteria common to all three types of containers were used to rank candidates

31 DETAILED RATING CRITERIA Mined-Rock Caverns Salt Caverns Depleted Gas Reservoirs Gas Storage Fields Distance to Infrastructure Distance to Infrastructure Distance to Infrastructure Distance to Infrastructure Acreage Acreage Acreage Acreage Average depth Average depth Average depth Average depth Net Thickness Net Thickness Net Thickness Net Thickness Trap integrity Trap integrity Trap integrity Trap integrity Legacy well penetrations Legacy well penetrations Legacy well penetrations Legacy well penetrations Stacked opportunity Stacked opportunity Stacked opportunity Stacked opportunity Pressure Pressure Pressure Average Porosity Average Porosity Permeability Permeability Mode CO 2 storage Estimated cumulative gas production Mode CO 2 storage Working gas capacity

32 PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT OF DEPLETED GAS RESERVOIRS Preliminary rating criteria Distance to infrastructure Acreage Average depth Average porosity Net thickness Permeability Pressure Distance to infrastructure >30 mi >20 mi but <=30 mi >5 mi but <=20 mi <=5 mi Acreage <=500 ac >500 ac but <=1,000 ac >1,000 ac but <=5,000 ac >5,000 ac Stacked opportunity Mode CO 2 storage Criterion Description Range of Values Proximity of field to any of the existing or proposed pipeline infrastructure,as illustrated in Figure 4-26 Measured size (or footprint ) of a field (ac) Average depth <=2,000 ft >5,000 ft >3,500 ft but <=5,000ft >2,000 ft but <=3,500ft Average depth (ft) at which a field stores/stored natural gas, based on multiple wells completed in that field

33 RESULTS OF PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT 113 depleted gas fields 12 natural gas storage fields 5 limestone areas 4 salt areas

34 NORMALIZED DATA FOR FINAL RATING AND RANKING EFFORT Mined-Rock Caverns Salt Caverns Depleted Gas Reservoirs Gas Storage Fields Distance to Infrastructure Distance to Infrastructure Distance to Infrastructure Distance to Infrastructure Acreage Acreage Acreage Acreage Average depth Average depth Average depth Average depth Net Thickness Net Thickness Net Thickness Net Thickness Trap integrity Trap integrity Trap integrity Trap integrity Legacy well penetrations Legacy well penetrations Legacy well penetrations Legacy well penetrations Stacked opportunity Stacked opportunity Stacked opportunity Stacked opportunity

35 FINAL RANKING RESULTS Ranking Container Normalized Field/Location Geologic Interval Type Rating 1 mined-rock cavern 5 Greenbrier 19 2 depleted gas NORTH RIPLEY Newburg 16 reservoir 2 depleted gas ROCKY FORK Newburg 16 reservoir 2 depleted gas KANAWHA FOREST Newburg 16 reservoir 2 mined-rock cavern 4 Greenbrier 16 3 depleted gas CAMPBELL CREEK Oriskany 15 reservoir 3 mined-rock cavern 2 Greenbrier 15 3 salt cavern 1 Salina F4 Salt 15 3 salt cavern 2 Salina F4 Salt 15 Ranking Container Type Field/Location Geologic Interval Normalized Rating 1 mined-rock cavern 5 Greenbrier 19 2 depleted gas reservoir NORTH RIPLEY Newburg 16 2 depletedgas reservoir ROCKY FORK Newburg 16 2 depletedgas reservoir KANAWHA FOREST Newburg 16 2 mined-rock cavern 4 Greenbrier 16 3 depletedgas reservoir CAMPBELL CREEK Oriskany 15 3 mined-rock cavern 2 Greenbrier saltcavern saltcavern 1 2 Salina F4 Salt Salina F4 Salt depletedgas reservoir WESTON-JANE LEW Elk depletedgas reservoir depletedgas reservoir CANTON CONSOLIDATED Clinton/Medina 14 COOPER CREEK Newburg 14 4 depletedgas reservoir ABBOTT-FRENCH CREEK Venango 14 4 natural gas storage field RIPLEY Oriskany 14 5 depletedgas reservoir MAPLE-WADESTOWN Keener to Berea 13 5 depletedgas reservoir ELK-POCA (SISSONVILLE) Oriskany 13 5 gas storage field RACKET-NEWBERNE (SINKING CREEK) Venango 13 5 saltcavern 4 Salina F4 salt 13 4 depletedgas reservoir CANTON CONSOLIDATED Clinton/Medina 13 5 depletedgas reservoir CANTON CONSOLIDATED Clinton/Medina depletedgas reservoir depletedgas reservoir RAVENNA-BEST CONSOLIDATED Clinton/Medina 13 BURDETT-ST. ALBANS Keener to Berea 12 depleted gas reservoir CONDIT-RAGTOWN Keener to Berea 12 depletedgas reservoir depletedgas reservoir depletedgas reservoir depletedgas reservoir depletedgas reservoir depletedgas reservoir depletedgas reservoir DUMM RIDGE FRAZEYBURG KIRKERSVILLE DUMM RIDGE DUMM RIDGE ROCKBRIDGE RANDOLPH Rose Run- Gatesburg Rose Run- Gatesburg Rose Run- Gatesburg Rose Run- Gatesburg Rose Run- Gatesburg Rose Run- Gatesburg Rose Run- Gatesburg

36 36 DETAILED RATING RESULTS 30 opportunities 22 depleted gas fields 3 salt areas 3 mined-rock areas 2 natural gas storage fields

37 PART 5: THREE PROSPECT AREAS Greenbrier Lime Mudstone Isopach Each prospect differs in number and type of opportunities Demonstrate how this Study s geologic data can be applied in underground storage siting work Stacked storage is a key factor Again, the goal is to give you an idea of what you might expect below your property 37

38 3 NORTHERN PROSPECT Oriskany Sandstone Greenbrier Lime Mudstone Isopach Salina F4 Salt (salt cavern) Clinton/Medina Group (depleted gas field)

39 STACKED STORAGE NORTH PROSPECT Figure 5-3. Cartoon of the subsurface geology associated with the Northern Prospect, which has three storage opportunities (not to scale).

40 4 SALINA F4 SALT Area 1 Area 2

41 41 SALINA F4 SALT Area 2 Cross Section F4 Salt Salt Interbeds

42 42 CENTRAL PROSPECT Greenbrier Limestone (mined-rock cavern) Greenbrier Lime Mudstone Isopach Keener to Berea Interval (depleted gas fields) Upper Devonian Venango Group (natural gas storage field) Upper Devonian Elk Group (depleted gas field) Salina F4 Salt (salt cavern)

43 43 CENTRAL PROSPECT AREA Greenbrier Limestone mines throughout the area; key facies, thickness and depth Keener to Berea Interval depleted gas field Venango Group inactive gas storage field Upper Devonian depleted gas field to the east Salina F4 Salt near Ben s Run

44 44 GREENBRIER LIMESTONE Isopach Optimal depth and thickness Large footprint Greenbrier Lime Mudstone Isopach Stacked opportunity Close to infrastructure Poor trap integrity Poor penetration rating

45 SALINA F4 SALT F4 Salt Salt Interbeds Area 4 Cross Section 45

46 SOUTHERN PROSPECT Greenbrier Limestone (mined-rock caverns) Greenbrier Lime Mudstone Isopach Keener to Berea Interval (depleted gas field) Oriskany Sandstone (depleted gas and natural gas storage fields) Newburg sandstone (depleted gas fields) 46

47 47 SOUTHERN PROSPECT AREA Greenbrier Limestone mined-rock storage Depleted gas fields in the Keener to Berea Interval Oriskany gas storage in part of Elk-Poca field Newburg fields(north Ripley, Rocky Fork, Cooper Creek and Kanawha Forest) are among the very best of all depleted gas fields

48 ORISKANY SANDSTONE (DEPLETED GAS FIELDS) Elk-Poca (Sissonville) Field Campbell Creek Field 48

49 ORISKANY SANDSTONE (DEPLETED GAS FIELDS) ELK-POCA (SISSONVILLE) FIELD 4,140 5,497 ft measured depth ~2,200 psi reservoir pressure 18 ft net thickness ~4% 15% porosity CAMPBELL CREEK FIELD 4,825 ft average measured depth 2,100 psi reservoir pressure 15 ft net thickness 9% porosity 49

50 NEWBURG SANDSTONE

51 NEWBURG SANDSTONE FIELDS Field Average producing depth (ft) Net thickness (ft) Average pay thickness (ft)* Pressure (psi) Porosity (%) Permeability (md)* Initial pressure (psi) Trap type North Ripley 5, , ,329 Rocky Fork 5, , ,435 Cooper Creek 5, , ,491 Stratigraphic/ Structural Stratigraphic/ Structural Stratigraphic/ Structural Kanawha Forest 5, , ,329 Structural *from Patchen (1996)

52 PROSPECT SUMMARY Presented three prospects along the Ohio River Valley corridor Provided an example of how end users may apply the regional and field-level data prepared for this Study in their own underground storage potential Demonstrated the importance of stacked opportunities

53 WHAT WE DID NOT CONSIDER Who owns or operates a depleted gas field or gas storage field that was rated highly Or if this operator would be interested in NGL storage Who owns the rights to the Greenbrier Limestone or Salina Salt And again, if the owner might be interested in NGL storage If a candidate is in an area of future Marcellus or Utica drilling Surficial activities, other than towns or cities Cost implications for storage and pipelines Focus was entirely on subsurface geology

54 SUMMARY AND CAVIATS Multiple options are present along the Ohio and Kanawha rivers where storage could be constructed in three different types of storage containers Storage capacity and deliverability will ultimately depend on the NGL product(s) Storage capacity and deliverability may require more than one facility and/or more than one geologic container per facility (stacked storage) We recommend a follow-on engineering and geologic site assessment at any potential site

55 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS AONGRC co-authors and contributors Kristin Carter, Jessica Moore, Mohammad Fakhari, Gary Daft, Michael Solis, Brian Dunst, Robin Anthony, Katherine Schmid, Kyle Metz, Philip Dinterman, Julie Bloxson, Erica Schubert, John Saucer, Antonette Markowski, Stephen Shank, Michael Hohn, John Bocan, Michael Angle and various interns Benedum Foundation Industry Partners AEP, Antero Resources, Blue Racer, Charleston Area Alliance, Chevron, Dominion, EQT, First Energy/Team NEO, Mountaineer NGL Storage LLC, Noble Energy, Southwestern Energy, XTO Energy and the West Virginia Oil & Natural Gas Association West Virginia University WVU Foundation, WVU Research Corporation, National Research Center for Coal and Energy and WVU Corporate Relations Office Advisory Group