Monitoring at Frio project

Transcription

1 Monitoring at Frio project Susan Hovorka Gulf Coast Carbon Center Bureau of Economic Geology Jackson School Of Geosciences The University of Texas at Austin Funded by US Department of Energy National Energy Technology Lab IEA GHG R&D Programme Monitoring Network, Edmonton, AB November 9, 2007

2 Talk Overview Purpose and goals of the study Setting IEA GHG R&D Programme Monitoring Network, Edmonton, AB November 9, 2007 Assessing buoyancy Geochemistry and the press Conclusions Next steps IEA GHG R&D Programme Monitoring Network, Edmonton, AB November 9, 2007

3 An Evolving Experiment Frio 1 October 2004 January 2006 Conservative early success Key issues tool performance and model validation through history match Inject in 10 ft thick Frio upper C sand Multi-tool testing VSP and time laps seismic cross well tomography two months after injection Frio 2 September 2006 June 2007 Storage permanence quantifying residual saturation and dissolution Post- injection monitoring under stable conditions just completed July 2007 Buoyancy in Frio Blue sand Inject deep : 6 feet perforation in base 32 ft thick sandstone inject slowly: 50T/day x 5days Rock-water reaction, tracer fractionation as a result of dissolution Novel tool tubing-conveyed seismic array

4 Frio Brine Pilot Research Team Frio Brine Pilot Research Team Bureau of Economic Geology, Jackson School, The University of Texas at Austin: Susan Hovorka, Jeff Kane, Andrew Tachovsky, Abhijit Mukarjee, Tip Meckel; Mark Holtz, Shinichi Sakurai, Seay Nance, Joseph Yeh, Paul Knox, Khaled Faoud, Jeff Paine Lawrence Berkeley National Lab, (Geo-Seq): Larry Myer, Tom Daley, Barry Freifeld, Rob Trautz, Christine Doughty, Sally Benson, Karsten Pruess, Curt Oldenburg, Jennifer Lewicki, Ernie Majer, Mike Hoversten, Mac Kennedy, Paul Cook, Duo Wang, Ray Solbau Schlumberger: T. S. Ramakrishna, Nadja Mueller, Austin Boyd, Mike Wilt Oak Ridge National Lab: Dave Cole, Tommy Phelps, David Riestberg, Phil Szymcek Lawrence Livermore National Lab: Kevin Knauss, Jim Johnson Alberta Research Council: Bill Gunter, John Robinson, Bernice Kadatz Texas American Resources: Don Charbula, David Hargiss Sandia Technologies: Dan Collins, Spud Miller, David Freeman; Phil Papadeas BP: Charles Christopher, Mike Chambers SEQURE National Energy Technology Lab: Curt White, Rod Diehl, Grant Bromhall, Brian Stratizar, Art Wells Paulsson Geophysical Bjorn Paulsson University of West Virginia: Henry Rausch USGS: Yousif Kharaka, Bill Evans, Evangelos Kakauros, Jim Thordsen Praxair: Glen Thompson, Joe Shine, Dan Dalton, Australian CO2CRC (CSIRO): Jim Underschultz, Kevin Dodds, Don Sherlock Core Labs: Paul Martin and others MIT/ NBNL Jonathan Ajo-Franklin

5 Geologic Storage Sequestration of CO 2 Testing the feasibility of establishing a closed loop to limit atmospheric emissions of carbon from fossil fuels Site Power plants Refineries Sedimentary cover> 6km Sources: USGS, IEA Source database

6 Anahuac Frio Frio C Frio Blue Khaled Faoud, BEG

7 Injection Well Observation Well Monitoring zone B upper C 30 m Inject deep In 30 ft sandstone Blue 30 m Mark Holtz, BEG

8 CT Scan Heterogeneous Frio Blue Sandstone 0.2 mm 10 cm Uncertainty in predicting interwell permeability 10 cm 1cm

9 Injection well Observation well IEA GHG R&D Programme Monitoring Network, Edmonton, AB November 9, 2007

10 Frio 2 Monitoring Techniques Selected Injection zone characterization core analysis, open and cased hole logs, single phase hydrologic testing Downhole Panex gages: pressure and temperature RST logs: CO 2 saturation change with time pressure and temperature change with depth U-tubes gas soluble tracers and aqueous transport and gas and aqueous chemistry Continuous Active Source Seismic Monitoring (CASSM) cross-well array PFT tracers to show engineering adequacy IEA GHG R&D Programme Monitoring Network, Edmonton, AB November 9, 2007

11 Frio II Timeline Frio II Timeline Post injection sampling RST 6/06 Well prep. Instrument fabrication 9/06 12/06 6/07 Baseline logging Hydro test Injection 9/26-10/1-24 Last sample/ log event VSP Breakthough Start injection End injection Pump fail well shut in Elapsed hours

12 Pre-Injection Modeled Saturation in Both Wells Slow injection 100 T/day planned, Injection low in thick high permeability sand = Slow break though, good resolution on tracers and chemistry Christine Doughty LBNL

13 Estimating Flow Geometry from Travel- Time Delay 0.2 days 0.4 days Sally Benson, Stanford/ LBNL

14 Estimating Flow Geometry from Travel- Time Delay t=1.2 days t=2 days Sally Benson, Stanford/ LBNL

15 Estimating Flow Geometry from Travel- Time Delay 2.6 days 30 m Sally Benson, Stanford/ LBNL

16 Rapid Breakthrough U tube Free Phase CO 2 3 AM Fe, Mn HCO 3 BH Pressure Change Elapsed hours Temperature fluctuation ph begins to drop

17 FRIO II CD 4 Tracer Injection Experiment LBNL noble gas experiment J. Underschultz 1, Linda Stalker, C. Boreham 2, and Ernie Perkins 3 1 CSIRO Petroleum, 2 Geoscience Australia, 3 Alberta Research Council.

18 Frio II Tracer Timeline - Evidence of Complex Flow Processes Fluoroscene PFT 1 0 hrs Fluoroscene Aqueous phase PFT 1 Well shut in 31 hrs for Kr, Xe CD 4 No recovery 120 hrs CO 2 stops hrs 47 hrs for CO 2 Tracer Buoyancy Flow test = no result 32 hrs for SF 6 50 hrs for PFT & Meth Jim Underschultz, CSIRO Tommy Phelps ORNL Barry Freifeld and others LBNL

19 7.00 Geochemistry and the Press Fluid Evolution During Injection- Dissolution of CO 2 and Rock-Water interaction CO 2 breakthrough ph inlineph Elapsed hours after injection Analysis underway by USGS Alkalinity, metals, DOC, DIC, VOC

20 U-tube and onsite labs for brine and gas analysis with QMS and GC

21 Geochemical Evidence of CO 2 - Rock Interaction Frio II Fe obs HCO3 obs Fe inj HCO3 inj solute (mg/l) /25/06 09/27/06 09/29/06 10/01/06 10/03/06 10/05/06 10/07/06 10/09/06 Yousif Kharaka, USGS

22 High iron Fe &Mg

23 Geochemical Simulation vs. Lab data Fe Simulation Compared to Frio "C" Fe peak = 7e Frio "C" lab Mn No Mn phase in simulation Molality Fe Fe-pfr Molality Mn-pfr Time (d) Time (d) Kevin Knauss, LLNL

24 Grain coatings early actors in geochemistry Grain coatings 5mm

25 Testing wells likely flaws 12 cm No leakage Rock Any leakage? Cement & iron plugs Rock Any leakage? 5 squeezes 100 m 1700 m 1952 oil production well was retrofit as an observation well Production Well construction

26 Perflorocarbon Tracer = No Detection at the Surface Glenn Thompson, Praxair Seeper Trace

27 Seeper Trace equipment Portable GC Reusable sorbants Portable lab

28 Conclusions Interaction of buoyancy and reservoir heterogeneity lead to complex CO 2 plume development High surface area important in early rock-water interactions mineral trapping Geochemical evidence no well leakage Experiments moving to next larger scale IEA GHG R&D Programme Monitoring Network, Edmonton, AB November 9, 2007

29 Next test: Stacked storage US DOE Phase III Cranfield Mississippi (Denbury Resources) (1) Sweep efficiency how effectively are pore volumes contacted by CO 2? Important in recovery efficiency in EOR For storage what is capacity of subsurface? Prediction of plume size (2) Injection volume is sum of fluid displacement, dilatancy, dissolution, and rock+fluid compression Tilt to start to understand magnitude of dilatancy Bottom hole pressure mapping to estimate fluid displacement (3) Effectiveness of Mississippi well completions regulations in retaining CO 2 in GHG context Above zone monitoring International School of Geophysics Erice, Italy, November 3, 2007

30 3 MMCFD Injection rates Phase II : ½ Million Tons/yr Phase III : Mt/yr PHASE II OBSERVATION WELL LOCATION Monitor Sand Marine Shale Seal 375 Injection Sand

31 Need for Parsimonious Monitoring Program in a Mature Industry Standardized, dependable, durable instrumentation, reportable measurements Possibility of above-background detection: Need for a follow-up testing program to assure both public acceptance and safe operation Hierarchical approach: Parameter A Not within acceptable limits: test Within acceptable limits: continue Parameter B Within acceptable limits: continue Not within acceptable limits: Stop & mitigate IEA GHG R&D Programme Monitoring Network, Edmonton, AB November 9, 2007

32 Geologic Sequestration of Carbon Put it back Carbon extracted from coal or other fossil fuel Returned into the earth where it came from