Geologic Characterization of Stratigraphic Sequences in the Upper Ohio River Valley for Determination of Brine Storage Capacity

Transcription

1 Mark Moody Senior Field Geologist Columbus, Ohio Geologic Characterization of Stratigraphic Sequences in the Upper Ohio River Valley for Determination of Brine Storage Capacity 1

2 Outline Brine disposal for shale gas Source-sink analysis Geologic and reservoir factors Regional geologic characterization and modeling Leveraging oil/gas drilling to characterize disposal zones Group discussion 2

3 Background Industry Need Growth in shale gas production and associated brine production causing increased demand for larger-scale Class II brine disposal wells Geologic/regulatory constraints in some regions may lead to regional transport of brine to favorable locations, such as from eastern to western Appalachian basin The geologic and reservoir parameters of injection zones are typically poorly understood - planned assessment is required to meet long-term demand There are concerns about potentially low injectivity, fracture pressure constraints, and induced seismicity. Synergistic learning from other E&P work and CO 2 storage is useful Integrated subsurface resources management are desired 3

4 The Needs for Brine Disposal for Shale Gas Shale gas wells may use ~10X more source water than conventional vertical wells. Pennsylvania, USA 4 Schmid, K., and Schmid, A Production and Water Use in Pennsylvania s Organic Shales. Northeast Geological Society of America Meeting, March 25, 2014, Lancaster, PA,.

5 The Needs for Brine Disposal for Shale Gas Shale gas wells produce large volume of wastewater. Pennsylvania, USA 5 Schmid, K., and Schmid, A Production and Water Use in Pennsylvania s Organic Shales. Northeast Geological Society of America Meeting, March 25, 2014, Lancaster, PA,.

6 Brine Disposal for Shale Gas Brine injection history in U.S. 7

7 Example from Oklahoma Oklahoma, USA- over 14,000 Class II disposal wells 8 Source: Murray, K.E Fluid Injection Inventory for Class II UIC wells of Oklahoma. GWPC UIC Meeting New Orleans, LA, 2014.

8 Oklahoma Injection into Arbuckle Formation Oklahoma, USA: High injection into single Arbuckle formation. 9 Source: Murray, K.E Fluid Injection Inventory for Class II UIC wells of Oklahoma. GWPC UIC Meeting New Orleans, LA, 2014.

9 Northern Appalachian Basin Brine Disposal Production fields versus Injection Facilities. 10

10 Brine Disposal Trends in Appalachian Basin Trends in brine disposal and gas production: example Appalachian Basin about 10 BBL brine disposed per /MMCFG gas produced. 11

11 Case Study - Source-Sink Analysis Source areas are most intense along Marcellus trend. Few disposal wells near the most intense well density. 12

12 Case Study - Source-Sink Analysis Research by Schmid (2014) indicates >90% of PA operators reuse or recycle wastewater in their operations. New wastewater management approaches appear to be stabilizing wastewater volumes being sent to injection wells. There is still a backlog of wells to be completed and ongoing production at a much greater scale than previously in the region. Source: Schmid, K., and Schmid, A Production and Water Use in Pennsylvania s Organic 13 Shales. Northeast GSA Meeting, March, 25, 2014.

13 Case Study - Source-Sink Analysis Demand for brine disposal appears to be more directly related to gas production than wells drilled. It also seems to reflect wastewater management advances (recycle, reuse, treatment). Records from suggest that an average of 10 Bbl brine are disposed per MMCF gas produced in the N. App. Basin. Year Total Brine (BBL) UncWells Eq Gas (BCF) BBL/BCF BBL/well ,228,877 1, ,436 8, ,668,462 1, ,686 6, ,322,206 2,268 1,220 9,284 4, ,911,143 2,523 1,619 10,443 6, ,639,870 2,193 2,495 7,071 8,044 Avg 13,154,111 1,921 1,415 9,984 7,080 14

14 Case Study - Source-Sink Analysis Based on 10 Bbl/MMCF, long-term demand for brine disposal related to Marcellus-Utica may be approximately 706-2,290 million Bbl. USGS Resource Estimates* Utica F95 UticaMean Utica F5 Marcellus F95 Marcellus Mean Marcellus F5 Gas (BCFG) 21,106 38,212 60,932 42,954 84, ,145 NGL (MMBNGL) ,386 1,554 3,379 6,162 Oil (MMBBO) Total Equiv. Gas* (BCFG) 23,257 42,153 67,273 47,470 94, ,052 Brine Disposal Demand** (Bbl brine) 232,000, ,000, ,000, ,000, ,000,000 1,618,000,000 *assuming 5,814 cfg per bbl oil and 2907 cfg per bbl nat gas liquids equiv. **based on 9,984 bbl brine per 1 BCF total equiv. gas Total Unconventional Demand (million Bbl brine) F95 (low) 706 Mean 1,360 F5 (high) 2,290 *USGS Assessment of Undiscovered Oil and Gas Resources of the Devonian Marcellus Shale of the Appalachian Basin Province, *USGS Assessment of Undiscovered Oil and Gas Resources of the Ordovician Utica Shale of the Appalachian Basin Province,

15 Case Study - Source-Sink Analysis Sink capacity based on depleted oil and gas reservoirs and MRCSP work on deep saline formations. Initial analysis suggests capacity for ~3 billion Bbl in depleted oil and gas reservoirs penetrated by existing Class 2 brine disposal wells. 16

16 Case Study - Source-Sink Analysis Sink capacity of deep saline formations may be in the range of several hundred billion BBLs. However, capacity is distributed across many injection zones, and injection rates are a limiting factor. 17

17 Brine Disposal Surface Infrastructure Brine disposal well construction & operations. 18

18 Brine Disposal Well Subsurface Design Brine disposal well construction & operations. 19 McCurdy Underground Injection Wells for Produced Water Disposal GWPC UIC Meeting, St. Petersburg, FL.

19 Key Geologic Issues for Large-Scale Brine Disposal What and Where are the likely host reservoirs Extent, thickness Location Porosity Capacity Permeability Injectivity, pressure buildup Fracture pressure Injection rate limits, safety Stress state induced seismicity Many basins dominated by shale and carbonate rocks, with generally low porosity detailed mapping and characterization required for large-scale injection 20

20 Geologic Framework Appalachian Basin. Multiple injection zones. ~18 million BBL/year brine disposal. 21

21 Local scale analysis of Injection Zones Example: Lockport-Newburg in NE Ohio. Most injection in the Lockport targeted carbonate buildups. Reef trends in the Lockport will aid in predicting zones with potentially high porosity. 22

22 Example of Geocellular Model for an Injection Zone in Appalachian Basin Permeability Transform 23

23 Induced Seismicity is a Growing Concern Number and Locations of induced seismic events in the U.S. Source: National Research Council (2012) Technology Seismic Events Wastewater injection 9 Oil and gas extraction 20 Secondary Recovery (Water flooding) 18 Geothermal energy 4 Hydraulic Fracturing (shale gas) 1 Surface water reservoirs 6 Other (e.g., coal mining, solution mining) 3 24

24 Reservoir Pressure Response Injection factors and operational data. 25

25 Reservoir Performance Analysis Relative injectivity index analysis provide qualitative indicator of injection performance over time. (Injectivity Index = Injection Rate/Delta Pressure) Example- Lockport- Newburg Injection Well (10+ years of operational data shows decrease in injectivity index) Example- Mount Simon/Basal Sandstone Well (10+ years of operational data shows steady injectivity index) 26

26 Brine Disposal Injection Simulations Brine injection simulations in regional injection zones help evaluate pressure buildup, fluid migration, and variable density effects. VE=10X 27

27 Weir Sandstone Simulation Example -Model based on Weir injection well in Western Appalachian basin. -78 BBL/day injection rate -Relatively low salinity -Monocline structure with sealing fault Parameter Value Comment Flow model MODFLOW/SEAWAT MODFLOW 2000, transient simulation, total simulation time = 7,300 days (20 years) Domain 2 x 2 km x 53 m Centered on injection well Rows 56 Columns 56 Grid Spacing 50 x 50 m Resolution increased near injection well Layers 21 Variable thickness based on structure maps: Layer 1-3 = Borden Shale Layer 4-18 = Weir Layer = Sunbury Shale Permeability Homogeneous by layer Layer 1-3 = 0.01 md Kx:Kz = 1:1 Layer 4-5 = 10 md Layer 6-7 = 0.1 md Layer 8-10 = 0.2 md Layer = 20 md Layer = 10 md Layer 16 = 5 md Layer 17 = 10 md Layer 18 = 0.1 md Layer = md Bulk Compressibility Constant value for layers E-5 1/m Boundaries Constant head, no flow Constant head nodes specified at N,S,E,W model boundaries based on psi/ft gradient Injection Well Row 17 Col BBL/day for 3650 days Solution Parameters WHS, head change criterion = Transport model SEAWAT2KT Species = Salt Initial Salt Concentration Source Term <0.05% cumulative volumetric budget error 40,000 mg/l Based on regional salinity maps for E. Kentucky Constant Concentration Source Baseline salinity = 40,000 mg/l High density salinity = 80,000 mg/l 28

28 Weir Sandstone Simulated Salinity, 80,000 ppm injection fluid at 3650 days X 78 BBL/day Z (m) Z (m) Simulated Pressure (Max Delta P = 355 psi) VE = 10X Y (m) 29

29 Leveraging oil/gas drilling to characterize disposal zones Geologic characterization requirements for brine disposal have some similarities with injection of CO 2 storage and EOR Therefore, CCS and brine disposal research can be synergistic in many areas E&P activities can be leveraged to help locate and characterize potential disposal zones 30

30 CO 2 Storage Research Provides A Strong Foundation for Brine Disposal Research AEP Mountaineer 3 Projects over 10 Years DOE Regional Partnerships Program Wellbore Integrity Assessment FutureGen and FutureGen 2.0 Regional Characterization and Basin-Scale Modeling Direct Industry Projects Examples Consulting projects for domestic and international utilities, oil, gas, coal, steel, and infrastructure companies 31

31 Motivation - Large Point Sources of CO 2 CO 2 Sources: 290,000 kt/yr* Iron and Steel: 21,000 Gas Processing: 3,900 Refineries: 1,500 Cement: 1,200 Ethanol: 300 Power: 262,100 (*) ~8% of US total for large sources Power Capacity: 52,000 MW* (*) ~5% of US total (16% of coal fired) 32

32 Regional Exploration in Appalachian Basin Filling Key Data Gaps Projects co-funded by Ohio Coal Development Office and DOE Over 10 years; Jointly with Ohio Geological Survey OCDO piggyback wells Other wells in database Adams Georgetown Marine Silcor Northstar Jarrell #1 Raynor D #1 AEP #1 Miley J #1 Burger Frankovitch FEGENCO # Copper Ridge Dolomite 33 (1) Lee Family Trust (2) McCoy (3) Dager (4) Ohio #1 CO2 (5) Devco (6) Miley (7) AEP #1 (8) McKelvey (9) Raynor D #1 (10) #1 Jarrell (11) Georgetown Marine (12) #1 Northstar (13) Adams (14) Silcor (15) Frankovitch (16) Burger GM #1 - deepest well in Ohio

33 Understanding Injectivity Example from Copper Ridge Dolomite Extensive work at AEP Mountaineer site over 10 year Test well in 2003 showed possible vuggy porosity, very thin zones CO 2 injection testing in Showed high injection rates Off-site test well in 2011 validation with cores, showed geologic continuity, showed potential for commercial scale injection Regional mapping essential to qualify this formation collaboration with oil industry needed Copper Ridge Dolomite Core AEP Mountaineer Site Drilling and Core

34 Determining CO 2 or Brine injection zones through production logging 35

35 Mapping of potential reservoir zones in eastern Ohio Preliminary Copper Ridge B Zone and Rose Run Thickness maps (Battelle, 2012) 36

36 Mapping of potential porosity fairways Copper Ridge Porosity Zones Basal Sandstone Facies 37

37 New Seismic Shale Gas Co-Benefit ~250 Miles of New Data Obtained for Research 38

38 Future need: Integrated Subsurface Management Shale oil/gas production Produced brines disposal CO 2 utilization, and storage (CCUS) mitigating greenhouse gas emissions Incremental oil recovery Conventional oil/gas production All these require integrated long-term management and clear policies Example from Michigan Basin 39

39 References & Internet Links Geologic and Reservoir Assessment for Brine Disposal in the Northern Appalachian Basin, J. Sminchak, N. Gupta*, M. Moody, J. Miller, Battelle, Columbus, Ohio, Guidelines for produced water injection Report No. 2.80/302. January Injection wells: An introduction to their use, operation & regulation. GWPC, September

40 Acknowledgements Joel Sminchak and others at Battelle Brine Disposal Research funded by US DOE under RPSEA 2011 Unconventional Resources Program Regional geologic characterization funded by Ohio Development Services Agency and US DOE under multiple projects 41

41

42 The Needs for Brine Disposal for Shale Gas Brine injection history in U.S. 43

43 Geologic and Reservoir Factors Geophysical logs analysis to evaluate injection zone properties. Gross and net thickness, average porosity, and porosity-feet estimates for each injection zone were calculated. 44

44 Geologic and Reservoir Factors - Salinity 45

45 8/26/14 8/27/14 8/28/14 8/29/14 8/30/14 8/31/14 9/1/14 9/2/14 9/3/14 9/4/14 9/5/14 9/6/14 9/7/14 9/8/14 9/9/14 9/10/14 9/11/14 9/12/14 Pressure (psi) Injection Rate (BPM) Pressure Fall Off Analysis -Injection cycles monitored on a Knox (Rose Run) injection well -Well showed several pressure fall off cycles. -Analysis suggests 3 md across 124 ft Chapin #7 Straight-Line Plot (cycle 5 fall-off) Line Pressue Injection Rate 2 p (psi(a)) Analysis (kh/ )t mdft/cp kh md.ft 2900 w cp h ft 2850 k md s' p* psi(a) p wfo psi(a) p data 2700 pi Superposition Radial Time ( t) (h) 46

46 Advanced Wireline Data Collection Data collected is integrated into a full picture of the reservoir and applied to the regional understanding. 47