Southwest Regional Partnership on Carbon Sequestration Carbon Sequestration in Coals of the Southwestern U.S.

Transcription

1 on Carbon Sequestration Carbon Sequestration in Coals of the Southwestern U.S. Presented at Enhanced Coalbed Methane Recovery and Carbon Sequestration Applied Technology Workshop October 28-29, 2004 Denver, Colorado

2 Overview What Is The SW Partnership? Coal Characterization Public Access / Analysis

3 What Is The SW Partnership?

4 Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnerships Seven Partnerships Established in Five Geographic Regions Saskatchewan Manitoba ` Cost Share 36% DOE $13.0M Partnership $7.2M Representing: 154 Organizations 2 Canadian Provinces 3 Indian Nations 40 States Big Sky Plains Midwest West Coast Illinois Basin Southwest Southeast Slide from Scott Klara presentation to NETL May 2004 SMK

5 Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnerships Developing Infrastructure for Wide Scale Deployment Baseline region for sources and sinks Create action plans for regulatory, liability, environmental, and outreach issues Establish monitoring and verification protocols Validating sequestration technology & infrastructure Determine benefits of sequestration to region These partnerships - 4 to 10 across the country, each made up of private industry, universities, and state and local governments - will become the centerpiece of our sequestration program. They will help us determine the technologies, regulations, and infrastructure that are best suited for specific regions of the country. Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham November 21, 2002 Slide from Scott Klara presentation to NETL May 2004 SMK

6 Two-Phased Approach Phase I (Planning) 7 Projects months ~$1.5 million per project Overall ~ 40% cost share 2 exceed 50% cost share Phase II (Proof-of-Concepts) - 8 years - ~ $3 to $5 million per year/project - minimum 20% cost share - ~ 5 Regions Slide from Scott Klara presentation to NETL May 2004 SMK

7 SW Partners Each of the Phase I Partnerships consists of many partners, necessary because the Phase I assessment and planning programs require a great deal of intrastate and interstate coordination. State Partners Arizona Universities & Government Arizona Geological Survey Arizona State University Colorado Universities & Government Colorado Geological Survey Colorado State University New Mexico Universities & Government New Mexico Oil Cons. Division New Mex. Bureau of Geology New Mexico Envir. Department NM Inst. of Mining and Technology New Mexico State University Oklahoma Universities & Government Oklahoma Geological Survey University of Oklahoma Oklahoma State University Sarkey s Energy Center Texas Texas Bureau of Economic Geology Texas A&M Utah Universities & Government Utah Geological Survey University of Utah Utah State University Utah AGRC Utah Division of Air Quality Utah Energy Office Utah Division of Oil Gas & Mining Industry Partners Power utilities: Tucson Electric Power Oklahoma Gas & Electric Intermountain Power Agency Pacificorp Public Service Co. of New Mexico (PNM) Energy providers (oil, gas, coal): Yates Petroleum, ChevronTexaco Marathon, Occidental Permian ConocoPhillips, Burlington Gas infrastructure (CO 2 pipelines): Kinder Morgan U.S. Federal Government Partners Los Alamos National Laboratory Sandia National Laboratory U.S. Dept. of Agriculture Other Important Partners Navajo Nation New Mexico Oil and Gas Association Gas Technology Institute Electric Power Research Institute Interstate Oil & Gas Compact Commission Center for Energy & Economic Development Advance Resources International WERC, A Consortium for Environmental Education and Technology Development Wyoming Geological Survey (Data Sharing) Kansas Geological Survey (Data Sharing) Coordinating Partner Western Governors Association Slide from Brian McPherson, NM Tech

8 Major Emissions Sources in the Region Sources being catalogued include - electrical power plants - cement & other processing plants - urban centers - non-point sources (agriculture, automobiles, etc.) Total regional point source emissions ~10 8 t/yr. Figure compliments of Rick Allis, UGS Slide from Brian McPherson, NM Tech

9 Major Sinks and Pipeline Infrastructure Sequestration Possibilities Being Assessed: geologic: oil/gas reservoirs, deep saline aquifers, coalbeds, natural CO2 reservoirs, etc. terrestrial: agriculture, forests, reclaimed mine lands, etc. mineralization engineering: surface approaches at source Infrastructure: Extensive CO2 pipeline networks Slide from George Guthrie, LANL

10 Sequestration Themes Geologic systems - Potentially large volume Mineralization - High uncertainty but permanent - Very large volume - safety / risks known Terrestrial systems - Rapid implementation Slide from Brian McPherson, NM Tech

11 Coal Characterization

12 Colorado Study Areas from Vanessa Lintz, CGS

13 Coal Distribution? Cretaceous Coalfields CO, UT, & WY? Anadarko Basin OK? Black Mesa - AZ

14 Deep, Unmineable Coal? ECBM Potential? CO2 storage capacity increases with decreasing coal rank? Most Colorado coals are bituminous in rank from Chris Martin, CGS

15 Coal Rank By Basin from Vanessa Lintz, CGS

16 from Vanessa Lintz, CGS

17 CO2 Capacity Guesstimate Basin Coal Acres Thick Coal Volume CO2 Capacity Denver Laramie 505, , Piceance Mesaverde 1,400, , Raton Raton/Vermejo 580, , San Juan Fruitland 550, , Sand Wash Ft. Union Iles Williams Fork 700, , , ,500 50, , Total in Million Tons 458,

18 ECBM in a Diverse Portfolio 1999 Emissions Oil & Gas Geologic CBM Saline Aquifers Mineralization Silicates Produced Waters Canon City ,300 2,200 Craig ,300 30, Denver ,600 <0.001 Fort Morgan ,700 <0.001 Ignacio , Palisade Rangely ,800 19, < Total ,800 32, Million Short Tons

19 Utah Coalfields and Power Plants? Book Cliffs, Emery, Wasatch Plateau, and Sego coalfields? Blackhawk and Neslen Formations of the Mesaverde Group, and? Underlying Ferron and Emery Sandstone Members of the Mancos Shale

20 Utah Coal-Fired Power Plants Power Plant Capacity MW Coal Usage 10 6 tons Annual Emissions 10 6 tons Retirement Schedule Bonanza Carbon Hunter 1, Huntington Intermountain 1, Sunnyside Total 4,

21 CO2 Capacity Guesstimate Coalfield Coal Acres Thick Coal Volume CO2 Capacity Book Cliffs Blackhawk 70, , Wasatch Blackhawk 40, , Wasatch Emery 150, , Emery Ferron 96, , Sego Neslen 45, , Total Million Tons 21,

22 Public Access / Analysis

23 Database Design by UGS Modified from DOE GAS Information System (NETL Version)

24 Reservoir Data System Defines > 250 data elements per reservoir / pool

25 Coal Parameters? Geologic Setting? Distribution? Depth? Thickness? Rank? Gas Content? Adsorption Isotherms? Pressure Data? Permeability? Ash & Moisture

26 Coal-Seq* for Capacity? CO 2 /CH 4 Ratio 4 to 10? Key parameters coal rank thickness depth *Funded by DOE/NETL; Developed by Advanced Resources International

27 Search Engine by NM Depth for supercritical CO 2 For example, this search provides 13 qualifying reservoirs out of 587 in NM SJB.

28 ArcMap / View Link

29 10-mile radial distance from power plant (CO 2 source) Explanation Gas pools Barker & Ute Domes Metro area Power plants Oil pool

30 Attribute Table? Less than 40 reservoir parameters in table? Represents small subset of larger database parameters, which exceed 250? Parameters such as production, CO2 capacity, depth, producing reservoir, etc.

31 Integrated Assessment Sandia Nat l Lab System Model Select Target Area Estimate Carbon Storage Utah AGRC Host GASIS Databases ArcMap Shapefiles

32 Content in this presentation was developed by the Southwest Regional Partnership, with specific contributions by: Brian McPherson, New Mexico Tech Rick Allis, Utah Geological Survey Barry Biediger, AGRC David Bird, Colorado Geological Survey Jim Evans, Utah State University Steve Hook, New Mexico Bureau of Geology Dick Hughes, University of Oklahoma Orman Paananen, Sandia National Laboratories Steve Rauzi, Arizona Geological Survey Dave Tabet, Utah Geological Survey Genevieve Young, Colorado Geological Survey southwestcarbonpartnership.org