Addressing Critical Issues in Geologic Storage Through Mountaineer and MRCSP Projects: Part 2 The Mountaineer Project

Transcription

1 Addressing Critical Issues in Geologic Storage Through Mountaineer and MRCSP Projects: Part 2 The Mountaineer Project Neeraj Gupta, Ph.D. Battelle, Columbus Phone: , gupta@battelle.org Briefing to Environmental NGOs, Washington DC February 14, Please Note The full presentation by Dr. Neeraj Gupta is divided into three parts. This is part two. Parts one and three are available online at: The original slides presented at the briefing did not include as much text as is included in this version. New text slides have been added to make it easier for viewers of the slides to follow the main points. Frequently, the new text slides have been inserted in front of the original slides to offer more detailed explanation. 2 1

2 Overview of Mountaineer Project Slides This section consists of 35 slides that address five main topics: 1. Background on the research project. 2. Preliminary site characterization. 3. Description of the project: well construction and research tests. 4. Refined site characterization based on well bore tests and other research. 5. Plans for additional research at Mountaineer site. 1. Background 2. Site Characteri zation 3. Project Plan 4. Findings 5. Future Plans 3 Mountaineer Project Background: A Unique Public Private Collaboration Battelle Neeraj Gupta, Joel Sminchak, Jim Dooley, Judith Bradbury, Bruce Sass, Prasad Saripalli, Mark Kelley, Mark White, Frank Spane, Ken Humphreys, Danielle Meggyesy DOE/NETL Charlie Byrer, Scott Klara, and others AEP Mike Mudd, Dale Heydlauff, Gary Spitznogle, Charlie Powell, Chris Long, John Massey-Norton, Jeri Matheney, Tim Mallan, et al. Ohio Coal Development Office Jackie Bird, Howard Johnson BP Charles Christopher Schlumberger T.S. Ramakrishnan, Nadja Mueller, and many others Ohio Geological Survey: Larry Wickstrom Regional Geologists: Tom Wynn, Bill Rike, John Forman, Amy Lang Stanford s GCEP Program Mark Zoback, Amie Lucier CO 2 Capture Companies Regional Oil and Gas Companies CRIEPI (Japan) 4 2

3 Mountaineer CO 2 Storage Project: Key Motivations A large number of CO 2 sources lie in the Ohio River Valley region and it is important to determine the CO 2 storage opportunities in this region. Potential geologic storage reservoirs in deep basins are poorly characterized. Systematic field tests and regional geologic data are essential for understanding storage potential and building stakeholder confidence. The objective of this project is to characterize the CO 2 storage potential and demonstrate safe and cost effective storage at a coal-fired power plant. We are now working on site design and permitting feasibility aspects: Development of a capture and local transport system design Design for injection and monitoring systems NEPA and Underground Injection Permitting documents Enhancing regional geologic framework development Building on the foundation of stakeholder outreach. 5 Mountaineer Site Location New Haven, West Virginia 1300 MW Coal Power Plant 6 3

4 Preliminary Site Characterization In the Midwest region, Mt. Simon Sandstone is the most prominent CO 2 injection candidate formation with estimated storage capacity exceeding 100 billion tonnes of CO 2. Mt. Simon was one of the initial candidates for Mountaineer site. However, in the deep basins such as the Appalachian Basin, it becomes thin and has low porosity. In addition, formations, such as Rose Run Sandstone and Copper Dolomite have potential for large-scale storage in the Appalachian Basin. The region has significant shale and other cap rock and there is no major faulting in the rock structure. The Mountaineer site is located above the three formations of interest. Seismic testing was used to further characterize the area around the proposed well. This yielded information about the layers of rock surrounding the well. 7 Regional Geology Thick sequences of sedimentary rock form broad basins and arches in Midwest Site located in Appalachian Basin No other deep wells within 20 miles AEP#1 = wildcat well 8 4

5 Surface Seismic Survey Approx. 11 miles of 2-D seismic data collected in two transects through well site (and across the Ohio River) Data processed and interpreted 9 Mountaineer Project: Seismic Data This image shows the various rock layers that could be accessed by the injection well. It also shows no major faulting in the area. 5-6 miles 10 5

6 Project Design: Well Construction Specifications The following diagram shows a map of the geology in the area where the well was constructed and also a scale drawing of the well showing the level of casings surrounding the well bore at various depths. Injection wells are designed to withstand injection pressure and to provide a seal that prevents injected CO 2 from leaking back through the well itself. Reinforced cements and other materials are used to create this seal. The photographs on the right show drill bits and devices to collect core samples of the rock in the well bore. 11 Well Construction Specifications 12 6

7 Mountaineer Project: Well Construction The research team hired a well drilling team to construct the well at the Mountaineer site. As the following slides depict, the team brought a drilling rig onsite for a period of about 70 days to drill the well. When the team finished drilling they removed the rig and put a small well head in place. 13 Well Construction 14 7

8 Well Construction 15 Characterization and Sampling in the Well Slide 17 shows an example of the wireline tools used to characterize the geologic layers and obtain brine samples from discrete zones. The wireline logs can tell us about the rock types, mineralogy, rock porosity, permeability etc. Slide 18 shows some of the rock core samples recovered from the wells at depths greater than 7,000 ft and the relative location of the samples in the borehole rock layers. 16 8

9 Down Well Logging 17 Mountaineer Project: Data Interpretation Extensive Confining Layers ( Caprock ) Target Storage Formations Rose Run Sandstone and Copper Ridge B-zone 18 9

10 Reservoir Tests and Brine Analysis Packer tests used to determine formation properties and maximum allowable injection pressures in several zones. The properties match with those of wireline logs and core analysis. Testing during fall 2005 confirms that transmissivity of Copper Ridge B zone is several times greater than the Rose Run. At this site, Mt. Simon does not have sufficient permeability, but regionally it is still the largest candidate. Geomechanical data has been used by Stanford to evaluate stability of lateral wells and in-situ stress analysis. Downhole Pressure, MPa 55 Data Borehole: AEP #1 Static Trend Formation: Rose Run 54 Test Depth: 2,356-2,400 m Simulation Match Events 1 1 = Slug/DST 49 2 = DST Recovery 3 = Constant Drawdown 4 = Constant-DD Recovery Time, hr (to = 1312 hr; 3/17/04) 19 Synthesizing the Findings In the Midwest region Mt. Simon Sandstone is the most prominent CO 2 injection candidate formation with estimated storage capacity exceeding 100 billion tonnes of CO 2. Mt. Simon was one of the initial candidates for Mountaineer site too. However, in the deep basins such as the Appalachian Basin, it becomes thin and has low porosity. Confirmation of this anticipated lack of injectivity in this zone at Mountaineer had created a misperception that the entire site does not have good injectivity. Formations, such as Rose Run Sandstone have potential for large-scale storage in the Appalachian Basin and this has been validated at Mountaineer through testing and modeling. Regionally, Mt. Simon remains the most important storage reservoir in much of Ohio, Michigan, Indiana etc

11 CO 2 Injectivity in the Mountaineer Area A number of geologic formations have been evaluated for CO 2 storage potential in the Ohio River Valley region, as shown for Mountaineer site below CO 2 injection should also be possible in shallower sandstone and carbonate layers in the region Rose Run Sandstone (~7800 feet) is a regional candidate zone in Appalachian Basin A high permeability zone called the B zone within Copper Ridge Dolomite has been identified as a new injection zone in the region Mount Simon Sandstone/Basal Sand - the most prominent reservoir in most of the Midwest 21 Rose Run Sandstone Core Analysis Good Potential Storage Zone Rose Run Sandstone ft Thin Section 7775 ft Wireline Log ft Full Rock Core Feet Note: fractures shown result of core collection. X100 Hydraulic Core Tests 7775 ft Lithology = Sandstone Density = 2.64 g/ml Porosity = 10.4% Permeability = 49 md BP has recently completed state-of-the-art CO 2 relative permeability analysis on these samples as part of their sponsorship of the project. Shows Sandstone-Dolomite Lithology Shows Sandstone-Dolomite Lithology Shows Lower Density and Hihger Porosity 22 11

12 Mountaineer Project: Data Findings Initial modeling suggests several hundred kilo-tons/yr CO 2 injection possible in single well (plant emits 7-8 million tones per year). The modeling results need to be verified through field injection tests. 23 Beekmantown Dolomite Immediate Overlying Caprock Rotary Sidewall Core 7275 ft Beekmantown Dolomite ft Thin Section 7275 ft Wireline Log ft Feet cm X100 Hydraulic Core Tests 7275 ft Lithology = Dolomite Density = 2.82 g/ml Porosity = 0.38% Permeability = <0.001 md Shows Consistent Lithology Shows Dolomite Lithology Shows High Density and Very Low Porosity Presence of multiple, thick, low- permeability containment zones has been established in the well and through seismic survey

13 Lower Copper Ridge Dolomite A New Storage Candidate Identified Rocks under Rose Run dominated by dense dolomite (carbonate) layers. However, storage potential was observed in part of Copper Ridge Dolomite (B-Zone at ft depth) based on NMR testing. This has also been validated through detailed stress tests in AEP well, which show that this zone may even have higher injectivity than the Rose Run. Similar high permeability zone observed in several wells, including one near Gavin plant. This is promising for regional storage potential. 25 Potential Future Research Subject to funding and permitting Select injection well design. Install injection well. Install monitoring well. Install surface capture/injection system. Perform injection test. Pre- and post-injection monitoring

14 Environmental Assessment Environmental Assessment CO 2 Source and Surface Completion (Subject to Funding and Permitting) Create capture system for slipstream from existing plant 27 Mountaineer Regulatory Documents: (Subject to Funding and Sponsors Agreement) A NEPA Environmental Assessment would cover capture, pipeline transport, injection, and long-term storage for the potential future phase at the Mountaineer site. USEPA Class V UIC Permit is under development, to be submitted to West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection, if decided by AEP and DOE. UIC Area of Review 3.2 KM (2-miles) 0.7 km AEP#1 Ohio River Valley Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage Project Pilot Demonstration, Mountaineer Power Plant, New Haven, West Virginia 1.0 Introduction 2.0 Purpose and Need for Action 3.0 Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action 3.1 Overview 3.2 Proposed Action 3.3 Alternative Action 1- Alternate Injection Location/Facility 3.4 Alternative Action 2- Alternate CO2 Mitigation Technologies 3.5 No-action Alternative 4.0 Affected Environment and Project Description 5.0 Environmental Consequences Ohio River Valley Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage Project Pilot Demonstration, Mountaineer Power Plant, New Haven, West Virginia 1.0 Introduction 2.0 Purpose and Need for Action 3.0 Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action 3.1 Overview 3.2 Proposed Action 3.3 Alternative Action 1- Alternate Injection Location/Facility 3.4 Alternative Action 2- Alternate CO2 Mitigation Technologies 3.5 No-action Alternative Environmental Assessment Ohio River Valley Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage Project Pilot Demonstration, Mountaineer Power Plant, New Haven, West Virginia 1.0 Introduction 2.0 Purpose and Need for Action 3.0 Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action 3.1 Overview 3.2 Proposed Action 3.3 Alternative Action 1- Alternate Injection Location/Facility 3.4 Alternative Action 2- Alternate CO2 Mitigation Technologies AEP#1 Test Well Oil and Gas Well Area of Review SCALE (MILES) All Locations Approximate 4.0 Affected Environment and Project Description 5.0 Environmental Consequences 3.5 No-action Alternative 6.0 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources 4.0 Affected Environment and Project Description 6.0 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources 7.0 Environmentally Preferred Alternative 5.0 Environmental Consequences 7.0 Environmentally Preferred Alternative 8.0 Compliance with Applicable Regulations, Policies, and Permits 8.0 Compliance with Applicable Regulations, Policies, and Permits 9.0 Public Participation 9.0 Public Participation 10.0 References 6.0 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources 7.0 Environmentally Preferred Alternative 8.0 Compliance with Applicable Regulations, Policies, and Permits 10.0 References 9.0 Public Participation 10.0 References Geologic cross section showing well depths near AEP#1 (in blue)

15 Mountaineer Project: Stakeholder Outreach to be Continued (Subject to Funding and Sponsors Agreement) Numerous meetings by Battelle and AEP personnel to inform key stakeholders about the project: Plant managers and employees at and near the power plant Regional and national non-governmental organizations (NGOs): NGO workshop in January 2004 and February Local and state officials mayors, county commissioners, state legislators Federal Officials - senators and Congressmen. State PSC, Development Office, Energy Task Force. State DEP and EPA officials (EPA Workshop). Numerous scientific meetings and workshops. 29 Potential Injection Test (Subject to Funding and Permitting) Injection of metric tons CO 2 /day in Rose Run SS and/or Copper Ridge. Avg 7.8 gpm 2-5 years of continuous injection. Entire system will be contained on plant site

16 Monitoring (Subject to Funding and Permitting) Monitoring of system considered critical step in ensuring safe, effective, and long-term operation. Necessary for stakeholder acceptance (i.e. AEP, plant personnel, local residents, NGOs, local residents). Many analogues for gas storage (natural gas storage, hazardous waste injection, natural CO 2 fields). 31 Layered Monitoring Objectives (Subject to Funding and Permitting) Injection/Capture System Operational Safety Leakage Injected CO

17 Example Survey of CO 2 Monitoring Methods for Mountaineer Method Injection System Fluidphase Gas-Phase Wireline or Down-well Description Injection Well Measurements Shallow GW Monitoring Surface water sampling Reservoir Sampling Monitoring injectate Tracers in injectate Shallow soil-gas monitoring Lower atmospheric monitoring Traditional Wireline RST DSI Suitability Comments Basic parameters required for UIC permit, but a full suite of methods not required for Class V. Reservoir too deep to produce a detectable signature in shallow aquifers. Relatively inexpensive to perform. Required for UIC permit. Reservoir too deep to produce a detectable signature at surface. Relatively inexpensive to perform. May be expensive to collect quality samples given reservoir depths. Required for UIC permit, probably included in capture/separation program. More applicable to reservoir in a established well-field with numerous monitoring wells in-place. Would require extensive sampling to detect break-through. Possible that single well would miss slug. Reservoir too deep to produce a detectable signature at surface. Relatively inexpensive, some risk of background CO2 levels affecting results. Reservoir too deep to produce a detectable signature at surface. Relatively inexpensive, some risk of background CO2 levels affecting results. Readily available, may be used in injection well or monitoring well. Proven method, may be used in injection well or monitoring well. Proven method, may be used in injection well or monitoring well. 33 Suitability of CO 2 Monitoring Methods for Mountaineer Method Other Geophysical Description 4-D Seismic VSP Microseismic Crosswell Seismic Tomography Suitabilit y Comments Resolution of survey too low to detect CO2 in reservoirs High velocities in reservoir rocks may make it difficult to detect density contrast due to presence of CO2 High background noise would require installation of geophones in bedrock wells several hundred feet deep. Continuous monitoring schedule. More applicable to reservoir in a established well-field with numerous monitoring wells in-place, high velocities in reservoir rock. ERT/EMT + More applicable to reservoir in a established well-field with numerous monitoring wells in-place. Somewhat experimental. Remote Sensing Airborne gas Aeromagnetics/Gravity Hyperspectral imagery Surface deformation/tilt Reservoir too deep to produce a detectable signature, relatively small injection volume not likely to require airborne survey. Reservoir too deep to produce a detectable signature, relatively small injection volume not likely to require airborne survey. Reservoir too deep to produce a detectable signature, relatively small injection volume not likely to require airborne survey. Injection unlikely to deform surface given reservoir depth. Sight level/tilt meter could be included with surface monitoring at low cost

18 Mountaineer Project Summary: Progress in a Phased Manner A detailed site-characterization effort has been completed. Local and regional characterization is the most important aspect for planning successful projects. Substantial improvement in understanding features of relevant geologic formations in Midwestern USA with applicability to other mature basins. New storage reservoirs have been identified and their injection potential quantified. Continuing progress to initiate a first-of-a-kind integrated demonstration of capture, local transport, storage, and monitoring test at a major power plant. Collaboration with the oil and gas industry (local small independent producer) is critical for cost effective regional reservoir characterization. Joint industry-government R&D efforts to secure a future for fossil fuels and secure a future for region s fossil-fired generation fleet in a greenhouse gas constrained world are essential