Overview of USGS Carbon Sequestration Geologic Research and Assessments Project

Transcription

1 Overview of USGS Carbon Sequestration Geologic Research and Assessments Project The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine May 24, 2016 Peter D. Warwick and the Geologic CO 2 Sequestration Project Team U.S. Geological Survey Department of the Interior 1

2 Outline for Presentation U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) carbon sequestration Congressional mandate Why is geologic CO 2 sequestration important? What is the USGS geologic carbon sequestration project doing to address CO 2 storage? Summary of take away points 2

3 Carbon Sequestration Mandate The USGS Carbon Sequestration Program is funded by the USGS Climate and Land Use Change (CLU) Mission Area. The Carbon Sequestration Program is responsive to The Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) of 2007 (P.L ) which calls for the USGS to develop a methodology for, and then complete a national assessment of, the geologic storage capacity for CO 2,and to evaluate associated geologic risks. EISA also directed the USGS to conduct a national assessment to quantify the amount of carbon stored in ecosystems, the capacity of ecosystems to sequester carbon and the rate of greenhouse gas flux in and out of ecosystems (biologic carbon sequestration). 3

4 Why is geologic CO 2 sequestration important? Geologic storage of CO 2 is essential to meet future CO 2 emission reduction scenarios 1 By 2050, carbon capture and geologic storage (CCS) should contribute about 15% of total emission reductions through 2050 in the 2 C Scenario (International Energy Agency, 2013, 2016) 1 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2014); International Energy Agency (2015) 4

5 Carbon capture and storage (CCS) contributes 15% of total emission reductions through 2050 in 2 C Scenario (2DS) compared to 4 C Scenario (4DS) Emissions (GtCO 2 ) (450 ppm) 1.5 C? (~7 10 Gt CO 2 /yr) Year IEA (2013) Technology Roadmap Energy Technology Perspectives Carbon capture and storage IEA (2016) Energy Technology Perspectives

6 USGS National Assessment of Geologic Carbon Dioxide Storage Resources mean = 3,000 Gt CO2 storage The regions with the largest technically accessible storage resources (circled) are the Coastal Plains (mostly in the U.S. Gulf Coast), Rocky Mountains and Northern Great Plains, and Alaska (mostly North Slope) USGS estimates of technically accessible storage resources for CO2 in the United States by region U.S. Geological Survey Geologic Carbon Dioxide Storage Resources Assessment Team (2013) 6 Gt = metric gigaton

7 The following slides illustrate major focus areas for the USGS Carbon Sequestration Geologic Research and Assessments Project 7

8 What happens when you pump carbon dioxide underground? Major questions addressed by USGS research: How much CO 2 can be stored underground nationwide? How much oil can be produced by injecting CO 2 into reservoirs for enhanced oil recovery? What are the environmental risks of storing CO 2 in underground reservoirs? What is the potential for CO 2 leakage, impacts to drinking water, and induced seismicity? The USGS is monitoring induced seismicity at the Arthur Daniels Midland industrial carbon dioxide injection project in Decatur, IL. CO 2 injection well in Mississippi 8

9 Methodology Development and Assessment of National CO2 Enhanced Oil Recovery and Associated CO2 Storage Potential Source: Global CCS Institute (2015) The USGS has developed an assessment methodology for estimating the potential incremental technically recoverable oil resources resulting from CO2 enhanced oil recovery (CO2 EOR) in reservoirs with appropriate depth, pressure, and oil composition. The methodology also includes a procedure for estimating the CO2 that remains in the reservoir after the CO2 EOR process is complete (Warwick and others, in press) 9

10 Geological studies of reservoirs and seals in selected basins with high potential for CO 2 storage CO 2 density and geothermal gradient research Underpressure in the basins of the Great Plains Michigan Basin (Buursink, 2014) Nelson and others (2015) 10

11 Natural CO 2 reservoirs as analogues for CO 2 storage Use natural CO 2 reservoirs to investigate potential leakage risk and rates along faults and through breached seals Evaluate availability of natural CO 2 resources that will compete with anthropogenic CO 2 for use in enhanced oil recovery Study natural gas isotope geochemistry (including noble gases) Build geochemical database and characterize the size, timing and migration of natural accumulations within total CO 2 systems Work with USGS Produced Waters Project by evaluating reservoir microbiology and water geochemistry Establish multiple confidentiality and assistance agreements with natural gas producers 11

12 Economics of CO 2 Storage and Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) Develop economic models: Representative economic/engineering cost models for saline formations Economic cost model for carbon dioxide extraction from natural sources Describe/delineate costs of Site preparation and investment Pressure management Risk mitigation Monitoring Petroleum engineering modeling tools that estimate injection capacities and pressure buildup for Mount Simon Sandstone Well data Mount Simon thickness USGS Mt. Simon Storage Assessment Unit Work in coordination with the USGS Economics, Energy Resources, and Future Energy Supply project Illinois Basin 12

13 Storage of CO2 in unconventional geologic reservoirs CO2 storage in basaltic and ultra mafic rocks Tollefson (2013) The USGS also studies rock types that have the potential to store CO2 through different mechanisms, including CO2 mineralization in mafic basalts and ultramafic rocks, and CO2 sorption onto organic rich shales and coals. Goodman and others (2014) 13

14 Induced seismicity associated with CO 2 geologic storage Background on Decatur & CCS Injection occurs right over crystalline basement into the lower Mount Simon Sandstone Extensive evidence of heterogeneous permeability structure (vertically, horizontally) Similar physics as wastewater injection sites except: buoyancy, compressibility, and mobility of super critical CO 2 Same concerns: pore pressure change, mass added, poro elastic strain changes Better opportunity to learn about physical mechanisms governing induced seismicity: Seismic monitoring In situ stress analyses Thermal, hydraulic, and mechanical models of injection & deformation Strandli and others, 2014 Lower perm. zones 14

15 Induced seismicity associated with CO 2 geologic storage Locations of microseismic events and USGS monitoring stations N Surface station Borehole station W W Double difference relocated microseismicity using differential travel times from phase arrival times and waveform cross correlation (correlation coefficient 0:7). Focal mechanisms are from P wave polarity for six events. Regional orientation of the maximum horizontal principal stress (S Hmax ) is indicated by opposing arrows. Kaven and others (2015) 15

16 Cooperators and outreach State Geological Survey and university Co ops Stanford and Univ. Texas at Austin CO 2 working groups Member of DOE National Risk Assessment Partnership Stakeholders Group Member of Interagency Carbon Capture and Storage working group Member of International Standards Organization working groups on Carbon Capture and Storage and CO 2 enhanced oil recovery Member of International Energy Agency working group on assessing CO 2 storage capacities Industry partners (Electric utilities, software developers, oil and gas operators) CO 2 project website: 16

17 Next steps Complete national CO 2 enhanced oil recovery assessment Continue induced seismicity research Better characterize potential geologic CO 2 storage formations Build in pressure, injection rate, time, and economics into future CO 2 storage assessments Conduct numerical modeling for hydrodynamic and geochemical interactions with CO 2 storage 17

18 Summary of take away points Geologic storage of CO 2 is essential to meet future CO 2 emission reduction scenarios 1 The USGS is a recognized world leader in: The geology of CO 2 storage Resource assessments CO 2 storage Enhanced oil recovery Economics of CO 2 storage and energy related resources Induced seismicity 1 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2014); International Energy Agency (2015) 18

19 References Cited Buursink, M.L., 2014, Significance of carbon dioxide density estimates for basin scale storage resource assessment: Energy Procedia, v. 63, p , Global CCS Institute, 2015, website, resource. Goodman, Angela, Fukaib, Isis, Dilmore, Robert, Frailey, Scott, Bromhal, Grant, Soeder, Dan, Gorecki, Charlie, Peck, Wesley, Rodosta, Traci, and Guthrie, George, 2014, Methodology for assessing CO2 storage potential of organic rich shale formations: Energy Procedia, v. 63, p , Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2014, Summary for policymakers, in Edenhofer, O., Pichs Madruga, R., Sokona, Y., Farahani, E., Kadner, S., Seyboth, K., Adler, A., Baum, I., Brunner, S., Eickemeier, P., Kriemann, B., Savolainen, J., Schlömer, S., von Stechow, C., Zwickel T., and Minx, J.C., eds., Climate Change 2014 Mitigation of Climate Change Contribution of Working Group III to the fifth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: Cambridge, United Kingdom, and New York, New York, Cambridge University Press, 31 p. International Energy Agency, 2013, Carbon capture and storage, technology roadmap: International Energy Agency, Paris, France, 59 p., roadmap carbon capture and storage 2013.html. International Energy Agency, 2015, World energy outlook special report, energy climate and change: International Energy Agency, Paris, France, 196 p special report energy climate change.html. International Energy Agency, 2016, Towards sustainable urban energy systems, Energy technology perspectives 2016: International Energy Agency, Paris, France, 9p., Kaven, J.O., Hickman, S.H., McGarr, A.F., and Ellsworth, W.L., 2015, Surface monitoring of microseismicity at the Decatur, Illinois, CO 2 sequestration demonstration site: Seismological Research Letters, vol. 86, no. 4, p , Nelson, P.H., Gianoutsos, N.J., and Drake R.M. II, 2015, Underpressure in Mesozoic and Paleozoic rock units in the midcontinent of the United States: American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, v. 99, no. 10, p , Strandli, C.W., Mehnert, Edward, and Benson, S.M., 2014, CO 2 plume tracking and history matching using multilevel pressure monitoring at the Illinois Basin Decatur Project, Energy Procedia, v. 63, p , Tollefson, Jeff,2013, Pilot projects bury carbon dioxide in basalt: Nature, v. 500, 1 August 2013, p. 18. Warwick, P.D., Verma, M.K., Attanasi, E.D., Olea, R.A., Blondes, M.S., Freeman, P.A., Brennan, S.T. Merrill, M.D., Jahediesfanjani, Hossein, Roueche, J.N., and Lohr, C.D., 2016 in press, A database and probabilistic assessment methodology for carbon dioxide enhanced oil recovery and associated carbon dioxide retention in the United States: Energy Procedia, The Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies (GHGT) conference, November, 2016, Lausanne, Switzerland, 5 p. U.S. Geological Survey Geologic Carbon Dioxide Storage Resources Assessment Team, 2013, National assessment of geologic carbon dioxide storage resources Results: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1386, 41 p., available online at 19

20 Carbon Sequestration Geologic ` Research and Assessments Project Project Website Selected Publications For more information contact: Peter D. Warwick pwarwick@usgs.gov