Measurement, Monitoring and Verification (MMV)

Transcription

1 Measurement, Monitoring and Verification (MMV) Larry Myer USCSC CCS Capacity Building Workshop Charleston, West Virginia October 25, 2011

2 Outline Why monitor? Information needs Monitoring methods Baselines Well-based methods Inter-well geophysical methods Surface methods Site-specific tailoring of monitoring Monitoring costs Conclusions

3 Monitoring is Needed to Ensure that Geologic Storage is Safe and Effective Requirements for Geologic Storage Worker and Public Safety Performance Confirmation/ Storage Security Groundwater, Ecosystem and Seismic Protection GHG Mitigation Effectiveness Monitoring Needs

4 Monitoring for Worker and Public Safety Concerns Large-scale releases High concentrations of CO 2 in confined spaces Wellheads Pipelines Surface facilities

5 Monitoring for Performance Confirmation/Storage Security CO 2 spatial distribution in the storage formation Pressure buildup/brine movement Caprock and wellbore integrity Storage capacity, effectiveness of trapping mechanisms/plume stabilization (Source: J. Birkholzer, LBNL)

6 Monitoring for Groundwater, Ecosystem, and Seismic Protection CO 2 in the groundwater, mobilized inorganics or organics EPA Class VI rules require monitoring Elevated CO 2 levels in soil; adverse impacts on plants Seismicity in excess of natural levels

7 Monitoring for Effectiveness as a Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Technology Monitoring for CCS emissions credits will involve multiple system components Geologic storage reservoir is one component Monitoring for surface leakage required by EPA GHG reporting rule Surface leakage tied to overall storage security System components for On-shore storage (IPCC, 2006)

8 Site Characterization/Baseline Measurements are First Data during well drilling validates geologic model, detailed information on overburden, seal, and reservoir Cuttings inspected Cores taken Fluid salinity monitored Wells provide access for monitoring measurements Monitoring relies upon baseline measurements made during characterization Well drilling at WESTCARB Arizona pilot site

9 Well-based Monitoring Techniques Injection and production rates Wellhead and formation pressures Casing and annulus pressure testing Temperature Well logs Fluid and gas samples Cuttings and core from wells Hydrologic testing; tracers U-tube system Wireline logging truck Fiber optic thermal sensors

10 Geophysical Logs Provide Formation and Fluid properties Highly developed technology for sedimentary geologies Open hole logs give baseline porosity, density, lithology, velocities, resistivity, saturation Logs used to tie other geophysical measurements at well Through casing logs for monitoring velocities, resistivity, saturation changes Caliper Resistivity Porosity / Density Permeability Water Minerals Example section of wireline logging results, Arizona well (Source: Schlumberger)

11 Pressure, Temperature, Fluid Sampling, Seismic System Deployed in Otway Well

12 Monitoring CO 2 Breakthrough to Validate Models Frio saline CO 2 injection test results comparison of the density of fluids arriving at the monitoring well, using U-tube fluid sampler. (Freifeld et al 2005) Comparison to CO 2 breakthrough at the observation well

13 Inter-well Monitoring Using Geophysical Techniques Seismic geophysics highly developed technology 3D and 4D VSP, crosswell Seafloor arrays Microseismicity Electrical and electromagnetic geophysics limited testing for CO 2 storage Land surface displacements due to subsurface pressure Tilt Satellite based Gravity Drilling shot holes For seismic survey Seismic acquisition ship Seismic Offshore gravity Courtesy of Tom Daley, LBNL

14 Seismic Monitoring Surface Seismic 2-D, 3-D, and 4D Vertical Seismic Profile (VSP) Well Cross-Well Tomography CO 2

15 Seismic Monitoring a Major Success at Sleipner Seismic monitoring results: cross-section view on left; plan view below (Arts et al 2008) Sleipner also first application of gravity for monitoring of plume (Eiken et al 2010)

16 Two-way travel time Vertical Seismic Profiles (VSP) Augment Surface Seismic Control Reflection Frio Reflection Pre Injection Data Post Injection Data VSP results from Frio saline CO 2 injection test Daley et al 2006 Data from Tom Daley, LBNL

17 Sensitive Satellite Measurements Show Ground Surface Deformation Ground surface displacements derived from satellite-based Interferometric Synthetic Radar (InSAR) measurements have been mapped at InSalah

18 Monitoring Surface Seepage Collect and analyze soil gas concentrations in vicinity of abandoned wells Fluid and gas phase tracers Eddy covariance flux monitoring Flux chamber monitoring Open path optical techniques Surface based Plane Satellite Point atmospheric CO 2 concentration

19 Modeling is a Key Part of Monitoring Hydrodynamic, geochemical models predict behavior of CO 2 in the reservoir Geophysical and geomechanical models predict the response of monitoring methods to reservoir conditions Inverse models predict reservoir parameters based on measured geophysical response Modeling from Frio: reservoir model and model of pre- and post injection VSP (T Daley, LBNL)

20 Monitoring Should be Tailored to Site and Risk Based

21 Early Studies Indicated Monitoring is Small Part of CCS Cost Cost data from field projects needs to be assessed Pre-operational $5.7 million a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h. Operational $23 million a. b. c. d. e. f. Closure $14 million a. Well logs b. Wellhead pressure c. Formation pressure d. Injection and production rate testing e. Seismic survey f. Microseismicity baseline g. Baseline atmospheric CO 2 monitoring h. Management (15%) a. Seismic survey b. Wellhead pressure c. Injection and production rates d. Wellhead atmospheric CO 2 concentration e. Microseismicity f. Management (15%) a. Seismic survey b. Management (15%) a. b. Total Cost: $0.16/tonne CO 2 (Benson et al 2006)

22 Conclusions Many monitoring options available Seismic imaging is currently most promising for inter-well subsurface monitoring Combinations of techniques in tailored program provide greater assurance Costs of monitoring are small compared to other costs Innovations will improve spatial and temporal resolution More demonstrations are needed Frio Brine Pilot, 2004

23