WP 4.1. Site selection criteria and ranking methodology. Karen Kirk

Transcription

1 WP 4.1 Site selection criteria and ranking methodology Karen Kirk 1

2 Basic site selection criteria Sufficient depth and storage capacity supercritical CO 2 below m (rule of thumb) 2

3 Variation of CO 2 density Distinct change in density at 800 m 3

4 Basic site selection criteria Sufficient depth and storage capacity supercritical CO 2 below m (rule of thumb) porosity may deteriorate below m 4

5 One of the regional Danish reservoir sandstones Decreasing porosity with depth Decreasing permeability with decreasing porosity In practise this means a depth window of m 5

6 Basic site selection criteria Sufficient depth and storage capacity supercritical CO 2 below m (rule of thumb) porosity may deteriorate below m trap type / areal extent / thickness 6

7 7

8 Areal extent and thickness A h 8

9 Basic site selection criteria Sufficient depth and storage capacity supercritical CO 2 below m (rule of thumb) porosity may deteriorate below m trap type / areal extent / thickness storage capacity 9

10 Storage Capacity 10

11 Basic site selection criteria Sufficient depth and storage capacity supercritical CO 2 below m (rule of thumb) porosity may deteriorate below m trap type / areal extent / thickness storage capacity Sufficient injectivity to be economically viable permeability (as a rule of thumb > 200 md) reservoir lithology heterogeneity of reservoir 11

12 Permeability 12

13 Basic site selection criteria Sufficient depth and storage capacity supercritical CO2 below m (rule of thumb) porosity may deteriorate below m trap type / areal extent / thickness storage capacity Sufficient injectivity to be economically viable permeability (as a rule of thumb > 200 md) reservoir lithology heterogeneity of reservoir Integrity of seal seal lithology and permeability seal capillary pressure and pore entry pressure faulting / tectonic activity / fracture pressure 13

14 Integrity of Seal A non-wetting fluid like CO 2 has to overcome the capillary forces in the pore throats in order to enter and eventually pass through a cap rock it must exceed the capillary entry pressure Therefore the reservoir pressure has to be significantly greater than the pore fluid pressure in the cap rock for it to get into and through the cap rock CEP can be measured in the laboratory water CO 2 14

15 Faults Need to look at storage structures (domes) for faults resolvable on 3D seismic Geomechanical modelling? 15

16 Ranking Methodology Using: Basic Site Selection Criteria Geological parameters e.g. permeability, porosity, lithology etc. Ranking Criteria Key geological indicators from the Best Practice manual (Chadwick et al. 2006) 16

17 Ranking Criteria Depth Injectivity - must be able to store > 100 kt/year CO 2 storage capacity Seal integrity - capillary pressure/faulting Tectonically stable area Data availability implying confidence 17

18 Qualitative weighting of site selection criteria and geological parameters Weighting Explanation data from several boreholes, seismic data some average values some data estimated many estimates only few data no data 18

19 Ranking criteria Depth value Chabowo Greifswalder Kamien Loecknitz Bodden 840 m 1130 m 2232 m Pomorski data quality Storage capacity value 500 Mt CO2 500 Mt CO Mt CO Mt CO 2 >100 Mt CO 2 data quality Injectivity - must be able to store > 100 kt/year CO 2 value 40 kg/s (model) oil production rate (~8-9 kg/s) data quality Seal integrity - capillary pressure/faulting value no faults fault impermeability has to be checked no faults data quality Tectonically stable area value yes data quality Data availability implying confidence Rank