Carbon Sequestration in Kansas Update on DOE funded projects

Similar documents
Advanced Subsurface Characterization for CO 2 Geologic Sequestration and Induced Seismicity Evaluations

The Impacts of Carbon Dioxide Storage in the Saline Arbuckle Aquifer on Water Quality in Freshwater Aquifers in Kansas

Project Number (DE-FE ) Jason Rush (W. Lynn Watney, Joint PI) Kansas Geological Survey University of Kansas

W. Lynn Watney and Saibal Bhattacharya. Kansas Geological Survey Lawrence, KS Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnerships Annual Review Meeting

SECARB Phase III ANTHROPOGENIC TEST: Risk Management through Detailed Geologic Characterization and Modeling

Illinois Industrial Carbon Capture & Storage Project

Kansas Interdisciplinary Carbonates Consortium Proposal June 2012

ADM CCS Projects Experience and Lessons Learned

Midwest Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership (MRCSP) Press Briefing. February 21, 2008

W. Lynn Watney, Jason Rush, Joint PIs Kansas Geological Survey The University of Kansas Lawrence, KS

A Geological and Geophysical Assessment of the Royal Center Gas Storage Field in North-Central Indiana, a Joint NIPSCO, DOE & GRI Case Study

Western Kentucky CO 2 Storage Test

The Illinois Basin Decatur Project Decatur, Illinois USA: Overview and Impacts. Sallie E. Greenberg

3D Time-lapse Seismic Modeling for CO2 Sequestration

PROJECT PROGRESS REPORT (03/lfi?lfibr-~/15/1998):

QUARTERLY PROGRESS REPORT DOE-NETL. Brian Dressel, Program Manager. Award Number: DE-FE

Source Sink Pipeline

Reservoir Modeling for Wabamun Area CO2 Sequestration Project (WASP) Davood Nowroozi

Prepared. PO Box 880. Scott C. Ayash. John A. Hamling Edward N. Steadman John A. Harju. University. Grand Forks,

region includes nine states and four provinces, covering over 1.4 million square miles. The PCOR Partnership

Contractor Name and Address: Oxy USA, Inc. (Oxy), Midland, Texas OBJECTIVES

Project Assessment and Evaluation of the Area of Review (AoR) at the Citronelle SECARB Phase III Site, Alabama USA

Reservoir Modeling of CO 2 Injection in Arbuckle Saline Aquifer at Wellington Field, Sumner County, Kansas

QUARTERY PROGRESS REPORT. Award Number: DE-FE

Evaluation of Carbon Sequestration in Kansas -- Update on DOE-Funded Project

Developments in Storage and Monitoring for CCUS

Available online at ScienceDirect. Energy Procedia 114 (2017 )

ADVANCED RESERVOIR CHARACTERIZATION AND EVALUATION OF CO, GRAVITY DRAINAGE IN T H E NATU RALLY FRACTU RED S P RABERRY RES ERVOl R

W. Lynn Watney & Jason Rush (Joint PIs) Jennifer Raney (Asst. Project Manager) Kansas Geological Survey Lawrence, KS 66047

Fracture, Fluid Flow and Diagenetic History of the Arbuckle Group

W. Lynn Watney & Jason Rush (Joint PIs) Jennifer Raney* (Asst. Project Manager) Kansas Geological Survey Lawrence, KS 66047

Illinois Industrial Carbon Capture & Storage Project

Needs Assessment: Permitting, i Data Management, Operations

QUARTERLY TECHNICAL PROGRESS REPORT FOR THE PERIOD ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2006

Western Kentucky Deep Saline Reservoir CO 2 Storage Test. Principal Investigators: J. Richard Bowersox - Lexington David A. Williams - Henderson

ABSTRACT The proposed study Modeling CO2 Sequestration in Saline Aquifer and Depleted Oil Reservoir to Evaluate Regional CO2 Sequestration Potential

DE-FG26-06NT Line 120. Line ft ft

Quarterly Report April 1 - June 30, By: Shirley P. Dutton. Work Performed Under Contract No.: DE-FC22-95BC14936

QUARTERLY PROGRESS REPORT. To DOE-NETL David P. Cercone, Program Manager Award Number: DE-FE

Midwest Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership

Recommendations for Injection and Storage Monitoring

Seismic mapping of the Utsira Formation. Petrophysical interpretations and fracture gradient estimates.

Basin-Scale Hydrological Impact of Geologic Carbon Sequestration in the Illinois Basin: A Full-Scale Deployment Scenario

How Do We Get More Oil Out of the Bakken? An Overview of the EERC s Bakken CO 2 Storage and Enhanced Recovery Research Program

An Assessment of Geological Carbon Sequestration in the Illinois Basin: The Illinois Basin-Decatur Site

BASAL CAMBRIAN BASELINE GEOLOGICAL CHARACTERIZATION COMPLETED

FRIO BRINE SEQUESTRATION PILOT IN THE TEXAS GULF COAST

Geologic and Reservoir Characterization and Modeling

Geologic CO 2 Storage Options for California

FINAL REPORT INTEGRATING P-WAVE AND S-WAVE SEISMIC DATA TO IMPROVE CHARACTERIZATION OF OIL RESERVOIRS. Innocent J. Aluka

Bakken and Three Forks Logging Acquisition for Reservoir Characterization and Completion Optimization

DISCLAIMER BASIN, WEST TEXAS AND NEW MEXICO

Integration of Geophysical and Geomechanical

Geological CO 2 Storage Feasibility Study: Saline Aquifers and Depleted Oil Fields, Ordos Basin, Shaanxi Province

W. Lynn Watney & Saibal Bhattacharya Kansas Geological Survey Lawrence, KS April 24, 2010

Basin-scale Modeling of CO 2 Sequestration in the Illinois Basin Status Report

Trip to Wellington Field to observe 3D seismic acquisition and production facilities

Determine the Inside Wall Temperature of DSTs using an Infrared Temperature Sensor

Inside Wall Temperature Measurements of DSTs Using an Infrared Temperature Sensor

Horizontal Drilling Technology Review, Current Applications, and It s Future in Developing Kansas Petroleum Resources

Understanding Mississippi Dolomite Reservoirs in Central Kansas

5 IEAGHG CCS Summer School. Geological storage of carbon dioxide (a simple solution)

WESTCARB Annual Meeting

Kentucky Geological Survey Marvin Blan #1 Hancock County, Kentucky Geologic Review. J. Richard Bowersox David A. Williams Kentucky Geological Survey

What s Shaking in the Barnett Shale? STEP Dallas, August 11, 2015

Technology of Production from Shale

Sedimentology and Stratigraphy of Lower Smackover Tight Oil Carbonates: Key to Predictive Understanding of Reservoir Quality and Distribution

Western Kentucky Deep Saline Reservoir CO 2 Storage Test. Principal Investigators: J. Richard Bowersox - Lexington David A. Williams - Henderson

West Coast Research. WESTCARB Technical Director California Energy Commission

Kansas Underground Injection Control Program & Induced Seismicity. By: Benjamin Busboom Stinson Leonard Street

PROCEEDINGS THIRD WORKSHOP GEOTHERMAL RESERVOIR ENGINEERING. December 14-15,1977

MIDWEST REGIONAL CARBON SEQUESTRATION PARTNERSHIP PHASE II STORAGE CAPACITY POTENTIAL OVERVIEW

CO 2 storage capacity and injectivity analysis through the integrated reservoir modelling

Modelling of 4D Seismic Data for the Monitoring of the Steam Chamber Growth during the SAGD Process

Valley-Fill Sandstones in the Kootenai Formation on the Crow Indian Reservation, South-Central Montana

KANSAS GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Open File Report LAND SUBSIDENCE KIOWA COUNTY, KANSAS. May 2, 2007

GEOLOGICAL LOG INTERPRETATION TUTORIAL

(4) How do you develop an optimal signal detection technique from the knowledge of

WAMUNYU EDWARD MUREITHI I13/2358/2007

Carbon Sequestration in Basalts: Laboratory Studies and Field Demonstration

Formation Evaluation: Logs and cores

Western Kentucky Deep Saline Reservoir CO 2 Storage Test. Principal Investigators: J. Richard Bowersox - Lexington David A. Williams - Henderson

Determine the Inside Wall Temperature of DSTs using an Infrared Temperature Sensor

An Overview of the Tapia Canyon Field Static Geocellular Model and Simulation Study

Improving Geologic and Engineering Models of Midcontinent Fracture and Karst-Modified Reservoirs Using New 3-D Seismic Attributes

Evaluation of Petrophysical Properties of an Oil Field and their effects on production after gas injection

Exploration / Appraisal of Shales. Petrophysics Technical Manager Unconventional Resources

MIDDLE DEVONIAN PLAY MICHIGAN BASIN OF ONTARIO. Duncan Hamilton

TITLE: MULTIDISCIPLINARY IMAGING OF ROCK PROPERTIES IN CARBONATE RESERVOIRS FOR FLOW-UNIT TARGETING SEMI-ANNUAL TECHNICAL REPORT

Available online at ScienceDirect

The UK GeoEnergy Test Bed Ceri J Vincent British Geological Survey

Storage 6 - Modeling for CO 2 Storage. Professor John Kaldi Chief Scientist, CO2CRC Australian School of Petroleum, University of Adelaide, Australia

secarb.org Southeast Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership (SECARB) Central Appalachian Coal Seam Project

Improved Exploration, Appraisal and Production Monitoring with Multi-Transient EM Solutions

Economic Geology Unconventional Energy Research

Tell uric prof i 1 es across the Darrough Known Geothermal Resource Area, Nevada. Harold Kaufniann. Open-file Report No.

QUARTERLY PROGRESS REPORT. To DOE-NETL Brian Dressel, Program Manager Award Number: DE-FE

By: Jared T. Freiburg Illinois State Geological Survey 5/17/ cm

Julie Shemeta, MEQ Geo Inc., WCEE Webinar 1/13/2016 1/14/2016

MRCSP- Michigan Basin Geologic CO 2 Sequestration Field Test

Transcription:

Carbon Sequestration in Kansas Update on DOE funded projects a) characterization of CO 2 sequestration capacity southern Kansas (FE0002056) b) small scale field test at Wellington Field, Sumner County (FE0006821) W. Lynn Watney Jason Rush, Joint PI Kansas Geological Survey Lawrence, KS 66047

Outline Locations of studies, schedule Accomplishments Capacity for CO 2 sequestration in Arbuckle saline formation in southern Kansas Source-sink network for CO 2 sequestration Calibration sites for CO 2 -EOR and Arbuckle saline formation Wellington Field, Sumner County, 2 nd year New seismic and basement test @ Cutter Field, Stevens County, July-Oct. 2012 Small scale field test at Wellington Field Assessment of CO 2 injection zone, caprocks, and isolation from USDW CO 2 plume management through simulation and MVA Summary

Oil and Gas Map of Kansas & Areas of DOE-Funded CO 2 Investigations by the KGS and Partners Horizontal Test in Arbuckle -- Bemis-Shutts Field, Ellis Co. DE-FE0004566 (Vess-Murfin Drilling) 2010-2013 Westar Jeffrey Energy Center Sunflower Electric Holcomb Station Power plant Cutter Field Basement test July-October 2012 Western Annex CO2 Industry Consortium (Chester- Morrow oil fields & Arbuckle) Funded Jan. 2010- August 2013 50 miles Abengoa Bioenergy (Colwich ethanol) http://www.kgs.ku.edu/prs/petro/ogsheetmap.html Regional Assessment of deep saline Arbuckle aquifer Regional Arbuckle Saline Aquifer & EOR-CO2 Mississippian chert reservoir Wellington Field (DE-FE0002056) Funded Jan. 2010-August 2013 Small Scale Field Test @Wellington (DE-FE0006821) (BEREXCO) Funded Oct 1, 2011-2015

3D Seismic and Basement Test Cutter Field, Stevens County July-October 2012 Repeat work done at Wellington Field serving as western calibration site Integrate Cutter Field into regional geologic framework Well based mapping, gravity, magnetics, and remote sensing 120 mi 2 of regional three dimensional seismic imaging

KGS Cutter #1 well on Mississippian structural plateau on local structural high KGS Cutter #1 Gerlach and Bittersweet team, 2012

Initial CO 2 Storage Capacity Estimate (reported April 2011 for NATCARB) Deep Arbuckle Saline Formation G CO2 = A t h g Ø tot ρ E saline 9-75 billion metric tons in Arbuckle only (200+ years for all KS stationary CO 2 emissions) Metric tons CO 2 per Grid Cell 10 km 2 (3.8 mi 2) NATCARB, accessed 8-12 Gerlach and Bittersweet team, 2012

Source-Sink Network for CO 2 Sequestration Infrastructure for capture and use of anthropogenic CO 2 in Kansas 1 st Step Capture from Kansas ethanol plants and use in CO 2 -EOR 2 nd Step - Capture from other Kansas point sources and connect pipelines to other regional supplies; use for CO 2 -EOR and saline formation sequestration

Ethanol Plants and Selected Oil Fields for CO 2 -EOR Hall-Gurney Field (LKC) Trapp Field (Arb) Miscible Stewart Field (Atoka) SW industry CO2 EOR partnership Chester/Morrow fields Miscible Geneoseo-Edwards Field (Arb) Chase-Silica Field (Arb) Gravity-stable CO2-EOR Pleasant Prairie Field (Miss Chester) Eubank Field (Chester) Shuck Field (Chester) Cutter Field (Morrow) Spivey-Grabs-Basil Field: Miss Miscible KGS in collaboration with Midwest Governor s Association & Clinton Foundation Climate Initiative Wellington Field: Miss Miscible

Ethanol CO 2 pipeline concept Step 1 Western Plains Energy Huffstetter 85 mi Prairie Horizon Total annual CO 2 emissions (ethanol + fertilizer): 2.2 million metric tons/ year (113 MMscf/day) US Energy Partners 100 mi 160 mi Hall Gurney Trap 64 mi Kansas Ethanol Geneso-Edwards Bonanza Energy Reeve Agri-Energy SW KS CO2 Initiative 75 mi Unknown Fertilizer Plant 70 mi 80 mi Abengoa 85 mi Bioenergy Arkalon Energy Gateway Chase- Silica Spivey-Grabs Burrton Wellington Coffeyville Fertilizer KGS in collaboration with Midwest Governor s Association & Clinton Foundation Climate Initiative

Calibration Site for CO 2 -EOR and Arbuckle Saline Formation 1. Wellington Field, Sumner County 1. 12 mi 2 of multicomponent seismic 2. Two wells drilled to basement 1. 1600 ft of core and comprehensive wireline logs of caprocks and injection zones 2. Porosity, permeability, pore type, fractures 3. Geochemistry 4. Rock mechanics 5. Formation imaging 6. DST and step rate/interference test to sample fluids, characterize flow units for phi-k assessment, continuity

Calibration Site for CO 2 -EOR and Arbuckle Saline Sormation (continued) 2. Establish and characterize baffles, barriers, flow units 3. Construct integrated geomodel for simulation 1. Interpolate key rock properties from 3D seismic 1. Map properties of hydrostratigraphic units & caprocks 2. Map fractures and faults extending well and test data 4. Coupled geomechanical-fluid flow simulation of CO 2 1. Parameterization core, log, test, geochemical data 2. Predict plume dimensions through time 3. Predict pressures, stress, and interaction with caprock 4. Predict fate of CO2 plume and closure 5. Define AOR and placement of MVA equipment

Plans Small Scale Field Test at Wellington Field 1. Class II permit for CO 2 -EOR pilot and Class VI permit for CO 2 saline test (submit application to EPA in September 2012) 2. Establish CO 2 -EOR injection and install MVA in the Mississippian oil reservoir Drill injection well and monitoring well and install MVA Inject 30,000 metric tons (mid 2013) Test model, and account and verify CO 2 to meet 99% sequestration. Effectiveness, economics, and scaling facilities 3. Inject 40,000 metric tons CO 2 into Arbuckle saline formation with permit and DOE funding (~2014) 4. Test & refine model, verify and account for CO 2 injected to ensure 99 % CO 2 storage permanence in the injection zone

KGS #1-32 KGS #1-28 Boreholes penetrating Mississippian oil reservoir in Wellington Field Location of Mississippian boreholes to be monitored during and after CO 2 injection into the Arbuckle via KGS #1-28 Bittersweet Borehole Integrity of wells in AOR Location of Mississippian injection borehole and 5-spot pattern of producing boreholes 1 mile

Groundwater Wells No major municipal supply within 3 miles of 1-28 (proposed Arbuckle CO2 injector)

Stratigraphic Column New Basement Test Berexco Wellington KGS #1-32 Completed at Wellington Field February 2011 Conventional 4.5 inch core from base Pennsylvanian shales to basement (3550-5178 interval, 1628 gross ft, 1528 net feet) Top core = 3550 ft Pennsylvanian shales caprock Tight lower Mississippian argillaceous siltstone (caprock) Chattanooga-Simpson Group caprock Arbuckle Group Baffles/barriers 3600 ft Mississippian dolomite (EOR) 4200 ft 200 ft Land Surface Permian Evaporites (behind casing) Mississippian 600 ft 500 ft Multiple intervals of thick shale and interbedded Pennyslvanian and Permian carbonate strata 3600 ft Proposed injection zone http://www.kgs.ku.edu/stratigraphic/profile/ 5158 ft - granite Arbuckle 15 5200 ft

CO 2 injection zones in Arbuckle saline formation and Mississippian oil reservoir, and associated caprocks -- Well profile in 2-way travel time of KGS #1-28 illustrating synthetic seismogram and seismic impedance (velocity x density) and well log suite used to derive these seismic properties Time GR/CGR/ SP/Cal Microresistivity Neutron-Den-Pe Sonic Impedance Reflection Coefficient Synthetic 100 Hz Top Cherokee Gp. Top Mississippian Pay Secondary caprock CO2-EOR pilot Depth Equiv. Pierson Fm. Chattanooga Sh. Simpson Group Top Arbuckle Primary caprock Interval Precambrian granite bottom of core Jefferson City- Cotter Roubidoux Fm. Gasconade Dol. Gunter Ss. Baffle/barrier -Tight, dense - High impedance CO2 Injection zone http://www.kgs.ku.edu/software/ss/

Upper Primary Caprock Interval (core slabs from KGS #1-32) Lower Mississippian PIERSON LIMESTONE (~120 ft thick) : Dark, organic, argillaceous siltstone 3927-3939: olive gray, argillaceous dolomitic siltstone; 50% silt; wispy shale laminations; indistinct bedding; faint discontinuous laminations; gradational contact 3939-3975.6: medium dark gray; very argillaceous dolomitic siltstone; faintly laminated irregular; 30% silt; 3972-3973 cmsized irregular calcareous nodules/coarse calcite; faint lenticular bedding alternating olive gray and medium dark gray 3975.6-3993: very dark greenish gray; shale; tight; dolomitic; around 20% silt; scattered black shale laminae; uniform; scattered pyrite; 3983 starts increasing silt; gradational contact

South Arbitrary Seismic Profile in time showing impedance (velocity x density) East KGS #1-32 KGS #1-28 Top Oread Thick Lansing Group Shales Top Kansas City Ls. Top Mississippian Lower Pierson Top Arbuckle Baffle or potential barrier to vertical flow (high impedance) Low impedance injection interval Top Precambrian Hedke DOE/CO2

Permeability Profile of Arbuckle in #1-32 with concentrations of redox reactive ions; ferrous iron, sulfate, methane, and nitrate (Fe 2+, SO 4 2-, CH 4, NO 3 - ) in KGS #1-32 & #1-28 Redox reactive ions reflect changes in biogeochemistry occurring between upper and lower Arbuckle attributed to lack of hydraulic communication between the Upper and Lower Arbuckle Scheffer, 2012 Mid Arbuckle tight zone Lower Arbuckle Modeled Injection zone

Oxygen & Hydrogen Isotopes of Brine Upper Arbuckle -- distinct Mississippian Brines (distinct from Arbuckle) Lower Arbuckle injection interval -Waters distinct from upper Arbuckle and Miss - Lower intervals are also geochemically homogeneous Scheffer, 2012

Fracture Characterization in Arbuckle Spectral acoustic log & core description ft Top Arbuckle Spectral Sonic Visual Stacked baffles and barriers to vertical flow Proposed Arbuckle injection zone Precambrian Scheffer, 2012

Rock Fabrics in baffle interval of middle Arbuckle -- Thin section photomicrographs 4388.8 ft Stylolite with clay in brecciated zone in fine-to-coarse crystalline pelloidal dolomite Barker et al. (2012) 4504 ft. Complex boundary between chert & dolomite 4515.5 ft Chert nodule with pyrite(?) in moderately microporous (moldic peloid), finely crystalline dolomite/chert with pyrite(?)

KGS #1-32 Porosity% KGS #1-28 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 4900 4910 4920 4930 4940 4950 4960 4970 4980 4990 5000 5010 5020 5030 5040 5050 5060 5070 5080 5090 5100 5110 5120 5130 5140 5150 5160 Doveton, 2012 PHIip PHIvugc PHIvugnc Ø Connected vugs Wellington #1-32 Nonconnected vugs Interparticle/matrix 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 4900 4910 4920 4930 4940 4950 4960 4970 4980 4990 5000 5010 5020 5030 5040 5050 5060 5070 5080 5090 5100 5110 5120 5130 5140 Porosity% PHIip PHIvugc PHIvugnc Ø Step rate test perforations Wellington #1-28 Layered injection zone Probable communication between layers along boundaries and fractures Geochemical data suggests homogeneous hydrostratigraphic unit

Core from Lower Arbuckle Injection Interval 5089-92 ft 5080-83 5053-56 4995-97.7 ft

4923.7 ft Large dolomite crystals filling pore space in finely crystalline dolomite 4955.85 ft Chalcedony filling pore surrounded by microporous silica Rock Fabrics in proposed injection zone, lower Arbuckle -- Thin section photomicrographs and SEM micrographs from KGS #1-32 Barker et al. (2012) Dolomite-chert contact could be a potential reaction site with preferential dissolution of dolomite and formation of fractures along reaction fronts. Scanning electron micrograph of plug 31-19 (4977`)

#1-32 w/gr log (right) & porosity (left) Shales = more red Porosity inversion on intermediate PSDM in (Petrel tm ) Geocellular model Top Miss. Porosity (pay) Top Arbuckle surface Pierson (apparent porosity, ~clay content) Lower Arbuckle injection zone KGS #1-32 KGS #1-28 J. Rush, 2012 North

Top Arbuckle surface (worms eye view) CO2 Injector Porosity inversion on intermediate PSDM in (Petrel tm ) Geocellular model Mid Arbuckle tight Lower Arbuckle injection zone 1-32 w/gr log 1-28 Precambrian granite basement J. Rush, 2012 ~3500 ft Porosity Inversion & Structure Depth-Migrated 3D Seismic at Wellington Field North direction into the right side of image North

Provisional Coupled Geomechanical-Flow Model of 40,000 tons CO 2 injection into lower Arbuckle Model Properties 3D Homogeneous Grid (yet to included updated geomodel) Pressure and CO 2 Solubility Considerations Dual porosity matrix porosity and fractures This particular model has yet to include: - Potential faults or compartments within the reservoir (to be obtained from latest processing of 3D seismic - Additional sealing units, overlying Mississippian formation

Coupled geomechanical-fluid flow modeling of CO 2 injection into lower Arbuckle 4780 ft Model Top Cap-Rock Top Arbuckle Por = 0.15 Frac. Por = 0.20 Tight Arbuckle Por = 0.05 Frac. Por = 0.10 Injection zone Por = 0.08 Frac. Por = 0.15 5200 ft Model Bottom Holubnyak, 2012

9 mo. Injection Scenario High Permeability Case 40 kt CO 2 Matrix Flow 9-1-2012 4-1-2013 Lower Arbuckle 9 months of injection Lower & mid Arbuckle 1-1-2022 40 years 1-1-2052 Entire Arbuckle 100 yrs. 11-21-2112 300 yrs 1-1-2312 Holubnyak, 2012

3D View of CO 2 Spatial Distribution High Permeability Case 40 kt CO 2 Matrix and Fracture Flow 11-1-2052 1-1-2312 Matrix 11-1-2052 1-1-2312 Fracture 1600 ft 3000 ft Note the significant amount of CO 2 trapped due to solubility and residual trapping effects in Lower Arbuckle zone Holubnyak, 2012

9 Months Injection Scenario High Permeability Case 40 kt CO 2 Pressure Distribution (kpa) Over 3 Years 1-2-2012 2-15-2012 6-1-2012 9-1-2012 11-22-2012 4-1-2013 2-1-2014 7-1-2014 12-1-2014 Holubnyak, 2012

Pressure Response Comparison for 3 Cases 40 Mt CO 2 Pressure, Cumulative Gas, and Gas Rate Plot Mid. Arbuckle acting as a Sealing Unit Max pressure ~ 800 kpa (116 psi) 9 months of injection, 40 kt CO2 Holubnyak, 2012

Summary of Penultimate Simulation Model for Class VI Application Even if Mid-Arbuckle zone is considered as a permeable medium, significant amount of the CO 2 is predicted to be trapped in or near the injection zone (Low Arbuckle) due to: Decreased velocity of CO 2 travel through less permeable medium Residual and solubility trapping of the CO 2 in the mid- Arbuckle zone The increase in formation pressure due to CO 2 injection is insignificant and caprock/shales will not experience dangerous stress levels.

Presentation Summary Locations of studies, schedule Accomplishments Capacity for CO 2 sequestration in Arbuckle saline formation in southern Kansas & CO 2 -EOR in Mississippian Source-sink network scenario for initiating CO 2 sequestration Calibration sites for CO 2 -EOR and Arbuckle saline formation Wellington Field, Sumner County New seismic and basement test @ Cutter Field, Stevens County, July-Oct. 2012 Small scale field test at Wellington Field Assessment of CO 2 injection zone, caprocks, and isolation from USDW CO 2 plume management through simulation and MVA File application for Class VI geosequestration injection permit in September 2012

Acknowledgements & Disclaimer Acknowledgements The work supported by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) under Grant DE-FE0002056 and DE-FE0006821, W.L. Watney and Jason Rush, Joint PIs. Project is managed and administered by the Kansas Geological Survey/KUCR at the University of Kansas and funded by DOE/NETL and cost-sharing partners. Disclaimer This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof.