Basin Resource Management and Carbon Storage

805 views
698 views

Published on

Basin Resource Management and Carbon Storage

Published in: Technology, Business
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
805
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
327
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Basin Resource Management and Carbon Storage

  1. 1. Australian National Low Emissions Coal Research and Development Basin Resource Management and Carbon Storage Jim Underschultz and Sunil VarmaSpecial thanks for contributions from IEAGHG and Kathy Hill (GCCSI) and the BasinResource Management Study team, Jane Hodgkinson, Bozkurt Ciftci, Laurent Langhi, and Karsten Michael (CSIRO), and Brett Harris (Curtin University) for the project technical contributions on which this presentation is based. *
  2. 2. Acknowledgements• The authors wish to acknowledge financial assistance provided through Australian National Low Emissions Coal Research and Development (ANLEC R&D). ANLEC R&D is supported by Australian Coal Association Low Emissions Technology Limited and the Australian Government through the Clean Energy Initiative.• Co-funding was provided by the CSIRO, Curtin University and Western Australia Department of Mines and Petroleum (WA DMP).
  3. 3. Outline• The main parameters considered for carbon storage• Why are resource management issues important in carbon storage?• What type of resources will we consider here?• An example of multiple resource potential from the Gippsland Basin in Victoria• Major CCS projects active and planned in Australia• Does scale (time, volume, rate, area) matter?• Case Study of the SW Hub in Western Australia• Summary and Conclusions
  4. 4. Critical CO2 Storage Parameters &V M M &V &V M &V M How does Resource Management fit?After Karsten Michael(CSIRO)
  5. 5. Why is Resource Management important in Carbon Storage? • The location and character of various basin resources may: • Influence the storage site selection • Impact the “dynamic storage capacity” of a site • Guide the containment risk analysis • Help define Monitoring and Verification design • What is the Australian context • What resources might we be interested in? • Does scale (time, volume, rate, area) matter?
  6. 6. The Australian Context• Australia is dry and has a lack of surface fresh water resources• It has relatively deep groundwater resources• It’s O&G resources are often largely in a single reservoir horizon within sedimentary basins• Much of Australia’s geothermal energy potential is in hot sedimentary rocks rather than volcanic rocks• Australia has large coal and coal seam methane resources• Australia has significant shale gas potential
  7. 7. Why is Resource Management important in Carbon Storage? • The location and character of various basin resources may: • Influence the storage site selection • Impact the “dynamic storage capacity” of a site • Guide the containment risk analysis • Help define Monitoring and Verification design • What is the Australian context • What resources might we be interested in? • Does scale (time, volume, rate, area) matter?
  8. 8. Australia’s major active and planned carbon capture and storage projects Gippsland BasinImage courtesy of the CO2CRC
  9. 9. What resources are we (might we) Permits Oil and Gas Production be interested in? Maffra Sale Longford0 50 km
  10. 10. What resources are we (might we) Permits Oil and Gas Exploration be interested in? Maffra Sale Longford0 50 km
  11. 11. What resources Gas Gazettal Permits Oil and are we (might we) be interested in? Maffra Sale Longford0 50 km
  12. 12. Oil and Gas Retention Licence Maffra Sale Longford0 50 km
  13. 13. Geothermal Permits What resources are we (might we) be interested in? GEP 24 Maffra GEP 12 Sale Longford0 50 km
  14. 14. Sequestration Permits VIC/GIP0010 50 km at 38:53 S
  15. 15. All Gippsland Permits What resources are we (might we) be interested in? GEP 24 Maffra GEP 12 Sale Longford VIC/GIP0010 50 km
  16. 16. Upper Latrobe Aquifer System - Inferred Hydraulic Head (m ) Distribution for m id 1990’s N dB asi n Northern Platform eo fG ip pslan Other resources and water x. Edg pro Lake Wellington Fault System Sole Field Ap 50km Maffra (95) 19 20 20 Data from the m ine site a rea is taken from 10 North Strzelecki Terrace “Latrobe Valley regional groundwater and land surfac e monitoring report five year review as at 0 June 2000. # 1000/8505/99 Geo-eng pty ltd . (95) 20 0 0 1 Sale Rosedale Fault System -10 (95) 7 (95) 21 (95) 14 (95) 20 -20 -10 -16m head -12 Rosedale Moonfish 97 -23 -30 Traralgon 38 40 Tuna 79 Morwell Latrobe 50 (95) 40 -1 -50 (95) 32 Seahorse 90 Whiting 89(95) 60 -50 Valley be s ubc rop Snapper 81 -40 Latro 43m head -44 Angelfish (95) 80 (95) 23 Barracouta 69 Marlin 69 6 0 22 34m head 20 Churc hill Seaspray (95) 29 30 (95) 45 (95) 15 14 -46m head -10 4 0 70 60 - -30 -20 as in Depression 10 20 Central Halibut 70 B nd ipp sla Tarwhine 90 Deep -10 -2m head Fortescue 83 -74 5 0 -100 - fG (95) 14 eo 59m head Corbia 79 Locally depressed Edg ? ? Bream 88 hydraulic head surface pro x. 7 (97) Dolphin 90 0 Mackerel 77 also noted by S report KM Ap (95) 11 (January 2004) (95) 20 op Bream B 96 bcr e su rob 0 Lat -30 2 (95) 16 Darriman Fault System West Kingfish 82 20 (95) 21 Kingfish 71 11 H e a d (u s e d i n d ir e c tl y ) South Strzelecki Terrace 10 (95) 11 48 H e a d (u s e d d ire c tly ) Foster Fault System Sc ale 0 25km Coal Resources Agriculture Oil Production mine dewatering irrigation High water cut From Hatton et al. 2004 Carbon Storage Potential CSIRO open file report
  17. 17. Undiscovered Hydrocarbon PotentialQuestions to ask: • Is the basin more than 2km thick? • Is there a demonstrable hydrocarbon system? • Are there reservoir and seal pairs? • What are the critical moments in the basin history (timing of generation, migration, and trap formation)? • What are the characteristics of the existing hydrocarbon discoveries? • What are the hydrocarbon shows and indicators in the area?
  18. 18. Undiscovered Hydrocarbon PotentialLatrobe Total Petroleum System (USGS, 2012).
  19. 19. Undiscovered Hydrocarbon Potential TOTAL UNDISCOVERED RESOURCES LARGEST OIL (MMBO) GAS (BCFG) NGL(MMBNGL)RESOURCE EXPECTED TYPE MEAN FIELD SIZE F95 F50 F5 MEAN F95 F50 F5 MEAN F95 F50 F5 MEAN OIL 24 87 133 200 137 133 253 451 267 5 14 37 16 GAS 439 1128 2152 3879 2282 52 99 181 105Undiscovered conventional oil and gas resource predictions for theGippsland Basin (USGS, 2012). • Undiscovered hydrocarbon potential can be estimated based on size distribution of discovered fields
  20. 20. Modelling Groundwater Impacts (generic, not modelled on a Gippsland example) Pre-injection flow system 30 20 26 2 Ocean 22 6 18 10 14 Post-injection flow system Injection wells 30 10 Ocean 100 150Zone of possible increased vertical leakage,flux depends on permeability of the seal
  21. 21. Scale matters and needs context•Volumes•Rates•Geographic area•Length of time
  22. 22. Australia’s major active and planned carbon storage projectsImage courtesy of the CO2CRC
  23. 23. Case Study: SW Hub 2D Seismic Acquisition (green lines) GSWA Harvey-1 data well •Location: 32° 59’ 30.79”S 115°46’ 28.16”E •Spudded: 7 February 2012 •Reached TD: 9 March 2012 •P and A: 23 March 2012 •Total Depth: 2945 metres MD
  24. 24. Case Study: SW HubN-S cross section showing the extent of the Yarragadee aquifer 2D Seismic Acquisition (green lines) GSWA Harvey-1 data well Proposed injection reservoir
  25. 25. SW Hub Case Study• Structural, stratigraphic and geomechanical evaluation for assessment of containment security• Potential resources in the region, to be considered: – Groundwater – Hydrocarbons – Coal and coal seam gas – Geothermal
  26. 26. SW Hub Case StudyAssessment of containment security – Seal thickness and permeability - underway – In-situ stress (high horizontal anisotropy) – Seal rock strength (high – could not leak-off) – Fault zone architecture (throw distribution, orientation and geometry etc) - underway – Fault zone membrane seal capacity (eg. SGR) underway – Fault zone strength and reactivation potential underway – Potential for leakage from wells - underway
  27. 27. 6400000 SW Hub Case Study: Groundwater P e e l In le t H ar ve y E6380000 s tu a 18 10 ry 20 24 22 12 4 2 66360000 8 IN D IA N O C EAN Carbon storage6340000 16 region of interest 14 S tu d y a re a Superficial aquifer flow systems (after URS, 2009a)6320000 2 W a t e r ta b le c o n to u r (m A H D ) B u n b u ry 0 10 20 km 360000 380000 400000
  28. 28. SW Hub Case Study: Groundwater Salinity of Leederville and Eneabba Fm Superficial aquifer salinity
  29. 29. SW Hub Case Study: GroundwaterLeedervilleaquifergroundwaterallocation Water allocation regions
  30. 30. SW Hub Case Study: O&G Permits GSWA Ginginup 1 Badaminna 1 Barragoon 1 Eclipse 1 Bullsbrook 1 Minder Reef 1 Marri 1 Charlotte 1 Mullaloo 1 Gage Roads 1 Perth Cockburn 1 Araucaria 1 Warnbro 1 Peel 1 Parmelia 1 Rockingham 1 Challenger 1 Bouv ard 1 Pinjarra 1 Felix 1 Sugarloaf 1 Lake Preston 1 Preston 1 Wonnerup 1 Sabina Riv er 1 Kaloorup Road 2 Adina 1 Chapman Hill 1
  31. 31. SW Hub Case Study: Offshore Sequestration Permits GSWA Ginginup 1 Badaminna 1 Barragoon 1 Eclipse 1 Bullsbrook 1 VLAM-01 Minder Reef 1 Marri 1 Charlotte 1 Mullaloo 1 Gage Roads 1 Perth Cockburn 1 Araucaria 1 Warnbro 1 Peel 1 Parmelia 1 Rockingham 1 Challenger 1 VLAM-02 Bouv ard 1 Pinjarra 1 Felix 1 Sugarloaf 1 Lake Preston 1 Preston 1 Wonnerup 1 Sabina Riv er 1 Kaloorup Road 2 Adina 1 Chapman Hill 1
  32. 32. SW Hub Case Study: Geothermal Permits GSWA Ginginup 1 Badaminna 1 Barragoon 1 Eclipse 1 Bullsbrook 1 39 GEP 2 GEP 40 Minder Reef 1 Marri 1 Charlotte 1 Mullaloo 1 GEP 1 GEP 8 Gage Roads 1 Perth GEP 9 GEP 7 Cockburn 1 Araucaria 1 Warnbro 1 Peel 1 Parmelia 1 GEP 42 Rockingham 1 Challenger 1 Bouv ard 1 Pinjarra 1 Felix 1 Sugarloaf 1 Lake Preston 1 Preston 1 GEP 14 GEP 12 GEP 10 GEP 11 Wonnerup 1 Sabina Riv er 1 Kaloorup Road 2 Adina 1 Chapman Hill 1
  33. 33. SW Hub Case Study: All Permits GSWA Ginginup 1 Badaminna 1 Barragoon 1 Eclipse 1 Bullsbrook 1 39 GEP 2 GEP 40 VLAM-01 Minder Reef 1 Marri 1 Charlotte 1 Mullaloo 1 GEP 1 GEP 8 Gage Roads 1 Perth GEP 9 GEP 7 Cockburn 1 Araucaria 1 Warnbro 1 Peel 1 Parmelia 1 GEP 42 Rockingham 1 Challenger 1 VLAM-02 Bouv ard 1 Pinjarra 1 Felix 1 Sugarloaf 1 Lake Preston 1 Preston 1 GEP 14 GEP 12 GEP 10 GEP 11 Wonnerup 1 Sabina Riv er 1 Kaloorup Road 2 Adina 1 Chapman Hill 1
  34. 34. SW Hub Case Study: CoalDepth of mining (metres) Cattamarra Coal Measures 100 to 2400 m (not well defined) Potential carbon storage Sue Coal Measures from 3000m to ?
  35. 35. SW Hub Case Study: Coal Seam Gas • Carbon storage potential is below 2000 m • Shallow coal appears to occur as discontinuous thin seams • Sue Coal is >3000 m deep
  36. 36. SW Hub Case Study: Underground Coal Gasification • Carbon storage potential is below 2000 m • Shallow coal appears to occur as discontinuous thin seams • Sue Coal is >3000 m deep
  37. 37. SW Hub Case Study: Oil and Gas • Araucaria-1 reported a 7.5 m oil column. •No other well intersected oil generally due to lack of efficient top/lateral seals that could form an intact closure. • All the wells that penetrated the Permian section encountered gas, gas show or gas indication within the Willespie Fm at depths >3000 m. • Willespie Fm: low porosity and permeability which is related to depth of burial and diagenetic overprint. •Reserve estimates (e.g. Whicher Range Field) suggest potential for unconventional tight gas.
  38. 38. SW Hub Case Study: Geothermal Modelled temperatures at the Lake Preston 1 Well Upper Lesueur (?) Lower Lesueur (?) Approximate upper and lower bounds for Harvey-1 temperature with (~20 C/km) depth from wells in the Perth Basin Uncertainty at selected depths for modelling at the Lake Preston 1 well (see Hot Dry Rock 2008)Subsurface temperatures from more than 200 wells in the Perth Basin;Western Australia (e.g. from bottom hole temperatures). Source: GhoriKhwaja, A. 2008.
  39. 39. Summary of SW Hub Case Study• Geomechanics of top and fault seal evaluation is under investigation and key to containment risk analysis• Groundwater management issues are minimised by the absence of the Yarragadee aquifer• Leederville aquifer and a thin surficial aquifer present but shallow• Coal and coal seam gas resource issues are minimal as shallow coal is low grade and Sue Coal Measures are >3000 m• Conventional hydrocarbon potential is low although there is tight gas potential in the Willespie at depths >3000 m• Near surface temperatures and geothermal gradients are generally not suitable for geothermal energy development in the area.• The approach taken here is transportable to other carbon storage sites
  40. 40. What Next for SW Hub?• Detailed site selection and characterisation• Update the 3D geocellular model• Update the dynamic multiphase reservoir model to understand CO2 plume behaviour• Link the reservoir and the groundwater models to understand the potential for interactions between the injected CO 2 and shallow aquifers• Approach is transferable to other regions
  41. 41. ANLEC R&DJim UnderschultzGeneral Manager, ResearchPhone: +61 2 6175 6401Email: James.Underschultz@anlecrd.com.auWeb: www.anlecrd.com.auCSIROSunil VarmaResearch Team Leader – HydrodynamicsPhone: +61 8 6436 8731Email: Sunil.Varma@csiro.auWeb: http://www.csiro.au/science/CO2-geological-storageThank you
  42. 42. QUESTIONSYou can submit questionsto us simply by typingyour question directly intothe GoToWebinar controlPanel. 42

×