Gulf Coast Carbon Center - Research on Geologic CO2 Storage - Ian Duncan - Global CCS Institute – Nov 2011 Regional Meeting


Published on

As a part of the Institute's strategic focus on assisting CCS projects through knowledge sharing, three North American roadshow events will help the industry share project experiences and knowledge about CCS. Taking place in the US and Canada, the three events include:

• Austin, Texas on November 8, 2011;
• Calgary, Canada on 10 November, 2011; and
• Washington, D.C. on 19 January, 2012.

The first roadshow focused on sharing project experiences and knowledge from the projects in North America but also brought in projects from Europe (Don valley) and Australia (Callide) so that regionally diverse experiences could be shared amongst a global audience.
Attendance at the event was around 30 to 35 which allowed open and frank discussions around technical, management, and regulatory issues and how these challenges can impact on a project’s advancement and decision making processes.

Published in: Business, Technology, Travel
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Gulf Coast Carbon Center - Research on Geologic CO2 Storage - Ian Duncan - Global CCS Institute – Nov 2011 Regional Meeting

  1. 1. Research on Geologic CO2 Storage Ian Duncan Gulf Coast Carbon Center University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology
  2. 2. Acknowledgements• Gulf Coast Carbon Center researchers: Susan Hovorka, Tip Meckel, Jiemin Lu, JP Nicot, Katherine Romanak, Changbing Yang, David Carr, Becky Smyth, Jong-Won Choi• BEG Associate Director: Michael Young• BEG Director: Scott Tinker• Funding organizations: The Department of Energy National Energy Technology Laboratory, Southeast Regional Carbon Sequestration GCCC sponsors
  3. 3. Research Questions(1) Will geologic sequestrationwork?(2) Is it safe, secure, long-termstorage?(3) How do risks of brinesequestration compare to CO2EOR?
  4. 4. Why we believe that CO2 Sequestration will workNatural gas reservoirs have kept gasin the subsurface for tens of millionsof yearsNatural CO2 reservoirs have retainedCO2
  5. 5. Why we believe that CO2 Sequestration will workThe 37 year plus record of CO2 injectioninto depleted oil fields (CO2-EOR)~ 600 million tons of CO2 transported inpipelines in the US~ 1,200 million tons of CO2 injected
  6. 6. Why we believe that CO2 Sequestration will workNo known significant environmentalissuesExcellent safety record
  7. 7. Why we believe that CO2Sequestration will workBureau of Economic Geology’sDOE funded Field Projects:Frio IFrio IISACROCCranfield Phase IICranfield Phase III
  8. 8. GCCC Field Monitoring Programs Cranfield SECARB Frio Test 1&2 Phase II&II Texas American Resources Denbury SACROC Southwest Partnership KinderMorgan NM Tech NRG Hastings Denbury-AP-LLC
  9. 9. Funded byFrio I Brine Pilot: DOE NETL
  10. 10. Frio Brine Pilot SiteInjectioninterval
  11. 11. Observation WellInjection Well
  12. 12. CO2 Saturation Observed with Cross-well Seismic Tomography vs. Modeled Tom Daley and Christine Doughty LBNL
  13. 13. Frio 1 2004-2006 • 1600 tones CO2-A • 1500 m deep sandstone - saline Funded by NETL Lead: Hovorka/Geo-SEQ Host: Texas American Resources
  14. 14. Frio I Pilot Injection Project 2005 -2006 First highly instrumented brine injection Showed … computer simulation fate of CO2 work well and available technologies can monitor CO2
  15. 15. Frio II Pilot Injection Project 2007 -2008 Second highly instrumented brine injection Showed … Capillary trapping of CO2 will be a significant factor is assuring long term secure storage
  16. 16. Modeled evolution of phases ofCO2
  17. 17. SACROC Project 2006 -2010First monitoring for leakage inPermian Basin CO2 EOR siteLargest (over 80 million tons ofCO2 injected over last 37 years)SW Carbon SequestrationPartnership Project hosted byKinder Morgan (EOR Operator)
  18. 18. SACROC Access to Private Water Wells
  19. 19. SACROC ProjectShowed …. No evidence ofleakage of CO2 into groundwater
  20. 20. Cranfield Injection Projects May 6th, 2010 Washington DC
  21. 21. Denbury Onshore LLC Sandia Technologies LBNL LLBL Gulf Coast Carbon Center Staff Cranfield Field USGS ORNL Susan Hovorka Ramon Trevino Test Collaboration Tip Meckel NETL Changbing Yang QEA U Mississippi Jiemin Liu Katherine Romanak SECARB Partnership Rebecca Smyth Miss State Sigrid Clift UTPGE Masoumeh Kordi UT DoGUniversity Tennessee Stuart Coleman Yihua Cai Hamid Lashgari Project BP Princeton Stanford BEG staff Tongwei Zhang Managed by SSEB Jeff PaineUniversity Edinburgh Bob Reedy Robert ReedSchlumberger Carbon Kitty MillikanServices
  22. 22. Cranfield Phase II Project 2008 -2010 Million ton injection of CO2 into and oil field SECARB Sequestration Partnership Project hosted by Denbury (EOR Operator)
  23. 23. Cranfield Phase II (EOR) 2008-continuing• 1 Million tones CO2-N Key results:• 3000 m deep fluvial sandstone • Develop above zone pressure• SECARB Partnership (SSEB) monitoring interval (AZMI) showLead: Hovorka, Meckel vertical isolationHost: Denbury Onshore LLC
  24. 24. Injection well Tubing data 0 150 Tubing Temperature (F) Tubing Pressure (psig) -5 100Satellite -10 Jul.03 Jul.04 Jul.05 Jul.06 Jul.07 Jul.08 Jul.09 Jul.10 Jul.11 Jul.12 Jul.13 Date Jul.14 Jul.15 Jul.16 Jul.17 Jul.18 Jul.19 Jul.20 Jul.21 Jul.22 Jul.23 Jul.24 Jul.25 50transmission Monitoring well
  25. 25. Fluvial Depositional Environment Stratal slicing seismic interpretation Channel Channel Channel erosion erosion Channel erosion erosion Average Average H: 283 md H: 20.5 % V: 47 md V: 20.7 %Hongliu Zeng, BEG Point bar Point bar
  26. 26. Dedicated observation well Injection wells Fault
  27. 27. Flow Modeling Actual Injection Rates Modeled CO2 injection rate CFU 29-10 CFU 29-12 14000 CFU 29-10 CFU 29-12 14,000 CFU 26-1 CFU 25-2 CFU 26-1 CFU 25-2 CFU 24-2 CFU 29-2 CFU 24-2 CFU 29-2 12,000 CFU 28-1 CFU 27-1 12000 CFU 28-1 CFU 27-1 CFU 29-4 CFU 48-1 CFU 29-4 CFU 48-1 CFU 29-7 CFU 29-7 10,000 10000 CO2 injection rate (Mscfd)CO2 injection rate (Mscfd) 8,000 8000 6,000 6000 4,000 4000 2000 2,000 0 - 6/1/2008 7/21/2008 9/9/2008 10/29/2008 12/18/2008 2/6/2009 3/28/2009 5/17/2009 7/6/2009 7/1/2008 8/20/2008 10/9/2008 11/28/2008 1/17/2009 3/8/2009 4/27/2009 6/16/2009 Date Date Simplified CO2 injection rate ??
  28. 28. Pressure match at continuous monitoring well BEG Observation well 6000 5500Pressure (psi) 5000 Measurement 4500 Calculated Simplified CO2 injection rate 4000 2/22/2008 11/18/2010 8/14/2013 5/10/2016 2/4/2019 Date
  29. 29. Cranfield Phase II Project 2008 -2010 Showed …. Digital pressure gauges in reservoir and at well head are sensitive to relatively small leaks
  30. 30. Cranfield Phase III Project 2009 -2010 First highly monitored million ton a year injection rate into brine
  31. 31. Cranfield Phase III (stacked) 2009-continuing 3 Million tones CO2-N 3000 m deep fluvial sandstone (brine) SECARB Partnership (SSEB) Lead Hovorka, Meckel, Trevino Host: Denbury Onshore LLC Key results: Time and space evolution of saturation ERT for CCS
  32. 32. NEW PROJECTS
  33. 33. Air-Products & Leucadia Lake CharlesHastings 2011-2015 Planned 5 Million tones CO2- A + 8 Million tons CO2 N 2000 m deep fluvial sandstone (EOR) Lead: Nunez, Hovorka Host: Denbury Onshore LLC Key results: Test best commercial technologies for confirming storage permanence in EOR context Assessment of faults
  34. 34. NRG JW Parrish Plant 2012-2017 Planned 0.25 ? Million tones CO2- A from coal-fired capture 2000 m deep bar sandstones (EOR) Lead: Smyth Host: To be announced soon Key GCCC results: Test best commercial technologies for confirming storage permanence in EOR context
  36. 36. IS CO2 SEQUESTRATION SAFE? Risks associated with CO2 sequestration Capture plant CO2 Pipelines Well blowouts Leakage of CO2 into groundwater Leakage of CO2 into oil and gas reservoirs
  37. 37. CONCLUSIONS ABOUT RISKS• Most risks associated with CCS can be quantified and are similar to other analogous industrial activities• Risks for well characterized, carefully selected sites are manageable and bounded• Risk assessment ultimately is site specific
  38. 38. CONCLUSIONSCO2 sequestration is ready forprojects at true commercial scale
  39. 39. Thanks!For more information: