• Save
WSPE Seminar 3   May 15, 2009 Co2
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Like this? Share it with your network

Share

WSPE Seminar 3 May 15, 2009 Co2

  • 1,392 views
Uploaded on

 

More in: Business , Technology
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
1,392
On Slideshare
1,392
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0

Actions

Shares
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. CO2 Sequestration and Climate: Forefront Technologies in the Pacific Northwest B. Peter McGrail, Ph.D Laboratory Fellow Energy & Environment Directorate Washington Society of Professional Engineer’s Conference Seattle, Washington May 15, 2009
  • 2. Historical Record of Atmospheric CO2 Concentrations 400 CO2 Concentration (ppmv) 350 300 250 200 150 50000 40000 30000 20000 10000 0 Time (yr BP)
  • 3. Climate change is a long-term strategic problem with implications for today 20 Global Fossil Fuel Carbon Emissions Gigatons per Year Historical Emissions Stabilizing atmospheric concentrations of GTSP_750 GTSP_650 greenhouse gases and not their annual 15 GTSP_550 GTSP_450 emissions levels should be the strategic GTSP Reference Case goal of climate policy 10 A fixed and finite amount of CO2 can be 5 released to the atmosphere over the course of this century - 1850 1900 1950 2000 2050 2100 2150 2200 2250 2300 Every ton of emissions released to the atmosphere reduces the budget left for Stabilization of CO2 at 550 ppm 1600 future generations History Future Oil 1400 As we move forward in time and the Natural Gas . Coal planetary emissions budget is drawn Global Primary Energy 1850-2100 (Exajoules) 1200 Biomass Energy down, the remaining allowable emissions Non-Biomass Renewable Energy 1000 will become more valuable Oil + CCS Natural Gas + CCS CO2 capture and storage (CCS) plays a 800 Coal + CCS Nuclear Energy large role but… 600 End-use Energy Government and industry must make adequate provision for its use 400 CCS is not a silver bullet 200 0 1850 1900 1950 2000 2050 2100 3
  • 4. Coal Gasification Integrated with CO2 Capture Conventional Gas Cleanup PRODUCT CO2 ABSORBER VENT Sulfur Coal ASU DEMIN WATER MAKEUP CW CW CW H2 CO2 to LP Sequestration LP WGS STEAM STEAM Reactor Gas Separator FLUE GAS FEED WASTE TO EXCESS DISPOSAL CW WATER SODA ASH MAKEUP SOLVENT
  • 5. Metal-Organic Solid Sorbent Technology Several classes of organic solids (including clathrates) are stable at high temperatures (250°C+) Cage/pore properties can be tailored to targeted guest Molecular engineered selectivity for CO2 (or other gases) Can be produced in engineered structures, i.e. thin films, membranes, microporous materials No covalent/ionic chemical bonds involved – gas separation and retrieval cycles performed without degradation of the host
  • 6. New Technologies Offer Breakthroughs in CO2 Capture Economics Coordination solid based on hydroxytetephalic acid and various metals Porous tubular network 25 wt% CO2 uptake at 1 bar and RT (4X amine solvents) No uptake of N2 at 1 bar Absorbs SO2 without degradation of material Heat of regeneration <140 BTU/lb-CO2 versus 710 BTU/lb-CO2 for MEA
  • 7. Worldwide Portfolio of CCS Projects 7
  • 8. Generic Sequestration System CO2 Phase Diagram 8
  • 9. Reservoir Simulation of CO2 Injection
  • 10. The Sequestration System Design “Pentagon” Capture system Pipeline ity Le Wellbore bil ga l Lia & Lia Reservoir(s) l& Monitoring ga Verification bil ity Le Accounting Systems Control and Delivery Data Infrastructure Acquisition Systems ity Le iabil gal & L gal & Liabil Cost Le Permitting Estimation ity Legal & Liability
  • 11. The CCS and Power Plant Developer Nexus CCS introduces a new and unfamiliar paradigm Outline of Incised Valley (>50 ft Muddy thickness) Thins may indicate areas with for power plant preserved Rozet remnants developers Traditional siting factors (water, transmission lines, Rozet Member, largely fuel cost) no longer solely continuous to the east; variable porosity determine project viability should offer the possibility of multiple, segregated aquifers. Suitable geology for sequestration or buyer for Gas - Red Oil - Green CO2 required Water - Blue Production ratios tend to distinguish Springen Ranch vs 400 to 700 acre plant Ute Members. No Rozet production this immediate area. boundary expands to 5000 to 10,000 acre AOI
  • 12. Integrated Sequestration System Design Wellbore Design Po Pipeline Design Reservoir Simulation Pb To Po & m m& To m& TCO2 TCO2 Pipeline design Geological data specifications Hydrologic data Heat transfer Geochemical data parameters Initial and boundary Well design parameters conditions Soil temperature Heat transfer parameters CO2 EOS Boundary conditions CO2 EOS • Plant specifications 12
  • 13. Coupled Thermohydraulic Modeling One dimensional finite-difference flow model CO2 properties computed from equation of state (Span and Wagner, 1996) Heat transfer from soil (pipeline) and surrounding rock (wellbore) ⎡ 64 744 6447448 64 744 ⎤ 4 frictional loss 8 gravity head 4 8 flow acceleration j +1 ⎢ fG (Vi + Vi −1 ) (ρi + ρi −1 ) sin α + G (V − V ) ⎥ p j = p1 − ΔL ∑ ⎢ −g i −1 ⎥ ΔL i i =2 ⎢ 4D 2 ⎥ ⎢ ⎣ ⎥ ⎦ ⎡ heat transfer 64 energy 64748 gravitational energy ⎤ } potential 74 8 kinetic energy j +1 ⎢ 6 74 ⎥ 4 8 Qi ⎛ pi pi −1 ⎞ 1 2 u j = u1 + ∑ ⎢ ΔL − ⎜ − ⎟ − (Vi − Vi −1 ) + g ΔL sin α ⎥ 2 i =2 ⎢ m ⎝ ρi ρi −1 ⎠ 2 ⎥ ⎢ ⎣ ⎥ ⎦ 13
  • 14. Major Features at Each Candidate Site Jewett Odessa Mattoon Tuscola Woodbine Delaware Sands Mt. Simon Mt. Simon • 5K to 6K ft plus Queen • 6K to 7K ft • 6K to 7K ft • 1 injection well • 3K to 5K ft • 1 injection well • 1 injection well • 10 vertical • Injection on plant • Install ~10-miles of Travis Peak injection wells site new pipeline • R&D Potential • Use all or part of • No nearby wells • No nearby wells • 10K to 12K ft existing pipeline penetrate penetrate primary • 5 Wells (1 injector/4 (56 miles total) production primary seal seal • Near-by wells • Install ~30-miles of new pipeline • Near-by wells
  • 15. Depth In Feet 1000 Major Features: Comparison of Sites by 5000 Depth 5600’ 7750’ 8350’ Seal Injection 10000 11,500’
  • 16. Design Data Comparison By Site (130 MMscfd) Parameter Units Illinois Illinois Texas Texas Odessa Mattoon Tuscola Jewett Pipeline miles 0 11.0 52.5 86 Well Connector Pipe miles 0.5 2 1 8 #Wells 1 1 1 10 Injection Tubing OD inches 5.5 5.5 5.5 2.88 Injection Tubing ID (Drift) inches 4.55 4.55 4.55 2.17 Depth to Reservoir feet 6950 6150 4800 2900 Pipeline Inlet Pressure psi 2140-2160 1720-2030 1800-2160 1410-1630 Wellhead Pressure psi 2140-2160 1690-2010 1740-2100 1320-1520 Required BHP psi 3096 2790 2760 2190 In situ Temperature °F 138 130 153 107 Predicted Temp °F 117-118 90-114 69-109 62-101 Pipe Diameter inches 16 16 18 18 Operating at lower pressure in winter can save $300K to $400K per year in compression costs 16
  • 17. Nonisothermal Simulations with STOMP-CO2 • Woodbine formation, Brazos, Texas • Field temperature of 68° C with a geothermal gradient • Injection temperature between 21° C and 43° C • 50 MMT Injection for 27.34 years with two 28-day plant shutdowns per year • 50-year simulation period Temperature, 20° C (blue) - 70° C (red) 17
  • 18. Nonisothermal Simulations with STOMP-CO2e • Woodbine formation, Brazos, Texas • Field temperature of 68° C with a geothermal gradient • Injection temperature between 21° C and 43° C • 50 MMT Injection for 27.34 years with two 28-day plant shutdowns per year • 50-year simulation period Dissolved CO2 Concentration, 0.0 (blue) - 0.07 gm/cm3 (red) 18
  • 19. Liquid CO2 (~2500 ppmw H2O, 298 ppmw H2S) CO2 Purity Effects Pipeline regulations vary widely for H2S Pipeline 20 ppm K-M Central Basin system steel 200 ppm Petrosource 10,000 ppm Weyburn As much as 70% H2S transported and injected in Canada Pipeline water content Columbia River Basalt specifications vary widely and are 90°C, 41 days, 10.2 MPa related to H2S content in CO2 11,935 ppmw H2S stream Dry CO2 and CO2-H2S streams are unreactive with pipeline steels Knowledge gap for CO2 streams containing intermediate water content Water saturated CO2 phase in pyrite geologic reservoir Lack of industry experience and even basic science studies with CO2-SO2-H2O systems
  • 20. Principal Legal “Hurdles” in CCS Projects “Hurdles” Mineral rights Complex law and varies state to state Severed ownership issues CO2 Storage Deed Landowner cooperation required over much larger area than traditional power plant Liability issues remain unresolved except for specific instances Texas and Illinois passed liability legislation specific to the FutureGen project States that have passed CCS legislation (i.e. WA and WY) have not addressed liability Establishment of Trust Funds (State administered) seem to be an often cited approach Industry stepping into market (Zurich Financial Services Group, AIG) 20
  • 21. Example of Land Ownership Issues on a Small CCS Project
  • 22. MVA Tool Suite Atmospheric Monitoring Eddy covariance Accumulation chambers LIDAR Remote Sensing Color infrared orthoimagery Aerial photography/spectroscopy Tiltmeter Gravimetric interferometry Vadose Zone Infrared Gas Analyzers Laser Induced Breakdown Spectroscopy (LIBS) Isotope Mass Spectrometry GC/MS Geophysical Methods Electromagnetic Induction High Resolution Electrical Resistivity Dedicated Seismic Array Network Mobile Seismic Surveys Groundwater Monitoring Shallow and Deep Monitoring Wells Water chemistry analysis by ICP-MS and a variety of other methods
  • 23. Big Sky Carbon Sequestration Partnership 23
  • 24. Pilot Project Partners Research Institutions (universities, labs, others) MSU, UI, Columbia University, INL, Oregon State University Department of Natural Resources International Collaborators Institut de Physique du Globe (France) National Geophysical Research Institute (India) Vernadsky Institute of Geochemistry and Analytical Chemistry (Russia) Industry Boise White Paper L.L.C. Shell Oil Company Portland General Electric Others 24
  • 25. Layered Basalt Flows Interflow zones have properties that allow fluids to move in and out Overlying flow interiors have extremely low permeability and act as caprock seals 25
  • 26. Lab Experiments with Columbia River Basalt Indirect: Rock-Water-CO2 Direct: Rock-CO2-solvated water What happens with impurities in the CO2 stream? Some basalts (like CRB) react even Other basalts form armoring coatings faster that reduce carbonate formation Basalt Reacts with Supercritical CO2 in both the Aqueous and Gas Phase to Form Carbonates 26
  • 27. Why this Area?   Hanford Site License area Snake River + Field Test Site Well location Washington Columbia River Oregon Located where some of the deepest and thickest basalt exists in the region Located on an active industrial site that has been extensively disturbed during original plant construction Data collected will assist plant owner with commercial operations after pilot study is complete 27
  • 28. Basalt Pilot Project Summary Pre-Injection Site Characterization Soil gas and shallow well water geochemistry Seismic survey Well logging and geochemical sampling during borehole drilling phase Hydrologic tests Injection Facts Water is non-potable at target depth 1000 MT of CO2 total (1/2 Olympic-sized pool) Injection would occur over a 2 to 4 week period Initial radius of CO2 bubble is only about 100 ft. Maximum spread radius is about 250 ft The CO2 will dissolve in the formation water and eventually become mineralized over a period of a couple of years Monitoring Program An extensive monitoring program is planned that includes air, shallow subsurface, and deep monitoring components Water samples will be obtained periodically to monitor geochemical changes Core sample extraction (1-2 years post-injection) Closure Wells would be plugged and abandoned according to state regulations Site would be restored to pre-test condition Closure option will depend on possible future use by landowner 28
  • 29. Seismic Survey Seismic survey completed 12/07/2007 Field tests immediately prior to initiation of the seismic acquisition showed that ground roll could be suppressed by eliminating frequencies below 12 Hz, and by using (for each seismic source station) four vibroseis sweeps Optimized sweep resulted in longer production of high frequency source energy and a desirable flattened frequency spectrum The swath design of five receiver lines flanked by two source lines, together with the use of the optimized sweep design, results in a dominant frequency of 80 HZ at the target interval of 3,000-4,000 feet, and a fold of 200. Raw field records of the 2D data acquired confirm acquisition of P-wave and converted wave data Initial data processing complete. No faulting or fracture zones are indicated at the site 29
  • 30. Current Stack Overlapped by the Current RMS Velocity Model: Noise Attenuated, Deconvoluted, Spectral Balanced, Residual Statics 30
  • 31. 31
  • 32. Seismic swath North Basalt Test Well 32
  • 33. Top Water Table 35’ 2450 Wallula P ilot Hydrogeologic Model Umtanum Basalt Flow-Interior Section Top of Basalt 44’ (Secondary Caprock) Depth, feet below ground surface 2550 Umtanum Basalt 2650 Slack Canyon Basalt Flow-Interior Section Slack Canyon Basalt (Primary Caprock ) Test Zone 8B 2750 (Injection R eservoir) 2850 Test Zone 8A Ortley Basalt Ortley Ba salt Flow Interior Section Lower Hydrogeologic Confining Unit 2950 10 100 1000 10000 Deep Resistivity, ohm-m Selected injection zone transects three interconnected basalt flows that offer significant potential for scientific study of CO2 migration and mineralization processes in a unique geological setting 33
  • 34. Packer Tool Assembly Deployment Shut-In Tool Valve Assembly Inflatable Packer Bottom Well Screen Pressure Probe Housing Packer Expansion Chamber 34
  • 35. 35
  • 36. Cores and Image Log From Test Zone 36
  • 37. Conclusions Sequestration systems need to be integrated from plant gate to sequestration site to operate effectively and efficiently Design tools are being developed to make the task easier but maintain robust design CCS is a completely new paradigm for power plant developers and their financial backers Achilles heel of CCS systems appears to rest on financial, legal, liability, and public acceptance issues The Pacific Northwest is making unique contributions towards advancing CCS opportunities both regionally and worldwide 37
  • 38. Acknowledgements The work discussed in this presentation was sponsored by Office of Fossil Energy and National Energy Technology Laboratory Department of Energy with special acknowledgement to
  • 39. Sequestration System Design Considerations Plant operations Unscheduled and scheduled plant shutdowns result in periodic flow interruptions Infrastructure sized to accept full rate of CO2 output when the plant is operating Pipeline Specify diameter large enough to handle peak flow rate without excessive pressure drop and wall thickness sufficient to accommodate pressure requirements Cost-benefit analysis may be needed to determine specifications for delivered CO2 (purity requirements) Wellbore Injection tubing string of sufficient diameter to prevent excessive pressure drop at peak CO2 injection rate Account for impacts of seasonal temperature variations on operating parameters Target Formation(s) Utilize reservoir simulations to estimate required injection pressure to support range of injection rates Maintain operating pressures below fracture gradient limit Assess impacts of CO2 delivery temperature on operating parameters and reservoir stresses*
  • 40. Components of a CCS Program Subsurface Characterization Permitting Subsurface Infrastructure & Pipeline Pro Operations & jec Maintenance t Tim e line Monitoring Closure