Basin Resource Management and Carbon Storage

1. Australian National Low Emissions Coal Research and Development
Basin Resource Management and Carbon
Storage
Jim Underschultz and Sunil Varma
Special thanks for contributions from IEAGHG and Kathy Hill (GCCSI) and the Basin
Resource 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. 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. 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. Critical CO2 Storage Parameters
&V
M
M
&V
&V
M
&V
M
How does Resource Management fit?
After Karsten Michael
(CSIRO)

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. 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. 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. Australia’s major active and planned carbon
capture and storage projects
Gippsland
Basin
Image courtesy of the CO2CRC

9. What resources are we (might we) Permits
Oil and Gas Production be interested
in?
Maffra
Sale
Longford
0 50
km

10. What resources are we (might we) Permits
Oil and Gas Exploration be interested
in?
Maffra
Sale
Longford
0 50
km

11. What resources Gas Gazettal Permits
Oil and are we (might we) be interested
in?
Maffra
Sale
Longford
0 50
km

12. Oil and Gas Retention Licence
Maffra
Sale
Longford
0 50
km

13. Geothermal Permits
What resources are we (might we) be interested
in? GEP 24
Maffra
GEP 12
Sale
Longford
0 50
km

14. Sequestration Permits
VIC/GIP001
0 50 km
at 38:53 S

15. All Gippsland Permits
What resources are we (might we) be interested
in? GEP 24
Maffra
GEP 12
Sale
Longford
VIC/GIP001
0 50
km

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. Undiscovered Hydrocarbon Potential
Questions 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. Undiscovered Hydrocarbon Potential
Latrobe Total Petroleum System (USGS, 2012).

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 99 181 105
Undiscovered conventional oil and gas resource predictions for the
Gippsland Basin (USGS, 2012).
• Undiscovered hydrocarbon potential can be estimated
based on size distribution of discovered fields

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
150
Zone of possible increased vertical leakage,
flux depends on permeability of the seal

21. Scale matters and needs context
•Volumes
•Rates
•Geographic area
•Length of time

22. Australia’s major active and planned carbon
storage projects
Image courtesy of the CO2CRC

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. Case Study: SW Hub
N-S cross section showing the extent of the Yarragadee aquifer
2D Seismic
Acquisition
(green lines)
GSWA Harvey-1 data well
Proposed
injection
reservoir

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. SW Hub Case Study
Assessment 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. 6400000
SW Hub Case Study: Groundwater
P e e l In le t
H ar
ve
y E
6380000
s tu a
18
10
ry
20
24 22
12
4
2
6
6360000
8
IN D IA N
O C EAN
Carbon storage
6340000
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. SW Hub Case Study: Groundwater
Salinity of Leederville and Eneabba Fm
Superficial aquifer salinity

29. SW Hub Case Study: Groundwater
Leederville
aquifer
groundwater
allocation
Water allocation
regions

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. 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. 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. 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. SW Hub Case Study: Coal
Depth of mining (metres)
Cattamarra
Coal
Measures
100 to 2400 m
(not well defined)
Potential carbon
storage
Sue Coal Measures
from 3000m to ?

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. 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. 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. 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: Ghori
Khwaja, A. 2008.

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. 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. ANLEC R&D
Jim Underschultz
General Manager, Research
Phone: +61 2 6175 6401
Email: James.Underschultz@anlecrd.com.au
Web: www.anlecrd.com.au
CSIRO
Sunil Varma
Research Team Leader – Hydrodynamics
Phone: +61 8 6436 8731
Email: Sunil.Varma@csiro.au
Web: http://www.csiro.au/science/CO2-geological-storage
Thank you

42. QUESTIONS
You can submit questions
to us simply by typing
your question directly
into
the GoToWebinar control
Panel.
42