Nunez-Lopez, Vanessa

English

Texas ScholarWorks

CO2 storage, monitoring, verification, and accounting     GCCC Digital Publication Series #13-25     Vanessa Nunez-Lopez                      Cited as:  Nunez-Lopez, V., 2013, CO2 storage, monitoring, verification, and accounting: presented at the CO2 for EOR as CCUS: Texas-Norway Symposium, Houston, Texas, 19-21 November 2013. GCCC Digital Publication Series #13-25. Keywords: Monitoring-Design; Monitoring; Overview  CO2 Storage, Monitoring, Verification and Accounting  Vanessa Nuñez-Lopez  CO2 for EOR as CCUS: Texas-Norway Symposium Houston, Texas November 19 to 21, 2013 Monitoring goals for carbon storage  • Show that CO2 will be contained within the target formation  • Confirm sufficient storage capacity and injectivity • Measure aerial extent of the plume elevated pressure  • Provide advance warning to allow mitigation if needed • Provide confidence in the safety of the operation Who requires an MVA plan? In the US: • The Federal GHG accounting regulations (under the Safe Drinking Water Act and the Clean Air Act) • The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Underground Injection Control (UIC) program. In the European Directive (2009/31/EC): • Article 13: “Member States shall ensure that the operator carries out monitoring of the injection facilities, the storage complex (including where possible the CO2 plume), and where appropriate the surrounding environment…” In Australia: Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act 2006 (Cth)  Where do we monitor? Too complex Dynamic Stable first indicator Standard oil field technologies Geophysical monitoring methods • Seismic Surveys: 2D, 3D, time-lapse 3D (4D) • Vertical Seismic Profiles (VSP) • Cross Well Seismic • Well Logging • Electrical Resistance Tomography (ERT) • Others Pressure Monitoring In-zone Deep AZMI Shallow AZMI Soil Gas P P Groundwater and vadose zone monitoring Characterization of groundwater before CO2 injection begins, followed by annual sampling. Soil-gas monitoring  Principle: increased reservoir pressure from CO2 injection may lead to measurable uplift; short term leakage may lead to subsidence.  GPS (point positions, high temporal resolution) and InSAR (high spatial resolution, low temporal resolution) could provide a good combination for long term monitoring of sequestration sites.  InSAR demonstrated for CCS at InSalah, Algeria (dry).  InSAR not yet demonstrated for CCS in humid, vegetated areas. Surface deformation: space geodesy (GPS/InSAR) From RITE: Nagaoka Site Microseismic: passive seismic monitoring Case Study: SECARB Phase III at Cranfield, Mississippi Special Section dedicated to Cranfield in the October issue of the International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control   http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/17505836/18?utm_source=2013_10_22_Cranfield_Special_Issue_News_Flash&utm_campaign=GCCC-News-Flash_2013_10_28_CranfieldIssue&utm_medium=email Frio Brine Storage tests Cranfield Phase III early Jackson Dome  Natural CO2 source SECARB Test Site Location RCSP program goals:  • Predict storage capacities within +/- 30% • Evaluate protocols to demonstrate that it is probable that  99% of CO2 is retained  SECARB Cranfield “Early Test” goals: • Obtain early results for the RCSP program • Provide early information to policy makers   SECARB Cranfield “Early Test” technical objectives: • Provide effective environmental assurance • Predict and monitor the extent of CO2 plume within the injection interval • Predict and monitor the magnitude and extent of pressure increase  Cranfield: goals and objectives Cranfield: geological location DAS   Tuscaloosa Fm Tuscaloosa D-E reservoir Oil-water contact Based on log annotation and recent side-walls Tuscaloosa confining system Cranfield: detailed area of study (DAS) Injector CFU 31F1 Obs  CFU 31 F2 Obs  CFU 31 F3 Above-zone monitoring F1 F2 F3 Injection Zone Above Zone Monitoring 10,500 feet BSL Closely spaced well array to examine flow in complex reservoir 68m 112 m Fiberglass non-conductive casing Tuscaloosa DE ERT – 20 electrodes Casing-conveyed pressure sensor 100’ U-tube sampler 1/4 “SS 2 7/8” tubing BHP+ T Seismic sources/receivers Distributed temperature and heater loop Cross well array in two wells High injection volumes Far-field monitoring microseismic, P&T, chemistry,  surface seismic 200’ Cranfield: DAS observation well construction Cranfield: baseline cross-well seismic tomogram F1 F2 F3 West East 112 m Cranfield: cross-well seismic repeat F3 F2 F1 (Injection) Inter-well Distance (ft) 0.0 140 367 Baseline Sep. 2009 Nov. 2010 Cranfield: electrical resistivity tomography 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%11/29/09 0:00 12/4/09 0:00 12/9/09 0:00 12/14/09 0:00 12/19/09 0:00 12/24/09 0:00 12/29/09 0:00 1/3/10 0:00SAMPLING TIMECONCENTRATIONCH4CO2High frequency fluid sampling via U-tube  yields data on flow processes  BEG, LBNL, USGS, ORNL, UTDoG,   data compiled by Changbing Yang BEG Breakthrough of  of CO2 Additional flow paths – more methane extracted  Double injection rate Small diameter sampler with N2 drive brings fluids quickly to surface with tracers intact CO2 dissolution into brine liberates dissolved CH4 Originally brine methane saturated Wireline Logging  Reservoir Saturation Tool (RST) Cranfield: conclusions  More than 4.5 Million tons of injected CO2 have been monitored   CO2 has been effectively retained in the injection zone, even in area of 1943-1944 wells  Flow and pressure elevation was predicted within the range of uncertainty  CO2 moved in preferential paths along fluvial channels. A number of successfully deployed imaging tools support this channel-dominated flow theory.   CO2 moved downdip, indicating buoyancy forces were not flow dominating at the interwell scale of the experiment.   BEG’s risk-targeted monitoring program was designed to build confidence in carbon geologic storage.  It is hoped that learnings based on success and weakness of this project will be relevant at future sites   Transitioning from research monitoring to commercial EOR monitoring Research Monitoring  Tests-  • Hypotheses about the nature of the perturbation created – compare response modeled to the response observed via monitoring.  • Performance and sensitivity of monitoring tools  – sensitivity to the perturbation – conditions under which tool is  useful, – reliability under field conditions. Commercial Monitoring  Confirms -  • Predictions of containment  based on site characterization at the time of permitting are correct • Confidence to continue injection – monitoring observations that are reasonably close to model predictions – any non-compliance explained.  – no unacceptable consequences result from injection  • Diminishing of monitoring frequency through the life of the project –  eventually stopped, allowing the project to be closed.    Jackson Dome natural CO2 source New Orleans Houston Corpus Christi CO2 source CO2 EOR injection QAe708 200 mi 100 0 GCCC Texas Gulf Coast CO2-A EOR Projects General conclusions  • Diverse tools are available to determine if a site is performing correctly. Most of these tools have been extensively tested in similar settings and have been or are now being tested at CO2 sequestration sites. • The optimal tool combination for mature projects need to be site-specific. • In-zone reservoir fluid pressure is a well-known measure of reservoir response and provides data that test the correctness of reservoir models. • There is value in high-frequency pressure data that document short term transients in the rate of pressure change, which are not visible in low-frequency measurements • Time lapse measurements of CO2 saturation show complexities that are not included in traditional model matching. • Groundwater monitoring for a geologic storage site should draw upon classic contaminated-site protocols. Questions? 

CO2 storage, monitoring, verification, and accounting

https://repositories.lib.utexas.edu/bitstream/2152/66014/2/GCCCDigPub13-25.pdf

CO2 storage, monitoring, verification, and accounting

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Texas ScholarWorks