Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

FutureGen in Kentucky wersystems/futuregen/futuregen_fa ctsheet.pdf A slide show explaining a KGS preliminary assessment.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "FutureGen in Kentucky wersystems/futuregen/futuregen_fa ctsheet.pdf A slide show explaining a KGS preliminary assessment."— Presentation transcript:

1 FutureGen in Kentucky wersystems/futuregen/futuregen_fa ctsheet.pdf A slide show explaining a KGS preliminary assessment of geologic sequestration potential for future power plants in Kentucky

2 FutureGen wersystems/futuregen/futuregen_fa ctsheet.pdf is a DOE program to design a power plant that will integrate advanced coal gasification to produce hydrogen and electric power with CO 2 capture and storage (also called sequestration)

3 FutureGen in Kentucky wersystems/futuregen/futuregen_fa ctsheet.pdf Geologic sequestration potential  Why FutureGen? Concerns about climate change resulting in a need to reduce CO 2 emissions  FutureGen will be a near-zero emissions power plant funded by DOE and industry  FutureGen will incorporate geologic carbon sequestration to reduce CO 2

4 “the captured CO 2 …would then be permanently sequestered in a geologic formation.” Validating the integrated operation of gasification technology Proving effectiveness, permanence, and safety of sequestration in a geologic formation Limiting future carbon emissions from power plants is a critical component of DOE- sponsored energy research including FutureGen. From the DOE FutureGen fact sheet: Major goals include:

5 The Kentucky Geological Survey is part of three Phase II partnerships More info at DOE’s Midwest Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership Midwest (Illinois Basin) Geological Sequestration Consortium Southeast Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership

6 Geologic carbon sequestration possibilities Regional DOE partnerships are assessing several types of geologic reservoirs Enhanced oil and gas recovery may be possible for unmineable coals, organic-rich shales, and depleted oil and gas reservoirs After Harper (2004)  Unmineable coals  Organic-rich shales  Depleted oil and gas reservoirs  Deep saline aquifers Power plant Pipeline Multiple options at different locations

7 FutureGen Geologic carbon sequestration possibilities Injection into unmineable coal beds might allow secondary recovery of methane in some (not all) areas Unmineable Coal Beds Images modified from Midwest Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership (2005)

8 FutureGen Geologic carbon sequestration possibilities Injection into depleted oil or gas reservoirs might allow secondary recovery of oil or gas Oil and Gas Reservoirs Images modified from Midwest Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership (2005)

9 FutureGen Geologic carbon sequestration possibilities Injection into deep saline aquifers offers possibility of storage without negating a potential resource Deep Saline Aquifers Images modified from Midwest Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership (2005)

10 Geologic carbon sequestration possibilities Optimal sites might have multiple reservoirs (stacked or at several locations) at depth, within some distance of the plant based on the transport costs of CO 2 Power plant Pipeline Coals After Harper (2004) Oil and gas reservoirs Saline aquifers Multiple reservoirs + + Enough depth to minimize leakage and to keep CO 2 in supercritical phase Minimal transport distance

11 Geologic carbon sequestration possibilities FutureGen Preliminary requirements:  Large storage volume  For a FutureGen–type plant, DOE estimates 1 million tons CO 2 /year for 30 years = 30 million tons CO 2  Could be one large or multiple reservoirs Image modified from Midwest Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership (2005)

12 Geologic carbon sequestration possibilities FutureGen Preliminary requirements:  Depth (> 2,500’) for existing depleted oil and gas reservoirs  In our area, this is the depth needed to keep any injected CO 2 in liquid form (miscible)*  Injection into unmineable coals could be shallower because of a different sequestration mechanism * Greater depth also provides more seals to prevent leakage Image modified from Midwest Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership (2005)

13 Geologic carbon sequestration possibilities FutureGen Preliminary requirements:  Proximity to existing energy infrastructure and likely a waterway  Most existing KY power plants are near large rivers Image modified from Midwest Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership (2005)

14 Existing and proposed power plants Existing power plants Proposed plants Power plant siting involves many non-geologic decisions By using existing plant locations to define the study area we incorporated those decisions with the geologic assessment. Most along rivers

15 Existing and proposed power plant counties Existing power plants Proposed plants Future power plants are likely to have at least the existing requirements relative to water. Study area limited to counties with known and proposed plants, similar water supplies, or large coal resources* *these might not have water needs for some types of plants

16 Areas might include a 25-mile radius around existing and proposed plants as examples of hypothetical transport areas around each Circles show possibility for pipeline transport Existing power plants Proposed plants Existing and proposed power plant counties

17 Result Cost is: $2,860,898 The reason for examining the radius around some areas is that pipeline transport to a sequestration site might be needed. Distance is: 28 miles NATCARB Pipeline cost calculator Existing and proposed power plant counties

18  Seismic potential is greatest in far western Kentucky  Seismic potential may be concern for building future large, Federally funded (or co-funded) construction projects  Faults (red lines) will also need to be considered (not for seismic potential but for reservoir leakage and seal potential) Seismicity MagnitudePeak ground acceleration >0.3g

19 Kentucky “unmineable” coal potential  Kentucky has two coal fields (the Eastern Kentucky Coal Field and the Western Kentucky Coal Field)  Coal is mined at 1000 ft in western Kentucky  Coal is mined at depths beneath surface of more than 1000 ft in eastern Kentucky, but in some places that is still “above drainage” 2003 Coal production (Mt) No production in study area

20 Kentucky “unmineable” coal potential  Surface fracturing extends 400 to 500 feet beneath the surface, so potential coals would need to be at least 500 feet beneath drainage  Areas of coals at depth are smaller than the total area of the coal fields  Definition of “unmineable” is variable and will influence potential Gray: Coals > 500 ft deep Red: Coals > 1,000 ft deep Areas with multiple deep coals below drainage

21 Known Kentucky oil and gas reservoirs  Kentucky has hundreds of oil and gas fields  Not all are within the electric power infrastructure area  Not all fields are likely sequestration targets Oil Gas Waterflood Operating and abandoned oil and gas fields

22 Known Kentucky oil and gas reservoirs  Known fields have demonstrated reservoir and trap properties  9 have >30 MM tons estimated capacity for CO 2 storage  Many of these fields are not abandoned Fields with sufficient depth or volume Volumes >15 MM tons (20 fields) 2,500 ft or deeper

23  Kentucky’s geology controls the depth of the known oil and gas fields. Major oil- and gas-bearing units are shallower than 2,500 feet in the central part of the state.  There are speculative possibilities deeper. 2,500 feet Western KYCentral KYEastern KY Oil field (generalized) Gas field (generalized) Known Kentucky oil and gas reservoirs

24 Additional potential oil and gas reservoirs Organic shales: a different type of potential CO 2 reservoir  KGS is currently funded by DOE to investigate the potential of black (organic-rich) shales to adsorb CO 2 as a sequestration mechanism  The black shales are widespread with large potential capacity  Not a proven CO 2 sequestration reservoir; behaves like coals Red has most potential Blue has least potential Tan has no potential

25 Kentucky potential deep saline reservoirs  DOE partnerships have shown that deep saline aquifers (mostly sandstone) have greatest potential for large storage volume  Possible cumulative thickness is > 800 ft in western KY  Limited well penetrations and reservoir data in KY Net Sand Thickness Red is thickest Blue is thinnest Tan is no sand Deep sands (saline aquifers)

26 Diagram from MRCSP research St. Peter Rose Run Mt. Simon Rome sands Rock units beneath Kentucky  Strata vary in characteristics  Some are known reservoirs  Some are potential reservoirs  Some are seals  Deep saline reservoirs shown with arrows “Vuggy” Copper Ridge Middle Run/ Four Sand

27  Based on ~20 wells  Potential for as much as 6 Bmt capacity Mount Simon Sandstone Isopach Map No Mt. Simon south of the Kentucky River and Rough Creek FZs Kentucky potential deep saline reservoirs

28 Contour Interval = 50 ft  Deep sands south of the Kentucky River Fault Zone Thick, Porous Rome Sandstone Wedge ( up to 700’ thick) Kentucky potential deep saline reservoirs

29 Top Conasauga Structure Map 150 ft contour interval Kentucky potential deep saline reservoirs  Possibility for closed structure traps in Rome Trough  Depth here 4,000 to 5,000 ft  Potential capacity 3.5 Bmt CO2

30 N 3 4 S 4 4 1mi 5 Precambrian Unconformity Paleozoic “4 Sand” (4S) is a mappable seismic sequence Reflection seismic will be needed for sequestration site evaluations and for monitoring after CO 2 injection S Kentucky potential deep saline reservoirs Middle Run (“4 Sand”) Reservoir

31 N 0  81 sq. mi. lens in Hart Co.  Averages 440 ft. thick  7,000-9,500 feet depth  ~3 Bmt potential capacity  Are there other similar lenses?  Additional study needed ft contour interval Kentucky potential deep saline reservoirs Middle Run (“4 Sand”) Reservoir

32 Assessment of carbon sequestration options along the power plant infrastructure areas  Next we will compare the infrastructure area (in tan) to the number of known and speculative sequestration options by county Seismic concern area

33 Known = O&G fields >15 MM tons O&G fields >2,500’ deep Areas with known oil and gas field options Outside study area Study area (no large oil and gas fields)* 1 option 2 options This area is away from large water supplies Areas with no “known” options do have potential/speculative options.

34 Areas with known and possible/speculative geologic options Based on: O&G fields >15 MM tons O&G fields >2,500’ deep Coals below 1,000 ft Number of deep sands Potential in black shale Other speculative reservoirs Outside study area Fewest (1) Most (6)

35 Preliminary Summary  There are areas with multiple sequestration options in both eastern and western KY along existing river corridors or within coal fields for short fuel-transport distances  There are known and more speculative (but possible) reservoir options in the same regions

36  Permitting and regulations for test (small quantity) and future large quantity CO 2 injections will be important in determining the potential future application of this technology in Kentucky  All reservoirs would need further testing to determine reservoir characteristics (permeability, water chemistry, etc.) for reservoir modeling Preliminary Summary

37 Potentially, some of the best areas for sequestration in saline formations (at depth) near power plants Based on: Depth of Rome Ss St. Peter and Rose Run Ss Thickness of Middle Run Ss Depth of Middle Run Ss Thickness of Mt. Simon Depth of Mt. Simon Depth of vuggy Copper Ridge Thickness of Rome Ss. Best Good Thick, but deep Thin and/or shallow More explanation follows

38 Potentially, some of the best areas for sequestration in saline formations (at depth) near power plants  Best here, is the area in the river corridor that had the most options at optimal depths, i.e. moderately deep (5,000- 8,000 ft) and thick ( ft) Mt. Simon Sandstone and thin St. Peter (<60 ft) and Rose Run (<80 ft) at moderate depth (3,000-4,000 ft) Best Good Thick, but deep Thin and/or shallow

39 Potentially, some of the best areas for sequestration in saline formations (at depth) near power plants  Good here, are the areas in the infrastructure region that had some deep saline reservoir potential (but with fewer options, i.e. thinner, or deeper potential reservoirs) in combination with other known or speculative options Best Good Thick, but deep Thin and/or shallow

40 Final Summary wersystems/futuregen/futuregen_fa ctsheet.pdf  In terms of potential volume, deep saline reservoirs are likely the best option for large-scale, permanent CO 2 storage  Several lie in central and eastern Kentucky on or near navigatible waterways  These reservoirs would require further testing to determine reservoir characteristics (permeability, water chemistry, etc.) for reservoir modeling

41 Acknowledgements wersystems/futuregen/futuregen_fa ctsheet.pdf  This presentation was developed by the Energy and Mineral Section of the Kentucky Geological Survey  Contributors :  Stephen F. Greb  Brandon C. Nuttall  James A. Drahovzal  James C. Cobb  Cortland F. Eble  John B. Hickman  Paul D. Lake  Thomas M. Parris  Michael P. Solis  Kathryn G. Takacs

42 For more information:  DOE Carbon Sequestration Program  DOE FutureGen Initiative ems/futuregen/index.html ation/publications/programplans/2005/sequestr ation_roadmap_2005.pdf  DOE Carbon Sequestration Technology Roadmap and Program Plan for  MGSC (Illinois Basin) Partnership uestration.aspx  MRCSP Partnership  SECARB Partnership  DOE Carbon Sequestration Technology Roadmap and Program Plan for 2005


Download ppt "FutureGen in Kentucky wersystems/futuregen/futuregen_fa ctsheet.pdf A slide show explaining a KGS preliminary assessment."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google