Download presentation

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Published byJordan Gorman Modified over 2 years ago

1
A FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR PIPELINE TRANSPORTATION OF CO 2 AND ITS STORAGE IN A SEMI-DEPLETED GAS RESERVOIR ÖZGÜR GÜNDOĞAN Supported by Turkish Petroleum Corporation UNIVERSITY OF ROME "LA SAPIENZA" FACULTY OF ENGINEERING Department of Chemical Engineering, Raw Materials and Metallurgy

2
THE RESERVOIR Offshore Marmara Sea Onstream since 1997 OGIP:5.1MMSm 3 Natural depletion reservoir Anticlinal structure Reservoir rock: bioclastic limestone Reservoir top: 1150m :20%, k:50mD Pi:2075psia(143bar), T:68°C Kuzey Marmara

3
STORAGE OF NATURAL GAS TRASPORTATION GAS PROCESS & COMPRESSION INJECTION & WITHDRAWAL INJECTION & WITHDRAWAL

4
CO 2 INJECTION COMPRESSION TRANSPORTATION SOURCECAPTURE CAPTURE - TRANSPORTATION – STORAGE OF CO 2

5
CAPTURE Source of CO 2 NGCC (Natural Gas Combined Cycle) plant nominal capacity: 468 MW real capacity: 85% of nominal capacity emission factor: 450 kg CO 2 /MWh concentration of CO 2 in flue gas: 4% volume working hours :8000 h/year

6
3530 tons of CO 2 per day post-combustion capture chemical absorption monoethanolamine ( MEA) at 30% pureness of CO 2 : 99% recovery rate: 90% CAPTURE Fluor Daniel Econamine FG process 2R-NH 2 + CO 2 R-NH R-NH-COO - R=HO-CH 2 CH 2 Absorber: Stripper: R-NH-COO - + R-NH (calore) CO 2 + 2R-NH 2

7
COMPRESSIONE Potenza (MW) P in =3bar (43,5psia) P out =141bar (2050psia) T in =38°C Q=1,800 MSm 3 /d E=80% Number of stages 16 MW

8
CONDITION OF CO 2 Operation range Density of CO 2 Phase diagramme of CO 2

9
TRANSPORTATION Performance requirements nominal capacity of 2,0 MSm 3 /day maximum inlet pressure: 2200 psia (152 bar) inlet temperature: 35°C maximum soil temperature: 24°C Onshore Offshore 30000m 2500m 63m

10
TRANSPORTATION Tubing curve for 6 Sensitivity analysis Tubing curve for 8 Tubing curve for 10

11
TRANSPORTATION 7,8mm Pipe thickness Parameters 100% CO 2 The pipeline has cooled to 6,2°C, which is the minimum temperature of the soil at 1m of depth. Maximum inlet pressure is 2200 psia (152 bar) The pipe can be stressed to 72% of specified minimum yield strength Internal corrosion: none

12
STORAGE Reservoir model Tank model zero-dimensional uniform porosity uniform saturation constant temperature uniform pressure Material balance equation

13
STORAGE Model calibration History matching Tank pressure and cumulative gas production

14
STORAGE Model calibration History matching - Sensitivity Standard deviation against gas in place

15
STORAGE History matching – production prediction Model calibration

16
STORAGE Cushion and working gas P cushion =1200 psia (82,7 bar) P max =2014,7 psia (139 bar) P i =2075 psia (143 bar) = 4,95*10 9 Sm 3 Maximum capacity = Cushion gas = = 2,86*10 9 Sm 3 Working gas = Max. capacity– Cushion gas = 4,95*10 9 – 2,85*10 9 =2,1*10 9 Sm 3

17
STORAGE Well capacity IPR VLP 5 Offshore wells: maximum capacity:0,54 – 0,86SMm 3 6 Onshore extended reach wells: maximum capacity:1,3 – 1,6SMm 3 IPR MODEL: Well model: VLP/IPR intersection

18
STORAGE Simulation Simulation has four phases: 1.depletion phase 2.storage of CO 2 3.repressurization 4.storage cycles

19
STORAGE Depletion phase

20
STORAGE Depletion phase Period: 01/06/2005 – 29/11/2008 Final pressure: 755psia Cumulative factor: 3375 MSm 3 Recovery factor: 66%

21
STORAGE Storage of CO 2

22
STORAGE Storage of CO 2 Tank pressure and cumulative gas injection with storage of 2349 MSm 3 of CO 2

23
STORAGE Repressurization

24
STORAGE Storage cycles

25
ECONOMICAL ASSESSMENT Costs The cost of the project can be divided in three classes: Capital costs (Capex) Operation and maintenance costs (Opex) Energy costs. CAPEX () OPEX () COSTUNITTOTALCOST Pipeline Onshore125, , , Pipeline Offshore375, , ,00 Capture Process ,001, , Compressione ,001, , Storage Total ,

26
ECONOMICAL ASSESSMENT Energy costs CaptureCompressionTotal ()/t CO2 /t CO2seq 1° year ,44 14,46 2° year ,66 14,72 3° year ,92 15,02 4° year ,15 15,29

27
ECONOMICAL ASSESSMENT Costs CapexOpexEnergyTotal ()/t CO2 /t CO2seq. 1° year ,0874,52 2° year ,3174,78 3° year ,5675,08 4° year (7 months ) ,9875,56 Total ,4374,91

28
ECONOMICAL ASSESSMENT CAPEX (/CO 2seq ) OPEX (/CO 2seq ) ENERGY (/CO 2seq ) TOTAL (/CO 2seq )% CAPTURE40,8513,3511,7765,97 88,06 TRANSPORTATION4,840,813,058,70 11,62 STORAGE-0,24- 0,32 TOTAL45,6914,4014,8274, % 60,9919,2219,79100 Costs

29
ECONOMICAL ASSESSMENT Revenue Gas production (MSm3) Value () Total Capex- V. gasOpexEnergyTotal ()/t CO2 /t CO2seq 1° Anno ,5828,58 2° Anno ,8128,84 3° Anno ,0629,14 4° Anno (7 mesi) ,3429,46 Total ,9028,95

30
ECONOMICAL ASSESSMENT /t CO 2 seq Credits (= 20 / tCO 2 ) : Constant

31
ECONOMICAL ASSESSMENT /t CO 2 seq Value of cushion gas (0,10 ): Constant

32
CONCLUSIONS Sequestration of CO 2 in a semi-depleted gas reservoir is a valid option. The substitution of cushion gas with CO 2 is economically valid. The economical analysis showed that the actual value of emission credits, 20 per ton of CO 2, is insufficient to offset the investments. Costly to capture CO 2 Mixing between natural gas and CO 2 ? The physical and chemical interactions between CO 2, natural gas, water, reservoir and caprock? Long run fate of CO 2 ? Future of capture plant?

33
THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION!

Similar presentations

© 2017 SlidePlayer.com Inc.

All rights reserved.

Ads by Google