Update of Carbon Storage Field Projects Susan D. Hovorka Bureau of Economic Geology Jackson School of Geosciences The University of Texas at Austin Presentation to Underground Injection Control (UIC) Educational Track 2007 Texas Commission on Environmental Quality Trade Fair & Conference Wednesday, May 2, 2007

Status of Knowledge About CCS* *Carbon Capture and Storage Well Known Trapping mechanisms Monitoring strategies to image and quantify plume evolution Validity of modeling approaches – modification of existing simulators Major leakage risks Volume of storage US, Australia, Japan, Europe Poorly Known Modeling/monitoring in low permeability rocks Monitoring to detect low rates of leakage over long time frames Performance of non-matrix systems (coal, basalt) Risks resulting from very large scale-up Volume of storage in developing nations Performance of faults, wells

Sources of Knowledge IPCC Special Report on Geologic Storage –Rapidly evolving field, IPCC report used only peer reviewed literature US and international networks –NETL updates –CO2 GeoNet –CCP –IEA Greenhouse Large number of meetings – examples: GHGT, NETL annual CCS meeting, EPA working groups, IEA GHG R&D Networks

Contributions to Knowledge From Selected Field Projects Otway US DOE RCSP projects

Observed performance of siltstones in retarding CO2 migration, Utsira FM, Sliepner field, North Sea Bright injected CO 2 in sand Light siltstone baffles Top seal Trapping Mechanisms: Structural Traps Cornelius Reservoir Markham No. Bay City No. field Tyler and Ambrose (1986) Well known performance of shale seals in trapping oil and gas, Texas Gulf Coast Shale seals In white Sandstones Successful use of 4-D seismic for monitoring CO 2 plume

Trapping: Regional Setting of Utsira Source: SACS Best Practices Manual Manual.pdf

Frio Brine Pilot Site two test intervals Injection intervals: mineralogically complex Oligocene fluvial and reworked fluvial sandstones, porosity 24%, permeability 4.4 to 2.5 Darcys Steeply dipping 11 to 16 degrees Seals  numerous thick shales, small fault block Depth 1,500 and 1657 m Brine-rock system, no hydrocarbons 150 and 165 bar, degrees C, supercritical CO 2 Injection interval Oil production Fresh water (USDW) zone protected by surface casing Injection zones: First experiment 2004: Frio “C” Second experiment 2006 Frio “Blue”

Porosity Fault planes Monitoring injection and monitoring Observation well Injection well Trapping Mechanism: Frio Site Reservoir Model Knox, Fouad, Yeh, BEG In context of the plume, injection was in an open aquifer

Two-Phase Residual Gas Trapping GrainsBrine – filled pores Injection of CO 2 Phase-trapped CO 2 Imbibition Drainage

Representative realistic imbibition and drainage curves for two-phase flow

CO 2 Trapping as a Residual Phase Plume in open aquifer spreads quickly updip Plume in an open aquifer is trapped before it moves very far Residual gas saturation of 5% Residual gas saturation of 30% TOUGH2 simulations C. Doughty LBNL Injection well Observation well

Monitoring Using Oil-field Type Technologies is Successful in Tracking CO 2 Downhole P&T Radial VSP Cross well Seismic, EM Downhole sampling U-tube Gas lift Wireline logging Aquifer wells (4) Gas wells Access tubes, gas sampling Tracers Frio Brine Pilot: Determine the subsurface distribution of injected CO2 using diverse monitoring technologies

Monitoring Design Frio 2 Injection WellObservation Well 50 m U-tubes RST logs Frio “Blue” Sandstone 15m thick Packers Downhole P and T Tubing hung seismic source and hydrophones

Injection well Observation well

Real-time Downhole Pressure and Temperature Monitoring CO 2 breakthrough

Measurement of Perminace

West Pearl Queen Injection interval 7 m arkosic sandstone, oil reservoir, Permian Queen Formation 18% porosity, md Structural dome trap - carbonate/evaporite seals Depth m 96 bar CO 2 trapped by residual saturation + dissolution in water and oil –62% retained under production Representative of the Permian Basin Los Alamos National Laboratory Bill Cary

Trapping Dissolution of CO 2 into Brine 1yr 5 yr 30 yr 40 yr 130 yr 330 yr 930 yr 1330 yr 2330 yr Jonathan Ennis-King, CO2CRC Jonathan Ennis-King, CSIRO Australia

Trapping: Frio Tracer Breakthough Curves Show Significant Dissolution of CO 2 into Brine Barry Friefeld, LBNL; Tommy Phelps ORNL

Setting the Standard for Monitoring: IEA Weyburn project Devonian Midale carbonate Successful semi- quantitative monitoring of CO 2 plume migration using 4-D seismic: 20% P-wave difference post injection IEA Weyburn CO2 Storage and Monitoring Project

Combining CO 2 storage research with oil production Large, high technology, well-supported research Phase I, $21 M, numerous international partners Complex environment containing oil, production, field operations Petroleum Technology Research Centre (PTRC) Encana, governments University, Provincial, private

No Suitable Method for Detecting Slow Leakage Current monitoring: noise is large, precision is moderate If flux is low,.01 to 1 % of stored volume/year Cumulative impact to atmosphere would be unacceptable Weyburn Soil Gas Survey

Monitoring Techniques at Nagaoka site: injection into a heterogeneous rock volume Research Institute of Innovative Technology for the Earth (RITE) and collaborators /273.pdf Pleistocene Haizume Fm: 12 m thick mineralogically immature submarine sandstone 10’s mD core analysis, <10 mD hydrologic test, about 20% porosity 15 degree dip on flank of anticline 10,400 tones CO2

daye/todaytre/RTtr_co2seq.pdf Monitoring using cross well-seismic at Nagaoka site Logging though non-metallic casing using induction, neutron, sonic detected breakthough after injection 4000 tones 40 m away Cross well tomography imaged plume but failed to detect breakthough 4-D seismic suggests strongly anisotropic CO 2 movement

Subsurface Monitoring Above Injection Zones – a Proposed Solution to Complexity Close to perturbation Quiescent relative to the surface High signal to noise ratio Aquifer and USDW Atmosphere Biosphere Vadose zone & soil Seal Monitoring Zone CO2 plume

Adequacy of Modeling: CO 2 Saturation Observed with Cross-well Seismic Tomography vs. Modeled: Frio example A) (B) Tom Daley and Christine Doughty LBNL Injection well Observation well 100 ft X-well is a cross section of the plume Cross-Well Seismic Tomogram

Adequate US Storage Volume: Preliminary “ Fairways ” Map Complex geology No inventory attempted

Low Permeability is Typical: more studies needed in tight rocks < – 10 >10 Hydraulic conductivity m/day Mixed data types – core, well tests, and models

Successful Use of Horizontal Well Technology in Low Permeability Sandstones – BP In Salah Project, Algeria Inject 1 million tones/year of CO 2 from gas processing facility Injection into water leg of same reservoir 800 m-ling horizontals 5-10 mD Pennsylvanian sandstone Injection underway Large monitoring project mobilized – 4-D seismic, soil gas, microseismic array Wright, BP

PNNL and Geothermal Energy India. Example of the Global Question of Capacity: Deccan Traps, India

Layered Basalt – Role for Geochemical Trapping? Thick section – > 2000 m, large volume Layered lower and higher permeability Seal performance is uncertain High reactivity with CO 2 - formation of minerals So could CO 2 be retained long enough to be trapped by mineral reactions? Fill and Spill with reaction with Basalt An example of need for assessment of quality and quantity of geologic storage outside of the US

Otway Basin Project -Australia Planned injection of 100,000 tones of natural CO 2 into Cretaceous Warre sandstone depleted gas reservoir Large volume injection Fault seal – will test fault stability under injection Test monitoring in the presence of gas

Well Understood Risk: Unexpected Results of Injection Earthquake Escape to groundwater, surface water, or air via long flowpath Substitute underground injection for air release Escape of CO 2 or brine to groundwater, surface water or air through flaws in the seal Failure of well cement or casing resulting in leakage

Risk in Terms of Exceeding Capacity Spill from structure Exceed fracture pressure of seal Far-field effects – leakage of brine from injection interval Large scale-up Very large scale-up Reservoir

Status of Knowledge About CCS Well Known Trapping mechanisms Monitoring strategies to image and quantify plume evolution Validity of modeling approaches – modification of existing simulators Major leakage risks Volume of storage US, Australia, Japan, Europe Poorly Known Modeling/monitoring in low permeability rocks Monitoring to detect low rates of leakage over long time frames Performance of non-matrix systems (coal, basalt) Risks resulting from very large scale-up Volume of storage in developing nations Performance of faults, wells