Neeraj Gupta - Battelle MRCSP and Regional CCS Updates Annual MRCSP Partners Meeting November 2, 2016 DOE/NETL Cooperative Agreement # DE-FC26-0NT42589 1
The MRCSP is Assessing Viability of Geologic Carbon Sequestration Primary goal: To execute a large-scale scale CO 2 injection test to evaluate best practices and technologies required to implement carbon sequestration Objectives are to advance operational, monitoring, and modeling techniques needed to: Develop and validate reservoir models useful for commercial scale applications Address public concerns such as leakage and long-term storage security Address other topics such as cost effectiveness and CCUS practicability 2
Historical Snapshot of MRCSP One of seven DOE-funded regional partnerships to develop infrastructure for wide-scale CO 2 sequestration deployment. Late-stage EOR reef Operational EOR reef Newly targeted reef 3
MRCSP Area and Field Sites MI NY PA IN OH NJ WV MD KY MRCSP Region – Economic Drivers • Population: 80.4 million (26% of the U.S. population) • Gross Regional Product: $3.1 trillion (27% of the U.S. economy) • 26.3% of all electricity generated in the US • Significant % of electricity generated in the region is generated by coal 4
MRCSP Michigan Basin Test Site Large-scale test site leverages industrial EOR operations Active (new) EOR Facilities owned and Main Test Bed operated by Core Energy Active Late-stage Active Active Active Active Active (new) Active Pre EOR Central Processing Facility Natural gas processing is the source of the CO 2 5
Injection Test Status – Accounting for CO 2 Monitoring Period February 2013 – June 2016 • Nine reefs in Northern Michigan 139K MT 0K MT [Otsego County] 139K MT 269K MT • All in various stages 0.17K MT 15K MT 74K MT 269K MT 42K MT of EOR 243K MT 57K MT 67K MT • ~600K MT net 21K MT 317K MT 88K MT injection in nine reefs during -87K MT 54K MT monitoring period 154K MT 0K MT -18K MT (Feb. ‘13 – Sept ‘16) 67K MT 54K MT 289K MT 38K MT 124K MT • EOR still ongoing, 162K MT 271K MT with a new reef (CC- Net CO 2 in Reef 16) being added CO 2 Produced CO 2 Injected 6
Injection Test Status – Cumulative Storage • Accounting for Associated storage over EOR lifetime Net in Reef CO2 (MT) 2,000,000 1,647,000 Net in Reef CO2 (MT) 1,456,000 1,500,000 974,000 1,000,000 597,000 357,000 500,000 139,000 0 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total EOR Net In Reef CO2 (MT) • >1.6 million metric tons of CO 2 stored over the 20 Years lifetime of EOR operations 7
Late-Stage Reef is the Main Test Bed for MRCSP Large-Scale Injection Gas Producing Zone Dover 33 Oil Producing Zone 8
Monitoring Status – Late Stage Reef Currently in Post-Injection Data Analysis Stage Before Early Mid Late After Activity Injection Injection Injection Injection Injection CO 2 flow accounting X X X X Pressure and X X X Complete temperature PNC logging X X Underway Borehole gravity X Complete Fluid sampling X X Complete Vertical seismic profile X Complete Microseismic X X Complete InSAR (Satellite radar) X X X Complete Characterization Well Complete Drilling 9
Injection Test – Storage Capacity Limits • Pressure response in Late-Stage Reef 10
Late-Stage Reef – Characterization Well 11
Variations in Reef Characteristics • # of compartments, compartmentalization • Lithology – dolomite vs limestone, Anhydrite • Availability of core, seismic, well log data • Presence of salt plugging • Production life-cycle stage 12
Regional Characterization – A Geologic Storage Mapping Collaboration State geological surveys are: • Compiling/interpreting data • Developing common terminology for formations across state boundaries • Creating maps and other tools MRCSP's geology team 13
Regional Assessment Status Emissions from Power plants in the MRCSP region • Population growth has not been accompanied by an increase in emissions from power plants. • Declining market-share of coal. • Increased availability of cheaper gas has led to more power plants switching out of coal into natural gas. • Impact of pending regulation and policy remains uncertain 14
Regional Assessment • MRCSP 10-State team conducting regional studies Cambro-Ordovician East Coast Offshore and Silurian Pinnacle Reef Storage Potential Onshore Storage Targets Reservoirs Led by Indiana Led by Rutgers Led by W. Michigan University CCUS Opportunities in Storage and Enhanced Gas Reservoirs for CO 2 -EOR, EGR, Appalachian Basin Recovery for Organic Shale and other Commercial Uses Led by West Virginia Led by Pennsylvania Led by Kentucky 15
Ohio Coal Development Office Support to Evaluate CO 2 Storage and EOR Potential in Ohio 3D Geologic Visualization of Oil & Gas Wells in Ohio • Detailed geologic exploration and analysis • Using well and seismic data from shale gas activity Map of Major Oil Fields 16 16
Regional Assessment In Eastern Ohio Calculation of Prospective Stacked CO 2 Storage Resource Mt CO2 /km3 Pore Total Prospective CO2 Storage Resource (Mt) ESaline Depositional Volume Formation Environment (CO2- Theoretical Esaline SCREEN; IEAGHG, 2009) P10 P50 P90 P10 P50 P90 Max. P50 (avg.) Beekmantown 97,207 2.20% Dolomite: Unspecified 5 18 43 652 2,137 5,227 Rose Run 30,320 2.50% Clastics: Peritidal 5 20 61 188 757 2,305 Upper Copper Ridge 66,236 2.21% Dolomite: Unspecified 5 18 42 436 1,462 3,498 Copper Ridge B 30,776 2.19% Dolomite: Unspecified 5 18 42 205 674 1,634 Lower Copper Ridge 163,846 2.17% Dolomite: Unspecified 5 17 42 1,090 3,561 8,637 Kerbel Sandstone 18,610 2.71% Clastics: Delta 6 22 63 134 505 1,464 Conasauga 29,480 4.48% Dolomite: Unspecified 5 17 42 393 1,321 3,194 Rome 250,824 2.22% Dolomite: Unspecified 5 18 42 1,639 5,556 13,281 Basal Sandstone 130,915 2.98% Clastics: Shallow Shelf 6 24 70 990 3,904 11,348 17 Co-Funded by ODSA/OCDO Project D-13-22 Preliminary Data
Geologic Modeling – Upper Ohio Valley Multiple Scales • Regional structural model based on geologic data, regional maps, and available seismic data • Local scale assessments at sites of interest • Dynamic modeling of CO 2 scenarios at local scale • Analysis of image and acoustic log data with core data for analysis of mechanical properties • Static and dynamic modeling of geomechanical caprock behavior • Fracture analysis and modeling of behavior 18 Co-Funded by ODSA/OCDO Project D-13-22
Ohio’s Oilfields of Interest 30 Depleted Oil Fields 8,851 Original Oil in Place [MMbbls] 1,274 Cumulative Production [MMbbls] 878 CO 2 Storage Capacity [MMt] Co-Funded by ODSA/OCDO Project D-13-24, D-15-08 19
Related Projects Enable CCUS – Regionally and Globally Geomechanical framework AEP Mountaineer Geologic storage support for fluid injection geologic storage for FutureGen (closed) Assessment of wellbore Mid-Atlantic U.S. World Bank Project in China, integrity Mexico, South Africa Offshore CO 2 Storage 20
MRCSP Outreach Program Goals 1. Continue to be a neutral and credible source of scientific information on CCUS 2. Improve public understanding of CCUS 3. Support the large-volume CO 2 injection test 4. Support other MRCSP research activities, including regional geologic characterization projects 21
Outreach Status Technology transfer is a growing focus • Convening/participating in the Outreach Working Group • Communicating results to a broad audience via site visits, fact sheets, conference and meetings, and the website • Topical highlights: CO 2 accounting in closed reservoirs Performance Measures Numerical Modeling Monitoring-Modeling Loop Regional Storage Opportunities www.mrcsp.org • MRCSP website moved to a mobile friendly platform • MRCSP to host IEAGHG Monitoring Workshop in June 2017 22
Accomplishments • >600,000 metric tons injected across all reefs (ongoing) • Completed injection at main test bed Performed microseismic monitoring in final injection stage Post-injection PNC, microgravity, and VSP completed Characterization well drilling, coring, logging, testing completed • Developed performance metrics to assess storage capacity • Advancements in static and numeric modeling processes • Collaborative team for regional assessments across ten states • Technology transfer is focus of outreach 23
However, many CCS Challenges Remain to be Addressed – Local, Regional, and Global • Matching global storage capacity with commercial scale injectivity – balancing large-scale testing with broader geologic exploration • Effect of seismicity , pressure constraints, and stakeholder issues on deployment – will we need to discount total capacity • Validation of monitoring technology across geologic settings • Regulatory, financial, stakeholder certainty • Re-engaging industrial stakeholders for CCS – low oil/gas prices, policy uncertainties, CO 2 capture cost • Sufficient representation in mitigation portfolio • Development and retention of human capital • Making RCSP’s a long -term resource for each region 24
Recommend
More recommend
