Carbon Sequestration Forum VIII

The State of Geological Storage of CO2

SF 13th & 14th November 2007

Dr John BradshawGeoscience AustraliaChief Scientist CCS

Scaling Up Geological Storage

Australian Government

Geoscience Australia

,

Scale Up Themes• Emissions• Policy & Legal• Geology & Engineering• Animal Kingdom• Rocks & Wells & Things• Conclusions

“ Scaling Up Geological Storage of CO2”

The Scale of the emissions ?

Issue 1: The longer we hesitate, the more the emissions scale

up?

What is the magnitude of the problem

• Australia’s total CO2 eq emissions > 560 Mt/yr ~ 10 TCF/yrper annum

• Large stationary point sources - 50 % - 280Mt /yr ~ 5 TCF /yr{LSPS} (power stations, gas plants, etc)

• Emissions for USA {LSPS} 2000Mt/yr ~ 40 TCF /yr

• World total CO2 eq emissions ~>28 Gt ~ 520 TCF /yr

• That’s a lot of pore space to find ………..• and keep finding ………….. per year

• Australian gas production – 1.3 TCF / yr• USA Gas production – 22.3 TCF / yr• World gas production – 100 TCF / yr

• World reserves & produced gas (total) 6349 TCF

1 TCF Gas field is a “big” gas field

Permeability•1621 to 3252 mD(locally)

•1100 to 8140md regionally

Porosity•36 to 40%

Size26,0002 km 100s yrs emissions

Scaling Up Policy & Legal

Issue 2: This is way bigger than people

anticipate?

Petroleum Leases versus areas of interest for Storage

Injection scenarios?

• Consider how the following scenarios (geo-cartoons to follow) impact on;• technical, regulatory and legal aspects?

• Structural (physical) trapping• Chemical trapping• Migration pathways• Pressure transmission

Conceptual CO2 Storage Scenariodepleted field / structural trap

Trap Structure

(template slide courtesy of Robert Root)

Assigning permits relatively easy – tightly constrained

But what if hydrocarbon discovery already exists, or believed to exist in structure? EOR -Sequenced development?

Or hydrocarbons found later - Which operator? – Who gets priority?

Conceptual CO2 Storage Scenariohydrodynamic / residual gas / solution trap

Trap Structure

(template slide courtesy of Robert Root)

Where do you put permit boundaries ?

How big do you make permits?

What access rights do you employ?

What if there are two storage operators – co-mingling of CO2?

Fault

Injection area

Injection & migration area

But technically we can do it?

Issue 3: We’ve said we can technically do it – so we better

be right?

Note: map excludes industrial point sources

Qld: 896 Mt;16.7 Tcf;2290 MMcf/d.

NSW: 1167 Mt;21.8 Tcf;2986 MMcf/d.

Vic: 1185 Mt;22 Tcf;3014 MMcf/d.

SA: 180 Mt;3.4 Tcf;466 MMcf/d.

WA: 411 Mt;7.7 Tcf;1055 MMcf/d.

NWS: 386 Mt;7.2 Tcf;986 MMcf/d.

NT:9.2 Mt;0.2 Tcf;27 MMcf/d.

Stationary energy point sources

Unproduced large gas fields with high CO2 %

KEY

1 TCF CO2 = 53.65 Mt = 28.3 BCM

Summary of Emissions, Economics & Geological Risk

Viable –but not optimal

reservoirs?

Very good reservoirs? Distant from

major sources

Superb reservoirs. But, require

offshore development?

Large emissions –

“No reservoir”

These types of scenarios will be repeated around the world

20 year emission map

Reservoir/Seal relationship. Proximal to sources?

Poor reservoirs. Source distance?

What about where Storage won’t scale up locally?

• Oil & Gas Resources “uneven distribution”• Long Pipelines• Ship Transport• Right strategy needs implementing based

on reality of local geology• Long Pipelines & Ship• Non-coal energy source

• The value placed on CO2 will influence the above

This is just a technical (science & engineering) challenge .. isn’t it?

... plus getting the economics right to do it …

Let’s look at recent such engineering and science

challenges

Issue 4: The following example left a legacy that will be hard to emulate in our “modern world”

Australia’s Snowy Mountain Hydroelectric Scheme

• Obtaining extra irrigation• Expanded to integrate a hydro-electric

power supply• The project is the single greatest

engineering project Australia has ever known and possibly will ever know.Source : www.australianhistory.org/post-federation.php

• Australian psyché – turned riversaround

Australia’s Snowy Mountain Hydroelectric Scheme

• 1949 – 1974 : 25 years : NSW, VIC, SA, Commonwealth

• 100,000 men and women • 30 countries – 121 killed

• 16 large dams, 7 power stations, 1 pumping station, 31 generators

• 145 km of trans-mountain tunnels & 80km aqueducts

• 7000 G litres water storage – dry??• 5100 GWh of electricity• Rock Bolting invented

• mining industry adopted• International Historic Civil Engineering Landmark

• Eiffel Tower, Panama Canal, Sydney Harbour Bridge

Stationary energy point sources

Unproduced large gas fields with high CO2 %

KEY

Achieve 34% of 2006 emissions avoided

41 Mt/y

26 Mt/y

51 Mt/y

77 Mt/y

25 Mt/y

CCS tomorrow would require• A network handling 3 times existing NG flows• 50% increase in electricity generation (NGCC)• 45% increase in natural gas production (supply)• 22 times Australian pipe line production• Total capital ~ A$ 90 Bn (2005)• Operating cost ~ A$ 7 Bn/yr (2005)

From : Neal, P.R., “The Economics of CCS Networks”, Presented at SPE Applied Technology Workshop (ATW)“Capture and Geological Storage of CO2”,

Perth, Australia, 7-10 October 2007

“ ….. single greatest engineering project Australia has ever known and possibly will ever know ……. “

… till now …

CCS in Australia ~ 2 to 3 times bigger (financially)

Scaling it up in the animal kingdom ?

What contributions do ruminants make to CO2 eq

emissions?

Issue 5: Unexpected flow on effects

Livestock CO2 eq Emissions

Population(millions)

Animal

1350 cattle165 buffaloes1058 sheep720 goats908 pigs

Total CO2 eq emissions ~ 1,680 Mt

Theoretically, by swapping Cattle to Kangaroo meat worldwide could save ~ 1.7 Gt CO2 eq

Australia proportion of world land surface area 5%

Productivity factor of Australian grasslands 1 : 10

Grazing Intake of cows to kangaroos 1 : 16

Kill weight cattle to Kangaroos : 300kg to 15 kg 20 (3 years vs 2 years to maturity)

Number of Kangaroos to replace domestic livestock meat (million)

Multiplier on Australian Kangaroo Population 57

Percentage World land mass access required 28%

“Kanga-Burgers” : Technical CriteriaAustralia kangaroo population (million) 150

8,492

What are the upside flow on effects?

• Better Land Care• not hard hooves

• More drought tolerant species• Can rapidly breed up• Very good lean meat

• But there are also downsides

Don’t underestimate flow on effects !

“Shoo-Roo” : Sonic Kangaroo Repeller

World Car Fleet

• ~ 900 million• “Shoo Roo” = $5 each• $4.5 billion industry

• Beware less obvious flow on effects & detail

Get back to familiar ground?

“Scaling it up” - Reservoir distribution

Channel Sands (Reservoir)

Overbank shales & mud (Seal)

Cut-off channel sands (billabong) –mud and sand

Highly variable reservoir and seals

Non-marine (fluvial Facies)

Braided Stream Deposits

1. Channel sands2. No continuous sealing

surfaces.3. Multiple vertical

migration path for buoyant fluids

SandstoneSiltstone

Can we model such complex and tortuous migration pathways ?Are our reservoir simulators up to it?How many wells required to fill this pore space

Injection Point

•Tidal sands + deltaic sequences

Ideal Reservoirs

•Extensive

•Thick

•Stacked reservoirs

•Good quality

•Intraformational seals

•Offshore

Reservoir & seal

Doust & Omatsola 1990; Cohen & McClay 1996

Niger Delta Ceduna delta

Numerous oil fields

Listric faults

Smaller field sizes and geomechanics issues

Gippsland Basin

Fine grained marine sediments = seal

Beach sands = extensive reservoir

Beach sands = extensive reservoir

Organic rich mud & siltOrganic rich mud & siltin coastal swampsin coastal swamps= coal & seal & poor reservoir = coal & seal & poor reservoir

Extensive aeoliansandstones Localised meandering channel

sands – inter-connected and isolated

Regional marine & coastal sandstones and shales Alternating interdistributary

bay deltaic sands and muds

Depositional Environments

• Highly variable • But predictable • Need good modern analogues to

compare to the ancient rocks• Conventional Petroleum Geology

production issues• Normal Reservoir Engineering

challenges

If we scale up – the detail in the rocks is where the real battle will be fought !

What about the number of wells required?

Issue 6: This is something we must pay a lot of attention to

… it could be embarrassing (costly) if we get this one

wrong ….

INJECTION REQUIREMENT

Mt CO2 / year

t CO2 / day

x 106 cu ft / day

No. of Wells

Reservoir Quality

Wells for 1200 MW

PP

Sleipner 1 2,740 51

Small Power Plant (~600MW) 5 13,699 255

Monash Project 13 35,616 664

"Best" Coal Storage Pilots

0.002 to 0.007 6 to 20

0.11 -0.37

In Salah 1 2,740 51

Large Power Plant (~1200MW) 10 27,398 510

North Rankin Gas Field (Gas

Production flow rate)Up to 200

Very very poorSuperb

1600 - 3000 mDVery Poor 5 - 45mD fractured

Superb multi D

Superb multi D

Good 150 - 250 mD

Good 150 - 250 mD

25

50

531

10

30

50

50

2.3

2.5

Exists – Proposed – Modelled – Problematic

No.’s of Wells vs Reservoir Quality

Prudhoe Bay ~ 88 eq ~240,000 4473Very Good

300 mD (to D’s)38

(323) 5

Highly dependent on;•Depth and age•Environment of deposition •permeability x thickness,• assumption production ~ injection rates• vertical vs horizontal wells,• reservoir stimulation &• onshore vs offshore costs and limitations• reservoir heterogeneity and continuity (capacity)• multiple perforations• long term reliability / deliverability ????

Fluvial - old, ~ 2000m

Marine: mass flow - young, 1200m

Coal

Deltaic - 2000m

Marine - young, 2500m

Fluvial - 2500m

Fluvial - 2500m

Deltaic, aeolian -2000m

Environment, Age & Depth

1

1

3 (2) (horiz

3 (7?)

1

?

Conclusions

• Scaling up Issues include;• Policy, Technical, Legal, Regulatory &

Financial• … and their interactions ….• Beware of;• Well numbers, …. and• Unexpected flow on effects ?