1

Midwest Regional Carbon Sequestration PartnershipDavid Ball

MRCSP Project ManagerNeeraj Gupta, Ph.D.

Leader, Geologic Sequestration

Battelle Energy Technology

7th Annual Carbon Capture and Sequestration Conference, May 7, 2008 Technical Session

U.S. Department of Energy/NETL

2

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

0 250 500 750 1000

Annual Supplied CO2 Sequestration Capacity (MtCO2)

Net

Seq

uest

ratio

n-B

ased

Em

issi

ons

Aba

tem

ent C

osts

($/to

nne

CO

2) GeologicTerrestrial

MRCSP’s mission: be the premier resource for sequestration knowledge in its region

Developing a Regional Model of the Economics of SequestrationDeveloping a Regional Model of the Economics of Sequestration

Quantifying CO2 Sinks in the RegionQuantifying CO2 Sinks in the Region

Terrestrial: • Potential for 20%

annual offset for large point sources

Terrestrial: • Potential for 20%

annual offset for large point sources

Geologic: • 100s of years of

capacity for large point sources in deep saline alone

Geologic: • 100s of years of

capacity for large point sources in deep saline alone

Reaching Out To and Educating StakeholdersReaching Out To and Educating Stakeholders

www.mrcsp.orgwww.mrcsp.org

ImplementationImplementation

Characterization, Phase I, 2003 - 2005

Validation, Phase II, 2005 - 2009

Geological

Terrestrial

Quantifying CO2 sources, demographics and economics in the regionQuantifying CO2 sources, demographics and economics in the region

3

Terrestrial Sequestration –Three field projects being pursued

CroplandsCroplandsReclaimed MinelandsReclaimed Minelands

WetlandsWetlands

4

Croplands test sites (Ohio State Univ.)

OHKY

PA

5

Mineland Reclamation (Univ. of WV)

Mylan Park site.

New Hill site (sampling points).

Soon3611Soon6 – 12 cm2007

5618619092

Soon5465Soon0 – 6 cm

Total

264460396 – 12 cm305254530 – 6 cm

2006

SkousenNew HillMylan ParkDent’s RunDepthYear

Sample Acquisition.

Sampling Plan.

6

Reclaimed Marshlands (Univ. of Md)

• Two tidal marsh cells – One newly created 2.7-acre cell

(2003)– One natural marsh cell– 2008: adding newly restored cell

pending restoration

-0.5

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

Mg

C h

a-1 y

r-1

Agriculture

Grasslands

Permafrost peatlandsPermafrost mineral

Peatlands

M ineral wetlands

Estuarine wetlands

Settled lands

Coastal waters

Forests

7

MRCSP Phase II Geologic TestsMichigan BasinMichigan Basin

Appalachian Basin

Appalachian Basin

Ohio Strat WellOhio Strat Well

Cincinnati ArchCincinnati Arch

8

R. E. Burger Power Plant Depth (ft bgs)

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

10,000

11,000

12,000

13,000

Injection TestWell

Power Plant

Storage Formation

Seismic Survey, July 2006 8000 Foot Test Well

RE Burger Power Plant (FirstEnergy)

Drill Rig(Jan 2007)

9

Site Characterization -Example for R.E. Burger Plant

•10-mile seismic survey completed in August 2006•Additional 1-mile of “quasi-3D” to investigate reservoirs and 3D options

East-West

North-South

10

Detailed Seismic Interpretation Example from Appalachian Basin

Onondaga Limestone –Primary Seal

Helderberg Limestone

Niagaran Shale

White Clinton Sandstone Potential Reservoir

*Initial Results

• The Oriskany Sandstone (between the Onondaga and Helderberg) is right at the resolution limit of this data

• The White Clinton is much easier to see and post injection changes may be detectable

11

Site Infrastructure, Burger

Temporary CO2 Storage

Pump and flow control equipment

Photos Courtesy of Praxair and BOC

6⅛” Borehole

8¾” Borehole7” casing

12¼” Borehole9⅝” Casing

17 ½” Borehole13⅜ ” Casing

24” Borehole20” Casing

Dep

th (ft)

Well Structure

12

East Bend Station

Injection Target, Mt. Simon Formation

Seismic SurveyOctober, 2006

Test Well Design

East Bend Station (Duke Energy)

13

• Preliminary geologic site assessment has been completed.

• Results indicate a thick Mt. Simon sandstone formation at 3200-3500 ft.

• Seismic survey completed in October 2006 – No significant faulting or concerns for injection

Thickness Map of Mt. Thickness Map of Mt. Simon sandstone for Simon sandstone for Cincinnati Arch SiteCincinnati Arch Site

20 miles

2 00

004

600

80 0

10

00

002

1

338

502

465

350

280

163

67

223

600

1,944

752

234

307

327 125

76

292

322

120011001000900800700600500400300200100

0

METERS

0 38,730

PETRA 2 /22/2 006 11:11 :16 AM Well ConceptWell Concept

Geology at East Bend

14

East Bend Site: Addressing Regulatory Issues and Protocols – Area of Review

• AOR based on STOMPCO2 sims or other methods based on volumetric storage

• AOR to be validated with monitoring

Area of Review Map (East Bend)

STOMPCO2 Simulations

15

The Michigan site has key infrastructure needed to support CO2 injection

Pure CO2 Being vented at gas

processing plant

DTE’s Turtle Lake Gas Processing Plant

Core Energy’s Compression Plant and CO2 Pipeline

6” Diameter CO2pipeline leaving

compression plant

Reciprocating compressor

The lessons learned in operating this system will carry over directly to Phase III

16

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

10,000

Depth (ft bgs)

Injection TestWell

Antrim Gas Well

Monitoring Well

Niagara EOR WellsCO Pipeline2Gas Processing Plant

Target Storage Formation

5000 Foot Deep Test Well Drilled in November 2006

Injection Target:Bass Islands Dolomite

At our Michigan site we completed injection of 10,000+ tonnes of CO2 in March ‘08

Well Column

180 feet of core taken

InjectionOperations

Starting Injection

Confining Layer:Amherstburg Limestone

17

CO2 Mechanical Integrity Testing –Example from MRCSP MI Site• Initial step-rate test and shut-in test completed with CO2 prior to sustained

injection as part of UIC mechanical integrity testing, February 7-13, 2008.• Testing provides data on hydraulic behavior of the reservoir system.

State-Charlton 4-30 Mechanical Integrity Testing Sequence

1400

1500

1600

1700

1800

1900

2000

2100

130 150 170 190 210 230 250 270 290 310

Test Elapsed Time (Hours)

Bot

tom

hole

Pre

ssur

e (p

si)

Start Injection

Step Rate Test

Shut-InTest

Mechanical Integrity Injection test

Pull Gauges

Open 3-30 Well

18

CO2 Injection Testing – MRCSP MI Site• 10,241 metric tons CO2 injected from February 18-March 8, 2008

(including initial mechanical integrity test volume).• Injection Rate increased from 400 to 600 metric tons/day after 1 week

(some fluctuations in injection rate due to compression facility).• Injection well was shut-in for 1 month after injection to track reservoir

pressures decline and allow stabilization.

State-Charlton 4-30 CO2 Injection

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

2/20/08 2/22/08 2/24/08 2/26/08 2/28/08 3/1/08 3/3/08 3/5/08 3/7/08 3/9/08

Date

Rat

e (m

etri

c to

n/da

y)

Increase to 600 tpd

Temporarily drop injection rate to 300 tpdat compression facility

Stop Injection

Start Injection

19

CO2 Injection Testing – MRCSP MI Injection Over 18 Days• Bottom-hole pressures 2000-2020 psi during injection with some

fluctuations due to supply variations at compression station.• Overall, testing shows 600 metric tons/day or higher may be sustained in

this formation C4-30 Bottomhole Pressure and Temperature

C3-30 Monitoring Well Bottomhole Data

1450

1460

1470

1480

1490

1500

1510

1520

1530

1540

1550

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22ET (days)

Bott

omho

le P

ress

ure

(psi

)

Start Injection

Stop Injection

20

The Michigan monitoring suite has worked well under adverse winter conditions

Cross Well Seismic Analysis

Acoustic Array

Monitoring Well (about 500 feet from injection well)

21

State-Charlton 4-30 Mechanical Integrity Testing Sequence

1400

1500

1600

1700

1800

1900

2000

2100

130 150 170 190 210 230 250 270 290 310Test E lapsed Time (Hou rs)

Bott

omh

ole

Pres

sure

(psi

)

S tar t In jection

Ste p Rate T est

Shu t-InT est

M echa n ical In te gri ty Inje ctio n test

Pu l l G aug es

Op en 3-3 0 Wel l

Preliminary Modeling Based on Regional Data

Site Drillingand Testing

Site SpecificModeling

ConceptualizeCharacterize

DesignMonitor

CalibrateValidate

---------------------------Communicate------------------------

Post-Injection Calibration/Validation

Results from Michigan have already allowed us to take our models to the next step

22

MRCSP Phase III proposed sitesPrimary site• Host: TAME, a joint venture of The

Andersons and Marathon Petroleum

• Plant operational: February 2008.• Injection start: FY2010• Scale: 1 million tonnes of CO2 over

a four-year period• Target: Mt. Simon at ~3500 ft.

Optional site• Host: Duke Energy• Plant operational: FY 2012• Possible injection start: FY 2012• Scale: Possible 2 million tonnes

over four-year injection period• Target: Mt. Simon at ~8000 ft.

– Multiple injection zones and caprock layers

TAME Ethanol Plant

Duke IGCC Plant

23

Candidate site plan for ethanol site

• The TAME Ethanol plant sits on about 80 acres

• Candidate location for compression plant and injection well site

• A CO2 transfer line will be needed to move the raw CO2 from the vent stack to the compression plant.

CO2 Vent Stack

24

Ethanol site infrastructure requirements

Current spec for compressor plant calls for four 5 to 6-stage reciprocating intercooled units at 1250 hp each (similar to Ariel units shown)

– Pressure rise: ambient to ~1,500 psig– Total flow: ~800 tonnes CO2 per day

A glycol dehydration system integrated with intercooler package is anticipated for moisture control

Raw CO2 from ethanol plant vent stack will be transported to compressor plant via low pressure transfer line

– Shown is 600 tonne per day line

Flow control strategy is expected to be via throttled bypass loop

25

Phase III — Geologic Framework

• Thick sequence of paleozoic age sedimentary rocks is present in the project area.

• Mt. Simon is the only target deep enough for storage consideration.

• The area has a low seismic hazard as delineated by USGS.

26

UIC Regulatory process anticipated for Phase III ethanol plant site

Develop project planDevelop Project Plan

Injection is completed

Apply to OH EPA to plug well

Apply to OH DNR for drilling permit

Permit application is reviewed by OH EPA

Includes coordination with other agencies and statutes:- Endangered Species Act (U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service)National Historic Preservation Act

(State Historic Preservation Office) Wild and Scenic Rivers Act Coastal Zone Management Act (Coastal Management Program

Develop project planDrill, assess dataand complete well

design

MRCSPKey: OH EPA OH DNR

Public Comment Period (at least 30 days) on draft decision

Permit issued (or denied)

Internal integrity demonstrated

Injection is authorized to commence

OH EPA terminates

permit (well is plugged)

OH DNR Issued drilling permit

Develop project plan

Apply to OH EPA for UIC Class V

permit

• NEPA assessment and several other permits will also be needed

27

Potential Monitoring Techniques

Wireline, Coring and Mechanical Integrity

Cross-well or3D Seismic

Depth (ft bgs)

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

Storage Formation

Injection TestWell

Depth (ft bgs)

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

Storage Formation

Depth (ft bgs)

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

Storage Formation

Injection TestWell

System Monitoring

36 50

37 00

37 50

38 00

38 50

39 00

39 50

0 20 40 60 80 10 0

Time (Da ys )

Pre

ssu

re (P

SI)

0

20

40

60

80

10 0

12 0

14 0

Tem

pe

ratu

re (*

F)

Deep MonitoringWell

Not Shown:• Wellhead Monitoring• Acoustic Emissions

Borehole Tiltmeters

Brine Chemistry andFluid Sampling

Na

Ca K

90

10

90

8 0 2 0

80

70

3 0

70

60

40

60

5 0 5 0

50

40

6 0

40

30

70

30

2 0 80

2 0

10

9 0

10

Surface Flux and Soil Gas Probes

Multi-level Monitoring

1 460

1 480

1 500

1 520

1 540

1 560

1 580

1 600

1 620

0 10 20 30 4 0 5 0 6 0 7 0

Da ys

Pre

ssu

re (

PS

I)

P res sur e1

P res sur e2

P res sur e3

P res sur e4

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Days

Tem

pera

ture

(F)

Tem p 1

Tem p 2

Tem p 3

Tem p 4

28

Phase III Progress—Public outreach is a key component

• We have already begun outreach activities at the Phase III TAME site by meeting with the Mayor of Greenville and about 12 community leaders

• In Phase III we plan to continue to build upon our outreach methodology developed in Phases I and II:– A detailed, interactive, and up to

date website with pictures and updates of our field activities

– Fact sheets on sequestration, the MRCSP, and specific field activities.

– Meetings with employees at the test site to make sure they understand the technology and reason for the test

– Public information meetings in the vicinity of the test sites

– Collaboration with educators and other stakeholders in the region

Public Meeting at our Phase II Michigan Test Site

This outreach methodology has worked extremely well in allowing us to proceed to field

implementation on all three of our Phase II sites.

29

Outreach and public education is an important part of our overall program

Our web site: www.mrcsp.org

Open house at one of our geologic test sites

30

MRCSP membership

U.S. Department of Energy/NETL

31

Thank You

The sight and sound of 600 tonnes/day of CO2 being injected at 3,500 ft in Northern Michigan