Project ECO S: What have we learned about the subsurface ... · • Triple combo (caliper, array...

1

Project ECO2S Phase 2 CarbonSAFE Field Project

Prepared for: 2018 SSEB Carbon Management Meeting Prepared By: David Riestenberg, Advanced Resources International, Inc. March 7-8th, 2018 Atlanta, GA

Project ECO2S: What have we learned about the subsurface so far?

2


Acknowledgements

This presentation is based upon work supported by the Department of Energy National Energy Technology Laboratory under award number DE-FE0029465 and was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof.

Project ECO2S is part of the CarbonSAFE Program and is financially supported by the USDOE-NETL and Mississippi Power Company. The project is managed by the Southern States Energy Board. Technical support is provided by Southern Company Research and Development.

We are indebted to Mississippi Power Company for accommodating and facilitating our field work!

3


I.  Project ECO2S Introduction II.  Geologic Framework III.  2017 Well Drilling IV.  Core Analysis V.  Modeling VI.  Initial Risk Assessment VII.  Conclusions

Introduction

The project team has established an area of

interest exceeding 30,000 acres near the Kemper County energy facility.

4


§  Cretaceous sandstone storage zones - Lower Tuscaloosa Grp (‘Massive’ sand)

- Washita-Fredericksburg interval - Paluxy Formation

§  Three prominent seals - Tuscaloosa marine shale - Shale interval at top of the Washita-Fredericksburg

- Shale interval at base of Washita-Fredericksburg

§  Shallower seals in the Selma and Midway Groups

Kemper Storage Complex Stratigraphy

5


ECO2S Geologic Data Gathering

§  Drill three wells to gather drilling performance data, whole and sidewall core, logs

§  Openhole Logs •  Triple combo (caliper, array induction, gamma ray, density porosity,

neutron porosity, spontaneous potential, photoelectric) •  Combined magnetic resonance (CMR) •  Formation micro imager (FMI) •  Dipole sonic (mechanical properties) •  Rotary sidewall cores

§  Whole core of reservoir and seal intervals

§  Evaluation of commercially available 2D seismic

6


B Cross Section 2 East/West B’

Cretaceous Strata Kemper County, Mississippi

Kemper County Map, X-sections lines A-A’, B-B’

A

A’

B B’

Transgression

Transgression

Transgression

Regression

Regression

Regression

A Cross Section 1 North/South A’ Chris Kyler, Mississippi State University,

Master’s Thesis February 2017

Ongoing sequence stratigraphic study includes correlation of well logs to cuttings, identification of

sequence boundaries and parasequences, for example:

Isopach maps of all formations for reservoir and seal characterization, Examples:

Paluxy Tuscaloosa Marine Shale

7


Geologic Structure (Logs) Formations dip (deepen) to the SW •  Marine Tuscaloosa dips 50 ft/mile •  Paleozoic unconformity dips 80 ft/mile

8


Geologic Structure (Existing 2D Seismic)

9


ECO2S Well Drilling

§  MPC 26-5, spud in May 2017 Ø  17 days from spud to TD including

two core points §  MPC 34-1, spud in June 2017

Ø  14 days from spud to TD including two core points

§  MPC 10-4 , spud in August 2017 Ø  14 days from spud to TD including

two core points §  MPC 34-1 cement remediation

and well test in April 2018

10


Core Acquisition –  Learn all about unconsolidated core!

–  Constrain model porosity and permeability

–  Reservoir and seal petrophysical and petrographic characterization

–  Core floods (whole core, micro-fluidics, computer generated)

MPC 26-5 Lower Tuscaloosa massive – very poorly indurated sandstone, well caked

MPC 10-4 Epoxy injection for core preservation

face discharge, low invasion core bit with a

tapered face

11


Reservoir Rock

High-porositysandstoneinPaluxyFormation

•  Abundant stacked saline sandstone bodies in Paluxy, Wash-Fred, and lower Tuscaloosa.

•  Over 1,100 ft net sand. Density porosity logs indicate sandstone has average porosity of 30%(!!)

•  Routine core analysis indicates all sandstone water-saturated

•  Darcy-class permeability common (up to 16 D!!!)

12


Caprock Studies •  Environments of

deposition •  Mineralogy •  Minimum capillary

displacement pressure •  Permeability response to

pore and confining pressure

•  Pressure decay permeametry indicates permeability on the order of 1 nanodarcy in moist shale units.

Paluxymudstone

13


| www.adv-res.com

Univ.Wyoming’sHighBayResearchFacilityMacro-andMicro-ScaleFlowExperiments

14.8cm

3.8cm

15.4cm

3.76cm

CO2/brinerelativepermeabilityhysteresisinBereasandstone

In-situcontactanglemeasuredinGambierlimestoneattheendoftheimbibition.

CO2saturationdistributioninNuggetsandstone

14


| www.adv-res.com

MicroFluidics(orhowtomakeamodelporesystem)1.  Polished and epoxy impregnated thin section

2.  SEM images covering an area ~ 5mm X 5mm

3.  Stitch the images and segment the result into binary pore (black) and non-pore (white).

4.  Connect pores using measured throat sizes.

5.  Fabricate a microfluidic device by etching the representation of the medium onto a glass substrate.

6.  Conduct flow experiments and quantify displacement efficiency.

2D map of a Berea Sandstone

Microfluidic device and camera (60 MP achromatic sensor,

~ 5 µm pixel size) Saturation map and displacement

15


Modeling

•  Abundant stacked saline sandstone bodies in Paluxy, Wash-Fred, and lower Tuscaloosa.

•  Correlations indicate heterogeneous sandstone.

•  Major sandstones easily correlated between well logs

•  However subsurface is under-sampled for extremely detailed modeling and simulation

•  So let’s start with a basic model and add complexity as the data warrant

16


Injection simulations inform future

characterization goals

3 MM metric tons of CO2 is injected through 3 wells (~53MMscf/d in each

well) for 30 years, followed by 20 years of monitoring.

Geologic Properties

Geocellular Model

Three dimensional plume image

10-4

26-529-134-1Inj-3

Water Well

Well-1

Well-10Well-12

Well-13

Well-3

Well-4

Well-5

Well-6Well-7

-30,000 -20,000 -10,000 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000

-30,000 -20,000 -10,000 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000

-100,000-80,000

-60,000-40,000

-20,0000

-90,

000

-70,

000

-50,

000

-30,

000

-10,

000

0

0.00 2.50 5.00 miles

0.00 4.00 8.00 km0.01

0.07

0.14

0.20

0.27

0.33

0.39

0.46

0.52

0.59

0.65

KemperGas Saturation 2048-01-01 K layer: 21

3,300 acre stacked plume 20 years after

injection ends

17


Thermo-Hydro-Mechanical (THM)

Modeling ▪  Stress Analysis

▪  Under what conditions will failure occur?

▪  Test many scenarios (ranges of values)

▪  Feasible to run thousands of scenarios – Monte Carlo Analysis

▪  Reservoir Simulation

▪  Provides pore pressure / plume extent as a function of time (from ARI)

▪  Dynamic failure analysis

▪  If joint slip / fault reactivation occurs, will it be felt?

▪  Microseismic response is probably acceptable; large magnitude seismic is unlikely

Geology (Static) Simulation (Dynamic)

Stress Analysis

Slip?

Failure Analysis

Risk Analysis

ReactiveTransportModeling3Dreactiveporescalesimulation

SimulatereactivepermeabilityevolutionviaalteringBSEimagetoreflectmineraldissolutionandrepeatingprocess

Permeability

Porenetworkmodel

2-DSEMBSEimages

Segmentation

Imageerosion-dilation Poreandpore-

throatsizedistributions

Darcy’slaw

Biascorrection

Depth:5050.60ft;Resolution:1.13μm;Porosity=0.3015

SimulatedincreaseinporosityandpermeabilityassumingdissolutionofallreactivemineralsPorosity:31%to34%Permeability:5.71Dto7.61Darcies

Potentialreactiveminerals

Identificationofreactivemineraldistribution(XRD+SEM)

19


Initial Risk Assessment What’s at risk? PROJECT VALUES

How to quantify? SEVERITY and LIKELIHOOD SCALES

Sample scenarios evaluated “live” during workshop

Pore space rights are insufficient for the project

Insufficient CO2 supply commitments to support

regional storage hub

Plume geometry differs from

baseline models

20


Highest-risk ECO2S Scenarios

G: Geo-logy, -physics,

-mechanics, -chemistry

O: Operations

M: Monitor-Model P: Project and

Program Management

U: Publics

G01 7.33 7.33 Ageologicalsealiscompromisedbydiscontinuityorhighpermeability.G03 6.62 6.62 Coresamplesfromgeologicalsealsareinadequate(forvariouspossiblereasons)todemonstratesealingcapacity.G02 6.52 6.52 Aknownorunknownfaultcutsageologicalseal(caprock).G15 6.49 6.49 Unforeseenspillpoints/leakagepathwaysexistinstoragereservoirand/orconfiningunits.G14 6.38 6.38 TheprimaryreservoirprovesinadequatetostoretheCO2injectionstreamaroundwhichtheprojectwasdesigned.G09 6.32 6.32 Presenceofleaky(eg.abandoned,improperlysealed,fractured)wellborespenetratingreservoirformationintroducingriskforCO2leakagefollowinginjection.G06 6.28 6.28 Onceinjectionstarts,injectivityprovestobelessthanpredicted/modeled.G12 6.00 6.00 Thelackofwholecorefrompotentialstoragereservoirsleadstouncertaintyastoreservoirquality.G05 5.53 5.53 FracturingofseallayersimpairsCO2containment.G04 5.16 5.16 Feltearthquakesoccuronfaultsmissedorpoorlyrepresentedingeologicmodeling.G11 5.16 5.16 Reservoirand/orcaprockformationsaresusceptibletomineraldissolutionthatmaycompromisereservoirorcaprockformationintegrity.G13 4.90 4.90 Thelimiteddatasetoflocalseismiceventssuggestsunrealisticallylowseismicity;unexpectedinducedseismicityoccurs.G07 4.33 4.33 Plumeunexpectedlymigratestoafault,changesstressesthere,andinducesseismicity.G10 4.31 4.31 RapidmineralprecipitationoccurswithCO2injection,causingreducedreservoirpermeability.G08 3.85 3.85 Pre-Paluxyunconformityisrugoseandporous,allowinglong-distanceupdipmigrationofCO2beyondthePaluxypinchout.M20 7.56 7.56 Plumegeometrydiffersfrombaselinemodels.

M20 7.56 7.56 Plumegeometrydiffersfrombaselinemodels.M11 7.13 7.13 Lifespanofmonitoringtoolsandresultsinterpretationareshorterthanthe50+yearmonitoringperiod.M15 7.04 7.04 Numericalmodelingpredictsplumemovementbeyondsecuredlandrightsand/ormonitoredarea.M19 6.65 6.65 Usersofprojectdatafindthedataarchiving/accesssystemtobeawkwardandinefficient.M07 6.44 6.44 Duringinjection,pressureincreaseatamonitoringwellexceedsthelimitestablishedbyaClassVIpermitcondition.M02 6.38 6.38 Atendoftheplannedandbudgetedpost-injectionmonitoringperiod,criteriaforshowingplumestabilityremainunclear,andregulatorrequirescontinuedmonitoringwhilereviewcontinues.M10 6.33 6.33 Landusechangeslimittheuseofmonitoringtools(e.g.surfaceseismic,surfacedeformation).M12 6.04 6.04 Modelingsuggeststhatexistingplume/pressurefrontmonitoringtoolswillbeinadequatefortheKemperstoragecomplex(ultra-highpermeabilitywithmoderateanticipatedpressurebuildup).M03 6.02 6.02 Atendoftheplannedandbudgetedpost-injectionmonitoringperiod,regulatordeemsthatdatashowingplumestabilityareinadequate.M14 5.96 5.96 Monitoringwellsaremislocatedormis-completed,andthusmissthedevelopingplume.M13 5.92 5.92 MonitoringshowsthepossiblepresenceofCO2inoverlyingformationssoonafterinjectionstarts.M06 5.83 5.83 Digitaldataisdamaged,lost,ordestroyed.M09 5.74 5.74 Insufficientbaselinedata(type,qualityorduration)aregatheredpriortoinjectiontoestablishaconsistentnon-CO2signal.M17 5.67 5.67 Pressureincreaseexceedsmodels,raisingpossibilitythatbrineextractionwillbeneededtomanageplumeand/ormaintaininjectionrate.M18 5.56 5.56 Priortodecisiontostartinjection,dataandmodelingareinsufficienttoconfirmintegrityofgeologicalseals.M08 5.45 5.45 ImpuritiesinCO2streamcausephasebehaviordifferentfrommodeled.M16 5.12 5.12 OverlyingUSDWisunderpressured,causingalargerthanexpectedAORtobecalculated.M05 4.25 4.25 Datamanagementsystemnotappropriateforsize/typeofdata.M01 4.20 4.20 AftersomeCO2injection,anewnearbyproject(e.g.oil-gasormining)interceptsoraffectstheCO2plume.M04 3.95 3.95 Availablestressdata(largelyfromMesozoicunits)provideslittleguidanceonstressesatdeeperlevels,givinglittleassuranceonproject-inducedseismicity.O15 10.90 10.90 OperationalproblemsatCO2sourceplantpreventdeliveringtheCO2neededtoshowcommercial-scalegeologicalstorage.

O15 10.90 10.90 OperationalproblemsatCO2sourceplantpreventdeliveringtheCO2neededtoshowcommercial-scalegeologicalstorage.O14 8.88 8.88 Oilfieldboomdrivesupprojectcostsandincreasesleadtimeforequipmentandservices.O10 8.48 8.48 Lossofsurfaceaccessrightsinareaofexistingorplannedinjectionwell.O21 8.16 8.16 UncertaintyinCO2source(s)delayspipelinespecifications(sizing,materials,pressurerating).O17 7.30 7.30 ProcessproblemsleadtovaryinginjectionratesandproblemsmeetingUICrequirements.O01 7.21 7.21 Capturefacilitydoesnotoperatesmoothly,causinginterruptionsinCO2supply.O24 7.21 7.21 WellswithintheexpectedKemperplume/pressurefootprinthaveunknowncasingintegrity.O13 7.03 7.03 Numericalmodelingindicatesmoreinjectionwellsthanplannedwillberequiredtoinject3MMtonnesperyear.O03 6.85 6.85 CO2leakcannotbestoppedbyexistingtechnologies.O23 6.34 6.34 Wellintegritycannotbeestablishedduetoprimarycementingfailureinoneormoreofthewells.O09 6.22 6.22 Lossofdownholemonitoringcomponentresultsinexpensiveworkoverinordertocomplywithinjectionpermit.O08 6.21 6.21 Limiteddataonabandonedwellboressuggestsunrealisticallylowleakagerisk;remedialworkisnotpursued;injectioninducesleakage.O19 6.05 6.05 Traderestrictionsdisruptdeliveryoftubularsrequiredforproject,e.g.chromeandotheralloymaterials.O16 5.77 5.77 Pipelineorothersurfacefacilitydamagedbytraffic,construction,excavation,etc.O02 5.72 5.72 CapturedCO2isoutofspecwithpipelineorinjectionlimits.O18 5.62 5.62 Screened(notopenhole)completionsarenecessarytomaintainwell/reservoirintegrity,makingengineeredwellcompletionsandinjectionmonitoringchallenging.O22 5.44 5.44 Weatherdamagescontrolsystemduringinjectionresultinginunplannedshutdown.O07 5.31 5.31 Injectioncausesnear-wellboreformationdamageinoneormoreinjectionwells.O04 5.28 5.28 Criticalequipmentisstolenfrominjectionsite.O20 5.07 5.07 Travelingtoanighttimeloggingrun,staffmemberfallsasleepwhiledriving.O05 4.80 4.80 ImpuritiesremainingintheCO2streamresultinequipmentdamage.O06 4.56 4.56 ImpuritiesremainingintheCO2streamresultinsubsurfacecontamination.O11 4.14 4.14 Monitoringinstrumentsplacedininjectionwellhinderinjection.O12 3.64 3.64 Non-well(i.e.surface)monitoringequipmentmalfunctionsorisdamaged.P01 12.17 12.17 ChangesintheoperationalstatusorcommercialviabilityofCO2sourceplantpreventmeetingprojectobjectives.

P01 12.17 12.17 ChangesintheoperationalstatusorcommercialviabilityofCO2sourceplantpreventmeetingprojectobjectives.P09 12.16 12.16 KemperenergyfacilitydoesnotbecomeasourceofCO2.

P18 11.48 11.48 InsufficientCO2supplycommitmentstosupportregionalstoragehub.P13 10.10 10.10 MPC/SOPOmanagementnotinterestedinsupportingaregionalstoragehub.P12 10.06 10.06 MPC/SOCOmanagementdonotcontinuetosupportprojectduringnext2-50years.P04 9.92 9.92 Existingpipelinenetworknotdesignedtobeusedasaregionalhub.P14 9.43 9.43 Porespacerightsareinsufficientfortheproject.P15 9.43 9.43 PotentialCO2sourcesbelievethatnomaturecapturetechnologyisavailable,sowillnotcommittoproject.P11 9.09 9.09 Lossofporespaceaccess(duetolandsaleorothercause)limitstheoverallstoragecapacityofthehub.P07 8.17 8.17 Infrastructuredevelopmentcostsareconsiderablyhigherthanexpected.P19 7.74 7.74 Thesinglesource/sinkstructureofECO2Sprojectdoesnotdoesnotsubstantivelyinformfuturedesignofanintegratedmulti-source/sinkCCUSinfrastructure.P03 7.16 7.16 CompetitionwithCO2forEORpreventsdeliveringtheCO2neededtoshowcommercial-scalegeologicalstorage.P10 5.98 5.98 LackofprocessinformationontheCO2sourceplantpreventsdevelopinganadequatedesignbasisandcostforCO2compression,dehydration,andpurification.P06 5.86 5.86 Infrastructuredamagefromextremeweather.P08 5.66 5.66 Insurancedoesnoteffectivelycovercostsofclaimedproject-causeddamagetoanon-projectresource(oilfield,farm,residence,etc).P16 5.53 5.53 PowertoinjectionfacilityisoutsideSouthernCompanynetworkresultinginundependablesupply.P02 4.77 4.77 CO2transmitterrequiresmorestringentCO2quality.P05 4.16 4.16 GoalsoftheCarbonSAFEprogramandthisprojectarenotadequatelyunderstoodbytheprojectteam,whichresultsinfailuretomeettheprojectobjectives.P17 3.27 3.27 QualifieddriversforCO2trucktransportareinshortsupply.U03 11.13 11.13 ChangesinU.S.governmentpersonnelorpoliciesresultinremovalofgovernmentsupportoftheCarbonSAFEprogram.

U03 11.13 11.13 ChangesinU.S.governmentpersonnelorpoliciesresultinremovalofgovernmentsupportoftheCarbonSAFEprogram.U11 8.75 8.75 LocalanimositytowardMPCleadstovocaloppositionofECO2Sproject.U16 8.30 8.30 PermittingofaClassVIUICpermitforstorageisdelayed.U21 7.40 7.40 Regulatoryuncertaintycausesdelaytoprojecttimeline.U18 7.28 7.28 Prematuredecommissioningofsiteresultsinanegativeopinionfromthepublicorpotentialusers.U08 6.96 6.96 Insurerofmajorprojectparticipant(MPC,SOCO,UAB...)threatenspolicyterminationbasedonconcernsaboutproject.U13 6.92 6.92 NewscoverageofCO2leaksfromCranfield,MSsiteraisesregulatorandpublicconcernsaboutpermittingstorageatKempersite.U19 6.79 6.79 Publicoppositionorunacceptableenvironmentalimpacttonewpipelineconstruction.U15 6.65 6.65 OppositionarisesduetoconcernsaboutimpacttoUSDWs.U22 6.41 6.41 Stateenvironmentalagencydeniesinjectionpermit,citingrisktoUSDWs.U06 6.33 6.33 Futurelegalchallengeextinguishesproject'sporespacerightsthatwerebasedoncontrolofsurface.U04 6.31 6.31 Culturalorarchaeologicalsitesarefoundwithinareaofstudy/interest(relatedtoEA/EIS).U17 6.14 6.14 Pipelinepermittingdelaysduetocrossingstatelines(multipleagencies).U01 6.03 6.03 ChangeinCO2usefromCO2forEORtototalsequestrationinnewwellsgarnersnegativepublicattention.U02 5.93 5.93 ChangesinCO2streamcompositionover20-30yearinjectionperiod(e.g.newsources)exceedexistingUICpermitconditions,necessitatingnewpermit(s)ormajormodification.U07 5.87 5.87 InconsideringUICpermitapplication,regulatorrequestsevidencethatundocumentedboreholesareunlikelytoexistwithintheexpectedKemperplume/pressurefootprint.U09 5.79 5.79 Landusechangesimpactinjectionactivities(e.g.siteaccess).U10 5.69 5.69 Landownerrefusesaccessforseismicshootorothersurface-basedmonitoringovercriticalarea.U05 5.57 5.57 EnvironmentalImpactStatementisrejectedduetopotentialimpactstowetlandsorothersensitivehabitats/species.U14 5.29 5.29 NGOoppositiontoCCUSthreatensproject.U20 4.97 4.97 RegulatoryauthoritydeniesuseofexistingPhaseIIwellsformonitoringpurposes.U23 4.88 4.88 Theowneroflandnexttowherepropertyrightshavebeensecuredallegestrespassandsues.U12 4.29 4.29 Locallandownerbuildsresidence(s)overCO2pipeline.U24 3.15 3.15 Vandalismatcontrolroomdamagessystemcontrols.

102 ECO2S Scenarios ranked by risk, sorted by topic group

21


2018-19 To Do’s

§  Finish up a LOT of geologic studies § Complete well work § Outreach §  Play with the NRAP tools § Monitoring strategies

§ Impact of future surface mining on surface elevation, groundwater, CO2 emissions?

22


2018-19 To Do’s

§  Storage economics § Compression and dehydration § Injection and monitoring costs

§  Explore concept of regional storage hub § Risk management and mitigation strategies

23

Project ECO2S Phase 2 CarbonSAFE Field Project So what have we learned about the Kemper subsurface?

The Kemper County Storage Complex appears to be a world class CO2 storage prospect

§  Potential storage reservoirs have exceptional storage capacity

§ Caprocks are laterally continuous, confining properties are being tested

§ No structural “show stoppers” § Well drilling is predictable, low cost

Risks to project success are primarily related to Kemper energy facility and CO2 source(s)

24


| JAF2017_056.PPT | DRAFT June 29, 2017 | www.adv-res.com

25


Project ECO2S Organization Chart

ScenID Risk RankbyRisk(all) Scenario

P01 12.17 1 ChangesintheoperationalstatusorcommercialviabilityofCO2sourceplantpreventmeetingprojectobjectives.

P09 12.16 2 KemperenergyfacilitydoesnotbecomeasourceofCO2. P18 11.48 3 InsufficientCO2supplycommitmentstosupportregionalstoragehub.

U03 11.13 4 ChangesinU.S.governmentpersonnelorpoliciesresultinremovalofgovernmentsupportoftheCarbonSAFEprogram.

O15 10.90 5 OperationalproblemsatCO2sourceplantpreventdeliveringtheCO2neededtoshowcommercial-scalegeologicalstorage.

P13 10.10 6 MPC/SOPOmanagementnotinterestedinsupportingaregionalstoragehub. P12 10.06 7 MPC/SOCOmanagementdonotcontinuetosupportprojectduringnext2-50years. P04 9.92 8 Existingpipelinenetworknotdesignedtobeusedasaregionalhub. P14 9.43 9 Porespacerightsareinsufficientfortheproject. P15 9.43 10 PotentialCO2sourcesbelievethatnomaturecapturetechnologyisavailable,sowillnotcommittoproject. P11 9.09 11 Lossofporespaceaccess(duetolandsaleorothercause)limitstheoverallstoragecapacityofthehub. O14 8.88 12 Oilfieldboomdrivesupprojectcostsandincreasesleadtimeforequipmentandservices. U11 8.75 13 LocalanimositytowardMPCleadstovocaloppositionofECO2Sproject. O10 8.48 14 Lossofsurfaceaccessrightsinareaofexistingorplannedinjectionwell. U16 8.30 15 PermittingofaClassVIUICpermitforstorageisdelayed. P07 8.17 16 Infrastructuredevelopmentcostsareconsiderablyhigherthanexpected. O21 8.16 17 UncertaintyinCO2source(s)delayspipelinespecifications(sizing,materials,pressurerating).

Highest-riskECO2SScenarios

27


Project ECO2S Introduction

Project ECO2S, a DOE-supported CarbonSAFE program, is pursuing advances in CO2 storage knowledge and technology, including optimizing CO2 storage efficiency, modeling the fate of injected CO2, and establishing residual CO2 saturations. In addition, Project ECO2S will involve “real-life” experiences, issues, and challenges of scaling-up from its regional, pre-feasibility assessment of CO2 storage to establish a site-specific, commercial-scale CO2 storage facility, including capturing the “lessons learned” in making this transition.

The project team has established an area of interest exceeding 30,000 acres in Kemper County,

Mississippi.

28


Kemper Storage Complex Deep Structure

Kemper County energy facility

Source: modified from Hale-Erlich and Coleman, 1993 in Pashin, J.C., D.J. Hills, D. C. Kopaska-Merkel, M.R. McIntyre, Geological Evaluation of the Potential for CO2 Sequestration in Kemper County, Mississippi, Final Report, prepared for Southern Company Research and Environmental Affairs, June 1, 2008.

30,0

00+

ft ~6,000 ft

29


Project ECO2S Characterization Objectives

1.  Demonstrate that the subsurface at the storage complex can store commercial volumes of CO2 safely and permanently within the saline reservoir system

2.  Establish and optimize the CO2 storage capacity of the storage complex, including the areal extent of the CO2 plume

3.  Confirm the viability of each of the reservoir seals as a long-term, reliable confining system for the CO2 storage site

4.  Rock mechanics and geomechanical modeling to define the potential for and impact of induced seismicity at the CO2 storage site

5.  Inform comprehensive risk assessments (NRAP and workshop-based approaches)

RegionalGeologicContext

Kemper County Energy Facility

Source: Clark, P.E., Pashin, J., and six others, 2013, Site Characterization for CO2 Storage from Coal-fired Power Facilities in the Black Warrior Basin of Alabama, Figure 1, Modified from Thomas, 1988

31


Existing 2D Seismic

§  30 miles of existing 2D seismic was acquired to evaluate structure, regional stratigraphy

Project ECO S: What have we learned about the subsurface ... · • Triple combo (caliper, array...

Documents

Transcript of Project ECO S: What have we learned about the subsurface ... · • Triple combo (caliper, array...