Demonstrating Geological Carbon Sequestration in the Mt ... · 3/6/2008 · MMV is an important part of all field projects. Monitoring, Measuring and Verification (MMV) Depth (ft

Demonstrating Geological Carbon Demonstrating Geological Carbon Sequestration in the Mt. Simon Sandstone Sequestration in the Mt. Simon Sandstone

of the Illinois Basinof the Illinois Basinpresented bypresented by

Robert J. FinleyRobert J. FinleyIllinois State Geological SurveyIllinois State Geological Survey

March 6, 2008March 6, 2008Indiana Center for CoalIndiana Center for CoalTechnology ResearchTechnology Research

Midwest Geological Midwest Geological Sequestration ConsortiumSequestration Consortium

www.sequestration.orgwww.sequestration.org

Descriptor - include initials /org#/date

Field Validation Tests and Large-Scale Deployment Tests

24

Large scale

Phase II

Phase III

What are we doing?What are we doing?

A collaboration of ADM, the Midwest A collaboration of ADM, the Midwest Geological Sequestration Consortium, Geological Sequestration Consortium, Schlumberger Carbon Services, and other Schlumberger Carbon Services, and other subcontractors plans to inject 1 million subcontractors plans to inject 1 million metric tons of carbon dioxide at a depth of metric tons of carbon dioxide at a depth of 7,500 +/7,500 +/-- ft to test ft to test geological carbon geological carbon sequestrationsequestration

Why are we doing this?Why are we doing this?

Global climate change:Global climate change: role of increased role of increased concentration of manconcentration of man--made greenhouse gases, made greenhouse gases, primarily carbon dioxide (COprimarily carbon dioxide (CO22), ), Carbon management strategies:Carbon management strategies: return of COreturn of CO22derived from fossil fuel use to subsurface derived from fossil fuel use to subsurface reservoirs: reservoirs: geological carbon sequestrationgeological carbon sequestrationLargeLarge--scale testing:scale testing: necessary to verify that necessary to verify that sequestration is safe and effective, as we expect sequestration is safe and effective, as we expect it to beit to be

Who are the players?Who are the players?The Illinois State Geological Survey (ISGS) leads The Illinois State Geological Survey (ISGS) leads a research consortium of the Illinois, Indiana, and a research consortium of the Illinois, Indiana, and Kentucky geological surveys (Kentucky geological surveys (Midwest Geological Midwest Geological Sequestration ConsortiumSequestration Consortium), in place since 2003, ), in place since 2003, to assess the geological carbon sequestration to assess the geological carbon sequestration potential of the Illinois Basinpotential of the Illinois BasinNational Energy Technology Laboratory, Office of National Energy Technology Laboratory, Office of Fossil Energy, leads for the Fossil Energy, leads for the U.S. Department of U.S. Department of EnergyEnergySchlumberger Carbon ServicesSchlumberger Carbon Services provides worldprovides world--class innovative technologies for subsurface class innovative technologies for subsurface reservoir characterization and monitoring reservoir characterization and monitoring

How did we get to this point?How did we get to this point?

ISGS work from 2003ISGS work from 2003--05 showed high potential in 05 showed high potential in the the Illinois BasinIllinois Basin for geological carbon for geological carbon sequestrationsequestrationSmallSmall--scale COscale CO2 2 injection tests underway, 2005injection tests underway, 2005--09, mostly in oil fields09, mostly in oil fieldsDOE desired largeDOE desired large--scale testing to begin before scale testing to begin before 2009; required major source of CO2009; required major source of CO22 and a and a suitable site in close proximitysuitable site in close proximityDiscussions with ADM began in December 06Discussions with ADM began in December 06Proposal submitted May 07; funded December 07Proposal submitted May 07; funded December 07

Illinois BasinIllinois Basin

NN--S Cross Section of CoalS Cross Section of Coal--bearing Strata in Illinoisbearing Strata in Illinois

By Christopher Korose, Jamie McBeth, and Colin Treworgy, ISGS

Mt. Simon SandstoneEau Claire Shale

Illinois Basin Stratigraphic

ColumnMaquoketa Shale

New Albany Shale

Mississippian sandstone and carbonate oil reservoirs

St. Peter Sandstone

Pennsylvanian coal seams

from Leetaru, 2004

Illinois Basin Stratigraphic Column

Sequestration CapacitiesSequestration Capacities**

Seven major coal seams: 2.3Seven major coal seams: 2.3--3.3 billion tonnes3.3 billion tonnes6.7 trillion ft6.7 trillion ft3 3 incremental methane(?)incremental methane(?)

Mature oil reservoirs: 140Mature oil reservoirs: 140--440 million tonnes440 million tonnes860860--1,300 million barrels incremental oil1,300 million barrels incremental oil

St. Peter Sandstone: 1.6St. Peter Sandstone: 1.6--6.4 billion tonnes6.4 billion tonnesMt. Simon SandstoneMt. Simon Sandstone: : 2727--109 billion109 billion tonnestonnes

*DOE, 2007, Carbon Sequestration Atlasof the United States and Canada

Mt. Simon Sandstone Mt. Simon Sandstone ReservoirReservoir

4,143 ft

8,467 ft

• Mt. Simon Sandstone is used for natural gas storage in Champaign County, IL at 4,000 to 4,200 ft

• Mt. Simon core has been recovered from a few deep exploration wells

A Model for Mt. Simon Sandstone A Model for Mt. Simon Sandstone Deposition: Alluvial Fans in Death ValleyDeposition: Alluvial Fans in Death Valley

From Leetaru, 2008

ADM GeophysicsADM Geophysics

SITE

October 07

N

ADM Test SiteADM Test Site

AA Dehydration/ Dehydration/ compression compression facility locationfacility locationBB Pipeline routePipeline routeCC Injection well Injection well sitesiteDD Potential Potential verification well verification well sitessitesFF Anaerobic Anaerobic wastewater wastewater treatment facilitytreatment facility

F

~ 3/4 mile

A

B

C

D

D

Sand grain

Pore space

CO2 Storage in Sandstone Reservoir Pore Space

Pin head

Reservoir Caprock (shale seal)Reservoir Caprock (shale seal)

Pin head

Plume Monitoring StrategiesPlume Monitoring StrategiesPosition of COPosition of CO22 plume based on repeat surface plume based on repeat surface and downhole geophysics similar to Sleipner and downhole geophysics similar to Sleipner project in Norway and Frio Brine Pilot near project in Norway and Frio Brine Pilot near HoustonHouston

1994 1995 2001

Sleipner 4D Geophysics

Frio Brine Pilot

Daley et al, 2007CO2 response

Simulation of COSimulation of CO22 injection into Mt. Simon at ADM Siteinjection into Mt. Simon at ADM Site

0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50

Gas saturation

1,700

68

440

68

3.6

220

7.0

210

Permeability

7000

7200

7400

7600

7800

8000

8200

1/3 million tonnes/yr for 3years, 1 yr of injection

1/3 million tonnes/yr for 3years, 2 yrs of injection

1/3 million tonnes/yr for 3years, 3 yrs of injection

10 years shut in after3 yrs of injection

100 years shut in after3 yrs of injection

Sonic porosity

Dept

h

Injection well Injection well Injection well Injection wellInjection well

Weaber–Horn (Loudon)

High Perm Layer (8) Injection Only

o 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25

500 ft

Surface Surface Monitoring of Monitoring of Air and Soil Air and Soil

for COfor CO22

UGA Laboratory for Environmental Physics

IR Gas Analyzer

Sonic anemometer

from Oldenburg, LBNL

Groundwater and CO2 flow and transport

Shallow Groundwater MonitoringShallow Groundwater Monitoring

Wells drilled andperiodically

sampled

Preliminary COPreliminary CO22 Process Flow DiagramProcess Flow Diagramfor ADM Sitefor ADM Site

InputWet at 14.5 psia

OutputDry at ~1,300-1,500 psia

from Trimeric Corporation

What are the project outcomes?What are the project outcomes?

A largeA large--scale scale injection of 1 million tons of COinjection of 1 million tons of CO22successfully demonstrated and associated safety, successfully demonstrated and associated safety, efficiency, and effectiveness requirements metefficiency, and effectiveness requirements metVolume Volume sufficient to monitor geophysically;sufficient to monitor geophysically;dehydration/compression equipment scalable to IGCCdehydration/compression equipment scalable to IGCCA A process model establishedprocess model established for equipment, permitting, for equipment, permitting, injection, environmental monitoring, and outcome injection, environmental monitoring, and outcome assessment that will support energy facility assessment that will support energy facility development with integrated carbon sequestration in development with integrated carbon sequestration in the Illinois Basin, nationally, and globallythe Illinois Basin, nationally, and globallyAn An ““activeactive”” geological site modelgeological site model developed and developed and continually updated as new data are acquiredcontinually updated as new data are acquired

What is the project schedule?What is the project schedule?■■ The project was funded December 18, 2007The project was funded December 18, 2007

■■ Baseline environmental activities to begin spring 08Baseline environmental activities to begin spring 08

■■ Preliminary UIC permit planned for May 08Preliminary UIC permit planned for May 08

■■ Injection well drilling: start June 08; ~68 days to drillInjection well drilling: start June 08; ~68 days to drill

■■ UIC Completion Report based on well dataUIC Completion Report based on well data

■■ Final functional testing of compression, pipeline, and Final functional testing of compression, pipeline, and wellhead initiated in fall 09wellhead initiated in fall 09

■■ Injection would occur from December 2009 Injection would occur from December 2009 –– December December 20122012

■■ Verification wells would be drilled ~winter 2011 and Verification wells would be drilled ~winter 2011 and ~summer 2012 (if second well funded)~summer 2012 (if second well funded)

■■ Environmental monitoring through December 2014Environmental monitoring through December 2014

24

Schlumberger Private

Schlumberger Carbon Services

Commercial Scale Storage Timeline with Cost & Uncertainty

Performance & Risk(Functions) Capacity, Injectivity, Containment >>>> (Stakes) HSE, Cost, Image

Uncertainty

Possible site Probable site Appoved site

Time

Tota

l cos

t & u

ncer

tain

ty

1 yr 2-3 yrs 5-7yrs

High

Low

Prelim.study

30 yrs

Total cost

ConstructionIncludes time

for plant construction



Detailedcharacterization


Data acquisition

Data acquisition

Authorization

DesignDesign

Model driven Monitoringplan

Monitoringplan

50 yrs 100+

$5-$10 / ton

Closure

Equalization

Long termEnvironmentalmonitoring


Living model

Prediction

Model update

Injection &monitoring


25



Commercial Scale Storage Timeline with Cost & Uncertaintyand Cost Estimates for Site Selection and Development


Uncertainty


Time

Tota

l cos

t & u

ncer

tain

ty

1 yr 2-3 yrs 5-7yrs

High

Low

Prelim.study

30 yrs

Total cost







Data acquisition

Data acquisition

Authorization

DesignDesign


Monitoringplan

50 yrs 100+

$5-$10 / ton

Closure

Equalization



Living model

Prediction

Model update



$14-22 million

26





Uncertainty


Time

Tota

l cos

t & u

ncer

tain

ty

1 yr 2-3 yrs 5-7yrs

High

Low

Prelim.study

30 yrs

Total cost







Data acquisition

Data acquisition

Authorization

DesignDesign


Monitoringplan

50 yrs 100+

$5-$10 / ton

Closure

Equalization



Living model

Prediction

Model update



$14-22 million

2 Wells and MonitoringSetup - Two Year Effort$15-20 million

27





Uncertainty


Time

Tota

l cos

t & u

ncer

tain

ty

1 yr 2-3 yrs 5-7yrs

High

Low

Prelim.study

30 yrs

Total cost







Data acquisition

Data acquisition

Authorization

DesignDesign


Monitoringplan

50 yrs 100+

$5-$10 / ton

Closure

Equalization



Living model

Prediction

Model update



$14-22 million

2 Wells and MonitoringSetup - Two Year Effort$15-20 million

Early Monitoring$1.5-4 million/yr

Midwest GeologicalMidwest GeologicalSequestration ConsortiumSequestration Consortiumwww.sequestration.orgwww.sequestration.org

Midwest Midwest Regional Regional Carbon Carbon

Sequestration Sequestration PartnershipPartnership

The three The three MRCSPMRCSP’’ss Phase II tests evaluate geologic regionsPhase II tests evaluate geologic regions

Appalachian BasinAppalachian Basin

Cincinnati ArchCincinnati Arch

Michigan BasinMichigan Basin

Appalachian Basin Site Appalachian Basin Site –– FirstEnergyFirstEnergy

PowerspanPowerspan ECO ECO Pilot PlantPilot Plant

R. E. Burger Power PlantDepth (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, January, 2007

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

Michigan Basin Site

5000 Foot Deep Test WellNovember 2006

Existing EOR Infrastructure

Saline Injection Target

Cincinnati Arch Site Cincinnati Arch Site –– Duke EnergyDuke Energy

East Bend StationEast Bend Station

Injection Target, Mt. Simon

Seismic SurveyOctober, 2006

Test WellFall 2007

Experience with MRCSP and other projects has demonstrated Experience with MRCSP and other projects has demonstrated the value of site specific data from test wells.the value of site specific data from test wells.

COCO22 Storage Modeling ProcessStorage Modeling ProcessConceptualizeConceptualize--characterizecharacterize--DesignDesign--MonitorMonitor--CalibrateCalibrate--validatevalidate

Preliminary Modeling Based on Regional Data

Site Drilling and Testing Site Specific Modeling

Example‐MRCSP Michigan Basin State‐Charlton 30/31 Field Test Site

MMV is an MMV is an important part of important part of all field projects.all field projects.

Monitoring, Measuring and Verification (MMV)Monitoring, Measuring and Verification (MMV)

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

Na

Ca K

90

10

90

80

20

80

70

30

70

60

40

60

50

50

50

40

60

40

30

70

30

20

80

20

10

90

10

Brine Chemistry andFluid Sampling

Wireline, Coring and Mechanical Integrity

System Monitoring

3650

3700

3750

3800

3850

3900

3950

0 20 40 60 80 100

Time (Days)

Pres

sure

(PSI

)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Tem

pera

ture

(*F)

Multi‐level Monitoring

1460

1480

1500

1520

1540

1560

1580

1600

1620

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Days

Pre

ssur

e (P

SI)

Pressure1Pressure2Pressure3Pressure4

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Days

Tem

pera

ture

(F)

Temp1Temp2Temp3Temp4

Pressure Temperature

Deep MonitoringWell

Cross‐well or3D Seismic

Surface Flux and Soil Gas Probes

Borehole Tiltmeters

Documents

Demonstrating Geological Carbon Sequestration in the Mt ... · 3/6/2008 · MMV is an important part of all field projects. Monitoring, Measuring and Verification (MMV) Depth (ft