Update on Results of SECARB Test of Update on Results of SECARB Test of Monitoring Large Volume Injection at CranfieldMonitoring Large Volume Injection at Cranfield

Natchez Mississippi

Mississippi River

Mississippi

3,000 m depthGas cap, oil ring, downdip water legShut in since 1965S u s ce 965Strong water driveReturned to near initial pressure

Illustration by Tip Meckel

Cranfield “Early” Field Cranfield “Early” Field Test CollaborationTest Collaboration

Gulf Coast Gulf Coast Carbon Center Carbon Center Industrial AssociatesIndustrial Associates

Denbury Onshore LLC

LBNLLLBL

USGSORNLNETL

Gulf Coast Carbon Center StaffSusan HovorkaNETL

SchlumbergerCarbon Services

QEA

Ramon TrevinoTip MeckelChangbing YangJiemin LiuKatherine RomanakQEA

BPU Mississippi

Miss StateUTPGE

Katherine RomanakRebecca SmythSigrid CliftMasoumeh KordiStuart ColemanYih C iUTPGE

UT DoGUniversity Tennessee

Princeton

Yihua CaiHamid Lashgari

BEG staffTongwei ZhangPrinceton

StanfordUniversity Edinburgh

Tongwei ZhangJeff PaineBob ReedyRobert Reed Kitty Millikan

SECARB Cranfield Research: Theoretical Approaches Through Commercialization

Commercial Deployment by Southern Co.

Contingency plan

ard

erci

a-on Subsurface perturbation

si d CO2 retained in-zone- CO saturation correctly Pressure (flow plus

Parsimonious public assurance monitoringTo

wa

com

me

lizat

io predicted

Hyp

othe

ss

test

ed

CO2 retained in zonedocument no leakage to air-no damage to water

CO2 saturation correctly predicted by flow

modeling

Pressure (flow plus deformation)

correctly predicted by model

CO saturation measured

eld men

ts

Surface monitoring: approach verificationGroundwater programGas variation over time

CO2 saturation measured through time – acoustic impedance + resistivity

Tomography and change through time

Microseismic test, pressure mapping

Acoustic response to pressure change over

Fie

expe

ri

Above-zone acoustic monitoring (CASSM) & pressure monitoring

through time3- D time lapse surface/

VSP seismic

pressure change over time

Dissolution and saturation

y b Sensitivity of tools;

measured via tracer breakthrough and chromatography

Theo

ryan

d la

b Sensitivity of tools; saturated-vadose

modeling of flux and tracers

Lab-based core response to EM and acoustic under various saturations, tracer

behavior

Advanced simulation of reservoir pressure field

VirginiaVirginia TechVirginia Tech

Jackson Dome Natural CO2 source

Black WarriorCranfieldPhase IIIearly

Natural CO2 source

Completed Phase II

Alabama Geological Surveyearly

Plant BarrySouthern ARICompleted Phase II

EOR/brine Storage tests Plant DanielsSouthern ARI

Natural CO2 Available Now in large Volumes Shipped via Sonant Pipeline to Test Lower Part of the Gulf p

Coast WedgeCranfield test site

Onshore salt basins

B’Galloway et al

Relatively young sandstones with shale sealsy y gHeterogeneous, high porosity sediments

Salt tectonics and growth faultsHeavy industry

Characteristics of the Gulf Coast wedge

Cranfield Progress

2007 2008 2009

ne

2006 2010 2011 2012

PA Drill Phase III

ectio

n

Firstcored well,brine samples

as b

asel

in

se II

I NEP Drill Phase III

3 DAS wellsMonitoring

e ntzatio

n

Site

sel

e

baseline seismic S

oil g

a

Pha

sPhase III injection

RB

Ear

ly

ase

II Si

teel

opm

en

hara

cter

i

Phas

e II

S

Phase II injection

d S

EC

AR

Pha

deveChP

Phase IIM 1 illi t i j t d

End

Phase IIPhase III Projected 1.5 million

tons phase IIIMay 1 million tones injected

P II + III December 20Last well for 1 million tones/year rate

A BCharacterization of the Reservoir

oosa

Fm Tuscaloosa confining system

Tusc

alo Phase II

DAS

T l D E iTuscaloosa D-E reservoir

Oil-water contactBased on log annotation andBased on log annotation and recent side-walls

3D Denbury - interpretation Tip Meckel BEG

Reservoir heterogeneity from f i isurface seismic

• Stratal slicing for facies

• 90-degree phase

AVF f thi k /fl id• AVF for thickness/fluid

• AVO for fluid/OWC

ChanChannelnel

erosierosi

ChannelChannelerosionerosion

ChannelChannelerosionerosion

ChannelChannelerosionerosion

erosierosionon Point Point

barbarPoint barPoint bar

Denbury 3-D survey interpretation Hongliu Zeng, BEG

Baseline Cross Well tomogramBaseline Cross Well tomogramF1F2F3

West EastEast

112 m

Z-Seis & Tom Daley Jonathan Franklin in review at LBNL

Upward fining fluvial sandstone and conglomerates of the lower Tuscaloosa Fm

Confining zone Reservoirg Reservoir

Jiemin Lu BEG

Go to the 5km

HiVITP II Obs well

field to test

Injector

Psite

Producer (monitoring point)GMT

Phase II

Observation WellGMT

Pipeline head&Separation facility

Model –history match pressure at real time monitoring well

BEG Observation well

at real-time monitoring well

600010,000

12,000

14,000

Msc

fd)

CFU 29-10 CFU 29-12CFU 26-1 CFU 25-2

CFU 24-2 CFU 29-2CFU 28-1 CFU 27-1CFU 29-4 CFU 48-1

CFU 29-7

Injection ratesResults of 1 year modelcontinuous pressure data

5500

i)

4,000

6,000

8,000

CO

2 in

ject

ion

rate

(M

5000

sure

(psi

-

2,000

7/1/2008 8/20/2008 10/9/2008 11/28/2008 1/17/2009 3/8/2009 4/27/2009 6/16/2009

Date

Rock and fluid properties in simulator

4500

Pres

s

Measurement

Calculated

Rock and fluid properties in simulator

Obs well EGL7

Simplified CO2 injection rate4000

Calculated

Modeled pressureMeasured pressure

2/22/2008 11/18/2010 8/14/2013 5/10/2016 2/4/2019

Date

7/2008 12/2009JP Nicot Jong Won Choi BEG

Using pressure to show no leakage

surface

S f iSurface casingCemented in

Injection zone

Remaining open annulus between

k d i essu

re

zone

AMZIrock and casing=Potential leakage path for CO2 or displaced brine?

Non-cementedlong string

Pre

Cement to

AZMITime

S l N fl id i ti

Add CO2 for

Cement to isolate

Production/

Seal = No fluid communication

Add CO2 for EORinjection

zone

5km

HiVIT Look in Detail at Flow

PsiteFlow

Detailed Study Area (DAS)

InjectorDASGMT

Phase II Area (DAS)

j

Producer (monitoring point)

DASGMTPipeline head&Separation facility

( g p )Observation Well

GIS base Tip Meckel

DAS MonitoringDAS MonitoringInjectorCFU 31F1

Obs CFU 31 F2

Obs CFU 31 F3CFU 31F1 CFU 31 F2 CFU 31 F3

Above-zoneCl l d ll Above-zonemonitoringF1 F2 F3

Above Zone Monitoring

Closely spaced well array to examine flow in complex reservoir

10,500 feet BSL

reservoir

Injection Zone

68m

112 mPetrel model Tip Meckel

Phase III Research Observation well construction for both wells

U-tube sampler1/4 “SS

2 7/8” tubing

Cross well array in two wells1/4 SS

Seismic sources/receivers

Cross well array in two wellsHigh injection volumesFar-field monitoring microseismic, P&T, chemistry, surface seismic

BHP+ T

P&T, chemistry, surface seismic

ERT – 20 electrodes

Casing-conveyed pressure sensor

200’

Fiberglass non-conductive casing

Tuscaloosa DETuscaloosa DE

100’

Distributed temperatureand heater loop

BEG LBNL LLNL USGS ORNL Sandia Technologies

Probabilistic realization of permeability

Jong-won Choi and JP Nicot BEG

First breakthrough time at well F2 for each of the 10 permeability fields

Breakthrough time at F20.4

Set #1 at Ly14 (12/16/2009)

Set #2 at Ly17(12/20/2009)

0.3

n

Set #3 at Ly17(12/8/2009)

Set #4 at Ly10(12/15/2009)

Set #5 at Ly19(12/29/2009)

Set #6 at Ly10(12/23/2009)

0.2

Gas

sat

urat

ion y ( )

Set #7 at Ly10(12/23/2009)

Set #8 at Ly10(12/7/2009)

Set #9 at Ly7(12/7/2009)

0.1Set #10 at Ly10(12/11/2009)

0

12/1/09

12/3/09

12/5/09

12/7/09

12/9/09

12/11/09

12/13/09

12/15/09

12/17/09

12/19/09

12/21/09

12/23/09

12/25/09

12/27/09

12/29/09

12/31/09

1/2/10

1/4/10

1/6/10

DateDate

Jong-won Choi and JP Nicot BEG

Start injection at DAS Dec 1, 2009175 kg/min step up to 350kg/min

Start injection at DAS Dec 1, 2009175 kg/min step up to 520 kg/min

bar psi

Injector BHP Observation well BHP

ssur

e

400

p

hole

pre

sB

otto

m

340

El d ti

Dec 1 It’s all about pressure

Elapsed time

Today at DASToday at DAS• Mass flow increased to 507

k / i b 327 k / ikg/min above 327 kg/min averageI j ti ll BHP 5 818 i• Injection well BHP 5,818 psi above 5793 psiBPT i j ti ll 162 d• BPT injection well 162 degrees F (252 F original)

Measuring distribution of CO2 in the reservoir

• Well-based methods– Wireline logs in time lapse -RSTg p– Temperature

C ll th d• Cross well methods– Time- lapse ERT– Time – lapse acoustic (seismic)

Wireline Formation Evaluation - ELAN – RST CFU 31 – F#3

GRWashouts

RSTCO2

ResistivityOHPorosity Sigma

RSTPorosity

Perm

CO2 VolumeSaturation

RST12/12/09

RST12/15/09

RST12/31/09

Bob Butch

What happened at the wells?pp

packerat

ion packer

n w

ell F

2

Wel

l F1

n w

ell F

3

into

form

Dec 1pressure

serv

atio

n

ectio

n W

serv

atio

n

O2

flow

s i

changes right away, but no CO2

ObsInje

Obs

Dec

1 C

OD

Day 9y

packerat

ion packer

Dec 9

n w

ell F

2

Wel

l F1

n w

ell F

3

into

form

Dec 9CO2 detected in top of well interval

serv

atio

n

ectio

n W

serv

atio

n

O2

flow

s i interval

ObsInje

Obs

Dec

1 C

OD

Day 13y

packer

atio

n packer

Dec 13 still

n w

ell F

2

Wel

l F1

into

form

Dec 13 still minor amounts ofCO2 detected in top of well

Dec 13CO2 detected in top of well

serv

atio

n

ectio

n W

ell F

3

O2

flow

s i top of well

interval and maybe some thin zones

top of well interval and maybe some thinzones

ObsInje

rvat

ion

we

Dec

1 C

O zones

Obs

erD

Day 31y

packer

g

packer

Dec 30 large

Wel

l F1

ectio

n lo

gw

in

art

Dec 30 large amounts ofCO2 detected in well interval and

Dec 31 large amounts ofCO detected in

ectio

n W

may

inje

larg

e flo

wup

per p

a well interval and some thick zones in lower part of formation

CO2 detected in well interval upper part of formation

Inje

formation

wel

l F2

wel

l F3

w w

Cross Well ERT tells us how flow occurred

odes

ctro

des

x

x F3 e

lect

ro

ell F

2 el

ec SecondResistive plume out of

Direction of CO plume

x

x

x on w

ell F

vatio

n w

e psection migration

CO2 plume x

x

x 50ft

Obs

erva

tio

Obs

erv

Injectorx O

Resistive plume = CO2 in reservoir

Charles Carrigan, LLNL Conductive plume= workover fluids?

p

High frequency fluid sampling via U tubevia U-tube

yields data on flow processes80%

90%

100%

CH4

CO2

y pBreakthrough of

D bl

50%

60%

70%

CEN

TRA

TIO

N of CO2

Additional flow paths – more

Double injection rate

Originallybrine methane

10%

20%

30%

40%

CO

NC

methane extracted saturated

0%11/29/09 0:00 12/4/09 0:00 12/9/09 0:00 12/14/09 0:00 12/19/09 0:00 12/24/09 0:00 12/29/09 0:00 1/3/10 0:00

SAMPLING TIME

Small diameter sampler with N2 drive brings fluids quickly tosurface with tracers intactCO2 dissolution into brine liberates dissolved CH4

BEG, LBNL, USGS, ORNL, UTDoG, data compiled by Changbing Yang BEG

CO2 dissolution into brine liberates dissolved CH4

5km

HiVIT Is it possible to find leakage at

P Sitefind leakage at

surface ? P-Site tests

InjectorGMT

Phase II tests

j

Producer (monitoring point)

GMTPipeline head&Separation facility

DAS

( g p )Observation Well

Assessment of near surface techniques“P Site”

Trans 4

road“P Site”

1‐BG4‐02

Trans 1

PitPadPlants

1‐001‐011‐02

1‐03

1‐04 3‐01

Trans 1AWP&A well

1‐05

2‐01

3‐02 4‐011950’s pit

2‐02

T 2Trans 2Trans 3

Preliminary Soil Gas data

CO2 (vol %)

CH4 (vol %)

O2 (vol %)O2 (vol %)

Pressure (inches H2O)(inches H2O)

Katherine Romanak and Changbing Yang, BEG

Interim Conclusions of Study at Cranfield

Ph III 1 illi t / t hi d D 20 2009• Phase III 1 million ton/year rate achieved Dec 20, 2009, 2 Million tones monitored since July 2008

• Rate to be maintained >15 monthsRate to be maintained >15 months• Monitored with standard and novel approaches

– History match pressure responsey p p– No leakage into Above-Zone Monitoring Interval– Fluid flow measured/monitored with multiple tools in complex

flow fieldflow field– First US use of Electrical Resistance Tomography (ERT) for

sequestrationQ antification of dissol tion– Quantification of dissolution

• Export to commercial EOR/sequestration projects