Get documents about "Objectives
Shared by: zhangyun
-
Stats
- views:
- 10
- posted:
- 9/23/2011
- language:
- English
- pages:
- 29
Document Sample
Gulf Coast Carbon Center
Industry-Academic Research Partnership
Assessment of options for carbon capture and sequestration
in an area of large sources and large geologic capacity
Geologic Sequestration Emplaces Dense-Phase
CO2 in Pore Systems in Rock
To reduce CO2 emissions
to air from point sources..
CO2 is captured as concentrated
is currently burned and high pressure fluid by one of several
emitted to air methods..
CO2 is shipped as dense-phase
fluid via pipeline to a selected,
permitted injection site
CO2 injected at pressure into
Carbon extracted pore space at depths
from a coal or other below and isolated (sequestered)
fossil fuel… from potable water.
CO2 stored in pore space
over geologically
significant time frames.
Who is the Gulf Coast Carbon Center?
Industry Sponsors Hosted by:
Staff
New Members
Sempra, Shell, TXU
Fayette Power Plant (LCRA/Austin Energy)
Gulf Coast Carbon Center
Collaborations
• DOE funded Southeast Regional Carbon
Sequestration Partnership (SECARB) led by
Southern States Energy Board
– $4.9 M Phase II “Stacked Storage” = EOR+Brine
storage
– $35M “early” demonstration with Denbury Resources
Cranfield Mississippi
– Sponsored projects –SE US power companies
• DOE funded Southwest Regional Carbon
Sequestration Partnership (SWCARB) led by
New Mexico Tech
– Project at SACROC hosted by KinderMorgen
GCCC Strategic Plan 2007-2010
Goal 1: To educate the next generation of carbon
management professionals and regulators
Goal 2: To develop selection criteria for
commercial CO2 sequestration sites
Goal 3: To define an adequate and reliable
monitoring and verification strategy applicable to
long term storage
Goal 4: Evaluation of sources risk and liability
potentially associated with CO2 sequestration
Goal 5: Evaluation of economic potential of CO2 to
enhance oil and gas recovery in the Gulf Coast
Goal 6: Development of market framework and
economic models for CO2 capture and storage in
the Gulf Coast
Goal 7: GCCC service and training to partners
Goal 1: Educate the Next Generation of Carbon
Management Professionals and Regulators
• Support from Jackson School of
Geosciences
• Student training
• Post-doc program
• Internships and visiting scientists
– Rebekah Lee - Oxford University –public
acceptance survey
Goal 2: Develop Selection Criteria for Commercial CO2
Sequestration Sites
GASIFIER SITING
(IGCC)
Vanessa Nunez and Mark Holtz
INPUTS OUTPUTS CO2 SINK INFRASTRUCTURE SUPPORT PERMITTING
AIR QUALITY
FEEDSTOCK
DEMAND AND PUBLIC / PRIVATE
(AVAIL., TRANSP. GEOLOGIC CHAR. TRANSPORTATION
MARKET SUPPORT
COSTS)
PLANT SITE
WATER COMMITED TRANSMISSION FINANCIAL
(AVAILABILITY, VOL., RIGHTS
CONTRACTS LINES INCENTIVES INJECTION SITE
COST, QUALITY)
Objective 2.1: Guidance Manual
•Create a rigorous, comprehensive manual with pragmatic guidance in non-
technical language on best practices for selecting a geologic sequestration site
in brine-bearing formations (saline aquifers).
•Guidance derived in part from assessments of sites for Texas FutureGen –
two successful sites selected.
Objective 2.2: Reduce current uncertainty in
estimates of the capacity of brine formations
for CO2 storage
Storage in coal
Participation in DOE Regional Carbon Storage in brine
Sequestration National Atlas
www.natcarb.org
Development of advanced methods
for capacity assessment
Storage in oil
JeanPhillipe Nicot and
and gas
Srivatsan Lakasminisarihan
Rebecca Smyth
500
800
Injection rate
700
400
Injection Rate (Mt CO 2/yr)
Total Water Flux (Mm 3/yr)
600
500 300
400 Total water flux at 30 km
200
300 Total water flux at 100 km
200
100
100
0 0
0 250 500 750 1000
Time from Start of Injection (years)
Options for Estimating Capacity
• Volumetric approach: Total pore volume x
Risk-based Volumetric
Efficiency factor (E)
– Free CO2 volume in structural and stratigraphic traps
– Trapped CO2 residual phase
• Volume dissolved
• Volume that can be stored beneath an area
constrained by surface uses or by other
unacceptable risks – well fields, faults
• Maximum pressure as a limit on capacity
• Displaced water as a limit on capacity
Effect of Depth of Formation in Storage
Volume injected/pore volume
Capacity
• Increased capacity with depth of formation
almost entirely due to higher safe injection
Goal 3: Define an Adequate and Reliable
Monitoring and Verification Strategy
Applicable to Long Term Storage
• Objective 3.1: Evaluate existing approaches for
monitoring and verification of CO2 storage in brine
formations by assessing sensitivity, accuracy and
precision of tools relative to plausible leakage
signals.
• Objective 3.2: To Develop and evaluate innovative
technologies for “Early Warning” detection of CO2
leakage
• Objective 3.3: Test an innovative approach to
monitoring and verification of CO2 storage by
combining measurements of deformation with
geomechanical modeling.
Goal 3: Field Tests of Monitoring and Verification
Technologies
Proposed
East Texas Field project #2
Frio Test Site
FutureGen Site in process
Cranfield
SACROC
Proposed
West Texas
FutureGen Site
Frio Brine Pilot near Houston TX
Observation well
Injection well
Injection Well Observation Well
U-tubes
Downhole P and T 30
m
RST logs
Tubing hung
seismic source
and hydrophones
Early Warning Monitoring Options
• Atmosphere
– Ultimate receptor but dynamic
• Biosphere
Atmosphere – Assurance of no damage but
Biosphere dynamic
• Soil and Vadose Zone
Vadose zone & soil – Integrator but dynamic
• Aquifer and USDW
Aquifer and USDW – Integrator, slightly isolated from
ecological effects
• Above injection monitoring zone
– First indicator, monitor small
signals, stable.
Seal
• In injection zone - plume
Monitoring Zone – Oil-field type technologies. Will
not identify small leaks
Seal • In injection zone - outside plume
– Assure lateral migration of CO2
CO2 plume and brine is acceptable
In-house software development for fault/fracture
stability analyses
Assessing Pressure and Tilt
tip
Goal 4: Evaluation of Sources Risk and
Liability Potentially Associated with CO2
Sequestration
• Objective 4.1: Write a primer based on literature review
on risk and liability potentially associated with CO2
sequestration in the Gulf Coast
• Objective 4.2: To develop a predictive ability to evaluate
the risk of leakage of a seal for a brine formation during
and after injection.
• Objective 4.2: Assess the effectiveness of “phase
trapping” nonwetting-phase residual saturation in
lowering leakage risk in long term under various injection
conditions.
• Objective 4.3 Assess the risk of CO2 storage in brine
reservoirs to the quality of fresh water resources
Non-wetting Residual Phase
Trapping Mechanism
Land surface
Capture
> 800 m
Seal = capillary or
pressure barrier to flow
CO2
Injection Zone
Risk to Underground Sources of
Drinking Water Capture Land surface
> 800 m
Hypothesized
CO2 leak path Hypothesized
Brine leak path
CO2
Injection Zone
Preliminary Analysis of Risk to
Drinking Water from CO2 leakage
U 1
2
30 3
20 4
10 5
6
0
7
-10 0 2 4 6 8
8
-20
9
Corrine Wong Sample
10
Goal 5: Evaluation of Economic Potential of
CO2 to Enhance Oil and Gas Recovery in the
Gulf Coast
• Objective 5.1: To create more accurate
predictions of oil-production and CO2
usage for CO2 EOR floods in Gulf Coast
clastic reservoirs
• Objective 5.2: Quantify the sequestration
potential and feasibility of enhanced gas
recovery potential for depleted gas
reservoirs in Texas.
Simplified Model Using Dimensionless Groups for Rapid
Assessment of CO2 Flooding and Storage in Gulf Coast
Reservoirs
• Model can be applied
to candidate Gulf CO2 Injection and Production
Coast reservoirs in 4.00E+09
BEG database –
Volume (SCF)
3.00E+09
limited data on many 2.00E+09
Injected
reservoirs 1.00E+09
Produced
• Potential for use by 0.00E+00
small and big 0 25 50 75 100 125
Time (days)
operators alike to
quickly identify best
reservoirs
Derek Wood, Larry Lake
Derek Woods Larry lake
Improving Economic Assessment (EOR)
Mark Holtz and others
Decision Tree for Screening Candidate Reservoirs
Bureau of Economic Geology
Oil-
reservoir
data base Candidate
Cumulative
reservoir
production
> 1 MMSTB
Minimum
miscibility
Rejected Pressure (depth,
temperature,
pressure, oil
character)
Rejected Reservoir
depth
>6000 ft
Rejected Has reservoir
been
waterflooded?
Does reservoir
have water-
drive
Bureau
of
mechanism?
Economic
Geology
Rejected
QAc4748x
Recovery Efficiency of Sandstone Reservoirs from
Enhanced Oil Recovery Projects (1980’s)
Bureau of Economic Geology
7
Single well huff ’n’ puff Submarine fan
6
Barrier/strandplain
Fluvial/deltaic
5
14.5 %, Paradis, LA, Texaco
4
17%, Little Creek, MS, Denbury (2004)
3 Quarantine Bay, LA, Chevron
2
1
0
0 6 12 18 24 30 36 42
QAc4237c
Recovery efficiency (percent)
CO2 sequestration capacity in miscible oil
reservoirs along the Gulf Coast
Bureau of Economic Geology
Goal 6: Development of Market Framework and
Economic Models for CO2 Capture and Storage
in the Gulf Coast
• Objective 6.1: Provide to the GCCC
partners scenarios and analysis of the
policy options under consideration at the
State and Federal levels.
• Objective 6.2: To model possible
evolutionary pathways for CO2 pipeline
networks in the Gulf Coast and their
impact on CO2 value chains
Model possible evolutionary pathways for CO2
pipeline networks in the Gulf Coast and their
impact on CO2 Value Chains
Assessment by
Joseph Essandoh-Yeddu
Energy Commission, Ghana
Goal 7: GCCC Service and
Training to Partners
• Training tailored
to sponsor
requests
• Public materials
• Specific data sets
developed for
sponsors
Workshop for operators
Gulf Coast Carbon Center
www.gulfcoastcarbon.org
