Geophysical monitoring offshore: past, present and future

Transcription

1 Geophysical monitoring offshore: past, present and future 3rd International Workshop on Offshore Geologic CO2 Storage 3-4 May 2018, Oslo, Norway Philip Ringrose Statoil Research & Technology, Norway Statoil ASA

2 Norway CCS: Building on experience Snøhvit CCS operational since 2008 Norwegian CCS value chain project ( ) CO 2 capture test centre (TCM) operational since 2012 Sleipner CCS operational since years of operations Building confidence in CCS >21 Mt CO 2 stored New full-scale CCS project operational in

3 Sleipner Summary Utsira Formation Summary Net/gross: 0.98 Porosity: % Permeability > 1 D ~ 200 m thick GR TVD (m) DT Insights from geophysical time-lapse monitoring 1000 m Injection point 855 Top Utsira Two Way Time [ms] Kiær et al Injector Producers 915 3

4 Sleipner monitoring programme overview Past: experimental learning phase 2015 Re-permitting Present: Regulatory compliance 1996: Injection start 2018: 17Mt Future of monitoring? Seismic Gravimetry Visual monitoring Chemical sampling 4 From Furre et al. (2017)

5 Snøhvit Monitoring Overview Continued and confirmed the value of 4D seismic monitoring Demonstrated value of downhole P/T gauges Developed operational value of monitoring Value of monitoring: Reservoir management / operations Regulatory compliance Seismic sections Down-hole pressure data Top Fuglen Fm. Perforations Increasing amplitude Base Tubåen Fm Seismic Survey 4D (Amplitude difference) 5 From Hansen et al., 2013, Pawar et al., 2015

6 The Norwegian CCS Demonstration project Smeaheia site Smeaheia OSLO EGE Energy Recycling plant, Oslo Yara Ammonia plant, Porsgrunn Norcem Cement Factory, Brevik Future monitoring needs to be: Cost-effective Smart 6

7 What are the smart offshore monitoring solutions? Developments in the offshore oil and gas sector include: 1. Increasing use of permanent reservoir monitoring (PRM) systems 2. Increasing use of downhole fibre monitoring 3. Use of advanced AUVs for environmental monitoring, 4. Use of advanced and integrated data analysis (digital world) Challenges for CO 2 storage monitoring: Is it fit for purpose? Is it affordable? Subsea solutions Permanent sensors Advanced data analysis 7

8 Learning from onshore test sites CaMI Field Research Station (FRS) in Alberta, Canada: Unique opportunity to develop and test monitoring technologies and integrated monitoring systems. Useful to build experience that could be taken offshore blue = helical DAS fibre black = straight DAS fibre yellow = ERT cables Images courtesy of Don Lawton, U. Calgary 8

9 Working ideas for future offshore monitoring 1. Marine-streamer seismic acquisition good baseline, fewer repeats 2. More use of downhole fibre-based monitoring - DTS/DAS 3. Development of trigger survey concepts survey only if anomaly is detected 4. Environmental monitoring programme using smart AUV based sensors 5. Advanced data analysis Integrate multi-physics data, continuous/real-time Challenges: Cost model (PRM needs upfront investment) Fibre-optic deployment in subsea injectors Handling multiple monitoring objectives M E Continuous well monitoring (P-gauges and DAS/DTS) E E M T? T? M T? M E Trigger survey? M Environmental survey Marine seismic survey Sparse PRM/OBN Extended PRM/OBN Start injection End injection Hand-over 9

10 Value of permanent reservoir monitoring systems PRM for CO 2 storage has several potential benefits: Continuous monitoring data More frequent repeat surveys Improved imaging of reservoir and overburden Passive listening (seismicity) Use of ambient noise methods Combining down-hole sensing with surface seismic Monitor geomechanics and plume Enables advanced processing (FWI, SWI, microseismic) But it costs more so can we trim the costs and demonstrate the value? PRM study: Illumination hitmap at Top Sognefjord reservoir and at shallow overburden level (seabed plus 200m) from 2km x 2km seabed array (Roger Bakke, Statoil). 10 From Ringrose et al. (to be presented at GHGT-14 in 2018)

11 Conclusion How can we make monitoring smart and affordable? Will CO 2 storage move into the digital age? My Smart-phone With CO 2 app(?) CO 2 C-Store 11

12 References Furre, A. K., Eiken, O., Alnes, H., Vevatne, J. N., & Kiær, A. F. (2017). 20 years of monitoring CO2-injection at Sleipner. Energy Procedia, 114, Hansen, O., Gilding, D., Nazarian, B., Osdal, B., Ringrose, P., Kristoffersen, J. B.,... & Hansen, H. (2013). Snøhvit: The history of injecting and storing 1 Mt CO2 in the fluvial Tubåen Fm. Energy Procedia, 37, Kiær, A. F., Eiken, O., & Landrø, M. (2016). Calendar time interpolation of amplitude maps from 4D seismic data. Geophysical Prospecting, 64(2), Pawar, R. J., Bromhal, G. S., Carey, J. W., Foxall, W., Korre, A., Ringrose, P. S.,... & White, J. A. (2015). Recent advances in risk assessment and risk management of geologic CO 2 storage. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 40,