Modeling and mapping the area of potential impact (AoPI) for Class VI CO 2 injection wells

Transcription

1 Modeling and mapping the area of potential impact (AoPI) for Class VI CO 2 injection wells Stephen Kraemer, Ph.D. Research Hydrologist U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Research and Development Athens, Georgia Ground Water Protection Council Annual Forum, Atlanta, Georgia, 26 September, 2011 Office of Research and Development, National Exposure Research Lab Ecosystems Research Division, Athens, Georgia

2 Disclaimer This material has been reviewed for presentation, and does not represent the policy of the US Environmental Protection Agency. Mention of commercial products does not indicate endorsement by the Agency. 2

3 How to cut CO 2 emissions? At least tripling atm CO 2 Avoid doubling Strategy for Reducing Emissions one wedge (1GtC/yr): carbon capture and storage (CCS): geologic sequestration (GS) 1957 Pacala, Socolow, Science, 2004 Today 2057 introduce systems to capture CO 2 and store it Stabilize atm underground at ppm large coal-fired plants or 1,600 natural-gas-fired plants. 3

4 CO 2 Stationary Sources electricity generation coal and natural gas NETL 2010 Atlas 4

5 Advantages and challenges of deep storage of CO 2 Benson, Cook, IPCC NETL,

6 Deep Saline Formations Illinois Basin Mt. Simon Sandstone NETL 2010 Atlas 6

7 Potential threats to underground sources of drinking water Birkholzer et al.,

8 EPA UIC Area of Review (AoR) computational/numerical modeling and mapping CO 2 front Guidance for permit applicant Critical pressure front AoR = MESPOP (maximum extent of the separate-phase p plume or the pressure front) 8

9 Area of Potential Impact (AoPI) semi-analytical modeling and mapping Block-diagram view Guidance for permit reviewer pressure influence threshold pressure CO 2 plume from Birkholzer et al., 2008 Plan view injection well unplugged well Primary seal and secondary traps and seals USDW (TDS<10,000 mg/l fresh CO 2 Cross-sectional view Storage Unit brine 9

10 Single Layer Concept Multi Layer Concept Zhou et al yes aquitard storage CAMELOT solver ope en or closed boundary web-based based framework TTim solver desktop framework GeoSequestration BAEM 10

11 Maximum extent CO 2 front Q vertically integrated approach CO 2 σ c, c brine k a, a σ b, b H a r (Nordbotten and Celia, JFM, 2006) 11

12 Pressure Influence (single aquifer) Q p W ( u); 4 KH 2 S r u 4KHt Q p is the change in pressure [FL -2 ] r Q is the injection rate (positive into the aquifer) [L 3 T -1 ] K is the hydraulic conductivity of the aquifer [L 2 ] S is the storativity of the aquifer [-] r is the radial distance from the center of the injection well [L] H is the aquifer thickness [L] t is time since injection started [T] W() is the well function K, S H Note: an equivalent (Theis, 1935) injection volume rate of brine is computed by dividing CO 2 mass rate of injection by CO 2 pressure, temperature. (Altunin, 1975). 12

13 Pressure influence continued no aquitard storage yes aquitard storage Hantush-Jacob Moench 1985 yes aquitard storage Z boun hou et al 2009 dary conditionn 13

14 e C Cincinnati Arch 1E Iowa Mississipp ppi River Arch Wisconsin Wisconsin Arch Groundwater Resources Region Kankakee Arch Thickness Mt. Simon (m) Ozark Dome Illinois ADM Site Core Injection Area Indiana Case Study Illinois Basin 20 hypothetical injection wells 5MtCO 2 /yr each Total 100 Mt/yr Missouri Kentucky Pascola Arch E E E E+06 Birkholzer, Zhou, IJGCC 2009 Zhou et al., GW, m TOUGH2/ECO2N 24 node Linux supercomputer Eau Clare seal Mt. Simon Sandstone 14

15 Pressure fronts --- basin scale, CO2 fronts --- local scale 0.1 pressure, bars 50 yrs CO2 saturation at 50 yrs E E+06 Birkholzer, Zhou, 2009 Zhou et al.,

16 Pressure influence, Mt. Simon fm, 50 yrs, semi-analytical, single phase solution, single layer AoPI AoR 5 1 G Site Location Pressure increase 0.1 bar 0.2 bar G 0.5 bar 1.0 bar 2.0 bar 50bar bar 20.0 bar 50.0 bar States Illinois Basin Counties Kilometers 16

17 Maximum extent threshold pressure fresh d w w z ti tc l saline H bi bc Bandilla, Kraemer, Birkholzer, under review static calculations - assume equilibrium density - assume uniform density 17

18 0.12 dynamic vs static threshold pressure 0.1 quifer (k kg/s) Flow Ra ate into A ce (m) Depth Below Surfac Wellbore Aquifer TOUGH2 Shale Pressure Buildup Boundary Condition Reservoir Radius (m) DP = 1 bar DP = 2 bar DP = 3 bar DP = 5 bar DP = 10 bar DP = 15 bar static threshold pressure equilibrium density = 2.1 bar uniform density=1.3 bar Birkholzer et al, 2011 Time (days) 18

19 Mark Bakker 19

20 Mark Bakker 20

21 8 7 6 Mark Bakker 21

22 Mark Bakker 22

23 Mark Bakker 23

24 GeoSequestration v0.2 - web interface Jay Rineer team 24

25 BAEM v0.1 desktop interface BASINS Analytic Element Model Jay Rineer team CAMELOT plug-in TTim plug-in Matt Tonkin team 25

26 Single Layer Concept Zho ou et al yes aquitard storage CAMELOT solver open or close ed boundary AoPI Tools for Regulators pressure influence threshold pressure Multi Layer Concept CO 2 plume TTim solver web-based b framework desktop framework BAEM GeoSequestration 26