IEA-GHG Summer School Svalbard Aug 2010

Transcription

1 Efficient CGS Risk Management Claude Roulet Claude Roulet IEA-GHG Summer School Svalbard Aug 2010

2 Efficient CGS Risk Management CGS in CCS value chain CGS workflow Site characterization Risk Management process MMV Conclusion 2

3 CCS Value Chain -1 CCS: Complex operation involving: Several phases Multiple l operating companies Multiple stakeholders PPP ( public-private-partnership) Regulatory framework Elaborated financing scheme Long Term Insurance Protection policies and Liability Transfer Mechanism CCS Phases: Capture (Pre-combustion/Post-combustion/Oxyfuel) Conditioning (Purification, Compression ) Transport (Pipeline, Train, Truck, Ship) Geological Storage (Site Characterization & Selection, Injection, Containment, Monitoring, Closure, Post Closure Control, Surveillance) Global Water Management (supply, disposal, GW protection) Need for Integrated Project Management 3

4 CCS Value Chain - 2 Capture The costs The uncertainty Storage Storage Capture The different actors have different business models 4

5 CGS: CO 2 Geological Storage Complex system: Storage reservoir Containment layer (s) Overburden, incl. USDW Biosphere Atmosphere Complex process: Site characterization Site selection Exploration & Storage permit Injection & Monitoring Closure } Surveillance Monitoring i & Liability Transfer Post- Closure 5

6 abandoned well injection well CO 2 injected monitoring well OVERBURDEN potable aquifer ultimate t seal secondary reservoir migration secondary accumulation Fault primary seal primary reservoir CO 2 plume 2 p RESERVOIR STORAGE COMPLEX

7 Going from Basin to Storage Site Area of Review (AOR) Country Regional ft ft. 300 miles Local sand sand sand sand sand 10 miles 10 miles sand 300 miles. 10 miles AOR Concept 7

8 Carbon Storage WorkFlow Development CO 2 Injection Closure Appraisal / Characterization Post closure Performance Management & Risk Control Pre Selection Post liability transfer Pre-injection Injection Post-injection 8

9 Finding the Right Storage Site What do we need? Capacity Injectivity Containment Other Criteria Environment Infrastructure Legal The amount of CO 2 that can be The ease with which the CO 2 can The ability to store CO 2 safely and safely stored be injected permanently Public opinion Economics The best risk reduction approach is to choose the right site in the first place! 9

10 Site Characterization Workflow Capacity 3D Cellular Geological Model Pore Volume Connectivity Data Collection & QC Sequence, stratigraphy & property model Dynamic Modeling (flow, geomechanics, geochemistry) Injectivity Reservoir quality Geometry Connectivity Containment Geophysics / Geology Petrophysics / Mineralogy Geomechanics Fluid Properties Well Integrity Seal potential, migration pathways and trapping mechanisms Geomechanics Fault Stability Sustainable fluid pressure Well integrity Zonal isolation Hydrodynamics Formation water flow systems From CO2CRC Latrobe Valley Study 1 0

11 Capacity Trapping Mechanisms Structural / Hydrodynamic Residual gas saturation Dissolution and dissociation CO 2 sc CO 2 aq CO 2 aq+ H 2 O H 2 CO 3 H 2 CO 3 H + + HCO - 3 HCO 3- H + + CO 2-3 Mineralization Formation of: Carbonate minerals: Calcite - CaCO 3 Siderite - FeCO 3 Alumino - carbonates Dawsonite - Adsorption on coal NaAl(CO 3 )(OH) 2

12 Injectivity Permeability Core Logs Formation testers Well tests Injection induced near-wellbore effects Dry-out Salt precipitation Carbonate dissolution The Reservoir Dry-out Simulation near the Wellbore is crucial for Injectivity Prediction Dry-out Zone CO 2 Reactive Transport Fluid Phases Equilibration Mitigation Injection well design and number Hydraulic fracturing Gas Saturation

13 Containment Caprock & Overburden Hydrostratigraphy ti Composition Mechanical properties Flow properties Faults Transmissibility Mechanical Properties Wells Completions state Degradation mechanisms Importance of reservoir geomechanics and evaluation of wells (from Damen et al, 2003) (from Latrobe Valley study, CO2CRC, 2005) 1 3

14 Controlling the risks Containment THE storage issue: Failure of sealing cap rock Permeable faults and fractures Migration along wellbores Capacity Injectivity Containment Risk reduction through: Choosing the right site Detailed characterization Comprehensive modelling Ongoing monitoring Risk mitigation through: Remediation methodologies & overall risk-based approach 14

15 CGS- Risk Management Vision: Prevention 3 phases: Risk assessment: identification, characterization, quantification, ranking (CBA- Cost Based Analysis) Risk mitigation: Definition of economically viable solutions as per priority list Input to monitoring plan design and operation MMV Risk contingency management Contingency planning & remediation/corrective measures for exceptional / one-time events with potential HSE impact 15

16 Performance Analysis LCA (Life Cycle Approach) aim : evaluate, control and maintain expected performance of storage site Performance: measure of injectivity, capacity and containment effectiveness Risk : loss of performance with impact on Health & Safety, environment, cost, image, System Life Cycle Select Characterize Design Construct Prepare Inject Decommission Survey PreOperation - Phase 1-2 year(s) Operation Phase years Post-Operation Phase 100+ years 16

17 Performance Analysis Methodology - 1 First step: Initial Site Characterization based on preliminary performance assessment Collection of relevant data available, interpretation & identification of main uncertainties Initial site Characterization ( capacity, injectivity, containment). Initial risks pathways identification and qualitative assessment Second step: Detailed site characterization Acquisition of new data to build detailed subsurface static and dynamic models Identification of mid/long-term system evolution vs loss of performance Description of risk pathways and scenarios 17

18 Example of Risk Pathways CO 2 Potable Water Monitoring well Abandoned well Injector well Fractures Fault Caprock Deep Saline Formation 18

19 Performance Analysis Methodology - 2 For each risk pathway, assessment of: probability of occurrence (analysis/simulations, field data, expert judgment) severity of consequences (impact on costs, health, safety, environment, image) Dynamic analysis of representative risk pathways by simulation models, propagation of associated uncertainties and sensitivity analysis. Risk pathways ranking according to their criticality Recommend remediation actions (prevention/mitigation) and assessment of their impact Design of implementation program for selected remediation actions in short, mid and long term (e.g. CO2 resistant cement, type of monitoring, etc.). Regular analysis update to address changes in the system and to reduce uncertainties through new input data (e.g. monitoring, ) 1 9

20 Measuring & Modeling for Performance Management Measurements (Characterization) Seismic Well data Core lab measurements - CO 2 Migration - CO 2 Trapping mechanisms - Caprock Capoc failure aue - Fault re-activation - Well materials degradation Modeling Structure Properties Dynamic Tool Response - Sensor selection and specification - Sensor response prediction - Measurement interpretation - Model update and calibration Performance Management Capacity & trapping kinetics Injectivity Containment Risk Assessment Measurement (Monitoring) CO2 Injection CO2 Location & Displacement Storage Integrity - Monitoring sensor placement Well/Field Design Intervention Remediation 20

21 Risk Pathways Ranking Atmosphere Atmosphere Aquifer Living Rural Caprock fracture Injection well Abandoned well Caprock fault Formation -25 to to to -5-4to -2-1 Light BLACK RED NON-OPERABLE: Evacuate the zone and or area/country INTOLERABLE: Do not take this risk YELLOW UNDESIRABLE: Demonstrate ALARP before proceeding GREEN ACCEPTABLE: Proceed carefully, with continuous improvement BLUE NEGLIGIBLE: Safe to proceed MITIGATION Control Measures PREVENTION -1 Improbable -1 1L Unlikely -2 2L Possible -3 3L Likely -4 4L Probable LIKELIHOOD -5 5L Serious Scenario 1: Well leakage -> Aquifer contamination Scenario 2: Well leakage -> Release on surface Major M Scenario 3: Fault re-activation -> Soil acidification Scenario 4: Cap rock fracturing -> Aquifer contamination Effect of uncertainties (e.g. cap rock fracture pressure) Catastrophic -2-4 Multi-Catastrophic -5 SEVERITY -2 1S 1C -5 1MC -4 1S -6 2M 2C -10 2MC -6 3S 3-9 3M C -15 3MC White arrow indicates decreasing risk 2-8 4S -12 4M -16 4C -20 4MC -10 5S -15 5M -20 5C -25 5MC 21

22 Performance Analysis deliverables Identification of the information needed for a complete analysis and of the needs for further characterization of features or properties Potential risk pathways Uncertainties on the results and their importance Risk pathways ranking List of remediation actions and their effectiveness Remediation actions implementation program Directions for Maintenance Plan (preventive, on-condition, corrective) Directions for Contingency Plan Key outcome: Design of optimum Monitoring Program 22

23 Reducing Uncertainty & Risk over time Uncertainty & Risk Characterisation Simulation Site Design & Monitoring Strategy Certification at start Injection start Uncertainty & Risk Monitoring i Simulation Intervention & Remediation Injection stop Transfer of liabilities Time 23

24 Main Remediation Action - Monitoring Program Measurement, Monitoring and Verification (MMV) primary means through h which h the safe and effective storage of CO 2 in geological formations can be established. 24

25 CO 2 Monitoring 3 objectives monitoring well Freshwater freshwate #3: Monitor the environment r aquifer r fracture cap d Containme nt rock #1: Watch stored CO 2 injection well Injection well Sealed open fault fractur e #2: Watch possible leakage paths monitoring well Monitoring well leakin Well wel g Integrity l abandoned well Old well spill point Spill points Monitoring well 25

26 Storage Performance - Pressure footprint reservoir free CO 2 pressure Southern North Sea: Aquifer injection on flank of closed structure: 10 Mt/year for 50 years Courtesy BGS CO 22 injection starts ends Large pressure footprint mostly restricted to injection phase 26

27 Key Points From Lessons Learnt Best risk minimization approach: CHOOSE RIGHT SITE FIRST Static and Dynamic characterization: capacity, injectivity, containment Identification, characterization, ranking of main risk pathways Design and implementation of remedial solutions Design and operation of MMV with regular update Design of contingency plan 27

28 THANK YOU!