Central Appalachian Basin Unconventional Reservoir Small Scale CO 2 Injection Tests. Coalbed Methane and Shale

Transcription

1 Central Appalachian Basin Unconventional Reservoir Small Scale CO 2 Injection Tests Coalbed Methane and Shale Nino Ripepi, Michael Karmis, Ellen Gilliland, Charles Schlosser Virginia Center for Coal and Energy Research at Virginia Tech SSEB Annual Stakeholders Briefing March 8, 2018

2 Acknowledgments +3 Acknowledgments Financial assistance for this work was provided by the U.S. Department of Energy through the National Energy Technology Laboratory s Program under Contract No. DE-FE

3 Motivation for Test Carbon Capture, Utilization and Storage (CCUS) Utilization is key to make the business case make sense for carbon capture Previous funded Tests Russell County, VA 1,000 ton test Central Appalachian Geologic Characterization Black Warrior Basin, Alabama Regional need for CO2 Sink in Appalachia focused on Utilization Coal and Shale Adsorption of CO2 on the organic surface safe and secure CO2 can displace unrecovered methane and enhance recovery Infrastructure in place Low pressure

4 SECARB Phase II Previous Experience in Huff and Puff Test in Russell County, Virginia (2009) Production curve for huff-and-puff test well, Russell County, Virginia, ton CO 2 injection Stacked coal reservoir Evidence of preferential adsorption: elevated N 2 and CH 4 Enhanced CH 4 recovery at two offset wells, no CO 2 breakthrough EUR of test well has increased by 85 percent 4

5 65% of CO2 Retained in Russell County Test

6 SECARB Phase II Black Warrior Basin Test

7 Current Project Overview: Goals and Objectives Objectives: Inject up to 20,000 metric tons of CO2 into 3 vertical CBM wells over a one-year period in Central Appalachia Perform a small (approximately metric tons) Huff and Puff test in a horizontal shale gas well Goals Test the storage potential of unmineable coal seams and shale reservoirs Learn about adsorption and swelling behaviors (methane vs. CO2) Test the potential for enhanced coalbed methane (ECBM) and enhanced gas (EGR) production and recovery Major tasks: Phase I: site characterization, well coring, injection design Phase II: site preparation, injection operations Phase III: post-injection monitoring, data analysis, reservoir modeling

8 Research Partners Virginia Center for Coal and Energy Research (Virginia Tech) 1,2,3,4,5 Marshall Miller & Associates 2,3 Gerald Hill, Ph.D. 1,4 Southern States Energy Board 1,5 Virginia Dept. of Mines, Minerals and Energy 3 Geological Survey of Alabama 3 Sandia Technologies 3 Det Norske Veritas (DNV) 4 Consol Energy (Research Group) 2,3 Industrial Partners Consol Energy (CNX Gas) Harrison-Wyatt, LLC Emory River, LLC Dominion Energy Alpha Natural Resources Flo-CO2; Praxair; Trimeric 1 Project management 2 Operations 3 Research 4 Risk management 5 Outreach Collaborators Schlumberger Global Geophysical Services Oak Ridge National Laboratory University of Nottingham / British Geological Survey, University of Tennessee, University of Virginia, Southern Illinois University, Oklahoma State University 8

9 Shale CO 2 Injection Test (510 tons) Morgan County, Tennessee Horizontal well in Chattanooga Shale formation, drilled in 2009 Legacy producing gas well permitted under TDEC 510 tons for huff and puff injection test Injection period: March 18-31, 2014 (14 days) Shut-in period: March 31- July 29, 2014 Flowback period: July 29, present (~4 months) (~24 months) Current status: site closed 9

10 Shale CO 2 Injection Test in Morgan County, Tennessee Operations Overview Storage Vessel Injection Skid Propane Heater HW

11 Shale CO 2 Injection Test in Morgan County, Tennessee Operations Overview Propane Heater Storage Vessel Check valve Injection Skid Ball valve Tracer Injection Tee Check valve CO 2 Inlet HW-1003 Gate valve 11

12 Shale CO 2 Injection Test in Morgan County, Tennessee Flowback Results EGR: An increase versus baseline production Correlated production of hydrocarbons and CO 2 34 percent of injected CO 2 produced to date (173 tons)

13 Shale CO 2 Injection Test in Morgan County, Tennessee Results to Date Production of heavy hydrocarbons elevated from baseline values: Role of pressure, viscosity and adsorption/desorption processes Enhanced recoveryà implications for other shale plays 13

14 50% of CO2 Retained in Morgan County Test

15 CBM Injection Test Sites Russell and Buchanan Counties, VA Vansant 6/30/00 2/29/00 3/13/00 11/16/99 10/31/99 7/8/00 11/17/00 10/31/00 7 RIGHT BUCHANAN CO. en wp Pa Ke tle Lit Mt 4237' 3495' 2904' 4475' 4475' 4224' 3491' 2897' ult Fa lt au nf aw Test Site U D DICKENSON CO. Ru sse ll F ork Raven Fa ult ult CBM Injection Candidates CNX GAS CBM WELL EQT CBM WELL RANGE RESOURCES CBM WELL POCAHONTAS NO. 3 DEEP MINE SURFACE FAULTS QUADRANGLE BOUNDARIES TOWNS 0 5,000 SCALE IN FEET 10,000 ffa Bu ou lo M a Boissevain F lt au in F nta SECARB Pilot Injection Well RU-84 RUSSELL CO. Honaker

16 CO 2 INJECTION TEST IN BUCHANAN CO., VA 13,000-ton CO 2 injection thin, stacked coal seams Phase I: 10,601 tons Phase II: 2,662 tons Flowback: 210 tons

17 CBM CO 2 Injection Test in Buchanan County, VA Oakwood coalbed methane field Stacked coal reservoir, seams Tight shale and sandstone confining units Over 13,000 tons CO 2 injected in two distinct Phases injection over 17 months in three legacy wells CO 2 storage + Enhanced gas recovery US EPA Class II UIC Permit Current status: Post-injection monitoring. 17

18 CBM CO 2 Injection Test in Buchanan County, Virginia Reservoir Modeling Stratigraphic cross section through injection wells Hensley Shale (seal) Modeling Considerations: coal seams in injection zone Average seam thickness of 1.0 feet Depth range: feet Variable lateral continuity Lee Sandstone Intermediate and overlying seals Dynamic reservoir properties (active production operations) Multi-phase flow 18

19 6000 Production history for Buchanan County CO 2 -ECBM test injection wells Gas Production Rate (MCF/month) Higher production for DD7 à enhanced permeability on anticline Wells shut in for test 0 01/ / / / / / /2016 Date (month/year) DD7 DD7A DD8 19

20 CBM CO 2 Injection Test in Buchanan County, Virginia Reservoir Modeling CO 2 Injection simulations used to define Area of Review (AOR) for monitoring program DD7 DD8 (A) (B) 18-layer reservoir model DD7A 20

21 CBM CO 2 Injection Test in Buchanan County, Virginia Monitoring, Verification, and Accounting (MVA) Oakwood Field Demonstration Site MVA Focus Area Injection wells CBM production wells MVA boundaries Roads DD-7 DD-7A DD-8 Monitoring and characterization wells ¼-mile boundary ½-mile boundary Microseismic array (28 stns) GPS array (20 monuments) 21

22 CBM CO 2 Injection Test in Buchanan County, Virginia Monitoring, Verification, and Accounting (MVA) Oakwood Field Demonstration Site DD-7 M1 DD-8 DD-7A M2 C1 MVA Focus Area Injection wells CBM production wells MVA boundaries Roads Monitoring and characterization wells Microseismic array (28 stns) GPS array (20 monuments) 22

23 CBM CO 2 Injection Test in Buchanan County, Virginia Monitoring, Verification, and Accounting (MVA) Oakwood Field Demonstration Site MVA Focus Area Injection wells CBM production wells MVA boundaries Roads DD-7 DD-7A DD-8 Monitoring and characterization wells Microseismic array (28 stns) GPS array (20 monuments) 23

24 CBM CO 2 Injection Test in Buchanan County, Virginia Monitoring, Verification, and Accounting (MVA) Oakwood Field Demonstration Site MVA Focus Area Injection wells CBM production wells MVA boundaries Roads DD-7 DD-7A DD-8 Monitoring and characterization wells Microseismic array (28 stns) GPS array (20 monuments) 24

25 CBM CO 2 Injection Test in Buchanan County, Virginia Monitoring, Verification, and Accounting (MVA) MVA Approach Borehole-scale technologies: Pressure/Temperature Gas/H2O composition Tracers/Isotopes Formation logging Technologies deployed over large areal extents: Microseismic/TFI Surface deformation measurement (GPS + InSAR) Combination of technologies will provide data sets with overlapping spatial and temporal scales. Data will help distinguish signals from CO 2 operations vs. active CBM operations Data sets will cross validate each other Selected technologies to address/overcome challenges of reservoir geometry and terrain 25

26 Continuous, Real-time Monitoring Monitoring and Characterization Wells Surface and Downhole Pressure and Temperature Gauges *(Higher CO2 content in shallow coals and higher ethane content in deeper coals) 26

27 Surface Deformation Measurement Time-lapse GPS Data Direct sensing/ ground reference Stations within and outside AOR Survey assembly: 4-ft borehole, 6-in diameter Steel rod secured with cement and rebar CHC X90-OPUS receivers Data collection: variable occupation time (hours); accuracy tradeoff Accuracy: mm-scale 27

28 Project Timeline Two Injection Phases CO 2 Injection Phase I CO 2 Injection Phase II Pre-injection Soak Post-injection End of Test 7/1/2013 1/17/2014 8/5/2014 2/21/2015 9/9/2015 3/27/ /13/2016 5/1/ /17/2017 6/5/2018 Gas composition Microseismic survey SAR acquisitions GPS Echometer Well logging Injection parameters Reservoir pressure Tracers Water composition Currently in Post-injection Monitoring 28

29 CO 2 INJECTION OPERAITONS Injection operations at DD-7 Coriolis flow meters SCADA Continuous monitoring Real-time controls Relay data from monitoring wells

30 CO 2 INJECTION TEST RESULTS Max injection pressure at DD-7A during Phase I and II Injection pressure fell and leveled at 100psi during both phases Injection Rate (metric tons per day) Phase I and II CO2 Injection Rates and CO2 Flowback Rates 0 7/1/ /29/2015 2/26/2016 6/25/ /23/2016 2/20/2017 6/20/2017 Date DD7 DD7A DD8 900 Phase I and II CO2 Injection Pressures & CO2 Flowback Pressure (psia) /1/ /29/2015 2/26/2016 6/25/ /23/2016 2/20/2017 6/20/2017 Date DD7 DD7A DD8

31 CO 2 INJECTION TEST RESULTS Injectivity decreases in all wells for Phase I and II Levels out before zero Injectivity (injection rate / pressure) Phase I and II CO2 Injectivity & CO2 Flowback 0 7/1/ /29/2015 2/26/2016 6/25/ /23/2016 2/20/2017 6/20/2017 Date DD7 DD7A DD8 100 Phase I and II Injection & Flowback Temperatures Temperature (F) /1/ /29/2015 2/26/2016 6/25/ /23/2016 2/20/2017 6/20/2017 Date DD7 DD7A DD8

32 10000 CO2 Injection Diagram: Phase I Pressure, psia 1000 Solid Melting Line Liquid End of Injection Phase I April Start of Injection Phase I July 2015 Vapor Temperature, F DD7 DD7A DD8

33 10000 CO2 Injection Diagram: Phase II Pressure (psia) Solid Liquid End of Injection Phase II December 2016 Start of Injection Phase II December 2016 Vapor Temperature (F) DD-7 Phase II DD-7A Phase II DD-8 Phase II

34 Microseismic monitoring Combined TFI for pre-injection survey December 20, 2014-January 1, 2015 Combined TFI for early injection survey June 27-July 16, 2015 DD7 DD8 DD7 DD8 DD7A DD7A ¼-mile boundary ¼-mile boundary Results for both surveys show generally higher acoustic activity on western margin 34

35 CO 2 INJECTION TEST RESULTS CO 2 breakthrough at DD-8A 12.9% during Phase I 4.65% during Phase II Percent CH CO 2 Breakthrough at DD8A SF 6 Arrival CO 2 Injection Phase I CO 2 Injection Phase II Percent CO 2, N CH4 CO2 N2

36 CO 2 INJECTION TEST TRACER RESULTS Breakthrough of PMCP in DD-7 water prior to injection Breakthrough of SF 6 in DD-8A Phase I injection

37 WATER INJECTION TEST TO DELINEATE CO 2 PLUME MIGRATION Q₁ c₁ Q₂ c₂ Q₃ c₃ Q₄ = 0 d₁ d₂ d₃ d₄ A A A B B B C C C A B C *Not to scale

38 WATER INJECTION TEST TO DELINEATE CO 2 PLUME MIGRATION Coal thickness Flow rate Production per foot of coal Z6 Z5 Zone Z4 Z3 Z2 Z Production (MCF/d)

39 WATER INJECTION TEST TO DELINEATE CO 2 PLUME MIGRATION Coal thickness Flow rate Production per foot of coal Z6 Z5 Zone Z4 Z3 Z2 Z Production (MCF/d-ft)

40 WATER INJECTION TEST TO DELINEATE CO 2 PLUME MIGRATION More CO 2 in shallow coals Zone 6 = Seaboard Z6 Z5 Z4 Z3 Propane Ethane CO2 Methane Z2 Z1 0% 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6% 7% 8%

41 INITIAL FLOWBACK RESULTS Flowback Commenced on 1/8/2018 ~80 90% CO tons of CO 2 Flowrates are up 10-30% Significant Propane in the produced gas

42 Conclusions and Opportunities 4 Successful injections SECARB Phase II Pilot Tests 500 tons in Chattanooga Shale Over 13,000 tons of CO2 into 3 CBM wells in Buchanan County, VA Local service providers utilized Favorable injectivity / high storage capacity Potential for demonstration-scale test Potential for commercialization = economic development Enhanced gas recovery CO2 based infrastructure Continued support of tax base and jobs Job creation

43 Commercialization Opportunities