SECARB Phase II Cranfield, MS

Transcription

1 SECARB Phase II Cranfield, MS GCCC Digital Publication Series #09-03 Susan D. Hovorka Timothy A. Meckel Ramón H. Treviño J. P. Nicot Jong-Won Choi Jiemin Lu Hongliu Zeng Katherine Romanak Changbing Yang Masoumeh Kordi Fred P. Wang Keywords: Field study-cranfield-ms; Monitoring-downhole pressure Cited as: Hovorka, S. D., Meckel, T. A., Treviño, R. H., Nicot, J. P., Choi, J. W., Lu, J., Zeng, H., Romanak, K., Yang, C., Kordi, M., and Wang, P., SECARB Phase II Cranfield, MS: presented at the Southern States Energy Board Stakeholders Meeting, Atlanta, Georgia, March 3, GCCC Digital Publication #09-03.

2 SECARB PHASE II CRANFIELD, MS Susan D. Hovorka, Timothy A. Meckel, Ramon H. Trevino, J.P. Nicot, Jong-Won Choi Jiemin Lu, Hongliu Zeng, Katherine Romanak Changbing Yang, Masoumeh Kordi, Fred P. Wang Gulf Coast Carbon Center, Bureau of Economic Geology, Jackson School of Geosciences, The University of Texas at Austin

3 Phase II Management of SECARB University of Texas at Austin DRI Denbury Resources, Inc Sandia Technologies LLC Schlumberger Carbon Services Other SECARB tests SECARB coal seam tests SECARB Power Plant tests Geological Survey of Alabama EPRI Southern Co ARI Virginia Tech Gulf Coast Carbon Center

4 Overview Background Problem / Goal Interim Results

5 Upper Cretaceous Tuscaloosa-Woodbine Trend Cranfield in Mississippi Salt Basin Source of large volumes of CO2 via pipeline Cranfield Source: Dutton and others 1993

6 Gulf Coast Stacked Storage Field Test Phase 2: $4.4 million Dedicated observation well + logging campaign MS River Natchez, MS Tuscaloosa Formation: Cranfield, MS

7 ~3-5 MMCFD Injection rates Phase II : ~½ Million Tons/yr Phase III : Mt/yr

8 Problem: Many wells- How Good is Cement? surface Drill through freshwater Case and cement to seal off freshwater 2000 ft in Gulf Coast Remaining open annulus between rock and casing= Potential leakage path for CO 2 or displaced brine? Production casing and cement above production zone Add CO 2 for Tertiary production of hydrocarbon resource

9 Pressure history Most EOR Perturbed by extraction + injection Poor Pressure analog for brine reservoir Cranfield Discovered 1945 Depleted, P&A years Pressure recovery by water drive Similar to brine reservoir until production dominates

10 Seismic facies vs thickness (Hongliu Zeng)

11 Petrel model GEM / Eclipse simulation in Q1-2 09

12 sp res mv Ohm-m , " casing 222' /4" casing 1,825' 9,800 Monitoring Zone DEPTH (ft) 9,900 10,000 10,100 10,200 Tuscaloosa perforation CO2 Injection Zone 10,300 7" casing 10,305'

13 Re-entry of 60 year old Production well for continuous monitoring Injection well Jul.03 Jul.04 Jul.05 Jul.06 Jul.07 Jul.08 Monitoring well Jul.09 Jul.10 Jul.11 Jul.12 Jul.13 Jul.14 Date Jul.15 Jul.16 Jul.17 Jul.18 Jul.19 Jul.20 Jul.21 Jul.22 Jul.23 Jul.24 Jul Tubing Temperature (F) Satellite transmission Tubing Pressure (psig) Tubing data 0

14 Surface & downhole data collected every minute and uploaded every 10 minutes to website.

15 Continuous field data from dedicated monitoring well 10 x 104 CO2 Injection Data for Cranfield, MS 1,000,000 Daily Injection Rate (mcf) 500,000 metric tons injected around 15 Feb 2009 Daily mscf 5 500,000 Cumulative Injection 0 Jul.01 Jul.15 Jul.29 Aug.12 Aug.26 Sep.09 Sep.23 Oct.07 Oct.21 Nov.04 Nov.18 Dec.02 Dec.16 Dec.30 Jan.13 Jan.27 Feb.10 Date 0 Continuous Pressure Data from EGL #7 Monitor Well 5600 Bottom Hole Pressure (psi) Injection Zone Pressure Overlying Monitor Zone Pressure ~1200 psi difference Jul.01 Jul.15 Jul.29 Aug.12 Aug.26 Sep.09 Sep.23 Oct.07 Oct.21 Nov.04 Nov.18 Dec.02 Dec.16 Dec.30 Jan.13 Jan.27 Feb.10 Date

16 Continuous field data from dedicated monitoring well Large perturbations obvious Even small perturbations observable 5-20% daily rate 880 m

17 Progress Site selection First cored well, brine samples NEPA CX Characterization Phase II EOR Received seismic data Instrumentation Soil gas baseline Start workover Site development Phase III Brine Phase III Wells May Start Phase III injection Increasing number of injectors and rate per well Injection and monitoring End phase II

18 Phase II Interim Results Old Wells Reasonable Integrity No above-zone pressure communication ~ 40 wells - 1 mile radius OBS well Small leaks detectable Small pressure changes observable Could locate out of zone migration Monitoring design implication Pressure is change - sensitive Detectable change in 100 s 1Km <5% gain/loss of contemporaneous total field rate RST results forthcoming OBS INJ P&A Could use variable responses at different OBS to triangulate on problem area.