Testing Geologic Sequestration of fc Carbon Put it back Carbon extracted from coal or other fossil fuel Returned ed into the earth where it came from An elegant solution - will it work? susan.hovorka@beg.utexas.edu www.gulfcoastcarbon.org g Bureau of Economic Geology Jackson School University of Texas at Austin
Ongoing GCCC Field Tests for Monitoring and Verification Technologies - DOE-NETL and Industry Hosts Frio Test Texas American Resources Cranfield SECARB Phase II&II Denbury SACROC Southwest Partnership KinderMorgan NM Tech
Field Research Teams Frio Test Bureau of Economic Geology Lawrence Berkeley National Lab Schlumberger: Oak Ridge National Lab Lawrence Livermore National Lab Alberta Research Council Texas American Resources Sandia Technologies BP National Energy Technology Lab Paulsson Geophysical University of West Virginia USGS Praxair Australian CO2CRC (CSIRO Core Labs SACROC Bureau of Economic Geology New Mexico Tech University of Utah University of Pittsburg Kinder Morgan Los Alamos National Labs Sandia National Labs Cranfield Bureau of Economic Geology University of Mississippi Mississippi State university Schlumberger Sandia Technologies Denbury Resources
Experimental Questions Can we measure the change resulting from putting CO 2 underground? Can we predict the change over time? Monitoring Modeling Verification Is the CO 2 stored safely underground? Provide useful information to next tests and deployments
Frio Brine Pilot Food grade CO 2 Shipped by truck Test Fresh water (USDW) protected by surface casing Depth 5034 and 5450 ft Injection zones: First experiment 2004: Frio C Second experiment 2006 Frio Blue Steeply dipping- high permeability sandstone Fluid is brine 100 ppt NaCl 100-110 degrees F Oil production
Injection well 30 m Observation well
CT Scan Understand what you inject into 10 cm 10 cm 1cm Core slab 0.2 mm Rock slice thin section microscope view
Yes, we can predict and measure where the CO 2 moves underground d Measured with cross-well tomography and wireline logs Predicted with computer model TOUGH2 Tom Daley and Christine Doughty LBNL
Measurement at a Well: Saturation logging (RST ) Observation well to measure changes in CO 2 saturation match to model Lithology 0 V/V 1 DEPTH FEET 5000 Day 4 Day 10 Day 29 Day 69 Day 142 Day 474 Model gas sat. 1 V/V 0 RST gas sat. 1 V/V 0 Model gas sat. Model gas sat. Model gas sat. Model gas sat. 1 V/V 0 RST gas sat. 1 V/V 0 1 V/V 0 RST gas sat. 1 V/V 0 1 V/V 0 RST gas sat. 1 V/V 0 1 V/V 0 RST gas sat. 1 V/V 0 RST gas sat. 1 V/V 0 Model perm 10000 md 1 Model porosity 0.4 V/V 0 Log porosity 0.4 V/V 0 5010 5020 5030 5040 5050 Shinichi Sakurai, Jeff Kane, Christine Doughty
Phase Trapping the power of capillary pressure 2 of CO 2 Phase-trapped CO 2 Inj jection Grains Bi Brine filled pores
January 2006, attempting to produce the CO 2 back no success. CO 2 is underground but cannot be produced
Chemical Changes During Injection 7.00 CO 2 detected 6.50 6.00 5.50 5.00 ph 4.50 4.00 3.50 inlineph 3.00 2.50 2.00 0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00 80.00 90.00 100.00 Elapsed hours after injection Analysis underway by USGS Alkalinity, metals, DOC, DIC, VOC
Unexpected result extra iron and manganese in brine
Geochemical Simulation vs. Lab data Fe Simulation Compared to Frio "C" 410-4 3.5 10-4 3 10-4 Fe peak = 7e-4 Fe Frio "C" lab Mn 1510 1.5 10-4 1 10-4 No Mn phase in simulation Molality 2.5 10-4 Fe-pfr 2 10-4 1510 1.5 10-4 5 10-5 Molality 1 10-4 Mn-pfr 5 10-5 0 10 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 0 10 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 Time (d) Time (d) Kevin Knauss, LLNL
Grain coatings early actors in geochemistry Grain coatings 5mm
Perflorocarbon Tracer = No Detection at the Surface Praxair Seeper Trace
Cranfield test: Subsurface Monitoring i Above Injection Zone Close to perturbation Quiescent relative to the surface High signal to noise ratio Atmosphere Biosphere Vd Vadose zone & soil Aquifer and USDW Seal Monitoring Zone Seal CO2 plume
Real-time Pressure monitoring at Observation well Cranfield Satellite uplink Well Surface & downhole data collected every minute and uploaded d every 10 minutes to website. Sandia Technologies, Pinnacle, BEG 2009
Continuous field data from dedicated monitoring well 10 x 104 CO2 Injection Data for Cranfield, MS 1,000,000 ly mscf Dai 5 Daily Injection Rate (mcf) Cumulative Injection 500,000 metric tons injected around 15 Feb 2009 500,000 Cumulative Metric Tones 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 Data provided by Denbury 0 Continuous Pressure Data from EGL #7 Monitor Well 5600 ottom Hole Pre essure (psi) B 5400 5200 5000 4800 4600 4400 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 Meckel, BEG 2009
SACROC- testing fresh water after 35 years large-scale injection Smyth, BEG 2009
ph Along Transects Across SACROC field SACROC Field 10.0 9.0 ph Line W 8.0 ph 7.0 6.0 5.0 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 Distance (km) 10.0 ph Line X 9.0 8.0 ph 7.0 6.0 5.0 0 6 12 18 24 30 36 42 Distance (km) Line ZY 10.00 Z Y Wells completed through Ogallala aquifer with TD in Dockum Santa Rosa Aquifer Romanak, Yang, Smyth BEG 2009 ph 9.0 8.0 7.0 6.0 5.0 0 9 18 27 36 45 54 Distance (km)
What can we say from these tests about Is CO2 safely Stored? Permanence of trapping phase trapping limits movement of CO 2 Wells are weak points but in two areas studied this year with many wells, no evidence that leakage has occurred
Conclusions Can we measure the change resulting from putting CO 2 underground? Yes, the tools tested have worked better than expected, confidence is increased. Can we predict the change over time? Yes, numerical models have worked correctly, confidence is increased. Is the CO 2 stored safely underground? So far yes, becomes more rigorous as we test larger scale over longer periods. Work so far has helped prepare for next larger, longer tests, which are underway