on Carbon Sequestration San Juan Basin Enhanced Coalbed Methane (ECBM) Pilot Presented at Coal-Seq IV Forum Denver, Colorado November 9-10, 2005 Genevieve Young Colorado Geological Survey
Outline 1. Introduction 2. Site description 3. Project plan
1. Introduction
SWP Phase II Pilots Aneth Field with Navajo Nation, Resolute San Juan Basin Fairway with Burlington, ARI, BLM, USDA SACROC- Claytonville fields with Kinder Morgan String of Pearls
Northern San Juan Basin Pump Canyon Pilot
SJB Suitability ECBM/CO2 test is located in San Juan County, NM within the CBM Fairway Previously assessed by ARI under DOE-sponsored Coal- Seq project as one of the nation s top coal basins for sequestration in terms of: Potential storage capacity (12 Gt of CO 2, 12% of U.S. total) ECBM potential (16 TCF, 10% of U.S. total) Potential cost of storage (at a predicted net profit of $4-8/ton of CO 2 ) The results of the demonstration would be directly scalable to a large portion of the basin for significant, low-cost sequestration.
SJB Scalability Infrastructure and services for large-scale sequestration are already in place; e.g., Cortez pipeline delivers CO 2 from McElmo Dome to West Texas Fairway coals characterized by exceptionally high permeability (100s of md); mitigating factor in coal swelling and loss of injectivity Maintaining high injectivity is an important requirement for large-scale, low-cost CO2 sequestration in coal
2. Site description
SJB Pilot Test Portfolio ECBM and sequestration with produced water desalination for use in terrestrial riparian restoration sequestration Estimated 75,000 tons of CO 2 injection during a one year period Partners include Burlington Resources, ARI, BLM, and USDA
Pump Canyon Pilot Area CO 2 Connector Sec 33 31N-8W ECBM Pilot with Proposed Injector
Existing Well Pads 29 Proposed CO2 injector Area of Interest 31N 8W sec 33 28 27 31N8W Existing well pads Howell D 353 & Howell D 353S Howell D 353 & Howell D 353S 32 33 34 5 4 30N8W 3
Offset Operators 29 Proposed Injector BR BP BP 28 BP BR BR 27 BR Cross Section 32 BP 33 34 BR BR BP BR BP BR 5 4 3
Fruitland Type Logs SW T 31N 30045276460000 R 8W Section 27 SE NW SW KB: 6356 NE T 30N 30045200650000 R 8W Section 4 NE NE KB: 6231 COAL_1 0 4 DRHO_1-0.2 G/C3 0.2 RHOB_1 0.95 G/C3 1.98 RHOB_1 1.95 G/C3 2.95 ILD_1 0.2 OHMM 200 GR_1 DEPTH NPHI_1 0 GAPI 200 FEET 1.5 V/V 0.45 CALI_1 PERF_PI.PERF_1 neut 6 IN 12 0ONOFF5 1000 V/V 5000 2950.0 COAL_1 0 4 DRHO_1-0.2 G/C3 0.2 RHOB_1 0.95 G/C3 1.98 RHOB_1 1.95 G/C3 2.95 NPHI_1 0.45 V/V -0.15 ILD_1 0.2 OHMM 200 nphi 0.45 V/V -0.15 GR_1 DEPTH nphi 0 GAPI 200 FEET 1.5 V/V 0.45 cali_0 PERF_PI.PERF_1 neut 6 IN 12 0ONOFF5 1000 V/V 5000 2850.0? BLUE 3000 2900 BLUE P1 Upper Coals? P1 3100 P2 3000 G1 Middle Coals P2 G1 G2 G3 B1 B2 Basal Fruitland G2 G3 B1 B2 3200 PCCF 3100 Pictured Cliffs PCCF 3121.0 3252.0
Section 33 NE Producer 1 Mil 100,000 HOWELL D 353 13,857,345 mcf 30 BCF EUR FRUITLAND est. COAL for 320 acre wells 10,000 Monthly Rate 1,000 100 10 1 1988 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 Time
Section 33 SE Producer 100,000 HOWELL D 353S 77,663 mcf 0.5-0.75 0.75 BCF EUR est. FRUITLAND COAL for 160 acre infills 10,000 1,000 Monthly Rate 100 10 1 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 Time
Very Low Reservoir Pressure 11/1990 6 09/2004 351S 19,495,641 mcf 29,191 mcf 29 12/1988 351 9,120,922 mcf 02/1989 350 8,619,560 mcf 09/2004 350S 43,464 mcf 12/1990 5 17,274,155 mcf 28 09/1986 2A 03/1990 167 mcf 12/2004 350S 23,353 mcf 01/1991 350 13,289,670 mcf 03/1991 352 7,031,222 mcf P R ~50-100 psi 27 12/2004 352S 16,575 mcf currently 07/2004 300S 77,127 mcf Unknown 1 32 10,582,479 mcf 12/2004 8S 3,578 mcf 01/1991 353 12/1988 353 12,422,013 mcf 13,876,520 mcf 12/2004 351S 45,641 mcf 33 34 09/1990 300 9,238,497 mcf 11/1990 8 14,557,021 mcf 01/2004 353S 86,924 mcf 01/1991 351 13,336,661 mcf 01/1989 300 12,790,218 mcf 5 11/1990 3 8,829,900 mcf 03/2005 301S 3,333 mcf 01/1991 8 10,374,521 mcf 4 11/2004 300S 41,144 mcf 3 01/1992 3 14,263,595 mcf 01/1987 6E 05/2001 26,693 mcf 06/1986 3A 01/1997 375,440 mcf 05/1989 300 11,385,746 mcf Fruitland Coal Cumulative Gas Bubbles 04/1989 301 7,614,959 mcf
Nearly Single Phase Flow 11/1990 6 09/2004 351S 289,474 bbl 7,920 bbl 29 12/1988 351 638,617 bbl 02/1989 350 491,962 bbl 09/2004 350S 1,820 bbl 12/1990 5 238,623 bbl 28 09/1986 2A 03/1990 0 bbl 12/2004 350S 0 bbl 01/1991 350 80,289 bbl 27 03/1991 352 116,246 bbl Minimal water 12/2004 352S 0 bbl production 07/2004 300S 560 bbl Unknown 1 32 147,581 bbl 12/2004 8S 3,255 bbl 01/1991 353 12/1988 353 95,591 bbl 166,059 bbl 12/2004 351S 0 bbl 33 34 09/1990 300 9,819 bbl 11/1990 8 101,133 bbl 01/2004 353S 2,520 bbl 01/1991 351 77,946 bbl 01/1989 300 130,201 bbl 5 11/1990 3 30,763 bbl 03/2005 301S 0 bbl 01/1991 8 58,913 bbl 4 11/2004 300S 800 bbl 3 01/1992 3 64,403 bbl 01/1987 6E 05/2001 0 bbl 06/1986 3A 01/1997 21 bbl 05/1989 300 82,367 bbl Fruitland Coal Cumulative Water Bubbles 04/1989 301 227,608 bbl
Advantages Over Allison (Reeves et al., 2003) (Palmer and Mansoori, 1996) Significantly higher permeability characterize Pump Canyon (50-100 md) compared to <10 md at Allison Permeability reduction due to two phase flow is negligible at Pump Canyon (k eg ~ k abs ) compared to k eg << k abs at Allison Near abandonment pressure at Pump Canyon (50-100 psi) will minimize injectivity loss due to matrix swelling from CO 2
3. Project plan
ECBM Project Tasks 1. Site/reservoir characterization and model development 2. Implement regulatory permitting requirements and risk mitigation 3. Construction, safety and site preparation, baseline MMV 4. Injection operations, MMV and capacity analysis 5. Post-injection monitoring and analysis
Task 1 - Characterization Data collection site specific and Allison Unit; new lab work is anticipated Calibrate numerical model via history matching primary basis for understanding pattern performance under CO 2 injection Initial forecasting under CO 2 injection will be performed to aid in operational planning
Task 2 - Regulatory Development of a best practices manual NM already has existing regulatory construct for CO 2 injection EOR/EGR injection activity classified as Class II under UIC NMOCD has adopted specific rules and regulations governing long-term CO 2 storage
Task 3 Site Preparation Drill CO 2 injection well - vertical to ~3,200 ft. Open-hole vs. cased & perforated suitability in very low reservoir pressure environments; hydrajetting instead of cavitation Collect coal cuttings for lab analysis Downhole pressure gauge for continuous monitoring of injection pressures; CO 2 heater A 2-in pipeline will transport CO 2 from Burlington s 4-in connector to KM s Cortez pipeline
Task 4 - Operations Inject for 12 mos.; monitor intensely for 24 mos.; commence January 2008 CO 2 injection volumetrically estimated to be 1.2 BCF or about 3.5 MMCFD Injection will be controlled using a constant surface injection pressure allowing rate to vary CO 2 will be heated to in situ reservoir temperature to reduce swelling effects Experimentation with unheated CO 2
MMV Operations Direct methods Injection rate monitoring Production well LI-COR Abandoned well LI-COR Gas piezometers LI-COR In situ P/T well monitoring (fiber optic sensors) Tiltmeter arrays with InSAR Spinner surveys H2O chemistry & isotopes Fluid/gas chemistry & isotope analysis Indirect methods 2-D seismic surveys Crosswell seismic Passive seismic Borehole integrity by resistivity monitoring VSP ASTLI Integrated seismic model State-of-the-art reservoir models
Task 5 Post-Injection Intense monitoring during 12 month injection period and the following 12 month post-injection period After this 24 month period, tiltmeter array will be demobilized and monitoring less frequent Reservoir model will be periodically updated about every 3 months; long-term predictions of CO 2 movement/storage provided as well as ECBM performance
Terrestrial Sequestration Two-pronged strategy enhance existing woody plant species along riparian areas and reestablish native grasses and shrubs in upland areas Limiting factor water, both quality and quantity Desalinate CBM/ECBM produced water using zeolite RO membrane for application to rangeland riparian ecosystems SWP collaborating with Big Sky Partnership on economic modeling and analysis
SJB Project Team Brian McPherson, New Mexico Tech Steve Hook, New Mexico Tech Genevieve Young, Colorado Geological Survey Jim Schlabaugh, Burlington Resources Scott Reeves, Advanced Resources Joe Hewitt, Bureau of Land Management Jack Ford, New Mexico Oil Conservation Division Joel Brown, New Mexico State University Jay Angerer, TAMU George Guthrie, Dick Benson and Jeri Sullivan, Los Alamos Peter Kobos, Sandia National Lab John Bredehoeft, Consultant southwestcarbonpartnership.org