Risk Evaluation Sleipner CO 2 Storage

Similar documents
Geological Storage of CO 2. Tor Fjaeran President Director, Statoil Indonesia

Norway in pole position: 20 years of CCS

STORING CO 2 IN GEOLOGICAL RESERVOIRS: THE SLEIPNER AND SACS PROJECTS

OVERVIEW OF MITIGATION AND REMEDIATION OPTIONS FOR GEOLOGICAL STORAGE OF CO2

Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage in Deep Geological Formations. Carbon Dioxide Capture and Geologic Storage

Safety and Monitoring of CO 2 Storage Projects

Geophysical monitoring offshore: past, present and future

IEA-GHG Summer School Svalbard Aug 2010

Norwegian Priorities and Activities Carbon Capture and Storage

CO 2 Geological storage - TOTAL Approach. SCA 2003 Symposium 14/12/2003

Carbon Dioxide Capture and Sequestration in Deep Geological Formations

Storage options 1. Geological storage. CO2 capture and storage Storage options

Erik Lindeberg and Per Bergmo. SINTEF Petroleum Research, NO-7465 Trondheim, Norway

Use of models in site selection and exploitation

15 Years of Industrial CO2 Storage Experience

Managing guncertainty in Geologic Storage. Dwight Peters Schlumberger Carbon Services

Available online at Energy Procedia 1 (2009) (2008) GHGT-9

LARGE SCALE CO 2 STORAGE IN THE NORTH SEA CAN HANDLE ALL EU COAL POWER CO 2 EMISSIONS

Available online at Energy Procedia 1 (2009) (2008) GHGT-9

ROAD P MONITORING PLAN. Vincent Vandeweijer, Filip Neele

Enhancing Global Energy Security, Role of Technology in the Petroleum Sector. Carbon Management in E&P Operations A Way Forward for Sustainable Future

Siting and Monitoring CO 2 Storage Projects Sally M. Benson Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Berkeley, CA 94720

CO2 Storage Experiences Why is it safe?

The EU CCS Directive and guidance documents Dr Raphael Sauter European Commission, DG Climate Action

Liability Issues Related to Geological Storage of CO 2

CO 2 Geological Storage In Salah Algeria Sustainable Development Project

Norway as a CO 2 Laboratory

Modelling geological storage

Ongoing research on shallow migration of CO 2 at CO 2 Field Lab in Svelsvik (Norway)

Site selection: Technical site selection criteria and information needs

Oxy CO 2 EOR Project Discussion Draft MRV Plan

FINAL REPORT. Stratigraphic Forward Modelling Comparison with Eclipse for SW Hub

Geological Storage of CO 2

Thursday 28 th and Friday 29 th September Imperial College London, South Kensington Campus, London SW7 2AZ

CO 2 Sequestration Market Development

CO 2 Storage in Geological Media

Geological sequestration. or storage of CO 2

CO 2 CARE... Capture and Storage (CCS) technology by addressing the research requirements of a specific part of the chain: CO 2

CO2 Storage Experience in Japan including Impacts of Earthquakes. Ziqiu Xue Research Institute of Innovative Tech.

European legislation on CO 2 Geological Storage. Sergio Persoglia. ! OGS Board of Directors! CO2GeoNet Secretary General

Monitoring Requirements Objectives, technologies and predictive modelling

Petrotechnical Expert Services. Multidisciplinary expertise, technology integration, and collaboration to improve operations

Permanence and detection of physical seepage addressing CDM - Meth panel monitoring concerns

Geological Storage and Utilisation of CO 2

Geological Storage - Risk Assessment & Monitoring

Deep Saline Formations: The Largest Potential Volumes for Geological Storage of CO 2

Accelerating The Dissolution of CO 2 in Aquifers

North America Business Manager

CSLF Projects: Interactive Workshop. CO 2 Storage at In Salah JIP Phase 1: Storage Capacity Assessment. March 1 st 2011: Al Khobar KSA Iain Wright

Harding Field: Life Extension of Oil Production in a Low Gas Price World

RECENT ADVANCES IN CO 2 STORAGE SCIENCE

Monitoring and Verification of CO 2 Geological Storage sites

ECO 2 project number: Deliverable Number D7.3: ECO 2 project brochure; WP7; lead beneficiary number 1 [IFM-GEOMAR] ECO 2 project brochure

Geological l Sequestration: ti AP Primer

Carbon storage capacity analysis through the integrated reservoir modelling on Caswell Fan, Upper Campanian, Browse Basin, Australia

The CASTOR Initiative Workshop on CCS MEXICO, JULY Dr. Pierre Le Thiez Executive Vice President, GEOGREEN CASTOR Project Manager, IFP

Principles of CO 2 geological storage

CO2 STORAGE AND WATER MANAGEMENT

2010 University of North Dakota Energy & Environmental Research Center.

Methodological developments to define safety criteria

Determining the risk of CO 2 leakage along fractures of the primary caprock using an integrated monitoring and hydro-mechanical-chemical approach

CO 2 EOR: A viable option for NCS? 21 October 2015, Stavanger

Geologic Storage of CO 2

Role of Enhanced Oil Recovery in Carbon Sequestration The Weyburn Monitoring Project, a case study

Summary of Field Test Site and Operations

Feasibility Study for The Setting Up of a Safety System for Monitoring CO 2. Storage at Prinos Field, Greece

FRACTURED AND UNCONVENTIONAL RESERVOIRS

CO 2 Well Integrity and Wellbore Monitoring

UNCONVENTIONAL GAS RESOURCES

HOW TO DEVELOP SALINE AQUIFER STORAGE OPPORTUNITIES AND SOLUTIONS

CO 2 Geological Storage: Research, Development and Deployment (RD&D) Issues

Applying the MANAUS Risk Assessment Methodology to Fault Leakage scenario for a Geological Storage of CO 2. Y. Le Gallo

Proposed Study for Capturing and Storing CO 2 from Power Generation Activity in Egypt in Conjunction with Enhanced Oil Recovery in Stranded Oil Wells

Safe and successful CO 2 injection operation and post-injection monitoring closing the life cycle of the Ketzin pilot site

Bellona s comments on Carbon dioxide Capture and Storage under the Clean Development Mechanism

8. Storage options with EOR

Science-Based Risk Assessment and Wellbores and in a CO 2 Storage System

Reservoir Management

CCS: Risks and Impacts. Neil Wildgust CCS Africa Workshops April 2010

Synergy benefits in combining CCS and geothermal energy production

Storage and Sequestration of CO 2 in the In Salah Gas Project

Originally published as:

CO2CRC Otway Stage 3 Project

CO 2 Sequestration in Deep Aquifers

Geologic Sequestration Science

Is CCS (Geological Storage) Ready for Prime Time?

FACTSHEET FOR PARTNERSHIP FIELD VALIDATION TEST (Rev )

Carbon capture and storage: Setting the New Zealand scene

IEA IEA--GHG Risk Assessment Network Meeting GHG Risk Assessment Melbourne - Melbourne April 16th- April 16th 17th

Geological CO 2 storage works with appropriate site characterization and monitoring

Reexamining CO 2 Storage Capacity and Utilization of the Utsira Formation

FME SUCCESS Environmental best practice for offshore geological storage projects

SHALE FACTS. Production cycle. Ensuring safe and responsible operations

Well-Based Monitoring

CO 2 sequestration: opportunities for Wyoming. Carol D. Frost Interim Director School of Energy Resources

CO 2 Capture and Sequestration. -Overcoming the technical challenges. European Commission R & D Policy

Exercise 14: Estimating HC Volumes

CO 2 Storage. Dr AK (Tony) Booer, Schlumberger Carbon Services, Abingdon, UK. 11 Jan, UKCCSC Winter Cambridge, UK

David H. Johnston ExxonMobil Production Company. Time-Lapse Seismic for Optimum Reservoir Management Deepwater West Africa

Overview of Capacity Estimation Methodologies for saline reservoirs

Transcription:

1 Risk Evaluation Sleipner CO 2 Storage Authors: Helga Hansen, Statoil and Hans Aksel Haugen, Statoil Licence partners: ExxonMobil E&P Norway, Norsk Hydro AS, Total E&P Norway

Outline 2 1. Introduction 3. EU- and industry-funded SACS, SACS2 and CO2STORE 2. Risk evaluation pre-injection 4. Risk evaluation post-drilling, after ten years of injection 5. Further work

Introduction Sleipner Vest Production start 1996 Natural gas with 9 mol% CO 2 GIIP: 5.6 TSft 3 (160 GSm 3 ) 3 CIIP: 427 mill.bbl (70 MSm 3 ) NORWAY 58 30 1 40 2 00 10 km Sleipner Øst Production start 1993 Natural gas with < 1 mol % CO 2 58 15 UK Gas sales specifications: < 2.5 mol% CO 2

4 1. Extraction Sleipner B Sleipner T Amine Plant Sleipner A Injection Well 2. Compression Gas with CO 2 1 Mtons 1.20 1.00 Injected and vented CO 2 1996-2006 Injected Vented 0.80 Gas with CO 2 CO 2 3. Injection M tons 0.60 0.40 0.20 0.00 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 CO 2 Utsira Fm 4. Subsurface storage Sleipner Vest

Outline 5 1. Introduction 3. EU- and industry-funded SACS, SACS2 and CO2STORE 2. Risk evaluation pre-injection 4. Risk evaluation post-drilling, after ten years of injection 5. Further work

6 Approval from the Norwegian Authorities: - Plan for Development and Operation (PDO) for the Sleipner Vest field (1991) No separate application - No Quantitative Evaluation Risks mentioned: - injectivity, potential overpressure -wetco 2 corroding the casing in the production wells - hydrate formation in the Utsira Formation unlikely

Main issues focused on prior to injection 7 Evaluation of injectivity Petrophysical evaluation Reservoir Simulation No migration of the CO 2 back to the Sleipner wells Mapping of the Top Utsira Fm important to locate the optimal injection point Caprock Cuttings and geophysical well logs Gas seapage study

8 Main issues focused on prior to injection - INJECTIVITY Æ Petrophysical evaluation of the Utsira Fm based on six wells; main results were Net sand and Porosity for seven different zones W E 600 800? Sand wedge Sand wedge (b) (d)? 1200??? 1200 gr ild 15/8-1 gr gr ild ild 15/8-115/9-7 gr gr ild ild 15/9-7 15/9-8 gr gr ild ild 15/9-8 15/9-18 gr ild gr sflu 15/9-18 15/9-16 grgr sflu rt gr gr rt sflu gr gr sflu rt 15/9-16 15/9-A16 15/9-A16 15/9-13 15/9-13 16/7-3 Hordaland G. 1000 Hordaland G. 1000 (c)? Utsira Sand 800 (a) Nordland G. 600 Inj. well Utsira Sand 400 TVD TVD Inj. well 400 E Nordland G. W gr rt 16/7-3 Net Sand Porosity Horizontal (%) (%) permeability * 90 98 ~ 38 1-8 D * estimated

9 Main issues focused on prior to injection - INJECTIVITY Reservoir Simulation (black oil, oil-gas model) Temperature critical, 27 0 C 0.27 0.41 0.41 0.54 0.67 0.81 SGAS (CO 2 ) after 10 years of injection Shale barriers

10 Main issues focused on prior to injection - MIGRATION Assumed CO 2 migration direction No migration of the CO 2 back to the Sleipner wells New seismic survey in 1994 changed the location from NW to 2.8 km NNE of the SLA (the current location) SLA Structural trap identified, saddle area northwards Predicted migration direction northwards Base Utsira Fm shows shale diapirs east of SLA expected to reduce the horizontal distribution of the CO 2 towards the SLA

11 Main issues focused on prior to injection - CAPROCK - Cuttings and geophysical well logs of the Nordland shales no detailed studies performed, considered an effective seal - Gas seapage study performed in 1994 Mapped existing shallow gas accumulations and pre-existing gas pathways around the storage site. Concluded that there are no indications of gas seepage which may signify a leakage risk from the CO 2 storage site.

Outline 12 1. Introduction 3. EU- and industry-funded SACS, SACS2 and CO2STORE 2. Risk evaluation pre-injection 4. Risk evaluation post-drilling, after ten years of injection 5. Further work

13 SACS-project - a multi-institutional research project The project has been divided into 5 scientific work areas: Regional geology and reservoir characterisation Geochemistry Monitoring Well Geophysics Reservoir Simulations

14 Seismic monitoring of Sleipner CO2 injection difference maps 1994 1999 1994 2004 1994 2001 1994 2006 1994 2 km 8,4 million tonnes injected in period 1996-2006 Area of CO2 plume: 2,8 km2 Length of CO2 plume: 3760 m 1 km 200 ms 1 km

Sleipner Area: Top Utsira Time Map Plume extension & top Utsira time map Summed amplitudes 15 Assumed CO2 spill directions 3,76 km saddle Injection CO 2 point SLA Injection point Plume outline June 2006 Plume outline Oct 2001 1 km

Outline 16 1. Introduction 3. EU- and industry-funded SACS, SACS2 and CO2STORE 2. Risk evaluation pre-injection 4. Risk evaluation post-drilling, after ten years of injection 5. Further work

17 The Risk Evaluation Process A group of experts, including international expertise, were invited to join a workshop on risk associated with the CO 2 injectiononsleipner, 29. and 30. May 2006 Aim of workshop: Identify risks of CO 2 escape and effects on neighbouring wells and licences Current injection rates Increased injection rates Identify mitigating measures Evaluate whether risk is within acceptable limits

Risk classification 18 High CO 2 injection must cease until compensating measures have been performed Medium CO 2 injection can continue but compensating measures should be implemented to control and/or reduce the risk Low CO 2 injection can continue and compensating measures should be considered in the longer term to control and/or reduce the risk Very low Insignificant contribution to the risk picture and CO 2 injection can continue with no need for implementation of compensating measures

19 Cap rock Utsira Fm Wells High CO 2 injection must cease until compensating measures Medium Low CO 2 injection can continue but compensating measures should be implemented to control and/or reduce the risk CO 2 injection can continue and compensating measures should be considered in the longer term to control and/or reduce the risk Very low Insignificant contribution to the risk picture and CO 2 injection can continue with no need for implementation of compensating measures

20 Increased* Current injection rates, rates, Utsira Utsira Fm Fm * ~ 10 times current injection rates Risks affecting the Sleipner Licence Risks affecting neighbouring licences Medium risk: Migration below Top Utsira Fm or internal shale layers to adjacentwells Medium risk: Utsira Fm Injection induced degradation of reservoir, e.g.subsidence Medium risk: Migration below Top Utsira Fm or internal shale layers to neighbouring licence blocks: - problems for future exploration wells (gas pockets, corrosive environment) - destroy seismic response below plume Low risk: Reduce / misinterpret storage capacity due to degradation or other unknown factors Low risk: Migration below Top Utsira Fm to up-dip sands in cap rock seal seabed Compromise future use of Utsira water for injection purposes

21 Increased* Current injection rates, rates, cap cap rock rock * ~ 10 times current injection rates Risks affecting the Sleipner Licence Risks affecting neighbouring licences Cap rock Medium risk: Leakage through undetected faults/fractures: to shallow fms seabed Low risk: Differential pressure due to buoyancy effects creates fractures Migration through sand injections (pre-existing permeable zones)

22 Increased Current injection rates, wells * ~ 10 times current injection rates Risks affecting the Sleipner Licence Risks affecting neighbouring licences Medium risk: CO 2 reaches adjacent exploration and wellsproduction wells - loss of well integrity - leakage outside/inside casing surface Wells Low risk: Injection system failure leakage back to SLA through injection well risk to personnel

23 Key findings from the workshop The risk of CO 2 release from Utsira Formation is considered low and acceptable Increased injection rates would accelerate the identified risks A selection of mitigating measures to reduce risk and improve control of the CO 2 plumewereproposed

Further work 24 EU- and industry-funded SACS, SACS2 and CO2STORE Risk evaluation post-drilling, after ten years of injection CO2ReMoVe Mitigating measures - Time lapse seismic surveys are the main monitoring tool - Update the Top Utsira Depth map based on the time lapse seismic survey - Update the reservoir simulation model based on the Top Utsira map update CO 2 migration prognosis - Evaluation of the exposure and long-term integrity of wells in the area