Modelling geological storage Roman Berenblyum Research Director, Field Studies and New Recovery Technology International Research Institute of Stavanger December 10, 2012 R. Berenblyum (IRIS) CO 2 storage seminar, Indonesia December 10, 2012 1 / 23
Overview > Abandoned fields vs aquifers > On why static model is not static > Geological model > Reservoir simulations > Injection vs. storage phases R. Berenblyum (IRIS) CO 2 storage seminar, Indonesia December 10, 2012 2 / 23
Overview > Abandoned fields vs aquifers > On why static model is not static > Geological model > Reservoir simulations > Injection vs. storage phases R. Berenblyum (IRIS) CO 2 storage seminar, Indonesia December 10, 2012 2 / 23
Overview > Abandoned fields vs aquifers > On why static model is not static > Geological model > Reservoir simulations > Injection vs. storage phases R. Berenblyum (IRIS) CO 2 storage seminar, Indonesia December 10, 2012 2 / 23
Overview > Abandoned fields vs aquifers > On why static model is not static > Geological model > Reservoir simulations > Injection vs. storage phases R. Berenblyum (IRIS) CO 2 storage seminar, Indonesia December 10, 2012 2 / 23
Overview > Abandoned fields vs aquifers > On why static model is not static > Geological model > Reservoir simulations > Injection vs. storage phases R. Berenblyum (IRIS) CO 2 storage seminar, Indonesia December 10, 2012 2 / 23
Abandoned fields vs. aquifers? > Abandoned fields are studied much better > Wells as monitoring (and may be leakage) points > Lower pressures, remaining reserves? > Available infrastructure (materials used, conditions) > Location (interference with on-going activities)... so far all CCS projects are in aquifers. Frigg is first abandoned field considered for CCS R. Berenblyum (IRIS) CO 2 storage seminar, Indonesia December 10, 2012 3 / 23
Abandoned fields vs. aquifers? > Abandoned fields are studied much better > Wells as monitoring (and may be leakage) points > Lower pressures, remaining reserves? > Available infrastructure (materials used, conditions) > Location (interference with on-going activities)... so far all CCS projects are in aquifers. Frigg is first abandoned field considered for CCS R. Berenblyum (IRIS) CO 2 storage seminar, Indonesia December 10, 2012 3 / 23
Abandoned fields vs. aquifers? > Abandoned fields are studied much better > Wells as monitoring (and may be leakage) points > Lower pressures, remaining reserves? > Available infrastructure (materials used, conditions) > Location (interference with on-going activities)... so far all CCS projects are in aquifers. Frigg is first abandoned field considered for CCS R. Berenblyum (IRIS) CO 2 storage seminar, Indonesia December 10, 2012 3 / 23
Abandoned fields vs. aquifers? > Abandoned fields are studied much better > Wells as monitoring (and may be leakage) points > Lower pressures, remaining reserves? > Available infrastructure (materials used, conditions) > Location (interference with on-going activities)... so far all CCS projects are in aquifers. Frigg is first abandoned field considered for CCS R. Berenblyum (IRIS) CO 2 storage seminar, Indonesia December 10, 2012 3 / 23
Abandoned fields vs. aquifers? > Abandoned fields are studied much better > Wells as monitoring (and may be leakage) points > Lower pressures, remaining reserves? > Available infrastructure (materials used, conditions) > Location (interference with on-going activities)... so far all CCS projects are in aquifers. Frigg is first abandoned field considered for CCS R. Berenblyum (IRIS) CO 2 storage seminar, Indonesia December 10, 2012 3 / 23
Abandoned fields vs. aquifers? > Abandoned fields are studied much better > Wells as monitoring (and may be leakage) points > Lower pressures, remaining reserves? > Available infrastructure (materials used, conditions) > Location (interference with on-going activities)... so far all CCS projects are in aquifers. Frigg is first abandoned field considered for CCS R. Berenblyum (IRIS) CO 2 storage seminar, Indonesia December 10, 2012 3 / 23
On why static model is not static R. Berenblyum (IRIS) CO 2 storage seminar, Indonesia December 10, 2012 4 / 23
On why static model is not static R. Berenblyum (IRIS) CO 2 storage seminar, Indonesia December 10, 2012 5 / 23
On why static model is not static R. Berenblyum (IRIS) CO 2 storage seminar, Indonesia December 10, 2012 6 / 23
Example of geological modelling Data available: > Surface digital elevation model and geological map (outcrop). > Depth to basement map. > Well logs and depth to stratigraphic horizons for all coal exploration wells. > Seismic lines acquired in the period of 1977-1983. High uncertainty in geological data: > Few porosity and permeability measurements > Procedures are not well established > Old cores may not be properly preserved R. Berenblyum (IRIS) CO 2 storage seminar, Indonesia December 10, 2012 7 / 23
Example of geological modelling Data available: > Surface digital elevation model and geological map (outcrop). > Depth to basement map. > Well logs and depth to stratigraphic horizons for all coal exploration wells. > Seismic lines acquired in the period of 1977-1983. High uncertainty in geological data: > Few porosity and permeability measurements > Procedures are not well established > Old cores may not be properly preserved R. Berenblyum (IRIS) CO 2 storage seminar, Indonesia December 10, 2012 7 / 23
Example of geological modelling Data available: > Surface digital elevation model and geological map (outcrop). > Depth to basement map. > Well logs and depth to stratigraphic horizons for all coal exploration wells. > Seismic lines acquired in the period of 1977-1983. High uncertainty in geological data: > Few porosity and permeability measurements > Procedures are not well established > Old cores may not be properly preserved R. Berenblyum (IRIS) CO 2 storage seminar, Indonesia December 10, 2012 7 / 23
Example of geological modelling Data available: > Surface digital elevation model and geological map (outcrop). > Depth to basement map. > Well logs and depth to stratigraphic horizons for all coal exploration wells. > Seismic lines acquired in the period of 1977-1983. High uncertainty in geological data: > Few porosity and permeability measurements > Procedures are not well established > Old cores may not be properly preserved R. Berenblyum (IRIS) CO 2 storage seminar, Indonesia December 10, 2012 7 / 23
Example of geological modelling Construction of Basin Geomodel: > Input of all data into Petrel software. > Construction of depth surfaces for main stratigraphic horizons. Note that the reservoir thickness was constructed from published information about the paleo-geography at deposition was used. > Selection of single sandstone unit as target reservoir for modeling of CO 2 injection. *Hatzignatiou,et.al.Screening and evaluation of a saline aquifer for CO 2 storage: Central Bohemian Basin, Czech Rep. R. Berenblyum (IRIS) CO 2 storage seminar, Indonesia December 10, 2012 8 / 23
Example of geological modelling How did we selected the area (red on slides): > Avoid SW where the reservoir sections below the basin-wide seal are outcropping. > Avoid area E where the reservoir is very thin. > Avoid the deepest part of the basin where the reservoir properties are poor. > Avoid the shallowest parts where CO2 will be in gas phase > Look for areas with possible structures which can act as traps for the injected CO2. R. Berenblyum (IRIS) CO 2 storage seminar, Indonesia December 10, 2012 9 / 23
Example of geological modelling How did we selected the area (red on slides): > Avoid SW where the reservoir sections below the basin-wide seal are outcropping. > Avoid area E where the reservoir is very thin. > Avoid the deepest part of the basin where the reservoir properties are poor. > Avoid the shallowest parts where CO2 will be in gas phase > Look for areas with possible structures which can act as traps for the injected CO2. R. Berenblyum (IRIS) CO 2 storage seminar, Indonesia December 10, 2012 9 / 23
Example of geological modelling How did we selected the area (red on slides): > Avoid SW where the reservoir sections below the basin-wide seal are outcropping. > Avoid area E where the reservoir is very thin. > Avoid the deepest part of the basin where the reservoir properties are poor. > Avoid the shallowest parts where CO2 will be in gas phase > Look for areas with possible structures which can act as traps for the injected CO2. R. Berenblyum (IRIS) CO 2 storage seminar, Indonesia December 10, 2012 9 / 23
Example of geological modelling How did we selected the area (red on slides): > Avoid SW where the reservoir sections below the basin-wide seal are outcropping. > Avoid area E where the reservoir is very thin. > Avoid the deepest part of the basin where the reservoir properties are poor. > Avoid the shallowest parts where CO2 will be in gas phase > Look for areas with possible structures which can act as traps for the injected CO2. R. Berenblyum (IRIS) CO 2 storage seminar, Indonesia December 10, 2012 9 / 23
Example of geological modelling How did we selected the area (red on slides): > Avoid SW where the reservoir sections below the basin-wide seal are outcropping. > Avoid area E where the reservoir is very thin. > Avoid the deepest part of the basin where the reservoir properties are poor. > Avoid the shallowest parts where CO2 will be in gas phase > Look for areas with possible structures which can act as traps for the injected CO2. R. Berenblyum (IRIS) CO 2 storage seminar, Indonesia December 10, 2012 9 / 23
Example of geological modelling R. Berenblyum (IRIS) CO 2 storage seminar, Indonesia December 10, 2012 10 / 23
Example of geological modelling R. Berenblyum (IRIS) CO 2 storage seminar, Indonesia December 10, 2012 11 / 23
Example of geological modelling R. Berenblyum (IRIS) CO 2 storage seminar, Indonesia December 10, 2012 12 / 23
Example of geological modelling R. Berenblyum (IRIS) CO 2 storage seminar, Indonesia December 10, 2012 13 / 23
Reservoir simulation: mechanisms CO 2 compared to other gasses is more soluble in water (up to 5-6%) > CO 2 can travel as separate phase or with / through water (fast!) > Water with CO 2 dissolved becomes heavier causing additional mixing > Carbonated water is a weak acid: geochemical reactions, corrosion CO 2 properties strongly depend on temperature: at 100 0 C CO 2 : water mobility ratio is ca. 10. At 10 degrees its twice lower R. Berenblyum (IRIS) CO 2 storage seminar, Indonesia December 10, 2012 14 / 23
Reservoir simulation: mechanisms CO 2 compared to other gasses is more soluble in water (up to 5-6%) > CO 2 can travel as separate phase or with / through water (fast!) > Water with CO 2 dissolved becomes heavier causing additional mixing > Carbonated water is a weak acid: geochemical reactions, corrosion CO 2 properties strongly depend on temperature: at 100 0 C CO 2 : water mobility ratio is ca. 10. At 10 degrees its twice lower R. Berenblyum (IRIS) CO 2 storage seminar, Indonesia December 10, 2012 14 / 23
Reservoir simulation: mechanisms CO 2 compared to other gasses is more soluble in water (up to 5-6%) > CO 2 can travel as separate phase or with / through water (fast!) > Water with CO 2 dissolved becomes heavier causing additional mixing > Carbonated water is a weak acid: geochemical reactions, corrosion CO 2 properties strongly depend on temperature: at 100 0 C CO 2 : water mobility ratio is ca. 10. At 10 degrees its twice lower R. Berenblyum (IRIS) CO 2 storage seminar, Indonesia December 10, 2012 14 / 23
Reservoir simulation: mechanisms CO 2 compared to other gasses is more soluble in water (up to 5-6%) > CO 2 can travel as separate phase or with / through water (fast!) > Water with CO 2 dissolved becomes heavier causing additional mixing > Carbonated water is a weak acid: geochemical reactions, corrosion CO 2 properties strongly depend on temperature: at 100 0 C CO 2 : water mobility ratio is ca. 10. At 10 degrees its twice lower R. Berenblyum (IRIS) CO 2 storage seminar, Indonesia December 10, 2012 14 / 23
Reservoir simulation: mechanisms CO 2 compared to other gasses is more soluble in water (up to 5-6%) > CO 2 can travel as separate phase or with / through water (fast!) > Water with CO 2 dissolved becomes heavier causing additional mixing > Carbonated water is a weak acid: geochemical reactions, corrosion CO 2 properties strongly depend on temperature: at 100 0 C CO 2 : water mobility ratio is ca. 10. At 10 degrees its twice lower R. Berenblyum (IRIS) CO 2 storage seminar, Indonesia December 10, 2012 14 / 23
Injection vs. storage phases All modern simulators developed for flow dominating situation: Pressure gradient from injector to producer >> capillary, gravity, dispersive forces. This approach works reasonably well during injection phase (several decades) However during storage phase (??? thousands of years) the balance of the forces is totally different: it s gravity (buoyancy), capillarity and diffusivity running the show! Our predictions of migration during that period may be not that good... R. Berenblyum (IRIS) CO 2 storage seminar, Indonesia December 10, 2012 15 / 23
Injection vs. storage phases All modern simulators developed for flow dominating situation: Pressure gradient from injector to producer >> capillary, gravity, dispersive forces. This approach works reasonably well during injection phase (several decades) However during storage phase (??? thousands of years) the balance of the forces is totally different: it s gravity (buoyancy), capillarity and diffusivity running the show! Our predictions of migration during that period may be not that good... R. Berenblyum (IRIS) CO 2 storage seminar, Indonesia December 10, 2012 15 / 23
Injection vs. storage phases All modern simulators developed for flow dominating situation: Pressure gradient from injector to producer >> capillary, gravity, dispersive forces. This approach works reasonably well during injection phase (several decades) However during storage phase (??? thousands of years) the balance of the forces is totally different: it s gravity (buoyancy), capillarity and diffusivity running the show! Our predictions of migration during that period may be not that good... R. Berenblyum (IRIS) CO 2 storage seminar, Indonesia December 10, 2012 15 / 23
Injection vs. storage phases All modern simulators developed for flow dominating situation: Pressure gradient from injector to producer >> capillary, gravity, dispersive forces. This approach works reasonably well during injection phase (several decades) However during storage phase (??? thousands of years) the balance of the forces is totally different: it s gravity (buoyancy), capillarity and diffusivity running the show! Our predictions of migration during that period may be not that good... R. Berenblyum (IRIS) CO 2 storage seminar, Indonesia December 10, 2012 15 / 23
Injection vs. storage phases All modern simulators developed for flow dominating situation: Pressure gradient from injector to producer >> capillary, gravity, dispersive forces. This approach works reasonably well during injection phase (several decades) However during storage phase (??? thousands of years) the balance of the forces is totally different: it s gravity (buoyancy), capillarity and diffusivity running the show! Our predictions of migration during that period may be not that good... R. Berenblyum (IRIS) CO 2 storage seminar, Indonesia December 10, 2012 15 / 23
From geology to reservoir simulation > The data suggest that trapping mechanisms exist, but need to be verified with more seismic data in the future > However, No hard data on shale and fault seals. > Estimations show rather poor porosity and permeability of the reservoirs based on the existing data > More core data/measurements on existing cores. Exploration / pilot would have to be drilled. > Coal beds exist below the suggested reservoir. Conflicts with coal mining economic interests must be avoided. R. Berenblyum (IRIS) CO 2 storage seminar, Indonesia December 10, 2012 16 / 23
From geology to reservoir simulation > The data suggest that trapping mechanisms exist, but need to be verified with more seismic data in the future > However, No hard data on shale and fault seals. > Estimations show rather poor porosity and permeability of the reservoirs based on the existing data > More core data/measurements on existing cores. Exploration / pilot would have to be drilled. > Coal beds exist below the suggested reservoir. Conflicts with coal mining economic interests must be avoided. R. Berenblyum (IRIS) CO 2 storage seminar, Indonesia December 10, 2012 16 / 23
From geology to reservoir simulation > The data suggest that trapping mechanisms exist, but need to be verified with more seismic data in the future > However, No hard data on shale and fault seals. > Estimations show rather poor porosity and permeability of the reservoirs based on the existing data > More core data/measurements on existing cores. Exploration / pilot would have to be drilled. > Coal beds exist below the suggested reservoir. Conflicts with coal mining economic interests must be avoided. R. Berenblyum (IRIS) CO 2 storage seminar, Indonesia December 10, 2012 16 / 23
From geology to reservoir simulation > The data suggest that trapping mechanisms exist, but need to be verified with more seismic data in the future > However, No hard data on shale and fault seals. > Estimations show rather poor porosity and permeability of the reservoirs based on the existing data > More core data/measurements on existing cores. Exploration / pilot would have to be drilled. > Coal beds exist below the suggested reservoir. Conflicts with coal mining economic interests must be avoided. R. Berenblyum (IRIS) CO 2 storage seminar, Indonesia December 10, 2012 16 / 23
From geology to reservoir simulation > The data suggest that trapping mechanisms exist, but need to be verified with more seismic data in the future > However, No hard data on shale and fault seals. > Estimations show rather poor porosity and permeability of the reservoirs based on the existing data > More core data/measurements on existing cores. Exploration / pilot would have to be drilled. > Coal beds exist below the suggested reservoir. Conflicts with coal mining economic interests must be avoided. R. Berenblyum (IRIS) CO 2 storage seminar, Indonesia December 10, 2012 16 / 23
Reservoir simulation R. Berenblyum (IRIS) CO 2 storage seminar, Indonesia December 10, 2012 17 / 23
Reservoir simulation > Fine grid model > Initial evaluation of well location and type. > Visualization of CO 2 plume evolution (injection phase). > Sensitivity What if scenarios > Indicate additional data required to reduce modeling uncertainties > Evaluation of modeled basin s potential for CO 2 storage R. Berenblyum (IRIS) CO 2 storage seminar, Indonesia December 10, 2012 18 / 23
Reservoir simulation > Fine grid model > Initial evaluation of well location and type. > Visualization of CO 2 plume evolution (injection phase). > Sensitivity What if scenarios > Indicate additional data required to reduce modeling uncertainties > Evaluation of modeled basin s potential for CO 2 storage R. Berenblyum (IRIS) CO 2 storage seminar, Indonesia December 10, 2012 18 / 23
Reservoir simulation > Fine grid model > Initial evaluation of well location and type. > Visualization of CO 2 plume evolution (injection phase). > Sensitivity What if scenarios > Indicate additional data required to reduce modeling uncertainties > Evaluation of modeled basin s potential for CO 2 storage R. Berenblyum (IRIS) CO 2 storage seminar, Indonesia December 10, 2012 18 / 23
Reservoir simulation > Fine grid model > Initial evaluation of well location and type. > Visualization of CO 2 plume evolution (injection phase). > Sensitivity What if scenarios > Indicate additional data required to reduce modeling uncertainties > Evaluation of modeled basin s potential for CO 2 storage R. Berenblyum (IRIS) CO 2 storage seminar, Indonesia December 10, 2012 18 / 23
Reservoir simulation > Fine grid model > Initial evaluation of well location and type. > Visualization of CO 2 plume evolution (injection phase). > Sensitivity What if scenarios > Indicate additional data required to reduce modeling uncertainties > Evaluation of modeled basin s potential for CO 2 storage R. Berenblyum (IRIS) CO 2 storage seminar, Indonesia December 10, 2012 18 / 23
Reservoir simulation > Fine grid model > Initial evaluation of well location and type. > Visualization of CO 2 plume evolution (injection phase). > Sensitivity What if scenarios > Indicate additional data required to reduce modeling uncertainties > Evaluation of modeled basin s potential for CO 2 storage R. Berenblyum (IRIS) CO 2 storage seminar, Indonesia December 10, 2012 18 / 23
Reservoir simulation R. Berenblyum (IRIS) CO 2 storage seminar, Indonesia December 10, 2012 19 / 23
Reservoir simulation: outcomes > Optimised injection well locations > Injection of required volume demanded 5 injection and 2 water producing (pressure relive) wells Disposal of produced water? > Sensitivity to the reservoir properties show that baseline permeability is on the border low > We also performed preliminary screening of EOR possibilities in the near by reservoirs (shown in the next presentation) R. Berenblyum (IRIS) CO 2 storage seminar, Indonesia December 10, 2012 20 / 23
Reservoir simulation: outcomes > Optimised injection well locations > Injection of required volume demanded 5 injection and 2 water producing (pressure relive) wells Disposal of produced water? > Sensitivity to the reservoir properties show that baseline permeability is on the border low > We also performed preliminary screening of EOR possibilities in the near by reservoirs (shown in the next presentation) R. Berenblyum (IRIS) CO 2 storage seminar, Indonesia December 10, 2012 20 / 23
Reservoir simulation: outcomes > Optimised injection well locations > Injection of required volume demanded 5 injection and 2 water producing (pressure relive) wells Disposal of produced water? > Sensitivity to the reservoir properties show that baseline permeability is on the border low > We also performed preliminary screening of EOR possibilities in the near by reservoirs (shown in the next presentation) R. Berenblyum (IRIS) CO 2 storage seminar, Indonesia December 10, 2012 20 / 23
Reservoir simulation: outcomes > Optimised injection well locations > Injection of required volume demanded 5 injection and 2 water producing (pressure relive) wells Disposal of produced water? > Sensitivity to the reservoir properties show that baseline permeability is on the border low > We also performed preliminary screening of EOR possibilities in the near by reservoirs (shown in the next presentation) R. Berenblyum (IRIS) CO 2 storage seminar, Indonesia December 10, 2012 20 / 23
Reservoir simulation: another reservoir example R. Berenblyum (IRIS) CO 2 storage seminar, Indonesia December 10, 2012 21 / 23
Reservoir simulation: seepage R. Berenblyum (IRIS) CO 2 storage seminar, Indonesia December 10, 2012 22 / 23
Reservoir simulation: seepage Without diffusion seepage is below 1 m 3 after 20 years of injection. With it app. 1 000 m 3 R. Berenblyum (IRIS) CO 2 storage seminar, Indonesia December 10, 2012 23 / 23