Update on Results of SECARB Test of Update on Results of SECARB Test of Monitoring Large Volume Injection at CranfieldMonitoring Large Volume Injection at Cranfield
Natchez Mississippi
Mississippi River
Mississippi
3,000 m depthGas cap, oil ring, downdip water legShut in since 1965S u s ce 965Strong water driveReturned to near initial pressure
Illustration by Tip Meckel
Cranfield “Early” Field Cranfield “Early” Field Test CollaborationTest Collaboration
Gulf Coast Gulf Coast Carbon Center Carbon Center Industrial AssociatesIndustrial Associates
Denbury Onshore LLC
LBNLLLBL
USGSORNLNETL
Gulf Coast Carbon Center StaffSusan HovorkaNETL
SchlumbergerCarbon Services
QEA
Ramon TrevinoTip MeckelChangbing YangJiemin LiuKatherine RomanakQEA
BPU Mississippi
Miss StateUTPGE
Katherine RomanakRebecca SmythSigrid CliftMasoumeh KordiStuart ColemanYih C iUTPGE
UT DoGUniversity Tennessee
Princeton
Yihua CaiHamid Lashgari
BEG staffTongwei ZhangPrinceton
StanfordUniversity Edinburgh
Tongwei ZhangJeff PaineBob ReedyRobert Reed Kitty Millikan
SECARB Cranfield Research: Theoretical Approaches Through Commercialization
Commercial Deployment by Southern Co.
Contingency plan
ard
erci
a-on Subsurface perturbation
si d CO2 retained in-zone- CO saturation correctly Pressure (flow plus
Parsimonious public assurance monitoringTo
wa
com
me
lizat
io predicted
Hyp
othe
ss
test
ed
CO2 retained in zonedocument no leakage to air-no damage to water
CO2 saturation correctly predicted by flow
modeling
Pressure (flow plus deformation)
correctly predicted by model
CO saturation measured
eld men
ts
Surface monitoring: approach verificationGroundwater programGas variation over time
CO2 saturation measured through time – acoustic impedance + resistivity
Tomography and change through time
Microseismic test, pressure mapping
Acoustic response to pressure change over
Fie
expe
ri
Above-zone acoustic monitoring (CASSM) & pressure monitoring
through time3- D time lapse surface/
VSP seismic
pressure change over time
Dissolution and saturation
y b Sensitivity of tools;
measured via tracer breakthrough and chromatography
Theo
ryan
d la
b Sensitivity of tools; saturated-vadose
modeling of flux and tracers
Lab-based core response to EM and acoustic under various saturations, tracer
behavior
Advanced simulation of reservoir pressure field
VirginiaVirginia TechVirginia Tech
Jackson Dome Natural CO2 source
Black WarriorCranfieldPhase IIIearly
Natural CO2 source
Completed Phase II
Alabama Geological Surveyearly
Plant BarrySouthern ARICompleted Phase II
EOR/brine Storage tests Plant DanielsSouthern ARI
Natural CO2 Available Now in large Volumes Shipped via Sonant Pipeline to Test Lower Part of the Gulf p
Coast WedgeCranfield test site
Onshore salt basins
B’Galloway et al
Relatively young sandstones with shale sealsy y gHeterogeneous, high porosity sediments
Salt tectonics and growth faultsHeavy industry
Characteristics of the Gulf Coast wedge
Cranfield Progress
2007 2008 2009
ne
2006 2010 2011 2012
PA Drill Phase III
ectio
n
Firstcored well,brine samples
as b
asel
in
se II
I NEP Drill Phase III
3 DAS wellsMonitoring
e ntzatio
n
Site
sel
e
baseline seismic S
oil g
a
Pha
sPhase III injection
RB
Ear
ly
ase
II Si
teel
opm
en
hara
cter
i
Phas
e II
S
Phase II injection
d S
EC
AR
Pha
deveChP
Phase IIM 1 illi t i j t d
End
Phase IIPhase III Projected 1.5 million
tons phase IIIMay 1 million tones injected
P II + III December 20Last well for 1 million tones/year rate
A BCharacterization of the Reservoir
oosa
Fm Tuscaloosa confining system
Tusc
alo Phase II
DAS
T l D E iTuscaloosa D-E reservoir
Oil-water contactBased on log annotation andBased on log annotation and recent side-walls
3D Denbury - interpretation Tip Meckel BEG
Reservoir heterogeneity from f i isurface seismic
• Stratal slicing for facies
• 90-degree phase
AVF f thi k /fl id• AVF for thickness/fluid
• AVO for fluid/OWC
ChanChannelnel
erosierosi
ChannelChannelerosionerosion
ChannelChannelerosionerosion
ChannelChannelerosionerosion
erosierosionon Point Point
barbarPoint barPoint bar
Denbury 3-D survey interpretation Hongliu Zeng, BEG
Baseline Cross Well tomogramBaseline Cross Well tomogramF1F2F3
West EastEast
112 m
Z-Seis & Tom Daley Jonathan Franklin in review at LBNL
Upward fining fluvial sandstone and conglomerates of the lower Tuscaloosa Fm
Confining zone Reservoirg Reservoir
Jiemin Lu BEG
Go to the 5km
HiVITP II Obs well
field to test
Injector
Psite
Producer (monitoring point)GMT
Phase II
Observation WellGMT
Pipeline head&Separation facility
Model –history match pressure at real time monitoring well
BEG Observation well
at real-time monitoring well
600010,000
12,000
14,000
Msc
fd)
CFU 29-10 CFU 29-12CFU 26-1 CFU 25-2
CFU 24-2 CFU 29-2CFU 28-1 CFU 27-1CFU 29-4 CFU 48-1
CFU 29-7
Injection ratesResults of 1 year modelcontinuous pressure data
5500
i)
4,000
6,000
8,000
CO
2 in
ject
ion
rate
(M
5000
sure
(psi
-
2,000
7/1/2008 8/20/2008 10/9/2008 11/28/2008 1/17/2009 3/8/2009 4/27/2009 6/16/2009
Date
Rock and fluid properties in simulator
4500
Pres
s
Measurement
Calculated
Rock and fluid properties in simulator
Obs well EGL7
Simplified CO2 injection rate4000
Calculated
Modeled pressureMeasured pressure
2/22/2008 11/18/2010 8/14/2013 5/10/2016 2/4/2019
Date
7/2008 12/2009JP Nicot Jong Won Choi BEG
Using pressure to show no leakage
surface
S f iSurface casingCemented in
Injection zone
Remaining open annulus between
k d i essu
re
zone
AMZIrock and casing=Potential leakage path for CO2 or displaced brine?
Non-cementedlong string
Pre
Cement to
AZMITime
S l N fl id i ti
Add CO2 for
Cement to isolate
Production/
Seal = No fluid communication
Add CO2 for EORinjection
zone
5km
HiVIT Look in Detail at Flow
PsiteFlow
Detailed Study Area (DAS)
InjectorDASGMT
Phase II Area (DAS)
j
Producer (monitoring point)
DASGMTPipeline head&Separation facility
( g p )Observation Well
GIS base Tip Meckel
DAS MonitoringDAS MonitoringInjectorCFU 31F1
Obs CFU 31 F2
Obs CFU 31 F3CFU 31F1 CFU 31 F2 CFU 31 F3
Above-zoneCl l d ll Above-zonemonitoringF1 F2 F3
Above Zone Monitoring
Closely spaced well array to examine flow in complex reservoir
10,500 feet BSL
reservoir
Injection Zone
68m
112 mPetrel model Tip Meckel
Phase III Research Observation well construction for both wells
U-tube sampler1/4 “SS
2 7/8” tubing
Cross well array in two wells1/4 SS
Seismic sources/receivers
Cross well array in two wellsHigh injection volumesFar-field monitoring microseismic, P&T, chemistry, surface seismic
BHP+ T
P&T, chemistry, surface seismic
ERT – 20 electrodes
Casing-conveyed pressure sensor
200’
Fiberglass non-conductive casing
Tuscaloosa DETuscaloosa DE
100’
Distributed temperatureand heater loop
BEG LBNL LLNL USGS ORNL Sandia Technologies
Probabilistic realization of permeability
Jong-won Choi and JP Nicot BEG
First breakthrough time at well F2 for each of the 10 permeability fields
Breakthrough time at F20.4
Set #1 at Ly14 (12/16/2009)
Set #2 at Ly17(12/20/2009)
0.3
n
Set #3 at Ly17(12/8/2009)
Set #4 at Ly10(12/15/2009)
Set #5 at Ly19(12/29/2009)
Set #6 at Ly10(12/23/2009)
0.2
Gas
sat
urat
ion y ( )
Set #7 at Ly10(12/23/2009)
Set #8 at Ly10(12/7/2009)
Set #9 at Ly7(12/7/2009)
0.1Set #10 at Ly10(12/11/2009)
0
12/1/09
12/3/09
12/5/09
12/7/09
12/9/09
12/11/09
12/13/09
12/15/09
12/17/09
12/19/09
12/21/09
12/23/09
12/25/09
12/27/09
12/29/09
12/31/09
1/2/10
1/4/10
1/6/10
DateDate
Jong-won Choi and JP Nicot BEG
Start injection at DAS Dec 1, 2009175 kg/min step up to 350kg/min
Start injection at DAS Dec 1, 2009175 kg/min step up to 520 kg/min
bar psi
Injector BHP Observation well BHP
ssur
e
400
p
hole
pre
sB
otto
m
340
El d ti
Dec 1 It’s all about pressure
Elapsed time
Today at DASToday at DAS• Mass flow increased to 507
k / i b 327 k / ikg/min above 327 kg/min averageI j ti ll BHP 5 818 i• Injection well BHP 5,818 psi above 5793 psiBPT i j ti ll 162 d• BPT injection well 162 degrees F (252 F original)
Measuring distribution of CO2 in the reservoir
• Well-based methods– Wireline logs in time lapse -RSTg p– Temperature
C ll th d• Cross well methods– Time- lapse ERT– Time – lapse acoustic (seismic)
Wireline Formation Evaluation - ELAN – RST CFU 31 – F#3
GRWashouts
RSTCO2
ResistivityOHPorosity Sigma
RSTPorosity
Perm
CO2 VolumeSaturation
RST12/12/09
RST12/15/09
RST12/31/09
Bob Butch
What happened at the wells?pp
packerat
ion packer
n w
ell F
2
Wel
l F1
n w
ell F
3
into
form
Dec 1pressure
serv
atio
n
ectio
n W
serv
atio
n
O2
flow
s i
changes right away, but no CO2
ObsInje
Obs
Dec
1 C
OD
Day 9y
packerat
ion packer
Dec 9
n w
ell F
2
Wel
l F1
n w
ell F
3
into
form
Dec 9CO2 detected in top of well interval
serv
atio
n
ectio
n W
serv
atio
n
O2
flow
s i interval
ObsInje
Obs
Dec
1 C
OD
Day 13y
packer
atio
n packer
Dec 13 still
n w
ell F
2
Wel
l F1
into
form
Dec 13 still minor amounts ofCO2 detected in top of well
Dec 13CO2 detected in top of well
serv
atio
n
ectio
n W
ell F
3
O2
flow
s i top of well
interval and maybe some thin zones
top of well interval and maybe some thinzones
ObsInje
rvat
ion
we
Dec
1 C
O zones
Obs
erD
Day 31y
packer
g
packer
Dec 30 large
Wel
l F1
ectio
n lo
gw
in
art
Dec 30 large amounts ofCO2 detected in well interval and
Dec 31 large amounts ofCO detected in
ectio
n W
may
inje
larg
e flo
wup
per p
a well interval and some thick zones in lower part of formation
CO2 detected in well interval upper part of formation
Inje
formation
wel
l F2
wel
l F3
w w
Cross Well ERT tells us how flow occurred
odes
ctro
des
x
x F3 e
lect
ro
ell F
2 el
ec SecondResistive plume out of
Direction of CO plume
x
x
x on w
ell F
vatio
n w
e psection migration
CO2 plume x
x
x 50ft
Obs
erva
tio
Obs
erv
Injectorx O
Resistive plume = CO2 in reservoir
Charles Carrigan, LLNL Conductive plume= workover fluids?
p
High frequency fluid sampling via U tubevia U-tube
yields data on flow processes80%
90%
100%
CH4
CO2
y pBreakthrough of
D bl
50%
60%
70%
CEN
TRA
TIO
N of CO2
Additional flow paths – more
Double injection rate
Originallybrine methane
10%
20%
30%
40%
CO
NC
methane extracted saturated
0%11/29/09 0:00 12/4/09 0:00 12/9/09 0:00 12/14/09 0:00 12/19/09 0:00 12/24/09 0:00 12/29/09 0:00 1/3/10 0:00
SAMPLING TIME
Small diameter sampler with N2 drive brings fluids quickly tosurface with tracers intactCO2 dissolution into brine liberates dissolved CH4
BEG, LBNL, USGS, ORNL, UTDoG, data compiled by Changbing Yang BEG
CO2 dissolution into brine liberates dissolved CH4
5km
HiVIT Is it possible to find leakage at
P Sitefind leakage at
surface ? P-Site tests
InjectorGMT
Phase II tests
j
Producer (monitoring point)
GMTPipeline head&Separation facility
DAS
( g p )Observation Well
Assessment of near surface techniques“P Site”
Trans 4
road“P Site”
1‐BG4‐02
Trans 1
PitPadPlants
1‐001‐011‐02
1‐03
1‐04 3‐01
Trans 1AWP&A well
1‐05
2‐01
3‐02 4‐011950’s pit
2‐02
T 2Trans 2Trans 3
Preliminary Soil Gas data
CO2 (vol %)
CH4 (vol %)
O2 (vol %)O2 (vol %)
Pressure (inches H2O)(inches H2O)
Katherine Romanak and Changbing Yang, BEG
Interim Conclusions of Study at Cranfield
Ph III 1 illi t / t hi d D 20 2009• Phase III 1 million ton/year rate achieved Dec 20, 2009, 2 Million tones monitored since July 2008
• Rate to be maintained >15 monthsRate to be maintained >15 months• Monitored with standard and novel approaches
– History match pressure responsey p p– No leakage into Above-Zone Monitoring Interval– Fluid flow measured/monitored with multiple tools in complex
flow fieldflow field– First US use of Electrical Resistance Tomography (ERT) for
sequestrationQ antification of dissol tion– Quantification of dissolution
• Export to commercial EOR/sequestration projects