In Salah Gas CO 2 CCS Project - The University of Edinburgh · In Salah Gas CO 2 CCS Project University of Edinburgh 7 July 2010 Allan S Mathieson, BPAE. CO 2 JIP Project 2010 Source-sink

In Salah Gas CO 2 CCS Project

University of Edinburgh 7 July 2010

Allan S Mathieson, BPAE

CO2 JIP Project 2010

Source-sink matchingCO2CRC, EUGeocapacity, Coach, US Regional partnerships

Public policy supportCSLF, IEA, EU-ZEP, CDM

Assurance frameworkCO2CRC, CSLF, WRI

3rd Party DemonstrationsSleipner, Weyburn, CO2Remove, Otway Basin

Research

Industry / Academic Initiatives

Technical Demonstrations

Industrial Scale Projects

California H2P Abu Dhabi H2P

BP’s CCS Technology Program

In Salah Gas, Algeria


Amine CO2 removal

5 gaswells 3 CO2

injectors

GWC

900m

950m

20m

Carboniferousmudstones

Cretaceous sandstones/mudstones

In Salah Gas Project

• Industrial Scale Demonstration of CO2 Geological Storage (Conventional Capture)• Storage Formation is common in Europe, USA & China• Started Storage in August 2004• 1mmtpa CO2 Stored (17mm tonnes total)• $100mm Incremental Cost for Storage No commercial benefit• Test-bed for CO2 Monitoring Technologies $30mm Research Project

Project Facts

In Salah Gas CCS Project Overview

Krechba

Tegentour

Reg

Garet elBefinat

HassiMoumene

HassiR’Mel

In SalahGourMahmoud

48” 455km

38” 60km

24” 13km

24” 62km

Krechba

Tegentour

Reg

Garet elBefinat

HassiMoumene

HassiR’Mel

In SalahGourMahmoud

48” 455km

38” 60km

24” 13km

24” 62km

1-10% CO2

<0.3% CO2


CO2 Compression and Storage

50mmscf/d CO 2

(1mmtpa)CompressionTransportation InjectionStorage

Krechba 501

Pilot hole plus 1250 metres of horizontal section


Risk Profile of a CGS Project

Time

Ris

k

Site Selection and Develop-ment

Operation(Injection)

ClosurePost-Closure

MVAR &QRA

Nation/ Landowner

Nation/ Landowner

Operator Stewardship

Project Phase

Monitoring

Baseline Data Acquisition and Initial QRA

MVAR &QRA

MVAR &QRA

We Are

Here


CO2 Storage: Joint Industry Project (JIP)

1. Provide assurance that secure geological storage of CO2 can be cost-effectively verified and that long-term assurance can be provided by short-term monitoring.

2. Demonstrate to stakeholders that industrial-scale geological storage of CO 2 is a viable GHG mitigation option.

3. Set precedents for the regulation and verification of the geological storage of CO 2, allowing eligibility for GHG credits

Objectives (2005-10)


7

The In Salah CO2 storage site at Krechba

Cretaceous sequence (900m)

Carboniferous mudstones (950m)

Reservoir (20-25m thick)

Definition and modelling of storage and migration

Definition and modelling of potential

cap-rock pathways

Gas Chemistrymonitoring Shallow aquifer

monitoring

Rock strain monitoring(Tilt, microseismic)

Productionmonitoring

(Tracers, fluid samples,pressures)

CO2 injection(3 wells)

Gas production(5 wells)

Gas from other fields

Amine C02 removal

Satellite monitoring(InSAR)

Fluid monitoring (4D seismic)


Technologies Deployed

� First samples to be collected in 2010Surface seepageMicrobiology

� Initial survey pre-injection� Two surveys in 2009 around key risk wells

Surface seepageSurface Flux/Soil Gas

� Images captured using X-band (8 days) and C-band (28 days)

Plume migrationCaprock integrityPressure Development

InSAR monitoring

� Currently being installed� Use to calibrate satellite data

Plume migrationCaprock integrityPressure Development

Tiltmeters/GPS

� 500m test well drilled and recording information aboveKB502 – no results to date

Caprock integrityMicroseismic

� 5 wells drilled to 350m - one beside each injector, one remote and one between KB5 and KB502.

Caprock IntegrityPotable aquifer contamination

Shallow aquifer wells

Monitoring technology Risk to Monitor Action/Status

3D seismicPlume migrationSubsurface characterisation

� Initial survey in 1997� High resolution repeat 3D survey acquired in mid 2009.� May show some time lapse (4D) effects

Wellhead/annulus samplingWellbore integrityPlume migration

� 2 monthly sampling since 2005

Tracers Plume migration � Implemented 2006

Wireline Logging/samplingSubsurface characterization

� Overburden samples and logs collected in new development wells


Krechba Field Development

CO2 Injectors

Gas Producers

0 km 5

KB-14

KB-11

KB-12

KB-15

KB-13

KB-501

KB-503

KB-502KB-5

GWC

Seismicporosity map


Satellite Imagery

Data collection since pre-injection

� Envisat and Radarsat2 key images used

� Inversion by a number of research partners

� Used for coupled Geomechanical Modelling

� Collected X-Band data in 2009

� Still assessing

� May use for horizontal deformation vector monitoring

� Satellite data may reduce seismic survey requirements



Krechba Field Structure

Seismic Line

Reservoir

900 metre Mudstone Top Seal


2009 3D Seismic Survey Acquisition

2009 3D Survey

� Acquired April/May 2009

� Survey area ~ 156 km 2

� Extended cover to north – new shot lines (elsewhere same shot lines as 1997)

� Increased receiver line spacing to 160 m (480 m for 1997 survey)

� Vibroseis sweep 6–90 Hz (6–70 Hz 1997)


Top C10.2 Reservoir/ Injection Horizon - Time

Top C10.2

wells:= injector= appraisal= producer

� Subtle anticline structure –steeper on eastern flank

� Numerous small-offset faults of varying orientations– Different

orientations from deeper Devonian faults


Top C20.4 (Hot Shale) - Time

Top C20.4


� Anticline structure progressively more subtle as move up through stratigraphy

� None of C10.2 faulting penetrates this stratigraphic level

� Surface shows NW-trending linear features in vicinity of CO2 injectors– 4D effect ?


Carboniferous NW Linear Features: Kb-502 / Kb-5

1264 ms time slice

(textured by coherence)

X-line 1143

HU

KbKb--55KbKb--502502

KbKb--503503


Carboniferous NW Linear Features: Kb-502z / Kb-5

X-line

1323

2009 X-line 1323: velocity push-down

1997 X-line 323: push-down??


NW Linear Features: Alignment with Satellite Deform ation

Top C20.1



NW Linear Features: Alignment with Satellite Deform ation

CO2 JIP Project 2010 20

Comparison of Homogeneous & Multi-Layer Model

KB-502 Deformation from 11/29/03 to 1/12/08 (Sources are identical for both models)


Coupled Geomechanical Model of the CO 2 Injection

XY

Z

X

-4000.

-3000.

-2000.

-1000.

0.

1000.

2000.

3000.

4000.

5000.

Y

-4000.-3000.

-2000.-1000.

0.1000.

2000.3000.

4000.5000.

V1L1G4

10 km10 km

4 km

FLAC3D Geomechanical Simulator

TOUGH2Multiphase Flow

Simulator

� Elastic properties of C10.2 sandstone consistent with laboratorymeasurements conducted by University of Liverpool (Faulkner andMitchell) at relevant confining stress level.

� Elastic properties of other layers estimated from vertical profiles of sonic logs ⇒ somewhat stiffer caprock (900-1800 m) and softer near surface layer (0 – 900 m)


The Emerging Structural Model

How do we make sense of this?

R

R’

YP

T

F

75°

15°

15°

45°

45°

P, R, R’, Y = Riedel shearsT = Tension fracturesF = Fold axis

σ1

N

Deep-seated faults

propagating upwards

Minor faults

Expected fracture zones

1. We have a present-day strike-slip stress regime with max stress NW-SE

2. The Krechba anticline was formed in a Late Carboniferous NE-SW strike-slip stress regime


4. The storage volume – 5 generations of grid

20x20 (500m x500m) areal grid, laterally homogeneous – based on KB-4 props

38 layers from surface down to Devonian (3km), 10800 active cells

1

2

3 4

5

2006 - Simulation test grid

2008 - JIP grid – too small

2008 - Grid III built in RMS 2009 - Grid IV built in R MS

2010 - Grid V built in Wellwhiz

descent of CO2-saturated brine after 500 years

338,000 active cellsStops below C10

Boundary of previous grid

New Grid – Grid_V3

50 x 40 x 3.5 kms150x150x22

From near ground surface to DevonianNew (k,phi) arrays

Image source Mike Goldwater: Auric Hydrates & Fracture

Technologies

Grid (UP) for Characterising Geomechanical Elastic Parameters

-500

-300

-100

100

300

500

700

900

1100

1300

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5

Dep

th m

TV

D s

s

Pois R KB-4

KB-4 HU

KB-5 HU

KB-4 S20

KB-5 S20

KB-4 D70

KB-4 YM mod

Line 1

Line 2

Line 3

Line 4

Line 5

Line 6

series 2

Line 7

Line 8

Line 9

Series5

Series6

Series7

Series8

Series9

Series10

Series11

Series12

Series13

Series14

Series15

Series16

Series17

Series18

Series19

Series20

Series34

Series35

Series36

Series37

Series38

Series39

Series40

Series41

Series42

Series43

Series44

C20_7_VIS_HOTSHALE_RCB_BIG and Hotshale_base_map_RCB_BIG

Anhydrite_over_HUC_RCB_BIG and TOP_HUC_RCB_BIG

Top_Cret_Con_approx_RCB_BIG

RCB_Water_Table_Surface

RCB_Ground_Surface_BIG

C20_2_VIS_RCB_BIG

C20_1_VIS_RCB_BIG

C10_3_TOURN_RCB_BIG Top_Res_grd_C10_2_RCB_BIG

Copy of grid III but refined verticallyto better model variation in elastic parameters

150x150x63


Co-Visualisation


Key Lessons Learned – Krechba (1)

� Successful storage demonstrated to date– No anomalies noted except KB5

� Each storage site is unique but with similarities– Sahara Carboniferous vs. North Sea– Storage horizon, caprock and wellbore integrity all key issues

� Monitoring programme site specific– Cost effective technologies proven very effective

– Wellhead/annulus monitoring, tracers, shallow aquifer, satellite imagery

� 3D Seismic effective but costly– Need cheaper technology– Need better understanding of azimuthal velocity ana lyses– Need faster processing technologies

� Expect the unexpected– Satellite imagery unexpected success

– Results have changed understanding of subsurface plume migration

– Do not ignore unusual/non conventional technologies – Gravity, Electromagnetic, Microbiology

– Wellbore integrity issues� Need methods to quantify leakage/flux rates


Key Lessons Learned – Krechba (2)

� Overburden as important as the storage reservoir– Coupled hydro-geomechanical modelling crucial for l ong term plume prediction

– Require very good overburden geomechanical and samp le data – not just storage horizon

– Fracture/fault characterisation critical

– CO2 plume migration heterogeneous – requires high resolu tion subsurface data to resolve

� Direct observation of CO 2 plume critical– Need observation wells - but costly

– Wellbore integrity/leakage issues

– Need integrated downhole monitoring suite

– Chemical monitoring and quantification – dissolved a nd Free CO 2

� Regular Quantitative Risk Assessment reviews crucia l– Allows for risks to be identified and mitigated/avo ided

– Need to develop long term risk profile understandin g

� We know more about CO 2 storage than we believe– A different application of currently available tech nologies

� Is it Rocket Science? I think not!!

Documents

In Salah Gas CO 2 CCS Project - The University of Edinburgh · In Salah Gas CO 2 CCS Project University of Edinburgh 7 July 2010 Allan S Mathieson, BPAE. CO 2 JIP Project 2010 Source-sink