Upload
others
View
14
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Modeling and mapping the area of potential impact (AoPI) for Class VI CO2 injection wells
Stephen Kraemer, Ph.D.Research Hydrologist
U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyOffice of Research and Development
y g
Office of Research and DevelopmentAthens, Georgia
Ground Water Protection Council Annual Forum,Atlanta, Georgia,
26 September, 2011
Office of Research and Development, National Exposure Research LabEcosystems Research Division, Athens, Georgia
Disclaimer• This material has been reviewed for presentation, and does not
represent the policy of the US Environmental Protection Agency.• Mention of commercial products does not indicate endorsement by
the Agency.
2
How to cut At leasttriplingt CO
Strategy for Reducing Emissions
CO2 emissions?
atm CO2
Emissions
one wedge (1GtC/yr):
emissions?
carbon capture and storage (CCS): geologic sequestration (GS)
Avoiddoubling
introduce systems to capture CO2 and store it underground at 800
Stabilizeunderground at 800 large coal-fired plants or 1,600 natural-gas-fired plants
atm 500 ppm
3
plants.
Pacala, Socolow, Science, 2004
Today 20571957
CO2 Stationary Sources
electricity generationcoal and natural gas
4
NETL 2010 Atlas
Advantages and challenges ofdeep storage of CO2p g 2
Benson, Cook, IPCC
NETL, 2010
5
Deep Saline Formations
Illinois BasinMt. Simon Sandstone
6NETL 2010 Atlas
Potential threats to underground sources of drinking water
7
Birkholzer et al., 2009
EPA UIC Area of Review (AoR)computational/numerical modeling and mapping
Guidance forGuidance for
CO2front
permit applicantpermit applicant
front
Critical pressure frontfront
AoR = MESPOP (maximum extent of the separate-phase plume
8
p p por the pressure front)
Area of Potential Impact (AoPI)semi-analytical modeling and mapping
pressure influenceBlock-diagram
view Guidance forGuidance forpermit reviewerpermit reviewer
threshold pressure
CO2 plume
Plan view
Primary seal and secondary traps and seals
from Birkholzer et al., 2008
USDW (TDS<10,000 mg/L
y y p
injection well freshunpluggedwell
99Cross-sectional view
Storage Unit brineCO2
Single Layer Concept Multi Layer Conceptet
al.
09
yes aquitard storage
boun
dary
Zhou
20
0
en o
r clo
sed
bop
eeb based frame ork
CAMELOT solver
web-based framework
desktop framework
TTim solver
desktop framework
GeoSequestrationBAEM
10
GeoSequestration
Maximum extent CO2 front
Qvertically integrated approach
Q
σc, cCO2
Haσb, b
ka, a
brine
r11
r
(Nordbotten and Celia, JFM, 2006)
Pressure Influence (single aquifer)
S
uWKHQp );(
42
p is the change in pressure [FL-2]
KHtrS
u4
2
Q is the injection rate (positive into the aquifer) [L3T-1]
K is the hydraulic conductivity of the aquifer [L2]
S is the storativity of the aquifer [-]
Qr is the radial distance from the center of the injection well [L]
H is the aquifer thickness [L]
t is time since injection started [T]
HK S
t is time since injection started [T]
W() is the well function
Note: an equivalentK, S Note: an equivalent injection volume rate of brine is computed by dividing CO2 mass rate of i j ti b CO d it @
1212r
(Theis, 1935)injection by CO2 density @ pressure, temperature. (Altunin, 1975).
Pressure influence … continued
yes aquitard storage
-Jac
ob55
no aquitard storage
Moe
nch
1985
yes aquitard storage
Han
tush
-19
5 M
. yes aquitard storage n
hou
et a
l20
09
y q g
dary
con
ditio
n
1313
Z
boun
Case StudyIllinois Basin
1E+06 800750700650600
Iowa
WisconsinWisconsin Arch
Kankakee Arch C
ppi R
iver A
rch
GroundwaterResourcesRegion
Thickness Mt. Simon (m)
Illinois Basin800000
900000 550500450400350300250200
Illinois
CincinnatiA
rch
ADM Site
Miss
issip
p
20 hypothetical injection wells5 Mt CO2/yr each
600000
700000
200150100500
IndianaCore Injection Area
Ozark
Dom
e
5 Mt CO2/yr eachTotal 100 Mt/yr
800000 900000 1E+06 1.1E+06 1.2E+06 1.3E+06
500000KentuckyMissouri
e
Pascola Arch
2000
mBirkholzer, Zhou, IJGCC 2009Zhou et al., GW, 2010
141414
Mt. Simon SandstoneEau Clare sealTOUGH2/ECO2N
24 node Linux supercomputer
Pressure fronts --- basin scale,CO2 fronts --- local scale
0.1
0 5
40353020
CO2 saturation at 50 yrspressure, bars50 yrs
0.5
1
5
1
2010510.50.1
10
2030
35
20
105
1
151515800000
1E+061.2E+06
600000
800
Birkholzer, Zhou, 2009Zhou et al., 2010
Pressure influence, Mt. Simon fm, 50 yrs, semi-analytical, single
phase solution, single layer
0.1
0.5
1
40353020105 phase solution, single layer
5
10
2030
35
20
10.50.1
“AoPI” ¯10
5
1
“AoR”G Sit L ti
¯
G
G Site LocationPressure increase
0.1 bar0.2 bar G
0.5 bar1.0 bar2.0 bar5 0 bar5.0 bar10.0 bar20.0 bar50.0 bar
1616
StatesIllinois BasinCounties 0 50 100 150 20025
Kilometers
Maximum extent threshold pressure
fresh zdw
w
l
ti tc
salinebi
Hbc
Bandilla, Kraemer, Birkholzer, under reviewstatic calculations- assume equilibrium density
17
assume equilibrium density- assume uniform density
0.12dynamic vs static threshold pressure
kg/s
)
0.1
DP = 1 barDP = 2 barDP 3 b
quife
r(k 0.08
DP = 3 barDP = 5 barDP = 10 barDP = 15 bar
ate
into
A 0.06
ce(m
)
600
-400
-200 Shale
Aquifer
Flow
Ra
0.04D
epth
Bel
owS
urfa
c
0 500 1000 1500 2000
-1400
-1200
-1000
-800
-600
Reservoir
Pressure BuildupBoundary Condition
Wellbore
TOUGH2
0.02 static threshold pressureequilibrium density = 2.1 baruniform density=1.3 bar
Radius (m)0 500 1000 1500 2000
1818Time (days)
10-1 100 101 102 103 104 1050
Birkholzer et al, 2011
19Mark Bakker
20Mark Bakker
8
7
21Mark Bakker
6
8
7
6
22Mark Bakker
65 4
8
7
65
23Mark Bakker
54
GeoSequestration v0.2web interface- web interface
Jay Rineer team
24
BAEM v0.1 – desktop interfaceBASINS Analytic Element ModelBASINS Analytic Element Model
Jay Rineer team
CAMELOT l iCAMELOT plug-in
25TTim plug-in Matt Tonkin team
Single Layer Concept Multi Layer ConceptAoPIT l f
ou e
t al.
2009
yes aquitard storage
ed b
ound
ary Tools for
Regulators
Zho 2
open
or c
lose
pressure influence
CAMELOT solver
TTim sol er
threshold pressure
CO l
b b d f k
TTim solverCO2 plume
web-based frameworkdesktop framework
BAEM26
GeoSequestration
BAEM