Upload
glen
View
81
Download
1
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Monitoring the CO 2 Injection site: K12-B. By: Vincent Vandeweijer 1 , Bert van der Meer 1 , Cor Hofstee 1 Frans Mulders 2 , Daan D’Hoore 2 and Hilbrand Graven 2. 2 GDF SUEZ E&P Nederland B.V. 1 TNO Geological Survey of the Netherlands. GHGT10 – Amsterdam. Outline. Intro. Location - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
Monitoring the CO2 injection site: K12-B1
Monitoring the COMonitoring the CO22 Injection site: Injection site: K12-BK12-B
By:Vincent Vandeweijer1, Bert van der Meer1, Cor Hofstee1
Frans Mulders2, Daan D’Hoore2 and Hilbrand Graven2
1TNO Geological Survey of the Netherlands 2GDF SUEZ E&P Nederland B.V.
GHGT10 – Amsterdam
Monitoring the CO2 injection site: K12-B2
Outline
Intro
LocationLayout
Geological settingGas production
CO2 injection
Monitoring Techniques and Results
Well integrity:Multi-finger imaging tools
CBL and Down-hole video logElectromagnetic imaging tool and Scale
CO2 Migration:Chemical Tracers and Gas analysis
Dynamic flow modeling
Conclusions & Future plans
Monitoring the CO2 injection site: K12-B3
Gas field in the Dutch sector of the North Sea
150 km NW of Amsterdam
Location
Monitoring the CO2 injection site: K12-B4
Multiple compartments
High temperature: 128 oC
Low permeability
Deep, 3900 m
K12-B Platform
Layout
Monitoring the CO2 injection site: K12-B5
Gas field in the Upper and Lower Slochteren
Permian age
Aeolian and fluvial sediments
Zechstein salt seal
Geological Setting
Monitoring the CO2 injection site: K12-B6
Initial Gas in Place: 14.4 BCM
Gas Produced (01/01/2010): 12.8 BCM
Remaining reserves: 0.3 BCM
In production since 1987
Amine wash down to 2% CO2
Initial CO2 content: 13 %
Gas Production
Monitoring the CO2 injection site: K12-B7
CO2 Injection started 2004 in K12-B8
+10 kTon injected in compartment 4
CO2 Injection since 2005 in K12-B6
Producers K12-B1 and K12-B5
Approx. 70 kTon injected in compartment 3
K12-B8 – Injector/Producer
K12-B5 - Producer
K12-B1 - Producer
K12-B6 – Injector
CO2 Injection
Projects at K12-B: ORC, MONK, CO2ReMoVe, CATO2
K12-B3st1 - Producer
Monitoring the CO2 injection site: K12-B8
Monitoring Techniques and Results
Well integrity
Multi-finger imaging toolsCBL and Down-hole video log
Electromagnetic imaging tool and Scale
CO2 Migration
Chemical Tracers and Gas analysisDynamic flow modeling
Monitoring the CO2 injection site: K12-B9
Multi-finger Imaging Tools
First multi-finger caliper in 2005, 3 Time Lapse runs completed
First Time Lapse run in 2006 gave “surprising” results
Several theories were discussed… none conclusive
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
025
050
075
010
0012
5015
0017
5020
0022
5025
0027
5030
0032
5035
00
Depth [m]
Pit
Dep
th [
%]
MFC 2005
MFC 2006
MFC 2007
MFC 2009
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
1500
1750
2000
2250
2500
2750
3000
Depth [m]
Pit
Dep
th [
%]
2005
2006
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
1500
1750
2000
2250
2500
2750
3000
Depth [m]
Pit
Dep
th [
%]
2006
2007
Monitoring the CO2 injection site: K12-B10
Obstruction was investigated with a video log
Severe scaling in production tubing
Scale in old production tubing impedes evaluation
CBL and Down-hole Video Log
CBL could not be performed due to obstruction at perforation level
Monitoring the CO2 injection site: K12-B11
ElectroMagnetic Imaging Tool and Scale
EMIT (ElectroMagnetic Imaging Tool) insensitive to scale
Ran in combination with Multi-finger caliper (PMIT) and Gamma Ray
Scale consists mainly of Barite but also holds some radioactive components
Monitoring the CO2 injection site: K12-B12
Chemical Tracers and Gas Analyses
Provide information to evaluate the effects of certain mechanisms on EGR
Injection of two types of tracers took place March 2005
Tracer data from wells K12-B1 & K12-B5 was used to determine breakthrough
In combination with Gas analysis used to investigate the migration of CO2
K12-B5
0
5E-11
1E-10
1,5E-10
2E-10
2,5E-10
3E-10
3,5E-10
4E-10
4,5E-10
5E-10
Tra
cer
Con
cent
ratio
n (L
/L)
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
CO
2 fr
actio
n (%
)
PMCP
1,3-PDMCH
CO2 fraction
K12-B1
0
5E-11
1E-10
1,5E-10
2E-10
2,5E-10
3E-10
3,5E-10
4E-10
4,5E-10
5E-10
Tra
cer
Con
cent
ratio
n (L
/L)
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
CO
2 fr
actio
n (%
)
PMCP
1,3-PDMCH
CO2 fraction
Monitoring the CO2 injection site: K12-B13
Dynamic Flow Modeling
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
5000
5500
6000
6500
7000
7500
8000
8500
9000
9500
10000
1/1/05 1/1/06 1/1/07 1/1/08 1/1/09 1/1/10
Time [date]
CO
2 P
rod
uc
tio
n R
ate
[N
m3 /d
]
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Inc
rem
en
tal
CO
2 P
rod
uc
tio
n [
%]
CO2 Prod Rate Sim
% excesCO2
B1 excesCO2 obs
Complemented with down hole pressure and temperature data
History matched reservoir models of various compartments and combinations
Compartment 3
Compartment 2
Compartment 4
Modeled and measured CO2 concentrations are within acceptable range
Monitoring the CO2 injection site: K12-B14
Conclusions
State of the well and tubing are OK
EGR through pressure support
EGR through the partitioning behavior of the CO2, too little data
CO2 injection at K12-B has not brought any unforeseeable problems
Chemical tracers supplied valuable data
Monitoring the CO2 injection site: K12-B15
Future work / plans
Inject new chemical tracers in K12-B6
Execute survey of the seabed (and below) for baseline values
Investigate upscaling scenarios
Run ElectroMagnetic Imaging Tool (EMIT) in Time Lapse
Further fine tune the reservoir models
PMCP1,3-PDMCH
fluorinecarbon
Monitoring the CO2 injection site: K12-B16
Questions….
K12-B8 – Injector/Producer
K12-B1 - Producer
K12-B6 – Injector
CO2 reproduction & injectionK12-B1 & B6
0
100000
200000
300000
400000
500000
600000
2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030
year
CO
2 [
To
nn
es]
Injected CO2
Re-produced CO2
Stored CO2
Poly. (Re-produced CO2)
Poly. (Injected CO2)
K12-B5 - Producer
K12-B3st1 - Producer