New CASSEM conf 20101004.ppt · 2010. 10. 25. · O D Eih tOur Dynamic Earth 4 October 2010 CASSEM Conference 26. 25/10/2010 14 ... TEG Stock Tank ... This option is limited. Very

25/10/2010

1

CASSEMCO2 Aquifer Storage Site Evaluation and Monitoring

CASSEM Conference

Our Dynamic Earth

4 October 2010 1CASSEM Conference


Introduction

D id C b ll S tti hPDavid Campbell, ScottishPower

4 October 2010 CASSEM Conference 2

25/10/2010

2


Key note speech

St M h ll S tti hPSteven Marshall, ScottishPower



CASSEM rationale and genesis

P f St t H ldi Prof. Stuart Haszeldine, University of Edinburgh


25/10/2010

3

CASSEMCCS BackgroundCASSEM was invented in December 2005 by Stuart Haszeldine (UoE) and Adrian Todd (H-WU)

At that time………..

• There was no UK CCS programme

• DTI had not become BERR, or DECC, or OCCS

• The BP-SSE project was the only one

4 October 2010 5

• There was no storage capacity assessment for the UK

• IEA still worked on Business as Usual

• “CCS” research was on efficiency and capture

CASSEMInternational Capture and Storage

Required emission reduction

CCS

4 October 2010 6

550 ppm Atmosphere maximum

Pacala and Socolow Science “Wedges” (2004)IPCC Special Report on CCS (2005)

25/10/2010

4

CASSEMUK CCS G8 commitment to CCS

4 October 2010 7

Forties had been evaluated for EOR with CO2 from Grangemouth

Miller EOR was the only global CCS powerplant project

CASSEMWhy CASSEM ?• How to assess “aquifers”- large volumes, old data, multiple owners, unclear seal

• Which coal plant ?- close to coast ==> storage offshore in saline formations

• How to work at this ?- Full chain project (not just capture), focus on storage

4 October 2010 8

Full chain project (not just capture), focus on storage

• Which companies and organisations ?- New entry organisations, KE, methods of working - Need a funder - DTI “CAT” programme large enough

25/10/2010

5

CASSEMWhich CASSEM partners ?

IDEA - a multi-discipline integrated examination of the entire capture and storage chain

Linking: 1) Capture at the power station -> 2) CO2 transport network

3) W ll h d d ll d i -> 3) Well head and well design -> 4) Injection

-> 5) Migration -> 6) Monitoring-> 7) Public acceptance

• Investigating two case studies : Firth of Forth & E England • Academic partners :

4 October 2010 9

• Academic partners : Scottish Centre for Carbon Storage, Tyndall Centre

• Industrial partners : AMEC, ScottishPower, Scottish and Southern Energy, Schlumberger, Marathon Energy

• Government bodies : British Geological Survey, • Funders : Industry, DTI (TSB), EPSRC

CASSEMStill relevant today ?YES !1) First comprehensive UK cost and value-chain ) p

2) Saline Formations host >90% possible storage UK may have 35% of EU storage

3) Integrated workflows from plant to store

4 October 2010 10

3) Integrated workflows from plant to store

4) CASSEM 1 - establish UK method CASSEM 2 - site identification and appraisal CASSEM 3 - license and DRILL saline formation

25/10/2010

6

CASSEMAnd so, eventually ….

CO2 source

Pi d iPipe design

Explore a reservoir

Reservoir model

4 October 2010 11

Reservoir model

Risk assessment

Linear ………… became ………. Integrated


CASSEM rationale and genesis

P f St t H ldi Prof. Stuart Haszeldine, University of Edinburgh


25/10/2010

7


From Surface to Store: From Surface to Store: Overview of CASSEM

methodology

D M ti S ith B iti h Dr. Martin Smith, British Geological Survey


CASSEMOutline of talk

• Background: philosophy and aims of the CASSEM j tCASSEM project

• ‘Guided tour’ of key activities

k l d d h l• Acknowledgments: support and help from all of the CASSEM Team and in particular to D Campbell, E Mackay and D Poulson


25/10/2010

8

CASSEMProject Philosophy

• Understanding and transforming i d tmindsets

•JIP - Bringing skills together

•Developing an ‘entry path’


•To improve investor confidence

CASSEM

Longannet

4 October 2010 16CASSEM ConferenceFerrybridge

25/10/2010

9

CASSEM

AMEC

• High level routing study

4 October 2010 17CASSEM Conference Univ. Edinburgh

g g y

• novel mixing scenarios before injection

CASSEM


Storage process workflows

25/10/2010

10

CASSEMGeological ModelLINCS.

4 October 2010 19CASSEM ConferenceBGS and Univ. Edinburgh

CASSEMReservoir simulation

4 October 2010 20CASSEM ConferenceHeriot Watt Univ.

25/10/2010

11

CASSEMMonitorability

Electro-magnetics

Gravity

4 October 2010 21CASSEM ConferenceUniv. Edinburgh

Seismic

CASSEMUncertainty

Risk

4 October 2010 22CASSEM ConferenceFlow simulation sensitivity analysis

Univ. Edinburgh

25/10/2010

12

CASSEMPublic Perception

4 October 2010 23CASSEM Conference Tyndall Centre, Univ. Manchester

CASSEMIn Summary,

• CASSEM project has delivered a series f i t t d kfl d of process-orientated workflows and

scientific insights aimed at new entrants to CCS

• Key focus on– Analysis of sub-surface storesAnalysis of sub surface stores– Uncertainty and risk– Full costing model– Public perception


25/10/2010

13


From Surface to Store: From Surface to Store: Overview of CASSEM

methodology

D M ti S ith B iti h Dr. Martin Smith, British Geological Survey



CASSEM Conference

O D i E thOur Dynamic Earth


25/10/2010

14


C i & H dli f Compression & Handling of Carbon Dioxide

J W tt AMECJames Watt, AMEC


Work Summary

To provide a realistic linkage between the potential sources of large

volumes of CO2 and the geology of typical saline formations.

25/10/2010

15

Appreciation of the whole scheme makes a difference

• Early decision making by the asset team can have a profound affect pon the end product and cost

• CCS as a whole scheme needs to be better understood to– Inform ongoing discussions– Enable early decisions

• Typically we need to consider– Can it be done? – What needs to be done?– How can we do it?– How much will it cost?

• Understanding the process scheme, options and interactions is critical

Project Timeline

• If you consider a capture plant 800MW in size

BFD/PFD

• Using IEA metrics a CCS system might cost £940 million

• Traditionally engineering design costs are 15% of the purchased cost of equipment

• PCE = £210 million approx• Engineering costs in the region of

£31 million£31 million• 45,000 manhours, 237 man years• Concept = £1.5 million• FEL = £11 million• Engineering = £18.5 million

25/10/2010

16

CASSEMBlock/Process Flow including capture and injection

Determining ParametersComposition, ppmWaterSOxNOx H2S

G, m³/sQ, kg/s

Determining ParametersComposition, ppmWaterSOxNOx H2SLean/Rich Amine concLean Amine return conc and flowarteAmine G, m³/sAmine Q kg/s

Determining Parameters

Determining ParametersComposition, ppm/%Water SOxNOx H2SCO2O2

Determining ParametersComposition, ppm/%Water SOxNOx H2SCO2

Determining ParametersComposition, ppm/%Water SOxNOx H2SCO2O2

Determining Parameters Determining Parameters

GRID CONNECTION


Grid Demand, MWe

Determining ParametersComposition, ppm/%Water SOxNOx H2SCO2

Determining ParametersComposition, ppm/%Water SOxNOx H2SCO2O2H2

Boiler

Steam Turbine

Particulate Control Flue Gas Desulphurisation CO2 Absorber CO2 Stripper Dehydration Compression Pipeline

Reboiler

Absorbent Day Tank

Feed Pumps & Feed Cooling

Boosting

TEG Reboiler

TEG Stock Tank

Density, kg/m³T, °CP, barSteam kg/h, T & P

VariablesLean Amine recirculationAmine TemperatureAmine conc%HSS content

Amine Q, kg/sDensity, kg/m³T, °CP, barSteam kg/h, T & P

VariablesReboiler DutyCooler DutyLean/Rich InterchangerColumn T & P

Composition, ppmWater (Key)SOxNOx H2S

G, m³/sQ, kg/sDensity, kg/m³T, °CP, barSteam kg/h, T & P

VariablesReboiler DutyCooler DutyGlycol recirculationUnit entry T & P

O2H2N2CH4GlycolAmine

G, m³/sQ, kg/sDensity, kg/m³T, °CP, bar inlet and outletPipeline pressure dropStorage pressure requirementsPower availability

VariablesCompressor stagesOutlet pressurePower availability (limiting factor)

CO2O2H2N2CH4GlycolAmine

G, m³/sQ, kg/sDensity, kg/m³T, °CP, bar inlet and outletLength

VariablesLine sizeLine LengthDistance to boosting

O2H2N2CH4GlycolAmine

G, m³/sQ, kg/sDensity, kg/m³T, °CP, bar inlet and outletPipeline pressure dropStorage pressure requirements

VariablesCompressor stagesOutlet pressurePower

Determining ParametersComposition, ppm/%Water SOxNOx

Composition, ppmWaterSOxNOx H2S

Capture plant tolerance to SOx and NOx

G, m³/sQ, kg/sDensity, kg/m³T, °CP, bar

VariablesAbsorbent type (lime/water)Polishing scrubber requirementNumber and size of units

Direct Contact Cooling and Pre-

Treatment

Composition, ppmWaterSOxNOx H2S

G, m³/sQ, kg/sDensity, kg/m³T, °CP, barRequired T for CaptureRequired SOx level for capture plantVariablesQuench water rate

Determining ParametersGrid Demand, MWeSteam flow, kg/hCoal CompositionLHV/HHV

Coal -G, m³/sQ, kg/s

Steam -T, °CP, bar

Generators

Coal Feeding


Grid Demand, MweCarbon Capture parasitic loadSteam rate

Determining ParametersGrid Demand, MWeSteam flow, kg/hCoal CompositionLHV/HHV

Coal -G, m³/sQ, kg/s

Steam -T, °CP, bar

DeNOxSCR/nSCR

Lean Amine

Storage

Rich Amine

Storage

Nocturnal Processing Option for Amine Stripping

Pipeline

CO2O2H2N2CH4GlycolAmine

G, m³/sQ, kg/sDensity, kg/m³T, °CP, bar inlet and outletLength

VariablesLine sizeLine LengthDistance to boosting

Offshore Boosting(if required)

This option is limited. Very dependent on the age of the target asset, space available and the onsite power capability.

Subsea Completion

Assumptions

Load Factor 80%Availability 95%Ramp rate 100 MW/hr (TBC)Efficiency 45%

LG = 3 off 800MW s/cFB = 2 off 800MW s/c

H2N2CH4GlycolAmine

G, m³/sQ, kg/sDensity, kg/m³T, °CP, bar inlet and outletPipeline pressure dropStorage pressure requirementsPower availability

VariablesCompressor stagesOutlet pressurePower availability (limiting factor)

Storage

Absorbent Stock Tank

Absorbent Loading/Unloading

Waste Absorbent TEG Loading/Unloading

H2SCO2O2H2N2CH4GlycolAmine

G, m³/sQ, kg/sDensity, kg/m³T, °CP, bar inlet and outletReservoir pressureInjection patternInjection pressurePorosity

VariablesNumber of well headsDepth of reservoirFlowrateInjection Pressure

BHP 220 barWHP 150 barD = 1200mRes Pressure = 120 bar1million t/year per well head

,

Variables

,

Variables

Casing

Wellhead

Biomass/Gas COGEN Steam and power supply for

Capture (Option)

CASSEMDesign Influences Example

The report examines the blocks and the relationships between them and the variablesthem and the variables and constraints.

25/10/2010

17

CASSEMWork Activities

• 1 HSE Considerations and Liaison• 2 Interim Route Selection• 3 Build Compression & Handling System• 3 Build Compression & Handling System• 4 Interim Compressor Selection and Station Location• 5 Verify Route Selection • 6 Verify Compressor Selection and Station Location• 7 Well Characterisation

• DeliverablesHSE of Carbon Dioxide for CCS Report– HSE of Carbon Dioxide for CCS Report

– Route Selection for Exemplar Power Stations– Compressor Selection Report– Exemplar Station Block Flow Diagram

• Included design criteria mapping

CASSEMHealth and Safety Review

HSE Considerations– Initial work was focused on HSE issues around CCS– During the project both DNV and EI have studied the same

subject– The document summarises the HSE issues for Carbon Dioxide

streams in CCS– It does not cover capture chemicals.– Provides common baseline for all partners– Has since been adopted by AMEC to ensure competency of Has since been adopted by AMEC to ensure competency of

personnel in CCS– Currently a baseline reference standard on all AMEC CCS

projects

25/10/2010

18

CASSEMRoute Selection – key activity• Two Exemplar Power Stations

– Ferrybridge, 1600MW s/c coal firedFerrybridge, 1600MW s/c coal fired– Longannet, 2400MW s/c coal fired

• Objective to test possibility of transport by pipeline to hypothetical store

• Provide reference material for pipeline routing activitiesDefine methodology for CCS pipelines• Define methodology for CCS pipelines

• Demonstrate route issues, selections and decision making

Ferrybridge Route assumptions – only for the CASSEM theoretical study

Option 2 – Alternate RouteThis picture illustrates how route options are developed

Other CO2 sources considered in routings

Option 3 – Shortened Cross Country

Option 1 – Assumed general wayleave Corridor

25/10/2010

19

CASSEMLongannet Route assumption - only for the CASSEM theoretical study

CASSEMCompressor Selection

25/10/2010

20

CASSEMKey Learning

• Geology of storage has a major influence on design• Uncertainty in geological stores was highy g g g• Overall the relationship between transport and store is now better

understood. More complex than we knew, but we have mitigated a lot of risk and understanding the constituent parts.

• Whilst not solved the impact of storage issues can be seen through the scheme.

• Guidance and reports from CASSEM are now core competency documents for AMEC CCS.documents for AMEC CCS.

CASSEMContactJames WattTechnical ManagerEngineering Execution Centreg gLion CourtWynyard Business ParkStockton 0n TeesTS22 5FDUK

[email protected] es.Watt@a ec.co

+44 (0) 1740646082 mobile +44 (0) 7779 590193

Or Alastair Rennie, Project Director, [email protected]+44 (0) 7889 486 827

25/10/2010

21


C i & H dli f Compression & Handling of Carbon Dioxide

J W tt AMECJames Watt, AMEC



Modelling CCS Costs

M k O k d S tti hPMark Ockendon, ScottishPower


25/10/2010

22

CASSEMPurpose

• Existing Studies (McKinsey, Harvard…)

• Consistency, transparency, comparable

• CASSEM = methodologies & workflows, l l ’not necessarily actual £’s


CASSEMScope

Generation & capture

Transport Storagecapture

• Supercritical Coal• Fully Integrated• Post Combustion• Amine Based

• Pipeline• Compression

• Aquifer• North Sea


• CASSEM mainly Storage focused• CCS costs cover full chain

25/10/2010

23

CASSEMPower Station Size

Power Station

+ 450 MW Power for Capture Plant

= 1,600 MW total station size

42%

‐12%

= 30%

1,150 MW Electricity to GridCoal


Assumptions:1 tonne coal produces 2.2 tonnes CO2 when burned.1 tonne coal contains 25GJ energy.Capture process requires 3.2 GJ energy per tonne of CO2 captured.Supercritical plant is 42% efficient.

Indicative power & efficiency numbers

CASSEMCosting options

Power Station Power StationIncremental investment Opportunity cost

+ 450 MW

1,150 MW = 1,150 MW

1,600 MW total

– 450 MWSame electricaloutput to the

grid

‘Cost’:+ CapEx+ Coal+ Carbon+ OpEx+ Return

‘Cost’:– Sales

Are existing studies clear about which method is used?


= 1,600 MW total

25/10/2010

24

CASSEMModel - Overview

• Financial Model + Discussion Paper• Excel based, no macros, not locked• Data sources referenced• Available to download (soon!) from:

Scottish CCS website (www.geos.ed.ac.uk/sccs), or CASSEM website ( t)or CASSEM website (www.cassem.net)


CASSEMModel - Structure

Costs‘Cost’

(Basis 1)

Schedule

Operating Assumptions

MacroEconomicData

FinancialModel

‘Cost’(Basis 2)

‘Cost’(Basis 3)

‘Cost’(Basis 4)


CO2 Abated vs Captured/Transported/Stored

Real vs Nominal (inflated) cashflows

Cost vs Price

25/10/2010

25

CASSEMModel - Sources

Generation & capture

Transport Storagecapture

•Incremental cost of CCS vs non-CCS station(Scottish Power)

• Pipeline & Compressor calculations, per the IEA model (Amec)

• Seismic data(Slumberger)

• Well costs(Marathon Oil)


• Aquifer Classification (per the SCCS study)

•Macroeconomic data:(Ofgem ‘Project Discovery’)

CASSEMModel - Current Status

• Initial peer review complete • Wider peer review & open source• Feedback

• Benchmarking existing studies, update d ll ddata sources, collate and incorporate feedback...CASSEM 2?


25/10/2010

26


Modelling CCS Costs

M k O k d S tti hPMark Ockendon, ScottishPower



Process Engineering S i fStrategies for

CO2 Injection into Saline Formations

D P l Ek U i it f Dr. Paul Eke, University of Edinburgh


25/10/2010

27

CASSEMWork ScopeWork Scope

Injection strategies designs & simulationsInjection strategies designs & simulations

Process facilities sizing & optimizationProcess facilities sizing & optimization

Injection facilities costingInjection facilities costing

Surface & subsurface interfacingSurface & subsurface interfacing


CASSEMBackgroundBackground

How could COHow could CO22 remain underground?remain underground?

COCO22 Storage security depends on a Storage security depends on a combination of various trappings.combination of various trappings.

Over time, residual COOver time, residual CO22 trapping, trapping, solubility trapping and mineral solubility trapping and mineral trapping increasetrapping increase


trapping increase.trapping increase.

Modified after IPCC 2005

25/10/2010

28

CASSEMAimAim

Design, Development of tools, Technology, Design, Development of tools, Technology, Protocols & Best Practices to enhance COProtocols & Best Practices to enhance CO Storage Storage

BackgroundBackground

Protocols & Best Practices to enhance COProtocols & Best Practices to enhance CO22 Storage Storage

Simulations to investigate behaviour of COSimulations to investigate behaviour of CO22 in the in the surface & subsurface injection facilitiessurface & subsurface injection facilities

Design of injection strategies to maximize CODesign of injection strategies to maximize CO

ObjectivesObjectives

Design of injection strategies to maximize CODesign of injection strategies to maximize CO22storage storage

Apply results to enhance storage permanence in Apply results to enhance storage permanence in geological formationsgeological formations


CASSEMProposed StrategiesProposed Strategies

Option 1: Standard COOption 1: Standard CO22 InjectionInjection

Option 2: COOption 2: CO22––Brine Surface Mixing & Brine Surface Mixing & InjectionInjection

Option 3: COOption 3: CO22––Water Surface Mixing & Water Surface Mixing & InjectionInjectionInjectionInjection

Option 4: COOption 4: CO22 Alternating Brine (CAB) Alternating Brine (CAB) InjectionInjection


25/10/2010

29

CASSEMStandard COStandard CO22 InjectionInjection


CASSEMCOCO22––Brine Surface Mixing & InjectionBrine Surface Mixing & Injection


25/10/2010

30

CASSEMCOCO22––Water Surface Mixing & InjectionWater Surface Mixing & Injection


CASSEMCOCO22 Alternating Brine (CAB) InjectionAlternating Brine (CAB) Injection


25/10/2010

31

CASSEMCalculations & Simulations ResultsCalculations & Simulations Results

ForthForth


(a) Solubility of CO(a) Solubility of CO22 in fresh water and brinein fresh water and brine

(b) Density of CO(b) Density of CO22 and fluidsand fluids

(c) Zoom in on the fluid densities(c) Zoom in on the fluid densities

CASSEMCalculations & Simulations ResultsCalculations & Simulations Results

Lincolnshire Lincolnshire


(a) Solubility of CO(a) Solubility of CO22 in fresh water and brine in fresh water and brine

(b) Density of CO(b) Density of CO22 and fluidsand fluids

(c) Zoom in on the fluid densities(c) Zoom in on the fluid densities

25/10/2010

32

CASSEMMassive volume required to be handledMassive volume required to be handled

15 MT CO15 MT CO22/yr in H2O/brine requires:/yr in H2O/brine requires:

ChallengesChallenges

15 MT CO15 MT CO22/yr in H2O/brine requires:/yr in H2O/brine requires:

0.5M ~ 5.4M b/d0.5M ~ 5.4M b/d

198M ~ 1.9B b/yr198M ~ 1.9B b/yr

198 wells198 wells~198 wells~198 wells

11 ~ 104 wells @ 50000 b/d/well11 ~ 104 wells @ 50000 b/d/well

8 ~ 74 wells @ 70000 b/d/well8 ~ 74 wells @ 70000 b/d/well4 October 2010 63CASSEM Conference

CASSEMSurface & subsurface interfaceSurface & subsurface interface

Forth Nodal AnalysisForth Nodal Analysis

Initial Reservoir PressureInitial Reservoir PressureMax. allowableMax. allowableBottom Hole PressureBottom Hole Pressure


25/10/2010

33

CASSEMSurface & subsurface interfaceSurface & subsurface interface

Lincolnshire Nodal AnalysisLincolnshire Nodal Analysis


Max. allowableMax. allowableBottom Hole PressureBottom Hole PressureInitial Reservoir PressureInitial Reservoir Pressure

CASSEMConclusions & RecommendationsConclusions & Recommendations

Tubing head pressure of ~90 and ~100 bars for Tubing head pressure of ~90 and ~100 bars for Lincolnshire and Forth reservoir respectivelyLincolnshire and Forth reservoir respectivelyLincolnshire and Forth reservoir respectively.Lincolnshire and Forth reservoir respectively.

Completion options, which use 7” tubing, offer Completion options, which use 7” tubing, offer a slight injection (lower head pressure) a slight injection (lower head pressure) advantage over 4.5” tubing.advantage over 4.5” tubing.


25/10/2010

34


COCO22--brine surface dissolution produces CObrine surface dissolution produces CO22--saturatedsaturated brine with density slightly higher brine with density slightly higher saturatedsaturated--brine with density slightly higher brine with density slightly higher than original brine in the formation than original brine in the formation

This eliminates the buoyancy force which is a This eliminates the buoyancy force which is a strong driving force to bring COstrong driving force to bring CO22 to the surfaceto the surface



These strategies speed up COThese strategies speed up CO22 dissolution as the dissolution as the period of time needed to achieve same in the period of time needed to achieve same in the period of time needed to achieve same in the period of time needed to achieve same in the subsurface formation is enhanced.subsurface formation is enhanced.

Hence, eliminating the dependence on long Hence, eliminating the dependence on long term dissolution and mineralization mechanisms term dissolution and mineralization mechanisms and significantly reduces long term monitoring and significantly reduces long term monitoring and significantly reduces long term monitoring and significantly reduces long term monitoring costs.costs.


25/10/2010

35


Strategies for accelerating COStrategies for accelerating CO22 dissolution and dissolution and Strategies for accelerating COStrategies for accelerating CO22 dissolution and dissolution and solubility trapping exsolubility trapping ex--situ proposedsitu proposed

Injection strategies studied are directly linked Injection strategies studied are directly linked with capability of enhancing permanent COwith capability of enhancing permanent CO22storage in the geological formationsstorage in the geological formationsstorage in the geological formationsstorage in the geological formations



Injection processes have been established and Injection processes have been established and require demonstrations. require demonstrations.

The application requires pilot plant validation The application requires pilot plant validation on a realistic scale, considering typical on a realistic scale, considering typical injection facilities sizes.injection facilities sizes.


25/10/2010

36

CASSEMThanks for listeningThanks for listening


[email protected] [email protected] Source: RBD virtual IPP


Process Engineering S i fStrategies for

CO2 Injection into Saline Formations

D P l Ek U i it f Dr. Paul Eke, University of Edinburgh


25/10/2010

37


G l i l i i Geological interpretation and storage modelling

D id L B iti h David Lawrence, British Geological Survey


CASSEMHow do I find a suitable store for my CO2?


25/10/2010

38

CASSEMSite Screening

Evaluation/Decision Gate 1

Level I: the Basic Geological Model

CASSEMSite Screening


Level I: the Basic Geological ModelLevel I: the Basic Geological Model


Level II: the Intermediate Model

Level I: the Basic Geological Model



Geological Interpretation and Modelling

Workflow




Level III: the High level Model



Level III: the High level Model

Workflow

CASSEM


25/10/2010

39

CASSEMCriteria Positive indicators Cautionary indicatorsSaline aquifer present Salinity >100 gl-1 Salinity <10 gl-1

Aquifer depth > 800 m <2500 m <800 m >2500 mTrap geometry exists Good trap structure Accepted at start of workflow

that no major trap structures

Initial area and site selection screening criteria

existCaprock exists >100 m thick <20 m thickAvailability of geological data

3D seismic data, uniform coverage

Old 2D seismic data, variable coverage

Proximity to power plant

<75km >100km

Suitable porosity >20% <10%Suitable permeability >500 mD <200 mDStratigraphy - geological complexity

Uniform Complex lateral variation and complex connectivity

Aquifer volume >100m thick sandstone over <20m thick sandstone


Aquifer volume >100m thick sandstone over 5.5 km2 or for a 30 m thick sandstone 10 km2

<20m thick sandstone

Igneous rocks An appreciation of their existence, geometry and effect on surrounding rock

Little knowledge of geometry and effect on surrounding rock

Containment Knowledge of minimal routes to surface/high level from aquifer/seal – faults, boreholes, mineworkings etc

Little knowledge of routes to surface, including faults and boreholes

(Modified after Chadwick et al, 2008)

CASSEM

Vertical exaggeration X10

Longannet

Vertical Exaggeration X70

Ferrybridge

25/10/2010

40

CASSEMBritish East Midlands and Lincolnshire

Geological Modelling

CASSEMData availability: seismic Target-wide coverage of modern 3D seismic None or restricted early 2D

seismic

Data availability: wells Regular spread of modern wells None or few early wells

Multiple thick persistent sands suggested by

Lincolnshire- Scoring of potential areas 5=favourable 1=unfavourable

Reservoir Geology: sands Multiple thick persistent sands suggested by scoping Inferred sand bodies only

Reservoir Geology: traps Appropriate trap lithology and structure suggested by scoping Inferred trap only

Reservoir Geology: complexity / generic confidence Scoping suggests that structure may be recognised and represented

Structural complexity not known or indeterminable

Target Seismic data availability

Well data availability

ReservoirGeology Complexity Modelling

score RANK

Saltfleetby 5 3.5 4 4.5 17 1

Welton 5 5 4 2.5 16.5 2


Gainsborough 2 4 5 2.5 13.5 3

Eakring 3 3.5 3 2.5 12 4

Hatfield Moors 3 2.5 3 3 11.5 5

South Humber 4 1 2 2 9 6

25/10/2010

41

CASSEM

5 6

4

3 1

24

CASSEM

Firth of ForthFirth of Forth

Lincolnshire

25/10/2010

42

CASSEM

CASSEM

25/10/2010

43

CASSEMData types

• Boreholes, wells

• Mining contour d tdata

• Seismic data

• Maps and surface outcrop information and

• Existing regional geological models

• Geological knowledge/ interpretation

CASSEMFirth of Forth

25/10/2010

44

CASSEM

Good

Quality of 3D seismic data in east

Lincolnshire

PoorGood

Medium

CASSEM

Level IMODEL

Level II MODEL

Level III MODEL

25/10/2010

45

CASSEMSandstone sample from outcrop

Sherwood Sherwood Sandstone exposed in a quarry

Images ©BGS/NERC.

Cleethorpes borehole core: Sherwood Sandstone aquifer from 1.2 km

CASSEMCASSEM sample analysis: Backscattered Scanning Electron Microscopy (BSEM) imagery

Brightness variations represent different phases:

•BLACK = void space;

•DULL GREY = quartz, albite, dolomite;

•MID GREY = K-feldspar, muscovite, illite;

•LIGHT GREY = anhydrite and calcite

Example of BSEM petrographical image of siltstone from the Mercia Mudstone Group, Cropwell Bishop borehole [upper SEAL to Sherwood Sandstone]

Field of view c.200 microns

Image ©BGS/NERC.

25/10/2010

46

CASSEM

Work flow diagram for image processing and

analysis

Image ©BGS/NERC.

CASSEMYorkshire-Lincolnshire Summary Porosity Data by Formation

U. Permian Marl (1 Siltstone) Mean Macroporosity

Sherwood Sandstone

Marl Slate

Basal Permian

Mean Meso + Microporosity

Porosity Range (Min -

+/- 1 Standard

Macroporosity / Meso + Microporosity cut-off set at 15µm 2D pore equivalent circular diameter

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0

Mercia Mudstone

Sherwood Sandstone

Porosity %

circular diameter

Image ©BGS/NERC.

Primary aquifer

Primary seal

25/10/2010

47

CASSEM

Level IMODEL

CASSEMSeismic data – Firth of Forth CASSEM

Seismic shown with permission of Phoenix Data Solutions

Leven li

Base seal/top aquifer at c.-2200m ±?100m

Forth anticline

syncline

Image ©BGS/NERC.

25/10/2010

48

CASSEMExample of data scatter, base Carboniferous (in aquifer)

Seismic interpretation

Borehole data (Glenrothes)

Fault gap

Gocad calculates triangulated mesh based on

Outcrop

Fault gapXYZ data points

Add geological interpretation in data poor areas

CASSEM

MAIN TARGET AQUIFER UNIT

MAIN TARGET SEAL UNIT

Firth of Forth - Preliminary surfaces and faults

25/10/2010

49

CASSEMFirth of Forth - Estimated uncertainty map for the Base Ballagan Formation modelled surface


CASSEM

Level IMODEL

25/10/2010

50

First Response Tools• structural validity

– an initial quick test of whether preliminary f h i ll ibl surfaces are physically possible

• critical depth regions for CO2 phase behaviour– indicates likely densities, viscosities and

solubilities of CO2 under initial conditions

• critical surface regions for CO2migration– Assesses pathways for buoyant CO2 migration

along the upper surface of the target aquifer4 October 2010CASSEM Conference 99

CASSEMClosure and fetch analysis and single map migration (MPath)

Plan view area ~2 X 5 km2Spill point

25/10/2010

51

CASSEMFirst response Tools:Mpath Single Map Migration modelling on principal saline aquifer/caprock boundary


Firth of Forth

Lincolnshire

CASSEM

25/10/2010

52

CASSEM

Seismic shown with permission of Phoenix Data Solutions

Reprocessing courtesy of Schlumberger Ltd.

4 October 2010 CASSEM Conference 103Before reprocessing After reprocessing

2000m

CASSEMChange in depth of Base of Ballagan Formation (seal) after reinterpretation of reprocessed seismic data.


25/10/2010

53

CASSEM

Original Original interpretation of Base Ballagan in brown.

New interpretation of area with reprocessed seismic reprocessed seismic in blue.

CASSEM

25/10/2010

54

CASSEM

CASSEMFirth of Forth - Overview of model with all 11 modelled

horizons and 28 faults shown

25/10/2010

55

CASSEMflexural slip unfolding

Testing and validation of level II Firth of Forth model

eroded surface rebuilding


Smoothing

CASSEMExample seismic section through the

Lincolnshire Wolds 3D survey.

Image ©BGS/NERC.Seismic data shown with permission of UKOGL

25/10/2010

56

CASSEMMaximum error on depth of top of Sherwood Sandstone Group


CASSEM3D geological framework model for Lincolnshire Faults intersecting top Sherwood Sandstone Group – view to NE


25/10/2010

57

CASSEMMpath Fetch and Closure Analysis on the Lincolnshire Sherwood Sandstone group


CASSEM

25/10/2010

58

CASSEMFinal modelFirth of Forth


Final modelLincolnshire

CASSEMSummary (1)

• Establishment of an asset team is f d t l t ti l id tifi ti f fundamental to timely identification of major hurdles and difficulties

– Leads to rapid identification of inconsistencies in early stages of geological modelling and interpretationinterpretation

– Enables frequent interaction and communication of data limitations and uncertainty issues to partners


25/10/2010

59

CASSEMSummary (2)

• Use of First Response Tools

– Provides early assessment of site suitability for more detailed modelling and risking for capacity estimates

– Highlights inconsistencies in the geological interpretations

– Identifies areas that would benefit from improved data


CASSEMSummary (3)

• Reprocessing and reinterpretation of seismic data

– Can reduce uncertainty in the geological model with improved resolution of fault structures and constraining depths of key surfaces

f id ifi d l ll id – If identified at an early stage can allow more rapid progress to delivery of final model with consequent cost benefit


25/10/2010

60

CASSEMSummary (4)

• Use of the two contrasting sites has enabled CASSEM to develop the workflow enabled CASSEM to develop the workflow and to demonstrate its application in different scenarios

– a relatively simple geological site with good data quality (Lincolnshire)

– a geological site with complicated geometries and structural features and limited data (Firth of Forth)



G l i l i i Geological interpretation and storage modelling

D id L B iti h David Lawrence, British Geological Survey


25/10/2010

61


CASSEM Conference




Fate of CO2: Rock Mechanics, Fate of CO2: Rock Mechanics, Geochemistry & Aquifer Fluid

Flow

E i M k P t Old d


Eric Mackay, Peter Olden and Gillian Pickup, Heriot-Watt

University

25/10/2010

62

CASSEMOutline

• Introduction• Phases 1 and 2 Modelling• Fluid Flow Measurements• Geomechanical Measurements and

Modellingh d ll• Phase 3 Modelling

• Conclusions


CASSEMAims

• Understand processes occurring in an ifaquifer

• Predict behaviour of CO2

– pressure build-up, migration, trapping

• Perform numerical simulations to identify fate of CO2

• Develop methodology for site assessment


25/10/2010

63

CASSEMOverview

laboratory measurements

BGSsurfaces

geologicalflow

simulation


modelpetrophysical data

CASSEMLinks with other activities

lab results

monitoringinjectionstrategy


risk economics

hydrogeology

25/10/2010

64

CASSEMExample Calculation of Fate of CO2


CASSEMThree Phases of Activity

Phase 1Simple modelsExisting Data

Phase 2Intermediate models

G1

Specific Geological Model

Invest

Hold


Phase 3Detailed models

G2

LaboratoryMeasurements

Invest

Hold

25/10/2010

65

CASSEMModelling Tools

• Reservoir Modelling– Petrel

• Flow Simulations– Eclipse 300 (CO2STORE)

• Geomechanical simulationsVISAGE

Schlumberger

Schlumberger

– VISAGE

• Geochemical simulations– GEM


Schlumberger

CMG

CASSEMOutline



• Conclusions


25/10/2010

66

CASSEMPhase 1

• Existing geological and petrophysical d t

Phase 1

data• Simple model• Initial storage assessment• Very low cost

k• Few person weeks


CASSEMForth Site

• Insufficient data to make a geological d l

Phase 1

model– used a cuboidal model– simple assessment of volumetrics

and boundary conditionsCO2


5 km

25/10/2010

67

CASSEMLincs Site

• Some geological surfaces available

Phase 1

– although aquifer formation not resolved

Zone 1

Zone 2


90 km

CASSEMSummary of Phase I

• Useful preliminary exercise

Phase 1

– setting up workflow– initial volumetrics– investigating effects of aquifer boundaries

• Insufficient geological data• Insufficient geological data


25/10/2010

68

CASSEMPhase 2

• Geological structure from BGS

Phase 2

• More detailed model• Storage assessment and plume migration• Low cost• 1 person year


CASSEMForth Site

Phase 2


25/10/2010

69

CASSEMForth Site

Phase 2

B ll

16 km


0.0 0.30.1 0.2

Porosity

Ballagan

Knox PulpitKinnesswood

Glenvale18 km

350 m

CASSEMCO2 Migration – end injection, 15 yrs

Phase 2

Injection rate15 Mt/yr

top KWD

injection well

CASSEM Conference 1380.00 0.23 0.47 0.70 0.93

Supercrit CO2 sat (frac)

4 October 2010

25/10/2010

70

CASSEMCO2 Migration – 100 yrs after shut-in

Phase 2

inj

top KWD

injection well



4 October 2010

CASSEMCO2 Migration – 1000 yrs after shut-in

Phase 2

top KWD

injection well



4 October 2010

25/10/2010

71

CASSEMLincs Site

Phase 2

main seal


target aquifer

lower formation

CASSEMLincs Site

Phase 2

PorositySherwood sdst

Mercia mdst

43 km30 km


0.0 0.30.1 0.2Roxby 700 m

25/10/2010

72

CASSEM

inj

CO2 Migration – End Injection,15 years

Phase 2

top SSG


0.00 0.17 0.35 0.52 0.70


CASSEM

inj

CO2 Migration – 100 yrs after shut-in

Phase 2

top SSG


0.00 0.17 0.35 0.52 0.70


25/10/2010

73

CASSEM

inj

CO2 Migration – 1000 yrs after shut-in

Phase 2

top SSG


0.00 0.17 0.35 0.52 0.70


CASSEMStorage Efficiency

• CO2 does not fill the pore space in an if

Phase 2

aquifera) due to buoyancy, CO2 migrates to top of

aquiferb) often pressure build-up is the limiting

factor


25/10/2010

74


• Storage efficiency is defined as

Phase 2

2VolumeofCO stored intheaquiferE=

Volumeofporespace

• Typically, E may be a few percent, or less


CASSEMPhase 2 Estimates

• Efficiency for 15 years injection

Phase 2

• Maximum efficiency up to pressure limit

Forth LincsE (%) Time

(yrs)E (%) Time

(yrs)


(yrs) (yrs)Actual 0.25 15 0.27 15

Maximum 2.75 155 1.00 53

25/10/2010

75

CASSEMSummary of Phase 2

• Effect of topography of top of aquifer

Phase 2

– CO2 can migrate further under ridges

• Salinity gradient– salinity tends to increase with depth

• usually neglected

ff t di l ti f CO– affects dissolution of CO2

– convection of brine with dissolved CO2


CASSEMSummary of Phase 2

• The maximum storage efficiency is small

Phase 2

– Lincs, E ~ 1%– Forth, E ~ 3%

• Phase 2 models also used forncertaint assessment– uncertainty assessment

– monitoring


25/10/2010

76

CASSEMOutline



• Conclusions


CASSEMFluid Flow Measurements

• Two types of test

Flow Lab

• Geochemical tests– investigate how brine with dissolved CO2

interacts with rock minerals

• Relative permeability measurements– measure how the presence of brine in the

aquifer affects the flow of CO2


25/10/2010

77

CASSEM1. GeochemicalMeasurements

• Tests performed on core plugs from b h l

Flow Lab

boreholes– 138 bar and 38 oC– 1cc/hour

Inject brine with dissolved CO2

Analyse effluent


4 cm

CASSEMGeochemical Results

Flow Lab

Pressure increase

brine only

~ 3 psi = 0.2 bar


CO2 in brine

Time (days)

5 10 15 20 25 30

25/10/2010

78

CASSEMGeochemical Results

• Magnesium ions increasedTi l

Flow Lab

– dissolution of dolomite

• Strontium ions decreased– possible deposition SrSO4

• Pressure increased, either

Time-scale of days or

weeks

– deposition of minerals lowering the permeability

– movement of fine material blocking pores


CASSEM2. Relative PermeabilityMeasurements

• Permeability is the

Flow Lab

• Permeability is the property of a rock which allows a fluid to flow through it


• Need to measure relative permeabilities– depend on type of rock and fluid saturations

25/10/2010

79

CASSEMRelative Permeability Measurements

Pressure drop

Flow Lab

p


Relative permeability ~ flow rate/pressure drop

CASSEMRelative Permeability Curve

100% water saturation

Flow Lab

very low CO2rel perm

satu at o

as CO2 is introduced, water rel perm

decreases


irreducible water

rel perm to CO2 starts low and increases

25/10/2010

80

CASSEMRelative Permeability Curve

Flow Lab


trapped CO2

CASSEMSummary of Fluid Flow Measurements

• Geochemical experiment

Flow Lab

– CO2 dissolved in brine interacts rapidly with the rock minerals

• Relative permeability measurements– our lab results are very different from curves – our lab results are very different from curves

often assumed for numerical simulation


25/10/2010

81

CASSEMOutline



• Conclusions


CASSEMGeomechanical Study

• Introduction to geomechanical effects

Rock Lab

• Description of geomechanical measurements

• Synthesis of results

• Coupled geomechanical and flow • Coupled geomechanical and flow modelling


25/10/2010

82

CASSEMBackground

• CO2 injection into a porous and permeable formationh

Rock Lab

• pressure changes→ deformation and stress→ alters porosity and permeability→ affects fluid flow

• Deformation and stress


• potential failure of aquifer and seal rock→ hydraulic fracturing and shear failure→ migration of fluids to other formations

CASSEMRock mass subjected to external and internal forces such as CO2 injection

Rock Lab

Geomechanical response primarily determined by fractures and faults


Measure force required to break the rock

Force at failure F

σo = F ⁄ A

Sample cross-section area A

25/10/2010

83

CASSEMIncreasing confinement σ3 increases the stress at which the rock fails σ1

σ1

σ3

Rock Lab

σ1

σ3

pore fluid pressure p


3

Effective stressσ′ = σ – pwhere σ isexternal stress

CASSEMRock Mechanical Triaxial Tests

Elastic deformation parameters:• Static properties determined by

Rock Lab

p p ystrain gauging:

Young’s modulus EstatPoisson’s ratio νstat

• Dynamic properties determined by acoustic velocities Vp, Vs

Edyn, νdyn


Failedrock

sampleHoek Cell

25/10/2010

84

CASSEMExample Laboratory Results

60Phase II correlation (static)Lab. data: static - dry Lab. data: dynamic - dry

Rock Lab

20

40

You

ng's

mod

ulus

GP

aLab. data: dynamic dryLab. data: dynamic - brine saturated

ung’

s M

odul

us (G

pa)

4 October 2010 167

00 10 20 30 40

Porosity %

You

Porosity %CASSEM Conference

CASSEMPermeability-Stress Sensitivity

1.0

Yorks-Lincs

A if ff ti t

Rock Lab

0.4

0.6

0.8

orm

aliz

ed p

erm

eabi

lity

Aquifer mean effective stress range

aliz

ed P

erm

eabi

lity


0.0

0.2

0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000

Stress kPa

No

2450 SSG 2453 SSG2459 SSG 2460 SSG

2461 SSG 2463 SSG2387 BPSG Average

Nor

ma

Stress (kPa)

25/10/2010

85

CASSEMGeochemical Effects

5Pre geochemical testing

Permeability before and after geochemical testing

Rock Lab

2

3

4

Per

mea

bilit

y (m

D)

Pre-geochemical testingPost-geochemical testing

rmea

bilit

y (m

D)


0

1

0 5 10 15 20 25 30Effective Stress (MPa)

Per

Effective Stress (MPa)

CASSEMGeomechanical Modelling

Phase 3Rock Lab

Fluid FlowSimulator

Stress & Strain

Updated Porosity&

Permeability

Simulator(ECLIPSE)

Pore Pressure&

Temperature


Stress & Strain

Geomechanical Simulator(VISAGE)

25/10/2010

86

CASSEMExample Geomechanical Model

Lincs model

Phase 3Rock Lab

Lincs modelCoarse grid66,975 cells


CASSEMWorld Stress Map

No data for Forth model

Phase 3Rock Lab

Strike-slip

Maximum horizontal stress direction~35N

Sparse data for Lincs model


stress regimes

Unclassifiedstress

regimes

~35° Storage

site location

N

25/10/2010

87

CASSEMPotential for Rock Failure

• Increase in pore pressure

Phase 3Rock Lab

– reduces effective stress

• Poro-elastic effect– alters σ1/σ3 σ1

σ3



CASSEM

• Failure of intact rock

Potential for Rock Failure

Phase 3Rock Lab

– new fractures

• Reactivation of old fault– slip failure σ1

σ3



25/10/2010

88

Lincs – Closeness to Failure of Intact Rock Time

years 15 25 ~100 ~1000 ~7000

Caprockupper

Phase 2 Phase 3Rock Lab

Caprocklowerlayer

layer

(a)

Caprockupper

Phase 2


pplayer

Caprocklowerlayer

(b)Phase 3

Forth – Potential for Fault Reactivation 1 6 15 25 ~1000Time

years

Caprockmiddlelayer

Phase 2 Phase 3Rock Lab

Aquifertop

layer

layer

(a)

Caprockmiddle

Phase 2


layer

Aquifertop

layer

(b)Phase 3

25/10/2010

89

Forth – Phase 3 Results – 15 Wells 1 6 15 25 ~1000Time

years

CaprockmiddlelayerIntact

Phase 3Rock Lab

(a)Aquifer

toplayer

Caprockmiddle

Intactfailure


(b)

middlelayer

Aquifertop

layer

Faultreacti-vation

CASSEMGeomechanics Summary

• Laboratory measurements produced f l d t

Phase 3Rock Lab

useful data– porosities and permeabilities– effect of stress on permeability– geomechanical parameters used in flow

modellingg


25/10/2010

90

CASSEMGeomechanics Summary

• Coupled flow and geomechanical modelling

Phase 3Rock Lab

– estimate of risk of rock failure due to CO2injection

• new faults or re-activation of old faults

• Failure unlikely in Lincs site

C ld h f il i F h i• Could have failure in Forth site– risk reduced by multiple wells


CASSEMOutline



• Conclusions


25/10/2010

91

CASSEMPhase 3

• Most detailed models

Phase 3

• Level III geological model for Forth Site• Laboratory results used in modelling• Storage assessment and plume migration• Higher cost• Few person years


CASSEMRelative Permeabilities

Phase 1 Phase 2

Phase 2Phase 1 Phase 3Flow Lab

Phase 3


very low perm to CO2

25/10/2010

92

CASSEMRelative Permeabilities

• Implication of low CO2 lab relative bilit

Phase 3Flow Lab

permeability– CO2 mobility is lower

• migration will be significantly reduced• affects dissolution and residual trapping

– Pressure build-up at the well will be increased


CASSEMMultiple Wells

• Used single injection well for Phases 1 d 2

Phase 3

and 2– 15 Mt/year

• In Phase 315 wells

unrealistic

– 15 wells– each injecting 1 Mt/year


25/10/2010

93

CASSEMComparisons between Phases 2 and 3

• Models altered in stages between Phase 2 d Ph 3

Phase 2 Phase 3

and Phase 3• Useful sensitivity study• Identify which parameters have most

effect, egabsolute permeability– absolute permeability

– relative permeability– number of wells– compressibility


CASSEMForth Site

• New geological model

Phase 3Phase 2

• Lower absolute permeabilities– consistent with lab results

Forth, Phase 3BGN

KNW

KPFGEF

Forth, Phase 2 BGN

KNW

KPFGEF


17 km17 km

25/10/2010

94

CASSEMCO2 Migration to Top of Aquifer

• 15 horizontal wells at base of aquifer

Phase 3Phase 2

Phase 3Phase 2

CASSEM Conference 1874 October 2010

CO2 saturation at top of aquifer after 1000 years

CASSEMCO2 TrappingPhase 2 Phase 3

Mobile CO2

Mobile CO2

Phase 2 Phase 3

• Less mobile CO in Phase 3 • Low level of dissolution

Immobile CO2

Dissolved

Immobile CO2

Dissolved

• Less mobile CO2 in Phase 3 at all times– 15 horizontal wells– increased dissolution and

residual trapping

• Low level of dissolution in Forth model– deep and therefore more

saline


25/10/2010

95

CASSEMLincs Site

• Same geological model as Phase 2

Phase 2 Phase 3

• Some modification of properties• Main difference was the lab relative

permeabilities

43 km30 km


0.0 0.30.1 0.2

Porosity700 m

CASSEMCO2 Migration to Top of Aquifer

• 15 vertical wells near base of aquifer

Phase 3Phase 2

Phase 3Phase 2


CO2 saturation at top of aquifer after 1000 years

25/10/2010

96

CASSEMCO2 TrappingPhase 2 Phase 3

Mobile CO2

Mobile CO2

Phase 2 Phase 3

• End of injection (15 yrs) • After 5000 yrs

Immobile CO2

Dissolved

Immobile CO2

Dissolved

• End of injection (15 yrs)– more dissolution in Phase 3

• 15 wells

– less immobile CO2

• due to rel perms

• After 5000 yrs– slightly less dissolution

• lower CO2 rel perm

– no mobile CO2

• due to rel perms



• Forth Site

Phase 3

– Decrease in storage efficiency in Phase 3• from 0.25% to 0.17%• due to low permeability and high pressure

build-up

• Lincs Site– Storage efficiency similar to Phase 2

• 0.27%


25/10/2010

97

CASSEMPhase 3 Summary

• Thorough study of factors affecting CO2i ti d t i

Phase 3

migration and trapping– absolute permeability– relative permeability– number of wells– compressibilitycompressibility– vertical permeability– ratio of permeable to impermeable rock– updated geological model


CASSEMPhase 3 Summary

• Forth Site

Phase 3

– largest effect was lowering of absolute permeability

– changes in geological model had less effect

• Lincs SiteLincs Site– largest effect was the relative permeability


25/10/2010

98

CASSEMOutline



• Conclusions


CASSEMConclusions

• Phase 1– initial tests– showed importance of aquifer boundary

conditions

• Phase 2– indicated importance of geological structurep g g– topography of top of aquifer determines CO2

migration paths


25/10/2010

99

CASSEMConclusions

• Phase 3d t t d i t f l b t – demonstrated importance of laboratory measured relative permeability

– influences injectivity, migration of CO2 and trapping

• Coupled geomechanical and flow modelling ti t th i k f k f ilcan estimate the risk of rock failure

– more significant at Forth site


CASSEMConclusions

• Three levels of modelling each provided i t l k d t t i f i t t incremental key data to inform investment decision making

• Laboratory measurements required to generate input for more representative generate input for more representative models


25/10/2010

100

CASSEMConclusions

• Much experience gained during the CASSEM P j tCASSEM Project– Phase 3 results more realistic than Phase 1

• Howeverthere is still uncertainty in the models– there is still uncertainty in the models

– more data is required to reduce this uncertainty


CASSEMGuidelines for Future Projects

• It is critical for geologists andi t k t thengineers to work together

– asset team approach

• A wide variety of data is required– including geology, temperature, salinity, etc

• In order to evaluate uncertainty a range of models is required


25/10/2010

101


Fate of CO2: Rock Mechanics, Fate of CO2: Rock Mechanics, Geochemistry & Aquifer Fluid

Flow

E i M k P t Old d Eric Mackay, Peter Olden and Gillian Pickup, Heriot-Watt

University



Geophysical Monitoring

A h J f G d i fArash JafarGandomi, University of Edinburgh


25/10/2010

102

CASSEMMonitoring objectives

• Leakage detection• Migration• Volume/saturation• Reservoir characterisation/quality• Cap rock integrity


CASSEMGeophysical methods

•Seismics•Electromagnetic (EM)

Time-lapse reflection seismic

remote measurements borehole measurements

•Resistivity•Gravimetry


http://www.glossary.oilfield.slb.com/

25/10/2010

103

CASSEMSeismics & EM/Resistivity

Vp (

km/s

)

esis

tivi

ty (

ohm

.m)


Re

CASSEMDefinition of Site Monitorability

Site Monitorability = Survey Practicality/Cost +Geophysical Resolution +Petrophysical Detectability +Petrophysical Resolution


25/10/2010

104

CASSEMWorkflow

Geology & Geography

Relative permeabilityReservoir

rock Sampling

Lab. measurements

Petrophysical modelling

Petrophysical detectability

Petrophysical resolutionMonitoring strategy

Relative permeability

Flow simulation Monitorability Assessment


Geophysical resolution

Practicality & costRisk assessment

CASSEMPetrophysical modelling

Clashach sample taken from outcrop

Lab.

Note nonlinearity at lower


Field

frequencies

25/10/2010

105

CASSEMDetectability Parameters

( )XstdXXX 0−

=δ

X: IP, IS, QP, QS, Density, Resistivity


CASSEMControlled-Source EM

ReceiversTransmitter

Air (very resistive)

Sea water(very conductive)

High-resistivity

Aquifer

( y )

210CASSEM Conference

( ) )(

02

∑−

=ij

ijCOij

NLstdM

χχχ

CO2 plume

4 October 2010

25/10/2010

106

CASSEMPurpose of monitoringUtility of geophysical parameters

G h i l SeismicGeophysical method

Seismic

EMGravity

Density Ip Is Qp Qs Resistivity

Presence

Migration

Saturation


Seal integrity

High Low

CASSEM

Petrophysical parameters resolution

1500

2000

1500

2000

1500

2000

1500

2000

1500

2000


−4 −2 0 2 40

500

1000

1500

−4 −2 0 2 40

500

1000

1500

−4 −2 0 2 40

500

1000

1500

−4 −2 0 2 40

500

1000

1500

−4 −2 0 2 40

500

1000

1500

CO2 saturation

25/10/2010

107

CASSEMP-wave impedance (IP) inversion


CASSEMJoint InversionSurface Well-based

INFORMATION 1 2 3

Well-based

Surface

INFORMATION(average over all Saturations)

1 2 3


Uncertainties:IP, IS : 2%QP, QS : 4%Rho, r : 6%

(1) surface f=30 Hz(2) well-based f=3000 Hz

25/10/2010

108

CASSEMMonitorability of CASSEM sites

Factors that affect monitorability of the two sites :

Firth of Forth

of the two sites :

•Reservoir depth•Structural complexity•Reservoir rock properties•Over/underburden structure


York-Lincolnshire

CASSEMSpatial distribution of information

−2500

−2000

Information from seismics (IP)

Dep

th (

m)

−3.45

−3.4Injection well

1−3000

D

−3000

−2500

−2000

Information from seismics (IP+Q

P)

Dep

th (

m)

Information from seismics + CSEM (I +Resistivity)

−3.5

−3.5

−3.4

−3.3

−3.2

2


500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500

−3000

−2500

−2000

Information from seismics + CSEM (IP+Resistivity)

Distance (m)

Dep

th (

m)

−3.25

−3.2

−3.15

−3.1

3

25/10/2010

109

CASSEMPrior Information

Input from other activities (e.g., relative permeability)


CASSEMConclusions

• Monitorability = ….• The purpose of monitoring has a significant impact on monitoring p p g g p g

design.• Information-based technique diagnostic of monitoring methods• Multiple techniques lead to particularly good results• Surface/well measurements trade off coverage/resolution• Electromagnetic measurements have a good potential to estimate

CO2 saturation when constrained also by seismic data.Monitorability depends on overburden and underburden– Monitorability depends on overburden and underburden.

• Integration of other a priori information may significantly improve site monitorability


25/10/2010

110


Geophysical Monitoring

A h J f G d i fArash JafarGandomi, University of Edinburgh



Risk & uncertainty

D bbi P l U i it f Debbie Polson, University of Edinburgh


25/10/2010

111

CASSEM

Risk Analysis


CASSEMRisk Register

Features, Events and Processes (FEP) define relevant scenarios and behaviour of CO2 in the storage system.

FEP’s assessed by experts for their likelihood of impacting the project, and the severity of this impact on a 1-5 scale.


Allows for easy comparison between different FEP’s

Allows decision makers to target resources at highest risk areas

25/10/2010

112

CASSEMRisk Register

Risk = likelihood x severityUse a risk matrix to place risk into low, moderate or high band ( lt ti l t bl t t bl l(or alternatively acceptable, not acceptable, as low as reasonably practical)

Likelihood1 2 3 4 5

Severity 1 1 2 3 4 5


y2 2 4 6 8 103 3 6 9 12 154 4 8 12 16 205 5 10 15 20 25

CASSEMRisk Register

SeverityProject Values

Financial Environment Research Industry Viability

Light 1 £500k No modification to initial Little to no progress to 1 Project lost time > 1day. Minor Light 1 < £500k state progress to 1 of 4 goals

j ycitations

Serious 2 £500k - £5m Modification to initial state within acceptable limits

Little to no progress to 2 of 4 goals

Project lost time > 1week. Regulatory notice with out fine. Local allegations of unethical practice or mismanagement

Major 3 £5m-£25mModification to initial state above acceptable limits but without damage


Project lost time > 1month. Permit suspension. Major local opposition or substantial negative local media coverage


Catastrophic 4 £25m-£50mModification to initial state above acceptable limit with repairable damage


Project lost time > 1 year. International media coverage of law violations, questionable ethical practices or mismanagement.

Multi-Catastrophic 5 >£50m

Considerable modification to initial state which is not repairable with existing technologies

No gain in understanding applicable to future projects

Negative public experience results in legal ban on similar projects

25/10/2010

113

CASSEMCASSEM sites

Firth of Forth Lincolnshire

±400

±260

±15

±10

Firth of Forth Lincolnshire


±430 ±15

CASSEM

FEP

4 October 2010 226Likelihood x Severity

25/10/2010

114

CASSEMFE

P

4 October 2010 227Likelihood x Severity

CASSEMThe selection criteria agreed were:Information Value

• Gap in knowledge in the current earth model• Generic value of the technique

Data Acquisition

• Generic value of the technique• Criticality of Risk, as identified by risk assessment

(Cost, Timescale and Risk related to providing additional data to the project)

Information Value

Gap in Existing Model Generic Value of Information Criticality of Risk (FEP’s)

5 Complete absence of information 0% Widely applicable Addresses multiple high

risks

4 Mainly absent 25% Applicable to majority of sites Addresses 1 high risks


4 Mainly absent 25% Applicable to majority of sites Addresses 1 high risks

3Reasonable information available, but many also absent,50%

Applicable to some sites Addresses multiple moderate risks

2 Mainly complete for site, 75% Unique to one site Addresses 1 moderate risk

1 Complete information on Site 100% No applicable to any site Addresses no risks

25/10/2010

115

CASSEM

Data Acquisition Technique

S i i R d f Fi h f F h

Data Acquisition

Seismic Reprocessed for Firth of Forth

Proxy Borehole Archive (using existing samples from boreholes or outcrops as proxy for drilling new borehole)


Hydro Geology Study for Lincolnshire

Relative Permeability

Monitorability Assessment

CASSEMInfluence of mitigation activities on perception of risk


25/10/2010

116

CASSEM

Uncertainty Analysis


CASSEMInput 1 (e.g. surfaces’ depth) Input 2 (e.g. porosity)

Select most likely value


25/10/2010

117

CASSEMMeta-modelling

Example: Response Surface Methodology (RSM)

Represent response of simulation as function of input Represent response of simulation as function of input parameters

ε+++= ∑∑∑= ==

j

n

i

n

ijiij

n

iii xxaxaay

110


Linear terms Interaction terms

CASSEMExample: Migration of CO2 into caprock

P0-P100

P10-P90P10 P90

P50


25/10/2010

118

CASSEMFirth of Forth

Top-down view


CASSEMLincolnshire

Top-down view


25/10/2010

119

CASSEMConclusions

• New comprehensive method to analyse both risk (likelihood and impact) and resulting uncertainty analysis using meta-modelling impact) and resulting uncertainty analysis using meta modelling

• Firth of Forth perceived as higher risk than Lincolnshire

• Additional data acquisition and modelling addressed some high risk FEP’s for both sites

• Uncertainty analysis shows mobile CO2 migrating through caprock f Fi th f F th it b t t Li l hi


of Firth of Forth site but not Lincolnshire

• Uncertainty in flow predictions from a simple (box) model could not be made to include the Phase II flow simulations


Risk & uncertainty

D bbi P l U i it f Debbie Polson, University of Edinburgh


25/10/2010

120


CASSEM Conference




Public perceptions of CCS

S h M d T d ll C t f Sarah Mander, Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research


25/10/2010

121

CASSEMContext

Public perceptions of new technologies arecentral to successful implementationcentral to successful implementation


Source: Greenpeace Source: France 21

CASSEMContext

Public perceptions of new technologies arecentral to successful implementationcentral to successful implementation

Low levels of public awareness of CCS makesanticipating the social response to thetechnology difficult

Previous research highlights links between:– Understanding of climate change problem and perceptions


Understanding of climate change problem and perceptions of CCS

– CCS must be placed in the context of energy supply and mitigation options

– Level of knowledge about CCS and perceptions of the technology

25/10/2010

122

CASSEMResearch challenges

Interviews and questionnaires are unlikely toprovide an accurate picture of publicprovide an accurate picture of publicperceptions

We needed to assess people’s perceptions atthe same time as providing informationabout the technology

Deliberative processes such as citizen’s


Deliberative processes such as citizen spanels allow participants to learn about anew topic and discuss it with experts andeach other before coming to an opinion

CASSEMCase studies

Two case studies

P f (Y k hi )Pontefract (Yorkshire)

Dunfermline (Firth of Forth)

Within high emitting regions


Important for CCS deployment

25/10/2010

123

CASSEMCitizen panel process

40 people in total

E h l hEach panel met on threeoccasions to discuss CCSwith experts

The process allowed the researchers to observe how the participants’


how the participants perceptions of CCS evolved as their understanding increased

CASSEMBackground knowledge of CCS and climate change

Low awareness of CCS compared to otherelectricity supply technologies

People felt they did not know enough aboutCCS to make a judgement

People were keen to find out more about CCS

There was a range of views about climatechange


change

There was reluctance to change behaviourfor reasons of climate change mitigation

25/10/2010

124

CASSEMInitial reactions to CCS

Lots of questions focusing on:– The risks associated with CCS– The risks associated with CCS– The implications of CO2 leakage

Majority of questions could be anticipated

Others demonstrated a lack of understandingof the science behind the technology and thenature of CO2:


nature of CO2:– What happens if the CO2 explodes?– Why can’t we just send it in to space?

Better known technologies e.g. nuclear usedto construct ideas

CASSEMEvolving perceptions

Majority of concerns about the safety of CCSwere addressed

— Trust in the experts was key to this

Remaining concerns focused on the cost andgovernance of CCS.

— Lack of trust in government and business to safelyimplement CCS

Cl i di ti th t ti i t ld l


Clear indication that participants would onlyaccept CCS if they understood wider climatechange and energy demand debates

25/10/2010

125

CASSEMCitizen involvement

The process and opportunity to learn wasvalued by participants

Participants wished to engage with newtechnology such as CCS, and were able to doso

People acknowledged their initial poorunderstanding of CCS and the need to


structure participation around the provisionof information

CASSEMRisk society

Perceived risks of new technologies are oftena far greater threat financially politicallya far greater threat, financially, politicallyand socially than the original physical threat

The risk society phenomenon has importantimplications about the communication ofCCS, particularly in relation to:

– Trust


– Communication of uncertainties related to both CCS and climate change

25/10/2010

126

CASSEMBuilding trust

Information was treated with caution untilpeople had been able to:

– Understand the information– Ascertain the reliability of the information– Decide whether they could trust the experts

Face to face interactions were crucial tobuild trust between experts and participants

Citi l d t t th l f


Citizen panels demonstrate the value ofsocial transmission of knowledge

CASSEMSummary

Perceptions of CCS will influence deployment

It is challenging to assess public perceptionsIt is challenging to assess public perceptionsof new and emerging technologies

Lay people wish to, and can, engage withnew technologies

Trust is a key factor in the acceptance of risk

G fi d i i i


Governance, finance and monitoring remainkey areas of public concern

25/10/2010

127

CASSEM

Thank you



Public perceptions of CCS

S h M d T d ll C t f Sarah Mander, Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research


25/10/2010

128


R fl i f Reflections from grant sponsoring bodies

J i Willi RCUK E Jacqui Williams, RCUK Energy Programme/EPSRC


CASSEMThe Energy LandscapePublic Sector organisations working together to provide coordinated activity and a complete innovation chain.

Reg

iona

ltio

nal

e Tr

ansf

er N

etw

ork

diss

emin

atin

g ov

idin

g fu

ndin

g ad

vice

.

Nat

Euro

pean

Ene

rgy

Gen

erat

ion

Know

ledg

ein

form

atio

n an

d pr

o

25/10/2010

129

CASSEMEnergy ProgrammeTo position the UK to meet its energy and environmental targets and policy goals through high quality research and postgraduate training.

To support a full spectrum of Energy research to help the UK meet the objectives and targets set out in the Energy White Paper

To work in partnership to contribute to the research and postgraduate training needs of energy-related business and other key stakeholders

To increase the international To expand the UK research visibility and level of international collaboration withinthe UK energy research Portfolio.

capacity in energy-relatedareas.

CASSEMWhy CASSEM?

• CCS/CAT a priority for Technology Strategy Board and Energy ProgrammeStrategy Board and Energy Programme

• At time little CCS research supported• Whole chain representation, strong team

and highly regarded proposal• Industrially led - pull through• Investment of £1.73m from EPSRC/Energy

Programme plus TSB management resources (December 2007).

25/10/2010

130

CASSEMThoughts now (1)

• CASSEM now part of a major RCUK/TSB portfolio in CCS/CATportfolio in CCS/CAT

• CASSEM includes range of topics from public perception, risk and uncertainty, financial modelling and all aspects of storage.

• More multidisciplinary and whole systems projects more generally now

• Public perception and education now recognised as major issue for CCS – CASSEM contributes here.

CASSEMThoughts now (2)

• KT/impact agenda – CASSEM has worked well to publicise outputs and be open well to publicise outputs and be open e.g. this event, publication

• Large project, many contributing partners so challenging to manage – well run to ensure focus maintained and kept on trackon track

• Pleased to see developments such as Scottish Power Academic Alliance.

25/10/2010

131


R fl i f Reflections from grant sponsoring bodies

J i Willi RCUK E Jacqui Williams, RCUK Energy Programme/EPSRC



Taking the CASSEM Taking the CASSEM methodology into future

projects

D id C b ll S tti hPDavid Campbell, ScottishPower


25/10/2010

132


Thank you.

A f th tiAny further questions:[email protected]


Documents

New CASSEM conf 20101004.ppt · 2010. 10. 25. · O D Eih tOur Dynamic Earth 4 October 2010 CASSEM Conference 26. 25/10/2010 14 ... TEG Stock Tank ... This option is limited. Very