Andy Chadwick, UKCCSRC CG Member, visits The Coal Authority

Carbon Dioxide Storage Research: a UK PerspectiveAndy Chadwick – British Geological Survey

Presentation to the Coal Authority, Mansfield, 14 April 2015© NERC All rights reserved

The UKCCS Research Centre (UKCCSRC)

The UK Carbon Capture and Storage Research Centre (UKCCSRC) leads and coordinates a programme of underpinning research on all aspects of carbon capture and storage (CCS) in support of basic science and UK government efforts on energy and climate change. The Centre brings together over 240 of the UK’s world-class CCS academics and provides a national focal point for CCS research and development.

http://www.ukccsrc.ac.uk

Centre funding

• Initial core funding for the UKCCSRC is provided by £10M from the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) as part of the RCUK Energy Programme

• This is complemented by £3M in additional funding from the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) to establish new capital facilities that will support innovative research

•• 10 partner institutions have contributed £2.5M

How the Centre works

The Centre is a virtual network where academics, industry, regulators and others in the sector collaborate to analyse problems, devise and carry out world-leading research, and share delivery.

• We do this by working through networksto deliver impact

• We bring people and projects togetherto shape capability

• We fund innovative research to develop leaders

Centre Membership

• Centre members are UK academics with a track record in CCS research: they are either• Principal Investigators or Co-Investigators on CCS research

grants, or• Have relevant CCS publications

• The Centre has Associate Membership for individuals from business/industry, government/policy and NGOs

• The Centre also has an Early Career Researcher (ECR) membership for postgraduate research students, post-doctoral staff and new lecturers, supported by a comprehensive ECR programme

www.ukccsrc.ac.uk/membership

UK offshore storage potential

Sleipner ~18 years storage> 15 million tonnes

(1 - 5 powerstation.years)Potentially giant storage facility

• Geology• CO2 sources

UK capacity and the DECC Commercialisation Programme

Peterhead - Goldeneye

Peterhead - Goldeneye

~1 Mt / year CO2 for 10 – 15 years

CO2 from existing 400 MW gas turbine (retrofitted capture unit)

Storage in Goldeneye FieldDepleted gas condensate field Captain Sandstone (+aquifer)Depth ~ 2600 m

[Images courtesy Shell]

UK capacity and the DECC Commercialisation Programme

White Rose

White Rose

~ 2 Mt / year CO2 for 10 years

CO2 from new oxyfuel power-plant adjacent to Drax

Storage in structural closure in the southern North Sea

Bunter Sandstone (saline aquifer)

Depth ~ 1000 m

Contents ………..

1. UK storage capacity / site characterisation

2. Storage performance research

• Monitoring and verification• Long-term stability





© NERC All rights reserved

Building a static model

Seismic mapping

data courtesy Schlumberger

3D reservoir model (pore-space volumetrics)

Depleted fields

Saline aquifers

‘Supercritical fluid’Buoyant (density ~30 – 80% water)

Mobile (viscosity ~5% water)Immiscible with water

Compressible (25x water)

Various processes ……

• CO2 - water interactions (2-phase flow)• CO2 - rock interface interactions

• Control CO2 distribution…… and also pressure increase

Reservoir processes

CO2

water

CO2water

Free CO2

CO2 injection ends (50 Mt)CO2 injection starts

Formation pressure

Dynamic modelling of a single site

Stratigraphical complexity and scaling

Heterogeneity

• Horizontal bedding• Lateral pinch-outs• Cross-cutting structures• Faults

• Fluid flow modifiers

Rock heterogeneities on scales of mm, cm, m, kmDynamic model cells are metres to tens of metres across

Open aquifer

CO2

no water expulsion: ∆P largeaquifer water expelled: ∆P small

Structural complexity - flow boundaries

Closed aquifer

Flow boundaries in the Bunter Sandstone

Injection simulations

12 wells injecting 1650 Mt of CO2 over 50 years

CO2 saturation after 50 years

Injection simulations

open boundary

closed boundary

pressure limit75% lithostatic

pressure limit75% lithostatic

Vulnerable areas around injection wells and around shallow closures

Limiting pressures

∆P

Empirical Theory





Monitoring for conformance and containment

• Conformance: that the storage site is behaving as predicted and site-specific processes are sufficiently well-understood to rule out significant adverse future outcomes.

• Containment: no evidence that the storage site is leaking in the subsurface or emitting CO2 to the surface.

sea-bed

container

leakage

emission

top of the Storage Complex

Storage at Sleipner

1994 (pre‐injection) 2006 (8.4 Mt)

reservoirCO2 plume

Operated by Statoil and partners

World’s longest running CO2 storage project

Injecting since 1996• 15 million tonnes now stored

Reservoir similar to many central and northern North Sea aquifers

1994 2006

Monitoring at Sleipner

3D time-lapse seismic

1994 (baseline)1999 2001 2002 2004200620082010

Seabed gravimetry

2002200520092012

1994 2006

seabed

reservoir CO2 plume

1000 m

3D time-lapse seismic provides spatially continuous and spatially uniform coverage of the subsurface volume of the storage footprint

~ 3000 m

~ 25

0 m

Reservoir top

Reservoir base

Reservoir sand

Sleipner time-lapse 3D seismics

vertical section

plan view

Conformance – CO2 distribution

Demonstrated realistic representation of CO2 in situQuantitatively robust (~95% of known injected free CO2)

Calculated CO2 distribution (3D)Plume image 1999

2004

2008

2006

Mass of CO2 injected (Mt)

Inte

grat

ed v

eloc

ity p

ushd

own

(m2 s

)

20011999

Conformance – CO2 distribution

CO2 separated from natural gasRe-injected into saline aquifer Commenced 1996~ 12 Mt now stored

~ 1000 metres

2006

CO2 plume

2006 zoom

topmost CO2 layer

Time-lapse 3D seismics

Conformance - observed vs modelled

seabed

top reservoir Topmost CO2 layer

Buoyant gravity flow

2001200420062008

Growth of topmost layer

CO2


2001200420062008

observed layer growth

simulated layer growth

Requires high CO2 mobility

• Very high reservoir permeability?• Warmer CO2?

observed layer growth


>100000 seismic traces

No down-hole pressure measurement at Sleipner

For simple reservoir with no lateral flow barriers modelled ∆P ~ 1 bar by 2006

Conformance - pressure

fluid pressure increase

∆P

Bulk/shear modulusdecrease

Vp, Vs decrease

[thickness increase

- pore compressibility] tr

avel

-tim

e T

Seismic pressure response of a clastic reservoir

T +∆

T

t1

1994

t2

2006

∆T = t2 – t1

For noise-free data, travel-time resolution for a single trace <1 ms

~116500 traces

Measuring ∆T

∆T 2006 – 1994

>100000 seismic traces

repeatability mismatches (noise)

Calculating ∆T (noise-free)

+0.1MPa

+ 0.5 MPa

+ 1 MPa

Pressure from time-shifts

+ 0.1 MPa

+ 0.5 MPa

+ 1.0 MPa

‘noise-free’ responsesto pressure increase….. convolved with

repeatability noise

∆P < 0.1 MPa (1 bar)

Pressure monitoring at Snøhvit

Pressure non-conformance …..lowside capacity

Faulted reservoir

Snøhvit time-lapse seismics

Pressure footprint from spectral response

2006

CO2 plume

overburden

seabed

Containment monitoring at Sleipner

Statistical analysis of changes in overburden due to out-of-reservoir CO2

Detectability:

~ 2000 tonnes at top reservoir (dense-phase)~ 300 tonnes in shallow overburden (gas)

< 0.01% of 20 Mt storage project

Containment monitoring at and above the seabed

1. Bubbles

2. Chemical changes in the water-column (e.g. pH)

3. Changes of seabed character (new pockmarks, algal mats etc)

[Images courtesy CO2ReMoVe and ECO2 projects]


Stationary and mobile monitoring options

Seabed ‘lander’ for in situ gas analysis

Remotely-operated vehicle (ROV)

[Images courtesy CO2ReMoVe and ECO2 projects]

partiallydetected

sampling station

detected

storage footprint

not detected


Possible requirement for large-area coverage (>100 km2)

ETI-MMV Project

Cost-effective large-area surveillance

QICS offshore release experiment

Monitoring tools

Sampling methods

Environmental impacts

Impacts research

Thankyou