5-geogreen iea modelling workshop february 2009… iea modelling work… · engineering for co 2...
TRANSCRIPT
Engineering for CO2 geological storageg
I j ti itI j ti itInjectivityInjectivity
Y. Le Gallo
CO2 Geological Storage Modelling Workshop - February 2009
OutlineOutline
Injectivity issuesInjectivity issuesCurrent approaches Way forward Way forward
CO2 Geological Storage Modelling Workshop - February 2009
Geogreen strength: ShareholdersGeogreen strength: Shareholders
Gé t k i t ti l t d
Synergy between three key players
Géostock, an international reputed company involved in gas and liquid hydrocarbon underground storage operations 40%
IFP, involved in R&D and all important CCS projects (CASTOR) 40%projects (CASTOR) 40%
The Bureau for Geological and Mining g gResearch (BRGM), involved in R&D and in expertise for Public Authorities 20%
CO2 Geological Storage Modelling Workshop - February 2009
Geogreen strategyGeogreen strategy
Target: ISO9001 end 2009Safety and qualityy y
No technology provisionIndependence
Owner’s engineeringLong term approach
Visibility Shareholders’ know-how Shareholders know-how Internal resources Link with shareholders’ offices abroad Cooperation with major engineering companies
Pragmatism
CO2 Geological Storage Modelling Workshop - February 2009
p j g g p
SoftwareSoftware All reservoir software developed by IFP and marketed by Beicip-Franlab (RMLTM, EasytraceTM, InterwellTM,
CondorFlowTM, PumaFlowTM ) IFP dedicated prototype software COORESTM
Additional software:Additional software: Petrophysics: ElanTM
Geological modeling: PetrelTM
Seismic interpretation: CharismaTM workstation Geomechanics: AbaqusTM Geomechanics: AbaqusTM
Well performance: ProsperTM
Static modeling: MATBALTM
Reservoir dynamic modeling: ECLIPSETM
S CO G TM Sensitivity Analysis: COUGARTM
Process: HYSISTM
Life Cycle Analysis: GaBi4TM (Energy and GHG Performance Analysis for complex processes)
CO2 Geological Storage Modelling Workshop - February 2009
Storage Site selection studyStorage Site selection study
Technical criteria: the storage Capacity Injectivity Injectivity Confinement / trapping (Safety Management) Potential EOR option for depleted fields
Oth it i th i l d l l i t O ti l Other criteria: the regional and local environment – Operational constraints Seismic risk exclusion, major faults
C titi ith th d d ti iti Oil & l ti / Competition with other underground activities: Oil & gas exploration / production, geothermal well, underground gas storage, ...
Environmental exclusion (urban and industrial areas, water resources, classified sites)classified sites)
Potential operational difficulties (from licensing instruction / to injection, protection of fauna and flora, waste disposal, existing wells, faults…)
CO2 Geological Storage Modelling Workshop - February 2009
Key drivers Key drivers for CCS project economicsfor CCS project economics
Number of wells Rate of injection
Plume extension OverPressure
CO2 Geological Storage Modelling Workshop - February 2009
Injectivity… an old problemInjectivity… an old problem
Injectivity is common issue in O&G => several j ycommercial tools are available for non reactive gases
Detailed modeling approaches of the near wellbore i l f d t ti t I j ti itregion are commonly performed to estimate Injectivity
Index for use in reservoir model.– Key issues: matching pressure (and flow rate)– Usual suspects: K, kr, (Pc), skin
Water compatibility (scaling) is modeled with (a few) dedicated commercial toolsdedicated commercial tools
CO2 Geological Storage Modelling Workshop - February 2009
Near well bore flowNear well bore flow
Modify end-point or kr functionUse Local Grid RefinementCompute off-center Injectivity Index
CO2 Geological Storage Modelling Workshop - February 2009
Compute off center Injectivity Index
Influence of injectivity/permeability on Influence of injectivity/permeability on pressurepressure
Rate of injection 2.5 Mt/y with 1 vertical well in a cylindrical infinite saline f ti
700
800900
ars)
Kh=Kv=100mDKh=Kv=1 DKh=Kv=500 mDKh=Kv=200 mDKh=200 mD Kv=20 mD formation
300
400500
600
rPre
ssur
e (b
a
10 km10 km10 km
0100
200
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11time (y)
Ove
R
10 km
-1 km R
10 km
RR
10 km
-1 km
time (y)
400
500
(bar
s)
1 well2wells3 wells5 wells
1 km
1 km
1 km
0
100
200
300
Ove
rPre
ssur
e ( 5 wells
CO2 Geological Storage Modelling Workshop - February 2009
ZZZZ
00 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
time (y)
Pressure constraintsPressure constraints
00 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Contraintes en MPa
250
500
750
1000
1250
1500Prof
onde
ur e
n m
Sv=ShhydrostaticP(t=0)P(t=30)
1750
2000
2250
Pc frac
2500
CO2 Geological Storage Modelling Workshop - February 2009
Injectivity… a new concernInjectivity… a new concern
CO2 stream interactions with the reservoir/cap rock and fluids may induce different behavior from non reactive gases:– Pressure… because of dissolution, viscosity/density changes– Saturation… because of drying out and salting out– Salinity… because of salting out– Structural changes … because of geochemical interactions
Major impacts occur in the near well bore region
Detailed modeling approaches of the near wellbore region to estimate Injectivity Index rely (mostly) on research modeling tools
Major impacts occur in the near well bore region
j y y ( y) g– Key issues: matching pressure (and flow rate)– Usual suspects: K, kr, (Pc), skin– New comers: salinity and mineral
CO2 Geological Storage Modelling Workshop - February 2009
y
Injectivity ControlInjectivity Control
rKK
esPinjIndexyInjectivitII
PrRate Flow
Fluid in place / injected GEOCHEMISTRY
rock / fluid interactions
TRANSPORTForsheimer effects
KK
rock / fluid interactions
dissolution
precipitation
finesdrying
Kr hysteresis
rKKII
Kr hysteresis
MECHANICALGéocarbone
INJECTIVITE
CO2 Geological Storage Modelling Workshop - February 2009
Elastic properties
Fracture propertiesCO2
Lombard et al., 2007
OutlineOutline
Injectivity issuesInjectivity issuesCurrent approaches Way forward Way forward
CO2 Geological Storage Modelling Workshop - February 2009
ExperimentExperiment--Model workflowModel workflow
Petrophysical Analysis Batch Experiments
Kinetics
Literature data
Reactive Surface Area
K - phi
Multiphase + Geochemical Model
Literature data
Comparaison
exp /Estimate prediction
exp / computation
degree
Other rate, P, T, ...Géocarbone
INJECTIVITE
CO2 Geological Storage Modelling Workshop - February 2009
Flow-through ExperimentsINJECTIVITE
CO2Lombard et al., 2007
Injectivity Reactive modeling in Injectivity Reactive modeling in Geothermal reservoir Geothermal reservoir
CO2 Geological Storage Modelling Workshop - February 2009
Porosity variationsPorosity variations
CO2 Geological Storage Modelling Workshop - February 2009
T. Xu et al. / Computers & Geosciences 32 (2006) 145–165
Permeability variation in near well bore Permeability variation in near well bore region in Geothermal reservoir region in Geothermal reservoir
T. Xu et al. / Computers & Geosciences 32 (2006) 145–165
CO2 Geological Storage Modelling Workshop - February 2009
Mineral change in near wellbore region Mineral change in near wellbore region during COduring CO22 injectioninjection
T. Xu et al. / Computers & Geosciences 32 (2006) 145–165
CO2 Geological Storage Modelling Workshop - February 2009
T. Xu et al. / Computers & Geosciences 32 (2006) 145–165
CO2 Geological Storage Modelling Workshop - February 2009
Near well bore effectsNear well bore effects
Azaroual et al 2007 ; André et al 2008
CO2 Geological Storage Modelling Workshop - February 2009
Azaroual et al., 2007 ; André et al., 2008
Other interactionsOther interactions
Azaroual et al., 2007
CO2 Geological Storage Modelling Workshop - February 2009
OutlineOutline
Injectivity issuesInjectivity issuesCurrent approaches Way forward Way forward
CO2 Geological Storage Modelling Workshop - February 2009
Challenging Injectivity Challenging Injectivity
Research– Account for all couplings: P, T, geochemical, geomechanical…
no so obvious => coupling methodology challenges– Account for coupling interactionsAccount for coupling interactions – Account for petrophysical and textural changes– Focus on more on geomechanical and less on geochemical
Industry– Complex formation (carbonates) and structure (fluvial), and well
trajectory => detailed near wellbore characterization both petrophysical and mineralogical
– Tuning currently looks unavoidable either with field data or with lab data to account for CO2 specific impact
CO2 Geological Storage Modelling Workshop - February 2009