overall review of research efforts on carbon dioxide ... · if closed hydraulic system significant...
Post on 29-Oct-2020
0 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Presentation to Joint Workshop on
Industry Alliance for IGCC & Co-
Production & CCS 24th May, 2007
Overall Review of Research Efforts on Carbon dioxide
Storage Internationally
Dr John BradshawGeoscience Australia
Australian Government
Geoscience Australia
,
Storage options
Depleted Oil & Gas Fields; ? Availability ?
Enhanced coal bed methane
? Net GHG mitigation ?
“Unmineable” coal seams ? Injectivity ?
Deep Saline Reservoirs e.g. Sleipner, In Salah, Snohvit
?data set?Enhanced Oil Recovery e.g. Weyburn; ? limited total capacity ? Source IPCC
Geological Storage Options (+ some Issues)
Basalts, organic rich shales
?injectivity / capacity?
Conceptual CO2 Storage Scenariodepleted field / structural trap
Conventional Trap /Depleted Field
•Proven seal potential
•Little opportunity in Australia - extensive some regions US/Can
•Relatively small total capacity (4% - pore volume)
•Known data set
Trap Structure
(Slide courtesy of Robert Root)
Trapping Issues
Identifying spill points
Existing well penetrations
Field production effects (pressure depleted, geomechanics, etc)
Compromising resources
Major petroleum provinces or significant petroleum / storage potential
World Map of Major Petroleum Provinces
Conceptual CO2 Storage Scenariohydrodynamic / solution trap
Trap StructureOpen, Large-scale Structure
•Enormous total capacity (94% )
•Extensive opportunity in Australia + “PCM”
•Relies on dissolution and long time frame of migration
(Slide courtesy of Robert Root)
Trapping Issues
More research – especially pilots required
Continuity of reservoir / seal pairs
Compromising resources –especially groundwater
World Map of Sedimentary Basins
Sedimentary basins Igneous and metamorphic provinces
Concept of ECBM Storage• CO2 adsorbs into coal matrix and releases methane thus increasing CBM production.• ? Net GHG mitigation strategy ?•Mine safety
Major World Coal Deposits
• USA, Canada, Australia, China, South Africa, Europe, RussiaCoal Storage Issues:InjectivitySwellingSterilisation (unmineable coal)Narrow depth range > 600-1000 m & < 1200 m Limited sites with suitable permeabilityRepresents <<<1% of Australia total storage capacity
Critical Factors for Storage Research
• Long term fate of injected CO2 and containment• How effective different trapping mechanisms
are• Comparison on injectivity and
predictability between different geological depositional environments (marine and non-marine)
• Ensuring sustainability of storage sites for long term injection
Permeability•1621 to 3252 mD (locally)
•1100 to 8140md regionally
Porosity•36 to 40%
Sleipner• Hydrodynamic / solution style trap• Huge reservoir
• Area – 26,000 km 2• Thickness – up to 300m• Marine Depositional system
• Enormous storage capacity• 0.135 km 3 (0.3% theoretical storage efficiency)• 100s years of regional emissions
• Fantastic reservoir qualities• Permeability : 1621 to 3252 mD (locally) & 1100 to
8140md regionally• Porosity : 36 to 40 %
• Only 1 Injection well - @ 1 Mt CO2 / yr• In many ways “unique”
Magnitude of Problem• Not simple Re-Injection
• Petroleum Fields are 20 - 30 year operations• Power Plant & Coal Resources 100’s yr• To match required injection rates
• many wells may be required• bore stability & injection interference issues
x 106 cu ft / day
t CO2 /day
Mt CO2 / year
INJECTIONREQUIREMENT
0.11 to 0.376 to 200.002 to 0.007"Best" Coal Storage Pilots
512,7401Sleipner25513,6995Average Power Plant66435,61613Monash Project
Up to 200North Rankin Gas Field (Methane Production flow rate)
Note: map excludes industrial point sources
Qld: 896 Mt;16.7 Tcf;2290 MMcf/d.
NSW: 1167 Mt;21.8 Tcf;2986 MMcf/d.
Vic: 1185 Mt;22 Tcf;3014 MMcf/d.
SA: 180 Mt;3.4 Tcf;466 MMcf/d.
WA: 411 Mt;7.7 Tcf;1055 MMcf/d.
NWS: 386 Mt;7.2 Tcf;986 MMcf/d.
NT:9.2 Mt;0.2 Tcf;27 MMcf/d.
Stationary energy point sources
Unproduced large gas fields with high CO2 %
KEY
1 TCF CO2 = 53.65 Mt = 28.3 BCM
Summary of Emissions, Economics & Geological Risk
Viable –but not optimal
reservoirs?
Very good reservoirs? Distant from
major sources
Superb reservoirs. But, require
offshore development?
Large emissions –
very “challenging”
geology?
These types of scenarios will be repeated around the world
20 year emission map
“Physically”impossible
Where in the world should we be exploring ?
Answer : Where we have the storage potential,
combined with
Where we have large emissions
Need to be “storage ready” long before we are “capture ready”
World Regional Storage Opportunities
• Emission sourcesEmission regions (300km buffer)Prospective basins
Non- Prospective provinces
These are the regions we need to focus upon to be “Storage Ready”
CHINA Stationary CO2 emissions and
basins
Tentative ranking of prospectivity for CO2
Storage
Higher Prospectivity
Intermediate / unresolved ProspectivityLower Prospectivity
Saline Reservoirs Characterisation:Team Work & Integration Of Disciplines
Geological interpretationGeophysical MappingSedimentologyPetrophysicsHydrodynamicsEconomicsSeal CharacterisationReservoir ModellingGeomechanicsDynamic Modelling
0
-50
-100
-150
-200
-250
0
-50
-100
-150
-200
-250
TD 1529.49 m
MINDER REEF 1
Gr
GR (gAPI)0.0 200.0
Depth Marker_Track
Gage Sst
TD 2446.17 m
CHARLOTTE 1
Gr
GR (gAPI)0.0 200.0
Depth
1500
Marker_Track
Gage Sst
TD 2030.00 m
MULLALOO 1
Gr
GR (gAPI)0.0 200.0
Depth
1700
1800
Marker_Track
Gage Sst
Neocomian Unconformity - 1795.00 m
TD 2972.71 m
GAGE ROADS 2
Gr
GR (gAPI)0.0 200.0
Depth Marker_Track
Gage Sst
Parmelia GP Neocomian Unconformity - 1344.01 m
TD 3663.09 m
GAGE ROADS 1
Gr
GR (gAPI)0.0 200.0
Depth
1600
1700
Marker_Track
Gage Sst
TD 3660.80 m
WARNBRO 1
Gr
GR (gAPI)0.0 200.0
Depth
2000
2100
2200
Marker_Track
Gage Sst
Base Seq II
MFS Seq I
Parmelia GPJervoise Sst
Neocomian Unconformity
0 25000 50000m m
m m
Gage_Sst(2)
Gage_Roads_1Scale : 1 : 2500DEPTH (1000.M - 2000.M)
DEPTHM
GR (GAPI)0. 200.
SP (MV)-100. 0.
CALI (IN)6. 16.
SP (MV)-100. 0.
LLD (OHMM)0.2 2000.
RHOB (G/C3)1.25 2.75
RHOB (G/C3)1.25 2.75
DT (US/F)200. 40.
perm ()0.1 1000.
PHIE (Dec)0.5 0.
SW (Dec1.
4
1010102010301040105010601070108010901100111011201130114011501160117011801190120012101220123012401250126012701280129013001310132013301340135013601370138013901400
N
0 5 10 20 kms
50
50
49±1
38±12
928±15
5±516±12
22
Mullaloo 1
Perth
Bouvard 1
Challenger 1
Charlotte 1
Marri 1
Gage Roads 1
Peel 1
Gage Roads 2
Quinns Rock 1
50 Isometric line (kppm)50 Salinity (kppm)
50
10
50
203040
CO2 Capture/Storage Assumptions
Based on the "Perth_basin_revision" presentationBased on the "Perth_basin_revision" presentation: Gage Sst southern portion
SouthernA
Input parametersLength of onshore pipeline km 30Length of offshore pipeline km 35Water depth m 50/30Reservoir depth (to top of formation) mSS 2000/1000Reservoir net pay m 100Reservoir average temperature C 46Reservoir pressure psia 1600Fracture pressure psiaEffective permeability mDReservoir radius (effective) km 10Average onshore temperature C 20Average water temperature C 15
Volume Pumped, Time
E
C B
Leak-Off TestA
Pres
sure
Trapping Mechanisms
Table A1: Characteristics of Trapping Methods. Note the different time frames & range of issues. Most methods will operate alongside each other in each trap type.
Characteristics of Trapping Methods.
Requires gas sorption data and knowledge of permeability trends and coal "reactivity" to CO2
LowInjectivty poor due to low permeability. Effective at shallower depths than porous sedimentary rocks, but not at deeper depths due to permeability issues. Many injection wells required. If methane liberated might not be net GHG mitigation.
Coals can swell reducing injectivity. Difficult to predict permeability trends. CO2 adsorption not 100% effective which raises issue of leakage if no physical seal is present.
Limited to extent of thick coal seams in basins that are relatively shallow
~ 10km2
to 100km2ImmediateCO2 preferentially
adsorbs onto coal particles
COAL ADSORPTION
Requires rock mineralogySignificantRate of reaction slow. Precipitation could "clog" up pore throats reducing injectivity. Approaches "permanent" trapping.
Dependant on presence of reactive minerals and formation water chemistry. Could precipitate or dissolve.
Along migration pathway of CO2
basin scale - e.g. 10000s km3
10s to 1000s of years
CO2 reacts with existing rock to form new stable minerals
MINERAL
Requires rock property data and reservoir simulation
Very largeCan equal 15-20% of reservoir volume. Eventually dissolves into formation water.
Will have to displace water in pores. Dependant on CO2sweeping through reservoir to trap large volumes. Depends on rock mineralogy and texture.
Along migration pathway of CO2
basin scale - e.g. 10000s km2
Immediate to 1000s years
CO2 fills interstices between pores of the grains in rockRESIDUAL
Requires reservoir simulation and need to know CO2supply rate and injection rate
Very largeOnce dissolved CO2saturated water migrates towards the basin centre thus giving very large capacity The limitation is contact between CO2 and water, and having highly permeable (vertical) and thick reservoirs.
Dependant on rate of migration (faster better) and pre-existing water chemistry (less saline water better). Rate of migration depends on dip, pressure, injection rate, permeability, fractures, etc.
Along migration pathway of CO2, both up dip and down dip
basin scale - e.g. 10000s km2
100s to 1000s of years if migrating - >10000s years if gas cap in structural trap -and longer if reservoir is thin and has low permeability
CO2 migrates through reservoir beneath seal and eventually dissolves into formation waterDISSOLUTION
Simple volume calculation of available pore space in trap, allowing for factors that inhibit access to all the trap –eg sweep efficiency, residual water saturation
SignificantIf closed hydraulic system then limited by compression of water (few percent) in reservoir. If open hydraulic system will have to displace formation water.
Faults may be sealed or open, dependant on stress regime and fault orientation and faults could be leak/spill points or compartmentalise trap
Dependant on basins tectonic evolution. 100s of small traps to single large traps per basin
~ 10s km2
to 100s km2
ImmediateBuoyancy trapping within anticline, fold, fault block, pinch-out. CO2 remains as a fluid below physical trap (seal)
STRUCTURAL& STRATIGRAPHIC (PHYSICAL OR
BOUYANCY)
CAPACITY ESTIMATION
METHOD / REQUIREMENTS
POTENT-IAL SIZE
CAPACITY LIMITATION /
BENEFITSISSUESOCCURRENCE
IN BASINAREAL
SIZEEFFECTIVE TIMEFRAME
NATURE OF TRAPPING
CHARACTERISTICS _________________TRAPPING METHOD
From Bradshaw et al 2006 – GHGT8
Summary of Parameters for Trapping Processes & Mechanisms
• Variety of parameters impact on storage effectiveness
• Some parameters act independently & others in opposite directions
• Widely different timing for trapping effectiveness – immediate to 10,000s to 100,000s years
• Single traps can involve multiple trapping processes
• Assessment thus multifaceted task
Trapping processes• Displacement of pore water
• Fills pore space by pushing water out of open systems
• Could invade up dip areas with displaced water and pressure
• Timing : immediate
• Compression • Closed system - ~ few % of total pore volume
• Might quickly exceed fracture gradient if small closed system
• Timing : immediate
• Dissolution into pore water• Dependant on water chemistry & migration and rate of contact with
formation water
• Generally mutually exclusive of displacement
• Large % increasing over time
• Timing : 100 s to 10,000 s years
Trapping processes• Residual gas saturation
• ~ 15 – 25%, dependant on contact with available pore space and rock texture along migration path
• Timing : Immediate to 1,000 s years
• Mineralisation• Depends on mineralogy & water chemistry & P & T
• Zero to significant %
• Timing : 10 s to 10 000 s years
Trap Types to be exploited• Depleted Fields
• Early Stages (North Sea)• Potential well leakage / remediation /
decommissioning issues• Physical trapping – immediately effective• Storage capacity limited
• Saline reservoirs• Structural Traps & Hydrodynamic Traps• Less data control• Physical, dissolution, residual gas trapping – range of
effectiveness and timing• Storage capacity extensive
Storage Capacity Estimates
43514351480740Saline Reservoirs412?Coal Beds
2 / 97.8 / 30.52814Oil & Gas Fields310.221EOR
?84ECBM
Storage Years
Total Capacity (GT CO2)
Storage Years
Total Capacity (Gt CO2)
3.30.5Total Emissions
(Gt CO2)
ChinaAustralia
Storage Capacity versus years of storage:Australia and China
China estimates from : ZHANG HONGTAO et al: 2005 GCEP Conference Note : based on surface area calculation
Not available for 40 years
? Net Greenhouse mitigation effect ?
? Significant injectivity concerns + sterilisation
issues?
How reliable are the capacity estimates?
Or …Will CCS be sustainable into the
future given we have hundreds of years of coal available ?
CSLF Taskforce dealing with the issue and documenting process to help validate
capacity estimates …..Terminology & Effectiveness of Trapping
Increasing cost of storage
Better qualityinjection site& Source -Sink match
after McCabe, 1998
CO2 Storage Potential Pyramid
Theoretical capacity:includes large volumes of “uneconomic” opportunities.Approaches physical limitof storage volume ; unrealistic number
Effective (Realistic) capacity:Applies technical cut off limits, technically viable estimate, more pragmatic, actual site / basin data
Practical (Viable) capacity:Applies economic and regulatory barriers to realistic capacity,
Matched capacity:Detailed matching of sources and sinks including supply and reservoir performance assessment
Why are reliable CO2 storage estimates required ?
• Technical validity• Technical assurance, verifiable and credible – Scientists
and engineers• Regional, basin and prospect (field) scale
• Policy and legal validity• Policy & Regulation planning - Government
• Commercial validity• Investment decisions – Business
• Environmental validity• Identify & establish “sustainability” of CCS - Community
• A comprehensive Technology Gap Assessment was initiated to help identify where CSLF projects should be encouraged in relation to the CSLF Charter
• Three focus areas considered;– Capture (EC)– Storage (Australia)– Monitoring, Measurement & Verification (Canada)
• Each focus area identified – high level technology gaps sub-headings and then – a second tier of specific topics– Capture ( 4 sub headings - 20 specific topics)– Storage (11 sub headings - 34 specific topics)– MMV ( 5 sub headings - 17 specific topics)
Technology Gap Assessment
See Poster for details of technology gaps being addressed in each CSLF recognised Project
More detailed Technology Gaps Analysis spreadsheet now on CSLF website
Following the Technical group meeting in Melbourne, Australia, in September 2004, a recommendation was put forward for a working group which would assess projects proposed for recognition by the CSLF and review the CSLF project portfolio to identify synergies and gaps that would then act as input for any future revision of the CSLF Technology Road map. This working group was endorsed by the Policy Group at the CSFL meeting in New Delhi in April 2006 and is now known as the Projects Interaction and Review Team (PIRT).
The PIRT has the following tasks:
CSLF Projects Interaction and Review Team (PIRT)
CCS Technology Gaps Analysis
In order to complete the task of identifying technology gaps where further research and development would be required, a comprehensive gap assessment began in 2006. The purpose of this was to identify where projects should be encouraged in the CSLF charter, to promote synergies and inform on new developments.
xCapture from non-power industrial processes
C20
Industrial applications
xxFully integrated demonstration plant
C19
x?CO2 capture pilot plantC18
xxPower plant concepts to integrate CO2 capture
C17
xxCombustion scienceC16
xxOxy-fuel gas turbinesC15
x?Improved air separation processes
C14
xx?Boiler designC13
OxyfuelCombustion
Fully integrated demonstration plant
C12
xPolygenerationoptimization
C11
xxxPower plant concepts to integrate CO2 capture
C10
xImproved H2/CO2 separation
C9
xImproved water-gas shiftC8
x?Improved air separation processes
C7
x?Hydrogen-rich turbinesC6
Pre-Combustion
xFully integrated demonstration plant
C5
xxCO2 capture pilot plantC4
xxxPower plant concepts to integrate CO2 capture
C3
xxAdvanced capture systemsC2
xxImproved solvent systemsC1
Post-Combustion
CAPTURE
17) IEA G
HG W
eyburn-Midale
CO2
Monitoring & Storage Project
16) Regional O
pportunities for CO
2 C
apture and Storage in China
15) Regional C
arbon Sequestration Partnerships
14) ITC CO2 Capture w
ith Chemical
Solvents
13) Geologic CO
2 Storage Assurance at In Salah, Algeria
12) FrioP
roject
11) ENCAP
10) China CoalbedM
ethane Technology/C
O2 Sequestration Project
9) Feasibility Study of Geological
Sequestration of CO
2 in Basalt Form
ations (DeccanTrap) in India
8) CO2 STO
RE
7) CO2 SINK
6) CO2 Separation from
Pressurized G
as Stream
5) CO
2 GeoNet
4) CO2 Capture Project
3) CASTOR
2) CANM
ET Energy Technology Centre (CETC) R&D O
xyfuelCombustion for
CO
2
1) Alberta Enhanced Coal-bed Methane
Recovery Project
xCapture from non-power industrial processes
C20
Industrial applications
xxFully integrated demonstration plant
C19
x?CO2 capture pilot plantC18
xxPower plant concepts to integrate CO2 capture
C17
xxCombustion scienceC16
xxOxy-fuel gas turbinesC15
x?Improved air separation processes
C14
xx?Boiler designC13
OxyfuelCombustion
Fully integrated demonstration plant
C12
xPolygenerationoptimization
C11
xxxPower plant concepts to integrate CO2 capture
C10
xImproved H2/CO2 separation
C9
xImproved water-gas shiftC8
x?Improved air separation processes
C7
x?Hydrogen-rich turbinesC6
Pre-Combustion
xFully integrated demonstration plant
C5
xxCO2 capture pilot plantC4
xxxPower plant concepts to integrate CO2 capture
C3
xxAdvanced capture systemsC2
xxImproved solvent systemsC1
Post-Combustion
CAPTURE
17) IEA G
HG W
eyburn-Midale
CO2
Monitoring & Storage Project
16) Regional O
pportunities for CO
2 C
apture and Storage in China
15) Regional C
arbon Sequestration Partnerships
14) ITC CO2 Capture w
ith Chemical
Solvents
13) Geologic CO
2 Storage Assurance at In Salah, Algeria
12) FrioP
roject
11) ENCAP
10) China CoalbedM
ethane Technology/C
O2 Sequestration Project
9) Feasibility Study of Geological
Sequestration of CO
2 in Basalt Form
ations (DeccanTrap) in India
8) CO2 STO
RE
7) CO2 SINK
6) CO2 Separation from
Pressurized G
as Stream
5) CO
2 GeoNet
4) CO2 Capture Project
3) CASTOR
2) CANM
ET Energy Technology Centre (CETC) R&D O
xyfuelCombustion for
CO
2
1) Alberta Enhanced Coal-bed Methane
Recovery Project
xx?xxBehaviour of CO2 under different regimes of pressure, temperature and fluid mixtures
S16
CO2 properties
xPetroleum field development impact on hydrodynamic regime
S15
Hydrodynamics
xxxxMigration rateS14
xxxx?xx?Understanding physical or chemical trapping mechanisms
S13
Trapping
xUltra-low permeability rocks (eg organic rich shales, non-conventional reservoirs) – proof of concept
S12
xBasalts - proof of conceptS11
xxDepleted oil and gas fields – viability
S10
xxEOR – lessons to be applied to other storage reservoirs
S9
xxxxCoal – rock propertiesS8
xx?xxxSaline Aquifers –fluids/rock relationships and interactions
S7
xStorage Options
xxx?xReservoir engineering aspects
S6
xxxFormation water compression / displacement in closed or open system
S5
xxxxxSustainability of high injection rates
S4
xxxxxDefinition of variable rock facies or rock property types for injectivity.
S3
xxxxxxOptimum injection parameters
S2
xxxxxOptimum well spacings and patterns
S1
Injection
STORAGE
xx?xxBehaviour of CO2 under different regimes of pressure, temperature and fluid mixtures
S16
CO2 properties
xPetroleum field development impact on hydrodynamic regime
S15
Hydrodynamics
xxxxMigration rateS14
xxxx?xx?Understanding physical or chemical trapping mechanisms
S13
Trapping
xUltra-low permeability rocks (eg organic rich shales, non-conventional reservoirs) – proof of concept
S12
xBasalts - proof of conceptS11
xxDepleted oil and gas fields – viability
S10
xxEOR – lessons to be applied to other storage reservoirs
S9
xxxxCoal – rock propertiesS8
xx?xxxSaline Aquifers –fluids/rock relationships and interactions
S7
xStorage Options
xxx?xReservoir engineering aspects
S6
xxxFormation water compression / displacement in closed or open system
S5
xxxxxSustainability of high injection rates
S4
xxxxxDefinition of variable rock facies or rock property types for injectivity.
S3
xxxxxxOptimum injection parameters
S2
xxxxxOptimum well spacings and patterns
S1
Injection
STORAGE
xxxxxxProcedures and approaches for communicating the impacts of geological storage to the general public
S30
Public Outreach
xxx?xx?Risk assessment modelsS29
Risk
xxxIntegration in single software system of geological, reservoir engineering and hydrodynamic aspects
S28
xxImprovements in software for basin wide geological, reservoir engineering and hydrodynamic model
S27
x?xParameters for modelling fluid and rock interactions
S26
Software
xxCosts of storageS25
Economics
xxExisting facilities and materials
S24
xQuantification and modelling of potential subsurface leakage impacts
S23
xFlux rates of modern and ancient systems
S22
Leakage
xProtocols for evaluation of potential sterilisation of existing resources
S21
x?x?Geological site characterisation, methodologies, techniques and standards
S20
xxx?Innovative methods for assessments of geological storage potential
S19
xxxxCountry wide or regional assessments of storage potential
S18
xxxStorage Capacity assessment methodologies or standards
S17
Assessments
xxxxxxProcedures and approaches for communicating the impacts of geological storage to the general public
S30
Public Outreach
xxx?xx?Risk assessment modelsS29
Risk
xxxIntegration in single software system of geological, reservoir engineering and hydrodynamic aspects
S28
xxImprovements in software for basin wide geological, reservoir engineering and hydrodynamic model
S27
x?xParameters for modelling fluid and rock interactions
S26
Software
xxCosts of storageS25
Economics
xxExisting facilities and materials
S24
xQuantification and modelling of potential subsurface leakage impacts
S23
xFlux rates of modern and ancient systems
S22
Leakage
xProtocols for evaluation of potential sterilisation of existing resources
S21
x?x?Geological site characterisation, methodologies, techniques and standards
S20
xxx?Innovative methods for assessments of geological storage potential
S19
xxxxCountry wide or regional assessments of storage potential
S18
xxxStorage Capacity assessment methodologies or standards
S17
Assessments
xIdentify thresholds of leakage that can be measured
M17
xxxImproved integration of monitoring techniques
M16
xdetermination of effective pre-injection surveys
M15
Guideline Development
xxxImproved remote sensing to identify souces of CO2
M14
xxuse of vegetational changes by hyperspectral surveys changes to identify gas levels in the vadose zone
M13
xxxxRemote sensing of CO2 flux M12
xxxxdetecting CO2 seeps into subaqueous settings
M11
Surface and near-surface leaks
xxevaluation of permanent or semi-permanent sampling points in an observation well
M10
xxseismic, cost reductionM 9
xx?xsesimic, resolutionM 8
Leaks in the subsurface
xxxxImproved recognition and interpretation of the nature of faults and fractures
M 7
xxxxnon-seismic geophysical techniques
M 6
xxxxxxuse of seismicM 5
Identification of faults and fractures
x?xxphysical or chemical changes to cement
M 4
xx?xxImproved wellboremonitoring techniques
M 3
xxImproved interpretation of cased hole logs
M 2
xxxxfunctionality and resolution of available logging tools
M 1
Well bore Integrity
MONITORING
xIdentify thresholds of leakage that can be measured
M17
xxxImproved integration of monitoring techniques
M16
xdetermination of effective pre-injection surveys
M15
Guideline Development
xxxImproved remote sensing to identify souces of CO2
M14
xxuse of vegetational changes by hyperspectral surveys changes to identify gas levels in the vadose zone
M13
xxxxRemote sensing of CO2 flux M12
xxxxdetecting CO2 seeps into subaqueous settings
M11
Surface and near-surface leaks
xxevaluation of permanent or semi-permanent sampling points in an observation well
M10
xxseismic, cost reductionM 9
xx?xsesimic, resolutionM 8
Leaks in the subsurface
xxxxImproved recognition and interpretation of the nature of faults and fractures
M 7
xxxxnon-seismic geophysical techniques
M 6
xxxxxxuse of seismicM 5
Identification of faults and fractures
x?xxphysical or chemical changes to cement
M 4
xx?xxImproved wellboremonitoring techniques
M 3
xxImproved interpretation of cased hole logs
M 2
xxxxfunctionality and resolution of available logging tools
M 1
Well bore Integrity
MONITORING
PIRT FORMATION & OBJECTIVES
TECHNICAL GAPS ANALYSIS
•Assess projects proposed for recognition by the CSLF in accordance with the project selection criteria approved by the Policy Group. Based on this assessment, make recommendations to the Technical Group on whether a project should be accepted for recognition by the CSLF.
•Review the CSLF project portfolio and identify synergies, complementarities and gaps, providing feedback to the Technical Group and input for further revisions of the CSLF roadmap.
•Identify technology gaps where further RD&D would be required.
•Foster enhanced international collaboration for CSLF projects, both within individual projects (e.g. expanding partnership to entities from other CSLF members) and between different projects addressing similar issues.
•Promote awareness within the CSLF of new developments in CO2 Capture and Storage by establishing and implementing a framework for periodically reporting to the Technical Group on the progress within CSLF projects and beyond.
•Organize periodic activities to facilitate the fulfilment of the above functions and to give an opportunity to individuals involved in CSLF recognized projects and other relevant individuals invited by the CSLF, to exchange experience and views on issues of common interest and provide feedback to the CSLF.
•Perform other such tasks that may be assigned to it by the CSLF Technical Group.
The aim of this poster session is to highlight aspects of projects that currently or plan to fill these gaps, as well as promote discussion of the areas that are not being addressed by CSLF projects.If any non-CSLF projects wish to consider applying to be recognised as CSLF project, the submission forms are available at http://cslforum.org/documents/ProjectSubmissionForm.doc
Single well injection test- Alberta Enhanced Coal-bed Methane Recovery Project
Poster 1 of 3
The CSLF Technical Group Gap Analysis work was divided into three components: 1) Capture, 2) Storage and 3) Monitoring and Verification. These were initially instigated by completion of three taskforces examining these topics: Task Force to Identify Gaps in C02 Capture and Transport, Task Force to Identify Gaps in Measurement, Monitoring and Verification in Storage and the TaskForce to Review and Identify Standards for C02 Storage CapacityMeasurement. From the results of these taskforces and by scoping out other gaps from within the Core Group and Floating Group within the PIRT, a list of technology barriers to the CCS deployment were identified and are listed in the adjacent table.These technology gaps were assembled at a high level so that more detailed gaps could be addressed underneath key topics.
The 17 projects recognised within the CSLF were then asked to identify if any of their project outcomes would encompass these issues. Many projects were able to respond in time for this poster and the details of their responses are shown in light green. Those in dark green are taken from the projects descriptions on their websites and information sheets An interactive spreadsheet of these responses is available at http://www.cslforum.org/documents/PIRTGapAnalysis.xls
http//www.cslforum.org/documents/PIRTGapAnalysis.xls
Technology Gaps : Summary
01234567No of
Responses per Sub Heading
Post-C
ombu
stion
Pre-Com
busti
on
Oxyfue
l Com
busti
on
Indus
trial a
pplica
tions
Injec
tion
Storage O
ptions
Trapping
Hydrody
namics
CO2 prop
erties
Asses
smen
ts Le
akage
Econom
ics
Software
Risk
Public
Outreac
h
Well bore
Integ
rity
Identi
ficati
on of
fault
s and f
ractures
Leak
s in th
e subs
urface
Surfac
e and
near-s
urfac
e leak
s
Guideli
ne D
evelo
pmen
t
Sub Headings
Responses to Technology Gaps Sub Headings27 / 20 ( 1.3 ) 85 / 34
( 2.5 ) 45 / 17 ( 2.6 )
CaptureStorageMMV
27 / 20 (1.3)
Total Responses / Total Topics(Response per Topic)
Sub Heading No. of Specific Topics– Injection 6 – Storage Options 6 – Trapping 2– Hydrodynamics 1– CO2 properties 5 – Assessments 5 – Leakage 3 – Economics 1 – Software 3 – Risk 1 – Public Outreach 1
Technology Gap AssessmentFocus Area - Storage
_______34
Conclusions• Many options for Storage around the world
• Some options better than others• Not all geological sites nearby to power
plants will be viable or sustainable• Long pipelines or ship transport
• Need to improve assessment methods to estimate storage capacity• To assist planning
• Gaps analysis contains few items that can’t be resolved or better understood• Some however costly options
• Need (many) commercial scale storage “demonstrations”• To help learn by doing
top related