in salah co2 storage project: monitoring experience salah gas co2 project... · storage project:...

In Salah CO2 Storage Project:

Monitoring Experience

Allan Mathieson JIP Programme Manager

SPE Edinburgh June 2013

ISG CO2 JIP Overview 2013 2

Krechba

Teg

Reg

Garet elBefinat Hassi Moumene

In Salah

Gour Mahmoud

Proposed ISG Pipeline

REB

Hassi BirRekaiz

Hassi Messaoud

Hassi R’Mel

Tiguentourine (BP)

02151093

Algiers

Tangiers

Lisbon

Cordoba

Cartagena

M O R O C C O

A L G E R I A

S P A I N

L I B Y A

MAURITANIAM A L I

SkikdaTunis

N I G E R

In Salah Gas Project

• Industrial Scale Demonstration of CO2 Geological Storage (Conventional Capture) • Storage Formation is common in Europe, USA & China • Started Storage in August 2004 at 1mmtpa. 3.86 mmt CO2 stored at end 2011 • $100mm Incremental Cost for Storage. No commercial benefit • Test-bed for CO2 Monitoring Technologies: $30mm Research Project

Project Summary

In Salah CCS Project: Overview

Carboniferous Reservoir

~20 metres thick

Carboniferous Mudstones

~950 metres thick

Cretaceous Sandstones &

Mudstones ~900 metres

thick (Regional Aquifer) 4 Gas

Production

Wells

3 CO 2

Injection

Wells

Processing Facilities

Amine CO2

Removal

The CO 2 Storage Scheme

at Krechba


~20 metres thick


~950 metres thick




Production

Wells

3 CO 2

Injection

Wells


Amine CO2

Removal


at Krechba


~20 metres thick


~950 metres thick




Production

Wells

3 CO 2

Injection

Wells


Amine CO2

Removal


~20 metres thick


~950 metres thick




Production

Wells

3 CO 2

Injection

Wells


Amine CO2

Removal


~20 metres thick


~950 metres thick




Production

Wells

3 CO 2

Injection

Wells


Amine CO2

Removal


at Krechba

ISG CO2 JIP Overview 2013

Krechba Field Injection Scheme Layout

N


Krechba Field Layout

CO2 Injectors

Gas Producers

0 km 5

KB-14

KB-11

KB-12

KB-15

KB-13

KB-501

KB-503

KB-502 KB-5

GWC

Seismic

porosity map


Krechba Stratigraphic Summary

Cretaceous Continental Intracalaire

Pan-Saharan aquifer

Loose sand with inter-bedded mudstone

Muddier towards base with some coals and anhydrite

Hercynian Unconformity (overlain by anhydrite bed)

Carboniferous (C20) Viséan mudstone

Interbedded with thin dolomite and siltstone layers

Mud losses and drilling problems due to fractures (esp. C20.2)

C20.2

Cretaceous Superieur (silts and limestones)

Devonian Sandstone – lower reservoir (Fammenian-Strunian)

Sandstone, dolomitic with interbedded siltstones and mudstones

D70

C10.2 C10.3

Carboniferous (C10) Tournasian sandstone

C10.3 Tight sandstone and siltstone

C10.2 Sandstone (= main reservoir)

Water table (c. 150m subsurface)

C20.1

C20.7 Hot Shale

C20.3

~900m

~170m

~1880m ~1900m

Ap

pro

x. D

epth

s (B

elow

su

rface

)

Surface c. 450m elevation

Sei

smic

surf

aces

Storage capacity in

aquifer and lower

caprock

Fractured rock

characterisation

Caprock leakage

potential

Shale

characterisation

Key challenges:

Lower caprock: silty shale with fractures

Defined as CO2

Storage Complex


Krechba 502 Area


Northern Krechba Area


Time

Ris

k

Site

Selection

and

Develop

- ment

Operation

(Injection)

Closure Post-Closure

M&V

QRA

Nation/

Landowner

Nation/

Landowner Operator Stewardship

Project

Phase

Monitoring

Baseline

Data

Acquisition

and Initial

QRA

M&V

QRA

M&V

QRA

8

CO2 Storage: Generic Risk Profile

In Salah is

here Screen,

Assess,

Select,

Design Construct Operate Close

Maximum Risk:

National Stewardship

Maximum Risk:

Developer Stewardship


Risk Management: Project Design

KB5

KB4

KB8 KB2

KB8 Legacy Wells


Site Selection and Operation

Quantified Risk Assessments (QRA) should be used to manage seepage

risk

During site selection, project design and updated periodically during operation

Several methodologies are available

Monitoring should be in the Field Development and Operations Plan (FDOP)

Designed around an early assessment of seepage risks

Comprehensive Baseline Data Essential

To adequately characterise the Storage Complex / Area of Review

Site Characterisation and selection most important activity in CO2 project

At In Salah:

Baseline data acquisition should have begun earlier & been more-

comprehensive

Top Three risks: Integrity of wells and caprock, plus CO2 migration direction


Benefit

Cost Low High

Low

High

Satellite

Imaging

Geochemistry

Micro-

seismic

Flowmeters

Wellhead

monitoring

4D gravity Tracers

Dynamic

Modelling

Wellbore

sampling

Annulus

Sampling 4D VSP

Cement

CO2 work

4D

Seismic

Tiltmeters

Cross-well

EM

Geomechanics

Logging

Surface EM

Aquifer

studies

Microbiology

Surface flux Observation

Wells

Airborne

Flux

Park

Focussed

Application Just Do It

Consider Key

To be tested

Water

Chemistry

Monitoring Technologies: Evaluation

Soil Gas


Monitoring Technologies Deployed at Krechba

Monitoring technology Risk to Monitor Action/Status

Repeat 3D seismic Plume migration

Subsurface characterisation

Initial survey in 1997

High resolution repeat 3D survey acquired in

2009

Initial interpretation complete.

May show some time lapse (4D) effects

Microseismic Caprock integrity

500m test well drilled and recording

information above KB502 – encouraging

results to date

Need to replace surface recording equipment

InSAR monitoring Plume migration

Caprock integrity

Pressure Development

Images captured using X-band (8 days) and C-

band

(32 days)

Used to develop time lapse deformation images

Input to geomechanical modelling activities

Tiltmeters/GPS Plume migration

Caprock integrity

Pressure Development

Currently collecting data – 18 month collection

period to end 2011

Use to calibrate satellite data

Shallow aquifer wells Caprock Integrity

Potable aquifer contamination

5 wells drilled to 350m – one beside each

injector, one remote and one between KB5 and

KB502.

Two sampling programmes to date

No anomalies noted to date

Wellhead/annulus samples

Wellbore integrity

Plume migration

2 monthly sampling since 2005

No anomalies noted to date

Tracers Plume migration

Different perflourocarbon tracers into each

injector

Implemented 2006

Only tracer recorded in KB5 from KB502 (see

section 4 for detailed discussion)

Surface Flux/Soil Gas Surface seepage Initial survey pre-injection

Two surveys in 2009 around key risk wells

No anomalies to date

Microbiology Surface seepage First samples collected in late 2009/early 2010

CO2 microfaunal assemblages recorded – may

be of value for long term monitoring

Wireline Logging/sampling

Subsurface characterization Overburden samples and logs in new wells

Geomechanical and geochemical modeling


Monitoring: Low-cost Options

Low-cost technologies can be very effective CO2 monitoring tools

At In Salah: these included:

– Wellhead (pressure & flow-rate) annulus monitoring (including

tracers)

– Soil-gas surveys, permanent soil-gas detectors, microbiological

sampling

– Gas surface flux (using laser surveys),

– Shallow aquifer sampling

CPF

BdV

Bar-A

Bar-BKb-502Kb-602

Kb-601Kb-5

Kb-503

Airstrip

Kb-4

Kb-501

Kb-7

CPF

BdV

Bar-A

Bar-BKb-502Kb-602

Kb-601Kb-5

Kb-503

Airstrip

Kb-4

Kb-501

Kb-7


Pressure and rate history


Monitoring: Seismic

Acquisition of a high-quality, pre-injection 3D seismic baseline is a vital

– for characterising the overburden and the injection horizon

The value of subsequent (time-lapse) 3D surveys will depend on rock quality and the

density difference between in-situ fluids and the injected CO2

A comprehensive understanding of the interaction of rock-physics, fluids and

fractures is required to adequately model Seismic responses to CO2 injection

At In Salah:

– 4D may never be a good option for CO2 monitoring (due to poor rock quality

and insufficient density contrast between fluids)


Seismic Expression: Kb-502 / Kb-5 NW linear feature (Catherine Gibson-Poole)

X-line

1245

2009 x-line 1245: Fault ?


Top C10.2 Reservoir/ Injection Horizon - Time

Top C10.2

wells:

= injector

= appraisal

= producer

NW Linear

features above

KB502

NW Linear

feature to SE of

KB503

NW linear

feature above

KB14 (producer)


NW Linear Features: Hot Shale

Top C20.1

wells:

= injector

= appraisal

= producer


Monitoring: Satellite Imagery - Generic

Interferometric Synthetic Aperture Radar

(InSAR)

Technology developing rapidly due to:

Publicly available data

Better data resolution (satellite)

Improved processing capabilities

Competition between providers

Provides accurate information on ground

surface deformations over time

Surrogate for pressure (not CO2)

Not Specific to CO2 Monitoring


Monitoring: Satellite Imagery - At In Salah

InSAR (combined with geo-mechanical modelling), has been key to understanding the

subsurface distribution of pressure fronts and CO2 plumes

– Benchmarked by CO2 observation at KB5

– Significantly influenced the 2009 seismic survey and Quantified Risk Assessment

– Data is available since 2003 (pre-injection), C-Band (Envisat and Radarsat2)

– Use of new X-Band data allows observation every 8 days.

– Inversion using diversity of research partners and techniques

– Used as an observation constraint for geo-mechanical modelling

2005 2007 2009


NW Linear Features vs. Satellite Deformation


Enageo drilling unit SS40

Kb-601 completed to 500m

Geophones installed without incident

Data acquisition commenced July 2009

Kb-502 re-injection commenced on 10th Nov.

Surface recording Equipment to be

upgraded in 4Q 2011

Microseismic


CO2 injection rates, well head pressure and

microseismic events

Note the slight delay

in microseismic

activity

Fracture pressure


Data Integration and Co-Visualisation

25


Co-visualisation – Multiple datasets

26


Risk Assessment

Quantified Risk Assessment (QRA) is an invaluable tool to understand, manage and communicate the performance of a CO2 storage operation

– Should be periodically repeated over the life of a CO2 storage project

Several methodologies are available

At In Salah:

– Pre-injection risk assessment highlighted the key risks and informed the baseline data acquisition programme and early monitoring

– Evaluated QRA methodologies: CCPCF, URS, FEP, Oxand

– The QRA is updated regularly and used to inform injection and monitoring strategies


In Salah Quantified Risk Assessment

In Salah Containment Risk

0.001

0.01

0.1

1

10

100

1000

10000

100000

1000000

Pe

rme

ab

le z

on

es

in s

ea

l

Lea

kag

e -

Un

de

tecte

d f

ault

Lea

kag

e -

We

lls

Re

gio

na

l-sca

le

overp

ressu

rizatio

n

Loca

l-sca

le

overp

ressu

rizatio

n

Exce

ed

ing

sp

illp

oin

t

Ea

rth

qu

ake

indu

ced

fra

ctu

res

Mig

ratio

n d

ire

ction

Tota

l C

onta

inm

en

t

Ris

k

Ev

en

t R

isk Q

uo

tie

nt

Pessimistic(CL95%)

Planning(CL80%)

Optimistic(CL50%)

AcceptableProjectContainmentRisk (RQ)

AcceptableSingle EventContainmentRisk (RQ)

1

2


Key Risk #1: Migration Direction Risk

Expected

N S

Fractured zone in seal

Fracture permeability

Incorrectly identified saddle point

Flow barrier

10 July 2010

(MDA & Pinnacle)


Key Risk #2: Legacy Wells

KB5

KB4

KB8 KB2

KB8 Legacy Wells


Legacy Well: KB-5

• Drilled in 1980 and temporarily suspended (no integrity to gas)

•1.5 km NW of KB502 CO2 injector (expected CO2 migration direction)

• 0.1 tonne CO2 seeped in 2007 (valve leak – not pressure on gauge)

• Caused by lack of well & wellhead integrity (physics not chemistry)

• KB5 now fully decommissioned with CO2 resistant cement


Visualisation of Processes around KB-502

Sketch illustrating the main geo-mechanical and fluid pressure/saturation effects

which may have occurred around injection wells (e.g. KB-502)

Lower caprock

(Secondary

Storage Unit)

C10.2 C10.3

C20.1

Hot Shale

D70

Reservoir elevated

pressure volume

Pressurised

fault segment

HUC

Possible vertical extension

of pressurized fault segment

Strain volume

around fault

(dilation?)

Rock mechanical strain propagating to surface

CO2 plume

(free-phase gas)

c. 300m

c. 600m

Upper caprock

(Main Seal Unit)


In Salah and EU Directive

Colour Key

Compliant

Compliance possible

Non or difficult compliance

Section Category Activities Directive Assessment Characterisation Development Operation Closure

MPCP Appraise Select/Define Execute Operate Decommission

2.1

Life Cycle Risk

Management Periodic Risk Assessment and Management

Model and performance Uncertainty assessment

3.3 Life Cycle Phases

Characterisation Characterisation/assessment of storage complex

Detailed Risk Assessment

Develop injection, monitoring, corrective measures plans

Development Detailed engineering design of the storage scheme

Baseline pre-injection monitoring

Operations

Reporting of monitoring results to Competent

Authority (CA)

Development of Corrective measures plan

New data used to update models and risk

assessment

Monitoring plans to be updated and verified

Notify CA of any leakage or significant irregularities

Closure Develop monitoring plan with targets and methods

Conduct post closure monitoring

Updated site characterisation and risk assessment

Inspections by CA post closure

Pre-Transfer to CA Prove long term containment of CO2

Monitor and assess for 20 years

Site sealed and facilities removed

6

Risk Management for

Geological Storage

Use CO2Qualstore risk assessment methodology

(DNV 2010a)Dialogue on Risk management with CA

In Salah CO2 Storage vs. EU CCS Guidelines

Storage Project Stages

GD1 Life Cycle Risk Management


Top Ten Lessons Learned – Part 1

1. Monitoring should be part of the Field Development Plan (FDP) and routine field

operations.

Each site is unique and monitoring programmes need to reflect this.

2. QRAs should be carried out prior to injection and throughout operation

Several methodologies available,

No regulatory agreement on acceptable levels of risk

3. The main leakage risks are driven by:

Legacy well-bore integrity

Cap-rock integrity

CO2 plume migration direction

4. Monitoring should be in service of risk assessment:

Designed to address site-specific risks

5. Acquisition, modelling and integration of a full suite of initial baseline data

(specifically caprock cores and geo-mechanical logs) is essential for evaluating

long-term integrity.


Top Ten Lessons Learned – Part 2

6. CO2 storage projects require integration of a wider-scope of datasets

InSAR, soil gas, seismic, dynamic

Over a greater aerial/vertical extent

Overburden and area of possible migration.

7. A diverse suite of site specific technologies should be deployed and integrated.

8. Injection strategies, rates and pressures need to be linked to geomechanical

modelling of the reservoir and the overburden and continuously monitored and

managed.

9. CO2 plume development not homogeneous

Requires high-resolution data for reservoir characterization and modelling.

Effects that require advanced, coupled modelling are:

Fluid-dynamics, rock mechanics and temperature

10.The regulation of CO2 storage projects is immature,

In Salah could retrospectively comply with the EU CCS Directive and

Requirements of the Clean Development Mechanism.

In Salah can inform emerging CCS regulatory frameworks around the world.

35


Questions?

www.insalahco2.com

in salah co2 storage project: monitoring experience salah gas co2 project... · storage project:...

Documents