integrated evaluation for measuring, monitoring, and

Integrated Evaluation for Measuring, Monitoring, and Verifying CO2 Distribution

GCCC Digital Publication Series #05-04s

S. Sakurai T. S. Ramakrishnan

A. Boyd N. Müller T. Daley

M. Hoversten J. Peterson

Cited as: Sakurai, S., Ramakrishnan, T.S., Boyd, A., Muller, N., Daley, T., Hoversten, M., and Peterson, J., Integrated evaluation for measuring, monitoring, and verifying CO2 distribution: presented at the National Energy Technology Laboratory Fourth Annual Conference on Carbon Capture and Sequestration, Alexandria, Virginia, May 2-5, 2005. GCCC Digital Publication Series #05-04s, pp. 1-21.

Keywords: Core Analysis, Open Hole Logging, Pulsed Neutron Capture (PNC), CO2 Saturation, Sonic Transit Time,

Shinichi Sakurai, Bureau of Economic Geology

T.S. Ramakrishnan, Austin Boyd and Nadja MullerSchlumberger Doll Research

Tom Daley, Mike Hoversten and John PetersonLawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

Shinichi Sakurai, Bureau of Economic Geology

T.S. Ramakrishnan, Austin Boyd and Nadja MullerSchlumberger Doll Research

Tom Daley, Mike Hoversten and John PetersonLawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

Photo by Spud Miller

Geologic – Frio Brine Field Project (1)

Integrated evaluation for measuring, monitoring, and verifying CO2 distribution


Acknowledgements• DOE/NETL

• Sandia Technology

• Core Laboratories, Inc

• Susan Hovorka

• DOE/NETL

• Sandia Technology

• Core Laboratories, Inc

• Susan Hovorka

BureauofEconomic

Geology


Outline

• New Injection Well – Core & Wireline Log

• Monitor CO2 Distribution– Monitor by PNC– Tie with Geophysics Data

• Conclusions

Outline



• Conclusions


* 3 Conventional CoresAnahuac Shale

C Sand

5400 ft Sand

* 3 Conventional CoresAnahuac Shale

C Sand

5400 ft Sand

Cores Cut and Objectives

Seal Rock PropertyTests by Oak Ridge, LLNL, LBNL & CSIRO

Reservoir QualityK & Φ for Model InputCO2 injection test

Available for Frio II Work

Seal Rock PropertyTests by Oak Ridge, LLNL, LBNL & CSIRO

Reservoir QualityK & Φ for Model InputCO2 injection test

Available for Frio II Work

Observation Well

Not Continuous Shale

Change Perforation In the Upper C sandstone

Core Description & Perforation Interval

Injection Well

Mid C Sand Shale ?Mid C Sand Shale

Perf. In Lower C sand

Sandy silt

K ~ 100 md

Core Analysis & Reservoir Description

Update input of simulation model

• Higher Φ & K

• New perforation

•Understand Reservoir Quality

•Old Estimates from publication

0.1

1

10

100

1000

10000

0 10 20 30 40Porosity (%)

Perm

eabi

lity

(md)

Hydrologic test

~ 2,400 md

Sakurai et al., SPWLA, 2005

•Conventional Analysis made @ 1800 psi

Special Core Analysis for Reservoir QualityCapillary Pressure

C Sand

33. 1 %

1150 md

Anahuac Shale

Good Seal


Openhole Logging

Triple Combo (Rhob, Np, AIT)SonicBorehole Imager Wireline Formation Tester

Photo by Spud Mille

Open Hole Log Analysis

With Core Data

Very High Reservoir Quality

Φ 30+ %

K ~ 2000 md

Lithology agreed well with XRD


0 10 20 30 90

Formation Micro ImagerBorehole Image of Conductivity

No Faults Observed

Run forStructure DipsPresence of Fault or Fracture

FMI Images GR Hole Dir Dip

C sand

Structure Dip

18 Degree

South

BureauofEconomic

Geology


Outline



• Conclusions

Outline



• Conclusions

CO2 Injection rate


Data from Sandia Technologies

Change of

CO2 Saturation

Modified from


The Observation Well

The Injection Well

* After geophysical data acquisition

* Saturation from PNC for end of Injection

10 days

Fault

Inj

Obs

Sg

Comparison of

CO2 Saturation from PNC and Model Result

By Chris Doughty. Aug. 2004

60 days

Fault

InjObs

SgBy Chris Doughty. Aug. 2004

Comparison of

CO2 Saturation from PNC and Model Result

Sonic Transit Time

Example from Japan

Injected into sandstone of Haizume formation (L. Pleistocene).

Slow Velocity due to CO2, at March 2004, (8 months later).

4,000 ton of CO2 was injected.

Slower Comp. Dt

Kurika and others, 2004

240 200 140 100 us/f

Sonic Transit Time

Pre- & Post-Injection

Baseline Dt

Slow Velocity due to CO2, but not qualitatively

Weak Signal Comp. Dt

Processing of Casedhole DSI is on going at SDR

Vc 2800 – 1600 m/s~ 40 % slower

CO2 60%Density 2.07 – 1.99 g/ccACIM 5800 - 3200

Dtsm > 250

7.5 2.2 1.25

Change of Compressional Velocity

Pre- & Post-Injection

Work by J. Peterson & M. Hoversten (LBNL)

Slower Velocity was observed between 2 wells

Need to process post-injection Sonic log

B sand

B sand

Simulation Model

Electromagnetic Interference (EMI)

Study underway by Schlumberger’s officesSDR, Pittsburgh, & Bakersfield

Use computed resultsΦ, KCO2 saturation

Estimate Saturation Changes in Model Layers

Compare with EMI data

CONCLUSIONS* Integrated Evaluation is a Key for MMV

• Addition of new core and wireline made an improvement on our Reservoir Description & update of input for model

• Based on core description, we changed perforation Intervals

• PNC worked well for CO2 Saturation Estimate

• PNC - No sigma change over B sandstone

• Comparison is underway between CO2 saturation from PNC and changeof CO2 distribution predicted by the simulation model

• CO2 saturation from PNC, Velocity and density from wireline logs help Interpretation of Geophysics data

• Additional PNC and Sonic logs

Thank You


integrated evaluation for measuring, monitoring, and

Documents