sim-seq: a model comparison study using results from co2
TRANSCRIPT
Sim-SEQ: A Model Comparison Study
Using Results from CO2 Field Tests
Sumit Mukhopadhyay
Jens Birkholzer
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
IEA GHG 1st Combined Network Meeting on Modeling and Wellbore Integrity
April 27, 2010
• Vastly differing time scales for multiphase flow and
geomechanical versus chemical effects
• Processes are coupled and highly nonlinear
• Heterogeneities on different scales
• Sparsity of data in field situations
• Difficult-to-measure and uncertain parameters
Wide range of predictions because of different modeling
techniques, coupling methods, approaches for
multiphase behavior, interpretations of site data
Uncertainty about risk assessment predictions
Challenges in Modeling CO2 Storage
Sim-SEQ
Encourage development of new approaches
and model improvement
Provide a forum for discussion, interaction,
cooperation, and learning among modeling groups
Objectively evaluate model-to-model and model-to-
data, using well defined performance metrics
Demonstrate in an objective manner that the system
behavior of GCS sites can be predicted with confidence
Evaluate model uncertainties and
assess their impacts
A New DOE Initiative on Model
Comparison for CO2 Geologic Storage
Sim-SEQ Is About ….
• Model Evaluation and Comparison Against Measured Data
Examples from Frio test (tomography from
Daley, et al, Env. Geol. 2007)
• NOT Code Comparison and Verification Against Benchmark
Tests
Single-Site Multi-Model Approach
Site AModel
Team 1
Model
Team 2
Model
Team 3
Model
Team 6
Model
Team 7
Model
Team 4
Model
Team 5
• Model teams each develop
individual model for ONE
“selected” site
• Using the same set of
data, teams will use
different codes and model
approaches
• Allows direct comparison
of models and approaches
• Requires additional effort
by model teams, as well as
“host” team and
coordinator
Sim-SEQ: Background and History
• The idea of Sim-SEQ was first floated in 2008
• A full-day workshop was organized at LBNL on
December 16, 2008.
• A short candidate list of suitable sites was developed
• Attempts were made to rank candidate sites based on
certain criteria
• Initiated discussion on performance metrics and
acceptance criteria
Proposed Candidate Sites
RCSP Site Phase Type Injection VolumeExpected Drill
Date
Expected
Injection Start
Data Avail. Before
Injection
MGSC Decatur 3 saline1 Million tons over
3 yearsOngoing Dec-09
Sparse (based on
seismic, few wells)
SECARB Cranfield 3saline near
EOR
1.5 Million tons per
year over 1.5
years
Early 2009 Summer 2009 (?)Moderate to good from
neaby EOR
MRCSP Greenville (TAME) 3 saline1 Million tons over
4 yearsJul-09 2010
Sparse (based on
seismic, few wells)
WESTCARB Kimberlina 3 saline1 Million tons over
4 year2009 2012
Sparse (based on
seismic, few wells)
Big Sky Riley Ridge 3 saline
1 to 3 Million tons
per year for 3
years
Summer 2010 2011Moderate (existing
nearby wells, outcrop)
SWP Farnham Dome 3 saline
Up to 1 Million
tons per year for 4
years
Begins in April
2009Late 2009
Moderate (twelve
existing and 6 new
wells, seismic)
SECARB Cranfield 2 EOR0.5 Million tons per
yearDone Started in 2008
Very good data from
EOR operations
MRCSP Gaylord, Mich. 2 saline 50000 tons over
500 daysDone Ongoing
Sparse (based on
seismic, few wells)
SWP SACROC 2 EOR
0.3 Million tons per
year for 3 to 5
years
Done Started in 2008Very good from 30
years of EOR
Site Ranking Criteria
• Injection volume needed to be in line with industrial-scale
storage projects
• The selected site needed to provide good monitoring data
for plume tracking, pressure changes, and ideally also
geomechanical/geochemical impacts.
• A definite conclusion could not be made about saline
formations versus EOR. However, DOE later expressed a
preference for saline formations, because these would be
more representative of the modeling challenges for the
majority of future carbon storage projects
Sim-SEQ Site Selection
•The workshop ended with the selection of two alternative
sites for Sim-SEQ: the Decatur project (in Illinois) and the
Farnham Dome project (in Utah).
•Both sites became unavailable over the course of the
summer in 2009.
•Sim-SEQ started focusing on SECARB’s Cranfield Phase III
project for model comparison
•Cranfield Phase III was selected for Sim-SEQ in November
2009 during the RCSP meeting at Pittsburg, PA.
•For proprietary reasons, this site would be referred to as
the S-3 Site (Sim-SEQ Study Site)
Louisiana
Arkansas
Alabama
Florida
Tennessee
Mississippi
Texas
OklahomaGeorgia
INTERIOR SALT
BASIN PROVINCE
Sabine
Uplift
Wells shown only in
Tuscaloosa-Woodbine
Cranfield
CO2
The Sim-SEQ Site
Southern
Company Sites
Acknowledgment: JP Nicot, BEG
Acknowledgment: JP Nicot, BEG
Phase II
Phase III
•The Sim-SEQ site is
patterned from
Cranfield, site but
with simplified data
set
• It is an EOR site but
Phase III is in the
brine leg down dip of
the reservoir
• Phase II was in the
reservoir
Sim-SEQ: Current Status
•In December 2010, BEG delivered the first part of the Sim-
SEQ data set.
•Scientists from PNNL and LBNL worked together to develop
a web portal for Sim-SEQ based on the GS-3 platform
developed by PNNL.
•The purpose of the Sim-SEQ web portal is to
-provide modeling teams with relevant input and
monitoring data
-help modeling teams in information dissemination
-assist in model evaluation and comparison
-promote exchange of information and ideas
Sim-SEQ Kick-Off Meeeting
•A kick-off meeting for Sim-SEQ took place on April 20 at
LBNL.
•The Sim-SEQ web portal was launched
(https://gs3.pnl.gov/simseq/wiki) - this is a password
protected site, with access given to Sim-SEQ participants
only
•Five modeling teams (University of Utah, Sandia National
Labs, PNNL, LBNL, and BEG University of Texas, Austin)
have joined in the Sim-SEQ model comparison studies
•It is expected that few more modeling teams will join soon
•Input data evaluation is in progress – actual modeling
work to commence in few weeks’ time
Iterative Model Improvement
• Simulation Model
• Observations from Field Tests
Predictive
SimulationsData Feedback and
Iterative Model Improvement
“Sufficient” Agreement
A Collaborative Effort: YES
Sim-SEQ
Simulation Model
Observations
LBNL
Simulation Model
Observations
PNNLSimulation Model
Observations
Utah
Simulation Model
Observations
BEG
Simulation Model
Observations
Sandia
Simulation Model
Observations
????
Sim-SEQ Organization
LBNL-Team:
Manages and coordinates
model evaluation effort
Sumit Mukhopadhyay
Jens Birkholzer, Support Staff
Sim-SEQ Technical Team:
Comprises modeling team members
Convenes regularly via video-
conferences and workshops
Provides main venue for presentation,
discussion, and evaluation of models
and results External Scientific
Advisor: TBA
Multi-Year Effort During Phase III
Integrated in and coordinated with National Risk Assessment Program
and Simulation and Risk Assessment Working Group
LBNL RoleLBNL-Team:
Manages and coordinates model evaluation effort
– Establish Sim-SEQ Technical Team
– Organize and facilitate Technical Team videoconferences and workshops, host a web site for sharing of data and presentations
– Perform status review of Phase III model plans, including model approaches, schedules, and code capabilities
– Develop modeling performance metrics for comparison of predictions and measurements
– Conduct timely review and evaluation of model results
– Mediate discussion about model improvement and develop list of lessons learned
– Summarize model comparison results in annual reportsTechnical Team will be involved in all activities listed above
•International GCS programs may benefit from a
demonstration that system behavior can be reliably predicted
•The Sim-SEQ initiative may help convince stakeholders that
the subsurface processes expected in response to CO2
storage are sufficiently well understood with a knowable
degree of confidence.
•As a byproduct, insights into the complex behavior of saline
formations used for CO2 sequestration will be gained
•Development of new modeling approaches will be fostered.
•Participating teams will benefit from the open and
cooperative environment, which ensures that lessons learned
and improvements made will be shared among researchers.
International Participation?
International Interest?
Please contact: Sumit Mukhopadhyay
https://gs3.pnl.gov/simseq/wiki
http://esd.lbl.gov/research/projects/sim-seq
Sim-SEQ: Summary
Forum for discussion, interaction, cooperation, and
learning among modeling groups
Facilitated by LBNL
Emphasizing the common goal of improving model
predictions and objectively demonstrating to
stakeholders that GCS can be safe
Open to international participation