Carbon Dioxide Storage: a UK PerspectiveAndy Chadwick – British Geological Survey

EPSRC Centre for Doctoral Training in CCS and Cleaner Fossil EnergyWinter School

Nottingham,17 February 2015© NERC All rights reserved

Contents ………..

1. UK storage capacity / site characterisation

2. UK CCS projects

3. Storage performance research

• Capacity and characterisation• Monitoring and verification• Long-term stability

Contents ………..

1. UK storage capacity / site characterisation

2. UK CCS projects

3. Storage performance research

• Capacity and characterisation• Monitoring and verification• Long-term stability

UK offshore storage potential

Sleipner~18 years storage> 15 million tonnes

(1 - 5 powerstation.years)

Potentially giant global storage facility

• Geology• CO2 sources

UK storage capacity

Offshore sedimentary basins to eastand west• Depleted oilfields (storage)• Depleted oilfields (EOR)• Depleted gas fields• Saline aquifers

IEA Workinggroup onstandard

methods forestimating

storage capacity

Storage capacity (UK, Europe, elsewhere)

2000 …………………………..…………….. 2015

CO2StoP

DTI capacityassessments

UK capacity methodology

DTI study (2001)

volumetric ‘static’ capacity estimates(pore space)

UK SAP (2010-11)

Open aquifer

Compartmentalised reservoir

‘dynamic’ capacity estimates(pore space + pressure)

© NERC All rights reserved

CO2Stored database

• Building on UKSAP• Online database of UK capacity• BGS – Crown Estate - ETI partnership• Duration 5 years• Ongoing development

© NERC All rights reserved

Sample project: Site Portfolio

• To provide the Crown Estate with dataand advice on UK storage options

• Site selection / prioritisation

• Site characterisation

Sample project: CO2MultiStore

• SCCS, Scottish Government, TheCrown Estate; Scottish Enterprise,Shell.

• To understand, define and mitigaterisk for CO2 storage in a multi-userstorage site

• Multiple users of the pore space

• CO2 storage sites

• Hydrocarbon fields

• Challenges

• Leasing and licensing

• Operation of the sites

• Integrity of the stores

• Case study is offshore Scotland,central North Sea

Contents ………..

1. UK storage capacity / site characterisation

2. UK full-chain CCS projects

3. Storage performance research

• Capacity and characterisation• Monitoring and verification• Long-term stability

Full chain concepts

Projects associated with theDECC competitions (2007 – 2015)

DECC Commercialisation Programme: two FEED projects

White Rose

Peterhead - Goldeneye

Peterhead - Goldeneye

~1 Mt / year CO2 for 10 – 15 years

CO2 from existing 400 MW gas turbine (retrofittedcapture unit)

Storage in Goldeneye FieldDepleted gas condensate fieldCaptain Sandstone (+aquifer)Depth ~ 2600 m

[Images courtesy Shell]

White Rose

~ Mt / year CO2 for 10 years

CO2 from new IGCC power-plant adjacent to Drax

Storage in structural closure in the southern North Sea

Bunter Sandstone (saline aquifer)

Depth ~ 1000 m

Contents ………..

1. UK storage capacity / site characterisation

2. UK CCS projects

3. Storage performance research

• Capacity and characterisation• Monitoring and verification

Pressure control in theBunter Sandstone aquifer

Dynamic capacity estimation

BunterSandstone

Pressure and geomechanical stability

overburden

reservoir

potential leakage pathways?

ΔP

A sandstone reservoir

Penrith Sandstone (Vale of Eden)

• Drinking water aquifer onshore• Saline reservoir rock under the North Sea

20

0m

Heterogeneity

• Horizontal bedding• Lateral pinch-outs• Cross-cutting structures• Faults

• Fluid flow modifiers

Open aquifer

CO2

no water expulsion: ΔP largeraquifer water expelled: ΔP small

Aquifer boundaries

Closed aquifer

Aquifer boundaries

Injection simulations

12 wells injecting 1650 Mt of CO2 over 50 years

CO2 saturationafter 50 years

Injection simulations

openboundary

closedboundary

pressure limit

pressure limit

Simple parameters, more detailed research ongoing

Contents ………..

1. UK storage capacity / site characterisation

2. UK CCS projects

3. Storage performance research

• Capacity and characterisation• Monitoring and verification

Monitoring for conformance and containment

• Conformance: that the storage site is behaving as predicted and site-specific processes are sufficiently well-understood to ruled out significantadverse future outcomes.

• Containment: no evidence that the storage site is leaking in thesubsurface or emitting CO2 to the surface.

surface

container

leakage

emission

top of the Storage Complex

The Sleipner CO2 storage analogue

1994 (pre-injection) 2006 (8.4 Mt)

reservoirCO2 plume

Operated by Statoil and partners

World’s longest running CO2 storage project

Injecting since 1996 15 million tonnes now stored

Reservoir similar to many central and northern North Sea aquifers

1994 2006

Monitoring at Sleipner

3D time-lapse seismic

1994 (baseline)1999200120022004200620082010

Seabed gravity

2002200520091994 2006

seabed

reservoir CO2 plume

1000 m

3D time-lapse seismic provides spatially continuous andspatially uniform coverage of the subsurface volume of thestorage footprint

~ 3000 m

~250

m

Reservoir top

Reservoir base

Reservoir sand

Sleipner time-lapse 3D seismics

vertical section

plan view

Sleipner monitoring (3)

Demonstrated realistic representation of CO2 in situQuantitatively robust (~95% of known injected free CO2)

Calculated CO2 distribution (3D)Plume image 1999

2004

2008

2006

Mass of CO2 injected (Mt)

Inte

gra

ted

ve

loc

ity

pu

sh

do

wn

(m2s

)

2001

1999

Conformance – whole plume

seabed

Top reservoir

CO2 plume

2001200420062008

Conformance – topmost CO2 layer

observed layer growth

2001 2004 2006 2008

20082001 2004 2006

numerical simulation of layer growth

Topseal topography ?High reservoir permeability ?High CO2 mobility ?

Conformance – topmost CO2 layer

top reservoir

injection point

2006

CO2 plume

overburden

seabed

Containment monitoring: in the subsurface

Statistical analysis ofchanges in overburdendue to out-of-reservoir CO2

Detectability:~ 2000 tonnes at top reservoir~ 300 tonnes in shallow overburden

< 0.01% of 20 Mt storage project

Containment monitoring: at and around the seabed

1. Bubbles

2. Chemical changes in the water-column (e.g. pH)

3. Changes of seabed character(new pockmarks, algal mats etc)

Containment monitoring: at and around the seabed

Stationary and mobile monitoring options

Seabed ‘lander’ for in situ gas analysis

Remotely-operated vehicle (ROV)

partiallydetected

samplingstation

detected

storage footprint

notdetected

Containment monitoring: at and around the seabed

Possible requirement for large-area coverage (>100 km2)

ETI-MMV Project

Cost-effective large-area surveillance

QICS offshore release experiment

Monitoring tools

Sampling methods

Environmental impacts

Emissions detection / impacts

Thankyou