Home >Documents >CO2 – ECBM: Insights from USA and International CBM Pilots

CO2 – ECBM: Insights from USA and International CBM Pilots

Date post:03-Feb-2022
Category:
View:0 times
Download:0 times
Share this document with a friend
Transcript:
Scott Stevens.PDFScott H. Stevens Advanced Resources International, Inc. (ARI)
CoalSeq Conference Houston, Texas
“Coal-Seq” R&D Objectives
• Evaluate San Juan Basin Field Demonstrations of CO2/N2 Injection into Deep Coal Seams
• Develop Understanding of CO2 Sequestration (and ECBM) Reservoir Mechanics
• Develop Screening Model to Evaluate Potential Coal Seam Sequestration (and ECBM) Projects
• Assess Potential USA Coal Seam Sequestration
• Disseminate Results to Industry
The Message
• The experience of commercial CBM pilots is quite relevant to scientific ECBM pilots
• The CBM industry is highly successful in macro. But individual pilots in new areas are usually challenging for technicians and management
• Need more wells, time, $ to get broadly applicable answers from pilots than initially thought
Outline
4. ECBM Potential: USA
Funding
#
# #
#
#
# # #
# #
#
#
# #
#
Je s s Bur ner
For d W
ma so n
Mc Co mb
Oa te s
Sa nd Hil ls
Mo ha ns
Empe ro r
Ker mi t
Le o Tho mps o n
Wils h ir e
J or da n
He a dle e Fos t er
Har pe r
Jo hnso n
Pa rks
Big La ke
Far me r
Co ng er
Tr end
Oz ona
Da gg e r Dra ws S
Da gg e r Dr aw N
Ato ka
Ar te s ia
Whit e Ci ty
Car ls ba d
Hig h Lo nes o me
Lo co H ill s
Turke y Tra c k M ill ma n E.
Shuga r t N.
Gr ay bur g -J a c ks o n
Squa r e Lal e
Cor bi n
Sa nd Dunes W .
Gra m Ridg e
Kem ni tz
to wns end
Lo vi ngt o n W.
Lo v ing to n Lo vi ngt o n N
Ho bbs
Br o wn-Ba s se tt Rus se ll N
M onume nt
Eunic e Mo nume nt
Arr o whea d Pe n Ro se Ske lle y
Euni ce S . Pa ddo c k Dr inkar d
Tubr
Ha re
Fo ule r La ngl ie -M a tt ix
La ng le y
De nt o n
Saunde rs
Ba um
Ba g le y
Pe c os S l ope
Pe c os S l ope W
Twi n La ke s
Ca to
To ba c
Mil nes a nd
Litt le fi e ld
Bil ly
Pre nti ce
Robe rt s on N
Ro be rt s on
Fla na g an
Nol le y
Em ma
Andr e ws N Dee p Ro c k
Ma rt in
Te x -H um on Ac ker ly
Jo - Mil l
Mo or e
Va re l
Luthe r SE
W el ch
Sti nne tt
J e ff Da v is
Ga ine s
Ir io n
Mid l and
Ho bbs
ODESSA
Lev e ll and
Bi g Spri ng
Waddell *
Puc ket t Fi el d Pi kes Pea k
El Mar
Rei necke
Slaug hter
Levell and *
Ki ngdom*
N. W ard Estes*
G oldsm it h
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
0
50
100
150
200
250
R P
ro d
u ct
io n
(M B
O P
GULF COAST MID-CONTINENT ALASKA (22% CO2) ROCKY MOUNTAINS PERMIAN BASIN
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
• 200 MBOPD
• 35 net MMt/yr CO2 being sequestered
Coalbed Methane Has Become a Major Component (7.2%) of U.S. Gas Production
Tax Credit Expired Tax Credit Expired
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
A n
n u
al C
B M
P ro
d u
ct io
C B
M R
es er
ve s
(T cf
84 Tcf
San Juan Fruitland Coal = 50 Tcf Menefee Coal = 34 Tcf
16.0 Raton 11 Tcf 1.0
Arkoma 4 Tcf
9 Commercial Basins, >20,000 Wells, 25.4 Tcf Reserve Adds
ECBM Pilot ECBM Study
JAF99080.XLS
R 2 = 0.1745
Sand/Coal Density (1000 lb/ft)
R 2
Frac Sand Density (1000 lbs/ft coal)
G as
P ro
d u
ct io
Depth to Top Coal (ft)
G as
P ro
d u
ct io
R2 = 0.0315
Coal Thickness (ft)
3. Insights from CBM Pilots
- Uinta
- Raton
Cincinnati Alexandria
Col orado Springs
Lex ing ton-Fayette
Ken osha
Dubuqu e
D earbor n
Danvill e
Santa Fe
Sa rasot a
Gree n Bay
R ocheste r
Ma nsfi eld
Owensb or o
E au Cl air e Burnsv il le
Rapid Cit y
Binghamt on
High P oint
Carol C ity
Great F alls
Bloom ington
Bloo mington
Clar ksvi ll e
Port Ar t hur
Mia mi Bea ch
Batt le Creek
Midw e st C it y
F ayet tevi lle
Bossi er Ci ty
Lake C har les
Brookl yn Par k
Silv er S pri ng
Sunri se Manor Spri ng Val le y
Sandy Spr ings
South Augusta
Daytona Beach
Pompano B each
Port S t . Lucie
St. Cl air S h or es
West Val ley C it y
Whea t on-G le nmont
Nort h C harl est o n
Arl ingt on H ei ghts
N ort h Li tt le Rock
Tayl orsv i lle- Ben ni on
Troy
Sch aumbur g
Nape rvi lle
Clea r water
Plant atio n
Des Pl aines
Mount P r ospect
De arbor n H eight s
Town ' n' C ou ntr y
C leveland Hei gh ts
West B l oomf ie ld Towns hi p
200 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 Miles
25°
Ligni te
Low Voli tile Bituminous Medium and High Voliti le Bituminous Sub-Bi tuminous
Depth to ferron coa l.shp 1000-2000 2000-3000 3000-4000 4000-5000 5000-6000 6000-7000 7000-8000 8000-9000
Y ci ties > 1,000,000
# 50,000-100,000 # <50000
USA Coal Basins Colored by Rank – ECBM Potential HIGHEST Potential SJB Type
MODERATE Potential
Warrior Type
LOW Potential
Ferron Coal Thickness
• Ferron coals extend in narrow 10-mi wide band along 80-mi long trend.
• Mostly 10-30 ft thick, comprising 5-7 seams.
• Small pods reach >60-ft thick in far south, where mining occurs.
• CBM development so far concentrated in north.
Ferron Coal Depth
• Most CBM completions range from 1,500-2,500 ft deep.
• Deep wells in N (4,000 ft) performed poorly
• Depth increases rapidly to the west, due to rapidly rising topography plus shallow dip.
Uinta Basin CBM Phillips/Texaco
Drunkards Wash Project
• The premier CBM field in the Uinta basin. Currently produces 211 MMcfd from 346 wells (610 Mcfd/w avg).
• Completed depth averages 1,800 ft.
• No relationship between depth and gas productivity
• Fault-flexuring may be enhancing production.
• Completed coal thickness averages 25 feet, fairly thin compared with other CBM basins.
• No relationship between coal thickness and gas productivity.
• Thickest areas have low gas productivity/foot coal (thin seams may be more fractured/cleated).
Sep 87: Texaco drills two CBM test wells (Telonis 20-172 and USA 34- 211), production tested for 15 months but slow dewatering
Feb 91: River Gas drills corehole for gas content
Jun 91: One-well production pilot
Jul 92: Expanded to 3-well production pilot
Late 92: Expanded to 13-well pilot
Apr 93: Decision point: initial success
Jul 93: Expanded to 31 wells
Jun 94: 70 wells
Uinta Basin – Drunkards Wash Phillips/River Gas/Texaco/Dominion Resources
Development History
CBM Testing Requires Patience and Long-Term Testing (1-2 yrs)
• A “critical mass” of 10-20 wells needed to dewater and depressure a large area.
• Initial 3 wells (blue triangles, top map) produce poorly but improve over time (red triangles, bottom).
• High variability in well productivity can’t be explained by geology.
Poor Fair Good Excellent
• Excellent ECBM potential given coal continuity and stratigraphic concentration, moderately high permeability, moderately high high gas content, high gas saturation.
• ECBM Potential:
- 50% enhancement factor
- 400 million t CO2
Uinta Basin (Ferron Only)
Structure (ft above sea level) 2000 - 2500 2500 - 3000 3000 - 3500 3500 - 4000 4000 - 4500 4500 - 5000
5000 - 5500 5500 - 6000 6000 - 6500 6500 - 7000 7000 - 7500 7500 - 8000
# Data point
N
EW
S
105°00'
105°00'
104°40'
104°40'
104°20'
104°20'
Scale 1:750,000
CO NM
• ARI’s Topical Report for GRI in 1991 provided the first rigorous geologic assessment.
• Simple, asymmetric syncline with gentler east flank.
• Thrusted western margin with splays/folds into basin.
• Subtle flexures thought to enhance fracturing and perm.
Raton Basin Structural Geology
Raton Basin Cross Section
Vertical exaggeration = 10.4 x
Best CBM production on gentle E flank, across the syncline from H20 recharge in W.
C e n
o z o
N io
br ar
a Be
Raton Basin
Stratigraphy - Targets
• Vermejo Fm coals are thicker, vertically more concentrated, and the principal target.
• Raton Fm coals are thinner and less continuous. Some wells completed in Raton but less productive.
Coal rank (v.r.) 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.1
1.0 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6
# Data point River
N
EW
S
• Anomalously high rank in center along Purgatoire R. (Ro=1.5%)
• Evergreen area highest rank (Ro=1.3%, followed by Barrett.
• El Paso area is lowest rank (Ro=0.8%). Might be hurting gas content and EUR.
Raton Basin Coal Rank
Current CBM Activity (2001)
Operator Wells CBM Production (MMcfd)
Evergreen 491 75 El Paso/Devon 178 17 Barrett 13 4 Shenandoah 50 2 JM Huber 15 0.1
Total 747 98
• Quite shallow depths (800 to 1,600 ft)
• But lower reservoir P means less reserves/well (1.4 vs 2.5 for Uinta)
• No depth control on gas productivity
• East flank of basin (previous attempts mostly W)
• Vermejo Fm only is usually completed.
• Overlying Raton Fm usually not completed
• Quite thin completed coal, only 10-20 ft
• Gas productivity more linked to thickness than Uinta
• Requires 2 to 3 fracs per well
• Good ECBM potential, although perhaps less than Uinta Basin. Coals are thinner, less continuous but higher rank. Developments to date are shallower, with lower per-well gas recovery but similar costs.
• ECBM Potential:
- 50% enhancement factor
- 240 million t CO2
N
EW
S
' Producing Gas
' Producing Gas
: Loc ation/Other
' Producing Gas
' Producing Gas
' Producing Gas
Redstone R esourc es Inc .
' Producing Gas
' Producing Gas
' Producing Gas
107°00'
107°00'
106°30'
106°30'
106°00'
106°00'
105°30'
105°30'
• Most active gas play in USA, >400 MMcfd from 3,000 wells. • Thick, low-rank coals, low gas content. CO2 sorption untested. • Exceptionally high permeability could counter CO2 swelling • Major coal mining operations along basin margins • Good potential for ECBM: could CO2 solve H20 production issues?
• Good ECBM potential? Coals are shallower with lower gas content, but exceptionally thick and continuous. High perm should counter coal swelling effects.
• ECBM Potential:
- 50% enhancement factor
- 800 million t CO2
Tech Rec ECBM ECBM CBM Factor Potential
Basin (Tcf) (Tcf CH4) (Gt CO2) 1 San Juan 34.9 50% 17.4 2.8 2 Uinta 9.0 50% 4.5 0.7 3 Raton 7.3 50% 3.6 0.6 4 Powder River 20.0 50% 10.0 1.6 5 Warrior 5.8 50% 2.9 0.5 6 N. & C. Appalachian 12.5 50% 6.2 1.0 7 Mid-Continent 3.8 50% 1.9 0.3 8 GGRB 11.0 25% 2.8 0.4 9 Illinois 5.0 25% 1.3 0.2
10 W. Washington State 1.0 25% 0.3 0.0 11 Piceance 8.5 25% 2.1 0.3 12 Texas Lignite 5.0 25% 1.3 0.2 13 Black Mesa 3.0 25% 0.8 0.1
Total 126.6 54.9 8.8
USA Potential • 127 Tcf of economically recoverable CBM resources, out of >700 Tcf GIP • Assume 50% enhancement over pressure depletion recovery • 3:1 CO2/CH4 ratio • ECBM could sequester 165 Tcf or 8.8 Gt of CO2
• Equiv to 13 years of current USA emissions from power generation • CO2 sequestration potential (no ECBM) estim. 656 Tcf or 35 Gt (EIA study)
Conclusions
• Pilot tests need to be large enough and long enough duration to address “randomness” of CBM reservoir and performance (9 to 30 wells; 12-48 months)
• USA: Uinta, Raton, and Powder River Basins look favorable but await pilots. Appalachia, Illinois, other basins closer to anthro CO2 sources but may be more challenging (low-mod perm, gas saturation issues)
of 31/31
CO 2 – ECBM: Insights from USA and International CBM Pilots Scott H. Stevens Advanced Resources International, Inc. (ARI) CoalSeq Conference Houston, Texas March 14, 2002 [email protected]
Embed Size (px)
Recommended