Monitoring a CO2 Storage Tor Fjæran – President Director Statoil Indonesia Seminar on Evaluation of CO2 Storage Potential, ITB Bandung, 11- 12 December 2012
Classification: Internal 2012-12-06
Contents
• Why, where and when
• Regulations
• How to monitor
− Monitoring technologies
− common methods
− Statoil’s experience
− what is measured and what can be achieved
• Examples from Statoil’s current CO2 storage sites
Classification: Internal 2012-12-06 2
Why monitor?
• Authority requirements
Regulations
License to store CO2
• Storage reservoir performance (injectivity, capacity)
• Preserve investments
• Climate quotas, accounting
• Operational safety
• Assure no negative impact on humans, animals or plants
• Real contribution to climate change mitigation
- The risk for any significant leakage is relatively low. - Verify that the CO2 stays underground. - Reservoir management important in optimizing the storage performance.
Classification: Internal 2012-12-06 3
European legislation
• European Union directive (2009/31/EC), main requirements :
• “Member States shall ensure that the operator carries out monitoring of the injection facilities, the storage complex (including where possible the CO2 plume), and where appropriate the surrounding environment for the purpose of:
− a) comparison between the actual and modelled behaviour of CO2 and formation water in the storage site
− b) detecting significant irregularities
− c) detecting migration of CO2
− d) detecting leakage of CO2
− e) detecting significant adverse effects for the surrounding environment, including in particular on drinking water, for human populations, or for users of the surrounding biosphere
− f) assessing the effectiveness of any corrective measures taken pursuant to Article 16
− g) updating the assessment of the safety and integrity of the storage complex in the short- and long-term, including the assessment of whether the stored CO2 will be completely and permanently contained
http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/lowcarbon/ccs/implementation/documentation_en.htm
Classification: Internal 2012-12-06 4
• Injection well(s)
Monitoring targets:
• Site specific, dependent on geology, onshore/offshore, existing wells, etc
“Old” well Injection well
Degree of precision differs as large areas relies on «remote sensing» methods
• Main plume development in the storage formation
• Overburden
• Seabed and shallow sediments (benthic zone)
• Pre-existing well(s)
Where to monitor?
Important in each case to establish:
− Size of area to monitor?
− Simulations to estimate most likely CO2 migration pathways
− Need for observation well(s)?
Implication on technology / timing / economics
Classification: Internal 2012-12-06 5
“Old” well Injection well
What to monitor?
• Injection well − Composition, impurities − Rate of injection − Pressure (wellhead, downhole) − Temperature (wellhead, downhole)
• Observation well (?) − Downhole sensors − Fluid sampling
• Surface measurements − Fluid and gas sampling − Remote sensing (geophysics)
• 4D seismic • Microseismic • Gravimetry • Surface elevation • Electromagnetic
Classification: Internal 2012-12-06 6
When to monitor?
Establish baseline.
Early enough to pick up natural
variabilities
~ 25-50 ? ~ 25 ? -1-2 ? 0 Years
Injection phase Closure Post-closure
BASELINE
Pre-injection Phases
Determined by authorities’ requirement
Regular monitoring.
Closure monitoring.
Map situation at injection
halt.
Classification: Internal 2012-12-06 7
How to monitor? 2D surface seismic 3D surface seismic
Airborne EM Airborne spectral imaging
Boomer/Sparker profiling Bubble stream chemistry
Bubble stream detection Cross-hole EM
Cross-hole ERT Cross-hole seismic
Downhole fluid chemistry Downhole pressure/temperature
Ecosystems studies Eddy covariance
Electric Spontaneous Potential Fluid geochemistry
Geophysical logs Ground penetrating radar
High resolution acoustic imaging IR diode lasers
Land EM Land ERT
Long-term downhole pH Microseismic monitoring
Multibeam echo sounding Multicomponent surface seismic
Non dispersive IR gas analysers Satellite interferometry
Seabottom EM Seabottom gas sampling
Seawater chemistry Sidescan sonar
Single well EM Soil gas concentrations
Surface gas flux Surface gravimetry
Tiltmeters Tracers
Vertical seismic profiling (VSP) Well gravimetry
Overview (with links) to IEA GHG / BGS’s* «Monitoring toolbox»:
*) BGS = British Geological Survey
Classification: Internal 2012-12-06 8
Technique Measurement parameters Example applications
Time-lapse (4D) seismic
P and S wave velocity Reflection horizon Seismic amplitude attenuation
Tracking CO2 movement in and above storage formation
Passive seismic Micro seismic
Location, magnitude and source characteristics of seismic events
Development of microfractures in formation, caprock CO2 migration pathways
Electrical and electromagnetic
Formation conductivity Electromagnetic induction
Track movement of CO2 in and above the storage formation Detect migration of brine into shallow aquifers
Time-lapse gravimetry
DensityGravity changes caused by fluid displacement
Detect CO2 movement in or above storage formation CO2 mass balance in the subsurface Indications of CO2 dissolved in formation water
Land or seafloor surface deformation
Tilt Vertical and horizontal displacement using interferometry and GPS Echo sounding, side scan sonar
Detect geomechanical effects on storage formation and caprock Locate CO2 migration pathways
Surface geophysical monitoring tools What is measured?
Classification: Internal 2012-12-06 9
Method SLEIPNER SNØHVIT Year of injection start: 1996 2007
Depth [m] top reservoir: 800-1100 ~2600
Time-lapse 3D seismic 1994(B)-1999-2001-2002-2004-2006-2008
2003(B)-2009-2011
Time-lapse gravimetry 2002-2005-2009 2007(B)-2011
Wellhead (WH) and downhole (DH) pressure and temperature WH ‘continuously’ WH and DH
continuously
Control-Source ElectroMagnetics (CSEM) 2008 -
Microseismic - -
Land or seafloor deformation measurements Se below -
Multi-beam echo sounder 2006-2011 -
Monitoring at Statoil’s operations in Norway
(B) = Baseline survey
Classification: Internal 2012-12-06 10
Experiences from Sleipner
Classification: Internal 2012-12-06 11
Utsira Fm.
1994
2001
2008 CO2 plume in map view
Time-lapse seismic data
2008-1994
Sleipner – 4D seismic
Classification: Internal 2012-12-06 12
Depth [m]
Mozaic of side scan sonar data
Sleipner – Seabed Survey Multibeam echo sounding
Classification: Internal 2012-12-06 13
Observed in-situ CO2 density from gravity measurements: 720 +/- 80 kg/m3
… assuming no dissolution into the formation water …
Sleipner – Gravimetric monitoring
Classification: Internal 2012-12-06 14
Sleipner CSEM - survey 2008 • One line of CSEM data acquired across
CO2 plume • 27 receivers at 20 locations –
− 500m between receiver locations − 50m between “doubled” receivers
• Data quality is good, but:
• Possible interference from pipelines etc.
• Data processing and interpretation challenging
• No baseline
• Still no clear conclusion on the effectiveness of CSEM on Sleipner
Classification: Internal 2012-12-06 15
Experiences from Snøhvit
Classification: Internal 2012-12-06 16
CO2 injection
CO2 Injector
Nordmela
Stø
Tubåen
New perf.
Snøhvit CO2 injection
Main segment with gas producers
X
Classification: Internal 2012-12-06 17
Top Fuglen Fm.
Base Tubåen Fm.
CO2 injection well
CO2 injection well
baseline 2003 repeat 2009 difference
0.5 km
Increasing amplitude
Amplitude changes
Monitoring at Snøhvit – Seismic
Classification: Internal 2012-12-06 18
2009 2009-2011
Stø3-6
Top Reservoir
Stø2
Nordmela
perf Top CO2
Base CO2
Monitoring at Snøhvit – Seismic
Classification: Internal 2012-12-06 19
Lessons learned from Sleipner and Snøhvit • Single wells have successfully injected 0.4-0.9 million tons of CO2 per year.
• Surface geophysical and well pressure monitor data give rich information on the storage behaviour: Dynamic modelling is better constrained, but still challenging.
Indicates strong gravity segregation and minimal dissolution
• The actual CO2 plume development has been strongly controlled by geological factors which we learned about during injection.
• High-quality monitor data lowers the detection threshold for any potential leakage: 4D seismic monitoring confirms no leakage into the overburden.
• Detailed site characterization, reservoir monitoring/modelling and well solutions have allowed us to quantify the storage capacity and field performance: Gives a good basis for scoping and optimizing future projects.
Classification: Internal 2012-12-06 20
Summary and conclusions • Regulation authorities states that the storage operator is responsible for
assuring safe storage of CO2 − Plan, carry out and report the results of monitoring, and undertake corrective measures if a an
alarming situation should occur
− Continued research will improve precision and quantification
− Long term liability will be an issue for negotiation with the authorities
• Planning for Monitoring, Verification and Accounting (MVA) of a new CO2 storage site:
− The monitoring program will be site specific
− Important to establish a good baseline
− Time-lapse 3D seismic is still the key technology. Other remote sensing tools will be supplementary. Will loose their usability with increasing depth
− The storage operator will select fit-for purpose methods with satisfactory cost vs benefit.
Classification: Internal 2012-12-06 21
Tor Fjaeran President Director, Statoil Indonesia [email protected] www.statoil.com
Thank you
Classification: Internal 2012-12-06 22