Research Experiences in Development and Deployment of CO2 Storage Field Tests

Neeraj Gupta, Ph.D. Senior Research Leader gupta@battelle.org 614-424-3820 RECS Program, June 2014

Our Founding Mission

• Established by steel industrialist, Gordon Battelle

• Non-profit, charitable trust formed in 1925 in Columbus, Ohio

• Profits reinvested in science & technology, and in charitable causes

“Bring business and scientific interests together as forces for positive change”

Gordon Battelle’s last will and testament

A History of Innovation inspiring new industries; revolutionizing products

Battelle opens for business

Battelle founded by the Will of Gordon Battelle

Xerox office copier enters the market

Develops fuel for Nautilus – first nuclear powered submarine

Industrial discoveries in Metal and Material Sciences

Universal Product Code, cut-resistant golf ball, sandwich coins developed

Compact disk and cruise control technology

Fiber optics (PIRI) venture formed

Launched new ventures in medical, pharmaceutical, electronics, and software

Win contract to manage PNNL

Verity – stress analysis wins international engineering award

What Matters Most Tomorrow inspiring new industries; revolutionizing products

Tomorrow’s Solutions

Alternative energy and smart grid

technologies

Carbon management

Next generation diagnostics & therapeutics

Underwater technology

Medical devices

Security

Subsurface Resource Management

Site Characterization

Reservoir Analysis and

Modeling

Data Management

Monitoring

Assessment and Monitoring

Technology Solutions

Sustainability

Regulatory and

Outreach

Battelle CO2 Storage and Subsurface R&D Program

Case Studies of Success AEP Mountaineer

•  Site characterization, design •  Permitting, construction •  Operations •  Post-injection monitoring

DOE Regional Partnerships •  Regional Mapping •  Policy & Regulation •  Small-Scale Tests •  Large-Scale Test •  Ohio River Valley

Characterization FutureGen 2.0

Recent and ongoing projects related to subsurface resource management

Simulation framework for regional CO2 geologic storage

in the ARCHES province

Brine disposal potential in the Appalachian Basin

Assessment of improved oil recovery potential for small oil/

gas producers in Ohio

Regional geologic characterization of CO2

storage potential in Ohio

Simplified modeling for CO2 geologic sequestration

Assessment of wellbore integrity in CCUS operations

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1.0E-­‐10 1.0E-­‐08 1.0E-­‐06 1.0E-­‐04 1.0E-­‐02 1.0E+00 1.0E+02

pressure  buildup

 (psi)

r^2/t  (m^2/s)

M2Φ,w  -­‐ Eq.  21

M2Φ,  eff  -­‐ Eq.  25

STOMP

MBL  -­‐ Eq.  9  

7

O1

O2

P1

SS1

0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

-3,000-2,000

-1,0000

-3,0

00-2

,000

-1,0

000

0.00 555.00 1110.00 feet

0.00 170.00 340.00 meters

File: hebron_2p2i_2_even_h2ofillups_pinit_wfbhf_hetr_phigh6_300psibhp.irfUser: RAVIGANESHPDate: 3/4/2014Scale: 1:8670Y/X: 1.00:1Axis Units: ft

19

70

120

170

221

271

321

372

422

472

523

Permeability I (md) 2041-01-01 K layer: 1

•  One of seven DOE-funded regional partnerships to develop infrastructure for wide-scale CO2 sequestration deployment

•  Characterization phase (2003-2005) and validation phase (2005-2010) completed

•  Development phase (2010-2017) focusing on CO2 utilization and storage in carbonate reefs

§  Late-stage EOR reef §  Operational EOR reef §  Newly targeted reef

Battelle leads the Midwest Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership (MRCSP)

8 DOE/NETL Cooperative Agreement # DE-FC26-0NT42589

The MRCSP assesses viability of carbon sequestration •  Established in 2003 by

Battelle with DOE-NETL funds – Currently in Phase III

•  Led by Battelle, there are 40 organizations from non-profit, government, and commercial entities

•  Mission – The premier resource for CO2 storage and utilization expertise in the region

MRCSP region: Many CO2 emission sources with dependence on coal

• CO2 storage/utilization technologies key to affordable energy supplies

• Environmental/climate issues and shale gas, are leading to energy supply transition

• Coal continues to be

dominant fuel source

MRCSP – 10 Years of achievements and more to come! 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Phase III Large Scale Field Validation

Site Selection, Permitting, Site Characterization, Site Preparation, and Baseline Monitoring

MI Injection Operations (Multiple Reefs)

Post Injection Monitoring

Phase II Small Scale Validation

OH Site MI Saline MI EOR Fields

Phase I Characterization

MRCSP Geologic Test Sites Michigan Basin: DTE and Core Energy gas and oil

operations, Gaylord, Michigan •  Permitting: EPA Region 5, Class V, Granted Jan 2007. •  Target: Bass Islands Dolomite, ~3500 ft •  Status: Injected 10,000 tonnes 2008. Additional 50,000 tonnes

injected February-July 2009 Appalachian Basin: FirstEnergy’s RE Burger Power

Plant, Shadyside, Ohio •  Permitting: Ohio EPA, Class V, Granted Sep 2008 •  Target: Oriskany, Salina, and Clinton, 6500-8000 ft •  Status: Injection testing completed, reporting underway Cincinnati Arch -- Mount Simon: Duke’s East Bend

Power Station, Rabbit Hash, Kentucky •  Permitting: EPA Region 4, Class V, Granted Feb 2009. •  Target: Mt. Simon Sandstone, 3,500 ft •  Status: Drilling Jun 2009, Injection completed Sep 2009 Large Scale (1 million tonnes of CO2) Phase III Site •  Candidate site under evaluation

Cincinnati Arch Site East Bend Station, Duke Energy

3000

4000

3000 2000

Eau Claire Shale

Mt. Simon

Copper Ridge

Middle Run

1,000 tonnes of CO2 injected in September 2009.

Monitoring program primarily included pressure and temperature, along with shallow groundwater and baseline VSP

Drilling Operation – Summer 2009

650 MW coal-burning power plant situated on1,800 acres along the Ohio River

Duke Energy East Bend Station

Brine Injection Test #2 – Step Test and Constant Rate Test SRO Gauge - Day 2

4.0

0.51.0

1.52.0

3.0

4.0

6.0

5.0

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

8/2/200912:45:00

8/2/200913:13:48

8/2/200913:42:36

8/2/200914:11:24

8/2/200914:40:12

8/2/200915:09:00

8/2/200915:37:48

8/2/200916:06:36

8/2/200916:35:24

8/2/200917:04:12

Date and Time

Pres

sure

, psi

g

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Flow

Rat

e, B

PM

Bottom Pressure Flow Rate

Step-Rate Data

Fall-Off Data

East Bend CO2 Injection Bottomhole Pressure and Temperature

•  Modeling - It was difficult to calibrate both brine and CO2 injection with same permeability field – fracturing or relative k affects?

Well Closure

ACTIVITY  PERFORMED DATES  OF  ACTIVITY

Well  prepara(on/killing  well March  29  -­‐30 Run  wireline  logs  (cement  bond  log  

and  gamma  ray)   March  30

Cement  well March  31  –  April  1

Cut  casing  and  weld  steel  plate  to  casing

April  12

Remove  gravel  and  regrade  site,  place  well  marker

April  14  -­‐  21

•  Between March 29 and April 21, 2010 the well was plugged and abandoned and the site was restored to original grade

R. E. Burger Power Plant Depth (ft bgs)

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

10,000

11,000

12,000

13,000

Injection TestWell

Power Plant

Storage Formation

Seismic Survey, July 2006 8000 Foot Test Well

RE Burger Power Plant (FirstEnergy)

Drill Rig (Jan 2007)

Setting up for the CO2 Injection Test (September 2008)

•  Injectivity testing phase started late September 2008 and ended in November •  Very limited injection was possible due to low permeability

Delivery System

CO2 Liquid Tanks

Injection Well (not visible)

Injection Operations and Monitoring

Setting up for the CO2 Injection Test (September 2008)

Pressure/Flow Test of Oriskany SS

•  Attempt CO2 injection while maintaining pressures <2,500 psi and flow rates >20 ton/day (approximately 4.5 gpm)

•  Injection parameters could not be achieved after 8 hours of injection •  Flow was reduced several times during injection testing.

Oriskany SS 10-31-08

0

400

800

1200

1600

2000

2400

2800

3200

3600

4000

4400

4800

5200

0:00 1:00 2:00 3:00 4:00 5:00 6:00 7:00 8:00 9:00 10:00 11:00

Time (h:mm)

Pres

sure

(psi

g)

-2

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

CO

2 Flo

wra

te (g

pm)

Surface Injection Pressure Bottom-Hole Pressure CO2 Flowrate

Tubing/Casing Filled

100 Tonnes/day = 22 GPM

Test Pressure Limit = 2,500 psi

Appalachian Basin timeline – EPA Class V option was key to success in Phase II

FirstEnergy and Battelle meet in Akron to discuss Burger as a test site

2005

Phase II proposal submitted

Phase II begins

2006

2007

2008

2009

Seismic survey

Drilling of deep well. Wireline logs and partial sidewall core samples taken

Completion of well. Additional logs and remaining sidewall core samples taken

Sidewall core samples sent out for analysis (to Core Labs)

Core analysis results received UIC permit application

submitted to OEPA

Site selection and screening

Site Characterization

Source Planning and Permitting

Injection testing

Post Injection

Decision to use commercial CO2

Injection tests completed

Topical Report Well Plugged

UIC permit received

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

10,000

Depth (ft bgs)

Injection TestWell

Antrim Gas Well

Monitoring Well

Niagara EOR WellsCO Pipeline2Gas Processing Plant

Target Storage Formation

5000 Foot Deep Test Well Drilled in November 2006 Injection Target:

Bass Islands Dolomite 3,500 ft

Michigan Basin, Gaylord, Michigan Leveraged existing EOR infrastructure from DTE and Core Energy

Well Column 180 feet of core taken

Confining Layer: Amherstburg Limestone

Injection well head

600 T/d Compressor

Gas processing plant, source of pure CO2

10,000 tonnes of CO2 injected in early 2008.

Additional 50,000 tonnes injected in

February-July period of 2009.

• Sandy dolo-grainstone with visible X-bedding

• Depth = 3461.2 feet

• Permeability = 91 mD

• Porosity = 17%

• Karst collapse breccia

• Depth = 3472.1 feet

• Permeability = 52 mD

• Porosity = 27%

• Laminated and mud-cracked Algal dolo-mudstone

• Depth = 3488.4 feet

• Permeability = 0.5 mD

• Porosity = 12%

Michigan Basin Site – Understanding Carbonate Rocks

Core sample from Bass Islands Dolomite showing vertical heterogeneity

•  New well (State-Charlton 4-30) drilled for injection. •  Nearby well 3-30 used for monitoring. •  Variety of well head instrumentation used.

Michigan Test Injection System

Cross-Well Seismic

Brine Chemistry and Fluid Sampling

Wireline Monitoring

Acoustic Emissions

System Monitoring

Downhole Pressure

Surface Gas Meters PFT Tracer Survey MMV Program –

Initial Injection

•  Sequential, downhole temperature logs provide very direct, understandable evidence of vertical CO2 distribution. •  No change in temperature change was observed in 3-30 monitoring well.

*note: pre- and injection logs limited in depth by tubing.

Post-Injection Thermal Response Michigan Basin State-Charlton 4-30 Injection Well

Downhole Temperature Logging2000

2100

2200

2300

2400

2500

2600

2700

2800

2900

3000

3100

3200

3300

3400

3500

360070 75 80 85 90 95

Temperature (deg F)

Log

Dep

th (f

t)

Salina

Bass Islands

Bois Blanc

Amherstburg

Detroit River Group

Dundee LS

Pre-injection Baseline (2/6/08 Baker-Hughes)

During MITInjection Period(2/12/08 SLB)

Post-injection (7/10/08 SLB)

Crosswell Seismic Repeat Survey After ~10,000 Tonnes Injection •  The difference between the two surveys shows a velocity decrease in

the Amherstburg formation, approximately 300 ft above the perforated injection interval

Amherstburg

Bass Islands

Bois Blanc

Repeat PNC Logging – Injection Well •  Time-lapsed PNC logging

indicates CO2 across the perforations and across the velocity decreases.

• Over time, greater saturation is seen across the perforations (red)

• No CO2 is seen within the Bois Blanc

• Across from the upper velocity decrease, gas again is detected (not shown)

Repeat PNC Logging – Monitoring Well •  Time-lapsed PNC

logging does not show CO2 making it to the perforations in the monitoring well, but does show it higher along the wellbore

• Consistent with the crosswell, fluid sampling and pressure analyses.

Cement Evaluation •  Cement bond log indicated a gap in

cement across from the upper velocity decrease

•  Over time, the cement bond log indicated an apparent change in the cement both above and below the decrease

•  Cement samples were taken from two locations in the well

•  The sample in the interval the CBL indicated had poor quality cement was carbonated cement

•  The lower sample in the interval the CBL indicated had high quality cement was non-altered, high quality cement

•  A fluid sample taken from the interval with the velocity decrease was analyzed to be over 99% CO2.

STOMPCO2 simulations were calibrated to test data to improve model capabilities and demonstrate confidence in reservoir models.

Preliminary Modeling Based on Regional Data

Site Drilling & Testing

Site Specific Modeling

Calibration to Monitoring Data

•  Model refined at every stage of the project. •  Additional changes still needed to incorporate migration

in Bois Blanc zone.

Measured vs predicted results from falloff test

Michigan Site - Simulation and Monitoring

Proactive Outreach was Key to Successful Execution at Each Site

Small-Scale Test Lessons Learned • Regional heterogeneity of MRCSP region necessitates

mapping and multiple field tests

•  Injectivity different at each site.

• Monitoring results led to redefinition of conceptual model

• Proactive outreach and collaboration with host site teams crucial for public acceptance

• Different permitting requirements, even under same type of permit (Class V experimental permits)

• Complexity and cost for commercial scale-up can increase due to stakeholder concerns, site access and storage issues, rigorous permitting, larger area of investigation

The MRCSP Large-Scale Test is in depleted oil fields in conjunction with CO2-EOR

Gas Producing Zone

Oil Producing Zone

Dover 33

34

MRCSP region has many large historic oil and gas producing areas •  ~ 8,500 million metric

tons of CO2 could be stored within depleted O&G fields (~10 years worth of regional emissions)*

•  Using CO2 for EOR could lead to the production of an additional 1.2 billion barrels* of oil

•  However, EOR needs to be proven in the region

* Source: Estimates developed by the Geological Surveys within the MRCSP

Oil and gas fields map for region*

Core Energy’s EOR infrastructure used for testing geologic storage of CO2

Core Energy Compressor

Core Energy Existing Pipeline

Charlton 6

Charlton 30/31

Dover 33 Dover 35

Chester 5

Dover 36

Chester 2

Dover 33 is the main test bed

Active reefs also being monitored

Natural gas processing provides the CO2

36

Pre-EOR reef TBD

Pinnacle reefs formed in a shallow shelf of an ancient ocean.

Closed Carbonate Reservoirs Surrounded by evaporite layers

General model of study area Depositional System

Dover 36 Processing Facility

Highly depleted field - a test bed for monitoring technologies

Dover 33

Monitoring options under testing at Dover 33 field

Vertical Seismic

Na

Ca K

90

10

90

80

20

80

70

30

70

60

40

60

50

50

50

40

60

40

30

70

30

20

80

20

10

90

10

Geochemistry

Wireline Logging

Microseismic

Reservoir Testing InSAR

Gravity Survey

Total Test

800

850

900

950

1000

1050

1100

Pres

sure

(psi(

a))

-16

-12

-8

-4

0

Gas Rate (MMscfd)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130

Time (h)

pdata

pmodel

qgas

pi (syn) 800.0 psi(a)p*model 809.2 psi(a)Cumwater 0.00 MbblCumgas -18.852 MMscf

kh 3750.00 md.fth 150.000 ftk 25.0000 mdsd 5.000

Xe 1559.000 ftYe 2430.000 ftXw 779.500 ftYw 1215.000 ft

Pressure & Temperature

1460

1480

1500

1520

1540

1560

1580

1600

1620

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Days

Pres

sure

(PSI

)

Pressure1Pressure2Pressure3Pressure4

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Days

Tem

pera

ture

(F)

Temp1Temp2Temp3Temp4

Pressure Temperature

Pressure monitoring allows validation of concepts regarding system size and lateral sealing

Geologic modeling and monitoring is being done in late-stage and active EOR reefs

40

Lithofacies based geologic framework model developed to better represent internal carbonate reef architecture

Different conceptual models of reservoir geology and fluid phase behavior are being investigated

A history-matched reservoir model is being used to validate reservoir capacity/injectivity

41

Nearly 525,000 tonnes injected and monitored since start of February 2013 •  ~325,000 tCO2 in active reefs (including recycled CO2)

•  ~200,000 tCO2 has been injected into late-stage reef (may inject as much as 500,000 tonnes)

•  ~ injection into the pre-EOR reef has not yet begun

42

Wells back to Core Energy Operations

Regional characterization of sources and sinks is an important part of the program

State geological surveys are helping to:

• Create GIS maps

• Develop implementation plans

•  Identify potential off shore areas along the east coast

•  Identify opportunities to piggyback on drilling operations to collect additional logging, coring, and/or seismic data

43

• Client – FutureGen Alliance/DOE • Battelle’s Role – CO2 storage design and cost,

characterization, modeling, permitting, monitoring in collaboration with PNNL

• Scale - ~1 MT/Year from oxy-combustion • Major Elements of FEED Assessment

§  4 CO2 injection wells with instrumentation to monitor and control injection

§  3 deep monitoring wells in reservoir §  4 deep monitoring wells above reservoir §  A comprehensive subsurface monitoring

program for CO2 plume and pressure front tracking and leak detection

§  Continuous P&T monitoring §  Fluid geochemical monitoring §  Microseismic Monitoring §  Time-lapse VSP §  20 years of O&M §  Post injection monitoring

FutureGen2.0 – Design and cost for large-scale CO2 storage

•  American Electric Power (AEP) Mountaineer Plant with 20 MW CO2 capture and storage Product Validation Facility (PVF)

•  Operational 10/09 - 05/11

•  2 deep injection wells and 3 monitoring wells

•  Injection into Rose Run (sandstone) and Copper Ridge (dolomite) formations

AEP Mountaineer carbon capture and storage project

AEP-1 (CR) AEP-2 (RR)

Business Sensitive 45

46

CO2 Booster Pump House and Flow Metering

WMMS (Well Monitoring & Maintenance System) Building

Well Field AEP-1, AEP-2, & MW-3

CO2 Sequestration at Mountaineer Plant ~150,000 man-hours of safe drilling, completion, and workover operations.

•  Approximately 37,000 tonnes CO2 injected, with majority of injection in the Copper Ridge zone, which showed very good injectivity

Multiple combinations of absolute permeability and relative permeability models match the pressure data equally well, but predict different plume extent

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0 200 400 600 800 1000

MW2  pressure  buildup

 (psi)

Time  (days)

K1  =  600  mD,  Morinville  rel.  perm.

K1  =  800  mD,  Reference  rel.  perm.

K1  =  1000  mD,  Grosmont  rel.  perm.

A calibrated reservoir model was used to estimate post-injection CO2 plume location

47

AEP Mountaineer Scale-up Assessment – Validating Pay Zones

Test well drilled in 2011 to evaluate geologic continuity in the area Well logs, cores, and reservoir testing results consistent with PVF

injection tests, however, more regional characterization is needed Preliminary design, monitoring program, costs, and schedule for

developed for all phases Preliminary design estimates indicated that 2-3 wells in Copper Ridge

Dolomite may be sufficient for CSPII scale injection project,

Copper Ridge Dolomite Core 8370’

Determining Injection Zones Through Production Logging

49

Regional Characterization in Ohio – Strong Collaboration with Oil Industry

1

2 3

4

(1)  Lee Family Trust (2)  McCoy (3)  Dager (4)  Ohio #1 CO2 (5)  Devco (6)  Miley (7)  AEP #1 (8)  McKelvey (9)  Raynor D #1 (10)  #1 Jarrell (11)  Georgetown

Marine (12)  #1 Northstar (13)  Adams (14)  Silcor (15)  Frankovitch (16)  Burger

5 6

7 8

9 10

11

12

13

14

OCDO piggyback wells Other wells in database

15

16

Jarrell #1 Raynor D #1 AEP #1 Miley J #1 Burger FEGENCO #1

Frankovitch

Silcor Georgetown Marine

Northstar Adams

•  Projects funded by Ohio Coal Development Office and DOE Over 10 years; Jointly with Ohio Geological Survey

GM #1 - deepest well in Ohio

Mapping of Potential Porosity Fairways

• Copper Ridge Porosity Zones • Basal Sandstone Facies

Developing CO2-EOR/storage in Ohio’s depleted oil fields •  Significant additional oil

recovery and CO2 utilization potential in Ohio §  East Canton oil field produced

on ~95 MMbbl (<10%) of 1.5 billion barrels OOIP

§  Other plays include Beekmantown, Rose Run, Copper Ridge fields

•  Additional testing is needed to determine CO2 utilization viability in such fields

•  CO2 utilization may not occur without oil & coal collaboration

Reservoir characterization Fluid property characterization

Laboratory experiments

Reservoir simulation Economic analyses Field injectivity testing

53

A comprehensive research program is being implemented for this project

Development of subsurface brine disposal framework in the Northern Appalachian Basin •  Applying MRCSP

knowledge to shale gas environmental issues

•  2-year project funded by DOE through RPSEA

•  Evaluate brine disposal capacity, protocols

•  Assess safe injection pressure

•  Economic issues

•  Knowledge sharing with public

Copper Ridge Dolomite Core 8370’

Future need: addressing multiple demands on subsurface resources •  Shale oil/gas production

•  Produced brines disposal

•  CO2 utilization, and storage (CCUS) – mitigating greenhouse gas emissions

•  Incremental oil recovery

•  Conventional oil/gas production

•  All these require integrated long-term management and clear policy on mineral rights, liability, and permitting

Lower Paleozoic Sandstone

Reservoirs

Middle Paleozoic

Carbonate and Sandstone

Reservoirs

Middle Paleozoic

Carbonate Reefs - EOR

Shale Gas with CO2

Impurity

Potential Shale Gas

Example from Michigan Basin

•  Reservoir characterization ð Production history analysis, synthesis of core/log/fracture data, geologic framework model

•  Fluid property characterization ð Phase behavior of oil-CO2 mixtures, empirical fluid property prediction tools

•  Laboratory experiments ð Slim-tube studies of oil-CO2 interaction, core floods for oil-CO2 displacement mechanism

•  Reservoir simulation studies ð 3-D evaluation of oil recovery and CO2 storage for various geologic/engineering factors

•  Economic analyses ð infrastructure assessment, cost-benefit analysis reflecting oil price, CO2 cost, operating/capital costs

•  Field injectivity testing ð Site selection and flood design (2 Clinton + 2 Knox reservoirs), CO2 Huff’n’Puff operations, data analysis

56

Oil industry EOR workflows modified to evaluate co-sequestration potential

MRCSP Membership - Progress through Collaboration