The SECARB Anthropogenic Test: The SECARB Anthropogenic Test: The First U.S. Integrated CO The First U.S. Integrated CO 2 Capture, Capture, The First U.S. Integrated CO The First U.S. Integrated CO 2 Capture, Capture, Transportation and Storage Test Transportation and Storage Test George Koperna, Jr., Vello Kuuskraa, George Koperna, Jr., Vello Kuuskraa, and and David Riestenberg, David Riestenberg, Advanced Resources International Advanced Resources International Richard Rhudy Richard Rhudy and and Robert Trautz Robert Trautz, Electrical Power Research Institute , Electrical Power Research Institute Dr. Jerry Hill Dr. Jerry Hill, Southern States Energy Board , Southern States Energy Board Dr. Richard Esposito Dr. Richard Esposito, Southern Company , Southern Company
Transcript
The SECARB Anthropogenic Test: The SECARB Anthropogenic Test: The First U.S. Integrated COThe First U.S. Integrated CO22 Capture,Capture,The First U.S. Integrated COThe First U.S. Integrated CO22 Capture, Capture,
Transportation and Storage TestTransportation and Storage Test
George Koperna, Jr., Vello Kuuskraa, George Koperna, Jr., Vello Kuuskraa, andand David Riestenberg, David Riestenberg, Advanced Resources InternationalAdvanced Resources InternationalRichard Rhudy Richard Rhudy andand Robert TrautzRobert Trautz, Electrical Power Research Institute, Electrical Power Research Institute
Dr. Jerry HillDr. Jerry Hill, Southern States Energy Board, Southern States Energy BoardDr. Richard EspositoDr. Richard Esposito, Southern Company, Southern Company
AcknowledgementAcknowledgement
This presentation is based upon work supported by the Department of Energy National
gg
Energy Technology Laboratory under DE-FC26-05NT42590 and was prepared as an accountof work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United StatesGovernment nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty,express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy,
f f fcompleteness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, orrepresents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to anyspecific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, orotherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, orf i b h U i d S G h f Th i d i i ffavoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions ofauthors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United StatesGovernment or any agency thereof.
2
Presentation OutlinePresentation Outline• Anthropogenic Test Introduction
• Project Discussion1. Assuring Safe Injection
2. Permitting
3. Research
4. CO2 Capture, Transportation and Storage Integration
• Next StepsNext Steps
3
SECARB’s Phase III Anthropogenic TestSECARB’s Phase III Anthropogenic TestSECARB s Phase III Anthropogenic TestSECARB s Phase III Anthropogenic TestWashington
CountyTh CO t it t Al b P ’
Project Schedule and MilestonesProject Schedule and MilestonesThe CO2 capture unit at Alabama Power’s(Southern Co.) Plant Barry becameoperational in 3Q 2011.
A newly built 12 mile CO pipeline from
Citronelle Dome
CO2 Injection Site
ama
sippi
CO2 Pipeline
A newly built 12 mile CO2 pipeline fromPlant Barry to the Citronelle Domecompleted in 4Q 2011.
A characterization well was drilled in 1Q
Alab
a
Miss
iss
Mobile County
2 p A characterization well was drilled in 1Q2011 to confirmed geology.
Injection wells were drilled in 4Q 2011.
Plant Barry
100 to 300 thousand metric tons of CO2 willbe injected into a saline formation over 2 to3 years beginning in 1Q 2012.
4
Mobile3 years of post-injection monitoring.
Anthropogenic Test Goals and ObjectivesAnthropogenic Test Goals and Objectivesp g jp g j1. Support a fully integrated, commercial prototype CCS
j t ( t t t d t )project (capture, transport and storage)2. Test CO2 flow, trapping and storage mechanisms of a
regionally extensive Gulf Coast saline formationregionally extensive Gulf Coast saline formation.3. Test the adaptation of commercially available oil field
tools and techniques for monitoring CO2 storage2
4. Document the permitting process for all aspects of aCCS project
5. Understand the coordination required to successfullyintegrate all components of a CCS project
5
1.1. Assuring Safety:Assuring Safety:Start with a Good Storage SiteStart with a Good Storage Site
• Proven four‐way closure at Citronelle D
Start with a Good Storage SiteStart with a Good Storage Site
Dome.• Injection site located within Citronelle oilfield where existing well logs are availableavailable
• Deep injection interval (Paluxy Fm at 9,400 feet)
• Numerous confining units g• Base of USDWs ~1,400 feet• Existing wells cemented through primary confining unit
• No evidence of faulting or fracturing, based on oilfield experience, new geologic mapping and reinterpretation of
l
6
existing 2D seismic lines.
1.1. Assuring Safety: Characterize The Geology, Assuring Safety: Characterize The Geology, Th Ch t i A i !Th Ch t i A i !
• Analysis of over 80 existing oilfield well logs for porosityBaseline (pre-drilling) reservoir characterization:
Then Characterize Again!Then Characterize Again!
• Analysis of over 80 existing oilfield well logs for porosity, thickness and depositional style.
• Sand mapping to determine “open” or “closed” sand units.
• Paluxy porosity ~19% and perm ~100 millidarcies
We collected new geologic data with the drilling of the project’s characterization well, the D9-8 #2:
Wh l (98 f t i t i t l ) l 45 id ll•Whole core (98 feet in two intervals) plus 45 sidewall cores.
•Full set of logs (quad combo, MRI, elemental capture
7
spectroscopy, waveform sonic, CBL, etc.).
1. Assuring Safety 1. Assuring Safety –– PaluxyPaluxy Looks Like a Good Looks Like a Good Injection TargetInjection Target
Characterization Well (D-9-8#2)Neutron loggingPressureFluid samplingS i iPressure
SeismicGroundwater
SeismicDistributed Temperature
VSP and Crosswell Seismic
Backup Injector(D-9-9#2)Neutron loggingSeismic
D-9-11Neutron Logging
GroundwaterModel Plume Extent
11
1.1. Assuring Safety Assuring Safety –– Transportation Transportation (Human Health and Safety)(Human Health and Safety)(Human Health and Safety)(Human Health and Safety)
• Approx. 12 mi to the Injection Site• Right-of-Way• Right-of-Way
• Threatened species (Gopher Tortoise) and their burrowscommon on ROW
• Over 100 burrows located along the 12 mile ROW• Directional drilling under large colonies• Wire backed fencing (i.e. “tortoise fencing”) between pipeline and burrows on ROW edgepipeline and burrows on ROW edge• Re-location of all turtles would have cost $ 2MM!
13
2 Permitting2 Permitting (This Stuff Takes a While)(This Stuff Takes a While)2. Permitting 2. Permitting (This Stuff Takes a While)(This Stuff Takes a While)
• Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM) Air Permit• Capture unit operationp p
• Army Corps of Engineers permit – Wetlands Impacts• Covers wetland impacts due to pipeline and injection site construction• Pipeline crosses 15 acres of wetlands• Pipeline crosses 15 acres of wetlands• Horizontal drilling under wetlands is preferred over “open-cutting” and
mitigation• Wetland impacts during well pad construction operations (fill) mitigated
after well drilling completed
• U.S. Fish and Wildlife permit – Threatened and Endangered Species• Potential impacts to threatened species (gopher tortoises)Potential impacts to threatened species (gopher tortoises)• Over 30 gopher tortoise burrows encountered along pipeline easement• Directional drilling under tortoise burrows/colonies is preferred over
• ADEM Underground Injection Control (UIC) Permit – Protect UndergroundSources of Drinking Water (USDWs)
• A Class V Experimental Well permit was sought for the following reasons– Short duration of injection (3 years)– Modest volumes of CO2 (less than 2% of Plant Barry’s annual CO2
output)output)– Characterization and modeling of “stacked” CO2 storage – CO2 Injection Under “Real World” Conditions – Demonstration of innovative monitoring tools and methods
15
2 Permitting2 Permitting2. Permitting2. PermittingAfter comments by EPA, most Class VI (CO2 sequestration well) standards
were appliedpp– Injection Area of Review (AOR) determined by annual modeling– Periodic AOR updates based on monitoring and modeling results– Extensive deep, shallow and surface CO2 monitoring
Monthly reporting of injection pressures annular pressures and– Monthly reporting of injection pressures, annular pressures and injection stream composition
– Injection stream monitoring– Periodically updated Corrective Action Plan – Open-ended permit duration (based on USDW non-endangerment
demonstration)– Pressurized annulus throughout injection– Emergency and remedial response planEmergency and remedial response plan– Post-injection site care plan
Class V Experimental injection permit was awarded in November 2011, 11 months after initial draft application
16
3. CO3. CO22 Storage ResearchStorage ResearchWe have been opportunistic about adding“experimental” aspects to the test
22 ggMBM Flat Pack
experimental aspects to the test.
•Modular Borehole Monitoring (Carbon Capture Project) - Sensor platform for acquiring multiple measurements using one deployment completion
•Comparison of Groundwater Sampling Methodologies - Deploy different methods (e.g., u- MBM Geophone Clampg p y ( gtube, gas-lift, pumping and wireline sampling) to evaluate impact on groundwater quality results
•Reservoir Dynamics and Formation Saturation -
MBM Geophone Clamp
Reservoir Dynamics and Formation Saturationin-zone tracer tests and fluid sampling to assess changes in inter-well formation saturation, sweep efficiency changes in the geochemistry of formation fluidsfluids
17
3. Research 3. Research ––COCO Capture and CompressionCapture and CompressionCOCO22 Capture and CompressionCapture and Compression
• Scope: Demonstrate 25 MW equivalent post-combustion capture of CO2 from Plant Barry flue gas using MHI’s advanced amine (KS-1 solvent) process
• Objectives:
– Demonstrate integrated CO2 capture under realistic coal-fired plant operating conditions
– Economics: Establish realistic values for the energy penalty and implementation costs
– Test reliability of solvent-based capturey p
• Status:
– Engineering and procurement completed in July 2010
Fi t hi t t Pl t B i S t b 2010– First shipment to Plant Barry in September 2010
– Capture unit reached full operational capacity in June 2011
• Capture rates of up to 650 metric tonnes per day
• Over 40,000 metric tonnes captured to date
18
3. Research 3. Research ––COCO Capture and CompressionCapture and CompressionCOCO22 Capture and CompressionCapture and Compression
19
See Mike Ivey’s presentation at 3:30 on See Mike Ivey’s presentation at 3:30 on Thursday for more detailsThursday for more details
4. Integration 4. Integration –– Communication is Key!Communication is Key!Storage
C tDOE
SO. STATES ENERGY BOARDTransportCapture
Permitting Plant Integration& Construction
SiteHost
Mitsubishi Heavy
Advanced ResourcesInternational
yIndustries
Design TechnologyProvider
AdvancedAmines
NEPA Preparation
MMAActivities
FieldOperations
ReservoirModeling
Publiceducation/outreach
UICPermitting
GeologicModeling
DenburyResources
DenburyResources
Site Prep/DrillingContractors
FieldOperations
SiteHost
Resources
PipelinePermitting &Construction
FieldOperations
PipelineDesign
EconomicEvaluation
KnowledgeTransfer
3rd PartyEvaluation
20
4. Integrated Test Plan4. Integrated Test Plan4. Integrated Test Plan4. Integrated Test Plan• Numerous parametric tests on capture unit
• Variations in flue gas processing volume (variations to occur over a matter of hours, ranging from 40% to 100% capacity
• Operational constraints on transport and storage• Dynamic transportation operations due to variations in capture unit PVT
outputoutput • Active management of pipeline and pump operations to maintain liquid
phase•Effects of periodic capture unit downtime on transportation and storage operations
•Minimize CO2 residency in transport and injection juncturestransport and injection junctures•Opportunity for safety inspections•Collection of pressure transient
21
data in the project injection and observation wells
4. Integration4. Integration –– Risk AssessmentRisk Assessment4. Integration 4. Integration Risk AssessmentRisk Assessment• We are participating with DNV in incorporating our test site procedures into a “risk
registry” g y• We are documenting our risk mitigation procedures for all aspect of test including
site construction, integrated transport and injection operations and closure.• Completed a registry of potential risks, consequence severity, likelihood ofCompleted a registry of potential risks, consequence severity, likelihood of
occurrence and safeguards for mitigation
See Jerry Hill’s presentation at 11:30 (#151144) on Thursday for more details
22
Next StepsNext StepsNext StepsNext Steps• Complete baseline monitoring in February 2012
• Permission to inject anticipated in March 2012
• CO2 injection operations begin in March 2012, continue for 1 to 2 years
3+ years of post injection monitoring then close site
A th i T t 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017Fiscal Year
• 3+ years of post-injection monitoring, then close site
Anthropogenic Test 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017Public Outreach & EducationSite PermittingSite Characterization and ModelingWell Drilling and Completiong pTransportation and Injection OperationsOperational Monitoring and ModelingSite ClosurePost Injection Monitoring and ModelingProject AssessmentProject Assessment
