CO2 Storage Process / Subsurface Monitoring and Wellbore Integrity

7/31/2019 CO2 Storage Process / Subsurface Monitoring and Wellbore Integrity

1/44

www.slb.com/carbonservices

CO2 Storage Process

Dwight [email protected]

6 June 2012

RECS 2012

Pre Selection

Appraisal

Development

CO2 Injection

Closure

Post closure

Post liability transfer

Performance Management

& Risk Control

Pre-injection Injection Post-injection


2/44

Potential Saline Storage Basins


3/44

Decades ago, potential oil & gas fields were mappedin a similar way that potential storage sites are beingmapped today

An Oil & Gas Analogy


4/44

Heres what we learned after decades of oil &gas related data collection

The Importance of Data


5/44


6/44

Porosity and Permeability are Key

Big Grains= high permeability Small Grains= low permeability

These have the same porosity (40%) but different permeability

SAND


7/44

Comparing Geologic Site Characteristics

RoughDepiction

ForComparison

2000F

eet

30% 0% 1D .1MD

Porosity

Scale

Perm

Scale

SLEIPNER ILLINOIS MISSISSIPPI W.VIRGINIA

30% 0%

1D .1MD

GULF COAST APPALACHIAMIDWESTSLEIPNER

7


8/44

Scenario A

Scenario BScenario C

Scenario A

Scenario BScenario C

Scenario B

Scenario A

Scenario C

Scenario B

Scenario A

Scenario C

Injected CO2:

400,000 tonnesover 4 years

Monitoring:

46 years after injectionstops

Injection zone:bottom 20 feet offormation

t = 50 years

Reducing Uncertainty

8


9/44

(Johnston and Terrell, 2006)

Data Scales

9


10/44

Conventional Data vs Hi-Resolution Data

Conventional data

Producer

Injector

Single-sensor data

Producer

Injector


11/44

Data Integration

11


12/44

Current Knowledge

Scientific work has identified many potential storage sites in the US and rest of worldOnly some of these sites can provide low risk, low cost commercial storageInjection pilots build acceptance but leave many unknowns about commercialityToday s best practices manuals have been derived from small scale experiencesMany important pilot project experiences are not completely understoodScale-up will require commercial processes adapted from the oil and gas industry.


13/44

Project Needs

Modelling and Data Acquisition: Coupled non-linear geological, geomechanical and geochemical processes Thermodynamics of complex fluids and solids Monitoring - > Dynamic imaging of plume, integration Visualization for non-technical actors Basin water system modeling Geophysics

Design and Implementation: Field Development Plans / Economics (preliminary and advanced) Controlling plume Migration Well designs to improve injection dynamics + Well Integrity stability assessment Upstream operational integration with partners

Commercial: Contractual models Risk tolerance & decision making under risk and uncertainty

Community acceptance Optimization of CO2 Sequestration & CO2-EOR combined


14/44

Construction Injection Equalization Closure

Risk Control & Performance Assessment

Possible site Probable site Appoved site

5 yrs 100+0 30 yrs 35 yrs

Uncertainty

Commercialization timeline, costs and uncertainty

* Per ton estimates and total costs (in current day $USD) are based on 100Mton lifetime storage volume

Cume Cost


15/44




5 yrs 100+0 30 yrs 35 yrs

UncertaintyDesktopStudies

(penniesp

erton)

1-Study existing data and start risk methodology


Cume Cost


16/44




5 yrs 100+0 30 yrs 35 yrs


(penniesp

erton)

Collect Data

Build Models( ~50 cents / ton )

wells and seismic

models

2-Collect and analyze new data


Cume Cost


17/44




5 yrs 100+0 30 yrs 35 yrs


(penniesp

erton)

Collect Data

Build Models(~50 cents / ton)

Design and

Permit(


18/44

Design and

Permit(


19/44

Design and

Permit(


20/44

Design and

Permit(


21/44

CO2 Monitoring Dependence on Wells

Boundaries

Containment

Watch stored CO2

Watch possible leakage paths

Well Integrity

Sealed fault

Monitoringwell

Abandonedwell

Monitoringwell

CO2injection

well

Freshwateraquifer

21


22/44

CO2 Injection Well

Wellhead

Cement

Surface casing

Cement

Long-string casing

Pressurized annulus

Packer

Perforations

C

O

2

Injection tubing

Injection Zone

Confining zone

Lowest USDW

22


23/44

Why monitor?

Stakeholder acceptance and support HSE: health, safety, environment

Risk mitigationRegulatory complianceAccountingCost control

If part of utilization activity - dont waste CO2EOR effectiveness more oil

CO2 goes where you want it to go CO2 behaves as per plan


24/44

Types of Monitoring

Operational monitoringVerification monitoringEnvironmental monitoring


25/44

Operational monitoring

Basic HSE alerts/alarmsHigh frequency

pressure temperature volume rate


26/44

Verification monitoring

To ensure that the projectstays in its stakeholdersacceptable risk frameworkover time

Stakeholders must agree onan acceptable risk profilefrom the start

Hazard Analysis and Risk Control

Standard SLB-QHSE-S020


27/44

Risk informed action

Collect more data to reduce uncertainty reduce likelihood of a negative event

Create an operational plan that can be adapted over time, includes: which measurements (site related) what resolution (level of detail) when (time interval: short, medium, long) where (3-D placement)

Change plan based on new information (must history match)


28/44

Verification monitoring types

Plume monitoringStorage integrity monitoring:

caprock wells


29/44

Monitoring quality - resolution

narrow azimuth 15k ft aperturewide azimuth 34k ft aperture


30/44

Baseline data requirements

Static models (original state)Dynamic models (make predictions about future))


31/44

Predicting the monitoring response


32/44

Environmental monitoring

Also requires baseline dataLooking for impacts. No anomaly is

good news.

Types: soil sampling water sampling atmospheric monitoring cement sampling


33/44

Costs

Operational monitoring (very small pennies per ton)Environmental monitoring (very small pennies per ton)Verification monitoring (small relative to CCS - dollars per ton ?)

depends on site driven by risk tolerance -risk informed decisions overlaps with characterization and operational costs (baselines needed)


34/44

Why Worry About Wellbore Integrity

CO2 Volumes

The volume of CO2 is so large that there will need to be thousands ofinjection and monitoring wells and the injected CO2 will interact withexisting wells

CO2 PropertiesAggressive nature of CO2 combined with its density may increase the

risk of leakageWellbore Material Properties

Typical wellbore materials are susceptible to degradation undertypical CO2 sequestration conditions

Wellbore Construction Practices

Poor wellbore construction practices can lead to increased risk ofleakage


35/44

CONFINING LAYER

SALINE AQUIFER

INJECTION

WELL

LEAKAGE

CO2

BRINEABANDONED

WELL

Possible storage-leakage scenario


36/44

Lowest USDW

Conductor casing

Surface Casing

Long String Casing

Injection Tubing

Packer

Cement

Fluid Filled Annulus

Well Construction


37/44

Leading Causes of Cementing Failures

Incomplete mud removalIrregular wellbore profileBreakdown of formation during cementingWell fluid flow during or after cement is placedInappropriate cement slurry designIncorrect downhole hardwareSurface execution problemsApparent failures that are not real

37


38/44

Well Integrity?

38


39/44

Injection Well Construction Requirements

Casing and cement or other materials used in the construction of each Class VIwell must have sufficient structural strength and be designed for the life of the

geologic sequestration project. All well materials must be compatible with fluidswith which the materials may be expected to come into contact

Cement and cement additives must be compatible with the carbon dioxidestream and formation fluids and of sufficient quality and quantity to maintain

integrity over the design life of the geologic sequestration project.At least one long string casing, using a sufficient number of centralizers, mustextend to the injection zone and must be cemented by circulating cement to thesurface in one or more stages

Tubing and packer materials used in the construction of each Class VI wellmust be compatible with fluids with which the materials may be expected tocome into contact

What about the mandatory in-zone monitor wells?39


40/44

Evaluation: Well integrity evaluation ultrasonic

USIT pulse-echo measurement Skin-deep (casing-cement interface) measure, like the CBLIsolation Scanner pitch-catch propagation measurement from 2006 Integrates USITProvides information on the condition of the casing and the condition of thematerial in the annulus

Ultrasonic measurements (higher resolution, lower depth of penetration)around 250 kHz

The Isolation Scanner delivers 3 independent measures Z (acoustic impedance): inverted from a normal incidence, pulse-echo

measurement same as the USIT

(flexural attenuation): measured from the arrival amplitude at two transducerof a flexural wave propagating along the casing

v (annular velocity): migrated from the arrival time of the cement-formationinterface echo, knowing the caliper


41/44

Well Log

Perforation for VITtest

Point permeabilitymeasurement

CHDT Sample Point

Sidewall Core Sample

Fluid Sample Point

VIT Interval

Wellbore and casing walls

Well Cement

Geologic Formation

LEGEND

Cores

Perfs


42/44

Cement Bond Log

Measurements provide information on casing-cement and cement-formation bonds. Measuresamplitude or attenuation of casing arrival andVDL

Rule of thumb: 80% BI over given distance (5-18ft)

Strongly affected by tool eccentering and fastformation

Should be run along with an ultrasonic loggingtool to gain fullest picture of cement integrity


43/44

Evaluation: CBL-type tools Bond Index

The bond index is a measure ofthe measured attenuation dividedby the total possible attenuationachievable

This could lead to zones withhydraulic pathways havingsufficient bond index values to beconsidered isolating

In this example each row has thesame percentage (80%) ofbonded cement

Red squares are unbonded sectionsGreen squares are bonded sections


44/44

Lessons Learned Through Demonstrations

Geologic uncertainty is scary to some (esp. engineers)CO2 moves farther, faster, and with fingeringCan monitor CO2 better than anticipatedNo chance of 100% accounting

Old wells will need special focusLarge problem in depleted oil fields

Need to consider the entire system or suffer the consequencesStudy the public mood before speaking to them

44

CO2 Storage Process / Subsurface Monitoring and Wellbore Integrity

Documents

Transcript of CO2 Storage Process / Subsurface Monitoring and Wellbore Integrity