Deep Monitoring of On- and Offshore Projects -...

Deep Monitoring of On- and Offshore Projects

Dr Matthias Raab

IEAGHG Summer School8 December 2015

Pore space – where it is all happening

Measuring the atmospheric concentration of CO2

Measuring the concentration of CO2 in the soil

Measuring the temperature and pressure, recording sound waves and detecting chemical changes

Analysing the groundwater

Monitoring Injected CO2

• Why monitoring?• Effective monitoring• How to monitor?• Costs of monitoring• Duration of monitoring• Compliance of monitoring• Risk based monitoring• Social licence to operate• Political landscape

Deep Monitoring of CO2

Why monitor?

• Ensure Conformance to indicate the long-term security of CO2storage, i.e. • Show pressure and CO2 development inside the storage complex are

consistent with models and, if necessary, calibrate and update these models.

• Evaluate and, if necessary, adapt injection and monitoring to optimize storage performance.

• Provide the monitoring data necessary to support CO2 inventory reporting.

• Ensure Containment to demonstrate the current security of CO2storage, i.e. • Verify containment, well integrity, and the absence of any environmental

effects outside the storage complex. • Detect early warning signs of any unexpected loss of containment. • If necessary, activate additional safeguards to prevent or remediate any

significant environmental impacts as defined by the Environmental Assessment.

Shell Quest MMV Plan

Monitoring Sweetspot

Science and technology

Regulation

Politics

Effective monitoring located here!

Key Performance Indicators for EPA RD&D permit – examples from CO2CRC Otway Project, Australia

Injection into depleted gas reservoir

• Establish injection, migration and uncertainty models

• Assess environmental impacts within permit bounds

• Injection migration within permit bounds

• Verify stable plume within model prediction

• Demonstrate no evidence of injected CO2

at the surface

Injection into saline aquifer

• Models built pre-drilling for well location selection

• Well results consistent with model predictions

• Well based activities in accordance with State OHS rules

• No unexplained anomalies through monitoring program

Risk Based Approach to Monitoring

Containment Risk Analysis

0.000001

0.00001

0.0001

0.001

0.01

0.1

1

10

100

1000

No

rmal

ise

d E

ven

t R

isk

Qu

oti

en

t

Risk Events

Otway 2C Containment Risk

Pessimistic (CL95)

Planning (CL80)

Optimistic (CL50)

Acceptable Project ContainmentRisk

Basis: Chance of >1% leakage over 1000 years (IPCC recommended standard)Storage complex: Vertically: top of Paaratte Formation; Laterally: tenement + 5km

CO2CRC Otway Stage 2C Project Containment Risk Analysis

Storage Risk Assessment

Shell Quest MMV Plan

“Detectable”

Error statistics must be known

Measurement error

Modelling error

Natural variability

Sensitivity must be known

Typically we have null measurements

How much CO2 would be needed to get me above the measurement threshold?

False alarm rate should preferably be low!

How often will a random fluctuation be called a leak?

The “operating curve” for M&V

Many false alarms Few false alarms

Good chance of finding a leak

Poor chance of finding a leak

Low detection threshold

High detection threshold

The shape of this curve depends on the detailed leak mechanism

Implications

We need quantifiable models of leakage possibilities in order to interpret relevant monitoring

This means – monitor against the risk assessment (not against vague fears or public relations exercises, if politically possible)

A related point:

• We are entitled to assumptions about what is plausible –many things are possible in a relatively new area like this, but not all are likely. The assumptions have to be clearly communicated.

• Introduce “contingent sensitivity” – sensitivity of a M&V method in well-defined (probably simple) circumstances

Geophysics

• Seismic

Drilled wells

• Rock (core; drill cuttings)

• Wireline logs

• Reservoir Fluids

Analogs

• Outcrops

• Modern depositional environments

Integrated models

How do we know what’s down there?

Understanding a CO2 plume

Pessimistic

MostLikely

Optimistic

Real CO2

plume edge

CRC-2

What happens to CO2 over time?

Timeline Mobile (%) Residually trapped (%)

Dissolved (%)

End injection36 36 28

1 yr 21 37 42

10 yr 18 35 47

20 yrs 18 34 48

100 yrs 12 26 62

Example calculation from the CO2CRC Otway Stage 2C Project. These parameters are depending on characteristics of storage reservoir and are ONLY representative for the reservoir modelled.

Onshore Seismic Monitoring

GeophonesVibroseis truck

Recording truck

Seismic section

18

Seismic-source: Vibrator Truck

Geophones on surface

Buried Geophone Array

Preliminary results

Buried Surface

Offshore Seismic Monitoring

Western

Kitchen

(Type III)Central

Kitchen

(Type II)

Eastern

Kitchen

(Type II)

Western

Kitchen

(Type III)Central

Kitchen

(Type II)

Eastern

Kitchen

(Type II)

FortescueHalibutCobia

Kingfish

Blackback

Marlin

Snapper

Barracouta

Golden Beach Present (0 Ma)

Bream

25 km25 km

600 m

N

Impacts & Basin Plumbing

Source: VicGCS

Seismic vessel acquiring data relating to the structure of the formations below the

seabed

Air “gun” Hydro phones“array” = 6 km

Geophysical exploration - marine seismic data acquisition

2D Vessel Aquila Explorer

Seismic Source – Float with array of air guns

Air Guns

Streamer with Geophones - up to 6km behind vessel

Remote controlled “Birds” hold streamer evenly below surface (~8m)

3D-Seismic vessel

Statoil Sleipner Project

Chadwick et al.

Time-lapse seismic images from Sleipner

Time-lapse seismic images from Sleipner showing vertical slices through the expanding plume from 1994 - 2006. The total height of the plume is about 250 metres, with a total width in 2001 of around 2 km.

Chadwick et al.

Chadwick et al.

Growth of the topmost CO2 layer at Sleipner. Perspective view of the topography of the top reservoir, showing the CO2 –water contacts. Note the north-trending tongue of CO2 corresponding to spilling along a linear topographic ridge.

Sleipner 3D Seismic Marine Monitoring

InSAR Monitoring

In Salah Gas Project, central Algeria

SLB Oilfield Review, Sep 2015

In Salah – InSAR monitoringInterferometric Synthetic Aperture Radar


In Salah – Ground Deformation


Reservoir Monitoring

Injection phase: U-Tube-2 results

July – minor pH changes, tracers detected

CO2 arrival within modelling predictions August – significant pH drop,

increase in dissolved CO2, tracers peak

September – gas lift

Pressure Monitoring

• Pressure measured at injector and other wells

• Sensitive to small leaks (100-1000 tonnes per annum)

• Long range of investigation (100-1000 meters into reservoir)

• Complications from noise, heterogeneity, aquifer flow

• Passive above zone monitoring most promising for leak detection

• Tomography needs detector spacing ~ distance to leak

CRC-2 Downhole Completions Equipment

1520 m

(1437.23 and 1492.47 m)

X-nipple @ 1417.31 m

XN-nipple and guide

P/T gauge (1495.89 m and 1497.77 m)

Sliding Side Door (SSD)

Circa 827.79 m

JFE Bear Casing 5.5" 13 CR80 17 ppf, ID 4.892"

Tubing 2 3/8" 13 Cr85 Fox 4.6 ppf, ID 1.995"

Gas Lift Mandrel (annulus)

DTPS Cable with Fibre Optics 0.25"

P/T Gauge line 0.25"

New perforations

P/T gauge (1440.63 m and 1442.51 m)Existing perforations 1440 m – 1447 m

Packer at 1486.02 m

Packer at 1430.78 m



1501 m1512 m

1514.82 mTubing bottom Total Depth (TD)

P/T gauge (1509.19 m and 1511.07 m)

On-Off tool (1435.12 m and 1490.36 m)

P/T gauge (1447.49 m and 1450.58 m)

Gas Injection Mandrel

Circa 855.29 m

Gas Injection line 3/8"

Utube filter (1492.88 m)

Utube filter (1437.64 m)

U-tube TinT line 3/8"

X-nipple @ 728.01 m

1516 m

1461.4 m

X-nipple @ 1432 m

XN-nipple

Circa 996 m

JFE Bear Casing 5.5" 13 CR80 17 ppf, ID 4.892"

Tubing 2 3/8" 13 Cr80 Fox 4.6 ppf, ID 1.995"

Gas Lift Mandrel(annulus)

DTPS Cable with Fibre Optics 3/8"

P/T Gauge line 0.25"

P/T gauge (1439 m and 1444 m)Perforations 1440 m – 1447 m

Packer at 1449.6 m

Packer at 1435.5 m

X-nipple @ 1095 m

X-nipple @ 749 m

X-nipple @ 1443 m

Circa 846 m Gas Lift Mandrel

3/8" Injection line

Circa 948 m

3/8" U-tube system

1562 m

2011 Completion 2015 Completion

Well Integrity and CO2 Migration Pathways


Deep Monitoring of CO2

Acknowledgements

IndustryANLEC R&D (on behalf of ACALET)

Chevron Australia

Coal 21

Global CCS Institute

INPEX Browse Ltd

Shell Development (Australia) Pty Ltd

CommunityLandowners near site

Moyne Shire

Nirranda South

GovernmentAustralian Government: Department of Education

Australian Government: Department of Industry and Science

CarbonNet Project

NSW: Department of Industry

SA: The Department for Manufacturing, Innovation, Trade, Resources and Energy (DMITRE)

Victoria: Department of Economic Development, Jobs, Transport and Resources

WA: Department of Mines and Petroleum

ResearchAustralian National University

Charles Darwin University

CSIRO

Curtin University

Federation University Australia

Geoscience Australia

GNS Science

Korea Institute of Geosciences & Mineral Resources

Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL)

University of Adelaide

University of Edinburgh

University of Melbourne

University of NSW

University of Queensland

University of Western Australia

Participants

Supporting Partners

Deep Monitoring of On- and Offshore Projects -...

Documents

Transcript of Deep Monitoring of On- and Offshore Projects -...