View
5
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
Monitoring Carbon Storage and Enhanced Gas Recovery Projects in Central Appalachia
A. Kyle LoukResearch Associate - Virginia Center for Coal and Energy Research
Blacksburg, Virginia, USA
2016 Virginia Coal and Energy Alliance PE SeminarLebanon, VA, USA
Collaborators• Virginia Center for Coal and Energy Research• Cardno• Jerry Hill, Ph.D.• Southern States Energy Board• Virginia Department of Mines, Minerals, and Energy• Geological Survey of Alabama• Sandia Technologies• Det Norske Veritas (DNV)• CONSOL Energy (Research Group)
• Schlumberger• Global Geophysical Services• Oak Ridge National Laboratories• British Geological Survey• University of Nottingham• University of Tennessee – Knoxville• University of Virginia• Southern Illinois University• Oklahoma State University
Industrial Partners• CONSOL Energy• Harrison-Wyatt, L.L.C. & Emory River , L.L.C.• Alpha Natural Resources• Dominion Energy• FloCO2
• Praxair
Research Partners
Financial Assistance for this Project was Provided by:
The U.S. Department of Energy through theNational Energy Technology Laboratory’s
Program under Contract No. DE-FE0006827
Presentation Outline
• Project Background and Objectives• CO2 Injection Tests
• Shale CO2 Injection Test in Morgan County, TN• Coalbed Methane CO2 Injection Test in Buchanan County, VA
• Conclusions and Discussion
Motivation
• Geologic sequestration of CO2 can not only mitigate greenhouse gas emissions, but enhance gas recovery in unconventional formations
• Enhancing gas recovery can increase reserves throughout America and Central Appalachia while extending the life of mature fields
CO2 Sequestration
• Conventional Reservoirs• Permanent Storage• Enhanced Oil Recovery
• Unconventional Reservoirs• CO2 preferential adsorption• Enhance Coalbed Methane
Recovery (ECBM)
Unconventional Gas in the U.S.
• U.S. is World leader in Natural Gas Production• Eastern U.S. with over 6,000 Tcf of GIP• Oakwood and Nora CBM Fields
• Technological Advances in:• Horizontal Drilling• Hydraulic Fracturing
• ‘Huff-and-Puff’ Injection Test in a Horizontal Chattanooga Shale Gas Well• Well Stimulation Permit from TDEC• Injection Well Converted (March, 2014)• CO2 Injected: March 19th – 31st, 2014• Shut-In: March 31st – July 29th, 2014• Flowback: July 29th – Present • Post-Injection Monitoring (Currently Ongoing)
Shale CO2 Injection Test in Morgan County, TNProject Overview
• 14 Well Program• Injection Well: HW-1003• 13 Offset Monitoring Wells
• 3 Horizontal / 10 Vertical• 11 In-Formation / 2 Out-of-Formation
• Gas and Water Sampling• Perfluorocarbon Tracer Study• Monitoring for:
• Injection Phase: % Composition, Tracer Arrival• Soaking Phase: % Composition, Pressure, Downhole Liquid Levels• Flowback Phase: % Composition, Flowrate, Pressure, Tracers
Shale CO2 Injection Test in Morgan County, TNMonitoring, Verification, and Accounting (MVA)
Storage Vessel
Injection Skid
Propane Heater
HW-1003
Shale CO2 Injection Test in Morgan County, TNOperations Overview
• 510 tons CO2 injected• Avg. Flow Rate: 41.5 tons/day
• Avg. Temp.: 48.5º F• Max Wellhead Press.: ~500 psig
Shale CO2 Injection Test in Morgan County, TNInjection Summary
• Sulfur Hexafluoride (SF6)• 0.574 kg at 50 tons of CO2
• Booster Pump and Air Compressor• Perfluoromethylcyclopentane (PMCP)
• 0.854 kg at 50 tons of CO2
• Syringe Pump• Perfluoromethylcyclohexane (PMCH)
• 0.894 kg at 350 tons of CO2
• Syringe Pump
Shale CO2 Injection Test in Morgan County, TNTracer Overview
• Injection Phase• No increased concentration of CO2
at offset wells• No detection of tracers at offset
wells
• Soaking Phase• Wellhead pressure leveled at 260
psig for 3 months• No downhole liquids (all gas phase
in wellbore)• Wellbore composition = +98% CO2
Shale CO2 Injection Test in Morgan County, TNResults to Date
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
3/15/14 3/30/14 4/14/14 4/29/14 5/14/14 5/29/14 6/13/14 6/28/14 7/13/14 7/28/14
Wel
lhea
d Pr
essu
re (p
sig)
Date
HW-1003 Wellhead Pressure during Soaking
Soaking Phase
*Indications of a Closed System• Consistent with modeled predictions
• CO2 confinement → viable storage option
0.00
100.00
200.00
300.00
400.00
500.00
600.00
01/09 01/10 01/11 01/12 01/13 01/14 01/15 01/16
Flow
Rat
e (M
CF/
Day
)
Date
Flowback Production vs. Historical Production
Historical Production Projected Injection & Soaking Flowback (with CO2) Flowback (Hydrocarbons)
Historical
Inje
ctio
n&
Soa
king
Flowback
Flowback Results
0.00
100.00
200.00
300.00
400.00
500.00
600.00
01/14 03/14 04/14 05/14 05/14 06/14 07/14 08/14 09/14 10/14 11/14 12/14 01/15 02/15 03/15 04/15 05/15 06/15 07/15 08/15 09/15 10/15 11/15 12/15 01/16
Flow
Rat
e (M
CF/
Day
)
Date
Flowback Production vs. Historical Production (zoomed)
Historical Production Projected Injection & Soaking Flowback (with CO2) Flowback (Hydrocarbons)
His
tori
cal
Inje
ctio
n&
Soa
king
Flowback
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
90.0
100.0
07/08 08/05 09/02 09/30 10/28 11/25 12/23 01/20 02/17 03/17 04/14 05/12 06/09 07/07 08/04 09/01 09/29 10/27 11/24
% C
ompo
sitio
n(N
2)
% C
ompo
sitio
n(C
H's
, CO
2)
CO₂ & N₂ vs Total Hydrocarbons
CO2 CH's N2
Soak
ing
Phas
e
Shale CO2 Injection Test in Morgan County, TNResults to Date
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
90.0
100.0
07/08 08/05 09/02 09/30 10/28 11/25 12/23 01/20 02/17 03/17 04/14 05/12 06/09 07/07 08/04 09/01 09/29 10/27 11/24
% C
ompo
sitio
n(E
than
e, P
ropa
ne, B
utan
e)
% C
ompo
sitio
n(C
O2,
Met
hane
)
Individual Hydrocarbon Composition
CO2 Methane Ethane Propane Butane
Soak
ing
Phas
e
Shale CO2 Injection Test in Morgan County, TNResults to Date
• Production of heavy hydrocarbons elevated from baseline values• Role of pressure, viscosity, and adsorption/desorption processes• Enhanced gas recovery → implication for other shale plays
• Oakwood coalbed methane field• Stacked coal reservoir. 15-20 seams• Sandstone and shale confining units• 20,000 tonne CO2 injection in three legacy
wells over a 1 year period• CO2 storage and enhanced gas recovery• CO2 Injection: July 3rd – Present• 8,607 tonnes to date
CBM CO2 Injection Test in Buchanan County, VAProject Overview
CBM CO2 Injection Test in Buchanan County, VASite Overview
DD-7 DD-8
DD-7A
Monitoring Focus Area• Injection wells
• CBM production wells
• MVA boundaries
CBM CO2 Injection Test in Buchanan County, VAMonitoring, Verification, and Accounting (MVA)
DD-7 DD-8
DD-7AM1
M2
C1
Monitoring Focus Area• Injection wells
• CBM production wells
• MVA boundaries
• Roads
• Monitoring and
characterization wells
CBM CO2 Injection Test in Buchanan County, VAMonitoring, Verification, and Accounting (MVA)
DD-7 DD-8
DD-7AM1
M2
C1
Monitoring Focus Area• Injection wells
• CBM production wells
• MVA boundaries
• Roads
• Monitoring and
characterization wells
• Microseismic array (28
stns)
CBM CO2 Injection Test in Buchanan County, VAMonitoring, Verification, and Accounting (MVA)
DD-7 DD-8
DD-7AM1
M2
C1
Monitoring Focus Area• Injection wells
• CBM production wells
• MVA boundaries
• Roads
• Monitoring and
characterization wells
• Microseismic array (28
stns)
• GPS array (20 monuments)
+ InSAR
CBM CO2 Injection Test in Buchanan County, VAMonitoring, Verification, and Accounting (MVA)
• Surface and Downhole Pressure and Temperature Gauges
CBM CO2 Injection Test in Buchanan County, VAMonitoring and Characterization Wells
DD-7 DD-8
DD-7A
¼-mile boundaryTerraSAR-X Satellite
CBM CO2 Injection Test in Buchanan County, VAMVA Program
• Tracer Plan• 3 perfluorocarbon tracers (PFTs) in water prior
to injection (PMCH, PECH, PMCP)
• SF6 in DD-8 gas stream before water is expelled
• 3 Refrigerants at 15% injection (CF4, CHF3, C3F8)
• 3 PFTs at 30-40% injection (PEP, PMP, PDMCH)
CBM CO2 Injection Test in Buchanan County, VATracer Program
Data Analysis• All gas samples
collected and analyzed in-house
• Gas Chromatography• 2 GC/MS• 2 ECD• 1 Portable
Natural Gas GC• 1 Mine Gas
Analyzer
Gas Sample
Portable Chromatograph
Totalflow Software
MSGC
Any Questions?aklouk@vt.edu
Recommended