CarbonSAFE Illinois East Sub-Basin - Project Number DE-FE0029445 - National Energy Technology ...
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
CarbonSAFE Illinois
East Sub-Basin
Project Number DE-FE0029445
Hannes E. Leetaru
Christopher Korose
University of Illinois
U.S. Department of Energy
National Energy Technology Laboratory
Mastering the Subsurface Through Technology Innovation, Partnerships and Collaboration:
Carbon Storage and Oil and Natural Gas Technologies Review Meeting
August 13-16, 2018
Presentation Outline
• Technical Status
• Accomplishments
• Lessons Learned
• Synergy Opportunities
• Project Summary
2
Technical Status
• A high-level technical evaluation of potential
storage sites in the East sub-basin in Illinois is in
progress.
• Evaluation includes subsurface characterization
within the storage complex, risk identification,
and an assessment of the potential industrial
CO2 source
• This project has led to the funding of the
CarbonSAFE Wabash project.
3
Location of East Sub-Basin
Work has been
completed on primary
study area with the start Wabash
of the Feasibilty
Wabash project Primary study area
Secondary study area
4
Location of East Sub-Basin
Feasibility Project
Macon
New Location in Wabash Project
Christian County
5
Wabash Project What is
important in
the southern
part of East
Basin
6
Large-scale anthropogenic CO2 sources
(>100,000 tonnes/year) considered in the East
Sub-Basin project area
Secondary study area
Primary study area
7
Stratigraphy with
Potential Seals
and Sinks in the
EOR potential
Illinois Basin
We have concentrated
on the Ordovician and
Cambrian
Thickness of the Mt. Simon Sandstone
Wabash Project
Wells with
Precambrian granite
“Arkosic storage play”
Wabash Project would extend
the lower Mt. Simon storage
Wabash potential south and eastLocation of IBDP Wabash
J.J. LAMBIASE &
W. BOSWORTH,
1995Growth Faults in the
Precambrian
T. New Albany
T. Galena
(Trenton)
T.
300 ft thicker on downthrown EauClaire
side
T.
Precambrian
5,000 ftWeaber-Horn
1200 ft thicker on downthrown
sideDepth of the top of
Mt. Simon Sandstone
Wabash
14Porosity and its Relationship with
Depth
15Weaber Hinton
-Horn #7
05101572 120192399601
438902 ft
HUMBLE OIL Peoples Gas Light &
WEABER-HORN UNIT 1 #7 Hinton Brothers 7
Survey: - Abs: - Blk: - Section: Survey: - Abs: - Blk: - Section:
Correlation Depth Porosity Correlation Depth Porosity
VSPshale TVD sphi GR TVD DPHI
-0.074 UNKNOWN 1.463 0.3 UNKNOWN 0 0.000 API 250.000 0.3 UNKNOWN 0
Red Red
3550
6650
3600
6700
3650
6750
3700
6800
3750
6850
3800
6900
3850
6950 Eau Claire CP
3900
Elmhurst
7000
0 Mt. Simon Mt. 950
Simon
Mt3Simon
0
7050
L50
4000
7100
4050
7150
4100
L100
7200
4150
7250
L120
4200
7300
4250
7350
4300
7400
4350
Simon
7450
4400
7500
Top Mt.
-500 4450
-500
7550
4500
7600
4550
7650
4600
Sandstone
7700
4650
7750
4700
7800
4750
7850
4800
7900
4850
7950
4900
8000
-1000 4950
-1000
8050
5000
8100
5050
8150
5100
8200
5150
8250
5200
8300
Precambrian 5250
8350
5300
8400
5350
8450
5400
8500
-1500 5450
-1500
8550
5500
8600
TD=8616
5550
5600
5650
5700
5750
5800
5850
Weaber-Horn
5900
-2000 5950
-2000
6000
6050
6100
6150
6200
6250
6300
6350
6400
-2500 6450
-2500
6500
Horn
6550
TD=6550
#7
Weaber-
Hinton
Comparison of Hinton #7 and
WabashThickness of the St. Peter Sandstone
St. Peter Sandstone can have up to
25% porosity Wabash
Primary study area
Secondary study area
17Thickness of the Cypress Sandstone
Thick Cypress can have up to
20% porosity Wabash
Primary study area
Secondary study area
18Enhanced Oil Recovery
Wabash
Primary study area
Secondary study area
19NRAP – IAM Model Results
• Investigated effect of Rate of CO2 leakage for three
hypothetical wells at 1, 1.5 and 2
different values of km away from injection well
cement permeability on
leakage rates
• Results indicate low
risk of CO2 leakage
through wells for sites
considered
• Identified flaws in tool
and provided
recommendations for
improving future
editions of the toolAccomplishments to Date
– This Pre-feasibilty CarbonSAFE Illinois East-subbasin
has met most of its deliverables and has resulted in the
funding of the Feasiblity Wabash CarbonSAFE project in
Indiana.
– Continue work in the primary sub-basin on scaling-in
from regional screening toward site feasibility; continue
to evaluate the relative merits and/or risks of different
focal areas within the secondary study area.
– Completed preliminary discussions with operators of the
different sources
21Progress on Tasks
Task # Description % Complete
1 Project management and planning 70
2 Establish CCS Coordination Team 100
Develop Plan to Address Challenges of Commercial- Scale CCS Project 30
3
4 Conduct High-Level Technical Sub-Basin Evaluation 80
5 CO2 Source and Transportation Assessment 70
National Risk Assessment Partnership (NRAP) Screening 60
6
22Lessons Learned
– Greatest challenge is making an economic model from storage
into saline reservoirs
– A lack of deep well data near industrial CO2 sources makes
storage and injection analysis difficult
23Synergy Opportunities
– There is an opportunity to work on the economic feasibility of
CCS with the other participants in the CarbonSAFE program.
– Learn different approaches to evaluating potential sites for large
scale CCS projects.
– Many of the industrial sources are along the Illinois-Indiana-
Kentucky border motivating further collaboration between state
research institutes
• This collaboration has resulted in the new CarbonSAFE Feasibility
Wabash project.
– National Risk Assessment Partnership (NRAP) Screening
24Project Summary
– This Pre-feasibilty CarbonSAFE Illinois East-subbasin
has met most of its deliverables and has resulted in the
funding of the Feasiblity Wabash CarbonSAFE project in
Indiana
– Continue work in the primary sub-basin on scaling-in
from regional screening toward site feasibility; continue
to evaluate the relative merits and/or risks of different
focal areas within the secondary study area.
25Appendix
– These slides will not be discussed during the presentation, but
are mandatory.
26Benefit to the Program Identifying geological storage sites suitable for storage of over 50 million tonnes of CO2 is essential for developing commercial-scale CCS projects to address greenhouse gas emissions from industrial sources. There are relatively few large carbon storage projects in deep saline reservoirs, and this gap in development knowledge will be addressed by the research in this project. Our work will address improving our storage capacity estimates to attain an industry standard of ±30% or better for investment decisions. The data from this study will be used within the NRAP Toolkits to move toward validating technologies to ensure storage permanence and to improve reservoir storage efficiency. The knowledge gained will contribute to best practice manuals about CCS technology and issues that will be of broad use to other sites and future 27 commercialization efforts.
Goals of Project
• Project will conduct a pre-feasibility assessment
for commercial-scale geologic carbon storage
(CO2) complexes in the East sub-basin of
Illinois.
• Address gaps in experience and knowledge
about scaling up from demonstration to
commercial-scale storage for more than 50
million tonnes of CO2 injection from one or more
industrial sources
28Organization Chart
Schlumberger is no
longer involved
29Gantt Chart
• Provide a simple Gantt chart showing project lifetime in years on
the horizontal axis and major tasks along the vertical axis. Use
symbols to indicate major and minor milestones. Use shaded
lines or the like to indicate duration of each task and the amount
of work completed to date.
30Bibliography
– Trabucchi, Chiara, 2018, Summary of Carbon Storage
Incentives and Potential Legislation: East Sub-Basin Project,
Task 3.1 Business and Financial Case Study: DOE Topical
Report Number DOE/FE002995-1, May 10,2018, 11 p.
– Patel, V., K. O’Brien, C. Korose, 2018, An Assessment of
Potential CO2 Sources throughout the Illinois Basin Subtask 5.1
CO2 Source Assessment, DOE Topical Report Number
DOE/FE0029445-2, May 9, 2018, 7p.
– Sexton, A. and R. McKaskle, 2018, Subtask 5.2 Transportation
and Infrastructure Assessment, DOE Topical Report Number
DOE/FE0029445-3, July 31, 2018, 10 p.
31You can also read
