Scaling up of Deep Saline Storage in Illinois:
From the Illinois Basin – Decatur Project to the Illinois Industrial
CCS project
Sallie E. Greenberg, Ph.D.
Energy Research & Development
University of Illinois – Illinois State Geological Survey
19 January 2017 – CCS Technical Workshop 2016 – Tokyo, Japan

Acknowledgements•

The Midwest Geological Sequestration Consortium is funded by the U.S.
Department of Energy through the National Energy Technology
Laboratory (NETL) via the Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership
Program (contract number DE-FC26-05NT42588) and by a cost shareagreement with the Illinois Department of Commerce and EconomicOpportunity, Office of Coal Development through the Illinois Clean CoalInstitute.

•The Midwest Geological Sequestration Consortium (MGSC) is acollaboration led by the geological surveys of Illinois, Indiana, and Kentucky.

•Landmark Graphics software via their University Donation Program andcost share plus Petrel software via Schlumberger Carbon Services.

Illinois Basin – Decatur Project Scope
A collaboration of the Midwest
Geological Sequestration
Consortium, the Archer Daniels
Midland Company (ADM),
Schlumberger Carbon Services,and other subcontractors
to inject 1 million metric tonsof anthropogenic carbon dioxide
at a depth of ~2,100 m to test
geological carbon sequestration
in a saline reservoir at a site inDecatur, IL• Prove injectivity and capacity• Demonstrate security ofinjection zone
• Contribution to bestpractices

Total Mt Simon Storage Capacity:
11 (E=0.4%) to 150 (E=5.5%) billion metric tons

CCS in Decatur, IL USA
Illinois Basin – Decatur Project

Illinois Industrial CCS Project• Large-scale demonstration• Industrial-scale••••

Volume: 1 million tonnes
Injection period: 3 years
Injection rate: 1,000 tonnes/dCompression capacity: 1,100tonnes/day• Status:– Post-injection monitoring••••

Volume: 5 million tonnes
Injection period: 3 years
Injection rate: 3,000 tons/dCompression capacity: 2,200
tonnes/day• Status:– Pre-injection monitoring,– Permission to injectpendingIBDP Goals and Objectives• Inject 1 million tonnes of CO2 from an industrial source in a deep
saline reservoir to demonstrate safety, effectiveness, and efficiency• Inject a large mass of CO2 of sufficient size to monitor geophysicallyand emulates larger volumes required for compression/dehydration,
injection well construction, and environmental monitoring, which can beextrapolated to commercial-scale operations• Establish a workflow for site characterization, permitting, drilling andcompletion, environmental monitoring, and outcome assessment that
informs stakeholders on regional, national, and global scales about carbon
storage and supports energy facility development• Develop and utilize an active geologic model that evolves as new data areacquired and incorporates advanced understanding of injected
CO2 and response of reservoir, seal, and subsurface fluids
6

ICCS Goals and Objectives• Inject 3-5 million tonnes of CO2 from an industrial source in a deep
saline reservoir to demonstrate commercial viability• Refine monitoring systems to challenge existing technology with advanced
monitoring systems to monitor stored CO2• Establish a regional-wide economic driver and delivery
system for captured CO2• Serve as a test bed for new technology• Reduce cost, increase efficiency

7

IBDP Wells andICCS wells at ADM
in Decatur, Illinois

VW2~800 meters

North

GM2
NSEC

CCS2
Class VI permit issued Sep 2014

Richland Community CollegeVW1
GM1CCS1Class VI permit issued Feb 2015

Key IBDP Project Elements
Fully integrated bioenergy carbon capture and storage (BECCS) project– Capture from biofuel source– Pipeline 1.9 km– Storage in deep saline reservoir at ~2,100m
Comprehensive monitoring, verification, and accounting (MVA) program for nearsurface and deep subsurface
Conducted in three phases:– Pre-injection: Site characterization, Infrastructure development, MVA baseline
establishment, Permitting, Social site characterization and stakeholder
engagement– Injection: Operational injection, site care, MVA monitoring, stakeholder
engagement– Post-injection: MVA monitoring, site care, geophysical research, knowledge
sharing, and publications
9800800mm
DIllinois Basin –Decatur Project Site

D

(on ADM industrial site)
ECCCA Dehydration/ compression
facility location
B Pipeline route (1.9 km)
C Injection well site
D Verification/ monitoring
well site
E Geophone well

BBBA

AA

Operational Injection:
17 November 2011
• IBDP is the first 1 million tonne
carbon capture and storage
project from a biofuel facility inthe US• Injection completed November
2014• Intensive post-injection
monitoring under MGSC
through 2017

Total Injection(26 November 2014 ):
999, 215 tonnes

Illinois Basin – Decatur Project Workflow§ Regional Characterization§ Site assessment§ Outreach and public engagement§ Permitting and building the IBDP test site
§ Collect and analyze key monitoring baseline data
§ Injection, monitoring, and modeling§ Post-injection monitoring, modeling, and analysis§ Research collaborations, knowledge sharing§ Compliance monitoring period
CompletedOn-going

Current activities

Upcoming activities

Development of a CCS Project

Stakeholder Engagement
Permitting
2007

2003 to 2011

2011 to 2014

Development of a CCS Project

Stakeholder Engagement
Permitting

2013

2011 to 20142014 to 2024

Successful Stakeholder Engagement
Groundbreaking effort, helped set
global standards and establish bestpractices• Began engagement early• Made engagement a priority• Integrated engagement into all
aspects of project management• Made sufficient investment intime and resources• Sought to understand andconsult community• Created, evaluated, and refinedcommunications plan
• Monitored and adapted asneededResearch Questions & Answers for Science & Society§ How do you know the CO2 is staying where you put it?
§ What happens in the event of earthquakes?
§ Induced seismicity§ Fracture and catastrophic release of stored CO2§ Where does formation water go when CO2 is injected?
§ Increased pressure§ Does CO2 injection fracture rocks during injection?
§ What are long-term implications of project?
§ Who is liable if something goes wrong with the project?
§ How do you know it is safe?

IBDP Risk Assessment and Project Uncertainties

Initial Risk
Assessment

Research andOperational
Activities

Interim Risk
Assessment

Communication,Education, andEngagement

Communication Plan & Implement
2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2008 Pre-Injection•••••

Identify FEP’s andScenarios
Geologic Uncertainty
Operational Uncertainty
Regulatory Uncertainty
Social Uncertainty

RevisitCommunicationand CrisisManagement,Risk
Communication

Communication and Crisis Management
2013

2014

2015

2013 Update••••••••

Complete
Injection &Post-Injection
Monitoring

New/Update FEP’s andScenarios
Risk Treatments
Regulatory Uncertainty
Change in Scope
Long-term Funding
Knowledge Sharing
Complacency Potential
Institutional Memory Loss2016

2017

2016 Post-Injection Updates•••

New/Update Risks
Risk Treatments
Annual Review•••

Government changes
Well integrity
FundingPermitting of wells for two projects provides precedent forfuture projects§ Permitting has been rate-limiting step for bothprojects§ Permits for IBDP Post-injection Site Care and ICCS
injection + Post-injection tied together§ Project expansion due to delay in injection start§ Example:
§§
§§
§
§

ICCS application submitted:
25 Jul 2011
Draft permit issued:
4 Apr 2014
Public hearing conducted:
21 May 2014
Public comment period ended: 31 May 2014
Final permit issued
28 Dec 2014
Permission to inject:
Expected Jan to Apr 2017

Project Timeline and Scope

2018-2020

Compliance
Monitoring

19

Post-Injection Activities• 3D Surface Seismic Survey – January 2015
• Post-injection VSP, permit interim period – January 2015
– Working to improve comparisons between repeat VSPs
• Post-injection near surface monitoring– Moving from injection monitoring to reduced program• Recompletion of VW1 deep monitoring well
• Knowledge and data sharing best practices– Publications– National and international research collaborations– Collective and teaching data sets
– Workshops

IL-ICCSMonitoringSummary• Injection wells (2)• Verification wells (2)• Geophysical wells (2)• Compliance wells (4)• Research wells (24)• Soil gas points (35)
• Soil flux points (145)• Eddy covariance station

IBDP

(1)

• Continuous GPS station(1)

0.5 miles
North

800 meters• InSAR artificial reflectors(21)

IBDP Monitoring Activity Summary
Monitoring Activity

Freq.

Pre-injection

Subsurface

Near-Surface

Surface

2008
Aerial imagery

SA

Eddy covariance

C

Soil flux - network

W-Q

Soil flux - multiplexer

C

Tunable diode laser- single pathC

Tunable diode laser- multi path

CInSAR

BW

Continuous GPSC

Soil gas sampling

Q-A

Shallow groundwater sampling

M-Q-SA

Shallow electrical earth resistivity

A

Pressure/temp. - VW1 and CCS1

C

Pulsed neutron (CCS1, VW1)

Q-A

Deep fluid sampling (VW1)SA

Passive seismic monitoring (GM1)

CSeismic/3D VSP imaging
Mechanical integrity (CCS1, VW1)

Injection

Post-Injection

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx→

xxxxxxxxxx→

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

SA-Axxxxxxx→

Axxxxxxxxxxxxxx→xxxxxxxxx→Red text = USEPA UIC Class VI required permit for an IBDP well (GM1, VW1, CCS1), x = planned, → = permit activity required beyond 2020;
Purple text = on-going MGSC, not permit required
Abbreviations: C = Continuous, W = Weekly, BW = Biweekly, M = Monthly, Q = Quarterly, SA = Semi-Annually, A = Annually,

Site Characterization
•••
•
•
•

Successive collection of available and new data to build comprehensive
understanding of site
Conduct 2D, 3D, and 4D seismic surveys
Plan and drill wells
Integrative data acquisition
Precambrian structureCore description and analysis
Depositional environments

SITE

5.5 kmMount Simon Depositional Analogue: Brahmaputra River System

Mudstone Baffle Between Injection Zones
VW1

1 mm
Zone 5ICCS Injection
Zone

6,863-6,863.25

Porosity: 1.5%
Kv: <0.01 mD
Kh: 4.13 mD in siltstone laminae
10 cmBaffle

IBDP Injection
1 mm
Zone

VW1 Pulsed Neutron Logging
RST Monitoring Mar 2011 andNov 2015
•CO2 arrival before Mar2012•CO2 saturation increasing
though Nov 2015•

CO2 above the “LPS” isuncertain26

Pressure Response in VW1 Monitoring Well

Deep Monitoring Well - VW1 Westbay Completion

Recompletion of VW1 Monitoring Well••••Option 1 – Retain Westbay
Option 2 – Schlumberger IntelliZone
Option 3 – Baker Hughes Intelligent
Option 4 – Drill new well

Two Fluid Sampling and Four Pressure Zones

Modeling Workflow
SeismicLogs
Core

StaticModel

Structure
Porosity
Perm

IterateInitial Conditions

Historical Data

Forecast Scenarios

Pressure
Saturation
FluidPropsRel Perm

Rates,
pressure,
saturation

Rateschedules,
completions

Initialize

InitialCondition

HistoryMatchCalibrated
Model

Forecast

Targets/Objectives
Regulations
Operations
Economics

Predicted
Saturation
Pressure

Flow Model (ECLIPSE 300)
Pressure

Pressure

Structure

Evaluate

Geomechanical Model (VISAGE)
3D MEM
Structure
Elastic Moduli
Features

1D
MEMS
Seismic

Initialize

Pressure,Stresses,FeatureStrengths

InitialCondition

History
Match

ObsDeformation,
microseismic

Calibrated
Model

Forecast
Predicted
Deformation,
Cap rock,failurewellbore,
Inducedseismicity
risk

Reservoir Model and Plume Forecasting
Pre-CCS1 Drill & Pre-injection

Six different model andplume forecast summaries
conducted after majordata sources collected andimportant project
milestones• Successive drilling andlogging of new wells• Core analysis andsampling data
• New seismic dataacquisition• Improvements in seismicprocessing• EPA requests for plumeforecasting updates

Post-CCS1 Drill &Pre-injection

Post-CCS1 & VW1 Drill &Post-CCS1 injectionExtent of Plume & Saturation Cross Section
January 1, 2013 (year 1)••••

Incremental update toprevious version
Created to update CCS2Class VI plume forecasts
Used final CCS2
perforation scheme
Assumed CCS2 commence
injection Jan 1 2015 at endof CCS1 injection)

Cross Section Orientation

DPif > 86 psi
SCO2 > 1.0%

N-NE

S-SW

Eau Claire

Mt Simon C, D, E

Mt Simon A, B
Mudstone
Pre-Mt Simon

Lower Mt Simon A

Extent of Plume & Saturation Cross Section
January 1, 2015 (year 3, end of CCS1 injection)
Cross Section Orientation

DPif > 86 psi
SCO2 > 1.0%

N-NE

S-SW

Eau Claire

Mt Simon C, D, E

Mt Simon A, B
Mudstone
Pre-Mt Simon

Lower Mt Simon A

Extent of Plume & Saturation Cross Section
January 1, 2020 (year 8, end of CCS2 injection)
Cross Section Orientation

DPif > 86 psi
SCO2 > 1.0%

N-NE

S-SW

Eau Claire

Mt Simon C, D, E

Mt Simon A, B
Mudstone
Pre-Mt SimonLower Mt Simon A

3D Reservoir Simulation Estimates of CO2 Saturation
at Time of 2015 Monitor Survey
CCS1

VW1

CCS1

VW1

1%, 20%, and 40% CO2 Saturation Cut-Off Visualization Filters, respectively

CCS1

VW1

Co-visualization of reservoir simulation results with time-lapse seismic attributes
informs estimates of the seismic detection limit.
Simulated Net CO2 Saturation (integrated Sg x thickness)

Outline of plume as defined by 1 % CO2 saturation cut-off

Measured 3D time-lapse
displacement geobody.

Simulated Net CO2Saturation (integratedSg x thickness)
contours.

Intelligent Monitoring System (IMS)
Program Objectives- Develop and validate software tools that advance CCS-specific IMS by-enabling access, integration and analysis of real-time surface andsubsurface data for decision-making and automation of process
Demonstrate integration of system components to validate feasibility ofreal-world application to CCS.

Project Team Members

Testbed for Existing vs. New Technology
Conventional Seismic

DAS Seismic• Seismic surveys are considered the backbone technique for CO2 storage
monitoring programs.
• Stringing thousands of cables and running thumper trucks every few years cantest the limits of good neighbors. Costs are high.
• Permanent reservoir monitoring offers a way to obtain higher quality
information with minimal intrusion into surrounding lands –• DAS provides high spatial and temporal resolution.
• Installation can be in horizontal directionally drilled boreholes beneath bodies
of water, existing infrastructure.
• Excitation of DAS cables can be achieved through permanent fixed rotarysources for continuous monitoring.

Microseismic Activity at the Illinois Basin – Decatur Project••••

Observed Microseismicity
associated with injection
Location critical tounderstanding reservoir
response
Original correlation
between cluster
development andpressure front under
examination
ICCS created stoplight
map to mitigate potential
associated risks from felt
eventsBy the numbers:
A million tonnes stored and…
More than 5,100 meters of wells have been drilled
More than 245 meters of core have been collected
Near-surface groundwater monitoring efforts haveresulted in more than 50,000 analysesFor basin-scale modeling, we will use 1,020,000 CPUhours of XSEDE supercomputing resources.
More than 700 visitors from 29 countries havebeen to IBDP
More than 100 people at least 10 organizations
have worked together to make this project a success

XSEDE is an NSF-sponsoredsupercomputer network

Lessons Learned from IBDP
Advanced technology deployment has associated risk. Technology choices
can significantly impact long-term project operations• Despite the challenges with the Westbay installation, highly relevant
experience has been gained and a high quality fluid chemistry data set has
been acquired• Successful projects require significant resources to accomplish objectives• Degree of risk could be different depending on nature of project (research,industrial, commercial)• Community engagement requires dedicated personnel, continual
monitoring, and significant time to build trust and provide information•

Lessons Learned from IBDP
• Processes such as induced microseismicity may require increased spatial model
discretization for specialized dynamic process modeling• CO2 plume geometry may require fine vertical discretization to history matchsaturation observations• Microseismic baseline activities need to be monitored prior to injection, during
injection, and post-injection to fully understand reservoir response and residual
stress• Monitoring efforts and information should undergo periodic project-wide reviews.
External reviews may also be beneficial• Knowledge of key reservoir characteristics evolves with additional data and site
specific experience. Modeling workflows should account for rapid iteration withsystematic improvement

Conclusions• Carbon capture and storage from biofuel sources in deep saline
reservoirs can be conducted safely• Research and scale-up demonstration projects can lead directly
to industrial-scale or commercial-scale projects• The Mt. Simon Sandstone is a viable and important deep salinestorage resource for the US• Establishment of an MVA baseline is critical to characterize site
and reduce project risk, but needs to be revisited on a regular basis• Permitting can be time intensive and should not be
underestimated as a potential project risk
• Economy of scale learnings essential to commercial CCS
deployment