Case study: a field survey inresponse to claims of CO2 leakage –Weyburn-Midale oilfield
Katherine Romanak
George William Sherk

CCS Technical Workshop • 24 January
January, 2013 • Tokyo,Tokyo Japan

Sponsor and Collaborators

News of a “Leak”
Leak at the Kerr Farm
January 11, 2010

IEAGHG Weyburn-MidaleW b
Mid l CO2
Monitoring and Storage Project

www.PTRC.ca

Rostron and Whittaker, Energy Procedia 4 (2011)
3636–3643
36363643• Largest geologic CO2
monitoring and storage
project• Since 2000 > 17 M tonnes ofCO2 injected• CO2-EOR operated byCenovus Energy• Studied by an internationalteam of CO2 storage experts• Managed by Petroleum
Technologygy Research Centre(PTRC)

Site Location
Area ofCO2injection

Kerr FarmWeyburn-Midale OilfieldKKerrFFarm History
Hi tAll
AllegeddLLandd Di
Disturbancest b

Industry and Government
Responsep• 1998: (Operator) Weyburn Pump andWater Conditioning, groundwater testreport• 2002 – 2005: (Operator) Farmwell
Inventoryy Project,jregional
ggroundwater analysis• 2004: (Operator) KBL Land Usepit water andConsultingg Ltd.,, gravel
gpsoil samples• 2005: (Operator) Enviro-Test Analyticalsoil sample• 2005: (Government) Saskatchewan
Health Provincial Laboratory, gravel
pit and domestic well water• 2006: (Operator) Aqua Terre Solutions
Inc., well and gravel pit water test

• 2006: (Landowner) MR2 McDonald &Associates, water quality investigation• 2007: (Landowner) Consultation withDr. Malcolm Wilson, Office of Energy &Environment, Universityy of Reginag• 2008: (Government) Ministry ofEnvironment – Review of studies• 2008: (Government) SRC Analytical
Laboratories, soil, water and air quality
monitoring• 2008: (Government) Droycon
Bioconcepts Inc., Bacteriologicalcontent of water• 2010-20112010 2011 (Landownder) Petro
Petro-FindFindGeochem Ltd. Soil gas surveys.

Petro-Find Conclusion“The...source of the highconcentrations of CO2 insoils of the Kerr pproperty
p y isclearly the anthropogenic
CO2 injected into theWeyburn reservoir.”Source: Lafleur, P. 2010. Geochemical Soil Gas
Survey: A Site Investigation of SW30-5-13-W2M
WeyburnyField, Saskatchewan. Saskatoon, SK:
Petro-Find Geochem Ltd.)

News of a “Leak”
Leak at the Kerr Farm
January 11, 2010

PetroleumPt lTechnologyT h lRResearchhCentre Response“Researchers, engineers, geologists and geophysicists
involved in the IEAGHG project have reviewed the PetroFind report and concluded that it does not support itsclaim ”
claim.
PTRC Response
Rtot Petro-Find
P t Fi d reporttwww.ptrc.ca

Investigations in Response toAllegation

Europeanuropean
Research TeamThe Operatorp

Independent
pstudyyI id t ResponseIncident
RProtocolP tlResponse
pto reportp of an unintentional release of a ggas or ggases associatedwith a specific CCS project.
1.
2.

Validate the allegation
Correspondence and document review• The operator of the CCS project• The provincial and federal governments• Other participants in the CCS project

If a release has occurred
3.
4.
5
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.

Tested at
Kerr site

Not tested
at Kerr site

Substances released and scope of the release
Release mechanisms
Time release was detected
Response to the release
Consequences of the release
Compliance with applicable industry performance standards/best practices
Conclusions and recommendations

Protocol Step 1- Validating theAllegation
Review of Allegations•

Site History, SW30-5-13-W2M Near Weyburn, Saskatchewan, Cameron
and Jane Kerr. Calgary, Alberta: 2010, Ecojustice.

•

Geochemical Soil Gas Survey: A Site Investigation of SW30-5-13-W2M
Weyburn Field, Saskatchewan. Saskatoon, SK: 2010, Petro-Find
Geochem Ltd.

•

Geochemical Soil Gas Survey: A Site Investigation of SW30-5-13-W2M,
Weyburn Field, Saskatchewan, Monitoring Project Number 2.
Saskatoon, SK: 2011, Petro-Find Geochem Ltd.

•Site-specific documentation

Protocol Step 1- Validating theAllegation
Vicinity history:• Chronology of events• Results of previous testing• Injection history (substances, depth,formations)• Land use history• Incidents in vicinity (e.g., hydrocarbon spills)( any)y)• Release historyy (ifP tProtocoll Step
St 11 Validating
V lid ti thethAllegation
Vicinity inspection to identify potential areas of releaseand monitoring sites:• Overview• ExistingE i ti wellsll• Pipelines• Injection sites• Endangered Species• Monitoring sitess tes• Study sites

Protocol Step 1- Validating theAllegation
Reconnaissance environmental surveyy
to choose appropriate technicalmethod• Direct
Di t methods
th d ((e.g., analysis
l i off
ground water, surface water, soil,soil-gas,
g , vegetation,g, mineralogy)gy)• Indirect methods (e.g.,geophysical modeling, seismicimaging, microseismic monitoring,electromagnetic surveys,land/surface deformation)

Protocol Step 1- Validating theAllegation
Detailed
eta ed fingerprinting
ge p t g oof aanomalies:o a es• Vertical and horizontal soil-gas gradients• Gas transport• Refinement of reconnaissance surveys asneededd d– Outcome of Step 1: Was there an
unintentional release of gas associated with a
specific CCS project?

Fingerprinting Gas Anomalies Identify a leakage signal
ffrombackgroundb kd noisei
 Soil CO2 is naturally
variable in space and time
 Injectedj((anthropogenic)
p g)
CO2 is chemicallygfromindistinguishable
natural CO2

CCurrentt Leakage
L kD
Detectiont ti
Approachpp
 Measure natural“background” CO2concentrations over years.
 CompareCanomalyl valueslwith background ranges.
 Statistical difference could
signal a release.
 Kerr Farm not in 2000
20002005 monitoring areas

Minard’sMinards Farm Control SiteMonitoring
GridKerr Farm

Challenges ofConcentration Based
Concentration-Based 1-3
1 3 years cannott capturettheth full
f ll variationi ti iin natural
t l CO2.
 Background measurements time, cost, and labor intensive.
 Leakage signals smaller than natural variability may beoverlooked BackgroundB kd concentrations
t ti
cannott beb measured
deverywhere within the area of review.
 An incident can occur in an area with no backgroundmonitoring.

P
Process-Based
BdS
Soilil G
Gas MMethodth d Does not relyy onbackground CO2
measurements
 Uses ratios among major
gases (CO2, CH4, N2, O2)
 Discerns processp
 In-situ from exogenous gas
 Mixing with air
 CO2 dissolution
 Oxidation of CH4 into CO2
 Important for CCUS
monitoring Being developed forgroundwater and marine
environments

V lid ti thValidating
the All
Allegationti Targeted approachbased oon Petrofind
et o danomaly 10 samplingp g locations
 Minimal number ofanalytesy Process-based
method with no needfor complex data sets
yor statistical analyses

Results

CO2 is from
biologic
respirationpwith
some dissolutionof CO2 intogroundwater
groundwater.

Methane oxidationis negligible

No input ofexogenous gas
from depth

L kLeakage
AllAllegationti Di
Discountedt d“In a media release,
Ecojustice lawyer Barry
Robinson, whorepresented the Kerrs,
accepted the IPAC-CO2
study’s findings whileemphasizing its necessity,
saying that “without a fullscale investigation, it hasbbeen
iimpossible
ibl untiltil now
to rule out CO2contamination.”

Summary The IPAC
IPAC-COCO2 Kerr investigation is a case study inincident response.
 Adopting an incident response plan in advance of aCCS project is beneficial for avoiding : Long-runninggg allegations,g Unqualified sources reaching incorrect conclusions
 Inaccurate information affecting public perception of CCS.

 Relatively simple tools for incident response areavailable
 A process based approach to fingerprinting anomalies iscost effective, accurate, relatively simple and can be usedin areas lacking background data.

M
MoreIInformation
fti

Romanak, K.
Romanak
K D.,
D Bennett,
Bennett P.
P C.,
C Yang,Yang C.,
C and Hovorka,
Hovorka S.
S D.,
D 2012
2012,
Process-based approach to CO2 leakage detection by vadose zone
gas monitoring at geologic CO2 storage sites: Geophysical Research
Letters, v. 39, L15405, doi:10.1029/2012GL052426.

Katherine Romanakkatherine.romanak@beg.utexas.edu+1 512 471 6136
http://www.ipacco2.com/projects/inve
stigations