GLOBAL CLIMATE AND ENERGY PROJECT | STANFORD UNIVERSITY

Monitoring Performance ofGeological Storage Projects

RITE/METI CCS Workshop: Ensuring Safety Towards Public Acceptance| Tokyo, Japan

Sally Benson
Director, Global Climate and Energy Project
Stanford University
January 18, 2012
GLOBAL CHALLENGES – GLOBAL SOLUTIONS – GLOBAL OPPORTUNITIESOutline• Purposes for monitoring• Monitoring options and examples• Project lifecycle and monitoring packages

Purposes for Monitoring

Parameters

Health,Health,Safety,Safety,andandEnvironmental
EnvironmentalProtection
Protection••ProtectProtectworker
workerandandpublicpublichealthhealthandandsafety
safety••Groundwater
Groundwaterprotection
protection••Ecosystem
Ecosystemprotection
protection••Seismic
Seismichazards
hazards

CO2 concentrations
Groundwater quality
Microseismic activity

Emission
EmissionReduction
ReductionCompliance
Complianceand
andCredits
Credits••Verification
Verificationof
ofnational
nationalinventories
inventories••CarbonCarboncredit
credittrading
trading
Project
ProjectConformance
Conformanceand
andOptimization
Optimization••ModelModelcalibration
calibrationand
andhistory
historymatching
matching••Performance
Performanceassessment
assessment••Storage
Storageengineeringengineeringand
andoptimization
optimization••Remediation
Remediationplanningplanningand
andassessment
assessmentCOCO22releases
releases(fluxes)(fluxes)

Location
Location
ofof thethe CO
CO22 plume
plume
Pressure
Pressure buildup
buildup

Strategy: Sequestration Reservoir
Methods
Atmosphere

•

––––

Terrestrial Ecosystem CO2
Vadose Zone
Groundwater Aquifer

Geophysical methods•••

Seismic
Electrical
Gravity
Tilt

Reservoir pressure
Well logs
Fluid sampling

Benefits•
Secondary Seal•
Saline Formation
Primary Seal
Storage
CO2Reservoir
Plume

On-shore Storage•

History match to calibrate
and validate models
Document project
conformance
Early warning of leakage

Drawbacks••

Mass balance difficult tomonitor
Dissolved and mineralized
CO2 difficult to detect

Seismic Monitoring Options
Surface Seismic
2-D, 3-D, and 4D

Vertical Seismic Profile (VSP)
Well

CO2Cross-Well Tomography

Seismic Monitoring Data from Sleipner

From Chadwick et al., GHGT-9, 2008.

Frio Formation: Vertical Seismic Profile Data

Two-way travel time

1,600 tonnes CO2Control
Reflection
CO2
Reflection

Pre Injection

Post Injection
Data from Tom Daley, LBNL

Frio Formation: Cross-well Seismic Data
01505

Offset (m)Depth (m)G.L. Depth (ft)‘B’ Sa ndoTop1530

30fSa
‘C’nd

CO2 Plume

1550
InjectionWell

Monitoring
Well

An Alternative Approach:
Real-Time Seismic Monitoring
Receiver Well
Source Well

Receiver Well

Plume

Plume

Proof of Concept:
Real-Time Seismic Monitoring
Injection Well Observation Well
1620
1630

Depth (m)

1640
1650
1660

Shalerepp
U

1670

andBlue S

1680
SourceSensorPackerPerforations
Daley, et al, Geophysics, in press.

Real-Time CO2 Tracking
Cross Well Data Match

1650

1200

2.4 days

Top Seal

1655
800

Depth (m)Delta t (ms)

1000

600

1.4 days

1660

400

1665

200

0.6 days

0.2 days

Bottom Seal

00.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

1670

time (days)
1650
1680
1676 Measured

1658
1650 Measured
1680 Measured

1666
1658 Measured

1676
1666 Measured

01020Distance (m)30Multi-Level Pressure MonitoringReservoir Architecture and CO2 Buoyancy Yield
Unique Pressure Signatures

Strategy: Secondary Accumulations
Methods
Atmosphere•–––––

Terrestrial Ecosystem CO2
Vadose Zone
Groundwater Aquifer

Secondary Seal•••

Storage
CO2Reservoir
Plume

On-shore Storage

SeismicElectricalSPGravity
Tilt

Formation pressure
Well logs (e.g. RST)
Fluid sampling

Benefits•

Saline Formation
Primary Seal

Geophysical methods•Sensitivity to small
secondary accumulations(~103 tonnes) and leakage
rates
Early warning of leakage

Drawbacks••

Detection difficult if secondary
accumulations do not occur
Dissolved and mineralized CO2
difficult to detectSensitivity of Seismic Methods
Detection Limits at Reservoir Depth
Myer et al, 2002: 10,000 tonnes
Chadwich et al.: Sleipner, 2,500 tonnes
White el al., 2004: Weyburn, 2,500 tonnes
Daley et al., 2005: Frio Formation, 1,600 tonnes-500Depth (m)Conceptual
Model-750

10,000 t
5,000 t1,000 t-1000-1500
05001000

Plume Radius (m)Pressure Monitoring
Monitoring Well
Drinking Water Aquifer

Caprock
Monitoring Formation
Caprock
Brine
Displacement

Storage Reservoir

CO2CO2CO2

CO2CO2

CO2Not to scale.

Base Study: No Leakage Path
Monitoring Zone

* No CO2 Leakage into Monitoring Zone *CO2 Plume in Storage Zone

CO2Saturation

Leakage Up a Fault
Secondary CO2 Plume inMonitoring Zone

CO2 Leakage Path up Fault

CO2 Plume in Storage Zone

CO2Saturation

Leakage Up a Well
Secondary CO2 Plume in
Monitoring Zone

CO2 Leakage Path up Well

CO2 Plume in Storage Zone

CO2Saturation

Leakage Detectable Within a Year Based onPressure Changes

Excellent Seal
1000
1000

p(psi)100
100

Fault Leakage

1010
Well Leakage

11
0.10.1
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01

0.1
0.1

11time (years)

Time (years)

1010

100100Strategy: Groundwater
AtmosphereMethods
•

–––––

Terrestrial Ecosystem CO2
Vadose Zone
Groundwater Aquifer

Secondary Seal•••Seismic
ElectricalSP
Gravity
Tilt

Formation pressure
Well logs
Fluid sampling

Benefits•Saline Formation•

Primary Seal•

Storage
CO2Reservoir
Plume

Geophysical methods

Sensitivity to small secondary
accumulations (~102-103 tonnes)
and leakage rates
More monitoring methods
available
Detection of dissolved CO2 lesscostly with shallow wells

Drawbacks•

On-shore Storage•

Detection after significant leakage
has occurred
Detection after potential groundwater
impacts have occurredStrategy: Vadose Zone
AtmosphereMethods•

Terrestrial Ecosystem CO2Vadose Zone••Groundwater Aquifer

Geophysical methods– Electrical
Soil gas and vadose zone
sampling
Vegetative stressBenefits•

High concentrations of CO2 occur
with small leaks
Early detection could trigger
remediation to avoid atmosphericemissions

Secondary Seal•

Saline Formation

Drawbacks

Primary Seal
Storage
CO2Reservoir
Plume

On-shore Storage•••

Significant effort for null result
Detection only after some seepage isimminent
Detection after potential
ecosystem impacts have occurredStrategy: Atmosphere
Methods
Atmosphere

Vadose Zone••••

Groundwater Aquifer•

Terrestrial Ecosystem CO2Benefits•

Secondary Seal•
Saline Formation
Primary Seal

Direct measurement ofseepage
Detection, location andquantification of seepage flux

Drawbacks•Storage
CO2Reservoir
Plume

On-shore Storage

Eddy covariance
Flux accumulation chamber
Mobile CO2 measurements
Soil gas and vadose zone flux
monitoring
Optical methods (lidar)•Distinguishing storage related
fluxes from natural ecosystem andindustrial sources necessitatescomprehensive monitoring
Significant effort for null result

Surface Monitoring
Detection Verification Facility(ZERT Experimental Facility)

FluxTower

80 m

Field Site
Horizontal
Injection Well

Hyperspectral
Imaging ofVegetation

Soil Gas
Flow Controllers

Flux accumulation chamberFluxaccumulationchamber datafrom Jennifer
Lewicki, LBNL,
2007

Eddy flux tower
data, Jennifer
Lewicki, LBNL,
2007

ZERT Detection Verification Facility
100 kg/day release

36 tonnes/year

300 kg/day release

110 tonnes/year

Both releases weredetectable andquantifiable using one ormore methods

Detection Challenge
Large Fluctuations in
Background CO2 Fluxes
3000

2Large Plume Footprint

 g/m /s

2000

Willow Creek

1000
0-1000-2000~ 100 km2

060120180240300360

Time (days)

Courtesy of Ken Davis and Paul Bolstad
3001002 g/m /s

Small Leakage Footprint< 1 km2 ?

-100-300

What if you don’t know where
the leak is?

-500
150

Barrow Island
180

210

240

Time (days)

Courtesy of Walter Oechel

C Isotopic Signatures• Natural gas ~ -45 o/oo (parts per thousand)• Coal ~ -30 o/oo (parts per thousand)• Ecosystem fluxes (-25 o/oo (parts per thousand)• Air ~ -8 o/oo (parts per thousand)Isotopes provide built-in natural tracers for leakage.

CO2 and 13C Isotopic Anomalies
for Monitoring Leakage

High precision isotopic 12CO2 and13CO analyzer:
2Picarro Instruments cavity ring
down spectrometer
Krevor et al., 2011 , International Journal ofGreenhouse Gas Control Technology

Raw 12CO2 and 13CO2 DataKrevor et al., 2010, International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control Technology

Keeling Plots forSource Attribution

Leakage Detection and Source Term
Characterization
Leak Rate = 200 kg/day (73 tonnes/year!)

From Krevor et al., 2010, International Journal ofGreenhouse Gas Control Technology

Life Cycle of a Storage Projectand Monitoring Packages
Pre-operation
Phase• Sitecharacterization• Riskassessment• Establish
monitoringbaseline

05Operation
Phase

ClosurePhase• CO2 injection stops• Surface facilities andinjection rates• Surface facilities
monitoredremoved; wells• Ensure safe
abandonedoperations• Confirm long-term• Assure projectsecurity of storage
complianceproject• Monitor project
conformance• Detect leakage andprevent environmental
impacts

35

Post-closure
Phase• Completed
records given
to regulatory
authorities• Monitoringneeded only iflong term
storagesecurity notestablished45 - ?

Approximate Time-Line (Years)

Two Critical and Complementary Components ofa Monitoring Program

Seal

Seal

Track Location of
Separate Phase CO2 in
the Storage System

Detect and Quantify Releases• Secondary Accumulations• Pressure increases• Surface Fluxes

CO2 Detection Levels Needed for Emission
Reduction Compliance and Credits
Typical Project: 50 years x 5 Mt/year = 250 Mt
Leakage Detection Threshold

Corresponding Retention
Rate Over 1,000 Years

2,500 t/yr

99%

5,000 t/yr

98%

10,000 t/yr

96%

25,000 t/yr

90%

Release/Leak Monitoring StrategyDetect

LocateQuantify

Level of Effort• Release/leakage monitoring program should be
optimized to detect leakage• Monitoring focused on precisely locating andquantifying leaks should only be initiated if releases
are detected.

Components of the Basic and Enhanced
Monitoring Programs
Basic Monitoring Program

Preoperational
Monitoring

Operational
Monitoring

ClosureMonitoring

Additional Measurements forEnhanced Monitoring Program• Well logs
• Wellhead pressure• Formation pressure• Injection and production rate testing• Seismic survey• Microseismic background survey• Atmospheric CO2 monitoring• Baseline groundwater quality
sampling• Pressure and water quality above thestorage formation• Gravity survey• Electromagnetic survey• CO2 flux monitoring• Wellhead pressure• Injection and production rates• Wellhead atmospheric CO2 monitoring• Microseismicity• Seismic surveys• Well logs
• Pressure and water quality above thestorage formation• Gravity and electromagnetic surveys• CO2 flux monitoring• Satellite land-surface deformation or tilt

• Seismic surveys• Pressure monitoring until
equilibration is reached• Pressure and water quality above thestorage formation• Gravity and electromagnetic surveys• CO2 flux monitoringTowards Implementation: Monitoring
Performance• Monitoring serves several important purposes– Health, Safety, and Environmental Protection– Emission Reduction Compliance and Credits– Project Conformance and Optimization• Each has unique requirements and goals– Detection thresholds should be established– Monitoring selections should be fit for purpose• Combination of plume tracking and release/leak detection
is most efficient meeting compliance and conformanceassurance– Plume tracking: Monitor location of the separate phase CO2 plume– Release/leaks: Detect > Locate > Quantify• Many technology options are available today– Plume tracking: seismic imaging– Release/leak detection: seismic imaging and pressure monitoring

Backup SlidesAnomalous Vertical Flows Due to Buoyancy
Cause Pressure Deviations

Leakage Up a Fault
PERMEABLEMONITORING FORMATION

100 mdMonitoring
Intervalhm

R = 1 km

INJECTIONWELL

LOW‐PERMEABILITYCAPROCKLEAKY FAULT
PLANE

1 d and 10 ndhc

R = 1.5 km
BRINE DISPLACEMENT /POTENTIAL CO2 LEAKAGE

100 mdCO2Brine

CO2Q

PERMEABLE
STORAGE RESERVOIRBrinehs

Leakage Up a Well
PERMEABLEMONITORING FORMATION

Monitoring
Intervalhm

R = 1 km

INJECTION
WELL

LOW‐PERMEABILITYCAPROCKLEAKY WELL
COLUMNhc

R = 1.5 km
BRINE DISPLACEMENT /POTENTIAL CO2 LEAKAGE

CO2Brine

CO2Q

PERMEABLE
STORAGE RESERVOIRBrinehsPressure Derivative Comparison
Moderate Seal
100Fault Leakage•t*(ΔP/Δt)
(psi)

10

•10.1

•
Well Leakage

No CO2 Leakage ‐Brine Displacement

Early‐time response throughwell/fault
Late‐time dominance by brine
displacement through cap rock
CO2 presence is notable inderivative curve (fault only)

0.01
0.01

0.1

1

10

100

Excellent Sealtime (years)
100

Early‐time response throughwell/fault• Nominal brine displacement
effect• CO2 presence is notable inderivative curve (fault & well)

10t*(ΔP/Δt)(psi)•Fault Leakage

10.1

Well Leakage

0.01
0.01

0.1

No CO2 Leakage ‐Brine Displacement
1time (years)

10100

Detection Ability• Increases with:– Small footprint of the leak (<10% of the footprint of theplume)– Long time series and evaluation of cumulative fluxes– Monitoring devices with a footprint ~ size of the leak
– Extensive spatial coverage– Tracers (e.g. isotopes)x x xx xx xxxxx xxx xxx x x xx x
xxxxx xxx x x xxxx xxxxxxx xx xxxx xxx

Scaling Up Isotopic MonitoringSensitivity of Pressure Monitoring
Well
Casingxx

ltu
Fax

x
Injection
TubingInjection
wells

1 km

Abandoned
wells

Packerx 1 kmx

Pressure
Transducerx

For favorable permeability-thickness product:
measurable pressure increases within a year.

CO2

CO2

CO2

CO2

Injection/Monitoring Well