Subsurface monitoring aspects of CO2

storage in a saline aquifer

Peter Rowbotham, Steve Furnival, Craig Webster, Iulia Wright,
Alastair Brown (AGR TRACS), Rohan De Silva (NGC)

The Don Valley CCS Project is co-financed by the European Union’s European Energy Programme for Recovery
The sole responsibility of this publication lies with the author.
The European Union is not responsible for any use that may be made of the information contained therein.
Overview
 “5/42” store characterisation & modelling
 Aspects of MMV (measurement monitoring and verification)
 Need to demonstrate that the injected CO2 is contained
within the geological store during and after injection
 4D seismic feasibility
 Microseismic feasibility
 Conclusions

The Don Valley CCS Project is co-financed by the European Union’s European Energy Programme for Recovery
The sole responsibility of this publication lies with the author.
The European Union is not responsible for any use that may be made of the information contained therein.
2
CCS Infrastructure: Yorkshire & Humber

The Don Valley CCS Project is co-financed by the European Union’s European Energy Programme for Recovery
The sole responsibility of this publication lies with the author.
The European Union is not responsible for any use that may be made of the information contained therein.
Characterisation of 5/42
 2010-12 Regional screening studies
 2012-15 Detailed characterisation of 5/42
 2013 NGC drilled & tested UK’s first dedicated Carbon Capture
& Storage appraisal well, 42/25d-3 funded by EEPR & ETI
 Extensive log, core and testing programme – DEVEX 2014

The Don Valley CCS Project is co-financed by the European Union’s European Energy Programme for Recovery
The sole responsibility of this publication lies with the author.
The European Union is not responsible for any use that may be made of the information contained therein.
4
 5/42 Top Bunter Depth Surface

200 – 250 m thick

>1000 m deep

Phi – 15-25%
K – 10-1000mD

Massive saline aquifer in Bunter Sandstone of UK SNS

The Don Valley CCS Project is co-financed by the European Union’s European Energy Programme for Recovery
The sole responsibility of this publication lies with the author.
The European Union is not responsible for any use that may be made of the information contained therein.
5
The Don Valley CCS Project is co-financed by the European Union’s European Energy Programme for Recovery
The sole responsibility of this publication lies with the author.
The European Union is not responsible for any use that may be made of the information contained therein.

Data Acquisition in 42/25d-3

(presented at DEVEX 2014)

The most comprehensive

data gathering program
in a UK well for years

6
 Modelling of 5/42
Stratigraphy Reservoir/Seal
Thickness
Plan for First Load is injection
0-300m
Top Lias
of 2.68 Mt/yr for 20 years.
Lias
Seal provided by Reservoir models predict
Haisborough Gp CO2 moves to structural crest
Top Triassic
Haisborough Group
Keuper Anhydrite Seal
halites / shales
Haisborough

800m
Top Dudgeon Formation
Group

Top Dowsing Formation

Muschelkalk Halite

Dowsing Shale

Seal
Rot Halite
Rot Clay 117m
~ 1000m depth

Bunter Sandstone Reservoir

274m

Injection downdip
Bacton
Group

within Bunter
Bunter Shale

Seal
Sandstone
1700m

Zechstein Halite

The Don Valley CCS Project is co-financed by the European Union’s European Energy Programme for Recovery
The sole responsibility of this publication lies with the author.
The European Union is not responsible for any use that may be made of the information contained therein.
7
Overview
 “5/42” store characterisation & modelling
 Aspects of MMV (measurement monitoring and verification)
 4D seismic feasibility
 Microseismic feasibility
 Conclusions

The Don Valley CCS Project is co-financed by the European Union’s European Energy Programme for Recovery
The sole responsibility of this publication lies with the author.
The European Union is not responsible for any use that may be made of the information contained therein.
8
MMV objectives
 Need to demonstrate through monitoring that the
injected CO2 is contained within the geological store
during and after injection
 Comparison of actual vs modelled CO2 plume migration
 Verification of well and reservoir integrity

 Metering of injected CO2 & permanent in-well

monitoring (e.g. pressure, temperature) for injectivity
 Campaigns of geophysical monitoring, well logging
The Don Valley CCS Project is co-financed by the European Union’s European Energy Programme for Recovery
The sole responsibility of this publication lies with the author.
The European Union is not responsible for any use that may be made of the information contained therein.
9
 Monitoring technologies screening
Reliability, cost and benefit

Maintenance /
Baseline Cost
Installation /
Technology

Repeat Cost
Purpose

Reliability
Technology Used For

Benefit
Reliable
2D Time Lapse Survey Plume migration
Cheap
Swath Time Lapse Survey Plume migration Meaningful
3D Time Lapse Survey Plume migration
Vertical Seismic Profiling Limited application Not considered ‘Reasonably’
Micro Seismic – Sea Bed Integrity
Cross Well Seismic Limited application Not considered
Remote Magneto-Telluric Limited application Not considered
CSEM Limited application Not considered
sensing Gravity – Sea Bed Plume migration ‘Issues’
Autonomous Underwater Vehicle Integrity
Landers (Sea Bed Monitoring) Integrity
Well / Production Logging Integrity
Wellhead Pressure Injection rate / integrity

Wells
Wellhead Temperature Injection rate / integrity Poor reliability
Surface Volumetric Flow Rate Injection rate
Downhole Pressure Gauges Injection rate / integrity
Expensive
Eurovision lights
Little benefit
Downhole Temperature Gauges Injection rate / integrity
Distributed Temperature Sensing Injection profile
in Vienna
Distributed Acoustic Sensing Integrity
Downhole Flow Monitoring Injection rate
In-Well Micro Seismic Integrity
In-Well Gravity Limited application Not considered
The Don Valley CCS Project is co-financed by the European Union’s European Energy Programme for Recovery
The sole responsibility of this publication lies with the author.
The European Union is not responsible for any use that may be made of the information contained therein.
10
 The Don Valley CCS Project is co-financed by the European Union’s European Energy Programme for Recovery
The sole responsibility of this publication lies with the author.
The European Union is not responsible for any use that may be made of the information contained therein.

4D seismic feasibility through modelling

Static/dynamic reservoir model
Por NTG Sat1 Sat2

Press1 Press2 PEM 1. Used log-derived regressions and

Gassmann equations to compute Porosity/
Petro-Elastic Model NTG/Saturation changes to elastic properties

PEM 2. Laboratory acoustic travel time

testing, cycling over pore pressure to derive
pressure change effects on elastic properties

Vp/Vs/Rho1 Vp/Vs/Rho2

Syn1 Syn2

Syn(2-1) 11
 4D seismic feasibility – Pressure change effects

PEM 2. Laboratory acoustic travel time testing, cycling over pore

pressure to derive pressure change effects on elastic properties
28.5

28

27.5

27

Bulk Modulus (GPa)

26.5

26
K(p) GPa
25.5
Sample 21
25 Sample E16

24.5

24

23.5

23
-100.00 -50.00 0.00 50.00 100.00
Effective Stress (bar)

14.0

13.5

13.0

12.5

Shear Modulus (GPa)

FracTech Laboratories 12.0

11.5 Mu(p) Gpa

Sample 21
11.0
Sample E16
10.5
42/25d-3 core plugs
10.0

9.5

The Don Valley CCS Project is co-financed by the European Union’s European Energy Programme for Recovery 9.0
The sole responsibility of this publication lies with the author.
The European Union is not responsible for any use that may be made of the information contained therein.
-100.00 -50.00 0.00
Effective Stress (bar)
50.00 100.00
12
 The Don Valley CCS Project is co-financed by the European Union’s European Energy Programme for Recovery
The sole responsibility of this publication lies with the author.
The European Union is not responsible for any use that may be made of the information contained therein.

4D seismic feasibility
Can AVO separate out pressure & saturation effects?
Static/dynamic reservoir model ↑Press
GI
Por NTG Sat1 Sat2

Press1 Press2
EEI sensitivity to ↑CO2
Pressure/Saturation χ
Petro-Elastic Model from logs AI
EEI_S=AI(cosχ) + GI(sinχ)

EEI_S1 EEI_S2 EEI_P1 EEI_P2

Vp/Vs/Rho1 Vp/Vs/Rho2

Syn1 Syn2

Syn(2-1) Syn_EEI_S(2-1) Syn_EEI_P(2-1) 13

4D dynamic modelling – Saturation and Pressure

Saturation Pressure

The Don Valley CCS Project is co-financed by the European Union’s European Energy Programme for Recovery
The sole responsibility of this publication lies with the author.
The European Union is not responsible for any use that may be made of the information contained therein.
14
 The Don Valley CCS Project is co-financed by the European Union’s European Energy Programme for Recovery
The sole responsibility of this publication lies with the author.
The European Union is not responsible for any use that may be made of the information contained therein.

4D seismic modelling Saturation, Pressure, Impedance

Saturation Pressure

EEI_S AI EEI_P

15
 The Don Valley CCS Project is co-financed by the European Union’s European Energy Programme for Recovery
The sole responsibility of this publication lies with the author.
The European Union is not responsible for any use that may be made of the information contained therein.

4D seismic modelling Saturation, Pressure, Synthetics

Saturation Pressure

Syn_EEI_S(n-0) Syn_AI(n-0) Syn_EEI_P(n-0)

16
 The Don Valley CCS Project is co-financed by the European Union’s European Energy Programme for Recovery
The sole responsibility of this publication lies with the author.
The European Union is not responsible for any use that may be made of the information contained therein.

4D seismic modelling
highlighting pressure signal relaxation

Syn_EEI_S(n-0) Syn_AI(n-0) Syn_EEI_P(n-0)

At end of injection

5 years after end of injection

17
Conclusions on Time-lapse seismic
 High amplitude sensitivity to modelled saturation changes
 Large seismic contrast between CO2 and brine in pore space
 Low amplitude sensitivity to modelled pressure changes
 Open system, large aquifer

 Time-lapse seismic is an effective tool for monitoring CO2

plume migration

The Don Valley CCS Project is co-financed by the European Union’s European Energy Programme for Recovery
The sole responsibility of this publication lies with the author.
The European Union is not responsible for any use that may be made of the information contained therein.
18
Microseismic addresses MMV objectives
 Need to demonstrate through monitoring that the
injected CO2 is contained within the geological store
during and after injection
 Comparison of actual vs modelled CO2 plume migration
 Verification of well and reservoir integrity

The Don Valley CCS Project is co-financed by the European Union’s European Energy Programme for Recovery
The sole responsibility of this publication lies with the author.
The European Union is not responsible for any use that may be made of the information contained therein.
19
Microseismic

Seabed detectors Velocity

profile

 Feasibility study
 Wavefields

Depth (m)
 Sensitivity
 Location
accuracy Distance (m)
Microseismic event

The Don Valley CCS Project is co-financed by the European Union’s European Energy Programme for Recovery
The sole responsibility of this publication lies with the author.
The European Union is not responsible for any use that may be made of the information contained therein.
20
Microseismic
-0.8

-1

-1.2

 Feasibility study -1.4

-1.6
 Wavefields
 Sensitivity
 Location
accuracy

 Seabed array would have sensitivity to events > -1.1 magnitude at

Top Bunter in area of interest
 (-2–0 is nano event, length scale 1-10m, displacement 40-400 µm)
The Don Valley CCS Project is co-financed by the European Union’s European Energy Programme for Recovery
The sole responsibility of this publication lies with the author.
The European Union is not responsible for any use that may be made of the information contained therein.
21
Conclusions & Discussion
 Requirement of a MMV plan is to demonstrate that
 Injected CO2 is contained within the geological store
 During and after injection
 Comparison of actual vs modelled CO2 migration – 4D
 Verification of well and reservoir integrity - Microseismic

 Longer timelines than typical N Sea projects

 Importance of acquiring baseline data
 e.g. baseline 2D/3D seismic; background seismicity
 MMV plan is reviewed annually in light of data acquired
The Don Valley CCS Project is co-financed by the European Union’s European Energy Programme for Recovery
The sole responsibility of this publication lies with the author.
The European Union is not responsible for any use that may be made of the information contained therein.
22
Acknowledgements
 The EU’s European Energy Programme for Recovery
(EEPR) for funding the Don Valley Power Project and
both EEPR and the Energy Technologies Institute for
funding the first CCS appraisal well in UK waters
 Tim Wynn, Scott Dingwall & Simon Wright
 Frederic Fortier & Christophe Maisons (Magnitude)
 Everyone who has been involved with this project over
the last 5+ years

The Don Valley CCS Project is co-financed by the European Union’s European Energy Programme for Recovery
The sole responsibility of this publication lies with the author.
The European Union is not responsible for any use that may be made of the information contained therein.
23
Thanks & Questions
Microseismic magnitude guidance

25