- Email: [email protected]
NETL Carbon Storage Program: Advancing Science and Technology to Support Commercial Deployment
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
ScienceDirect Energy Procedia 114 (2017) 5933 – 5947
13th International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies, GHGT-13, 14-18 November 2016, Lausanne, Switzerland
U.S. DOE/NETL Carbon Storage Program: Advancing Science and Technology to Support Commercial Deployment Traci Rodostaa *, Grant Bromhala, Darin Damianib a
U.S. Department of Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory, 3610 Collins Ferry Road, P.O. Box 880, Morgantown, WV, 26507, USA b U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Fossil Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20585, USA
Abstract Since its inception in 1997, the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) Carbon Storage Program, managed by the National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL), has significantly advanced geologic storage science and technology through a diverse portfolio of applied research projects. The Program is focused on developing and advancing technologies that address the overarching technical challenges of geologic storage, with the goal to achieve technology readiness for widespread commercial deployment in the 2025–2035 timeframe. The Program approaches these challenges through integration of the technologies developed in the “Advanced Storage” component of the Program and field tested in the “Storage Infrastructure” component. The Carbon Storage Program is now well positioned to begin feasibility projects on commercial-scale saline storage complexes, building upon almost two decades of knowledge and experience gained from Storage Infrastructure field projects. An early key milestone was the implementation of the Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership (RCSP) Initiative. Experience and knowledge gained from these field projects provide a firm foundation for future larger-scale field projects, either onshore or offshore. Perhaps most importantly, it is only by performing these field projects that the knowledge needed to identify additional subsurface reservoir and operational issues still requiring further research can be acquired. © by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license ©2017 2017Published The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). Peer-review under responsibility of the organizing committee of GHGT-13. Peer-review under responsibility of the organizing committee of GHGT-13. Keywords: U.S. DOE Carbon Storage Program; National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL); carbon capture and storage (CCS) research; geologic storage technologies; Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnerships (RCSP); field projects; accomplishments
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +1-304-285-1345; fax: +1-304-285-4403. E-mail address: [email protected]
1876-6102 © 2017 Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). Peer-review under responsibility of the organizing committee of GHGT-13. doi:10.1016/j.egypro.2017.03.1730
5934
Traci Rodosta et al. / Energy Procedia 114 (2017) 5933 – 5947
1. Introduction The Carbon Storage Program being implemented by the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) Office of Fossil Energy (FE) and managed by DOE’s National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) is focused on developing and advancing technologies that address the overarching technical challenges in geologic storage, with the goal to achieve technology readiness for widespread commercial deployment in the 2025–2035 timeframe. The Carbon Storage Program is addressing technological and marketplace challenges through integration of the technologies developed in the “Advanced Storage” component of the Program and field tested in the “Storage Infrastructure” component of the Program (Fig. 1).
Fig 1. Technology components and associated technology areas in the Carbon Storage Program.
Since its inception in 1997, the Program has significantly advanced science and technology through a diverse portfolio of applied research projects. The portfolio includes industry cost-shared technology development projects, university research projects, and collaborative work with national laboratories, including research conducted through the NETL Research and Innovation Center (RIC). The Carbon Storage Program includes international collaborations to leverage global expertise, test facilities, and field sites. This paper summarizes key accomplishments of the Program and outlines future research directions. 2. Storage Infrastructure 2.1. Overview and timeline The Storage Infrastructure component, which is focused on field projects, is critical to program success, allowing for field validation of emerging technologies and techniques developed through the Advanced Storage component, and developing best practices for future commercial deployment. These field projects have focused on storage resource assessment, storage complex characterization studies, and validation testing of storage technologies in integrated
Traci Rodosta et al. / Energy Procedia 114 (2017) 5933 – 5947
systems. The field projects demonstrate that different storage types in various depositional environments, distributed over different geographic regions—both onshore and offshore—are capable of safely and permanently storing carbon dioxide (CO2). Several international organizations have identified the need for additional integrated large-scale carbon capture and storage (CCS) projects to help limit global temperature increases and meet the International Energy Agency’s two degree scenario. In the United States, the Carbon Storage Program is now well positioned to begin feasibility projects on commercial-scale saline storage complexes, building upon almost two decades of knowledge and experience gained from Storage Infrastructure field projects. Fig. 2 shows the evolution in scale and focus of the Storage Infrastructure projects since initiation of the Carbon Storage Program in 1997.
Fig. 2. Timeline and key milestones of the Storage Infrastructure component of the Carbon Storage Program.
5935
5936
Traci Rodosta et al. / Energy Procedia 114 (2017) 5933 – 5947
Fig. 3 shows the location of many of the field projects carried out by the Program in North America.
Fig. 3. Location map of RCSP field projects and additional characterization projects carried out by the Carbon Storage Program in North America.
Traci Rodosta et al. / Energy Procedia 114 (2017) 5933 – 5947
Early in the Program, the focus was on regional-scale characterization to assess storage potential and on smallscale field projects involving injection of CO2. An early key milestone was the implementation of the Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership (RCSP) Initiative, motivated in part by the understanding that development of CCS in the United States would be significantly influenced by regional diversity in geologic and geographic settings and by power generating, transportation, and industrial (particularly oil and gas) infrastructure. The work of the seven RCSPs began in 2003 with initial characterization of their respective region’s CO2 storage potential in different geologic formations. In 2009, these initial estimates were augmented through initiation of nine projects focused on more detailed characterization of additional formations representative of different depositional environments and geologic settings that have significant potential for carbon storage: x x x x x x x x x
Wilmington Graben, Los Angeles Basin (California offshore) Newark Basin (New Jersey, Pennsylvania, New York) South Georgia Rift Basin (South Carolina, Georgia) Illinois and Michigan basins (Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan) Black Warrior Basin (Alabama) Ozark Plateau Aquifer System (Kansas) Miocene-age resources (Texas offshore) Rocky Mountain Region (Colorado, Utah, Arizona, New Mexico) Rock Springs Uplift and Moxa Arch (Wyoming)
Test wells were drilled, core taken, seismic data acquired and processed, and modeling carried out, resulting in comprehensive data sets of geologic properties (hydrogeologic properties, reservoir architecture, caprock integrity, etc.) of formations of interest for carbon storage [1]. The Storage Program’s first small-scale saline formation field project injected about 1,600 metric tons of CO2 into the Frio formation near Houston, Texas, in 2004. In 2005, the Validation Phase of the RCSP Initiative began, leading to the successful completion of 19 small-scale field projects in a variety of geologic settings and potential storage reservoir types, including eight projects in oil and gas fields, five in unmineable coal seams, five in saline formations, and one in basalt. Building on the knowledge gained from the small-scale projects, in 2008 the RCSP focus turned to large-scale field projects in saline formations and oil and gas fields in the Development Phase of the Initiative. Between 2009 and 2013, CO2 injection began in six Development Phase projects. The cumulative volume of CO2 stored in the RCSP Validation and Development field projects is shown in Fig. 4.
Fig. 4. Cumulative mass of CO2 stored in RCSP Validation and Development field projects.
5937
5938
Traci Rodosta et al. / Energy Procedia 114 (2017) 5933 – 5947
Sharing of lessons learned and best practices from Storage Infrastructure field projects will accelerate the deployment of CCS. Two important outcomes of the RCSP Initiative are the publication of a series of National Atlases and a series of topical Best Practice Manuals (BPMs) for geologic storage projects. The first Carbon Storage Atlas, published in 2006, focused on the initial estimates of the prospective storage resources in each of the seven RCSP regions. Storage resource estimates (at least 2,600 billion metric tons) reported by the RCSPs have been refined and expanded upon in subsequent editions. The most recent (fifth) edition of the Carbon Storage Atlas was completed by NETL in 2015 [2] and is unique in that it is a coordinated update of carbon storage resources, research activities, and large-scale field projects for the United States, focusing on the RCSP Initiative’s large-scale field projects. The BPMs are intended to disseminate knowledge gained through the RCSP field efforts and to establish effective methods, reliable approaches, and consistent standards for carrying out successful geologic storage projects. The first editions of the BPMs were completed between 2009 and 2013 and presented salient findings of the RCSPs’ Validation Phase field projects. For the 2016 Revised Editions of the BPMs, DOE/NETL has worked closely with technical experts from the RCSPs to incorporate new findings and lessons learned from the Development Phase projects. A companion paper in this volume [3] provides more detailed discussion of the 2016 Revised Editions of the BPMs. 2.2. RCSP field project summary A key component of the Carbon Storage Program’s efforts to validate geologic storage technologies is field projects involving CO2 injection. These projects allow scientists and engineers to validate characterization methodologies, simulation tools, and monitoring technologies, and to explore the impacts of operational parameters and reservoir characteristics. Fig. 5 provides a summary of RCSP field projects in oil and gas reservoirs and saline formations in sedimentary basins—geologic settings that are considered to hold the most promising opportunities for near-term commercialscale storage.
Fig. 5. Summary of RCSP field projects in oil and gas reservoirs and saline formations in sedimentary basins.
Fig. 5 provides information on the volumes of CO2 injected along with some key distinguishing factors related to the geologic setting: reservoir rock type, structural setting, and reservoir permeability. Rock types are categorized as either clastics or carbonates, with each of these categories containing three sub-categories: Domal. Regional Dip, and
Traci Rodosta et al. / Energy Procedia 114 (2017) 5933 – 5947
Structural/Stratigraphic, representing primary trapping structures. The Domal category refers to the case in which the caprock overlying the storage reservoir is shaped like an inverted bowl, preventing both vertical and lateral migration of the CO2. Regional dip refers to the case in which there is a caprock with a dip, but there is no other significant structural barrier preventing lateral migration. The Structural/Stratigraphic category represents cases in which low permeability faults are primary seals, or changes in stratigraphy—such as pinch out of a sand in a shale—which prevent migration. The categorization in Fig. 5 was done with the understanding that, while these categories could serve as analogs for multiple depositional environments, each site will still have unique subsurface architecture based on depositional environment and post-depositional processes. Fig. 5 does not address basalts, coal, or organic shales, which are considered to be unconventional storage targets for future research. As shown in Fig. 5, the Carbon Storage Program has carried out CO2 injection in field projects in twelve clastic and seven carbonate rock formations; in the Development Phase, five are in clastics and one in carbonates. Overall, nine projects have been carried out in settings characterized as Structural/Stratigraphic trapping, six in Regional Dip, and four in Domal. In the Development Phase, the numbers are three, one, and two, respectively. The average reservoir permeability was in the medium to high range in eleven projects, and tight to low in eight; all Development Phase projects were in medium- to high-permeability reservoirs. Collectively, the Validation Phase projects injected and stored more than 1.0 million metric tons of CO2, though the majority of the injected volumes were in four field projects associated with enhanced oil recovery (EOR). The saline formation field project volumes were much smaller, typically 50 to 2,700 metric tons with the largest being 60,000 metric tons. Still, the field projects contributed important experience and technical accomplishments that were needed prior to proceeding to larger-scale field projects, including: x Established the first U.S. national network of companies and professionals focused on carbon storage, significantly raising public awareness and forming a strong foundation to support deployment of storage projects. x Pilot-scale validation of diverse geologic settings as suitable potential CO2 storage sites. x Demonstration of the effectiveness of simulation models to predict CO2 movement and impacts of injection in different geologic storage types. x Developed methods, materials, and talking points for communicating CCS to all stakeholder groups, from landowners to regulators and environmental groups. x Provided operational and technical insight that could be used for development of regulatory and legal frameworks for the safe injection and long-term geologic CO2 storage. As of September, 2016, in the Development Phase of the RCSP Initiative, CO2 injection was ongoing at two sites while the remaining four projects were in the post-injection monitoring phase. Almost 10 million metric tons had been safely stored in these six projects, with the majority of the volume being associated with EOR projects. Though not yet completed, the RCSP Development Phase has achieved several key technical accomplishments, including: x Proved adequate injectivity and available capacity at large scale in some regionally important storage formations, including the Lower Tuscaloosa formation (Cranfield project); Muddy formation (Bell Creek project); and Mt. Simon Sandstone (Illinois Basin – Decatur project). x Provided examples of the effectiveness of simulation models and Monitoring, Verification, and Accounting (MVA) technologies for predicting and measuring CO2 movement in geologic storage complexes and confirming the integrity of the confining system. x Contributed toward developing a cost-effective commercial toolbox of geologic storage technologies, applied a broad portfolio of MVA technologies tailored for individual sites, and evaluated innovative and unique MVA technologies (e.g., fiber optic sensors and integration of interferometric synthetic aperture radar [InSAR] with other measurements). x Developed and successfully implemented expert panel-based risk assessment strategies. x Contributed to a series of BPMs on major topics associated with geologic storage project implementation, including site selection and characterization, MVA, simulation, risk assessment, operations, and education and outreach.
5939
5940
Traci Rodosta et al. / Energy Procedia 114 (2017) 5933 – 5947
The Development Phase projects have contributed significantly to the geologic storage scientific and technical knowledge base through publication of many conference and journal papers, including a 2013 issue of the International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control [4] dedicated to the Cranfield project, and a 2014 issue of Greenhouse Gas Science and Technology [5] dedicated to the Illinois Basin-Decatur project. Many more papers are anticipated as the projects are completed and results analyzed. Experience and knowledge gained from these field projects provides a firm foundation for future, larger-scale field projects, either onshore or offshore. Perhaps most importantly, it is only by performing these field projects that the knowledge needed to identify additional subsurface reservoir and operational issues still requiring further research can be acquired. Some key lessons learned to date from the RCSP Initiative include: x Characterization technologies and methods adapted from oilfield and hydrogeological experiences are directly applicable and can answer the major questions related to the capacity, injectivity, and containment of injected CO2. They still lack the fidelity to measure the heterogeneity required to model the fingering of CO2 in reservoirs. x MVA technologies are capable of evaluating the location of CO2 in the region very near to wellbores, or between closely spaced wellbores. Sensitivity of monitoring declines dramatically as the CO2 moves away from wellbores, and 3D monitoring from the ground surface typically requires plumes with thickness of several meters, and even then are largely qualitative. x Technology is available to detect fluid injection-related microseismic events which are much smaller than can be felt, but additional research is needed to quantitatively model or predict these events. x Intelligent systems are needed to take multiple MVA technologies with different spatial and temporal scales and integrate them quickly in order to develop and implement real-time solutions. x Demonstrated failure rates must be evaluated when selecting between commercial technologies. Research technologies (not being commercially hardened) will have the highest risk of failure. x Injection permits may require answers to specific questions. While a large portfolio of technologies is available for injection permit compliance, project risk assessments must evaluate confidence in specific monitoring technologies to reliably provide required information throughout the life of the project. x The benefits of early engagement with local communities and stakeholders are critical to successful project deployment. 3. Storage Infrastructure: Current and Future Focus 3.1. BEST field projects Storage Infrastructure also includes “Fit-for-Purpose” field projects focused on developing specific subsurface engineering approaches that address critical research for advancing CCS to commercial scale. Currently, the Program has completed the first phase and initiated the field testing phase of the Brine Extraction Storage Test (BEST) effort. The common goal of the two BEST field projects is to develop and validate brine extraction strategies/approaches for managing changes in storage reservoir pressure while incorporating innovative treatment and re-use technologies for the extracted brines. Electric Power Research Institute will demonstrate an adaptive management strategy for subsurface pressure, fluid movement, and differential pressure plume behavior. The field project is being carried out at a site near Panama City, Florida. The pressure management plan involves wastewater injection and brine extraction into/from the Lower Tuscaloosa formation and utilizes existing wastewater disposal wells and new wells at Plant Smith, operated by Gulf Power Company. Monitoring will be carried out to track the position of the pressure front and validate predictions of pressure, differential pressure, and fluid movement. An enhanced water recovery facility for brine treatment will also be constructed. The University of North Dakota Energy and Environmental Research Center will evaluate approaches for managing formation pressure, predicting and monitoring differential pressure plume movement, and validating pressure and brine plume model predictions in a field project that utilizes an operating commercial saltwater disposal facility located near Watford City, North Dakota. The project will involve brine injection into and extraction from the Inyan Kara and
Traci Rodosta et al. / Energy Procedia 114 (2017) 5933 – 5947
Broom Creek formations. Engineered brine injection and extraction tests, and monitoring in conjunction with iterative simulation modeling, will be carried out to evaluate and understand the various approaches. In addition, brine treatment will be conducted at an indoor surface facility with the ability to blend brines to desired total dissolved solids (TDS) with pre-treatment options. 3.2. Offshore storage resource assessment For the past decade, the Storage Infrastructure component focused on onshore geologic storage. Building on the successful phased approach implemented through the RCSPs, the Program is now initiating an offshore CCS assessment. Offshore CCS can expand the Nation’s CO2 storage potential and offer storage opportunities for regions of the United States that lack onshore storage resources. The first broad assessment of offshore prospective storage potential, including the eastern U.S. coast and the Gulf of Mexico, is underway. The projects utilize existing geologic and geophysical data to conduct a prospective storage resource assessment of the formations. These projects also involve 3D flow and geomechanical modelling, and identification of formations with the potential to store at least 30 million metric tons of CO2. Five projects are underway: x Two projects are developing prospective resource assessments for CO2 storage in offshore regions along the Atlantic coast of the United States and eastern Gulf of Mexico. Battelle Memorial Institute is studying offshore regions along the Mid-Atlantic and northeastern United States, from the Georges Bank Basin through the Long Island Platform to the southern Baltimore Canyon Trough. The Southeast Offshore Storage Resource Assessment project is collecting data, including areal extent, thickness, and physical properties such as porosity and permeability, on potential storage formations in state and federal waters of the Mid-Atlantic, South Atlantic, and the eastern Gulf of Mexico. x Three projects are focused entirely on the Gulf of Mexico. NITEC, LLC is developing a high-level quantitative assessment of the volume of CO2 that can be stored in depleted oil and natural gas fields in the offshore federal waters of the Gulf of Mexico on a field-by-field basis. The project is assessing fields based on prospective CO2 storage volume, which will enable future, more detailed studies to focus on specific fields based on their size, location, and currently available public data. The University of Texas at Austin is undertaking a regional geologic characterization of the stratigraphy of the inner continental shelf portions of the Texas and Louisiana Gulf of Mexico coast. They are assessing the storage capacity of depleted oil and natural gas reservoirs and saline formations in the region, and are identifying at least one specific site that could be considered for a future commercial or integrated demonstration project. Geomechanics Technologies, Inc. is analyzing the Ship Shoal Block 107 in detail by preparing a high-resolution 3D geologic model and conducting integrated geomechanical and fluid flow modeling. Preliminary estimates indicate at least 30 million tons of potential CO2 storage resource in the Ship Shoal Block 107 3.3. Storage complex characterization (>50 MT storage potential) As the Program evolves, research to understand site characterization at a scale greater than the RCSPs will be needed. One of the key gaps in the critical path toward CCS deployment is the development of geologic storage sites for storage of >50 million metric tons of CO2 from industrial sources. Site characterization of a >50 MT facility would be geared toward (1) improving understanding of project screening, site selection, characterization, and baseline MVA procedures and information necessary to submit appropriate permit applications for commercial-scale projects; and (2) developing best practices for integrating site characterization information into reservoir simulations and design of commercial-scale injection and monitoring strategies. Development of such facilities will build on the lessons learned through the RCSPs’ large-scale field projects, as well as major demonstration projects.
5941
5942
Traci Rodosta et al. / Energy Procedia 114 (2017) 5933 – 5947
3.4. Associated storage In the subsurface, CO2 utilization through EOR (CO2-EOR) offers a means to help offset capture costs and thereby accelerate the implementation of geologic storage. While CO2-EOR is a commercial activity, operations will need to be modified to optimize both storage of CO2 and oil recovery. A better understanding of the processes affecting CO2 storage associated with EOR, as well as potential improvements to these processes, is needed. Current research includes investigation of residual oil zones (ROZs) and tight oil formations (TOFs) for associated storage applications. ROZs are areas of immobile oil found below the oil-water contact of a reservoir. ROZs are similar to reservoirs in the mature stage of “water-flooding,” in which water has been injected into a formation to sweep oil toward a production well. In the case of ROZs, the reservoir has essentially been water-flooded by nature and requires EOR techniques, such as CO2 flooding, to produce the residual oil. ROZs are commonly observed at the base of oil reservoirs. Some studies have suggested that ROZs may also occur beyond the boundaries of existing oil reservoirs— i.e., in “fairways”—and research is underway to better understand the geographic extent of such deposits and the size of the hydrocarbon resource associated with them. TOFs are oil formations that resist the flow of fluids (permeability less than 10 millidarcies). Successful production of oil and other liquid hydrocarbons from tight formations such as Bakken, Eagle Ford, and other shales requires hydraulic fracturing and may be worthy of consideration for associated storage applications. Industry is currently focused on strategies for maximizing near-term productivity, such as longer laterals, the number of fracture stages, and the volumes and types of fracture fluids and proppants. However, to maximize long-range asset value, improving recovery efficiency may become more important, including CO2 injection for pressure maintenance and/or miscible oil displacement. Six projects are currently underway: x University of Texas at Austin is conducting two associated storage projects. In the first project, they are developing and applying a universal methodology for estimating the carbon balance of a CO2-EOR operation and determining whether the operation can attain Net Carbon Negative Oil (NCNO). The project team is identifying and framing critical carbon balance components to accurately account for the mass of CO2 stored and oil produced in a CO2-EOR operation, and developing strategies that are conducive to achieving an NCNO classification. In the second project, the University of Texas at Austin is performing a detailed geologic characterization and producing a new reservoir model of the largest producing ROZ in the Permian Basin—the Hess Seminole San Andres Unit. Based on stratigraphic correlation of facies from core and wireline logging, the new ROZ model is being used to design sophisticated multiphase fluid flow simulations to test different injection strategies. x The University of North Dakota is conducting two associated storage projects. In the first project, they are identifying and evaluating ROZs in the Williston and Powder River Basins through comprehensive reservoir basin evolution modeling, simulation, temperature and saturation logging, and fairway mapping. The team has assembled a unique collection of data representing 824 wells and cores from 66 wells. In the second project, they are developing improved tools and techniques to assess and validate fluid flow and better characterize and determine the storage capacity for CO2 in association with EOR in TOFs. Work includes characterization of fractures and pores at the macro-, micro-, and nanoscale levels. x The Missouri University of Science and Technology is developing a novel particle-based gel technology that can be used to enhance CO2 sweep efficiency during EOR operations and thus improve CO2 storage in mature oilfields. The project team is synthesizing a series of environmental-friendly and swelling-rate-controllable particle gels that can be used to improve CO2 flooding sweep efficiency in reservoirs with different types of reservoir heterogeneity. x The University of Illinois is identifying and quantifying the nonconventional CO2-EOR target opportunities within the thick Cypress Sandstone in the Illinois basin. The team is completing detailed reservoir characterization and modeling, developing CO2 injection scenarios to maximize storage efficiency, and determining economics for increasing oil recovery while storing CO2.
Traci Rodosta et al. / Energy Procedia 114 (2017) 5933 – 5947
4. Advanced Storage Technologies The Advanced Storage technology component of the Storage Program involves both applied laboratory- and pilotscale research focused on developing new technologies and systems for geologic storage. As shown in Fig. 1, Advanced Storage encompasses three Technology Areas: (1) Geologic Storage and Simulation Technologies; (2) Risk Assessment; and (3) Monitoring, Verification, Accounting, and Assessment. 4.1. Geologic storage and simulation technologies Geologic Storage and Simulation research focuses on CO2-specific aspects of onshore and offshore storage utilizing potential storage options, which include saline sedimentary formations, oil and natural gas reservoirs (including ROZs), unmineable coal, basalts, and organic shale. Modeling in combination with laboratory and field studies provides better insight into the behavior of CO2 in the subsurface, including flow and trapping, storage capacity, and geomechanical and geochemical processes and impacts. The Program builds upon this insight to support research to develop technologies that can improve wellbore integrity, increase reservoir storage efficiency, improve management of reservoir pressure, quantitatively assess and mitigate risks, and identify and mitigate potential release of CO2 in all types of storage formations. In 2016, there were 39 active projects in the Geologic Storage and Simulation Technology Area. Research in wellbore integrity and mitigation includes development of improved methods for assessing integrity over the life of a storage project; development of improved systems for detection of leakage from wells and natural pathways; and development of new methods and materials, including bio-mineralization, nanocomposites, and other materials, for permanent mitigation of release pathways. Research in reservoir modeling includes development of new algorithms that optimize model complexity and incorporate reduced order modeling approaches and response surface techniques; development of methods to better manage injection, reservoir pressures, and plume stabilization; and development of coupled hydrologic/geomechanical/geochemical simulators for fractured and unfractured reservoirs. Laboratory studies include measurements to better understand the hydrologic properties of reservoir and shale caprocks; studies of the strength of caprocks and the potential for slip of faults and fractures; and measurement of various geochemical processes in reservoir and caprock samples. 4.2. Monitoring, verification, accounting (MVA), and assessment Monitoring, verification, accounting (MVA), and assessment efforts are designed to confirm permanent storage of CO2 in geologic formations, both onshore and offshore, through multilevel monitoring programs that are both reliable and cost-effective. Advanced Storage MVA research, in conjunction with small- and large-scale injection projects, is expected to produce advanced MVA tools to address monitoring requirements across the range of storage complexes likely to be encountered in CCS. Advanced technologies will improve the ability to monitor CO2 at atmospheric, nearsurface (including offshore water column), and subsurface levels for integration into intelligent monitoring systems. Improved, multilevel, integrated MVA systems will yield the ability to monitor the migration of CO2 plume and pressure front and verify containment. In 2016, there were 19 active projects in the MVA Technology Area. Research in atmospheric and near-surface monitoring includes developing advanced open-path, optical detection systems for monitoring airborne CO2 over large geographic areas and real-time monitoring systems for measuring CO2 in shallow groundwater. Research in subsurface monitoring includes laboratory rock physics studies to improve interpretation of seismic data; improved microseismic/induced seismicity monitoring techniques; development of integrated downhole instrument packages, including fiber optic sensors; and development of new subsurface monitoring tools and methods, including electrical techniques, pressure pulse monitoring, subsurface strain measurement, and tracers. Research on intelligent monitoring systems is focused on creating advanced, integrated measurement and control systems to improve injection efficiency and track CO2 before, during, and after injection.
5943
5944
Traci Rodosta et al. / Energy Procedia 114 (2017) 5933 – 5947
4.3. National Risk Assessment Partnership (NRAP) The National Risk Assessment Partnership (NRAP) is a multi-national laboratory initiative that applies DOE’s core competencies in science-based prediction for engineered-natural systems to help quantify uncertainties and risks and remove barriers to full-scale CO2 storage deployment. The science-based prediction of engineered-natural systems is a core competency that crosscuts many of today’s energy challenges. The NRAP initiative receives input from industry, Government, non-government organizations, and academia regarding research needs for large-scale CO2 storage deployment. NRAP has also promoted international efforts to develop the risk assessment tools for geologic storage, including participation in collaborations like the International Energy Agency Greenhouse Gas Research and Development Programme’s (IEAGHG) Risk Assessment Network. NRAP is led by the National Energy Technology Laboratory, with membership from four other DOE National Laboratories: Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Los Alamos National Laboratory, and Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. NRAP has developed several computational tools to predict the storage system response to large-scale CO2 injection, including quantitative uncertainty and risk estimates regarding potential impacts related to release of CO2 or brine from a storage reservoir. These tools are undergoing beta-testing by the geologic carbon storage RD&D community, and will be fully released later this year. They are further detail in Fig. 6.
Traci Rodosta et al. / Energy Procedia 114 (2017) 5933 – 5947
Fig. 6. Description of NRAP tools for assessment of CO2 risk performance.
4.4. Subsurface Technology and Engineering Research, Development, and Deployment (SubTER) The DOE Subsurface Technology and Engineering Research, Development, and Deployment (SubTER) Initiative encompasses DOE offices involved in subsurface activities that are aligned with energy production/extraction, subsurface storage of energy and CO2, and subsurface waste disposal and environmental remediation. This effort demonstrates that research and development efficiencies can be achieved between related DOE efforts.
5945
5946
Traci Rodosta et al. / Energy Procedia 114 (2017) 5933 – 5947
SubTER has identified its overarching technical goal as “adaptive control of subsurface fractures and fluid flow.” The Initiative is organized around four interdependent topical research, development, and deployment (RD&D) areas, or “pillars”: 1. Wellbore Integrity: New sensors and adaptive materials are needed to ensure sustained integrity of the wellbore environment. 2. Subsurface Stress and Induced Seismicity: Radically new approaches are needed to guide and optimize sustainable energy strategies and reduce the risks associated with subsurface injection. 3. Permeability Manipulation: Greater knowledge of coupled processes will lead to improved methods of enhancing, impeding, and eliminating fluid flow. 4. New Subsurface Signals: Seeks to transform the ability to characterize subsurface systems by focusing on four areas of research: new signals, integration of multiple data sets, identification of critical system transitions, and automation. SubTER has identified modeling (simulation) and field-based research as critical for cross-pillar integration of results. 5. Global Collaborations The Carbon Storage Program is actively engaged with the global CCS community and seeks to leverage opportunities for international collaborations that complement the program’s U.S.-focused research and development (R&D) efforts. DOE is partnering with the IEAGHG R&D Programme, the Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum (CSLF), the U.S.-China Clean Energy Research Center (CERC), and CCS memorandums of understanding (MOUs) with various countries. DOE is also engaged in a number of large-scale CCS demonstration projects throughout the world. DOE advances international CCS efforts by working closely with the IEAGHG R&D Programme. This program is a multilateral organization that promotes energy security, economic development, and environmental protection throughout the world. The CSLF is a ministerial-level organization that is focused on the development of improved cost-effective technologies for the separation and capture of CO2 for its transport and safe, long-term storage. An important CSLF goal is to improve CCS technologies through coordinated R&D with international partners and private industry. Formed in 2003, the CSLF has 25 members, including 24 countries and the European Commission. Joint efforts by DOE and the U.S. Department of State established the CSLF to facilitate the development of improved cost-effective technologies related to carbon capture, transportation, and long-term storage; promote the implementation of these technologies internationally; and determine the most appropriate political and regulatory framework needed to promote CCS on a global scale. CERC facilitates counter-facing R&D projects in the United States and China on clean energy technology. It is a flagship initiative that each country funds in equal parts, supporting their own teams of scientists and engineers who share findings and lessons learned. Both countries have secured broad participation from their respective national universities, research institutions, and industries. The Carbon Storage Program benefits from international collaborations by leveraging global expertise, test facilities, and commercial- and large-scale CCS operations to test and validate innovative technologies at substantially lower cost to the Program. DOE has and continues to collaborate in a number of large-scale RD&D geologic storage projects throughout the world, spanning five continents (Fig. 7).
Traci Rodosta et al. / Energy Procedia 114 (2017) 5933 – 5947
Fig. 7. U.S. Carbon Storage Program field testing of innovative technologies at commercial- and large-scale CCS operations around the world.
4. Summary The Carbon Storage Program will continue to advance development of technologies that can address the current and future technical challenges of commercial deployment. Validation of the technologies during storage field projects will help reduce risk and increase certainty in the performance of a future commercial toolbox. These cost-effective tools will then be used by industry and regulators to ensure safe containment of CO2. References [1] NETL (National Energy Technology Laboratory) 2016a, “NETL’s ARRA Site Characterization Initiative: Accomplishments,” https://www.netl.doe.gov/File%20Library/Research/Coal/carbon-storage/infrastructure/ARRA-Site-Characterization-Accomplishments2016.pdf. [2] NETL (National Energy Technology Laboratory) 2016b, U.S. Carbon Storage Atlas – Fifth Edition (Atlas V); http://www.netl.doe.gov/research/coal/carbon-storage/natcarb-atlas. [3] Rodosta, T., Aljoe, W., Bromhal, G., and Damiani, D. 2016, “U.S. DOE Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership Initiative: New Insights and Lessons Learned”, to be published in Energy Procedia, © Elsevier, Proceedings of 13th International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies, IEA Greenhouse Gas Programme, Lausanne, Switzerland. [4] IJGGC (International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control) 2013, vol. 18, pp. 343 – 530. [5] GHG (Greenhouse Gas Science and Technology) 2014, vol. 4, pp. 569 - 684.
5947
ScienceDirect Energy Procedia 114 (2017) 5933 – 5947
13th International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies, GHGT-13, 14-18 November 2016, Lausanne, Switzerland
U.S. DOE/NETL Carbon Storage Program: Advancing Science and Technology to Support Commercial Deployment Traci Rodostaa *, Grant Bromhala, Darin Damianib a
U.S. Department of Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory, 3610 Collins Ferry Road, P.O. Box 880, Morgantown, WV, 26507, USA b U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Fossil Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20585, USA
Abstract Since its inception in 1997, the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) Carbon Storage Program, managed by the National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL), has significantly advanced geologic storage science and technology through a diverse portfolio of applied research projects. The Program is focused on developing and advancing technologies that address the overarching technical challenges of geologic storage, with the goal to achieve technology readiness for widespread commercial deployment in the 2025–2035 timeframe. The Program approaches these challenges through integration of the technologies developed in the “Advanced Storage” component of the Program and field tested in the “Storage Infrastructure” component. The Carbon Storage Program is now well positioned to begin feasibility projects on commercial-scale saline storage complexes, building upon almost two decades of knowledge and experience gained from Storage Infrastructure field projects. An early key milestone was the implementation of the Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership (RCSP) Initiative. Experience and knowledge gained from these field projects provide a firm foundation for future larger-scale field projects, either onshore or offshore. Perhaps most importantly, it is only by performing these field projects that the knowledge needed to identify additional subsurface reservoir and operational issues still requiring further research can be acquired. © by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license ©2017 2017Published The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). Peer-review under responsibility of the organizing committee of GHGT-13. Peer-review under responsibility of the organizing committee of GHGT-13. Keywords: U.S. DOE Carbon Storage Program; National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL); carbon capture and storage (CCS) research; geologic storage technologies; Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnerships (RCSP); field projects; accomplishments
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +1-304-285-1345; fax: +1-304-285-4403. E-mail address: [email protected]
1876-6102 © 2017 Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). Peer-review under responsibility of the organizing committee of GHGT-13. doi:10.1016/j.egypro.2017.03.1730
5934
Traci Rodosta et al. / Energy Procedia 114 (2017) 5933 – 5947
1. Introduction The Carbon Storage Program being implemented by the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) Office of Fossil Energy (FE) and managed by DOE’s National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) is focused on developing and advancing technologies that address the overarching technical challenges in geologic storage, with the goal to achieve technology readiness for widespread commercial deployment in the 2025–2035 timeframe. The Carbon Storage Program is addressing technological and marketplace challenges through integration of the technologies developed in the “Advanced Storage” component of the Program and field tested in the “Storage Infrastructure” component of the Program (Fig. 1).
Fig 1. Technology components and associated technology areas in the Carbon Storage Program.
Since its inception in 1997, the Program has significantly advanced science and technology through a diverse portfolio of applied research projects. The portfolio includes industry cost-shared technology development projects, university research projects, and collaborative work with national laboratories, including research conducted through the NETL Research and Innovation Center (RIC). The Carbon Storage Program includes international collaborations to leverage global expertise, test facilities, and field sites. This paper summarizes key accomplishments of the Program and outlines future research directions. 2. Storage Infrastructure 2.1. Overview and timeline The Storage Infrastructure component, which is focused on field projects, is critical to program success, allowing for field validation of emerging technologies and techniques developed through the Advanced Storage component, and developing best practices for future commercial deployment. These field projects have focused on storage resource assessment, storage complex characterization studies, and validation testing of storage technologies in integrated
Traci Rodosta et al. / Energy Procedia 114 (2017) 5933 – 5947
systems. The field projects demonstrate that different storage types in various depositional environments, distributed over different geographic regions—both onshore and offshore—are capable of safely and permanently storing carbon dioxide (CO2). Several international organizations have identified the need for additional integrated large-scale carbon capture and storage (CCS) projects to help limit global temperature increases and meet the International Energy Agency’s two degree scenario. In the United States, the Carbon Storage Program is now well positioned to begin feasibility projects on commercial-scale saline storage complexes, building upon almost two decades of knowledge and experience gained from Storage Infrastructure field projects. Fig. 2 shows the evolution in scale and focus of the Storage Infrastructure projects since initiation of the Carbon Storage Program in 1997.
Fig. 2. Timeline and key milestones of the Storage Infrastructure component of the Carbon Storage Program.
5935
5936
Traci Rodosta et al. / Energy Procedia 114 (2017) 5933 – 5947
Fig. 3 shows the location of many of the field projects carried out by the Program in North America.
Fig. 3. Location map of RCSP field projects and additional characterization projects carried out by the Carbon Storage Program in North America.
Traci Rodosta et al. / Energy Procedia 114 (2017) 5933 – 5947
Early in the Program, the focus was on regional-scale characterization to assess storage potential and on smallscale field projects involving injection of CO2. An early key milestone was the implementation of the Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership (RCSP) Initiative, motivated in part by the understanding that development of CCS in the United States would be significantly influenced by regional diversity in geologic and geographic settings and by power generating, transportation, and industrial (particularly oil and gas) infrastructure. The work of the seven RCSPs began in 2003 with initial characterization of their respective region’s CO2 storage potential in different geologic formations. In 2009, these initial estimates were augmented through initiation of nine projects focused on more detailed characterization of additional formations representative of different depositional environments and geologic settings that have significant potential for carbon storage: x x x x x x x x x
Wilmington Graben, Los Angeles Basin (California offshore) Newark Basin (New Jersey, Pennsylvania, New York) South Georgia Rift Basin (South Carolina, Georgia) Illinois and Michigan basins (Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan) Black Warrior Basin (Alabama) Ozark Plateau Aquifer System (Kansas) Miocene-age resources (Texas offshore) Rocky Mountain Region (Colorado, Utah, Arizona, New Mexico) Rock Springs Uplift and Moxa Arch (Wyoming)
Test wells were drilled, core taken, seismic data acquired and processed, and modeling carried out, resulting in comprehensive data sets of geologic properties (hydrogeologic properties, reservoir architecture, caprock integrity, etc.) of formations of interest for carbon storage [1]. The Storage Program’s first small-scale saline formation field project injected about 1,600 metric tons of CO2 into the Frio formation near Houston, Texas, in 2004. In 2005, the Validation Phase of the RCSP Initiative began, leading to the successful completion of 19 small-scale field projects in a variety of geologic settings and potential storage reservoir types, including eight projects in oil and gas fields, five in unmineable coal seams, five in saline formations, and one in basalt. Building on the knowledge gained from the small-scale projects, in 2008 the RCSP focus turned to large-scale field projects in saline formations and oil and gas fields in the Development Phase of the Initiative. Between 2009 and 2013, CO2 injection began in six Development Phase projects. The cumulative volume of CO2 stored in the RCSP Validation and Development field projects is shown in Fig. 4.
Fig. 4. Cumulative mass of CO2 stored in RCSP Validation and Development field projects.
5937
5938
Traci Rodosta et al. / Energy Procedia 114 (2017) 5933 – 5947
Sharing of lessons learned and best practices from Storage Infrastructure field projects will accelerate the deployment of CCS. Two important outcomes of the RCSP Initiative are the publication of a series of National Atlases and a series of topical Best Practice Manuals (BPMs) for geologic storage projects. The first Carbon Storage Atlas, published in 2006, focused on the initial estimates of the prospective storage resources in each of the seven RCSP regions. Storage resource estimates (at least 2,600 billion metric tons) reported by the RCSPs have been refined and expanded upon in subsequent editions. The most recent (fifth) edition of the Carbon Storage Atlas was completed by NETL in 2015 [2] and is unique in that it is a coordinated update of carbon storage resources, research activities, and large-scale field projects for the United States, focusing on the RCSP Initiative’s large-scale field projects. The BPMs are intended to disseminate knowledge gained through the RCSP field efforts and to establish effective methods, reliable approaches, and consistent standards for carrying out successful geologic storage projects. The first editions of the BPMs were completed between 2009 and 2013 and presented salient findings of the RCSPs’ Validation Phase field projects. For the 2016 Revised Editions of the BPMs, DOE/NETL has worked closely with technical experts from the RCSPs to incorporate new findings and lessons learned from the Development Phase projects. A companion paper in this volume [3] provides more detailed discussion of the 2016 Revised Editions of the BPMs. 2.2. RCSP field project summary A key component of the Carbon Storage Program’s efforts to validate geologic storage technologies is field projects involving CO2 injection. These projects allow scientists and engineers to validate characterization methodologies, simulation tools, and monitoring technologies, and to explore the impacts of operational parameters and reservoir characteristics. Fig. 5 provides a summary of RCSP field projects in oil and gas reservoirs and saline formations in sedimentary basins—geologic settings that are considered to hold the most promising opportunities for near-term commercialscale storage.
Fig. 5. Summary of RCSP field projects in oil and gas reservoirs and saline formations in sedimentary basins.
Fig. 5 provides information on the volumes of CO2 injected along with some key distinguishing factors related to the geologic setting: reservoir rock type, structural setting, and reservoir permeability. Rock types are categorized as either clastics or carbonates, with each of these categories containing three sub-categories: Domal. Regional Dip, and
Traci Rodosta et al. / Energy Procedia 114 (2017) 5933 – 5947
Structural/Stratigraphic, representing primary trapping structures. The Domal category refers to the case in which the caprock overlying the storage reservoir is shaped like an inverted bowl, preventing both vertical and lateral migration of the CO2. Regional dip refers to the case in which there is a caprock with a dip, but there is no other significant structural barrier preventing lateral migration. The Structural/Stratigraphic category represents cases in which low permeability faults are primary seals, or changes in stratigraphy—such as pinch out of a sand in a shale—which prevent migration. The categorization in Fig. 5 was done with the understanding that, while these categories could serve as analogs for multiple depositional environments, each site will still have unique subsurface architecture based on depositional environment and post-depositional processes. Fig. 5 does not address basalts, coal, or organic shales, which are considered to be unconventional storage targets for future research. As shown in Fig. 5, the Carbon Storage Program has carried out CO2 injection in field projects in twelve clastic and seven carbonate rock formations; in the Development Phase, five are in clastics and one in carbonates. Overall, nine projects have been carried out in settings characterized as Structural/Stratigraphic trapping, six in Regional Dip, and four in Domal. In the Development Phase, the numbers are three, one, and two, respectively. The average reservoir permeability was in the medium to high range in eleven projects, and tight to low in eight; all Development Phase projects were in medium- to high-permeability reservoirs. Collectively, the Validation Phase projects injected and stored more than 1.0 million metric tons of CO2, though the majority of the injected volumes were in four field projects associated with enhanced oil recovery (EOR). The saline formation field project volumes were much smaller, typically 50 to 2,700 metric tons with the largest being 60,000 metric tons. Still, the field projects contributed important experience and technical accomplishments that were needed prior to proceeding to larger-scale field projects, including: x Established the first U.S. national network of companies and professionals focused on carbon storage, significantly raising public awareness and forming a strong foundation to support deployment of storage projects. x Pilot-scale validation of diverse geologic settings as suitable potential CO2 storage sites. x Demonstration of the effectiveness of simulation models to predict CO2 movement and impacts of injection in different geologic storage types. x Developed methods, materials, and talking points for communicating CCS to all stakeholder groups, from landowners to regulators and environmental groups. x Provided operational and technical insight that could be used for development of regulatory and legal frameworks for the safe injection and long-term geologic CO2 storage. As of September, 2016, in the Development Phase of the RCSP Initiative, CO2 injection was ongoing at two sites while the remaining four projects were in the post-injection monitoring phase. Almost 10 million metric tons had been safely stored in these six projects, with the majority of the volume being associated with EOR projects. Though not yet completed, the RCSP Development Phase has achieved several key technical accomplishments, including: x Proved adequate injectivity and available capacity at large scale in some regionally important storage formations, including the Lower Tuscaloosa formation (Cranfield project); Muddy formation (Bell Creek project); and Mt. Simon Sandstone (Illinois Basin – Decatur project). x Provided examples of the effectiveness of simulation models and Monitoring, Verification, and Accounting (MVA) technologies for predicting and measuring CO2 movement in geologic storage complexes and confirming the integrity of the confining system. x Contributed toward developing a cost-effective commercial toolbox of geologic storage technologies, applied a broad portfolio of MVA technologies tailored for individual sites, and evaluated innovative and unique MVA technologies (e.g., fiber optic sensors and integration of interferometric synthetic aperture radar [InSAR] with other measurements). x Developed and successfully implemented expert panel-based risk assessment strategies. x Contributed to a series of BPMs on major topics associated with geologic storage project implementation, including site selection and characterization, MVA, simulation, risk assessment, operations, and education and outreach.
5939
5940
Traci Rodosta et al. / Energy Procedia 114 (2017) 5933 – 5947
The Development Phase projects have contributed significantly to the geologic storage scientific and technical knowledge base through publication of many conference and journal papers, including a 2013 issue of the International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control [4] dedicated to the Cranfield project, and a 2014 issue of Greenhouse Gas Science and Technology [5] dedicated to the Illinois Basin-Decatur project. Many more papers are anticipated as the projects are completed and results analyzed. Experience and knowledge gained from these field projects provides a firm foundation for future, larger-scale field projects, either onshore or offshore. Perhaps most importantly, it is only by performing these field projects that the knowledge needed to identify additional subsurface reservoir and operational issues still requiring further research can be acquired. Some key lessons learned to date from the RCSP Initiative include: x Characterization technologies and methods adapted from oilfield and hydrogeological experiences are directly applicable and can answer the major questions related to the capacity, injectivity, and containment of injected CO2. They still lack the fidelity to measure the heterogeneity required to model the fingering of CO2 in reservoirs. x MVA technologies are capable of evaluating the location of CO2 in the region very near to wellbores, or between closely spaced wellbores. Sensitivity of monitoring declines dramatically as the CO2 moves away from wellbores, and 3D monitoring from the ground surface typically requires plumes with thickness of several meters, and even then are largely qualitative. x Technology is available to detect fluid injection-related microseismic events which are much smaller than can be felt, but additional research is needed to quantitatively model or predict these events. x Intelligent systems are needed to take multiple MVA technologies with different spatial and temporal scales and integrate them quickly in order to develop and implement real-time solutions. x Demonstrated failure rates must be evaluated when selecting between commercial technologies. Research technologies (not being commercially hardened) will have the highest risk of failure. x Injection permits may require answers to specific questions. While a large portfolio of technologies is available for injection permit compliance, project risk assessments must evaluate confidence in specific monitoring technologies to reliably provide required information throughout the life of the project. x The benefits of early engagement with local communities and stakeholders are critical to successful project deployment. 3. Storage Infrastructure: Current and Future Focus 3.1. BEST field projects Storage Infrastructure also includes “Fit-for-Purpose” field projects focused on developing specific subsurface engineering approaches that address critical research for advancing CCS to commercial scale. Currently, the Program has completed the first phase and initiated the field testing phase of the Brine Extraction Storage Test (BEST) effort. The common goal of the two BEST field projects is to develop and validate brine extraction strategies/approaches for managing changes in storage reservoir pressure while incorporating innovative treatment and re-use technologies for the extracted brines. Electric Power Research Institute will demonstrate an adaptive management strategy for subsurface pressure, fluid movement, and differential pressure plume behavior. The field project is being carried out at a site near Panama City, Florida. The pressure management plan involves wastewater injection and brine extraction into/from the Lower Tuscaloosa formation and utilizes existing wastewater disposal wells and new wells at Plant Smith, operated by Gulf Power Company. Monitoring will be carried out to track the position of the pressure front and validate predictions of pressure, differential pressure, and fluid movement. An enhanced water recovery facility for brine treatment will also be constructed. The University of North Dakota Energy and Environmental Research Center will evaluate approaches for managing formation pressure, predicting and monitoring differential pressure plume movement, and validating pressure and brine plume model predictions in a field project that utilizes an operating commercial saltwater disposal facility located near Watford City, North Dakota. The project will involve brine injection into and extraction from the Inyan Kara and
Traci Rodosta et al. / Energy Procedia 114 (2017) 5933 – 5947
Broom Creek formations. Engineered brine injection and extraction tests, and monitoring in conjunction with iterative simulation modeling, will be carried out to evaluate and understand the various approaches. In addition, brine treatment will be conducted at an indoor surface facility with the ability to blend brines to desired total dissolved solids (TDS) with pre-treatment options. 3.2. Offshore storage resource assessment For the past decade, the Storage Infrastructure component focused on onshore geologic storage. Building on the successful phased approach implemented through the RCSPs, the Program is now initiating an offshore CCS assessment. Offshore CCS can expand the Nation’s CO2 storage potential and offer storage opportunities for regions of the United States that lack onshore storage resources. The first broad assessment of offshore prospective storage potential, including the eastern U.S. coast and the Gulf of Mexico, is underway. The projects utilize existing geologic and geophysical data to conduct a prospective storage resource assessment of the formations. These projects also involve 3D flow and geomechanical modelling, and identification of formations with the potential to store at least 30 million metric tons of CO2. Five projects are underway: x Two projects are developing prospective resource assessments for CO2 storage in offshore regions along the Atlantic coast of the United States and eastern Gulf of Mexico. Battelle Memorial Institute is studying offshore regions along the Mid-Atlantic and northeastern United States, from the Georges Bank Basin through the Long Island Platform to the southern Baltimore Canyon Trough. The Southeast Offshore Storage Resource Assessment project is collecting data, including areal extent, thickness, and physical properties such as porosity and permeability, on potential storage formations in state and federal waters of the Mid-Atlantic, South Atlantic, and the eastern Gulf of Mexico. x Three projects are focused entirely on the Gulf of Mexico. NITEC, LLC is developing a high-level quantitative assessment of the volume of CO2 that can be stored in depleted oil and natural gas fields in the offshore federal waters of the Gulf of Mexico on a field-by-field basis. The project is assessing fields based on prospective CO2 storage volume, which will enable future, more detailed studies to focus on specific fields based on their size, location, and currently available public data. The University of Texas at Austin is undertaking a regional geologic characterization of the stratigraphy of the inner continental shelf portions of the Texas and Louisiana Gulf of Mexico coast. They are assessing the storage capacity of depleted oil and natural gas reservoirs and saline formations in the region, and are identifying at least one specific site that could be considered for a future commercial or integrated demonstration project. Geomechanics Technologies, Inc. is analyzing the Ship Shoal Block 107 in detail by preparing a high-resolution 3D geologic model and conducting integrated geomechanical and fluid flow modeling. Preliminary estimates indicate at least 30 million tons of potential CO2 storage resource in the Ship Shoal Block 107 3.3. Storage complex characterization (>50 MT storage potential) As the Program evolves, research to understand site characterization at a scale greater than the RCSPs will be needed. One of the key gaps in the critical path toward CCS deployment is the development of geologic storage sites for storage of >50 million metric tons of CO2 from industrial sources. Site characterization of a >50 MT facility would be geared toward (1) improving understanding of project screening, site selection, characterization, and baseline MVA procedures and information necessary to submit appropriate permit applications for commercial-scale projects; and (2) developing best practices for integrating site characterization information into reservoir simulations and design of commercial-scale injection and monitoring strategies. Development of such facilities will build on the lessons learned through the RCSPs’ large-scale field projects, as well as major demonstration projects.
5941
5942
Traci Rodosta et al. / Energy Procedia 114 (2017) 5933 – 5947
3.4. Associated storage In the subsurface, CO2 utilization through EOR (CO2-EOR) offers a means to help offset capture costs and thereby accelerate the implementation of geologic storage. While CO2-EOR is a commercial activity, operations will need to be modified to optimize both storage of CO2 and oil recovery. A better understanding of the processes affecting CO2 storage associated with EOR, as well as potential improvements to these processes, is needed. Current research includes investigation of residual oil zones (ROZs) and tight oil formations (TOFs) for associated storage applications. ROZs are areas of immobile oil found below the oil-water contact of a reservoir. ROZs are similar to reservoirs in the mature stage of “water-flooding,” in which water has been injected into a formation to sweep oil toward a production well. In the case of ROZs, the reservoir has essentially been water-flooded by nature and requires EOR techniques, such as CO2 flooding, to produce the residual oil. ROZs are commonly observed at the base of oil reservoirs. Some studies have suggested that ROZs may also occur beyond the boundaries of existing oil reservoirs— i.e., in “fairways”—and research is underway to better understand the geographic extent of such deposits and the size of the hydrocarbon resource associated with them. TOFs are oil formations that resist the flow of fluids (permeability less than 10 millidarcies). Successful production of oil and other liquid hydrocarbons from tight formations such as Bakken, Eagle Ford, and other shales requires hydraulic fracturing and may be worthy of consideration for associated storage applications. Industry is currently focused on strategies for maximizing near-term productivity, such as longer laterals, the number of fracture stages, and the volumes and types of fracture fluids and proppants. However, to maximize long-range asset value, improving recovery efficiency may become more important, including CO2 injection for pressure maintenance and/or miscible oil displacement. Six projects are currently underway: x University of Texas at Austin is conducting two associated storage projects. In the first project, they are developing and applying a universal methodology for estimating the carbon balance of a CO2-EOR operation and determining whether the operation can attain Net Carbon Negative Oil (NCNO). The project team is identifying and framing critical carbon balance components to accurately account for the mass of CO2 stored and oil produced in a CO2-EOR operation, and developing strategies that are conducive to achieving an NCNO classification. In the second project, the University of Texas at Austin is performing a detailed geologic characterization and producing a new reservoir model of the largest producing ROZ in the Permian Basin—the Hess Seminole San Andres Unit. Based on stratigraphic correlation of facies from core and wireline logging, the new ROZ model is being used to design sophisticated multiphase fluid flow simulations to test different injection strategies. x The University of North Dakota is conducting two associated storage projects. In the first project, they are identifying and evaluating ROZs in the Williston and Powder River Basins through comprehensive reservoir basin evolution modeling, simulation, temperature and saturation logging, and fairway mapping. The team has assembled a unique collection of data representing 824 wells and cores from 66 wells. In the second project, they are developing improved tools and techniques to assess and validate fluid flow and better characterize and determine the storage capacity for CO2 in association with EOR in TOFs. Work includes characterization of fractures and pores at the macro-, micro-, and nanoscale levels. x The Missouri University of Science and Technology is developing a novel particle-based gel technology that can be used to enhance CO2 sweep efficiency during EOR operations and thus improve CO2 storage in mature oilfields. The project team is synthesizing a series of environmental-friendly and swelling-rate-controllable particle gels that can be used to improve CO2 flooding sweep efficiency in reservoirs with different types of reservoir heterogeneity. x The University of Illinois is identifying and quantifying the nonconventional CO2-EOR target opportunities within the thick Cypress Sandstone in the Illinois basin. The team is completing detailed reservoir characterization and modeling, developing CO2 injection scenarios to maximize storage efficiency, and determining economics for increasing oil recovery while storing CO2.
Traci Rodosta et al. / Energy Procedia 114 (2017) 5933 – 5947
4. Advanced Storage Technologies The Advanced Storage technology component of the Storage Program involves both applied laboratory- and pilotscale research focused on developing new technologies and systems for geologic storage. As shown in Fig. 1, Advanced Storage encompasses three Technology Areas: (1) Geologic Storage and Simulation Technologies; (2) Risk Assessment; and (3) Monitoring, Verification, Accounting, and Assessment. 4.1. Geologic storage and simulation technologies Geologic Storage and Simulation research focuses on CO2-specific aspects of onshore and offshore storage utilizing potential storage options, which include saline sedimentary formations, oil and natural gas reservoirs (including ROZs), unmineable coal, basalts, and organic shale. Modeling in combination with laboratory and field studies provides better insight into the behavior of CO2 in the subsurface, including flow and trapping, storage capacity, and geomechanical and geochemical processes and impacts. The Program builds upon this insight to support research to develop technologies that can improve wellbore integrity, increase reservoir storage efficiency, improve management of reservoir pressure, quantitatively assess and mitigate risks, and identify and mitigate potential release of CO2 in all types of storage formations. In 2016, there were 39 active projects in the Geologic Storage and Simulation Technology Area. Research in wellbore integrity and mitigation includes development of improved methods for assessing integrity over the life of a storage project; development of improved systems for detection of leakage from wells and natural pathways; and development of new methods and materials, including bio-mineralization, nanocomposites, and other materials, for permanent mitigation of release pathways. Research in reservoir modeling includes development of new algorithms that optimize model complexity and incorporate reduced order modeling approaches and response surface techniques; development of methods to better manage injection, reservoir pressures, and plume stabilization; and development of coupled hydrologic/geomechanical/geochemical simulators for fractured and unfractured reservoirs. Laboratory studies include measurements to better understand the hydrologic properties of reservoir and shale caprocks; studies of the strength of caprocks and the potential for slip of faults and fractures; and measurement of various geochemical processes in reservoir and caprock samples. 4.2. Monitoring, verification, accounting (MVA), and assessment Monitoring, verification, accounting (MVA), and assessment efforts are designed to confirm permanent storage of CO2 in geologic formations, both onshore and offshore, through multilevel monitoring programs that are both reliable and cost-effective. Advanced Storage MVA research, in conjunction with small- and large-scale injection projects, is expected to produce advanced MVA tools to address monitoring requirements across the range of storage complexes likely to be encountered in CCS. Advanced technologies will improve the ability to monitor CO2 at atmospheric, nearsurface (including offshore water column), and subsurface levels for integration into intelligent monitoring systems. Improved, multilevel, integrated MVA systems will yield the ability to monitor the migration of CO2 plume and pressure front and verify containment. In 2016, there were 19 active projects in the MVA Technology Area. Research in atmospheric and near-surface monitoring includes developing advanced open-path, optical detection systems for monitoring airborne CO2 over large geographic areas and real-time monitoring systems for measuring CO2 in shallow groundwater. Research in subsurface monitoring includes laboratory rock physics studies to improve interpretation of seismic data; improved microseismic/induced seismicity monitoring techniques; development of integrated downhole instrument packages, including fiber optic sensors; and development of new subsurface monitoring tools and methods, including electrical techniques, pressure pulse monitoring, subsurface strain measurement, and tracers. Research on intelligent monitoring systems is focused on creating advanced, integrated measurement and control systems to improve injection efficiency and track CO2 before, during, and after injection.
5943
5944
Traci Rodosta et al. / Energy Procedia 114 (2017) 5933 – 5947
4.3. National Risk Assessment Partnership (NRAP) The National Risk Assessment Partnership (NRAP) is a multi-national laboratory initiative that applies DOE’s core competencies in science-based prediction for engineered-natural systems to help quantify uncertainties and risks and remove barriers to full-scale CO2 storage deployment. The science-based prediction of engineered-natural systems is a core competency that crosscuts many of today’s energy challenges. The NRAP initiative receives input from industry, Government, non-government organizations, and academia regarding research needs for large-scale CO2 storage deployment. NRAP has also promoted international efforts to develop the risk assessment tools for geologic storage, including participation in collaborations like the International Energy Agency Greenhouse Gas Research and Development Programme’s (IEAGHG) Risk Assessment Network. NRAP is led by the National Energy Technology Laboratory, with membership from four other DOE National Laboratories: Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Los Alamos National Laboratory, and Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. NRAP has developed several computational tools to predict the storage system response to large-scale CO2 injection, including quantitative uncertainty and risk estimates regarding potential impacts related to release of CO2 or brine from a storage reservoir. These tools are undergoing beta-testing by the geologic carbon storage RD&D community, and will be fully released later this year. They are further detail in Fig. 6.
Traci Rodosta et al. / Energy Procedia 114 (2017) 5933 – 5947
Fig. 6. Description of NRAP tools for assessment of CO2 risk performance.
4.4. Subsurface Technology and Engineering Research, Development, and Deployment (SubTER) The DOE Subsurface Technology and Engineering Research, Development, and Deployment (SubTER) Initiative encompasses DOE offices involved in subsurface activities that are aligned with energy production/extraction, subsurface storage of energy and CO2, and subsurface waste disposal and environmental remediation. This effort demonstrates that research and development efficiencies can be achieved between related DOE efforts.
5945
5946
Traci Rodosta et al. / Energy Procedia 114 (2017) 5933 – 5947
SubTER has identified its overarching technical goal as “adaptive control of subsurface fractures and fluid flow.” The Initiative is organized around four interdependent topical research, development, and deployment (RD&D) areas, or “pillars”: 1. Wellbore Integrity: New sensors and adaptive materials are needed to ensure sustained integrity of the wellbore environment. 2. Subsurface Stress and Induced Seismicity: Radically new approaches are needed to guide and optimize sustainable energy strategies and reduce the risks associated with subsurface injection. 3. Permeability Manipulation: Greater knowledge of coupled processes will lead to improved methods of enhancing, impeding, and eliminating fluid flow. 4. New Subsurface Signals: Seeks to transform the ability to characterize subsurface systems by focusing on four areas of research: new signals, integration of multiple data sets, identification of critical system transitions, and automation. SubTER has identified modeling (simulation) and field-based research as critical for cross-pillar integration of results. 5. Global Collaborations The Carbon Storage Program is actively engaged with the global CCS community and seeks to leverage opportunities for international collaborations that complement the program’s U.S.-focused research and development (R&D) efforts. DOE is partnering with the IEAGHG R&D Programme, the Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum (CSLF), the U.S.-China Clean Energy Research Center (CERC), and CCS memorandums of understanding (MOUs) with various countries. DOE is also engaged in a number of large-scale CCS demonstration projects throughout the world. DOE advances international CCS efforts by working closely with the IEAGHG R&D Programme. This program is a multilateral organization that promotes energy security, economic development, and environmental protection throughout the world. The CSLF is a ministerial-level organization that is focused on the development of improved cost-effective technologies for the separation and capture of CO2 for its transport and safe, long-term storage. An important CSLF goal is to improve CCS technologies through coordinated R&D with international partners and private industry. Formed in 2003, the CSLF has 25 members, including 24 countries and the European Commission. Joint efforts by DOE and the U.S. Department of State established the CSLF to facilitate the development of improved cost-effective technologies related to carbon capture, transportation, and long-term storage; promote the implementation of these technologies internationally; and determine the most appropriate political and regulatory framework needed to promote CCS on a global scale. CERC facilitates counter-facing R&D projects in the United States and China on clean energy technology. It is a flagship initiative that each country funds in equal parts, supporting their own teams of scientists and engineers who share findings and lessons learned. Both countries have secured broad participation from their respective national universities, research institutions, and industries. The Carbon Storage Program benefits from international collaborations by leveraging global expertise, test facilities, and commercial- and large-scale CCS operations to test and validate innovative technologies at substantially lower cost to the Program. DOE has and continues to collaborate in a number of large-scale RD&D geologic storage projects throughout the world, spanning five continents (Fig. 7).
Traci Rodosta et al. / Energy Procedia 114 (2017) 5933 – 5947
Fig. 7. U.S. Carbon Storage Program field testing of innovative technologies at commercial- and large-scale CCS operations around the world.
4. Summary The Carbon Storage Program will continue to advance development of technologies that can address the current and future technical challenges of commercial deployment. Validation of the technologies during storage field projects will help reduce risk and increase certainty in the performance of a future commercial toolbox. These cost-effective tools will then be used by industry and regulators to ensure safe containment of CO2. References [1] NETL (National Energy Technology Laboratory) 2016a, “NETL’s ARRA Site Characterization Initiative: Accomplishments,” https://www.netl.doe.gov/File%20Library/Research/Coal/carbon-storage/infrastructure/ARRA-Site-Characterization-Accomplishments2016.pdf. [2] NETL (National Energy Technology Laboratory) 2016b, U.S. Carbon Storage Atlas – Fifth Edition (Atlas V); http://www.netl.doe.gov/research/coal/carbon-storage/natcarb-atlas. [3] Rodosta, T., Aljoe, W., Bromhal, G., and Damiani, D. 2016, “U.S. DOE Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership Initiative: New Insights and Lessons Learned”, to be published in Energy Procedia, © Elsevier, Proceedings of 13th International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies, IEA Greenhouse Gas Programme, Lausanne, Switzerland. [4] IJGGC (International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control) 2013, vol. 18, pp. 343 – 530. [5] GHG (Greenhouse Gas Science and Technology) 2014, vol. 4, pp. 569 - 684.
5947