futuregen in kentucky wersystems/futuregen/futuregen_fa ctsheet.pdf a slide show explaining a kgs...

FutureGen in Kentuckyhttp://fossil.energy.gov/programs/

powersystems/futuregen/futuregen_factsheet.pdf

A slide show explaining a KGS preliminary assessment of geologic sequestration potential for future power plants in Kentucky

FutureGen

http://fossil.energy.gov/programs/powersystems/futuregen/futuregen_factsheet.pdf

is a DOE program to design a power plant that will integrate advanced coal gasification to produce hydrogen and electric power with CO2 capture and storage (also called sequestration)

FutureGen in Kentuckyhttp://fossil.energy.gov/programs/

powersystems/futuregen/futuregen_factsheet.pdf

Geologic sequestration potential

Why FutureGen? Concerns about climate change resulting in a need to reduce CO2 emissions

FutureGen will be a near-zero emissions power plant funded by DOE and industry

FutureGen will incorporate geologic carbon sequestration to reduce CO2

“the captured CO2…would then be permanently sequestered in a geologic formation.”

• Validating the integrated operation of gasification technology

•Proving effectiveness, permanence, and safety of sequestration in a geologic formation

Limiting future carbon emissions from power plants is a critical component of DOE- sponsored energy research

including FutureGen.

From the DOE FutureGen fact sheet:

Major goals include:

The Kentucky Geological Survey is part of three Phase II partnerships

More info at DOE’s www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/sequestration/

Midwest Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership

Midwest (Illinois Basin) Geological Sequestration Consortium

Southeast Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership

Geologic carbon sequestration possibilities

• Regional DOE partnerships are assessing several types of geologic reservoirs

• Enhanced oil and gas recovery may be possible for unmineable coals, organic-rich shales, and depleted oil and gas reservoirs

After Harper (2004)

Unmineable coals

Organic-rich shales

Depleted oil and gas reservoirs

Deep saline aquifers

Power plantPipeline

Multiple options at different locations

FutureGen


Injection into unmineable coal beds might allow secondary recovery of methane in some (not all) areas

Unmineable Coal Beds

Images modified from Midwest Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership (2005) http://198.87.0.58/Geologic.aspx

http://198.87.0.58/Geologic.aspx

FutureGen


Injection into depleted oil or gas reservoirs might allow secondary recovery of oil or gas

Oil and Gas Reservoirs



FutureGen


Injection into deep saline aquifers offers possibility of storage without negating a potential resource

Deep Saline Aquifers




Optimal sites might have multiple reservoirs (stacked or at several locations) at depth, within some distance of the plant based on the transport costs of CO2

Power plantPipeline

Coals

After Harper (2004)

Oil and gas reservoirs

Saline aquifers

Multiple reservoirs

+

+

Enough depth to minimize leakage and to keep CO2 in supercritical phase

Minimal transport distance

Minimal transport distance


FutureGen

Preliminary requirements:

Large storage volume

For a FutureGen–type plant, DOE estimates 1 million tons CO2 /year for 30 years = 30 million tons CO2

Could be one large or multiple reservoirs

Image modified from Midwest Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership (2005) http://198.87.0.58/Geologic.aspx



FutureGen

Preliminary requirements: Depth (> 2,500’) for existing depleted oil and gas reservoirs

In our area, this is the depth needed to keep any injected CO2 in liquid form (miscible)*

Injection into unmineable coals could be shallower because of a different sequestration mechanism* Greater depth also provides more seals to prevent leakage




FutureGen

Preliminary requirements:

Proximity to existing energy infrastructure and likely a waterway

Most existing KY power plants are near large rivers



Existing and proposed power plants

Existing power plants

Proposed plants

• Power plant siting involves many non-geologic decisions

• By using existing plant locations to define the study area we incorporated those decisions with the geologic assessment.

Most along rivers

Existing and proposed power plant counties


Proposed plants

• Future power plants are likely to have at least the existing requirements relative to water.

• Study area limited to counties with known and proposed plants, similar water supplies, or large coal resources*

*these might not have water needs for some types of plants

Areas might include a 25-mile radius around existing and proposed plants as examples of hypothetical transport areas around each

• Circles show possibility for pipeline transport


Proposed plants


http://drysdale.kgs.ku.edu/natcarb/midflash/natcarb_new_content.html

ResultCost is:

$2,860,898

The reason for examining the radius around some areas is that pipeline transport to a sequestration site might be needed.

Distance is:28 miles

NATCARB Pipeline cost calculator


Seismic potential is greatest in far western Kentucky

Seismic potential may be concern for building future large, Federally funded (or co-funded) construction projects

Faults (red lines) will also need to be considered (not for seismic potential but for reservoir leakage and seal potential)

Seismicity

3.04.05.0 +

Magnitude Peak groundacceleration>0.3g

Kentucky “unmineable” coal potential

Kentucky has two coal fields (the Eastern Kentucky Coal Field and the Western Kentucky Coal Field)

Coal is mined at 1000 ft in western Kentucky

Coal is mined at depths beneath surface of more than 1000 ft in eastern Kentucky, but in some places that is still “above drainage”

2003 Coal production (Mt)

15+10-15

5-10

1-5

0-1

No production in study area

Kentucky “unmineable” coal potential

Surface fracturing extends 400 to 500 feet beneath the surface, so potential coals would need to be at least 500 feet beneath drainage

Areas of coals at depth are smaller than the total area of the coal fields

Definition of “unmineable” is variable and will influence potential

Gray: Coals > 500 ft deep

Red: Coals > 1,000 ft deep

Areas with multiple deep coals below drainage

Known Kentucky oil and gas reservoirs

Kentucky has hundreds of oil and gas fields

Not all are within the electric power infrastructure area

Not all fields are likely sequestration targets

OilGasWaterflood

Operating and abandoned oil and gas fields


Known fields have demonstrated reservoir and trap properties

9 have >30 MM tons estimated capacity for CO2 storage

Many of these fields are not abandoned

Fields with sufficient depth or volume

Volumes >15 MM tons (20 fields)

2,500 ft or deeper

Kentucky’s geology controls the depth of the known oil and gas fields. Major oil- and gas-bearing units are shallower than 2,500 feet in the central part of the state.

There are speculative possibilities deeper.

2,500 feet

Western KY Central KY Eastern KYOil field (generalized)

Gas field (generalized)


Additional potential oil and gas reservoirs

Organic shales: a different type of potential CO2 reservoir

KGS is currently funded by DOE to investigate the potential of black (organic-rich) shales to adsorb CO2 as a sequestration mechanism

The black shales are widespread with large potential capacity

Not a proven CO2 sequestration reservoir; behaves like coals

Red has most potentialBlue has least potentialTan has no potential

Kentucky potential deep saline reservoirs

DOE partnerships have shown that deep saline aquifers (mostly sandstone) have greatest potential for large storage volume

Possible cumulative thickness is > 800 ft in western KY

Limited well penetrations and reservoir data in KY

Net Sand ThicknessRed is thickestBlue is thinnestTan is no sand

Deep sands (saline aquifers)

Diagram from MRCSP research

St. Peter

Rose Run

Mt. Simon

Rome sands

Rock units beneath Kentucky

Strata vary in characteristics

Some are known reservoirs

Some are potential reservoirs

Some are seals

Deep saline reservoirs shown with arrows

“Vuggy” Copper Ridge

Middle Run/Four Sand

Based on ~20 wells Potential for as much as 6 Bmt capacity

Mount Simon Sandstone Isopach Map

No Mt. Simon south of the Kentucky River and Rough Creek FZs


700650600550500450400350300250200150100

500

METERS

0 8,680

PETRA 1/21/2005 6:14:14 PM

Contour Interval = 50 ft

Deep sands south of the Kentucky River Fault Zone

Thick, Porous Rome Sandstone Wedge ( up to 700’ thick)


-2000-2150-2300-2450-2600-2750-2900-3050-3200-3350-3500-3650-3800-3950-4100-4250-4400-4550-4700-4850-5000

METERS

0 10,147

PETRA 1/25/2005 11:27:41 PM

Top Conasauga Structure Map

150 ft contour interval


Possibility for closed structure traps in Rome Trough Depth here 4,000 to 5,000 ft Potential capacity 3.5 Bmt CO2

N

3

4 S

4

4

1mi5

Precambrian Unconformity

Paleozoic

• “4 Sand” (4S) is a mappable seismic sequence• Reflection seismic will be needed for sequestration

site evaluations and for monitoring after CO2 injection

S


Middle Run (“4 Sand”) Reservoir

N

0

81 sq. mi. lens in Hart Co.

Averages 440 ft. thick 7,000-9,500 feet depth ~3 Bmt potential

capacity Are there other similar

lenses? Additional study

needed

0

0

0

100 ft contour interval


Middle Run (“4 Sand”) Reservoir

Assessment of carbon sequestration options along the power plant infrastructure areas

Next we will compare the infrastructure area (in tan) to the number of known and speculative sequestration options by county

Seismic concern area

Known = • O&G fields >15 MM tons

• O&G fields >2,500’ deep

Areas with known oil and gas field options

Outside study areaStudy area (no large oil and gas fields)*

1 option2 options

This area is away from large water supplies

Areas with no “known” options do have potential/speculative options.

Areas with known and possible/speculative geologic options

Based on: • O&G fields >15 MM tons

• O&G fields >2,500’ deep

• Coals below 1,000 ft

• Number of deep sands

• Potential in black shale

• Other speculative reservoirs

Outside study areaFewest (1)Most (6)

Preliminary Summary

There are areas with multiple sequestration options in both eastern and western KY along existing river corridors or within coal fields for short fuel-transport distances

There are known and more speculative (but possible) reservoir options in the same regions

Permitting and regulations for test (small quantity) and future large quantity CO2 injections will be important in determining the potential future application of this technology in Kentucky

All reservoirs would need further testing to determine reservoir characteristics (permeability, water chemistry, etc.) for reservoir modeling

Preliminary Summary

Potentially, some of the best areas for sequestration in saline formations (at depth) near power plants

Based on: • Depth of Rome Ss• St. Peter and Rose Run Ss• Thickness of Middle Run Ss• Depth of Middle Run Ss

•Thickness of Mt. Simon• Depth of Mt. Simon• Depth of vuggy Copper Ridge• Thickness of Rome Ss.

Best Good

Thick, but deep

Thin and/or shallow

More explanation follows


Best here, is the area in the river corridor that had the most options at optimal depths, i.e. moderately deep (5,000-8,000 ft) and thick (400-750 ft) Mt. Simon Sandstone and thin St. Peter (<60 ft) and Rose Run (<80 ft) at moderate depth (3,000-4,000 ft)

Best Good

Thick, but deep

Thin and/or shallow


Good here, are the areas in the infrastructure region that had some deep saline reservoir potential (but with fewer options, i.e. thinner, or deeper potential reservoirs) in combination with other known or speculative options

Best Good

Thick, but deep

Thin and/or shallow

Final Summary


In terms of potential volume, deep saline reservoirs are likely the best option for large-scale, permanent CO2 storage

Several lie in central and eastern Kentucky on or near navigatible waterways

These reservoirs would require further testing to determine reservoir characteristics (permeability, water chemistry, etc.) for reservoir modeling

Acknowledgements


This presentation was developed by the Energy and Mineral Section of the Kentucky Geological Survey

Contributors:Stephen F. Greb

Brandon C. Nuttall

James A. Drahovzal

James C. Cobb

Cortland F. Eble

John B. Hickman

Paul D. Lake

Thomas M. Parris

Michael P. Solis

Kathryn G. Takacs

For more information:DOE Carbon Sequestration Program

www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/sequestration/

DOE FutureGen Initiative

http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/powersystems/futuregen/index.html

http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/sequestration/publications/programplans/2005/sequestration_roadmap_2005.pdf

DOE Carbon Sequestration Technology Roadmap and Program Plan for 2005http://sequestration.org/

MGSC (Illinois Basin) Partnership

http://198.87.0.58/CarbonSequestration.aspx

MRCSP Partnership

http://www.secarbon.org/

SECARB Partnership

http://cdiac2.esd.ornl.gov/index.html

DOE Carbon Sequestration Technology Roadmap and Program Plan for 2005

futuregen in kentucky wersystems/futuregen/futuregen_fa ctsheet.pdf a slide show explaining a kgs...

Documents

sequestration slide

futuregen http

safety of sequestration

emissions futuregen

kentucky slide

geologic formation

kentucky http

gas oil