Schlumberger Carbon ServicesPracticality of Verification

Schlumberger Private

CCSA Seminar Melbourne26th February 2007Geoff Ingram, Regional Manager - Australasia

2

Storage is similar but different to the Oil & Gas Industry

3

Verification – what are we verifying and why?

• Storage site operator – site and seal integrity, day to day QHSE for site employees (storage integrity monitoring)

• Financiers – 1 tonne CO2 stored today = 1 tonne CO2 tomorrow (no seepage/leakage) or NPV 1t CO2-e wrong (storage integrity monitoring – seal integrity, plume migration)

• Public/Government – CO2 storage to be a safe and valid climate change mitigation option, not a liability for future generations (assurance monitoring – no leakage into water resources, soil or atmosphere)

Verification means different things to different stakeholders and it all depends on the quality of your initial data (rubbish in = rubbish out)

Poor characterisation = difficult monitoring = poor/incomplete verification = higher risk projects

4

CO2 Storage WorkflowSite Selection Site Characterization (SCP) Field Design

Site PreparationSite Construction Injection

Per

form

ance

& R

isk

M

anag

emen

t Sys

tem

(PR

MS

)C

omm

unic

atio

n an

d P

ublic

Acc

epta

nce

SEVERITY

-11L

-21S

-41C

-31M

-51M C

-22L

-41S

-62M

-82C

-102M C

-33L

-63S

-93M

-123C

-153M C

-44L

-55L

-84 S

-124M

-164C

-204M C

-105S

-155M

-205C

-255M C

-1Light

-2

-3

-4

-5

Serious

Major

Catas troph ic

Multi-C atas troph ic

321

Possible

Unlikely

Improbable

5

Probable

4

Likely

LIKE LIHO O D

W hite arrow ind ica tes decreas ing risk

PR EV EN TION

M ITIG ATIO N

Contro lM easures

RE D

B LU E

YE LLO WG R EE N

IN TO LE RA B LE : D o n ot tak e th is risk

U N DE SIR AB LE : D em on stra te A LA RP be fore pro cee din g

A C CE PT A BLE : P roc eed ca refu lly, w ith co ntin uou s im p rove me nt

N E GLIG IBL E: S afe to proc eed

-16 to -1 0

-9 to -5

-4 to -2

-1

BLACK N O N-O PE RA B LE : E vacua te the zone and or a rea /coun try-25 to -2 0

Pre-OperationPhase

~ 10-50 years

~ 1-2 years

OperationPhase

~ 100+ years

Post-Injection Phase Site Retirement Programme

(SRP)

Monitoring (M&V)• Operation

• Verification

• Environmental

5

Measuring for Characterization

Duration of a Storage Project

(*) From Chalaturnyk et al.

Mea

sure

men

t Rat

e

1 10 100

Operation PhasePre-Operation Phase

Site Characterization

Measurements for CharacterizationGeophysics / Geology

Seismic, VSP’sImagers

Petrophysics / MineralogyDensity, Porosity,

Resistivity Element concentrationNatural T, K, U emissions

GeomechanicsSonic, DensityPressure measurement & test

Well IntegrityEM, Ultrasonic, Sonic

6

Q-Land – improved reservoir characterisation

7

Integrated Solution - Site Characterization

Data Collection & QCData Well / Injection Test

Sequence, stratigraphy & property modelDynamic Modeling

(flow, geomechanics, geochemistry)

Capacity Containment

Geomechanics• Fault Stability• Sustainable fluid pressure

Well integrity• Zonal isolation

Hydrodynamics• Formation water flow systems

Injectivity• Reservoir quality• Geometry• Connectivity

• 3D Cellular Geological Model• Pore Volume• Connectivity

– Geophysics / Geology– Petrophysics / Mineralogy– Geomechanics– Fluid Properties– Well Integrity

From CO2CRC – Latrobe Valley Study

8

Performance & Risk Assessment

Risk Ranking &PerformanceEvaluation

Construction of Leakage Scenarii

(from Damen et al, 2003)

Functional Analysis

Exhaustive inventory of features and potential

hazards

Identification and quantification of

failure mechanisms

KnowledgeData & ModelsUncertainties

9

10

CO2 Storage Site Modelling WorkflowSurface imaging MappingEM survey interpretationData input

Information managementGIS database

Log interpretationWell correlationSurface identificationSurface/subsurface interaction

Uncertainty analysisUpscaling processesReservoir and Aquifer property population

CalibrationHistory matchPost processingPresentation

Data analysisFacies modellingFault modellingFracture modellingHydrodynamic test analysis

3D flow simulationGeochemistryGeomechanics

Eclipse

3D Geological model3D Property model of the Reservoir and the Overburden

11

Modeling CO2 Storage - ChallengesFluid-Fluid and Rock-Fluid interaction mechanisms

CO2/brines system (and more complex systems) thermophysical propertiesReactions involving solids – short term: salt precipitation, calcite dissolutionCO2 Mineralization – long term: kinetics Effect on rock and fault properties (transport)Effect of impuritiesThermal Modeling

Geomechanics modeling for Injection Optimization, Cap Rock integrity, Fault reactivation

Building a 3D-Mechanical Earth ModelPopulation of deformation and strength propertiesEquilibration of Pore-Pressure and Stresses

Effect of stress changes on porosity and permeability

Dynamic model calibration using monitoring measurementsCO2 plume extensionCO2 saturationPressure

CO2 Concentration in Water

12

Questions for Designing a Monitoring System

What do I want to monitor? CO2 displacement, leak…What property change can I monitor? P, CO2 Saturation, ResistivityWhat variation am I considering?

What measurement technique can be used? Seismic, EM, Nuclear…What should be my sensor specifications? Accuracy / Precision

Where should I place my sensor? Surface, Obs. Well (Permanent, Logging…)For how long? Operation phase, surveillanceHow can I deploy it?How can I interrogate it?

How can I interpret the measurement?

13

Measuring for Monitoring

Verification Monitoring.

Verification Monitoring• CO2 location and tracking• Cap rock integrity• Well Integrity

Duration of a Storage Project

1 10 100 1000

Mea

sure

men

t Rat

e

Operation Phase Equilibration Long-Term PerformancePre-Operation Phase

Site Characterization

Measurements for Characterization

Operational M

onitoring

Operational Monitoring• CO2 injection control• Cap rock integrity

Environmental

Monitoring

Environment Monitoring• Aquifers• Surface• Atmosphere

(*) From Chalaturnyk et al.

14

Monitoring - Challenges Sensitivity to CO2 in place

Simple detection or quantitative estimation?Seismic

– Resolution– Pressure and Saturation effects

Electromagnetic SCO2 R but– Effect of dissolved CO2 on brine resistivity: CO2 Rw– Effect of Water in Supercritical CO2 Water RCO2

Sensor DeploymentPermanent sensors (sensor reliability with time, power)Time-lapse logging (monitoring well needed) – through-casing measurementsReservoir accessibility will change with time

RecommendationsMeasurement analysis is always model-based: need to understand tool response in CO2 environmentsExploit the synergy between measurementsFinal interpretation should also be model-based (fluid model)

15

Monitoring Tools

P,T, Volume, Rate X Seismic / VSP’s X XMicroseismicity X X X EM Surveys XCased-Hole Logging: CHFR,RST XSampling X XPressure tests XSonic: MSIP XUltrasonic: USIT/IBC XCorrosion XCO2-Sensors X X X X

Operation Monitoring

Verification Monitoring – CO2 Displacement

Verification Monitoring – Cap rock integrity

Verification Monitoring – Well Integrity

Environment Monitoring

16

17

Conclusion• Tools exist for comprehensive monitoring of all stages of a CO2 storage project• Baseline data absolutely critical as it will determine M&V program – poor quality data

here means poor reservoir model built• Suite of tools chosen for M&V program will be site specific though likely to be above

and beyond that mandated by regulatory agencies• New tools will continue to cross over from the oil and gas industry but as the storage

business grows, tools will become storage specific• Costs of CCS will be reduced mainly through the capture side, storage is arguably cost

competitive at present

Leveraging knowledge of the reservoir from leading edge technologies will reduce the risk and cost of storage projects