Secure Geologic Carbon Storage

BRUCE HILL, PH.D.

CHIEF GEOLOGIST
RECS, BIRMINGHAM ALABAMA, JUNE 4, 2014
Red: Oil and Gas Reservoir Storage Potential
Cream: Sedimentary Basin Storage Potential
Light Blue: Saline Reservoirs
Blue Dots: US EGUs (dot proportional to emissions)

Map generated on http://www.natcarbviewer.com/
USGS/NETL:
Carbon Storage Potential: 500 Years.
.
Geologic Carbon Storage - Secure?
3
http://esd.lbl.gov/IMG/research/projects/induced_seismicity/
injection_related_seismicity.jpg

http://www.tulane.edu/~sanelson/images/lakenyos.gif
Lethal CO2 releases?
Frac shale caprock?
Induced Seismicity?
Leakage to water sources?
Four Common Arguments Against
Security of Geologic Carbon Storage
1. CO2 could catastrophically leak (Lake Nyos).
2. CO2 injections could induce seismicity/
earthquakes or limit commercial capacity.
3. Shale development-related fracking limits
availability of secure storage and may
threaten caprock above existing storage
reservoirs.
4. CO2 injection could frack reservoir and
caprock.
1. Catastropic Leakage:
Cited as Evidence: Lake Nyos, Tragedy
Lake Nyos in Cameroon
1,746 deaths from CO2
asphyxiation.
Active volcanic area; 682 deep lake,
a few hundred years old.
Volcanic CO2 dissolved
progressively into lake bottom
thermocline / supersaturated the cold
water.
Aug 21, 1986, rockslide resulted in
sudden exsolution of CO2 & killing
as far away as 25 km.
Lake level lowered, lake changed
from blue to rust color
Prior to Nyos, Aug 15 1984, Lake
Monoun, 37 Dead
5
Is This a Valid Analogy!and
What Makes a Killer Lake?
Magma release CO2 in large volumes.
Deep tropical lake--wind cannot mix like in a shallow
lake. Cold water in deep lake can concentrate CO2.
Disturbance such as a landslide, seismicity trigger.
GS is undertaken in a porous sandstone or carbonate
with an overlying impermeable caprock. CO2 is injected
into a deep (>2,500 ft) semi porous rock formation that
restricts permeability and flow.
In a GS field, at the first sign of unexpected CO2
migration, a warning could be relayed to a control facility
though a comprehensive subsurface monitoring
program & shut down operations in that area.
6
2. Storage and Induced Seismicity
USGS Earthquake hazard map
>NETL Carbon Sequestration
Atlas of the United States and
Canada; note minimal overlap.

>65 % of US storage resource in
weak, aseismic rocks of the Gulf
Coast
S Hovorka, TX BEG
7
Zoback & Gorelick PNAS Perspectives
There is a high probability that earthquakes will be
triggered by injection of large volumes of CO2 into the
brittle rocks commonly found in continental interiors.
Because even small- to moderate-sized earthquakes
threaten the seal integrity of CO2 repositories, . . . large-
scale CCS is a risky, and likely unsuccessful, strategy for
significantly reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1202473109
8
Response by MIT (Juanez et al, PNAS)
The vast majority of earthquakes are much
deeper than CO2 storage reservoirs.
Sedimentary cover is rarely a source of
significant earthquakes.
Hydrocarbon reservoirs have existed for
millions of years in regions of intense seismic
activity.
Site selection is key.
Evidence for Injection-Related
Seismicity: NAS (Hitzman et al 2012)
EOR: none (~1 gT injected in 4
decades. ) Why? pressure
management via production.
Brine injection/disposal (4Gt fluid
injected per year): Few. Recent
notable exceptions are OH, TX,
AKFrac wastewater.
CCS: none (caveat: 1 project =
inadequate database!)

10
11
NAS Study (2012)
TX Barnett brine disposal wells with highest
injection rates associated with minor seismicity.
12
(Frohlich, 2012)

Data from NSF
USArray Seismic
project from
2009-2011
designed to
detect M1.5.
Hypothesis: injection
may activate critically-
stressed optimally
oriented (NE/SW
normal faults.

Solution: Geologic/
geophysical
investigation.
Knowing the
subsurface.
Major Seismic Events Typical in Brittle
Basement Rocks, Not Cover Rocks.

Shaw & Shearer, Science, 1999
Courtesy B. Hager, MIT
13
Example CA 1987 Whittier Narrows
earthquake, LA
Related: Commercial Scale Geologic
Storage Infeasible? Economides (2009, 2010)
2009* and 2010** papers by petroleum engineers from the
University of Houston and Texas A&M University called into
question widely held assumptions about the underground
storage capacity for CO2
!our finding is that CO2 can occupy no more than 1% of
the pore volume and likely as much as 100 times less.
renders geologic sequestration of CO2 a profoundly non-
feasible option for the management of CO2 emissions.
14
*M.J. Economides, and C.A. Ehlig-Economides, Sequestering Carbon Dioxide in an Closed Underground Volume. SPE 124430,
2009
**Ehlig-Economides, C.A. & Economides, M.J. 2010. Sequestering carbon dioxide in a closed underground volume, Journal of
Petroleum Science and Engineering, 70, 123-130.
Economides. Bad Assumption?
Assumption: A storage volume must be geologically
closed on all sides, bound by permeability barriers, and
nearly saturated by formation fluids.
A geologically unrealistic assumption used by reservoir
engineers for small fields.
A storage volume must be overlain by an impermeable cap,
but does not need to be closed laterally or below to be
secure.
The assumption of no-flow boundaries on all sides leads to
the next incorrect assumption that the only way to fill the
available pore volume with CO2 is to increase injection
pressure in the formation until it approaches the fracture
pressure limit.
15
Closed vs. Open System & Mitigation
16
Pressure management via brine production Most geologic systems are not closed
Some have small-but non-zero permeability.
LBNL: Studies of Pressure Buildup and Brine Displacement in
Idealized Subsurface Systems (2012)
RECS
Why Zoback & Gorelick, Economides
Jumped the Gun on Condemning CCS.
NRC Paper: Understanding of seismicity from large scale
CO2 injection is too immature to come to conclusions.
Eliminating regions of the US without site specific
investigations premature.
IBDP injections nearing 1 Mt with a second well goal of 5 Mt.
Zoback: Utsira Formation (Sleipner): example of a less
brittle accommodating reservoir. The Gulf Coast similar.
Ignores substantial storage potential in depleted oil and gas
fields with pressure management & stacked saline storage.
Pressure buildup can be managed-including injection rates,
location and completion of injection wells, water extraction.
Geologic storage utility to manage?
Rightly points out the importance of site screening to avoid
areas that pose unacceptable risk.
3. Shale Development Risks Caprock
Integrity & Eliminates Most Storage Potential.

18
Elliot & Celia *2D* analysis- shale/GS overlay.
60% of saline aquifer areas overlap w/shale potential
Elliot and Celia (2012)
19 RECS
Vertical Separation and Multiple Seals
Provides Storage Security.
20
What Learn from Elliot & Celia:
Maintaining vertical separation between
unconventional shale operations (current or
preexisting) and GS resources will ensure
independent seal above storage formation.
Importance of comprehensive geologic
characterization and risk analysis in advance
of sequestration or shale gas operation.
Regulators must carefully manage areas with
existing or a history of multiple resource use.
21 RECS
4. Public Conflates CO2 Injections
with Fracking.
Public misunderstanding of fracking and CO2 injections
for storage or EOR.
Fracking purpose is to generate artificial pore space in
very tight rock that has virtually no natural pore space.
CO2 EOR or storage seeks to maximize the CO2
contact with reservoir rock.
EPA Class VI rule contains an injection pressure limit of
90% of rock strength.
CO2 EOR pressure is managed though production.
Site screening: Depleted O&G reservoirs tat have been
carelessly fracked in the past must be avoided.
EPA Water and Air Regs: Managing
Groundwater Contamination and
Atmospheric Leakage Risk.
23
1. Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule
Subpart RR & UU
24
Greenhouse Gas
Reporting Rule
(FR V. 75 No. 230,
December 1, 2010 at
75065)
EPA Subpart RR home page: http://www.epa.gov/ghgreporting/reporters/subpart/rr.html
GHG Reporting Rule Subparts
(EPA, 2013)
25
CO
2
source
Facility
Fence line
Geologic Formation
CO
2

received
CO
2

produced
CO
2

entrained
in fluids
CO
2

injected
CO
2

surface
leakage,
if any
EL&
V
EL&
V
M M M
Key
M = Meter
EL&V = Equipment Leaks and Vented Emissions

Subpart PP-
CO
2
Supply
Subpart UU-
CO
2
Received
Subpart RR-
CO
2
Sequestered
Subpart RR Monitoring , Reporting and
Verification MRV plan
1. RR is optional for EOR: operator must Optin to GS
2. RR Requires monitoring, reporting, verification plan (MRV).
3. Identify active and maximum monitoring area (MMA).
4. Identify surface leakage pathways (EOR focus: wells).
5. Must provide a strategy for CO2/ leakage detection.
6. Must undertake baseline measurements (pre-injection
conditions).
7. Must follow calculation methodologies and accounting & report
annually. As of 2013, no reporting under RR. Existing projects
have R& D exemptions.
8. Must continue post injection monitoring until no risk of leakage
(to the atmosphere; UIC class II, VI regulate risk of leakage to
ground water)
26
Underground Injection Control (UIC) Rules
Class VI geologic sequestration wells ensure
protection of underground sources of drinking water.
For more information on the UIC Class VI rule.
water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/
wells_sequestration.cfm.
EOR Storage is also permitted under well Class II;
(must opt in to RR.)
Subparts RR / UU fulfill a complementary goal--to
quantify the total amount of CO2 sequestered and
to confirm that it remains sequestered and is not
emitted to the atmosphere.
27
UIC Program Well Classes II, VI
28
Oil and Gas
Geologic Storage
151,000 EOR wells
(80%)
Brine Disposal Wells
(20%)
EPA does not
require Class
VI for EOR
storage
except if there
is increased
risk for
USDWs
29
Rough
Comparison
of UIC
Class II &
Class VI
Requirements

RECS
Class II-VI transition
Under the Safe Drinking Water Act rules promulgated
in 2010, 75 Fed. Reg. 77,230 (Dec. 10, 2010) an
EOR owner or operator operating under a Class II
permit must obtain a Class VI Geologic
Sequestration permit at the point when both (1) the
primary purpose of the ongoing carbon dioxide
injection activity changes from the recovery of the oil
(or gas) resource, to the long-term storage/
sequestration of carbon dioxide, and (2) that change
increases the risk of endangerment to USDWs
compared to business-as-usual Class II operations.
40 C.F.R. 144.19(a).
Storage Regulations Gaps?
Subpart RR is for reporting mass balance of stored
CO2 and CO2 emitted to the atmosphere.
Subpart RR does not enforce emissions reductions
nor does it penalize facilities where releases to the
atmosphere.
Similarly, Underground Injection Control (UIC) rules
are solely for aquifer protection from injected fluids, in
this case CO2 for storage purposes.
Clear and predictable Class II-VI transition criteria
lacking.
While Subpart RR and UIC program rules are
complementary, no integrated package of rules exists
in the U.S. that would deem a volume sequestered
or stored.
31
EOR-Storage
Storage with Pressure Management
32
After Hill, Hovorka,
Melzer (2012); Original
chart: Sue Hovorka.
Some Advantages to Managing
MRV/Risk in EOR Settings
33
Well Integrity: Key to Ensuring Storage
Integrity in EOR fields
Geologic system held hydrocarbons for millions of years.
In old fields, numerous wells may penetrate the confining
zone.
The wells must be proven up to be plugged and abandoned.
Several fields have been surprised by leakage of injectate
and brine through abandoned wells in old fields in recent
years: Anadarkos Salt Creek Field; Denburys Tinsley and
Delhi LA Fields.
Operators should focus on abandoned well integrity in CO2
EOR and storage projects.
This is where UIC class II principally falls short in
groundwater protection. UIC Class VI requires an area of
review (AoR) identified by computational modeling and
corrective action of wells penetrating the confining zone
that are inadequately P&Ad.
35
JAF01981.CDR
Zone of
Efficient Sweep
Purchased CO
2
Anthropogenic and/or
Natural Sources
Injected
CO
2
Immobile Oil
Immobile Oil
Recycled
CO
2
from
Production Well
CO
Stored
in Pore
Space
2
CO Dissolved (Sequestered)
in the Immobile
Oil and Gas Phases
2
Driver
Water
Water
Miscible
Zone
Oil
Bank
Additional
Oil
Recovery
CO2
CO2
CO
2
-EOR Technology: A Closed-Loop
System
Advanced Resources International
Permian Basin Whiting
North Ward Estes Field
2014 US EOR Operations & Sources
Kuuskraa and Wallace. OGJ,April 7, 2014
OGJ: US EOR Surveys Project
Continued CO2 EOR Growth
Kuuskraa and Wallace. OGJ,April 7, 2014
Linking CO
2
Supplies with CO
2
-EOR Demand
40
Sources: EIA Annual Energy Outlook 2011 for CO2 emissions; NETL/Advanced
Resources Intl (2011) CO2 demand.
The primary EOR markets for
excess CO
2
supplies from the
Ohio Valley, South Atlantic and
Mid-Continent is East/West
Texas and Oklahoma.
4.2
0.3
Pacific
0
0.2
0.2
7.4
14.2
4.3
2.0
6.3
3.7
3.7
0.2
2.3
1
3
B
c
fd

1
9
B
c
fd

0.2
3.6
8.0
-
0.6
4.2
4.2
0.3
8 Bcfd
Region
Captured CO2
Supplies*
CO2
Demand
Excess CO2
Supply
Net CO2
Demand
(BMt) (BMt) (BMt) (BMt)
New England 0.2 - 0.2
Middle Atlantic 2.3 0.2 2.1
South Atlantic 7.4 0.2 7.2
East North Central 4.2 0.6 3.6
West North Central 6.3 2.0 4.3
East South Central 3.6 0.2 3.3
West South Central 4.3 14.2 9.9
Mountain 3.7 3.7
Pacific 0.3 4.2 3.8
Total 32.2 25.3 20.8 13.7
ROZ "Fairways" 8.0 8.0
JAF2012_035.XLS
Captured CO2 Supplies and CO2 Demand
* Capture from 200 GW of coal-fired power plants, 90% capture rate.
CO
2
Demand by EOR (Bmt)
Captured CO
2
Emissions (Bmt)
Jackson Dome
40
Source: ARI
CO2 Demand Will Require Captured
Sources.
DiPietro /DOE 2012
Oil & Gas Capacity for CO2:

1) Residual Oil Zones (ROZ):

New Frontier for CO2 Sinks:
Residual Oil Zones (ROZ).
Naturally waterflooded zones
with remaining oil saturation
below the main pay zone (MPZ).
Recoverable with CO2 EOR
methods.
44
Legado
Resources (K-M)
ROZ
development,
Permian Basin
How Residual Oil Zones Form
Permian Basin /San Andres Fm.
45
ROZ produced
with same
methods as CO2
EOR.
Total, Primary, Waterflood, Main Pay and ROZ CO2 Performance
(the Concept of "Brownfield" Quaternary Oil)
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
80,000
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Year
A
n
n
u
a
l
i
z
e
d

O
i
l

P
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

i
n

b
o
p
d
TOTAL OIL - bopd
Proj Primary-bopd
Proj Waterflood-bopd
Main Pay EOR Baseline
Quat 2.0 Oil - bopd
Quat 3.0 Oil - bopd
Primary
Production
Peak
Tertiary CO2
Production Peak
Secondary
Production
Peak
Quaternary CO2 ROZ
Production Peak*
Primary
Cum = 125
mm bbls
Secondary
Cum = 325
mm bbls
Tertiary
Cum = 200
mm bbls
Projected
Quaternary
Cum = 300 or
200 mm bbls
* The Actual Shape of Quaternary Phase Production will be Dependent
on the How Well the MPZ Serves as an Analog to the ROZ Response &
the Availability of Ample and Af f ordable CO!
Oil & Gas Capacity for CO2:

2) Stacked Storage in Oil & Gas
Reservoirs
Stacked Saline Storage
Saline and EOR at One Facility
Existing Infrastructure
Reservoir knowledge and capacity
Existing Surveillance tools
Multiple caprock seals
RECS 50
3D Denbury - interpretation Tip Meckel BEG
Cranfield west-east cross section


T
u
s
c
a
l
o
o
s
a

F
m

Tuscaloosa D-E reservoir
Oil-water contact (OWC)
Tuscaloosa confining system
Interpretation Tip Meckel BEG
Lateral Stacked Storage, SECARB/GCCC
Project, Denbury Cranfield Field, MS.



lateral brine storage below OWC
Vertically Stacked Oil and Saline
Reservoirs, Frio Formation, TX
52
Courtesy Sue Hovorka / after Bill Ambrose, TX BEG/Gulf Coast Carbon Center
For More Information:
53
Bruce Hill
Clean Air Task Force
(603) 383 640
bruce@catf.us