Sie sind auf Seite 1von 14

June 2013

PANACEA
Predicting and monitoring the long-term behavior of CO2 injected
in deep geological formations

Project Number : 282900

Work-Package: WP02
WP Title
C02 Sites and Analogues
Deliverables D202 & D204

Status
Version
Review level
Planned delivery date
Actual delivery date
Leading participant
Contributing participants

(DRAFT, FINAL)
1.00
(WP, EU, ALL)
Month 18
Month 18
UEDIN
P. Pezard, N. Denchik, J. Lofi, H. Perroud, G. Henry, J.
Paris, M. Geeraert, A. Deleau, O. Jaafar

Dissemination Level
PU
RE

Public
Restricted to the consortium members, the SIRAB, the end-users and the EU
officers
Confidential (only the consortium and the EU officers)

CO

Deliverable number
Deliverable name
Work-package
Lead participant
Version
1.00

Name
Philippe Pezard
Nataliya Denchik
Johanna Lofi
Herv Perroud

D202 & D204


Geo-process facies analysis of experimental injection sites
WP02: Field quantification techniques
UGOE

Submitted by
CNRS

Review
level
WP

Participant
CNRS
CNRS
CNRS
UPPA

Submitted

Reviewed

June 21, 2013

Editors

email
ppezard@gulliver.fr
denchik@gm.univ-montp2.fr
lofi@gm.univ-montp2.fr
perroud@gm.univ-montp2.fr

Executive summary
A shallow experimental site has been set-up for shallow CO2 injection at Maguelone near
Montpellier (Mediterranean coastline, gulf of Lions, France) and the development of integrated
surface and in-situ (downhole) monitoring methods. The site will be further developped in the
context of PANACEA later in 2013 with 4 new boreholes, improved injection facilities and the
downhole set-up of new monitoring instruments down to a maximum of 20 m.
Keywords

Shallow experimental site for CO2 injection, hydrogeophysical monitoring


methods. Clastic sediments (sand-shale sequences).

Table of content
INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................... 1
1. "SIMEX" AND THE MAGUELONE SHALLOW INJECTION EXPERIMENTAL SITE ......................... 2
1.1. The Maguelone experimental site ..................................................................................... 2
1.2. Field experimental set-up ................................................................................................ 4
2. HYDROGEOPHYSICAL MONITORING FROM SURFACE AND DOWNHOLE .................................. 5
2.1.
2.2.
2.3.
2.6.

Pressure monitoring and fluid sampling from the WestBay. .................................................. 5


Seismic monitoring......................................................................................................... 6
Downhole electrical monitoring ........................................................................................ 8
Downhole sonic monitoring .............................................................................................. 9

CONCLUSION AND PERSPECTIVES ........................................................................................... 10


REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................ 11

Figure captions
Figure 1. Geographical location (left) and aerial photograph (right) of the Maguelone experimental site
located to the NW of the photograph (with the MAG1 and MAG4 boreholes) and one km to the east of the
Maguelone island (with the MAG3 borehole). .................................................................................. 2
Figure 2. Compilation of data set in borehole MAG. From Lofi et al., (2012). (A) simplified lithological
log. RES: regional erosion surface. G: Gravelly horizon; S: sandstone; Stars: radiocarbon datings (years
cal. B.P.) after Raynal et al. (2009); (B) Vertical grain size distribution (fraction <1mm); (C) Total
Gamma Ray and Uranium logs; (D) Formation conductivity logs: CILD (deep) and CILM (medium depth);
(E) TDS: total dissolved solid content from borehole fluid sampled in February 2010 (perforated casing
below 55 m bsl). Compilation of data set in borehole MAG5: (F) Total Gamma Ray and Uranium logs; (G)
Medium depth formation conductivity log; (H) TDS: total dissolved solid content from formation water
sampled in June 2011 using the Westbay system. ........................................................................... 3
Figure 3. Fluvial deposits at 13-16m depth. At left: Geological sample taken at Maguelone study site
(depth 15.40-16.50 m), consisting in a porous and permeable conglomerates with sands (low sea level
stand fluvial deposits). At right: H2S encountered during coring operations near 15m depth. ................. 4
Figure 4. Field spread at the Maguelone experimental site for the SIMEx integrated monitoring. ........... 5
Figure 5. Multilevel groundwater device based on a multi-packer completion from WestBay (SWS). ..... 6
Figure 6. Seismic time-lapse monitoring set-up (2012). Above: acquisition setup. Red: seismic source
(hammer blow). Blue: a channel used as a reference for synchronization, surface and borehole
geophones. Below: monitoring timing during the injection experiment. In blue: injection periods.
7
Figure 7. Seismic time-lapse monitoring (March 2012): seismic rms noise level along surface antenna
close to the leaking TLL hole later repaired with cement injection aroud the hole down to 7 m depth.
8
Figure 8. imaGeau observatory DEO9 (MAG9). N2 injection experiment (November 2012). Differences
overtime in electrical resistivity relative to the baseline. . ................................................................. 9
Figure 9. Full waveform dual sensor sonic well logging (20 kHz) during CO2 injection in January 2013
(TLL hole). Left: changes during injection in sonic amplitude. Right: Vp determined from first arrival. ..... 9
Figure 10. Downhole velocity model at the site in the DSO (MAG1) and TLL (MAG6) holes from full
waveform sonic (20 kHz), seismic and core measurements (GeoTek bench). Please note the change in
sonic velocity in MAG6 before and after cementation to ensure the sealing of the experimental box from
potential leaks along the injection and monitoring holes baseline. .
10

Introduction
An experimental setup for shallow subsurface hydrogeophysical monitoring has been installed
at the Maguelone site, located along the Mediterranean lido of the Gulf of Lions near
Montpellier, France. This experimental site was created first in the context of ALIANCE EC
project (FP5), then further developped as part of MUSTANG and PANACEA EC projects (FP7),
as well as from CNRS and regional funding (Languedoc-Roussillon ARPE program), whether for
drilling, instrumentation or operational matters.
"SIMEx" (Shallow Injection Monitoring Experiment) provides a unique opportunity to test in a
cost effective manner a full suite of coordinated monitoring techniques, either from surface or
downhole. The field spread includes at this point an injection hole, a time-lapse logging hole
(TLL), a downhole hydrodynamic observatory based on a pore fluid sampling completion from
WestBay (SWS), two permanent downhole electrical resistivity observatories (imaGeau), a
downhole seismic observatory, plus surface seismic and electrical resistivity monitoring arrays.
This coordinated set of observatories will be further developped as part of PANACEA and
should lead to the design of integrated sensors and methods for the monitoring of gas injection
in deeper reservoirs (Pezard et al.,2010).
Prior to CO2 injection, N2 injection experiments were undertaken at Maguelone as part of
SIMEx project in order to measure the site response to gas injection. Nitrogen was chosen
because of its nonreactive nature and because of the reducing nature of the in-situ
environment present in the shallow subsurface at Maguelone, precluding oxygen injection to
avoid massive bacterial developments. Nitrogen injection experiments consisted in an injection
in the dedicated hole at a depth of 13-16 m (fluvial conglomerates and sands). For the three
nitrogen injection experiments in March, June and November of 2012, the gas plume was
successfully detected by all monitoring techniques (pressure, electrical resistivity and seismic
monitoring), either from surface or in-situ. The detection of gas propagation was immediate.
The pressure values increased during injections and decreased between and after injections.
The increase in resistivity was measured during all injection periods. The seismic monitoring
appears to be extremely sensitive to the underground gas storage, with very clear
modifications of the recorded traces as soon as the injection begins. The nitrogen storage was
observed closer to the surface than expected (~7 m) under the Late-Holocene lagoonal
sediments (mostly impermeable dark green clays), forming an impermeable seal overlying
homogeneous fine-grained Pliocene continental deposits.
During nitrogen injection experiments, a clear noise of the gas bubbles was heard directly in
the imaGeau and TLL holes just after the begging of injection. Also a clear seismic noise
anomaly was detected from surface monitoring in the vicinity of the TLL hole. In order to avoid
the gas leakage and in preparation for the CO2 injection experiment in 2013, all holes were
cemented as part of PANACEA down to 7 m by drilling 3 small holes around the original ones.
The next phase of SIMEx within MUSTANG was that of CO2 injection, with similar surface and
downhole hydrogeophysical monitoring than for N2 injection. For the CO2 injection experiment
in January 2013 concluding SIMEx operations as part of MUSTANG, the gas plume was
successfully detected by all monitoring techniques (pressure, electrical resistivity, seismic
monitoring and fluid sampling, including on-site pH measurements). The reaction to gas
propagation was immediate. The pressure values increased during injections and decreased
between and after injections. Electrical resistivity monitoring and induction logging showed a
similar reduction in resistivity due to CO2 dissolving into pore water below 8 m. A derease in
pH values was also measured. The analysis of pore fluid samples taken during the experiment
will permit to confirm the CO2 dissolving during injection.

MUSTANG - 227286

Page |1

1. "SIMEx" and the Maguelone shallow injection experimental site


1.1. The Maguelone experimental site
The Maguelone experimental site is located along the Mediterranean lido of the Gulf of Lions
passive margin, 10 km to the south of Montpellier. Limited to the north by the Prevost coastal
lagoon and to the south by the Mediterranean Sea (Figure 1), this site offers a natural
laboratory to study porous coastal reservoirs in a clastic and clay-rich context saturated mostly
with saline fluids.

Gulf of Lions

Figure 1. Geographical location (left) and aerial photograph (right) of the Maguelone
experimental site located to the NW of the photograph (with the MAG1 and MAG4 boreholes)
and one km to the east of the Maguelone island (with the MAG3 borehole).
Continuous geological samples and geophysical data from shallow boreholes at Maguelone
have leaded to identify two depositional sequences (Figure 2):

Near the ground surface (0-9 m), a thin Late-Holocene sequence (< 5000 yrs B.P.) is
constituted with lagoon sediments with impermeable dark green clays topped by grey
shelly beach sands. This sequence forms an impermeable seal overlying the Pliocene
sequence with an unconformity.

Pliocene sequence, from ~ 9 m to the base of MAG1-DSO (60 m). This sequence consists
mainly in relatively homogeneous fine grained continental deposits (clays, silts, and
clayey silts). Locally, some marine incursions (grey clays) and lacustrine levels (white
carbonates clays) are visible. The clayey fraction is relatively high all along the sequence,
making those deposits relatively poorly permeable.

MUSTANG - 227286

Page |2

Figure 2. Compilation of data set in borehole MAG. From Lofi et al., (2012). (A) simplified
lithological log. RES: regional erosion surface. G: Gravelly horizon; S: sandstone; Stars:
radiocarbon datings (years cal. B.P.) after Raynal et al. (2009); (B) Vertical grain size
distribution (fraction <1mm); (C) Total Gamma Ray and Uranium logs; (D) Formation
conductivity logs: CILD (deep) and CILM (medium depth); (E) TDS: total dissolved solid
content from borehole fluid sampled in February 2010 (perforated casing below 55 m bsl).
Compilation of data set in borehole MAG5: (F) Total Gamma Ray and Uranium logs; (G)
Medium depth formation conductivity log; (H) TDS: total dissolved solid content from
formation water sampled in June 2011 using the Westbay system.

MUSTANG - 227286

Page |3

Figure 3. Fluvial deposits at 13-16m depth. At left: Geological sample taken at Maguelone
study site (depth 15.40-16.50 m), consisting in a porous and permeable conglomerates with
sands (low sea level stand fluvial deposits). At right: H2S encountered during coring operations
near 15m depth.

In the Pliocene sequence, a single remarkable depositional unit is located from about 13 to 16
m depth and consists in a porous and permeable conglomerates and sands interpreted as
fluvial deposits (Figure 3). The conglomerates, clearly identified downhole from low natural
gamma radioactivity values, can be correlated laterally with boreholes located a t a km
distance, showing the lateral extension of this unit. Sedimentary facies, geophysical
measurements and hydrological testing indicate a high permeability (K = 4.10-3 m/s), salinity
(34 g/l) and porosity for these conglomerates, also bounded above and below by clay-rich
horizons. Hydrogen sulphite (H2S) encountered in a repetitive fashion during coring and drilling
operations near 15m depth confirms the presence of a small reservoir at this depth. The
possibility of the conglomerate forming a 3 m-thick gas-rich reservoir may consequently be
envisaged, this anomaly resulting from lagoonal organic matter decomposition.
From a hydrological point of view, the induction electrical resistivity (opposite to electrical
conductivity, Figure 2) data in MAG1 show that the sedimentary column is saturated with
seawater to brackish water from surface down to 32 m. Below, a gradual increases in electrical
resistivity can only be explained by a gradual freshening in pore fluid with increasing depth.
Below 40 m, values as high as 8.0 .m and above are reached. During drilling, these horizons
were found to be artesian for about 30 minutes, with an initial fountain a few meters high. The
hole is now equipped with a PVC casing perforated at the base only (from 59 to 62 m).

1.2. Field experimental set-up


The field spread (Figure 4) for gas injection included an injection hole GIH, a time-lapse
logging hole TLL, two downhole electrical observatories imaGeau (DEO), a downhole
hydrodynamic observatory based on a multipacker completion from WestBay (SWS) DHO, a
downhole seismic observatory DSO, plus surface seismic (SSO), downhole electrical resistivity
observatories (imaGeau), and a surface electrical resistivity monitoring set-up.
Prior to gas injection, a whole set of pre-injection experiments were conducted in order to
prepare, test, and calibrate the Maguelone site for later experiments. The initial petrophysical
and geophysical properties of the study site were also characterized both in the laboratory
from core and from downhole geophysical measurements (gamma ray, electrical and
acoustical logging), followed by surface (electrical and seismic tomography) and surface-to
borehole (seismic) surveys.
MUSTANG - 227286

Page |4

Nitrogen injection experiments were undertaken in order to measure the site response to gas
injection. Nitrogen was chosen because of the reducing nature of the in-situ environment
present in the shallow subsurface at Maguelone, precluding oxygen injection to avoid massive
bacterial developments.
Three nitrogen injection experiments were realized at the Maguelone study site in March, June
and November 2012 and consisted in an injection of nitrogen in the injection hole GIH
(Figure 4) at a depth of 13-16 m (fluvial conglomerates and sands). It revealed a series of
downhole leaks corrected by shallow cementation (down to 7 m) of several holes around
injection and monitoring holes.

Figure 4. Field spread at the Maguelone experimental site for the SIMEx integrated monitoring
experiment.

2. Hydrogeophysical monitoring from surface and downhole


2.1. Pressure monitoring and fluid sampling
The downhole hydrodynamic observatory (DHO, Figure 4) is a multilevel groundwater device
based on a multi-packer completion from WestBay (SWS), including packers in order to isolate
the different hydrological horizons and to provide fluid samples, temperature and pressure
data before, during and after injection, thereby time/space calibration points from tracers (i.e.
precise boundary conditions) to numerical modelers (Figure 5).
At the Maguelone site, eight Westbay zones were equipped for fluid sampling and monitoring
down to a depth of 49 m. For experimental purpose as part of SIMEx, two of these zones were
located within the reservoir where gas is injected (at 13.9 and 15.5 m), one was located above
(at 7.9 m) and a fourth one below (24.9 m). For long-term survey of underlying groundwater,
another set of four sampling zones was installed in front of sand-rich layers to allow probing at
32.1, 36.7, 39.8 and 49.0 m.
MUSTANG - 227286

Page |5

Figure 5. Multilevel groundwater device based on a multi-packer completion from the


Schlumberger "WestBay" downhole hydrochemical monitoring system.

2.2. Seismic monitoring


The seismic time-lapse monitoring is performed before, during and after gas injection, both
downhole and at surface, as follows :

both downhole and surface seismic records were obtained at 10 to 15' time intervals.

downhole 3 components 28 Hz geophones were installed at 7, 12 and 17 m respectively.


The surface seismic antenna is composed of 28 vertical geophones (50 Hz), spaced every
1 meter, along a line spaning from DSO to TLL and beyond, starting at 8 m from the DSO
(Figure 4 & 25). A surface geophone, at the distance of 1m from DSO, was used as a
reference for synchronization (cross-correlation).

The source (hammer blow) was kept at a fixed position 2m from the well head.

Sequences of 5 successive shots were acquired for staking, and recorded individually.
The ambient noise before the first arrival was analyzed first on the seismic traces. Figure 7
presents RMS amplitude of the seismic noise level along a surface antenna (channel numbers
on vertical axis) according to the shot numbers (vertical axis). Just after the beginning of the
injection a strong noise anomaly was detected in the vicinity of the geophone channels n1920 near the TLL hole (MAG6). This noise was related to the presence of gas bubbles heard in
this hole and corresponding the gas leakage along the hole from the injection reservoir and all
the way to surface.
Figure 27 shows an example of results for vertical and surface geophones: a borehole
geophone at 7m depth, the most affected by the gas injection with very clear modifications of
the recorded traces as soon as the injection begins; and a surface geophone with 22m offset,
one of the surface geophones affected by gas injection.

MUSTANG - 227286

Page |6

Figure 6. Seismic time-lapse monitoring set-up (2012). Above: acquisition setup. Red:
seismic source (hammer blow). Blue: a channel used as a reference for synchronization,
surface and borehole geophones. Below: monitoring timing during the injection experiment.
In blue: injection periods.

Figure 7. Seismic time-lapse monitoring (March 2012): seismic rms noise level along surface
antenna close to the leaking TLL hole later repaired with cement injection aroud the hole down
to 7 m depth.

MUSTANG - 227286

Page |7

2.3. Downhole electrical monitoring


The subsurface observatories (DEO7&DEO9, Figure 4) were built from a PVC pipe along which
downhole electrodes were located on the external surface of the pipe. The electrodes are made
of gold plated copper to reduce the corrosion process. The technical specificities for the DEO9
(MAG9) apparatus are: 17.80 m depth capacity, with 0,35 m electrode spacing. The technical
specificities for the DEO7 (MAG7) apparatus are: 18.15 m depth capacity, with 0.70 m
electrode spacing from 0.0m to 13.0 m depth, 0.10 m electrode spacing from 13.0 m to 16.4
m depth, and 0.70 m again depth from 16.4 m to 18.15 m depth. The observatories are set-up
in automatic way for data acquisition, with electrical resistivity profiles recorded once a day
outside of experimental periods. During injection experiments, profiles are acquired every
hour. Just before and after injection (pre- and post-injection monitoring), profiles are acquired
every two/three hours.
The high frequency acquisition during injections leads to the following in 2D (z,t) of downhole
resistivity changes over time related to nearby gas injection. The results are presented here in
terms of resistivity difference relative to the baseline measurement acquired before injection.

Figure 8. Time-lapse single hole electrical monitoring in June of 2012 in two nearby holes with
differences overtime in electrical resistivity relative to the baseline measurements. Above:
imaGeau observatory (DEO9). Below: time-lapse induction logging (TLL).
The obtained resistivity are free of any clay contribution to the electrical signal and relate to
the variable gas content in the pore space as nitrogen is being injected and slowly dissipates
within the formation. An increase in resistivity is obtained at ~ 8m depth just after the start of
injection in the two holes (imaGeau observatory and TLL). This increase due to N2 storage in
two thin sand layers identified from core is observed to extend at this depth during the first
and second injection periods, as well as between and after ~25 hours after the end of 2nd
injection for imaGeau observatory and ~70 hours for the TLL hole. The increase in resistivity
MUSTANG - 227286

Page |8

due to the gas injection is more significant for the imaGeau observatory then for the TLL hole.
A second very slight increase in resistivity is obtained at ~15 m depth in the TLL hole, starting
later than the first one, after about 4 hours of injection (Pezard et al., 2012).

2.4. Downhole sonic monitoring


Repeated downhole sonic measurements were performed occasionally (1-3 times per day) in
the Time-Lapse Logging borehole (TLL) and the DSO hole before, during and after nitrogen and
CO2 injection experiments (June, November 2012 & January 2013). This work has been
realized with Full Waveform Sonic logging probe built by Mount Sopris. The sonic
measurements were recorded every 5 cm while logging up the hole. Figure 9 shows changes
over injection time in sonic signal amplitude while Vp determined from the first arrival during
the CO2 injection in the TLL hole (January 2013) does not appear to be modified. We can
notice the changes in amplitude over the injection period, especially at the depth of 15 m.

Figure 9. Full waveform dual sensor sonic well logging (20 kHz) during CO2 injection in
January 2013 (MAG6 - TLL hole). Left: changes over injection time in sonic signal amplitude.
Right: Vp determined from first arrival.

MUSTANG - 227286

Page |9

Figure 10. Downhole velocity model at the site in the DSO (MAG1) and TLL (MAG6) holes
from full waveform sonic (20 kHz), seismic and core measurements (GeoTek bench). Please
note the change in sonic velocity in MAG6 before and after cementation to ensure the sealing
of the experimental box from potential leaks along the injection and monitoring holes.
The downhole sonic data also helped to verify the quality of the cementation performed after
gas injection in March 2012 to minimize leaking of the experimental set-up along several
monitoring holes such as MAG6 (TLL), MAG9 (DEO) and the injection hole itself. Faster P-wave
velocities were obtained in MAG6 after cementation (Figure 10 - black curve, middle track), in
November 2012, with respect to the initial profile (Figure 10 - red curve, middle track)
recorded in 2010.

Conclusion and perspectives


The validity of the experimental set-up developped at Maguelone for gas injection monitoring
as part of MUSTANG has been verified in 2012 and leaks along a series of holes have been
reduced or eliminated from cementing along them down to 7 m depth. The site will be further
developped as part of PANACEA in 2013 and 2014, with the drilling of 4 new monitoring or
injection holes, the set-up of new monitoring instruments, followed by phases of CO2 injection
in order to :
- get a more complete monitoring spead,
- test new and particularly integrated and multimethods downhole monitoring instruments,
- provide improved constraints to the modelers.

MUSTANG - 227286

P a g e | 10

References
Lofi, J.; Pezard, P.; Bouchette F.; Raynal O.; Sabatier P.; Denchik, N.; Levannier A.; Dezileau L. & R.
Certain. (2012). Integrated Onshore-Offshore Investigation of a Mediterranean Layered Coastal Aquifer.
Groundwater. DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-6584.2012.01011.x
Pezard, P.; Denchik, N.; Lofi, J.; Perroud, H. & Neyens, D. (2010), Maguelone (Languedoc coastline,
France):
a
shallow
experimental
site
for
CO2
storage.
Hydrogeophysical
monitoring
methods.MAGUELONE. EGU General Assembly 2010.
Pezard, P.; Denchik, N.; Lofi, J.; Perroud, H. & Neyens, D. (2012), SIMEx : a shallow integrated, multimethod hydrogeophysical monitoring experiment for CO2 storage conducted at Maguelone (Languedoc
coastline, France). EGU General Assembly 2012.

MUSTANG - 227286

P a g e | 11

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen