dr. lee h. spangler, director - cslf · 2015-08-25 · dr. lee h. spangler, director ... • vsp...

Measurement, Monitoring & Verification

Dr. Lee H. Spangler, Director Zero Emission Research and Technology

Center

The Need for MMV

Demonstration / Research Stage • Health, Safety and Environmental concerns (HSE) • Required by regulators • Confirm underground behavior of CO2 • Test models / improve parameterization • Public Acceptance

The Need for MMV

Implementation Stage • Health, Safety and Environmental concerns • Injection / reservoir management • Required by regulators • Verification for credits • Reduction of liability • Confirm underground behavior of CO2 • Test models • Public Acceptance

Monitoring Zones • Near Injection • Near Surface • Remote Sensing Others classify differently (Hovorka)

Example Sampling Train for Soil Gas Using Vacuum Pump and Syringe (USEPA 2003).http://www/epa.gov/ttb nrml/presentations.htm

• Measures gases that exist within soil pore spaces in the unsaturated layer (i.e., vadose zone) between the ground surface and the groundwater table

• Soil gas can contain atmospheric gases and biologically produced gases.

• If seepage occurs it can contain gases that are introduced into the subsurface (for example CO2, or tracers).

Soil Gas Monitoring

• Directly measures flux of CO2 at surface using an infrared gas analyzer

• Abnormally high fluxes are an indicator of leakage

• Measurements are complicated by daily and seasonal variations in plant and soil respiration that depend on amounts of sunlight, moisture levels and temperature.

Soil Flux Monitoring

Jennifer Lewicki, LBNL

• CO2 flux measurement (the amount of CO2 released per unit area per unit time) • Determined by simultaneously measuring wind speed and direction, temperature, humidity, and the atmospheric concentrations of CO2 • CO2 concentrations are measured using an open­path infrared gas analyzer. • Can have a large “Footprint”

Eddy Covariance

Tiltmeter (left) and Installation in Shallow Borehole (Applied Geomechanics)

• Monitors surface deformation caused by CO2 plume

• Use an array of tiltmeters installed in shallow boreholes (typically <10 m deep) around the injection wells in the area overlying the CO2 plume

• Tiltmeters are sensitive enough to record microradian­scale changes (which is the angle turned by raising one end of a beam one kilometer long the width of a dime), which can be caused by various surface phenomena including daily temperature variations.

Tiltmeters

Diagram Showing how Radar Interferometry Detects Uplift of the Earth’s Surface.[1] [1]http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/in sar/public_files/InSAR_Fact_S heet/2005­3025.pdf

• Uses radar satellite images from Earth­orbiting satellites • Maps land surface topography with accuracy of a few centimeters, • Cannot be used in areas with vegetation. • InSAR is a proven technique for mapping ground deformation and is commonly used to monitor ground deformation at volcanoes.

InSAR (Interferometric Synthetic Aperture Radar)

bare soil in field full growth fall senescence

Hyperspectral Imaging

• High CO 2 levels in soil can stress or even kill plants

• Plant stress can be detected via infrared spectral imaging

• This can be land based, airborne or satellite

• Methodology will be dependent on land use

• Acquired by lowering instruments down the well and making a measurement profile of various physical properties along its length. • Sonic, density, neutron, NMR and the various induction and resistivity logs are potentially suitable for CO2 storage monitoring • The Reservoir Saturation Tool (RST), a through­casing pulsed neutron tool designed to measure water and hydrocarbon saturations, is well suited to CO2 monitoring. Work at Frio (Muller et al.) has demonstrated successful CO2 saturation logging with the RST tool.

Lowering a Wireline Assembly into a Well (left) and Schematic of CHFR Tool Showing Current Flow (Schlumberger)

Wireline Logs

Direct Fluid Sampling

• Dissolved CO2 • Other chemistry • U­tube sampling (LBNL) allows sample extraction at correct T & P conditions

Schematic of Cross­ Well Seismic Survey (Schlumberger)

• Monitors distribution of CO2 in the injection reservoir.

• Requires a minimum of two wells that extend to the base of the injection reservoir.

• Seismic sources suspended on a cable are lowered down one well and a cable containing a set of receivers is lowered down the other well.

• Provides data for the 2­dimensional vertical “slice” between the two wells containing the sources and receivers.

Frio X­well Tom Daley, Mike Hoversten, L. Myer, LBNL

Cross­well seismic

Microseismic Downhole Sensors and Surface Completion with Solar Power (ESG)

• Pressure changes caused by the CO2 plume generate subsurface vibrations.

• Receivers placed down a borehole continuously record a seismic signal from the injection reservoir.

• These events are due to the small changes in pore pressures.

Microseismic Sensors

• Requires that a well is situated in close proximity to the CO2 plume. • Surface seismic sources are deployed around the well installation, • Sensors deployed downhole. • Conventional VSP with sources close to the wellhead gives quite narrow subsurface coverage around the wellbore.

• Walkaway VSP where sources are arranged on a radial profile provides 2D subsurface coverage away from the well.

• Compared to surface seismic, VSP data can offer improved resolution and formation characterization around the well.

• VSP data also offers the potential for providing early warning of migration from the well into the surrounding caprock.

VSP reflection section at Frio showing pronounced enhancement of reflectivity at the reservoir level after CO2 injection (Images courtesy of Tom Daley (LBNL), Christine Doughty (LBNL) and Susan Hovorka (University of Texas)).

Vertical Seismic Profiling (VSP)

4­D seismic (time lapse 3­D seismic) at Sliepner (from Chadwick, 2004)

3­D Seismic

• Uses multiple seismic sources and receivers. • Produces full volumetric images of subsurface structure in both reservoir and overburden. • Very powerful but expensive method

Vibroseis Trucks Acquiring Surface Seismic Data (Tesla Exploration) and 3D Seismic Data Volume (Gedco) http://www.teslaoffshore.com

Sally Benson, LBNL

Pressure Monitoring

• Wellhead, bottom­hole and annular pressure can be monitored • Provides information about injectivity • Provides feedback useful to protecting reservoir, caprock integrity • Sudden changes provide early evidence of problems • Relatively inexpensive

• Typically a gaseous substance with very low natural atmospheric concentration (Perfluorocarbon tracers (PFTs), SF 6 )

• Low natural abundance allows very low detection limits and high sensitivity.

• Actual collection of samples and measurement methods vary. Some are real­ time, others require collection of samples and laboratory measurements

• Samples can be collected from soil gas, the atmosphere, or monitoring wells.

Tracers Sorption tubes to collect PFTs at ZERT Surface Detection Facility

Brian Strasizar, Art Wells, NETL

Frio noble gas and PFT analysis, Barry Freifeld (LBNL) and Timmy Phelps (ORNL)

•Introduced materials that travel with CO2can uniquely fingerprint migration

–Nobel gasses

–PFT’s and other chemically unique materials

–Detection at very low concentrations

•CO2can be geochemically unique

–C isotopes

–Impurities

Frio Tracer Data

Isotopic Analysis • The 13 C content of CO 2 varies depending on the source of CO 2 . • Fossil fuel generated CO 2 typically has a different 13 C to 12 C ratio than soil gas or the atmosphere • Measurement of the isotopic ratio can be a more sensitive method than measuring flux or concentration • Different types of sampling can be used (soil gas, atmospheric, vegetation, ground water).

Julianna Fessenden, LANL

http://www.co2captureandstorage.info/co2monitoringtool/index.php

A Useful, Interactive MMV Website

A Useful, Interactive MMV Website

Use at CO2 Sequestration Sites Category Method Weyburn,

Canada Frio, TX Lost Hills,

CA Vacuum Field, NM

LIDAR √ INSAR √ Remote

Sensing Hyperspectral Imaging Atmospheric Monitoring Eddy Covariance √

Soil Gas Sampling √ Surface Flux Emissions √ √ Vehicle Mounted CO 2 Leak Detection System CO 2 Wellhead Monitoring Borehole Tiltmeters

Methods for Monitoring Processes at Surface and Near Surface

Ecosystem Studies √ In­Situ P/T Monitoring √ √ √ √ Fluid Sampling √ √ √ Crosswell Seismic √ √ √ Wireline Tools √ √ √ Downhole Microseismic √ √ 3­D Time Lapsed Seismic √ √ √ √ 2­D Time Lapsed Seismic Vertical Seismic Profiling √ √ Crosswell Resistivity √ √ √ Long Electrode Electrical Resistivity Tomography

Methods For Monitoring Subsurface Phenomena

Permanent Seismic Sources/Receivers

What MMV Should Be Used? Project and Site Dependent

Monitoring at Frio Pilot

What MMV Should Be Used? Project, Site, and Stage Dependent

•Consistent with project goals and site properties • Some sites have inherently different HSE factors •Research intensive projects may utilize more MMV to improve understanding of CO2 behavior

•Different stages may require different methods • Site characterization • Pre­injection background measurements •During injection • Post injection monitoring

What MMV Should Be Used?

Most projects should have: •Some near injection component to ensure CO2 and reservoir are behaving as expected •Some near surface components for HSE and public assurance • Integration of the MMV techniques so data is shared •Pressure monitoring because it can give a very early indication of problem issues

Experiment Site

MSU Agricultural lands

Route

Experiment Site

MSU Agricultural lands

Route

Field Test Facility at MSU

Facility Goals

• Develop a site with known injection rates for testing near surface monitoring techniques

• Use this site to establish detection limits for monitoring technologies

• Use this site to improve models for groundwater – vadose zone – atmospheric dispersion models

• Develop a site that is accessible and available for multiple seasons / years

0.1

1

10

100

1000

10000 0 20 40 60 80 100

Years

Leakag

e (t CO2 / d

ay)

Scenario for Injection Rate Choice

• 4 Mt/year injection ~ 500 MW power plant

• 50 years injection • 3 Leakage rates

– 0.1%/yr. 0.01%/yr, 0.001%/year

• 2 Leakage geometries – Linear fault 10*1,000 m – Linear fault 100*1,000 m

• What is a meaningful rate at which to conduct the experiments?

• Emplacement

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 20 40 60 80 100

Years

Emplacem

ent (Mt C

O2)

Sally Benson

0.01%

0.1% 1%

Lee Spangler

0.001%

0.01

0.1

1

10

100 0 20 40 60 80 100

Years

Scaled

Lea

kage

Rate (t/day

)

0.001

0.01

0.1

1

10 0 20 40 60 80 100

Years

Scaled Leakage Rate (t/day)

Injection Rate

Scale to 1000 m leak 1,000 kg/day: 1 tonne/day

100 m

1,000 m

1,000 m 10 m

100 m 100 m

Sally Benson

Lee Spangler

0.01%

0.1%

0.001% 0.01%

0.1%

0.001%

Horizontal Well Installation

Horizontal Well Installation

Porta­Potty

Parking

Horizontal Well Installation

240 ft

40 ft

16 in

Packer

Pressure transducer

Electric cable Packer inflation line CO 2 delivery lines Strength line

Packer Packer

Flow

Con

troller

Flow

Con

troller

Flow

Con

troller

Flow

Con

troller

Flow

Con

troller

Flow

Con

troller

Surface Manifold for Injection

CO 2 from Heater

stainless pipe

Tracer Injection

Port

Pressure Gauge

Gas Sampling

Port Shut­off Valve

Pressure Regulator

20 in 3 in

To Well

Temperature Probe

¾ in NPT

Data Acquisition

Data Acquisition System and Injection Controller

Pressure Transducer

Pressure from Zones 1­4

Presure Data

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

7/8/2007 0:00 7/9/2007 0:00 7/10/2007 0:00 7/11/2007 0:00 7/12/2007 0:00 7/13/2007 0:00 7/14/2007 0:00 7/15/2007 0:00 7/16/2007 0:00 7/17/2007 0:00 7/18/2007 0:00

Time

Gauge Pressure (KPa)

Zone 1

Zone 2 Zone 3

Zone 4

First Injection Starts

Injection

Injection Rate

0

5

10

15

20

25

7/8/2007 0:00 7/9/2007 0:00 7/10/2007 0:00 7/11/2007 0:00 7/12/2007 0:00 7/13/2007 0:00 7/14/2007 0:00 7/15/2007 0:00 7/16/2007 0:00 7/17/2007 0:00 7/18/2007 0:00

Time

Injection (kg/day)

rate 1 (Kg/day)

rate 2

rate 3

rate 4

rate 5

rate 6

Fluctuations Not Real

MSU – Geotechnical,CO2 atm & soil gas (DIAL), Lidar, soil microbes, plant stress (IR & Hyperspect.)

LBNL – Eddy Covariance, Soil Gas Chamber, Modeling

LANL – EC, Stable Isotopes (Plant, Soil Gas, Atm & Water)

PNNL – Soil Gas Flux

LLNL – Plant Stress (Hyperspectral)

NETL – Soil gas, Resistivity, Flux Chambers, Tracers (sorption tubes)

WVU – Water Chemistry

Large Number of Participants / Methods

10 m

9 ­9 0 1 2 3 NE end

SW end

4 5 6 7 8 ­1 ­2

1

­8 ­7 ­6 ­5 ­4 ­3

5

4

2

3

­1

­2

­3

­4

­5

­6

6

N Schematic of Placement of Detection Techniques

LBL EC tower

array of water

wells

NET

L

plan

t exp

erim

ents

MSU fiber optic box

MSU multispectral camera scaffolding

LANL EC tower

MSU LIDAR

WALKWAY

WALKWAY

Schematic of Placement of Detection Techniques

10 m

9

­9

0 1

2

3

NE end

SW end

4 5

6

7 8

­1

­2

1

­8 ­7

­6 ­5

­4 ­3

5

4

2

3

­1

­2

­3

­4

­5

­6

6

N

LBL

EC tower

array of water wells

NETL

plant experiments

MSU fiber optic box

MSUm

ultispectral

camera scaffolding

LANL

EC tower

MSU LID

AR WA

LKWA

Y

WALKWA

Y

10 m

9

­9

0 1

2

3

NE end

SW end

4 5

6

7 8

­1

­2

1

­8 ­7

­6 ­5

­4 ­3

5

4

2

3

­1

­2

­3

­4

­5

­6

0 1

2

3

NE end

SW end

4 5

6

7 8

­1

­2

1

­8 ­7

­6 ­5

­4 ­3

5

4

2

3

­1

­2

­3

­4

­5

­6

6

N

LBL

EC tower

array of water wells

NETL

plant experiments

MSU fiber optic box

MSUm

ultispectral

camera scaffolding

LANL

EC tower

MSU LID

AR WA

LKWA

Y

WALKWA

Y

10 m

9

­9

0 1

2

3

NE end

SW end

4 5

6 7

8

­1

­2 1

­8

­7 ­6

­5 ­4

­3

5

4

2

3

­1 ­2

­3

­4 ­5

­6

6

N

LBL

EC tower

array of water wells

NETL

plant exp

eriments

MSU fiber optic box

MSUmultispectral

camera scaffolding

LANL

EC tower

MSU LIDAR WALKW

AY

WALKW

AY

10 m

9

­9

0 1

2

3

NE end

SW end

4 5

6 7

8

­1

­2 1

­8

­7 ­6

­5 ­4

­3

5

4

2

3

­1 ­2

­3

­4 ­5

­6

0 1

2

3

NE end

SW end

4 5

6 7

8

­1

­2 1

­8

­7 ­6

­5 ­4

­3

5

4

2

3

­1 ­2

­3

­4 ­5

­6

6

N

LBL

EC tower

array of water wells

NETL

plant exp

eriments

MSU fiber optic box

MSUmultispectral

camera scaffolding

LANL

EC tower

MSU LIDAR WALKW

AY

WALKW

AY

graphic courtesy Janet Machol (NOAA/ETL)

DIAL – DIfferential Absorption Lidar

2.0015 2.0020 2.0025 2.0030 2.0035 2.0040

0.76

0.80

0.84

0.88

0.92

0.96

1.00

Measured Calculated from Hitran

20m Pathlength A tuning of 18.7GHz/C was used to convert from temperature to wavelength.

CO 2 CO

2 CO 2

CO 2 CO

2

CO 2

H 2 O

H 2 O

Transm

ission

Wavelength (µm) 2.002 2.003 2.004 2.005 80.0

82.5

85.0

87.5

90.0

92.5

95.0

97.5

100.0

102.5

105.0

4:09pm 5:25pm 6:42pm 7:59pm 9:16pm 11:36pm 12:53am 2:10am 3:27am 4:43am

Transm

ission (%

)

Wavelength (µm)

2.0035

87.5

90.0

92.5

95.0

97.5

100.0

102.5

105.0

4:09pm 5:25pm 6:42pm 7:59pm 9:16pm 11:36pm 12:53am 2:10am 3:27am 4:43am

Transm

ission (%

)

Wavelength (µm)

Repaski, et al

Repaski, et al

Second Release

0 50 100 150 200 250

0

20000

40000

60000

80000

100000

120000 Above Well Measurements Taken at 6:30 am

See Plot A 2:30 am

3:30 pm

10:30 pm

6:30 am

CO 2 S

oil G

as Concentraion (ppm

) Time (Hours)

190 195 200 205 210 215 220 350

400

450

500

550

600

650

700

750

800

Possible Association with third dip in the underground data.

Background Over Well

CO 2 Soil G

as Concentrtion (P

PM)

Julian Day

Buried Sensor

Above Ground Sensor

Repaski, et al

Below Ground Instrument Repaski, et al

Below Ground Instrument Repaski, et al

Eddy Covariance Method

Flux Tower

Lewicki

Comparison

140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 220 230 300

400

500

600

700

800 Second Release First Release

Concentration (ppm

)

Julian Day

Lewicki

Flux Chamber Method

Lewicki

Modeling the Shallow Release Experiment

Oldenberg

2K­2571

• Detach head with narrower pipe • Pound steel pipe with detachable

head one meter into ground • Lower CATS into the pipe • Seal pipe at top with a compression

fitting stopper • CATS are replaced as sets: one

week apart initially to months apart later in the study

INSERTING CATS

SOIL

CATS EXPOSED

COMPRESSION SEAL

DETACHABLE HEAD PENETROMETER FOR SOIL­GAS MONITORING

DETACHABLE HEAD

Wells, et al

2K­2571

ZERT Horizontal Well Tracer Concentrations

Wells, et al

2K­2571

Wells, et al

2K­2571

Direct Monitoring of CO 2 Surface Leakage Summary of Techniques

• CO 2 and CH 4 Soil flux measurements

• Soil gas depth profiles up to 1 meter − GC determination of CO 2 and CH 4 concentration

− of CO 2 (stable isotope ratios) • Radon and Thoron concentrations

in soil gas.

2K­2571

Resistivity (Vertical Injector)

Diel, et al

Hyperspectral Imaging Results Fraction of “H

ealthly” p

ixels

Isotope Studies – Keeling plots

CO 2 flux map on 7­13­07 from LBNL. Circled areas where isotopes measured on chambers; square = canopy measurements

Fessenden

Isotopic Measurements ­ Groundwater

Isotopes measured on dissolved inorganic carbon (DIC) in the groundwater

Fessenden