Monitoring the CO2 injection site: K12-B1

Monitoring the COMonitoring the CO22 Injection site: Injection site: K12-BK12-B

By:Vincent Vandeweijer1, Bert van der Meer1, Cor Hofstee1

Frans Mulders2, Daan D’Hoore2 and Hilbrand Graven2

1TNO Geological Survey of the Netherlands 2GDF SUEZ E&P Nederland B.V.

GHGT10 – Amsterdam

Monitoring the CO2 injection site: K12-B2

Outline

Intro

LocationLayout

Geological settingGas production

CO2 injection

Monitoring Techniques and Results

Well integrity:Multi-finger imaging tools

CBL and Down-hole video logElectromagnetic imaging tool and Scale

CO2 Migration:Chemical Tracers and Gas analysis

Dynamic flow modeling

Conclusions & Future plans

Monitoring the CO2 injection site: K12-B3

Gas field in the Dutch sector of the North Sea

150 km NW of Amsterdam

Location

Monitoring the CO2 injection site: K12-B4

Multiple compartments

High temperature: 128 oC

Low permeability

Deep, 3900 m

K12-B Platform

Layout

Monitoring the CO2 injection site: K12-B5

Gas field in the Upper and Lower Slochteren

Permian age

Aeolian and fluvial sediments

Zechstein salt seal

Geological Setting

Monitoring the CO2 injection site: K12-B6

Initial Gas in Place: 14.4 BCM

Gas Produced (01/01/2010): 12.8 BCM

Remaining reserves: 0.3 BCM

In production since 1987

Amine wash down to 2% CO2

Initial CO2 content: 13 %

Gas Production

Monitoring the CO2 injection site: K12-B7

CO2 Injection started 2004 in K12-B8

+10 kTon injected in compartment 4

CO2 Injection since 2005 in K12-B6

Producers K12-B1 and K12-B5

Approx. 70 kTon injected in compartment 3

K12-B8 – Injector/Producer

K12-B5 - Producer

K12-B1 - Producer

K12-B6 – Injector

CO2 Injection

Projects at K12-B: ORC, MONK, CO2ReMoVe, CATO2

K12-B3st1 - Producer

Monitoring the CO2 injection site: K12-B8

Monitoring Techniques and Results

Well integrity

Multi-finger imaging toolsCBL and Down-hole video log

Electromagnetic imaging tool and Scale

CO2 Migration

Chemical Tracers and Gas analysisDynamic flow modeling

Monitoring the CO2 injection site: K12-B9

Multi-finger Imaging Tools

First multi-finger caliper in 2005, 3 Time Lapse runs completed

First Time Lapse run in 2006 gave “surprising” results

Several theories were discussed… none conclusive

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

025

050

075

010

0012

5015

0017

5020

0022

5025

0027

5030

0032

5035

00

Depth [m]

Pit

Dep

th [

%]

MFC 2005

MFC 2006

MFC 2007

MFC 2009

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

1500

1750

2000

2250

2500

2750

3000

Depth [m]

Pit

Dep

th [

%]

2005

2006

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

1500

1750

2000

2250

2500

2750

3000

Depth [m]

Pit

Dep

th [

%]

2006

2007

Monitoring the CO2 injection site: K12-B10

Obstruction was investigated with a video log

Severe scaling in production tubing

Scale in old production tubing impedes evaluation

CBL and Down-hole Video Log

CBL could not be performed due to obstruction at perforation level

Monitoring the CO2 injection site: K12-B11

ElectroMagnetic Imaging Tool and Scale

EMIT (ElectroMagnetic Imaging Tool) insensitive to scale

Ran in combination with Multi-finger caliper (PMIT) and Gamma Ray

Scale consists mainly of Barite but also holds some radioactive components

Monitoring the CO2 injection site: K12-B12

Chemical Tracers and Gas Analyses

Provide information to evaluate the effects of certain mechanisms on EGR

Injection of two types of tracers took place March 2005

Tracer data from wells K12-B1 & K12-B5 was used to determine breakthrough

In combination with Gas analysis used to investigate the migration of CO2

K12-B5

0

5E-11

1E-10

1,5E-10

2E-10

2,5E-10

3E-10

3,5E-10

4E-10

4,5E-10

5E-10

Tra

cer

Con

cent

ratio

n (L

/L)

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

26

28

CO

2 fr

actio

n (%

)

PMCP

1,3-PDMCH

CO2 fraction

K12-B1

0

5E-11

1E-10

1,5E-10

2E-10

2,5E-10

3E-10

3,5E-10

4E-10

4,5E-10

5E-10

Tra

cer

Con

cent

ratio

n (L

/L)

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

26

28

CO

2 fr

actio

n (%

)

PMCP

1,3-PDMCH

CO2 fraction

Monitoring the CO2 injection site: K12-B13

Dynamic Flow Modeling

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

5500

6000

6500

7000

7500

8000

8500

9000

9500

10000

1/1/05 1/1/06 1/1/07 1/1/08 1/1/09 1/1/10

Time [date]

CO

2 P

rod

uc

tio

n R

ate

[N

m3 /d

]

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

Inc

rem

en

tal

CO

2 P

rod

uc

tio

n [

%]

CO2 Prod Rate Sim

% excesCO2

B1 excesCO2 obs

Complemented with down hole pressure and temperature data

History matched reservoir models of various compartments and combinations

Compartment 3

Compartment 2

Compartment 4

Modeled and measured CO2 concentrations are within acceptable range

Monitoring the CO2 injection site: K12-B14

Conclusions

State of the well and tubing are OK

EGR through pressure support

EGR through the partitioning behavior of the CO2, too little data

CO2 injection at K12-B has not brought any unforeseeable problems

Chemical tracers supplied valuable data

Monitoring the CO2 injection site: K12-B15

Future work / plans

Inject new chemical tracers in K12-B6

Execute survey of the seabed (and below) for baseline values

Investigate upscaling scenarios

Run ElectroMagnetic Imaging Tool (EMIT) in Time Lapse

Further fine tune the reservoir models

PMCP1,3-PDMCH

fluorinecarbon

Monitoring the CO2 injection site: K12-B16

Questions….

K12-B8 – Injector/Producer

K12-B1 - Producer

K12-B6 – Injector

CO2 reproduction & injectionK12-B1 & B6

0

100000

200000

300000

400000

500000

600000

2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030

year

CO

2 [

To

nn

es]

Injected CO2

Re-produced CO2

Stored CO2

Poly. (Re-produced CO2)

Poly. (Injected CO2)

K12-B5 - Producer

K12-B3st1 - Producer