Available online at www.sciencedirect Energy Procedia 00 (2008) 000–000 Energy铁氧体电感
Procedia
www.elsevier/locate/XXX * Corresponding author. Tel.: +61-8-6436-8759; fax: +61-8-6436-8555.
E-mail address : karsten.michael@csiro.au.
GHGT-9
CO 2 storage in saline aquifers II – experience from existing storage
operations
K. Michael a,b,*, G. Allinson a,c , A. Golab a , S. Sharma a,d , and V. Shulakova a,b
a Cooperative Research Centre for Greenhouse Gas Technologies, GPO Box 463, Canberra ACT, Australia
b CSIRO Petroleum, Box 1130, Bentley WA 6102, Australia
c University of New South Wales, Australia
d Schlumberger, Australia
Elsevier use only: Received date here; revised date here; accepted date here
Abstract
The Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change Special Report on Carbon Capture and Storage in 2005 identified various knowledge gaps that need to be resolved before the large-scale implementation of CO 2 geological storage is possible.The experience from CO 2 injection at pilot projects (Frio, Ketzin, Nagaoka) and existing commercial operations (Sleipner, Snøhvit, In Salah, acid-gas injection) demonstrates that CO 2 geological storage in saline aquifers is technologically feasible. By the end of 2007, approximately 15 Mt of CO 2 had been successfully injected into saline aquifers by these operations. However, these projects are not necessarily representative of conditions encountered globally. A larger portfolio of large-scale storage operations is needed to provide data for verification and calibration of numerical models, to better constrain geomechanical as well as geochemical processes, and to optimize monitoring and verification plans for different storage settings.
© 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved
Keywords: CO 2 geological storage; saline aquifers;
Injecting carbon dioxide (CO 2) into deep saline aquifers is one of three main options for the geological storage of CO 2 in order to reduce anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere. Previous studies have shown that, compared to the other two major options (storage in depleted hydrocarbon reservoirs and in deep, un-mineable coal seams), deep saline aquifers have the highest potential capacity globally for CO 2 storage. The Special Report on CO 2 Capture and Storage by the IPCC [1] identified various knowledge gaps related to aquifer storage of CO 2, many of which needed addressing before the widespread commercial implementation of the technology is possible. Yet, c 2009Elsevier Ltd.All rights reserved.Energy Procedia 1(2009)1973–1980
www.elsevier/locate/procedia doi:10.pro.2009.01.257
大理石晶面机Michael et al. / Energy Procedia 00 (2008) 000–000 there are a few existing operations that have been successfully injecting CO 2 into saline aquifers (Figure 1). Consequently, the IEA GHG instigated a study to review the recent advancements in the science related to aquifer storage of CO 2, to compile the knowledge gained from existing CO 2 injection operations and to address the need for future research. A companion paper, “CO 2 Storage
in Aquifers I – Current State of Knowledge”, reviews the main knowledge gaps with respect to the actual science of CO 2 storage in saline aquifers identified in the IPCC SRCCS, which includes the geochemical processes in the subsurface environment, the numerical modeling of coupled processes, new developments and methodologies with respect to Storage Capacity Estimations, Best Practice of Site Characterisation and Risk Assessment related to the geological storage of CO 2 in saline aquifers. This paper reviews the experience gained from pilot and demonstration projects, including:
1.A detailed examination of data from existing saline aquifer storage sites and pilot projects; provision of a database of available reservoir properties (e.g., lithology, porosity, permeability, injectivity, brine chemistry) to help establish whether current storage operations cover a representative range of reservoir characteristics
and/or if specific aquifer types should be targeted with future pilot sites or demonstration projects;
2.A comparison and assessment of monitoring technologies applied at the various operations; and
3.A description of the various regulatory regimes under which the current projects operate and a compilation of economics, to the extent to which this is possible.
Figure 1. Map showing projects injecting or having injected CO 2 into deep saline aquifers. Also shown are projects in an advanced planning stage (see text for details) as well as the Weyburn and Otway pilot projects.
The first operations injecting CO 2 into saline aquifers in the early 1990’s were acid-gas (H 2S and CO 2) disposal projects in Canada (Figure 2), driven by the need to reduce flaring of H 2S from sour gas wells and CO 2 being an additional unwanted by-product [2,3]. The first commercial-scale project with the sole purpose of disposing of CO 2from gas production started in 1996 at Sleipner in the Norwegian sector of the North Sea [4]. In Salah in Algeria [5] and Snøhvit in Norway [6], both injecting CO 2 from natural gas production, commenced operations in 2004 and 2008, respectively. Various commercial projects are planned for the future, with Gorgon in Australia, another natural gas facility, anticipated to start injecting in 2009, potentially becoming the largest CO 2
storage operation in 1974K.Michael et al./Energy Procedia 1(2009)1973–1980
Michael et al. / Energy Procedia 00 (2008) 000–000 the world [7]. Pilot injection operations for research purposes were run in Nagaoka (Japan) [8] and Frio (USA) [9] between 2003 and 2005. New pilot operations in Ketzin (Germany) [10], Otway (Australia) [11] and selected projects in the US DOE Regional Carbon Storage Partnership (RCSP) program started injection in 2008, with more projects in the RCSP planning to commence in 2009 (v/sequestration/partnerships/index.html). Details of aforementioned operations publically available in the literature and on company websites were compiled in a database and sum
marised in Tables 1 and 2.
Figure 2. Past and future implementation of CO 2geological storage in saline aquifers.
2.1.Operational and reservoir characteristics
By the end of 2007, approximately 15 Mt of CO 2 had been successfully injected into saline aquifers by commercial operations. Particularly, Sleipner, In Salah, and Snøhvit demonstrate that, given the right geological and reservoir conditions, injecting industrial-scale volumes in the order of 1 Mt/year CO 2 into saline aquifers is achievable. However, these projects are not necessarily representative of conditions encountered globally. For example, aquifer permeability at Sleipner is probably unusually high compared to what could be expected for other sites. In Salah operates 3 injection wells in a low-permeability aquifer, but there is limited monitoring information. Nagaoka and Frio have comprehensive monitoring and verification (M&V) programs, but injection rates/volumes are very low. The various acid-gas injection operations in Alberta cover a wide range of reservoir properties, but
钢铁清洗剂
again injection rates are relatively low and very limited subsurface monitoring is done. The majority of existing K.Michael et al./Energy Procedia 1(2009)1973–19801975
1976K.Michael et al./Energy Procedia1(2009)1973–1980
Michael et al. / Energy Procedia 00 (2008) 000–000
operations inject into siliciclastic reservoirs with the exception of various acid-gas injection sites and the Michigan Basin in the RCSP.
2.2.Monitoring and verification
With respect to monitoring and verification of CO2 storage reservoirs, 4D seismic proved to be very successful at Sleipner [12], but has the disadvantage of being relatively expensive and might prove challenging for onshore storage sites related to repeatability problems due to changing weather, soil humidity and contact conditions. Also, successfully implemented at Sleipner was 4D gravity [12, 13], which has lower costs and works well for qualitative assessment of CO2 saturation in the subsurface, but requires a detailed, well-characterised geological model. Promising geophysical methods that worked well at Frio and Nagaoka for quantitative tracking of the CO2 plume was 4D ve
rtical seismic profiling (VSP) [14,15], which allows for a good source signal control, and cross-well electro-magnetics. However, these two methods require a monitoring well in addition to the injector. Also, the transmission distance between injection and monitoring well might get too big in the case of commercial projects with large CO2 plume sizes, resulting in a loss of resolution unless multiple monitoring wells at appropriate distances were installed. Tracer technology has been successfully tested at the Frio and Otway pilot projects [16, 17]. Monitoring technologies for the shallow groundwater, soil and atmosphere have been developed, however they have not yet been successfully demonstrated to detect potential CO2 leaks from the reservoir unit due to relatively high natural CO2 fluctuations in these environments. Requisite monitoring plans in future regulations for CO2 storage projects should carefully weigh the necessary requirements for ensuring storage verification and safety against cost and suitability of various monitoring techniques for specific storage environments.
2.3.Regulations and economics
Regulations are currently in place in various countries under which commercial (Sleipner, Snohvit, acid gas) and pilot projects (Nagaoka, Frio, Ketzin) were approved, but mainly done under petroleum legislation. Key issues that have to be addressed better in regulations currently under development a
re:
1. Long-term liability/stewardship for storage sites (post-injection);
2. Definition of M&V requirements;
3. Emission Trading Scheme (ETS) implications, especially regarding the treatment of CCS permits;
神经网络预测
4. Resolution of conflict of interests (effect of storage on other resources);
5. Definition of key performance indicators; and
6. Royalties/lease fees for storage space.
Comparing the costs for operations storing CO2in saline aquifer is difficult for a variety of reasons: a) cost data are scattered and patchy; b) costs are quoted for different years, c) costs are quoted in different currencies, and d) quoted costs are based on different methodologies. As a result, considerable analysis would be required to normalise the cost data and construct predictive analytical tools for future projects. Alternatively, although not mutually exclusive, computerised costing models and equations could be created, based on vendor quotes that reflect current economic circumstances.
Michael et al. / Energy Procedia 00 (2008) 000–000
Table 1. List of operations injecting or having injected CO
2
in saline aquifers. Some projects in an advanced planning stage are also shown. K.Michael et al./Energy Procedia1(2009)1973–19801977
