30th USAEE/IAEE North American Conference, October 9-12, 2011, Washington, DC

Sandia National Laboratories is a multi-program laboratory managed and operated by Sandia Corporation, a wholly owned subsidiary of Lockheed Martin Corporation, for the U.S. Department of Energy's National Nuclear Security Administration under contract DE-AC04-94AL85000. Working Results. SAND2011-7325C.

Peter H. Kobos, Jesse D. Roach, Jason E. Heath, Thomas A. Dewers, Sean A. McKenna, Geoff T. Klise,

Jim Krumhansl, David J. Borns, Karen A. GutierrezSandia National Laboratories

and

Andrea McNemarNational Energy Technology Laboratory

Economic Uncertainty in Subsurface CO2 Storage: Geological Injection Limits and Consequences for

Carbon Management Costs

30th USAEE/IAEE North American Conference, October 9-12, 2011, Washington, DC

Acknowledgements: This work is developing under the funding and support of the National Energy Technology Laboratory.

1

Water, Energy and CO2 Sequestration (WECS) Model:

Geologic Saline Formation

(4) H2O Treatment & Use (1) CO2 Capture

(2) Formation Assessment

& CO2 Storage

(3) H2O Extraction

2

Project Timeline & Goals

Single Source (power plant) Multiple Sources

Single Sink (saline formation) WECS

Multiple Sinks WECSsim

• Completed Phase I: Developed a Test Case Model (WECS)

• Completed Phase II: Additional TOUGH2 Analysis

• Completed Phase III: Developed a single power plant to any saline formation sink in the U.S. systems calculator

• Phase IV & V:• Expanding the role of uncertainty within the model

• Several order of magnitude variation in key geologic parameter (permeability)

• Incorporating uncertainties into costs

Timeline2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

3

WECSsim Modular Structure

NatCarb Database polygon analysis, well data analysis, and heterogeneous formation characterization inform the CO2 Sequestration Module

NETL reports, publically available reports, and well

analysis inform the Extracted Water and Power Cost Modules

Various NETL reports inform the Power Plant and Carbon Capture Modules

• Extracted H2O capacity

• Extracted H2O quality

Power Plant

Module

CO2 Capture Module

Geologic CO2 Sequestration

Module

Extracted Water Module

Power Cost(Integrating

Module)

• Plant type • CO2 generated

• Mass CO2 to be sequestered

• Treated cooling H2O• Energy required for

H2O extraction and treatment

• Base LCOE• CO2 capture

& compression costs

• CO2 transport & sequestration costs

• Water extraction transport and treatment costs

• Parasitic energy

• Water demand change

4

Geological CO2 Storage Database Challenges

5

Coal Power Plant

Gas Power Plant

Well

Well selected on depth and salinity criteria

325 down selected regions original NatCarb Atlas data

Distribution of Geologic Porosity6

Injectivity equation: permeability sampled from 4 Rock Types

-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 40.000

0.040

0.080

0.120

0.160

log10[k (mD)]

Rel

ativ

e F

req

uen

cy (

%)

Clean sandstone

Dirty sand-stone

Carbonate

Gulf Coast

7

Uncertainty and the Well Injectivity Index

I well injectivity index; measure of the “ease” of injecting CO2 into the well

q volumetric injection rate

ΔP the pressure gradient

srC

A

HkkI

wA

r

2781.1

4ln

4

2

Reservoir volume

Radial flow from the well

(Bryant and Lake, 2005)

P

qI

8

WECSsim Results:Permeability and Costs

0.1 1 10 1000

2

4

6

8

10

12

Injection costs as a function of injection well permeabilities

Mixed

Clean sandstone

Dirty sandstone

Carbonate

Gulf Coast

Geometric mean permeability of suite of injection wells [mD] (log scale)

Inje

cti

on

Co

st

[$/t

on

ne

]

(~40 wells)

9

WECSsim Results:Injection Costs and Formation Types

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Injection costs for geologic storage of 11 million tonnes CO2 per year

Mixed

Clean sandstone

Dirty sandstone

Carbonate

Gulf Coast

% formations with injection costs less than or equal to a given value

inje

cti

on

co

sts

[$

/to

nn

e]

10

WECSsim Results:Injection Costs Relative to Total Costs

Total CCS Costs$0

$10

$20

$30

$40

$50

$60

CO2 capture & transport$

/to

nn

e s

tore

d

injectioncosts

Injection Costs Distribution

$9 - $12 6%

$6 - $9 16%

$1 - $6 68 %

< $1 10 %

Injection Cost % Formations

11

WECSsim Results:Similar Full Economic Analysis Underway

$

Avoided CO2 Emissions

Note: Illustrative Example at this time

12

Conclusions

Low CO2 injection rates results in higher costs

• Low injectivity requires more injection wells and therefore higher costs

• Accurate Site Permeability Characterization is key

Importance of High Quality Saline Reservoirs• High permeability reservoirs with low injection costs

(< $1/tonne) represent < ~10% of the 325 formations• Scale-up challenge

Using a national-level systems approach• The mix of reservoirs of different quality is a major

factor that will control ‘supply’ of CO2 storage

13

Ongoing and Future Work

CO2 injectivity-brine extractivity and heterogeneity

• i.e., “How do injection rates improve with brine extraction?”

Spatial distribution of CO2 sources to sinks

• i.e., “Are the high quality sinks accessible to large sources?”

National Level Supply Assessment• i.e., “How much low-cost CO2 storage exists in the

U.S.?”

14

For Further Information:Initial Framework Description

Kobos, P.H., Cappelle, M.A., Krumhansl, J.L., Dewers, T.A., McNemar, A., Borns, D.J., 2011. Combing power plant water needs and carbon dioxide storage using saline formations: Implications for carbon dioxide and water management policies. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 5, 899-910.

Sandia National Laboratories is a multi-program laboratory managed and operated by Sandia Corporation, a wholly owned subsidiary of Lockheed Martin Corporation, for the U.S. Department of Energy's National Nuclear Security Administration under contract DE-AC04-94AL85000. Working Results.

15

Backup Slides: Assessing U.S. deep saline formations

WECSsim interpretation of U.S. deep

saline formation resource

1. NatCarb 2008 geospatial database estimates (publically available)

Data and Analysis Product

NatCarb data & analysis

2. NatCarb partnerships(direct communication)

SNL and publically available data & analysis

NatCarb well data

3. Parameter estimation from well data

Other publically available data and

SNL studies

Expert opinion4. Geologic classification of polygons to reduce computational costs

16

Limited Saline Formation Data17

Gulf coast outliers

0.1 1 10 1000

2

4

6

8

10

12


MixedClean sandstoneDirty sandstoneCarbonateGulf Coast


Inje

cti

on

Co

st

[$/t

on

ne

]

(~40 wells)

Why do the Gulf Coast formationslie above the carbonate formations?

18

Gulf coast outliers

0.1 1 10 1000

2

4

6

8

10

12




Inje

cti

on

Co

st

[$/t

on

ne

]

(~40 wells)

Example of a Gulf Coast formation (Or-ange, id#2) with a slightly higher geo-metric mean permeability of wells than a carbonate formation (Blue, id#165), but substantially more injection wells. Why?

The carbonate formations have a wider spread which results in some high per-meability wells. These can handle high flow and thus reduce the number of wells needed.

19

Gulf coast outliers

0.0005 0.499999999999999 499.9999999999990

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

Permeability vs Flowrate and Relative Distributions

Flowrate [MGD]

Carbonate Distribution

Gulf Coast distribution

Well Average Permeability [mD]

Ind

ivid

ua

l We

ll F

low

Ra

te [

MG

D]

20

Gulf coast outliers

0.1 1 10 1000

2

4

6

8

10

12




Inje

cti

on

Co

st

[$/t

on

ne

]

(~40 wells)

0.0499999999999999 4.99999999999999 499.9999999999990

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

Permeability vs Flowrate for Individual Wells

Carbonate (id# 165 ): 36 wells, 6.47 mD geometric mean permeability

Gulf Coast (id# 2 ): 62 wells, 6.77 mD geometric mean permeability

Permeability [mD]

Flo

w R

ate

[MG

D]

id#2

id#165

21

30th USAEE/IAEE North American Conference, October 9-12, 2011, Washington, DC

Documents

Transcript of 30th USAEE/IAEE North American Conference, October 9-12, 2011, Washington, DC