5-GEOGREEN IEA Modelling Workshop FEBRUARY 2009… IEA Modelling Work… · Engineering for CO 2...

Engineering for CO2 geological storageg

I j ti itI j ti itInjectivityInjectivity

Y. Le Gallo

CO2 Geological Storage Modelling Workshop - February 2009

OutlineOutline

Injectivity issuesInjectivity issuesCurrent approaches Way forward Way forward


Geogreen strength: ShareholdersGeogreen strength: Shareholders

Gé t k i t ti l t d

Synergy between three key players

Géostock, an international reputed company involved in gas and liquid hydrocarbon underground storage operations 40%

IFP, involved in R&D and all important CCS projects (CASTOR) 40%projects (CASTOR) 40%

The Bureau for Geological and Mining g gResearch (BRGM), involved in R&D and in expertise for Public Authorities 20%


Geogreen strategyGeogreen strategy

Target: ISO9001 end 2009Safety and qualityy y

No technology provisionIndependence

Owner’s engineeringLong term approach

Visibility Shareholders’ know-how Shareholders know-how Internal resources Link with shareholders’ offices abroad Cooperation with major engineering companies

Pragmatism


p j g g p

SoftwareSoftware All reservoir software developed by IFP and marketed by Beicip-Franlab (RMLTM, EasytraceTM, InterwellTM,

CondorFlowTM, PumaFlowTM ) IFP dedicated prototype software COORESTM

Additional software:Additional software: Petrophysics: ElanTM

Geological modeling: PetrelTM

Seismic interpretation: CharismaTM workstation Geomechanics: AbaqusTM Geomechanics: AbaqusTM

Well performance: ProsperTM

Static modeling: MATBALTM

Reservoir dynamic modeling: ECLIPSETM

S CO G TM Sensitivity Analysis: COUGARTM

Process: HYSISTM

Life Cycle Analysis: GaBi4TM (Energy and GHG Performance Analysis for complex processes)


Storage Site selection studyStorage Site selection study

Technical criteria: the storage Capacity Injectivity Injectivity Confinement / trapping (Safety Management) Potential EOR option for depleted fields

Oth it i th i l d l l i t O ti l Other criteria: the regional and local environment – Operational constraints Seismic risk exclusion, major faults

C titi ith th d d ti iti Oil & l ti / Competition with other underground activities: Oil & gas exploration / production, geothermal well, underground gas storage, ...

Environmental exclusion (urban and industrial areas, water resources, classified sites)classified sites)

Potential operational difficulties (from licensing instruction / to injection, protection of fauna and flora, waste disposal, existing wells, faults…)


Key drivers Key drivers for CCS project economicsfor CCS project economics

Number of wells Rate of injection

Plume extension OverPressure


Injectivity… an old problemInjectivity… an old problem

Injectivity is common issue in O&G => several j ycommercial tools are available for non reactive gases

Detailed modeling approaches of the near wellbore i l f d t ti t I j ti itregion are commonly performed to estimate Injectivity

Index for use in reservoir model.– Key issues: matching pressure (and flow rate)– Usual suspects: K, kr, (Pc), skin

Water compatibility (scaling) is modeled with (a few) dedicated commercial toolsdedicated commercial tools


Near well bore flowNear well bore flow

Modify end-point or kr functionUse Local Grid RefinementCompute off-center Injectivity Index


Compute off center Injectivity Index

Influence of injectivity/permeability on Influence of injectivity/permeability on pressurepressure

Rate of injection 2.5 Mt/y with 1 vertical well in a cylindrical infinite saline f ti

700

800900

ars)

Kh=Kv=100mDKh=Kv=1 DKh=Kv=500 mDKh=Kv=200 mDKh=200 mD Kv=20 mD formation

300

400500

600

rPre

ssur

e (b

a

10 km10 km10 km

0100

200

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11time (y)

Ove

R

10 km

-1 km R

10 km

RR

10 km

-1 km

time (y)

400

500

(bar

s)

1 well2wells3 wells5 wells

1 km

1 km

1 km

0

100

200

300

Ove

rPre

ssur

e ( 5 wells


ZZZZ

00 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

time (y)

Pressure constraintsPressure constraints

00 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Contraintes en MPa

250

500

750

1000

1250

1500Prof

onde

ur e

n m

Sv=ShhydrostaticP(t=0)P(t=30)

1750

2000

2250

Pc frac

2500


Injectivity… a new concernInjectivity… a new concern

CO2 stream interactions with the reservoir/cap rock and fluids may induce different behavior from non reactive gases:– Pressure… because of dissolution, viscosity/density changes– Saturation… because of drying out and salting out– Salinity… because of salting out– Structural changes … because of geochemical interactions

Major impacts occur in the near well bore region

Detailed modeling approaches of the near wellbore region to estimate Injectivity Index rely (mostly) on research modeling tools

Major impacts occur in the near well bore region

j y y ( y) g– Key issues: matching pressure (and flow rate)– Usual suspects: K, kr, (Pc), skin– New comers: salinity and mineral


y

Injectivity ControlInjectivity Control

rKK

esPinjIndexyInjectivitII

PrRate Flow

Fluid in place / injected GEOCHEMISTRY

rock / fluid interactions

TRANSPORTForsheimer effects

KK

rock / fluid interactions

dissolution

precipitation

finesdrying

Kr hysteresis

rKKII

Kr hysteresis

MECHANICALGéocarbone

INJECTIVITE


Elastic properties

Fracture propertiesCO2

Lombard et al., 2007

OutlineOutline



ExperimentExperiment--Model workflowModel workflow

Petrophysical Analysis Batch Experiments

Kinetics

Literature data

Reactive Surface Area

K - phi

Multiphase + Geochemical Model

Literature data

Comparaison

exp /Estimate prediction

exp / computation

degree

Other rate, P, T, ...Géocarbone

INJECTIVITE


Flow-through ExperimentsINJECTIVITE

CO2Lombard et al., 2007

Injectivity Reactive modeling in Injectivity Reactive modeling in Geothermal reservoir Geothermal reservoir


Porosity variationsPorosity variations


T. Xu et al. / Computers & Geosciences 32 (2006) 145–165

Permeability variation in near well bore Permeability variation in near well bore region in Geothermal reservoir region in Geothermal reservoir



Mineral change in near wellbore region Mineral change in near wellbore region during COduring CO22 injectioninjection



Near well bore effectsNear well bore effects

Azaroual et al 2007 ; André et al 2008


Azaroual et al., 2007 ; André et al., 2008

Other interactionsOther interactions

Azaroual et al., 2007


OutlineOutline



Challenging Injectivity Challenging Injectivity

Research– Account for all couplings: P, T, geochemical, geomechanical…

no so obvious => coupling methodology challenges– Account for coupling interactionsAccount for coupling interactions – Account for petrophysical and textural changes– Focus on more on geomechanical and less on geochemical

Industry– Complex formation (carbonates) and structure (fluvial), and well

trajectory => detailed near wellbore characterization both petrophysical and mineralogical

– Tuning currently looks unavoidable either with field data or with lab data to account for CO2 specific impact


5-GEOGREEN IEA Modelling Workshop FEBRUARY 2009… IEA Modelling Work… · Engineering for CO 2...

Documents

Transcript of 5-GEOGREEN IEA Modelling Workshop FEBRUARY 2009… IEA Modelling Work… · Engineering for CO 2...