FutureGen in Kentucky wersystems/futuregen/futuregen_fa ctsheet.pdf A slide show explaining a KGS...
-
Upload
maximo-efurd -
Category
Documents
-
view
215 -
download
0
Transcript of FutureGen in Kentucky wersystems/futuregen/futuregen_fa ctsheet.pdf A slide show explaining a KGS...
FutureGen in Kentuckyhttp://fossil.energy.gov/programs/
powersystems/futuregen/futuregen_factsheet.pdf
A slide show explaining a KGS preliminary assessment of geologic sequestration potential for future power plants in Kentucky
FutureGen
http://fossil.energy.gov/programs/powersystems/futuregen/futuregen_factsheet.pdf
is a DOE program to design a power plant that will integrate advanced coal gasification to produce hydrogen and electric power with CO2 capture and storage (also called sequestration)
FutureGen in Kentuckyhttp://fossil.energy.gov/programs/
powersystems/futuregen/futuregen_factsheet.pdf
Geologic sequestration potential
Why FutureGen? Concerns about climate change resulting in a need to reduce CO2 emissions
FutureGen will be a near-zero emissions power plant funded by DOE and industry
FutureGen will incorporate geologic carbon sequestration to reduce CO2
“the captured CO2…would then be permanently sequestered in a geologic formation.”
• Validating the integrated operation of gasification technology
•Proving effectiveness, permanence, and safety of sequestration in a geologic formation
Limiting future carbon emissions from power plants is a critical component of DOE- sponsored energy research
including FutureGen.
From the DOE FutureGen fact sheet:
Major goals include:
The Kentucky Geological Survey is part of three Phase II partnerships
More info at DOE’s www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/sequestration/
Midwest Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership
Midwest (Illinois Basin) Geological Sequestration Consortium
Southeast Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership
Geologic carbon sequestration possibilities
• Regional DOE partnerships are assessing several types of geologic reservoirs
• Enhanced oil and gas recovery may be possible for unmineable coals, organic-rich shales, and depleted oil and gas reservoirs
After Harper (2004)
Unmineable coals
Organic-rich shales
Depleted oil and gas reservoirs
Deep saline aquifers
Power plantPipeline
Multiple options at different locations
FutureGen
Geologic carbon sequestration possibilities
Injection into unmineable coal beds might allow secondary recovery of methane in some (not all) areas
Unmineable Coal Beds
Images modified from Midwest Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership (2005) http://198.87.0.58/Geologic.aspx
FutureGen
Geologic carbon sequestration possibilities
Injection into depleted oil or gas reservoirs might allow secondary recovery of oil or gas
Oil and Gas Reservoirs
Images modified from Midwest Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership (2005) http://198.87.0.58/Geologic.aspx
FutureGen
Geologic carbon sequestration possibilities
Injection into deep saline aquifers offers possibility of storage without negating a potential resource
Deep Saline Aquifers
Images modified from Midwest Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership (2005) http://198.87.0.58/Geologic.aspx
Geologic carbon sequestration possibilities
Optimal sites might have multiple reservoirs (stacked or at several locations) at depth, within some distance of the plant based on the transport costs of CO2
Power plantPipeline
Coals
After Harper (2004)
Oil and gas reservoirs
Saline aquifers
Multiple reservoirs
+
+
Enough depth to minimize leakage and to keep CO2 in supercritical phase
Minimal transport distance
Minimal transport distance
Geologic carbon sequestration possibilities
FutureGen
Preliminary requirements:
Large storage volume
For a FutureGen–type plant, DOE estimates 1 million tons CO2 /year for 30 years = 30 million tons CO2
Could be one large or multiple reservoirs
Image modified from Midwest Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership (2005) http://198.87.0.58/Geologic.aspx
Geologic carbon sequestration possibilities
FutureGen
Preliminary requirements: Depth (> 2,500’) for existing depleted oil and gas reservoirs
In our area, this is the depth needed to keep any injected CO2 in liquid form (miscible)*
Injection into unmineable coals could be shallower because of a different sequestration mechanism* Greater depth also provides more seals to prevent leakage
Image modified from Midwest Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership (2005) http://198.87.0.58/Geologic.aspx
Geologic carbon sequestration possibilities
FutureGen
Preliminary requirements:
Proximity to existing energy infrastructure and likely a waterway
Most existing KY power plants are near large rivers
Image modified from Midwest Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership (2005) http://198.87.0.58/Geologic.aspx
Existing and proposed power plants
Existing power plants
Proposed plants
• Power plant siting involves many non-geologic decisions
• By using existing plant locations to define the study area we incorporated those decisions with the geologic assessment.
Most along rivers
Existing and proposed power plant counties
Existing power plants
Proposed plants
• Future power plants are likely to have at least the existing requirements relative to water.
• Study area limited to counties with known and proposed plants, similar water supplies, or large coal resources*
*these might not have water needs for some types of plants
Areas might include a 25-mile radius around existing and proposed plants as examples of hypothetical transport areas around each
• Circles show possibility for pipeline transport
Existing power plants
Proposed plants
Existing and proposed power plant counties
http://drysdale.kgs.ku.edu/natcarb/midflash/natcarb_new_content.html
ResultCost is:
$2,860,898
The reason for examining the radius around some areas is that pipeline transport to a sequestration site might be needed.
Distance is:28 miles
NATCARB Pipeline cost calculator
Existing and proposed power plant counties
Seismic potential is greatest in far western Kentucky
Seismic potential may be concern for building future large, Federally funded (or co-funded) construction projects
Faults (red lines) will also need to be considered (not for seismic potential but for reservoir leakage and seal potential)
Seismicity
3.04.05.0 +
Magnitude Peak groundacceleration>0.3g
Kentucky “unmineable” coal potential
Kentucky has two coal fields (the Eastern Kentucky Coal Field and the Western Kentucky Coal Field)
Coal is mined at 1000 ft in western Kentucky
Coal is mined at depths beneath surface of more than 1000 ft in eastern Kentucky, but in some places that is still “above drainage”
2003 Coal production (Mt)
15+10-15
5-10
1-5
0-1
No production in study area
Kentucky “unmineable” coal potential
Surface fracturing extends 400 to 500 feet beneath the surface, so potential coals would need to be at least 500 feet beneath drainage
Areas of coals at depth are smaller than the total area of the coal fields
Definition of “unmineable” is variable and will influence potential
Gray: Coals > 500 ft deep
Red: Coals > 1,000 ft deep
Areas with multiple deep coals below drainage
Known Kentucky oil and gas reservoirs
Kentucky has hundreds of oil and gas fields
Not all are within the electric power infrastructure area
Not all fields are likely sequestration targets
OilGasWaterflood
Operating and abandoned oil and gas fields
Known Kentucky oil and gas reservoirs
Known fields have demonstrated reservoir and trap properties
9 have >30 MM tons estimated capacity for CO2 storage
Many of these fields are not abandoned
Fields with sufficient depth or volume
Volumes >15 MM tons (20 fields)
2,500 ft or deeper
Kentucky’s geology controls the depth of the known oil and gas fields. Major oil- and gas-bearing units are shallower than 2,500 feet in the central part of the state.
There are speculative possibilities deeper.
2,500 feet
Western KY Central KY Eastern KYOil field (generalized)
Gas field (generalized)
Known Kentucky oil and gas reservoirs
Additional potential oil and gas reservoirs
Organic shales: a different type of potential CO2 reservoir
KGS is currently funded by DOE to investigate the potential of black (organic-rich) shales to adsorb CO2 as a sequestration mechanism
The black shales are widespread with large potential capacity
Not a proven CO2 sequestration reservoir; behaves like coals
Red has most potentialBlue has least potentialTan has no potential
Kentucky potential deep saline reservoirs
DOE partnerships have shown that deep saline aquifers (mostly sandstone) have greatest potential for large storage volume
Possible cumulative thickness is > 800 ft in western KY
Limited well penetrations and reservoir data in KY
Net Sand ThicknessRed is thickestBlue is thinnestTan is no sand
Deep sands (saline aquifers)
Diagram from MRCSP research
St. Peter
Rose Run
Mt. Simon
Rome sands
Rock units beneath Kentucky
Strata vary in characteristics
Some are known reservoirs
Some are potential reservoirs
Some are seals
Deep saline reservoirs shown with arrows
“Vuggy” Copper Ridge
Middle Run/Four Sand
Based on ~20 wells Potential for as much as 6 Bmt capacity
Mount Simon Sandstone Isopach Map
No Mt. Simon south of the Kentucky River and Rough Creek FZs
Kentucky potential deep saline reservoirs
700650600550500450400350300250200150100
500
METERS
0 8,680
PETRA 1/21/2005 6:14:14 PM
Contour Interval = 50 ft
Deep sands south of the Kentucky River Fault Zone
Thick, Porous Rome Sandstone Wedge ( up to 700’ thick)
Kentucky potential deep saline reservoirs
-2000-2150-2300-2450-2600-2750-2900-3050-3200-3350-3500-3650-3800-3950-4100-4250-4400-4550-4700-4850-5000
METERS
0 10,147
PETRA 1/25/2005 11:27:41 PM
Top Conasauga Structure Map
150 ft contour interval
Kentucky potential deep saline reservoirs
Possibility for closed structure traps in Rome Trough Depth here 4,000 to 5,000 ft Potential capacity 3.5 Bmt CO2
N
3
4 S
4
4
1mi5
Precambrian Unconformity
Paleozoic
• “4 Sand” (4S) is a mappable seismic sequence• Reflection seismic will be needed for sequestration
site evaluations and for monitoring after CO2 injection
S
Kentucky potential deep saline reservoirs
Middle Run (“4 Sand”) Reservoir
N
0
81 sq. mi. lens in Hart Co.
Averages 440 ft. thick 7,000-9,500 feet depth ~3 Bmt potential
capacity Are there other similar
lenses? Additional study
needed
0
0
0
100 ft contour interval
Kentucky potential deep saline reservoirs
Middle Run (“4 Sand”) Reservoir
Assessment of carbon sequestration options along the power plant infrastructure areas
Next we will compare the infrastructure area (in tan) to the number of known and speculative sequestration options by county
Seismic concern area
Known = • O&G fields >15 MM tons
• O&G fields >2,500’ deep
Areas with known oil and gas field options
Outside study areaStudy area (no large oil and gas fields)*
1 option2 options
This area is away from large water supplies
Areas with no “known” options do have potential/speculative options.
Areas with known and possible/speculative geologic options
Based on: • O&G fields >15 MM tons
• O&G fields >2,500’ deep
• Coals below 1,000 ft
• Number of deep sands
• Potential in black shale
• Other speculative reservoirs
Outside study areaFewest (1)Most (6)
Preliminary Summary
There are areas with multiple sequestration options in both eastern and western KY along existing river corridors or within coal fields for short fuel-transport distances
There are known and more speculative (but possible) reservoir options in the same regions
Permitting and regulations for test (small quantity) and future large quantity CO2 injections will be important in determining the potential future application of this technology in Kentucky
All reservoirs would need further testing to determine reservoir characteristics (permeability, water chemistry, etc.) for reservoir modeling
Preliminary Summary
Potentially, some of the best areas for sequestration in saline formations (at depth) near power plants
Based on: • Depth of Rome Ss• St. Peter and Rose Run Ss• Thickness of Middle Run Ss• Depth of Middle Run Ss
•Thickness of Mt. Simon• Depth of Mt. Simon• Depth of vuggy Copper Ridge• Thickness of Rome Ss.
Best Good
Thick, but deep
Thin and/or shallow
More explanation follows
Potentially, some of the best areas for sequestration in saline formations (at depth) near power plants
Best here, is the area in the river corridor that had the most options at optimal depths, i.e. moderately deep (5,000-8,000 ft) and thick (400-750 ft) Mt. Simon Sandstone and thin St. Peter (<60 ft) and Rose Run (<80 ft) at moderate depth (3,000-4,000 ft)
Best Good
Thick, but deep
Thin and/or shallow
Potentially, some of the best areas for sequestration in saline formations (at depth) near power plants
Good here, are the areas in the infrastructure region that had some deep saline reservoir potential (but with fewer options, i.e. thinner, or deeper potential reservoirs) in combination with other known or speculative options
Best Good
Thick, but deep
Thin and/or shallow
Final Summary
http://fossil.energy.gov/programs/powersystems/futuregen/futuregen_factsheet.pdf
In terms of potential volume, deep saline reservoirs are likely the best option for large-scale, permanent CO2 storage
Several lie in central and eastern Kentucky on or near navigatible waterways
These reservoirs would require further testing to determine reservoir characteristics (permeability, water chemistry, etc.) for reservoir modeling
Acknowledgements
http://fossil.energy.gov/programs/powersystems/futuregen/futuregen_factsheet.pdf
This presentation was developed by the Energy and Mineral Section of the Kentucky Geological Survey
Contributors:Stephen F. Greb
Brandon C. Nuttall
James A. Drahovzal
James C. Cobb
Cortland F. Eble
John B. Hickman
Paul D. Lake
Thomas M. Parris
Michael P. Solis
Kathryn G. Takacs
For more information:DOE Carbon Sequestration Program
www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/sequestration/
DOE FutureGen Initiative
http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/powersystems/futuregen/index.html
http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/sequestration/publications/programplans/2005/sequestration_roadmap_2005.pdf
DOE Carbon Sequestration Technology Roadmap and Program Plan for 2005http://sequestration.org/
MGSC (Illinois Basin) Partnership
http://198.87.0.58/CarbonSequestration.aspx
MRCSP Partnership
http://www.secarbon.org/
SECARB Partnership
http://cdiac2.esd.ornl.gov/index.html
DOE Carbon Sequestration Technology Roadmap and Program Plan for 2005