Hydraulic tests to address the needs of CO2 storage: applica on to

Hydraulic tests to address the needs of CO2 storage: applica8on to Hontomín Tobias Rö*ng, Jesús Carrera Ins4tute of Environmental Assessment and Water Research (IDAEA), CSIC, Barcelona 8th CO2GeoNet Open Forum th, 2013 Venice, April 1
0
Characteriza8on tests Objec8ve: iden8fy hydromechanical proper8es •  Single interval tests –  Pulse injec4on tests –  Gas pressure threshold test •  Water pumping-­‐injec4on (“quita y pon”) tests –  Cross-­‐hole to determine seal integrity –  Coupled to tracer tests at injec4on well •  Tracer tests –  Reac4ve tracers to determine reac4vity •  CO2 Push-­‐pull (“mete-­‐saca”) tests •  High pressure injec4on test: big push (“apretón”) Hontomín Technology Demonstra4on Plant layout Hontomin Stra4graphy 1 cm 10 cm Single interval tests at open well intervals Cross Section
28
Pulse: Inject a known volume Gas pressure threshold tests: Inject gas to iden4fy entry pressure. 5m
24
Lamp
G1
I1
K1
Fr-5
Fr-2
Fr-1
22
B22
20
B13
18
Drawdown (m)
of water and observe pressure recovery Iden4fy fracture T Observe response at adjacent intervals to iden4fy ver4cal connec4vity (H-­‐A well) 26
F21
F11
5m
16
K2
J5
B23
F13
F23
14
12
K2·3 (Fr-2)
10
8
B23·2 (Matrix)
6
4
2
J5·3 (Fr-1)
0
1
5
10
100
1000
Tests Time (s)
10000
100000
Water Injec8on-­‐extrac8on 1. Pumping (Quita) 1.  Pumping tests = 0.1-10L/s
2.  Pumped water needs to be stored (condi4oning and storage of up to 2500 m3) 3.  Monitor drawdowns at all intervals to obtain Klocal, Keff, Kvert, and S. Water Injec8on-­‐extrac8on 1. Pumping (Quita) H-­‐2
H-­‐A
H-­‐I
Pumping tests: 0.1-10L/s
drawdown (m) Possible response:
15
15
100 m
Nivel superior
Nivel medio
10
10
55
Nivel inferior
00
Water Injec8on-­‐extrac8on 2. Injec8on (“y pon”) 1. 
2. 
3. 
4. 
Add tracer (and biocide) Inject traced water Rest Extract water and monitor tracer(s) breakthrough. To obtain porosity structure, reac4vity. 5.  Repeat varying nature of tracers (conserva4ve and reac4ve) and T 6.  Repeat varying injec4on volume and rest 4me. water Principle o
f P
ush-­‐Pull t
ests water + tracers water + tracers Gouze et al. WRR, 2008 “Quita-­‐y-­‐pon” push-­‐pull tests: Expected tracer response •  black: ideal homogeneous porous medium •  red: fractured with equal blocks •  blue: fractured with differently sized blocks The slope of the tail represents the “memory func4on” of the porous medium “Quita-­‐y-­‐pon” push-­‐pull tests: Chemical reac4ons in pH 3 HCl injec4on Dissolu4on (-­‐) and precipita4on (+) Pull
2.0E-­‐06
Push
0.0E+00
Pull
4.0
Calcite
-­‐2.0E-­‐06
c/cinj
Rate[mol/m3/s]
Push
Dissolved concentra4ons -­‐4.0E-­‐06
SO42
3.0
-
2.0
-­‐6.0E-­‐06
Rate[mol/m3/s]
0
2
3
4
5
Mg2+
1.0
5.0E-­‐07
Ca2+
0.0
0.0E+00
-­‐5.0E-­‐07
0
Dolomite
-­‐1.0E-­‐06
1
2
3
8
-­‐1.5E-­‐06
-­‐2.0E-­‐06
0
Rate[mol/m3/s]
1
1
2
3
4
5
4
5
pH
7.5
7
1.0E-­‐04
8.0E-­‐05
6.5
Anhydrite
6.0E-­‐05
6
4.0E-­‐05
5.5
2.0E-­‐05
0.0E+00
0
1
2
3
t [d]
4
5
5
0
1
2
t [d]
3
4
5
Ul4mate Objec4ve : Characterize the medium to favour “wormhole” forma4on Porosity fields obtained in calcite dissolu4on with increasing Peclet numbers: (a) Pe = 8.32·∙10-­‐4, (b) Pe = 4.14·∙10-­‐3, (c) Pe = 1.66, (d) Pe = 83.2, (e) Pe = 832. [Golfier et al., 2002] CO2 push-­‐pull (“mete-­‐saca”) test 1.  Inject CO2 (and gaseous tracers). Some 100 t of CO2 2.  Electrical and thermal (hea4ng) tests 3.  Extract CO2+brine and evaluate mass of CO2 and concentra4on of gaseous tracers 4.  Electrical and thermal tests 5.  Informs about trapping mechanisms (specifically contact area and capillary trapped CO2) CO2 push-­‐pull (Mete-­‐saca) test phases 1. CO2 injec4on 1
(a)
2. shut-­‐in and CO2 flota4on 3. CO2 and brine extrac4on 2
(b)
3
forma4on of a residual CO2 zone Determina4on of residual CO2 satura4on with hydraulic tests rel. permeability Kr •  Both hydraulic conduc-vity and storage coefficient (compressibility) of the porous medium change due to the presence of CO2 in the pore space. •  These changes can be used to infer residual CO2 satura4on by performing hydraulic tests before and 1 aner CO2 injec4on. 0 Kr gas 0 Kr brine brine satura4on 1 Test design by numerical modelling Q
Natural Formation
CO2 Zone
Well
PARAMETERS: Base Model
K well
K CO2-Z
K NatAq.
Swell
S CO2-Z
S NatAq
t pump
Q
Model
m/d
m/d
m/d
(m-1)
(m-1)
(m-1)
(d)
(m3/d) (l/s)
BASE
1
0.0849
0.0849
4.62E-06 2.96E-06 2.96E-06
Assumption for Base case: No CO2 in injection well
1
432
5
Results for different widths of CO2 zone -1000
1.5m
300
Natural
Aquifer
3m
Natural
Aquifer
6m
-600
CO2 Zone
-400
-200
CO2 Zone
200
100
Well Effect
Well Effect
-0
-8
10
-6
10
-4
10
t [d]
-2
10
pressure buildup plot
0
10
0
10-8
10-6
10-4
t [d]
tC=6.6e-3d (3m)
tC=2.5e-2d (6m)
ds / d(log10t) [m]
s [m]
Base
tC=1.8e-3d (1.5m)
-800
10-2
100
diagnostic plot (derivative)
Results for different shapes of CO2 zone t (d)
-6
10
10
-2
0
10
-8
10
10
2.5
Natural
Aquifer
Case 1
Case 2
δsD / δ(log10tD)
4
2
10
2
tD
4
10
CO2 Zone
100
102
tD
Case 2
1.5m
Aquifer
Zo
ne
6m
ne
Zo
2
CO
Aquifer
104
Case 3
4.5m
Well
ne
Zo
0
10-2
10
3m
2
0
10
1
6
Case 1
Well
-2
Natural
Aquifer
2
10
10
1.5
CO2 Zone
0
10
0.5 Well Effect
Well Effect
CO
sD
Base Model
0
10-2
-4
10
2
Case 3
6
t (d)
-6
Well
10
8
-4
CO
-8
Aquifer
106
Mechanical coupling - seal stability
Pressure build up in the CO2 bubble and surrounding brine
may compromise mechanical stability of the cap rock and its
isolating properties.
High pressure (and flow rate) injec8on test (“Apretón”) •  Inject a high flow rate at a very high pressure (some 100 bar at surface) •  Observe pore fluid pressure, rock deforma4on and possible microsisms Hydro-­‐mechanical coupling during “apretón” As fluid pressure increases, the seal bends P goes up immediately At first, P drops Thank you! tobias.roe*ng@upc.edu jesus.carrera.ramirez@gmail.com