© nerc all rights reserved 10.55 task 4: review of efficacy of current and planned offshore...

© NERC All rights reserved

10.55 Task 4: Review of efficacy of current and planned offshore monitoring plans with

respect to regulatory requirements.

Jonathan Pearce, BGS

Doug Connelly, NOC

(20 mins)


Task 4: Review of efficacy of current and planned offshore monitoring plans with respect to regulatory requirements: (BGS, NOC, mid-June to mid-August)

• Review regulations, including emissions trading: UK/EU and other eg Japan, Australia. BGS

• Produce list of key monitoring requirements BGS• Assess ability of monitoring plans from Sleipner,

Snovit, K12-B, Goldeneye and ROAD to meet global regulatory and emissions trading requirements. BGS/NOC• Audit vs IEAGHG monitoring selection webtool BGS


Regulations reviewed• Global:

• London Convention and Protocol and the Guidelines for the assessment of carbon dioxide for disposal into sub-seabed geological formations

• Focus on composition of CO2 stream & incidental substances and their potential impacts on environment

• European:• OSPAR and its FRAM• Storage Directive & Annex II, and Guidance Doc 2• Emissions Trading scheme and Monitoring and

Reporting Guidelines


Regulations reviewed

• National regulations• Australia – Victoria offshore regulations• Japan – METI Standard for Safe Operation of

CCS Demonstrations• US (Texas offshore)?


Monitoring objectives

• Risk-based• The Directive recognises that monitoring is

essential to assess whether:• Injected CO2 is behaving as expected.

• Any migration or leakage occurs. • Any identified leakage is damaging the

environment or human health.


Storage Directive: Article 13

• Comparison between the actual and modelled behaviour of CO2 and formation water, in the storage site.

• Detecting significant irregularities.• Detecting migration of CO2.

• Detecting leakage of CO2.

• Detecting significant adverse effects for the surrounding environment, including in particular on drinking water, for human populations, or for users of the surrounding biosphere.

• Assessing the effectiveness of any corrective measures taken… [in case of leakage].

• Updating the assessment of the safety and integrity of the storage complex in the short and long term, including the assessment of whether the stored CO2 will be completely and permanently contained.


Review of projects

• Sleipner – no Storage Permit but we’ll assume it has• Snohvit – no Storage Permit but we’ll assume it has• Goldeneye – No Permit but a detailed MMV plan

developed for FEED for Longannet• ROAD – Permit obtained & supplement to storage

permit application reviewed• K12-B – no Storage Permit but we’ll assume it has


Monitoring techniques deployed at large offshore sites

8

Deep

Transition

Shallow

Tool Name Sleipner

Snovit

K12-B

Goldeney

e

ROAD

x x 2D surface seismic x x x 3D surface seismic x x x x High resolution acoustic imaging x x Microseismic monitoring x Multicomponent surface seismic x Vertical seismic profiling (VSP) x Cross-hole seismic x Cross-hole ERT x Cross-hole EM x x Single well EM x Permanent borehole EM x Downhole pressure/temperature x x x x x Geophysical logs x x x Downhole fluid chemistry x x Long-term downhole pH ? Electric Spontaneous Potential x Surface gravimetry x x Well gravimetry x x Tracers x x Fluid geochemistry x

x Boomer/Sparker profiling x

x Ground penetrating radar x Seabottom EM

x Multibeam echo sounding x x x Sidescan sonar x

x Bubble stream detection

x Bubble stream chemistry

x Seabottom gas sampling x x Seawater chemistry x Ecosystems studies x


Sleipner monitoring

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

3D surface seismic

2D surface seismic (hi-res)

Seabed imaging (ss sonar, multibeam)

Seabed gravity

CSEM

Wellhead pressure

Cumulative CO2 injected at TL surveys (Mt) 0.00injection

starts2.35 4.25

4.97(s) 5.19(g)

6.84 7.74 8.4010.15 (s)

10.38 (em)11.05

continuous


K12-B monitoring Tool Year Project

1 Multi-finger Imaging Tool 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009

CASTOR/ORC, MONK, Co2ReMoVe

2 Electromagnetic Imaging Tool

2009 Co2ReMoVe

3 Cement Bond Log 2007 (Failed) MONK

4 Down Hole Video 2007 MONK

5 Pressure and Temperature Gradient Profiling

2004, 2005, 2007

ORC

6 Chemical Tracers From 2005 and onwards

CASTOR/ORC, MONK, Co2ReMoVe, CATO2

7 Production Gas Analysis From 2005 and onwards

CASTOR/ORC, MONK, Co2ReMoVe, CATO2

8 Injection Gas Analysis 2004, 2005, 2007

CASTOR/ORC, MONK

9 Production Logging 2005, 2007 CASTOR/ORC, Co2ReMoVe

10 Production Water Analyses

2005, 2007 CASTOR/ORC, MONK

11 Pressure Fall-Off Measurements

2004, 2005, 2007

CASTOR/ORC, CATO2


Project ROAD permit application

• Injection start date: 2015 (latest Jan 2018)• Permit for: depleted gas reservoir area P18-4• CO2 source: EOn coal plant, Maasvlakte area

• Duration: maximum 8 years• Rate: maximum 1.5Mt /year (47.57 kg

CO2/second)

• Amount: Maximum 8.1 Mt CO2

• Maximum pressure: 348.5 bar (pre-production initial pressure). Note, intended pressure = 320bar


ROAD Plans versus reg requirements

• Draft permit submitted 16 Dec 2011. Changed following EC opinion regarding updates to studies of pressure barrier between P18-4 and P15-9. Permit given 19 July 2013.

• Risk management plan, monitoring plan, provision closure and corrective measures plans submitted and present “no gaps”, but “must be detailed further”.

• Monitoring plan updated at least 6 months before injection starts and this plan must be approved by the Minister.

• Monitoring plan will also be updated no later than 4 years and 9 months after injection starts, and every 5 years after.

• The interdependence between the updated plans and reports must be described to the Dutch State Supervision of the Mines.


ROAD Monitoring plan development

• To fit with Storage Directive – risk based• Well leakage prime focus to date• Local pressure build up due to low injectivity in P18-6• Minor risk of fault leakage as pressures increase

towards end of project.• Two aims:

• to ensure the safety and the integrity of the storage complex and provide the necessary information to allow transfer of responsibility.

• to monitor the effectiveness of the corrective measures plan.


Monitoring categories

• Mandatory: based on the storage directive.• Required: evidence for containment and to

demonstrate integrity of seal, fault and wells.• Optional contingency: will only be installed if

irregularities show up. • Quantification of leakage to the seabed is

considered part of the contingency monitoring for ETS purposes and is only needed when there is an indication of leakage.


Monitoring phases• Pre-injection – baseline monitoring• Injection (Operational phase) .• Post-injection monitoring (reservoir is still accessible) – monitoring

continues until a stable end situation can be determined . • Post-injection (post well plugging) – If the plug is shown to be of

acceptable quality the well will be sealed. • Post-injection (post well abandonment) – if the seal is shown to be of

acceptable quality the wells will be permanently abandoned.• Post-injection (post-transfer) – After a demonstrably stable situation is

shown, the reservoir will be transferred to the competent authority, which will be responsible for monitoring for 30 years from the moment of transfer.

• Long-term – As CO2 is expected to remain in the reservoir, ROAD imply that its location will still need to be known for future underground activities.


ROAD monitoring plan (“concept plan” 1 June 2011)

Injection proces Measurement equipment/ method

1 Injection rate Flow meter2 Injection stream CO2

concentrationGas samples & analysis: online system

3 Injection stream composition

Gas samples & analysis: Additional samples for calibration

4 Water measurement Gas measurement5 Discontinous emissions

through leakage, venting or incidents

Combination of techniques

Well 6 Annular pressure Pressure device7 Well integrity Wireline Logging (selection of

tool: CBL, PMIT, EMIT, USIT, WAF, optical)

8 Well head pressure Pressure device9 Well head temperature Temperature device10 Plug integrity Pressure test and inspection

Reservoir integrity

11 Reservoir pressure (FBHP) (see also line 8)

pressure device

12 Reservoir Temperature (FBHT) (see also line 9)

Thermometer

13 Stabilized pressure (CIBHP) (gradient) during shut-in period

pressure device (wireline tool or memory gauge) combined with shut-in

14 Stabilised temperature (CIBHT) (gradient) during shut-in period

thermometer or DTS (wireline tool or memory gauge) combined with shut-in

15 Suspected leakage Surface seismic surveyEnvironmental monitoring

16 Pockmarks at the seabottom

Multi-beam echosounding

17 Presence of shallow gas or gas chimneys in the subsurface

Baseline seismic data

18 Migration pathways for gas in the shallow subsurface

Time-lapse seismic data acquisition (2D or 3D)

19 CO2 in soil at pockmarks Gas samples using vibrocore + lab analysis

20 Bubble detection at wellhead

Acoustic bubble detector

21 Microseismic monitoring Permanent geophones in injection well

• 22 page document (in Dutch except for this table)

• Linked to corrective Measures plan (18 pages, in Dutch)


RAOD Well Integrityprior to plugging

Prior to injection During injection Post-injection

Minimum planned

• Multifinger caliper• Sonic• Ultrasonic• Electromagnetic

• Annular pressure• Multifinger

caliper or electromagnetic

• Pressure• Temperature

• Multifinger caliper

• Sonic• Ultrasonic• Electromagnet

ic

If issues arise • Neutron• Video

• Sonic• Ultrasonic• Neutron• Video

• Sonic• Ultrasonic• Neutron• Video


Progress

• Reviewed regulations in key jurisdictions• Reviewing key projects• Next

• analyse how projects meet regulations• Audit against monitoring selection tool

© nerc all rights reserved 10.55 task 4: review of efficacy of current and planned offshore...

Documents

offshore monitoring

rights reserved nerc

leakage of co2

rights reservedtask

mins nerc

regulatory requirements

migration of co2

reporting guidelines