Integrated CO2 Capture and Sequestration Systems: Lessons …lazowska.cs.washington.edu/nae2009/McGrail.pdf · 2009-03-18 · Integrated CO 2 Capture and Sequestration Systems: Lessons

Integrated CO2 Capture and Sequestration Systems: Lessons Learned from Commercial-Scale Design Studies

B. Peter McGrail, Ph.DLaboratory Fellow

Energy & Environment Directorate

National Academy of Engineering ConferenceSeattle, Washington

March 17, 2009

Climate change is a long-term strategic problem with implications for today

2

-

5

10

15

20

1850 1900 1950 2000 2050 2100 2150 2200 2250 2300

Glo

bal F

ossi

l Fue

l Car

bon

Em

issi

ons

Gig

aton

s pe

r Yea

r

Historical EmissionsGTSP_750GTSP_650GTSP_550GTSP_450GTSP Reference Case

Stabilizing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases and not their annual emissions levels should be the strategic goal of climate policyA fixed and finite amount of CO2 can be released to the atmosphere over the course of this century

Every ton of emissions released to the atmosphere reduces the budget left for future generationsAs we move forward in time and the planetary emissions budget is drawn down, the remaining allowable emissions will become more valuable

CO2 capture and storage (CCS) plays a large role but…

Government and industry must make adequate provision for its useCCS is not a silver bullet

Stabilization of CO2 at 550 ppm

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1850 1900 1950 2000 2050 2100

Glo

bal P

rimar

y E

nerg

y 18

50-2

100

(Exa

joul

es)

.

FutureHistoryOilNatural GasCoalBiomass EnergyNon-Biomass Renewable Energy

Oil + CCSNatural Gas + CCSCoal + CCSNuclear EnergyEnd-use Energy

Coal Gasification Integrated with CO2Capture

ASUCoal

CO2 toSequestration

H2

Sulfur

WGSReactor

Conventional Gas Cleanup

Gas Separator

Unit 1

Unit 2

Qout CoolerCompressor

Clean ShiftedSyngas

H2 richstream

Pressurized Hot Water

CO2Injection

RegenerationSorption

Separator

Water

Unit 1

Generic Sequestration SystemGeneric Sequestration System

4

CO2 Phase Diagram

Reservoir Simulation of CO2 Injection

The Sequestration System Design “Pentagon” Capture system

PipelineWellboreReservoir(s)Monitoring

VerificationAccountingSystems

Delivery Infrastructure

Control and Data

Acquisition Systems

Cost Estimation Permitting

Legal & LiabilityLegal & Liability

Legal & Liability

Legal & LiabilityLega

l & L

iabi

lity

The CCS and Power Plant Developer Nexus

CCS introduces a new and unfamiliar paradigm for power plant developers

Traditional siting factors (water, transmission lines, fuel cost) no longer solely determine project viabilitySuitable geology for sequestration or buyer for CO2 required

400 to 700 acre plant boundary expands to 5000 to 10,000 acre AOI

Rozet Member, largely continuous to the east; variable porosity should offer the possibility of multiple, segregated aquifers.

Outline of Incised Valley (>50 ft Muddy thickness) Thins may indicate areas with preserved Rozet remnants

Gas - Red

Oil - Green

Water - Blue

Production ratios tend to distinguish Springen Ranch vs Ute Members. No Rozet production this immediate area.

Integrated Sequestration System Design

8

Geological dataHydrologic dataGeochemical dataInitial and boundary conditions

o

o

PTm&

Reservoir SimulationWellbore Design Pipeline Design

Well design parametersHeat transfer parametersBoundary conditionsCO2 EOS

TCO2Pipeline design specificationsHeat transfer parametersSoil temperatureCO2 EOS

bPm&

o

o

PTm&

• Plant specifications

TCO2

Geologic Sequestration and Thermal Effects

9

Natural geothermal gradient of 25 to 30°C/kmHeat of solution for dissolution of CO2 into formation waterSensible heat of CO2

Temperature of CO2delivered to wellhead depends on many factors including plant operations and seasonal environmentTarget formation may be at a significantly different temperature than the injected CO2

1000

Depth In Feet

5000

10000

Seal

Injection

Major Features:

Comparison of Sites by

Depth5600’

7750’

8350’

11,500’

Design Data Comparison By Site (130 MMscfd)

11

Parameter Units Illinois Mattoon

Illinois Tuscola

TexasJewett

Texas Odessa

Pipeline miles 0 11.0 52.5 86

Well Connector Pipe miles 0.5 2 1 8

#Wells 1 1 1 10

Injection Tubing OD inches 5.5 5.5 5.5 2.88

Injection Tubing ID (Drift) inches 4.55 4.55 4.55 2.17

Depth to Reservoir feet 6950 6150 4800 2900

Pipeline Inlet Pressure psi 2140-2160 1720-2030 1800-2160 1410-1630

Wellhead Pressure psi 2140-2160 1690-2010 1740-2100 1320-1520

Required BHP psi 3096 2790 2760 2190

In situ Temperature °F 138 130 153 107

Predicted Temp °F 117-118 90-114 69-109 62-101

Pipe Diameter inches 16 16 18 18

Operating at lower pressure in winter can save $300K to $400K per year in compression costs

12

Nonisothermal Simulations with STOMP-CO2• Woodbine formation, Brazos, Texas• Field temperature of 68° C with a geothermal gradient• Injection temperature between 21° C and 43° C• 50 MMT Injection for 27.34 years with two 28-day plant shutdowns per year• 50-year simulation period

Temperature, 20° C (blue) - 70° C (red)

13

Nonisothermal Simulations with STOMP-CO2e• Woodbine formation, Brazos, Texas• Field temperature of 68° C with a geothermal gradient• Injection temperature between 21° C and 43° C• 50 MMT Injection for 27.34 years with two 28-day plant shutdowns per year• 50-year simulation period

Dissolved CO2 Concentration, 0.0 (blue) - 0.07 gm/cm3 (red)

CO2 Purity EffectsPipeline regulations vary widely for H2S

20 ppm K-M Central Basin system200 ppm Petrosource10,000 ppm WeyburnAs much as 70% H2S transported and injected in Canada

Pipeline water content specifications vary widely and are related to H2S content in CO2stream

Dry CO2 and CO2-H2S streams are unreactive with pipeline steelsKnowledge gap for CO2 streams containing intermediate water contentWater saturated CO2 phase in geologic reservoir

Lack of industry experience and even basic science studies with CO2-SO2-H2O systems

Liquid CO2 (~2500 ppmw H2O, 298 ppmw H2S)

Columbia River Basalt90°C, 41 days, 10.2 MPa

11,935 ppmw H2S

pyrite

Pipelinesteel

Principal Legal “Hurdles” in CCS ProjectsPrincipal Legal Principal Legal ““HurdlesHurdles”” in CCS Projectsin CCS ProjectsMineral rights

Complex law and varies state to stateSevered ownership issuesCO2 Storage Deed

Landowner cooperation required over much larger area than traditional power plantLiability issues remain unresolved except for specific instances

Texas and Illinois passed liability legislation specific to the FutureGen projectStates that have passed CCS legislation (i.e. WA and WY) have not addressed liabilityEstablishment of Trust Funds (State administered) seem to be an often cited approachIndustry stepping into market (Zurich Financial Services Group, AIG)

15

Example of Land Ownership Issueson a Small CCS Project

MVA Tool SuiteAtmospheric Monitoring

Eddy covarianceAccumulation chambersLIDAR

Remote SensingColor infrared orthoimageryAerial photography/spectroscopyTiltmeterGravimetric interferometry

Vadose ZoneInfrared Gas AnalyzersLaser Induced Breakdown Spectroscopy (LIBS)Isotope Mass SpectrometryGC/MS

Geophysical MethodsElectromagnetic InductionHigh Resolution Electrical ResistivityDedicated Seismic Array NetworkMobile Seismic Surveys

Groundwater MonitoringShallow and Deep Monitoring WellsWater chemistry analysis by ICP-MS and a variety of other methods

ConclusionsSequestration systems need to be integrated from plant gate to sequestration site to operate effectively and efficientlyDesign tools are being developed to make the task easier but maintain robust designCCS is a completely new paradigm for power plant developers and their financial backersAchilles heel of CCS systems appears to rest on financial, legal, liability, and public acceptance issues

18

AcknowledgementsAcknowledgements

The work discussed in this presentation was sponsored byOffice of Fossil Energy and

National Energy Technology Laboratory Department of Energy

with special acknowledgement toPacker Expansion

Chamber

Shut-In Tool Valve Assembly

Inflatable Packer

Bottom Well ScreenPressure Probe Housing

Plant operationsUnscheduled and scheduled plant shutdowns result in periodic flow interruptionsInfrastructure sized to accept full rate of CO2 output when the plant is operating

PipelineSpecify diameter large enough to handle peak flow rate without excessive pressure drop and wall thickness sufficient to accommodate pressure requirementsCost-benefit analysis may be needed to determine specifications for delivered CO2 (purity requirements)

WellboreInjection tubing string of sufficient diameter to prevent excessive pressure drop at peak CO2 injection rateAccount for impacts of seasonal temperature variations on operating parameters

Target Formation(s)Utilize reservoir simulations to estimate required injection pressure to support range of injection ratesMaintain operating pressures below fracture gradient limitAssess impacts of CO2 delivery temperature on operating parameters and reservoir stresses*

Sequestration System Design Considerations

Coupled Thermohydraulic Modeling

One dimensional finite-difference flow modelCO2 properties computed from equation of state (Span and Wagner, 1996)Heat transfer from soil (pipeline) and surrounding rock (wellbore)

21

( ) ( )

}

gravity headfrictional loss flow acceleration1

1 11 1

2

potential energyheat transfer

11

1

sin ( )4 2

1 (2

ji i i i

j i ii

i i ij

i i

fG V V Gp p L g V VD L

Q p pu u L Vm

+− −

−=

−

−

⎡ ⎤⎢ ⎥+ ρ +ρ

= − Δ − α + −⎢ ⎥Δ⎢ ⎥

⎢ ⎥⎣ ⎦

⎛ ⎞= + Δ − − −⎜ ⎟ρ ρ⎝ ⎠

∑6447448 6447448 6447448

64748 kinetic energygravitational energy

12 2

12

) sinj

i ii

V g L+

−=

⎡ ⎤⎢ ⎥

− + Δ α⎢ ⎥⎢ ⎥⎢ ⎥⎣ ⎦

∑64748

64748

Operations &Maintenance

Monitoring

Closure

Components of a CCS Program

Project Timeline

SubsurfaceInfrastructure

& Pipeline

Permitting

SubsurfaceCharacterization