As GHGT-13 drew so many from the CCS world together in one place for a week it is not surprising that many take advantage to organise launch events there. Two involved the launch of projects’ datasets for wider use by the CCS community, one deep-focussed, one shallow-focussed.
One was organised by Geoscience Australia and CO2CRC to launch their release of data from their controlled-release site at Ginninderra, near Canberra. Their research site has enabled scientists to simulate release of carbon dioxide (CO2) from the soil into the atmosphere under controlled experiment conditions, and to assess the performance of different monitoring technologies.
The project included development of world-leading monitoring techniques, including using mobile sensor and remote sensing technology to detect CO2 emissions and impacts. Monitoring results were found to depend on climatic conditions, groundwater levels and the extent of the soil zone above the water table. The results found significant horizontal movement in the near surface, fundamentally changing perceptions of how CO2 migrates and expresses itself at the near surface. Surface leakage was found to be patchy, a result similar to that observed in other controlled release facilities internationally.
A highlight of the work was improved quantification techniques to accurately measure emission rates. Results from a comprehensive assessment of soil flux techniques were presented in a technical session at GHGT-13. Over 20 monitoring techniques were trialled, with the datasets now available for free download via Geoscience Australia's website. The intention of this data release is to make the data available for comparison with measurements taken at other controlled release experiments, CO2 storage projects and natural analogues. This will hopefully facilitate the further development of greenhouse gas monitoring technologies, methods and monitoring strategies and increase our understanding of the migration behaviour and impact of near surface CO2 leakage.
For more information, including on how to access the data, see http://www.ga.gov.au/news-events/news/latest-news/results-released-from-world-leading-CO2-monitoring-project .
IEAGHG’s Environmental Research Network and Monitoring Network had the pleasure of visiting Ginninderra during the Networks’ meeting in Canberra in 2013 (see for the report of the meeting and visit see http://www.ieaghg.org/docs/General_Docs/Reports/2013-15.pdf.
The CO2 Storage Data Consortium (CSDC) also launched at GHGT-13. This is a new international collaboration for sharing reference datasets from CO2 storage projects in deep saline formations.
To increase efficiency of building capacity, confidence and competence in CO2 storage, this international consortium is developing a platform for sharing datasets from pioneering CO2 storage projects. CSDC promotes sharing of datasets on site geology, well data, geophysical monitoring data, and reservoirs data and models. Access to properly curated and well-understood data accelerates new development of site characterization methods, reservoir simulation and monitoring technologies.
IEAGHG are very pleased to assist by being on the Steering Committee for CSDC.
Two great initiatives in sharing data, to facilitate wider learning from projects and so to assist CO2 storage developments around the world, much praise to all involved.
A Discussion Panel was organised to celebrate the 20 years of successful injection by Statoil at Sleipner, and how best to transfer knowledge globally. Statoil have been doing a good job over the years of sharing their seismic data (via IEAGHG) and other monitoring results at IEAGHG and other meetings, with very many papers published also.
So the world has benefited a lot from the experiences and data from Sleipner and from Snovit. The learning continues in new ways! I discovered that the Norwegian government has transposed the EU’s CCS Directive into Norwegian law in 2014, and then went through a permitting exercise for both Sleipner and Snovit in 2016. Both passed and were permitted, with some additional monitoring requirements. We look forward to learning more on the application of the CCS Directive to two more projects (ROAD was the first).
We also learnt about the considerable exercise on storage assessments by geological organisations in East and South East Asia in the CCOP CCS-M initiative, as presented by Sim Caluyong the project coordinator. This involves many countries in the region, showing case studies for Malaysia, Vietnam, Philippines, and the work towards a pilot injection (onshore) in Indonesia at the Gundih gas field.
The growing interest of Nigeria was also noted, arising from the Offshore Workshop held in Austin earlier this year (see IEAGHG report). The value of being able to re-use existing oil and gas infrastructure was emphasised.
Tip Meckel described the global offshore storage potential, some specific regional geological examples, and the scale-up challenges for the scale of global deployment required, hence the need for offshore storage as well as onshore.
Questions were posed to the panel and audience on how best to transfer knowledge, such as by workshops and by capacity building efforts for developing countries which could be funded by the UNFCCC’s CTCN and other such bodies. Questions were also posed from around the world on tectonic settings, and on cost savings from Sleipner and Snovit.
At the end, written comments were collected from the audience on the importance of Sleipner, and included:
“A very good project”
Happy Birthday Sleipner”
“Hopefully it motivates the other 999 projects we need!”
Thank you Sleipner! Named after an eight-legged horse in Norse mythology, it’s benefits continue to gallop around the world.
Statoil have been operating at Sleipner since 1996 marking twenty years of injection monitoring at the site. The monitoring programme has been shown to be a success proving both conformance and containment as well as including contingency plans. Repeated seismic and gravimetric surveys have been conducted throughout the lifetime of the project alongside acoustic imaging of the seabed. Statoil and partners have released all seismic data acquired up to and including 2008. Gravimetric surveying allowed initial estimates of the density of CO2 within the reservoir to be calculated and then later to determine an upper limit on the amount of CO2 dissolved in brine (when combined with other data). Key learnings highlighted from the past 20 years included the importance of controlling the injection in-situ conditions using downhole pressure and temperature gauges; repeated seismic surveys were crucial for ensuring containment monitoring; the combination of seismic and gravimetric data allowed an estimate of the amount of CO2 dissolution in water to be made and future dedicated monitoring plans should take into account higher frequency and resolution technologies now available.
One of the themes covered by GHGT-13 in Lausanne is the potential of combining CCS and geothermal energy. There are different ways in which geothermal energy might be used. One idea is to inject CO2 into a saline aquifer at one point and then extract heat energy from another location within the same aquifer. Doublet extraction and injection of cooled water is a standard practice for delivering geothermal heat energy for district heating. The next step is to dispose of CO2. The concept is still some distance from reality but initial research is underway. Another concept is the location of conventional fossil fuel power plant with a geothermal source. Here geothermal energy would be used to provide a heat source for the capture plant reducing the energy demand from the combustion of fossil fuels and improving the energy conversion efficiency of the power plant. Initial modelling suggests overall operational costs could be reduced leading to a lower levelised unit cost of electricity compared to a power plant with no additional contribution from geothermal energy.
One of the latest CCS projects to begin operating in the United States is the Kemper County Energy Facility in the state of Mississippi. Richard Espoito, the Geosciences, Carbon Utilization and Storage Southern Company, programme manager, presented an up-beat account at the start of the GHGHT-13 conference on Thursday. Richard stressed the modern ‘Risk Sophisticated’ attitude towards power production and environmental compliance. The company has a mixed portfolio of generation technologies including combined-cycle gas turbine, coal, nuclear, renewables and now this latest addition a lignite processing plant that produces, sulphuric acid, ammonia, power and CO2. Southern company also own natural gas and CO2 pipelines. The plant is located near a large lignite deposit which is mined and delivered to the site. This carbonaceous deposit has a lower calorific value by comparison with other coals, but here it can be dried with waste heat before the extraction of chemical commodities by gasification. CO2 is supplied via pipeline for enhanced oil recovery; a technology widely used in the state which has the added benefit of eventual permanent retention within oil reservoirs. Southern have also just announced support from the US Department of Energy to characterize a deep saline formation that could offer even greater permanent storage. Richard explained that one reason for using lignite is that the fuel source offers a long-term guarantee of supply and price stability to balance against the volatility of oil and gas price fluctuation. This state-of-the-art plant also maximizes the use of water by extracting moisture from the lignite thereby avoiding extraction from external sources such as rivers. Once fully operational Kemper will have 500 employees.
The GHGT-13 Student Reception, sponsored by G.E, was held last night, Wednesday 16th November, and began with a welcome from Sian Twinning (IEAGHG). Sian emphasised how beneficial the reception is to all attendees, as it enables students to meet and discuss what they have heard and learnt at GHGT-13 with their peers. It also allows then to connect with past students and selected industry experts which will allow them to help create their future careers within the CCS world and enables them to create new business contacts.
Tim Dixon (IEAGHG) gave a welcome to all attendees at the Reception and dove straight into a brief overview of the Summer School Series. He followed with a quick look at some brilliant photos from past Schools, including the infamous 1 millionth tonne CO2 capture moment at SaskPower’s Boundary Dam in Canada this year. The Reception presenters also included Camille Levy, Product Leader of Clean Combustion at General Electric and also Mike Monea, Director of the International CCS Knowledge Centre. Students then got a chance to network with one another and also with organsors, sponsors and mentors from the school.
Overall, the Student Reception was a great success. Students really seemed to enjoy themselves and we hope to welcome some of them to one of our future school.
|Camille Levy, GE
||Mike Monea, International CCS Knowledge Centre
At the Site Characterisation session of GHGT-13, Nick Hoffman demonstrated how the CarbonNet project managed to design their plume mapping approach to successfully meet regulatory requirements. A prediction of plume paths with more than a 10% probability of occurrence are required by Australian GHG storage regulations. The probabilistic modelling approach adopted by the CarbonNet Project allowed for plume paths at a P90 confidence level to be calculated. When “the only certainty about the subsurface is that it will be uncertain” this 3D mapping approach allowed MMV plans to be designed around the likelihood of a plume being in a certain location by a given time. The full report detailing the plume mapping methodology is available via the GCCSI institute’s website.
In his keynote speech, “Too late for 2°C?”, Thomas Stocker, eminent environmental scientist from the University of Bern, made the very clear case for urgent action if the most damaging effects of climate change were to be averted. The IEA projects that we must aim for power sector emissions of less than 40 gCO2/kWh by 2050 if we are to have a reasonable chance of meeting this target. Yet, from what we have heard at the conference, government targets and the designs of project developers were consistently an order of magnitude higher. Is this a sign that we were destined to fall short or is it simply part of the journey?
While Boundary Dam’s achieves around 130 g/kWh with a CO2 capture rate of up to 90%, Kemper County is targeting around 65% capture. Actually, it is not unusual for project designers to target 60+% for CO2 capture. Consistent with a lower capture rate, Canada has set an emissions performance standard of 420 g/kWh. Other countries planning to set standards are considering a similar approach – to set it such that it can be met by unabated CCGT but requiring coal to fit CCS. Indeed, most countries have no CO2 emissions target. To pursue 2°C, governments and industry will need to become much more ambitious!
USDOE’s John Litynski chaired an absorbing session on “Large-Scale Carbon Capture Pilots” that certainly seemed to strike a chord. Several speakers provided the audience with the benefit of their extensive practical experience of managing or operating capture pilots at the 10+ MWe scale. They described how testing often progressed through two or three stages, sometimes more, to move from testing at, say, the 0.1 MWe scale to demonstration. All recognised that this was an exceedingly expensive way to de-risk sufficiently to gain the confidence necessary to design and operate a utility-sized capture plant.
John put to them that the more powerful computational and simulation tools now at their disposal could offer a route to dispense with one or more of these stages. Did they think, for example, that testing at the 10 MWe scale was really essential. Responses were mixed. While the merits of simulation were not disputed, they each had reservations about skipping this stage. But they also felt that simulation offered benefits that were currently not being realised. Perhaps tests could be shorter in duration? And simulation could make a greater contribution to optimising heat integration between the capture unit and the power plant. With costs continually under the microscope and as computational tools become more powerful, this discussion is sure to continue!
CO2 storage relies on the injection of the gas either via pre-existing wellbores or, in the future, new wells. CO2 is potentially corrosive and in certain conditions can induce rapid cooling. Both conditions are detrimental to wellbores so it’s important to understand how these conditions occur and what mitigation options are available. The GHGT-13 conference in Lausanne has dedicated a session to the topic. Delegates were briefed on a project by the Norwegian research organisation SINTEF on a laboratory study on the effects of rapid cooling and heating of a section of core that was representative of a cased and cemented wellbore within a rock formation. After subjecting the sample to cyclical temperature fluctuations a computer tomography image was used to detect the presence of fractures. Cement can separate from rock formations forming channels if temperature conditions are not controlled. This experimental work has also shown that the timing between injection and pauses can influence thermal stress. Initial conclusions suggest that long operational pauses should be avoided. Heating CO2 prior to injection could also be used to reduce the effects of high temperature contrasts.