Please wait a minute...

Frontiers of Earth Science

Front. Earth Sci.    2015, Vol. 9 Issue (2) : 286-299     DOI: 10.1007/s11707-014-0462-7
RESEARCH ARTICLE |
CO2 geological storage into a lateral aquifer of an offshore gas field in the South China Sea: storage safety and project design
Liang ZHANG1,*(),Dexiang LI1,Justin EZEKIEL1,Weidong ZHANG1,Honggang MI2,Shaoran REN1
1. School of Petroleum Engineering, China University of Petroleum (Huadong), Qingdao 266580, China
2. Zhanjiang Branch Company of China National Offshore Oil Corporation, Zhanjiang 524000, China
Download: PDF(2373 KB)   HTML
Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks
Abstract

The DF1-1 gas field, located in the western South China Sea, contains a high concentration of CO2, thus there is great concern about the need to reduce the CO2 emissions. Many options have been considered in recent years to dispose of the CO2 separated from the natural gas stream on the Hainan Island. In this study, the feasibility of CO2 storage in the lateral saline aquifer of the DF1-1 gas field is assessed, including aquifer selection and geological assessment, CO2 migration and storage safety, project design, and economic analysis. Six offshore aquifers have been investigated for CO2 geological storage. The lateral aquifer of the DF1-1 gas field has been selected as the best target for CO2 injection and storage because of its proven sealing ability, and the large storage capacity of the combined aquifer and hydrocarbon reservoir geological structure. The separated CO2 will be dehydrated on the Hainan Island and transported by a long-distance subsea pipeline in supercritical or liquid state to the central platform of the DF1-1 gas field for pressure adjustment. The CO2 will then be injected into the lateral aquifer via a subsea well-head through a horizontal well. Reservoir simulations suggest that the injected CO2 will migrate slowly upwards in the aquifer without disturbing the natural gas production. The scoping economic analysis shows that the unit storage cost of the project is approximately US$26?31/ton CO2 with the subsea pipeline as the main contributor to capital expenditure (CAPEX), and the dehydration system as the main factor of operating expenditure (OPEX).

Keywords DF1-1 gas field      CO2 storage      lateral saline aquifer      storage safety      project design     
Corresponding Authors: Liang ZHANG   
Online First Date: 12 December 2014    Issue Date: 30 April 2015
 Cite this article:   
Liang ZHANG,Dexiang LI,Justin EZEKIEL, et al. CO2 geological storage into a lateral aquifer of an offshore gas field in the South China Sea: storage safety and project design[J]. Front. Earth Sci., 2015, 9(2): 286-299.
 URL:  
http://journal.hep.com.cn/fesci/EN/10.1007/s11707-014-0462-7
http://journal.hep.com.cn/fesci/EN/Y2015/V9/I2/286
Service
E-mail this article
E-mail Alert
RSS
Articles by authors
Liang ZHANG
Dexiang LI
Justin EZEKIEL
Weidong ZHANG
Honggang MI
Shaoran REN
Fig.1  Location of DF1-1 gas field (left) and the six candidate aquifers (right) for CO2 storage
Saline aquifers DF1-1N DF1-1S LT19-1 LT13-1 LT1-1 DF1-1 IIdown lateral aquifer
Trapping type Lithologic Lithologic Lithologic Lithologic Lithologic Structural
Structural feature Monocline+small anticline Monocline+small anticline Monocline Monocline Monocline Anticline+faults
Sealing Uncertain Good General Good General Good
Faults No No No No Yes Yes
Buried depth/m 1,015–1,560 1,458–2,026 2,812–3,770 2,000–2,700 2,000–3,000 1,375–1,550
Bearing area/km2 115–340 28–102 107–259 66–171 257 406.5
Thickness/m 18–26 56–118 315–803 16–69 150–200 20–45
Porosity/% 18.4–40.3 8.8–28.5 22 21 10–25 12–32
Permeability/md 7–220 1–12 55–607 22 10–100 0.3–160
Heterogeneity high high weak weak weak high
Salinity/ppm 4,000 38,632 4,000 40,642 19,676 32,161
Temperature/oC 72–77 82–101 128–143 112 94 83–91
Pressure/MPa 13–15 14–20 53–69 23–24 25 14–16
Caprock lithology Mudstone+sandy shale Mudstone+silty shale Mudstone+silty shale Mudstone+silty shale Mudstone+silty shale Mudstone+silty shale
Caprock thickness/m 36–70 45–103 57 100–251 106–433 64–116
Storage capacity/Mt 330 166 7,721 292 497 163
Tab.1  Geological features of candidate offshore aquifers around DF1-1 gas field
Saline aquifers Advantages Disadvantages Rank
DF1-1N No faults; low burial depth; good combination of reservoir and caprock Uncertainties about lateral sealing; strong heterogeneity; far from Hainan Island; thin reservoir thickness 3
lDF1-1S Shallow depth of burial; good seal, some natural gas locally; sizeable reservoir thickness Too many small sandbodies; low permeability, strong heterogeneity; far from Hainan island; small storage capacity 4
LT19-1 Large storage potential; sizeable reservoir thickness; no faults Deep burial depth; over pressured formation; inadequate data; high leakage risk 6
LT13-1 Good sealing; good combination of reservoir and caprock; moderate burial depth; no faults; moderate reservoir thickness; close to Hainan Island Inadequate data 2
LT1-1 Moderate burial depth; sizeable sandbody thickness; close to Hainan Island. Existing faults; poor sealing property 5
DF1-1 IIdown lateral aquifer Proven seal; substantial good data; lower geological leakage risk; large storage capacity of associated aquifers and top depleted gas reservoirs Far from Hainan island; strong heterogeneity 1
Tab.2  Ranking of the six saline aquifers based on their advantages and disadvantages for CO2 storage
Fig.2  Structure map of Group IIdown of DF1-1 gas field. (a) Top view of Group IIdown; (b) Cross well profile
Components H2O CO2 N2 CH4
Critical pressure/MPa 22.03 7.38 3.38 4.58
Critical temperature/°C 374.0 31.1 -147.0 -82.6
Critical volume/(cm3·mol-1) 56 94 89.5 99
Molecular weight/(g·mol-1) 18.02 44.01 28.01 16.04
Henry constant/MPa 0.0684 577.8467
Partial molar volume in aqueous phase/(cm3·mol-1) 18.4964 35.9131
Diffusion coefficient in aqueous phase/(10-9 m2·s-1) 2
Diffusion coefficient in gas phase/(10-4 m2·s-1) 2
Natural gas composition/% mol 1.0 20.1 78.9
Injected CO2 gas composition/% mol 99.6139 0.0777 0.3084
Tab.3  Component properties set in fluid model
Fig.3  Curves of relative permeability (a) and capillary pressure (b) used in the simulation model
Scenarios Distance to gas cap/km Injection well type Perforating horizons Perforating length/m Fracturing pressure/MPa Note
1 No well Only gas production
2 10.4 Vertical 1–3 60 23.53 With gas production
3 10.4 Horizontal 3 400 23.53 With gas production
4 10.4 Horizontal 3 800 23.53 With gas production
5 10.4 Horizontal 3 1,200 23.53 With gas production
6 6.4 Horizontal 3 1,200 22.68 With gas production
7 2.4 Horizontal 3 1,200 22.24 With gas production
8 10.4 Horizontal 3 1,200 23.53 Without gas production
Tab.4  Designs of CO2 injection scheme
Fig.4  Injector locations in different CO2 injection scenarios (Kh contour map)
Fig.5  Distribution of CO2 gas (saturation) with time after injection in different scenarios. (a) Gas saturation distribution in Scenario 5; (b) Gas saturation distribution in Scenario 6; (c) Gas saturation distribution in Scenario 7
Fig.6  Proportions of dissolved/residual CO2 gas to the total amount of CO2 injected with time. (a) Proportion of dissolved CO2; (b) Proportion of residual CO2 gas
Fig.7  Distribution of formation pressure in different injection scenarios. (a) Distribution of formation pressure in Scenario 5; (b) Distribution of formation pressure in Scenario 6; (c) Distribution of formation pressure in Scenario 7
Fig.8  Gas saturation distributions with time in Scenarios 5 and 6 (with no trapping mechanisms). (a) Gas saturation distribution in Scenario 5; (b) Gas saturation distribution in Scenario 6
Fig.9  Sensitivity results of the well bottom-hole pressure (the fracturing pressure is 22.68 MPa). (a) Length of perforated interval; (b) Injection rate
Fig.10  Process of CO2 transportation and injection
Nodes Option 1 Option 2 Nodes Option 1 Option 2
P/MPa T/°C P/MPa T/°C P/MPa T/°C P/MPa T/°C
1 0.14 40 0.14 40 10 9 40 9 40
2 1 243.82 1 243.82 11 16 70.28
3 1 15 1 15 12 16 40
4 1 15 1 15 13 7.68 26.17 14.74 26.40
5 3.20 124.23 3.20 124.23 14 12.63 37.24 12.63 24.68
6 3.20 15 3.20 15 15 12.63 28.13 12.63 28.13
7 3.20 15 3.20 15 16 12.54 26.53 12.54 26.53
8 3.15 15 3.15 15 17 20.38 90.74 20.38 90.74
9 9 114.41 9 114.41
Tab.5  Operating parameters at key nodes in the CO2 disposal process
1 Al-Hashami A, Ren S R, Tohidi B (2005). CO2 Injection for Enhanced Gas Recovery and Geo-Storage: Reservoir Simulation and Economics. SPE paper 94129, the 14th Europec Biennial Conference held in Madrid, Spain, 13–16 June
2 Arts R, Eiken O, Chadwick A, Zweigel P, van der Meer L, Zinszner B (2004). Monitoring of CO2 injected at Sleipner using time-lapse seismic data. Energy, 29(9–10): 1383–1392
doi: 10.1016/j.energy.2004.03.072
3 Chadwick A, Arts R, Bernstone C, May F, Thibeau S, Zweigel P (2008). Best Practice for the Storage of CO2 in Saline Aquifers- Observations and guidelines from the SACS and CO2STORE projects. UK, Nottingham: British Geological Survey Occasional Publication
4 CMG (2008). GEM Users’ Guide, Version 2008. Canada: Computer Modelling Group Ltd.
5 Dai J X, Hu G Y, Ni Y Y, Li J, Luo X, Yang C, Hu A P, Zhou Q H (2009). Natural gas accumulation in eastern China. Energy Exploration & Exploitation, 27(4): 225–259
doi: 10.1260/014459809789996147
6 Duan Z H, Sun R (2003). An improved model calculating CO2 solubility in pure water and aqueous NaCl solutions from 273 to 533 K and from 0 to 2000 bar. Chem Geol, 193(3 ? 4 ): 257–271
doi: 10.1016/S0009-2541(02)00263-2
7 Duan Z H, Sun R, Zhu C, Chou I M (2006). An improved model for the calculation of CO2 solubility in aqueous solutions containing Na+, K+, Ca2+, Mg2+, Cl-, and SO42-<?Pub Caret?>. Mar Chem, 98(2 ? 4 ): 131–139
doi: 10.1016/j.marchem.2005.09.001
8 Franklin M Orr Jr (2004). Storage of carbon dioxide in geologic formations. J Pet Technol, 56(9): 90–97
9 Holtz M H (2002). Residual Gas Saturation to Aquifer Influx: A Calculation Method for 3-D Computer Reservoir Model Construction. SPE paper 75502, SPE Gas Technology Symposium, 30 April?2 May, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
10 Huang B J, Xiao X M, Dong W L (2002). Multiphase natural gas migration and accumulation and its relationship to diapir structures in the DF1-1 gas field, South China Sea. Mar Pet Geol, 19(7): 861–872
doi: 10.1016/S0264-8172(02)00109-5
11 Huang B J, Xiao X M, Li X X (2003). Geochemistry and origins of natural gases in the Yinggehai and Qiongdongnan basins, offshore South China Sea. Org Geochem, 34(7): 1009–1025
doi: 10.1016/S0146-6380(03)00036-6
12 Hughes T J, Honari A, Graham B F, Chauhan A S, Johns M L, May E F (2012). CO2 sequestration for enhanced gas recovery: new measurements of supercritical CO2-CH4 dispersion in porous media and a review of recent research. Int J Greenh Gas Control, 9: 457–468
doi: 10.1016/j.ijggc.2012.05.011
13 Kumar A, Noh M H, Ozah R C, Pope G A, Bryant S L, Sepehrnoori K, Lake L W (2005). Reservoir simulation of CO2 storage in deep saline aquifers. SPE J, 10(3): 336–348
doi: 10.2118/89343-PA
14 Leamon G (2011). Site selection – Gorgon carbon dioxide injection project. CCS in CDM Workshop, Abu Dhabi, 7–8 September
15 Li L, Zhao N, Wei W, Sun Y H (2011). A review of research progress on CO2 capture, storage, and utilization in Chinese Academy of Sciences. Fuel, 108: 112–130
doi: 10.1016/j.fuel.2011.08.022
16 Liu Q Z (2005). Economics of Petroleum Technology. Dongying: China Petroleum University Press (in Chinese)
17 Lokhorst A, Wildenborg T (2005). Introduction on CO2 geological storage- classification of storage options. Oil Gas Sci Technol, 60(3): 513–515
doi: 10.2516/ogst:2005033
18 Maldal T, Tappel I M (2004). CO2 underground storage for Sn?hvit gas field development. Energy, 29(9 ? 10 ): 1403–1411
doi: 10.1016/j.energy.2004.03.074
19 Metz B, Davidson O, de Coninck H, Loos M, Meyer L (2005). IPCC Special Report on Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage. New York: Cambridge University Press
20 Oldenburg C M, Lewicki J L, Hepple R P (2003). Near-surface monitoring strategies for geologic Carbon dioxide storage verification. Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, USA
21 Oldenburg C M, Stevens S H, Benson S M (2004). Economic feasibility of carbon sequestration with enhanced gas recovery (CSEGR). Energy, 29(9 ? 10 ): 1413–1422
doi: 10.1016/j.energy.2004.03.075
22 Preston C, Monea M, Jazrawi W, Brown K, Whittaker S, White D, Law D, Chalaturnyk R, Rostron B (2005). IEA GHG Weyburn CO2 Monitoring and Storage Project. Fuel Process Technol, 86(14 ? 15 ): 1547–1568
doi: 10.1016/j.fuproc.2005.01.019
23 Ren S R, Ren B, Li Y Z, Zhang L, Kang W L, Liu Y C, Chen G L, Zhang H (2012). Monitoring techniques of CO2 geological and its application analysis. Journal of China University of Petroleum, 36(1): 106–111 (In Chinese with English abstract)
doi: 10.3969/j.issn. 1673–5005.2012.01.018
24 Ren S R, Wang R H (2005). Disposal schemes of associated CO2 in offshore gas fields China. Internal project report, Zhanjiang Branch Company, CNOOC (In Chinese)
25 Ren S R, Wang R H, Zhang L (2008). CCS survey and geological storage scheme of associated CO2 in the DF1-1 gas field. Program report supported by Zhanjiang Branch Company of CNOOC under contract No. Z2007SLZJ-FN0295 (In Chinese)
26 Ren S R, Zhang L, Zhang L (2010). Geological storage of CO2: overseas demonstration projects and its implications to China. Journal of China University of Petroleum, 34(1): 93–98 (in Chinese with English abstract)
27 Rutqvist J, Vasco D W, Myer L (2010). Coupled reservoir-geomechanical analysis of CO2 injection and ground deformations at In Salah, Algeria. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 4(2): 225–230
doi: 10.1016/j.ijggc.2009.10.017
28 Shi J Q, Sinayuc C, Durucan S, Korre A (2012). Assessment of carbon dioxide plume behavior within the storage reservoir and the lower caprock around the KB-502 injection well at In Salah. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 7: 115–126
doi: 10.1016/j.ijggc.2012.01.002
29 Van der Meer L G H, Kreft E, Geel C (2005). K12-B: A test site for CO2 storage and enhanced gas recovery. SPE paper 94128, SPE Europec/EAGE Annual Conference, Madrid, Spain, 13–16 June
30 Winthaegen P, Arts R, Schroot B (2005). Monitoring subsurface CO2 storage. Oil & Gas Science and Technology-Revue d’IFP Energies nouvelles, 60(3): 573–582
doi: 10.2516/ogst:2005040
31 Zhang L, Ren S R, Ren B, Zhang W D, Guo Q, Zhang L (2011). Assessment of CO2 storage capacity in oil reservoirs associated with large lateral/underlying aquifers: case studies from China. Int J Greenh Gas Control, 5(4): 1016–1021
doi: 10.1016/j.ijggc.2011.02.004
32 Zhang L, Ren S R, Wang R H, Yi P, Mi H G, Li J T (2010b). Estimation of CO2 storage capacity in saline aquifers in the west of South China Sea. Rock and Soil Mechanics, 31(4): 1238–1242 (In Chinese with English abstract)
33 Zhang L, Ren S R, Zhang Y, Mi H G, Ma Y X (2010a). CO2 storage in saline aquifers: Design of a demonstration project to dispose CO2 associated with natural gas fields in South China Sea. SPE paper 133975, Canadian Unconventional Resources & International Petroleum Conference, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, 19–21 October
34 Zhang L, Niu B L, Ren S R, Zhang Y, Yi P, Mi H G, Ma Y X (2010c). Assessment of CO2 Storage in DF1-1 Gas Field South China Sea for a CCS Demonstration. Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology, 49(8): 9–14
doi: 10.2118/138399-PA
35 Zhang L, Huang H D, Wang Y Q, Ren B, Ren S R, Chen G L, Zhang H (2014). CO2 storage safety and leakage monitoring in CCS Project of Jilin Oilfield China. Greenhouse Gases: Science and Technology, 4(4): 425–439
doi: 10.1002/ghg.1411
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed