Download the document - Global CCS Institute

More documents

Recommendations

Info

2.1 South West Hub CCS ProjectThe South West Hub (SW Hub) CCS project is located near Collie in south west Western Australia.In addition to being the first CCS flagship to be approved, the SW Hub was chosen as a study areabecause of its novel trapping mechanism. Capillary trapping was introduced in Section 1.1.2, and willbe discussed in Section 2.1.3.115˚30'−32˚30'Pinjarra 1116˚00'Perth−32˚30'Core is from Pinjarra 1well 31km N of mostrecent seismic data010002000depth (m)3000Lake Preston 14000−33˚00'AHarvey 1B−33˚00'50000 2000 4000 6000 8000in−situ vp (m/s)Most recent wireline data is from LakePreston 1, 18km NNW of Harvey 1(sand sections have been highlighted in red)AB0trace100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 140012time (s)3−33˚30'115˚30'116˚00'−33˚30'45most recent seismic lines acquired in 2011Figure 2.2: SW Hub Project regional context. Modern (2011) seismic lines are shown in violet. Thelocation of two wells, Pinjarra 1 and Lake Preston 1, are indicated as red circles. The locationof the Harvey-1 exploratory data well which was drilled between January and February,2012, is indicated in orange. The seismic data are from GA2011-LL1, the northernmostseismic line.2.1.1 Prior studiesThe major motivation for investigation of the SW Hub as a CCS project comes from work by Varmaet al. (2009) who interpreted a high permeability zone from well log data. Their work lead to the commissioningof a preliminary study (Barclay et al., 2009). Some of the quantities (e.g. formation watersalinity and injection pressure) are used in this report, but most others, chiefly because of Barclay et al.(2009)’s focus on geomechanical aspects of the SW Hub, were not. As work proceeds on the SW Hubproject, geological, geochemical and geomechanical data will no doubt be incorporated into a reservoirmodel which can be used to numerically simulate injection strategies and project lifecycle, but such integrationis beyond the scope of the current study and not possible given the current lack of data. Varmaet al. (2009)’s interpretation is reproduced in Figure 2.3. It is important to note that Varma et al. (2009)’sconcept model is oriented North-South in contrast to SW Hub models in this report which are orientedWest-East.12 |
NYarragadeeLeederville aquiferInjection wellYarragadeeSCockleshell GullyUpper LesueurImmobilised CO 2Secondary percolationLower LesueurPrimary migrationSabina sandstoneInjection ∼ 3 km(b) SW Hub Concept model (not to scale)Figure 2.3: Motivation for selection of the SW Hub site. Figure 2.3(a) shows resistivity logs from LakePreston 1 well which Varma et al. (2009) interpreted as indicative of fresh water recharge.Figure 2.3(b) presents Varma et al. (2009)’s concept model. The concept model is orientedNorth-South. The injection well is at the right of the figure. CO 2 is injected intothe relatively-permeable Lower Lesueur formation. As the plume migrates upwards, CO 2 istrapped by capiliary mechanisms. These mechanisms were discussed in Section 1.1.2.| 13
Page 1 and 2: www.csiro.auA deployment strategy f
Page 3: Response to referee’s commentsThi
Page 6 and 7: This project identified the followi
Page 8: 4.2.3 Marine electromagnetics . . .
Page 12 and 13: This page intentionally left blank.
Page 18 and 19: and Hoversten, 2006, 2005; Wells et
Page 20: Fundamentally, CO 2 detectability i
Page 24 and 25: which rises. Eke et al. (2011) reco
Page 26 and 27: • Rock physics uncertainties are
Page 30 and 31: 2.1.2 Data reviewPublically-availab
Page 32 and 33: GSWA Record 2004/8Gravity and magne
Page 34 and 35: −32˚30'115˚30'116˚00'−32˚30
Page 36 and 37: 0cdp100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
Page 38 and 39: W
Page 40 and 41: Figure 2.12: The Seaspray depressio
Page 42 and 43: 2.2.2 Data reviewAs might be expect
Page 45 and 46: 0South-WestNorth-East2depth (km)46F
Page 47 and 48: 3 Rock physics relationshipsNo exta
Page 49 and 50: For the reservoir member a porosity
Page 51 and 52: 3.1.2 Clean sandstone modelThe foll
Page 53 and 54: 3.2 Electrical propertiesThe model
Page 55 and 56: 300Lesueur project GEMTIP Rock phys
Page 57 and 58: 4 Geophysical remote sensing techni
Page 59 and 60: 0500100021.81.61.4 T (ms) 150
Page 61 and 62: 108A S/A N64202000 2100 2200 2300 2
Page 63 and 64: Figure 4.5: The seismic lines super
Page 65 and 66: 4.1.2 Data processingThe end goal o
Page 67 and 68: 4.1.3 1D Reflection seismicsSeismic
Page 69 and 70: the detectability of CO 2 when only
Page 71 and 72: 4.1.4 2D Reflection seismicsModelli
Page 73 and 74: (a) Baseline velocity model(b) Velo
Page 75 and 76: (a) Baseline and 2.5% CO 2 saturati
Page 77 and 78: • ρ = 2.497g/cm 3 .This gives th
Page 79 and 80:
!me$(ms)$Figure 4.17: Noise-free ba
Page 81 and 82:
CDP0400 time (ms)800120016002
Page 83 and 84:
5004504000.64kt1.59kt3.18kt6.37kt12
Page 85 and 86:
010020040060080014000.116001800N ra
Page 87 and 88:
Figure 4.27: Zoomed in synthetic ba
Page 89 and 90:
Figure 4.30: Zoomed view of the inj
Page 91 and 92:
4.1.6 Permanent receiver installati
Page 93 and 94:
Figure 4.33: Well 6, Zero-offset (1
Page 95 and 96:
4.1.6.2 Ocean bottom cablesFor mari
Page 97 and 98:
4.2 Electromagnetic surveying & int
Page 99 and 100:
• Clearly, the induction monitori
Page 101 and 102:
Key points to consider for applicat
Page 103 and 104:
4.2.2.1 Single-borehole electromagn
Page 105 and 106:
4.2.2.2 Separated-borehole electrom
Page 107 and 108:
The second and third examples of cr
Page 109 and 110:
0 A 100 m 50010001500 2000 250010
Page 111 and 112:
0Wonnerup, 1000 m target; Tx 1200m
Page 113 and 114:
Downloaded 23 Sep 2010 to 130.116.1
Page 115 and 116:
ceiver offset from the transmitter
Page 117 and 118:
Figure 4.50: Dependence of mCSEM re
Page 119 and 120:
The second variation of Figure 4.48
Page 121 and 122:
0 A EE Component0B E Z Component0 C
Page 123 and 124:
The third variation of Figure 4.48
Page 125 and 126:
0 A EE Component0B E Z Component0 C
Page 127 and 128:
4.2.4 Ground electromagneticsThe mC
Page 129 and 130:
Table 4.7: LOTEM Gate parameters. T
Page 131 and 132:
Response Background1.0101.0051.000
Page 133 and 134:
Response Background1.101.051.000.9
Page 135 and 136:
Primary Industries, 2011). However,
Page 137 and 138:
Effect of drill hole offset0DDH10DD
Page 139 and 140:
Microseismic monitoring ideally beg
Page 141 and 142:
ferromagnetic magnet which has a te
Page 143 and 144:
5 Monitoring & verification strateg
Page 145 and 146:
5.1 General recommendations & strat
Page 147 and 148:
Table 5.2: Suitability of geophysic
Page 149 and 150:
confused with seepage. In this case
Page 151 and 152:
6 ConclusionsThis report has discus
Page 153 and 154:
7 Recommendations for future resear
Page 155 and 156:
ReferencesAl-Ali, Z. A., M. H. Al-B
Page 157 and 158:
Du, J., D. L. Tilbrook, J. C. Macfa
Page 159 and 160:
JafarGandomi, A., and A. Curtis, 20
Page 161 and 162:
Schilling, F., G. Borm, H. Würdema
Page 163 and 164:
Yan, W., S. Huang, and E. H. Stenby
Page 165 and 166:
ACO 2 PropertiesThis Appendix gives
Page 167 and 168:
BSeismic preprocessing workflowThe
Page 169 and 170:
CSeismic data processing for quanti
Page 171 and 172:
Preprocessing prior to any stack wi
Page 173 and 174:
Recent developments, such as target
Page 175 and 176:
and should not be used for quantita
Page 177 and 178:
DGeophysical software used in the p
Page 179:
EProject detailsThis section lists
show all

Download the document - Global CCS Institute

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?