Search NASA⌕ Search

Engineering topics

Hovorka, Susan D.

Publications and source records attributed to Hovorka, Susan D..

7 records
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2023

A phased workflow to define permit‐ready locations for large volume CO 2 injection and storage

Abstract To‐date, only two UIC Class VI permits have been issued by the US Environmental Protection Agency. We illustrate a four‐phase workflow to first identify regional storage resources and then down‐select sites to yield permit‐ready locations that can accept and store large volumes of CO 2 . Specific permit requirements should guide objectives and define deliverables of respective workflow phases. In the first phase we used available regional data and screened structure and injection zones to locate resources that match CO 2 volumes planned to be captured. Available data were also used to assess presence and depth of usable groundwater, the key resource being protected via permitting. We then used advanced, closed‐form, analytical solutions (EASiTool) to estimate CO 2 injectivity into each hydrologically connected injection compartment. In the second phase we acquired and conditioned additional wireline logs and leased available seismic datasets. We interpreted the depositional systems from wireline well‐log character and mapped sandbody geometry to interpolate injection and confining‐zone distribution. Using available data, we mapped faults and locations of freshwater and overpressure (or other capacity‐limiting geologic parameters) in more detail. In the third phase, we used the augmented geologic data to develop a static model for the selected area, extracted the areas of highest interest, and generated and ran dynamic (flow) models. In a fourth phase, we reduced major uncertainties identified in earlier phases. Our case study indicates that to complete preparation of a permit application requires (1) improved lithologic characterization information (thicknesses and horizontal and vertical connectivity) and (2) better definition of poorly defined local faults. © 2023 The Authors. Greenhouse Gases: Science and Technology published by Society of Chemical Industry and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

58 GEOSCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2023

Assessing the potential of composite confining systems for secure and long-term CO 2 retention in geosequestration

A potential geologic target for CO 2 storage should ensure secure containment of injected CO 2 . Traditionally, this objective has been achieved by targeting reservoirs with overlying seals-regionally extensive, low permeability units that have been proven capable of retaining buoyant fluid accumulations over geologic time. However, considering that the amount of CO 2 is limited by a decadal injection period, vertical migration of CO 2 can be effectively halted by a composite system of discontinuous shale/silt/mudstone barriers in bedded sedimentary rocks. Here, we studied the impact of depositional architectures in a composite confining system on CO 2 migration and confinement at reservoir scale. We stochastically generated lithologically heterogeneous reservoir models containing discontinuous barriers consistent with statistical distributions of net-sand-to-gross-shale ratio (NTG) and horizontal correlation lengths derived from well log data and observations of producing hydrocarbon fields in Southern Louisiana. We then performed an extensive suite of reservoir simulations of CO 2 injection and post-injection to evaluate the sensitivity of CO 2 plume migration and pressure response of the composite system to a series of geologic and fluid parameters including the lateral continuity of barriers, NTG, permeability anisotropy within the sand body, and capillary pressure contrast between the sand and shale facies. The results indicate that lateral continuity of barriers and NTG are the dominant controls on CO 2 plume geometry and pressure build-up in the reservoir, while the impact of NTG is particularly pronounced. The significance of intraformational barriers becomes apparent as they facilitate the local capillary trapping of CO 2 . Those barriers improve the pore space occupancy by promoting a more dispersed shape of the plume and ultimately retard the buoyancy-driven upward migration of the plume post injection.

58 GEOSCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2023

Minimizing exposure to legacy wells and avoiding conflict between storage projects: Exploring area of review as a screening tool

Elevated pressure from large-volume injection is a key driver of risk and project cost. If transmissive features (e.g., non-isolating wells or fracture systems) are present, increased injection-zone pressure can drive fluids from depth toward protected freshwater resources. In US Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) law, the area at risk is known as the Area of Review (AoR). The size and number of potentially transmissive features to be evaluated and possibly remediated or managed is a function of the size and location of the AoR. The size of the AoR depends on several variables, including properties of the injection zone, properties of protected resources, and injection rate and duration. Evaluation of the intersection of these variables across a portfolio of sites highlights the injection zone depth and boundary conditions as top-level controls. Deep injection, use of multiple stacked injection zones, reduced injection rate and choice of injection well location can all be used to minimize AoR and the number of potentially transmissive features within it. Here, we introduce the concept of pressure space (defined as connected pore volume times pressure) as the key subsurface commodity for CO 2 storage and we suggest that it forms a more robust basis for leasing and regulation than pore space alone.

58 GEOSCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2023

Mapping existing wellbore locations to compare technical risks between onshore and offshore CCS activities in Texas

Carbon dioxide capture and geologic storage (CCS; geologic sequestration) is a promising technology for reducing anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions to the atmosphere from industrial point sources. Aspects of CCS have been investigated for over two decades, and many large- and small-scale geologic storage field demonstration projects are now underway globally. Interest in offshore CCS has been increasing in recent years (e.g., European Union, Australia, Japan, and the United States). Deep geologic storage in offshore settings is analogous to onshore CCS activities in many respects (i.e., geologic and geotechnical aspects), but is distinct from previously explored seabed sediment CO 2 storage) or deep marine dissolution). Given the large subsurface geologic storage volumes available in offshore settings, much discussion of offshore CCS is focused on the benefits and risks of such activity compared to onshore settings. Similar to onshore settings, existing (legacy) wells likely present the most direct migration pathway and largest risk of noncontainment in offshore settings. As part of current studies to evaluate geologic storage options in offshore settings along the Texas coast and greater Gulf of Mexico (GoM), mapping of the geographic distribution and ages of wells in a region containing coastal counties and extending 30 miles offshore Texas indicates that both well spatial density and well age decrease moving from onshore to offshore. Results suggest reduced risk of leakage owing to more rigorous and documented well completion and abandonment practices for these generally younger wells (although many are decades old). A result of decreased well density is that larger areas are available for leasing for CCS projects that avoid legacy wells altogether (> 1 mile from any existing well). The one-mile designation is used as an arbitrary convention, and while it is recognized that this is smaller than a typical area of review (AoR) for permitting, each site will have a different AoR radius for consideration. Finally, the combination of large subsurface storage volumes under control of a single landowner and reduced risks from legacy wells makes offshore CCS attractive in the GoM.

58 GEOSCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2022

Fetch-trap Pairs: Exploring definition of carbon storage prospects to increase capacity and flexibility in areas with competing uses

As CCS grows beyond isolated first-mover projects, the question of how to identify potential storage sites (prospects) is key to siting projects amidst the constraints of neighboring storage projects, hydrocarbon fields and other considerations. To date, prospects have been defined either by the extent of a buoyant trap or by the predicted maximum extent of the CO 2 or pressure plume. Both approaches have worked, but they may struggle in places like the Gulf of Mexico where complex geologic structure can invalidate simple assumptions of radial plume spread and buoyant traps are commonly unattractive due to numerous legacy well penetrations. Here, we propose identifying prospective storage sites by fetch area (drainage cell) rather than by buoyant closure alone. Doing so offers 1) greater freedom in siting injectors to avoid surface and subsurface constraints, including legacy wells that tend to cluster on structural high; and 2) a coherent flow regime in which buoyancy drives all injected CO 2 toward a common high. This strategy gives space to dissipate injection pressure and minimize the number of legacy wells needing review. It may also offer 1) better injectivity by bringing synclines and associated channel axes into play; and 2) potentially improved capacity by tapping a larger rock volume and taking advantage of migration losses.

58 GEOSCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2021

Common risk segment mapping: Streamlining exploration for carbon storage sites, with application to coastal Texas and Louisiana

Large-scale deployment of Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) will require a commensurately large number of sites. Efficient screening methods are needed to create investment assurance and focus efforts on the most promising sites. The problem is similar to petroleum exploration, for which there are well-developed (though seldom published) workflows, including Common Risk Segment (CRS) mapping. In brief, the process requires 1) defining the key play elements; 2) identifying candidate geologic intervals for each; 3) creating fact-based maps for those intervals; 4) determining minimum criteria for the success of each element; 5) reinterpreting the fact-based maps in terms of chance of success; and 6) combining the individual maps to form a composite, basin-scale view of prospectivity. We adapt the CRS process to screening for CO 2 storage sites. Critically, we redefine the process in terms of cost of characterization and development, rather than chance of success. For illustration, we apply the process to the example of the Lower Miocene on the Texas and Louisiana Gulf Coast. We show that the predictions are consistent with historic hydrocarbon production volumes and rates. The power of the CRS method is that it creates a systematic approach to geologic evaluation and translates complex, multidimensional analysis into clear, graphical and easily comprehended business inputs. The results highlight sweet spots and identifies critical risks, suggesting a focus for further data collection and analysis. Furthermore, the method developed here can be applied to both surface and subsurface factors anywhere that there is interest in geologic storage of CO 2 .

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗