Types of Storage (Mechanisms) and Lessons Learned from SECARB's Citronelle Storage Site

George Koperna, VP Advanced Resources International, Inc. RECS Friday, June 21, 2013

Acknowledgement
This presentation is based upon work supported by the Department of Energy National Energy Technology Laboratory under DE-FC26-05NT42590 and was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof.

Order of Presentation
1. Introductions 2. What do we need to know? 3. Types of traps 4. Example: SECARB 5. Questions, Comments, Discussion

Introduction
Porous media and natural porous formations are heterogeneous, i.e., they display spatial variability of their geometric and hydraulic properties. Furthermore, this variability is of irregular and complex nature. It generally defies a precise quantitative description, either because of insufficiency of information or because of the lack of interest in knowing the very minute details of the structure and flow field.
Dagan, 1989

Its not impossible, however

So what do we need to know?

Data, Data, Data, Data, and more Data

6

So what do we need to know?

Define the Project scope:
Enhanced recovery vs. single/multiple point injection

So what do we need to know?

Lithology

So what do we need to know?

Geologic Trap:

So what do we need to know?

Reservoir continuity:

Source: AAPG Memoir 50 SPE 88720

10

So what do we need to know?

Reservoir and fluid properties:

11

Okay, we have the data!

(now what?)

Lets calculate CO2 injectivity (Saline Aquifer):

Depth = 3,425 ft. Temperature = 95.5 F Thickness = 250 ft. Permeability = 40 md Porosity = 13% Injection pressure = 0.6 psi/ft. KEY ASSUMPTION: Unconfined Reservoir

12

Okay, we have the data!

(now what?)

Governing Equation:

(2-1)kh qsc= TPt

(result) 117.5
303 191 40 250 1.422x106 556 12.0

Where: qsc = CO2 injection rate (MMscfd)

2 = pseudo pressure (E+6psia2/cp) 1 = pseudo pressure (E+6psia2/cp) k = permeability (md) h = thickness (ft) T = constant = temperature (R = F + 460)

Pt = 1/2(ln tD+0.80907)

Although a fairly rigorous treatment, it is a whole lot more complicated than this!
13

Why the complexity?

Can we really inject 118 MMscfd? Is unconfined flow the correct approximation? Relative permeability Buoyancy CO2 trapping
Structure/Stratigraphy Solubility Pore volume trapping Mineralization (where applicable) Adsorption (where applicable)

HETEROGENEITY! (The circle is now complete!)

14

Can we really inject 118 MMscfd?

15

Is unconfined flow the correct approximation?

Size of the container is very important!
Area mi2 5 25 100 400 Infinite CO2 Injection Rate MMscfd 1.3 7.2 15.6 19.0 117.5

16

Relative permeability

SPE 134028 (Bennion and Bachu, 2010)

17

Buoyancy
Vertical permeability and continuity control buoyancy.

18

Reservoir trapping mechanisms

Structural/Stratigraphic Trapping Solubility (in Oil/in Water) Mineral Trapping Pore Volume Trapping Adsorption

19

Structural/stratigraphic trapping
u

Most likely a depleted/depleting oil/gas reservoir

Trapped oil/gas for geologic time! Lots of data Lots of hydraulic fracs?

Will have a spill point

20

CO2 solubility
Formation waters
CO2 is soluble in water and oil The amount of CO2 ultimately dissolved in a liquid is affected by several factors:
Temperature Pressure Water salinity Reservoir heterogeneity Density inversion

21

CO2 solubility Effect of temperature and pressure on CO2 solubility

22

CO2 solubility Effect of salinity on CO2 solubility

23

CO2 solubility
CO2 solubility in oil reservoirs is a multiplecontact (miscible) process (CO2-EOR). CO2 will vaporize the lighter oil fractions into the injected CO2 phase and CO2 will condense into the reservoirs oil phase. Result is lower viscosity, mobility and interfacial tension.

24

What is CO2-EOR?
There are two main types of CO2-EOR processes:
Miscible CO2-EOR is a multiple contact process involving interactions between the injected CO2 and the reservoirs oil, which leads to two reservoir fluids that become miscible (mixing in all parts), with favorable properties of low viscosity, enhanced mobility, and low interfacial tension. The objective is to remobilize and reduce the residual oil saturation in the reservoirs pore space after water flooding. Miscible CO2-EOR is by far the most dominant form of CO2-EOR. Immiscible CO2-EOR occurs when insufficient reservoir pressure is available or the reservoirs oil composition is less favorable (heavier). The main mechanisms involved are: (1) oil phase swelling, as the oil becomes saturated with CO2 ; (2) viscosity reduction of the swollen oil and CO2 mixture; (3) extraction of lighter hydrocarbon into the CO2 phase; and, (4) fluid drive plus pressure.

25

What is CO2-EOR?
Anthropogenic and/or Natural Sources

Purchased CO2

Injected CO2

from Production Well

Recycled CO2

Zone of Efficient Sweep

Immobile Oil

CO2 Dissolved (Sequestered) in the Immobile Oil and Gas Phases

CO2 Stored in Pore Space

Driver Water

CO2

Water

CO2

Miscible Zone

Oil Bank

Additional Oil Recovery

Immobile Oil
JAF01981.CDR

26 26

Source: Advanced Resources International

Advanced Resources International

Profiles for CO2 Injection and Oil Production in CO2-EOR

Start CO2 EOR Oil Production

Oil Production (Barrels)

Point of Economical Production Shut-down Time from CO2 Injection to Oil Production

Time

CO2 Injection (Tonnes)

Start of CO2 Injection

Purchased CO2 Recycled CO2

Time
Source: Bellona, 2005
27

JAF028275.PPT

CO2 solubility
Oil swelling is also an important storage mechanism.
Laboratory work on the Bradford Field (Pennsylvania) oil reservoir showed that the injection of CO2, at 800 psig, increased the volume of the reservoirs oil by 50%. Similar laboratory work on Mannville D Pool (Canada) reservoir oil showed that the injection of 872 scf of CO2 per barrel of oil (at 1,450 psig) increased the oil volume by 28%, for crude oil already saturated with methane.

28

CO2 solubility

29

CO2 solubility (density inversion)

30

Mineral trapping
Mineral trapping is the permanent sequestration of CO2 through chemical reactions with dissolved species and matrix minerals. Through field studies and numerical modeling it has been determined that CO2 is primarily trapped through precipitation of:
calcite (CaCO3), siderite (FeCO3), dolomite (CaMg(CO3)2), dawsonite (NaAlCO3(OH)2) (Xu et al. 2001, 2002, 2003).

In order for mineral trapping through carbonate precipitation to occur, primary minerals rich in Mg, Fe, Na and Ca, such as feldspars and clays, must be present. Immature sands having an abundance of fresh rock fragments (unweathered igneous and metamorphic minerals and clays rich in Mg, Fe and Ca) are most effective (Bachu et al. 1994, Pruess et al. 2001, Xu et al. 2001, 2002, 2003).

31

Pore volume trapping

There are two mechanisms which may naturally trap the CO2 within reservoir pores:
gas saturation below the critical gas saturation of the reservoir (non-permanent), and depletion-imbibition hysteresis (permanent).

32

Pore volume trapping

u

Critical gas saturation determines the minimum saturation of gas that is required to initiate flow of the gas through the reservoir pore space.

33

Pore volume trapping

u

Sequestration through relative permeability hysteresis is primarily a post-injection phenomenon due to the differences between drainage (production) and imbibition (injection) gas relative permeability. Think CO2-EOR WAG processes! Injectivity losses range from 40 to 80% of pre-CO2 water injection rates in W. TX. strong hysteresis of the non-wetting phase!

34

Adsorption
The primary mechanism permitting the sequestration of CO2 in coal seams is adsorption.
Gas- and liquid-phase substances are attracted to and held onto a solid surface as a thin film of molecules.

In the case of coal, the organic matter comprising the coal can, under certain conditions, allow gas phases such as methane and carbon dioxide to adsorb onto its surface. A coal seams ability to store gas can be impacted by reservoir temperature, permeability, porosity, swelling characteristics and moisture content.

35

Adsorption

36

Desorption of Methane and Adsorption of CO2 in Shales and Coals is Similar

Methane adsorbed on kerogen and clay mineral surfaces Organic-rich gas shales preferentially adsorb CO2, replacing methane Free (non-adsorbed) gas in fracture porosity, intergranular microporosity, micro-pores in kerogen

37

Heterogeneity
Storage reservoirs will:
Rise and dip; Thin and thicken; Come and go; and Have variable reservoir parameters.
Such as porosity, permeability and fluid saturations.

These changes in the reservoir may impact:

Pressure; Temperature; Relative permeability; Etc.

The only way to truly approximate subsurface flow with any degree of accuracy is with numerical computer models.

38

Well, what can we do?

Injection without recovery
Type curves Empirical formulations (Darcys Law) Detailed reservoir models

Enhanced recovery modeling

Streamtube models (CO2-EOR) Coalbed models (ECBM) Black oil models (Depleted oil/gas, w/o mixing) Compositional models (CO2-EOR)

Next generation models?

39

SECARB Example: Storage Overview

Project Schedule and Milestones
The CO2 capture unit at Alabama Powers (Southern Co.) Plant Barry became operational in 3Q 2011. A newly built 12 mile CO2 pipeline from Plant Barry to the Citronelle Dome completed in 4Q 2011. A characterization well was drilled in 1Q 2011 to confirmed geology. Injection wells were drilled in 4Q 2011. 100k 300k metric tons of CO2 will be injected into a saline formation beginning 3Q 2012. 3 years of post-injection monitoring.

40

Assuring Safe Injection: Start with a Good Storage Site

Proven four-way closure at Citronelle Dome. Injection site located within Citronelle oilfield where existing well logs are available Deep injection interval (Paluxy Formation at 9,400 feet) Numerous confining units Base of USDWs ~1,400 feet Existing wells cemented through primary confining unit No evidence of faulting or fracturing, based on oilfield experience, new geologic mapping and interpretation of existing 2D seismic lines.
41

Geological Characterization
Collected new geologic data on the Paluxy reservoir and confining unit with the drilling of the projects three new wells:
Characterization Well (D-9-8#2) 98 feet of whole core (two intervals) plus 45 sidewall cores. Injection Well #1 (D-9-7#2) 68 feet of whole core plus 32 sidewall cores Injection Well #2 (D-9-9#2) 44 feet of whole core Full set of open hole logs on all three wells (quad combo, MRI, spectral gamma, mineralogical evaluation, waveform sonic, cement quality, pulsed neutron capture) Baseline vertical seismic profiles and crosswell seismic collected in Feb 2012

Results of characterization effort confirm that the test site geology is adequate
Safe injection site unfaulted, structural trap, thick confining unit Attractive for injection porosity, permeability, reservoir extent

42

The Paluxy Formation is a Good Injection Target

43

Construction of Geological Model

CO2 Injector (Well D9-7#2)

Based on detailed characterization of the Paluxy sand/shale interval, 20 sandstone units may be targets for CO2 injection:
260+ net feet of clean sand Average porosity of 18% Average permeability of 200 md Normal pressure and temperature gradients

44

Reservoir Simulation to Guide Injection Design

CO2 plume extent 10 years after end of injection
Inject into 10 thickest sands (170 ft thick) Inject at maximum injection rate during for three years (500 tonnes per day). Plume area in topmost sand is 0.35mi2 (225 acres) Most of the CO2 enters the upper Paluxy sands due to higher permeability and injection gradient Model results used to determine UIC Area of Review These results are used to design injection (well design, completion program, monitoring program)
45

Integration - Communication is key!

46

Permitting = time & $

AL Department of Environmental Management (ADEM) Air Permit
Capture unit operation

Army Corps of Engineers permit Wetlands Impacts

Covers wetland impacts due to pipeline and injection site construction Pipeline crosses 15 acres of wetlands Horizontal drilling under wetlands is preferred over open-cutting and mitigation Wetland impacts during well pad construction operations (fill) mitigated after well drilling completed

U.S. Fish and Wildlife permit Threatened and Endangered Species

Potential impacts to threatened species (gopher tortoises) Over 30 gopher tortoise burrows encountered long pipeline easement Directional drilling under tortoise burrows/colonies is preferred over temporary relocation

SHPO (State Cultural/Archaeological Assets)

47

The Big oneUIC Class V

ADEM Underground Injection Control (UIC) Permit Protect Underground Sources of Drinking Water (USDWs)
A Class V Experimental Well permit has been sought for the following reasons
Short duration of injection (3 years) Modest volumes of CO2 (less than 2% of Plant Barrys annual CO2 output) Characterization and modeling of stacked CO2 storage CO2 Injection Under Real World Conditions Demonstration of innovative monitoring tools and methods

48

UIC Class V
After comments by EPA, most Class VI (CO2 sequestration well) standards were applied
Injection Area of Review (AOR) determined by annual modeling Periodic AOR updates based on monitoring and modeling results Extensive deep, shallow and surface CO2 monitoring Monthly reporting of injection pressures, annular pressures and injection stream composition Injection stream monitoring Periodically updated Corrective Action Plan Open-ended permit duration (based on USDW nonendangerment demonstration) Pressurized annulus throughout injection Emergency and remedial response plan Post-injection site care plan

49

Expect the Unexpected: Turtle $oup!

U.S. Fish and Wildlife permit and NEPA compliance mandate the protection of threatened and endangered species
Potential impacts to an threatened species and its habitat (Gopher Tortoise) Over 100 tortoise burrows encountered long pipeline easement Directional drilling under tortoise burrows/colonies less expensive than temporary relocation Burrows identified at or near most well sites Avoid drilling/monitoring activities in proximity to burrows
50

Permitting: This Stuff Takes a While

UIC Class V Experimental Well permit application submitted in December 2010
Short duration of injection (3 years) and modest volumes of CO2 CO2 Injection Under real world operating conditions Demonstration of experimental monitoring tools and methods

Most Class VI (CO2 sequestration well) standards were applied

Injection Area of Review (AOR) determined by modeling and monitoring results; updated annually Extensive deep, shallow and surface CO2 monitoring Injection stream monitoring Periodically updated Corrective Action Plan Site closure based on USDW non-endangerment demonstration (5-yr. renewal) Pressurized annulus throughout injection (+/- 200 psig)

Class V Experimental injection permit was awarded in November 2011, eleven months after initial draft application Permission to operate request submitted in April 2012; awarded in August 2012

51

The End Result

52

MVA will continue for duration

Baseline 1 year
APR 2011 to AUG 2012

Injection 2 years
SEPT 2012 to SEPT 2014

Post 3 years
OCT 2014 to SEPT 2017

53

MVA Sample Locations

One (1) Injector (D-9-7 #2) Two (2) deep Observation wells (D-9-8 #2 & D-9-9 #2) Two (2) in-zone & above zone Monitoring wells (D-4-13 & D-4-14) One (1) PNC logging well (D-9-11) Twelve (12) soil flux monitoring stations

54

Seismic: Baseline Crosswell

Survey Parameters
Source Type: Piezoelectric Receiver type: Hydrophone 10 levels Source & Receiver interval: 10 feet Sweep length: 2.6 sec (record length 3 sec)

Survey Results
High resolution image between injection well & observation well (~10 feet vertical resolution) No reservoir or confining unit discontinuities observed Good CO2 confinement

Next Steps
Full VSP ~ 25 30 feet resolution MBM VSP~ 50 feet resolution Scheduling time lapse seismic this spring hopefully to see CO2

55

Reservoir Response
630,000 data points 7 month deployment

Pressure spike JAN 2012 across all 4 gauges Small pressure spike observed consistent with the MITs
D-4-13 has a potentially bad gauge that will be re-calibrated or replaced

Downhole pressure quickly stabilized to pre-test levels, indicating no residual effects & packer integrity.

56

Reservoir Response
Slight pressure increase (previous slide) Slight temperature decrease

630,000 data points 7 month deployment

We dont believe we are seeing CO2 Scheduling more MVA this spring Expect fluid movement, not CO2

57

D-9-8#2 Downhole Pressure Gauge Data

Consistent & expected pressure increases in zone At 9,441 feet and at 9,416 feet

System remains elastic bouncing back when shut in This springs shut in should reveal more
58

Pressure & Injection Rate Response

Consistent pressure in D-4-13 & 14 (above the injection zone, 3,500 feet away

We have a good capacity, injectivity, and no apparent formation damage We have good seal We have good MVA data to confirm
59

Expected downhole pressure response in MW D-9-8#2 consistent with CO2 injection rate (900 feet from the D-9-7#2 injector)

Q & A What else? Questions Comments Concerns

60

Thank you for your attention!

Office Locations
Washington, DC 4501 Fairfax Drive, Suite 910 Arlington, VA 22203 Phone: (703) 528-8420 Fax: (703) 528-0439 Houston, TX 11931 Wickchester Ln., Suite 200 Houston, TX 77043 Phone: (281) 558-9200 Fax: (281) 558-9202 Knoxville, TN 603 W. Main Street, Suite 906 Knoxville, TN 37902 Phone: (865) 541-4690 Fax: (865) 541-4688 Cincinnati, OH 1282 Secretariat Court Batavia, OH 45103 Phone: (513) 460-0360 Email: scarpenter@adv-res.com

http://adv-res.com/
61

Backup & Supporting Slides

62

A Means of Calculating Unconfined Gas Flow Through Porous Liquid-Filled Media

Selecting the Correct Formulation of the Continuity Equation:
u

What do we know?

Injection of carbon dioxide gas at super-critical conditions into a liquid-filled, possibly infinite aquifer.
u

What do we want to find out?

The 10-year carbon dioxide injection rate into the aquifer.

63

General Behavior of Hydrocarbon Gases

z 1 2 p 3

Regions of Pressure Behavior

1. 2. 3.

-z is constant, use pressure-squared approaches Use pseudo pressure approaches* p/(z) is constant, use pressure approaches

*This approach applies to all regions

64

Diffusivity Equation for Single-Phase Gas Flow

(in terms of real gas potential / pseudo pressure)

cg 1 r = k t r r r
In this form, the formulation is unusable and requires assumptions about the reservoir boundaries (boundary conditions) to generate a useful form of the equation. Where pseudo-pressure may be calculated for any pressure range as follows:

65

2p p izi

Pseudo-Pressure
East Bend Reservoir
1.6E-01
2.0E+05 1.8E+05 1.6E+05

East Bend Reservoir

1.4E-01

1.2E-01
1.4E+05

1.0E-01
2p/mu-z, psia/cp

1.2E+05 1.0E+05 8.0E+04 6.0E+04

mu-z, cp

8.0E-02

6.0E-02

4.0E-02
4.0E+04

2.0E-02

2.0E+04 0.0E+00

Cumulative area under this curve to any pressure represents the pseudo-pressure at that pressure
0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 Pressure, psia 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000 10,000

0.0E+00 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 Pressure, psia 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000 10,000

East Bend Reservoir

1.6E+09

1.4E+09

1.2E+09

Pseudo-Pressure, psia2/cp

1.0E+09

8.0E+08

6.0E+08

4.0E+08

2.0E+08

0.0E+00 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 Pressure, psia 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000 10,000

66

Boundary Conditions
u

Since the diffusivity is a second order partial differential equation with respect to radius (r), we need 2 boundary conditions. It is first order in time, so one boundary condition with respect to time will be necessary. Domain of interest:
An infinitely large system with one well located in the center.
u u u u

r = rw at the wellbore r = at the reservoir boundary P = Pi at r = P = Pi at t = 0 for any r

Solution
Using the above boundary conditions, we are able to solve the flow equation in terms of dimensionless variables.

67

Boundary Condition Solution

PD PD qD 1 Ei rD2 = 2 4tD i - wf = q D i Tqsc = khi tD kt = crw2 r = rw

rD

68

Boundary Condition Solution

69

Boundary Condition Solution

70

Solution Calculate tD and perform Check tD

tD

kt = crw2 =
(2.637E-4)(40 md)(10*365*24 hrs) (0.13)(0.0675 cp)(7.9E-5 psia-1)(0.33 ft)2

tD = 12.2E+9 If 1/(4tD) << 0.01, then a log approximation of PD can be used: 1/(4tD) = 2E-11
71

Solution Log Approximation

PD (well) = Pt = 0.5 * (ln tD + .80907) tD = 12.2E+9 Thus, Pt = 12.0 Since Pt = PD:

PD

i - wf = q D i

AND

qD

Tqsc = khi

We can substitute for qD and solve for qsc!

72

Final Solution
Below is the resulting flow equation used to calculate the suggested CO2 injection rate along with a further explanation of symbols and values used in the unconfined reservoir scenario: (2-1)kh qsc= TP
t

Where: qsc = CO2 injection rate (MMscfd)

2 = pseudo pressure (E+6psia2/cp) 1 = pseudo pressure (E+6psia2/cp) k = permeability (md) h = thickness (ft) T = constant = temperature (R = F + 460)

(result) 117.5
303 191 40 250 1.422x106 555.5 12.0

Pt = 1/2(ln tD+0.80907)*

At the end of 10 years the total volume of injected CO2 will be about 430 Bcf and the radius of investigation will be approximately 600 mi2.

73

Comparison to Confined (Simulated) Cases

uIn

addition to calculating the 10-year carbon dioxide injection rate for an unconfined reservoir, sophisticated simulations using COMET3 were also performed to explore the 10-year injection behavior in the following confined areas:
Area mi2 5 25 100 400 Infinite* CO2 Injection Rate MMscfd 1.3 7.2 15.6 19.0 117.5

*Simulation with an infinite aquifer achieved about 40 MMscfd due to changes relative permeability effects and other reservoir properties that change with time.

74

How do we measure trapping?

Discussion of MVA program

75

Elements of the MVA Program

Shallow MVA
Groundwater sampling (USDW Monitoring) Soil Flux PFT Surveys

Deep MVA
Reservoir Fluid sampling Crosswell Seismic Mechanical Integrity Test (MIT) CO2 Volume, Pressure, and Composition analysis Injection, Temperature, and Spinner logs Pulse Neutron Capture logs Vertical Seismic Profile

MVA Experimental tools

76

MVA Sample Locations

One (1) Injector (D-9-7 #2) Two (2) deep Observation wells (D-9-8 #2 & D-9-9 #2) Two (2) in-zone & above zone Monitoring wells (D-4-13 & D-4-14) One (1) PNC logging well (D-9-11) Twelve (12) soil flux monitoring stations

77

MVA Frequency

Baseline 1 year
APR 2011 to AUG 2012

Injection 2 years
SEPT 2012 to SEPT 2014

Post 3 years
OCT 2014 to SEPT 2017

78

MVA Tests and Their Frequencies (1)

Measurement Technique Reservoir and above-zone pressure Measurement Parameters downhole pressure gauges Application Key measurement for assessing the injection pressure field and for regulatory compliance. Above-zone monitoring to detect leakage through the confining unit CO2 saturation buildup near new and existing wellbores. Demonstrates CO2 plume migration and monitor for above-zone leakage Distribution of CO2 plume vertically and horizontally UIC Required Frequency Constant during injection operations, annually postinjection Status (2) Panex gauges run D-9-8#2 with MBM in March 2012; MRO gauges run in D-9-13 and D-4-14 in June 2012 Baseline logs run on D-4-13, D-4-14, D-9-7#2, D-9-8#2 and D-9-9#2. Baseline VSP acquired in Feb 2012; baseline crosswell acquired in Jan 2012 D-9-8#2 Baseline samples taken via UTube on June 12 2012; Kuster samples taken in March and June 2012

Cased-hole pulsed neutron logging

Neutron capture as a function of CO2 saturation buildup

One baseline deployment, annually during injection, biannually postinjection One baseline deployment, once post-injection

Time-lapse seismic (crosswell and/or vertical seismic profiling) Reservoir fluid sampling

CO2 induced change from baseline sonic velocity and amplitude

Pressurized fluid samples taken from the injection zone. Analyze for pH, and selected cations and anions

Geochemical changes to injection zone that occur as a result of CO2 injection

Semi-annually during injection phase, annually postinjection

79

MVA Tests and Their Frequencies (2)

Measurement Technique Drinking water aquifer (USDW) monitoring Injection well annular and tubing pressure Measurement Parameters Alkalinity, DIC, DOC, selected cations and anions Pressure gauges located on the wellhead to monitor casing annular and tubing pressure Mass of CO2 emitted from the soil per unit time and area Measure tracer levels near the ground surface around new and pre-existing oilfield wells Application Monitoring of USDWs for geochemical changes related to shallow CO2 leakage. Annular pressure is an indication of wellbore integrity. Tubing pressure assures regulatory compliance with maximum injection pressure Monitor for anomalous increases in the amount of CO2 that is emitted from the soil surface as an indication of CO2 leakage Monitor for the presence of tracer buildup near wellbores which would suggest leakage of CO2 UIC Required Frequency Quarterly during and post-injection Status Baseline USDW samples acquired and analyzed in Feb, March and July 2012 Gauges installed, to be tied into Denburys data acquisition system

Constant during injection operations and post-injection

Soil CO2 Flux

Quarterly during and post-injection

(12) soil flux stations in place. Monitoring began in Dec 2011. Eleven field deployments to date Baseline sampling on Sept 11, 2012 at the D-9-1, D-9-2, D-9-3, D-9-6, D-9-7, D-9-8, D-9-9, D-9-10 and D-9-11 well locations

Perfluorocarbon tracers (PFTs) introduced in the CO2 stream

Single baseline, annually during and post-injection

80

Shallow MVA
Shallow water sampling Quarterly Soil Flux sampling continuous PFT Surveys annually

81

Deep MVA
Reservoir Fluid sampling - annually Crosswell Seismic Base/Inj/Post Mechanical Integrity Test (MIT) - annually CO2 Volume, Pressure, & Composition analysis - continuous Injection, Temperature, & Spinner logs annually Pulse Neutron Capture logs - annually Vertical Seismic Profile - annually
D 4-14 Observation Wellbore
82