Browsing by Subject "Storage capacity"
Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
Results Per Page
Sort Options
Item A question of capacity assessing CO₂ sequestration potential in Texas offshore lands(2012-12) Miller, Erin Noel; Tinker, Scott W. (Scott Wheeler); Meckel, Timothy Ashworth; Flemings, PeterThe combustion of fossil fuels results in the release of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, a known greenhouse gas. Evidence suggests that “most of the observed increase in global average temperatures…is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations” (IPCC, 2007). One solution currently being examined is carbon capture and storage (CCS). The advantage of CCS is that it does not require an actual reduction in the amount of carbon dioxide emissions created, but reduces emissions to the atmosphere by storing the greenhouse gases in the subsurface. Fundamentally, CCS works in the reverse of oil and gas production. Instead of extracting fluids from the subsurface, CCS injects carbon dioxide (CO2) into the pore spaces of developed oil and gas reservoirs, saline aquifers, or coal bed seams (Bachu, 2007), where it exists in a dense but low-viscosity phase (Supercritical state). The Gulf Coast Carbon Center, based at the University of Texas at Austin’s Bureau of Economic Geology, is currently evaluating the State of Texas Offshore Lands (STOL) in the Gulf of Mexico (GOM) in order to evaluate the carbon-storage capacity in the state owned lands. “Capacity is defined as the volume fraction of the subsurface within a stratigraphic interval available for [CO2] sequestration” (Hovorka, 2004). There are a variety of methods currently used to calculate capacity. With so many options, how does a project decide which method to employ in determining capacity? This paper discusses the methods, presents an analysis of the benefits and drawbacks of the various methods, and develops a process for future projects to utilize in determining which methodology to employ. Additionally, storage capacity is calculated using the various methods presented, in order to compare the methods and understand their various advantages and drawbacks. Reservoir specific simulations are expected to predict smaller capacities in comparison to more broad static methods. This will provide end member predictions of capacity, shedding light on what can be expected in best case and worst case scenarios. The lessons learned from this study can be applied to future endeavors and formations all over the world.Item The seismic response to fracture clustering : a finite element wave propagation study(2014-05) Becker, Lauren Elizabeth; Spikes, KyleCharacterizing natural and man-made fracture networks is fundamental to predicting the storage capacity and pathways for flow of both carbonate and shale reservoirs. The goal of this study is to determine the seismic response specifically to networks of fractures clustered closely together through the analysis of seismic wavefield scatter, directional phase velocities, and amplitude attenuation. To achieve this goal, finite element modeling techniques are implemented to allow for the meshing of discontinuous fracture interfaces and, therefore, provide the most accurate calculation of seismic events from these irregular surfaces. The work presented here focuses on the center layer of an isotropic model that is populated with two main phases of fracture network alteration: a single large-scale cluster and multiple smaller-scale clusters. Phase 1 first confirms that the seismic response of a single idealized vertically fractured cluster is distinct crosscutting energy within a seismogram. Further investigation shows that, as fracture spacing within the cluster decreases, the depth at which crosscutting energy appears exponentially increases, placing it well below the true location of the cluster. This relationship holds until 28% of the fractures are moved from their uniformly spaced locations to random locations within the cluster. The vertical thickness of the cluster has little effect on the location or strength or the crosscutting signature. Phase 2 shows that, although clusters of more randomly spaced fractures mask crosscutting energy, a marked decrease in amplitude coinciding with a bend in the wavefront produces a heterogeneous anisotropic seismic response. This amplitude decay and heterogeneous anisotropy is visible until cluster spacing drops below one half of the wavelength or the ratio of fractured material to matrix material within a cluster drops below 37%. Therefore, the location of an individual fracture cluster can be determined from the location of amplitude decay, heterogeneous anisotropy, and crosscutting energy. Furthermore, the density of the cluster can be determined from the degree of amplitude decay, the angle of heterogeneous anisotropy, and the depth of cross-cutting energy. These relationships, constrained by limits on their detectability, can aid fracture network interpretation of real seismic data.