Practical leakage risk assessment for CO2 assisted enhanced oil recovery and geologic storage in Ohio's depleted oil fields

Abstract A method for risk assessments of geological carbon capture, utilization and storage (CCUS) projects was created and the results of three risk assessments for potential CCUS projects at depleted oil fields in Ohio are presented. The risk framework described uses the bow-tie method with features, events, and processes (FEPs) to identify and assess risk posed by potential loss of integrity of legacy wells. Field-scale well integrity studies have had to rely largely on historical data to assess the potential for fluid leakage related to CCUS projects. This study uses categories of known information to develop a proxy for likelihood of leakage. Proxy categories were: Spud Date, Treatment, Well Status, Plugging and Abandonment Date, Well Type, Plug, Surface Cement, and Primary Cement. Separate risks were developed for each well and each scenario. The consequence of a leakage event was estimated based on costs to businesses and property owners for each leakage scenario. Cost categories in this framework include finding and fixing the leak, environmental remediation, CO2 injection interruption, technical remedies for damages, and legal costs. Using the likelihood of leakage calculated for each field and the cost of potential consequences, the risks for each field were estimated to be between $13 million to $63 million for the three fields of interest. The use of the bow-tie method allows easy visualization and identification of barriers that may reduce the likelihood of the top event in a risk scenario.

[1]  Andrew Duguid,et al.  Well integrity risk assessment to inform containment risk monitoring for carbon capture, utilization, and storage, applied to the Weyburn-Midale Field, Canada , 2017, International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control.

[2]  Owain Tucker,et al.  A risk-based framework for Measurement, Monitoring and Verification (MMV) of the Goldeneye storage complex for the Peterhead CCS project, UK , 2017 .

[3]  Stephen Bourne,et al.  A risk-based framework for measurement, monitoring and verification of the Quest CCS Project, Alberta, Canada , 2014 .

[4]  Elizabeth J. Wilson,et al.  The Leakage Impact Valuation (LIV) Method for Leakage from Geologic CO2 Storage Reservoirs , 2013 .

[5]  Olav Hansen,et al.  The in salah CO2 storage project: Lessons learned and knowledge transfer , 2013 .

[6]  Curtis M. Oldenburg,et al.  Simulations of long-column flow experiments related to geologic carbon sequestration: effects of outer wall boundary condition on upward flow and formation of liquid CO2 , 2012 .

[7]  David Savage,et al.  Experience of the application of a database of generic Features, Events and Processes (FEPs) targeted at geological storage of CO2 , 2011 .

[8]  Hari S. Viswanathan,et al.  The challenge of predicting groundwater quality impacts in a CO2 leakage scenario: Results from field, laboratory, and modeling studies at a natural analog site in New Mexico, USA , 2011 .

[9]  Thomas Roberts,et al.  Risk from CO2 storage in saline aquifers: A comparison of lay and expert perceptions of risk , 2011 .

[10]  John E. McCray,et al.  A quantitative methodology to assess the risks to human health from CO2 leakage into groundwater , 2010 .

[11]  Jan M Nordbotten,et al.  Practical Modeling Approaches for Geological Storage of Carbon Dioxide , 2009, Ground water.

[12]  Ivan G. Krapac,et al.  Illinois Basin-Decatur Project: initial risk-assessment results and framework for evaluating site performance , 2009 .

[13]  Jean-Philippe Nicot,et al.  Risk Assessment for future CO2 Sequestration Projects Based CO2 Enhanced Oil Recovery in the U.S. , 2009 .

[14]  S. Bachu,et al.  Evaluation of the Potential for Gas and CO2 Leakage Along Wellbores , 2009 .

[15]  Michael A. Celia,et al.  GEOLOGIC CO 2 SEQUESTRATION IN ABANDONED OIL AND GAS FIELDS AND HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT , 2006 .

[16]  G. F. Bennett,et al.  Remediation Technology Cost Compendium—Year 2000 , 2002 .