4.2.4 The Kingsnorth project (UK)

As mentioned in the previous section, all information in this section results from an analysis of the published FEED study on the Kingsnorth project.

The EON Kingsnorth project considered storage in the depleted Hewett gas field, again a Bunter Sandstone formation at about 4 km depth, in the southern part of the UK sector of the North Sea. The demonstration phase of the project was limited to a maximum of 20 million tonnes of CO2 and is required to be completed by 2029. Injection of CO2 was expected to be performed entirely in gaseous phase for the duration of the demonstration phase.

Like for the P18-4 reservoir of the ROAD project, the targeted Lower Bunter reservoir does not have an active aquifer support and will in principle be underpressured at the start of injection. There is no connection (expected) between the lower and upper Buntsandstein reservoir. Currently the inclusion of the Upper Bunter in the storage complex is under consideration, since this reservoir represents a potential CO2 storage site as well. Note, that the Upper Bunter reservoir does have active aquifer support. For the design of the monitoring plan, inclusion of the Upper Bunter reservoir has been taken into account as much as possible.

Below the Bunter reservoirs are potential reservoirs separated by the Lower Bunter shale and sealing sections of the Zechstein formation. Communication between these lower reservoirs and the target reservoir has been identified as an issue to further investigate, particularly through wells penetrating the lower reservoirs and plugged at the level of the seal between the two reservoirs.

Above the Upper Bunter various other sealing formations, that can act as secondary seals, have been identified.

The monitoring plan is in a very early stage of development, and it was mentioned, that refinement was envisaged prior to the start of the project. Therefore no references to remediation methods are made at this stage yet.

The monitoring plan is risk based, with as main risks identified:

  • Wells (with old/exploration wells a greater risk than new drilled wells);
  • Faults and Fractures (induced by injection);
  • Upper Bunter caprock seal leakage;
  • Upper Bunter aquifer dissolution/mixing;
  • Upper Bunter aquifer ingress into Lower Bunter.

For each of the issues, parameters and measurement needs have been identified and the relevance of each monitoring method has been detailed for different scenarios. The scenarios include:

  1. Injection of high pressure CO2 into Low Pressure Reservoir: replacement of residual, low pressure, hydrocarbon gas by higher pressure CO2 in the Lower Bunter;
  2. Injection of Dense Phase CO2 into the Upper Bunter: replacement of residual low pressure gas by dense phase CO2 in the Upper Bunter;
  3. Completed injection into Upper Bunter and Lower Bunter, pre abandonment;
  4. Completed injection into Upper Bunter and Lower Bunter, post abandonment.

For these scenarios monitoring plans have been detailed out further based on measureable parameters.

From the technological perspective, a full overview has been made of possible monitoring techniques including their sensitivity and accuracy. The current monitoring program proposed (but still to be detailed further) is based on bringing together the identified risk based monitoring parameters and the technical monitoring feasibility.

It encompasses the following essential monitoring programme: continuous measurements of pressure, temperature and flowrates for all well heads, downhole pressure and temperature measurements for all wells; CO2 sampling on the seabed and at the injection facility during the operational and post abandonment phase; 4D baseline seismic, repeated seismic on estimated time schedule (e.g., every 5 years), microseismic (optionally together with vertical seismic profile, VSP) and wireline logging.

A number of recommended monitoring techniques, that reduce the risk associated with unplanned migration localisation, have been identified: for selected wells techniques as distributed temperature sensor, casing strain detection, micro-seismic/in-well geophones (close to legacy wells or faults with highest reactivation risk) and optionally time-lapse controlled source electromagnetic methods (CSEM) are proposed.

Finally the use of dedicated monitoring wells is mentioned, though not firmly included in the proposed monitoring plan at this stage of the project.

The most striking difference of the monitoring program proposed for Kingsnorth compared to ROAD is probably the stronger emphasis on geophysical monitoring (time-lapse seismic, CSEM) from the surface to track CO2 in the reservoir and the use of microseismic monitoring. Currently not sufficient detail is available on the expected responses of both monitoring methods in terms of monitoring the CO2 injection processes in the reservoir.