Galilee Basin
Galilee STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS REGIONAL SEAL AREA STRATIGRAPHY Basin
Legend CENTRAL QUEENSLAND, Moolayember Legend Top unit (m ASL) Bandanna wells ONSHORE < 800 Top unit (mASL) > 800 < 800 Moolayember extent > 800 Clematis extent Bandanna extent Reservoir: Colinlea extent
Clematis and Colinlea sandstones (Bradshaw et al., 2009)
Seal:
(Bradshaw et al., 2009) Moolayember and Bandanna formations OIL AND GAS FIELDS WELLS AND SEISMIC COVERAGE RESERVOIR THICKNESS 40
35
30
HYDROCARBON POTENTIAL 25
20 The basin is regarded as a Cross-section good exploration target Oil Pipeline Frequency 15 Proposed oil pipeline 10 with some shows. Gas Pipeline Proposed gas 5 Recently, the basin has pipeline been a target of coal seam 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 methane investigation. NSW QLD Reservoir Thickness (m)
REGIONAL CROSS SECTION (LOCATION IN OIL AND GAS FIELDS MAP) BASIN RANKING VS. CAPACITY
Offshore Gippsland
Eromanga - SA 800m North Carnarvon Browse
Cooper Offshore North Perth Perm Floor Bowen Roma Shelf Vlaming Otway East Bonaparte - WA Onshore North Perth Galilee Bonaparte - NT Denison Trough Surat Bass Onshore Gippsland Onshore Canning Torquay Darling West Otway Offshore Canning
Clarence-Moreton Sydney South Carnarvon
(Marsh et al., 2008) Gunnedah Low Basin Low ranking High
0.01 0.10 1.00 10.00 100.00 Storage Capacity (gigatonne) Galilee Basin
POROSITY VS. PERMEABILITY *Values from basin-wide dataset STORAGE CAPACITY BASIN RANKING 10000 100.000 Category Description Score Weighting Low 5 0.00 2000 Tectonics (Seismicity) Very Large 4 0.06 1000 Size Depth Intermediate 3 0.10 10.000 190 Type Non-marine and Marine 2 0.04 100 Faulting intensity Limited 3 0.14 Hydrogeology Good 3 0.04 15 10 Geothermal Warm Basin 10.05 Permeability [mD] Permeability 1.000 Hydrocarbon potential Medium 3 0.05 Maturity Developing 3 0.05 1 Coal and CBM Shallow 2 0.00 Storage Capacity (gigatonnes) Reservoir Poor 3 0.16 16 19 22 Seal Poor 3 0.18 0.1 0.100 HC traps P90 P50 P10 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Reservoir/Seal Pairs Excellent 4 0.03 Porosity (%) Onshore/Offshore Onshore 3 0.00 Climate Subtropical 4 0.00 Accessibility Acceptable 3 0.00 POROSITY VS. DEPTH STORAGE CAPACITY CURVE Infrastructure Minor 2 0.00 Porosity (%) CO2 sources Moderate 3 0.00 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 Knowledge level Good 3 0.05 16 19 22 Data availability Good 3 0.05 200 Overall Ranking 14
400 STORAGE CAPACITY ESTIMATE
600 Parameter Unit Score (P90) Score (P50) Score (P10) Distribution
800 800 2 Depth (mKB) Area of storage region km 20000 30000 55000 Triangular
1000 Gross thickness of saline m 20 100 150 Triangular 1080 formation 1200 Average porosity of saline % 16 19 22 Triangular
1360 formation over thickness 1400 interval
3 Density of CO2 at average tonne/m 0.5 0.6 0.7 Triangular RESERVOIR PRESSURE reservoir conditions E-storage efficiency factor % 444 *CSIRO PressurePlot PERMEABILITY VS. DEPTH VS. DEPTH (% of total pore volume) Permeability (mD) Reservoir Pressure (psia) 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 Calculated storage gigatonnes 7.5 14.0 21.9 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 0 0 potential 15 190 2000
500 200 POTENTIAL INJECTION PARAMETERS 1000 400 Parameter Unit Shallow Mid-Depth Deep 1500 Insufficient data for the
600 ) m ( following Depth base seal m 780 980 1160 th 2000 p
800 De 800 items: Formation thickness m 20 100 200 Depth (mKB) Depth 2500 Injection depth m 800 1080 1360 1000 •Fracture Pressure vs. 1080 3000 Depth Porosity% 221916
1200 Absolute permeability mD 2000 190 15 3500 Graph 1360 Formation pressure psia 1190 1605 2020 1400 4000 •Top seal Potential Graph Fracture pressure psia 1930 2605 3280 DISCLAIMER REFERENCES
The purpose of these montages is to aid a high level Bradshaw, B.E., Spencer, L.K., Lahtinen, A.C., Khider, K., Ryan, D.J., evaluation of the geological storage potential of Australia’s Colwell, J.B., Chirinos, A. and Bradshaw, J., 2009. Queensland carbon sedimentary basins for future CO2 emissions. The evaluations dioxide geological storage atlas. are based on core analysis and other data derived from Geoscience Australia and other sources. However due to time Marsh, C., Rawsthorn, K., Causebrook, R., Kalinowski, A. and constraints, it has not been possible to carry out the detailed Newlands, I., 2008. A geological review of the Galilee Basin, evaluation of the data, which will be required for the next Queensland for possible storage of carbon dioxide. Cooperative phase of analysis. Research Centre for Greenhouse Gas Technologies, Australia, CO2CRC Publication Number RPT08-0983. 91pp.
In this exercise, we sought to recognise a range of characteristics within each basin by identifying three sets of parameters at different locations and depths in the basin. The intent is to generate an indication of a range of storage capacity and potential injection rates. These capacities and rates are being used in high level reservoir modelling work to generate injection tariffs* and capacity estimates. All of this work feeds into a process that provides indicative, conceptual transport and storage tariffs for CO2 emissions captured in various parts of Australia.
This ‘top down’, simplistic approach seeks to describe the magnitude and range of potential costs for transport and storage in Australia, at a ‘conceptual’ level of accuracy. Clearly, any final investment decision would call on an increased understanding and level of accuracy through the usual project development process.
* Cost per tonne of CO2 avoided, calculated using the net present value of cash flows over a 25 year asset life.