- Boolean operators
- This OR that
This AND that
This NOT that
- Must include "This" and "That"
- This That
- Must not include "That"
- This -That
- "This" is optional
- This +That
- Exact phrase "This That"
- "This That"
- (this AND that) OR (that AND other)
- Specifying fields
- publisher:"Publisher Name"
author:(Smith OR Jones)
Static and Dynamic Estimates of CO2-Storage Capacity in Two Saline Formations in the UK
- Min Jin (Heriot-Watt University) | Gillian Pickup (Heriot-Watt University) | Eric Mackay (Heriot-Watt University) | Adrian Todd (Heriot-Watt University) | Mehran Sohrabi (Heriot-Watt University) | Alison Monaghan (British Geological Survey) | Mark Naylor (University of Edinburgh)
- Document ID
- Society of Petroleum Engineers
- SPE Journal
- Publication Date
- December 2012
- Document Type
- Journal Paper
- 1,108 - 1,118
- 2012. Society of Petroleum Engineers
- 5.1.1 Exploration, Development, Structural Geology, 4.3.4 Scale, 5.5 Reservoir Simulation
- 5 in the last 30 days
- 366 since 2007
- Show more detail
Estimation of carbon dioxide (CO2)-storage capacity is a key step in the appraisal of CO2-storage sites. Different calculation methods may lead to widely diverging values. The compressibility method is a commonly used static method for estimating storage capacity of saline aquifers: It is simple, is easy to use, and requires a minimum of input data. Alternatively, a numerical reservoir simulation provides a dynamic method that includes Darcy flow calculations. More input data are required for dynamic simulation, and it is more computationally intensive, but it takes into account migration pathways and dissolution effects, so it is generally more accurate and more useful. For example, the CO2-migration plume may be used to identify appropriate monitoring techniques, and the analysis of the trapping mechanism for a certain site will help to optimize well location and the injection plan.
Two hypothetical saline-aquifer storage sites in the UK, one in Lincolnshire and the other in the Firth of Forth, were analyzed. The Lincolnshire site has a comparatively simple geology, while the Forth site has a more complex geology. For each site, both static- and dynamic-capacity calculations were performed. In the static method, CO2 was injected until the average pressure reached a critical value. In the migration-monitoring case, CO2 was injected for 15 years, and was followed by a closure period lasting thousands of years. The fraction of dissolved CO2 and the fraction immobilized by pore-scale trapping were calculated.
The results of both geological systems show that the migration of CO2 is strongly influenced by the local heterogeneity. The calculated storage efficiency for the Lincolnshire site varied between 0.34 and 0.65% of the total pore-volume, depending on whether the system boundaries were considered open or closed. Simulation of the deeper, more complex Forth geological system gave storage capacities as high as 1.05%.
This work was part of the CO2-Aquifer-Storage Site Evaluation and Monitoring (CASSEM) integrated study to derive methodologies for assessment of CO2 storage in saline formations. Although static estimates are useful for initial assessment when fewer data are available, we demonstrate the value of performing dynamic storage calculations and the opportunities to identify mechanisms for optimizing the storage capacity.
Bachu, S., Bonijoly, D., Bradshaw, J. et al. 2007a.Estimation of CO2 StorageCapacity in Geological Media--Phase 2. Final Report, CSLF-T-2007-04, Task Forcefor Review and Identification of Standards for CO2 Storage Capacity Estimation,Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum (CSLF), Melbourne, Australia (15 June2007), https://www.cslforum.org/publications/documents/PhaseIIReportStorageCapacityMeasurementTaskForce.pdf.
Bachu, S., Bonijoly, D., Bradshaw, J. et al. 2007b. CO2 storagecapacity estimation: Methodology and gaps. Int. J. Greenhouse Gas Control 1 (4): 430-443. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s1750-5836(07)00086-2.
Bennion, D.B. and Bachu, S. 2008. Drainage and Imbibition RelativePermeability Relationships for Supercritical CO2/Brine andH2S/Brine Systems in Intergranular Sandstone, Carbonate, Shale, andAnhydrite Rocks.SPE Res Eval&Eng 11 (3): 487-496.SPE-99326-PA.http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/99326-PA.
Brook, M., Shaw, K., Vincent, C. et al. 2003. Gestco case study 2a-1:Storage potential of the Bunter Sandstone in the UK sector of the southernNorth Sea and the adjacent onshore area of Eastern England. Case StudyCR/03/154N, Draft 0.1, British Geological Survey, Nottingham, UK (unpublished),http://nora.nerc.ac.uk/10704/.
Brooks, R.H. and Corey, A.T. 1964. Hydraulic properties of porous media.Hydrology Paper No. 3, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado,22-27.
Chadwick, A., Arts, R., Bernstone, C. et al. 2006. Best Practice for theStorage of CO2 in Saline Aquifers-Observations and Guidelines Fromthe SACS and CO2STORE Projects. Final Report, Norgesgeologiskeundersøkelse(NGU), Trondheim, Norway (November 2006), http://www.ngu.no/FileArchive/91/CO2STORE_BPM_final_small.pdf.
Dake, L.P. 1978. Fundamentals of Reservoir Engineering, No. 8.Amsterdam: Developments in Petroleum Science, Elsevier Science BV.
Downing, R.A., Allen, D.J., Bird, M.J. et al. 1985. Cleethorpes No 1Geothermal Well--A Preliminary Assessment of the Resource. Nottingham, UK:Investigation of the Geothermal Potential of the UK, British GeologicalSurvey.
Eaton, B.A. 1969. Fracture gradient Prediction and Its Application inOilfield Operations. J Pet Technol 21 (10): 1353-1360.SPE-2163-PA.http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/2163-PA.
ECLIPSE Reference Manual 2008.1. 2008. Houston: Schlumberger GeoQuest.
Ford, J.R. and Monaghan, A.A. 2009. Lithological Heterogeneity of the MerciaMudstone and Sherwood Sandstone Groups in the Yorkshire-Lincolnshire Region,and Knox pulpit Sandstone, Kinnesswood and Ballagan Formations in the ForthRegion—Additional information for CASSEM work package one. Technical ReportCR/09/053, British Geological Survey, Nottingham, UK.
Ford, J.R., Monaghan, A.A., Milodowski, A.E. et al. 2009. CASSEM workpackage one--Summary methodological report for 3D geological framework and rocksample mineralogy. Summary Report CR/09/009, British Geological Survey,Nottingham, UK.
Frailey, S.M. 2009. Methods for estimating CO2 storage in salinereservoirs.Energy Procedia 1 (1): 2769-2776. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2009.02.048.
Frailey, S.M. and Finley, R.J. 2009. Classification of CO2 Geologic Storage:Resource and Capacity. Energy Procedia 1 (1): 2623-2630. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2009.02.029.
Geologic Working Group (GWG). 2008. Methodology for development of geologicstorage estimates for carbon dioxide. Technical Report (update), CarbonSequestration Program, National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL), US DOE,Washington, DC (August 2008), http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/carbon_seq/refshelf/methodology2008.pdf.
Holloway, S. 1996. The Underground Disposal of Carbon Dioxide, JouleII Project Final Report (Contract No. CT92-0031). Nottingham, UK: GeochemistryReports, British Geological Survey.
Journel, A.G. and Huijbregts, C.J. 1997. Mining Geostatistics,seventh printing. San Diego, California: Academic Press Limited.
Kaldi, J.G. and Gibson-Poole, C.M. 2008.Storage Capacity Estimation, SiteSelection and Characterisation for CO2 Storage Projects.CO2CRC ReportNo.RPT08-1001, Cooperative Research Centre for Greenhouse Gas Technologies(CO2CRC), Canberra, Australia (March 2008), http://www.co2crc.com.au/dls/pubs/08-1001_final.pdf.
Mathias, S., Hardisty, P., Trudell, M. et al. 2009b. Approximate Solutionsfor Pressure Buildup During CO2 Injection in Brine Aquifers. TransportPorous Media 79 (2): 265-284. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11242-008-9316-7.
Mathias, S.A., Hardisty, P.E., Trudell, M.R. et al. 2009a. Screening andselection of sites for CO2 sequestration based on pressure buildup. Int. J.Greenhouse Gas Control 3 (5): 577-585. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2009.05.002.
McInroy, D.B. and Hulbert, A. 2010. CASSEM: Interpretation of thereprocessed Conoco 87 Firth of Forth Seismic Survey, and SubsequentModifications to the 3D Geolgical Model. Commissioned Report CR/10/026, BritishGeological Survey, Nottingham, UK.
Monaghan, A.A., Ford, J., Milodowski, A. et al. 2012. New insights from 3Dgeological models at analogue CO2 storage sites in Lincolnshire and easternScotland, UK.Proceedings of the Yorkshire Geological Society (May2012).
Monaghan, A.A., McInroy, D.B., Browne, M.A.E. et al. 2009. CASSEM workpackage one--Forth geological modelling. Commissioned Report CR/08/151, BritishGeological Survey, Nottingham, UK.
National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL). 2007. Methodology fordevelopment of carbon sequestration capacity estimates (2006). In CarbonSequestration Atlas of the United States and Canada (Atlas I), Appendix A.Washington, DC: NETL/US Department of Energy. http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/carbon_seq/refshelf/atlas/.
Nordbotten, J.M. and Celia, M.A. 2006. Similarity solutions for fluidinjection into confined aquifers. J. Fluid Mech. 561:307-327. http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1017/S0022112006000802.
Nordbotten, J.M., Celia, M.A., and Bachu, S. 2005. Injection andStorage of CO2 in Deep Saline Aquifers: Analytical Solution forCO2 Plume Evolution During Injection. Transport Porous Media 58 (3): 339-360. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11242-004-0670-9.
Obdam, A. 2000.Aquifer storage capacity of CO2. Research Report, TNO BuiltEnvironment & Geosciences, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
SCCS. 2009. Opportunities for CO2 Storage Around Scotland--an integratedstrategic research study. Collaborative Study, Scottish Centre for CarbonStorage, Edinburgh, UK (April 2009), http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/270737/0080597.pdf.
Smith, M., Campbell, D., Mackay, E. et al. 2012. CO2 AquiferStorage Site Evaluation and Monitoring--Understanding the challenges ofCO2 storage: results of the CASSEM Project. Collaborative Study,Scottish Centre for Carbon Storage, Edinburgh, UK (October 2012), http://xweb.geos.ed.ac.uk/carbcap/website/publications/cassem/CASSEM_Comp-12_12_11.pdf.
Ukaegbu, C., Gundogan, O., Mackay, E. et al. 2009. Simulation of CO2 storagein a heterogeneous aquifer.Proceedings of the Institution of MechanicalEngineers, Part A: Journal of Power and Energy 223 (3):249-267. http://dx.doi.org/10.1243/09576509jpe627.
van der Meer, L. and Egberts, P.J.P. 2008. A General Method for SubsurfaceCO2 Storage Capacity Calculations. Paper OTC 19309 presented at the OffshoreTechnology Conference, Houston, 5-8 May. http://dx.doi.org/10.4043/19309-MS.
van der Meer, L.G.H. and Yavuz, F. 2009. CO2 storage capacity calculationsfor the Dutch subsurface.Energy Procedia 1 (1): 2615-2622.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2009.02.028.
Zhou, Q., Birkholzer, J.T., Tsang, C.-F.et al. 2008. A method for quickassessment of CO2 storage capacity in closed and semi-closed salineformations.Int. J. Greenhouse Gas Control 2 (4): 626-639.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2008.02.004.
Not finding what you're looking for? Some of the OnePetro partner societies have developed subject- specific wikis that may help.
The SEG Wiki
The SEG Wiki is a useful collection of information for working geophysicists, educators, and students in the field of geophysics. The initial content has been derived from : Robert E. Sheriff's Encyclopedic Dictionary of Applied Geophysics, fourth edition.