A method for quick assessment of CO2 storage capacity in closed and semi-closed saline formations

Zhou, Quanlin; Birkhölzer, Jens; Tsang, Chin‐Fu; Rutqvist, Jonny

doi:10.1016/j.ijggc.2008.02.004

Cited by 392 publications

(306 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

298

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…For their closed system analysis, the maximum storage efficiency was estimated to be 1% (dependent only on pore and brine compressibilities and maximum tolerable pressure buildup), which was calculated using a newly developed analytical solution. The analytical solution works well, and can be used to reproduce the simulation results presented in earlier work for similarly closed systems (Zhou et al 3 ). However, there is a central difference between the two papers.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 55%

“…In a closed or semiclosed system, the lateral scale of pressure buildup is constrained by the system boundaries after the pressure perturbation reaches these boundaries. As a result, the pressure buildup may be higher than in a laterally open system 1,3,17 . However, pressure bleed-off into overlying and underlying formations then becomes more important, in particular when the seal permeability exceeds 10 -19 m 2 , as shown by Zhou et al 3 for a semi-closed system.…”

Section: Scale and Magnitude Of Pr Essur E Buildupmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The relevant physical processes include (1) lateral propagation of pressure buildup within the storage formation away from injection sites to the margins of a sedimentary basin, (2) attenuation of pressure buildup caused by basinscale migration of resident brine into and through the caprock and basement rock, (3) superposition of pressure buildup from neighboring injection sites 6 , and (4) boundary effects at basin margins. Such boundary effects are apparent in a closed or partially closed storage system 3,15 . Brine may leave the storage formation due to diffuse migration into and through seals of low but nonzero permeability 7 , and/or focused leakage through leaky wells and faults 16 .…”

Section: Scale and Magnitude Of Pr Essur E Buildupmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In closed (compartmentalized) systems, the limiting effect of pressure buildup on storage capacity is more apparent than in semi-closed and open systems because of the lack of pressure bleed-off 1,3 , although no environmental risk exists for brine leakage as long as the pressure buildup is less than the maximum tolerable pressure gradient. When these pressure constraints (as well as two-phase flow effects known to affect storage efficiency) are considered, the "dynamic" storage capacity is expected to be lower than the "static" storage capacity.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

On scale and magnitude of pressure build‐up induced by large‐scale geologic storage of CO₂

Zhou

Birkhölzer

2011

Greenhouse Gases

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstr actThe scale and magnitude of pressure perturbation and brine migration induced by geologic carbon sequestration is discussed assuming a full-scale deployment scenario in which enough CO 2 is captured and stored to make relevant contributions to global climate change mitigation. In this scenario, the volumetric rates and cumulative volumes of CO 2 injection would be comparable to or higher than those related to existing deepsubsurface injection and extraction activities, such as oil production. Large-scale pressure buildup in response to the injection may limit the dynamic storage capacity of suitable formations, because over-pressurization may fracture the caprock, may drive CO 2 /brine leakage through localized pathways, and may cause induced seismicity. On the other hand, laterally extensive sedimentary basins may be less affected by such limitations because (1) local pressure effects are moderated by pressure propagation and brine displacement into regions far away from the CO 2 storage domain, and (2) diffuse and/or localized brine migration into overlying and underlying formations allows for pressure bleed-off in the vertical direction. A quick analytical estimate of the extent of pressure buildup induced by industrial-scale CO 2 projects is presented. Also discussed are pressure perturbation and attenuation effects simulated for two representative sedimentary basins in the U.S.: the laterally extensive Illinois Basin and the partially compartmentalized southern San Joaquin Basin, California. These studies show that the limiting effect of pressure buildup on dynamic storage capacity is not as significant as suggested by EhligEconomides and Economides 1 , who considered closed systems without any attenuation effects.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 55%

Section: Scale and Magnitude Of Pr Essur E Buildupmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Scale and Magnitude Of Pr Essur E Buildupmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

On scale and magnitude of pressure build‐up induced by large‐scale geologic storage of CO₂

Zhou

Birkhölzer

2011

Greenhouse Gases

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In an open system, this can create a pressure front that could extend for 100 km or more, given an areal extent of the CO 2 plume of only about 10 km (Pruess et al 2003). In a closed or semi-closed system (laterally bordered by impermeable seals or low-permeability zones, respectively) (Zhou et al 2008), the pressure front is contained, but the resulting pressure buildup can be a source of risk . Storing CO 2 in DSFs could cost substantially more for monitoring and risk management, for a much longer time, and over a much greater area of review (AoR) than storage in buoyant traps.…”

Section: Gcs and Riskmentioning

confidence: 99%

Risk, Liability, and Economic Issues with Long-Term CO2 Storage—A Review

Anderson

2016

Nat Resour Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Given a scarcity of commercial-scale carbon capture and storage (CCS) projects, there is a great deal of uncertainty in the risks, liability, and their cost implications for geologic storage of carbon dioxide (CO 2 ). The probabilities of leakage and the risk of induced seismicity could be remote, but the volume of geologic CO 2 storage (GCS) projected to be necessary to have a significant impact on increasing CO 2 concentrations in the atmosphere is far greater than the volumes of CO 2 injected thus far. National-level estimates of the technically accessible CO 2 storage resource (TASR) onshore in the United States are on the order of thousands of gigatons of CO 2 storage capacity, but such estimates generally assume away any pressure management issues. Pressure buildup in the storage reservoir is expected to be a primary source of risk associated with CO 2 storage, and only a fraction of the theoretical TASR could be available unless the storage operator extracts the saltwater brines or other formation fluids that are already present in the geologic pore space targeted for CO 2 storage. Institutions, legislation, and processes to manage the risk, liability, and economic issues with CO 2 storage in the United States are beginning to emerge, but will need to progress further in order to allow a commercial-scale CO 2 storage industry to develop in the country. The combination of economic tradeoffs, property rights definitions, liability issues, and risk considerations suggests that CO 2 storage offshore of the United States may be more feasible than onshore, especially during the current (early) stages of industry development.

show abstract

Flow in horizontally anisotropic multilayered aquifer systems with leaky wells and aquitards

et al. 2014

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

[1] Flow problems in an anisotropic domain can be transformed into ones in an equivalent isotropic domain by coordinate transformations. Once analytical solutions are obtained for the equivalent isotropic domain, they can be back transformed to the original anisotropic domain. The existing solutions presented by Cihan et al. (2011) for isotropic multilayered aquifer systems with alternating aquitards and multiple injection/pumping wells and leaky wells were modified to account for horizontal anisotropy in aquifers. The modified solutions for pressure buildup distribution and leakage rates through leaky wells can be used when the anisotropy direction and ratio (K x =K y ) are assumed to be identical for all aquifers alternating with aquitards. However, for multilayered aquifers alternating with aquicludes, both the principal direction of the anisotropic horizontal conductivity and the anisotropy ratio can be different in each aquifer. With coordinate transformation, a circular well with finite radius becomes an ellipse, and thus in the transformed domain the head contours in the immediate vicinity of the well have elliptical shapes. Through a radial flow approximation around the finite radius wells, the elliptical well boundaries in the transformed domain are approximated by an effective well radius expression. The analytical solutions with the effective radius approximations were compared with exact solutions as well as a numerical solution for elliptic flow. The effective well radius approximation is sufficiently accurate to predict the head buildup at the well bore of the injection/pumping wells for moderately anisotropic systems (K x =K y 25). The effective radius approximation gives satisfactory results for predicting head buildup at observation points and leakage through leaky wells away from the injection/pumping wells even for highly anisotropic aquifer systems ðK x =K y 1000Þ.Citation: Cihan, A., Q. Zhou, J. T. Birkholzer, and S. R. Kraemer (2014), Flow in horizontally anisotropic multilayered aquifer systems with leaky wells and aquitards, Water Resour. Res., 50,[741][742][743][744][745][746][747]

show abstract

A method for quick assessment of CO2 storage capacity in closed and semi-closed saline formations

Cited by 392 publications

References 24 publications

On scale and magnitude of pressure build‐up induced by large‐scale geologic storage of CO₂

On scale and magnitude of pressure build‐up induced by large‐scale geologic storage of CO₂

Risk, Liability, and Economic Issues with Long-Term CO2 Storage—A Review

Flow in horizontally anisotropic multilayered aquifer systems with leaky wells and aquitards

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

A method for quick assessment of CO2 storage capacity in closed and semi-closed saline formations

Cited by 392 publications

References 24 publications

On scale and magnitude of pressure build‐up induced by large‐scale geologic storage of CO2

On scale and magnitude of pressure build‐up induced by large‐scale geologic storage of CO2

Risk, Liability, and Economic Issues with Long-Term CO2 Storage—A Review

Flow in horizontally anisotropic multilayered aquifer systems with leaky wells and aquitards

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

On scale and magnitude of pressure build‐up induced by large‐scale geologic storage of CO₂

On scale and magnitude of pressure build‐up induced by large‐scale geologic storage of CO₂