2011
DOI: 10.1007/s11242-011-9776-z
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Pressure Buildup During CO2 Injection into a Closed Brine Aquifer

Abstract: CO 2 injected into porous formations is accommodated by reduction in the volume of the formation fluid and enlargement of the pore space, through compression of the formation fluids and rock material, respectively. A critical issue is how the resulting pressure buildup will affect the mechanical integrity of the host formation and caprock. Building on an existing approximate solution for formations of infinite radial extent, this article presents an explicit approximate solution for estimating pressure buildup… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
91
0

Year Published

2011
2011
2015
2015

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

3
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 96 publications
(92 citation statements)
references
References 23 publications
1
91
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Consequently, throughout the injection duration, the vast majority of the reservoir pore space continues to be occupied by brine. Therefore, in contrast to depleted gas reservoirs, the compressibility of the injection fluid is found to have very little impact on pressure buildup (Mathias et al 2011b). Furthermore, because of the much larger viscosity difference between the CO 2 and the brine, along with the IFT that develops between the CO 2 -rich and aqueous fluid phases, the mobility difference between the injection and reservoir fluids has a much more significant impact on the pressure buildup process (Mathias et al 2009(Mathias et al , 2013a.…”
Section: Numerical Solutionsmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…Consequently, throughout the injection duration, the vast majority of the reservoir pore space continues to be occupied by brine. Therefore, in contrast to depleted gas reservoirs, the compressibility of the injection fluid is found to have very little impact on pressure buildup (Mathias et al 2011b). Furthermore, because of the much larger viscosity difference between the CO 2 and the brine, along with the IFT that develops between the CO 2 -rich and aqueous fluid phases, the mobility difference between the injection and reservoir fluids has a much more significant impact on the pressure buildup process (Mathias et al 2009(Mathias et al , 2013a.…”
Section: Numerical Solutionsmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…This is 532 because the pressure buildup in the storage site is unable to dissipate (see Mathias et al 2011). 533…”
Section: Pressure Buildup and Plume Diameter 531mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…To accurately model injection well pressure a very fine horizontal grid resolution 240 (~ 5 mm) is needed around the injection well (Mathias et al 2011). As the purpose of our model is to 241 look at the overall capacity of the storage site to store injected CO 2 it was not deemed necessary at 242 this stage to carry out detailed modelling of injection pressures.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Analytical solutions have also been obtained for estimating risks of pressure buildup resulting from CO 2 injection (see Oruganti et al, 2011) and for pressure buildup in overlying formations (Zeidouni et al, 2011). Further, Mathias et al (2011) presented an explicit approximate solution for estimating pressure buildup due to injection of CO2 into closed brine aquifers of finite radial extent.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%