The realities of storing carbon dioxide - A response to CO2 storage capacity issues raised by Ehlig-Economides &amp; Economides

Chadwick, Andy; Smith, Dan J.; Hodrien, Chris; Hovorka, S. D.; Mackay, Eric James; Mathias, Simon A.; Lovell, Bryan; Kalaydjian, F.; Sweeney, Graeme; Benson, Sally M.; Dooley, James J.; Davidson, Casie L.

doi:10.1038/npre.2010.4500.1

Cited by 14 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…No explanation was given as to the origin of this factor, but a detailed derivation for the case of single-phase flow can be found in Dake (1978). Although the operational conclusions of Ehlig-Economides and Economides (2010) have received substantial criticism (e.g., Chadwick et al 2010), their fundamental idea of providing a closed boundary condition is worthy of further consideration. The study in this article can be said to build on the mathematical development presented by Ehlig-Economides and Economides (2010) in the following respects: (1) a clear derivation is provided concerning the origin of the 0.472 factor in the context of two-phase flow, (2) near-well non-Darcy effects are accounted for using the Forchheimer equation, and (3) the pressure distribution is calculated explicitly without the need for using the Welge (1952) method for tracking the CO 2 front and the heuristic function of Burton et al (2008) for describing the pressure distribution within the two-phase region.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Pressure Buildup During CO2 Injection into a Closed Brine Aquifer

et al. 2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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 due to injection of CO 2 into closed brine aquifers of finite radial extent. The analysis is also applicable for injection into a formation containing multiple wells, in which each well acts as if it were in a quasi-circular closed region. The approximate solution is validated by comparison with vertically averaged results obtained using TOUGH2 with ECO2N (where many of the simplifying assumptions are relaxed), and is shown to be very accurate over wide ranges of the relevant parameter space. The resulting equations for the pressure distribution are explicit, and can be easily implemented within spreadsheet software for estimating CO 2 injection capacity. 123 384 S. A. Mathias et al. List of symbols A Formation plan area [L 2 ] b Forchheimer parameter [L −1 ] b r Relative Forchheimer parameter [-] c o Compressibility of CO 2 [M −1 LT 2 ] c r Compressibility of geological formation [M −1 LT 2 ] c w Compressibility of brine [M −1 LT 2 ] h CO 2 brine interface elevation [L] h D = h/H Dimensionless interface elevation [-] H Formation thickness [L] k Permeability [L 2 ] k r Relative permeability [-] M 0 Mass injection rate [MT −1 ] p Fluid pressure [ML −1 T −2 ] p D = 2π Hρ o k r kp/M 0 μ o Dimensionless pressure [-] q o CO 2 flux [LT −1 ] q oD = 2π Hr w ρ o q o /M 0 Dimensionless CO 2 flux [-] q w Brine flux [LT −1 ] q wD = 2π Hr w ρ o q w /M 0 Dimensionless brine flux [-] r Radial distance [L] r c Radial extent of reservoir [L] r cD = r c /r w Dimensionless radial extent of reservoir [-] r D = r/r w Dimensionless radius [-] r w Well radius [L] S r Residual brine saturation [-] t Time [T] t cD = αr 2 cD /2.246γ Dimensionless time at which the pressure disturbance meets the reservoir boundary [-] t D = M 0 t/2π(1 − S r )φ Hr 2 w ρ o Dimensionless time [-] α = M 0 μ o (c r + c w )/2π(1 − S r )Hρ o k r k Dimensionless compressibility [-] β = M 0 k r kb r b/2π Hr w μ o Dimensionless Forchheimer parameter [-] γ = μ o /k r μ w Viscosity ratio [-] = (1 − S r )(c o − c w )/(c r + c w ) Normalized fluid compressibility difference [-] μ o Viscosity of CO 2 [ML −1 T −1 ] μ w Viscosity of brine [ML −1 T −1 ] ρ o Density of CO 2 [ML −3 ] ρ w Density of brine [ML −3 ] σ = b r ρ o /ρ w Density ratio [-] φ Porosity [-]

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Pressure Buildup During CO2 Injection into a Closed Brine Aquifer

et al. 2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It is unlikely in the geological setting of the central North Sea to have a completely open system in its most basic definition due to the structural history and the influence to the Central Graben fault network . Moreover, the assumptions in assuming a fully sealed closed system as proposed by Ehlig‐Economides and Economides have since been widely discredited by a number of authors . Comparable reservoir overpressure values taken from wells surrounding the study site indicate that the reservoir is in pressure communication at least over geological time; the storage capacity estimates based upon the closed system scenario are not deemed to be appropriate for this storage site and thus are considered to represent a worst case scenario.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…49 Moreover, the assumptions in assuming a fully sealed closed system as proposed by Ehlig-Economides and Economides 11 have since been widely discredited by a number of authors. 50,51 Comparable reservoir overpressure values taken from wells surrounding the study site indicate that the reservoir is in pressure communication at least over geological time; the storage capacity estimates based upon the closed system scenario are not deemed to be appropriate for this storage site and thus are considered to represent a worst case scenario. In this case, the lack of well data penetrating the reservoir and indeed the underlying base seal allied to poor seismic data quality, results in potentially signifi cant inaccuracies in the required input parameters used for this study.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Uncertainty in static CO₂ storage capacity estimates: Case study from the North Sea, UK

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We used a sub‐salt Rotliegend Group sandstone saline aquifer in the North Sea as a case study site for Monte‐Carlo‐based CO2 geostorage capacity assessment. In the area of interest, this unit is characterized by sparse, low resolution, subsurface data typical of the margins of global petroleum provinces, favored for CO2 storage. Such data scarcity leads to uncertainty regarding the complex trap geometries and ultimate CO2 storage capacity. The Rotliegend reservoir, estimated to have porosity and permeability ranges of 11–27% and 0.2 mD–125 mD, respectively, is sealed by Zechstein salt. The salt, predominantly halite, is a proven hydrocarbon seal in the central and southern North Sea hosting oil and gas columns of >140 m (>450 ft) and >150 m (>500 ft). Utilizing 2D‐seismic data, boreholes and analogues, we estimate the pore volume of a 5‐km2 4‐way dip‐closed structure through Monte‐Carlo‐based capacity simulations. We estimated storage capacity using published methodologies and compared this against a theoretical total storage calculation analogous to the gas in place equation used in the petroleum industry. We found that different methods yield a capacity range of <104 to >109 tonnes CO2 where sensitivity analysis indicates variability in reservoir properties to be the dominant control. Thus static estimates based upon Monte‐Carlo calculations present no advantage over theoretical pore volume estimations. This leaves 3D dynamic modeling of storage capacity populated by 3D seismic data and direct down‐hole measurement of reservoir properties to improve confidence in capacity estimations as the recommended method.

show abstract

“…The magnitude of pressure buildup depends primarily on the injection rate, and permeability and thickness of the formation 84 . Although excessive pressure rise during injection is expected with Mt year –1 injection rates in small and completely closed reservoirs, there are studies that suggest that the concerns may be misplaced, 84 because most storage reservoirs are not completely sealed, 92 pressure management techniques such as injection rate control 93 and brine extraction 94 could mitigate this concern, and taken together pressure buildup is a manageable issue 95 …”

Section: Sequestration Storage and Utilization Technologiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

A review of technologies for carbon capture, sequestration, and utilization: Cost, capacity, and technology readiness

Kazemifar

2021

Greenhouse Gases

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The continued rise in anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions and increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration has led to calls from experts, including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that has estimated that global warming needs to be limited to 1.5 °C above preindustrial levels to avoid the worst effects of climate change, and that carbon neutrality would need to be achieved globally by 2050 to meet this target. Achieving carbon neutrality by mid‐century will rely on successful implementation and widespread adoption of technologies for reducing emissions from large point sources of CO2, direct CO2 capture from the air, as well as storage and utilization technologies that would convert CO2 to a form that would ensure safety and permanency of storage. In this paper, engineering solutions for CO2 capture, utilization, and storage are reviewed with a focus on technology readiness level, and cost. © 2021 Society of Chemical Industry and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

show abstract

The realities of storing carbon dioxide - A response to CO2 storage capacity issues raised by Ehlig-Economides & Economides

Cited by 14 publications

References 4 publications

Pressure Buildup During CO2 Injection into a Closed Brine Aquifer

Pressure Buildup During CO2 Injection into a Closed Brine Aquifer

Uncertainty in static CO₂ storage capacity estimates: Case study from the North Sea, UK

A review of technologies for carbon capture, sequestration, and utilization: Cost, capacity, and technology readiness

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

The realities of storing carbon dioxide - A response to CO2 storage capacity issues raised by Ehlig-Economides & Economides

Cited by 14 publications

References 4 publications

Pressure Buildup During CO2 Injection into a Closed Brine Aquifer

Pressure Buildup During CO2 Injection into a Closed Brine Aquifer

Uncertainty in static CO2 storage capacity estimates: Case study from the North Sea, UK

A review of technologies for carbon capture, sequestration, and utilization: Cost, capacity, and technology readiness

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Uncertainty in static CO₂ storage capacity estimates: Case study from the North Sea, UK