Active CO 2 reservoir management for carbon storage: Analysis of operational strategies to relieve pressure buildup and improve injectivity

Thomas A. Buscheck, Yunwei Sun, Mingjie Chen, Yue Hao, Thomas J. Wolery, William L. Bourcier, Benjamin Court, Michael A. Celia, S. Julio Friedmann, Roger D. Aines

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

109 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

For industrial-scale CO 2 injection in saline formations, pressure buildup can limit storage capacity and security. Active CO 2 Reservoir Management (ACRM) combines brine production with CO 2 injection to relieve pressure buildup, increase injectivity, manipulate CO 2 migration, and constrain brine leakage. By limiting pressure buildup, in magnitude, spatial extent, and duration, ACRM can reduce CO 2 and brine leakage, minimize interactions with neighboring subsurface activities, allowing independent assessment and permitting, reduce the Area of Review and required duration of post-injection monitoring, and reduce cost and risk. ACRM provides benefits to reservoir management at the cost of extracting brine. The added cost must be offset by the added benefits to the storage operation and/or by creating new, valuable uses that can reduce the total added cost. Actual net cost is expected to be site specific, requiring detailed analysis that is beyond the scope of this paper, which focuses on the benefits to reservoir management. We investigate operational strategies for achieving an effective tradeoff between pressure relief/improved-injectivity and delayed CO 2 breakthrough at brine producers. For vertical wells, an injection-only strategy is compared to a pressure-management strategy with brine production from a double-ring 9-spot pattern. Brine production allows injection to be steadily ramped up while staying within the pressure-buildup target, while injection-only requires a gradual ramp-down. Injector/producer horizontal-well pairs were analyzed for a range of well spacings, storage-formation thickness and area, level and dipping formations, and for homogeneous and heterogeneous permeability. When the producer is downdip of the injector, the combined influence of buoyancy and heterogeneity can delay CO 2 breakthrough. Both vertical and horizontal wells can achieve pressure relief and improved CO 2 injectivity, while delaying CO 2 breakthrough. Pressure buildup and CO 2 breakthrough are sensitive to storage-formation permeability and insensitive to all other hydrologic parameters except caprock-seal permeability, which only affects pressure buildup for injection-only cases.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)230-245
Number of pages16
JournalInternational Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control
Volume6
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Jan 2012

Fingerprint

Reservoir management
carbon sequestration
brine
Carbon
Horizontal wells
permeability
well
cost
leakage
Costs
relief
Well spacing
analysis
Buoyancy
buoyancy
Seals
spacing

Keywords

  • Brine production
  • CO capture
  • CO capture and storage
  • CO migration
  • Injectivity
  • Pressure management
  • Utilization and storage

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering
  • Pollution
  • Energy(all)
  • Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law

Cite this

Active CO 2 reservoir management for carbon storage : Analysis of operational strategies to relieve pressure buildup and improve injectivity. / Buscheck, Thomas A.; Sun, Yunwei; Chen, Mingjie; Hao, Yue; Wolery, Thomas J.; Bourcier, William L.; Court, Benjamin; Celia, Michael A.; Julio Friedmann, S.; Aines, Roger D.

In: International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, Vol. 6, 01.2012, p. 230-245.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Buscheck, Thomas A. ; Sun, Yunwei ; Chen, Mingjie ; Hao, Yue ; Wolery, Thomas J. ; Bourcier, William L. ; Court, Benjamin ; Celia, Michael A. ; Julio Friedmann, S. ; Aines, Roger D. / Active CO 2 reservoir management for carbon storage : Analysis of operational strategies to relieve pressure buildup and improve injectivity. In: International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control. 2012 ; Vol. 6. pp. 230-245.
@article{cdd7070cea244af4b87526929cc49306,
title = "Active CO 2 reservoir management for carbon storage: Analysis of operational strategies to relieve pressure buildup and improve injectivity",
abstract = "For industrial-scale CO 2 injection in saline formations, pressure buildup can limit storage capacity and security. Active CO 2 Reservoir Management (ACRM) combines brine production with CO 2 injection to relieve pressure buildup, increase injectivity, manipulate CO 2 migration, and constrain brine leakage. By limiting pressure buildup, in magnitude, spatial extent, and duration, ACRM can reduce CO 2 and brine leakage, minimize interactions with neighboring subsurface activities, allowing independent assessment and permitting, reduce the Area of Review and required duration of post-injection monitoring, and reduce cost and risk. ACRM provides benefits to reservoir management at the cost of extracting brine. The added cost must be offset by the added benefits to the storage operation and/or by creating new, valuable uses that can reduce the total added cost. Actual net cost is expected to be site specific, requiring detailed analysis that is beyond the scope of this paper, which focuses on the benefits to reservoir management. We investigate operational strategies for achieving an effective tradeoff between pressure relief/improved-injectivity and delayed CO 2 breakthrough at brine producers. For vertical wells, an injection-only strategy is compared to a pressure-management strategy with brine production from a double-ring 9-spot pattern. Brine production allows injection to be steadily ramped up while staying within the pressure-buildup target, while injection-only requires a gradual ramp-down. Injector/producer horizontal-well pairs were analyzed for a range of well spacings, storage-formation thickness and area, level and dipping formations, and for homogeneous and heterogeneous permeability. When the producer is downdip of the injector, the combined influence of buoyancy and heterogeneity can delay CO 2 breakthrough. Both vertical and horizontal wells can achieve pressure relief and improved CO 2 injectivity, while delaying CO 2 breakthrough. Pressure buildup and CO 2 breakthrough are sensitive to storage-formation permeability and insensitive to all other hydrologic parameters except caprock-seal permeability, which only affects pressure buildup for injection-only cases.",
keywords = "Brine production, CO capture, CO capture and storage, CO migration, Injectivity, Pressure management, Utilization and storage",
author = "Buscheck, {Thomas A.} and Yunwei Sun and Mingjie Chen and Yue Hao and Wolery, {Thomas J.} and Bourcier, {William L.} and Benjamin Court and Celia, {Michael A.} and {Julio Friedmann}, S. and Aines, {Roger D.}",
year = "2012",
month = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.ijggc.2011.11.007",
language = "English",
volume = "6",
pages = "230--245",
journal = "International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control",
issn = "1750-5836",
publisher = "Elsevier",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Active CO 2 reservoir management for carbon storage

T2 - Analysis of operational strategies to relieve pressure buildup and improve injectivity

AU - Buscheck, Thomas A.

AU - Sun, Yunwei

AU - Chen, Mingjie

AU - Hao, Yue

AU - Wolery, Thomas J.

AU - Bourcier, William L.

AU - Court, Benjamin

AU - Celia, Michael A.

AU - Julio Friedmann, S.

AU - Aines, Roger D.

PY - 2012/1

Y1 - 2012/1

N2 - For industrial-scale CO 2 injection in saline formations, pressure buildup can limit storage capacity and security. Active CO 2 Reservoir Management (ACRM) combines brine production with CO 2 injection to relieve pressure buildup, increase injectivity, manipulate CO 2 migration, and constrain brine leakage. By limiting pressure buildup, in magnitude, spatial extent, and duration, ACRM can reduce CO 2 and brine leakage, minimize interactions with neighboring subsurface activities, allowing independent assessment and permitting, reduce the Area of Review and required duration of post-injection monitoring, and reduce cost and risk. ACRM provides benefits to reservoir management at the cost of extracting brine. The added cost must be offset by the added benefits to the storage operation and/or by creating new, valuable uses that can reduce the total added cost. Actual net cost is expected to be site specific, requiring detailed analysis that is beyond the scope of this paper, which focuses on the benefits to reservoir management. We investigate operational strategies for achieving an effective tradeoff between pressure relief/improved-injectivity and delayed CO 2 breakthrough at brine producers. For vertical wells, an injection-only strategy is compared to a pressure-management strategy with brine production from a double-ring 9-spot pattern. Brine production allows injection to be steadily ramped up while staying within the pressure-buildup target, while injection-only requires a gradual ramp-down. Injector/producer horizontal-well pairs were analyzed for a range of well spacings, storage-formation thickness and area, level and dipping formations, and for homogeneous and heterogeneous permeability. When the producer is downdip of the injector, the combined influence of buoyancy and heterogeneity can delay CO 2 breakthrough. Both vertical and horizontal wells can achieve pressure relief and improved CO 2 injectivity, while delaying CO 2 breakthrough. Pressure buildup and CO 2 breakthrough are sensitive to storage-formation permeability and insensitive to all other hydrologic parameters except caprock-seal permeability, which only affects pressure buildup for injection-only cases.

AB - For industrial-scale CO 2 injection in saline formations, pressure buildup can limit storage capacity and security. Active CO 2 Reservoir Management (ACRM) combines brine production with CO 2 injection to relieve pressure buildup, increase injectivity, manipulate CO 2 migration, and constrain brine leakage. By limiting pressure buildup, in magnitude, spatial extent, and duration, ACRM can reduce CO 2 and brine leakage, minimize interactions with neighboring subsurface activities, allowing independent assessment and permitting, reduce the Area of Review and required duration of post-injection monitoring, and reduce cost and risk. ACRM provides benefits to reservoir management at the cost of extracting brine. The added cost must be offset by the added benefits to the storage operation and/or by creating new, valuable uses that can reduce the total added cost. Actual net cost is expected to be site specific, requiring detailed analysis that is beyond the scope of this paper, which focuses on the benefits to reservoir management. We investigate operational strategies for achieving an effective tradeoff between pressure relief/improved-injectivity and delayed CO 2 breakthrough at brine producers. For vertical wells, an injection-only strategy is compared to a pressure-management strategy with brine production from a double-ring 9-spot pattern. Brine production allows injection to be steadily ramped up while staying within the pressure-buildup target, while injection-only requires a gradual ramp-down. Injector/producer horizontal-well pairs were analyzed for a range of well spacings, storage-formation thickness and area, level and dipping formations, and for homogeneous and heterogeneous permeability. When the producer is downdip of the injector, the combined influence of buoyancy and heterogeneity can delay CO 2 breakthrough. Both vertical and horizontal wells can achieve pressure relief and improved CO 2 injectivity, while delaying CO 2 breakthrough. Pressure buildup and CO 2 breakthrough are sensitive to storage-formation permeability and insensitive to all other hydrologic parameters except caprock-seal permeability, which only affects pressure buildup for injection-only cases.

KW - Brine production

KW - CO capture

KW - CO capture and storage

KW - CO migration

KW - Injectivity

KW - Pressure management

KW - Utilization and storage

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84855462914&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84855462914&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.ijggc.2011.11.007

DO - 10.1016/j.ijggc.2011.11.007

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:84855462914

VL - 6

SP - 230

EP - 245

JO - International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control

JF - International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control

SN - 1750-5836

ER -