Feasibility of CO2 migration detection using pressure and CO2 saturation monitoring above an imperfect primary seal of a geologic CO2 storage formation: a numerical investigation
- 13 Downloads
A numerical model was developed to investigate the potential to detect fluid migration in a (homogeneous, isotropic, with constant pressure lateral boundaries) porous and permeable interval overlying an imperfect primary seal of a geologic CO2 storage formation. The seal imperfection was modeled as a single higher-permeability zone in an otherwise low-permeability seal, with the center of that zone offset from the CO2 injection well by 1400 m. Pressure response resulting from fluid migration through the high-permeability zone was detectable up to 1650 m from the centroid of that zone at the base of the monitored interval after 30 years of CO2 injection (detection limit = 0.1 MPa pressure increase); no pressure response was detectable at the top of the monitored interval at the same point in time. CO2 saturation response could be up to 774 m from the center of the high-permeability zone at the bottom of the monitored interval, and 1103 m at the top (saturation detection limit = 0.01). More than 6% of the injected CO2, by mass, migrated out of primary containment after 130 years of site performance (including 30 years of active injection) in the case where the zone of seal imperfection had a moderately high permeability (10− 17 m2 or 0.01 mD). Free-phase CO2 saturation monitoring at the top of the overlying interval provides favorable spatial coverage for detecting fluid migration across the primary seal. Improved sensitivity of detection for pressure perturbation will benefit time of detection above an imperfect seal.
KeywordsCO2 migration Fracture Permeability Pressure Carbon sequestration Monitoring
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
The authors would like to thank Dr. Zan Wang at NETL Morgantown site for her valued suggestions on improving the paper.
- 1.IPCC: Climate change 2014: mitigation of climate change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2014)Google Scholar
- 5.Carbon Storage Atlas: Carbon storage atlas—fifth edition (Atlas V). Available at: http://www.netl.doe.gov/research/coal/carbon-storage/atlasv (2015)
- 11.Busch, A., Amann, A., Bertier, P., Waschbusch, M., Kroos, B.M.: The significance of caprock sealing integrity for CO2 storage. In: SPE 139588 (2010)Google Scholar
- 18.Bielinski, A.: Numerical simulation of CO2 sequestration in geological formations. Ph.D. Dissertation, Universität Stuttgart, Germany (2007). Available at: http://elib.uni-stuttgart.de/opus/volltexte/2007/2953/ Google Scholar
- 34.Chadwick, A., Arts, R., Bernstone, C., May, F., Thibeau, S., Zweigel, P.: Best practice for the storage of CO2 in saline aquifers-observations and guidelines from the SACS and CO2STORE projects, vol. 14. British Geological Survey, British (2008)Google Scholar
- 38.Martens, S., Kempka, T., Liebscher, A., Lüth, S., Möller, F., Myrttinen, A., Norden, B., Schmidt-Hattenberger, C., Zimmer, M., Kühn, M.: Europe’s longest-operating on-shore CO2 storage site at Ketzin, Germany: a progress report after three years of injection. Environ. Earth Sci. 67(2), 323–334 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 42.Office of Fossil Energy: DOE-Funded project testing laser CO2 monitoring at carbon storage site. Available at: https://energy.gov/fe/articles/doe-funded-project-testing-laser-co2-monitoring-carbon-storage-site (2015)
- 44.Yang, Y.M., Dilmore, R., Mansoor, K., Carroll, S., Bromhal G., Small, M.: Risk-based monitoring network design for geologic carbon storage sites. Energy Procedia (in press) (2017)Google Scholar
- 45.Cacas, M.C., Ledoux, E., Marsily, G.D., Tillie, B., Barbreau, A., Durand, E., Feuga, B., Peaudecerf, P.: Modeling fracture flow with a stochastic discrete fracture network: calibration and validation: 1. The flow model. Water Resour. Res. 26(3), 479–489 (1990)Google Scholar
- 46.McVey, D.S., Mohaghegh, S.: Identification of parameters influencing the response of gas storage wells to hydraulic fracturing with the aid of a neural network. SPE Comput. Appl. 8(02), 54–57 (1996)Google Scholar
- 48.Goktas, B., Ertekin, T.: A comparative analysis of the production characteristics of cavity completions and hydraulic fractures in coalbed methane reservoirs. In: SPE Rocky Mountain Regional Meeting, pp. 205–214 (1999)Google Scholar
- 51.Griffith, C.A.: Physical characteristics of caprock formations used for geological storage of CO2 and the impact of uncertainty in fracture properties in CO2 transport through fractured caprocks. Ph.D. dissertation, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh (2012)Google Scholar
- 52.McKoy, M.L.: Two-dimensional stochastic fracture-porosity models for strata-bound fracture networks and application to the recovery efficiency test (RET #1) well in Wayne County, West Virginia. U.S. DOE Report No. 4CCH-R94-001. U.S. DOE, Morgantown Energy Technology Center, Morgantown (1994)Google Scholar
- 54.Yin, Q., Jing, H., Su, H., Wang, H.: CO2 permeability analysis of caprock containing a single fracture subject to coupled thermal-hydromechanical effects. Mathematical Problems in Engineering (2017)Google Scholar
- 56.Craft, B.C., Hawkins, M.F., Terry, R.E.: Applied petroleum reservoir engineering, p 431. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1991)Google Scholar
- 57.Bromhal, G., ArcentalesBastidas, D., Birkholzer, J., Cihan, A., Dempsey, D., Fathi, E., King, S., Pawar, R., Richard, T., Wainwright, H., Zhang, Y., Guthrie, G.: Use of science-based prediction to characterize reservoir behavior as a function of injection characteristics, geological variables, and time. NRAP-TRS-I-005-2014; NRAP Technical Report Series, U.S. Department of Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory: Morgantown (2014)Google Scholar