Simulation study for Co2 Sequestration in Saline Aquifers

Shib Sankar Ganguli

Theoretical and computational Geophysics, CSIR-NGRI

Abstract
Storage of CO
2
in saline aquifers is one way to limit the build-up of greenhouse gases in the
atmosphere. This paper provides an overall review of CO2 sequestration in saline aquifers. Large-
scale injection of CO
2
into saline aquifers will induce a variety of coupled physical and chemical
processes including multiphase fluid flow, solute transport, and chemical reactions between fluids and
formation rock material. First, the site selection and storage capacity is addressed since these are
major determinants of the storage potential of saline aquifers. Next, calculation of fracture pressure
and simulation of pressure profiles is discussed. Finally, transportation cost analysis and trapping
methods for sequestration of CO
2
is discussed considering economic and social concerns.

The
pressure profile will help us to find a more accurate trapping method and it is found that solubility
trapping method is good for sequestration. Pennsylvanian saline aquifers are chosen for the simulation
study and it is also found that these have maximum 75.6 Gigatonnes of CO2 sequestration capacity.

Introduction
Saline aquifers do not have potable water and therefore can be used to sequester CO2. They are
covered by impermeable rocks and have high saline properties. Saline aquifers have some positive
and negative attributes regarding its use as a sequestration site. Therefore a lot of research is required
prior to sequestration of CO
2
. There are several options for sequestration some of which might have
economical benefit such as EOR or coal-bed methane but their aim is not to permanently sequestrate
it but to increase the production and the operation time. The other methods such as sequestration in
ocean basins, exploited oil and gas fields and deep saline aquifers are in order to sequester it
permanently and to mitigate the climate change which currently doesnt have any economical benefit
in most countries. There are mainly three trapping methods and therefore it is difficult to quantify the
storage capacity for CO
2
sequestration.
Methodology
The calculation of formation fracture pressure plays very important role for the study of the pressure
profiles and it can be possible by calculating the weight of the overburden with the given formula
)) exp( 1 (
) (
kD
k
gD
fl
ob

(1)
where
ab
weight of the overburden(psia), is the grain density, g is the gravitational acceleration,
D is the depth,
fl
is the pore fluid density, is the porosity and k is the porosity decline constant.
Using the Eaton Correlation, fracture pressure can be calculated
ob ff
P
min
, where
min
is the minimum matrix stress. (2)

The pressure profiles can be generated by considering the following equation
) 4 / exp( 2 / 1
2
d d d
t r P (3)
where r
d
and t
d
represents dimensionless radius and dimensionless time respectively. The calculated
pressure is known as dimensionless pressure.
There are several trapping methods available, but we prefer solubility trapping method to find the
sequestration capacity of the reservoir and the calculation for the amount of CO
2
that can be
sequestrated will be known by considering the following equations.
) 9 0000187119 . 0 001302838 . 0 893414 . 4 1 (
3 2 2 2
S S S X X
co
p
co
b
(4)
where
2 co
b
X and
2 co
p
X represents solubility of CO
2
in brine solution and pure water respectively and
S is salinity in mass fraction.

Results
The pressure profiles (Fig.1 & Fig.2) are helpful for finding a more accurate solubility trapping
method since solubility is a function of pressure. It also helps to find the pressure at which there will
be a possibility of fracturing. After simulating the pressure profiles at 11.4yrs and 114yrs from one
injection well it is concluded that one injection well is not enough for injecting CO
2
in the wellbore.
With respect to both economic and social concerns it is also found that maximum percentage of CO
2

will be able to be sequestrated via solubility trapping method (Fig. 3) than the others.


Fig.1 Pressure profile at t: 100000hrs (11.4 yrs.)


Fig.2 Pressure profile at t: 1000000hrs (114 yrs.)


Fig.3 Solubility trapping capability Vs. Pressure graph