International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 4 (2010) 659667

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijggc

Geological storage of CO2 in saline aquifersA review of the experience from

existing storage operations
K. Michael a,b,*, A. Golab a, V. Shulakova a,b, J. Ennis-King a,b, G. Allinson a,c, S. Sharma a,d, T. Aiken e
a

Cooperative Research Centre for Greenhouse Gas Technologies, Australia

CSIRO Earth Science & Resource Engineering, Box 1130, Bentley, WA 6102, Australia
c
University of New South Wales, Australia
d
Schlumberger, Australia
e
IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme, United Kingdom
b

A R T I C L E I N F O

A B S T R A C T

Article history:
Received 8 July 2009
Received in revised form 18 December 2009
Accepted 31 December 2009
Available online 25 January 2010

The experience from CO2 injection at pilot projects (Frio, Ketzin, Nagaoka, US Regional Partnerships) and
existing commercial operations (Sleipner, Snhvit, In Salah, acid-gas injection) demonstrates that CO2
geological storage in saline aquifers is technologically feasible. Monitoring and verication technologies
have been tested and demonstrated to detect and track the CO2 plume in different subsurface geological
environments. By the end of 2008, approximately 20 Mt of CO2 had been successfully injected into saline
aquifers by existing operations. Currently, the highest injection rate and total storage volume for a single
storage operation are approximately 1 Mt CO2/year and 25 Mt, respectively. If carbon capture and
storage (CCS) is to be an effective option for decreasing greenhouse gas emissions, commercial-scale
storage operations will require orders of magnitude larger storage capacity than accessed by the existing
sites. As a result, new demonstration projects will need to develop and test injection strategies that
consider multiple injection wells and the optimisation of the usage of storage space. To accelerate largescale CCS deployment, demonstration projects should be selected that can be readily employed for
commercial use; i.e. projects that fully integrate the capture, transport and storage processes at an
industrial emissions source.
2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords:
CO2 geological storage
Saline aquifers
Demonstration projects

Injecting carbon dioxide (CO2) into deep saline aquifers is one

of three main options for the geological storage of CO2 in order
to decrease anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions into the
atmosphere. Previous studies have shown that compared to the
other two major options (storage in depleted hydrocarbon
reservoirs and in deep, un-mineable coal seams), deep saline
aquifers have the highest potential capacity globally for CO2
storage (i.e., Bachu, 2003; IPCC, 2005; USDOE, 2007a; Bradshaw
et al., 2007). The Special Report on CO2 Capture and Storage by
the IPCC (2005) identied various knowledge gaps related to
aquifer storage of CO2, many of which needed addressing before
the widespread commercial implementation of carbon capture
and storage (CCS) technology is possible. More than 10 saline

aquifer injection operations have been conducted over the past

10 years by governments and industries specically to reduce
knowledge gaps and many more projects are in development
stages (Fig. 1). A variety of factors have limited the number of
projects that have been conducted so far, including availability
and cost of CO2, especially anthropogenic CO2, difculties
gaining site access, poor injectivity, and cost of monitoring.
Consequently, the IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme
instigated a study to review the recent advancements in the
science related to aquifer storage of CO2, to compile the
knowledge gained from existing CO2 injection operations and
to address the need for future research. The scientic advancements related to CO2 storage in saline aquifers, including aspects
of geochemistry, numerical modelling and storage capacity
estimation, are summarised in Michael et al. (2009). This paper
critically reviews the experience gained from pilot and
commercial projects, including:

* Corresponding author at: CO2CRC, CSIRO Earth Science & Resource Engineering,
Australian Resources Research Centre, 26 Dick Perry Avenue, Kensington, WA 6151,
Australia. Tel.: +61 8 6436 8759; fax: +61 8 6436 8555.
E-mail address: karsten.michael@csiro.au (K. Michael).

1. A detailed examination of data from existing saline aquifer

storage sites and pilot projects; provision of a database
of available reservoir properties (e.g., lithology, porosity,

1. Introduction

1750-5836/$ see front matter 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ijggc.2009.12.011

K. Michael et al. / International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 4 (2010) 659667

660

Fig. 1. Map showing projects injecting or having injected CO2 into deep saline aquifers. Also shown are projects in an advanced planning stage (see text for details) as well as
the Weyburn (EOR), Otway and K12B (depleted gas reservoirs) pilot projects. Otway Phase 2, starting in 2010, will include small-scale injection into a saline aquifer.

permeability, injectivity, brine chemistry) to help establish

whether current storage operations cover a representative range
of reservoir characteristics and/or if specic aquifer types should
be targeted with future pilot sites or demonstration projects;
2. A comparison and assessment of monitoring technologies
applied at the various operations; and
3. A discussion of the potential issues associated with moving up in
scale to multi-well, commercial-scale CO2 injection schemes.
The scale and life time of storage operations are critical
parameters and primarily depend on the injection volume. The
terms pilot, demonstration, and commercial will be used for
the purpose of this paper as outlined in Table 1. Herein,
commercial refers to operations injecting CO2 for the purpose
of mitigating the emission of greenhouse gases. Acid-gas injection
operations represent an exception because CO2, as part of the acidgas stream, is disposed of to avoid H2S aring and although
operated commercially, the injection rates are in the order of those
rates associated with pilot projects for the purpose of CO2
geological storage.
2. Results
The rst operations injecting CO2 into saline aquifers in the early
1990s were acid-gas (H2S and CO2) disposal projects in Canada
(Figs. 1 and 2), driven by the need to decrease aring of H2S from sour
gas wells. CO2 was an additional unwanted by-product that could be
co-disposed with the H2S (Bachu and Gunter, 2004; Bachu et al.,
2005). The rst commercial-scale project with the sole purpose of
disposing of CO2 from natural gas production started in 1996 at
Sleipner in the Norwegian part of the North Sea (Torp and Gale,
2004). In Salah in Algeria (Riddiford et al., 2005) and Snhvit in

offshore Norway (Maldal and Tappel, 2004), both injecting CO2 from
natural gas production, commenced operations in 2004 and 2008,
respectively. Various commercial projects are planned for the future,
with Gorgon in Australia, another natural gas facility approved in
2009, anticipated to start injecting in 2014, potentially becoming the
largest CO2 storage operation in the world (Chevron, 2005; Malek,
2009). Pilot injection operations for research purposes were run in
Nagaoka (Japan) (Kikuta et al., 2005) and Frio (USA) (Hovorka et al.,
2006) between 2003 and 2005. New pilot operations in Ketzin
(Germany) (Forster et al., 2006) and selected projects in the US DOE
Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership (RCSP) program started
injection in 2008, with more projects in the RCSP planning to
commence operations in 2009 (www.fossil.energy.gov/sequestration/partnerships/index.html). Also in 2008, the Otway project
(Australia) in Phase I started CO2 injection into a depleted gas
reservoir (Sharma et al., 2009). Otway Phase II will include injection
into an overlying saline aquifer early in 2010.
Details of aforementioned operations, publically available in
the literature and on company as well as government websites,
were compiled in a database and a selection is summarised in
Table 2 and Appendix A. It should be noted that due to
condentiality issues and rapid changes in the CCS political
environment, the availability of data for some injection operations
may be limited or not up-to-date. Also, in the current political and
economic environment, a multitude of CO2 injection projects are
proposed and are in various planning stages, but it is difcult to
determine the likelihood of the actual implementation of specic
projects. For example, projects that appeared to have a high
probability of going ahead and had numerous associated research
activities, e.g., FutureGen (Mattoon), or Schweinrich (CO2STORE/
Europe) were cancelled or put on hold due to the re-allocation or
vanishing of funding or change in site operators. As of June 2009,

Table 1
Denition of scale for operations injecting CO2 into saline aquifers.
Scale

Purpose

Injection rate

Life time

Example

Pilot
Demonstration

Research, testing of injection and monitoring technology

Research, verication of technology and safety at
commercial injection rates
Reduce greenhouse gas emissions from stationary industrial CO2 sources

10 kt/year
1 Mt/year

Weeks to few years

>1 year

Frio, Nagaoka, Ketzin

RCSPa (Phase III)

>1 Mt/year

>10 years

Sleipner, Snhvit, In Salah

Commercial
a

RCSP = Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership (US).

K. Michael et al. / International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 4 (2010) 659667

661

Fig. 2. Past and planned future implementation of CO2 geological storage in saline aquifers. The timing of planned projects, particularly commercial operations, has a large
degree of uncertainty and refers to the respective project start, whereas the start of CO2 injection could be several years later.

Table 2
List of operations injecting or having injected CO2 in saline aquifers, as of December 2009. Some projects in an advanced planning stage are also shown and the list continues
to grow.
Project name

Location

Scale

Status

Inj. start

Inj. nish

Frio

Pilot

Completed

Pilot
Pilot

Frio 1 2004
Frio 2 2006
2005
2010

Snhvit

Barents Sea, Norway

Commercial

Sleipner

North Sea, Norway

Commercial

In Salah

Krechba, Algeria

Commercial

Gorgon

Commercial

MGSC Decatur
MRCSP Appalachian Basin
MRCSP - Cincinnati Arch

Barrow Island, WA,

Australia
Decatur, IL, USA
Shadyside, OH, USA
Kentucky, USA

Completed
Injection
underway
Injection
underway
Injection
underway
Injection
underway
Injection
underway
Approved

Frio 1 2004
Frio 2 2006
2003
2008

Alberta Basin (Acid Gas)

Liberty County,
Texas, USA
Nagaoka City, Japan
Ketzin, Brandenburg,
Germany
Alberta & B.C., Canada

MRCSP Michigan Basin

Gaylord, MI, USA

Pilot

SECARB Mississippi
SECARB Early

Escatawpa, MS, USA

Craneld, MS, USA

Pilot
Demonstration

WESTCARB
Rosetta-Calpine Saline
WESTCARB Arizona Utilities

Rio Vista, CA, USA

Pilot

Work underway
No injectivity
Monitoring
underway
Monitoring
underway
Completed
Injection
underway
Cancelled

Northeast Arizona, USA

Pilot

No injectivity

Nagaoka
Ketzin

Commercial

Demonstration
Pilot
Pilot

the FutureGen (Mattoon) project has been re-allocated funding

from the new US government.
2.1. Operational and reservoir characteristics
Existing storage operations cover a wide range of injection
depths (6502800 m) and inherent subsurface temperature and

Inj. rate
(t/day)
250
40
86

Total
storage (kt)
1.6
10
60

1990

5190

2008

2000

23,000

1996

2700

20,000

2004

3500

17,000

2014

12,300

129,000

2010
2008
2009

2012
2009
2009

1000

500

1000

2008

2009

300600

60

2008
2009

2008
2010

160
2700

2009

2009

2009

2009

2.75
1500
2

pressure conditions (Fig. 3, Appendix A). There also is a broad

distribution in average reservoir porosity (535%). Most of the
existing saline aquifer storage operations inject into siliciclastics
and only a few projects have injected into carbonate reservoirs,
such as various acid-gas injection sites and the Michigan Basin in
the RCSP (Appendix A). The various acid-gas injection operations
in Alberta cover a wide range of reservoir properties, but

662

K. Michael et al. / International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 4 (2010) 659667

Fig. 3. Selected characteristics of CO2 geological storage operations in saline aquifers. The timing of planned projects, particularly commercial operations, has a large degree of
uncertainty and refers to the respective project start, whereas the start of CO2 injection could be several years later.

K. Michael et al. / International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 4 (2010) 659667

injection rates are relatively low and very limited subsurface

monitoring is done. By the end of 2008, approximately 20 Mt CO2
had been successfully injected into saline aquifers by commercial
operations. Particularly, Sleipner, In Salah, and Snhvit demonstrate that, given the right geological and reservoir conditions,
injecting industrial-scale volumes in the order of 1 Mt/year CO2
into saline aquifers is achievable. Due to comparably high aquifer
permeability at Sleipner and Snohvit (Fig. 3, Appendix A) this
rate can be attained by injection through a single well. Even in
low-permeability aquifers, the same injection rate can be
achieved by increasing the number of injection wells as
demonstrated at In Salah (Fig. 3, Appendix A). Compared to
the aforementioned commercial projects, injection rates and
volumes are very low at the existing pilot projects, Nagaoka, Frio
and Ketzin (Table 2); yet these sites provide important
information regarding monitoring and verication (M&V) technology.
2.2. Monitoring and verication
The type of monitoring technology applied at operations
injecting into saline aquifers and a detailed list of related
literature references is summarised in Appendix B. With respect
to monitoring and verication of CO2 storage reservoirs, 4D
seismic proved to be very successful at Sleipner (Arts et al.,
2004a,b, 2008), but has the disadvantage of being relatively
expensive and might prove challenging for onshore storage sites
because of potential repeatability problems due to changing
weather, soil humidity and contact conditions. 4D gravity was also
successfully implemented at Sleipner (Arts et al., 2004a,b;
Chadwick et al., 2007). This has lower costs and works well for
qualitative assessment of CO2 saturation in the subsurface, but
requires a detailed, well-characterised geological model. Promising geophysical methods that worked well at Frio and Nagaoka for
quantitative tracking of the CO2 plume were 4D vertical seismic
proling (VSP) (Daley et al., 2007; Saito et al., 2006), which allows
for good source signal control, and cross-well electro-magnetics.
However, these two methods require a monitoring well in
addition to the injector. Also, the transmission distance between
injection and monitoring well might get too big in the case of
commercial projects with large CO2 plume sizes, resulting in a loss
of resolution unless multiple monitoring wells at appropriate
distances were installed. Tracer monitoring has been successfully
tested at the Frio Brine project (Freifeld et al., 2005) and the Otway
Pilot project (Stalker et al., 2009) to verify the onset of CO2
breakthrough at monitoring wells. Furthermore, tracers can aid in
the understanding of the change in reservoir characteristics
caused by CO2 saturation, and, by ngerprinting the injected CO2,
can monitor leakage and verify the origin of CO2 in various
environments between the storage horizon and the ground
surface (Stalker et al., 2009). Monitoring technologies for the
shallow groundwater, soil and atmosphere have been developed,
however the relatively high natural CO2 uctuations in these
environments complicate the detection of potential CO2 leaks
from the reservoir. Eddy covariance and hyperspectral imaging
proved to be able to detect and locate, but not quantify CO2
leakage at the ground surface of a test site in Montana, where
controlled volumes of CO2 were released in the shallow
subsurface at approximately 2 m depth (Keith et al., 2009;
Lewicki et al., 2009). At In Salah, the satellite-borne Interferometric Synthetic Aperture Radar (InSAR) was able to detect surface
deformation above the three CO2 injection wells on the order of
5 mm/year (Mathieson et al., 2009; Onuma and Ohkawa, 2009;
Rutqvist et al., 2009).
Requisite monitoring plans in future regulations for CO2
storage projects should carefully weigh the necessary require-

663

ments for ensuring storage verication and safety against cost

and suitability of various monitoring techniques for specic
storage environments. Suitable monitoring techniques for CO2
storage are listed in various Best Practise Manuals based
on existing CO2 storage experience and general petroleum
industry knowledge (i.e. Chadwick et al., 2007; WRI, 2008;
Cooper, 2009).
3. Further issues
While the success of existing operations demonstrates the
general technical feasibility of CO2 injection, future commercial
storage operations will require considerably larger storage
capacity than accessed by existing sites. As a result, injection
strategies will have to consider multiple injection wells and
optimisation of the usage of storage space.
In addition, the potential impact of large CO2 injection volumes
on the quality and movement of formation water needs to be better
assessed and quantied.
3.1. Injection strategies
Currently, the maximum injection rate at existing CO2
geological storage sites in saline aquifers is approximately
1 Mt/year (Table 2) and depends on the CO2 emissions volume
from the respective source. In the cases of Sleipner and Snohvit,
the reservoir permeability (5000 and 450 mD, respectively;
Appendix A) along with the injectivity is sufciently high to
allow for injection through a single well. At In Salah, three
injection wells with up to 1500 m long horizontal completions are
required to inject at an equivalent rate due to the lower reservoir
permeability (5 mD). Emissions and concurrent injection rates
can be expected to be signicantly higher in the case of large coalred power plants or large LNG processing plants (e.g. Gorgon),
while reservoir permeability in potential saline aquifers is on
average lower than the unusually high values at Sleipner. For the
reasons outlined above, future commercial projects will have to:
(a) consider multiple injection wells, (b) optimise the use of
storage space, and (c) enhance the dissolution and residual
trapping of injected CO2.
In theory, the trapping mechanisms for CO2 in a saline aquifer
are now relatively well-known, although the rates and timing of
the various processes still have to be better constrained through
actual measurements. The CO2 will end up either as a separate
phase beneath a top seal, a residual gas saturated in the pore
space, dissolved in the formation brine, or precipitated in a
mineral phase. The question then arises as to which injection
strategies can maximise the amount stored, or minimise the time
to achieve such storage and how the CO2 will be distributed
between these states over time. In oil production, heterogeneity
and residual trapping are often problematic since they can
reduce the expected recovery. For saline aquifer storage,
however, where the purpose of injection is to trap the CO2,
both of these phenomena can be turned to advantages, if
sufcient storage capacity is available. When Sleipner was the
sole example of CO2 storage, it was tempting to conclude that the
best storage sites would be of high permeability and relatively
homogenous. However, in addition to increased injectivity,
higher permeability also results in the increase of migration
rates. With the development of elds such as In Salah in Algeria
(Riddiford et al., 2005) and Gorgon in Australia (Flett et al., 2005,
2007, 2008, 2009; Malek, 2009) attention has now turned to the
possibilities of low-permeability heterogeneous saline formations as potential storage sites. In the case of the recently
approved Gorgon Joint Venture operation, with average reservoir
permeability in the order of 25 mD (Chevron, 2005), the operator

664

K. Michael et al. / International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 4 (2010) 659667

expects to require 9 injection wells to inject CO2 at a rate of up to

4.9 Mt/year (Malek, 2009). In addition, four water production
wells with a rate of approximately 10 million litres per day are
planned to manage reservoir pressures and brine displacement
(Malek, 2009).
Currently, the only experience from CO2 injection through
large well elds is from enhanced oil recovery (EOR) operations.
In CO2-EOR operations, CO2 is used for tertiary recovery to
mobilise oil that may not be economic to recover by primary or
secondary (water ood) production. These operations require a
combination of CO2 injectors and hydrocarbon production wells.
The efciency of these CO2 oods depends largely on reservoir
heterogeneity, well placement and completion design. Some EOR
operations have been very successfulas demonstrated by
increased secondary production, e.g. at Weyburn (Wilson and
Monea, 2004), Joffre and Zama (Smith et al., 2009) in Canada and
various elds in Texas (Holtz et al., 2001) and North Dakoata
(Belobraydic and Zeng, 2007) in the USA. In other cases, i.e.,
Pembina-Cardium (Hitchon, 2009) in Canada, reservoir heterogeneity has caused some complications for designing an effective
ooding scheme.
One should keep in mind, that the drivers for EOR and CO2
geological storage are very different. The former aims at
maximising oil production whereby the volume of injected uid
and sustainable ow rate in a single well are less important. In
contrast, the priority in geological storage of CO2 is to maximise the
injectivity of each well because of the drilling costs. Also, there is
the potential for overpressuring and for large-scale brine
displacement at CO2 storage sites, whereas in EOR operations
the concurrent injection of gas and production of oil provides
inherent pressure control.
Still, enhanced oil recovery projects, particularly those that
employ a combination of water/gas injection (Christensen et al.,
2001; Awan et al., 2008), provide important insight into the
optimisation of sweep efciency and geometry of well patterns.
The co-injection of water helps with controlling the gas front and
accessing lower permeability pore space that would have been
otherwise by-passed by the CO2 ood. The comparison of different
EOR operations shows that, depending on the geological
environment, different injection strategies need to be employed
to optimise the sweep efciency. Kovscek and Cakici (2005)
suggest that EOR schemes can also be adjusted to optimise the CO2
storage component. This experience should be directly applicable
to comparable geological environments considered for CO2
geological storage. Co-injection of water could be used even
more broadly to direct the CO2 plume and maximise storage
capacity, because in contrast to the EOR case, the injected CO2
does not need to target a specic hydrocarbon-bearing horizon. In
addition to controlling the plume spread, modelling studies
indicate that the co-injection of CO2 and brine could both increase
the dissolution (Leonenko and Keith, 2008) and the residual
trapping of CO2 (Qi et al., 2009).
3.2. Brine displacement
A key aspect of CO2 storage in saline aquifers is the conict of
interest with respect to aquifer usage, i.e., natural gas storage, deep
waste disposal, the potential interference with hydrocarbon
production from nearby elds, and the impact on groundwater
resources (Bentham and Kirby, 2005).
The effects of brine displacement induced by large-scale CO2
injection have been studied for hypothetical cases in the USA and
Japan using large-scale numerical simulations (Nicot, 2008;
Yamamoto et al., 2009). A preliminary modelling study in the
Gulf Coast region of the USA could not nd signicant disturbances
of shallow groundwater resources (Nicot, 2008). Induced water-

level changes in the investigated Gulf Coast aquifer were predicted

to be of the same order of magnitude as seasonal and interannual
variations. However, the model considered single-phase ow;
hence looking only at pressure effects in the far-eld of injection
and neglecting dissolution of CO2 along the ow path and possible
hydrochemical changes. As one of the outcomes, Nicot (2008)
recognizes the need to further explore the effects of brine
displacement on, for example, spring discharges along owfocusing faults and the development of simple numerical models
to help regulatory decision making. Sensitivity studies carried out
by Yamamoto et al. (2009) suggest that numerical predictions are
heavily dependent on generally uncertain parameters like porosity, pore compressibility, and particularly the permeability of the
sealing unit. Data from actual injection projects are obviously
needed to verify numerical modelling results and decrease
parameter uncertainty.
Compared to the deep injection of liquid wastes, hydrologic
issues and technical approaches associated with CO2 geological
storage in saline aquifers are more complex for a variety of reasons
(i.e., Tsang et al., 2008):
 The relatively high buoyancy forces, low viscosity and the large
volumes of the injected supercritical CO2 result in an extensive
area that must be considered for the potential of CO2 leakage,
i.e., through abandoned wells or fractures in the overlying
aquitards;
 The buoyancy pressure during CO2 injection requires that the
hydromechanical effects on the overlying aquitards be assessed
along potential leakage pathways extending from the injection
horizon to shallow groundwater aquifers; and
 In contrast to liquid waste injection, CO2 leakage into shallow
aquifer systems may not present a serious environmental
problem.

4. Conclusions
The experience from CO2 injection at pilot projects (Frio,
Ketzin, Nagaoka, US Regional Partnerships) and existing
commercial operations (Sleipner, Snhvit, In Salah, acid-gas
injection) shows that CO2 geological storage in saline aquifers
is technologically feasible. These operations have been
extremely helpful for testing monitoring and verication
technology and have been used to establish best practise
guidelines (Chadwick et al., 2007; CO2CRC, 2008; Cooper, 2009;
WRI, 2008) for future CO2 geological storage sites. However,
some issues remain:
 Pilot sites generally have a comprehensive monitoring program,
but injection rates/volumes are low compared to potential
commercial projects;
 Existing commercial projects inject considerable volumes of CO2,
however monitoring programs are often limited (i.e., In Salah) or
reservoir properties are unrepresentatively good (i.e., relatively high permeability at Sleipner);
 Relative permeability and residual saturation of CO2 at the
reservoir scale, essential parameters for capacity estimates and
migration modelling, need to be better constrained by appropriate testing and interpreting data from pilot and commercial
storage projects;
 There is limited data from post-injection monitoring, which is
needed for storage validation, model calibration, and long-term
assessment of monitoring strategies;
 Only a few projects demonstrated that existing monitoring
techniques could detect but, so far, not quantify potential CO2
migration outside the storage container; and

Shale

620

110
110
150
150
Shale
Shale
Shale

Sandstone
Martin Formation

SECARB Mississippi
SECARB Early
WESTCARB Rosetta-Calpine
Saline
WESTCARB Arizona Utilities

Sandstone
Sandstone
Sandstone

15

No injectivity

1081

200

150,000
200,000
64
2595
3140
1052
1180
501000

7000
120,000
300
20
100
22

35,000

23,750340,000

15343
60
250
29

9502814
2550
1000
1850
2300
1980
2170
1000
1061
1413
450
5000
5
25
225
0.0010.08
10200
22
426
13
37
17
20
15
3.2
12
13
Various
Sandstone
Sandstone
Sandstone
Sandstone
Sandstone
Sandstone
Sandstone
Dolomite

Various
Tubasen Formation
Utsira Formation
Krechba Formation
Dupuy Formation
Mt. Simon Sandstone
Clinton Sandstone
Mt. Simon Sandstone
Bass Islands Dolomite/
Bois Blanc
L. Tuscaloosa Formation
L. Tuscaloosa Formation
McCormick Sand
Alberta Basin (Acid Gas)
Snhvit
Sleipner
In Salah
Gorgon
MGSC Decatur
MRCSP Appalachian Basin
MRCSP - Cincinnati Arch
MRCSP Michigan Basin

23

21
20

37
90
100

71
30.5
28

600027,000
28,500
10,300
17,900
22,000
15,000
26,500
9720
10,170
26103

15218
30
75
950
250
100
70
1500
76

56
46
34
78
133
210

Shale
Mudstone
Mudstone
w/dolomite
Various
Shale
Shale
Mudstone
Shale
Shale
Limestone
Shale
Limestone
92,633
7113
250,000
24
60
80
1546
1100
650
1500
6
750
Sandstone
Sandstone
Sandstone
Upper Frio C
Haizume Formation
Stuttgart Fm.
Frio
Nagaoka
Ketzin

30

Temperature
(8C)
Thickness
(m)
Seal lithology
Salinity (mg/l)
Thickness
(m)
Depth
(m)
Permeability
(mD)
Porosity
(%)
Lithology
Aquifer unit

The work presented in this paper summarises ndings from

a report instigated and funded by the IEA Greenhouse Gas
R&D Programme. We acknowledge the funding provided by
the Australian Government through the CRC Programme to
support CO2CRC research. The authors would like to thank Neil
Wildgust from IEA GHG and two external reviewers of the
initial report, Stefan Bachu and Catherine Gibson-Poole, for
their helpful comments and suggestions. The nal manuscript
beneted greatly from comments by two anonymous
reviewers.

665

Project name

Acknowledgements

Appendix A. Properties of operations injecting CO2 into saline aquifers.

It should be emphasized that the current remaining issues

should not be considered as barriers to the implementation of
large-scale CO2 storage projects in aquifers. On the contrary, more
CO2 storage operations are needed to provide realistic data for
model calibration, substantiation of time frames for various
trapping mechanisms and to prove feasibility of CCS at a larger
scale.
It is important to properly integrate the lessons learned from
existing storage projects in the regulatory frameworks that are
currently being developed in many countries. Particularly when
establishing guidelines for monitoring and verication, a reasonable balance has to be found between assuring safety of the storage
operation and the costs of the M&V system. The applicability of
various monitoring techniques and the necessity for monitoring
wells, which would signicantly add to the project costs, will have
to be assessed on a case by case basis for different storage
environments.
The current experience in CCS resides largely with the
petroleum industry as shown by the existing CO2 storage and
EOR projects. The co-injection of brine and CO2, which is
successfully implemented in various CO2-EOR projects around
the world, shows promise to be readily adaptable for the purpose
of increasing storage safety and efciency in CO2 geological storage
projects. Given the relatively short time span available, it appears
imperative to choose demonstration projects that can be readily
employed for commercial use, i.e., projects that fully integrate the
capture, transport and storage processes at an industrial CO2
emitter. However, current economic and regulatory uncertainties
make it hard to predict which of the announced CCS projects will
actually be developed.
The IEA 2008 report Towards a sustainable energy future
highlighted in its section on CCS that one of the key goals for the
G8 governments to achieve their target reductions in greenhouse gas emissions is to commit to 20 fully integrated
industrial-scale demonstration projects by 2010 and to enable
broad deployment of CCS by 2020. This target of signicant
deployment of CCS by around 2020 has been integral in a
number of earlier published roadmaps (e.g., CLSF Technology
Roadmap, CSLF, 2004; CO2CRC Roadmap, CO2CRC, 2004; US DOE
Roadmap, DOE/NETL, 2007; and the Canadian CCS Technology
Roadmap, CETC, 2006). The Global Carbon Capture and Storage
Institute, launched by the Australian government in 2009,
proposes to help to integrate data from various storage projects
around the world and, in conjunction with proper regulations,
aims to accelerate the commercial implementation of CO2
geological storage.

Pressure
(kPa)

 There is limited experience with multiple injection wells, control

of subsurface pressures and brine displacement, most of which
comes from CO2-EOR operations for which the storage of CO2 is
only a secondary priority.

15,200
11,900
7300

K. Michael et al. / International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 4 (2010) 659667

K. Michael et al. / International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 4 (2010) 659667

666

Appendix B. Summary of monitoring technologies from injection operations in saline aquifers.

Site

Monitoring methods

Selected references

Sleipner

1. Time-lapse seismic
2. Time-lapse gravity
3. Micro-seismic

Audigane et al. (2007), Arts et al. (2004a,b, 2008), Arts and Winthaegen (2005),
Chadwick et al. (2005), Ghaderi and Landro (2005), Nooner et al. (2007),
Torp and Gale (2004), Zweigel et al. (1999, 2004)

Frio

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.

Well logging
Geochemical samplings
Cross-well seismic
Vertical seismic proling
Cross-well electro-magnetic surveys
Tracer injection
Pressure and temperature measurements
Soil-gas measurements

Daley et al. (2006, 2008), Doughty et al. (2008), Freifeld et al. (2005),
Hovorka and Knox (2003), Hovorka et al. (2006), Kharaka et al. (2006a,b),
and Muller et al. (2007)

Nagaoka

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

Time-lapse cross-well seismic tomography

Well logging
Pressure and temperature measurements
Geochemical monitoringuid and core sampling
Micro-seismic
Observation of Mid-Niigata Chuetsu earthquake

Kikuta et al. (2005), Mito et al. (2006, 2008), Onishi et al. (2009),
Saito et al. (2006), Xue et al. (2006, 2009), and Zwingmann et al. (2005)

Ketzin

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

Time-lapse seismic
Cross-hole electrical resistivity
Temperature and pressure proling
Time-lapse vertical seismic proling
Time-lapse moving-source seismic proling
Microbiology

Forster et al. (2006), Giese et al. (2009), Juhlin et al. (2007),

Kazemeini et al. (2008), Prevedel et al. (2009), Schilling et al. (2009),
and Yordkayhun et al. (2007)

In Salah

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.

Time-lapse seismic surveys

Time-lapse gravity surveys
Time-lapse electrical/electro-magnetic techniques
Tracers
Analysing formation uids
Soil-gas sampling and injection monitoring
Remote sensing (INSAR)

Mathieson et al. (2009), Onuma and Ohkawa (2009), Riddiford et al. (2003, 2005),
and Rutqvist et al. (2009)

References
Arts, R., Eiken, O., Chadwick, A., Zweigel, P., Van der Meer, L., Zinszner, B., 2004a.
Monitoring of CO2 injected at Sleipner using time-lapse seismic data. Energy 29,
13831392.
Arts, R., Eiken, O., Chadwick, P., Zweigel, A., van der Meer, B., Kirby, G., 2004b.
Seismic monitoring at the Sleipner underground CO2 storage site (North Sea).
In: Baines, S.J., Worden, R.H. (Eds.), Geological Storage of Carbon Dioxide:
Special Publications, vol. 233. The Geological Society, pp. 181191.
Arts, R., Winthaegen, P., 2005. Monitoring options for CO2 storage. In: Thomas,
D., Benson, S.M. (Eds.), Carbon Dioxide Capture for Storage in Deep
Geologic FormationsResults from the CO2 Capture Project, vol. 2. Elsevier,
pp. 10011013.
Arts, R., Chadwick, A., Eiken, O., Thibeau, S., Nooner, S.L., 2008. Ten Years Experience
of Monitoring CO2 Injection in the Utsira Sand at Sleipner, Offshore Norway:
First Break, vol. 26. .
Audigane, P., Gaus, I., Czernichowski-Lauriol, I., Pruess, K., Xu, T., 2007. Twodimensional reactive transport modeling of CO2 injection in a saline aquifer
at the Sleipner Site, North Sea. Am. J. Sci. 307, 9741008.
Awan, A.R., Teigland, R., Kleppe, J., 2008. A survey of North Sea enhanced-oilrecovery projects initiated during the years 1975 to 2005. SPE Reservoir Eval.
Eng. 11, 497512.
Bachu, S., Gunter, W.D., 2004. Acid gas injection in the Alberta Basin, Canada: a CO2
storage experience. In: Baines, S.J., Worden, R.H. (Eds.), Geological Storage of
Carbon Dioxide for Emissions Reduction Technology. Geological Society Special
Publication, Bath, UK, pp. 225234.
Bachu, S., 2003. Screening and ranking of sedimentary basins for sequestration of CO2
in geological media in response to climate change. Environ. Geol. 44, 277289.
Bachu, S., Nordbotten, J.M., Celia, M.A., 2005. Evaluation of the spread of acid-gas
plumes injected in deep saline aquifers in Western Canada as an analogue for
CO2 injection into continental sedimentary basins:. In: Proceedings of the 7th
Intl. Conf. on Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies, September 2004, Vancouver, Canada, pp. 479487.
Belobraydic, M.L., Zeng, Z., 2007. Carbon dioxide enhanced oil recovery and sequestration in the Beaver Lodge oil eld, Williams County, North Dakota. In:
41st Annual Meeting, April 1113, 2007, Lawrence, KS. Geological Society of
America, South-Central Section, p. 21.
Bentham, M., Kirby, G., 2005. CO2 storage in saline aquifers. Oil Gas Sci. Technol. 60,
559567.
Bradshaw, J., Bachu, S., Bonijoly, D., Burruss, R., Holloway, S., Christensen, N.P.,
Mathiassen, O.M., 2007. CO2 storage capacity estimation: issues and development of standards. Int. J. Greenhouse Gas Control 1, 6268.

CETC, 2006. CCSTRMCanadas CO2 Capture & Storage Technology Roadmap.

Canmet Energy Technology Centre.
Chadwick, A., Arts, R., Eiken, O., 2005. 4D seismic quantication of a growing CO2
plume at Sleipner, North Sea. In: Petroleum Geology, North West Europe and
Global PerspectivesProceedings of the 6th Petroleum Geology Conference. p.
15.
Chadwick, A., Arts, R., Bernstone, C., May, F., Thibeau, S., Zweigel, P. (Eds.), 2007.
Best Practice for the Storage of CO2 in Saline AquifersObservations and
Guidelines from the SACS and CO2STORE Projects. British Geological Survey,
Nottingham, 267 pp.
Chevron, 2005. Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Review and
Management Programme for the Proposed Gorgon Development. Chevron
Australia Pty Ltd., p. 818.
Christensen, J.R., Stenby, E.H., Skauge, A., 2001. Review of WAG eld experience. SPE
Reservoir Eval. Eng. 4, 97106.
CO2CRC, 2004. Carbon Dioxide Capture & Storage: Research Development & Demonstration in AustraliaA Technology Roadmap, Canberra. Cooperative Research Centre for Greenhouse Gas Technologies, p. 72.
CO2CRC, 2008. In: Kaldi, J.G., Gibson-Poole, C.M. (Eds.), Storage Capacity Estimation,
Site Selection and Characterisation for CO2 Storage Projects. Cooperative Research Centre for Greenhouse Gas Technologies, p. 60.
Cooper, C. (Ed.), 2009. A Technical Basis for Carbon Dioxide Storage: CO2 Capture
Project. CPL Press, UK, 92 pp.
CSLF, 2004. CSLF Technology Roadmap, Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum. ,
p. 28.
Daley, T.M., Myer, L.R., Hoversten, G.M., Peterson, J.E., Korneev, V.A., 2006. Borehole
seismic monitoring of injected CO2 at the Frio site. In: Eighth International
Conference on Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies, June 1922, 2006,
Trondheim, Norway.
Daley, T.M., Solbau, R.D., Ajo-Franklin, J.B., Benson, S.M., 2007. Continuous activesource seismic monitoring of CO2 injection in a brine aquifer. Geophysics 72,
A57A61.
Daley, T., Myer, L., Peterson, J., Majer, E., Hoversten, G., 2008. Time-lapse crosswell
seismic and VSP monitoring of injected CO2 in a brine aquifer. Environ. Geol. 54,
16571665.
Doughty, C., Freifeld, B., Trautz, R., 2008. Site characterization for CO2 geologic
storage and vice versa: the Frio brine pilot, Texas USA as a case study:. Environ.
Geol. 54, 16351656.
Flett, M.A., Gurton, R.M., Taggart, I.J., 2005. Heterogeneous saline formations: longterm benets for geo-sequestration of greenhouse gases. In: Proceedings of the
7th Intl. Conf. on Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies, September 2004,
Vancouver, Canada, pp. 501509.

K. Michael et al. / International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 4 (2010) 659667

Flett, M., Gurton, R., Weir, G., 2007. Heterogeneous saline formations for carbon
dioxide disposal: impact of varying heterogeneity on containment and trapping. J. Petrol. Sci. Eng. 57, 106118.
Flett, M., Beacher, G., Brantjes, J., Burt, A., Dauth, C., Koelmeyer, F., Lawrence, R.,
Leigh, S., McKenna, J., Gurton, R., Robinson IV, W.F., Tankersley, T., 2008. Gorgon
project: subsurface evaluation of carbon dioxide disposal under Barrow Island.
In: SPE Asia Pacic Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition, 2022 October 2008,
Perth, Australia, p. 21.
Flett, M., Brantjes, J., Gurton, R., McKenna, J., Tankersley, T., Trupp, M., 2009.
Subsurface development of CO2 disposal for the Gorgon Project. Energy Procedia 1, 30313038.
Forster, A., Norden, B., Zinck-Jrgensen, K., Frykman, P., Kulenkampff, J., Spangenberg, E., Erzinger, J., Zimmer, M., Kopp, J., Borm, G., Juhlin, C., Cosma, C.-G.,
Hurter, S., 2006. Baseline characterization of the CO2SINK geological storage
site at Ketzin, Germany. Environ. Geosci. 13, 145161.
Freifeld, B.M., Trautz, R.C., Kharaka, Y.K., Phelps, T.J., Myer, L.R., Hovorka, S.D.,
Collins, D.J., 2005. The U-tube; a novel system for acquiring borehole uid
samples from a deep geologic CO2 sequestration experiment. J. Geophys. Res.
110, B10203.
Ghaderi, A., Landro, M., 2005. Pre-stack estimation of time-lapse seismic velocity
changesan example from the Sleipner CO2-sequestration project. In: Proceedings of the 7th Intl. Conf. on Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies, September 2004, Vancouver, Canada, pp. 633641.
Giese, R., Henninges, J., Lueth, S., Morozova, D., Schmidt-Hattenberger, C., Wuerdemann, H., Zimmer, M., Cosma, C., Juhlin, C., 2009. Monitoring at the CO2SINK
site: a concept integrating geophysics, geochemistry and microbiology. Energy
Procedia 1, 22512259.
Hitchon, B. (Ed.), 2009. Pembina Cardium CO2 Monitoring PilotA CO2-EOR Project,
Alberta, Canada. Geoscience Publishing, Sherwood Park, Alberta, Canada, 392
pp.
Holtz, M.H., Nance, P.K., Finley, R.J., 2001. Reduction of greenhouse gas emissions
through CO2 EOR in Texas. Environ. Geosci. 8, 187199.
Hovorka, S.D., Knox, P.R., 2003. Frio brine sequestration pilot in the Texas Gulf Coast.
In: Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Greenhouse Gas
Control Technologies, October 14, Kyoto, Japan, pp. 583587.
Hovorka, S.D., Benson, S.M., Doughty, C., Freifeld, B.M., Sakurai, S., Daley, T.M.,
Kharaka, Y.K., Holtz, M.H., Trautz, R.C., Seay Nance, H., Myer, L.R., Knauss, K.G.,
2006. Measuring permanence of CO2 storage in saline formations: the Frio
experiment. Environ. Geosci. 13, 105121.
IPCC, 2005. Special Report on Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage: Prepared by
Working Group III of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge and New York, 442 pp.
Juhlin, C., Giese, R., Zinck-Jrgensen, K., Cosma, C.-G., Kazemeini, H., Juhojuntti, N.,
Lueth, S., Norden, B., Forster, A., 2007. Case history: 3D seismics at Ketzin,
Germany: the CO2SINK project. Geophysics 72, B121B132.
Kazemeini, H., Juhlin, C., Zinck-Jrgensen, K., Norden, B., 2008. Application of the
continuous wavelet transform on seismic data for mapping of channel deposits
and gas detection at the CO2SINK site, Ketzin, Germany. Geophys. Prospect. 57,
111123.
Keith, C.J., Repasky, K.S., Lawrence, R.L., Jay, S.C., Carlsten, J.L., 2009. Monitoring
effects of a controlled subsurface carbon dioxide release on vegetation using a
hyperspectral imager. Int. J. Greenhouse Gas Control 3, 626632.
Kharaka, Y.K., Cole, D.R., Thordsen, J.J., Kakouros, E., Nance, H.S., 2006a. Gaswater
rock interactions in sedimentary basins: CO2 sequestration in the Frio formation, Texas, USA. J. Geochem. Explor. 89, 183186.
Kharaka, Y.K., Cole, D.R., Hovorka, S.D., Gunter, W.D., Knauss, K.G., Freifeld, B.M.,
2006b. Gaswaterrock interactions in Frio formation following CO2 injection:
implications for the storage of greenhouse gases in sedimentary basins. Geology
34, 577580.
Kikuta, K., Hongo, S., Tanase, D., Ohsumi, T., 2005. Field test of CO2 injection in
Nagaoka, Japan. In: Proceedings of the 7th Intl. Conf. on Greenhouse Gas Control
Technologies, September 2004, Vancouver, Canada, pp. 13671372.
Kovscek, A.R., Cakici, M.D., 2005. Geologic storage of carbon dioxide and enhanced
oil recovery. II. Cooptimization of storage and recovery. Energy Convers. Manage. 46, 19411956.
Leonenko, Y., Keith, D.W., 2008. Reservoir engineering to accelerate the dissolution
of CO2 stored in aquifers. Environ. Sci. Technol. 42, 27422747.
Lewicki, J.L., Hilley, G.E., Fischer, M.L., Pan, L., Oldenburg, C.M., Dobeck, L., Spangler,
L., 2009. Eddy covariance observations of surface leakage during shallow
subsurface CO2 releases. J. Geophys. Res. 114 .
Maldal, T., Tappel, I.M., 2004. CO2 underground storage for Snhvit gas eld
development. Energy 29, 14031411.
Malek, R., 2009.In: Results of Due Diligence Study Phase 3.5 on Feasibility of Gorgon CO2
Sequestration Petroleum in Western Australia, September 2009. Western Australian Department of Mines and Petroleum, pp. 1317., www.dmp.wa.gov.au/.
Mathieson, A., Wright, I.W., Roberts, D., Ringrose, p., 2009. Satellite imaging to
monitor CO2 movement at Krechba, Algeria. Energy Procedia 1, 22012209.
Michael, K., Arnot, M., Cook, P., Ennis-King, J., Funnell, R., Kaldi, J.G., Kirste, D.,
Paterson, L., 2009. CO2 storage in saline aquifers Icurrent state of scientic
knowledge. Energy Procedia 1, 31973204.
Mito, S., Xue, Z., Ohsumi, T., 2006. Mineral trapping of CO2 at Nagaoka test site. In:
Eighth International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies, June
1922, 2006, Trondheim, Norway.
Mito, S., Xue, Z., Ohsumi, T., 2008. Case study of geochemical reactions at the
Nagaoka CO2 injection site, Japan. Int. J. Greenhouse Gas Control 2, 309318.

667

Muller, N., Ramakrishnan, T.S., Boyd, A., Sakruai, S., 2007. Time-lapse carbon dioxide
monitoring with pulsed neutron logging. Int. J. Greenhouse Gas Control 1, 456
472.
Nicot, J.-P., 2008. Evaluation of large-scale CO2 storage on fresh-water sections of
aquifers: an example from the Texas Gulf Coast Basin. Int. J. Greenhouse Gas
Control 2 (4), 582593.
Nooner, S.L., Eiken, O., Hermanrud, C., Sasagawa, G.S., Stenvold, T., Zumberge, M.A.,
2007. Constraints on the in situ density of CO2 within the Utsira formation from
time-lapse seaoor gravity measurements. Int. J. Greenhouse Gas Control 1,
198214.
Onishi, K., Ueyama, T., Matsuoka, T., Nobuoka, D., Saito, H., Azuma, H., Xue, Z., 2009.
Application of crosswell seismic tomography using difference analysis with
data normalization to monitor CO2 ooding in an aquifer. Int. J. Greenhouse Gas
Control 3, 311321.
Onuma, T., Ohkawa, S., 2009. Detection of surface deformation related with CO2
injection by DInSAR at In Salah, Algeria. Energy Procedia 1, 21772184.
Prevedel, B., Wohlgemuth, L., Legarth, B., Henninges, J., Schuett, H., SchmidtHattenberger, C., Norden, B., Forster, A., Hurter, S., 2009. The CO2SINK boreholes
for geological CO2-storage testing. Energy Procedia 1, 20872094.
Qi, R., LaForce, T.C., Blunt, M.J., 2009. Design of carbon dioxide storage in aquifers.
Int. J. Greenhouse Gas Control 3, 195205.
Riddiford, F.A., Tourqui, A., Bishop, C.D., Taylor, B., Smith, M., 2003.In: A Cleaner
Development: The In Salah Gas Project Algeria: Proceedings of the Sixth
International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies, October
14, Kyoto, Japan, pp. 595600.
Riddiford, F., Wright, I., Bishop, C., Espie, T., Tourqui, A., 2005. Monitoring geological
storage in the Salah Gas CO2 storage project. In: Proceedings of the 7th Intl.
Conf. on Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies, September 2004, Vancouver,
Canada, pp. 13531359.
Rutqvist, J., Vasco, D.W., Myer, L., 2009. Coupled reservoir-geomechanical analysis
of CO2 injection at In Salah, Algeria. Energy Procedia 1, 18471854.
Saito, H., Nobuoka, d., Azuma, H., Xue, Z., Tanase, D., 2006. Time-lapse crosswell
seismic tomography for monitoring injected CO2 in an onshore aquifer,
Nagaoka, Japan. Explor. Geophys. 37, 3036.
Schilling, F., Borm, G., Wuerdemann, H., Moeller, F., Kuehn, M., 2009. Status report
on the rst European on-shore CO2 storage site at Ketzin (Germany). Energy
Procedia 1, 20292035.
Sharma, S., Cook, P., Berly, T., Lees, M., 2009. The CO2CRC Otway project: overcoming challenges from planning to execution of Australias rst CCS project. Energy
Procedia 1, 19651972.
Smith, S.A., Sorensen, J.A., Steadman, E.N., Harju, J.A., 2009. Acid gas injection and
monitoring at the Zama oil eld in Alberta, Canada: a case study in demonstration-scale carbon dioxide sequestration. Energy Procedia 1, 19811988.
Stalker, L., Boreham, C., Underschultz, J., Freifeld, B., Perkins, E., Schacht, U., Sharma,
S., 2009. Geochemical monitoring at the CO2CRC Otway project: tracer injection
and reservoir uid acquisition. Energy Procedia 1, 21192125.
Torp, T.A., Gale, J., 2004. Demonstrating storage of CO2 in geological reservoirs: the
Sleipner and SACS projects. Energy 29, 13611369.
Tsang, C.-F., Birkholzer, J., Rutqvist, J., 2008. A comparative review of hydrologic
issues involved in geologic storage of CO2 and injection disposal of liquid waste.
Environ. Geol. 54, 17231737.
USDOE, 2007a. Carbon Sequestration Atlas of the United States and Canada. U.S.
Department of Energy/NETL, 88 pp.
USDOE, 2007b. Carbon Sequestration Technology Roadmap and Program Plan 2007.
U.S. Department of Energy/NETL, 48 pp.
Wilson, M., Monea, M. (Eds.), 2004. IEA GHG Weyburn CO2 Monitoring & Storage
ProjectSummary Report 20002004: Proceedings of the 7th International
Conference on Greenhouse Gas Technologies, vol. 3. September 2004, Vancouver, Canada. Petroleum Technology Research Centre, Regina, 273 pp.
WRI, 2008. CCS Guidelines: Guidelines for Carbon Dioxide Capture, Transport, and
Storage. World Resources Institute, Washington, DC, p. 144.
Xue, Z., Tanase, D., Watanabe, J., 2006. Estimation of CO2 saturation from time-lapse
CO2 well logging in an onshore aquifer, Nagaoka, Japan. Explor. Geophys. 37,
1929.
Xue, Z., Mito, S., Kitamura, K., Matsuoka, T., 2009. Case study: trapping mechanisms
at the pilot-scale CO2 injection site, Nagaoka, Japan. Energy Procedia 1, 2057
2062.
Yamamoto, H., Zhang, K., Karasaki, K., Marui, A., Uehara, H., Nishikawa, N., 2009.
Numerical investigation concerning the impact of CO2 geologic storage on
regional groundwater ow. Int. J. Greenhouse Gas Control 3, 586599.
Yordkayhun, S., Juhlin, C., Giese, R., Cosma, C., 2007. Shallow velocity-depth model
using rst arrival traveltime inversion at the CO2SINK site, Ketzin, Germany. J.
Appl. Geophys. 63, 6879.
Zweigel, P., Lothe, A.E., Lindeberg, E.B., 1999. Offshore underground CO2-disposal
Reservoir geology of the Neogene Utsira Formation, Sleipner Field, North Sea.
AAPG Bull. 83, 13461347.
Zweigel, P., Arts, R., Lothe, A.E., Lindeberg, E.B., 2004. Reservoir geology of the Utsira
formation at the rst industrial-scale underground CO2 storage site (Sleipner
area, North Sea). In: Baines, S.J., Worden, R.H. (Eds.), Geological Storage of
Carbon Dioxide: Special Publications, vol. 233. The Geological Society, pp. 165
180.
Zwingmann, N., Mito, S., Sorai, M., Ohsumi, T., 2005. Preinjection characterisation
and evaluation of CO2 sequestration potential in the Haizume Formation,
Niigata Basin, JapanGeochemical modelling of watermineralsCO2 interaction. Oil Gas Sci. Technol. 60, 249258.