Anda di halaman 1dari 10

SPE 124317

Reusing O&G Depleted Reservoirs for CO2 Storage: Pros and Cons
M. Loizzo, SPE, B. Lecampion, SPE, T. Brard, A. Harichandran, and L. Jammes, Schlumberger Carbon Services

Copyright 2009, Society of Petroleum Engineers


This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2009 SPE Offshore Europe Oil & Gas Conference & Exhibition held in Aberdeen, UK, 811 September 2009.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper have not been
reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its
officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to
reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.

Abstract
Two main types of reservoirs are considered for geological storage of CO2: deep saline formations and depleted oil and gas
reservoirs. The former offer very large potential capacity and a more even distribution, at the expense of high uncertainty due
to the very poor characterization of their properties, including their sealing capacity; the latter offer smaller overall capacity,
but with a reduced risk due to better reservoir knowledge. Gas reservoirs have also provided a proven seal to pressurized gas.
However, reusing depleted O&G reservoirs presents challenges that must be considered in the evaluation of performance
factors and the risks associated
Depletion can cause pore collapse in the reservoir - with an associated loss of capacity and injectivity - weaken caprock
and bounding faults, or even well completions, leading to possible containment losses due to mechanical failure. O&G
reservoirs are also intersected by many wells and it is likely that stricter regulatory requirements on well integrity and the
quality of zonal isolation will force operators to recomplete or work over wells which will be exposed to CO2, with an obvious
impact on cost.
Low reservoir pressure may also mean that injection of CO2 in a dense phase would result in reservoir fracturing and very
strong thermal effects that may lead to injectivity problems. In the reservoir, chemical and physical differences in behavior
between CO2 and methane may adversely affect geological containment and injectivity.
Economics and financing present another set of constraints: use of injected CO2 for EOR/EGR vs. storage may lead to
difficulties in obtaining emission credits. Infrastructure decommissioning and conflict with resource exploitation may reduce
the attractiveness of depleted reservoirs.
The benefits and challenges of depleted O&G reservoirs will be analyzed with respect to all performance factors (capacity,
injectivity, containment) and the major drivers of costs and risks will be identified. Fixed costs and risks, associated to
uncertain capacity for deep saline formations or uncertain containment for depleted reservoirs, will then be used to compare
the two candidates for CO2 geological storage and the paper will propose criteria to aid in the selection of possible storage
sites.
Introduction
Geological storage of CO2 requires finding a suitable underground permeable formation in which to inject carbon dioxide.
Suitability for reliable storage is generally judged using three performance factors: capacity, injectivity and containment.
Capacity is the quantity of CO2 can be pumped in the storage formation over the life of the project, injectivity is how
fast it can be pumped, and containment is about ensuring that no CO2 leaks from the storage complex and causes damage to
health, safety, environment or other resources. Since wells are arguably the biggest fixed cost factor of the storage project,
injectivity per well should be maximized to ensure its economic viability. Source-sink matching, which takes into account the
cost of transport, could be considered a fourth performance factor. Although transport and storage are reckoned to account for
a similar share of the overall cost of Carbon Capture and Storage (~10%), the former will not be considered in this paper.

SPE 124317

The two principal classes of candidate sites are deep saline formations and (depleted) oil and gas (O&G) reservoirs. The
former offer potentially vast storage capacity, little interference with mineral or water resources and more even distribution
across sedimentary basins around the world. On the latter there is very detailed knowledge and decades of experience, and
improved hydrocarbon recovery could help offset some of the costs of CO2 capture and storage.
Depleted O&G reservoir can be a catch-all and sometimes misleading category: for the sake of CO2 geological storage,
one of the biggest advantages of O&G reservoirs is the lower pore pressure at the beginning of injection, which allows
refilling the reservoir up to its original pressure. Within this context, a depleted oil reservoir where pressure has been
maintained by an active water table is roughly equivalent to a saline formation with the added advantage that its known to
be open (you can displace water to make room for CO2). On the other hand, our category certainly applies to a depleted gas
reservoir, such as the one used in the Otway CO2 storage project in Australia. In what follows, depleted O&G reservoirs will
be assumed to have lower pore pressure than original, unless explicitly mentioned.
This paper will compare saline formations and depleted O&G reservoirs along three main axes:
Uncertainty, i.e. the implications for both classes of storage sites of limited information. Saline formations are
poorly known, in particular with respect to closure, connectivity and heterogeneities; this in turn may require a
sophisticated program of exploration and appraisal wells, which, together with complex completion techniques
may push up the cost of reliable storage to uneconomical levels.
Injectivity, i.e. the ability of injecting a sufficient amount of CO2 from each well. In principle, if the cost of
injection wells is kept low enough, commercially successful storage projects could be based on hundreds of wells,
hence on low per-well injectivity. In practice, storage is recommended at depths >~2,500 ft, where CO2 would be
in its dense phase (packing more mass in the same volume), putting a floor on drilling costs. Furthermore, the risk
of leaks increases with the number of wells and, arguably, with the deployment of proper and expensive
drilling and completion practices, again putting upward pressure on well costs and increasing demand for
injectivity. On surface, CO2 can be in its dense phase (liquid or supercritical), or in vapor phase. Over most
injection temperatures, as injection pressure increases, downhole pressure may suddenly jump as CO2 in the well
transitions from a light gas column to a heavier liquid one. This injectivity gap, explained in detail below,
may make some depleted reservoir uneconomical or unfeasible to use, or increase the risk of fracturing the
reservoir.
Geological containment, i.e. the ability of the caprock(s) and faults to withstand the injection pressure.
Overpressure during injection in saline formations will always increase the risk of mechanical failure of the
caprock or fault reactivation. In theory, depleted O&G reservoirs could always be pressured back up to virgin
pressure, with a better characterized safety margin. In practice, depletion may cause irreversible damage that can
unpredictably reduce the maximum allowed injection pressure. Thermal fracturing can also reduce the safety
margin for injection.
Saline formations and O&G reservoirs may also rate differently along other axes, such as financing and regulatory
environment. Enhanced hydrocarbon recovery could provide financing and infrastructure for storage projects, especially at the
early stages; in fact, the bulk of current experience in pumping and keeping CO2 underground comes from EOR projects.
There will be some difficulty in accounting for injected vs. produced-reinjected CO2, but the problem is far from
insurmountable. The main issue may be in the willingness of regulators and public opinion to support enhanced recovery as a
storage option, although it is allowed by the EU CCS directive, and the ability of these projects to access financing in terms of
emission allowance or credits whether in national or international carbon markets. This axis is still highly uncertain,
depending on the implementation of regulations and markets, and the crucial role played by public opinion. Given the state of
flux, financing and regulatory environment will not be covered in detail in this paper.
Saline formations and depleted O&G reservoirs are bothgood candidates for industrial-scale CO2 geological storage, and if
a fully-fledged CO2 storage industry will ever come to be, the two storage options will most likely play a part in any portfolio.
This analysis will bring up risk factors that, although not impossible to control, will require specific attention and
prevention/mitigation measures.
Uncertainty
Capacity and Injectivity
Total capacity for O&G reservoirs is estimated by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to be 675-900 109
metric tons of CO2 (GtCO2), versus a lower estimate of 1,000 GtCO2 for saline aquifers [IPCC, 2005]. The upper estimate for
saline aquifers is assumed to be an order of magnitude greater (10,000 GtCO2), but with a large degree of uncertainty.

SPE 124317

The estimates for O&G are based on Ultimately Recoverable Reserves, with the two biggest sources of unknowns being
water invasion, which would reduce the available volume and as-yet undiscovered reserves, which would increase it. A
possibly larger source of uncertainty is given by reservoir availability, in case storage interferes with production (thus
generally excluding EOR/EGR): a field or a cluster of fields will become available when production ceases [van der Velde et
al., 2008], a date that depends crucially on the price of oil and gas. More subtly, for the case of offshore storage the
reutilization of existing infrastructure like platforms and pipelines may require bridging a transition period during which the
assets would have to be mothballed: how this transition could be financed and made acceptable to regulators is currently
debated. Reusing existing infrastructure for CO2, including wells, may also increase the cost of storage if there is a need to
increase pressure rating, corrosion resistance (pure CO2 is not corrosive, but mixed with water and some contaminants such as
H2S it is), or to add pumping or heating equipment.
The great strength of O&G reserves is the detailed knowledge of their connected capacity and the widespread availability
of history-matched geological and petrophysical models. This allows a quick and low-risk injection system design and a good
estimate of final capacity and injectivity behavior, and it applies to all O&G reservoirs, whether pressure-depleted or not. On
the other hand, deep saline formations have not been extensively characterized in the past. Whereas wireline logs may be
available for a few offset wells, cores, mechanical integrity and well tests are generally lacking.
The lack of well tests and the paucity of wells that have been drilled into the saline formations mean that the medium-scale
geological heterogeneities, e.g. layering or channel bodies, are very seldom known. As a consequence, the boundary
conditions (closure) at any point of the target formation are mostly uncertain: these will determine how much brine can be
compressed or moved out of the way to make room for CO2, part of what is commonly referred to as storage efficiency
(which could vary between 2% for a closed to 6% for an open formation [IPCC, 2005]). Some amount of exploration and
appraisal drilling will therefore be necessary for saline formation storage, as will be extended well tests (with brine or water),
the risk being starting injection in an isolated permeable body, where a quick increase in pressure leads to premature
abandonment of the injection well.
Similarly, relative permeability behavior of saline formations is poorly known, although it plays a major role in
determining the residual brine saturation and therefore how much of the original formation volume can at most be filled by
CO2.
Containment
In general, depleted O&G reservoirs have proven containment by allowing hydrocarbon accumulation. In reality, a good
seal to methane does not necessarily make a good seal to CO2: the capillary number (roughly, the ratio of interfacial tension to
viscosity) for CO2 is ~5 times higher than for methane, making the former more slippery than gas.
On the other hand, with driving forces reduced or absent, the integrity of caprock and faults that bound saline formations is
in general difficult to assume. Furthermore, the absence of a capillary barrier to the entry of brine into the caprock means that
it could flow very slowly over a large rock surface and transmit pressure increases or even contaminate potable aquifers. The
uncertainty over seals is rated by some authors as the biggest risk factor of saline formations, for instance [Ramirez et al.,
2009] rank this factors on a par with saline formations higher characterization cost.
In the case of well containment, the low number of wells piercing saline formations becomes an advantage: depleted O&G
reservoirs are intersected by dozens if not hundred of wells, some of which have been drilled decades ago. Although well age
in itself may not imply absence of containment, other factors related to it do: e.g. regulation, level of activity and state-of-theart technology [Watson and Bachu, 2007]. For instance, the occurrence of channeling due to poor mud removal has likely been
decreasing since its causes and mechanisms are now well understood, and adequate prevention measures are routinely put in
place, which decreases leakage risk in newly-drilled wells.
Very few studies have looked at well leakages in a statistical fashion. From some published and unpublished data up to 520% of well may be leaking through cemented annuli. This relatively low failure rate, coupled with the complexity of leakage
phenomena and with the very limited information available for most wells has made past attempts at finding determining
factors difficult: even if more deviated wells than vertical ones leak, this doesnt imply that any particular deviated well will
also leak. The resulting high containment uncertainty for existing wells has prompted some operators to aggressively
characterize and repair every well that will come in contact with the plume [Hendricks, 2009]; among existing wells,
abandoned wells are particularly hard to re-enter and evaluate, particularly offshore.
It is worth mentioning that even new injection wells which have been designed to provide reliable containment are exposed
to fault-free risk due to the complexity of drilling and completion phenomena and to the partial integration of design and
injection processes. Even these wells should be evaluated, monitored, and swiftly acted upon if any issue arises.

SPE 124317

Injectivity
Some possible issues related to the injection of CO2 in saline formations have been identified and laboratory and numerical
experiments have been run to understand their effect on injectivity: for instance halite precipitation, or salting out, would
decrease the permeability and porosity in the near-wellbore because of salt left behind by the evaporation of brine in the dry
CO2 stream (see [Zulaga et al., 2001] and [Muller et al., 2009]). This phenomenon has first been posited when analyzing the
behavior of natural gas storage sites in aquifers and is currently debated. Similar, more complex phenomena have been posited
due to the reaction of contaminants in the injection stream (e.g. H2S and SO2 in [Xiao et al., 2009]), which would lead to
complex behavior (dissolution in the near-wellbore, precipitation farther out).
The Injectivity Gap
Possibly the main issue with depleted O&G reservoir has to do with the relatively high critical temperature of CO2 (the
critical point for the gas lies at a temperature of 87.8 degF and 1,085 psi). In fact, the saturation line separating vapor from
liquid CO2 crosses the region covered by most common wellhead temperatures and pressures (Figure 1). Above the critical
temperature and pressure CO2 is in its supercritical state, where it exhibits the density of a liquid and the viscosity of a gas;
since there is no real isothermal phase transition from liquid to supercritical, the two are sometimes referred collectively as
dense phase.
In most practical applications injection is controlled by regulating wellhead pressure, if possible up to the limit set by the
pipeline pressure (to avoid expensive and CO2-generating compression on site). Wellhead temperature can in theory be
controlled as well although heating and compression, both common techniques, require energy and may generate unwanted
additional carbon emissions. Ambient heat exchangers have been tried, e.g. in Ketzin, Germany, but they depend on yearly
temperature fluctuations, which in Germany or the North Sea may sink to or below water freezing point, and will be
impractical to use for large volumes. Pressure at surface is controlled to deliver an acceptable downhole pressure, which must
be maintained between reservoir pore pressure and frac pressure to be able to inject CO2.
For the following argument, flowrate is supposed to be zero (a static column of CO2, e.g. after a well shutdown), with
temperature relaxed back to geothermal gradient. When wellhead pressure is atmospheric (14.7 psi), CO2 is in its vapor phase,
with a density about 50% higher than air at ~0.016 ppg. Since temperature normally increases as the injected stream travels
down a well, density tends to increase; the other factor determining downhole density is pressure, which is controlled by the
hydrostatic column. For gas densities, the increase in pressure is negligible and therefore downhole pressure is very similar to
wellhead pressure (neglecting the pressure drop due to friction).
If the wellhead pressure is now increased, the saturation line will be hit at some point if temperature is below its critical
value. At higher pressures, liquid CO2 density is much higher and closer to water density, so the hydrostatic pressure exerted
by the weight of the dense-phase CO2 column can increase the downhole pressure by a large amount. If the downhole pressure
is chosen as reference instead of the wellhead pressure, it becomes clear that there is a gap between values that are achievable,
which we will call injectivity gap, and the gap is determined by whether CO2 is in vapor or dense phase at the wellhead.
Figure 4 shows examples of four injectivity gaps computed at 15,000 ft.
The upper limit of the injectivity gap is the lowest downhole pressure that can be achieved with CO2 in dense phase. Figure
2 and Figure 3 show the limits for three reference depths as a function of wellhead temperature and temperature gradient.
Three trends become clear:
The equivalent density of the upper limit decreases with depth, as the constant effect of the wellhead pressure is
offset by the hydrostatic gradient.
There is a strong decrease of the upper limit as the temperature gradient increases: that is because thermal
expansion coming from higher temperatures in the well decreases density and thus downhole pressure.
The upper limit decreases slightly as wellhead temperature increases: that is due to the relatively lower density at
higher temperature and is a phenomenon related to the point above, albeit of a lower magnitude because of the
cumulative effect of the temperature gradient on downhole temperature.
Figure 3 also shows the total amount of the injectivity gap at 6,560 ft, which can exceed 2,000 psi. Similarly to the upper
limit described above, the gap decreases for increasing temperatures, both surface and gradient: that is because above the
critical temperature, there is no real phase change with a sharp density jump (although there are still steep density gradients),
smoothing out the gap at depth.
Simulations with a commercial injection modeling package allow the calculation of the dynamic temperature profile.
During injection, the effective temperature gradient will be lower than the geothermal, especially at high flowrates since CO2
must be heated during its residence time in the tubing. Figure 4 compares dynamic simulation results to equivalent static
profiles at a relatively low injection rate to show how the injectivity gap is still present and is well captured by the static case.

SPE 124317

Injection efficiency is the main reason why the injectivity gap can be important: for a depleted reservoir, with pore pressure
smaller than the lower injectivity limit, CO2 could be pumped in vapor phase. Since the vapor density is almost three orders of
magnitude lower than that of the dense phase, much bigger volumes must be pumped and with a comparatively low wellhead
pressure. Another possible choice is to increase wellhead pressure to above the saturation line and pump dense-phase CO2. The
pressure in the tubing is therefore fixed, and the drop from downhole pressure to pore pressure must happen in the formation
because of friction (Darcy flow). In the case of dense-phase injection, the worst-case pressure drop in the reservoir becomes
the injectivity gap itself.
A large difference between injection pressure and pore pressure can cause two related sets of issues:
High injection pressure can lead to mechanical failure of the reservoir and/or the caprock. It is worth mentioning
that uncontrolled fracture propagation in the reservoir can jump to the caprock depending on the in-situ stresses
contrast between these two layers: e.g. larger cap-rock horizontal stresses typically helps in preventing fracture
breakthrough.
High pressure differential can lead to cooling of the reservoir. This phenomenon is analogous to the JouleThomson cooling when a gas expands freely, although in the injection case cooling is not isenthalpic but closer to
adiabatic. J-T cooling, calculated in Figure 5, gives however an order of magnitude of expected temperature drop
in the reservoir, which can be substantial, especially at low wellhead temperatures (up to ~100 degF/50 degC).
Cooling alone can lower significantly the frac pressure of the reservoir: up to 30% reduction for a 20 degC
temperature drop for hard rocks (see also [Kocabas, 2006] and [Santarelli et al., 2008]).
Injecting at a pressure far above in-situ pore pressure would also result in high flowrates, which in turn would decrease the
injection temperature and thus exacerbate the cool-down effect on the frac pressure.
Even when injection can be established safely in the vapor phase, as the storage reservoir pressures up during the life of the
storage project, wellhead pressure may have to increase above the saturation line, thereby causing a sudden increase in
downhole pressure. This change in injection scenario may require extensive modifications to the surface equipment and must
be taken into account at the design stage. As a conclusion the existence of the injectivity gap may make injection in depleted
reservoirs impractical or impossible.
Geological Containment
Pore fluid pressurization is the first cause of failure of reservoir, caprock and faults; therefore, production-induced pressure
depletion before injecting CO2 injection should leave a large pore pressure margin available for storage in depleted O&G
reservoirs compared to the case of storage in saline formations. As a first-order approximation, poro-elastic effects
superimpose to effective stress changes; conditions controlling whether the resulting stress path is more or less stable can be
found in [Rudnicki, 1999]. However, repressurization is not necessary a reversible process since production may have
impacted the seal integrity, as well as certain rock properties (weakening). Besides pressurization, thermal and chemical
effects are the other two sources of potential destabilization.
During depletion, the effective stresses in the reservoir increase due to the decrease in pore pressure, thus moving stresses
in the Mohr diagram toward the compaction failure line (Figure 1). Pore pressure depletion can be large, especially for gas
reservoirs; depending on the type of reservoir rock (e.g. chalk versus sandstone), it may induce important compaction, which
in turns can significantly irreversibly decrease reservoir porosity and permeability (see e.g. [Settari, 2002], [Doornhof et al.,
2006]). Besides injectivity declines, damage to wells (see e.g. [Dusseault et al, 1998], [Bruno, 2001]) and fault reactivation
[Pratt and Jonhson, 1926] during large depletion of reservoirs have also been reported. It is clear that shearing of wells at
depths above the reservoir are clear indicators that depletion may have damaged caprock formations though shear failure.
In the reservoir, injection starting from a depleted stress state close to the compaction line will usually shift back effective
stresses toward the elastic regime. The distance from the compaction failure line to the shear failure line defines a safe zone
where pore pressure increases will not induce fracturing or shear failure. Such a safe zone will of course be site-dependent and
will require a careful analysis of the geomechanical conditions as well as proper modeling of the reservoir depletion and
pressure maintenance history. Unfortunately, the re-increase in pore pressure is not always shifting back the effective stresses
toward the elastic regime: depending on the rock type, chemo-mechanical weakening effects may play an important role; an
illustrating example is the induced compaction experienced in North Sea chalk reservoirs, due to water/chalk chemical
interactions, during pressure maintenance via water flooding [Doornhof et al., 2006].
In the case of CO2 injection, chemo-mechanical effects may also be of importance in some circumstances but are clearly
not yet well documented. A few studies have tried to identify the range of phenomena: some authors [Gaus et al., 2008] have
reviewed CO2-rock geochemical interactions and their mechanical effects; others have shown in laboratory experiments that
strength and elastic moduli decrease in limestones under carbonic acid exposure, or characterized the dissolution and the
increase in the rate of pressure-solution creep in limestones [Renard et al., 2005]. Nonetheless, the relevance of coupling of

SPE 124317

chemical effects with strength and deformation, especially in caprocks, remains poorly understood a fortiori when applying to
downhole exposure to CO2.
When a depleted O&G reservoir is targeted for CO2 storage, both the geomechanical effects associated with future CO2
injection as well as those due to past production must be considered. The reason is two-fold: first to ensure that the integrity of
the seals has not been compromised by past operations; second to calibrate the model against production data, accounting for
inelastic behavior if any and thus improving its accuracy in forecasting the effects expected from CO2 injection. In order to
properly take into account geomechanical effects, simulations are needed. However, simulations are useless without a certain
number of carefully assessed data:
Knowledge of the in-situ stress state is, as always, the most single important required piece of information:
measures such as mini-fracs campaign or state-of-the art sonic logs (if rocks that exhibit stress-dependent velocity
are present) should be planed before the start of injection both at reservoir and cap-rock levels. These stresses data
should be compared to pre-production ones, when available, in order to assess possible irreversible damages.
Geomechanical laboratory measurements of sealing and reservoir rocks should also be performed (if not yet
available) to consistently determine their failure properties and possible weakening. This is especially true when
the virgin mechanical properties and stress conditions prove to be poorly constrained.
In the case of saline aquifers, where the range for pore pressure increases is narrower, limited geo-mechanical
characterization is the largest important uncertainty related to containment. The previous recommended characterization is
therefore a minimum requirement.
Conclusions
Depleted O&G reservoirs and deep saline reservoirs offer potentially attractive targets for geological storage of CO2, mostly
for complementary reasons. This paper focused on three sets of challenges that affect differently the two classes of reservoirs:
Uncertainty on capacity and injectivity is clearly lower for depleted reservoirs, giving them a net economic
advantage when the cost (and risk) and exploration and appraisal are taken into account. On the other hand,
uncertainty on well containment favors saline formations, which are intersected by fewer well. It must be said that
the role well containment will play in future choices will be largely determined by regulation since well leaks
have been successfully managed in the O&G industry for years.
Injectivity in depleted reservoirs may be tricky or impossible because of the injectivity gap, depending on their
depth and pressure conditions. Even when feasible, the cool-down decrease of frac pressure must be taken into
account to avoid breaching caprock integrity. Such an injectivity gap doesnt apply to saline formations, or to
O&G reservoirs where pressure has been maintained.
Saline formations have a lower, mostly unproven, safety margin between injection and frac pressure. Depleted
reservoirs may have an advantage, since re-pressurization will lead to a final pressure lower or equal than the
original value. A possible issue identified in this paper is the irreversible geomechanical effects during depletion
that require accurate measurements and simulation to be properly taken into account.
In conclusion, each reservoir type has a different risk profile, and different advantages, and so has a rightful place in a
portfolio of injection sites. Possible issues, such as the ones identified in this paper, should be taken into account and a suitable
risk control plan prepared, which would include prevention measures (such as further measurements and modeling or
preventive actions) and mitigation measures (such as an emergency response plan). The cost of risk control must then be
included in the total cost estimate for the storage site.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Schlumberger for their support and the permission to publish this paper. Special appreciation
is expressed to Lawrence J. Pekot of Schlumberger Carbon Services for numerous discussions and helpful insights in
identifying key performance factors.
References
Andr, L., Azaroual, M., Menjoz, A., Kervvan, C., Lombard, J.-M., Egermann, P.; Control of supercritical CO2 injectivity in the deep
Dogger aquifer of the Paris basin from different injection scenarios; poster presented at the First French-German Symposium on
Geological Storage of CO2, Postdam, Germany, June 2122 2007
Atkinson, B. K., Meredith, P. G.; The theory of subcritical crack growth with applications to minerals and rocks; in Fract Mech. of Rocks,
Atkinson, B. K. (ed), Academic Press, London, 111-166, 1987
Bruno, M. S.; Geomechanical Analysis and Decision Analysis for Mitigating Compaction Related Casing Damage; SPE paper 71695,
presented at the Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition in New Orleans, LA, 30 September-3 October 2001
Dietrich, J. H., Conrad, G.; Effect of humidity on time and velocity dependent friction in rocks; J. Geophys. Res. (89), 4196-4202, 1984
Doornhof, D., Kristiansen, T. G., Nagel, N. B., Pattillo, P., Sayers, C.; Compation and Subsidence; Oilfield Review, Autumn 2006, 50-68
Dove, P. M.; Geochemical controls on the kinetics of quartz fracture at subcritical tensile stresses; J. Geophys. Res. (100), 22349-22350,
1995

SPE 124317

Dusseault, M. B., Bruno, M. S., Barrera, J.; Casing shear: causes, cases, cures; 6th International O&G Conference and Exhibition in
China, Beijing, 2-6 November 1998
Gaus, I., Audigane, P., Andr, L., Lions, J., Jacquemet, N., Durst, P., Czernichowski-Lauriol, I., Azaroual, M.; Geochemical and solute
transport modelling for CO2 storage, what to expect from it?; Int. J. Greenhouse Gas Control (2), 605-625, 2008
Hendricks, K.; Experiences in the Salt Creek Field CO2 Flood; presented at the 5th Annual Wellbore Integrity Network Meeting in
Calgary, AB, May 13-14 2009
IPCC; Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage; Cambridge University Press 2005
Kocabas, I.; An Analytical Model of Temperature and Stress Fields During Cold-Water Injection into an Oil Reservoir; SPE paper 88762,
SPE Productions and Operations, May 2006
Kirby, S. H., Scholtz, C. H. (eds.); Chemical effects of water on the strength and deformation of crustal rocks; special Issue, J. Geophys.
Res. (89), 1984
Muller, N., Qi, R., Mackie, E., Pruess, K., Blunt, M. J.; CO2 injection impairment due to halite precipitation; Energy Procedia, Volume 1,
Issue 1, February 2009, Pages 3507-3514
Ramirez, A., Hagedoorn, S., Kramers, L., Wildenborg, T., Hendriks, C.; Screening CO2 storage options in the Netherlands; Energy
Procedia, Volume 1, Issue 1, February 2009, Pages 2801-2808
Renard, F., Gundersen, E., Hellmann, R., Collombet, M. and Le Guen, Y.; Numerical modeling of the effect of carbon dioxide
sequestration on the rate of pressure solution creep in limestone: Preliminary results; Oil & Gas Sc. Technol. Rev. IFP 60 (2), 381399, 2005
Rudnicki, J.W., Alteration of regional stress by reservoirs and other inhomogeneities: stabilizing or destabilizing?; proc. 9th Intern.
Congress Rock Mech., volume 3, Paris, France, 25-28 August 1999
Santarelli, F. J., Havmoller, O., Naumann, M.; Geomechanical Aspects of 15 years Water Injection on a Field Complex: An analysis of the
past to plan the future; SPE paper 112944, presented at the North Africa Technical Conference and Exhibition, 2008
Segall, P.; Earthquakes triggered by fluid extraction; Geol. 17: 942-946, 1989
Settari, A.; Reservoir compaction; SPE paper 76805, distinguished Author Series, 2002
van der Velde, R., Mieog, J., Breunese, J., Remmelts, G.; Potential for CO2 storage in depleted gas fields at the Dutch Continental Shelf;
DHV/TNO; June 2008
Watson, T. L., Bachu, S.; Evaluation of the Potential for Gas and CO2 Leakage Along Wellbores; SPE paper 106817, presented at the
2007 SPE E&P Environmental and Safety Conference in Galveston, TX, 5-7 March 2007
Xiao, Y., Xu, T., Pruess, K.; The effects of gas-fluid-rock interactions on CO2 injection and storage: insights from reactive transport
modeling; Energy Procedia, Volume 1, Issue 1, February 2009, Pages 1783-1790
Zulaga, E., Muoz, N. I., Obando, G. A.; An Experimental Study to Evaluate Water Vaporisation and Formation Damage Caused by Dry
Gas Flow Through Porous Media, SPE paper 68335, presented at the International Symposium on Scale in Aberdeen, UK, 30-31
January 2001

Figures
Figure 1: CO2 density as a function of pressure for four different temperatures. The large density jump marks the transition from
vapor (lower part of the graph) to liquid (upper part).
9
8
7

CO2 density (ppg)

6
5
4
32 degF
50 degF
68 degF
90 degF
Critical Point

3
2
1
0

200

400

600
800
1000
Well-head pressure (psi)

1200

1400

1600

SPE 124317

Figure 2: upper limit of injectivity gap at 3280 ft and 9840 ft, expressed as equivalent density (ppg), vs. wellhead temperature and
temperature gradient. The total pressure includes the wellhead pressure and the hydrostatic head, hence the densities higher than
water at 3280 ft.
Upper limit of injectivity gap at 3280 ft, equivalent density (ppg)
8.5

3.6

7.5

9
8.5

8.5

9.5

3
10

10

9.5

2.8

10

2.6

10.5

10

10 .5

10 .5

2.4

11

11

2.2
11 .5

11

3.5

4.5

3.4

4. 5

9.5

3.2

5
8.

3.5

3.6

Temperature gradient (degF/100ft)

Temperature gradient (degF/100ft)

3.4

Upper limit of injectivity gap at 9840 ft, equivalent density (ppg)


8

3.2

5.5

5.5

6
2.8 .5

2.6

4.5

5.5

6.5

6.5

2.4
7

7. 5

2.2

7. 5

7. 5

8
1.8

.5
11

1.8
12

1.6

11
35

40

45

50
55
60
65
70
Well-head temperature (degF)

75

8. 5

8.5

1.6

80

85

8.5

35

40

45

50
55
60
65
70
Well-head temperature (degF)

75

80

85

Figure 3: injectivity gap at 6560 ft. The left-hand side figure shows the upper limit of the injectivity gap, in equivalent density (ppg), vs.
wellhead temperature and temperature gradient. The right-hand side figure shows the total injectivity gap, in psi. The gap is given by
the difference between downhole pressure in dense phase and vapour phase.

3.4

6
7

7.5

2.8
2.6

5.5

6.5

6.5

7.5

6.5
7.5

2.4

8
8. 5
8.5

1.8

2.8
2.6

60
0

16
00

14
00

35

40

45

50
55
60
65
70
Well-head temperature (degF)

75

80

85

10
00

80
0

40
0

18
00
16
00

20
00

2.2

1.8
1.6

1.6

12
00

2.4

2
9

40
0

3.2

00
20

80
0

10
00

14
00

12
00

10
00

60
0
80
0

00
18

8.5

2.2
2

12
00

0
20

14
00

00
22

Temperature gradient (degF/100ft)

6.5

3.2

3.4

5.5

20
0

60
0

3.6

4.5

35

40

16 00

5.5

Temperature gradient (degF/100ft)

3.6

14 00

0
60
0
40

00 00
12 10 80 0

18 000
12 0010 00 0 0
164000
60 0
8
1
40 0
45
50
55
60
65
70
Well-head temperature (degF)

20 0

75

80

85

SPE 124317

Figure 4: pressure (in psi) at 15,000 ft as a function of wellhead pressure for 4 different injection temperatures. Dynamic simulations
were performed using a commercial injection simulator with an injection rate of 10,000 metric tons per year, a surface temperature of
59 degF (constant down to 492 ft) increasing to 278 degF at TD. Static pressure was computed with temperature varying linearly
between injection and downhole values.
8000

7000

Bottom-hole pressure (psi)

6000

5000

4000
Dynamic, 32 degF
Dynamic, 50 degF
Dynamic, 68 degF
Dynamic, 90 degF
Static, 32 degF
Static, 50 degF
Static, 68 degF
Static, 90 degF

3000

2000

1000

200

400

600

800
1000
1200
Well-head pressure (psi)

1400

1600

1800

10

SPE 124317

20

Figure 5: temperature drop due to Joule-Thomson cooling across the injectivity gap at 6560 ft (degF).
30
70
50
3.6
90
80
40
1
3.4
00
60
70
3.2
11 0
50
3
40
10 0
20

90

80

2.6

70

60

70

2.4
2.2

50

60

60

40

50

50

40

40

30

Temperature gradient (degF/100ft)

10

30

80

90

2.8

20

30
30

30

20

1.8 20

20

10
10

1.6
35

10

40

45

50
55
60
65
70
Well-head temperature (degF)

75

80

85

Figure 6: schematic Mohr diagram showing the effect of depletion and re-injection on the reservoir effective stress state. The stress
path may not be completely reversible due to change in mechanical properties associated with irreversible compaction if any.