Impacts of Different Operation Conditions and Geological Formation Characteristics on CO2 Sequestration in Citronelle Dome, Alabama
Abstract
:1. Introduction
Citronelle Field Background
2. Developing an Outline for an AoR and PISC Calculation Tool
2.1. Citronelle Numerical Model
2.1.1. History-Matched Model
2.1.2. History-Matched Upscaled Model
3. Results (Site-Specific Application of AoR and PISC Tool)
3.1. CO2 Saturation Plume
3.2. Area of Pressure Plume
3.3. Pressure at a Location in the Reservoir
4. Discussion (Detailed Analysis of Reservoir Behavior)
4.1. Analysis of Results
4.2. Plackett–Burman Design
4.3. Pareto and Normal Plot Charts
4.4. Response Surface
4.5. Qualitative Assessment
5. Conclusions
- How does a reservoir’s performance change as a function of injection volumes and rates of CO2?
- How does a reservoir behave after CO2 injection stops as a function of time?
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Kuuskraa, V.A.; Koperna, G.J.; Schepers, K. CO2 Storage Engineering: Real Solution to Real Problems. Presented at the SPE International Conference on CO2 Capture, Storage, and Utilization, New Orleans, LA, USA, 10–12 November 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Bello, A.; Ivanova, A.; Cheremisin, A. A Comprehensive Review of the Role of CO2 Foam EOR in the Reduction of Carbon Footprint in the Petroleum Industry. Energies 2023, 16, 1167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ivanova, A.; Orekhov, A.; Markovic, S.; Iglauer, S.; Grishin, P.; Cheremisin, A. Live imaging of micro and macro wettability variations of carbonate oil reservoirs for enhanced oil recovery and CO2 trapping/storage. Sci. Rep. 2022, 12, 1262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Petrusak, R.; Cyphers, S.; Bumgardner, S.; Hills, D.; Pashin, J.; Esposito, R. Saline Reservoir Storage in an Active Oil Field: Extracting Maximum Value from Existing Data for Initial Site Characterization, Southeast Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership (SECARB) Phase IIII Anthropogenic CO2 Test at Citronelle Field. Presented at the SPE International Conference on CO2 Capture, Storage, and Utilization, New Orleans, LA, USA, 10–12 November 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Chen, S.E.; Liu, Y.; Peng, W. DoReMi-A Passive Geophysical Monitoring Technique for CO2 Injection. Presented at the SPE Eastern Regional Meeting, Columbus, OH, USA, 17–19 August 2011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kang, S.M.; Fathi, E.; Ambrose, R.J.; Akkutlu, I.Y.; Sigal, R.F. Carbon Dioxide Storage Capacity of Organic-Rich Shales. SPE J. 2011, 16, 842–855. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Fathi, E.; Akkutlu, I.Y. Multi-component gas transport and adsorption effects during CO2 injection and enhanced shale gas recovery. Int. J. Coal Geol. 2013, 123, 52–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fathi, E.; Akkutlu, I.Y. Counter-diffusion and Competitive Adsorption Effects during CO2 Injection and Coalbed Methane Production. In Proceedings of the SPE Annual Technical Conference, Denver, CO, USA, 21–24 September 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Esposito, R.; Rhudy, R.; Trautz, R.; Koperna, G.; Hill, G. Integrating carbon capture with transportation and storage. Energy Procedia 2011, 4, 5512–5519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Wang, H.; Kou, Z.; Ji, Z.; Wang, S.; Li, Y.; Jiao, Z.; Johnson, M.; McLaughlin, J.F. Investigation of enhanced CO2 storage in deep saline aquifers by WAG and brine extraction in the Minnelusa sandstone, Wyoming. Energy 2023, 265, 126379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Qin, J.; Zhong, Q.; Tang, Y.; Rui, Z.; Qiu, S.; Chen, H. CO2 storage potential assessment of offshore saline aquifers in China. Fuel 2023, 341, 127681. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barrufet, M.A.; Bacquet, A.; Gioia, F. Analysis of the Storage Capacity for CO2 Sequestration of a Depleted Gas Condensate Reservoir and a Saline Aquifer. J. Can. Pet. Technol. 2010, 49, 23–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nghiem, L.; Shrivastava, V.; Kohse, B.; Hassam, M.; Yang, C. Simulation and Optimization of Trapping Processes for CO2 Storage in Saline Aquifers. J. Can. Pet. Technol. 2010, 49, 15–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bennion, B.D.; Bachu, S. A Correlation of the Interfacial Tension between Supercritical Phase CO2 and Equilibrium Brines as a Function of Salinity, Temperature and Pressure. Presented at the SPE (Society of Petroleum Engineers) Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Denver, CO, USA, 21–24 September 2008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pashin, J.; McIntyre, M.; Grace, R.; Hills, D. Southeastern Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership (SECARB) Phase III, Final Report; Advanced Resources International: Tuscaloosa, AL, USA, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Eaves, E. American Association of Petroleum Geologists. Memoir 1976, 24, 259–275. [Google Scholar]
- Moreno, D. Comprehensive Analysis of an Ongoing CO2 Storage Project. Master’s Thesis, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Koperna, G.J.; Riestenberg, D.E.; Kuuskraa, V.A.; Rhudy, R.; Trautz, R.C.; Hill, G.; Richard, A.E. The SECARB Anthropogenic Test: The First US Integrated Capture, Transportation, and Storage Test. Presented at the Carbon Management Technology Conference, Orlando, FL, USA, 7–9 February 2012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, X.; Ma, F.; Yin, S.; Wallace, C.D.; Soltanian, M.R.; Dai, Z.; Ritzi, R.W.; Ma, Z.; Zhan, C.; Lü, X. Application of upscaling methods for fluid flow and mass transport in multi-scale heterogeneous media: A critical review. Appl. Energy 2021, 303, 117603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wainwright, H.; Finsterle, S.; Zhou, Q.; Birkholzer, J. Modeling the Performance of Large-Scale CO2 Storage Systems: A Comparison of Different Sensitivity Analysis Methods; NRAPTRS-III-002-2012; NRAP Technical Report Series; U.S. Department of Energy; National Energy Technology Laboratory: Morgantown, WV, USA, 2012; p. 24. [Google Scholar]
- Deng, H.; Stauffer, P.H.; Dai, Z.; Jiao, Z.; Surdam, R.C. Simulation of industrial-scale CO2 storage: Multi-scale heterogeneity and its impacts on storage capacity, injectivity and leakage. Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control 2012, 10, 397–418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Parameter Space | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Models Used | Horizontal Size of Model Domain | Injection Rate | Injection/Post-Injection Length | Boundary Condition (BC) | Porosity | Compressibility | Dipping Angle | Anisotropy Ratio (kv/kh) | Salinity |
History-matched model; Upscaled model | 10 km × 10 km; 5 km × 5 km | 50, 250, 1000, 5000, kt/year | 3 and 30 years injection; 30 and 300 years post injection | Closed boundary; Semi-open boundary | 3–33% | 1.01 × 10−5–1.06 × 10−6 1/psi | Structural map | 0.01–1 | 10–230 g/L |
|
|
(a) Maximum CO2 saturation at any time during injection | (a) For 3 years of injection: 50 years of post-injection |
(b) Maximum pressure increase | (b) For 30 years of injection: 300 years of post-injection |
#RUNS | Injection Length (yr.) | Injection Rate (kt/yr.) | Post-Injection Length (yr.) | Model Domain Size (km × km) | Reservoir Thickness (m) | Permeability (md) | Porosity | Compressibility (1/psi) | Boundary Type |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 30 | 5000 | 300 | 5 × 5 | Maps | Maps | Maps | 3 × 10−6 | Closed |
2 | 3 | 250 | 50 | 5 × 5 | Maps | Maps | Maps | 1 × 10−6 | Closed |
3 | 30 | 5000 | 300 | 5 × 5 | Maps | Maps | Maps | 9 × 10−6 | Closed |
4 | 30 | 1000 | 50 | 5 × 5 | Maps | Maps | Maps | 9 × 10−6 | Closed |
5 | 3 | 250 | 300 | 5 × 5 | Maps | Maps | Maps | 3 × 10−6 | Closed |
6 | 30 | 5000 | 300 | 5 × 5 | Maps | Maps | Maps | 1 × 10−6 | Closed |
7 | 30 | 5000 | 50 | 5 × 5 | Maps | Maps | Maps | 9 × 10−6 | Closed |
8 | 30 | 5000 | 50 | 5 × 5 | Maps | Maps | Maps | 3 × 10−6 | Closed |
9 | 30 | 10 | 50 | 5 × 5 | Maps | Maps | Maps | 1 × 10−6 | Closed |
10 | 30 | 5000 | 50 | 5 × 5 | Maps | Maps | Maps | 1 × 10−6 | Closed |
11 | 3 | 1000 | 50 | 5 × 5 | Maps | Maps | Maps | 9 × 10−6 | Closed |
12 | 3 | 5000 | 300 | 5 × 5 | Maps | Maps | Maps | 3 × 10−6 | Closed |
13 | 3 | 250 | 50 | 5 × 5 | Maps | Maps | Maps | 1 × 10−6 | Closed |
14 | 3 | 250 | 300 | 5 × 5 | Maps | Maps | Maps | 1 × 10−6 | Closed |
15 | 30 | 5000 | 300 | 5 × 5 | Maps | Maps | Maps | 1 × 10−6 | Closed |
16 | 3 | 50 | 300 | 5 × 5 | Maps | Maps | Maps | 9 × 10−6 | Closed |
17 | 3 | 250 | 50 | 5 × 5 | Maps | Maps | Maps | 3 × 10−6 | Closed |
18 | 3 | 5000 | 300 | 5 × 5 | Maps | Maps | Maps | 3 × 10−6 | Closed |
19 | 3 | 250 | 50 | 5 × 5 | Maps | Maps | Maps | 3 × 10−6 | Closed |
20 | 3 | 5000 | 300 | 5 × 5 | Maps | Maps | Maps | 1 × 10−6 | Closed |
21 | 3 | 1000 | 50 | 5 × 5 | Maps | Maps | Maps | 9 × 10−6 | Closed |
22 | 30 | 1000 | 50 | 5 × 5 | Maps | Maps | Maps | 1 × 10−6 | Closed |
23 | 3 | 50 | 50 | 5 × 5 | Maps | Maps | Maps | 1 × 10−6 | Closed |
24 | 3 | 1000 | 300 | 5 × 5 | Maps | Maps | Maps | 3 × 10−6 | Closed |
25 | 30 | 10 | 50 | 5 × 5 | Maps | Maps | Maps | 3 × 10−6 | Closed |
26 | 30 | 1000 | 50 | 5 × 5 | Maps | Maps | Maps | 3 × 10−6 | Closed |
27 | 30 | 250 | 300 | 5 × 5 | Maps | Maps | Maps | 9 × 10−6 | Closed |
28 | 3 | 10 | 300 | 5 × 5 | Maps | Maps | Maps | 3 × 10−6 | Closed |
29 | 3 | 10 | 300 | 5 × 5 | Maps | Maps | Maps | 1 × 10−6 | Closed |
Parameter | −1 | +1 | Unit |
---|---|---|---|
A: Permeability | 10.19 | 977.22 | Md |
B: kv/kh | 0.0106 | 0.9947 | NA |
C: Porosity | 0.0501 | 0.3478 | % |
D: Thickness | 50 | 200 | m |
E: Compressibility | 1.06 × 10−6 | 1.01 × 10−5 | 1/psi |
F: Salinity | 11.37 | 228.12 | ppm |
G: Injection rate | 20 | 4274 | kt/year |
Factor 1 | Factor 2 | Factor 3 | Factor 4 | Factor 5 | Factor 6 | Factor 7 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
RUN | A: Permeability | B: kv/kh | C: Porosity | D: Thickness | E: Compressibility | F: Salinity | G: Injection Rate |
md | NA | % | m | 1/psi | ppm | kt/year | |
1 | −1 | 1 | 1 | −1 | 1 | −1 | −1 |
2 | −1 | −1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | −1 | 1 |
3 | −1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | −1 | 1 | 1 |
4 | 1 | −1 | −1 | −1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
5 | 1 | 1 | −1 | 1 | −1 | −1 | −1 |
6 | −1 | −1 | −1 | −1 | −1 | −1 | −1 |
7 | 1 | 1 | 1 | −1 | 1 | 1 | −1 |
8 | 1 | −1 | 1 | −1 | −1 | −1 | 1 |
9 | −1 | 1 | −1 | −1 | −1 | 1 | 1 |
10 | 1 | 1 | −1 | 1 | 1 | −1 | 1 |
11 | 1 | −1 | 1 | 1 | −1 | 1 | −1 |
12 | −1 | −1 | −1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | −1 |
Parameter | Impact on Pressure | Impact on Saturation | Notes |
---|---|---|---|
Porosity | Medium | High | For closed systems, the impact of porosity can be higher, depending on pressure threshold and injection rate. |
Permeability (k) | High | High | For closed systems, the impact of permeability can be lower, depending on pressure threshold and injection rate. |
Compressibility | Low-Medium | Low | Compressibility will have a higher impact on pressure for a closed system where the pore volume is within an order of magnitude of the injected volume. |
Thickness | Low-Medium | Low-Medium | There is some variability between reservoirs on whether thickness impacts pressure or saturation plume size more. |
kh:kv | Low | Low-Medium | |
Salinity | Low | Low | |
Caprock Permeability | Low-Medium | Low | Caprock permeability has more impact when injection rate or mass is not too high and caprock permeability is low. |
Boundary Conditions | Medium-High | Low | Boundary conditions are important for higher injection volumes or smaller reservoirs. |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Fathi, E.; Arcentales, D.; Belyadi, F. Impacts of Different Operation Conditions and Geological Formation Characteristics on CO2 Sequestration in Citronelle Dome, Alabama. Energies 2023, 16, 3191. https://doi.org/10.3390/en16073191
Fathi E, Arcentales D, Belyadi F. Impacts of Different Operation Conditions and Geological Formation Characteristics on CO2 Sequestration in Citronelle Dome, Alabama. Energies. 2023; 16(7):3191. https://doi.org/10.3390/en16073191
Chicago/Turabian StyleFathi, Ebrahim, Danilo Arcentales, and Fatemeh Belyadi. 2023. "Impacts of Different Operation Conditions and Geological Formation Characteristics on CO2 Sequestration in Citronelle Dome, Alabama" Energies 16, no. 7: 3191. https://doi.org/10.3390/en16073191