International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 90 (2019) 102813

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control

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

Application of a dual tubing CO2 injection-water production horizontal well T

pattern for improving the CO2 storage capacity and reducing the CAPEX: A
case study in Pohang basin, Korea
Min Kim, Hyundon Shin
⁎

Inha University, Inha-ro 100, Incheon, 22212, Republic of Korea

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: Water production is an efficient way of relieving pressure build-up and improving the CO2 storage capacity
A dual tubing CO2-water production horizontal (CSC) in the carbon capture and storage process. The additional offshore platforms, production wells, pipelines,
well (DTHW) pattern and pumps required for water production, however, increase the capital expenditure (CAPEX) of the project.
CO2storage capacity (CSC) Therefore, a CO2 injection method that can both improve the CSC and reduce the CAPEX is needed.
CAPEX
This paper proposes a dual-tubing CO2 injection-water production horizontal well (DTHW) pattern for im-
CCS
Performance
proving the CSC, in which CO2 is injected at the heel of the horizontal well while water is produced at the toe.
Pohang basin The CSC and CAPEX of the proposed DTHW pattern were then compared to those of other cases in a saline
Korea aquifer in the Pohang basin, offshore Korea.
The CCSPerformance (CSC to CAPEX ratio) of the proposed DTHW pattern was larger than that of a typical CO2
injection with a water production pattern for the all CO2 injection-water production rate cases. The proposed
DTHW pattern showed promising results in that the maximum CSC was improved by 98.2% compared to a single
vertical CO2 injection well pattern and the CAPEX was reduced by 37.1% compared to the typical CO2 injection
with a water production pattern. More CAPEX might be saved if a DTHW pattern is used in an onshore platform
near a power plant because an additional offshore platform and pipeline are not required.

1. Introduction
The CO2 emissions of Korea reached 679.7 million tons in 2017,
which was 2.45% higher than that of the previous year and was re-
sponsible for 2.03% of global CO2 emissions (world’s seventh largest
CO2 emitter) (BP Global, 2018). The Korean government has taken a
range of actions to reduce CO2 emissions and has established a strategy
for carbon capture and storage (CCS) as one of the alternatives. The
Pohang basin was selected as a site for a small-scale pilot project for
CCS in 2013 (Choi et al., 2017; Park et al., 2017; Lee et al., 2017).
CCS is an important technology for mitigating the global warming and
climate change through the permanent storage of CO2 in saline aquifers, un-
minable coal beds, and depleted oil and gas reservoirs (Metz et al., 2005;
Orr, 2018). Among these storage sites, deep saline aquifers provide the
largest CO2 storage capacity (CSC) owing to their large worldwide volu-
metric capacity (Metz et al., 2005). Various research aspects, such as CO2
migration, wettability, temperature, and the capillary, residual, and solu-
bility trapping, of CCS in deep saline aquifers have been studied. Doughty
et al. (2009) investigated the long-term behavior (plume migration distance
and the time evolution of CO2 phase) of a CO2 plume injected into a deep
saline formation. Al-Khdheeawi et al. (2017a) studied the impact of re-
servoir wettability on CO2 plume migration and residual and solubility
trapping capacities, and they found that CO2-wet reservoirs had the highest
CO2 vertical migration, while water-wet reservoirs best retain CO2.
Gershenzon et al. (2017) analyzed the capillary trapping mechanism in
heterogeneous fluvial-type reservoir during the CO2 injection period. Al-
Khdheeawi et al. (2018) studied the effect of wettability heterogeneity and
reservoir temperature on the vertical CO2 plume migration and residual and
solubility trapping capacities, and concluded that wettability heterogeneity
and reservoir temperature are important factors in the CCS.
The CO2 injected into a deep saline aquifer will increase the pore
pressure above the initial reservoir pressure (Buscheck et al., 2012).
This pressure build-up, particularly around the injection well, reduces
the CO2 injectivity and storage capacity (Buscheck et al., 2012). In
addition, excessive pressure build-up can cause the geological and hy-
drologic hazards, such as induced seismicity; fault reactivation; caprock
failure; and leakage through wells, faults, and fractures (Buscheck et al.,
2012; Zoback and Gorelick, 2012; Lu et al., 2012).

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: hyundon.shin@inha.ac.kr (H. Shin).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2019.102813
Received 20 February 2019; Received in revised form 21 July 2019; Accepted 16 August 2019
1750-5836/ © 2019 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
M. Kim and H. Shin International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 90 (2019) 102813

strategies on the enhancement of CSC and injectivity in a saline aquifer in

Nomenclature
Pohang basin, Korea.
The use of additional offshore platforms, production wells, pipe-
CCS carbon capture and storage
lines, and pumps required for water production, however, increases the
CSC CO2 storage capacity
capital expenditure (CAPEX) of the project (Noureldin et al., 2017;
CAPEX capital expenditure
Buscheck et al., 2012). In addition, the CAPEX of the project would be
CCSPerformance CSC to CAPEX ratio
increased further if the water production well is located in a deep-sea
Case (1) a single vertical CO2 injection well pattern
area because an offshore platform of the subsea or semi-submersible
Case (2) a single horizontal CO2 injection well pattern
types is used. Therefore, it is necessary to develop a CO2 injection
Case (3) a typical CO2 injection with water production pattern
method that can improve the CSC and reduce the CAPEX.
DTHW, Case (4) a dual-tubing CO2 injection-water production
A few studies have examined the use of a horizontal well for CO2
horizontal well pattern
injection. Yang et al. (2011) and Okwen et al. (2011) studied the effect
of completion, orientation, location, and length of a horizontal CO2
injection well on CO2 storage and injectivity in saline aquifers, but their
In recent years, numerous studies on pressure management through
results showed that the use of a horizontal well does not improve the
water production have been conducted to solve this problem. Buscheck
CSC significantly. Al-Khdheeawi et al. (2017b) compared the efficiency
et al. (2011, 2012) introduced active CO2 reservoir management, which
of a vertical CO2 injection well and horizontal CO2 injection well on
combines water production with CO2 injection to relieve the pressure build-
CO2 plume migration and trapping. They concluded that the horizontal
up, increase the CO2 injectivity, and manipulate CO2 migration. Buscheck
CO2 injection well reduces CO2 plume migration and its mobility
et al. (2014, 2016) also proposed that when CO2 breakthrough occurs in a
compared to those of the vertical injection well.
water production well, the water production well is repurposed for CO2
In this study, four cases of well patterns (Fig. 1) were generated and
injection and a deep monitoring well is repurposed for water production
simulated, including (1) single vertical CO2 injection well pattern, (2)
because of the continuous CO2 injection and pressure management. Cihan
single horizontal CO2 injection well pattern, (3) typical CO2 injection
et al. (2015) introduced a constrained differential evolution algorithm to
with water production pattern, and (4) dual-tubing CO2 injection-water
solve global optimization problems involving well placement and water
production horizontal well (DTHW) pattern. In addition, the CSC and
production. Ziemkiewicz et al. (2016) evaluated the potential for removing
CAPEX of the proposed DTHW pattern were then compared with those
water to produce an additional CSC at the GreenGen site in Tianjin, China.
of other cases in a saline aquifer in Pohang basin, offshore Korea.
Hwang et al. (2016) analyzed the effects of water production rates and its

Fig. 1. Four cases of well patterns for CO2 storage in this study.

2
M. Kim and H. Shin
Fig. 2. Geological model constructed by detailed depth conversion and interpretation of 3D seismic data at the Korea Institute of Geoscience and Mineral Resources
(KIGAM) (Choi et al., 2017 and Lee et al., 2017).
Fig. 3. 3D cross-section of the reservoir model showing the depth (m) and faults.
2. Methodology
2.1. Design of well patterns for CO2 storage
Numerical simulations were performed for four well patterns
(Fig. 1), which involved injecting CO2 into a saline aquifer in Pohang
basin, offshore Korea as follows: (1) single vertical CO2 injection well
pattern, (2) single horizontal CO2 injection well pattern, (3) typical CO2
injection with water production pattern, and (4) DTHW pattern. This
study proposes a DTHW pattern for improving the CSC and decreasing
the CAPEX, in which CO2 is injected at the heel of the horizontal well
while water is produced at the toe of the horizontal well (Fig. 1d). The
CSC of a DTHW pattern is expected to be larger than those of cases (1)
and (2) because of absence of pressure management through water
production. In addition, it can be expected that the CAPEX of a DTHW
pattern would be lower than that of case (3) because of the reduced
costs of an offshore platform and pipeline.
2.2. Model description and numerical simulation
The geological model of a saline aquifer in Pohang basin, offshore
Korea (Fig. 2), was constructed using Petrel software by the Korea In-
stitute of Geoscience and Mineral Resources (KIGAM) (Choi et al., 2017;
Park et al., 2017; Lee et al., 2017; Park et al., 2019). As shown Fig. 3,
3
International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 90 (2019) 102813
the depth of the aquifer varied from 611 m to 866 m due to the concave
geological structure. The corner point grid was used to model the study
area. The model is consisted of 95, 152, and 36 grids in the x-, y-, and z-
directions, respectively. Each grid block was approximately 20 m in the
x- and y-directions. Two target reservoirs were placed in the geological
model. The vertical thickness of reservoir A (upper aquifer) and re-
servoir B (lower aquifer) was approximately 10 m and 14 m, respec-
tively, and both were divided vertically into 12 layers (reservoir
A = layer 1 to 12 and reservoir B = layer 25 to 36). The faults located
in Pohang basin were included in the geological model, such as fault A
(WF2), fault B (EF2), and fault C (EF1) (Park et al., 2017; Lee et al.,
2017). In addition, it was assumed that the top, bottom, and lateral
boundaries of the aquifers were closed because there is no geological
information of southwest and northeast (Choi et al., 2017; Park et al.,
2017, 2019).
The numerical simulations were conducted using the GEM reservoir
simulator by the Computer Modelling Group (CMG’s GEM) for model-
ling CO2 storage in a saline aquifer (CMG’s, 2017; Kumar et al., 2005;
Nghiem et al., 2010; Wriedt et al., 2014). Table 1 lists the properties of
the reservoir model for the numerical simulation. The reservoir pres-
sure was calculated assuming a formation pressure gradient of 10 MPa/
km. As shown Fig. 4, the relative permeability and capillary pressure of
gas/liquid used in simulation were based on the special core analysis
(SCAL) results of Donghae-1 gas field in the southeastern Sea of Korea
M. Kim and H. Shin International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 90 (2019) 102813

Table 1 breakthrough, and the minimum bottom hole pressure at water pro-
Properties of the reservoir model for numerical simulation. duction was assumed to be 7 MPa. The CO2 injection and storage per-
Reservoir Properties Reservoir A Between Reservoir B iods were 50 years in total. The perforations of the vertical well of cases
(Upper Aquifer) reservoir A and (Lower Aquifer) (1) and (3) were set in all layers. Because the layer 33 is in low porosity
reservoir B zone such as flow barrier, the horizontal wells of cases (2) and (4) were
located vertically on the layer 32, which has good reservoir properties
Porosity 0.010–0.340 0.010–0.213 0.010–0.284
(Average: 0.157) (Average: 0.071) (Average: 0.204)
in reservoir B (Fig. 5). In addition, the perforations of dual tubing of
Vertical permeability 0.0001–38.69 0.0001–1.43 0.0001–11.23 case (4) were set to 50 m each at the heel and toe of the horizontal well
(md) (Average: 6.75) (Average: 0.085) (Average: 3.24) (Fig. 5). Also, the tubing size at the heel and toe of the horizontal well
Vertical-horizontal 0.1 was assumed to be 1.5 and 1.0 in., respectively.
permeability ratio
Reservoir temperature 55
(°C)
2.3. Well placements of various well pattern cases
Pressure at the 750 m 7.5
(Mpa)
Salinity (mol NaCl/kg 0.1 In this study, the location of the offshore platform and well for CO2
H2O) injection of all the well pattern cases was assumed to be same, and the
length and direction of the horizontal well or the distance between
injection/production wells and their location were designed, as shown
(Kim et al., 2018). The maximum residual gas saturation was assumed in Figs. 6 through 8. The CO2 injection well of case (1) used a vertical
to be 0.4 for the hysteresis effect in gas relative permeability in this well drilled for the CCS in the Pohang basin, offshore Korea (Figs. 2 and
study (Juanes et al., 2006; Nghiem et al., 2010). 3) (Choi et al., 2017; Park et al., 2017; Lee et al., 2017). As shown
The CO2 and water were injected/produced concurrently at a con- Fig. 6, a single horizontal CO2 injection well pattern was designed in 6
stant flow rate of 20, 35, 50, or 65 tons/d. The CO2 injection was scenarios according to the length and direction of the horizontal well
stopped when the injection pressure reached 14 MPa or when the re- and faults. The horizontal length of cases (2A), (2B), and (2C) was
activation pressure of faults A, B, and C reached 13 MPa (Park et al., 500 m, and that of cases (2D), (2E), and (2 F) was 700 m. In this study,
2017; Lee et al., 2017). In addition, the water production was stopped the toe of the horizontal well of case (2) was assumed to be in the same
when the gas production rate exceeded 10 m3/d due to CO2 position as the water production well in case (3). Furthermore, the

Fig. 4. Relative permeability and capillary pressure curves of simulation model (Kim et al., 2018).

Fig. 5. J–K plane of simulation model for applying a DTHW pattern (case (4)).

4
M. Kim and H. Shin International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 90 (2019) 102813

Fig. 6. Various lengths and directions of a single horizontal CO2 injection well pattern (case (2)): horizontal well length of 500 m (left) and horizontal well length of
700 m (right).

5
M. Kim and H. Shin International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 90 (2019) 102813

Fig. 7. Various locations and distances of a typical CO2 injection with water production pattern (case (3)): distance between injection/production wells of 500 m
(left) and distance between injection/production wells of 700 m (right).

horizontal well length in case (2) was assumed to be equal to the length 2.4. Performance measures
of the horizontal well with the dual tubing in case (4). Therefore, the
various locations/directions and distances/lengths of cases (3) and (4) To compare the various well patterns, the following indicator based
were designed in the same pattern, as shown in Figs. 7 and 8. on the CSC and CAPEX was implemented:

6
M. Kim and H. Shin International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 90 (2019) 102813

Fig. 8. Various lengths and directions of a DTHW pattern (case (4)): horizontal well length of 500 m (left) and horizontal well length of 700 m (right).

CCSPerformance =
CSC (kton). The CAPEXs of all the well pattern cases were calculated con-
CAPEX (1) sidering the estimated costs of the offshore platforms, drilling, pipe-
lines, and pumps (Table 2). The costs of the horizontal injection well
where CSC has the same meaning as the cumulative injection gas and horizontal well with dual tubing were estimated using the

7
M. Kim and H. Shin International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 90 (2019) 102813

Table 2
Estimated costs of offshore platforms, drilling, pipelines, and pumps for CO2 storage projects.
Symbol Description and cost ($MM) Comments

a
A Offshore platform only 16.15 –
B Vertical injection wellb 7.9 C = B + (cost per horizontal length × 1200 m)
C Horizontal injection well (length: 1200 m)b 12.9 Cost per horizontal length = 0.42 ($MM/100 m)
D Horizontal injection well (length: 500 m) 10 D = B + (0.42 × 5) = 10.00 ($MM)
E Horizontal injection well (length: 700 m) 10.84 E = B + (0.42 × 7) = 10.84 ($MM)
F Vertical production wellb 6.7 –
G Horizontal alternating water/gas (WAG) injection well 14 Assume that the cost of horizontal well with dual tubing (H) is similar to horizontal alternating
(length: 1200 m)b water/gas (WAG) injection well (G)
H = B + (cost per horizontal length with dual tubing × 1200 m)
H Horizontal well with dual tubing (CO2 injection-water 15 Cost per horizontal length with dual tubing = 0.59 ($MM/100 m)
production) (length: 1200 m)
I Horizontal well with dual tubing (CO2 injection-water 10.85 I = B + (0.59 × 5) = 10.85 ($MM)
production) (length: 500 m)
J Horizontal well with dual tubing (CO2 injection-water 12.03 J = B + (0.59 × 7) = 12.03 ($MM)
production) (length: 700 m)
K CO2 transport pipelineb 37.6 Assume that the length of CO2 and water transport pipeline with dual tubing (M) is equal to the length
L Water transport pipelineb 14.3 of CO2 transport pipeline (K)
M CO2 and water transport pipeline with dual tubing 40 Cost of M is assumed considering the K and L
N CO2 pumping station at injection siteb 5.3 –
O Water pumping station at injection siteb 4.9 –
P Water pumping station at disposal siteb 4.2 –

a
Kim and Choi (2017).
b
Noureldin et al. (2017).

Table 3
Simulation results and calculated CAPEX for a single vertical CO2 injection well pattern.
Well Patterns CO2 Inj. Rate (ton/ CO2 Inj. Period Calculated CAPEX using estimated cost with symbol in Table 2 ($MM) CSC (kton) CCSPerformance (kton/$MM)
d) (years)

Case (1) 20 17.30 CAPEX1 = A + B + K + N 66.95 126.29 1.886

35 9.94 126.94 1.896
50 6.96 127.09 1.898
65 5.38 127.75 1.908

Table 4
Simulation results and calculated CAPEX for a single horizontal CO2 injection well pattern.
Well Patterns CO2 Inj. Rate (ton/ CO2 Inj. Period Calculated CAPEX using estimated cost with symbol in Table 2 ($MM) CSC (kton) CCSPerformance (kton/$MM)
d) (years)

Case (2A) 20 16.12 CAPEX2_500m = A+D + K + N 69.05 117.68 1.704

35 8.85 113.12 1.638
50 5.94 108.40 1.570
65 4.34 103.02 1.492
Case (2B) 20 16.21 118.30 1.713
35 8.94 114.21 1.654
50 5.94 108.40 1.570
65 4.34 103.02 1.492
Case (2C) 20 16.21 118.30 1.713
35 8.94 114.21 1.654
50 5.94 108.40 1.570
65 4.34 103.02 1.492
Case (2D) 20 16.29 CAPEX2_700m = A + E + K + N 69.89 118.92 1.702
35 8.94 114.21 1.634
50 5.94 108.40 1.551
65 4.34 103.02 1.474
Case (2E) 20 16.21 118.30 1.693
35 8.94 114.21 1.634
50 5.94 108.40 1.551
65 4.34 103.02 1.474
Case (2F) 20 16.21 118.30 1.693
35 8.94 114.21 1.634
50 5.94 108.40 1.551
65 4.34 103.02 1.474

following equation: (a) cost of the horizontal injection well = cost of tubing × horizontal length). The processing cost of produced gas was
the vertical injection well + (cost per horizontal length × horizontal not considered because the volume of produced gas during CO2
length) and (b) cost of the horizontal well with dual tubing = cost of breakthrough was small in this study.
the vertical injection well + (cost per horizontal length with dual

8
M. Kim and H. Shin International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 90 (2019) 102813

Table 5
Simulation results and calculated CAPEX for a typical CO2 injection with a water production pattern.
Well Patterns CO2 Inj./ CO2 Inj. Time of CO2 Calculated CAPEX using estimated cost with symbol in Table 2 ($MM) CSC (kton) CCSPerformance
Water Prod. Period breakthrough (years) (kton/$MM)
Rate (ton/d) (years)

Case (3A) 20 20.01 4.53 CAPEX3 = 2 × A + B + F + K + L + N + O + P 113.20 146.08 1.290

35 11.51 2.60 147.02 1.299
50 8.09 1.82 147.65 1.304
65 6.31 1.41 149.67 1.322
Case (3B) 20 21.56 7.19 157.36 1.390
35 11.95 3.36 152.60 1.348
50 8.34 2.15 152.16 1.344
65 6.40 1.65 151.84 1.341
Case (3C) 20 20.14 4.86 146.96 1.298
35 11.85 3.12 151.41 1.338
50 8.38 2.36 152.97 1.351
65 6.62 1.92 156.94 1.386
Case (3D) 20 32.82 28.02 239.53 2.116
35 17.28 12.59 220.78 1.950
50 11.80 7.97 215.28 1.902
65 8.98 5.89 213.11 1.883
Case (3E) 20 32.05 26.64 233.96 2.067
35 16.72 11.59 213.58 1.887
50 11.44 7.49 208.85 1.845
65 8.73 5.53 207.15 1.830
Case (3 F) 20 24.11 11.90 176.00 1.555
35 14.03 6.94 179.25 1.583
50 10.09 5.21 184.20 1.627
65 7.90 4.17 187.36 1.655

Table 6
Simulation results and calculated CAPEX for a DTHW pattern.
Well Patterns CO2 Inj./Water CO2 Inj. Time of CO2 Calculated CAPEX using estimated cost with symbol in Table 2 CSC (kton) CCSPerformance (kton/
Prod. Rate Period breakthrough (years) ($MM) $MM)
(ton/d) (years)

Case (4A) 20 20.95 7.94 CAPEX4_500m = A+I + M + N + O + P 81.40 152.90 1.878

35 11.37 4.00 145.21 1.784
50 7.68 2.69 140.25 1.723
65 5.60 2.00 132.86 1.632
Case (4B) 20 19.86 6.18 144.96 1.781
35 10.94 3.31 139.79 1.717
50 7.43 2.27 135.60 1.666
65 5.52 1.80 130.84 1.607
Case (4C) 20 19.10 4.92 139.38 1.712
35 10.77 3.02 137.62 1.691
50 7.43 2.28 135.60 1.666
65 5.35 1.77 127.00 1.560
Case (4D) 20 34.69 31.13 CAPEX4_700m = A + J + M + N + O + P 82.58 253.23 3.066
35 16.12 11.62 205.97 2.494
50 10.77 7.57 196.59 2.381
65 8.09 5.55 191.94 2.324
Case (4E) 20 31.89 26.47 232.76 2.819
35 15.53 10.69 198.39 2.402
50 10.60 7.24 193.51 2.343
65 8.09 5.77 191.94 2.324
Case (4F) 20 22.90 11.37 167.15 2.024
35 12.90 6.51 164.74 1.995
50 9.09 4.87 165.95 2.010
65 6.85 3.87 162.63 1.969

3. Results
3.1. Single vertical CO2 injection well pattern- case (1)
For case (1), the CO2 injection rate was assumed to be 20, 35, 50,
and 65 ton/d. Table 3 lists the simulation r esults and calculated CAPEX
for case (1) related to the CO2 injection rate. As the CO2 injection rate
for case (1) increased, the CSC increased slightly, and the CO2 injection
period decreased because the pressure of fault A quickly reached the
reactivation pressure of 13 Mpa. The maximum CCSPerformance for case
(1) was 1.908 at a CO2 injection rate of 65 ton/d. A comparison of case
(1) with case (2) revealed a vertical well for CO2 injection to be more
effective than a horizontal well considering the CSC and CAPEX (Tables
3 and 4). In addition, as shown in Tables 3, 5 and 6, the CCSPerformance
for case (1) was higher than that of cases (3A), (3B), (3C), (3F), (4A),
(4B), and (4C). Therefore, the unoptimized pressure-management well
pattern through water production may less effective than case (1).
3.2. Single horizontal CO2 injection well pattern- case (2)
The CO2 injection rate for case (2) was assumed to be 20, 35, 50,
and 65 ton/d. Table 4 lists simulation results and calculated CAPEX for

9
M. Kim and H. Shin
Fig. 9. Comparison of the well bottom-hole pressure for case (1), case (2D), and
CO2 injection rate of 20 and 50 ton/d.
case (2) related to the CO2 injection rate and various lengths and di-
rections. As the CO2 injection rate for case (2) was increased, the CSC
decreased, which is opposite to that observed with case (1) because the
pressure build-up of case (2) was faster than that of case (1), as shown
in Fig. 9. The reason is that the horizontal CO2 injection well has a large
Fig. 10. Comparison of the gas production rate at the water production well for case (3) and CO2 injection rate: 500 m between the injection/production wells (top)
and 700 m between the injection/production wells (bottom).
10
International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 90 (2019) 102813
contact area than the vertical well and reduces CO2 plume migration
and CO2 mobility compared to the vertical well (Al-Khdheeawi et al.,
2017b). The difference in CSC according to the assumed lengths and
directions of case (2) was not large (Table 4). For case (2), the max-
imum CCSPerformance was 1.713 at a horizontal length of 500 m, direc-
tion B and C, and the CO2 injection rate was 20 tons/d. Moreover, the
CCSPerformance of case (2) was the lowest of all cases.
3.3. Typical CO2 injection with a water production pattern- case (3)
For case (3), the CO2 injection/water production rate was assumed
to be 20, 35, 50, and 65 tons/d. Table 5 lists the simulation results and
calculated CAPEX for case (3) related to the CO2 injection/water pro-
duction rate and various locations and distances. As the CO2 injection/
water production rate for case (3) was increased, the CSC of cases (3A),
(3C), and (3F) increased, as in case (1), but the CSC of cases (3B), (3D),
and (3E) decreased. Because this geological model is inclined from the
south to the north, as shown Fig. 3, the location of the CO2 injection/
water production wells in cases (3B), (3D), and (3E) can be interpreted
as a typical CO2 injection with a water production pattern in a dipping
reservoir. In addition, after CO2 breakthrough, the gas production rate
at the water production well for cases (3B), (3D), and (3E) increased
slowly compared to the gas rate of the other cases (Fig. 10) because a
dipping reservoir has the effect of delaying the movement of a CO2
plume to the water production well (Buscheck et al., 2012). In addition,
as the CO2 injection/water production rate for cases (3B), (3D), and
(3E) decreases constantly, the period until the gas production rate at the
water production well exceeds 10 m3/d is exponentially longer
(Fig. 10). Therefore, the CSC of cases (3B), (3D), and (3E) increases
with decreasing CO2 injection/water production rate for the above
reasons. The maximum CCSPerformance for case (3) was 2.116 at a 700 m
distance between injection/production wells, direction D, and a CO2
M. Kim and H. Shin
Fig. 11. Effect of the CO2 injection/water production rate for various directions of cases (3) and (4) on the CSC.
Fig. 12. Effect of the CO2 injection/water production rate for the various directions of cases (3) and (4) on CCSPerformance.
injection/water production rate of 20 ton/d.
3.4. DTHW pattern-case (4)
The CO2 injection/water production rate for case (4) was assumed
to be 20, 35, 50, and 65 ton/d. Table 6 lists the simulation results and
calculated CAPEX for case (4) related to the CO2 injection/water pro-
duction rate and various lengths and directions. As the CO2 injection/
water production rate for case (4) is increased, the CSC decreases, as in
case (2). A comparison of the CSCs of cases (3) and (4) revealed the CSC
of case (3) to be larger than that of case (4) at a CO2 injection/water
production rate of 35 ton/d or more (Fig. 11). On the other hand, for
the CCSPerformance, considering the CAPEX, case (3) was smaller than
case (4) at all CO2 injection/water production rates (Fig. 12). In addi-
tion, if the CO2 injection/water production rate was 50 ton/d, the CSC
of case (4D) would be 91.3% of that of case (3D), but the CAPEX of case
(4D) was $30.62 MM lower than that of case (3D). The maximum
CCSPerformance for case (4) was 3.066 at a horizontal length of 700 m,
direction D, and a CO2 injection rate of 20 ton/d. The proposed DTHW
pattern is recommended because the maximum CSC of case (4D) has
been improved by 98.2% compared to case (1) and the CAPEX was
reduced by 37.1% compared to case (3). In addition, if a DTHW pattern
11
International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 90 (2019) 102813
is used in an onshore platform near a power plant, more CAPEX might
be saved because an offshore platform and pipeline are not required, as
shown in Fig. 13.
4. Conclusions
The proposed DTHW pattern for improving CSC and reducing
CAPEX was studied in a saline aquifer in Pohang basin, offshore Korea.
The following conclusions were drawn.
This paper proposed a DTHW pattern for improving the CSC and
reducing the CAPEX, in which CO2 is injected at the heel of the hor-
izontal well while water is produced at the toe. The CSC of the proposed
DTHW pattern was expected to be larger than that of a single well
pattern because of absence of pressure management through water
production. In addition, the proposed DTHW pattern has the ad-
vantages of cost reduction compared to a typical CO2 injection with a
water production pattern.
A comparison of the single well patterns (vertical and horizontal
well) revealed a vertical well for CO2 injection to be more effective than
a horizontal well, considering the CSC and CAPEX. In addition,
CCSPerformance for a single vertical CO2 injection well pattern was higher
than that of cases (3A), (3B), (3C), (3 F), (4A), (4B), and (4C).
M. Kim and H. Shin
Fig. 13. DTHW pattern for CO2 storage in offshore saline aquifer using onshore platform.
Therefore, the unoptimized pressure-management well pattern through
water production may less effective than a single vertical CO2 injection
well pattern.
A comparison of the pressure-management well patterns through
water production (vertical well and horizontal well with dual tubing)
revealed the CCSPerformance of a DTHW pattern to be larger than that of a
typical CO2 injection with a water production pattern at all CO2 in-
jection/water production rates. If the CO2 injection/water production
rate is 50 ton/d and in the D direction, the CSC of a DTHW pattern is
91.3% of that of a typical CO2 injection with a water production pat-
tern. In contrast, the CAPEX of a DTHW pattern is $30.62 MM lower
than that of a typical CO2 injection with a water production pattern.
The proposed DTHW pattern showed promising results in that the
maximum CSC of DTHW pattern had been improved by 98.2% com-
pared to a single vertical CO2 injection well pattern and the CAPEX was
reduced by 37.1% compared to a typical CO2 injection with a water
production pattern. More CAPEX might be saved if a DTHW pattern is
used in an onshore platform near a power plant because an additional
offshore platform and pipeline are not required.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influ-
ence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgements
This study was supported by the Demonstration-scale Offshore CO2
Storage Project in Pohang Basin, Korea (20162010201980) and
Development of State-of-the-Art Characterization and Assessment
Methods for Shale Gas Plays in Western Canada (20178510030880) by
The Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy (MOTIE). The research was
conducted through the Department of Energy Resources Engineering at
Inha University, Korea. The authors also thank Schlumberger for
granting the Petrel Software.
References
Al-Khdheeawi, E.A., Vialle, S., Barifcani, A., Sarmadivaleh, M., Iglauer, S., 2017a. Impact
of reservoir wettability and heterogeneity on CO2-plume migration and trapping
capacity. Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control. 58, 142–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.
12
International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 90 (2019) 102813
2017.01.012.
Al-Khdheeawi, E.A., Vialle, S., Barifcani, A., Sarmadivaleh, M., Iglauer, S., 2017b.
Influence of injection well configuration and rock wettability on CO2 plume beha-
viour and CO2 trapping capacity in heterogeneous reservoirs. J. Nat. Gas Sci. Eng. 43,
190–206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jngse.2017.03.016.
Al-Khdheeawi, E.A., Vialle, S., Barifcani, A., Sarmadivaleh, M., Iglauer, S., 2018. Effect of
wettability heterogeneity and reservoir temperature on CO2 storage efficiency in
deep saline aquifers. Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control. 68, 216–229. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.ijggc.2017.11.016.
Global, B.P., 2018. BP Statistical Review of World Energy. June. . https://www.bp.com/
content/dam/bp/en/corporate/pdf/energy-economics/statistical-review/bp-stats-
review-2018-full-report.pdf.
Buscheck, T.A., et al., 2011. Combining brine extraction, desalination, and residual-brine
reinjection with CO2 storage in saline formations: implications for pressure man-
agement, capacity, and risk mitigation. Energy Procedia 4, 4283–4290. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.egypro.2011.02.378.
Buscheck, T.A., et al., 2012. Active CO2 reservoir management for carbon storage: ana-
lysis of operational strategies to relieve pressure buildup and improve injectivity. Int.
J. Greenh. Gas Control. 6, 230–245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2011.11.007.
Buscheck, T.A., et al., 2014. Pre-injection brine production for managing pressure in
compartmentalized CO2 storage reservoirs. Energy Procedia 63 (C). https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.egypro.2014.11.565.
Buscheck, T.A., et al., 2016. Pre-injection brine production in CO2storage reservoirs: An
approach to augment the development, operation, and performance of CCS while
generating water. Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control. 54, 499–512. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ijggc.2016.04.018.
Choi, B.Y., Shinn, Y.J., Park, Y.C., Park, J., Kwon, Y.K., Kim, K.Y., 2017. Simulation of
CO2 injection in a small-scale pilot site in the Pohang Basin, Korea: effect of dis-
solution rate of chlorite on mineral trapping. Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control. 59, 1–12.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2017.02.001.
Cihan, A., Birkholzer, J.T., Bianchi, M., 2015. Optimal well placement and brine ex-
traction for pressure management during CO2 sequestration. Int. J. Greenh. Gas
Control. 42, 175–187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2015.07.025.
CMG’s, G.E.M., 2017. User’s Guide (Version 2017.10). Computer Modelling Group Ltd.,
Calgary, AB, Canada.
Doughty, C., Myer, L.R., Oldenburg, C.M., 2009. Predictions of long-term behavior of a
large-volume pilot test for CO2 geological storage in a saline formation in the Central
Valley. California. Energy Procedia 1 (1), 3291–3298. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
egypro.2009.02.115.
Gershenzon, N.I., Ritzi Jr., R.W., Dominic, D.F., Mehnert, E., Okwen, R.T., 2017. Capillary
trapping of CO2 in heterogeneous reservoirs during the injection period. Int. J.
Greenh. Gas Control. 59, 13–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2017.02.002.
Hwang, J., Baek, S., Lee, H., Jung, W., Sung, W., 2016. Evaluation of CO2 storage capacity
and injectivity using a relief well in a saline aquifer in Pohang basin, offshore South
Korea. Geosci. J. 20 (2), 239–245. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12303-015-0038-x.
Juanes, R., Spiteri, E.J., Orr Jr., F.M., Blunt, M.J., 2006. Impact of relative permeability
hysteresis on geological CO2 storage. Water Resour. Res. 42 (12). https://doi.org/10.
1029/2005WR004806.
Kim, J., Choi, J., 2017. A preliminary estimation of CCS injection cost with recycling
injection equipments. J. Korean Soc. Miner. Energy Resour. Eng. 54 (5), 533–540.
https://doi.org/10.12972/ksmer.2017.54.5.533.
Kim, N., et al., 2018. The stability assessment of an aquifer in Pohang Yeongil Bay due to
CO2 injection. J. Eng. Geol. 28 (2), 183–192. https://doi.org/10.9720/kseg.2018.2.
183.
M. Kim and H. Shin
Kumar, A., Noh, M.H., Ozah, R.C., Pope, G.A., Bryant, S.L., Sepehrnoori, K., Lake, L.W.,
2005. Reservoir simulation of CO2 storage in aquifers. Spe J. 10 (3), 336–348.
https://doi.org/10.2118/89343-PA.
Lee, H., Shinn, Y.J., Ong, S.H., Woo, S.W., Park, K.G., Lee, T.J., Moon, S.W., 2017. Fault
reactivation potential of an offshore CO2 storage site, Pohang Basin, South Korea. J.
Pet. Sci. Eng. 152, 427–442. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2017.03.014.
Lu, C., Sun, Y., Buscheck, T.A., Hao, Y., White, J.A., Chiaramonte, L., 2012. Uncertainty
quantification of CO2 leakage through a fault with multiphase and nonisothermal
effects. Greenh. Gases Sci. Technol. 2 (6), 445–459. https://doi.org/10.1002/ghg.
1309.
Metz, B., Davidson, O., De Coninck, H.C., Loos, M., Meyer, L.A., 2005. IPCC, 2005: IPCC
Special Report on Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage. Prepared by Working Group
III of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge, United Kingdom
and New York, NY, USA, pp. 442. https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/special-reports/srccs/
srccs_wholereport.pdf.
Nghiem, L., Shrivastava, V., Kohse, B., Hassam, M., Yang, C., 2010. Simulation and op-
timization of trapping processes for CO2 storage in saline aquifers. J. Can. Pet.
Technol. 49 (8), 15–22. https://doi.org/10.2118/139429-PA.
Noureldin, M., Allinson, W.G., Cinar, Y., Baz, H., 2017. Coupling risk of storage and
economic metrics for CCS projects. Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control. 60, 59–73. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2017.03.008.
Okwen, R., Stewart, M., Cunningham, J., 2011. Effect of well orientation (vertical vs.
horizontal) and well length on the injection of CO2 in deep saline aquifers. Transp.
13
International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 90 (2019) 102813
Porous Media 90 (1), 219–232. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11242-010-9686-5.
Orr Jr., F.M., 2018. Carbon capture, utilization, and storage: an update. Spe J. 23 (6),
2–444. https://doi.org/10.2118/194190-PA.
Park, Y.C., Shinn, Y.J., Lee, H., Choi, B.Y., 2017. Assessing CO2 Storage Capacity of a
Steeply Dipping, Fault Bounded Aquifer and Effect of Impurity in CO2 Stream. Energy
Procedia 114, 4735–4740. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2017.03.1611.
Park, Y.C., Kim, S., Lee, J.H., Shinn, Y.J., 2019. Effect of reducing irreducible water sa-
turation in a near-well region on CO2 injectivity and storage capacity. Int. J. Greenh.
Gas Control. 86, 134–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2019.04.014.
Wriedt, J., Deo, M., Han, W.S., Lepinski, J., 2014. A methodology for quantifying risk and
likelihood of failure for carbon dioxide injection into deep saline reservoirs. Int. J.
Greenh. Gas Control. 20, 196–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2013.10.021.
Yang, F., Bai, B., Dunn-Norman, S., 2011. Modeling the effects of completion techniques
and formation heterogeneity on CO2 sequestration in shallow and deep saline aqui-
fers. Environ. Earth Sci. 64 (3), 841–849. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-011-
0908-0.
Ziemkiewicz, P., et al., 2016. Opportunities for increasing CO2 storage in deep, saline
formations by active reservoir management and treatment of extracted formation
water: case study at the GreenGen IGCC facility, Tianjin, PR China. Int. J. Greenh. Gas
Control. 54, 538–556. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2016.07.039.
Zoback, M.D., Gorelick, S.M., 2012. Earthquake triggering and large-scale geologic sto-
rage of carbon dioxide. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 109 (26), 10164–10168. https://doi.
org/10.1073/pnas.1202473109.