166 ENVIRONMENTAL GEOSCIENCES
The GEODISC Program: Research into
Geological Sequestration of CO2 in Australia
JOHN BRADSHAW* and ANDY RIGG‡
*Australian Petroleum Cooperative Research Centre, Australian Geological Survey Organisation, GPO Box 378, Canberra ACT 2601, Australia
‡Australian Petroleum Cooperative Research Centre, GPO Box 463, Canberra ACT 2601, Australia
ABSTRACT •
The GEODISC research program is being jointly funded by the
Australian government and several of the nation’s gas producers.
It is designed to address key technical, commercial, and envi-
ronmental issues associated with geological sequestration of CO2
in Australia. Some of the largest point source emitters of CO2 in
Australia are liquefied natural gas (LNG) plants. As some of the
gas fields to be developed in the near future have higher CO2
content than currently producing fields, emissions are projected
to increase. GEODISC is currently in year two of its planned
4-year program. The results of the research will have application
both within Australia and internationally. The work is being done
initially at a regional scale, examining all potential sedimentary
basins in Australia, followed by detailed analysis at the most
promising sites. Comparison of the sites at the regional scale is
being done using deterministic risk analysis. Data from Austra-
lian reservoirs show large variance to that used in the published
reservoir simulations from Europe. As such, research is being
focused into topics, such as storage efficiency, that are consid-
ered critical to the successful implementation of the findings
from GEODISC. Results to date indicate that there is excellent
potential to sequester CO2 in all of the major sedimentary basins
of Australia. Estimates to date from only 49 sites (ignoring the
specific economic viability of individual sites), indicate that
there is a risked total pore volume capacity to store 1000 times
the annual (1998) emissions of CO2 for Australia. The actual
total capacity value of sedimentary basins to sequester CO2 is
likely to be several orders of magnitude higher than this figure.
Key Words: Australia, GEODISC, sequestration, CO2, storage
efficiency, risk.
INTRODUCTION •
Following the Conference of Parties to the Framework
Convention on Climate Change in Kyoto in December
1997, the outcome for Australia’s commitment to green-
house gas emissions was an allowance of 8% growth in total
emissions (expressed as CO2 equivalents) above 1990 lev-
els. Despite being an increase, this allowance represents a
considerable challenge and requires Australia to implement
© 2001, AAPG/DEG, 1075-9565/00/$15.00/0
Environmental Geosciences, Volume 8, Number 3, 2001 166–176
strategies for reducing emissions from existing operations
and to restrain those for planned developments. The Austra-
lian Greenhouse Office (AGO) has indicated on their web-
site that Australia’s net greenhouse gas emissions in 1990
were 389.8 million tonnes CO2 equivalent, growing to
455.9 million tonnes CO2 equivalent in 1998. With the addi-
tion of emissions due to land clearing, these numbers are
493.3 and 519.9 million tonnes CO2 equivalent, respec-
tively.
GEODISC is a jointly funded program between the Aus-
tralian government and most of the major gas producers in
Australia, and is examining the potential for geological se-
questration of CO2 in Australia. Cook et al. (2000) provides
a detailed description of the objectives of GEODISC and
the rationale for considering geological sequestration in
Australia. GEODISC is being conducted through the Aus-
tralian Petroleum Cooperative Research Centre (APCRC),
which comprises both government and university geologi-
cal research centers. Funding for GEODISC comprises al-
most A$2.5 million per annum of cash and in-kind contribu-
tions.
PROGRAM OUTLINE
GEODISC commenced on July 1, 1999 after extensive
consultation with industry regarding the issues, priorities,
and available data. Wherever possible international research
and development experience is being applied and modified
to suit the conditions that prevail in Australia. An example
of this is the current reexamination of the critical factor of
storage efficiency that will be discussed in detail later.
The first phase of the program is the identification of
those geological formations in each sedimentary basin with
the most appropriate parameters to sequester large volumes
of CO2. The parameters include the physical characteristics
of the target reservoir and seal formations, and also the tem-
perature, structural setting, stress regime, and hydrogeology
of the surrounding basin that directly affects those forma-
tions. The major output from this work will be injectivity
maps for each sedimentary basin.
The second phase of GEODISC will involve more de-
tailed studies at specific sites within key basins. This will
include prediction of CO2-trapping mechanisms from mod-
eling of the water-CO2-rock interactions, economic model-
 BRADSHAW AND RIGG: THE GEODISC PROGRAM
ing for transportation, compression and injection, examin-
ing technology for monitoring the movement of the CO2,
and investigation of any environmental or safety issues.
Physical and chemical attributes of Australia’s naturally oc-
curring CO2 accumulations will also be studied in support
of these predictions.
GEODISC thus comprises 10 specific projects, being:
1. regional analysis
2. site-specific analysis
3. CO2 reactions and coupled model development (mass
transport)
4. petrophysics and geomechanics
5. reservoir simulation (mass flow)
6. monitoring
7. risk and uncertainty
8. economic model
9. international collaboration
10. natural analogs
As can be seen from Figure 1 the main projects that have
been operating to date and producing results include
Projects 1, 2, 3, 8, and 9. This article will focus on some of
the general outcomes from the existing research, but will
not deal with specific sites that have been examined as these
currently are subject to confidentiality arrangements with
the sponsoring group.
FIGURE 1: GEODISC project timetable.
167
Geological Options for CO2 Sequestration
Figure 2 shows the various geological settings where CO2
might be sequestered. The options include the use and stor-
age of CO2 in
1. enhanced oil recovery
2. enhanced coal seam methane recovery
3. depleted oil and gas reservoirs
4. deep unmineable coal seams
5. large voids and cavities
6. deep unused saline water saturated reservoir rocks
For various reasons, described below, some of these op-
tions have no or limited application within the geological
settings in Australia. The application of each concept fo-
cuses on the technical, social, environmental, and economic
viability as it relates to Australian conditions.
Enhanced Oil Recovery
Enhanced oil recovery (EOR) using injected CO2 has
been practiced in the oil industry for several decades. In
places such as the Permian Basin in Texas, CO2 is a valu-
able resource that is piped hundreds of kilometers from Col-
orado to be injected into oil fields to increase the recovery
of oil (Holtz et al., 2001; Stevens et al., 2001). However, in
Australia most of the crudes are light with good reservoir
characteristics, strong water drives, and high recovery fac-
 168 ENVIRONMENTAL GEOSCIENCES
FIGURE 2: Options for the geological disposal of CO2 (from Cook, 1998).
tors, thus reducing the potential target volumes left in the
ground. In 1990, the volume of remaining oil that could be
recovered in Australia using CO2 floods was estimated as
being 709 million barrels at oil prices of US$20 per barrel
(Wright et al., 1991). The amount of CO2 that would be re-
quired to recover this 709 million barrels of currently eco-
nomically recoverable oil would be of the order of 100–200
million tonnes CO2. The actual sequestration capacity
would depend on the details of each CO2 EOR flood and on
whether an economic credit was available for CO2 seques-
tration.
To recover the additional technically feasible but cur-
rently uneconomic EOR potential (1733 million barrels;
Wright et al., 1991) would more than double the amount of
CO2 that could be sequestered in the process of EOR. After
EOR flooding was complete, additional CO2 might be se-
questered by continuing to flood the depleted reservoirs to
their spill point. To realize this sequestration potential
would require access to major sources of CO2 for Austra-
lia’s larger oil fields. This would include capture of CO2
from flue stacks from La Trobe Valley coal-fired power sta-
tions for injection into the Gippsland Basin oil fields and re-
injection of CO2 from Gorgon and other gas fields into oil
fields in the Carnarvon Basin.
Enhanced Coal Seam Methane
Enhanced coal seam methane (ECSM) is an industry that
is rapidly developing in North America (Gale and Freund,
2001), but in Australia it is still is in its infancy. When CO2
is injected into coal beds containing methane, the CO2 will
preferentially adsorb onto the coal, theoretically releasing
two methane (CH4) molecules for each CO2 molecule. In pi-
lot studies this has been shown to be at least three methane
molecules for each CO2 molecule (Gale and Freund, 2001).
In this way, injected CO2 can enhance methane production
from coal seams while sequestering CO2 at the same time.
Stevens et al. (1999, 2001) reported that the Bowen Basin in
Australia rated highly in the world for ECSM.
However, most of the ECSM activity is along the eastern
coast of Australia, whereas the majority of CO2 production
from the liquefied natural gas (LNG) industry is on the west-
ern coast, which are thousands of kilometers apart. There is
certainly potential for ECSM to become a viable option for
sequestering CO2; however, it will rely on technology to re-
move CO2 from coal-fired power plants (Holtz et al., 2001),
and the potential storage volumes may be small compared
to the supply. Early investigations suggest that there may be
problems with the economic viability of projects where
large numbers of wells (hundreds) would be required to
match the supply of CO2 from coal-fired power plants.
Deep Unmineable Coal Seams
In a similar way to ECSM, CO2 can be injected at depth
into coal seams that are unlikely to be mineable in the near
to long-term future. The CO2 will adsorb onto the coal and
be stored. Australia is richly endowed with coal, especially
throughout eastern Australia, and potentially this is a viable
option (Figure 3). However, discussion with state geologi-
cal agencies suggest that the depths required to inject the
CO2 without potentially sterilizing the future mining poten-
tial of the coal resource will, in some basins such as the
Sydney Basin, be in the order of 600 to 1000 m. At the up-
 BRADSHAW AND RIGG: THE GEODISC PROGRAM
FIGURE 3: All basins with reported coal seams in Australia.
per range of depths it is dubious as to whether there will be
sufficient permeability in the coal seams to allow injection
of the CO2 at either a rate to match the supply of CO2, or at a
cost that would be economic. Injection into sandstone units
underlying coal seams in this situation, however, may be an
option requiring further study.
Depleted Oil and Gas Reservoirs
As documented in the Joule II report (Holloway et al.,
1996; also see “Storage Efficiency”), depleted oil and gas
reservoirs offer one of the more viable and secure options
for sequestration of CO2. Depleted fields have a known vol-
ume of recovered hydrocarbons, thus allowing accurate esti-
mates of the maximum available pore volume into which
CO2 can potentially be stored, and they are known to have
been successful in securely storing hydrocarbon gases and
fluids over geological time periods (millions of years). To
maximize the storage potential, it is probable that there will
be a benefit from injecting CO2 into fields that are pressure-
depleted rather than water drives. Pressure-depleted fields
provide the opportunity to inject CO2 into lower pressure
reservoirs than would exist under normal geological condi-
tions. During depletion of water drive fields, the pressure
reequilibrates to normal geological conditions as ground
water flows in to replace the produced hydrocarbons, thus
making injection pressures higher than in pressure depletion
fields. Reservoir simulation in GEODISC will enhance the
understanding of the way the various parameters and per-
mutations of injection and storage capacity interact.
Unfortunately for CO2 sequestration, Australia has a pre-
ponderance of water drives in many of its largest hydrocar-
bon accumulations. However, there are many viable loca-
tions such as the Cooper Basin in South Australia where
pressure depletion is normal and many fields such as Gidgealpa
169
FIGURE 4: Gas depletion curves for Australia, both onshore and offshore (supplied
by AGSO—Petroleum Technical Advice Group, D. Wright and S. Le Poidevin).
are near or already depleted. In terms of volume, however, Fig-
ures 4 and 5 (gas and oil depletion curves for Australia) show
that Australia does not have many large fields (either gas or oil)
that will be depleted in the near future, and those that will be-
come depleted are not near major CO2 sources.
Large Voids and Cavities
In Australia there are no mining activities for salt that
would produce large voids in salt caverns, such as exist in
North America. Calculations for voids in abandoned under-
ground coal mines suggest that the volumes available per
mine are very small (0.5  106 T of CO2), and hard rock
mines are even smaller. When combined with their often iso-
lated location, they are not considered likely to be economic.
Of greater concern, however, is that many underground min-
ing activities in Australia use long-wall techniques, which by
design fracture the roof during collapse. The issue of CO2
containment risk due to fracturing would pose significant
problems, as would the shallow depth of the mines and many
adits and drill holes that penetrate them, all of which could
provide conduits for CO2 to escape to the surface.
Deep Unused Saline Water-Saturated
Reservoir Rocks
Deep saline reservoirs are widely recognized as being the
most viable option for sequestration of CO2 in terms of cost
and capacity in Australia, as well as internationally (Linde-
FIGURE 5: Oil depletion curves for Australia, both onshore and offshore (supplied
by AGSO—Petroleum Technical Advice Group, D. Wright and S. Le Poidevin).
 170 ENVIRONMENTAL GEOSCIENCES
FIGURE 6: Sedimentary basins map of Australia showing sites that have been examined in stages 1 and 2 of Project 1, and basins being examined in stage 3.
berg and Holloway, 1999). It utilizes existing experience
and technology developed in the oil and groundwater indus-
tries for modeling the behavior of fluids in the subsurface.
Australia has over 300 known sedimentary basins, of which
at least 200 are over 1000 m thick (Figure 6). Of these over
50 could be considered viable sites for study in terms of lo-
cation (near CO2 source and acceptable water depth) and
geological characteristics.
GEODISC has completed preliminary analysis of the 17
most significant petroleum provinces from both onshore
and offshore Australia, and by mid-2001 will have exam-
ined the remaining basins with CO2 sequestration potential.
The initial results indicate that many of the reservoirs in
Australia have very favorable characteristics when com-
pared to other petroleum provinces of the world (Figure 7).
The risked total available pore volume of CO2 for the 49 in-
dividual sites from the 17 basins studied from Project 1 (i.e.,
the summed capacity of local sites, not total basin wide ca-
pacity, and risked for uncertainty and chance of success and
ignoring the economic viability of individual sites) is ap-
proximately 4.5  1011 T (8400 Tcf) of CO2. The total ca-
pacity available, if basin wide sites are considered, will be
many orders of magnitude higher than this figure. Given
that Australia’s net total annual CO2 emissions are in the or-
der of 500  106 T (9.3 Tcf), it is apparent why this op-
tion is attractive.
TERMINOLOGY, METHODOLOGY,
AND FURTHER RESEARCH
In the course of establishing GEODISC and Project 1
across a vast and diverse geological province like Australia,
numerous conceptual issues and problems required resolu-
tion. These included:
• how to describe suitable sites for study;
• how to compare and contrast each of the sites for the
purpose of ranking them; and
• identifying and addressing critical factors that were un-
certain or unknown, and that had the potential to limit
the implementation of the findings of GEODISC.
Following are three brief examples of what has been done
in GEODISC so far on these issues:
• establishing appropriate terminology (ESSCIs);
• modifying oil industry methodology (prospect and play
risk assessment); and
• research that needs verification (storage efficiency).
 BRADSHAW AND RIGG: THE GEODISC PROGRAM
FIGURE 7: Kv vs. Kh for Australian reservoirs. Data is from 1626 data points from core plugs from 52 wells from Papuan, NW Shelf, and Gippsland Basins (from AGSO
RESFACS database).
Terminology: Environmentally Sustainable Site
for Carbon Dioxide Injection
The literature on geological sequestration sometimes has dif-
ficulty describing the various conceptual options (as outlined
above) as to what type of site is being described, be it either a
reservoir, aquifer, or coal seam. Different authors alternate be-
tween these descriptions depending on what they believe to be
171
the natural resource into which they are considering injecting
CO2. For this reason, and to minimize potential community
concern that an established resource may be sterilized, a neutral
term, “environmentally sustainable site for carbon dioxide in-
jection” (ESSCI), has been used as described below.
Within the oil exploration industry the term “prospect”
relates to an individual site where hydrocarbons are be-
 172 ENVIRONMENTAL GEOSCIENCES
lieved to have accumulated. The term “play” is used to de-
scribe the interaction of reservoir, seal, source, trap, and rel-
ative timing, which combine to create a variety of similar
hydrocarbon accumulations across a region. A group of
closely related plays are also referred to as a hydrocarbon or
petroleum system, often being described as the source rock
and all its known hydrocarbon accumulations (Magoon and
Dow, 1994). Within the groundwater industry, “reservoirs”
are referred to as “aquifers.” For the purpose of sequestering
CO2, it was thought inappropriate to use the terms “play,”
“reservoir,” or “aquifer” as it may give the false impression
that an existing resource was potentially going to be com-
promised. As such the term ESSCI was derived. Hence
ESSCI can be used in the same way for grouping the vari-
ous components of a CO2 injection site, as “play” or “pros-
pect” is used for the oil exploration industry.
Methodology: Risking
To assess the potential ESSCIs over an area the size of
Australia at a regional scale, it was necessary to develop a
methodology that would allow both the capture of detailed
analyses for each ESSCI site, as well as maintaining rigor
and consistency to allow comparison between ESSCIs. The
approach adopted was to modify the “play and prospect”
risk assessment that has been used in the oil exploration in-
dustry for many decades. This risking scheme follows the
well-documented principles of White (1987). It has been
modified in a similar fashion to that documented in Austra-
lia in an example by Bradshaw et al. (1998). In this exam-
ple, the risking approach was applied to both the conven-
tional area of petroleum exploration, as well as to an
example of site selection for quarries in the hard rock indus-
try. Despite that the factors that needed to be assessed were
completely different, and included social and environmental
issues, the consistent approach required by the methodology
meant that it was readily adaptable and meaningful results
could be used to compare and contrast each site. For the
ESSCIs, a similar approach was adopted to that used for the
hard rock industry, with a mix of geological, engineering,
economic, and social factors being assessed.
Five factors were chosen to describe an ESSCI, each of
which have subelements that are considered when assessing
the risk, mostly from a geological viewpoint. The factors
used are all rated between 0 and 1, with 0 meaning that the
factor fails and 1 meaning that the factor works. The factors
are as follows.
1. Storage capacity. The chance that the reservoir will
meet the volume requirements of neighboring, currently
identified CO2 sources, given consideration of tempera-
ture, pressure, capacity, radius of 1 Tcf (53.65  106T)
of CO2 if injected at the site, area, pore volume.
2. Injectivity potential. The chance that the reservoir con-
ditions will be viable for injection given consideration
of porosity, permeability, thickness.
3. Site details. The chance that the site is economically and
technically viable given consideration of distance to
CO2 source, water depth, ESSCI depth, overpressure.
4. Containment. The chance that the seal and trap will
work for CO2 given consideration of seal capacity and
thickness, trap, faults.
5. Existing natural resources. The chance that there are
no viable natural resources in the ESSCI that may be
compromised, such as proven or potential petroleum
system, groundwater or coal, or other natural resource
(e.g., national park).
These ESSCI factors are mostly independent of one an-
other, but each is a required condition to successfully se-
quester CO2. This means that if one of them does not work
(fails) then none of the others are relevant, as the chance
that the ESSCI will fail is certain. Because the ESSCI fac-
tors are independent, they can be multiplied through to get
various factors, and then multiplied against the estimated
storage volume or capacity to get a risked capacity. This is a
valuable tool in comparing different ESSCIs in different ba-
sins. An example may be where two ESSCIs have the same
risk capacity, with Site A having a low geological risk and
small capacity, whereas Site B has a high geological risk
and a high capacity. In such a case, provided the high geo-
logical risk in Site B was not due primarily to containment,
then Site B may be the preferred site for further study as it
would offer the largest potential. The multiplied factors
used in this study are as follows.
ESSCI chance: product of all five individual ESSCI factors
risked capacity: ESSCI chance  total estimated storage
capacity of CO2
ESSCI rating: ESSCI chance/radius of 1 Tcf (53.65  106 T)
CO2 at the site
The ESSCI chance is the product of all five ESSCI fac-
tors. The lower the ESSCI chance the greater likelihood that
it will fail. Thus an ESSCI chance of 0.2 means that it has a
one in five chance, or 20% chance, of working. It is impor-
tant to remember that these riskings are not actual but rela-
tive and are used to create a seriatim of what is best and
what is worst among a variety of ESSCIs. When doing the
risk assessment, it is important to distinguish at which scale
attributes are being risked: whether they are from the view
of a regional concept of the ESSCI, or the play level, or at
the local or prospect level.
The risked capacity is a product of the ESSCI chance and
the total estimated storage capacity of CO2 that is likely to
occur at the site or across the region that the ESSCI can be
defined within.
 BRADSHAW AND RIGG: THE GEODISC PROGRAM
The ESSCI rating utilizes a calculation made at the site
that determines the radius out from the injection site that 1
Tcf (53.65  106T) of CO2 will disperse, given factors such
as the reservoir quality and thickness, depth, pressure, and
temperature. This is simply an estimate of the theoretical
cylinder that the injection bubble would form, not the actual
shape of the bubble at each site, and is used only for com-
parison purposes. Where the radius is low, this means it is a
better result as there is less likelihood of the CO2 spreading
far from the site. This in turn means there is less chance of
CO2 spilling away from and outside closure of the trap, or
encountering lateral variations in reservoir conditions or
seal, or intersecting fault planes that may act as conduits to
the surface and breach the trap. Thus where there is less
chance of the ESSCI failing (a high ESSCI chance number)
and a low radius, the ESSCI rating will be very high. There-
fore, the higher the ESSCI rating, the better the sequestra-
tion potential of the site.
Further Research: Storage Efficiency
As was predicted in the initial planning of GEODISC,
many topics surfaced at the beginning of the project that had
the potential to influence a successful outcome. One critical
topic is that of rates, be it either rates of migration, mineral-
ization, or injection. However, at this stage in GEODISC,
the largest uncertainty is that of storage efficiency and the
actual volume of CO2 that can be injected into a reservoir.
The Issue
van der Meer (1993, p. 966) stated that:
it is extremely difficult to predict any total CO2 storage
volume. . . . Present calculations regarding the storage
efficiency of an aquifer are subjective due to the lack of
definition of the total pore volume available for CO2
storage.
and van der Meer (1995, p. 513)
There are two problems associated with the storage effi-
ciency of aquifers. The main one is the impossibility of
arriving at one number that is universally valid, because
the conditions in the subsurface are too diverse. The
other problem is that even if such a number is arrived at,
people are likely to misuse it.
However, despite these warnings, numerous reviews of
CO2 sequestration potential have simply requoted the early
work with no apparent case-specific analysis of the actual
reservoirs at their proposed site. This raises a concern that
erroneous assumptions potentially may have been made in
some CO2 injection scenarios. Because the early work pro-
duced very low (2%) percentages (van der Meer, 1993,
1995), this could mean that the volume of CO2 that can be
sequestered in the subsurface is vastly underestimated. For
very large gas fields with high CO2 contents, such as those
containing over 1 Tcf/53.65  106 T of CO2, it could lead to
173
the assumption that no single structure will be capable of se-
questering the CO2 that it produces. Such an analysis could
affect the viability of an entire project, as multiple injection
sites for a single CO2 source in an offshore setting, would
make projects cost-prohibitive.
Storage Efficiency Factors
Most analyses of CO2 storage efficiency are based on res-
ervoir simulation modeling with several factors affecting
the result to varying degrees, including the following.
• Reservoir properties: porosity, permeability (horizontal
and vertical)
• Reservoir conditions: temperature, pressure, depth
• Mobility ratio of CO2 vs. water: the greater the depth
the lower mobility ratio and the higher the storage effi-
ciency (van der Meer, 1995)
• Open or closed hydrological regime: affects ability to
inject CO2
• Injection rate: the slower the rate the higher the storage
efficiency (modeled on dipping reservoirs, 10) (Holt et
al., 1995)
• Supply rate from source: impacts on the number of
wells and the injection rate
• Number of wells used for injection: requires trade-off
of cost vs. injection rate vs. supply rate vs. storage effi-
ciency
• Gravity segregation: relates to dip and height of closure
on structure
• Type of trap: the higher the dip the greater the storage
efficiency (Holt et al., 1995), four-way dip anticlines
imply shallow dip, fault-related structures imply higher
dip, salt piercement features imply higher dip, hydrody-
namic (no meaningful assessment of storage efficiency
can be made especially if the system is open)
• Type of drive: water (lower storage efficiency), pres-
sure depletion (higher storage efficiency and preferred)
• Residual water saturation
Simulation Results
van der Meer (1992, 1993, 1995) and Holt et al. (1995)
documented a series of reservoir simulations. The principal
result from van der Meer (1992), using geological parame-
ters from the Netherlands, was an estimate that only 2.28%
of pore space (product of 3.05% 2-D volumetric sweep effi-
ciency and 75% horizontal sweep efficiency) would be oc-
cupied by CO2 before it escaped through the spill point of a
trap. The simulations were work undertaken in conjunction
with the Joule II Project (Holloway et al., 1996). From the
results of these studies the Joule II report applied a series of
constraints for their assessment of the sequestration capac-
ity of reservoirs/aquifers, being
 174 ENVIRONMENTAL GEOSCIENCES
For aquifers: Unless known otherwise, the storage effi-
ciency of the aquifer is assumed to be 6% in aquifers
that are in open communication with the ground sur-
face, and 2% in aquifers that are closed (commonly but
not in every case, identified by overpressure). A storage
efficiency of 4% will be used where it is not known
whether the reservoir is open or closed.
For gas fields: The volume of the initially recoverable re-
serves is available for storage of CO2.
For oil fields: The volume of the initially recoverable re-
serves can be replaced by CO2.
While it is apparent that the 2% value comes from van der
Meer (1992), it is not immediately obvious from where 6%
is derived. A range of 1–6% is mentioned in van der Meer
(1995), but the 6% figure only appears in the conclusion and
not in the substance of the paper. A possible implication
from the wording in the Joule II report is that the work con-
ducted by van der Meer was on closed systems rather than
open systems. If they were closed, as many North Sea fields
are, then low rates of storage efficiency would be expected.
If that is the case then the upper range of 6%, and how it
was derived, assumes considerable importance.
Holt et al. (1995) simulated work associated with EOR
using CO2 in a water-flooded reservoir. In contrast to the
work of van der Meer (1992, 1995), they obtained storage
efficiency rates of 13–68% of pore volume (PV). Their sim-
ulation examined varying injection rates, permeability, and
dip of the reservoir. Injection rates of 0.4% PV/year gave
high storage efficiency (30%) and at 1.6% PV/year gave
16% storage efficiency. By varying the absolute permeabil-
ity, Kv/Kh, and relative permeabilities, while keeping the
injection rate constant (1.6% PV/year), they achieved a
range of 13–26% storage efficiency (Figure 8)
Simulation Assumptions vs. Australian Conditions
Numerous assumptions were made in the documented
simulations, including reservoir conditions where Kv/Kh ra-
tio ranged from 0.01 to 0.1 (van der Meer, 1992, 1995) and
0.04–0.004 (Holt et al., 1995). This implied that CO2 would
migrate laterally rather than vertically after injection into
the reservoir. The properties for Australian reservoirs indi-
cate that the modeled Kv/Kh ratio represents the lower 2%
of Australian reservoir conditions (Figure 7).
Some of the simulation studies have highlighted a prefer-
ence for steeper dips to maximize storage efficiency; how-
ever, in practice such structures will normally be fault-re-
lated features not four-way dipping anticlines. Fault-related
structures have a risk of loss of containment because of the
potential for leakage of CO2. Even in depleted gas fields
with faults in the trapping style, uncertainty exists as to
whether the fault systems will seal CO2, especially if car-
FIGURE 8: Adapted from Figure 3 of Holt et al. (1995) showing the equivalent CO2
saturation versus injection rate. Note Holt et al.’s (1995) Figure 3 has x-axis as log10
but it is actually log normal.
bonate cements are present in the fault zone. This will be
specifically addressed during the GEODISC program.
From these simulations a number of questions require
consideration in terms of how the various studies should be
interpreted, being either mutually exclusive or complemen-
tary. Perhaps more importantly for GEODISC, how do they
apply to Australian reservoir examples given the large vari-
ance in permeability? The answer we believe is to do our
own specific reservoir modeling.
Reservoir simulation is a case-specific task and no uni-
versal number for storage efficiency can be derived. Numer-
ous factors including depth, reservoir parameters, supply
and injection rate, remaining fluids, and pressure regime
will all influence the result of the simulation.
CONCLUSIONS •
The work being undertaken in GEODISC will develop a
portfolio of potential CO2 sequestration sites for the major
sedimentary basins of Australia. Fundamental research top-
ics that are critical to successful sequestration of CO2 will
be undertaken as detailed work is conducted in the more fa-
vorable locations. To adequately assess the sequestration
potential at a continent-wide scale, methodologies such as
risk assessment are being applied with development of a se-
riatim for the most favorable locations. The results of these
studies will have both local and international impact on the
viability of CO2 sequestration. Results to date indicate that
there is excellent potential to sequester CO2 in all of the ma-
jor sedimentary basins of Australia. Estimates to date from
only 49 sites (ignoring the specific economic viability of in-
dividual sites) indicate that there is a risked total pore vol-
ume capacity to store over 1000 times the annual (1998)
emissions of CO2 for Australia. The actual total capacity
value of sedimentary basins to sequester CO2 is likely to be
several orders of magnitude higher than this figure.
 BRADSHAW AND RIGG: THE GEODISC PROGRAM
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS •
The authors would like to acknowledge the sponsors of
GEODISC: Australian Greenhouse Office (AGO), BHP Pe-
troleum (BHPP), BP, Chevron (Aust.), Chevron (Interna-
tional), Shell, and Woodside. The agencies contributing to
GEODISC include: Australian Geological Survey Organisa-
tion (AGSO), Australian Petroleum Cooperative Research
Centre (APCRC), Commonwealth Scientific Industrial Re-
search Organisation (CSIRO), Curtin University, National
Centre for Petroleum Geology and Geophysics (NCPGG),
and the University of New South Wales (UNSW). Consider-
able contributions and discussions were provided from re-
searchers from the agencies named above, who are currently
working on the GEODISC program, including; Barry Brad-
shaw, Jonathon Ennis-King, Steven le Poidevin, Victoria
Mackie, Lincoln Paterson, Lynton Spencer, and Denis Wright.
REFERENCES •
Bradshaw, M. T., Bradshaw, J., Weeden, R. J., Carter, P., and de
Vries, D. F. H. (1998). Assessment—Translating the future into
numbers. APPEA Journal, 38, 528–551.
Cook, P. J. (1998). Carbon dioxide—Putting it back where it came
from. Australian Gas Journal, 40–41.
Cook, P. J., Rigg, A., and Bradshaw, J. (2000). Putting it back
where it came from: Is geological disposal of carbon dioxide an
option for Australia? APPEA Journal, 40, 654–666.
Gale, J., and Freund, P. (2001). Coal bed methane enhancement
with CO2 sequestration worldwide potential. Environmental
Geosciences, 8, 210–217.
Holloway, S., Heederik, J. P., van der Meer, L. G. H., Czernichowski-
Lauriol, I., Harrison, R., Lindeberg, E., Summerfied, I. R.,
Rochelle, C., Schwarzkopf, T., Kaarstad, O., and Berger, B.
(1996). The underground disposal of CO2, EC Joule II Programme
Summary Report. Keyworth, UK: British Geological Survey.
Holt, T., Jensen, J. I., and Linderberg, E. (1995). Underground
storage of CO2 in aquifers and oil reservoirs. Energy Convers
175
Mgmt, 36, 535–538.
Holtz, M. H., Nance, P. K., and Finley, R. J. (2001). Reduction of green-
house gas emissions through CO2 EOR in Texas. Environmental
Geosciences, 8, 188–199.
Lindeberg, E., and Holloway, S. (1999). The next steps in geo-
storage of carbon dioxide. In B. Eliasson, P. Riemer, and A.
Wokaun (Eds.), Proceedings of the 4th International Confer-
ence on Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies (pp. 145–150).
Oxford: Elsevier.
Magoon, L. B., and Dow, W. G. (1994). The petroleum system—
From source to trap. AAPG Memoir 60. Tulsa: American Asso-
ciation of Petroleum Geologists.
Stevens, S. H., Kuuskraa, V. A., Gale, J., and Beecy, D. (2001).
CO2 injection and sequestration in depleted oil and gas fields and
deep coal seams: worldwide potential and costs. Environmental
Geosciences, 8, 200–209.
Stevens, S. H., Kuuskraa, V. A., Spector, D., and Reimer, P.
(1999). CO2 sequestration in deep coal seams: Pilot results and
worldwide potential. In B. Eliasson, P. Riemer, and A. Wokaun
(Eds.), Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on
Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies (pp. 169–180). Oxford:
Elsevier.
van der Meer, L. G. H. (1992). Investigations regarding the storage
of carbon dioxide in aquifers in the Netherlands. Energy Con-
vers Mgmt, 33, 611–618.
van der Meer, L. G. H. (1993). The conditions limiting CO2 stor-
age in aquifers. Energy Convers Mgmt, 34, 959–966.
van der Meer, L. G. H. (1995). The CO2 storage efficiency of aqui-
fers. Energy Convers Mgmt, 36, 515–518.
White, D. A. (1987) Prospect and play assessment. Tulsa, OK: Oil
and Gas Consultants International Inc.
Wright, D. J., Le Poidevin, S. R., Morrison, G. R., and Thomas, R.
G. (1991). Potential from enhanced oil recovery applications in
Australia: Final report: National Energy Research, Development
and Demonstration Program project 976: Australia. Bureau of
Mineral Resources, Geology and Geophysics. BMR Record
1991/020.
 176 ENVIRONMENTAL GEOSCIENCES
ABOUT THE AUTHORS •
John Bradshaw
John Bradshaw is project manager of
Project 1 (Regional Analysis) in the GEO-
DISC research project at the Australian Pe-
troleum Cooperative Research Centre. He
has a B.Sc. (Honors) and Ph.D. in Applied
Geology from the University of New South
Wales. John is an exploration technologist
with a regional knowledge of Australian
sedimentary basins and is employed as a principal research scientist
at the Australian Geological Survey Organisation. He has also
worked for Esso (Aust.) and on staff exchange for a year with WMC
Petroleum and Ampolex/Mobil. He has extensive fieldwork experi-
ence throughout central Australia and Papua New Guinea, where he
consulted for several years. John has previously run major industry-
funded research projects examining the petroleum systems of Austra-
lia. He is a member of GSA, PESA, and AAPG.
Andy Rigg
Andy Rigg is the program manager for
the GEODISC research program with the
Australian Petroleum Cooperative Re-
search Centre (APCRC) and is based in
Sydney. He has a B.Sc. andB.Sc. (Honors)
in Geology (University of Sydney and Uni-
versity of Tasmania). He has 30 years of
experience in the oil and gas industry. He
was geological manager for Esso Australia before becoming general
manager of exploration with Santos. From 1985 to 1997 he was gen-
eral manager of exploration for Ampolex Limited. He has been non-
executive director for several listed Australian oil and gas companies
and occupies this position for Timor Sea Petroleum NLNatural Gas
Australia Ltd. and Methanol Australia Pty Ltd. He is a member of
PESA (past federal president and distinguished member).