Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

ScienceDirect
ScienceDirect
AvailableEnergy
Available Procedia
online
online 00 (2018) 000–000
atatwww.sciencedirect.com
www.sciencedirect.com
Energy Procedia 00 (2018) 000–000 www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
ScienceDirect
ScienceDirect
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia

Energy
EnergyProcedia
Procedia146 (2018) 000–000
00 (2017) 166–172
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
International Carbon Conference 2018, ICC 2018, 10–14 September 2018, Reykjavik, Iceland
International Carbon Conference 2018, ICC 2018, 10–14 September 2018, Reykjavik, Iceland
The CCS hub in Norway:
The CCS hub in Norway:
some insights from 22 years on
The 15th International of salineHeating aquifer storage
some insights from Symposium 22 years ofDistrict saline aquifer and Cooling
storage
Assessing the feasibility Philipof S. Ringrosethe a,b,*
Philip S. usingRingrosea,b,* heat demand-outdoor
temperature function forofaScience
a

Norwegian University
a long-term
Equinor Research &and Technology,
Technology,
b district
Trondheim
Trondheim,
heat demand forecast
Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim NO-7491, Norway
NO-7491, Norway
Norway
b
Equinor Research & Technology, Trondheim, Norway
a,b,c
I. Andrić *, A. Pinaa, P. Ferrãoa, J. Fournierb., B. Lacarrièrec, O. Le Correc
Abstract
a
IN+ Center for Innovation, Technology and Policy Research - Instituto Superior Técnico, Av. Rovisco Pais 1, 1049-001 Lisbon, Portugal
Abstract b
Veolia Recherche & Innovation, 291 Avenue Dreyfous Daniel, 78520 Limay, France
c
The development Département Systèmes Énergétiques
of industrial-scale et Environnement
CCS in Norway, starting with- IMTtheAtlantique, 4 rue Alfred
Sleipner project Kastler,
in 1996, 44300
gives Nantes, France
a uniquely long track record
The development
of experience withofCCS
industrial-scale
and providesCCS in Norway,
valuable insightsstarting
for thewith the Sleipner
projected globalproject
growthinin1996,
CCS.gives a uniquely
By the long the
end of 2017, track record
Sleipner
of
andexperience
Snøhvit CCS with projects
CCS andhad provides
capturedvaluable insights
and stored 22for
Mt the
of projected
CO2 in salineglobal growthoffshore
aquifers in CCS. Norway.
By the end COof2 2017,
plumethe Sleipner
monitoring
and Snøhvit at
observations CCS projects
Sleipner canhad captured
be used and stored
to indicate 22 Mt
an overall of CO
storage 2 in saline
efficiency ofaquifers
around 5% offshore
of the Norway. CO2with
pore volume, plume monitoring
approximately
Abstract
observations
one tenth of thisat Sleipner
volumecan be usedintothe
dissolved indicate
brine an overall
phase. storage
These efficiency
estimates of aroundwith
are consistent 5% of thethefluid
poredynamics
volume, with
of CO approximately
2 injection in
one
whichtenth of this dominated
a gravity volume dissolved
processes in are
the brine
expectedphase. These
to give estimates are
efficiencies consistent
in the range ofwith
1-6%.theFuture
fluid dynamics of CO
projects may injection
be2 able to findin
District
which
ways heatingdominated
ofa improving
gravity networks are commonly
processes
these efficiencies. addressed
are expected in theefficiencies
to give literature as onerange
in the of theofmost
1-6%.effective solutionsmay
Future projects for be
decreasing
able to findthe
greenhouse
ways gas emissions
of improving from the building sector. These systems require high investments which are returned through the heat
these efficiencies.
sales. Due to the changed
Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. climate conditions
All rights reserved. and building renovation policies, heat demand in the future could decrease,
Copyright
prolonging
Copyrightand © 2018
the
© 2018 Elsevier
investment Ltd.
return
Elsevierunder All
Ltd. All rights
period. reserved.
rights reserved.
Selection
Selection peer-review responsibility of the
the publication
publication committee
committee of of the
the International
International Carbon
Carbon Conference
Conference 2018.
2018.
The mainand
Selection scope
and
peer-review
peer-review
under
of this paper
under is responsibility
to
responsibility
of
assess the feasibility of using the
of the publication heat demand
committee of the –International
outdoor temperature function for2018.
Carbon Conference heat demand
forecast. CO
Keywords: The2 Storage,
districtSaline
of Alvalade, located
aquifers, CCS, in Lisbon
Storage Capacity,(Portugal),
Sleipner was used as a case study. The district is consisted of 665
buildingsCO
Keywords: that vary inSaline
2 Storage, bothaquifers,
construction period Capacity,
CCS, Storage and typology.
SleipnerThree weather scenarios (low, medium, high) and three district
renovation scenarios were developed (shallow, intermediate, deep). To estimate the error, obtained heat demand values were
1.compared with results
The emerging CCS from
hub a dynamic
in Norway heat demand model, previously developed and validated by the authors.
1.The
The results showedCCS
emerging that when
hub in only weather change is considered, the margin of error could be acceptable for some applications
Norway
(the error in annual demand was lower than 20% for all weather scenarios considered). However, after introducing renovation
CO2 capture
scenarios, the error
andvalue
storage (CCS)up
increased
is to
widely argued
59.5%argued
as a critical
(depending
part of the
on the weather
global
andglobal
solution
renovation
for greenhouse
scenarios combinationgas
gas control;
considered).
CO2 capture
however, and storage (CCS) is widely as of
a critical part of the solution for greenhouse control;
The value of slope coefficient increased on average within the range of 3.8% up to 8% per decade, that corresponds [1,2].
insufficient progress is being made in terms volumes captured and stored in geological formations to the
however,
The insufficient
development progress
of industrial-scale is being
CCS made in
in Norway,terms of volumes
starting captured
with the and
Sleipner stored in
projectoninthe geological
1996, formations
gives a uniquely [1,2].
long
decrease in the number of heating hours of 22-139h during the heating season (depending combination of weather and
The
track development
recordscenarios
renovation
of considered).
industrial-scale
of experience with On CCS CCS
theand
in
other
Norway,
provides starting
valuable
hand, function
with the
insights
intercept
Sleipner
for project global
the projected
increased for 7.8-12.7%
in 1996, gives in
per growth
a uniquely
CCS. Byon
decade (depending
long
the
the
track
end ofrecord
coupled 2017, of
theexperience
scenarios). Sleipner CCS
The values with CCS and
project
suggested had provides
stored
could be 17 valuable
usedmillion
to modify insights
tonnesthe(Mt) forofthe
function CO projected
parameters global
for the growth
2, which together with the
scenarios inconsidered,
CCS. ByCCS
Snøhvit the
and
end of 2017,
project
improve which the
has
the accuracy Sleipner
stored
of heatCCS project
a demand
further 5Mt had stored
since
estimations. 17 million
it started in 2008tonnes (Mt)
[3,4] of CO
gives 2, which
a total of 22 together withinthesaline
Mt stored Snøhvit CCS
aquifers
project which has stored a further 5Mt since it started in 2008 [3,4] gives a total of 22 Mt stored in saline aquifers
© 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Peer-review under responsibility of the Scientific Committee of The 15th International Symposium on District Heating and
Cooling.
*
Corresponding author.
*
Corresponding
E-mail address:author.
phiri@equinor.com
Keywords: Heat demand;
E-mail address: Forecast; Climate change
phiri@equinor.com
1876-6102 Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1876-6102 Copyright
Selection and © 2018
peer-review Elsevier
under Ltd. All of
responsibility rights reserved. committee of the International Carbon Conference 2018.
the publication
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the publication committee of the International Carbon Conference 2018.
1876-6102 © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Peer-review under responsibility of the Scientific Committee of The 15th International Symposium on District Heating and Cooling.
1876-6102 Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the publication committee of the International Carbon Conference 2018.
10.1016/j.egypro.2018.07.021
 Philip S. Ringrose / Energy Procedia 146 (2018) 166–172 167
2 Author name / Energy Procedia 00 (2018) 000–000

offshore Norway. Monitoring observations and modelling results from these projects provide important CO2 storage
performance metrics on storage capacity, trapping mechanisms, and long-term behaviour of CO2 in the subsurface.
More recently, the Sleipner CCS project has also handled and stored CO2 capture streams from neighboring gas fields,
giving it an incipient CCS hub status. In 2016, the Norwegian government initiated plans to develop a new full-scale
CO2 capture, transport and storage project, linking onshore industrial CO2 sources to offshore storage [5]. The
feasibility study was completed in 2016 for a project with a design specification for handling 1.3 Mt CO2 per year for
25 years. The proposed storage site, called Smeaheia, is a group of structural closures in saline aquifers about 60km
north west of Bergen. The proposed storage reservoirs are the Jurassic Sognefjord, Fensfjord and Krossfjord
Formations of the Viking Group at a depth range between 1200 m to 1700 m [6].
The industrial-scale CCS projects in Norway are important for developing and demonstrating the many
technologies involved in CCS as a part of the emerging low-Carbon energy mix (Fig. 1). At Sleipner, the world’s first
offshore platform-based CO2 (amine) capture facility was developed as part of the Sleipner gas and condensate field
development, located 250km offshore southern Norway. The CO2 is injected and stored in the Utsira formation at a
depth of 800-1000m below the sea surface. One shallow long-reach deviated well is used to inject the CO2 2.4 km
from the producing wells and the production platform [7]. Storage site monitoring has been mainly realized using a
series of time-lapse seismic datasets providing important insights into the value and detection capabilities of remote
geophysical monitoring methods [8,9,10,11] and for improved quantification of the flow processes associated with
storage in saline formations [12,13,14]. The 22-year performance history of the single long-reach injection well at
Sleipner is also a testament to the value of careful well design and engineering.

Fig. 1. Sketch illustrating deployment of integrated and complementary low-carbon energy solutions.

The Snøhvit CCS project, which started in 2008, is part of the Snøhvit gas field development in the Barents Sea.
The CO2 is removed from the gas at the onshore gas processing plant (Melkøya) and then transported via a 150 km
long pipeline to a subsea injection template. By the end of 2017 almost 5 Mt CO2 had been injected into the subsurface.
Initially, the CO2 was injected into the Tubåen Formation, a saline aquifer below the gas bearing Stø Formation.
However, during the first 3 years of injection a gradual rise in pressure was observed, mainly due geological barriers
which limited the access to the available pore space [4]. This led to the decision to perform a well intervention in 2011
leading to a modified injection plan with the CO2 injected into the aquifer of the Stø Formation. Injection has continued
since then with a stable pressure trend. Crucial to this evaluation was the use of seismic 4D data, downhole gauges
and reservoir modelling which allowed optimization of the CO2 injection plan [15,16].
168 Philip S. Ringrose / Energy Procedia 146 (2018) 166–172
Author name / Energy Procedia 00 (2018) 000–000 3

In many ways the Snøhvit CCS project, with an onshore capture plant linked via subsea pipeline to a subsea
injection wellhead, set the technical framework for the new full-scale Norwegian CCS Demonstration (NCD) project,
which will use a similar design arrangement. The main new feature of the NCD project [5] is collection of CO2 from
multiple onshore capture sites and transportation by ship to an onshore intermediate storage site, with subsequent
compression and transportation via pipeline to sub-sea injection wellheads. Together, these three projects provide an
excellent basis for planning future offshore CO2 storage projects, notwithstanding the important insights gained from
the many onshore CO2 utilization and storage projects [16, 17,18,19].

2. Insights for saline aquifer CO2 storage

There are several important mechanisms for trapping or retaining CO2 in the subsurface as part of geological CO2
storage projects. These can be grouped into a set of physical and chemical factors:
 Physical trapping mechanisms related to basin-scale processes, including regional structure, basin history, fluid
flow and pressure distribution;
 Physical trapping mechanisms related to the geometry of structural and stratigraphic traps; controlled by the rock
architecture of the storage complex;
 Physical trapping mechanisms related to fluid flow processes, principally capillary interfaces between fluids
causing retention of CO2 as a residual phase;
 Geochemical trapping mechanisms: CO2 dissolution in the brine phase, CO2 precipitation as mineral phases and
CO2 sorption/absorption (e.g. on clay minerals).

These mechanisms were conceptually combined in the IPCC special report [20] into a trapping versus time diagram,
illustrating the principle that the various trapping mechanisms should work together to increase storage security as a
function of time. While there is much debate about the rates and magnitudes of the various trapping mechanisms, there
is wide agreement that the concepts are qualitatively correct. Fig. 2 illustrates the main trapping mechanisms for CO2
storage in saline aquifers (mineral trapping is neglected as it operates at very slow rates).
Free-phase CO2 in
structural traps

Migrating CO2
plume
Residual CO2

Convective mixing and CO2

dissolution in brine

Fig. 2. Main trapping mechanisms for saline aquifer storage of CO2.

It is useful, therefore, to consider what insights into these trapping mechanisms can be found from these long-
running saline aquifer CO2 storage projects in Norway. Here we focus on the Sleipner case, which has a long history
of geophysical monitoring allowing a good degree of quantification of trapping mechanisms and storage metrics.
Seismic data up to 2010 has been made available by the operator, so this analysis gives the metrics as of 2010. The
total volume injected is precisely known from surface data, and by the end of 2010 amounted to 12.18 Mt. The seismic
imaging datasets [8-11] allow us to estimate the lateral extent of the CO2 plume, given several important constraints.
The large contrast in acoustic properties between the in situ brine and the injected CO2 gives a strong time-lapse
seismic response [8] (Fig. 3). However, there are several limits to the detection of CO2 from seismic-amplitude
difference data. Under optimal conditions, such as for the uppermost layer 9, CO2 layer thicknesses down to the meter
scale can be observed [11], but in deeper layers signal degradation occurs due to inelastic attenuation and transmission
 Philip S. Ringrose / Energy Procedia 146 (2018) 166–172 169
4 Author name / Energy Procedia 00 (2018) 000–000

loss caused by the overlying CO2 layers [21]. Despite these limitations, good imaging and mapping of the multi-layer
CO2 plume can be achieved at Sleipner. For this analysis we will only use the maximum observed extent of the CO2
plume (from seismic-amplitude difference data) to estimate the fraction of pore space occupied.

Fig. 3. Seismic section (N-S) at Sleipner showing enhanced reflection amplitudes due to CO2 invasion into multiple layers (2008 survey).

For saline aquifer storage, it is useful to define a CO2 storage capacity coefficient, Cc, which is the ratio between
the injected volume and the available pore volume of the storage unit (VPV). For the dynamic case of continuing
injection or plume migration from a single injection point, we can define Cc for an expanding cylinder containing the
plume. In this case, the storage capacity coefficient, Cc is given by:

Vinjected Qwell t
Cc = = (1)
VPV ϕBπሺrmax ሻ2

where Qwell is the injection volume at time t,  is the porosity, B is the storage unit thickness and rmax is the radius of
the cylinder (Fig. 3). For a particular case, rmax could be determined from monitoring data (e.g. first breakthrough to a
monitoring well or by using time-lapse seismic images). At the end of injection Cc approaches the final value of the
storage capacity efficiency factor, which is termed .

Fig. 4. Factors defining the storage capacity coefficient, Cc, for an expanding cylinder containing a CO2 plume.

For the assumption of a viscous-dominated flow process (neglecting capillary and buoyancy forces), Nordbotten
and Celia [22] showed that for an analytical case, rmax is given by:

λc Qwell t
rmax =ට (2)
λb π B ϕ
170 Author
Philipname / Energy/ Energy
S. Ringrose Procedia 00 (2018)
Procedia 146000–000
(2018) 166–172 5

where c and b are the fluid mobilities for CO2 and brine and t is the injection time interval. Note that for each phase,
i, the fluid mobility is the ratio of relative permeability to viscosity, i = ki/i. Fluid mobility is also usefully
summarized by the mobility ratio r = c / b. Estimation of Cc using this method (Eqn. 1 and 2) gives a result which
is very dependent on the fluid properties. For example, for the case of injecting CO2 at the depth of around 1 km into
a 100 m aquifer, the analytical value for Cc is around 0.25 (assuming a mobility ratio of r = 4 and  = 300 kg/m3).
One might therefore expect storage capacity coefficients of around 25 % of the available pore volume, but this assumes
only viscous forces are operating on the system.
To account for the effects of buoyancy forces operating on the expanding CO2 plume, we need to define a
gravity/viscous ratio; for example, for an ideal analytical case [23] the gravity factor, , is given by:

2π Δρ k λb B2
Γ= (3)
Qwell

where k is the permeability and  is the fluid density difference.

Okwen et al. [24] used this approach to evaluate storage efficiency as a function of the gravity factor,  (Fig. 4).
Their analysis shows that as gravity effects are included in the analysis the storage efficiency reduces considerably.
Typical values for CO2 storage sites have 10 <  < 50, implying values for  generally less than 0.06. This then is the
underlying theoretical reason why estimates for storage efficiency in saline aquifers is 0.01 <  < 0.06.

Fig. 5. Storage efficiency, , as a function of mobility ratio,  and gravity factor,  (modified from [24]).

Table 1 gives some summary CO2 storage metrics for the Sleipner case, as of 2010. Using the seismic data sets we
can define the total storage volume using an area 3.8 km long and 1.4 km wide (covering the detected plume and
structural closures). Assuming a reservoir thickness of 193 m and a porosity of 0.36 from [12] gives a total pore
volume of 3.7x108 m3. To convert mass to volume we assume an average CO2 density of 675 kg/m3 (however, in
reality there is a density gradient within the storage unit, so this is a simplifying assumption). Table 1 gives the
resulting estimate for the storage efficiency, , at Sleipner in 2010, which is close to 5 % of the pore volume.
Most of the free-phase CO2 is expected to be mobile but retained beneath gentle structural closures beneath thin
shales [13]. A smaller fraction may be residually trapped due to migration, but there is no direct observation of this
fraction at Sleipner. Estimating the fraction of CO2 dissolved in the brine is challenging. Using time-lapse gravity data
(giving density change as a function of time) combined with the time-lapse seismic data (giving estimates of geometry
and volumes), Alnes et al. [25] showed that the rate of CO2 dissolution into the brine at Sleipner must be less than
2.7 % per year. However, the dense brine cannot be directly detected from the gravity data, so it could be much lower
 Philip S. Ringrose / Energy Procedia 146 (2018) 166–172 171
6 Author name / Energy Procedia 00 (2018) 000–000

than this upper bound. Laboratory and modelling studies can be used to argue that some dissolution must, however,
be occurring. A recent model forecast for layer 9 [26] suggests 10% dissolution after 20 years injection at Sleipner.
This, albeit very uncertain, estimate gives a likely picture for the fractionation between free-phase and dissolved-phase
CO2 at Sleipner (Table 1).

Table 1. CO2 storage metrics for the Sleipner case as of 2010.

CO2 storage metric (as of 2010 seismic survey) Mass (Mt) Fraction of pore
space occupied ()
Total injected 12.18 0.048
Free phase 11+0.5 0.044
Dissolved phase 1.2+0.5 0.004

3. Discussion and Conclusions

The CO2 plume monitoring observations at Sleipner indicate an overall storage efficiency of around 5% (after
14 years of injection) with approximately one tenth of this volume dissolved in the brine phase. These estimates are
consistent with the theoretical fluid-dynamical framework for storage efficiency in which a gravity dominated
processes are expected to have efficiencies in the range of 1-6%. At Sleipner, the occurrence of shale barriers (or
baffles) causes a multi-layer plume (Fig. 3) counteracting the effects of buoyancy, which would otherwise cause the
plume to rise rapidly to the top of the sandstone unit. The observed storage efficiency of 5% is therefore a function of
the geological heterogeneity of the storage unit as well as the fluid physics. Future CO2 storage projects could expect
storage efficiencies of a similar order of magnitude, although very dependent of the specifics of the geology. There
are also several potential ways to increase the storage efficiency above 6%, by using smart well placements to exploit
the geology or by modifying the injection stream [27].

Nomenclature

B storage unit thickness

Cc storage capacity coefficient
k permeability
ki relative permeability for phase i
Mt Million metric tonnes
Qwell injection volume at time t
rmax maximum radius of cylinder containing CO2 plume
t injection time interval
VPV pore volume of the storage unit
 fluid density difference
 storage capacity efficiency factor
 c,  b fluid mobilities for CO2 and brine
r mobility ratio
i viscosity for phase i
 porosity

Acknowledgements

Equinor ASA (formerly Statoil) is thanked for access to Sleipner data made available by the license partners of
PL046 and research consortia SACS and CO2ReMoVe. Anne-Kari Furre (Equinor) contributed with advice and
measurements of plume dimensions.
172 Philip S. Ringrose / Energy Procedia 146 (2018) 166–172
Author name / Energy Procedia 00 (2018) 000–000 7

References

[1] Ringrose P.S. “Principles of sustainability and physics as a basis for the low-carbon energy transition” Petroleum Geoscience 23 (2017):
287-297.
[2] Haszeldine R.S., S. Flude, G. Johnson, and V. Scott. “Negative emissions technologies and carbon capture and storage to achieve the Paris
Agreement commitments” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A 376 (2018): 20160447.
[3] Maldal T., and I.M. Tappel. “CO2 Underground Storage for Snøhvit Gas Field Development” In Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies, 6th
International Conference (2013): 601-606.
[4] Hansen O., D. Gilding, B. Nazarian, B. Osdal, P. Ringrose, J.B. Kristoffersen, and H. Hansen. “Snøhvit: The history of injecting and storing
1 Mt CO2 in the fluvial Tubåen Fm” Energy Procedia 37 (2013): 3565-3573.
[5] Norwegian Ministry of Petroleum and Energy. “Feasibility study for full-scale CCS in Norway” (2016)
http://www.gassnova.no/en/Documents/Feasibilitystudy_fullscale_CCS_Norway_2016.pdf
[6] Ringrose P.S., R. Thorsen, P. Zweigel, B. Nazarian, A.K. Furre, B. Paasch, P.I. Karstad. “Ranking and Risking Alternative CO2 Storage
Sites Offshore Norway” Fourth Sustainable Earth Sciences Conference (2017), doi 10.3997/2214-4609.201702142.
[7] Baklid A., R. Korbol, and G. Owren. “Sleipner Vest CO2 disposal, CO2 injection into a shallow underground aquifer” SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition (1996), Society of Petroleum Engineers.
[8] Chadwick A., G. Williams, N. Delepine, V. Clochard, K. Labat, S. Sturton, M. Buddensiek, M. Dillen, M. Nickel, A. Lima, R. Arts, F.
Neele, and G. Rossi. “Quantitative analysis of time-lapse seismic monitoring data at the Sleipner CO2 storage operation” The Leading Edge
29 (2010): 170–7, doi:10.1190/1.3304820.
[9] Eiken O., P. Ringrose, C. Hermanrud, B. Nazarian, T.A. Torp, and L. Høier. “Lessons learned from 14 years of CCS operations: Sleipner, In
Salah and Snøhvit” Energy Procedia 4 (2011): 5541-5548.
[10] Furre A.K., A. Kiær, and O. Eiken. “CO2-induced seismic time shifts at Sleipner” Interpretation 3.3 (2015): SS23-SS35.
[11] Furre A.K., O. Eiken, H. Alnes, J.N. Vevatne, and A.F. Kiær. “20 years of monitoring CO2-injection at Sleipner” Energy Procedia, (2017),
114: 3916-3926.
[12] Singh V.P., A. Cavanagh, H. Hansen, B. Nazarian, M. Iding, and P.S. Ringrose. “Reservoir modeling of CO2 plume behavior calibrated
against monitoring data from Sleipner, Norway” SPE annual technical conference and exhibition (2010), Society of Petroleum Engineers
(SPE-134891).
[13] Cavanagh A., R.S. Haszeldine, and B. Nazarian. “The Sleipner CO2 storage site: using a basin model to understand reservoir simulations of
plume dynamics” First Break 33 (2015): 61-68.
[14] Ringrose P., S. Greenberg, S. Whittaker, B. Nazarian, and V. Volker Oye. “Building confidence in CO2 storage using reference datasets
from demonstration projects” Energy Procedia 114 (2017): 3547-3557.
[15] Osdal B., H.M. Zadeh, S. Johansen, R.R. Gonzalez, and G.O. Wærum. “Snøhvit CO2 Monitoring Using Well Pressure Measurement and 4D
Seismic” Fourth EAGE CO2 Geological Storage Workshop (2014), 10.3997/2214-4609.20140110.
[16] Pawar R.J., G.S. Bromhal, J.W. Carey, W. Foxall, A. Korre, P.S. Ringrose, O. Tucker, M.N. Watson, and J.A. White. “Recent advances in
risk assessment and risk management of geologic CO2 storage” International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 40 (2015): 292–311, doi:
10.1016/j.ijggc.2015.06.014.
[17] Finley R.J. “An overview of the Illinois Basin–Decatur project” Greenhouse Gases: Science and Technology 4 (2014): 571–579.
[18] GCCSI. “The Global Status of CCS: 2017” Global CCS Institute, Docklands, Victoria, Australia (2017) http://www.globalccsinstitute.com
[19] Godec M.L., V.A. Kuuskraa, and P. Dipietro. “Opportunities for using anthropogenic CO2 for enhanced oil recovery and CO2 storage”
Energy & Fuels 27 (2013): 4183–4189.
[20] Metz B. (ed). “Carbon dioxide capture and storage: special report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change.” (2005) Cambridge
University Press.
[21] Boait F.C., N.J. White, M.J. Bickle, R.A. Chadwick, J.A. Neufeld, and H.E. Huppert. “Spatial and temporal evolution of injected CO2 at the
Sleipner Field, North Sea” Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth (2012) 117.
[22] Nordbotten J.M., and M.A. Celia. “Similarity solutions for fluid injection into confined aquifers” Journal of Fluid Mechanics (2006): 561,
307-327.
[23] Nordbotten J.M., M.A. Celia, and S. Bachu. “Injection and storage of CO2 in deep saline aquifers: analytical solution for CO2 plume
evolution during injection” Transport in Porous Media 58 (2005): 339-360.
[24] Okwen R.T., M.T. Stewart, and J.A. Cunningham. “Analytical solution for estimating storage efficiency of geologic sequestration of CO2”
International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 4 (2010): 102-107.
[25] Alnes H., O. Eiken, S. Nooner, G. Sasagawa, T. Stenvold, and M. Zumberge. “Results from Sleipner gravity monitoring: updated density
and temperature distribution of the CO2 plume” Energy Procedia 4 (2011): 5504-5511.
[26] Cavanagh A.J., R.S. Haszeldine, and B. Nazarian. “The Sleipner CO2 storage site: using a basin model to understand reservoir simulations of
plume dynamics” First Break 33 (2015): 61-68.
[27] Nazarian B., R. Held, L. Høier, and P. Ringrose. “Reservoir management of CO2 injection: pressure control and capacity enhancement”
Energy Procedia 37 (2013): 4533-4543.