Energy Sources, Part A: Recovery, Utilization, and

Environmental Effects

ISSN: 1556-7036 (Print) 1556-7230 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ueso20

Comparison of base gas replacement using

nitrogen, flue gas and air during underground
natural gas storage in a depleted gas reservoir

Hamed Namdar, Elnaz Khodapanah & Seyyed Alireza Tabatabaei-Nejad

To cite this article: Hamed Namdar, Elnaz Khodapanah & Seyyed Alireza Tabatabaei-Nejad
(2019): Comparison of base gas replacement using nitrogen, flue gas and air during underground
natural gas storage in a depleted gas reservoir, Energy Sources, Part A: Recovery, Utilization, and
Environmental Effects, DOI: 10.1080/15567036.2019.1618989

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/15567036.2019.1618989

Published online: 17 May 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 10

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ueso20
ENERGY SOURCES, PART A: RECOVERY, UTILIZATION, AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
https://doi.org/10.1080/15567036.2019.1618989

Comparison of base gas replacement using nitrogen, flue gas and

air during underground natural gas storage in a depleted gas
reservoir
Hamed Namdar, Elnaz Khodapanah, and Seyyed Alireza Tabatabaei-Nejad
Faculty of Petroleum and Natural Gas Engineering, Sahand Oil and Gas Research Institute (SOGRI), Sahand University
of Technology, Sahand New City, Tabriz, Iran

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Base gas is considered as an important factor in the storage operation as it Received 8 December 2018
remains permanently in the reservoir and maintains the reservoir pressure Revised 1 March 2019
along the production cycle. Depending on the reservoir under considera- Accepted 22 April 2019
tion, base gas may occupy as little as 15% or as much as 75% of the total
KEYWORDS
underground gas storage (UGS) reservoirs. Providing and injecting the Underground gas storage
cushion gas has the most contribution to the cost of the storage operations. (UGS); base gas; air; flue gas;
Therefore, part of the base gas can be replaced by a cost-effective gas such nitrogen; carbon dioxide
as nitrogen, flue gas or air to reduce the costs of the investment. Some capture; enhanced gas
degree of mixing takes place when two miscible gases come into contact recovery
with one another that affects the quality of the produced natural gas.
Therefore, the process needs to be studied and controlled. In this study,
the feasibility of underground gas storage and the substitution of the base
gas by a cheaper gas, i.e., nitrogen, flue gas, and air, are investigated in
a partially depleted dry gas reservoir with very low initial pressure. To do so,
a comparative study is performed among nitrogen, flue gas and air as the
alternative gases to the base gas. In addition, the effect of flue gas compo-
sition on the performance of base gas replacement and ultimate gas
recovery is investigated. Pure CO2 is considered as flue gas with zero
mole% N2. In the end, the effect of the reservoir properties on mixing
between the gases is studied. The results indicated that it is possible to
substitute 24.8% of the base gas by nitrogen to obtain a 16.2% increase in
the gas recovery of the reservoir. In this case, the ultimate recovery reaches
50.90%. Using flue gas as the alternative gas, the results showed a 15.6%
increase in the gas recovery of the reservoir, obtained by substituting 23.9%
of the base gas. The ultimate recovery using flue gas is 50.31%. According
to the results, flue gas can be used as an appropriate option to replace the
base gas of the UGS reservoir under consideration, and hence, there would
be no more need for separation and purification of N2 and CO2. Increasing
the CO2 composition in the flue gas up to 46.6 mole% leads to a decrease in
the base gas replacement amount. When the composition increases above
46.6 mole%, the amount of the replaced gas does not change. However, in
this composition range, more flue gas is injected into the reservoir, which
has environmental advantages. The highest injection rate of the flue gas is
obtained when the flue gas contains 100 mole% of CO2. The main problem
in using air as the base gas is the high viscosity of air which requires a high
injection pressure. According to the results, using air as the replacement
gas, 21.3% of the base gas is substituted by air. In this case, gas recovery
increases by 13.9% with respect to the reservoir depletion scenario and the
ultimate recovery reaches 48.62%.

CONTACT Elnaz Khodapanah ekhodapanah@yahoo.com

Color versions of one or more of the figures in the article can be found online at www.tandfonline.com/ueso.
© 2019 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
2 H. NAMDAR ET AL.

Introduction
Cushion gas or base gas in underground gas storage reservoirs is referred to as the permanent inventory
that is required to maintain the reservoir pressure and supply the deliverability rate during the withdrawal
process (Ikoku 1984). Providing and injecting the base gas cover the major cost of the storage operation
(Stopa et al. 2009). Therefore, the investment costs can be reduced by substituting part of the base gas using
another gas such as nitrogen, flue gas and air that is more cost-effective than the natural gas. This
substitution should not have any adverse effect on the availability of the pipeline working gas quality
from the storage field. Some degree of mixing occurs when two miscible gases come into contact with one
another (Oldenburg 2013) that affects the quality of the produced natural gas and requires to be controlled.
In 1972, for the first time in France, 40% of the synthesis base gas was replaced by natural gas in Beyenes
reservoir (Stephan and Foh 1991). Persoff et al. (1990) used aqueous foams to remedy the low recoverability
in an aquifer gas storage reservoir. In 2000, the simulation of mixing between nitrogen and working gas was
studied during the substitution of 22.6% of the base gas by nitrogen in one of the Turkey’s gas reservoirs
(Kilincer and Gumrah, 2000). Sinayuc, Gumrah, and Kucukeksi (2000) used a linear programming to
optimize the production from an underground gas storage reservoir when the gas capacity of the reservoir
is not sufficient to deal with the demand. Some other researchers, such as Oldenburg (2003) and Van der
Meer and Obdam (2008) have studied carbon dioxide usage as the base gas for substitution of the base gas.
Gumrah et al. (2005) performed a simulation study to convert a depleted reservoir to UGS reservoir. In
their study, the remaining gas at the end of the depletion was used as base gas. Srinivasan (2006) performed
a simulation study to investigate the effects of different factors such as placement of inert base gas, porosity,
permeability, pressure, temperature and production rate of the natural gas on mixing between inert
nitrogen gas and working gas. Lekkala (2009) studied the effect of well location, shape of reservoir, inert
base gas volume and distance between injection and production wells on mixing. Shin and Lee (2011)
considered a depleted gas reservoir to convert into an underground-liquefied natural gas storage reservoir.
They investigated the compositional variation and the validity of the operation. A natural gas storage
project was performed in the Wierzchowice low-quality reservoir, including 29% nitrogen and 70%
methane, located in Poland (Szott 2012). Kim, Choi, and Park (2015) performed a simulation study to
compare the performance of nitrogen and carbon dioxide as the base gases in a cubic reservoir model.
Ansari et al. (2017) studied the effect of gas production and injection rate, skin factor, and perforation
length on mixing between nitrogen and natural gas during natural gas storage in a reservoir with low
quality including 85% nitrogen. In the present study, the feasibility of underground gas storage in a partially
depleted dry gas reservoir with very low initial pressure and the substitution of the reservoir base gas by the
lower cost gases are investigated using a commercial compositional simulator. A comparative study is
performed among nitrogen, flue gas and air as the substitution gases. In addition, the flue gas composition
effect on the efficiency of base gas replacement is investigated. In this regard, pure CO2 is considered as the
flue gas with zero concentration of N2.

Methodology
The reservoir under consideration, which has 186 Bscf initial gas in place, was explored in 2001 by
drilling the first well. Production from the reservoir started from three vertical wells in 2003. The
other three vertical wells were added two months after the three early produced vertical wells. The
initial pressure and temperature of the reservoir are, respectively, 2075 psia and 155 °F at the
reference depth of 5565 feet subsea. The depth of the reservoir top is 3773 feet and the reservoir
thickness is 248 feet. The average porosity and permeability of the reservoir are 0.21 and 23.7 mD,
respectively. Gas has been produced from the limestone layers of the reservoir at very low pressure.
The cap rock of the reservoir has a thickness in the range of 30–200 feet. The average water
saturation of the reservoir is 10%, and there is no indication of the existence of water-gas contact
and aquifer. The reservoir was discretized by non-orthogonal corner point grids into 14
100
4
grid blocks in the x, y, and z directions, respectively. The three-dimensional view of the reservoir
 ENERGY SOURCES, PART A: RECOVERY, UTILIZATION, AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS 3

Figure 1. Three-dimensional view of the reservoir and location of the initial wells.

along with the initial wells is shown in Figure 1. The characteristics of the reservoir rock and fluid
properties are given in Table 1. The initial composition of the reservoir fluid is shown in Table 2.
Phase behavior of the reservoir fluid is described using the three-parameter Peng-Robinson Equation
of State (1976). The reservoir fluid type is dry gas.

History matching the initial reservoir depletion process

The dynamic model of the reservoir has been used to get the best match to the reservoir history.
History matching has been performed using the observed wellhead pressure and the cumulative
production data. In order to get the best match to the observed data, permeability and porosity have
been used as the adjustable parameters. The average porosity data of the reservoir are only available

Table 1. Characteristics of the reservoir rock and fluid properties.

Property Value Field Unit
Rock Compressibility 4 × 10−6 1/psi
Formation Fracturing 0.68 psi/ft
Gradient
Gas Specific Gravity 0.603 -
Gas Viscosity 0.016 cp
Gas Compressibility 5.02 × 10−4 1/psi

Table 2. Initial composition of the reservoir fluid and the storage gas.
Component Initial composition of reservoir fluid (%) Composition of storage (pipeline) gas (%)
N2 2.28 2.0
CO2 1.15 0.06
C1 91.45 95.5
C2 3.21 2.4
C3 1.21 0.04
i-C4 0.24 0
n-C4 0.30 0
i-C5 0.09 0
n-C5 0.07 0
4 H. NAMDAR ET AL.

in the drilled well locations, and the distribution of the porosity in other locations of the reservoir
must be specified using a trial and error method. To do so, the known porosity values in well
locations were imported into a contouring software and Kriging method was used to generate the
probable iso-porosity maps. The porosity of sedimentary rocks tends to decrease with increasing the
formation depth (Maxwell 1964). Higher regions of the reservoir have high porosities while these
values rapidly decrease in the lower regions. The Average Absolute Relative Deviation (AARD) of
the simulated wellhead pressure and cumulative gas production with respect to the observed data are
shown in Figure 2. AARD is calculated using Equation 1.
 
1 XN  yi  ^yi 
AARD ¼ i¼1 
(1)
N yi 

Where N is the number of the observation data, yi is the value of the ith observed quantity (wellhead
pressure or cumulative gas production) and ^yi is the calculated value of the same quantity obtained
from simulation. The history matched model is then used to perform different scenarios regarding
the gas storage process.

Results and discussion

The results of different scenarios performed using the history matched dynamic model are given
in this section. First, new horizontal wells are added to the model to fast deplete the reservoir
and covert it to the storage gas reservoir. In addition, in order to implement the scenarios in
which nitrogen, flue gas or air is injected as the substitution gas, two new horizontal wells are
added to the reservoir model. Then, a comparative study is performed among nitrogen, flue gas
and air as the alternative gases to the base gas. The effect of flue gas composition on the
performance of base gas replacement and ultimate gas recovery is also investigated. In the end,
the effects of reservoir properties on mixing between base gas and natural gas are studied during
the substitution process of the base gas by the lower price gas.

0.12
Wellhead Pressure
0.1 Cumulative Gas Production

0.08
AARD

0.06

0.04

0.02

0
V1 V3 V4 V5 V6
Well

Figure 2. AARD of wellhead pressure and cumulative gas production.

 ENERGY SOURCES, PART A: RECOVERY, UTILIZATION, AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS 5

Reservoir fast depletion scenario

In this scenario, in addition to the current vertical wells, five horizontal wells have been added to the
system in order to convert the reservoir to the storage gas reservoir and perform the fast depletion of
the reservoir. The base pressure of the reservoir was considered as 1350 psia. The total production
rate of the reservoir was set to 6.5 MMSCF/D, which was kept constant during the depletion
scenario. In four years, the average pressure of the reservoir reached the injection pressure of 1350
psia. Local injection pressure in well locations of vertical wells V1, V2, V3, V4, V5, and V6 were
1348.2, 1351.9, 1350.8, 1347.9, 1349.5, 1348.9 psia, respectively, and those obtained for the horizontal
wells H1, H2, H3, H4 and H5 were, respectively, 1353.9, 1353.5, 1348.1, 1349.3, and 1347.7 psia. The
recovery was calculated as 34.71% in 8.3 years, i.e., at the end of the depletion scenario.

Determination of the optimum injection and production rates

According to the obtained results, among many different implemented scenarios, the selected
optimum injection and production rates are, respectively, equivalent to the 11 injection wells, each
well at the rate of 20 MMSCF/D, and the 11 production wells, each well at the rate of 24.4 MMSCF/
D. In order to achieve the determined production rate, the reservoir pressure should reach at least
1776.5 psia during the injection period of the reservoir.

The injection and production scenarios

The production program is executed for five months, i.e., 150 days, of the cold season. The injection
program is then implemented for a six-month duration of the hot season, i.e., for 183 days. In order
to prepare surface facilities and make necessary changes in facilities, all the wells are closed for 15
days between the injection and production periods. The process of injection and production
continues for seven cycles. The composition of the injection gas is given in Table 2. In order to
investigate the performance of substitution of the base gas by a lower-cost gas in the gas storage
operation, different scenarios were designed, which are given in Table 3. To implement the scenarios
in which nitrogen, flue gas or air is injected as the substitution gas, two new horizontal wells, IN-1
and IN-2, are added to the reservoir model. These two new wells, which are at the maximum
distance apart from the other wells, are perforated at the lowest layer of the reservoir. This is due to
the fact that mixing between the lower-cost gas, i.e., nitrogen, flue gas or air, and the natural gas
should be minimized. As it can be seen from Table 3, in some cycles, only natural gas is used as the
injection gas. In some other ones, the lower-cost gas is injected simultaneously with the natural gas.

Table 3. Designed scenarios to evaluate the substitution of the base gas by lower-cost gases.
Rate (MMSCF/D)
Cycle 1 Cycle 2 Cycle 3 Cycle 4 Cycle 5 Cycle 6 Cycle 7
Scenario Gas Type Inj. Prod. Inj. Prod. Inj. Prod. Inj. Prod. Inj. Prod. Inj. Prod. Inj. Prod.
1 NG* 220 268.4 220 268.4 220 268.4 220 268.4 220 268.4 220 268.4 220 268.4
2 NG 172.9 268.4 220 268.4 172.9 268.4 220 268.4 172.9 268.4 220 268.4 172.9 268.4
N2 47.1 0 0 0 47.1 0 0 0 47.1 0 0 0 47.1 0
3 NG 165.2 268.4 220 268.4 165.2 268.4 220 268.4 165.2 268.4 220 268.4 220 268.4
N2 47.1 0 0 0 47.1 0 0 0 47.1 0 0 0 0 0
4 NG 172.9 268.4 220 268.4 172.9 268.4 220 268.4 172.9 268.4 220 268.4 172.9 268.4
Flue 47.1 0 0 0 47.1 0 0 0 47.1 0 0 0 47.1 0
5 NG 167.1 268.4 220 268.4 167.1 268.4 220 268.4 167.1 268.4 220 268.4 220 268.4
Flue 47.1 0 0 0 47.1 0 0 0 47.1 0 0 0 0 0
6 NG 172.9 268.4 220 268.4 172.9 268.4 220 268.4 172.9 268.4 220 268.4 172.9 268.4
Air 47.1 0 0 0 47.1 0 0 0 47.1 0 0 0 47.1 0
7 NG 172.9 268.4 220 268.4 172.9 268.4 220 268.4 172.9 268.4 220 268.4 220 268.4
Air 45 0 0 0 45 0 0 0 45 0 0 0 0 0
6 H. NAMDAR ET AL.

This makes the movement of the substitution gas towards the production wells slower and hence,
reduces the mixing phenomenon. Due to the fact that the concentrations of CO2 and N2 in the
salable gas should not exceed 2% (Sim et al. 2008) and 10% (Turta et al. 2007), respectively, in order
to control the quality of the produced gas, the maximum allowable concentrations of the production
streams from the wells are set to 2% for CO2 and 10% for N2.

Scenario 1
In this scenario, the initial reservoir fluid with the composition given in Table 2 is used as the
injection gas, and no substitution of the base gas is performed. The gas is alternatively injected into
and produced from the reservoir at the rates of 220 and 268.4 MMSCF/D, respectively, during the
seven cycles. Due to the similarity between the compositions of the injected gas and the reservoir gas,
pressure increase or decrease arising from the compositional differences does not occur. Due to this
behavior, this scenario is used as the base case to make comparison among the results, especially
pressure behavior of the reservoir, obtained from different injection and production scenarios during
the gas storage process.

Scenario 2
In this scenario, the substitution of the base gas is performed by nitrogen. In addition, the storage
gas with the composition given in Table 2 is used as the natural gas to be injected into the reservoir.
As it can be seen from Table 3, nitrogen is injected into the reservoir through the two new injection
wells in odd cycles and simultaneously with the natural gas injection through the other wells. The
injection rate of nitrogen is 21.4% of the total gas injection rate. In even cycles, only natural gas is
injected into the gas storage reservoir. The gas production rates in all cycles are the same as those
used in Scenario 1. Figure 3 shows the total gas injection and production rates. Average reservoir
pressure during the injection and production cycles is gradually increased in each cycle with respect
to that of the base case (Figure 4). Therefore, the total capacity of the nitrogen injection wells is not
fully utilized during the fifth and the seventh cycles as in the otherwise case, the pressure becomes
higher than the breakdown pressure of the formation and/or the cap rock. Fracturing pressure in the

Figure 3. Injection and production rates of the gases during different cycles of the gas storage process in different scenarios.
 ENERGY SOURCES, PART A: RECOVERY, UTILIZATION, AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS 7

Figure 4. Pressure behavior of the reservoir during different injection and production cycles in different scenarios.

nitrogen injection wells, i.e., IN-1 and IN-2, is calculated as 2560 psia. Given the formation fracture
gradient of 0.68 psi/ft and the depth of 4183 ft for the IN-1 and IN-2 injection wells, the estimated
formation fracturing pressure is 2844 psia. It is more appropriate to consider safety margins to
reflect uncertainties in the fracture gradient. Hence, it is typical to limit the allowable fracturing
pressure to 90% of its estimated value. As a result, in this study, the formation fracturing pressure in
the IN-1 and IN-2 injection wells is set to 2560 psia. When the total capacity of the nitrogen
injection wells, i.e., 47.1 MMSCF/D was utilized, the bottom-hole pressure of wells in fifth and the
seventh cycles would reach 2587.6 psia and 2609.5 psia, respectively. For this reason, the injection
rate is automatically reduced by software at the end of the fifth and the seventh cycles. Injection rates
at the end of the fifth and seventh cycles are 218.7 MMSCF/D and 217.08 MMSCF/D, respectively
(Scenario 2 of Figure 3). Due to the drying effects of both nitrogen and the storage gas, at the end of
each cycle, the coefficient of isothermal compressibility of the reservoir gas decreases and the
reservoir gas deviation factor (Z-factor) increases. In addition, nitrogen is more effective than the
storage gas in reducing the compressibility and increasing the deviation factor of the reservoir gas.
The amount of the replaced base gas is equal to the sum of the differences in the storage gas injected
into the reservoir and the natural gas produced from the reservoir in different cycles. According to
the results obtained from Scenario 2, it is possible to substitute 14.2% of the base gas by nitrogen. In
this case, the gas recovery increases by 9.28% with respect to reservoir depletion scenario (i.e.,
34.71% gas recovery), and the ultimate recovery reaches 43.99%.

Scenario 3
In this scenario, similar to Scenario 2, nitrogen is injected into the reservoir as the substitution gas
during the odd cycles. However, in this case, the injection rate of the storage gas during odd cycles is
reduced in such a way that at the end of the injection, the reservoir pressure reaches the minimum
pressure required to maintain the gas production rate at the constant predetermined optimum
production rate. The rates of the injection and production storage gas during the even cycles are the
same as those used in Scenario 2 and in the base case. Results show that at the end of the seventh
cycle, the composition of nitrogen in the produced stream from Well V3, the closest well to the
8 H. NAMDAR ET AL.

nitrogen injection wells, becomes more than 10 mole%, i.e., the upper limit of the N2 concentration
in the production stream. Therefore, in this scenario, nitrogen is injected during Cycles 1, 3 and 5,
along with the storage gas. In the other cycles, only the storage gas is used as the injection gas. The
injection and production rates during different cycles of the gas storage process are shown in
Scenario 3 of Figure 3. As the figure shows, in Cycles 1, 3 and 5 of Scenario 3, the gas injection
rate is lower than the corresponding rate of the base case. Average reservoir pressure during the
injection and production cycles is slightly increased in each cycle with respect to that of the base case
(Scenario 3 of Figure 4). This is due to the fact that both nitrogen and storage gases have a drying
effect with respect to the reservoir gas. In order to follow the concentration of N2 in the production
streams during the subsequent cycles, simulation is advanced until 2026. As Figure 5 indicates, the
composition of N2 in all the streams from the production wells does not exceed the upper limit.
According to the results obtained from Scenario 3, it is possible to substitute 24.8% of the base gas by
nitrogen. In this case, the gas recovery increases by 16.2% with respect to reservoir depletion
scenario and the ultimate recovery reaches 50.9%.

Scenario 4
In this scenario, the substitution of the base gas is performed using Flue gas. The Flue gas that is
used for injection contains 86 mole% N2 and 14 mole% CO2 (Turta et al. 2007). As it can be seen
from Table 3, in this scenario, flue gas is injected along with the storage gas in odd cycles. In even
cycles, only the storage gas is injected into and produced from the reservoir at the rates of exactly the
same as those used in the three previous scenarios. Scenario 4 of Figure 3 shows the gas injection and
production rates during different cycles of the gas storage process. The maximum average reservoir
pressure in each cycle increases as the cycles of the gas storage process proceed. This increase in the
pressure is especially observed in the odd cycles due to the flue gas injection (Scenario 4 of Figure 4).
Due to the fact that the reservoir pressure should not exceed the breakdown pressure of the
formation and/or the cap rock, the total capacity of the flue gas injection wells is not fully utilized
during the seventh cycle. Therefore, as Scenario 4 of Figure 3 shows, the injection rate is reduced to
219 MMSCF/D at the end of the seventh cycle. Due to the high concentration of nitrogen in the flue
gas, the performance of the flue gas as the substitution gas is similar to that of nitrogen. However, in
this case, it is less effective than nitrogen in reducing the coefficient of isothermal compressibility
and increasing the deviation factor of the reservoir gas. This is because the drying effect of the flue
gas is lower than that of nitrogen due to the presence of CO2 in the flue gas. According to the results

10
V1
Composition of N2 (mole %)

9 V2
8 V3
7 V4
6 V5
5 V6
4 H1
3 H2
2 H3
1 H4
0 H5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Cycle Number
Figure 5. Composition of nitrogen in the produced gas streams from the wells during different cycles of Scenario 3 until the end
of 2026.
 ENERGY SOURCES, PART A: RECOVERY, UTILIZATION, AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS 9

obtained from Scenario 4, it is possible to substitute 21.3% of the base gas by the flue gas. In this
case, the gas recovery increases by 13.91% with respect to reservoir depletion scenario and the
ultimate recovery reaches 48.62%.

Scenario 5
This scenario is similar to Scenario 4, except that in this case, the injection rate of the storage gas
during the odd cycles is reduced in a way that at the beginning of the gas production, the reservoir
pressure reaches the minimum value required to maintain the production rate at the constant
predetermined optimum rate of production. In this manner, the injection rate of the storage gas
during the odd cycles reaches 167 MMSCF/D. Monitoring the composition of N2 and CO2 in the
production streams from different wells indicates that the composition of N2 always remains less
than its upper limit, i.e., 10%, during the seven cycles of the storage process. However, the
composition of CO2 from the production Well V3, the closest well to the flue gas injection wells,
exceeds its upper limit, i.e., 2% during the seventh cycle. Therefore, in this scenario, flue gas is
injected during the first, the third and the fifth cycles along with the storage gas. In the other cycles,
only the storage gas is used as the injection gas. Scenario 5 of Figure 3 shows the injection and
production rates during different cycles of the storage process. Advancing the injection and
production cycles of Scenario 5 until the end of the year 2026, we observe that the composition of
CO2 in the production streams of the wells does not exceed the upper limit of 2% (Figure 6).
According to the results obtained from Scenario 5, it is possible to substitute 23.9% of the base gas by
the flue gas. In this case, the gas recovery increases by 15.6% with respect to reservoir depletion
scenario and the ultimate recovery reaches 50.3%. Due to the presence of CO2 in the flue gas, the
amount of the base gas that can be substituted by the flue gas is less than 1% lower than that using
nitrogen. Therefore, comparing the performance of using the flue gas and nitrogen as the substitu-
tion gases allows one to conclude that flue gas can be used to substitute the base gas in the UGS
reservoir in that it is more economical than N2. In other words, the separation process of N2 and
CO2 and the subsequent purification process are high costly operations.

Flue gas composition effect

In order to investigate the effect of flue gas composition on the performance of base gas replacement, in
addition to the flue gas composition used in Scenarios 4 and 5 (i.e., 86 mole% N2 and 14 mole% CO2),
another six compositions are considered which are given in Table 4. Similar to the previous scenarios,

2 V1
Composition of CO2 (mole %)

1.8 V2
1.6 V3
1.4 V4
1.2 V5
1
V6
0.8
H1
0.6
0.4 H2
0.2 H3
0 H4
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
H5
Cycle Number
Figure 6. Composition of carbon dioxide in the produced gas streams from the wells during different cycles of Scenario 5 until the
end of 2026.
 10
H. NAMDAR ET AL.

Table 4. Effect of flue gas composition on the performance of base gas replacement and ultimate gas recovery.
Flue Gas Composition (%) Rate (MMSCF/D)
Cycle 1,3 & 5 Cycle 2,4,6 &7
No N2 CO2 Gas Type Inj. Prod. Inj. Prod. Replaced Base Gas (%) Ultimate Gas Recovery (%)
1 65 35 NG 170.61 268.4 220 268.4 22.3 49.29
Flue 47.1 0 0 0
2 53.4 46.6 NG 172.9 268.4 220 268.4 21.3 48.62
Flue 47.1 0 0 0
3 50 50 NG 172.9 268.4 220 268.4 21.3 48.62
Flue 47.9 0 0 0
4 35 65 NG 172.9 268.4 220 268.4 21.3 48.62
Flue 52 0 0 0
5 14 86 NG 172.9 268.4 220 268.4 21.3 48.62
Flue 62 0 0 0
6 0 100 NG 172.9 268.4 220 268.4 21.3 48.62
Flue 76.3 0 0 0
 ENERGY SOURCES, PART A: RECOVERY, UTILIZATION, AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS 11

replacement of the base gas by flue gas is implemented in the odd cycles in which flue gas is
simultaneously injected with the storage gas. The results indicate that as the composition of CO2 in
the flue gas increases, the pressure increase due to the flue gas injection decreases. This is because CO2
has higher density and wetting properties in comparison with N2 and storage gas. When the CO2
composition in the flue gas exceeds 46.6 mole%, the pressure at the end of the odd injection cycles does
not reach the pressure required to keep the production rate at the predetermined optimized value. The
composition of CO2 at which the reservoir pressure reaches 1776.5 psia as a result of flue gas injection is
46.6 mole%. At the composition of CO2 lower than 46.6 mole%, the drying effect of N2 is predominant
which leads to an increase in the reservoir pressure above 1776.5 psia. This increase in the pressure is not
necessary. Therefore, in order to keep the reservoir pressure at 1776.5 psia at the end of the odd cycles
and increase the base gas replacement capability of the reservoir, the injection rate of the storage gas
decreases in the odd cycles in a way that the reservoir pressure is sufficient to be able to produce the
objective production rate (Table 4). When the composition of CO2 in the flue gas increases above 46.6
mole%, in order to reach the required pressure value, the injection rate of the gas should be increased in
the odd cycles. To this end, one of the two approaches can be implemented in the odd cycles; increasing
the injection rate of the storage gas or increasing the injection rate of the flue gas. Due to the fact that the
increase in the injection rate of the storage gas leads to the decrease in the capability of the base gas
replacement, the injection rate of the flue gas increases in the odd cycles, which is in line with the
environmental aspects. As it can be seen from Table 4, the increase in the CO2 concentration of the flue
gas above 46.6 mole% does not affect the amount of the replaced base gas. However, it is of great
importance from the environmental point of view. In this manner, more flue gas can be injected into the
reservoir in a way that the formation and/or the cap rock does not break down. The maximum flue gas
injection rate in the odd cycles is 76.3 MMSCF/D, which corresponds to the flue gas containing 100 mole
% CO2. In this case, 41888.7 MMSCF CO2 can be captured in the underground. Monitoring the
composition of CO2 and N2 in the production streams from the wells indicates that the concentration of
CO2 in the produced gas stream of Cycle 7 becomes more than 2 mole%. This phenomenon occurs at
different compositions of the flue gas shown in Table 4. Therefore, base gas replacement is not performed
in Cycle 7.

Scenario 6
In this scenario, base gas is substituted by the dry air. The injected dry air is assumed to be composed of
78 mole% N2, 21 mole% O2, and 1 mole% CO2. According to Table 3, the dry air is injected
simultaneously with the storage gas during the odd cycles. Similar to the previous scenarios, during
the even cycles, only storage gas is injected into the reservoir. The injection and production rates of the
gases during different cycles of the gas storage are shown in Scenario 6 of Figure 3. As the figure indicates,
during Cycles 3, 5 and 7, the total injection rate of the flue gas and storage gas decreases below 220
MMSCF/D. This is because, in these cycles, the injection pressure reaches more than the formation and/
or the cap rock break down pressure. As a result, the injection rate decreases. Comparison of the reservoir
pressure variations during different cycles of Scenarios 2 and 6 (Figure 4) shows that although the
increase in the average reservoir pressure in Scenario 6 is slightly lower than that obtained in Scenario 2,
the injection pressure reaches more than the formation breakdown pressure during Cycles 3, 5 and 7 of
Scenario 6. This phenomenon occurs only in Cycles 5 and 7 of Scenario 2. In addition, during Cycles 5
and 7, the decrease in the injection rate in Scenario 6 is higher than that obtained in Scenario 2. The
injection rates at the end of Cycles 5 and 7 of Scenario 6 are 217.25 MMSCF/D and 215.58 MMSCF/D,
respectively, which are 0.67% and 0.70%, lower than the corresponding values in Scenario 2. A precise
look at the viscosity behavior of the replacement gases of Scenarios 2 and 6 reveals that the viscosity of dry
air at the bottom hole is significantly higher than the corresponding viscosity of the injected N2 during
different cycles of the storage process. The higher viscosity of the dry air requires the higher injection
pressure. Therefore, in this case, the decrease in the injection rate of the storage gas, similar to what has
been performed in Scenario 3, is not an appropriate solution as the problem does not arise from the
higher reservoir pressure. This problem occurs due to the higher air viscosity, which can be alleviated by
12 H. NAMDAR ET AL.

decreasing the injection rate of the air. This is investigated in Scenario 7. According to the results
obtained from Scenario 6, it is possible to substitute 7.1% of the base gas by the dry air. In this case, the
gas recovery increases by 4.64% with respect to reservoir depletion scenario and the ultimate recovery
reaches 39.35%.

Scenario 7
This scenario is similar to Scenario 6, except that in this case, the injection rate of the air decreases
during the odd cycles in a way that the injection pressure during Cycles 3, 5, and 7 remains below the
formation break down pressure. To this end, the injection rate of the air decreases to 45 MMSCF/D.
Scenario 7 of Figure 3 shows the injection and production rates of the gases during different cycles. The
replacement of the base gas by air during Cycle 7 causes the amount of air in the reservoir to be
increased. As a result, the injection air front reaches Well V3. Hence, air breakthrough occurs in Well
V3, and the concentrations of N2 and O2 in the production streams exceed the maximum allowable
values, i.e., 10 mole% and 1 mole%, respectively (Iranian Gas Standard 2014). To alleviate this problem,
the replacement of the base gas by air is not implemented in Cycle 7. Although the injection rate of the
air decreases during the odd cycles, due to the drying effect of the air, the reservoir pressure increases
(Scenario 7 of Figure 4), as a result, the production rate remains at the objective value. The composi-
tions of N2 and O2 in the produced gas streams from different wells are shown in Figure 7 until the end
of the Year 2026. As it can be seen from the figure, the compositions of the aforementioned
components do not exceed the allowable concentrations. According to the results obtained from
Scenario 7, using air as the replacement gas, 21.3% of the base gas is substituted by the air. In this case,
the gas recovery increases by 13.9% with respect to the reservoir depletion scenario and the ultimate
recovery reaches 48.62%. Due to the drying effect of the air, in order to attain 21.3% of the base gas
replacement, lower injection rate is required in comparison with that of the flue gas with CO2
concentration range above 46.6 mole%. The minimum injection rate of the flue gas to reach 21.3%
of the base gas replacement is 47.1 MMSCF/D, while the corresponding value is 45 MMSCF/D in the
case where air is used as the replacement gas. Use of air has an economic advantage because of its
availability and no need for transmission and separation equipment.

Effect of reservoir properties on mixing

Generally, mixing between two miscible gases coming into contact with one another is due to the
molecular diffusion and dispersion mechanisms. Molecular diffusion is due to the concentration
gradient and dispersion is due to the velocity gradient (Cussler 2009). During substitution of part of
the base gas by a cheaper gas, in addition to the type of the candidate gas for substitution of the base
gas, reservoir properties also can affect the amount of mixing between the replaced base gas and

10 1 V1
9 0.9 V2
Composition of N2 (mole %)

Composition of O 2 (mole %)

8 0.8 V3
7 0.7 V4

6 0.6 V5

5 0.5 V6

4 0.4 H1

3 0.3 H2

2 0.2 H3

1 0.1 H4

0 0 H5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Cycle Number Cycle Number

Figure 7. Composition of nitrogen (left) and oxygen (right) in the produced gas streams from the wells during different cycles of
Scenario 7 until the end of 2026.
 ENERGY SOURCES, PART A: RECOVERY, UTILIZATION, AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS 13

natural gas. In order to investigate this issue, the effects of reservoir parameters such as temperature,
pressure, porosity, and permeability on substitution of the base gas and mixing are investigated in
this section. To do so, Scenario 3 was considered as the default case, and sensitivity analysis was
performed by changing the reservoir parameters in this scenario. Due to the fact that Well V3, the
closest well to the nitrogen injection wells is highly affected by the injection wells, to investigate the
effect of reservoir parameters on mixing, the concentration of nitrogen in the produced gas from this
well was monitored. Figure 8 shows the results obtained from monitoring the nitrogen composition
in the produced gas from Well V3 at different values of temperature, pressure, porosity, and
permeability. The effect of temperature on mixing was studied at the temperatures of 205°F and
105°F, in addition to the initial temperature of the reservoir. As it can be seen from Figure 8a, mixing
is directly proportional to the temperature, and the mixing rate increases as the temperature
increases. The decrease in the temperature leads to an increase in the density of nitrogen gas,
which in turn reduces the mixing as a result of gravity segregation. On the other hand, the molecular
diffusion coefficient increases by increasing temperature (Sigmund 1976) and hence, the mixing rate
increases. The effect of reservoir pressure on the mixing process was investigated at the pressures of

Effect of Temprature Effect of Pressure

10 10

9 9
T= 205 F P= 2175 psia
Composition of N2 (mole %)
Composition of N2 (mole %)

8 T= 105 F 8
T= 155 F P= 1975 psia
7 7
P= 2075 psia
6 6

5 5

4 4
3 3
2 2
1 1
0 0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Cycle Number Cycle Number
(a) (b)
Effect of Permeability Effect of Porosity
10 10
Initial Porosity*1.1
9 Initial Permeability*2 9
Initial Porosity*0.9
Composition of N2 (mole %)
Composition of N2 (mole %)

8 Initial Permeability*0.5 8
Initial Porosity
7 Initial Permeability 7

6 6

5 5

4 4
3 3
2 2
1 1
0 0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Cycle Number Cycle Number
(c) (d)
Figure 8. Effect of reservoir properties on mixing between replaced N2 as the base gas and natural gas.
14 H. NAMDAR ET AL.

2175 and 1975 psia, in addition to the initial pressure of the reservoir. The results indicate that by
increasing the reservoir pressure, the concentration of nitrogen in the produced gas decreases which
can occur as a result of the reduction in the mixing phenomenon (Figure 8b). As the reservoir
pressure increases, the density of nitrogen also increases. As a result, the gravity segregation
increases and mixing decreases. According to the study performed by Sigmund (1976), the molecular
diffusion coefficient also decreases with the pressure increase, and consequently, mixing phenom-
enon through molecular diffusion mechanism decreases. In order to investigate the effect of perme-
ability on mixing between the replaced base gas and natural gas, the initial permeability of the
reservoir was multiplied by factors of 2 and ½. As it can be seen from Figure 8c, by increasing the
permeability, the concentration of nitrogen in the production well stream increases. This is due to
the fact that an increase in the permeability can increase the fingering phenomenon, which in turn
leads to an increase in mixing between the gases. Figure 8d shows the effect of porosity on the
concentration of nitrogen in the produced stream from Well V3. For this purpose, the initial
porosity of the reservoir was multiplied by factors of 1.1 and 0.9. According to the figure, as the
porosity increases, the composition of nitrogen in the produced well stream decreases which can be
the result of the decrease in mixing between the gases.

Conclusions
Based on the simulation results of the gas storage process obtained in this study, we arrive at the
following conclusions:

● In the UGS reservoir under study, the highest amount of base gas replacement (i.e., 24.8%) can
be achieved by nitrogen. According to the results, flue gas is a good alternative to nitrogen as
the amount of the base gas replaced by flue gas, and gas recovery is reduced only by 0.9% and
0.6%, respectively, compared to nitrogen. Using flue gas to replace the base gas has an
environmental and economic advantage due to the transfer of greenhouse gases to under-
ground and no further need for separation and purification of N2 and CO2 gases. In the case of
using air as the substitution gas for base gas, the replacement amount reaches 21.3%, which
indicates a 3.5% decrease in the base gas replacement amount in comparison with nitrogen.
However, using air is economically advantageous due to the availability of air and no need for
transmission and separation equipment.
● Due to the high composition of N2 in the flue gas (86%), the performance of the flue gas is
similar to that of pure nitrogen. However, the flue gas is somewhat less effective than pure
nitrogen due to the presence of CO2 in the flue gas and the less drying effect of the flue gas.
● Analysis of the composition effect of flue gas indicates that as the composition of CO2 in flue
gas increases, the drying effect of the flue gas decreases. Increasing the CO2 composition above
46.6%, flue gas exhibits wetting properties. The wetting effect of flue gas increases by increasing
the CO2 concentration in the composition range above 46.6%.
● When the CO2 composition in the flue gas increases above 46.6 mole%, the amount of the
replaced gas does not change. However, in this composition range, more flue gas is injected
into the reservoir, which has environmental advantages. The highest injection rate of the flue
gas is obtained when the flue gas contains 100 mole% of CO2.
● Using air as the replacement gas, only 21.3% of the base gas can be substituted by the air. In
this case, the gas recovery increases by 13.9% with respect to the reservoir depletion scenario
and the ultimate recovery reaches 48.62%.
● Comparison of the base gas replacement using air and flue gas with CO2 concentration above
46.6 mole% indicates that in order to obtain the same amount of gas replacement in both cases
(i.e., 21.3%), due to the drying effect of the air, lower injection rate of air is required in
comparison with the flue gas.
 ENERGY SOURCES, PART A: RECOVERY, UTILIZATION, AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS 15

● Mixing between the replaced base gas and natural gas is directly proportional to the tempera-
ture, and increases with the increase of reservoir temperature. The decrease in the temperature
leads to an increase in the density of nitrogen as the replaced base gas. Therefore, the gravity
segregation increases and mixing between the gases decreases. On the other hand, the mole-
cular diffusion coefficient and hence, the mixing rate increases with increasing the temperature.
Increasing the reservoir pressure causes an increase in the density of nitrogen and hence, the
gravity segregation. In addition, as the reservoir pressure increases, the molecular diffusion
coefficient decreases. As a result of the increase in the gravity segregation and decrease in the
molecular diffusion, mixing between the gases decreases.
● As the permeability of the reservoir increases, the concentration of nitrogen in the produced well
stream from the reservoir increases. This can be due to the increase in the fingering phenomenon,
and hence, an increase in mixing between the gases. On the other hand, by increasing the
porosity, the concentration of the nitrogen in the produced well stream decreases. This may be
due to the fact that by increasing the porosity, more space is available for a constant volume of the
injection gas which can cause a decrease in the mixing phenomenon.

Notes on contributors
Hamed Namdar received his MSc degree in Reservoir Engineering from Sahand University of Technology. His areas
of interest are underground gas storage, CO2 capture, production optimization, gas lift, low salinity water injec-
tion, heavy oil and thermal EOR, data mining and machine learning methods. He is the author of several peer-
reviewed journal and conference papers. He has served as a member of the Sahand Oil and Gas Research Institute
from 2012. Namdar would be in touched via: h_namdar@sut.ac.ir.

Elnaz Khodapanah is an Associate Professor of Petroleum Engineering at Sahand University of Technology. She has
published more than 60 technical articles. She holds a BSc, MSc and PhD degrees from Sahand University of
Technology, Iran. She has been a member of Society of Petroleum Engineers since 2003. She has received several
awards, including; the best selected paper in the SPE sub regional paper contest, taking place on 3rd Jan. 2011, Tehran,
Iran and Fractured Reservoirs Development conference, held in Ahwaz, December 2008. She has taught different
courses in petroleum and chemical engineering. She has also involved in 10 research projects regarding petroleum
matters.

Seyyed Alireza Tabatabaei-Nejad is Professor of Petroleum Engineering at Sahand University of Technology. He is

the dean of Petroleum and Natural Gas Engineering faculty and the head of Sahand Oil and Gas Research Institute. He
has published more than 140 technical articles and conference proceedings, and presented more than 10 workshops.
He holds a BSc degree from Penn. State Univ., MSc degree from NMIMT, USA, and PhD from Heriot-Watt Univ.,
UK. He has served on SPE of Iran section technical committee, and is a chairperson of the SPE as well. He has received
7 honors and awards, including; the best selected research project. He has taught different courses in petroleum
engineering and basic sciences for more than 20 years at SUT and other universities in Iran.Tabatabaei-Nejad may be
contacted at Petroleum and Natural Gas Engineering Faculty, Sahand Oil and Gas Research Institute, Sahand
University of Technology, Sahand New City, Tabriz, Iran. Email : tabatabaei@sut.ac.ir

References
Ansari, N., M. Riazi, S. Ayatollahi, and S. Samipour. 2017. Sensitivity analysis on pertinent parameters on mixing
of cushion and working gas during UGS in a non-hydrocarbon reservoir. 79th EAGE Conference and
Exhibition, Paris, France. doi:10.3997/2214-4609.201700783
Cussler, E. L. 2009. Diffusion and mass transfer in fluid systems. 3th ed. USA: Cambridge University Press.
Gumrah, F., Ö. Izgec, U. Gokcesu, and S. Bagci. 2005. Modeling of underground gas storage in a depleted gas field.
Energy Sources 27 (10):913–20. doi:10.1080/00908310490449009.
Ikoku, C. U. 1984. Natural gas reservoir engineering. New York: Wiley Publication.
Iranian Gas Standard. 2014. Specification for Iranian natural gas quality, IGS-M-CH-033(1). Tehran, Iran: National
Iranian Gas Company.
16 H. NAMDAR ET AL.

Kilincer, N., and F. Gumrah. 2000. A numerical simulation study on mixing of inert cushion gas with working gas in
an underground gas storage reservoir. Energy Sources Part A: Recovery, Utilization, and Environmental Effects 22
(10):869–79.
Kim, J., J. Choi, and K. Park. 2015. Comparison of CO2 and carbon dioxide as cushion gas for underground gas
storage reservoir. Geosystem Engineering 18 (3):163–67. doi:10.1080/12269328.2015.1031916.
Lekkala, S. R. 2009. Impact of injecting inert cushion gas into a gas storage reservoir. M.Sc Thesis, West Virginia
University.
Maxwell, C. J. 1964. Influence of depth, temperature, and geologic age on porosity of quartzose sandstone. A.A.P.G. 48
(5):697–709.
Oldenburg, C. M. 2003. Carbon dioxide as cushion gas for natural gas storage. Energy & Fuels 17 (1):240–46.
doi:10.1021/ef020162b.
Oldenburg, C. M. 2013. Utilization of CO2 as cushion gas for porous media compressed air energy storage. Greenhouse
Gases: Science and Technology 3 (2):124–35. doi:10.1002/ghg.1332.
Peng, D. -Y., and D. B. Robinson. 1976. A New Two-Constant Equation of State. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry
Fundamentals 15 (1):59-64. doi:10.1021/i160057a011
Persoff, P., K. Pruess, S. M. Benson, Y. S. Wu, C. J. Radke, P. A. Witherspoon, and Y. A. Shikari. 1990. Aqueous foams
for control of gas migration and water coning in aquifer gas storage. Energy Sources 12 (4):479–97. doi:10.1080/
00908319008960220.
Shin, C. H., and J. H. Lee. 2011. A numerical study on the compositional variation and the validity of conversion of
a gas condensate reservoir into underground storage. Energy Sources, Part A: Recovery, Utilization, and
Environmental Effects 33 (20):1921–32. doi:10.1080/15567036.2010.527906.
Sigmund, P. M. 1976. Prediction of molecular diffusion at reservoir conditions. part i, measurement and prediction of
binary dense gas diffusion coefficients. Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology 15 (2):PETSOC-76–02-05.
doi:10.2118/76-02-05
Sim, S. S. K., P. Brunelle, A. T. Turta, and A. K. Singhal. 2008. Enhanced gas recovery and CO2 sequestration by
injection of exhaust gases from combustion of bitumen. Conference Paper, SPE Symposium on Improved Oil
Recovery, 20-23 April, Tulsa. doi:10.2118/113468-MS
Sinayuc, C., F. Gumrah, and M. S. Kucukeksi. 2000. Optimization of energy production from an underground gas
storage reservoir. Energy Sources 22 (5):465–77. doi:10.1080/00908310050013875.
Srinivasan, B. S. 2006. The impact of mixing inert cushion gas with natural gas in storage reservoir. M.Sc Thesis, West
Virginia University.
Stephan, E., and M. S. Foh 1991. The use of inert gas as cushion gas in underground storage: Practical and economic
issues. Presented at Gas Supply Planning and Management Conference, Florida.
Stopa, J., S. Rychlicki, T. Kulczyk, and P. Kosowski. 2009. Technical and economic performance of the underground
gas storage in low quality gas reservoir. 24th World Gas Conference, Argentina.
Szott, W. 2012. Simulation and practice of the gas storage in low quality gas reservoir. 25th World Gas Conference,
Kuala Lumpur.
Turta, A. T., S. S. K. Sim, A. K. Singhal, and B. F. Hawkins. 2007. Basic investigations on enhanced gas recovery by
gas-gas displacement. Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology 47:10.
Van der Meer, B., and A. Obdam 2008. Is carbon dioxide in case of natural gas storage a feasible cushion gas? TNO report.