Trapping Mechanism of Injected CO2

Types of Storage and Evalutions

• Saline Aquifers
• Depleted oil and gas fields
• Unconventional resources (volcanics, coal seams, organic shales)
i
Lackey et al.
Summary of the paper

• The model simulated 50-year basin-scale injection of CO2 at a

hypothetical site. (based on Kimberlina Project in southern San
Joaquin valley in California)
• They consider multiple scenarios considering various well leakage
management strategies:
• Well leakage behavior
• Reservoir behavior
• Post-injection site care length.
• Results: predicted leakage at the site after 100 years was small (4.08 ×
10 % of the 250 Mt injected and brine leakage of 2.4 tones)
Facts (use mindmap for this slide)
• Context and Objective:
• Applied NRAP-Open-IAM to simulate leakage risks and uncertainties at a hypothetical GCS site.
• Site based on Westcarb Kimberlina Pilot Project in Southern San Joaquin Valley, CA.
• Focus on a challenging brownfield with 1000 legacy wells.
• Considered a 50-year injection of 250 million metric tons (MT) of CO2.
• Simulation Process:
• Built a credible site representation.
• Calculated CO2 and brine leakage rates into an underground source of drinking water (USDW) as a proxy for risk.
• Management Strategy Evaluation:
• Evaluated efficacy of different leakage risk management strategies.
• Strategies: distance-based, risk-based, hybrid distance- and risk-based.
• Integration of Attribute Inferred Well Leakage Risk Estimation:
• Considered value of attribute inferred well leakage risk estimation on leakage inspection and management strategies.
• Impact of Reservoir Uncertainty:
• Investigated impact of reservoir uncertainty on performance of leakage risk management strategies.
• Exploration of PISC Period Length:
• Explored how increasing PISC period length reduced CO2 and brine leakage.
• Conclusion:
• Findings provide insights into effective leakage risk management strategies in GCS sites.
• Implications for decision-making in GCS site development and operation.
Site description
• Location:
• Southern San Joaquin Valley of California (CA).
• Approximately 20 miles northwest of Bakersfield, CA.
• Kern County.
• Target Formation:
• Vedder Sandstone, a sedimentary formation.
• GCS System:
• Vedder Sandstone targeted as the GCS system.
• Previous Characterization:
• Previously part of the Westcarb Kimberlina Pilot Project.
• Injection Site:
• Location marked by a red star in Figure 1.
• CO2 Injection History:
• No CO2 injection has occurred at the site.
Site description
Detailed Geologic description
• Geological Site Overview:
• Vedder Formation: marine sandstone with siltstone and shale layers.
• Potential GCS reservoir in Southern CA.
• Westward dip at about seven degrees.
• Outcrops along eastern boundary at Sierra Nevada Mountains.
• Deepest point: 3750 meters below ground surface.
• Formation Characteristics:
• Freeman-Jewett Shale: caprock for GCS reservoir.
• Thickness at injection point: Vedder (400m), Freeman-Jewett (200m).
• Partially-closed system with boundaries to north, south, and west.
• Open boundary to east.
• Faults and Permeability:
• Several sub-vertical faults.
• North-south and northwest orientation.
• Lower permeability compared to Vedder.
• Obstruct lateral fluid flow.
• USDW and Depth:
• Base at bottom of Etchegoin formation.
• Predominantly marine sandstone and micaceous shale.
• Depth at injection location: approximately 1500 meters.
Well History
• Oil and Gas Drilling History:
• Long History: Oil and gas production started in 1878.
• Continued Activity: Ongoing until present.
• Well Statistics:
• Total Wells: Over 37,000 wells in study area.
• Active Wells: Approximately 20,000 wells still operational.
• Targeted Petroleum Systems:
• Six Petroleum Systems: Wells target six distinct petroleum systems.
• Reservoir Diversity:
• Fifteen Formations: Reservoirs located in over fifteen formations.
• Positioning: Formations above, below, and including the Vedder.
• Vedder as Target:
• Wells Targeting Vedder: Some wells in the region target reservoirs in the Vedder.
• Data Limitations: Total number of wells intersecting the Vedder unknown due to limited depth data
availability (only about 4% of nearby wells).
Model Description
• Modeling Tool:
• NRAP-Open-IAM (Integrated Assessment Model), developed by King et al., 2019.
• Simulation Parameters:
• Duration: Simulated a 50-year basin-scale injection of CO2.
• Post-Injection Period: Also simulated a 50-year post-injection period.
• Leakage Calculation:
• CO2 and Brine Leakage: Calculated leakage into Underground Source of Drinking Water (USDW) via 1000 wellbores in study
area.
• Monte Carlo Framework:
• Utilized Monte Carlo framework to capture uncertainty.
• Specifically addressed uncertainty associated with effective permeability of wellbores.
• Model Components:
• Representation: NRAP-Open-IAM represents discrete elements of GCS system using individual ROMs (Readout Modules).
• Structure: Model comprised single reservoir ROM coupled with 1000 individual wellbore ROMs in one-way forward
coupling.
• Enhancements:
• Expanded Capabilities: Incorporated representations of various forms of well leakage, inspection, and remediation.
• Scenario Simulation: Enabled simulation of multiple well leakage and leakage risk management scenarios.
Model Description
•Simulation Procedure Overview:
• Initialization: Model initialization marks the start of simulations.
• Reservoir ROM Selection: Selection of reservoir ROM initiates the process.
• Leakage Risk Assessment: Calculation of well leakage risk scores.
• Management Strategy Definition: Identification and definition of leakage modes and
management strategies.
•Well-specific Parameters:
• Effective Cement Permeabilities (kcem): Determined for each well.
• Factors Considered: Leakage mode, fraction of wells with existing leaks, and preemptive
remediation targets.
•Simulation Steps:
• Input Transmission: Reservoir ROM provides Pres, SCO2, and Sbrn data to individual
wellbore ROMs.
• CO2 and Brine Flow Calculation: Calculation of flow rates into the Underground Source of
Drinking Water (USDW).
• Leakage Event Assessment: Potential for well leakage events evaluated between time steps.
• Inspection and Remediation: Inspection of wells for leaks; remediation if necessary.
•Adaptive Parameter Adjustment:
• kcem Modification: Adjustment of kcem based on leak occurrence and remediation.
•Communication between ROMs:
• Data Exchange: Reservoir ROM communicates variations in Pres, SCO2, and Sbrn to
wellbore ROMs.
•Simulation Output:
• Cumulative Leakage Determination: Determination of cumulative CO2 and brine leakage in
USDW through modeled legacy wells.
• Summary: Summary of leakage mass at the end of simulation.
Model Description (Storage Reservoir)
• Reservoir ROM Description:
• Lookup Table Source: Based on full-physics reservoir simulations conducted in a previous study (Wainwright et al., 2013).
• Parameters Specified: Pressure, CO2 saturation, and brine saturation for all reservoir locations and time steps.
• Simulation Tools:
• TOUGH2-MP with ECO2N-module: Used for basin-scale CO2 injection simulation into Vedder formation.
• Injection Rate: Assumed 5 million metric tons (Mt) annually for first 50 years, totaling 250 Mt of CO2.
• Post-Injection Period: Simulated 50 years after injection.
• Model Details:
• 3D Model Structure: Consisted of 64,214 elements, representing 11 formations between basement rock and aquifer.
• Layer Representation: Six model layers representing alternating sandstone and shale deposits in the storage formation.
• Boundary Conditions: Closed boundaries on north, south, and western edges; open boundary on eastern edge.
• Model Extent: Approximately 112 km (north to south) by 84 km (east to west) (Fig. 1 - black dashed line).
• Reservoir Simulation Variations:
• Primary Reservoir Simulation: RS 1 from Wainwright et al., 2013.
• Additional Simulation: RS 2 for investigating reservoir behavior variations.
• Key Parameter Variations:
• RS 1 vs. RS 2: Variation in horizontal permeability in caprock and reservoir, as well as porosity (Table 1).
• Impact: Resulted in significantly different reservoir conditions and behavior, notably in CO2 plume size and pressure increase.
• Supplementary Figures:
• Visualization: Figs. S1 and S2 in Supplementary Appendix show CO2 and pressure plume behavior at 5, 50, and 100 years for RS 1 and RS 2
respectively.
Well Leakage, inspection and remediation (Well leakage)
• Well Parameters:
• kcem Assignment: Different kcem values for intact wells, existing leaks, and leakage events.
• Distribution: Uniform distributions for small and large leaks.
• Leakage Events:
• Induced Leaks: Potential leaks induced by GCS operations.
• Probability: Conservative assumption of leakage event probability.
• Threshold: Reservoir pressure threshold for initiating leakage events.
• Leakage Modes:
• Equiprobable Leakage (LM 1): Random selection of existing leaks; uniform leakage event
probability.
• Correlated Leakage (LM 2): Leak probability correlated with leakage risk score.
• Correlated Leakage with kcem (LM 3): Correlation between leakage risk score, leak
probability, and kcem.
Well Leakage, inspection and remediation (Well leakage)
Well Leakage, inspection and remediation (Inspection and remediation)

• Strategies:
• Distance-Based:
• Prioritizes based on proximity to injection well.
• Assumes higher risk closer to injector.
• Risk-Based:
• Considers leakage risk score for each well.
• Prioritizes high-risk wells for action.
• Hybrid:
• Combines risk and distance considerations.
• Prioritizes high-risk wells within proximity threshold.
• Implementation:
• Preemptive remediation before injection or during operation.
• Inspection events assess leakage.
Well specific leakage risk score:
Well-specifics leakage risk scores: (Data handling)

• The dataset contains (78.6%) of well attribute fields.

• The rest is missing or unknown. How did they handle this??
• randomly sampling a distribution of the known data from
the considered category
• They compared:
• True risk score (from complete, by imputation, dataset)
• Partially complete dataset (before imputation)
• True risk score is higher than the one with the missing data.
Scenario consideration
Set 1: Efficacy of Different Risk Management Strategies
• Duration: 100 years (50 years of injection + 50 years of PISC)
• Leakage Modes: LM 1, LM 2, and LM 3
• Strategies Applied:
• No management
• Distance-based management
• Risk-based management
• Hybrid management
• Goal: Compare the total quantity and temporal behavior of CO2 and brine leakage under different risk management strategies for each leakage mode.
Set 2: Influence of Reservoir Uncertainty
• Method: Similar to Set 1 but with a change in wellbore ROM (RS 2 instead of RS 1).
• Goal: Understand how reservoir uncertainty affects the performance of the considered leakage risk management plans.
Set 3: Alternative PISC Timeframes
• Duration: PISC periods shorter than the default 50 years.
• Periods Investigated: 0, 10, 25, and 50 years
• Approval: Alternative shorter PISC periods can be approved by the U.S. EPA with sufficient justification.
• Goal: Investigate the impacts of different PISC periods on well leakage risks at the site.
• Common Parameters for All Simulations
• Frequency of Existing Well Leaks: Assumed to be the same.
• Probability of Well Leakage Events: Assumed to be the same.
• Model Realizations: 500 for each scenario, with stochastic assignment of well effective cement permeabilities and random occurrence of leakage events.
Results: (Leakage behavior at a GCS site without leak management)

• Conservatively High Leakage Risk:

• No mechanisms were in place to remediate leaking wells, resulting in a conservatively high estimate of leakage risk at the site.
• Variation in Leakage Between Modes:
• While CO2 and brine leakage occurred in all scenarios, the degree varied between leakage modes. The greatest CO2 leakage was
estimated for LM 1, followed by LM 2 and LM 3.
• Maximum CO2 Leakage:
• The highest predicted CO2 leakage after 100 years was estimated for LM 1 with no management strategy, totaling 102.1 tonnes,
representing 4.08 × 10−5% of the injected CO2.
• Brine Leakage Estimates:
• Brine leakage estimates were similar between leakage modes, with the greatest amount estimated for LM 1 at 2.4 tonnes after
100 years.
• Temporal Behavior:
• Cumulative site-wide CO2 and brine leakage rates into the USDW increased rapidly after CO2 injection began, reaching steady-
state but occasionally increasing due to plume expansion or leakage events in the well.
• Uncertainty Reduction with Leakage Mode:
• The assumed leakage mode influenced the uncertainty of CO2 and brine leakage rates. LM 1 had the highest uncertainty, which
reduced progressively for LM 2 and LM 3, indicating improved predictability with more correlated factors in the leakage risk
score.
Results: (I have not gone through all the results)

• Blah blah blah

Discussion:

• Blah blah blah

Conclusion:

• GCS Potential of Brownfield Sites: Historical or ongoing oil and gas sites offer significant CO2 storage potential. Their
previously explored, well-characterized reservoirs make them attractive for large-scale CO2 storage.
• Risk Management Strategies:
• Risk-Based Management: More effective than distance-based management. Surprisingly effective even when
well leakage risk score didn't correlate with leakage probability (equiprobable leakage).
• Effectiveness with Correlation: Performance improved when well leakage risk scores were correlated with
leakage probability.
• Reservoir Simulation Impact: Risk-based strategy maintained performance even with alternate reservoir
simulation.
• Impact of PISC Periods:
• Brine Leakage Reduction: Incremental increases in PISC period led to incremental decreases in brine leakage.
• CO2 Leakage: CO2 leakage impacted to a lesser degree by PISC period increases.
• Value of Tools and Approaches:
• NRAPOpen-IAM: Valuable for exploring leakage scenarios and designing risk management strategies.
• Simplified Inspection Approach: Could be further developed to include adaptive management strategies based on
monitoring feedback.
• Well Leakage Probability Inference: Important for GCS site operators and oil/gas regulators. More work needed
to develop robust metrics and tools for inferring well leakage probability.