IPTC 10936

CO
2
Capture and Storage: Contributing to Sustainable World Growth
A.A. Espie, BP Exploration
Copyright 2005, International Petroleum Technology Conference

This paper was prepared for presentation at the International Petroleum Technology
Conference held in Doha, Qatar, 2123 November 2005.

This paper was selected for presentation by an IPTC Programme Committee following
review of information contained in an proposal submitted by the author(s). Contents of the
paper, as presented, have not been reviewed by the International Petroleum Technology
Conference and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does
not necessarily reflect any position of the International Petroleum Technology Conference,
its officers, or members. Papers presented at IPTC are subject to publication review by
Sponsor Society Committees of IPTC. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of
any part of this paper for commercial purposes without the written consent of the
International Petroleum Technology Conference is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in
print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied.
The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper
was presented. Write Librarian, IPTC, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836,
U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.

Abstract
The potential to exacerbate or accelerate climate change as a
consequence of burning fossil fuels has received
considerable international attention in recent years. The
Kyoto Protocol emerged as one response to initiate first
steps towards stabilisation of atmospheric concentrations of
CO
2
. It is clear that there is no one single technology that
can lead to stabilisation in the timeframe that appears to be
required. Large-scale implementation of capture and
storage of CO
2
is being considered as a potential option that
could make a material contribution to a portfolio of options
for the stabilisation of atmospheric concentrations.
A number of hurdles require to be overcome before this
technology will be widely applied. These include i)
significant reductions in the cost of capture of CO
2
from
combustion processes, ii) acceptance that geological storage
can be a safe and effective mitigation option, iii) the
development of commercial mechanisms that enable viable
projects to emerge and iv) clarification of a number of
regulatory and legal issues.

Introduction
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
was jointly established in 1988, by the World
Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United
Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). Its present terms
of reference are to:
Assess available information on the science, the
impacts, and the economics of - and the options for
mitigating and/ or adapting to - climate change.
To provide, on request, scientific/technical/socio-
economic advice to the Conference of the Parties
(COP) to the United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).
The Third Assessment Report from the IPCC [1] was
published in 2001. This detailed review of the scientific,
technical and socio-economic aspects of climate change
concluded that there is clear evidence to show that global
climate has changed over the last 100 years and that a
significant proportion of that change could be attributed to
the release of anthropogenic CO
2
into the atmosphere during
the combustion of fossil fuels.
The change in the average global surface temperature of
the earth over the last 145 years as presented in the Third
Assessment Report is shown in Figure 1a below. The
change in average surface temperature for the Northern
Hemisphere where the changes tend to be most pronounced
is shown over the last thousand years in Figure 1b [1].


Figure 1 : Changes in Average Surface Temperature
Source : IPCC Third Assessment Report (2001)

Article 2 of the UN Framework Convention on Climate
Change (UNFCCC) identifies the ultimate objective of the
Convention as the stabilisation of greenhouse gas
concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would
prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the
climate system.
Evaluating the consequences of climate change
outcomes to determine those that may be considered
dangerous is a complex undertaking, involving substantial
2 IPTC 10936
uncertainties as well as value judgments. This involves a
number of steps. First the means is needed to predict the
response of the climate to a range of future CO
2
levels. The
main tool for this has been large simulation models or
Global Climate Models (GCMs) that have been developed
by a number of groups around the world. To drive the
models, a set of input conditions are required. These are
usually based upon a set of scenarios that relate to human
response in managing the amount of CO
2
and other
Greenhouse gases entering the atmosphere.
The Third Assessment Report presented predictions of
future temperature rise from a set of GCMs for an agreed set
of scenarios. These indicate a range of possible rises in
global average temperature of between 1.4 - 5.8C with the
largest impact arising from the choice of scenario. The final
step in the process and perhaps the least well defined is to
relate the temperature rise predicted by the GCMs to the
impact on the global ecosystem and hence to assess the
degree of danger that might represent.
In February 2005, at the request of the Prime Minister,
the United Kingdom hosted an international conference (the
Exeter Conference) to review the scientific data relating to
climate change including the impact on the global
ecosystem [12]. There now appears to be a general
consensus that an average temperature rise of 2C should be
considered as an upper limit to avoid dangerous impacts on
the global ecosystem.
There is still sufficient uncertainty in the linkage
between CO
2
concentration in the atmosphere and
temperature rise for there to be a fairly broad distribution in
the estimated concentration that would enable the
atmosphere to stabilize with a maximum 2C increase in
temperature. However, the centre of the distribution appears
to lie in the range 500 550 ppm with some suggestions
from the Exeter conference that an even lower value might
be required.

Outlook for Future Energy Use
Combustion of fossil fuels to supply energy for heat, power
and transportation is the largest factor in the increase in
Greenhouse Gas concentrations in the atmosphere.

Fig 2 : Global Energy Sources Since 1970. Source IEA

In the period 1970 2005, International Energy Agency
data show that fossil fuel use increased by some 42%
globally. However, over the next 25 years, development
and industrialisation, particulary in the Asian economies
such as China and India, is forecast to drive a further
increase in fossil fuel utilisation of some 70%.
All current indications suggest that fossil fuels will
continue to drive the development of the global economy for
several decades to come. Renewable sources of energy are
forecast to continue to grow at a significant rate. However,
they start from such a low level that they are not able to
make the reductions in emissions required.

Stabilising Global Climate
The Carbon Mitigation Initiative (CMI) at Princeton
University has provided a key analysis of potential
approaches to the stabilisation of CO
2
concentrations in the
atmosphere [11]. The conclusions of this analysis are that i)
no single technology is likely to provide a magic bullet to
stabilisation and hence that a portfolio approach will be
necessary and that ii) the component technologies of a
portfolio of options capable of delivering stabilisation of
CO
2
concentrations in the atmosphere already exist or are
under development.



















Figure 4 : Princeton Slices Analysis

The CMI analysis recognises the necessity to make
global reductions of approximately 7,000 million
tonnes/year of carbon emissions (25,700 million tonnes/year
CO
2
) globally by 2050 in order to achieve stabilisation.
Improvements in energy efficiency and capture and storage
of CO
2
are both recognised as technologies capable of
contributing 1,000 million tonnes/year of carbon (3.7
million tonnes/year CO
2
) emissions reductions within this
timeframe. It is clear that both of these options will be
required in addition to renewables in the portfolio in order to
meet a stabilisation target of 500 - 550 ppm in the desired
timescale.

Storing CO
2
in Geological Formations
There are several choices when it comes to selection of
geological formations for storage of CO
2
. The initial
choices are likely to be determined by a number of factors
including the relative siting of major sources of CO
2
and
secure storage sites and the availability of existing
redundant infrastructure. It is likely that operating or
depleted hydrocarbon reservoirs will be primary initial
targets because of the security of storage that is implied by
the ability of the formation to hold gas for extended periods
of time.

IPTC 10936 3
Oil Fields. When CO
2
contacts reservoir oil in the pore
spaces, it makes the oil more mobile by two mechanisms.
Firstly it reduces the viscosity of the oil and secondly it
swells the oil, increasing its saturation and increasing its
relative permeability. The density of CO
2
at reservoir
conditions is usually greater than that of the reservoir oil and
less than that of water such that gravity tends to improve
vertical sweep to CO
2
. CO
2
is also more viscous than lean
gas so viscous fingering is reduced. These properties and
the unique phase behaviour of CO
2
make it an ideal fluid for
enhanced oil recovery.
The pressure at which the CO
2
contacts oil plays an
important role in its ability to recover the oil. As the
pressure is increased, oil recovery is also increased until
some 90% or greater of the oil in place is recovered. The
point at which the recovery vs. pressure curve flattens is
called the Minimum Miscibility Pressure (MMP).
The MMP is affected by a number of factors, primarily
the composition of the oil and the injectant stream. Gases
such as nitrogen and methane increase the MMP while
heavier hydrocarbons such as propane and butane reduce it.
If the MMP is above the pressure of the reservoir of interest,
natural gas liquids can be added to reduce it. The quantity
of enrichment necessary to reduce the MMP to reservoir
pressure is called the Minimum Enrichment for Miscibility
or MME.
Since the NGLs are valuable components, it is more
common to use CO
2
unenriched. This leads to a simple
minimum depth criterion when screening reservoirs for
suitability. CO
2
has significant benefits over the use of
hydrocarbon gas in that it behaves more like C
2
than
methane and can therefore achieve miscibility at lower
pressures.
However, achieving miscibility may not give the whole
picture. It is true that increasing enrichment or pressure to
the point where miscibility is attained will increase
displacement efficiency but operating the flood below MMP
may increase sweep efficiency due to the competition of
mixed phases for the pore space. Which mechanism
dominates depends primarily on the compositions of the oil
and Injectant.
In practical CO
2
sequestration projects where CO
2
is
captured from flue gas or natural gas, there is a trade-off
between the cost of separation and the effectiveness of the
EOR Injectant. Both nitrogen and methane raise the MMP
of CO
2
and removing these can be a very expensive matter.
The impact of impurities depends on the process to be used
to sequester the CO
2
. There are four potential processes:
Miscible Displacement
Immiscible Displacement
Immiscible Gravity Drainage
Reservoir Storage/Sequestration
For miscible displacement to be successful, the pressure
in the reservoir needs to be in the vicinity of the MMP or the
pressure must be raised to that level. Impurities such as
methane and nitrogen raise the MMP so for impure streams,
the reservoir pressure must be even higher. However, if this
process is carried out successfully, very high recoveries can
be obtained.
Immiscible displacement is not very sensitive to
impurities. The only effects have to do with lower swelling
that would take place with nitrogen or methane as compared
to CO
2
. Reservoir pressure can be low and in some cases
high recoveries can be obtained.
Immiscible gravity drainage can be used when there is
significant vertical permeability and relief. If the oil film is
continuous, injecting gas removes the buoyancy forces that
hold the oil in place and allow it to drain to an oil leg that
can be produced. Effects of impurities are the same as with
immiscible flooding and reservoir pressure can be quite low.
Storage involves the injection of the gas mixture into a
trap such that it remains there for geological time. This
depends on the integrity of the seal and the success of the
process will be influenced by regional fluid movement.
Sequestration involves the reaction of the CO
2
with some
element of the reservoir rock or fluids. Generally this would
only occur in the presence of basic materials such as
potassium feldspars. There are few reservoirs that have
sufficient reactivity to CO
2
to sequester significant
quantities of the gas. For both storage and sequestration, the
principle effect of impurities in the gas is due to increased
compression cost to inject the impure fraction.

Gas Fields. The storage of CO
2
in gas fields is both viable
and material in potential storage volume.
The most obvious application is to convert depleted gas
fields for long term storage at the end of economic
hydrocarbon production. The alterations required to
infrastructure are generally small and it may even be
possible to utilize the previous gas export line for CO
2

import.
However, although this option has the great advantage
that initial capital costs are likely to be small, it suffers from
the disadvantage that it generates no income stream in the
absence of carbon trading credits or fiscal incentives. It will
nevertheless offer a cheap disposal option when CO
2

transportation costs are low.
An alternative option that may offer the opportunity to
generate an incremental income stream is Enhanced Gas
Recovery or EGR. This is the injection of CO
2
back into the
base of a producing gas reservoir.
The properties of CO
2
are such that its density will be
greater than virtually all hydrocarbon gases under normal
reservoir conditions while its viscosity will be less than that
of hydrocarbon gas. This means that the potential exists for
a gravity stable gas / gas displacement. Hence, CO
2

injection could not only maintain pressure and well
performance but also increase ultimate recovery.
The key issue is of course the degree of mixing between
the injected CO
2
and the displaced hydrocarbon gas. There
is some evidence to suggest that at a small scale the rate of
mixing is limited to diffusion, which is small. The key risk
is therefore that of reservoir heterogeneity such that high
permeability streaks might sufficiently destabilize the
gravity stable front to result in premature breakthrough of
CO
2
.

Carbon Recycling For Enhanced Coalbed Methane
Production. An increasing volume of gas production is
coming from coal deposits. Coal usually has a layer of
methane adsorbed onto its surface. Where the coal
properties are suitable this can be produced through
depletion. Amoco (now BP) developed a process to
enhance the volume of methane recovered by injecting other
gases that can preferentially displace the methane from the
coal surface. BPs Tiffany field in Colorado is an example
where nitrogen was used as an injectant for Enhanced
Coalbed methane recovery for several years.
4 IPTC 10936
CO
2
has been seen in laboratory measurements to
displace about two volumes of methane for every volume of
CO
2
injected into core samples. However, field trials have
so far been limited and further data are being sought to
support the case that a substantial increase in methane rate
might be expected as a result of CO
2
injection.
Some groups are now focusing attention on the use of
mixtures of CO
2
and nitrogen in order to couple the
demonstrated rate advantages of nitrogen with the potential
of CO
2
to increase ultimate recovery.

Storage in Saline Formations. Storage in brine filled
formations represents the largest potential storage volume
worldwide. However, as many of the formations have not
been extensively explored nor appraised for CO
2
storage,
they also have a large uncertainty. An early estimate by the
IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme gave the potential
for storage in brine filled aquifers as 20 500% of the
volume required to reduce emissions from an IS92a profile
by 50% by 2050.
Storage in brine filled formations involves immiscible
gravity dominated displacement by supercritical CO
2
with
only of order of 10% or less dissolving into the brine phase.
However, over time, as CO
2
accumulates and spreads at the
top of the formation, the surface area between the brine and
the CO
2
increases, and increasing amounts of CO
2
will
dissolve in the brine. The resulting CO
2
saturated brine will
be slightly heavier than unsaturated brine and will tend to
sink to the bottom of the formation. Once dissolved into the
brine phase the CO
2
is in a very secure state.
The downside of storage in brine filled formations is that
there may be relatively little infrastructure in place and the
formations are likely to require significantly more appraisal
that producing or depleted hydrocarbon reservoirs.
Overview of Processes Involved in Geological
Storage
Geological storage combines an engineering process,
injection, and induced processes in the underground system
resulting from introduction of CO
2
. Underground CO
2

storage will mainly be in supercritical phase below ca 800m.
It requires compression and injection at pressures exceeding
the formation pressure via injection wells. During injection
the pressure builds up around the wellbore and the resulting
gradient forces the CO
2
into the formation.
The injection phase is likely to be for 20-30 years,
perhaps longer for large sites. At the point of injection, CO
2

is introduced into the pore space of the formation as a
separate phase in addition to the water and any oil and gas
phases present. The driving forces on the movement of the
CO
2
are buoyancy, pressure and dissolution. Buoyancy will
cause CO
2
to rise vertically through permeable formations
until low permeability sealing formations are reached where
it will migrate laterally and updip. Note that in producing
oil and gas fields there are likely to be pressure gradients
induced by production that will enhance the lateral
migration of CO
2
and result in breakthrough at producing
wells.
The main processes that will enhance the trapping of the
CO
2
underground are as follows :
Physical trapping of separate phase CO
2
(or CO
2

dissolved in oil) in geological traps is a leading concept for
geological storage. This involves CO
2
containment in the
storage reservoir by laterally continuous sealing formations
in structural and stratigraphic traps. Storage sites with
physical traps include oil and gas reservoirs (active or
depleted) and mapped traps in saline aquifers. For oil and
gas reservoirs, the presence of hydrocarbons proves the
existence and effectiveness of the trap and its seal for oil and
gas typically on a timescale of millions of years. Naturally
occurring CO
2
fields prove physical trapping of CO
2
for up
to 100 million years [2]. For physical trapping projects,
distinguishing the period of filling from the subsequent
quiescent phase will be important. Based on analogues of oil
and gas enhanced oil recovery and mathematical
simulations, it is estimated that the injection period will be
of the order of 20-30 years and that the pressure transients
and accumulation in the trap will occur in less than 100
years depending primarily on the formation permeability.
From that point forward, the CO
2
is only likely to move as a
result of disturbing the trap. Other processes can further
reduce the tendency of CO
2
to migrate.
CO
2
dissolution in water is the second key process.
Modelling studies have shown that up to 20-60% of injected
CO
2
could be dissolved with 1000 years [3,4]. At Sleipner
the injected CO
2
(25 Mt) is predicted to completely dissolve
in 4800 years, with 60% dissolution after 1000 years [4,5].
This is significant for leakage risk assessment because once
dissolved, that portion of the CO
2
is unavailable for leakage
as a discrete phase. The key issue here is that CO
2
as a
discrete phase is much more mobile than when dissolved in
the water phase. Solubility and the rate of dissolution are
thus key parameters. For aquifer storage without physical
traps, dissolution is the key process. This so-called solubility
trapping is a process designed to contain the CO
2
in the
subsurface without physical trapping and it is enhanced by
migration and dissolution of CO
2
in large aquifers. CO
2
is
also highly soluble in oil and this will be important for
storage in oil reservoirs after abandonment of the oil
production.
The significance of residual gas trapping, sometimes
called phase trapping, as a storage process has recently been
emphasised [3,6]. CO
2
becomes entrained in permeable
reservoirs as dense phase residual saturation, occurring
rapidly as the CO
2
moves through permeable formations.
The rate and extent of trapping depends upon pore geometry
characteristics and the water and gas saturations. Trapping
can only occur if there is sufficient mobile water present to
enable wetting phase films to accumulate and bridge across
pore throats. This is significant in processes such as WAG
but is not guaranteed in a simple drainage process such as
aquifer filling. The residual saturation is strongly correlated
with porosity in sandstone reservoirs systems. In physical
traps in aquifers up to 20-40% of the CO
2
is effectively
locked away via this process in a 25% porosity sandstone
once the trap is filled. In modelling work by Holtz, more
than 60% of CO
2
is trapped by this process by the end of the
injection phase, rising to 70% after 1000 years[3]. Residual
trapped CO
2
can subsequently be dissolved in formation
water. When the CO
2
is trapped at residual saturation, the
CO
2
is effectively immobile and will not migrate further or
leak. Once CO
2
is trapped in this way the main release
mechanism is by faulting (or aquifer flow). However the
only CO
2
released by faulting would be that within the fault
zone, i.e. only very small quantities.
Mineralisation occurs as CO
2
can react in solution with
certain minerals in the formation to form carbonates and
IPTC 10936 5
alumino-silicates. The reaction rates vary between days for
carbonate minerals to hundreds of thousand of years for
certain silicate minerals. Both the rates of reaction and the
magnitude of mineralization are highly dependant on the
mineralogy. It is estimated that the quantity of CO
2
that is
mineralized by this mechanism is of the order of 1% for
most clastic reservoirs [7].
CO
2
fixation by adsorption onto the surface of coals is
the main process for storage in coals. It involves a
combination of physical and chemical processes that occurs
very rapidly when CO
2
is injected, on a timescale of days.
The nature of the fixation makes leakage processes different
and since the CO
2
is bound to the coal, the presence of a top
seal may not be necessary. The main release mechanism is
by de-pressuring which could occur if water or coal bed
methane extraction takes place, or if uplift occurs after CO
2

storage.
The timescales involved for these processes range from
days and years to millions of years. A challenge for
modelling the geological storage is the wide range of
timeframes for these processes, and that the timeframe
required for storage duration is intermediate between them,
in the range 500-1000 years.

Issues for Geological Storage
Although the oil and gas industry is comfortable with the
concept of injecting and storaing gas in geological
formations, this confidence is not generally held outside the
industry. The key issues for storage are :
Providing the methodology and tools to enable
credible predictions of storage performance and
associated risk over extended periods of time.
Developing appropriate legal and regulatory
frameworks for storage.
Developing suitable long-term sstewradship
processes.

Assurance of Storage Integrity
Release of CO
2
from storage reservoirs could occur by a
number of mechanisms. Geological failure and wells are the
main areas of risk relevant to long-term storage. There are
other different but less common risks which could be
significant at individual sites, such as old mines. This
shows the need for systematic risk assessment in all sites.

Methodology for Risk Analysis. A structured approach
to risk mitigation requires a systematic method for
identification of scenarios that can lead to risk [10]. There
are two approaches to this. The first relies on experience to
identify key risks. An alternative approach is being
investigated by some groups. This borrows the concept
from the nuclear industry of a database of Performance
Factors (Features, Events and Processes in the jargon of the
nuclear industry) relevant to the possible release of CO
2

from storage. Once Peer Review has identified the relevant
Performance Factors, scenarios can be created by inspection
and experience.
The next step in the process is the quantification of the
risk posed by key release scenarios. There is a significant
body of work in progress in this area employing a variety of
different tools. Prediction of performance over extended
periods (hundreds to thousands of years) requires estimation
of three processes. These are fluid migration through
pressure gradients, buoyancy, hydrodynamic gradients or
diffusion, geochemical reactions between injected CO
2
and
chemical species present in pore fluids and minerals in the
rock strata and the geo-mechanical interactions that may
occur over time.
The oil and gas industry has well established tools for
modelling sub-surface flow of fluids. These are generally
used at two different sets of length and time scales. At one
end of the spectrum, finely gridded models are used to
predict and optimise the movement of fluids during
reservoir production (t
max
of order decades, l
max
of order 10s
km). At the other end of the spectrum, large scale, relatively
coarse models are used to estimate basin filling over periods
of hundreds of thousands to millions of years in order to
high-grade the selection of exploration opportunities.
However, the evaluation of CO
2
storage involves length and
time scales that are intermediate between these two
extremes. No work has yet been published comparing the
strengths and weaknesses of the available tools.
One key leakage scenario is relatively poorly defined at
present. This is the potential for escape of CO
2
via failure of
a wellbore during filling or after sealing of the storage site.
In general, capturing all of the features of a sub-surface
system often requires a very large model that may be slow to
run. For this reason, large detailed models are often run in
deterministic mode using best estimates of parameters.
Experience from the oil and gas industry indicates that there
is often a substantial degree of uncertainty about the
appropriate properties to adequately model sub-surface flow.
For this reason it is desirable to have probabilistic estimates
of performance where possible. The best ways to develop
probabilistic estimates for systems where some uncertainties
and outcomes may be coupled has not yet been
systematically evaluated.

Geological Failure Mechanisms. Presence and
effectiveness of the trap, caprock and fault seal are key
issues for storage options involving physical and solubility
trapping. It is essential to identify and predict the existence
of seal and an effective trap for the target storage site prior
to injection. This is analogous to oil and gas exploration
where finding seal and trap are key success factors.
Experience in the gas storage industry by Perry [6] shows
that in the small number of failures, a key issue has been the
initial caprock characterisation. Seal identification requires
more detailed evaluation for saline aquifer options as less
data is usually available. Key aspects are described below.
Mapping the storage capacity and spill points of the site
is key activity especially for physical traps. This is
determined by the sub-surface structure, by the porosity and
by the efficiency of filling. When the height of mobile CO
2

accumulates below the depth of the shallowest edge of the
seal then the potential exists for CO
2
to spill into the
surrounding formation out of the storage site. Detailed
mapping with 3D seismic and reservoir surveillance during
injection are required to manage this risk.
Evaluating the seal involves geological studies of the
seal properties and its lateral continuity across the site, as
well as the pressure conditions. Pressure sealing is a highly
effective sealing mechanism for oil and gas. Pressure seals
work by having a higher water pressure in the sealing rocks
above a reservoir than in the reservoir itself, which sets up a
downward pressure potential. For leakage to occur the
buoyancy of the CO
2
in the trap would have to overcome the
downward pressure gradient in addition to the capillary
6 IPTC 10936
pressure. The capillary sealing capacity of a caprock is
determined by the size of the largest connected pores across
it, and the interfacial tension of the fluid wetting the pores.
The pore system is normally water filled and non-wetting
phases like CO
2
must exceed the capillary entry pressure of
the caprock to enter the pore system. Accumulating CO
2

exerts an upthrust on the overlying seal, and as the column
height increases, CO
2
will be able to invade progressively
smaller and smaller pores in the caprock until the critical
capillary entry pressure is reached at which point CO
2
can
cross the seal and leak into overlying formations. CO
2
may
also react with some minerals that are found in caprocks,
which can either increase or decrease sealing capacity. The
reaction rates vary enormously depending on the mineralogy
giving rise to a need for site specific evaluations. Coupled
modelling can address this issue.
Faults and fractures need to be mapped in detail. Their
significance varies widely from acting as fluid conduits to
acting as fluid barriers. Pre-injection assessment of the
initial conditions and risk whether faults are likely to be
sealing is needed. This is based on the containment of oil
and gas, and detailing stratigraphic juxtaposition of seal
versus non-sealing lithologies across faults using 3D seismic
and fault modelling. In understanding the long term
geomechanical stability of fault and fractures, it is necessary
to understand the stress state that exists. Faults that are
close to a critical stress state will have the greatest tendency
to move in response to changes in stress induced by changes
in the formation pressures, which will occur as result of CO
2

injection. These could result in small scale micro-seismic
events, i.e. fracturing and fault movement. These are not
considered significant in terms of posing a risk to the
integrity of the storage site but monitoring is required where
risks are identified.
Many oil and gas fields are underlain by active aquifer
systems. The solubility of CO
2
in brine gives rise to the
possibility that CO
2
stored in physical traps could dissolve
into the brine and be transported outside the boundaries of
the trap in the water phase. In such cases the relative
velocity and flux of the water becomes the key variable in
assessing how much and how far CO
2
might migrate, but
case studies of North Sea oilfields in the NGCAS project
suggest transport rates are likely to be slow [6].
The main geological features that could lead to high flux
release and leakage of CO
2
from storage sites to surface are
faults and inadequate seal. These require careful pre-storage
evaluation, and ongoing risk assessment and monitoring.
These mechanisms lead to risk of leakage into surrounding
formations and the overburden. The risk of release to the
surface depends on whether the leakage paths connect with
the surface, which depends on the geological framework at
the particular site and whether cumulators and secondary
leakage conduits such as faults and wells pose additional
risks.

Wells. Wells are required to inject CO
2
and may be present
for other purposes. They can be designed to meet a wide
range of conditions including the presence of CO
2
. Two
potential hazards may result : these are unidentified and
poorly abandoned wells and also the risk of degradation of
the wellbore cement and materials.
Unidentified wells are a potential issue in some areas.
Texas has ca. 1.5 million wells completed in various ways
over more than a century. The techniques used to abandon
old wells may be a concern, as some may not provide robust
seal. In addition, the locations of some long-abandoned
wells is unknown, although there are techniques to find
those containing metal materials. An example of this hazard
was seen in Kansas in 2001 when gas leaking from a gas
storage facility migrated seven miles laterally before
surfacing via century old dry uncapped water wells.
Generally older wells were quite shallow and therefore they
may not penetrate deeper storage horizons. In modern oil
and gas plays e.g. the North Sea, there are fewer wells, their
locations are known and abandonment practises are more
robust.
The other main issue with wells is the potential for
leakage due to degradation of cement and well materials in
CO
2
rich environments as shown by Scherer [6]. A portion
of the CO
2
will dissolve in the reservoir brine creating
carbonic acid which is corrosive to both the materials and
the cement that creates a bond to the formation. Most
formation waters have a significant buffering capacity to
keep the pH from varying widely but the potential still exists
for cement degradation to take place. CO
2
interacts with
many minerals including those used to make the Portland
cement used in most well completions. The reactions and
the subsequent products can reduce the mechanical strength
and sealing characteristics of the cement. This can be
exacerbated by some impurities (H
2
S or SO
2
).
To address this issue, the oil industry has developed CO
2

resistant cement formulations. These appear to have
acceptable performance for existing CO
2
EOR floods where
wellbore leakage due to cement degradation is seldom
reported as an issue [6]. Studies are in progress to assess the
rate and extent of potential degradation. Industry experience
from EOR and natural CO
2
reservoirs has shown that
properly equipped wells can be used without significant
leakage for periods of over 30 years.
Whilst satisfactory performance has been observed over
a period of decades, it should be observed that the storage
period required will be 1 2 orders of magnitude longer
with essentially permanent storage being the objective. This
may well lead to changes in the materials and processes
currently in use.
Leakage through wells is a key risk that needs to be
evaluated for all storage sites, before, during and after
injection. It is important because wells provide a local point
source for potential leakage of CO
2
which could be at
significant flux rates. Remediation procedures are available
now to properly seal the wells and prevent further leakage
and they can be applied in a period of months to prevent
significant quantities of CO
2
from entering the biosphere.
The experience in Kuwait in the early 90s shows what is
possible.

Conclusions
1. The risk posed by global climate change as a
consequence of increasing levels of CO2 in the
atmosphere continues to be a matter of
international concern.
2. The requirements for energy to support
development in many areas of the world mean that
fossil fuels will be the mainstay of the global
economy for decades to come.
3. Stabilisation of CO
2
levels in the atmosphere is the
immediate remediation measure under
IPTC 10936 7
consideration to avoid potentially damaging
climate change
4. Capture and Storage in geological formations
appears increasingly likely to form part of the
portfolio of technologies that will be necessary in
order to be able to stabilize the concentration of
CO
2
in the atmosphere in the range 500 550 ppm
by 2050.
5. A key issue for CCS is acceptance by public and
regulatory bodies that storage of CO
2
will have
adequate integrity to satisfy both local HSE
concerns and to meet the requirements for
longevity of storage.
6. The processes that are expected to control the
performance of storage systems over extended
periods of time are identified and amenable to
analysis.
7. A key activity for the next few years will be the
development of a portfolio of intensively montored
projects that can be used to engage with regulators
and the wider public in order to demonstrate that
acceptable assurance of long term storage integrity
can be provided based upon short term monitoring.

Acknowledgements
This paper is published with the kind permission of BP
Exploration Operating Company Ltd. The paper is based
upon the joint activities of the author, Bill Senior and
Charles Christopher.

References
1. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Third
Assessment Report : Summary for Policy Makers, 2001
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.html
2. Stevens, S.H., Tye, S., and Hyman, D. 2004, Natural Analogs
for Geologic Sequestration: Cap Rock Evidence for Multi-
Million-Year CO2 Storage. Third Annual Conference on
Carbon Sequestration, U.S. DOE/NETL, May 3-6, 2004,
Alexandria, Virginia.
3. Holtz, M.H., et al: 2004. Reservoir Simulation of CO2
Storage in Deep Saline Aquifers: Third Annual Conference
on Carbon Sequestration, U.S. DOE/NETL, May 3-6, 2004,
Alexandria, Virginia.
4. Lindeberg, E. & P. Bergmo. 2003. The Long Term Fate of
injected CO
2
. Proceedings of 6
th
International Conference on
Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies. Vol 1. Ed J.Gale &
Y.Kaya.
5. Torp,T. and J.Gale. 2003. Demonstration Of CO
2
Storage in
Geological reservoirs: The Sleipner & SACs Project.
Proceedings of 6
th
International Conference on Greenhouse
Gas Control Technologies. Vol 1. Ed J.Gale & Y.Kaya
6. Benson,S (Ed.) In Press. Vol 2 - Geologic Storage of Carbon
Dioxide with Monitoring and Verification. CO
2
Capture
Project. Elsevier.
7. Johnson, J.W., Nitao, J.J., Steefel, C.I., and Knauss, K.G.,
2001, Reactive transport modeling of geologic CO2
sequestration in saline aquifers: the influence of intra-aquifer
shales and the relative effectiveness of structural, solubility,
and mineral trapping during prograde and retrograde
sequestration. Proceedings of the First National Conference
on Carbon Sequestration, Washington, DC, May 14-17,
2001, 60 p
8. Pacala, S. (2003) Global Constraints on Reservoir Leakage.
Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on
Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies, GHGT-6, September
30October 4, 2002, Kyoto, Japan, Vol. 1, pp. 267-272, J.
Gale and Y. Kaya (eds).
9. Hepple, R.P. and S.M. Benson. 2003. Implications of Surface
Seepage on the Effectiveness of Geologic Storage of Carbon
Dioxide as a Climate Change Mitigation Strategy,
Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on
Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies, GHGT-6, September
30October 4, 2002, Kyoto, Japan, Vol. 1, pp. 261-266, J.
Gale and Y. Kaya (eds).
10. Espie, A. 2004. Understanding Risk for the Long Term
Storage of CO
2
in Geologic Formations. Proceedings of
GHGT-7, September 6-9, 2004, Vancouver, Canada.
11. Socolow, R. Third Annual Carbon Sequestration Conference,
Alexandria, May 2004.
12. Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change, 1-3 February 2005, UK
Met Office, Exeter, UK.
http://www.stabilisatiion2005.com/outcomes.html