SPE 131381

Comparison of Completion and Heterogeneity Effect on CO2 Sequestration in

Shallow and Deep Saline Aquifers
Fang Yang1,2,SPE; Baojun Bai1, SPE; Dazhen Tang2; Shari Dunn-norman1, SPE; and David Wronkiewicz1
1. Missouri University of Science and Technology; 2. China University of Geosciences-Beijing (CUGB)

Copyright 2010, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the CPS/SPE International Oil & Gas Conference and Exhibition in China held in Beijing, China, 810 June 2010.
This paper was selected for presentation by a CPS/SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper have not been
reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or
members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers 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 SPE copyright.

Abstract
The effect of completion techniques and reservoir heterogeneity on CO2 storage and injectivity in saline aquifers has been studied
using a compositional reservoir simulator CMG-GEM. Two reservoir models were built using data extracted from publications, to
represent a deep saline aquifer and a shallow aquifer. The effect of completion methods, including partial perforation of the
reservoir net pay (partial completion), well geometry, orientation, location and length, on CO2 storage are discussed. Heterogeneity
effect has been addressed considering three parameters: mean permeability, vertical to horizontal permeability ratio, and
permeability variation. Sensitivity analysis was carried out using design of experiments (DOE) to determine the dominant factors
affecting CO2 storage capacity and CO2 injectivity. Simulation results show that completing all layers, using horizontal wells set in
upper layers with a length around 250-300 m are the most favorable choices for CO2 storage capacity in the aquifer examined.
Mean permeability affects CO2 storage capacity and injectivity the most; kv/kh affects CO2 injectivity storage capacity more than
permeability variation, Vk. More CO2 can be stored in the heterogeneous reservoirs with low mean permeability; however, high
injectivity can be achieved in the uniform reservoirs with high mean permeability.
Introduction
Carbon sequestration in saline aquifers has been identified as a promising method of reducing atmospheric CO2 in response to
growing concerns over climate change. Saline aquifers are attractive for such sequestration because of their large capacity and
broad distribution (IPCC, 2005; Hesse et al., 2006; Bryant, 2007; Gibson-Poole et al., 2007). Many projects have been carried out
and have demonstrated the viability of CO2 sequestration in saline aquifers since the early 1990s (Pruess et al., 2003; Jikich et al.,
2003; Sengul, 2006).
Saline aquifers are defined as porous and permeable reservoir rocks that contain saline fluid in the pore spaces between the
rock grains. Carbon dioxide can be trapped in saline aquifers through a combination of physical and chemical processes, which can
be classified into structural and stratigraphic trapping, solubility trapping, mineral trapping, and hydrodynamic trapping (Koide et
al., 1992; Gunter et al., 1993; Holtz, 2002; Flett et al., 2005; Bachu et al., 2007). When injected, CO2 moves upward to fill the
geological traps, parts of CO2 dissolves, some interacts with formation water and rock minerals, and some trapped by capillary
forces as a residual phase.
The potential of CO2 storage in saline aquifers is largely determined by aquifer properties (Cinar et al., 2007), and much work
has been performed to determine the effect of aquifer properties on CO2 storage. The properties include seal area, formation dip,
reservoir heterogeneity, porosity and permeability, temperature, pressure, salinity, and mineralogy (Kumar et al., 2005; Bachu et
al., 2007; Hurter et al., 2007; lker et al., 2007; Yang et al, 2010). Among them, heterogeneity plays an important role because the
spatial correlation of permeability determines the preferential CO2 flow paths and the complex migration paths resulted from
heterogeneity enhance solution and residual gas trapping (Bryant et al., 2006). Although there are studies on mean permeability,
the vertical to horizontal permeability ratio, and permeability variation, those studies were reported separately and only focus on
deep saline aquifers.

SPE 131381

In addition, engineering aspects can be considered to optimize CO2 storage capacity. Some work has been done in this area;
injection rate, CO2 purity, well type, and certain injection strategy have been studied to investigate how they affect CO2 storage
(Calabrese and Blunt, 2005). However, very little work involves completion techniques, which might affect CO2 injection directly
and significantly.
In this paper, the effects of completion techniques and reservoir heterogeneity on CO2 sequestration have been addressed by
modeling CO2 injection into both deep and shallow saline aquifers. The objective is to understand how different completion
techniques affect CO2 storage in both a shallow reservoir and a deep reservoir and how the parameters describing reservoir
heterogeneity dominate CO2 storage compactly and injectivity.
Methods
1. Numerical simulator
The simulator CMG-GEM (Computer Modeling Group- General Equation of State Model) is used to model CO2
sequestration in saline aquifers. CMGs GEM is functional, easy to operate, and publicly accessible (Princeton University, 2005).
GEM is an efficient, multidimensional, equation-of- state (EOS) compositional simulator which can simulate all the important
mechanisms of a gas injection process, including phase transition, geochemistry, and thermal features. CMG's WINPROP is used
to prepare EOS data for GEM. In this study, Peng-Robinson equation of state is selected to predict the phase equilibrium
compositions and densities of different phases.
2. Model description
Carbon dioxide sequestration in saline aquifers with features including residual gas trapping, CO2 solubility, and
mineralization reactions are modeled. Table 1 lists data which are collected and analyzed from the simulation data, and real-case
data from more than 20 previous publications.
Table 1 General data from publications
Parameters

Data points

Range

P50

Formation top (m)

16

730-2364

1395

Thickness (m)

19

6-304.8

88

Pressure (kPa)

14

7500-22700

14779

Pressure gradient (kPa/m)

10

9.66-11.35

10

Temperature (C)

11

28.5-79.5

57

Porosity (%)

18

5 -38

20

Permeability (md)

19

0.1-2500

93

Salinity (ppm)

7500-32800

105455

22750-36000

28262

14.08-27.22

21

1200-1416000

153905

Maximum bottom hole pressure

(kPa)
Fracture pressure gradient (kPa/m)
3

Maximum injection rate (m /day)

Based on the 50 percentile values from Table 1, two 3D base models are built using the data in Table 2, representing a deep
saline aquifer and a shallow saline aquifer. Each model comprises 40 blocks in I direction, 20 blocks in J direction, and 10 blocks
in K direction (Fig.1). The reservoir is 800 m long and 800 m wide with a thickness of 100 m. The depth of reservoir is 1,500 m
(4,921 ft) and 500 m (1,640 ft) respectively. The model is a sandstone aquifer with mediate porosity (20%) and permeability (100
md). Some simple mineral reactions considered are shown in Table 3.
The boundary and initial conditions assumed for the model are as follows. The top, bottom, and lateral boundaries are closed,
representing low-permeability sealing layers. Carbon dioxide is injected into a single well. The injection rate is constantly 20,000
m3/day until the reservoir pressure reaches its limit, and then decreases to maintain the reservoir pressure within limit. The
injection stops when the injection rate drops to 200 m3/day. The fracture pressure gradient of 28.275 kPa/m (1.25 psi/ft) is used to
define the maximum reservoir pressure. Initial conditions consist of a formation pressure gradient of 10 kPa/m (0.442 psi/ft), a
geothermal gradient of 30 C/km, a surface temperature of 15C, a brine salinity of 10,000 ppm, and mineral compositions of 60%
quartz, 2% Calcite and 2% Dolomite.

SPE 131381

Fig.1 Cartesian grid model of reservoir

Table 2 Simulation input parameters

Deep
i
402010

Shallow reservoir

800800100

800800100

Reservoir parameters
Grid blocks
Reservoir size, m

402010

Formation Top, m

1500

500

Formation Thickness, m

100

100

Porosity, %

20

20

Permeability, md

100

100

Kv/Kh

0.01

Rock compressibility, 1/kPa

110

0.01

-9

110

Water-gas contact, m

100

100

Reference depth, m

1500

500

-9

Reference pressure, kPa

15000

5000

Pressure gradient, kPa/m

10

10

Reference temperature, C

60

30

Surface temperature, C

15

15

Geothermal gradient, C/km

30

Water compressibility, kPa

-1

30

4.3510

-7

4.3510

-7

Salinity, ppm

10000

10000,

Maximum residual gas saturation

0.4

0.4
200-20000

Injection rate, m /d

200-20000

Fracture pressure gradient kPa/m

28.275

28.275

Maximum bottom hole pressure kPa

42412.5

14137.5

Table 3 Mineral reactions in the model

Aqueous reactions
1
2

H2O = H + OH

CO2 + H2O = H + HCO

+

32-

CO2 + H2O = 2H + CO3

Calcite + H = Ca + HCO3

Mineral reactions
+

2+

2+

2+

Dolomite + 2H = Ca + Mg + 2HCO3

Quartz = SiO2(aq)

SPE 131381

Completion Effect
Models are built to investigate the effect of different completion techniques on CO2 storage. The effect of partial completion was
investigated by restricting injection to the three bottom layers, and then increasing the partial completion to include successively
shallower layers. The effect of well geometry was studied by investigating storage capability for a vertical well, and then different
degrees of well deviation. For the horizontal well case, vertical placement of the well within the formation was investigated, in
addition to increasing well length. A summary of completion cases follows.
1. Partial Completion
Case description: Carbon dioxide is injected into a vertical well with perforation in different layers. The well is vertical, and
located in the middle of the model. The perforated layers increase successively, from the bottom 3 layers to all the 10 layers. The
injection modeling assumes full sandface injection for each layer; perforation effects or perforation pressure drops are not included
in the model.
Results: More CO2 can be injected when more layers are completed (Fig.2). This is because a full completion of the reservoir
results in less pressure build up for the same period of time and longer constant injection period before injection rate drops (Fig.3).
The influence partial completion effects on CO2 sequestration is less than 5%. When completed in all the 10 layers, the cumulative
CO2 injected are 3.04109 mol for the deep reservoir and 1.03109 mol for the shallow reservoir; when perforated in the bottom 5
layers, they are 3.00109 mol and 0.99109 mol respectively. Partial completion causes a cumulative injected CO2 difference of
1.33% for the deep case and 4.04% for the shallow case.
(a) Deep reservoir- 1500 m

(b) Shallow reservoir- 500 m

1.10e+9

Cumulative Gas Inje. Moles(CO2) SC (gmole)

Cumulative Gas Inje. Moles(CO2) SC (gmole)

3.10e+9

3.00e+9

All 10 layers
Bottom 9 layers
Bottom 8 layers
Bottom 7 layers
Bottom 6 layers
Bottom 5 layers
Bottom 4 layers
Bottom 3 layers

2.90e+9

2.80e+9
2019-4

2019-7

2019-10

2020-1

2020-4

1.00e+9

9.00e+8
All 10 layers
Bottom 9 layers
Bottom 8 layers
Bottom 7 layers
Bottom 6 layers
Bottom 5 layers
Bottom 4 layers
Bottom 3 layers

8.00e+8

7.00e+8

2020-7

2012-7

2013-1

Time (Date)

2013-7

2014-1

2014-7

2015-1

2015-7

2016-1

Time (Date)

Fig.2 Cumulative CO2 injected versus time under different partial completions
(a) Deep reservoir- 1500 m

1.00e+9

20,000

0.00e+0

10,000
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Time (Date)

10,000

1.50e+9

19,000

14,000
1.00e+9

9,000
5.00e+8

0.00e+0

4,000
2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

20,000

10,000

Gas Inje Rate SCTR (m3/day)

30,000

30,000
CumCO2Inj-10 layers
CumCO2Inj-5 layers
HC pressure-10 layers
HC pressure-5 layers
GasInjRate-10 layers
GasInjRate-5 layers

Ave Pres HC POVO SCTR (kPa)

2.00e+9

20,000

2.00e+9

Cumulative Gas Inje. Moles(CO2) SC (gmole)

40,000

30,000

Gas Inje Rate SCTR (m3/day)

3.00e+9

(b) Shallow reservoir- 500 m

50,000

CumCO2Inj-10 layers
CumCO2Inj-5 layers
HC Pressure-10 layers
HC Pressure-5 layers
GasInjRate-10 layers
GasInjRate-5 layers

Ave Pres HC POVO SCTR (kPa)

Cumulative Gas Inje. Moles(CO2) SC (gmole)

4.00e+9

2016

Time (Date)

Fig.3 Cumulative CO2 injected, reservoir pressure, and injection rate versus time

2. Well orientation
Case description: Carbon dioxide is injected into three settings of vertical well, horizontal well, and deviated well
respectively. The wells are located at the edge of the model formation. The setting is defined as the angle of deviated well varies,
namely the 30setting, the 45setting, and the 60setting (Fig.4 each setting is in the same color). For each setting, the length
of horizontal well is the same as that of deviated well. The length of vertical well is the formation thickness. The horizontal well is
set in the upper layer of formation.

SPE 131381

Results: For both deep and shallow reservoirs, the horizontal well and deviated well allow slightly more CO2 to be injected
when compared to a vertical well. Horizontal well increases CO2 sequestration the most, followed by the significantly deviated
well. As shown in Fig.5, the total CO2 injected increases are 0.3% using a deviated well and 0.5% increase using a horizontal well
compared to a vertical well in a deep reservoir, and 0.4% and 0.7%, respectively, in the shallow reservoir. The results show that
longer horizontal well is preferable, which agrees with the published conclusions that horizontal wells have advantages over
vertical wells (Ozah et al, 2005).

Fig.4 Sketch of well orientation settings

(a) Deep reservoir- 1500 m

(b) Shallow reservoir- 500 m

1.04e+9

3.04e+9

3.03e+9

3.02e+9
Horizontal 60 (200 m)
Deviated 60 (200 m)
Horizontal 45 (141 m)
Deviated 45 (141 m)
Horizontal 30 (116 m)
Deviated 30 (116 m)
Vertical (100 m)

3.01e+9

3.00e+9

2.99e+9
2019-7

2019-10

2020-1

2020-4

2020-7

2020-10

Cumulative Gas Inje. Moles(CO2) SC (gmole)

Cumulative Gas Inje. Moles(CO2) SC (gmole)

3.05e+9

1.03e+9

1.02e+9

Horizontal 45 (141 m)
Deviated 45 (141 m)
Horizontal 30 (116 m)
Deviated 30 (116 m)
Vertical (100 m)

1.01e+9

1.00e+9
2013-1

2013-7

Time (Date)

2014-1

2014-7

2015-1

2015-7

2016-1

Time (Date)

Fig.5 Cumulative CO2 injected versus time in different well orientation settings

3. Horizontal well location

Case description: A horizontal well with a length of 200 m is modeled placing the well at different depths (within different
layers) to investigate the effect of its depth on CO2 storage capacity and injectivity. (Fig.6). Thus an optimal layer can be selected
by comparing the total CO2 injected in each case.
Results: As shown in Fig.7, more CO2 can be stored when horizontal well is set in layer 3 for deep reservoir and layer 2 for
shallow reservoir. The increasing rate is 8.3% and 9.6% respectively, comparing to the layer 10 case. The fact that horizontal well
is preferred to be set in certain upper layer than other layers is because the builds-up of formation pressure in the second or third
layer case is a little bit slower than other cases, which enables more injection time at the maximum injection rate, and thus more
CO2 can be injected and present as supercritical phase in the reservoir (Fig.8 and Fig.9).

Fig.6 Sketch of horizontal well position

SPE 131381

(b) Shallow reservoir- 500 m

Cumulative Gas Inje. Moles(CO2) SC (gmole)

Cumulative Gas Inje. Moles(CO2) SC (gmole)

(a) Deep reservoir- 1500 m

3.05e+9

2.95e+9

Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer

2.85e+9

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

2.75e+9
2019-1

2019-7

2020-1

2020-7

2021-1

2021-7

2022-1

2022-7

1.10e+9

1.00e+9

9.03e+8
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer

8.03e+8

7.03e+8

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

6.03e+8
2012-10

2023-1

2013-1

2013-4

2013-7

2013-10

2014-1

Time (Date)

Time (Date)

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

0.00
0.00

100

200

300

400

500

600

315.00
100.00

700

630.00 feet

Scale: 1:4941
Z/X: 4.00:1
Axis Uni ts: m

1.00
0.90

0.80
0.70
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10

200.00 meters

800

0.00

100

200

300

1,470 1,480 1,490 1,500 1,510 1,520 1,530 1,540 1,550 1,560 1,570 1,580 1,590 1,600 1,610 1,620 1,630

1,470 1,480 1,490 1,500 1,510 1,520 1,530 1,540 1,550 1,560 1,570 1,580 1,590 1,600 1,610 1,620 1,630

CO2 INJ

Fi le: Horizontal 3.irf

User: yangfa
Date: 1/11/2010

400

500

600

700

800

CO2 INJ

0.00
0.00

100

200

300

400

500

600

315.00
100.00

630.00 feet

1,630 1,620 1,610 1,600 1,590 1,580 1,570 1,560 1,550 1,540 1,530 1,520 1,510 1,500 1,490 1,480 1,470 1,460

1,630 1,620 1,610 1,600 1,590 1,580 1,570 1,560 1,550 1,540 1,530 1,520 1,510 1,500 1,490 1,480 1,470 1,460

Fig.7 Cumulative CO2 injected versus time varying horizontal well depth
Fi le: Horizontal 10.i rf
User: yangfa
Date: 1/11/2010
Scale: 1:4941
Z/X: 4.00:1
Axis Uni ts: m

1.00
0.90

0.80
0.70
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10

200.00 meters

700

0.00

800

Fig.8 CO2 distribution at the end of injection in deep reservoir

60,000

CO2 Injected (mol)

CO2 Super-Critical (mol): GHGSCRIT 10

CO2 Super-Critical (mol): GHGSCRIT 3
CO2 Dissolved (mol): GHGSOL 10
CO2 Dissolved (mol): GHGSOL 3
Ave Pres HC POVO SCTR 10
Ave Pres HC POVO SCTR 3

50,000

2.00e+9
40,000

30,000
1.00e+9

20,000

0.00e+0

Ave Pres HC POVO SCTR (kPa)

3.00e+9

10,000
2012

2014

2016
2018
Time (Date)

2020

2022

Fig.9 Supercritical CO2, dissolved CO2, and formation pressure versus time in deep reservoir

4. Horizontal Well Length

Description: Different horizontal lengths are selected to optimize the length of a horizontal well. Horizontal wells are set in
the optimal layer with the length from 80 to 520 m. Results: According to the total CO2 injected alone, the horizontal well length
would be better as 400 m in deep reservoir and 480 m in shallow reservoir (Fig.10 and Fig.11). However, although the longer
horizontal well case gets more CO2 injected (compare with the best and worst case: 2% more in deep reservoir, 3.7% more in
shallow reservoir), it takes relatively longer time (about 5 more years in deep reservoir and 2 more years in shallow reservoir). The
extra amount of CO2 injected may not make up for the time consumption. So the CO2 capacity increase rate (C/T) is defined
here to analyze the inject efficiency. C/T is the average increase rate of total CO2 injected during the late injection period, T is
the time difference between where the total CO2 injected begins to vary and the end of injection of each case, and C is the CO2
capacity increase during this period. As shown in Fig.11, when horizontal well is 280 m, the CO2 capacity increase rate is the

SPE 131381

highest, and the total CO2 injected is still in considerable amount. Therefore, 280 m can be seen as the optimal horizontal well
length.
(b) Shallow reservoir- 500 m
Cumulative Gas Inje. Moles(CO2) SC (gmole)

Cumulative Gas Inje. Moles(CO2) SC (gmole)

(a) Deep reservoir- 1500 m

3.09e+9
3.07e+9
3.05e+9
80 m
120 m
160 m
200 m
240 m
280 m
320 m
360 m
400 m
440 m
480 m
520 m

3.03e+9
3.01e+9
2.99e+9
2.97e+9
2.95e+9
2020

2021

2022

2023

2024

2025

1.07e+9

1.02e+9
80 m
120 m
160 m
200 m
240 m
280 m
320 m
360 m
400 m
440 m
480 m
520 m

9.70e+8

9.20e+8

2026

2013-1

2013-7

2014-1

Time (Date)

2014-7

2015-1

2015-7

2016-1

Time (Date)

(a) Deep reservoir-1500 m

3.1

3.08

0.8

C/T

3.07

0.6

3.06

0.4

3.05
0.2

3.04

3.03
80

160

240 320 400

Welllength,m

480

1.07
1.06

CumCO2

2.5

C/T

1.05

1.5
1.04

1.03

0.5

1.02

0
80

160

240 320 400

Welllength,m

capacity increaserate,%/month

CumCO2

CumulativeCO2 injected,E9moles

3.09

(b)Shallowreservoir500m
1
capacity increaserate,%/month

CumulativeCO2injected,E9moles

Fig.10 Cumulative CO2 injected versus time varying horizontal well length

480

Fig.11 Cumulative CO2 injected and capacity increase rate versus well length

Heterogeneity Effect
When injected into aquifers, CO2 migrates to displace brine, the formation heterogeneity and anisotropy determine where CO2
goes (Flett et al., 2004); when injection is done, CO2 moves upward mainly driven by buoyancy force overcoming capillary entry
pressure (Riza and Tchelepi, 2002). In a heterogeneous reservoir, the permeability distribution affects the amount, rate, and extent
of CO2 that can be injected significantly (Bryant et al., 2006).
Heterogeneity can be defined by three parameters: mean permeability (km), vertical to horizontal permeability ratio (kv/kh),
and permeability variation (Vk, in this study, the Dykstra-Parsons coefficient of permeability variation is used to measures
reservoir uniformity by the vertical dispersion of permeability values). Various combination of these three parameters are tried to
investigate the effect of heterogeneity on CO2 storage in the following simulation. The data range set in the models for each
parameter is given in Table 4.
Table 4 Heterogeneity input data
Reservoir parameters

Levels

Permeability I

Depend on Vk and km

Permeability J

Equal to Permeability I

Permeability K

Permeability I * kv/kh

Permeability variation, Vk

0, 0.2, 0.4, 0.6

Vertical to horizontal permeability ratio, kv/kh

0.001, 0.01, 0.1, 1

Mean permeability (md), km

10, 100

SPE 131381

1. Sensitivity analysis
To help plan simulations and rank parameters in terms of their contribution to CO2 storage, design of experiments (DOE) is
applied using the iSight 10.0 software. Since the number of parameters is not too much, full factorial design is selected to get
reliable results, which includes all possible data settings. First, models are built using different data setting and then run in the
simulator. Next, the results are put in the iSight software and analyzed by DOE tools. The percentage and main effect of each
parameter on total as storage capacityas well as average injection rate (regarded as CO2 injectivity) are as follows.
As shown in Fig. 12, km ranks first with regard to its effect on total CO2 injected, then kv/kh and Vk; however, when it comes
to the effect on average injection rate, Vk overweighs kv/kh and even km for shallow reservoir. The results show that mean
permeability has most effect on both CO2 storage capacity and injectivity. Permeability variation, Vk, affects CO2 storage capacity
more than the ratio of vertical to horizontal permeability (kv/kh) for both cases, whereas Vk affects CO2 injectivity more than kv/kh
for shallow reservoir. Mean permeability is the dominant factor for a deep reservoir.

(a)Deepreservoir
EffectonCumCO2Inj

(b)Shallowreservoir

EffectonAveInjRate

EffectonCumCO2Inj
0.6

59%
0.6

EffectFraction

EffectFraction

0.8
50%
39%

0.4

30%
10%

0.2

11%

EffectonAveInjRate

53%
41%

40%
0.4

26%
18%

0.2

21%

0
Km

Kv/Kh

Vk

Km

Kv/KhVk

Fig.12 Heterogeneity effect on total CO2 injected and average injection rate

Fig.13 and Fig.14 show the effect trend of each parameter. At lower km and kv/kh value, higher Vk value, reservoir is very
heterogeneous with low permeability. The movement of CO2 is more lateral than vertical, which means CO2 stays longer in the
injection layers rather than moves upward and then flows along the top seal. More CO2 can be stored in this way. On the contrary,
at higher km and kv/kh value, lower Vk value, reservoir is uniform with high permeability. It is easier to get CO2 injected. The
abnormal trend of kv/kh in Fig.18b suggests an optimal kv/kh value regarding its effect on CO2 injectivity in shallow reservoir. A
possible explanation is that gaseous CO2 in shallow reservoir moves upward very quickly in uniform reservoir, according the
pressure built-up is quick too, which in turn limits the injectivity.

(b)Shallowreservoir

3.07

1.052
Km

Kv/Kh

Vk

3.06
3.05
3.04

TotalCO2Injected,E9Moles

TotalCO2Injected,E9Moles

(a)Deepreservoir

Km

Kv/Kh

Vk

1.048
1.044
1.040
1.036
1.032

3.03
101000.001 0.010.1100.20.4 0.6
KmKv/KhVk

101000.0010.010.1100.20.40.6
KmKv/KhVk

Fig.13 Main effect of heterogeneity on total CO2 injected

SPE 131381

Km

0.82

(b)Shallowreservoir

Kv/Kh

AverageInjRate,E6Moles/Day

AverageInjRate,E6Moles/Day

(a)Deepreservoir
Vk

0.81
0.80
0.79

0.72

Km

Kv/Kh

Vk

0.68
0.64
0.60
0.56

0.78

101000.0010.010.1100.20.40.6
KmKv/KhVk

101000.0010.010.1100.20.40.6
KmKv/KhVk

Fig.14 Main effect of heterogeneity on average injection rate

2. Vk and kv/kh effect

Followed by the general information obtained from DOE analysis, more detailed results on Vk and kv/kh effect are discussed
at a km of 100 md. This km value represents the average permeability of saline aquifer based on data collected in this paper.
As can be seen in Fig.15 and Fig.16, at a mean permeability of 100 md, total CO2 injected increases as Vk increases and kv/kh
decreases. However, the increase amount of total CO2 injected is very small. When Vk increases 3 times and kv/kh decreases 1000
times, total CO2 injected only increases less than 1.5% for deep reservoir and less than 3.5% for shallow reservoir.
(b)ShallowreservoirVkeffect@100md

3.07
3.06
3.05
0.001

3.04

0.01

3.03

0.1

3.02
3.01

1
0

0.2

0.4

0.6

PermeabilityVariation(Vk)

CumulativeCO2injected,E9Moles

CumulativeCO2injected,E9Moles

(a)DeepreservoirVkeffect@100md

1.06
1.05
1.04

0.001

1.03

0.01

1.02

0.1

1.01

1
0

0.2

0.4

0.6

PermeabilityVariation(Vk)

Fig.15 Vk effect at a mean permeability of 100 md

(b)ShallowreservoirKv/Kheffect@100md

3.07
3.06
3.05
0

3.04

0.2

3.03
3.02

0.4

3.01

0.6

0.001

0.01

0.1

VerticaltoHorizontalpermeabilityratio(Kv/Kh)

CumulativeCO2injected,E9Moles

CumulativeCO2injected,E9Moles

(a)DeepreservoirKv/Kheffect@100md

1.06
1.05
1.04

1.03

0.2

1.02

0.4

1.01

0.6

0.001

0.01

0.1

VerticaltoHorizontalpermeabilityratio(Kv/Kh)

Fig.16 kv/kh effect at a mean permeability of 100 md

10

SPE 131381

Conclusions
Completion technique and heterogeneity are important engineering and geology aspects of CO2 sequestration. Simulation of the
effect of completion techniques and reservoir heterogeneity illustrates how they affect CO2 storage capacity and injectivity, which
can help design CO2 injection and find suitable injection site.
Based on simulation results, the following completion techniques are favorable for CO2 storage capacity: completion in all
layers in vertical wells, and horizontal wells to be set in upper layers rather than bottom layers with a length around 250-300 m.
Among these techniques, horizontal wells to be set at the right depth affects CO2 storage capacity the most, although this depends
on reservoir heterogeneity. When a CO2 storage site can be well characterized, horizontal wells are desirable because they can
improve CO2 storage capacity and injectivity. When the reservoir properties are not clear, vertical wells are commonly used for
CO2 injection, which still enables considerable amount of CO2 to be injected. As partial completion effect is affected by formation
heterogeneity, future simulation work should investigate partial completion effects as a function of reservoir anisotropy.
Heterogeneity affects CO2 spatial distribution, CO2 solubility trapping, and residual gas trapping. Mean permeability has
great effect on CO2 storage capacity and injectivity, permeability variation affect CO2 injectivity much more than storage capacityespecially in shallow reservoirs, whereas vertical to horizontal permeability ratio affect storage capacity more. More CO2 can be
injected in heterogeneous reservoirs with low permeability; high injectivity can be achieved in uniform reservoirs with high
permeability. At a mean permeability of 100 md, total CO2 injected increases as Vk increases and kv/kh decreases. However, the
overall increase is very small.
Acknowledgements
Financial support from the China Scholarship Council ([2007]3020) is gratefully acknowledged.
References
Bachu S, Bonijoly D, Bradshaw J, et al., CO2 storage capacity estimation: methodology and gaps, International Journal of Greenhouse Gas
Control, 1(4): 430-443, 2007.
Bryant S L, Lakshminarasimhan S, and Pope G A, Buoyancy-dominated multiphase flow and its impact on geological sequestration of CO2,
paper SPE 99938 proceedings of SPE/DOE Symposium on Improved Oil Recovery, Tulsa, Oklahoma, Apr. 22-26, 2006.
Bryant S, Geologic CO2 storage can the oil and gas industry help save the planet?, Journal of Petroleum Technology, 59(9): 98-105, 2007.
Calabrese M and Blunt M J, Simulation of physical-chemical processes during carbon dioxide sequestration in geological structures, paper
SPE 95820 presented at SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, Texas, USA, 2005.
Cinar Y, Riaz A, and Tchelepi H A, Experimental study of CO2 injection into saline formations, paper SPE 110628 presented at SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, Anaheim, California, USA, 2007.
Flett M A, Gurton R M and Taggart I J, Heterogeneous saline formations: long-term benefits for geosequestration of greenhouse gases, in:
Rubin E S, Keith D W and Gilboy C F (eds.) Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies: Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on
Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies, Vancouver, Canada. 2004. I (5-9), Elsevier, Oxford, 501-509, 2005.
Gibson-Poole C M, Edwards S E, Langford R P, et al. , Review of geological storage opportunities for carbon capture and storage (CCS) in
Victoria summary report, Cooperative Research Centre for Greenhouse Gas Technologies, ICTPL-RPT07-0526, 2007.
Hesse M A, Tchelepi H A and Orr F M, Scaling analysis of the migration of CO2 in saline aquifers, paper SPE 102796 presented at SPE
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas, USA, 2006.
Holtz, M H, Residual gas saturation to aquifer influx: a calculation method for 3-D computer reservoir model construction, paper SPE 75502
presented at SPE Gas Technology Symposium, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, 2002.
Hurter S, Labregere D, and Berge J, Simulations for CO2 injection projects with compositional simulator, paper SPE 108540 presented at
Offshore Europe, Aberdeen, Scotland, UK, 2007.
IEA: http://scifun.chem.wisc.edu/CHEMWEEK/PDF/CarbonDioxide.pdf, 2008.
IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), IPCC Special report on carbon dioxide capture and storage, prepared by Working Group
III of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Metz B, Davidson O, de Coninck H C, Loos M and Meyer L A (eds.)], Cambridge
University Press, New York, 2005.
Jikich S A, Sams W N, Bromhal G, et al., Carbon dioxide injectivity in brine reservoirs using horizontal wells,
http://www.netl.doe.gov/publications/proceedings/03/carbon-seq/PDFs/032.pdf, 2003.
Koide H, Tazaki Y, Noguchi Y, et al., Subterranean containment and long-term storage of carbon dioxide in unused aquifers and in depleted
natural gas reservoirs, Energy Conversion and Management, 33 (5-8): 619-626,1992.
Kumar A, Ozah R, Noh M, et al., Reservoir simulation of CO2 storage in deep saline aquifers, paper SPE 89343 (First presented at SPE/DOE
Symposium on Improved Oil Recovery, Tulsa, Oklahoma, Apr. 17-21, 2004), 2005.
Princeton University, Summary of Princeton workshop on geological storage of CO2, 2005.
Pruess K, Xu T, Apps J, et al., Numerical modeling of aquifer disposal of CO2, paper SPE 83695 (First presented at SPE/EPA/DOE
Exploration and Production Environmental Conference, San Antonio, Texas, USA, 2001) , 2003.
Riaz A and Tchelepi H A, Dynamics of vertical displacement in porous Media associated with CO2 sequestration, paper SPE 103169
proceedings of SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas, USA, Sep. 24-27, 2006.
Sengul M, CO2 sequestration- a safe transition technology, paper SPE 98617 presented at SPE International Conference on Health, Safety, and
Environment in Oil & Gas Exploration and Production. Abu Dhabi, UAE, 2006.

SPE 131381

Sprunt E S, We can be a key player in the solution to global warming, Journal of Petroleum Technolog: Stand Tall and Speak Up, 2006.
lker B, Alkan H, and Pusch G, Implications of the phase-solubility behavior on the performance predictions of the CO2 trapping in depleted
gas reservoirs and aquifers, paper SPE 107189 presented at SPE Europe/EAGE Annual Conference and Exhibition, London, UK, 2007.
USGS, Carbon sequestration to mitigate climate change, 2008.
Yang F, Bai B, Tang D, et al., Characteristics of CO2 sequestration in saline aquifers, Petroleum Science, (7): 83~92, 2010.

11