Petroleum Geology Conference series

Differences between flow of injected CO2 and hydrocarbon migration

Christian Hermanrud, Gunn Mari Grimsmo Teige, Martin Iding, et al.
Petroleum Geology Conference series 2010; v. 7; p. 1183-1188
doi: 10.1144/0071183

Email alerting
service

click here to receive free e-mail alerts when new articles cite this article

Permission
request

click here to seek permission to re-use all or part of this article

Subscribe

click here to subscribe to Geological Society, London, Petroleum Geology

Conference series or the Lyell Collection

Notes

Downloaded by on March 24, 2011

Petroleum Geology Conferences Ltd. Published

by the Geological Society, London

Differences between flow of injected CO2 and hydrocarbon migration

CHRISTIAN HERMANRUD,1,2 GUNN MARI GRIMSMO TEIGE,1 MARTIN IDING,1 OLA EIKEN,1
LARS RENNAN1 and SVEND STMO1
1

Statoil ASA, 7005 Trondheim, Norway (e-mail: che@statoil.com)

University of Bergen, Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences, 2020 Bergen, Norway

Abstract: Knowledge of fluid flow processes in the subsurface is important for CO2 storage operations as well as
for hydrocarbon exploration. Repeated seismic surveys for more than 10 years of CO2 injection into the Utsira
Formation, in the Sleipner area, offer a unique dataset. This dataset holds information on fluid migration processes
that can be analysed for the benefit of hydrocarbon exploration and CO2 storage considerations alike. Thorough
analyses of these datasets reveal several features that give useful information of subsurface fluid flow processes.
The CO2 in the Utsira Formation has flowed laterally beneath thin, intra-formational shales. At the same time, CO2
has flowed vertically through shaly horizons that would normally be considered as barriers to fluid flow. This flow
has apparently taken place through vertically stacked flow conduits through the shales. These conduits may to
some extent have existed prior to the start of CO2 injection, but may also have been augmented by the CO2 injection process. The calculated pushdown of seismic reflectors below the CO2 plume is less than that observed, which
may point to the presence of hitherto unrecognized flow paths for the CO2. Hydrocarbon migration pathways are in
general not recognizable in seismic data. This implies that such avenues are significantly thinner than those of the
CO2 migration in the Utsira Formation. This result points to the presence of mixed-wet migration pathways, in
which capillary flow resistance may not control the (sub-horizontal) flow path thickness. A circular depression
at the top of the Utsira Formation that existed prior to the injection may be interpreted as a result of a deeper
seated sand remobilization feature. Such features will also promote vertical hydrocarbon migration where they
are present. A more widespread occurrence of such features may explain why hydrocarbons are generally
found beneath thick shales, but are less likely to be found below thin intra-formational shales below the structural
spillpoint of the top seal. These observations suggest that seal thickness is an important parameter, even if the
capillary entry pressure of the sealing rock is sufficiently high to preserve significant hydrocarbon columns.
Keywords: CO2 injection, CO2 flow, hydrocarbon migration, Utsira Formation, top seal, intra-formational shales

Knowledge of hydrocarbon migration processes is important for predictions of oil and gas occurrence in the subsurface. Direct field
observations of hydrocarbon migration are rare and seismic identification of migration routes carries significant uncertainties. As a
result, important aspects of hydrocarbon migration remain elusive.
The CO2 injection that has been carried out in the Utsira Formation above the Sleipner West Field in the Norwegian North Sea
has been monitored by a set of repeated seismic surveys (Arts
et al. 2003; Chadwick et al. 2005). These surveys reveal how CO2
has migrated in the Utsira Formation from 1996 to 2008, and give
unique observations of fluid migration in a porous medium.
The conditions of hydrocarbon migration and CO2 injection differ
in many respects. Such differences are partly due to different fluid
properties between hydrocarbons and CO2, including interfacial tensions, solubilities, densities, viscosities, and interactions with pore
water (and consequences for the pH). Also, significant differences
exist between the injection rate of CO2 and the much slower hydrocarbon migration velocity. These differences would be expected to
significantly influence the flow paths of the migrating fluids.
Nevertheless, the physical parameters that control hydrocarbon
migration and the flow of injected CO2 in the subsurface are the
same. Thus, knowledge of hydrocarbon migration processes
should be helpful in predicting the short- and medium-term movements of injected CO2. Likewise, the insight that has been gained
from monitoring of the CO2 flow in the Utsira Formation can
give knowledge of fluid dynamics in the subsurface that will aid
the understanding of petroleum migration.
The purpose of this paper is to examine the main characteristics
of the CO2 flow in the Utsira Formation, and compare it with
the behaviour of hydrocarbon migration. Emphasis will be put on

understanding the processes (or realization of the lack of such understanding) that emerges from investigations of the CO2 flow, and the
implication of these findings for analyses of hydrocarbon migration.

CO2 injection in the Utsira Formation

The Sleipner West Field is situated in the northern North Sea. The
field produces gas from a Jurassic structural trap. CO2 is separated
from this gas offshore, and is then reinjected into the Utsira
Formation of late Middle Miocene to earliest Late Pliocene age.
The CO2 injector was drilled as a very shallowly inclined well
from the Sleipner A platform. This well does not penetrate the
caprocks above the Utsira Formation at the position where the
CO2 is being injected.
Only a limited section (7 m) of core material has been retrieved
from the Utsira Formation. This core consists of clean, unconsolidated sand with 3% carbonate content (Holloway et al. 2004).
Also wireline log data suggest that the Utsira Formation in this
region (Fig. 1) consists of clean sands. At the injection site, the
average porosity is 3540%, the vertical and horizontal permeabilities are around 2 D, and the net/gross ratio is 0.900.97 (Zweigel
et al. 2004). The formation has been described as a lower shoreface
deposit, heavily influenced by longshore currents after deposition
(Galloway 2002). The Cenozoic strata below the Utsira Formation
contain abundant sand injection features at the Tampen Spur,
300 km north of the injection site (Rodrigues et al. 2009), and
sand injection phenomena may have affected rocks of similar age
as the Utsira Formation in this area (H. Lseth, pers. comm.).
Injected sands in the Utsira Formation in the Sleipner area have
not been documented.

VINING , B. A. & PICKERING , S. C. (eds) Petroleum Geology: From Mature Basins to New Frontiers Proceedings of the 7th Petroleum Geology Conference,
1183 1188. DOI: 10.1144/0071183 # Petroleum Geology Conferences Ltd. Published by the Geological Society, London.

1184

C. HERMANRUD ET AL.

(a)

(b)

north

west
UK

Norway

east

0
100

Upper Seal

200
Shetland
Isles

Middle Seal

300
(m)

10 km

Utsira Sand

Mid-Miocene onlap surface

1000

twtt (ms)

Lower Seal

south

Fig. 1. (a) Location and extent of the Utsira Formation in the North Sea. Colours refer to formation thickness (metres); (b) a West East cross-section of
the Sleipner area. The location of the line is marked with a black solid line in (a). IP, injection point; twtt (ms), two-way travel time in milliseconds.
From Holloway et al. (2004), and Schlumberger (courtesy of Schlumberger).

More than 12  106 tons of CO2 have been injected into the
Utsira Formation at Sleipner Field since 1996. A seismic survey
was shot prior to the injection (1994), and six repeated seismic
surveys have been acquired since then to monitor the CO2 flow in
the Utsira Formation. The repeated seismic surveys show how
the CO2 plume has grown with time (Fig. 2). The seismic data
also reveal that the CO2 has been distributed in nine individual
layers (Fig. 3), that several of these have grown laterally with
time, and that at the same time the CO2 has moved through (as
opposed to around) the intra-formational shaly layers on its way
towards the top seal (Fig. 4). The shale beds that cap the individual
CO2 layers are typically 1 1.5 m thick, judging from well data in
neighbouring wells (Zweigel et al. 2004). By assuming that the
brightest amplitudes correspond to the maximum constructive
interference between top and bottom of a thin CO2-filled layer, a
corresponding thickness of about 78 m has been suggested

(Arts et al. 2003). Figure 5 shows how the CO2 is envisaged to

be distributed in the Utsira Formation from this assumption. The
eight deepest CO2 layers are trapped by intra-reservoir shales.
Only the shallowest of these can be identified seismically; the
others are inferred from the trapping of CO2 and from log responses
within the Utsira Formation in nearby wells (Zweigel et al. 2004).

CO2 flow characteristics inferred from seismic data

The seismic data reveal that the injected CO2 has followed flow
paths that differ from those that would be inferred from knowledge
of hydrocarbon migration processes alone:
(1) CO2 is moving laterally in layers that are clearly visible on
seismic data.
(2) The pushdown of the seismic reflectors below the CO2 plume
is larger than what would be expected from CO2 in the nine

Fig. 2. Cumulative total reflection strength for all nine layers of the Sleipner CO2 plume as seen on different vintage seismic surveys. Arrows show
seismic chimney.

FLOW OF INJECTED CO2 AND HYDROCARBON MIGRATION

1185

Fig. 3. Seismic signatures of the CO2 plume in the Utsira Formation in different time-lapse seismic data. All lines are displayed at the same location,
oriented northsouth, and pass through the injection point. Arrows show seismic chimney.

layers alone. Chadwick et al. (2005) noted that a diffuse (low

saturation) distribution of about 20% of the CO2 is required
to derive a satisfactory match between seismic amplitudes
and pushdown, provided that the influence of gas saturation
on seismic data follows the Gassman equation (Gassmann
1951). No flow model that explains how such diffuse gas saturation could have developed has to our knowledge been
proposed.
(3) The vertical flow paths that have been exploited by the CO2
are intriguing. The CO2 in the individual layers is trapped by
seals, yet the CO2 flowed through all of these and reached the
top layer within a three-year period (from injection started in
1996 to shooting of the first post-injection seismic survey in
1999). The vertical permeability of clays is typically at least
six orders of magnitude below the horizontal permeability of
the Utsira Formation sands (Katsube & Coyner 1994; Schlomer
& Krooss 1997), which implies that the flow of CO2 in the pore
network would give a vertical CO2 displacement of 1 mm or less
during the time the CO2 migrated 1 km horizontally. Clearly,
the CO2 did not flow vertically through continuous and unbroken shale horizons.

The seismic imaging of the CO2 reveals a central area (chimney)

with no coherent signals. This area emerges as a circular feature
on the amplitude maps for all layers combined (Fig. 2), but does
not show up in the amplitude maps of the uppermost layer. This
circular feature is positioned approximately above the position of
the CO2 injection, and is included in the 95% confidence ellipsoid
of this position.
The coincidence of the position of the central chimney approximately above the injector and the circular expression of the
chimney on the amplitude maps renders the possibility that the
chimney displays an image of a vertical flow path that was created
by the injection process. A laboratory experiment was carried out
to evaluate this hypothesis. In this experiment, a Plexiglas cylinder
was filled with water. First sand then kaolin were added to the
water and were allowed to settle for several weeks. Thereafter, the
cylinder was tilted, and then shaken to promote sand compaction
(Fig. 6). The tilting was made to ensure that the water flow velocity
was sufficiently large to result in fluidization as the compact-derived
excess water rose to the surface along the upper slope of the cylinder.
The left picture was taken during fluidized water flow, when
compaction-derived water broke the sand layering along the upper

Fig. 4. Flow model of CO2 from the injection point towards the top of the Utsira Formation and into discrete layers. From Arts et al. (2003), reproduced
courtesy of Elsevier.

1186

C. HERMANRUD ET AL.

Fig. 5. Modelled 3D CO2 distribution in the Utsira Formation, with layer thicknesses calculated from tuning thicknesses of seismic amplitudes. Flat
CO2 water contacts were applied for the construction of this figure. Courtesy of Permedia Inc.

slope of the tilted cylinder and erupted into the kaolin (Fig. 6,
inserted picture). The right picture was taken after the fluidized
flow had ceased, approximately half a minute after the first picture.
At this stage, the porosity in the flow path is being reduced, and
kaolin sinks into the vacant space at the top of the sand layer.
A vertical flow path through the shaly beds of the Utsira Formation might have resulted from fluidization of the unconsolidated
sand, and could have been triggered by localized sand matrix
collapse resulting, for example, from the dissolution of carbonate
material in coquina beds. Calcite dissolution would be expected to
take place as CO2-saturated water is slightly acidic (pH 5). An
increasingly large portion of the injected CO2 has found its way to
the shallowest layer as the injection has progressed (Chadwick
et al. 2009). This observation is consistent with an injection-made
flow path that becomes more effective as injection proceeds.
However, a comparison of the seismic signatures from the
(pre-injection) 1994 survey with that of later surveys demonstrates
that a circular depression existed above layer 8 even before the

injection started (Fig. 7). The seismic data quality precludes identification of possible circular features at deeper levels. The circular
feature was thus not caused by the injection, although it could
have been augmented by it. One could speculate that this feature
is a collapse feature from a sand injection deeper in the Utsira
Formation, created by processes similar to that of the laboratory
experiment displayed in Figure 6.

Implications for the understanding of hydrocarbon

migration
The seismic data acquired before and during the CO2 injection at
Sleipner Field give unique images of fluid migration within the
subsurface. As such they also reveal information on hydrocarbon
migration processes. We see several aspects of the migrating CO2
that give such information, although the interpretation of this
information may be ambiguous.

Fig. 6. Laboratory experiment demonstrating the implications of sand fluidization on overlying strata: (a) water eruption into kaolin layer; (b) kaolin
sinks into sand layer. See text for further explanations.

1187

FLOW OF INJECTED CO2 AND HYDROCARBON MIGRATION

Fig. 7. Seismic signatures of the base of the top seal above CO2 layer 8. Note the circular feature that is present above the chimney in time slices in
both the (a) 1994 and (b) 2001 data. This circular feature emerges as a depression when the reflector that defines the base of the top seal is mapped (c).

The calculations of reflector pushdown by the Gassmann

equation with all the CO2 in layers of high CO2 saturation give
less pushdown than that observed in the seismic data. These calculations involve several parameters that carry some uncertainty.
Also, documentations of the accuracy of Gassman-calculated pushdown variations due to fluid substitutions in the subsurface are
sparse. Nevertheless, the mismatch between observed and calculated pushdown may hold information on CO2 distributions and
flow paths that are presently unrecognized. Resolving this would
be beneficial for both CO2 monitoring and for hydrocarbon
migration and production studies.
Only trapping below the top seals would be considered in hydrocarbon exploration in reservoirs with properties similar to those of
the Utsira Formation in the Sleipner area. Intra-reservoir shales of
metre thickness would not be expected from exploration experience
to result in multiple reservoirs. However, even thin but laterally
continuous shale beds should in theory trap hydrocarbons at
deeper levels and prevent them from reaching the top seal. That
hydrocarbons in most cases find pathways through sequences
with interfingering shale beds demonstrates that vertical flow
paths are more prevalent than one would infer if thin intra-reservoir
shales were thought of as unbroken and laterally continuous. Vertical seal bypass systems have recently attained significant attention
(Cartwright et al. 2007). The effective vertical seal bypass apparent
at Sleipner Field is the first dataset that we are aware of that images
vertical flow through heterogeneous sandstones in (almost) real
time. The observation of an effective seal bypass system in these
data opens the possibility that such bypass systems are relatively
common, and that their presence may explain why hydrocarbons
so frequently find pathways to the shallowest positions in clastic
reservoir traps. Whatever causes the migration to bypass the
internal seals (such as water escape structures, sand injections, erosional features), they are probably more likely to disrupt thin than
thick seal rock intervals. The practical implication of this assumption is that seal rock thickness is an important parameter in hydrocarbon sealing, even if mercury injection measurements should
conclude that the capillary entry pressure of the seal has not been
overcome by the buoyancy of the hydrocarbon column.
Migrating CO2 is clearly visible in the seismic images of the
Utsira Formation in the Sleipner area. With these clear images in
mind, why do we not observe hydrocarbon migration pathways in
seismic data?

The thickness of a sub-horizontally migrating fluid layer can in

general be calculated by assuming that the buoyancy in this layer
must overcome the capillary entry pressure for lateral flow in the
top of the migrating layer. This entry pressure is overcome when
( rw

rg )gh . 2g=rt

(1)

where rw is the density of formation water, rg is the density of the

migrating, non-wetting fluid, g is the acceleration of gravity, h is the
column height of the migrating fluid, g is the interfacial tension and
rt is the largest pore throat radius in contact with the non-wetting
fluid. The minimum thickness of a migrating body of a non-wetting
fluid should thus be controlled by
h . 2g=rt (rw

rg )g

(2)

The density difference between water and that of migrating CH4

and CO2, respectively, may be about 2:1 (Nordgard Bolas et al.
2005; Nooner et al. 2007). On the other hand, the interfacial
tension of CH4 water is approximately twice that of CO2 water
in the Utsira Formation in the Sleipner area (Nordgard Bolas
et al. 2005; Chalbaud et al. 2009). Thus, the minimum thickness
of laterally migrating CO2 should be approximately equal to the
thickness of migrating CH4.
One could calculate this minimum thickness if the critical porethroat size of the Utsira Formation sands was known. Such knowledge has not been published. The critical pore-throats can nevertheless be calculated from the rock permeability. Unfortunately, such
calculations carry significant uncertainties, and the deviation
between calculations by the methods of Pittman (1992) and Berg
& Avery (1995) give an order-of-magnitude difference in the
calculated height (from 7 to 70 cm by assuming a density contrast
between migrating CO2 and water of 0.3 g cm 3, and an interfacial
tension of 30 mN between CO2 and water; Chalbaud et al. 2009).
The highest seismic amplitudes are assumed to correspond to the
maximum tuning of the CO2-saturated layers. The amplitude of a
CO2 layer at 1 m thickness would be expected to be 15% of this,
which approximately corresponds to the detection limit on the timelapse difference cubes. The thickness of migrating CO2 is at or
possibly below the seismic detection limit at saddle points (such
as to the north in the 2004 data of Fig. 2). This observation may
suggest that migration pathways of less than a metre are in fact
what one should expect in both CO2 flow and CH4 migration.

1188

C. HERMANRUD ET AL.

The greater thicknesses of the CO2 layers close to the injection

point are mainly a result of the large injection rate, and thus the
build-up of slightly inclined gaswater contacts, below the intraformational shale beds (Bickle et al. 2007).
The above calculations and observations suggest that capillary
trapping may well determine the retention of both CO2 and CH4
in the subsurface, and yet result in migration paths that are too
thin for seismic detection in rocks with permeability of 2 D.
However, the thickness of migrating CH4 and CO2 stringers alike
should be ten times the thickness observed in the Utsira Formation
in less permeable carrier beds with permeabilities of 20 mD instead
of 2 D. This follows from the permeability v. pore throat relationships of both Pittman (1992) and Berg & Avery (1995). Gas
migration in water-wet, low-permeable carrier beds should thus
be visible in seismic data, due to their high capillary entry pressures. The observation that gas migration routes have not been identified as continuous stringers of bright seismic amplitudes may
suggest that such migration routes are not controlled by capillary
trapping over geological time, which would imply that the carrier
bed rocks have a mixed wettability. Mixed-wetted rocks would
result in less trapping of residual hydrocarbons in the carrier
beds, and would also result in less storage capacity of CO2 below
or outside structural spill points, especially since wettabilities
may change with time in the presence of both hydrocarbons
(Teige 2008) and CO2 (Chiquet et al. 2005). Further examinations
of the CO2 flow paths in the Utsira Formation can possibly result
in more accurate knowledge of the role of capillary trapping, and
thereby of the subsurface wettability distribution.

Summary and conclusions

The CO2 that has been injected into the Utsira Formation in the
Sleipner area has been distributed in nine different layers, most
of which are capped by metre-thick shales. The injected CO2 penetrated these layers and migrated to the top layer during the three
year period between the start of injection and the first repeat
seismic survey. The CO2 has migrated several kilometres laterally
in layers of c. 8 m thickness.
Inferences of hydrocarbon migration processes are based on
indirect evidence. As migration pathways are not in general identified in seismic data, they are by inference significantly thinner
than what is observed as typical thicknesses of flowing CO2 in the
Sleipner Field data. Observations of minimum CO2 migration thicknesses close to the c. 1 m detection limit at spill points are consistent
with calculated values, and so do not preclude that capillary trapping plays an important role in controlling the subsurface flow of
CO2 and CH4. The importance of such trapping depends on the wettability of the carrier beds and possible change of wetting characteristics with time, a topic that needs further investigations.
In theory, hydrocarbons would not be expected to migrate vertically through shale beds, yet vertical migration of hydrocarbons is
an efficient process in clastic rocks, which in the large majority of
cases contain shale layers of significant lateral extents. It is
suggested that vertical migration of hydrocarbons is frequently
enhanced by the presence of vertical sand conduits, created by
dewatering and/or injection of deeper sands. Wettability changes
in the presence of migrating hydrocarbons may also play a significant role in explaining the efficiency of vertical hydrocarbon
migration.
Thanks are due to Andrew Cavanagh for preparing Figure 5 and to Elin Storsten for drafting the figures. M. C. Akhurst and an anonymous referee are
thanked for constructive comments to an earlier version of the manuscript.
We are thankful for Statoils permission to publish this paper.

References
Arts, R., Eiken, O., Chadwick, A., Zweigel, P., van der Meer, B. & Zinszner,
B. 2003. Monitoring of CO2 injected at Sleipner using time-lapse
seismic data. In: Gale, J. & Kaya, Y. (eds) Greenhouse Gas Control
Technologies. Elsevier, Oxford, 347 352.
Berg, R. R. & Avery, A. H. 1995. Sealing properties of Tertiary growth
faults, Texas Gulf Coast. American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, 79, 375 393.
Bickle, M., Chadwick, A., Huppert, H. E., Hallworth, M. & Lyle, S.
2007. Modelling carbon dipoxide accumulation at Sleipner: implications for underground carbon storage. Earth and Planetary
Science Letters, 225, 164176.
Cartwright, J., Huuse, M. & Aplin, A. 2007. Seal bypass systems.
American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, 91,
11411166.
Chadwick, A., Arts, R. & Eiken, O. 2005. 4D seismic quantification of a
growing CO2 plume at Sleipner, North Sea. In: Dore, A. G. &
Vining, B. A. (eds) Petroleum Geology: North-west Europe and
Global Perspectives: Proceedings of the 6th Petroleum Geology Conference. Geological Society, London, 1 15. doi: 10.11440060001.
Chadwick, A., Noy, D., Arts, R. & Eiken, O. 2009. Latest time-lapse seismic
data from Sleipner yield new insights into CO2 plume development.
Energy Procedia 1, 2103 2110.
Chalbaud, C., Robin, M., Lombard, J-M., Martin, J-M., Egermann, P. &
Bertin, H. 2009. Interfacial tension measurements and wettability
evaluation for geological storage. Advances in Water Resources, 32,
98 109.
Chiquet, P., Broseta, D. & Thibeau, S. 2005. Capillary Alteration of Shaly
Caprocks by Carbon Dioxide. Presented at the 14th Europec Biennial
Conference, Madrid, 1316 June 2005. SPE 94183.
Galloway, W. E. 2002. Paleogeographic setting and depositional architecture of a sand-dominated shelf depositional system, Miocene Utsira
Formation, North Sea Basin. Journal of Sedimentary Research, 72,
476 490.
ber die Elastizitat poroser Medien. Vierteljahrsschrift
Gassmann, F. 1951. U
der Naturforschenden Gesellschaft, 96, 1 23.
Holloway, S., Chadwick, A., Lindeberg, E., Czernichowski-Lauriol, I. &
Arts, R. 2004. Best Practice Manual. Saline Aquifer CO2 storage
(SACS) project.
Katsube, T. J. & Coyner, K. 1994. Determination of permeability
compaction relationship from interpretation of permeability-stress
data for shales from eastern and northern Canada. Geological
Survey of Canada, Current Research, 1994-D, 169177.
Nooner, S. L., Eiken, O., Hermanrud, C., Sasagawa, G. S., Stenvold, T. &
Zumberge, M. A. 2007. Constraints on the in situ density of CO2within the Utsira formation from time-lapse seafloor gravity
measurements. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 1,
198 214.
Nordgard Bolas, H., Hermanrud, C. & Teige, G. M. G. 2005. Seal capacity
estimation from subsurface pore pressures. Basin Research, 17,
583 599.
Pittman, E. D. 1992. Relationship of porosity and permeability to various
parameters derived from mercury injection-capillary pressure curves
for sandstone. American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, 76, 191198.
Rodrigues, N., Cobbold, P. R. & Lseth, H. 2009. Physical modelling of
sand injectites. Tectonophysics, 474, 610 632.
Schlomer, S. & Krooss, B. M. 1997. Experimental characterization of the
hydrocarbon sealing efficiency of cap rocks. Marine and Petroleum
Geology, 4, 56580.
Teige, G. M. G. 2008. Sealing mechanisms at pore scale, and consequences
for hydrocarbon exploration. Ph.D. thesis, University of Oslo,
Norway.
Zweigel, P., Arts, R., Lothe, A. E. & Lindeberg, E. B. G. 2004. Reservoir
geology of the Utsira Formation at the first industrialscale underground CO2 storage site (Sleipner area, North Sea). In:
Baines, S. J. & Worden, R. H. (eds) Geological Storage of Carbon
Dioxide. Geological Society, London, Special Publications, 23,
165 180.