Environmental Geology

, Volume 54, Issue 8, pp 1635–1656 | Cite as

Site characterization for CO2 geologic storage and vice versa: the Frio brine pilot, Texas, USA as a case study

  • Christine Doughty
  • Barry M. Freifeld
  • Robert C. Trautz
Original Article

Abstract

Careful site characterization is critical for successful geologic storage of carbon dioxide (CO2) because of the many physical and chemical processes impacting CO2 movement and containment under field conditions. Traditional site characterization techniques such as geological mapping, geophysical imaging, well logging, core analyses, and hydraulic well testing provide the basis for judging whether or not a site is suitable for CO2 storage. However, only through the injection and monitoring of CO2 itself can the coupling between buoyancy flow, geologic heterogeneity, and history-dependent multi-phase flow effects be observed and quantified. CO2 injection and monitoring can therefore provide a valuable addition to the site-characterization process. Additionally, careful monitoring and verification of CO2 plume development during the early stages of commercial operation should be performed to assess storage potential and demonstrate permanence. The Frio brine pilot, a research project located in Dayton, Texas (USA) is used as a case study to illustrate the concept of an iterative sequence in which traditional site characterization is used to prepare for CO2 injection and then CO2 injection itself is used to further site-characterization efforts, constrain geologic storage potential, and validate understanding of geochemical and hydrological processes. At the Frio brine pilot, in addition to traditional site-characterization techniques, CO2 movement in the subsurface is monitored by sampling fluid at an observation well, running CO2-saturation-sensitive well logs periodically in both injection and observation wells, imaging with crosswell seismic in the plane between the injection and observation wells, and obtaining vertical seismic profiles to monitor the CO2 plume as it migrates beyond the immediate vicinity of the wells. Numerical modeling plays a central role in integrating geological, geophysical, and hydrological field observations.

Keywords

Geologic carbon dioxide storage Site characterization Multi-phase flow Numerical modeling Frio Formation 

References

  1. Ambrose WA, Lakshminarasimhan S, Holtz MH, Núñez-López V, Hovorka SD, Duncan I (2007) Geologic factors controlling CO2 storage capacity and permanence—techniques and case studies based on experience with heterogeneity in oil and gas reservoirs applied to CO2 storage. Environ Geol (this issue)Google Scholar
  2. Bachu S, Bennion B (2007) Effects of in-situ conditions on relative permeability characteristics of CO2-brine systems. Environ Geol (this issue)Google Scholar
  3. Bachu S, Gunter WD, Perkins EH (1994) Aquifer disposal of CO2: hydrodynamic and mineral trapping. Energy Convers Manage 35(4):269–279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Benson SM, Doughty C (2006) Estimation of field-scale relative permeability from pressure transient tests. Paper presented at CO2SC symposium, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, 20–22 March 2006Google Scholar
  5. Carcione JM, Picotti S, Gei D, Rossi G (2006) Physics and seismic modeling for monitoring CO2 storage. Pure Appl Geophys 163(1):175–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Corey AT (1954) The interrelation between gas and oil relative permeabilities. Producers Monthly, November, pp 38–41Google Scholar
  7. Daley TM, Myer LR, Peterson JE, Majer EL, Hoversten GM (2007) Time-lapse crosswell seismic and VSP monitoring of injected CO2 in a brine aquifer. Environ Geol (this issue)Google Scholar
  8. Doughty C (2007) Modeling geologic storage of carbon dioxide: comparison of hysteretic and non-hysteretic characteristic curves. Energy Convers Manage 48(6):1768–1781CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Doughty C, Myer LR (2007) Scoping calculations on leakage of CO2 in geologic storage: the impact of overburden permeability, phase trapping, and dissolution. In: McPherson B, Sundquist E (eds) Science and technology of carbon sequestration. American Geophysical Union, Washington DC (in press)Google Scholar
  10. Doughty C, Pruess K, Benson SM, Hovorka SD, Knox PR, Green CT (2001) Capacity investigation of brine-bearing sands of the Frio Formation for geologic sequestration of CO2. Paper presented at first national conference on carbon sequestration, National Energy Technology Laboratory, Washington DC, 14–17 May 2001Google Scholar
  11. Doughty C, Pruess K, Benson SM (2003) Development of a well-testing program for a CO2 sequestration pilot in a brine formation. Paper presented at second national conference on carbon sequestration, National Energy Technology Laboratory, Alexandria, VA, 5–8 May 2003Google Scholar
  12. Doughty C, Pruess K, Benson SM, Freifeld BM, Gunter WD (2004) Hydrological and geochemical monitoring for a CO2 sequestration pilot in a brine formation. Paper presented at third national conference on carbon sequestration, National Energy Technology Laboratory, Alexandria, VA, 3–6 May 2004Google Scholar
  13. Ennis-King J, Paterson L (2005) Role of convective mixing in the long-term storage of carbon dioxide in deep saline formations (SPE 84344). Soc Petrol Eng J 10(3):349–356Google Scholar
  14. Finsterle S (1999) ITOUGH2 user’s guide. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, January, Rep LBNL-40040Google Scholar
  15. Freifeld BM, Trautz RC (2006) Real-time quadrupole mass spectrometer analysis of gas in borehole fluid samples acquired using the U-tube sampling methodology. Geofluids 6:217–224Google Scholar
  16. Freifeld BM, Doughty C, Trautz RC, Hovorka SD, Myer LR, Benson SM (2005a) The Frio brine pilot CO2 sequestration test—comparison of field data and predicted results. Paper presented at the science and technology of carbon sequestration: methods and prospects for verification and assessment of sinks for anthropogenic carbon dioxide, AGU Chapman Conference, San Diego, CA, 16–20 January 2005Google Scholar
  17. Freifeld BM, Trautz RC, Kharaka YK, Phelps TJ, Myer LR, Hovorka SD, Collins DJ (2005b) The U-tube: a novel system for acquiring borehole fluid samples from a deep geologic CO2 sequestration experiment. J Geophys Res 110:B10203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Grove DB, Beetem WA (1971) Porosity and dispersion constant calculations for a fractured carbonate aquifer using the two well tracer method. Water Resour Res 7(1):128–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gunter WD, Perkins EH, McCann TJ (1993) Aquifer disposal of CO2-rich gases: reaction design for added capacity. Energy Convers Manage 34(9–11):941–948CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gunter WD, Bachu S, Benson S (2004) The role of hydrogeological and geochemical trapping in sedimentary basins for secure geological storage of carbon dioxide. In: Baines SJ, Worden RH (eds) Geological storage of carbon dioxide. Geological Society, London, Special Publication 233, pp 129–145Google Scholar
  21. Hantush MS, Jacob CE (1955) Non-steady radial flow in an infinite leaky aquifer. Trans Am Geophys Union 36(1):95–100Google Scholar
  22. Hesse MA, Tchelepi HA, Orr FM Jr (2006) Scaling analysis of the migration of CO2 in saline aquifers (SPE 102796). Paper presented at SPE annual technical conference and exhibition, San Antonio, Texas, 24–27 September 2006Google Scholar
  23. Holtz MH (2002) Residual gas saturation to aquifer influx: a calculation method for 3-D computer reservoir model construction (SPE 75502). Paper presented at SPE gas technology symposium, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, 30 April–2 May 2002Google Scholar
  24. Holtz MH (2005) Reservoir characterization applying residual gas saturation modeling, example from the Starfak T1 reservoir, middle Miocene Gulf of Mexico. MSc, University of Texas, AustinGoogle Scholar
  25. Holtz MH, Doughty C, Yeh J, Hovorka SD (2004) Modeling of CO2 saline aquifer sequestration and the effects of residual phase saturation. Paper presented at AAPG annual meeting, Dallas, 18–21 April 2004Google Scholar
  26. Hovorka SD, Doughty C, Benson SM, Pruess K, Knox PR (2004) The impact of geological heterogeneity on CO2 storage in brine formations: a case study from the Texas Gulf Coast. In: Baines SJ, Worden RH (eds) Geological storage of carbon dioxide. Geological Society, London, Special Publication 233, pp 147–163Google Scholar
  27. Hovorka SD, Benson SM, Doughty C, Freifeld BM, Sakurai S, Daley TM, Kharaka YK, Holtz MH, Trautz RC, Nance HS, Meyer LR, Knauss KG (2006) Measuring permanence of CO2 storage in saline formations—the Frio experiment. Environ Geosci 13(2):105–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hoversten GM, Gritto R, Washbourne J, Daley TM (2003) Pressure and fluid saturation prediction in a multicomponent reservoir, using combined seismic and electromagnetic imaging. Geophysics 68:1580–1591CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) (2005) In: Metz B, Davidson O, de Coninck HC, Loos M, Mayer LA (eds) Special report on carbon dioxide capture and storage. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  30. Javandel I, Tsang C-F, Doughty C (1984) Groundwater transport: handbook of mathematical models. American Geophysical Union, Washington DC, Water Resources Monograph 10Google Scholar
  31. Johnson JW Nitao JJ, Knauss KG (2004) Reactive transport modeling of CO2 storage in saline aquifers to elucidate fundamental processes, trapping mechanisms and sequestration partitioning. In: Baines SJ, Worden RH (eds) Geological storage of carbon dioxide. Geological Society, London, Special Publication 233, pp 107–128Google Scholar
  32. Kharaka YK, Hanor JS (2004) Deep fluid in the continents: I. Sedimentary basins. In: Treatise on geochemistry, vol 5. Surface and ground water, weathering, and soils. Elsevier-Pergamon, Oxford, pp 499–540Google Scholar
  33. Kharaka YK, Cole DR, Hovorka SD, Gunter WD, Knauss KG, Freifeld BM (2006) Gas–water–rock interactions in Frio Formation following CO2 injection: implications for the storage of greenhouse gases in sedimentary basins. Geology 34(7):577–580CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Knox PR, Paine JG, Hovorka SD (2003) Environmental assessment: optimal geological environments for carbon dioxide disposal in brine formations (saline aquifers) in the United States—pilot experiment in the Frio Formation, Houston area: http://www.beg.utexas.edu/environqlty/co2seq/pubs_presentations/Frio_draftea4_03.pdf (cited 17 January 2007)
  35. Kumar A, Ozah R, Noh M, Pope GA, Bryant S, Sepehrnoori K, Lake LW (2005) Reservoir simulation of CO2 storage in deep saline aquifers (SPE 89343). Soc Petrol Eng J 10(3):336–348Google Scholar
  36. Land CS (1968) Calculation of imbibition relative permeability for two- and three-phase flow from rock properties (SPE 1942). Soc Petrol Eng J June:149–156Google Scholar
  37. Lindeberg E, Wessel-Berg D (1997) Vertical convection in an aquifer column under a gas cap of CO2. Energy Convers Manage 38(Suppl):S229–S234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Mo S, Akervoll I (2005) Modeling long-term CO2 storage in aquifer with a black-oil reservoir simulator (SPE 93951). Paper presented at SPE/EPA/DOE exploration and production environmental conference, Galveston, Texas, 7–9 March 2005Google Scholar
  39. Oldenburg CM, Moridis GJ, Spycher N, Pruess K (2004) EOS7C version 1.0: TOUGH2 module for carbon dioxide or nitrogen in natural gas (methane) reservoirs. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, June, Rep LBNL-56589Google Scholar
  40. Peaceman DW (1978) Interpretation of well-block pressures in numerical reservoir simulation (SPE 6893). Soc Petrol Eng J June:183–194Google Scholar
  41. Pruess K, García J (2002) Multiphase flow dynamics during CO2 disposal into saline aquifers. Environ Geol 42:282–295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Pruess K, Oldenburg C, Moridis G (1999) TOUGH2 user’s guide, version 2.0. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, November, Rep LBNL-43134Google Scholar
  43. Pruess K, Xu T, Apps J, García J (2003) Numerical modeling of aquifer disposal of CO2 (SPE 83695). Soc Petrol Eng J 8(1):49–60Google Scholar
  44. Riaz A, Hesse M, Tchelepi HA, Orr FM Jr (2006) Onset of convection in a gravitationally unstable diffusive boundary layer in porous media. J Fluid Mech 548:87–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Sakurai S, Ramakrishnan TS, Boyd A, Mueller N, Hovorka SD (2005) Monitoring saturation changes of CO2 sequestration: petrophysical support of the Frio brine pilot experiment. Paper presented at society of petrophysicists and well log analysts 46th annual logging symposium, New Orleans, LA, 26–29 June 2005Google Scholar
  46. Smart PL, Laidlaw IMS (1977) An evaluation of some fluorescent dyes for water tracing. Water Resour Res 13(1):15–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Spiteri EJ, Juanes R, Blunt MJ, Orr FM Jr (2005) Relative permeability hysteresis: trapping models and application to geological CO2 sequestration (SPE 96448). Paper presented at 2005 SPE annual technical conference and exhibition, Dallas, Texas, 9–12 October 2005Google Scholar
  48. Theis CV (1935) The relation between the lowering of the piezometric surface and the rate and duration of discharge of a well using ground-water storage. Trans Am Geophys Union 16:519–524Google Scholar
  49. Trautz RC, Freifeld BM, Doughty C (2005) Comparison of single and multiphase tracer tests results from the Frio CO2 pilot study, Dayton Texas. Paper presented at fourth annual conference on carbon capture and sequestration, National Environmental Technology Laboratory, Alexandria, VA, 2–5 May 2005Google Scholar
  50. van der Meer LGH (1992) Investigations regarding the storage of carbon dioxide in aquifers in The Netherlands. Energy Convers Manage 33(5–8):611–618Google Scholar
  51. van der Meer LGH (1996) Computer modelling of underground CO2 storage. Energy Convers Manage 37(6–8):1155–1160Google Scholar
  52. van Genuchten MTh (1980) A closed-form equation for predicting the hydraulic conductivity of unsaturated soils. Soil Sci Soc Am J 44(5):892–898CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christine Doughty
    • 1
  • Barry M. Freifeld
    • 1
  • Robert C. Trautz
    • 1
  1. 1.Earth Sciences DivisionLawrence Berkeley National LaboratoryBerkeleyUSA

Personalised recommendations