Environmental Geology

, Volume 54, Issue 8, pp 1707–1722 | Cite as

Effects of in-situ conditions on relative permeability characteristics of CO2-brine systems

  • Stefan BachuEmail author
  • Brant Bennion
Original Article


Carbon dioxide capture and geological storage (CCGS) is an emerging technology that is increasingly being considered for reducing greenhouse gas emissions to the atmosphere. Deep saline aquifers provide a very large capacity for CO2 storage and, unlike hydrocarbon reservoirs and coal beds, are immediately accessible and are found in all sedimentary basins. Proper understanding of the displacement character of CO2-brine systems at in-situ conditions is essential in ascertaining CO2 injectivity, migration and trapping in the pore space as a residual gas or supercritical fluid, and in assessing the suitability and safety of prospective CO2 storage sites. Because of lack of published data, the authors conducted a program of measuring the relative permeability and other displacement characteristics of CO2-brine systems for sandstone, carbonate and shale formations in central Alberta in western Canada. The tested formations are representative of the in-situ characteristics of deep saline aquifers in compacted on-shore North American sedimentary basins. The results show that the capillary pressure, interfacial tension, relative permeability and other displacements characteristics of CO2-brine systems depend on the in-situ conditions of pressure, temperature and water salinity, and on the pore size distribution of the sedimentary rock. This paper presents a synthesis and interpretation of the results.


CO2-brine systems Relative permeability Interfacial tension Capillary pressure Pore size distribution Alberta basin 


  1. Adams JJ, Bachu S (2002) Equations of state for basin geofluids: algorithm review and intercomparison for brines. Geofluids 2:257–271 (Erratum (2004) Geofluids 4(3):250)Google Scholar
  2. Bachu S (1993) Basement heat flow in the Western Canada Sedimentary Basin. Tectonophysics 222:119–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bachu S (1999) Flow systems in the Alberta basin: patterns types and driving mechanisms. Bull Can Petrol Geol 47:455–474Google Scholar
  4. Bachu S (2003) Screening and ranking of sedimentary basins for sequestration of CO2 in geological media in response to climate change. Environ Geol 44:277–289 doi:10.1007/s00254-003-762-9 doi:10.1007/s00254-003-762-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bennion B, Bachu S (2005) Relative permeability characteristics for CO2 displacing water in a variety of potential sequestration zones in the Western Canada Sedimentary Basin. Paper SPE 95547, 15 p., presented at the 2005 SPE Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, TX, 9–12 October 2005Google Scholar
  6. Bennion B, Bachu S (2006a) The impact of interfacial tension and pore size distribution/capillary pressure character on CO2 relative permeability at reservoir conditions in CO2-brine systems. Paper SPE 99325, 10 p., presented at the SPE/DOE fifteenth symposium on improved oil recovery, Tulsa, OK, USA, 22–26 April 2006Google Scholar
  7. Bennion B, Bachu S (2006b) Supercritical CO2 and H2S—brine drainage and imbibition relative permeability relationships for intercrystalline sandstone and carbonate formations. Paper SPE 99326, 13 p., presented at the SPE Europec/EAGE annual conference and exhibition, Vienna, Austria, 12–15 June 2006Google Scholar
  8. Bennion B, Bachu S (2006c) Dependence on temperature, pressure and salinity of the IFT and relative permeability displacement characteristics of CO2 injected in deep saline aquifers. Paper SPE 102138, 10 p., presented at the 2006 SPE technical conference and exhibition, San Antonio, TX, 24–27 September 2006Google Scholar
  9. Cai B-Y, Yang J-T, Guo T-M (1996) Interfacial tension of hydrocarbon + water/brine systems under high pressure. J Chem Eng Data 41:493–496CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chalbaud C, Robin M, Egermann P (2006) Interfacial tension of CO2/brine systems at reservoirs conditions. In: Gale J, Rokke N, Zweigel P, Swenson H (eds) Proceedings of the 8th international conference on greenhouse gas control techn. Elsevier, Amsterdam CD ROMGoogle Scholar
  11. Chun BS, Wilkinson GT (1995) Interfacial tension in high pressure carbon-dioxide mixtures. Ind Eng Chem Res 34:4371–4377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ennis-King JP, Paterson L (2003) Role of convective mixing in the long-term storage of carbon dioxide in deep saline formations. Paper SPE 84344, presented at the SPE annual technical conference and exhibition, Denver, CO, USA, 5–8 October 2003Google Scholar
  13. Fenghour A, Wakeham WA, Vesovic V (1998) The viscosity of carbon dioxide. J Phys Chem Ref Data 27(1):31–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gunter WD, Bachu S, Benson SM (2004) The role of hydrogeological and geochemical trapping in sedimentary basins for secure geological storage for carbon dioxide. In: Baines SJ, Worden RH (eds) Geological storage of carbon dioxide, vol 233. Geological Society, London, pp 129–145 (special publication)Google Scholar
  15. Hebach A, Oberhof A, Dahmen N, Kögel A, Ederer H, Dinjus E (2002) Interfacial tension at elevated pressure: measurements and correlations in the water + carbon dioxide system. J Chem Eng Data 47:1540–1546CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. IEA (International Energy Agency) (2004) Prospects for CO2 Capture and Storage. IEA/OECD, Paris, 249 pGoogle Scholar
  17. IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) (2005) IPCC special report on carbon dioxide capture and storage. In: Metz B, Davidson O, de Coninck HC, Loos M, Mayer LA (eds) Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 442 pGoogle Scholar
  18. Lefebvre du Prey EJ (1973) Factors affecting liquid relative permeability of a consolidated porous medium. SPE J 13(1):39–47Google Scholar
  19. Levin Y, Flores-Mena JE (2001) Surface tension of strong electrolytes. Europhys Lett 56(2):187–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kumar A, Noh MH, Pope GA, Sepehrnoori K, Bryant SL, Lake LW (2005) Simulating CO2 storage in deep saline aquifers. In: Thomas D, Benson SM (eds) Carbon dioxide capture for storage in deep geologic formations—results from the CO2 Capture Project, vol 2. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 877–896Google Scholar
  21. Navascués G (1979) Liquid surfaces: theory of surface tension. Rep Prog Phys 42(7):1131–1186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Odeh AS (1959) Effect of viscosity ratio on relative permeability. Petrol Trans AIME 216:346–353Google Scholar
  23. Pickell JJ, Swanson BF (1966) Application of air–mercury and oil–air capillary pressure in the study of pore structure and fluid distribution. SPE J 6(1):55–61Google Scholar
  24. Porter IW, Price RA, McCrossan RG (1982) The Western Canada Sedimentary Basin. Phil Trans R Soc London, Series A 305:169–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. del Rio OI, Neumann AW (1997) Axisymmetric drop shape analysis: computational methods for the measurement of interfacial properties from the shape and dimensions of pendant and sessile drops. J Coll Int Sci 196:136–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Rosman A (1977) Experimental studies of low IFT displacement by CO2 injection. Paper SPE 6723, 10 pp, presented at the SPE annual fall technical conference and exhibition, Denver, CO, 9–12 October 1977Google Scholar
  27. Xu T, Apps JA, Preuss K (2003) Reactive geochemical transport simulation to study mineral trapping for CO2 disposal in deep arenaceous formations. J Geophys Res 108(B2):2071CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Zuo Y-X, Stenby EH (1998) Prediction of interfacial tensions of reservoir crude oil and gas condensate systems. Paper SPE 38434, SPE Journal 3(2):134–145Google Scholar
  29. Yang D, Tontiwachwuthikul P, Gu Y (2005) Interfacial tensions of the crude oil + reservoir brine + CO2 systems at pressures up to 31 MPA and temperatures of 27°C and 58°C. J Chem Eng Data 50:1242–1249CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Alberta Energy and Utilities BoardEdmontonCanada
  2. 2.Hycal Energy Laboratories LtdCalgaryCanada

Personalised recommendations