Advertisement

CLEAN pp 169-185 | Cite as

Theoretical Test Case of the Injection of 100,000 t of CO2 into the Altmark Depleted Gas Field

  • Michael Kühn
  • Robert Meyer
  • Kilian Nchungong Awemo
  • Michaela Bock
  • Stefan Buske
  • Leonhard Ganzer
  • Rüdiger Giese
  • Lars Houpt
  • Juri Perestjuk
  • Erhard Ribbe
  • Gerhard Rosenthal
  • Steffen Schmitz
  • Cori Schreyer
  • Lutz Stecken
  • Arron T. Singhe
  • Matthias Tantow
  • Gernot Voigtländer
Chapter
Part of the Advanced Technologies in Earth Sciences book series (ATES)

Abstract

CLEAN was a scientific programme in support of a pilot Enhanced Gas Recovery (EGR) project and it was planned to inject nearly 100,000 t of carbon dioxide (CO2) into the Altmark natural gas field. Due to delays in the permitting process, injection did not occur within the time frame of the project. Therefore a test case was studied of the theoretical injection of CO2.

Modelling CO2 injection in the Altensalzwedel segment of the Altmark depleted gas field shows that effective injection can be carried out at a tubing head pressure as low as 3.5 MPa and at tubing head temperature of 10 °C.

The history matching of the simulation model and the injection prediction were successfully conducted with a volume ratio of injected CO2 to the gas in place of approximately 0.06 which did not show any enhancement in the gas recovery (no EGR effect). Within the pilot project period of 2 years there would be no CO2 arrival at the production well located at about 1,600 m from the injector. Penetration of the CO2 into the reservoir was maximum approximately 800 m and minimum around 250 m depending on the permeability of the formation layer. The gas mixing zone reaches the observation well which is located at about 660 m from the injector already before 1 year of injection.

Under the simulated conditions direct monitoring of the CO2 front with active seismic measurements will not be feasible as the reservoir layers are too thin and the effects of CO2 gas replacing reservoir gas are too small. Seismic monitoring has to concentrate on the detection of possible leakages in shallower aquifers where larger velocity and density changes would occur.

Keywords

Observation Well Injection Well History Match Drill Stem Bottom Hole Pressure 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Bohlen T (2002) Parallel 3-D viscoelastic finite difference seismic modeling. Comput Geosci 28:887–899CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Carroll JJ, Maddocks JR (1999) Design consideration for acid gas injection (online). Presented at the Lawrance Reid gas conditioning conference, Norman. Available at http://www.gasliquids.com/papers/lrgcc99.pdf
  3. Kühn M, Förster A, Großmann J, Meyer R, Reinicke K, Schäfer D, Wendel H (2011) CLEAN: preparing for a CO2-based enhanced gas recovery in a depleted gas field in Germany. Energy Proc 4:5520–5526. doi: 10.1016/j.egypro.2011.02.538 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Kühn M, Tesmer M, Pilz P, Meyer R, Reinicke K, Förster A, Kolditz O, Schäfer D, CLEAN Partners (2012) CLEAN: CO2 large-scale enhanced gas recovery in the Altmark natural gas field (Germany): project overview. Environ Earth Sci. 67(2):311–321 doi: 10.1007/s12665-012-1714-z
  5. Lu M, Connell LD (2008) Non-isothermal flow of carbon dioxide in injection wells during geological storage. Int J Greenhouse Gas Control 2:248–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Paterson L, Lu M, Connell L, Ennis-King JP (2008) Numerical modeling of pressure and temperature profiles including phase transition in carbon dioxide wells. SPE Annu Tech Conf Proc 4:2693–2703Google Scholar
  7. Snieder R, Grêt A, Douma H, Scales J (2002) Coda wave interferometry for estimating nonlinear behavior in seismic velocity. Science 295:2253–2255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Zhou R, Huang L, Rutledge JT, Fehler M, Daley TM, Majer EL (2010) Coda-wave interferometry analysis of time-lapse VSP data for monitoring geological carbon sequestration. Int J Greenhouse Gas Control 4:679–686CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael Kühn
    • 1
  • Robert Meyer
    • 2
  • Kilian Nchungong Awemo
    • 3
  • Michaela Bock
    • 1
  • Stefan Buske
    • 4
  • Leonhard Ganzer
    • 3
  • Rüdiger Giese
    • 1
  • Lars Houpt
    • 5
  • Juri Perestjuk
    • 2
  • Erhard Ribbe
    • 2
  • Gerhard Rosenthal
    • 2
  • Steffen Schmitz
    • 6
  • Cori Schreyer
    • 2
  • Lutz Stecken
    • 2
  • Arron T. Singhe
    • 3
  • Matthias Tantow
    • 2
  • Gernot Voigtländer
    • 2
  1. 1.Helmholtz Centre Potsdam, GFZ - German Research Centre for GeosciencesPotsdamGermany
  2. 2.GDF SUEZ E&P Deutschland GmbHLingenGermany
  3. 3.Institute of Petroleum EngineeringClausthal University of TechnologyClausthal-ZellerfeldGermany
  4. 4.TU Bergakademie FreibergFreibergGermany
  5. 5.Fachrichtung GeophysikFreie Universität BerlinBerlinGermany
  6. 6.DBI Gastechnologisches Institut gGmbH, Fachgebiet Öl/Gasförderung & GasspeicherungFreibergGermany

Personalised recommendations