Geology Reports⌕ Search

USGS · 70034230

CO2 plume management in saline reservoir sequestration

Abstract

A significant difference between injecting CO2 into saline aquifers for sequestration and injecting fluids into oil reservoirs or natural gas into aquifer storage reservoirs is the availability and use of other production and injection wells surrounding the primary injection well(s). Of major concern for CO2 sequestration using a single well is the distribution of pressure and CO2 saturation within the injection zone. Pressure is of concern with regards to caprock integrity and potential migration of brine or CO2 outside of the injection zone, while CO2 saturation is of interest for storage rights and displacement efficiency. For oil reservoirs, the presence of additional wells is intended to maximize oil recovery by injecting CO2 into the same hydraulic flow units from which the producing wells are withdrawing fluids. Completing injectors and producers in the same flow unit increases CO2 throughput, maximizes oil displacement efficiency, and controls pressure buildup. Additional injectors may surround the CO2 injection well and oil production wells in order to provide external pressure to these wells to prevent the injected CO2 from migrating from the pattern between two of the producing wells. Natural gas storage practices are similar in that to reduce the amount of "cushion" gas and increase the amount of cycled or working gas, edge wells may be used for withdrawal of gas and center wells used for gas injection. This reduces loss of gas to the formation via residual trapping far from the injection well. Moreover, this maximizes the natural gas storage efficiency between the injection and production wells and reduces the areal extent of the natural gas plume. Proposed U.S. EPA regulations include monitoring pressure and suggest the "plume" may be defined by pressure in addition to the CO2 saturated area. For pressure monitoring, it seems that this can only be accomplished by injection zone monitoring wells. For pressure, these wells would not need to be very close to the injection well, compared to monitoring wells intended to measure CO2 saturation via fluid sampling or cased-hole well logs. If pressure monitoring wells become mandated, these wells could be used for managing the CO2 saturation and aquifer pressure distribution. To understand the relevance and effectiveness of producing and injecting brine to improve storage efficiency, direct the plume to specific pore space, and redistribute the pressure, numerical models of CO2 injection into aquifers are used. Simulated cases include various aquifer properties at a single well site and varying the number and location of surrounding wells for plume management. Strategies in terms of completion intervals can be developed to effectively contact more vertical pore space in relatively thicker geologic formations. Inter-site plume management (or cooperative) wells for the purpose of pressure monitoring and plume management may become the responsibility of a consortium of operators or a government entity, not individual sequestration site operators. ?? 2011 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

S.M. Frailey, R.J. Finley. 2011. CO2 plume management in saline reservoir sequestration. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2011.02.372

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

Time-to-depth conversion of seismic-reflection data from eastern Lake Superior and implications for the eastern arm of the Midcontinent Rift

Seismic-reflection data were acquired in the mid 1980s along several lines across eastern Lake Superior by industry and the Great Lakes International Multidisciplinary Program on Crustal Evolution (GLIMPCE) (Fig. 1). The lines form part of a larger network of crossing lines over the entire lake, which can be used to develop three-dimensional geologic models of the Mesoproterozoic Midcontinent Rift that lies below. To better interpret these lines, we developed velocity models to convert seismic reflections versus two-way travel time (TWTT) to reflections versus depth. In addition, the velocity models themselves provide insights into the structure of the Midcontinent Rift by recognizing common velocity ranges for certain rock types (Grauch, 2023).

eastern Lake Superior↗

Revisiting the utility of regional-scale, high-quality geophysical data in mineral exploration - A case study featuring the Mammoth Magnetic Anomaly, Pinal County, Arizona

Regional aeromagnetic surveys passively measure the total magnetic intensity (TMI) and are a foundational tool used in mineral exploration (Airo, 2015). With the increased global demand and the number of critical mineral resources required for manufacturing high-tech devices, developing high-quality, regional-scale geophysical surveys could aid critical mineral exploration efforts and geologic mapping. In 2019, the U. S. Geological Survey launched the Earth Mapping Resources Initiative (Earth MRI) to modernize the geologic and geophysical mapping of regions that have the potential to contain critical mineral resources within the United States. In support of planning Earth MRI geophysical surveys, Drenth and Grauch (2019) defined five aeromagnetic data quality rankings (rank 1 through rank 5) applying them to the airborne geophysical survey inventory of the United States (Johnson et al., 2021). Rank 1 aeromagnetic surveys are of the highest quality, meeting modern standards and allowing best practices for qualitative and quantitative interpretation; whereas rank 5 aeromagnetic surveys are of the lowest quality, being useful only for qualitative interpretation of broad features. Through the Earth MRI effort, 48 high-quality, regional-scale rank 1 and 2 airborne magnetic and radiometric geophysical surveys have been planned, collected, or publicly release through May 2025 (U. S. Geological Survey, 2025). Here, a portion of a rank 1 Earth MRI aeromagnetic survey in southeast Arizona is presented and compared to a legacy rank 5 aeromagnetic survey over the Mammoth Magnetic Anomaly (MMA), demonstrating how modern, high-quality aeromagnetic data improves our view of crustal geology, aiding mineral exploration.

Arizona↗

Early Miocene volcanic rocks and associated tectonics, Lava Hills and southern Bristol Mountains, California

Volcanic rocks of latest Oligocene to early Miocene age form an east-west belt across part of the central eastern Mojave Desert from the Whipple Mountains on the east to the Rosamond Hills on the west. We term this the central belt because it is separated from northern and southern belts by swaths with no volcanic rocks. Limited geochronologic data indicate that much of the belt is latest Oligocene and early Miocene in age, about 24 to 19 Ma, a finding that is consistent with these rocks being overlain by the 18.8 Ma Peach Spring Tuff in many places. We describe Miocene geology in a central area of the belt, in the Lava Hills, southern Bristol Mountains, and southern Old Dad Mountains. Sedimentary basins formed coeval with early andesite to rhyolite volcanism, progressing from fluvial and lacustrine tuffaceous sandstone to volcanic lavas, tuffs, and breccias, indicating that early basins formed proximal to volcanic edifices. Higher strata are fluvial and lacustrine with lavas punctuating the sequence. Although basins may partly have been formed within topographic lows bounded by volcanic domes, plateaus, and stratovolcanoes, consistent stratigraphic sections over wide areas indicate that tectonic basin evolution affected broad areas. The volcanic section is capped by local basalt flows and the regional Peach Spring Tuff. Limited data on normal faults support interpretations of early extensional basin development caused by northeast-southwest oriented stretching. Later extension caused stratal rotations, tilting early deposits down to the southwest. This tilted and subsequently beveled basin architecture was overlain by the youngest volcanic deposits, primarily rhyolite and basalt. The Peach Spring Tuff, 18.8 Ma, lies within this upper unit. Similar stratigraphic and structural relations are exposed in the nearby Marble Mountains and Van Winkle Mountain sections, reinforcing that a broad area underwent similar volcanism and tectonism. In our study area the upper unit is only very gently tilted except near dextral strike-slip faults of the eastern California shear zone. These late Miocene to Recent faults are represented as four main fault zones spaced about 5 km apart, representing distributed shear north of the Bristol Lake basin.

California↗