Determining CO 2 storage potential during miscible CO 2 enhanced oil recovery: Noble gas and stable isotope tracers

Jenna L. Shelton; Jennifer C. McIntosh; Andrew G. Hunt; Thomas L Beebe; Andrew D Parker; Peter D. Warwick; Ronald M. Drake II; John E. McCray

doi:10.1016/j.ijggc.2016.05.008

USGS · 70176144

Determining CO 2 storage potential during miscible CO 2 enhanced oil recovery: Noble gas and stable isotope tracers

Jenna L. Shelton·Jennifer C. McIntosh·Andrew G. Hunt·Thomas L Beebe·Andrew D Parker·Peter D. Warwick·Ronald M. Drake II·John E. McCray

View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Rising atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) concentrations are fueling anthropogenic climate change. Geologic sequestration of anthropogenic CO 2 in depleted oil reservoirs is one option for reducing CO 2 emissions to the atmosphere while enhancing oil recovery. In order to evaluate the feasibility of using enhanced oil recovery (EOR) sites in the United States for permanent CO 2 storage, an active multi-stage miscible CO 2 flooding project in the Permian Basin (North Ward Estes Field, near Wickett, Texas) was investigated. In addition, two major natural CO 2 reservoirs in the southeastern Paradox Basin (McElmo Dome and Doe Canyon) were also investigated as they provide CO 2 for EOR operations in the Permian Basin. Produced gas and water were collected from three different CO 2 flooding phases (with different start dates) within the North Ward Estes Field to evaluate possible CO 2 storage mechanisms and amounts of total CO 2 retention. McElmo Dome and Doe Canyon were sampled for produced gas to determine the noble gas and stable isotope signature of the original injected EOR gas and to confirm the source of this naturally-occurring CO 2 . As expected, the natural CO 2 produced from McElmo Dome and Doe Canyon is a mix of mantle and crustal sources. When comparing CO 2 injection and production rates for the CO 2 floods in the North Ward Estes Field, it appears that CO 2 retention in the reservoir decreased over the course of the three injections, retaining 39%, 49% and 61% of the injected CO 2 for the 2008, 2010, and 2013 projects, respectively, characteristic of maturing CO 2 miscible flood projects. Noble gas isotopic composition of the injected and produced gas for the flood projects suggest no active fractionation, while δ 13 C CO 2 values suggest no active CO 2 dissolution into formation water, or mineralization. CO 2 volumes capable of dissolving in residual formation fluids were also estimated along with the potential to store pure-phase supercritical CO 2 . Using a combination of dissolution trapping and residual trapping, both volumes of CO 2 currently retained in the 2008 and 2013 projects could be justified, suggesting no major leakage is occurring. These subsurface reservoirs, jointly considered, have the capacity to store up to 9 years of CO 2 emissions from an average US powerplant.

Explore related subjects

International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control Article

Source-reported bounding extent: 29.6880527498568° to 39.90973623453719° latitude; -112.8076171875° to -99.0966796875° longitude. This indicates report coverage, not an exact sampling location. View area on OpenStreetMap.

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeX RIS

Jenna L. Shelton, Jennifer C. McIntosh, Andrew G. Hunt, Thomas L Beebe, Andrew D Parker, Peter D. Warwick, Ronald M. Drake II, John E. McCray. 2016. Determining CO 2 storage potential during miscible CO 2 enhanced oil recovery: Noble gas and stable isotope tracers. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2016.05.008

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

USGS2020

Methodology for estimating the prospective CO2 storage resource of residual oil zones at the national and regional scale

Residual oil zones (ROZs) are increasingly gaining interest as potential reservoirs for carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) storage. Here, we present a national- and regional-scale methodology for estimating prospective CO 2 storage resources in residual oil zones. This methodology uses a volumetric equation that accounts for CO 2 storage as a free phase in pore space and as a dissolved phase in oil and does not assume any oil production associated with CO 2 storage. Reservoir modeling and the CO 2 -SCREEN tool are used to demonstrate that CO 2 storage in residual oil zones will predominantly take place in the free phase (approximately 92–97%) with some storage as dissolution in oil (approximately 3–8 %). Based on this preliminary demonstration, the CO 2 storage efficiency for ROZs using this national- and regional-scale method ranges from 0.61 to 7.1 %. This range indicates ROZs have a similar efficiency potential for storing CO 2 as deep saline formations (0.51–5.4 %).

International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control↗

USGS2020

Estimating the net costs of brine production and disposal to expand pressure-limited dynamic capacity for basin-scale CO2 storage in a saline formation

If carbon capture and storage (CCS) needs to be deployed at basin- or larger-scale, it is likely that multiple sites will be injecting carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) into the same geologic formation. This could lead to excessive pressure buildup, overlapping induced pressure fronts, and pressure interference with neighboring uses of the subsurface. Extracting the in situ brine from the storage formation could be necessary to relieve pressure constraints; control migration of the CO 2 plume, displaced brine, and the induced pressure front; and sequester more CO 2 while reducing potential risks. Such active pressure management could be very costly, and it could present a formidable economic constraint on the feasible scale of deployment of CCS. Alternatively, there may be high-injectivity zones (“storage sweet spots”) where a significant volume of CO 2 could be stored without producing brine. For simulated deployment of CO 2 storage sites across the Illinois Basin, the results of this study suggest that brine production could be required to sequester 20 % or more of the regional CO 2 emissions of major stationary sources in the Mount Simon Sandstone saline formation. In some cases, brine production could expand pressure-limited CO 2 storage capacity enough to more than compensate for the additional costs of pressure management, but only if produced brine could be cheaply reinjected onsite for disposal in an overlying geologic formation. With or without brine production, this study found that the lowest-cost deployment option was to inject CO 2 only into a potential storage sweet spot of the Mount Simon Sandstone.

Illinois, Indiana↗

USGS2019

Estimating the pressure-limited dynamic capacity and costs of basin-scale CO2 storage in a Saline Formation

Deployment of carbon capture and storage (CCS) could be necessary to be able to satisfy baseload electricity demand, maintain diversity in the energy mix, and achieve mitigation of carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) emissions at lowest cost ( IPCC, 2015 ; U.S. DOE, 2016 ). If basin-, regional- or national-scale deployment of CCS is needed, it may be possible to store only a small fraction of the captured CO 2 in oil and natural gas reservoirs. The vast majority would likely have to be stored in saline formations. Pressure buildup as a result of injecting CO 2 into such reservoirs is expected to be an important source of risk associated with CO 2 storage, and could constrain dynamic storage capacities (maximum injection rates) to be far below estimates based on access to theoretical storage resources. Estimates of CO 2 storage costs based on an assumption of practical availability of the theoretical storage resource could lead to underestimation of the costs of CO 2 storage. In this study, simulation results suggest that the pressure-limited dynamic CO 2 storage capacity of the Mount Simon Sandstone could be less than 4% of the theoretical storage resource in this saline formation, and storage costs could be an order of magnitude higher than recent estimates. However, consideration of the geologic heterogeneity in this deep saline formation allowed definition of a high injectivity zone, and estimated costs of CO 2 storage in this “sweet spot” of the reservoir approached recent estimates that did not include costs for pressure management.

Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky↗