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

Sean Sanguinito; Harpreet Singh; Evgeniy M. Myshakin; Angela L. Goodman; Robert M. Dilmore; Timothy C. Grant; David Morgan; Grant Bromhal; Peter D. Warwick; Sean T. Brennan; Philip A. Freeman; C. Ozgen Karacan; Charles Gorecki; Wesley Peck; Matthew Burton-Kelly; Neil Dotzenrod; Scott Frailey; Rajesh Pawar

doi:10.1016/j.ijggc.2020.103006

USGS · 70209101

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

Sean Sanguinito·Harpreet Singh·Evgeniy M. Myshakin·Angela L. Goodman·Robert M. Dilmore·Timothy C. Grant·David Morgan·Grant Bromhal·Peter D. Warwick·Sean T. Brennan·Philip A. Freeman·C. Ozgen Karacan·Charles Gorecki·Wesley Peck·Matthew Burton-Kelly·Neil Dotzenrod·Scott Frailey·Rajesh Pawar

View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

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 %).

Explore related subjects

International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control Article

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeX RIS

Sean Sanguinito, Harpreet Singh, Evgeniy M. Myshakin, Angela L. Goodman, Robert M. Dilmore, Timothy C. Grant, David Morgan, Grant Bromhal, Peter D. Warwick, Sean T. Brennan, Philip A. Freeman, C. Ozgen Karacan, Charles Gorecki, Wesley Peck, Matthew Burton-Kelly, Neil Dotzenrod, Scott Frailey, Rajesh Pawar. 2020. Methodology for estimating the prospective CO2 storage resource of residual oil zones at the national and regional scale. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2020.103006

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

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↗

USGS2019

Improving pressure-limited CO2 storage capacity in saline formations by means of brine extraction

The carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) storage capacity of saline formations may be constrained by reservoir pressure limitations. Brine extraction could be necessary to increase the CO 2 storage capacity of a given formation, manage the extent of the underground CO 2 plume and induced pressure front, and control the migration direction. To estimate the additional CO 2 storage capacity of a saline formation that can be made accessible by extraction of in-situ brines, a three-dimensional (3D) generic cubic cell containing one CO 2 injector in the middle surrounded by four brine extractors at each corner of the cell was assumed. A series of Tough2-ECO2N reservoir simulations were constructed with varying reservoir properties and run. Based on a series of scenarios, a mechanism was developed and demonstrated that resulted in derivation of a function to provide estimates of the ratio of total CO 2 injection over the brine extraction rate for a given scenario. We selected multiple saline formations in U.S. basins and evaluated the potential to increase the combined dynamic CO 2 storage capacity of the selected saline formations to over 1000 million metric tonnes per year (Mt/yr) of CO 2 for 100 years by means of brine extraction. Such storage capacities may be adequate to accommodate the CO 2 injection rates suggested for the United States under a “beyond two-degree Celsius scenario” (B2DS) that has been proposed to maintain global temperature rise to less than 2°C above pre-industrial reported levels. The results suggest that B2DS goals could be achieved with a volume ratio of brine extraction to CO 2 injection as low as 1:4, which is far lower than the ratios that have been commonly assumed in the literature.

International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control↗