Pre-injection reservoir evaluation at Dickman Field, Kansas
I present results from quantitative evaluation of the capability of hosting and trapping CO₂ of a carbonate brine reservoir from Dickman Field, Kansas. The analysis includes estimation of some reservoir parameters such as porosity and permeability of this formation using pre-stack seismic inversion followed by simulating flow of injected CO₂ using a simple injection technique. Liner et at (2009) carried out a feasibility study to seismically monitor CO₂ sequestration at Dickman Field. Their approach is based on examining changes of seismic amplitudes at different production time intervals to show the effects of injected gas within the host formation. They employ Gassmann's fluid substitution model to calculate the required parameters for the seismic amplitude estimation. In contrast, I employ pre-stack seismic inversion to successfully estimate some important reservoir parameters (P- impedance, S- impedance and density), which can be related to the changes in subsurface rocks due to injected gas. These are then used to estimate reservoir porosity using multi-attribute analysis. The estimated porosity falls within a reported range of 8-25%, with an average of 19%. The permeability is obtained from porosity assuming a simple mathematical relationship between porosity and permeability and classifying the rocks into different classes by using Winland R35 rock classification method. I finally perform flow simulation for a simple injection technique that involves direct injection of CO₂ gas into the target formation within a small region of Dickman Field. The simulator takes into account three trapping mechanisms: residual trapping, solubility trapping and mineral trapping. The flow simulation predicts unnoticeable changes in porosity and permeability values of the target formation. The injected gas is predicted to migrate upward quickly, while it migrates slowly in lateral directions. A large amount of gas is concentrated around the injection well bore. Thus my flow simulation results suggest low trapping capability of the original target formation unless a more advanced injection technique is employed. My results suggest further that a formation below our original target reservoir, with high and continuously distributed porosity, is perhaps a better candidate for CO₂ storage.