Area of review: how large is large enough for carbon storage?

dc.creatorNicot, Jean-Phillipe
dc.creatorHovorka, Susan D.
dc.creatorKnox, Paul R.
dc.creatorNaing, Thet
dc.date.accessioned2018-04-18T18:19:52Z
dc.date.available2018-04-18T18:19:52Z
dc.date.issued2006
dc.description.abstractThe Texas Gulf Coast is an attractive target for carbon storage. Stacked sand-shale layers provide large potential storage volumes and defense-in-depth leakage protection. However, multiple perforations resulting from intensive hydrocarbon exploration and production have weakened seal integrity in many favorable locations. If the ultimate goal of carbon storage is to isolate large volumes of CO2 for hundreds to thousands of years, plume migration will encounter inadequately completed wells miles away from the injection zone. Moreover, the detrimental impact of CO2 on cement could undermine the structural integrity of all contacted wells, although pressure effects subside quickly after injection. Even wells abandoned to current standards cannot be guaranteed leak-free in the long term. We describe spatial statistics extracted from the Texas RRC Well Bore database as applied to carbon storage. Although the Area of Review (AOR) has been traditionally defined by a fixed radius with the strong regulatory requirement that the injectate stays within the injection layer, buoyancy is a major characteristic of CO2 that introduces a third dimension into the Area of Review process. Using simple geological mapping to characterize structural traps, we determine the likely pathway and the contacted volume of a migrating plume. The latter can be as large as a fault compartment with dimensions of 20 km × 20 km. However, the contacted volume is ultimately a function of the total injected volume, and the specifics of each project should dictate the dimensions of the zone of endangering influence (ZEI). An option, viable for the Texas Gulf Coast, to reduce geologic uncertainty, to decrease the impact of wells, and to limit the amount of information to be collected, is to inject CO2 below the maximum penetration of most wells.en_US
dc.description.departmentBureau of Economic Geologyen_US
dc.identifierdoi:10.15781/T2J09WN16
dc.identifier.citationNicot, J. -P., Hovorka, S. D., Knox, P. R., and Naing, Thet, 2006, Area of review: how large is large enough for carbon storage? in Proceedings of the 2006 UIC Conference of the Groundwater Protection Council, Abstract 17. GCCC Digital Publication Series #06-05.en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/2152/64366
dc.language.isoengen_US
dc.publisherProceedings of the 2006 UIC Conference of the Groundwater Protection Council
dc.relation.ispartofGCCC Texts and Reportsen_US
dc.relation.ispartofseriesGCCC Digital Publication Series;06-05
dc.rights.restrictionOpenen_US
dc.subjectArea of Reviewen_US
dc.subjectZone of Endangering Influenceen_US
dc.subjectFields and Wellsen_US
dc.subjectLeakage Pathwaysen_US
dc.subjectCO2 Storage Site Parametersen_US
dc.subjectProceedings of the 2006 UIC Conference of the Groundwater Protection Council
dc.subjectLeakage Variables
dc.titleArea of review: how large is large enough for carbon storage?en_US
dc.typeConference paperen_US

Access full-text files

Original bundle

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Name:
GCCCDigPub06-05.pdf
Size:
6.25 MB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Description:
paper

License bundle

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
No Thumbnail Available
Name:
license.txt
Size:
1.66 KB
Format:
Item-specific license agreed upon to submission
Description: