2.2.1 Saline aquifer reservoirs

Several methods have been proposed to calculate the CO2 storage capacity for saline formations. The method used is chosen depending on the available data. Most methods assume that CO2 storage is achieved by increasing the pressure in the saline formation. Owing to the limited compressibility of fluids and rock, substantial volumes of saline formation are required to maintain useful storage capacity.

When only limited knowledge is available on a potential storage volume, the storage capacity can be estimated from the bulk volume of the saline formation, considering an average porosity and a storage efficiency factor by multiplication. The bulk formation volume is the volume that is hydraulically connected.

The approach that was used to estimate storage capacity in deep saline aquifers in GeoCapacity project was a slightly simplified and/or modified version of the method presented in Bachu et al., 2007. Bachu et al., 2007 define both theoretical and effective storage capacity for a basin or region as the sum of the storage capacity of individual structural or stratigraphic Traps in the said area/volume. They then distinguish between theoretical and effective storage capacity by applying a storage efficiency factor (capacity coefficient). The efficiency factor includes the cumulative effects of trap heterogeneity, CO2 buoyancy and sweep efficiency; however, the efficiency factor is site-specific and needs to be determined through numerical simulations and/or fieldwork.

An estimate based on the bulk volume of a regional aquifer is, therefore, by nature theoretical. However, theoretical storage capacity estimates are not very useful as they are based on assumptions that are known to be inaccurate. Therefore, applying different storage efficiency factors to the bulk volume of the aquifer is preferred. For bulk volumes of regional aquifers, a storage efficiency factor of 2 % is proposed based on work by the US DOE (Frailey, 2007). Frailey, 2007 found values ranging between 1.8 and 2.2 % for the storage efficiency factor of the bulk volume of a regional aquifer through Monte Carlo simulations (with low and high values of 1 % and 4 %, respectively).

Capacity estimation standards based on the work and publications of the CSLF (Bachu et al., 2007) do not provide advice on the value of trap specific storage efficiency factor, other than it is very much site-specific. Discussions on storage efficiency factors in several research projects have led to further work on this issue by the IEA and the CSLF. In the EU GeoCapacity project, two different approaches were developed for trap-specific storage efficiency factors, one for open or semi-closed aquifer systems and one for closed aquifer systems.

Bachu et al., 2007 include the net to gross ratio (NG) in both theoretical and the effective capacity estimates, which is meaningful when assessing individual traps. The net to gross ratio is, however, also a site specific parameter, which depends on the local geological conditions and is not necessarily well known or homogeneously distributed throughout a region. It may, therefore, not be meaningful to establish an average value for a regional aquifer based on few observations. If limited information is available, a default value of 0.25 is suggested. This value may be too high in some cases, but will for many cases be a conservative value. When considering the NG ratio, it should normally be possible to provide a best estimate of the reservoir porosity of a regional aquifer.

CO2 density is a function of pressure and temperature and can be obtained from different models (e.g, Span and Wagner, 1996 and Peneloux et al., 1982). Again, it may not be meaningful to establish an average value for a regional aquifer based on insufficient observations.

As a regional estimate based on bulk volume of an aquifer rather than trap volumes is already subject to great uncertainty (thickness and extent of aquifer, storage efficiency factor, etc.), the exact values of the net to gross ratio and the CO2 density are not essential. Furthermore, as the value of the storage efficiency factor is generalised rather than based on specific geological conditions, a regional estimate calculated using this methodology should be regarded as only indicative.

When information to estimate the pressure increase that can be applied to the hydraulically connected volume is available, a more reliable estimate of the storage capacity of a saline formation can be obtained. combined with the compressibility of the fluids and rock, the storage capacity estimate can be derived using the following equation (see, e.g. Frailey, 2007).

MCO2b = A × h × NG × f × rCO2r × Dp × (br+bf)

where in addition to the parameters defined in Tab. 2-4, Dp is the pressures increase (relative to the initial pressure), br is the compressibility of the matrix; bf is compressibility of the fluid.

Tab. 2-4: Parameters used in the static capacity assessment of saline aquifers (Vangkilde-Pedersen et al., 2008).

Parameter

MCO2

A

h

NG

φ

ρCO2r

Seff

Description

Regional or trap aquifer storage capacity

Area of aquifer

Average thickness of aquifer

Average net to gross ratio of aquifer

Average reservoir porosity

CO2 density at reservoir conditions

Storage efficiency factor

Typical values

Gtonnes to Mtonnes

Thousands to tens of km2

Hundreds of meters

Tens of percent

10-30%

0.6-0.8 g/cm3

2-3% (regional)*

10-40% (trap - closed to fully open)*

*Also reservoir properties matter (if better, the coefficient is higher); if Seff=0, then MCO2 is simply a theoretical capacity.

If the knowledge and level of detail exists and regional capacity estimates are available, it is more reliable to provide storage capacity estimates that take into account the volume in traps, where the buoyant CO2 can be safely retained. It should be emphasised here that storage capacity in saline formations is not only limited by the pressure increase that can be sustained by the formation, but also by the traps where CO2 collects after injection. The volume of CO2 that is derived from the connected volume and assumed pressure increase must be stored in an open structure that will retain the CO2. The pressure in this volume can be increased to create space for CO2 within the structure. The volume of CO2 that can be trapped is defined by the volume in the traps to its spill point. The smaller of these two volumes (CO2 volume from pressure increase, trap volume) defines the total storage volume.

The most accurate storage capacity estimate is obtained after a detailed site characterisation study. In such a study, all available data is collected, a detailed geological model of the connected volume is created and a reservoir engineering study is performed to obtain a realistic storage and injection capacity estimate.

Storage capacity estimations for saline aquifer Reservoirs are often presented in the form of a storage pyramid (Bachu, 2003; Kaldi and Gibson-Poole, 2008; Vangkilde-Pedersen et al., 2008). Fig. 2-5 and 2-6 present two such examples. Depending on whether the detailed structure geometry and reservoir parameters are known, assessment of the realistic capacity might require new geophysical surveys and well drilling. It should be noted that, in any case, reliable economic evaluation cannot be completed without acquisition of new geological data.

Generally, for matched (or practical) capacity an injection scenario and simulations are necessary (discussed in the following sections); while realistic (or effective) capacity, as a minimum, can be assessed using a robust static capacity estimation approach (Vangkilde-Pedersen et al., 2008).

For this approach, based on calculation of pore space volume available for injection and storage, the following formula on static capacity assessment has been recommended in the EU GeoCapacity project (Vangkilde-Pedersen et al., 2008; Tab. 2-4) after CSLF guidelines (Bachu et al., 2007):

MCO2 = A × h × NG × φ × ρCO2r × Seff

E. Fig. 2-5

Fig. 2-5: Storage capacity pyramid for saline aquifers (modified after Bachu, 2003).

E. Fig . 2-6

Fig. 2-6: A simplified storage capacity pyramid for saline aquifers (Vangkilde-Pedersen et al., 2008).