Abstract

Depleted gas reservoirs are appealing targets for carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) sequestration because of their storage capacity, proven seal, reservoir characterization knowledge, existing infrastructure, and potential for enhanced gas recovery. Low abandonment pressure in the reservoir provides additional voidage-replacement potential for CO 2 and allows for a low surface pump pressure during the early period of injection. However, the injection process poses several challenges. This work aims to raise awareness of key operational challenges related to CO 2 injection in low-pressure reservoirs and to provide a new approach to assessing the phase behavior of CO 2 within the wellbore. When the reservoir pressure is below the CO 2 bubble-point pressure, and CO 2 is injected in its liquid or supercritical state, CO 2 will vaporize and expand within the well-tubing or in the near-wellbore region of the reservoir. This phenomenon is associated with several flow assurance problems. For instance, when CO 2 transitions from the dense-state to the gas-state, CO 2 density drops sharply, affecting the wellhead pressure control and the pressure response at the well bottom-hole. As CO 2 expands with a lower phase viscosity, the flow velocity increases abruptly, possibly causing erosion and cavitation in the flowlines. Furthermore, CO 2 expansion is associated with the Joule–Thomson (IJ) effect, which may result in dry ice or hydrate formation and therefore may reduce CO 2 injectivity. Understanding the transient multiphase phase flow behavior of CO 2 within the wellbore is crucial for appropriate well design and operational risk assessment. The commonly used approach analyzes the flow in the wellbore without taking into consideration the transient pressure response of the reservoir, which predicts an unrealistic pressure gap at the wellhead. This pressure gap is related to the phase transition of CO 2 from its dense state to the gas state. In this work, a new coupled approach is introduced to address the phase behavior of CO 2 within the wellbore under different operational conditions. The proposed approach integrates the flow within both the wellbore and the reservoir at the transient state and therefore resolves the pressure gap issue. Finally, the energy costs associated with a mitigation process that involves CO 2 heating at the wellhead are assessed.

Highlights

  • The ongoing accumulation of greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations in the atmosphere from various anthropogenic sources is believed to be the primary cause of the increasing temperature of the Geosciences 2019, 9, 199; doi:10.3390/geosciences9050199 www.mdpi.com/journal/geosciencesEarth’s surface [1,2,3,4]

  • We investigate a serious flow-assurance issue that arises during CO2 injection into depleted gas reservoirs when the abandonment reservoir pressure is below the CO2 bubble-point pressure

  • This work addressed an operational challenge related to the injectivity of CO2 in depleted gas reservoirs

Read more

Summary

Introduction

The ongoing accumulation of greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations in the atmosphere from various anthropogenic sources is believed to be the primary cause of the increasing temperature of the Geosciences 2019, 9, 199; doi:10.3390/geosciences9050199 www.mdpi.com/journal/geosciences. We investigate a serious flow-assurance issue that arises during CO2 injection into depleted gas reservoirs when the abandonment reservoir pressure is below the CO2 bubble-point pressure. As CO2 in its liquid or supercritical state is injected at surface conditions into a subsurface formation with a pore pressure lower than the bubble point, CO2 will surely vaporize within the well tubing or in the near-wellbore region in the reservoir. Most existing studies assessed the conditions of CO2 flow in its steady state using standalone thermodynamic phase-behavior calculations and without coupling the CO2 flow in its steady state with the flow inside the reservoir [39,40] Because of this decoupled steady-state approach, a discontinuity in the pressure profile was predicted within the wellbore. Note that we use field units in the analysis, and we refer to Lake 2007 [41] for the conversion factors to the SI metric unit

CO2 Storage in a Depleted Gas Reservoir
CO2 Transport Journey
CO2 Thermodynamic Phase Behavior in the Wellbore
Behavior under Static Conditions
Behavior under Dynamic Conditions
Coupled Approach
Case 1
Case 2
CO2 Heating
Findings
Conclusions
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.