Benefits and Costs of Brine Extraction for Increasing Injection Efficiency In geologic CO2 Sequestration

Abstract

Abstract Pressure increases attendant with CO 2 injection into the subsurface drive many of the risk factors associated with commercial- scale CCS projects, impacting project costs and liabilities in a number of ways. The area of elevated pressure defines the area that must be characterized and monitored; pressure drives fluid flow out of the storage reservoir along higher-permeability pathways that might exist through the caprock into overlying aquifers or hydrocarbon reservoirs; and pressure drives geomechanical changes that could potentially impact subsurface infrastructure or the integrity of the storage system itself. Pressure also limits injectivity, which can increase capital costs associated with installing additional wells to meet a given target injection rate. The ability to mitigate pressure increases in storage reservoirs could have significant value to a CCS project, but these benefits are offset by the costs of the pressure mitigation technique itself. Of particular interest for CO 2 storage operators is the lifetime cost of implementing brine extraction at a CCS project site, and the relative value of benefits derived from the extraction process. This is expected to vary from site to site and from one implementation scenario to the next. Indeed, quantifying benefits against costs could allow operators to optimize their return on project investment by calculating the most effective scenario for pressure mitigation. This work builds on research recently submitted for publication by the authors examining the costs and benefits of brine extraction across operational scenarios to evaluate the effects of fluid extraction on injection rate to assess the cost effectiveness of several options for reducing the number of injection wells required. Modeling suggests that extracting at 90% of the volumetric equivalent of injection rate resulted in a 1.8% improvement in rate over a non-extraction base case; a four-fold increase in extraction rate results in a 7.6% increase in injection rate over the no-extraction base case. However, the practical impacts on capital costs suggest that this strategy is fiscally ineffective when evaluated solely on this metric, with extraction reducing injection well needs by only one per 56 (1x case) or one per 13 (4x case).