CO2 Storage in Low Permeability Formations

Abstract

Abstract This paper investigates ways in which CO2 storage in low-permeability formations might be made viable and how such formations might compete with more distant formations with higher permeability. Hypothetical, but realistic cases are postulated to examine the effect of reservoir engineering and economic sensitivities. The cases compare (a) a large CO2 source with nearby abundant low-permeability pore space (0.1–10md) with (b) the same source with storage in a remote high permeability (100md) site. Based on reservoir engineering and economic analyses, the paper quantifies the injectivity of the sites, assesses the number of wells required and finally estimates the costs of capturing CO2, transporting it to the storage sites and injecting it into the sub-surface. The paper shows that for the given assumptions, Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) in the remote high-permeability formation can be significantly cheaper than CCS in the low-permeability storage site. The cost advantage of the considerably higher permeabilities expected in the remote area by far outweighs the cost of transport over the extra distance. This is the case despite applying horizontal drilling and fracturing technologies. The economics of both the low and high permeability formations can be improved markedly by using horizontal rather than vertical wells. However, CCS in the remote high-permeability storage site still retains its cost advantage using this technology. Fracturing increases injectivity considerably for low permeability reservoirs and for both vertical and horizontal wells. However, it does not have a significant effect on reservoirs that have high permeability. Therefore, the technology helps injection in the low-permeability storage site much more than in the remote high-permeability storage formations. However, although under some conditions the relative economics of the low-permeability formation can be improved significantly by fracturing the low-permeability formation, the improvement is not sufficient to reverse the cost disadvantage of the low-permeability storage site.