Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

A quantitative approach for sealing capacity evaluation of caprock in candidate of aquifer gas storage

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Environmental Science and Pollution Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The gas sealing capacity of caprock (SCC) is one of the key factors that determine whether aquifer trap can be constructed into underground gas storage (UGS). However, no standard protocol for evaluating SCC of candidate aquifers has been proposed. Based on the core observation, laboratory experiment, and well logging data, the sealing capacity of the target aquifer caprock of Permian mudstone in D5 block of Litan sag, China, is quantitatively evaluated. The important parameters of mineral brittleness, permeability, breakthrough pressure (BP), mechanical brittleness, thickness, and areal extent that affect the SCC are determined. The results of specific tests and data statistics show that the caprock of D5 block is a low permeability rock with a permeability of 10−4 mD, and the BP of undisturbed rock is greater than 38 MPa. Although the brittle mineral quartz is abundant with an average of 38.38%, the mechanical brittleness is not strong under formation conditions. The direct caprock has a thickness of greater than 50 m, and on the top of it is a high-quality indirect caprock that complements the physical closure. The results of a mathematical evaluation model show that except for the sealing index of sample 2, all the other samples have optimal sealing capacity. The field interference test shows that the optimal sealing capacity of the caprock meets the requirements of the construction of underground gas storage (UGS). The rationality of the comprehensive evaluation model can provide a reference for similar evaluation projects in the future.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

The data used to support the findings of this study is included within the article.

Abbreviations

SCC:

Sealing capacity of caprock

UGS:

Underground gas storage

BP:

Breakthrough pressure

AGS:

Aquifer gas storage

AEC:

Areal extent of caprock

AESC:

Areal extent of structural closure

\({BRIT}_{\mathrm{t}}\) :

The mineral brittleness considering quartz, feldspar and carbonate

\({BRIT}_{\mathrm{q}}\) :

The mineral brittleness that only quartz is considered

\({B}_{1}^{^{\prime}}\) :

Relative post-peak stress drop

\({B}_{2}^{^{\prime}}\) :

Absolute rate of post-peak stress drop

\({B}_{3}^{^{\prime}}\) :

Yield influence coefficient

\({B}_{4}^{^{\prime}}\) :

Residual flow coefficient

\({BRIT}_{\mathrm{m}}\) :

Mechanical brittleness index

\({\sigma }_{p}\) :

Peak strength

\({\sigma }_{r}\) :

Residual strength

\({k}_{BC}\) :

Slope of the line connecting the starting points of the yield stage and residual stage

\({\varepsilon }_{p1}\) :

Strain at the starting point of yield stage

\({\varepsilon }_{p2}\) :

Strain at the ending point of yield stage

\({\varepsilon }_{r1}\) :

Strain at the starting point of residual stage

\({\varepsilon }_{r1}\) :

Strain at the ending point of the residual stage

\({I}_{c}\) :

Capillary sealing index

\(BR\) :

The normalized breakthrough pressure

\(PE\) :

The normalized permeability

\({p}_{d}\) :

Breakthrough pressure

\({p}_{d\mathrm{max}}\) :

Maximum breakthrough pressure

\(k\) :

Permeability

\({I}_{SEAL}\) :

Sealing capacity of mudstone

\({A}_{s}\) :

Covering area of caprock that is described by the ratio of AES to AESC

\(h\) :

Caprock thickness

\(TF\) :

Ratio of fault throw offset in the top seal to the caprock thickness

\(BRIT\) :

Brittleness of mudstone

References

  • Demirel NÇ, Demirel T, Deveci M, Vardar G (2017) Location selection for underground natural gas storage using Choquet integral. J Natl Gas Sci Eng 45:368–379. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jngse.2017.05.013

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Han X, Feng F, Cong Z (2020) Dynamic evaluation method of caprock microscopic sealing in CO2 sequestration project. Geofluids 2020:2648692. https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/2648692

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Haque AE, Qadri ST, Bhuiyan MAH, Navid M, Nabawy BS, Hakimi MH, Abd-El-Aal AK (2022) Integrated wireline log and seismic attribute analysis for the reservoir evaluation: A case study of the Mount Messenger Formation in Kaimiro Field, Taranaki Basin, New Zealand. J Natl Gas Sci Eng 99:104452. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jngse.2022.104452

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ishii E, Sanada H, Funaki H, Sugita Y, Kurikami H (2011) The relationships among brittleness, deformation behavior, and transport properties in mudstones: an example from the Horonobe Underground Research Laboratory, Japan. J Geophys Res, 116(B9). https://doi.org/10.1029/2011JB008279

  • Jayasekara DW, Ranjith PG, Wanniarachchi WAM, Rathnaweera TD (2020) Understanding the chemico-mineralogical changes of caprock sealing in deep saline CO2 sequestration environments: a review study. J Supercritical Fluids 161:104819. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.supflu.2020.104819

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Jia S, Zheng D, Jin F, Zhang H, Meng Q, Lin J, Wei Q (2016) Evaluation system of selected target sites for aquifer underground gas storage. Journal of Central South University (Science and Technology), 47(3): 857–867. https://doi.org/10.11817/j.issn.1672-7207.2016.03.019

  • Kang J (2008) Research on thermal cracking of rocks and its application. Dianlian University of Technology Press, Dalian

    Google Scholar 

  • Kokkinos NC, Nkagbu DC, Marmanis DI, Dermentzis KI, Maliaris G (2022) Evolution of unconventional hydrocarbons: past, present, future and environmental footprint. J Eng Sci Technol Rev 15(4):15–24

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Li H (2022) Research progress on evaluation methods and factors influencing shale brittleness: a review. Energy Rep 8:4344–4358. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2022.03.120

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li J, Yan Q, Zhang Y, Liu, G, Wang X (2007) The particularity of quaternary biogas cap sealing mechanism in Sanhu area of Qaidam basin (in Chinese). Scientia Sinica(Terrae), 37(S2): 36–42

  • Li Q, Wang F, Forson K, Zhang J, Zhang C, Chen J, Xu N, Wang Y (2022) Affecting analysis of the rheological characteristic and reservoir damage of CO2 fracturing fluid in low permeability shale reservoir. Environ Sci Pollut Res 29:37815–37826. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-18169-9

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Li Q, Wu J (2022) Factors affecting the lower limit of the safe mud weight window for drilling operation in hydrate-bearing sediments in the Northern South China Sea. Geomech Geophys Geo-Energy Geo-Resour 8:82. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40948-022-00396-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liang M, Fu G, Li Q, Guo H, Zhang B (2022) Fault evolution and its effect on the sealing ability of mudstone cap rocks. Energies 15(20):7676. https://doi.org/10.3390/en15207676

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Ma X, Zhao P (2011) Practical technology of underground gas storage design. Beijing: Petroleum Industry Press, 24–25

  • Ma X, Zheng D, Shen R, Wang C, Luo J, Sun J (2018) Key technologies and practice for gas field storage facility construction of complex geological conditions in China. Pet Explor Dev 45(3):507–520. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1876-3804(18)30056-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matos CR, Carneiro JF, Silva PP (2019) Overview of large-scale underground energy storage technologies for integration of renewable energies and criteria for reservoir identification. J Energy Stor 21:241–258. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.est.2018.11.023

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mazarei M, Davarpanah A, Ebadati A, Mirshekari B (2019) The feasibility analysis of underground gas storage during an integration of improved condensate recovery processes. J Petrol Explor Prod Technol 9(1):397–408. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13202-018-0470-3

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Meng F, Zhou H, Zhang C, Xu R, Lu J (2015) Evaluation methodology of brittleness of rock based on post-peak stress-strain curves. Rock Mech Rock Eng 48(5):1787–1805. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00603-014-0694-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paluszny A, Graham CC, Daniels KA, Tsaparli V, Xenias D, Salimzadeh S, Zimmerman RW (2020) Caprock integrity and public perception studies of carbon storage in depleted hydrocarbon reservoirs. Intl J Greenh Gas Control 98:103057. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2020.103057

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Qu C, Zhang X, Lin C, Chen S, Li Y, Pan F, Yao Y (2013) Characteristics of capillary sealing mechanism of Late Quaternary shallow biogenic gas in the Hangzhou Bay area. Adv Earth Sci, 28(2): 209–220. 10.1001–8166(2013)02–0209–12

  • Sun M, Liu G, Li J (2008) Features of cap rocks of gas pools and criteria of identification. Natural Gas Industry, 28(8): 36–38+137

  • SY/T 6848–2012. Specification for design of underground gas storage. China National Petroleum Corporation, (2012)

  • Tek MR (1989) Underground storage of natural gas: theory and practice. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. 1–53

  • Thomas LK, Katz DL, Tek MR (1968) Threshold pressure phenomena in porous media. Soc Petrol Eng J 8(02):174–184. https://doi.org/10.2118/1816-pa

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wu T, Pan Z, Connell LD, Liu B, Fu X, Xue Z (2020) Gas breakthrough pressure of tight rocks: a review of experimental methods and data. J Natl Gas Sci Eng 81:103408. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jngse.2020.103408

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zappone A, Rinaldi AP, Grab M, Wenning QC, Roques C, Madonna C et al (2021) Fault sealing and caprock integrity for CO2 storage: an in situ injection experiment. Solid Earth 12(2):319–343. https://doi.org/10.5194/se-12-319-2021

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhai GY, Wang YF, Zhou Z, Yu SF, Chen XL, Zhang YX (2018) Exploration and research progress of shale gas in China. China Geol, 1(2): 257–272. https://doi.org/10.31035/cg2018024

  • Zhang CL, Talandier J (2022) Self-sealing of fractures in indurated claystones measured by water and gas flow. Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineeringhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrmge.2022.01.014

  • Zhao K, Wanyan QQ, Liao W, Zheng DW, Song LN, Xu HC, Wang JM, Pei G, Wang JK (2022) Quantitative evaluation method for gas loss in underground natural gas storage reconstructed from abandoned gas reservoirs. Arab J Sci Eng 47(9):11587–11597. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13369-021-06324-w

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhou X, Lü X, Sui F, Wang X, Li Y (2022) The breakthrough pressure and sealing property of lower paleozoic carbonate rocks in the Gucheng area of the Tarim basin. J Petrol Sci Eng, 208(Part A): 109289. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2021.109289

Download references

Funding

The authors gratefully acknowledge the support from the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 42072166), the Natural Science Foundation of Heilongjiang Province (Grant No. LH2020D004), and State Key Laboratory for Geomechanics and Deep Underground Engineering (Grant No. SKLGDUEK2001).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Earth Science, Northeast Petroleum University, Daqing, 163318, China

    Shanpo Jia, Meng Xu, Caoxuan Wen & Borui Li

  2. State Key Laboratory for GeoMechanics and Deep Underground Engineering, China University of Mining & Technology, Xuzhou, 221116, Jiangsu, China

    Shanpo Jia

  3. Exploration and Development, Research Institute of Huabei Oilfield Company, CNPC, Renqiu, 062552, Hebei, China

    Tuanhui Liu & Zengqiang Xi

  4. Interpretation and Evaluation Centre, Daqing Branch, China Petroleum Logging Co. Ltd, Daqing, Heilongjiang, 163412, China

    Lin Han

Authors
  1. Shanpo Jia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Meng Xu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Caoxuan Wen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Borui Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Tuanhui Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Zengqiang Xi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Lin Han
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Shanpo Jia and Meng Xu: designed and performed the experiments, analyzed the data, and prepared the paper.

Caoxuan Wen and Zengqiang Xi: designed the experiments and revised the manuscript.

Borui Li, Tuanhui Liu, and Lin Han: participated to collect the materials related to the experiment. Designed the experiments and revised the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Caoxuan Wen.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Responsible Editor: George Z. Kyzas

Publisher's note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Jia, S., Xu, M., Wen, C. et al. A quantitative approach for sealing capacity evaluation of caprock in candidate of aquifer gas storage. Environ Sci Pollut Res 30, 63678–63690 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-023-26873-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-023-26873-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation