Elsevier

Advances in Water Resources

Volume 62, Part C, December 2013, Pages 570-587
Advances in Water Resources

Multiphysics modeling of CO2 sequestration in a faulted saline formation in Italy

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advwatres.2013.04.006Get rights and content

Highlights

  • Coupled wellbore-reservoir modeling captures the allocation of CO2 injection fluxes.

  • Facies models at the reservoir scale affect the CO2 volume that can be stored.

  • Geomechanical constraints play an important role relative to safe geological disposal.

Abstract

The present work describes the results of a modeling study addressing the geological sequestration of carbon dioxide (CO2) in an offshore multi-compartment reservoir located in Italy. The study is part of a large scale project aimed at implementing carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology in a power plant in Italy within the framework of the European Energy Programme for Recovery (EEPR). The processes modeled include multiphase flow and geomechanical effects occurring in the storage formation and the sealing layers, along with near wellbore effects, fault/thrust reactivation and land surface stability, for a CO2 injection rate of 1 × 106 ton/a. Based on an accurate reproduction of the three-dimensional geological setting of the selected structure, two scenarios are discussed depending on a different distribution of the petrophysical properties of the formation used for injection, namely porosity and permeability. The numerical results help clarify the importance of: (i) facies models at the reservoir scale, properly conditioned on wellbore logs, in assessing the CO2 storage capacity; (ii) coupled wellbore-reservoir flow in allocating injection fluxes among permeable levels; and (iii) geomechanical processes, especially shear failure, in constraining the sustainable pressure buildup of a faulted reservoir.

Introduction

Storage of CO2 in deep geological formations such as depleted hydrocarbon reservoirs and saline aquifers is a promising strategy that could reduce mankind’s greenhouse gas emissions while continuing to meet the world energy needs. CO2 injection into the subsurface may give rise to a variety of physical and chemical processes. These processes must be reliably understood to quantify the amount of CO2 that can be safely stored in a selected geological formation according to its thermo–hydro–chemo–mechanical properties and the required injection rates.

One of the six CO2 carbon capture and storage (CCS) demonstration projects recently selected in the framework of the European Energy Programme for Recovery (EEPR, http://ec.europa.eu/energy/eepr/) is located in Italy. The project is aimed at capturing 1 × 106 ton/a of CO2 from a power plant (PP in the sequel) flue stream and sequestering it underground. The storage formation is located offshore in a large foredeep basin filled by a several-km thick sedimentary succession close to the PP. The recommendation of detecting the site offshore to prevent possible Not In My Back Yard (NIMBY) oppositions and the requirement of avoiding any possible CO2 contamination of CH4 reservoirs scattered through the study area, have led to the selection of a multi-compartment structure, seated between 1100 and 2500 m below sea level (bsl) and called RESERVOIR in the sequel, as a possible site to store the carbon dioxide.

The present paper is focused on the multi-disciplinary study needed to understand the capability of the RESERVOIR structure to store CO2 at the planned injection rate and, in particular, to quantify the period of time over which CO2 may be safely injected. The study takes advantage of a large dataset of geological, geophysical, hydrological, petrophysical, and geomechanical information (Sections 3.3, 3.4) acquired over the last decades mainly for hydrocarbon exploration purposes [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. The first step of the study consisted of the setting up of the geological model of the selected site (Section 2) as revealed by the seismostratigraphic (Section 3.1) and structural (Section 3.2) analysis of three-dimensional (3D) seismic data carried out by the Italian National Institute of Oceanography and Experimental Geophysics (OGS). The multiphysics modeling approach used in the study is then reviewed (Section 4). Multiphase flow simulations at the reservoir scale have been performed by IFP Energies Nouvelles (IFPEN) and multiphase temperature-dependent coupled wellbore-reservoir flow simulations at the well scale by Saipem S.p.A.. This two scale approach is a trade-off between the numerical effort for regional simulation and space resolution at the injection wells, as the simulation of the entire geological structure requires computational cell dimensions that are unable to capture near wellbore gradients. Although near-wellbore and field-scale simulations are actually uncoupled, a significant effort has been made to use the same rock properties, thermodynamic conditions, vertical discretization and impacted reservoir volume. Geomechanical issues are addressed by an advanced geomechanical simulator developed by the University of Padova (UNIPD). As the study is focused on the environmental and safety issues in CO2 sequestration, geomechanics is coupled to the flow-dynamics simulation at the reservoir scale only. Geomechanical issues at wellbore scale, typically wellbore stability, are not addressed. The results for two plausible scenarios are presented (Section 5), followed by a brief discussion on major uncertainties that characterize the modeling outcome (Section 6). A few final remarks close the paper (Section 7).

Section snippets

Regional geology

The analysis of available seismic profiles and borehole composite logs allowed for reconstructing the main phases of the Neogenic evolution of the study area, through the identification of main depositional sequences (Fig. 1(a)). The RESERVOIR structure occurs mainly in the Layer-4 formation, which was deposited in the Early-Middle Pliocene. It consists of fine to coarse-grained sands intercalated with clayey layers, with a thickness ranging from a few-up-to 30 m [6]. Locally, thick

Seismostratigraphic setting

The RESERVOIR structure is 4.5 × 2.7–3 km wide, spanning the 1100–2500 m bsl depth range. The correlation of the available 3D seismic data with the borehole information led at first to the identification of the major sequence boundaries, represented in increasing age order by (Fig. 1(a)):

  • 1.

    the base of the Layer-1 formation;

  • 2.

    the base of the Pleistocene sequence;

  • 3.

    the reservoir top (i.e. top of the Layer-4 formation);

  • 4.

    the top of the Miocene sequence.

The seismic reflector that marks the lower boundary of the

Modeling approach

The present section aims at providing an overview of the modeling tools used in the analysis of the different processes. A flowchart summarizing the interaction between the various models/codes is provided in Fig. 8.

Modeling results

In the present section the numerical results relative to the two VSH and SS scenarios are presented. The consequences of these two scenarios, in terms of reservoir flow and geomechanical effects, are discussed in detail. Concerning the near well processes, at the present stage of development the focus has been on scenario SS. In both scenarios the following assumptions hold: (i) the initial conditions for the formation pressure and temperature shown in Fig. 6 are prescribed along with a NaCl

Discussion

The present study provides a representative and comprehensive review of the steps that are required to implement geological CCS in a real storage site. Based on both historical data from previous analyses and new information from the ongoing project, a large database is created for the characterization of the RESERVOIR and the surrounding formations from the structural, hydro-geological, petrophysical, and geomechanical point of view. Generally speaking, two levels of uncertainty can be

Conclusions

Predicting the amount of CO2 that can be safely stored in a geological reservoir is a complex but important task for any real project of geological carbon dioxide sequestration. The complexity is even greater if the injected formation exhibits a faulted setting with several compartments.

In order to perform a reliable prediction of the involved multiphysical processes, an accurate site-specific investigation addressing the geological setting, and the petrophysical, hydrological and geomechanical

Acknowledgements

The research was supported by ENEL Ingegneria e Innovazione S.p.A. The authors are indebted to Monia Politi (ENEL S.p.A.) for her continuous and dedicated effort in coordinating the study. The three anonymous reviewers are acknowledged for helpful suggestions that contributed to improve significantly the quality of the presentation.

References (58)

  • J. Rutqvist et al.

    Estimating maximum sustainable injection pressure during geological sequestration of CO2 using coupled fluid flow and geomechanical fault-slip analysis

    Energy Conv Manag

    (2007)
  • W. Spakman

    Tomographic-images of the upper mantle below central-Europe and the Mediterranean

    Terra Nova

    (1990)
  • R. Fantoni et al.

    Tectono-sedimentary setting of the Po plain and Adriatic foreland

    Rend Lincei-Sci Fis Nat

    (2010)
  • D. Scrocca

    Thrust front segmentation induced by differential slab retreat in the Apennines (Italy)

    Terra Nova

    (2006)
  • M. Ghielmi et al.

    Sedimentary and tectonic evolution in the eastern Po plain and Northern Adriatic Sea area from Messinian to Middle Pleistocene (Italy)

    Rend Lincei-Sci Fis Nat

    (2010)
  • Carles P, Egermann P, Lenormand R, Lombard JM. Low permeability measurements using steady-state and transient methods....
  • M.C. Leverett

    Capillary behavior in porous solids

    Trans Soc Pet Eng AIME

    (2007)
  • R.H. Brooks et al.

    Hydraulic properties of porous media

    Hydrol Papers

    (1964)
  • Bennion B, Bachu S. Relative permeability characteristics for supercritical CO2 displacing water in a variety of...
  • K. Pruess et al.

    Formation dry-out from CO2 injection into saline aquifers: 1. Effects of solids precipitation and their mitigation

    Water Resour Res

    (2009)
  • Pruess K, Oldenburg CM, Moridis GJ. TOUGH2 User’s guide, Version 2.0. Tech. Rep. Report LBNL-43134, Lawrence Berkeley...
  • Lenormand R. Interpretation of mercury injection curves to derive pore size distribution. In: Paper SCA2003-52...
  • J. Dainelli et al.

    Regional assessment of sealing faults through pore-pressure analysis in the Northern Adriatic

    First Break

    (1993)
  • D. Baù et al.

    Basin-scale compressibility of the Northern Adriatic by the radioactive marker technique

    Geotechnique

    (2002)
  • M. Ferronato et al.

    Interpretation of radioactive marker measurements to evaluate compaction in the Northern Adriatic gas fields

    SPE Reserv Eval Eng

    (2003)
  • M. Ferronato et al.

    II cycle compressibility from satellite measurements

    Geotechnique

    (2013)
  • G. Gambolati et al.

    Stress–strain analysis in productive gas/oil reservoirs

    Int J Numer Anal Methods Geomech

    (1999)
  • P. Teatini et al.

    Water-gas dynamics and coastal land subsidence over Chioggia Mare field, Northern Adriatic Sea

    Hydrogeol J

    (2000)
  • P. Teatini et al.

    Geomechanical response to seasonal gas storage in depleted reservoirs: a case study in the Po river basin, Italy

    J Geophys Res

    (2011)
  • Cited by (29)

    • Petrophysical characterization of deep saline aquifers for CO<inf>2</inf> storage using ensemble smoother and deep convolutional autoencoder

      2020, Advances in Water Resources
      Citation Excerpt :

      Geostatistical realizations and fluid flow simulations have been previously combined to study the uncertainty in reservoir models and predictions in petroleum geoscience (Oliver et al., 2008; Mohamed et al., 2010; Caeiro et al., 2015) and hydrogeology (Capilla et al., 1997; Gómez-Hernánez et al., 1997; Kitanidis, 1997; Zimmerman et al., 1998). The application of these methods to carbon storage studies is not completely new (Szulczewski and Juanes, 2009; Bellenfant et al., 2009; Bergmo et al., 2011; Gasda et al., 2012; Szulczewski et al., 2012; Deng et al., 2012; Bhowmik et al., 2013; Castelletto et al., 2013; Jeong et al., 2013; Li and Benson, 2015; Levine et al., 2016). Risk assessment in storage capacity has been investigated in several works (Wilson et al., 2003; Zhou et al., 2008; Sifuentes et al., 2009; Burruss et al., 2009; Brennan et al., 2010; Nordbotten et al., 2012; Sun et al., 2013; Ellett et al., 2013; Peck et al., 2014; Gorecki et al., 2015; Jung et al., 2018).

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text