Geomechanical effects of co2 storage in geological structures: two case studies

Authors

  • M. Soltanzadeh Ph.D., Principal Researcher, Geomechanics Research Centre, PetroGem Inc., Calgary
  • SJS Hakim Senior Lecturer, Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Civil Engineering and Built Environment, University Tun Hussein onn Malaysia (UTHM)
  • MHW. Ibrahim Associate Prof. , Faculty of Civil Engineering and Built Environment, Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia (UTHM)
  • S. Shahidan Senior Lecturer,Faculty of Civil Engineering and Built Environment, Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia (UTHM)
  • SN. Mokhatar Senior Lecturer, Faculty of Civil Engineering and Built Environment, Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia (UTHM)
  • AJMS Lim

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.14419/ijet.v11i1.31858

Published:

2022-02-20

Keywords:

CO2 Storage, Caprock Integrity, Geomechanical Analysis, Probabilistic Analysis.

Abstract

Storage of CO2 in subsurface can assist to mitigate CO2 emission without extensively interfering with industrial activity and development. The main reason for geological storage to trap CO2 underground for a long time. However, the injection of CO2 may compromise the sealing characteristics of the caprock and, consequently, the containment of the underground CO2 storage unit as well. For instance, the injection of CO2 into a reservoir resulted in pore pressure and temperature changes leading to deformation and stress changes in the injection target and the rocks that surround it. These changes can influence the hydraulic integrity of the geological storage. The potential hazards could then impose different environmental, health, safety, and economic risks. Therefore, the geomechanical assessment of caprock integrity is critical for the storage of carbon dioxide. This research reviewed two different cases of underground CO2 storage in Canada and the workflows used for the assessment of geomechanical effects of CO2 injection on caprock integrity. It reviewed the processes of data collection, geomechanical characterization, and fluid flow modeling. These reviews highlighted the significance of geomechanical characterization and the fact that it is faced with significance challenges that could be addressed by data integration and geostatistical analysis. These reviewed studies implemented both analytical and numerical geomechanical models. While analytical models seem to be great choices for preliminary geomechanical analysis, numerical models are also necessary for a more detailed analysis.

 

 

References

[1] D.R. Harp, C.M. Oldenburg, R.A. Pawar. Metric for evaluating conformance robustness during geologic CO2 sequestration operations, International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 85 (2019) 100-108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2019.03.023.

[2] Q.R. Perez, L. Ottemoller. Source study of the Jan Mayen transform fault strike-slip earthquakes, Tectonophysics, 628 (2014)71-84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tecto.2014.04.035.

[3] M. Cisternas, E. Garrett, R. Wesson, T. Dura, L.L. Ely. Unusual geologic evidence of coeval seismic shaking and tsunamis shows variability in earthquake size and recurrence in the area of the giant 1960 Chile earthquake, Marine Geology, 385 (2017) 101-113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.margeo.2016.12.007.

[4] T.N.T. Chik, C.S. Rou, A.F. Kamarudin, S.J.S. Hakim, N.A. Yusoff. Vibration criteria assessment due to piling works, International Journal of Integrated Engineering, 13(3) (2021), 46–56. https://doi.org/10.30880/ijie.2021.13.03.006.

[5] A. Borgia, C.M. Oldenburg, R. Zhang, T.M. Daley, S. Finsterle,T.S. Ramakrishnan. Simulations of CO2 injection into fractures and faults for improving their geophysical characterization at EGS sites, Geothermics, 69 (2017)189-201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geothermics.2017.05.002.

[6] P. Segall. Injectionâ€induced seismicity: poroelastic and earthquake nucleation effects, Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 120(2015) 5082-5103. https://doi.org/10.1002/2015JB012060.

[7] C. Doughty, C.M. Oldenburg. CO2 plume evolution in a depleted natural gas reservoir: modeling of conformance uncertainty reduction over time. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 97(2020) 1-23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2020.103026.

[8] L.Y. Chin, T.A. Tomberlin, G.G. Ramos, R.G. Chalaturnyk. Evaluation of caprock stability by coupled modeling of geomechanics and reservoir simulation under steam injection for producing oil sands reservoirs. International Journal of Geomechanics 4 (2012) 28-34.

[9] J. Noorzaei, S.J.S. Hakim, M. S. Jaafar. An approach to predict ultimate bearing capacity of surface footings using artificial neural network, Indian Geotechnical Journal (IGJ) 38 (4) (2008), 515-528.

[10] J. Noorzaei, M.S. Jaafar, W.A.M. Thanoon, S.J.S. Hakim. Development of an artificial neural network model for prediction of ultimate soil bearing capacity. Civil-Comp Proceedings, 2005, 82.

[11] M. Hettema, E.Papamichos, P. Schutjens. Subsidence delay: field observations and analysis, Journal of Oil & Gas Science and Technology 57 (2002) 443-458. https://doi.org/10.2516/ogst:2002029.

[12] J.S. Bergstrom, L.B. Hilbert. A constitutive model for predicting the large deformation thermomechanical behavior of fluoropolymers, Mechanics of Materials 37(2005) 899-913. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mechmat.2004.09.002.

[13] A. Azad, R. Chalaturnyk. Application of analytical proxy models in reservoir estimation for SAGD Process: UTF-project case study. Society of Petroleum Engineers 52 (2013) 219-232. https://doi.org/10.2118/165576-PA.

[14] S. Goodarzi, A.Settari, M. Zoback, D. Keith. A coupled geomechanical reservoir simulation analysis of carbon dioxide storage in a saline aquifer in the Ohio river valley, Environmental Geosciences, 18(2011) 189-207. https://doi.org/10.1306/eg.04061111002.

[15] H. Soltanzadeh, C.D. Hawkes. Predicting the stress changes induced by fluid production and injection in porous reservoirs, In: Proceedings of the first Can–US rock mechanics symposium, Vancouver, May 27–31,1609–16, 2007. https://doi.org/10.1201/NOE0415444019-c202.

[16] COMSOL Group, COMSOL Multiphysics Modeling, Finite Element Analysis, and Engineering Simulation Software. User’s Manual, version 4, 71-85, 2011.

[17] H. Soltanzadeh, C.D. Hawkes. Assessing fault reactivation tendency within and surrounding porous reservoirs during fluid production or injection, International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, 46 (2009) 1-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrmms.2008.03.008.

[18] H. Soltanzadeh, C.D. Hawkes. Semi-analytical models for stress change and fault reactivation induced by reservoir production and injection. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 60 (2008) 71-85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2007.05.006.

[19] S.A. Smith, J.A. Sorensen, E.N. Steadman, J.A. Harju, W.A. Jackson, D. Nimchuk, R. Lavoie. Zama acid gas EOR, CO2 sequestration and monitoring project, In: Sixth Annual Conference on Carbon Capture & Sequestration, Pittsburgh, PA, USA, pp. 77, 2007.

View Full Article:

How to Cite

Soltanzadeh, M., Hakim, S., Ibrahim, M., Shahidan, S., Mokhatar, S., & Lim, A. (2022). Geomechanical effects of co2 storage in geological structures: two case studies. International Journal of Engineering & Technology, 11(1), 35–40. https://doi.org/10.14419/ijet.v11i1.31858
Received 2021-11-15
Accepted 2022-01-01
Published 2022-02-20