Doublegrip packer Seating nipple

Thermal relief

Check valve Line blind

Water injection

Figure 5.20 Typical CO2 injection well and wellhead configuration.

a backup injection well or methods to safely vent CO2 to the atmosphere.

Proper maintenance of CO2 injection wells is necessary to avoid leakage and well failures. Several practical procedures can be used to reduce probabilities of CO2 blow-out (uncontrolled flow) and mitigate the adverse effects if one should occur. These include periodic wellbore integrity surveys on drilled injection wells, improved blow-out prevention (BOP) maintenance, installation of additional BOP on suspect wells, improved crew awareness, contingency planning and emergency response training (Skinner, 2003).

For CO2 injection through existing and old wells, key factors include the mechanical condition of the well and quality of the cement and well maintenance. A leaking wellbore annulus can be a pathway for CO2 migration. Detailed logging programmes for checking wellbore integrity can be conducted by the operator to protect formations and prevent reservoir cross-flow. A well used for injection (Figure 5.20) must be equipped with a packer to isolate pressure to the injection interval. All materials used in injection wells should be designed to anticipate peak volume, pressure and temperature. In the case of wet gas (containing free water), use of corrosion-resistant material is essential.

5.5.2 Well abandonment procedures

Abandonment procedures for oil, gas and injection wells are designed to protect drinking water aquifers from contamination. If a well remains open after it is no longer in use, brines, hydrocarbons or CO2 could migrate up the well and into shallow drinking water aquifers. To avoid this, many countries have developed regulations for well 'abandonment' or 'closure' (for example, United States Code of Federal Regulations 40 Part 144 and Alberta Energy and Utilities Board, 2003). These procedures usually require placing cement or mechanical plugs in all or part of the well. Extra care is usually taken to seal the well adjacent to drinking water aquifers. Examples of well abandonment procedures for cased and uncased wells are shown in Figure 5.21. Tests are often required to locate the depth of the plugs and test their mechanical strength under pressure.

It is expected that abandonment procedures for CO2 wells could broadly follow the abandonment methodology used for oil and gas wells and acid-gas disposal wells. However, special care has to be taken to use sealing plugs and cement that are resistant to degradation from CO2. Carbon dioxide-resistant cements have been developed for oil field and geothermal applications. It has been suggested that removing the casing and the liner penetrating the caprock could avoid corrosion of the steel that may later create channels for leakage. The production casing can be removed by pulling or drilling (milling) it out. After removing the casing, a cement plug can be put into the open borehole, as illustrated in Figure 5.21.

The cement plug will act as the main barrier to future CO2 migration. A major issue is related to the sealing quality of the cement plug and the bonding quality with the penetrated caprock. Microchannels created near the wellbore during drilling or milling operations should be sealed with cement. Fluid could also be flushed into the storage reservoir to displace the CO2 and help to improve the cementing quality and bonding to the sealing caprock. Casing protective materials and alternative casing materials, such as composites, should also be evaluated

Figure 5.21 Examples of how cased and uncased wells are abandoned today. Special requirements may be developed for abandoning CO2 storage wells, including use of corrosion-resistant cement plugs and removing all or part of the casing in the injection interval and caprock.

for possible and alternative abandonment procedures. Sealing performance of abandoned wells may need to be monitored for some time after storage operations are completed.

5.5.3 Injection well pressure and reservoir constraints

Injectivity characterizes the ease with which fluid can be injected into a geological formation and is defined as the injection rate divided by the pressure difference between the injection point inside the well and the formation. Although CO2 injectivity should be significantly greater than brine injectivity (because CO2 has a much lower viscosity than brine), this is not always the case. Grigg (2005) analyzed the performance of CO2 floods in west Texas and concluded that, in more than half of the projects, injectivity was lower than expected or decreased over time. Christman and Gorell (1990) showed that unexpected CO2-injectivity behaviour in EOR operations is caused primarily by differences in flow geometry and fluid properties of the oil. Injectivity changes can also be related to insufficiently known relative permeability effects.

To introduce CO2 into the storage formation, the downhole injection pressure must be higher than the reservoir fluid pressure. On the other hand, increasing formation pressure may induce fractures in the formation. Regulatory agencies normally limit the maximum downhole pressure to avoid fracturing the injection formation. Measurements of in-situ formation stresses and pore fluid pressure are needed for establishing safe injection pressures. Depletion of fluid pressure during production can affect the state of stress in the reservoir. Analysis of some depleted reservoirs indicated that horizontal rock stress decreased by 50-80% of the pore pressure decrease, which increased the possibility of fracturing the reservoir (Streit and Hillis, 2003).

Safe injection pressures can vary widely, depending on the state of stress and tectonic history of a basin. Regulatory agencies have determined safe injection pressures from experience in specific oil and gas provinces. Van der Meer (1996) has derived a relationship for the maximum safe injection pressure. This relationship indicated that for a depth down to 1000 m, the maximum injection pressure is estimated to be 1.35 times the hydrostatic pressure - and this increased to 2.4 for depths of 1-5 km. The maximum pressure gradient allowed for natural gas stored in an aquifer in Germany is 16.8 kPa m-1 (Sedlacek, 1999). This value exceeds the natural pressure gradients of formation waters in northeastern Germany, which are on the order of 10.5-13.1 kPa m-1. In Denmark or Great Britain, the maximum pressure gradients for aquifer storage of natural gas do not exceed hydrostatic gradients. In the United States, o o

Was this article helpful?

0 0
Guide to Alternative Fuels

Guide to Alternative Fuels

Your Alternative Fuel Solution for Saving Money, Reducing Oil Dependency, and Helping the Planet. Ethanol is an alternative to gasoline. The use of ethanol has been demonstrated to reduce greenhouse emissions slightly as compared to gasoline. Through this ebook, you are going to learn what you will need to know why choosing an alternative fuel may benefit you and your future.

Get My Free Ebook


Post a comment