Main Menu

Technical Sessions

Plenary Sessions

Poster Presentations

Participants

Pressure Buildup at
CO2 Injection Wells
Sally M. Benson
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
Berkeley, California 94720

Second Annual Conference on Carbon Sequestration

May 5-8, 2003

Abstract
An approximate analytical solution for calculating
pressure buildup at CO2 injection wells has been
developed. It can be used to rapidly calculate the
pressure buildup during injection, as well as, the rate of
pressure falloff once injection stops. The solution
includes the influence of the advancing CO2 front,
changes in the permeability of the near-well region due
to chemical reactions between the CO2 and reservoir
rock, and temperature dependent viscosity. The
approximate solution can be used for both open and
closed systems. In addition, it can be used as the basis
for designing and interpreting pressure tests as a
method of monitoring the progress of CO2 injection
operations.

Applications
Estimation of injection pressures at CO2
injection wells
Pressure transient analysis at CO2 injection
wells
Evaluation of the influence of CO2/water/rock
interactions on formation permeability
Characterization and monitoring of CO2
sequestration processes and progress

Physical Processes During Injection

of CO2 into Water
Immiscible displacement of water
by CO2
Relative permeability effects
Capillary pressure effects
Adverse mobility ratio
water >>CO2

Pressure and temperature

dependent CO2 viscosity and
density
Partitioning of CO2 into the
water phase
Partitioning of water into the
CO2 phase

11
0.8
0.8
0.6
0.6
0.4
0.4
0.2
0.2
00

Relative
Relative Permeablity
Permeablity

kkrCO2
rCO2

11
0.8
0.8
0.6
0.6
0.4
0.4

kkrwrw

0.2
0.2
00

00 0.25
0.25 0.5
0.5 0.75
0.75 11

ssww

Implications for Pressure Buildup

During CO2 Injection
Saturation of CO2 and
water will vary in the region
behind the CO2- front
Saturation
SaturationDistribution
Distribution

Relative
RelativePemeability
Pemeability
11
0.8
0.8

11
0.8
0.8
0.6
0.6
0.4
0.4
0.2
0.2
00

Relative permeability of CO2

and water will vary in the
region behind the CO2-front

Sharp Front

00

50
50 100
100 150
150 200
200

rr(m)
(m)

0.6
0.6
0.4
0.4
0.2
0.2
00

00

50
50 100
100 150
150 200
200

rr(m)
(m)

A New Approximate Analytical Solution

For Pressure Buildup
Assumptions
Buckley-Leverett type
displacement
Vertical equilibrium
Horizontal reservoir
Homogeneous reservoir
Neglect capillary pressure
(not required)
Slightly compressible fluid

Based on technique
developed by Benson
(1984, 1987)

qCO2

k,ct,

rw

rf

New Pressure Buildup Solution

Solution consists of two components
Steady state pressure buildup behind the CO2
front (ps.s.)
Pressure transient buildup outside of the front
(pt)

p (rw , t ) = ps.s. (rw , t ) + pt (rf , t )

f CO2 (r , t ) CO2 (r , t ) dr
ps.s. (rw , t ) =
2kh rw CO2 (r , t ) k rCO2 (r , t ) r
qCO2

pt (rf , t ) =

rf

qCO2 w
4kh CO2

Ei (

rf2 wct
4kt

Evaluating p s.s.
f CO2 (r , t ) CO2 (r , t ) dr
ps.s. (rw , t ) =
2kh rw CO2 (r , t ) k rCO2 (r , t ) r
qCO2

rf

Density
DensityDistribution
Distribution
After
After30
30Days
Daysof
ofInjection
Injection

Viscosity
ViscosityDistribution
Distribution
After
After30
30Days
Daysof
ofInjection
Injection
8.0E-05
8.0E-05
7.5E-05
7.5E-05

800
800
775
775

<<10%
10%variation
variation
CO2
CO2

CO2
CO2

7.0E-05
7.0E-05
6.5E-05
6.5E-05
6.0E-05
6.0E-05
00

50
50

100
100 150
150

rr(m)
(m)

750
750
725
725

<<10%
10%variation
variation

700
700
00

50
50

100
100

rr(m)
(m)

Assign average values for and behind the front

150
150

Multi-phase Flow Behind the CO2 Front

qCO2 t

rsCO =
2

f CO
sCO

f CO2 ( sCO2 ) =

h CO

sCO2

qCO2
qw + qCO2

=
1+

1
CO2 k rw ( sw )

w k r ( sCO )
CO2

Buckley-Leverett Solution

Buckley-Leverett Solution

Saturation
SaturationDistribution
Distribution

Fractional
FractionalFlow
Flowof
ofCO
CO22
1.00
1.00

11
0.8
0.8

0.80
0.80

0.6
0.6
0.4
0.4

0.60
0.60

0.2
0.2
00

0.20
0.20

0.40
0.40

00

50
50 100
100 150
150 200
200

rr(m)
(m)

0.00
0.00

ssf f
00

0.2
0.2

0.4
0.4

ssCO2
CO2

0.6
0.6

Evaluating p s.s.
qCO2 CO2

rf

f CO2 (r , t ) dr
ps.s. (rw , t ) =
2 CO2 kh rw k rCO2 (r , t ) r
CO
CO22 Saturation
Saturation
After
After30
30 Days
Days
1.0
1.0
0.5
0.5

Numerical
Numerical

Buckley
Leverett
Buckley
Leverett
0.0
0.0
00
50
50 100
100 150
150

rr(m)
(m)

ffCO2
/k rCO2 30
30 Days
Days
CO2 /krCO2
40.00
40.00
30.00
30.00
20.00
20.00
10.00
10.00
0.00
0.00

00

50
50

100
100

rr(m)
(m)

150
150

Assign a linear variation for fCO2/krCO2 behind the front

Approximate Analytical Solution

p (rw , t ) = ps.s. (rw , t ) + pt (r f , t )

qCO2 CO2 rf f CO2

ps.s. (rw , t ) =
ln +

2 CO2 kh
rw k rCO2

rf

rf

rw
1 1
ln
rf rw rw

qCO2 w
kt
pt (rf , t ) =
+ .80907
ln
2
4 CO2 kh wct rf

rsCO

Qt fCO2
=
h sCO2

Fractional
FractionalFlow
Flowof
ofCO
CO2 2
1.00
1.00
0.75
0.75
0.50
0.50
0.25
0.25

s CO2

ssf f

0.00
0.00
00

0.2
0.2

0.4
0.4

ssCO2
CO2

0.6
0.6

Typical Pressure Buildup

Pressure(bars)
(bars)
Pressure

203
203
201
201

kk==100
100mD
mD
hh==20
20m
m
qqCO2 ==15.86
15.86kg/s
kg/s
CO2
initial
initialpressure
pressure==150
150 bars
bars
CO2 ==6.5
6.5e-5
e-5Pa-s
Pa-s

199
199
197
197

CO2

33
==715
kg/m
CO2
715 kg/m
CO2
porosity
porosity==0.12
0.12

195
195
00

30
30

60
60

90
90

120
120

time
time(days)
(days)

150
150

180
180

Semi-log Plot

201
201

1.5
1.5
Pressure
PressureBuildup
Buildup
Slope
Slope

1.3
1.3

m=

199
199

qCO2 CO2

1.1
1.1

4 CO2 kh

0.9
0.9

197
197
195
195
0.10
0.10

Slope(bars)
(bars)
Slope

Pressure(bars)
(bars)
Pressure

203
203

0.7
0.7

1.00
1.00

10.00
10.00

100.00
100.00

time
time(days)
(days)

0.5
0.5
1000.00
1000.00

How Good Is the Approximate Solution?

Comparison to numerical simulation generated using
TOUGH2 (Pruess et al., 2001)
Pressure
PressureBuildup
Buildup
Pressure(bars)
(bars)
Pressure

210
210
205
205
200
200

Numerical
Numerical
sf=0.225
sf=0.225
sf=0.23
sf=0.23

195
195
190
190
0.01
0.01

0.10
0.10

1.00
1.00

10.00
10.00

time
time(days)
(days)

100.00
100.00

Summary
A new approximate analytical solution for
predicting pressure buildup during CO2 injection
into brine formations has been developed
Comparison to numerical simulations verifies the
applicability of this solution to typical CO2
sequestration scenarios
Pressure transient analysis may provide a useful
tool for monitoring CO2 sequestration operations,
including:
Validation of multiphase flow processes
Front tracking
Detection of permeability changes from CO2 injection