Vertical Flow Performance

KCP-RDS-CWE-REP-1002
Rev.: 03
Project Title:
Kingsnorth Carbon Capture & Storage Project
Document Title:
Vertical Flow Performance
Page 1 of 33

Table of Contents
Executive Summary ................................................................................................................. 2
Nomenclature ........................................................................................................................... 4
1.
Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 5
1.1.
Scope ........................................................................................................................ 6
1.2.
Related Project Documents ...................................................................................... 6
2.
Data Review ..................................................................................................................... 8
2.1.
Formation Properties ................................................................................................ 8
2.1.1. Lower Bunter Properties ........................................................................................... 9
2.1.2. Overburden Formation & Thermal Properties .......................................................... 9
3.
Initial Well Design .......................................................................................................... 11
4.
Inflow Performance Relationship & Injectivity Index ................................................. 13
4.1.
Gaseous Injection ................................................................................................... 13
4.1.1. Static Modelling ...................................................................................................... 13
4.1.1.1. Jones IPR Model .................................................................................................... 13
4.1.1.2. Multi-Rate Jones IPR Model ................................................................................... 13
4.1.1.3. Forchheimer IPR Model .......................................................................................... 13
4.1.2. Transient Modelling - OLGA ................................................................................... 16
4.2.
Dense Phase Delivery ............................................................................................ 16
4.3.
Inflow Performance Model Considerations ............................................................. 17
5.
Well Performance & Injectivity ..................................................................................... 18
5.1.
Gas Phase Delivery (Demonstrator) ....................................................................... 18
5.2.
Dense Phase Delivery (Full System) ...................................................................... 22
5.2.1. Initial Dense Phase Injection Steady State.......................................................... 22
5.2.2. Dense Phase Delivery Transient Analysis........................................................... 23
6.
CO2 Injection Schedule ................................................................................................. 27
7.
6.1.
Additional Field Development Considerations ........................................................ 28
Conclusions ................................................................................................................... 29
8.
Recommendations ........................................................................................................ 30
9.
Mandatory References .................................................................................................. 31
10.
Supporting References ................................................................................................. 32
11.
Conversion Factors ....................................................................................................... 33
Kingsnorth CCS De monstration Pro ject

The information contained in this document (the Infor ma tion) is provided in good faith.
E.ON UK plc, its subcontractors, subsidiaries, affiliates, e mployees, adviser s, and the Depart ment of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) make
no representation or warranty as to the accuracy, reliability or completeness of the Infor mation and neither E.ON UK plc nor any of its
subcontractors, subsidiaries, affiliates, e mployees, advisers or DEC C shall have any liability whatsoever for any direct or indirect loss
howsoe ver arising from the use of the Infor mation by any party.
Rev.: 03
Project Title:
Document Title:
Page 2 of 33
Executive Summary
This report presents the results from the Vertical Lift Performance (VLP) and Inflow
Performance Relationship (IPR) carried out in order to determine the initial size and number
of wells required to inject CO2 into the Hewett CO2 storage site (Lower Bunter formation).
The analysis was carried out using models developed in Prosper (for initial screening) and in
OLGA (to ensure stable flow could be achieved). The conditions for which the analysis was
carried out are shown in the table below.
Demonstrator
Full System
(Gaseous Phase)
(Dense Phase)
Rate (te/day)
6,600
26,400
Max Delivery Pressure (barg)
35
79
Min Delivery Temperature (C)
4
4
Min Ambient Temperature (C)
-6
-6
Hewett CO2 Delivery Conditions
Property
The selection of the number of wells is based on a number of criteria, and not only the ability
to inject the required rate per day. The first criterion is to ensure that the CO2 maintains a
single phase in the wellbore. Another consideration is the BHIP with respect to the reservoir
pressure. It is important not to have an excessive pressure differential across the sandface
which would induce further cooling in the near wellbore and indeed should this be excessive
may result in fracturing of the formation.
Next, the well count should not be increased more than is required, not only from an
economical standpoint, but also from the engineered integrity of the storage site and complex.
The more wells that are drilled into the storage site, the greater the potential for CO 2
migration. Finally, the rate per well should be such that the velocities within the wellbore do
not result in hydraulic erosion.
A base well design has been constructed with 7 tubing string and a deviation of 50 degrees
through the reservoir. This allows for:
Minimising the initial number of wells required while allowing for flexibility in delivery
Ensuring drillability through the highly depleted Lower Bunter.
Areal spacing to minimise the effects of thermal interference between wells.
Use of wireline intervention
Inflow Performance Relationships have been developed for injecting gaseous and dense
phase CO2 into the Lower Bunter.
For gaseous phase, the Forchheimer equations have been used with a Non-Darcy coefficient
-6
2
2
2
(a) of 2.3538x10 psi /(Mscf/day) and a Darcy coefficient (b) of 1.26467 psi /Mscf/day.
For dense phase injection, a PI of 2882 Sm3/day/bar (1250 STB/day/psi) was calculated
based on reservoir and fluid properties.
Simulations in OLGA have shown that for a CO 2 injection rate of 6,600 te/day in gaseous
phase three wells (plus one contingency) are required with 7 tubing. The gaseous phase can
continue with the above well configuration until the reservoir pressure reaches 33 barg based
on a limiting WHIP of 35 barg.

Rev.: 03
Project Title:
Document Title:
Page 3 of 33
Dense phase delivery will initially require eight wells (plus one contingency) with 7 tubing in
order to inject the anticipated 26,400 te/day. This number will drop to six as the reservoir
pressure increases.
A summary of the key pressures, temperatures and well count is given in the figure below:
160
80
100
6 Wells
70
60
50
80
40
60
30
Reservoir Pressure
40
20
BHIP
WHIP
BHIT
20
Temperature (deg C)
Gaseous Phase
120
Pressure (bar)
8 Wells
Dense Phase
3 Wells
140
10
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Time (years)
CO2 Injection Schedule Pressure, Temperatures and Well Count

While the demonstrator phase can be completed using 3 x 7 wells, it is recommended that a
fourth well be provided as contingency to allow for intervention and maintenance work as well
as variations in the supply and well availability.
A drilling program needs to be established and the risks associated with batch drilling all the
wells versus drilling though an existing CO2 store examined.
Finalisation of the injection schedule needs to be completed following verification of individual
well trajectories and tubing size based on tubing stress analysis and the completion design
process.
The proposed 36 pipeline has a capacity of around 40,000 te/day in dense phase, but the
implementation of this would require additional power stations with carbon sequestration to
feed into the Kingsnorth CO2 pipeline. This increase in rate would require additional wells in
addition to those defined in this report. While detailed analysis has not been carried out at this
stage, a basic nodal analysis indicates that a total of 12 wells (plus one contingency) would
be required for this higher volume.

Rev.: 03
Project Title:
Document Title:
Page 4 of 33
Nomenclature
Variable
Meaning
inch
API
American Petroleum Institute
bara
Bars absolute
barg
Bars gauge
BHIP
Bottomhole Injection Pressure
BHIT
Bottomhole Injection Temperature
Bscf
Billions of standard cubic feet
CCS
Carbon Capture Storage
CO2
Carbon dioxide
deg
Degrees
EVR
Erosional Velocity Ratio
ft
Feet
IPR
Inflow Performance Relationship
Metres
MMscf
Million Standard Cubic Feet
MMscf/d
Million Standard Cubic Feet per day
psi
Pound per square inch
psia
Pounds per square inch absolute
psig
Pounds per square inch gauge
scf
Standard cubic feet
TVDss
True vertical depth Subsea (MSL or LAT)

Rev.: 03
Project Title:
Document Title:
Page 5 of 33
1. Introduction
This report outlines the well requirements for injecting gaseous and dense phase CO 2 into the
Lower and Upper Bunter formations of the Hewett field. The intention is to provide an initial
well design based on the rate requirements as well as identify the impact of wellhead
pressure and temperature conditions and the subsequent pressures and temperatures that
will be encountered at the sand face (bottomhole conditions). This report does not cover
detailed well design with respect to casing and tubing sizes, weights and metallurgy although
reference to these are made for clarity and cross reference.
The CO2 will be transported from the capture site at Kingsnorth approximately 270 km via a
36 pipeline to the Hewett field. The majority of this pipeline will be subsea, resulting in a
cooling effect on the CO2 to 4 C in winter. A schematic of the proposed system is shown in
Figure 1-1 below.
Figure 1-1: Kingsnorth CCS System Schematic (courtesy: Genesis)

During the demonstrator phase, the CO2 will flow in gaseous phase at a rate of 6,600 te/day.
At some point in the future delivery of the CO 2 will change to dense phase, with rates
increasing to 26,400 te/day.
As a result of the cooling in the subsea transport pipeline, the maximum pressure which can
be provided at the wellhead at the Hewett platform is 35 barg during gaseous phase delivery.
This is required in order to prevent CO2 condensing in the pipeline. During dense phase liquid
phase delivery (i.e. above critical pressure, but below critical temperature), the maximum
delivery pressure at Hewett will be 79 barg. This information is summarised in Table 1-1
below and graphically in Figure 1-2.
Property
Rate (te/day)
Max Delivery Pressure (barg)
Min Delivery Temperature (C)
Min Ambient Temperature (C)
Demonstrator
(Gaseous Phase)
6,600
35
4
-6
Full System
(Dense Phase)
26,400
79
4
-6
Table 1-1: Hewett CO2 Delivery Conditions

Rev.: 03
Project Title:
Document Title:
Page 6 of 33
100
90
Dense Phase
Region
Full System
Hewett Delivery
Conditions
80
Pressure (barg)
70
60
50
40
Demonstrator
Hewett Delivery
Conditions
30
20
10
0
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
10
20
30
40
50
60
Temperature (deg C)
Figure 1-2: Hewett Delivery Conditions with Phase Envelope
1.1. Scope
The scope of this project focuses around the vertical lift performance and inflow performance
relationship for the wells. Specifically, it considers:
Quantification of the inflow performance relationship and injectivity index based on reservoir
parameters
Determination of the vertical lift performance curves
Quantification of the impact of CO2 phase change during the project
Assess the impact of deviated wells on the injection of CO2
Determine the required pressure drop across the sandface
Define initial well casing and tubing solutions
Define the injection rates that conform with the facility design constraints
Determine the number of wells required for both the 400 MW (demonstrator) and 1600 MW
(full system) phases
Develop a CO2 injection schedule for the project lifecycle
1.2. Related Project Documents

Interdependent project reports are as follows:
[M1]
KCP-RDS-CWE-REP-1000 (Rev:03)
Establish CO2 Supply Properties
Injectivity Wellbore Stability for New Wells
Injectivity Near Wellbore Issues
Injectivity Specify Initial Well Design Criteria
[M2]
[M3]
[M4]

Rev.: 03
Project Title:
Document Title:
Specify
Page 7 of 33
[M5]
Criteria
Injectivity
New
Well
Completions
[M6]
Reservoir
Injectivity Temperature Effect on Well and

Rev.: 03
Project Title:
Document Title:
Page 8 of 33
2. Data Review
The following sub sections briefly outline the software used in the various analyses presented
in this report, along with the data used for calculations.
2.1. Formation Properties
In order to model the injectivity of the CO 2 into the formation, an understanding of the
formation properties is required. The following sections present the properties for the Lower
and Upper Bunter sandstones. Figure 2-1 below shows the location of the Lower and Upper
Bunter sandstones relative to one another within the proposed storage complex. Note that
these depths are based on the averages taken from the various wells within the field.
TVD
DEPTH SS
(Ave m)
STRATIGRAPHIC UNIT
Reservoir
/Seal
AVE Thickness
(m)
North Sea (35m)
200
Undifferentiated
Speeton Clay
300
Lias
48.8
167.6
SEAL
259.1
500
Winterton
600
DEEP SALINE FM
30.5
Triton Anhydritic Fm
Keuper Anhydrite
158.5
Dudgeon Saliferous
30.5 1
SEAL
800
Dowsing Dolomitic Fm (Dolomite Stringers and

Rot Halite)
134.1
900
Upper Bunter Sand
Potential CO2
Storage Site
146.3
Bunter Shale
SEAL
228.6
Brockleschiefer MBR
Lower Bunter Sand
Lower Bunter Shale
CO2 Storage site
10.7
24.4
21.3
Zechstein Group
SEAL
222.5
Leman Sandstone
RESERVOIR
140.2
1100
1200
1350
1550
1725
Figure 2-1 Hewett Field - Generalised Stratigraphic Column

Rev.: 03
Project Title:
Document Title:
Page 9 of 33
2.1.1.Lower Bunter Properties

At the proposed start of injection the reservoir pressure in the Lower Bunter formation of the
[S1]
Hewett field may be as low as 2.7 bara. The reservoir temperature is known to be 52.2 C .
The Lower Bunter storage site has excellent (high) permeability and porosity. Table 2-1 below
lists the properties which will have been used for the injectivity modelling:
Property
Formation Top
Formation Thickness
Permeability
Rock Density
Formation Thermal Conductivity
Formation Heat Capacity
Reservoir Pressure at start of Injection
Formation Temperature
Unit
Meters
Meters
Milidarcies
Kg/m3
W/m.C
J/kg.C
Bara
C
Value
1249.7*
24.4*
1000
2600
1.834
766.18
2.69
52
*Based on average of well depths
Table 2-1: Lower Bunter Formation Properties
2.1.2.Overburden Formation & Thermal Properties

The well model (Prosper or OLGA) requires information not only on the tubing and casing
sizes and depths, but also on the various formations through which the well will pass from
surface to the sandface. The thermal properties of these formations will vary with formation
type (i.e. sandstone, claystone, limestone etc.) and this needs to be considered in order to
accurately model the heat transfer between the wellbore and the formation.
Table 2-2 below lists the formations top to bottom along with the formation tops, thickness
[S2]
and approximate thermal properties . Note that all depths are taken from the mean sea
level.
Conductivity
(W/m.C)
Heat
Capacity
(J/kg.C)
3935.592
Formation
Rock Type
Top
(m)
Thickness
(m)
Density
3
(kg/m )
Sea
Undifferentiated
(incld Speeton)
Lias
Winterton
Triton
Dudgeon
Dowsing
Upper Bunter
Bunter Shale
(incld Bschiefer)
Lower Bunter
35.0
1027
Sandstone
35.0
216.4
2650
1.83458
766.184
Shale
Sandstone
Shale
Anhydrite
Shale
Sandstone
251.4
510.5
541.0
699.5
730.0
864.1
259.1
30.5
158.5
30.5
134.1
146.3
2400
2650
2400
2960
2400
2650
1.21151
1.83458
1.21151
1.29805
1.21151
1.83458
937.843
766.184
937.843
1109.5
937.843
766.184
Shale
1010.4
239.3
2400
1.21151
937.843
Sandstone
1249.7
24.4
2650
1.83458
766.184
Table 2-2: Formation Depths and Thermal Properties

In addition to the thermal properties of the formation, the ambient air temperature has been
taken as -6C and the sea temperature was taken as 4C. These temperatures are both
Rev.: 03
Project Title:
Document Title:
Page 10 of 33
considered to be worst case winter temperatures and have been selected since they impact
on the maximum pressure that can be managed in the pipeline system without crossing the
vapour line from gas to liquid phase.
The thermal gradient for the formations from sea bed was taken as a linear gradient from 4C
at the sea bed to 52C at the Lower Bunter (approximately 3.9C per 100 m)

Rev.: 03
Project Title:
Document Title:
Page 11 of 33
3. Initial Well Design

An initial well design has been constructed based on Prosper modelling which established an
approximate tubing size and well trajectory. The indications from the static Prosper modelling
showed that 3 wells with 7 tubing would be required to inject the required volumes of 6,600
te/day of CO2 into the formation. While other configurations of tubing size and well count are
possible, the selection of this tubing size, well count and trajectory is based on the following:
Minimise the number of wells and subsequent potential CO2 migration paths.
Minimise drilling and completion costs
Allow flexibility in CO2 delivery rates
Utilise where possible field proven technology (e.g. standard tubing size)
[M2]
In addition the trajectory of the wells has been based on the drillability of the formation
taking cognisance of the fact that the injection points for each well need to be aerially distant
from one another to prevent interference effects from the CO2 in the near wellbore. A
schematic for the initial well design is shown in Figure 3-1. Note that the formations are an
indication only of the geological structure with the focus being on heat transfer and not
accurate geological description. The well trajectory is given in Table 3-1. Note that the
[M4]
trajectory will be confirmed as part of Injectivity Specify Initial Well Design Criteria
and at
this time additional sensitivities should be run in order to ensure the validity of the injection
schedule presented here.
Measured
Depth (m)
0.0
182.9
365.8
387.5
396.2
457.2
609.6
762.0
914.4
1066.8
1219.2
1371.6
1432.6
1463.0
1493.5
1524.0
1554.5
1645.9
1676.4
True Vertical
Depth (m)
0.0
182.9
361.7
381.8
389.8
444.8
575.1
693.1
796.8
894.8
992.7
1090.7
1129.9
1149.5
1169.1
1188.6
1208.2
1267.0
1274.1
Horizontal
Displacment (m)
0.0
0.0
38.3
46.6
50.1
76.4
155.5
251.9
363.6
480.3
597.1
713.8
760.5
783.9
807.2
830.6
853.9
923.9
947.3
Deviation
(deg)
0
0
12
22
24
26
31
39
47
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
Table 3-1: Well Trajectory Depths

Rev.: 03
Project Title:
Document Title:
Page 12 of 33
Mean Sea Level

0 mTVDSS
Wall #1
30 0.5t Casing
62 mTVDSS
640 mTVDSS
Undifferentiated
251.4 m
Wall #3
Lias
510.5 m
11/3/4 54# Casing
13-3/8 61# Casing
Wall #2
Wall #4
Winterton
541.0 m
Wall #5
Triton
699.5 m
Wall #6
Top of Liner
Wall #7
762 mTVDSS
Dudgeon
9-5/8 47# Casing
Wall #8
Wall #9
Dowsing
864.1 m
7 26# Tubing
Wall #10
1100 mTVDSS
730.0 m
Upper Bunter
1010.4 m
Wall #11
Wall #12
1200 mTVDSS
1225 mTVDSS
Bunter Shale
Mid Packer
Average Formation TVDSS Depths from Petrel Model
Sea Bed
35 mTVDSS
Wall #13
1249.7 m
Wall #14
Lower Bunter
1274.1 m
Figure 3-1: Initial Well Design

Rev.: 03
Project Title:
Document Title:
Page 13 of 33
4. Inflow Performance Relationship & Injectivity Index

Before considering the tubing performance, as analysis of the Inflow Performance
Relationship (IPR) was carried out based on the data outlined in Section 2. The IPR relates
the rate which can be injected into (or produced from) a permeable rock given a pressure
differential across the rock face. Thus the required flowing bottom hole pressure (FBHP) to
inject at a given rate can be established for any given reservoir pressure.
4.1. Gaseous Injection
In order to obtain an initial indication of the IPR, PETEXs Prosper well modelling software
was used. Note that this is a static modelling software package and as such can only be used
to model steady-state conditions and not the transient effects associated with start-up and
shut-down. In addition, transient modelling was carried out using SPT Groups OLGA
software.
4.1.1.Static Modelling
Initial inflow performance modelling was carried out in Prosper in order to obtain a
comparison between different IPR model types. The results of the comparison are outlined in
the following sub-secitons.
4.1.1.1.
Jones IPR Model
Jones IPR model, which is a modified form of IPR, was used for reservoir inflow calculations
in Prosper for Lower Bunter. The equation for this model is shown below.
Pr2 Pwf2
a Q2 b Q
Equation 4-1
Where:
Pr
Reservoir Pressure
Pwf
Flowing Bottom Hole Pressure
Rate
non-Darcy Coefficient
Darcy Coefficient
In the right hand side of the equation the first term, a, is the turbulent (non-Darcy) coefficient
and the second term, b, is laminar pressure drop coefficient. In this model 'a' and 'b' are
calculated using reservoir properties such as permeability and formation height.
4.1.1.2.
Multi-Rate Jones IPR Model
The Multi-Rate Jones is a convenient way to determine a and b from test points. In this
model a number of test points are entered which are then fitted to the Jones equation for gas.
The fit values of a and b are plotted on the IPR plot.
If actual test points are not available then Jones IPR data set can be used as test points to
calculate turbulent coefficient a and laminar coefficients b.
4.1.1.3.
Forchheimer IPR Model
The Forchheimer IPR model uses Equation 4-1 where turbulent coefficient a and laminar
coefficient b are input to produce the IPR. Bearing in mind that the a and b coefficients
Rev.: 03
Project Title:
Document Title:
Page 14 of 33
calculated with Multi-rate Jones are the same as the input for the Forchheimer model, it is
possible to check that if Multi-Rate Jones results (a & b) are used in the Forchheimer
1
model the shape of IPR curves are identical and calculated Absoloute Openhole Flow (AOF)
potentials are the same as indicated in Figure 4-1. Thus the coefficients for the Frochheimer
were determined through matching with reservoir parameters used as inputs for the Jones
calculation.
90
80
Pressure (bara)
70
60
50
40
30
Jones
20
Forchheimer
10
Multi-Rate Jones
0
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
Rate (te/day)
Figure 4-1: Comparison of IPR Equations from Prosper
In addition to assessing the variation between models it is also important to check that the
shape of IPR (Jones & Forchheimer) is identical when running sensitivities i.e. changing
reservoir pressure. This was confirmed using Prosper and is demonstrated in Figure 4-2 and
Figure 4-3. The analysis shows that for the Lower Bunter properties the following
Frochheimer coefficients should be used:
-11
a (Non-Darcy Coefficient)
1.4076x10
bar (Sm /day)
b (Darcy Coefficient)
0.0002131 bar /(Sm /day)
The maximum rate that a well can produce or inject at the lowest possible bottom hole pressure.

Rev.: 03
Project Title:
Document Title:
Page 15 of 33
Figure 4-2: IPR Curves for Changing Reservoir Pressure using Jones
Figure 4-3: IPR Curves for Changing Reservoir Pressure using Frochheimer
Rev.: 03
Project Title:
Document Title:
Page 16 of 33
4.1.2.Transient Modelling - OLGA

OLGA does not have the Jones IPR model available. However it has Forchheimer IPR Model
as part of the advanced well module, to calculate the pressure drop across the sandface.
There are two options to enter the data:
Reservoir parameters such as permeability, etc. including non-Darcy Skin Factor (D),
Turbulent and laminar coefficients a & b.
The non-Darcy Skin Factor was not available for the Lower Bunter reservoir therefore
turbulent and laminar coefficients were used to build the IPR as calculated in Section 4.1.3.
Note: The naming convention for turbulent coefficient a and laminar coefficient b is
different in OLGA - keywords CINJ for turbulent coefficient and BINJ for laminar coefficient
are being used.
4.2. Dense Phase Delivery

In OLGA, inflow performance of CO2 is defined separately for gaseous and liquid phases.
There are multiple choices available to enter gaseous IPR into OLGA. However, there is only
one option to define the inflow performance for the liquid phase by means of a linear injectivity
index. This is entered by the parameter OILINJ in STB/d/psi.
The linear injectivity index for lower bunter is calculated from reservoir and fluid properties by
using Darcy equation in radial form.
7.08 10
ln
k h
pr
re
rw
0.75
p wf
Rearranging for PI
PI
q
pr
7.08 10
p wf
ln
re
rw
k h
0.75
The Lower Bunter data used for well PI calculation are as follows:
k = 1000 md
h = 24.4m
re = 2000 m
rw = 0.155 m
o = 0.065 cP

Rev.: 03
Project Title:
Document Title:
Page 17 of 33
Using above equation and Lower Bunter reservoir data the PI is estimated to be 2882
3
Sm /day/bar (note that the S reflects that the volumetric component is based on standard
conditions and not reservoir conditions). This is also in agreement to PI calculated using the
Prosper model.
4.3. Inflow Performance Model Considerations
The purely analytical models discussed in the above section are based on the inputs of
reservoir pressure, thickness, permeability and viscosity of the injected fluids. They do not
account for any chemical reactions with the mineralogy of the formation. It is note that such
[S3]
effects such as salt precipitation
or localised dissolution of minerals over time may increase
or decrease the permeability which will have an effect on injection performance.
The precipitation of salts is more common in deep saline aquifers where gaseous CO 2
vaporises the saline formation water, leaving salt minerals behind which can reduce the
permeability. However, injectivity is certainly not controlled by salt precipitation alone. During
CO2 injection in an aquifer, the more viscous phase (formation water) is displaced by a less
viscous phase (CO2), so the reduction in injectivity due to salt precipitation can be offset (at
least partially) by increased mobility as a result of the replacement of water by CO 2 in the
near wellbore region.
The impact of dissolution of formation minerals in the presence of carbonic acid may increase
the permeability, however the process is far too slow to affect the injection timescale and
planned design life of 40 years.

Rev.: 03
Project Title:
Document Title:
Page 18 of 33
5. Well Performance & Injectivity

The modelling of the injectivity was divided into two scenarios each with a slightly different set
of requirements. The first scenario models the injection of CO2 when delivered in gaseous
phase. This assumes that the choke is fully open so that there is minimal pressure drop and
no Joule-Thomson cooling effects. The second is for delivery in dense liquid phase (i.e. above
critical pressure but below critical temperature), where although there will be a JouleThomson cooling affect across the choke to reduce the pressure, this will be counteracted by
heating prior to the pressure drop to maintain single phase in the wellbore.
5.1. Gas Phase Delivery (Demonstrator)
In order to prevent liquid drop out in the pipeline from Kingsnorth to the Hewett platform, the
maximum pressure which can be delivered to the wellhead is 35 barg, allowing for a minimum
sea temperature of 4 C (winter) see Figure 1-2. Note that above this pressure, the cooling
effect of the sea would result in liquid CO2 drop out in the wellbore. Under these conditions,
the OLGA model was used to determine:
The minimum wellhead injection pressure (WHIP) required to inject CO2 gas for reservoir
conditions at the start of injection (2.7 bara)
The maximum reservoir pressure into which CO2 can be injected when the WHIP is 35 barg
using three 7 wells.
Note that the requirement from 3 wells is derived from a requirement to minimise the number
of wells through the reservoir while ensuring a level of flexibility and allowing the use of field
proved technology to ensure an economic solution. While a single well could be used for
initial gas injection, the cost of drilling and completing such a large well and the limitations in
delivery flexibility would out-weigh the minimisation of wellbores drilled through the formation.
While Prosper, as a static model, can carry out this analysis, it cannot determine if the flow
will remain stable as the calculation method is based on nodal analysis as opposed to
transient behaviour along the wellbore. Thus the OLGA models simulated injection for a total
of 30 days to ensure stable flow.
In both cases, in order to meet delivery rate of 6,600 te/day, we assume 3 wells each injecting
2,200 te/day (3*2,200=6,600). In addition, the impact of increased reservoir pressure on
wellhead pressure, bottomhole pressure and bottomhole temperature was also assessed. As
preliminary input, a pressure curve from the reservoir modelling base case was used to
determine the increase reservoir pressure over time.
For the range of cases run (i.e. increasing WHIP) the pressure and temperature along the
wellbore from wellhead to sand face has also been calculated. These are shown in Figure
5-1. In addition the pressure and temperature profiles have been calculated along the
wellbore and are shown in Figure 5-2 and Figure 5-3

Rev.: 03
Project Title:
Document Title:
Page 19 of 33
50
45
LIQUID CO2
40
GASEOUS CO2
Pressure (barg)
35
Increasing WHIP
30
25
Increasing Reservoir Pressure
20
15
10
5
0
0
10
11
12
13
14
15
Temperature (deg C)
Figure 5-1: Pressure versus Temperature along Wellbore
Pressure (barg)
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
0
Increasing WHIP
200
Measured Depth (m)
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
Increasing BHIP
1800
Figure 5-2: CO2 Pressure along Wellbore - Gaseous Injection

Rev.: 03
Project Title:
Document Title:
Page 20 of 33
Temperature (deg C)
0
10
12
14
16
18
0
200
Constant WHIT
Measured Depth (m)
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
Increasing BHIT
1800
Figure 5-3: CO2 Temperature along Wellbore - Gaseous Injection

Looking at these results over time, the maximum reservoir pressure that can be achieved
using 3 wells with 7 tubing is 33 barg, and that based on initial reservoir injection analysis,
this equates to 12 years of injection assuming no shutdowns and at a maximum continuous
flow rate. For a project start data of 1/1/2017 this would allow continuous injection in gaseous
phase until 1/1/2029. This is shown in Table 5-1 and Figure 5-4. Note that for initial injection
conditions, the pressure drop across the sandface is high at over 13 bar
A total volume of 28.9 million tonnes could be injected during this period assuming no
shutdowns. The required demonstrator volume of 20 million tonnes of CO 2 could therefore be
achieved within this period assuming approximately 30% downtime to allow for plant
shutdowns, maintenance and load requirements. A planned schedule injection forecast is
included in the full field reservoir model, based on shutdowns and load cases.

Rev.: 03
Project Title:
Document Title:
Wellhead
Injection
Pressure
(barg)
27.6
27.6
28.0
28.4
29.0
29.6
30.3
31.0
31.8
32.6
33.4
34.3
35.0
Year
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Injection
Rate
(te/day)
2232
2214
2222
2218
2225
2223
2224
2220
2224
2222
2218
2231
2210
Bottomhole
Injection
Pressure
(barg)
15.1
15.8
17.1
18.6
20.3
22.2
24.2
26.2
28.3
30.4
32.4
34.5
36.5
Bottomhole
Injection
Temperature
(C)
2.9
3.3
4.2
5.4
6.6
8.0
9.3
10.6
11.8
12.9
14.1
15.0
16.2
Page 21 of 33
Reservoir
Pressure
(barg)
2
5
8
10
13
16
19
21
24
26
28
31
33
Pressure
Drop at
Sandface
(barg)
13.1
10.8
9.1
8.6
7.3
6.2
5.2
5.2
4.3
4.4
4.4
3.5
3.5
40.0
40.0
35.0
35.0
30.0
30.0
25.0
25.0
20.0
20.0
Pressure Drop Across Sandface
15.0
15.0
10.0
10.0
WHIP
BHIP
Reservoir Pressure
BHIT
5.0
Temperature (deg C)
Pressure (barg)
Table 5-1: Gas Injection Pressure & Temperature at Wellhead and Bottom Hole
5.0
0.0
0.0
0
6
Time (years)
10
12
Figure 5-4: Gas Injection Pressure & Temperature at Wellhead and Bottom Hole

Rev.: 03
Project Title:
Document Title:
Page 22 of 33
5.2. Dense Phase Delivery (Full System)

On completion of the demonstrator project (~15 years), it is assumed that the system
(pipeline and wells) will move to dense phase operation (also referred to as full system
operation). The pressure at the compressor will increase such that the arrival pressure at
Hewett will be 79 barg. Again, as a result of the cooling from the seawater around the
pipeline, the arrival temperature will be 4C. This means that while the pressure at the Hewett
platform will be above the critical pressure of 73.7 bara, it will still be lower than the critical
temperature of 31.1C resulting in dense liquid CO2 arriving at the platform. It is intended to
provide heating in order to move this liquid phase to dense phase prior to injection and as a
result the CO2 will be heated from 4C such that the temperature after the choke will be 32C,
or higher if required in order to achieve single phase injection in the wellbore.
In addition to the change in pressure, there will also be an increase in the rate from 6,600
te/day to 26,400 te/day. As a result there will be a requirement to provide additional well
capacity for this increase in volumetric throughput.
5.2.1.Initial Dense Phase Injection Steady State
Initial simulations were run for a reservoir pressure of 33 barg (i.e. the maximum reservoir
pressure for which 6,600 te/day gaseous phase CO2 can be injected with three 7 wells). In
order to quantify the potential number of wells required, the simulations were initially run in
Prosper considering the following rates:
5 wells @ 5,280 te/day (99 MMscf/day)

Note that the rate in MMscf/day is included as Prosper cannot display rates in te/day.
Furthermore the first pass results below do not allow for heating or cooling of the CO 2 across
the choke due to Joule Thomson effects. As a result, there is no increased density from
cooling which results in conservative estimates of actual injected rates and thus well counts.

Rev.: 03
Document Title:
Page 23 of 33
5 Wells Required
6 Wells Required
7 Wells Required
Project Title:
IPR at 33 barg Reservoir Pressure
Figure 5-5: Initial Review of Dense Phase Delivery and Injectivity

5.2.2.Dense Phase Delivery Transient Analysis
A similar analysis was carried out in OLGA, but this time assuming that heating is provided to
increase the CO2 temperature to 32C or higher after the pressure drop at the choke. The
results are shown in Table 5-2 for reservoir pressures of 33 barg to 136 barg.
Year
Well
Count*
WHIP
(barg)
WHIT
(C)
Rate
(te/day)
Reservoir
Pressure
(barg)
BHIP
(barg)
BHIT
(C)
12
16
25
42
55
62
67
8
8
8
8
8
6
5
47.0
53.0
63.0
72.2
75.2
77.0
78.5
32
32
32
34
34
34
34
3242
3230
3262
3252
3246
4282
5240
33
50
75
100
115
125
136
38
53
77
102
117
127
138
33.5
40.9
49.6
57.7
59.9
58.8
56.7
Pressure
Drop at
Sandface
(barg)
5
3
2
2
2
2
2
*Note that well counts do not include contingency
Table 5-2: Dense Phase Delivery with Increasing Reservoir Pressure

Rev.: 03
Project Title:
Document Title:
Page 24 of 33
Note that the selection of the number of wells must be based on a number of criteria, and not
only the ability to inject the required rate per day. The first criterion is to ensure that the CO 2
maintains a single phase in the wellbore. Figure 5-6 below shows the pressure and
temperature of the CO2 along the wellbore for increasing reservoir pressure.
CO2 Phase Envelope
WHIP=47 barg & PR=33 barg

WHIP=72.2 barg & PR=100 barg

145
135
125
Pressure (barg)
115
105
95
85
75
65
55
45
35
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
Temperature (deg C)
Figure 5-6: Pressure & Temperature Along the Wellbore (Pr = 33 barg)
Another consideration is the BHIP with respect to the reservoir pressure. It is important not to
have an excessive pressure differential across the sandface which would induce further
cooling in the near wellbore and indeed should this be excessive may result in fracturing of
the formation.
Next, the well count should not be increased more than is required, not only from an
economical standpoint, but also from the engineered integrity of the storage site and complex.
The more wells that are drilled into the storage site, the greater the potential for CO2
migration.
Finally, the rate per well should be such that the velocities within the wellbore do not result in
hydraulic erosion. OLGA uses a simple velocity limit based on the equation:
ve
Where:
ve
critical velocity

Rev.: 03
Project Title:
Document Title:
coefficient based on the material type
density of the fluid
Page 25 of 33
For carbon steel, values of C are usually taken to be 100. The ratio of the critical velocity to
the actual velocity identifies whether erosion will be an issue or not (ratios of 1 or higher
indicate that erosion is a potential issue.
[M7]
The use of a limiting C-factor of 100 is based on API RP14E (1991)

and is useful for a
quick first pass. However, an updated version of API RP14E suggests that values of 150 to
[S4]
200 are suitable values. Furthermore, work done by Terziev and Taggart
suggest that a Cfactor of 620 be used for carbon steel, while most operators use 300.
OLGA calculates the Erosional Velocity Ratio (EVR) based on a C-factor of 100. Thus any
values of EVR above 1 are considered to be at the hydraulic erosional limit. For the purposes
of this analysis, the C-factor was taken as 300, thus EVR values provided by OLGA in excess
of 3 are considered to provide erosional issues.
Taking all these factors into account, it is recommended that dense phase injection should
commence with 8 wells. For other cases, with fewer wells, hydraulic erosion limits will be
exceeded.
We note that while this is referred to as dense phase injection, the required pressure drop
across the choke will result in gaseous phase in the wellbore until the reservoir pressures
reach c. 100 barg, before becoming dense phase in the tubing. The pressures and
temperatures along the wellbore for each of the dense phase delivery scenarios are shown in
Figure 5-7 and Figure 5-8 overleaf. A summary of the delivery pressure and temperature
versus time during dense phase injection is shown in Figure 5-9.
35
55
75
Pressure (barg)
95
115
135
0
200
Increasing WHIP
400
Depth (m)
600
800
1000
1200
1400
Increasing BHIP
1600
1800
Figure 5-7: CO2 Pressure along Wellbore (Dense Phase Delivery)

Rev.: 03
Project Title:
Document Title:
30
35
Page 26 of 33
Temperature (deg C)
45
50
40
55
60
65
0
CO2 Heated to Prevent 2 Phase Flow in System
200
400
Depth (m)
600
800
1000
1200
1400
Increasing BHIT
1600
1800
Figure 5-8: CO2 Temperature along Wellbore (Dense Phase Delivery)

160
80
Pressure (bar)
6 Wells
70
120
60
100
50
80
40
60
30
Reservoir Pressure
40
Temperature (deg C)
8 Wells
140
20
BHIP
WHIP
BHIT
20
10
0
12
20
28
36
44
52
60
68
Time (years)
Figure 5-9: Dense Phase Delivery Pressure & Temperatures with Increasing Pressure
Rev.: 03
Project Title:
Document Title:
Page 27 of 33
6. CO2 Injection Schedule

The results of the analysis have shown that there is a potential to have a standard well design
for all phases of the injection life-cycle (i.e. gaseous injection during the demonstrator phase
and dense phase injection during full system phase in later field life). The well design consists
of a 7 completion in a deviated well which penetrates the reservoir at 50 degrees. The
quantity of wells required in order to maintain the injection rates will vary throughout the field
life.
Initially 3 wells will be required for gaseous phase injection at 6,600 te/day until the reservoir
pressure increases to 33 brag. A fourth well will allow contingency to be provided in the event
that one well needs to be shutdown during this period for intervention operations. This
additional well will also allow the injection of gaseous CO 2 beyond the 3 well limit of 33 barg
reservoir pressure.
Once the delivery of gaseous CO2 to the Hewett platform ceases and dense liquid phase
begins, eight wells will be required initially in order to inject at a rate of 26,400 te/day. As
reservoir pressure continues to rise then the WHIP will continue to increase until the resultant
increased density results in fewer wells being required to inject CO 2 at the required rate.
A summary of this schedule in terms of injection pressures and well count is shown with
respect to reservoir pressure in Figure 6-1.
160
80
100
6 Wells
70
60
50
80
40
60
30
Reservoir Pressure
40
20
BHIP
WHIP
BHIT
20
Temperature (deg C)
Gaseous Phase
120
Pressure (bar)
8 Wells
Dense Phase
3 Wells
140
10
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Time (years)
Figure 6-1: CO2 Injection Schedule Pressure, Temperatures and Well Count
A consideration which has not been addressed here is the timing of the construction of the
wells. At initial conditions (gaseous delivery / injection) three wells are required to allow
injection of the CO2 at a rate of 6,600 te/day. Once the rate (and delivery pressure) increase,
Rev.: 03
Project Title:
Document Title:
Page 28 of 33
an additional 3 wells will be required. There are two antithetic aspects to be considered with
regard to the timing for construction of these additional three wells:
1. If the wells are all drilled prior to commencement of injection, the additional wells will be left
suspended for over ten years which is a risk with respect to well integrity.
2. On the other hand, if the wells are drilled on an as-required basis, the risk is associated with
drilling into a pressurised CO2 store.
These two aspects and associated risks need to be evaluated before defining the final drilling
schedule.
6.1. Additional Field Development Considerations

The injectivity scenarios defined in the sections above are based on two key assumptions:
Gaseous phase injection will continue throughout the demonstrator phase using 3 x 7 wells
at a combined rate of 6,600 te/day.
At the end of the demonstrator phase, dense phase injection will commence at a rate of
26,400 te/day until the reservoir has been re-pressurised to the levels allowed for by storage
integrity analysis.
It is recommended that 4 wells be drilled for the gaseous injection (demonstrator) phase to
allow for contingency in the event of a planned or unplanned well shut-in. Furthermore, it is
noted that the scenario assumed above may not be the case, with an option being that
gaseous injection is required for longer. In order to allow gaseous injection to continue
beyond the 33 barg reservoir pressure, the additional fourth well would permit this, allowing
continued gaseous phase delivery at Hewett and injection of the same.
The design life of the platform / wells is 40 years. However, based on the planned injection
schedule, the reservoir pressure will only have reached approximately 98 bara, leaving a
significant volume of storage space for future injection beyond the 40 year design life. Note
that this needs to be confirmed with the full field simulation model.

Rev.: 03
Project Title:
Document Title:
Page 29 of 33
7. Conclusions
A base well design has been constructed with 7 tubing string and a deviation of 50 degrees
through the reservoir. This allows for:
o Minimising the initial number of wells required while allowing for flexibility in delivery
o Ensuring drillability through the highly depleted Lower Bunter.
o Areal spacing to minimise the effects of thermal interference between wells.
o Use of wireline intervention
Inflow Performance Relationships have been developed for injecting gaseous and dense
phase CO2 into the Lower Bunter.
o For gaseous phase, the Forchheimer equations have been used with a Non-Darcy
-6
2
2
coefficient (a) of 2.3538x10 psi /(Mscf/day) and a Darcy coefficient (b) of 1.26467
2
psi /Mscf/day.
o For dense phase injection, a PI of 2882 Sm3/day/bar (1250 STB/day/psi) was
calculated based on reservoir and fluid properties.
Simulations in OLGA have shown that for a CO2 injection rate of 6,600 te/day in gaseous
phase three wells (plus one contingency) are required with 7 tubing.
The gaseous phase can continue with the above well configuration until the reservoir
pressure reaches 33 barg based on a limiting WHIP of 35 barg.
Dense phase delivery will initially require eight wells (plus one contingency) with 7 tubing in
order to inject the anticipated 26,400 te/day. This number will drop to six as the reservoir
pressure increases.
.

Rev.: 03
Project Title:
Document Title:
Page 30 of 33
8. Recommendations
While the demonstrator phase can be completed using 3 x 7 wells, it is recommended that a
fourth well be provided as contingency to allow for intervention and maintenance work as well
as variations in the supply and well availability.
A drilling program needs to be established and the risks associated with batch drilling all the
wells versus drilling though an existing CO2 store examined.
Finalisation of the injection schedule needs to be completed following verification of individual
well trajectories and tubing size based on tubing stress analysis and the completion design
process.
The proposed 36 pipeline has a capacity of around 40,000 te/day in dense phase, but the
implementation of this would require additional power stations with carbon sequestration to
feed into the Kingsnorth CO2 pipeline. This increase in rate would require additional wells in
addition to those defined in this report. While detailed analysis has not been carried out at this
stage, a basic nodal analysis indicates that a total of 12 wells (plus one contingency) would
be required for this higher volume.

Rev.: 03
Project Title:
Document Title:
Page 31 of 33
9. Mandatory References
[M1]
Baker RDS; Establish CO2 Supply Properties, KCP-RDS-CWE-REP-1000 Rev:03 (October

2010)
[M2]
Baker RDS; Injectivity Wellbore Stability for New Wells, KCP-RDS-CWE-REP-1001

Rev:03 (October 2010)
[M3]
Baker RDS; Injectivity Near Wellbore Issues, KCP-RDS-CWE-REP-1003 Rev:03 (October

2010)
[M4]
Baker RDS; Injectivity Specify Initial Well Design Criteria, KCP-RDS-CWE-REP-1004

[M5]
Baker RDS; Injectivity Specify New Well Completions Criteria, KCP-RDS-CWE-REP-1005

[M6]
Baker RDS; Injectivity Temperature Effect on Well and Reservoir, KCP-RDS-CWE-REP1006 Rev:01 (November 2010)
[M7]
American Petroleum Institute; API RP14E Recommended Practice for Design and
Installation of Offshore Production Piping Systems (October 1991)

Rev.: 03
Project Title:
Document Title:
Page 32 of 33
10. Supporting References

[S1]
FEED Briefing B - Kingsnorth Abated Offshore Project Briefing, January 2010.
[S2]
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com
[S3]
Mehdi Zeidouni, Mehran Pooladi-Darvish, David Keith, Analytical Solution to Evaluate Salt
Precipitation during CO2 Injection in Saline Aquifers, International Journal of Greenhouse
Gas Control, March 2008.
[S4]
Ivo Terziev, Ian Taggart, Improved Procedures for Estimating the Erosional Rates in High
Offtake Gas Wells: Application of University of Tulsa Flow Loop Derived Correlations, SPE
88492, October 2004

Rev.: 03
Project Title:
Document Title:
Page 33 of 33
11. Conversion Factors

Dimension
Length
Area
Volume
Multiply
By
To Obtain
inches
0.02540
metres
feet
0.30480
metres
sq inches
0.00065
sq metres
sq feet
0.09290
sq metres
cubic inches
0.00002
cubic metres
cubic feet
0.02832
cubic metres
gallon
0.00379
cubic metres
barrel
0.15899
cubic metres
barrel = 42 US
gallons
psi
0.06895
bar
a - relative to
atmosphere
g - relative to gauge
deg Fahrenheit
(Tf-32) / 1.8
deg Celsius
Tf Temperature in
deg F
lb
0.45359
kilogram
0.00045
tonne
Pressure
Temperature
Mass
lb
lb/ft
kg/m
3
3
ppg
119.82640
kg/m
ppg
0.12
Specific Gravity
Energy
BTU
1,055.05600
Joule
Power
BTU/hour
0.29307
Watt
scf/day
0.028317
m /day
scf/day
0.000053
Tonnes/day
bbls/day
0.117347
m /day
BTU-ft/hour/ft /degF
1.73073
W/m/K
BTU/lb
2,327.79000
J/kg
Density
Flowrate
Thermal
Conductivity
Specific
Enthalpy
Comments
ppg = pounds per

gallon in US units
For CO2 only

bbls = barrels = 42
US gallons


Vertical Flow Performance

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Vertical Flow Performance

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

KCP-RDS-CWE-REP-1002

Kingsnorth Carbon Capture & Storage Project