UNIVERSITE DE PAU ET DES PAYS DE L’ADOUR

MASTER II
Geoenergies: SG

« GEOLOGICAL MODELING AND

SIMULATION OF CO2 INJECTION IN THE
JOHANSEN FORMATION»

By
Ahmed ELKOLEI

Coaching
Jose Antonio TORRES

Module : Industrial Codes for GeoEnergies

 Table of content
1 Introduction............................................................................................................................................................... 3
2 Models description ................................................................................................................................................. 4
3 Simulation results ................................................................................................................................................... 5
4 Conclusions .............................................................................................................................................................. 11
5 Bibliography ............................................................................................................................................................ 12

Page 2 sur 13
1 Introduction
The Johansen formation is candidate site for large scale CO2 storage offshore. It is located in the
deeper part of the Sognefjord delta, 60 km offshore the Mongstad area at the west coast of Norway.
The depth levels of the Johansen formation range from 2200-3100 m below sea level, which makes
the formation ideal for CO2 storage due to the pressure regimes that exist here. The average
thickness of the formation is roughly 100 m and the lateral extensions are up to 100 km in the
north-south direction and 60 km in the east-west direction. It is limited by two low permeable
formations : Dunlin shale from above which serves as a cap-rock and the Amundsen shale from
the bottom. Several faults are present in this model but the one on the south west is the most
significant one as it is close to the injection well.
The efficiency of long-term storage in aquifers will be directly related to the efficiency of each of
the trapping mechanisms involved. In the context of CO2 storage particularly in aquifers, four
major trapping mechanisms are :

• Hydrodynamic (structural or stratigraphic)

trapping, where cap rock prevents mobile CO2
from flowing back to the surface (Physical
process)
• Residual or capillary trapping, where capillary
forces and relative permeability effects will
contribute to converting the CO2 injected into an
immobile phase (Physical process)
• Solubility trapping, where CO2 dissolves in the
aqueous phase forming carbonic acid and stays
trapped in aqueous phase for a long time
(Chemical process)
• Mineral trapping, where chemical reactions
between CO2 and rock minerals forms a solid
carbonate (Chemical process)

Figure 1: Trapping mechanisms and their variation on

different time scales

The objectives of this work are the following :

• Load the geological models and construct the simulation cases on Petrel.
• Investigate the containment of CO2 in place and the trapping mechanisms.
• Study the CO2 plume behaviour under different vertical grid refinement.

Page 3 sur 13
 2 Models description
The geological model is available online together with porosity and permeability. The grid is
represented in corner point format, we can see some grid pichouts. The lateral extent of the entire
model is approximately 75 km × 100 km. There is the full field model discretized by a 155 × 160
× 16 grid. Also, we have four sector models correspond to the south western parts of the geological
domain. The sector models are discretized by a 100 × 100 lateral grid with 500m*500m grid
laterla size. The shale (Dunlin) above Johansen is represented by 5 grid layers in all sector models
whereas the Amundsen formation below will be presented by one layer, they will be assigned
0.01mD and 0.1 mD horizontal permeability respectively. The Johanson formation will be
presented by 5 then 10 then 15 homogeneous layers and then by 5 heterogeneous layers.
The model used will be summarised below :

Model name Sector_5 Sector_10 Sector_15 NPD

Grid size 100*100*11 100*100*16 100*100*21 100*100*11
Simulation time 1158.31 2245.58 3739.49 950
(s)
Specification Homogeneous Homogeneous Homogeneous Heterogeneous
Johanson formation Johanson formation Johanson formation Johanson formation
represented by 5 represented by 10 represented by 15 represented by 5
layers layers layers layers

We will be studing the vertical refinement effect on CO2 plume behaviour in the first three models.
Whereras, the last one we will be studying the effect of model heterogeneity.
Modeling CO2 flow through the faults will be considered by the faults transmissiblity multiplier
given the value of 0.1. Boundary conditions are given as no flow conditions.
The Johanson formation properties will be summarised in the table below :

The relative permeability curves for gas/water

are shown in figure 3.

Page 4 sur 13
The reservoir is a saline aquifer initially fully saturated with brine with a salinity of 100.000 ppm
of NaCl in all the formation. Global composition was introduced in Eclipse using ZI keyword where
the salinity/mole fraction conversion is shown below:

We injected 14.000 sm3/day (3.5M tonnes CO2 per year) of CO2 for 110 years via CO2INJ, a 3’’
vertical well located at block (49*49) with open perforations on the Johansen formation. Injection
phase was followed by 400 years of monitoring to predict CO2 plume behaviors in reservoir.

3 Simulation results
Simulations were run using Eclipse 300 2022.1 and Petrel 2018 were used to display results
charting and 3D results. We used in this study the CO2STORE option to model the CO2-H2O-NaCl
system which considers three phases: a CO2 rich phase (labeled gas phase), an H2O rich phase
(aqueous phase) and solid phase (Not considered in this study). The mutual solubilities of CO2
and H2O are calculated to match experimental data for CO2 - H2O systems under typical CO2
storage conditions: 12-100 °C and up to 600 bars [Spycher and Pruess (2009)].

Pressure profile:

End of
injectio
n

Figure 2: Bottomhole pressure versus time for all models

In the figure above, the bottom-hole pressure was plotted versus time for all sector models, and
that in the case of a closed reservoir (No flow boundary condition). As observed, the BHP shows a
sharp pressure spike (10 bars for homogeneous, 40 bars for heterogeneous) in the first 4 months

Page 5 sur 13
of simulation due to the transient phase. Pressure during injection tends to increase as the
reservoir is closed and we inject CO2. After injection stops (again after transient flow ends) the
pressure decreases slightly with time, that is due to the dissolution of CO2 in water.
Pressure spike was more important in heterogeneous model as it has lower value of permeability
ranging from 20mD to 500mD compared to 1000mD in the homogeneous models as shown below:

Figure 3: Permeability histogram for homogeneous (left) and heterogeneous model (right)

That means the heterogeneous model will have lower injectivity compared to homogeneous
model and reservoir pressure will be lower at same injection conditions.
Trapping mechanisms:
The figure below shows the percentage of each trapping mechanism of CO2:

Page 6 sur 13
It is showed that CO2 once injected will move upwards and be trapped under cap rock as a gas
cap. During its migration, the CO2 plume leaves residual CO2 trapped by capillary trapping, that
is due to the residual gas saturation value in Kr curvs. Also, we observe the dissolution trapping
that acts and has important value during injection, that is because we inject at relatively low rates
(14000sm3/day). After injection stops, CO2 will continue the horizontal displacement due to
buoyancy effect leaving behind more trapped CO2. Also, CO2 in contact with water will tend to
dissolve and we will be having more dissolved CO2. Mineral trapping cannot be modelled in this
time scale.

The figure below shows the amount of dissolved CO2 for all cases:

Due to lower permeability in the heterogeneous model, CO2 plume vertical and horizontal
migration was delayed and thus it was in contact with less water for it to be dissolved thus lower
dissolution. The same will be observed for residual trapping.
Gas saturation profile :
The figures below show the gas saturation profile at layer 6 ( Top of Johansen formation) both at
end of injection and end of simulation and the depth of that layer :
We can see that CO2 once injected will migrate to top of reservoir till it reaches the cap rock, that
is due to buoyancy effect. Due to the shape of the formation, it will always tend to go to lower
depth as it is observed (right side has lower depth compared to left side).

Page 7 sur 13
 Saturation profile
@ end of injection

Saturation profile
@ end of simulation

Top layer depth

The figure below show in IJ profile for gas saturation after 20 years and 100 years of injection :
This shows that CO2 will go straight to top
of reservoir, and migrates more towards
lower pressure region

Page 8 sur 13
Effect of vertical refinement :
The figures below shows gas saturation profiles at end of injection for different vertical
refinement and that at the sixth layer, it is observed that vertical refinement is required to model
the horizontal spreading of the CO2 plume and avoid the numerical dispersion. This spreading is
controlled by buoyancy effect, the permeability, the cap rock and Kr curvs. And it will be more
important the more we refine the grid.

Saturation profile
for 5 layers model

Saturation profile
for 10 layers model

Saturation profile
for 15 layers model

Page 9 sur 13
Containement of cap rock :
The figures below show both gas saturation and amount of dissolved CO2 at end of simulation
(510 years) in the fifth layer (Caprock). Even though this layer has low permeability (0,01 mD),
CO2 was able to breakthrough the cap rock. However, since it has a porosity of (10%) and is fully
saturated of water, it will be dissolved and stays in place. So no danger regarding this matter.

Saturation profile
@ layer 5 (caprock)

Dissolved C02 @
layer 5 (caprock)

Page 10 sur 13
Heterogeneous model :
The figure below shows gas saturation profile in layer 6 at end of simulation for the heterogeneous
model. It is observed that due to low permeability, the CO2 plume had less horozontal migration
compared to homogeneous cases. And that causes as seen before, lower amounts of dissolved and
trapped C02.

Gas Saturation
profile @ layer 6
Heterogeneous

4 Conclusions
The Johansen formation is a deep saline aquifer and is a good candidate for large scale CO2
storage. The modeling and simulation of CO2 storage is important to predict CO2 plume behaviour
and assess key contributors on this behaviour. Results showed around 30% of CO2 was dissolved
after 500 year, it was however lower in case of heterogeneous reservoir, so a good estimatimation
of reservoir properties is important for the accuracy of the results. Also, CO2 has a high tendency
to migrate horizontaly so a good caracterisation of cap rock and adequate refinement is required.
Results showed a leakage in the caprock but the leaked CO2 was dissolved in the layer above.

Page 11 sur 13
5 Bibliography

ECLIPSE Technical Description 2022.1

ECLIPSE Reference Manual 2022.1
Modeling CO2 Storage in Aquifers: Assessing the key contributors to uncertainty: Walter
Fernando Sifuentes (Schlumberger) | Marie Ann Giddins (Schlumberger) | Martin Julian Blunt
(Imperial College) - SPE123582 https://doi.org/10.2118/123582-MS
Geological modeling and simulation of CO2 injection in the Johansen formation -
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10596-009-9153-y

Page 12 sur 13