Geological Storage of CO2

A) Processes, Capacity and Constraints

ETH Course on CCS and the Industry of Carbon-Based Resources
23 March 2020

Philip Ringrose
Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU)
and Equinor Research Centre, Trondheim, Norway
CO2 Storage Technology
Keeping greenhouse gases safely underground
Can the world really go ‘low Carbon’ and deliver on the Paris agreement?

Talk Outline:
CO2 storage basics
Storage capacity estimation
Example projects

Night time Sahara – Tim Peake 21may2016 - Copyright ESA & NASA

2
 Norway CCS: Building on experience

Snøhvit CCS
operational
since 2008

Norwegian CCS value CO2 capture test centre

chain project (TCM) operational
(Design phase 2016- ) since 2012

Sleipner CCS
operational
since 1996
 23 years of operations
 Building confidence in CCS
 >24 Mt CO2 stored
3
 New full-scale CCS project
being developed
 Geological Storage of CO2
1. The basic concept is to store captured CO2 underground in reservoirs that
would otherwise contain water, oil or gas
2. We need to be deep (greater than 800m) to ensure CO2 is in a dense form –
the super-critical phase
3. These are also the depths where we are confident that natural gas has been
trapped for millions of years
Capacity
4. But the big questions are:

Key Storage issues

• Where do we store it?
• How much CO2 can we inject? Injectivity

• Can we store it safely?

• Can we store it cost-effectively?
Containment

4
CO2 at depth
• CO2 is stored at depths >800m to ensure
that CO2 is in a dense form
• This is also important for storage security,
because storage seals become more
effective with depth
• CO2 properties are highly variable, f(P,T)

o
At standard conditions (ISA) (1.013 Bar & 15 C)
 1 m3 of CO2 has a mass of 1.87 kg
 1bscf = 28.32 x106 m3
 Mass of 1bscf = 52959.5 tonnes
Simplified CO2 density versus depth diagram
 Mass of 1MMscf = 52.96 tonnes (from CO2CRC)
 So a single well injecting 20 MMscf per day is
injecting about 1000 tonnes of CO2 per day
NB. Gas engineers tend to work in standard cubic
feet (scf) while CO2 projects prefer to report mass

5
5
Rock properties versus depth
• Conceptual sketch showing a shallow
stratigraphic sequence representative of Porosity (fraction)
the North Sea basin. 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
0.0
• Typically a Miocene CO2 storage target

H
formations could be capped by a Pliocene Glacial channels
mudstone sequences forming the main

Plei.
containment system. Dewatering features
Depth
(km)
• The role of shallow glacial channel and

Neogene
dewatering features in the Pleistocene Petrophysical

Plio.
may be a key issue for assuring storage uncertainties
containment. 1.0

• Reference porosity curves are shown CO2 storage target

based on (1) Sclater & Christie, 1980, and Formations

Mio.
(2) Marcussen et al., 2010.

• The actual porosity and permeability of

Paleogene
the shallow basin sequence is variable and
1
uncertain and needs to be determined via
2
site investigation
2.0

6
Containment
Trapping mechanisms involve both physical and geochemical factors:
• Physical trapping mechanisms related to basin-scale processes:
 regional structure, basin history and pressure regimes
• Physical trapping mechanisms related to geometry of traps: Structural and
Stratigraphic
 controlled by rock architecture of the storage complex trapping
• Physical trapping mechanisms related to fluid flow processes:
 Capillary interfaces between fluids
 Retention of CO2 as a residual phase
• Geochemical trapping mechanisms:
 CO2 dissolution in brine
 CO2 precipitation as mineral phases
 CO2 sorption/absorption (e.g. on clay minerals)

7
Increasing storage security over time
• The IPCC special report (Metz et al. 2005)
argued that the various CO2 trapping
mechanisms would work over time to
increase storage security in the long
term:
1. Structural and stratigraphic
trapping
2. Residual CO2 trapping
3. Solubility trapping
4. Mineral trapping
• Longer term processes – residual
solubility and mineral trapping – should
gradually work to “fix” CO2 permanently
in the subsurface

8
Capillary forces and CO2 trapping
• Capillary forces (interfacial tension) play an
important role in trapping of CO2:
Caprock with
− Both at the caprock interface small grain
(structural trapping) CO2 and pore
throats
(Dense phase)
− And as residual CO2 (as the
plume migrates upwards) Aquifer with
large grain
and pore
throats
Brine phase

Migrating CO2
plume
Residual CO2

9
Basic Trap behaviour
The thickness of a gas or oil column, Zg, that can be retained against gravity by the capillary
entry pressure of the sealing rock is given by:

rcap and rres are the pore throat radii in the cap rock and reservoir
2γ cos θ (1 / rcap − 1 / rres )
zg = γ is the interfacial tension, θ is the fluid contact angle
g (ρw − ρ g ) ρw and ρg are the densities of water and gas.

Analytical petroleum trap models (from Ringrose et al. 2000):

A. Filled petroleum trap with leaky fault and tight caprock (leaking via spill point);
B. Filled petroleum trap leaking through caprock (P > Pcritical)

10
Comparing CO2 and CH4
Naylor et al. (2011) have compared
CO2 and HC column heights.
They used a column height ratio:
∆ρ gas / water cos θ CO2 / water γ CO2 / water
Ψgas / CO2 =
∆ρ CO2 / water cos θ gas / water γ gas / water
(Where cosθ is the fluid contact angle)

In general they found that:

• The capillary entry pressure for pure
CO2/water systems is up to 50% lower
than for gas/water systems
• The buoyancy force is however lower due
the higher density of CO2
• These effects tend to cancel each other
out so that column heights for CO2 and
CH4 are about the same
Compilation of IFT data for (CO2+CH4)/water mixtures (Ren
(but generally lower for CO2)
et al., 2000) and for the pure CO2/water (Chiquet et al.,
2007b). From Naylor et al. (2011)

11
Example CO2-brine relative permeability curves

Trapping of CO2 as a residual

phase has two main controls:
• Pore-scale behaviour
(captured by relative
permeability functions)
• Plume dynamics and rock
heterogeneity drainage

Residual CO2 imbibition

Example CO2-brine relative permeability

curves (Cardium Sandstone; IFT=56.2mN/m;
Bennion, B., Bachu, S., 2006).

12
 Residual phase trapping
• Simple visualisation of capillary trapping in a porous medium.
− In this experiment olive oil is retained in a granular
water-wet porous medium (gravel clasts of around 2 to
3mm in diameter) with blue dye added to the water
phase.
− Around 20% of the olive oil is prevented from migrating
to the top of the sealed column due to capillary trapping
in the pore spaces.
− Olive oil has a density of around 910 kg/m3 (room
temperature) so the buoyancy force is quite weak
compared to CO2 in the subsurface. The interfacial
tension for olive-oil/water at room temperature is
around 32mN/m (Sahasrabudheet al. 2017) which is
actually quite similar to dense-phase CO2 in the
subsurface (Naylor et al. 2011).
• Accurate measurement of residual CO2 trapping at reservoir
conditions also gives around 20% (see Krevor et al. 2015).

13
Rock architecture at
multiple scales
Capacity, injectivity and
containment are ultimately
controlled by the geological
architecture of the rock system

1cm 1dm
Clockwise from top left:
• Lamina-scale permeability variations
(Tilje Fm., Norway)
• Normal fault with fault gouge and clay
smear (Sinai, Egypt)
• Tidal delta sedimentary architecture
(Niell Klinter Formation, Greenland)
• Faulted Devonian siliciclastic
1000m 10m
sequences (Jameson Land, East
Greenland)

14
Geochemical Processes
Two main processes concerning the CO2-minerals reactions in the pore space:
1. CO2 can precipitate as carbonate minerals
SEM image of sample from In Salah:
(such as calcite and ankerite) • Cemented fractures filled with Fe-
2. CO2 sorption or adsorption on clay minerals carbonate cements (Ankerite, pink)
• Chlorite grain coatings (green) and
quartz sandstone grains (yellow)

Effect of CO2 reaction with shale (Kaszuba et al, 2003)

A. Before B. After reaction with CO2

15
Classification: Internal 2012-05-08
 CO2 Dissolution
• CO2 dissolution in brine has an important potential to assist and stabilise long-term
storage, but estimates of the effect vary enormously
• We know that convective mixing >> molecular diffusion
• The diffusive boundary layer needs to achieve a critical thickness before convection can
occur
• Critical time (tc) for onset of convection and the characteristic wavelength (λc) are
estimated to be in the range of:
• 10 days < tc < 2000 Years
• 0.3 m < λc< 200 m
• Riaz et al., 2006.

CO2 Concentration
Scope for reducing these ranges using:
Field Case Histories
Large-scale lab experiments
Good geological models Density-driven flow in CO2 storage in saline aquifer,
Pau et al, 2010.

16
Summary: Containment and trapping mechanisms
• Four basic classes of CO2 trapping mechanisms:
 Structural and stratigraphic trapping
 Residual CO2 trapping
 Solubility trapping
 Mineral trapping
• What do we need to know to ensure containment?
 CO2 properties at depth
 Factors controlled by rock architecture
 Factors controlled by fluid dynamics
(and especially capillary forces)
 Factors controlled by geochemical reactions
What do we need to do to characterise the site
in order to answer these questions?

17
Storage Capacity Estimation
• Many efforts and studies have been completed to map potential CO2 storage formations
and estimate the storage capacity, such as
− The EU GeoCapacity Project on European Capacity for Geological Storage of Carbon Dioxide
(2009; http://www.geology.cz/geocapacity)
• Total mapped storage capacity is 360 Gt
− The North American Carbon Storage Atlas (2012; www.nacsap.org) (USA, Canada and Mexico)
• Storage potential of over 2,400 Gt (across the USA, Canada and Mexico)
− The CO2 atlas for the Norwegian Continental Shelf (2014;
www.npd.no/en/Publications/Reports/Compiled-CO2-atlas/)
− Other national CO2 storage databases include UK (www.co2stored.co.uk), Australia and Brasil
• These national government-sponsored projects have set out to prepare nations for future
large-scale CO2 storage activities
• However, there is also much debate about how realistic these estimates are:
 We need to understand the basis for CO2 storage capacity estimates

18
Classification: Internal 2012-05-08
Storage Capacity Estimation
Bachu et al (2007) provide a valuable review of the methods used in CO2 storage
capacity estimation
• There are several different types of estimate which can
be summarized by the Techno-Economic Resource–
Reserve Pyramid
• We need to differentiate:
 Theoretical capacity (the physical limit)
 Effective capacity (a more realistic estimate using
cut-off criteria)
 Practical capacity (taking into account economic,
technical and regulatory factors)
 Matched capacity (site-specific storage for
specific CO2 capture plants)
There are also various adaptations of this pyramid
(e.g. for different stages of exploration and development)

19
Classification: Internal 2012-05-08
Matched Capacity

• Map of CO2 emissions,

infrastructure and storage
capacity in NW Europe (from
www.geocapacity.eu)

20
Storage Capacity Estimation
Saline Aquifers
• The theoretical storage capacity for a structural or stratigraphic trap can be simply
estimated as:
VCO2 = Vtrap φ (1-Swirr)

Vtrap can be estimated from mapping or simple dimensions (e.g. thickness, area)

• Theoretical storage capacity for residual phase trapping can also be estimated by

VCO2 = ∆Vswept φ (SCO2R)

Where Vswept is the volume filled by CO2 and then subsequently invaded by water

Volume is converted to mass, using: MCO2 = ρCO2(P,T) VCO2

(Swirr = Irreducible water saturation, SCO2R = Residual CO2 saturation)

21
Classification: Internal 2012-05-08
Storage Capacity Estimation
Saline Aquifers
The effective storage capacity is based on a set of cut-offs to account for effects of fluid
dynamics whereby the CO2 will only fill a fraction of the available pore space:

MCO2 = Vtrap φ N/G ρCO2(P,T) (1-Swirr) ε

Vtrap = Bulk rock storage volume of trap

N/G = Net to gross ratio
ε = Storage efficiency factor

The storage efficiency factor ε represents the cumulative effects if heterogeneity,

buoyancy, and sweep efficiency:
• ε is difficult to estimate and is very site specific
• ε is typically in the range of 1.0 to 5.0% (e.g. nacsap.org, Appendix B).
• It can be estimated using reservoir simulation or more analytical approaches

22
Classification: Internal 2012-05-08
Analytical model for a CO2 plume
• For a vertical well injecting at a rate Qwell into a horizontal saline aquifer unit, with
thickness B, the CO2 plume will expand with a “curved inverted cone” geometry with a
radius, r (Nordbotten et al. 2005). Q
well

Qwell B

The shape of the curve depends

B on the gravity/viscous ratio
Nordbotten and Celia (2006)

rmin rmax

23
CO2 storage capacity coefficient
• It is also useful to define a CO2 storage capacity coefficient:
Vinjected
Cc = Vinjected / VPV

rmax
• This is a more dynamic measure of storage VPV
efficiency which can be applied for an
expanding cylinder containing the plume

• Note that at the end of injection Cc is essentially the same as the final storage
efficiency, ε.

• For real cases the plume may be any shape, but for the analytical solution the
plume is assumed to be circular.

24
 CO2 storage capacity coefficient
We know the pore volume of a cylinder, so the storage capacity coefficient, Cc is given by:
Vinjected Qwell t
Cc = =
VPV φBπ (rmax ) 2

• For a real storage site rmax could be determined from monitoring data
(e.g. first breakthrough to a monitoring well or by using time-lapse seismic images).
• For a predictive case, we might like to estimate this analytically. When the flow is viscous
dominated and the buoyancy forces are small, Nordbotten & Celia (2006) showed that for
the analytical case, rmax is given by:

λc Qwell t
rmax =
λb π Bφ
where λc and λb are the fluid mobilities for CO2 and brine and t is the injection time interval. Note that
for each phase, the fluid mobility is the ratio of relative permeability to viscosity, λi = ki/µi.

25
Effect of fluid Mobility
The analytical solution is for viscous-dominated flow in a horizontal continuous aquifer,
where the Gravity/Viscous ratio is small (Γ<1), where the gravity factor, Γ, is given by
(Norbotten et al. 2005):
2π ∆ρ k λb B 2
Γ=
Qwell

For example, for storage at a

depth of around 1km into a
100m aquifer, the analytical
value for Cc is around 0.25
(assuming λr = 4 and ∆ρ = 300 kg/m3).

However, the value is very

dependent on the mobility ratio.

26
Effect of buoyancy on capacity
Injection well
Structural
5 trapping
15

Storage unit
Effect of increasing
(% Pore space occupied)
Storage Efficiency, ε

gravity forces

10 Viscous-dominated
plume shape

Domain for typical

5 20 storage field conditions
Storage efficiency at
Sleipner after 20
Redrawn from Okwen et al. 2010 years (~5%)
0
0.1 1 10 100
Gravity/Viscous ratio

27
Illustration using Sleipner
The time-lapse seismic observations at Sleipner reveal the plume growth geometry.

Time-lapse seismic difference reflection amplitude maps at Sleipner (cumulative for all layers)
(redrawn from Eiken et al. 2011).

28
Illustration using Sleipner
• Seismic sections (N-S) at Sleipner showing pre-
injection conditions (1994), enhanced
reflection amplitudes due to CO2 invasion into
multiple layers by 2008 and time-lapse
difference reflection amplitudes (2008-1994).
• The uppermost layer (layer 9) has the best
seismic imaging quality, as it avoids the
complexities of seismic wave interference and
time-delays which affect the lower layers.

29
Capacity estimates
Sleipner

• Estimates of the storage

capacity coefficient, Cc, and
storage efficiency factor, ε, for
the Sleipner Utsira Case
• The actual value of the dynamic
coefficient, Cc, varies as a
Sleipner efficiency – for the whole structural closure
function of time and depends
on the assumptions made.
• However, the Sleipner case
supports the argument that Cc
and e typically fall in the range
of 0.01-0.05.

30
 Global Status – Large-scale projects (GCCSI database)
19 Large-scale CCS projects in operation, including: Sleipner & Snøhvit in Norway;
Weyburn, Boundary Dam & Quest in Canada; Decatur & Petra Nova in USA, … ++

https://co2re.co/FacilityData

31
Equinor CO2 storage projects

Unique blend of site experience:

• Shallow/deep
• Offshore/onshore
• Vertical/horizontal wells
• Different reservoir geology

2008 1996 2004

32
Eiken et al., 2011
 Brief introduction to the Sleipner fields

> 18 Mt CO2
injected since 1996

Sleipner West: Gas field with high

CO2 content.

Sleipner East: CO2 is stripped off

the gas and injected in the Utsira
Fm at ~ 900 m depth (above the
condensate reservoir).

9% CO2 in the gas Oil

from Sleipner Vest
Gas
Gas condensate

33
 GR TVD DT
The Utsira Formation 0 150 (m) 240 40

Net/gross: 0.98 850

1000 m 855 Porosity: 35-40 %

Permeability > 1 D 900

~ 200 m thick

Top Utsira Two Way Time [ms]

950

1000

1050

915

34
Sleipner Monitoring programme review
• What was valuable?
• How did it meet the regulations?
Regulatory
2015 compliance with
Re-permitting
new Directive

1996: 2018:
Injection start 17 Mt
Conformance

Seismic
Containment

Gravimetry
Visual monitoring
Chemical sampling

Furre et al. 2017

35
Furre et al. 2017
 Seismic time-lapse monitoring
1994
1999–1994
2004–1994
2001–1994
2006–1994 2 km

Top Utsira Fm.

1 km

Injection point

200 ms
1
km

36 Sleipner seismic refs: e.g. Chadwick et al. 2010, Furre et al., 2015
 The Snøhvit LNG/CCS Project, Norway

• Snøhvit is an LNG project in the

Barents Sea offshore Norway
• CO2 is captured onshore and
transported in a 153km subsea
pipeline to a subsea template.
• The CO2 is injected at a depth of
~2500m (below the gas reservoir).
• Injection of CO2 started in 2008, and
by end 2019, 6.5 Mt has been stored

37
Snøhvit: Onshore & Offshore

Process Facility

• CO2 injector line: 153 km

• Seabed depth: 330 m
• Two CO2 injectors
• Injected gas is ~99% CO2
• Injected into Tubåen/Stø Fm at
~2500m depth

Reservoir system

38
Snøhvit CO2 injection history and status
• CO2 injection into the Tubåen Formation until April 2011
• Injection then diverted into the Stø Formation following well intervention
• 6.5 Mt injected by end 2019 (1.1 Mt injected into Tubåen)
• Continuing stable injection of CO2

N Main field segment with

gas producers S
CO2 Injector

GLC
Stø2
Nordmela

Tubåen

39
Hansen et al. 2013
 Snøhvit pressure history
(2008-2013)

a) Early rise due to near-wellbore

effects
b) Gradual rising trend due to
geological barriers
b c) Pressure decline following
injection into Stø Fm.
c

Hansen et al. 2013; Pawar et al., 2015

40
 Snøhvit Operations Island Wellserver

• Gradual rise in reservoir pressure indicated

limited injection rate/capacity (Hansen et al., 2013)
• Repeat seismic survey (2009) showed CO2 injection
mainly confined to lower unit – reservoir permeability lower than expected
• Well Intervention operation successfully completed May 2011
Seismic sections Amplitude change map

Increasing amplitude
Top Fuglen Fm.

Base Tubåen Fm.

0.5
2009 Seismic Survey 4D (Amplitude difference) km

41
Hansen et al. 2013
In Salah CO2 project experience
• CO2 from several fields in the In Salah
Krechba Carboniferous Gas Development has been stored in
top reservoir porosity map
the Krechba field Carboniferous saline
aquifer
Kb-503
• Joint Industry Project on CO2 storage
demonstration operated from 2006 to
2013
Kb-502
• Over 50 publications on related
research and development

• Storage unit is ~1880m deep,

20m thick (k = 1-10mD)
• 5 crestal gas producers and
Kb-1 3 down-dip CO2 injectors
Kb-501
• 3.86 Mt CO2 has been injected (2004-
2011)

42
Ringrose et al. 2011, 2013
In Salah CCS project schematic
Satellite
Amine C02 removal monitoring
Gas from (InSAR)
other fields

Gas production CO2 injection

(5 wells) (3 wells)
Gas Chemistry
monitoring
Production Fluid displacement
Cretaceous
monitoring monitoring
sequence
(Tracers) (4D seismic)
(900m)

Rock strain monitoring

(Tilt, microseismicity)

Carboniferous Definition and modelling

mudstones of containment and
(950m) potential cap-rock
migration pathways

Definition and modelling

of CO2 storage and migration

Monitoring, Measurement and Verification (MMV)

43 Ringrose et al, 2011
 Monitoring Rock deformation using InSAR
Map of surface uplift
• InSAR = Interferometric Synthetic
May 20mm
Aperture Radar
2009 uplift
• Allows mm-changes in ground surface
elevation to be monitored
• Especially valuable at the In Salah CCS site
(dry rock desert)
 Applicable to most onshore sites
• Using rock mechanical models, we can
use InSAR to monitor the sub-surface Modelled rock strain (section)
pressure field
• Addresses a key question for CO2 Storage
– pressure management
Injection
Unit

44
Classification: Internal 2012-05-08
 Experience from CO2 Storage projects
Operational experience (saline aquifers) reveals several important learnings:
Injection rates of 0.3-0.9Mt CO2/year/well Injection well management

Injectivity and capacity highly dependent on

reservoir properties revealed during site operation
Geological heterogeneity means that flexible
well solutions will be required
Rock mechanical response
to Pinj may be a critical factor
Geophysical Monitoring 2008-1994
Importance of pressure and
fluid management
Need for fit-for-purpose reservoir
monitoring portfolio

45
Further info
Full course notes available as a short book
(paperback or e-book)

• DOI https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-33113-9

• https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9783030331122
 References
• Bachu, S., Bonijoly, D., Bradshaw, J., Burruss, R., Holloway, S., Christensen, N. P., & Mathiassen, O. M. (2007). CO2
storage capacity estimation: Methodology and gaps. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 1(4), 430-443.
• Baines, S. J., & Worden, R. H. (2004). The long-term fate of CO2 in the subsurface: natural analogues for CO2 storage.
Geological Society, London, Special Publications, 233(1), 59-85.
• Bennion, D. B., & Bachu, S. (2006, January). Supercritical CO2 and H2S-Brine Drainage and Imbibition Relative
Permeability Relationships for Intercrystalline Sandstone and Carbonate Formations. In SPE Europec/EAGE Annual
Conference and Exhibition. Society of Petroleum Engineers.
• Baklid, A., Korbol, R., & Owren, G., 1996. Sleipner Vest CO2 disposal, CO2 injection into a shallow underground
aquifer. SPE paper 36600-MS presented at SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition.
• Bond, C., Wightman, R., and Ringrose, P., 2013, The influence of fracture anisotropy on CO2 flow, Geophysical
Research Letters, 40, 1284–1289, doi:10.1002/grl.50313
• Chadwick, A., Clochard, V., Delepine, N., and others, 2010. Quantitative analysis of time-lapse seismic monitoring at
the Sleipner CO2 storage operation. The Leading Edge, 29 (2). 170-177.
• Furre, Anne-Kari, Anders Kiær, and Ola Eiken, 2015. CO2-induced seismic time shifts at Sleipner. Interpretation 3.3
(2015): SS23-SS35.
• Gemmer, L., Hansen, O., Iding, M. Leary, S. and Ringrose, P., 2012. Geomechanical Response to CO2 injection at
Krechba, In Salah, Algeria. First Break, 30, 79-84.
• Kaszuba, John P., David R. Janecky, and Marjorie G. Snow. "Carbon dioxide reaction processes in a model brine
aquifer at 200 C and 200 bars: implications for geologic sequestration of carbon." Applied Geochemistry 18.7 (2003):
1065-1080.
• Lopez, O., Idowa, N., Störer, S., Rueslatten, H., Boassen, T., Leary, S. & Ringrose, P., 2011. Pore-scale modelling of
CO2-brine Flow Properties at In Salah, Algeria. Energy Procedia, Volume 4, 3762-3769.

47
 References
• Mathieson, A., Midgley, J., Dodds, K., Wright, I., Ringrose, P. and Saoula, N., 2010. CO2 sequestration monitoring and
verification technologies applied at Krechba, Algeria. The Leading Edge (February 2010), 216-221.
• Naylor, M., Wilkinson, M., & Haszeldine, R. S. 2011. Calculation of CO2 column heights in depleted gas fields from
known pre-production gas column heights. Marine and Petroleum Geology, 28(5), 1083-1093.
• Nordbotten, J. M., Celia, M. A., & Bachu, S., 2005. Injection and storage of CO2 in deep saline aquifers: Analytical
solution for CO2 plume evolution during injection. Transport in Porous media, 58(3), 339-360.
• Okwen, R. T., Stewart, M. T., & Cunningham, J. A., 2010. Analytical solution for estimating storage efficiency of
geologic sequestration of CO2. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 4(1), 102-107.
• Pau, G.S.H., Bell, J. B., Pruess, K., Almgren, A. S. Lijewski, M. J. and Zhang, K., 2010. High-resolution simulation and
characterization of density-driven flow in CO2 storage in saline aquifers. Advances in Water Resources, 33 (4), 443-
455.
• Riaz, A., Hesse, M. Tchelepi, H. A. & Orr, F. M., 2006. Onset of convection in a gravitationally unstable diffusive
boundary layer in porous media. Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 548, 87-111.
• Ringrose, P., Atbi, M., Mason, D., Espinassous, M., Myhrer, Ø., Iding, M., Mathieson, A. & Wright, I., 2009. Plume
development around well KB-502 at the In Salah CO2 Storage Site. First Break, 27, 81-85.
• Ringrose, P. S., Mathieson, A. S., Wright, I. W., Selama, F., Hansen, O., Bissell, R., Saoula, N. & Midgley, J. 2013. The In
Salah CO2 storage project: lessons learned and knowledge transfer. 11th Int. Conference on Greenhouse Gas
Technology (GHGT11), 18th-22nd November 2012, Kyoto, Japan. www.sciencedirect.com
• Ringrose, P. 2020. How to Store CO2 Underground: Insights from early-mover CCS Projects. Springer
• Vasco, D. W., Rucci, A., Ferretti, A., Novali, F., Bissell, R. C., Ringrose, P. S. Mathieson, A. S. and Wright, I. W., 2010.
Satellite-based measurements of surface deformation reveal fluid flow associated with the geological storage of
carbon dioxide. Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 37, L03303.

48