Please fill in the name of the event

you are preparing this manuscript International Petroleum Technology Conference 2023 (15th IPTC)
for.
Please fill in your 5-digit IPTC
IPTC-23001
manuscript number.

Please fill in your manuscript title. 𝐶𝑂2 Capturing and Storage From Oil Wells

Please fill in your author name(s) and company affiliation.

Given Name Surname Company
Sultan Al-Aklubi KJO
Mohammad Al-Rubaii Aramco

This template is provided to give authors a basic shell for preparing your manuscript for submittal to an IPTC meeting or
event. Styles have been included (Head1, Head2, Para, FigCaption, etc) to give you an idea of how your finalized paper will
look before it is published by IPTC. All manuscripts submitted to IPTC will be extracted from this template and tagged into an
XML format; IPTC’s standardized styles and fonts will be used when laying out the final manuscript. Links will be added to
your manuscript for references, tables, and equations. Figures and tables should be placed directly after the first paragraph
they are mentioned in. The technical content of your paper WILL NOT be changed. Please start your manuscript below.

Abstract
The world is currently facing one of the most critical challenges in the Earth’s history which is global
warming. The major cause of global warming and climate change problems is the carbon dioxide
emissions. This novel study addresses the concepts and design precautions for a proposed in-situ
electricity generation project.
The main goal of the study is to reduce the environmental pollution due to the combustion of fossil fuels
and emitting carbon dioxide. This reduction will be attained through a smart gas well design and
completions. The design is based on in-situ combustion for a gas flow in a downhole combustion chamber.
Oxy-fuel combustion technique is the proposed combustion technique due to the ease of 𝐶𝑂2 separation
in this process. The proper well design will be analogous to the wells used for in-situ oil combustion to
handle the high released temperature. Power generation design will combine the fundamentals of
geothermal energy deployment for electricity generation. Finally, the produced 𝐶𝑂2 from the combustion
process will be reinjected downhole into an underground geological structure after being compressed and
transferred to the supercritical phase. This process eliminates the 𝐶𝑂2 production to the surface and hence
reduce the environmental pollution.

Introduction
The world is currently facing one of the most critical challenges in the Earth’s history which is global
warming. The major cause of global warming and climate change problems is the carbon dioxide
emissions (Pielke et al., 2005; Weart, 2008). Throughout history, the Earth’s temperature has been
continuously changing. However, the increase after the industrial revolution in the 1800s are going in
much faster rate. This is due to the greenhouse effect that the 𝐶𝑂2 and the other industry gases
emissions are causing (Martinez, 2005). The average 𝐶𝑂2 concentration before the industrial revolution
was about 270 ppm (Keeling et al., 1976). Meanwhile, it reached 392 ppm by the end of 2011 (Tans and
Keeling, 2012). This results in increasing the average Earth’s temperature, extreme weather events,
harming wildlife regimes, glacier melting, forest fires and ocean levels increase. Figure (1) shows the
2

history of the average increase in the globe temperature since the industrial revolution till 2019. With the
continuous emissions, this average is expected to reach 3-4 ℃ by the year 2100 (Boden and Blasing,
2011).

Figure 1 The change in the average global temperature due to global warming. Source: IPCC, 2018

𝐶𝑂2 emissions are continuing to increase a year after year due to the increasing energy demand and the
vast industrial expansion. The chart in Figure (2) shows that in 2019, we reached about 36.44 billion
metric tons of 𝐶𝑂2 emissions from the fossil fuels combustions and industry activities including
electricity and power generation. Although this amount was reduced in 2020 due to the COVID-19
pandemic, it is expected that the amount will be much higher after the world retains the normal regimes
before the pandemic (IEA, 2021). According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), the power and
industrial sectors account for 60% of the 𝐶𝑂2 emissions. Among these power and industrial activities,
natural gas represents the driving force for about 39 % of the electricity generation plants in the US in
2020. According to IEA statistics in 2011, natural gas combustion accounted for about 20% of the global
𝐶𝑂2 emissions. By this stated, reducing the 𝐶𝑂2 emissions from natural gas burning can play a vital role
in alleviating the global warming effects.
One of the studies made by Eickhout et al. (2003), showed that there is an urgent need to reduce the
𝐶𝑂2 emissions by 80% in order to control the earth’s temperature by the year 2100. One of the factors
that lead to reduce 𝐶𝑂2 emissions is the change of energy consumption for individual dispersed sectors
such as transportations and home electricity. This is attained by replacing the 𝐶𝑂2 producing fossil
energy sources by clean sources of energy such as hydrogen and renewables. For large energy sectors
such as large power plants, iron, steel and cement factories, and oil refineries, 𝐶𝑂2 capture and storage
seems to be a more viable solution.
 3

Figure 2 Annual global CO2 emissions from 2000 to 2019, billion metric tons

The Advantages of CCS

𝐶𝑂2 capture and storage represent the only available solution to absorb/ maintain large amounts of
𝐶𝑂2 emissions. Moreover, it will provide the chance to continue using the conventional power
generating techniques with all the cumulative knowledge and experience in such fields. CCS will
contribute to the expansion of using electricity and hydrogen as potential fuels for transportations means
by using low emission fossil fuels to generate such alternatives. CCS is not a newly evolved technology
that needs long-term development, however, it is adapted from already existing engineering principles.
Large exploitation of such technology will contribute to reaching the desired 𝐶𝑂2 emissions by a lower
cost in a suitable period of time (Edmonds et al., 2001; Stern, 2007).

𝑪𝑶𝟐 Capturing Technologies

The process of 𝐶𝑂2 capture and storage involves four main stages; capture, compression, transportation
(pipelines) and finally injecting to the storage reservoir (Leung et al., 2014; Raza et al., 2019). The main
purpose of the capturing stage is to increase the concentration of the 𝐶O2 in the flow streams that is
transported to the storage site. It is more convenient to apply this capturing technology to the large
standing 𝐶𝑂2 producing power plants and industries. No doubt, 𝐶𝑂2 capturing will increase the cost of
power generation. This increase depends on technical, economical, and financial aspects of the operating
power plant. Moreover, the capturing technology deployed will highly affect the total capturing cost.
There are four different approaches for the 𝐶𝑂2 capturing currently applied.
The post-combustion approach: it is the process in which the flue gas resulting from the combustion of
fossil fuels is redirected to separation equipment in which the majority of 𝐶𝑂2 is isolated. The rest of the
flue gas is then discharged to the atmosphere while the separated 𝐶𝑂2 is fed to a special storage reservoir
or pipeline network (Y. Wang et al., 2017).
- The Oxy-fuel combustion approach: the concept beyond this approach is separating oxygen from
the air and feed only oxygen gas to the combustion chamber. The effluent gases from this process
are mainly 𝐶𝑂2 and water vapor which can be stored directly without the need for any further
separation. The fuel combustion efficiency from this process is very high and the resulting
temperature is excessively elevated (Adams et al., 2017).
4

- The pre-combustion approach: in this process, oxygen, air and/or steam are injected to the fuel gas
to make syngas. The composition of these syngas is mainly hydrogen and carbon monoxide. Then
a reaction between carbon monoxide and steam takes place in some catalytic reactor to produce
𝐶𝑂2 and more hydrogen. Finally, the produced 𝐶𝑂2 is separated by any chemical or physical
means and the remaining hydrogen is used as a clean source of energy (Adams et al., 2017; Scholes
et al., 2010; Suresh Kumar et al., 2013).
- Capture from industrial streams: this kind of 𝐶𝑂2 is not related to fuel combustion. However, it is
more related to industrial processes that produce 𝐶𝑂2 as a byproduct. Industries such as ammonia,
alcohols, synthetic liquid fluids and natural gas purification used one or more of 𝐶𝑂2 separation
technique (Zhang et al., 2019).
Figure (3) shows a schematic of the previously mentioned 𝐶𝑂2 capturing approaches. In this study,
we will focus more on the deployment of oxy-fuel combustion for which the oxygen will be
separated on the surface before being injected into the combustion chamber.

Figure 3 𝐶𝑂2 Different capturing mechanisms, adapted from BP, (Zhang et al., 2019)

There are various methods by which 𝐶𝑂2 can be separated from the main fluid streams. Chemical
sorbents and solvents have the ability to absorb 𝐶𝑂2 by contacting a fluid stream saturated with 𝐶𝑂2 .
These absorbents can be regenerated again after releasing the 𝐶𝑂2 by heating, depressurizing or any
other thermodynamic process (Khraisheh et al., 2020). Physical separation by membranes can be also
deployed to capture 𝐶𝑂2 .Membranes are special materials that allow specific gases to flow through
them. The selectivity of the membranes to the𝐶𝑂2 gas is highly depending on the type of the membrane
material as well as the pressure difference across the membrane sides (Scholes et al., 2013). Schematic
representations of the 𝐶𝑂2 separation by chemical sorbents and physical membranes are shown in
figures (4a & 4b).
 5

Figure 4 𝐶𝑂2 extraction techniques, (Zhang et al., 2019)

Economics and Challenges of Carbon Capture

The cost of 𝐶𝑂2 capture and storage is a critical factor when evaluating any CCS project. The total cost
per ton of this whole process can be divided into three main subcategories (Schmelz et al., 2020);
1) The cost of𝐶𝑂2 capture from the power generating plants.
2) The transportation cost, usually by pipelines, from the capture unit to the depositional site.
3) The storage cost in a proposed geological site.
Each subcategory contributes to the overall evaluation of the economics of the CCS process. So, we will
discuss each factor alone to stand by a rough estimation and comparison between our proposed model and
the conventional power generation models.

The Cost of 𝑪𝑶𝟐 Capture

The cost of 𝐶𝑂2 capture depends significantly on the capturing technique itself. We will be examining the
expenditures for post-combustion, pre-combustion and oxy-combustion capturing techniques. All the
studies that analyzed the cost were based on natural gas and coal-fired power plants.
The post-combustion capture technique is readily to be deployed or retrofitted to both old and new power
plants. Rubin et al. (2015) reformulated the cost of carbon capture techniques that were published in the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) within the Special Report on Carbon Capture and
Storage (SRCCS) in 2005. Rubin et al. (2015) reflected the inflation rates, the material cost change and
all other changing factors since 2005 to 2015 on the cost of all carbon capture, transportation and storage
stages. They reported that the total capital requirements for constructing a power plant fired by bituminous
coals without a carbon capture system ranges from 1862 - 2441 USD/kW with a more common value of
6

2040 USD/kW. While adding a post-combustion carbon capture system to the same plant increases the
cost range to be 2788-4236 USD/kW with a common value of 3333 USD/kW. So, therefore, the post-
combustion carbon capture system increases the capital cost by 63% for the power plants that uses
bituminous coals. The study reported the cost of 𝐶𝑂2 capturing to be within the range of 33-58 USD/t
𝐶𝑂2with an average value of 48 USD/t CO2. However, this saves the cost of 𝐶𝑂2 avoided by 44-86 USD/t
𝐶𝑂2 with an average value of 67 USD/t 𝐶𝑂2 . Although there is an increase in the capital cost for
constructing a carbon capture post-combustion system, the cost of 𝐶𝑂2 avoided will compensate for it.
Adding to it the positive environmental impact, the process of capturing 𝐶𝑂2 will always prove to be
feasible and rewarding. The study continued to include the pre-combustion carbon capture technique for
natural gas combined cycle (NGCC) power plants, see table (1).

Table 1 A summary of the cost of post-combustion carbon capture for coal-fired and natural gas-fired plants

Range Average
Power plants fired by bituminous

Total capital
requirements cost
1862 - 2441 2040
w/o carbon capture
(CC) (USD/kW)
Total capital
requirements cost 2788-4236 3333
coals

with CC (USD/kW)
Cost of 𝐶𝑂2
capturing (USD/t 33-58 48
𝐶𝑂2)
Cost of 𝐶𝑂2 avoided
44-86 67
(USD/t 𝐶𝑂2)
Total capital
Power plants fired by NGCC

requirements cost 793-1066 889

w/o CC (USD/kW)
Total capital
requirements cost 1381-1856 1562
with CC (USD/kW)
Cost of 𝐶𝑂2
capturing (USD/t 53-87 68
𝐶𝑂2)
Cost of 𝐶𝑂2 avoided
63-113 83
(USD/t 𝐶𝑂2)

The pre-combustion carbon capture technique is usually deployed to coal-based integrated gasification
combined cycles (IGCC). The CO2 separation technique used is usually the solvent scrubbing technique
that uses physical solvents and membranes unlike the chemical solvents used for the post-combustion
carbon capture technique (Rao, 2010). The capital cost for this technique is 37% higher than the
supercritical pulverized coal (SCPC) plants that usually deploy post-combustion separation. Table (2)
shows the summary of the costs associated with the pre-combustion capture at IGCC power plants as
compared to the SCPC plants that use bituminous coals (Rubin et al., 2015).
 7

Table 2 A summary of the cost of pre-combustion carbon capture for natural gas-fired plants

Power plants fired by IGCC

Range Average
Total capital
requirements cost 2313-2990 2513
w/o CC (USD/kW)
Total capital
requirements cost 3808-5659 4838
with CC (USD/kW)
Cost of 𝑪𝑶𝟐
capturing (USD/t 42-87 63
𝑪𝑶𝟐)
Cost of 𝑪𝑶𝟐
avoided (USD/t 52-112 81
𝑪𝑶𝟐)

Oxy-fuel carbon capture technology is one of the recent technologies that are currently used for capturing
𝐶𝑂2 from power plants. This technique has been through a tremendous development over the last decade.
It is currently used for capturing the carbon from supercritical and ultra-supercritical power generation
units that use low-rank coals. The technology of oxy-fuel is quite complex as it includes various flue gas
recycle streams, heat supply, and pollutant removing units. Since the oxygen is separated from the air by
cryogenic separation before being burnt, the produced 𝐶𝑂2 quality reaches more than 99% (Leung et al.,
2014). There is an increase of the capital cost for power plants by 91% to accommodate for oxy-fuel
capturing technique as shown in table (3). This is higher than both the post and pre-combustion techniques
(Rubin et al., 2015).

Table 3 A summary of the cost of oxy-combustion capture at new SCPC/USC plants using sub-bituminous coals

Range Average
Total capital
requirements cost 2455-2681 2589
w/o CC (USD/kW)
Total capital
requirements cost 4278-5372 4939
with CC (USD/kW)
Cost of 𝑪𝑶𝟐
capturing (USD/t 36-67 52
𝑪𝑶𝟐 )
Cost of 𝑪𝑶𝟐 avoided
45-73 62
(USD/t 𝑪𝑶𝟐 )
8

Parameters in Well Design

Drilling Fluids
Drilling fluids play an important role in cleaning the cuttings, cooling the bit, and controlling the bottom
hole pressure for drilling well. Therefore, the drilling fluids selection is crucial for the well design
(Pantermuehl & Scott, 1989). The drilling fluids types include water, mud, air and foam, and aerated fluid.
(Phi et al., 2019) summarized the issues for applying drilling mud to the geothermal well due to the high
temperature (more than 250°F). Aerated fluid is most widely used for the geothermal well to keep the
drilling fluid circulation. However, the purchase of aerated equipment leads to an increase of the well
cost. Besides that, dealing with compressed air and heated drilling fluid have risks. Also, the returned
drilling fluid exposes the bit to a high-temperature environment (Hole, 2010). In the designed model, such
issues don’t exist. The geothermal energy originates from the burning chamber instead of the formation
in the model, which means the high temperature is not considered during the drilling stage. Thus, the
drilling fluid can be drilling mud or water according to the cost analysis.
Casing
The design for the casing is based on three factors except for the regular consideration: length, thermal
conductivity, and high-temperature resistance. Firstly, the outside casing’s length is equal to the medium
casing and might be much shorter than the inner casing. The reason is to reduce the drilling cost and
improve the heat extraction efficiency. The specific length of the two casing relies on the inner casing
vertical temperature distribution. The inner casing length equals the distance from the wellhead to the
bottom hole to protect and isolate the tube and chamber. Besides that, the casings thermal conductivity
requirement is different. The thermal conductivity for the inner casing should be high to enhance the heat
exchange between the source and working fluid, and it should be low for the medium casing to reduce the
heat loss. In other words, the inner casing has low heat resistance while the medium casing has high heat
resistance. As for the high-temperature resistance, the inner casing and medium casing should adopt high-
temperature resistance material according to the maximum temperature of the well. If the abovementioned
consideration is satisfied, there is no particular requirement for the outside casing thermal conductivity
and high-temperature resistance.
Tubing
The tube mainly undertakes two functions for the designed model: fix the chamber and transport the
reaction ingredients. The tube can be divided into two parts according to the position of the chamber. The
upper parts convey the air to the chamber, and the wellhead choke controls the transport rate. The lower
parts transfer the natural gas to the chamber, and the bottom hole valve controls the flow rate. It is noted
that the ratio of injection air rate and natural gas flow rate is related to the component of natural gas and
safety threshold. Also, the tube should be made through low heat resistance and high-temperature resistant
material.
Combustion Chamber
The chamber is the main difference of the designed model with traditional geothermal wells. It is the
device where natural gas burns with air and generates carbon dioxide, steam, and other by-products with
heat. Unlike conventional geothermal systems, figure (5), where the reservoir temperature will be depleted
after the long geothermal extraction duration, the main strength of the chamber is to control the heat
generation and thus determine the well temperature distribution based on the economic analysis. Besides
that, the reaction product could be reinjected into the reservoir through the outlet to reduce the carbon
dioxide emission. The inside structure of the chamber is introduced in the later section.
 9

Figure 5 Schematic diagram of the double-pipe geothermal system (Cheng et al., 2016)

Working fluid
The working fluid is deployed as geothermal extraction media. The basic process is injecting cooled fluid
from the wellhead and absorbing the heat generated by the chamber when the fluid returns to the surface.
However, the heated working fluid is always less than the injected fluid due to the fluid loss during the
geothermal extraction process. Cheng et al. (2016) analyzed the factors influencing the operating fluid
loss for the traditional double-pipe heat exchange model. For the same injection flow rate, the fluid loss
in the conventional geothermal system increases with the reservoir depth, reservoir length, and reservoir
porosity, as shown in Figure 6.
The advantage of the designed model is that the fluid loss could be avoided during the whole process due
to the sealed annulus bottom. In other words, the working fluid could be collected in the wellhead without
fluid loss, and after being cooled by surface facilities, the working fluid could be reinjected into the
subsurface. The circulation process saves the operation cost, and it is attractive to adopt nanofluid to
improve the heat transfer capacitance.

Figure 6 The outlet mass flow rate varied with the porosity and the reservoir length (Cheng et al., 2016)

Well Completion for 𝑪𝑶𝟐 Treatment and Injection

Conventional well structure normally consists of a conductor, different sizes of casings depending on the
lithology, tubing, casing shoe and liner in some cases as illustrated in figure (7).
10

Figure 7 Wellhead and completion configuration for conventional wells

The well integrity needs to be assessed because of the high amount of 𝐶𝑂2 in the fluid can cause
𝐶𝑂2 corrosion in tubing and casing of the well (Sholihin et al., 2019). The main issue when converting a
conventional well completion to 𝐶𝑂2 combustion containing completion is the possibility of having
production packer leaks and degradation of cement. This will cause even a formation gas to migrate
through micro channeling inside cement casing major issues to the well integrity and require a well
intervention which very costly to any other rigless operations.
In order to predict the status of the well integrity for 𝐶𝑂2 combustion wells, there are some empirical
models which can predict the corrosion impact and rate of corrosion. Corrosion in the pipeline, casing,
and tubing can always be modeled considering the limitation to be part of the overall corrosion risk
assessment methodology such as considering the existing corrosion rate data and experience with similar
production fluids. This simulation model focusing in predicting corrosion rate and remaining life of the
well tubing and casing using the Norsok M-506 method.
During the initial reaction, carbonic acid is built out of dissolved carbon dioxide and water which resulted
in a reaction between the acid, the calcium hydroxide and the calcium–silicate–hydrate gels and forms
calcium carbonate. The calcium carbonate continues to react with the carbonic acid and builds water-
soluble calcium bicarbonate which is very critical because the formation water allows the dissolution of
more 𝐶𝑂2. This will lead to 𝐶𝑂2 migration along the cement/cap rock and cement/casing interfaces. Figure
(8) shows 𝐶𝑂2 corrosion resulted from the micro annulus and channeling through the outer casings. Micro-
annulus channeling indicates that 𝐶𝑂2 migrated along with the cement behind casings interfaces and in
many cases can be observed at the surface through the annulus and not many options can be done to restore
the well integrity.
 11

Figure 8 𝐶𝑂2 Corrosion Process by Micro-annulus and Channeling 506 (Sholihin et al., 2019)

𝐂𝐎𝟐 Injection Well Design

𝐶𝑂2 injection is unlike other fluids, it needs more focus when it comes to well completion, it has the ability
to escape because it is less dens than most of the subsurface fluids. This will cause 𝐶𝑂2 migration to the
top part of the injection zone or even to the surface. 𝐶𝑂2 is corrosive when it mixed with water which has
a big impact on well integrity and needs to be considered in well design phase. API specification 5CT
which is related to the specification of casing and tubing and API RP 5CT which is about the best API
practices for maintaining the casing and tubing. Also, API 10B-2 and API 10A for cementing operation
and testing cement jobs, API RP 10D-2 for best practices for centralizers and collars placement and API
specification 11D1 for packers and other practices related to plugs.
The design of the 𝐶𝑂2 injection wells is similar to the conventional method except for the downhole
equipment such as casing, tubing, safety valves, cement additives and BOP which should be upgraded to
withstand high pressure and corrosion. X-Mass tree is the same for the conventional wells with high
resistance to pressure and corrosion, at the X-Mass tree top, 𝐶𝑂2 injection valve is mounted in order to
allow the surveillance programs for the well, figures (9-10). The well design should also consider the
maximum anticipated stress around the wellbore from different directions in order to avoid any issues
related to well safety and integrity and adjacent reservoirs.
12

Figure 9 Typical 𝐶𝑂2 injection well head (Medimurec & Pasic, 2011)

Figure10 Schematic of 𝐶𝑂2 injection well (Gaurina-Medimurec, 2011)

 13

The requirements for the well design for CO2 injection well type class VI are summarized in the below,
Tables (4 & 5):
Table 4 Mandatory Technical Requirements for 𝐶𝑂2 Injection Well (NETL, 2009)

Extensive site characterization needed, including well logs, maps, cross-sections,

Siting Underground Source of drinking water locations, determine injection zone porosity,
identify any faults and seismic history review.

Fluid Movement No fluid movement to the USDW.

Defined based on computational model and to be updated during the project
Area of Review execution phases

Two layers of corrosion-resistant casing required and cement to be compatible with

Construction subsurface geology.

Mechanical
Integrity test Continuous internal integrity monitoring and annual external integrity testing.
(MIT)
Analysis injectant. Continuous temperature and pressure monitoring in the target
Monitoring formation. Plume tracking required.

Closure 50-day notice and flush well. Must be prevent injection from other resources.

Periodically update the cost estimates for well plugging, post injection site care and
Financial site closure. Also, remediation to account for any amendments to the area of review
Responsibility and action accordingly.

Table 5 : Materials of construction for 𝐶𝑂2 injection (Meyer, 2007)

Item Type

X-Mass Tree 316 SS, Nickel, Monel

Valve Packing and Teflon, Nylon

Seals
Wellhead 316 SS, Nickel, Monel

Tubing Hanger 316 SS, Incoloy

Tubing GRE lined Carbon Steel, IPC Carbon Steel, CRA

Tubing Joints Seals Seal ring(GRE), Coated Thread and Collars(IPC)

Profile Nipple Nickel plated wetted parts, 316 SS

Internally coated hardened rubber or 80-90 durometer strength ( Buna-N), Nickel

Packers plated wetted parts
14

Downhole Choke
In order to control the flow through the tubing, downhole choking devices to be used. Flow assurance is
a concern to have a single phase of the fluid. The multi-phase flow will cause slugging which can threat
the safety of the operation causing corrosion, blockage of pipe and leading to stop the production. Another
concern is the free water which can cause hydrate formation at low temperatures which can plug the
production path and become difficult and time-consuming to remove. In addition, the accumulation of
volatile components such as 𝐻2 and 𝐻2 𝑆 at the pipeline will lead to increasing the corrosion rate. In order
to ensure the safety and continuity of the operation under single-phase flow, the pressure should be
maintained at certain levels. Below are different types of controlling the flow downhole:
Downstream Remotely Actuated Ball Valve
Ball valves are one option installed in the well completion in order to increase the backpressure and control
the flow rates. They can also be used for pressure isolation between the upper well completion and the
reservoir pressure while the well is shut-in. Ball valves can be controlled remotely and adjusted to have
certain pressure and flow rate. They are considered as part of the completion which will be added to the
cost to the completion and will increase the risk of tool failure.

Remotely Actuated Sliding Sleeves

They are similar to the ball valves to some extend from the functionality point of view, they can be used
to manipulate and control the flow through the well completion, provide individual isolation for the
injection zones in the reservoir. Sliding sleeves can be operated remotely using the electrical power or
hydraulic line or both. They can have binary, multiple or continuous opening positions to allow more
option of flow rates.

Multilateral and Multizone Wells

For multilateral wells, the ICVs can be utilized to control the flow of 𝐶𝑂2 through the individual well
laterals. However, Multilateral wells will have a significant increase on cost, complexity and integrity
risk. Another major concern belongs to ICVs deployment and their reliability performance which will
increase the risks associated with failures of the moving parts in the subsurface due to corrosive
environment which need a rig intervention leading to work-over with high costs. ICVs for 𝐶𝑂2 injection
would face a considerably changed working environment and potentially much more frequent usage. Due
to the high intervention and work-over costs (particularly offshore) ICVs for 𝐶𝑂2 injection are likely to
be required to operate largely maintenance-free over the intended infrastructure lifetimes of 30-40 years
in order to be economically viable (Huiyun et al., 2020).

Utilizing different diameter sizes of tubing

Utilizing the appropriate size of tubing to be installed in the well completion will have an impact on the
backpressure. Optimizing the tubing size and length can be installed in the well to meet the injection
requirements with the designed rate per well in order to maintain the liquid phase injection condition due
the fact that the friction-induced backpressure is a function of flow rate. The minimum tubing head
injection pressure can be determined by manipulating the expected arrival temperature of the 𝐶𝑂2at the
platform.
 15

A flapper valve means a valve consisting of a hinged flapper that seals the valve orifice. In Class VI wells,
flapper valves can engage to shut off the flow of the carbon dioxide when acceptable operating parameters
are exceeded.

Challenges
There are some persisting challenges that may face the implementation of our idea:
- The purification of the produced gas. The gas coming from the reservoir often contains 𝐶𝑂2 , 𝐻2𝑆,
water and other impurities that need to be removed out from the gas stream before being burnt.
Physical and chemical membranes can be used in our case. However, these membranes will need
to be replaced and maintained frequently. This will increase the operation cost and hence the cost
of the electricity generated.
- The combustor and heat exchanger will need continuous maintenance. This maintenance may
require shutting down the well for some time. This will definitely have an adverse effect on the
well productivity. One solution for this is to create a sidetrack for the produced gas to continue to
flow normally to the surface during the combustor downtime.

Summary
In order to have an accurate figure if the 𝐶𝑂2 amount, the actual gas flow rates should be used as inputs
for the design of the actual combustor. The combustion and heat exchanging efficiencies should be
calculated based on actual material design rather than being assumed to be 100%. Actual production
tubing, 𝐶𝑂2 injection tubing and production casing sizes should be assessed to stop by the validity of the
design. More study and evaluation should be conducted to avoid any issues in the design which may
cause underground problems such as blowout and pollution.
16

References

1. Adams, T. A., Hoseinzade, L., Madabhushi, P. B., & Okeke, I. J. (2017). Comparison of
CO_2 capture approaches for fossil-based power generation: Review and meta-study.
Processes, 5(3). https://doi.org/10.3390/pr5030044
2. Ajayi, T., Gomes, J. S., & Bera, A. (2019). A review of CO2 storage in geological formations
emphasizing modeling, monitoring and capacity estimation approaches. In Petroleum
Science (Vol. 16, Issue 5, pp. 1028–1063). China University of Petroleum Beijing.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12182-019-0340-8
3. Ambalae, A., Mahinpey, N., & Freitag, N. (2006). Thermogravimetric studies on pyrolysis
and combustion behavior of a heavy oil and its asphaltenes. Energy and Fuels, 20(2), 560–
565. https://doi.org/10.1021/ef0502812
4. Bachu, S., W.D. Gunter and E.H. Perkins, 1994: Aquifer disposal of CO 2: hydrodynamic
and mineral trapping, Energy Conversion and Management, 35(4), 269–279
5. Bahadori, A. (2018). Fundamentals of Enhanced Oil and Gas Recovery from Conventional
and Unconventional Reservoirs. In Fundamentals of Enhanced Oil and Gas Recovery from
Conventional and Unconventional Reservoirs. Elsevier Inc. https://doi.org/10.1016/c2016-0-
04615-6
6. Barbier, E. (2002). Geothermal energy technology and current status: An overview.
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 6(1–2), 3–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-
0321(02)00002-3
7. Boden, T. and Blasing, T.J. (2011), Record High 2010 Global Carbon Dioxide Emissions
from Fossil-Fuel Combustion and Cement Manufacture; posted on CDIAC website
http:/cdiac.ornl.gov .
8. Cambridge University Press, Geneva, Switzerland.
9. Cheng, W. L., Li, T. T., Nian, Y. Le, & Xie, K. (2014). Evaluation of working fluids for
geothermal power generation from abandoned oil wells. Applied Energy, 118, 238–245.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2013.12.039
10. Cheng, W. L., Liu, J., Nian, Y. Le, & Wang, C. L. (2016). Enhancing geothermal power
generation from abandoned oil wells with thermal reservoirs. Energy, 109, 537–545.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2016.05.009
11. Cinar, M., Castanier, L. M., & Kovscek, A. R. (2011). Combustion kinetics of heavy oils in
porous media. Energy and Fuels, 25(10), 4438–4451. https://doi.org/10.1021/ef200680t
12. Cui, G., Ren, S., Zhang, L., Ezekiel, J., Enechukwu, C., Wang, Y., & Zhang, R. (2017).
Geothermal exploitation from hot dry rocks via recycling heat transmission fluid in a
horizontal well. Energy, 128, 366–377. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2017.04.027
13. Datt, P. (2011). Latent heat of vaporization/condensation. Encyclopedia of Earth Sciences
Series, Part 3, 703. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-2642-2_327
14. Dooley, J. J., Dahowski, R. T., & Davidson, C. L. (2008). On the Long-Term Average Cost
of CO2 Transport and Storage. http://www.ntis.gov/ordering.htm
15. Edmonds, J. A., Freund, P. and Dooley, J.J. (2001), The role of carbon management
technologies in addressing atmospheric stabilization of greenhouse gases, Williams et al.
(eds), Proc 5th Int Conf Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies, CSIRO Publishing,
Collingwood, Victoria, Australia, 46–51.
16. Galic, H., Cawley, S., Bishop, S., Todman, S., & Gas, F. (2010). CO2 injection into depleted
gas reservoirs. JPT, Journal of Petroleum Technology, 62(7), 76–79.
https://doi.org/10.2118/0710-0076-jpt
17. Galic, H., Cawley, S., Bishop, S., Todman, S., & Gas, F. (2010). CO2 injection into depleted
 17

gas reservoirs. JPT, Journal of Petroleum Technology, 62(7), 76–79.

https://doi.org/10.2118/0710-0076-jpt
18. Gao, L., Fang, M., Li, H., & Hetland, J. (2011). Cost analysis of CO2 transportation: Case
study in China. Energy Procedia, 4, 5974–5981. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2011.02.600
19. Gunter, W.D., E.H. Perkins and T.J. McCann, 1993: Aquifer disposal of CO 2-rich gases:
reaction design for added capacity. Energy Conversion and Management, 34, 941–948
20. Heidary, S., Dehghan, A. A., & Mahdavi, S. (2017). Feasibility study on application of the
recent enhanced heavy oil recovery methods (VAPEX, SAGD, CAGD and THAI) in an
Iranian heavy oil reservoir. Petroleum Science and Technology, 35(21), 2059–2065.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10916466.2017.1380045
21. Hole, H. (2010). Drilling Fluids For Drilling Of Geothermal Wells. World Geothermal
Congress 2010, June, 1–26.
22. Huang, Y., & Yang, V. (2009). Dynamics and stability of lean-premixed swirl-stabilized
combustion. In Progress in Energy and Combustion Science (Vol. 35, Issue 4, pp. 293–364).
Pergamon. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pecs.2009.01.002
23. Huiyun, M., Yuan, J., Qiang, Y., Fangfang, Z., Shaowei, C., Yanxin, L., & Guoping, L.
(2020). Optimum design of downhole chokes with high sulfur content and large pressure
difference. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 461(1).
https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/461/1/012043
24. IEA. (2021). After steep drop in early 2020, global carbon dioxide emissions have rebounded
strongly - News. IEA. https://www.iea.org/news/after-steep-drop-in-early-2020-global-
carbon-dioxide-emissions-have-rebounded-strongly