Version of Record: https://www.sciencedirect.

com/science/article/pii/S1750583617308666
Manuscript_30d31e4267122d04c849505aca243a32

CO2 Storage in Depleted Oil and Gas Fields in the Gulf of Mexico

Elif Agartana, Manohar Gaddipatia, Yeung Yipa, Bill Savagea and Chet Ozgena
a
NITEC LLC, International Oil and Gas Consulting Company, Denver, CO 80202, USA.

*
Corresponding Author: Elif Agartan, elif.agartan@gmail.com

Abstract

Depleted oil and gas reservoirs are one of the prime-candidate formations for geologic CO2
storage. Although both the geological structure and the physical properties of most of them have
been extensively studied and characterized, there is limited data on the assessment of the CO2
storage capacity, especially in the offshore fields. The purpose of this study is to develop a high-
level quantitative assessment of the CO2 volume that can be stored in depleted oil and gas fields
in the Federal offshore regions of the Gulf of Mexico (GOM), both on a field-by-field and on a
reservoir-by-reservoir basis. In this study, we simulated CO2 storage in 461 of the depleted oil and
gas reservoirs (73 fields) among 3,514 reservoirs (675 fields) in the GOM (2013 BOEM Reserves
database). Based on the simulation results, we improved the Department of Energy (DOE) CO2
Storage Resource Estimate Equation to make more refined and accurate estimates of storable CO2
volumes. Newly revised efficiency factor (ER oil/gas) correlates better with hydrocarbon recovery
factor (HCRF), which is found to be a strong indicator of the CO2 storage capacity of the reservoir.
The higher HCRF results in higher ER oil/gas. The further investigations resulted in an improved,
material balance-based correlation—which is called the Production-CO2 Storage Correlation—
between cumulative production (free gas, oil and water) at reservoir conditions and CO2 storage
volume at standard conditions. This relationship, which is unique for all three types of reservoirs
(gas, oil and combination), allows for making direct estimates of CO2 storage volume using only
existing production data. Application of these correlations to all of the depleted fields (3,514
reservoirs) yields CO2 storage capacities of 4,748 MMtons, and the CO2 storage capacity in all
1,295 depleted and active fields (13,289 reservoirs) in the GOM calculated to be 21.57 Billion

1/31
© 2018 published by Elsevier. This manuscript is made available under the Elsevier user license
https://www.elsevier.com/open-access/userlicense/1.0/
tons. If a 5,000 psia surface injection pressure constraint was applied, these volumes would be
reduced to 4,075 MMtons for all depleted fields only and to 15.80 Billion tons for all depleted and
active fields in the GOM. The production-CO2 storage correlations can be used to make more
accurate CO2 storage volume estimates in all onshore and offshore depleted oil and gas fields.

Keywords: CO2 storage, depleted oil and gas fields, storage efficiency factor, volumetric storage,
Gulf of Mexico

1. Introduction

Carbon capture and storage (CCS) is a mitigation strategy to reduce atmospheric carbon
emissions. In the case of geologic storage, CO2 produced from large point sources, like power
plants, is captured and injected into deep subsurface formations. The earliest application of CO2
injection in subsurface formations was in the early 1970s, to increase oil production (Marchetti,
1977). Environmental benefits of CO2 storage to reduce greenhouse gas emissions into the
atmosphere have been considered since the 1980s and have been studied in detail since the 1990s
(Bachu et al., 1994; Gunter et al., 1993).

For geologic CO2 storage, the storage formation has to (1) have a seal rock to prevent
vertical flow to the ground surface, (2) be deep enough (>800 m) to keep CO2 at supercritical state
(this allows for the storage of more CO2), (3) have a large storage volume to store significant
quantities of CO2, (4) be leak-free (any fault or fracture zones present in the storage formation
might trigger CO2 leakage), and (5) have a reasonably large permeability allowing for the injection
of CO2 at reasonable rates from a reasonable number of wells (Gasda et al., 2004; Orr, 2009). In
light of these criteria, depleted oil and gas fields, saline aquifers, and unminable coal beds are
considered to be prime-candidate formations for CO2 storage (Cook, 1999; Ennis-King and
Paterson, 2003; Gallo et al., 2002; Qi et al., 2008; Stevens et al., 2001). CO2 is securely stored in
the listed target formations through four main trapping mechanisms: structural and stratigraphic
trapping under the seal caprock; capillary trapping by immobilizing CO2 in the rock pores by
capillary forces (Mercer and Cohen, 1990; Trevisan et al., 2014); dissolution trapping through

2/31
gravitational forces acting on denser dissolved CO2 (Agartan et al., 2015; 2017; Hassanzadeh et
al., 2005); and mineral trapping occurring via dissolution of primary minerals, due to the reaction
between dissolved CO2 and the host rock and to the formation of secondary carbonate minerals
(Izgec et al., 2006; Xu et al., 2001).

Depleted oil and gas reservoirs are one of the prime candidates for geologic CO2 storage
because (1) oil and gas that originally accumulated in traps (structural and stratigraphic) did not
escape (in some cases for many millions of years), which demonstrates integrity and safety of the
formation; (2) the geological structure and physical properties of most oil and gas fields have been
extensively studied and characterized; (3) computer models have been developed in the oil and gas
industry to predict the movement, displacement behavior, and trapping of hydrocarbons; (4) some
of the infrastructure and wells already in place may be used for handling CO2 storage operations;
and (5) CO2 storage schemes can be optimized to enhance oil (or gas) recovery (EOR or EGR)
(Benson and Cook, 2005; Gallo et al., 2002). There are several ongoing CO2 storage projects in
depleted oil and gas fields.

Most of the storage activity has been occurring in onshore oil and gas fields; however,
offshore fields have a significant storage capacity as well. Offshore fields may be of particular
value to CO2 storage in terms of (1) their location away from population centers, (2) reduced issues
relative to surface and mineral rights, (3) reduced risks associated with possible contamination of
drinking water sources, and (4) the precedent of transportation corridors for pipeline and
infrastructure. However, there is limited data on the assessment of CO2 storage capacity of
depleted oil and gas fields in general. Storage capacity is the total reservoir volume that can be
utilized for storage purposes (Raza et al., 2016). The accurate estimation of the storage capacity is
necessary for (1) the assessment of contributions of CCS to the reduction of CO2 emissions, (2)
the government’s energy-related policies and business decisions, and (3) the successful
deployment of CCS technologies (Goodman et al., 2011).

The great majority of the United States offshore CO2 storage capacity is present in the Gulf
of Mexico (GOM)—as opposed to the Pacific and Atlantic offshore fields—because of its
excellent geology and extensive history of oil and gas development, as well as its wide shelf area
containing shallow waters with a depth of less than 200 meters (BOEM, 2012). However, there is
limited data on the assessment of its CO2 storage capacity. The goal of this DOE funded study is

3/31
to develop a high-level quantitative assessment of the volume of CO2 that can be stored in depleted
oil and natural gas fields in the Federal offshore regions of the GOM on a field-by-field and on a
reservoir-by-reservoir basis. In the scope of this study, we simulated the CO2 storage in the 359
gas, 34 oil, and 68 combination depleted reservoirs in the GOM. The details of the numerical
model development and of the prediction results, as well as a discussion of the results, are
presented in the following sections. While considered in the project, CO2 storage in conjunction
with CO2-EOR and economics of this storage are not presented in this paper.

2. Study Area: Gulf of Mexico

The GOM is located at the southeast shores of the United States. The states Texas,
Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Florida border the GOM. In the Federal offshore regions of the
GOM, 1,295 fields including 13,289 oil and gas sands (reservoirs) are reported in the 2013 BOEM
Reserves database. The depleted fields (675) represent 52 percent of all fields, which are equivalent
to 26 percent of all sands, as of December 31, 2013 (see Table 1). To develop a high-level
quantitative assessment of the CO2 storage volume in the depleted oil and natural gas fields in the
Federal offshore regions of the GOM, we conducted reservoir simulation model studies. We
studied 73 depleted fields containing 461 sands. We have selected these fields based on their OOIP
and OGIP rankings, and the completeness of historical production, reservoir properties, fluid
properties, and reservoir geometry data in the publicly available 2013 BOEM Reserves database.
We aimed to cover a wide range of parameters (OOIP, OGIP, initial pressure, depth etc.) present
in the GOM to develop a better correlation for refined estimates of CO2 storage volumes. The
locations of the studied fields are seen in Figure 1. The 461 sands are comprised of 359 gas sands,
34 oil-only sands, and 68 combination sands (oil reservoir with an initial gas cap), based on the
BOEM-reported original fluids in place (December 31, 2013).

4/31
 0 50 100 mi

Figure 1: Map showing locations of the studied fields in the GOM.

Table 1: Number of depleted and active fields/sands in the GOM.

Gas Oil Combination

Total
Sands Sands Sands
Depleted Fields/Sands 3,191 139 184 675 Fields / 3,514 Sands
Studied Depleted Fields/Sands 359 34 68 73 Fields / 461 Sands
Active Fields/Sands 5,557 1,878 2,340 620 Fields / 9,775 Sands
Total 8,748 2,017 2,524 1,295 Fields / 13,289 Sands

We studied approximately 13.1% of the depleted reservoirs in the GOM. The ranges of
some of the parameters obtained from the publicly available 2013 BOEM Reserves database are
listed in Table 2 for the studied reservoirs and for all of the depleted reservoirs. The OGIP and
OOIP of the individual studied sands (reservoirs) range from 0.100 to 705.154 BSCF and from
0.02 to 33.6 MMSTB, respectively. Initial reservoir pressures range from 634 to 15,895 psia. The
parameter ranges of studied and all depleted fields/sands are listed in Table 2. The studied sands
cover a wide range of parameters from very small sizes to very large sizes, from very shallow ones
to very deep ones, from very thin ones to very thick ones, from very low initial pressures to very

5/31
high initial pressures etc., which lead to more refined estimates of CO2 storage capacity in all
depleted reservoirs in the GOM.

Table 2: Reservoir properties from the BOEM Reserves database.

Studied Depleted Depleted Fields/Sands in

Fields/Sands in the GOM the GOM
Initial Pressure, Pi (psia) 634  15,895 295  17,732
Average Depth, SS (ft) 1,385  21,900 605  21,920
Thickness, H (ft) 2  163.7 1  200
Area, A (acres) 10  7,222 1  11,464
Initial Temperature, Ti (F) 70  370 70  403
Permeability, k (mD) 1  3,686 1  3,954
Porosity,  (-) 0.12  0.37 0.10  0.38
Formation Volume Factor, Bgi (rcf/scf) 0.00247  0.0227 0.00225  0.0417
Formation Volume Factor, Boi (rbbl/stb) 1.08  2.6 1.05  2.8
Original Gas In Place, OGIP (BSCF) 0.1  705.1 0.6 × 10-3  735.4
Original Oil In Place, OOIP (MMSTB) 0.02  33.6 1.05 × 10-3  55.8
Recovery Factor, RF (%) 0  95 0  95

3. Numerical Model Development for Depleted Oil and Gas Fields in the Gulf of Mexico

In this study, a numerical simulator called COZSim and its graphical user interface
COZView were used to address the enhanced quantification of the CO2 storage volumes. COZSim
is a three-phase (oleic, gaseous and aqueous), four-component (oil, water, hydrocarbon gas and
CO2), fully implicit, finite difference-based, extended black oil reservoir flow simulator developed
by NITEC LLC under funding from the Department of Energy (DE-FE0006015). Four
components may thermodynamically partition among three phases, and both hydrocarbon gas and
CO2 may partition into gaseous and aqueous phases (NITEC, 2014a; 2014b). COZSim can also
handle hydrocarbon gas and CO2 solubility in the aqueous phase. This fast and easy-to-utilize
simulator can be used to simulate many independent cases, such as CO2 storage in aquifers and
oil/gas fields; CO2-EOR; immiscible, first-contact and multi-contact miscible CO2 injection;
hydrocarbon injection and cycling; and depletion and water flooding (Karacaer, 2014). PVT tables
for oil, gas and water were developed using available industry standard correlations (Dranchuk
and Abou-Kassem, 1975; Lee et al., 1966; Vasquez and Beggs, 1980; McCain, 1989) imbedded in

6/31
the COZSim simulation software, which are tied to hydrocarbon gas gravity, oil gravity, water
salinity, and reservoir temperature. For each sand, a unique relative permeability curve was
developed in the software based on rock type, pore size distribution, irreducible water saturation,
residual oil saturation to water, residual oil saturation to miscible CO2 displacement, residual gas
saturation, critical gas saturation etc. using Standing (1974) correlations. In addition, COZSim can
simulate the storage from capillary and dissolution trapping mechanisms by default; however,
mineral trapping is not available. The storage from these trapping mechanisms are included in the
total storage volume. The COZSim software was made available to the public in February 2013.

Among 675 depleted fields containing 3,514 sands in the GOM based on the 2013 BOEM
Reserves database, we have studied 10.8% of the fields and 13.1% of the sands including 359 gas,
34 oil, and 68 combination sands (see Table 1). The numerical model development, model
calibration, and predictions are described herein for the VR115_PO gas reservoir, which is one of
fifteen separate reservoirs, in the field VR115 (Vermilion 115). Based on the assumption that the
reservoirs in each field are non-communicating, each of them were simulated separately.
VR115_PO is a gas reservoir having average initial pressure, average depth, OGIP, area etc.
relative to the other depleted reservoirs. A gas reservoir was selected for this purpose due to their
abundance in the GOM (90.8% of the depleted reservoirs by number).

In the 2013 BOEM Reserves database, individual reservoirs were identified in each field,
and their fluid and production data were provided based on the assumption that individual
reservoirs in the field were not communicating with each other (see Table 3 for the BOEM data
for the VR115_PO sand). In addition, structure and reservoir properties of each sand are distinct,
which can result in different CO2 storage capacities. Therefore, a unique single-layer, 2D
numerical model was created for each reservoir. Proprietary maps (structure and isopach maps) of
most of the sands were obtained from BOEM, but we cannot present any of them in this paper due
to a confidentiality agreement. 27% of reservoir models were developed with no basis for the
geometry and/or structural dip, as no BOEM proprietary maps were available. These models
typically utilized a square/rectangular geometry and a structural dip based on other reservoirs in
the same field. The site-specific model areal dimensions (areas and thicknesses) were estimated
based on the BOEM proprietary maps (where available), and the BOEM-reported surface area and
pore volume (acre-ft). When the BOEM proprietary map of the sand was available, reservoir depth

7/31
was consistent with the BOEM-reported data, and the structural configuration was consistent with
well depths, reported oil-water contacts, proprietary maps, etc., and the map was digitized using
Petra and LYNX software. The digitized map was imported to the COZ software, as in the case of
the sand VR115_PO in Figure 2. When the BOEM proprietary map was not available, a simplified
model was developed using the interactive “Structure” option of the COZ software.

To sum up, COZSim is the main simulator which was used for the modeling. COZView is
the pre/post processor for the simulator. Petra (IHS, 2017) and LYNX (NITEC, 2017) were used
for the mapping and gridding purposes. IHS is a commercial database that was used to download
some reservoir and field data.

Table 3: Reservoir and fluid properties of the gas sand (VR115_PO).

Gas Sand
BOEM Reported Reservoir and Fluid Parameters
VR115_PO
OOIP (MMSTB) N/A
OGIP (BSCF) 39.1
Cumulative oil production, P_CUMOIL (MMSTB) 0.02
Cumulative gas production, P_CUMGAS (BSCF) 17.5
Cumulative water production, P_CUMWAT (MMSTB) 0.2
Subsea depth, SS (ft) 7300
Total average net thickness, THK (ft) 38.9
Total area, TAREA (acres) 393
Oil total thickness, OTHK (ft) N/A
Oil total area, OAREA (acres) N/A
Gas total thickness, GTHK (ft) 38.9
Gas total area, GAREA (acres) 393
Drive mechanism Water (WTR)
Porosity,  (-) 0.31
Residual Water Saturation, Sw (-) 0.16
Permeability, k (mD) 1247
Initial Pressure, Pi (psia) 3665
Initial Temperature, Ti (°F) 165
Pressure gradient, SDPG (psia/ft) 0.5
Temperature gradient, SDTG (°F/100 ft) 1.3
Initial solution gas-oil ratio, RSI (SCF/STB) N/A
Yield (STB/MMSCF) 1.4
Proportion oil, PROP (decimal) 0
Gas oil ratio, GOR (MSCF/STB) 720

8/31
 Specific gas gravity, SPGR (vol/vol) 0.6
Oil API gravity (°API units) N/A
Initial gas formation volume factor, Bgi (SCF/rcf) 225.3
Initial oil formation volume factor, Boi (rbbl/STB) N/A
Total completions in the sand, BHCOMP 6

Gas Sand: VR115_PO

(ft)

0 750 1500 ft

Figure 2: Structure map of the gas sand, VR115_PO.

No constant flow and no constant pressure and saturation boundary conditions were
assigned to all external boundaries by default. The boundary condition used in this study is a
material balance-based fixed finite volume aquifer. The finite volume aquifer was assigned by
increasing the edge grid blocks significantly. The amount of encroached water and the size of the
grid blocks occupied by water were calculated by using the cumulative hydrocarbon production,
water production and reservoir pressure. Hydrocarbon and water contacts at initial and depletion
conditions were always in the simulations.

Initial reservoir pressure (Pi) was obtained from the 2013 BOEM Reserves database, and
depletion pressure (Pd) (after primary production) was assessed from the IHS Inc. database or was
estimated based on reservoir depth, temperature, and supplemental data. All of the reservoir and
saturation properties (porosity, permeability, net and gross thickness, temperature, gas gravity, and
residual water saturation) obtained from the 2013 BOEM reserves database were assumed to be

9/31
constant in the models. In the single layer models, the grid cell sizes varied based on the overall
geometry of the reservoir and a balance between simulation run times and the accuracy of results.
Individual cell sizes ranged from 50 to 330 ft in x- and y-directions. The grid size for the
VR115_PO model is 150 ft in both x- and y-directions. It is well-recognized that smaller cell sizes
and an increased number of layers extend run times, which may improve the accuracy of simulation
results. However, the results of our sensitivity runs to investigate the impact of cell size and model
layering on the maximum volume of CO2 injected for a number of oil and gas reservoirs showed
that in all cases, the reduction of cell sizes by 25 to 50 percent and the increased number of layers
(1, 2 or 3) did not cause significant changes in the simulated maximum volumes of CO2 injected,
particularly for gas reservoirs.

3.1 Model Calibration Process

The model development was continued with the initialization (calibration) process, which
was achieved by capturing the initial and depletion (after primary production) conditions
accurately (e.g.: pressure distribution, the BOEM-reported original hydrocarbon-in-place volumes
(OGIP and OOIP) and the cumulative fluid (gas, oil, water) production volumes). For both initial
and depletion conditions, the system was at equilibrium. The simulation model was first calibrated
to match the BOEM-reported original gas- or oil-in-place volumes (OGIP/OOIP). These were
calculated in the model at the initial reservoir pressure (Pi), which was usually assigned to the
average depth of the reservoir to honor the BOEM-reported pressure gradient. This process
typically required minor adjustments to hydrocarbon/water contact (GOC, GWC, OWC). Initial
pressure of the sand VR115_PO is 3,665 psia at a defined datum elevation (GWC for the gas
sands), and the original gas in place is 39.1 BSCF. To capture the OGIP in the model at the initial
reservoir pressure (Figure 3a) and time (1961-04-01), the GWC was located at a depth (subsea) of
-7,401ft which was consistent with BOEM map data (see Figure 3b). A second initialization of the
fluid and pressure distribution was performed at the depletion pressure (Pd), which was estimated
from both P/z volumetric calculations (for gas reservoirs) and the IHS pressure database for the
reservoir. This process required adjustments of GWC for gas reservoirs, OWC for oil reservoirs,
and GOC and OWC for combination reservoirs to match the BOEM-reported oil/gas production
volumes in the model. This requires the initial model hydrocarbon surface area to be consistent
with the BOEM-reported area. The in-place hydrocarbon volumes at the end of the depletion

10/31
period should be less than the original in-place volumes. The gas production from the sand
VR115_PO was 17.5 BSCF (recovery factor of 44.8%). To honor this production volume,
depletion pressure was estimated to be 2,120 psia at the datum elevation from the IHS pressure
database and P/z volumetric calculations (Figure 3c), and the GWC was adjusted to a depth
(subsea) of -7,387 ft (GWC was moved 14 feet up from the initial GWC; see Figure 3b and 3d).
In addition, the size of the associated aquifer may need to be adjusted to reflect the water
production in the models. The aquifer volume was multiplied or divided by some constant to
capture the reported water production volume (0.2 MMSTB for the sand VR115_PO). Table 4
gives a comparison of the model’s initial and depletion in-place volumes and associated production
with the BOEM data for the sand VR115_PO. This model calibration process, based on the initial
and depletion conditions, was carried out for all 461 studied reservoirs in the GOM. This process
was more complex for the reservoirs with initial oil and gas zones and for oil reservoirs that
developed secondary gas caps during the depletion period. In these reservoirs, both the gas-oil
contact (GOC) and oil-water contact (OWC) needed to be adjusted to match the BOEM reported
primary gas and oil production volumes.

Gas Sand: VR115_PO

(ps ia)

0 750 1500 ft

(a) (b)

11/31
 (ps ia)

(c) (d)

Figure 3: Pressure and gas saturation maps of the sand VR115_PO: (a) Initial reservoir pressure
and (b) initial gas saturation distribution maps at 1961-04-01, and (c) reservoir pressure and (d)
gas saturation distribution maps at the end of the depletion (2016-01-01) showing six potential
CO2 injection well locations used in this model.

Table 4: Comparison of the model’s initial and depletion in-place volumes and associated
production with the BOEM data for the sand VR115_PO.

Percentage
Properties BOEM Values Model Values
Difference (%)
OOIP (MMSTB) N/A N/A N/A
OGIP (BSCF) 39.1 39.1 -110-3
P_CUMOIL (MMSTB) N/A N/A N/A
P_CUMGAS (BSCF) 17.5 17.5 -110-2
P_CUMWAT (MMSTB) 0.2 0.2 -110-2
Current OIP (MMSTB) N/A N/A N/A
Current GIP (BSCF) 21.6 21.6 510-3

3.2 Predictions: CO2 Storage Volume Estimations

The calibrated reservoir models, now at the end of the depletion, were the starting point for
the assessment of CO2 storage in the reservoirs. CO2 injection was started after primary production
period, and it was assumed that the system was in equilibrium. Residual oil to water or gas
encroachment and trapped gas to oil or water encroachment after primary production were
modeled based on the type of the simulated reservoir. All reservoir models were assumed to initiate

12/31
CO2 injection for storage as of 2016-01-01. First, CO2 injection well counts and their locations
were determined. Based on the geometry of the reservoir and the structural dip, CO2 injection wells
in the model were located consistent with fluid distributions at depletion, with the intent of
selecting a minimum number of wells that would maximize the ultimate CO2 injection volume.
For the sand VR115_PO, six CO2 injection wells were located in the gas cap, as seen in Figure 3d.
Previous hydrocarbon production well locations were not of concern for this study. The original
wells likely have been plugged and decommissioned or will require redrilling for CO2 operations.
The rate-time performance also was not a concern of this evaluation, as actual CO2 injectivity data
are not available. For all base case CO2 injection scenarios, consistent well operating constraints—
bottom hole injection pressure (BHP) and a maximum CO2 well injection rate—were set. The BHP
was based on Pi, which allowed CO2 injection to continue until the reservoir pressure increased
from the depletion pressure to the initial reservoir pressure. The goal is to achieve and not to exceed
the same pressure conditions after the injection period, as at initial conditions. Injection at higher
pressures was avoided to better assure containment of the injected CO2 in the reservoir. The
maximum CO2 injection rate per well was set at 20,000 MSCF/d for most of the sands. The
simulator calculated the actual injection rates based on the computed reservoir pressure. This
injection rate impacts only the time to “fill-up” of the reservoir with CO2, and it does not change
the ultimate CO2 storage volume. A prediction case with these constraints was run until the
minimum field injection rate constraint (100 MSCF/d) was reached, where essentially no
additional CO2 could be injected. This low minimum field injection rate allowed us to evaluate the
storage potentials in a wide range of reservoirs (i.e.: very small reservoirs and reservoirs with very
small cumulative hydrocarbon and water production volumes), which is necessary for the
development of accurate correlations to make refined estimates of CO2 storage volumes. The
duration of the injection period varies for each sand (from approximately 1 year to 30 years).

4. Prediction Results for CO2 Storage Volumes in the Depleted Reservoirs

The CO2 injection simulations were performed for 341 gas, 34 oil, and 67 combination
depleted reservoirs in the Federal offshore of the GOM. Among these sands, we observed some
common features during the CO2 injection period. These common features are explained below
for the gas sand VR115_PO. As stated before, all simulation prediction runs started on 2016-01-
01 and were run to “CO2 fill-up”. Initially, the well injection rates were at the highest levels (20,000

13/31
MSCF/d/well). In the sand VR115_PO, six wells started to inject CO2 with a 120,000 MSCF/d
total sand rate (Figure 4a). Following nine months of a constant maximum CO2 injection rate of
20 MMSCF/d/well, the rate decreased abruptly, as seen in Figure 4, due to the relatively high
permeability of this sand (1,247 mD in Table 3). For the lower permeability sands, this decrease
occurred gradually. The low injection rate (in excess of 100 MSCF/D) was sustained for another
nine years before the field injection was shut-in on 2025-11-01. At this time, the reservoir pressure
had returned approximately to the initial reservoir pressure level. Maximum CO2 injection
(storage) volume was determined to be 32.6 BSCF (1,873 thousand tons) (Figure 4b). The spatial
CO2 distribution map at field shut-in is shown in Figure 5. While there are areas of the reservoir
that do not contain CO2, the reservoir pressure will not allow additional CO2 to be injected.

The CO2 injection rate profile similar to the one given in Figure 4a was seen in most of the
studied reservoirs. It is noted that the bulk of the CO2 injection occurred by the end of the first year
of injection for this sand. CO2 injection continued for a long period (around 10 years) at very low
rates. The time scale is correct for this reservoir and the operating conditions utilized; however, a
number of variables (not studied) can affect the rate of CO2 injection and the time to reach “fill-
up”.

(a) (b)
Figure 4: (a) Field CO2 injection rate vs. time plot and (b) cumulative CO2 injection volume vs.
time plot with average reservoir pressure for the gas sand VR115_PO.

14/31
 0 750 1500 ft

Figure 5: Spatial CO2 distribution map at the end of the CO2 injection (2025-11-01) for the gas
sand VR115_PO.

In this study, we simulated 461 sands in 73 depleted fields. To determine the CO2 storage capacities
of the 73 simulated fields and their distributions in the GOM, the field-based cumulative storage
volumes were calculated. The bubble map in Figure 6 shows CO2 storage volumes for the
simulated fields by summation of the storage capacities for all sands in a field. The bubble sizes
and color are based on cumulative storage volumes. As seen in Figure 6, some of the 73 simulated
fields have very larger storage capacity; however, others have smaller available storage volumes.

15/31
This can be a result of low primary production volumes and/or small number of stacked reservoirs
in these fields.

0 50 100 mi

VR115

Figure 6: CO2 storage volume bubble map for the simulated fields.

5. Discussion of the Results

The depleted oil and natural gas fields in the GOM have a large CO2 storage capacity.
However, there is limited data on the assessment of their storage capacity. The purpose of this
study is to develop a refined correlation that can be used for the direct estimation of CO2 storage
potentials in all of the depleted oil and natural gas fields. To achieve this, first, we have simulated
CO2 storage capacity of 359 gas, 34 oil, and 68 combination reservoirs in the GOM, and analyzed
the results to investigate the key parameters affecting CO2 storage volumes.

The results of the models showed that the behavior of CO2 injected into oil-only reservoirs
was significantly different than the injection into gas reservoirs. Injection performance into oil
sands with an initial gas cap (combinations sands) was typically between the other two types of
reservoirs. In addition to the variation in the spatial distribution of injected CO2 in these three types

16/31
of reservoirs, CO2 storage efficiency factors calculated using the DOE CO2 Storage Resource
Estimate Equation (DOE equation) given in Eqn. (1) (DOE-NETL, 2015; Goodman et al., 2011)
are quite different. In Eqns. (1-3), GCO2 is the mass of injected CO2 (lbm), A is the reservoir area
(acres), hn is the net thickness (ft), e is the average effective porosity (-), Sw is the initial water
saturation, B is the initial oil or gas formation volume factor, ρCO2 is the standard CO2 density
(lbm/SCF), Eoil/gas is the CO2 storage efficiency factor (-), VCO2 is the cumulative injected CO2
volume (SCF), OGIP is the original gas in place (SCF), and OOIP is the original oil in place (STB).

𝐺𝐶𝑂2 = 𝐴ℎ𝑛 𝑒 (1 − 𝑆𝑤 )𝐵𝜌𝐶𝑂2 𝑠𝑡𝑑 𝐸𝑜𝑖𝑙/𝑔𝑎𝑠 Eqn. (1)

𝐺𝐶𝑂2 = 𝑉𝐶𝑂2 × 𝜌𝐶𝑂2 Eqn. (2)

𝑂𝐺𝐼𝑃 𝑜𝑟 𝑂𝑂𝐼𝑃 = 𝐴ℎ𝑛 𝑒 (1 − 𝑆𝑤 )𝐵 Eqn. (3)

We have calculated CO2 storage efficiency (Eoil/gas) for all of the studied sands and plotted
the efficiency against the hydrocarbon recovery factor (HCRF). HCRF values were calculated
using Eqn. (4), where Bgi is the initial formation volume factor of hydrocarbon gas (RCF/SCF),
and Boi is the initial formation volume factor of oil (bbl/STB). For the gas reservoirs, OOIP and
Boi are “0,” so the HCRF is equal to the ratio of produced gas and OGIP. For the oil reservoirs,
the HCRF is equal to the ratio of produced oil and OOIP as OGIP and Bgi are “0”. Formation
volume factors at initial conditions are used because CO2 injection returns the reservoir to the
initial pressure level.

(𝐶𝑢𝑚.𝐹𝑟𝑒𝑒 𝐺𝑎𝑠 𝑃𝑟𝑜𝑑.×𝐵𝑔𝑖 )+(𝐶𝑢𝑚.𝑂𝑖𝑙 𝑃𝑟𝑜𝑑.×𝐵𝑜𝑖 ×5.615)

𝐻𝐶𝑅𝐹 = (𝑂𝐺𝐼𝑃×𝐵𝑔𝑖 )+(𝑂𝑂𝐼𝑃×𝐵𝑜𝑖 ×5.615)
Eqn. (4)

17/31
 Figure 7: CO2 Storage Efficiency Factor (Eoil/gas) calculated using the DOE equation versus the
hydrocarbon recovery factor (HCRF) for the simulated gas, oil, and combination reservoirs.

The grey, red, and green colors in Figure 7 are for the gas, oil, and combination sands,
respectively. As seen in the plot, the efficiency increases with increasing HCRF. However, this
relationship is different for each reservoir type because the fluid dynamics and CO2 storage
capacity of each type of reservoir are distinct; there is no clear correlation between the CO2 storage
efficiency factor and the HCRF. In Figure 7, nearly half of the efficiency factor values exceed 1.0
(100%), especially for most of the oil sands. We believe the DOE equation (Eqn. (1)) is misleading
when applied to a wide range of gas, oil, and combination reservoir sizes and levels of depletion.
In the DOE equation, the CO2 storage efficiency factor was calculated as the ratio of cumulative
stored CO2 and the original hydrocarbon-in-place volume, and both are in SCF. The high
compressibility characteristics of CO2 (CO2 is in a higher-density supercritical state under reservoir
pressure and temperature conditions) versus the compressibility of hydrocarbon gas results in the
efficiency factors exceeding 1.0 in many high recovery gas sands. For the oil sands, we observed
even higher efficiency values, as seen in Figure 7.

18/31
5.1 Revised CO2 Storage Resource Estimate Equation

As a result, we improved the DOE CO2 Storage Resource Estimate Equation based on
reservoir volumes rather than surface volumes. The revised CO2 Storage Resource Estimate
Equation is presented in Eqn. (5), where BCO2 is the formation volume factor of CO2 under initial
reservoir pressure conditions (RCF/SCF), and ER oil/gas is the revised CO2 storage efficiency factor
(-).

𝑉𝐶𝑂2 × 𝐵𝐶𝑂2 = (𝑂𝐺𝐼𝑃 × 𝐵𝑔𝑖 + 𝑂𝑂𝐼𝑃 × 𝐵𝑜 𝑖 × 5.615) × 𝐸𝑅 𝑜𝑖𝑙/𝑔𝑎𝑠 Eqn. (5)

This revised equation requires an estimation of the formation volume factor of CO2, BCO2,
which is a function of reservoir pressure and temperature. The relationship that we used to calculate
BCO2 values is given in Figure 8 (Hassanzadeh et al., 2008).

Figure 8: Formation volume factor of CO2, BCO2, based on reservoir pressure and temperature.

For the sand VR115_PO, the CO2 storage efficiency factor, Eoil/gas, was calculated as 83.3%
using the DOE equation (Eqn. (1)). However, the revised CO2 storage efficiency factor, ER oil/gas,
was determined to be 49.0% with the revised CO2 Storage Resources Estimate Equation (Eqn. (5))
for the HCRF of 44.8%. When we consider the mass balance, the efficiency factor calculated from

19/31
the revised equation is more reasonable. The revised CO2 storage efficiency factor for all the sands
were calculated using Eqn. (5), and the efficiency-versus-HCRF results were plotted in Figure 9.
The revised efficiency factor, ER oil/gas, values do not exceed 1.0 as seen in Figure 9, and this is a
better correlation between the efficiency factor and the HCRF, compared to the DOE equation
results. ER oil/gas increases with an increasing HCRF. However, the efficiency factor does not
quantify CO2 storage per se. Therefore, our further investigation to make more accurate estimates
of CO2 storage volumes resulted in an improved correlation that utilized the known reservoir data
and directly estimated the CO2 storage volumes for all reservoir types.

Figure 9: Revised CO2 Storage Efficiency Factor (ER oil/gas) calculated using the DOE equation
versus the hydrocarbon recovery factor (HCRF) for the simulated gas, oil, and combination
reservoirs.

5.2 Production-CO2 Storage Correlation

Gas-, oil-, and water-production data for the sands in the GOM are available in the 2013
BOEM Reserves database. The cumulative production values at reservoir conditions were
calculated for each sand using formation volume factors of gas, oil, and water (Bgi, Boi, and Bwi,

20/31
respectively) at initial reservoir pressure, to estimate the total available pore volume for CO2
storage in each reservoir. At the end of the CO2 injection period, we pressurized each reservoir to
the initial pressure so that we could use formation volume factors for the initial reservoir pressures
to calculate cumulative production at reservoir conditions. The simulated CO2 injection volumes
for all 359 gas, 34 oil, and 68 combination sands at standard conditions were plotted against the
cumulative productions at reservoir conditions as shown in Figure 10. For all three types of
reservoirs, CO2 storage volumes correlated well with cumulative production volumes. This
correlation, called Production-CO2 Storage Correlation, and the slope of the correlation line are
different for each reservoir type because the fluid dynamics and CO2 storage capacity of each are
distinct. The GOM depleted gas fields have a much larger storage capacity than the oil and
combination fields. For the same production volumes, more CO2 injection was observed in gas
sands, whereas CO2 storage volumes decreased from gas to combination sands, and from
combination to oil sands. The higher compressibility and mobility of hydrocarbon gas compared
to oil allows for more CO2 injection in gas reservoirs, and oil reservoirs with an initial gas cap
(combination) than in oil-only reservoirs. The general correlation is given in Eqn. (6-7) where
slope is a constant.

𝑉𝐶𝑂2 (𝑆𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑑𝑎𝑟𝑑 𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑑𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑠) (𝐵𝑆𝐶𝐹) = 𝑆𝑙𝑜𝑝𝑒 × 𝐶𝑢𝑚𝑢𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑒 𝑃𝑟𝑜𝑑𝑢𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛(𝑅𝑒𝑠𝑒𝑟𝑣𝑜𝑖𝑟 𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑑𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑠) (𝑀𝑀𝑅𝐶𝐹) Eqn. (6)

𝐺𝐶𝑂2 (𝑆𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑑𝑎𝑟𝑑 𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑑𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑠) (𝑀𝑀 𝑡𝑜𝑛𝑠) = 0.0575 × 𝑉𝐶𝑂2 (𝑆𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑑𝑎𝑟𝑑 𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑑𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑠) (𝐵𝑆𝐶𝐹) Eqn. (7)

The correlation for each reservoir type is given in Figure 10 and Eqn. (8-10) where y is the
CO2 storage volume at standard conditions (BSCF), and x is the cumulative production at reservoir
conditions (MMRCF). The coefficients of this Production-CO2 Storage Correlation are different
for each reservoir type. As seen in Figure 10, the R2 values exceed 0.96 in all cases.

Gas sands;
𝑉𝐶𝑂2 = 0.4299 × 𝐶𝑢𝑚𝑢𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑒 𝑃𝑟𝑜𝑑𝑢𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 Eqn. (8)

Oil sands;
𝑉𝐶𝑂2 = 0.2619 × 𝐶𝑢𝑚𝑢𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑒 𝑃𝑟𝑜𝑑𝑢𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 Eqn. (9)

Oil and gas combination sands;

𝑉𝐶𝑂2 = 0.3397 × 𝐶𝑢𝑚𝑢𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑒 𝑃𝑟𝑜𝑑𝑢𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 Eqn. (10)

21/31
Figure 10: CO2 storage volume at the standard conditions versus cumulative production (gas, oil
and water) at the reservoir conditions.

The total CO2 storage volume predicted by the simulation studies of all reservoirs yields
19.6 TSCF (1,129 MMtons). Application of the Production-CO2 Storage Correlations to the same
reservoirs yields 19.0 TSCF (1,090 MMtons). These results suggest a high level of accuracy for
the correlations relative to the simulation results. This storage capacity will likely be reduced based
on surface injection pressure (compression equipment) limitations which will eliminate injection
into deeper higher pressure depleted reservoirs. For the 461 studied reservoirs, CO2 storage
capacity would be reduced to 15.1 TSCF (868 MMtons) if surface injection pressures are restricted
to less than 5,000 psia (~6,090 psia bottom hole injection pressure). Other operational constraints,
not investigated in this study, will likely reduce the practical CO2 storage capacities.

It is important to note that these Production-CO2 Storage Correlations allow for more
refined estimations of the prospective CO2 storage volumes at standard conditions for the depleted
oil and gas reservoirs, using only basic data about cumulative production at reservoir conditions
to date, as opposed to the previously available efficiency factor calculations. The overall CO2
storage capacity in the 675 fields including 3,514 individual depleted reservoirs in the GOM was
determined to be 82.6 TSCF (4,748 MMtons) using the correlations presented in Figure 10. The
CO2 storage volume bubble map for all 675 depleted fields in the GOM is shown in Figure 11

22/31
based on the developed Production-CO2 Storage Correlations. As it is seen in Figure 12a,
approximately 70% of the storage occurs in the fields having less than 50 MMtons of storage
volume. The fields with cumulative CO2 storage volumes bigger than 50 MMtons have a large
volume of cumulative (hydrocarbon and water) production and/or a large number of stacked
reservoirs (Figure 12). These were the dominant characteristics controlling the CO2 storage
volumes. WC533, EI296, MP006, EI273 are examples of the high capacity fields in the GOM. A
surface injection pressure limitation (5,000 psia) would decrease the number of candidate sands
from 3,514 to 2,742; accordingly, the CO2 storage volume would be reduced to 70.9 TSCF (4,075
MMtons) in all depleted fields, a 14.1% reduction.

0 50 100 mi

Figure 11: CO2 storage volume bubble map for all depleted fields in the GOM.

23/31
 100
4500

Percentage of Cumu lative CO 2 Storage Volume (%)

90

Cumulative CO 2 Sto rage Volume (MM tons)

4000
80
3500
70
3000
60
2500
50

40 2000

30 1500

20 1000

10 500

0 0
0 50 100 150 200 250
(a) CO 2 Storage Volume (Field) (MM tons)

250
CO 2 Storage Volume (FIeld) (MM tons)

200

150

100

50

0
0 10 20 30 40 50
(b) Number of Stacked Sands

Figure 12: (a) Cumulative CO2 storage volume distribution plot and (b) CO2 storage volume
versus number of stacked sands for all of the depleted oil and gas fields in the GOM.

24/31
 In the case of reservoirs that are still on production (620 fields including 9,775 reservoirs),
the Production-CO2 Storage correlations can be applied, and the CO2 storage volume estimate is
based on current cumulative production value reported in the 2013 BOEM Reserves database.
Therefore, the CO2 storage capacity of all 1,295 fields (13,289 reservoirs) in the GOM was
calculated to be 375.1 TSCF (21.6 Billion tons and 19.6 Billion metric tons) using the correlations
given in Figure 10 and Eqn. (8-10). Additional CO2 injection likely can be achieved into the active
fields based on further production of the reservoir fluids. The CO2 storage volume in all GOM
fields would be reduced to 274.8 TSCF (15.8 Billion tons and 14.3 Billion metric tons) if a 5,000
psia surface injection pressure constraint was applied, a 26.8% reduction. DOE-NETL (2015)
(NETL Carbon Storage Atlas, Appendix C) reported a CO2 storage resource estimate of 18.9
Billion tons (17.2 Billion metric tons) for the U.S. Federal Offshore. While we do not know the
methodology used in developing the Atlas estimate, we are encouraged that similar volumes result
from the different approaches. This of course assumes that DOE-NETL’s study is referring to the
same fields and reservoirs as reported in the 2013 BOEM Reserves database.

These correlations allow us to directly estimate CO2 storage volumes at standard

conditions, which will help researchers, scientists, and engineers make reasonable CO2 storage
volume estimates using existing production data, beforehand. Our approach and findings are
equally applicable to the other offshore and onshore depleted oil and gas reservoirs. Moreover,
these refined relationships will provide a significant impetus to future CO2 storage, both in Federal
offshore regions of the GOM and in the other offshore and onshore depleted oil and gas fields.

Note that the relationships presented in this study are for the homogeneous reservoir
parameters (porosity, permeability, etc.). Sensitivity analyses carried out on reservoir
heterogeneity, reservoir and operational parameters, CO2 injection well placement, and well count
will provide a better understanding of the influence of these parameters on the CO2 storage
volumes in each reservoir.

6. Conclusions

In this study, we have investigated CO2 storage volumes in depleted fields with the intent
of developing a high-level quantitative assessment of the volume of CO2 that can be stored in the
depleted oil and gas fields in the Federal offshore regions of the GOM, on a field-by-field and on

25/31
a reservoir-by-reservoir basis. There are 675 depleted oil and gas fields containing 3,514 reservoirs
(sands) out of the 1,295 fields, and there are 13,289 reservoirs in the Federal offshore regions of
the GOM, based on the December 31, 2013 BOEM Reserves database. Among all depleted
reservoirs, 90.8% are gas, 4.0% are oil, and 5.2% are combination reservoirs. We simulated CO2
storage in 73 of the depleted fields, including 359 gas, 34 oil, and 68 combination sands. The key
findings from this study are summarized below:

1. The simulation results showed that the distribution and storage volume of CO2 injected into
the gas, oil, and combination sands are quite different due to the fluid properties of gas, oil, and
CO2 at reservoir conditions.

2. Based on the results of CO2 storage efficiency factors exceeding 1.0, we improved the DOE
CO2 Storage Resource Estimate Equation. The revised equation calculates the revised efficiency
factor (ER oil/gas) using hydrocarbon production and CO2 injection volumes at reservoir conditions.
As a result of mass balance in the system, all of the calculated ER oil/gas values are less than 1.0. The
higher hydrocarbon recovery factor results in a higher CO2 storage efficiency factor. However, the
efficiency factor does not directly quantify CO2 storage volumes.

3. We investigated a stronger, material balance-based correlation called Production-CO2

Storage Correlations to make more direct estimates of CO2 storage volumes at standard conditions
using only known data about cumulative production at reservoir conditions. The coefficients of
this Production-CO2 Storage Correlation are different for each reservoir type; gas, oil and
combination.

4. CO2 injection volume into oil-only reservoirs was significantly different than CO2 injection
into gas reservoirs. Injection into oil sands with an initial gas cap (combinations sands) was
typically between the oil-only and the gas reservoirs. The GOM depleted gas reservoirs have
significantly more storage capacity than the depleted oil and combination reservoirs, having
similar cumulative production values and reservoir conditions due to higher compressibility and
mobility of the hydrocarbon gas compared to oil.

5. We verified the new refined relationships (correlations) using simulation results. The total
CO2 storage volume predicted by the simulation studies of all 73 fields, including 461 reservoirs,

26/31
yields 19.6 TSCF (1,129 MMtons). Application of the correlations to the same reservoirs yields
19.0 TSCF (1,090 MMtons). These results suggest a high level of accuracy for the correlations.

6. In the GOM, approximately 70% of the storage was found to occur in the fields having less
than 50 MMtons of storage volume. The fields with cumulative CO2 storage volumes bigger than
50 MMtons have a large volume of cumulative (hydrocarbon and water) production and/or a large
number of stacked reservoirs.

7. For the 675 depleted fields, including 3,514 individual reservoirs present in the GOM, the
overall CO2 storage capacity was calculated to be 82.6 TSCF (4,748 MMtons) using the
correlations. The CO2 storage capacity of all (active and depleted) 1,295 fields (13,289 reservoirs)
in the GOM was estimated to be 375.1 TSCF (21.6 Billion tons). The CO2 storage capacities likely
would be reduced by surface injection pressure limitations and reservoir heterogeneity.

8. These correlations will help researchers, scientists, and engineers make reasonable CO2
storage volume estimates using existing production data, beforehand. Our approach and findings
are equally applicable to the other offshore and onshore depleted oil and gas reservoirs. Moreover,
these refined relationships will provide significant knowledge for future CO2 storage studies, both
in the Federal offshore regions of the GOM and in the other offshore and onshore depleted oil and
gas fields.

27/31
Acknowledgements

This material is based upon work supported by the Department of Energy, National Energy
Technology Laboratory under Award Number DE-FE0026392.

Disclaimer

This paper was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States
Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their
employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility
for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process
disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to
any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or
otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring
by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors
expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any
agency thereof.

28/31
References

Agartan, E., Trevisan, L., Cihan, A., Birkholzer, J., Zhou, Q., and Illangasekare, T.H.,
2015. Experimental Study on Effects of Geologic Heterogeneity in Enhancing Dissolution
Trapping of Supercritical CO2. Water Resources Research 51(3), 1635-1648, doi:
10.1002/2014WR015778.

Agartan, E., Cihan, A., Illangasekare, T.H., Zhou, Q., and Birkholzer, J., 2017. Mixing and
Trapping of Dissolved CO2 in Deep Geologic Formations with Shale Layers. Advances in Water
Resources 105, 67-81, doi: 10.1016/j.advwatres.2017.04.014.

Bachu, S., Gunter W.D., and Perkins E.H., 1994. Aquifer disposal of CO2: Hydrodynamic
and mineral trapping. Energy Convers. Manage., 35(4), 269–279.

Benson, S. M., and Cook P., 2005. Underground geological storage, in Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change Special Report on Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage, edited by P.
Freund, pp. 195–276, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, U. K.

BOEM (Bureau of Ocean Energy Management), September, 2012. Analysis of the Costs
and Benefits of CO2 Sequestration on the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf. Accessed 1 January 2016,
<https://www.boem.gov/uploadedFiles/BOEM/Oil_and_Gas_Energy_Program/Energy_Economi
cs/External_Studies/OCS%20Sequestration%20Report.pdf>.

BOEM (Bureau of Ocean Energy Management), Data Center, 2013. Oil & Gas Reserves
2013. Accessed 1 January 2016, <https://www.data.boem.gov>.

Cook, P. J., 1999. Sustainability and nonrenewable resources. Environ. Geosci., 6(4), 185–
190.

DOE-NETL (U.S. Department of Energy – National Energy Technology Laboratory –

Office of Fossil Energy), 2015. Carbon Storage Atlas of the United States and Canada, Fifth
edition. Accessed 1 January 2016, <https://www.netl.doe.gov/research/coal/carbon-
storage/atlasv>.

Dranchuk, P. and Abou-Kassem, J., 1975. Calculation of Z-factors for Natural Gases Using
Equations-of-State. Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology. July-September 1975. p. 34-36.

Ennis-King, J., and Paterson L., 2003. Role of convective mixing in the long-term storage
of carbon dioxide in deep saline formations, paper SPE 84344 presented at the SPE annual
technical conference and exhibition, Denver, CO, USA.

29/31
 Gaddipati, M., Agartan E., Yetkin C., Basbug B., Savage B., Yip Y., and Ozgen C.
Comparison of offshore CO2 storage to CO2 driven enhanced oil recovery in the Gulf of Mexico
(in preparation).

Gallo, Y., Couillens P., and Manai T., 2002. CO2 sequestration in depleted oil or gas
reservoirs, paper presented at SPE International Conference on Health, Safety and Environment in
Oil and Gas Exploration and Production, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

Gasda, S. E., Bachu S., and Celia M.A., 2004. Spatial characterization of the location of
potentially leaky wells penetrating a deep saline aquifer in a mature sedimentary basin.
Environmental Geology, 46(6-7), 707-720

Goodman, A., Hakala, A., Bromhal, G., Deel, D., Rodosta, T., Frailey, S., Small, M., Allen,
D., Romanov, V., Fazio, J. and Huerta, N., 2011. US DOE methodology for the development of
geologic storage potential for carbon dioxide at the national and regional scale. International
Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 5(4), doi: 10.1016/j.ijggc.2011.03.010.

Gunter, W. D., Perkins E.H., and McCann T.J., 1993. Aquifer disposal of CO2-rich gases:
Reaction design for added capacity. Energy Convers. Manage., 34(9), 941–948.

Hassanzadeh, H., Pooladi-Darvish M., and Keith D., 2005. Modeling of convective mixing
in CO2 storage. J. Can. Petrol. Technol., 44(10), 43–51.

Hassanzadeh, H., Pooladi-Darvish, M., Elsharkawy, A.M., Keith, D.W. and Leonenko, Y.,
2008. Predicting PVT data for CO2–brine mixtures for black-oil simulation of CO2 geological
storage. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 2(1), pp.65-77.

IHS, 2017. IHS Petra: Geological interpretation software. Accessed 1 January

2016,<https://www.ihs.com/products/petra-geological-analysis.html>.

Izgec, O., Demiral B., Bertin H., and Akin S., September, 2006. Experimental and
numerical modeling of direct injection of CO2 into carbonate formations. In SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition.

Karacaer, C., 2014. Mixing Issues in CO2 Flooding: Comparison of Compositional and
Extended Black-Oil Simulators. 133 pp. Colorado School of Mines, Golden, CO.

Lee, A. L. Gonzales, M.H. and Eakin, B. E., 1966. The Viscosity of Natural Gases. Journal
of Petroleum Technology. p. 997-1000, Trans., AIME, 37.

Marchetti, C., 1977. On geoengineering and the CO2 problem. Climatic Change. 1(1).
pp.59-68.

30/31
 McCain, W.D. 1989. The Properties of Petroleum Fluids. Tulsa: PennWell Publishing
Company.

Mercer, J.W., and Cohen R.M., 1990. A review of immiscible fluids in the subsurface:
Properties, models, characterization and remediation. Journal of Contaminant Hydrology, 6(2),
107-163.

NITEC LLC. 2014a. COZView/COZSim Tutorial 1. Online available:

(http://nitecllc.com/docs/Tutorial-1.pdf).

NITEC LLC, 2014b. COZView/COZSim User Manual Online available:

(http://nitecllc.com/docs/COZView_UserManual.pdf).

NITEC LLC, 2017. LYNX Tutorial, Verion 2.0.

Nordbotten, J.M., and Celia M.A., 2011. Geological Storage of CO2: Modeling
Approaches for Large-Scale Simulation, John Wiley, N. Y.

Orr Jr, F.M., 2009. CO2 capture and storage: are we ready?. Energy & Environmental
Science, 2(5), 449-458.

Qi, R., LaForce T.C., and Blunt M.J., 2009. Design of carbon dioxide storage in aquifers.
Int. J. Greenh. Gas Cont., 3(2), 195–205.

Standing, M.B., 1974. Notes on relative permeability relationships: Division of Petroleum

Engineering and Applied Geophysics. Norwegian Institute of Technology, University of
Trondheim, Norway.

Stevens, S.H., Kuuskraa V.A., Gale J., and Beecy D., 2001. CO2 injection and sequestration
in depleted oil and gas fields and deep coal seams: Worldwide potential and costs. Environ.
Geosci., 8(3), 200–209.

Trevisan, L., Cihan A., Fagerlund F., Agartan E., Mori H., Birkholzer, J., Zhou Q., and
Illangasekare T.H., 2014. Investigation of mechanisms of supercritical CO2 trapping in deep saline
reservoirs using surrogate fluids at ambient laboratory conditions. International Journal of
Greenhouse Gas Control, 29, 35-49, doi: 10.1016/j.ijggc.2014.07.012.

Vasquez, M. and Beggs H.D., 1980. Correlations for Fluid Physical Property Prediction.
Journal of Petroleum Technology. p. 968-970.

Xu T., Apps J., and Pruess K., 2001. Analysis of mineral trapping for CO2 disposal in deep
aquifers. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Report LBNL-46992, Berkeley, California, 104
pp.

31/31