Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage (CCS) in Saline Aquifers versus Depleted Gas Fields

Abstract

Saline aquifers have been used for CO2 storage as a dedicated greenhouse gas mitigation strategy since 1996. Depleted gas fields are now being planned for large-scale CCS projects. Although basalt host reservoirs are also going to be used, saline aquifers and depleted gas fields will make up most of the global geological repositories for CO2. At present, depleted gas fields and saline aquifers seem to be treated as if they are a single entity, but they have distinct differences that are examined here. Depleted gas fields have far more pre-existing information about the reservoir, top-seal caprock, internal architecture of the site, and about fluid flow properties than saline aquifers due to the long history of hydrocarbon project development and fluid production. The fluid pressure evolution paths for saline aquifers and depleted gas fields are distinctly different because, unlike saline aquifers, depleted gas fields are likely to be below hydrostatic pressure before CO2 injection commences. Depressurised depleted gas fields may require an initial injection of gas-phase CO2 instead of dense-phase CO2 typical of saline aquifers, but the greater pressure difference may allow higher initial injection rates in depleted gas fields than saline aquifers. Depressurised depleted gas fields may lead to CO2-injection-related stress paths that are distinct from saline aquifers depending on the geomechanical properties of the reservoir. CO2 trapping in saline aquifers will be dominated by buoyancy processes with residual CO2 and dissolved CO2 developing over time whereas depleted gas fields will be dominated by a sinking body of CO2 that forms a cushion below the remaining methane. Saline aquifers tend to have a relatively limited ability to fill pores with CO2 (i.e., low storage efficiency factors between 2 and 20%) as the injected CO2 is controlled by buoyancy and viscosity differences with the saline brine. In contrast, depleted gas fields may have storage efficiency factors up to 80% as the reservoir will contain sub-hydrostatic pressure methane that is easy to displace. Saline aquifers have a greater risk of halite-scale and minor dissolution of reservoir minerals than depleted gas fields as the former contain vastly more of the aqueous medium needed for such processes compared to the latter. Depleted gas fields have some different leakage risks than saline aquifers mostly related to the different fluid pressure histories, depressurisation-related alteration of geomechanical properties, and the greater number of wells typical of depleted gas fields than saline aquifers. Depleted gas fields and saline aquifers also have some different monitoring opportunities. The high-density, electrically conductive brine replaced by CO2 in saline aquifers permits seismic and resistivity imaging, but these forms of imaging are less feasible in depleted gas fields. Monitoring boreholes are less likely to be used in saline aquifers than depleted gas fields as the latter typically have numerous pre-existing exploration and production well penetrations. The significance of this analysis is that saline aquifers and depleted gas fields must be treated differently although the ultimate objective is the same: to permanently store CO2 to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions and minimise global heating.