Well Engineering & Injection Regularity For CCUS Wells

Well Engineering and
Injection Regularity in
CO2 Storage Wells
IEAGHG Technical Report

2018-08
November 2018
IEA GREENHOUSE GAS R&D PROGRAMME
International Energy Agency
The International Energy Agency (IEA), an autonomous agency, was established in November 1974. Its primary mandate was – and is – two-
fold: to promote energy security amongst its member countries through collective response to physical disruptions in oil supply, and provide
authoritative research and analysis on ways to ensure reliable, affordable and clean energy for its 30 member countries and beyond. Within its
mandate, the IEA created Technology Collaboration Programmes (TCPs) to further facilitate international collaboration on energy related topics.
To date, there are 38 TCPs who carry out a wide range of activities on energy technology and related issues.
DISCLAIMER
The GHG TCP, also known as the IEAGHG, is organised under the auspices of the International
Energy Agency (IEA) but is functionally and legally autonomous. Views, findings and publications of
the IEAGHG do not necessarily represent the views or policies of the IEA Secretariat or its individual
member countries.”
This report was prepared as an account of the work sponsored by IEAGHG. The views and opinions
of the authors expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of the IEAGHG, its members, the
organisations listed below, nor any employee or persons acting on behalf of any of them. In addition, none of these make any warranty,
express or implied, assumes any liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product
of process disclosed or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights, including any parties intellectual property rights.
Reference herein to any commercial product, process, service or trade name, trade mark or manufacturer does not necessarily constitute or
imply any endorsement, recommendation or any favouring of such products.
COPYRIGHT
Copyright © IEA Environmental Projects Ltd. (IEAGHG) 2018. All rights reserved.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS AND CITATIONS

This report describes research commissioned by IEAGHG. This report was prepared by:
• Talib Syed and Associates Inc. (TSA)
The principal researchers were:

• Talib Syed
• Ronald Sweatman
• Glen Benge
To ensure the quality and technical integrity of the research undertaken by IEAGHG each study is managed by an appointed IEAGHG
manager. The report is also reviewed by a panel of independent technical experts before its release.
The IEAGHG managers for this report were:
• James Craig & Lydia Rycroft
The report should be cited in literature as follows:

‘IEAGHG, “Well Engineering and Injection Regularity in CO2 Storage Wells”, 2018/08, November, 2018.’
Further information or copies of the report can be obtained by contacting IEAGHG at:
IEAGHG
Pure Offices, Cheltenham Office Park
Hatherley Lane
Cheltenham, Glos.
GL51 6SH, UK
Tel: +44 (0)1242 802911

E-mail: [email protected]
Web: www.ieaghg.org
WELL ENGINEERING AND INJECTION REGULARITY IN CO2 STORAGE
WELLS
(IEA CON/17/245)
Key Messages
• The aim of this report is to highlight the key differences, and well engineering
implications, for handling CO2 in EOR and deep saline storage locations. These options
are compared with conventional oil and gas wells. Best practice for CO2 operations and
the current understanding on handling CO2 are also covered in detail.
• The ability to inject CO2 regularly needs to be addressed in the planning stages of storage
projects to assess future well performance. For wells exposed to formations containing
supercritical CO2 it is important to identify the procedures and equipment that have to be
tailored for the specific characteristics of CO2 (as opposed to hydrocarbon gas, oil or
water).
• Industry experience with CO2 EOR wells (both for CO2 continuous injection as well as for
CO2-WAG) shows that new CO2 injection wells can be suitably designed to allow well
integrity to be maintained in the long-term. Concerns from cement degradation and
corrosion can be suitably addressed in the design and construction of these wells. Industry
experience also indicates that CO2 storage injection wells can also maintain wellbore
integrity if designed, constructed, operated and monitored as per current state-of-the-art
design specifications and regulatory requirements.
• Risks from legacy wellbores can also be adequately addressed as long as sound
engineering practices and compliance with current and more stringent regulatory
requirements are complied with.
• The handling and managing CO2 wellbore operations safely is well established from CO2
EOR projects. Initial industry concerns about CO2 injection, especially during the water-
alternating-gas (WAG) process in terms of controlling the higher mobility gas; water-
blocking, corrosion, production concerns, oil recovery, and loss of injectivity have been
addressed with careful planning and design along with good management practices.
• Although there are a number of common areas between CO2 EOR and CO2 storage wells,
the differences can be grouped under five broad categories: (1) operational, (2) objectives
and economics, including CO2 supply, demand and purity, (3) legal and regularity, (4)
long-term monitoring requirements, and (5) industry’s experience. There are no specific
technological barriers or challenges per se in converting or adapting a pure CO2 EOR
operation into a concurrent or exclusive CO2 storage operation.
• The costs associated with CO2 EOR and CO2 storage projects are site and situation-
specific. In general, oil prices have by far the larger impact on the economic viability of a
CO2 EOR project, with the second largest impact being the cost of CO2.
1
Background to the Study
This project focuses on collecting industry experience on the drilling, completion, regularity
and interventions of CO2 wells. The aim for the report was to compare methodologies and
techniques used for handling CO2 compared with those required for hydrocarbon extraction.
This has allowed for a comparison to be made to the research already conducted on CO2 well
integrity and monitoring techniques. The study will investigate whether conditions experienced
during CO2 handling operations were predicted from modelling and experimental work and the
effectiveness of linked risk assessments.
The differences between hydrocarbon and CO2 operations are driven by acidification of drilling
muds, the high expansion factor of CO2 (going from liquid to gas phase), the effect of CO2 on
elastomeric seals and finally the cooling behaviour of CO2 (which under uncontrolled
depressurisation could chill equipment to temperatures below minus 70°C). Furthermore there
is the potential to form CO2 hydrates if water is present. Also, temperature and pressure cycling
due to phase-wise injection (e.g. if CO2 is delivered by boat) can strain the well equipment.
Other wellbore integrity issues were also identified during a recent IEAGHG Modelling and
Monitoring network meeting in July 2016. These included: timing and frequency of integrity
log requirements; an improved understanding of cement pathways and a different (non-Darcy)
approach to modelling flow in open wellbores. The choice of completion fluids could also be
impacted by the presence of CO2 in the injection tubing and the potential of acidification of
annular fluids should a tubing leak occur.
Scope of Work
The study’s primary objectives are:
• Gather well engineering and intervention experience from active CO2 injection projects
and from pure CO2 production operators on the drilling, completion, regularity (the ability
to actually inject CO2 regularly) and interventions of CO2 wells;
• Compare CO2 EOR with CO2 storage operations and summarize the best practices on CO2
operations.
A secondary objective was to investigate whether conditions experienced during CO2 handling
operations were predicted from modelling and experimental work and the effectiveness of
linked risk assessments. Injection regulations are not a focus of this report but have been
included where relevant.
Six case studies were chosen based on the operational industry experience available on
injecting or producing pure CO2. The case studies represent a variety of operational settings
(e.g. onshore, offshore, CO2 injectors and CO2 EOR).
2
A comparison with hydrocarbon wells was made which highlights the differences in
experiences with CO2 wellbores and wellbores used as standard within the oil and gas industry.
The comparison highlights the implications these differences have when conducting risk
assessments and also the associated costs of these alterations.
A compilation of discrepancies between predicted implications of pure CO2 wellbores versus

industry experience has been made. The report also reviews whether risk assessments currently
being developed for CO2 injection wells are appropriate and if improvements can be made in
risk assessments particularly regarding the potential to identify and remediate wellbore
integrity issues.
Findings of the Study

The study begins by outlining the current recommended practices for CO2 well design. This
includes a comparison to oil and gas wells which highlights that the design of a CO2 injection
well is very similar to a water/gas injection well in an oilfield or gas storage project, with the
exception that much of the downhole equipment must be upgraded for high pressure and
corrosion resistance. The cement and casing used for the well design is the biggest difference
in comparison to a water/gas injection well, with CO2 resistant cements and corrosion resistant
alloys required.
Carbon dioxide corrosion and the effects on different materials and how to monitor injection
wells is also covered in depth. The aggressive chemical components in the injected gas
discussed in the report are:
• CO2 – controls the basic material selection;

• H2S – shifts the choice of materials significantly because of the risk of pitting and/or
hydrogen loading;
• O2 – introduces pitting risk; and
• SO2 and NO2 – make the environment more acidic.
The material selection guidelines for both EOR and pure CO2 storage wells are discussed along
with best cementing practices.
Key Injection Risks for CO2 Wells versus O&G Wells
The report summarises the main well integrity issues for both CO2 EOR and pure CO2 injection
wells and draws a comparison between handling hydrocarbons versus CO2. Corrosion caused
by CO2 is discussed extensively looking at potential construction materials and monitoring of
injection wells and the causes of corrosion. The key issues when addressing CO2 wells
specifically (rather than hydrocarbons) are:
3
1. CO2 is reactive and may be corrosive when mixed with water. The can affect well
materials during injection such as the tubulars and cement as well as changing reservoir
properties in the near wellbore region.
2. Injection rates may be high which can affect wellbore structure mechanically.
3. The large timescales required for storage will mean specific requirements for well
design and monitoring procedures will need to be met.
For a CCS project the storage operation will have to store millions of tonnes of CO2 within a
50 year time frame. Injectivity and injection regularity are therefore important to meet the
large-scale storage required. Injectivity reduction after CO2 injection has occurred frequently
in West Texas as well as being reported in other locations. The variety of causes are listed in
the report including the potential impacts on mobility and wettability due to interactions
between oil and CO2. Gypsum, calcite, high molecular weight paraffin and asphaltene
production and deposition are also discussed. To be able to accurately predict the injectivity of
a wellbore at specific sites more research is required although current reservoir modelling
capabilities for CO2 injection are discussed.
In terms of project design and development for CO2 EOR operations oil recovery is the main
focus for the project to be profitable, therefore wells are drilled to optimise recovery. For CO2
injection minimising the number of wells whilst maximising storage capacity is the focus and
hence fewer wells would be drilled in comparison to EOR sites.
If leakage did occur the main difference to hydrocarbons is that CO2 is not explosive and hence
fires are not the concern. The main hazard associated with CO2 is asphyxiation as the gas is
denser than air. CO2 blowouts may have complications that other blowouts may not exhibit,
due to the characteristics of CO2. The tremendous expansion of supercritical CO2 when
pressure containment is lost is of great significance from a well control perspective. Rapid
cooling occurs due to the expansion that occurs which can lead to the formation of dry ice and
hydrates which can collect in various elements of the surface equipment.
The report provides an overview of the risks posed from potential loss of well control. Six CO2
blowout case studies are included as examples e.g. cases in New Mexico, Colorado and
Wyoming. Both human factors and unforeseen reservoir conditions can contribute to the loss
of well control, and safety procedures, in-depth personnel training and specialized equipment
is used to minimize their likelihood. The dynamic kill technique can be used to control a CO2
blowout without the use of highly overbalanced kill fluids. This factor becomes important if
flow restrictions, such as small diameter tubulars, limit fluid injection and rate. Failures from
CO2-related corrosion can cause the loss of well control. In some wells in CO2 floods that were
drilled in the 1940s and 1950s, cumulative corrosion impacts are a problem. It is important to
make older wells equipped with corrosion-resistant tubulars and also wells that have been
converted to CO2 service.
The report summarises the key differences between oil and gas, CO2 EOR and pure CO2 storage
wells in Table 8. This is provided on the pages below as a synthesis of the main focus for the
report, to highlight how CO2 wells vary from oil and gas standard practices.
4
Table 8 (in report) – Comparative Summary of Conventional Oil and Gas Injection Wells and CO2 EOR and CO2 Storage injection Wells
Conventional O&G Injection Wells CO2 EOR Injection Wells CO2 Storage Injection Wells
High Injection/ • Generally, not high for water • A principal source of danger in a CO2 • High injection pressures combined with low
Operating/ injectors and oil/gas producers. facility is the high pressure (generally injection fluid temperatures can induce hydraulic
Reservoir Pressure • Important consideration in High above 1,100 psi – 7.58 MPa) at which CO2 fracturing.
Management Pressure High Temperature is transported and injected (applicable • Regulations may require maximum injection
(HPHT), deep water and over- for both CO2 EOR and CO2 storage pressure not to exceed 90% of the injection zone
pressured reservoirs. facilities). fracture pressure (US) or 90% of the fracture
• High pressure is particularly dangerous pressure of the caprock (Norway).
with CO2 because of CO2’s high coefficient • Geomechanical models are required to determine
of thermal expansion – a small change in the maximum injection pressure that will not
temperature can cause a large change in induce fractures and to determine the in-situ
pressure. stresses and faults, and fault re-activation hazard.
• Injection pressures are generally higher Injection wells should be located as far as possible
[~ (800 – 1,500 psi/5.52 – 10.34 MPa)] from faults.
in CO2 EOR wells than O&G
production/injection wells.
• Increased well pressures make
workovers more
CO2 Corrosion • CO2 corrosion is generally not a • CO2 reactivity in water may corrode • In CO2 storage projects, if dry CO2 (with CO2 purity
factor in conventional O&G injection well materials (well tubular and above 95%) is injected in the supercritical state
production/injection wells. cement) and can also change the the corrosion risk is low and therefore, corrosion
Significant factor in acid/sour gas reservoir properties in near wellbore problems are not expected to be any more severe
injection streams with CO2 and region. as compared to CO2 EOR operations (Nygaard,
H2S present. • In WAG operations wetted surfaces often 2010).
• In a study of the K-12B gas field use specialty metallurgy (316 SS) and • The corrosion rate will increase if the injected
in the Dutch sector of the North coatings to guard against corrosion, stream comes into contact with water. Possible
Sea where CO2 is injected, 5% of • Long-term stability of wellbore materials water sources may include: connate water in the
tubulars were degraded due to in CO2-rich environment is a complex injection zone, free water in the cement or free
pitting corrosion (Mulders, function of material properties and water resulting from capillary condensation
2006). reservoir properties which need to be (Kolenberg et al., 2012).
incorporated into well design and
completion programs.
5
Well Design & • All wells have two basic • Design and well construction of a CO2- • A CO2 storage well is in most cases similar to
Construction elements: the wellbore, (which EOR injection well is similar to a CO2 EOR injection well, however, in some
(Drilling/ includes the packer) and the typical oil and gas-related water instances the design requirements for a CO2
Workovers) tubing and wellhead valves injection well with most downhole storage well may be more stringent, depending
assembly. equipment being virtually the same, upon a case-by-case basis (See Section 2.1.4 and
• Multiple casing strings are used except the wellhead. See Section 2.1.3 figures 5 and 6).
for a variety of reasons, and Figure 4. • CO2 will be stored for a long time period
including the protection of • CO2 EOR wells are either drilled as new (decades). This imposes a number of
groundwater resources and wells or, as is quite common in existing requirements on the well design and specific
maintaining wellbore integrity. fields, re-completed by converting procedures for its monitoring and abandonment
• Drilling in environments such producer or injector to a CO2 EOR as part of wider MMV (monitoring measurement
as HPHT, deep/ultra-deep injector. and verification) requirements for the entire
water, steam assisted gravity • There are several major differences in storage site depending on jurisdiction.
drainage (SAGD), extended wellbore remedial work between a
reach drilling (ERD and ultra- water flood and a CO2 flood (See
ERD), arctic, shale oil and gas, Section 2.1.6).
hydraulic fracturing, salt zone • Most operators with large CO2 EOR
drilling and CO2 injection operations (See Case Study # 4),
results in complex loading maintain a workover rig on location for
conditions on the casing/ routine workover and maintenance.
tubular/cement etc. (most Ability to deploy a rig at short notice is
commonly used casing design also valuable in case a well control
software is WELLCATTM) See incident were to occur.
Section 2.1.2.
Well Integrity • Conventional oil and gas wells • Well integrity in CO2 EOR wells needs • Injection rates may be higher in CO2 storage
have generally lower well to take account of exposure to wells as compared to CO2 EOR wells and can
integrity failure incidents than corrosive CO2, life of field and have impact on wells and near wellbore
wells drilled in deep water, permanent entrapment of CO2 within structures.
ERD, shale oil/gas and HPHT the reservoir. This is readily addressed • Some experimental observations like the
environments. abnormal pressure drop response obtained
6
• Wells drilled in Gulf of Mexico by strict adherence to material under a high injection rate suggest that solid
indicate significant problems selection requirements. particle displacement can occur leading to
(Well Integrity with SCP (sustained casing • Largescale CO2 EOR operations like severe permeability impairment (Cailly et al,
Cont.) pressure), believed to be SACROC and Wasson Field (See Case 2005). Evidence from Sleipner field does not
caused by gas flow through Study # 4, Sections 2.1.6 and 5.1) support this observation. Laboratory work
cement matrix (Crow, 2006). suggest no major issues with life cycle should be performed on the injection formation
• In the Norwegian sector of the well integrity management. to assure no adverse impacts from high rate
North Sea, ~13-15% of • Problems from CO2 corrosion and injection.
production wells experienced impacts on cement degradation have • After CO2 injection, the CO2 plume may move
leakage, while 37-41% of the been handled with appropriate upwards or sideways due to pressure difference
injectors experienced leakage selection of materials of construction and buoyancy, with wells providing an obvious
(Randhol and Carlsen, 2008; (well tubulars and cements) in CO2 EOR pathway for CO2 to escape from the injection
and NPA, 2008). operations zone.
• Of ~ 316,000 deep wells • Appropriate casing/tubing design to • Intermittent supply of CO2 (supply disruptions
analyzed in Alberta, 4.6% had handle complex loads/stresses from during unloading from a ship or during well
leaks with gas migration CO2 injection and CO2 EOR operations interventions/repairs) can affect well integrity
occurring in 0.6% of the wells have been successfully handled with and injectivity. On-off injection leads to cyclical
and surface casing vent flow appropriate casing/tubular design heating and cooling and can cause radial and
(SCVF) in 3.9% of the wells software. hoop stresses in cement and lead to debonding
(Watson and Bachu, 2007). • Proper maintenance of CO2 injection (between cement and casing and/or rock) or
• Main observation from these wells (both CO2 EOR and CO2 storage) is disc or regular fractures. This can also have an
studies is that cased wells are necessary to avoid loss of well impact on nucleation conditions (e.g.salt) and
more prone to leakage than integrity. Procedures to reduce loss of borehole deformation. The research-based
drilled and abandoned wells, well control (LWC) incidents including advice is to avoid extensive pressure testing of
and injection wells are more blowouts and to mitigate the adverse annular barriers, ensure robust well
prone to leakage than effects if one should occur include: construction, and minimize thermal cycling. The
production wells (Nygaard, periodic well integrity surveys, average time for well integrity problems to
2010). improved BOP equipment occur is ~ 2 years if wells are operated outside
maintenance, improved crew their initial design envelope and there is a
awareness, contingency planning and strong dependence on quality of cementation.
emergency response training.
7
Material Selection
& • For wells 10,000 feet (3,048 m) • CO2 may be corrosive or non-corrosive • Material selection for CO2 injection wells
Specifications or less in depth, carbon steel depending upon the materials depends on high strength requirements
casing is typically used with J- employed, temperature at the contact combined with high corrosion resistance of the
55 and K-55 grades being more surface, water vapour concentration, material.
common. CO2 partial pressure and velocity • A chemical analysis of the reservoir fluids is
• In deep water (drilling through effects (See Section 4.0). required for evaluation of the corrosive
salt), HPHT, shale oil/gas • Material selection guidelines for CO2 components such as temperature and pressure
hydraulic fracturing, acid gas EOR wells are given in Section 4.3.3 profiles and stresses on the tubulars should also
(CO2 and H2S), and CO2 EOR and and Table 6. be considered.
CO2 storage, higher strength • Reaction of CO2 with wellbore cement • Material selection has to consider that wells will
grades and/or corrosion is slow in a well in which good be in contact with wet CO2 especially in the
resistant alloys (CRA) are used. construction practices and appropriate deeper section of the well.
(See Section 4.3). materials were used; in these cases CO2 • Other factors to consider should include
• Most conventional oil and gas should not be a problem (See Section material capabilities for low temperatures
wells use API Class G and H 4.4 and Table 7). (brittle materials may not be adequate
Cements for typical • SACROC core evidence indicates protection for a CO2 leak) and oxygen-related
applications. Other types are Portland cement system can provide corrosion impacts (See Sections 4.3 and 4.3.2 for
also used for specific the requisite wellbore seal for the corrosion resistant alloys (CRAs - Tables 4 and
applications - thermal, HPHT, lifetime of the project. Making 5).
deep water, Arctic, shale modifications to the standard Portland • Material selection guidelines for CO2 storage
oil/gas, geothermal etc. (See system may further improve the long- wells are given in Sections 4.3 and 4.3.4.
Appendix 5 and Tables A5-1 term reliability of the seal. • CO2 resistant cement properties have been
and A5-2). • Non-Portland specialty cements that tested and evaluated at CO2 EOR sites (see
• Cementing is critical to the are resistant to CO2 are commercially opposite) and Section 4.4.
mechanical performance and available. Use of these systems
integrity of a wellbore both in requires planning and logistics (See
terms of its method of Sections 4.4 and 4.4.3 and Appendix 5
placement and cement and Tables A5-1 and A5-2).
formulation used.
8
Injectivity and • There are well established • Potential loss of injectivity and • CO2 injection can alter mechanical properties of
Regularity (ability industry practices to address corresponding loss of reservoir the reservoir rock by inducing chemical
to actually inject injectivity and permeability pressure can have a major impact on reactions. Precipitation of salts, mainly
CO2 at the desired impairment or stimulation for the economics of a CO2-EOR project consisting of halite (NaCl), due to water
conventional water injectors in (Rogers et al, 2001). Both injectivity vaporization can result in injectivity impairment
rates necessary to
oil and gas production. increases and reduction have been around injection wells (Bacci et al, 2011, Hansen
store the • Evidence shows loss of observed in CO2 floods including in et al, 2013 and Sminchak et al. 2014). Some
delivered integrity much higher in several West Texas floods and the studies suggest that a high CO2 injection rate
quantity) injection wells compare to North Sea (after hydrocarbon should permit the injection process to continue
production wells – possible injection). with limited impact on injectivity even if
causes thermal cycling of fluids. • Factors that affect injectivity include: significant halite precipitation takes place (See
• Changing use of well originally low mobility in the tertiary oil bank; Section 5.3).
designed for a different wettability; trapping and bypassing of • Fines migration can be remediated in theory by
purpose may compromise its gas; increased scaling; paraffin ensuring that injection proceeds at specific
re-use for a different function. problems; asphaltene precipitation. velocities large enough so that particle
Asphaltenes can plug up plungers, clog deposition occurs far enough from the wellbore.
wellheads, tubulars, chokes, and Borehole deformation in weaker/unconsolidated
surface/ production lines (See Section formations can be remediated by adding brine in
5.2). the injector to re-stabilize the formation
• For EOR operations such as at Weyburn (Papamichos et al., 2010).
and Oxy's Denver Unit (See Case Study • Geological heterogeneities resulting from faults
#4), the number and location of intersection, reservoir compartmentalization or
injection wells is part of the facies variation may be remediated by use of acid
optimization program for oil recovery. injection to open high permeable pathways from
Commercial CO2 EOR operations need the injection well, or surfactants to alter the
to take account of oil recovery and CO2 wettability of the lower permeability units and
recycling. counteract the CO2 trapping tendencies
(Torsaeter et al., 2018).
• Shale swelling can be addressed through
concomitant injection of specific brine to restore
salt balance (as is done when drilling through
9
shaley intervals) such as inflatable packers or

blank pipe connections.
• Where the size of the aquifer is large and the
receiving formation has a high permeability (e.g.
Utsira in Sleipner) CO2 can be injected at a high
rate without significant injectivity problems or a
significant pressure increase. In less favourable
locations, injectivity and injection regularity may
become a crucial technical and economic
challenge. Large scale storage of CO2 requires
reservoirs with sufficient capacity and good
petrophysical properties to dissipate pressure
build-up and avoid interference with adjacent oil
and gas operations, if present.
Plugging • There are well established • Texas RRC Rule §3.14 covers plugging • Many old, abandoned wells (completed and
industry practices to properly requirements for CO2 EOR wells (See shut-in using practices and cement acceptable at
(P&A) plug and abandon conventional Section 7.1) and AER Directive 020 - the time) may not be suitable to use in long-
oil and gas wells. P&A of deep Well Abandonment in Alberta, Canada term CO2 storage systems. Leakage from
water offshore wells are more (See Section 7.2). See Appendix 6 - abandoned wells has been identified as a
challenging and technological Plugging and Abandonment of Wells potential “significant” risk in geologic storage of
advances are being made to for plugging procedure for CO2 EOR CO2. Evidence from the Cranfield, Mississippi
safely plug and wells. Please also see Table A6-1 - site (See Section A2.8) does not support this
abandon/decommission these Description of Abandonment Methods. view, where a specific investigation of legacy
wells and platforms. wells showed no detected evidence of CO2
• Plugging and abandonment leakage. This does not mean legacy wells could
regulations for Texas are given leak but it is a matter of degree, risk assessment
in Texas Administrative Code and remediation. Also, legacy wells were not
(TAC) Title 16, Part I, Chapters designed for handling CO2 (See Section 2.1.6).
1 through 20 (See Section 7.1). • Operational conditions affect well integrity
Rule § 3.14 covers plugging which might be relevant if legacy wells are then
requirements in Texas (RRC). used for CO2 injection or even if new dedicated
10
• P&A regulations for Alberta are wells are used for CO2 injection. Well design has
given in Alberta Energy to consider handling large volumes of CO2 over
Regulator (AER) Directive 020 - several years with probably intermittent
Well Abandonment in Alberta, injection operations.
Canada (See Section 7.2). • Storage in deep saline aquifers may also pose a
• API Bulletin E3 "Well lower risk (due to lower number of wellbores
(P&A cont.) Abandonment and Inactive encountered) than those encountered in oil and
Well Practices for U.S. gas fields.
Exploration and Production • Depleted oil and gas reservoirs are likely to
Operations", 1993 gives incorporate a greater number of wells
additional guidelines on P&A penetrating the reservoir caprock due to the
requirements (See Appendix 6). historical exploitation of these fields. Seepage,
migration, and leakage can occur from
improperly plugged and abandoned old oil and
gas wells. Since the operational history of CO2
storage wells is relatively short compared to CO2
EOR wells, we do not have actual examples of
plugged and abandoned CO2 storage wells to
compare key differences in plugging practices
between these two types of wells. See Appendix
6 for Recommended Best Practice for Well
Abandonment from a CCS Perspective.
• A good understanding of well abandonment and
remedial measures and current abandonment
practices and regulatory requirements are
necessary to assure safe and secure long-term
storage of CO2 in the subsurface reservoirs. A
variety of techniques are employed around the
world to facilitate well abandonment and state
and federal regulatory agencies may specify the
exact requirements for doing so.
11
Case Studies
In total six case studies were included covering a variety of CO2 injection scenarios including
offshore, onshore, EOR and pure CO2 storage. Core Energy’s offices in Michigan were visited
by Talib Syed and Associates as part of this study, the full details of which are included in the
report. Three of the case studies are highlighted below:
Petrobras’ Lula Field: Offshore Brazil
• Brazil’s Pre-Salt layers deposits are currently the international leader in pursuing deep
water offshore CO2 EOR.
• Advantages of early implementation of CO2 EOR as part of planned production
included: improved capital efficiency since it freed the operator from subsequent
retrofit of infrastructure and platform space, avoiding need to suspend or shut-in
production.
• The CO2 EOR design utilizes intelligent well completions, dynamic downhole
monitoring, tracer injections and extensive CO2 recycling.
• To improve reservoir management, intelligent completions are being deployed
whenever considered beneficial. This approach can mitigate risks from preferential
flow and early breakthrough and also allow injection of either water or gas.
Oxy Denver Unit, Wasson Field Texas
• Oxy operate the Denver Unit in the Permian Basin of West Texas for the primary
purpose of enhanced oil recovery using CO2 flooding (CO2-EOR) with a secondary
purpose of storing CO2 for a specified period 2016 through 2026.
• There are ~1,734 active wells (2/3rd production and 1/3rd injection). Since 1996, all
wells are cemented to surface using state-of-the-art standards. Oxy pays close
attention to older wells and keeps well workover crews on site in the Permian Basin
to maintain all active wells and to respond to any wellbore issues that arise.
• Oxy used simulators to model the behaviour of fluids within the reservoir and uses
detailed pattern modelling to plan the location and injection schedule for wells.
Simulations are also used to: evaluate infill or replacement wells; determine best
completion intervals; verify the need for remediation/workover or stimulation;
determine anticipated rates and ultimate recovery. Oxy uses commercially available
compositional simulator MORE.
Overview of Core Energy’s CO2-EOR Projects
• Core Energy, LLC currently operates the only CO2 EOR projects in Michigan and the
only commercial EOR project east of the Mississippi. In addition to CO2 EOR
operations, Core Energy is involved in CO2 sequestration in conjunction with EOR
operations in Michigan by hosting a public/private partnership to research the storage
potential of Michigan’s oilfields and deep saline reservoir geology.
12
• They currently have 15 injection wells (12 converted and 3 new), 13 production wells
(4 converted and 9 new), and 8 Monitor wells (6 converted and 2 new).
• In some of the new wells drilled, additives (e.g. latex) were added to the cement blends
as a “belt and braces” type approach to help the cement be less porous and less
susceptible to degradation, which has not occurred to date.
• Corrosion is limited due to absence of water in the system. Corrosion inhibitors are
used in certain areas and corrosion coupons are installed in lines and have shown very
little to no corrosion.
• Have had shallow well integrity issues, due to non-EOR disposal activities, but have
been remediated when they occur without any major impacts.
Expert Review Comments

Four external reviewers returned comments. The general consensus was that the report gives a
good overview of challenges that may arise but the report was too extensive and required
synthesising. Overall a majority of the changes following the review were relating to
restructuring the report rather than editing content. The report has extensive appendices to
synthesise the main content of the study. All comments were addressed in the final copy of the
report.
Conclusions
In summary, industry experience (particularly with CO2 EOR wells) for both CO2 continuous
injection as well as for CO2-WAG, shows that new CO2 storage injection wells can be suitably
designed to allow well integrity to be maintained in the long-term, and concerns from long-
term cement degradation and corrosion can be suitably addressed in the design and construction
of these wells.
Well Integrity Challenges
• Analysis of injection and production data from the Norwegian sector shows that thermal
cycling can affect wellbore integrity especially in injection wells. Casing design software
such as WELLCATTM is widely used by most operators to ensure that the wellbore
integrity is maintained throughout its life cycle.
• Proper maintenance of CO2 injection wells is necessary to avoid loss of well integrity. Any
annulus pressure build-up should be monitored and if Sustained Casing Pressure (SCP) is
indicated, diagnostics should be performed and appropriate remedial steps taken to restore
well integrity or the well shut-in, pending repair. Plugging and abandonment procedures
are also important to ensure that the injected CO2 will not escape or migrate out of the
stored reservoir and/or saline aquifer.
• Both human factors and unforeseen reservoir conditions can contribute to the occurrence
of blowouts and loss of well control. Safety procedures, in-depth personnel training and
13
specialized equipment is used to minimize their likelihood. A full summary of case studies
relating to loss of control wells is included in the report.
• The dynamic kill technique can be used to control a CO2 blowout without the use of highly
overbalanced kill fluids. This factor becomes important if flow restrictions, such as small
diameter tubulars, limit fluid injection and rate.
• The use of corrosive resistant alloy (CRA) casings/liners etc. in lieu of carbon steel casing
provide enhanced corrosion protection for severe CO2 service but may have the downside
of increased costs and with decreased injection capability. Due to the corrosive and highly
solvent characteristics of supercritical liquid CO2, special attention must be paid to rubber
and plastic components such as packing and sealing elements.
Injectivity and Regulatory Challenges
• Initial industry concerns about CO2 injection (especially during the WAG process) in terms
of controlling the higher mobility gas: water-blocking, corrosion, production concerns, oil
recovery, and loss of injectivity have been addressed with careful planning and design
along with good management practices, except loss of injectivity, which is a key variable
in determining the success of a CO2 project.
• Numerical models are being successfully applied to adequately capture impacts of
reservoir heterogeneity, multiphase flow behaviour and fluid-rock interactions on the
pressure distribution in the subsurface. Still, more data from actual storage projects is
needed to history match and verify model predictions and calibrate the models.
• Injectivity reduction after CO2 WAG injection has occurred frequently in West Texas, as
well in the Brent formations in the North Sea after hydrocarbon gas injection. Field data
from a West Texas field suggests that reduced injectivity is an in-depth (far-field)
phenomenon and not a near wellbore condition such as skin or high gas saturation around
the injector.
• Numerical modelling studies have also shown the potential for well injectivity losses due
to halite impairment in CO2 storage wells. Studies suggest that a high CO2 injection rate
should allow the injection process to continue with limited impact on injectivity, even if
significant halite precipitation takes place.
• Pressure build-up due to injection in both saline and depleted oil and gas reservoirs may
be a potential challenge for some large-scale geological storage sites, therefore pressure-
management strategies may need to be considered for some CCS projects. The use of water
production (pressure relief) wells as proposed for the Gorgon project is one obvious
solution, along with the use of horizontal wells.
14
Storage in Deep Saline Formations (DSFs) vs Oil and Gas (O&G) Reservoirs
• Oil and gas reservoirs are intersected by many wells, and stricter regulatory requirements
may require operators to re-confirm the quality of zonal isolation, by recompleting or
working over wells that will be exposed to CO2.
• Uncertainty on capacity and injectivity is clearly lower for depleted reservoirs, giving them
a net potential economic advantage, whereas the uncertainty on well containment favours
saline formations, which are intersected by fewer wells.
• High injection pressures combined with low injection fluid temperatures can induce
hydraulic fracturing which can affect the bounding seals (cap-rock and overburden).
Depleted reservoirs have a lower risk from potential fracturing, since re-pressurization can
be done up to a pressure that is lower than or equal to the original reservoir pressure.
Recommendations
The recommendations from this report are related to cement systems and zonal isolation for
CO2 injection wells. Extra care and attention has to be paid to the design and execution of
cement jobs for both surface, intermediate and production casings. Most regulatory agencies
mandate the surface casing to be cemented back to surface. Appendix 3 outlines the Standard
Operating Procedures (SOPs) for CO2 well design, construction and operation which can be
taken as the recommendations from this report on how to handle CO2 well engineering.
• Cement evaluation tools such as Ultrasonic Imaging Tool (USIT)/Segmented Bond Tool
(SBT)/Isolation Scanner will need to be run to evaluate the quality of the cement bond to
the casing and to the formation.
• The design of the cement slurry may use Portland cement as its base, provided efforts are
taken to reduce the permeability of the set cement, reduce the concentration of available
reactive species and/or protect those reactive species through use of carefully selected
additives. Lower density system should use extenders that will allow permeability
reduction which include flash systems, additives such as found in the tri-modal systems
and specialty additives that protect the reactive species in Portland cement. The use of
silicate extenders or only bentonite is not recommended.
• Portland cements used in oilfield applications have been found to provide adequate seal
and zonal integrity in several CO2 EOR projects (both continuous CO2 flooding as well as
water-alternating-gas/WAG applications). However, in some projects, it may be required
to utilize CO2 resistant and specialty cements to avoid degradation and corrosion impacts
resulting from CO2 injection into deep saline aquifers.
• Non-Portland systems that are resistant to CO2 are commercially available though do
require additional planning to assure proper design and prevention of contamination during
the operations. These systems are not as readily available as conventional Portland
systems, and thus may not be available in all areas. As noted the decision to use these
systems is not trivial and requires considerable planning for logistics and operations.
15
WELL ENGINEERING AND INJECTION REGULARITY IN CO2 STORAGE
WELLS
Prepared for the IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme

Reference IEA/CON/17/245
Talib Syed, Ronald Sweatman, Glen Benge
Talib Syed and Associates, Inc. (TSA)

19688 E. Fair Drive
Aurora, CO 80016
USA
Phone: +1 720.729.2424/+1 720.877.1272
Email: [email protected]
Web: www.talibsyed-assoc.com
1
Executive Summary
Geologic storage/sequestration of carbon dioxide (CO2) involves injection of large quantities of CO2 into
primarily deep saline aquifers for storage purposes or, where feasible, into oil and gas reservoirs for
enhanced oil recovery (EOR) purposes. To successfully inject CO2 into the subsurface, the CO2 must be
trapped in the subsurface and not be allowed to leak to the surface or to potable water sources above the
injection horizon. The literature and experience from industrial analogs indicate that wellbores (active or
inactive/abandoned) may represent the most likely route for leakage of injected CO2 from the storage
reservoirs. Therefore, sound injection well design and well integrity, operation and monitoring are of
critical importance in such projects and this study attempts to address life-cycle well integrity risks from
CO2 injection wells.
The CO2 EOR industry has extensive experience in developing materials of construction for well tubulars
(casing/tubing/packer/seal-elastomers etc.) that are resistant to the corrosive effects of CO2 both in the
downhole and surface environments, and in the selection of corrosion- resistant cements to prevent
cement degradation and loss of zonal isolation from CO2 injection horizons. Existing pilot, demonstration
and commercial storage projects have demonstrated that CO2 geologic storage is technically feasible. In
addition, handling and managing CO2 operations safely are well established from the extensive
experience gained from CO2 EOR projects. It is important to clarify that the primary objective of CO2 EOR
operations is to increase the recovery of the Original Oil in Place (OOIP) from the reservoir and not to
store CO2. Therefore, the operating philosophy is different compared to pure CO2 storage. In addition,
these CO2 EOR projects do not operate at a scale that is necessary to reduce greenhouse gas emissions
significantly.
Although numerical models are being successfully applied to adequately capture impacts of reservoir
heterogeneity, multiphase flow behavior and fluid-rock interactions on the pressure distribution in the
subsurface, more data from actual storage projects is needed to history match and verify model
predictions and calibrate the models (no history-matching comparisons have been made in this Report).
Since reservoir quality information is particularly sparse for deep saline aquifers, resulting in large
uncertainty in estimations of injectivity, sweep efficiency and storage capacity, it is critical to develop
efficient and cost-effective injection strategies that maximize the injection rate and volume and decrease
the required number of wells.
Well integrity issues impact well regularity (the ability to actually inject CO2 regularly) at the desired
rates necessary to store the delivered quantity or the quantity needed for CO2 EOR purposes, with
i
injection well regularity having an influence on the design and cost of storage facilities. For wells exposed
to formations containing supercritical CO2 it is important to identify the procedures and equipment that
have to be tailored for the specific characteristics of CO2 (as opposed to hydrocarbon gas, oil or water)
and the specific equipment and procedures may cover drilling, completion, operation, interventions and
abandonment. Compliance with local regulatory requirements will also affect the design and cost of the
storage facilities.
In-depth case studies with a focus on industry experience with wellbores that are used for the production
or injection of CO2 have been presented in this Study and represent different operating settings: onshore
CO2 EOR, offshore CO2 EOR and CO2 storage projects located in the Permian Basin, Texas as well as
offshore North Sea, Brazil and other locations in the world. One of the case studies included a facility visit
and meeting with an active CO2 EOR operator located in Midwestern U.S. in Michigan (see Section 8.6,
Case Study # 6 – Core Energy). Other CO2 EOR operators with active operations in West Texas declined to
participate in this Study (perhaps due to regulatory or legal concerns).
Blowouts experienced during gas injection (both for CO2 and other gases) and their main causes,
prevention, and implications for CO2 storage are also included in this Study. This will provide more data
to assure public stakeholders that in spite of CO2’s unique characteristics, CO2 injection and production
operations can be handled and managed safely, without endangering human health and safety and the
environment.
The Report includes a current state-of-the-art Standard Operating Practices to enable operators to safely
operate CO2 injection wells for both EOR as well as storage operations. The existing regulatory structure
(Texas Railroad Commission and EPA in the U.S. and the Alberta Energy Regulator in Canada) for both
CO2 EOR injection/production wells and CO2 storage injection wells and an overview of regulations and
regulatory jurisdictions for CO2 geologic storage operations in the United Kingdom, European Union,
Brazil and Australia are also included in the Report (See Section 7.0).
The cost implications for designing a CO2 injection well as compared to a conventional oil and gas
production or injection well are discussed along with the associated costs related to modifications
required for CO2 injection operations (See Section 2.1.10). There are significant differences between the
costs and logistics of onshore and offshore CO2 injection and can affect the viability of a CO2 injection
project, and these differences apply worldwide.
ii
An extensive listing of References applicable to well design, construction, operation and management of
CO2 injection wells (with an emphasis on well construction and wellbore integrity) for both CO2 EOR
wells and CO2 storage wells is included in the Report and covers both onshore and offshore areas.
The common areas and differences between CO2 EOR and CO2 storage wells have been presented in the
Report (See Section 5.0). Table 8 gives a comparative summary of conventional oil and gas injection wells
and CO2 EOR and CO2 storage injection wells (with emphasis on onshore operations). However, there are
no specific technological barriers or challenges per se in converting or adapting a pure CO2 EOR operation
into a concurrent or exclusive CO2 storage operation.
In summary, industry experience particularly with CO2 EOR wells (both for CO2 continuous injection as
well as for CO2 WAG - water-alternating-gas) shows that new CO2 injection wells can be suitably designed
to allow well integrity to be maintained in the long-term, and concerns from cement degradation and
corrosion can be suitably addressed in the design and construction of these wells. Industry experience
also indicates that CO2 storage injection wells can also maintain wellbore integrity if designed,
constructed, operated and monitored as per current state-of-the-art design specifications and regulatory
requirements. Risks from legacy wellbores can also be adequately addressed as long as sound
engineering practices and compliance with current and more stringent regulatory requirements are
complied with.
iii
Table of Contents
WELL ENGINEERING AND INJECTION REGULARITY IN CO2 STORAGE WELLS ........................ 9
1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................... 9
2.0 WELL DESIGN STANDARDS AND RECOMMENDED PRACTICES .................................... 14
2.1 WELL DESIGN FOR CO2 INJECTION WELLS...................................................................................... 14
2.1.1 Properties of CO2 ....................................................................................................... 14
2.1.2 Casing Design ............................................................................................................ 17
2.1.3 Wellhead Design ........................................................................................................ 20
2.1.4 Wellbore Design ........................................................................................................ 21
2.1.5 Completion Design..................................................................................................... 26
2.1.6 Re-Completions of Existing Wellbores (Contek/API, 2008) ..................................... 28
2.1.7 CO2 Injection Wells versus Conventional Oil and Gas Wells ..................................... 33
2.1.8 Well Construction Considerations for CO2 Storage Wells (Smith et al, 2011
and Cailly et al, 2005) ............................................................................................................... 34
2.1.9 Other Analogs to CO2 Injection ................................................................................. 37
2.1.10 CO2 EOR and CO2 Storage Well Costs ........................................................................ 39
3.0 WELL INTEGRITY ......................................................................................................................... 43
3.1 WHAT IS WELL INTEGRITY? CONCEPTS AND TERMINOLOGY ............................................... 43
3.1.1 Mechanical Integrity ................................................................................................. 44
3.1.2 Well Integrity Assessment of CO2 EOR Wells in U.S. ................................................. 47
3.2 BARRIER PHILOSOPHY AND REQUIREMENTS ............................................................................... 48
3.3 BARRIER VERIFICATION AND DIAGNOSTICS ................................................................................. 49
3.4 MANAGING ABNORMAL CASING PRESSURE AND SUSTAINED CASING PRESSURE....... 49
3.4.1Types of Annular Pressures ............................................................................................... 50
3.4.2Case Study of Sustained Casing Pressure in CO2 Injection Wells
(Hongjun Zhu et al, 2013) ......................................................................................................... 53
3.4.3 Natural Gas Storage Failure Incidents (Syed, 2017) ............................................... 56
4.0 CARBON DIOXIDE CORROSION................................................................................................ 60
4.1 CORROSION CONTROL IN CO2 INJECTION WELLS ........................................................................ 61
4.2 CORROSION MONITORING OF CO2 INJECTION WELLS ............................................................... 64
4.3 MATERIALS OF CONSTRUCTION FOR CO2 WELLS ........................................................................ 65
4.3.1 Steel Types ................................................................................................................. 66
4.3.2 Corrosion resistant alloys (CRA) ............................................................................... 67
4.3.3 Material Selection Guidelines for CO2 EOR Wells ..................................................... 68
4.3.4 Material Selection Guidelines for CO2 Storage Wells ............................................... 72
4.4 CO2 USE WITH CEMENTS AND CEMENTING PRACTICES........................................................... 74
4.4.1 Background ............................................................................................................... 74
4.4.2 Cement Slurry Design ................................................................................................ 77
4.4.3 Recommendations ..................................................................................................... 80
5.0 KEY RISKS FOR CO2 INJECTION WELLS VERSUS OIL AND GAS WELLS AND
INJECTION REGULARITY ......................................................................................................................... 81
5.1 WELL INTEGRITY ISSUES FOR CO2 STORAGE WELLS ................................................................. 90
5.1.1 Other Wellbore Integrity Challenges for CO2 Storage Wells .................................... 92
5.2 INJECTIVITY ISSUES WITH CO2 EOR INJECTION WELLS ............................................................ 93
5.3 INJECTIVITY ISSUES WITH CO2 STORAGE WELLS ........................................................................ 95
5.4 RESERVOIR MODELLING FOR CO2 INJECTION (IEAGHG, 2010) ............................................. 98
5.4.1 Simulation Software .................................................................................................. 98
6.0 CO2 BLOWOUTS – OVERVIEW OF RISKS FROM POTENTIAL LOSS OF WELL
CONTROL....................................................................................................................................................100
4
6.1 MAIN CAUSES OF LOSS OF WELL CONTROL IN CO2 WELLS .................................................. 100
6.2 PREVENTION .............................................................................................................................................. 102
6.3 BLOWOUTS IN CO2 EOR WELLS AND CO2 PRODUCTION WELLS – CASE STUDIES...... 103
6.3.1 Dynamic Kill Technology ........................................................................................ 110
6.4 WELL BLOWOUTS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR CO2 STORAGE WELLS.................................. 110
7.0 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK FOR CO2 EOR AND CO2 STORAGE WELLS ..................115
7.1 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK FOR CO2 INJECTION WELLS IN THE U.S.............................. 115
7.2 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK FOR CO2 INJECTION WELLS IN CANADA ............................ 121
7.3 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK FOR CO2 INJECTION WELLS IN E.U. ...................................... 125
7.4 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK FOR CO2 INJECTION WELLS IN U.K ....................................... 126
7.5 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK FOR CO2 INJECTION WELLS IN AUSTRALIA ..................... 127
7.6 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK FOR CO2 INJECTION WELLS IN BRAZIL .............................. 128
8.0 CASE STUDIES..............................................................................................................................130
8.1 CASE STUDY # 1: CO2 INJECTION OFFSHORE – PETROBRAS’S LULA FIELD,
SANTOS BASIN, OFFSHORE BRAZIL ........................................................................................................... 130
8.1.1 Summary and Conclusions ...................................................................................... 134
8.2 CASE STUDY # 2: NATURAL CO2 RESERVOIR, BEĈEJ FIELD, SERBIA ................................ 135
8.3 CASE STUDY # 3: UTHMANIYAH CO2 EOR AND CO2 STORAGE PROJECT, SAUDI
ARABIA ................................................................................................................................................................... 143
8.3.1 Summary and conclusions ...................................................................................... 150
8.4 CASE STUDY # 4: OXY DENVER UNIT, WASSON FIELD, TX (OXY DENVER UNIT CO2
SUBPART RR - MONITORING, REPORTING AND VERIFICATION (MRV) PLAN, 2015)......... 150
8.5 CASE STUDY # 5: CO2 INJECTION IN MIDWESTERN U.S. (SMINCHAK ET AL, 2013)
AND HAAGSMA ET AL (2013) ....................................................................................................................... 163
8.6 CASE STUDY # 6: OVERVIEW OF CORE ENERGY’S CO2 EOR PROJECTS AND
OPERATIONS IN MICHIGAN ........................................................................................................................... 169
9.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ..............................................................................................181
10.0 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................191
APPENDICES ...............................................................................................................................................A-1
APPENDIX 1 - DEFINITIONS.............................................................................................................A-1
APPENDIX 2 - CO2 ENHANCED OIL RECOVERY ..........................................................................A-8
APPENDIX 3 - STANDARD OPERATING PRACTICES (SOPS) FOR DESIGNING,
CONSTRUCTING, AND OPERATING CO2 INJECTION WELLS .................................................... A-40
APPENDIX 4 - APPLICABLE STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES FOR WELL
CONSTRUCTION, WELL OPERATIONS, AND WELL INTEGRITY .......................................... A-139
APPENDIX 5 - CEMENTING FUNDAMENTALS, EVALUATION/LOGGING TECHNIQUES
AND PRACTICES TO ASSURE A GOOD PRIMARY CEMENT JOB AND ZONAL
ISOLATION .................................................................................................................................... A-146
APPENDIX 6 - PLUGGING AND ABANDONMENT OF WELLS ............................................ A-172
APPENDIX 7 - WELL INTEGRITY MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS (WIMS) ............................ A-178
5
List of Figures
Figure 1 – CO2 Phase Behavior (Oilfield Review September 2015) ............................................................................................................14
Figure 2 - CO2 Phase Envelope (Bellarby, 2009) .................................................................................................................................................16
Figure 3 – CO2 Phase Behavior (Pipeline), Witkowski et al, 2015...............................................................................................................17
Figure 4- CO2 WAG Injection Wellhead (Jarrell et al, 2002)..........................................................................................................................21
Figure 5 - Typical CO2 EOR Injection Well Schematic, Permian Basin (Contek/API, 2008) ...........................................................23
Figure 6 - ADM CCS # 2 Class VI-GS Well, Decatur, Illinois, U.S.A. (As built well construction schematic) .............................24
Figure 7 - Typical CO2 Injection Wellhead (Contek/API, 2008) ...................................................................................................................27
Figure 8 - Typical CO2 Injection Well Tubing String (Contek/API, 2008) ...............................................................................................28
Figure 9 - Potential leak paths that may result in SCP (117- Norwegian Oil and Gas) ....................................................................52
Figure 10 - Potential CO2 Leakage Paths (Zhu et al, 2013) ...........................................................................................................................54
Figure 11 - Casing Program in Jilin Field, China (Zhu et al, 2013).............................................................................................................54
Figure 12 - Example of possible leakage paths for CO2 in a cased wellbore (Celia et al, 2004) ...................................................90
Figure 13 - Texas Railroad Commission Oil and Gas Division Districts Map (Porse et al, 2014) .............................................. 111
Figure 14 - CCS Policy and Regulatory Development in Canada (CCP4 Report) .............................................................................. 122
Figure 15 - CCS Development Projects in Canada (CCP4 Report)............................................................................................................ 123
Figure 16 - Location of Beĉej CO2 Field, Serbia................................................................................................................................................. 136
Figure 17 - South-north regional cross-section of the Beĉej field ............................................................................................................ 138
Figure 18 - Position of remediation and monitoring wells of the collapsed well Bc-5................................................................... 140
Figure 19 - Designs of injection well Bc-9, monitoring well Bc-X-1, and collapsed well Bc-5 .................................................... 141
Figure 20 - Measured CO2 concentrations in the groundwater at site Bc-5 ....................................................................................... 143
Figure 21 - Arrangement of injectors, producers and observation wells in the CO2 flood pilot (Kokal et al, 2016) ........ 145
Figure 22 - CO2 capture plant schematic (Kokal et al, 2016) .................................................................................................................... 146
Figure 23 - Monitoring and surveillance plan for the demonstration plan (Kokal et al, 2016) ................................................ 147
Figure 24 - Denver Unit Historic and Forecast CO2 Injection, Production, and Storage 1980-2120 (Oxy MRV, 2015) .. 151
Figure 25 - Stratigraphic Section at Wasson (Oxy-MRV, 2015) ............................................................................................................... 152
Figure 26 - Wasson Field Cross-Section Showing Saturation (Oxy-MRV, 2015) ............................................................................... 154
Figure 27 - Denver Unit Facilities General Production Flow Diagram (Oxy-MRV, 2015) ............................................................ 155
Figure 28 - Map of oil and gas wells over 800 m deep and large CO2 sources in the Midwest U.S.
(Sminchak et al, 2013) ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 163
Figure 29 - Sustained Casing Pressure Buildup Data from a 1940s era well (Sminchak et al, 2013) .................................... 167
Figure 30 - CO2 EOR Injection Well Schematic (Courtesy Core Energy, Michigan) ......................................................................... 171
Figure 31 - CO2 EOR Production Well Schematic (Courtesy Core Energy, Michigan) .................................................................... 172
Figure 32 - CO2 EOR Production Facility Process Diagram (Courtesy Core Energy, Michigan) ................................................ 173
Figure A2-1 - The CO2 miscible process showing the transition zone between the injection and production
well .........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................A-9
Figure A2-2 - CO2 EOR Operations, CO2 Sources: 2014 (O&G Journal, 2014) ................................................................................... A-17
Figure A2-3 - Projected CO2 EOR Operations by 2020................................................................................................................................. A-19
Figure A2-4 - Projected CO2 EOR Production by Region in 2020 ........................................................................................................... A-19
Figure A2-5 - Schematic cross-section through In Salah injection site (Mathieson et al, 2009,
IEAGHG, 2010) ............................................................................................................................................................................................................... A-34
Figure A2-6 - Simplified cross section through the SnØhvit field (Maldal and Tappel, IEAGHG 2010) ............................... A-35
Figure A2-7 - Schematic plume migration of injected CO2 in the Dupuy Formation (Chevron, 2005, IEAGHG,
2010) .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. A-37
Figure A3-1 - CO2 EOR or Disposal/Storage Project Life Cycle ............................................................................................................... A-41
6
Figure A3-2 - Schematic of risk management process for CO2 EOR and geological storage/disposal
projects .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................. A-74
Figure A5-1 - CBL Tool response to eccentering ......................................................................................................................................... A-158
Figure A5-2 - Typical CBL Nomograph ........................................................................................................................................................... A-159
Figure A6-1 - CO2 storage well before (left) and after abandonment (right) according to the methodology described by
Carlsen and Abdollahi (SINTEF 2007)............................................................................................................................................................. A-176
Figure A6-2 - Schematic of using metal alloy plug to seal and abandon production zone
(Canitron, 2008)......................................................................................................................................................................................................... A-177
Figure A7-1 - Exposure to CO2 Hazards (Jarrell et al, 2002) ................................................................................................... A-182
List of Tables
Table 1 – Reported operation problems from WAG injection (Christensen et al, 2001)………………………………………………30
Table 2 - Estimated 2008 costs for construction of a CO2 geologic storage injection well in the U.S. (USEPA, 2008) .......40
Table 3 - Percentage of Class II CO2 EOR Wells with Significant Noncompliance Violations Compared to
Total Class II EOR Wells in Select States for Years 2008 through 2012 (GAO, 2014) .......................................................................47
Table 4 – Material characteristics for tubulars (CATO2, 2013) ..................................................................................................................68
Table 5 - Relative Costs of Tubing Materials (Bellarby, 2009).....................................................................................................................68
Table 6 - Materials of Construction (MOC) for CO2 EOR Injection Well Components (Contek/API, 2008) .............................70
Table 7 - SACROC Cement Samples (Carey et al, 2006) ...................................................................................................................................76
Table 8 – Comparative Summary of Conventional Oil and Gas injection Wells and CO2 EOR and CO2 Storage Injection
Wells ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................81
Table 9 - Texas RRC Blowouts, 1998-2011 (Porse et al, 2014) ................................................................................................................ 112
Table 10 - USA Underground Injection Control Class II Inventory - Year 2016 Summary........................................................... 118
Table 11 - Measured concentrations of CH4 and CO2 in the overburden before remediation in 2007 .................................. 140
Table 12 - Denver Unit Wells ................................................................................................................................................................. 153
Table 13 - Non-Denver Unit Wells ........................................................................................................................................................ 153
Table A2-1 - Recently Announced Industrial Sources of CO2 in U.S....................................................................................................... A-18
Table A2-2 - Active CO2 EOR Projects outside the U.S. (O&G Journal, April 2014) ......................................................................... A-20
Table A2-3 - Key geologic and reservoir parameters for current North American LISPs (Saini, 2017).............................. A-30
Table A5-1 - Regular Portland cements are briefly described as per API Specification 10A and ASTM Specification
C150. The API specifications are reviewed annually and revised according to the needs of the oil industry ................ A-167
Table A5-2 - Description of special cements (modified from Contek/API, 2008 and Nygaard, 2010) .............................. A-168
Table A6-1 - Description of abandonment methods ................................................................................................................................. A-173
Nomenclature
AOR – Area of Review
AP – annular pressure
API – American Petroleum Institute
AER – Alberta Energy Regulator
BCF – billion (109) cubic feet of gas at standard conditions
BCFD – billion cubic feet of gas at standard conditions
Bbl – barrel
Bar – 14.504 psi
BOP – blow out preventer
7
BOPD – barrels of oil per day
0C – temperature, Celsius
CaCO3 - calcium carbonate

Ca(HCO3)2 – calcium bicarbonate
Ca(OH)2 – calcium hydroxide
CO2 EOR – carbon dioxide enhanced oil recovery
CO2 GS – carbon dioxide geologic storage
CCS – carbon capture and storage
CRA – corrosion resistant alloy
CSH – calcium silicate hydrate
DHSV – downhole safety valve
EOR – enhanced oil recovery
0F – temperature, Fahrenheit
ERCB – Energy Resources Conservation Board

GHG – greenhouse gas
HCO3 - - bicarbonate ion
H2CO3 – carbonic acid
H2S – hydrogen sulfide
HCl – hydrochloric acid
IEAGHG – International Energy Agency Greenhouse Gas Programme
IPCC – International Panel on Climate Control
ISO – International Standards Organization
Kilopascal (KPa) – 0.145 psi
Kt – thousand (103) metric tons/tonnes
LWC – loss of well control
Megapascal (MPa) – 145.03 psi
MCF – thousand (103) cubic feet of gas at standard conditions
MMCF – million (106) cubic feet of gas at standard conditions
MAWOP – maximum allowable wellhead operating pressure
MIC – microbial induced corrosion
MIT – mechanical integrity test
MMP – minimum miscibility pressure
Mt – million (106) metric tons/tonnes
NACE – national association of corrosion engineers
OGJ – Oil and Gas Journal
OOIP – original oil in place
PHMSA – pipeline and hazardous materials safety administration (US)
ppm – parts per million
PSA – Norway’s Petroleum Safety Authority
psia – pressure, pounds per square inch absolute
psig – pressure, pounds per square inch gauge
ROZ – residual oil zone
RP – recommended practice
RRC – Texas Railroad Commission
SACROC – scurry area canyon reef operators committee
SCP – sustained casing pressure
SOP – standard operating practices
SO4-2 – sulfate ion
SSV – subsurface sliding sleeve valve
TAP – trapped annular pressure
TP – thermal pressure
TCF – trillion (1012) cubic feet of gas at standard conditions
TCFD – trillion cubic feet of gas at standard conditions per day
USEPA – United States Environmental Protection Agency
8
WAG – water-alternating-gas
WIMS – well integrity management systems
WMI – well mechanical integrity
Standard Conditions:
Pressure 14.65 psia
Temperature 600 F
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank James Craig and Lydia Rycroft (IEA GHG) for their support, advice and
patience throughout the preparation of this Report. We also thank the external reviewers for their
comments and suggestions which has greatly improved the final version of the Report. We are grateful to
Core Energy, LLC for hosting us and allowing us to conduct a field visit to their CO2 EOR facilities in
Michigan, U.S.A and for their input in the preparation of this Report.
We would also like to acknowledge Dr. Neeraj Gupta and Battelle for their help providing materials for
the case study on CO2 Injection in the Midwestern U.S. and for an introductory letter that facilitated our
field visit to Core Energy’s CO2 EOR operations in Michigan.
It is also with great sadness, that we announce the passing away of our friend and colleague Mr. Ronald
Sweatman and a co-author of this Report in Houston, TX on March 30, 2018, after a distinguished 55-year
career in the oil and gas industry.
WELL ENGINEERING AND INJECTION REGULARITY IN CO2 STORAGE WELLS
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Geologic storage/sequestration of carbon dioxide (CO2) involves injection of large quantities of CO2 (to
meet climate and greenhouse gas emission targets) into primarily deep saline aquifers for storage
purposes or, where feasible, into oil and gas reservoirs for enhanced oil recovery objectives. To
successfully inject CO2 into the subsurface, the CO2 must be trapped in the subsurface and not be allowed
to leak to the surface or to potable water sources above the injection horizon. The literature and
experience from industrial analogs indicates that wellbores (active or inactive/abandoned) may
represent the most likely route for leakage of injected CO2 from the storage reservoirs. To avoid leakage
from injection wells, the integrity of the wells must be maintained during the injection period and for as
long as free CO2 exists in the injection horizon. In addition to injection wells, monitoring wells will most
likely be required to observe the plume movement and possible leakage.
9
In addition to the new injection and monitoring wells, the saline aquifers that are attractive storage sites
for CO2, may often be located in areas where oil production and a large number of wells exist (for
example in the province of Alberta, Canada alone, there already exists more than 350,000 wells and
around 15,000 wells are drilled each year (AER/ERCB, 2009 in Nygaard, 2010). The integrity of existing
wells that penetrate the capping formation also needs to be addressed to avoid CO2 leakage (Nygaard,
2010). Therefore sound injection well design and well integrity, operation and monitoring are of critical
importance in such projects.
CO2 injection for enhanced oil recovery (CO2 EOR) has a well- established history in the United States,
Canada and elsewhere. The knowledge of how to manage pure CO2 operations exists in areas such as the
USA (with significant experience) and Eastern Europe (with perhaps lesser experience than the US)
where some operators produce pure CO2 from natural accumulations for EOR applications. In the United
States alone, the oil and gas industry has injected over 600 Mt (million tons) of CO2 (11 trillion standard
cubic feet) over the past 35 years (Contek/API, 2008) and the CO2 is believed to be stable once injected,
provided the original pressure of the geological formation is not exceeded. CO2 EOR projects, along with
wells drilled in H2S-rich environments and high-temperature geothermal projects, have delivered
developments for improved well designs and materials, such as improved tubulars and cements. It is also
evident that valuable lessons can be learned from hydrocarbon exploration, natural gas storage and CO2
blowouts.
The study’s primary objectives are: (1) to gather well engineering and intervention experience from
active CO2 injection projects and from pure CO2 production operators on the drilling, completion,
regularity (the ability to actually inject CO2 regularly) and interventions of CO2 wells; and (2) to compare
CO2 EOR with CO2 storage operations and summarize the best practices on CO2 operations. A secondary
objective was to investigate whether conditions experienced during CO2 handling operations were
predicted from modelling and experimental work and the effectiveness of linked risk assessments.
Injection regulations are not a focus of this report but have been included where relevant.
Well integrity issues impact well regularity (the ability to actually inject CO2 at the desired rates
necessary to store the delivered quantity or the quantity needed for CO2 EOR purposes or storage
purposes) and the design and cost of storage facilities. Experience from CO2 pilot storage sites has
revealed complex interactions between wellbore and formations. Existing knowledge and experiences
with CO2 injection wells have been reviewed and include some recommendations for improvements to
models of CO2 properties in injection wellbores.
10
The target audience for this report will be operators (with IEAGHG members including Shell, Statoil, Total
and ExxonMobil) with the intention that the report will be utilized by potential future CCS operators. This
report will also benefit developers and regulators who may be unfamiliar with CO2 injection wells and
CO2 handling operations.
The Study has selected and presented a series of six case studies which include the Denver Unit of the
Wasson Field, Permian Basin, Texas; Uthmaniyah, Saudi Arabia; and the Petrobras Lula site in offshore
Brazil. For onshore case studies, the focus of the Report was on CO2 EOR operations in the U.S., since the
majority of the CO2 EOR projects are located in the U.S. and many of the CO2 regulations have been
developed, enforced, and periodically updated for several decades. It is hoped that the case studies can
provide insights into the following important areas (although it may not specifically answer some or all of
the following bullet points):
 What are the differences in equipment and procedures for drilling rigs, workover rigs, and coiled
tubing/wireline units for onshore and offshore when comparing work on pure CO 2 wells with
hydrocarbon wells
 What are the key differences between CO2 and hydrocarbons that influence safety and risk
assessments for well operations
 During wellbore maintenance operations did any events occur that were not predicted or were most
accounted for within the risk assessment
 During wellbore operation (production/injection) did any events occur that were not predicted or
were most accounted for within the risk assessment
 For all well operating environments, it is important to be able to rapidly deploy drilling rigs if an
uncontrolled release takes place. Is there a minimum check list that should be in place to ensure that
there will always be rigs available to deploy – onshore, like in the Permian Basin, USA, and offshore
 How were long-term wellbore integrity assessments conducted? Fundamentally, was wellbore design
modified to meet new specifications for CO2 storage and were different remediation measures put in
place
 What new techniques were undertaken to ensure integrity of the wellbore (how was the monitoring
and verification plan different to a conventional site)
 Were any differences noted between predicted degradation of the wellbore and any observations
during or post CO2 injection/production
 How did near-wellbore conditions influence CO2 injection operations
 Was injection regularity maintained and did well integrity have any impact on achieving planned
regularity
11
 What have been the long-term implications for cement degradation? Has there been any evidence of
corrosion? Did wellbore integrity remain intact?
 What were the financial implications for the modifications required for CO2 injection and storage
development?
 What are the cost implications of designing a wellbore for CO 2 injection/production? How does this
compare with wells for hydrocarbon production?
An extensive literature review was performed to assess current best operator practices for CO2 EOR and
CO2 storage wells and to cover the key risks and uncertainties of CO2 injection wells and CO2 handling
operations. Areas covered including casing and completion design for CO2 injection and production wells,
cementing design and implementation applicable to CO2 injection and production wells, corrosion control
and material selection for maintaining well integrity of both tubulars and cement materials that come in
contact with supercritical CO2. Well control and kick detection and potential blowout concerns working
with CO2 wells are also included in the Report. The Report includes a current state-of-the-art Standard
Operating Procedures (SOPS) to enable operators to safely operate CO2 injection wells (See Appendix 3).
One of the key objectives of this Report was to supplement the literature review with direct
communication with major operators who have first-hand experience of handling CO2 at well-sites and
benefit from their operational experience. Regretfully, several of the operators in the CO2 EOR industry in
the U.S. (with the exception of Core Energy, LLC) declined to participate in this Study (due to legal and/or
regulatory concerns). We are grateful to the participation of Core Energy (a CO2 EOR operator in
Michigan) and input received from this operator has been included in the Report. The Denver Unit,
Wasson Field, Permian Basin Case Study was prepared from data that was available from public records.
The geological storage of CO2 is a complex process that depends on in-situ geological, hydrodynamic,
geochemical, geothermal and geomechanical conditions. Numerical modeling is a means of using these
conditions to understand and predict the fate, transport and potential impacts of the injected CO2 and
associated pressure increases. Modeling is heavily influenced by the quantity and quality of the defining
attributes of the system and its associated data. The more limited the data set, the greater the uncertainty
in predicted model outcomes.
The level of uncertainty in model predictions is reduced by history matching of either laboratory
experiments or field pilots. During the characterization phase of a storage project, when the data are
variable and of limited quantity, modeling of the storage site will be very valuable in providing a
sufficient technical basis and sensitivity analysis for risk management of the system. During development
12
and subsequent commercial storage operations, these models can be further refined with new data to
provide greater confidence in the predicted outcomes. Please see Section 5.4 – Reservoir Modelling and
Appendix 3 of this Report – SOPS - Well Planning – Modeling for characterization for a further discussion.
13
2.0 WELL DESIGN STANDARDS AND RECOMMENDED PRACTICES
Oil and gas wells have existed for more than 150 years, since the first well was drilled in 1859 (Drake’s
well in Pennsylvania). As well technology has evolved over the decades, trade, professional and
government organizations such as the American Petroleum Institute (API), the American Society of
Mechanical Engineers, the National Association of Corrosion Engineers (NACE), International
Organization for Standardization (ISO), NORSOK to name a few, have and continue to evaluate and
publish the technical requirements and associated best design and operational practices into formal
engineering standards and recommended practices. Supplementing these documents is the design
experience of a large number of operators and their professional staff. See Appendix 3 for Standard
Operating Practices for Designing, Constructing, and Operating CO2 Injection Wells and Appendix 4 for
Listing of Applicable Standards and Guidelines for Well Construction, Well Operations and Well Integrity.
2.1 WELL DESIGN FOR CO2 INJECTION WELLS
2.1.1 Properties of CO2
Carbon dioxide, a molecule that consists of two oxygen atoms covalently bonded to a single carbon atom,
has a molecular weight of 44 g/mol. Depending on temperature and pressure, CO 2 can exist as a solid,
liquid, or gas.
Figure 1 – CO2 Phase Behavior (Oilfield Review September 2015)
Carbon dioxide phases (see Figure 1) – Phase boundary lines (blue) define the areas in which each CO2
phase exists. At the triple point, all three phases – solid, liquid and gaseous CO2 – coexist in
thermodynamic equilibrium. Along the solid-gas line below the triple point, CO2 sublimes – converts
directly – from a solid to a gas without going through a liquid phase. The marked sublimation point
14
corresponds to 0.101 MPa (14.7 psi) of CO2 vapor. Along the solid-liquid line above the triple point, solid
CO2 melts to a liquid. Along the liquid-gas line above the triple point, liquid CO2 evaporates to a gas. At the
critical point, the liquid and gaseous states of CO2 are indistinguishable, and phase boundaries no longer
exist. These attributes at the critical point and at higher temperature and pressure characterize the area
in which CO2 is a supercritical fluid (green) (Oilfield Review, 2015).
The solvent characteristics of supercritical CO2 are well known. As a solvent, supercritical CO2 is miscible
with many crude oils, reducing its viscosity and surface tension, thereby allowing for easier displacement
of residual crude oil that would not otherwise be recovered. At higher than critical pressures and
temperatures, CO2 is in the supercritical state and forms a phase whose density is close to that of a liquid,
even though its viscosity remains quite low (0.05 – 0.08 centipoise). This dense phase can extract
hydrocarbon components more easily than gaseous CO2. Very shallow reservoirs may not benefit from
CO2 EOR because the low pressures can preclude the use of supercritical CO2, reducing sweep efficiency.
CO2 is normally transported as a liquid for economic and operational considerations.
Generally, storage formations are targeted for depths of 800 meters (2,625 feet) or deeper because at
these depths the CO2 is more like a liquid than a gas so it is denser and requires less pore space. Storage
could occur at shallower depths if there is a suitable porous reservoir with an effective “trapping” layer
(caprock) immediately above it. However, most storage projects will target storage sites deeper than
about 1 km (0.621 mile), and some regulations are in place (Alberta, Canada) that state that storage must
be at a depth > 1 km (0.621 mile). Also, the presence of shale layers (called aquitards) above the caprock
is beneficial, since they would restrict the flow of fluids and act as a seal (Hitchon, 2012).
Due to its weakly bi-polar nature, CO2 is highly soluble in water, with which it reacts to form carbonic
acid. CO2-related corrosion is generally attributed to carbonic acid. Only a small fraction of the total CO2
volume dissolved in water reacts. The remainder of the gas remains in solution to supply a continuous
CO2 source. The corrosion is localized, likely the result of small galvanic cells formed in specific areas.
Other chemical reactions can also create scales that protect one area, while a nearby area is exposed to
the acid. Many reservoirs in which CO2 is injected also produce corrosive H2S and high chloride waters.
Under most reservoir conditions, CO2 does not behave like a gas, but more like a low viscosity liquid. This
will affect the injection performance (in the tubing and near wellbore area). The CO2 will commonly be
supercritical under downhole conditions as shown in Figure 2. Except at very high pressures, CO2 is
lighter than most oils, but it is denser than hydrocarbon gases such as methane. It will therefore naturally
15
migrate to the top of oil and water bearing structures. This is important as this CO2 will then potentially
interact with wells and completions at the top of the reservoir.
Figure 2 - CO2 Phase Envelope (Bellarby, 2009)
Importance of CO2 Phases
Piping in CO2 distribution systems must be designed taking CO2 phase changes into account because the
frictional pressure drop of dense phase CO2 (which behaves more like a liquid) exceeds that of
supercritical CO2, which behaves more like a gas (Figure 3). Dense-phase CO2 can generate much larger
hydrostatic pressures than supercritical CO2. This occurs as dense phase CO2 is present at a lower
temperature (below 31.040 C) than supercritical CO2, thus has a higher density than supercritical CO2.
Dense phase is a fourth phase (Solid, Liquid, Gas, Dense) that cannot be described by the senses. The
dense phase has a viscosity similar to that of a gas, but a density closer to that of a liquid. Because of its
unique properties, dense phase has become attractive for transportation of CO2 and natural gas, EOR,
food processing and pharmaceutical processing. An added benefit of transporting CO2 in the dense phase
is the absence of liquids formation in the pipeline (www.jmcampbell.com/tip-of-the-
month/2012/01/transportation of co2-in-dense-phase/) and Witkowski et al., 2015.
16
Figure 3 – CO2 Phase Behavior (Pipeline), Witkowski et al, 2015
Phase changes within a CO2 distribution system are even more troublesome. A two-phase mixture of
liquid-like and gas-like CO2 generates a larger frictional pressure drop than either phase alone. Because
of the complexities of phase behavior and the number of alternative arrangements for piping, a pipeline
simulator model generally is used to design the CO2 distribution system. Because heat transfer and
pressure changes can cause CO2 to change phase, the simulator package should include a thermodynamic
package to account for heat losses through the tubing.
Overall, the advantages of CO2 injection outweigh the disadvantages. Although CO2 is a greenhouse gas
and venting should be minimized, large scale releases to the atmosphere normally do not occur because
produced CO2 is reinjected into the reservoir for enhanced oil recovery or into a saline aquifer for long-
term storage. Due to the unique characteristics of CO2, the preparation and implementation of a written
environmental, health and safety (EHS) plan is a pre-requisite prior to initiation of any CO2 injection
project (See Appendix A7.4).
2.1.2 Casing Design
As is required in all engineering designs, surface equipment and downhole tubulars are designed for the
anticipated operating pressures. This design requirement results in the proper selection of appropriate
casing and tubing grade and weight to avoid wellbore collapse. There is a higher risk of compromising the
17
casing integrity during drilling operations. The following points should be considered in casing design
(NORSOK 2004):
 Planned well trajectory and bending stresses induced by doglegs and curvature
 Maximum allowable setting depth with regards to kick margin
 Estimated pore pressure development
 Estimated formation strength
 Estimated temperature gradient
 Drilling fluids and cement program
 Estimated casing wear
 Setting depth restrictions due to formation evaluation requirements
 Isolation of weak formations, potential loss circulation zones, sloughing and caving
 Metallurgical considerations
 Potential for H2S and CO2
 Equivalent circulating density (ECD) and surge/swab effects due to narrow clearances
 Geo-tectonic forces applicable
The casing is exposed to different loading conditions during various well operations (landing, cementing,
drilling, production). It has to be designed to withstand tensile, burst, and collapse loads. Since it is
difficult to accurately predict the magnitude of these loads during the life of the casing, the design is
based on a worst-case scenario. The casing also deteriorates with time (wear and tear). Therefore, safety
factors are used to make sure that the casing could withstand expected loading conditions.
Collapse pressure is mainly due to the fluid pressure outside the casing (due to drilling fluid or cement
slurry). Overpressure zones could also subject the casing to high collapse pressure. Depletion of over-
pressured, under-compacted reservoirs can result in a large pore pressure drop and sediment
compaction, and may result in casing deformation in the vicinity of such reservoirs. Finite element
analysis modeling can be used to predict the various casing loads involved during the depletion (Bradley
et al, 1989). It should be noted that CO2 injection and storage facilities will not be selected if the depleted
oil and gas reservoirs are over-pressured (for example in natural gas storage reservoirs where a delta
pressure (Δp) is added to increase storage capacity, Cooper, C, 2009) or have the potential for fault
reactivation. The casing’s critical collapse strength is a function of its length, diameter, wall thickness,
18
Poisson’s Ratio etc. Burst loading on the other hand is due to the fluid pressure inside the casing. Severe
burst pressure occurs if there is a kick during drilling operations. The tensile stress on the other hand
originates from pipe weight, bending load and shock load. The axial force due to pipe weight is its weight
in air less the buoyancy force. Bending force results when the casing is run in deviated wells where the
upper portion of the casing is in tension whereas the lower portion is in compression. Shock load on the
other hand is generated by setting the slips and application of hoisting brakes. The sudden stoppage
when casing is run generates stress waves along the casing string (Syed, 2010).
In addition to the three loading conditions described above, casing design should also consider the
likelihood of buckling, piston and thermal effects. Buckling results when the casing is unstable (e.g.
partially cemented). The casing string will exhibit a helical configuration below the neutral point,
resulting in rapid wear at the neutral point and eventually lead to casing failure. Piston force is due to the
hydrostatic pressure acting on the internal and external shoulders of the casing string while thermal
effects refer to the expansion or shortening of the casing due to increase or decrease in temperature
(SINTEF, 2007).
Production of relatively hot reservoir fluids, injection of hot fluids and relatively cold drilling and
stimulation fluids create mechanical and thermal stresses in the casing/cement/rock system (Wu et al.,
2008, Wong et al, 2000, Charara et al., 1992). If sufficiently high, these stresses may damage the annular
cement and contribute to debonding along the casing/cement or cement/rock interfaces, or induce radial
thermal fractures in the near-well area. This may jeopardize the integrity of the near-well area, with
eventual leakage along the well as a result (Lavrov et al., 2014). A complex interplay of coupled multi
physics multiscale processes affects wellbore integrity. These include elastic and plastic deformation of
the rock; hardening and shrinkage of the cement; thermal stresses in and deformations of casing, cement
sheath and rock; poro-elastic effects; and time-dependent deformation (Gray et al., 2007 and Dusseault et
al., 2001). Since it is generally difficult to access and assess downhole conditions, laboratory and
numerical models have been developed to gain an insight into downhole casing, cement and near-
wellbore conditions during a well’s operating life cycle (Lavrov et al., 2014 and Musso et al., 2010).
The casing material selection strategy is to avoid having the casing come into contact with wet CO 2. To
prevent CO2 from coming in contact with the casing, completion tubulars, chemical inhibitors in the
completion fluid used to fill the annular space, and cement outside the casing will be used as barriers.
Material selection for CO2 corrosion control and cementing design for CO2 injection wells are presented in
Sections 4.3, 4.4 and Appendix 5 - Cementing of this Report.
19
State-of-Art Casing Design Software
Drilling in environments such as: high pressure/high temperature – HP/HT, deep/ultra-deep, steam-
assisted gravity drainage (SAGD), extended reach (ERD and ultra-ERD), arctic, shale gas/oil, hydraulic
fracturing, salt zone drilling and CO2 injection results in complex loading conditions on the
casing/tubular/cement etc.
The most widely used industry software today is WELLCATTM (Halliburton/Landmark) with several
integrated modules: (1) Casing Design applications include: comprehensive casing design and analysis;
installation and service loads; buckling stability and post-buckling analysis, with and without
centralizers; and connection strength envelope safety factors; (2) Tubing Design applications include:
comprehensive tubing design and analysis; installation and service loads; mechanically, hydrostatically
and hydraulically setting mechanisms; packer setting sequence; tubing movement, dual completions;
multiple packer completion configurations, CRA (corrosion and erosion resistant alloy) tubular, and yield
anisotropy, and packer envelope load check; (3) Drill Design module simulates flow and heat transfer
during drilling operations; (4)Prod Design module simulates fluid and heat transfer during completion,
production, stimulation, testing and well-servicing operations; and (5) Multistring Design module
predicts pressure and volume changes caused by trapped annular pressure when well system heats up
due to production or injection of hot fluids. It determines the movement that occurs to the wellhead
during the life of the well. WELLCATTM software by combining drilling and production thermal flow
simulator modules, casing and tubing stress analysis modules, and multistring load analysis modules
allows the simulation of the entire well history of events from drilling and production operations
(www.landmark.com/solutions/WELLCAT).
2.1.3 Wellhead Design
Although the design of a CO2 EOR injection well is similar to that of a water injection well and most
downhole equipment is virtually the same, the wellhead for a CO2 EOR injection well differs significantly
from that of a water injection well. A typical wellhead configuration for a CO2 EOR WAG (water
alternating gas) well is shown in Figure 4.
20
Figure 4- CO2 WAG Injection Wellhead (Jarrell et al, 2002)
2.1.4 Wellbore Design
Depending upon circumstances, CO2 EOR injection wells may be either drilled as new wells or, as is quite
common in existing fields, re-completed by converting an existing producing well or a water injection
well to a CO2 injector. A CO2 storage well is in most cases similar to a CO2 EOR injection well, however, in
some instances the design requirements for a CO2 storage well may be more stringent, depending upon a
case-by-case basis (Parker et al, 2009).
All wells have two basic elements: the wellbore, which includes the casings, cement and casing-heads,
and the completion which includes the packer, tubing and wellhead valves assembly. The oil and gas
industry has developed many standards for well equipment design that are routinely used in CO2 EOR
operations (Contek/API, 2008).
An example wellbore design for a new CO2 EOR injection well is presented in Figure 5 and the wellbore
schematic for a CO2 Class VI storage well (permit issued by EPA) in Figure 6. As expected, the well designs
are similar in both cases, consisting of: surface casing and production casing. Multiple casing strings are
used for a variety of reasons, the principle of which is isolation of groundwater resources from potential
sources of contamination and maintaining the integrity of the wellbore from collapse.
21
Mechanically, casing string specifications, i.e. their thickness and weight, are based on maximum
potential burst and collapse pressures plus appropriate safety factors, which are a function of injection
and production pressures, well depth, and reservoir conditions. For wells 10,000 feet (3,048 m) or less in
depth, carbon steel casing is typically used with J-55 and K-55 grades being common. In deep, HPHT
environments, higher strength grades may be used and corrosion resistant alloys (CRA) are used in wells
susceptible to H2S and CO2 attack (See Section 4.3).
22
Figure 5 - Typical CO2 EOR Injection Well Schematic, Permian Basin (Contek/API, 2008)
23
Figure 6 - ADM CCS # 2 Class VI-GS Well, Decatur, Illinois, U.S.A. (As built well construction
schematic)
24
Well construction details for the ADM CCS # 2 CO2 Storage Well (Class VI)
(https://www.epa.gov/uic/archer-daniels-midland-final-modified-permit-attachments, Attachment G –
EPA Region 5, Class VI Permit No. IL-115-6A-0001, January 19, 2017) are given below:
ADM CCS # 2 Well
Location: Decatur, Macon County, IL; 390 53 09.32835”, -880 53’ 16.68306”
Open hole diameters and intervals
Name Depth Interval Open Hole Diameter Comment

(feet) (inches)
Surface 0 - 347 26 To bedrock
Intermediate 347- 5,234 17 ½ To primary seal
Long 5,234 - 7,190 12 ¼ To Total Depth
Casing Specifications
Design Thermal
Outside Inside Coupling Conductivity
Depth Weight Grade
Name Diameter Diameter (Short or @ 77 ° F
Interval (lb/ft) (API)
(inches) (inches) Long (BTU/ft.hr.°F)
(feet)
Threaded)
1
Surface 0 -347 20 19.124 94 J55 Short 31
2 Long or
Intermediate 0 -5,234 13 3/8 12.515 61 J55 Buttress 31
3 Long or
Long (carbon) 0 - 4,818 9 5/8 8.835 40.0 L80-HC 31
Buttress
3 4,818 -
Long (chrome) 9 5/8 8.681 47.0 13CR80 Special 16
7,190
Note 1: Surface casing is 347 feet of 20 inch casing. After drilling a 26 inch hole to 347 feet true vertical depth (TVD), 20 inch, 94 pounds per
foot (ppf), J55, short thread and coupling (STC) casing was set and cemented to surface. Coupling outside diameter is ~21 inches.
Note 2: Intermediate casing: 5,234 feet of 13 3/8 inch casing. After a shoe test or formation integrity test (FIT) was performed, a 17 ½ inch
hole was drilled to 5,234 feet TVD. 13-3/8 inch, 61 ppf, J55, long thread and coupling (LTC) or buttress thread and coupling (BTC) was
cemented to surface. Coupling outside diameter is ~14 3/8 inches.
Note 3: Long string casing: 0-4,818 feet of 9 ⅝ inch, L80 -HC casing; 4,818' – 7,190' of 9 ⅝ inch, 13CR80. After a shoe test was performed and
the integrity of the casing was tested, a 12 ¼" hole was drilled to 7190' TVD or through the Mt. Simon, where the long string casing was run
and specially cemented. Coupling outside diameter is 10 ⅝ inches for L80 -HC and 10.485 inches for the 13CR80.
25
Tubing Specifications
Design
Depth Outside Inside Coupling
Interval Diameter Diameter Weight Grade (Short or Long Burst strength Collapse
Name (feet) (inches) (inches) (lb/ft) (API) Thread) (psi) strength (psi)
Injection tubing1,2,3
0-6,350 5½ 3.963 17 13CR80 Special 8,960 7,820
Note 1: Maximum allowable suspended weight based on joint strength of injection tubing. Specified yield strength (weakest point) on
tubular and connection is 306,000 lbs.
Note 2: Weight of injection tubing string (axial load) in air (dead weight) is 88,200 lbs.
Note 3: Thermal conductivity of tubing @ 77°F is 16 BTU / ft.hr.°F.
The injection well has approximately 80 feet of cement above the casing shoe to prevent the injection
fluid from coming in contact with the Precambrian granite basement.
2.1.5 Completion Design
Figure 7 is a design of a typical CO2 injection well, Christmas tree/wellhead combination, supplied by a
major Permian Basin CO2 EOR operator (Contek/API, 2008). Basic functional elements include:
1)A lubricator valve at the top to access the injection tubing string for running wireline tools, such as a
tracer / gamma ray combination used for injection profile management,
2)A CO2/water supply valve,
3)Master valves to permit isolation of the injection tubing string from the CO2/ water supply sources,
4)Casing head valves to permit monitoring of the pressure in the annulus between the production casing
and the injection tubing string to assure the mechanical integrity of the well, and,
5)A Bradenhead valve to permit monitoring of the pressure between the production casing and the
surface casing strings.
The tubing and casing hangars are integral to the wellhead design.
Below the wellhead, within the production casing (Figure 8) lies:
1) The tubing string,
2) At the end of which is an ON/OFF tool used to withdraw the tubing sting from the formation while
leaving the packer in place,
26
3) A profile nipple used for seating a plug to isolate the wellbore from the formation which allows the
tubing string to be withdrawn without having to kill the well,
4) A mechanical packer, also at the end, which creates a seal between the injection tubing and the
production casing, as illustrated in Figure 8.
Figure 7 - Typical CO2 Injection Wellhead (Contek/API, 2008)
27
Figure 8 - Typical CO2 Injection Well Tubing String (Contek/API, 2008)
Cased-Hole and Open-Hole Completions- For new construction, almost all wells are cased-hole
completions. In isolated cases, depending on reservoir conditions, open-hole completions are still used,
but are rare. Since cased-hole completions are amenable to a larger variety of profile management
techniques (mechanical isolation, chemicals, squeeze cementing, etc.) than open-hole completions, they
are the more common completion strategy.
2.1.6 Re-Completions of Existing Wellbores (Contek/API, 2008)
Since the inception of CO2 EOR operations, a number of existing oil producing and water injection wells
have been re-completed, that is converted, to CO2 injection wells. Excellent reviews of major field
redevelopment efforts have been presented by Folger and Guillot (1996), Power et al (1990), and Bowser
et al (1989).
More recently (mid to late 2000s), the 100 year old Salt Creek Field in Wyoming has been converted to a
CO2 EOR development in which over 4,500 wells were re- completed. All the wells (with 70% drilled pre-
1970s) were individually evaluated (including a number of wells that were plugged and abandoned) for
adequacy of well integrity for CO2 injection purposes and the lessons learned from this successful CO2
EOR project have significant implications for CO2 injection in legacy fields with a large number of legacy
wells (Hendricks, 2009).
28
To do so, a rigorous re-completion process was developed (Contek/API 2008):
 Where they existed, cement bond logs were examined to ascertain the condition of individual
wellbores with regard to bonding between the casing and the adjoining formation. If insufficient or
inadequate isolation was detected, a squeeze cement procedure was used to place cement behind the
casing and a cement bond log rerun to validate successful wellbore remediation.
 For wells that were plugged and abandoned, a pulling unit was set up and the wellbore drilled, from
the top of the surface conductor to the bottom of the target formation to remove any accumulated
debris (cement, bridge plugs, tree stumps, etc.).
 For those wells with cement bond logs, if insufficient or inadequate bonding was detected, a squeeze
cement procedure was used to place cement behind the casing and the cement bond log rerun to
validate successful wellbore remediation.
 A casing mechanical integrity test (MIT) was performed on each well. This required pressurizing the
wellbore and monitoring it, to determine if any pressure falloff occurred. If no pressure reduction was
seen, the wellbore was deemed competent.
 If a pressure reduction was observed, it was indicative of casing leaks. The leaking section of casing
was first identified and then re-sealed by squeeze cementing. In some cases, liners were run to cover
the leaking section.
Use of squeeze cement techniques and installation of liners is common oil field practice. A detailed
description of both squeeze cementing and liner installation procedures for re-completed CO2 injection
wells in the Maljamar Unit has been presented by Bowser et al (1989). An excellent review of the
complete procedures with specifics for converting mature wells to CO2 injectors can be found in the work
of Power et al (1990) for the North Ward Estes Field.
In the Sundown Slaughter Unit in West Texas, water injection wells, in service since the 1930’s, needed
significant upgrading for CO2 injection beyond that described above. This included replacement of 10-25
feet (3.05 – 7.62 m) of surface casing onto which a new wellhead was welded and new Christmas tree
attached. In general, this procedure does not appear to be routine practice for most CO 2 injection well re-
completions.
All injection wells must pass current mechanical integrity tests (MIT) as dictated by appropriate
regulatory bodies, state or federal. Results from the Salt Creek Field, as well as many others, validate the
robustness of current recompletion and MIT practices. For wells completed with modern completion
techniques, casing failures have been observed to be rare (See Table 1 and Sections 2.1.7, 2.1.8, 3.1.2, 4.3
5.1 and 6.3 – Blowouts – Case Studies).
29
Typical problems encountered in CO2 Operations
The water alternating gas (WAG) and the combined water/gas injection (CGW) processes are widely used
in CO2 EOR operations (see Appendix 2). The experience from WAG field cases has been reviewed in
detail by Christensen at al. (2001) and Awan et al. (2008). Of the 64 reviewed CGW operations by these
authors, 37 operations use non-CO2 gases as the injection fluid while all offshore projects use
hydrocarbon gases as the injection fluid.
Typical problems encountered with CO2 EOR operations that could occur similarly in CO2 geological
storage are shown in Table 1 and include: a) corrosion, b) channeling and early breakthrough, c) hydrate
formation, d) scaling, e) asphaltene deposition, and f) pressure fluctuations due to CO2 phase changes
along the well tubing (IEAGHG, 2010).
Table 1: Reported operation problems from WAG injection (Christensen at al., 2001/IEAGHG, 2010)
Operation Problems/limitations reported
Juravlevsko-Stepanovskoye Pressure closedown due to channelling
Hassi-Messaoud Interval of few days between injection of gas and

water for pressure reduction at wellhead
Kelly Snyder CO2 delivery problems, compression
Rock Creek Shortage of CO2,, labor problems
Lick Creek Channelling, valve problems on compressor,

foaming problems in oil, severe corrosion in
producers
Granny’s Creek Casing leak, wellhead repair, CO2 delivery
problems, channelling
Slaughter Estate CO2 delivery problems
Purdy Springer Corrosion of submersible pumps
Jay Little Escambia Injectivity reduction
Quarantine Bay Downhole corrosion
30
Operation Problems/limitations reported
Wasson Denver Hydrate formation, froze wellhead
Fenn Big Valley Problems with downhole pumps at high GORs
Caroline Early breakthrough
Mitsue Asphaltene deposition; relieved by xylene/toluene

washes
East Vacuum Asphaltene deposition after CO2 breakthrough,

corrosion, CaSO4 scaling
Dollarhide Scaling, asphaltenes
Rangely Weber Corrosion, asphaltenes, injection problems due to

temperature changes at different gas
recompression limits
South Wasson High wellhead pressures with tubing full of CO2
Tensleep Minor corrosion, asphaltenes
Lost Soldier Mechanical problems with pumps due to sour gas

injection
Gulfaks Compressor specs not suitable for enriched gas

injection
Brage Tubing malfunction due to heating and expansion

from injected gas
Ekofisk Injectivity problems due to hydrate formation
Workovers
There are several major differences in wellbore remedial work between a water flood and a CO2 flood:
 Selection of workovers for producing wells in a CO2 flood is not as straightforward as in a mature
water flood
31
 Chemical treatment can be required to solve problems of scale, paraffin, and asphaltene deposition
caused by injection of CO2 into a reservoir
 CO2 breakthrough is more costly than water breakthrough
 Safety considerations are more important because CO2 increases surface tubing and casing pressures
and makes well control even more important during a workover
 If well-kill operations are required clear brines rather than solids laden fluids (like drilling muds) are
used to limit formation damage. The most common brine used is sodium chloride brine weighing 10
pounds/gal (1.2 SG) though higher pressure wells may require the use of heavier-weight brines
containing salts like calcium chloride. In addition, laboratory tests with weighted bentonite muds
indicate potential reductions in viscosity and density on contact with CO2 that may result in potential
well control issues (Eferemo, 2013). The use of heavier-weight brines may be reduced by shutting in
the well to let it stabilize, or by switching to water injection before the workover. If possible
workovers should be done through tubing to avoid pulling equipment out of the well (Jarrell et al,
2002)
These problems are surmountable, and production problems have not been a major factor in CO2 flooding
(Hadlow, 1992). Nevertheless, injection well workovers in a CO2 flood should be approached with caution
because a decrease in injection rate may be caused by mobilization of the oil bank or by relative
permeability effects, rather than by a problem that can be remediated by a workover.
Once a CO2 injection well is put in service, profile management is the most common workover activity,
with the following options:
1. Change WAG flow rates and cycle times,
2. Use mechanical isolation by setting packers, casing patches, etc.
3. Isolate zones by squeeze cementing and/or in combination with polymer gels or chemical squeezes
alone,
4. Set liners, and
5. Sidetrack the well.
Steps 2 through 5 require wellbore intervention, and all listed activities are routine oilfield activities, and
have been so for decades.
Most operators with large CO2 EOR operations (see Section 8.4 – Oxy Denver Unit, Wasson Field, TX Case
Study # 4), maintain a workover rig on location, so that they can be routinely deployed for routine
workover and well maintenance activities. This ability to deploy rigs at short notice is also valuable, in
the event a well control incident were to occur, so that kill operations and well control can quickly be
restored. For CO2 storage operations, particularly offshore where only a few injection wells will be drilled
32
and active, the ability to deploy a rig to either bring an active well under control, or to drill a relief well
for blowout control purposes should be an important consideration in project planning purposes.
Drilling fluid impacts from CO2: Contamination of the drilling mud by Ca2+, Mg2+, carbon dioxide, hydrogen
sulfide and oxygen to the drilling fluid, either at the surface or through the wellbore, produces an
imbalance in the chemical equilibrium of the fluid, which can cause serious rheological or drilling
problems to develop. Ca2+ and Mg2+ ions are typically present from contaminants like CaSO4, CaSO42H2O,
MgSO4 or Mg(OH)2.
Many formations drilled contain carbon dioxide, which when mixed with the mud can produce carbonate
ions and bicarbonate ions. The presence of such ions produces a drilling fluid that has unacceptable
filtration and gelation characteristics that cannot be removed by normal chemical additive methods until
the carbonate and bicarbonate ions are removed from the mud. The carbonate and bicarbonate ions are
removed from the mud by the addition of calcium hydroxide (Bourgoyne et al, 1991).
2.1.7 CO2 Injection Wells versus Conventional Oil and Gas Wells
In a CO2 injection well, the principal well design considerations include pressure, corrosion-resistant
materials (tubulars and cements) and production and injection rates. The design of a CO2 injection well is
very similar to a gas injection well in an oilfield or gas storage project, with the exception that much of
the downhole equipment must be upgraded for high pressure and corrosion resistance (IPCC, 2005).
Upgrades may include special casing and tubing, safety valves, cements, and blowout preventers. The
technology for handling CO2 has already been developed for EOR operations and for the disposal of acid
gas. Horizontal and extended reach wells can be good options for improving the rate of CO2 injection from
individual wells. The Weyburn field in Canada is a good example in which the use of horizontal injection
wells is improving oil recovery and increasing CO2 storage. The horizontal injectors reduce the number of
injection wells required for field development with the added advantage of creating injection profiles that
reduce the adverse effects of preferential flow of injected CO2 gas through high-permeability layers.
Proper maintenance of CO2 injection wells is necessary to avoid loss of well integrity. Several practical
procedures can be used to reduce loss of well control (LWC) incidents including blowouts and to mitigate
the adverse effects if one should occur. These include periodic well integrity surveys, improved BOP
equipment maintenance, improved crew awareness, contingency planning and emergency response
training.
33
The biggest difference between a typical gas injection well and a CO2 injection well is cement and casing
to protect from CO2 corrosion. For CO2 storage wells, special CO2 – resistant cements should be used and
corrosion resistant alloy (CRA) steels/chrome steel etc. should be used for tubulars and equipment that
comes into contact with CO2. In the case of wet gas, use of CRA material is essential.
For CO2 injection through existing and converted wells, key factors include the mechanical condition of
the well and quality of the cement and well maintenance. A leaking wellbore annulus can be a pathway
for CO2 migration. Detailed logging and surveillance programs can be conducted on a regular frequency to
verify and confirm well integrity and to protect ground water resources and other
hydrocarbon/permeable zones and prevent reservoir cross-flow. All injection wells must be equipped
with a packer to isolate pressure and fluids to the injection zone and all materials used should be
designed to anticipate peak volume, pressure and temperature (See Sections 2.1.2, 4.3, 4.4 and Section
6.3 – Blowouts, Case Studies).
2.1.8 Well Construction Considerations for CO2 Storage Wells (Smith et al, 2011 and
Cailly et al, 2005)
For long-term storage, CO2 injection may be into either a depleted oil/gas reservoir or saline aquifer. If
CO2 is injected in a dry supercritical state with the risk of corrosion being low, the use of standard low
alloy carbon steel tubulars, sometimes with the use of inhibitors, will be adequate during the injection
phase (Cailly et al, 2005)
However, during periods of well shut-in or long term suspension the corrosive water contact with the
tubing opposite the injection interval has to be considered and the corrosion rate would be sustained
during periods of inactivity. If the tubing is removed and the well permanently abandoned, then the
impact of corrosion will not be a factor. If the tubing is kept in place during the abandonment phase, then
it may be necessary to consider CRA material for the tubing string to resist the aggressive water over the
long term. Also the need for annulus monitoring for abandoned wells may have to be considered.
During the long-term storage phase, the supercritical CO2 can be hydrated with water contained in the
reservoir and wet CO2 or acid brine can reach the well. Then the acidic water phase can degrade the
cement protecting the steel casing and the effects of the degradation products from cement on steel can
be severe. The problem is that the exact state of the CO2 rich phase is not precisely known, and that the
corrosion process of aqueous supercritical CO2 is not yet fully characterized. The properties of CO2 over a
representative range of pressures and temperatures and corrosion rates for aqueous CO 2 should be
defined by laboratory testing. Modeling thermodynamic studies will need to be conducted to define long
34
term equilibrium conditions, in order to avoid failures after injection. The presence of corrosive fluids
initially present in the reservoir must also be taken into consideration. Work done by Seiersten (2001)
showed that wet CO2 corrosion rates on carbon steel at high pressures are smaller than expected from
models developed at low pressures. Further research is needed to understand this phenomenon, which
could be partially explained by the formation of a protective carbonate film on the surface of the steel
(Cailly et al, 2005).
Other factors to consider include:
On-off injection: Intermittent supply of CO2 typically caused by disrupted supply during unloading from a
ship, or well intervention for repairs, has implications for well integrity. On-off injection leads to cyclical
heating and cooling causing the casing to expand more than the surrounding materials. This condition
causes radial and hoop stresses in cement and can cause both debonding (between the cement and the
casing and/or rock) or disc and regular fractures. Both of these effects can result from thermal changes.
This can also have an impact on nucleation conditions (e.g. salt) and borehole deformation. Intermittent
injection will affect both well integrity and injectivity. The research-based advice is to avoid extensive
pressure testing of annular barriers, ensure robust well construction, and minimize thermal cycling
(through choice of injection parameters and well materials/fluids). Also, salt precipitation and borehole
deformation are likely to occur in injection wells. The average time for problems to occur is
approximately two years if wells are operated outside their initial design envelope and there is a strong
dependence on quality of cementation (Torsaeter, M., “IEAGHG Modelling and Risk Management
Combined Network Meeting”, 2018).
Brine composition: Injection may be into either a depleted oil or gas reservoir or saline aquifer. The
depleted reservoir will be filled with formation water, with typical chloride ion content between 20,000 -
120,000 ppm. Formation waters in carbonate rocks are typically in the 1500 – 2500 ppm range
(saturated), although some waters (from sandstones) may be very low in bicarbonates. A saline aquifer
may be more concentrated with chloride ions between 150,000 - 200,000 ppm and bicarbonate content
varying between 0 – 2500 ppm depending upon the rock type (Smith et al, 2011).
Injection fluid composition: While the composition of CO2 EOR oilfield fluids is fairly consistent from a
reducing perspective, CO2 produced from coal-fired power plants may contain a variety of oxidants
including oxygen, traces of SO2 and NO2. The aggressive chemical components in the injected gas are:
 CO2 – controls the basic material selection
35
 H2S – shifts the choice of materials significantly because of the risk of pitting and/or hydrogen
loading
 O2 – introduces pitting risk
 SO2 and NO2 – make the environment more acidic
Wellhead and Xmas Tree: With the injection fluid being dry at wellhead conditions, standard low alloy
carbon steel should be adequate for Xmas tree and wellhead components. SS 316 trim is recommended to
provide long term sealing capability.
Injection Completion String Recommendations can be summarized as follows:
 No corrosion risk in upper section of tubing. Possible risk of attack on tailpipe and casing below
packer due to contact/wetting during well shut-in – CRA material depending upon environment
 Upper section of tubing above packer, L80 carbon steel, completion components 13Cr stainless steel
 High performance tubing connections to minimize CO2 leakage to annulus
 Annulus fluid treated with oxygen scavenger and corrosion inhibitor to prevent galvanic corrosion,
and with biocide to mitigate against microbial influenced corrosion (MIC)
 Corrosion logging of tubing every 4 to 5 years (or at a higher frequency) as directed by regulatory
agency (Texas Railroad Commission or other State Oil and Gas Regulatory Agencies in the U.S. for
CO2 EOR wells and US EPA for CO2 storage injection wells) and during every workover.
Cements: Acid and CO2 resistant cements to be used opposite the injection interval. Cement integrity to
be confirmed opposite casing shoe with pressure test and with cement bond logging. The quality of
cementation is crucial to assure life-cycle well integrity.
Well Operations: To assure and maintain well integrity, key parameters to be monitored daily or
continuous include:
 Surface tubing pressure and temperature
 Bottom hole pressure and temperature
 Annuli pressures
 Hours of injection per day (since shut-in periods represent higher risk of water diffusing back into the
wellbore)
 Results of well integrity/pressure tests at regular frequencies and chemical analyses of well fluids
sampled from the well annuli also need to be checked and monitored. Any annulus pressure buildup
36
should be monitored and if SCP is indicated, diagnostics should be performed and appropriate
remedial steps taken to restore well integrity or the well shut-in, pending repair.
 There is mixed performance of various polymeric linings at high pressure conditions. For deeper wells
with > 350 bar (5,076 psi) at bottom hole conditions, linings would not be recommended due to
blistering concerns (Smith et al, 2011)
 Whilst the WAG service typical of many USA wells results in particularly aggressive intermittent wet
and dry service at the bottom of the well, the experience in several cases of corroded liners and
casings is an indication that the conditions would be aggressive in CCS service if the aquifer flowed
back to the wellbore over time (e.g. during prolonged shut-in, or at abandonment). Thus, selection of
Corrosion Resistant Alloys (CRA) for the bottom of the well would be advised, following the approach
taken by Statoil (now Equinor)
 High performance tubing connections are necessary to minimize the risk of the CO 2 leaks to the
annulus
 Materials selection used in existing CO2 projects has often been 25Cr duplex stainless steel, but that
may not be applicable where the components in the injected fluid stream are more acidic or
oxidizing. 25Cr stainless steel will de-passivate at around a pH value of 2.0
2.1.9 Other Analogs to CO2 Injection
Acid Gas Injection (IEAGHG, 2010)
In order to reduce atmospheric emissions of hydrogen sulfide (H2S) produced from “sour” hydrocarbon
pools, oil and gas producers in western Canada (Alberta and British Columbia) have been injecting acid
gas (H2S and CO2 with minor traces of hydrocarbons) into deep geological formations. The first acid gas
injection in Alberta into a depleted gas reservoir started in 1990 and into a saline aquifer in 1994. By
2007, 48 permits for acid gas injection were approved in western Canada (41 in Alberta and 7 in British
Columbia) of which 27 operations inject into saline aquifers. General and some site specific information
on acid gas injection in western Canada can be found in several publications. Additional sour gas injection
projects globally include the Harweel Cluster, South Oman project (O’Dell et al, 2006), LaBarge in
Wyoming (Benge and Dow, 2006) and the Supergiant Kashagan Field (Malik et al, 2005).
The technology and experience developed in acid gas injection operations (i.e., well design, materials,
leakage prevention and safety) can be adopted for large-scale operations for CO2 geological storage, since
a CO2 stream with no H2S is less corrosive and less hazardous. A major concern with the injection process
is the potential for formation damage and reduced injectivity in the vicinity of the injection well, which
could possibly be a result of fines migration, precipitation and scale potential, oil or condensate banking
and plugging, asphaltene and elemental sulfur deposition, or hydrate plugging (Bennion et al, 1996).
Injection rates for most acid gas injection projects are generally low (<100Kt/year). However, a few
37
operations inject at rates close to anticipated for future CO2 geological storage. Acid gas injection rates of
~ 1 Mt/year at LaBarge are comparable to Sleipner injection rates. Other smaller acid gas injection
operations include Talisman’s Sukunku operation in British Columbia (up to 300 Kt/year) and the Zama
(Apache Canada Ltd.) and Brazeau River (Keyspan Energy Canada) operations in Alberta injecting up to
120 Kt/year. Independent of the injection rate, problems related to loss of injectivity due to geochemical
reactions of the injected gas with the reservoir rock may be applicable to larger-scale injection of CO2.
The main remediation options applied in acid gas injection are acid stimulation and completion of
additional reservoir intervals. At five injection sites, acid gas showed up in nearby production wells. In
some cases, the breakthrough of CO2 and H2S occurred at later times than predicted by reservoir
modelling, mainly due to the accuracy of the geological model and uncertainty of reservoir heterogeneity
(Bachu et al., 2007b; Dashtgard et al., 2008; Pooladi-Darvish et al., 2008). In the case of the Atcheson site,
breakthrough of CO2 occurred after 13 years of injection at a distance of 3.6 km in a producer that was
initially thought to be in a separate oil pool (Bachu et al, 2008). An updated geological interpretation
resulted in new pool delineations. This example shows that even at low injection rates (~ 5 Kt/year), the
hydrodynamic drive imposed by producing wells can have a significant impact on the migration distances
and directions of injected CO2 (IEAGHG, 2010).
Natural gas storage
The primary purpose of UGS is to provide a buffer between a relatively constant supply and a variable
demand for gas, allowing large supplies of natural gas to be stored during times of low demand and
withdrawn from storage when demand is high. The first underground gas storage (UGS) (* Includes
underground storage of natural gas and natural gas liquids) operation in the U.S. began in 1916 near
Buffalo, New York. As of December 2015, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (U.S.
EIA), the U.S. has 415 active UGS projects with approximately 17,500 storage wells operated by about
120 companies, more than any other country in the world (UGS Regulatory Considerations). Over 80% of
the storage wells were completed in 1980s or earlier.
There are three main types of gas storage formations:
 Depleted oil and gas reservoirs are the most common type (~ 80%). They are well characterized and
typically contain some “cushion gas” from the production phase,
 Aquifers account for ~ 10% and although more expensive than depleted oil and gas fields are widely
distributed and located near population centers,
38
 Salt caverns account for ~ 10% and are formed in salt domes or salt beds (mostly located in the Gulf
Coast). The operator has the ability with salt cavern storage to perform several withdrawal and
injection cycles/year.
2.1.10 CO2 EOR and CO2 Storage Well Costs
The geological properties of the receiving formation determine how easily CO2 can be injected. This in
turn determines the number of wells required for injection or the total annual amount of CO2 that can be
injected both in absolute ($) terms and unit ($/ton) terms. The geologic properties that influence
injectivity include: permeability, fracture gradient, formation thickness, formation depth, well type, and
hydraulic fracturing (IEAGHG, 2010). The costs associated with a CO2 EOR and CO2 storage project are site
and situation-specific. In general, oil prices have by far the larger impact on the economic viability of a
CO2 EOR project, with the second largest impact being the cost of CO2. Total CO2 costs (both purchase and
recycle costs) can amount to 25% to 50% of the cost per barrel of oil produced (Advanced Resources
International, ARI 2011), and operators have historically strived to optimize and reduce the cost of its
purchase and injection wherever possible.
Offshore versus Onshore CO2 Injection Costs
There are significant differences between the costs and logistics of onshore and offshore CO2 injection
and can affect the viability of CO2 injection markedly, and these differences apply worldwide. Therefore,
everything else being the same, the economic viability of injecting a given rate of CO 2 is significantly
greater for onshore locations than offshore locations. For a given carbon price, offshore locations might
be limited to fewer injection wells and lower CO2 injection rates than would be possible for onshore
locations (IEAGHG, 2010). Offshore wells drilled in shallow shelf waters [ (less than 100 meters (328.1
feet)] may cost 10 times more than a conventional onshore well, while a deep water injection well may be
even more costly (due to mobilization/demobilization charges and other constraints with
platforms/infrastructure, distribution, compression, legal, geographical and distances etc. – See Appendix
A2.6.1 – Offshore CO2 EOR Challenges).
For offshore locations, the constraints on designing the injection systems and locating the wells relate to
the water depth, the seabed conditions, the number of platforms and the type of injection wells. Deep
water injection sites will limit the number and type of platforms that can be used and therefore the
number of wells. For instance, floating or tension-leg platforms might be more appropriate for deep
water locations and these will constrain the number of injection wells that can be accommodated. In
contrast, fixed platforms can be installed in shallow waters [(less than 200 meters (656 feet)] that can
39
accommodate many wells. The condition and topography of the seabed will also affect the location of the
platforms and the wells (IEAGHG, 2010).
For deep water CO2 injection projects (with few injection wells), sub-sea wells with tie-back flowlines to
the host platform might be the most appropriate design for the injection system, and this is well
established technology (IEAGHG, 2010).
Summary of CO2 EOR Injection Project Costs – US Onshore (ARI, 2011)
1. Well Drilling and Completion. New wells may need to be drilled to configure a CO 2 EOR project into
an injection/production pattern amenable for CO2 EOR production. Well drilling and completion
costs are generally a function of location and the depth of the producing formations
2. Lease Equipment for New Producing Wells. The costs for equipping new production wells consists of
fixed costs for common items such as free water knock-out, water disposal and electrification and
depth-related costs for pumping equipment
3. Lease Equipment for New Injection Wells. Costs include gathering lines, a header, electrical service, a
water pumping system, and a depth-related component dependent on surface pressure requirements
4. Converting Existing Production Wells to Injection Wells. To implement a CO 2 EOR project, it may be
necessary to convert some existing oil production wells to CO 2 EOR production and injection wells,
which requires replacing the tubing string and other mechanical integrity upgrades and adding
distribution lines and headers. For existing fields, surface equipment for water injection may already
be in place. Again, well conversion costs will include a fixed cost and a depth-related component.
5. Rework an Existing Water flood Production or Injection Well for CO 2 EOR. These costs will be depth-
dependent.
6. Annual O&M, Including Periodic Well Workovers. First workover costs are, on average, about double
for CO2 EOR wells compared to conventional oil and gas wells because of the need for more frequent
remedial well work, and second traditional lifting costs should be subtracted from annual water
flood O&M costs to allow for the more rigorous accounting of liquid lifting volumes and costs for CO2
EOR.
7. CO2 Recycle Plant Investment. Operation of a CO2 EOR project requires a recycling plant to capture,
separate and re-inject the produced CO2. The size of the recycle plant will depend on peak CO2
production and recycling requirements, with the O&M costs of CO2 recycling being a function of
energy costs.
8. Fluid Lifting for CO2 EOR. Liquid (oil and water) lifting costs are based on total liquids production
and include liquid lifting, transportation, and re-injection.
9. CO2 Distribution. The CO2 distribution system is similar to the gathering systems used for natural gas.
A distribution “hub” is constructed with smaller pipelines delivering purchased CO 2 to the project site.
The distribution pipeline cost is dependent on the injection requirements for the project, and the
distance of the CO2 EOR project from the CO2 source.
CO2 Storage Well Construction Costs (US Onshore)
Table 2 - Estimated 2008 costs for construction of a CO2 geologic storage injection well in the U.S.
(USEPA, 2008)
Note: Inflation indices for upstream oil and gas facilities are closely related to the price of crude oil and natural gas, which has particularly in the
case of crude oil seen drastic fluctuations between 2008 and 2018. The inflation indices have varied between < 1 to above 2.2 during this period
and are expected to be in the range of 1.1 to 1.2 for 2017/2018.
40
Cost
Reporting Unit Cost Cost Item Cost Algorithm Data Sources
Heading Heading
Injection Well Site Selection Conduct front-end $200,000/site + ICF estimate

Construction and Evaluation engineering and $40,000/injection well
design (FEED)
Injection Well Land and Land Obtain rights-of-way $20,000/annum ICF estimate. Cost of
Construction Use Rights of surface uses land rights are highly
(equipment, injection variable
wells)
ICF estimate. Cost of
Injection Well Land and Land Lease rights for Upfront payment of land rights are highly
Construction Use Rights subsurface (pore $50/acre (additional variable
space) use injection fees under O&M
costs)
Injection Well Permitting Costs Land use, air $100,000/site+$20,000/ ICF estimate
Construction emissions, water square mile
permits
Injection Well Permitting Costs UIC permit filing $10,000/site+$5,000/inj ICF estimate
Construction ection well
Injection Well Drilling & Standard injection Use look-up table. $/foot Drilling cost estimated
Construction Equipping well cost = $ 210 to $ 280/foot from 2008 data
Injection Wells typically down to 9,000
feet
Injection Well Drilling & Corrosion resistant Additional $ 1.10/foot Estimated from SPE
Construction Equipping tubing for GRE lining article on GRE
Injection Wells
Injection Well Drilling & Corrosion resistant Additional $ 1.75/foot PSAC and Preston Pipe
Construction Equipping casing for CRA casing Report
Injection Wells
Injection Well Drilling & Cement entire length $ 1.15/foot of length Based on 2008 PSAC
Construction Equipping of casing Well Cost Study
Injection Wells
Injection Well Drilling & Use CO2-resistant Add 25% to total Initial estimate
Construction Equipping cement cementing costs
Injection Wells
Injection Well Drilling & Set packer no more Affects tubing length Assumed to be
Construction Equipping than 100 feet above standard cost
highest perforation
41
Cost
Reporting Unit Cost Cost Item Cost Algorithm Data Sources
Heading Heading
Injection Wells (or as required by
regulator)
Injection Well Drilling & Injection pressure Affects maximum

Construction Equipping limited to 90% of injection flow rate,
Injection Wells fracture pressure of number of wells needed
injection formation
Injection Well Injection Pumps $ 1500/HP, installation Estimated from EIA Oil
Construction Equipment of electrical service adds and Gas Lease
(pumps, valves, $ 20,000/well site Equipment and
measurement pipeline prime
devices) mover/compressor
cost from FERC
Injection Well Injection Wellhead and Cost/well will vary Based on 2008 PSAC
Construction Equipment Control Equipment depending on CO2 study
(pumps, valves, injected/day – estimated
measurement) $ 500/day
Injection Well CO2 pipeline All elements of $ 60,000/inch-mile Estimate from FERC
Construction (within facility) pipeline costs pipeline data.
42
3.0 WELL INTEGRITY
3.1 WHAT IS WELL INTEGRITY? CONCEPTS AND TERMINOLOGY
Oil field development can be divided into exploration, development, production and abandonment
phases. For offshore field developments, different types of drilling rigs can be used. Examples are bottom-
supported platforms like Jack-up rig, steel jacket-based platform, concrete-based platform and Mobile
Offshore Drilling Unit (MODU) like semi-submersible drilling rig and drill ship.
There are basically two types of wells:
Exploration well: The primary purpose of an exploration well is to find potential reservoirs for
development and production. These wells are normally plugged after logging/testing.
Production/injection wells: After drilling, these wells are completed for production and/or injection.
Water or gas is normally injected into the reservoir to maintain pressure. After the production phase has
ended and the economic limit has been reached, the well is plugged and abandoned.
Well Integrity is defined in NORSOK D-010 as: “Application of technical, operational, and organizational
solutions to reduce risk of uncontrolled release of formation fluids throughout the lifecycle of a well”.
Another accepted definition is given by ISO TS 16530-2 “Containment and the prevention of the escape of
fluids (i.e. liquids or gases) to subterranean formations or surface”.
NORSOK D-010 is a functional standard and sets the minimum requirements for the equipment/solutions
to be used in a well, leaving it to the operating companies to choose the solutions that meet the
requirements. The operating companies then have the full responsibility for being compliant with the
standard.
Well Integrity in its simplest definition can be defined as a condition of a well in operation that has full
functionality and two qualified well barrier envelopes. Any deviation from this state is a minor or major
well integrity issue. Common integrity issues are often related to leaks in tubular or valves, but can also
be related to reservoir issues as loss of zonal control. Any factor that leads to a functional failure is a loss
of well integrity. The challenge is to define all possible scenarios.
With the significant technological evolution in the drilling industry during the past 30 years (such as
subsea installations and extended reach drilling), more complex systems are now in place. The increased
43
complexity is readily managed by close attention to evaluation of each system and how they impact the
total well integrity.
Organizational solutions are also required to ensure the required well integrity is maintained. This will
include: (1) the operating company ensures that people with the right competence are working with well
operations and they are up to date with well operations and latest well status, (2) good communication
between the parties involved so that the correct information is shared and passed during shift handovers
and during well status changes etc. Many problems and accidents have occurred due to poor handover
documentation or communication.
Norway’s Petroleum Safety Authority (PSA) have published the regulatory requirements regarding well
integrity aspects like organizational solutions, management system, competence and training, work
processes, operational organization, emergency preparedness etc.
Loss of well integrity is either caused by mechanical, hydraulic or electric failure as related to well
components, or by wrongful application of a device, such as a BOP (blow out preventer). This shows that
we must go beyond the technical aspects and also consider well management aspects. In hindsight many
well incidents have become worse because of wrong decisions. Education and training therefore form an
important basis for improved well integrity.
Consequences of loss of well integrity - Blowouts or leaks can cause material damage, loss of
life/personnel injuries, loss of production/revenue, and environmental damages resulting in costly and
risky repairs. This shows that well integrity depends not only on equipment robustness, but on the total
process, the competence and resources of the organization and the competence of the individual.
3.1.1 Mechanical Integrity
Testing
State regulatory agencies such as the Texas Railroad Commission and U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency specify the technical requirements of the mechanical integrity test (MIT) for CO 2 EOR and CO2 GS
(geologic storage) and the required frequency of testing. For Texas, MITs are required:
1.0 Prior to putting a new well into service,
2.0 After any workover (squeeze cementing, placement of liners, fracturing, etc.), and,
44
3.0 Wells completed with surface casing set and cemented through the entire zone of usable quality
groundwater are required to be tested every five years. Wells without full surface casing protection
for usable quality groundwater are required to be tested more frequently.
Similar requirements exist for other states and regulatory bodies.
Regulatory MIT’s can be done several ways however they typically involve pressurizing the tubing-casing
annulus and monitoring the annulus and tubing pressures for a set period of time and observing whether
or not it changes. If so, the cause of the change must be identified and remedied.
Component Integrity
As industry experience has matured, the integrity of CO2 injection well components has improved
correspondingly (Contek/API, 2008). For new wells that use completion techniques and mechanical
components with appropriately chosen materials of construction, current experience suggests that
integrity lives on the order of 20 to 30 years for tubulars and well beyond for wellbores can be expected.
Leak Detection and Well Repair Methods
If a CO2 injection well has failed a mechanical integrity test, the operator must take it out of service,
identify and remedy the problem and then re-test the well before putting it back in service.
Tubing Leaks
During the mechanical integrity test procedure, tubing leaks are typically indicated by increases in casing
head pressure. The following is an example of how an operator might repair a tubing leak.
1. Initially, the operator sets a blanking plug in the profile nipple at the bottom of the tubing string to
establish a seal between the wellbore and the producing formation.
2. Then the tubing is pressurized. If the pressure holds, the tubing is competent and the problem lies with
the casing. Nonetheless, the tubing string must be removed from the well.
3. If the pressure does not hold, then a leak exists in either the tubing string or in the seal of the ON/OFF
tool at the bottom of it. It is necessary to kill the well and remove the tubing string from the well.
4. To kill the well, the operator, perforates the tubing string just above the ON/OFF tool and circulates
kill fluid (weighted brine) to the surface. This displaces the chemically treated water in the
casing/tubing annulus.
5. The Christmas tree is removed from the well, a blowout preventer (BOP) is installed and the tubing is
removed.
6. After removal of the tubing, the ON/OFF tool manufacturer checks the integrity of its seal. As
appropriate, it is either replaced or reinstalled.
45
7. Then the tubing is run in the well and hydro-tested for leaks. When a leak is found, the failed tubing
joint is replaced and hydro-tested again. If no leaks are detected, this usually indicates that a failure
occurred in a collar which was remedied as the tubing was rerun.
8. When the entire tubing string has been run into the well the,
a. BOP stack is removed,
b. Christmas tree replaced,
c. Kill fluid displaced from the hole,
d. Tubing re-engaged on the ON/OFF tool, and,
e. Blanking plug removed.
9. Finally, a mechanical integrity test is rerun and the well returned to service.
Casing and Packer Leaks
If the tubing has been shown to be competent, inspection and remedy of casing leaks must now be
addressed. The following is an example of how to repair a casing leak:
1.0 The operator inserts a temporary test packer on tubing into the well within a short distance above
the injection packer.
2.0 The system is pressurized and observed. If the pressure falls, the injection packer requires
replacement.
3.0 If the pressure holds, then the leak is in the casing above the injection packer. To find the leak's
location, the test packer is successively moved up the wellbore, reset, and pressure tests performed,
until its location is isolated. Frequently, leaks occur at the collars between adjacent casing joints.
4.0 Once the location of the casing leak has been found, the operator can remedy it in several ways,
including:
a. Squeeze cementing , chemical sealant squeezes, or,
b. Insertion of a new liner (fiberglass or steel) over the leaking section.
The choice of techniques is dictated by the severity of the situation, the geometry and state of the
wellbore and operator experience.
Once a casing leak has been repaired, the well is mechanically reassembled, as per the steps given above,
and a mechanical integrity test performed.
This procedure for detecting tubing and casing leaks is indicative of that used in CO2 EOR operations in
the Permian Basin. Leak detection methods are a constantly evolving part of oilfield technology that use
sophisticated wireline tools based on the principles of radioactive, acoustical, or thermal phenomena.
With regard to the latter, the work of Johns, et al, 2006 is illustrative of research and development efforts
to identify cost effective methods for identifying small tubing and casing leaks typical of those commonly
encountered in CO2 injection wells.
46
It should be remembered that, in CO2 injection wells, coated or lined tubing is normally used. Thus, use of
wireline tools to detect a tubing leak could have the undesired effect of damaging the coating which can
lead to further damage to the tubing. This consideration is a principle factor for using the test procedure
described above. For CO2 storage wells, however, where dry CO2 would be injected and thus uncoated or
unlined metal tubulars could be used, wireline methods offer a viable and cost effective means for tubing
leak detection.
3.1.2 Well Integrity Assessment of CO2 EOR Wells in U.S.
Sustained CO2 well integrity in most US States compares favorably with the sustained integrity of
conventional wells even with CO2 exposure having a greater potential for corrosive damage. Most US
states’ instances of significant noncompliance represented less than 1 percent of their total well
inventory during 2008 through 2012. However, in some States this is not the case. For example, from
2008 through 2012, instances of significant noncompliance occurred in Texas from 2 to 11 percent of the
state’s total Class II well inventory. Table 3 below shows the statistics of noncompliance violations of CO2
wells in various States, which includes not submitting data for the years 2008 through 2012.
Table 3 - Percentage of Class II CO2 EOR Wells with Significant Noncompliance Violations Compared
to Total Class II EOR Wells in Select States for Years 2008 through 2012 (GAO, 2014)
State in USA 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
California 0% No data 0% 2% 0%
Colorado 0 0 No data 0 0
Kentucky 2 0 0 No data No data
North Dakota No data 0 0 0 0
Ohio 0 No data 0 1 1
Oklahoma 0 0 0 0 0
Pennsylvania 0 0 0 No data No data
Texas 5% 4% 2% 7% 11%
The data reported in Table 3 does not report the actual number of violations but only the percentage of
significant noncompliance violations. The amount of significant noncompliance reported by states can
vary in part because state and EPA regional agencies interpret the definition of significant noncompliance
differently. For example, Texas considers all delinquent mechanical integrity violations as significant
noncompliance, and Ohio said that all mechanical integrity failures are considered to be significant
47
noncompliance regardless of their resolution. However, the guidance for reporting significant
noncompliance requires reporting when the loss of integrity causes the movement of fluid outside the
authorized zone, if such movement may have the potential for endangering underground sources of
drinking water. The GAO 2014 Report also briefly summarizes whether the risk assessments that are
currently being developed for CO2 injection wells are appropriate and if improvements can be made,
particularly the potential to identify and remediate wellbore integrity issues.
3.2 BARRIER PHILOSOPHY AND REQUIREMENTS
During well design and construction, the barrier requirements are driven by the design basis and the
identified hazards. These hazards can change over the life of the well’s life cycle or may actually be
introduced during the construction of the well. From a well integrity management process, the relevancy
is to understand the risk associated with exposure to certain hazards and that these are clearly defined in
the well operating limits at well handover so that mitigating controls can be applied over the well’s life.
The well barrier design and construction process objective should address the issues such that the
barriers over the well’s lifecycle assure containment that can be effectively managed and verified. This
can be a challenge as many wells undergo changes in their status from their original completion over
their lifecycle (for example conversion of a depleted production well to an injection well) and lack of
proper handover documentation after a change in well status during a well’s lifecycle.
Some examples of barrier elements that may have to be managed during the design/construction stage to
assure that the wells maintain integrity over their lifecycle are:
- Internal oxygen-related corrosion

- CO2 corrosion
- H2S corrosion
- Chloride stress cracking
- Stress cracking caused by bromide mud and thread compound
- Microbial-induced corrosion (MIC)
- Other chemical corrosion
- Acid corrosion (e.g. from stimulation fluids)
- External corrosion from:
o Aquifers
o Surface waters
o Swamp or sea environments
o Sand/solids production
o Scale deposition
o Erosional velocities
o Emulsion formation
o Wax and hydrate deposition
o Compatibility between components, electrolytic corrosion
48
Load cases as a result of:
- Thermal effects
- Fatigue
- Subsidence
- Stimulation
- Well kill
- Injection
- Production
- Evacuation
- Trapped pressures
- Casing wear
- Earth model fractures (see mechanical earth model (MEM) in Definitions/Glossary in Appendix
1)
- Pore pressures
- Permafrost movement
- Squeezing chalks
- Earthquake
- Subsidence
3.3 BARRIER VERIFICATION AND DIAGNOSTICS
At various phases of a well’s lifecycle, the integrity of the well barriers and/or well barrier elements
should be verified. The verification may involve pressure measurement, tagging, pressure testing, leak
testing, leak off testing, well logging or flow rate measurement. If anomalous behavior is observed then a
diagnostic process is initiated, usually to determine the location and magnitude of the leak.
To determine whether the well barrier has an acceptable level of integrity, the barrier verification results
are compared with the performance standards (or acceptance criteria) that apply to the well. Some oil
and gas companies have their own in-house standards and some regulatory agencies with jurisdiction
may prescribe the minimum verification requirements for certain well barrier elements.
Companies commonly adopt performance standards based on the publically available reference
documents listed in Appendix 4.
Since these documents are not consistent in all aspects, it is important for a company’s well engineering
management system to explicitly define the well barrier elements (and/or the critical safety elements)
and the performance standards that shall apply.
3.4 MANAGING ABNORMAL CASING PRESSURE AND SUSTAINED CASING PRESSURE
Wells are designed and constructed to allow for operation with some pressure on the annuli. This
pressure only becomes a problem when there is an indication of a well integrity issue or if the maximum
49
allowable wellhead operating pressure (MAWOP) has been exceeded. Therefore, monitoring of the
annular pressure is very important on a continuous basis and to understand the source of the pressure.
NORSOK D-010 states that the A-Annulus pressure for all wells and B-Annulus pressure for multi-
purpose and annulus gas lift wells shall be monitored through continuous recording of the annulus
pressure to verify the integrity of the well barrier. (Note: A-Annulus is defined as the annulus between
the production tubing and production casing, while the B-Annulus is defined as the annulus between the
production casing and next outer casing – NORSOK D-010 and API RP 90). Well parameters such as
temperatures and rates shall also be monitored to facilitate correct interpretation of pressure trends and
identification of abnormal pressure behavior. Similar requirements are given in API RP 90 and API
Standard 65-2.
3.4.1Types of Annular Pressures
There are three main types of annular pressures encountered in wells: Thermal Pressure (TP), Applied
Pressure (AP) and Sustained Casing Pressure (SCP).
Thermal Pressure (TP)
Wells with fluid filled enclosed annuli will exhibit thermal pressure changes during warm-up and cool
down periods. During normal trouble-free operation the annuli pressures will show a clear and
predictable dependency mainly on the well temperature, but also on pressures in adjacent annuli or
tubing and the flow rate.
For example, during the start-up of a producer, as the well is warmed up, it is expected that the annulus
pressure for a liquid filled annulus will increase. The opposite is expected when the well is shut-in. When
the temperature and flow rate are stable the annuli pressures should also be stable. After a start-up of a
well, the annulus pressures can be expected to stabilize at the same values as before the well was shut-in,
if no top ups or bleed downs have been done and the stabilized temperature is the same.
The expected annulus pressure behavior for injection wells will depend on the difference in temperature
between the injection fluid and the surroundings of the well. For wells where the injection fluid is much
cooler than the surroundings, the annulus pressures can increase significantly when the well is shut-in
and the temperature increases.
It is important to recognize the effect of changing temperatures and to monitor annulus pressures closely
during the startup of new wells. Pressure should not be bled off in this instance unless the Maximum
50
Operating Pressure (MOP) has been breached. It is vital to monitor annulus pressures closely during
initial start-up of new wells as pressure can build up rapidly and result in over-pressurized annuli.
For an enclosed system where the fluid cannot expand, the density will remain constant and the increase
in temperature will result in a significantly increased pressure. If the increased pressure cannot be bled
off, the trapped annulus pressure may result in burst or collapsed casing or tubing and loss of well
integrity. The effect with brine filled annuli will be larger than with fresh water.
A common way to reduce temperature induced pressure is for the cement for the next casing string not to
cover the previous casing shoe. The exposed open-hole section may lead to a small fluid loss resulting in a
reduced annular pressure.
Applied Pressure (AP)
Pressure may be applied to an annulus for various purposes such as gas lift, cuttings re-injection (CRI),
compensating for bull-heading loads, or assisting in annulus monitoring. The applied pressure may also
come from pressure containment tests, from mono-ethylene-glycol (MEG)/methanol lines to top up or
prevent hydrates and from hydraulic pressure leaks. Care must be taken to ensure that this pressure is
bled down after testing to a suitable value to ensure that thermal pressure does not exceed the MOP.
Sustained Casing Pressure (SCP)
Any deviations from the expected annulus pressure behavior that is not intentionally applied or from
thermal expansion can indicate the presence of sustained casing pressure (SCP). The pressure builds
back up when bled, and indicates communication to formation or another annulus through a defective or
failed barrier.
SCP can arise from a variety of causes, including degradation or failure of well barriers, and can occur
throughout the lifetime of a well. SCP may be the result of leaks e.g. through casing or tubing, through
cement or wellhead seals, or directly from the reservoir.
Figure 9 illustrates some of the potential leak paths that can be present in a well (117- Norwegian Oil and
Gas Recommended Guidelines for Well Integrity)
51
Figure 9 - Potential leak paths that may result in SCP (117- Norwegian Oil and Gas)
Appropriate monitoring and routines to aid early detection of SCP are an important part of the
management of SCP. Monitoring over longer periods (e.g. months) and at a higher frequency are required
in order to identify slow pressure buildups over time, since detecting the onset of SCP is difficult from
monitoring over short periods. Therefore continuous remote monitoring of all accessible annuli is
considered best practice, along with regular calibration, inspection and function testing of the monitoring
equipment.
52
Bleed downs and top ups should be recorded to facilitate: correct interpretation of annulus pressure
behavior; detection of foreign fluids; and annulus content is known.
The minimum information to be recorded is: annulus pressure before and after the activity; duration of
the activity; the fluid type; volume introduced or removed from the annulus; and pressure behavior of
tubing and other annuli.
Trapped Annular Pressure (TAP)
In some cases the annulus pressure is allowed to build due to thermally induced or sustained pressures
(e.g. subsea wells) and is controlled only by venting to an open subsurface formation or entirely trapped
by cemented casings. The effects of trapped annular pressure have to be considered in well design to
prevent excessive pressure buildup and its impact on well integrity.
3.4.2Case Study of Sustained Casing Pressure in CO2 Injection Wells (Hongjun Zhu et al,
2013)
Jilin oilfield in northeast China is a mature field in a late period of development. To boost production,
operator China National Petroleum Corp. has initiated CO2 EOR injection. Many older wells, including
producing and injection wells have been converted to CO2 injection service.
Many problems arose during CO2 injection, with Sustained Casing Pressure (SCP) being the most
prominent. Results from pressure bleed-down tests followed by pressure build-up tests showed most of
the wells to have SCP problems. Results indicate that SCP in some wells is so serious that the casing head
pressure nearly equals surface tubing pressure.
Figure 10 shows the possible CO2 leakage paths and Figure 11 the casing program in Jilin oilfield.
53
Figure 10 - Potential CO2 Leakage Paths (Zhu et al, 2013)
Figure 11 - Casing Program in Jilin Field, China (Zhu et al, 2013)
The authors have discussed the major causes for SCP and loss of well integrity as follows:
Tubing/Casing Leaks
Three conditions can cause leakage in tubing and casing: deformation of tubulars, poor thread sealing
and corrosion.
 During production, tubular goods will encounter several working conditions. Four effects rise from
the change of temperature and pressure in different working conditions: piston effect (length
changes), spiral effect (pressure on the two ends of the tubing that exceeds buckling pressure),
expansion effect (differential pressure inside and outside of the columns), and temperature effect
(temperature changes).
54
 The four effects directly result in the deformation of pipe strings, further affecting the pipe string’s
strength and packer’s sealing. Which effect causes the greatest impact depends on the specific
working condition. If all four effects occur simultaneously, the total change in string length is the sum
of changing lengths induced by the four effects.
 Erosion on tubing joints is a primary factor leading to poor thread sealing. With high velocity fluid
flow through the “J” region, which exists in the middle of the API thread, the change of the flow field
causes local eddy and pressure fluctuations, weakening the thread strength. In addition, if there are
installation defects, a gap may open between the two sides of the thread engagement surface,
providing channels for gas migration.
 The corrosive effects of CO2 are well known. The operator chose three grades of casing (P110, N80
and J55) used in CO2 injection wells to observe the corrosion of steel by supercritical CO 2 and the
laboratory testing results showed that the corrosion rate in gas phase to be much lower than in the
liquid phase. P110 showed the best corrosion resistance followed by N80. A scanning electron
microscope was used to observe the corrosion products more closely. The corrosion products
accumulate less in gas phase than in the liquid phase and the corrosion product film was smoother
and higher in density which can reduce the corrosion rate. After corroding in liquid phase, however,
its corrosion product film is so loose, that it cannot prevent corrosion (Zhu et al, 2013). The
laboratory testing results indicate that keeping the CO2 in the gas phase while in contact with the
casing string will reduce the corrosion rate.
Poor Cement Quality
 Gas migration during cementing is another cause of SCP. During hydration, cement goes through a
physical state in which it does not behave as fluid or solid. In this transition stage, the cement plug
has no capacity to transmit the entire hydrostatic pressure, resulting in gas migration through the
cement column.
 Factors for a good primary cement job include: good mud displacement and mud properties
rheology, control of fluid and filtrate losses. Severe dehydration may lead to reduction of the pressure
in the cement column below the hydrostatic, and lead to upward gas flow.
 The cement sheath is easily damaged from pressure or temperature changes caused by production
operations, such as CO2 injection, gas lift, pressure testing, hydraulic stimulation etc. These
operations cause expansion of the cement sheath, resulting in the separation of the casing and the
cement (Ravi et al, 2002, Albawi, 2013).
 The corrosion of cement was also tested experimentally. After corrosion in gas phase, the original
flake structure changed to crystal and fine granules, with the spectrum energy analysis indicating
that the corrosion products being carbon, oxygen and calcium. The conversion of Portland cement by
CO2 to soluble materials like CaCO3 has been widely tested experimentally (Kutchko, Strazisar et al,
2007, 2008). A detailed discussion of the chemical reactions and conversion products are found in
Section 4.4.
Packer Failure
 Packers are set to operate successfully under a certain pressure differential. Under certain operating
and reservoir conditions, when this pressure differential is exceeded, a packer failure may occur.
55
 Corrosion is another reason for packer failure. Hydrogenated nitrile-butadiene rubber is the core
component of the packer. A set of tests evaluated the corrosion characteristics of rubber in gas and
liquid phases. Results showed that the tensile strength decreases in both the gas and liquid phases,
with a more severe trend in the liquid phase than in the gas phase (Zhu et al, 2013).
 Rigless intervention measures to address SCP problems include pumping sealant materials down the
annulus and seal the leak at the leakage depth. Companies providing these services include CHEMIX
(CaseGuard 2.2TM) 2016 and WellCem (ThermaSetTM), 2016. These techniques have been successful in
remediating SCP problems (annular gas migration through cement) in different areas of the world
including the North Slope of Alaska, North Sea and Kazakhstan. CaseGuard 2.2 is a Cesium Formate
(CeS) heavy brine (specific gravity of 2.2 (18.36 pounds per gallon) and has been successfully applied
in jobs in the KPO Karachanganak Field, Kazakhstan, while the ThermaSet (a polymer resin system)
has been successful in jobs in the North Sea (Sanabria et al, 2016).
3.4.3 Natural Gas Storage Failure Incidents (Syed, 2017)
As stated earlier, the primary purpose of underground gas storage is to provide a buffer between a
relatively constant supply and a variable demand for gas. Other important factors to consider include:
 Verification of inventory – how much gas can be stored as a function of pressure and sometimes time.
For depleted gas reservoirs, need to establish a top pressure above discovery for storage, while
aquifer storage requires gas injection above initial value to displace the water when creating the
reservoir
 Retention of migration – requires a monitoring system to verify where the gas is residing and ensure
that losses are not occurring
 Assurance of deliverability – ability to develop and maintain a specified gas deliverability rate.
Generally the deliverability rate is keyed to reservoir pressure and inventory with a ~ 5%
decline/year in deliverability. Options to increase deliverability include the use of horizontal wells
and hydraulic fracturing stimulation
Lessons learned from natural gas storage failure incidents and that may be applicable to CO 2 storage is
given below:
Yaggy Incident
On January 17/18, 2001, natural gas escaped and migrated laterally more than 8 km, intercepted old
abandoned wellbores (that were used earlier as brine wells) and caused explosions in Hutchinson, KS.
There were two fatalities and a release of 143 MMcf (4.1 million m3) of natural gas. The cause was
determined to be casing damaged during re-drilling of an old, cemented wellbore during its conversion
from propane to natural gas storage.
Moss Bluff Cavern Storage
56
On August 19, 2004, a wellhead fire and explosion occurred at Market Hub Partners Moss Bluff storage
facility in Liberty County, TX. The fire self-extinguished, BOPE was installed and the well brought under
control on August 26, 2004. About 6 billion cubic feet – bcf (170 million m3) was released as CO2 and not
as CH4 due to combustion from explosion and subsequent fire. Cavern was operating in “de-brining”
mode (that is, brine is extracted as natural gas is injected) prior to explosion. Cause of explosion was
determined to be as a result of parted casing (well string) inside the cavern. When the brine reached the
separation point in the casing, pressurized gas entered the casing string and was brought to surface.
Although the wellhead assembly closed properly, the loading resulting from the rapid change in flow rate
caused the casing to fail. The casing was weakened from wall loss due to internal corrosion, although it
was only 4 years old.
Aliso Canyon Incident
On October 23, 2015 the largest methane leak in U.S. (estimated 4.62 bcf – 131 million m3) occurred at
SoCalGas Well SS-25 in Aliso Canyon Gas Storage Facility, LA County, CA. Aliso Canyon facility has 115
storage injection wells with spud ages ranging from 1939 to 2014 with a total storage capacity of 86 bcf
(2.1 billion m3).
Well SS-25 was originally drilled and completed as a producer in April 1954, sidetracked at 3,900 feet
(1189 m) due to hole problems and completed at ~ 8,950 feet (~ 2730 m) (sandstone) as a gas producer.
It was converted to gas storage in May 1973 and operated in natural gas pressure cycling through both
casing (which was un-cemented in critical upper sections) and tubing, providing only a single protection
barrier. The leak is suspected to have occurred at a depth of 440 feet (134 m) in the 7 inch (17.78 cm)
casing in the un-cemented upper part of the casing. After repeated top kill attempts failed, a relief well
was drilled and the well cemented and sealed on February 17, 2016.
Many of the original wells had downhole safety valves (DHSVs) for pressure control. Later the DHSVs
were removed and not replaced, or replaced with subsurface sliding sleeve valves (SSVs) to permit well
maintenance and fluid circulation between tubing and tubing-casing annulus. No DHSVs were installed in
wells drilled since 1980 due to reliability concerns. Wells are considered capable of casing production if
SSVs in tubing allowed gas flow to casing or had no tubing. Well SS-25 was monitored for gas leaks,
annually in recent years, or sporadically or biannually in earlier years. Also, there is no record of
corrosion logs to verify metal loss having been run in these wells.
Until early 2017, federal regulation did not provide operational, safety, or environmental standards for
the subsurface portions of underground natural gas storage facilities (wells, reservoirs, caverns).
57
Responding in part to the Aliso Canyon incident that began in October 2015, the U.S. Congress passed The
Protecting our Infrastructure of Pipelines and Enhancing Safety Act of 2016 (PIPES Act). PHMSA (Pipeline
and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration) is delegated under this Act to develop safety standards
relating to UGS facilities and an Interim Final Rule (IFR) incorporating two API Recommended Practices
(API RP 1170 and API RP 1171) was issued effective January 18, 2017.
US states have regulated gas storage facilities since the beginning of the 20th century. Several US states
have dedicated regulatory frameworks for gas storage (especially common in states with significant
cavern storage capacity), but in the majority of states with oil and gas development, the states’ core well
integrity rules (concerning drilling, casing, cementing, and related topics) apply to gas storage facilities as
well. States are increasingly considering the development of standalone gas storage facility rules.
Since gas storage acts as a buffer to balance supply and demand, it requires the majority of the stored gas
to be withdrawn if needed. Therefore, gas storage occurs mostly into geometrically constrained
reservoirs, i.e. depleted oil and gas reservoirs and salt caverns. This is contrary to the purpose of large-
scale CO2 geological storage, which is long-term and mainly targeting saline aquifers with large areal
extent. On the other hand, surface facilities, i.e. compression plants and pipelines will probably be very
similar in natural gas and CO2 storage operations. According to Perry (2005) the following five
technologies, mainly associated with gas storage in saline aquifers, could be relevant for CO 2 geological
storage:
 Application of all available techniques
 Observation wells
 Pump testing techniques
 Assessment of cap rock sealing, and
 Surface monitoring
Generally, it is expected that reservoir pressures associated with CO2 storage in depleted oil or gas fields
will not exceed initial field pressures to prevent negative impacts on reservoir and cap-rock integrity. The
same was true for some time in gas storage operations. However, according to Bruno et al (1998), the
pressure, and consequently the storage capacity, in gas storage reservoirs can safely be increased, if the
geomechanical behavior of the reservoir and overburden is well characterized. In the Settala storage field
in Italy, exceeding the initial reservoir pressure by 7% (delta pressuring) resulted in a 45% increase in
58
storage capacity (Cooper, C., 2009). In this case, careful testing of operating pressures and a
comprehensive monitoring program are critical to ensure containment of the stored gas (IEAGHG, 2010).
59
4.0 CARBON DIOXIDE CORROSION
Corrosion Effects of CO2
The process of aqueous CO2 corrosion and the corrosion rate on steels are well known. Gaseous or
supercritical dry CO2 is not corrosive (ASM, 1994 and Hesjevik et al, 2003), however, CO2 in combination
with water creates an acidic environment that causes corrosion of steel products in wellheads, casing and
completion strings. CO2 may be corrosive or noncorrosive depending upon the materials employed,
temperature at the contact surface, water vapor concentration, CO2 partial pressure and velocity effects.
Corrosion Mechanism
Different forms of corrosion can occur on contact with CO2 acid water: General corrosion and Localized
corrosion (Cailly et al, 2005).
General corrosion refers to corrosion dominated by uniform dissolution and thinning. Carbon steels
undergo this form of corrosion when in contact with CO2 acidified water. The CO2 corrosion rate on
carbon steels has been considerably studied in the past and numerical models taking into account
temperature and CO2 partial pressure can predict it. Design over-thickness and injection of corrosion
inhibitors are the basic means to prevent this kind of corrosion. The best way is to use corrosion-
resistant alloys (CRA), but these materials are very expensive compared to carbon steels (see Table 5,
Bellarby, 2009).
Localized corrosion occurs when the corrosion damage produced is localized rather than being uniformly
spread over the exposed metal surface, making this form of attack more difficult to deal with. The forms
of localized corrosion are mainly pitting and crevice formation, but crevices are mostly created in
presence of H2S rather than CO2. Pitting is one of the most insidious forms of corrosion, since pits are
generally small and not easy to detect. It can cause failure by perforation although very little weight loss
has occurred. The most common cause of pitting corrosion on CRAs is contact with chlorides, with carbon
steels being less sensitive to chlorides than alloys.
The corrosion process in carbon steel includes (Zhang and Kermen, 2013, Nygaard, 2010):
CO2 + H2O → H+ + HCO3 –
2(H+ + HCO3 -) + Fe (s) → Fe2+ + 2HCO3 -+ H2
Fe (s) + 2H+ (aq) → Fe2+ (aq) + H2 (g)
60
At the steel/liquid interface, an anodic reaction takes place and iron atoms are oxidized as cations, and in
the meantime, a cathodic reaction takes place and protons are reduced. Bicarbonate and carbonate
anions can react with ferrous ions to form an iron carbonate film and the solid iron dissolves into iron
ions in solution to create a corroded surface on the steel. The basic requirement for this reaction to occur
is water.
Carbon dioxide or sweet corrosion attacks metals due to the acidic nature of dissolved carbon dioxide
(carbonic acid). The acidity (pH) of the solution will depend on the partial pressure of the carbon dioxide.
For the same pH, the weak carbonic acid is more corrosive than strong acids (e.g. hydrochloric acid), as
carbonic acid can rapidly dissociate at the metal surface to provide a steady supply of the hydrogen ions
needed at the cathode. Salinity, especially bicarbonate, acts to buffer the pH. In addition to the buffering
effect of dissolved solids, semi-protective scales or films have a significant role in reducing corrosion
rates. The formation and removal of these scales is temperature dependent and the highest corrosion
rate for carbon steel is at around 200 °F (93 °C).
When CO2 is used for EOR, generally water alternated with CO2 gas (WAG) or recycled CO2 is injected. In
capture and sequestration projects, dry CO2 (with CO2 purity above 95%) will be injected in the
supercritical state and the corrosion risk is low and therefore, corrosion problems are not expected to be
any more severe for CO2 storage as compared to regular CO2 EOR operations (Nygaard, 2010). However,
the corrosion rate will increase if the injected stream comes into contact with water. Possible water
sources may include: connate water in the injection zone, free water in the cement or free water resulting
from capillary condensation (Kolenberg et al. 2012).
After the injection period, during the long-term storage phase, the supercritical CO2 can be hydrated with
water present in the reservoir and wet CO2 and the resulting acid brine can reach the well leading to
potential degradation of the cement sheath protecting the casing.
The effect of CO2 on cement in wells is presented in Section 4.4 and in Appendix 5 – Cementing.
4.1 CORROSION CONTROL IN CO2 INJECTION WELLS
CO2 corrosion depends on several factors (Zhang and Kermen/CATO2, 2013, Cailly et al, 2005):
 Presence of water - an oil-wet system protects steel from corrosion
 CO2 content – if the partial pressure exceeds 2 bar (29 psi), and significant corrosion occurs in a
water wet environment (Partial pressure = total pressure x volume fraction of CO 2 gas component)
61
 H2S content – even in low concentrations in combination with CO2 , this mixture can cause severe
corrosion, leading to sulfide stress cracking
 Oxygen content and content of other oxidizing agents
 Temperature – when above 150 °C (302 °F) a dramatic increase in corrosion rate occurs (Zhang and
Kermen, CATO2, 2013)
 Pressure – generally the corrosion reaction accelerates with increasing pressure
 pH
 Chloride concentration – chloride enhances corrosion
 Condensing conditions – if water drops out of the gas stream, corrosion will occur
 Velocity conditions
In general corrosion can be mitigated or controlled by either selecting materials that are resistant to the
service environment or by the use of chemical inhibition. The primary factors associated with these two
corrosion strategies as they apply to down-hole tubular are summarized below (Sorem et al, 2008):
Chemical Inhibition: In this approach, chemical inhibitors can be selected and qualified for either
continuous or batch injection. Continuous injection can be carried out by installing a port at the
bottom of the tubing and injecting inhibitor from a surface tank at the surface down the annulus,
through the tubing injection port and into the injection stream inside the tubing. A downside of
continuous injection is that significant corrosion can occur at the injection point as a result of the
high shear generated at this point, and may not be the preferred option for CO2 injection wells.
With the batch method, the tubing volume is filled with inhibitor or squeezed into the formation
for a period of time before it is flushed out. A downside of this method is the need to shut in the
well to carry out the batch injection and the resulting downtime in injection operations.
Corrosion Resistant Materials: The second and more common approach for corrosion control is to
specify materials that will resist the corrosive environment. Materials can generally be selected
that will withstand the corrosive environment for the lifetime of the well, but in other cases, less
resistant (and less expensive) materials are selected that will withstand the service environment
for a limited period of time and subsequently require periodic replacement. With the latter
method, the failure mechanism and the duration of service must be well known, and the
inspection carried out at a sufficient frequency so that replacement can be carried out prior to
losing the integrity of the down-hole tubular (See Sections 2.1.8, 4.3 and 4.4)
62
To mitigate corrosion, techniques typically used in addition to that listed above include:
1. Correct cement placement. To minimize contact between carbonic acid and the steel casing, great care
is used to assure that the cement, used to bond it to the formation, is adequately distributed along its
entire axis. This requires: careful removal of residual drilling mud from the hole; use of centralizers
to center the casing string in the borehole; and, full circulation of the cement returns to the surface.
With a well formed cement sheath in place, the rate of permeation of corrosive material is reduced
significantly.
 Placement of acid resistant cements in zones susceptible to cement carbonation. As appropriate,

operators will incorporate specialty cements or specialty slurry designs adjacent to and above the
CO2 injection zone. These cements are more resistant to CO 2 attack and hence dramatically reduce
the rate of CO2 degradation.
 Cathodic protection of the casing string. Operators employ both impressed and passive current
techniques on the casing string to counteract naturally occurring galvanic action, which leads to
corrosion. Both methods are used widely in many industrial applications.
 After completing the well, a biocide/corrosion inhibitor laden fluid is placed in the annular space
between the casing and tubing string to further suppress any corrosive tendency.
It is important to assess the lifetime cost and operational impact of the selected corrosion control
techniques and to history match the field data (including well hydraulics performance) with the
laboratory derived predictions as the project implementation proceeds. An integrated corrosion
engineering approach should be utilized to optimize the life-cycle material and corrosion mitigation
costs, with the potential to allow well designs that take advantage of carbon steel tubing in conjunction
with CRA liners, with significant cost savings while overcoming injection capacity limitations.
The technological advancement made by the CO2 EOR industry in the U.S. is summarized in Contek/API’s
2008 report as follows:
 Corrosion resistant materials, such as stainless and alloy steels (e.g., 316 SS, nickel, Monel, CRA), for
piping and metal component trim. Use of corrosion protection of the casing string via impressed and
passive currents and chemically inhibited (e.g., oxygen, biocide, corrosion inhibitor) fluid in the
casing tubing annulus
 Use of special procedures for handling and installing production tubing to provide tight seals
between adjacent tubing joints and eliminate coating or liner damage
 Use of tubing and casing leak detection methods and repair techniques, using both resin and cement
squeeze techniques. Also the insertion of fiberglass and steel liners.
63
 Formulation and implementation of criteria unique to well sites in or near populated areas,
incorporating fencing, monitoring and atmospheric dispersion monitoring elements to protect public
safety.
4.2 CORROSION MONITORING OF CO2 INJECTION WELLS
Corrosion rates should be monitored throughout a CO2 injection project. Corrosion rates are commonly
reported in mils per year (mpy) or millimeters per year (mm/yr) of penetration or metal loss where 1 mil
is equal to a thousandth of an inch (USEPA, 2013). Target corrosion rates of less one mpy (0.025 mm/y)
or less are common in wells used in the oil industry, with NORSOK recommending a limit of 0.10 mm/y
(CATO, 2013). These rates are difficult to achieve, unless the CO2 is dry. From experiments with carbon
steel, corrosion rates higher than 10 mm/y have been observed in a wet CO2 environment. Laboratory
tests from Valourec indicate that the target corrosion rate might not even be achievable with 13Cr casing,
as rates higher than 1 mm/y have been reported under certain conditions (Nagelhout, et al, 2009).
At a moderate pressure of 1.00 MPa (145 psi), the corrosion rate of X65 pipeline steel is independent of
temperature from 500 C to 1300 C ( 1200 F to 2700 F) (Sim et al, 2014). Increasing water concentration, on
the other hand, causes a significant increase in corrosion for steel. For example, at a pressure of 8 MPa
(1,160 psi) and a temperature of 400 C (1040 F), increasing the water concentration in supercritical CO2
from 1,000 to 10,000 parts per million (ppm) causes the corrosion rate of steel to increase by 87% (Sim
et al, 2014). Similarly, for carbon steel in aqueous CO2 solutions at 250 C (770 F), increasing the CO2 partial
pressure from 0.1 MPa (14.5 psi) to 1 MPa (145 psi) produces a corrosion rate increase of about 450%
(DeBerry et al, 1979). Other researchers (Cailly et al, 2005) have reported that corrosion rate on carbon
steel increases from 25 mm/y (1000 mils/y) at 650 C (1490 F) and 1 MPa (145 psi) CO2 pressure to 250
mm/y (10,000 mils/y) at 820 C (179.60 F) and 16 MPa (2,320 psi) CO2 pressure (Cailly et al, 2005).
The corrosion rate limit refers to general corrosion of the metal, which is the uniform thinning of the
metal. A low corrosion rate may not be acceptable if localized corrosion (such as pitting) is occurring,
whereas a higher rate with a general area metal loss may be, in some cases, a less serious problem.
Corrosion monitoring tools currently used fall into three categories: corrosion coupons, corrosion loops
and casing inspection logs.
Corrosion coupons
A coupon is a small, carefully manufactured piece of metal (such as a strip or a ring), made of the same
material (or as close as possible) as the casing or tubing, and placed in an appropriate location in the
injection well to measure corrosion.
64
It is weighed, placed in the well for a period of time, recovered and weighed again, and the difference
gives the weight loss and corrosion rate. The coupon is placed and recovered by wireline (Jaske et al,
1995).
Corrosion loops
A corrosion loop is a section of tubing that is valved so that some of the injection stream is passed
through a small pipe running parallel to the injection pipe at the surface of the well. Since the
composition of the pipe is the same as the well’s tubing, it acts as a small-scale version of the well, except
that it has a smaller diameter and its temperature is lower due to its shallower depth (USEPA, 2013).
Measurements of the corrosion rate may be higher or lower than actual downhole corrosion rates by this
method. This method may not yield accurate data in cases where the injected CO2 is in a dry supercritical
state (CATO, 2013).
Casing inspection logs
Casing inspection logs are run to measure the casing thickness and integrity, cross-sectional wall loss,
borehole/casing/tubing radius, pitting etc. to monitor corrosion effects on downhole tubulars. There are
several different techniques and tools available today, and these are generally run on wireline.
Techniques include: electromagnetic thickness logs run on electromagnetic induction tools that measure
both the internal diameter and the wall thickness and evaluate both internal and external pipe integrity;
magnetic flux that utilize magnetic flux leakage technology to record the location, extent and severity of
corrosion and metal loss in tubulars; ultrasonic corrosion logs that use a high transducer frequency to
measure anomalies in the tubulars (also run in conjunction with ultrasonic cement bond logs); and
electrochemical sensors (electrochemical noise measurements – (ENM) and linear polarization resistance
– (LPR) have been used in downhole corrosion monitoring in oil wells – except gas wells in Saudi Aramco
(system operates at high temperatures (> 150 °C ( 302 °F)) (CATO, 2013). The use of multi-finger (24-
arm or 40-arm) caliper logs that measure the internal radius of the casing/tubing is less desirable as
pitting corrosion is difficult to determine and there is a potential for damage to the casing/tubing from
the logging tool. Downhole corrosion monitoring systems have also been widely used in different fields in
the North Slope of Alaska.
4.3 MATERIALS OF CONSTRUCTION FOR CO2 WELLS
Material selection for CO2 injection wells depends on several factors like high strength requirements
combined with high corrosion resistance of the material. A chemical analysis of the reservoir fluids is
65
generally required for evaluation of the corrosive components such as H2S, CO2 and chlorides. Other
components such as temperature and pressure profiles and stresses on the tubulars should also be
considered. When assessing wells or selecting materials for CO2 injection wells, one has to consider that
the wells will be in contact with wet CO2, especially in the deeper section of the well (CATO2, 2013).
4.3.1 Steel Types
Some steel types used for well construction are listed below, with increasing corrosion resistance
(CATO2, 2013):
 Carbon steel: Contains less than 2.1% carbon in their chemical composition. Most commonly used
grades uses are J-55/K-55, L-80, N-80 and P-110. These grades are susceptible to CO2 corrosion. J-55
and K-55 are generally used for surface casing.
 Martensitic stainless/corrosion resistant steel: Contains at least 11.5% chromium such as 13Cr
and 17Cr. Adding chromium to the steel promotes the strength and adherence of the corrosion
product to the steel surface. For low to moderate temperature environments (less than 300 °F (149
°C)) containing CO2, little or no H2S and low chlorides, 13Cr has become the standard tubing
metallurgy and L80 13Cr is included as an API specification. Most wells in the Netherlands are
completed with 13Cr tubing. At high temperatures (above 300 °F (149 °C)) the use of 13Cr tubing
becomes border-line. Modified (2Mo-5Ni) 13Cr alloys and duplex steels provide higher temperature
carbon dioxide corrosion resistance as well as increasing resistance to H2S with 15Cr acceptable to
390 °F (199 °C). In some instances, as in the presence of strong acids, martensitic steels provide
superior corrosion resistance than duplex steels. Martensitic steels are not very corrosion resistant
and are susceptible to sulfide stress cracking (SSC), which makes them ineffective in H 2S
environments. On the other hand, they are extremely resistant to chloride stress cracking (CSC).
 Super martensitic stainless steel: Contains less carbon and more nickel and molybdenum, and is
more resistant to corrosion than normal martensitic 13Cr steel. Super 13Cr is reported to be 5 to 44
times more resistant to CO2 injection depending on the pressure and temperature conditions
(SINTEF, 2007 in Cato2, 2013).
 Ferritic-austenitic steel alloy: Also known as duplex steel, it contains chromium, manganese, nickel,
vanadium and molybdenum. It is a mixture of ferritic and austenitic steel, much stronger than
austenitic steel and more resistive to corrosion pitting and stress cracking than regular austenitic
steel. Have low carbon content, high chromium (at least 20% and molybdenum (3-5%) content and
low nickel content (< 5%) compared to austenitic steel). 22Cr is the most frequently used steel in the
oil industry. Super duplex steel (25Cr) contains significantly more nickel and molybdenum.
 Austenitic/super austenitic steel alloys: These consist mostly of nickel and cobalt alloys. Austenitic
steels contain at least 16% chromium and 10% nickel-manganese combination. Common austenitic
steels such CrNi18-9 or CrNiMo17-12-2 provide average corrosion resistance and are susceptible to
stress cracking caused by both sulfides and chlorides. On the other hand super-austenitic steel alloys
are resistant to stress cracking and provide very high overall corrosion resistance. Super-austenitic
steel alloys contain very high (+30%) amounts of nickel and high molybdenum content (+6%) to
protect from chloride pitting and crevice corrosion. Super-austenitic steels include alloys such as
Inconel 625, Hastelloy C-22 and Hastelloy C-276.
66
Other factors to consider should include material capabilities for low temperatures (brittle materials may
not be adequate protection for a CO2 leak) and oxygen-related corrosion impacts.
4.3.2 Corrosion resistant alloys (CRA)
Corrosion resistant alloys are divided into groups 1,2,3,4 based on their technical specifications. It should
be noted that there are no industry standards for Group 2-4 alloys and the standard for well construction
material – API 5CT, only covers 13Cr steel, which is a grade in Group 1.
Group 1: Martensitic and Martensitic-Ferritic Stainless Steel
These are the simplest and most commonly used CRAs in the oil industry. Group 1 alloys are available in
the yield strength range of 80-110 kpsi.
Group 2: Duplex Stainless Steel
Duplex stainless steel offers several advantages over martensitic alloys. Have higher resistance to CSC
(chloride stress cracking) and also have good resistance to crevice and pitting corrosion. They are
available in a wide range of yield strength between 65 kpsi to 140 kpsi, but as mentioned earlier, due to
the absence of a standard that covers such materials, they have to be carefully evaluated for chemical
composition, heat treatment, hardness, micro-structure and impact properties.
Group 3 and 4 Alloys
For these alloys, the amount of alloying increases up to eight times more Ni and up to three times more
Mo while maintaining the same Cr content. These alloys provide improved corrosion resistance to H2S,
CO2 and chlorides. In addition to chemical and metallurgical evaluations, corrosion testing (Slow Strain
Rate Test – SSRT) is also recommended to verify that the materials will meet the expected performance.
Use of corrosion resistant alloy (CRA) casings/liners etc. in lieu of carbon steel casing provide enhanced
corrosion protection for severe CO2 service but may have the downside of increased costs and with
decreased injection capability (Syed, 2010).
Table 4 gives a summary of the material characteristics for tubulars (CATO2, 2013)
67
Table 4 – Material characteristics for tubulars (CATO2, 2013)
Installing corrosion-resistant tubing is expensive and Table 5 gives the approximate relative cost of
different tubing options.
Table 5 - Relative Costs of Tubing Materials (Bellarby, 2009)
Tubing Approximate Cost Relative to Carbon Steel
L80 Carbon Steel 1

L80 1% Cr 1.05
Coated (e.g. phenolic epoxy) carbon steel 2
Fiberglass lined carbon steel tubing 3.5
L80 13Cr 3
Modified 13Cr steel (2Mo-5Ni) 5
22Cr duplex 8
25Cr duplex 10
2550 or 2035 20+
Titanium 10-20
4.3.3 Material Selection Guidelines for CO2 EOR Wells
An excellent example of the evolution in materials technology for CO2 injection systems has been
presented by Newton, 1984 for the SACROC Unit.
For the dry side of the CO2 supply system, corrosion has been minimal, as expected, since it contains less
than 50 ppm H2O. (Dry side, here, refers to the CO2 field gas distribution system upstream of any piping
68
exposed to both CO2 and water flows). On the wet side, however, that is for those parts exposed to both
CO2 and water, corrosion concerns have to be addressed:
 Meter runs, initially constructed of plastic coated carbon steel piping and valves with plastic coated
carbon steel bodies with 316 SS trim were subject to severe corrosion at any point of coating damage,
particularly at flange faces. Where 316 SS was used, no corrosion was observed. Meter runs are now
constructed entirely of 316 SS pipe and valving.
 Initially, injection wellheads were equipped with 410 SS wellheads and 410 SS valves. They were
subject to severe pitting type corrosion that occurred primarily under deposits from settled
suspended matter contained in the injection water. Plastic coating the 410 SS wellheads and valve
bodies and changing the gates and seats to 316 SS prolonged the life of many of the wellheads. A
replacement program using all 316 SS wellheads was eventually undertaken.
 Injection wells were initially equipped using primarily 2 7/8 inch and 2 3/8 inch J-55 plastic coated
tubing set on plastic coated double set packers. Epoxy-modified phenolic coating was most successful
except where applied too thick (> 0.17 mm thick) as that resulted in blistering; powder applied
epoxy-phenolics (8-16 mil in thickness) was the most resistant to mechanical damage and not subject
to blistering. Tubing with this coating is now in use. The average service life for coated tubing was 50
months.
 Chevron also tested 6 tubing strings with polyethylene liners, and they all failed. The mechanism was
attributed to CO2 permeation of the liner, subsequent deterioration of the adhesive and collapse of
the liner by pressure build-up (Smith et al, 2011). Up to 25% of the injection wells had tubing pulled
and inspected each year due to tubing leaks or for workover purposes. The primary cause of failure
was identified as mechanical damage occurring during: hauling, running and pulling of the tubing.
Handling and installation procedures were modified to circumvent these problems.
 Unocal used plastic coated injection tubing in their Dollarhide Unit (WAG) but damage during field
installation led to tubing corrosion problems and leaks at connections. After trying several
approaches, they finally established the use of a modified 8-round coupling with Ryton coating on the
threads and a seal ring. They also applied low-speed make-up of connections and rigorous helium
testing of each connection to solve the leak problem.
 Texaco in a continuous CO2 injection program (no WAG used), ran bare carbon steel tubing in CO 2
injection wells since the tubing would not be exposed to water and so no corrosion was expected.
It can be expected that based on experience with CO2 EOR projects successfully maintaining wellbore
integrity, a similar outcome can be expected for CO2 storage wells (See SACROC experience in Sections
4.3.3 and 4.4.1)
Corrosion Control and Elastomers
As a result of using corrosion resistant materials in a WAG injection well and associated piping and
invoking operational practices to isolate CO2 sources during water injection cycles, no additional
corrosion control measures, such as corrosion inhibitor injection, are used in current CO 2 EOR field
operations.
69
Additionally, by choosing appropriate elastomeric materials for packers and seals, such as internally
coated hardened rubber (80-90 durometer) for packers and Teflon or nylon for seals, swelling has been
circumvented.
A survey of operator experience by the New Mexico Petroleum Recovery Research Center has shown that
in CO2 EOR floods, because of the suite of corrosion control measures used, corrosion and surface facility
problems that were anticipated prior to project start-up were essentially absent (Grigg et al, 1997). Other
field experience also supports this same conclusion (Contek/API, 2008).
The data in Table 6 summarize the major mechanical completion components of a CO2 EOR injection well
and the current preferred materials of construction (MOC).
Table 6 - Materials of Construction (MOC) for CO2 EOR Injection Well Components (Contek/API,
2008)
Component MOC
Upstream Metering & Piping Runs 316 SS, Fiberglass
Christmas Tree (Trim) 316 SS, Nickel, Monel
Valve Packing and Seals Teflon, Nylon
Wellhead (Trim) 316 SS, Nickel, Monel
Tubing Hanger 316 SS, Incoloy
Tubing GRE lined carbon steel,

IPC carbon steel, CRA
Tubing Joint Seals Seal ring (GRE),

Coated threads and collars (IPC)
ON/OFF Tool, Profile Nipple Nickel plated wetted parts, 316 SS
Packers Internally coated hardened rubber

of 80-90 durometer strength (Buna-N), Nickel plated wetted parts
Cements and Cement Additives API cements and/or acid resistant

specialty cements and additives in Appendix 5
The key points of the information in Table 6 are as follows:
70
 In any wetted region, 316 SS is the metal of choice for valve trim, metal piping, etc. The corrosion
resistant properties of stainless steels have been known for decades and their adaptation to oilfield
use for CO2 injection wells has largely been a matter of implementing existing technology. In selected
cases, operators use fiberglass piping in upstream metering/piping runs.
 The same is true with elastomer and seal materials. Buna-N and Nitrile rubbers with an 80-90
durometer reading are widely used for packers, with Teflon and Nylon used for seals.
 Considerable effort has been devoted to the development of lined and coated tubing strings.
Currently, both are used. Glass reinforced epoxy (GRE) lined tubing is composed of an internal
fiberglass liner, or sleeve, bonded to the inside of a steel pipe. Internally plastic coated (IPC) tubing
consists of a sprayed coating (phenolics, epoxies, urethanes or novolacs) to the inside of a steel pipe.
Cement lined tubing has been tried but experienced collar (joint) leaks and was replaced with GRE
lined tubing. The choice of tubing type appears to be dictated by operator experience and success in a
given area.
 Tubing collar leaks have been one of the most common problems associated with WAG injection. Seal
rings are commonly used for making up GRE lined tubing joints and the vendor is typically on-site
during installation to assure quality. For IPC tubing, the coating typically extends over the threaded
end of the joint and internally coated collars are used. For very large re-completion situations such as
in the Salt Creek Field, Wyoming, field personnel have been trained to properly makeup tubing joints
(Contek/API, 2008).
 Special procedures have been developed for handling, running, pressure- testing and installing the
tubing to protect the internal coatings and connections. Helium test methods have proved quite
successful for leak detection.
 In the tubing string metal parts such as the profile nipple and ON/OFF tool are nickel plated.
 For packers, nickel plating is used on all wetted parts and internally coated hardened rubber
elastomers of 80-90 durometer strength (Buna-N) are used to circumvent CO2 permeation.
Because of the corrosive effects of carbonic acid H2CO3, on metal components, induced by the alternating
water and gas (WAG) injection cycles during CO2 EOR operation, a significant fraction of scientific and
technical work has been devoted to developing robust solutions to corrosion problems. Supplemental
work has also been done on identifying and developing elastomeric materials for packers and seals that
can withstand the solvent effects of supercritical CO2 that induce swelling and degradation. Throughout
this process, the underlying strategy of the industry has been to select materials based on their durability
and corrosion resistance. Today, the material improvements presented in Table 6 above, as well as the
use of special tubing handling and installation techniques, enables operators to routinely expect a tubular
service life on the order of 20 to 25 years (Contek/API, 2008).
71
4.3.4 Material Selection Guidelines for CO2 Storage Wells
For carbon sequestration wells, material selection depends on several factors like high strength
requirements combined with high corrosion resistance of the selected material. A chemical analysis of
the reservoir fluids will be required to evaluate the corrosive components such as H 2S, CO2 and chlorides.
Other components such as temperature and pressure profiles and stresses on the tubulars and cement
design have also to be considered and that wells will be in contact with wet CO2, especially in the deeper
section of the wellbore. It is also important not to mix low grade metal seals with high grade
tubing/casing material to avoid galvanic corrosion due to the difference in electric potential between the
metals.
For injecting more than 95% pure CO2 in wells the following guidelines may be used:
 High pressure dry CO2 does not corrode carbon steel even with the presence of small amounts of
methane, nitrogen or other contaminants.
 13Cr and Super 13Cr show good performance in CO2 environment. However, they are not applicable
to temperatures higher than 1500 C (3020 F) and in combination with low amounts of H2S (partial
pressure > 1 bar (14.5 psi). 13Cr is also sensitive to O2 corrosion. There is evidence that 13Cr alloy
may be susceptible to pitting corrosion by salt water containing combinations of H 2s, CO2 and O2 at
temperatures as low as 430 C (1100 F). Severe corrosion in 13Cr tubing is also documented in K12-B
pilot CCS site, even though conditions were within specifications (Zhang and Kermen/CATO2, 2013).
 Austenitic chrome-nickel alloys are susceptible to stress cracking due to both chlorides and sulfides.
Their use is not recommended downhole.
 Duplex or super duplex steel (22Cr and 25Cr) is better suited at high temperatures and H 2S content,
but can suffer severe corrosion during acid stimulation. It is therefore very important that when
using this type not to acid wash the well. Duplex and super duplex steel is used in the Sleipner CO 2
storage project as casing and tubing respectively.
 Super austenitic alloys can also be considered if duplex steel cannot be used but are significantly
more expensive.
 Another option is to use a lower grade steel with an internal coating. However, the coating may not
be reliable and any breach may lead to rapid corrosion and deterioration of the steel and fragments
of the coating may plug the perforations.
 Distinction should also be made between tubing and casing. Under the condition that the casing-
tubing annulus will be continuously monitored for pressure buildup and potential CO 2 leakage, the
casing can be carbon steel. Inaccessibility and remoteness to the site may require a more robust
design, and if intervention will be difficult (offshore or populated areas) then CRA material will have
to be used.
72
 The section of the casing below the packer will likely be subject to corrosion during the injection
phase, and metals will be subject to corrosion after the injection phase (abandoned wells) due to
contact of CO2 with connate water.
International Experience
Since 1996 Statoil (now Equinor) has been using amine solvents to remove the 9% CO2 from the natural
gas extracted from its offshore oil and gas sector. This is injected at about 1 million tonnes per year into a
saline aquifer about 800 m below the seabed at Sleipner. A slightly smaller scale operation, 0.7 m
tonnes/year, started up in 2006 at its Snøhvit field in the Barents Sea, injecting at 2,500 m depth.
For Sleipner, the tubing and exposed parts of the casing material selection was 25Cr duplex stainless
steel. The injected gas is wet, essentially sweet but may contain up to 150 ppm H2S and potentially 0.5 to
2% of organics (mostly CH4). Based on the saline aquifer depth, the conditions are expected to be within
the safe operating envelope of 25Cr duplex, bearing in mind that there are no oxidizing acid species.
Assessment of the fluid corrosivity concluded that the water in place would produce an acidic water film
by wetting the metal surfaces (Baklid et al, 1996).
For Snøhvit the tubing was AISI 4140 with all completion components in 25Cr duplex stainless steel. The
choice of 4140 is unusual and possibly driven by low temperature fracture considerations, but this is not
certain. Like Sleipner, there would be no oxidizing acid components from this offshore source.
Key conclusions from the above CO2 injection well experience are:
 There is mixed performance of various polymeric linings at high pressure conditions. For deeper wells
with > 350 bar (> 5,076 psi) at bottom hole conditions, linings would not be recommended due to
blistering concerns (Smith et al, 2011).
 Whilst the WAG service typical of many USA wells results in particularly aggressive intermittent wet
and dry service at the bottom of the well, the experience in several cases of corroded liners and
casings is an indication that the conditions would be aggressive in CCS service if the aquifer flowed
back to the wellbore over time (e.g. during prolonged shut-in, or at abandonment). Thus, selection of
Corrosion Resistant Alloys (CRA) for the bottom of the well would be advised, following the approach
taken by Statoil(now Equinor).
 High performance tubing connections are necessary to minimize the risk of the CO 2 leaks to the
annulus.
 Materials selection used in existing CO2 projects has often been 25Cr duplex stainless steel, but that
may not be applicable where the components in the injected fluid stream are more acidic or
oxidizing. 25Cr stainless steel will de-passivate at around a pH value of 2.0.
73
4.4 CO2 USE WITH CEMENTS AND CEMENTING PRACTICES
4.4.1 Background
Another potential area of concern for CO2 injection well operators is the effect of CO2 on cement in wells
(Rutqvist, 2012). Carbon dioxide saturated with water deteriorates the cement used in wells. This
deterioration can occur in cement that is adjacent to the well casing either in the annulus between the
casing and rock or at the interface between the casing and cement. Therefore, the cement used in CO2
injection wells must be able to resist the damaging effects of CO2 because operational periods can last
from 25 to 100 years and mandated safety periods that last much longer. For wells to reach these time
objectives intact, using additives that make the cement more resistant to harm from CO2 may be
advantageous. Reaction of CO2 with wellbore cement is slow in a well in which good construction
practices and appropriate materials were used; in these cases CO2 should not be a problem. Many old,
abandoned wells – completed and shut-in using practices and cement acceptable at the time – are not
suitable to use in long-term CO2 storage systems. Leakage from abandoned wells has been identified as a
significant risk in geologic storage of CO2 (Oilfield Review, 2015)
Cementing is critical to the mechanical performance and integrity of a wellbore both in terms of its
method of placement and cement formulation used. When CO2 reacts with cement, the cement’s strength
is reduced and its permeability is increased. Primary cementing is done during regular drilling operations
to support the casing and prevent fluid movement outside the casing (zonal isolation). Cement also
protects the casing from corrosion and loads in deeper zones, prevents blowouts and seals off thief and
lost circulation zones. The cement sheath is the first barrier around a wellbore that the CO 2 will
encounter, and if the primary cement job is not successful it may lead to CO2 leakage into shallower
formations and a costly remedial cementing operation.
During the drilling phase, the cement sheath must withstand the continuous impact of the drill string,
particularly with directional wells. During well completion when the drilling fluid is replaced by the
relatively light weight completion fluid to minimize reservoir sand-face damage, the negative pressure
differential can lead to de-bonding at the casing/cement and/or cement/formation interfaces. Also the
cement sheath must withstand the stresses caused during perforating and stimulation/hydraulic
fracturing operations.
Chemically, the degradation of Portland cements by carbonic acid is well known. CO2 will react with
Portland cement and convert the cement into a calcium carbonate material. The basic cement reactions
74
of cement with CO2 are outlined below. In cement chemistry notation, C is used to represent Calcium
Oxide (CaO), S for Silica dioxide and H for water (H2O). The abbreviations used in the formulas are:
C3S - Tricalcium Silicate – Ca3SiO5, also called Alite
C2S - Dicalcium Silicate – Ca2SiO4, also called Belite
CSH - Calcium Silicate Hydrate - A reaction product in a set cement matrix. The exact
structure of C-S-H in cement is variable and the state of chemically and physically
bound water in its structure is not precisely known, which is why “-“ is used
between C, S, and H.
H2O - Water
CO2 - Carbon Dioxide
Ca (OH)2 - Calcium Hydroxide
Ca (HCO3)2 - Calcium Bicarbonate
CO3-2 - Carbonate ion
H+ - Hydrogen Ion
Cement Hydration
Ca3SiO5 + H2O → 3CaO . 2SiO2 . 4 H2O + 3 Ca (OH)2
CaSiO4 + H2O → C-S-H + Ca (OH)2
As above, the C-S-H in the second reaction is an abbreviation for 3CaO . 2SiO2 . 4H2O although the exact
ratio of CaOSiO2 and H2O is not precisely known.
Carbon Dioxide Reactions
CO2 + H2O → H2CO3 → H+ + HCO3-
HCO3- → CO3-2 + H+
Ca(OH)2 + H+ + CO3-2 → CaCO3 + H2O
CO2 + H2O + CaCO3 → Ca(HCO3)2 + H2O
Ca(HCO3)2 + Ca(OH)2 → CaCO3 + H2O
These reactions and systems have been researched for many years both in the laboratory and through
comparison with field results of cores taken from CO2 injection wells, or wells that were exposed to CO2
floods. In evaluation of the results of much of the testing, while CO2 will react with Portland cement, the
75
long-term effects, and potential for loss of well seal do not appear to be at issue for properly designed and
placed cements.
Kutchko, Strazisar et al (2007, 2008) performed extensive testing to evaluate the reactions of Portland
cement with CO2, and from the testing ultimately determined the reactions are sufficiently low as to not
be a concern over the timeframe of several decades. These results mirror field results reported by Carey,
et al (2006) on SACROC cores that had been exposed to a CO2 flood for over 30 years. The results are also
consistent with those reported by several authors investigating the integrity of wellbores and the
sequestration of CO2.
This work indicates a properly designed and placed Portland cement system can readily provide the
requisite wellbore seal for the lifetime of the project. This is of course provided the cement slurry is
properly designed and placed in the wellbore.
Cement – SACROC Experience
For CO2 storage, a central concern has been wellbore integrity measured not in terms of decades but in
terms of millennia. Active research programs such as those summarized in the recent wellbore integrity
workshops highlight the body of scientific work currently being undertaken by academic, government
and industrial institutions to address the issue.
Recently, cement core samples have been recovered from well 49-6 of the SACROC Field after 30 years of
CO2 injection. The specifics are as follows:
Table 7 - SACROC Cement Samples (Carey et al, 2006)
Parameter Value
Drilled and Completed 1950
Service 10 years as producer
7 years as injector
Start of CO2 Exposure 1972
Years of CO2 Exposure 30
Cement above Formation Portland (Neat)
Sample #1 Depth 6,550 feet
Sample #2 Depth 5,160 feet
Reservoir Temperature 1200 F
Reservoir Pressure 2,610 psig
The following observations were made regarding the samples:
 Both cement samples retained their ability to prevent significant CO 2 flow having air permeabilities
in the tenth of a milliDarcy range.
76
 For sample #1, located 10-12 feet above the formation, some CO2 migration had occurred along the
casing-cement and casing-shale interfaces. No evidence of CO2 migration was found through the
matrix permeability of the cement itself. No similar evidence of migration was observed for sample
#2, located 1400 feet above the formation.
In light of foregoing results and current well completion practices, the following conclusions can be
drawn:
 In spite of not being formulated for acid resistivity, the 50 year old neat Portland cement has held up
remarkably well under its service conditions and 30 years exposure to CO2. Such performance bodes
well for all CO2 EOR wells.
 Nothing can be said definitively about the rate of CO2 migration further up the wellbore other than,
after 30 years of CO2 exposure, it migrated at least 12 feet. However, the ~0.1 md measured
permeability, structural integrity, etc. of the CO2 altered (including the degraded layer) cement
“indicates the cement retained its capacity to prevent significant transport of fluid (CO 2) through the
cement matrix.”
 The cement degradation deposits adjacent to the well bore were at most 0.125 inch thick, while those
adjacent to the shale were 0.25 inch thick. It has been suggested that the cement degradation found
at the cement- shale interface may have resulted from the presence of shale fragments (filter cake)
which provided a fluid pathway.
 Specially formulated acid resistant cements, some containing latex additives, are used for CO 2
injection well completions today in severe CO2 environments. More information on acid resistant and
specialty cements is provided in Appendix 5.
The best appraisal of the performance of well 49-6 can be found in the SACROC cement report itself,
namely that: “The most basic observation of the SACROC core is that at well 49-6 Portland cement
survived and retained its structural integrity after 30 years in a CO2 environment. While the cement
permeability determined by air permeability is greater than pristine Portland cement, it would still
provide protection against significant movement of CO2 through the cement matrix. The location of a
sample at only 10-12 feet above the reservoir contact suggests that the majority of the cement forming
the wellbore seal has survived and would provide a barrier to fluid migration.” Since most of the CO2
storage projects have a relatively short operational history (two decades or less), this is the most
definitive data available on integrity of cements exposed to CO2 over at least a 30 year time frame,
4.4.2 Cement Slurry Design
The lifetime storage of CO2 will require permanent seal integrity, and making modifications to the
standard Portland systems may further improve the reliability of the long-term seal and further reduce
any perceived risks of using a standard Portland cement system.
Modifying Portland Based Cement Systems

77
A Portland cement system can be readily modified in many ways to further slow or prevent reactions
with CO2. Modifications include reducing the permeability of the cement matrix, reducing the amount of
reactive species through use of specialty non-reactive materials, or protecting the reactive species
through some sort of coating. All these methods have been applied in field operations.
Reducing the permeability of the cement matrix is one of the most cost-effective means of reducing the
reactivity of the cement with CO2, and one of the easiest to obtain. While there are several methods
known to reduce the permeability of set cement, the most common is to simply change the water to
cement ratio, increasing the proportion of cement. The increase in slurry viscosity is controlled using
dispersants. Reducing the amount of water in the system will increase the slurry density, and can be a
disadvantage in wellbores which cannot withstand the higher hydrostatic pressures brought on by the
increased cement slurry density.
Many successful projects have also used diluents to reduce the density of the cement slurry and still
achieve acceptable properties. One of the more common methods is through the use of pozzolans and
flyash. These are cementitious materials that have been successfully used for decades and have a long
history of application. Flyash additions allow slurry density reduction, reduce the amount of reactive
material available, and serve to reduce permeability over systems extended with other materials like
bentonite or silicates.
Substituting flyash by adding specialty materials that fill the pore spaces in the cement can also act to
reduce system permeability and reduce the concentration of reactive species in the final system. A
considerable body of work outlines the use of specific particle sized materials added to cement. The "tri
modal" or three particle approach has led to the development of a number of high performance cement
systems. These systems can cover an entire range of slurry densities, making them applicable to a wide
range of wellbore conditions.
The addition of the specifically sized particles will not only reduce the permeability of the set cement, but
also dilute the concentration of reactive species. As with the use of pozzolans and flyash, this technique
offers some potential benefits beyond simple permeability reduction. The use of the specialty materials
also can provide improved mechanical performance and higher strengths than those achieved with flyash
systems.
78
An additional method for modifying Portland cement base systems is to protect the reactive species
through addition of other additives. Advances are reported by Barlet-Gouedard et al. (2007) in their
development of a Portland based system that appears to be resistant to CO2.
These developments are significant in they utilize standard Portland cement. These cements are readily
available and have a long history of providing an effective seal in a variety of environments. Their
effectiveness has been demonstrated in field work, specifically the SACROC studies previously noted.
Laboratory testing of Portland based systems, however, has not consistently shown all Portland based
systems to be acceptable in CO2 environments. It is not clear if this is due to an artefact in laboratory
testing as many of the testing apparatuses use similar exposure techniques.
As noted, the density of the slurry is often higher than cements mixed at “normal” density. In cases where
the well cannot withstand the hydrostatic pressure of the higher density slurry, reducing the density may
be the only method to properly place the slurry. In those cases, care should be exercised in the selection
of extender, with preference being given to materials that can reduce slurry density while maintaining
low permeability. This essentially limits the use of silicate type extenders or bentonite as the only
extender in the system.
Most applications use an extended lead cement followed by a higher density tail system. This allows the
majority of the well to be filled with a lighter cement system that reduces wellbore hydraulics, and then
places a higher performance cement system across the areas of CO2 injection. Again this higher
performance system can be a reduced water Portland cement or one containing specialty materials and
other additives.
Non-Portland Cements
Another approach to address long term seal quality in CO2 injection wells is to replace Portland cement
with a non-Portland system. Limestone, the principal material in Portland cement clinker, forms the
basis for binder in Portland cement. The raw materials used to make non-Portland cements are less
available than limestone, thus becoming more difficult to obtain. Examples of non-Portland cements
include calcium sulfoaluminate-based cements, geopolymeric cements (alkali aluminosilicates),
magnesium oxide cements, and hydrocarbon-based systems.
While less abundant, these systems are commercially available, and selected systems have been applied
in wells for decades. One of the most resistant systems is a calcium aluminate cement that does not react
79
with CO2. This specialty cement has been used in many applications in oil and gas wells, and specifically
in one of the highest-rate acid gas injection wells in the US.
Use of specialty cements is not a trivial decision and requires additional steps in the planning and
execution phases. These materials are generally not compatible with Portland cement, and field
operations must be planned to eliminate the potential for cross contamination. Since conventional
cementing additives do not react in the same manner, additional laboratory testing is required. The
effective density range for these slurries is narrower than with Portland cement blends, potentially
limiting their application in some fields.
Work by Argonne National Labs has also identified ceramic based cements that show promise in wellbore
applications. Originally part of an effort to identify materials to safely bind and encapsulate nuclear
waste, the resulting systems may find application in lower temperature wells. The system is difficult to
place at higher temperatures, but considering most CO2 injection wells are planned for shallow, low
pressure oil reservoirs, its potential use may have application on specialty projects.
4.4.3 Recommendations
Based on the available information, the design of the cement slurry may use Portland cement as its base,
provided efforts are taken to reduce the permeability of the set cement, reduce the concentration of
available reactive species and/or protect those reactive species through use of carefully selected
additives. Lower density systems should use extenders that will allow permeability reduction which
include flyash systems, additives such as found in the tri-modal systems and specialty additives that
protect the reactive species in Portland cement. The use of silicate extenders or only bentonite is not
recommended.
Non-Portland based systems that are resistant to CO2 are commercially available though do require
additional planning to assure proper design and prevention of contamination during the operations.
These systems are not as readily available as conventional Portland systems, and thus may not be
available in all areas. As noted the decision to use these systems is not trivial and requires considerable
planning for logistics and operations.
80
5.0 KEY RISKS FOR CO2 INJECTION WELLS VERSUS OIL AND GAS WELLS AND INJECTION
REGULARITY
Key risk areas to be considered to assure life-cycle well integrity of CO2 injection wells can be grouped
under: (1) high pressure, (2) carbon dioxide corrosion, (3) well design, (4) well construction (drilling
and workover), (5) material specifications and selection (casing/tubulars, cementing design, practices
and cement job execution), and (6) plugging. Each of these key risk areas have been discussed in greater
detail in the previous sections of this Report and a brief summary of the key risks and uncertainties for
well integrity for both CO2 EOR and CO2 storage wells are presented in Table 8 below. In addition
regularity/injectivity issues for both CO2 EOR and CO2 storage wells are presented at the end of this
chapter.
81
Table 8 – Comparative Summary of Conventional Oil and Gas Injection Wells and CO2 EOR and CO2 Storage injection Wells
Conventional Oil and Gas CO2 EOR Injection Wells CO2 Storage Injection Wells
Injection Wells
High Injection/  Generally, not high for water  A principal source of danger in a CO2 facility  High injection pressures combined with low
Operating/ injectors and oil/gas is the high pressure (generally above injection fluid temperatures can induce
Reservoir producers. 1,100 psi – 7.58 MPa) at which CO2 is hydraulic fracturing.
Pressure  Important consideration in transported and injected (applicable for  Regulations may require maximum injection
High Pressure High both CO2 EOR and CO2 storage facilities). pressure not to exceed 90% of the injection
Management
Temperature (HPHT), deep  High pressure is particularly dangerous with zone fracture pressure (US) or 90% of the
water and over- pressured CO2 because of CO2’s high coefficient of fracture pressure of the caprock (Norway).
reservoirs. thermal expansion – a small change in  Geomechanical models are required to
temperature can cause a large change in determine the maximum injection pressure
pressure. that will not induce fractures and to
 Injection pressures are generally higher [~ determine the in-situ stresses and faults, and
(800 – 1,500 psi/5.52 – 10.34 MPa)] in CO2 fault re-activation hazard. Injection wells
EOR wells than O&G production/injection should be located as far as possible from
wells. faults.
 Increased well pressures make workovers
more difficult (See Appendix A7.4.11 and
applicable to both CO2 EOR and CO2
storage injection wells).
CO2 Corrosion  CO2 corrosion is generally not  CO2 reactivity in water may corrode  In CO2 storage projects, if dry CO2 (with CO2
a factor in conventional O&G injection well materials (well tubular and purity above 95%) is injected in the
production/injection wells. cement) and can also change the reservoir supercritical state the corrosion risk is low
Significant factor in properties in near wellbore region. and therefore, corrosion problems are not
acid/sour gas injection  In WAG operations wetted surfaces often expected to be any more severe as compared
streams with CO2 and H2S use specialty metallurgy (316 SS) and to CO2-EOR operations (Nygaard, 2010).
present. coatings to guard against corrosion  The corrosion rate will increase if the injected
 In a study of the K-12B gas (Contek/API, 2008). stream comes into contact with water.
field in the Dutch sector of  Long-term stability of wellbore materials in Possible water sources may include: connate
the North Sea where CO2 is CO2-rich environment is a complex water in the injection zone, free water in the
injected, 5% of tubulars function of material properties and cement or free water resulting from capillary
were degraded due to pitting reservoir properties which need to be condensation (Kolenberg et al., 2012).
corrosion (Mulders, 2006). incorporated into well design and  See Sections 4.1 and 4.2
completion programs.
82
Injection Wells
Well Design &  All wells have two basic  Design and well construction of a CO2-EOR  A CO2 storage well is in most cases similar to
Construction elements: the wellbore, injection well is similar to a typical oil CO2 EOR injection well, however, in some
(Drilling/ (which includes the and gas-related water injection well with instances the design requirements for a CO2
Workovers) packer) and the tubing and most downhole equipment being storage well may be more stringent,
wellhead valves assembly. virtually the same, except the wellhead. depending upon a case-by-case basis (See
 Multiple casing strings are See Section 2.1.3 and Figure 4. Section 2.1.4 and figures 5 and 6).
used for a variety of  CO2 EOR wells are either drilled as new  CO2 will be stored for a long time period
reasons, including the wells or, as is quite common in existing (decades). This imposes a number of
protection of groundwater fields, re-completed by converting requirements on the well design and
resources and maintaining producer or injector to a CO2 EOR specific procedures for its monitoring and
wellbore integrity. injector. abandonment as part of wider MMV
 Drilling in environments  There are several major differences in (monitoring measurement and verification)
such as HPHT, deep/ultra- wellbore remedial work between a requirements for the entire storage site
deep water, steam assisted water flood and a CO2 flood (See Section depending on jurisdiction.
gravity drainage (SAGD), 2.1.6).
extended reach drilling  Most operators with large CO2 EOR
(ERD and ultra-ERD), operations (See Case Study # 4),
arctic, shale oil and gas, maintain a workover rig on location for
hydraulic fracturing, salt routine workover and maintenance.
zone drilling and CO2 Ability to deploy a rig at short notice is
injection results in also valuable in case a well control
complex loading incident were to occur.
conditions on the casing/
tubular/cement etc. (most
commonly used casing
design software is
WELLCATTM) See Section
2.1.2.

Well Integrity  Conventional oil and gas  Well integrity in CO2 EOR wells needs to  Injection rates may be higher in CO2 storage
wells have generally lower take account of exposure to corrosive wells as compared to CO2 EOR wells and
well integrity failure CO2, life of field and permanent can have impact on wells and near wellbore
incidents than wells drilled entrapment of CO2 within the reservoir. structures.
in deep water, ERD, shale This is readily addressed by strict  Some experimental observations like the
oil/gas and HPHT adherence to material selection abnormal pressure drop response obtained
environments. requirements. under a high injection rate suggest that
83
Injection Wells
 Wells drilled in Gulf of  Typical problems encountered in CO2 solid particle displacement can occur
Mexico indicate significant operations are discussed in Section 2.1.6 leading to severe permeability impairment
(Well Integrity problems with SCP and Table 1. (Cailly et al, 2005). Evidence from Sleipner
Cont.) (sustained casing  Largescale CO2 EOR operations like field does not support this observation.
pressure), believed to be SACROC and Wasson Field (See Case Laboratory work should be performed on
caused by gas flow through Study # 4, Sections 2.1.6 and 5.1) the injection formation to assure no
cement matrix (Crow, suggest no major issues with life cycle adverse impacts from high rate injection.
2006). well integrity management.  After CO2 injection, the CO2 plume may move
 In the Norwegian sector of  Problems from CO2 corrosion and impacts upwards or sideways due to pressure
the North Sea, ~13-15% of on cement degradation have been difference and buoyancy, with wells
production wells handled with appropriate selection of providing an obvious pathway for CO2 to
experienced leakage, while materials of construction (well tubulars escape from the injection zone (See Section
37-41% of the injectors and cements) in CO2 EOR operations 5.1 for leakage pathways and well integrity
experienced leakage (See Sections 4.3, 4.3.3 and 4.4) issues for CO2 storage wells).
(Randhol and Carlsen,  Appropriate casing/tubing design to  Intermittent supply of CO2 (supply
2008; and NPA, 2008). handle complex loads/stresses from CO2 disruptions during unloading from a ship or
 Of ~ 316,000 deep wells injection and CO2 EOR operations have during well interventions/repairs) can
analyzed in Alberta, 4.6% been successfully handled with affect well integrity and injectivity. On-off
had leaks with gas appropriate casing/tubular design injection leads to cyclical heating and
migration occurring in software (e.g. WELLCATTM in Section cooling and can cause radial and hoop
0.6% of the wells and 2.1.2). stresses in cement and lead to debonding
surface casing vent flow  Proper maintenance of CO2 injection wells (between cement and casing and/or rock)
(SCVF) in 3.9% of the wells (both CO2 EOR and CO2 storage) is or disc or regular fractures. This can also
(Watson and Bachu, 2007). necessary to avoid loss of well integrity. have an impact on nucleation conditions
 Main observation from these Procedures to reduce loss of well control (e.g.salt) and borehole deformation. The
studies is that cased wells (LWC) incidents including blowouts and research-based advice is to avoid extensive
are more prone to leakage to mitigate the adverse effects if one pressure testing of annular barriers, ensure
than drilled and should occur include: periodic well robust well construction, and minimize
abandoned wells, and integrity surveys, improved BOP thermal cycling. The average time for well
injection wells are more equipment maintenance, improved crew integrity problems to occur is ~ 2 years if
prone to leakage than awareness, contingency planning and wells are operated outside their initial
production wells (Nygaard, emergency response training (See design envelope and there is a strong
2010). Section 2.1.7). dependence on quality of cementation
(Torsaeter, M. –IEAGHG Modelling and Risk
Management Combined Network Meeting,
2018).
84
Injection Wells
Material
Selection &  For wells 10,000 feet (3,048  CO2 may be corrosive or non-corrosive  Material selection for CO2 injection wells
Specifications m) or less in depth, carbon depending upon the materials employed, depends on high strength requirements
steel casing is typically temperature at the contact surface, combined with high corrosion resistance of
used with J-55 and K-55 water vapour concentration, CO2 partial the material.
grades being more pressure and velocity effects (See  A chemical analysis of the reservoir fluids is
common. Section 4.0). required for evaluation of the corrosive
 In deep water (drilling  Material selection guidelines for CO2 EOR components such as temperature and
through salt), HPHT, shale wells are given in Section 4.3.3 and pressure profiles and stresses on the
oil/gas hydraulic Table 6. tubulars should also be considered.
fracturing, acid gas (CO2  Reaction of CO2 with wellbore cement is  Material selection has to consider that wells
and H2S), and CO2 EOR and slow in a well in which good will be in contact with wet CO2 especially in
CO2 storage, higher construction practices and appropriate the deeper section of the well.
strength grades and/or materials were used; in these cases CO2  Other factors to consider should include
corrosion resistant alloys should not be a problem (See Section 4.4 material capabilities for low temperatures
(CRA) are used. (See and Table 7). (brittle materials may not be adequate
Section 4.3).  SACROC core evidence indicates Portland protection for a CO2 leak) and oxygen-
 Most conventional oil and cement system can provide the requisite related corrosion impacts (See Sections 4.3
gas wells use API Class G wellbore seal for the lifetime of the and 4.3.2 for corrosion resistant alloys
and H Cements for typical project. Making modifications to the (CRAs - Tables 4 and 5).
applications. Other types standard Portland system may further  Material selection guidelines for CO2 storage
are also used for specific improve the long-term reliability of the wells are given in Sections 4.3 and 4.3.4.
applications - thermal, seal.  CO2 resistant cement properties have been
HPHT, deep water, Arctic,  Non-Portland specialty cements that are tested and evaluated at CO2 EOR sites (see
shale oil/gas, geothermal resistant to CO2 are commercially opposite) and Section 4.4.
etc. (See Appendix 5 and available. Use of these systems requires
Tables A5-1 and A5-2). planning and logistics (See Sections 4.4
 Cementing is critical to the and 4.4.3 and Appendix 5 and Tables A5-
mechanical performance 1 and A5-2).
and integrity of a wellbore
both in terms of its method
of placement and cement
formulation used.
85
Injection Wells
Injectivity and  There are well established  Potential loss of injectivity and CO2 injection can alter mechanical properties
Regularity industry practices to corresponding loss of reservoir pressure of the reservoir rock by inducing chemical
(ability to address injectivity and can have a major impact on the reactions. Precipitation of salts, mainly
actually inject permeability impairment economics of a CO2-EOR project (Rogers consisting of halite (NaCl), due to water
or stimulation for et al, 2001). Both injectivity increases vaporization can result in injectivity
CO2 at the
conventional water and reduction have been observed in impairment around injection wells (Bacci et
desired rates injectors in oil and gas CO2 floods including in several West al, 2011, Hansen et al, 2013 and Sminchak et
necessary to production. Texas floods and the North Sea (after al. 2014). Some studies suggest that a high
store the  Evidence shows loss of hydrocarbon injection). CO2 injection rate should permit the
delivered integrity much higher in  Factors that affect injectivity include: low injection process to continue with limited
quantity) injection wells compare to mobility in the tertiary oil bank; impact on injectivity even if significant halite
production wells – possible wettability; trapping and bypassing of precipitation takes place (See Section 5.3).
causes thermal cycling of gas; increased scaling; paraffin Fines migration can be remediated in theory by
fluids. problems; asphaltene precipitation. ensuring that injection proceeds at specific
 Changing use of well Asphaltenes can plug up plungers, clog velocities large enough so that particle
originally designed for a wellheads, tubulars, chokes, and deposition occurs far enough from the
different purpose may surface/ production lines (See Section wellbore. Borehole deformation in
compromise its re-use for a 5.2). weaker/unconsolidated formations can be
different function. For EOR operations such as at Weyburn and remediated by adding brine in the injector
Oxy's Denver Unit (See Case Study #4), to re-stabilize the formation (Papamichos et
the number and location of injection al., 2010).
wells is part of the optimization program Geological heterogeneities resulting from faults
for oil recovery. Commercial CO2 EOR intersection, reservoir
operations need to take account of oil compartmentalization or facies variation
recovery and CO2 recycling. may be remediated by use of acid injection
to open high permeable pathways from the
injection well, or surfactants to alter the
wettability of the lower permeability units
and counteract the CO2 trapping tendencies
(Torsaeter et al., 2018).
Shale swelling can be addressed through
concomitant injection of specific brine to
restore salt balance (as is done when drilling
through shaley intervals) such as inflatable
packers or blank pipe connections.
Where the size of the aquifer is large and the
86
Injection Wells
receiving formation has a high permeability

(e.g. Utsira in Sleipner) CO2 can be injected
at a high rate without significant injectivity
problems or a significant pressure increase.
In less favourable locations, injectivity and
injection regularity may become a crucial
technical and economic challenge. Large
scale storage of CO2 requires reservoirs with
sufficient capacity and good petrophysical
properties to dissipate pressure build-up
and avoid interference with adjacent oil and
gas operations, if present.
Plugging  There are well established  Texas RRC Rule §3.14 covers plugging  Many old, abandoned wells (completed and
industry practices to requirements for CO2 EOR wells (See shut-in using practices and cement
(P&A) properly plug and abandon Section 7.1) and AER Directive 020 - acceptable at the time) may not be suitable
conventional oil and gas Well Abandonment in Alberta, Canada to use in long-term CO2 storage systems.
wells. P&A of deep water (See Section 7.2). See Appendix 6 - Leakage from abandoned wells has been
offshore wells are more Plugging and Abandonment of Wells for identified as a potential “significant” risk in
challenging and plugging procedure for CO2 EOR wells. geologic storage of CO2 (Oilfield Review,
technological advances are Please also see Table A6-1 - Description 2015). Evidence from the Cranfield,
being made to safely plug of Abandonment Methods. Mississippi site (See Section A2.8) does not
and support this view, where a specific
abandon/decommission investigation of legacy wells showed no
these wells and platforms. detected evidence of CO2 leakage. This does
 Plugging and abandonment not mean legacy wells could leak but it is a
regulations for Texas are matter of degree, risk assessment and
given in Texas remediation. Also, legacy wells were not
Administrative Code (TAC) designed for handling CO2 (See Section
Title 16, Part I, Chapters 1 2.1.6).
through 20 (See Section  Operational conditions affect well integrity
7.1). Rule § 3.14 covers which might be relevant if legacy wells are
plugging requirements in then used for CO2 injection or even if new
Texas (RRC). dedicated wells are used for CO2 injection.
 P&A regulations for Alberta Well design has to consider handling large
87
Injection Wells
are given in Alberta Energy volumes of CO2 over several years with
Regulator (AER) Directive probably intermittent injection operations.
(P&A cont.) 020 -Well Abandonment in  Storage in deep saline aquifers may also pose
Alberta, Canada (See a lower risk (due to lower number of
Section 7.2). wellbores encountered) than those
 API Bulletin E3 "Well encountered in oil and gas fields.
Abandonment and Inactive  Depleted oil and gas reservoirs are likely to
Well Practices for U.S. incorporate a greater number of wells
Exploration and penetrating the reservoir caprock due to
Production Operations", the historical exploitation of these fields.
1993 gives additional Seepage, migration, and leakage can occur
guidelines on P&A from improperly plugged and abandoned
requirements (See existing old oil and gas wells. Since the
Appendix 6). operational history of CO2 storage wells is
relatively short as compared to CO2 EOR
wells, we do not have actual examples of
plugged and abandoned CO2 storage wells
to compare key differences in plugging
practices between these two types of wells.
See Appendix 6 - A6.1 for Recommended
Best Practice for Well Abandonment from a
CCS Perspective and Appendix 3 (A3.6.5.2)
for recommended practices for
abandonment/ decommissioning of CO2
wells.
 A good understanding of well abandonment
and remedial measures and current
abandonment practices and regulatory
requirements are necessary to assure safe
and secure long-term storage of CO2 in the
subsurface reservoirs. A variety of
techniques are employed around the world
to facilitate well abandonment and state
and federal regulatory agencies may specify
the exact requirements for doing so.
88
Injection Wells
89
5.1 WELL INTEGRITY ISSUES FOR CO2 STORAGE WELLS
When a CO2 injection well is considered, the following issues need to be addressed (Cailly, 2005):
 CO2 is a reactive component, when dissolved in water it may cause some corrosion to the injection
well materials (well tubulars and cement) and can also change the reservoir properties in the near
wellbore region.
 Injection rates may be very high, which can also have a mechanical impact on wells and on near
wellbore structures.
 CO2 will be stored for a long time period. This imposes a number of requirements for the well design
and specific procedures for its monitoring and abandonment.
After CO2 is injected into the subsurface, the CO2 plume may move upwards or sideways due to pressure
difference and buoyancy, with wells being an obvious pathway for CO2 to escape from the reservoir
formation. There are several possible pathways for the CO2 leakage to occur as shown in Figure 12 (Celia
et al, 2004) including: along the interfaces between the different materials, such as the steel casing
cement interface (Fig 12a), cement plug steel casing (Fig 12b), or rock cement interface (Fig 12f); leakage
through cement (Fig 12c) or fractures in the cement (Figs 12d and 12e). In addition, leakage can also
occur when wells are only cemented over a short interval or the cement sheath is not uniformly covering
the entire circumference of a well (particularly challenging in deviated/horizontal wells). Casing
corrosion can also lead to casing failure with resulting leakage pathways and loss of well integrity.
Figure 12 - Example of possible leakage paths for CO2 in a cased wellbore (Celia et al, 2004)
90
Several studies have investigated the integrity of the wells around the world. Of the 316,000 deep wells
analyzed in Alberta, 4.6% had leaks with gas migration occurring in 0.6% of the wells and surface casing
vent flow (SCVF) in 3.9% (Watson and Bachu, 2007). In a subset of 20,500 wells, 15% leaked with drilled
and abandoned wells making up 0.5% and cased wells 14.5%. The reported leakage occurred mainly
from formations shallower than those suitable for CO2 injection and related to thermal operations such as
steam injection for steam assisted gravity drainage (SAGD) or cyclic steam operations. In the Norwegian
sector of the North Sea, between 13 and 19% of the production wells experienced leakage, while 37 to
41% of the injectors experienced leakage (Randhol and Carlsen, 2008; NPA, 2008). Further, estimates
from the Gulf of Mexico indicate that a significant portion of wells have sustained casing pressure,
believed to be caused by gas flow through cement matrix (Crow, 2006). In a study of the K-12B gas field
in the Dutch sector of the North Sea where CO2 is injected, 5% of tubulars were degraded because of
pitting corrosion (Mulders, 2006). It should be noted that all the above investigations covered all types of
deep wells and were not restricted to just CO2 injection wells.
The main observation from these studies is that cased wells are more prone to leakage than drilled and
abandoned wells, and injection wells are more prone to leakage than production wells (Nygaard, 2010).
Wellbore integrity issues can be divided into two types: improper completion and abandonment of the
wells (this is particularly true for depleted oil and gas reservoirs which may have thousands of inactive or
abandoned wells, with each well representing a potential pathway for the CO2 to reach overlying aquifers
or to the atmosphere); and the long-term stability of wellbore materials in a CO2-rich environment. The
long-term stability of wellbore materials in a CO2-rich environment is a complex function of material
properties and reservoir properties such as aquifer water(brine), rock/formation compositions, CO 2 and
formation pressures, temperature gradients, and the rate of reaction of the materials with CO2.
Therefore, well design and completion of CO2 injection wells differs from typical injection wells drilled in
conventional oil and gas fields or natural gas storage projects.
In a study conducted of the 1000 wells in the Wabamun Lake, Alberta area (Nygaard et al, 2014), 95 wells
penetrated the immediate caprock above the proposed Nisku injection formation and were identified as
potential leakage pathways. Only four wells, for the subset of 27 wells studied, were identified as
requiring a workover, a much lower number than was anticipated. Multistage simulations for
casing/cement and cement/formation interactions with temperature enabled elements were conducted
using a 3D-fiinite element model (built by use of poro-elastoplastic materials for cement and formation).
The cement results indicated that thermal cooling might reduce near-wellbore stresses, thereby
91
increasing the risk of integrity loss at the casing/cement and cement/formation interfaces. The
parametric study revealed that the risk of de-bonding and tensile failure would increase with increasing
Young’s Modulus and Poisson’s ratio of the cement under dynamic loading conditions. In addition, low
mechanical cement strength would increase the risk of shear failure in the cement.
5.1.1 Other Wellbore Integrity Challenges for CO2 Storage Wells
Two main types of reservoirs are considered for geological storage of CO2: deep saline aquifers and
depleted oil and gas reservoirs. The former offers a very large potential capacity and a more uniform
distribution but with limited characterization of the geologic and engineering properties (including the
caprock seal). The latter offers smaller overall capacity, but with a reduced risk due to a better knowledge
of the geologic and engineering properties. However, in the latter case there is an increased risk from the
large number of old active/inactive or plugged and abandoned wells that may provide a conduit for
leakage of injected fluids.
Utilizing depleted oil and gas reservoirs can present challenges that have to be considered prior to
initiation of long-term storage of CO2. Some of the factors to be considered for the two storage options are
(Loizzo et al, 2010, Cailly et al, 2005):
 During injection, the pore pressure increase induces reservoir expansion. This phenomenon can result
in shear stresses at the reservoir and cap-rock boundary. For anticline reservoirs, large horizontal
compressive stresses can develop at the apex of the structure. In order to avoid this deformation, a
preliminary geomechanical study is required to identify the maximum allowable pressure increase in
the dome and related injection parameters.
 Depletion can cause pore collapse in the reservoir, with an associated loss of capacity and injectivity
and can weaken cap-rock and bounding seals/faults and even well completions, resulting in potential
loss of wellbore integrity.
 Oil and gas reservoirs are also intersected by many wells, and stricter regulatory requirements may
require operators to re-confirm the quality of zonal isolation, by recompleting or working over wells
that will be exposed to CO2.
 Low reservoir pressure may also mean that injection of CO2 in a dense phase may lead to reservoir
fracturing and strong thermal effects resulting in injectivity and containment problems (Loizzo et al,
2010).
 Uncertainty on capacity and injectivity is clearly lower for depleted reservoirs, giving them a net
potential economic advantage, whereas uncertainty on well containment favors saline formations,
which are intersected by fewer wells.
 Injectivity in depleted reservoirs may be more difficult to ensure than in saline aquifers or in oil and
gas reservoirs where pressure has been maintained (Loizzo et al, 2010).
92
 High injection pressures combined with low injection fluid temperatures can induce hydraulic
fracturing which can affect the bounding seals (cap-rock and overburden). The Class VI Rule in the
U.S. requires that the injection pressure not exceed 90% of the injection zone fracture pressure except
during stimulation [40 CFR 146.88(a)]. This requirement also diminishes the likelihood of fracturing
the confining zone/caprock. In some cases, stimulation including hydraulic fracturing may be
required to achieve the desired injectivity of the CO2 injection well and is usually performed during
the initial completion or later when injectivity has declined over the course of the injection project.
The operator must also demonstrate that the injection and/or stimulation will not fracture the
confining zone or otherwise allow injection or formation fluids to endanger underground sources of
drinking water - USDWs [(40 CFR 146.88(a)]. In other areas such as in the North Sea, regulatory
agencies may require the maximum injection pressure not to exceed 90% of the fracture pressure of
the caprock (e.g. in Snøhvit).
 Geomechanical models are required to determine the maximum injection pressure that will not
induce fractures and to determine the in-situ stresses and faults, and fault reactivation hazard. The
fault reactivation induced by in-situ stress changes is affected by factors such as the thickness, lateral
extent and shape of the reservoir, the mechanical properties of the reservoir and the surrounding
formations, and the presence, orientation and strength of existing faults within or around the
reservoir. Injection wells should be located as far as possible from faults.
 Fault zones are widely recognized as being important to the secure long-term storage of CO2 as they
could provide a leakage pathway out of the target reservoir. CO2 operations involve the injection and
pressurization of reservoirs usually resulting in changes to the state of in-situ stresses which may
modify fault properties. Instability could lead to slippage along pre-existing faults or fracture
systems, which may be associated with seismicity. In addition, the movement of faults, and the
generation of fractures within the damage zone adjacent to the core, may create conduits that allow
escape of fluids to the overburden or to the surface. There is widespread experience of working with
faults and fractures and provided there is sufficient characterization of their properties they should
not restrict storage development. Mitigation measures to prevent potential leakage include:
hydraulic barriers, biofilms and reactive cement grout and changing the subsurface pressure
(Permeability 2016-13, IEAGHG 2016)
 Injection wells should intersect the highest permeability zones of the reservoir with the use of
horizontal wells to be considered as an option for increased injection capacity.
 Depleted oil and gas reservoirs have a lower risk from potential fracturing of the formation, since re-
pressurization can be done up to a pressure that is lower than or equal to the original reservoir
pressure.
5.2 INJECTIVITY ISSUES WITH CO2 EOR INJECTION WELLS
CO2 may undergo several reactions of interest in the oilfield. As discussed earlier, there are two basic CO 2
EOR techniques – continuous CO2 injection and the WAG process. Initial industry concerns about CO2
injection, especially during the WAG process in terms of controlling the higher-mobility gas: water
blocking, corrosion, production concerns, oil recovery, and loss of injectivity have been addressed with
careful planning and design along with good management practices, except for loss of injectivity.
Injectivity is a key variable for determining the viability of a CO2 project. Potential loss of injectivity and
93
corresponding loss of reservoir pressure (and possibly loss of miscibility resulting in lower oil recovery)
have potentially major impacts on the economics of a CO2 EOR project (Rogers et al, 2001).
It is important to note that the dissolution potential of the system with two phases, i.e. a water phase and
a CO2 phase flowing simultaneously is very different from the situation where a water phase, saturated in
CO2, is the only mobile phase. In the former case, the dissolution potential is unlimited, whereas in the
latter case, the acidity is removed progressively as the dissolution proceeds. On WAG projects, wetted
surfaces in lines, valves often use specialty metallurgy (316 SS) and coatings to guard against corrosion
(Contek/API, 2008).
Injectivity Increases/Injectivity Reduction
A number of CO2 floods have seen higher gas injection relative to pre-water flood injection (e.g. North
Ward Estes, Mabee and Cedar Creek Anticline) with some other projects with higher CO 2 injectivity after
successive WAG floods (Rogers et al, 2001). However, Cailly et al 2005 reported that in a study done by
IFP and Total, in the best case, the increase in injectivity was only 3 times the injectivity during water
flooding.
Injectivity reduction after CO2 injection has occurred frequently in West Texas, as well as in the Brent
formations after hydrocarbon gas injection in the North Sea. The Levelland, Slaughter and Wasson fields
producing from the San Andres formation have all reported injectivity loss during WAG process (Rogers
et al, 2001).
Summary of Factors affecting Injectivity of CO2 EOR Injection Wells (Rogers et al, 2001, Jarrell et al, 2002)
 Low mobility in the tertiary oil bank significantly affects injectivity, especially for stimulated
injection wells with non-stimulated production wells.
 Wettability is a complex critical parameter in injectivity reductions. Gravity forces dominate in

water-wet conditions while viscous fingering is dominant in oil-wet conditions. Mixed wettability is
suggested as a cause of low fluid mobility. Low injectivity in the carbonate reservoirs of West Texas is
probably caused by the oil-wet or mixed-wet behavior of these rocks. In the Brent formation of the
North Sea, larger pores tend to be oil-wet with residing oil, and small pores tend to be water-wet.
Injected gas preferentially enters the high-permeability layers, resulting in a reduced water injection
rate caused by the three-phase and compressibility effects.
 Trapping and bypassing of gas, like wettability, is a complex parameter in determining injectivity,
possibly because of its link to wettability. Trapped gas creates significant hysterisis effects and
reduced relative permeability to water, especially in mixed-wet and oil-wet reservoirs.
 Oil and gas saturations present in a miscible flood act to lower the maximum attainable water
saturation, resulting in reduced water mobility.
94
 A lot of problems of injectivity losses are attributed to interaction between CO 2 and oil – miscibility
problems, swelling, viscosity effects, precipitation of organic deposits – mainly asphaltene.
 Increased scaling problems in West Texas CO2 floods have been reported by several authors. Lower
bottom hole temperature and the presence of sulfate containing water increases gypsum scaling
tendencies and decreases calcite scaling tendencies. The presence of gypsum may indicate a sulfur
source presumably from H2S. Gypsum scaling predominates in the wellbore, while calcite scale is
more likely found in low-pressure surface equipment. While both polymer and phosphonate
treatments are used to combat scale, phosphonate inhibitors are preferred by most operators (Jarrell
et al, 2002)
 Paraffin problems have been reported in various fields. These deposits form when the temperature of
the crude oil drops below its cloud point, which generally ranges between 60 and 65 0 F (15.50 to 18.30
C). Conditions favorable to paraffin deposition possibly are created when CO2 expands as the
reservoir fluids flow through into the wellbore and up the tubing and annulus. Methods used to
handle paraffin deposition include: use of hot oiling or hot water combined with a paraffin solvent;
pumping heavy aromatic solvents downhole; and mechanical cleanouts. Methods to prevent paraffin
deposition include: increase back-pressure on the wells to keep both CO2 and light-end hydrocarbons
in solution; use of down-hole heaters; and use of crystal modifiers which raise the cloud point (can be
effective but very costly). Because of varied crude compositions and operating conditions, an industry
consensus has not formed on how best to handle the problem (Jarrell et al, 2002).
 Increased asphaltene precipitation has occurred in many CO2 floods, usually not during primary or
waterflood operation but after CO2 breakthrough. Asphaltenes can plug up plungers, clog wellheads,
and cause plugging in tubulars, chokes, surface and production lines. Major factors related to
asphaltene deposition included: most severe during cold weather and concentration of CO 2 in the oil
(Hansen, 1987 and Srivastava et al, 1995). Production declines from asphaltene problems generally
were confined to production equipment and not as a result of deposition in the reservoir. To prevent
asphaltene deposition, back-pressure has been successful in keeping light hydrocarbons in solution,
which helps prevent asphaltene deposition.
5.3 INJECTIVITY ISSUES WITH CO2 STORAGE WELLS
 CO2 injection can alter mechanical properties of the reservoir rock by inducing chemical reactions
(dissolution and precipitation of minerals), in particular CO2 precipitation in calcite. Precipitation of
salts, mainly consisting of halite (NaCl), due to water vaporization can result in injectivity
impairment around injection wells (Bacci et al, 2011, Hansen et al, 2013 and Sminchak et al, 2014).
Calcite precipitation can threaten the injection by cementing the reservoir around the rock. The
related dissolution of the matrix provokes a risk of subsidence and fracture. Numerical models are
used to simulate geomechanical effects triggered by chemical interactions between CO 2 and reservoir
rocks.
 Carbonates are the first minerals to be dissolved and these dissolutions occur very fast, as soon as the
injection starts. The precipitation of these minerals following these dissolutions is called CO 2
mineralogic trapping. It represents a mineralogic way of CO2 storage that lasts for centuries,
however this process can threaten the formation injectivity by cementing the matrix thus lowering
the overall permeability (Brosse et al, 2002 in Cailly et al, 2005). This phenomenon may not be a
significant concern, since in most clastic reservoirs it forms a minor portion of trapped CO 2 which
either gets trapped by solution or within pore spaces.
95
 It is interesting to note that high rates tend to limit the permeability reduction due to precipitation
due to a shorter residence time of the fluids. From a practical point of view, it suggests that severe
permeability impairment in the near wellbore can be avoided in spite of unfavorable geochemical
conditions if the injection rate is high enough to displace the equilibrium area of precipitation far
from the well (Cailly et al, 2005).
 Permeability impairment due to CO2 that dissolves water with subsequent salting out of NaCl has
been reported around several gas producing wells, especially in high pressure high temperature
(HPHT) wells which are characterized by very high salinity brines with a similar problem reported
for the injection of dry natural gas in saline aquifers during gas storage operations. Precipitation of
salts, mainly consisting of halite (NaCl), due to water vaporization can be a serious source of
injectivity impairment around injection wells where dry CO2 is injected in saline aquifers. This can
lead to reductions in porosity and permeability of the reservoir in the vicinity of the wellbore, which
can significantly affect injectivity (Bacci et al, 2011).
 With regard to CO2 storage, numerical modeling has recently highlighted the potential for significant
well injectivity losses due to halite precipitation in saline formations (Bacci et al, 2011). Depending
mainly on the initial liquid saturation, salt precipitation around injection wellbores has different
impacts: when the brine has a low mobility, the evaporation front moves with limited halite scaling
and affects well injectivity only slightly. On the other hand, when the brine has sufficient mobility, the
precipitation front is continuously recharged by the brine flowing to the well due to the capillary
pressure gradient driven by the evaporation, and can significantly decrease the formation
permeability (Bacci et al, 2011). Some of these studies suggest that a high CO 2 injection rate should
permit the injection process to continue with limited impact on injectivity even if significant halite
precipitation takes place (Carpita et al, 2006). Core flood experiments conducted using a St. Bees
core sample saturated with NaCl brine showed that a small reduction in porosity can lead to
significant permeability reduction, with a porosity decrease from 22.59% to 16.02% resulting in a
permeability reduction from 7.78 mD to 1.07 mD. Petrophysical data was used to calibrate a Verma-
Pruess “tube-in-series” model for use in numerical simulations and the calibrated model can be used
to obtain more accurate results from numerical simulations.
 Reactive transport phenomena during CO2 injection have been studied both for sandstones and
carbonates. The experimental results showed that the permeability can either be enhanced or
impaired and that injectivity is case dependent because it is related to the rock fabric, the fluid
compositions, the thermodynamic conditions, and the flow regime. The coupling between transport
and reaction is prone to generate specific porosity/permeability relationships according to the flow
regime. These relations are very important to introduce in the numerical model to properly
reproduce the pressure field around the well and the stress variations that can be detrimental for
wellbore integrity (Cailly, 2005).
 Some experimental observations like the abnormal pressure drop response obtained under a high
injection rate suggest that solid particle displacement can occur leading to severe permeability
impairment.
 The simultaneous flow of CO2 and brine is also important to consider since it limits the access of the
reactive brine to a limited portion of the pore space due to the non-wettability of the CO2 phase.
 Several coupled physical and chemical processes may occur during the injection depending on time
and location within the reservoir. Far field regions are facing long-term reaction in a situation where
flow of gas and water at a reduced rate may induce near fluid-rock equilibrium. In contrast, near
96
wellbore regions are subjected mainly to gas at a high flow rate where dissolution/precipitation
phenomena may drastically increase/decrease injectivity.
 CO2 is not an inert gas like natural gas leading to its interaction with rock minerals of the rock
matrix.
 Lower injectivity is not necessarily a near-wellbore effect
 Additional major factors that influence CO2 well injectivity (Torsaeter et al, 2018) include: fines
migration, geomechanical factors (like borehole deformation), chemical/thermal factors, geological
factors and, rock heterogeneity.
- Fines migration An injectivity issue commonly observed in waterflooding but not often
considered in CO2 storage is physical pore obstruction by fines migration and rock
compaction. Fines migration can be remediated in theory by ensuring that injection proceeds
at specific velocities large enough so that particle deposition occurs far enough from the
wellbore.
- Borehole deformation field data indicates that water injection into soft sands typically causes
sand production, wellbore fill and near well-bore plugging accompanied by severe injectivity
loss over time (Khodaverdian et al, 2010). In the case of CCS, this is a concern directly
transferable to injection into depleted oil and gas reservoirs, unless water injection has
already occurred and injectivity problems have been solved. Injection into soft sands is highly
relevant for CO2 storage projects on the Norwegian Continental Shelf and the Troll field
(which is adjacent to and in the same reservoir formations as the planned CO2 injection site at
Smeaheia) is very unconsolidated and weak (Torsaeter et al, 2018). One option to remediate
borehole deformation in weaker/unconsolidated formations is to add brine in the injector to
re-stabilize the formation (Papamichos et al, 2010).
- Shale swelling When the clay minerals interact with water, their volume increases (they swell).
The same happens when CO2 is present, at least in brine solution or in contact with resident
brine (Busch et al, 2010). Concern with CO2 is whether clay minerals present in the reservoir
can swell to the point of reducing injectivty. Shale swelling can be addressed by concomitant
injection of specific brine to restore salt balance (as is done when drilling through shaley
intervals) or use of inflatable packers or blank pipe connections.
- Geological heterogeneities can be divided into two categories: (a) the presence of alternating
layers of contrasting mechanical properties, pore pressure and/or lithology (e.g. Sleipner and
the Illinois Basin Decatur Project (IBDP)); and (b) the presence of faults and
compartmentalization of the intended storage reservoir (e.g. Snøhvit where the sealing and
compartmentalization was confirmed with continuous pressure increase with injection time).
Geological heterogeneities resulting from faults intersection, reservoir compartmentalization
or facies variation may be remediated by use of acid injection to open high permeable
pathways from the injection well, or surfactants to alter the wettability of the lower
permeability units and counteract the CO2 trapping tendencies (Torsaeter et al, 2018).
To predict the real injectivity of a well more research needs to be done. There are still many knowledge
gaps related to CO2 injectivity issues. Dedicated laboratory experiments in realistic field conditions
should be performed, to better understand the different impairment mechanisms, while also testing
97
remediation strategies. Improved simulation tools for predicting and handling CO2 injectivity issues – salt
precipitation, thermal, chemical, geological and geomechanical impacts including geological
heterogeneities, fines migration, clay swelling, borehole deformation etc. Coupling of some of the
injectivity loss mechanisms may also be required in the simulation tools (Torsaeter et al, 2018).
For a typical coal-fired power plant up to several million tons of CO2 will have to be injected for storage
over a period of 30-40 years. Operations in Sleipner and Weyburn are in this order of magnitude. For EOR
operations using CO2 injection like Weyburn, the number and location of injection wells is part of the
optimization program for oil recovery. In the case of CO2 storage in a deep saline aquifer, a major
economic objective is to minimize the number of injection wells. Due to the size of the Utsira aquifer at
Sleipner and the high permeability of the receiving formation, CO2 can be injected at a high rate without
significant injectivity problems or a significant pressure increase. In less favorable locations, injectivity
and injection regularity may become a crucial technical and economic challenge. Commercial CO2 EOR
operations need to take account of oil recovery and CO2 recycling. Large scale storage of CO2 requires
reservoirs with sufficient capacity and good petrophysical properties to dissipate pressure buildup and
avoid interference with adjacent oil and gas operations if present.
5.4 RESERVOIR MODELLING FOR CO2 INJECTION (IEAGHG, 2010)
Injection of fluids into the subsurface has a long and well established history in the petroleum and
groundwater industries. In the last couple of decades, analytical solutions and numerical modeling codes
have been amended to model the subsurface migration of injected CO2.
Despite the progress that has been made in deriving analytical solutions that also account for gravity
effects, a full two-phase solution involving gravity and relative permeability, has not been obtained.
Therefore, numerical simulation remains the usual approach in estimating injectivity for CO2 storage sites
(IEAGHG, 2010). See also Sections 8.4, 8.5 and Appendix A2.8 for modelling studies done at Oxy’s Denver
Unit, Wasson Field; Uthmaniyah, Saudi Arabia; and at the Cranfield, Mississippi CO2 storage site.
5.4.1 Simulation Software
Simulation software used for modelling CO2 injection can be divided into two categories: (1) commercial
software developed in the petroleum industry and adapted for CO2 (most common are ECLIPSE –
Schlumberger and GEM – Computer Modeling Group), and (2) in-house or developed by research
institutions (example is TOUGH2 – Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory). A listing of codes that have
98
been used in simulations of CO2 injection, with a reference to typical applications, have been presented in
Table 2 of IEAGHG’s 2010 Report “Injection Strategies for CO2 Storage Sites”.
Streamline Simulation
Streamline-based simulation techniques have been developed in the oil industry as an alternative to the
traditional grid-based finite-difference methods (Thiele et al, 2010). The principal advantages of
streamline simulation are computational speed and memory efficiency, allowing the simulation of much
finer grids, and the immediate visualization of flow paths. The difficulties with streamline simulation
occur when there is physics that is transverse to the main direction of flow, such as diffusion,
compressibility or buoyancy (IEAGHG, 2010). Qi et al (2009) have extended an existing streamline
simulator to four-component transport (water, oil, CO2, and salt) and applied it to design CO2 injection
strategies in a highly-heterogeneous million-grid block model of a North Sea reservoir where CO2 and
brine are injected together (IEAGHG, 2010).
Percolation Theory
Conventional reservoir simulation is based on Darcy’s law for flow of a viscous fluid. However, when
viscous forces are negligible, very slow two-phases are dominated by capillary and gravity forces. There
is evidence that these slow flows are best modelled by pore-scale network models, with the simplest of
these models being based on percolation theory (Larson et al, 1981). Percolation models have two main
variants: ordinary percolation and invasion percolation.
An important application of invasion percolation with buoyancy has been to the secondary migration of
oil. Secondary migration is the slow process occurring over geological timescales where oil migrates from
source rocks where it is formed into structural or stratigraphic traps. Permedia Research Group has
developed a code (MPath), based on invasion percolation for secondary migration (Carruthers, 2003).
This code has been applied to CO2 migration at Sleipner (Cavanagh and Haszeldine, 2009) and In Salah
(Cavanagh and Ringrose, 2009).
In a separate application, Zhang et al. (2009) have applied percolation theory to calculate the connectivity
of stochastic fracture networks for estimating the probability of CO2 leakage into shallow aquifers. This
applies percolation theory to the solid rather than the fluids. If the fracture density is below the
percolation threshold the fractures are disconnected and do not create a migration path (IEAGHG, 2010).
99
6.0 CO2 BLOWOUTS – OVERVIEW OF RISKS FROM POTENTIAL LOSS OF WELL CONTROL
6.1 MAIN CAUSES OF LOSS OF WELL CONTROL IN CO2 WELLS
When the drill bit penetrates a permeable formation that has a fluid pressure in excess of the hydrostatic
pressure exerted by the drilling fluid, formation fluids will begin displacing the drilling fluid from the
well. The flow of formation fluids into the well in the presence of drilling fluid is called a kick.
A kick is physically caused by the pressure in the wellbore being less than that of the formation fluids,
thus causing sudden flow. This condition of lower wellbore pressure than the formation is caused in two
ways. First, if the mud weight is too low, then the hydrostatic pressure exerted on the formation by the
fluid column may be insufficient to hold the formation fluid in the formation. This can happen if the mud
density is suddenly lightened or is not to specification to begin with, or if a drilled formation has a higher
pressure than anticipated. This type of kick is called an underbalanced kick. The second way a kick can
occur is if dynamic and transient fluid pressure effects, usually due to motion of the drill string or casing,
effectively lower the pressure in the wellbore below that of the formation. This second kick type is called
an induced kick.
A blowout may consist of water, oil, gas or a mixture of these. Blowouts may occur during all types of well
activities and are not limited to drilling operations. In some circumstances, the well will bridge over, or
seal itself with rock fragments from collapsing formations downhole. Uncontrolled flows cannot be
contained using previously installed barriers and require specialized intervention services.
Blowouts in gas producers containing high concentrations of CO2 have occurred in the past during
drilling/production operations including well control problems on CO2 source production wells in New
Mexico, Colorado and Wyoming. There has also been an increasing frequency of well control problems in
CO2 injection wells, and whether this increased frequency represents a trend is unknown (Skinner, 2003).
CO2 adds to well control risk since reservoir pressure is usually increased in a CO2 EOR flood to improve
oil-CO2 miscibility and CO2 is a buoyant and low viscosity fluid. Continued injection results in higher
reservoir pressures in most projects with CO2 now at or above its critical point. The extreme expansion of
this fluid when surface pressure control is lost and the resulting intensity of the CO2 blowout may be
much larger than conventional oil and gas blowouts. CO2 blowouts may have complications that other
blowouts may not exhibit, due to the characteristics of CO2. Within the regulatory community, loss of well
control has also been referred to as surface/subsurface releases, mechanical failure, downhole problem,
100
and illegal releases. Some of these names describe symptoms that can identify the occurrence of a
blowout (e.g., leakage) rather than the actual event itself. For example, the CO2 injected fluid can migrate
laterally to an offset well (or an inactive/abandoned well) that has not been cemented opposite the
injection interval or has not been plugged properly and then migrate to the surface or an overlying
aquifer/formation.
Pressure vs phase changes
The tremendous expansion of supercritical CO2 when pressure containment is lost is of great significance
from a well control perspective. Figure 1 in Section 2.1.1 presented the CO2 phase diagram showing its
critical point at 7.37 MPa and 31.10 C (1,071 psi and 88.00 F). Above this pressure and temperature, there
is no distinction between liquid and vapor phases, and even small pressure drops can produce large
volume increases, and vice versa. Minimum miscibility pressure (MMP) for most CO2/crude oil systems
exceeds critical pressure; and reservoir temperatures are greater than the critical temperature for most,
if not all, injection projects. Thus, most floods in which injection has been underway for several years
contain CO2 at conditions above the critical point.
When pressure containment is lost, two processes occur simultaneously. First, the CO2 (and a fraction of
miscible products) converts from a supercritical “fluid” to a vapor, with significant expansion. This vapor
continues to expand with decreasing confining pressure as it moves up the wellbore. Flow velocities
increase accordingly. Any mud or other fluid in the well is expelled quickly, leaving little hydrostatic
pressure to resist reservoir fluid influx. The result is that more supercritical CO2 flows into the wellbore,
expanding as it does.
The flowrate eventually stabilizes, as equilibrium is established between backpressure caused by fluid
friction from the blowout and the pressure drop across the formation face. Often, the flowrate is
controlled by the opening through which the plume escapes at the surface. Flow through small openings
(holes in casing, leaks around pipe rams or in the wellhead, etc.) can reach sonic velocity, limiting flow
rate and consequently, CO2 influx from reservoir to wellbore.
This flow behavior is almost explosive in its violence, and usually not expected by field/rig workers.
Often, only a small volume of supercritical “liquid” CO2 in the wellbore is enough to trigger the process,
causing the well to blowout in a matter of seconds. Reaction time is minimal and some equipment,
particularly manual BOPs and stab-in safety valves, cannot be installed and closed fast enough to avoid
complete liquid expansion from the well and total loss of pressure control.
101
The second effect is rapid cooling of wellbore and fluid streams due to expansion. Once the CO2 stream
falls below the triple point temperature and pressure of – 56.60 C and 0.519 MPa (- 630 F and 76 psi),
solid dry ice particles can form very quickly. Several special problems can result from this unique phase
behavior: (1) high flow rates complicates surface intervention work and expose workers to gas moving at
high velocities; (2) CO2 and produced fluids form hydrates that can collect in BOPs, the wellhead and
other surface equipment; (3) the cold CO2 condenses water in the atmosphere, resulting in reduced
visibility in the white “cloud” around the wellbore; and (4) free oil and condensed miscible fluids swept
out of the near wellbore area can collect on the surface, creating a ground-fire hazard. Further, dry ice
formation results in pea- to marble-size projectiles expelled at very high velocities (Skinner, 2003).
Corrosion effects on well control
Failures from CO2-related corrosion can cause the loss of well control. Producing wells with even
moderate CO2 concentrations have suffered corrosion-related problems. This so-called “sweet corrosion”
is well documented in the literature and results from formation of mild corrosives in CO2-water reactions.
While not as rapid as “sour” corrosion caused by H2S or strong acid solutions it, over time, is just as
insidious.
6.2 PREVENTION
Loss of well control occurs any time when fluids migrate slowly or rapidly through or along an
engineered well system in a manner other than the designed operation into an unintended geologic
formation or to the surface. Both human factors and unforeseen reservoir conditions can contribute to
their occurrence, and safety procedures, in-depth personnel training and specialized equipment is used
to minimize their likelihood.
The well control system prevents the uncontrolled flow of formation fluids from the wellbore or into
lower pressured subsurface zones (underground blowout) – API RP 54, API STD 53. The well control
system permits (1) detecting the kick, (2) closing the well at the surface, (3) circulating the well under
pressure to remove the formation fluids and increase the mud density, (4) moving the drill string under
pressure, and (5) diverting flow away from rig personnel and equipment. Several types of
events/conditions are grouped under the category of “loss of well control” with well blowout being the
most extreme event.
102
Kick detection during drilling operations usually is achieved by use of a pit-volume indicator or a mud
flow indicator. Both devices can detect an increase in the flow of mud returning from the well over that
which is being circulated by the pump.
The flow of fluid from the well caused by a kick is stopped by use of special pack-off devices called
blowout preventers (BOPs). Multiple BOPs used in a series are referred to collectively as a BOP stack. The
BOP must be capable of terminating flow from the well under all drilling conditions. When the drill-string
is in the hole, movement of the pipe should be allowed to occur. In addition, the BOP stack should allow
fluid circulation through the well annulus under pressure. These objectives usually are accomplished by
using several ram preventers and one annular preventer. Both the ram and annular preventers are closed
hydraulically. In addition, the ram preventers have a screw-type locking device that can be used to close
the preventer if the hydraulic system fails.
Modern hydraulic systems used for closing BOPs are high-pressure fluid accumulators similar to those
developed for aircraft fluid control systems. The accumulator is equipped with a pressure-regulating
system and is capable of supplying sufficient high pressure fluid to close all of the units in the BOP stack
at least once and still have a reserve. The accumulator is maintained by a small pump at all times, so the
operator has the ability to close the well immediately, independent of normal rig power. For safety,
stand-by accumulator pumps are maintained that use a secondary power source. The accumulator fluid is
generally a non-corrosive hydraulic oil with low freezing point, good lubricating characteristics and must
be compatible with synthetic rubber parts of the well-control system.
The control panel for operating the BOP stack is usually placed on the derrick floor for easy access by the
driller. The arrangement of the BOP stack varies considerably and depends on the magnitude of the
formation pressures in the area and the type of well control procedures used by the operator.
Examples of blowouts that have occurred onshore related to CO2 injection wells are presented in this
Report. For offshore incidents of Loss of Well Control (LWC) incidents, a good discussion is presented in
API Standard 65 – Cementing Shallow Water Flow Zones in Deep Water Wells and API Standard 65-2 –
Isolating Potential Flow Zones during Well Construction.
6.3 BLOWOUTS IN CO2 EOR WELLS AND CO2 PRODUCTION WELLS – CASE STUDIES
The following are brief case studies of CO2 blowouts requiring well-control intervention services.
Blowout Numbers 1 to 3 are reported to have occurred during the period 2000-2003 (Skinner, 2003):
103
Blowout No. 1: This well in a miscible, West Texas CO2 displacement project, was an injector being
serviced to replace corroded tubing joints and packer. The tapered 2.875 inch (73mm) x 2.375 inch
(60mm) tubing was being pulled, and only a few joints of 2.375 inch (60 mm) tubing and the packer were
left in the hole. Air slips were chained to the top of the dual manual BOP.
The well began to flow unexpectedly, and the crew closed the manual BOPs, dressed with 2.875 inch (73
mm) ram blocks. An early report indicated at least one tubing joint was ejected and hung in the derrick.
The well blew out within 30 seconds and the crew evacuated.
The air slips had apparently opened at some point allowing the tubing to drop into the BOP. The tubing
was hanging on the partially closed pipe rams and the air slips had cocked sideways, spreading the plume
horizontally around the wellhead with poor visibility. The pipe rams were opened to drop the tubing and
packer. An attempt was made to close the blind rams, but they were frozen in place. It was not possible to
confirm whether the tubing had fallen downhole, due to ice buildup in the BOP. Fluid could not be
pumped into the frozen wellhead. A hot-oil truck thawed the wellhead and BOP, and 242 barrels (38.5
m3) of water were pumped.
The next morning the hot oiler again thawed pump lines, tubing head and BOP. The pump began injecting
water down the annulus at about 0.5 bpd (0.08 m3/d). Control specialists confirmed the tubing had
dropped and the BOP stack was clear. Pump rate was increased to help load the well. Then blind rams
were worked to break them free, and they were closed.
High-rate CO2 flow from the well had apparently damaged the ram packers and the BOP leaked badly,
indicating it could fail at any time. The pump rate was increased to 20 bpd and the well was killed. The
BOP was stripped off and a new stack was nippled up. The dropped tubing and packer were fished, and
workover operations proceeded without further problems.
Blowout No. 2: This well was an active CO2 injector that was being converted to reservoir pressure
monitoring. Plans were to squeeze the top of a 4½ inch (11.43 cm) liner and run new tubing with sensors
and a packer. The well was killed, injection tubing was pulled and the old packer was removed.
A cement retainer was started in the hole on the old tubing. With the retainer at 6,300 feet (1,921 m), a
pickup joint was made up on the injection tubing and run. Pipe rams were closed on the tubing, air slips
were set and a stab-in safety valve was installed. Blind rams were left open.
104
The next morning crew found CO2 blowing from the BOP. Swept-out-oil had collected on location in pools
and puddles. It was unlikely that the gas plume would ignite due to its high CO2 concentration, but oil on
the ground was a serious fire hazard, so a foam blanket was applied. Then, the specialists approached the
blowing well and confirmed that all flow was coming out the top of the BOP – it appeared that the pipe
rams had failed. A line was laid and 177 barrels of brine were pumped down the annulus without
affecting flow. The rig could not be started because of the fire hazard, so a winch truck was backed in to
raise the blocks.
The tubing was raised, and a saddle was installed to hot tap the tubing with a 0.5 inch (12.7 mm) bit.
About 300 barrels of brine was pumped down at 4 ½ bpm to kill the blowout, but the well continued
flowing. Pipe rams were closed on the tubing; flow stopped; and the well finally killed by bull heading
fluid down the annulus.
The pickup joint was backed off and laid down and was found to be flattened slightly on one side – an
area only about ¾ inch (19 mm) wide and about 1/16th inch (1.6 mm) deep, the length of the joint. It
appeared that the joint had been pulled through a partially closed blind ram and the entire CO 2 flow had
exited the well between the flat spot and the closed pipe ram. When the rams were closed on the
undamaged joint, the flow stopped.
Blowout No. 3: This well was also an injector in a miscible CO2 flood that required a workover to clean
out fill. The well was killed, the packer released and injection tubing pulled and stood back.
A small-diameter “stinger” made from 1½ inch (38 mm) tubing was screwed onto the bottom of a joint of
tubing, as had been used to clean out other wells. The crew elected not to install an annular preventer or
change pipe rams before running the stinger.
Blind rams were opened and the crew lowered the stinger. Suddenly, the well began to flow. Pipe rams
were closed, but they would not seal around the small-diameter stinger. An attempt was made to lower
the stinger and tubing joint, but flow uplift would not let the tubing down. The crew apparently
attempted to drop the tubing but, instead of falling, the stinger bent and the joint fell over. Oil reached the
surface a few seconds later and the crew evacuated. Oil collected on the location, and dirt beam was
pushed around the site to contain it.
A single jet abrasive cutter was rigged up on a boom and a line was run up to a pump truck. Gelled fluid
and an abrasive were mixed and pumped through the jet and the boom was telescoped to the correct
105
position to cut the stinger off just above the BOP. The cut was made and the stinger fell into the hole, and
blind rams were closed stopping the flow. The well was killed by bull-heading brine down the casing, and
the stinger was fished after the annular preventer was rigged up.
Blowout No. 4: In March 1982 a CO2 production well in the Sheep Mountain Unit, Colorado blew out.
Following four unsuccessful attempts to kill the well with conventional weighted-mud techniques, the
well was brought under control in early April 1982 by the dynamic injection of drag-reduced brine
followed by mud. The dynamic kill technique uses frictional pressure losses to supplement the
hydrostatic pressure of a light-weight kill fluid injected at high rate at or near the bottom of the well.
Two factors were the primary causes of the failure of the conventional kill technique. First, while
injection of kill fluid down the drill pipe was possible, hydraulic constraints and pressure limitations
significantly limited the rate of kill-fluid injection. Second, the kill operation was further complicated by
the high flow capacity of CO2 from the reservoir, later calculated to be at least 200x106 scf/day(5.6 x106
m3 /day), which efficiently gas-lifted the kill fluid up the annulus.
The Sheep Mountain Unit is located in Huerfano County, in south central Colorado. The unit is
topographically dominated by Sheep Mountain [(elevation 10,635 feet (3,242 m)] and Little Sheep
Mountain [(elevation 9,616 feet (2,931m)]. Slopes vary from nearly level, in bottoms and on terraces, to
40% in the foothills and to 60% on the talus slopes of the two mountains. As a result of this topography,
all development wells are directionally drilled from centrally located drill site pads to develop the
underlying Dakota and Entrada CO2 reservoirs properly.
Well 4-15-H was the fourth development well to be drilled from Drill site 2. The well was planned to
penetrate the Dakota sand in a highly productive area of the CO2 reservoir. On February 27, 1982, a
conventional rotary rig was skidded over the well. After the BOP equipment was pressure tested and the
preset surface casing shoe was drilled at 277 feet (84 m), open hole operations began. The 95/8 inch
(245mm) directionally drilled hole proceeded as planned. Mud seepage and losses were encountered in
intervals between 1,093 to 3,202 feet (333 to 976 m) measured depth. Mud weights were increased to a
maximum of 10.3 lbm/gal (1,230 kg/m3) from 8.4 lbm/gal (1,000 kg/m3). Three cores were cut between
3,603 and 3,703 feet (1,098 to 1,129 m). The mud pits indicated that the proper amount of mud had been
used for drill string displacement on the trip, and no flow was detected. A drilling assembly was tripped
back in the hole and the hole circulated with no gain in pit level in preparing to ream the cored hole. A 42
barrel (6.7 m3) gain in pit level was detected at 6:30 pm, March 17, 1982, with gas to surface after
circulating for 20 minutes. The annular preventer was closed on the Kelly with 350 psi (2.41 MPa) shut-in
106
annular pressure. Kill-weight mud mixing operations were initiated, the crew moved off the rig, and mud-
mixing operations were also initiated at rigs at the other two drill sites and at the central mud plant.
Approximately 3 hours later, gas started flowing from the bradenhead valve on Well 2-10-0, an offset
well approximately 200 feet (60 m) away, as well as from surrounding surface fissures. This showed that
there was a communication between Well 4-15-H, offset wells, and surface fissures.
Between March 17 and 23, 1982, four attempts were made to kill the well by use of conventional
weighted-mud techniques. On March 24, 1982, three large diameter (approximately 2-3 feet [0.6 – 0.9 m]
fissures opened 750 feet (229 m) northeast of the well on the slope of Little Sheep Mountain. At this time,
the choke lines and casing valves had frozen solid. The flow from around the surface casings and offset
wells and nearby surface fissures was very slight to none. It was evident that an underground blowout
was occurring at the base of the surface casing in Well 4-15-H with a continuous flow conduit through the
talus of near-surface formations to the atmosphere. The well was flowing 100% CO2 gas through the blow
holes, with occasional softball-sized (about 1/3rd soccer-ball-sized) chunks of solid CO2 spewing
hundreds of feet into the air.
As stated at the start of this section, this well was brought under control in early April 1982 by the
dynamic injection of drag-reduced brine followed by mud (after four unsuccessful attempts to kill the
well with conventional weighted-mud techniques – see Section 6.3.1). A summary of the lessons learned
from this blowout control incident are:
 Although originally proposed as a technique to allow a blowout to be contained without breaking

down subsurface formations, the dynamic kill method proved effective in this case where hydraulic
constraints severely limited weighted-mud injection rates.
 The analytical techniques and assumptions (documented in the paper by Lynch et al, 1985) were, in
general, valid. There were no observed phenomena that seemed to be unexplained and no apparent
contradictions among analyses that were not resolved.
 Several types of data proved very valuable as inputs to the analyses and in calibrating their results.
These included:
- Caliper log data - If these had not been available, data from nearby wells would at least have
indicated where washed-out zones might have occurred
- Temperature logs - These were particularly important as they were used to determine flow
regimes. These in turn were used in calibrating pressure-drop calculations
- Reservoir data - Data such as reservoir temperature, pressure, porosity, and permeability were
required to link the reservoir performance with the wellbore performance
 A high level of drag reduction was achieved in 10.5 lbm/gal (1260 kg/m3) CaCl2 brine.
107
Blowout No.5: Penn West Petroleum’s 14-20 well (located about 6 km southwest of the town of Swan
Hills, Alberta, Canada experienced a loss of well control (blowout).
Description of Incident
The blowout occurred on August 17, 2010 while repairing a surface casing vent flow on a dual string
water and CO2 injection well. A total of 850 cubic meters (m3) of produced water, 2 m3 of diesel fuel, and
103,000 m3 of CO2 was released from the well as a fine mist spray, impacting a total land area of
approximately 105,000 square meters. Wellbore fluids sprayed both on and off lease and entered a
watercourse located about 110 m north of the well. CO2 readings ranged between 0 and 8,800 parts per
million, depending on proximity to the well site and meteorological conditions. The incident occurred in a
rural wooded area with no residences and received no media attention.
Well History
The 14-20 well was licensed as an oil well to Amoco Canada Petroleum. Penn West purchased the well
from Amoco’s successor in November 2002, and applied on May 5, 2008 to the Energy Resources
Conservation Board (ERCB) for an injection well permit, which was granted in May 16, 2008.
Both water and liquid CO2 were injected into the well through two tubing strings into one zone. CO 2 was
injected into the lower part of the zone to stimulate production, and water was injected into the upper
part of the zone to prevent vertical migration of the CO2. The wellbore contains two packers: one near the
bottom of the water injection string and one near the bottom of the CO2 injection string. The tubing and
production casing annulus was filled with diesel for corrosion and freeze protection purposes.
Pertinent Operator Activities at the Well
A packer isolation test conducted by the Operator on August 19, 2009 failed, indicating that either a
packer or the production casing had been compromised. The Operator did not repair the failure or report
it to the ERCB. On July 14, 2010, the surface water injection line had failed due to internal corrosion. The
Operator continued injecting CO2 until the well was shut-in on August 16, 2010.
Cause of the Loss of Well Control
The ERCB concluded that the following sequence of events led to the release:
(1) Top packer failure in 2009 allowed CO2 into the wellbore.
(2) Production casing failure at approximately 60 m from surface. Although a metallurgical analysis
could not definitely identify the cause of failure, it is surmised that a combination of factors
contributed to the production casing collapse including the heating/cooling cycles involved with
108
injecting water and CO2 and associated tensile stresses and indication of some external corrosion at
the failure point.
(3) On August 16, subsequent to the production casing failing, wellbore fluids were released to surface
from the surface casing vent and resulted in a surface casing vent discharge. A service rig was then
placed on the well.
(4) The initial release of wellbore fluids left the annulus partially empty. Once on site, the service rig
filled the annulus with a mix of methanol and fresh water. Calcium chloride was then pumped down
both tubing strings. During this time, no discharge was seen from the surface casing vent.
(5) After removing the wellhead and installing a blowout preventer (BOP), the short tubing string was
unlatched from the failed top packer. There was an immediate discharge of fluid from the surface
casing vent. This resulted in a further loss of hydrostatic pressure in the annulus allowing the CO 2 to
enter the annulus through the packer with the tubing string removed causing a substantial increase
of flow into the wellbore.
(6) The Operator closed the pipe rams on the BOP, but the breach in the production casing allowed
wellbore fluids from the annulus to escape through the surface casing vent to surface and control of
the well was lost.
Enforcement action was taken by ERCB against the Operator for failing to perform timely repairs and
failure for timely reporting upon detection. The Operator successfully addressed the enforcement actions
on February 17, 2011.
Here are some additional well control/blowout incidents related to CO2 EOR wells that have been
reported in the press:
 Tabula Rasa Energy’s Essau 56-W oil well had an uncontrolled release of CO2 and H2S to the
atmosphere on December 8, 2015. The well is located in Gaines County, Texas and about 4 miles (6.44
km) east of Seminole and led to the evacuation about 400 people. A pulling unit was on site in
preparation for a workover when the incident happened. (“Witnesses familiar with oilfield
equipment told NewsWest 9 that the well had a “surface casing rupture” and “flowback issues”).
Carbon dioxide reportedly “froze the flowback equipment” and led to a buildup of pressure with high
CO2 and H2S concentrations) – http://www.newswest9.com/story/30695088/oil-well-blowout-
reported-in-gaines-county). The East Seminole (San Andres) Field was undergoing EOR operations
injecting CO2 to recover incremental oil. A relief well was drilled and the well brought under control a
week later (Seminole Sentinel, 2015).
 Denbury’s CO2 EOR operations in Mississippi resulted in an uncontrolled release at an offset

abandoned well in Yazoo County in 2011(Associated Press, 2013). The old abandoned well had its
casing removed and the 2,000 foot (610 m) deep hole vented CO2, oil and drilling mud for 37 days
starting August 9, 2011. The released CO2 settled in some hollows, suffocating deer and some other
animals. The operator ultimately drilled a relief well and stopped the release. The operator paid a
fine of $ 662,500 to the Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality.
109
6.3.1 Dynamic Kill Technology
A dynamic kill is a technique for controlling a blowout without the use of highly overbalanced kill fluids.
The technique uses both the flowing frictional pressure drop and the hydrostatic pressure drop of a kill
fluid that is injected near the bottom of the blowing well, thus allowing a lighter kill fluid to be used. This
factor becomes increasingly important if flow restrictions – such as small-diameter tubulars in the case of
Well 4-15-H – limit fluid injection. The injected fluid rate must be large enough so that the sum of the
frictional and hydrostatic pressures exceeds the static formation pressure. This rate must then be
sustained until a heavier static-kill mud displaces the lighter dynamic-kill fluid.
In the design of a dynamic kill operation, the following factors are of primary importance:
1. An accurate value for the static bottom hole pressure for the reservoir.
2. A good understanding of the pressure and hydraulic constraints. The operating pressure was limited to
5,900 psi (40.7 MPa) by the 4 ½ inch (11.4 cm] 16.6 lbm/ft (24.7 kg/m) Grade E drill pipe. Because of
the small IDs through both the bottom hole assembly (BHA) and approximately 1,200 feet (370m) of
the 4½ inch (11.4 cm) heavyweight drill pipe (23/8 inch (6 cm)ID), frictional pressure losses would be
extremely high. The BHA was shot and severed at 3,517 feet (1072 m) MD to eliminate the frictional
pressure losses that would have resulted from pumping through the rock bit jet nozzles.
3. Deliverability of the well. The deliverability of the well depends on the characteristics of the reservoir
and the hole. Data such as reservoir temperature, pressure, porosity, and permeability are required
to link the reservoir performance with the wellbore performance (wellbore geometry).
4. Kill fluid density and injection rate. For a given injection piping geometry and drill pipe pressure limit,
the selection of kill-fluid density is a trade-off between the advantages (higher hydrostatic and
friction pressure drops in the annulus) and disadvantages (higher friction losses in the injection
piping, which tend to reduce the injection rate) of high density. Further, the use of friction reducers
must be approached with care; if the friction in the annulus were also decreased, there might be no
significant benefit.
Depending on circumstances, new wells can also be killed using conventional weighted mud techniques
by bull heading it down drill pipe, reservoir and fluid mechanical conditions permitting. For completed
wells, weighted mud or brine can be bull headed down the tubing string to kill a well.
6.4 WELL BLOWOUTS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR CO2 STORAGE WELLS
Porse et al (2014) studied the blowout frequency for three regions in Texas. Texas was chosen because it
is the world’s largest producer of CO2 EOR oil, and is the most prolific conventional oil and gas producer
in the United States. The study uses data from three geographic areas, Texas Railroad Commission (RRC)
Districts 3, 8 and 8A (Figure 13).
110
Figure 13 - Texas Railroad Commission Oil and Gas Division Districts Map (Porse et al, 2014)
Districts 3, 8 and 8A were chosen because they represent operational and geographical dichotomies.
Districts 8 and 8A are located primarily in the Permian Basin in West Texas while District 3 is located in
southeast Texas along the Texas Gulf Coast. District 8 had the highest overall oil and gas activity during
the period 1998-2011 and Districts 8 and 8A have the highest number of active CO2 EOR injection wells
in Texas with 978 and 1,016 wells respectively. In contrast, District 3 has only 35 currently active CO 2
EOR injection wells. While Districts 8 and 8A produced more oil, operators in District 3 produced more
natural gas during the period 1998-2011 than Districts 8 and 8A combined.
Data Analysis Results
As of March 2014, there were 616 recorded blowouts in the selected Districts from 1942 to 2013 in the
RRC database. Table 9 gives the breakdown of blowouts by operational activity for the period 1998-2011.
The largest category for Districts 3, 8 and 8A were 29 (drilling), 28 (drilling) and 11 (production
operations).
111
Table 9 - Texas RRC Blowouts, 1998-2011 (Porse et al, 2014)
Development Stage District 3 District 8 District 8A
Drilling 29 28 7
Completion 9 5 6
Workover 7 7 9
Production/Operations 19 3 11
Injection 0 1 0
Shut-in 0 0 1
Plugging 6 1 0
Abandoned 1 0 0
Other 3 2 1
Uncategorized 1 2 0
District Total 75 49 35
The highest frequency of blowouts for any given District barely exceeded 0.5% of the overall population
totals for wells at a given stage. For District 3, drilling was the riskiest stage while in Districts 8 and 8A,
workovers had the highest risk. It should be noted that shut-in data could not be quantified since RRC
shut-in records could not be organized by date of shut-in.
Jordan et al (2009) also studied blowout incidents in oil field undergoing thermal (steam-flood) EOR in
California District 4 during the period 1991-2005. Data from 102 blowouts was analyzed for the period
1991 – 2005. District 4 produces 75% of California’s oil production, principally through thermal (steam-
flood) enhanced oil recovery techniques.
Also, Loss of Control (LOC) incidents including blowouts in the Gulf of Mexico are discussed in API
Standard 65-2 – Section 15.1 Annex 1.
Summary of conclusions by Porse et al (2014), Jordan et al (2009), Skinner (2003) and API Standard 65-2:
 Although the study indicated the frequency of blowouts is very low, the public may have a negative
perception of the risks from blowouts leading to a “Catch 22” situation. While industry goes to great
lengths to avoid well blowouts, it is reluctant to share information about prevention measures and
incident details in the rare instances when they occur.
 Need to implement improved data reporting for well control/blowout incidents to regulatory
agencies. The following data should be reported and managed in the database related to blowout
112
incidents: date, time and duration of incident; location (latitude/longitude, township, range, lease
area); description of any leak(s) by fluid type; estimated fluid volume(s); and description of any
known human, property or environmental impacts.
 Frequency of blowouts in California’s District 4 decreased dramatically during the period 1991-2005
and is believed to be a result of increased experience, improved technology and/or changes in the
safety culture in the oil and gas industry. This suggests that blowout risks can also be lowered in CO 2
storage fields.
 Additional studies in fields including natural gas storage fields with higher pressures, flow rates and
CO2 injection are needed to verify these conclusions.
 The API study that looked at 14 of the 19 LWC incidents (annular flows) that occurred during or
after cementing operations in the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) showed that:
 Most of the LWC incidents took place during or after cementing surface casing.
 In more recent years (2003-2004), these events involved deep casing strings with no
occurrence of LWC incidents in surface casing cementing operations.
 Most wells used a mudline hanger/suspension system.
 Frequently the annulus between the surface casing and conductor casings was
washed out to a point 30 feet to 50 feet below mudline after cementing. Washing out
this annulus resulted in a small but possibly very significant reduction in the
hydrostatic pressure while also impairing the operation of the BOP and diverter
(wash pipes in the annulus prevents sealing).
 Often, cement slurries were not designed to prevent flows.
 Effective drilling fluid removal and zonal isolation practices were not followed
 Findings from the Case Studies of the Blowouts presented in this Report (Section 6.3) show the
following:
 Blowouts in gas producers containing high concentrations of CO2 have occurred

during drilling/production operations including well control problems in CO2 source
production wells in New Mexico, Colorado and Wyoming.
 CO2 blowouts may have complications that other blowouts may not exhibit, due to the
characteristics of CO2. The tremendous expansion of supercritical CO2 when
pressure containment is lost is of great significance from a well control perspective.
 Flow through small openings (holes in casing, leaks around pipe rams or in the
wellhead etc.) can reach sonic velocity, limiting flow rate and consequently, CO2
influx from the reservoir into the wellbore. This flow behavior is almost explosive in
its violence, and usually not expected by field/rig workers. Often, only a small
volume of supercritical CO2 in the wellbore is enough to trigger the process, causing
the well to blowout in a matter of seconds. Reaction time is minimal and some
equipment, particularly manual BOP’s and stab-in safety valves, cannot be installed
113
and closed fast enough to avoid complete liquid expansion from the well and total
loss of well control.
 The second process that occurs simultaneously when pressure containment is lost is
the rapid cooling of wellbore and fluid streams due to expansion, and the formation
of dry ice once the CO2 stream falls below the triple point. Problems that arise from
this unique CO2 phase behavior include: (1) high flow rates complicates surface
intervention work and exposes workers to gas moving at high velocities; (2) CO2 and
produced fluids form hydrates that collect in BOP’s, wellhead and other surface
equipment; (3) the cold CO2 condenses water in the atmosphere, resulting in
reduced visibility in the white “cloud” around the wellbore; and (4) free oil and
condensed miscible fluids swept out of the near wellbore area can collect on the
surface, creating a ground-fire hazard. Further, dry ice formation results in pea-to
marble-size projectiles expelled at very high velocities.
 Unlike oil and gas blowouts, where fire is the major concern, in CO2 blowouts
asphyxiation is the major concern, since CO2 is heavier than air, with a specific
gravity of 1.55 (Air = 1.0). It can collect in high concentrations in low areas such as
depressions, pits and cellars. Depending upon the level of potential risk, it may be
appropriate to have self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA) on-site and available
during CO2 injection well drilling or intervention procedures (Contek/API, 2008).
 Failures from CO2-related corrosion can cause the loss of well control. In some wells
in CO2 floods that were drilled in the 1940s and 1950s, cumulative corrosion
impacts are a problem. It is important to make older wells equipped with corrosion-
resistant tubulars and also wells that have been converted to CO2 service.
 The dynamic kill technique can be used to control a CO2 blowout without the use of
highly overbalanced kill fluids. This factor becomes important if flow restrictions,
such as small diameter tubulars, limit fluid injection and rate.
114
7.0 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK FOR CO2 EOR AND CO2 STORAGE WELLS
7.1 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK FOR CO2 INJECTION WELLS IN THE U.S.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is mandated under the Underground Injection Control
(UIC) Program of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA 1974) to protect Underground Sources of Drinking
Water (USDW) and the health of persons from underground injection. A USDW is any aquifer or portion
of an aquifer that contains water that is less than 10,000 parts per million (ppm) total dissolved solids, or
contains a volume of water that is either presently a source or in the future a viable source for a Public
Water System. EPA directly implements the UIC program in 9 states, 34 states have primary enforcement
authority and EPA and States share UIC program implementation in 6 states.
EPA has classified all injection wells into six (6) Classes I through VI. Class I wells are generally deep and
stringently regulated with detailed well construction, siting, monitoring and closure requirements and
include wells that inject hazardous fluids, industrial fluids and municipal wastewater. Class II wells are
used by the exploration and production (E&P) sector of the oil and gas industry for produced brine and
waste fluid disposal (drill cuttings, muds etc.), enhanced oil recovery (EOR), and hydrocarbon storage.
Class III wells are associated with solution mining (uranium, copper, sulfur, salts), Class IV wells are used
to inject hazardous or radioactive wastes into or above a USDW (and are prohibited), while Class V wells
include all other wells that do not fall under Classes I through IV. The Class VI category was established
by EPA in December 2010 and applies for storage of CO2 in deep rock formations.
Class II CO2 EOR Wells
Wells that will be used for CO2 EOR will continue to be regulated under the Class II category. The Class II
category includes: disposal wells, enhanced recovery wells, and hydrocarbon storage wells. The number
of active Class II wells varies from year to year based on fluctuations in oil and gas demand and
production. Approximately 184,000 Class II wells are in operation in the US (see Table 11), with more
than 730 billion gallons (2.76 billion m3) of fluid injected each year (https://www.epa.gov/uic/class-ii-
oil-and-gas-related-injection-wells). Class II disposal wells that inject produced oil field brines brought to
the surface in conjunction with oil and gas production represent about 20% of the total number of Class II
wells while Class II EOR wells represent about 80% of the total Class II well universe of about 150,000
active wells with about 13,000 CO2 EOR wells operating in the U.S. The number of CO2 EOR wells is sparse
in the rest of the world.
115
Definition of Class II Enhanced Recovery Wells: “Class II EOR wells inject fluids consisting of brines,
steam, polymers, or carbon dioxide into oil-bearing formations to recover residual oil and in limited
applications, natural gas”. The Underground Injection Control (UIC) program does not regulate oil and
gas production wells (which are regulated by state oil and gas regulatory agencies) that are solely used
for production.
It should be noted that natural gas storage injections are statutorily excluded from the definition of
‘underground injection’ under the SDWA (pursuant to a 1980 amendment). Thus, the SDWA does not
govern the subsurface injection and storage of natural gas, but does apply to the injection and storage of
CO2.
EPA regulates the injector wells in CO2 EOR projects except when State regulators claim “primacy” over
the EPA’s authority. In order to qualify for primacy, the State rules must be equal to or greater than the
EPA’s rules. See more on this subject at: https://www.epa.gov/uic/class-ii-oil-and-gas-related-injection-
wells
Class II Well Requirements: States (including federally recognized tribes and U.S. territories) have the
option of requesting primacy for Class II wells under either Section 1422 or 1425 of the Safe Drinking
Water Act (SDWA), which was passed by Congress in 1974.
Under Section 1422 states must meet EPA’s minimum requirements for UIC programs and Class II EOR
Wells may either be issued permits or be authorized by rule, with disposal wells requiring approved
permits prior to initiation of injection. The owners/operators of the wells must meet all applicable
requirements, including strict construction and conversion standards and regular inspection and testing.
Programs authorized under Section 1422 must include well owner and operator requirements for:
 Construction
 Operating
 Monitoring and testing
 Reporting
 Closure requirements
Under Section 1425 states must demonstrate that their existing standards are effective in preventing
endangerment to underground sources of drinking water (USDWs – zones/aquifers that have equal to or
116
less than 10,000 mg/l of total dissolved solids and are capable of being a public water supply source).
These programs must include requirements for:
 Permitting
 Inspections
 Monitoring
 Recordkeeping and Reporting
A good example of the early CO2 injection well construction practices can be found in the EPA document
titled “Injection Well Construction and Technology” published by the EPA in October, 1982. See more on
the subject at: https://www.epa.gov/uic/underground-injection-control-regulations-and-safe-drinking-
water-act-provisions
The official rules of the Railroad Commission of Texas (RRC) are found in the Texas Administrative Code
(TAC), Title 16, Part 1, Chapters 1through 20 (http://www.rrc.state.tx.us/general-counsel/rules/current-
rules/
Relevant regulations for Class II EOR wells (that includes Class II CO2 EOR wells) for the state of Texas
which has primacy for the implementation of the UIC program by the Texas Railroad Commission (RRC)
are given in Chapter 3 – Oil and Gas Division and Chapter 4 – Environmental Protection and include:
RULE §3.13 Casing, Cementing, Drilling, Well Control and Completion Requirements
RULE §3.46 Fluid Injection into Productive Reservoirs (includes mechanical integrity testing
requirements)
RULE §3.14 Plugging
Table 10 below gives the Year 2016 inventory by state of Class II wells in the U.S. and includes both
disposal and injection wells.
117
Table 10 - USA Underground Injection Control Class II Inventory - Year 2016 Summary
State in USA Class II Disposal Wells Class II EOR Wells
NY 6 322
PA 15 1764
VA 13 3
WV 67 606
AL 94 164
FL 20 48
KY 109 2885
MS 578 740
TN 2 24
IL 1100 6964
IN 215 999
MI 812 701
OH 2233 128
AR 836 256
LA 3195 557
NM 951 3420
OK 4400 6827
TX 13418 40421
IA 7 -
KS 5039 11724
MO 10 442
NE 154 498
CO 373 569
FP 26 4
MT 261 977
ND 591 762
SD 41 41
UT 87 709
WY 479 4519
CA 1794 54102
Navajo 18 344
NV 12 5
AK 49 1449
WA 1 -
Tribes 1163 2733
Grand Total 38169 145707
Class VI CO2 Geologic Storage Wells
Definition of Class VI Wells: “Class VI wells are used to inject carbon dioxide (CO2) into deep rock
formations. This long-term underground storage is called geologic sequestration (GS). Geologic
sequestration refers to technologies to reduce CO2 emissions to the atmosphere and mitigate climate
change”.
Geologic sequestration is the process of injecting CO2, captured from an industrial (e.g., steel and cement
production) or energy-related source (e.g., a power plant or natural gas processing facility), into deep
118
subsurface rock formations for long-term storage. This is part of a process frequently referred to as
“carbon capture and storage” or CCS. Underground injection of CO2 for enhanced oil recovery (EOR) and
enhanced gas recovery (EGR) is a long standing and well established practice in the U.S. CO 2 injection
specifically for GS involves different technical issues and potentially much larger volumes of CO2 and
larger scale projects than in the past.
The regulations address some of the unique challenges presented by injection of CO 2 for long term
geologic storage purposes. These include: relative buoyancy of CO2, its corrosiveness particularly when
present with water, potential impurities that may be entrained in the captured CO 2, mobility of CO2 in
underground formations, and very large injection volumes that are anticipated once carbon capture and
storage (CCS) technology is fully deployed.
Class VI Wells Requirements address:
 Siting
 Construction
 Operation
 Testing
 Monitoring
 Closure
EPA developed specific criteria for Class VI wells:
 Extensive site characterization requirements
 Injection well construction requirements for materials that are compatible with and can withstand
contact with CO2 over the life of a GS project
 Injection well operation requirements
 Comprehensive monitoring requirements that address all aspects of well integrity, CO2 injection and
storage, and ground water quality during the injection operation and post-injection site care period
 Financial responsibility requirements assuring the availability of funds for the life of a GS project
(including post-injection site care and emergency response)
 Reporting and recordkeeping requirements that provide project-specific information to continually

evaluate Class VI operations and confirm USDW protection
119
One of the key characteristics of CO2 EOR operations is that the governing rules effectively prohibit the
geologic storage of more CO2 than is used and incidentally stored in the EOR operations, since the
authorization of a Class II permit only extends to oil and gas operations. Hence, under the Class II UIC
rules CO2 injection and storage operations must come to a close with the termination of the EOR
operation. The EPA’s new Class VI rule of 2010 provides owners or operators injection depth flexibility in
different geologic settings across the U.S. and the flexibility includes deep formations and oil and gas
fields to transition to incremental storage in the same formation.
The Texas Railroad Commission (RRC) has been authorized to run the Class VI CO2 injection well UIC
program for geologic storage and associated injection of anthropogenic CO2 in the state of Texas. Relevant
regulations are given in Chapter 5 – Carbon Dioxide (CO2) and Chapter 4 – Environmental Protection and
include:
RULE §5.102 General Provisions (Definitions)(Subchapter A)
RULE §5.203 Application Requirements (Subchapter B)
RULE §5.206 Permit Standards (Subchapter B)
RULE §5.302 Definitions (Subchapter C)
RULE §5.305 Monitoring, Sampling, and Testing Plan (Subchapter C)
RULE §5.308 Requirements for Certification (Subchapter C)
References:
https://epa.gov/uic/class-VI-wells-used-geologic-sequestration-CO2
EPA Geologic Sequestration of Carbon Dioxide – UIC Program Class VI Well Testing and Monitoring
Guidance, March 2013
http://www.rrc.state.tx.us/general-counsel/rules/current-rules/
Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program in the U.S.A.
In December 2010, the EPA finalized a rule under the authority of the Clean Air Act requiring all facilities
that conduct geologic sequestration of CO2 and all other facilities that inject CO2 underground to report
greenhouse gas data to the EPA on an annual basis. Information obtained under the Greenhouse Gas
Reporting program will enable EPA to track the amount of CO2 received by these facilities. The Reporting
120
Rule is complementary to and builds on EPA’s UIC program, allowing any well or group of wells that
inject a CO2 stream for long-term containment in subsurface geologic formations to report. Facilities that
conduct enhanced oil and gas recovery are not required to report geologic sequestration under Subpart
RR unless:
 The owner or operator chooses to opt-in to subpart RR; or
 The facility holds an EPA’s UIC Class VI permit for the well or group of wells used to enhance oil and
gas recovery and reports under Subpart UU.
 Furthermore, CO2 EOR facilities may be required to report under Subpart RR if they are seeking to
gain federal tax credits for the use of anthropogenic CO2 for EOR.
The Global Carbon Capture and Storage Institute (GCCSI) notes that only 17 CCS facilities are operating
today with just five new facilities under construction. The U.S. budget recently approved by Congress
(H.R. 1892 effective February 9, 2018) expands a tax credit granted in 2009 under Section 45Q that could
potentially accelerate implementation of CCS and CO2 EOR projects. The key provisions are that for stored
CO2, the tax credit rises to $ 50 per metric ton in 2027, while for EOR and other uses the tax credit is $ 35
per metric ton. This tax-credit expansion is expected to give a boost to both increase U.S. oil production
from enhanced oil recovery while also giving an economic impetus for the underground long-term
geological storage of CO2, and a positive impact on reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.
7.2 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK FOR CO2 INJECTION WELLS IN CANADA
CO2 EOR is a primary policy, regulatory and legal driver for carbon capture, utilization and storage
(CCUS) in Canada. Regulating resource development is the responsibility of the provinces, while the
federal government is responsible for the regulation of cross-border issues such as climate change.
Therefore, the physical injection of CO2 in a single province is under the purview of that particular
province, while setting standards for what can or cannot be counted under provincial and federal CO2
reduction targets will be a shared responsibility.
The Government of Canada and the provinces have been engaged in updating their existing oil and gas
regulatory and CCS – specific frameworks. Figure 14 provides an overview of the current provincial CCS
policy and regulatory development activity in Canada.
121
Figure 14 - CCS Policy and Regulatory Development in Canada (CCP4 Report)
Building on the technical and regulatory experience developed CO2 EOR in the oil and gas sector over
three decades, a number of related large CCS demonstration projects and pilot-scale research projects
have been commissioned across the country. Specific to CO2 EOR, it is understood that at least 195 CO2
injection wells are reported to be active, the majority of which are associated with the Weyburn project
in Saskatchewan. Figure 15 provides an overview of CCS development projects in Canada at the moment.
122
Figure 15 - CCS Development Projects in Canada (CCP4 Report)
Alberta presents a comprehensive regulatory framework for the oil and gas sector, administered by
the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) (which succeeded the Energy Resources Conservation Board -
ERCB) on June 17, 2013), under the Oil and Gas Conservation Act. In addition, Alberta has a history
of injecting substantial quantities of CO2 into deep geological formations as part of acid gas disposal
(AGD) in order to reduce atmospheric emissions of hydrogen sulfide (H2S). The acid gas can contain
up to 95% CO2.
A CO2 injection well in Alberta is classified as a Class III well. Class III wells are used for the injection of
hydrocarbons, inert gases, CO2 and acid gases for the purpose of storage or enhancing oil recovery from a
reservoir matrix (AER directive 051). A Class III well is required to have cement across usable ground
water, but there is no requirement to have surface casing below base of protected ground water. Some
applicable Directives to the scope of this Study include: Directive 008 – Surface Casing Depth
Requirements; Directive 009 – Casing Cementing Minimum Requirements; Directive 010 – Minimum
Casing Design Requirements; Directive 013 – Suspension Requirements for Wells; Directive 020 – Well
Abandonment; Directive 033 – Well Servicing and Completions Operations – Interim Requirements
Regarding the Potential for Explosive Mixtures and Ignition in Wells; Directive 036 – Drilling Blowout
123
Prevention Requirements and Procedures; Directive 51 – Injection and Disposal Wells – Well
Classifications, Completions, Logging, and Testing Requirements; Directive 059 – Well Drilling and
Completion Data Filing Requirements; Directive 071 – Emergency Preparedness and Response
Requirements for the Petroleum Industry; Directive 079 – Surface Development in Proximity to
Abandoned Wells; Directive 080 – Well Logging; Directive 083 – Hydraulic Fracturing – Subsurface
Integrity (https://www.aer.ca/rules-and-regulations/directives)
CCS – specific legislation has been developed in the form of the Carbon Capture and Storage Statutes
Amendment Act 2010. Although this amends legislation that applies to certain types of oil and gas
activities, CO2 EOR is not explicitly addressed.
Although recent developments have focused on the regulatory framework as it applies to CCS projects,
there is widespread recognition of opportunities stemming from the use of industrial CO2 in EOR in
Alberta, and the importance of encouraging their development. Opportunities stem from the dual benefits
of CO2 EOR projects: increased oil production, and the potential benefit of geological sequestration of
anthropogenic CO2. In Alberta, CO2 EOR projects can gain recognition for CO2 sequestration activities in
the form of CO2 offset credits under the Alberta Specified Gas Emitters Regulation (SGER). Projects
wishing to gain credit for sequestered CO2 must meet specific Measurement, Monitoring and Verification
(MMV) requirements set out in the CO2 EOR protocol for eligibility for CO2 credits to ensure the viability
of the long-term storage of CO2.
As is the case in the Province of Alberta, Saskatchewan has over three decades of experience in the
injection of CO2 into the subsurface. There are reported to be in excess of 6,000 wells injecting various
substances into subsurface reservoirs, all regulated under existing legislation: Saskatchewan Oil and Gas
Conservation Act RSS 1978 (O&G Act). Current CO2 storage operations in Saskatchewan were developed
under the pre-existing oil and gas framework, amended in 2011, including the Weyburn project.
Complementing its neighboring provinces, British Columbia has a comprehensive oil and gas regulatory
regime: the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act (P&NG Act) and the Oil and Gas Activities Act (OGAA). The
more common activities occurring in this jurisdiction is the temporary storage of marketable natural gas
and disposal of acid gas. Importantly, there are currently no explicit authorization provisions for CO 2 EOR
projects, although it is not to say that the current regime is not sufficient to enable such an activity.
Furthermore, the Ministry of Natural Gas Development is developing a regulatory policy framework for
CCS. In summary, the regulatory framework is in place for EOR and CCS in Alberta and Saskatchewan and
is being developed in British Columbia.
124
7.3 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK FOR CO2 INJECTION WELLS IN E.U.
CCS activities in Europe are regulated under the 2009 EU Directive on the geological storage of carbon
dioxide (‘CCS Directive’), an instrument that is commonly understood to be one of the most
comprehensive examples of CCS- specific legislation in the world. In support of the implementation
process, delayed by lagged transposition by a number of Member States, the European Commission
published four Guidance Documents in 2011:
 Guidance Document 1: CO2 Storage Life Cycle Risk Management Framework;
 Guidance Document 2: Characterization of the Storage Complex, CO2 Stream Composition,

Monitoring and Corrective Measures;
 Guidance Document 3: Criteria for Transfer of Responsibility to the Competent Authority;
 Guidance Document 4: Financial Security (Art. 19) and Financial Mechanism (Art. 20).
 CCS Directive 2009/31/EC Review
In May 2014, the European Commission launched a consultative review process in order to assess the
CCS Directive's effectiveness, relevance, efficiency, coherence and EU-added value.
With respect to the Directive itself, the following specific issues were highlighted:
- The feasibility of retrofitting power plants for CO2 capture;
- Emissions Performance Standards (EPS) for the role played by integrated transport and
storage infrastructure in Europe ahead of establishing capture projects to maximize social
benefits; and
- The definition of 'permanent' in the case of storage, transfer of responsibility for a storage site,
financial security, financial mechanisms and the criteria for establishing and updating the
monitoring plan.
More recently, Member States were required to submit an Implementation Report to the European
Parliament (EP) and European Council by 31 March 2015.
Application to CO2 EOR and the EU ETS Directive
The EU Emissions Trading System (EU ETS Directive 2003/87/EC) has been amended by the European
Commission to include the capture of GHGs from installations covered by this Directive 2009/31/EC (CCS
Directive). This effectively means that installations undertaking a pure CO2 storage activity must acquire
an EU ETS permit and comply with the monitoring and reporting requirements, in accordance with the
Directive;
125
There are not substantive provisions in relation to CO2 EOR (Enhanced Hydrocarbon Recovery or ‘EHR’)
in the CCS Directive. However, Recital 20 in the Preamble states the following:
“EHR is not in itself included in the scope of this Directive. However, where EHR is combined with
geological storage of CO2, the provisions of this Directive for the environmentally safe storage of CO 2
should apply. In that case, the provisions of this Directive concerning leakage are not intended to apply
to quantities of CO2 released from surface installations which do not exceed what is necessary in the
normal process of extraction of hydrocarbons, and which do not compromise the security of the
geological storage or adversely affect the surrounding environment.
There appears to be a consensus amongst commentators that the CCS Directive will apply to a CO2 EOR
project, provided that the CO2 for the purposes of ‘permanent storage’ (i.e. incidental CO2 storage during a
conventional EOR operation) would be considered to be beyond the remit of the CCS Directive, and
therefore, the EU ETS Directive. An existing EOR project wishing to obtain credit for the CO2 stored would
therefore have to retrospectively undertake the geotechnical assessments required for site evaluation
and other activities in order to comply with the CCS Directive.
7.4 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK FOR CO2 INJECTION WELLS IN U.K
The CCS Directive has been transposed under the Energy Act 2008, providing clear implementation
guidance through the following supporting regulations:
- The Storage of Carbon Dioxide (Amendment of the Energy Act 2008 etc.) Regulations 2011;
- The Storage of Carbon Dioxide (Licensing etc.) Regulations 2010;
- 2012 Regulations (amending the 2010 Regulations), which implement Article 15 of the CCS
Directive on the inspection of carbon dioxide storage complexes
- Storage of Carbon Dioxide (Access to Infrastructure) Regulations 2011, which implement

Articles 21 and 22 of the CCS Directive, on third party access to carbon dioxide storage sites
and transport networks; and
- The Storage of Carbon Dioxide (Termination of Licenses) Regulations 2011, which implement
Articles 18 and 20 on the transfer of responsibility for a closed storage site and the associated
financial mechanism.
In terms of Section 17 of the Act, a license is required for the use of a controlled place for the storage of
carbon dioxide (with a view to its permanent disposal, or as an interim measure prior to its permanent
disposal); or the conversion of any natural feature in a controlled place for the purpose of storing carbon
dioxide (with a view to its permanent disposal, or as an interim measure prior to its permanent disposal).
126
Importantly, the wording of this section appears to be consistent with the CCS Directive, only including a
CO2 EOR project for the purpose of permanent storage, following the depletion of the oil-bearing
reservoir.
Furthermore, in relation to the UK context, the UCL CCS Program Report referenced here, offers the
following remark:
“In practice, at present at least, it seems likely that any proposed sites for EHR operations will in fact be
already selected as CCS storage sites in accordance with the Directive, and these transitional issues or the
need to secure exemption from the Directive are not an immediate issue”..
Finally, Section 33 of the Energy Act makes provision for the following discretionary authority:
The use of carbon dioxide, in a controlled place, for a purpose ancillary to getting petroleum is to be
regarded as—
- an activity within section 17(2); or
- the storage of gas for the purposes of section 1(3)(b), only in the circumstances specified by the
Secretary of State by order;
Orders made under this section are without prejudice to Part 1 of the Petroleum Act 1998;
An order under this subsection may provide that the use of carbon dioxide, in a designated place, for a
purpose ancillary to getting petroleum is to be regarded, for the purposes of this Chapter, as the use of
carbon dioxide in a controlled place for such a purpose.
On the basis of the Explanatory Notes that accompany the Act and respective Regulations, it is
understood that the intention is to use this power, for example, to ensure that the requirements extend to
operators undertaking an EOR activity if those operators wish to claim credits under the EU ETS. This
being said, the pursuit of emission credits is not the sole reason on which the CCS Directive may be
considered to apply to a particular project.
7.5 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK FOR CO2 INJECTION WELLS IN AUSTRALIA
In Australia, states and territories have jurisdiction over CCS activities onshore and up to three nautical
miles offshore, beyond which jurisdiction is with the federal government. At the federal level, offshore
storage of CO2 is regulated through the 2006 Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act
(OPGGS Act), as amended by the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Legislation
127
Amendment Act 2010. In 2011, the development of a set of Regulations under the OPGGS Act was
finalized with the publication of the Resource Management and Administration Regulations 2011, and the
Gas Injection and Storage Regulations 2011.
These regulations consolidate and streamline the various resources, administration, injection and
storage-related requirements set out under the OPGGS Act.
Furthermore, dedicated CCS legislation exists onshore in the States of Victoria, Queensland, and South
Australia. New South Wales and Western Australia are in the process of developing CCS legislation that is
likely to be based on existing oil and gas regulations, as well as federal offshore CCS legislation.
The regulatory framework is in place for CCS but given the lack of EOR activities in Australia no explicit
provisions for EOR or transition to CCS have been identified.
7.6 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK FOR CO2 INJECTION WELLS IN BRAZIL
The state-owned oil company, Petrobras, has been conducting EOR activities for over two decades in
accordance with Brazil’s general environmental and oil and gas regulations. This has enabled the
development of technological and geo-physical experience in CO2 injection into offshore oil-bearing
reservoirs. The commercial Lula Oilfield operation in the Santos Basin is such an example, and is further
described in Section 8.1 (Case Study # 1) of this Report. Oil and gas related activities are generally
required to comply with specific resolutions issued by competent governmental agencies, including, the
Agência Nacional de Petroleo, Gas e Biocombustiveis (oil sector regulating agency). Resolution
provisions include local content requirements or conditions and gas flaring reduction targets. It is
understood that there are currently no Ministerial Resolutions providing specific guidance for a CO2 EOR
project to transition to permanent storage.
Furthermore, there is currently no legal or regulatory framework specific to CCS operations. However,
the following developments are worth noting:
 Brazil is a member of the Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes
and Other Matter and the 1996 London Protocol, as well as, Basel Convention on the Control of
Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Waste and their Disposal;
 CCS is mentioned as a potential technology being developed by the oil and gas industry in the 2008
National Climate Change Plan (Plano Nacional de Mudança do Clima);
128
 The 2009 National Climate Change Policy (Política Nacional sobre Mudança do Clima) does not refer
to specific technologies, but aims to incentivize the strengthening of emission reduction technologies
and the promotion of carbon sinks;
 CCS is mentioned in the research and development plans under the Ministry of Science, Technology
and Innovation (Petrobras research informs these plans);
 CCS is not explicitly mentioned in the 2015 Intended Nationally Determined Contribution to the
UNFCCC and Brazil has opposed the adoption of CCS technology as a CDM modality. The country has,
however, previously advocated for another framework using specific financial/funding mechanisms
under the UNFCCC.
In advancing the agenda for potential CO2 sequestration in Brazil, the Center of Excellence in Research
and Innovation in Petroleum, Mineral Resources and Carbon Storage (CEPAC) produced the ‘Brazilian
Atlas of CO2 Capture and Geological Storage’. With the assistance of Petrobras and the Global CCS
Institute, the Atlas Report represents the consolidation of nearly a decade of research and data gathering
undertaken by specialist professionals/organizations since 2007. The research areas that have informed
the content include the following:
 Geological and mineralogical evaluation of storage reservoirs and reservoir interaction with CO2;
 Investigation of the integrity and reliability of different materials and procedures applied to the
injection of CO2 through injection wells, in order to maximize the safety and feasibility of geological
carbon storage;
 Studies of the geochemical interactions and flow mechanisms in the CO2- water-rock system with
focus on Brazil’s pre-salt reservoirs; and
 Development of a Geographic Information System (GIS) containing data on CO2 emissions resulting
from stationary sources, transport infrastructure, and potential geological reservoirs.
Overall, Brazil has a favorable situation regarding the potential for CO2 geological storage. The country
has a large area covered with sedimentary basins, both onshore and offshore. Most of the stationary
emitting sources, especially in the Southeast region, are located in proximity to these basins;
The continental margin basins stand out as the main producers of hydrocarbons with the Campos Basin
being one of the major producing areas. The Santos Basin will possibly continue to be a major area of
hydrocarbon production in Brazil from 2025 when exploitation of pre-salt reservoirs will increase
substantially. Further case reference is made to the Lula Oilfield Project located in the ultra-deep waters
off Brazil’s south-eastern coast.
CO2 EOR is currently undertaken within existing petroleum legislation in Brazil. There is currently no CCS
regulatory framework and therefore no structure in place for a transition from EOR to CCS in Brazil.
129
8.0 CASE STUDIES
8.1 CASE STUDY # 1: CO2 INJECTION OFFSHORE – PETROBRAS’S LULA FIELD, SANTOS BASIN,
OFFSHORE BRAZIL
Background
Brazil’s Pre-Salt area is currently the international leader in pursuing deep water offshore CO 2 EOR. Lula
was discovered in 2006 by Petrobras (Operator 65% with partners – BG E&P Brazil 25% and Petrogal
Brazil 10%) in ultra-deep waters between 1,650 and 2,200 meters (5,400 to 7,200 feet), approximately
300 kilometers (180 miles) south-east of Rio De Janeiro. The Lula field encompasses the Tupi and
Iracema areas in the Santos Basin Pre-Salt Cluster (SBPSC). Lula’s carbonate reservoir (with an estimated
6.5 billion barrels of recoverable oil) is overlain by a thick 1,800 meters (6,000 feet) salt column and
holds a moderately light, 28-30 degree API oil with a high solution gas-oil ratio. The associated gas in the
reservoir contains 8% to 15% of CO2.
This is an offshore (Santos Basin – Brazil) simultaneous CO2 EOR and storage project in which CO2 is
captured in a pre-combustion stage at floating production, storage, and offloading (FPSO) vessels
anchored in the Santos Basin. The captured CO2 is injected at a rate of approximately 1 million tonnes
(193 bcf) per year into the pre-salt carbonate reservoir at the Lula and Sapinhoa oil fields at a depth of
between 5,000 and 7,000 m (16,400 – 23,000 feet) below sea level (Global CCS Institute 2016h). This
project was designed as a CO2 EOR project from its inception to avoid venting CO2 to the atmosphere.
Brazil’s Pre-salt trend differs significantly from the sub-salt trend found in the Gulf of Mexico. Pre-salt
wells are drilled into formations that were deposited prior to the emplacement of a layer of
autochthonous salt – salt that remains at its original stratigraphic level. By contrast, Sub-salt wells are
drilled into formations lying beneath mobile canopies of allochthonous salt – masses of salt, fed by the
original autochthonous layer, that rise through overlying layers then rise spread laterally. With the
discovery of pre-salt reservoirs (e.g. Tupi), those targets in the strata above the salt are designated as
Post-salt or Supra-salt prospects.
Drilling and wellbore construction challenges in the Pre-salt include:
 The varying composition of the thick overlying evaporates (up to 7,000 feet – 2,134 m) can be
difficult to drill. Each layer is characterized by different creep rates, which can vary as much as two
orders of magnitude between the various types of salt. Salt creep can lead to wellbore restrictions,
stuck pipe, torsional resistance and casing failure.
 The Pre-salt reservoirs consist of heterogeneous layered carbonates, which can adversely affect
drilling progress.
 Geomechanical studies aid in anticipating potential for rock failure or salt deformation around the
wellbore, in selection of drill bits and drilling fluids, and in devising mud, casing and cementing
programs to extend wellbore integrity.
130
 Additionally, the corrosive environment presents a challenge due to the presence of significant
amounts of CO2 and H2S, requiring special cements and metallurgies throughout the drilling and
completion processes. Therefore, a broad scope of solutions are required including best practices
along with lessons learned from previous Pre-salt drilling offshore Brazil, to reduce NPT (non-
productive time) and avoid failures caused by the challenging salt formations.
The complexity of implementing an offshore EOR project increases significantly with the move to ultra-
deep waters. Since investments are normally huge, more appraisal and data acquisition is needed to
reduce uncertainties and mitigate associated risks before sanctioning the project. Generally EOR methods
require additional installation capabilities that can be a major constraint in an offshore facility (see
Section 2.1.10 and Appendix A2.6). The uncertainty in reservoir property characterization is even more
critical in carbonate reservoirs, which have a higher degree of heterogeneity than sandstones. The project
is part of floating production, storage, and offloading (FPSO) units that incorporate CO 2 separation and
injection facilities. It should be noted that CO2 EOR was planned from the inception of this project so that
the project design and implementation were rationalized from inception.
Lula CO2 EOR Pilot Project Highlights
- Early Implementation of CO2 EOR
Petrobras implemented a series of short-term EOR pilots at Lula with the intention of developing the
entire field using CO2 EOR, if the CO2 pilot was successful. According to Petrobras, advantages of early
implementation of CO2 EOR as part of planned production were: improved capital efficiency since it freed
the operator from subsequent retrofit of production systems and platform space for CO 2 recycling; and
avoiding need to halt and/or shut-in production operations when implementing CO2 EOR later in the
field’s life.
- Deepwater CO2 EOR Technology
The technology deployed by Petrobras mirrors the methodology and design used in ARI’s deep water
resource assessment modeling and utilizes a hub and spoke model to service multiple fields with subsea
completions. Also, the CO2 EOR design utilizes intelligent well completions, dynamic downhole
monitoring, tracer injections and extensive CO2-recycling.
- Reservoir Characterization and Phased Development
Petrobras is executing a phased development of the Lula Field, allowing field development and EOR
strategy to evolve as reservoir characterization and performance data is improved. The company uses
Extended Well Tests (EWTs) to evaluate the wells’ long-term production behavior, define reservoir
connectivity and other key reservoir properties; production pilots to test recovery method performance
131
and a phased development program to formulate their EOR strategy without waiting for results from the
operation of a water flood.
The evaluation of flow in the reservoir can be made with either short-term (< 72 hours) drill stem tests
(DST) or with extended well tests (~ 6 months) EWTs. EWTs are an excellent source of information on
the dynamic performance of a well and surrounding reservoir. The “dynamic appraisal” method (Dake,
1994) can provide valuable information on the drainage plan and sweep strategy in the pre-salt.
- Selecting a Recovery Method at an early stage
Petrobras decided early in its field development cycle not to vent the CO2 produced at Lula, but to use this
gas for miscible CO2 EOR. To achieve this, processing plants were equipped with a complex separation
system, which removed the CO2, compressed the CO2 stream to a high pressure and re-injected the CO2
into the producing reservoir. The CO2 rich stream can also be mixed with a portion of the treated
hydrocarbon gas for re-injection during EOR. In addition, the high CO2 content present in the associated
gas dictated that corrosion resistant alloys be used in all production wells enabling a CO 2 EOR flood to
use existing wells and infrastructure without any refurbishment. A significant investment has been made
in technology development, not only for the gas processing plant, but also for the subsea system, and well
materials and equipment (Jorge Oscar Pizarro et al, World Oil, 2012).
Preliminary reservoir simulation studies showed that the oil recovery factor could be significantly
improved with secondary and tertiary recovery, with water-oil relative permeability measurements
showing reasonably high residual oil saturation. WAG injection was determined to be the best option
given the two relatively abundant resources available: sea water and produced or imported gas. Some of
the problems with WAG injection were also identified during the screening process: early breakthrough
in production wells, reduced injectivity, corrosion, scale deposition, asphaltene precipitation and hydrate
formation.
Injectivity tends to reduce after each cycle, due to the phenomenon of relative permeability hysteresis. In
carbonate rocks, however, some field cases have shown injectivity increases, due to carbonate
dissolution, because of the mixing between water and gas containing CO2. Corrosion problems are not
expected, since extensive use of CRAs has been adopted in the Lula wells, due to the presence of CO 2 in
the original fluid. Studies are being done to handle asphaltene and hydrate formation.
- First Development Phase
132
The first Lula pilot consisted of one injection and one production well. In April 2011, Petrobras began
injecting produced reservoir gas at a rate of 35 Mcfd (1Mm3/d). After 6 months of gas re-injection, the
hydrocarbon gas was separated from the CO2 in the FPSO’s membrane processing system and
transported onshore for sale. The separated CO2 was then re-injected into the reservoir at a rate of 12.3
Mcfd (0.35 Mm3/d). A horizontal well was drilled in Q1 2012 and WAG injection, utilizing water and the
high CO2 concentration gas, commenced in the second half of 2012. The Lula EOR pilot included one gas
injector, two WAG injectors, and multiple producers.
- Reservoir Characterization
Carbonate reservoirs are, in many aspects, much different than silica-clastics. Carbonates usually
undergo more intense chemical diagenesis, which creates a heterogeneous reservoir system. Oil recovery
is strongly controlled by horizontal and vertical connectivity with large permeability contrasts (high
permeability layers) and the likely presence of fractures and faults (carbonates being less ductile). In the
microscopic scale, heterogeneities in carbonates manifest in the form of flow barriers caused by
cementation and presence of stylolites. The large permeability contrast also makes the capillary behavior
of the porous system more important. Also, there is large vertical-to-horizontal anisotropy.
- Simulation Modeling
Numerical modeling and laboratory tests were done with water flooding as the base case, and CO2 EOR
and WAG cases. Compositional modeling showed potential for additional oil recovery above the water
flooding base case with the low reservoir temperatures (600 – 700 C/1400 - 1580 F) and high original
reservoir pressure enabling efficient miscible displacement of the oil by the injected hydrocarbon gas and
CO2 rich stream.
- Operational Concerns
Operational concerns included the possibility of hydrocarbon gas/CO2 injection resulting in asphaltene
and wax and hydrate formation. Depressurization in the risers causes gas to come out of solution,
reducing flow temperature and increasing the possibility of wax deposition. Calcium carbonate scale is
also an issue with CO2 injection in carbonate rock. These potential flow assurance and integrity concerns
including from corrosion are being addressed with the use of special alloys, plastic-covered pipes, and
continuous downhole chemical injection, and special design of flexible flowlines and risers (Almeida et al,
133
2010). Controlling CO2 is crucial not only to limit climate impact but also to reduce corrosion of
equipment and deep sea pipelines caused by the mixture of CO2 and water.
- Intelligent Completions
To improve reservoir management, intelligent completions are being deployed whenever considered
beneficial. To be effective, it is desirable to have vertical isolation between zones in the reservoir. Being
able to monitor bottom hole pressures and the use of chemical tracers in the injection fluid may provide
important information to history match the production history and to calibrate the simulation models.
This type of completion can mitigate the risk of preferential flow and early breakthrough, along with the
option of being able to inject either water or gas, and lead to increased oil recovery.
8.1.1 Summary and Conclusions
Brazil’s Pre-Salt is currently the international leader in pursuing deep water offshore CO2 EOR.
 Lula field discovered in 2006 with Petrobras as operator in ultra-deep waters between 1,650 to 2,200
m (5,400 to 7,200 feet). The Lula field encompasses the Tupi and Iracema areas in the Santos Basin
Pre-Salt Cluster (SBPSC).
 Lula’s carbonate reservoir (with an estimated 6.5 billion barrels of recoverable oil) is overlain by a
thick 1,800 m (6,000 feet) salt column and holds a moderately light 28-300 API oil with a high
solution-gas-oil ratio. The associated gas in the reservoir contains 8% to 15% CO2.
 Brazil’s Pre-salt trend differs significantly from the sub-salt trend found in the Gulf of Mexico.
 Drilling and construction challenges in the Pre-salt include:
- Varying composition of the thick overlying evaporates (up to 7,000 feet/2,134 m) can be difficult to
drill. Creep rates can vary as much as two layers of magnitude between the various types of salt.
Salt creep can lead to wellbore restrictions, stuck pipe, torsional resistance and casing failure.
- Geomechanical studies aid in anticipating potential for rock failure or salt deformation around the
wellbore, in selection of drill bits and drilling fluids, and in devising mud, casing and cementing
programs.
- Corrosive environment presents a challenge due to the presence of significant amounts of CO 2 and
H2S, requiring special cements and metallurgies throughout the drilling and completion
processes.
 Complexity of implementing an offshore EOR project increases significantly in ultra-deep waters
 Uncertainty in reservoir property characterization is even more critical in carbonate reservoirs

which have a higher degree of heterogeneity than sandstone reservoirs.
134
 The project is part of floating production, storage, and offloading (FPSO) units that incorporate CO 2
separation and injection facilities
 Advantages of early implementation of CO2 EOR as part of planned production included: improved
capital efficiency since it freed the operator from subsequent retrofit of infrastructure and platform
space, avoiding need to suspend or shut-in production.
 The CO2 EOR design utilizes intelligent well completions, dynamic downhole monitoring, tracer
injections and extensive CO2 recycling.
 Numerical modeling and laboratory tests were done with water flooding as the base case, and CO 2
EOR and WAG cases. Low reservoir temperatures (600 – 700 C) with high original reservoir pressure
shows efficient miscible displacement of the oil based on compositional modeling
 Petrobras has adopted a phased approach and decided early on not to vent the CO 2.
 Operational concerns include the possibility of wax/asphaltene deposition and hydrate formation.
Calcium carbonate scale is also an issue. These potential flow assurance and corrosion concerns are
being addressed with the use of special alloys, plastic-covered pipes, and continuous downhole
chemical injection and special design of flexible flowlines and risers
 To improve reservoir management, intelligent completions are being deployed whenever considered
beneficial. This approach can mitigate risks from preferential flow and early breakthrough and also
allow injection of either water or gas.
 With the success of the pilot CO2 EOR project (first stage from 2011-2017) in the Lula field, Petrobras
has demonstrated that CCS and CO2 EOR technology can be successfully combined for large-scale,
sustained oil production, in extreme deep water applications.
8.2 CASE STUDY # 2: NATURAL CO2 RESERVOIR, BEĈEJ FIELD, SERBIA
Background and Introduction
The Beĉej field is located in the southeastern part of Pannonian basin, in the northern part of Serbia,
partly below the city of Beĉej (Figure 16). The field is one of the largest natural CO2 fields in Europe and
was discovered in 1951 by the Petroleum Industry of Serbia (NIS).
135
Figure 16 - Location of Beĉej CO2 Field, Serbia
A blowout occurred on November 10, 1968 during drilling of well Bc-5. Uncontrolled leakage lasted 209
days, till June 6, 1969, when the borehole collapse and killed the well. Vertical gas migration from the
main CO2 pool into the overlying aquifers in the overburden however continued, and because of the
populated areas in the vicinity, the overlying confined aquifers and the uppermost unconfined aquifer for
water supply, were closely monitored for gas migration. The monitoring network comprised: (i) more
than 30 wells with depths in the range of 10 to 300 m, within a radius of 1,000 m around well Bc-5, and
(ii) 2 deep wells (Bc-X-1 and Bc-X-2) for formation pressure measurements at depths from 740 to 850 m.
During the period 1968 to 1997 (39 years since the blowout occurred), reservoir pressure steadily
declined at a rate of about 1 bar/year, despite there being no CO2 production until after 1986 and the
produced CO2 volumes since 1986 being very small (~ 35x106 m3/year). Analyses of the production and
monitoring data clearly indicated that the drop in formation pressure could largely be attributed to the
vertical migration of CO2 in the collapsed well. The estimated amount of gas that migrated from the main
CO2 pool into the shallow aquifers in the overburden was possibly ten times higher than the volume of
CO2 produced from the main reservoir. This led to the conclusion that the problem of unwanted gas
migration could not be solved by conventional well treatment or workover techniques. In order to
control and stop the CO2 migration, a series of activities were undertaken by NIS that finally led to
remediation operations in 2007.
136
Experiences and lessons learned from the Beĉej field case are currently studies within the MiReCOL
project (Mitigation and Remediation of CO2 Leakage). The project aims at developing a handbook of
corrective measures, which can be considered in the event of significant irregularities and leakage from a
CO2 storage site. The Beĉej field case is particularly interesting and relevant because it represents the
first known field application of remediation measures deployed to remediate leakage from a natural CO2
reservoir – a natural analogue for a large-scale engineered geological CO2 storage site.
The objective of the work performed by Karas et al (2016) was to perform a comprehensive geological
characterization of the Beĉej field and construct an accurate static Petrel model of the reservoir and the
overburden. The static model serves as a starting point for further research on CO 2 mitigation and
remediation actions applied to the Beĉej field. The paper also describes remediation of the well leak and
the most recently collected monitoring data, confirming that the remedial actions taken in 2007 were
successful.
Geological Overview of the Beĉej Field
Geological setting and stratigraphy
The geological structure of the Beĉej field is complex. The main CO2 pool is formed in the massive
heterogeneous reservoir of Upper Cretaceous flysch and Badennian sand and limestone deposits. The
reservoir is situated along a regional fault zone, and its structure was formed by a felsic igneous rock
intrusion. This intrusion, according to the current hypothesis, has become a source of carbon-dioxide
through the processes of metamorphism.
The following stratigraphic units are determined (in order from youngest to oldest; Figure 17):
 Quaternary and Pliocene (Q + Pl)
 Pontian (M32) Upper Miocene
 Badennian (M21) Middle Miocene
 Upper Cretaceous (K2)
 Felsic igneous rock of undefined Paleozoic age.
137
Figure 17 - South-north regional cross-section of the Beĉej field
Reservoir
The top of the main Badennian CO2 reservoir is at a depth of about 1,100 m TVD. The initial reservoir
pressure was 151 bar (2,190 psi) and the reservoir temperature is 870 C (188.60 F)
Overburden
The overburden comprises multiple shale and sandy layers acting as seals, semi-permeable layers and
saline and fresh water aquifers. Sediments above the reservoir are of Lower Pontian age and
unconformably cover Badennian sediments.
The Upper Pontian and Pliocene sandstones and sands have great significance as very porous and
permeable rocks saturated with hydrocarbon gasses and geothermal groundwater. On the basis of
seismic interpretation, a total of eight small hydrocarbon reservoirs have been identified at depths
ranging between 450 to 900 m.
138
Besides hydrocarbon reservoirs, an important mineral resource is geothermal ground water since the
history of using thermal waters in Beĉej is long. All the geothermal wells are artesian flowing wells
because they are tapping confined aquifers saturated with water and gas, dominantly methane. Water
from aquifers at a depth of 400 m has a temperature of 35°C and has been used for drinking and bathing
in Beĉej spa for more than 100 years. The deep wells provide waters of 60 to 65°C for space heating of the
hotel and sport center in Beĉej.
Structural Setting
The Beĉej field is confined within a four-way dip closure on top of a regional fault zone. The structure was
formed by a felsic rock intrusion, which generated hydrocarbons and CO2 in the processes of
metamorphism. The basement and the overlying sediments are intersected by a few generations of faults
and fractures extending near to, or up to, ground surface level. The position of faults, characteristics and
areal distribution were determined on the basis of seismic interpretation. The presence of faults and
fractures, and several accumulations of methane and possibly CO2 in the shallow overburden, suggest
that the Beĉej CO2 field is a naturally leaking CO2 system.
Static Model
Available data from different sources was used to construct a static model of the Beĉej field. The static
model contains a reservoir model of the main CO2 pool within the Badennian and the most important
aquifers in the overburden of the Pontian and Pliocene. Input data available for modelling included: 27
interpreted 2D seismic profiles, well logging data from 18 wells, petrophysical interpretation of well
logging data, data from cores and cuttings, and well test results.
The petrophysical interpretation of the well logging was performed to derive the rock properties for the
main Badennian reservoir and the aquifers in the overburden. The key properties derived are the net
thickness, shaliness, porosity, permeability and water saturation. The range of porosity values is from 12
to 26% and permeability values from 2 to 50 md. The gas-water contact within the Badennian and
partially in the Cretaceous is assumed at a depth of 1,225 m TVD.
Remediation Measures
Remediation measures were deployed by NIS in 2007 to slow down or stop the leakage of CO 2 from the
Beĉej natural CO2 field. The evidence of continuous leak of CO2 from the main pool since the 1968 well
accident was a continuous drop in formation pressure in the main CO2 reservoir, and the elevated
pressures and concentrations of CO2 in the aquifers above the main pool. Increased concentrations of CO2
139
measured in wells Bcj-1 and Bcj-2 are attributed to the uncontrolled migration of CO2 into the
overburden after the well blowout (Table 11). The presence of methane is however unrelated to the well
incident as accumulations of methane are commonly found above the main CO2 reservoir before the well
incident.
Table 11 - Measured concentrations of CH4 and CO2 in the overburden before remediation in 2007
Well Year of Sampling depth (m) CH4 (mol %) CO2 (mol %)

measurement
Bcj-1 1996 893-911 15.1 79.8
Bcj-2 2002 658-672 44.4 51.3
To remediate the CO2 leak, a new well Bc-9 was directionally drilled in 2006 (and completed with minor
kicks and fluid loss) to reach the bottom of the collapsed well Bc-5 and a gel-forming material was
injected to plug the leakage pathway in-situ (Figure 18). Well Bc-9 penetrates the upper section of the
main CO2 reservoir, and its liner casing is completely cemented and perforated in the interval of 1,131 to
1,133 m. The bottom of Bc-9 is believed to be 11m away from the bottom of the collapsed well Bc-5
(Figure 19).
Figure 18 - Position of remediation and monitoring wells of the collapsed well Bc-5
140
Figure 19 - Designs of injection well Bc-9, monitoring well Bc-X-1, and collapsed well Bc-5
ls used for remediation and monitoring of the collapsed well
Another directional well Bc-X-1, which was drilled as part of the remediation activities in 1969 but not
used, served as observation and back-up injection well. The bottom of Bc-X-1 is believed to be within a 15
m distance from the bottom of Bc-5 (Figure 19). *NOTE: There appears to be an error in the original
publication of the 244.5 mm diameter casing set at 643 m and the production casing also shown to be
244.5 mm in diameter set at 1057m. The upper casing should read having a casing of 339.7 mm diameter
set at 643 m in Well Bc-9.
The remediation performed by NIS was done in two phases: the preparatory phase and the main
treatment. The preparatory phase included the injectivity test, acidizing job and flush treatment to clean
the well with a volume of 150 m3 of water injected during this phase.
The main treatment included the injection of 170 m3 of environmentally-friendly chemicals in well Bc-9.
The treatment was designed in such a way that it could be repeated if not successful the first time.
Injection lasted one month and consisted of the following steps:
141
 Injection of pure silicate solution to fill the collapsed zone of well Bc-5
 Injection of silicate solution containing polymer and urea that cause polymerization of silicates,
coagulate and gel forming a solid void-filling material
 Injection of polymer-silicate solution containing urea and formaldehyde
 Alternating injection of polymer-silicate solution and cross-linking solution
 Injection of 2,000 m3 of water to flush the chemicals off the bottom-hole
A moderate increase of pressure and inflow of fluid observed in monitoring well Bc-X-1 from the early
phase of operations, were the first signs that the damaged well Bc-5 and the bottom of the well Bc-X-1
were filled up with the chemicals that were injected through well Bc-9.
The long-term monitoring program included monitoring of ground water quality and formation
pressures over the subsequent years.
Monitoring the effects of remediation
Groundwater monitoring was done for 6 years (2006-2012 - starting one year prior to start of
remediation operations in 2007 to establish baseline data). Sampling frequency was one sample/month
and the sampling parameters that were measured included CO2, concentration, pH, carbonate and
bicarbonate content, hardness, dry residue and potassium permanganate.
During the six years of monitoring, the measure concentrations of CO2 in three wells did not exceed
values of a few tens of mg/l, which are within the range of natural concentrations of CO2 in shallow
aquifers. Remarkable deviations were recorded in monitoring well Bc-5-1/P, which is closest to the
collapsed well Bc-5, with the CO2 concentrations in Bc-5-1/P being 4-5 times higher than that in Bc-5-
4/P, although both wells monitor the shallow unconfined aquifer at the 13-19 m depth range. High
concentrations in Bc-5-1/P are attributed to uncontrolled migration of CO2 caused by the well blowout in
1968. CO2 concentrations in all wells reached the maximum values in 2010, three years after the
remediation. Since 2010, a steady decline in CO2 concentrations is observed in all wells (Figure 20).
142
Figure 20 - Measured CO2 concentrations in the groundwater at site Bc-5
Measured formation pressures clearly indicate that the remediation measures performed in 2007 were
effective. The decline in reservoir pressure, noticeable during the period 1968-2007, was practically
stopped after the remediation. This implies that the unwanted migration of CO2 from the main pool into
the overlying aquifers via the collapsed well was significantly reduced, if not completely stopped, and
that the remediation measures were successful.
Corrective measures need to be taken in the event of unwanted migration and leakage of CO 2 from an
engineered geological storage site. The remediation performed at the Beĉej CO2 field in Serbia to stop the
leak caused by a well blowout in 1968 is, to the best of the authors’ knowledge, the first known field-scale
application of an in-situ remediation performed on a natural CO2 reservoir, and is particularly relevant –
a natural analogue for a large-scale engineered geological storage site. The Beĉej field case is an excellent
case to study in the MiReCOL project, which has produced a handbook of corrective measures that can be
considered in the event of significant irregularities and leakage from a CO2 storage site.
8.3 CASE STUDY # 3: UTHMANIYAH CO2 EOR AND CO2 STORAGE PROJECT, SAUDI ARABIA
CO2 at the injection site at the Uthmaniyah production unit, comes from the Hawiyah Natural Gas Liquids
(NGL) Recovery Plant via a 85 km (52 miles) pipeline and is injected at a depth between 1,800 to 2,100 m
(6,000 to 7,000 feet) at a rate of around 0.8 million tonnes per year (40 million standard cubic feet per
day – (MMscf/d)). Saudi Arabia’s light crude oils are particularly suited for CO2 EOR since CO2 is an
excellent solvent especially for light crudes and if the reservoir pressure is higher than the miscibility
143
pressure of CO2 with the crude, it can significantly enhance oil recovery. The Uthmaniyah is a large oil
field and a mature and water flooded part of the carbonate reservoir was selected for the CO 2 injection,
with a considerable amount of reservoir and production historical data available.
Simulation studies
The reservoir selected for CO2 injection is a Jurassic age carbonate reservoir and the area selected is in a
down flank, small flooded area of the field and has been on peripheral water injection for over 50 years.
Approximately 40 MMscf/d (1.13 Mm3/d) of relatively pure CO2 was available from the Hawiyah NGL
plant that could be captured. This became the basis for the simulation sensitivity study and pilot design.
The main objectives of the simulation study were:
 Carry out screening and mechanistic studies and find areas suitable for a CO2 injection pilot
 Assess amount of CO2 sequestered over the pilot testing period
 Assess incremental oil recoveries associated with different modes of CO2 injection
 Optimize the pilot design within the reservoir and operational constraints
A dual porosity dual permeability (DPDP) black-oil dynamic simulation model converted to its equivalent
DPDP compositional model was used for the simulations. An equation of state (EOS) was developed for
compositional simulation from PVT data. The number of layers was increased from 17 to 37 (medium
resolution) and finally to 289 (high resolution) to improve the DPDP model simulations. Potential areas
for a CO2 flood pilot test were selected from a streamline pattern of the current water flood for the entire
field.
A large number of simulation runs were made to understand the factors that influenced the amount of
CO2 that could be stored, magnitude of incremental oil recovery, and the timing of the incremental
recovery. Vertical versus horizontal well orientation and various completion scenarios were also
examined. Vertical wells were found to be more efficient and operating in a WAG mode was selected for
optimal sequestration and oil recovery.
Pilot Design
The pilot test is designed to obtain definitive results within 1 to 3 years and to clearly demonstrate the
amount of CO2 sequestered and miscible CO2 oil recovered. There are four injectors with four producers
placed updip about 2,000 feet (~ 600 meters) from the injectors, in a line drive injection pattern, because
water injection in the field has been peripheral. CO2 will be injected at a maximum rate of 40 MMscf/d
144
(1.13 Mm3/d) into two of the injectors, with water injection into the other two wells (WAG injection
strategy with alternate injection every month). In addition, two observation wells are located between
the second injector and its corresponding producer (Figure 21). One of the observation wells is
completed open hole across the reservoir, while the other observation well is completed with a non-
metallic casing opposite the reservoir. The wells are logged frequently to monitor CO2 movement and
gravity segregation between an injector and a producer.
Figure 21 - Arrangement of injectors, producers and observation wells in the CO2 flood pilot (Kokal
et al, 2016)
This pilot is designed to address the following risks:
 The CO2 plume movement within the reservoir and its containment
 The amount of CO2 that will be stored in the reservoir
 The extent to which gravity segregation will occur in a line-drive flood and the reservoir factors that
affect it
 The volume of oil that can be contacted, displaced, and produced
 Well injectivity during WAG to CO2 and water
CO2 Capture Plant
About 40 MMscf/d (1.13 Mm3/d) of relatively pure CO2 is available from the Hawiyah NGL plant located
about 85 km from the pilot site, and prior to the project, the saturated and wet CO 2 was being vented to
145
the atmosphere. A front-end engineering design (FEED) was conducted to capture, compress and
dehydrate the CO2 from the plant, and transport the supercritical CO2 via a new pipeline for injection at
the pilot location (Figure 22). The wet CO2 is compressed by a 7-stage integrally geared compressor. After
the 5th stage, the wet CO2 is routed to a gas dehydration unit for removal of water using tri-ethanol glycol
(TEG) with the 6th and 7th stages only handle dry CO2. The dry CO2 from the compressor is then
compressed to a delivery pressure of 3,500 psia (~ 24 MPascal) using a dense phase pump. The
supercritical CO2 is then transported through a new 86-km pipeline to the injection wells at the pilot site.
Figure 22 - CO2 capture plant schematic (Kokal et al, 2016)
Produced Fluids Handling
The produced fluids from the four new producers are routed to a gas oil separation plant (GOSP) through
a common trunk line. To keep the CO2 produced fluids separate from the wider field produced crude oil
and water, a standalone high pressure production trap (HPPT) was designed and installed specifically for
the project.
The pipeline from the wellhead, the trunk line and the new produced handling facility were specially
designed and internally coated to protect against the anticipated corrosion from wet produced CO2.
Injectors and Producers
The four injectors and four producers were designed as fit-for-purpose wells. The injectors were carbon
steel and cased hole with perforations at the bottom of the reservoir. Carbon steel was selected since the
dry CO2 is not corrosive and the water is treated with a corrosion inhibitor. Also, the interaction time
between dry CO2 and water is very short during the WAG switching operation. The producers were also
carbon steel but epoxy coated for corrosion protection and perforated at the top of the reservoir. Each of
146
the injectors was installed with a Coriolis meter and a multiphase flowmeter (MPFM) at the wellhead.
This enabled the amount of CO2 and water injected and the amount of oil, water and gas produced at the
wells to be recorded.
Monitoring and Surveillance
A robust monitoring and surveillance program was developed and deployed. The primary objectives of
the M&S program are to: obtain requisite data to evaluate the pilot project; measure the amount of CO2
sequestered, monitor pre- and post-CO2 remaining oil saturations, understand the recovery mechanisms,
track the CO2 plume, monitor inadvertent out-of-zone CO2 leakage, well integrity problems, and
understand operational challenges.
Some activities are targeted toward EOR based objectives and some toward sequestration objectives and
Figure 23 shows the original M&S plan developed for the project.
Figure 23 - Monitoring and surveillance plan for the demonstration plan (Kokal et al, 2016)
Base logs for reservoir characterization
Base logs for pre-injection reservoir characterization were acquired in all the wells. Triple combo
(resistivity, density, neutron) logs, image logs formation pressure data and cement bond logs were
acquired in all the wells; formation samples, nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR), and dielectric logs were
147
acquired in all the producers and observation wells; and full wave sonic, vertical seismic profile (VSP)
and cored data were acquired in a few selected wells. The key drivers in data acquisition were “value of
information” (VOI) and optimization.
Routine M&S tools and tests
Some of these tools and technologies used for routine M&S are described below;
 Pulsed neutron spectroscopy and capture (PNS/C) tool: This is logged in time-lapse mode for
monitoring changes and redistribution of remaining oil saturation (ROS) in the reservoir around the
producer and observation wells. Because of its high vertical resolution, the data also gives some
insight into the vertical sweep efficiency.
 Production logging tool (PLT) and Water flow log (WFL): These are run periodically in producers
and injectors to determine production and injection profile changes with time in each well. The PLT
also provides down-hole production rates and contribution from the different flow units while the
WFL can provide early warning about potential injectivity problems.
 Sponge cores: Sponge cores were obtained in the observation wells (drilled at different times) to
determine the ROS across the different zones in the reservoir before infill water injection and shortly
prior to the start of CO2 injection. Special sidewall cores will be taken through one of the wells after
CO2 injection phase to determine (ASor) attributable to CO2 injection.
 Corrosion logs: These are being acquired periodically to determine the integrity of each well
(especially the injectors that may experience elevated pressures and CO 2-water interaction that may
lead to corrosion). The plan is to deploy tools that can estimate casing wear or thickness reduction
through multiple casings. Timely diagnosis of any casing wear or thickness reduction will prevent
unwanted out-of-zone leakage.
 Soil gas sampling: In order to demonstrate that there is no CO2 leakage to the surface, periodic soil
gas sampling and analyses are being conducted. Parameters being monitored are CO 2, CH4, N2, O2,
Ar, Rn, He, and isotopes of carbon. Results will be compared with baseline data measurements and
changes during and post CO2 injection.
 Aquifer studies: As part of sequestration objectives, shallow and deep aquifers are being monitored to
detect any contamination. Samples are being collected and analyzed for volatile organic compounds
(VOC), dissolved organic compounds (DOC), BTEX (benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes),
phenols, Na, Cl, Ca, Fe, Mn, pH, alkalinity, and isotopes of carbon, oxygen, and hydrogen.
 Wellhead monitoring: Annulus pressures (especially in the injectors) are being monitored
periodically, to determine any potential seepage into the annulus (and sustained casing pressure).
 Geochemical sampling and analyses: Periodic geochemical sampling and analyses of water samples
from the producers are being collected to collect data to calibrate the reactive transport model to
estimate the amount of CO2 being sequestered.
Emerging M&S tools and methods
148
Most of the tools mentioned above provide near wellbore information. In order to understand reservoir
properties and changes between wells (vertically, aerially, or in 3Dspace) some of the tools discussed
below need to be deployed. Some are new (emerging) while others have been reconfigured to suit the
project objectives and are briefly described below:
 4D Seismic: Time Lapse 3D Seismic (4D Seismic) technology has been applied to measure reservoir
property changes resulting from oil and gas operations and in some CCUS projects to track CO 2
plume migration. Feasibility studies showed this technology can be applied to this project due to the
significant density contrast between the CO2 and the reservoir fluid, and therefore a continuous
seismic monitoring program was designed for mapping the CO2 plume areal extent. The design
comprised of surface vibrators in combination with multi-component sensors (over a 1000 receivers)
deployed below the water table at a depth of about 70 m, and is one of the largest permanent
monitoring installations in the world. It has a unique continuous acquisition program where surveys
are acquired continually (one/month) for the life of the project, unlike conventional 4D seismic
where snapshots or surveys are acquired every 6 to 12 months or even longer periods.
 Interwell chemical tracer test (IWCTT): Four distinct environmentally friendly tracers were injected
into each of the four injectors to provide injector-producer connectivity, flow-path data, and
breakthrough times that may help in modifying WAG sequence and timing and insights into
communication between injector-producer pairs.
 Interwell gas tracer test (IWGTT): Due to the potential mobility and relative permeability differences
between water and gas injection phases, special gas tracers are planned to be injected with CO 2 into
each of the injectors to determine CO2 flow-paths and connectivity with producer pairs and to
confirm CO2 break-through times that may be different than those measured during infill water
injection phase. In addition, the data will help to identify well leaks in case of inadvertent CO 2 leakage
to the surface.
 Single well chemical tracer test (SWCTT): One of the key indicators of efficacy of the pilot test for EOR
purposes is a good understanding of the ROS in the reservoir prior to and after CO 2 injection. SWCTT
provides such data at about a 30 foot radius around the well and was conducted in a specific well
prior to CO2 injection. A post-CO2 injection SWCTT will be run at the end of the project and the
changes in ROS (ASor) will be a good input into reservoir modelling for estimation of swept volume.
 Surface gravity measurement: Time lapse 4D gravity measurement has been successfully deployed in
a few miscible gas projects (Prudhoe Bay) and CCUS projects (Sleipner). Given the huge contrast
between CO2 density and the fluid density in the shallow aquifers, resulting in gravity signals in the
10s to 100s of microGal, surface gravity measurements would be beneficial for monitoring
inadvertent out-of-zone leakage in the shallow aquifers.
 Interwell partitioning chemical tracer test (IWPCTT) for ROS: A new set of novel partitioning
interwell tracers was deployed to measure inter-well ROS between one of the injector-producer pairs.
 Fiber optic sensors: Distributed temperature sensing (DTS) is being deployed for temperature
profiling behind casing. A new generation of fiber-optic sensors such as distributed acoustic sensing
(DAS), distributed chemical sensing (DCS), and distributed acoustic sensing are commercially
available or are being developed. Feasibility studies are ongoing to deploy a novel fiber optic sensing
149
rod that can be run on wireline or coiled tubing and perform multiple sensing jobs such as DTS, DPS
and DAS concurrently on a single run.
 Electromagnetic (EM) measurement: X-well EM measurement has been deployed in a few CCUS
projects to monitor CO2 plume evolution in 2D between pairs and by Saudi Aramco to see oil
distribution between oil pairs. In addition surface to borehole EM (SBEM) and borehole to surface
(BSEM) hold promise for monitoring CO2 migration in shallow aquifers.
 Interferometric Synthetic Aperture Radar (InSar) and Tiltmeters: Insar in combination with high-
resolution GPS and tiltmeters provide a means of measuring surface deformation (uplift or
subsidence) over vast areas. InSar was successfully applied as a diagnostic tool to measure CO 2
migration in the In-Salah CO2 storage project. A feasibility study showed no potential for applying
this technique here, since there was no significant change in the reservoir pressure before and after
CO2 injection.
8.3.1 Summary and conclusions
 Saudi Arabia has embarked on its first carbon capture, utilization, and storage project through a CO2
EOR demonstration project. This project is being pursued primarily to demonstrate the feasibility of
sequestering CO2 through EOR, and using it as grounds to test new M&S technologies
 An integrated multidisciplinary, multi-departmental and multi-organizational approach is necessary

to design and execute such a project.
 The objectives of the project should be clear from the beginning, with the primary objectives of this
project being to sequester CO2 and enhance oil recovery.
 The design and development plans should take into consideration appropriate uncertainties in the
project risk register
 Due diligence must be given to generate all relevant experimental data that are subsequently used in
simulations and project design. These must be performed at reservoir conditions; otherwise they may
have limited value or may be detrimental to the project.
 The location of the pilot should not be based on a singular design and many options should be
considered; it should be based on reservoir simulation sensitivity studies.
 A robust and comprehensive monitoring and surveillance (M&S) program is necessary to generate,
analyze and evaluate the data and performance of the project.
8.4 CASE STUDY # 4: OXY DENVER UNIT, WASSON FIELD, TX (OXY DENVER UNIT CO2 SUBPART
RR - MONITORING, REPORTING AND VERIFICATION (MRV) PLAN, 2015)
Background
Occidental Petroleum Ltd. (OPL) operates the Denver Unit in the Permian Basin for the primary purpose
of enhanced oil recovery using CO2 flooding. OPL also intends to inject CO2 (fresh CO2 purchases plus
recovered CO2 from the Denver Unit CO2 Recovery Plant - DUCRP) with a subsidiary purpose of storing
CO2 for a specified period 2016 through 2026.
150
Figure 24 shows the actual CO2 injection, production, and stored volumes in the Denver Unit for the
period 1983 through 2013 (solid line) and the forecast for 2014 through 2120 (dotted line). Oxy adjusts
its purchase of fresh CO2 to maintain reservoir pressure and increase oil recovery by extending or
expanding the CO2 flood. Oxy has injected 4,035 Bscf of CO2 (212.8 million metric tons – Mt) into the
Denver Unit through end of 2013, of which 1,593 Bscf (84.0 Mt) was produced and 2,442 Bscf (128.8 Mt)
was stored. Oxy forecasts that the total volume of CO2 injected will be ~ 25% of the theoretical storage
capacity of the Denver Unit.
Figure 24 - Denver Unit Historic and Forecast CO2 Injection, Production, and Storage 1980-2120 (Oxy
MRV, 2015)
Geology of the Wasson Field
The Wasson Field produces oil from the San Andres formation, a layer of permeable dolomites deposited
in a shallow marine environment during the Permian period, some 250 to 300 million years ago (Permian
Basin).
The Wasson Field is located in southwestern Yoakum and northwestern Gaines Counties of West Texas,
approximately 100 miles north of Midland, TX and ~ 5 miles east of the New Mexico state line.
Discovered in 1936, the Wasson Field with nearly 4,000 million barrels (MMB) of Original Oil in Place
(OOIP) is one of the largest oil fields in North America. Originally flat, there are now variations in
elevation within the San Andres formation across the Permian Basin. The relative high spots, such as the
Wasson Field, have become places where oil and gas have accumulated over the ensuing millions of
years.
As shown in Figure 25, the San Andres formation now lies beneath some 5,000 feet of overlying
sediments and is capped with nearly 400 feet of impermeable dolomite, referred to as the Upper San
151
Andres. This seal has kept oil and gas trapped in the lower San Andres for millions of years indicating that
it is a seal of the highest integrity. Other zones also serve as seals and the sealing properties can be
confirmed with logs, all indicating a lack of permeability.
Figure 25 - Stratigraphic Section at Wasson (Oxy-MRV, 2015)
Between the surface and about 2,000 feet (610 m) in depth are intervals of underground sources of
drinking water (USDW) and include the Ogallala and Paluxy aquifers. In addition, there are other
potentially useful brine intervals. The Texas Railroad Commission (TRCC) which regulates the Class II
152
program in Texas requires all wells drilled through these intervals confine fluids to the strata in which
they are encountered or injected and wells should meet the casing and cementing requirements to ensure
confinement (See Section 7.1).
There are no known faults or fractures affecting the Denver Unit that provide an upward pathway for
fluid flow. The absence of faults or fractures is confirmed in several ways. First, the presence of oil,
especially oil that has a gas cap, is indicative of a good quality natural seal. Second, Oxy has conducted
seismic surveys that characterize the formations and as input into the reservoir models used to design
injection patterns. These surveys show the presence of faulting well below the San Andres but none that
penetrate the flooding interval. Finally, the operating history of the Denver Unit confirms that there are
no faults or fractures penetrating the flood zone, since the injection of fluids, both water and CO2 have
been successfully injected since the 1960s and have shown no interaction with existing or new faults or
fractures.
Operational History of the Denver Unit
The Denver Unit is a subdivision of the Wasson Field and was established in the 1960s to implement
water flooding. CO2 flooding of the Unit began in 1983 and has expanded since that time. The experience
of operating and refining the Denver Unit CO2 floods over three decades has created a strong
understanding of the reservoir and its capacity to store CO2.
Oil production began in the Denver Unit in 1938 and peaked in the mid-1940s. The operator began
pressure maintenance with secondary recovery (water flooding) in 1965 with CO2 EOR beginning in
1983. Primary recovery resulted in the production of 17.2% of the original oil in place (OOIP), secondary
recovery 30.1% of the OOIP with an additional expected recovery of 19.5% through CO 2 EOR. Total oil
recovery is expected to reach 66.8% of the OOIP. The total OOIP in the Denver Unit is estimated at 2
billion barrels with CO2 EOR estimated to recover 0.39 billion barrels (NETL/ARI, 2011)
Geology of the Denver Unit within the Wasson Field
As indicated earlier, the upper portion of the San Andres is comprised of impermeable anhydrite and
dolomite sections that serve as a seal and, in effect, form the hard ceilings of an upside bowl or dome.
Below this seal the formation consists of permeable dolomites containing oil and gas. The Denver Unit is
located at the highest elevation of the San Andres formation within the Wasson Field, forming the top of
the dome. The rest of the Wasson Field slopes downward from this area, effectively forming the sides of
the dome. The elevated area formed a natural trap for oil and gas that migrated from below over millions
153
of years. Over time, fluids, including CO2, in the Wasson would rise vertically until meeting the ceiling of
the dome and would then follow it to the highest elevation in the Denver Unit. As such, the fluids injected
into the Denver Unit would stay in the reservoir rather than move to adjacent areas.
Buoyancy dominates where oil and gas are found in the reservoir. Figure 26 shows the saturation levels
in the oil-bearing layers of the Wasson Field. Above the gas-oil interface is the volume known as the “gas
cap”, and the presence of a gas cap is evidence of the effectiveness of the seal formed by the upper San
Andres. Gas is buoyant and highly mobile and if it could escape the Wasson Field naturally, through faults
or fractures, it would have done so over the millennia.
Figure 26 - Wasson Field Cross-Section Showing Saturation (Oxy-MRV, 2015)
Below the level of the producing oil-water contact, wells produce a combination of oil and water. The
uppermost region this area is called the transition zone (TZ) and below that is the residual oil zone
(ROZ). The ROZ was water flooded by nature millions of years ago, leaving a residual oil saturation. This
is approximately the same residual oil saturation remaining after water flooding in the water-swept areas
of the main oil pay zone, and is also a target for CO2 flooding.
When CO2 is injected into an oil reservoir, it is pushed from injection wells to production wells by the
high pressure of the injected CO2. Once the CO2 flood is complete and injection ceases, the remaining
mobile CO2 will rise slowly upward, driven by buoyancy forces. If the amount of CO2 injected into the
reservoir exceeds the secure storage capacity of the pore space, excess CO2 could theoretically “spill”
154
from the reservoir and migrate to other reservoirs in the Northwest Shelf. The risk is very low in the
Denver Unit, because there is more than enough pore space to retain the CO2 (based on Oxy’s
calculations). Oxy forecasts that at the end of EOR operations stored CO2 will fill approximately 25% of
calculated storage capacity.
Figure 27 shows a simplified flow diagram of the EOR project facilities and injection process. CO 2 is
delivered to the Wasson Field via the Permian pipeline delivery and specified amounts are drawn based
on contractual arrangements among suppliers of CO2, purchasers of CO2, and the pipeline operator. Once
CO2 enters the Denver Unit there are four main processes involved in EOR operations as shown in Figure
39 and described below:
Figure 27 - Denver Unit Facilities General Production Flow Diagram (Oxy-MRV, 2015)
CO2 Distribution and Injection
Currently, Oxy has 16 injection manifolds and approximately 600 injection wells in the Denver Unit. The
manifolds are a complex of pipes that have no valves and do not exercise any control function.
Approximately 400 MMscf of CO2 is injected each day made up of 47% fresh water and 53% recycled
155
from the DUCRP. The ratio of fresh CO2 to recycled CO2 is expected to change with time and eventually
the purchase of fresh water will taper off and end in 2059.
Each injection well has an individual WAG skid located near the wellhead (typically 150-200 feet away)
and the WAG skids are remotely operated and can inject CO2 or water at various rates and injection
pressures as specified in the injection plans. At any given time about half the injectors are injecting CO 2
and half are injecting water, and the length of injection time for each fluid is continually optimized to
maximize oil recovery and minimize CO2 utilization in each injection pattern. Data from the WAG skid
control systems (includes flow meter data on fluid injection rates and pressures), visual inspection and
regulatory procedures as per 40 CFR §98.230-238 (Subpart W) will be gathered to complete the mass
balance equations necessary to determine annual and cumulative volumes of stored CO2.
Wells in the Denver Unit
As of August 2014, there are ~ 1,734 active wells in the Denver Unit, with about 2/3rd production wells
and 1/3rd injection wells. Table 12 gives the well counts for wells within the Denver Unit, while Table 13
gives the well counts for wells that penetrate the Denver Unit but are completed in formations other than
San Andres.
Table 12 - Denver Unit Wells

Age/Completion of Well Active Shut-in Temporarily Plugged and
Abandoned Abandoned
Drilled after 1996 619 3 23 3
Drilled 1961-1996 with production 388 2 58 49
casing cemented to surface
Drilled between 1972-1975 using 247 1 16 32
lightweight casing
Drilled before 1960 480 2 47 212
Total 1734 8 144 296
Table 13 - Non-Denver Unit Wells

Oxy Oxy Oxy Non-Oxy Non_Oxy
Age/Completion of Well Shut-in Temporarily Plugged and Active Inactive
Abandoned Abandoned
Drilled after 1996 2 16 1 181 10
Drilled 1961-1996 with 4 69 94 214 89
production casing cemented
to surface
Drilled between 1972-1975 0 0 0 0 1
using lightweight casing
Drilled before 1960 0 28 29 103 44
Total 6 113 124 498 144
156
Tables 12 and 13 categorize the wells in groups that relate to age and completion methods. The wells
drilled after 1996 were completed using state-of-the-art standards (that is use of regular weight casing
cemented to surface). In 1996, Shell, which then operated the Denver Unit, as well as the major Clearfolk
leases that lie under the Denver Unit, implemented a policy that wells be cemented to surface following
these standards and Oxy has continued this practice. The majority of wells drilled during 1961-1996 have
production casing cemented to surface, and a subset of this group uses lightweight casing. The last group
covers older wellbores drilled before 1960 and Oxy considers these categories when planning well
maintenance activities. Further, Oxy keeps well workover crews on site in the Permian to maintain all
active wells and to respond to any wellbore issues that arise.
All wells, both injectors and producers, are regulated by TRCC. TRCC rules govern well siting,
construction, operation, and maintenance and closure for all wells in oilfields (See Section 7.1). Briefly
current rules require:
 That fluids be constrained in the strata in which they are encountered
 That activities governed by the rule cannot result in the pollution of subsurface or surface water
 That wells adhere to specified casing, cementing, drilling well control, and completion requirements
designed to prevent fluids from moving from the strata they are encountered into strata with oil and
gas, or into subsurface and surface waters
 That the operator files a completion report for each well including basic electric logs ((e.g., a density,
sonic or resistivity (except dip meter) log run over the entire wellbore)
 That all wells be equipped with a Bradenhead gauge, and follow procedures to report and address
any instances where pressure on the Bradenhead is detected
 And that all well plugging follows procedures that require advanced approval from the Director and
allow consideration of the suitability of the cement based on the use of the well, the location and
setting of plugs.
Under TRCC’s program, all Class II wells used for fluid injection must comply with additional
requirements to the Area of Review (AoR), casing design, special equipment for well monitoring,
mechanical integrity testing (MIT) using a pressure test, and monitoring/reporting.
AoR Review
According to EPA, the AoR refers to “the area around a deep injection well that must be checked for
artificial penetrations, such as other wells, that penetrate the injection or confining zone, and repair all
wells that are improperly completed or plugged. The AoR is either a circle or radius of at least ¼ mile
157
(402 m) around the well or an area determined by calculating the zone of endangering influence, where
pressure due to injection may cause the migration of injected or formation fluid into a USDW.” These
requirements thus require that Oxy locate and evaluate all wells within the AoR and that the AoR
requirements are satisfied, prior to injection of CO2, water or other fluids within the Denver Unit.
Mechanical Integrity Testing (MIT)
TRCC’s MIT requirements are designed to ensure that there is no significant leakage within the injection
tubing, casing, or packer, as well as no leakage outside the casing (due to a bad cement job or due to
channeling). All active injection wells undergo MIT testing (referred to as “H-5” testing) at the following
intervals:
 Before injection operations begin
 Every 5 years unless permitted otherwise
 After any workover that disturbs the seal between the tubing, packer, and casing
 After any repair work on the casing
 When a request is made to suspend or reactivate the injection or disposal permit.
The current requirements for conducting MIT are:
For wells with tubing - pressure test the tubing-packer-casing to a pressure between 200 and 500 psi (1.4
– 3.5 MPa). Test pressure must stabilize within 10% of the required test pressure and remain stabilized
for 30 minutes (60 minutes if testing with a gas-filled annulus). Maintain a minimum of 200 psi (1.4 Mpa)
pressure differential between the test pressure and tubing pressure.
For wells without tubing - pressure test immediately above injection perforations against a temporary
plug, wireline plug, or tubing with packer. Indicate the type and depth of the plug and must be tested to a
maximum permitted injection pressure that is not limited to 500 psi (3.5 MPa).
If a well fails a MIT, the operator must immediately shut in the well, provide a notice to TRCC within 24
hours, file a Form H-5 within 30 days and make repairs or plug the well within 60 days. Casing leaks must
be successfully repaired and the well re-tested, or plugged if required. In such cases, a Form W-3A must
be filed with TRCC. Any well that fails an MIT cannot be returned to active service until it passes a new
MIT.
158
TRCC requires similar testing at injection wells that are more than 25 years old and have been idle for
more than one year (referred to as H-15 testing). For these wells, MIT is required every five years either
with an annual fluid level test or a hydraulic pressure test with a plug immediately above the
perforations. In the event of a test failure at these idle wells, the operator must repair or plug the well
within 30 days (not 60 days allowed for an active well). Again, casing leaks must be successfully repaired
and the well re-tested or plugged (after submitting a Form W-3A).
Produced Fluids Handling
Gathering lines bring the produced fluids from each production well (Oxy has 1100 production wells) to
one of 32 satellite batteries with gas-liquid separators and well test equipment to measure production
rates of oil, water and gas from individual production wells. Most wells are tested every two months.
After separation, the gas phase, which is ~ 80-85% CO2 and 2,000 – 5,000 ppm H2S is transported by
pipeline to DUCRP for processing. The liquid phase (mixture of oil and water) is sent to centralized tank
batteries for gravity separation of oil from water. The separated oil is metered through the Lease
Automatic Custody Transfer (LACT) unit at each centralized tank battery and sold. The dissolved CO2
content in the oil averages 0.13% by volume.
The water is removed from the bottom of the tanks and sent to a water treatment facility, and after
treatment either re-injected at the WAG skids or injected into permitted disposal wells.
Any gas that is released from the liquid phase is collected by a Vapor Recovery Unit that compresses the
gas and sends it to DUCRP for processing.
Wasson oil is slightly sour, containing small amounts of H2S, which is highly toxic. There are
approximately 90 workers on-site at the Denver Unit at any given time, and all field personnel are
required to wear H2S monitors at all times.
Produced Gas Handling
Produced gas is gathered from the satellite batteries and sent to centralized compressor stations and
then to DUCRP in a high pressure gathering system.
Once gas enters DUCRP, it undergoes compression and dehydration. Produced gas is first treated in a
Sulferox unit to convert H2S into elemental sulfur which is sold and trucked from the facility.
159
Other processes separate NG and NGLs into saleable products. At the end of these processes, there is a
CO2 rich stream, a portion of which is recycled and again re-injected.
Water Treatment and Injection
Produced water is gathered through a pipeline system and moved to water treatment stations. After
treatment, pressurized water is distributed to the WAG skids for re-injection or to water disposal wells
for injection into deep permeable formations.
Fluid Containment Strategies
TRRC requires that injection pressures be limited to prevent contamination of other hydrocarbon
resources or pollution of subsurface or surface waters. In addition, EOR projects are designed by Oxy to
ensure that mobilized oil, gas, and CO2 do not migrate into adjoining properties that are owned by
competing operators, who could then produce the fluids liberated by Oxy’s EOR efforts. In the Denver
Unit, Oxy uses two methods to contain fluids within the Unit: reservoir pressure management and the
careful placement and operation of wells along boundaries of other units.
Reservoir pressure in the unit is managed by maintaining an injection to withdrawal ratio (IWR) of
approximately 1.0. The volumes are measured under reservoir conditions for all fluids and by keeping
the IWR close to 1.0, reservoir pressure is held constant. To maintain the IWR, Oxy monitors fluid
injection to ensure that reservoir pressure does not increase to a level that would fracture the reservoir
seal or otherwise damage the oilfield. Similar practices are used for other units operated by Oxy within
the Wasson Field. Most, if not all other Wasson Units, inject at pressures a little higher than Denver Unit
and all maintain an IWR of at least one. Additionally, higher pressures in the surrounding areas assure
that Denver Unit fluids stay within the Unit.
Oxy also prevents injected fluids migrating out of the injection interval by keeping injection pressure
below the fracture pressure which is measured using step-rate tests.
The second way Oxy contains fluids within the Denver Unit is to drill wells along the lease lines as per
lease agreements with the neighboring CO2 units which provide for offsetting injectors or offsetting
producers along the lease line that balance one another. For example, an injector on one side is balanced
by an injector on the other side in such a way that a no-flow boundary is maintained at the Unit
boundary. This restricts the flow of injected CO2 or mobilized oil from one unit to the other. A similar
dynamic is maintained for paired producers.
160
Reservoir Modeling
Oxy uses simulators to model the behavior of fluids in the reservoir. Mathematically, reservoir behavior is
modeled by a set of differential equations that describe the fundamental principles of conservation of
mass and energy, fluid flow, and phase behavior.
Field-wide simulations are initially used to assess the viability of water and CO2 flooding. Once a decision
has been made to develop a CO2 EOR project, Oxy uses detailed pattern modeling to plan the location and
injection schedule for wells. For the purpose of operating a CO2 flood, large-scale modeling is not useful
as a management tool because it does not provide sufficiently detailed information about the expected
pressure, injection volumes, and production at the level of an injection pattern. Field-wide modeling was
performed by the previous owners in the1980s and 1990s and Oxy reviewed this work to inform their
decision to acquire leases in 2000. Since taking over operation of the Denver Unit in 2000, Oxy has used
pattern.
At the pattern level, the objective of a simulation is to develop an injection plan that maximizes oil
recovery, and minimizes the costs of the CO2 flood. The injection plan includes such controllable items as:
 The cycle length and WAG ratio to inject water or CO2 in the WAG process
 The best rate and pressure for each injection phase
Simulations may also be used to:
 Evaluate infill or replacement wells
 Determine the best completion intervals
 Verify the need for well remediation or stimulation
 Determine anticipated rates and ultimate recovery
 The pattern level simulator used by Oxy uses a commercially available compositional simulator,
called MORE, developed by Roxar. It is called “compositional” because it can track the composition of
each phase (oil, gas, and water) over time and throughout the volume of the reservoir.
Additional details regarding Oxy’s application of MORE are given in Oxy Denver Unit CO2 Subpart RR MRV
document (2015)
161
Occidental Petroleum Ltd. (OPL - Oxy) operates the Denver Unit in the Permian Basin of West Texas for
the primary purpose of enhanced oil recovery using CO2 flooding (CO2 EOR) with a secondary purpose of
storing CO2 for a specified period 2016 through 2026.
 Oxy has injected during the period 1983 through 2013, 4,035 billion standard ft3 - Bscf (212.8 million
metric tons – Mt), of which 84 Mt was produced and 128.8 Mt was stored. Oxy forecasts that the total
volume of CO2 injected will be ~ 25% of the theoretical storage capacity of the Denver Unit
 Discovered in 1936, the Wasson Field produces oil from the permeable San Andres dolomite
formation, and with an OOIP of 4,000 million barrels is one of the largest fields in North America. The
San Andres lies at a depth of 5,000 feet (1,524 m) and is capped with a 400 foot (122 m) caprock of
impermeable dolomite, referred to as the Upper San Andres that has kept oil and gas trapped in the
lower San Andres for millions of years.
 The Denver Unit is a subdivision of the Wasson Field. Oil production began in the Denver Unit in 1938
and peaked in the mid-1940s with water flooding started in the 1960s and CO2 flooding starting in
1983. Primary recovery resulted in 17.2% of OOIP, secondary recovery 30.1% and an expected
additional recovery of 19.5% through CO2 EOR with an expected total recovery of 66.8% of the OOIP.
The total OOIP in the Denver Unit is ~ 2 billion barrels (0.32 billion m 3), with CO2 EOR estimated to
recover 0.39 billion barrels (0.06 billion m3) (NETL/ARI, 2011).
 There are no known faults or fractures affecting the Denver Unit, and the absence of faults has been
confirmed in several ways including seismic surveys (which show the presence of faulting well below
the San Andres), and operational history since the 1960s that has confirmed that there are no faults
or fractures that penetrate the flood zone.
 As of August 2014, there are ~ 1,734 active wells (2/3 rd production and 1/3rd injection). Since 1996,
all wells are cemented to surface using state-of-the-art standards. Oxy pays close attention to older
wells and keeps well workover crews on site in the Permian Basin to maintain all active wells and to
respond to any wellbore issues that arise.
 All wells (both producers and injectors) are regulated by the Texas Railroad Commission (TRCC).
TRCC requires that injection pressures be limited to prevent contamination of other hydrocarbon
resources or pollution of subsurface or surface waters and below the reservoir fracture pressure
(measured using step-rate tests).(See Section 7.1)
 Reservoir pressure in the unit is managed by maintaining an injection to withdrawal ratio (IWR) of ~
1.0. Oxy also drills offsetting injectors and producers along the lease lines that balance one another
(and helps contain fluids within the Unit).
 Oxy used simulators to model the behavior of fluids within the reservoir and uses detailed pattern
modeling to plan the location and injection schedule for wells. Simulations are also used to: evaluate
infill or replacement wells; determine best completion intervals; verify the need for
remediation/workover or stimulation; determine anticipated rates and ultimate recovery. Oxy uses
commercially available compositional simulator – MORE, developed by Roxar/Emerson (See Sections
7.1 on Regulations and Section 5.4 for Reservoir Modelling).
162
8.5 CASE STUDY # 5: CO2 INJECTION IN MIDWESTERN U.S. (SMINCHAK ET AL, 2013) AND
HAAGSMA ET AL (2013)
Introduction
Wellbore integrity has been identified as a major risk factor for geologic CO2 sequestration in areas with
many old oil and gas wells. In the Midwestern United States, over 1 million oil and gas wells have been
drilled since the late 1800s, and many of these wells may provide potential pathways for CO 2 migration
(Figure 28). The condition of these wells varies with age, depth, geology, and location. In order to assess
the risks from such oil and gas wells, a systematic investigation of well construction methods, status, and
condition was performed to evaluate wellbore integrity factors and support development of geologic CO2
storage in the region.
Figure 28 - Map of oil and gas wells over 800 m deep and large CO2 sources in the Midwest U.S.
(Sminchak et al, 2013)
Well integrity factors for carbon geo-sequestration
Wellbore integrity is considered a key risk factor for geologic CO2 storage, since wells can act as a conduit
to the overlying strata or to the surface for CO2 migration. In some areas such as the Midwest U.S. which
has some of the oldest oil and gas fields in the world with several thousands of oil and gas wells, the risks
from such wells is of particular concern. Significant risk factors include poor cementing, plugging, or
incomplete records of these wells while well drilling and construction technologies and plugging and
163
abandonment (P&A) procedures and materials have varied and advanced over time. Other well integrity
factors may include cement degradation, cracks, micro annulus, acid-gas zones, channeling, casing
corrosion, and other long-term processes. The objective of this study was to link analysis of sustained
casing pressure and cement bond logs (CBL) from a subsampling of wells to the larger dataset of wells to
better define the nature and extent of wellbore integrity in the region.
Project Study Area
The project study area was defined as Lower Michigan and Ohio with thick sequences of Paleozoic age
sedimentary rocks providing CO2 storage options in both states. The Michigan Basin is the major geologic
structure in the Lower Michigan peninsula, and there are few storage options in upper Michigan.
Approximately 54,000 oil and gas wells have been drilled in Lower Michigan. Major oil and gas plays in
Michigan are present in the Dundee limestone, Antrim Shale, Niagaran reefs, Trenton-Black River, and
other rock formations. In Ohio, numerous fields are present in the Appalachian Basin in the eastern
portion of the state and shallow fields are also present in northwestern Ohio. Approximately 230,000 oil
and gas wells have been drilled in the state with the major oil and gas bearing formations being the
‘Clinton’ – Medina sandstone, Trenton-Black River, Berea sandstone, Rose run sandstone, and Utica-Point
Pleasant shale. While the study focused on Michigan and Ohio, project results may be relevant to the
Midwest in general and areas with older oil and gas fields.
Methods
The objective of the research was to complete a systematic assessment of wellbore integrity in the
Midwestern United States using regulatory and industry information. The distribution of wellbores in the
study area was determined by: (1) collection and analysis of well records, (2) examination of well
plugging and abandonment records, (3) field monitoring of sustained casing pressure from existing wells,
and (4) analysis of well integrity in relation to hypothetical CO2 storage test areas. Analysis results were
linked to the larger well datasets to provide guidance on wellbore integrity issues in the region.
Well Record Analysis
Well record analysis was based on existing regulatory and industry information for the Michigan and
Ohio study areas. Cement bond logs were also identified and evaluated with a systematic methodology to
ensure consistency. Finally, all data was analyzed with maps, graphs, and statistics to portray population
and spatial trends.
Well data collection
164
For Ohio, oil and gas related well records were collected from the Ohio Department of Natural Resources
database with a total of 229,992 wells identified, and 102,246 (44 %) listed as plugged. For Michigan, oil
and gas well records were acquired from the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality Oil, Gas, and
Minerals division. A total of 53,826 well records were listed for the Michigan Lower Peninsula and only a
few dozen wells listed for the Upper Peninsula. Of these, 34,612 wells are listed as plugged and
abandoned (~ 64%).
Well construction data were collected from a variety of sources that collect information from operators,
drillers, and service companies. The wells were installed between 1890-2013, so the quality of the
records varies, and since some information was not available, the results may be incomplete for some
parameters.
Systematic cement bond log evaluation
A total of 1,720 cement bond logs (CBLs) for Michigan and 1,060 CBLs for Ohio were available to be
accessed. These records were randomly sub-sampled to obtain 10%, or 278 logs, for analysis. A
methodology to determine cement bond response was developed with minimal log response considered
0% bond (free pipe) and maximum log response considered 100% response, with the difference divided
into 10% bond increments. Analysis was represented with a weighted average bond index across the
cemented interval. The methodology also includes noting any indications of leakage pathways such as a
micro-annulus, cracks, voids, gas-cut cement, channeling etc.
Results of the systematic bond log analysis indicated a weighted average cement rating of 0.71 for
Michigan and 0.73 in Ohio. In general, most logs had at least 15 m of cement rated over 75% above the
isolation zone, with decreasing cement bond index with depth.
Well Status Analysis
Well records were analyzed with graphs, statistics, and geologic visualization methods with the objective
of determining the temporal, geographic, and geologic distribution of key indicators of wellbore integrity
for the study area. This analysis included information on well construction/status, plugging and
abandonment, and cement bond log analysis.
Plugging and Abandonment Analysis
In Michigan, 34,612 wells (~64% of all wells) are listed as plugged and abandoned, while in Ohio,
102,246 oil and gas wells are listed as plugged and abandoned (~ 44% of all wells). A random sample of
5% of plugged wells was selected from the Michigan well records (since had no state database), and
165
plugging and abandonment records for these 1,730 wells were compiled into a database. In Ohio,
plugging details for 6,390 wells were obtained from a state oil and gas database. Data compiled included
number of plugs, plug depth, plug material, plug thickness, cement mix, and additive.
In the region, operators typically set plugs across certain water bearing zones, casing transitions, and
reservoir zones to isolate these zones. The dataset accounts for 1,730 and 6,390 wells in Michigan and
Ohio respectively. Wells in Michigan contain 1-6 plugs and in Ohio 1-4 plugs. Mud plugs were not
included in the analysis. Most plugs in Michigan were 30-120 m thick, with some plugs over 150 m thick.
Plug thickness in Ohio varied with many plugs between 60-300 m thick.
Sustained Casing Pressure (SCP) Field Monitoring
Definition of Sustained Casing Pressure (SCP) – See Section 3.4
Sustained casing pressures were monitored in thirteen wells with wellhead pressure/temperature
loggers installed on the annulus port. The casing strings in these wells are cemented at various intervals,
and they reflect different well completions. The wells were then vented, so the rate of pressure build-up
over time could be recorded (see Figure 29 for an example pressure build-up). Gas samples were also
collected to assess the source of the gas per hydrocarbon signature. Also, once the pressure had built
back up to initial pressure, the volume of gas was estimated with flow meter. In general, the wells showed
various pressures from 0.5 to 7 MPa, indicating various source zones, which can complicate sustained
casing pressure analysis since the source of the gas may not be clear.
166
Figure 29 - Sustained Casing Pressure Buildup Data from a 1940s era well (Sminchak et al, 2013)
SCP Analysis
SCP data from the 13 wells was first screened in an attempt to quantitatively examine the cement seal.
Results indicated that analysis of data for the first 4 wells was not feasible, because the annulus was only
cemented at the bottom of the cased hole, and gas entered from several shallower zones that commonly
produce small amounts of gas and migrated to the surface unimpeded. However, gas analyses of these
wells did confirm that the SCP observed at this field (which includes mainly older 1940s wells) did not
come from the gas reservoir, demonstrating zonal isolation for the gas reservoir first penetrated over 70
years ago.
For those wells for which a flow path through the cement seal could be demonstrated, a new method
called the “Defect Model” was developed to quantify cement seal quality, which is applicable to a wider
range of wellbore conditions than previous methods. The defect factor for the cement, DFc , is the area of
an orifice that represents the cumulative effects of all the cement leakage such as micro-annulus, cracks,
conduits, etc. along the entire cemented section:
q = DFc x f (well geometry, fluid properties, ΔP)
where q is flow rate in cement, DFc is the cement defect factor and ΔP is pressure delta between source
zone and the surface.
167
The Cement Defect Factor method was applied to 13 wells with SCP field monitoring data. Eight wells ~
1,900 m deep wells that were cemented to surface were also analyzed and exhibited a wide range of
cement defect factor results. Overall, this method proved more suitable than previous methods in
obtaining consistent quantitative cement seal data than previous methods. Work is ongoing in this area.
Hypothetical CO2 Storage Test Area Assessment
Proposed CO2 storage assessment test areas in south-central Michigan and northeast Ohio were
characterized for CO2 storage assessment. Each test area was examined as if it were a CO2 storage site by
finding vulnerable boreholes to plug, monitor, or test the wells as per the requirements of U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency Underground Injection Control (UIC) regulations for Class VI storage
wells.
Test area well integrity evaluation
Well construction data were tabulated for both test areas, including well construction materials,
cementing, and plugging and abandonment methods. The Albion-Scipio is the major oil field in this area
of Michigan, and there is a geologic fold near this area. The Michigan site has 22 oil and gas wells that
penetrate the Albion-Scipio formation at a depth of approximately 1,400 m (with most wells plugged but
some have complicated lateral recompletions). The Ohio test site has 359 wells at depths of less than
1,300 m with the ‘Clinton’ sandstone being the major gas reservoir in this area and has a long history of
oil and gas operations. Overall, neither site had any wells that penetrated the storage reservoir or
immediate cap-rock, suggesting that no corrective action may be necessary at this site to address
wellbore integrity concerns. However, more work is being conducted to evaluate wellbore integrity
concerns for old wells.
Analyses of well records, well plugging information, cement bond log evaluation, sustained casing
pressure field monitoring, and hypothetical CO2 test areas can provide a realistic description of wellbore
integrity factors in the Midwestern United States. Many of the deep saline aquifers being considered for
CO2 storage have few wells that penetrate the storage zones or cap-rock zones, and evaluation of 278
CBLs from Michigan and Ohio suggested that most wells had adequate cement above the isolation zone.
Preliminary analyses indicated that intermediate zones appeared to present a larger risk for borehole
migration of CO2. Field monitoring of SCP provided a cement defect factor that reflected combined well
defects.
168
Project results may benefit both CO2 storage and CO2 EOR applications. This study sheds more light on
the actual risk (rather than the perceived risk) of historic oil and gas wells in the Midwest U.S. The results
also show that most historic wells are much shallower than the potential CO2 storage sites while many
deeper wells (which are generally newer) are adequately plugged and abandoned or are still active.
8.6 CASE STUDY # 6: OVERVIEW OF CORE ENERGY’S CO2 EOR PROJECTS AND OPERATIONS IN
MICHIGAN
Core Energy, LLC currently operates the only CO2 EOR projects in Michigan and the only commercial EOR
project east of the Mississippi using anthropogenic or captured CO 2. In 2016, Michigan (Core Energy)
produced its two millionth barrel of oil from CO2 EOR and could potentially recover an additional 25–
30%, on a field-by-field basis, of the oil volume produced during the primary producing life of a field with
ongoing CO2 EOR in the future. Core Energy performs miscible CO2 EOR by flooding by injecting
compressed and dried CO2, removed from the natural gas produced from the Antrim Shale resource play,
into one or more wells in a field. Core Energy works with numerous small Niagaran pinnacle reef fields,
most of which have fewer than five operating wells. One of the benefits of using compressed CO2 for EOR,
besides an increase in oil recovery, is that the oil recovered helps to pay for the cost of capturing and
building the transportation infrastructure necessary to sequester more CO2, making the process more
economical. Oil produced from CO2 EOR is net ~70% carbon free making the process more economical
Core Energy communication – Rick Pardini, May 3 2018). There are currently more than 136 CO2 EOR
projects in the United States producing ~ 300,000 barrels of oil per day. Within the Midwestern
Governors Association member states, there is an estimated CO2 EOR potential of more than 6.3 billion
barrels of oil, which would require 7.5 billion metric tons of CO2 between now and 2030, representing
one-third of the total remaining primary reserves in the U.S. (Core Energy brochure, 2018).
Core Energy estimates that about 30% of the OOIP is recovered from a reef in the primary producing
stage and an additional 10-20% will be recovered with CO2 EOR. Little to no water flooding has taken
place in these carbonate pinnacle reef complexes (at least one field – Charlton has been previously
waterflooded), and since the injected gas is dry CO2 they have not had any major corrosion concerns.
However, in one of their new assets, which has been water flooded, they anticipate having some potential
for corrosion similar to other post water flood CO2 EOR projects like in West Texas. Production from CO2
EOR has increased from about 60 barrels of oil per day in the mid-1990s to ~ 1,000 bbls/day at the
present time, with the crude having an API gravity of 38 – 43° API and a Minimum Miscibility Pressure
(MMP) of about 1,200 psi (8.27 MPa) for the CO2 floods.
169
Niagaran Pinnacle Reef fields are excellent isolated and sealed containers with the anhydrite serving as a
super caprock. There are over 700 such fields in the northern reef trend of Michigan, with Core energy
operating a small but expanding fraction of these fields. The gas storage reservoirs with a long history of
safe gas storage in Michigan are an excellent analog for the safe long-term storage of CO2. The reservoirs
being CO2 flooded typically have very little water in them and no water drive mechanism. The well
completions are designed to minimize CO2 gravity override. The operator is open to the continued
incidental storage of CO2 in these reservoirs at the end of the CO2 EOR project lifecycle.
In addition to CO2 EOR operations, Core Energy is involved in CO2 sequestration in conjunction with EOR
operations in Michigan by serving as the host site for a public/private partnership (www.MRCSP.org) to
research the storage potential of Michigan’s oilfields and deep saline reservoir geology.
Core Energy is also actively engaged in using state-of-the-art 3-D seismic technology for oil and gas
exploration and exploitation.
 Well construction schematics of an example CO2 EOR injection well and a CO2 EOR production well
are given in Figures 30 and 31 (from Core Injection and Production Well Schematics).
 A process flow diagram for Core Energy’s facility is shown in Figure 32 (from Core Energy)
170
Figure 30 - CO2 EOR Injection Well Schematic (Courtesy Core Energy, Michigan)
171
Figure 31 - CO2 EOR Production Well Schematic (Courtesy Core Energy, Michigan)
172
Figure 32 - CO2 EOR Production Facility Process Diagram (Courtesy Core Energy, Michigan)
As a part of this Study, a Questionnaire that was sent to Core Energy and their responses are given below,
which provide a general overview of their CO2 EOR operations. In addition, a facility visit was also
conducted by the authors of this Report. We thank the management of Core Energy for facilitating this
visit and sharing their valuable operational experience with CO2 EOR injection operations in Michigan.
 Number of wells – injectors and producers. How many are built-for-purpose CO2 injection wells and
how many are converted wells. Age of wells – both for producers and injectors.
o Currently, the number of wells in ten active CO2 EOR Projects is 36: 15 Injection (12 converted
and 3 new), 13 Production (4 converted and 9 new) and 8 Monitor (6 converted and 2 new)
wells. Currently Core has 27 active US EPA Class II Injection Permits and one application in
the final review process with the EPA. The current number of projects and wells has increased
by eight and 28, respectively, since Core Energy acquired the assets.
173
 History of fields and operations. Total volumes of oil produced and CO 2 injected, since first oil was
produced and amount of incremental increase in production and recovery due to CO2 EOR injection.
o The first two projects were initiated in 1996. Since Core Energy acquired the assets, the
number of projects has progressed as follows:
 one project added in 2004,

 two projects added in 2009,
 two projects in 2015, and
 one project in 2017 (using the onset of CO2 of injection as the commencement date)
o As of December 31, 2017, from all ten projects:
 2,263,501 barrels of oil have been produced, that would not otherwise have been
harvested due to the depleted nature of the reservoirs.
 Total CO2 injection (new from anthropogenic source and reinjection of produced CO 2)
has been 111.8 BCF.
 The net volume of CO2 that has been incidentally sequestered as a result of the CO 2 EOR
operations has been 40.1 BCF or 2.113 million metric tonnes.
 Is CO2 used for injection as standalone injection for CO2 flooding or is WAG (water-alternating-gas)
employed.
o To date, all reservoirs have been flooded with only CO2 and no water or other substances have
been injected. As the anthropogenic source of CO2 becomes more limited in the future due to
declining gas production from the Antrim Shale (i.e. the source), options to supplement the
CO2 will be explored.
 Source and volumes of CO2 supply for EOR. Distance from source and treatment/compression and
transportation details.
o The source of the CO2 used in the EOR operations comes from gas processing plants, which
process Antrim Shale gas. Once the CO2 has been dried and compressed at the source, it is
transported via a network of pipelines (e.g. trunk line with laterals) to the 10 active projects.
Currently, the bulk of the CO2 is transported approximately 10-15 miles, from the source to the
reservoirs.
 Depths of injection intervals and overlying and underlying confining intervals with geologic and
engineering characteristics – porosity, permeability, thickness etc. and lateral extent and continuity.
o The permitted injection zones are all in pinnacle reefs in formations known as the Ruff (A-1
Carbonate) and Guelph Dolomite (Brown Niagarn). The depth to the permitted injection
zones are approximately 5,500feet (1,676 m) to 6,500 feet (1,981 m). The reefs are
encapsulated by layers of impermeable anhydrite, low permeability carbonates, salts, and
shales, which collectively can be more than 4,000 feet (1,219 m) thick.
174
 Is CO2-EOR being conducted in depleted oil and gas reservoirs? Original history and background.
o EOR operations are conducted in depleted oil reservoirs. Though there can be significant
variations when trying to define carbonates, the reservoirs can be generally described as
carbonate pinnacle reef complexes, sealed/closed under-saturated reservoirs, ranging in size
from 40-400 acres, and which have undergone solution gas drive depletion during their
primary production life. Primary producing recovery factors range from 30%-42% of the
OOIP, which means that 58%-70% of the OOIP has been left behind. CO2 brings new life to
these depleted reservoirs and allows for incremental oil to be harvested that would otherwise
be left behind.
Drilling, Production/Injection Operations, and Well Control
 What are the differences in equipment and procedures for drilling rigs, workover rigs and coiled
tubing/wireline units when comparing work on CO2 injection wells and conventional hydrocarbon
(oil and gas wells)?
o One of the main differences is in the area of well control. Since CO 2 changes phases at various
temperatures and pressures, it is vitally important to continually monitor well conditions and
respond accordingly. Using personnel skilled in handling and working with CO 2 is important
to successful operations.
 What are the key differences between CO2 and hydrocarbons that influence safety and risk
assessments for well operations?
o Planning ahead, knowing the properties of CO2, continually monitoring well conditions and
promptly intervening at the onset of any situation—not waiting.
 During wellbore maintenance operations did any events occur that were not predicted or were
most accounted for within the risk assessment?
o No, because of using personnel who are experienced and trained in CO 2 operations is a key
principle, which allows crews to prepare and plan for the safe and successful handling of each
job.
 During wellbore operation (production/injection) did any events occur that were not predicted or
were most accounted for within the risk assessment? Same as above.
 How did near wellbore conditions influence CO2 injection operations?
o Almost exclusively, whenever the carbonate pinnacle reefs are drilled some formation damage
occurs which is remediated with near wellbore acid treatments. Once this near wellbore
damage is removed, on injection or producing wells, injection (or production) can be
sustained as desired.
 Details on CO2 handling and management experiences. Did CO2 behave as predicted during injection
operations (supercritical versus wet CO2 behavior) or did any unexpected behavior occur?
o Because the pressure in the depleted reservoirs is often very low (e.g. <100 psi (<689 kPA))
when a project commences, phase change can occur when supercritical CO2 injected at the
surface changes phase to a gas while travelling down the injection tubing and/or when
175
entering the reservoir. This can pose some level of challenge during the early injection period,
but has not been something that has detracted from projects. All of the CO 2 injected is dried
using a TEG (triethylene glycol) contact tower prior to injection, which lowers the water
content, however, during extremely cold winter days, hydrates can form from time-to-time. In
those rare instances, adding methanol and/or heat to the injection stream is one way of
alleviating the problem.
 Risk assessment and preparedness for potential loss of well control (including ability to deploy a rig
in the event of a blowout).
o Because of careful planning and using experienced and trained operations personnel, no
incidents of loss of well control have ever been experienced. Remaining ever vigilant about
safety and using wise operating practices must be a core value that is communicated
regularly and implemented always. Wells are constructed with four strings of casing (i.e.
conductor, surface, intermediate and total depth string), three of which are cemented in
place; the surface casing all the way to the surface. Additionally, all wells have tubing strings
run to near the permitted injection zones. Injection wells require a packer attached to the
tubing string, located no more than 100feet (30.5 m) above the permitted injection zone and
mechanical integrity on injection wells must be established and maintained. These things,
when combined with wellheads suited for the applications and daily observation by field
personnel, all serve to preclude loss of well control and have worked based on having no loss
of control incidents since the onset of CO2 EOR operations back in 1996.
 Are well integrity management systems (WIMS) in place to address potential risks from loss of
wellbore integrity of CO2 injection wells (given the unique phase behavior characteristics of CO2).
o As a condition of the US EPA Class II Permit, mechanical integrity must be initially achieved and
then maintained on a continual basis. This is done by monitoring annular pressures,
conducting fill-up tests, conducting repeat MIT’s on a required cadence. In addition to these
monitoring methods, company personnel check wells daily to inspect conditions.
Injection pressure is limited by permit, adhered to and monitored on a regular basis to ensure
the injection formation is not fractured. Actual bottom hole pressure measurements are
compared to material balance estimates for the fields (reefs) as another means to track
reservoir integrity.
Well Construction, Completion and Materials of Construction
 Well design for CO2 injection wells and differences with standard oil and gas (hydrocarbon wells):
Casing Design; Wellhead Design; Wellbore Design; Completion Design; Recompletions of existing
wellbores if used for CO2 injection and/or production.
o Because of the type of reservoirs (pinnacle reefs, “steeply dipping”), the original ample CO2
supply, no water being intentionally added to the system (e.g. WAG’ing), the CO 2 being dried
prior to entering the closed system (i.e. compressors, pipelines, reservoirs, vessels) and the
original infrastructure being installed for these types of conditions, carbon steel is the
predominate material used. Items that have been instituted to lessen further the likelihood of
failures include:
176
 CO2-environment downhole tools (e.g. Ni-plated packers, high durometer rated
elastomers on packers and tools, AB-modified tubing collars with seal rings).
 Surface equipment (e.g. Wellhead gaskets, and components trimmed to combat CO 2,

Compressor stages pre-drying trimmed with stainless steel components).
 Tubing and casing strings will typically use seamless or full body normalized tubes and
be on the heavier-side (i.e. lb per foot) for a bit of added safety.
 Downhole well schematics of typical production and CO2 injection well. Include casing details (type,
grade, weight) and cementing details (types of cements used – both opposite the injection zone and
above the injection zone).
o Diagrams for example injection and production wells are attached (see Figures 31 and 32).
 If CRA tubulars were used in addition to API tubulars and if CO 2-resistant specialty cements were
used in addition to API Class G/H cements.
o In some of the new wells drilled, additives (e.g. latex) were added to the cement blends as a
“belt and braces” type approach to help the cement be even less porous and less susceptible to
degradation, which has already been determined by studies not to occur.
 What have been the long-term implications for cement degradation? Has there been evidence of
corrosion? Did wellbore integrity remain intact?
o To date, there has been no evidence of cement degradation of any kind.
o Corrosion has been very limited to non-existent due to the lack of water in the system.
Corrosion inhibitors are used in certain areas (e.g. as packer fluid in annular space on wells
with packers, in flowlines, or vessels). Corrosion coupons are installed in lines and monitored
and continue to show very little to no corrosion.
o In the few instances where wells have lost integrity, the issues have been shallow in the
wellbores, far from where the EOR operations take place, and directly related to shallow
formations used for disposal. Similar issues with shallow casing problems in non-EOR
fields/wells in the vicinity of the ongoing EOR operations, have been documented and are
similar to those few incidents observed in wells that are a part of EOR projects. Historically,
once the shallow casing issues have been remediated, they have not posed any further
problems.
 Details on specialty tubular, packers and other completion equipment used to address potential
corrosion impacts from CO2 on well integrity. See above.
 Control of carbon dioxide corrosion impacts on CO2 injection wells and selection of materials of
construction for both wellbores and surface facilities. See above.
 Details on materials of construction for surface facilities and equipment to address corrosion
concerns from CO2 (including metering, flow lines and injection lines and Xmas tree and well head
valves, fittings etc. See above.
 Injection systems for CO2 EOR facilities:

177
- Water injection Systems. Do not WAG, so no universal injection system(s) are in place.
- CO2 injection/Distribution Systems. One-line process flow diagram is attached (see Figure 33). All
metering of CO2 on the injection side is done via Coriolis mass flow meters. Coriolis meters are
also used on the high pressure produced gas vessels (i.e. vertical, two-phase separators).
Long-term Well Integrity Assessments
 How were long-term wellbore integrity assessments conducted? Fundamentally, was wellbore design
modified to meet new specifications for CO2-EOR and/or for CO2 injection/storage wells and were
different remediation measures put in place?
o Whenever possible, existing wellbores are utilized for obvious reasons. Prior to a new project
being implemented, old wellbores are assessed using a variety of means (e.g. physical
downhole cleaning of wellbore, pressure testing, casing inspection log, cement evaluation
logs) based on what is known about an existing field/well. Each field/well is handled on a
case-by-case basis, tailoring an assessment plan based on what is known about each
field/well.
o When new wells are constructed, appropriate materials and current practices are utilized (see
above) to ensure project safety and success.
o Once a project becomes active, then ongoing integrity assessment is done as outline by the US
EPA Permit and described previously.
 What new techniques were undertaken to ensure integrity of the wellbore (how was the monitoring
and verification plan different from a conventional oil and gas production site)?
o Operator complies with all Class II UIC permit requirements for well mechanical integrity.
 Were any differences noted between predicted degradation of the wellbore and any observations
during or post CO2 injection/production?
o As stated previously, no degradation issues have been encountered.
 Was injection regularity maintained and did well integrity have any impact on achieving planned
regularity? (Note: Well regularity is the ability to actually inject CO2 regularly at the desired rates
necessary to store the delivered quantity or the quantity needed for CO 2-EOR purposes. Regularity
influences the design and cost of storage facilities e.g. low expected regularity will necessitate drilling
additional wells resulting in increased capex costs).
o In the vast majority of cases, CO2 injection has been achieved and sustained as planned and in
those few cases where it was not, it was related to reservoir issues that resulted in actions to
remedy (e.g. acid stimulation to remove near wellbore damage, removal of hydrate from
tubing).
 Management of abnormal casing pressure and sustained casing pressure (SCP)
o Well and mechanical integrity maintenance and monitoring techniques. Also monitoring
techniques for casing corrosion and cement degradation to assure wellbore integrity
throughout its lifecycle. See above.
178
 Our understanding is that Core Energy’s wells are Class II-EOR wells that are permitted, constructed
and operated as per requirements for Class II-EOR injection wells (and Core Energy does not operate
Class VI – CO2 storage wells in MI).
o Correct, currently Core Energy has 27 active US EPA Class II Permits and one that has been
submitted and in the final review process. Core Energy does not possess any Class VI Permits.
 Procedures and guidelines that Core Energy follows to assure that previously abandoned oil and gas
wells do not pose a threat as being a potential conduit for escape of injected fluids/CO 2 into overlying
aquifers and/or to loss of wellbore integrity of existing CO2 injection and EOR production wells.
o As a part of the US EPA Class II Permit application process, an area of review (AoR) is
established around each injection well, which requires a review of all wells within it. If after
the review, any wells are determined to be improperly constructed or plugged, then remedial
action would be required to be taken prior to the Permit being issued and authorization to
injection granted.
o For these reviews, available records from all sources (e.g. State regulatory agencies) are
carefully scrutinized and a determination is made regarding any wells that were not properly
constructed and/or properly plugged and abandoned.
o Also current P&A procedures that Core Energy applies when abandoning CO 2 injection and CO2
EOR production wells. As a part of the US EPA Class II Permit application process, a detailed
plugging plan is submitted and has to be approved as a part of the Permit process. All
plugging, which we have not yet done any, will be done in accordance with the EPA Permit
and Michigan DEQ guidelines.
Core Energy, LLC currently operates the only CO2 EOR projects in Michigan and the only commercial EOR
project east of the Mississippi. In addition to CO2 EOR operations, Core Energy is involved in CO2
sequestration in conjunction with EOR operations in Michigan by hosting a public/private partnership to
research the storage potential of Michigan’s oilfields and deep saline reservoir geology. This Case Study
includes Questionnaire responses received back from Core Energy, LLC related to their CO2 EOR
operations in Michigan and we are grateful for their input and participation in this Study.
Additional details are summarized below:
 Core Energy estimates that about 30% of the OOIP was recovered in the primary stage and an
additional 10-20% will be recovered with CO2 EOR. Production has increased from about 60 barrels
per day in the mid-1990s to ~1,000 barrels/day at the present time. API gravity is 38-430 and MMP is
1,200 psi (8.27 MPa).
 Injection is in carbonate pinnacle reefs in the Ruff (A-1 Carbonate) and Guelph Dolomite (Brown
Niagran) formations at depths of between 5,500 feet (1,676 m) to 6,500 feet (1,981 m). The overlying
anhydrite layers can be as much as 4,000 feet (1,219 m) thick.
179
 Currently have 15 injection wells (12 converted and 3 new), 13 production wells (4 converted and 9
new), and 8 Monitor wells (6 converted and 2 new).
 No water flooding has taken place, and since the injected gas is dry CO 2 have not had any major
corrosion concerns. However, in one of their new assets, which has been water flooded, they
anticipate having some corrosion concerns similar to other post water flood CO 2 EOR projects as in
West Texas. They are also addressing some potential near-wellbore injectivity and reservoir
challenges in this new asset, as they move ahead with CO2 EOR operations. EOR operations are
conducted in depleted oil reservoirs.
 Niagaran Pinnacle Reefs are excellent isolated and sealed containers with the anhydrite serving as a
super caprock. The natural gas storage reservoirs in Michigan are an excellent analog for the safe
long-term storage of CO2.
 The reservoirs being CO2 flooded typically have very little water in them and no water drive
mechanism. The well completions are designed to minimize CO2 gravity override.
 In some of the new wells drilled, additives (e.g. latex) were added to the cement blends as a “belt and
braces” type approach to help the cement be less porous and less susceptible to degradation, which
has not occurred to date.
 Corrosion is limited due to absence of water in the system. Corrosion inhibitors are used in certain
areas and corrosion coupons are installed in lines and have shown very little to no corrosion.
 Have had shallow well integrity issues, due to non-EOR disposal activities, but have been remediated
when they occur without any major impacts.
 The source of the CO2 is from gas processing plants which process natural gas from the Antrim Shale
resource play. Once the CO2 has been dried and compressed at the source, it is transported via a
network of pipelines.
 The operator is open to the continued incidental storage of CO2 in these reservoirs at the end of the
CO2 EOR project lifecycle.
180
9.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Geologic storage/sequestration of carbon dioxide involves injection of large quantities of CO 2 injection

into primarily deep saline aquifers for storage purposes or, where feasible, into oil and gas reservoirs for
EOR purposes. The literature and experience from industrial analogs indicates that wellbores
(active/inactive or abandoned) may represent the most likely route for escape of the injected CO2 from
the storage reservoirs. Therefore, sound injection well design and life-cycle well integrity, operation and
monitoring are of critical importance in such projects.
Well integrity issues impact well regularity (the ability to actually inject CO2 regularly) at the desired
rates necessary to store the delivered quantity or the quantity needed for CO2 EOR purposes. Regularity
of CO2 injection influences the design and cost of storage facilities and needs to be addressed in the
planning stages of storage projects to assess future well performance. In CO2-rich environments, it is
important to identify equipment and procedures that may cover drilling, completion, operation,
interventions and abandonment.
The significant base of knowledge of how to manage pure CO2 operations that exists in the U.S., and to a
lesser extent in Canada and Europe, allows for a comparison to be made on methods and technologies for
handling CO2 to those required for hydrocarbon extraction. CO2 EOR projects, along with wells drilled in
H2S-rich environments, gas storage projects and high pressure high temperature (HPHT) projects, have
delivered technological advancements in well designs and materials, such as improved tubulars and
cements that are resistant to the corrosive effects of CO2 both in the downhole and surface environments.
In-depth case studies have been presented in this Study and represent different operating settings:
onshore CO2 EOR, offshore CO2 EOR, and CO2 storage projects located in the Permian Basin, Texas as well
as offshore Brazil and other locations in the world. The case studies focus on industry experience with
wellbores that are used for the production or injection of CO2.
A brief overview of current regulations and regulatory jurisdictions for CO2 EOR and CO2 geologic storage
operations in the United States, Canada, United Kingdom, European Union, Australia and Brazil are also
included in this Report.
Broadly stated, the challenges related to long-term CO2 storage, principally in deep saline aquifers and to
a lesser extent in depleted oil and gas reservoirs, can be broken down into two main categories: (1) Well
181
Integrity challenges and (2) Injectivity or Regularity challenges. These have been discussed in this Study
and are briefly summarized below with recommendations where appropriate.
Well Integrity Challenges for CO2 Storage Wells
Wellbore integrity is critical for the success of both CO2 storage as well as CO2 EOR injection wells. A
proper casing and cementing design is the first critical element in ensuring that a CO2 GS well will
maintain its well integrity throughout its operating life-cycle. Analysis of injection and production data
from the Norwegian sector shows that thermal cycling can affect wellbore integrity especially in injection
wells (See Vignes, 2011, Randhol et al, 2008 and Section 2.1.2 – Casing Design). Casing design software
such as WELLCATTM is currently widely used by most operators to ensure that the wellbore integrity is
maintained throughout its life cycle, particularly for applications such as HPHT, deep water, shale oil/gas
hydraulic fracturing, CO2 injection etc. where complex tubular loads/stresses are imposed (See Section
2.1.2).
A large area of interest in Norway at the moment is the requirement for scaling up each CCS process to
reach commercial scale. Therefore maintaining life-cycle and long-term well integrity becomes crucial for
the success of these projects and the safe storage and security of the stored CO2.
Intermittent supply of CO2 has implications for well integrity and on-off injection leads to cyclical heating
and cooling potentially impacting well integrity. Thermal effects can lead to debonding (between the
cement and casing and/or rock interface), nucleation (e.g. salt precipitation) and borehole deformation)
(See Section 5.0 for further discussion on thermal effects on CO2 injection well integrity).
In a CO2 injection well, the principal well design considerations include pressure, thermal stresses,
corrosion-resistant materials (tubulars and cements) and production and injection rates. The technology
for handling CO2 has already been developed for EOR, natural gas storage and acid gas injection.
Horizontal and extended reach (ERD) wells are good options for improving the rate of CO2 injection from
individual wells.
Proper maintenance of CO2 injection wells is necessary to avoid loss of well integrity. Any annulus
pressure buildup should be monitored and if SCP is indicated, diagnostics should be performed and
appropriate remedial steps taken to restore well integrity or the well shut-in, pending repair.
Plugging and abandonment procedures are also important to ensure that the injected CO 2 will not escape
or migrate out of the stored reservoir and/or saline aquifer.
182
Due to the unique characteristics of CO2 (see Section 4.0 and Appendix 2), the preparation and
implementation of a written environmental, health and safety (EHS) plan is a pre-requisite prior to
initiation of any CO2 injection project (see Section A7.4).
Summary of Findings from Incidents/Case Studies of Loss of Well Control (LWC) and Blowouts
The Case Studies of various Loss of Well Control (LWC) and Blowouts that have occurred and its
prevention have been presented in Sections 6.2 and 6.3. Some of the significant lessons learned are
summarized below:
 Both human factors and unforeseen reservoir conditions can contribute to their occurrence, and
safety procedures, in-depth personnel training and specialized equipment is used to minimize their
likelihood.
 The tremendous expansion of supercritical CO2 pressure containment is lost is of great significance
from a well control perspective. This flow behavior is almost explosive in its violence, and usually not
expected not by field/rig workers. Often, only a small volume of supercritical “liquid” CO2 in the
wellbore is enough to trigger the process, causing the well to blowout in a matter of seconds.
Reaction time is minimal and some equipment, particularly manual BOPs and stab-in safety valves,
cannot be installed and closed fast enough to avoid complete liquid expansion from the well and total
loss of pressure control.
 Several practical procedures can be used to reduce loss of well control (LWC) incidents including
blowouts and to mitigate the adverse effects if one should occur. These include periodic (daily and/or
continuous) monitoring of injection pressures and temperatures (both surface and bottom hole),
annuli pressures, well integrity surveys (both internal and external), improved BOP equipment
maintenance, improved crew awareness and training, contingency response and emergency response
training.
 Failures from CO2-related corrosion can cause loss of well control. In some wells in CO2 floods that
were drilled in the 1940s and 1950s, cumulative corrosion impacts are a problem. It is important to
make older wells equipped with corrosion-resistant tubulars and also wells that have been converted
to CO2 service.
 In two of the case studies during workovers, high-rate CO2 from the well had damaged the ram
packers and damaged the BOP. Also, the blind rams could not be closed as they were frozen in place
and there was ice buildup in the BOP.
 This was an active CO2 injector that was being converted to reservoir pressure monitoring. The well
was killed, injection tubing pulled and the old packer removed. The next day, CO2 flow was coming
out the top of the BOP –it appeared that the pipe rams had failed.
 In another workover on a CO2 injector, pipe rams were closed but failed to seal around a small
diameter stinger run at the bottom of the tubing to clean out the well. The well was killed by bull-
heading brine down the casing.
183
 During development drilling of a CO2 production well in Colorado, the well blew out, and after several
attempts to kill the well with conventional weighted muds failed, the well was killed by the dynamic
kill method. This method proved effective in this case where hydraulic constraints severely limited
weighted-mud injection rates.
 A blowout occurred while repairing a surface casing vent flow on a dual string water and CO2
injection well. ERCB’s analysis concluded that the failure resulted from: (1) top packer failure which
occurred in 2009 during a packer isolation test was not repaired by the operator allowing CO 2 to
enter the wellbore and (2) production casing failure occurred at approximately 60 m from surface. A
combination of factors contributed to the production casing collapse including the heating and
cooling cycles involved with injecting water and CO2 and associated tensile stresses and there was an
indication of some external corrosion at the failure point.
 During a well workover in Gaines County, TX, news reports suggested that the well had a surface
casing rupture and flowback issues and CO2 flow had caused the flowback equipment to be frozen,
that led to the uncontrolled release of CO2 and H2S.
 There was an uncontrolled release at an offset abandoned well during ongoing CO 2 flooding at an
EOR field in Mississippi. The old abandoned well had its casing removed and the 2,000 foot (610 m)
deep hole vented CO2, oil and drilling mud for 37 days. A relief well was drilled and the flow was
stopped.
 In a study of blowouts in Texas (Porse et al, 2014), there were 159 recorded blowouts in the selected
Districts from 1998 to 2011. For District 3 (located in the Texas Gulf Coast with very few CO2 EOR
wells), drilling was the riskiest stage, while in Districts 8 and 8A (located in the Permian Basin with
the largest number of active CO2 EOR wells) workovers had the highest risk.
 Frequency of blowouts in California’s District 4 (includes steam flood wells and produces 75% of
California’s oil production) decreased dramatically during the period 1991 – 2005 and is believed to
be a result of increased experience, improved technology and/or changes in the safety culture in the
oil and gas industry, suggesting that blowout risks can also be lowered in CO2 storage fields.
 The API study that looked at 14 of the 19 LWC incidents (annular flows) that occurred in the U.S.
Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) showed that: (1) Most of the LWC incidents took place during or after
cementing surface casing, (2) In recent years (2003-2004), these events involved deep casing strings
with no occurrence of LWC incidents in surface casing cementing operations, (3) most wells used a
mudline/hanger suspension system, (4) Frequently the annulus between the surface casing and
conductor casings was washed out to a point 30 to 50 feet below mudline after cementing. Washing
out this annulus resulted in a small but possibly very significant reduction in the hydrostatic pressure
while also impairing the operation of the BOP and diverter (wash pipes in the annulus prevents
sealing).
Materials of Construction (Tubulars and Cements) for CO2 Storage Wells
Because of the corrosive effects of carbonic acid H2CO3, on metal components, induced by the alternating
water and gas (WAG) injection cycles during CO2 EOR operation, a significant fraction of scientific and
technical work has been devoted to developing robust solutions to corrosion problems. Supplemental
work has also been done on identifying and developing elastomeric materials for packers and seals that
184
can withstand the solvent effects of supercritical CO2 that induce swelling and degradation. Throughout
this process, the underlying strategy of the industry has been to select materials based on their durability
and corrosion resistance. Today, the material improvements presented in Table 6 of this Report as well
as the special tubing handling and installation techniques enables operators to routinely expect a tubular
service life on the order of 20 to 25 years (Contek/API, 2008).
 Carbon steel casing used in CO2 injection wells can be subject to corrosion when exposed to wet CO 2
and/or associated formation fluids if not properly protected. In CO 2 storage injection wells, CO2 is
usually injected in the supercritical state and the corrosion risk is low. However, the corrosion rate
increases when the injected stream comes into contact with water, with potential water sources such
as connate water, free water in the cement or free water resulting from capillary condensation. After
the injection phase, during the long-term storage phase, the supercritical CO2 can be hydrated with
water present in the reservoir and wet CO2 and the resulting acid brine can lead to potential
degradation of the cement sheath protecting the casing.
 Use of corrosive resistant alloy (CRA) casings/liners etc. in lieu of carbon steel casing provide
enhanced corrosion protection for severe CO2 service but may have the downside of increased costs
and with decreased injection capability. Due to the corrosive and highly solvent characteristics of
supercritical liquid CO2, special attention must be paid to rubber and plastic components such as
packing and sealing elements. An integrated corrosion engineering approach should be utilized to
optimize the life-cycle material and corrosion mitigation costs with the potential to allow well
designs that take advantage of carbon steel tubing in conjunction with CRA liners, with significant
cost savings while overcoming injection capacity limitations.
Recommendations for Cement Systems and Zonal Isolation for CO2 Injection Wells
Extra care and attention has to be paid to the design and execution of cement jobs for both surface,
intermediate and production casings (most regulatory agencies mandate the surface casing to be
cemented back to surface). Cement evaluation tools such as Ultrasonic Imaging Tool (USIT)/Segmented
Bond Tool (SBT)/Isolation Scanner will need to be run to evaluate the quality of the cement bond to the
casing and to the formation, in addition to zonal isolation tests such as FITs (formation integrity tests) to
assure isolation at the casing shoe.
 Based on the available information, the design of the cement slurry may use Portland cement as its
base, provided efforts are taken to reduce the permeability of the set cement, reduce the
concentration of available reactive species and/or protect those reactive species through use of
carefully selected additives. Lower density system should use extenders that will allow permeability
reduction which include flyash systems, additives such as found in the tri-modal systems and specialty
additives that protect the reactive species in Portland cement. The use of silicate extenders or only
bentonite is not recommended.
 Portland cements used in oilfield applications have been found to provide adequate seal and zonal
integrity in several CO2 EOR projects (both continuous CO2 flooding as well as water-alternating-
gas/WAG applications). However, in some projects, it may be required to utilize CO2 resistant and
185
specialty cements to avoid degradation and corrosion impacts resulting from CO 2 injection into deep
saline aquifers.
 Non-Portland systems that are resistant to CO2 are commercially available though do require
additional planning to assure proper design and prevention of contamination during the operations.
These systems are not as readily available as conventional Portland systems, and thus may not be
available in all areas. As noted the decision to use these systems is not trivial and requires
considerable planning for logistics and operations.
Injectivity/Regularity Challenges for CO2 Storage Wells versus CO2 EOR Wells
The regulatory requirements in the U.S. require CO2 storage wells to demonstrate well integrity over a
longer time-frame as compared to a much shorter time frame for CO2 EOR projects (25-40 years). Initial
industry concerns about CO2 injection, especially during the WAG process in terms of controlling the
higher mobility gas: water-blocking, corrosion, production concerns, oil recovery, and loss of injectivity
have been addressed with careful planning and design along with good management practices, except
loss of injectivity, which is a key variable in determining the success of a CO2 project.
 Reservoir quality information is particularly sparse for deep saline aquifers, resulting in large
uncertainties in estimations of injectivity, sweep efficiency and storage capacity. Therefore, it is
critical to develop efficient and cost-effective injection strategies that maximize the injection rate
and volume and decrease the required number of wells.
 Modeling studies and experience from existing operations (i.e., In Salah) have shown that one major
limiting factor for CO2 storage is the injectivity of the injection horizon, which in turn is limited by the
requirement that the maximum permitted bottom hole injection pressure should not exceed the
fracture pressure of the injection formation and of the overlying confining layer above the injection
horizon. This requirement (US EPA and Texas Railroad Commission and other regulatory agencies in
the U.S.) is in place to ensure that the integrity of the sealing cap-rock is not compromised. Options to
be considered to increase injectivity are the use of horizontal wells and hydraulic fracturing
stimulation of the injection zone.
 Numerical models are being successfully applied to adequately capture impacts of reservoir
heterogeneity, multiphase flow behavior and fluid-rock interactions on the pressure distribution in
the subsurface. Still, more data from actual storage projects is needed to history match and verify
model predictions and calibrate the models.
 CO2 injection can alter the mechanical properties of the reservoir rock by inducing chemical
reactions (dissolution and precipitation of minerals), in particular CO2 precipitation in calcite. Calcite
precipitation can threaten the injection by cementing the reservoir around the rock and the related
dissolution of the matrix can lead to the risk of subsidence and fracture. Carbonates are the first
minerals to dissolve and these dissolutions occur very fast.
 A number of CO2 floods have seen higher gas injection relative to pre-water flood injection with some
other projects showing higher CO2 injectivity after successive WAG floods. Simulations indicate that
CO2 injectivity is much higher in reservoirs with crossflow when accounting for phase behavior and
mixing (Chang et al, 1994). Enough CO2 solubility in follow-up brine injection has been reported
186
during WAG cycles to raise unsaturated brine injectivity to three to five times the saturated brine
injectivity. Increased brine injectivity during WAG cycles after the first slug of CO 2 also has been
attributed to the combined effects of heterogeneity, crossflow, oil-viscosity reduction, CO2 sweep, CO2
channeling, compressibility and solubility of CO2 in injected brine near the wellbore (Rogers et al.,
2001).
 Injectivity reduction after CO2 WAG injection has occurred frequently in West Texas, as well in the
Brent formations in the North Sea after hydrocarbon gas injection. Field data from a West Texas field
suggests that reduced injectivity is an in-depth (far-field) phenomenon and not a near wellbore
condition such as skin or high gas saturation around the injector (Rogers et al, 2001).
 Several coupled physical and chemical processes may occur during the injection period depending on
time and location within the reservoir. Far-field regions are facing long-term reaction where flow of
gas and water at a reduced rate may induce near fluid-rock equilibrium. In contrast, near wellbore
regions are subjected mainly to gas a high flow rate where dissolution/precipitation may drastically
increase/decrease injectivity (Cailly et al, 2005).
 Wettability is a complex parameter in injectivity reductions. Gravity forces dominate in water-wet

conditions while viscous fingering is dominant in oil-wet conditions. Low injectivity in the carbonate
reservoirs of West Texas is probably caused by the oil-wet or mixed-wet behavior of the rocks.
 Trapping and bypassing of gas, like wettability, is a complex parameter in injectivity reductions.
Trapped gas creates hysteresis effects and a reduced relative permeability to water, especially in oil-
wet or mixed-wet reservoirs.
 Some experimental observations like the abnormal pressure drop response obtained under a high
injection rate suggest that solid particle displacement can occur leading to severe permeability
impairment.
 Increased scaling problems in West Texas CO2 floods have been reported by several authors. Lower
bottom hole temperature and the presence of sulfate containing water increases gypsum scaling
tendencies and decreases calcite scaling tendencies. Gypsum scaling predominates in the wellbore,
while calcite scale is more likely to occur in low-pressure surface equipment.
 Paraffin problems have been reported in many CO2 EOR fields. Conditions favorable for paraffin
deposition possibly are created when CO2 expands as the reservoir fluids flow through into the
wellbore and up the tubing and annulus. Methods used to handle paraffin deposition include: use of
hot oiling or hot water combined with a paraffin solvent, pumping heavy aromatic solvents
downhole, and mechanical cleanouts. Methods to prevent paraffin deposition include: increase back-
pressure on the wells to keep both CO2 and light-end hydrocarbons in solution, use of down-hole
heaters, and use of crystal modifiers to raise the cloud point.
 Increased asphaltene precipitation has occurred in many CO2 floods, not during primary or water
flood but after CO2 breakthrough. Asphaltenes can plug up plungers, clog wellheads and cause
plugging in tubulars, chokes, surface and production lines, and is most severe during cold weather
and the concentration of CO2 in the oil. Generally, production declines are due to production
equipment problems and not due to deposition in the reservoir. Keeping back-pressure has been
successful in preventing asphaltene deposition.
187
 Permeability impairment due to CO2 that dissolves water with subsequent salting out of NaCl has
been reported around several gas producing wells, especially in high pressure high temperature
(HPHT) wells which are characterized by very high salinity brines with a similar problem reported
for the injection of dry natural gas in saline aquifers during gas storage operations. Precipitation of
salts, mainly halite (NaCl), due to water vaporization, can result in severe injectivity impairment
around injection wells where CO2 is injected in saline aquifers.
 Numerical modeling studies have also shown the potential for well injectivity losses due to halite
impairment in CO2 storage wells (Bacci et al, 2011, Carpita et al, 2006). Studies suggest that a high
CO2 injection rate should allow the injection process to continue with limited impact on injectivity,
even if significant halite precipitation takes place (Carpita et al, 2006).
 Since pressure build-up due to injection in both saline and depleted oil and gas reservoirs is a major
limiting factor for large-scale geological storage, pressure-management strategies will need to be
considered for most CCS projects. The use of water production (pressure relief) wells as proposed for
the Gorgon project is one obvious solution, along with the use of horizontal wells.
 Use of highly deviated and/or horizontal wells have the potential in providing increased injection
capacity for the large anticipated injection volumes, but may pose potential problems as it relates to
proper cementing and zonal isolation and subsequent well intervention activities. Use of swellable
packers (that swell in contact with well fluids) may provide an option.
 Co-injection of water and CO2 has been successful in CO2 EOR and should be directly applicable to CO2
geological storage.
CO2 Storage in Deep Saline Aquifers versus CO2 Storage in Depleted Oil and Gas Reservoirs
As stated earlier, two main types of reservoirs are considered for geological storage of CO2: deep saline
aquifers and depleted oil and gas reservoirs. The former offers a very large potential capacity and more
uniform distribution but with limited characterization of the reservoir engineering and geologic
properties (including the caprock seal). The latter offers smaller overall capacity, but with a reduced risk
due to a better knowledge of the geologic and engineering properties. However, to utilize depleted oil and
gas reservoirs for long-term storage of CO2, the following factors need to be considered:
 CO2 injection can alter mechanical properties of the reservoir rock by inducing chemical reactions.
Precipitation of salts can result in injectivity impairment (Bacci et al, 2011, Hansen et al, 2013 and
Sminchak et al, 2014). Some studies suggest that a high CO2 injection rate should permit the injection
process to continue with limited impact on injectivity even if significant halite precipitation takes
place (See Section 5.3). Additional major factors that influence CO2 well injectivity (Torsaeter et al,
2018) include: fines migration, geomechanical factors (like borehole deformation), chemical/thermal
factors, geological factors and rock heterogeneity (Torsaeter et al, 2018 and Section 5.3).
 During injection, the pore pressure increase induces reservoir expansion. This phenomenon can result
in shear stresses at the reservoir and cap-rock boundary. For anticline reservoirs, large horizontal
stresses can develop at the apex of the structure. In order to avoid this deformation, a preliminary
geomechanical study is required to identify the maximum allowable pressure increase in the dome
and related injection parameters.
188
 Depletion can cause pore collapse in the reservoir, with an associated loss of injectivity and storage
capacity and can weaken the cap-rock and bounding seals/faults and even well completions,
resulting in potential loss of wellbore integrity.
 Oil and gas reservoirs are intersected by many wells, and stricter regulatory requirements may
require operators to re-confirm the quality of zonal isolation, by recompleting or working over wells
that will be exposed to CO2.
 Low reservoir pressure may also mean that injection of CO2 in a dense phase may lead to reservoir
fracturing and strong thermal effects resulting in injectivity and containment problems. Pressures
must be monitored and maintained to prevent formation fracturing and potential loss of
containment. The impacts of thermal cycling must be considered in the casing and cementing design.
 Uncertainty on capacity and injectivity is clearly lower for depleted reservoirs, giving them a net
potential economic advantage, whereas the uncertainty on well containment favors saline
formations, which are intersected by fewer wells.
 High injection pressures combined with low injection fluid temperatures can induce hydraulic
fracturing which can affect the bounding seals (cap-rock and overburden). Depleted reservoirs have
a lower risk from potential fracturing, since re-pressurization can be done up to a pressure that is
lower than or equal to the original reservoir pressure.
 Geomechanical models are required to determine the maximum injection pressure that will not
induce fractures and to determine the in-situ stresses and faults, and fault reactivation hazard. The
fault reactivation hazard induced by in-situ stress changes is affected by factors such as the thickness,
lateral extent and shape of the reservoir, the mechanical properties of the reservoir and the
surrounding formations, and the presence, orientation, and strength of existing faults within or
around the reservoir. Injection wells should be located as far as possible from faults.
 Injection wells should intersect the highest permeability zones of the reservoir with the use of
horizontal wells to be considered as an option for increased injection capacity.
 Well placement should also be based on optimum positioning to sustain injection rate as well as
longer-term CO2 migration taking account of its buoyancy.
CO2 Storage Well Costs (See Section 2.1.10)
Storage costs strongly correlate with injectivity and storage capacity. Given the uncertainty in predicting
the true injectivity, the variations in injectivity parameters have a significant impact on CO2 storage
economics. For a typical coal-fired power plant up to several million tons of CO2 will have to be injected
each year for storage over a period of 30-40 years. Operations at Weyburn and Sleipner are of this order
of magnitude. In the case of CO2 storage in a deep saline aquifer, a major economic objective is to
minimize the number of injection wells. Due to the size of the Utsira aquifer at Sleipner and the high
permeability of the receiving formation, CO2 can be injected at a high rate without major injectivity
problems or significant pressure increase. In less favorable locations, injectivity and injection regularity
may become a crucial technical and economic challenge.
189
Given the uncertainties in predicting reservoir characteristics and properties, there will be a range of
views on injectivity and the economics of CO2 storage operations (number and type of wells etc.).
Therefore, different operators may adopt different approaches in their injection well design strategies,
similar to that in the exploration and production of oil and gas resources.
Existing pilot, demonstration and commercial storage projects have demonstrated that CO2 geological
storage is technically feasible. However, these projects do not collectively operate at a scale that is
necessary to reduce greenhouse gas emissions significantly. The infrastructure (platforms,
separation/treatment facilities, compressors, pipelines, CO2 source, import and distribution facilities etc.)
for injecting CO2 will be an order of magnitude larger than current CO2 EOR installations.
In summary, industry experience, particularly with CO2 EOR wells (both for CO2 continuous injection as
well as for CO2 WAG - water-alternating-gas) shows that new CO2 storage injection wells can be suitably
designed to allow well integrity to be maintained in the long-term, and concerns from long-term cement
degradation and corrosion can be suitably addressed in the design and construction of these wells.
Industry experience also indicates that CO2 storage injection wells can also maintain long-term wellbore
integrity if designed, constructed, operated and monitored as per current state-of-the-art design
specifications and regulatory requirements. Stresses on casing and cement integrity from thermal cycling
should also be adequately addressed in the design stage, as this has been shown to be an important life
cycle well integrity risk criteria, especially in injection wells in the Norwegian sector of the North Sea.
Software such as WELLCATTM is widely used to address the various loads imposed on the tubular and
cements during the lifetime of the well (covers drilling, production – including stimulation/fracturing,
conversion of well application and eventual plugging and abandonment phases). Risks from legacy
wellbores can also be adequately addressed as long as sound engineering practices and compliance with
current and more stringent regulatory requirements are complied with.
190
10.0 REFERENCES
1. ARI - Advanced Resources International, Inc., “Global Technology Roadmap for CCS
in Industry – Sectoral Assessment CO2 Enhanced Oil Recovery”, Prepared for UNIDO,
May 5, 2011
2. Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (AOGCC), “Alaska Gas Storage Wells –
White Paper”, April 21, 2016
3. Albawi, A., “Influence of Thermal Cycling on Cement Sheath Integrity”, NTNU –
Trondheim, June 2013
4. Alberta Energy, “Carbon Capture and Storage – Summary Report of the Regulatory
Framework Assessment”, 2013, www.solutionsstarthere.ca/
5. Alberta Energy Regulator/ERCB Directive 008 – Surface Casing Depth
Requirements, February 29, 2016
6. Alberta Energy Regulator/ERCB Directive 009 – Casing Cementing Minimum
Requirements, July 1990
7. Alberta Energy Regulator/ERCB Directive 020 – Well Abandonment, March 15, 2016
8. Alberta Energy Regulator/ERCB Directive 051: Injection and Disposal Wells – Well
Classifications, Completions, Logging, and Testing Requirements, March 1994
9. Alberta Energy Regulator/ERCB Directive 083: Hydraulic Fracturing – Subsurface
Integrity, May 21, 2013
10. Al Eidan A.A., et al., “Technical Challenges in the Conversion of CO2-EOR Projects to CO2
Storage Projects”, SPE-174575, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, August 11-13, 2015
11. Allis, R., T. Chidsey, W. Gwynn, C. Morgan, S. White, M. Adams, J. Moore, “Natural
CO2 Reservoirs of the Colorado Plateau and Southern Rocky Mountains”
12. Almeida, A.S., et al, “CCGS opportunities in the Santos basin pre-salt
development”, SPE 126566, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, April 12-14, 2010
13. Anderson, S. T., “Risk, Liability, and Economic Issues with Long-Term CO2 Storage
– A Review”, Natural Resources Research, Vol. 26, No. 1, January 2017
14. API/AGA/INGAA, “Underground Natural Gas Storage – Integrity and Safe
Operations”, July 6, 2016,http://www.energyinfrastructure.org/energy-
101/natural-gas-storage
15. Asian Development Bank, “Prospects for Carbon Capture and Storage in
Southeast Asia”, September 2013
16. ASM International edition, “Corrosion in the Petrochemical Industry”, 1994
17. Associated Press, Jeff Amy, “Denbury pays big fine for 2011 oil well blowout”, July
25, 2013
18. Awan, A.R., R. Teigland and J. Kleppe, “A survey of North Sea enhanced oil
recovery projects initiated during the years 1975 to 2005”, SPE Reservoir
Evaluation and Engineering, Vol 11, 2008
191
19. Bacci, G., Korre, A., Durucan, S., “Experimental investigation into salt precipitation
during CO2 injection in saline aquifers”, GHGT-10, Energy Procedia 4(2011)
20. Bachu, S., and D. B. Bennion., “Experimental assessment of brine and/or CO2
leakage through well cements at reservoir conditions”, IJGGC, Vol 3, Issue 4, 2009
21. Bachu, S., and T.L. Watson, “Review of failures for wells used for CO2 and acid gas
injection in Alberta, Canada”, in Elsevier Energy Procedia 1(2009) 3531-3537,
GHGT-9
22. Bachu, S., S.E. Dashtgard, M. Pooladi-Darvish, S. Theys, R. Stocker, “Analysis of
acid gas injection in the Long Coulee Glauconaite F Pool, Alberta Geological
Survey/Alberta Energy and Utiilities Board, 2007b
23. Bachu, S., S.E. Dashtgard, M. Pooladi-Darvish, S. Theys, and R. Stocker, “Analysis of
the effects of acid gas injection in the Retlaw Mannvile Y pool, Alberta Geological
Survey Report/Alberta Energy and Utilities Board, 2008
24. Baklid, A., Korbol, R. and Owren, G., “Sleipner Vest CO2 Disposal, CO2 injection into
a Shallow Underground Aquifer”, SPE 36600, Denver, U.S.A., 1996
25. Baret, F., Garnier, A., Rashad, B., “High Performance Water Reduced Cement
Slurries Prepared With Low Cost Optimized Blend”, SPE 35088 presented at
SPE/IADC Drilling Conference, New Orleans, LA, March 12-15, 1996
26. Barlet-Gouedard, V., et al., “A solution against well cement degradation under CO2
geological storage environment”, International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control,
Vol 3, 2009, Issue 2
27. Barlet-Gouédard, V., Rimmelé, G., Goffé, B. and Porcherie, O., “Mitigation
strategies for the risk of CO2 migration through wellbores,” IADC/SPE 98924,
presented at the 2006 IADC/SPE Drilling Conference, Miami, Florida, February 21 -
23, 2006
28. Barlet-Gouedard, V., Rimmele, G., Goffe, B. And Porcherie, O., “Well Technologies
for CO2 Geological Storage: CO2-Resistant Cement,” Oil & Gas Science and
Technology, Vol. 62, No. 3, pp. 325-334, 2007
29. Battelle, “Combining CO2 Enhanced Oil Recovery with Permanent Storage in
Mexico”, World Bank Selection No. 1158524, June 10, 2016
30. Bellarby, J., “Well Completion Design”, Elsevier, 2009
31. Benedictus, T., “Well Abandonment Practices”, IEA GHG Wellbore Integrity
Network Meeting, Calgary, Canada, May 13, 2009
32. Benge, G., and Dew, E., “Cement Designs for High-Rate Acid Gas Injection Wells”,
IPTC 10608, Doha, Qatar, November 21-23, 2005
33. Benge, G., and Dew, E., “Meeting the Challenges in Completion Liner Design and
Execution for Two High-Rate Acid_Gas Injection Wells”, SPE/IADC 91861, SPE
Drilling and Completion, September 2006
34. Benge, G., “Improving wellbore seal integrity in CO2 Injection Wells” in Elsevier,
Energy Procedia 1 (2009)
192
35. Benge, G., “Cement Evaluation – A Risky Buisness”, SPE-170712, SPE Drilling and
Completion, January 2016, Vol 30 Issue 4
36. Bennion, D.B., F.B. Thomas, W. Bennion and R.F. Bietz, “Formation screening to
minimize permeability impairment associated with acid-gas or sour gas
injection/disposal”, CIMM, 47th Annual Meeting, Calgary, Canada, June 10-12, 1996
37. Bigelow, E.L., E.J. Domangue, R.A. Lester, “A New and Innovative Technology for
Cement Evaluation”, SPE Conference, New Orleans, LA, September 23-26, 1990
38. Bett, E. K., “Geothermal Well Cementing, Materials and Placement Methods Used”,
United Nations Geothermal Training Programme, Report No. 10, 2010
39. Bissell, R.C., D.W. Vasco, M. Atbi, M. Hamdani, M. Okwelegbe, M.H. Goldwater, “A
Full Field Simulation of the In Salah Gas Production and CO2 Storage Project Using a
Coupled Geo-mechanical and Thermal Fluid Flow Simulator”, Energy Procedia 4
(2011) 3290-3297, GHGHT -10
40. Boait, F., A. JafarGandomi, G. Johnson., “Measurement, Monitoring and
Verification: Enhanced Oil Recovery and Carbon Dioxide Storage”, Scottish Carbon
Capture and Storage, March 6, 2015, www.sccs.org.uk
41. Boone, S.A. III, “CO2 and H2S Safety Regulations and Recommended Practices”,
Southwestern Petroleum Association Short Course, Lubbock, TX, April 23-25, 1985
42. Bourgoyne, A.T., M.E. Chenevert, K.K. Millheim, F.S. Young Jr., “Applied Drilling
Engineering”, SPE Textbook Series Volume 2, 1991
43. Bowser, P.D., J. D. Corey, C.D.K. Darr and D.A. Caro, “Innovative Techniques for
Converting Old Waterflood Injectors to State-of-the-Art Injectors”, SPE-18976,
Denver, CO, March 6-8, 1989
44. Bradley, D.A. and Y.P. Chia, “Evaluation of Reservoir Compaction and its Effects on
Casing Behavior”, SPE 14985, SPE Production Engineering, Vol 4 Issue 2, May 1989
45. Bradley, P., “How the HSE regulates the oil and gas industry offshore”, Health and
Safety Executive, UK, 010417
46. Brosse, E. and Magnier, C. “Trapping of CO2 in Aquifers and Petroleum
Reservoirs”, (in French), AAPG Poster, Houston, TX, 2002 (in Cailly et al, 2005)
47. Bruno, M.S., et al, “Geomechanical analysis of pressure limits for gas storage
reservoirs”, Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci., Vol 35, 1998
48. Busch, A., et al., “The Significance of Caprock Sealing Integrity for CO2 Storage”,
SPE, 2010.
49. Cailly, B., P. Le Thiez, P. Eggermann, A., Audibert, S. Vidal-Gilbert, X. Longaygue,
“Geological Storage of CO2: A State-of-the-Art of Injection Processes and
Technologies”, Oil and Gas Science and Technology – Rev. IFP, Vol. 60 (2005), No.3
50. Campos, N.de A., Faria, M. J. da S., Cruz, R.O. de M. et al, “Lula Alto – Strategy and
Execution of a Megaproject in Deep Water Santos Basin Pre-Salt”, OTC-28164-MS,
Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, October 24-26, 2017
193
51. Canitron, 2008. Alloy Squeeze Technology, A New Method for Casing Repair and
Vent Gas Flow Shut Off, 17th March 2008 (in Nygaard – WASP, 2010)
52. Cardoso, SSS and Andres, JTH, “Geochemistry of silicate-rich rocks can curtail
spreading of carbon dioxide in subsurface aquifers”, Nature Communications 5,
article 5743 (December 11, 2014)
53. Carey, J. W., R. Svec, R. Grigg, J. Zhang, W. Crow, “Experimental investigation of
wellbore integrity and CO2-brine flow along the casing-cement microannulus”, IJGGC
Vol 4, Issue 2, 2010
54. Carey, J.W., “Wellbore Integrity and CO2 Sequestration”, Los Alamos National
Laboratory, NM
55. Carey, J.W, et al., “Analysis and performance of oil well cement with 30 years of
CO2 exposure from the SACROC unit, West Texas, USA,” 8th International Conference
on Greenhouse Control Technologies, Trondheim, Norway, 19-22 June 2006.
56. Carey, J. W. et al., “Geomechanical Behavior of Caprock and Cement: Plasticity in
Hydrodynamic Seals,” Energy Procedia 63 (2014) 5671-5679.
57. Carey, J. W. and S. Bachu., “Wellbore Integrity Network”, IEAGHG Joint Meeting,
Santa Fe, NM, June 18-20, 2012, LA-UR-12-22410
58. Carlsen, M., Abdollahi, j., “Permanent abandonment of CO2 storage wells”, SINTEF
Report 54523200
59. Carpita, M., Giorgis, T., Battistelli, A., “Modeling CO2 injection with halite
evaporation using an extended Verma & Pruess porosity-permeability model”,
Proceedings TOUGH Symposium, Berkeley, CA, May 15-17, 2006
60. Carroll, S., J.W. Carey, D. Dzombak, N. J. Huerta., Li Li, T. Richard, W. Um, S.D.C.
Walsh and L. Zhang, “Review: Role of chemistry, mechanics and transport on well
integrity in CO2 storage environments”, International Journal of Greenhouse Gas
Control 49 (2016) 149-160
61. Carruthers, D.J., “Modeling of secondary petroleum migration using invasion
percolation techniques”, in Multidimensional basin modeling, AAPG/Datapages
Discovery Series No. 7, 2003
62. CATO-2, “Monitoring Strategies for Inaccessible/Abandoned Wells”, CATO2-
WP3.4-D17, 2013.10.18
63. CATO-2, “Specifications and design criteria for innovative corrosion monitoring
and (downhole) sensor systems, including sensitivity analysis”, CATO-2 WP3.4-D16,
2013.12.19
64. Cavanagh, A.J. and R.S. Haszeldine, “A calibrated model for the first decade of the
Sleipner CO2 plume development:, AAPG/SEG/SPE Hedberg Conference, Vancouver,
BC, August 16-19, 2009
65. Cavanagh, A.J. and P. Ringrose, “Simulation of CO2 distribution at the In Salah
storage site using high-resolution field scale models”, AAPG/SEG/SPE Hedberg
Conference, Vancouver, BC, August 16-19, 2009
194
66. CCS Brochure, Halliburton, 2009
67. Celia, M.A., S. Bachu, J.M. Nordbotten, S. Gasda, H.K. Dahle, “Quantitative
estimation of CO2 leakage from geological storage: Analytical models, numerical
models, and data needs”, in Proceedings of 7th International Conference on
Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies. Vol. 1: Peer Reviewed Papers and Plenary
Presentations, IEA GHG Programmed, Cheltenham, UK
68. Chadwick, A. and O. Eiken, Geological Storage of Carbon Dioxide (CO2) –
Geoscience, technologies, environmental aspects and legal frameworks. Ed Jon
Gluyas and Simon Mathias. “Chapter 10: Offshore CO2 Storage: Sleipner natural gas
field beneath the North Sea” 2013.
69. Chang, Y-B., et al., “CO2 Flow Patterns Under Multiphase Flow: Heterogeneous
Field-Scale Conditions”, SPERE, August 1994
70. Charara, I. and D. Nguyen Minh, “Mechanical effects of pressure and temperature
variations on annular cement in oil wells”, Rock Mechanics, 1992 Balkema,
Rotterdam, iSBN 90 5410 045 1
71. Christensen, J.R., E.H. Stenby, and A. Skauge, “Review of WAG field experience”,
SPE Reservoir Evaluation and Engineering, Vol 4, 2001
72. CHEMIX Company Bulletin,2016 www.chemix solutions.com
73. Choi, J-W, et al, “Numerical modeling of CO2 injection into a typical U.S. Gulf Coast
anticline structure”, Energy Procedia, 4 (2011) GHGT-10
74. Choi, Y-S, D. Young, S. Nesic, L. G. S. Gray, “Wellbore integrity and corrosion of
carbon steel in CO2 geologic environments: A literature review”, IJGGC Vol 16S, 2013
75. Collier, T.S., “State-of-the-Art Installation of CO2 Injection Equipment: A Case
Study”, SPE-17294, March 10-11, 1988
76. CO2 Enhanced Oil Recovery, Institute for 21st Century Energy/U.S. Chamber of
Commerce, www.energyxxi.org
77. CO2 Storage Atlas Norwegian North Sea, 2011
78. CO2 Storage Resources Management System, Society of Petroleum Engineers,
November 2017
79. Connell, L., D. Down, M. Lu, D. Hay, D. Heryanto, “An investigation into the
integrity of wellbore cement in CO2 storage wells: Core flooding experiments and
simulations”, IJGGC Vol 37, 2015
80. Connell, L., D. Heryanto, N. Lupton, “Integrity of Wellbore Cement in CO2 Storage
Wells: State of the Art Review”, ANLEC Project 3-1110-0084, May 28, 2012
81. Connolly, S., L. Cusco., “Hazards from High Pressure Carbon Dioxide Releases
during Carbon Dioxide Sequestration Processes”, IChemE: Symposium Series No.
153, 2007
82. Contek Solutions/API, “Summary of Carbon Dioxide Enhanced Oil Recovery
(CO2EOR) Injection Well Technology”, API Background Report, 2008
195
83. Cooper, J., “Wellbore Integrity ---- Say What??” Energy Procedia 1 (2009) 3617-
3624,
84. GHGT-9
85. Cooper, C., “A technical basis for carbon dioxide storage: CO2 Capture Project”, UK
CPL Press, 2009
86. Cox, W.B., “An Analysis of CO2 Injection at Citronelle Oil Field”, MS Thesis,
University of Alabama, 2013
87. Crow, W., “Studies on wellbore integrity”, Proc. 2nd Wellbore Integrity Network
Meeting, Princeton, NJ, March 28-29, 2006
88. Crow, W., J. W. Carey, S. Gasda, D. B. Williams, M. Celia, “Welbore integrity
analysis of a natural CO2 producer”, IJGGC Vol 4, Issue 2, 2010
89. Dashtgard, S. E., M.B.E. Buschkuehle, B. Fairgrieve, and H. Berhane, “Geological
characterization and potential for carbon dioxide (CO2) enhanced oil recovery in the
Cardium Formation, central Pembina Field, Alberta: Bulletin of Canadian Petroleum
Geology, Vol. 56, 2008
90. DOE National Laboratories Well Integrity Workshop, “Well Integrity for Natural
Gas Storage in Depleted Reservoirs and Aquifers”, September 2, 2016
91. DOE/NETL, “Carbon Dioxide Enhanced Oil Recovery Primer”, 2017
92. Denbury Rocky Mountain Activity Update, July 2013
93. Dollens, K. B., J. C. Shoumaker, B. W. Wylie, P. Rice, O. Johannessen, “The
Evaluation of Two Different Methods of Obtaining Injection Profiles in CO2 WAG
Horizontal Injection Wells”, SPE-37470, Oklahoma City, OK, March 9-11, 1997
94. D’Souza, D.F. and Barnes, M., “Willard CO2 Flood-Well Site Automation System”,
Southwestern Petroleum Association Short Course, Lubbock, TX, April 19-20, 1995
95. Duguid, A., Radonjic, M. and Scherer, G., “The effect of carbonated brine on the
interface between well cement and geologic formations under diffusion-controlled
conditions,” 8th International conference on Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies,
Trondheim, Norway, June 19-22, 2006.
96. Duguid, A., Radonjic, M. and Scherer, G. W., “Degradation of cement at the
reservoir/cement interface from exposure to carbonated brine”, IJGGC Vol 5, Issue 6,
2011
97. Duguid, A., G. W. Scherer, “Degradation of oil well cement due to exposure of
carbonated brine”, IJGGC Vol 4, Issue 3, 2010
98. Duguid, A., J. W. Carey., R. Butsch., “Well integrity assessment of a 68 year old well
at a CO2 injection project”, Energy Procedia 63 (2014) 5691-5706, GHGT-12
99. Duncan, I.J., Nicot J.P., Choi, J.W., “Risk Assessment for future CO2 Sequestration
Projects Based CO2 Enhanced Oil Recovery in the U.S.”, GCCC Digital Publication
Series # 08-03i (GHGT-9), November 16-20, 2008
100. Dusseault, M.B., M.S. Bruno and J. Barrera, “Casing shear; causes, cases, cures”,
SPE Drilling and Completions, 2001
196
101. Eferemo, O.F., “Experimental Investigation on Mitigating the Effect of CO2 Gas
Kick on Water Based Drilling Fluid Properties Using Local Additives”, Thesis, School
of Petroleum Engineering, Covenant University, Ota, Ogun State, June 1983
102. Elmabrouk, S. Kh., H.E. Bader, W.M. Mahmud, “An Overview of Power Plant CCS
and CO2-EOR Projects”, International Conference on Industrial Engineering and
Operations Management, Rabat, Morocco, April 11-13, 2017
103. Engelke, B., C.R. de Miranda, F. Daou, D. Petersen, S.A. Aponte, F. Oliveira, L.M.
Sarcos Ocando, A.C.F. Conceicao, D. Guillot, “CO2 Self-Healing and Resistant Cement
Technology from Laboratory to the Field”, SPE 184641, The Hague, The
Netherlands, March 14-16, 2017
104. ERCB Investigation Report, August 24, 2011, “Penn West Petroleum Ltd. Well
Blowout, August 17, 2010)
105. ERM, “Best Practice in Transitioning from CO2 EOR to CO2 Storage”, Report for
CCP4 Policies and Incentives Working Group, March 30, 2016, www.erm.com
106. Falcon-Suarez, I., H. Moreno, F. Browning, A. Lichtschlag, K. Robert, L.J. North
and A.I. Best., “Experimental assessment of pore fluid distribution in saline
sandstone reservoirs during and after CO2 injection”, International Journal of
Greenhouse Gas Control 63 (2017) 356-369
107. Fertl, W.H., P.E. Pilkington, J.B. Scott, “A look at Cement Bond Logs”, JPT, Vol 25,
Issue 6, 1974
108. Fitzgerald, D.D., “Guidelines for 90% Accuracy in Zone-Isolation Decisions”, SPE
12141, JPT, Vol 37 Issue 11, 1985
109. Fleming, E.A., Brown, L.M., and Cook, R.L., “Overview of Production Engineering
Aspects of Operating the Denver Unit CO2 Flood”, SPE/DOE Enhanced Oil Recovery
Symposium, Tulsa, OK, April 22-24, 1992
110. Folger, L.K., S.N. Guillot, “A Case Study of the Development of the Sundown
Slaughter unit CO2 Flood Hockley, Texas”, SPE-35189, SPE Permian Basin
Conference, March 27-29, 1996
111. Furre, A.K., O. Eiken, H. Alnes, J.N. Vevatne, A. F. Kiaer, “20 years of monitoring
CO2- injection at Sleipner”, Energy Procedia 114 (2017) 3916-3926
112. Galic, H., S. Cawley., S. Bishop., “CO2 injection into Depleted Gas Reservoirs”, SPE
123788, SPE Offshore Conference, Aberdeen, UK, September 8-11, 2009
113. GAO-14-555, “Drinking Water – U.S.EPA Program to Protect Underground
Sources from Injection of Fluids Associated with Oil and Gas Production Needs
Improvement”, June 2014
114. Giang The Ha et al, “Design & Implementation of CO2 Huff-n-Puff Operation in a
Vietnam Offshore Field”, SPE-161835, Abu Dhabi, UAE, November 11-14, 2012
115. Global CCS Institute, “Bridging the Gap: An Analysis and Comparison of Legal
and Regulatory Frameworks for CO2-EOR and CO2 – CCS”, October 2013
197
116. Global CCS Institute, “Technical Aspects of CO2 Enhanced Oil Recovery and
Associated Carbon Storage”, October 2013
117. Godec, M.L., “From CO2-EOR to CCS: Prospects and Challenges of Combining
CO2-EOR with Storage”, IEA-OPEC CO2-EOR Workshop, Kuwait City, February 7-8,
2012
118. Goodyear, S.G., M.P. Koster, K. A. Mariott, A. Paterson, A. W. Sipkema, I.M. Young,
“Moving CO2 EOR Offshore”, SPE 144939, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, July 19-21, 2011
119. Grigg, R.B. and D.S. Schecter, “State of the Industry CO2 Floods”, SPE-38849, San
Antonio, TX, October 5-8, 1997
120. Gray, K.E., E. Podnos and E. Becker, “Finite element studies of near-wellbore
region during cementing operations: Part I, SPE 106998, Oklahoma City, OK, March
31 – April 2, 2007
121. Grosmangin, M., F. Kokesh, P. Majani, “The Cement Bond Log – A Sonic Method
for Analyzing the Quality of Cementation of Borehole Casings”, SPE 1512-G, Dallas,
TX, 1960
122. GWPC/IOGCC, “Underground Gas Storage Regulatory Considerations: A Guide
for State and Federal Regulatory Agencies”, May 2017
123. Haagsma, A., S. Weber, M. Moody, J. Sminchak, J. Gerst and N. Gupta.,
“Comparative Wellbore Integrity Evaluation across a complex of Oil and Gas Fields
within the Michigan Basin and Implications for CO2 Storage”, Battelle, 2015
124. Hadlow, R.E., “Update of Industry Experience with CO2 Injection”, SPE-24928,
Washington D.C., October 4-7, 1992
125. Halliburton, Thermalock Cement for Corrosive CO2 Environments (1999)
www.halliburton.com
126. Halliburton, Deepwater Challenges, 2013
127. Han, J., Zhang, J., Carey, J. W., “Effect of bicarbonate on corrosion of steel in CO2
saturated brines” IJGGC Vol 5, Issue 6, 2011
128. Han, J., Carey, W. and Zhang, J., “Degradation of Cement-steel Composite at
Bonded Steel-cement Interfaces in Supercritical CO2 Saturated Brines Simulating
Wellbore Systems,” C2012-0001075, NACE Corrosion Conference & Expo, 2012.
129. Han, J., Carey, W. and Zhang, J., “A coupled electrochemical-geochemical model
of corrosion for mild steel in high-pressure CO2-saline environments”, IJGGC Vol 5,
Issue 4, 2011
130. Hansen, O. et al, “Snøhvit: the history of injecting and storing 1 Mt CO2 in the
fluvial Tauben Fm., Energy Procedia 37, 2013
131. Harding, F. C., A. T. James, H. E. Robertson, “The engineering challenges of CO2
storage”, Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part A: Journal of
Power and Energy, February 9, 2018
198
132. Hassani, S., Vu, T.N., Rosli, N. R., Esmaeely, S. N., Choi, Y-S, Young, D, S. Nesic,
“Wellbore integrity and corrosion of low alloy and stainless steels in high pressure
CO2 geologic storage environments: An experimental study”, IJGGC Vol 23, 2014
133. Hayashi, M.Y., Brazilian Pre-Salt Update, Petrobras, May 2015
134. Hendricks, K., “Experiences in the Salt Creek Field CO2 Flood”, 5th Annual
Wellbore Integrity Network, Calgary, Alberta, May 13-14, 2009
135. Hesjevik et al, “Corrosion at high CO2 Pressure”, Statoil and Institute for Energy
Technology in NACE International No. 03345
136. Hitchon, B. Ed. “Best Practices for Validating CO2 Geological Storage:
Observations and Guidance from the IEAGHG Weyburn-Midale CO2 Monitoring and
Storage Project”, Geoscience Publishing. Sherwood Park, Alberta, Canada, 2012
137. Holtz, M.H., P.K. Nance, R.J. Finley, “Reduction of Greenhouse Gas Emissions
through Underground CO2 Sequestration in Texas Oil and Gas Reservoirs”, Bureau of
Economic Geology, Austin, TX, 1999
138. Hosa, A., M. Esentia, J. Stewart, S. Haszeldine., “Injection of CO2 into saline
formations: Benchmarking worldwide projects”, Chemical Engineering Research
and Design 89 (2011) 1855-1864, www.elsevier.com/locate/cherd
139. Hossain, M.M., M.M. Amro., “Drilling and Completion Challenges and Remedies
of CO2 Injected Wells with Emphasis to Mitigate Well Integrity Issues”, SPE 133830,
Brisbane, Australia, October 18-20, 2010
140. Hosseini, S.A., et al, “Analysis of CO2 storage mechanisms at a CO2 EOR site,
Cranfield, Mississippi”, https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ghg.1754
141. Hovarka, S.D. et al, “Monitoring a large volume CO2 injection: Year two results
from SECARB project at Denbury’s Cranfield, Mississippi, USA”, Energy Procedia 4
(2011), GHGT-10
142. HSE UK, “Failure rates for underground gas storage”, Research Report RR671,
2008
143. Huang, T., et al., “CO2 flooding strategy to enhance heavy oil recovery’,
www.keaipublishing.com/en/journals/petlm, Petroleum 3 (2017), ScienceDirect
144. Huerta, N.J., B. R. Strazisar, S. L. Bryant, M.A. Hesse, “Time-dependent fluid
migration from a storage formation via leaky wells”, Energy Procedia 63 (2014)
5724-5736, GHGT-12
145. Huerta, N.J., M. A. Hesse, S. L. Bryant, B.R. Strazisar, C. Lopano, “Reactive
transport of CO2 saturated water in a cement fracture: Application to wellbore
leakage during geologic CO2 storage”, IJGGC
146. Huet, B. M., J. H. Prevost, G. Scherer, “Quantitative reactive transport modelling
of Portland cement in CO2-saturated water”, IJGGC, Vol 4, Issue 3, 2010
147. Hughes, D.S., “Offshore CO2 EOR as part of a National CCS Program:
Opportunities and Challenges”, SPE Distinguished Lecturer Program, 2014-2015
www.spe.org/dl
199
148. Ide, S.T., S.J. Friedmann and H.H. Herzog., “CO2 leakage through existing wells:
current technology and regulations”, GHGT8
149. IEAGHG Wellbore Integrity Workshop, Houston, TX, April 4-5, 2005
150. IEAGHG 5th Wellbore Integrity Workshop, Report No. 2009/04, June 2009
151. IEAGHG Technical Study Report No. 2009/08, “Long Term Integrity of CO2
Storage – Well Abandonment”, November 2009
152. IEAGHG Report:2010/04, “Injection Strategies for CO2 Storage Sites”, June 2010
153. IEAGHG Report, “A Review of Natural CO2 Occurrences and Releases and Their
Relevance to CO2 Storage”, Report Number 2005.8, September 2005
154. IEAGHG, “International Workshop on Offshore Geologic CO2 Storage”, Report:
2016/TR2, May 2016
155. IEAGHG Annual Report 2015 (April 2016)
156. IEAGHG, “Evaluation of Barriers to National CO2 Geological Storage
Assessments”, Report: 2016/TR1, February 2016
157. IEAGHG 2016-13 Fault Permeability
158. IOGP, “Standards and guidelines for well construction and well operations”,
Report 485, June 2016
159. IPCC, 2005: IPCC Special Report on Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage, by
Working Group III, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K. and New York,
U.S.A.
160. Iyer, J., S.D.C. Walsh, Y. Hao, S.A. Carroll, “Incorporating reaction-rate
dependence in reaction-front models of wellbore-cement/carbonated-brine
systems, International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 59 (2017) 160-171
161. Jacquemet, N., Pironon, J. and Caroli, E., “A new experimental procedure for
simulation of H2S + CO2 geological storage - Application to well cement aging,” Oil
Gas Sci. Technol., 60, 93-206, 2005
162. Jenvey, N., “Combining Offshore EOR and CCS in Denmark”, IEA Symposium on
EOR, Aberdeen, UK, October 20, 2010
163. Jarrell, P.M., C. E. Fox, M. H. Stein, S. L. Webb, “Practical Aspects of CO2 Flooding”,
SPE Monograph Volume 22, 2002
164. Jarrell, P.M. and Stein, M.H., “Maximizing Injection in Wells Recently Converted
to Injection Using Hearn and Hall Plots”, SPE 21724, Oklahoma City, OK, April 7-9,
1991
165. Jaske, C., J. Beavers, Thompson, N., “Improving Plant Reliability Through
Corrosion Monitoring”, 4th International Conference on Process Plant Reliability,
Houston, TX, 1995
166. Johns J.E., C.G. Blount, J.C. Dethlefs, J.Y. Julian and M.J. Loveland, “Applied
Ultrasonic Technology in Wellbore Leak Detection and Case Histories in Alaska
North Slope Wells”, SPE 102815, San Antonio, TX, September 24-27, 2006
200
167. Jordan, P.D., S.M. Benson, “Well Blowout Rates and Consequences in California
Oil and Gas District 4 from 1991 to 2005: Implications for Geological Storage of
Carbon Dioxide”, Environmental Geology
168. Journal of Petroleum Technology, “More Carbon Dioxide Means More Oil – But
Building On That Can Get Complicated”, February 2014
169. Kang, P.S., J.S. Lim and C. Huh., “Screening Criteria and Considerations for
Offshore Enhanced Oil Recovery”, Energies, January 14, 2016,
www.mdpi.com/journal/energies
170. Karas, D., I. Demic, K.Kultysheva, A. Antropov, M. Blagojevic, F. Neele, M.
Pluymaekers, B. Orlic., “First field example of remediation of unwanted migration
from a natural CO2 reservoir: the Beĉej field, Serbia”, Energy Procedia 86 (2016) 69-
78
171. Kelkar, S, et al., “Integrity of pre-existing wellbores in geological sequestration
of CO2 – assessment using a coupled geomechanics-fluid flow model,” Energy
Procedia 63 (2014) 5737-5748.
172. Khodaverdian, M. et al., “Injectivity and Fracturing in Unconsolidated Sand
Reservoirs: Waterflooding Case Study”, American Rock Mechanics Association,
Offshore Nigeria, 2010.
173. Kokal, S., M. Sanni, A. Alhashboul, “Design and Implementation of the first CO2-
EOR Demonstration Project in Saudi Arabia”, SPE 181729, Dubai, UAE, September
26-28, 2016
174. Konishi, Y. et al, “Fluid Saturation Monitoring by Cased Hole Logging for CO2
Huff-n-Puff Test in a Vietnam Offshore Field”, SPE-165236, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia,
July 204, 2013
175. Kumar, J., E. Draoui, S. Takahashi, “Design of CO2 Injection Pilot in Offshore
Middle East Carbonate Reservoir”, SPE – 179832, SPE EOR Conference, Muscat,
Oman, March 21-23, 2016
176. Kutchko, B., et al, “H2S-CO2 reaction with hydrated Class H well cement: Acid gas
injection and CO2 geo-sequestration”, IJGGC Vol 5, Issue 4, 2011
177. Kutchko, B., Strazisar, B., Dzombak, D., Lowry, G. and Thaulow, N., “Degradation
of Wellbore cements: Results of Long-Term Experiments and Effect of Additives,”
IEAGHG Wellbore Integrity Network Meeting, March 2007.
178. Kutchko, B., Strazisar, B., Dzombak, D., Lowry, G. and Thaulow, N., “Degradation
of Wellbore cements under Geologic Sequestration Conditions,” Environ. Sci.
Technology, Vol 41, 4787-4792, 2007.
179. Kuuskra, V., M. Wallace, “CO2-EOR set for growth as new CO2 supplies emerge”,
Oil & Gas Journal, April 7, 2014
180. Kuuskra, V.M., T. Malone, “CO2 Enhanced Oil Recovery for Offshore Reservoirs”,
OTC-27218, Houston, Texas, May 2-5, 2016
201
181. Larson, R.G., L.E. Scriven, and H.T. Davis, “Percolation theory of two phase flow
in porous media”, Chem. Eng. Science, 36, 1981
182. Laumb et al., “Wellbore corrosion and failure assessment for CO2 EOR and
storage: Two case studies in the Weyburn Field”, IJGGC Vol 54, 2016
183. Layman, E.B., “Geothermal Projects in Turkey: Extreme Greenhouse Gas
Emission Rates Comparable to or Exceeding Those from Coal_Fired Plants”,
Workshop on Geothermal Reservoir Engineering, Stanford, California, February 13-
15, 2017
184. Lecampion, B., A. Bunger, J. Kear, D. Quesada, “Interface debonding driven by
fluid injection in a cased and cemented wellbore: Modeling and experiments”, IJGGC
Vol 18, 2013
185. Le Roy-Delage, S., Baumgarte, C., Thicerlin, M., and Vidick, B., “New Cement
Systems for Durable Zonal Isolation,” paper SPE 59132, presented at the 2000
IADC/SPE Drilling Conference, New Orleans, LA, 23-25 February.
186. Lescinsky, D.T., A.A. Gutierrez., J. C. Hunter., J.W. Gutierrez and R.E. Bentley,
“Chapter I - Acid Gas Injection in the Permian and San Juan Basins: Recent Case
Studies from New Mexico”, August 31, 2010
187. Lester, R.A., “The Segmented Bond Tool: A Pad Type Cement Bond Device”,
Canadian Well Logging Society Symposium, Calgary, Alberta, September 26-28,
1989
188. Linn, L.R., “CO2 Injection and Production Field Facilities Design Evaluation
Considerations”, SPE-16830, September 27-30, 1987
189. Loizzo, M. et al., “Reusing O&G-Depleted Reservoirs for CO2 Storage: Pros and
Cons”, SPE-124317, September 2010
190. Loizzo, M. et al., “Quantifying the Risk of CO2 Leakage Through Wellbores”, SPE-
139635, September 2011
191. Luquot, L., H. Abdoulghafour, P. Gouze, “Hydro-dynamically controlled
alteration of fractured cements flowed by CO2-rich brine”, IJGGC Vol 16, 2013
192. Lynch R.D., E.J. McBride, T.K. Perkins, M.E. Wiley, “Dynamic Kill of an
Uncontrolled CO2 Well”, SPE 11378, New Orleans, LA, February 20-23, 1983
193. Malik, Z., Charfeddine, M., Moore, S., Francia, L., P. Denby, “The Supergiant
Kashagan Field: Making a Sweet Development Out of Sour Crude”, IPTC 10636,
Doha, Qatar, November 21-23, 2005
194. Manceau, J. C. Et al., “1:1 scale wellbore experiment and associated modeling for
a better understanding of well integrity in the context of CO2 geological storage,”
Greenhouse Gas Technology Conference-12, 2014.
195. Markiewicz, J.D., J.R. Sminchak, M.A. Moody., “Case Study on Wellbore Integrity
for Two Fields with Wells Exposed to CO2 in the Subsurface in the Midwest U.S.”,
SPE-187528, Lexington, KY, October 4-6, 2017
202
196. Martin, T.G., S.N. Smith, J. Bondos, “Materials and Corrosion History with
Labarge Madison Production: A 20 Year Story of Success”, Paper No. 08634, NACE
Corrosion 2008 Conference
197. Mathiassen, O.M., “CO2 as Injection Gas for Enhanced Oil Recovery and
Estimation of the Potential on the Norwegian Continental Shelf”, Norwegian
Institute of Science and Technology, May 2003
198. Matteo, E. N., G. W. Scherer, “Experimental study of the diffusion-controlled acid
degradation of Class H Portland cement”, IJGGC Vol 7, 2012
199. Melzer, L. S., “Carbon Dioxide Enhanced Oil Recovery (CO2 EOR): Factors
Involved in Adding Carbon Capture, Utilization and Storage (CCUS) to Enhanced Oil
Recovery”. February 2012
200. Metzger, F.W. and E. Dereniewski, “Renewal of a Historic North American
Storage Complex – Six Lakes Field”.
201. Mendes, R.A., Costa, A.M., Sousa Jr., L.C. and Oereira, L.C. “Risks and mitigation
problems in a CO2 injection project for a petroleum onshore field in Brazil”, 5th US-
Canada rock Mechanics Symposium, Salt lake City, UT, June 27-30, 2010, ARMA 10-
162
202. Menendez, M.B., “Offshore CO2 enhanced oil recovery programs”, World
Petroleum Council, Comite Espanol, 2016
203. Midwest Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership Presentation, Battelle,
August 18-20, 2015
204. Miller, J.S. et al., “A laboratory study to determine physical characteristics of
heavy oil after CO2 saturation”, SPE-9789, SPE/DOE EOR Symposium, Tulsa, OK,
April 5-8, 1981
205. MiReCOL, “Mitigation and Remediation of CO2 Leakage from Geological Storage
– MiReCOL Handbook of Corrective Measures”, 2014
206. Mito, S., Z. Xue, H. Satoh, “Experimental assessment of well integrity for CO2
geological storage: Batch experimental results on geochemical interactions between
a CO2-brine mixture and a sandstone-cement-steel sample”, IJGGC Vol 39, 2015
207. Monne, J., “The Lacq CCS Pilot, a First”, JPT, July 2013
208. Mulders, F., “Studies on Wellbore Integrity”, Proc. 2nd Wellbore Integrity
Network Meeting, Princeton, NJ, March 28-29, 2006
209. Murai, D., et al, “Design of Inter-Well CO2 EOR Pilot Test in Offshore Field”, IPTC-
18840, Bangkok, Thailand, November 14-16, 2016
210. Musso, G., C. Topini and G. Capasso, “Long term well integrity: a semi-analytical
approach”, ARMA 10-398, Salt Lake City, UT, June 27-30, 2010
211. Nagelhout, A.C.G., et al., “Laboratory and Field Validation of a Sealant System for
Critical Plug and Abandon Situations,” paper SPE/IADC 97347, presented at the
2005 SPE/IADC Middle East Drilling Technology Conference and Exhibition, Dubai,
U.A.E., 12-14 September
203
212. Neal, P.R., Y. Cinar, W.G. Allinson, “The economics of pressure-relief with CO2
injection”, in Elsevier Energy Procedia 4 (2011) 4215-4220, GHGT-10
213. Newton, L., “SACROC CO2 Project – Corrosion Problems and Solutions”, NACE
Paper 67, New Orleans, LA, April 2-6, 1984
214. NETL/Advanced Resources International, “Improving Domestic Energy Security
and Lowering CO2 Emissions with “Next Generation” CO2 – Enhanced Oil Recovery
(CO2 – EOR), June 2011
215. 117- Norwegian Oil and Gas Recommended Guidelines for Well Integrity,
Revision No. 5, 08.06.2016, www.norskoljeoggas.no
216. NORSOK, “Well Integrity in drilling and well operations”, Standard D-010,
August 2004
217. NPA – Norwegian Petroleum Safety Authority, “Well Integrity Survey Phase 1”,
www.ptil.no
218. Nygaard, R., “Well Design and Well Integrity – Wabamun Area CO2
Sequestration Project (WASP)”, University of Calgary, January 4, 2010
219. Nygaard, R., et al., “Effect of Dynamic Loading on Wellbore Leakage for the
Wabamun Area CO2 – Sequestration Project”, SPE – 146640, January 2014
220. O’Dell, M., Soek, H. van Rossem, S., “Achieving the Vision in the Harweel Cluster,
South Oman”, SPE 102389, San Antonio, TX, September 24-27, 2006
221. OGJ, “DOE sees vast energy resource in residual oil zones”, July 20, 2012
222. OGJ, “2014 EOR/Heavy Oil Survey”, April 7, 2014
223. OGJ, “ADNOC plans sixfold hike in carbon dioxide injection”, January 18, 2018
224. Oilfield Review, “Carbon Dioxide – Challenges and Opportunities”, 27 No. 2
(September 2015), Schlumberger
225. Oilfield Review, “Brazil’s Presalt Play”, Autumn 2010:22, no.3, Schlumberger
226. Oilfield Review, “Intelligent Well Technology in Underground Gas Storage”,
Spring 2008
227. Oldenburg, C.M, “Health, safety and environmental risks from energy
production: A year-long reality check”, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory,
September 26, 2012
228. Okwananke, A., B.Y. Adeboye, L.A. Sulaimon, “Evaluation and Performance of
Natural Gas Storage in Depleted Gas Reservoirs”, Petroleum and Coal 53(4) 324-
332, 2011 – www.vurup.sk/petroleum-coal
229. Oxy Denver Unit CO2 Subpart RR, Monitoring, Reporting and Verification (MRV)
Plan, December 2015
230. Papamichos, E. et al, “Sand Production Rate under Multiphase Flow and Water
Breakthrough”, American Rock Mechanics Association, 2010
231. Parker, M.E., J.P. Meyer, S.R. Meadows, “Carbon Dioxide Enhanced Oil Recovery
Injection Operations Technologies” in Elsevier Energy Procedia I (2009)
204
232. Patchigolla, K., and J.E. Oakey, “Design overview of high pressure dense phase
CO2 pipeline transport in flowmode”, Energy Procedia 37 (2013) 3123-3130, GHGT-
11
233. Perry , K. F., “Natural gas storage industry experience and technology: potential
application to CO2 geological storage in D.C. Thomas and S.M. Benson eds., Carbon
dioxide capture for storage in deep geologic formations, Vol. 2, 2005
234. Petroleum Resources on the Norwegian Continental Shelf - NPD, www.npd.no
(2011)
235. Pfennig, A., P. Zastrow, A. Kranzmann, “Influence of heat treatment on the
corrosion behavior of stainless steels during CO2-sequestration into saline aquifer”,
IJGGC Vol 15, 2013
236. Pizarro, J. O. et al, “Planning and implementing an EOR project for the pre-salt
Lula field”, World Oil Online, August 2012
237. Pokhriyal, J., Gaudlip, T., and Suter. W., “Use of Concrete Technology for High-
Density Cement Systems in South Texas,” paper SPE 67259, presented at the 2001
SPE Production and Operations Symposium, Oklahoma City, OK, 24-27 March.
238. Pooladi-Darvish, M.H. et al, “CO2 injection for enhanced gas recovery and
geological storage of CO2 in the Long Coulee Glauconite F Pool, Alberta”, SPE
115789, Denver, CO, September 21-24, 2008
239. Porse S.L., S. Wade, S.D. Hovarka, “Can We Treat CO2 Well Blowouts like Routine
Plumbing Problems? A study of the Incidence, Impact, and Perception of Loss of
Well Control”, in Elsevier Energy Procedia 63 (2014) GHGT-12
240. Power, M.T. et al, “Converting Wells in a Mature West Texas Field for CO2
injection”, SPE-20099, November 1990
241. Qi, R., T.C. Laforce, and M.J. Blunt, “A three-phase four-component streamline-
based simulator to study carbon dioxide storage”, Computational Geosciences, Vol
13, 2009
242. Randhol, P. and Carlsen, I.M., “Assessment of Sustained Well Integrity on the
Norwegian Continental Shelf”, Fourth Meeting of the IEA GHG Wellbore Integrity
Network, March 18-19, 2008, Paris, France
243. Raoof, A., H. M. Nick, T. K. T. Wolterbeek, C. J. Spiers, “Pore-scale modeling of
reactive transport in wellbore cement under CO2 storage conditions”, IJGGC Vol 11S,
2012
244. Raven, A., O. Matsushita, A. White, “The Future of Carbon Dioxide EOR in the
United States”, July 19, 2016, pillsburylaw.com
245. Ravi, K., M. Bosma, O. Gastebled, “Safe and Economic Gas Wells through Cement
Design for Life of the Well”, SPE 75700, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, April 30 – May 2,
2002
246. Renfro, J.J., “Sheep Mountain CO2 Production Facilities – A Conceptual Design”,
SPE 7796, Journal of Petroleum Technology, November 1979
205
247. Ringrose, P.S., A.S. Mathieson, I.W. Wright, F. Selama, O. Hansen, R. Bissell, N.
Saoula, J. Midgley, “The In Salah CO2 storage project: lessons learned and knowledge
transfer”, Energy Procedia 37 (2013) – GHGT-11
248. Rogers, J.D., R. B. Grigg, “A Literature Analysis of the WAG Injectivity
Abnormalities in the CO2 Process”, SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering, October
2001
249. Ross, E., “Squeeze Play. Ceramic Cement Offers Cost Effective Solution for Zonal
Isolation” New Technology Magazine, November 2007, pp. 27.
250. Saini, D., Engineering Aspects of Geologic CO2 Storage – Synergy between
Enhanced Oil Recovery and Storage, Springer Briefs in Petroleum Geoscience and
Engineering, 2017
251. Shen, J., P. Dangla, M. Thiery, “Reactive transport modeling of CO2 through
cementitious materials under CO2 geological storage conditions”, IJGGC Vol 18, 2013
252. Scherer, G. W., B. Huet., “Carbonation of wellbore cement by CO2 diffusion from
caprock”, IJGGC, Vol 3, Issue 6, 2009
253. Scherer, G. W., B. Kutchko, N. Thaulow, A. Duguid, B. Mook, “Characterization of
cement from a well at Teapot Dome Oil Field: Implications for geological
sequestration”, IJGGC Vol 5, Issue 1, 2011
254. Schlumberger, EverCRETE: CO2-resistant cement for long-term zonal isolation.
(2008) www.slb.com/evercrete
255. Schlumberger, FUTUR Self-healing cements, www.slb.com/FUTUR
256. Schroder, I.F., Zhang, H., Zhang, C. and A.J. Feitz, “The role of soil flux and soil gas
monitoring in the characterization of a CO2 surface leak: A case study in Qinghai,
China”, International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 54 (2016) 84-95
257. Scottish Carbon Capture and Storage, “Carbon Accounting for Carbon Dioxide
Enhanced Oil Recovery”, November 2014, www.sccs.org.uk
258. Sim, S., Bocher, F., Cole I.S., Chen, X-B, Birbilis, N., “Investigating the extent of
water content in supercritical CO2 via steel pipelines for CCS purposes’, Corrosion
70, No. 2, February 2014
259. Sim, S., et al, “A review of the protection strategies against internal corrosion for
the safe transport of supercritical CO2 via steel pipelines for CCS purposes”, IJGGC
29, October 2014
260. Seiersten, M., “Corrosion at high CO2 pressure”, Statoil and Institute for Energy
Technology in Norway, 2003. NACE International No. 03345
261. Seminole Sentinel, “H2S leak forces Seminole evacuation”, December 8, 2015,
http://seminolesentinel.com
262. Sheives, T.C. et al, “A comparison of New Ultrasonic Cement and Casing
Evaluation Logs with Standard Cement Bond Logs”, SPE-15436, New Orleans, LA,
October 5-8, 1986
206
263. Sierra Club, “Comment on Risk of Well Blowouts from Enhanced Oil Recovery
Operations HECA, August 9, 2013
264. SINTEF Report, “Ensuring well integrity in connection with CO2 injection”,
December 27, 2007
265. Skalmeraas, O., “The Sleipner CCS Experience”, Statoil, UNFCC, Bonn, October
21, 2014
266. Skinner, L., CO2 Blowouts: An Emerging Problem, World Oil, Vol. 224, No.1, 2003
267. Sminchak, J.R., M. Moody, A. Theodos, G. Larsen, N. Gupta, “Investigation of
wellbore integrity factors in historical oil and gas wells for CO2 geosequestration in
the Midwestern U.S.”, in Elsevier Energy Procedia 00 (2013) GHGT-12
268. Sminchak, J. et al, “Analysis of unusual scale build-up in a CO2 injection well for a
pilot-scale CO2 storage demonstration project”, Greenhouse Gases Sci.Techno. 4,
2014
269. Smith L., M.A. Billingham, C-H Lee, D. Milanovic, “Establishing and Maintaining
the Integrity of Wells used for Sequestration of CO2” in Elsevier Energy Procedia 4
(2011)
270. Smith L., M.A. Billingham, C-H Lee, D. Milanovic, G. Lunt, “CO2 Sequestration
Wells – the Lifetime Integrity Challenge”, SPE-136160, Abu Dhabi, UAE, November
1-4, 2010
271. Sorem, W.A., E.J. Wright, J.L. Pacheco, D.A. Norman, “Integrated Approach to
Optimize Material Selection for North Field High Rate Gas Wells”, IPTC 12503, Kuala
Lumpur, Malaysia, December 3-5, 2008
272. Strazisar, B., and Kutchko, B., “Degradation Rate of Wellbore Cement Due to CO2
Injection – Effects of Pressure and Temperature,” International Symposium on Site
Characterization for CO2 Geological Storage, Berkeley, CA, March 2006.
273. Strazisar, B., Kutchko, B., Dzombak, D., Lowry, G. and Thaulow, N., “Degradation
Rate of Well Cement and Effect of Additives,” IEAGHG Wellbore Integrity Network
Meeting, March, 2008.
274. Sweatman, R., “Studies on Wellbore Integrity”, Proceedings of the 2nd Wellbore
Integrity Network Meeting, Princeton, NJ, March 28-29, 2006
275. Sweatman, R., S. Crookshank, S. Edman, “Outlook and Technologies for Offshore
CO2 EOR/CCS Projects”, OTC Paper 21984, Houston, TX, May 2-5, 2011
276. Sweatman, R., “Supergiant Lula Brings CO2 EOR Advances”,
http://halliburtonblog.com/supergiant-lula-brings-CO2-eor-advances/ September
7, 2012
277. Syed, T., “Wellbore Integrity throughout its Life Cycle”, GWPC Workshop, Austin,
TX, February 9, 2015
278. Syed, T., “Wellbore Integrity of Gas Storage Wells – Current Perspectives”,
UIC/GWPC Conference, Austin, TX, February 22, 2017
207
279. Syed, T., and T. Cutler, “Well Integrity Technical and Regulatory Considerations
for CO2 Injection Wells”, SPE 125839, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, April 12-14, 2010
280. Szabo, T., “Drilling through Shallow Gas Zones in Hungary”, University of
Miskolc, Hungary
281. Tenaska Trailblazer Partners, LLC, “Bridging the Commercial Gap for Carbon
Capture and Storage”, Report prepared for the Global CCS Institute, July 2011
282. Texas Railroad Commission – Texas Administrative Code Title 16 Part 1 Chapter
3 Oil and Gas
283. Texas Railroad Commission – Texas Administrative Code Title 16 Part 1 Chapter
5 Carbon Dioxide
284. Thicerlin, M., Baumgarte, C. and Guillot, D., “A Soil Mechanics Approach to
Predict Cement Sheath Behavior,” paper SPE/ISRM 47375, presented at the 1998
SPE/ISRM Rock Mechanics in Petroleum Engineering, Trondheim, Norway, 8-10 July
285. Thiele, M., R.P. Batycky and D.H. Fenwick, “Streamline simulation for modern
reservoir engineering workflows” JPT, Vol 64, January 2010
286. Torsaeter, M. and P. Cerasi, “Geological and geomechanical factors impacting
loss of near-well permeability during CO2 injection”, SINTEF Petroleum Research,
IJGGC 76 (2018)
287. Torsaeter, M., “IEAGHG Modelling and Risk Management Combined Network
Meeting”, 2018 (in Press)
288. TSA/ASC, “A Review of CO2 Technologies and Field Performance”, Internal in-
house Report, 2010
289. Um, W., H. Jung, S. Kabilan, C.A. Fernandez, C.F. Brown., “Geochemical and
geomechanical effects on wellbore cement failures”, Energy Procedia 63 (2014)
5808-5812, GHGT-12
290. USDOE/NETL, “A Review of the CO2 Pipeline Infrastructure in the U.S.”,
DOE/NETL-2014/1681, April 21, 2015
291. USDOE/NETL, “MVA Field Activities”, Hank Edenborn, August 16-18, 2016
292. USDOE/NETL, “BEST PRACTICES: Site Screening, Site Selection, and Site
Characterization for Geologic Storage Projects”, DOE/NETL-2017/1844, 2017
Revised Edition
293. USDOE/NETL, “BEST PRACTICES: Risk Management and Stimulation for
Geologic Storage Projects”, DOE/NETL-2017/1846, 2017 Revised Edition
294. USDOE/NETL, “BEST PRACTICES: Public Outreach and Education for Geologic
Storage Projects”, DOE/NETL-2017/1845, 2017 Revised Edition
295. USEPA, Class II Oil and Gas Related Injection Wells,
https://www.epa.gov/uic/class-ii-oil-and-gas-related-injection-wells
296. USEPA, Class VI – Wells used for Geologic Sequestration of CO2,
https://www.epa.gov/uic/class-vi-wells-used-geologic-sequestration-CO2
297. USEPA, “Technical Support Document for CO2 Supply: Proposed Rule for
Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases”
208
298. USEPA Federal Underground Injection Control (UIC) Regulations: Code of
Federal Register (CFR) Parts 144, 145, 146, 147
299. USEPA, Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program Class VI Well
Construction Guidance
300. USEPA, Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program Class VI Well Testing and
Monitoring Guidance, 2013
301. Verdon, J.P., A. L. Stork, R.C. Bissell, C. E. Bond, M.J. Werner., “Simulation of
seismic events induced by CO2 injection at In Salah, Algeria”, Earth and Planetary
Science Letters 426 (2015) 118-129, www.elsevier.com/locate/epsl
302. Verma, M. K.., “Fundamentals of Carbon Dioxide-Enhanced Oil Recovery (CO2-
EOR) – A Supporting Document of the Assessment Methodology for Hydrocarbon
Recovery Using CO2-EOR Associated with Carbon Sequestration”, USGS Open_file
Report 2015-1071
303. Vignes, B., “Contribution to well integrity and increased focus on well barriers
from a life cycle aspect”, PhD Thesis, University of Stavanger, 2011
304. Wagner, D., “CO2 blowouts in the German history of salt mining”, British
Geological Survey Internal Report IR/04/124, 2004
305. Walsh, S.D.C., H. E. Mason, W.L. Du Frane, S. A. Carroll, “Experimental calibration
of a numerical model describing the alteration of cement/caprock interfaces by
carbonated brine”, IJGGC Vol 22, 2014
306. Walsh, S.D.C., H. E. Mason, W.L. Du Frane, S. A. Carroll, “Mechanical and
hydraulic coupling in cement-caprock interfaces exposed to carbonated brine”,
IJGGC Vol 25, 2014
307. WellCATTM, - www.landmark.com/solutions/WELLCAT
308. Wellcem ThermaSetTm, 2016, www.wellcem.no
309. Wertz, F., F. Gherardi, P. Blanc, A-G Bader, A. Fabbri, “Cement-CO2-alteration
propagation at the well-caprock-reservoir interface and the influence of diffusion”,
IJGGC Vol 12, 2013
310. White, S.P., Allis, R.G., Bergfeld, D., Moore, J.N., Chidsey, T.C., Morgan C., McClure,
K., Adams, M., Rauzi, S., “Evaluating the seal integrity of natural CO2 reservoirs of the
Colorado Plateau”.
311. Wilson, E.J., S.J. Friedmann, M.A. Pollak, “Research for Deployment:
Incorporating Risk, Regulation, and Liability for Carbon Capture and Sequestration”,
Environmental Science and Technology, Vol 41, No.17, 2007
312. Wilson, E.J., T.L. Johnson, D.W. Keith, “Regulating the Ultimate Sink: Managing
the Risks of Geologic CO2 Storage”, Environmental Science and Technology, Vol 37.
No. 16, 2003
313. Witkowski, A., et al., “Advances in Carbon Dioxide Compression and Pipeline
Transportation Processes”, Springer in Applied Sciences and Technology, ISBN 978-
3-319-18404-3, 2015
209
314. Wolterbeek, T.K.T., “Impact of chemical and mechanical properties on wellbore
integrity in CO2 storage systems”, Utrecht Series in Earth Sciences, 2016
315. Wolterbeek, T.K.T., C. J. Peach, C. J. Spiers, “Reaction and transport in wellbore
interfaces under CO2 storage conditions: experiments simulating debonded cement-
casing interfaces”, IJGGC Vol 19, 2013
316. Wong, R.C.K. and A.M. Samieh, “Geomechanical response of the shale in the
Colorado group near a cased wellbore due to heating”, J. Can. Pet. Tech., 2000
317. Wu, J., M.E. Knauss and T. Kritzler, “Casing failures in cyclic steam injection
wells”, IADC/SPE 114231, Jakarta, Indonesia, August 25-27, 2008
318. Xiansong, Z., “Measurements and Mrthods in CCS and EOR”, 15th Sino-US Oil and
Gas Forum, Chongqing, September 2015
319. Zhang, M., S. Bachu, “Review of integrity of existing wells in relation to CO2
geological storage”, IJGGC Vol 5, Issue 4, 2011
320. Zhang, L., D. A. Dzomback, D. V. Nackles, S. B. Hawtorne, D. J. Miller, B. G.
Kutchko, C. L. Lopano, B. R. Strazisar, “Characterization of pozzolan-amended
wellbore cement exposed to CO2 and H2S gas mixtures under geologic carbon
storage conditions”, IJGGC Vol 19, 2013
321. Zhang, L., D.A. Dzomback, D.V. Nackles, S. B. Hawtorne, D.J. Miller, B.G. Kutchko,
C.L. Lopano, B.R. Strazisar, “Rate of H2S and CO2 attack on pozzolan-amended Class
H well cement under geologic sequestration conditions”, IJGGC Vol 27, 2014
322. Zhang, L., D. A. Dzomback, D. V. Nackles, S. B. Hawtorne, D.J. Miller, B.G. Kutchko,
C. L. Lopano, B. R. Strazisar, “Effect of wellbore environment on the interactions
between acid gas (H2S and CO2) and pozzolan-amended wellbore cement under
acid-gas co-sequestration conditions”, IJGGC Vol 27, 2014
323. Zhang, Y., C. Oldenburg, and S. Finsterle, “Percolation-theory and fuzzy rule-
based probability estimation of fault leakage at geologic carbon sequestration sites”,
Environmental Earth Sciences, March 2009
324. Zhu, Hongjun, Yuanhua Lin, Dezhi Zeng, Dapeng Zou, “Study addresses SCP
causes in CO2 injection/production wells”, Oil and Gas Journal, Volume 111, Issue
12, December 2, 2013
210
APPENDICES
APPENDIX 1 - DEFINITIONS
The Standard Operating Practices (SOPs) for Designing, Constructing, and Operating
CO2 Injection Wells presented in Appendix 3 and this Report may or may not cite
publications that are listed in Appendix 4, and where such reference is made, it shall
be to the edition listed including all amendments published thereafter. Those
references not cited in the text are included for information purposes.
The following definitions shall apply in this Standard:
Area of review - geographical surface and geological subsurface area for a specific
CO2 injection project. This includes EOR and the disposal reservoir(s), the land surface
for onshore projects, or the sea floor surface for offshore projects, as designated for
assessment of the fate and effects of injecting CO2 by the country, federal,
provincial/territorial, or state regulators, as applicable. In the U.S., the AoR for Class II
and Class VI wells is defined by a radius of ¼ mile (402m) around each vertical
injection wellbore and should encompass both the vertical and horizontal legs of the
planned well (if it is a horizontal well).
Balanced cement plug — the result of pumping cement through drill pipe,
workstring, or tubing until the level of cement outside is equal to that inside the drill
pipe, workstring, or tubing. The pipe is then pulled slowly from the cement slurry,
leaving the plug in place. The technique is used in both open hole and cased hole
applications when the wellbore fluids are in static equilibrium.
Biosphere (in the context of CO2 injection) — the realm of living organisms in the
atmosphere, on the ground, in the oceans and seas, in surface waters such as rivers
and lakes, and in the subsurface at depths where protected groundwater is present as
defined by regulations. Said rules in the USA for protected groundwater typically are
aquifers where the water’s salinity is less than 10,000 mg/L. The biosphere also
includes all water existing in the same realm.
Casing — the pipe material placed inside a drilled hole to prevent the surrounding
rock from collapsing into the hole.
Note: The two types of casing in most injection wells are (a) surface casing, i.e., the
outermost casing that extends from the surface to the required distance below the base
of the lowermost protected waters; and (b) long-string casing, which extends from the
surface to or through the injection zone.
A-1
Casing shoe — a reinforcing steel collar that is screwed onto the bottom joint of
casing to prevent abrasion or distortion of the casing when it is forced past
obstructions on the wall of the borehole.
Cement — material used to support and seal the well casing(s) to the rock formations
exposed in the borehole. Cement also protects casings from corrosion and prevents
movement of injected CO2 up the borehole (See Tables A5-1 and A5-2 for listing of
regular API cements and specialty cements including CO2 resistant cements).
Closure period — the period in a project’s life cycle marked by the cessation of
injection. This period can contain two sub-periods: a post-injection and closure period
and a post-closure period.
Collapse strength — the pressure that will cause a mechanical well component to
collapse the casing.
Containment — prevention of leakage or migration of CO2, brines, and affected fluids

from an EOR or storage complex (aka. reservoir).
Corrective measure — any measure taken to correct material irregularities or to

contain breaches in order to prevent or stop the release of CO2 from a storage
complex. Corrective measures are implemented after an irregularity has occurred to
help prevent or minimize damage.
Design, construction, and operation — the (a) design and construction of surface
and subsurface facilities such as distribution pipeline and injection sites, injection
wells, and monitoring wells and other monitoring facilities; (b) development and
implementation of a monitoring measurement and verification program; and (c)
operation of facilities over the active injection phase of a storage project.
Elements of concern — valued elements or objectives for which risk is evaluated and
managed.
Elevated pressure zone — a zone within a storage unit (aka. reservoir) where there
is sufficient pressure to cause movement of formation fluids from the storage unit
through a high permeable pathway into the biosphere or into an economic resource
(oil & gas reservoir) above the storage complex.
Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) – Process to improve oil and gas recovery by injection
of CO2 and mixtures of CO2 and other fluids to dislodge oil and gas from formation
pore spaces, which allows the oil and gas to flow to producing wells.
Event — a material occurrence or change in a particular set of circumstances.
External wellbore mechanical integrity — the absence of significant fluid

movement through vertical channels inside or adjacent to a wellbore.
A-2
Geological storage — The long-term isolation of CO2 in subsurface geological
formations. Injected CO2 is trapped within the pore spaces within said formations.
Recovery of CO2 may occur for future oil and gas extraction operations such as water
floods.
Geosphere — the solid earth below the ground surface and bottom of rivers and
other bodies of water on land, and below the sea bottom offshore.
Hydraulic unit — a hydraulically connected geological unit (a) where pressure

communication can be established on a human time-scale and measured by technical
means; and (b) that is bounded by flow barriers (e.g., non-transmissive faults, salt
domes, or beds and low-permeability geological formations) or by the wedging out or
outcropping of the formation
Injection well regularity – the ability to actually inject CO2 regularly at the desired
rates necessary to store the delivered quantity or the quantity needed for CO2 EOR or
storage purposes
Leakage — The unintended upward movement (flow) of CO2 or brine and CO2
mixtures across primary geological seal(s) and/or well barriers and out of a storage
complex. Depending on pathways and site characteristics, leakage can be limited to
intervening secondary traps in the overlying sedimentary succession or can reach the
biosphere and atmosphere.
Likelihood — a chance of something happening, expressed qualitatively or

quantitatively and described using general terms or mathematically, e.g., by specifying
a probability or frequency over a given period.
Long-term storage — storage of injected CO2 streams in subsurface geological media

for the time period necessary for CO2 geological storage to be considered an effective
and environmentally safe option. EOR stores CO2 in pore space where oil and water
have been displaced and removed via production wells.
Mechanical earth model (MEM) – is a repository of data – measurements and

models – representing the mechanical properties of rocks and fractures as well as the
stresses, pressures and temperatures acting on them at depth. Engineers and
geoscientists use it to understand how rocks deform, and sometimes fail, in response
to drilling, completion and production operations. Each data point in an MEM is
referenced to its 3D spatial coordinates and time of sample collection.
Mechanical integrity test (MIT) — a pressure test performed on a well to confirm

that it maintains internal and external mechanical integrity. MITs are a means of
measuring the adequacy of the construction of an injection well and a way to detect
problems within the well system. An MIT is the most common test used to identify
leakage and loss of well integrity.
Migration — the lateral movement of brine (also referred to as saline water) within
and outside a storage unit between the primary seals/confining formations.
A-3
Packer — a mechanical device set immediately above the injection zone that seals the
outside of the tubing to the inside of the long-string casing, isolating an annular space.
Permeable formation — a geological formation that allows or permits the movement

of fluids within the formation on a human time-scale that can be observed through
pumping and/or injection.
Plume — three-dimensional extent within a storage unit of the injected CO2 and
displaced fluids such as oil, gas, and brine, and the associated pressure plume.
Post-closure period — the period after cessation of injection (including the post-
injection closure period) that is marked by a transfer of responsibility and liability
from the operator to the designated authority. If responsibility and liability are not
transferred, the project will not enter the post-closure period and will remain in the
post-injection and closure period until transfer occurs.
Primary seal — the low-permeability continuous geological unit (known in reservoir

engineering as caprock and in hydrogeology as aquitard or aquiclude) that confines
fluids within a storage unit immediately above or below it.
Project life cycle — the stages of a project, beginning with those necessary to initiate
the project (including site screening, assessment, engineering, and permitting) and
leading up to the start of injection, followed by operations until the cessation of
injection, and culminating in the closure period, which can include a post-injection
closure period and a post-closure period, if a transfer of responsibility and liability
occurs.
Project operator (aka. operator) — the legal entity responsible for project
organization, activities, and decision- making until a transfer of responsibility and
liability to a designated authority (if such a transfer takes place).
Project stakeholder — an individual, group of individuals, company, or organization

that believes its interests could be affected by a project and therefore wishes to take
part in decisions about the project or to have its interests represented in discussions
about such decisions. Stakeholders can include, e.g., employees, shareholders,
community residents, suppliers, customers, non-governmental organizations,
governments, regulators and other individuals or groups.
Protected groundwater — water that is defined as groundwater by legislation or a

regulatory agency, is used for human consumption and/or agricultural and industrial
purposes and is protected against contamination through legislation or regulations.
Note: In Canada, protected groundwater is defined in each province or territory as

water with a total dissolved solids (TDS) of less than a certain value (e.g., 4000 mg/L in
Alberta). In the United States, the Environmental Protection Agency defines protected
groundwater as groundwater with a TDS less than 10,000 mg/L of total dissolved solids.
A-4
Risk — the effect of uncertainty on project objectives (e.g., on performance metrics for
an element of concern) expressed in terms of a combination of the severity of
consequences (negative impacts) of an event and the associated probability of its
occurrence.
Risk analysis — a process for understanding the nature and level of risk.
Risk assessment — the overall process of risk identification, risk analysis, and risk
evaluation.
Risk control — measures whose purpose is to reduce risk.
Risk evaluation — the process of comparing the results of a risk analysis with risk
evaluation criteria to determine whether (a) the risk, its magnitude, or both are
acceptable or tolerable; or (b) treatment will be required to reduce the risk.
Risk evaluation criteria — terms of reference against which the significance of risk is
evaluated.
Risk identification — the process of finding, recognizing, and describing risks.
Risk management plan — a scheme specifying the approach, management

components, and resources to be applied to the management of risks.
Risk owner — a person or entity with the accountability and authority to manage
risk.
Risk scenario — a combination of a threat-event scenario (a chain of circumstances

through which a threat can cause an event to occur) and possible event-consequence
scenarios (a chain of circumstances through which the consequences of an event can
have a negative impact on elements of concern).
Risk treatment — a process to modify risk through implementation of risk controls.
Secondary seals — low-permeability geological units (known in reservoir

engineering as caprocks and in hydrogeology as aquitards or aquicludes) in the
sedimentary succession above (i.e., shallower than) the primary seal. In the context of
groundwater protection, these seals are located between the saline aquifer or
hydrocarbon reservoir immediately overlying the primary seal and the base of the
protected groundwater.
Secondary traps — saline aquifers and/or oil and gas reservoirs, located in the
sedimentary succession between a CO2 injection complex and the base of protected
groundwater aquifers that will trap CO2 in case of leakage from the EOR or storage
unit.
Significant risk — a risk whose magnitude is reduced through implementation of

appropriate risk treatment to maintain compliance with this Standard.
A-5
Site characterization, assessment, and selection — a detailed evaluation of one or
more candidate sites for CO2 injection identified in the screening and selection phase
of a EOR or storage/disposal injection project to confirm and refine containment
integrity, storage capacity, and injectivity estimates, and to provide basic data for
initial predictive modelling of fluid flow, geochemical reactions, geomechanical effects,
and risk assessment and monitoring measurement and verification program design.
Site closure — a point within a closure period when the operating site (e.g., injection
facility) has met the specified requirements of the designated authority such that the
long-term responsibility and liability can be transferred to the designated authority.
Site screening — the initial evaluation of the suitability of geologically storing CO2 at
the regional or sub-regional scale by identifying, assessing, and comparing candidate
storage formations or sites on the basis of criteria for containment, capacity, and
injectivity.
Spatial data — data that are associated with a geographical location such as a point, a
linear feature, or an area, including all attributes and information that can be tagged to
the location (e.g., sample test results, surveys, classifications, photos, and reports).
Storage complex — a subsurface system comprising a storage unit and primary

seal(s) extending laterally to natural boundaries or to the defined limits of the effects
of a brine injection/storage operation or operations. The subsurface storage system
can also include secondary seals that offer additional containment potential.
Storage/Disposal project — a number of components for a CO2 separation, injection,

and storage or disposal operation that includes site selection and characterization,
baseline data collection, permitting, design and construction of site facilities (site
pipelines, well flowlines, pumps, etc.), well drilling, delivery of CO2 to the
disposal/storage site and CO2 injection during the active injection phase, site closure
(including well and facilities abandonment), and post-closure. It also includes
monitoring during all project phases.
Storage site — an area on the ground surface, defined by the operator and/or
regulatory agency, where brine separation, treatment, transfer, and injection facilities
are developed and storage activities (including monitoring) take place.
Storage/Disposal unit — a geological unit into which CO2 is injected (e.g. depleted oil
or gas reservoir or deep saline aquifer).
Surface cap — a permanent seal placed over the top of a casing (cut off below grade)
to prohibit fluid migration into an inactive well while also restricting access to the
casing from the surface. A seal can be made using steel plate, cement, or some other
means, singly or in combination.
Threat — an element that by itself or in combination has the potential to cause

damage or produce another negative impact.
A-6
Transfer of responsibility — a transfer of all rights, responsibilities, and liabilities
associated with a storage site to a designated authority. It is not clear at this time,
whether the transfer can occur prior to a planned closure. It should be noted that the
pore space in the U.S. is not owned by the Sovereign Head of State (as in Canada,
Norway, U.K. etc.) and the pore space and mineral rights can be owned by an
individual citizen, state or federal/tribal agency.
Transport network — a network of pipelines, flowlines, including associated

pumping stations, for the transport of CO2 from its source to an injection storage site
and then pumping to injection wells in the oil and gas producing field or nearby field.
Water column — a vertical, continuous mass of water from the surface to the bottom
sediments of a water body.
Well mechanical integrity (WMI) — the satisfactory mechanical condition of a well,

such that engineered components maintain their original dimensions and functions,
solid geological materials are kept out of the wellbore, and fluids including injected
brine are prevented from uncontrolled flow into, out of, along, or across the wellbore,
cement sheath, casing, tubing, and/or packers.
A-7
APPENDIX 2 - CO2 ENHANCED OIL RECOVERY
A2.1 OVERVIEW AND THE CO2 EOR PROCESS
After discovery, an oilfield is initially developed and produced using primary recovery
techniques in which natural reservoir energy – expansion of dissolved gases, change in
rock volume, gravity, and aquifer influx – drive the hydrocarbon fluids from the
reservoir to the wellbores as pressure declines with fluid (oil, water, or gas)
production. During the secondary recovery phase, either water or natural gas is
injected into the reservoir for re-pressurizing and/or pressure maintenance and to act
as a water or gas drive to displace the oil. Normal practice is to inject the gas into the
gas cap and water below the oil-water contact. The first two phases of primary and
secondary recovery typically recover 30-40% of the original oil-in-place (OOIP), while
tertiary enhanced oil recovery (EOR) can recover an additional 5-15% of the OOIP,
with as high as 35-45% reported from some North Sea reservoirs. The total oil
recovery at Occidental’s Denver Unit in the Wasson oilfield in West Texas is reported
to be 68.8% of the OOIP (see Section 8.4 - Case Study # 4).
The goal of enhanced oil recovery (EOR) or tertiary recovery processes is to recover at
least a part of the remaining oil-in-place (residual oil). The EOR processes can be
divided into three major categories: (1) chemical, (2) thermal, and, (3) miscible.
Thermal processes have been used extensively for displacement of heavy oils,
whereas chemical and miscible displacement processes have been employed for the
recovery of light oils. Because of its special properties, CO2 improves oil recovery by
lowering interfacial tension, swelling the oil, reducing oil viscosity, and by mobilizing
the lighter components of the oil. Under the right conditions of pressure, temperature
and reservoir oil composition, CO2 can create a miscible front, which moves as a single
liquid phase and efficiently displaces reservoir oil to the producing wells. The CO2
miscibility can be achieved at pressures as low as 1500 psi (10.3 Mpa) at normal
reservoir temperatures. The presence of impurities such as nitrogen and methane,
increase the miscibility pressure, whereas impurities such as propane and H 2S
decrease it. Ultimate recovery values above 60% of OOIP are very rare with EOR
A-8
techniques, although Shell has predicted a recovery of 64% of OOIP with CO2 EOR in
its offshore Draugen field in the Norwegian Sea (Petroleum Resources on the
Norwegian Continental Shelf, NPD 2011).
The CO2 EOR process recovers oil that remains in the reservoir after primary and
secondary recovery by contacting and mobilizing the residual oil by improving the
volumetric and sweep efficiencies. The injected CO2 may become miscible or remain
immiscible with oil, depending on reservoir pressure, temperature and oil properties.
The miscible CO2 EOR process typically achieves higher recoveries than the immiscible
process, and is therefore, is the preferred option. The pressure at which miscibility
occurs is called the minimum miscibility pressure (MMP).
When the reservoir pressure is above the MMP, miscibility between CO2 and reservoir
oil is achieved with time as displacement occurs in what is classified as multiple-
contact or dynamic miscibility. The intermediate and higher molecular weight
hydrocarbons from the reservoir oil vaporize into the CO2 (vaporization gas-drive
process) and part of the injected CO2 dissolves into the oil (condensation gas-drive
process). This mass transfer between the oil and CO2 allows the two phases to become
completely miscible without any interface and helps to develop a transition zone that
is miscible with oil in the front and with CO2 in the back (Figure A2-1).
Figure A2-1 - The CO2 miscible process showing the transition zone between the
injection and production well
A-9
As a result of the low viscosity of solvents, viscous fingering is a frequent problem.
Also, override by the less dense phase leads to poor sweep efficiency. To mitigate
these problems and reduce the solvent requirements, a water-alternating-gas (WAG)
process is frequently used in CO2 flooding to increase sweep efficiency and decrease
the need for expensive solvents. Among the operating problems found in CO2 flooding
include: corrosion, scale deposition, and precipitation of heavy ends from the crude.
A2.2 INJECTION SYSTEMS FOR CO2 EOR FACILITIES
Because most CO2 floods use the WAG process, there are two injection systems: water
and CO2. Most CO2 floods are implemented after some period of water-flooding, so a
system of water injection is already in place. Plans for the water side of the CO2 flood
should begin with an analysis of these facilities to see if any can or should be used.
Critical factors in determining whether they can be used or modified include:
maximum pump discharge pressure, desired injection rates, pressure rating of the
flowlines, and maintenance and operating history of the facilities.
A2.3 WATER INJECTION SYSTEMS
Re-pressurization
Sometimes the reservoir pressure is below the thermodynamic minimum miscibility

pressure (MMP) for CO2, and if miscible CO2 displacement is desired, the reservoir
pressure should be raised above the thermodynamic MMP before injecting CO2. The
three general methods for re-pressurization are: (1) to increase the injection rate until
it is above the total fluid production rate, (2) to restrict production, and (3) to both
increase the injection rate and decrease the production rate. A technique using Hearn
and Hall plots to accelerate reservoir pressure growth was successfully used in a
Slaughter field CO2 flood (Jarrell et al., 1991).
Water Supply: Compatibility and Corrosion
Since the goal is to inject more fluid than is produced, re-pressurization may require
an additional supply of water. The makeup water must be analyzed for compatibility
with the produced fluid and for corrosion potential.
A-10
Compatibility with produced water is an important factor in selecting the makeup
water supply. For instance, mixing a water high in calcium carbonate with a water
high in sulfates can cause calcium sulfate scale. In addition to physical testing, scaling
tendencies across the range of pressures and temperatures to be encountered in the
flood operation should also be evaluated. The corrosion and scaling tendency of the
makeup water can affect the selection of piping materials. In some instances, it may be
more economical to use corrosion resistant materials (e.g. HDPE or fiberglass) than
chemicals.
Regardless of how you manage oxygen in the makeup water piping, oxygen-
accelerated corrosion must be addressed before mixing the makeup water with the
produced water for reinjection. The most common technique is to use an oxygen
scavenger, although these chemicals tend to be more toxic (an important factor when
surface discharge is a possibility) and expensive. Other alternatives include use of:
corrosion inhibitors, move the oxygen-scavenger further downstream and minimize
effects of discharge, find another source of makeup water, or live with higher
corrosion rates.
Although the primary need for makeup water occurs during re-pressurization, other
needs may include at times of off-structure fluid losses, for fresh water dilution, for
fire systems, cooling systems, and as a potable water supply.
A2.4 CO2 INJECTION/DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS
The CO2 distribution system delivers CO2 to individual injection wells from the
pipeline supply and the gas processing facility. This system is independent and
separate from the water injection system and has its own piping, valves,
measurement, and control facilities.
Piping Arrangement and Materials
Components of a CO2 distribution system include trunk-lines, laterals, and individual

well injection flowlines. Trunk-lines distribute CO2 from the source (e.g., pipeline or
gas processing facility) to and through the field. Laterals branch off to deliver CO2 to
A-11
several injection wells. Injection flowlines branch off the laterals to deliver CO2 to each
well.
A common material for CO2 piping is carbon steel, which is excellent as long as free
water is not present; that is, as long as the CO2 has been dehydrated to prevent free
water from condensing out of the injection stream when pressure and temperature
drop en-route to injection wells. Other materials used for the CO2 distribution system
are stainless steel and fiberglass.
A significant disadvantage of carbon steel piping is that it is rated only to -20°F/-

28.9°C), which can be insufficient for cold climates. The temperature of pipe can also
drop significantly below ambient temperature when CO2 is throttled through a valve
or if a line leaks. Therefore, carbon steel needs to be ordered to a cold temperature
specification if operation below – 200 F (- 28.90 C) is anticipated (ASTM Spec.
A333/A333M-88a) (Jarrell et al, 2002).
Challenges of using fiberglass pipe include: inability to withstand high pressures,

limited applicability in cold-temperature service, and its pipe length may change
significantly as temperature changes. Therefore, manufacturer recommendations
must be obtained prior to use of fiberglass piping.
Handling H2S
Hydrogen sulfide often is present in the CO2 reinjection stream but is only problematic
if free water is present because the combination of free water and H 2S can cause
sulfide stress cracking. Free water can originate from insufficient dehydration, excess
pressure or temperature drop, or plant upsets. The WAG process itself creates another
source of free water in the CO2 distribution system: If the supply pressure drops while
the injection well is on a CO2 cycle (injecting CO2), the injection well has the potential
to backflow water from the formation if the check valve fails to hold (onshore
operations).
The CO2 distribution and gas processing systems should be designed to prevent free
water from occurring and for sour environment service including H2S removal,
dehydration and mechanisms to prevent backflow conditions. If downstream
A-12
components are not designed for sour service, then system integrity must be
enhanced with automated controls, alarms, and even backup systems that can prevent
sour conditions from occurring.
Another alternative to handle the combination of water and CO2 is the use of different
materials and welding procedures. Carbon steel can still be used as long as sulfide
stress cracking and corrosion are adequately addressed.
Blowdown Capability
To perform maintenance on the CO2 distribution system, one must be able to

depressurize the system safely and effectively. This is done through a blowdown
station, which is simply a vertical vent pipe that has an isolation (blowdown) valve
welded to the main distribution line. To depressurize the system, the blowdown valve
is opened, and CO2 vents to the atmosphere.
The extreme noise, large temperature drop, and presence of CO2 during blowdown
operations can cause safety and health problems for both operating personnel and the
public. Pipes and valves must be sized to minimize these problems and to prevent the
formation of hydrates that result from a large pressure drop. Hydrates can be
prevented by large, nonrestrictive valves or by adding heat (Jarrell et al, 2002).
Valves in CO2 distribution systems in US onshore are usually carbon steel. The valves
and the bolts for holding it in place must be rated for cold temperature service – ASTM
Spec. A320/A320M-00a.
Metering and Control
The relatively high cost of CO2 makes metering and control an important issue. The
level of automation can range from none, to monitoring, to data collection and storage,
to full control.
Pressure Control - CO2 injection can be controlled on rate or pressure or both.

Pressure control, using a pressure gauge or transducer and choke is the most
common, with both manual and automated systems in use.
A-13
Rate Control – Rate control requires some type of measurement device and a choke,
and it also can be manual or automatic. Most common measurement devices are
turbine meters and orifice meters. Because orifice meters are more accurate than
turbine meters, they are commonly used for custody transfer. Custody transfer
measurement provides quantity and quality (Q&Q) information used for physical and
fiscal documentation of a change in ownership and/or a change in responsibility for
commodities, including crude oil, natural gas, and CO2. In general, orifice meters are
more expensive to install but easier and less expensive to maintain than turbine
meters. Orifice meters require only periodic inspections of the orifice plate (and
replacement of the elastomer O-rings), while turbine meters tend to wear out bearings
and turbine blades more frequently. The selection comes down to a trade-off between
capital and operating costs.
Control Devices
In most cases, chokes or ball valves are used to adjust flow rate to meet the rate or
pressure set-point. A choke differs from other valves in that it is designed to operate
with large pressure drops and its construction materials are highly resistant to
erosion and cavitation. Typical chokes have a carbon steel body with internals of
carbon steel, while the disks that restrict flow are usually ceramic.
Ball valves can be used when pressure drops are lower and should be sized to operate
within a 20 to 80% open range to provide a smoother and more consistent control of
the injection pressure and/or rate.
Safety and Environment
Automatic Control Systems
Automated control systems are commonly used to continuously control and monitor
CO2 injection operations to assure both their performance and mechanical integrity.
These systems provide real-time information from which immediate corrective action
can be taken, if required. The principle components of these control systems include:
1. Meter(s)
2. Control valve(s), and

A-14
3. Pressure sensors for both the tubing and the casing head.
Additionally, check valves, isolation valves, blinds and bleeds/nipples are

incorporated into the surface piping configuration to prevent backflow and facilitate
servicing.
Flow Isolation
While CO2 EOR operations require CO2 and water flows, they occur sequentially rather
than simultaneously for extended periods of time. As an additional safety practice,
operators insert a blind flange in the line of the non-flowing phase to assure its
complete isolation. This procedure assures that in the event a valve (check or
isolation) does not seat properly, no back flow can occur which could induce corrosion
and over-pressurization.
A2.5 U.S. ONSHORE CO2 EOR
In the United States, the oil and gas industry operates over 13,000 CO 2 EOR wells and
has made significant improvements in the design and operating practices of CO2 EOR
wells over the past 40 years.
The Permian Basin is one of America’s premier energy provinces and covers more
than 75,000 square miles/194,250 square km (250 miles/402 km wide and 300
miles/483 km long) in southeastern New Mexico and much of West Texas. Various
producing formations such as the Yates, San Andres, Clear Fork, Spraberry, Wolfcamp,
Yeso, Bone Spring, Avalon, Canyon, Morrow, Devonian and Ellenburger are all part of
the Permian Basin, with oil and natural gas production depths ranging from a few
hundred feet to 5 miles/8.1 km below the surface. Other areas within the greater
Permian Basin include the Delaware Basin and the Midland Basin. The Delaware Basin
includes significant development in the Wolfcamp and Bone Spring, together known as
the Wolfbone, while the Midland Basin includes significant development in the
Spraberry and Wolfcamp, known together as the Wolfberry. Recent increased use of
EOR has resulted in a substantial impact on U.S. oil production.
The first field-wide application of CO2 EOR took place in 1972 at the SACROC (Scurry
Area Canyon Reef Operators Committee) Unit of the Kelly-Snyder Field in Scurry
A-15
County, West Texas and remains today the world’s largest miscible flooding project.
The CO2 was supplied from the Val Verde Gas Plant at 2350 psi (16.2 MPa) via a 200-
mile (322 km) pipeline.
Development of large natural sources of CO2 in Colorado (McElmo Dome/Doe Canyon)

and New Mexico (Bravo Dome with 97% CO2) plus construction of high-volume CO2
pipelines enabled CO2 EOR to achieve its first burst of growth in the Permian Basin
starting in the 1980s. Subsequent development of natural CO2 supplies at Jackson
Dome, Mississippi, and the capture of vented CO2 at the massive LaBarge natural gas
processing plant in western Wyoming led to the second round of CO 2 EOR growth at
the turn of the century in the Gulf Coast and the Rocky Mountains. Based on these two
growth phases, the industry now injects 3.5 billion cubic feet per day - bcfd (68 million
tonnes/year [tpy]) of natural and industrial CO2 to produce 300,000 barrels per day
(b/d) of oil via EOR (38% of U.S. EOR output) with a steady increase over the past 30
years (Kuuskra et al, Oil and Gas Journal, April 7, 2014). Globally, the U.S. has the
highest number of active CO2 EOR projects and ranks first in terms of total oil
production from CO2 EOR, accounting for ~ 80% of oil sourced globally from CO2
injection.
Figure A2-2 shows the locations of the currently active CO2 EOR projects with much of
the activity in West Texas (77 projects), followed by Mississippi (19 projects), and
Wyoming (14 projects). Figure A2-2 also shows the location of existing CO2 supply
sources, with an increasing number of industrial sources supplying CO2 to the EOR
industry (although the majority is still supplied from natural CO2 sources). The CO2 is
transported within a 7,200 km/4,475 mile network of pipelines operated either as a
common carrier (which is generally required to serve all customers at reasonable
rates), or as a private carrier which is not subject to common carrier rights and
responsibilities (that is a dedicated source-sink link owned by a single operator). The
U.S. CO2 supply and pipeline network has been developed by both oil producers for
their own integrated CO2 EOR projects and by third parties that deliver CO2 to oil
producers (Raven et al, 2016, Kuuskra et al, 2014). Table A2-1 provides a partial
listing of recently announced industrial plants planning to capture CO2 emissions for
sale to the EOR market.
A-16
Figure A2-2 - CO2 EOR Operations, CO2 Sources: 2014 (O&G Journal, 2014)
A-17
Table A2-1 - Recently Announced Industrial Sources of CO2 in U.S
Region Project Name Company State Status Year Online
Gulf Coast Port Arthur Air Products LA Online” 2013

Kemper County IGCC Southern Co. MS Expected 2014
Nitrogen plant PCS Nitrogen LA Online 2013
Ammonia plant Not available LA Expected 2016
W.A. Parish NRG Energy TX Expected 2016
Sasol GTL Sasol LA Expected 2018
Lake Charles Leucadia Energy LA Expected 2018
Chemical plant Not available LA Expected 2020
Rockies Lost Cabin ConocoPhillips WY Online 2013

Medicine Bow DRKW WY Expected 2016
Riley Ridge Denbury WY Expected 2017
Wyoming UCG Linc Energy WY Expected 2017
Quintana South Heart Great Northern Power ND Expected 2017
Midcontinent Bonanza Conestoga KS Online 2013

Coffeyville CVR Energy KS Online 2013
Permian Basin Century plant expansion Sand Ridge/Occidental TX Expected 2015

Texas Clean Energy Summit Energy TX Expected 2016
Projected CO2 EOR production – is estimated to increase to 638,000 b/d

(101,000m3/d) in 2020 from 300,000 b/d (48,000 m3/d) in 2014 (Figure A2-4) and
this estimate is derived from several sources namely: existing CO2 floods, planned CO2
EOR floods, and potential CO2 EOR floods. Figure A2-4 also shows the projected CO2
EOR production by region in the U.S. by year 2020.
A-18
Figure A2-3 - Projected CO2 EOR Operations by 2020
Figure A2-4 - Projected CO2 EOR Production by Region in 2020
A-19
The pursuit of residual-oil-zone (ROZ) resources indicates an increase in CO2 demand
and oil production in the Permian Basin. Residual-oil-zones, called ROZs, are areas of
immobile oil found below the oil-water contact of a reservoir and are similar to
reservoirs in the mature stage of waterflooding. In the case of ROZs, the reservoir has
essentially been waterflooded by nature and requires EOR technologies, such as CO2
flooding, to produce the residual oil. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) estimated
in 2006 that ROZs could contain 100 billion barrels out of 1.124 trillion barrels of
technically recoverable oil in place in U.S. reservoirs (OGJ, 2012). Current ROZ projects
include: Occidental (Oxy’s) Denver Unit and other units in the Wasson field; Hess’s
project in Seminole (San Andres) oil field; and Kinder Morgan’s major project in the
Permian Basin.
A2.5.1 International Onshore CO2 EOR
Use of CO2 for EOR has been slow outside of the U.S. perhaps due to the factors that are
unique to the U.S. on a regional basis, as has been discussed earlier. There are some
140 CO2 EOR projects worldwide that contribute ~ 0.35% to global daily oil
production, or about 300,000 b/d (48,000 m3/d). A listing of the active CO2 EOR
projects outside the U.S. is given in Table A2-2.
Table A2-2 - Active CO2 EOR Projects outside the U.S. (O&G Journal, April 2014)
A-20
Table A2-2 (continued)
Bati Raman Field, Turkey
The Bati Raman field, in southeast Turkey, is one of the largest oilfields in Turkey.
Owned and operated by the Turkish Petroleum Company (TP), the field was
discovered in 1961 and produces from a Garzan limestone – a heterogeneous
carbonate from the Cretaceous period. The heavy crude produced at the Bati Raman
field has 110 API gravity (0.99 specific gravity), high viscosity and low solution-gas
content. The OOIP was estimated to be 1.85 billion barrel (300 million m3) and the
number of producing wells increased from 20 to more than 130 wells from 1965 to
1970.
Although it is difficult to reach the MMP in heavy oil reservoirs, an important

mechanism of CO2 methods in heavy oil is viscosity reduction along with swelling of
oil. Miller et al, 1981 indicated that one barrel of heavy oil (170 API) can dissolve more
than 700 standard cubic feet (scf) of CO2 and has a volume increase of between 10-
30% under certain pressures and temperatures. Another factor that was neglected
before - solution gas drive has been found to be important in recent years, due to a
phenomenon called “foamy oil”. When pressure decline occurs in the oil-solution gas
phase, little gas bubbles are generated from the oil, and trapped and dispersed in the
oil phase. The gas-liquid two-phase flow is known as foamy oil. The existence of foamy
oil flow is believed to be an influential factor in stimulating high recovery in many
heavy oil reservoirs in Canada and Venezuela and is being investigated for application
in CO2 EOR methods in China (Huang et al, 2017).
Bati Raman Field, Turkey
The onshore Bati Raman field in southeast Turkey was discovered in 1961 and is
operated by the Turkish Petroleum Company (TP). Production is from the Garzan
limestone –a heterogeneous carbonate from the Cretaceous period. The heavy crude
has 11 degree API gravity (0.99 SG), high viscosity and low solution-gas content. The
OOIP was estimated to be 1.85 billion bbl (300 million m3). During the primary
A-21
production period between 1961 to 1986, reservoir pressure declined from 1,800 psi
(12 MPa) to as low as 400 psi (2.8 MPa) in some parts of the field, and crude
production dropped from 9,000 bbl/d (1,400 m3/d) in 1969 to 1,600 bbl/d (250
m3/d) in 1986. Estimated primary recovery was less than 2%.
The operator chose immiscible CO2 flooding primarily due to the proximity of the
Dodan gas field. The Dodan gas field is 55 miles (89 km) from the Bati Raman field and
produces gas that is mostly CO2 and has 3,000 to 4,000 ppm H2S. The wellhead
pressure at the Dodan field is about 1,050 psi (7.2 MPa). After treatment, the CO2 from
the Dodan field is sent to the Bati Raman field via pipeline.
TP conducted a pilot test with 17 injection wells with the original plan of cyclic
injection. Based on the pilot test results, the operator decided to opt for CO2 flooding.
In 2012, the CO2 project was 25 years old, far beyond initial project plans, with more
than 6% recovery of the OOIP, far higher than the original 2% recovered during the
primary phase. Primary recovery was 32 million bbl (5.1 million m3) while total field
production (from primary, secondary and EOR) was 114 million bbl (18 million m3) as
of the end of 2014 (Oilfield Review, 2015).
Onshore Brazil
Petrobras has proposed a CO2 continuous injection project in an onshore oilfield

Miranga in Reconcavo Basin, northeast of Brazil. Miranga is comprised of a turtle-back
incline with an important net of axial faults compartmentalizing the field in several
structural blocks.
The stratigraphic layout of Miranga consists of successive porous layers intercalated

by thin shale layers. Previous to injection, the field has undergone depletion that
modified the original stress state. Because of the differences in pore pressure along
the faults, extensions of the faults may be reactivated, allowing intercommunication
between reservoirs. The sensitivity analyses indicate that the fault reactivation
process is controlled mainly by the initial state of stresses (vertical and minimum
horizontal stresses) and by the fault cohesion and fault friction angle, although the
latter data is difficult to obtain in the field. It is recommended that mini-frac tests be
conducted to determine the magnitude of the in-situ stress state during injection. The
A-22
simulation studies have also indicated that fault reactivation may occur and therefore
well pressures in all reservoir layers should be monitored during CO2 injection along
with permanent microseismic monitoring to detect any possible intercommunication
through existing faults. Therefore the establishment of the maximum injection
pressure is essential for proper evaluation of the injection system capacity in CO2
injection projects (Mendes et al, 2010). Although, adverse conditions caused by
increased pressure is not expected to be an issue in most conventional onshore
reservoirs, greater attention will need to be paid for CO2 injection projects in areas
such as deep water (pre-salt and sub-salt) offshore.
A2.6 OFFSHORE CO2 EOR
Offshore use of CO2 for enhanced oil recovery is in its infancy. Over the last 25 years a
small number of offshore saline aquifers and oil and gas reservoirs have successfully
used technologies developed through the last 60 years of onshore CO2 EOR
experience. The absence of an economical supply of CO2 has hampered efforts to
increase CO2 EOR applications offshore, however, as carbon capture from nearby
electric power plants and other large, stationary sources of CO2 emissions becomes
more common, CO2 EOR hydrocarbon production from offshore depleted/marginal
reservoirs is expected to increase.
In shallow water oil fields in a mature stage, with a strong natural water drive, high
original oil in place (OOIP) recoveries can be achieved with other EOR techniques that
have higher sweep and displacement efficiencies, leaving a much smaller residual oil
target for CO2 EOR. In deep water reservoirs, with higher cost wells and more complex
facilities, higher oil recoveries are also required to make CO2 EOR economically
feasible. However, in contrast with shallow water mature reservoirs, the
primary/secondary oil recovery efficiencies in deep water fields are much lower,
providing a larger residual oil target using CO2 EOR.
CCS programs with offshore storage to abate emissions from power generation or
associated gas may become a reality; especially after the COP21 and Major Oil
companies asking for a carbon policy to be applied worldwide.
A-23
The success of CO2 EOR in onshore fields in the last 60 years, has led to increased
interest by operators for CO2 EOR in offshore fields. The international pursuit of
offshore EOR is somewhat active, as shown by the following active or planned CO2
EOR projects:
1. Offshore Brazil, Pre-Salt Layer (Lula Field)
2. North Sea
3. Offshore Abu Dhabi
4. Offshore Vietnam, Rang Dong Oil Field (only offshore application using
anthropogenic CO2)
5. Offshore Malaysia, Dulang Oil Field
CO2 EOR Offshore Brazil – Lula Pre-Salt Project
This has been discussed in greater detail in Section 8.1 Case Study # 1
CO2 EOR North Sea
A number of CO2 EOR projects have been considered for the North Sea, transporting
the CO2 from onshore power plants to offshore oilfields, including:
 Draugen and Heidrun Oil Fields – In 2006, Shell and Statoil announced plans for
capture of CO2 from onshore power generation and transport and injection of the
CO2 into two Norwegian sector offshore oil fields.
 After completing the technical study, the Operator determined that although the
project is technically feasible it would not be commercially feasible due to these
factors: (1) only modest increase in oil recovery, (2) need to retrofit existing
production wells, (3) need to drill additional six subsea wells to target the flanks
of the reservoir, and (4) costs of building a CO2 pipeline.
 Don Valley Project – This project involved capturing CO2 from the Don Valley
IGCC power plant and transporting the CO2 300 km (186 miles) offshore to
improve oil recovery and store CO2 in two mature oil fields in the Central North
Sea. Two options studied were: potential use of oilfields in central North Sea for
EOR and deep saline aquifer storage in southern North Sea. The project is
pending economic feasibility without government funding.
 Miller Oil Field – BP had planned to capture CO2 from the Peterhead gas fired
power station, and storing the CO2 with CO2 EOR in the Miller offshore oil field.
Project failed to receive government support and the Miller field is now
abandoned.
A-24
 Danish Oil Fields – Maersk Oil submitted a plan to EU to capture the CO2 from an
oil refinery and transport the CO2 by ship, to oilfields in the Danish sector of the
North Sea. This project is currently on hold.
 Tees Valley – Progressive Energy submitted a proposal to the EU for construction

of a new IGCC power station with pipeline transportation of the captured CO 2 to
Central North Sea oilfields for CO2 EOR. This project is also currently on hold.
CO2 EOR Offshore Abu Dhabi
The first offshore CO2 EOR pilot project in the Middle East is planned (2016) for an
offshore carbonate reservoir in Abu Dhabi by Abu Dhabi Marine Operating Company
and JOGMEC/Japan. The selected reservoir has 40 years of peripheral seawater
injection history and the pilot design is influenced by existing peripheral pressure
gradient, and is located down-dip in the field that covers approximately 80 acres
(324,000 m2). The pilot location has been selected based on geology, reservoir quality,
maturity to waterflood and surface facility constraints and a comprehensive
surveillance plan, including one to two observer wells has been developed. The pilot
design will minimize current ongoing secondary production and impact on surface
facilities, and develop mitigation strategies for various challenges such as asphaltene,
scaling, corrosion, impact on existing carbon steel well completion materials, cements
etc. associated with CO2 injection (Kumar et al, 2016).
CO2 EOR Offshore Vietnam
In 2007, a Joint Venture with Vietnam Oil and Gas Group (PetroVietnam), Japan
Vietnam Petroleum Company (JVPC), and Japan Oil Gas and Metals National
Corporation (JOGMEC) completed a feasibility study that indicated that CO2 injection
into the oilfields in the South China Sea would increase oil recovery by 6.4% of OOIP. A
pilot study was also conducted in 2011 in the Rang Dong oil field, located about 135
miles/217 km southeast of Vung Tau, Vietnam. The field has been producing oil since
1998 from two major reservoirs: fractured basement granite (BM) reservoir and
Lower Miocene (LM) sandstone reservoir. A pilot CO2 Huff-n-Puff test was conducted
in Block 15-2 of the Cuu Long Basin and confirmed the objectives – adequate CO2
injectivity and increased oil production. CO2 Huff-n-Puff is basically a well stimulation
technique in one well and comprises of three stages: (1) inject CO2 into a single
producing well, (2) shut-in the well to allow CO2 to soak and dissolve, and (3) produce
A-25
the well back. The CO2 was trucked by road to Vung Tau from a fertilizer plant near
Hanoi, and then transported by ship to the Rang Dong oil field. This was the first CO 2
EOR application in Southeast Asia (Giang Tha Ha et al, 2012 and Murai et al, 2016). To
monitor changes in reservoir fluid saturation, cased hole pulsed neutron saturation
logging was also conducted (Konishi et al, 2013).
CO2 EOR Offshore Malaysia
Starting in 2002, Petronas initiated a 4-year CO2 EOR pilot in the Dulang oil field,
located 130 km/81 miles offshore from Terengganu, eastern Malaysia in 250 feet/76
m of water. The offshore oil field is one of Malaysia’s largest with 1.1 billion barrels
(175 million m3) of OOIP, but with a high CO2 concentration (>50%) in the produced
gas. The company conducted an immiscible-WAG pilot test over a 4-year period and
confirmed that the IWAG process was operationally manageable and would lead to
increased oil recovery. The project is yet to be implemented.
A2.6.1 CO2 EOR Offshore Challenges
Current challenges for offshore CO2 EOR projects include the project’s higher
development costs, existing offshore facility limitations (weight, space, power etc.),
the lack of sufficient and economical CO2 supplies (except where CO2 concentration is
high in the associated gas, as in Lula), fewer existing wells that are widely spaced, and
competition from other technologies (including other EOR methods). The prognosis is
better when successful secondary recovery methods have been applied through water
and natural gas injection. Nonetheless, in an environment of ageing oil fields and few
new major discoveries, the prospect of additional incremental recovery from existing
fields is an attractive proposition, while high oil prices will also help to ensure that CO2
EOR projects continue to be established throughout the world. Additionally, the
market for CO2 EOR projects may shift as jurisdictions further legislate against, or
provide additional incentives for the sequestration of, greenhouse gases. Depending
on the attributes of the particular oil reservoir, CO2 EOR projects can serve the dual
function of boosting oil production while capturing CO2 underground (Raven et al,
2016).
A-26
CO2 capture from flue gas sources with current technology is CAPEX and energy
intensive, so that the cost of CO2 abatement with CCS is high. Capturing CO2 from
industrial sources for use in EOR projects can maximize hydrocarbon recovery and
help provide a bridge to a lower carbon emissions future. The offshore tankering of
CO2 is an interesting concept (Jenvey, 2010) for delivery of CO2 from land-based
sources to offshore fields. Tanker ships that deliver LNG to ports might carry CO2
supplies on their return voyages to economically supply EOR projects (Sweatman,
2012).
Goodyear et al (2011) have described the challenges in bringing CO2 EOR offshore as
compared to working onshore. They are summarized below:
Safety
Onshore CO2 EOR operations benefit from separation of equipment over distance,
while offshore CO2 EOR operations do not have this option. Resulting new HSE
challenges that are introduced include:
 Inventory; operational risks of working with large volumes of dense phase CO 2

(low temperatures and loss of visibility during CO2 release and impact of release
on third party population)
 Pressure: potentially very high injection/pipeline pressures for dense phase CO2
[(generally maximum allowable operating pressures are between 1300 to 3000
psi (90 to 206 bar)]
 Confined spaces in offshore modules
 Re-injection gas mixtures, potentially containing hydrocarbons and H2S
 Emergency response – detection, mitigation and evacuation
During a significant release event, the heavier than air CO2 will disperse under gravity
to the sea surface, rather than rise as in the case of a conventional hydrocarbon
release. This may impact stand-by vessels, since CO2 concentrations at sea level may
reach levels (2 to 5%) affecting vessel crews, potential diesel engine stall and loss of
vessel control. Well interventions on wells will require special procedures as
compared to hydrocarbon operations. When these differences and risks are
A-27
recognized and addressed appropriately, then offshore CCS and CO2 EOR projects can
be designed and operated safely.
Facilities and Wells
The facility challenges for offshore CO2 injection include:
 The large fluid separation and gas compression capacity needed to process the
high water production and the back produced CO2 from the reservoir. This results
in a significant topsides weight and space requirements (can add between 6,000
to 16,000 tonnes of additional operating weight), requiring gas processing design
to be as simple as possible.
 CO2 import quality, quantity and import pressure and temperature. Imported CO 2
is transported in dense phase but may need to be boosted offshore to meet the CO 2
wellhead injection pressure. Also impurities in the imported CO2 (such as O2 in flue
gas) will impact material selection.
 CO2 properties such as low temperatures and solids formation/blockage in flare,

blowdown and drainage systems.
 Material issues due to CO2 corrosion. Will require CRAs upstream of gas
dehydration and the potential for stress corrosion cracking (SCC) if O 2, H2S or
elemental Sulfur is present. Also, seal material compatibility is critical for reuse of
existing equipment.
 In some cases, choosing well locations or the re-use of existing oil and gas
facilities might be affected by the location of existing wells and whether or not
they can be re-used. This requires assessments of wellbore and completion
integrity to assure that these wells will meet the integrity requirements of CO2
injection wells. The spatial and economic advantages and disadvantages of these
need to be weighed against those of new wells (IEAGHG, 2010).
 Unlike onshore reservoirs that are typically low permeability and have been
water flooded (1-100 mD), offshore reservoirs have higher permeabilities (100 –
1000 mD) and higher well cost requires much larger well spacings. Gravity
segregation will also play a critical role and may require a pilot to address the
displacement efficiency adequately. In addition, since development costs are
much lower onshore, this allows for higher well densities and lower reservoir
permeabilities.
Horizontal Wells
Pattern arrays of alternating horizontal injectors and producers have been

recommended for two reasons:
A-28
 Conformance management with horizontal wells placed at the bottom of the
formation to reduce gravity segregation,
 Low permeability reservoirs, to reduce the well count and achieve the required
throughput rates for economics
Pilots
Offshore CO2 pilots are much more challenging and offshore generation of CO2 is
problematic. A new concept of offshore tankering of CO2 may provide increased
options for CO2 pilots (Jenvey, 2010).
Kuuskraa and Malone (2016) studied the potential application of CO2 EOR to oil
reservoirs in the offshore Gulf of Mexico from the Bureau of Ocean Energy
Management (BOEM) database that contained a total OOIP of 69 billion barrels (11
billion m3) in 531 oilfields. The study excluded 391 of these oilfields, representing
35% of the OOIP, as not being amenable to CO2 EOR based on their size, MMP, and
residual oil saturation. The technical and economic evaluation of the remaining
oilfields shows the economically recoverable resource (ERR) from the GOM offshore is
0.8 billion barrels (0.13 billion m3), a small fraction of the technically recoverable
resource (TRR) of 23.5 billion barrels (3.66 billion m3). The study estimates that with
Next Generation CO2 EOR technology, the ERR increases significantly to 14.9 billion
barrels (2.37 billion m3).
A2.7 SIMULTANEOUS CO2 EOR AND STORAGE PROJECTS (SAINI, 2017)
The petroleum industry’s long and successful record of secure underground injection
of CO2 for enhanced oil recovery has helped the world to embrace geologic CO2 storage
as first-order technology for abating the anthropogenic GHG emissions. The Global
CCS Institute defines a large-scale integrated carbon capture and storage project
(LSIP) as a project involving the capture, transport, and storage of CO2 at a scale of:
1. At least 800,000 (154 bcf) metric tons of CO2 annually for a coal-based power
plant, or
2. At least 400,000 (77 bcf) metric tons of CO2 annually for other emissions – intensive
industrial facilities (including natural gas-based power generation).
A-29
Projects categorized by the Global CCS Institute as LSIPs must inject anthropogenic
CO2 into either dedicated geological storage sites and/or EOR operations. The majority
of LSIPs (9) are in North America [USA – 7 and Canada – 2], where the petroleum
industry has mastered the commercial CO2 EOR technology. Brazil, Saudi Arabia, and
the United Arab Emirates (UAE) each have one LSIP.
Key Features
Table A2-3 provides a summary of key geologic and operational characteristics and
reservoir parameters for the main LSIPs and other simultaneous CO2 EOR and storage
sites currently operational in North America. The majority of these projects (9 out of
11) rely on the CO2 captured by natural gas processing or industrial separation units,
while the remaining two are coal-based facilities that supply the Weyburn-Midale CO2
EOR and storage project in Canada. However, there appears to be a major push by
China to capture CO2 at its coal-fired power plants and use it for simultaneous CO2
EOR and storage projects, and if successful may lead to more such projects in
countries such as India and China.
Table A2-3 - Key geologic and reservoir parameters for current North American
LISPs (Saini, 2017)
Geologic Unit Weyburn oil Bell Creek SACROC unit West North Pinnacle Farnsworth
characteristic/ unit hastings Burbank oil Reefs unit
reservoir unit (Michigan’s
Parameter* Northern
Reef Trend)
Formation Charles Muddy Canyon Reef Frio Burbank Guelph Upper

formation (Newcastle) (limestone) sandstone Sandstone formation morrow
[Marly (upper (brown
dolostone Niagaran)
unit) & Vuggy
(lower
limestone
unit)]
Geological age Mississippian Cretaceous Pennsylvanian Oligocene Pennsylvanian Silurian Pennsylvanian
Hydrocarbon Truncated Stratigraphic Reef Structural Stratigraphic Reef Stratigraphic

trap type stratigraphic
Overlying Midale Mowry shale Wolfcamp shale Anahuac Cherokee shale A-2 evaporite Thirteen
caprock(s) evaporate shale (top) A-1 Finger
with Watrous evaporite limestone
aquitard as (flank)
regional seal
Caprock (s) ft. 6.5-36 <3000 600-1100 600 45-70 <290 118
average (Midale
A-30
Geologic Unit Weyburn oil Bell Creek SACROC unit West North Pinnacle Farnsworth
characteristic/ unit hastings Burbank oil Reefs unit
reservoir unit (Michigan’s
Parameter* Northern
Reef Trend)
thickness evaporate)
Formation depth ft. 4900 4500 6200-7000 5500 3000 5400-5700 7545-7950
Avg. reservoir ft. 19.5 (Marly) 30-45 229 >700 50 278 54

thickness 49 (Vuggy) (maximum)
Formation psi 2300 1180 3122-3300 2740 1350-1600 2400 2200

pressure at
discover
Formation oF 138 110 130 160 122 108 167

temperature
Cumulative oil Million 366 133 1400 582 0.47 (dover 19

production to barrels 33)
date
Oil gravity oAPI 25-34 32-41 42 31 39-41 47.9 38
Formation water ppm 20,000- 5000 159,000 >100,000 85,000 Very high 3600
salinity 310,000
Avg. porosity % 26 (Marly) 11 25-35 9 29 20 4 3-21

(Vuggy)
Avg. ml 10 (Marly) 15 150-1175 30 500-1000 50-80 12 0.1-700

permeability (Vuggy)
EOR type Combined Continuous Miscible Water Continuous Miscible Water Top down CO2 Hybrid water
miscible miscible CO2 Alternating Gas miscible Alternation Gas injection alternating
simultaneous injection (5- (WAG) (5-spot CO2 (WAG) (vertical with CO2 gas
but separate spot pattern) well pattern) injection (staggered line injector & injection
CO2 only. water only. drive well horizontal (WAG) (5-
Water only. And water pattern) producer) spot well
And water alternation pattern)
alternating as gas (5-spot
injection pattern)
strategy using
a combination
of horizontal
CO2 injectors
and
horizontal
producers
and vertical
water
injectors and
vertical
producers.
Reported psi 2150-2250 1572 2400 1800 900 700 4700

reservoir
pressure prior to
CO2 injection
A-31
The Sacroc Unit (storage site for Val Verde LSIP) has stored the maximum CO2 (55
million tonnes/10.6 tcf), since it has been on injection the longest, since 1972. The
Weyburn-Midale (operational since 2000) has stored almost 22 million tonnes/4.24
tcf of CO2, and the West Hastings (Air Products LSIP) and Bell Creek (Lost Cabin LSIP)
have injected 3 million and 2.75 million tonnes (578 and 530 bcf) respectively since
start of injection in 2013.
Majority of the storage sites are either stratigraphic traps or closed pinnacle reef
structures encased in thick impermeable formations that have served as effective seals
for the hydrocarbon deposits. The wealth of geologic and reservoir data from long-
term secondary and EOR operations have given additional confidence in selecting
these sites as first-order storage sites for anthropogenic CO2 storage.
A2.8 CURRENT LARGE SCALE INTEGRATED CARBON CAPTURE AND STORAGE (LIST
PROJECTS (OUTSIDE OF NORTH AMERICA)
Uthmaniyah CO2 EOR Project (See Section 8.3 - Case Study # 3)
Abu Dhabi CCS Project (Phase 1: ESI CCS Project)
In November 2016, the CCS facility at Emirates Steel Industries (ESI) steel plant in Abu
Dhabi, UAE started to capture around 0.8 million tonnes (154 bcf) of CO2 per year and
supply to ADNOC’s onshore Al Rumaitha and Bab fields via a 43 km (27 miles) pipeline
for EOR injection. The project was preceded with a 2-year successful CO2 EOR pilot
test in the Rumaitha field (Global CCS Institute 2016g). With CO 2 from its gas
processing plants, Abu Dhabi National Oil Company (ADNOC) will begin increasing the
oilfield injection rate in 2021 to an expected 0.47 million tonnes (91 bcf) of CO2 per
year) by 2027, freeing for other uses natural gas now being reinjected for EOR. ADNOC
is also evaluating implementing CO2 EOR in its offshore oil fields and has a
longstanding goal of increasing ultimate recovery to 70% of oil originally in place
(OGJ, January 18, 2018).
Petrobras Santos Basin Pre-Salt Oil Field CO2 EOR and Storage Project (See Section 8.1 -
Case Study # 1)
Carbon Dioxide Storage at In Salah
A-32
The In Salah Gas (ISG) project, a joint venture between Sonatrach, BP and Statoil, is
currently executing a phased development of eight gas fields in the Ahnet-Timimoun
basin in the Algerian central Sahara desert, 1,200 km/746 miles south of Algiers.
These fields comprise an area of 25,000 km2 (9,600 mi2) and have estimated
recoverable gas reserves of 0.23 trillion m3 (8.1 trillion ft3). The gas from these fields
contains 1% to 10% CO2, which is removed at the Krechba central processing facility
(CPF). CO2 and any residual H2S in the produced gas are removed by monoethanol
amine (MEA) absorption and the treated gas (< 0.3% CO2) is transported by pipeline
to export terminals. The ISG project started in 2004 and is currently producing 9
billion m3/year (320 billion ft3/year) of gas for export.
The producing gas reservoir is about 20 m (66 feet) thick and lies about 1,900 m
(6,200 feet) deep below a 950 m (3,100 feet) thick caprock formation of carboniferous
mudstones. A 900 m (3,000 feet) thick layer of Cretaceous sandstone and mudstone
lies above the mudstone section. Produced gas from the reservoir is treated at the CPF
to remove CO2, H2S and other impurities. Following separation from the natural gas
stream at the Krechba processing facility, the CO2 is compressed in four stages up to
200 bars (2900 psi) and dehydrated. It is then reinjected into water-saturated rock
down dip of the same reservoir from which the gas is produced. The three CO2
injection wells have horizontal sections up to 1.8 km (1.1 mile) in length (Wright,
2007 a, b). The horizontal well completions have been directed NE/SW to intersect the
main fracture orientation in the reservoir sandstone (Mathieson et al, 2009) (Figure
A2-5). Since 2004, approximately 3.5 million metric tons (3.9 million tons/675 bcf) of
CO2 have been separated from the produced gas and reinjected into the Krechba
reservoir. One of the lessons learned is that legacy wellbore integrity is a key leakage
risk that has to be effectively managed. Injection was suspended in 2011 due to
concerns about the integrity of the seal (Ringrose et al, 2013).
A-33
Figure A2-5 - Schematic cross-section through In Salah injection site (Mathieson et
al, 2009, IEAGHG, 2010)
The joint venture conducted extensive monitoring of CO2 storage using a variety of
techniques such as surface and soil gas monitoring, downhole gas measurements and
tracer chemical tagging. Geophysical and InSAR satellite monitoring were also
conducted to check for ground deformation and micro-seismicity. Important lessons
learned about CO2 storage during the design, startup and operation of the ISG project
included: (1) need for detailed geologic and geo-mechanical characterization of the
reservoir and the overburden that helped in developing the injection strategy and to
ensure the long-term integrity of the storage project, and (2) importance of flexibility
in the design and control of the capture, compression and injection well systems
(Oilfield Review, 2015)
Sleipner, Norway (Chadwick and Eiken, 2013 and IEAGHG, 2010)
The Sleipner area gas development is located in the Central North Sea approximately
240 km/149 miles west-southwest of Stavanger, Norway. The Sleipner CO2 storage
partners are Statoil (58.35% and operator), ExxonMobil E&P Norway (17.24%), Lotos
Norway AS (15%), and Total E&P Norge (9.41%). The development embraces the
Sleipner Ost and Sleipner Vest gas and condensate fields (and tie-ins from a number of
satellite fields). Sleipner Ost came on stream in 1993 and Sleipner Vest in 1996, with
CO2 injection commencing in 1996. Sleipner is the world’s largest-running industrial-
A-34
scale storage project and so far the only example of CO2 underground storage arising
as a direct response to environmental legislation.
SnØhvit, Norway (IEAGHG, 2010)
At the Statoil operated Snøhvit LNG project, CO2 is currently being injected into a deep
saline formation in the Barents Sea. The Snøhvit project is the first LNG development
in Europe. Production from the Askeladd, Albatross and Snøhvit fields started in
September 2007 with a projected 30-year lifetime and injection of CO2 at Snøhvit
commenced in May 2008. The CO2 content of the field gas must be reduced from 5-8%
to less than 50 ppm prior to conversion to LNG. The 0.75 Mt/yr (145 bcf/yr) CO2
removed from the natural gas, using amine technology, is injected into the Tubåen
formation situated below the Stø formation (Figure A2-6), a Jurassic gas reservoir
(Maldal and Tappel, 2004).
Figure A2-6– Simplified cross section through the SnØhvit field (Maldal and
Tappel, IEAGHG 2010)
Gorgon, Australia (IEAGHG, 2010 and Chevron, 2016)
The Gorgon Project as a Joint Venture (Chevron Australia, Operator - 47%, ExxonMobil
– 25%, Shell – 25%, Osaka Gas – 1.25%, Tokyo Gas – 1%, and Chubu Electric Power –
0.417%) will exploit the natural gas resources of the Greater Gorgon area, offshore
Western Australia. The Gorgon Project is a three-train LNG and domestic gas facility
on Barrow Island and the first shipment of LNG was shipped to Japan in March 2016.
A-35
The natural gas in Gorgon contains up to 14% CO2. The CO2 will be separated from the
produced gas at the gas-processing facility on Barrow Island, compressed to a
supercritical state, and then transported by a 12 km (7.45 mile) pipeline to the
injection site for storage on the island. If feasible, the project will involve the injection
of up to 4.9 Mt/y (867 bcf/y) extracted from the field gas into the Dupuy Saline
Formation 2,300 m (7,546 feet) below Barrow Island (Figure A2-7). A total of 125 Mt
(24.1 tcf) CO2 (95% of the reservoir CO2) is expected to be stored over the project life.
Due to delays with the Gorgon gas project, the planned start of CO2 injection has been
delayed from 2014 to late 2017/early 2018.
Nine injection wells are currently planned, which will be drilled directionally from
three locations. The modelling of CO2 migration in the heterogeneous injection horizon
with an average permeability of 25 mD predicts preferential CO2 migration along high-
permeability layers resulting in a non-uniform plume spread. A monitoring program
to keep track of CO2 behavoir after injection will include: a number of observation
wells to monitor injection rates and pressures, seismic monitoring of CO2 migration,
wireline logging, geochemical analyses of Dupuy Formation waters and installation of
CO2 detection devices to detect leakages (Chevron, 2005, 2006). Four water
production wells with rate of approximately 63,000 barrels per day (~10,000 m3/day)
are planned to manage reservoir pressures and brine displacement in an updip
location of the injection wells (Malek, 2009). In case of excessive pressure build-up
due to poor injectivity, remediation options proposed by the operator include
increasing the completion interval and an additional up to 9 injection wells.
A-36
Figure A2-7 – Schematic plume migration of injected CO2 in the Dupuy Formation
(Chevron, 2005, IEAGHG, 2010)
Cranfield, Mississippi, CO2 Storage Project
The Southeast Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership (SECARB) project in

Cranfield Field in western Mississippi has been conducting testing and monitoring
approaches to document storage efficiency and storage permanence under condition
of both CO2 EOR as well as CO2 injection downdip into brine. Denbury Onshore LLC is
host for the study and has brought a depleted oil and gas reservoir, Cranfield Field,
under CO2 flood. Injection was started in July 2008 with injection rates reaching
greater than 1.2 million tons/year through 23 wells. Injection is into coarse grained
fluvial deposits of the Cretaceous lower Tuscaloosa formation in a gentle anticline at
depths of 3300 m (10,800 feet). The structure is created by a deep-seated salt dome
with total thicknesses of the productive sand in the gas cap and the oil zone 19 m (63
feet) and 9.4 m (31 feet) respectively. A team of researchers from 10 institutions has
collected data from five study areas, each with a different goal and different spatial
and temporal scale (Hovarka et al, 2011).
Tuscaloosa oil and gas production at Cranfield began in 1944 with drilling of wells in
the oil rim below a large gas cap at the top of the structure. Gas was recycled for
pressure maintenance until 1959, when the gas cap was produced, decreasing
pressure and ending production. By 1966, nearly all the wells were plugged and
abandoned and the Tuscaloosa reservoir was idle and in pressure recovery until
Denbury began injection for EOR purposes in 2008.
A-37
CO2 injection at Cranfield has a number of advantages suited for conducting pilot
projects for evaluating success of geologic storage objectives:
 Injection is into porous and permeable sandstones with mudstone confining

systems, a typical setting for the Gulf Coast region, with results that can be
applied widely
 Large volumes of CO2 are commercially available (natural CO2 source from
Denbury’s Jackson Dome reservoir and transported via pipeline
 Operator Denbury’s experience and logistical support in the areas of CO2 handling
best practices, pipeline transport, permitting and liability management
 Via SECARB, Denbury cooperation wells were placed further downdip than
normal (below the oil-water contact) and injected at higher than normal rates,
replicating rates needed for brine storage
 Staging the test at the start of tertiary recovery with relevance to other sites. The
extended reservoir shut-in period allowed reservoir pressure to recover to near
original and fluid re-equilibration. This will be the common initial condition in
CO2 projects injecting in non-oil and gas productive saline formations.
For CO2 storage, the magnitude and propagation of the pressure increase are the
controlling factors for storage integrity and storage efficiency (Choi et al, 2011). In the
case of a compartmentalized system with closed boundaries, CO2 injection may lead to
significant pressure buildup and the potential to reactivate existing faults and/or
create fractures in the overlying or underlying sealing rocks, resulting in CO2 leakage
or migration.
Results from numerical modeling studies conducted by Choi et al (2011) using the
CMG-GEM compositional flow simulator indicate the following:
 Pressure measurements are very useful to understand reservoir boundary

conditions which ultimately determine the movement of the CO2 plume
 Reservoir characterization, especially permeability is of utmost importance in

modeling of pressure histories for CO2 injection
 Pressure monitoring would be more valuable for CO2 injection into brine aquifers
than it would be for CO2 EOR purposes.
Also, numerical modeling done by Hosseini et al (2018) showed that:
A-38
 CO2 injected for EOR will partition into several phases in the target formation.
The distribution into free or residually trapped oil, gas and brine phases depends
on many factors such as reservoir temperature, pressure, initial fluid saturations,
brine salinity, and relative permeability parameters and evolves through time
including in the post-injection period, during which it will tend to stabilize.
 The above variations are significant and depend on the operator’s selected
development strategy: continuous gas (CO2) injection, WAG injection, water
curtain injection or combinations, with WAG operations appearing to be the most
optimal approach for both EOR as well as storage objectives.
Data from the listed projects above will provide valuable guidelines for future geologic
CO2 storage projects, both for onshore and offshore projects.
A-39
APPENDIX 3 - STANDARD OPERATING PRACTICES (SOPS) FOR DESIGNING,
CONSTRUCTING, AND OPERATING CO2 INJECTION WELLS
A3.1 SCOPE
The practices for designing, constructing, and operating CO2 injection wells are often
called Standard Operating Practices (SOP) and intended to establish requirements and
recommendations for relevant wells in Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) projects or for
the geological storage or disposal of CO2. The former has a large number of operating
wells in the USA and the latter has only a small number. In many cases, CO2 is injected
with other suitable fluids associated with oil and gas production operations, such as
treated water from oil and gas producing zones. This is often done in the EOR process
called WAG (water alternating gas) where stages of water and CO2 improve the flow of
oil out of formation pore spaces and into production wells. Relevant storage or
disposal wells also use these SOPs for environmentally safe and permanent
containment of unwanted fluids, such as H2S (aka. acid gas wells).
These SOP are primarily applicable to CO2 injection into hydrocarbon reservoirs and
saline aquifers. This SOP also provides recommendations for the development of
management documents, community engagement, risk assessment, and risk
communication. The SOP’s primary objective is to maintain sustained well integrity to
minimize Health, Safety, and Environmental (HSE) risks, and avoid unnecessary costs
that can negatively affect operating expenses (OPEX) and capital expenses (CAPEX).
A3.1.1 CO2 and CO2-Related Injection Stream
These SOP apply providing a well that is a conduit for a stream of CO2 from the surface
into relevant formations. This SOP does not permit waste and other matter to be
added for the purpose of disposing of impurities defined in local regulations as waste.
However, a CO2 stream can contain incidental associated substances from a)
producing oil and gas formation(s), b) production wells, c) drilling, workover, and
hydraulic fracturing operations, d) fluid treatments to remove unwanted constituents
prior to injection, e) capture (separation from produced oil & gas, etc.), f) injection
operations, and g) trace materials added to assist in monitoring and verifying CO2
migration. Any of the above associated substances and trace materials in the CO2
A-40
should be small enough (dimensionally & in volume) and sufficiently chemically inert
to pass through the injection well and the formation’s permeability without any
adverse effects (plugging scales, pore-throat particle plugging, etc.) on injection
performance.
A3.1.2 CO2 Well Life Cycle
The CO2 well’s life cycle covers all aspects, periods, and stages of the project, beginning
with those necessary to initiate the project (including site screening, characterization,
assessment, selection, engineering, permitting, and construction), that lead to the start
of injection and proceeding through subsequent operations until cessation of
injection; and culminating in the post-injection period, which can include a post-
injection closure period and, if regulations require, a post-closure period. This SOP
specifies that the post-closure period occurs only if a transfer of responsibility and
liability to a designated authority or other responsible entity takes place. If a transfer
does not occur, the project remains in the post-injection closure period and formal site
(field, lease, or section thereof) closure does not occur. This Standard does not specify
post-closure period requirements. Figure A3-1 illustrates the confines, limits, and
boundaries of this SOP.
Figure A3-1 CO2 EOR or Disposal/Storage Project Life Cycle
A-41
These Standards do not apply to:
(a) the post-closure period;

(b) CO2 injection into unsuitable locations: coal or other mines, or salt caverns; and
(c) underground storage into any form of man-made containers.
A3.1.3 Application of Requirements in Standard
In this SOP, “shall” is used to express a requirement, i.e., a provision that the user shall
satisfy in order to comply with the standard; “should” is used to express a
recommendation or that which is advised but not required; “may” is used to express
an option or that which is permissible within the limits of the standard; and “can” is
used to express possibility or capability. Notes accompanying clauses do not include
requirements or alternative requirements; the purpose of a note accompanying a
clause is to separate from the text explanatory or informative material. Notes to tables
and figures are considered part of the table or figure and may be written as
requirements. Annexes are designated normative (mandatory) or informative (non-
mandatory) to define their application.
A3.1.4 SI Units
The values given in SI units are the units of record for the purposes of this Standard.
The values given in parentheses are for information and comparison only.
A3.2 MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS FOR INJECTION WELLS – WELL CONSTRUCTION

AND OPERATING MANAGEMENT
Defining and implementing standards for geological storage/disposal is an essential

component in the development of CO2 injection and storage/disposal project.
Management systems are essential for the implementation and public credibility of
geological storage processes. They are typically prepared during the well planning and
field development phases and need to be flexible to address changes during later
phases of the project’s life cycle. They should be robust to ensure that they meet site-
specific project and regulatory needs. Management systems for a CO2 injection and
storage/disposal project interconnect through all of the project’s activities and phases.
A3.2.1 General
A-42
The intent of management systems is to ensure that existing best practices are
followed and to allow and promote improvement in the oil and gas field including the
CO2 injection and storage project operating therein. Management systems also help to
ensure that quality assurance/quality control, regulatory compliance, process
improvements, and efficiency improvements are integrated into regular management
processes and decision-making, as well as ensuring project transparency so that
project stakeholders, regulatory authorities, and the public develop confidence in the
management and implementation of storage projects. Another important function of
management systems is the embedment of a risk-management process into the
culture and practices of a storage project to help ensure that the circumstances or
events that can affect project objectives are identified and managed. Risk management
should include consideration of both internal and external factors.
A3.2.1.1 Project operator’s roles and responsibilities
The scope of the project operator’s roles and responsibilities shall include operations
that fall within the project boundaries as defined within Clause A3.2.3. These
operational activities shall include those over which the project operator has control
or significant influence, including those that have significant environmental or social
impacts.
The project operator shall be responsible for:
(a) all activities related to the storage project (including design, monitoring, and
verification) and for the coordination and integration of those activities,
especially activities that involve the handling and fate of the injected CO 2;
(b) formulating a written statement of the storage project’s objectives, principles,

and values and communicating this statement throughout the project
organization and to project stakeholders and regulatory authorities
(c) coordinating, integrating, and communicating the activities and responsibilities

of persons or organizations related to the storage project to project stakeholders
and regulatory authorities
(d) coordinating the activities of other organizations acting on its behalf;
(e) ensuring that all persons and organizations employed by the project operator
comply with the requirements of this SOP;
A-43
(f) project risk identification, risk evaluation, and risk management during the life
cycle of the storage project, and for coordinating activities to minimize risk; and
Note: Requirements for risk management are specified in Clause A3.3.
(g) determining and ensuring the availability of the physical, financial, and human
resources required to meet the objectives and principles of the storage project.
The project operator can change over the project’s life cycle. In such cases, the former
project operator shall be responsible for ensuring that all necessary documentation,
materials, and processes are transferred to the subsequent project operator. The
subsequent project operator shall be responsible for the smooth transition of
management systems and processes. Records should be retained by both the former
and subsequent project operators.
A3.2.1.2 Continuous improvement
The project operator shall continuously improve the management systems by

adapting to changing operational conditions or regulatory circumstances. Continuous
improvement shall be undertaken for all activities of the storage project, including
planning, design, development, operation, monitoring, and closure. The project
operator shall develop a continuous improvement process that identifies deficiencies
and improvements, assesses alternatives, implements corrective actions, evaluates
action effectiveness, and assesses the need for further action.
A3.2.1.3 Project stakeholders
The project operator shall identify project stakeholders early in the storage project’s
life cycle and engage them during all phases of the project. The project operator shall
provide educational or informational resources relating to the storage project to
project stakeholders, including employees.
Note: Examples of stakeholders are included in the definitions Appendix 1.
A3.2.1.4 Project definition
The project operator should define a phased project scope that maintains and
communicates the clear alignment of project activities with the storage project’s
objectives and principles. The project operator should organize, resource, and direct
the activities of the CO2 injection and storage/disposal project in accordance with the
A-44
project’s time periods specified in this Clause. A project operator may employ project
periods different from that specified in this Clause but should describe and document
support for the alternative periods.
During all project periods, the project operator shall be responsible for obtaining and
allocating resources for the work at hand, setting specific period objectives and
schedules, and setting priorities in regard to competition for resources. Particular
responsibilities apply to the project operator during specific project periods. The
following list of project periods includes some of those requirements:
(a) Site screening period: the project operator shall set conceptual, geographical,
geological, and hydrogeological criteria for, and boundaries of, the potential
storage sites (see Clause A3.2.9 and Clause A3.2.3 for details).
(b) Site selection and characterization period: the project operator shall:
(i) set performance assessment criteria by which the development of the project
can be evaluated, and determine the relative importance of the attributes by
which candidate site(s) will be compared;
(ii) ensure that the candidate site(s) have adequate capacity to accept the
anticipated final volume of CO2, adequate injectivity to accept the CO2 stream
at the desired supply rates, and containment characteristics that will ensure
effective retention of the injected CO2; and
(iii) establish the context and expectations for risk assessment and risk
management, to ensure that the selected site(s) do not pose unacceptable
risks to other resources, the environment, and human health, or to project
developers, owners, and operators.
(c) Design, development, and operation period: the project operator shall
(i) develop and disseminate procedures for a QHSE (quality, health, safety,
environment) protection program;
(ii) develop and disseminate protocols that promote the effective integrated
functioning of project operator and subcontractor organizations;
(iii) select appropriate materials and methods for site development;
(iv)apply industry standards for site design, development, and operations,

including wellsite design, drilling operation procedures, facility construction,
monitoring hardware installation, and site security and emergency
procedures; and
A-45
(v) develop operations and maintenance procedures for monitoring and
improving the performance of the complete integrated storage system over
the project’s lifecycle.
(d) Post-injection period: the project operator shall
(i) set criteria for well abandonment and inspection; and
(ii) set criteria for continued monitoring that meets regulatory requirements and
continues the progressive reduction of uncertainties regarding the CO 2 plume
fate.
(e) Closure period: the project operator shall
(i) demonstrate that the CO2 storage complex has appropriate long-term
monitoring systems in place;
(ii) establish archives and attendant systems to ensure the future public
availability of project data and knowledge;
(iii) prepare a plan for long-term stewardship;
(iv) decommission (or schedule for decommissioning) all surface equipment

associated with the storage project that is not needed for the post-closure
period;
(v) plug and abandon wells within the storage site that are not considered
necessary for future monitoring purposes; and
(vi) ensure proper documentation of, and adherence to, transfer of responsibility
requirements, where applicable.
(f) Post-closure period: this SOP does not cover the post-closure period. Local
regulations shall be used to determine the operator’s responsibilities such as
archiving relevant oil and gas field and CO2 injection and storage/disposal data.
See Figure A3-1.
A3.2.2 Project Boundaries
A3.2.2.1 Responsibility
The project operator of a CO2 injection and storage/disposal project bears

responsibilities that can differ among the multiple overlapping dimensions potentially
affected by the project. Within each dimension, the project boundaries can be defined
in terms of legal descriptions (land surveys), contracts, permit conditions, surface
and/or subsurface operational activities, or the physical effects (current or
anticipated) of the project.
A-46
A3.2.2.2 Organizational boundaries
The organization or person acting as the project operator for the CO2 injection and
storage/disposal project shall be identified and specific responsibilities and reporting
relationships shall be defined between the project operator and designated persons
and organizations involved with the project. If control of the project is shared among
organizations (e.g. lease partners), the project’s internal boundaries among
organizations and areas of responsibility shall be defined.
A3.2.2.3 Operational boundaries
The operational boundary of a storage project encompasses the activities that are
directly controlled by the storage project. Activities within the project operational
boundary include well drilling, CO2 injection and storage/disposal project
construction, site characterization, monitoring, personnel transportation, and CO2
transportation that is internal to the storage project. For the purposes of planning and
risk management, the project operational boundary shall be considered to include the
communities within the area anticipated to be affected by the storage project and any
temporary or mobile monitoring facilities.
A3.2.2.4 Physical boundaries
The project operator shall define the surface and subsurface physical boundaries of
the CO2 injection and storage/disposal project. The surface physical boundary or
boundaries shall include all project sites (injection sites, associated industrial
facilities, and fixed, permanent monitoring facilities) and offices that pertain directly
to the storage project. The project operator shall be responsible for all activities within
the permanent surface boundaries over the project’s life cycle and should establish the
legal right to limit access within the permanent surface boundaries.
The subsurface physical boundary includes the subsurface pore volume within the
designated rock formation(s) and its overlying surface area wherein CO2 injection
could impose important physical effects. Examples of important physical effects can
include pore fluid (existing pre-injection) displacement and impacts upon known
subsurface resources (oil, gas, water) or the exploitation thereof (e.g., impacts from
A-47
fluid-pressure increases). The project operator shall estimate the nature and
boundaries of subsurface effects and update and improve such estimates throughout
the project’s life cycle as new data become available.
A3.2.3 Management Commitment to Principles
A3.2.3.1 General
Persons in top management and other management roles throughout the project
operator’s organization shall demonstrate their commitment to best practices for the
long-term safe geological storage of CO2 by incorporating the principles specified in
Clauses A3.2.4.2 to A3.2.4.4 into their actions and decisions.
A3.2.3.2 Internal principles
The project operator shall:
(a) operate on the basis of sound science and engineering;
(b) meet all legal and regulatory obligations and exceed them when appropriate;
(c) seek cost-effective means but allow a prudent margin for safety and
environmental considerations;
(d) ensure safe CO2 handling;
(e) identify and reduce project risks through an appropriate risk management
system; and
(f) ensure that during the project’s life cycle, the site will be monitored to ensure
that unplanned occurrences can be addressed promptly (see Clause A3.5).
A3.2.3.3 External principles
(a) operate in an open and transparent fashion with project stakeholders and
regulatory authorities to build public understanding, trust, and credibility;
(b) establish a local stakeholder advisory strategy and regularly engage with and
seek input from local stakeholders;
(c) provide reports to the public when major milestones are arrived at or significant
unplanned events occur; and
A-48
(d) seek external independent assessments of significant project activities to ensure
compliance with applicable standards and best practices.
A3.2.3.4 Health, safety, and environmental principles
(a) ensure that health, safety, and environmental protection for employees and local
communities are the project’s highest priorities;
(b) ensure the integrity of all facilities which includes preventing CO2 leaks;
(c) develop and put in place an emergency response plan and designated team;
(d) upon completion of the project, convert the storage site and storage unit to a
condition such that no negative impacts on human health or the environment
are expected; and
(e) provide the resources to continually improve health, safety, and environmental
protection.
A3.2.4 Planning and Decision Making
A3.2.4.1 General
The project operator shall establish, document, implement, and maintain a

management system and shall continually improve its effectiveness.
Note: Examples of recognized management systems include ISO 9001 on quality management, ISO 14001 on
environmental management, and ISO 31000 on risk management.
A3.2.4.2 Intellectual property
EOR and geological CO2 storage/disposal are oil and gas industry projects that could
likely involve or concern multiple public (regulators, media, academia, etc.) and
private (oil & gas services, vendors, subcontractors, etc.) organizations. While there is
potential for both public and private benefit from the development of new technology,
there is also potential for conflict and project failure because of disagreements over
ownership of intellectual property (IP). Accordingly, the project operator should
negotiate and establish early in the storage project’s life cycle inter-organizational
agreements that address the ownership of present and potential IP.
A-49
A3.2.5 Resources
A3.2.5.1 General
The project operator shall evaluate and document at regular intervals the resource
requirements under its responsibility to ensure that the requirements are met
throughout the project’s life cycle.
A3.2.5.2 Competence of personnel
The project operator shall determine the necessary competence of persons doing
work under its control that affect health, safety, and the environment, and ensure that
these persons are competent based on appropriate education, training, skills, or
experience. When appropriate, the project operator shall provide training or take
other actions to achieve the necessary competence.
The project operator shall retain suitable documented information as evidence of

competence. All employees shall be trained on safe operating procedures relating to
their job responsibilities and empowered with stop work authority related to safety
issues. At regular intervals, the project operator shall review required competencies to
ensure that persons under its control remain up-to-date on changing regulations,
knowledge, and best practices. The project operator shall ensure that subcontractors
have equivalent programs and can demonstrate the competency of their personnel.
A3.2.5.3 Equipment management
The project operator shall retain, manage, and direct appropriate equipment and
infrastructure to facilitate all project phases including the documentation of
infrastructure and equipment allocations for the CO2 project. The project operator
shall further consider establishing emergency provisions to prepare for loss of
equipment or infrastructure failure to a point that adversely affects site development,
operations, or closure activities.
A-50
A3.2.6 Communications
A3.2.6.1 General
The project operator shall develop a communication plan early in the project, which
shall include a trained, designated liaison (aka. spokesperson) for media relations. The
project operator shall ensure that communication processes are clearly defined and
that they are effective in advancing the storage project’s objectives.
A3.2.6.2 Public communications
When the brine CO2 project is in or near populated areas, the project operator shall
develop an open community outreach and engagement strategy. Input from the local
community on the process and details of the strategy may be obtained. Local outreach
and engagement should include public meetings, public notices, public updates, and
site visits. A local newsletter and social media may be used as needed.
The project operator should publicly communicate information on project activities,

including; regulatory matters, standards performance, and safety and environmental
issues early in the project’s life cycle, at regular intervals and when specific events
occur. Public communications shall be clear, transparent, and accurate, and include
scientific, technical, and economic information concerning the storage project, and be
expressed in language that the general public can understand. There should be a
designated individual with a published telephone number and email address to
answer questions.
Public communications dissemination should include local community organizations

and the local media. Employees can also be public stakeholders. The primary focus for
local communication should be issues related to the storage project and to matters of
local benefit and concern with respect to environmental, economic, and social
outcomes. Public communications shall be respectful of all parties and respond to
critics in a diplomatic and factual manner.
A3.2.6.3 Internal communications
Employees should be fully informed of the nature and circumstances of the storage
project, its goals and targets, and its progress in achieving those goals. All internal
A-51
communications shall be clear, direct, and accurate. Employees should be briefed on
the regulatory expectations and requirements of government agencies and any
guidance or operating procedures referenced by government regulations. Employees
should be informed of all stakeholder groups and their project concerns to lessen any
public confrontations. Internal communications should be conveyed to project
contractors and consultants where appropriate.
A3.2.7 Documentation
A3.2.7.1 General
Documentation systems shall be designed in order to meet the needs of the project
operator, from both an internal and external data collection and reporting perspective.
Institutional knowledge should be recorded to allow for the transfer of pertinent
project information to either a subsequent project operator or to meet regulatory
reporting requirements, as needed.
A3.2.7.2 Information management
The storage project documentation shall include:
(a) documented statements of policy and objectives;
(b) documented plans, procedures, and records required by this SOP, including the
risk management plan, the monitoring plan, the communications plan, and the
post-injection and closure plan; and
(c) storage project artifacts and information products, including documents,

records, and other data determined by the project operator to be necessary for
the effective planning, operation, and control of its processes.
A3.2.7.3 Knowledge and information management systems
The project operator shall implement and maintain over the project’s life cycle a
centralized project information management system to organize, control, and archive
project management artifacts, which may include, e.g., decision documentation,
contracts, regulatory applications and approvals, financial records, engineering
designs, meeting minutes, schedules, progress reports, communications, work plans
and other artifacts. The project operator shall implement and maintain over the
storage project’s life cycle a centralized data management system to organize, control,
A-52
and archive the diverse knowledge generated and acquired by the project, including
scientific and spatial data sets, model results, maps, and other information products.
A3.2.8 Well Planning- Site Screening, Selection and Characterization
A3.2.8.1 General
The purpose of site screening and selection is to identify prospective CO2 injection or
storage/disposal sites, gather necessary information on the prospective sites, and use
this information to select the most promising candidates for further characterization
that help maximize CO2 injection performance, and minimize CAPEX and OPEX.
Subsequent characterization and assessment of a site should demonstrate that the
candidate site is likely to have adequate capacity to accept the anticipated final volume
of CO2, appropriate injectivity to accept the CO2 stream at the desired/supply rates,
and containment characteristics that will ensure effective retention of the injected CO 2
over the time-scales established by the regulatory authorities in the respective
jurisdiction. In addition, the characterization and assessment process shall
demonstrate that storage of the CO2 stream at the candidate site(s) does not pose
unacceptable risks to other resources, to the environment and human health, and to
project developers, owners, and operators.
The site screening, selection, and characterization process is inherently an iterative

process, i.e., as more information is gained about the sites under study, sites that
might have been thought to be suitable candidates will be eliminated from
consideration and further study will need to be conducted on other prospective sites.
Also, as a site is developed and operated, new data and information will be acquired or
become available that will enhance the characterization and understanding of the site.
Thus, while this SOP presents the screening, selection, and characterization process in
a linear fashion, users of this Standard should anticipate applying its guidance
iteratively. Sites currently used for CO2 EOR may, in the future be used for CO2 storage,
in which case, operators will need an accounting system to quantify all the CO2 that
has been stored and ensure its retention (See Section 8.4 Oxy’s Wasson Unit Case
Study # 4 and the Oxy Denver Unit CO2 Subpart RR Monitoring, Reporting and
Verification (MRV) Plan, December 2015).
A-53
A3.2.8.2 Mechanisms for CO2 trapping
The main mechanisms for CO2 trapping in geological media are:
(a) structural and stratigraphic trapping, in which the lateral movement of

continuous liquid-phase, mobile CO2 in response to buoyancy and/or pressure
forces within the storage unit (depleted reservoir or aquifer) is prevented by low-
permeability barriers (caprocks, or aquitards or aquicludes) such as shales or
evaporites (halite and anhydrite);
(b) residual-saturation trapping, in which discontinuous liquid-phase CO2 is

immobilized in individual pores by capillary forces;
(c) mineralization or dissolution trapping, in which injected CO2 reacts with the
dissolved substances in the native pore fluid and/or with the minerals making up
the rock matrix surfaces of the storage complex, with the result that part of the
injected CO2 is incorporated into the reaction products as precipitates forming
solid compounds or minerals (aka. scale).
Hydrodynamic trapping, or migration-assisted storage, is not a trapping mechanism

by itself, but a combination of trapping mechanisms in laterally open deep saline
aquifers where a combination of mechanisms may contribute to CO2 trapping.
A3.2.9 Site Screening
During the site screening process, sites that possess one or more of the following
characteristics should not be considered for CO2 injection and storage/disposal:
(a) Technical:
(i) lacking the necessary capacity and injectivity to match the rate of the CO 2
stream and the volume(s) to be stored;
(ii) lacking, based on existing information, containment for the required period
of time (as might be determined by the designated regulatory authority in
the respective jurisdiction), including at least one regionally extensive
competent primary seal (cap-rock);
(iii) located in areas where containment is likely to be affected by seismicity and

tectonic activity, although the presence of seismicity per se should not
preclude a site from being considered;
(iv) located in areas of extensive and high-density faulting and fracturing subject
to reactivation;
A-54
(v) located in over-pressured systems, i.e., systems where the natural pressure is
significantly higher than hydrostatic, with gradients greater than 15–16
kPa/m (0.663-0.707 psi/ft) and sometimes approaching lithostatic pressure;
(vi) located in short hydrodynamic systems, i.e., systems with relatively short
travel distances from recharge to discharge areas, such as systems in intra-
montane basins and thrust and fold belts;
(vii) lacking adequate monitoring potential in regard to the evolution, fate, and
effects of the injected CO2 stream; and
(viii) the mechanical integrity of legacy wells penetrating the primary seal
cannot be confirmed or, if known, cannot be adequately remediated.
(b) Legal and regulatory:
(i) located within the depth of protected groundwater as defined in the

respective jurisdiction;
(ii) located at depths and locations where communication with, and impacts on,
protected groundwater can be demonstrated;
(iii) located at depths and locations where communication with, and may have
negative impacts on, other natural resources (energy, geothermal, and
mineral) can be demonstrated;
(iv) located in protected areas, e.g., national parks, and in environmentally

sensitive areas as defined by designated authorities, that are likely to be
affected by operations or loss of containment; and
(v) located in areas where surface and/or pore space rights or operating permits
cannot be obtained, e.g., military bases and native reservations, unless
approved by the proper authorities.
Evaluation for site screening involves a certain level of site characterization, but this
characterization should be based on readily available data and information and should
not require acquisition of new data and a significant evaluation effort. In some cases,
sites deemed unsuitable based on these criteria can be found suitable once additional
data and information become available or alternative field development injection
schemes are applied (e.g., horizontal wells or production of aquifer water), or legal
and regulatory changes allow development.
A3.2.10 Site Selection and Well Placement
Site selection and well placement decisions builds on the performed geological
evaluation and land use considerations during the initial site screening process. Data,
A-55
information and knowledge acquired during the screening process should be
incorporated into the site selection process. In areas where sufficient data (direct
and/or analog) are available, models may be developed during site selection. These
models can be useful for identifying data gaps and for quantifying uncertainty with
respect to initial estimates.
During the selection of sites and well placement locations that passed the screening
process, the following should be assessed:
(a) subsurface criteria:
(i) capacity — further refinement of site storage capacity as more information

is gathered and the injection potential is better understood. This can be
accomplished by evaluating existing well logs and cores to determine
reservoir thickness, lateral variation, continuity, porosity, heterogeneity, and
water saturation;
(ii) injectivity —influences the number of wells, well design (horizontal versus
vertical), and injection pressure. Injectivity can be estimated from the well’s
production history, core analyses, or hydraulic testing;
(iii) storage security, including the potential for CO2 leakage through;
(1) weak seals along faults and fractures, assessment of which may include
(a) interpretation and reprocessing of legacy 2-D and 3-D seismic;
(b) review of aeromagnetic surveys, logs (structure mapping), pressure

mapping, and geochemical analyses of water;
(c) identification of primary and secondary seals;
(d) ensuring that the primary seal is regional in scale; and
(e) assessment of seismicity and tectonic activity;
(2) legacy wells, whose investigation should include the
(a) number of wells penetrating the storage complex within the area of
review;
(b) age and construction of the wells;
(c) well status (producing, suspended, or abandoned); and
A-56
(d) history of well interventions in the area (i.e, surface casing vent flow
(SCVF), sustained casing pressure (SCP), gas migration (GM), and well
remedial operations);
(iv) pore space ownership rights (identifying pore space owners in the area of
review);
(v) proximity to and potential effects on other subsurface activities, e.g., mining,
natural gas storage, and fracturing in or near primary or secondary seals
(e.g., for shale oil or gas extractions);
(vi) proximity to and potential effects on valuable natural, energy, and mineral
resources, e.g., producing hydrocarbon reservoirs, potable groundwater,
geothermal energy, shale oil or gas, dissolved minerals (e.g., lithium), and
sedimentary-basin minerals (e.g., Mississippi-type Pb-Zn deposits); and
(vii) capture and handling of any hydrocarbons produced by storage operations

(if oil & gas production is part of the CO2 EOR or storage/disposal strategy for
pressure control); and
(b) surface criteria:
(i) existence of and proximity to rights-of-way between (potential) CO2 source(s)

and the storage site;
(ii) existence of infrastructure, e.g., pipelines and rights-of way, access roads, and
power lines;
(iii) population distribution in the area overlying the storage site and along the
projected path of the CO2 plume;
(iv) land ownership in the area of review, as defined in the respective jurisdiction;
(v) proximity to other industrial facilities and to agricultural activities;
(vi) exposure to and proximity to vehicular traffic, roads, railways, aircraft, or

shipping traffic;
(vii) nearness of protected wildlife habitats (including endangered species) and

environmentally sensitive areas (wildlife management areas, community
watersheds, conservancy areas, ecological reserves, and protected areas);
(viii) distance to nearby rivers and other bodies of fresh water;
(ix) closeness to national parks and other reserved areas (e.g., military bases and
native reservations);
(x) present and predicted development of adjacent properties;
(xi) site topography and variability in weather conditions;
A-57
(xii) cultural and historical resources; and
(xiii) socio-economic conditions.
Some site selection and injection well placement criteria are not necessarily related to
storage capacity, injectivity, and security per se, but, nevertheless, should be
considered because they affect siting. Proximity for safety and security of storage
should be evaluated and defined in accordance with the regulations in the respective
jurisdiction. Proximity for economic reasons does not form part of the considerations
specified in this Clause, although proximity to (potential) source(s) of CO2 to be
injected and existence of adequate transportation networks — or planned
transportation, if such networks are absent — is an important consideration. By
evaluating available surface- and subsurface-related information, site selection should
result in a ranked list of selected potential sites for further characterization.
A3.2.11 Site Characterization and Assessment
A3.2.11.1 General
The characterization of a storage unit and of the primary seal shall consider all forms
of CO2 migration and trapping for liquid-phase CO2. Geological, hydrogeological,
geochemical, geophysical, and geomechanical studies, and identification and
characterization of legacy wells, shall be conducted. This may be achieved through the
collection, interpretation, and, where needed and applicable, reinterpretation of all
available data, including (a) seismic data; (b) well test data; (c) geophysical wireline
data (cased and open hole); (d) wellhead injection pressure data; (e) aquifer or
reservoir pressure data; (f) data from core samples; (g) analyses of sampled fluids
(formation water, oil, and/or gas); (h) water well samples, and (i) oil and gas
production and fluid injection data (water, steam, gas, and solvents).
Supplemental data may be obtained through 3-D seismic surveys or similar methods
such as VSP, DAS, and reservoir surveillance well’s sensor and sampling data.
A-58
A3.2.11.2 Geological and hydrogeological characterization of the
storage unit
A geological and hydrogeological characterization of the storage unit to provide a

reasonable estimate of capacity, injectivity, and containment shall be completed
before injection of the CO2 stream and should include:
(a) Assessment of the lateral and vertical stratigraphic and lithological properties of
the storage unit to determine the extent of the storage unit and establish its
boundaries. Available data from wellbores, geophysical data, facies analysis, and
regional geological studies should be used for this purpose;
(b) Identification and characterization of fault zones and structural features that
could affect containment. 2-D and 3-D seismic surveys, and other
geophysical/geochemical techniques should be used to identify any faults and
structural anomalies. The locations of such features should be identified using the
wireline log analyses, core analyses, and hydrogeological and flow analyses
described in Clause A3.2.12.2 (e.g., comparison of flow regimes and formation
water chemistries of the storage unit with porous and permeable units overlying
the cap-rock), to ensure that these analyses provide insights on the transmissivity
of these features;
(c) Determination of the dip angle and direction of the storage unit and its distance
to sub-crop or outcrop, if such is the case;
(d) Mapping of the depth, top, and thickness of the storage unit using appropriate
mapping tools and assessment of the degree of compartmentalization that could
limit capacity and injectivity;
(e) Assessment of porosity distribution in the storage unit using wireline logs and
core analysis data;
(f) Evaluation of the initial pressure distribution in the storage unit (prior to human
activities, if any) and of the current pressure distribution if the initial pressure is
affected by production or injection of fluids (e.g., oil, gas, or disposal water);
(g) Evaluation of injectivity, which is a measure of the rate at which CO2 can be
injected into the formation. This parameter should be determined by performing
an in-situ injectivity test and transient pressure analysis with an appropriate
fluid, inverse geomechanical analysis of surface deformation measurements via
satellite radar or surface tiltmeter array measurements, analysis of downhole
micro-deformation measurements via tiltmeter arrays in surveillance wells,
conducting core flood tests using core samples from the storage unit, and/or by
performing numerical simulations;
(h) Evaluation of the background flow regime in the storage unit, including direction
and strength. Reservoir and hydrogeological studies should be conducted to
effectively characterize the velocity and direction of the flow of water;
A-59
(i) Evaluation of the potential total volume theoretically available for CO 2 EOR and
storage/disposal (using viable injection scenarios) based on the porosity,
conductive permeability, and dimensions of the storage unit and of any flow
restrictions such as limited displacement and compressibility of existing pore
fluids. This volume can then be converted into mass (tonnes) of stored brine based
on the relationship between in situ temperature, ultimate pressure distribution in
the storage unit, and CO2 density;
(j) Development of a three-dimensional geological model of the storage system using

geological, well, and geophysical data;
(k) Identification of the presence and size of known local traps, i.e., closures and
pinch outs (which is a key parameter influencing the migration of injected CO2);
(l) Assessment of large-scale vertical and horizontal reservoir stratigraphic

heterogeneity (well and seismic and other data should be used to image reservoir
heterogeneity where appropriate, since this strongly influences CO 2 storage
capacity and spread of the CO2 plume);
(m) Evaluation of permeability distribution in the storage unit, to be determined

from core analyses, drill-stem tests, and pressure build-up and fall-off tests;
(n) Evaluation of the temperature distribution in the storage unit prior to injection of
the brine stream. The temperature of the storage unit shall be determined from
wireline logs or direct measurement of the bottom-hole temperature using
suitable instruments;
(o) Estimation of relative permeability and capillary pressure, as functions of

saturation, for the water/natural gas or water/oil system in the storage unit,
including residual (irreducible) water saturations;
(p) Evaluation of the flow regime and pressure distribution in the porous and
permeable unit immediately overlying the cap-rock above the storage unit; and
(q) Assessment of storage efficiency. Storage efficiency is defined as that fraction (by
volume) of the storage unit pore space that can be occupied by CO2 and depends
on geological factors such as the structural geometry and stratigraphic
heterogeneity of the storage formation, on the injection characteristics, including
well type and configuration, and on other in situ properties, including the salinity
concentration of formation water. Storage efficiency can be evaluated on the
basis of existing literature or by performing numerical simulations of CO 2
injection specific to the storage site under consideration.
A3.2.11.3 Characterization of confining strata
A3.2.11.3.1 Primary seal (caprock)
The sealing capacity of the primary seal (cap-rock, or aquitard or aquiclude) shall be
evaluated and qualified prior to injection of the CO2 stream to provide adequate
A-60
confidence in containment of the stored CO2 stream. A detailed characterization of the
primary seal (cap-rock, or aquitard or aquiclude) shall be performed and include:
(a) A determination of the stratigraphy, lithology, thickness, and lateral continuity of

the cap-rock. This should be based on data obtained from wireline logs, coring of
the cap-rock, or other suitable means;
(b) Evaluation of cap-rock integrity. The integrity of the cap-rock should be

determined by taking core samples from the cap-rock and testing it for vertical
permeability and mechanical strength, or by other suitable means such small
induced fractures via LOT and XLOT during drilling. The presence and extent of
micro-fractures in the cap-rock should also be considered in analyzing the
integrity of the cap-rock. Cap-rock integrity may be tested where possible by
conducting injection tests in the storage unit and measuring the pressure
response in the aquifer immediately overlying the cap-rock. The geochemical
integrity of the cap-rock should also be evaluated.;
(c) Identification of fractures, faults, wells, and other potential leakage pathways
through the cap-rock that can require further monitoring during the operational
stages of the project; and
(d) An estimation of the capillary entry (displacement) pressure for CO2 in the case of
the primary seal being water saturated. This is the pressure at which CO 2 will
overcome capillary forces in the cap-rock and displace the water saturating the
cap-rock, thus opening a flow pathway. The displacement pressure should be
measured in a laboratory on preserved cap-rock core samples or by other suitable
means.
A3.2.11.3.2 Secondary barriers to CO2 leakage
The presence of secondary barriers to CO2 leakage shall be evaluated and include:
(a) Identification of overlying saline aquifers and corresponding aquitards or

aquicludes (cap-rocks) that are present between the primary cap-rock that
confines the storage unit and the protected groundwater that can serve as a
source of drinking water. The thickness and general properties of the overlying
aquifers and aquitards (cap-rocks) should be determined based on data obtained
from wireline logs and, if available, from cores taken from formations overlying
the injection zone; and
(b) Characterization of the aquifers in the overlying sedimentary succession in terms

of the flow and chemistry of formation waters.
A3.2.11.4 Baseline geochemical characterization
The chemical composition of the injected CO2 stream and of the fluids in the storage
unit shall be characterized, as well as the composition of the fluids and the mineralogy
A-61
of the rocks in the storage unit and in the primary seal (caprock). The characterization
shall include:
(a) CO2 stream composition. Impurities can have a negative impact on geochemical
trapping in the storage unit and on the integrity of the caprock. Therefore, a
compositional analysis of the injected brine stream shall be conducted. Gas
chromatography is typically used to determine the composition of the brine
stream, whereas isotope determination can be useful in distinguishing injected
versus native brine during operations monitoring;
(b) The mineralogical composition of the rocks in the storage unit and the caprock,
with identification of the composition of the carbonates, clays, and feldspars
present. Analytical tools, including whole-rock analysis, optical microscopy,
scanning electron microscopy (SEM), X-ray diffraction (XRD), electron
microprobe analysis, particle size analysis, and BET (specific surface
measurements) should be used on core and chip samples;
(c) Where aquifer or reservoir fluid samples are available, evaluation of the
composition of and variability in the chemistry of the formation water and/or
reservoir fluids, including dissolved gases, in the storage unit. The following
considerations apply:
(i) Fluids may be collected either down-hole or at the surface;
(ii) Appropriate down-hole and surface fluid sampling and preservation

techniques shall be used;
(iii) flow rates, oil–water and/or gas–water ratios, and non-conservative

parameters (e.g., temperature, conductivity, pH, Eh, and alkalinity) shall be
measured on site, whereas samples for other determinations (major ions, etc.)
should be preserved on site prior to being sent for laboratory analysis;
(iv)calculations shall be performed to assess fluid chemistry, as well as the

relative masses of water, oil, and gas when they coexist, at formation P-T
conditions; and
(v) The composition of samples of oil, gas, and/or other formation fluids shall be
analyzed; and
(d) The mineralogy and chemistry of formation water (including their variability) in
the first porous and permeable unit overlying the primary seal (caprock). This
can be needed for monitoring of leakage through changes in water chemistry, as
opposed to pressure.
A3.2.11.5 Baseline geomechanical characterization
Geomechanical characterization of at least the storage unit and the primary seal
(caprock) shall be conducted based on well logs, in situ testing, or laboratory testing
A-62
on preserved core material (where possible, other overlying units should be
characterized). Geomechanical characterization shall include the following:
(a) Evaluation of the natural seismicity and tectonic activity of the region where the
prospective storage unit is to be located. In some cases, natural seismicity and
tectonic activity can cause fracturing or fault reactivation, processes that can
create or enhance permeable leakage flow paths. Accordingly, the available
information related to seismicity and tectonic activities shall be collected and
analyzed;
(b) Characterization of the in-situ stress regime (magnitude and orientation of

principal stresses). Wireline logs (especially density, sonic, and oriented caliper
and borehole imager logs), small-scale hydraulic fracture tests (i.e., micro-
fracture or mini-fracture tests), and leak-off tests during drilling can provide this
information and should be performed prior to injection of the CO 2 stream. In the
case of mature oil fields, the reservoir pressure at the time these measurements
are made should also be recorded, given that pressure change generally induces
changes in stress magnitudes. This information, used with the geomechanical
modelling procedures described in Clause A3.2.13.5 can be used to assess injection
pressure limits, casing design strength, etc. Similarly, although the minimum in
situ stress in the storage unit (often referred to as the fracture pressure) may be
used to define injection pressure limits in some cases, given that tensile fracturing
or natural fracture reopening can occur once the injection pressure exceeds this
stress magnitude, pressure limits should be assessed on the basis of a broader
range of possible fracturing modes, as described in Clause A3.2.13.5;
(c) Determination of rock mechanical properties, which include (i) strength and
deformation properties (e.g., Poisson’s ratio and Young’s modulus); (ii) thermal
properties (e.g., thermal expansion coefficient, specific heat capacity, and thermal
conductivity); and (iii) the attributes (e.g., orientation, spacing, roughness,
aperture, infilling, and mineralization) of weak planes and discontinuities (e.g.,
bedding and natural fractures); and
(d) Development of a mechanical earth model that includes a reasonably detailed

representation of the storage unit and caprock and a simplified representation of
the overlying strata. The geometry of the mechanical earth model shall be based
on the spatial distribution of strata as represented in the project’s geological
model. Its constituent strata (referred to as mechanical stratigraphic units) shall
be populated with the mechanical properties and in situ stresses obtained as
explained above within Clause A3.2.12.5.
A3.2.11.6 Well characterization
Wells have been identified as a potential pathway for upwards CO2 leakage. Therefore,
a characterization of the existing wells that could be affected by the storage operation
within the area of review shall be performed and include:
A-63
(a) Identification of the wells that penetrate the storage unit within the area of
review;
(b) A determination of the status (producing, injecting, suspended, or abandoned)

and ownership
(c) Characterization of the population of existing wells by vintage, construction type,

and type and extent of mechanical defects. For storage projects with numerous
existing wells, this may be done on a statistical basis (i.e., a statistical analysis of
all of the wells based on existing records to identify the more problematic wells,
rather than statistical sampling of a limited number of wells;
(d) An evaluation, based on various criteria, of the well integrity and the potential of
the wells to leak, and an identification of the wells that need observation and/or
remediation, including those with well stimulation through fracturing and/or
acidization.
Note: Evaluation criteria can include, e.g., the time and methods of drilling, completion, and abandonment; well
direction; cement job records of any adverse conditions such as lost returns; records of TOC measurements; cement
evaluation log results; production logging records; mechanical integrity tests (MITs); micro-seismic or micro-
deformation measurements; tubular metallurgy; and well abandonment records of cement plug depths.
(e) Identification of wells within the area of review that penetrate higher horizons
than the storage unit or adjacent structures, and their status and characteristics,
for observation and possible remediation in cases where leaked CO 2 or displaced
brine can reach them (e.g., aerial magnetometer surveys to locate old, unrecorded
wellbores); and
(f) Determination of any adverse changes in the chemical composition of well

materials that may come in contact with displaced or injected brine fluids.
A3.2.12 Well Planning - Modelling for Characterization
A3.2.12.1 General
The geological storage of CO2 is a complex process that depends on in-situ geological,
hydrodynamic, geochemical, geothermal, and geomechanical conditions. Numerical
modelling is a means of using these conditions to understand, predict, and
communicate the fate and potential impacts of the injected CO2 and associated
pressure increases. Modelling is heavily influenced by the quantity and quality of the
defining attributes of the system, including the associated data. The more limited the
data set, the greater the uncertainty in predicted outcomes from the model. The level
of uncertainty in model predictions is reduced by history matching of either
laboratory experiments or field pilots. During the characterization phase of a storage
project, when the data are of relative limited quantity, and of potentially variable
A-64
quality, modelling of the storage site will be most effective in providing a sufficient
technical basis and sensitivity analysis for risk management of the system (see Clause
5). Upon project approval, development, and subsequent commercial operation, these
models can be further refined with new data to provide greater accuracy and
confidence in the predicted outcomes.
A3.2.12.2 Geological static model
A3.2.12.2.1 General
A prerequisite for flow, geochemical, and geomechanical modelling is the creation of a

geological static model that depicts the storage unit, primary seals, and all other
relevant units in the sedimentary succession, and their flow, mineralogical, chemical,
and mechanical characteristics (see Clause A3.2.11). The conceptual model of the CO2
storage complex shall be built to provide a framework that will be used to evaluate the
potential behavior of the storage complex and well integrity. The conceptual model
should define the boundaries of the storage complex and contain sufficient detail to
enable prediction and description of the performance of the system over time.
A3.2.12.2.2 Key modelling parameters
The geological static model shall describe the key geological, hydrogeological,
geothermal, and geomechanical features of the storage complex, including:
(a) Areal extent;
(b) Stratigraphy, lithology, and facies distribution;
(c) Structure tops and isopachs;
(d) Geological features (including, e.g., faults and fractures, subcrops, karsting, and
dip angle and direction);
(e) Porosity distribution;
(f) Permeability distribution;
(g) The composition of fluids and rocks in the storage unit and primary seal;
(h) The initial pressure regime and pressure distribution as the injection progresses
and through completion. Since the pressure field will be significantly greater than
the CO2 plume, this information will be of interest to the operator and to the
A-65
regulatory agencies. Model predictions will have to be periodically history-
matched with observed measurements. Also, pressures should be monitored and
recorded in permeable formations immediately above the caprock seal as well as
in the storage reservoir.
(i) The initial stress regime and changes in the stress regime as injection proceeds;
and
(j) Rock mechanical properties.
A3.2.12.2.3 Modelling outcomes
The results of the geological static model should provide key parameters for:
(a) Flow unit definition for the flow model;
(b) Geological definition for the geochemical model; and
(c) Geological definition (mechanical earth model) for geomechanical modelling.
A3.2.12.3 Flow modelling
A3.2.12.3.1 General
CO2 flow modelling shall be performed prior to injection of the CO2 stream to predict
the subsurface movement of stored CO2 and assess storage capacity, injectivity, and
risks. This modelling is intended to:
(a) Provide insight into quantitative predictions of the fate of CO2 within the storage
unit;
(b) Evaluate the pressure buildup as a result of the storage operation;
(c) Evaluate the lateral spread (areal extent) of CO2 (essential for designing effective
monitoring programs) and of any impurity of interest (e.g., H2S & scale);
(d) Evaluate the fate of the displaced formation water if the storage unit is a deep
saline aquifer;
(e) Evaluate whether preferential placement of injection, pressure-relief wells, or

water shutoff treatments are effective in controlling pressure buildup and spread
of the CO2 plume; and
(f) Examine potential leakage scenarios involving CO2, contained impurities, and/or
displaced formation water (brine) along fractures, faults, and/or wells (for risk
assessment).
A-66
Key modelling parameters should include the following:
(a) Within the storage unit: (i) initial pressure and temperature (ii) brine salinity (iii)
equations of state for the fluids; (iv) porosity; (v) permeability; (vi) heterogeneity
and anisotropy; (vii) formation geometry (thickness, and dip); (viii) relative
permeability curves; (ix) capillary pressure curves; (x) fluid and rock
compressibilities; (xi) the thermal properties of fluids and rocks (in the case of
non-isothermal modelling); (xii) geomechanical properties (in the case of
geomechanical modelling); and (xiii) mineralogy and reactivity data (in the case
of geochemical modelling).
(b) Caprock: permeability, capillary entry pressure, and other properties (e.g., as
specified in Item (a)), depending on the level of modelling in the caprock.
(c) Fluids: CO2 stream composition and concentrations, physical properties, and
phase behavior.
The results of modelling should provide information related to:
(a) Injectivity and injection scenarios (e.g., number and type of wells and well
placement/spacing);
(b) Development of the CO2 plume;
(c) Movement and distribution of CO2 in the storage unit;
(d) Pressure buildup and areal extent;
(e) Temperature distribution through the storage unit;
(f) Movement of displaced fluids (liquids and gas), particularly formation water
(brine) in deep saline aquifers;
(g) Partitioning of CO2 among supercritical, liquid, gaseous, and dissolved phases;
(h) Dynamic storage capacity, i.e., the amount of CO2 that can be stored under given
scenarios of injectivity, regulatory constraints, and the number and type of wells
(vertical and horizontal). The site-specific storage efficiency factor is an outcome
of flow modelling and
(i) Sensitivity analysis (indicating which parameters have the greatest influence on
uncertainty).
A-67
A3.2.12.4 Geochemical modelling
A3.2.12.4.1 General
An assessment of possible geochemical reactions among the injected CO2 stream and
the rocks and fluids of the storage unit and primary seal (caprock) shall be performed
to predict their potential effect on injectivity, storage capacity, and storage integrity
(aka. containment security).
This modelling is intended to:
(a) Assess the response of the storage unit to geochemical reactions, regarding
trapping of CO2, and porosity and permeability alteration;
(b) Assess the response of the natural primary seal to geochemical reactions,
including permeability alterations which may lead to potential flow of CO2
through the caprock;
(c) Assess the response of the well to geochemical reactions, including permeability
alteration which may lead to potential flow of CO2; and
(d) Assess (because pH conditions are key to selecting material for new wells) the
predicted pH of the fluids in contact with the cement sheath for the life of the
project in order to select suitable cements and tubular metallurgy for new wells
to resist chemical degradation. The same assessment is needed to select remedial
materials for existing wells. For example, cement exposed to sustained pH
conditions below 4.0 should be composed of non-Portland formulations.
These determinations can also have implications for rock alterations that might affect
the geomechanical stability of the reservoir, seal, and wells.
A3.2.13.4.2.1 Key modelling parameters
Key modelling parameters shall include the following:
(a) CO2 storage unit: (i) porosity; and (ii) permeability.
(b) Sealing caprock: (i) porosity; and (ii) permeability.
(c) Solids: (i) mineralogy and relative amounts of each mineralogical-lithological

unit; (ii) grain size; (iii) thermodynamic database; (iv) reaction rates, and (v)
experimental data.
A-68
(d) Fluids: (i) relative amounts of water, gas, and oil present; (ii) water composition;
(iii) gas composition; (iv) oil composition; (v) pressures; (vi) temperatures; and
(vii) thermodynamic database.
A3.2.13.4.2.2 Experimental data parameters
With regard to experimental data, the following data may be collected to constrain the
geochemical modelling to determine the effects of CO2 reaction with minerals in the
short term:
(a) Data from laboratory investigation of short-term, brine–mineral reactions in the

CO2 storage unit and the caprock;
(b) Data from experiments on brine flow/diffusion through a sample of caprock or

the CO2 storage unit, which can be analyzed for mineralogical and permeability
changes; and
(c) Data from experiments on the chemical reactivity (including corrosion) of the
well materials for brine and formation fluids likely to be encountered.
A3.2.12.4.3.1 Modelling outcomes I: Chemical reactivity of the

CO2 storage unit
Matrix flow is assumed to be the dominant transport process in the storage unit. The
results of the modelling should provide information related to:
(a) The initial geochemical characteristics of the storage unit at in situ pressure and
temperature;
(b) Dehydration, dissolution, and precipitation reactions and fluid migration through
rocks, particularly in the near-wellbore zone;
(c) The effect of long-term geochemical interactions with the CO2 stream (preferably
derived from 2-D and 3-D reactive-transport models); and
(d) Changes in formation fluid composition and phase behavior (e.g., interaction with
dissolved and residual hydrocarbon species and release of toxic organics and
heavy metals).
A3.2.12.4.3.2 Modelling outcomes II: Chemical reactivity of the

primary seal (caprock)
Diffusion and flow are assumed to be the dominant transport processes in the caprock,
where diffusion dominates in the matrix and flow dominates along discontinuities
A-69
(fractures) in the caprock (either pre-existing or created by geomechanical failure
during the injection of CO2). To assess the extent of geochemical reactions between the
injected CO2 stream and the primary seal (caprock) in the CO2 storage complex, the
results of the modelling should demonstrate changes to original caprock mineralogy
and fluid and flow properties over short- and long-term timeframes through exposure
to brine (e.g., clay dehydration reactions and mineral dissolution/precipitation) under
diffusive and flow regimes.
A3.2.12.4.3.3 Modelling outcomes III: Chemical reactivity of

materials in existing wells
CO2 may react with some types or classifications of well materials (i.e., casings,
cements, and bridge plugs), particularly if mechanical compromise allows fluids to
migrate along the wellbore. Wells that have known significant mechanical defects and
are likely to be affected by the CO2 plume or associated pressure in the near-mid-
operational term shall be remediated in accordance with the regulations in the
respective jurisdiction (see Clause A3.5.3). Remediation in other wells may be
deferred until conditions warrant.
For wells with minor mechanical defects, the following analyses and modelling should
be performed to develop a life cycle monitoring and remediation plan:
(a) Development of well defect models and application of reactive transport

modelling (RTM) to predict well barrier performance;
(b) Comparison of modelling results to similar conditions (e.g., CO2 induced pH

values) used in laboratory tests of material resistance (e.g., tubular metallurgy,
cement composition, and elastomer type) to validate the predictions of the
models; and
(c) Individual characterization and modeling of wells found to be prone to minor

defects (or which experience or modelling indicates that can develop significant
defects) to determine the need for priority monitoring and remediation.
A3.2.12.5 Well Planning - Geomechanical modelling
A3.2.12.5.1 General
Geomechanical modelling of the CO2 storage unit and of the entire overlying
sedimentary succession (with emphasis on the caprock or the aquitard that serves as
A-70
the primary seal) shall be performed to predict the potential effect of stress changes
and deformations resulting from the planned CO2 injection. This is intended to:
(a) Assess the integrity of the caprock in the presence of pressure-induced stress
changes. In the case of mature oil reservoirs undergoing conversion to CO 2
storage, the modelling shall address changes experienced during the operational
history of the reservoir (e.g., pressure depletion) as well as changes predicted for
CO2 injection;
(b) Evaluate the potential for fault and/or fracture reactivation;
(c) Assess the potential for induced seismicity;
(d) Assess options for measurement, monitoring, and verification programs;
(e) Evaluate ground surface deformation (e.g., heave) as a result of injection;
(f) Assess mechanical aspects of well integrity; and
(g) Assess reservoir and caprock integrity in the presence of temperature-induced

stress changes (given that the injected CO2 stream will most likely be at a lower
temperature than the initial temperature of the CO2 storage unit).
The geomechanical modelling approach shall be a one-way or two-way coupled

analysis in which the fluid pressure and temperature predicted from the flow
modelling (see Clause A3.3.4.3) constitute the input into a geomechanical model at a
suitable number of time steps to understand the evolution of stress and deformation
within the model. The geomechanical modelling should be performed using 2-D and 3-
D modelling tools. Although it is expected that one-way coupling will generally be
adequate, it is possible that several iterations between the flow modelling and the
geomechanical modelling will be necessary to ensure that the planned injection
program will not affect injectivity or containment.
Many parameters required for geomechanical modelling are obtained in the

development of the mechanical earth model (see Clause A3.3.4.2) and the flow model
(see Clause A3.3.4.3). The key geomechanical modelling parameters should include
the following:
A-71
(a) Geological model, which serves as the basis for establishing the mechanical
stratigraphic units within the model and establishes the presence and orientation
of existing faults and/or fractures;
(b) Initial in situ stress regimes (directions and magnitudes) within the CO2 storage
unit, caprock, and overburden;
(c) Initial fluid pressure regime and distribution, which establishes the initial
effective stress distribution required for geomechanical modelling;
(d) Constitutive properties of the mechanical stratigraphic units in the model, which
include rock strength and deformation properties and will establish how the rock
behaves under CO2 injection conditions; and
(e) Depending on the outcome of the modelling specified in Clause A3.2.13.4.3.1,

which models the chemical reactivity of the storage unit with the injected CO 2
stream, additional key geomechanical modelling parameters, which will include
parameters that control how the strength and pore structure of the CO 2 storage
unit is changed geochemically.
The results of modelling should provide information related to:
(a) Estimates of the maximum CO2 injection pressure that will ensure no loss of
caprock integrity (e.g., CO2 injection will not induce new tensile or shear fractures
or reopen or reactivate existing discontinuities);
(b) Evaluation of the potential for fault reactivation;
(c) Evaluation of the potential for induced seismicity;
(d) Evaluation of the effect of geomechanical processes on injectivity;
(e) Evaluation of wellbore stability during drilling, which can affect well integrity
and the near-well permeability of caprocks and aquitards;
(f) Evaluation of reservoir and overburden deformation, including any effects

deformations can have on surface facilities or the feasibility of plume migration
monitoring based on ground deformation;
(g) Evaluation of potential well integrity issues arising from geomechanical

processes during CO2 injection and operation; and
(h) Sensitivity analysis (indicating which geomechanical parameters have the

greatest influence on uncertainty).
A-72
A3.3 WELL PLANNING - RISK MANAGEMENT
A3.3.1 General
A structured and systematic risk management process shall be implemented for the
overall CO2 injection and storage/disposal project including individual, non-duplicate
wells. The risk management process should be an integral part of management,
embedded in the culture and practices of and tailored to the business processes of the
project operator’s organization.
The responsibility for risk management shall reside with the project operator, but
defined tasks may be delegated to and managed by other elements.
A3.3.2 Objectives
The purpose of risk management is to ensure that the opportunities and risks involved
in an activity are effectively managed and documented in an accurate, balanced,
transparent, and traceable way. Effective risk management should:
(a) Help demonstrate achievement of objectives and improve performance relative to

elements of concern;
(b) Support strategic planning and development of robust project and change
management processes;
(c) Help decision makers make informed choices, prioritize actions, and distinguish
among alternative courses of action;
(d) Account for uncertainty, the nature of that uncertainty, and how it can be
addressed; and
(e) Recognize the capability, perceptions, and intentions of external and internal
stakeholders that can hinder achievement of objectives.
Note: These objectives are consistent with the objectives described in ISO 31000.
A-73
A3.3.3 Process
Figure A3-2 - Schematic of risk management process for CO2 EOR and geological
storage/disposal projects
This SOP provides guidance on all steps of the risk management process except the
actual implementation of risk treatment, i.e., only risk treatment planning, follow-up,
and review are addressed. Figure A3-2 provides a schematic of the risk management
process.
Note: The risk management process described in this Standard is consistent with the risk management process
described in ISO 31000.
A3.3.4 Context
A3.3.4.1 General
The project operator shall articulate the objectives of the project, define a conceptual
model of the CO2 storage system, and define the scope, conditions, and criteria for the
risk management process. This shall include specifying the elements of concern and
the risk evaluation criteria.
A3.3.4.2 Elements of concern
Appropriate elements of concern shall be identified for each project and include
human health and safety, the environment, and system performance (e.g., injectivity,
capacity, containment, and service reliability). The elements of concern should include
cost, schedule, and reputation and may include industry stewardship, project
A-74
financing, monitoring capacity, licensing and regulatory approval, research objectives,
and public support.
A3.3.4.3 Conceptual model
A conceptual model of the CO2 storage system shall be created to provide a framework
that will be used to evaluate the potential behavior of the storage system. The
conceptual model shall define the boundaries of the storage system and contain
enough detail to enable prediction and description of the performance of the system
over time in a manner that provides a sufficient technical basis for risk management of
the system and indicates how well integrity is sustained and maximized.
A3.3.4.4 Identification of context
When the project objectives, conceptual model, elements of concern, and scope,
conditions, and criteria for the risk management process are defined, the following
elements should be considered:
(a) Natural environment:
(i) atmosphere and meteorology;
(ii) surface and marine environment (ecology, wildlife, plants, parks and reserves,
etc.);
(iii) biosphere and geosphere (including geology, hydrogeology, geochemistry,

tectonics, and seismicity).
(b) Regional natural resources:
(i) groundwater;
(ii) hydrocarbon resources;
(iii) mineral resources;
(iv)mineable coal seams; and
(v) geothermal energy extraction potential.
(c) Infrastructure and facilities:
(i) surface:
(1) buildings;
A-75
(2) transportation corridors (roads, railroads, pipelines, etc.);
(3) power distribution lines
(4) oil and gas production and processing facilities; and
(5) water reservoirs; and
(ii) subsurface:
(1) wells;
(2) mines;
(3) waste repositories;
(4) gas storage sites; and
(5) acid gas disposal sites.
(d) Human culture:
(i) social context local to the project (demographic and historical factors that can
influence how the project will affect, be viewed by, and be participated in by
the local population);
(ii) political (positioning and framing of the project by its proponents,

stakeholders, and opponents with respect to current political elements and
trends);
(iii) economic (positioning and dependency of the project within the context of
geographical and temporal economic factors, and the possible effects of the
project on the local economy); and
(iv)knowledge sharing and competence building (the progressive development,

application, and propagation of knowledge and competence should be
identified as a project objective in the early application phase of CO2 injection
and storage processes and systems).
(e) Legal and regulatory environment and industry best practices:
(i) relevant legislation, regulations, and directives and any initiatives to introduce
new or modify existing legislation, regulations, and directives;
(ii) codes, standards, protocols, and guidelines that can guide risk management
and facilitate demonstration of compliance with legislation, regulations, and
directives; and
(iii) manuals that document current industry practices and can guide cost-
effective implementation of CO2 injection and storage (CIS) technology in
accordance with industry best practices.
A-76
(f) Project operator and subcontractors:
(i) economic ownership of, contributions to, and liabilities for each component in
the CIS system;
(ii) specification of the project operator’s responsibility and the limits on its
authority, including its resources and commitment to risk management;
(iii) the experience of the organizations involved in the project with regards to
managing risk through the development and implementation of a
comprehensive risk management plan;
(iv)delegation of responsibilities, functions, and relationships among

organizations and individuals to ensure diligent and timely execution of
project tasks; and
(v) available resources, capacities, and capabilities for performing isolated

project functions and for integration across all project components in the CIS
system.
A3.3.5 Risk Management Plan
Project operators shall develop and implement a risk management plan suited to their
operation. The risk management plan shall be periodically reviewed and revised as
necessary to support risk management throughout the project’s life cycle.
The risk management plan should include a description of the following:
(a) Organizational procedures and practices to be applied to risk management,

including selection and availability of resources and assignment of
responsibilities;
(b) A schedule for performing iterative risk assessments and activities supporting the
risk assessments;
(c) Principles and guidelines that will be applied to enhance the thoroughness,
accuracy, transparency, and traceability of risk assessments;
(d) Elements of concern;
(e) Risk evaluation criteria for each element of concern tailored to the scope and
objectives of the project (this can entail the use of qualitative or quantitative
likelihood and consequence classes);
(f) Thresholds for the tolerability and acceptance of risk related to each element of
concern. Thresholds can be based on a combination of internal or external
requirements or expectations, explicit policy statements, and regulatory
requirements. Thresholds for tolerable risk can be determined by considering the
A-77
practicality and cost-effectiveness of further risk treatment. If cost-effectiveness
or impracticality of risk treatment is used as a basis for determining risk
tolerability, project operators should identify and document the rationale applied
to support the use of this basis, i.e., that risk can be deemed tolerable because
further risk reduction is impractical or not cost effective.;
(g) How the site-specific monitoring plan is designed to support iterative risk
management activities;
(h) How the site-specific modelling and simulation program incorporates new
monitoring results and is designed to evaluate the effects of uncertainties and
support the iterative risk analysis;
(i) How the risk assessment methodology considers and accounts for uncertainty
that can influence the performance of the CO2 storage system;
(j) A project risk register, that for each identified significant risk contains the
following information:
(i) A description of the risk scenario;
(ii) A description of the planned or implemented risk treatment to mitigate the

risk scenario;
(iii) A description of the assessed effectiveness of each risk control in the risk
treatment;
(iv)The designated risk owner and the persons responsible for actions associated
with execution of the risk controls in the risk treatment, and a schedule for
timely execution of the controls; and
(v) The estimated residual risk for each relevant element of concern following
implementation of risk treatment and a description of the basis or rationale
for the risk evaluation;
(k) A plan for iterative review of the risk register based on updated modelling and
monitoring results;
(l) A schedule and process for monitoring and review of the overall risk management
program to detect changes in the premises of the risk management plan, for
tracking the effectiveness of implemented risk treatment, and for incorporating
lessons learned to seek continuous improvement;
Note: Examples of changes in the premises of the risk management plan can include changes in regulations or in the
financial, technological, economic, natural, and competitive environment. Circumstances or events that have occurred
in other CIS projects can also alter the basis for risk evaluation criteria.
(m) A schedule and process for mapping and recording the risk management
process; and
A-78
(n) A schedule and process for external communication and consultation with regard
to risk management.
A3.3.6 Well Planning, Construction and Operation - Risk assessment
A3.3.6.1 General
Risk assessments shall include a comprehensive risk identification process, technically

defensible risk analysis, and a transparent, traceable, and consistent risk evaluation
process that aims to avoid bias. The level of rigor applied to risk assessment depends
on the available information and the degree of knowledge about risk scenarios
required to enable decisions for the relevant stage of the project. In general, the detail
in the risk assessment will gradually be enhanced by each pass of the risk
management process in Figure A3-2 until the identified risk scenarios are thoroughly
assessed.
A3.3.6.2 Risk identification
A3.3.6.2.1 Principles
The project operator shall perform a comprehensive risk identification process that:
(a) Considers all features, events, and processes (FEPs) relevant to the identification
of risk scenarios; and
(b) Documents in a traceable and consistent manner which FEPs have been
considered.
Note: FEP is not considered to be a standalone risk identification methodology, i.e., FEP databases should not be
considered to provide a stand-alone check-list that a project operator can follow for risk identification. The intent of
this Standard is to promote a thorough risk identification process for which FEP databases can be consulted as part of
a quality control effort to ensure that the risk identification process has been comprehensive.
A3.3.6.2.2 Process
The risk identification process shall include identifying threats to each of the following
project criteria:
(a) The capacity to accept required CO2 injection volumes;
(b) The injectivity to allow CO2 injection at required rates;
(c) Containment, i.e., prevention of migration of CO2 or formation fluids out of the
storage complex at rates or in a total mass sufficient to cause an adverse impact;
A-79
(d) Geomechanical stability to ensure that CO2 injection operations do not lead to
seismicity, fracturing, or earth deformation sufficient to cause an adverse impact;
(e) Adequate knowledge of the baseline to enable differentiation of geomechanical or

geochemical changes attributable to the CO2 injection operation from changes
attributable to pre-injection background variation or to natural or other
anthropogenic sources;
(f) Technical and economic feasibility for effective modelling and monitoring to
(i) allow timely implementation of appropriate risk treatment and provide

confidence that the storage site is suitable for continued CO 2 injection
operations; and
(ii) ensure that metrics for site closure will be met;
(g) Operational safety and environmental protection, i.e., avoidance of HSE impacts
stemming from construction and operation of wells and the project surface
infrastructure, and from project interactions with non-project human activities
local to the project site and surrounding area;
(i) Identification and description of risk scenarios for each threat (which may
include comparison of risk scenarios against an acknowledged database of FEPs);
(h) A description of the biosphere and economic resources in the geosphere that
could be negatively affected by loss of containment or geomechanical effects of
CO2 injection operations; and
(i) Identification of interdependencies among different risk scenarios, including the

potential for domino effects that could increase the likelihood or severity of
consequences.
Tailored threat identification should be carried out for novel elements of the project,
i.e., elements that are unique to the site under consideration, new to the organization,
or have previously not been encountered in previous operations by the project
operator.
A3.3.6.3 Well Planning, Construction and Operation - Risk analysis
The risk analysis shall provide the technical basis for risk evaluation. The risk analysis
should be technically defensible, based on best available knowledge or scientific
reasoning, and aim to determine the likelihood and severity of potential consequences
for each risk scenario. If significant uncertainty related to the likelihood and/or
severity of potential consequences for a risk scenario exists, the degree of uncertainty
A-80
should be modelled through sensitivity studies or scenario analyses and be used to
provide reasonable uncertainty bands. There are two broad categories of uncertainty
that should be considered for geological storage systems. The first is the uncertainty
associated with the description of the storage system, including the site
characteristics, engineered components, and natural processes and their interaction
with the environment. The second source of uncertainty is the degree to which the
conceptual and mathematical models are representative of the actual system.
A3.3.6.3.2 Process
The project operator shall document in a transparent, traceable, and consistent

manner how each of the following elements has been considered in the risk analysis
process:
(a) Description of the risk scenarios;
(b) Assessment of the likelihood of each risk scenario;
(c) Assessment of the severity of potential consequences relative to the elements of

concern for each risk scenario;
(d) Identification and description of sources of uncertainty in the likelihood and

severity of potential consequences for each risk scenario;
(e) Identification of measures to reduce or manage uncertainties that can influence

the risk evaluation and/or selection of risk treatment;
(f) Identification of risk controls to prevent or mitigate identified risk scenarios;
(g) Description of monitoring targets and detection thresholds required for timely
implementation of appropriate risk treatment (identification and selection of
appropriate tools that are sufficiently sensitive to detect indicators is part of the
design and layout of the monitoring plan);
(h) Data requirements and modelling and simulation studies to be performed to

support the risk analysis (including data requirements and modelling and
simulation studies to predict the effectiveness of risk treatment as well as the
uncertainty associated with the effectiveness of risk controls);
(i) The aggregate likelihood that the respective events could be triggered by one of
the identified threats; and
(j) The aggregate likelihood that a significant negative impact on each element of
concern could follow from one of the respective events.
A-81
A3.3.6.4 Well Planning, Construction and Operation - Risk evaluation
Risk evaluation is the process of evaluating the level of risk and the tolerability and
acceptability of risk. For each significant risk, the result of the risk evaluation before
mitigation sets the performance requirements for the corresponding risk treatment
strategy. The selected risk treatment strategy should ensure that risk is reduced to
and maintained at a tolerable or acceptable level.
The risk evaluation shall attempt to minimize bias. When sufficient and demonstrably
relevant data can be obtained, quantification of likelihood and consequences shall be
based on appropriate scientific reasoning or auditable statistics and/or calculations.
Otherwise, quantification should be based on the documented judgment of experts
who are qualified in terms of applicable professional expertise and project knowledge.
Due diligence should be exercised to ensure that the results of the risk evaluation
exhibit reasonable accuracy.
The risk tolerance and acceptability thresholds shall be discussed with regulatory
authorities and may be discussed with key stakeholders. The project operator may
apply the ALARP principle (i.e., risk should be reduced as low as reasonably
practicable) as a structuring element for discussions to illuminate the paired
concepts of risk tolerance and practicality of potential risk treatment (in terms of cost,
time, effort, likelihood of success, and secondary risk scenarios potentially entailed by
the risk treatment).
A3.3.6.4.2 Process
The project operator shall document in a transparent, traceable, and consistent

manner how each of the following elements has been considered in the risk evaluation
process:
(a) Level of risk before mitigation, i.e., without assuming any risk treatment;
(b) Evaluation of the effect of risk treatment (this includes evaluating whether the
risk treatment options for potentially tolerable risk are reasonably practicable,
i.e., justifiable with reference to the principle that the risk should not outweigh
the potential benefits of the activity);
A-82
(c) Predicted level of risk after mitigation, i.e., contingent upon implementation of
risk treatment; and
(d) Degree of uncertainty attached to the level of risk, both before and after
mitigation.
A3.3.7 Planning and Review of Risk Treatment
The project operator shall develop an appropriate risk treatment plan for each
significant risk. The plan should describe the following:
(a) The target level of risk to be achieved through implementation of risk treatment;
(b) Prioritization of preferred risk treatment options, including the priority order in
which individual risk controls should be implemented. When the degree of
uncertainty attached to the level of risk has an influence on the selection of a
preferred risk treatment strategy, the project operator should explain how
uncertainty is taken into account and defend why the selected strategy is robust
with respect to the degree of uncertainty in likelihood and/or severity of
consequences;
(c) Further analysis to be performed or data to be acquired to seek continuous risk

reduction and ensure that the risk remains acceptable or tolerable throughout
the life cycle of the storage project; and
(d) The effect of implemented risk treatment, which shall be considered as a cyclical
process of assessing
(i) the effect of the implemented risk treatment; and
(ii) whether the residual level of risk is tolerable and, if it is not, generating or
applying a new risk treatment and assessing its effectiveness
(e) A contingency plan for managing conceivable but unexpected circumstances or

incidents that carry risk or give rise to negative impacts on elements of concern
A3.3.8 Review and Documentation
A3.3.8.1 Review
The risk management plan and risk assessment results shall be revisited as new data
become available to support risk management. Risk assessments shall be iteratively
executed in a consistent, transparent, and traceable manner throughout the life cycle
of the CO2 injection and storage/disposal project. To ensure that a fit-for-purpose risk
management plan is implemented and adjusted as needed, the follow-up and review of
the risk management process should comply with the following criteria:
A-83
(a) Responsibilities for follow-up and review within the organization are clearly
defined.
(b) The review of the risk management process shall ensure that;
(i) risk controls are effective, efficient, and implemented as needed in a timely
manner;
(ii) information is gathered as needed to improve risk assessment and

management;
(iii) lessons learned are documented and analyzed;
(iv)changes in the context are detected, including changes to risk evaluation

criteria and the risk itself (which can require revision of risk treatments and
priorities); and
(v) emerging risk scenarios are identified in a timely manner.
(c) Progress in implementing risk treatment plans is measured against defined

performance targets.
(d) The results of monitoring and review is recorded and externally and internally
reported as appropriate and is used as an input to the review of the risk
management plan.
A3.3.8.1.1 Documentation
The documentation of the risk assessment process shall be transparent and traceable.
A3.3.8.1.3 Transparency
The risk evaluation criteria for each element of concern shall be documented. For all
elements of concern other than those that strictly involve the project operator’s
interests, the documentation shall specify the criteria by which risk is deemed
acceptable or tolerable. For elements of concern that strictly involve the project
operator’s interests, the documentation should specify such criteria. Documentation
shall include monitoring and modelling outputs, if these are used to form a basis for
the risk assessments; shall cite the assumptions of and references supporting the
modelling studies; and should describe the implications of monitoring thresholds and
sensitivities for the risk assessment results.
A-84
A3.3.8.1.4 Traceability
A3.3.8.1.5 Documentation
The results of risk assessments shall be recorded in a consistent manner so that risk
assessments are comparable over time. The risk owners should be documented.
Changes in the assumptions and design of modelling and monitoring programs should
be documented and justified. If different risk assessment methodologies have been
applied, how the results of updated assessments compare with the most recent
assessment should be demonstrated. If the results of an updated risk assessment
deviate significantly from the prior assessment, the reasons for the differences should
be documented.
A3.3.9 Risk Communication and Consultation
A3.3.9.1 General
Communication and consultation regarding project opportunities and risk should take
place with both internal and external stakeholders.
A3.3.9.2 Objectives
Risk communication and consultation should be tailored to the knowledge level of CO2
geological storage of those involved and should aim to accomplish the following
objectives:
(a) To facilitate understanding of the nature of risk associated with CO2 injection and
storage (CIS), the possible causes of risk, the potential consequences, and the
measures being taken to manage risk;
(b) To provide to interested parties accurate and objective information about CIS in
general and about the project in particular, including a balanced picture of
opportunities and risk;
(c) To identify and record stakeholders’ perceptions of risk and their values, needs,
assumptions, concepts, and concerns that could affect decisions based on risk
considerations;
(d) To provide internal and external stakeholders with a common understanding of

the basis on which decisions about risk tolerability and acceptability are made,
and the reasons why particular actions are required to adequately manage
opportunities and risk; and
A-85
(e) To address the thoroughness, accuracy, transparency, traceability, and
consistency of the risk assessments, and the nature and degree of understanding
of known or perceived risk scenarios.
A3.3.9.3 Performance metrics
The communication and consultation program should aim to meet the following
performance metrics:
(a) The context for risk management is appropriately established;
(b) The interests of stakeholders are understood and considered, and their needs met
to the extent practicable within the scope and resources of the project;
(c) Risk scenarios and risk perceptions are thoroughly identified and analyzed;
(d) Stakeholder views are appropriately considered when defining risk evaluation
criteria and in evaluating risk;
(e) Endorsement of the risk management plan among relevant stakeholders is

secured, i.e., the regulatory authorities and relevant stakeholders agree that the
risk management plan, including plans for change management during the risk
management process, is sufficiently robust; and
(f) The internal and external communication and consultation plan is appropriate.
A3.3.9.4 Scope of risk communication and consultation activities
The scope of risk communication and consultation activities will vary depending on
the recipients and the underlying objectives. A communication and consultation
program shall be developed to support the following three objectives:
(a) To facilitate open and effective dialogue with regulatory authorities during
permit application and review. This should include consideration of
(i) the process and rationale for site characterization and selection;
(ii) the base of knowledge and understanding to support site and concept
selection;
(iii) the iterative risk assessment process;
(iv) the fit-for-purpose monitoring and verification program;
(v) site and risk management performance; and
(vi) the plan for site closure and preparation for long-term stewardship;
A-86
(b) To facilitate open and effective communication and consultation with NGOs and
the general public. This should include consideration of
(i) the rationale for site selection (location of the CO2 storage site);
(ii) plans for proactive and environmentally responsible risk management; and
(iii) concerns and questions raised by stakeholders directly affected by the

project.
(c) To facilitate open and effective communication of responses to site performance

that represents a deviation from expected or predicted site behavior. This should
include consideration of:
(i) creation and execution of plans to notify the authorities, stakeholders, and the
public;
(ii) creation and execution of plans to assess the scale and origin of the deviation;
(iii) creation and execution of plans to identify and implement appropriate risk
treatment;
(iv)evaluation of lessons learned and, if relevant, how the deviation could have
been predicted and possibly avoided;
(v) effective communication of the deviation’s impact on the environment and/or

economic resources, if any, and of relevant lessons learned; and
(vi)modifications to site-specific risk management plans, if required.
A3.4 WELL PLANNING AND CONSTRUCTION - WELL INFRASTRUCTURE

DEVELOPMENT
A3.4.1 Materials
A3.4.1.1 General
Materials and equipment that will become a part of an underground storage system
for geological storage of CO2 shall be selected, constructed, and used in accordance
with this SOP and shall be suitable for the conditions to which they will be subjected.
A3.4.1.2 Material qualification categories
The following material qualification categories shall apply (see Clause A3.4.1.3):
A-87
(a) Complying materials: materials that comply with appropriate standards or
specifications referenced in this Standard Operating Procedures (SOP).
(b) Unlisted materials: materials for which no standard or specification is referenced

in this Standard.
(c) Used materials: materials previously employed in storage or similar facilities.
(d) Non-complying materials: materials that do not comply with appropriate

standards or specifications referenced in this SOP.
A3.4.1.3 Use of materials
Complying materials may be used without further qualification. Unlisted materials

may be used if they are qualified for use by a demonstration they are safe for the
conditions to which they will be subjected. Used materials may be reused if they are
serviced to meet the requirements of this SOP. Non-complying materials shall not be
used.
A3.4.1.4 Material stress levels
Materials shall be designed to accommodate expected internal and external stresses

during the life of the project. Internal stresses due to injection pressures should be
addressed by designing to the appropriate pressure ratings and margins of safety.
Process upset conditions should be considered to ensure that piping, vessels, and
other equipment can withstand maximum anticipated pressures or that adequate
relief is provided.
External stresses on process piping should be considered in the material design.

Induced external stresses can be a function of thermal expansion and contraction,
installation stresses, welding, and (for pipelines) the terrain and topography. Road
crossings should be designed so that no external stress from a vehicle is imparted to a
pipeline used for transport, i.e., exposed pipelines should not be considered acceptable
for a road crossing and should be properly sleeved or buried to a depth that prevents
their being stressed by the weight of vehicular traffic. Water stream crossings should
be designed to withstand external stress caused by high-water conditions, bank
erosion, swift-moving water, and debris flows.
Note: The external stresses of downhole tubulars are addressed in Clauses A3.4.1.10.2 and A3.4.1.10.3.
A-88
A3.4.1.5 Materials selection
A3.4.1.5.1 General
Materials used for pipe, tubing, casing, pumps, electrical and safety equipment,
instrumentation, and other components shall have properties that meet design
conditions specified in this standard during construction and operation. When
materials are selected, the following elements shall be considered:
(a) The type of fluid to be processed, transported, and stored;
(b) The range of operating pressures;
(c) The range of operating temperatures;
(d) The operating life of the project; and
(e) Site-specific environmental conditions.
A3.4.1.5.2 Material requirements related to CO2 and formation

brines
Most CO2 and mixtures with brines are corrosive to some degree. The corrosivity of
the project-specific fluid must be evaluated (analyzed, lab tested, etc.) to determine
whether or not carbon steel is an acceptable material for process piping, process
equipment, transmission and gathering pipelines, and wellbore tubulars. Care should
be taken to ensure that proper industry-accepted practices are used for corrosion
allowances, and pressure and temperature ratings of materials used in the separation,
transportation, and injection processes. Some brines that have been exposed to CO2
streams are corrosive enough to need corrosion-resistant materials and/or effective
chemical treatment to maintain mechanical and well integrity.
Acceptable materials for corrosive fluids include:
(a) Carbon steel that has been plastic lined, plastic coated, fiberglass lined, or
otherwise physically protected from the corrosive fluid stream. These materials
shall be handled carefully to avoid damaging the protective coating;
(b) Corrosion-resistant materials, e.g., certain grades of stainless steel and chrome
that are sufficiently resistant to corrosion. Corrosion-resistant alloys (CRA) shall
have a certified chemical analysis of the specific material used that meets the
A-89
material analysis requirements specified in SAE-ASTM, Metals and Alloys in the
Unified Numbering System.
Note: For further information on material requirements see NACE TM0177, API 5CT, API 5CRA, NACE MR0175, and
ISO 15156.
(c) plastic, thermoplastic, and fiberglass tubulars that meet the pressure and
temperature requirements of the well application.
Carbon steel process equipment, process piping, down-hole tubulars and casing
hardware attachments (centralizers, float valves, etc.) can be used in corrosive fluid
environments if a chemical corrosion inhibition program is implemented and
established by qualified personnel. The performance of these chemicals shall be
monitored continuously to confirm their effectiveness. Laboratory tests should be
performed if there are any questions about the effectiveness of the inhibitor. Use of
corrosion tests exposing material coupons is an acceptable method for monitoring the
corrosion rate. Ultrasonic or other types of non-destructive testing can also be
effective when used with a comprehensive corrosion-monitoring program.
Note: For further information see API Spec 15HR, API Spec 15LR, and API RP 15TL4.
A3.4.1.5.3 Elastomer selection
Care shall be taken to select elastomers that are chemically stable in the presence of
corrosive fluids. Selection criteria should include operating pressure and temperature
conditions and impurities in the CO2 stream. Elastomers that may be considered
include, but are not limited to, the following:
(a) Packer elements;
(b) Wellhead O-rings and seals;
(c) Tubing connection O-rings; and
(d) Process equipment seals.
Note: (1) Elastomers should be constructed of:
A-90
(a) urethane (URE-90 or equivalent);
(b) durometer peroxide-cured nitrile (Buna-N);
(c) durometer HNBR;
(d) fluorocarbons; or
(e) nylon.
(2) For further information see API Bulletin 6J, API Spec 11D1, API Spec 6A, and ISO
14310.
A3.4.1.6 Steel fittings, flanges, and valves
Steel fittings, flanges, and valves shall be designed to meet the requirements of the
fluid to be processed or transported and resist adverse environmental conditions for
the design life of the project. In general, fittings, flanges, and valves should meet or
exceed the pressure and temperature requirements of the process system. As
specified in Clause A3.4.1.5.2, care should be taken in corrosive fluid environments to
ensure that the material is corrosion resistant or coated to isolate the carbon steel
from the corrosive fluid. Particular care should be taken in the specification of
elastomers in all fittings, flanges, and valves.
Note: Not all elastomer sealing elements are rated for corrosive brine service.
Valve packing shall be Teflon® (TFE), reinforced Teflon® (RTFE), nylon or delrin
based. Graphite packing material or gasket material should not be used in corrosive
brine service. In addition, for relief valves and downstream flanges, if a large pressure
drop is expected, the material shall be designed to accommodate very low
temperatures.
Note: For further information see API Bulletin 6J, API Spec 11D1, API Spec 6A, API Spec 6D, ISO 14313, and ISO
14310.
A3.4.1.7 Design temperatures
Process piping, fittings, valves, flanges, and other equipment should be designed to
accommodate both the expected range of process temperatures of the process fluid as
well as ambient temperatures. Particular care should be taken with design
temperatures where blow-down or large pressure drops can occur.
A-91
A3.4.1.8 Electrical and instrumentation components
Electrical and instrumentation components should be designed to accommodate the

expected range of process and ambient variables. As is the case with piping, brines
may be corrosive to such components, so instrument probes that could be in the
process fluid stream should be fabricated of corrosion-resistant material. Stainless
steel should be selected to reflect site conditions, including the presence of chlorides
and corrosive brine environments. Sealing elements for electrical and instrumentation
components, if exposed to CO2, should be made of elastomers that will withstand
corrosive fluid exposure (see Clause A3.4.1.5.2).
Electrical hazardous area classifications should be reviewed to take CO2 into account.
Unlike hydrocarbons, CO2 and mixtures with brine are not combustible. Depending on
the level of impurities in the CO2 injection stream, the hazardous area classifications
may be relaxed. Care should be taken in areas of confined space with potential brine
release.
Note: Refer to Clause A3.4.2.1.1 for further safety requirements and considerations with respect to operations
within confined spaces.
A3.4.1.9 Piping
All pipe should be designed to accommodate process fluids, pressures, temperatures,

and environmental conditions. Pipe in this regard should be considered to include, but
not be limited to, process piping, vessels interconnect piping, flow lines, gathering
lines, and trunk lines, along with the associated valves, flanges or couplings,
regulators, and other equipment used in the piping system.
Piping in corrosive fluid service should be:
(a) Constructed of corrosion-resistant material, e.g., stainless steel, fiberglass, or

plastic;
(b) Lined with plastic, fiberglass, or another material to isolate the carbon steel from
corrosive process fluids; or
(c) Chemically protected by corrosion inhibitors.
Piping in non-corrosive fluid service may be made of unlined carbon steel.
A-92
Note: For further information see API Spec 5L, API Spec 5LD, API Spec 6D, and ISO 14313.
A3.4.1.10 Well Planning, Construction and Operation – Wellbore

Materials
A3.4.1.10.1 Wellhead and Production Tree Assembly
Wellhead and Production (aka “Christmas”) tree equipment should be designed to

accommodate the composition of the injected fluid, expected pressure and
temperature ranges, and ambient conditions. The wetted areas of the wellhead, tubing
hangar, and tree assemblies should be designed to resist corrosion due to injected CO2
and other injection fluid components. When corrosive fluids are used, this equipment
should be made of corrosion-resistant material or clad with CRA material. Chemical
corrosion inhibitors may be used, but if they are, should be used in sufficient quantity
to prevent corrosion, and the tree should be regularly inspected to ensure that the
treatment is effective. Elastomeric seals should be made of material that is compatible
with the corrosive fluid service (refer to Clause A3.4.1.5.3).
A3.4.1.10.2 Casing
Casing should be designed as specified in Clause A3.4.2.3.4. Material selection should

consider the well-construction period as well as the producing/injection life.
Conductor, surface, and intermediate casings should be designed to resist formation
fluids (such casings are typically made of carbon steel). Production or long-string
casing above the packer may be made of carbon steel if a chemically inert packer fluid
is used. It is possible that the casing at the injection zone and below the packer will
need to be made of a CRA material such as chrome or stainless steel to resist corrosive
brine during the injection life of the well.
Liners that could be exposed to injection fluids should be designed to the same
material specifications as the production string described in this clause.
Note: For further information see API RP 7G.
A3.4.1.10.3 Tubing
Tubing should be designed to accommodate the injection fluid conditions of the well,
sized for the expected rates, and able to withstand the expected injection pressures.
A-93
Material selection should be governed by the injection fluids expected in the well.
Tubing in corrosive fluid service shall be:
(a) Constructed of a corrosion-resistant material, e.g., chrome alloy (chrome 13),

stainless steel, fiberglass, or plastic;
Note: Use of CRA tubular necessitates special handling techniques and tools.
(b) Lined with plastic, fiberglass, phenolic resins, cement, or another material to
isolate the carbon steel from corrosive brine process fluids. To prevent damage to
the lining, care should be used with lined tubing when running wireline or
slickline; or
(c) Chemically protected by corrosion inhibitors.
Tubing in non-corrosive fluid service may be made of carbon steel.
A3.4.1.10.4 Down-hole packers and tools
Down-hole packers and tools should be designed to accommodate the expected fluids,
pressures, and temperatures. For corrosive fluid service, packers should be fabricated
of stainless steel or a chrome alloy that is resistant to corrosive fluids. Packer elements
should be designed in accordance with Clause A3.4.1.5.2. Down-hole tools such as
nipples, mandrels, and mule shoes should be designed in accordance with the material
criteria used for the tubing and packers.
Note: For further information see API Spec 11D1 and ISO 14310.
A3.4.2 Design
A3.4.2.1 Safety
A3.4.2.1.1 General
If site enclosures are necessary, a safe entry procedure should be established for
entering wellhead enclosures and this procedure should be followed by all persons
entering the enclosures.
A-94
A3.4.2.1.2 Identification signs
Permanent signs specifying the name of the well or storage facility, the name of the
project operator, and a telephone number for emergency purposes should be clearly
visible. Such signage should comply with local regulations.
A3.4.2.1.3 Warning signs
In areas that can contain accumulations of hazardous/ noxious fluids or vapors, the
appropriate warning symbol should be displayed on identification signs. Windsocks
should be employed to indicate wind direction (i.e., for assistance in emergency
evacuations). Such signage should comply with local regulations.
A3.4.2.1.4 Fire prevention and control
A3.4.2.1.4.1 Permanent equipment spacing
Sources of ignition, flame-type equipment, and fires should not be located within close
proximity to a well or unprotected source of ignitable vapors. Equipment should be
spaced in accordance with or based on local regulatory requirements, as applicable.
A3.4.2.1.4.2 Combustible material control
Wellsites should be kept free of vegetation and combustible materials.
A3.4.2.1.4.3 Wellhead enclosures
Where enclosures are used for wellhead equipment, the enclosures and wellhead
equipment should be designed and constructed to:
(a) Exclude flame-type equipment;
(b) Prevent the accumulation of hazardous/noxious fluids or vapors within the

enclosure; and
(c) Use only electrical equipment approved for use within specified hazardous areas,
as defined by local regulations governing the location of the storage site.
A-95
A3.4.2.2 Wellsite
A3.4.2.2.1 Location
A3.4.2.2.1.1 Setback considerations and proximity to

population centers
A thorough evaluation of all surface and subsurface activities and their potential
impact on the integrity of the storage complex should be conducted. This, evaluation,
which should include but not be limited to an assessment of topographical and
physical conditions, including proximity to other subsurface activities and to
population centers, should be carried out in accordance with Clause A3.2.9.
A3.4.2.2.1.2 Geological evaluation
A geological evaluation of the storage facility should be conducted in accordance with

Clause A3.2.13.4.2 and should include numerical simulations for predicting CO2 plume
size and migration.
Note: See Clause A3.2.9 for site screening criteria.
A3.4.2.2.2 Layout, siting, and spacing
The distance between two adjacent wellheads and between wellheads and other
surface facilities should ensure the unobstructed access to any well by drilling and
service rigs and service vehicles that might be needed during the drilling or service life
of the well. Where adjacent wells are closer to each other than a distance equal to the
height of a drilling or service rig, the project operator should ensure that physical
protection is provided for the adjacent wellhead not being used by a rig or vehicle
(e.g., dropped object protection, bump guards, and a cage).
Care shall be taken in the siting of all wells to:
(a) Provide adequate access to the wells for inspection, maintenance, repair,
renovation, treatment, and testing; and
(b) Avoid seasonal flooding.
A-96
A3.4.2.2.3 Security
A3.4.2.2.3.1 General
Project operators shall restrict unauthorized access to wells and storage facilities and
should consider employing security measures appropriate to the site location, e.g.:
(a) Barricades;
(b) 2 m (6.56 feet) high small-mesh industrial-type steel fences;
(c) Locking gates;
(d) Site security personnel, as necessary;
(e) Security lighting; and
(f) Alarm systems.
A3.4.2.2.3.2 Enclosures
Where fences or enclosures are used at wells, they should be constructed in a manner
that allows unobstructed egress from anywhere within the confined area.
A3.4.2.2.3.3 Identification signs
Signage should clearly specify restricted access requirements, including warnings

against trespassing to those without authorized access. Signage should also comply
with all local regulations.
A3.4.2.3 Well Planning and Construction - Drilling
A3.4.2.3.1 General
The depth of the injection zone, bottom-hole temperature, required diameter of the
wellbore, lost circulation zones, type of drilling fluid used, over- or under-pressured
zones, swelling or sloughing shale, etc. should all be considered in the design of a
drilling plan. The potential for fluid invasion and formation damage should also be
considered when drilling through the targeted injection zones. The above factors shall
determine the type of drill rig and equipment needed to successfully complete the
project.
Note: For further information on drilling practices to help ensure well control and sustained integrity and zonal
isolation, see API RP 65 Part 2, API RP 96, API RP 59, API RP 53, and API RP 100-1.
A-97
A3.4.2.3.2 Wellsite considerations for drilling
The location and design of injection wells, i.e., vertical and horizontal deviated wells
vs. dual purpose injection and highly instrumented, reservoir surveillance wells
should be considered prior to the start of drilling activities. The wellsite should be
large enough to accommodate the necessary drilling rig and equipment. A detailed
drilling plan should be developed and, in some cases, subjected to an independent
peer review (private auditing/consulting companies) to ensure that project goals are
met before submitting to regulators. Necessary provincial/territorial/state and local
permits should be obtained prior to building the wellsite for drilling.
A3.4.2.3.2.2 Injection wells
Injection wells will be necessary for delivery of CO2 to the subsurface geological
storage facility. Information specific to the location and associated design of CO 2
injection wells should take into consideration the following:
(a) Selection of a location with suitable well spacing design where the necessary
volume of CO2 can be injected without excessive subsurface pressure interference;
(b) Adequate permeability and porosity for the anticipated volume of CO 2 and
mixtures thereof required to be injected (so that injection pressures do not exceed
the fracture gradient and fail the receiving formations); and
(c) Positioning to take into account potential migratory paths from the targeted
zone to other geological formations adjacent to the proposed injection formation.
Note: See Clause A3.2.9 for well siting requirements.
A3.4.2.3.2.3 Vertical and horizontal/deviated Injection wells
In some formations, the volumes and injection rates of brine required for injection
operations can be more efficiently delivered by horizontal rather than vertical wells.
Items that should be considered in drilling horizontal wells are:
(a) Detailed geology, including the vertical depth of the target injection zone;
(b) Azimuth of the horizontal well;
(c) Length of the horizontal lateral;
A-98
(d) Degree of build in bend; and
(e) When to start the bend in formation.
(f) Large enough hole and pipe diameters
A3.4.2.3.2.4 Reservoir Surveillance / Observation Wells
Construction of monitoring and observation wells should incorporate materials

compatible with all fluids and conditions to be encountered during the life of the
project. The location and design of observation wells should take into consideration
the following:
(a) Locations that are suitable for monitoring reservoir pressure;
(b) Potential migratory paths from the targeted zone to another formation;
(c) The lateral and vertical heterogeneity of the storage complex;
(d) Fluid interface monitoring at the location of the spill point;
(e) Permeability zones and stratigraphic traps above the storage zones; and
(f) Low-permeability zones or formations adjacent to and in communication with

the storage zone.
(g) Large enough hole and pipe diameters
A3.4.2.3.3 Surface casing setting depth
Well surface casing should be set and cemented at sufficient depths to ensure:
(a) Isolation of protected groundwater sources; and
(b) Control of the well under maximum formation pressures and operating pressures
prior to the next casing interval.
A3.4.2.3.3.2 Safeguards for the preservation of protected

groundwater
All site activities shall be performed in a manner that avoids endangering protected
groundwater sources.
A-99
A3.4.2.3.3.3 Pressure control for surface casing design
Surface pipe should be set to a depth sufficient to ensure control of the well under
maximum formation pressures and operating pressures prior to the next casing
interval.
A3.4.2.3.4 Casing design
Casing the well begins with the large-diameter conductor pipe driven or augured into
the ground through the surface rubble or loam to hard pan, usually to a depth of 8 to
30 m (26 to 98 ft). The conductor pipe prevents caving and washout at the rig base
and provides containment of the cement for the surface casing at ground level. Once in
place, the conductor casing is grouted with cement to maintain integrity around the
casing and prevent washouts.
The well is drilled out through the conductor to below protected groundwater sources
and surface casing is run and cemented back to the surface to protect any
groundwater sources encountered. The long-string or injection casing is then drilled
out to total depth in the well and cased with the appropriate grade, weight, and size of
casing to handle the operating parameters expected in the well and should be
cemented back to the surface. If this cannot be achieved, the director of the Regulatory
Authority can in some cases issue a waiver. At a minimum, the design of the casing
should account for the internal yield strength of the pipe, casing collapse pressure, the
pipe body yield, the required internal diameter of the pipe, and the corrosion
resistance of the metallurgy.
The following design factors shall be considered:
(a) Safeguards for the preservation of protected groundwater;
(b) Well control requirements during drilling;
(c) Wellbore conditions during the running and cementing of the casing;
(d) The range of operating pressures and temperatures for the well;
(e) Composition of the CO2 stream being injected into the reservoir;
A-100
(f) The projected life of the well;
(g) The integrity of the geological formations being penetrated and the fluid content
of each formation;
(h) The depth of the well; and
(i) Monitoring well design considerations.

A3.4.2.3.4.2 Service conditions for production casing design
The operating service conditions should be considered during the design of

production casing strings for injection and observation wellbores. Considerations in
the production casing design should include the following:
(a) The H2S and CO2 concentration in the CO2 stream;
(b) The content of the CO2 stream and/or the potential to add diverting agents;
(c) The composition of inhibited fluid in the annulus between the injection tubing
and production casing;
(d) The operating pressure at the injection zone;
(e) The differential pressure across the injection packer; and
(f) The operating range of temperatures anticipated, taking into consideration the
lowest temperature expected due to CO2 stream injection and the reservoir
temperature.
The design influences of the CO2 injection and storage service conditions should
influence decisions on the metallurgy of the casing, and on whether specialty alloys
are required and at what part of the casing string special alloys are required (e.g.,
inconel alloy for the casing string over the injection zone and where the injection
packer will be landed).
A3.4.2.3.4.3 Yield strength
The following yield strength design requirements should apply:
A-101
(a) surface casing connected into a wellhead and isolated from the production casing
by seals should have a yield strength design to support the maximum operating
pressure of the subsurface CO2 storage facility or be otherwise protected by a
pressure-relieving device or open vent;
(b) casing string other than surface casing should be designed for a yield strength
based on loads from the overburden gradient, formation pore pressures, and
expected internal well pressures, and be designed in accordance with site
geology;
(c) production casing design should be based on the greater of the pressure gradient
specified for the subsurface casing string and the maximum operating pressure
gradient, with no allowance for externally applied pressure;
(d) casing yield strength should be calculated in accordance with API Bulletin 5C2;
and
(e) the casing collapse and burst pressure rating should be sufficient to prevent well
failure with expected pressures for well construction and operation. Safety factors
specified in local regulations should also be considered.
A3.4.2.3.4.4 Collapse strength
The following collapse strength design requirements should apply:
(a) casing set deeper than 450 m (1476 ft) should be designed for collapse resistance
based on a pressure gradient of 12 kPa/m (0.5305 psi/ft), with no allowance for
internally applied pressure;
(b) productions casing design should be based on the greater of a pressure gradient
of 12 kPa/m (0.5305 psi/ft) and the maximum operating pressure gradient, with
no allowance for internally applied pressure;
(c) the casing collapse pressure should be calculated in accordance with API Bulletin
5C2;
(d) casing should not be subjected to a collapse pressure exceeding 90% of the
minimum collapse resistance for the grade and weight of the casing being used;
and
(e) collapse pressure reduction caused by axial loading should be considered in the
design.
Note: For assistance in developing collapse strength, see API RP 5C5/ISO 13679, API Spec 5CT/ISO 11960, and API TR
5C3/ISO 10400.
A3.4.2.3.4.5 Tensile design
The following tensile design requirements should apply:
A-102
(a) the casing minimum tensile strength should be the lesser of the pipe body
strength and the joint strength;
(b) casing should not be subject to tensile loading exceeding 90% of the casing
minimum yield strength for the grade and weight of the casing being used; and
(c) casing tensile design should be developed in accordance with API Bulletin 5C2.
A3.4.2.3.5 Liners
Liners should be designed in accordance with Clause A3.4.1.3. The minimum overlap
distance should be subject to well design considerations for hanger placement in an
area that has sufficient support from the cement above. Extended intervals for overlap
can be necessary with unstable formations, e.g., a double-cemented annulus across
salt zones in liner laps can be necessary to resist salt creep.
A3.4.2.3.6 Number of casings
The cemented casings installed in a CO2 storage well should include
(a) one casing set across all protected groundwater source zones; and
(b) one casing set across all porous zones located above the storage complex.
A3.4.2.3.7 Abandonment
Clause 6.3.7 fiberglass tubulars shall apply to drilling abandonment procedures.
A3.4.2.4 Well Planning and Construction - Well Completion
A3.4.2.4.1 General
The completion of an injection well begins with a properly designed cement job in
accordance with local regulations that places a well-bonded cement sheath around the
injection casing from the casing shoe. This ensures that there is a safeguard for the
preservation of protected groundwater aquifers by shielding the fresh water zones
with casing and cement. The injection casing is perforated with the appropriate
number and diameter of holes to establish sufficient communication with the injection
zone(s) of the reservoir to introduce the volumes required. Stimulation or injection
enhancement treatments can be necessary; however, any injection enhancement
treatment should be performed in a manner that ensures the integrity of the caprock
A-103
seal. Tubing and associated completion equipment of the appropriate diameter and
weight is then run with an injection-style packer to handle the fluid stream.
Consideration should be given to the metallurgy of the tubing string and the use of
internal coatings within the tubing to prevent corrosion and leakage of the injection
string. Injection packers can be made of stainless steel or other corrosion-resistant
alloys (see Clause A3.4.1.10.3).
A3.4.2.4.2 Injection rates
The maximum CO2 injection rate required in the well should determine the size (aka.
diameter) of tubing, production casing size, borehole diameter, and other completion
equipment needed to handle the volumes injected (and can influence the diameter of
the wellhead casing hanger system necessary in the well). The maximum injection
pressure should help determine the weight and grade of tubulars for the well. Packers
of adequate internal diameter should be considered where subsequent wireline work
might be desired during the life of the injection well. Well log data analysis helps to
determine most of the well completion criteria, along with the number of perforations
in each well, well locations, and the need for sand control systems to appropriately
distribute the injected CO2 along the injection zone interval.
A3.4.2.4.3 Monitoring
The CO2 injection stream and the annulus between the tubing string and the casing
should be continually monitored at the wellhead for pressure. At a minimum,
monitoring of the temperature at the wellhead should also be considered.
Injection pressures should be monitored, for the following reasons:
(a) Injection pressure can be a leading indicator for subsurface issues, e.g., if injection
pressure builds quickly after a period of no build-up, it is possible that there is a
mechanical issue down hole that needs further investigation;
(b) Injection pressure falling quickly can indicate a leaking or ruptured flow line. The
project operator should install a pressure safety low (PSL) switch that will
activate a shutdown valve to prevent further leakage;
(c) If the injection pressure builds quickly to the point that an overpressure situation
could occur, the project operator might want to consider installing a pressure
A-104
safety high (PSH) switch that will isolate or shut down the pressure source and
thus possibly prevent overpressure.
Injection temperature should be monitored, as this datum is also useful for

understanding the density of the injected fluids, which in turn allows bottom-hole
injection pressures to be estimated. Pressure monitoring of the annulus is necessary
to detect leaks within the tubing string, packer elements, or casing string.
A metering device is necessary to monitor the volume of the CO2 fluid stream to be
injected. Metering devices vary significantly in their operational requirements and can
be as simple as an orifice meter or as sophisticated as a coriolis metering device.
Onsite monitoring can be performed daily by an operator gathering information from
a chart recorder or a remote terminal unit (RTU), or the data can be gathered by a
supervisory control and data acquisition system (SCADA) and transmitted via radio,
cell phone, or satellite system to a central computer database.
A3.4.2.4.4 Service conditions
Excessive impurities within the CO2 flow stream can influence the outcome of a project
on account of corrosion, improper measurement factors, pump incompatibilities,
reservoir volumetric estimates, and can be severe enough to cause reservoir damage
(pore-throat plugging, scale, etc.). Monitoring for impurities should be completed
using industry standard techniques for sampling the CO2 flow stream.
Impurities found in produced brine flow streams can cause corrosion problems. This
can be removed with the proper EOR system on surface. Hydrogen sulfide (H 2S) is a
potential impurity and will react with brine under certain conditions to form corrosive
sulphuric acid. Corrosion problems can also occur when carbon dioxide (CO2) is an
impurity in brine injection streams and can form corrosive carbonic acid in the brine.
Carbonic acid can also be removed with an EOR treatment system on surface so that it
won’t be excessive when re-injected under normal operating conditions. Other forms
of corrosion, e.g., electrolysis, can exist and are corrected by cathodic protection or
other means.
A-105
A3.4.2.5 Recompletion of existing wells
A3.4.2.5.1 General
Recompletion designs for converting oil and gas production wells for use as CO2
injection wells should ensure that the requirements of this SOP are met. Converting
production wells for use in CO2 injection and storage/disposal projects should only be
undertaken after careful evaluation. A detailed well conversion plan should be
developed and, in some cases, subjected to an independent peer review (private
auditing/consulting companies) to ensure that project goals are met before submitting
to regulators to apply for permits. It should be noted that oil and gas production and
EOR injection wells were originally designed for oil and gas production applications
and not for other applications such as CO2 injection. Therefore, loads imposed on such
well operations (including cyclic thermal stresses and high pressure, hydraulic
fracturing/stimulation etc.) have to be considered in casing and cement design and life
cycle wellbore integrity of CO2 injection wells (See Sections 2.1, 3.1 and 4.3).
A3.4.2.5.2 Casing
Recompletion of production wells into injection wells shall be dependent on the

construction details of the original well. The casing of the wells to be converted should
use casing that meets the requirements of Clause A3.4.2.3.3.1. Allowance should be
made for the age and condition of the casing so that no recompletion is performed in
wells that cannot safely meet the requirements of Clause A3.4.2.3.3.1.
A3.4.2.5.3 Inspection and testing
Prior to conversion for injection operations, the production casing shall be inspected
and tested for integrity over its full length by:
(a) obtaining and evaluating cement integrity logs;
(b) running and evaluating a casing inspection log for casing corrosion or damage;
(c) pressure testing of the casing in accordance with field pressure testing techniques
(MIT, etc.); and
(d) consideration of performing inspection methods;
A-106
(i) baseline temperature, pulsed neutron, and ultra-sonic logs for future
comparisons.
(ii) a search for leaks via relevant logs such as temperature and ultra-sonic noise
logs.
A3.4.2.5.4 Recompletion of existing injection wells
A well should be recompleted if any the following situations are present:
(a) annular hydraulic isolation is not indicated across confining zones above the
storage complex; or
(b) lack of minimum primary cement placement across reservoir coning zones; or
(c) other reasons as specified in Clause A3.4.3.5 and in the cited API standards; or
(d) the well has a loss of mechanical integrity (aka. pressure barrier leaking), as
evidenced by:
(i) a failed pressure test (MIT, etc.); or
(ii) leaks found by temperature or ultra-sonic noise logs; or
(iii) communications between the inside of the tubing and the tubing/casing
annulus, indicating a leak in the tubing, casing, or packer.
A3.4.2.5.5 Recompletion to regain mechanical integrity and zonal

isolation
A well that has compromised mechanical integrity should be worked over or

recompleted to re-establish mechanical integrity and zonal isolation. The loss of
mechanical integrity should be investigated to determine whether the loss of integrity
is from the tubing or packer or if the loss of mechanical integrity is from casing failure.
Pressure testing of the tubing and annulus will suggest where the problem lies. Losses
of mechanical integrity and zonal isolation should be evaluated by relevant methods
as described in API RP 90-1 and API RP 90-2. All recompletion work should have well
control and wellbore security as the highest priority.
A3.4.2.5.5.2 Repairing a tubing or packer leak
If the tubing or packer is suspected to have developed a leak, a plan should be

developed to identify and confirm the leak’s characteristics (location, type, etc.). If the
A-107
well was constructed in such a way as to have a landing nipple above the packer, the
tubing can be isolated and pressure tested. If no blanking plug was used, a mechanical
caliper log can be run to locate the leak. If a leak is discovered, the tubing should be
removed from the well and inspected and tested. If a seal-bore-type packer or tubing
on/off tool was used, the tubing can be removed without removing the packer.
Otherwise, the packer should be removed with the tubing.
If the tubing passes a pressure test, the packer or seal assembly should be removed
from the well and repaired or replaced. After such repairs or replacements have been
completed and the components have been reinstalled into the well, the casing or
tubing annulus should be pressure tested to reestablish mechanical integrity. While
the tubing is out of the well, a cement evaluation and casing inspection log should be
run. All repair plans should be reviewed and approved by the proper Regulatory
Authority. If, after a thorough investigation, it is determined that the well cannot be
repaired, it should be plugged and abandoned in accordance with Clause A3.4.3.8.
A3.4.2.5.5.3 Repairing a casing leak
If the failed mechanical integrity test was due to a casing leak, a workover or
recompletion plan should be developed and executed to repair the damaged area.
First, the type of leak should be identified by running a casing inspection log. Cement
integrity should be investigated at this time by running a cement evaluation log. Other
logs may be run to determine whether there is fluid movement outside the casing.
After the results of these logs are evaluated, a repair should be designed.
If flow is detected outside the casing, cement integrity should be reestablished by

squeeze cementing with cement or chemical sealants. If the problem is casing failure
due to corrosion or a mechanical defect, several options exist to repair the casing leak.
Squeeze cementing can be used to repair some leaks. Specially designed cement
systems, e.g., ultra-fine cement, very-low-fluid-loss slurries, and solids-free chemical
sealant systems have proved effective in repairing casing leaks. Chemical sealants can
penetrate pinhole leaks in casing to seal voids behind the casing and pore throats
inside the permeability of formations. The use of a casing patch or lining the casing can
A-108
be necessary to repair large leaks where there is also extensive structural damage in
the casing or liner pipe.
In the event of casing collapse the severity of the restriction must be determined. If
smaller casing can still be run through the restriction, repair options may allow the
insertion of smaller casing and cementing it in place. In severe cases, the collapsed
casing may require removal by milling the section and replacement with a scab liner
cemented through the milled section. In each case, the internal diameter of the well,
and injection capacity will be permanently reduced. A final option is to plug and
abandon the well.
Well integrity outside the casing should be established prior to using these methods. If
there is fluid movement outside the casing, cement integrity should be reestablished
prior to the installation of a liner or casing patch. Wells involved in CO2 injection and
storage operations should be cemented back to surface such that casing replacement
of long pipe sections might not be an economical option. In these cases, the available
options can be limited to those that involve repairing the casing without pipe
replacement, e.g., installing expandable liners and cement or chemical sealant
squeezes. However, if casing replacement can be used, care should be taken to ensure
that the mechanical integrity of the well can be restored and maintained.
After the required casing repairs have been made the casing should be re-tested with
pressure tests and/or leak detecting logs. The packer and tubing will then be rerun
into the well and mechanical integrity will be re-established by pressure testing the
tubing casing annulus.
A3.4.2.5.6 Well Planning - Abandonment
Clause A3.4.3.8 shall apply to abandonment procedures.
A3.4.2.5.7 Conversion records
Testing, evaluation, recompletion, and abandonment records for wells shall be

prepared and retained in the project operator’s files.
A-109
A3.4.3 Well Planning - Construction
A3.4.3.1 General
Well construction planning and operations shall meet project goals and objectives
while complying with applicable regulations such as those for CO2, brine and other
fluid containment. Published well construction standards cited by regulatory
authorities and contractual documents shall also be implemented.
A3.4.3.2 Safety plan
Safety preparedness (response plans) should be in place at a corporate level to

mitigate spills caused by unexpected circumstances, e.g., drilling into high-pressure
formations, which can cause kicks and the release of formations fluids to weak zones
or to the surface.
Note: For further information see API RP 97.
A3.4.3.3 Well site
Well sites should be prepared to accommodate all drilling and service company
equipment. Preparation will include the drilling rig, mud system, pipe racks, tool
sheds, offices, logging trucks, cement pump units, and materials delivery and storage
areas. Well sites should also have enough room to allow placement of well-control
equipment that is identified in any applicable emergency response plan.
A3.4.3.4 Drilling
A3.4.3.4.1 Inspection, transportation, storage, and handling of

casings
Casings should be inspected in accordance with API RP 5A5 and should be

transported, stored, and handled in accordance with API RP 5C1.
A3.4.3.4.2 Casing threads
Before intermediate and production casing strings are run, all casing threads should
be:
A-110
(a) inspected for gauge in accordance with API RP 5B1;
(b) covered by thread protector until the casing joint is hanging vertically in the
derrick; and
(c) properly lubricated with a manufacturer-recommended lubricant or as specified

in API RP 5A3/ISO 13678.
A3.4.3.4.3 Running casing

Note: For further information see API RP 5A3/ISO 13678, API RP 5A5, API RP 5B1, API RP 5C1, and API RP 7G.
A3.4.3.4.3.1 Casing torque
The following requirements apply to torque:
(a) for proprietary connections, the amount of torque applied to casing connections
should be within the specifications set by the casing manufacturer;
(b) applied casing torque should be measured using a torque gauge; and
(c) when practicable, intermediate and production casings should be run using
power tongs.
(d) the rig should demonstrate that the torque gauges are often calibrated to be
accurate.
A3.4.3.4.3.2 Premium connections make-up
Threads that require a position make-up rather than a recommended torque should be
made up in accordance with the manufacturer’s recommendations. Torque/turn
monitoring equipment should be used during installation. All measurements should be
verified to confirm their accuracy by calibrating the measuring devices, including
gauges for torque, pressure, weight, etc.
A3.4.3.4.3.3 Threaded joints
Threaded joints should be made up:
(a) in accordance with API RP 5A3/ISO 13678; and
(b) with thread compound that is compatible with the brine being injected, except for
the bottom two joints (including the casing shoe), which should be made up with
thread-locking compound.
A-111
A3.4.3.4.4 Casing cementing
Casing cementing design and operations shall provide, from the casing shoe to the
planned top of cement (TOC), a competent cement sheath in the annulus between the
external casing surface and the drilled hole’s formation surfaces that (a) structurally
supports the casing; (b) resists all expected well and formation loads; (c) completely
seals and isolates formation pore pressures in the cemented annulus; and (d) protects
the casing from corrosive fluids in relevant zones. Defective cement sheaths should be
remediated as specified in Clause A3.4.3.5. The well design and construction practices
specified in API RP 65, Part 2, should be followed to help provide high enough quality
in the drilled hole to enable successful cementing operations and cement sheath
performance. Portland based cementing slurries may be used in annuli that don’t have
or will not have a sustained pH below 4.0 in the formations surrounding the cement.
Special non-Portland cements are needed to fill annuli that have or will have a
sustained pH environment below 4.0.
A3.4.3.4.4.2 Cementing operations
Casing cementing operations should comply with local regulations and take into
consideration applicable specifications and recommended practice Standards,
including the following:
(a) API Spec10A/ISO10426-1;
(b) API RP10B-2/ISO10426-2;
(c) API RP10B-4/ISO10426-4;
(d) API RP10B-5/ISO10426-5;
(e) API Spec10D/ISO10427-1;
(f) API RP10D-2/ISO10427-2;
(g) API RP10F/ISO10427-3; and
(h) API Standard 65, Part 2.
A-112
A3.4.3.5 Post-job cementing evaluation and remediation
A3.4.3.5.1 General
After the cement has been placed in the annulus, the cement sheath should be
evaluated using the methods described in API Standard 65 Part 2, API RP 96, and
applicable regulations. During the waiting on cement (WOC) time, the hole should be
kept full to maintain an overbalance across potential influx zones. No other rig
operations on the well should be performed that will disturb the cement and damage
the seal or cause the cement to set improperly. Regulations may require casing to be
pressure tested. Preferably, pressure testing casing should be done before significant
gel strength has developed. However, such pressure testing will be limited by the
pressure ratings of plugs, floats, cementing heads and other equipment. Pressure
testing can be done after the cement has set but this can result in micro-annulus
formation or damage to the cement sheath. The pressure should be held on the casing
for the shortest length of time required to accomplish the test. The effect of pressure
testing will depend on the properties of the cement, the pressure at which at the
casing is tested and the properties of the formation around the cement. Mechanical
stress modeling can assist in determining the best time to conduct the pressure tests.
In the absence of regulatory guidelines on compressive strength requirements before
drilling out, usually a minimum compressive strength of 500 psi (3.45 MPa) is
recommended before drilling out the shoe of the cemented casing (API Standard 65-
2).
After the required WOC time has elapsed, the cement evaluation practices specified in
API Standard 65 Part 2 should be followed to determine whether the cement has been
properly placed in the annulus and the top of cement (TOC) depth is acceptable. Other
methods may be performed to determine whether the annular cement’s placement
and sealing performance are suitable and has no leaks or defects, e.g., wireline logs
that evaluate cement placement (API 10TR1) and logs that can detect flow behind the
casing by measuring temperature, noise, and the flow of oxygen-activated water and
CO2 molecules.
Note: More information is available in the IADC Drilling Series Book titled “Well Cementing Operations” published by
the International Association of Drilling Contractors in May 2015.
A-113
Defective cement sheaths should be repaired using selected remedial methods and
materials that meet the structural support and sealing requirements of the primary
cementing design. For example, when the TOC is too deep and a potential flow zone is
exposed, a cement squeeze should be used to repair the defect and seal the annulus
from the measured TOC to the planned TOC. However, when structural support is not
an issue and only flow path sealing is needed, non-cement types of chemical sealing
systems, e.g., solids-free and CO2-resistant, chemical gel sealants, may be squeezed
into flow paths such as a micro-annulus between the casing and the cement sheath to
achieve deep penetration sealing in those flow paths in the cemented annulus.
A3.4.3.5.2 Pressure Testing in Mills
Casing that has not been pressure tested in the mill for strength in accordance with
API Specification 5CT/ISO 11960 should not be installed in CO2 injection and storage
wells/disposal wells.
A3.4.3.5.3 Field Pressure Testing
Production casing should be pressure tested for leaks and strength by:
(a) isolating the casing from the formation; and
(b) testing to a pressure that is 1.1 times the maximum operating pressure measured
at the wellhead, but not greater than 100% of the casing minimum yield pressure
at any point along the casing and continuing the test for the period of time
required to reach stabilization.
(C) verify that measurements are accurate by calibrating the measuring devices,
including gauges for pressure testing.
After drilling out the casing shoe, leak-off pressure testing (LOT) or formation
integrity testing (FIT) shall be performed to confirm that the shoe will contain the
drilling pressures expected for the next hole section plus a safety factor (aka. kick
tolerance).
A-114
A3.4.3.5.4 Well Planning and Construction - Core acquisition
Conventional or sidewall core shall be collected to sufficiently document the expected

CO2 displacement profile and storage complex prior to developing or commissioning
the surface facility and injection wells.
Note: See Clause A3.2.12.2 for further requirements on geological and hydrogeological characterization of the storage
unit.
A3.4.3.5.4.2 Core handling
Every core taken shall be:
(a) extracted from the core barrel in a manner that preserves its condition;
(b) placed in a core container strong enough to prevent breakage of the core;
(c) accurately and durably labeled with the,
(i) name of the well;
(ii) depth interval from which the core was obtained; and
(iii) sequential number of the container; and
(d) where caprock core is taken, preserved in a manner that minimizes evaporation
and preserves the fluid saturations of the core before shipment to the laboratory.
A3.4.3.5.4.3 Core analysis during subsequent operations
Additional core collection and/or analysis of existing cores or additional sidewall core
from caprocks and target reservoirs should be undertaken, as needed, for site
development and operations to ensure proper construction and operation of injection
and monitoring wells. The results of the analysis, if different from previous site
characterization analysis, should be considered in injection and well design and
operations.
A3.4.3.6 Well Planning and Construction - Completions
A3.4.3.6.1 General
All wells involved in CO2 injection and storage projects, whether injectors or
monitoring wells, shall be completed in a manner that meets project goals while
A-115
maintaining wellbore integrity. A detailed completion plan should be developed and,
in some cases, subjected to an independent peer review (private auditing/consulting
companies) to ensure that project goals are met before submitting to regulators. All
materials used should meet the requirements of Clause A3.4.11.
A3.4.3.6.2 Workover procedures
Workover procedures used during the completion process shall employ best industry
practices while maintaining a focus on safety and wellbore security.
A3.4.3.6.3 Wireline and logging procedures
Wireline logging procedures should be used to determine casing and cement integrity,
correlate formation depths, and establish baseline conditions for monitoring and
verification activities. The logs used may include, but should not be limited to, (a)
casing inspection log; (b) cement evaluation log; (c) cement bond log; (d) density,
dipole (shear) sonic log, FMI, and ultrasonic imaging logs; (e) temperature log; (f)
ultra-sonic noise log; and (g) pulsed neutron, gamma ray, spontaneous potential, and
collar locator log.
The wireline and logging procedures used during the completion process should
employ best industry practices while maintaining a focus on safety and wellbore
security. Various wireline, slick-line, and tubing conveyed logging jobs can be
necessary throughout the operating life of a CO2 injection well, including wireline logs
to determine casing integrity, checking cement sealing performance, correlation of
formation depths, and the establishment of baseline conditions for monitoring and
verification activities.
A3.4.3.6.4 Well Planning and Construction - Wellbore integrity
Wellbore integrity should be established using logs and pressure testing. The casing
should be pressure tested prior to starting completion. Once the injection or
monitoring packer is installed, the tubing and casing annulus should be pressure
tested to ensure mechanical integrity. All pressure tests should be performed to
applicable standards and in a manner that does not cause casing and cement
debonding, cement stress cracking, and/or a micro-annulus.
A-116
A3.4.3.6.5 Well Planning and Construction - Formation testing
Formation tests may be performed to establish reservoir properties, e.g., injectivity

testing, pump testing, initial reservoir pressure testing, and pressure transient testing,
separately or in combination. These tests shall be reviewed to ensure that the
formation has the required injectivity and to confirm reservoir models that will be
used to predict CO2 movement in the reservoir. Accurate records should be kept of all
completion activities and retained throughout the life of the project. If required, copies
of all completion records should be transferred to the authority that has jurisdiction
for issuing well permits and to any other authority that has jurisdiction for any other
relevant regulations.
A3.4.3.7 Well Planning - Workover procedures
A3.4.3.7.1 General
During the life of the project it is possible that a workover will be required to repair a
defective component or to obtain information concerning wellbore integrity. After CO2
injection into the receiving reservoirs has occurred, all workovers should be
conducted using best industry practices for maintaining wellsite safety and wellbore
security. Well control should be of primary concern to ensure that no injected CO2 can
escape from the formation to the surface. A detailed workover plan should be
established prior to starting any workover operation and subjected to stakeholder and
peer review. Necessary permits and approvals from all Regulatory Authorities
involved should be obtained prior to starting workover operations (e.g., sundry
notices).
A3.4.3.7.2 Wireline logging procedures
Wireline and tubing conveyed logging may be used during a workover for monitoring
or in recompletion activities. All wireline operations during workovers should be
performed in accordance with best industry practices for pressure control. The
composition of wellbore fluids should be used by owners, operators, and service
providers to prevent damage to wireline cable and tools.
A-117
A3.4.3.7.3 Wellbore integrity
During workover activities, wellbore integrity should be reestablished as in the

original completion. Wellbore integrity can be verified using a combination of wireline
logging and pressure-testing methods.
A3.4.3.7.4 Workover records
Accurate and detailed records should be kept of all workover operation activities. An
accurate record should be kept of any changes made to, or recompletion of, any well
(either monitor or injector) involved in the project. These records need to be retained
for the life of the project. If required, copies of all workover records should be
transferred to the Regulatory Authority issuing the well permit and to any other
Authority as is required.
A3.4.3.8 Well Planning - Abandonment and restoration
A3.4.3.8.1 General
Well abandonment design should ensure the protection and isolation of potential CO2
storage formations, prevent the migration of CO2 or protected groundwater from one
horizon to another, and ensure that the surface is returned to near-original condition.
This activity is be guided by the Regulatory Authority issuing the well permit. In the
U.S. Class II CO2 EOR wells (with continued incidental storage) are regulated by the
state agency while Class VI wells could be regulated either by the state agency or
federal agency having regulatory jurisdiction. In Canada, the AER regulates CO2
injection wells (See Section7.0) Clauses A3.4.3.8.2 to A3.4.3.8.5 specify requirements
pertaining to abandonment of wells during the various project activities.
Note: For further information see API Bulletin E3.
A3.4.3.8.2 Discovery of an abandoned well
All abandoned wells should be identified, and applicable records searched to

determine how the well was plugged and whether the method of plugging met the
requirements of Clause A3.4.3.8. If the well cannot be identified, no records on how
the well was plugged can be found, or the well was plugged in a manner that did not
A-118
meet the requirements of Clause A3.4.3.8, the well should be monitored for leakage
and repaired if necessary.
A3.4.3.8.3 Abandonment of a well during construction
If, during the construction of a well, a condition occurs that requires the well to be
abandoned, it should be plugged at the direction of the authority that has jurisdiction
and that issued the well permit, and in a manner that ensures that all the
requirements of Clause A3.4.3.8 are met. Such conditions might include, but are not
limited to, loss of drilling tools in the well, a stuck pipe that cannot be recovered, loss
of coring or logging tools in the well, or conditions in the hole that make continuation
of well construction operations unacceptable. The loss of a radioactive logging tool
requires special provisions beyond those specified in Clause A3.4.3.8. All wells
plugged as a result of a lost radioactive tool should be plugged in such a manner that
Clause A3.4.3.8 is met as well as special provisions required to plug a well where a
radioactive tool is lost. The preferred method of plugging should be the balanced plug
method. Care shall be taken to ensure the integrity of each plug, before the next plug is
installed.
Note: For further information, see API Bulletin E3.
A3.4.3.8.4 Well is unsuitable after completion but before brine

injection has occurred
If, after completion, a well is found to be unsuitable for injection or monitoring, it

should be plugged to meet the requirements of Clause A3.4.3.8. Casing/cement
integrity and zonal isolation shall be established, and if remedial work is required, the
well shall be remediated so that casing/cement integrity and zonal isolation are
established. All open perforations should be sealed off using the cement squeezing
technique as well as by permanent bridge plugs and cement plugs above the
perforations. The well should then be further plugged at the direction of the
Regulatory Authority that issued the permit and in accordance with a method that
meets the requirements of Clause A3.4.3.8.
A-119
A3.4.3.8.5 End of the project
At the end of the life of the project, all wells associated with the project shall be
plugged in a manner that meets the requirements of Clause A3.4.3.8. During plugging,
care shall be taken to maintain well control at all times so that no injected fluids are
released into the wellbore or the surface. All CO2 shall be flushed from the wellbore
and the wellbore should be filled with a fluid of a density and chemical composition
that will maintain well control and integrity. Casing/cement integrity and zonal
isolation logs should be rerun and compared to the original baseline logs to confirm
cement/wellbore integrity and zonal isolation. If either the cement or the casing is
found to be deficient, repairs should be made so that the wells can be successfully
plugged to meet the requirements of Clause A3.4.3.8. All open perforations should be
sealed using the squeeze cementing technique and then plugged by a series of cement
plugs, permanent bridge plugs, or both, or by completely filling the well with cement.
The Regulatory Authority issuing the well permit should be consulted with respect to
plugging requirements.
A3.4.4 Well Planning, Construction, and Operation - Corrosion control
A3.4.4.1 General
Mechanical integrity and zonal isolation are high priority concerns during the
operation of CO2 injection and storage sites. A primary means of mitigating mechanical
integrity problems is effective design of materials, coatings, and chemical programs to
prevent internal and external corrosion of steel components. Once designed and in
place, ongoing operations should include a program to monitor the effectiveness of the
corrosion mitigation efforts. The program can include, but is not limited to, the
following:
(a) chemical analysis of injected fluids for indications of trace metals;
(b) corrosion coupons placed in the CO2 injection stream; and
(c) ultra-sonic or other non-destructive testing of vessels and pipe for wall thickness
(metal) loss.
(d) mechanical integrity testing and leak detection logging
A-120
Ongoing maintenance should include external coatings and periodic visual inspection
of the interior portion of all vessels for corrosion.
A3.4.4.2 Design considerations
Design should include a careful analysis of the CO2 injection fluid composition
throughout the injection period. Brines exposed to CO2 are typically corrosive and may
contain impurities such as H2S that need to be considered. The design should also
consider external environmental conditions. External corrosion can be influenced by
the weather, ability of pipe to maintain external coatings, and whether the steel is
exposed to the air (e.g., buried pipe versus pipe in a pipe rack). In offshore locations,
exposed materials such as piping and structural steel are specified to accommodate
salt laden air. Onshore locations may or may not have this environmental
consideration for exposed materials depending on surface conditions (weather, dust,
etc.).
A3.4.4.3 Cathodic protection systems
Piping and vessels should be adequately protected against galvanic corrosion by using
cathodic protection. Vessels and skids should be adequately grounded. An impressed-
current cathodic protection system should be considered for flow lines, pipelines,
gathering lines, trunk lines, and (possibly) well casing in areas subject to highly
corrosive conditions.
A3.4.5 Operation and Maintenance
A3.4.5.1 General
An operations and maintenance plan should be developed and implemented. The plan
should provide for regular inspections to prevent a device or well component related
to surface equipment from failing and to ensure that degradation normally
experienced during the operation of equipment is repaired.
A-121
A3.4.5.2 Operation constraints and limitations
The geological, structural, and integrity characteristics of the proposed storage region
should be evaluated to establish constraints and limitations, e.g., minimum and
maximum operating conditions and pressures.
This evaluation should include:
(a) reviewing available pressure and production history data and test information
from existing wells located in the proposed storage zone and in surrounding
formations that might be in communication with the storage zone;
(b) conducting the necessary tests to evaluate acceptable and safe operating
conditions, e.g., the pressure and temperature of the storage operations;
(c) ensuring that the maximum operation pressure shall not exceed 90% of the
fracture pressure of the injection zone;
(d) determining the injection rate, pressure buildup, and formation flow
characteristics;
(e) evaluating the reservoir capacity. A material balance analysis should be

conducted to determine the reservoir capacity and to evaluate the storage zone’s
ongoing containment ability and the nature of any external drive mechanism;
and
(f) establishing a range of operating pressures and temperatures for the wells.
A3.4.5.3 Operating and maintenance procedure audits
Audits of well operations and maintenance procedures should be performed yearly or

as needed to ensure that processes and procedures adapt to any changes in
operational or environmental conditions. It is possible that procedure audits will need
to be revised as equipment ages.
A3.4.5.4 Design and operations records
All design and operations records should be kept up-to-date for the duration of the
project.
A3.4.5.5 Measurement of injected CO2
The CO2 stream should be continuously metered at the custody transfer or receipt
point to the storage facility and to individual injection wells as follows:
A-122
(a) each meter should be calibrated at regularly scheduled intervals and not less
often than annually;
(b) the composition of the CO2 stream should be determined at regularly scheduled
intervals and not less than annually;
(c) given the potential variability in the properties and impurities of the CO2 stream,
flow- and density-meter runs shall measure salinity, TDS (total dissolved solids),
pressure, and temperature to allow for accurate metering;
(d) calibration records should be maintained for accounting audit purposes; and
(e) injection volumes should be recorded for production accounting and regulatory
purposes and to allow monitoring and verification.
A3.4.5.6 Recording management of change
Surface equipment should be maintained in accordance with accepted industry

practice and local regulations. The mechanical integrity of piping and vessels should
be maintained by the use of proper external and internal coatings, as necessary. As
specified in Clause A3.4.1.5.1, if chemical methods are used for corrosion prevention,
routine inspection and maintenance of chemical performance should be performed as
a safeguard against excessive corrosion.
Routine maintenance of valves, chokes, rotating equipment, and safety systems should
be performed to ensure proper operation. Records of routine and preventive
maintenance as well as repairs should be maintained by the project operator.
Note: See API RP 97 for further information on management of change.
A3.5 WELL PLANNING AND OPERATION - MONITORING AND VERIFICATION
A3.5.1 Purpose
The purpose of monitoring and verification (M&V) is to address health, safety, and
environmental risks and assess storage performance. Monitoring, verification, and
accounting activities support a risk management strategy that enables an assessment
of CO2 injection and storage performance. “Monitoring” refers to measurement and
surveillance activities necessary to provide an assurance of the integrity of CO2
injection and storage process. “Verification” refers to a comparison of the CO2 injection
and storage project’s predicted and measured safe performance relative to key
performance indicators (KPIs).
A-123
A3.5.2 M&V Program Phases
A3.5.2.1 General
M&V programs should be flexible and adapt to changes in storage or injection

conditions as well as to the different phases of the project. They should also help avoid
poor performance and incidents caused by abnormal CO2 flows within the storage
complex. There are four generally accepted M&V phases, i.e., pre-injection, injection,
post-injection, and post-closure. Each of these phases has different M&V requirements
that relate to different periods in the project’s life cycle and, as such, can require
adaptation throughout the life of the project.
A3.5.2.2 Pre-injection phase
During the pre-injection phase (which occurs before sustained injection starts and
corresponds to the site selection, characterization, design, and development periods),
project vulnerabilities shall be identified, solutions to mitigate recognized
vulnerabilities shall be proposed, monitoring tasks shall be defined, and baseline
monitoring data shall be acquired.
A3.5.2.3 Injection phase
During the injection phase (which corresponds to the commencement of the

operational period and can also include pilot injection tests), monitoring activities
should be implemented to manage CO2 containment risks and storage and injection
performance. Monitoring practices should be evaluated and adapted during the entire
course of injection to ensure that monitoring activities continue to be appropriate and
effective.
A3.5.2.4 Post-injection phase
During the post-injection phase (which includes the closure period in the project’s life
cycle), monitoring activities should provide sufficient information for managing
containment risk and for demonstrating the long-term integrity of the CO2 storage
complex.
A-124
A3.5.2.5 Post-closure monitoring phase
During the post-closure monitoring phase (which relates to the post-closure period in
the project’s life cycle), limited monitoring is maintained to verify that the storage
complex is performing as predicted, and eventually to demonstrate that the
containment risk has been reduced to a level where the need for further monitoring is
eliminated. The post-closure monitoring phase is not addressed in Clause A3.5.
A3.5.3 M&V Program Objectives
Project operators shall develop and implement an M&V program suited to their
operation. The M&V program should be defined according to the project phases
specified in Clause A3.5.2 and shall be designed to serve the following objectives:
(a) to protect health, safety, and the environment by detecting early warning signs of
significant irregularities or unexpected movement of injected CO 2 or formation
fluid
(i) through gathering information on the effectiveness of long-term containment

of CO2 throughout the project’s life cycle; and
(ii) by providing sufficient evidence, in the judgment of independent qualified

experts, that the CO2 has not moved beyond the confining zone, including no
leakage to a shallow subsurface zone or to the surface;
(b) to support risk management throughout the project’s life cycle;
(c) to provide adequate information for
(i) decision support within the project (among the project operators and
principal project partners) and for communication with regulatory
authorities; and
(ii) communication with other stakeholders external to the project, including the
local community or local landowners as appropriate;
(d) to test the predictions of dynamic reservoir flow modeling and other models
against observations and data documented from monitoring, enable adjustment
of models to improve long-term storage performance predictions, determine the
frequency and duration of monitoring activities, and support demonstration that
criteria required for site closure are attained;
(e) to continuously improve the M&V program by adapting it to changing project

circumstances and advances in technology or best practices;
A-125
(f) to support quantification calculations for injected and stored CO 2 in accordance
with verification requirements identified for accounting and injection flow
performance purposes;
(g) to support management of CO2 injection operations in a safe and environmentally

responsible manner that complies with applicable regulations by gathering
information that demonstrates that storage site operations are within the
performance limits accepted by the project operator and the regulatory
authorities;
(h) to support maintenance or improvement of storage system efficiency, safety, and

economic performance;
(i) to support long-term stewardship of the storage site (injection, post-injection,

and post-closure phases); and
(j) to support the achievement of project objectives and the preservation of project
values additional to those specified in Items (a) to (i).
A3.5.4 Well Planning and Construction - M&V program design
A3.5.4.1 M&V program procedures and practices
The M&V program shall document:
(a) the alignment of the M&V program with the project’s risk management policy,
and should include accountabilities and responsibilities for monitoring activities
that support the risk management plan;
(b) reviews of monitoring tools and monitoring activity performance, as appropriate,

to inform the need to make changes to the monitoring program;
(c) communication of M&V requirements to internal and external stakeholders as

appropriate;
(d) the allocation of appropriate resources to provide an assurance that monitoring

activities are carried out in a diligent and timely manner;
(e) the explicit purpose and performance metrics for all monitoring activities; and
(f) the procedures for properly documenting the monitoring activities and the
processes implemented for evaluating monitoring performance against the
original purpose and pre-defined operational metrics.
A3.5.4.2 M&V program required specifications
The M&V program should be based on the planned CO2 injection operation and
include the following:
A-126
(a) the projected CO2 volumetric capacity of the target formation(s) within the
storage complex;
(b) the CO2 injectivity of the target within the storage complex;
(c) the planned rate of injection of CO2;
(d) the total mass of CO2 to be stored;
(e) the boundaries of the CO2 storage complex, including stratigraphic definition of
the injection target and primary seals;
(f) the locations of planned or existing wells that penetrate the CO 2 storage complex
within the predicted area of influence;
(g) the manner in which the M&V program will fulfill requirements imposed by
applicable regulations;
(h) the schedule and reporting procedures to document compliance with M&V
requirements in applicable regulations or as imposed by or agreed with
regulatory authorities;
(i) the sensor systems and human observations that provide objective data on
system behavior collected at a frequency sufficient to support efficient operation
under normal conditions and to help prevent or recognize HSE impact under
upset conditions;
(j) the process and frequency for reviewing the M&V program, which will include
assessing observed performance against predicted performance, responding to
changes in assumptions, and incorporating project lessons learned and changes
to best practices. The process should consider:
(i) the frequency of updates to the program when observed performance

corresponds to predicted performance;
(ii) the frequency of updates to the program when observed performance does
not correspond to predicted performance;
(k) the process and schedule for documenting M&V changes and updates;
(l) the risk-based ranking of scenarios that have the potential to cause significant
HSE impact or to negatively affect storage performance, including the planned
rate of injection, the total mass of injection, or the integrity of containment. This
description should encompass the link between M&V design and any updated risk
assessment results in compliance with the risk assessment criteria specified in
Clause A3.3;
(m) all baseline measurements that have been obtained. Such normal fluctuations in
baseline need to be determined to differentiate natural variations from leakage,
as follows:
A-127
(i) at a minimum, baseline measurements should be taken for every sampling
position that will later be used for monitoring;
(ii) consideration should be given to having baseline measurements that extend

geographically beyond the core plume and anticipated area of elevated
pressure;
(n) the monitoring targets (or thresholds) for
(i) each ranked risk identified within the risk management framework;
(ii) identifying when there is a need for modifications to the numerical

prediction models and monitoring protocols;
(iii) supporting demonstration that criteria required for site closure are
attained (see Clause A3.6.4);
(iv) managing CO2 injection operations, including the composition of the CO2
stream, the injection rate, injection volumes, and reservoir pressures;
(o) the design of the monitoring program at the surface, in the biosphere, between
the biosphere and the CO2 storage complex, and in the storage complex, specifying
the assumptions and expected conditions for which the monitoring program is
designed, the parameter changes that the program is designed to observe, and
the timing (frequency) and duration of monitoring activities for each monitoring
target for each monitoring phase;
Note: Examples of monitoring technologies include the following:
(1) at the surface: near-surface geophysical monitoring, tiltmeter monitoring,

eddy covariance, Interferometric Synthetic Aperture Radar (InSAR), laser
spectroscopy, gravity monitoring, electromagnetic surveys, hyperspectral
imaging, soil gas surveys for displaced reservoir gases.
(2) in the biosphere: resistivity surveys, instrumented monitoring wells including

sampling drinking water wells for pH and water chemistry monitoring, soil
gas flux monitoring
(3) between the biosphere and the CO2 storage complex: repeat 3D seismic or
vertical seismic profiling (VSP) surveys, micro-deformation via downhole
tiltmeter arrays, instrumented observation wells for pressure and
temperature monitoring, repeat well logging, and
(4) in the CO2 storage complex: repeat 3D seismic or VSP surveys, micro-
deformation via downhole tiltmeter arrays, passive seismic monitoring,
instrumented observation wells for pressure and temperature monitoring,
downhole resistivity measurements, repeat well logging, tracer surveys.
(p) the requirements for data acquisition from monitoring activities needed for
integration into the project’s predictive modeling program and the frequency
with which this integration will occur. This description shall also identify how
A-128
monitoring and modeling jointly support the project’s risk management program.
Predictive models shall be used with a description of the potential range of
outcomes and should incorporate any associated degrees of uncertainty. The
M&V program shall include a process for gathering and using information that
could improve CO2 injection operational performance and storage safety;
(q) the decision criteria based on monitoring performance indicators used to

determine whether the storage complex is exhibiting behavior outside the
expected range of performance. The system of measurements and observations
that comprise the monitoring performance indicator should have sufficient
accuracy and precision that changes in monitoring observations can be
distinguished with reasonable certainty relative to the decision criteria. This
requires that detection thresholds (in a single observed parameter) or conditions
(in a set of parameters) within each monitoring performance indicators must be
determined and identified;
(r) the schedule and process for verifying both storage integrity and quantification
of stored volumes of CO2;
(s) the performance measures (i.e., criteria for evaluating the success of the
monitoring program) to be met by all phases of the monitoring program, with
statements of justification and a level of detail appropriate for the objectives to
be achieved.
A3.5.4.3 M&V program recommended specifications
The M&V program should take into consideration and describe the following:
(a) the applicable performance measures and purposes of monitoring during the
different phases of the project’s life cycle, the monitoring technologies that will be
used during each phase, the rationale for their selection, and any additional
measurements or other data needed to support decisions involving monitoring
activities. Technologies to monitor the following should be included:
(i) injected CO2 volume;
(ii) CO2 flow rate and injection pressure;
(iii) composition of injected CO2;
(iv)spatial distribution of the CO2 plume;
(v) spatial distribution of elevated pressure
(vi)pressure within the storage complex;
(vii) well integrity;
(viii) leakage outside of the CO2 storage complex;
A-129
(ix) integrity of the confining zone;
(x) extent of displacement of formation water in the formation;
(xi) pressure changes in the deepest aquifer overlying the confining zone;
(xii) potential induced seismicity or microseismic activity;
(xiii) geochemical changes in the reservoir that relate to risks from CO 2 injection
or that enable validation of other observations such as those related to
changes in permeability; and
(xiv) contamination of other potentially competitive resources that have been

identified within an accepted area of review;
(b) the methodology used to select and qualify monitoring technologies. The
following elements should be included:
(i) defining monitoring tasks;
(ii) identifying potential monitoring technologies;
(iii) evaluating the effectiveness of technologies against the required tasks;
(iv)estimating the life cycle risk reduction benefits of available technologies;
(v) comparing the life cycle costs of available technologies (if desired);
(vi)a description of the placement of observation wells, if part of the monitoring

system, and all monitoring activities associated with each such well including
a description of the methods involved in all continuous and periodic
measurements to be performed;
(vii) the methods and frequency used to monitor changes in groundwater quality
and composition from baseline conditions in the lowermost underground
source of drinking water;
(viii) the identification and description of pre-existing wells in the area of interest
that do not meet the requirements specified in Clause A3.5.3 (g). A
determination should be made for each pre-existing well in the area of
influence. If ongoing monitoring is required a description of the monitoring
methods to be used should be included.
A3.5.4.4 M&V program contingency monitoring
The M&V program should describe the following:
(a) pre-defined monitoring observations that would likely indicate conditions other
than normal expected system performance. These observations will arise from: (i)
A-130
measurements taken from individual instruments or methods; (ii) qualitative
observations; and (iii) combinations or sets of measurements and observations.
(b) pre-defined observations for all baseline parameters measured
(c) the operational changes more likely to be required, based on the occurrence of
specific conditions other than normal operational parameters and the
appropriate risk-based preparations to effect those changes;
(d) in the event of observations or conditions that are outside the anticipated range
of parameters, the project operator’s first response plan to check, confirm, and
retake the observations, to the extent possible;
(e) the project operator’s second response plan to follow up on the data checks
specified in Item (d) in a broader sense to establish situational awareness based
on all available information. The assessment of this information should be based
on expert judgment, including experts from outside the project; and
(f) the project operator’s third response plan to develop a remediation strategy
including, if necessary, reevaluation of risks, monitoring programs, and
operations, based on the information gathered through implementing the second
response plan.
Notwithstanding the project operator’s diligent efforts to pre-define observations that

are standard versus non-standard, the project operator should remain vigilant for the
emergence of observations and conditions that do not fall clearly into pre-specified
categories. Procedures should be documented to address situations arising from non-
standard project conditions such as may require the establishment of a consultation
panel of independent qualified experts.
A3.6 WELL & PROJECT PLANNING - CESSATION OF INJECTION
A3.6.1 General
The purpose of Clause A3.6 is to provide guidance to and establish predictability for
project operators and regulatory authorities regarding the expectations of the post-
injection closure period. Clause A3.6 establishes three fundamental objectives that
should be accomplished during the period which starts at the cessation of injection
and specifies the systematic process that can be followed to demonstrate and
document compliance with these objectives.
A-131
The three objectives are as follows:
(a) sufficient understanding of the storage site’s characteristics;
(b) low residual risk; and
(c) adequate, uninterrupted well integrity.

Note: These objectives are not intended to replace requirements related to transfers of liability and responsibility
under applicable regulations.
A3.6.2 Activities
Immediately upon the project operator’s termination of CO2 injection, the first of the
possible two closure periods begins. Known as the post-injection closure period, it is
the period in which the project operator begins to prepare the storage site for post-
injection activities. The activities included in this period are as follows:
(a) Risk management
(i) implementation of all required elements of the risk management plan; and
(ii) planning and review of risk treatment.
(b) Development — Operations and maintenance
(i) abandonment and closure of injection and monitoring wells not intended for
post-injection use; and
(ii) operation and maintenance of remaining monitoring or remediation wells.
(c) Monitoring and verification
(i) implementation of the long-term requirements for the post-injection period;

and
(ii) ensuring that brine plume characteristics are as expected.
It is envisioned that at the end of brine injection, the project operator will use the
post-injection closure period to prepare the site for the transfer of responsibility and
liability, with the intention of transferring all rights, obligations, and liabilities
associated with the site to a designated authority. When this occurs, the site is said to
achieve “closure”. It is only at the point of transfer of responsibility and liability that a
site achieves “regulatory or permitted” closure status. It is possible for a project
operator to not transfer liability or responsibility for a site to a designated authority or
A-132
responsible entity. In this case, the site will not achieve the milestone of site closure
and will not enter the post-closure period but will remain in the post-injection closure
period.
A3.6.3 Post-Injection Closure Period Plan
The project operator should develop a post-injection and closure period plan for the storage
site. The plan shall outline the process for meeting applicable criteria to enable the site to
enter the post-injection and closure period. The main parts of the plan should be as follows:
(a) specification of provisional criteria for post-injection and closure operations, including
(i) the requirements specified in the storage permit;
(ii) site-specific performance targets for site closure, as agreed to with the regulatory
authority; and
(iii) the conditions for site closure specified in applicable regulations;
(b) specification of the provisional site closure qualification process and timing;
(c) provisional plans for site decommissioning, including plans for plugging and
abandonment of wells and decommissioning of surface facilities associated with CO2
injection and monitoring operations; and
(d) provisional plans for post-injection and closure period monitoring and remedial
activities required by regulatory authorities.
The post-injection closure period plan should be updated as appropriate during the project’s
life cycle, as specified in Clause A3.3. The post-injection and closure period plan should be
initiated when the project operator has ceased injection of CO2 and therefore has entered the
post-injection and closure period.
A3.6.4 Post-Injection and Closure Period Qualification Process
A3.6.4.1 General
The post-injection and closure period qualification process should follow a structured
and transparent approach, ideally a joint effort between the project operator and
regulatory authority or independent verifier (if a verifier is engaged). The process
should be designed to identify compliance with individual risk and uncertainty risk
management, specifically that risks and uncertainties have been gradually minimized
A-133
and managed throughout the CO2 storage project’s life cycle. The objectives should be
as follows:
(a) to understand the total CO2 storage system sufficiently to detail how its future
evolution can be assessed with a high degree of confidence. In the case of EOR,
consider future operation and re-starting CO2 injection to recovery more
hydrocarbons that migrated into the reservoir from other deeper reservoirs. Well
Planning and Construction – well infrastructure development and Well Planning
and Operation shall govern the methods by which data are collected and used to
understand the total system. One recognized component for ensuring sufficient
understanding of the total system is to understand the pressure aspects of the
system. Specific component considerations should include the following:
(i) an understanding of current and future CO2 plume dispersion and migration.
Note: Whereas stabilization of the plume (i.e., cessation of significant movement) is ideal, it may not occur in some
storage sites and thus not specified as a requirement in this SOP;
(ii) an understanding of reservoir pressure evolution based on time series

measurements;
(iii) an understanding of the pressure decay over time, specifically as compared to

elevated reservoir pressure (taking into consideration the fact that a change
in pressure is not an appropriate metric to specifically denote non-
compliance);
(iv)an understanding of the implications for longer-term pressure evolution

models; and
(v) an understanding of the displacement of formation water;
(b) that risks and uncertainties have been reduced to a level where future negative
impacts on human health, the environment, or economic resources are unlikely.
This shall be accomplished by using the processes and plans specified in Clause
A3.3 – Well Planning which will be used to evaluate the spread in performance
predictions since cessation of injection, obtained using a set of model realizations
(feasible dynamic models), show a converging trend and that the uncertainty
band on the predictions of CO2 plume migration and pressure development is
within acceptable limits; and
(c) to ensure well integrity by following the processes specified in Well Planning –
risk assessment and Well Planning and Construction – well infrastructure
development to the remaining monitoring wells, abandonment and plugging of
injection or unused monitoring wells, which will form the basis for ensuring the
required integrity.
A3.6.4.2 Site closure qualification process
The site closure qualification process should comprise the following actions:
A-134
(a) a dialogue between the project operator and regulatory authority expressing the
intent of ceasing injection, initiating execution of the site closure plan, and
finalizing site closure performance targets;
(b) compilation of requirements for site closure, including:
(i) the requirements specified in the brine storage permit, updated as

appropriate throughout the life of storage project;
(ii) site-specific performance targets for site closure, updated as appropriate

throughout the life of the CO2 storage project and agreed upon by the
designated regulatory authority; and
(iii) conditions for site closure, in accordance with applicable regulations

(including wells selected for abandonment);
(c) preparing a plan to demonstrate compliance with the requirements for site
closure, including plans for collecting, reviewing, assessing, and structuring the
information necessary for obtaining permission to initiate execution of the plans
for site decommissioning;
(d) compilation of reports, results, and other data that will form the basis for the site
closure assessment, including
(i) operational logs that document the history of CO2 storage site operations;
(ii) monitoring logs that document and map the history of monitoring and
verification activities;
(iii) an updated project risk database showing how significant individual risks
that have been analyzed and managed have evolved throughout the life of the
project, including a description of the reasons for upgrading or downgrading
risks during the life of the project;
(iv)a description of how key uncertainties have been analyzed and managed
throughout the life of the project and a retrospective review of key decisions
made under risk uncertainties;
(v) compilation of project performance targets, including a record of changes

made during the life of the project and a description of the reasons for those
changes;
(vi)compilation of results and conclusions drawn from monitoring, modeling, and

risk assessments to support a demonstration of compliance with site closure
requirements, including a description of how geological, geochemical, and
geomechanical characterization and flow simulation models have been
calibrated or adjusted; and
(vii) a description of historical storage performance relative to predictions from

modeling and simulations;
A-135
(e) updating of storage performance predictions and identifying potential residual
health, safety, and environmental risks, including potential risks to future
containment stemming from well abandonment and site decommissioning;
(f) updating of the environmental impact assessment, including potential impacts

from site decommissioning;
(g) verification of storage performance predictions and environmental impact

assessments; and
(h) assessment of compliance with site closure conditions
A3.6.5 Well Planning - Decommissioning
A3.6.5.1 Preparation
As the site moves into the post-injection and closure period, aspects of the project
beyond injection shall be considered. The two major components, i.e., wells and
surface facilities, should be prepared for appropriate post-injection and closure
actions as follows:
(a) preparation of plans for ongoing site monitoring as required by applicable

regulations and with the objectives of identifying migration of CO 2 out of the
storage unit, any leakage of stored CO2 at the surface, and impacts from
migration of formation fluids. This should include:
(i) identification of monitoring technologies appropriate for the site; and
(ii) a timeline for site surveys;
(b) identification of appropriate corrective actions to address the most likely events
identified from modeling of the storage unit required during the closure
qualification process, which should include fluid migration (CO2 and/or
formation water or hydrocarbons) via wells;
(c) preparation of plans to notify future landowners and (if applicable) resource
owners of the storage site and remaining subsurface infrastructure; and
(d) identification of the entity responsible for undertaking the long-term stewardship
plans, including contact information for the public.
A3.6.5.2 Wells
As part of the post-injection closure plan, the project operator should have a
provisional plan for decommissioning injection and monitoring wells to ensure that
the wells do not allow fluid movement between zones and will continue to protect
A-136
usable-quality water aquifers. The plugging and abandonment of wells should
conform to this plan, be performed in accordance with the requirements of the
regulatory authority and Well Planning – risk assessment and Well Planning and
Construction – well infrastructure development, and take the following into
consideration:
(a) isolation of all existing storage zones from the immediate wellbore area;
(b) isolation of all zones of usable-quality groundwater;
(c) prevention of migration of CO2, hydrocarbons, or water from one horizon to

another;
(d) provision of a sufficient cement seal and prevention of fluid movement through
any channels adjacent to the wellbore;
(e) maintenance of the integrity of the cement (cement may contain additives such as
fly ash, etc.);
(f) isolation of all formations bearing oil, gas, geothermal resources, and other
valuable minerals from zones of usable-quality groundwater;
(g) prevention of escape of oil, gas, or other fluids to the surface or to zones of usable-
quality water;
(h) separation of porous and permeable formations from other porous and
permeable formations;
(i) separation of lost circulation intervals in the well from other porous and
permeable formations;
(j) isolation of the surface casing (or intermediate casing) from open holes below the
casing shoe;
(k) sealing of operator-installed wells at the surface;
(l) primary sealing of historical wells; and
(m) long-term isolation of injected brine or displaced formation fluids (including

brine and hydrocarbons) from all usable groundwater, economic deposits, and
soils, and from the surface.
A3.6.5.3 Surface facilities
All surface facilities and equipment associated with the storage project that is not
intended for post-closure monitoring or contingencies should be removed. All facilities
that are deemed to be part of the permitted storage site and owned by the landowner
A-137
or required by regulatory mandate should remain and be maintained in a manner
consistent with best practices and all applicable legal and regulatory requirements.
A3.6.6 Long-Term (post-closure) Stewardship
Long-term stewardship, more commonly known than the term in this SOP called the
“post-closure period” Local regulations may specify requirements for long-term
stewardship when the field’s oil and gas mineral lease has expired, and all subsurface
mineral rights and pore spaces are returned to the rightful owner. By definition, post-
closure periods are not in the scope of this SOP. Therefore, the post-closure period is
acknowledged as a part of a process which is marked by the transfer of responsibility
and liability but is not considered by this SOP.
A-138
APPENDIX 4 - APPLICABLE STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES FOR WELL
CONSTRUCTION, WELL OPERATIONS, AND WELL INTEGRITY
This reference list includes standards and other documents which address well
construction, well operations and well integrity.
Engineering design, systems and equipment related documents:
API RP 5C7 Coiled Tubing Operations in Oil and Gas Well Services
API RP 49 Drilling and Well Servicing Operations Involving Hydrogen Sulfide
API RP 64 Diverter Systems Equipment and Operations
API RP 65-2 Isolating Potential Flow Zones During Well Construction
API RP 5A3 Recommended Practice on Thread Compounds for Casing, Tubing, Line
Pipe, and Drill Stem Elements
API RP 90-2 Annular Casing Pressure Management for Onshore Wells
API RP 92U Underbalanced Drilling Operations
API RP 96 Deepwater Well Design and Construction
API Spec 5CT Casing and Tubing
API Spec 5ST Coiled Tubing U.S. Customary and SI Units
API Spec 5C1 Care and Use of Casing and Tubing
API STD 6ACRA Age Hardened Nickel-Based Alloys for Oil and Gas Drilling and
Production Equipment
API STD 7CW Casing Wear Tests
API Spec 7K Drilling and Well Servicing Equipment
API Spec 10B-2 Testing Well Cements
API Spec 16C Choke and Kill Equipment
API Spec 16D Control Systems for Drilling Well Control Equipment and Diverter
Equipment
API Spec RCD Rotating Control Devices

A-139
API STD 53 BOP Equipment Systems for Drilling Wells
API STD 65 Cementing Shallow Water Flow Zones in Deepwater Wells
API TR 1PER15K-1 Protocol for Verification and Validation of High-Pressure High-

Temperature Equipment
API 17TR8 High-Pressure High-Temperature (HPHT) Design Guidelines
EI Model Code of Safe Practice Part 17 Vol. 1: HPHT Well Planning
EI Model Code of Safe Practice Part 17 Vol. 2: Well Control during the Drilling and
Testing of High-Pressure Offshore Wells
EI Model Code of Safe Practice part 17 Vol. 3: High-Pressure and High-Temperature

Well Completions and Interventions
ISO TR 10400/API TR 5C3 Equations and Calculations for Casing, Tubing and Line
Pipe Used as Casing or Tubing; and Performance Properties Tables for Casing and
Tubing (Addendum published 2015)
ISO 10405 Care and Use of Casing and Tubing
ISO 10417/API RP 14B Subsurface Safety Valve Systems
ISO 10418 Analysis, Design, Installation and Testing of Basic Surface Process Safety
Systems
ISO 10423/API Spec 6A Wellhead and Christmas Tree Equipment
ISO 10424-2/ANSI/API Spec 7-2 Threading and Gauging of Rotary Shouldered Thread
Connections
ISO 10426-1/API Spec 10A Cements and Materials for Well Cementing
ISO 10426-2/API RP 10B Testing of Well Cements/Recommended Practice for Testing

Well Cements
ISO 10426-4/API Spec 10B-3 Testing of Deepwater Well Cement Formulations
ISO 10426-4/API Spec 10B-4 Preparation and Testing of Foamed Cement Slurries at
Atmospheric Pressure
ISO 10426-5/API Spec 10B-5 Determination of Shrinkage and Expansion of Well

Cement Formulations at Atmospheric Pressure
ISO 10426-6/API Spec 10B-6 Methods of Determining the Static Gel Strength of
Cement Formulations
A-140
ISO 10427-3/API RP 10F Performance Testing of Cementing Float Equipment
ISO 10432/API Spec 14A Subsurface Safety Valve Equipment
ISO 11960 Steel Pipes for Use as Casing or Tubing for Wells
ISO 11961/API Spec 5DP Drill Pipe
ISO 13354 Shallow Gas Diverter Equipment
ISO 13533/API Spec 16A Drill Through Equipment (BOPs)
ISO 13628-1/API RP 17A Design and Operation of Subsea Production Systems
ISO 13679/API RP 5C5 Procedures for Testing Casing and Tubing Connections
ISO 13680/API Spec 5CRA Corrosion-Resistant Alloy (CRA) Seamless Tubes for Use as
Casing, Tubing and Coupling Stock
ISO 14310/API Spec 11D1 Packers and Bridge Plugs
ISO 14998 Downhole Equipment – Completion Accessories
ISO 15156/NACE MR 0175 Materials for Use in H2S-Containing Environments in Oil

and Gas Production
ISO 16070/API Spec 14L Lock Mandrels and Landing Nipples
ISO 17078-4 Practices for Side Pocket Mandrels and Related Equipment
ISO 17824 Sand Screens
ISO 20815 Production Assurance and Reliability Management
ISO 23936-1 Non-Metallic Materials in Contact with Media Related to Oil and Gas
Production – Part 1: Thermoplastics
ISO 23936-2 Non-Metallic Materials in Contact with Media Related to Oil and Gas
Production – Part 2: Elastomers
ISO 28781 Subsurface Barrier Valves and Related Equipment
NORSOK D-001 Drilling Facilities
NORSOK D-002 System Requirements Well Intervention Equipment
NORSOK D-007 Well Testing System
NORSOK D-010 Well Integrity in Drilling and Well Operations
NORSOK M-710 Qualification of Non-Metallic Sealing Materials and Manufacturers

A-141
NORSOK U-001 Subsea Production Systems
Norwegian Oil and Gas 117 Well Integrity Guideline
Norwegian Oil and Gas 135 Classification and Categorization of Well Control Incidents
Well Management Related Documents:
API Bulletin E3 Environmental Guidance Document: Well Abandonment and Inactive

Well Practices for U.S. Exploration and Production Operations
API Bulletin 97 Well Construction and Interface Document
API RP 17N Subsea Production System Reliability and Technical Risk Management
API RP49 Drilling and Well Servicing Operations Involving Hydrogen Sulfide
API RP54 Occupational Safety for Oil and Gas Well Drilling and Servicing Operations
API RP59 Well Control Operations
API RP75 Development of a Safety and Environmental Management Program for Outer
Continental Shelf (OCS) Operations and Facilities
API RP90-1 Annular Casing Management Program for Offshore Wells
API 10TR6 Evaluation and Testing of Mechanical Cement Plugs
APPEA Prevention, Intervention and Response for Offshore Well Incidents
APPEA Self-Audit Checklist for Offshore Operations
APPEA Well Operations Competency Management Systems
ENFORM IRP Volume # 15 Snubbing Operations
IADC HSE Case Guidelines for Land Drilling Units
IADC HSE Case Guidelines for Mobile Offshore Drilling units (MODUs)
IADC Deepwater Well Control Guidelines
IEC 61511 Safety Instrumented Systems for the Process Industry Sector
IOGP 415 Asset Integrity – the key to managing major incident risks
IOGP 435 A guide to selecting appropriate tools to improve HSE culture
IOGP 463 Deepwater wells – Global Industry Response Group recommendations
A-142
IOGP 476 Recommendations for enhancements to well control training, examination
and certification
IOGP 510 Operating Management System (OMS) Framework
IOGP 511 OMS in practice
ISO 13702 Control and Mitigation of Fires and Explosions on Offshore Production
Installations
ISO 14224 Collection and Exchange of Reliability and Maintenance Data for Equipment
ISO 15544 Requirements and Guidelines for Emergency Response
ISO/TS 16530-2 Well Integrity for the Operational Phase
ISO 17776 Guidelines on Tools and Techniques for Hazard Identification and Risk
Assessment
ISO/TS 17969 Guidelines on Competency Management for Well Operations Personnel
NORSOK Z-013 Risk and Emergency Preparedness Assessment
Norwegian Oil and Gas 024 Competence Requirements for Drilling and Well Service
Personnel
Norwegian Oil and Gas 117 Well Integrity
Norwegian Oil and Gas 135 Classification and Categorization of Well Control Incidents
and Well Integrity Incidents
OGUK OP064 Relief Well Planning
OGUK OP065 Competency for Wells Personnel including example
OGUK OP071 Guidelines for the Suspension and Abandonment of Wells including
Guidelines on Qualification of Materials for the Suspension and Abandonment of Wells
OGUK OP092 BOP Systems for Offshore Wells
OGUK OP095 Well Life Cycle Integrity Guidelines
OGUK SC033 Well-Operators on Well Examination and Competency of Well-

Examiners, Issue 1, November 2011
API Technical Report 5C3 Technical Report on Equations and Calculations for Casing,
Tubing and Line Pipe, and Performance Properties
API Spec 5CT Specification for Casing and Tubing
A-143
API Spec 5B/ISO 11960 Specification for Threading, Gauging and Thread Inspection of
Casing, Tubing, and Line Pipe Threads/Petroleum and Natural Gas Industries – Steel
Pipes for Use as Casing or Tubing for Wells (Connections)
API Spec 6A Specification for Wellhead and Christmas Tree Equipment
API Spec 10A/ISO 10426-1Specification for Cements and Materials for Well Cementing
API Standard 53 Blowout Prevention Equipment Systems for Drilling Wells
API RP 65-1 Cementing Shallow Water Flow Zones in Deepwater Wells
API Standard 65-2 Isolating Potential Flow Zones during Well Construction
API RP-90 Annular Casing Pressure Management for Offshore Wells
API RP 90-2 Annular Casing Pressure Management for Onshore Wells (to be issued)
API RP 96 Deepwater Well Design and Construction
API RP 100-1 Hydraulic Fracturing – Well Integrity and Fracture Containment
API RP 100-2 Managing Environmental Aspects with Exploration and Production

Operations Including Hydraulic Fracturing
API RP-1170 Design and Operation of Solution-mined Salt Caverns used for Natural
Gas Storage
API RP-1171 Functional Integrity of Natural Gas Storage in Depleted Hydrocarbon

Reservoirs and Aquifer Reservoirs
ISO/TS 16530-1 Well integrity – Part 1: Life cycle governance
ISO/TS 16530-2 Well integrity – Part 2: Well integrity for the operational phase
NORSOK Standard D-10 Well integrity in drilling and well operations
NACE MR0175/ISO 15156 Petroleum, Petrochemical and Natural Gas Industries –

Materials for use on H2S containing Environments in Oil and Gas Production
New documents in development:
API 5EX Expandable Tubulars
API 10TR7 Mechanical Behavior of Cement
API 17TR4 Subsea Equipment Pressure Ratings
API 17TR13 General Overview of Subsea Production Systems
A-144
API STD 16AR Repair and Remanufacture of Drill-Through Equipment
API STD 18LCM Product Life Cycle Management
API RP 92M Managed Pressure Drilling Operations
API RP 92P Pressurized Mud Cap Operations for Rigs with Subsea BOP Systems
IADC Well Design and Execution Agreement
ISO 16530-1 Well Integrity – Life Cycle Governance
Web-sites:
API: http://www.api.org
APPEA: http://www.appea.com.au
DNV GL: https://www.dnvgl.com/rules-standards
Energy Institute: https://www.energyinst.org
ENFORM: http://www.enform.ca
IADC: http://www.iadc.org
ISO: http://www.iso.org
NORSOK Standards: https://www.standard.no/en
Norwegian Oil and Gas: https://www.norskoljeoggass.no/en
Oil and Gas UK: http://oilandgasuk.co.uk
SPE: http://petrowiki.org/Well_integrity
www.wellintegrity.net
A-145
APPENDIX 5 - CEMENTING FUNDAMENTALS, EVALUATION/LOGGING
TECHNIQUES AND PRACTICES TO ASSURE A GOOD PRIMARY CEMENT JOB
AND ZONAL ISOLATION
A5.1 CEMENT PLACEMENT
Regardless of the cement slurry design, to effect long term isolation and an effective
seal in the annulus, the chosen slurry must be placed completely around the casing.
This process requires good mud removal and careful attention to displacement
mechanics.
A key resource document for well construction is API Standard 65-2, “Isolating
Potential Flow Zones during Well Construction.” This document is an industry
collaboration to identify key steps in the cementing process including initial site
selection, design considerations, operational controls and post cementing operations
and evaluation. The standard has been adopted into regulations in many areas, and
should be considered included by reference with this work.
As noted in the overview of the API Standard:
“This standard contains practices for isolating potential flow zones, an integral
element in maintaining well integrity. The focus of this standard is the prevention of
flow through or past barriers that are installed during well construction. Barriers that
seal wellbore and formation pressures or flows may include mechanical barriers such
as seals, cement, or hydrostatic head, or operational barriers such as flow detection
practices. Operational barriers are practices that result in activation of a physical
barrier. Though physical barriers may dominate, the total system reliability of a
particular design is dependent on the existence of both types of barriers.”
In the overview; the API designates barriers as mechanical and operational elements.
This is reflected in the definition of a barrier or barrier element with the document:
“A component or practice that contributes to the total system reliability by preventing

liquid or gas flow if properly installed.”
A-146
For cement to function as a barrier element, as noted it must be designed properly to
address the chemical environment in the well. By using one of the described slurry
designs that address CO2 interaction, and attention to the mechanical properties of the
set cement, the first part of the design is complete. The remaining task is to properly
place the cement in the annulus to affect a barrier in the annulus.
There are several practices and factors that can affect cementing success. Well-
designed cementing operations optimize cement placement through assessing
laboratory testing of the cement, maintaining the placement pressures within the pore
pressure – fracture gradient window, properly designing fluid systems such as spacers
with emphasis on density and rheological properties, and using compatible fluids in
the displacement of the mud in the well. While this list is not exhaustive, the intent is
to highlight salient points that should be considered within the relationship of drilling
and cementing operations.
Hole quality: To obtain a successful cement placement, hole quality should be

addressed. Drilling parameters such as directional surveys must be part of the
cementing job design. Caliper logs are useful in determining cement volumes as well
as flow regimes of the fluids being used.
Directional data is critical to designing proper standoff of the casing through use of
centralizers. Knowing where various build sections in the well are located allow for
better and more effective placement of centralizers. Directional data including
azimuth information is entered into centralizer modeling and displacement simulators
to greatly improve simulation quality.
Drilling fluids: The selection of the drilling fluid is an important drilling practice that
can impact cementing results. Samples of the drilling fluid should be used in the
laboratory to check compatibility of the spacer with the drilling fluid, and to optimize
the rheology of the spacer and its ability to effectively remove the drilling fluid. In the
cases where non-aqueous fluids are used, laboratory work should also include an
evaluation of the surfactants used in the spacer(s) to remove the NAF (non- aqueous
fluids) and leave the pipe and formation water wet.
A-147
Casing hardware: Defined as the mechanical devices attached to or integral within the
casing, casing hardware is selected to provide optimized performance in the well.
Casing centralizers, used to move the casing toward the center of the well are
important to provide a consistent flow area around the casing during cement
placement. If the casing is off centered, a preferential flow path will exist, limiting the
placement of cement on the narrow side of the annulus. In cases where the casing is
touching the formation, no cement can be placed in that area, thus potentially
compromising isolation.
API Specification 10D addresses bow spring centralizers and offers the user standards
where the centralizers can be tested to minimum industry standards. Data from these
tests can be used in centralizer placement simulators to determine the optimum
number and placement of bow spring centralizers in the well.
There are several instances where bow spring centralizers may not have application.
These include portions of the well where the side load on the centralizer exceeds its
design limits, or in wells where the added drag from the bow spring centralizer would
exceed the allowable force to run the casing in the well. In those instances, use of rigid
or solid centralizers is appropriate.
API has issued two technical reports, “Selection of Centralizers for Primary Cementing,
API 10 TR4 and API Technical Report API 10TR5, “Methods for Testing of Solid and
Rigid Centralizers.” These two technical reports, coupled with Specification 10D
provide the users with selection criteria for centralizers, recommended placement
methods, and the equations needed to determine centralizer placement.
Suppliers of API centralizers and cementing service companies have computerized

programs that accept survey data, caliper information and casing data to provide
selection and placement of the various centralizers to allow for optimized flow around
the casing.
Other pieces of casing hardware are the float collar and float shoe. These devices
provide one-way check valves to prevent backflow of the cement after placement. If
the hydrostatics in the annulus exceeds those of inside the casing, the resulting u-tube
A-148
would allow flow of the cement back into the casing if the float equipment was not in
place. The current API Recommended Practice 10D on Cementing Float Equipment
designates several categories for equipment performance. This document is currently
being rewritten and will include several additional testing categories and ratings that
will address varying flow rates, temperatures and pressures. Information on the
document development is available on the API standards site.
Additional pieces of “casing hardware equipment” can include wiper plugs, cementing
plug containers and heads, and finally any equipment such as liner hangers that could
cause some sort of flow restriction.
Cement wiper plugs are used to provide a mechanical separation of various fluids
inside the casing as the fluids are being pumped. The plugs are also used to give a
positive indication of the end of displacement. Wiper plugs should be matched to the
landing profile of the float equipment, and be able to function at the bottom hole
temperature, pressures and be compatible with the drilling fluid type. Not all wiper
plugs are compatible with all types of float equipment or other equipment such as
stage collars and liner hangers. Wiper plugs and associated equipment should be
designed for the specific casing string being cemented.
Cementing plug containers allow for launching of various plugs during the cementing
operation. Optimally these systems can function without the need for shutting down
the pumping and removing the head to insert a plug or other device. Cementing heads
can also provide pressure containment in the event the float equipment does not
prevent backflow due to u-tubing of fluids.
Finally, consideration should be given to any equipment that could cause a restriction
in flow area. Close tolerance can restrict fluid flow causing excessive pressure drop
and potentially limit circulation rates or cause lost circulation. These devices include
some liner hangers, liner top packers, external casing packers and other such
equipment. Simulations should be run to determine the impact on the equivalent
circulating density should this equipment be used in the well. This will allow the
design to account for the flow restrictions and modifications can be made to fluid
density, rheology or pump rates to address any concerns.
A-149
Engineering design: To properly engineer a well design, sound engineering practices
must be employed that address the well objectives and meet all the regulatory
requirements of the well. The cementing objectives should contain performance
requirements for the cement slurry design which should include the need for any gas
control, minimum acceptable thickening time, needed strength development, free
fluid, slurry stability and fluid loss. Mechanical properties such as Young’s Modulus
and Poisson’s Ratio may also be needed to ensure the system can withstand the
stresses encountered throughout the life of the well.
Engineering design of the cementing job should start with determination of where the
cement needs to be placed, what zones have the potential for flow, and where isolation
in the well is required. Once that is determined, then the remaining well and design
parameters can be addressed. These include:
Pore Pressure / Fracture Gradient – impacts slurry density and circulating rates
Temperature – impacts retarder selection, strength development, need for specialty

materials
Slurry Volumes – impacts thickening times, placement pressures, final ECD
Engineering software: There are several industry simulators available as tools to aid
in the design of a cementing operation. These are key tools for the design engineer to
be able to better understand the impact of such variables as:
Surge and swab pressures – impacted by running speed of casing and casing
reciprocation
Circulating pressures – impacted by fluid rheology, fluid densities and pump rates
Centralizer placement – impacts casing drag forces, circulating pressures and

displacement efficiency
Displacement mechanics and effectiveness – optimized through centralization, casing

movement, pump rates, fluid selection
A-150
Static pressure calculations – impacts fluid densities and volumes (top of cement)
Specialty cement calculations – critical in foamed cementing operations
As is true with all simulation software, the quality of the input directly impacts the
quality of the simulation. Care must be exercised to use the best and most accurate
available information for the simulation. While the use of a cementing simulator is
highly recommended, their use does not obviate the engineer from applying sound
engineering practices. Computer programs are not sufficiently sophisticated to
remove the engineer from the equation, and the engineer must be able to determine if
the output from the simulator is practical, applicable and makes sense.
Recommendations: To properly design and execute a cementing operation, the

objectives of the job must be determined, the design made to address the objectives,
and an evaluation plan to assure the operations addressed the objectives of the job,
are critical design elements. To aid this process, the guidance found in API Standard
65-2 should be considered as a starting point in the design.
Gathering good quality data for use in an appropriate cement job simulator is
important to the design. However, good quality engineering that takes into account
equipment capabilities, well limitations and the means used to address those
parameters is a key to the success of the operation.
A5.2 CEMENT EVALUATION
Cement evaluation is independent of the type of well to be drilled. Whether the well is
for oil and gas production, injection of fluids or CO2 sequestration, the goal of cement
evaluation is to determine the presence of a solid in the annulus that can provide
isolation in the annulus. The tools and techniques used for cement evaluation do not
change with the purpose of the well, but will vary with the data needed to determine
of the quality of the cement in the annulus.
Cement evaluation is usually thought of as running a cement bond log (CBL) and
attempting to interpret the results to decide if there is isolation in the wellbore. That
interpretation is often made with little or no information on what happened during
A-151
the drilling and cementing of the well, the cement systems used or the properties of
the set cement at the time of logging.
Quality and meaningful cement evaluation is much more than simply running a CBL.
Understanding the objectives of the cement job, the design limitations imposed by
those objectives and the resulting slurry and job designs are all integral parts of
cement evaluation.
To effectively evaluate a cement sheath, location data from the cement job, the slurry
designs used and the information that can be obtained from the evaluation technique
must be understood. Attempting to perform a cement evaluation in isolation and
based solely on the log output from a CBL, or any log, invites considerable error and
bias into the interpretation.
This review discusses various methods of cement evaluation, from job data, casing and
formation pressure testing through sonic and ultrasonic logging. The limits of each
technique are outlined along with cautions on how misinterpretation of the results
can lead to determination of cement integrity that may not be appropriate.
An overview of cement evaluation, and a risk based discussion of which technique

may be best based on the cementing objectives is included. Reducing risk uncertainty
in cement evaluation is discussed along with the “validity” of the various data sets
available to the engineer to perform a proper cement evaluation on the well.
Understanding the objectives of the cement job sets the boundary conditions for the
designing the cement jobs, and from those designs the ability to evaluate the resulting
cement placement and well isolation can be determined. Setting the evaluation
methodology and understanding the type of information required to apply that
methodology can improve the quality of the evaluation.
A5.3 CEMENT JOB EVALUATION TECHNIQUES
Cement Bond Logs
Cement bond logs (CBL) were introduced in the 1950s. In one of the early papers by
Grosmangin, Kokesh and Majani published in 1960, the authors conclude:
A-152
“This new tool can be used to evaluate the quality of the cement job around a casing
string and, in many cases that its use may eliminate the necessity of expensive inflow
and circulation tests.”
Paraphrasing the remainder of the conclusion, the authors note that with additional
research on cementation and the propagation of sound, the interpretation of the
cement bond log can be made even more reliable.
Through the next several decades, improvements in the basic CBL have occurred,
along with the development of more sophisticated tools and interpretation
techniques. What remains consistent throughout those decades is the dependence on
the indirect measurement of the cement-to-casing interface to interpret the
effectiveness of a cementing treatment.
A statement by Fertl, Pilkington and Scott in their 1974 paper addresses some of the
limitations:
“Despite its potential, the cement bond log is probably one of the most abused,
misused, and misunderstood logs used in the oil field today. Mis-calibration,
inadequate information, and a severe lack of standardization are enough to push
petroleum engineers into a morass of bewilderment.”
The authors realized depending only on a cement bond log would not lead to effective
cement evaluation. Without information on the cement systems pumped, how the job
was performed and the criteria used to determine the success of the operation, proper
cement evaluation is tenuous at best.
The goal of cement evaluation depends on the objective of the job. If the objective is to
have pressure isolation at a casing shoe for continued drilling, the evaluation
technique may simply be a pressure test. For objectives requiring top of cement above
a certain point in the well, then pressure matches using job data, temperature surveys
or sonic logs may be all that is required.
Determining the presence of zonal isolation is one of the more difficult tasks in cement
evaluation. Depending on the length of the interval requiring isolation and the slurries
A-153
pumped, the selection of evaluation technique can become quite complex, and will
require the use of multiple sets of data and are fundamental to CO2 storage
applications.
Understanding the Objectives and Limits of Cementing
Understanding the objectives of the job, and the design parameters used to meet those
objectives, a decision should then be made as to how the effectiveness of the cement
job is to be evaluated. Coupled with this is a determination of the success criteria to
be used to evaluate if the job has been performed properly and the objectives met.
As noted in the discussion of cementing, for effective cement job design, the slurry,
placement and ultimate objectives of the operation must be understood. Once this is
performed, the actual slurry design is developed, and its composition can impact the
selection of evaluation technique and may dictate a particular type of electronic log be
used for the evaluation.
For example, laboratory data from the ultrasonic cement analyzer (UCA) may be used
to “calibrate” an ultrasonic log. The data is used to set the baseline for the expected
value of the impedance of the cement in the annulus. The acoustic impedance is a
function of slurry density and ultrasonic travel time, with the travel time being
determined by the UCA.
Pressure Testing
One of the simplest and most common methods of cement evaluation is a pressure
test. This can be a test at the end of a cement job to “check the floats,” a casing
pressure test before drilling out the casing, casing shoe tests or liner top tests.
Understanding the meaning and limits of each of these tests is important in the
evaluation of cementing.
Checking the floats at the end of a cement job may give an indication that the valves in
the float equipment have closed and are holding. However, this is only true where the
differential pressure at the end of a job is high enough to provide a u-tube pressure
capable of moving the top plug back up the casing. The top plug is a pressure fit inside
the casing, and requires pressure to push it back up the casing. For example, to push a
A-154
7 inch (17.78 cm) top cement plug back up a casing string requires approximately 150
psi (1.03 MPa). A differential pressure at the end of the job less than 150 psi (1.03
MPa) would not move the plug, and therefore any float check would not show flow at
surface because the plug, and not the float equipment would prevent flow. On many
cement jobs, the differential pressure at the end of the job is too low to move the top
plug up the casing, and the “float check” test at the end of these cement jobs does not
evaluate the float valves and is invalid.
Because of this, it is critical to calculate the differential or u-tube pressure at the end of
the cement job. If it is low, the test to “check the floats” at the end of the job is
meaningless. Instances where this can occur are with extended or high angle casing
strings, jobs with limited vertical lift of cement, and jobs where the density difference
between the cement and the mud are limited.
Positive pressure tests on the casing evaluate the ability of the top cement plug seated
on the float equipment to seal. There can be a successful casing pressure test with no
set cement below the plug. This is readily evidenced by the fact that many operations
routinely pressure test the casing immediately after bumping the plug.
Formation pressure testing after drilling out the casing shoe is often required by
regulation before drilling ahead to the next objective. The leak-off test is used to
determine the presence of a pressure seal at the casing shoe. In some wells, the
calculation of leak-off pressure at the bottom of the well can be impacted by mud
compressibility which should be taken into account for accurate determination of the
leak off pressures.
Testing of liner tops and overlaps should be performed with an understanding of leak
paths. A successful positive or negative pressure test can indicate the overall system
is holding pressure, while an unsuccessful test will indicate only the presence of a leak
and will not give an indication of the source of the leak. The leak path can be at the top
of the liner, through the shoe of the liner, in the upper casing or through some surface
leak in the system. As noted, these tests when successful indicate the total system is
pressure tight, but a failure of the test will require additional evaluation to determine
the leak path.
A-155
Pressure testing evaluates overall systems rather than individual components. A
successful test may occur when only one component of a multi-component system is
functioning. Failure of a test can be an indication the total system is not working.
Finally, pressure-matching job data can give an indication of the success of the cement
job and allow calculation of the approximate top of cement in the annulus. While not a
definitive test, the lift pressure may be used to approximate that the top of cement is
above some minimum point in the well. This test can be very useful in cases of loss of
circulation during the job.
Temperature Logs
Temperature logs are used to determine top of cement, and the presence of flow
behind casing. With respect to finding the top of cement, the log is used to locate
changes from the normal temperature gradient brought on by the exotherm of cement
setting. The log must be run within the time window when the cement is setting to
catch the exotherm. The lighter weight the cement, and the narrower the annulus, the
less exotherm there will be, and the reliability of the measurement reduces.
Because heat rises in the annulus, determining the precise top of cement using a
temperature log is not practical. Depending on the cement system and size of the
annulus, the uncertainty in the top of cement can exceed 100 feet (30.48 m). To
improve the reliability of a temperature log, multiple runs can be made and a
comparison of the temperatures made. This will give a differential temperature at
each point in the well and aid in better determining the presence of the cement.
Determining flow in the annulus with a temperature log requires sufficient flow rate
to “move” the temperature up the hole. Temperature logs, coupled with noise logs,
can not only identify flow, but with sufficient evaluation may give an indication if the
material moving in the annulus is fluid or gas. Supplementing the temperature log
with the noise log in those instances gives more data and can result in better remedial
actions for any needed repair.
Sonic and Ultrasonic logs
A-156
Temperature and noise logs may be considered “passive” measurements where the
log only records a specific parameter in the well. Sonic and ultrasonic logs are
considered “active” logs because the tools emit some sort of sound and then “listen” to
the response of the well to that sound. Sonic logs utilize sound in the frequency of
approximately 20 kHz where ultrasonic logs can use a frequency anywhere from 80 to
700 kHz, depending on the tool with 80 to 200 kHz being more common.
Conventional Cement Bond Log (CBL)
As noted, the conventional sonic cement bond log (CBL) was first introduced in the
1950s with an early paper presenting the technology presented in 1960 by
Grosmangin, Kokesh and Majani. Still in common use, the basic tools use a transmitter
and a pair of receivers spaced at 3 and 5 feet (0.91 m and 1.52 m). The transmitter
sends out an omnidirectional signal which is picked up by the receivers. The receiver
at 3 feet (0.91 m) presents the amplitude of the signal and at the 5 feet (1.52 m)
receiver the signal is converted into a microseismogram that is presented on the log.
Since its introduction, there have been several advances in CBL technology as well as
the interpretation of the signals from the tool.
There are two key assumptions made with the interpretation of the CBL. Because the
tool averages around the wellbore, there is an assumption the cement strength is
uniform throughout the interval, and that the cement thickness (annular gap) is
constant, usually 0.75 inch (1.905 cm). These assumptions, coupled with the use of an
omnidirectional signal from the transmitter, impact the interpretation of the
interpretation of the data. It is critical to understand the information received at each
receiver with a basic CBL tool is an average around the well.
CBL tools are sensitive to eccentering as indicated in the following graph. Having an
off centered tool will lead to the “impression” less energy has been returned to the tool
and appears to be a better “bond” than is actually present. Attention to the transit
time curve on the log will give the user an indication of tool eccentering. If tool
eccentering is a persistent problem, it is recommended the tool be pulled out of the
hole and the centralizers replaced, or additional centralizers added.
A-157
Figure A5-1 - CBL Tool response to eccentering
Because of the averaging of the wellbore, determining “isolation” over small intervals
will be subject to error, and may become unreliable. While there can be some relative
assurance of cement coverage over long sections, using a CBL to determine coverage
over intervals less than approximately 50 feet (15.24 m) increases the risk of
misinterpretation. There may not enough data through the averaging of the signal,
coupled with the assumption of constant strength and annular gap in the well, to make
definitive isolation decisions in shorter intervals.
CBL Bond Index
Pardue et al. included a description of bond index in their 1963 SPE paper. The
authors state if there is no contamination of the cement, a calculation of the bond
index may be used as an indication of channeling. In this same paper a nomograph
was published correlating cement strength, casing size and weight, and the expected
millivolt output from a log. Also found in the paper is a graph relating the %
attenuation rate to that of the % circumferential bond.
A-158
Figure A5-2 - Typical CBL Nomograph
Cement bond index may be displayed on some logs rather than an amplitude or
attenuation curve. Typically, percent bond or bond index is a ratio of the amplitude
reading in a given section of the hole to the lowest amplitude reading in the hole:
(A fp - A ls )
BI 
 A fp - A 100% 
Where:
BI = Bond Index
A-159
Afp = Amplitude of free pipe
Als = Amplitude of the logged section
A100% = Amplitude of 100% “bonded” pipe
Bond Index (BI) is the ratio of the difference between free pipe amplitude (Afp) and
the received amplitude in the logged section of hole (Als) to the difference between the
free pipe amplitude and the lowest received amplitude (A100%), or what is considered
to be 100% bonding. Many logs make the BI calculation, display it as part of the log,
and deem 80% BI as “good” cement, with any value below 80% as either “poor,”
contaminated or channeled cement.
The major problem with this concept is changes in cement density and strength affect
Als and A100%. Changes in density occur between a lead and tail cement, and strength
can vary throughout the wellbore simply due to temperature differences. The
assumption inherent in the calculation is the cement from the top of the well to the
bottom has the same properties throughout.
Additional factors that will impact the bonding index include borehole lithology.
Softer, less dense rock will yield lower amplitude, which may be interpreted as better
bonding. Hard limestone and dolomites will yield higher amplitudes, which may be
interpreted as poor bonding.
It is important to recognize the expected value for 100% bonded pipe is part of the
bond index calculation. If the well has been cemented with a lightweight slurry, and
the tool has not been properly set to account for the lower expected value, the bond
index calculation will be wrong. For example, using the interpretation chart above, if
the cement strength is assumed to be 2,100 psi (14.5 MPa), but in fact is 500 psi (3.45
MPa), the difference in the 100% amplitude signal will be 3.5 vs 12. This means the
bond index calculation will show 500 psi (3.45 MPa) cement of having a bond index of
58, thus giving the impression of a large channel or no cement.
Changes in casing size and weight will impact the free pipe calculation, and must also
be adjusted, particularly in wells with mixed casing strings. Often changes in bond
index can simply be a result of a change in casing size and weight.
A-160
In the 1985 paper by Fitzgerald et al. the authors reproduced a graph relating the
minimum cemented footage required for isolation in various casing sizes, assuming an
80% bond index. As noted, differentiating between lower-strength cement or a
channel is not possible with these basic logs. It is difficult to conclude a well with a
potential channel comprising 20% of the circumference of the annulus could be
considered isolated, regardless of the length of the interval.
The bond index concept finds its way into many logs, from conventional CBL
presentations to ultrasonic log cement maps. Some log presentations will have a color
change in the cement map at specified values corresponding to an 80% bonding which
again is predetermined based on an arbitrary value of what is considered “good”
cement.
Because of the inherent error with the calculation of bond index, its use for
determining cement quality is not recommended as a single method of cement
evaluation. With conventional omnidirectional CBL logs, there is insufficient data to
distinguish between channeling and lower-strength cement. With other cement map
presentations, it can lead the user to interpretation errors based only on an arbitrary
cut-off point on the log (See Recommendations below).
Pad-Type Tools
An improvement to the omnidirectional signal generated by the conventional CBL

tools is the pad-type tools that use multiple transmitter and receiver pairs. This
technology was reported by Lester in 1989 and again in 1990 by Bigelow, Domangue
and Lester. The six-pad tool can provide a more detailed evaluation of the material
behind the casing, and does not average the signal around the wellbore as with a
conventional CBL. The pad-type tool operates at the low end of the ultrasonic
spectrum, around 80 MHz. The tool can be limited in very small casing strings because
of the inability to have the pads pass through small-ID casings. As reported in their
paper, the color map for the tool shows 80% “Bond Rating” which then diminishes to
white, intended to represent unsupported pipe.
A pad-type tool has several advantages in that, through use of directional signals, it
has the ability identify channels. There remain the inherent questions relating to bond
A-161
index, although these can be addressed with careful log presentation (See
Recommendations below).
Pulse Echo Technology
In the 1986 paper by Sheives et al. pulse echo-type tools were introduced and have
since expanded in their use. The original tools employed a set of eight transducers,
which were later replaced by a family of tools employing a rotating
transmitter/receiver. The tools evaluate the travel time of an ultrasonic signal
through various materials in the well.
The principle of an ultrasonic tool is the measurement of the ultrasonic signal

reflection coefficient (Cr) created by the materials in contact with the inner and outer
surfaces of the casing.
This reflection coefficient is the ratio of the difference in the acoustic impedance of the
intimately coupled material to the sum of their acoustic impedance:
(Z 1 - Z 2 )
Cr  (4)
(Z 1  Z 2 )
Where
Z1 = Acoustic Impedance of the casing, 106 Kg/m2 sec
Z2 = Acoustic Impedance of the material in contact with either the inner or outer
casing surface
Acoustic impedance (Z) of a material is defined as:
Z  V P (5)
c b
Where:
Pb = Bulk density, Kg/m3
Vc = Composite velocity of a sonic signal, m/sec
Acoustic impedance is a measurable physical property of a material, regardless if the

material is a solid or liquid. While knowledge of the strength of the cement is
A-162
important in evaluating a conventional CBL log, ultrasonic log interpretation does not
depend as heavily on knowledge of the cement strength.
Acoustic impedance measurements of a material are independent of loading

conditions, and consequently, acoustic impedance will yield a more correct
interpretation of the relative quality of the cement. A calculation is made of the
apparent acoustic impedance of the material behind the pipe. Using this indirect
measurement of the acoustic impedance of the annular material and based on the
calculated impedance, a determination may be made as to the nature of the
material(s) behind pipe.
Because the tool utilizes a rotating transmitter/receiver, several measurements are

made on each revolution of the transmitter. Typically, 72 readings are taken per
revolution with the transmitter rotating at approximately 7.5 RPS (revolutions per
second).
Newer tools incorporating ultrasonic technologies send a signal at an angle to the

casing, thus setting up a flexural wave. The flexural wave is used in cases where the
annular material has very low impedance that may not be discernable by other tools.
This can be useful in determining the presence of very lightweight or specialty cement
systems in the annulus.
Cement Maps
Most cement evaluation logs incorporate some sort of cement map, a computer-
generated color scheme designed to depict the “quality” of the material in the annulus.
These displays may be useful for trend analysis of the job, though it must be noted the
color map is highly dependent on the set points for the log. For example, setting a
value for the expected impedance of cement at 4.0 would yield a very different cement
map than if the expected impedance were set to 2.5.
The challenge with cement maps, as noted earlier, is the user may be led to believe
that the color map indicates a true picture of what is in the annulus. In reality, it is
simply a color representation of the calculated impedance values. The correlation to
the quality of the material in the annulus is based on the set values for cement. Much
A-163
like the bond index calculation, the expected impedance of the cement in the annulus
is key to proper interpretation of the color map on the log.
Other efforts have been made to enhance the understanding of the data gathered from
logs and to improve the interpretation of the cement map. Enhanced analysis
methods using statistical variation processes have been developed and are used to
improve the reliability of logging lightweight and specialty cements. Frisch, Graham
and Griffith presented one of these techniques in 1999 and 2000.
Understanding Available Data Sets
There are multiple sets of data available for evaluation of a cement job, each with its
own set of limitations. Evaluating each data set is a key step in performing a quality
evaluation of a cement job. Evaluating the design of the cement job, from
centralization, fluid conditioning, cement mixing and pumping is central to full
analysis of the operation.
Field data in the form of pressure, rate, and density measurements of fluids pumped is
very important, and if properly gathered, forms one of the more credible sets of data
available. Knowing the cement was mixed to the proper density and pumped at the
rates planned for the job is critical in determining the quality of the job. Evaluating
the nature of the returns, whether full returns were maintained through the job, or if
losses occurred (and at what time), coupled with lift pressure data aids in determining
the most likely top of cement, and if the cement has covered the requisite zones.
Logging data, when calibrated and run properly, is an equally valid data set. It is when
the data from a log conflicts with field data that the evaluation of the quality of a
cement job becomes difficult.
Data from the job and the logging data are important and credible data sets and must
be evaluated in concert. When the two data sets yield conflicting answers, efforts
must be made to resolve the differences and determine a course of action. As noted,
properly setting the expectations of the properties of the cement in the annulus will
improve the interpretation of the data.
Overall Risks in Cement Evaluation

A-164
Thus far it is assumed the engineers have data available from cementing operation as
well as logging operations. Many cases where older wells are being plugged and
abandoned, there is little or no cement job data available. All too often the morning
report from the rig simply said, “ran casing, cemented same.” Cement densities, or the
type of cement system used is simply unavailable. In these cases, accurate cement
evaluation becomes more demanding.
In the 1985 paper by Fitzgerald et.al, the authors note the recommendation for
isolation using an 80% BI number should be multiplied by a factor of 3 if fracturing
operations are to be performed. Using this as a baseline, with the full understanding
that 80% BI is highly dependent on the cement strength chosen, then using a
minimum factor of 10 times their recommendation would seem reasonable. This
would mean for 7-in casing, when evaluated with a conventional CBL, the amount of
cement required to obtain a “reliable” seal in the annulus would approach 300 ft.
If additional data is available, in the form of more advanced logs that do not average
the signal around the wellbore, the risk of misinterpretation of isolation is reduced.
Additional information, from whatever source, will aid in providing more confidence
in the ultimate decisions related to wellbore isolation. Lacking sufficient data, the
choice in many situations is to take the most conservative approach and attempt
repair where none may be required.
The risks associated with inadequate cement evaluation can range from performing
unnecessary repair work, production of unwanted fluids, inadequate stimulation
operations or fluid movement in the well.
Reducing the risk of poor evaluation requires collecting additional data and evaluating
the full data sets together. Depending on a single set of data, be that a log or a
pressure chart, increases the risk of inadequate evaluation.
Conclusions:
Cement evaluation is much more than simply running some type of log into the well.
Proper evaluation begins with defining the objectives of the cementing operation,
determining any limitations or challenges in the design, performing the job as per the
A-165
design, and then evaluating that job to assure the design and execution met the
objectives. Without a clear definition of the purpose of the job, it becomes very
difficult to meet the undefined expectations of the job. Reducing the risks and
uncertainties in cement evaluation involves gathering as much data as possible,
understanding the limitations of that data, and resolving and discrepancies between
data sets.
Cement evaluation is highly dependent on the material in the annulus. Cement

properties such as density and strength are key inputs into calibrating the logs.
Without knowledge of what is expected in the annulus, the risks of misinterpretation
increase. When performing cement log evaluations, the engineer must understand the
limits of the tools being employed as well as the assumptions that go into the logging
display.
Recommendations:
Although these recommendations address cement evaluation for all types of

production and/or injection wells, they are particularly important for assuring the
integrity of longer-term CO2 storage wells. Proper cement evaluation should not be
limited to a single set of data, for example from a conventional bond log. The
beginnings of cement evaluation start with the objectives of the job, the type of
cements used in the wellbore and an evaluation of the operational parameters during
the job. These must be matched with an appropriate cement evaluation technique to
properly evaluate the cement sheath. As noted in this section, different logs will give
different data and can readily be used in combination with each other.
Operators should not depend on a single data set for the cement evaluation, but rather
employ all of the available data including service company design reports, operational
records, and the electronic logging results. When selecting the type of cement
evaluation log to use, consider the limits of the tools based on the slurry design and
the well conditions. Proper cement evaluation is not a one size fits all
recommendation but requires sound engineering practice to perform.
Basic CBL tools will offer the least amount of information of any of the evaluation logs,
though may be appropriate in conjunction with more sophisticated logs. Calibrating
A-166
the expected tool response with laboratory data from cement slurry design used on
the well rather than using a default value is essential to quality log evaluation.
Do not use bond index as a measure of the effectiveness of the cement coverage.
A5.4 DESCRIPTIONS OF REGULAR PORTLAND CEMENTS AND SPECIALTY

CEMENTS
Table A5-1 - Regular Portland cements are briefly described as per API
Specification 10A and ASTM Specification C150. The API specifications are
reviewed annually and revised according to the needs of the oil industry.
API Class (ASTM Type) Description
Class A (Type I) Portland cement for use where no special properties are required.
Processing additions may be used in the manufacture of the cement,
provided the additives meet the requirements of ASTM C465. Class A
cement is available only in ordinary (O) grade and is applicable from
surface to 6,000 feet (1,830 m) depth.
Class B (Type II) Portland cement with sulfate-resistant properties to prevent deterioration
of the cement from sulfate attack in the formation water. Processing
additives may be used as long as in compliance with ASTM C465. Available
in both moderate sulfate-resistant (MSR) and high sulfate-resistant (HSR)
grades and is applicable from surface to 6,000 feet (1,830 m) depth.
Class C (Type III) Intended for use when high early strength and/or sulfate resistance is
required. Processing additives may be used as long as in compliance with
ASTM C465. Available in ordinary (O), moderate sulfate-resistant (MSR),
and high sulfate-resistant (HSR) grades and can be used in the depth range
of 6,000 to 10,000 feet (1,830 to 3,050 m).
Class G No additions other than calcium sulfate or water, or both. Shall be blended
with the clinker during manufacture of Class G cement. Class G is a basic oil
well cement and is available in MSR and HSR grades. Depth range is
between 10,000 and 14,000 feet (3,050 to 4,270 m). Class G is ground to a
finer particle size than Class H.
Class H No additions other than calcium sulfate or water, or both. Shall be blended
with the clinker during manufacture of Class H cement. Used as a basic oil
well cement and is available in both MSR and HSR grades. Depth range is
from surface to 8,000 feet (2,440 m).
Note: Surface areas based on the Blaine test method for Class G and Class H
cements typically lie in the range of 300 to 400 and 220 to 330 m2/kg
respectively.
A-167
In addition to the API and ASTM classified cements, various special types of cement
materials (specialty cements) can be used for primary and remedial cementing
operations. Many of these special cements are developed for specific applications.
Some are a dry blend of API cements with a few additives, while others are cements
containing other chemical characteristics. The composition, quality and uniformity of
these cements are often kept confidential by the supplier.
Table A5-2 - Description of special cements (modified from Contek/API, 2008 and
Nygaard, 2010)
Name Description
Pozzolanic- Portland Pozzolanic materials are often dry blended with Portland cements to
Cement produce lightweight (low density) slurries for well cementing applications.
Pozzolanic materials includes any natural or industrial siliceous or silica-
aluminous material, which in combination with lime and water, produces
strength-developing insoluble compounds similar to those formed from
hydration of Portland cement. The most common sources of natural
pozzolanic materials are volcanic materials and diatomaceous earths.
Artificial materials are usually obtained as an industrial byproduct, or
natural materials such as clays, shales and certain siliceous rocks. Adding
pozzolanic materials to API or ASTM cements reduces permeability and
minimizes chemical attack from some types of corrosive formation waters.
Gypsum cement Gypsum cement is blended cement composed of API Class A, C, G or H

cement and the hemi-hydrate form of gypsum. In practice, the term
“gypsum cements” normally indicates blends containing 20% or more
gypsum. Gypsum cements are commonly used in low temperature
applications since it sets rapidly, has high early strength and positive
expansion. Due to their high ductility and acid solubility, they are not
considered suitable for CO2 service.
Microfine cement Composed of very finely ground cements of either sulfate-resisting Portland
cements, Portland cement blends with ground granulated blast furnace slag,
or alkali-activated ground granulated blast furnace slag. Have average size
of 4 to 6 microns and maximum particle size of 15 microns, which enables
them to harden fast and penetrate small fractures. An important application
is to repair casing leaks in squeeze operations, particularly tight leaks that
are inaccessible by conventional cement slurries because of penetrability.
Expanding cements Cement slurries with significant quantities of NaCl or KCl (also known as
“salt cements”) are used during cementing across massive salt formations or
water-sensitive zones to prevent salt dissolution and clay swelling. Primary
application is to improve bond of cement to pipe and formation. Expansion
A-168
Name Description
can also be used to compensate for shrinkage in neat Portland cement
Calcium aluminate High-alumina cement (HAC) or calcium aluminate cements (CAC) are used
cement for very low and very high temperature ranges. Several high alumina
cements (with alumina contents of 35 to 90%) have been developed. Setting
time for these cements is controlled by the composition and no materials
are added during grinding. These cements can be accelerated or retarded to
fit individual well conditions, although the retardation behavior is different
than for Portland cements. Addition of Portland cement to this cement
results in very rapid hardening, therefore must be stored separately.
Calcium aluminate phosphate blended with a few additives produce
cements that are highly resistant to the corrosive conditions found in wells
exposed to wet CO2 gas or CO2 injection wells.
ThermaLockTM ThermaLock cement is specially formulated calcium phosphate cement that

is both CO2 and acid resistant. This cement is well suited for high
temperature geothermal wells and has been laboratory tested and proven at
temperatures between 600 C to as high as 3710 C. It is also being marketed
for CO2 EOR and CO2 storage wells.
Latex cement Latex cement is a blend of API Class A, G or H with polymer (latex) added.
Latex-modified cement systems provide several benefits: improved
pumpability, increased tensile strength and increased bonding between
steel/cement and cement/formation interfaces. Styrene butadiene latex
additive is effective in preventing annular gas migration. It is well known
that CO2-laden waters can destroy the structural integrity of set Portland
cements. As a result of the reaction chemistry, the net result is a leaching of
the cement material from the cement matrix, an increase in porosity and
permeability, and a decrease of compressive strength. Downhole this
translates to a loss of casing protection and zonal isolation. Addition of
pozzolans and latex can reduce the corrosion rate by as much as 50%. A
well distributed latex film may protect the cement from chemical attack in
some corrosive conditions, such as formation waters containing carbonic
acid. Latex also imparts elasticity to the set cement and improves the
bonding strength and filtration control of the cement slurry.
Resin/plastic/synthetic Resin or plastic cements also known as organic polymer epoxy cements are
cements specialty materials used for selectively plugging open holes, squeezing
perforations, and the primary cement for waste disposal wells, especially in
highly aggressive acidic environments. A unique property of these cements
is their capability to be squeezed under applied pressure into permeable
zones to form a seal within the formation.
Sorel cement Sorel cement is magnesium oxychloride cement used as a temporary

plugging material for well cementing. The cement is made by mixing
A-169
Name Description
powdered magnesium oxide with a concentrated solution of magnesium

chloride. Sorel cements have been used to cement wells at very high
temperatures (up to 7500 C).
EverCRETETM EverCRETE CO2 is marketed as CO2-resistant cement that can be applied for
CO2 storage wells as well as for CO2 EOR wells. EverCRETE cement has
proven highly resistant to CO2 attack during laboratory tests, including wet
supercritical CO2 and water saturated with CO2 environments under
downhole conditions. It can be used for both primary cementing as well as
for plugging and abandoning existing wells.
Self-Healing and CO2- A new promising technology consists of an engineered particle size
Resistant Cement distribution (ESPD) blend containing a reactive material that swells upon
contact with CO2. This swelling allows the closure of micro-fissures and/or
the reduction of the micro-annulus, which heals the cement sheath and
reestablishes the integrity of the well. This technology has been successfully
deployed in an onshore well in Brazil (Engelke et al, 2017)
Freeze-protected Arctic During drilling and completion, a permafrost formation must not be allowed
Cements to thaw (external freeze-back leads to higher collapse loads at base of
permafrost). Melting can cause the thawed earth to subside, particularly in
the upper 200 feet of the well. Also, below the base of the permafrost, casing
experiences tension while above it experiences compression and causes the
base to be uplifted.
Desirable to use a quick-setting, low-heat-of-hydration cement system that

will not melt the permafrost and develop sufficient compressive strength
(without freezing) at temperatures as low as 200 F. Casing strings must be
cemented to surface, or a non-freezing fluid (oil-based or glycol) placed in
the annulus, to prevent casing failure (known as internal freeze-back) owing
to the expansion of water upon freezing. There is also a need for complete
displacement of water-based fluids. Systems that perform in permafrost are:
calcium aluminate cement; gypsum-Portland cement blends (with NaCl as a
mix-water depressant); and ultra-fine Portland cement. In order to prevent
contact between alumina and Portland cements, extended Class G systems
are widely used today.
Ultralow- Formations that have a low fracture gradient (FG), or are highly permeable,
density/Foamed cavernous or vuggy are difficult to cement since they are unable to support
cements the annular hydrostatic pressure of a conventional cement column and
ultralow density cements (less than 10 pounds per gallon -ppg) provide a
solution to such problems.
Foamed cements are made of a base conventional cement slurry (15-16
A-170
Name Description
ppg), nitrogen gas, surfactant and other materials to provide foam stability.
Foamed cements are less expensive than engineered particle size (EPS)
systems containing glass microspheres or cenospheres; however, special
equipment is needed at the wellsite to inject the nitrogen or air into the base
slurry.
Foamed cement has several advantages in addition to its low density:

relatively high compressive strength developed in a reasonable time; less
damaging to water-sensitive formations; its compressible nature prevents
fluid influx and annular gas migration; ability to cement past zones
experiencing total losses; system density can be adjusted during the job by
simply changing the gas concentrations; controlling shallow gas flows below
the mudline in deep water wells.
Stability of foamed cement is critical, if unstable – gas bubbles will coalesce

and migrate through the slurry. With complete gas break-out and upward
migration – will result in loss of overbalance and a loss of volume and a
lower TOC (Top of Cement).
A-171
APPENDIX 6 - PLUGGING AND ABANDONMENT OF WELLS
CO2 geological storage projects will likely incorporate a range of well types, from
injection and production wells, to abandoned and previously completed wells. While
the risks for leakage from newly drilled and completed wells are expected to be less,
due to improved technology and regulations, older wells that were improperly
constructed (although in compliance with existing regulations at that time) and that
may or may not have been improperly abandoned (again may have been in
compliance with existing regulations at that time) may pose a greater risk of escape of
CO2 and formation fluids to overlying formations or to the surface. Also, legacy wells
were not designed for handling CO2.
Storage in deep saline aquifers may also pose a lower risk (due to lower number of
wellbores encountered) than those encountered in oil and gas fields. Depleted oil and
gas reservoirs are likely to incorporate a greater number of wells penetrating the
reservoir cap-rock due to the historical exploitation of these fields. Seepage, migration
and leakage can occur through faults and fractures in the cap-rock above the reservoir
and/or through improperly plugged and abandoned existing old oil and gas wells. (For
the context of CO2 geological storage, natural CO2 migration from the storage
reservoir, usually along faults which can reach the surface forming CO2 vents to the
atmosphere is termed seepage, movement of CO2 or other fluids through permeable
strata which covers designated reservoirs, aquitards and caprocks (at very low levels)
is termed migration, and leakage is the movement of CO2 or other fluids out of a
storage complex. This covers geological formations and wellbores, and in reality rates
of leakage could be too low to accurately detect.).
Therefore a good understanding of well abandonment and remedial measures and

current abandonment practices and regulatory requirements are necessary to assure
safe and secure long-term storage of CO2 in the subsurface reservoirs. A variety of
techniques are employed around the world to facilitate well abandonment and state
and federal regulatory agencies may specify the exact requirements for doing so. Table
A-172
A6-1 below describes each plugging method and the drawbacks and limitations of
each method.
Table A6-1 - Description of abandonment methods

Abandonment Description Benefits/Limitations
Method
Balanced Plug The more common method of One of the simplest techniques.
abandonment, with the tubing Main limitation is potential for
placed at the target plug depth and cement contamination, which can
the cement slurry is then injected be minimized by use of best
onto a bridge plug device which practice and use best suited plug
forms the plug base. Cement is then base materials.
pumped into the annulus until it is
equal to the level inside the casing.
Cement Squeeze Squeeze cementing involves Used for remedial cementing after a
pressurized forcing of cement at a flawed or damaged primary cement
pre-determined depth coinciding job. Since exact quantity of cement
with perforations in the casing. The required cannot always be
pressure forces the liquid of the calculated, may lead to excess
slurry into the formation, leaving cement entering the casing above
the cement to form a seal the packer. This may lead to
sticking of tubing in hole,
preventing future removal.
Dump Bailer A known quantity of cement is The stationary nature of the cement
lowered into the wellbore on during the descent can lead to
wireline, and the bailer is activated premature setting, therefore more
when it reaches the desired depth, suited to setting plugs at shallower
just above the bridge plug and depths.
raising the bailer releases/dumps
the cement.
Two-plug Top and bottom plugs are set at Allows maximum accuracy of
calculated depths, the lower plug placement with minimum cement
cleans the well as it is lowered, and contamination. Isolation of cement
the cement can then be placed with slurry from other fluids ensures
minimal contamination from other predictable cement performance.
fluids.
A bridge plug is a downhole tool that is located and set to isolate the lower part of the
wellbore. Bridge plugs may be permanent or retrievable, enabling the lower wellbore
to be permanently sealed from production or temporarily isolated from a treatment
conducted on an upper zone. Cement retainers are similar except that they are
designed to allow cement to be pumped below the tool.
API Bulletin E3 “Well Abandonment and Inactive Well Practices for U.S. Exploration
and Production Operations”, 1993 gives additional guidelines on plugging and
abandonment requirements. An update to this document is currently being developed
A-173
by API. The requirements for the Texas Railroad Commission for plugging and
abandonment for Class II CO2 EOR wells are given in Texas Administrative Code (TAC),
Rule § 3.14 and for Class VI Storage wells are given in Section 7.1.
In general terms, the procedure for CO2 EOR wells involves:
1. Setting the ON/OFF plug in the tubing string to the OFF position,
2. Pulling the string,
3. Setting a cement retainer or bridge plug,
4. Placing sufficient cement to isolate the producing formation (squeezing through

the cement retainer or placing a cement plug on top of a bridge plug), and,
5. Depending on the number of horizons in the well, repeating steps 3 and 4 for each.
6. Positive and/or negative pressure tests to verify the integrity of the cement and
mechanical plugs.
The foregoing plug and abandonment procedure is used to isolate the

production/injection formation from other formations and to protect ground water
resources from potential contamination.
A6.1 RECOMMENDED BEST PRACTICE FOR WELL ABANDONMENT FROM A CCS

PERSPECTIVE
The recommended best practice for well abandonment from a long-term storage
integrity perspective involves (IEAGHG):
 Advanced materials; improvement in the capacity of wellbore sealants to isolate

stored CO2 can be applied during drilling, completion, workover and
abandonment operations
 Reduced cement permeability and reactivity: either by reducing the water to

cement ratio or the addition of specialist materials which also allows the slurry
density to be adjusted over a range of values
 Use of non-Portland cements: these are less reactive with wet CO2, however they
are not compatible with Portland cements, and cross-contamination must be
avoided. They also entail higher costs than Portland based cements
 Self-healing cements and swelling packers: these contain specific additives that
react with the fluids present to effectively block cracks and annuli to prevent flow.
A-174
Swelling packers are used in case of cement failure – they are designed to swell
upon contact with hydrocarbons, water or both.
Carlsen and Abdollahi (2007) describe a methodology for abandonment that is shown
in Figure A6-1. The process involves removing the tubing and packer before placing a
cement plug at the bottom of the well, and then injecting a specialized fluid into the
reservoir to clog the near-well area and displace the CO2 to minimize contact between
CO2 and wellbore materials. The casing is then milled at the level of the cap-rock and
cement injected into this open section to prevent leakage along micro-annuli between
casing and cement elements. The well is then filled with non-corrosive completion
fluid. If secondary seals are present, then an additional cement barrier should be
placed at this point.
A-175
Figure A6-1 - CO2 storage well before (left) and after abandonment (right)
according to the methodology described by Carlsen and Abdollahi (SINTEF 2007)
Squeezing cement into casing perforations for remedial cementing is often not
successful due to the cement’s high viscosity. Metal alloy that expands (~ 1%) upon
solidification has been suggested for remedial cementing and cement plugs (Canitron,
2008). The alloy is placed in the wellbore and a heating tool melts it. The alloy flows to
fit the openings of the casing and the volume inside the casing. The expansion helps to
avoid micro-fissures that cement can experience because of the shrinkage. Alloy is also
claimed to not go through a weak transitional phase during solidification that cement
does, and it bonds stronger against clean steel than pure Portland cement. Molten
alloy has low surface tension and viscosity and is claimed to fill small fissures and
perforations efficiently (Figure A6-2). Alloys should be CO2 resistant.
A-176
Figure A6-2 - Schematic of using metal alloy plug to seal and abandon production
zone (Canitron, 2008)
Removing the casing in certain areas is another recommended practice to mitigate

leakage caused by poor bond or de-bonding between casing and cement. Besides, CO2
can attack both steel and cement and create leakage paths. In the West Texas field
case, it has been seen that reactions have occurred at the casing cement interface and
the cement formation interface. Before the final cement squeeze and plug is set, a CO2-
resistant polymer may be injected in the near wellbore region to prevent CO2 from
coming in contact with the cement after injection. CO2 resistant cements are
recommended to seal the reservoir as the cement will be exposed to the CO2 in the
future. An open hole completion will reduce the need for milling the casing and may be
a simplified solution where appropriate.
A-177
APPENDIX 7 - WELL INTEGRITY MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS (WIMS)
A7.1 WELL INTEGRITY MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS
A Well Integrity Management System (WIMS) is a solution to define the commitments,

requirements and responsibilities of an organization to manage the risk of potential
loss of well containment over the well’s lifecycle. The tasks necessary to establish and
maintain well integrity, and the roles accountable and responsible for delivery, are
specified in a WIMS document. To implement the WIMS, various forms from simple
solutions utilizing a spreadsheet, to complex electronic management systems are
utilized.
The objective of a WIMS is to specify requirements necessary for delivery of well

integrity, including:
 Well integrity refers to maintaining full control of fluids within a wellbore at all
times, in order to prevent unintended fluid movement or loss of well control
 Well integrity policy defines commitments and obligations to safeguard health,

safety, environment, assets, and reputation
 WIMS assures that well integrity is maintained throughout a well’s lifecycle by the
application of a combination of organizational, technical, and operational
processes.
Commercially available WIMS software/systems include:
 Woodgroup - Intetech-IQRA
 Exprosoft – Well-Master
 Oxand – Simeo risk based assessment
 RIFTS – mainly artificial lift, structural under development (JIP)
 OREDA – Offshore and Onshore Reliability Data
 Halliburton – Landmark – Decision Space Well Integrity (DSWIM)
 Yuit SWIS – Smart Well Integrity System
 Peloton – WellView10 – Enhanced with Well Barrier and Integrity Program
A-178
A7.2 ELEMENTS OF THE WELL INTEGRITY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
 Wells ownership over the lifecycle for wells that are:
 Developed
 Acquired
 Divested
 Suspended
 Shut-in
 Operated
 Exploration
 Abandoned by company
 Organizational structure with roles:
 Responsibilities
 Competencies
 Risk assessment with a risk register that:
 Defines the risk
 Mitigations for the hazards that are to be managed
 Well types with:
 Well barriers
 Well barrier envelopes that control hazards
 Performance standards that:
 Define the requirements to maintain the well barriers within

its operating limits
 Well barrier verification that:
 Assures the mechanical status of the well is maintained on a

defined risk
 Underlying processes like:
 Reporting
A-179
 Documentation
 Management of change
 Continuous improvement
A7.3 RISK ASSESSMENT
A Risk Assessment is a procedure to determine the quantitative or qualitative value of

a risk or threat to a specific situation. Risk can be defined as a combination of both the
severity of the consequences of an event and the likelihood or probability that the
event will occur. Risk increases with increasing severity and/or likelihood. It is an
industry accepted practice to require prevention or mitigation for significant and/or
high risk category wells.
One vey general but accepted definition for a high risk well is: “A well in which the last
barrier is under threat of being compromised”. Each company should create their own
specific definitions for well risk based on operating area, well stock, and risk
tolerance. There are several risk assessment methods available and a few are
summarized below:
A7.3.1 Quantitative Risk Assessment (QRA)
Quantitative Risk Assessment (QRA) is a risk assessment method that is based on

numerical probability using historical data and reliability models. This method is
commonly used in risk assessment of hydrocarbon processing facilities and oil
pipeline systems. The challenge for using a QRA for well integrity is the availability
and reliability data for use in a risk model. Even with a sound model, if the initial and
boundary conditions are not correct, the prediction risk may be flawed.
A7.3.2 Qualitative Risk Assessment
A Qualitative Risk Assessment is a more conventional method for well integrity and it
is primarily based on experience and the application of good engineering judgement.
Qualitative Risk Assessments are easier to execute but are limited by the experience
and knowledge of the people performing the assessment.
A-180
A7.3.3 QRA/Qualitative Hybrid
Due to a lack of well integrity reliability data for QRAs, many well integrity risk
assessments are QRA/Qualitative hybrids based on known failure data, rules,
procedures and risk matrices rather than using straight qualitative or QRA analyses.
A7.3.4 Considerations for Risk Assessments
Some of the factors/considerations for managing risks from a well or wellfield are:
 Outflow potential to surface or subsurface environments
 Fluid types and composition, H2S, CO2, gas, oil, water etc.
 Location: subsea, offshore, swamp, land, urban, natural reserve etc.
 Earth model, subsidence, earthquakes, permafrost, deep water, high pressure high
temperature (HPHT) etc.
A7.4 ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH AND SAFETY PLAN FOR CO2 INJECTION (AFTER
JARRELL ET AL, 2002)
Overall, the advantages of CO2 injection outweigh the disadvantages. Although CO2 is a
greenhouse gas and venting should be minimized, large scale releases to the
atmosphere normally do not occur because produced CO2 is reinjected into the
reservoir for enhanced oil recovery or into a saline aquifer for long-term storage. Due
to the unique characteristics of CO2 previously discussed, the preparation and
implementation of a written environmental, health and safety (EHS) plan is a pre-
requisite prior to initiation of any CO2 injection project.
As used in EOR and storage, CO2 in high concentration can pose serious safety
concerns – asphyxiation, atmospheric hazard control, noise level (during pressure
relief), frostbite, hydrates/ice plugs, and high pressures.
A7.4.1 The Dangers of CO2
At normal conditions, the atmospheric concentration of CO2 is 0.04% (400 ppm), a

non-toxic amount. Most people with normal cardiovascular, pulmonary-respiratory,
and neurological functions tolerate exposure of up to 0.5% to 1.5% CO2 for one to
several hours without harm. Higher concentrations or exposures of longer durations
A-181
are hazardous and may cause asphyxiation if the concentration in the air is reduced to
below the 16% required to sustain human life (Figure A7-1). The current U.S. standard
for the maximum allowable concentration of CO2 in the air for eight continuous hours
of exposure is 0.5%, while 3% is the maximum concentration that operating personnel
can be exposed to for a short period of time. At concentrations above 20%, death can
occur in 20 to 30 minutes (Fleming et al, 1992).
People exposed to CO2 who are still conscious and alert should be taken to fresh air
and kept under observation. Unconscious or disoriented persons should be moved to
fresh air and be treated with a respirator or receive cardiopulmonary resuscitation
(CPR), as warranted. First aid always should be followed by a professional medical
examination.
Figure A7-1 - Exposure to CO2 Hazards (Jarrell et al, 2002)
A7.4.2 Atmospheric Hazard Control
 Venting of CO2 should be minimized, although for safety and other operational
reasons, it sometimes cannot be avoided. Adequate ventilation must be provided
when CO2 is discharged into the air, and CO2 vents should be located at high
elevations and in areas where maximum dispersion can occur.
A-182
 Due to its high density, released CO2 will flow to low elevations and collect there,
especially under stagnant airflow conditions with high concentrations persisting
in open pits, tanks and buildings. For this reason, operators should install
monitors wherever CO2 might concentrate and should regularly check and
calibrate the equipment. It is also recommended to have portable monitors, since
CO could collect in so many places and installing a fixed monitor at every location
would not be economically feasible.
 Fixed CO2 monitors should sound an alarm and/or turn on safety equipment such
as ventilation fans when activated. They also may activate emergency shut-down
procedures if the concentration is particularly high. There are at least three types
of CO2 monitors available: tube reaction (similar to a Drager H2S monitor),
thermal conductivity and nondispersive infrared.
 If the presence of CO2 is suspected in areas where the air is stagnant such as sewers,
wells, and closed-off rooms, personnel entry should be carefully planned
according to written operating procedures that should include preventing
additional CO2 from entering the area, clearing the area by forced ventilation,
and testing and continuously monitoring the atmosphere to detect an oxygen
deficiency.
 Where it is not feasible to install ventilation, personnel entering the area should be
trained and proficient in the use of appropriate respiratory equipment (airline
respirators or self—contained breathing apparatus (SCBA).
A7.4.3 Noise Levels
 High noise levels can result whenever pressure is relieved, such as when vessels are
evacuated for maintenance or when CO2 is bled from a wellhead before switching
to water injection. Hearing protection must be worn whenever the noise exceeds
90dB for an extended period of time (U.S. Occupational Safety and Health
Standards).
A7.4.4 Frostbite
 Frostbite (freeze burn) is a serious injury that can result from contact with cold
surfaces, solid CO2 (dry ice), or escaping liquid CO2. Any CO2 pressure drop can
cause a hazardously cold condition, and frost is not uncommon on wellheads and
flowlines where a large amount of CO2 is being produced.
 When containment pressures are released accidentally and a small amount of CO 2

turns to gas, the temperature of the remaining liquid immediately drops to
approximately -1010 F ( -740 C ), nearly the temperature of solid dry ice.
Personnel should avoid entering a CO2 vapor cloud not only due to the high CO 2
concentrations, but also due to the danger of frostbite. Precautions such as
wearing gloves and eye goggles must be taken.
A-183
 Should frostbite occur, the most important element of treatment is speed, since the
longer a body part is frozen the greater the likelihood for it to be destroyed.
Treatments for frostbite are found in many publications.
A7.4.5 Hydrates/Ice Plugs
 Hydrates, or ice plugs, can form in the piping of facilities and flowlines, especially
at pipe bends, depressions, and locations downstream of restriction devices.
 Subfreezing temperatures are not required for hydrates to form. Hydrates are
slushy crystals of CO2 and water that may form when the temperature drops
below 550 F (12.80 C), when pressures are below 5,000 psi (34.5 MPa). Using
glycols, alcohols, and other freeze depressants can prevent or reduce hydrate
formation. Installing heat tracing on pipes also is effective.
 First indication of an ice plug will be an abnormally low pressure on the

downstream side of the blockage, and when this is suspected, the section of the
line with the suspected ice plug should be isolated as soon as practical. Pressure
should be maintained as close to equal on both sides of the plug to prevent it from
being dislodged by a pressure differential and then damaging equipment
downstream. Applying heat to the exterior of the pipe in the form of heating pads
or hot air blowers can melt the plug.
A7.4.6 High Pressures
A principal source of danger in a CO2 facility is the high pressure (generally above
1,100 psi – 7.58 MPa) at which CO2 is transported and injected. High pressure is
particularly dangerous with CO2 because of CO2’s high coefficient of thermal expansion
– a small change in temperature can cause a large change in pressure.
To prevent over-pressurizing the system (which could cause emergency releases or

burst pipes), the CO2 must never be trapped or blocked. Following these rules helps
maintain proper pressures:
 Do not close more than one flow valve at a time without proper venting
 Prevent formation of ice or hydrate plugs
 Do not pressurize the system above the weakest part of the system
 bury piping at least 2.5 feet (0.76 m) below surface, a depth at which constant
temperature can be maintained (at least in moderate latitudes) (Boone, 1985).
A-184
A7.4.7 Thermal Relief Requirements
Thermal relief requirements must be considered for piping segments aboveground

where CO2 may be trapped and subjected to significant temperature changes. The
requirement for thermal relief is dictated by the fact that CO2 is more thermally
expansive than are hydrocarbon gases: When a sample of pure CO2 at 6000 F (315.50
C) and 2,000 psi (13.8 MPa) is heated to only 8000 F (4270 C), the pressure increases
to approximately 3,300 psi (22.8 MPa). In contrast pure methane would increase from
2,000 psi (13.8 MPa) to only about 2,180 psi (15.0 MPa). Emergency and thermal relief
systems also should be computer modeled to check for the proper dispersion of any
CO2 gas that may be released.
A7.4.8 Wellhead Considerations
Well problems often accompany CO2 injection simply because CO2 may cause
production wells to flow more than they have in the past, increasing the potential for
wellhead and tubing failures. Additional failure potential also exists because of the
presence of carbonic acid, which exacerbates corrosion. In the event of a catastrophic
failure, the release of CO2 and wellbore and reservoir fluids is possible.
To prevent accidental releases of fluids into the environment, equipment system

designs include:
 Installation of stuffing-box detectors on all wells. These leak detectors and existing
high/low pressure switches are connected to pump off controllers (POC). Wells
are also equipped with a high-performance butterfly safety shutdown valve to
which the POC is connected. Pressure switches operate these valves through
electrohydraulic actuators (D’Souza et al, 1995)
 The Wasson Denver Unit (Fleming et al, 1992) uses a similar system in which a
vibration detector on the beam unit shuts down the pump in the event of a rod or
wrist-pin failure. In addition, injector valves are programmed to close upon
detection of low tubing pressure, low injection line pressure, high casing pressure,
and other potentially dangerous conditions.
 The status of the safety equipment should be continuously monitored to enable

quick detection of leaks and blocked flowlines in wells where casing integrity may
be compromised.
A-185
A7.4.9 Protection of Near-Surface Waters
In some cases, operators have installed casing pressure relief valves to protect shallow
freshwater zones. These valves ensure that in high casing pressures, the result is a
surface release rather than an underground blowout. Although any release is costly
and unacceptable, a surface release in an uninhabited area may be preferable to a
release into a freshwater aquifer.
A7.4.10 Populated Area Wells
For wells in populated areas special measures can be taken to protect the public from
an accidental CO2 release. The entire well location can be fenced and monitored 24
hours a day via computer assisted alarms; atmospheric dispersion models can be done
to verify that CO2 releases in the area pose no danger at maximum anticipated rates.
A7.4.11 Workovers
Increased well pressures make workovers more difficult. If well-kill operations are
required sodium chloride brine may not be adequate, requiring the use of heavier-
weight fluids. The use of heavier weight fluids in injection well workovers may be
eliminated by shutting in the well to let it stabilize, or by switching to water injection
before the workover. If possible, workovers should be done through tubing to avoid
pulling equipment out of the well.
A-186
IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme
Pure Offices, Cheltenham Office Park, Hatherley Lane,
Cheltenham, Glos. GL51 6SH, UK
Tel: +44 1242 802911 [email protected]

www.ieaghg.org

Well Engineering & Injection Regularity For CCUS Wells

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Well Engineering & Injection Regularity For CCUS Wells

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Well Engineering & Injection Regularity For CCUS Wells

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Well Engineering and

IEAGHG Technical Report

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS AND CITATIONS

The principal researchers were:

The report should be cited in literature as follows:

Tel: +44 (0)1242 802911

A compilation of discrepancies between predicted implications of pure CO2 wellbores versus

Findings of the Study

• CO2 – controls the basic material selection;

Key Injection Risks for CO2 Wells versus O&G Wells

shaley intervals) such as inflatable packers or

Petrobras’ Lula Field: Offshore Brazil

Oxy Denver Unit, Wasson Field Texas

Overview of Core Energy’s CO2-EOR Projects

Expert Review Comments

Well Integrity Challenges

Injectivity and Regulatory Challenges

Prepared for the IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme

Talib Syed, Ronald Sweatman, Glen Benge

Talib Syed and Associates, Inc. (TSA)

CaCO3 - calcium carbonate

ERCB – Energy Resources Conservation Board

WELL ENGINEERING AND INJECTION REGULARITY IN CO2 STORAGE WELLS

 How did near-wellbore conditions influence CO2 injection operations

2.1 WELL DESIGN FOR CO2 INJECTION WELLS

2.1.1 Properties of CO2

Figure 1 – CO2 Phase Behavior (Oilfield Review September 2015)

Figure 2 - CO2 Phase Envelope (Bellarby, 2009)

Importance of CO2 Phases

2.1.2 Casing Design

 Maximum allowable setting depth with regards to kick margin

 Estimated pore pressure development

 Estimated formation strength

 Estimated temperature gradient

 Drilling fluids and cement program

 Estimated casing wear

 Setting depth restrictions due to formation evaluation requirements

 Potential for H2S and CO2

 Geo-tectonic forces applicable

2.1.3 Wellhead Design

2.1.4 Wellbore Design

ADM CCS # 2 Well

Open hole diameters and intervals

Name Depth Interval Open Hole Diameter Comment

Note 3: Thermal conductivity of tubing @ 77°F is 16 BTU / ft.hr.°F.

2.1.5 Completion Design

2)A CO2/water supply valve,

Below the wellhead, within the production casing (Figure 8) lies:

1) The tubing string,

Figure 7 - Typical CO2 Injection Wellhead (Contek/API, 2008)

2.1.6 Re-Completions of Existing Wellbores (Contek/API, 2008)

Operation Problems/limitations reported

Juravlevsko-Stepanovskoye Pressure closedown due to channelling

Hassi-Messaoud Interval of few days between injection of gas and

Kelly Snyder CO2 delivery problems, compression

Rock Creek Shortage of CO2,, labor problems

Lick Creek Channelling, valve problems on compressor,

Slaughter Estate CO2 delivery problems

Purdy Springer Corrosion of submersible pumps