International Journal of Energy and Water Resources

https://doi.org/10.1007/s42108-024-00281-4

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Modeling the impacts of hydro‑mechanical coupled processes

on reservoir stability and permeability
C. I. R. Mbouombouo1,5 · V. N. N. Djotsa2 · C. B. Fokam1,5 · L. L. N. Mambou3,4 · H. T. Kamgang3 · P. B. Mamadou3

Received: 10 September 2023 / Accepted: 28 February 2024

© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Iranian Society of Environmentalists (IRSEN) and Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University 2024

Abstract
Understanding and mastering the stability of underground storage is significant for improving safety operations in deep
formations, this implies the investigation of stress state with geomechanical coupled processes. This paper focuses on the
variation of in situ stress and the hydromechanical impact on reservoir stability. The Mohr–Coulomb criteria was used
to evaluate the failure zones for the study of the four reservoirs stabilities. The MATLAB programing software was used
for its accuracy and optimization ability, to implement the geomechanical model and simulate the reservoir effect. The
numerical results obtained show that, the assessment throughout the in situ stress state increases with depth up to 15,000 m
at its basement with a pore pressure at its bottom of 6.5 MPa, the minimum horizontal stress is 68.75 MPa, the maximum
Horizontal stress gives 165 MPa and a vertical stress of 206.26 MPa. For the stability estimation, the first reservoir named
Stuttgart gives the shear stress τ = 5 MPa, with the normal stress σn = 18 MPa, the stability factor is f = 0.4579 from the stress
estimation, and its pressure breakdown is Pb = 8.87 MPa, with a flow rate of Q = 0.00071 ­m3/s for carbon dioxide injected.
Other reservoirs are estimated the same with the safety zone given, setting Stuttgart and Rotiliegend to be good formations
for underground storage from the interpretations done. This paper also compared two fluids for injection with water leading
over ­CO2 from the results obtain.

Keywords Hydro-mechanical impact · Reservoir stability · Vertical stress · Pressure breakdown

Introduction

Several human activities over the past two centuries have

had great changes in the environment with an excess of car-
bon dioxyde (­ CO2) from 280 to 380 ppm in the atmosphere
bringing warming change and air pollution (Chang et al.,
* C. I. R. Mbouombouo 2024). In recent years, several researches have been car-
[email protected] ried out on the capture and sequestration of carbon dioxide
1 in deep sedimentary rocks, mostly in developed countries
Laboratory of Mechanical Engineering, National Advanced
School of Engineering of Yaounde, Yaounde, Cameroon (2022b; Safaei-Faroujia et al., 2022a). The release and global
2 expansion of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are mostly
The Institute of Earth and Environmental Science
of the Faculty of Science, University of Potsdam, Potsdam, caused by the burning of fossil energy (Chang et al., 2024;
Germany Mohammed & Vasilije, 2020; Nasiru, et al., 2022). Hydro-
3
Department of Mining Engineering, School of Geology carbons and industrial processes cause warming and climate
and Mining Engineering, University of Ngaoundere, change through their activities all over the World (Noreen
Ngaoundéré, Cameroon et al., 2022). Moreover, Farooq et al. (2020) have indicated
4
Laboratoire de Mécanique et Matériaux de Génie Civil an additional 30 billion tons of carbon dioxide ­(CO2) every
(L2MGC), CY Cergy Paris Université, 5 Mail Gay Lussac, year in the world. Hence, the geological storage of ­CO2: has
Neuville Sur‑Oise, 95000 Cergy‑Pontoise Cedex, France become a great decision marker for a safety environment
5
Départements des Génies Industriel et Mécanique (GIM), (Gabriele et al., 2023). According to forecasts, it is hoped
Laboratoire Engineering Civil et Mécanique (LECM), to favor the reduction of more than 20% of greenhouse gas
Yaounde, Cameroon

Vol.:(0123456789)
 International Journal of Energy and Water Resources

emissions by 2050 (DECC, 2012; Mohammed & Vasilije, and failure analysis that indicate the variations of effective
2020). The carbon dioxide capture mechanism and its injec- stress derived from pore pressure changes have no effect
tion into deep sedimentary basins, creates an alteration in the on the formation shear failure. The Mohr criteria are used
rocks due to the variation of the hydrostatic and lithostatic here to study the reservoir stability. Following the stability
pressures (Zoback, 2010). Dozens of studies are linked to evaluation in the reservoir, Xingdong et al. (2020) used
this work and presented in specifications. the 3D simulation to analyse the underground stability of
Though, the formation stability management and pressure a cavern for oil storage. Hongwu et al. (2020) have also
disturbance mostly occur during the injection process and evaluated the stability of underground gas storage salt
need to be well settled. Mechanical and hydraulic effects caverns in China, based on a 3D geomechanical model
interact simultaneously, resulting in hydromechanical builded from geological data and results laboratory test. The
coupling, as geological media contain pores and fractures simulation of thermo-hydraulic modeling by Jansen et al.
that can be fluid-saturated and deformable. The complexity (2018) on Matlab open source software a coupled thermo-
of these couplings lies in the direct interactions between hydraulic process in fractured reservoir and intergrated
pressure and deformation, and the changing state of a fracture stability analysis from the assessment of shear
hydraulic and mechanical properties (Mohammed & simulation potential. Recently, Gabriele et al. (2023) studied
Vasilije, 2020). The hydromechanical behavior is shown the monitoring applications involved in geological storage
in laboratory tests (Tsang & Witherspoon, 1983; Wu & of natural gas and C ­ O2, showing as importance of being
Witherspoon, 1981), and in situ tests (Cappa Frederic, 2005; strategic reserves for future human use activities that will
Cornet et al., 2003) which are very rarely carried out and request a pure environment with the reduction of greenhouse
numerical simulations by Zingerl et al. (2002). gases. In addition, Chang et al. (2024), investigated the
Rutqvist (2012) described the importance of geomechanical effect and the transport behavior of ­CO2
geomechanics interactions in underground storage in deep in deep geological storage, incorporating the evaluation
sementary rocks and the stress–strain performance that plays of effective stress with rock deformation. They come to
a key role in the rock stability. Also, Jonny and Stephansson conclude that, high pore pressure can lead to a decrease the
(2003); Ouelleta et al. (2011); Rutqvist (2012); Farooq effective stress and shear failure could be observed. This
et al. (2020) and Mohammed and Vasilije (2020), provided shows the importance of studying in every case the stability
evidence that geomechanics has gained momentum in the in the formation to as done in this paper to avoid pressure
extent of pressure disturbance associated with geological disturbances that can cause formation breakout.
disposal operations. Although, the sutdy is related to the In light of the above studies, the Matlab tool was used
aspect of coupled geomechanical processes which are seen for its easy data analysis and for further optimization model
to be a convincing approach in the mastery of in situ stress uses. This paper highlights the behavior of the coupled
and their management (Ouelleta et al., 2011). In addition, geomechanical processes and the shear failure study with
the monitoring of ­CO2 injection at Ketzin (Alexandra et al., Mohr stability criteria. Also considering water and ­CO2 as
2014; Sonja et al., 2013) emphasizes underground behaviour injected compared fluid to evaluate the efficiency during
during geological storage, and give a brief survey after four injection in reservoir. Four reservoirs were investigated,
years of ­CO2 injection at the Ketzin site in Germany. Mario including one in operation and three other non-exploited
et al. (2016) studied the after effect of C­ O2 post-injection that were additionally studied for the first time in the same
at the Ketzin site to share the experiences gained, with case in this work to be highlighted if possible for C ­ O2
miscellaneous geological storage site all over the world. underground storage need for the North German Basin. To
Nowadays carbon capture storage reduces the emissions overcome these shortcomings, the work first presents the
of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere (Lackner, 2003). hydromechanical stresses state, then discusses the result of
Moreover, Ouelleta et al. (2011) examined the assessment insitu pressure and formation stability with the additional
of reservoir geomechanics of ­CO2 storage in onshore saline effective stress case for the four reservoirs.
formation, in his study he presents a 1D mechanical earth
model and a numerical simulation from eclipse software
to evaluate the effect of disturbances due to the lithostatic Materials and methods
state of the Zechstein formation. The work also gives the
importance of coupled hydro-mechanical processes to solve This section presents the geomechanical methods used to
the problem of pressure disturbance. realize the present study. The evaluation of the in situ stress
Furthermore, Magri et al. (2013) evaluated the of the underground formations. The variation according to
deformations and insitu stress changes due to ­C O 2 depth with the rock parameters and the Mohr criteria is used
underground storage in North Germain Basin (NGB). The to evaluate the stability in the reservoirs for limit failure
study focuses on coupled hydro-mechanical simulation
International Journal of Energy and Water Resources

amplitude. The Matlab programming tool was used for all where ρlρs, are the densities of the fluid and the rock respec-
the simulation. tively: g is the acceleration and dz the depth. This vertical
stress is used to represent the total variation from the top to
Matlab simulation process bottom of the four reservoirs.

The Matlab tool was chosen because it’s fast and robust Hydrostatic pressure
for programming and easy for data analysis and having
optimization incorporate as a further advantage. As a main The reservoir being porous and also containing the
advantage it provides a comprehensive set of tools for data previously injected fluid, the pore pressure is considered
better plotting and good visualization, also the tool specify and at a depth D. This is the pressure of the fluid in the pore
well present results for optimization. All the results obtained space of the rock, the Eq. (3) represented the pore pressure
in this study were written as a program. The first step was the magnitudes in normal. The pressure in a well bore and
in-stiu state with the stress amplitude with iteration, followed affects the reservoir stability, generally it’s assumed to be
by the Mohr–Coulomb failure criteria circles, the data input constant for simple case studies. The hydrostatic pressure
gives the results obtained and discussed the exact value that is equal to the integration of the water density, from the top
were imported in tables. Two cases of interpretations were suface to the measured depth of various formations as given
then have, graphical and numerical results for accurate by (Fjaer et al., 1992, 2008):
interpretation (Table 1). D

∫
Pf = 𝜌f (z) ⋅ g ⋅ dz (3)
Reservoir geomechanics governing equations 0

with 𝜌f the water density. The hydrostatic pressure is

Vertical stress
calculated with Eq. (3) with the formation data.
Vertical stress also as overburden stress is the result of the
Maximum horizontal stress and minimum horizontal stress
weight of rock overlying a certain point of measurement.
Subsurface formations are assumed to support the loads of
The overload on the internal formations causes vertical
those superimposed above them. The vertical stress is therefore
stress created on the fluid, but also another pressure in
defined as an integral of the density by the acceleration and the
the horizontal direction (Amin, 2013). Thus, in a rock,
variation of depth which systematically leads to a variation of
the resistance to shear stress causes another horizontal in
the densities (2022a, 2022b; Amin, 2013; Freeman et al., 2008;
two components (maximum horizontal stress ­Shmax and
Radwan, 2021; Zoback, 2007):
minimum horizontal stress ­Shmin) different from the vertical.
D They are expressed as (Baouche et al., 2023; Fjaer et al.,
∫
𝜎v = 𝜌(z) ⋅ g ⋅ dz (1) 2008; Radwan, 2022a, 2022b; Radwan et al., 2021):
0
( )
𝜐
where 𝜌 is the bulk density of the formation with the 𝜎h = Shmin = .𝜎v (4)
1−𝜐
consideration stated as (Fjaer et al., 2008)
𝜌 = ρl .𝜙 + ρs (1 − 𝜙) (2) 𝜎H = Shmax = 0.8𝜎v (5)

Table 1  Reservoir properties

Reservoir Elasticity Poisson coef- Friction angle Cohesion Co Tension To Density 𝜌 (MPa) Porosity Φ
modulus (GPa) ficient 𝜐 𝜙 (°)

Stuttgart 8.5 0.34 27.0 5 5 2.500 0.23

Zechstein salt 30.0 0.30 27.0 0 0 2.060 0.23
Zechstein salt 51.8 0.29 30.0 5 5 2.629 0.23
Rock
Rotiliegend 15.0 0.25 30.0 5 5 2.698 0.23
Water viscosity Reservoir Initial porosity Initial water Water Pore Biot coefficient Overlying layers
permeability (%) density compressibility compressibility α permeability

0.001 Pa.s 5 × ­10–13 ­m2 0.23 1000 kg ­m−3 4 × ­10–10 ­Pa−1 1 × ­10–9 ­Pa−1 0.74 5 × ­10–14 ­m2
 International Journal of Energy and Water Resources

𝜐 is the poison ration of the rock. Shmax and Shmin maximum Mohr–Coulomb criteria equation
and minimum horizontal stress.
A fault can dislocate either dynamically or can follow a
Effective stress progressive breakdown. If the shear stress applied to the
fault plane is large enough to exceed the cohesive force,
The effective stress can be defined as the stress depending then the formation cracks (Serge, 1983; Zoback, 2007). The
on the tension applied to pore pressure which controls the Mohr–Coulomb fracture criteria is a shearing resistance
strain and strength of the rock in a porous media known as translated by an equation of straight line tangent to the circle
reservoir. The flow of fluids through the pores of a rock can in 2D, with the cohesion Co which is the point of intersection
impact the state of stress and displacement in the formation on the axis of the shear stress τ and the frictional angle 𝜙 set
by the pressure of the fluids present in that formation (David, between the normal stress 𝜎n and the maximum stress.
2007; Kempka et al., 2013; Magri et al., 2013). The effect
thus presented is better identified by the concept of effective
𝜏 = Co + 𝜎n ⋅ tan(𝜙) (9)
stress, which is based on soil mechanics and defined as The shear stresses τ and normal 𝜎n. are defined by Eqs. (10)
(Fjaer et al., 2008): and (11) with 𝜎1 being the maximum principal stress and 𝜎3
the minimum principal stress difined as (Fjaer et al., 1992;
𝜎eff = 𝜎max − 𝛼 ⋅ Pf (6)
Zoback, 2007):
𝜎eff is the effective stress, σmax the maximum stress, α is the (σ − σ )
Biot–Willis coefficient.
1 3
𝜏= ⋅ sin(2𝜙) (10)
2

Darcy’s law σ1 + σ3 ( σ1 − σ3 )
𝜎n = + ⋅ cos(2𝜙) (11)
2 2
In a reservoir, the flow of the fluid can be single or
multiphase (Cappa & Rutqvist, 2011), and the case submitted
in this paper is multiphase. The Darcy’s velocity is defined Stability coefficient
as (Anvarbek, 2006; Jansen et al., 2018; Salimzadeha, et al.,
2018): The fracture is generated in the reservoir if the maximum shear
stress 𝜏m, turn to be as (Jansen et al., 2018; Magri et al., 2013):
K
U= (∇P − 𝜌 ⋅ g ⋅ ∇z) (7) |𝜏m |
𝜇
f = (12)
Co ⋅ cos(𝜙) + 𝜎m ⋅ sin(𝜙)
The flow rate given is stated as:
with f the fracture factor of the rock which must be less than
Q=U⋅A (8)
1 (f ≥ 1) to have a fracture. And 𝜎m is the mean effective
where U : Darcy velocity and Q is the flow rate. stress.
K is the formation permeability; A is the cross section,
∇P represents the pressure gradient and ∇z the variation Specific storage coefficient
of depth; ρ is the density of the injected fluid; g is the
acceleration and μ is the dynamic viscosity of ­CO2. The specific storage coefficient is used to quantify the
compression of aquifers during the reduction of the pressure
Stability study in the reservoir: Mohr–Coulomb in the reservoir (Thomas, 2001). It expresses the volume of
criterion water that can be withdrawn from the aquifer or the volume
of water after expansion in the storage zone in the aquifer. It
The Mohr failure, bases on the rock failure and describing its depends on the compressibility of the rock and the water as
strength value for stress evaluation of the reservoir behavior well as the density of the water, and given by the following
stability. On the basis found on the Mohr circle that comes relation (Thomas, 2001):
out with a graphical interpretation for the settle intervals of S = 𝜌w ⋅ g ⋅ h(Ct + 𝜙 ⋅ Cw ) (13)
the safety stable zone from shear stress analyses and normal
effective stress evaluation. where h is the height of the tank. Ct and Cw the
compressibilities of the rock and the injected fluid
respectively and 𝜙 is the porosity.
International Journal of Energy and Water Resources

Reservoir permeability In situ stresses state in Ketzin

List of acronyms and validation procedure The variation of stresses with depth is illustrated in Fig. 2.
This graph shows a pressure change as a function of depth
A list of acronyms used in the paper is resume in Table 2, with the formation’s density. The hydrostatic pressure in
with symbols also and their meaning. Followed by the Fig. 2.a varies slightly compared to others. It follows a linear
validation procedure. trend up to 7000 m where a decline is observed to its maxi-
mum stress value which is 6.5 MPa at 15,000 m. The same
trends follow with Fig. 2b–d defining the vertical, maximum
Results and discussion horizontal and minimum horizontal stresses respectively, in
the section from 0 to 3500 m and then up to 4000 m before
This section presents the results obtain from the study and taking an almost linear pace to the base of the formation
also dicussions are done with other work on the same hand. at 15,000 m depth. The ranges of depth being highly con-
The main results are firstly for the case of, the in situ stress siderable with the thickness of the rocks being very large.
calculations and the numerical results are summarised in These results of Figs. 1 and 2 join those obtained within the
Table 2 for across the eight formations from the top to the framework of a study on the geomechanics of the reservoir
basement bottom. Hence, Four reservoirs were investigated for evaluating the storage of ­CO2 in Ketzin (Ouelleta et al.,
for the case of potential underground storage. The stability 2011) in the same site. It’s also noticed that the pressures are
of the various reservoirs was studied, in addition its gradually classified and the hydrostatic pressure is higher
evaluated the reservoir geomechanical performance with than the pore pressure of the formation for underground gas
the effective stress and also the stability factor to ensure if storage (Freeway, 1998; Nasiru et al., 2022).
the formation ability lead to a possible storage. Finally set The representation in Fig. 3, shows the variation of
with the injection test of water and C ­ O2 for permeability stresses at the Ketzin site with depth. It is the association
enhancement. of the stresses of Fig. 1. From this Fig. 3, it is clear that the
stress varies with the depth. These stresses are represented
in order of magnitude starting from the smallest of all, which
is the pore pressure that goes up to 6.5 MPa. This pore pres-
sure has an almost linear trend due to the uniformity of the

Table 2  List of acronyms Acronyms Significations Symbols Significations

MPa Mega Pascal 𝜌l Density of the fluid

CO2 Carbon dioxide 𝜌s Density the rock
NGB North Germain Basin 𝜌(z) Formation density
LOT Leak off Test 𝜌f Water density
Pbmax Fracture pressure Pf Hydrostatic pressure
PP Pore pressure τmin Min shear stress
Co Cohesion of the rock 𝜎v Vertical stress
𝜐 Poison ration 𝜎h = Shmin Maximum horizontal stress
g Acceleration 𝜎H = Shmax Minimum horizontal stress
dz Depth variation σ1 Maximum principal stress
𝜙 Frictional angle 𝜎m Mean effective stress
α Biot–Willis coefficient σ3 Minimum principal stress
U Darcy’s velocity 𝜎eff Effective stress
Q Flow rate σmax Maximum stress,
K Formation permeability τ shear stress of the formation
A Cross section 𝜏m Maximum shear stress
∇P Pressure gradient σn Normal stress
∇z Variation of depth Ct Compressibility of the rock
Pb Pressure breakdown Cw Compressibility of the injected fluid
f Fracture factor of the rock To Tensile stress
h height 𝜇 Dynamic viscosity of ­CO2
 International Journal of Energy and Water Resources

Fig. 1  Validation procedure scheme

density of the fluid throughout the test. Followed by the Salt Rock and Rotiliegend. The values in the table are listed
minimum horizontal stresses of 68.75 MPa, a maximum in their magnitude order range with the pore pressure being
horizontal stress of 165 MPa and the lithostatic pressure Sv the smallest of all, followed by the minimum horizontal
which is 206.26 MPa all at 15 km depth. The pressures range stress and the maximum horizontal stress and the vertical
between 0 and 3500 m includes five formations crossed stress. The curves identification are clearly mentioned in
among which the first two reservoirs (Stuttgart at 628 m and Fig. 3.
Zechstein Salt at 1700 m) presenting a linear and increasing The values of the effective pressures calculated on Matlab
trend. Also the section up to 4000 m increases sharply before are shown in Table 4. These variables are of eight crossed
the curve passes to a phase of decline reaching the base of its formations including four reservoirs studied: namely as;
variation at 15,000 m. This increase in pressure in the rocks Stuttgart for the first formation; Zechstein Salt for the sec-
evolves with depth due to high densities of crossing rocks ond; Zechstein Salt Rock and Rotiliegend for the third and
and the pore pressure is less than the hydrostatic pressure fourth reservoir respectively. Table 4 gives the effective
(Nasiru et al., 2022; Radwan & Sen, 2021). pressures of the studied formation. The effective pore pres-
All the pressures were calculated on Matlab and shown in sures are the smallest of all known as the working pressure,
Table 3. These variations are for eight formations including followed by the minimum and maximum horizontal effec-
four reservoirs studied: Stuttgart, Zechstein Salt, Zechstein tive stresses. The last column gives the lithostatic pressure.
International Journal of Energy and Water Resources

Fig. 2  Stresses variation with

depth: a pore pressure, b
vertical stress, c maximum hori-
zontal stress and d minimum
horizontal stress

Fig. 3  State of stress variation

according to the depth of the
Ketzin site

Figure 4 illustrates the plot of these pressures as a function maximum effective horizontal stress at 160.23 MPa and the
of depth. effective vertical pressure at 201.48 MPa respectively in
The effectiveness of the stress in Fig. 4 gives a greater Fig. 4a–d all at the basement. The Biot–Willis coefficient
appreciation of the study. This state of the stresses gives does not influence on the magnitude of effective stresses
in a more precise way the limit stresses of each rock of the formation (S > ­Shmax > Shmin). The densities vary in
by taking into consideration the Biot coefficient in its all cases except for Fig. 4a with the pore pressure which
evaluation. The variations took increase from 4000 m up is uniform because it has a uniform density throughout the
to the basement of 15,000 m for all four cases illustrated different formations. The non linearity of all these curves
and with the effective pore pressure of 1.67 MPa. The (a, b, c and d) is due to the variation of density of the
minimum effective horizontal stress shows 63.97 MPa, the respective formations.
 International Journal of Energy and Water Resources

Table 3  In situ stress data Formation Pressure (MPa)

Pore pressure Min horizontal Max horizontal stress Vertical stress

stress

Quaternary (sand) 0.0134 0.0921 0.08313 0.1039

Jurassic 0.2175 0.3893 0.4301 0.5377
Triassic Keuper 0.8326 3.2502 5.0474 6.3093
Triassic Bunter 1.6272 6.4679 14.7271 18.4089
Permian Salt 3.1968 16.4894 30.7803 38.4754
Permian Salt Rock 3.3930 28.6111 56.0383 70.0479
Rotiliegend 3.8835 34.5535 82.9285 103.6607
Carboniferous (base) 6.4586 68.7549 165.0118 206.2649

Table 4  Effective pressure data Formation Pressure (MPa)

Effective pressure Effective min Effective max Effective

pores horizontal stress horizontal stress lithostatic
pressure

Quaternary 0.0035 0.0821 0.0731 0.0939

Jurassic (Stuttgart) 0.0565 0.2284 0.2692 0.3767
Triassic Keuper 0.2164 2.6341 4.4313 5.6931
Triassic Bunter 0.4230 5.2638 13.5229 17.2047
Permiant Salt 0.8311 14.1238 28.4147 36.1097
Permiant Salt Rock 0.8821 26.1003 53.5275 67.5371
Rotiliegend 1.0097 31.6797 80.0547 100.7868
Carboniferous (base) 1.6792 63.9755 160.2324 201.4854

Fig. 4  Variation of effective stresses: a pore pressure, b minimum horizontal stress Sh', c maximum horizontal stress Sh' and d lithostatic pres-
sure
International Journal of Energy and Water Resources

Reservoir stability Stuttgart sandstone formation

This section concerns the case of the goemechanical Figure 5 is the 3D representation of Mohr's circle it extends
behavior of the four formations in the study zone. The sta- the study of stresses in all directions. Stability is observed
bility of the four reservoirs is extended below and finally on the great circle for a minimum cohesion of 12 MPa and
with injection test who prove that water is more efficient a maximum of 15.0355 MPa.
than ­CO2 for fracture generation. Also an extended case The stresses on the Mohr circle of the Stuttgart forma-
stability study was realized with effective stress. tion are observed in Fig. 6. From this illustration the value
of the minimum stress is 𝜎3 = 15.92 MPa and 𝜎1 = 30.07
MPa which represents the pressure limits of the rock. The

Fig. 5  3D Mohr circle for Stuttgart Reservoir for stability

Fig. 6  Mohr circle for the Stutt-

gart Reservoir stability study
 International Journal of Energy and Water Resources

values are: the shear stress of the formation τ = 5 MPa, and Case of saline aquifer Zechstein Salt
that of the normal stress σn = 18 MPa being the coordinates
of the point tangent to the circle. The fracture takes place The stable zone in Fig. 8, is over the crossbar tangent to
in this formation at a shear stress of τ = 1 MPa which is the circle. It gives the safety margin of the fracture in this
well below the maximum cohesion. The safety zone for an formation of anhydride. The stress values are: 𝜎n = 17 MPa,
injection and a sound fracture is in Fig. 6. 𝜎1 = 33.51 MPa, 𝜎3 = 15.48 MPa. For τ = 5 MPa of the for-
The stability factor is also determined for this formation mation and 𝜙 = 30°. The limit cohesion is very close to zero
during the injection giving: f = 0.4579 obtained with a (τ = 0.12 MPa). So the fracture would be weak here as drawn
consideration of Co = 5 MPa and the friction angle 𝜙 = 27°. by Hwajung et al. (2021). The effective stresses in Fig. 8
This stability factor is less than one (f < 1). indicating that below provide information on the state of stresses that can
the change in shear stress is not critical for stability in the also be used.
reservoir. This formation is well suited to the conditions From the observation of the effective stresses in Fig. 9,
of ­CO2 injection and storage. there is a decrease in the values of the initial stresses in situ.
Figure 6 gives the representation of Mohr's circle for The stress values are: 𝜎n′ = 14 MPa, 𝜎1′ = 29.61 MPa, and
­CO 2 injection. The trend with the effective stresses is 𝜎3′ = 12.38 MPa, for τ = 5 MPa of the formation and 𝜙 = 30°.
less compared to that initially shown in Fig. 7. The nor- The fracture therefore does not actually take place in this for-
mal stress 𝜎n = 2 MPa and the shear stress for this case mation, because the failure line on the circle does not reach
is τ = 5 MPa. The main stresses are 𝜎3′ = − 2.09 MPa and a value on the cohesion axis, that intersects the axis of the
𝜎1′ = 18.09 MPa. The stability zone is marked by two lines normal stresses before the point 0. The case where no frac-
pointed with an arrow, and the landslide zone below which ture occured is the unstable zone, the process is known as
reflects the instability. The observation made here is that formation breakout. This effectiveness is due to the decrease
the Mohr criterion tends to overestimate the extension in pore pressure including the Biot coefficient relative to the
stress. To which is reduced with the effectiveness of the fluid in place. The stability factors are: f = 0.5721 without
pressures (Hwajung et al., 2021; Radwan & Sen, 2021). the Biot coefficient and is f = 0.6135 with the stresses, set to
The illustration of st ability study with the be realistic but where no safety fracture couldn’t be induced.
Mohr–Coulomb criterion, concluded in the Stuttgart In the salt formations of Zechstein Salt and Salt Rock
formation (Figs. 5, 6 and 7) that an injection is made under illustrated in Figs. 8 and 10 respectively, the stability is
safety conditions if the formation permeability increases quite limited by its constraints during the injection of C ­ O2
with fractures induced (Radwan & Sen, 2021; Xingdong (Hongwu et al., 2020). This is due to its very low porosity
et al., 2020; Zoback, 2007). and also its very low permeability (Fjaer et al., 2008; Suping
& Jiincai, 2007; Zoback, 2007).

Fig. 7  Effective stresses for the stability study in Stuttgart

International Journal of Energy and Water Resources

Fig. 8  Stability of the stability

of Zechstein Salt

Fig. 9  Effective stresses for of the stability of Zechstein Salt

Zechstein Salt Rock Formation The stability factor obtained for this formation is f = 0.5554
which is less than one, reflecting acceptable stability in this
In Fig. 10, the stable zone is shown by the cohesion values in aquifer. The effectiveness of the formation stability is set in
the interval 0.231 < τ < 5 Mpa, from the graphical read from Fig. 11 with a distinguished safety stable fracture window
the failure line drawn. The value obtained are: for normal and the unstable zone called the breakout zone.
stress 𝜎n = 14 MPa. The minimum horizontal stress is 𝜎3 Continuing the analysis of the stability with the
= 12.1 MPa and the maximum horizontal 𝜎1 = 27.9 MPa. representation of the effective stresses. Figure 11 shows
 International Journal of Energy and Water Resources

Fig. 10  Stability Constraints of

the Zechstein Salt Formation

Fig. 11  Effective stresses for the

stability of the Zechstein Salt
Rock Formation
International Journal of Energy and Water Resources

that the formation actually admits the fracture as in the cohesion Co = 5 MPa and the frictional angle 𝜙 = 30°. This
previous case with the initial stresses in Fig. 10. The failure result is close to the case studies carried out by Gautier
line on the circle indicates that the fracture occured at a Donald in the evaluation and description of the geological
cohesion τ = 0.42 MPa. The conditions for this formation to system of the carboniferous zone of Rotiliegend (Scheck
be stable during fracture are: 𝜎n′ = 11 MPa, 𝜎3′ = 8.59 MPa and & Bayer, 1999). It consists of sandstone having quite good
𝜎1′ = 21.41 MPa. The reservoir is in the fracture safety zone permeability.
going from the tangent to the circle at the line of maximum In Fig. 12, the stability zone is defined by the two lines
failure of this rock (Hongwu et al., 2020; Zhao et al., 2020). of maximum failure at τ = 5 MPa and minimum τ2 = 1.2
No sound fracture would be possible below the straight line MPa. Thus showing that below τ 2, the zone would be
limit to the circle mentioned in Fig. 10 by “unstable zone”. unstable with a risk of formation collapse. The stability
Also, by including the Biot coefficient in the calculations of factor is f = 0.7491. The interpretation follows in Fig. 13
effective stresses, the stability factor gives f = 0.5611 which with the representation of the effective stresses. The obser-
confirms and completes the analysis of the stability of this vation made in Fig. 13 shows that the current stresses are
reservoir by the Mohr criterion, close to that of Fabian et al. lower than the initial ones. The values here being 𝜎eff3
(Magri, et al., 2013). = 0.61 MPa and 𝜎eff1 = 11.39 MPa. For the values of
Co = 5 MPa and ϕ = 30° that resume to a stability factor
Case study of the sandstone formation (Rotielegend) f = 0.7470, being less than one for this sandstone forma-
tion. This reservoir would therefore be potentially stable
The representation of the Mohr circle in Fig. 12 shows the according to these results.
principal stresses as a function of the shear stresses. The The Mohr model is represented in three dimensions
case of injection into the Rotiliegend sandstone reservoir (3D) in Fig. 14. This representation is made to illustrate
presents a good appearance with the Mohr rupture line tan- the extension of the stresses with different considerations
gent to the circle. this clearly shows that the fracture takes so as to estimate the order of magnitude in the case of
place in the formation for cohesion of τ = 1.2 MPa. The extension or compression (Hwajung et al., 2021; Zoback,
formation would therefore be stable for the stress values: 2007). This formation reveals that the fracture would be
𝜎3 = 3.77 MPa et 𝜎1 = 17.23 MPa. Its stability factor gives safety done for the case of the great circle with the same
f = 0.7470 which is positive and less than 1, obtained for a angle of friction = 30° and the same cohesion Co = 5 MPa.

Fig. 12  Stability study in the

Rotiliegend formation
 International Journal of Energy and Water Resources

Fig. 13  Mohr circle with effec-

tive sandstone stress (Rotilieg-
end)

Fig. 14  3D Mohr’s circle for Rotieliegend formation

Table 5  Stuttgart injection Fluid injected Flow rate ­(m3/s) Darcy’s velocity (m/s) Surface ­(m2) Permeability formation ­(m2)
parameters
CO2 7.1746 × ­10–4 9.7662 × ­10–6 73.46 10–13
Water 0.0061 8.3449 × ­10–5
International Journal of Energy and Water Resources

Table 6  Zechstein Salt Fluid injected Flow rate ­(m3/s) Darcy’s velocity (m/s) Surface ­(m2) Permeability formation ­(m2)
formation injection rate
CO2 3.3664 × ­10–6 2.2324 × ­10–8 150. 796 10–17
Water 3.0864 × ­10–8 2.1832 × ­10–7

Table 7  Zechstein Salt Rock Fluid injected Flow rate ­(m3/s) Darcy’s velocity (m/s) Surface ­(m2) Permeability formation ­(m2)
formation injection parameter
CO2 4.7432 × ­10–7 2.6395 × ­10–9 179.70 10–17
Water 4.0529 × ­10–6 2.2554 × ­10–8

Table 8  : Rotielegend Formation injection rate velocities in the case of water are higher than that of ­CO2
Fluid Flow rate Darcy’s Surface Permeability
showing that it would be the best fluid to use in this forma-
injected ­(m3/s) velocity (m/s) ­(m2) formation tion to increase the permeability of the reservoir.
­(m2) Table 8 presents the injection parameters of ­CO2 and
water used to create fracture. The two fluids injected have
CO2 0.1867 6.5988 × ­10–4 267.66 10–12
good flow rates with water, which is the most optimal. The
Water 2.5154 0.0056
permeability is good and the tank has good characteristics
as well. The simulations permeability values are set to be
for the first reservoir stuttgart 1­ 0–13, Zechstein Salt 1­ 0–17,
Injection tests Zechstein Salt Rock ­10–17 and ­10–12 for the Rotielegend
reservoir.
The flow rates are given in Table 5 for the case of ­CO2 injec-
tion and water in (­ m3/s), for the first reservoir Stuttgart and CO2 and water injection curves
Darcy’s velocities. The same values are calculated for the
two anhydride formations respectively in Tables 6 and 7. Figure 15 shows the comparative curves for the two flu-
The reservoir of Rotielegend has also been given in Table 8. ids injected into the reservoirs and all the corresponding
Table 7 presents the C ­ O2 and water injection parame- numerical values are in Tables 5, 6, 7 and 8. Figure 15a
ters used to generate the fracture in the reservoir. The flow is the representation of time as a function of the injection
rates obtained in both cases are low. Similarly, the Darcy’s velocity of water in the blue line on the curve and of C­ O2

Fig. 15  Comparative curves of

injected fluids in the reser-
voirs: a Stuttgart, b Zechstein
Salt, c Zechstein Salt Rock, d
Rotielegend
 International Journal of Energy and Water Resources

in red. With respective values ­CO2 and water velocity of coefficient represents the fraction of the fluid injected into
6.5988 × ­10–4 m/s and 0.0056 m/s. The flow rate is set to be the rock in terms of percentage. The specific coefficient
after simulation 0.1867 ­m3/s for ­CO2 and 2.5154 ­m3/s for gives the effectiveness of the injected fluids, considering the
water (Hongwu et al., 2020; Mohammed & Vasilije, 2020). porosity in estimation. These results therefore reveal that the
From the illustration, its seen that water is more accurate most suitable formation is that of the Rotiliegend sandstone
for fracture initiation, shown by the blue curve above the with a specific storage coefficient of 0.6439 ­m3/s of ­CO2. It is
red one (Fig. 15a). The same scenario is realized for the once again proven that the best of the four studied reservoirs
Zechstein Salt (Fig. 15b), Zechstein Salt Rock (Fig. 15c) and is Rotiliegend by its high storage coefficient (S = 0.1240) and
Rotiliegend (Fig. 15d) formations with the coupled water its specific coefficient of storage (S = 0.6439).
and ­CO2 curves. The best simulation case is the reservoir 4
Rotiliegend (Fig. 15d) due to its higher pressure and velocity
compared to the three others. The simulation shows the sec- Discussions
ond case to be the Stuttgart reservoir. The two salines forma-
tions in Fig. 15a. The two saline rocks (Fig. 15b and c) are In situ stress
not to be considered, because of their too low value and not
enough for breakdown. Storage cant therefore take place in The non-linear evolution observed in the case of Figs. 2 and
these two reservoirs but would be of low capacity as demon- 3 could be explained by the effect of the density variation
strated by the determination of the flow rates obtained QSalt of the formations. The ranges of depth being highly
(Zechstein Salt reservoir) 3.3664e−06 m ­ 3/s and QSalt Rock considerable with the thickness of the rocks being very large.
(Zechstein Salt Rock reservoir) 4.7432e−7 ­m3/s for ­CO2. Presenting this aspect on the state of the in situ stresses,
For water the velocities are respectively for Zechstein Salt these results join those obtained within the framework of
reservoir 3.0864 × ­10–8 ­m3/s and Zechstein Salt Rock reser- study on the geomechanics of the reservoir for evaluating
voir 4.0529 × ­10–6 ­m3/s. the storage of ­CO2 in Ketzin (Ouelleta et al., 2011) in the
The injection tests present the fluid injection phase in the same site. It also agrees with the study conducted by de
reservoir, it is noteworthy to know that the four formations Lina et al. on the prospection of the storage site in Germany
studied have good characteristics to adapt to the storage for the reactivation of faults (RÖhmann et al., 2013). It is
conditions. Always keeping in mind that the best tank for also noticed that the pressures are gradually classified and
good high-capacity storage is Rotiliegend. Join to the fact the vertical pressure is higher than the pore pressure of the
that, a single multidisciplinary concept of monitoring and formation for underground gas storage (Freeway, 1998;
control is operated on the large pilot site of Ketzin (Cappa Nasiru, et al., 2022). Changes in these pressures such as
& Rutqvist, 2011). The injection of water turns out to be pore and overburden stress lead to formation perturbation
more important to create the fractures in the formation, and created fractures that hence to increase the reservoir
with a greater speed than that of C­ O2 and its high flow rate permeability real life. Also can occur a breakout with
as shown in Fig. 15. This comparison agrees with the case overpressure on reservoir.
studies concluding that water is more effective than carbon
dioxide in generating fractures in a reservoir to increase its Reservoir stability, limitation and generality
permeability (Fjaer et al., 1992, 2008; Zoback, 2007).
Table 9 groups the additional parameters of the eight The present study focuses particularly on the case in the
formations crossed, giving their compressibility and their sedimentary basin in the North German Basin (NGB). The
resistance to compression (incompressibility). The storage fracture is carried out in the zone marked (stable) between

Table 9  Specific values of Geological formations Incompressi- Compressibility (1/Psi) Storage coefficient Specific coefficient
formations calculated after bilty (Psi)
simulation
Quaternary 0.0520 1.923 × ­10–7 – –
Triassic (Stuttgart) 0.2133 4.687 × ­10–7 0.1069 0.0029
Jurassic Keuper 0.9067 1.103 × ­10–7 – –
Jurassic Bunter 4.4320 2.256 × ­10–8 – –
Permian Salt 1 × ­10–17 2.500 × 10–8 0.0470 0.0065
Permian Salt Rock 0.3640 2.747 × ­10–7 0.0470 0.0065
Permian Rotielegend 1 × ­10–12 4 × ­10–8 0.1240 0.6439
Caniferous (basement) 8.2873 1.207 × ­10–8 – –
International Journal of Energy and Water Resources

the line tangent to the circle and that of the failure line at more efficiency over the lower curve, the variations are both
the value of the maximum cohesion. These interpretations closed to Hongwu et al. (2020) and Mohammed and Vasilije
follow the cases of the three other reservoirs (Zechstein Salt, (2020) researches.
Salt Rock and RotilIegend). Below the shear stress obtained
on the cohesions axis, the loose formation and collapses in Reservoir permeability
the event that the injection continues. The study of the stabil-
ity of formations by the Mohr–Coulomb criterion concluded The permeability of a reservoir is the ability of a layer to
in the Stuttgart formation (Figs. 5, 6 and 7) that an injection transmit fluids through it and evaluated in milidarcy (md).
is made under safety conditions if the formation permeabil- This permeability lead in underground storage and enhanced
ity increases with fractures induced (Radwan & Sen, 2021). the reservoir volume with fractures generation. In the
The line tangent to the circle gives a limit shear stress. It present case the permeability is linked to the injection test,
represents the fracture initiation, below which the injection the higher the rates of injection increases the permeability
of fluid into the formation would be disturbed. This distur- impact in the reservoir, so is based on the injection success.
bance below the safety value (limit) is due to a decrease in The four graphs injection results section illustrate the cases.
porosity in the formation by the effect of rock compaction The new permeability magnitude is then illustrated here by
(Fjaer et al., 2008). It should also be noted that, this drop modeling approaches and analyzed graphically from the
in pore pressure would cause a landslide in the reservoir if correlation with flow rate and Darcy’s velocity of Eqs. 7
the injection continued beyond the set margin (shear stress and 8. Also the porosity of the four reservoirs are assumed
obtained). In the salt formations of Zechstein Salt and Salt to be constant and the same.
Rock represented by Figs. 8 and 10 respectively, the stability
is quite limited by its constraints during the injection of ­CO2.
This is due to its very low porosity and also its very low Conclusion
permeability (Suping & JIincai, 2007). Storage can there-
fore take place in these two reservoirs but would be of low Further uses of carbon dioxide is stored in deep sedimentary
capacity as demonstrated by the determination of the flow formations, for human sustainability by reducing the ­CO2
rates obtained (QSalt 3.3664e−06 and QSalt Rock 4.7432e−7). surplus in nature. This study focuses on the stability during
The study presents some limitations such as not taken injection for geological storage, with emphasis on pressure
into consideration the chemical and thermal behavior of disturbance extended in geomechanical processes. Along the
the reservoir that is set for future researches. It is realized stress magnitudes study, eight formations were concerned
from data from the pilot injection site of Ketzin in NGB, with four reservoirs investigated. Hence, from the stability
where one reservoir (Stuttgart) is under exploitation. The analysis with Mohr–Coulomb criteria the Stuttgart that is
study investigates also three other potential reservoirs in the actually used for C ­ O2 storage at 638 m and Rotiliegend
same site, assuming porosity to be the same and trying to sandstone newly investigated in through this study at 4000 m
overcome the pressure disturbances that causes instability depth are proved to be the best reservoirs among the four for
during storing operation.” good storage. Since their safety stable interval from their
rock stress estimated values were compared to maximum
rock stress. According to the cohesion Co = 5 MPa and the
Injection test frictional angle of ϕ = 30° that resumes to a stability factor
f = 0.7470, being less than one for this given sandstone
The injection test summaries the previous stability studied formation. The results of namely Rotieligend reservoir show
case, with specifically two fluids investigated to see the that it is stable with the stress graphical cohesion values
variation and give a great interpretation of the simulation obtained of τ = 1.2 MPa, 𝜎3 = 3.77 MPa and 𝜎1 = 17.23
effect. The tests were realized for the four reservoirs, the MPa and also extended to agree with the effective stress
results are given both graphically and numerically from applied for a good stability. The reservoir would therefore
Tables 5, 6, 7 and 8. The first case analysis is the graphical be potentially stable according to these results. Thus, the
illustration in Fig. 15. The graph is the injection time as a injection cases for fracture, gives water as the most efficient
function of flow rate from Darcy’s low, two colors curves are fluid compared to ­CO2. The stress state in reservoir is
distinguished, red for ­CO2 and blue for water. Permeability controlled to enhance the safety operation of its permeability
being a function of Darcy’s velocity from the mathematical during the injection fracture process graphically seen with
expression in Eq. 7 and 8, their both increase each other at the blue curve of water over the red one representing the
once. High rate injection conducts to a high permeability at ­CO2. The stability should be well managed to ensure safety
the end, such as high permeability also upgrades the flow injection and not overestimating or underestimating the
rate and graphically the curves in the graph highlight the
 International Journal of Energy and Water Resources

geomechanical stress while operating to avoid environmental borehole measurements in the in-adaoui and bourarhat hydrocar-
disorder such as formation breakout and collapse. bon fields, Eastern Algeria. Energies, 16(10), 1–13.
Cappa, F., & Rutqvist, J. (2011). Modeling of coupled deformation and
permeability evolution during fault reactivation induced by deep
Limitations underground injection of ­CO2. International Journal of Green-
house Gas Control, 5, 1–10.
This paper does not consider the temperature effect in the Cappa Frederic, G.Y.-S. (2005). Hydromechanical interactions in a
fractured carbonate reservoir inferred from hydraulic and mechan-
reservoir for its simulations and also the dissolution of ­CO2 ical measurements. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and
was not considered. Mining Sciences & Geomechanics Abstracts, 42, 1–18.
Chang, L., Shuren, H., Shengjie, Z., Yongqing, J., & Yi, Z. (2024).
Perspectives Simulation study on the mechanical effect of ­CO2 geological stor-
age in ordos demonstration area. Water, 16, 1–13.
Cornet, F., Li, L., Hulin Jean, P., Ippolito, I., & Philippe, K. (2003).
Include with Matlab simulation the optimization with Hydromechanical behaviour of a fracture : An in situ experimental
artificial intelligence for further study, also consider the case study. Int J Rock Min Sci Geomech Abstr, 40, 1–13.
thermohydromechanical coupled processes and reservoir David, C.L.-D. (2007). Rock physics and geomechanics in the study of
reservoirs and repositories. Geological Society London.
compaction. DECC. (2012). CCS Roadmap—Supporting deployment of carbon
capture and storage in the UK.
Acknowledgements The authors are thankful for the reviewer’s grate- Farooq, S., Sania, Z. I., Shaima, A., Usman, A., Daniel, A. M., &
ful comments, that really helped to enhance this paper’s content. The Tazien, R. (2020). Development of biomass derived highly
authors are grateful to submit and publish our article in the Interna- porous fast adsorbents for post-combustion C ­ O2 capture. Fuel,
tional Journal of Energy and Water Resources. I disclose to funding 282(118506), 1–12.
information, for the manuscript submitted for publication. The authors Fjaer, E., Holt, R., Horsrud, P., Raaen, A., & Rasmus, R. (1992). Petro-
are open for eventual note that could hopefully enhanced the work leum related rock mecanics (1st ed.). Elsevier.
done. Fjaer, E., Holt, R. M., Horsrud, P., Raaen, A., & Risnes, R. (2008).
Petroleum related rock mechanics (2nd ed.). Elsevier.
Author contributions As corresponding author, I hereby declare that all Freeman, T. T., Chalaturnyk, R. J., & Bogdanov, I. I. (2008). Fully
authors contributed to the study concept and design. The datacollection Coupled thermo-hydro-mechanical modeling by COMSOL mul-
and analysis were performed by Cherif Ibrahim Rengou Mbouombouo, tiphysics, with applications in reservoir geomechanical characteri-
Victorien Ngninjio NguimeyaDjotsa, Harold Tcheliebou Kamgang, zation. In: Excerpt from the proceedings of the COMSOL confer-
Pascal Bachirou Mamadou, Christian Bopda Fokam and Leroy Luc ence (pp. 1–12). Boston.
NgueyepMambou. The first draft of the manuscript was written by Freeway, K. (1998). Advanced underground gas storage concepts
Cherif Ibrahim Rengou Mbouombouo and all authorscommented on refrigerated mined cavern storage. Pittsburgh, PA, and Morgan-
previous version. I confirm that, this work was approve by the authors town, WV. https://​doi.​org/​10.​2172/​7510
listed in the manuscript. The authors authorized the submission Gabriele, F., Matteo, D. S., & Riccardo, F. (2023). Review of the moni-
for publishing the manuscript. I confirm that all the authors have toring applications involved in the underground storage of natural
consented, read and approve the manuscript gas and ­CO2. Energies, 16(12), 1–26.
Hongwu, Y., Chunhe, Y., Hongling, M., Xilin, S., Nan, Z., Xinbo,
Funding Funding was provided by University of yaounde I (grant no. G., et al. (2020). Stability evaluation of underground gas stor-
+237690357326). age salt caverns with micro-leakage interlayer in bedded rock
salt of Jintan, China. Acta Geotechnica. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​
Data availability The work will be extended with this new approach. s11440-​019-​00901-y
Hwajung, Y. S., Linmao, X., Kwang-Il, K., Ki-Bok, M., Jonny, R., &
Declarations Antonio, P. R. (2021). Hydro-mechanical modeling of the frst and
second hydraulic stimulations in a fractured geothermal reservoir
Conflict of interest The authors declare that they have no known in Pohang, South Korea. Geothermics, 89, 1–16.
competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have Jansen, G., Benoit, V., & Stephen, A. M. (2018). THERMAID—A mat-
appeared to infare the respect of law of consent and privacy related to lab package for thermo-hydraulic modeling and fracture stability
the work submitted for publication. analysis in fractured reservoirs. arXiv.org, pp. 1–29
Jonny, R., & Stephansson, O. (2003). The role of hydromechanical cou-
pling in fractured rock engineering hydrogeology. Hydrogeology
Journal. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s10040-​002-​0241-5
References Kempka, T., Klein, E., De Lucia, M., Tillner, E., & Kühun, M. (2013).
Assessment of long term trapping mecganisms at the Ketzin pilot
Alexandra, S., Tanja, K., Fabian, M., Sonja, M., Axel, L., & Michael, site (Germany) by coupled numerical modelling. Energy Proce-
K. (2014). Communication supporting the research on CO2 stor- dia, 37, 1–7.
age at the Ketzin pilot site, Germany—A status report after ten Lackner, K. (2003). Climate change: A guide to ­CO2 sequestration.
years of public outreach. Energy Procedia, 51, 1–7. Science, 300, 1–2.
Amin, A. (2013). Coupled geomechanical reservoir simulation. Doc- Magri, F., Elena, T., Wang, W., & Watanabe, N. (2013). 3D hydrome-
toral Dissertation Ph.D., Missouri University And Technology. chanical scenario analysis to evaluate changes of the recent stress
Anvarbek, M. (2006). Darcy’s law for a compressible thermofluid. field as a result of geological ­CO2 storage. Energy Procedia, 40,
American Mathematical Society, 1–11. 1–8.
Baouche, R., Souvik, S., Radwan, A. E., Ahmed, A., & Aal, E. (2023). Mario, W., Alexandra, I., Axel, L., Stefan, L., Fabian, M., Alexandra,
In situ stress determination based on acoustic image logs and S., et al. (2016). Monitoring concept for ­CO2 storage at the Ketzin
International Journal of Energy and Water Resources

Pilot Site, Germany—Post-injection continuation towards transfer brine systems: Implications for structural ­CO2 trapping. Fuel,
of liability. Energy Procedia, 97, 1–8. 319(123821), 1–5.
Mohammed, D. A., & Vasilije, M. (2020). A modelling study to evalu- Salimzadeha, S., Palusznya, A., Hamidreza, M. N., & Zimmerman, R.
ate the effect of impure ­CO2 on reservoir performance in a sand- W. (2018). A three-dimensional coupled thermo-hydro-mechan-
stone saline aquifer. Heliyon, 6, 1–13. ical model for deformable fractured geothermal systems. Geo-
Nasiru, S. M., Bashirul, H., Dhafer, A. S., Amir, A.-A., Mohammed, M. thermics, 71, 1–13.
R., & Ehsan, Z. (2022). A review on underground hydrogen stor- Scheck, M., & Bayer, U. (1999). Evolution of the Northeast German
age: Insight into geological sites, influencing factors and future Basin—Inferences from a 3D structural model and subsidence
outlook. Energy Reports, 8, 1–39. analysis. Tectonophysics, 313, 1–25.
Noreen, B., Jan, C. M., Ogunlade, D., Yaw, A.-O., Lwazikazi, T., Serge, R. (1983). Hydraulic charicteristics of the principal bed-
Fatma, D., et al. (2022). Linkages between climate change and rock aquifer in the Denver Basin Colorado. . Office of the state
sustainable development. Climate Policy, 2, 1–15. Engineer.
Ouelleta, A., Bérarda, T., Desroches, J., Frykmanb, P., Welsh, P., Sonja, M., Axel, L., Fabian, M., Jan, H., Thomas, K., Stefan, L., et al.
Minton, J., et al. (2011). Reservoir geomechanics for assessing (2013). ­CO2 storage at the Ketzin pilot site, Germany: Fourth
containment in ­CO2 storage: A case study at Ketzin, Germany. year of injection, monitoring, modelling and verification. Energy
Energy Procedia, 4, 1–8. Procedia, 37, 1–10.
Radwan, A. E. (2021). Modeling pore pressure and fracture pressure Suping, P., & JIincai, Z. (2007). Engineering geology for underground.
using integrated well logging, drilling based interpretations and Rocks, 16–337.
reservoir data in the giant El Morgan oil field, Gulf of Suez. Thomas, B. (2001). Storage coefficient revised: Is purly vertical strain
Egypt. Journal of African Earth Sciences, 178(104165), 1–6. a good assumption? Gound Water, 39(3), 1–6.
Radwan, A. E. (2022a). A multi-proxy approach to detectthe pore Tsang, W., & Witherspoon, P. (1983). The dependence of fracture
pressure and the originof overpressure in sedimentarybasins: An mechanical and fluid flow properties of fracture roughness and
example from the Gulfof Suez rift basin. Frontiers in Earth Sci- sample size. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 88,
ence, 10(967201), 1–21. 1–7.
Radwan, A. E. (2022b). Drilling in complex pore pressure regimes: Wu, T., & Witherspoon, P. (1981). Hydromechanical behaviour of a
Analysis of wellbore stability applying the depth of failure deformable rock fracture subject to normal stress. Journal of Geo-
approach. Energies, 15(7872), 1–22. physical Research: Solid Earth, 86, 1–11.
Radwan, A. E., & Sen, S. (2021). Characterization of in-situ stresses Xingdong, Z., Deng, L., & Shujing, Z. (2020). Stability analysis of
and its implications for production and reservoir stability in the underground water-sealed oil storage caverns in China: A case
depleted El Morgan hydrocarbon field, Gulf of Suez Rift Basin, study. Energy Exploration & Exploitation, 38(6), 1–25.
Egypt. Journal of Structural Geology, 148(104355), 1–18. Zingerl, C., Eberhardt, E., & Loew, S. (2002). A study of caprock
Radwan, A. E., Wael, K., Abdelghany, A. M., & Elkhawaga. (2021). hydromechanical changes associated with C ­ O2-injection into brine
Present-day in-situ stresses in Southern Gulf of Suez, Egypt: formation. Environmental Geology, 42, 1–9.
Insights for stress rotation in an extensional rift basin. Journal of Zoback, M. D. (2007). Reservoir geomechanics. Cambridge University
Structural Geology, 147(104334), 1–5. Press.
Röhmann, L., Tillner, E., Magri, F., Kühn, M., & Thomas, K. (2013). Zoback, M. (2010). The potential for triggered seismicity associated
Fault-reactivation and ground surface uplift assessment at a pro- with geologic sequestration of C ­ O2 in saline aquifers. American
spective German ­CO2-storage Site. Energy Procedia, 40, 1–9. Geophysical Union, 91(52), 1–8.
Rutqvist, J. (2012). The geomechanics of ­CO2 storage in deep sedi-
mentary formations. Geotechnical and Geological Engineering, Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds
30, 1–27. exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the
Safaei-Farouji, M., Hung, V. T., Zhenxue, D., Abolfazl, M., Moham- author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted
mad, R., Umar, A., & Ahmed, E. R. (2022a). Exploring the power manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of
of machine learning to predict carbon dioxide trapping efficiency such publishing agreement and applicable law.
in saline aquifers for carbon geological storage project. Journal
of Cleaner Production, 372(133778), 1–5.
Safaei-Faroujia, M., Hung, V. T., Danial, S. D., Qamar, Y., Ahmed,
R., Umar, A., & Lee, K.-K. (2022b). Application of robust intel-
ligent schemes for accurate modelling interfacial tension of ­CO2