skip to main content


This content will become publicly available on November 28, 2018

Title: Heterogeneity, pore pressure, and injectate chemistry: Control measures for geologic carbon storage

Desirable outcomes for geologic carbon storage include maximizing storage efficiency, preserving injectivity, and avoiding unwanted consequences such as caprock or wellbore leakage or induced seismicity during and post injection. Here, to achieve these outcomes, three control measures are evident including pore pressure, injectate chemistry, and knowledge and prudent use of geologic heterogeneity. Field, experimental, and modeling examples are presented that demonstrate controllable GCS via these three measures. Observed changes in reservoir response accompanying CO 2 injection at the Cranfield (Mississippi, USA) site, along with lab testing, show potential for use of injectate chemistry as a means to alter fracture permeability (with concomitant improvements for sweep and storage efficiency). Further control of reservoir sweep attends brine extraction from reservoirs, with benefit for pressure control, mitigation of reservoir and wellbore damage, and water use. State-of-the-art validated models predict the extent of damage and deformation associated with pore pressure hazards in reservoirs, timing and location of networks of fractures, and development of localized leakage pathways. Experimentally validated geomechanics models show where wellbore failure is likely to occur during injection, and efficiency of repair methods. Use of heterogeneity as a control measure includes where best to inject, and where to avoid attempts at storage.more » Lastly, an example is use of waste zones or leaky seals to both reduce pore pressure hazards and enhance residual CO 2 trapping.« less
 [1] ;  [2] ;  [3] ;  [4] ;  [1] ;  [3] ;  [5] ;  [6] ;  [2] ;  [7] ;  [8] ;  [9] ;  [1] ;  [10] ;  [10] ;  [3] ;  [3]
  1. Sandia National Lab. (SNL-NM), Albuquerque, NM (United States). Geomechanics
  2. Univ. of Texas, Austin, TX (United States). Bureau of Economic Geology, Jackson School of Geosciences
  3. Univ. of Texas, Austin, TX (United States). Center for Subsurface Modeling, ICES
  4. Sandia National Lab. (SNL-NM), Albuquerque, NM (United States). Component Science and Mechanics
  5. Sandia National Lab. (SNL-NM), Albuquerque, NM (United States). Water Power Technologies
  6. Univ. of Texas, San Antonio, TX (United States). Department of Mechanical Engineering
  7. Sandia National Lab. (SNL-NM), Albuquerque, NM (United States). Nuclear Waste Disposal Research and Analysis
  8. Univ. of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT (United States). Department of Mechanical Engineering
  9. New Mexico Tech, Socorro, NM (United States)
  10. Univ. of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM (United States). Department of Civil Engineering
Publication Date:
Report Number(s):
Journal ID: ISSN 1750-5836; 659281
Grant/Contract Number:
AC04-94AL85000; SC0001114; FE0023316; NA0003525
Accepted Manuscript
Journal Name:
International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control
Additional Journal Information:
Journal Volume: 68; Journal Issue: C; Journal ID: ISSN 1750-5836
Research Org:
Sandia National Lab. (SNL-NM), Albuquerque, NM (United States); Energy Frontier Research Centers (EFRC) (United States). Center for Frontiers of Subsurface Energy Security (CFSES)
Sponsoring Org:
USDOE Office of Science (SC), Basic Energy Sciences (BES) (SC-22); USDOE National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)
Country of Publication:
United States
58 GEOSCIENCES; Geologic carbon storage; Coupled processes; Fracture stimulation
OSTI Identifier: