1887

Abstract

Summary

In the current study, we proposed new economic concept of synergy of CO2 geological storage (CGS) in Cambrian Deimena Formation and CO2-EOR/EOR+ in Upper Ordovician Saldus Formation in E6 structure offshore Latvia. Compared to recently proposed two scenarios, we updated CO2 injection technics and proposed more economic and feasible scenario of CO2 injection. Profits of the synergy and possible risks were analysed for two possible cases of CO2 storage (upward CO2 leakage by faults from Deimena to Saldus Formation, and no-leakage case) in the new scenario. Reducing overall costs common injection well of the new scenario, increased oil production (in contrast with conventional CO2-EOR), increased CO2 storage capacity are advantages of this concept. Opportunity of testing the integrity of the Deimena Formation storage reservoir and monitoring of behaviour of CO2 within the storage site are additional surpluses.

For the first time, we estimated theoretical storage capacity of the Saldus Formation at the end of CO2-EOR cycle (65–144 Mt, average: 110 Mt). Total capacity of the E6 structure in the Deimena and Saldus formations at the end of CO2-EOR cycle by optimistic (320–745 Mt, average: 490 Mt) and conservative approaches (170–385 Mt, average: 265 Mt) were evaluated.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.201700761
2017-06-12
2024-04-19
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. International Energy Agency
    [2015] Storing CO2 through Enhanced Oil Recovery (Report).
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Bachu, S., Bonijoly, D., Bradshaw, J., Burruss, R., Holloway, S., Christensen, N.P. and Mathiassen, O.M.
    [2007] CO2 storage capacity estimation: Methodology and gaps. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 1(4), 430–443.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Bachu, S.
    [2008] Comparison between Methodologies Recommended for Estimation of CO2 Storage Capacity in Geological Media by the CSLF Task Force on CO2 Storage Capacity Estimation and the USDOE Capacity and Fairways Subgroup of the Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnerships Program, Phase III (Report).
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Goodyear, S., Hawkyard, I., MastersJ. and WoodsC.
    [2005] Subsurface issues for CO2 flooding of UKCS reservoirs (DTI’s Improved Oil recovery Research Dissemination Seminar, 25).
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Shogenov, K., Gei.D., Forlin, E. and Shogenova, A.
    [2016] Petrophysical and numerical seismic modelling of CO2 geological storage in the E6 structure, Baltic Sea, Offshore Latvia. Petroleum Geoscience. 22, 153–164. DOI: 10.1144/petgeo2015–017
    https://doi.org/10.1144/petgeo2015–017 [Google Scholar]
  6. Shogenov, K., Shogenova, A. and Vizika-Kavvadias, O.
    [2013a] Petrophysical properties and capacity of prospective structures for geological storage of CO2 onshore and offshore Baltic. Elsevier, Energy Procedia, 37, 5036–5045.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. [2013b] Potential structures for CO2 geological storage in the Baltic Sea: case study offshore Latvia. Bulletin of the Geological Society of Finland, 85(1), 65–81.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Shogenov, K., Shogenova, A., Gei, D. and Forlin, E.
    [2017] Synergy of CO2 storage and oil recovery in different geological formations: case study in the Baltic Sea. Elsevier. Energy Procedia, in press.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Šliaupiene, R. and Šliaupa, S
    . [2012] Risk Factors of CO2 Geological Storage in the Baltic Sedimentary Basins. Geologija, 54(3), 100–123.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Zdanaviciute, O. and Sakalauskas, K.
    (eds). [2001] Petroleum Geology of Lithuania and southeastern Baltic. Vilnius.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.201700761
Loading
/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.201700761
Loading

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error