A Review On Well Integrity Issues For CO2 Geological Storage and Enhanced Gas Recovery
A Review On Well Integrity Issues For CO2 Geological Storage and Enhanced Gas Recovery
A Review On Well Integrity Issues For CO2 Geological Storage and Enhanced Gas Recovery
art ic l e i nf o a b s t r a c t
Article history: The world’s rapid economic growth has contributed to the ever increasing demand for energy which
Received 24 February 2015 results in the increase of fossil fuels usage. On the other hand, renewable energies, which are considered
Received in revised form environmentally friendly, cannot replace the fossil fuels in the short term. For this, CO2 capture and
7 January 2016
storage (CCS) technologies could work as transitional technology. To ensure a meaningful underground
Accepted 13 January 2016
Available online 25 January 2016
storage, well integrity is potentially the greatest challenge. On one hand, the injected CO2 may cause
severe corrosion to metallic tubulars and cement in the wellbore. Identification, quantification and
Keywords: mitigation of this corrosion are the key to achieve satisfactory well conditions. On the other hand, the
Well integrity mechanical integrity loss due to cyclic and thermal loading in the well life will also occur, so to inves-
Cement corrosion
tigate and evaluate well integrity is of paramount importance to ensure a safe operation and storage. This
CO2 underground storage
paper presents a definition of well integrity in the scope of CSEGR as well as the mechanisms of well
Abandoned well
integrity loss. Overview on corrosion issues of metallic and cement corrosion along with the remedial
measures is discussed. Through a thorough literature review, well integrity criteria for new and old wells
are introduced to provide a guidance for material selection for the usage in CSEGR. Moreover, in order to
evaluate the integrity of operational and abandoned wells, this paper provides a review on the existing
monitoring methods, as well as risk based methods such as FEPs analysis, Performance and Risk Man-
agement, CO2-PENS, and put forward a new concept of well integrity evaluation.
& 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 921
2. Mechanisms responsible for a loss of well integrity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 921
2.1. Influences of well life phases on well integrity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 921
2.2. Corrosion issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 922
2.2.1. Metallic corrosion mechanism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 922
2.2.2. Cement corrosion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 922
3. Well integrity criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 922
3.1. New wells . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 922
3.1.1. Casing strings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 922
3.1.2. Tubing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 923
3.1.3. Packer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 923
3.1.4. Well completion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 923
3.2. Existing wells. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 923
3.2.1. Operational wells . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 923
3.2.2. Abandoned wells . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 923
4. Determination of well integrity for operational wells . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 924
5. Risk based approaches for abandoned wells . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 924
5.1. FEP (Features, Events and Processes) based method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 924
5.2. A new concept for well integrity evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 925
n
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: baimingxing@hotmail.com (X. Fu).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.01.043
1364-0321/& 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
M. Bai et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 59 (2016) 920–926 921
6. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 925
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 926
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 926
2.2. Corrosion issues The well integrity criteria for the wells in CSEGR, either newly
drilled wells or existing wells, have to meet the requirements for
Corrosion of different well components, e.g., casing, cement, safe and long-term storage.
and other downhole completion components, is the aspect bearing
the highest impact on the technical and economical feasibility of 3.1. New wells
operations as well as the success of the project.
An injection well and production well, is drilled, if necessary,
2.2.1. Metallic corrosion mechanism during CSEGR operations to inject supercritical CO2 and produce
There are usually several types of metallic corrosion. Galvanic natural gas accompanied by formation water and CO2, respectively.
corrosion occurs when two dissimilar metals are in a conductive Although the drilling program for CO2 applications is not different
medium and develop a potential difference between them. Crevice from the conventional ones, the minimization of formation
corrosion is a localized type of corrosion occurring in systems damage is critical so that near wellbore formation does not pro-
containing oxygen and is most intense when chlorides are present vide leakage pathways. Experiences have been gathered on the
[10]. In the presence of an aqueous phase CO2 dissolves in water to injecting well experience for various CO2 injection projects in and
produce carbonic acid (H2CO3) which promotes an electrochemical outside USA, and the materials selection for the well components
reaction with steel [11]. The resulting carbonic acid is corrosive have been summarized. But it is not applicable to every CCS case
and forms a scale of iron carbonate as corrosion product on the since the reservoir conditions and the expected purposes of CCS
surface of the metal. CO2 also causes embrittlement resulting in are not always the same [38].
stress corrosion cracking. The presence of H2 in the reaction may
lead to embrittlement [10]. Besides, collapse of small bubbles 3.1.1. Casing strings
within high velocity fluids create shock waves of high pressure, For newly drilled wells, the casing is generally recommended to
resulting in loss of metal from the surface in contact, usually found be set in the middle of the caprock and the liner overlap length
on the pump impellers. should be minimized as well. The nature and magnitude of the
downhole corrosive environment in case of high reservoir water
2.2.2. Cement corrosion saturation or W-A-G (Water Alternating Gas) method of injection,
Portland cement is most commonly used for well cementing promotes rapid corrosion of casings. The part of casing below the
purpose. When CO2 is dissolved in water, it forms carbonic acid packer is prone to carbonic acid and therefore warrants corrosion
(HCO-3) which reacts with compounds in hydrated Portland resistant alloy. Since the liner is difficult to replace, so the choice
cement matrix such as calcium silicate gel (C–S–H) and calcium for corrosion control in terms of material selection is of paramount
hydroxide (Ca(OH)2). The major reaction products are calcium importance. Common methods are the usage of corrosion resistant
carbonate and amorphous silica gel. Leaching of the resulting alloys like Duplex stainless steel or lined material such as Glass
M. Bai et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 59 (2016) 920–926 923
Reinforced Epoxy (GRE), Internal Plastic coating (IPC). But material increase CO2 pressure to the required injection pressure and it is
like IPC may be unsuitable for liners since perforation will cause equipped with suction scrubbers and discharge cooler for each of
damage to the integrity of the material, resulting in CO2 entering the four compression stages [21]. The suction scrubbers remove
the lined material and corrosion of exposed metal surface [11]. traces of liquids in the stream and the coolers remove heat gen-
erated in compression. For the material of the construction of
3.1.2. Tubing coolers, downstream piping, vessels and other equipments,
Similarly to casing strings, the part of tubing below the packer stainless steel is recommended. The production well for CSEGR
suffers corrosion severely and this part of tubing must be made of includes the surface equipment much as the conventional oil and
corrosion resistant alloys. In case of CO2 stream contaminated by gas wells. According to a scientific report about failures of com-
H2S, it is found that injection tubing made of seamless L-80 pletion components of production wells by the Sheep Mountain
material with Hydfil CS premium connections can prevent Sulfide Unit (SMU), wing valve replacement was 52% while master valve
Stress Cracking (SSC). Also larger diameter tubing will facilitate replacement was 28%. So they must be given more consideration
installation of a larger size of Wireline Retrieved Surface Con- when designing a production well [24].
trolled Subsurface Valve (WRSCSSV) as well as future coiled tubing
workover. Composite lined material like Glass Reinforced Epoxy 3.2. Existing wells
(GRE) linings, Internal Plastic Coatings (IPC), thermoplastic coat-
ings such as High Density Polyethylene (HDPE) and Polyvinyl 3.2.1. Operational wells
Chloride (PVC) are more commonly used as corrosion barriers for The existing operational wells to be used in CSEGR for either
injection tubing [23]. The use of corrosion inhibitors can be made injection or production purposes, shown in Fig. 3(a), are con-
along with corrosion resistant alloy tubing, to prolong the tubing fronted with more constraints in comparison with new wells. To
life. Although it does not prevent corrosion, it can reduce it to an select an appropriate well for CSEGR operations one has to con-
acceptable level before workover is made. sider whether the well is currently used for injection or produc-
tion. This consideration confirms the availability of necessary
3.1.3. Packer infrastructure such as injection or production surface facilities,
The location of a packer, whether the completion components well head and other associated completions. Favorable presence of
or casing is above or below it, provides a reference for material the above components reduces the cost of replacing components
selections, and also assists in risk assessment. The production or workover. However, the casing size, in some cases, might limit
packer elements should be chemically inert to the CO2 and H2S the completion options and well interventions. Secondly, water
environment at high temperatures prevalent downhole, and the injection wells, which are known to suffer from corrosion and
packer body should be made of corrosion resistant alloys, so that erosion due to high water velocity during injection, might be
they can have a long service life in hostile corrosive conditions. For unsuitable for CSEGR. Last but not least, CSEGR warrants injection
the packers used in Jedney Field in Canada for disposal of acid gas, of CO2 below a certain depth with consideration to factors such as
the inner mandrels and packer bodies were made of Incoloy. The cap rock location, saline aquifer location, and geomechanical
packer elements were specially formulated source of spec nitrile issues, depending upon the reservoir conditions, geology and
rubber while the seal assemblies were made of AFLAS acid resis- storage mechanism of CO2, so it is important to determine whe-
tant materials [21]. The packer fluid to be selected should be ther the required depth of injection is above or below the
resistant to acidic waters as well. cased depth.
Fig. 3. (a) Operational well structure (b) plugged and abandoned well [8].
924 M. Bai et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 59 (2016) 920–926
cementation. Additional cement plugs are placed where potential condition. Identification of channels in cement and tubular
problem zones are, e.g., above the liner, in combination with damage is possible, thereby revealing the status of zonal isolation
mechanical plugs, if necessary. Heavy drilling fluid with Bentonite for remedial work. Cement Bond Log (CBL) is often used to eval-
added is filled into the space in between these plugs. In the near uate the quality of primary cementation job by giving the com-
surface, the casings are cut a length of minimum 1 m for onshore pressive strength of the cement and Bond Index (BI). The CBL
wells and 5 m for offshore wells and covered by a cement plate or readings are affected by casing size, casing thickness and borehole
a steel plate, as shown in Fig. 3(b) [7]. The well integrity criteria for fluids. However, in absence of Variable Density Log (VDL) and
abandoned wells are inherently different from operational wells transit time (TT), CBL alone cannot indicate cementation problems
because the abandoned wells being out of service are not sub- such as channeling, micro-annulus and bonds between interfaces
jected to any type of monitoring activities. Also the geomechanical and so on.
changes in the near wellbore region are unknown since the In addition to above mentioned tests, there are also some other
abandonment of the well. The residual strength of the material methods to investigate the well conditions, e.g., noise log, pro-
will be a decisive factor to decide whether the casing will maintain duction logging, oxygen activation method, isolation scanner,
the well integrity or not. The state of the casing in terms of the ultrasonic casing imager and so on. Table 1 shows the strengths
mechanical integrity and corrosion should be investigated. Since and weaknesses of the Schlumberger tools CBL, USIT und Isolation
the data available does not suffice for a direct assessment, some Scanner. It can be seen that logging tools have advanced to the
indirect methods such as risk assessment are used [2,25,26]. More point that they can identify and characterize most defect which
explanation can be found in the following section of this paper. can provide pathways for liquids and gases [8].
4. Determination of well integrity for operational wells 5. Risk based approaches for abandoned wells
Migration of the injected CO2 along the wellbores should be 5.1. FEP (Features, Events and Processes) based method
monitored to avoid unacceptable leakage. The variety of mon-
itoring techniques can be grouped into several families, each one Structured methods have been developed and successfully
having its own range application [39]. Examples are Standard applied to evaluate the technical integrity of a repository for
Annulus Pressure Test (SAPT), Radioactive Tracer Survey (RATS), radioactive waste. The expertize has been transferred to well
Temperature Log (TL), Ultra Sonic Imager (USI), Ultrasonic Casing integrity evaluation in CCS applications [2,29]. The method com-
Imager (UCI), Cement Bond Log (CBL) and so on [27,28]. prises two steps, which are scenario development and con-
The SAPT test relies on the principle that pressure applied to a sequence analysis. The Features, Events, and Processes (FEPs) are
closed system, e.g., annulus between casing and cement, will be essentially all activities influencing the storage of CO2 in the long
maintained if there are no leaks in the system, even if the pressure term. Scenarios describe the possible future developments of a
source is removed. It is easy to interpret, and inexpensive to per- system under consideration, defined by a combination of Features,
form. However, it is unable to detect bad primary cement jobs, or Events, and Processes (FEPS). The developed scenarios are eval-
leakage by-passing the shoe. RATS involves addition of radioactive uated in the context of consequence analyses. Based on the pilot
(RA) tracers to the injected fluid and then with the RA detector area, the authors have started from the Quintessa FEP database,
which is run on wire line to detect the tracers. It is expensive, and which is a generic data base to describe the behavior of the storage
difficult to handle radioactive materials. Temperature Log is a system. It has totally 178 FEPs which are categorized as 8 different
record of temperature gradient of a well with geothermal gradient groups. After screening and supplement of the FEP database, a
as a reference, taken before production or recorded when well is new case-specific FEP database was obtained to comprehensively
shut-in. Interpretation is done by looking for anomalies or describe the storage system. Obviously, FEPs database is only a
departures from reference gradient, which are related to entry of qualitative way of describing the static characteristics and
fluids in borehole or exit in the formation. Interpretation of tem- dynamic performances of a storage system, and it cannot provide a
perature log is difficult and requires high expertize. quantitative evaluation. It can be seen as a reference book or an
USI gives an accurate and high-resolution, real-time informa- initial help in the early phase of a storage project and provides the
tion about pipe-to-cement bond quality and downhole pipe basis for modeling [7].
Table 1
Wireline tool comparison for characterization of leakage pathways [8].
M. Bai et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 59 (2016) 920–926 925
A Performance and Risk Management (P&R™) method was analysis. The goal is to reach a sound risk analysis for well integrity
developed by some researchers and companies [30–32]. This coupling both a thorough FEPs analysis and quantification of the
method covers data collection, static and dynamic model devel- leakage risk of CO2 along a defected wellbore under a series of
opment, numerical leakage simulation, risk mapping. The first step mechanical and geochemical processes.
of this method is to collect all data and information about the
storage system. After that a static model is built, which acts an
input into a dynamic model. The core of the dynamic model is a 6. Conclusions
well completion and leakage simulator Simeo™-Stor, which can
numerically predict the CO2 leakage along the wellbore over time. To ensure a meaningful storage of CO2, well integrity of
Since the data is mostly uncertain, or even not adequate, a risk operational and abandoned wells have to be evaluated prior to
assessment is often performed which can take the uncertainties injection. Many individuals have committed much effort to
into consideration. However, the lack of data for plugged and investigate related issues such as loss of well integrity, well
abandoned wells needs too many assumptions, which leads to a integrity criteria for new and existing wells, as well as well
very uncertain evaluation [7]. integrity inspection and evaluation. By analyzing the field data and
CO2-PENS (CO2-Predicting Engineered Natural System) is a literatures, it is found that mechanical loading and chemical cor-
probabilistic simulation tool designed to incorporate CO2 injection rosion of cement and tubular are the two aspects resulting in loss
and sequestration knowledge from the petroleum industry to per- of well integrity. As such, materials selection for newly drilled
form risk assessment [33–36]. The model links high level system wells or plugging a well has been investigated as well to achieve
models (reservoir model) to the process level (wellbore leakage, well integrity for safe operation and storage in CSEGR.
chemical interaction of CO2) and thus represents a hybrid coupled Assessment of well integrity for both operational and aban-
process and system designed to simulate different CO2 pathways. doned wells can be performed in different ways. For operational
Simulation of wellbore leakage is complicated since the associated wells, different tests can be implemented with varying accuracy.
interactions and processes are not yet entirely understood. However, no logging tool is available which can explicitly detect
the presence and extent of corrosion in cement. A commonly used
5.2. A new concept for well integrity evaluation one is CBL complimented with Variable Density Log (VDL) to
identify different defects such as channeling, micro-annulus and
A comprehensive assessment method was developed with the debonding. For abandoned wells, only indirect risk based method
application in the Altmark natural gas field in Germany [2,25]. It can be used, for example, FEP based method, Performance and
describes the whole near wellbore zone and quantitatively simu- Risk (P&R™), CO2-PENS and so on. A new concept has been
lates the critical events and processes which influence well introduced which couples FEPs analysis, model development and
integrity and estimate the long-term leakage rate within the sto- CO2 leakage simulation and consequence analysis. If an application
rage period. The process of the method comprises three steps of this method results in a low leakage risk, no further action is
which are FEPs (Features, Events and Processes) and scenario required. Medium risks should result in monitoring activities,
analysis, model development and consequence analysis, as shown while high risk wells require reopening and re-plugging.
in Fig. 4. An analysis of FEPs provides an excellent basis for the In future, more efforts are required to extend the research on well
definition of scenarios which are evaluated in the next step model integrity evaluation of plugged and abandoned wells. Cement based
development. The first model is mechanical integrity model which materials are reactive porous media. When exposed to acidic envir-
aims to evaluate the mechanical integrity of the wellbore and onment, some dissolution/precipitation processes can occur and lead
provide a quantitative characterization of the defects in the cas- to mechanical and transport properties modifications. The coupled
ing–cement–rock composite system, which is then used to esti- geo-chemical and geo-mechanical effects on cement properties should
mate the permeability of the casing–cement–rock composite sys- also be included into a future model. Although a novel and compre-
tem. A numerical model will be developed to describe the pro- hensive methodology has been described in this work, it needs
cesses and events considered in a scenario in abstract form, so that laboratory experiments or field data to verify the results, for instance,
the leakage rate over a certain time frame can be simulated. the mechanical integrity and the characterization of the defects in the
In comparison to above-mentioned methods, the proposed casing–cement–rock composite system, or the self-healing effect of
method in this paper covers both qualitative and quantitative salt rock on the well integrity.
Acknowledgments [19] Bai M, Sun J, Song K, Reinicke KM, Teodoriu C. Evaluation of mechanical well
integrity during CO2 underground storage. Environ Earth Sci 2015;73:6815–
25. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12665-015-4157-5.
This work is supported by the PetroChina Innovation Foundation [20] Harris KL, Johnson BJ. Successful remedial operations using ultrafine cement.
(Grant no.: 2015D-5006-0202), Graduate Education Innovation Project In: Proceedings of the SPE 24294, SPE Mid-Continent Gas Symposium,
in Heilongjiang Province (Grant no.: JGXM_HLJ_2014027), Hei- Amarillo, Texas, USA; 13–14 Apr. 1992.
[21] Duncan GJ, Hartford CA. Get rid of greenhouse gases by downhole disposal–
longjiang Postdoctoral Grant (Title: Investigation of the THMC Cou- guidelines for acid gas injection wells. In: Proceedings of the SPE 48923, SPE
pling Effect on CO2 Migration along Casing–cement–rock Composite Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, Louisiana; 27–30
System), and Technology Project for Returned Oversea Scholars in Sep. 1998.
[22] Fakhreldin Y, Al-Sharji H, Ruwehy AM, Saadi K, Taoutaou S, Al-Kalbani S.
Heilongjiang Province (2014, Mingxing Bai). Advanced cement system for acid gas injection wells. In: Proceedings of the
SPE 132345, SPE Asia Pacific Oil & Gas Conference and Exhibition, Queensland,
Australia; 18–20 Oct. 2010.
[23] Kenneth R. GRE Composite-Lined Tubular products in corrosive service: a
References study in workover economics. In: Proceedings of the SPE 94129, SPE Permian
Basin Oil and Gas Recovery Conference, Midland, Texas; 15–16 May 2001.
[1] Baklid A, Korbol R, Owren G. Sleipner vest CO2 disposal, CO2 injection into a [24] Larry N. Sheep Mountain unit. Report for well bore integrity workshop.
shallow underground aquifer. In: Proceedings of the SPE 36600, SPE Annual Houston, USA: IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D and BP; 4–5 April 2005.
Technical Conference and Exhibition, Denver, Colorado; 6–9 Oct. 1996. [25] Bai M, Reinicke KM, Song K, Li Y, Sun J. Relative permeability model and CO2
[2] Bai M, Song K, Li Y, Sun J, Reinicke KM. Development of a novel method to leakage through abandoned wells during CO2 underground storage. Oil Gas-
evaluate well integrity during CO2 underground storage. SPE J 2014 SPE Eur Mag 2014;40(3):161–5.
173000. [26] Bai M. Risk assessment for CO2 leakage along abandoned wells using a Monte
[3] Bai M, Song K, Sun Y, He M, Li Y, Sun J. An overview of hydrogen underground Carlo simulation in a CO2 sequestration site. J Pet Sci Technol 2014;32:1191–
storage technology and prospects in China. J Pet Sci Eng 2014;124:132–6. 200.
[4] Mamora DD, Seo JG. Enhanced Gas Recovery by Carbon Dioxide Sequestration [27] US Environmental Protection Agency. Determination of the mech anical
in depleted gas reservoirs. In: Proceedings of the SPE 77347, SPE Annual integrity of injection wells. United States Environmental Protection Agency
Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas; 29 Sept.–2 Oct. Region 5–Underground Injection Control (UIC) Branch; 2008.
2002. [28] Syed T, Cutler T. Well integrity technical and regulatory considerations for CO2
[5] Oldenburg CM. Carbon Sequestration in natural gas reservoirs: enhanced gas injection wells. In: Proceedings of the SPE 125839, International Conf. on
recovery and natural gas storage. In: Proceedings of the TOUGH Symposium Health, Safety and Environment in Oil and Gas Exploration and Production,
2003 Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, California; 12–14 May Rio de Janeiro, Brazil; 12–14, Apr 2010.
2003. [29] Chapter 33, risk assessment methodology for CO2 storage: the scenario
[6] Standards Norway. Well integrity in drilling and well operations, NORSOK approach. In: Thomas DC, Benson SM, editors. Carbon Dioxide capture for
STANDARD D-010; 2004. storage in deep geologic formations, Volume 2. Elsevier; 2005. p. 1293–316.
[7] Bai M, Sun J, Song K, Reinicke KM, Teodoriu C. Risk assessment of abandoned [30] Le Guen Y, Meyer V, Poupard O, Houdu E. A risk-based approach for well
wells affected by CO2. Environ Earth Sci 2015;73:6827–37. http://dx.doi.org/ integrity management over long term in a CO2 geological storage project. In:
10.1007/s12665-015-4163-7. Proceedings of the SPE Asia Pacific Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition,
[8] Reinicke KM, Fichter C. Measurement strategies to evaluate the integrity of Jakarta, Indonesia; 4–6 Aug. 2009.
deep wells for CO2 applications. In: Proceedings of the Sino-German Con- [31] Le Guen Y, Huot H, Loizzo M, Poupard O. Well integrity risk assessment of
ference on Underground Storage of CO2 and Energy, Beijing, China; 6–13 Jul. Ketzin injection well (ktzi-201) over a prolonged sequestration period. In:
2010. Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Control
[9] Bai M, Sun J, Song K, Reinicke KM, Li LL, Qiao Z. Well Completion and Integrity Technologies, Washington DC, USA, 2011(4): 4076–7083.
Evaluation for CO2 Injection Wells. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2015;45:556– [32] Houdu E, Poupard O, Meyer V. Supercritical CO2 leakage modeling for well
64. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.02.022. integrity in geological storage project. Excerpt from the Proceedings of the
[10] Zhang Y, Gao K, Schmitt G. Inhibition of steel corrosion under aqueous COMSOL Conference, Hannover, Germany; 2008.
supercritical CO2 conditions. Houston, Texas: NACE CORROSION; 13–17 Mar. [33] Viswanathan H, Pawar RJ. Development of a hybrid process and system model
2011. for the assessment of wellbore leakage at a geologic CO2 sequestration site.
[11] Kermani MB, Smith LB. CO2 corrosion control in oil and gas production-design Environ Sci Technol 2008;42:7280–6.
considerations. European Federation of corrosion publications-number 23; [34] Stauffer PH, Viswanthan HS, Pawar R, Guthrie GD. CO2-PENS: a system model
1997. for geologic sequestration of carbon dioxide. Environ Sci Technol
[12] Strazisar B, Kutchko B, Huerta N. Chemical reactions of wellbore cement under 2009;43:565–70. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es800403w.
CO2 storage conditions: effects of cement additives. 16–20 Nov.. Washington [35] Celia M, Bachu S, Nordbotten JM, Gasda SE, Dahle HK. Quantitative estimation
DC, USA: GHGT-9; 2008. of CO2 leakage from geological storage: analytical models, numerical models
[13] Benge G. Improving wellbore seal integrity in CO2 injection wells. In: Pro- and data needs. GHGT-7. September. Canada: Vancouver; 2004. http://dx.doi.
ceedings of the SPE 119267, SPE/IADC Drilling Conference and Exhibition, org/10.1029/2011WR010721.
Amsterdam, the Netherlands; 17–19 Mar. 2009. [36] Nordbotten JM, Kavetski D, Celia MA, Bachu S. A semi-analytical model esti-
[14] Barlet GV, Rimmele G, Goffe B, Porcherie O. Mitigation strategies for the risk of mating leakage associated with CO2 storage in large-scale multi-layered
CO2 migration through wellbores. In: Proceedings of the SPE 98924, IADC/SPE geological systems with multiple leaky wells. Environ Sci Technol 2009;43
Drilling Conference, Miami, Florida, USA; 21–23 Feb. 2006. (3):743–9.
[15] Duguid A, Scherer G, Radonjic M. Degradation of well cements exposed to [37] Takase K, Barhate Y, Hashimoto H, Lunkad SF. Cement-sheath wellbore
carbonated brine. In: Proceedings of the 4th Annual Conference on Carbon integrity for CO2 injection and storage wells. In: Proceedings of the SPE
Capture and Sequestration DOE/NETL, Alexandria, Virginia, USA; 2–5 May 127422, SPE Oil and Gas India Conference and Exhibition, Mumbai, India; 20–
2005. 22 January 2010.
[16] Gouedard VB, Rimmele G, Goffe B, Porcherie O. Mitigation strategies for the [38] Smith L, Billingham MA, Lee CH, Milanovic D, Lunt G. CO2 sequestration wells-
risk of CO2 migration through wellbores. In: Proceedings of the SPE 98924, the lifetime integrity challenge. In: Procedings of the SPE 136160, Abu Dhabi
IADC/SPE Drilling Conference, Miami, Florida, USA; 21–23 Feb. 2006. International Petroleum Exhibition & Conference, Abu Dhabi, UAE; 1–4
[17] Fabbri A, Corvisier J, Schubnel A, Brunet F, Goffe B, Rimmele G, Barlet- November 2010.
Gouedard V. Effect of carbonation on the hydro-mechanical properties of [39] Leung DYC, Caramanna G, Maroto-Valer MM. An overview of current status of
Portland cements. Cem. Concr Res 2009;39(12):1156–63. http://dx.doi.org/10. carbon dioxide capture and storage technologies. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
1016/j.cemconres.2009.07.028. 2014;39:426–43.
[18] Lecolier E, Rivereau A, Ferrer N, Audibert A, Longaygue X. Durability of oilwell
cement formulations aged in H2S-containing fluids. In: Proceedings of the
IADC/SPE-99105, IADC/SPE Drilling Conference, Miami, Florida, USA; 21–23
Feb. 2006.