0
Research Papers: Underground Injection and Storage

# Effect of Flue-Gas Impurities on the Process of Injection and Storage of $CO2$ in Depleted Gas Reservoirs

[+] Author and Article Information
Marjorie Nogueira

Department of Petroleum Engineering, Texas A&M University, 3116 TAMU-407 Richardson Building, College Station, TX 77843-3116marjorie.nogueira@bhpbilliton.com

Daulat D. Mamora

Department of Petroleum Engineering, Texas A&M University, 3116 TAMU-407 Richardson Building, College Station, TX 77843-3116marjorie.nogueira@bhpbilliton.com

Electronic communication with D. Chuck, EPRI-Continuous and Predictive Emissions Monitoring Group (22 July 2003).

www.kehlco.com

J. Energy Resour. Technol 130(1), 013301 (Feb 04, 2008) (5 pages) doi:10.1115/1.2825174 History: Received May 03, 2005; Revised October 31, 2006; Published February 04, 2008

## Abstract

Our previous coreflood experiments—injecting pure $CO2$ into carbonate cores—showed that the process is a win-win technology, sequestrating $CO2$ while recovering a significant amount of hitherto unrecoverable natural gas that could help defray the cost of $CO2$ sequestration. In this paper, we report our findings on the effect of “impurities” in flue gas—$N2$, $O2$, $H2O$, $SO2$, $NO2$, and CO—on the displacement of natural gas during $CO2$ sequestration. Results show that injection of $CO2$ with approximately less than $1mole%$ impurities would result in practically the same volume of $CO2$ being sequestered as injecting pure $CO2$. This gas would have the advantage of being a cheaper separation process compared to pure $CO2$ as not all the impurities are removed. Although separation of $CO2$ out of flue gas is a costly process, it appears that this is necessary to maximize $CO2$ sequestration volume, reduce compression costs of $N2$ (approximately 80% of the stream), and improve sweep efficiency and gas recovery in the reservoir.

<>

## Figures

Figure 1

Phase envelopes of the two gases injected (Gas A and Gas B) in coreflood experiments compared to the vapor pressure line for pure CO2

Figure 2

Photograph showing main components of the experimental apparatus

Figure 3

Longitudinal section of coreflood cell with maximum operating conditions of 34.58MPa[5000psi(gauge)] and 366K. Scale approximately 1:3.

Figure 4

Isosurface images of 3D porosity profiles using PETRO3D . These images are very helpful for understanding the porosity distribution in the core.

Figure 5

Concentration of produced gas versus injected pore volume for runs at 10.44MPa[1500psi(gauge)] and 343K. Best-fit lines represent analytical solution for the best value of the coefficient of longitudinal dispersion. Earlier breakthrough time for Gas A when the initial water saturation is 20%.

Figure 6

CO2 and Gas A density versus pressure at 343K as calculated using PVTSIM

Figure 7

CO2 and Gas A viscosity versus pressure at 343K as calculated using PVTSIM . Viscosity of CO2 is higher than that of Gas A at pressures higher than 6.90MPa [1000psi (absolute)].

## Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

### Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related Proceedings Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections