1887
PDF

Abstract

Summary

This study analyzes well-log data from the Illinois Basin–Decatur Project to evaluate the long-term dynamics of CO trapping in deep saline formations. Focusing on two depth intervals (6000–6100 ft and 6500–6600 ft), it quantifies residual and soluble CO, assesses porosity–saturation correlations, and investigates spatial heterogeneity using statistical methods. Results show a transition from structural to residual trapping at the shallower interval, low saturation at the deeper one, and near-zero correlation with porosity, contrasting with simulation models. These findings highlight the importance of depth-specific, long-term monitoring to improve the accuracy of CO storage assessments.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.202522151
2025-09-01
2026-02-15
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/2214-4609/2025/wccus/151.html?itemId=/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.202522151&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Acharya, S. and K.Fabian (2023). Dynamic Depth Alignment of Well-bore Measurements Using Machine Learning. 84th EAGE Annual Conference & Exhibition, European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Acharya, S. and K.Fabian (2024). Unsupervised Machine Learning for Well Log Depth Alignment. ASME 2024 43rd International Conference on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic Engineering.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Acharya, S. et al., (2025). Comparison of Supervised and Unsupervised Machine Learning for Well-Log Depth Alignment. SPE/IADC Drilling Conference and Exhibition, SPE.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Acharya, S. et al., (2025). Automated Depth Alignment of Well Logs Using Siamese Neural Networks. SPWLA 66th Annual Logging Symposium.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Bachu, S. (2008). “CO2 storage in geological media: Role, means, status and barriers to deployment.” Progress in energy and combustion science34(2): 254–273.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Bauer, R. A. et al., (2019). Illinois Basin–Decatur Project. Geophysics and Geosequestration. T. L.Davis, M.Landrø and M.Wilson. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press: 339–370.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Cavanagh, A. J. and R. S.Haszeldine (2014). “The Sleipner storage site: Capillary flow modeling of a layered CO2 plume requires fractured shale barriers within the Utsira Formation.” International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control21: 101–112.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Hesse, M. A. et al., (2008). “Gravity currents with residual trapping.” Journal of Fluid Mechanics611: 35–60.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Juanes, R. et al., (2006). “Impact of relative permeability hysteresis on geological CO2 storage.” Water resources research42(12).
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Metz, B. et al., (2005). IPCC special report on carbon dioxide capture and storage, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Nordbotten, J. M. and M. A.Celia (2011). Geological storage of CO2: modeling approaches for large-scale simulation, John Wiley & Sons.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Ringrose, P. S. and T. A.Meckel (2019). “Maturing global CO2 storage resources on offshore continental margins to achieve 2DS emissions reductions.” Scientific reports9(1): 1–10.
    [Google Scholar]
/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.202522151
Loading
/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.202522151
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