Version of Record: https://www.sciencedirect.

com/science/article/pii/S1875510017301427
Manuscript_2ad514612b9631aba847b779bc6003d6

Monitoring CO2 Storage and Enhanced Gas Recovery in Unconventional Shale Reservoirs:
Results from the Morgan County, Tennessee Injection Test
*Kyle Louk a, b, Nino Ripepi b, Kray Luxbacher a, b, Ellen Gilliland a, b, Xu Tang b, Cigdem Keles b, Charles

Schlosser a, b, Ed Diminick c, Steve Keim c, Joseph Amante a, Michael Karmis a, b

a Virginia Center for Coal and Energy Research, Blacksburg, Virginia, USA
b Virginia Tech Department of Mining and Minerals Engineering, Blacksburg, Virginia, USA
c Cardno, Ltd., Bluefield, Virginia, USA
*Corresponding author: Virginia Center for Coal and Energy Research, 133 Randolph Hall, 460 Old Turner

Street, Blacksburg, VA 24060, USA. Tel: +1 540-231-8108. Fax: +1 540-231-4078. Email: [email protected]
ABSTRACT:
Permanently sequestering carbon dioxide (CO2) in gas-bearing shale formations is beneficial in that it
can mitigate greenhouse gas emissions as well as enhance gas recovery in production wells. This is possible
due to the sorption properties of the organic material within shales and their greater affinity for CO2 over
methane (CH4). The phenomenon of preferentially adsorbing CO2 while desorbing CH4 has been proven in
unconventional coalbed methane reservoirs successfully, and is feasible for shale formations. The objective
of this paper is to explore the potential for enhanced gas recovery from gas-bearing shale formations through
a successful small-scale ‘huff-and-puff’ injection of CO2 into a targeted shale formation. Approximately 510
short tons of CO2 were successfully injected into a horizontal production well completed in the Chattanooga
Shale formation in Morgan County, Tennessee. After the injection phase, the well was shut-in to allow for
the CO2 to equilibrate within the target formation. After the soaking phase was completed, the well was
flowed back and returned to normal production. During this flowback phase, gas composition and flow rate
were frequently monitored. Results indicated that there was a significant increase in gas flow rate during the
first five months of the flowback phase. There was also a significant increase in gas quality, such that the
percent composition of NGLs (natural gas liquids), including ethane, propane, and butane, increased. The
results from this injection test confirm the injectivity and storage potential of CO2 in organic shales
formations while enhancing gas recovery.
Keywords: CO2 Sequestration, Enhanced Gas Recovery (EGR), Unconventional Reservoirs, Shale
1 INTRODUCTION
Shale gas, composed primarily of methane with low concentrations of ethane, propane, and butane, is
found within fine-grained, organic rich shale formations. Generally, shale gas exists in three different phases
within the shale formation: (i) as free gas, (ii) as adsorbed phase on the organic matrix within the shale, and (iii)
as a dissolved gas in the liquids within the formations (Curtis, 2002). Since the shale formation is often both
the source and the reservoir of the natural gas itself, shale formations are considered unconventional oil and
gas reservoirs. During the deposition process, fine-grained clay and organic rich material were deposited in
thin layers resulting in extremely low permeability formations. With the rapid development of horizontal
drilling and hydraulic fracture techniques, natural gas is now economically recoverable from shale formations
in the United States (Curtis, 2002; King, 2010). Shale gas is recognized as a promising energy source and
many countries have attempted to exploit their shale gas resources in an effort to meet their future energy
demands (Kuuskraa et al, 2013; Wang et al, 2014; Andrews et al, 2013).
As of 2013, shale gas has become the largest component in U.S. natural gas production, overtaking
conventional gas wells, oil wells, and coalbed methane wells (EIA, 2014). In 2014, the U.S. became the
world’s largest producer of petroleum and natural gas, mainly in part to due to exploitation of shale
formations, especially those in the eastern United States (EIA, 2015). The Marcellus shale, which covers
major portions of New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and West Virginia, is one of the more area extensive shale
formations in the United States (Speight et al, 2013). Other significant shale plays in the eastern U.S. include
the Antrim, Devonian Ohio, and the Utica. These four major shale plays account for more than 180,000

© 2017 published by Elsevier. This manuscript is made available under the Elsevier user license
https://www.elsevier.com/open-access/userlicense/1.0/
square miles of area and over 6,000 trillion cubic feet (Tcf) of gas in place (GIP) (Godec et al, 2014). Another
contributing factor towards the expansion of shale gas in the U.S. is the higher natural gas prices, as reflected
by the Henry Hub spot price, which increased from 2002 to 2008 with large spikes in 2006 and 2008
exceeding $15 per million Btu (MMBtu).
In 2003, the United States Department of Energy (DOE), through the National Energy Technology
Laboratory (NETL), developed seven Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnerships (RSCPs) for the research
and development of CO2 sequestration technologies (Litynski et al, 2006 & 2008). These RSCPs span 43
states, three Native American Organizations, and four Canadian provinces, representing over 400 state
agencies, universities, and private entities. The RCSP Initiative was divided into three phases: I)
Characterization; II) Validation; and III) Development. Phase I was developed for initial data collection and
characterization of the region’s potential to store CO2. Phase II would validate CO2 storage potential
through small-scale (< 1 million metric tonnes) CO2 injection tests. Finally, Phase III would implement large-
scale (> 1 million metric tonnes) safe, economic, and permanent CO2 injection tests (Litynski et al, 2006 &
2008). As a result of these partnerships, many injection tests have been conducted throughout the individual
RCSP regions to test for the storage potential of CO2 and the benefit of enhanced oil and gas recovery in
many different formations including conventional oil and gas reservoirs, saline formations, and coalbed
methane reservoirs (White et al, 2005; Michael et al, 2010; Melzer et al, 2012). However, increasing research
has determined unconventional shale formations to be a favorable reservoir for CO2 storage.
Due to their low permeability and ability to store natural gas and CO2 over millions of years,
unconventional shale gas reservoirs lend themselves extremely well to permanent CO2 storage (Nuttall et al,
2005; Busch et al, 2008; Kang et al, 2011; Middleton et al, 2015; Levine et al, 2016). Another benefit of CO2
sequestration is the potential for the shale to preferentially adsorb CO2 while desorbing methane, thus
enhancing gas recovery in the formation (Busch et al, 2008; Kang et al, 2011; Middleton et al, 2015; Levine et
al, 2016). Preliminary studies were conducted to investigate the carbon dioxide injectivity and storage capacity
in shale formations. Goodman et al. presented the United States Department of Energy (US-DOE)
methodology for estimating CO2 storage potential for oil and gas reservoirs (Goodman et al., 2011 & 2014).
Davidson et al. studied the deployment of CO2 storage in U.S shale formations which revealed that enhanced
shale gas recovery with carbon dioxide storage highly depends on the offsetting revenues with the recovered
shale gas production (Davidson et al., 2014). Factors influencing the CO2 storage capacity and injectivity in
shale formations were also investigated (Godec et al, 2013; Tao et al., 2014; Fathi et al, 2014; Sun et al., 2013).
Godec et al. estimated the potential geological CO2 storage capacity in gas shales in the world is around 740
Gt (1 Gt = 1015 g) and around 49 Gt could technically be sequestered in the Marcellus Shale (Godec et al,
2013 & 2014). Tao et al estimated that 10.4−18.4 Gt of CO2 could be stored in the Marcellus Shale by 2030
based on the methane production rates (Tao et al, 2013). Nuttall et al. estimated that 28 Gt could be
sequestered in the Devonian shales underlying Kentucky (Nuttall et al., 2005). Edwards et al. built a well-scale
model of gas flow in a shale reservoir to investigate the CO2 injectivity and evaluate CO2 storage capacity of
individual wells, which shows that the estimated total capacity of an average Marcellus shale well in
Pennsylvania and an average Barnett shale well is 0.5 and 0.15 million metric tonnes (Mt) of CO2, respectively
(Edwards et al., 2015). Even though the idea that enhanced shale gas recovery from CO2 storage in shale
formations is promising and well researched, rare in-situ CO2 injection tests in shale formations have been
reported. In September, 2012, the Kentucky Geological Survey conducted a small-scale CO2 injection test in
the Devonian Ohio shale in eastern Kentucky (Nuttall et al, 2005). The plan for the test was to inject between
300 to 500 tons of CO2 into a vertical well completed in the Devonian Ohio shale at a depth interval of 1,274
and 1,672 feet. However, because of a packer failure, the injection was terminated and the well was flowed
back. Approximately 87 tons of CO2 were injected during this test. Therefore, successful CO2 injection tests
in shale formations are needed to validate and promote the concept of enhanced shale gas recovery from CO2
storage.
 This work will detail the first successful ‘huff-and-puff’ injection test in an organic shale formation to
monitor for storage potential of CO2 in shale formations with enhanced gas recovery. Section 2 covers the
site characterization, including an overview of the study area, geological assessment, cap rock seals, structural
interpretation, as well as the site selection for the injection. Section 3 details the project overview, including
the monitoring, verification, and accounting (MVA) plan and the injection overview. Section 4 reports
primary test results including the pre-injection baseline phase, injection phase, soaking phase, and flowback
phase. Section 5 provides a discussion of the results and Section 6 draws conclusions from the test.
2 SITE CHARACTERIZATION AND SELECTION
The primary goal of this project was to inject 500 tons of CO2 in order to assess the injection and storage
potential of CO2 in an organic shale formation while monitoring for enhanced gas recovery. The
Chattanooga shale formation, located in north-central Tennessee, was selected as the study area for this
project. Site characterization was carried out by researchers at the Virginia Center for Coal and Energy
Research (VCCER), engineers at Cardno, Ltd., with the help of various industry partners. A geologic
assessment including stratigraphic analysis, structural interpretation, reservoir thickness, and reservoir depth
was conducted using well location databases, geophysical logs, reservoir thickness and quality data, and
completion reports. Ultimate selection of the injection well was determined based on this geologic assessment
to ensure favorable injection and storage potential of CO2 within the target formation.
2.1 Study Area
The Chattanooga Shale study area is located in north-central Tennessee, and encompasses portions of
Anderson, Campbell, Morgan, and Scott Counties. The study area is within the Cumberland Plateau and is
bounded to the east by the Pine Mountain thrust sheet and to the south by the Valley and Ridge Province
(Figure 1). The primary structural features located within the Chattanooga Shale study area include the
Jacksboro fault, the Chattanooga fault, the Kingston fault, and the Emory River fault (Figure 2).

Figure 1: Chattanooga Shale Study Area (VCCER, 2012)

The first oil production within the study area occurred in 1924 from the Boone Camp field located in
Morgan County, TN. Several additional oil and gas fields were discovered and developed in the 1940s within
the study area, primarily in the Mississippian-age Fort Payne Formation. The Fort Payne oil and gas fields,
producing from Waulsortian carbonate mud mounds, trend southwest to northeast through the study area in
northern Morgan and Scott counties. Production from the underlying Chattanooga Shale in this area began
in 2002 with vertically drilled wells. The Chattanooga Shale gas play was first developed by CNX Gas and
later by Atlas Energy, which have drilled 141 and 479 Chattanooga Shale wells, respectively. CNX Gas was
also the first operator in the Chattanooga Shale play to use horizontal drilling and has drilled and completed
more than 67 horizontal wells within the study area since 2008.
 Working closely with the production companies in the area, six horizontal wells located in Anderson and
Morgan Counties were selected as primary candidates for the small-scale CO2 injection test (Figure 2).

Figure 2: Chattanooga Shale Refined Study Area (VCCER, 2012)

2.2 Geological Assessment
In order to conduct the initial geologic assessment and provide characterization of the Chattanooga Shale
reservoir within the refined study area, the technical team merged well data obtained from the Kentucky
Geological Survey (KGS) and the Tennessee Division of Geology (TDG). This data included geophysical
logs from 90 individual Chattanooga Shale wells, formation tops and thicknesses, and GIS shape files for
surface features. The data was used to assess reservoir properties including thickness and depth, as well as
trapping mechanisms and seals. As a result, two regional stratigraphic correlations over the Chattanooga
Shale study area were created (Figure 3).

Figure 3: Regional Stratigraphic Correlations (VCCER, 2012)

Correlation A-A’ (Figure 3) is a strike-oriented line and correlation B-B’ (Figure 3) is a dip-oriented line.
The datum used for both correlations is the top of the Chattanooga Shale. The thickness of the Chattanooga
Shale is listed below each well log. Based on the correlations, it can be determined that the Chattanooga
Shale tends to thin to the southwest. Figure 4 also delineates a thin siltstone facies occurring in the upper
Chattanooga Shale section (shaded red). A Waulsortian-type mud mound, occurring in the Fort Payne
Formation is also delineated on Figure 5 (shaded purple). Oil production in the Fort Payne formation
(primarily from mud-mounds facies) occurs in several small fields located in northern Morgan and Scott
Counties. Based on the data and the stratigraphic correlations, a generalized stratigraphic column for
Devonian and Mississippian-aged rocks in the Chattanooga Shale study area was created (Figure 6).

Figure 4: Strike-Oriented Stratigraphic Correlation (A-A’ line in Figure 3) (VCCER, 2012)

Figure 5: Dip-Oriented Stratigraphic Correlation (B-B’ line in Figure 3) (VCCER, 2012)

 Figure 6: Generalized Stratigraphic Column (VCCER, 2012)

Table I displays the mechanical and reservoir parameters for the Chattanooga Shale, the overlaying Fort
Payne Limestone, and the underlying Sequatchie Shale (part of the Rockwood formation)
Table I: Mechanical and Reservoir Parameters
Fort Payne Chattanooga Sequatchie
Parameters Source
Formation Shale Shale
Young’s Modulus (10 psi)6 - 1.01 - Corelab (2009)
Poisson’s Ratio - 0.12 - Corelab (2009)
Compressive Strength (psi) - 1185 - Corelab (2009)
Matrix Porosity 0.0151 0.061 0.066 Corelab (2009)
Matrix Permeability (mD) 4.61E-062 4.61E-06 2.46E-06 Corelab (2009)
Langmuir Volume (CH4) (scf/ton) 0.012 139.48 16.1 Corelab (2009)
Langmuir Pressure (CH4) (psi) 667.332 667.33 1329.81 Corelab (2009)
Water Saturation 0.300 0.354 0.438 Corelab (2009)
Rock Density (lb/scf) 169.18 153.30 166.83 Corelab (2009)
Reservoir Temperature (°F) 62 Miller (2014)
Water Table Level (ft) 1210 Miller (2014)
Pressure Gradient (psi/ft) 0.31 Miller (2014)
1 Porosity of the Fort Payne formation was determined from Atlas wells data (Miller, 2014)
2 Assumed

2.3 Seals
The correlations displayed in Figures 4 and 5 also illustrate significant boundaries and potential confining
units for the CO2 injection in the Chattanooga Shale. The primary confining units for CO2 injection in the
Chattanooga Shale is the Warsaw Limestone, which is a thick formation, comprised mostly of shale and
argillaceous carbonate rocks. Secondary seals containing approximately 500 feet of low porosity and low
permeability limestone include the overlying Fort Payne, St. Louis, and Monteagle Limestone formations.
2.4 Structural Interpretation
The Chattanooga Shale reservoir thickness was determined from geophysical logs of 90 wells in the study
area (Figure 7). These geophysical log data were supplemented with approximately 95 additional thickness
control points derived from the TDG geologic database. The Chattanooga Shale reservoir thickness ranges
from 29 to 59 feet across the study area. The Chattanooga Shale generally thins to the southwest, where it is
less than 35 feet thick. The Chattanooga Shale reservoir thickness for the six horizontal-well injection
candidates located in Anderson and Morgan Counties ranges from approximately 40 to 55 feet. The
Chattanooga Shale should provide adequate reservoir quality (based on established production rates) and
thickness for the small-scale CO2 injection test.
The Chattanooga Shale structure map was prepared utilizing 790 points of control (Figure 8). The
structure map demonstrates that the Chattanooga Shale regionally strikes to the northeast and dips to the
southeast within the study area. Based on the geological mapping, only small-scale folds interrupt the
regional dip to the southeast. The most prominent anticlinal nose occurs adjacent to the Chattanooga fault in
Anderson County where the strike of the fault exhibits a marked change in orientation. No additional faults
were identified by the subsurface mapping.
The depth to the top of the Chattanooga Shale was determined across the study area utilizing data from
780 points of control (Figure 9). Depth to the Chattanooga Shale is greatest in Anderson County, where it
lies more than 5,220 feet below the surface. Reservoir depths are shallower in the northwest, where the shale
lies less than 1,400 feet below the surface. The depth to the top of the Chattanooga Shale for the six
horizontal-well injection candidates located in Anderson and Morgan Counties ranges from approximately
2,550 to 3,675 feet. The reservoir depths for these candidate wells are adequate for conducting a small-scale
CO2 injection test.

Figure 7: Chattanooga Shale Thickness Map (VCCER, 2012)

 Figure 8: Chattanooga Shale Structure Map (VCCER, 2012)

Figure 9: Chattanooga Shale Depth Map (VCCER, 2012)

2.5 Site Selection
After geologic and stratigraphic characterization was completed, the technical data for the six injection
well candidates were compiled, including production start dates, lateral lengths, number of completion stages,
historic production, gas quality, and current gas production rates. Multiple site visits were conducted to
assess factors such as accessibility of roads for CO2 transportation, size of the well pad for equipment
transportation and setup, and favorable relationships with the land and mineral owners. After a final review a
horizontal well owned and operated by CNX Gas was selected as the candidate to facilitate a small-scale CO2
injection.
The injection well was drilled and completed in December, 2008. It was completed in four stages with
six perforations per stage. A 70Q nitrogen foam was used to hydraulically fracture each stage. The injection
well was brought online as a natural gas producer in January of 2009 and over its lifetime has averaged 40
thousand cubic feet (Mcf) per day of gas. Before the well was taken offline and converted into a CO2
injection well, the injection candidate well had produced over 75.1 MMcf of gas (Figure 11). The average
daily production for the last year of production before the well was taken offline was 14.7 Mcf/day.
 300.00

250.00

Production (Mcf/Day)
200.00

150.00

100.00

50.00

0.00
01/09 01/10 01/11 01/12 12/12 01/14
Date (mm/yy)

Figure 11: Injection Well Historical Production Data

3 PROJECT OVERVIEW
3.1 Monitoring, Verification, and Accounting (MVA)
As part of the Monitoring, Verification, and Accounting (MVA) program for the injection test, thirteen
nearby offset production wells were selected as monitoring wells (Figure 10). These wells are owned and
operated by CNX Gas and Atlas Energy and consist of three horizontally drilled wells completed in the
Chattanooga Shale (HW-01, HW-02, and HW-03), eight vertically drilled wells completed in the Chattanooga
Shale (VW-02, VW-03, VW-04, VW-05, VW-06, VW-07, VW-08, and VW-10), and two vertically drilled wells
completed above the Chattanooga Shale (VW-01 and VW-09). The wells that were completed in the
Chattanooga shale formation are denoted by a blue symbol while those completed out of formation are
denoted by a red symbol.

Figure 10: MVA Well Program

Gas composition, historical gas production, and wellhead pressures were taken from each of these
offset production wells prior to injection as a baseline study. Any changes in flow rate, pressure, or gas
composition, including hydrocarbons and CO2 would give us an indication of either CO2 breakthrough at
these wells or enhanced gas recovery as a result from the injection. Choosing two wells that were not
completed in the Chattanooga Shale (VW-01 and VW-09) would provide confirmation of any vertical
movement of the CO2 plume.
3.2 Site Preparation
The roads leading up to the well pad were re-graveled and graded to facilitate CO2 delivery by truck to
the injection site. The well pad was cleared and graveled prior to moving equipment on site. A 70-ton CO2
storage vessel was located permanently on site and refilled periodically by 20-ton tankers. The skid pump
with all the controls and meters, as well as the propane tank and heater to heat the CO2, was also located on
site (Figure 13). The wellhead of the injection well was converted to accommodate the CO2 injection by
adding a gate valve, an inlet for the CO2 line, as well as a tee for additional tests and monitoring.

70-ton Storage Vessel

Injection Skid

Propane Heater

Injection Well

Figure 12: Injection Well Site Layout

3.3 CO2 Injection

The CO2 injection was carried out by the oilfield service company, FloCO2. Approximately 510 short
tons of CO2 was injected to test the storage potential and enhanced gas recovery of gas-bearing shales. This
injection was significant when compared to the amount of nitrogen and water used to initially hydraulically
fracture the well (Figure 12). The injected CO2 would nearly equal the amount of nitrogen and water used to
hydraulically fracture the well and is equivalent to 8,595 Mcf which is approximately 11.4% of the total gas
produced from the well.
100000

10000

1000
11.4% of 96.1% of CO₂₂
Produced Gas Injected
Mcf

100

10

0.1
Gas Produced CO2 Injection Nitrogen + Water Sand Proppant Slurry
Fracture

Figure 13: CO2 Injection Comparison

Injection commenced on March 19th, 2014 at 7:41 AM and concluded on March 31st, 2014 at 3:58 PM.
During injection, flow rate, temperature, wellhead pressure, and total cumulative tons were collected every 30
seconds by the operator (Figure 14). The average flow rate was 40.95 tons/day and the average heater output
was 48.59 degrees Fahrenheit. Temperature output from the propane heater was the parameter that was held
constant by the operator in order to keep CO2 above the freezing point throughout the injection period.
Flow rate tended to decrease at night due to ambient temperature drop, requiring a higher temperature output
and more propane to heat the CO2.
Based on the injection pressure and temperature, the phase of the CO2 at the wellhead during injection
can be graphed (Figure 15). The CO2 injection is represented by the light blue line. From this plot it can be
determined that the CO2 was injected as a gas for the entirety of the injection.

Figure 14: CO2 Injection Data

10000.00

SUPERCRITICAL
CO₂₂

LIQUID CO₂
1000.00
Pressure (psi)

SOLID CO₂₂
100.00

GAS CO₂₂

10.00

1.00
-150 -140 -130 -120 -110 -100 -90 -80 -70 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130

Temperature (°F)
CO2 Phase CO2 Injection

Figure 15: CO2 Injection Phase Diagram

As part of the injection, fluorinated tracers were also added to help detect CO2 plume migration to offset
production wells, and to account for the CO2 during the flowback of the well following the injection and
soaking phase. For this test Sulfur Hexafluoride (SF6) and two perfluorocarbon tracers (PFTs),
perfluoromethylcyclopentane (PMCP) and perfluoromethylcyclohexane (PMCH) were chosen as the tracers
injected with the CO2. SF6 and PMCP were injected with the first 50 tons of CO2 in order to help model the
initial plume movement through the reservoir by monitoring arrival times and concentrations at any of the
offset production wells. PMCH was injected later in the test near the 350-ton mark of CO2 injected in order
to help compare arrival times of similar PFTs at the offset production wells during different phases of the
injection.
4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Results from this test, including findings at the injection well and the offset production wells, will be
broken up and presented into four distinct phases of the project based on specific monitoring goals for each
phase: Pre-Injection Baseline, Injection, Soaking, and Flowback phases
4.1 Pre-Injection Baseline Phase
As part of the pre-injection baseline monitoring, composition and pressure data from the injection and
offset production wells were collected periodically five months prior to injection. Samples were collected by
researchers at Virginia Tech and analyzed in the Subsurface Atmospheres Laboratory within the Mining and
Minerals Department at Virginia Tech using analytical chemistry and gas chromatography techniques. Table I
displays the average gas composition data of the injection well for the five-month baseline sampling period.
Table II: Injection Well Baseline Composition (% of Total Gas Stream)
Component AVERAGE
Nitrogen (N2) 3.04624
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) 0.00834
Methane (CH4) 81.29997
Ethane (C2H6) 12.04367
Propane (C3H8) 2.80925
Butane (C4H10) 0.45482
IsoButane (iC4H10) 0.14477
Pentane (C5H12) 0.07422
NeoPentane (neoC5H12) 0.00100
IsoPentane (iC5H12) 0.04624
Hexane (C6H14) 0.06991

4.2 Injection Phase

During the injection phase, pressure readings, tracer sampling, and composition analysis was conducted
extensively at the offset production wells. It was determined there was no significant change in wellhead
pressures at the offset production wells. After chromatographic analysis, it was determined that there was
also no tracer detection at any of the offset production wells. Finally, composition analysis of the offset
production wells during injection resulted in no significant increase in CO2 concentration at any of the offset
production wells, including the closest horizontal well, HW-01.
4.3 Soaking Phase
After the injection phase was complete, the injection well was shut in for a period of four months to
allow for the CO2 to equilibrate within the reservoir. During this soaking phase, the wellhead pressure of the
injection well was monitored daily once the well was shut in (Figure 16). The wellhead pressure after the
injection phase was just above 500 psig. This pressure quickly decreased and then leveled out at 260 psig for
a period of three months. Although a commercial CO2 ‘huff-and-puff’ operation performed for the purpose
of enhanced gas recovery would not support an extensive soaking period due to economic constraints, the
primary focus of this test was to determine CO2 storage potential. As such, a soaking period of four months
was chosen to provide sufficient time for reservoir equilibration, reflecting conditions pertaining to
permanent storage of CO2.
 Figure 16: Wellhead Pressure during Soaking
Also during the soaking phase, gas samples were collected weekly from the offset production wells and
analyzed for composition. Analysis of these samples concluded, again, no significant increase in CO2
concentration at the offset production wells. Gas samples were also collected from the injection well during
the soaking phase. Analysis of these samples indicated that the gas stream averaged over 97% CO2.
4.4 Flowback Phase
During the flowback phase of the project, the well was opened back up and put back into normal
pipeline operation. Flowback commenced on July 29th, 2014 at 8:40 AM. Gas composition and tracer
samples were collected every 30 minutes to 1 hour during the first week of flowback, then once per day by
the well tending service company, P&C Well Services. Figure 17 shows the gas compositions of HW-1003
during the flowback phase, including CO2 (blue), total hydrocarbons (black), and nitrogen (gold). The dashed
gold line represents the average baseline composition of Nitrogen for comparison.
In order to evaluate enhanced gas recovery, the quality of the total hydrocarbon composition during
flowback was evaluated. Figure 18 displays the individual hydrocarbon chains and their relative percentage of
the total hydrocarbon composition during the flowback phase, including methane (red), ethane (green),
propane (purple), and butane (orange). The dashed lines corresponding to the matching colors represent the
pre-injection baseline averages for each component for comparison. CO2 (dotted blue) composition is also
displayed for comparison purposes. Figure 18 shows that during the flowback the more valuable natural gas
liquids (NGLs) (ethane, propane, butane, etc.) composition was directly correlated to the CO2 composition
while the methane composition was inversely proportional to the CO2. CO2 mobilized the NGLs into the
gas stream where the heavier the hydrocarbon the greater the effect.
 100 20

90

80
15
70
% Composition

% Composition
(CH's, CO2)

60
Soaking Phase

(N2)
50 10

40

30
5
20

10

0 0
7/14 8/14 9/14 9/14 10/14 11/14 12/14 1/15 2/15 3/15 4/15 5/15 6/15 7/15 8/15 9/15 9/15 10/15 11/15

CO2 CH's N2

Figure 17: Total Gas Composition during Flowback Phase

100

90
20
80

(Ethane, Propane, Butane)

70
(CO2, Methane)

15
% Composition

% Composition
60
Soaking Phase

50

40 10

30

20 5

10

0 0
7/14 8/14 9/14 9/14 10/14 11/14 12/14 1/15 2/15 3/15 4/15 5/15 6/15 7/15 8/15 9/15 9/15 10/15 11/15

CO2 Methane Ethane Propane Butane

Figure 18: Individual Hydrocarbon Chain Composition

Flow data from the ABB Totalflow XFC G4 meter located at the injection well was collected daily. This
unit uses an orifice plate in the meter run to measure static pressure, differential pressure on both sides of the
plate, temperature, and gas density to measure flow rate in Mcf/day. A standard density input is programmed
in the meter to calculate the flow rate in Mcf/day. The flowrate data was adjusted to the actual density of the
gas stream, which was calculated from the compositional analysis from each day collected. Figures 19 and 20
display the historical production (red shaded area), the injection and soaking period (green shaded area), and
the flowback (blue shaded area). The red dotted line represents the projected decline curve based on the
historical production data. The blue solid line represents the total gas produced during flowback and the blue
dotted line represents the total hydrocarbons produced during flowback.
 600.00

500.00
Flow Rate (MCF/Day)

400.00

Injection & Soaking

300.00 Historical Flowback

200.00

100.00

0.00
01/09 01/10 01/11 01/12 01/13 01/14 01/15 01/16
Date
Historical Production Projected Injection & Soaking Flowback (with CO2) Flowback (Hydrocarbons)

Figure 19: Flowback Production vs. Historical Production

600.00

500.00
Flow Rate (MCF/Day)

400.00
Injection & Soaking
Historical

300.00 Flowback

200.00

100.00

0.00
01/14 03/14 04/14 05/14 05/14 06/14 07/14 08/14 09/14 10/14 11/14 12/14 01/15 02/15 03/15 04/15 05/15 06/15 07/15 08/15 09/15 10/15 11/15 12/15 01/16
Date
Historical Production Projected Injection & Soaking Flowback (with CO2) Flowback (Hydrocarbons)

Figure 20: Flowback Production vs. Historical Production (zoomed)

To date, a total of 10,044 Mcf of gas has been produced from HW-1003. A total of 6,756 Mcf of
hydrocarbons have been produced to date. The difference represents the amount of CO2 produced back
from HW-1003, which is equivalent to 180 tons, or approximately 35.5% of the CO2 injected. The average
daily flow rate for the last month of measured production (December 2015) is 16.9 Mcf/day, slightly higher
than the average daily production of 14.7 Mcf/day pre-injection.
5 CONCLUSION
The injection of 510 tons of CO2 during this test demonstrates the first successful injection of CO2
in an organic shale formation to monitor for storage and enhanced gas recovery potential in Central
Appalachia. This successful injection and monitoring of a CO2 injection in an organic shale reservoir is a great
accomplishment and milestone for CO2 – EGR as well as geologic CO2 storage in unconventional reservoirs.
5.1 Injectivity
Based on the significant flow rates and relatively low injection pressures from the injection data, the
injectivity of CO2 into fractured organic shale reservoirs is confirmed. Previous reservoir modeling results of
history matching the production of the injection well also support that the fracture network permeability has
limited influence on the bottom hole pressure (BHP) of the injection well (Keles & Ripepi, 2016). This may
imply the possibility of liquid (or even supercritical) CO2 injection in shale gas wells. By increasing the
injection pressure, a higher weight to volume ratio can be achieved, which can lead to a higher efficiency for
enhanced gas recovery and CO2 storage.
5.2 CO2 Storage
An initial reservoir model of the injection well based on microseismic data (Keles & Ripepi, 2016)
developed a stimulated reservoir volume (SRV) predicted that there would not be communication in the
fracture network between the injection well and the thirteen offset production wells, including the closest
horizontal well because of the low permeability of the shale matrix. The results from the monitoring program
confirmed that there was not communication between wells and that the system was closed. Factors that are
indicative of a closed system at the injection well include: (a) no significant increase of CO2 concentration at
the offset production wells; (b) no detection of any fluorinated tracers at the offset production wells; (c) no
increased pressure and flow rate at the offset production wells; (d) 97% CO2 in HW-1003 during soaking
phase, indicative of a full wellbore; (e) leveled pressure in HW-1003 during soaking phase. Based on these
results, it can be assumed that if the injection well were shut in after the CO2 injection, complete and
permanent geologic CO2 sequestration could have been achieved. Considering the increasing number of
depleted shale gas wells, this demonstration test provides a feasible application for CO2 storage. It is worth
noting, however, that rigorous screening criteria are recommended in order to permanently store CO2 in
depleted shale gas wells while avoiding any potential leakage and environmental impact.
5.3 Enhanced Hydrocarbon Recovery
Once the well was brought back online after the soaking period, a significant increase in gas production
occurred. During the first month of flowback, the average daily production rate was 123.9 Mcf/day, which is
over 8 times the average production for the last month before the well was taken offline for injection (Figure
19). After two years of flowback, the well is still flowing at an increased production rate but is close to the
projected historical production rate (Figure 20). The similar behavior of the injection well has been reported
for modeling CO2 ‘huff-and-puff’ test in shale-oil reservoirs (Chen et al, 2014). Had additional CO2 been
injected and a higher wellhead pressure been achieved during the CO2 injection phase, a more sustained
period of increased gas flow rate might have been achieved.
The CO2 concentration in the production gas has steadily declined during the flowback of the injection
well and 41% of the injected CO2 had been produced by the end of 2015 (17 months after flowback started).
The average daily production of CO2 for the last month of 2015 is 0.11 tons/day and declining. If the rate
held constant, it would take over eight years to produce all of the CO2 injected. One important trend that was
discovered during the flowback was that the natural gas liquids (NGLs) (ethane, propane, butane, etc.)
composition was correlated to the CO2 composition and the heavier the hydrocarbon the greater that effect
(Figure 18). Methane composition had the opposite effect where it was inversely proportional to the CO2
composition. As CO2 composition decreased, methane composition increased and the heavier hydrocarbons
decreased. CO2 is mobilizing the increased concentrations of NGLs in the gas stream. This is significant
because the value of wet gas with NGLs is greater than that of a dry gas with high methane composition.
Additionally, the increased production of NGLs may alleviate condensate blockage in wellbores in liquid rich
shale plays like the Bakken, Eagle Ford, Woodford, and Utica.
ACKNOLEDGEMENTS
Financial assistance for this work was provided by the U.S. Department of Energy through the National
Energy Technology Laboratory’s Program under Contract No. DE-FE0006827.
REFERENCES
Andrews, I. J. (2013). The Carboniferous Bowland Shale gas study: geology and resource estimation.
Busch, A., Alles, S., Gensterblum, Y., Prinz, D., Dewhurst, D. N., Raven, M. D., ... & Krooss, B. M. (2008).
Carbon dioxide storage potential of shales. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 2(3), 297-308.
Chen, C., Balhoff, M. T., & Mohanty, K. K. (2014). Effect of Reservoir Heterogeneity on Primary Recovery
and CO2 Huff'n'Puff Recovery in Shale-Oil Reservoirs. SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering, 17(03),
404-413.
Corelab (2009) Laboratory Report.
Curtis, J. B. (2002). Fractured shale-gas systems. AAPG bulletin, 86(11), 1921-1938.
Davidson, C. L., Dahowski, R. T., Dooley, J. J., & McGrail, B. P. (2014). Modelling the Deployment of CO 2
Storage in US Gas-bearing Shales. Energy Procedia, 63, 7272-7279.
Edwards, R. W., Celia, M. A., Bandilla, K. W., Doster, F., & Kanno, C. M. (2015). A model to estimate
carbon dioxide injectivity and storage capacity for geological sequestration in shale gas wells. Environmental
science & technology, 49(15), 9222-9229.
Energy Information Administration (EIA) (2014) Shale gas provides largest share of U.S. natural gas
production in 2013. http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=18951#
Energy Information Administration (EIA) (2015) U.S. remained world's largest producer of petroleum and
natural gas hydrocarbons in 2014.http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=20692
Fathi, E., & Akkutlu, I. Y. (2014). Multi-component gas transport and adsorption effects during CO 2
injection and enhanced shale gas recovery. International Journal of Coal Geology, 123, 52-61.
Godec, M. L., Jonsson, H., & Basava-Reddi, L. (2013). Potential global implications of gas production from
shales and coal for geological CO 2 storage. Energy Procedia, 37, 6656-6666.
Godec, M., Koperna, G., Petrusak, R., & Oudinot, A. (2013). Assessment of factors influencing CO2 storage
capacity and injectivity in Eastern US Gas shales. Energy Procedia, 37, 6644-6655.
Godec, M., Koperna, G., Petrusak, R., & Oudinot, A. (2014). Enhanced Gas Recovery and CO2 Storage in
Gas Shales: A Summary Review of its Status and Potential. Energy Procedia, 63, 5849-5857.
Goodman, A., Fukai, I., Dilmore, R., Frailey, S., Bromhal, G., Soeder, D., ... & Guthrie, G. (2014).
Methodology for assessing CO 2 storage potential of organic-rich shale formations. Energy Procedia, 63,
5178-5184.
Goodman, A., Hakala, A., Bromhal, G., Deel, D., Rodosta, T., Frailey, S., ... & Huerta, N. (2011). US DOE
methodology for the development of geologic storage potential for carbon dioxide at the national and
regional scale. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 5(4), 952-965.
Kang, S. M., Fathi, E., Ambrose, R. J., Akkutlu, I. Y., & Sigal, R. F. (2011). Carbon dioxide storage capacity of
organic-rich shales. Spe Journal, 16(04), 842-855.
Keles, C., and Ripepi, N. S. (2014) Sensitivity analysis of stimulated reservoir volume parameters for modeling
CO2 injection into a horizontal shale gas well in Tennessee, 31st International Pittsburgh Coal Conference,
October 6-9, Pittsburgh, PA, USA
Keles, C., & Ripepi, N. S. (2016). Sensitivity studies on fracture network variables for modelling carbon
dioxide storage and enhanced recovery in the Chattanooga Shale Formation. International Journal of Oil, Gas
and Coal Technology, 12(3), 265-284.
Kennedy, R. L., Knecht, W. N., & Georgi, D. T. (2012, January). Comparisons and contrasts of shale gas and
tight gas developments, North American experience and trends. In SPE Saudi Arabia Section Technical
Symposium and Exhibition. Society of Petroleum Engineers.
King, G. E. (2010). Thirty years of gas shale fracturing: what have we learned? In SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition. Society of Petroleum Engineers. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/133456-MS.
Kuuskraa, V., Stevens, S. H., & Moodhe, K. D. (2013). Technically recoverable shale oil and shale gas
resources: an assessment of 137 shale formations in 41 countries outside the United States. [J]. Natural Gas
Industry, 5, 003
Levine, J. S., Fukai, I., Soeder, D. J., Bromhal, G., Dilmore, R. M., Guthrie, G. D., ... & Peck, W. (2016). US
DOE NETL methodology for estimating the prospective CO 2 storage resource of shales at the national and
regional scale. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 51, 81-94.
Litynski, J. T., Klara, S. M., McIlvried, H. G., & Srivastava, R. D. (2006). The United States Department of
Energy's Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnerships program: a collaborative approach to carbon
management. Environment international, 32(1), 128-144.
Litynski, J. T., Plasynski, S., McIlvried, H. G., Mahoney, C., & Srivastava, R. D. (2008). The United States
Department of Energy's regional carbon sequestration partnerships program validation phase. Environment
International, 34(1), 127-138.
Michael, K., Golab, A., Shulakova, V., Ennis-King, J., Allinson, G., Sharma, S., & Aiken, T. (2010).
Geological storage of CO2 in saline aquifers—a review of the experience from existing storage operations.
International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 4(4), 659-667.
Miller, M., Personal Communication, February 18 - April 25, 2014.
Melzer, L. S. (2012). Carbon dioxide enhanced oil recovery (CO2 EOR): Factors involved in adding carbon
capture, utilization and storage (CCUS) to enhanced oil recovery. Center for Climate and Energy Solutions.
Middleton, R. S., Carey, J. W., Currier, R. P., Hyman, J. D., Kang, Q., Karra, S., ... & Viswanathan, H. S.
(2015). Shale gas and non-aqueous fracturing fluids: Opportunities and challenges for supercritical CO 2.
Applied Energy, 147, 500-509.
Nuttall, B. C., Eble, C. F., Drahovzal, J. A., & Bustin, R. M. (2005). Analysis of Devonian black shales in
Kentucky for potential carbon dioxide sequestration and enhanced natural gas production. Kentucky
Geological Survey Report DE-FC26-02NT41442.
Speight, J. G. (2013). Shale gas production processes. Gulf Professional Publishing. Page 47-48.
Sun, H., Yao, J., Gao, S. H., Fan, D. Y., Wang, C. C., & Sun, Z. X. (2013). Numerical study of CO 2
enhanced natural gas recovery and sequestration in shale gas reservoirs. International Journal of Greenhouse
Gas Control, 19, 406-419.
Tao, Z., Bielicki, J. M., & Clarens, A. F. (2014). Physicochemical factors impacting CO 2 sequestration in
depleted shale formations: The case of the Utica shale. Energy Procedia, 63, 5153-5163.
Tao, Z., & Clarens, A. (2013). Estimating the carbon sequestration capacity of shale formations using
methane production rates. Environmental science & technology, 47(19), 11318-11325.
Virginia Center for Coal and Energy Research (VCCER). (2012). Site Characterization and Access
Agreements: Organic Shale. Injecting Carbon Dioxide into Unconventional Storage Reservoirs in the Central
Appalachian Basin, with an Emphasis on Enhanced Coalbed Methane Recovery, to Validate Prior Geological
Characterization.
Wang, Q., Chen, X., Jha, A. N., & Rogers, H. (2014). Natural gas from shale formation–the evolution,
evidences and challenges of shale gas revolution in United States. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews,
30, 1-28.
White, C. M., Smith, D. H., Jones, K. L., Goodman, A. L., Jikich, S. A., LaCount, R. B., ... & Schroeder, K. T.
(2005). Sequestration of carbon dioxide in coal with enhanced coalbed methane recovery a review. Energy &
Fuels, 19(3), 659-724.
Monitoring CO2 Storage and Enhanced Gas Recovery in Unconventional Shale Reservoirs:
Results from the Morgan County, Tennessee Injection Test
*Kyle Louk a, b, Nino Ripepi b, Kray Luxbacher a, b, Ellen Gilliland a, b, Xu Tang b, Cigdem Keles b, Charles

Schlosser a, b, Ed Diminick c, Steve Keim c, Joseph Amante a, Michael Karmis a, b

a Virginia Center for Coal and Energy Research, Blacksburg, Virginia, USA
b Virginia Tech Department of Mining and Minerals Engineering, Blacksburg, Virginia, USA
c Cardno, Ltd., Bluefield, Virginia, USA
*Corresponding author: Virginia Center for Coal and Energy Research, 133 Randolph Hall, 460 Old Turner

Street, Blacksburg, VA 24060, USA. Tel: +1 540-231-8108. Fax: +1 540-231-4078. Email: [email protected]

HIGHLIGHTS

• Geologic characterization assessment for CO2 injection in the Chattanooga shale.

• Successfully injected 510 tons of CO2 into a horizontal shale gas well.
• Monitored offset production wells to track CO2 plume movement within the reservoir.
• Results conclude enhanced gas quantity and quality during flowback phase.
• Successful test for secondary/tertiary recovery from unconventional reservoirs.