Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

Energy Procedia 23 (2012) 504 – 511

TCCS-6. Sixth Trondheim CCS Conference

Small-scale CO2 injection into a deep geological formation

at Heletz, Israel
a
Auli Niemi, bJacob Bensabat, aFritjof Fagerlund, cMartin Sauter, cJulia Ghergut,
c
Tobias Licha, dThomas Fierz , eGabriele Wiegand, aMaria Rasmusson aKristina
Rasmusson, fVladimir Shtivelman, fMichael Gendler and MUSTANG partners
a
Uppsala University, Department of Earth Sceinces, Villavägen 16, SE-75236 Uppsala, Sweden
b
EWRE, Haifa, Israel
c
Universität Göttingen, Göttingen Germany
d
Solexperts, Zurich, Switzerland
e
Karlsruhe Institut für Technologie (KIT), Karlsruhe, Germany
f
Geophysical Institute of Israel, Holon, Israel

Abstract

This paper presents the experimental plans and designs as well as examples of predictive modeling of a
pilot-scale CO2 injection experiment at the Heletz site (Israel). The overall objective of the experiment is
to ¿nd optimal ways to characterize CO2 -relevant in-situ medium properties, including ¿eld-scale
residual and dissolution trapping, to explore ways of characterizing heterogeneity through joint analysis
of different types of data, and to detect leakage. The experiment will involve two wells, an injection well
and a monitoring well. Prior to the actual CO2 injection, hydraulic, thermal and tracer tests will be carried
out for standard site characterization. The actual CO2 injection experiments will include (i) a single well
injection-withdrawal experiment, with the main objective to estimate in-situ residual trapping and (ii) a
two-well injection-withdrawal test with injection of CO2 in a dipole mode (injection of CO2 in one well
with simultaneous withdrawal of water in the monitoring well), with the objective to understand the CO2
transport in heterogeneous geology as well as the associated dissolution and residual trapping. Tracers
will be introduced in both experiments to further aid in detecting the development of the phase
composition during CO2 transport. Geophysical monitoring will also be implemented. By means of
modeling, different experimental sequences and injection/withdrawal patterns have been analyzed, as
have parameter uncertainties. The objectives have been to (i) evaluate key aspects of the experimental
design, (ii) to identify key parameters affecting the fate of the CO2 and (iii) to evaluate the relationships
between measurable quantities and parameters of interest.

©©2012
2011The
Published by Elsevier
Authors. Published Ltd Ltd. Selection and/or peer-review under responsibility of SINTEF Energi AS
by Elsevier
Open access under CC BY-NC-ND license.
Keywords: CO2, injection experiment, modeling, instrumention

1876-6102 © 2012 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. Selection and/or peer-review under responsibility of SINTEF Energi AS
Open access under CC BY-NC-ND license. doi:10.1016/j.egypro.2012.06.048
 Auli Niemi et al. / Energy Procedia 23 (2012) 504 – 511 505

1. Introduction

Predictions concerning the spreading, trapping and possible leakage of geologically stored CO2 rely to
great extent on model simulations. Before large-scale application of predicting storage performance, these
models and modeling approaches need careful validation. This in turn requires well-controlled field
experiments accompanied with comprehensive measurement and monitoring programs, that allow
observing and monitoring the spreading of CO2 in different phases. This work presents the experimental
plans, principles of the key designs as well as preliminary results, of what is intended as a well-controlled,
pilot-scale CO2 injection experiment, to be carried out at the Heletz site (Israel), the main experimental
site of EU FP7 R&D project MUSTANG (www.co2mustang.eu).

2. The injection experiment

The injection experiment will consist of injection of a small amount of supercritical CO2 into a
reservoir layer at about 1.5 km depth, associated with extensive monitoring and sampling. The overall
REMHFWLYH RI WKH H[SHULPHQW LV WR ¿QG RSWLPDO H[SHULPHQWDO ZD\V WR FKDUDFWHUL]H &22 -relevant in-situ
meGLXP SURSHUWLHV LQFOXGLQJ ¿HOG-scale values for the two key trapping mechanisms, residual and
dissolution trapping, to explore ways of characterizing heterogeneity effects through joint analysis of
different types of data, and to detect leakage. A secondary objective is to form consistent and
comprehensive data sets for model validation.
The experiment will involve two wells, one injection well and one monitoring well. These wells will
be instrument§§ed for detailed monitoring and sampling. Two CO2 injection experiments with small
amounts of CO2 are to be carried out. The first one is a single well injection-withdrawal (push-pull)
experiment, with the main objective to evaluate the in-situ residual trapping of CO2. The second one is a
dipole experiment, where CO2 will be injected in the injection well while simultaneously pumping in the
monitoring well, thereby creating a dipole and directing the flow of CO2 towards the monitoring well.
Prior to the injection experiment, hydraulic and tracer tests will be carried out to characterize layer
properties. Tracers will be introduced in both experiments and into both Àuids (water and CO2) to aid in
detecting the development of the phase composition during the CO2 transport. In addition, geophysical
monitoring will be carried out.

2.1 The Site

The Heletz site is a depleted oil reservoir filled with brine at its edges. The experiment will be carried
out in the northeastern brine part of the formation, in the vicinity of well Heletz 18. The geology of the
site is relatively well characterized through the large number of boreholes drilled for oil exploration
purposes. The three sandstone layers (so-called Heletz sands) which are overlain by a relatively thick
shale caprock will be the target layers for the injection. Example cross-section in the vicinity of the
planned injection experiment is shown in Fig.1. In the section, the target layers appear as continuous units
marked by yellow color within the depth range of 1450-1500m.
506 Auli Niemi et al. / Energy Procedia 23 (2012) 504 – 511

Fig. 1. Example cross-section of the Heletz site.

2.2 Pre-injection experiments

Prior to the actual CO2 injection experiments, preparatory testing will take place to characterize the
hydraulic properties of the formation. First, in the injection well, hydraulic, thermal and tracer tests will be
carried out. Thermal logging will be used for defining the temperature profile, hydraulic pumping tests for
determining the overall hydraulic properties, and flowing fluid electric conductivity logging (FEC) [1][2] to
determine the detailed conductivity structure inside the layers. Push-and-pull single-well tracer tests will be
used for determining Àuid-rock interface densities.
After the drilling of the monitoring well, hydraulic tests as well as standard tracer tests will be carried out
in the two-well system, to determine the water Àow velocities, flow path connectivity and effective porosity
between the two wells, as well as to get a preliminary understanding of the inter-well Àow path heterogeneity
and to aid in ¿nalizing the design of the CO2 injection test. The approach of the tracer tests is described in
more detail in [3].

2.3 Single-well injection-withdrawal experiment

The single well injection-withdrawal experiment will follow the design by Zhang et al [4] planned for the
Otway site in Australia. As described in more detail in [4], the objective of this experimental design is to get
an estimate of the in-situ residual trapping of CO2. An example test sequence is given in Figure 2a. The test
sequence consists of three main sections: (i) sequence of reference testing where the conditions (temperature
and pressure) in response to heating and water injection/withdrawal are recorded in natural conditions with
no free-phase CO2 in the formation, (ii) sequence to create the zone of residual CO2 which is achieved by
first injecting a pulse of supercritical CO2, followed by the injection of CO2-saturated water which will push
the mobile CO2 away from the well (while avoiding any dissolution into the injected aqueous phase,
therefore the injection of CO2 saturated water) thus creating a zone of residual CO2 near the well and
 Auli Niemi et al. / Energy Procedia 23 (2012) 504 – 511 507

finally, (iii) sequence of tests similar to phase (i) to observe whether the measurable quantities (pressure and
temperature) can provide information about the residual saturation of CO 2 in the formation. In the case of
pre-experiment modeling of the push-pull experiment [8], a key issue has been to find the best pumping
scheme to allow determining the in-situ residual scCO2 (sc referring to supercritical) saturation as well as
dissolution from the available measurements. Example simulation result with medium properties from
Heletz (simulated with TOUGH2/ECO2N code [5], [6], assuming Heletz-18 as the injection well) is shown
in Fig. 2b. Looking at how such pressure responses – and similarly also temperature responses - vary
depending on the in-situ residual saturation of CO2, allows estimating the residual saturation. So far our
preliminary results with the properties from Heletz indicate that pressure response may show more of a
difference than temperature and may therefore aid more in the estimation process. With the medium
properties from well Heletz-18 and the test sequence in Fig. 2a, the preliminary simulations indicated that,
for example, a residual CO2 saturation of 0.09 would cause an observed pressure difference of 1.5 MPa in
comparison to the reference situation, while a residual saturation of 0.19 would cause a difference of 6.0
MPa. Differences in temperature response to heating at reference and residual CO2 saturation conditions was
also noticed, being lest than 1Û&IRUboth of above residual saturation cases. The simulations have so far not
taken into account capillary hysteresis, which is likely to influence a system like this where alternating non-
wetting and wetting phase invasion is taking place.

b)

Fig. 2. a) An example test sequence for the single-well injection withdrawal test adopted from [4] and b) and an
example simulated pressure response with Heletz properties
508 Auli Niemi et al. / Energy Procedia 23 (2012) 504 – 511

2.4 Dipole CO2 injection experiment

After the push-pull experiment, a two-well CO2 injection-withdrwal test will be carried out, where a small
amount of CO2 (under 1000 ton) will be injected through the injection well and its arrival be monitored in the
monitoring well, by means of pressure and temperature monitoring as well as fluid sampling. Geophysical
monitoring from the boreholes will be applied as well. During the injection, water will simultaneously be
pumped from the monitoring well in order to create a dipole and to guide the CO2 into the monitoring well,
partly to speed up the transport, partly to assure that a large part of the CO2 will be recovered. Some of the
main objectives of this experiment are to understand the transport and trapping of CO2 during its transport in
heterogeneous media and to develop approches for interpreting CO2 relevant medium properties from such
experiments, by joint analysis of different types of data. While combined interpretation of pre-experiment
hydraulic and tracer data together with data on CO2 breakthrough will give information on CO2 transport and
its interpretation in heterogeneous media, the use of partitioning [3] and potentially also so-called so-called
kinetic interface-sensitive (KIS) tracers [7] will give information about the development of the interface
between supercritical CO2 and brine, which is a key parameter for the dissolution of CO2 during the transport.
The principle of these tracers is presented in more detail in [7]. Design issues that have been addressed by
predicitive modeling [9] include i) effect of dipole distance, ii) optimal injection/withdrawal sequence
including the possible benefits of alternating CO2 injection with water injection and iii) role of formation
heterogeneity, both due to uncertainties in the mean properties of the reservoir layers as well as due to the
effect of the stochastic type of heterogeneity inside the layers. The effect of heterogeneity is - as can be
expected – important, causing uncertainty in the estimation of the arrival time. It appears that, with the
medium properties available here, even a relatively small contrast in layer permeabilities made the most
conductive layer the dominant one. This appears to be due to the self-enhancing effect of increased gas (free
phase CO2) permeability in the layer with higher permeability where the CO2 first starts to spread.
Fig. 3. shows examples of simulated scCO2 distributions with active abstraction of fluids from the updip
monitoring well for different dipole distances as compared to passive monitoring only (no pumping) in the
monitoring well (Fig 3a.), along with a simulated distribution of dissolved, supercritical and pumped-out CO2
during the experiment (Fig. 3b.). As can be seen in Fig. 3, the larger dipole distance (100 m) stretches the
scCO2 plume more, and the CO2 arrives later to the abstraction well. With the shorter distance – and same
duration of pumping – a large part of CO2 will be pumped out of the system, which maybe is not optimal in
terms of retrieving information of in-situ behavior of CO2.
The simulated base-case scenario for injection and abstraction of fluids was injection of 1000 tons of
supercritical CO2 at a rate of 5 tons/hour followed by injection of water with tracers for one day. During
injection there was simultaneous abstraction of fluids in the monitoring well at the same rate (except the
“passive monitoring” simulation case) This water injection which functions as a hydraulic and tracer test
when CO2 is present in the formation produces a dip in the supercritical CO2 distribution, which can be seen
in Fig. 3a (dipole cases). Abstraction was continued after the end of the injections to continue drawing the
fluids towards the monitoring well, however, similar to in the single-well test sequence (Fig. 2), breaks in the
simulated fluid abstraction were made for thermal measurements and cross-hole geophysics. Further
simulations of different injection-abstraction scenarios showed that additional water injection significantly
increased dissolution leading to removal of a large part of the mobile scCO2. Continuous abstraction (no
abstraction breaks during thermal and geophysics measurements) significantly increased the CO2 migration
up-dip towards the abstraction well, while dissolution was not markedly increased.
 Auli Niemi et al. / Energy Procedia 23 (2012) 504 – 511 509

a) b)

Fig. 3. a) A simulated scCO2 distribution for different dipole configurations; no abstraction, 50 m dipole and 100m
dipole (listed from top to bottom, injection well to the right and monitoring well on the left) and b) development of
different CO2 mass fractions during the experiment for the short dipole distance.

Fig. 4 shows how permeability in the different layers affects the migration of the supercritical CO2
depending on the permeability contrast between the layers. The simulation result shown Fig. 4a is based on
“best estimates” of the permeability in the different layers following interpretation of well logs together a
permeability-porosity relationship from measurements on rock cores. Because considerable uncertainty in the
best estimates of permeability will exist until hydraulic testing of individual layers has been performed, a
study of the effect of different permeability contrasts was also performed. Results are exemplified in Fig. 4b
showing the simulated CO2 migration for no contrast (same layer properties), and in Fig. 4c showing the
maximum migration distance of the supercritical CO2 front for different permeability contrasts between
layers. The target formation has three conductive sub-layers named A, W, and K. In the “best estimate” (BE)
model there is a permeability contrast of a factor 2 between the least permeable A-layer and the K-layer and a
factor-5 contrast between the A- and W-layers. Other models include no permeability contrast (same layer
properties: SLP), and larger contrast; factor 4 A-K and 10 A-W: (K4W10 model) and factor 8 A-K and 20 A-
W: (K8W20 model). The results, as illustrated in Fig. 4, showed that the permeability contrast simulated in
the best estimate model was enough to produce strong domination of the most permeable (W) layer and a
preferential flow of CO2 in this layer. For the case of no contrast between the layers (SLP model) the results
were markedly different as supercritical CO2 was much more evenly distributed between the layers and the
front did not reach the abstraction well. The results also showed (Fig. 4c) that further increasing the
permeability contrast does not have any large effect on the supercritical CO2 migration. It can be concluded
that a relatively small permeability contrast between the conductive layers in the target formation can
produce a strong preferential flow in the most conductive layer. Another finding was that the permeability
contrast between layers didn’t appear to affect the amount CO2 dissolution.
510 Auli Niemi et al. / Energy Procedia 23 (2012) 504 – 511

(c) Supercritical CO2 front

migration distance
(a) Best-estimate
(BE) model

(b) Same-
layer-
properties
(SLP) model

Fig. 4. Simulated supercritical CO2 migration in different layers of the target formation for different
permeability contrasts between these layers. (a) Best-estimate permeability model, (b) Same-layer-properties
model, (c) comparison of the front migration distance for different permeability models. Injection well is at
x=300m and abstraction well at x=200m.

2.5 Instrumentation and laboratory testing

The experimental program requires sophisticated instrumentation in both wells, to enable e.g. a
simultaneous pumping, sampling and monitoring in both wells and in multiple layers. The injection well will
be instrumented to allow injection of water and CO2, withdrawal of water, monitoring pressure and
temperature, Àuid sampling at depth, continuous temperature and pressure measurements by means of an
optical ¿bre, as well as seismic monitoring. The monitoring well will be instrumented to allow pressure and
temperature measurement and Àuid sampling at different vertical horizons (above the seal, inside the seal and
at different intervals in the target layer). It will be possible to pump from the monitoring well during the
injection operations, in order to create a directed Àow ¿eld.
In support of the field experiments, laboratory testing will be carried out as well, to determine rock
properties and analyze the fluid samples. On-site fluid sample analysis facilities are presently under
construction.

3. Concluding remarks and outlook

MUSTANG project started 2009. Concerning the Heletz experiment, the first two years have been
intensive planning of the test and the equipment needed. Field activities started in late 2010 and construction
of the injection/monitoring equipment in 2011. The first well (the injection well) is planned to be drilled by
December 2011, after which the standard well logging will be carried out and the well instrumented for the
injection, monitoring and sampling. After this, standard well tests (hydraulic and tracer tests) in single-well
mode will be carried out as well as interpreted during spring 2012. The drilling of the monitoring well is
planned to commence immediately after the drilling of the first well, followed by standard logging, well
preparation and instrumentation, and finally standard hydraulic and tracer tests in the two-well system. After
interpretation of the standard hydraulic and tracer tests, the push-pull injection of CO2 is planned to take
place during summer 2012, followed by the two-well CO2 injection test in the dipole mode during autumn
2012.
 Auli Niemi et al. / Energy Procedia 23 (2012) 504 – 511 511

Acknowledgements

The research leading to these results has received funding from the European Community's Seventh
Framework Programme [FP7/2007-2013) under grant agreement n° [227286]. The authors gratefully
acknowledge the financial support given to this research by European Commission as well as by EnBW, EDF
and EiFER companies.

References

[1] Sharma P., A. Niemi, C.F. Tsang, J. Bensabat, P. Pezard and F. Fagerlund: Flowing Fluid Electric Conductivity Logging
Method for Characterizing the Hydraulic Conductivity Structure of a Target Layer for CO2 Injection.2011. Geophys Res Abstracts.
Vol. 13, EGU2011-11802, 2011 EGU General Assembly 2011.
[2] Tsang, C.F. and Doughty, C., Multi-Rate Flowing Fluid Electric Conductivity Method, Water Resources Res, 2003, 39(12),
pp. 1354-1362.
[3] Ghergut I., J. Bensabat, A. Niemi, T. Licha, M. Nottebohm, M.Schaffer, and M. Sauter, Single-well and inter-well tracer test
design for CCS pilot site assessment. 2011. Energy Procedia, this issue.
[4] Zhang Y., Freifeld B., Finsterle S., Leahy M., Ennis-King J., Paterson L., Dance T, 2011, Single-well experimental design
for studying residual trapping of supercritical carbon dioxide. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 5, 88-98
[5] Pruess, K., Oldenburg, C. And Moridis, G. TOUGH2 User’s Guide, Version 2.0. 1999. Lawrence Berkeley National
Laboratory Report, LBNL- 43134. Berkeley, CA.
[6] Pruess, K. ECO2N: A TOUGH2 fluid property module for mixtures of water, NACL and CO2.2005. Lawrence Berkeley
National Laboratory Report, LBNL- 57952. Berkeley, CA.
[7] Schaffer, M., Maier, F, Licha,T., Nottebohm, M. Ghergut,I and Sauter, M. A New Generation of Tracers for the
Quantification of Interfacial Areas during Supercritical Carbon Dioxide Injections into Deep Saline Aquifers: Kinetic Interface-
Sensitive Tracers (KIS-Tracer). Manuscript in preparation.
[8] Rasmusson, M., Rasmusson, K., Fagerlund, F., Niemi, A., Bensabat, J., Shtivelman, V. "Modeling of single-well CO2
injection-withdrawal experiment to be carried out at the Heletz site". Geophys Res Abstracts. Vol. 13, EGU2011-6799, 2011. EGU
General Assembly 2011.
[9] Fagerlund, F., A. Niemi, J. Bensabat, V. Shtivelman. 2011. Evaluation of design options for a field experiment of CO2
injection to a deep layered aquifer at the Heletz site using numerical modelling. Geophysical Research Abstracts Vol. 13, EGU2011-
7291, EGU General Assembly, May 3-8, 2011.