Optimizing Carbon Storage Appraisal Through Dynamic Reservoir Evaluation: Methods, Trade-Offs, and Decision Frameworks

Unofficial AI-generated summary based on the public title and abstract. Not an official translation.

🔬研究者:Provides a structured comparison of dynamic testing methods for CCS with quantitative benchmarks, useful for further methodological refinement.

🏢実務担当者:Offers a practical decision matrix for selecting and sequencing dynamic evaluation workflows, directly applicable to CCS appraisal planning.

🏛政策担当者:Highlights the importance of rigorous reservoir appraisal for regulatory approval and long-term containment assurance.

Abstract Dynamic reservoir evaluation is critical for Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) projects to ensure injectivity, storage capacity, containment, and long-term integrity. CCS operations introduce unique challenges, including complex CO2 phase behaviour, geochemical interactions, and pressure management constraints. Selecting appropriate dynamic testing methods during the appraisal phase is therefore essential to reducing subsurface uncertainty and operational risk. This paper examines the advantages and limitations of key dynamic evaluation techniques currently applied in CCS project appraisal. While static data provides the foundation for initial reservoir models, critical uncertainties, such as pressure propagation, fracture initiation thresholds, and plume migration, are best addressed through dynamic testing and surveillance. CCS operations introduce additional complexity due to CO2 phase behavior, thermal effects, geochemical interactions, and strict containment pressure limits. This study evaluates the applicability, results, and deliverables of standard oil and gas well testing practices when applied to CCS projects, including injectivity tests, Diagnostic Fracture Injection Tests (DFIT)s, Electrical Submersible Pump-Drill Stem Test (ESP-DST)-type production tests, sequential water and CO2 injection across different phases, and MDT-based formation evaluation. These methods are assessed against the key CCS-specific information required for operational planning and future development-stage design. The assessment demonstrates the relative strengths and limitations of key dynamic well-testing techniques currently applied in CCS projects, both individually and in combination. The evaluated methods include water injectivity testing with pressure fall-off analysis, DFITs conducted via standard DST strings, ESP-DST production tests with pressure build-up, sequential water and CO2 injection across different operational phases, and formation evaluation using modular or interval formation testers. For CO2 injection testing, the study provides practical guidance on the minimum CO2 injection volumes required to obtain high-quality pressure and plume-response data. The evaluation integrates field data from CO2 injection tests conducted in saline aquifers and depleted gas reservoirs, supported by analytical pressure- and injectivity-transient analysis (PTA/ITA), step-rate-test-based fracture initiation diagnostics, and synthetic case studies spanning representative CCS ranges of permeability, compressibility, and in-situ stress. Operational considerations, including thermal effects, CO2 phase behaviour, operational complexity, cost, and HSE constraints, are explicitly incorporated into the comparison. Each technique is benchmarked against key CCS information requirements: Safe injectivity relative to fracture containment.Connectivity and compartmentalisation detection.Relative permeability and mobility during CO2–brine displacement.Injectivity index and sustainable annual CO2 injection capacity.Pressure-limited operations and regional pressure management; andConformance and sweep efficiency. The paper introduces a practical decision matrix linking CCS project objectives to the most appropriate dynamic evaluation methods, explicitly highlighting trade-offs among information content, operational risk, and cost. The resulting framework provides a risk-aware, systematic approach for selecting and sequencing dynamic evaluation workflows that maximize subsurface insight while ensuring containment and operational integrity.

• openalex https://doi.org/10.2118/233176-msfirst seen 2026-06-24 04:45:45