Hydraulic characterisation of the Stuttgart formation at the pilot test site for CO2 storage, Ketzin, Germany

Abstract The paper presents an approach for the interpretation of hydraulic tests of a CO 2 storage reservoir. The sandstone reservoir is characterised by a fluviatile channel structure embedded in a low-permeability matrix. Pumping tests were carried out in three wells, with simultaneous pressure monitoring in each well. The hydraulic parameters (permeability and storativity) and the boundary configurations were calibrated using three different approaches: (i) parameter calibration and type curve interpretation for single-hole tests, (ii) calibration of the entire build-up phase for cross-hole tests, and (iii) calibration of the initial pressure response for cross-hole pumping tests. In addition, the arrival time of the pressure response was determined and provides additional information about the pathways of hydraulic connection. The measured pumping test permeabilities of the formation were much lower than those measured on the cores, which is very unusual. The pumping test permeabilities are mainly between 50 mD and 100 mD (millidarcy), while core samples show a mean aquifer permeability of 500–1100 mD. Based on this it was concluded that some kind of continuous low-permeability structure exists, which was supported by core material. Three possible aquifer configurations were considered. The first and second were derived from traditional pumping test analysis and were conceptualised using flow boundaries. Each of the analyses provides a different result. A method was developed in which these differences were resolved by interpreting the pressure response with respect to its spatial and temporal sensitivity. This solution lead to a third configuration which was mainly based on spatially-variable permeabilities. Taking into account the pumping test results, the geological background and the behaviour of injected CO 2 , we consider only the third configuration to be realistic. The results are in good agreement with modelled CO 2 arrival times and pressure history.

[1]  David J. Hart,et al.  Laboratory measurements of a complete set of poroelastic moduli for Berea sandstone and Indiana limestone , 1995 .

[2]  R. Raghavan.  A review of applications to constrain pumping test responses to improve on geological description and uncertainty , 2004 .

[3]  K. Karasaki,et al.  Estimation of reservoir properties using transient pressure data: An asymptotic approach , 2000 .

[4]  Bernhard Prevedel,et al.  The CO 2 SINK Boreholes for Geological Storage Testing , 2008 .

[5]  Peter Dietrich,et al.  What information can we get from pumping tests?-comparing pumping test configurations using sensitivity coefficients , 2006 .

[6]  Dat Vu-Hoang,et al.  Lithological and Petrophysical Core-Log Interpretation in CO2SINK, the European CO2 Onshore Research , 2010 .

[7]  A. J. Desbarats,et al.  Spatial averaging of hydraulic conductivity under radial flow conditions , 1994 .

[8]  Alain C. Gringarten,et al.  Influence of Geological Features on Well Test Behavior , 2008 .

[9]  P. Witherspoon,et al.  A Method of Analyzing Transient Fluid Flow in Multilayered Aquifers , 1969 .

[10]  Gunter Borm,et al.  CO2SINK—From site characterisation and risk assessment to monitoring and verification: One year of operational experience with the field laboratory for CO2 storage at Ketzin, Germany , 2010 .

[11]  J. B. Urban,et al.  Determination of Aquifer Parameters at a Ground‐Water Recharge Site , 1988 .

[12]  G. R. Coates,et al.  The Magnetic Resonance Imaging Log Characterized by Comparison With Petrophysical Properties and Laboratory Core Data , 1991 .

[13]  Alain C. Gringarten,et al.  Frequently Asked Questions in Well Test Analysis , 2000 .

[14]  Paul Pavelic,et al.  Multiscale Characterization of a Heterogeneous Aquifer Using an ASR Operation , 2006, Ground water.

[15]  Robert G. Tipping,et al.  Hydrostratigraphic characterization of intergranular and secondary porosity in part of the Cambrian sandstone aquifer system of the cratonic interior of North America: Improving predictability of hydrogeologic properties , 2006 .

[16]  Markus G. Kuhn,et al.  Predictive modelling of Ketzin - CO2 arrival in the observation well , 2009 .

[17]  D. Horner,et al.  Pressure Build-up in Wells , 1951 .

[18]  Paul F. Worthington,et al.  Permeation properties of the Bunter Sandstone of northwest Lancashire, England , 1977 .

[19]  K. Bradbury,et al.  The Vertical Hydraulic Conductivity of an Aquitard at Two Spatial Scales , 2006, Ground water.

[20]  James J. Butler,et al.  The use of slug tests to describe vertical variations in hydraulic conductivity , 1994 .

[21]  B. Wiese,et al.  Inverse modelling of aquitard structures using pilot points and regularisation , 2008 .

[22]  Michael Kühn,et al.  The impact of heterogeneity on the distribution of CO2: Numerical simulation of CO2 storage at Ketzin , 2010 .

[23]  W. Li,et al.  Two‐dimensional characterization of hydraulic heterogeneity by multiple pumping tests , 2007 .

[24]  T. D. Streltsova,et al.  Well Testing in Heterogeneous Formations , 1988 .

[25]  Philippe Renard,et al.  147 Characterization of Porous and Fractured Media , 2006 .

[26]  Chuntang Xu,et al.  Estimation of effective compressibility and permeability of porous materials with differential acoustic resonance spectroscopy , 2007 .

[27]  Hilke Würdemann,et al.  Re-establishment of the proper injectivity of the CO2-injection well Ktzi 201 in Ketzin, Germany , 2010 .

[28]  Christopher Juhlin,et al.  Baseline characterization of the CO2SINK geological storage site at Ketzin, Germany , 2006 .

[29]  Don W. Vasco,et al.  Inversion of pressure observations: an integral formulation , 2001 .