The sealing efficiency of cap rocks – laboratory tests and an empirical correlation

One of the major concern for the gas sequestration/storage feasibility in natural underground formations is the assessment of the sealing efficiency of the low-permeable sequences overlying potential storage formations. The sealing efficiency is quantified via the threshold pressure and/or residual pressure difference parameters; the experimental laboratory procedures for their evaluation have been widely investigate by the oil and gas industry at least from the fifteens of the last century. In order to evaluate the effect of adopted lab procedures, the present paper collects, categorizes and analyzes experimental data from the technical literature, investigating representative lithologies, via N2 brine fluid system, in reservoir thermodynamic condition. The analyses show a satisfactory coherence and consistency of data for a range of permeability of [102-105] nDarcy, independently from the adopted lab procedures. Data scattering for higher or lower permeability values seems to be more case sensitive rather than attributed to the adopted procedure or the investigated lithology. Furthermore, the empirical correlation by Thomas et al. (1968) was verified on the bases of the collected data. Even if the equation was derived only from standard test measurements on a limited number of lithologies, it turns out to be a reliable predictive approach for the identification, at least, of the order of magnitude of the threshold pressure (or the residual pressure difference) if only absolute permeability values are available.

One of the major concern for the gas sequestration/storage feasibility in natural underground formations is the assessment of the sealing efficiency of the low-permeable sequences overlying potential storage formations. The sealing efficiency is quantified via the threshold pressure and/or residual pressure difference parameters; the experimental laboratory procedures for their evaluation have been widely investigate by the oil and gas industry at least from the fifteens of the last century. In order to evaluate the effect of adopted lab procedures, the present paper collects, categorizes and analyzes experimental data from the technical literature, investigating representative lithologies, via N2 brine fluid system, in reservoir thermodynamic condition. The analyses show a satisfactory coherence and consistency of data for a range of permeability of [102-105] nDarcy, independently from the adopted lab procedures. Data scattering for higher or lower permeability values seems to be more case sensitive rather than attributed to the adopted procedure or the investigated lithology. Furthermore, the empirical correlation by Thomas et al. (1968) was verified on the bases of the collected data. Even if the equation was derived only from standard test measurements on a limited number of lithologies, it turns out to be a reliable predictive approach for the identification, at least, of the order of magnitude of the threshold pressure (or the residual pressure difference) if only absolute permeability values are available.


ISSN 1121-9041

CiteScore:
2020: 3.8
CiteScore measures the average citations received per peer-reviewed document published in this title.
CiteScore values are based on citation counts in a range of four years (e.g. 2016-2019) to peer-reviewed documents (articles, reviews, conference papers, data papers and book chapters) published in the same four calendar years, divided by the number of these documents in these same four years (e.g. 2016 —19).
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP):
2019: 1.307
SNIP measures contextual citation impact by weighting citations based on the total number of citations in a subject field.
SCImago Journal Rank (SJR)
2019: o.657
SJR is a prestige metric based on the idea that not all citations are the same. SJR uses a similar algorithm as the Google page rank; it provides a quantitative and a qualitative measure of the journal's impact.
Journal Metrics: CiteScore: 1.0 , Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP): 0.381 SCImago Journal Rank (SJR): 0.163

Supported by


Edited by


GEAM - Associazione Georisorse e Ambiente c/o Dipartimento di Ing.dell’Ambiente, del Territorio e delle infrastrutture Politecnico di Torino
Copyright @ GEAM - Designed by DESIGN GANG - Privacy Policy