CMTC 151746

Active CO
2
Reservoir Management for CO
2
Capture, Utilization, and Storage:
An Approach to Improve CO
2
Storage Capacity and to Reduce Risk
T.A. Buscheck, SPE, Y. Sun, M. Chen, Yue Hao, T.J. Wolery, S.J. Friedmann, SPE, R.D. Aines, Lawrence
Livermore National Laboratory
Copyright 2012, Carbon Management Technology Conference

This paper was prepared for presentation at the Carbon Management Technology Conference held in Orlando, Florida, USA, 79 February 2012.

This paper was selected for presentation by a CMTC program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper have not been
reviewed and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of the Carbon Management Technology Conference, its officers, or members.
Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written consent of the Carbon Management Technology Conference is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in
print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of CMTC copyright.


Abstract
CO
2
capture, utilization, and storage (CCUS) in deep geological formations is regarded as a promising means of lowering
the amount of CO
2
emitted to the atmosphere and thereby mitigating global climate change. For commercial-scale CO
2

injection in saline formations, pressure buildup can limit CO
2
storage capacity and security. Issues of interest include the
potential for CO
2
leakage to the atmosphere, brine migration to overlying potable aquifers, and pore-space competition with
neighboring subsurface activities. Active CO
2
Reservoir Management (ACRM) combines brine production with CO
2
injection
to relieve pressure buildup, increase injectivity, spatially and temporally constrain brine migration, and enable beneficial
utilization of produced brine. Useful products may include freshwater, cooling water, make-up water for oil, gas, and
geothermal reservoirs, and electricity generated from extracted geothermal energy. By controlling pressure buildup and fluid
migration, ACRM can limit interactions with neighboring subsurface activities, reduce pore-space competition, and allow
independent assessment and permitting.
ACRM provides benefits to reservoir management at the cost of extracting brine. The added cost must be offset by the
added benefits to the storage operation and/or by creating new, valuable uses that reduce the total added cost. We review
potential uses of produced brine and conduct a numerical study of potential reservoir benefits. Using the NUFT code, we
investigate CO
2
-injector/brine-producer strategies to improve CO
2
storage capacity and minimize interference with
neighboring subsurface activities. Performance measures considered in this study include magnitude of vertical brine
migration and areal extent and duration of pressure buildup. We consider ranges of CO
2
-storage-formation thickness and
permeability and caprock-seal thickness and permeability, comparing injection-only cases with ACRM cases with a volumetric
production-to-injection ratio of one. The results of our study demonstrate the potential benefits of brine production to CO
2
-
storage operations. The economic value of these benefits will require more detailed, site-specific analyses in future studies.
Introduction
Stabilizing atmospheric CO
2
concentrations for climate change mitigation will require CO
2
capture and storage (CCS)
implementation being increased by several orders of magnitude over the next two decades (Fig. 3 of IEA, 2009). CCS in deep
geological formations is regarded as a promising means of reducing atmospheric CO
2
emissions (IEA, 2007). For widespread
deployment of commercial-scale CCS to be achievable, several implementation barriers must be addressed. Previously
identified barriers, such as CO
2
capture cost, absence of CO
2
transport network, legal and regulatory barriers, sequestration
safety, and public acceptance are discussed in the Special Report on CCS (SRCCS) (IPCC, 2005). Implementation barriers
receiving more recent attention are water-use demands from CCS operations and pore-space competition with emerging
activities, such as shale-gas production (Court et al., 2011a). For commercial-scale CO
2
injection in saline formations, pressure
buildup can be a limiting factor in CO
2
storage capacity, security, and safety. Primary issues for sequestration security and
safety include the potential for CO
2
leakage to the atmosphere, brine migration to overlying water-supply aquifers, and
induced seismicity (Bachu, 2008; Carroll et al., 2008; Morris et al., 2011; Rutqvist el al., 2007). A key issue for storage
capacity is pore-space competition with neighboring subsurface activities, including other CCS operations. A comprehensive
review is presented by Court et al. (2011a) of progress, since the SRCCS, on several of these CCS implementation challenges:
water management; sequestration safety; pore-space competition; legal and regulatory; and public acceptance.
2 CMTC 151746
Active CO
2
Reservoir Management (ACRM), applied to CO
2
Capture, Utilization, and Storage (CCUS), is being
considered as a means of addressing these implementation barriers (Buscheck et al., 2011a, 2011b, 2011c; Court et al., 2011a,
2011b, 2011c; Neal et al., 2011). ACRM combines brine production with CO
2
injection with the primary goal of enhancing
reservoir performance to provide safe, secure, and efficient CO
2
storage. The primary reservoir performance objectives are to
relieve pressure buildup and to manipulate/constrain CO
2
migration (Buscheck et al., 2011c). Achieving these objectives will
increase CO
2
injectivity, available pore space, and storage capacity; and minimize both brine migration and interference with
neighboring subsurface activities. Other benefits can include fewer injection wells, reduced CO
2
compression cost, shorter
monitoring period, and smaller Area of Review (AoR), which is defined in Court et al. (2011c). ACRM is being considered for
specific CCS sites in the state of Wyoming (Surdam et al., 2009) and off the coast of Norway (Bergmo et al., 2011). Economic
analyses (Neal et al., 2011) indicate the possibility that brine production and RO desalination can reduce CCS storage costs, and
the produced freshwater (Aines et al., 2011) can offset the increased water demand from CO
2
capture operations. ACRM
practice is inherent to all CO
2
-EOR operations. Because CO
2
-EOR utilizes CO
2
in a beneficial fashion, it is a CCUS process.
ACRM can also be a CCUS process because it provides utilization options for produced brine (Buscheck et al., 2011c).
In this paper, we first briefly review potential beneficial uses of produced brine. We then conduct a numerical study of
potential reservoir benefits. Using the NUFT code, we investigate CO
2
-injector/brine-producer strategies, considering both
vertical and horizontal wells, to improve CO
2
storage capacity and to minimize interference with neighboring subsurface
activities. Performance measures considered in this study include magnitude of vertical brine migration and areal extent and
duration of pressure buildup. We consider ranges of CO
2
-storage-formation thickness and permeability and caprock-seal
thickness and permeability, comparing injection-only cases with ACRM cases with a volumetric production-to-injection ratio
of one. The results of our study demonstrate the potential benefits of brine production to CO
2
-storage operations.
Background and Objectives
The most promising settings for commercial-scale CCS are depleted oil reservoirs, particularly those suited to CO
2
-based
Enhanced Oil Recovery (CO
2
-EOR), and deep saline formations, with each having the advantage of being well separated from
the atmosphere. Commercial-scale CCS will involve large volumes of injected fluid and a need for significant formation
storage capacity (Buscheck et al., 2011b). A distinct advantage of CO
2
-EOR is that it involves fluid production, which
increases CO
2
storage capacity and relieves pressure buildup, while injection-only, saline-formation CCS does not (Buscheck
et al., 2011b). Yet, because of limitations in the volume and distribution of depleted oil reservoirs and the large volumes and
widespread availability of saline formations, CO
2
storage in saline formations is likely to play a more dominant role in CCS
(IPCC, 2005). The absence of fluid production in injection-only, commercial-scale, saline-formation CCS may result in a large
pressure buildup, particularly in semi-closed formations, persisting both during and long after injection has ceased. Such large
and lasting pressure perturbations will require careful monitoring and may require restriction of injection pressures to prevent
increasing failure risks of caprock fracturing, leakage up abandoned wells, and induced seismicity (Morris et al., 2011;
Rutqvist el al., 2007; Bachu, 2008). If not sufficiently controlled, high pressures may drive CO
2
and brines through leakage
pathways and threaten water quality in shallower water-supply aquifers (Bachu, 2008; Carroll et al., 2008). Thus, pressure
buildup is considered to be a limiting factor on CO
2
storage capacity and security, and storage-capacity estimates based on
effective pore volume available for safe trapping of CO
2
may have to be substantially reduced (Birkholzer and Zhou, 2009). A
basin-scale reservoir model showed large enough pressure interference between neighboring CCS operations to suggest that
the potential area to be characterized in a CCS permitting process, including the Area of Review (AoR), could be quite large,
and preclude the possibility of permits being granted on a single-site basis alone (Birkholzer and Zhou, 2009).
For this study, we assume ACRM is executed with an extraction ratio of one, which is a volumetric balance between
injected CO
2
and the net extraction (extraction minus reinjection) of brine. This is just one end member of ACRM, which can
also involve extraction ratios less than one. Depending on storage-formation depth and temperature, an extraction ratio of one
requires the removal of between 1.25 and 1.5 m
3
of brine per ton of injected CO
2
(Buscheck et al., 2011c). For a 1 GWe coal
plant this would require the net removal of 10 to 12 million m
3
(8100 to 9700 acre feet) of brine per year from the storage
formation. Therefore, a major challenge for ACRM is to find cost-effective solutions to reducing the volume of brine in the
storage formation. The added cost of brine extraction and disposition must be offset by the added benefits to the storage
operation and/or by creating new, valuable uses that can reduce the total added cost. Utilization options of choice for a
particular CCUS site depend on the chemical composition and temperature of the produced brine, as well as the proximity to
the potential markets (Buscheck et al., 2011c). Useful products may include freshwater, saline cooling water, make-up water
for oil, gas, and geothermal energy production, and direct recovery of geothermal energy (Harto and Veil, 2011; Bourcier et
al., 2011; Maulbetsch and DiFilippo, 2010; Duke, 2007; Buscheck, 2010; Buscheck et al., 2011a, 2011c).
Brine-utilization options involve a full range of treatment possibilities, from desalination to produce freshwater, to
softening (e.g., ion exchange or nanofiltration) and/or the addition of corrosion and scaling inhibitors to produce saline cooling
water for power plants, to possibly no treatment for make-up water that is injected for pressure support in oil, gas, and
geothermal energy production. When brine is used as a feedstock to produce fresh water or for saline cooling water, there is
the need to either dispose of or to reinject the residual brine, either into the CO
2
storage formation itself or into a separate
formation. When it is feasible to use brine as make-up water there is no residual brine to dispose of. Brine-utilization options
are discussed in greater detail in Buscheck et al. (2011c).
CMTC 151746 3
From a reservoir-performance perspective, the key objective for ACRM is for brine production to relieve pressure
buildup driven by CO
2
injection. Another perhaps less intuitive objective is to reduce total operating costs of CO
2
storage, on a
per unit of stored-CO
2
basis, through the reduction of the total number of wells and the cost of CO
2
compression. Other
components of CO
2
storage cost are infrastructure costs, such as those related to obtaining mineral rights, liability insurance,
site characterization, and monitoring. ACRM has the potential of reducing many of these costs.
Brine production can eventually cause CO
2
breakthrough at brine producers. The operational challenge for ACRM is that
pressure relief increases with decreasing spacing between CO
2
injectors and brine producers, while CO
2
-breakthrough time
decreases. Thus, there is a tradeoff between pressure relief and delaying CO
2
breakthrough. To control costs, it is desirable to
utilize brine producers as long as possible. There are several operational strategies that can better achieve this trade-off. One
strategy is to successively produce brine from a series of production wells that are incrementally spaced farther from the
injection well (Buscheck et al., 2011b, 2011c). A second strategy, which could be used in combination with the first strategy,
involves the use of horizontal injection and production wells (Buscheck et al., 2011). A third strategy, which could be
combined with the other strategies, is the use of smart wells (Brouwer et al., 2001; Brouwer and Jansen, 2004; Sudaryanto
and Yortsos, 2001; Alhuthali et al., 2007), with down-hole sensors and multiple independently-controlled production and
injection zones to extend the useful lifetime of brine producers beyond when CO
2
is first detected.
For this study, we conduct reservoir analyses to investigate the first strategy of producing brine from successively
increasing distances from the injection well, applied to a vertical CO
2
injector surrounded by brine producers, and then
investigate the second strategy, for horizontal injector/producer-well pairs. We defer the investigating the third strategy (smart
wells) to future studies.
Methodology
In this study, we used the NUFT (Nonisothermal Unsaturated-saturated Flow and Transport) code, which was developed
at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) to simulate multi-phase multi-component heat and mass flow and
reactive transport in unsaturated and saturated porous media (Nitao, 1998; Buscheck et al., 2003; Johnson et al., 2004a, 2004b;
Carroll et al., 2009; Morris et al., 2011). The pore and fluid compressibility are 4.5 10
-10
and 3.5 10
-10
Pa
-1
, respectively.
Water density is determined by the ASME steam tables (ASME, 2006). The two-phase flow of CO
2
and water was simulated
with the density of supercritical-CO
2
determined by the correlation of Span and Wagner (1996) and viscosity determined by
the correlation of Fenghour et al. (1997). Because we focused on the response in the storage formation and adjoining seal
units, the simulations were conducted for isothermal conditions at a fixed temperature of 80
o
C. Because we did not consider
reinjection of brine in our study, we did not address salinity-dependent brine density and viscosity. The influence of salinity-
dependent brine density and viscosity will be addressed in future work on residual brine reinjection. The influence of
geomechanical coupling (Morris et al., 2011) and geochemical reactions resulting from CO
2
injection were not considered.
The reservoir study consists of three parts: (1) vertical-well base case, (2) vertical-well sensitivity study, and (3)
horizontal-well sensitivity study. To simulate CO
2
injection and brine production, we applied three model geometries: (1) 2-D
radially symmetric (RZ) models of a vertical CO
2
injector surrounded by a ring (or rings) of vertical brine extractors, (2) 3-D
models of a vertical CO
2
injector surrounded by a ring (or rings) of vertical brine producers (Fig. 1a) and (3) 2-D vertical-
cross-sectional models of horizontal injector/producer pairs. The numerical grid refinement used in the models is as follows:
2-D RZ models of vertical wells: 50- to 200-m radially by 10- to 25-m vertically
3-D models of vertical wells: 200-m 200-m horizontally by 10- to 25-m vertically
2-D models of horizontal wells: 200-m horizontally by 20-m vertically
The 2-D RZ and 3-D models used in the vertical-well base case represent a 250-m-thick storage formation, as modeled
by Zhou et al. (2008) and Buscheck et al. (2011a), with the top of the storage formation located 1200 m below the water table
and bounded by 60-m-thick seal units. The outer boundaries have a no-flow condition to represent a semi-closed system for
storage formation areas of 1257 and 31,416 km
2
. The base case considered a formation area of 1257 km
2
, while the sensitivity
study considered both formation areas. The lower boundary located 1800 and 2000 m below the water table for the base case
and sensitivity study, respectively, has a no-flow condition. For the base case, the upper 1140 m and lower 290 m of the model
have the same hydrologic properties as storage formation. For the sensitivity study, the upper boundary is set at the top of the
caprock, with a fixed pressure corresponding to that depth, and the lower boundary, at the base of the storage formation, has a
no-flow condition. Hydrologic properties for the vertical-well base case (Table 1) are similar to previous studies (Zhou et al.,
2008; Buscheck et al., 2011a, 2011b, 2011c). For the vertical-well base case, CO
2
injection and brine production occur in the
lower half of the storage formation, while for the vertical-well sensitivity study, it occurs over the entire thickness of the
storage formation. In the 3-D model, CO
2
injection occurs in a 50-m 50-m zone, while in the RZ model it occurs in the inner
50-m-radius gridblock column, at a rate of 3.8 million tons/year for injection periods of 30 and 50 years. In the 3-D model,
brine is produced in 100-m 100-m zones representing the brine producers, while in the RZ model it occurs in a 100-m-wide
ring. For cases with brine production, we maintained a volumetric balance between produced brine and injected CO
2
. Table 1
lists the ranges of storage formation and seal unit permeabilities and thickness used in the sensitivity study.
4 CMTC 151746
Table 1. Summary of hydrologic parameter values and well specifications used in the study.
Parameter value or well specification Storage formation Seal units
Horizontal and vertical
permeability
Vertical-well base case 10
-13
m
2
10
-18
m
2

Vertical-well sensitivity study 10
-14
to 10
-12
m
2
10
-20
to 10
-16
m
2

Horizontal-well sensitivity study 10
-14
to 10
-12
m
2
10
-20
to 10
-16
m
2

Pore compressibility 4.5 x 10
-10
Pa
-1
4.5 x 10
-10
Pa
-1

Porosity 0.12 0.12
van Genuchten (1980) m 0.46 0.46
van Genuchten 5.1 x 10
-5
Pa
-1
5.1 x 10
-5
Pa
-1

Residual supercritical CO
2
saturation 0.05 0.05
Residual water saturation 0.30 0.30
Formation thickness Vertical-well base case 250 m 60 m
Vertical-well sensitivity study 40 to 400 m 100 to 1000 m
Horizontal-well sensitivity study 40 to 400 m 100 to 1000 m
Formation area Vertical-well base case 1257 km
2

Vertical-well sensitivity study 1257 and 31,416 km
2

Horizontal-well sensitivity study 160 km
2

Depth of base of storage
formation
Vertical-well base case 1450 m
Vertical-well sensitivity study 2000 m
Horizontal-well sensitivity study 2000 m
Injection period Vertical-well base case 30 yr
Vertical-well sensitivity study 50 yr
Horizontal-well sensitivity study 50 yr
Injection/production interval
within storage formation
Vertical-well base case Lower half
Vertical-well sensitivity study Entire thickness
Horizontal-well sensitivity study Lower 20 m
CO
2
injection rate Vertical-well base case 3.8 million tons/year
Vertical-well sensitivity study 3.8 million tons/year
Horizontal-well sensitivity study 3.8 million tons/year
Spacing between CO
2
injectors
and brine producers
Vertical-well base case 5 and 10 km
Vertical-well sensitivity study 2, 5, and 10 km
Horizontal-well sensitivity study 2, 5, 10, and 20 km

The 2-D cross-sectional model used in the horizontal-well sensitivity study represents a semi-closed reservoir system that
is 40 km in the lateral direction (orthogonal to the well axes) and 4 km in the longitudinal direction (parallel to the well axes),
with no-flow boundaries at the basement of the storage formation, located 2000 m below the water table, and at the lateral and
longitudinal boundaries. This is representative of a semi-closed system for a 160-km
2
storage formation. Storage-formation
thicknesses ranging from 40 to 400 m are considered, underlain by an impermeable basement and overlain by a caprock unit
with thicknesses ranging from 100 to 1000 m. A constant pressure boundary is maintained at the top of the caprock. Table 1
lists the ranges of storage formation and seal unit permeabilities and thickness used in the horizontal-well sensitivity study.
The sensitivity analyses conducted for this study require the ability to sample a large multi-dimensional parameter space.
We consider a four order of magnitude range of caprock permeability, a two order of magnitude range of storage-formation
permeability, and an order of magnitude range of both caprock and storage formation thickness. Addressing such a wide range
of independent variables cannot be readily achieved through brute-force simulation. Therefore, we couple the PSUADE
emulator, which stands for Problem Solving environment for Uncertainty Quantification and Design Exploration (Tong,
2005). Prior to this study, PSUADE has been successfully used for (1) uncertainty quantification (UQ), (2) global sensitivity
analysis, (3) response-surface analysis, (4) design optimization, (5) system calibration, and (6) parameter identification (Tong,
2005; Hsieh, 2007; Sun et al., 2011). Compared to other UQ tools, PSUADE applies state-of-the-art techniques for
constructing response surfaces (surrogate models), which are further used for uncertainty quantification and sensitivity
analyses. PSUADE comprises a suite of modern sampling methods, a model generation and execution environment, which is
tailored for Livermore Computing Center (LC) platforms at LLNL and a rich collection of analysis and optimization tools.
Results
The results of this study are organized into three sections. In the first section, we analyze a vertical-well base case to
establish the appropriateness of using radially-symmetric RZ models to represent symmetrical patterns of vertical brine
producers surrounding a vertical CO
2
injector. In the following two sections we discuss the results of a sensitivity study of the
five most important hydrologic parameters influencing pressure buildup and brine displacement, driven by CO
2
injection:
storage formation permeability and thickness, caprock permeability and thickness, and storage formation area. Other
parameters play an important role in CO
2
storage reservoirs, such as pore compressibility; however, these five parameters are
CMTC 151746 5
very important, in part, because they can vary by orders of magnitude from one potential CCS site to another. Part 1 of the
sensitivity study is conducted for a CO
2
injector, surrounded by symmetrical patterns of brine producers for large to very large
storage formation areas. Part 2 is conducted for horizontal CO
2
-injector/brine-producer pairs in a relatively small storage
formation area. This study does not directly address CO
2
breakthrough and strategies to avoid that breakthrough, which has
been investigated in detail by Buscheck et al. (2011c). However, the reservoir analyses were conducted to avoid breakthrough
prior to achieving peak pressure buildup adjacent to the CO
2
injector.
Vertical-Well Base Case
Because of their computational efficiency compared to 3-D models, 2-D radially-symmetric (RZ) models are sometimes
used to simulate saline-formation CO
2
storage (Zhou et al., 2008; Birkholzer et al., 2009; Buscheck et al., 2011b). For
injection-only CO
2
storage, an RZ model is an appropriate choice for situations with no formation dip (i.e., level formations)
and when the influence of areally-variability of reservoir properties and boundary conditions are either not being considered,
or are not significant. When brine production wells are added to CO
2
injection, it is reasonable to ask whether such problems
can be analyzed with a model that assumes radial symmetry. In reality, brine is discretely produced from a finite number of
production wells, while an RZ model assumes that brine is produced in a radially smeared fashion from an extraction ring at
a given radial distance.
We begin by asking whether RZ models can accurately predict pressure buildup (P) around a CO
2
injector surrounded
by a ring(s) of brine producers. For this study, P is defined to be the pressure in excess of ambient pressure in the storage
formation adjacent to the CO
2
injector. We compared results from RZ models similar to those used by Buscheck et al. (2011b)
with those of 3-D models of a CO
2
injector surrounded by brine producers in various well patterns. The storage formation is
semi-closed with an area of 1257 km
2
and a thickness of 250 m, overlain and underlain by 60-m-thick seal units. We analyzed
two 5-spot patterns, with brine producers at 5 and 10 km, respectively, and a double-ring 9-spot pattern with an inner ring of 4
producers 5 km from the CO
2
injector and an outer ring of 4 producers 10 km from the CO
2
injector (Fig. 1a). The outer ring of
producers is rotated by 45 degrees relative to the inner ring (Fig. 1a) in order to pull on the CO
2
plume from different
directions, thereby manipulating the plume into a cylindrical shape. The CO
2
injection rate is 3.8 million tons/year for 30 years
and a volumetric balance is maintained between injected CO
2
and produced brine. Brine production occurs entirely from the
inner 4 producers during the first 10 years; during the next 5 years, brine production is gradually shifted to the outer 4
producers, while maintaining the same total brine production rate.

Figure 1. (a) A plan view of the conceptual model used in the 3-D model used in the vertical-well study, showing the double-ring 9-spot well
pattern. The storage-formation area is 1257 km
2
. (b) Pressure buildup histories are compared for RZ and 3-D models of 5-spot patterns with
producers at 5 and 10 km, respectively, and of a double-ring 9-spot pattern, with brine production at the 4 inner producers at 5 km for the first
10 years, ramping from full to zero production from 10 to 15 years. At 10 years, brine production begins at the 4 outer producers at 10 km,
ramping from zero to full production from 10 to 15 years, and continuing until the end of injection. CO
2
injection rate is 3.8 million tons/year for
30 years.
The RZ and 3-D models predict identical P histories at the CO
2
injector (Fig. 1b) for all well patterns. During the first
10 years, the P history for the double-ring 9-spot case follows that of the RZ and 3-D models of brine producers at 5 km.
When brine production gradually shifts to the outer 4 producers, the P history transitions to that of the RZ and 3-D models of
brine producers at 10 km. This comparison illustrates two important findings. First, RZ models can accurately predict P
histories around a CO
2
injector surrounded by symmetrical rings of producers, such as in 5-spots and double-ring 9-spots.
Second, it is feasible to use RZ-model-predicted P histories to synthesize a P history for cases where brine production is
progressively shifted from closer brine producers to those spaced further away from the CO
2
injector. Thus, RZ models can be
6 CMTC 151746
useful in analyzing potential pressure-management strategies for patterns of vertical wells with a significant gain in
computational efficiency. We use these findings to take advantage of RZ models to represent symmetrical patterns of vertical
brine producers around a vertical CO
2
injector in the vertical-well sensitivity study, discussed in the following section.
Vertical-Well Sensitivity Study
For this section, we modified the RZ model used in the previous section by generalizing it to handle a range of caprock
thicknesses (100 to 1000 m) and storage formation thicknesses (40 to 400 m). The bottom of the storage formation was moved
to a depth of 2000 m, underlain by an impermeable basement. We considered a four order of magnitude range of caprock
permeability (10
-20
to 10
-16
m
2
) and a two order of magnitude range of storage formation permeability (10
-14
to 10
-12
m
2
). Cases
with no brine production are considered for storage formation areas of 1257 and 31,416 km
2
. ACRM cases with rings of brine
producers at 2, 5, or 10 km from the CO
2
injector are considered for a storage formation area of 1257 km
2
.
Figure 2 plots response surfaces of pressure buildup P adjacent to the CO
2
injector at 5 years for the case with no brine
production and for ACRM with a ring of brine producers located 2 km from the injector. As demonstrated in Figure 1, the
influence of brine production on pressure relief grows with time. The influence of pressure relief is greater for smaller spacing
between the brine producers and the CO
2
injector. Figure 3 plots the ratio of P with no brine production divided by P with
brine producers at the listed well spacings and times; this ratio is a measure of the relative pressure relief achieved through
brine production. Relative pressure relief increases with storage-formation permeability. Relative pressure relief increases with
decreasing storage formation thickness, because a thinner formation focuses more of the energy from the brine producer
towards the CO
2
injector. Buscheck et al. (2011c) found that relative pressure relief increases with decreasing storage
formation area because a smaller area also focuses more of the energy from the brine producer towards the CO
2
injector.

Figure 2. Response surfaces of pressure buildup P at 5 yr, adjacent to a vertical CO
2
injector, are shown for (a,b) no brine production and
(c,d) ACRM with a ring of vertical brine producers 2 km from the injector and a storage formation area of 1257 km
2
. Sensitivity to storage
formation thickness and permeability is shown (a,c) for a 500-m-thick caprock with 1 x 10
-18
m
2
permeability. Sensitivity to caprock thickness
and permeability is shown (b,d) for a 200-m-thick storage formation with 1 x 10
-13
m
2
permeability. The CO
2
injection rate is 3.8 million tons/year
for 50 years. Note the different contour scales.
CMTC 151746 7

Figure 3. Response surfaces of the ratio of pressure buildup P adjacent to a vertical CO
2
injector (without brine production) divided by that for
ACRM with a ring of vertical brine producers located (a,b) 2 km, (c,d) 5 m, and (e,f) 10 km from the injector, at the indicated times. Sensitivity to
storage formation thickness and permeability is shown (a,c,e) for a 500-m-thick caprock with 1 x 10
-18
m
2
permeability. Sensitivity to caprock
thickness and permeability is shown (b,d,f) for a 200-m-thick storage formation with 1 x 10
-13
m
2
permeability. The CO
2
injection rate is 3.8
million tons/year for 50 years and the storage formation area is 1257 km
2
. Note the different contour scales.
8 CMTC 151746
Pressure relief increases with decreasing caprock thickness for values less than 400 m and is insensitive to thickness for
values greater than 400 m (Figure 3b, d, and f). Relative pressure relief decreases with increasing caprock permeability
because the influence of brine leakage through the caprock, which occurs for the no-production case, tends to mimic the
influence of brine removal through the production wells. The ACRM cases experience very little brine leakage because brine
has already been removed from the storage formation by the production wells. Consequently, brine leakage has little influence
on P for ACRM (Figure 2d). Figure 3 demonstrates the usefulness of using a series of production-well rings spaced
successively farther from the CO
2
injector to achieve a desired level of pressure relief, which is a strategy analyzed in detail by
Buscheck et al. (2011c). This strategy is important because of the need to avoid CO
2
breakthrough at the brine producers.
To address the Area of Review (AoR) we plotted response surfaces of the radial distance at which the pressure buildup
P contour is equal to 1.0 MPa (Figures 4 and 5). Because this radius pertains to the critical pressure, discussed below, we call
this value the critical radius R
crit
. Depending on site conditions, such a value may correspond to the AoR, which is defined in
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rule as the region surrounding the geologic sequestration project where
USDWs, which stands for Underground Sources of Drinking Water, may be endangered by the injection activity. AoR is
expected to be based on the concept of critical pressure, defined as the pressure increase necessary to lift resident brine from
the injection formation to the USDW, as discussed in Court et al. (2011c), Bandilla et al. (2011), Birkholzer et al. (2011),
Birkholzer and Zhou (2009), and Nicot et al. (2009). R
crit
is sensitive to both storage formation thickness and permeability
(Figure 4a and c). Pressure buildup increases with decreasing storage formation thickness and permeability, resulting in larger
R
crit
. The sensitivity of R
crit
to caprock thickness and permeability (Figure 4b and d) is related to the magnitude of brine
leakage. As discussed in the horizontal-well sensitivity study, brine leakage is sensitive to caprock permeability for values
greater than 10
-18
m
2
and is sensitive to caprock thickness for values less than 500 m.

Figure 4. Response surfaces of the radial extent of pressure buildup P = 1.0 MPa contour are shown at 10 and 50 years for CO
2
injection from
a vertical well and no brine production. Sensitivity to storage formation thickness and permeability is shown (a,c) for a 500-m-thick caprock with
1 x 10
-18
m
2
permeability. Sensitivity to caprock thickness and permeability is shown (b,d) for a 200-m-thick storage formation with 1 x 10
-13
m
2

permeability. The CO
2
injection rate is 3.8 million tons/year for 50 years and the storage formation area is 31,416 km
2
.
CMTC 151746 9

Figure 5. Response surfaces of the radial extent of pressure buildup P = 1.0 MPa contour are shown at 10 and 15 years for CO
2
injection from
a vertical well for (a,b,c,d) no brine production and (e,f) ACRM with a ring of vertical brine producers located 10 km from the injector. Sensitivity
to storage formation thickness and permeability is shown (a,c,e) for a 500-m-thick caprock with 1 x 10
-18
m
2
permeability. Sensitivity to caprock
thickness and permeability is shown (b,d,f) for a 200-m-thick storage formation with 1 x 10
-13
m
2
permeability. The CO
2
injection rate is 3.8
million tons/year for 50 years and the storage formation area is 1257 km
2
. Note the different contour scales.
Figure 5 shows R
crit
for a storage formation area (1257 km
2
) much smaller than in Figure 4 (31,416 km
2
). Within 10
years, the influence of storage formation area is strong, with much of the storage formation and caprock parameter space
having a value of R
crit
of 20 km, which is equal to the radius of the storage formation. For ACRM with a ring of vertical brine
10 CMTC 151746
producers 10 km from the injector, R
crit
(Figure 5 e and f) is an order of magnitude smaller than in the no-production case
(Figure 5a and b) at 10 years for a wide range of caprock and storage formation conditions. At 15 years, even more of the
storage formation and caprock parameter space has a value of R
crit
of 20 km (Figure 5c and d). By the end of injection (50
years), brine production has reduced P to less than 1 MPa at all locations, including adjacent to the CO
2
injector. Therefore,
ACRM with 10-km well spacing has the potential of reducing the AoR by at least two orders of magnitude within 10 years.
Horizontal-Well Sensitivity Study
As with the vertical-well sensitivity study, we considered caprock thicknesses from 100 to 1000 m and storage formation
thicknesses from 40 to 400 m. The bottom of the storage formation is at a depth of 2000 m, underlain by an impermeable
basement. We considered a four order of magnitude range of caprock permeability (10
-20
to 10
-16
m
2
) and a two order of
magnitude range of storage formation permeability (10
-14
to 10
-12
m
2
). Cases with no brine production are considered, along
with ACRM cases with a horizontal brine producer at 2, 5, 10, or 20 km from the horizontal CO
2
injector. For the horizontal-
well sensitivity study we considered a relatively small storage formation area of 160 km
2
.
We start by comparing the peak pressure buildup adjacent to the CO
2
injector for the case with no brine production with
ACRM cases with a horizontal brine producer located 20, 10, 5, and 2 km, respectively, from the injector (Figures 6 and 7).
Pressure buildup decreases with storage formation permeability and thickness (Figure 6a). Pressure buildup is insensitive to
caprock permeability below a value of 10
-18
m
2
, while above that value, it decreases strongly with caprock permeability for the
no-production case (Figure 6b). Pressure buildup is insensitive to caprock thickness for values greater than 400 m and is
somewhat sensitive to caprock thickness for values less than 400 m (Figure 6b).

Figure 6. Response surfaces of peak pressure buildup P adjacent to a horizontal CO
2
injector are shown for (a,b) no brine production and
(c,d) ACRM with a horizontal brine producer 20 km from the injector. Sensitivity to storage formation thickness and permeability is shown (a,c)
for a 500-m-thick caprock with 1 x 10
-18
m
2
permeability. Sensitivity to caprock thickness and permeability is shown (b,d) for a 200-m-thick
storage formation with 1 x 10
-13
m
2
permeability. The CO
2
injection rate is 3.8 million tons/year for 50 years and the storage formation area is
160 km
2
. Note the different contour scales.
CMTC 151746 11

Figure 7. Response surfaces of peak pressure buildup P adjacent to a horizontal CO
2
injector are shown for ACRM with a horizontal brine
producer spaced (a,b) 10 km, (c,d) 5 km, and (e,f) 2 km from the injector. Sensitivity to storage formation thickness and permeability is shown
(a,c,e) for a 500-m-thick caprock with 1 x 10
-18
m
2
permeability. Sensitivity to caprock thickness and permeability is shown (b,d,f) for a 200-m-
thick storage formation with 1 x 10
-13
m
2
permeability. The CO
2
injection rate is 3.8 million tons/year for 50 years and the storage formation area
is 160 km
2
. Note the different contour scales.
12 CMTC 151746
For ACRM, peak P decreases with increasing caprock permeability for values greater than 10
-18
m
2
(Figure 6d and
Figure 7b, d, and f). However, because ACRM results in much less brine leakage than in the no-production case, the
magnitude of that dependence is much less. Peak P decreases with storage formation permeability and thickness (Figure 6c
and Figure 7a, c, and e.) Peak P decreases linearly with decreasing well spacing (Figure 6 and 7), demonstrating that pressure
relief increases linearly with decreasing well spacing between the brine producer and CO
2
injector.
Figures 8 and 9 plot the response surfaces of the ratio of peak pressure buildup without brine production divided by that
with brine production. The P ratio is a measure of the relative pressure relief at the CO
2
injector, which is also a relative
measure of injectivity. As was found in the vertical-well sensitivity study, pressure relief increases with storage-formation
permeability (Figure 8a and c and Figure 9a and c). For very large values of storage formation permeability, pressure relief
increases with decreasing storage formation thickness because thinner formations focus more of the energy from the brine
producer towards the CO
2
injector.
As seen in the vertical-well study, pressure relief is insensitive to caprock thickness for values greater than 500 m (Figure
8b and d and Figure 9b and d) and is somewhat sensitive for values less than 500 m. The sensitivity of P ratio to caprock
permeability is a result of the influence of brine leakage on pressure relief in the no-production case. Brine leakage through the
caprock, discussed later in this paper, increases with caprock permeability, particularly for caprock permeability greater than
10
-18
m
2
. Increased brine leakage results in greater pressure relief for the no-production case. Because brine leakage is much
less in the ACRM cases, it does not provide much additional pressure relief beyond that already provided by brine production.

Figure 8. Response surfaces of the ratio of peak pressure buildup P adjacent to a horizontal CO
2
injector (without brine production) divided by
that for ACRM with a horizontal brine producer spaced (a,b) 20 km and (c,d) 10 km from the injector. Sensitivity to storage formation thickness
and permeability is shown (a,c) for a 500-m-thick caprock with 1 x 10
-18
m
2
permeability. Sensitivity to caprock thickness and permeability is
shown (b,d) for a 200-m-thick storage formation with 1 x 10
-13
m
2
permeability. The CO
2
injection rate is 3.8 million tons/year for 50 years and
the storage formation area is 160 km
2
. Note the different contour scales.
CMTC 151746 13

Figure 9. Response surfaces of the ratio of peak pressure buildup P adjacent to a horizontal CO
2
injector (without brine production) divided by
that for ACRM with a horizontal brine producer spaced (a,b) 5 km and (c,d) 2 km from the injector. Sensitivity to storage formation thickness and
permeability is shown (a,c) for a 500-m-thick caprock with 1 x 10
-18
m
2
permeability. Sensitivity to caprock thickness and permeability is shown
(b,d) for a 200-m-thick storage formation with 1 x 10
-13
m
2
permeability. The CO
2
injection rate is 3.8 million tons/year for 50 years and the
storage formation area is 160 km
2
. Note the different contour scales.
Figure 10 plots the response surfaces of cumulative specific brine leakage through the top of the caprock for the no-
production case and the ACRM case with 20-km well spacing between the brine producer and CO
2
injector. The cumulative
specific brine leakage is the cumulative volumetric flux out of the top of the caprock divided by the total caprock area. This
value is determined at the end of the simulation (1050 years), which is 1000 years after injection stops. Dividing this value by
the caprock porosity (0.12) is a measure of the average vertical displacement of brine into and through the caprock. Because
this value is averaged over the entire areal extent of the model domain, it does not quantify the maximum vertical displacement
of brine, which occurs immediately above the CO
2
injector.
Figures 11 and 12 provide a temporal perspective of the extremes plotted Figures 6 and 10. Figure 11 plots the histories
of pressure buildup and cumulative specific brine leakage for the two extreme cases (minimum and maximum) from the range
of storage formation permeability and thickness, while Figure 12 plots the histories of the two extreme cases (minimum and
maximum) from the range of caprock permeability and thickness. Table 2 summarizes the extreme cases.
Brine leakage is more sensitive to caprock permeability and thickness than to storage formation permeability and
thickness (Figure 10). For the entire range of storage formation conditions, brine leakage varied by only 14% for the no-
production case (Figures 10a and 11a). Leakage increases with decreasing formation thickness. The dependence of brine
leakage on formation thickness is related to both pressure buildup and to fluid and pore compressibility. Pressure buildup
increases with decreasing storage formation thickness, and with decreasing storage formation permeability (Figure 6a), which
increases the driving force for brine leakage. Also, greater formation thickness increases the contribution of compressibility to
overall pressure relief. As shown in Table 2, the range in storage formation permeability and thickness yields a narrow range
of cumulative specific brine leakage (1.23 to 1.40 m
3
/m
2
) and a broad range in peak pressure buildup (24.2 to 99.8 MPa).
14 CMTC 151746
Caprock permeability and thickness yield a much greater range in pressure buildup and brine leakage. Brine leakage is
somewhat more sensitive to caprock thickness than is pressure buildup (compare Figure 10b and d with Figure 6b and d). For
caprock thickness greater than 500 m, brine leakage is less sensitivity to caprock thickness, while for caprock thickness less
than 500 m, it is very sensitive. Brine leakage is somewhat more sensitive to caprock permeability than is pressure buildup,
with brine leakage increasing strongly with caprock permeability, across a broader range of caprock permeability values. As
shown in Table 2, the range in caprock permeability and thickness yield a broad range of cumulative specific brine leakage
(0.0 to 2.03 m
3
/m
2
), as well as a broad range of peak pressure buildup (2.4 to 58.5 MPa).
ACRM with 20-km well spacing yields at least an order of magnitude reduction in cumulative specific brine leakage
(Figure 10b and d). For storage formation permeability and thickness parameter space, there is a broad range of conditions for
which brine leakage is zero. Where the cumulative specific brine leakage is greatest, it is still an order of magnitude smaller
than it is in the no-production case.

Figure 10. Response surfaces of cumulative specific brine leakage are shown for CO
2
injection from a horizontal well, including: (a,b) no brine
production case and (c,d) ACRM with a horizontal brine producer 20 km from the injector. Sensitivity to storage formation thickness and
permeability is shown (a,c) for a 500-m-thick caprock with 1 x 10
-18
m
2
permeability. Sensitivity to caprock thickness and permeability is shown
(b,d) for a 200-m-thick storage formation with 1 x 10
-13
m
2
permeability. The CO
2
injection rate is 3.8 million tons/year for 50 years and the
storage formation area is 160 km
2
. Note the different contour scales. The cumulative specific brine leakage is the cumulative volumetric flux out
of the top of the caprock divided by the total caprock area at 1050 years, which is 1000 years after injection stops.
CMTC 151746 15

Figure 11. Pressure buildup and cumulative specific brine leakage histories are plotted for CO
2
injection from a horizontal well, including: (a) no
brine production and (b) ACRM with a horizontal brine producer 20 km from the injector. The maximum and minimum cases correspond to
Figure 6a and c and Figure 10a and c, which demonstrate the sensitivity of pressure buildup and brine leakage flux to storage formation
thickness and permeability. The caprock is 500 m thick, with 1 x 10
-18
m
2
permeability. Note the different pressure buildup and cumulative
specific brine leakage scales.

Figure 12. Pressure buildup and cumulative specific brine leakage histories are plotted for CO
2
injection from a horizontal well, including: (a) no
brine production and (b) ACRM with a horizontal brine producer 20 km from the injector. The maximum and minimum cases correspond to
Figure 6b and d and Figure 10b and d, which demonstrate the sensitivity of pressure buildup and brine leakage flux to caprock thickness and
permeability. The storage formation is 200 m thick, with 1 x 10
-13
m
2
permeability. Note the different pressure buildup and cumulative specific
brine leakage scales.
Table 2. Range of peak pressure buildup adjacent to CO
2
injector and cumulative specific brine leakage flux are
shown. The ranges correspond to Figure 6b and d and Figure 10b and d.
Peak pressure buildup
(MPa)
Cumulative specific brine leakage flux
(m
3
/m
2
)
Minimum Maximum Minimum Maximum
Storage formation
sensitivity
No production 24.2 99.8 1.23 1.40
ACRM 20-km well spacing 1.8 12.0* 0.00 0.18
Caprock
sensitivity
No production 2.4 58.5 0.00 2.03
ACRM 20-km well spacing 2.4 7.8 0.00 0.23
*This occurred at a location that stopped due to CO
2
breakthrough; consequently, it does not appear in Figure 11b.
Summary and Conclusions
For injection-only, commercial-scale, saline-formation geologic CO
2
storage, pressure buildup can limit CO
2
storage
capacity and security. Active CO
2
Reservoir Management (ACRM) combines brine production with CO
2
injection to relieve
pressure buildup, increase injectivity, spatially and temporally constrain brine migration, and enable beneficial utilization of
16 CMTC 151746
produced brine. Useful products may include freshwater, cooling water, make-up water for oil, gas, and geothermal reservoirs,
and electricity generated from extracted geothermal energy.
We conducted a broad reservoir study to investigate the potential benefits of ACRM to CO
2
storage operations. Potential
sites for geologic CO
2
storage will cover a diverse range of hydrogeologic settings, involving a broad range of storage
formation and caprock parameter values. We considered the key parameters influencing pressure buildup and brine leakage:
storage formation permeability, thickness, and area; and caprock permeability and thickness. To address this daunting range of
independent variables, we coupled the NUFT reactive flow and transport code with the PSUADE emulation code to construct
response surfaces of peak pressure buildup, radial extent of the critical pressure, which affects the Area of Review, and
cumulative specific brine leakage out of the top of the caprock. Our study included patterns of vertical wells, with a CO
2

injector surrounded by brine producers, and pairs of horizontal CO
2
injectors and brine producers. We demonstrated that
substantial pressure relief can be achieved using multiple rings of brine producers spaced incrementally further from the CO
2

injector, while addressing the need to prevent CO
2
breakthrough at brine producers. We also demonstrated that brine
producers, located 10 km from the CO
2
injector, can substantially reduce the areal extent of pressure perturbations, including
the possibility of reducing the Area of Review by two orders of magnitude or more. Such a large reduction in the areal extent
of pressure perturbation can enable CO
2
storage operations that do not interfere with neighboring subsurface operations. We
also showed that a volumetric balance between injected CO
2
and produced brine causes pressure buildup adjacent to the CO
2

injector to abruptly drop to zero (less than ambient pressure) after CO
2
injection ceases, which can have a beneficial impact on
the required duration of monitoring.
For horizontal injector/producer pairs, we demonstrated that brine production can result in substantial pressure relief. A
horizontal brine producer pair with 2-km well spacing was shown to result in 20 to100-fold reduction in peak pressure buildup
adjacent to the CO
2
injector, depending on storage formation permeability and thickness. Pressure relief was shown to be
achievable throughout the broad range of storage formation permeability and thickness, as well as the range of caprock
permeability and thickness addressed in our study. We demonstrated that for either injection-only CO
2
storage or for ACRM,
CO
2
storage operations improve with increasing storage formation permeability and thickness. We also demonstrated that with
respect to brine leakage and pressure buildup, ACRM can safely operate under a broader range of caprock permeability and
thickness than injection-only CO
2
storage.
ACRM provides benefits to reservoir management at the cost of extracting brine. This added cost must be offset by the
added benefits to the storage operation and/or by creating new, valuable uses of brine that can reduce the added cost. The
results from this study should motivate future, detailed studies of approaches and costs that will answer the question of the
applicability of ACRM to specific CO
2
sequestration situations.
Acknowledgement
This work was sponsored by USDOE Fossil Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory, managed by Andrea
McNemar. The authors acknowledge the review of Pat Berge at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL). This work
was performed under the auspices of the U.S. Department of Energy by LLNL under contract DE-AC52-07NA27344.
References
Aines, R.D., Wolery, T.J., Bourcier, W.L., Wolfe, T, and Haussmann, C.W., 2011. Fresh water generation from aquifer-pressured carbon
storage: Feasibility of treating saline formation waters, Energy Procedia, 4, 22692276.
Alhuthali, A.H., Oyerinde, D., and Datta-Gupta, A., 2007. Optimal waterflood management using rate control, SPE Reservoir Evaluation &
Engineering 10(4): 539551, October. DOI: 10.2118/102478-PA.
ASME, 2006. ASME Steam Tables Compact Edition, ASME, Three Park Avenue, New York, NY, USA.
Bachu, S., 2008. CO
2
storage in geological media: Role, means, status, and barriers to deployment. Progress in Energy and Combustion
Science 34: 254-273.
Bandilla K.W., Kraemer S. R., and Birkholzer, J,T., 2011. "Using the concept of critical pressure to define the Area of Review for CO
2

injection", International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control. In review.
Bergmo, P.E.S., Grimstad, A-A., and Lindberg, E., 2011. Simultaneous CO
2
injection and water production to optimize aquifer storage
capacity, International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 5, 555-564.
Birkholzer, J.T. and Zhou, Q., 2009. Basin-scale hydrogeologic impacts of CO
2
storage: Capacity and regulatory implications, International
Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 3, 745756.
Birkholzer, J.T., Zhou, Q., and Tsang, C-F., 2009. Large-scale impact of CO
2
storage in deep saline aquifers: A sensitivity study on pressure
response in stratified systems, International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 3, 181194.
Birkholzer, J.T., Nicot, J.P., Oldenburg, C.M., Zhou, Q., Kraemer, S., and Bandilla, K.W., 2011. "Brine flow up a well caused by pressure
perturbation from geologic carbon sequestration: Static and dynamic evaluations", International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, in
press.
Brouwer, D.R. and Jansen, J.D., 2004. Dynamic optimization of water-flooding with smart wells using optimal control theory, SPEJ- Society
of Petroleum Engineers Journal 9(4): 391-402. SPE: 78278-PA. DOI: 10.2118/78278-PA.
Brouwer, D.R., Jansen, J.D., van der Starre, S., van Kruijsdkijk, C.P.J.W., and Berentsen, C.W.J., 2001. Recovery increase through
waterflooding with smart well technology, Paper SPE 68979 presented at the SPE European Formation Damage Conference, The Haque,
2122 May. DOI: 10.2118/68979-MS.
CMTC 151746 17
Bourcier, W.L., Wolery, T.J., Wolfe, T., Haussmann, C., Buscheck, T.A., and Aines, R.D., 2011. A preliminary cost and engineering
estimate for desalinating produced formation water associated with carbon dioxide capture and storage, International Journal of
Greenhouse Gas Control, 5, 1319-1328.
Buscheck, T.A., Glascoe, L.G., Lee, K.H., Gansemer, J., Sun, Y., and Mansoor, K., 2003. Validation of the multiscale thermohydrologic
model used for analysis of a proposed repository at Yucca Mountain, Journal of Contaminant Hydrology, 62 (3), 421440.
Buscheck, T.A., 2010. Active management of integrated geothermal-CO
2
-storage reservoirs in sedimentary formations: An approach to
improve energy recovery and mitigate risk, Proposal in response to DE_FOA-0000336: Energy Production with Innovative Methods of
Geothermal Heat Recovery, LLNL-PROP-463758.
Buscheck, T.A., Sun, Y., Hao, Y., Chen, M., Court, B., Celia, M.A., and Wolery, T. J. 2011a. Geothermal energy production from actively-
managed CO
2
storage in saline formations, Proceedings for the Geothermal Resources Council 35
th
Annual Meeting: 23-26 October 2011,
San Diego, CA, USA.
Buscheck, T.A, Sun, Y., Hao, Y., Wolery, T.J., Bourcier, W.L., Tompson, A.F.B., Jones, E.D., Friedmann, S.J., and Aines, R.D., 2011b.
Combining brine extraction, desalination, and residual-brine reinjection with CO
2
storage in saline formations: Implications for pressure
management, capacity, and risk mitigation, Energy Procedia 4, 42834290.
Buscheck, T.A., Sun, Y., Chen, M., Hao, Y., Wolery, T.J., Bourcier, W.L., Court, B., Celia, M.A., Friedmann, S.J., and Aines, R.D., 2011c.
Active CO
2
reservoir management for carbon storage: analysis of operational strategies to relieve pressure buildup and improve
injectivity, International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, doi:10.1.1016/j.ijggc.2011.11.007.
Carroll, S., Hao, Y., and Aines, R.D., 2008. Transport and detection of carbon dioxide in dilute aquifers. In Proceedings for the 9
th

International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies: 16-20 November 2008, Washington DC, USA.
Carroll, S.A., Hao, Y., and Aines, R.D., 2009. Geochemical detection of carbon dioxide in dilute aquifers. Geochemical Transactions 10, 4.
Court, B., Elliot, T. R., Dammel, J., Buscheck, T.A., Rohmer, J., Celia, M.A., 2011a. Promising synergies to address water, sequestration,
legal, and public acceptance issues associated with large-scale implementation of CO
2
sequestration, Special Issue on Carbon Capture and
Storage (CCS) "Five years after the IPCC Special Report on CCS: state of play Mitigation and Adaptation of Strategies for Global
Change Journal, DOI 10.1007/s11027-011-9314-x.
Court, B., Bandilla, K., Celia, M.A., Buscheck, T.A., Nordbotten, J., Dobossy, M., and Jansen, A., 2011b. Initial evaluation of advantageous
synergies associated with simultaneous brine production and CO
2
geological sequestration, International Journal of Greenhouse Gas
Control, accepted.
Court, B., Celia, M.A., Nordbotten, J.M., and Elliot, T.R., 2011c. Active and integrated management of water resources throughout CO
2

capture and sequestration operations, Energy Procedia, 4, 42214229.
Duke, D., 2007. ZLD: New silica based inhibitor chemistry permits cost effective water conservation for HVAC and industrial cooling towers,
IWC Report 07-11, Proceedings for the 69
th
Annual International Water Conference, October 26-29, 2008, San Antonio, Texas.
Fenghour, A., Wakeham, W.A., and Vesovic, V, 1998. The viscosity of carbon dioxide. J. Phys. Chem. Ref. Data, 27, 1, 31-44.
Harto, C.B. and Veil, J.A., 2011. Management of water extracted from carbon sequestration projects. Argonne National Laboratory,
ANL/EVS/R-11/1.
Hsieh, H., 2007. Application of the PSUADE tool for sensitivity analysis of an engineering simulation, Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory, UCRL-TR-237205.
IEA International Energy Agency, Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme, 2007. http://www.ieagreen.org.uk/
IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), 2005. IPCC Special Report on Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage. Cambridge
University Press, New York.
IEA International Energy Agency, Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme, 2007. http://www.ieagreen.org.uk/
IEA International Energy Agency, 2009. How the energy sector can deliver on a climate agreement in Copenhagen. Special early excerpt of
the world energy outlook 2009 for the Bangkok UNFCCC meeting. http://www.iea.org/weo/docs/weo2009/climate_change_excerpt.pdf
Johnson, J.W., Nitao, J.J., Knauss, K.G., 2004a. Reactive transport modeling of CO
2
storage in saline aquifers to elucidate fundamental
processes, trapping mechanisms and sequestration partitioning. In: Baines, S.J., Worden, R.H. (Eds.), Geological Storage of Carbon
Dioxide. Special Publications, vol. 223. Geological Society, London, 107128.
Johnson, J.W., Nitao, J.J., Morris, J.P., 2004b. Reactive transport modeling of cap rock integrity during natural and engineered CO
2
storage.
In: Benson, S. (Ed.), CO
2
Capture Project Summary, vol. 2. Elsevier.
Maulbetsch, J.S. and DiFilippo, M.N., 2010. Performance, cost, and environmental effects of saltwater cooling towers, California Energy
Commission, PIER EnergyRelated Environmental Research Program. CEC5002008043.
http://www.energy.ca.gov/2008publications/CEC-500-2008-043/CEC-500-2008-043.pdf
Morris J.P., Detwiler, R.L., Friedmann, S.J., Vorobiev, O.Y., and Hao, Y., 2011. The large-scale geomechanical and hydrological effects of
multiple CO
2
injection sites on formation stability, International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 5, 69-74.
Neal, P.R, Cinar, Y., and Allinson, W.G., 2011. The economics of pressure-relief with CO
2
injection, Energy Procedia, 4, 42154220.
Nicot, J., Oldenburg, C.M., Bryant, S.L., and Hovorka, S.D., 2009, "Pressure perturbations from geologic carbon sequestration: Area-of-
review boundaries and borehole leakage driving forces", Energy Procedia, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 47-54.
Nitao, J.J., 1998. Reference manual for the NUFT flow and transport code, version 3.0, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, UCRL-
MA-130651-REV-1.
Rutqvist, J., Birkholzer, J., Cappa, F., Tsang, C.-F., 2007. Estimating maximum sustainable injection pressure during geological
sequestration of CO
2
using coupled fluid flow and geomechanical fault-slip analysis. Energy Conversion and Management 48, 1798
1807.
18 CMTC 151746
Span, R. and Wagner, W., 1996. A new equation of state for carbon dioxide covering the fluid region from the triple-point temperature to
1100K at pressures up to 800 MPa. Journal of Physical and Chemical Reference Data 25, 15091596.
Sudaryanto, B. and Yortsos, Y.C., 2001. Optimization of displacements in porous media using rate control. Paper SPE 71509 presented at
the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, 30 September3 October. DOI: 10.2118/71509-MS.
Surdam, R.C., Jiao, Z., Stauffer, P., and Miller, T., 2009. An integrated strategy for carbon management combining geological CO
2

sequestration, displaced fluid production, and water treatment, Wyoming State Geological Survey, Challenges in Geologic Resource
Development No. 8.
Sun, Y., Tong, C., Duan, Q., Buscheck, T. A., and Blink, J.A., 2011. Combining simulation and emulation for calibrating sequentially
reactive transport systems, Transport in Porous Media, in press.
Tong, C., 2005. PSUADE Users Manual, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, LLNL-SM-407882.
van Genuchten, M.T., 1980. A closed form equation for predicting the hydraulic conductivity of unsaturated soils. Soil Science Society of
America Journal, 44: 892-898.
Veil, J.A., Puder, M.G., Elcock, D., and Redwick, Jr., R. J. 2004. A white paper describing produced water from production of crude oil,
natural gas, and coal bed methane. US DOE National Energy Technology Laboratory Report.
http://www.evs.anl.gov/pub/doc/ProducedWatersWP0401.pdf
Zhou, Q., Birkholzer, J.T., Tsang C-F., and Rutqvist, J. A., 2008.A method for quick assessment of CO
2
storage capacity in closed and
semi-closed saline formations. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 2, 626-639.