The 12

th
International Conference of
International Association for Computer Methods and Advances in Geomechanics (IACMAG)
1-6 October, 2008
Goa, India


Some Geomechanical Aspects of Geological CO
2
Sequestration
B. Orlic
TNO Built Environment and Geosciences, Geological Survey of the Netherlands, Utrecht, The Netherlands
Keywords: CO
2
storage, CO
2
sequestration, seal integrity, fault stability, geomechanics
ABSTRACT: Reservoir depletion and subsequent CO
2
injection into the depleted geological reservoir induce
stress changes that may mechanically damage top seal and wells, or trigger existing faults, creating the leakage
pathways for CO
2
escape from the reservoir. The role of geomechanics is to assess the mechanical impact of
stress changes on seals, wells and faults. Since many hydrocarbon fields are geometrically complex and
irregular, and the rock properties are spatially variable, such an assessment can be conveniently done on a
numerical model of the field under study. Based on numerical analyses, recommendations can be given
regarding the overall suitability of the depleted geological reservoir for CO
2
disposal and safe CO
2
injection.
1 Introduction
The geological sequestration of CO
2
involves disposal and long-term storage of CO
2
in the depleted hydrocarbon
fields, deep saline aquifers, coal measures and enhanced oil recovery. A number of CO
2
injection demonstration
projects have been undertaken in recent years in Europe or are planned to be started soon. The Sleipner project
of CO
2
injection in saline aquifer at the Sleipner field offshore in Norway (since 1996), is probably the best known
(Chadwick et al., 2006). There are other smaller-scale field tests such as the CO
2
injection (since 2004) into the
depleted K12-B gas field, located in the Dutch sector of the North Sea, approximately 150 km northwest of
Amsterdam (van der Meer et al., 2005). Another field test is related to CO
2
storage in underground coal seams
with simultaneous (enhanced) production of coalbed methane (CO
2
injection in the upper Silesian basin of Poland
since 2004, van Bergen et al., 2006).

Demonstration projects are preceded by the feasibility studies conducted with the objective to evaluate candidate
sites for geological CO
2
sequestration, select the most suitable site and predict the impact of CO
2
injection and
long-term storage on the subsurface, ground surface and the biosphere.

Geomechanics commonly plays an important role in the evaluation of the containment capacity of the storage
site, which must be ensured before committing to CO
2
disposal. The risk of CO
2
leakage through the top seal,
faults or existing wells have to be assessed. Next to the assessment of the mechanical integrity under injection
conditions, geomechanics plays a prominent role in the assessment of the impact of CO
2
injection on the induced
ground movement, which can be either aseismic (i.e. ground subsidence and/or ground heave) or seismic (i.e.
seismic events that are caused by a sudden slip on fault surfaces and discontinuities present in the subsurface).
For public acceptance of geological sequestration of CO
2
it must be demonstrated that the mechanical effects of
CO
2
injection and storage will neither cause the deterioration of the mechanical stability and the isolation capacity
of the sequestration site nor have negative effects on the environment.

In this paper we consider the effects of the mechanical impact of CO
2
injection in the depleted geological
reservoirs. The mechanical impact is caused by changes in the stress field that result from changes to the pore
pressure, buoyant pressure and volume of the rock. Both the extraction of hydrocarbons from the reservoir and
the injection of fluids into the reservoir induce stress changes in the reservoir and its surroundings and therefore
have to be taken into account in analyses. We consider the mechanical impact on top seal integrity, fault stability
and well integrity. The use of different tools for assessment of the mechanical impact of CO
2
injection is
presented. Examples are given from the recently accomplished feasibility studies related to geological storage of
CO
2
in the depleted reservoirs.
2 Stress alterations in and around a reservoir
The mechanical impact of hydrocarbon extraction and the subsequent CO
2
injection into a depleted hydrocarbon
reservoir cause changes in the stress field in the depleting/expanding reservoir and the surrounding rock. The
stress change in the surrounding rock is the consequence of the poroelastic coupling between the deforming
reservoir and the surroundings.
2204

The upper bound of poroelastic stress due to production in hydrocarbon reservoirs can be conveniently estimated
for a hypothetical reservoir rock which is not constrained by the confining stresses. Hence, the relationships given
below can be interpreted as an order-of-magnitude estimate of the upper bound of the induced stresses:
p
poro
ij
=
(1)
S
D
K
K
= = 1 1
(2)

where
ij
poro
is the poroelastic stress, is the Biots coefficient (for soil, unconsolidated and weak rock =1; for
hard rock 0.5<<1), p is the pressure change, is the compressibility function, K
D
is the compression modulus
of the drained porous soil skeleton and K
s
is the compression modulus of the non-porous solid.





























2.1 Synthetic case
In order to get an insight into the distribution of stresses and deformation in and around a producing reservoir, we
developed a generic geomechanical finite element model (FEM) of the gas reservoir (Figure 1). The model was
developed as a 2D plane strain model with 8-node quadrilateral plane strain elements. Due to the assumed
symmetry of the reservoir, only one half of the reservoir was modelled. The reservoir and the surrounding rock
were assumed to be linear elastic and with no difference in the elastic properties (Youngs modulus E=10 GPa,
Poissons coefficient =0.2) A unit pressure drop of 1 MPa was applied to the reservoir. The obtained results can
be conveniently visualised, as the amount of change in stress is given in fractions of 1.

The most pronounced stress changes are in the depleting reservoir (Figure 2). The change in vertical stress is
practically equal to the change in pore pressure in the reservoir (the factor is close to 1 in Figure 2a as the Biots
coefficient was assumed to be equal to 1). The change in horizontal stress is, however, much lower than p due
to the elastic coupling between the reservoir and the surrounding rock (Figure 2b).










2000m
2000m
50m
3500m
RESERVOIR
SURROUNDING
500m
z
(depth)
x
2000m
2000m
50m
3500m
RESERVOIR
SURROUNDING
500m
2000m
2000m
50m
3500m
RESERVOIR
SURROUNDING
500m
z
(depth)
x

Figure 1. Finite element model of a gas reservoir (synthetic
case).
2205

a) Vertical stress change
compression
tension
a) Vertical stress change
compression
tension

b) Horizontal stress change
compression
tension
b) Horizontal stress change
compression
tension



Figure 2 a) Vertical stress change and b) horizontal stress change due to reservoir depletion. Compressive
stresses are negative.

























In the rock surrounding the reservoir the stress changes are much lower, in the order of a few percents of the
change in pore pressure p in the reservoir. Exception is the surrounding rock in the vicinity of the lateral edges
of the reservoir, where stress concentration occurs (Figure 2a). During depletion, vertical stress in the reservoir
abutments increases and becomes more compressive due to the arching of stresses away from the area above
the compacting reservoir towards the abutments. In this way the abutments take over a part of the overburden
load originally carried by the reservoir rock.

An increase in the horizontal stress at the edge of the reservoir is counteracted by a decrease in the horizontal
stress in the abutments (Figure 2b). In other words, the horizontal stress in the abutment becomes less
compressive. An increase in the horizontal stress can also be observed above the crestal part of the reservoir.
Deformation caused by reservoir depletion is the largest in the compacting reservoir (Figure 3). Reservoir
compaction causes subsidence of the ground surface above the reservoir. Below the reservoir level, some uplift
occurs.

In the case of fluid injection in the undepleted reservoir shown in Figure 1, the effects would have been the
opposite of those presented in Figure 2 and 3. The reservoir would have inflated/expanded by the same amount
assuming that all geomaterials in the numerical model are linear elastic. The stress alterations induced by
Vertical deformation
subsidence
uplift

Figure 3. Vertical deformation due to reservoir
depletion in the form of reservoir compaction and
subsidence, above the reservoir, and uplift, below the
reservoir.
2206

depletion vanish when the original reservoir pressure before production is fully re-established by CO
2
injection.
2.2 Real case

In most cases, the hydrocarbon fields are more complex than the synthetic case considered above. The
experience gained in geomechanical modelling of the reservoirs shows that the stress and deformation are
determined by geometrical complexity and irregularity of the subsurface, constitutive behaviour of geomaterials
and the influence of far-field tectonic stress. As an illustration, we show vertical stress change in the over-, under-
and side-burdens of the reservoir depleted by about 12 MPa. The stress changes were calculated on a 2D plane
strain finite element model which depicts the geological structure of the field under study. In the base case
scenario the following elastic properties were adopted: Youngs modulus of 4.5 GPa and Poissons coefficient of
0.2 for the reservoir rock, and, Youngs modulus of 5.5 GPa and Poissons coefficient of 0.26 for the over- and
under-burden. The Mohr-Coulomb constitutive model was used for both the reservoir rock and the surrounding
rock. Besides the base case, several sensitivities were defined with a variation in stiffness of the reservoir rock
and the burdens as well as sensitivities with a larger stiffness contrast (by a factor of 2) between the reservoir
rock and the top seal.

The stress regime in the area is extensional. The magnitude of the vertical principal stress (maximum stress) was
calculated from the total overburden weight resulting from the integrated weight of overlying formations and the
fluids in the pore space. The magnitude of the minimum horizontal stress was determined from leakoff test data.
Production wells and the proposed CO
2
injection well are located in the crestal part of the reservoir.

Calculated vertical stress changes due to reservoir depletion are shown in Figure 4. Stress changes in the
burdens are much lower than in the reservoir, roughly by one order of magnitude. The largest changes can be
observed close to the reservoir edges and in the abutments. Vertical stress in the abutments increases (becomes
more compressive) due to the arching effect that we observed earlier on the synthetic model. However, the stress
pattern in two abutments is asymmetric; in the west abutment it is shifted above the reservoir due to the steeper
inclination of the west flank of the reservoir.

3 Top seal integrity
The reservoir rock may fracture under CO
2
injection and the created fracture may propagate into the top seal
creating a leakage path for CO
2
escape from the containment. Evaluation of the mechanical impact of
hydrocarbon extraction and future CO
2
injection therefore includes assessing the impact on the reservoir rock and
the top/side seal. The conditions for CO
2
injection without fracturing of the reservoir rock have to be determined.
In addition, the potential for fracture growth out of the reservoir into the top seal due to CO
2
injection above
fracturing conditions have to be examined irrespective of whether such an injection was intentional (e.g. to
improve the reservoir injectivity) or unintended.

A numerical model of the field under study is typically required for investigating the spatial distribution and
evolution of stress perturbations within the reservoir and in the top seal above the reservoir. Construction of such
a model is a part of the workflow that comprises several modelling steps:

geological structural modelling, in which a static geological model of the hydrocarbon field is created;
geomechanical characterization, in which the geomechanical properties and material models are
determined for the differentiated model units as well as the initial loading conditions for the numerical
model;

Vertical
stress change
[MPa]
Overburden
Underburden
Reservoir
-1.5
1.5
0
Fault
Vertical
stress change
[MPa]
Overburden
Underburden
Reservoir
-1.5
1.5
0
Fault

Figure 4. Vertical stress change in the surroundings of the depleted reservoir (real case). Compressive
stresses are negative.
2207

multi-phase fluid flow modelling, in which a reservoir simulator is used for flow simulations; and
stress and deformation modelling, in which a finite element simulator is used for prediction of stress
changes in the subsurface and the associated deformation.

Evolution of stress perturbations within the reservoir and in the seal can be conveniently analyzed by plotting the
stress path diagrams for the characteristic locations in the model, e.g. for a location in the crest and a location in
the flank of the reservoir/seal (Figure 5). In this case it is assumed that the depleted reservoir will be re-
pressurised back to the initial pressure (p ~12 MPa).




























For the reservoir rock, the stress path diagrams show an increase of both the normal effective stress and the
shear stress for depletion and an equally large decrease of both stresses for injection (Figure 6). In both cases
the stress paths do not show a critical behaviour, i.e. the paths are not converging towards the Mohr-Coulomb
failure envelopes plotted for two sets of shear strength parameters. It is noted that deformation is elastic. In
addition, the reservoir stress path for injection is fully reversible with reference to the stress path for depletion.
For the top seal, the stress path diagrams show much lower mechanical effects than in the case of the reservoir
rock (Figure 7). In contrary to the reservoir rock, where both normal and shear stress have changed, the stress
path diagrams for the top seal show a change in the shear stress only.

The maximum rate of change was observed in the crestal part of the top seal (~ 1 MPa). The shear stress in the
top seal decreases during depletion, implying that the potential for shear failure also decreases. Injection has an
opposite effect: the shear stress increases back to the initial state of stress in the gas field. Deformation is elastic
and the stress path for injection is reversible with regard to the stress path for depletion.
Reservoir
Top seal
1012
8129
1427
8519
143
148
145
Normal
traction
Shear
traction
z
(depth)
x
Fault
Reservoir
Top seal
1012
8129
1427
8519
143
148
145
Normal
traction
Shear
traction
z
(depth)
x
Fault Fault

Figure 5. Part of the finite element model of a reservoir showing locations of the elements used to present
the results of analyses.
Stress paths for the reservoir rock for injection
0
5
10
15
20
0 5 10 15 20 25
Normal effective stress, (S1' +S3')/2 [MPa]
S
h
e
a
r

s
t
r
e
s
s
,

(
S
1
-
S
3
)
/
2

[
M
P
a
]
Stress path el.1012
Stress path el.1427
Stress before injection
Stress after injection
MC: c=2 MPa, =25
MC: c=2 MPa, =20

Figure 6. Stress path for the reservoir for injection. Element 1012
is located in the crest and element 1427 in the flank of the
reservoir (shown in Figure 5).
2208

Conditions for injection without fracturing impose the upper limit on the maximum bottom hole pressure (BHP) in
an injection well. The maximum BHP must be lower that the minimum in situ total stress which can be determined
by well tests (e.g. extended leakoff tests). The final phase of CO
2
injection is usually the most critical with respect
to unintended fracturing of the reservoir rock and the caprock. In this phase relatively high bottom hole pressures
have to be applied, which may come close to the magnitude of the minimum horizontal stress. In addition, the
minimum stress may have been reduced in the depleted reservoir. This implies that in the initial phase of CO
2

injection fracturing may occur under lower injection pressures than predicted by well tests executed in the
undepleted reservoir.



























Injection above fracturing conditions, either unintended or intentional, occurs if the BHP in an injection well is
higher than the minimum in situ total stress. For calculation of fracture propagation in a layered subsurface due to
fluid injection special commercial or proprietary codes are necessary. In these codes the fluid flow through the
porous media and the fracture mechanics are treated in a coupled manner. Although developed for simulation of
water injection, these codes can also be used for the injection of CO
2
by making an assumption of no phase
change during injection and inputting the correct properties for the injection fluid. Usually, several cases are
calculated to consider the sensitivity of the model to uncertain input parameters such as: the initial in situ stress,
geomechanical and hydraulic properties of the seal, hydraulic properties of the reservoir, properties and
temperature of the injected CO
2
, etc.
4 Fault stability
Discontinuities and existing faults within or outside the reservoir may be triggered during production or injection as
a result of stress change in the subsurface due to pore pressure change in the reservoir. Existing
discontinuities/faults will be re-activated first as their residual shear strength is lower than the original strength of
the unbroken rock material.


Stress paths for the top seal for injection
0
5
10
15
20
0 5 10 15 20 25
Normal effective stress, (S1' +S3' )/2 [MPa]
S
h
e
a
r

s
t
r
e
s
s
,

(
S
1
-
S
3
)
/
2

[
M
P
a
]
Stress path el.8129
Stress path el.8519
Stress before injection
Stress after injection
MC: c=2 MPa, =25
MC: c=2 MPa, =20

Figure 7. Stress paths for the top seal for injection. Element 8129
is located above the crest and element 8519 above the flank of
the reservoir (shown in Figure 5).
2209


























The finite element model used to analyze the integrity of seals can also be used to assess the stability of faults. A
Mohr-Coulomb friction model and interface elements are used to model faults in the numerical model. The friction
angle was assumed to be 30 and 35. The state of stress on the fault is analysed by resolving the stress tensor
into a normal effective traction, acting perpendicular to a fault, and a shear traction, acting parallel with a fault.
Three locations are selected on the fault segment bounding the reservoir to analyze stress evolution during
reservoir depletion and injection (Figure 5).

The stress path diagrams show that during depletion the magnitudes of the tractions increase, as do the effective
stresses in the reservoir, due to reduction of the pore pressure in the reservoir. During injection the opposite
occurs: the pore pressure is increasing, the effective stresses in the reservoir and the magnitudes of the tractions
are decreasing. Because of elastic deformation, and injection in the depleted reservoir back to the initial pressure
conditions, the stress paths for depletion and injection fully overlap.

The stress path diagrams show that none of the stress paths reach the Mohr-Coulomb failure envelopes, which
implies elastic deformation and absence of a slip on the fault (Figure 8).



























Stress paths for the faul t for i nj ecti on
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
0 5 10 15 20 25
Normal effecti ve tracti on on the faul t [MPa]
S
h
e
a
r

t
r
a
c
t
i
o
n

o
n

t
h
e

f
a
u
l
t

[
M
P
a
]
Stress path el.143
Stress path el.145
Stress path n.148
Stress before injection
Stress after injection
MC: c=0, =35
MC: c=0, =30

Figure 8. Stress paths on the fault for injection. Elements 143,
145 and 148 are located on the fault segment which laterally
bounds the reservoir (shown in Figure 5).
Possi bl e stress paths for the faul t for
i nj ecti on (el .143)
0
5
10
15
20
25
0 5 10 15 20 25
Normal effective traction [MPa]
S
h
e
a
r

t
r
a
c
t
i
o
n

[
M
P
a
]
Reversible stress path (elastic response)
Partially reversible stress path
Irreversible stress path (rigid response)
Stress before injection
Stress after injection
MC: c=0, =35

Figure 9. Possible stress paths on the fault for injection.
Element 143 is located on the fault segment which laterally
bounds the reservoir (shown in Figure 5).
2210


The stress paths are approximately parallel with the Mohr-Coulomb failure envelope for a friction angle of 35,
resulting in a non-critical stress path. For an angle of 30, one of the stress paths is slowly converging towards
the Mohr-Coulomb failure envelope. This stress path is here critical, but it does not reach the failure envelope.

In all the above mentioned cases it was assumed that the stress paths for injection will be fully reversible with
respect to the stress paths for depletion. However, it is also possible that the reservoir stress paths will only
partially be reversible or even irreversible (e.g. Santarelli et al., 1998). This implies that deformation caused by
reservoir depletion (loading) will not be (fully) recoverable during CO
2
injection (unloading) even if the reservoir is
repressurised back to the initial pressure. An irreversible reservoir stress path is generally less favourable than a
reversible path as it may faster converge towards, and reach, the Mohr-Coulomb failure envelope triggering fault
reactivation (Figure 9). In order to ensure the mechanical integrity of seals it is recommended to measure the in
situ stress in the depleted reservoir and several times during reservoir repressurisation by performing a minifrac
test or an extended leakoff test. The strategy for safe CO
2
injection should be adjusted accordingly.
5 Well integrity
In the context of geological storage of CO
2
, well integrity has to be ensured over much longer time scales (100s
to 1000s of years) than in the case of hydrocarbon production (10s of years). The long term-ability of wells to
retain CO
2
has been identified as a significant potential risk for the long-term security of geological storage
facilities (WBI, 2007). Ensuring well integrity in the post-abandonment period over such long timescales
represents a new challenge in the oil industry.

Particular attention should be paid to the risk of leakage through old (abandoned) wells. These wells may have
been completed and abandoned under different standards and practices that have changed over time. In such
cases the risk of leakage has to be comprehensively evaluated. In one reported feasibility study of CO
2
storage
the operator decided that the hazards, associated with well integrity, were unacceptable and un-economic to
mitigate and therefore discontinued the project (Hofstee et al., 2008).

Well leakage may occur through (i) cement; (ii) microannulus, which is a small gap between the casing and the
surrounding cement sheath or the sheath and host rock; and (iii) the damaged part of the host rock surrounding
the cement sheath and casing. When investigating the risk of leakage through a well, the following issues have to
be considered:

the mechanical impact of production and CO
2
injection on the integrity of cement, casing and host rock
surrounding well construction materials (cement and steel); and
the long-term impact of CO
2
on cement and steel casing (as chemical processes fall beyond the scope
of the present work).

The mechanical impact of production and subsequent CO
2
injection causes radial, axial and shear deformations
which may jeopardize the integrity of a well.

Radial deformation of cement sheath is commonly caused by shrinkage during cement hydration and an increase
in the pressure/temperature inside the casing during the operational life of the well. As a result, cracking of
cement sheath or de-bonding at rock/cement or cement/casing interface can occur allowing for radial and vertical
migration of fluids. Next to internal loading, the casing can also be exposed to large radial external pressures due
to creep or viscous movement of the surrounding rock, typically rocksalt. Imperfect hole quality greatly impacts
the induced loads on the well casing and causes yielding of the casing for stress and temperature conditions
expected in some field settings (e.g. in the Gulf of Mexico; Willson et al., 2003). For a perfectly circular
uncemented casing, or a cemented casing, loading over the well is uniform and not sufficient to induce casing
yield.

Axial deformation of wells occurs during reservoir production, when the reservoir compacts, and during the CO
2

injection phase, when the reservoir undergoes extension. Due to a huge strain incompatibility at the cement-
casing interface (steel casing is about 50 times stiffer than the cement and also the surrounding rock), this bond
will most likely fail leading to the creation of microannulus, which represents a possible leakage pathway for CO
2

escape.

Shear deformation of wells occurs due to triggering of discontinuities or faults within or outside the reservoir
during production or injection. Well casing can be deformed and sheared; cement sheath, if present in the shear
zone, can be fractured. Shear localisation zones are typically located in the over- and under-burden close to the
edges of a reservoir. They also often develop along interfaces between geomaterials of different stiffness, e.g.
along contacts between different lithologies.

Estimation of the magnitudes of stress changes and accompanying deformations during the production and the
CO
2
injection can be done by using analytical tools, for a preliminary assessment, and numerical tools, for a
2211

detailed analysis. Numerical tools are typically used as follows: 2D plane strain or 2D complete plane strain finite
element models oriented perpendicular to the well axis are used for radial deformation analysis; 2D plane strain
models based on an interpreted (vertical) seismic cross-section are employed for axial and shear deformation
analysis; and, full-scale 3D solid FE models are used for overall analyses in complex geological and
geomechanical settings.
6 Conclusions
The mechanical impact of stress changes on seals, wells and faults can be conveniently assessed on a
numerical model of the field under study.
Both the extraction of hydrocarbons from the reservoir and the CO
2
injection into the reservoir induce
stress changes and therefore have to be taken into account in geomechanical analyses.
The results of geomechanical analyses are used to assess the overall suitability of the depleted
geological reservoir for CO
2
disposal.
The results of geomechanical analyses are also used to determine the constraints for safe CO
2
injection,
i.e. conditions for injection without fracturing. It is also recommended to evaluate the risk of fracture
growth from the reservoir into the top seal due to intended or unintentional fracturing of the reservoir.
7 Acknowledgements
The author would like to acknowledge the following sources of funding: the CATO national research programme
(CO2 Capture, Transport and Storage in The Netherlands; http://www.co2-cato.nl) and the EU-sponsored
CASTOR project (CO
2
from Capture to Storage; https://www.co2castor.com).
8 References
Chadwick, A., Noy, D., Lindeberg, E., Arts, R., Eiken, O., Williams, G. 2006. Calibrating reservoir performance with time-lapse
seismic monitoring and flow simulations of the Sleipner CO2 plume. Proc. of the 8th Int. Conf. on Greenhouse Gas Control
Technology (GHGT-8), Trondheim (Norway).
Hofstee, C., Seeberger, F., Orlic, B., Mulders, F., van Bergen, F., Bisschop, R. 2008. The feasibility of effective and safe carbon
dioxide storage in the De Lier gas field. First Break, 26, January 2008, 53-57.
Santarelli, F.J., Tronvoll, J.T., Svennekjaer, M., Skele, H., Henriksen, R., Bratli, R.K., 1998. Reservoir stress path: the depletion
and the rebound. SPE/ISRM Eurock 98, Trondheim (Norway), SPE/ISRM paper 47350.
Van Bergen, F., Pagnier, F., Krzystolik, P., 2006. Field experiment of enhanced coalbed methane- CO2 in the upper Silesian
basin of Poland. Environmental Geoscience, 13(3), 201-224.
Van der Meer, L.G.H., Kreft, E., Geel, C., Hartman, J. 2005. K12-B A test site for CO2 storage and enhanced gas recovery.
SPE/IADC paper no. 94128. 14th Europec Biennial Conference, Madrid.
WBI 2007. Summary Report of 3rd Well Bore Integrity Network Meeting, IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme, 12-13 March
2007, Santa Fe.
Willson, S.M., Fossum, A.F., Fredrich, J.T. 2003. Assessment of salt loading on well casings. SPE Drilling and Completion,
March 2003, SPE paper 81820.

2212