Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 59 (2016) 920–926

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/rser

A review on well integrity issues for CO2 geological storage

and enhanced gas recovery
Mingxing Bai, Zhichao Zhang, Xiaofei Fu n
Department of Petroleum Engineering, Northeast Petroleum University, 163318, China

art ic l e i nf o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The world’s rapid economic growth has contributed to the ever increasing demand for energy which
Received 24 February 2015 results in the increase of fossil fuels usage. On the other hand, renewable energies, which are considered
Received in revised form environmentally friendly, cannot replace the fossil fuels in the short term. For this, CO2 capture and
7 January 2016
storage (CCS) technologies could work as transitional technology. To ensure a meaningful underground
Accepted 13 January 2016
Available online 25 January 2016
storage, well integrity is potentially the greatest challenge. On one hand, the injected CO2 may cause
severe corrosion to metallic tubulars and cement in the wellbore. Identification, quantification and
Keywords: mitigation of this corrosion are the key to achieve satisfactory well conditions. On the other hand, the
Well integrity mechanical integrity loss due to cyclic and thermal loading in the well life will also occur, so to inves-
Cement corrosion
tigate and evaluate well integrity is of paramount importance to ensure a safe operation and storage. This
CO2 underground storage
paper presents a definition of well integrity in the scope of CSEGR as well as the mechanisms of well
Abandoned well
integrity loss. Overview on corrosion issues of metallic and cement corrosion along with the remedial
measures is discussed. Through a thorough literature review, well integrity criteria for new and old wells
are introduced to provide a guidance for material selection for the usage in CSEGR. Moreover, in order to
evaluate the integrity of operational and abandoned wells, this paper provides a review on the existing
monitoring methods, as well as risk based methods such as FEPs analysis, Performance and Risk Man-
agement, CO2-PENS, and put forward a new concept of well integrity evaluation.
& 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 921
2. Mechanisms responsible for a loss of well integrity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 921
2.1. Influences of well life phases on well integrity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 921
2.2. Corrosion issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 922
2.2.1. Metallic corrosion mechanism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 922
2.2.2. Cement corrosion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 922
3. Well integrity criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 922
3.1. New wells . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 922
3.1.1. Casing strings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 922
3.1.2. Tubing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 923
3.1.3. Packer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 923
3.1.4. Well completion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 923
3.2. Existing wells. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 923
3.2.1. Operational wells . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 923
3.2.2. Abandoned wells . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 923
4. Determination of well integrity for operational wells . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 924
5. Risk based approaches for abandoned wells . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 924
5.1. FEP (Features, Events and Processes) based method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 924
5.2. A new concept for well integrity evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 925

n
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: baimingxing@hotmail.com (X. Fu).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.01.043
1364-0321/& 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 M. Bai et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 59 (2016) 920–926
6. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 925
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 926
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 926
1. Introduction
Rapid economic growth has contributed to the world’s ever
increasing demand for energy. An obvious consequence of this is
an increase in the use of fossil fuels such as coal, oil and natural
gas, which are considered to have adverse effects on the envir-
onment. However, alternatives, such as renewable energies, are
currently more costly than the more mature fossil technologies,
and cannot replace the fossil fuels. CO2 capture and storage (CCS)
technologies could work as transitional technology, reducing the
CO2 emissions from the energy sector before a transition to less
carbon-intensive energy system is achieved. Geological storage of
CO2 in the underground space such as depleted oil and reservoirs,
saline aquifers and coal seams, is considered to alleviate the
greenhouse effect on the environment and improve oil and gas
recovery. It has been successfully applied around the world in the
past decade. Examples are RECOPOL (Reduction of CO2 emission by
means of CO2 storage in coal seams in the Silesian Coal Basin of
Poland), enhanced Coal Bed methane production by CO2 injection
in Allison Unit in Mexico, the first commercial CCS (CO2 Capture
and Sequestration) project in Sleipner gas field in Norway [1], the
CCS project launched by several large companies like BP and Sta-
toil in In Salah gas field located in Algeria, and the CCS project in
the depleted gas field Ketzin in Germany. This work is based on a
CO2 Large–scale Enhanced Gas Recovery project in the Altmark
Natural Gas Field in Germany which is the second largest onshore
gas field in Europe. The natural gas is contained in the geological
Rotliegend formation in a depth of approx. 3500 m and above it
there is a geological barrier consisting mainly of Zechstein salt
layer [2,3].
The injected CO2 is retained underground by different
mechanisms including hydrodynamic trapping, solubility trapping,
and mineral trapping depending upon the prevailing subsurface
conditions. Hydrodynamic trapping means the injected CO2 will be
trapped as supercritical fluid and will be free to rise up by buoy-
ancy effect until it reaches the cap rock where it will accumulate.
Solubility trapping relies on the principle that CO2 is highly soluble
in water when injected in depleted gas fields. Mineral trapping
means CO2 can react with the minerals and organic matter present
in the formation to become part of the solid matrix. In comparison
with other types of CCS, Carbon Dioxide Sequestration and
Enhanced Gas Recovery (CSEGR) gained much more popularity
because it can not only provide pressure support to prevent sub-
sidence and water intrusion, but also improve gas recovery via
both displacement and re-pressurization of the remaining natural
gas, as shown in Fig. 1. The injected CO2 usually stays in super-
critical state at the temperatures and pressures prevalent in the
field (greater than 31 °C and 73.8 bar), so the near gas-like visc-
osity of supercritical CO2 allows a high injectivity in the formation.
A typical depleted gas reservoir holds more storage capacity than
depleted oil reservoir. Besides, high compressibility of CO2 makes
it a more efficient cushion gas which will facilitate storage of more
gas for a given pressure [4,5].
Geological CO2 sequestration is associated with certain poten-
tial risks, for example, CO2 migration to the surface after injection,
CH4 leakage, subsidence or uplift due to pressure changes. Most of
the risks result from loss of caprock or wellbore integrity. Well
integrity, which poses potentially the greatest risk to CSEGR
operations, are the most manageable. It is referred to as the
921
application of all technical, operational and organizational solu-
tions to reduce or mitigate the risk of uncontrolled release of
formation fluids to the surface throughout the entire life cycle of
wells [6]. The wells involved in CSEGR have to meet the require-
ment of successful long term retention of the injected CO2 over the
operation phase involving injection of supercritical CO2 and geo-
logical storage phase. Based on the CCS project in the pilot area,
the authors have performed a thorough review on the issues
related to well integrity, including mechanisms for loss of well
integrity, well integrity criteria, well integrity investigation and
evaluation and so on.
2. Mechanisms responsible for a loss of well integrity
The outcome of a loss of well integrity in CSEGR is the creation
of different leakage pathways for the ascent of CO2, as shown in
Fig. 2. Leakage along these pathways may occur through or along
abandoned wells and improperly constructed operative wells
during the injection of CO2 and production of natural gas. The
abandoned wells, especially the ones which are improperly plug-
ged and abandoned, are potentially the preferred migration
pathway for CO2 to escape [2,3]. The mechanisms responsible for a
loss of well integrity are subdivided into chemical loading,
mechanical–thermal loading and construction defects [8].
2.1. Influences of well life phases on well integrity
Well life phases such as drilling, completion, production, and
abandonment involve characteristic operations which impose the
following influences on well integrity. Geomechanical damage
encompasses any stress-induced changes in the hydraulic con-
ductivity properties of materials within the wellbore system.
Hydrochemical damage refers to any alteration of hydraulic con-
ductivity in the near well formation region, typically known as
formation damage. Mud removal efficiency is the one with which
the mud is removed from the annulus during cementing opera-
tions and addresses the development of mud channels and its
impact on hydraulic integrity of the wellbore. Cement deteriora-
tion damage refers to porosity alteration due to geochemical
processes under in-situ conditions. Last but not least, the wells
drilled through salt sections can potentially pose well integrity
Fig. 1. Schematic diagram of the wellbore zone [7].
922 M. Bai et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 59 (2016) 920–926
Fig. 2. Leakage pathways [8].
problems over the length of salt interval, because salt creeps and
deforms in a different way from typical rocks especially in het-
erogeneous layers where the salt layer will expand but other layers
will not expand which will result in setting up shear stresses and
bedding plane slips [9]. During and post CSEGR operations the salt
layers can act as natural barriers to the migrating CO2 in addition
to the cement plugs and sheath due to their impermeability.
Obviously, geomechanical damage due to salt layers poses poten-
tially low risk. The stage that will bear the highest impact will be
cement deterioration, which results in loss of strength accom-
panied by porosity increase.
2.2. Corrosion issues
Corrosion of different well components, e.g., casing, cement,
and other downhole completion components, is the aspect bearing
the highest impact on the technical and economical feasibility of
operations as well as the success of the project.
2.2.1. Metallic corrosion mechanism
There are usually several types of metallic corrosion. Galvanic
corrosion occurs when two dissimilar metals are in a conductive
medium and develop a potential difference between them. Crevice
corrosion is a localized type of corrosion occurring in systems
containing oxygen and is most intense when chlorides are present
[10]. In the presence of an aqueous phase CO2 dissolves in water to
produce carbonic acid (H2CO3) which promotes an electrochemical
reaction with steel [11]. The resulting carbonic acid is corrosive
and forms a scale of iron carbonate as corrosion product on the
surface of the metal. CO2 also causes embrittlement resulting in
stress corrosion cracking. The presence of H2 in the reaction may
lead to embrittlement [10]. Besides, collapse of small bubbles
within high velocity fluids create shock waves of high pressure,
resulting in loss of metal from the surface in contact, usually found
on the pump impellers.
2.2.2. Cement corrosion
Portland cement is most commonly used for well cementing
purpose. When CO2 is dissolved in water, it forms carbonic acid
(HCO-3) which reacts with compounds in hydrated Portland
cement matrix such as calcium silicate gel (C–S–H) and calcium
hydroxide (Ca(OH)2). The major reaction products are calcium
carbonate and amorphous silica gel. Leaching of the resulting
CaCO3 and Ca (HCO3)2, leads to rapid reduction in strength, varied
permeability, and corrosion on the casing [12–14]. Various
experiments have been conducted to study the influence of tem-
perature, pH, CO2 differential pressure, cement composition,
additives on the cement degradation, and the alteration process
versus time [15–18]. It is generally considered that temperature
has more influences on degradation than pH. A pH of 2.4 and 50 °C
represents conditions for the most severe degradation which is
analogous to sequestration at a depth of 1 km in sandstone for-
mation according to a study by [15].
Corrosion can be deemed as critical in case there are already
defects such as channels, micro-annuli and small cracks [19], so it
is equally important that the cement sheath be mechanically
durable to withstand severe stresses experienced throughout the
life of the well [37]. To repair the composite system behind the
casing involves healing the defects by squeezing, for example,
cementitious materials. The cement selected for a squeeze
cementation or drilling a new well exposed to CO2 has to be no
less resistant to CO2 corrosion than the cement in the cement
sheath. For this, more than 50 additives can be added to provide
optimum slurry characteristics for severe downhole conditions.
For example, the addition of Pozzolan can reduce permeability and
reduce corrosion rates by 50% and 70%, respectively, according to
an experiment performed by the authors. Salt water usage in
Portland cement reduces the corrosion rate up to 10%. Microfine
cements with average and maximum particle size of 4–6 and
15 μm can penetrate relatively small fractures [20]. The use of latex
cement, which is blends of API Class A, G or H cement with the
polymer latex added, can resist acid corrosion and improve the
hardened cement’s elasticity and bonding strength of the cement
slurry [21,22].
3. Well integrity criteria
The well integrity criteria for the wells in CSEGR, either newly
drilled wells or existing wells, have to meet the requirements for
safe and long-term storage.
3.1. New wells
An injection well and production well, is drilled, if necessary,
during CSEGR operations to inject supercritical CO2 and produce
natural gas accompanied by formation water and CO2, respectively.
Although the drilling program for CO2 applications is not different
from the conventional ones, the minimization of formation
damage is critical so that near wellbore formation does not pro-
vide leakage pathways. Experiences have been gathered on the
injecting well experience for various CO2 injection projects in and
outside USA, and the materials selection for the well components
have been summarized. But it is not applicable to every CCS case
since the reservoir conditions and the expected purposes of CCS
are not always the same [38].
3.1.1. Casing strings
For newly drilled wells, the casing is generally recommended to
be set in the middle of the caprock and the liner overlap length
should be minimized as well. The nature and magnitude of the
downhole corrosive environment in case of high reservoir water
saturation or W-A-G (Water Alternating Gas) method of injection,
promotes rapid corrosion of casings. The part of casing below the
packer is prone to carbonic acid and therefore warrants corrosion
resistant alloy. Since the liner is difficult to replace, so the choice
for corrosion control in terms of material selection is of paramount
importance. Common methods are the usage of corrosion resistant
alloys like Duplex stainless steel or lined material such as Glass
 M. Bai et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 59 (2016) 920–926
Reinforced Epoxy (GRE), Internal Plastic coating (IPC). But material
like IPC may be unsuitable for liners since perforation will cause
damage to the integrity of the material, resulting in CO2 entering
the lined material and corrosion of exposed metal surface [11].
3.1.2. Tubing
Similarly to casing strings, the part of tubing below the packer
suffers corrosion severely and this part of tubing must be made of
corrosion resistant alloys. In case of CO2 stream contaminated by
H2S, it is found that injection tubing made of seamless L-80
material with Hydfil CS premium connections can prevent Sulfide
Stress Cracking (SSC). Also larger diameter tubing will facilitate
installation of a larger size of Wireline Retrieved Surface Con-
trolled Subsurface Valve (WRSCSSV) as well as future coiled tubing
workover. Composite lined material like Glass Reinforced Epoxy
(GRE) linings, Internal Plastic Coatings (IPC), thermoplastic coat-
ings such as High Density Polyethylene (HDPE) and Polyvinyl
Chloride (PVC) are more commonly used as corrosion barriers for
injection tubing [23]. The use of corrosion inhibitors can be made
along with corrosion resistant alloy tubing, to prolong the tubing
life. Although it does not prevent corrosion, it can reduce it to an
acceptable level before workover is made.
3.1.3. Packer
The location of a packer, whether the completion components
or casing is above or below it, provides a reference for material
selections, and also assists in risk assessment. The production
packer elements should be chemically inert to the CO2 and H2S
environment at high temperatures prevalent downhole, and the
packer body should be made of corrosion resistant alloys, so that
they can have a long service life in hostile corrosive conditions. For
the packers used in Jedney Field in Canada for disposal of acid gas,
the inner mandrels and packer bodies were made of Incoloy. The
packer elements were specially formulated source of spec nitrile
rubber while the seal assemblies were made of AFLAS acid resis-
tant materials [21]. The packer fluid to be selected should be
resistant to acidic waters as well.
3.1.4. Well completion
The injected CO2 is compressed through multi-stage com-
pressors accompanied by liquid removal and dehydration in every
stage to prevent the formation of corrosive carbonic acid. A four-
stage centrifugal or reciprocating compressor system is used to
Fig. 3. (a) Operational well structure (b) plugged and abandoned well [8].
923
increase CO2 pressure to the required injection pressure and it is
equipped with suction scrubbers and discharge cooler for each of
the four compression stages [21]. The suction scrubbers remove
traces of liquids in the stream and the coolers remove heat gen-
erated in compression. For the material of the construction of
coolers, downstream piping, vessels and other equipments,
stainless steel is recommended. The production well for CSEGR
includes the surface equipment much as the conventional oil and
gas wells. According to a scientific report about failures of com-
pletion components of production wells by the Sheep Mountain
Unit (SMU), wing valve replacement was 52% while master valve
replacement was 28%. So they must be given more consideration
when designing a production well [24].
3.2. Existing wells
3.2.1. Operational wells
The existing operational wells to be used in CSEGR for either
injection or production purposes, shown in Fig. 3(a), are con-
fronted with more constraints in comparison with new wells. To
select an appropriate well for CSEGR operations one has to con-
sider whether the well is currently used for injection or produc-
tion. This consideration confirms the availability of necessary
infrastructure such as injection or production surface facilities,
well head and other associated completions. Favorable presence of
the above components reduces the cost of replacing components
or workover. However, the casing size, in some cases, might limit
the completion options and well interventions. Secondly, water
injection wells, which are known to suffer from corrosion and
erosion due to high water velocity during injection, might be
unsuitable for CSEGR. Last but not least, CSEGR warrants injection
of CO2 below a certain depth with consideration to factors such as
cap rock location, saline aquifer location, and geomechanical
issues, depending upon the reservoir conditions, geology and
storage mechanism of CO2, so it is important to determine whe-
ther the required depth of injection is above or below the
cased depth.
3.2.2. Abandoned wells
When a well is no longer needed, it has to be plugged and
abandoned according to local mining regulations and guidelines.
The typical procedures to abandon a well in Germany involve
firstly shut off the connection to the reservoir using a bottom
924 M. Bai et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 59 (2016) 920–926
cementation. Additional cement plugs are placed where potential
problem zones are, e.g., above the liner, in combination with
mechanical plugs, if necessary. Heavy drilling fluid with Bentonite
added is filled into the space in between these plugs. In the near
surface, the casings are cut a length of minimum 1 m for onshore
wells and 5 m for offshore wells and covered by a cement plate or
a steel plate, as shown in Fig. 3(b) [7]. The well integrity criteria for
abandoned wells are inherently different from operational wells
because the abandoned wells being out of service are not sub-
jected to any type of monitoring activities. Also the geomechanical
changes in the near wellbore region are unknown since the
abandonment of the well. The residual strength of the material
will be a decisive factor to decide whether the casing will maintain
the well integrity or not. The state of the casing in terms of the
mechanical integrity and corrosion should be investigated. Since
the data available does not suffice for a direct assessment, some
indirect methods such as risk assessment are used [2,25,26]. More
explanation can be found in the following section of this paper.
4. Determination of well integrity for operational wells
Migration of the injected CO2 along the wellbores should be
monitored to avoid unacceptable leakage. The variety of mon-
itoring techniques can be grouped into several families, each one
having its own range application [39]. Examples are Standard
Annulus Pressure Test (SAPT), Radioactive Tracer Survey (RATS),
Temperature Log (TL), Ultra Sonic Imager (USI), Ultrasonic Casing
Imager (UCI), Cement Bond Log (CBL) and so on [27,28].
The SAPT test relies on the principle that pressure applied to a
closed system, e.g., annulus between casing and cement, will be
maintained if there are no leaks in the system, even if the pressure
source is removed. It is easy to interpret, and inexpensive to per-
form. However, it is unable to detect bad primary cement jobs, or
leakage by-passing the shoe. RATS involves addition of radioactive
(RA) tracers to the injected fluid and then with the RA detector
which is run on wire line to detect the tracers. It is expensive, and
difficult to handle radioactive materials. Temperature Log is a
record of temperature gradient of a well with geothermal gradient
as a reference, taken before production or recorded when well is
shut-in. Interpretation is done by looking for anomalies or
departures from reference gradient, which are related to entry of
fluids in borehole or exit in the formation. Interpretation of tem-
perature log is difficult and requires high expertize.
USI gives an accurate and high-resolution, real-time informa-
tion about pipe-to-cement bond quality and downhole pipe
Table 1
Wireline tool comparison for characterization of leakage pathways [8].
condition. Identification of channels in cement and tubular
damage is possible, thereby revealing the status of zonal isolation
for remedial work. Cement Bond Log (CBL) is often used to eval-
uate the quality of primary cementation job by giving the com-
pressive strength of the cement and Bond Index (BI). The CBL
readings are affected by casing size, casing thickness and borehole
fluids. However, in absence of Variable Density Log (VDL) and
transit time (TT), CBL alone cannot indicate cementation problems
such as channeling, micro-annulus and bonds between interfaces
and so on.
In addition to above mentioned tests, there are also some other
methods to investigate the well conditions, e.g., noise log, pro-
duction logging, oxygen activation method, isolation scanner,
ultrasonic casing imager and so on. Table 1 shows the strengths
and weaknesses of the Schlumberger tools CBL, USIT und Isolation
Scanner. It can be seen that logging tools have advanced to the
point that they can identify and characterize most defect which
can provide pathways for liquids and gases [8].
5. Risk based approaches for abandoned wells
5.1. FEP (Features, Events and Processes) based method
Structured methods have been developed and successfully
applied to evaluate the technical integrity of a repository for
radioactive waste. The expertize has been transferred to well
integrity evaluation in CCS applications [2,29]. The method com-
prises two steps, which are scenario development and con-
sequence analysis. The Features, Events, and Processes (FEPs) are
essentially all activities influencing the storage of CO2 in the long
term. Scenarios describe the possible future developments of a
system under consideration, defined by a combination of Features,
Events, and Processes (FEPS). The developed scenarios are eval-
uated in the context of consequence analyses. Based on the pilot
area, the authors have started from the Quintessa FEP database,
which is a generic data base to describe the behavior of the storage
system. It has totally 178 FEPs which are categorized as 8 different
groups. After screening and supplement of the FEP database, a
new case-specific FEP database was obtained to comprehensively
describe the storage system. Obviously, FEPs database is only a
qualitative way of describing the static characteristics and
dynamic performances of a storage system, and it cannot provide a
quantitative evaluation. It can be seen as a reference book or an
initial help in the early phase of a storage project and provides the
basis for modeling [7].
 M. Bai et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 59 (2016) 920–926
A Performance and Risk Management (P&R™) method was
developed by some researchers and companies [30–32]. This
method covers data collection, static and dynamic model devel-
opment, numerical leakage simulation, risk mapping. The first step
of this method is to collect all data and information about the
storage system. After that a static model is built, which acts an
input into a dynamic model. The core of the dynamic model is a
well completion and leakage simulator Simeo™-Stor, which can
numerically predict the CO2 leakage along the wellbore over time.
Since the data is mostly uncertain, or even not adequate, a risk
assessment is often performed which can take the uncertainties
into consideration. However, the lack of data for plugged and
abandoned wells needs too many assumptions, which leads to a
very uncertain evaluation [7].
CO2-PENS (CO2-Predicting Engineered Natural System) is a
probabilistic simulation tool designed to incorporate CO2 injection
and sequestration knowledge from the petroleum industry to per-
form risk assessment [33–36]. The model links high level system
models (reservoir model) to the process level (wellbore leakage,
chemical interaction of CO2) and thus represents a hybrid coupled
process and system designed to simulate different CO2 pathways.
Simulation of wellbore leakage is complicated since the associated
interactions and processes are not yet entirely understood.
5.2. A new concept for well integrity evaluation
A comprehensive assessment method was developed with the
application in the Altmark natural gas field in Germany [2,25]. It
describes the whole near wellbore zone and quantitatively simu-
lates the critical events and processes which influence well
integrity and estimate the long-term leakage rate within the sto-
rage period. The process of the method comprises three steps
which are FEPs (Features, Events and Processes) and scenario
analysis, model development and consequence analysis, as shown
in Fig. 4. An analysis of FEPs provides an excellent basis for the
definition of scenarios which are evaluated in the next step model
development. The first model is mechanical integrity model which
aims to evaluate the mechanical integrity of the wellbore and
provide a quantitative characterization of the defects in the cas-
ing–cement–rock composite system, which is then used to esti-
mate the permeability of the casing–cement–rock composite sys-
tem. A numerical model will be developed to describe the pro-
cesses and events considered in a scenario in abstract form, so that
the leakage rate over a certain time frame can be simulated.
In comparison to above-mentioned methods, the proposed
method in this paper covers both qualitative and quantitative
Scenario Analysis Model Development
Site - specific FEPs
Database development
Interaction Matrix
between sys.
components
Selection of most
important sys.
components
Scenarios formation
Fig. 4. Flow chart of well integrity evaluation.
925
analysis. The goal is to reach a sound risk analysis for well integrity
coupling both a thorough FEPs analysis and quantification of the
leakage risk of CO2 along a defected wellbore under a series of
mechanical and geochemical processes.
6. Conclusions
To ensure a meaningful storage of CO2, well integrity of
operational and abandoned wells have to be evaluated prior to
injection. Many individuals have committed much effort to
investigate related issues such as loss of well integrity, well
integrity criteria for new and existing wells, as well as well
integrity inspection and evaluation. By analyzing the field data and
literatures, it is found that mechanical loading and chemical cor-
rosion of cement and tubular are the two aspects resulting in loss
of well integrity. As such, materials selection for newly drilled
wells or plugging a well has been investigated as well to achieve
well integrity for safe operation and storage in CSEGR.
Assessment of well integrity for both operational and aban-
doned wells can be performed in different ways. For operational
wells, different tests can be implemented with varying accuracy.
However, no logging tool is available which can explicitly detect
the presence and extent of corrosion in cement. A commonly used
one is CBL complimented with Variable Density Log (VDL) to
identify different defects such as channeling, micro-annulus and
debonding. For abandoned wells, only indirect risk based method
can be used, for example, FEP based method, Performance and
Risk (P&R™), CO2-PENS and so on. A new concept has been
introduced which couples FEPs analysis, model development and
CO2 leakage simulation and consequence analysis. If an application
of this method results in a low leakage risk, no further action is
required. Medium risks should result in monitoring activities,
while high risk wells require reopening and re-plugging.
In future, more efforts are required to extend the research on well
integrity evaluation of plugged and abandoned wells. Cement based
materials are reactive porous media. When exposed to acidic envir-
onment, some dissolution/precipitation processes can occur and lead
to mechanical and transport properties modifications. The coupled
geo-chemical and geo-mechanical effects on cement properties should
also be included into a future model. Although a novel and compre-
hensive methodology has been described in this work, it needs
laboratory experiments or field data to verify the results, for instance,
the mechanical integrity and the characterization of the defects in the
casing–cement–rock composite system, or the self-healing effect of
salt rock on the well integrity.
Consequence Analysis
Mechanical model
development
Chemical model
development
Leakage model Decision making
development
926 M. Bai et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 59 (2016) 920–926
Acknowledgments
This work is supported by the PetroChina Innovation Foundation
(Grant no.: 2015D-5006-0202), Graduate Education Innovation Project
in Heilongjiang Province (Grant no.: JGXM_HLJ_2014027), Hei-
longjiang Postdoctoral Grant (Title: Investigation of the THMC Cou-
pling Effect on CO2 Migration along Casing–cement–rock Composite
System), and Technology Project for Returned Oversea Scholars in
Heilongjiang Province (2014, Mingxing Bai).
References
[1] Baklid A, Korbol R, Owren G. Sleipner vest CO2 disposal, CO2 injection into a
shallow underground aquifer. In: Proceedings of the SPE 36600, SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, Denver, Colorado; 6–9 Oct. 1996.
[2] Bai M, Song K, Li Y, Sun J, Reinicke KM. Development of a novel method to
evaluate well integrity during CO2 underground storage. SPE J 2014 SPE
173000.
[3] Bai M, Song K, Sun Y, He M, Li Y, Sun J. An overview of hydrogen underground
storage technology and prospects in China. J Pet Sci Eng 2014;124:132–6.
[4] Mamora DD, Seo JG. Enhanced Gas Recovery by Carbon Dioxide Sequestration
in depleted gas reservoirs. In: Proceedings of the SPE 77347, SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas; 29 Sept.–2 Oct.
2002.
[5] Oldenburg CM. Carbon Sequestration in natural gas reservoirs: enhanced gas
recovery and natural gas storage. In: Proceedings of the TOUGH Symposium
2003 Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, California; 12–14 May
2003.
[6] Standards Norway. Well integrity in drilling and well operations, NORSOK
STANDARD D-010; 2004.
[7] Bai M, Sun J, Song K, Reinicke KM, Teodoriu C. Risk assessment of abandoned
wells affected by CO2. Environ Earth Sci 2015;73:6827–37. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1007/s12665-015-4163-7.
[8] Reinicke KM, Fichter C. Measurement strategies to evaluate the integrity of
deep wells for CO2 applications. In: Proceedings of the Sino-German Con-
ference on Underground Storage of CO2 and Energy, Beijing, China; 6–13 Jul.
2010.
[9] Bai M, Sun J, Song K, Reinicke KM, Li LL, Qiao Z. Well Completion and Integrity
Evaluation for CO2 Injection Wells. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2015;45:556–
64. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.02.022.
[10] Zhang Y, Gao K, Schmitt G. Inhibition of steel corrosion under aqueous
supercritical CO2 conditions. Houston, Texas: NACE CORROSION; 13–17 Mar.
2011.
[11] Kermani MB, Smith LB. CO2 corrosion control in oil and gas production-design
considerations. European Federation of corrosion publications-number 23;
1997.
[12] Strazisar B, Kutchko B, Huerta N. Chemical reactions of wellbore cement under
CO2 storage conditions: effects of cement additives. 16–20 Nov.. Washington
DC, USA: GHGT-9; 2008.
[13] Benge G. Improving wellbore seal integrity in CO2 injection wells. In: Pro-
ceedings of the SPE 119267, SPE/IADC Drilling Conference and Exhibition,
Amsterdam, the Netherlands; 17–19 Mar. 2009.
[14] Barlet GV, Rimmele G, Goffe B, Porcherie O. Mitigation strategies for the risk of
CO2 migration through wellbores. In: Proceedings of the SPE 98924, IADC/SPE
Drilling Conference, Miami, Florida, USA; 21–23 Feb. 2006.
[15] Duguid A, Scherer G, Radonjic M. Degradation of well cements exposed to
carbonated brine. In: Proceedings of the 4th Annual Conference on Carbon
Capture and Sequestration DOE/NETL, Alexandria, Virginia, USA; 2–5 May
2005.
[16] Gouedard VB, Rimmele G, Goffe B, Porcherie O. Mitigation strategies for the
risk of CO2 migration through wellbores. In: Proceedings of the SPE 98924,
IADC/SPE Drilling Conference, Miami, Florida, USA; 21–23 Feb. 2006.
[17] Fabbri A, Corvisier J, Schubnel A, Brunet F, Goffe B, Rimmele G, Barlet-
Gouedard V. Effect of carbonation on the hydro-mechanical properties of
Portland cements. Cem. Concr Res 2009;39(12):1156–63. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/j.cemconres.2009.07.028.
[18] Lecolier E, Rivereau A, Ferrer N, Audibert A, Longaygue X. Durability of oilwell
cement formulations aged in H2S-containing fluids. In: Proceedings of the
IADC/SPE-99105, IADC/SPE Drilling Conference, Miami, Florida, USA; 21–23
Feb. 2006.
[19] Bai M, Sun J, Song K, Reinicke KM, Teodoriu C. Evaluation of mechanical well
integrity during CO2 underground storage. Environ Earth Sci 2015;73:6815–
25. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12665-015-4157-5.
[20] Harris KL, Johnson BJ. Successful remedial operations using ultrafine cement.
In: Proceedings of the SPE 24294, SPE Mid-Continent Gas Symposium,
Amarillo, Texas, USA; 13–14 Apr. 1992.
[21] Duncan GJ, Hartford CA. Get rid of greenhouse gases by downhole disposal–
guidelines for acid gas injection wells. In: Proceedings of the SPE 48923, SPE
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, Louisiana; 27–30
Sep. 1998.
[22] Fakhreldin Y, Al-Sharji H, Ruwehy AM, Saadi K, Taoutaou S, Al-Kalbani S.
Advanced cement system for acid gas injection wells. In: Proceedings of the
SPE 132345, SPE Asia Pacific Oil & Gas Conference and Exhibition, Queensland,
Australia; 18–20 Oct. 2010.
[23] Kenneth R. GRE Composite-Lined Tubular products in corrosive service: a
study in workover economics. In: Proceedings of the SPE 94129, SPE Permian
Basin Oil and Gas Recovery Conference, Midland, Texas; 15–16 May 2001.
[24] Larry N. Sheep Mountain unit. Report for well bore integrity workshop.
Houston, USA: IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D and BP; 4–5 April 2005.
[25] Bai M, Reinicke KM, Song K, Li Y, Sun J. Relative permeability model and CO2
leakage through abandoned wells during CO2 underground storage. Oil Gas-
Eur Mag 2014;40(3):161–5.
[26] Bai M. Risk assessment for CO2 leakage along abandoned wells using a Monte
Carlo simulation in a CO2 sequestration site. J Pet Sci Technol 2014;32:1191–
200.
[27] US Environmental Protection Agency. Determination of the mech anical
integrity of injection wells. United States Environmental Protection Agency
Region 5–Underground Injection Control (UIC) Branch; 2008.
[28] Syed T, Cutler T. Well integrity technical and regulatory considerations for CO2
injection wells. In: Proceedings of the SPE 125839, International Conf. on
Health, Safety and Environment in Oil and Gas Exploration and Production,
Rio de Janeiro, Brazil; 12–14, Apr 2010.
[29] Chapter 33, risk assessment methodology for CO2 storage: the scenario
approach. In: Thomas DC, Benson SM, editors. Carbon Dioxide capture for
storage in deep geologic formations, Volume 2. Elsevier; 2005. p. 1293–316.
[30] Le Guen Y, Meyer V, Poupard O, Houdu E. A risk-based approach for well
integrity management over long term in a CO2 geological storage project. In:
Proceedings of the SPE Asia Pacific Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition,
Jakarta, Indonesia; 4–6 Aug. 2009.
[31] Le Guen Y, Huot H, Loizzo M, Poupard O. Well integrity risk assessment of
Ketzin injection well (ktzi-201) over a prolonged sequestration period. In:
Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Control
Technologies, Washington DC, USA, 2011(4): 4076–7083.
[32] Houdu E, Poupard O, Meyer V. Supercritical CO2 leakage modeling for well
integrity in geological storage project. Excerpt from the Proceedings of the
COMSOL Conference, Hannover, Germany; 2008.
[33] Viswanathan H, Pawar RJ. Development of a hybrid process and system model
for the assessment of wellbore leakage at a geologic CO2 sequestration site.
Environ Sci Technol 2008;42:7280–6.
[34] Stauffer PH, Viswanthan HS, Pawar R, Guthrie GD. CO2-PENS: a system model
for geologic sequestration of carbon dioxide. Environ Sci Technol
2009;43:565–70. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es800403w.
[35] Celia M, Bachu S, Nordbotten JM, Gasda SE, Dahle HK. Quantitative estimation
of CO2 leakage from geological storage: analytical models, numerical models
and data needs. GHGT-7. September. Canada: Vancouver; 2004. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1029/2011WR010721.
[36] Nordbotten JM, Kavetski D, Celia MA, Bachu S. A semi-analytical model esti-
mating leakage associated with CO2 storage in large-scale multi-layered
geological systems with multiple leaky wells. Environ Sci Technol 2009;43
(3):743–9.
[37] Takase K, Barhate Y, Hashimoto H, Lunkad SF. Cement-sheath wellbore
integrity for CO2 injection and storage wells. In: Proceedings of the SPE
127422, SPE Oil and Gas India Conference and Exhibition, Mumbai, India; 20–
22 January 2010.
[38] Smith L, Billingham MA, Lee CH, Milanovic D, Lunt G. CO2 sequestration wells-
the lifetime integrity challenge. In: Procedings of the SPE 136160, Abu Dhabi
International Petroleum Exhibition & Conference, Abu Dhabi, UAE; 1–4
November 2010.
[39] Leung DYC, Caramanna G, Maroto-Valer MM. An overview of current status of
carbon dioxide capture and storage technologies. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
2014;39:426–43.