SPE 127096

An Overview of Active Large-Scale CO2 Storage Projects

Iain Wright, BP; Philip Ringrose, StatoilHydro; Allan Mathieson, BP; and Ola Eiken, StatoilHydro

Copyright 2009, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2009 SPE International Conference on CO2 Capture, Storage, and Utilization held in San Diego, California, USA, 24 November 2009.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper have not been
reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its
officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers 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 SPE copyright.

Abstract

CO2 Capture and geological Storage (CCS) is a technology that is available today and that can cost-effectively
solve up to a quarter of the global Greenhouse gas (GHG) problem. CCS can be applied to any fixed, point-source
of CO2, and will likely be most cost-effective when applied to large sources close to large sinks. While CCS has
application in the oil and gas sector (both upstream and downstream), the largest sources of CO2 exist in the
power sector. Oil and gas sources are typically less than one million metric tonnes per annum (mmtpa) CO2,
whereas power sector sources are typically more than 5mmtpa CO2. Hence a large-scale sequestration project
should store in the order of 1mmtpa CO2.

Around 30mmtpa CO2 is being injected into EOR projects, mostly in the USA and Canada. Those EOR projects
are being managed to recover and re-inject the CO2 (that they have to buy), rather than sequester it - little or no
monitoring is carried out for the purpose of assuring CO2 geological storage

As of today, there are only 4 large-scale projects on the planet which sequester anthropogenic CO2 on the
1mmtpa-scale: Sleipner (Norway), In Salah (Algeria), Weyburn-Midale (Canada) and Snhvit (Norway). Of these
the two most significant (in terms of cumulative volume injected and experience of CO2 storage) are Sleipner
(which has been in operation for 13 years) and In Salah (5 years). Weyburn-Midale is a CO2 EOR project
involving CO2 cycling and monitoring. Although a portion of the cycled CO2 will be permanently stored, the
primary objective of the project is to recover EOR oil. Snhvit is relatively new (starting injection in 2008) and
has not yet stored a significant volume of CO2. We focus therefore on the experience from the two large and
mature projects Sleipner and In Salah. These two projects both capture CO2 produced during natural gas
processing and store CO2 in deep saline formations. For both projects, the storage was part of the integrated Field
Development Plan. They were both permitted under hydrocarbon law, and they illustrate significantly different
aspects of storage: technical and commercial.

Commercial Frameworks

The Sleipner project was mainly stimulated by the introduction in 1991 of the Norwegian offshore CO2 tax
(~$50/tonne). The project costs (capex and opex) are essentially covered by avoiding this tax and the project has
now passed the break even point in the investment cycle. In contrast, the In Salah project was initiated without tax
incentives, but as an initiative by the Operators to avoid excessive additional CO2 emissions to the atmosphere. It
is however hoped that the project will qualify for CDM credits under the Kyoto Protocol (but those have not been
approved to date).
2 SPE 127096

Project Overviews

The Sleipner CGS project is located offshore Norway and utilizes the worlds first offshore platform-based CO2
(amine) capture facility (Torp & Gale, 2004, Hansen et al. 2005). The CO2 is stored in the Utsira formation at a
depth of 800-1000m below the sea surface. Water depth is 82 m. The Utsira Fm. contains a 200 300 m thick
sandstone unit, with some thin (<1 m) shale strings. The formation water is saline, with high porosity (38%) and
permeability (1-8 Darcy). The Utsira Fm. is overlain by a thick shale caprock, with some silty intervals in the
upper part. One shallow long-reach highly deviated well is used to take the CO2 far enough away (2.4 km) from
the producing wells (to avoid any external corrosion of casing) and from the production platform (Baklid et al.
1998).

In Salah CGS project is onshore, in the heart of the Sahara desert, and the saline storage formation is a
Carboniferous Sandstone, 2,000m deep, only 20m thick, and low permeability (around 10 millidarcy). Three
horizontal wells (up to 1,800m long) were required to achieve sufficient injectivity.

The Weyburn-Midale project injects ~ 2mmtpa of anthropogenic CO2 in over 100 shallow injection wells for
Enhanced Oil Recovery purposes. However, most of Weyburns CO2 will be recycled several times and may be
ultimately exported to other fields. Although some CO2 monitoring is carried out at Weyburn, it is more of an
EOR project than a storage project and will not be considered further.

The Snhvit (Snow White) project, in the Barents Sea offshore Norway (Fig. 1), started injection of CO2 from an
LNG plant in 2008. CO2 is captured onshore and transported in a 150km subsea pipeline ending in a subsea
template and a well. The CO2 is continuously flowing along and injected at a depth of 2600m below sea level into
the Tuben formation. Here sandstone units have permeabilities of several hundred md. To date, 0.4mmt has been
stored and it is too early to draw any general lessons from this project.

Sleipner

The Sleipner gas and condensate fields are located 250km offshore southern Norway (Fig. 1). The development
comprises the Sleipner East and West gas and condensate fields which, together with several other fields, are
processed through the Sleipner gas hub. Sleipner currently produces 220,000 boe per day (26 million Sm3 of gas
and 8,000 Sm3 of condensate per day). The Operator,
Snhvit S
C StatoilHydro, with partners Exxon and Total, took the decision
to invest in offshore CO2 removal facilities on a separate Gas
Melkya LNG,
0.7 Mt/y, 2008- Treatment Platform (Sleipner T) as part of the Sleipner Field
development, because of the higher CO2 content (9%) in this
reservoir (Baklid et al., 1998), exceeding the requirements for
export gas to Europe. The imposition of the Norwegian CO2
AY

tax on offshore operators in 1991, was a key driver in the

RW

decision to compress and re-inject the gas instead of venting it

NO

to the atmosphere.

Extensive studies were carried out to design the technical

elements of this world-first offshore CO2 injection and storage
Sleipner
Natural Gas, project (Baklid et al. 1996). The key elements of the well
1 Mt/y; 1996 - design were:
S Drilling a shallow long-reach highly deviated well to
C take the CO2 2.4km away from the producing wells
and platform area,
Fig. 1. CO2 storage projects offshore Norway. C = capture facility, S = storage site.
SPE 127096 3

Special well design with surface casing down to 585m depth, production casing down to the top Utsira
formation, and finally a 8 hole with 7 liner for the 2600m long near-horizontal section,
A perforation interval of 38 m, with a gravel pack containing 200 micron sand screens.
Chromium steel (25% Cr duplex) was used for the injection tubing to ensure against corrosion,
The injection site was selected beneath a local dome of top Utsira Fm., believed capable of trapping a
significant amount of CO2 structurally. Simulations were done in order to assess the likelihood that CO2
would flow back to the production wells, which had, as a precaution, 13% chrome casing joints through
the Utsira Fm.
Injection at Sleipner started in October 1996, and has continued more or less uninterrupted since then,
accumulating 11 mmt injected so far.

To monitor the performance of this site, and to build technology and competence related to this pioneering
demonstration site, the SACS (Saline Aquifer CO2 Storage) research project was initiated in 1999, supported by
the European Commission Thermie program (Torp & Gale, 2004). This was extended into SACS2 and
CO2STORE research programs later, and since then the Sleipner dataset has been extensively shared with the
research community. Results have been published, as a Best Practice Manual, by Chadwick et al. (Eds), 2008.

Injected CO2
11
10
Accumulated mass

9
(million tons)

8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
13- 15- 14- 16- 15- 17- 16- 17- 16- 18- 17- 19- 18- 20- 19- 20- 19- 21- 20- 22- 21- 23- 22- 23- 22- 24-
1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008
sep- mar- sep- mar- sep- mar- sep- mar- sep- mar- sep- mar- sep- mar- sep- mar- sep- mar- sep- mar- sep- mar- sep- mar- sep- mar-
1996 1997 1997 1998 1998 1999 1999 2000 2000 2001 2001 2002 2002 2003 2003 2004 2004 2005 2005 2006 2006 2007 2007 2008 2008 2009

Date
Fig. 2. Sleipner CO2 accumulated injected mass.

Two overall features are notable from the Sleipner CO2 storage project: (a) the remarkably regular and stable
injection history, and (b) the precise mapping of the plume and continued value of time-lapse geophysical
monitoring data.

Figure 2 shows the CO2 injection history for Sleipner. An essentially linear injection rate has taken place, with an
average injection of just under 0.9mmtpa. This regular behavior is largely a result of the supply of CO2 rich gas
and stable separation plant, as well as exceptionally good reservoir properties at Sleipner. Injection has been
unproblematic with wellhead pressures stable at ~ 64 65 bar, independent of injection rate.

Regarding the geophysical monitoring data, initial skepticism about the potential for detection of CO2 (dense
phase) saturation changes using time-lapse proved unfounded, and in fact quantitative inversion of time-lapse
seismic data has been possible (Atrs et al., 2004, Chadwick et al. 2005). So far six time-lapse surveys have been
acquired (Fig. 3) and show regular expansion of the CO2 plume. The observed plume development was broadly in
4 SPE 127096

agreement with initial models, and revealed the importance of thin shale layers in creating a multiple-stacked
storage system. We now understand the Utsira Formation at this site to have 9 silt strings, under which CO2
gradually traps and migrated up from one layer to the next. Maximum growth of the CO2 plume now occurs in
the uppermost layer, but the multiple layers have resulted in a much better storage efficiency than would have
occurred is a purely homogeneous sand unit. Ongoing studies are focused on further quantifying these time-lapse
seismic surveys in order to understand fluid dynamical behavior of CO2 in the sub-surface. The seismic data also
reveal a chimney; an approximately circular area of diameter 50-80 m with disturbed seismic continuity. This is
believed to be associated with vertical migration of CO2 through the thin shale layers.

Fig. 3. Amplitude maps of CO2 plume (all layers) at Sleipner CO2 for 6 time-lapse surveys collected to date.

Efforts have also been made to use other geophysical techniques. Two time-lapse gravity surveys have been
completed (2005 and 2009) with a baseline survey in 2002 (Alnes et al. 2008). Although lower resolution that
seismic data, gravity data has the advantage of being fundamentally quantitative in terms of changes in mass (or
density). Observed changes in the gravity signal over Sleipner are consistent with the time-lapse seismic dataset,
and add further constraints to the model in particular constraining the uncertainty related to temperature control
of the density of CO2. Seafloor mapping using multi-beam echo sounding and side scan sonar has been carried
out. StatoilHydro and their partners have now also employed the first electro-magnetic (EM) survey over the site,
and will thus also soon have the opportunity to evaluate this technology in terms of potential value for CO2
monitoring.

In Salah

In Salah Gas (ISG) is a Joint Venture (JV) Project between BP (33%), Sonatrach (35%) and Statoil (32%). The
project comprises a phased development of eight gas fields located in the Ahnet-Timimoun Basin in the Algerian
Central Sahara (Figure 4). The initial development focused on the exploitation of the gas reserves within the three
northern fields of Krechba, Teguentour and Reg to deliver the contracted sales gas stream of 9 bcm/yr. These gas
fields contain CO2 concentrations ranging between 1 to 10%, which is above the export gas specification of 0.3%
and therefore require CO2 removal facilities.

In addition to the CO2 removal facilities, and instead of employing atmospheric disposal of the CO2, ISG made a
further discretionary investment to enable compression and re-injection of the produced CO2 stream (up to
SPE 127096 5

70mmscf/d or 1.2 million tonnes per year) for geological storage. Since August 2004, more than 3mmt CO2 has
been injected into a deep saline formation that has been characterized to oil and gas standards. The low-
permeability Carboniferous sandstone formation is typical of CO2 storage opportunities common in parts of the
world where CO2 storage may become a requirement for power generation (such as USA, NW Europe and
China). Three state-of-the-art horizontal CO2 injection wells were drilled perpendicular to the maximum stress
direction (and therefore the dominant fracture orientation), to maximize the injection capacity.

A Joint Industry Project (JIP) was set up to monitor

the CO2 storage using a variety of geochemical,
geophysical and production techniques over a 5 year
period. The JIP is funded by BP, Sonatrach,
StatoilHydro, the US Department of Energy and the
EU DG Research. The objectives of the JIP are:

1. Demonstrate to stakeholders that industrial-

scale geological storage of CO2 is a viable
GHG mitigation option.
2. Provide assurance that secure geological
storage of CO2 can be cost-effectively verified
and that long-term assurance can be provided
by short-term monitoring.
3. Set precedents for the regulation and
verification of CO2 geological storage.
Fig.4. The In Salah Gas Development site.

Managing Separated CO2 at Surface

CO2 and water have to be removed from the natural gas at the Krechba Central Processing Facility (CPF) in order
to meet the sales specification (0.3% CO2). Figure 5 illustrates the boundary between the (commercial) natural gas
processing plant and the (discretionary) CO2 storage project. Power generation (and glycol) are the major utilities
shared between natural gas processing and CO2 storage. Figure 6 summarises the natural gas processing part of
CPF. Two identical process trains handle a total of 1BSCF/d natural gas, removing CO2 and water to meet the
sales specification:
6 SPE 127096

CO2 Storage Project Boundary

Glycol Glycol
Dehy Dehy

Natural Natural CO2 Injection

Pipeline
Compression Dehydration
Gas Transportation Well-head
Gas Stream
(10% CO2) Processing
Plant
& Water
Electric
Electric Fuel Gas Power
Power
Power- Power- Overburden
Gen Gen

Dry Gas CO2 Storage

for Sale Complex

(<0.3% CO2) Stored CO2

Fig.5. Process diagram for Krechba Central Processing Facility (CPF).

Fig. 6. The natural gas processing system at Krechba.

Natural gas enters the CO2 absorber, where it is directly contacted with aqueous MonoEthanolAmine (MEA),
which chemically absorbs the CO2. The scrubbed gas (mostly methane) then leaves the top of the absorber and is
sent (via dehydration) to export. The CO2-rich amine solution then enters two Flash Drums (high and low
SPE 127096 7

pressure), which separate the CO2 from the amine. The amine is recycled (pumped) back to the CO2 absorber and
the CO2 is compressed and dehydrated for transport via two 8 mild-steel pipelines to the three injection wells.
The gas dehydration unit contacts Tri-Ethylene Glycol (TEG) counter-currently with the gas and a shared process
is used to dehydrate the CO2. the TEG is regenerated in a separate package.
CO2 compression and dehydration comprises two identical trains with four stages of compression each. The
Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (MHI) compressors are fixed-speed with centrifugal barrels suited to high-pressure
service. The inlet flow is regulated by suction-throttling and the design does not include a variable geometry
stator or variable-speed driver. The compressor internals are nickel-coated to avoid corrosion and reduce capital
costs. The inlet gas is water-saturated, so condenses, both inside the compressor and during inter-stage cooling.
Further dehydration is provided between stages 3 and 4, using tri-ethylene glycol (TEG), which takes the water
content down to below 50ppm. To minimise energy consumption and to achieve economies of scale, the TEG
system is shared with the gas processing facility.
Wet CO2 could have been injected for storage, but that would have required stainless steel CO2 pipelines and well
completions. The decision to dehydrate was based purely on the relative costs of dehydration and mild steel vs. no
dehydration with stainless steel. Dry CO2 exits the compressors at 185bar and travels in two 8 pipelines to the
three injector wells.

Managing and Monitoring CO2 in the Sub-surface

The injection wells are 1900m deep and have state-of-the-art horizontal sections up to 1.8km long (they are about
as long as they are deep). The CO2 injection wells have mild steel (L80) completions, whereas the natural gas
producers have 13%chrome completions. Note that the
CO2 wells are in a less corrosive environment than the
natural gas wells because the injected CO2 is dry, but the
produced natural gas (containing a small amount of CO2)
is water saturated. All the injection wells have operated
at a common wellhead flowing pressure since start-up.
Figure 7 shows reservoir porosity (derived from seismic)
and the positions of the gas production and CO2 storage
wells, together with the suspended appraisal well KB-5).
Prior to injection, a Risk Assessment was carried out to
model the performance of the injected CO2 and identify
the most-likely leakage paths. A monitoring programme
was designed to detect CO2 migration along the most-
likely paths. CO2 movement in the subsurface has been
monitored by acquiring and analysing geological,
geochemical, geophysical, and satellite data.
Standard oil industry geological characterization data
have been acquired, including wireline and Logging
While Drilling (LWD), core sampling, and 3D seismic
(first time-lapse survey acquired in May 2009).

Fig. 7. Top-reservoir porosity map with injection (blue) and production wells (red)

Geochemical data collected to date include surface and soil gas monitoring, down-hole gas measurements (head
gas and isotubes samples), and production monitoring. Different tracer chemicals (perflourocarbons) have been
used to tag the CO2 injected at each injection well, so that any CO2 detected at surface, can be differentiated
from the natural CO2 in the sub-surface and traced back to an individual injection well.
8 SPE 127096

Geophysical monitoring data gained momentum in 2009 with the deployment (in June 2009) of a down-hole
geophone detector string in a dedicated well to monitor micro-seismic events, and the first time-lapse 3D seismic
survey (May 2009) to monitor saturation and pressure changes. At injection start-up, the monitoring technologies
were ranked according to cost and benefit (Figure 8a), with the most cost-effective technologies landing in the
bottom left corner: After four years of injection, the cost-benefit chart has evolved, as shown in Figure 8b).
To date, the most cost-effective monitoring method has been the use of Satellite Airborne Radar Interferometry
(InSAR) to detect subtle ground deformation around the injection wells (Mathieson et al. 2008). Permanent
Scatter Interferometry (PSInSAR) is a multi-interferogram approach that draws on the phase changes occurring
between a series of radar images and is specifically designed to overcome the effects of atmospheric noise and
thereby determine surface movement histories over periods of several years (Vasco & Ferretti, 2005).

Low
Microbiology Flowmeters
Cross-well Key
Consider EM Surface EM
Aquifer
studies Tiltmeters Park To be tested
Airborne Satellite Cement
Flux Imaging CO2 work
Benefit

Dynamic Observation
Modelling Surface flux Logging Wells
Geochemistry
Water
Chemistry
Annulus Geomechanics 4D gravity
Tracers 4D VSP Focussed
Sampling
Wellhead Just Do It Micro- Application
monitoring seismic
4D
Wellbore Seismic
sampling Soil gas
High
Low High
Cost
Low
Key
Consider
Park To be tested
Benefit

Dynamic
Modelling Surface flux Logging
Geochemistry Cement
Water CO2 work
Chemistry
Annulus Geomechanics
Tracers Vadose zone Focussed
Sampling wells
Just Do It
Satellite Tiltmeters Micro- Application
Imaging seismic
Wellhead Wellbore 4D
monitoring sampling Seismic
High
Low High
Cost

Fig. 8. Cost benefit analysis for monitoring at In Salah (a) prior to injection start-up (b) after 4 years of
evaluation and testing.
SPE 127096 9

Surface uplift has been detected around all three CO2 injection wells (Vasco et al. 2008; Onuma & Ohkawa 2008
and Rutqvist, et al. 2008) with corresponding subsidence also observed over the gas production area. Figure 9
shows one of the latest processed satellite scenes revealing cumulative uplift around the injector wells of up to
20mm. Forward and inverse modelling of the subsurface pressure increase due to CO2 injection, indicates that the
surface deformation is consistent with measured geomechanical data, and is caused by propagation of the
subsurface pressure increase through the overburden rock sequence to the surface. The latest assessments of
surface deformation and overburden geomechanical models by our research partners at LLNL and LBNL show
that the recorded surface deformation patterns relate to pressure changes in the reservoir and indicate safe and
effective storage of CO2 at the injection horizon. Indeed the technique shows immense promise as a routine
monitoring method for many onshore CO2 injection sites. Similar millimetre-scale surface movements can be
detected over most onshore oilfields as well as numerous civil engineering projects, such as bridges, causeways
and tunnels.

Fig. 9. Cumulative vertical deformation (mm) by 31st May 2008 over the 3 CO2 injection wells at Krechba,
inferred from satellite InSAR data (processed by Pinnacle Technologies Ltd.)

Using these satellite observations, in combination with subsurface data (injection and production rates and
pressures, 3D seismic, wells logs and core samples), we are able to reconstruct the subsurface plume propagation
(of CO2 and brine), which follows the expected elongation along the NE-SW fracture direction. Furthermore, a
valuable constraint to the subsurface CO2 plume development was gained by the detection of CO2 breakthrough at
10 SPE 127096

a suspended appraisal well (KB-5), 1.3 km to the NW of injection well KB-502. Tracer analysis confirmed that
the CO2 detected at KB-5 came from KB-502, and reservoir modelling and history matching of the CO2
breakthrough, pressure data and satellite deformation data have allowed us to build up a detailed picture of the
CO2 plume around injection well KB-502 (Ringrose et al. 2009).

Further acquisition of geophysical data is being used to improve the portfolio of monitoring methods. A new
160km2 3D seismic (time-lapse) survey was acquired in May 2009 over the northern field area and the results
(available early 2010) could provide a useful benchmark for the satellite data. Acquisition of microseismic data
from one pilot well started in June 2009 and is likely to give new insights into the development of rock strain in
response to CO2 injection.

Conclusions: Lessons Learned from CO2 Storage at Sleipner

o The offshore amine plant separating CO2 from hydrocarbon as has been working with good stability for
12 years.
o Injection well design has been successful and delivered a stable and high-rate injection history.
o 4D seismic monitoring has proved to be a successful and powerful monitoring tool
o A multi-layered plume of CO2 gives better storage efficiency (i.e. more CO2 in the storge container) than
if all the CO2 had moved quickly to the top of the Utsira Fm.
o Long-term issues (over hundred of years), such as rate of dissolution into the formation water, are still not
accurately known but are being better quantified using the 10+ years of monitoring data.

Conclusions: Lessons Learned from CO2 Storage at In Salah

1. Surface CO2 Handling
o Stainless steel compressor internals would have provided more cost-effective CO2 compression service
than the specified nickel-coating.
o CO2 compression could probably have been more reliably provided by a system of cooling and pumping
(rather than gas compression).
o A Temperature-Swing Adsorption (TSA) process would probably provide a more reliable form of
dehydration than the installed glycol system.

2. Sub-Surface CO2 Monitoring

o CO2 storage has been successfully demonstrated for five years. Longer-term storage assurance continues
to be guided by a comprehensive, cost-effective and fit-for-purpose storage monitoring programme.
o CO2 plume development is far from homogeneous and requires high resolution reservoir characterisation
and modelling.
o Satellite InSAR data has proven highly valuable to monitor subtle mm-scale surface deformation related
to subsurface pressure changes caused by injection and production.
o Advanced wire-line logging and LWD methods together with geochemical and core analysis have proven
to be essential in reconstructing a realistic picture of the subsurface.
SPE 127096 11

These observations relate to early phase monitoring of a CO2 storage project with a planned operational
life time in excess of 20 years. There are clearly many remaining uncertainties in modelling and
forecasting the CO2 storage performance at this site and an ongoing monitoring programme will
continue to provide valuable constraints to the operational and post-closure phases of this project.

Acknowledgements
We thank BP, Sonatrach and StatoilHydro for permission to publish this paper. We also thank our
partners in the Sleipner Development: StatoilHydro, Total, and ExxonMobil. The In Salah JIP has been
co-funded by the US DoE and the EU DG Research programme and the Sleipner CO2 storage project
has been supported by the EU Research program and the Norwegian Research Council.

References
Alnes, H., Eiken, O. and Stenvold T., 2008. Monitoring gas production and CO2 injection at the Sleipner field
using time-lapse gravimetry. Geophysics, 73, WA155-161,
Arts, R., Eiken, O., Chadwick, A., Zweigel, P. van deL. & Ziszner, B., 2004. Monitoring of Cow injected at
Sleipner using time-lapse seismic data. Energy, 29. 1383-1392.
Baklid, A., Korbl, R. & Owren, G., 1996. Sleipner Vest CO2 disposal CO2 injection into a shallow
underground aquifer. SPE paper 36600 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, 6-
9 October 1996, Denver, Colorado.
Chadwick, R. A. Arts, R. and Eiken, O., 2005, 4D seismic quantification of a growing CO2 plume at Sleipner,
North Sea. In: DOR, A.G. & VINING, B.A. (eds) Petroleum Geology: North-West Europe and Global
Perspectives--Proceedings of the 6th Petroleum Geology Conference, 1385-1399.
Hansen, H., Eiken, O. and Aasum, T.O., 2005. Tracing the Path of Carbon Dioxide From a Gas/Condensate
Reservoir, Through an Amine Plant and Back Into a Subsurface Acquifer-Case Study: The Sleipner Area,
Norwegian North Sea. Paper SPE 96742 presented at Offshore Europe, 6-9 September 2005, Aberdeen, UK.
Chadwick, A., Arts, R., Bernstone, C., May, F., Thibeau, S. & Zweigel, P. (Eds.), 2008. Best Practice for the
Storage of CO2 in Saline Aquifers.British Geological Survey Occasional Publication No. 14.
Mathieson, A., Wright, I. Roberts, D. and Ringrose, P. S., 2008. Satellite Imaging to Monitor CO2 Movement at
Krechba, Algeria. Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Control
Technologies, 16 - 20 November 2008. www.sciencedirect.com
Onuma, T. and Ohkawa, S., 2008. Detection of Surface Deformation related with CO2 Injection by DInSAR at In
Salah, Algeria. Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Control
Technologies, 16 - 20 November 2008. www.sciencedirect.com
Ringrose, P., Atbi, M., Mason, D., Espinassous, M., Myhrer, ., Iding, M., Mathieson, A. & Wright, I., 2009.
Plume development around well KB-502 at the In Salah CO2 Storage Site. First Break, 27, 81-85.
Rutqvist, J., Vasco, D. W. and Myer, L., 2008. Coupled Reservoir-Geomechanical Analysis of CO2 Injection at In
Salah, Algeria. Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Control
Technologies, 16 - 20 November 2008. www.sciencedirect.com
Torp, T, A. & Gale, J., 2004. Demonstrating storage of CO2 in geological reservoirs : The Sleipner and SACS
projects. Energy 29, 1361-1369.
Vasco, D. W. & Ferretti, A., 2005. On the use of quasi-static deformation to understand reservoir fluid flow.
Geophysics, 70(4), 13-27.
Vasco D. W., Ferretti A., Novali F.,2008. Reservoir monitoring and characterization using satellite geodetic data:
Interferometric synthetic radar observations from the Krechba field, Algeria. Geophysics, 73 (6), WA113
WA122.