Dbk at 07:22, 1 August 2018

2018-08-01T07:22:08Z

New page

__NOTOC__
{{OR/18/013}}
The aim of this Open Report is to provide a reference document detailing the selection and construction of three 3D geological models carried out as part of a multi-disciplinary NERC funded project entitled ‘Multiscale Whole Systems Modelling and Analysis for CO2 capture, transport and storage (CCTS)’ (Grant Reference: NE/H013946/1 and henceforth referred to as the 'Whole Systems' project). The 3-year project (2010–2013) was led by Imperial College, London with Cranfield University (later Hull), Sussex University and the British Geological Survey (BGS) as partners.

The report outlines the methodology adopted in building these three very different models, along with a full understanding of their scope and limitations, and provides essential background information for model use. In addition, the report also briefly describes how the 3D models were used to assess CO2 storage performance; results to date from these studies have been published in a number of peer-reviewed journals and presented at international conferences.

Implementation of large-scale carbon capture and storage requires substantial capital investment in CO2 capture, transport systems and storage complex management. The Whole Systems project aimed to examine the performance of the different parts of the CCTS chain assessing these, where appropriate, at microscopic through to macroscopic scales. Understanding the performance and controlling factors of each technology enabled their interaction with other parts of the CCTS chain to be better understood. Results from this project should contribute to designing optimal systems for a range of potential CO2 capture and storage scenarios. The technologies considered and partners responsible are shown in Table 1 below.
<center>
{| class="wikitable"
|+ Table 1 Multiscale Whole Systems Modelling and Analysis project — summary of the different parts of the CCTS chain considered, shown with responsible project partners.
| style="background-color: #66CDAA;"| Technology
| style="background-color: #66CDAA;"| Responsible partner
|-
| Analysis of future energy systems
| Sussex
|-
| Power plant model
| Cranfield (later Hull)
|-
| Capture plant model
| Cranfield
|-
| Transport model
| Imperial College
|-
| Injection and storage model; Geological model Reservoir model
| BGS & Imperial College
|-
| Network design
| Imperial and Sussex
|-
| Life Cycle and Integrated assessment
| All
|-
| Single chain dynamics, network stability and operability.
| Imperial and Cranfield
|}
</center>

==Overview of utilisation of the 3D geological models in the project==
For CO2 storage sites, Imperial College and BGS focused significant effort on improving their understanding and ability to characterise and predict CO2 storage site evolution syn- and post- the injection phase. Investigations focused on the performance of different types of geological settings (utilising different geological reservoirs) and the resultant consequences for the other parts of the CCTS chain. To be useful to the CCTS community, the stores chosen for this study were those most likely to be utilised in the near term.

Four potential sandstone reservoirs were identified (Figure 1):
* the Permian Leman Sandstone Formation in the UK Southern North Sea;
* the Triassic Bunter Sandstone Formation in the UK Southern North Sea;
* a submarine fan sandstone reservoir comprising the Palaeogene Forties and Cromarty sandstone members in the UK Central North Sea;
* and the Lower Cretaceous Captain Sandstone Member in the UK Northern North Sea.

A regional 3D model for part of the Captain Sandstone (Quinn et al., 2010<ref name="quinn2010">QUINN, M F, CALLAGHAN, E, and HITCHEN, K. 2010. Scottish CCTS Development Study: The mapping and characterisation of the Captain saline aquifer, Moray Firth. ''British Geological Survey Commissioned Report ''CR/10/114.</ref>) and a detailed model of the Captain Sandstone in and adjacent to the Blake hydrocarbon Field (Quinn et al., 2012<ref name="quinn2012">QUINN, M F, AKHURST, M C, FRYKMAN, P, HANNIS, S, HOLVIKOSKI, J, KEARSEY, T, LECOMTE, J-C, and
MCCORMAC, M. 2012. Geological report of the Integrated Blake Oil Field and Captain Sandstone aquifer, UK multi-store site, SiteChar. European Commission DG Research. Seventh Framework Programme, Theme 5 – Energy. Collaborative Project – GA No. 256705. Deliverable No D3.1.</ref>) are available as confidential reports and this reservoir is not considered further in the report. The remaining three models were built from defined locations in the UKCS using published information and released well data. The three models are referred to throughout this report as follows:

#'''The Rotliegend model '''is located within the Permian Leman Sandstone Formation (see Figure 1, [[#Selection of the Rotliegend generic model | Selection of the Rotliegend generic model]] and [[OR/18/013 The 'Rotliegend' generic model | The 'Rotliegend' generic model]]);
#'''The Bunter model '''is located within the Triassic aged Bunter Sandstone Formation (see Figure 1, [[#Selection of the Bunter generic model | Selection of the Bunter generic model]] and [[OR/18/013 The 'Bunter' 3D generic model | The 'Bunter' 3D generic model]]);
#'''The Cenozoic model '''is located within the Palaeogene Forties and Cromarty Sandstone members (see Figure 1, [[#Selection of the Cenozoic generic model | Selection of the Cenozoic generic model]] and [[OR/18/013 The 'Cenozoic' 3D generic model | The 'Cenozoic' 3D generic model]]).

The distribution of sedimentary facies was defined within each model utilising published studies, BGS in-house knowledge and interpretation of well records. For two of the models (Rotliegend and Cenozoic), petrophysical data, including, permeability, porosity and Net-to-Gross, were interpreted by the BGS and supplied to Imperial College for attribution. The BGS fully attributed the Bunter model prior to submission to Imperial College.

The reservoirs characterized in the three models were deposited in very different geological environments. In addition, each reservoir has a large regional extent and the characteristics of each will vary in detail away from the site where each model was built. In order to assess how the performance of a CO2 store might change with location, the regional extent of each reservoir was divided, where possible, into different sectors or ‘Area Types’ to represent the broad variations predicted for each reservoir. Each Area Type is defined by a unique set of petrophysical values as well as changes to the depth and thickness of the potential storage reservoir. Thus, each of the 3D models built for this project is generic, in that their reservoir divisions and structure can be transposed to any part of the basin in which that particular reservoir has the potential to be a CO2 store.

Following handover of the models, Imperial College populated the models with petrophysical attributes and performed a series of numerical flow simulations to quantify the storage performance of the different reservoirs. For example, Korre et al., 2013<ref name="korre">KORRE, A, DURUCAN, S, SHI, J-Q, SYED, A, GOVINDAN, R, HANNIS, S, WILLIAMS, J, KIRBY, G, and QUINN, M. 2013. Development of key performance indicators for CO2 storage operability and efficiency assessment: Application to the Southern North Sea Rotliegend Group. ''Energy Procedia'', '''37''', pp.4894–4901.
</ref> modelled an injection rate of 1 MtCO2/yr of CO2 from 1 injection well placed in the Permian Leman Sandstone Formation reservoir in the Rotliegend model. Injection from a second well was added when pressure in the first reached its maximum acceptable value. In this way a set of performance metrics, known as Key Performance Indicators (KPI’s), were derived to characterize the performance of the potential store in different parts of the studied reservoir (Korre et al., 2013<ref name="korre"></ref>). The Key Performance Parameters (KPI’s) defined were:

* Period of Sustained Injection (PSI); the duration wherein a pre-specified constant injection rate can be maintained;
* Fraction of Capacity Utilised (FCU); the fraction of available pore space within the reservoir occupied by CO2 during the PSI.

In the case of the Rotliegend and Cenozoic models, where a substantial volume of the reservoir included hydrocarbon field/s, it was possible to carry out quality assurance (QA) on the built and attributed models by modelling production of hydrocarbons from the field and comparing the amount produced with actual production (Korre et al., 2013<ref name="korre"></ref>; Babaei et al., 2014a<ref name="babaei2014a">BABAEI, M, GOVINDAN, R, KORRE, A, SHI, J-Q., DURUCAN, S, QUINN, M, and MCCORMAC, M. 2014a CO2 storage potential at Forties oilfield and surrounding Paleocene sandstone aquifer accounting for leakage risk through abandoned wells. ''Energy Procedia, ''63, pp. 5164–5171.
</ref>). Comparison of modelled production with actual published production thus provided a level of confidence in the attributed model used in assessment of a potential CO2 store.

The Cenozoic model, capturing geology in and around the Forties and Nelson oilfields, has been utilized to investigate the possibilities of using upscaled models to speed up the identification of optimal solutions for injection and well placement and CO2 storage potential in a potential CO2 store (Babaei et al., 2014a<ref name="babaei2014a"></ref>; Babaei et al., 2014b<ref name="babaei2014b">BABAEI, M, PAN, I, KORRE, A, SHI, J-Q., GOVINDAN, R, DURUCAN, S, and QUINN, M. 2014b. Evolutionary optimisation for CO2 storage design using upscaled models: Application on a proximal area of the Forties Fan System in the UK Central North Sea. Energy Procedia, 63, pp. 5349–5356.</ref>). To date the Bunter model has not been used for simulation purposes.

[[Image:OR18013fig1.jpg|thumb|center|400px| Figure 1 Map showing extents of the saline aquifers utilised by the three generic models for this project. Hydrocarbon fields are shown in red. The saline aquifers shown are from Knox and Holloway (1992)<ref name="holloway">HOLLOWAY, S, VINCENT, C J, BENTHAM, M S, and KIRK, K L. 2006. Top-down and bottom-up estimates of CO2 storage capacity in the United Kingdom sector of the southern North Sea basin. ''Environmental Geosciences'' 13, pp. 71–84.</ref>; Johnson and Lott (1993)<ref name="johnson1992">JOHNSON, H, and LOTT, G K. 1993. '''2'''. Cretaceous of the Central and Northern North Sea. ''In'': Knox, R W O’B, and Cordey, W G. (eds) Lithostratigraphic Nomenclature of the UK North Sea. British Geological Survey, Nottingham.</ref> and Johnson et al. (1994)<ref name="johnson1994">JOHNSON, H, WARRINGTON, G, and STOKER, S J. 1994. 6. Permian and Triassic of the Southern North Sea. In: Knox, R W O’B, and Cordey, W G. (eds) Lithostratigraphic Nomenclature of the UK North Sea. British Geological Survey, Nottingham.</ref>]]

==Regional context and selection of generic models==
At the beginning of the project, a list of potential CO2 stores was compiled (Table 2). From this review, three potential reservoir stores; the Leman Sandstone Formation (depleted gas fields), the Bunter Sandstone Formation (saline aquifer and depleted gasfields) and the Forties and Cromarty sandstone members (depleted oil field with surrounding saline aquifer) were identified for this study (Figure 1).

===Selection of the Rotliegend generic model===
Depleted Rotliegend gas fields in the Southern North Sea provide a significant portion of the UK’s CO2 storage potential (Bentham, 2006<ref name="bentham">BENTHAM, M. 2006. An assessment of carbon sequestration potential in the UK – Southern North Sea case study. Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, working paper 85. Available from [http://oldsite.tyndall.ac.uk/working_papers/working_papers.shtml?keys=Bentham :] [http://oldsite.tyndall.ac.uk/working_papers/working_papers.shtml?keys=Bentham http://oldsite.tyndall.ac.uk/working_papers/working_papers.shtml?keys=Bentham]</ref>; Holloway et al., 2006<ref name="holloway"></ref>). Gas has been produced from the Leman Sandstone Formation in the UK sector since the discovery of the West Sole gas field in 1964 (Hardman, 2003<ref name="hardman">HARDMAN, R F P. 2003. Lessons from oil and gas exploration in and around Britain. ''In'': Gluyas, J G, and Hitchens, H M. (eds). ''United Kingdom Oil and Gas Fields, Commemorative Millennium Volume''. Geological Society, London, Memoir, '''20''', pp. 5–16.</ref>). Many of the fields have either ceased production or are nearing their expected cessation dates, so will likely be available for storage in the near-future. In fact, one field, the Rough gas field is now used as a seasonal natural gas storage facility (Ellis, 1993<ref name="Ellis">ELLIS, D. 1993. The Rough Gas Field: distribution of Permian aeolian and non-aeolian reservoir facies and their impact on field development. North, C P, and Prosser, D J. (eds), Characterization of Fluvial and Aeolian Reservoirs. ''Geological Society Special Publication'' 73, pp. 265–277.</ref>). Reservoir quality is generally good, and valid structural traps have already been proven by the large number of natural gas discoveries.

The Rotliegend sandstone 3D geological model (see [[OR/18/013 The 'Rotliegend' generic model | The 'Rotliegend' generic model]]) was built from published surface and well information from the depleted Ravenspurn North and South Gas fields (Ketter, 1991a<ref name="ketter1991a">KETTER, F J. 1991a. The Ravenspurn North Field, Blocks 42/30, 43/26a, UK North Sea. In: Abbotts, I L. (ed.) United Kingdom Oil and Gas Fields, 25 Years Commemorative Volume, Geological Society Memoir, 14, 459–467.</ref>). The BGS model comprised six reservoir layers with major internal and bounding faults.

Initially, the Rotliegend sandstone reservoir within the UK SNS was divided into 5 ‘Area Types’ based on variation in reservoir Depth and Thickness. A set of performance indicators were generated from these different Area Types that were then further subdivided on the basis of known regional heterogeneity and production performance values (including facies distribution, cementation of the reservoir, pressure and the economics of extraction for individual fields), increasing the number of Area Types to 10.

===Selection of the Bunter generic model===
The Lower Triassic Bunter Sandstone Formation is considered to have significant CO2 storage potential within closed structural domes in the saline aquifer parts of the formation (Bentham, 2006<ref name="bentham"></ref>; Holloway et al., 2006<ref name="holloway"></ref>). Potential storage sites are currently being actively explored by industry with a view to utilising the Formation as a demonstration of industrial scale CO2 storage in the UK. Additionally, the Formation has properties that meet best practice requirements (Chadwick et al., 2008<ref name="chadwick">CHADWICK, R A, ARTS, R, BERNSTONE, C, MAY, F, THIBEAU, S, and ZWEIGEL, P. 2008. Best practice for the storage of
CO2 in saline aquifers. Keyworth, Nottingham: British Geological Survey Occasional Publication, '''No. 14'''.</ref>) and the presence of several natural gas accumulations demonstrate locally the ability of the overburden to retain buoyant fluids (e.g. Williams et al., 2014<ref name="williams2014">WILLIAMS, J D O, HOLLOWAY S, and WILLIAMS G A. 2014. Pressure constraints on the CO2 storage capacity of the saline waterbearing parts of the Bunter Sandstone Formation in the UK Southern North Sea. Petroleum Geoscience 20 (2), pp 155–167. The Geological Society of London 2014. doi 10.1144/petgeo2013-019</ref>).

The Bunter Sandstone 3D geological model (see [[OR/18/013 The 'Bunter' 3D generic model | The 'Bunter' 3D generic model]]) was built around an area within the so-called ‘Silverpit Basin’ of the Southern North Sea. In this area, the Bunter Formation has been gently folded by mobilisation of the Zechstein salt in the underlying Permian strata to form a series of anticlines and synclines. These folds, which typically form the culminations of NW–SE trending periclinal ridges, are characteristic of the structures actively being considered for CO2 storage in the Bunter Sandstone.

The extent of the model itself was designed to encompass several different structures over which seismic and well data were available to the project, with a likely cumulative storage capacity of at least 5 Mt/year over a 30-year period. The selected area includes the producing gas fields; Caister B and Hunter, both of which produce natural gas from the Bunter Sandstone. An additional brine-saturated closure within the Bunter Sandstone aquifer, known as 3/44 (Bentham, 2006<ref name="bentham"></ref>), is also included in the model area.

For the purposes of 'genericising' the model, the gas fields were not attributed with hydrocarbon fluids and were treated as part of the hydraulically connected saline aquifer. Note however, hydraulic connection may be compromised in some areas. For instance, in the Caister Gas Field halite cementation below the Gas Water Contact (GWC) may inhibit water influx.

The model surfaces were derived using a combination of 1 km x 1 km depth converted seismic surfaces, provided to the project by Petroleum GeoServices (PGS) (derived from their Southern North Sea (SNS) MegaSurvey data), augmented with available information from exploratory, appraisal and development wells.

===Selection of the Cenozoic generic model===
The Cenozoic submarine fan sandstone reservoir is considered to be a near term choice for CO2 storage for the following reasons:

* Of the ten potential saline aquifer stores identified in the Scottish Joint Study (Scottish Centre for Carbon Storage, 2009<ref>SCOTTISH CENTRE FOR CARBON STORAGE. 2009. Opportunities for CO2 Storage around Scotland — an integrated strategic research study, 56pp. Available at: [http://www.erp.ac.uk/sccs http://www.erp.ac.uk/sccs, ]Accessed: September 2009.</ref>), eight were of Paleocene/Eocene age and deposited in a submarine fan environment;
* Were the Goldeneye hydrocarbon field to become the UK’s first CO2 storage demonstrator, this would increase the accessibility and attractiveness of the Cenozoic hydrocarbon fields and saline aquifers to the east and south-east in the Outer Moray Firth and Central North Sea;
* Reservoir parameters in parts of the Cenozoic submarine fan system meet best practice requirements (Chadwick et al., 2008<ref name="chadwick"></ref>) for CO2 storage, for instance in the up-dip proximal part of the Forties Fan system, Net to Gross can be 65%, porosity 23–26% and permeabilities, 100’s mD to Darcies;
* Hydrocarbon exploitation of these reservoirs means good data availability.

The Cenozoic submarine fan sandstone 3D geological model (see [[OR/18/013 The 'Cenozoic' 3D generic model | The 'Cenozoic' 3D generic model]]) was built around two depleted oil fields; Forties and Nelson, and includes part of the adjacent water-filled reservoir. The modelled reservoir is primarily based upon the Paleocene/Eocene (i.e. Palaeogene) Forties Sandstone Member. Published surface and thickness information, constrained by released well data was used to build the different layers within the model. The model comprises 7 reservoir zones together with two major pressure discontinuities and top seal.

Attribution of the model was constrained by two broad facies distributions i.e. channel and interchannel. These were recognized in 6 of the reservoir zones and were built into the model in the form of limiting polygons on the appropriate layers.

Three ‘Area Types’, based on the different positions on the south-easterly advancing submarine fan, were defined. These Area Types governed depth, the number of reservoir layers and petrophysical values applied to the model. By changing these parameters, the model could be made to represent different parts of the submarine fan and enabled the storage potential of different parts of the fan to be quantified.

<center>
{| class="wikitable"
|+ Table 2 Potential CO2 stores located in the Central, Northern and Southern North Sea areas, United Kingdom Continental Shelf. Red text highlights the stores considered to be the most likely to be utilised first and have been selected for modelling.
|- style="text-align:center; vertical-align:top;"
|
| style="width:150px; background-color: yellow;" | '''Location'''
| style="background-color: yellow;" | '''Lithostratigraphic unit'''
| style="background-color: yellow;" | '''Reservoir'''
| style="background-color: yellow;" | '''Contained fluids'''
| style="width:350px; background-color: yellow;" | '''Depositional environment'''
| style="background-color: yellow;" | '''Seal'''
| style="width:350px; background-color: yellow;" | '''Trap'''
| style="background-color: yellow;" | '''Type of Store'''
| style="width:350px; background-color: yellow;" | '''Boundary conditions'''
|-
| style="background-color: LightSalmon;" | '''Cenozoic'''
| style="text-align:center; background-color: lightcyan;" | Southern North Sea
| style="background-color: lightcyan;" |
| style="background-color: lightcyan;" |
| style="background-color: lightcyan;" |
| style="background-color: lightcyan;" |
| style="text-align:center; background-color: lightcyan;" colspan="4" | It is unlikely the Cenozoic will be utilised as a CO2 store in the SNS
|-
| style="background-color: LightSalmon;" | '''Cenozoic – Miocene to Oligocene'''
| style="text-align:center; background-color: honeydew;" | Central and Northern North Sea
| style="text-align:center; background-color: honeydew;" |
| style="text-align:center; background-color: honeydew;" |
| style="text-align:center; background-color: honeydew;" |
| style="text-align:center; background-color: honeydew;" |
| style="text-align:center; background-color: honeydew;" colspan="4" | It is likely that these sandstones will be too shallow for CO2 storage
|-
| style="text-align:center; background-color: lightsalmon;" rowspan="2" | '''Cenozoic – Paleocene Ecocene'''
| style="text-align:center; background-color: honeydew;" rowspan="2" | Central and Northern North Sea
| style="text-align:center; background-color: honeydew;" | e.g. Tay, Grid, Frigg sandstone members
| style="text-align:center; background-color: honeydew;" rowspan="2" | Sandstone
| style="text-align:center; background-color: honeydew;" rowspan="2" | Saline water or hydrocarbons
| style="text-align:center; background-color: honeydew;" rowspan="2" | Submarine Fan System
| style="text-align:center; background-color: honeydew;" rowspan="2" | Mudstones and Siltstones
| style="text-align:center; background-color: honeydew;" rowspan="2" | Ultimately stratigraphic but size of reservoir means capillary trapping and dissolution would be the chief trapping mechanism
| style="text-align:center; background-color: honeydew;" rowspan="2" | Saline aquifer/depleted hydrocarbon field
| style="text-align:center; background-color: honeydew;" rowspan="2" | OPEN SYSTEM. Few faults means that the rate of pressure increase will be related to permeability of the reservoir and could be controlled by rate of injection
|-
| style="text-align:center; style="color:red; background-color: honeydew; " | e.g. Cromarty, Mey, Heimdal and Forties sandstone members
|-
| style="background-color: orange;" | '''Upper Cretaceous'''
| style="text-align:center;" | All areas
|
| style="text-align:center;" | Chalk
| style="text-align:center;" | Saline Water or hydrocarbons
|
| style="text-align:center;" colspan="4" | It is unlikely that the Late Cretaceous chalk would be utilised as a long term CO2 store
|-
| style="background-color: orange;" | '''Lower Cretaceous'''
| style="text-align:center; background-color: lightsteelblue;" | Outer Moray Firth
| style="text-align:center; style="color:red; background-color: lightsteelblue;" | e.g. Captain Sandstone Member
| style="text-align:center; background-color: lightsteelblue;" | Sandstone
| style="text-align:center; background-color: lightsteelblue;" | Saline water and hydrocarbons. In the Captain Field the oil is heavy (19-21 deg API)
| style="text-align:center; background-color: lightsteelblue;" | Submarine Fan System
| style="text-align:center; background-color: lightsteelblue;" | Mudstone and occasionally chalk
| style="text-align:center; background-color: lightsteelblue;" | To the west, the Captain reservoir subcrops at the sea bed and, outside structural closure, the amount of CO2 injected will be governed by rate if migration and its storage by capillary and dissolution.
| style="text-align:center; background-color: lightsteelblue;" | Saline aquifer/depleted hydrocarbon field
| style="text-align:center; background-color: lightsteelblue;" | OPEN SYSTEM. Faults do not appear to compartmentalise this reservoir. It is likely that the Captain reservoir subcrops at sea bed.
|-
| style="background-color: orangered;" | '''Jurassic'''
| style="background-color: lightcyan;" | Southern North Sea
| style="background-color: lightcyan;" |
| style="background-color: lightcyan;" |
| style="background-color: lightcyan;" |
| style="background-color: lightcyan;" |
| style="background-color: lightcyan;" colspan="4" | It is unlikely that the Jurassic will be utilised as a CO2 store in the SNS
|-
| style="background-color: orangered;" | '''Upper Jurassic'''
| style="text-align:center; background-color: honeydew;" rowspan="3" | Central and Northern North Sea
| style="text-align:center; background-color: honeydew;" | e.g. Brae and Fulmar formations, Magnus Member.
| style="text-align:center; background-color: honeydew;" rowspan="3" | Sandstone
| style="text-align:center; background-color: honeydew;" rowspan="3" | Saline water or hydrocarbons
| style="text-align:center; background-color: honeydew;" | Submarine Fan Systems (Brae, Claymore, Magnus). Shallow marine, low to moderately high energy storm influenced setting
| style="text-align:center; background-color: honeydew;" rowspan="3" | Mudstone and Siltstones
| style="text-align:center; background-color: honeydew;" rowspan="3" | Structural (crests of tilted fault blocks, anticlinal over salt induced highs or deeper fault blocks), structural stratigraphic or purely stratigraphic. CO2 stores are more likely to be depleted hydrocarbon fields as these are the proven traps. ''Note: ''Some Middle and Lower Jurassic reservoirs may include a Triassic component.
| style="text-align:center; background-color: honeydew;" rowspan="3" | Depleted hydrocarbon field
| style="text-align:center; background-color: honeydew;" rowspan="3" | Most Likely CLOSED SYSTEM
|-
| style="background-color: orangered;" | '''Middle Jurassic'''
| style="text-align:center; background-color: honeydew;" | e.g. Brent Group and Beatrice Fm.
| style="text-align:center; background-color: honeydew;" | Delta system (Brent), marine barrier bar (Beatrice)
|-
| style="background-color: orangered;" | '''Lower Jurassic'''
| style="text-align:center; background-color: honeydew;" | e.g. Dunlin Group e.g. Statfjord Fm.
| style="text-align:center; background-color: honeydew;" | Wave influenced lower shoreface to offshore
|-
| style="background-color: red;" | '''Upper Triassic Middle Triassic'''
| style="text-align:center;" | All areas
| style="text-align:center;" colspan="8" | It is unlikely that the Mid to Upper Triassic would be utilised as a CO2 store in the near term (but see note above).
|-
| style="background-color: red;" | '''Lower Triassic'''
| style="text-align:center; background-color: lightcyan;" | Southern North Sea
| style="text-align:center; style="color:red; background-color: lightcyan;" | e.g. Bunter Sandstone Fm.
| style="text-align:center; background-color: lightcyan;" | Sandstone
| style="text-align:center; background-color: lightcyan;" | Saline water or methane
| style="text-align:center; background-color: lightcyan;" | Fluvial
| style="text-align:center; background-color: lightcyan;" | Interbedded mudstones
| style="text-align:center; background-color: lightcyan;" | 4-way dip closure over salt diapirs
| style="text-align:center; background-color: lightcyan;" | Saline aquifer/depleted gas field
| style="text-align:center; background-color: lightcyan;" |
|-
| style="background-color: firebrick;" | '''Late Permian'''
| style="text-align:center; background-color: lightcyan;" | Southern North Sea
| style="text-align:center; style="color:red; background-color: lightcyan;" | e.g. Rotliegend Leman Sst. Fm.
| style="text-align:center; background-color: lightcyan;" | Sandstone. Most likely a depleted gas reserve
| style="text-align:center; background-color: lightcyan;" | Methane
| style="text-align:center; background-color: lightcyan;" | Aeolian
| style="text-align:center; background-color: lightcyan;" | Evaporite
| style="text-align:center; background-color: lightcyan;" | Hydrocarbon fields tend to be uplifted or inverted fault blocks top sealed by thick layers of evaporites.
| style="text-align:center; background-color: lightcyan;" | Saline aquifer/depleted gas field
| style="text-align:center; background-color: lightcyan;" |
|}
</center>

==References==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:OR/18/013 Multiscale Whole Systems Modelling and Analysis Project - A description of the selection, building and characterisation of a set of 3D generic CO2 storage models| 03]]

OR/18/013 Introduction - Revision history

Dbk: 1 revision imported

Dbk at 07:22, 1 August 2018

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:47, 1 August 2018
(No difference)