<?xml version='1.0' encoding='utf-8'?>
<oai_dc:dc xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:oai_dc="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/ http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc.xsd">
  <dc:contributor>Jennifer C. McIntosh</dc:contributor>
  <dc:contributor>Andrew G. Hunt</dc:contributor>
  <dc:contributor>Thomas L Beebe</dc:contributor>
  <dc:contributor>Andrew D Parker</dc:contributor>
  <dc:contributor>Peter D. Warwick</dc:contributor>
  <dc:contributor>Ronald M. Drake II</dc:contributor>
  <dc:contributor>John E. McCray</dc:contributor>
  <dc:creator>Jenna L. Shelton</dc:creator>
  <dc:date>2016</dc:date>
  <dc:description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;span&gt;Rising atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO&lt;/span&gt;&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;span&gt;) concentrations are fueling anthropogenic climate change. Geologic sequestration of anthropogenic CO&lt;/span&gt;&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;span&gt;&amp;nbsp;in depleted oil reservoirs is one option for reducing CO&lt;/span&gt;&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;span&gt;&amp;nbsp;emissions to the atmosphere while enhancing oil recovery. In order to evaluate the feasibility of using enhanced oil recovery (EOR) sites in the United States for permanent CO&lt;/span&gt;&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;span&gt;&amp;nbsp;storage, an active multi-stage miscible CO&lt;/span&gt;&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;span&gt;flooding project in the Permian Basin (North Ward Estes Field, near Wickett, Texas) was investigated. In addition, two major natural CO&lt;/span&gt;&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;span&gt;&amp;nbsp;reservoirs in the southeastern Paradox Basin (McElmo Dome and Doe Canyon) were also investigated as they provide CO&lt;/span&gt;&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;span&gt;&amp;nbsp;for EOR operations in the Permian Basin. Produced gas and water were collected from three different CO&lt;/span&gt;&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;span&gt;&amp;nbsp;flooding phases (with different start dates) within the North Ward Estes Field to evaluate possible CO&lt;/span&gt;&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;span&gt;&amp;nbsp;storage mechanisms and amounts of total CO&lt;/span&gt;&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;span&gt;retention. McElmo Dome and Doe Canyon were sampled for produced gas to determine the noble gas and stable isotope signature of the original injected EOR gas and to confirm the source of this naturally-occurring CO&lt;/span&gt;&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;span&gt;. As expected, the natural CO&lt;/span&gt;&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;span&gt;produced from McElmo Dome and Doe Canyon is a mix of mantle and crustal sources. When comparing CO&lt;/span&gt;&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;span&gt;&amp;nbsp;injection and production rates for the CO&lt;/span&gt;&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;span&gt;&amp;nbsp;floods in the North Ward Estes Field, it appears that CO&lt;/span&gt;&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;span&gt;&amp;nbsp;retention in the reservoir decreased over the course of the three injections, retaining 39%, 49% and 61% of the injected CO&lt;/span&gt;&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;span&gt;&amp;nbsp;for the 2008, 2010, and 2013 projects, respectively, characteristic of maturing CO&lt;/span&gt;&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;span&gt;&amp;nbsp;miscible flood projects. Noble gas isotopic composition of the injected and produced gas for the flood projects suggest no active fractionation, while &amp;delta;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;sup&gt;13&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;span&gt;C&lt;/span&gt;&lt;img class="glyphImg imgLazyJSB" src="http://cdn.els-cdn.com/sd/entities/sbnd" border="0" alt="single bond" data-inlimg="/entities/sbnd" data-loaded="true" /&gt;&lt;span&gt;CO&lt;/span&gt;&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;span&gt;&amp;nbsp;values suggest no active CO&lt;/span&gt;&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;span&gt;dissolution into formation water, or mineralization. CO&lt;/span&gt;&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;span&gt;&amp;nbsp;volumes capable of dissolving in residual formation fluids were also estimated along with the potential to store pure-phase supercritical CO&lt;/span&gt;&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;span&gt;. Using a combination of dissolution trapping and residual trapping, both volumes of CO&lt;/span&gt;&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;span&gt;&amp;nbsp;currently retained in the 2008 and 2013 projects could be justified, suggesting no major leakage is occurring. These subsurface reservoirs, jointly considered, have the capacity to store up to 9 years of CO&lt;/span&gt;&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;span&gt;&amp;nbsp;emissions from an average US powerplant.&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</dc:description>
  <dc:format>application/pdf</dc:format>
  <dc:identifier>10.1016/j.ijggc.2016.05.008</dc:identifier>
  <dc:language>en</dc:language>
  <dc:publisher>Elsevier</dc:publisher>
  <dc:title>Determining CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; storage potential during miscible CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; enhanced oil recovery: Noble gas and stable isotope tracers</dc:title>
  <dc:type>article</dc:type>
</oai_dc:dc>