Simulation of Salt Cavern Abandonment

An Analysis Using SafeInCave

Master Thesis (2025)
Author(s)

L.A. Landeweerd (TU Delft - Civil Engineering & Geosciences)

Contributor(s)

Hadi Hajibeygi – Mentor (TU Delft - Reservoir Engineering)

Herminio T. Honório – Mentor (TU Delft - Reservoir Engineering)

D.S. Draganov – Graduation committee member (TU Delft - Applied Geophysics and Petrophysics)

Faculty
Civil Engineering & Geosciences
More Info
expand_more
Publication Year
2025
Language
English
Graduation Date
01-08-2025
Awarding Institution
Delft University of Technology
Programme
['Applied Earth Sciences']
Faculty
Civil Engineering & Geosciences
Reuse Rights

Other than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download, forward or distribute the text or part of it, without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license such as Creative Commons.

Abstract

We investigate how creep-driven convergence after cavern abandonment compresses trapped brine and alters geomechanical risk. Using the open-source finite-element simulator SafeInCave, we implement a two-way coupling between cavern volume and hydrostatic brine pressure and run fully coupled simulations for a field-scale cylindrical cavern whose roof lies between 600 m and 2200 m. Two abandonment protocols are considered: hard shut-in, in which we permanently seal the well, and soft shut-in, in which we vent brine whenever its pressure reaches 70% of the overburden stress. Each depth-protocol pair is simulated with and without pressure-solution creep (PSC).


After 300 yr a hard-shut-in cavern loses only 0.30% of its initial volume at 600 m and 0.76% at 2200 m, yet shallow caverns approach the micro-fracturing threshold as brine pressure climbs to 95% of lithostatic pressure. Soft shut-in preserves σ ≥ 5 MPa safety margin against microfracturing but allows greater closure: volume loss rises from 1.6% at 800 m to 2.4% at 1600 m before declining in deeper settings. Convergence initiates faster in deep caverns but decelerates below shallow-cavern rates as deviatoric stresses relax over time. Even in the worst case, 600 m depth under soft shut-in, surface subsidence reaches only 3.1 cm. PSC accelerates early convergence for both protocols; under hard shut-in its influence fades within decades, whereas the constant pressure offset under soft shut-in sustains PSC for centuries, adding approximately 0.8 cm of subsidence at 800 m but slightly reducing it below 1000 m.


Depth therefore governs post-closure behaviour. Caverns shallower than approximately 1 km experience rapid pressure build-up that pushes brine pressure to within 1 MPa of lithostatic stress, while deeper caverns become self-limiting and converge slowly. Above 1 km the shut-in protocol dominates risk, whereas below 1 km brine-pressure feedback controls the response. The key findings are:



Soft shut-in is essential for caverns with roofs shallower than approximately 1 km.



Hard shut-in suffices at greater depth, as overburden filtering limits surface subsidence to the centimetre range.



Future models should incorporate a stress threshold for PSC and stratigraphic layering to avoid over-predicting far-field deformation and rebound.



The coupled-physics workflow developed here thus offers regulators and operators a transparent baseline tool to forecast post-closure deformation, tailor abandonment strategy to depth, and direct monitoring resources where they matter most.

Files

License info not available