Abstarct: From the past until now, the issue of reservoir integrity in the process of injecting carbon dioxide into underground petroleum reservoirs has been of paramount importance. To ensure the preservation of reservoir integrity, including caprock, faults, etc., it is essential to conduct geomechanical studies and analyses during reservoir production or injection operations. Neglecting geomechanical assessments during carbon dioxide injection and storage processes can lead to increased pore pressure and decreased effective stresses in the reservoir. Consequently, phenomena such as stress changes, shear failure, tensile failure, and caprock displacement in the injection area may occur. In case of carbon dioxide leakage into the reservoir through the caprock and its entry into the atmosphere or groundwater sources and subsequent reaction with carbon dioxide, acidification will occur. Apart from all the associated costs, serious environmental damage will occur, and even induced seismicity may result. In this study, due to limited access to necessary data for modeling in Iranian reservoirs, an evaluation was conducted on a depleted reservoir in the Volve oil field in Norway. Additionally, only one-dimensional geomechanical data processed for a wellbore F1A in the Volve oil field was available. In this research, a coupled hydro-mechanical model was designed using two commercial software, namely Eclipse and Visage, utilizing finite difference and finite element numerical solution methods, respectively, to assess and analyze caprock integrity in injection and production well options. These steps included examining the quality of one-dimensional spatial mechanical data, three-dimensional geomechanical modeling using Petrel software, reservoir dynamic modeling, and coupled hydro-mechanical analysis using a one-way coupled analysis method over a period of 10 years. Due to limited data access and focusing solely on caprock, a one-way coupled approach was employed. The results of this study indicated that, considering the injection and production operations in the target field and examining geomechanical parameters, using the Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion, it was determined that, by maintaining a distance between the Mohr circle and the caprock, instability and failure due to injection or production options in the caprock did not occur. Furthermore, sensitivity analysis on reservoir parameters and injection options revealed that changes in parameters, if leading to a change in field pressure beyond the failure pressure threshold, would cause caprock failure. In this study, caprock failure occurred in two cases: changing well status and changing caprock pore pressure. In the case of changing pore pressure, initially due to gas injection and a 1.5-fold increase in the field pressure parameter (initial average field pressure from 256 bar to 384 bar), this pressure increase led to an increase in area stresses, a decrease in surrounding rock strength, and consequently a decrease in effective principal stresses. By the end of the time step, due to production from the reservoir, the field pressure decreased, and the effective principal stresses increased. Consequently, movement of principal stress concentrations toward the failed caprock occurred, resulting in caprock failure. In the case of changing well status, both wells, when operating in injection mode, experienced increased field pressure compared to the initial state, causing increased remaining stresses in the area, surpassing the caprock failure pressure threshold. As a result, the Mohr circle moved to the right, and the radius of the Mohr circle approached the failed caprock, increasing the instability probability in the rock. Therefore, accurate estimation of pore pressure to maintain optimal conditions during injection and production operations is essential. In geomechanical simulators, the effect of stress and strain changes is calculated baxsed on mathematical equations, while in dynamic simulators, these changes are not applied. Therefore, having sufficient data for geomechanical construction and analysis yields higher precision results and lower risk and uncertainty, whereas considering only dynamic flow simulation in modeling reduces the accuracy of the final results.