The role of injection method on residual trap** at the pore-scale in continuum-scale samples
Authors:
Catherine Spurin,
Sharon Ellman,
Tom Bultreys,
Hamdi Tchelepi
Abstract:
The injection of CO$_2$ into underground reservoirs provides a long term solution for anthropogenic emissions. A variable injection method (such as ram** the flow rate up or down) provides flexibility to injection sites, and could increase trap** at the pore-scale. However, the impact of a variable injection method on the connectivity of the gas, and subsequent trap** has not been explored a…
▽ More
The injection of CO$_2$ into underground reservoirs provides a long term solution for anthropogenic emissions. A variable injection method (such as ram** the flow rate up or down) provides flexibility to injection sites, and could increase trap** at the pore-scale. However, the impact of a variable injection method on the connectivity of the gas, and subsequent trap** has not been explored at the pore-scale. Here, we conduct pore-scale imaging in a continuum-scale sample to observe the role of a variable flow rate on residual trap**. We show that the injection method influences how much of the pore space is accessible to the gas, even when total volumes injected, and total flow rates remain constant. Starting at a high flow rate, then decreasing it, leads to a larger amount of the pore space accessed by the gas. Conversely, starting at a low flow rate, and increasing it, leads to a larger role of heterogeneity of the pore space. This can promote trap** efficiency because channelling of the two fluids can occur, but less gas is trapped overall. Overall, a high-to-low injection scenario is optimum for residual trap** in the pore space due to increases in pore space accessibility.
△ Less
Submitted 26 July, 2023;
originally announced July 2023.
The FluidFlower International Benchmark Study: Process, Modeling Results, and Comparison to Experimental Data
Authors:
Bernd Flemisch,
Jan M. Nordbotten,
Martin Fernø,
Ruben Juanes,
Holger Class,
Mojdeh Delshad,
Florian Doster,
Jonathan Ennis-King,
Jacques Franc,
Sebastian Geiger,
Dennis Gläser,
Christopher Green,
James Gunning,
Hadi Hajibeygi,
Samuel J. Jackson,
Mohamad Jammoul,
Satish Karra,
Jiawei Li,
Stephan K. Matthäi,
Terry Miller,
Qi Shao,
Catherine Spurin,
Philip Stauffer,
Hamdi Tchelepi,
Xiaoming Tian
, et al. (8 additional authors not shown)
Abstract:
Successful deployment of geological carbon storage (GCS) requires an extensive use of reservoir simulators for screening, ranking and optimization of storage sites. However, the time scales of GCS are such that no sufficient long-term data is available yet to validate the simulators against. As a consequence, there is currently no solid basis for assessing the quality with which the dynamics of la…
▽ More
Successful deployment of geological carbon storage (GCS) requires an extensive use of reservoir simulators for screening, ranking and optimization of storage sites. However, the time scales of GCS are such that no sufficient long-term data is available yet to validate the simulators against. As a consequence, there is currently no solid basis for assessing the quality with which the dynamics of large-scale GCS operations can be forecasted.
To meet this knowledge gap, we have conducted a major GCS validation benchmark study. To achieve reasonable time scales, a laboratory-size geological storage formation was constructed (the "FluidFlower"), forming the basis for both the experimental and computational work. A validation experiment consisting of repeated GCS operations was conducted in the FluidFlower, providing what we define as the true physical dynamics for this system. Nine different research groups from around the world provided forecasts, both individually and collaboratively, based on a detailed physical and petrophysical characterization of the FluidFlower sands.
The major contribution of this paper is a report and discussion of the results of the validation benchmark study, complemented by a description of the benchmarking process and the participating computational models. The forecasts from the participating groups are compared to each other and to the experimental data by means of various indicative qualitative and quantitative measures. By this, we provide a detailed assessment of the capabilities of reservoir simulators and their users to capture both the injection and post-injection dynamics of the GCS operations.
△ Less
Submitted 9 February, 2023;
originally announced February 2023.
