courses-img1News
International Respiratory Medicine Conference 2024 JEMP2024 NextGen Omics US 2025 A Topic Collection Dedicated to JEMP 2024 9th Asian Conference on Civil, Material and Environmental Science The 4th Climate, Weather and Water Forum International Conference of the German Society for Plant Sciences Emerging concepts and Novel Mechanisms in Organ Fibrosis Workshop ECB-IBS 2024 Five Editors-in-Chief Featured in the List of "Highly Cited
Sign in Register Submit

Journals Article Details

Clean Energy and Sustainability-logo
Submit to CES
Article Open Access

The Interplay between Experimental Data and Uncertainty Analysis in Quantifying CO2 Trapping during Geological Carbon Storage

Clean Energy and Sustainability. 2024, 2(1), 10001; https://doi.org/10.35534/ces.2024.10001
Marcos Vitor Barbosa Machado 1 *    Mojdeh Delshad 2    Kamy Sepehrnoori 2   
1
PETROBRAS, Rio de Janeiro, RJ 20231-030, Brazil
2
Hildebrand Department of Petroleum and Geosystems Engineering, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX 78712, USA
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.

Received: 05 Dec 2023    Accepted: 10 Jan 2024    Published: 16 Jan 2024   

Full-Text HTML Full-Text PDF Download PDF

Abstract

Numerical simulation is a widely used tool for studying CO2 storage in porous media. It enables the representation of trapping mechanisms and CO2 retention capacity. The complexity of the involved physicochemical phenomena necessitates multiphase flow, accurate fluid and rock property representation, and their interactions. These include CO2 solubility, diffusion, relative permeabilities, capillary pressure hysteresis, and mineralization, all crucial in CO2 trapping during carbon storage simulations. Experimental data is essential to ensure accurate quantification. However, due to the extensive data required, modeling under uncertainty is often needed to assess parameter impacts on CO2 trapping and its interaction with geological properties like porosity and permeability. This work proposes a framework combining laboratory data and stochastic parameter distribution to map uncertainty in CO2 retention over time. Published data representing solubility, residual trapping, and mineral trapping are used to calibrate prediction models. Geological property variations, like porosity and permeability, are coupled to quantify uncertainty. Results from a saline sandstone aquifer model demonstrate significant variation in CO2 trapping, ranging from 17% (P10 estimate) to 56% (P90), emphasizing the importance of considering uncertainty in CO2 storage projects. Quadratic response surfaces and Monte Carlo simulations accurately capture this uncertainty, resulting in calibrated models with an R-squared coefficient above 80%. In summary, this work provides a practical and comprehensive framework for studying CO2 retention in porous media, addressing uncertainty through stochastic parameter distributions, and highlighting its importance in CO2 storage projects. 

Keywords

CO2 trapping mechanisms; CCS; Uncertainty analysis; Proxy models; Saline aquifer

References

1.
Birol DF. World Energy Outlook 2022; IEA: Paris, France 2022.
2.
Nghiem L, Shrivastava V, Kohse B, Hassam M, Yang C. Simulation of Trapping Processes for CO2 Storage in Saline Aquifers. In Proceedings of the Canadian International Petroleum Conference, Calgary, Alberta, June 2009.
3.
Han WS, McPherson BJ, Lichtner PC, Wang FP. Evaluation of Trapping Mechanisms in Geologic CO2 Sequestration: Case Study of SACROC Northern Platform, a 35-Year CO2 Injection Site. Am. J. Sci. 2010, 310, 282–324. [Google Scholar]
4.
Delshad M, Kong X, Tavakoli R, Hosseini SA, Wheeler MF. Modeling and Simulation of Carbon Sequestration at Cranfield Incorporating New Physical Models. Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control 2013, 18, 463–473. [Google Scholar]
5.
Rackley SA. Carbon Capture and Storage, 2nd ed.; Butterworth-Heinemann: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2017.
6.
Machado MVB, Delshad M, Sepehrnoori K. Potential Benefits of Horizontal Wells for CO2 Injection to Enhance Storage Security and Reduce Leakage Risks. Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 12830. [Google Scholar]
7.
Bachu S. CO2 Storage in Geological Media: Role, Means, Status and Barriers to Deployment. Progress Energy Combust. Sci. 2008, 34, 254–273. [Google Scholar]
8.
Dodds WS, Stutzman LF, Sollami BJ. Carbon Dioxide Solubility in Water. Ind. Eng. Chem. Chem. Eng. Data Series 1956, 1, 92–95. [Google Scholar]
9.
Duan Z, Sun R. An Improved Model Calculating CO2 Solubility in Pure Water and Aqueous NaCl Solutions from 273 to 533 K and from 0 to 2000 Bar. Chem. Geol. 2003, 193, 257–271. [Google Scholar]
10.
Burnside NM, Naylor M. Review and Implications of Relative Permeability of CO2/Brine Systems and Residual Trapping of CO2. Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control 2014, 23, 1–11. [Google Scholar]
11.
Xu T, Yue G, Wang F, Liu N. Using Natural CO2 Reservoir to Constrain Geochemical Models for CO2 Geological Sequestration. Appl. Geochem. 2014, 43, 22–34. [Google Scholar]
12.
Machado MVB. Modelagem Numérica de Reservatórios de Petróleo: Prática Integrada de Simulação; Petrobras: Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 2023.
13.
Tadjer A, Bratvold RB. Managing Uncertainty in Geological CO2 Storage Using Bayesian Evidential Learning. Energies 2021, 14, 1557. [Google Scholar]
14.
Mahjour SK, Faroughi SA. Selecting Representative Geological Realizations to Model Subsurface CO2 Storage under Uncertainty. Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control 2023, 127, 103920. [Google Scholar]
15.
Raza Y. Uncertainty Analysis of Capacity Estimates and Leakage Potential for Geologic Storage of Carbon Dioxide in Saline Aquifers. Master’s Thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2006.
16.
Khanal A, Shahriar MF. Physics-Based Proxy Modeling of CO2 Sequestration in Deep Saline Aquifers. Energies 2022, 15, 4350. [Google Scholar]
17.
Jammoul M, Delshad M, Wheeler MF. Numerical Modeling of CO2 Storage: Applications to the FluidFlower Experimental Setup. Transp. Porous. Med. 2023. doi:10.1007/s11242-023-01996-4.
18.
Likanapaisal P, Lun L, Krishnamurthy P, Kohli K. Understanding Subsurface Uncertainty for Carbon Storage in Saline Aquifers: PVT, SCAL, and Grid-Size Sensitivity. In Proceedings of the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas, USA, October 2023.
19.
Li Y-K, Nghiem LX. Phase Equilibria of Oil, Gas and Water/Brine Mixtures from a Cubic Equation of State and Henry’s Law. Can. J. Chem. Eng. 1986, 64, 486–496. [Google Scholar]
20.
Harvey AH, Prausnitz JM. Thermodynamics of High-Pressure Aqueous Systems Containing Gases and Salts. AIChE J. 1989, 35, 635–644. [Google Scholar]
21.
CMG. GEM Compositional & Unconventional Simulator (version 2022.10); Windows; CMG: Calgary, AB, Canada, 2022.
22.
Bakker RJ. Package FLUIDS 1. Computer Programs for Analysis of Fluid Inclusion Data and for Modelling Bulk Fluid Properties. Chem. Geol. 2003, 194, 3–23. [Google Scholar]
23.
Yan W, Huang S, Stenby EH. Measurement and Modeling of CO2 Solubility in NaCl Brine and CO2–Saturated NaCl Brine Density. Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control 2011, 5, 1460–1477. [Google Scholar]
24.
Rezk MG, Foroozesh J, Abdulrahman A, Gholinezhad J. CO2 Diffusion and Dispersion in Porous Media: Review of Advances in Experimental Measurements and Mathematical Models. Energy Fuels 2022, 36, 133–155. [Google Scholar]
25.
Ahmadi H, Erfani H, Jamialahmadi M, Soulgani BS, Dinarvand N, Sharafi MS. Corrigendum to “Experimental Study and Modelling on Diffusion Coefficient of CO2 in Water” Fluid Phase Equilibria 523 (2020) 112,584. Fluid Phase Equilibria 2021, 529, 112869. [Google Scholar]
26.
Perera PN, Deng H, Schuck PJ, Gilbert B. Diffusivity of Carbon Dioxide in Aqueous Solutions under Geologic Carbon Sequestration Conditions. J. Phys. Chem. B 2018, 122, 4566–4572. [Google Scholar]
27.
Carlson FM. Simulation of Relative Permeability Hysteresis to the Nonwetting Phase. In Proceedings of the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, TX, USA, 4 October 1981.
28.
Land CS. Calculation of Imbibition Relative Permeability for Two- and Three-Phase Flow from Rock Properties. Soc. Petrol. Eng. J. 1968, 8, 149–156. [Google Scholar]
29.
Jarrell PM. Practical Aspects of CO₂ Flooding; Society of Petroleum Engineers: Richardson, TX, USA, 2002.
30.
Brooks RH, Corey AT. Properties of Porous Media Affecting Fluid Flow. J. Irrig. and Drain. Div. 1966, 92, 61–88. [Google Scholar]
31.
Leverett MC. Capillary Behavior in Porous Solids. Trans. AIME 1941, 142, 152–169. [Google Scholar]
32.
Bennion DB, Bachu S. Drainage and Imbibition Relative Permeability Relationships for Supercritical CO2/Brine and H2S/Brine Systems in Intergranular Sandstone, Carbonate, Shale, and Anhydrite Rocks. SPE Reserv. Eval. Eng. 2008, 11, 487–496. [Google Scholar]
33.
Krevor SCM, Pini R, Zuo L, Benson SM. Relative Permeability and Trapping of CO2 and Water in Sandstone Rocks at Reservoir Conditions. Water Resour. Res. 2012, 48, 2011WR010859. [Google Scholar]
34.
Jung J, Hu JW. Impact of Pressure and Brine Salinity on Capillary Pressure-Water Saturation Relations in Geological CO2 Sequestration. Adv. Condens. Matter Phys. 2016, 2016, 1–11. [Google Scholar]
35.
Machado MVB, Delshad M, Sepehrnoori K. Injectivity Assessment for CCS Field-Scale Projects with Considerations of Salt Deposition, Mineral Dissolution, Fines Migration, Hydrate Formation, and Non-Darcy Flow. Fuel 2023, 353, 129148. [Google Scholar]
36.
Melrose JC. Valid Capillary Pressure Data at Low Wetting-Phase Saturations. SPE Reserv. Eng. 1990, 5, 95–99. [Google Scholar]
37.
Xiao Y, Xu T, Pruess K. The Effects of Gas-Fluid-Rock Interactions on CO2 Injection and Storage: Insights from Reactive Transport Modeling. Energy Procedia 2009, 1, 1783–1790. [Google Scholar]
38.
Parkhurst DL, Thorstenson DC, Plummer LN. PHREEQE: A Computer Program for Geochemical Calculations; U.S. Geological Survey: Denver, CO, USA, 1980.
39.
Parkhurst DL, Appelo CAJ. Description of Input and Examples for PHREEQC Version 3: A Computer Program for Speciation, Batch-Reaction, One-Dimensional Transport, and Inverse Geochemical Calculations.; U.S. Geological Survey Techniques and Methods, Book 6; U.S. Geological Survey: Denver, CO, USA, 2013; p. 497.
40.
Lasaga AC. Chemical Kinetics of Water-Rock Interactions. J. Geophys. Res. 1984, 89, 4009–4025. [Google Scholar]
41.
Machado MVB, Delshad M, Sepehrnoori K. A Practical and Innovative Workflow to Support the Numerical Simulation of CO2 Storage in Large Field-Scale Models. SPE Reserv. Eval. Eng. 2023, 26, 1541–1552. [Google Scholar]
42.
Allison JD, Brown DS, Novo-Gradac KJ. MINTEQA2/PRODEFA2: A Geochemical Assessment Model for Environmental Systems: Version 3.0 User’s Manual; EPA: Washington, DC, USA, 1991.
43.
Wolery TJ. EQ3/6, a Software Package for Geochemical Modeling of Aqueous Systems: Package Overview and Installation Guide (Version 7.0); USDOE: Washington, DC, USA, 1992.
44.
Luo S, Xu R, Jiang P. Effect of Reactive Surface Area of Minerals on Mineralization Trapping of CO2 in Saline Aquifers. Pet. Sci. 2012, 9, 400–407. [Google Scholar]
45.
Bolourinejad P, Shoeibi Omrani P, Herber R. Effect of Reactive Surface Area of Minerals on Mineralization and Carbon Dioxide Trapping in a Depleted Gas Reservoir. Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control 2014, 21, 11–22. [Google Scholar]
46.
Chen H, Wang C, Ye M. An Uncertainty Analysis of Subsidy for Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) Retrofitting Investment in China’s Coal Power Plants Using a Real-Options Approach. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 137, 200–212. [Google Scholar]
47.
Koelbl BS, Van Den Broek MA, Faaij APC, Van Vuuren DP. Uncertainty in Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) Deployment Projections: A Cross-Model Comparison Exercise. Clim. Change 2014, 123, 461–476. [Google Scholar]
48.
Van Der Spek M, Fout T, Garcia M, Kuncheekanna VN, Matuszewski M, McCoy S, et al. Uncertainty Analysis in the Techno-Economic Assessment of CO2 Capture and Storage Technologies. Critical Review and Guidelines for Use. Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control 2020, 100, 103113. [Google Scholar]
49.
Oda J, Akimoto K. An Analysis of CCS Investment under Uncertainty. Energy Procedia 2011, 4, 1997–2004. [Google Scholar]
50.
Mckay MD, Beckman RJ, Conover WJ. A Comparison of Three Methods for Selecting Values of Input Variables in the Analysis of Output from a Computer Code.  Technometrics 2000, 42, 55–61. [Google Scholar]
51.
Ma YZ. Quantitative Geosciences: Data Analytics, Geostatistics, Reservoir Characterization and Modeling; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2019.
52.
Cremon MA, Christie MA, Gerritsen MG. Monte Carlo Simulation for Uncertainty Quantification in Reservoir Simulation: A Convergence Study. J. Petrol. Sci. Eng. 2020, 190, 107094. [Google Scholar]
53.
Ballio F, Guadagnini A. Convergence Assessment of Numerical Monte Carlo Simulations in Groundwater Hydrology: TECHNICAL NOTE. Water Resour. Res. 2004, 40, W04603. [Google Scholar]
54.
Saltelli A, Ratto M, Andres T, Campolongo F, Cariboni J, Gatelli D, et al. Global Sensitivity Analysis. The Primer, 1st ed.; Wiley: Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2007.
Creative Commons

© 2024 by the authors; licensee SCIEPublish, SCISCAN co. Ltd. This article is an open access article distributed under the CC BY license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).