Implications of Coupling Fractional Flow and Geochemistry for CO2 Injection in Aquifers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Implications of Coupling Fractional Flow and Geochemistry for CO2 Injection in Aquifers M. Noh; M. Noh The University of Texas at Austin Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Scholar L.W. Lake; L.W. Lake The University of Texas at Austin Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Scholar S.L. Bryant; S.L. Bryant The University of Texas at Austin Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Scholar A. Araque-Martinez A. Araque-Martinez The University of Texas at Austin Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Scholar Paper presented at the SPE/DOE Symposium on Improved Oil Recovery, Tulsa, Oklahoma, April 2004. Paper Number: SPE-89341-MS https://doi.org/10.2118/89341-MS Published: April 17 2004 Cite View This Citation Add to Citation Manager Share Icon Share Twitter LinkedIn Get Permissions Search Site Citation Noh, M., Lake, L.W., Bryant, S.L., and A. Araque-Martinez. "Implications of Coupling Fractional Flow and Geochemistry for CO2 Injection in Aquifers." Paper presented at the SPE/DOE Symposium on Improved Oil Recovery, Tulsa, Oklahoma, April 2004. doi: https://doi.org/10.2118/89341-MS Download citation file: Ris (Zotero) Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex Search Dropdown Menu nav search search input Search input auto suggest search filter All ContentAll ProceedingsSociety of Petroleum Engineers (SPE)SPE Improved Oil Recovery Conference Search Advanced Search AbstractThe geochemical changes caused by CO2 injection into aquifers include acidification and carbonation of the native brine and potential mineral dissolution and precipitation reactions driven by the aqueous composition changes. The latter are important for evaluating the potential CO2 storage capacity in the form of minerals and can also influence the performance of the injection well.The theories of geochemical flows and of fractional flow provide useful insight into several aspects of CO2 sequestration. This paper gives the mathematical formalism of combined geochemical and multi-phase flow. If local equilibrium applies, the theory leads to graphical solution, from which it is easy to see when and under what conditions mineralization will occur during the injection. The theory also illustrates the influence of post-injection flow on mode of CO2 trapping (hydrodynamic, solubility, mineral, residual saturation). We also show that co-injection of water significantly alters the mode of trapping.IntroductionCarbon dioxide sequestration was first discussed in the late 1970s.1 However, serious research and development in CO2 sequestration only began in the early 1990s. The technical literature2–8 about CO2 disposal in aquifers includes feasibility studies in The Netherlands and in the Alberta Basin, Canada. A field test is being performed in the North Sea in the Sleipner Vest project, which is the first CO2 sequestration project in a brine-bearing formation.9Sequestering CO2 in geologic formations offers numerous advantages, including:10The experience of the oil industry can directly provide the technology to enable the commercialization of this approach.Several collateral economic benefits are possible, for example, enhancing oil and gas recovery while storing CO2.Suitable geologic formations, including oil, gas, brine, and coal formations are relatively easy to find.The regulatory infrastructure associated with the injection into oil and gas formations and deep aquifers is well established.Geologic analogs such as natural CO2 reservoirs prove that geologic structures can sequester CO2 for a very long time.Public acceptance for geologic sequestration should grow as technological advances lead to innovative methods for creating permanent mineral sinks for CO2.Carbon dioxide can be sequestered in geologic formations by three principal mechanisms.11CO2 can be trapped as a gaseous phase or supercritical fluid under a low-permeability caprock, similar to what occurs in natural gas reservoirs (hydrodynamic trapping).Dissolution into an aqueous phase (solubility trapping).CO2 can react with the minerals and the organic matter in geologic formations to become a part of the solid (mineral trapping). Formation of carbonate minerals such as calcite or siderite and the adsorption onto coal are other examples of the mineral trapping. Mineral trapping will create stable repositories of CO2 that decrease mobile hazards such as leakage to the surface.An additional form of storage — as a residual gas saturation — is also studied in this and a companion paper. Here CO2 remains as a gaseous phase, such as hydrodynamic trapping, but it is immobile because the gas is trapped by capillary forces. In this study, the immobile gas trapping is called the residual saturation trapping. Keywords: gaseous phase, semi-miscible displacement, injection, saturation profile, saturation, enhanced recovery, analytical solution, equation, aquifer, dissolution Subjects: Reservoir Fluid Dynamics, Improved and Enhanced Recovery, Flow in porous media This content is only available via PDF. 2004. Society of Petroleum Engineers You can access this article if you purchase or spend a download.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".