IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/greenh/v6y2016i4p546-560.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Effect of outer boundary condition, reservoir size, and CO 2 effective permeability on pressure and CO 2 saturation predictions under carbon sequestration conditions

Author

Listed:
  • Liwei Zhang
  • Robert M. Dilmore
  • Grant S. Bromhal

Abstract

A TOUGH2 simulation was conducted to investigate how the change of key model parameters affects pressure and CO 2 saturation response to CO 2 injection into a deep CO 2 storage reservoir. Given a domain of 100 × 100 km and a formation permeability of 10-super-−13 m-super-2, outer boundary condition does not have a significant impact on pressure increase and CO 2 saturation results. In a simulation period of 30 years of CO 2 injection + 100 years of post CO 2 injection, with a total CO 2 injection volume of 6.3×10-super-7 m-super-3 at T = 47°C and P = 10.5 MPa (equivalent mass of 30 million tonnes of CO 2 ), there is no pressure difference between the no flow boundary case and the open boundary case given a domain size of 100 x 100 km (a total storage formation pore volume of 10-super-11 m-super-3 at T = 47°C and P = 10.5 MPa), and the maximum CO 2 plume radius difference is 0.5%. However, given a domain size of 10 × 10 km, outer boundary condition significantly affects pressure simulation results. At t = 130 years, the pressure increase in the no flow boundary case is 56.5 times of the pressure increase in the open boundary case at the cell 50 m away from the injection well. For the 10 × 10 km case, the impact of outer boundary condition on CO 2 saturation results is relatively small. The change in formation permeability significantly affects pressure increase results, while the change in CO 2 relative permeability model only affects pressure increase results at cells close to the CO 2 injector. © 2016 Society of Chemical Industry and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd

Suggested Citation

  • Liwei Zhang & Robert M. Dilmore & Grant S. Bromhal, 2016. "Effect of outer boundary condition, reservoir size, and CO 2 effective permeability on pressure and CO 2 saturation predictions under carbon sequestration conditions," Greenhouse Gases: Science and Technology, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 6(4), pages 546-560, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:greenh:v:6:y:2016:i:4:p:546-560
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1002/ghg.1586
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Emad A. Al†Khdheeawi & Stephanie Vialle & Ahmed Barifcani & Mohammad Sarmadivaleh & Yihuai Zhang & Stefan Iglauer, 2018. "Impact of salinity on CO2 containment security in highly heterogeneous reservoirs," Greenhouse Gases: Science and Technology, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 8(1), pages 93-105, February.
    2. Jing, Jing & Yang, Yanlin & Tang, Zhonghua, 2021. "Assessing the influence of injection temperature on CO2 storage efficiency and capacity in the sloping formation with fault," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 215(PA).
    3. Liwei Zhang & Robert Dilmore & Nicolas Huerta & Yee Soong & Veronika Vasylkivska & Argha Namhata & Yan Wang & Xiaochun Li, 2018. "Application of a new reduced‐complexity assessment tool to estimate CO2 and brine leakage from reservoir and above‐zone monitoring interval (AZMI) through an abandoned well under geologic carbon stora," Greenhouse Gases: Science and Technology, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 8(5), pages 839-853, October.
    4. Ram Kumar & Scott Campbell & Eric Sonnenthal & Jeffrey Cunningham, 2020. "Effect of brine salinity on the geological sequestration of CO2 in a deep saline carbonate formation," Greenhouse Gases: Science and Technology, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 10(2), pages 296-312, April.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:greenh:v:6:y:2016:i:4:p:546-560. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1002/(ISSN)2152-3878 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.