4.7 Article

CO2 sequestration in sandstone reservoirs: How does reactive flow alter trapping mechanisms?

Journal

FUEL
Volume 324, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.fuel.2022.124781

Keywords

CO2 storage; Petrophysical parameters; Sandstone; Dissolution; Fine migration

Ask authors/readers for more resources

A series of systematic experimental studies were conducted to analyze the changes in porosity, permeability, capillary pressure, and surface wettability of sandstone samples after CO2 treatment. The results showed that mineral dissolution increased porosity and improved the surface wettability towards a CO2 wet system.
Numerous studies have attempted to assess the possible changes in the petrophysical parameters of sandstone reservoirs for the geological storage of CO2. However, the results have been highly variable and hardly conclusive, highlighting mineral alteration, precipitation, dissolution, and fine migration as the main drivers of changes in porosity, permeability, and surface wettability. In this paper, a series of systematic experimental studies were carried out on the Berea sandstone samples to carefully analyse the changes in porosity, relative permeability, capillary pressure, and surface wettability after CO2 treatment. The results obtained indicated that porosity increased in the samples due to dissolution of minerals (calcite and clay) and there was no sign of pore throat closure due to mineral precipitation. It was found that the surface wettability can be shifted towards a CO2 wet system, probably because of calcite precipitation and clay dissolution or reduction in the hydrophilicity of quartz, leading to a decrease in capillary entry pressure. It appears that the mineral and capillary trapping in sandstone make it a suitable storage site for CO2, but that require further research to fully understand the changes posed by mineral dissolution in the long term.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available