4.6 Article

Evaluation of long-term mineral trapping at the Ketzin pilot site for CO2 storage: An integrative approach using geochemical modelling and reservoir simulation

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijggc.2013.05.014

关键词

Geochemical modelling; Reservoir modelling; Mineral trapping; CO2 storage; Ketzin

资金

  1. European Commission
  2. Shell
  3. Statoil
  4. TOTAL
  5. Veolia
  6. RWE
  7. Vattenfall

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The aim of this work was to quantify long-term mineral trapping at a reservoir scale for the Ketzin pilot site for CO2 storage. An integrative approach coupling geochemical to reservoir simulations was therefore used. The main advantage compared to fully coupled reactive transport simulations is the reduction of computational time. Reactive transport simulations have not yet been performed to validate the approach. Data needed for the numerical simulations is supplied by geophysical and geological investigations at the site as well as by core and fluid sample analysis. The selection of elements of the 3D grid was carried out distinguishing between those exposed to gaseous CO2 and those with only dissolved CO2. Porosity and water saturation were used as coupling parameters between geochemical and reservoir simulations. An analytical approximation to scale geochemical simulations for heterogeneous porosity and water saturation was developed to assign each selected element of the reservoir model a dynamic and unique mineral trapping scenario. This was crucial to ensure the effectiveness and precision of the approach. Geochemical simulations show that mineral trapping is consecutively taken over by siderite, dolomite and magnesite, whereby the effective rate of mineral reactions strongly depends on the porosity. Results at reservoir scale after 10,000 years yield continuous growth of mineral trapping with an amount of 17,000 tonnes, which is about 25% of the totally injected CO2. (C) 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据