4.5 Article

Solubility of carbon dioxide in aqueous fluids and mineral suspensions at 294 K and subcritical pressures

期刊

APPLIED GEOCHEMISTRY
卷 27, 期 8, 页码 1610-1614

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.apgeochem.2012.03.008

关键词

-

资金

  1. Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) [NE/F005083/1]
  2. Carbon Research Into Underground Storage (CRIUS) consortium
  3. NERC [NE/F005083/1, NE/F004699/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  4. Natural Environment Research Council [NE/F004699/1, NE/F005083/1] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

An experimental investigation has been carried on the solubility of CO2 in water and 1 M NaCl between 0.3 and 4 MPa, in order to test the validity of the results given by various modelling codes. In addition to experiments with pure fluids, the effect of a range of likely reservoir minerals on CO2-water interactions, including K-feldspar, kaolinite, calcite, Ca-montmorillonite and Na-montmorillonite were also investigated. In addition to measurements of CO2 solubility, the pH of the CO2-saturated suspensions was also measured directly at pressures of up to 1 MPa. The results demonstrate that predictions of CO2 solubility made with PHREEQC and Geochemist's Workbench agree to within 20% with the experimental value, provided corrections are first made off-line for the fugacity coefficient of CO2, while predictions from standalone models are slightly more accurate. In the presence of mineral suspensions, PHREEQC and Geochemist's Workbench give good results for calcite and kaolinite but underestimate the pH of mont-morillonite-bearing assemblages while slightly overestimating the pH of K-feldspar suspensions. These results are significant because they indicate that CO2-charged fluids reacted with clays may be less acidic than indicated by the models, which will impact predictions of the potential for dissolution of reservoir and cap rock minerals, as well as the potential for leaching of toxic metals. (C) 2012 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

4.5
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