Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
0
Deng - Permeability characterization and  alteration due to reactive transport
Deng - Permeability characterization and  alteration due to reactive transport
Deng - Permeability characterization and  alteration due to reactive transport
Deng - Permeability characterization and  alteration due to reactive transport
Deng - Permeability characterization and  alteration due to reactive transport
Deng - Permeability characterization and  alteration due to reactive transport
Deng - Permeability characterization and  alteration due to reactive transport
Deng - Permeability characterization and  alteration due to reactive transport
Deng - Permeability characterization and  alteration due to reactive transport
Deng - Permeability characterization and  alteration due to reactive transport
Deng - Permeability characterization and  alteration due to reactive transport
Deng - Permeability characterization and  alteration due to reactive transport
Deng - Permeability characterization and  alteration due to reactive transport
Deng - Permeability characterization and  alteration due to reactive transport
Deng - Permeability characterization and  alteration due to reactive transport
Deng - Permeability characterization and  alteration due to reactive transport
Deng - Permeability characterization and  alteration due to reactive transport
Deng - Permeability characterization and  alteration due to reactive transport
Deng - Permeability characterization and  alteration due to reactive transport
Deng - Permeability characterization and  alteration due to reactive transport
Deng - Permeability characterization and  alteration due to reactive transport
Deng - Permeability characterization and  alteration due to reactive transport
Deng - Permeability characterization and  alteration due to reactive transport
Deng - Permeability characterization and  alteration due to reactive transport
Deng - Permeability characterization and  alteration due to reactive transport
Deng - Permeability characterization and  alteration due to reactive transport
Deng - Permeability characterization and  alteration due to reactive transport
Deng - Permeability characterization and  alteration due to reactive transport
Deng - Permeability characterization and  alteration due to reactive transport
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Deng - Permeability characterization and alteration due to reactive transport

661

Published on

Published in: Education, Technology, Business
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
661
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
6
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Permeability characterization andalteration due to reactive transport Hang DengDepartment of Civil and Environmental Engineering Princeton University For PECS March 13th, 2012 1
  • 2. Backgrounds for CCSGeological storage• Easy accessibility• Large storage capacity Carbon Capture(IPCC SRCCS, 2005) and SequestrationChallenges (CCS)• Leakage• Proper legalframework (propertyrights etc.)• Public acceptance•...(IPCC SRCCS, 2005) (Socolow and Pacala, 2005)
  • 3. Backgrounds for CCS (IPCC, 2005)
  • 4. Backgrounds for CCSLeakage Risk ? ? Injection stops Time Leakage risk due to Mineral dissolution may Geochemical-induced pressure changes enlarge flow pathways over sealing may reduce leakage time risk (From Prof. Catherine A. Peters)
  • 5. CCS in China• Willingness• C Capture• Subsurface environments – Deep saline aquifers - 160~1451 Gt – Depleted oil and gas reservoirs - 4.1~30.5 Gt – Coal beds - 12.1~48.4 Gt• Technologies – Gaobeidian Project & Shidongkou Project – EOR (enhanced oil recovery) - Liaohe oil field – IGCC (Li et al., 2009)
  • 6. CCS in China• Opportunities v.s. Challenges (Seligsohn et al., 2010)
  • 7. Motivations for me to study CCS• Opportunities v.s. Challenges ‘COAL-POWER CONFLICT’
  • 8. Some useful concepts Porosity v.s. Permeability Aquifer (reservoir) v.s. Aquitard (caprock) Rock types, and minerals • Igneous Rocks (Crystalline, low porosity, low permeability, fractures) e.g. Basalt • Metamorphic Rocks (Crystalline, low porosity, low permeability, fractures) e.g. Marble • Sedimentary Rocks (high porosity, high permeability, few fractures) e.g. Limestone (carbonates) Sandstone (quartz) Shale (clay minerals)
  • 9. Some useful concepts Porosity v.s. Permeability Aquifer (reservoir) v.s. Aquitard (caprock) Rock types, and minerals Brine Chemistry (Gherardi et al., 2007)
  • 10. Some useful concepts Geothermal gradient, hydrostatic pressure, CO2 dissolution and pH Temperature [C] Pressure [bar] CO2 solubility [mol/kgw] pH 20 30 40 50 60 70 0 50 100 150 200 0 0.5 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 0 0 0 Surface temperature Surface pressure 20 C 1 bar 200 Geothermal gradient 200 Pressure gradient 200 200 25 C/km 100 bar/km 400 400 400 400 600 600 600 600 800 800 800 800 Depth [m] 1000 1000 1000 1000 1200 1200 1200 1200 1400 1400 1400 1400 1600 1600 1600 1600 1800 1800 1800 1800 2000 2000 2000 2000
  • 11. Some useful concepts Relevant chemical reactions Carbonic acid formation CO2 + H2O  HCO3- + H+ Reactions with aluminosilicates – slow Mg5Al2Si3O10(OH)8 + 5 CO2  5 MgCO3 + H4SiO4 + Al2Si2O5(OH)4 Reactions with carbonates and sulfates – fast CaCO3 + H2O + CO2(aq)  Ca2+ + 2 HCO3- Reactions with cements CaO SiO2H2O + CO2  CaCO3 + SiO2H2O Ca(OH)2 + CO2  CaCO3 + H2O Fractures: mechanical v.s. hydraulic aperture
  • 12. Overview of past, present and future research Hydrogeological characterization of Ottawa County, Michigan Impacts of microfracture network geometry on permeability Reactive transport in fractured rock and its impact on permeability
  • 13. Overview of past, present and future research Shales and mudstones (caprock above Viking formation – Alberta) (Image sources: Prof. Peters) (Image sources: Ellis et al., 2011) 13
  • 14. 1.Hydrogeological characterization —— target formation Target formation: Mount Simon Sandstone (Cambrian) • Medium to coarse quartz sandstone, high porosity (12.89 ± 0.05%, Barnes et al., 2009) and permeability (2.0687 ± 2.448 logmd, Barnes et al., 2009) • Overlain by Eau Claire, relatively non-permeable (5.9 ± 0.06%, − 2.22 ± 1.16 logmd, Barnes et al., 2009) • High Capacity (Michigan State >600,000 MM tons, Medina et al., 2010) (source: Medina et al., 2010)
  • 15. 1.Hydrogeological characterization —— potential injection site Potential site: Ottawa County, Michigan • Depth: about 1900m • Porosity (13.4%) & Permeability (238 md) •Thickness: around 250m Ottawa County (Image source: Medina et al., 2010)
  • 16. 1.Hydrogeological characterization —— summary permeability Permeability k (mD) 10-8 10-6 10-4 10-2 100 102 104 5×105 Depth (m) 0 Geophysical well logs (gamma, neutron, density and resistivity conductivity) from 22 wells in Ottawa County (DNRE) +Mineralogical data 2170.8 K–C K–T 16
  • 17. 1.Hydrogeological characterization —— summary permeability • Large variability within one Probability plot for Lognormal V.S. GEV distribution, MNSM Probability plot for lognormal V.S. GEV distribution, MNSM formation, largely accounted for by 0.95 Lognormal vertical variability.0.95 0.9 Data Points 0.9 GEV0.75 0.75 • Both Lognormal and Generalized Extreme Value (GEV) distributions0.5 0.5 pass Kolmogorov-Smirnov test (α=0.01), and GEV captures0.25 0.25 permeability at the two tails better.0.1 0.1 0.050.05 • Sampling from the distribution 5 105 Permeability k (mD)
  • 18. 2.The impacts of microfractures on permeability ——backgrounds Shales and mudstones (caprock above Viking formation – Alberta) Graphic source: Smith et Image source: Prof. Peters al. Int. J. Greenhouse Gas Control 5 (2011) 226–240
  • 19. 2.Impacts of microfracture network onpermeability Z Shales and mudstones (caprock above Viking formation – Alberta) X (Image sources: Prof. Peters) -8 -9 -10 Flow direction • Impacts of geometrical properties of Log k22 (log m2) -11 microfracture network on permeability -12 ai -13 e.g. Aperture li -14 Roughness -15 -16 -17 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 Roughness  / am 19
  • 20. 3.Reactive transport in a single fracture Shales and mudstones (caprock above Viking formation – Alberta) (Image sources: Prof. Peters) (Image sources: Ellis et al., 2011) 20
  • 21. 3.Reactive transport in a single fracture —— Motivation and backgrounds Q: What are the impacts of mineralogy and brine chemistry on integrity of fractured caprocks? • Often neglected at large-scale simulations Fractured Caprock (Gherardi et al., 2007) • High reactivity in the case of CO2 storage Sealed Caprock (Gherardi et al., 2007) 0.95 3.17  Forcing reactions out of equilibriumCO2 solubility [mol/L] Caprock • Carbonates and sulfates (e.g. layer 1 calcite, dolomites) (0.001m) • Silicates (e.g. anorthite) pH • Cements 0.9 3.16  Enhancing reaction rate • Calcite: CaCO3 Ca2+ + CO32- 0.85 3.15 100 105 110 115 120 125 130 135 140 145 150 PCO2 [bar] Caprock Sealing after layer 2 6.6 yr (0.003m) 21
  • 22. 3.Reactive transport in a single fracture —— Motivation and backgrounds Q: What are the impacts of mineralogy and brine chemistry on integrity of fractured caprocks? • Natural and induced fractures Fractured Caprock (Gherardi et al., 2007) • Generally, fast flow rate and high reactivity Sealed Caprock (Gherardi et al., 2007) Caprock layer 1 (0.001m) Sealing after Caprock layer 2 6.6 yr (0.003m) 22
  • 23. 3.Reactive transport in a single fracture —— Motivation and backgrounds Precipitation/dissolution pattern in a fracture depends on: High Da Low Da ∆a Transport-controlled Reaction rate-controlled Mineralogy Reaction Rate Brine ChemistryFracture Geometry Flow RateConfining Pressure t = 7 hr (Detwiler 2008) 23
  • 24. 3.Reactive transport in a single fracture —— Approaching from two endsNumerical tools (CFD & Reactive transport) toinform the experiments Building the experimental set-up!!!
  • 25. 3.Reactive transport in a single fracture —— 1D transport Aperture/change of aperture (µm) 500 500 500 Before After 450 Change 450 400 400 400 300 Flow direction 350 350 3.8cm 200 300 300 250 250 100 200 200 0 150 150 -100 100 100 -200 50 50 2.54cm 0 0 -300 Standard deviation of aperture ( ) is a measure of aperture roughness. The last term in the equation corrects for the tortuosity due to contact area. 25
  • 26. 3.Reactive transport in a single fracture —— 2D transport Aperture/change of aperture (µm) 500 500 500 Before After 450 Change 450 400 400 400 300 Flow direction 350 350 3.8cm 200 300 300 250 250 100 200 200 0 150 150 -100 100 100 -200 50 50 2.54cm 0 0 -300 0.22 Before After 5.0 5.0 0.2 0.18 1 1 Flow direction Velocity (m/s) 0.16 5.1 5.1 0.14 2D steady state (James and 0.12 Chrysikopoulos, 2000) 2 2 0.1 5.2 5.2 0.08 0.06 3 3 0.04 5.3 0.02 5.3 26
  • 27. 3.Reactive transport in a single fracture —— 3D CFD y x Flow Rate z Transverse roughness Scenario 1 Transverse roughness Scenario 2 y y a b a b x x -5 -5 x 10 x 10 1.25 1.14 1.2 hydraulic aperture (m) 1.12 hydraulic aperture (m) 1.1 1.15 1.08 1.06 1.1 1.04 1.02 1.05 1 1 0.98 0.96 1 4/5 3/7 1/4 1 4/5 3/7 1/4 27 a/b a/b
  • 28. 3.Reactive transport in a single fracture —— 3D CFD Amount of mineral dissolution (-) / precipitation (+) z z -1200 -1000 -800 -600 -400 -200 200 0 1 2 3 4 y y 5 Grids 35 Percentage hydraulic aperture increase 6 30 25 7 20 Calcite Dolomite 15 8 10 5 9 100000s 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 Percentage volume increase 10
  • 29. Thank you!Comments? Questions! 29

×