Rory Leslie, A. Cavanagh, R. Haszeldine, G. Johnson, S. Gilfillan
{"title":"Quantification of solubility trapping in natural and engineered CO2 reservoirs","authors":"Rory Leslie, A. Cavanagh, R. Haszeldine, G. Johnson, S. Gilfillan","doi":"10.1144/petgeo2020-120","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Secure retention of CO2 in geological reservoirs is essential for effective storage. Solubility trapping, the dissolution of CO2 into formation water, is a major sink on geological timescales in natural CO2 reservoirs. Observations during CO2 injection, combined with models of CO2 reservoirs, indicate the immediate onset of solubility trapping. There is uncertainty regarding the evolution of dissolution rates between the observable engineered timescale of years and decades, and the >10 kyr state represented by natural CO2 reservoirs. A small number of studies have constrained dissolution rates within natural analogues. The studies show that solubility trapping is the principal storage mechanism after structural trapping, removing 10–50% of CO2 across whole reservoirs. Natural analogues, engineered reservoirs and model studies produce a wide range of estimates on the fraction of CO2 dissolved and the dissolution rate. Analogue and engineered reservoirs do not show the high fractions of dissolved CO2 seen in several models. Evidence from natural analogues supports a model of most dissolution occurring during emplacement and migration, before the establishment of a stable gas–water contact. A rapid decline in CO2 dissolution rate over time suggests that analogue reservoirs are in dissolution equilibrium for most of the CO2 residence time. Supplementary material: Dissolution rate for all plots and exponential function curves for scenarios A and B are available at https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.c.5476199 Thematic collection: This article is part of the Geoscience for CO2 storage collection available at: https://www.lyellcollection.org/cc/geoscience-for-co2-storage","PeriodicalId":49704,"journal":{"name":"Petroleum Geoscience","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2021-07-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"9","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Petroleum Geoscience","FirstCategoryId":"89","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1144/petgeo2020-120","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"地球科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"GEOSCIENCES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 9
Abstract
Secure retention of CO2 in geological reservoirs is essential for effective storage. Solubility trapping, the dissolution of CO2 into formation water, is a major sink on geological timescales in natural CO2 reservoirs. Observations during CO2 injection, combined with models of CO2 reservoirs, indicate the immediate onset of solubility trapping. There is uncertainty regarding the evolution of dissolution rates between the observable engineered timescale of years and decades, and the >10 kyr state represented by natural CO2 reservoirs. A small number of studies have constrained dissolution rates within natural analogues. The studies show that solubility trapping is the principal storage mechanism after structural trapping, removing 10–50% of CO2 across whole reservoirs. Natural analogues, engineered reservoirs and model studies produce a wide range of estimates on the fraction of CO2 dissolved and the dissolution rate. Analogue and engineered reservoirs do not show the high fractions of dissolved CO2 seen in several models. Evidence from natural analogues supports a model of most dissolution occurring during emplacement and migration, before the establishment of a stable gas–water contact. A rapid decline in CO2 dissolution rate over time suggests that analogue reservoirs are in dissolution equilibrium for most of the CO2 residence time. Supplementary material: Dissolution rate for all plots and exponential function curves for scenarios A and B are available at https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.c.5476199 Thematic collection: This article is part of the Geoscience for CO2 storage collection available at: https://www.lyellcollection.org/cc/geoscience-for-co2-storage
期刊介绍:
Petroleum Geoscience is the international journal of geoenergy and applied earth science, and is co-owned by the Geological Society of London and the European Association of Geoscientists and Engineers (EAGE).
Petroleum Geoscience transcends disciplinary boundaries and publishes a balanced mix of articles covering exploration, exploitation, appraisal, development and enhancement of sub-surface hydrocarbon resources and carbon repositories. The integration of disciplines in an applied context, whether for fluid production, carbon storage or related geoenergy applications, is a particular strength of the journal. Articles on enhancing exploration efficiency, lowering technological and environmental risk, and improving hydrocarbon recovery communicate the latest developments in sub-surface geoscience to a wide readership.
Petroleum Geoscience provides a multidisciplinary forum for those engaged in the science and technology of the rock-related sub-surface disciplines. The journal reaches some 8000 individual subscribers, and a further 1100 institutional subscriptions provide global access to readers including geologists, geophysicists, petroleum and reservoir engineers, petrophysicists and geochemists in both academia and industry. The journal aims to share knowledge of reservoir geoscience and to reflect the international nature of its development.