Search

Geologic carbon sequestration ( GCS) is being considered as a climate change mitigation option in many future energy scenarios. Mathematical modeling is routinely used to predict subsurface CO2 and resident brine migration for the design of injection operations, to demonstrate the permanence of CO2 storage, and to show that other subsurface resources will not be degraded. Many processes impact the migration of CO2 and brine, including multiphase flow dynamics, geochemistry, and geomechanics, along with the spatial distribution of parameters such as porosity and permeability. In this article, we review a set of multiphase modeling approaches with different levels of conceptual complexity that have been used to model GCS. Model complexity ranges from coupled multiprocess models to simplified vertical equilibrium (VE) models and macroscopic invasion percolation models. The goal of this article is to give a framework of conceptual model complexity, and to show the types of modeling approaches that have been used to address specific GCS questions. Application of the modeling approaches is shown using five ongoing or proposed CO2 injection sites. For the selected sites, the majority of GCS models follow a simplified multiphase approach, especially for questions related to injection and local-scale heterogeneity. Coupled multiprocess models are only applied in one case where geomechanics have a strong impact on the flow. Owing to their computational efficiency, VE models tend to be applied at large scales. A macroscopic invasion percolation approach was used to predict the CO2 migration at one site to examine details of CO2 migration under the caprock. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Michael A. Celia (1) I have read with interest recent editorials and articles in Ground Water discussing the future of hydrogeological research. Is it the beginning of the end, or [...]

A series of Mb 3.8-5.5 induced seismic events in the midcontinent region, United States, resulted from injection of fluid either into a basal sedimentary reservoir with no underlying confining unit or directly into the underlying crystalline basement complex. The earthquakes probably occurred along faults that were likely critically stressed within the crystalline basement. These faults were located at a considerable distance (up to 10 km) from the injection wells and head increases at the hypocenters were likely relatively small (∼70-150 m). We present a suite of simulations that use a simple hydrogeologic-geomechanical model to assess what hydrogeologic conditions promote or deter induced seismic events within the crystalline basement across the midcontinent. The presence of a confining unit beneath the injection reservoir horizon had the single largest effect in preventing induced seismicity within the underlying crystalline basement. For a crystalline basement having a permeability of 2 × 10−17 m2 and specific storage coefficient of 10−7/m, injection at a rate of 5455 m3/d into the basal aquifer with no underlying basal seal over 10 years resulted in probable brittle failure to depths of about 0.6 km below the injection reservoir. Including a permeable ( kz = 10−13 m2) Precambrian normal fault, located 20 m from the injection well, increased the depth of the failure region below the reservoir to 3 km. For a large permeability contrast between a Precambrian thrust fault (10−12 m2) and the surrounding crystalline basement (10−18 m2), the failure region can extend laterally 10 km away from the injection well. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A personal narrative is presented which explores the author's experience in delivering lectures on hydrogeology across the globe.