Modeling Gaseous CO2 Flow Behavior in Layered Basalts: Dimensional Analysis and Aquifer Response |
| |
| Authors: | Andrea D'Aniello Sigrún Tómasdóttir Bergur Sigfússon Massimiliano Fabbricino |
| |
| Institution: | 1. Department of Civil, Architectural and Environmental Engineering, University of Naples Federico II, via Claudio 21, 80125 Naples, Italy;2. Reykjavík Energy, Bæjarhálsi 1, 110 Reykjavík, Iceland |
| |
| Abstract: | Particular attention is paid to the risk of carbon dioxide (CO2) leakage in geologic carbon sequestration (GCS) operations, as it might lead to the failure of sequestration efforts and to the contamination of underground sources of drinking water. As carbon dioxide would eventually reach shallower formations under its gaseous state, understanding its multiphase flow behavior is essential. To this aim, a hypothetical gaseous leak of carbon dioxide resulting from a well integrity failure of the GCS system in operation at Hellisheiði (CarbFix2) is here modeled. Simulations show that migration of gaseous carbon dioxide is largely affected by formation stratigraphy, intrinsic permeability, and retention properties, whereas the initial groundwater hydraulic gradient (0.0284) has practically no effect. In two different scenarios, about 18.3 and 30.6% of the CO2 that would have been injected by the GCS system for 3 days could be potentially released again into the atmosphere due to a sustained leakage of the same duration. As the gaseous leak occurs, the aquifer experiences high pressure buildups, and the presence of a less conductive layer further magnifies these. Strikingly, the dimensional analysis showed that buoyant and viscous forces can be comparable over time within the predicted gaseous plumes, even far from the leakage source. Local pressure gradients, buoyant, viscous, and capillary forces all play an important role during leakage. Therefore, neglecting one or more of these contributions might lead to a partial prediction of gaseous CO2 flow behavior in the subsurface, giving space to incorrect interpretations and wrong operational choices. |
| |
| Keywords: | |
|
|
