2016
DOI: 10.1002/ghg.31611
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

CO2/brine/rock interactions in Lower Tuscaloosa formation

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

2
23
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
5

Relationship

2
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 6 publications
(25 citation statements)
references
References 23 publications
2
23
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The experimental results of core HU24-1 indicate that the injection flow rate do not induce velocity sensitivity, and the brine do not cause the expansion of clay minerals under the experimental conditions, eliminating the interference of brine on the experimental results during the flooding process. The permeability of the cores HU24-2 and HU24-3 decrease after flooding, but the porosity is unchanged, which is similar to the results of previous experiments [9,15,19,[35][36][37][38]. Those studies believe that CO 2 is injected into the core and dissolved into brine to form carbonic acid, which triggers CO 2 -brine-rock interactions.…”
Section: Permeability Decline and Fines Migrationsupporting
confidence: 88%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The experimental results of core HU24-1 indicate that the injection flow rate do not induce velocity sensitivity, and the brine do not cause the expansion of clay minerals under the experimental conditions, eliminating the interference of brine on the experimental results during the flooding process. The permeability of the cores HU24-2 and HU24-3 decrease after flooding, but the porosity is unchanged, which is similar to the results of previous experiments [9,15,19,[35][36][37][38]. Those studies believe that CO 2 is injected into the core and dissolved into brine to form carbonic acid, which triggers CO 2 -brine-rock interactions.…”
Section: Permeability Decline and Fines Migrationsupporting
confidence: 88%
“…Physical property changes in rocks caused by above factors damage the injection capacity of CO 2 and brine, changing the concentrations and types of ions contained in fluids. Due to these interactions, the released fines migrate to the distant reservoir with the flow of fluid, which will cause serious damage to the reservoir and ultimately affect the efficiency of EOR and CO 2 storage [16][17][18][19][20]. On the other hand, the in-situ multiphase flow characteristics in rocks under different CO 2 displacement methods are different, and these also have different effects on physical properties changes.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…). This stacked‐layer scenario was designed to mimic multi‐layer geological structures at real CO 2 storage testing sites like Illinois Basin –Decatur site in Illinois, USA and Plant Daniel CO 2 storage testing site in Mississippi, USA . A very large model domain and infinite volume boundary cells were used in this study to minimize boundary effects on pressure and CO 2 saturation results from TOUGH2, as suggested by Zhang et al .…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The Lower Tuscaloosa Formation in the southeast region of the USA is recognized as a promising candidate reservoir for carbon sequestration. Furthermore, the Lower Tuscaloosa Formation is proximal to CO 2 sources, and has favorable depth, thickness, permeability, porosity, and the presence of overlying low permeability formations to seal unwanted vertical migration of CO 2 into overlying formations . One of the formations overlying the Lower Tuscaloosa Formation is a carbonate rock formation (Selma Chalk Formation), which has relatively low vertical permeability, enabling the formation to serve as a potential seal to constrain vertical migration of injected CO 2 .…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%