Importance of mineral surface areas in Rotliegend sandstones for modeling CO2–water–rock interactions

Waldmann, Svenja; Busch, Andreas; Ojik, K. van; Gaupp, Reinhard

doi:10.1016/j.chemgeo.2014.03.014

Cited by 40 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 62 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The role of the silicate substrate to prevent or facilitate nucleation and growth rates has been demonstrated in several studies. 48,[53][54][55] There is one more reason why the growth of the Fe-Mg carbonates may be slow in our experiments. The last part of Eqn (2) illustrates the dependency of growth rates on the stoichiometry (Me 2+ /CO 3 2− activity ratio of the experimental solution, with rates for carbonates typically peaking close to a 1:1 ratio.…”

Section: Possibility 2: Carbonate Nucleation On Smectite Coated Basalmentioning

confidence: 87%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Experimental study to better understand factors affecting the CO₂ mineral trapping potential of basalt

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The CO2 mineral trapping potential of basalt is reduced when smectites, zeolites, and various oxides form. To better understand the reactions competing for the divalent metal cations, we performed a systematic batch‐reactor experimental study varying pH, temperature (from 80 to 150°C), CO2 pressure, and initial aqueous metal ion composition. From the experiments we could not see any mineral carbonate formation at pH < 8 at 80°C and pH <7 at 100 and 150°C. Smectite, identified by XRD as a nontronite, was formed in all experiments. At higher pHs various forms of Ca‐carbonates formed together with the smectite. The effect of the smectite growth to deplete solutions of metal cations (Mg and Fe) appears not to be the main reason for the lack of predicted MgFe‐carbonates. Instead, data suggest that the lack of observable growth may come from a combination of inhibition of carbonate nucleation, and slow carbonate growth rates. The slow growth is mainly caused by a very large deviation of the aqueous Me2+/CO32− activity ratio (r) from the stoichiometric ratio of the secondary carbonates, leading to a 4‒5 order of magnitude drop in precipitation rates compared to stoichiometric solutions. Using transition state theory (TST)‐based rate laws to model basalt carbonatization will lead to corresponding orders of magnitude over‐predictions. In addition to reducing the carbonatization potential, smectites may also deteriorate permeability and CO2 injectivity if forming in pore throats and narrow fractures. © 2016 Society of Chemical Industry and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

show abstract

Section: Possibility 2: Carbonate Nucleation On Smectite Coated Basalmentioning

confidence: 87%

“…In the nucleation‐growth model (Eqn ) the nucleation rate term dictates the onset of growth of secondary phases, whereas the growth rate term quickly dominates after the nucleation stage. The role of the silicate substrate to prevent or facilitate nucleation and growth rates has been demonstrated in several studies …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Experimental study to better understand factors affecting the CO₂ mineral trapping potential of basalt

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The porosity of the Slochteren sandstone is well constrained from wireline logs and fluid-immersion tests on core plugs, with average values ranging from 18 to 22% in the center of the reservoir, decreasing laterally to 12-16% at the margins (NAM, 2016). The sandstone can be classified as a subarkose to lithic subarkose (McBride, 1963), consisting on average of 72-90 vol% quartz, 8-25 vol% feldspar, 0.5-5.5 vol% clay, and 3-10 vol% of lithic rock fragments, which include basaltic and sedimentary lithoclasts (Waldmann et al, 2014;Waldmann & Gaupp, 2016). During burial diagenesis, the total initial feldspar content was reduced by dissolution reactions, leading to precipitation of kaolinite and illite in the pores and onto the pore walls (Waldmann & Gaupp, 2016).…”

Section: Geological Setting Of the Groningen Gas Field And Slochterenmentioning

confidence: 99%

Deformation Behavior of Sandstones From the Seismogenic Groningen Gas Field: Role of Inelastic Versus Elastic Mechanisms

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Reduction of pore fluid pressure in sandstone oil, gas, or geothermal reservoirs causes elastic and possibly inelastic compaction of the reservoir, which may lead to surface subsidence and induced seismicity. While elastic compaction is well described using poroelasticity, inelastic and especially time‐dependent compactions are poorly constrained, and the underlying microphysical mechanisms are insufficiently understood. To help bridge this gap, we performed conventional triaxial compression experiments on samples recovered from the Slochteren sandstone reservoir in the seismogenic Groningen gas field in the Netherlands. Successive stages of active loading and stress relaxation were employed to study the partitioning between elastic versus time‐independent and time‐dependent inelastic deformations upon simulated pore pressure depletion. The results showed that inelastic strain developed from the onset of compression in all samples tested, revealing a nonlinear strain hardening trend to total axial strains of 0.4 to 1.3%, of which 0.1 to 0.8% were inelastic. Inelastic strains increased with increasing initial porosity (12–25%) and decreasing strain rate (10−5 s−1 to 10−9 s−1). Our results imply a porosity and rate‐dependent yield envelope that expands with increasing inelastic strain from the onset of compression. Microstructural evidence indicates that inelastic compaction was controlled by a combination of intergranular cracking, intergranular slip, and intragranular/transgranular cracking with intragranular/transgranular cracking increasing in importance with increasing porosity. The results imply that during pore pressure reduction in the Groningen field, the assumption of a poroelastic reservoir response leads to underestimation of the change in the effective horizontal stress and overestimation of the energy available for seismicity.

show abstract

“…Mineral surface areas play an important role in geochemical water-rock-CO 2 simulations [62]. External (micropore) surface areas are typically determined by the B.E.T.…”

Section: External Surface Areamentioning

confidence: 99%

Mineralization of Carbon Dioxide: A Literature Review

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research on carbon capture and storage has been focused on CO 2 storage in geologic formations, with many potential risks. An alternative to conventional geologic storage is carbon mineralization, where CO 2 is reacted with metal cations to form carbonate minerals. Mineralization methods can be broadly divided into two categories: in situ and ex situ. In situ mineralization, or mineral trapping, is a component of underground geologic sequestration, in which a portion of the injected CO 2 reacts with alkaline rock present in the target formation to form solid carbonate species. In ex situ mineralization, the carbonation reaction occurs above ground, within a separate reactor or industrial process. This literature review is meant to provide an update on the current status of research on CO 2 mineralization.

show abstract

Importance of mineral surface areas in Rotliegend sandstones for modeling CO2–water–rock interactions

Cited by 40 publications

References 62 publications

Experimental study to better understand factors affecting the CO₂ mineral trapping potential of basalt

Experimental study to better understand factors affecting the CO₂ mineral trapping potential of basalt

Deformation Behavior of Sandstones From the Seismogenic Groningen Gas Field: Role of Inelastic Versus Elastic Mechanisms

Mineralization of Carbon Dioxide: A Literature Review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Importance of mineral surface areas in Rotliegend sandstones for modeling CO2–water–rock interactions

Cited by 40 publications

References 62 publications

Experimental study to better understand factors affecting the CO2 mineral trapping potential of basalt

Experimental study to better understand factors affecting the CO2 mineral trapping potential of basalt

Deformation Behavior of Sandstones From the Seismogenic Groningen Gas Field: Role of Inelastic Versus Elastic Mechanisms

Mineralization of Carbon Dioxide: A Literature Review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Experimental study to better understand factors affecting the CO₂ mineral trapping potential of basalt

Experimental study to better understand factors affecting the CO₂ mineral trapping potential of basalt