TY - JOUR
T1 - A guideline for appropriate application of vertically-integrated modeling approaches for geologic carbon storage modeling
AU - Bandilla, Karl W.
AU - Guo, Bo
AU - Celia, Michael A.
N1 - Funding Information:
This material is based upon work supported by the Carbon Mitigation Initiative at Princeton University and by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) under Grant Number FE009563 . This project is managed and administered by Princeton University and funded by DOE/NETL and cost-sharing partners. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2019 Elsevier Ltd
PY - 2019/12
Y1 - 2019/12
N2 - Mathematical modeling is an essential tool for answering questions related to geologic carbon storage (GCS). The choice of modeling approach depends on the type of questions being asked. In this paper we discuss a series of approaches with a hierarchical complexity including vertically-integrated single-phase flow approaches, vertically-integrated multi-phase flow approaches (with and without vertical equilibrium assumption), three-dimensional multi-phase flow approaches, and fully-coupled multi-phase flow approaches that couple flow with geochemistry and/or geomechanics. Three spatial scales are used to categorize the questions to be addressed by modeling: regional scale (encompasses CO2 plume extent and majority of area of pressure impact of one or more injection operations), site scale (includes the CO2 plume extent and some of the area impacted by the pressure increase of a single injection site), and well scale (the immediate vicinity of an injection well). A set of guidelines is developed to help modelers choose the most appropriate modeling approach, and show when simpler modeling approaches may be the better choice. Vertically-integrated single-phase flow models are the most appropriate choice at both the site and regional scales, if the pressure impact outside of the CO2 plume is of interest. Vertically-integrated multi-phase flow models should be chosen at the regional scale, if the locations of CO2 plumes are of interest, and at the site scale if vertical segregation of CO2 and brine is fast or vertical heterogeneity in properties can be presented by distinct, continuous layers. Three-dimensional multi-phase flow models are the appropriate choice at the well and site scales for cases with significant vertical flow components of CO2 and brine. Fully-coupled multi-phase flow models should only be chosen if pore-space alteration through geochemistry or geomechanics feeds back to fluid flow.
AB - Mathematical modeling is an essential tool for answering questions related to geologic carbon storage (GCS). The choice of modeling approach depends on the type of questions being asked. In this paper we discuss a series of approaches with a hierarchical complexity including vertically-integrated single-phase flow approaches, vertically-integrated multi-phase flow approaches (with and without vertical equilibrium assumption), three-dimensional multi-phase flow approaches, and fully-coupled multi-phase flow approaches that couple flow with geochemistry and/or geomechanics. Three spatial scales are used to categorize the questions to be addressed by modeling: regional scale (encompasses CO2 plume extent and majority of area of pressure impact of one or more injection operations), site scale (includes the CO2 plume extent and some of the area impacted by the pressure increase of a single injection site), and well scale (the immediate vicinity of an injection well). A set of guidelines is developed to help modelers choose the most appropriate modeling approach, and show when simpler modeling approaches may be the better choice. Vertically-integrated single-phase flow models are the most appropriate choice at both the site and regional scales, if the pressure impact outside of the CO2 plume is of interest. Vertically-integrated multi-phase flow models should be chosen at the regional scale, if the locations of CO2 plumes are of interest, and at the site scale if vertical segregation of CO2 and brine is fast or vertical heterogeneity in properties can be presented by distinct, continuous layers. Three-dimensional multi-phase flow models are the appropriate choice at the well and site scales for cases with significant vertical flow components of CO2 and brine. Fully-coupled multi-phase flow models should only be chosen if pore-space alteration through geochemistry or geomechanics feeds back to fluid flow.
KW - Decision criteria
KW - Geologic carbon storage modeling
KW - Model choice
KW - Model complexity
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85072047533&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85072047533&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.ijggc.2019.102808
DO - 10.1016/j.ijggc.2019.102808
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85072047533
SN - 1750-5836
VL - 91
JO - International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control
JF - International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control
M1 - 102808
ER -