Computational Geosciences

, 13:409

A benchmark study on problems related to CO2 storage in geologic formations

Summary and discussion of the results
  • Holger Class
  • Anozie Ebigbo
  • Rainer Helmig
  • Helge K. Dahle
  • Jan M. Nordbotten
  • Michael A. Celia
  • Pascal Audigane
  • Melanie Darcis
  • Jonathan Ennis-King
  • Yaqing Fan
  • Bernd Flemisch
  • Sarah E. Gasda
  • Min Jin
  • Stefanie Krug
  • Diane Labregere
  • Ali Naderi Beni
  • Rajesh J. Pawar
  • Adil Sbai
  • Sunil G. Thomas
  • Laurent Trenty
  • Lingli Wei
Original paper

Abstract

This paper summarises the results of a benchmark study that compares a number of mathematical and numerical models applied to specific problems in the context of carbon dioxide (CO2) storage in geologic formations. The processes modelled comprise advective multi-phase flow, compositional effects due to dissolution of CO2 into the ambient brine and non-isothermal effects due to temperature gradients and the Joule–Thompson effect. The problems deal with leakage through a leaky well, methane recovery enhanced by CO2 injection and a reservoir-scale injection scenario into a heterogeneous formation. We give a description of the benchmark problems then briefly introduce the participating codes and finally present and discuss the results of the benchmark study.

Keywords

Benchmark Code comparison CO2 storage 

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Holger Class
    • 1
  • Anozie Ebigbo
    • 1
  • Rainer Helmig
    • 1
  • Helge K. Dahle
    • 2
  • Jan M. Nordbotten
    • 2
    • 3
  • Michael A. Celia
    • 3
  • Pascal Audigane
    • 4
  • Melanie Darcis
    • 1
  • Jonathan Ennis-King
    • 5
  • Yaqing Fan
    • 6
  • Bernd Flemisch
    • 1
  • Sarah E. Gasda
    • 7
  • Min Jin
    • 8
  • Stefanie Krug
    • 9
  • Diane Labregere
    • 10
  • Ali Naderi Beni
    • 11
  • Rajesh J. Pawar
    • 12
  • Adil Sbai
    • 13
  • Sunil G. Thomas
    • 14
  • Laurent Trenty
    • 15
  • Lingli Wei
    • 16
  1. 1.Universität StuttgartStuttgartGermany
  2. 2.Dept. of MathematicsUniversity of BergenBergenNorway
  3. 3.Dept. of Civil and Environmental EngineeringPrinceton UniversityPrincetonUSA
  4. 4.BRGMFrench Geological SurveyParisFrance
  5. 5.Cooperative Research Centre for Greenhouse Gas TechnologiesCSIRO PetroleumKensingtonAustralia
  6. 6.Dept. of Energy Resources EngineeringStanford UniversityStanfordUSA
  7. 7.University of North Carolina at Chapel HillChapel HillUSA
  8. 8.Heriot-Watt UniversityEdinburghUK
  9. 9.Bundesanstalt für Geowissenschaften, und Rohstoffe (BGR)HannoverGermany
  10. 10.Schlumberger Carbon ServicesParisFrance
  11. 11.E.ON Energy Research Centre, Institute of Applied Geophysics and Geothermal EnergyRWTH Aachen UniversityAachenGermany
  12. 12.Los Alamos National LaboratoryLos AlamosUSA
  13. 13.BRGMFrench Geological SurveyOrleansFrance
  14. 14.Texas UniversityAustinUSA
  15. 15.Technology, Computer Science and Applied Mathematics DivisionIFPRueil-Malmaison CedexFrance
  16. 16.Shell International Exploration and Production BVRijswijkThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations