Advertisement

Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering

, Volume 50, Issue 10, pp 2763–2783 | Cite as

Modelling of the CO2-Induced Degradation of a Fractured Caprock During Leakage: Potential for a Mechanical Self-Limiting Process

  • J. Rohmer
  • J. Tremosa
  • N. C. M. Marty
  • P. Audigane
Original Paper
  • 244 Downloads

Abstract

In the present study, we assess the potential for initiating ductile failure in a fractured caprock due to the chemical alteration of its mechanical properties under pressure increase induced by CO2 leakage and fixed in situ boundary conditions. In this view, 2D numerically coupled reactive-transport simulations were set up by using the Opalinus Clay formation as an analogue for a caprock layer. The fractured system was viewed as a compartmentalised system that consists of a main highly permeable pathway, a moderately permeable damage zone and the intact rock. The outputs of the numerical simulations (mineral fraction, porosity changes, gas saturation, pore-fluid pressure) were converted into parameter changes of the yield surface by viewing the rock material of the three compartments (fault, damage zone and intact rock) as a composite system that consists of a clayey solid material, pores and mineral inclusions (such as carbonate and quartz). Three alteration processes were considered: (1) the effect of the mineral fraction and porosity evolution on the yield surface, (2) changes in the resulting poro-elastic properties and (3) the suction effect, i.e. the bounding effect induced by the presence of two phases, water and CO2. Our numerical investigations showed that the decrease in the friction coefficient remained negligible during leakage, while the pre-consolidation stress mainly decreased. Consequently, the damage zone of the fractured system became more collapsible over time, which was driven by low-to-moderate pressure build-up of the fluid penetrating the fault (1 MPa in our case). For the considered case, the initiation of ductile failure is likely under conditions of fixed vertical stress and zero lateral strain. This process could potentially limit the spatial spreading of CO2-induced alteration, although this remains very site specific. We recommend that characterisation efforts be intensified to obtain better insight into the properties of fracture systems in caprock-like formations (with special attention to their initial over consolidation ratio).

Keywords

CO2 invasion Chemical transport simulations Weakening Critical state model Pore collapse 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The research that led to these results has been conducted in the framework of the ULTIMATE-CO2 Project, which was funded by the European Commission’s Seventh Framework Program [FP7/2007-2013] under Grant Agreement No 281196. We thank S. Gaboreau (BRGM) for providing the SEM micrographs in Fig. 2. We are also grateful to Fabrizio Gherardi (CNR-IGG) for sharing the TOUGHREACT input data, which formed the basis for the present model. We also thank both anonymous reviewers whose comments led to the improvement of the paper.

References

  1. Alonso J, Navarro V, Calvo B (2012) Flow path development in different CO2 storage reservoir scenarios: a critical state approach. Eng Geol 127:54–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andreani M, Gouze P, Luquot L, Jouanna P (2008) Changes in seal capacity of fractured claystone caprocks induced by dissolved and gaseous CO2 seepage. Geophys Res Lett. doi: 10.1029/2008GL034467 Google Scholar
  3. Audigane P, Brown S, Dimier A, Frykman P, Gherardi F, Le Gallo Y, Maurand N, Cremer H, Pearce J, Rütters H, Spiers C, Yalamas T (2013) ULTimateCO2: a FP7 European Project dedicated to the understanding of the long term fate of geologically stored CO2. Energy Procedia 37:4655–4664CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Aydin A (2014) Failure modes of shale and their implications for natural and man-made fracture assemblages. Am Assoc Pet Geol Bull 98:2391–2409Google Scholar
  5. Barthélémy JF, Dormieux L (2004) A micromechanical approach to the strength criterion of Drucker-Prager materials reinforced by rigid inclusions. Int J Numer Anal Meth Geomech 28:565–582CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Baud P, Zhu W, Wong TF (2000) Failure mode and weakening effect of water on sandstone. J Geophys Res 105(B7):16371–16389CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Blanc P, Lassin A, Piantone P, Azaroual M, Jacquemet N, Fabbri A, Gaucher EC (2012) Thermoddem: a geochemical database focused on low temperature water/rock interactions and waste materials. Appl Geochem 27(10):2107–2116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bock H (2001) RA experiment. Rock mechanics analyses and synthesis: Data report on rock mechanics. Technical Report 2000–2002. Mont Terri ProjectGoogle Scholar
  9. Borja RI (2004) Cam–clay plasticity. Part V: a mathematical framework for three phase deformation and strain localization analyses of partially saturated porous media. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 193:5301–5338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bossart P (2011) Characteristics of the Opalinus Clay at Mont Terri. http://www.mont-terri.ch/internet/mont-terri/fr/home/geology/key_characteristics.parsys.49924.DownloadFile.tmp/characteristicsofopa.pdf. Accessed 13 Jan 2016
  11. Bossart P, Thury M (2007) Research in the Mont Terri rock laboratory: quo vadis? Phys Chem Earth Parts A/B/C 32(1):19–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bouc O, Bellenfant G, Dubois D, Guyonnet D, Rohmer J, Gastine M, Wertz F, Fabri H (2010) Geological storage safety assessment: methodological developments. In: Proceedings of PSAM 10—10th international probabilistic safety assessment and management conference. Seattle, USAGoogle Scholar
  13. Chang C, Zoback MD (2010) Viscous creep in room-dried unconsolidated Gulf of Mexico shale (II): development of a viscoplasticity model. J Petrol Sci Eng 72(1):50–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Constantin J, Peyaud JB, Vergely P, Pagel M, Cabrera J (2004) Evolution of the structural fault permeability in argillaceous rocks in a polyphased tectonic context. Phys Chem Earth A/B/C 29(1):25–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cubillas P, Köhler S, Prieto M, Chaïrat C, Oelkers EH (2005) Experimental determination of the dissolution rates of calcite, aragonite, and bivalves. Chem Geol 216:59–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cuss RJ, Milodowski A, Harrington JF (2011) Fracture transmissivity as a function of normal and shear stress: first results in Opalinus clay. Phys Chem Earth A/B/C 36(17):1960–1971CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. de Jong SM, Spiers CJ, Busch A (2014) Development of swelling strain in smectite clays through exposure to carbon dioxide. Int J Greenhouse Gas Control 24:149–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ellis B, Peters C, Fitts J, Bromhal G, McIntyre D, Warzinski R, Rosenbaum E (2011) Deterioration of a fractured carbonate caprock exposed to CO2-acidified brine flow. Greenhouse Gases: Sci Technol 1(3):248–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fitts JP, Peters CA (2013) Caprock fracture dissolution and CO2 leakage. Rev Mineral Geochem 77:459–479. doi: 10.2138/rmg.2013.77.13 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gaines JGL, Thomas HC (1953) Adsorption studies on clay minerals. II. A formulation of the thermodynamics of exchange adsorption. J Chem Phys 21(4):714–718CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gale JF, Laubach SE, Olson JE, Eichhubl P, Fall A (2014) Natural fractures in shale: a review and new observations. AAPG Bull 98(11):2165–2216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gallipoli D, Gens A, Sharma RS, Vaunat JJ (2003) An elasto-plastic model for unsaturated soil including the effect of saturation degree on mechanical behaviour. Geotechnique 53(1):123–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gaus I (2010) Role and impact of CO2–rock interactions during CO2 storage in sedimentary rocks. Int J Greenhouse Gas Control 4(1):73–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gherardi F, Xu T, Pruess K (2007) Numerical modeling of self-limiting and self-enhancing caprock alteration induced by CO2 storage in a depleted gas reservoir. Chem Geol 244:103–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Global CCS Institute (2014) Large Scale CCS Projects. http://www.globalccsinstitute.com/projects/large-scale-ccs-projects. Accessed 24 April 2015
  26. Gutierrez M, Øyno LE, Nygård R (2000) Stress-dependent permeability of a de-mineralised fracture in shale. Mar Pet Geol 17:895–907CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gutierrez M, Nygård R, Høeg K, Berre T (2008) Normalized undrained shear strength of clay shales. Eng Geol 99(1):31–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hangx SJT, Spiers CJ, Peach CJ (2010) Mechanical behavior of anhydrite caprock and implications for CO2 sealing capacity. J Geophys Res 115:B07402. doi: 10.1029/2009jb006954 Google Scholar
  29. Helgeson HC, Kirkham DH, Flowers GC (1981) Theoretical prediction of the thermodynamic behavior of aqueous electrolytes by high pressures and temperatures; IV, Calculation of activity coefficients, osmotic coefficients, and apparent molal and standard and relative partial molal properties to 600 degrees C and 5kb. Am J Sci 281(10):1249–1516CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Horseman ST, Harrington JF, Birchall DJ, Noy DJ, Cuss RJ (2005) Consolidation and rebound properties of Opalinus Clay: a long-term, fully drained test. British Geological Survey Technical Report CR/05/128, 60 p. http://nora.nerc.ac.uk/11314/1/CR05128N.pdf. Accessed 24 April 2015
  31. Houben ME, Desbois G, Urai JL (2014) A comparative study of representative 2D microstructures in Shaly and Sandy facies of Opalinus Clay (Mont Terri, Switzerland) inferred form BIB-SEM and MIP methods. Mar Pet Geol 49:143–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Ingram GM, Urai JL (1999) Top-seal leakage through faults and fractures: the role of mudrock properties. In: Aplin AC, Fleet AJ, Macquaker JHS (eds) Muds and Mudstones: physical and fluid flow properties, geological society (London) Special Publications, vol 158, pp 125–135Google Scholar
  33. Jenni A, Mäder U, Lerouge C, Gaboreau S, Schwyn B (2014) In situ interaction between different concretes and Opalinus Clay. Phys Chem Earth A/B/C 70:71–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kolditz O, Bauer S, Bilke L, Böttcher N, Delfs J, Fischer T, Görke UJ, Kalbacher T, Kosakowski G, McDermott CI, Park CH, Radu F, Rink K, Shao H, Shao HB, Sun F, Sun YY, Singh AK, Taron J, Walther M, Wang W, Watanabe N, Wu Y, Xie M, Xu W, Zehner B (2012) OpenGeoSys: an open-source initiative for numerical simulation of thermo-hydro-mechanical/chemical (THM/C) processes in porous media. Environ Earth Sci 67(2):589–599CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lasaga AC, Soler JM, Ganor J, Burch TE, Nagy KL (1994) Chemical weathering rate laws and global geochemical cycles. Geochim Cosmochim Acta 58(10):2361–2386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. MacQuarrie KTB, Mayer KU (2005) Reactive transport modelling in fractured rock: a state-of-the-science review. Earth Sci Rev 72:189–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Marbler H, Erickson KP, Schmidt M, Lempp C, Pöllmann H (2013) Geomechanical and geochemical effects on sandstones caused by the reaction with supercritical CO2: an experimental approach to in situ conditions in deep geological reservoirs. Environ Earth Sci 69:1981–1998. doi: 10.1007/s12665-012-2033-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Millot R, Guerrot C, Innocent C, Négrel P, Sanjuan B (2011) Chemical, multi-isotopic (Li–B–Sr–U–H–O) and thermal characterisation of Triassic formation waters from the Paris Basin. Chem Geol 283(3–4):226–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Nygård R, Gutierrez M, Bratli RK, Høeg K (2006) Brittle–ductile transition, shear failure and leakage in shales and mudrocks. Mar Pet Geol 23(2):201–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Palandri JL, Kharaka YK (2004) A compilation of rate parameters of water—mineral interaction kinetics for application to geochemical modeling. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, Menlo Park, California. http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2004/1068/. Accessed 24 April 2015
  41. Pearson FJ, Tournassat C, Gaucher EC (2011) Biogeochemical processes in a clay formation in situ experiment: part E—equilibrium controls on chemistry of pore water from the Opalinus Clay, Mont Terri Underground Research Laboratory, Switzerland. Appl Geochem 26(6):990–1008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Rohmer J, Bouc O (2010) A response surface methodology to address uncertainties in cap rock failure assessment for CO2 geological storage in deep aquifers. Int J Greenhouse Gas Control 4(2):198–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Rohmer J, Pluymakers A, Renard F (2016) Mechano-chemical interactions in sedimentary rocks in the context of CO 2 storage: weak acid, weak effects? Earth Sci Rev 157:86–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Roscoe KH, Burland JB (1968) On the generalized stress–strain behaviour of ‘wet’ clay. In: Heyman J, Leckie FA (eds) Engineering plasticity. Cambridge UnivPress, Cambridge, pp 535–609Google Scholar
  45. Roshan H, Oeser M (2012) A non-isothermal constitutive model for chemically active elastoplastic rocks. Rock Mech Rock Eng 45(3):361–374CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Rutqvist J (2012) The geomechanics of CO2 storage in deep sedimentary formations. Geotech Geol Eng 30(3):525–551CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Salager S, François B, Nuth M, Laloui L (2013) Constitutive analysis of the mechanical anisotropy of Opalinus Clay. Acta Geotech 8(2):137–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Samper J, Zheng L, Fernández AM, Montenegro L (2008) Inverse modeling of multicomponent reactive transport through single and dual porosity media. J Contam Hydrol 98:115–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Samuelson J, Spiers CJ (2012) Fault friction and slip stability not affected by CO2 storage: evidence from short-term laboratory experiments on North Sea reservoir sandstones and caprocks. Int J Greenh Gas Control 11:S78–S90. doi: 10.1016/j.ijggc.2012.09.018 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Schofield AN, Wroth CP (1968) Critical state soil mechanics. McGraw-Hill, NewYorkGoogle Scholar
  51. Schott J, Brantley S, Crerar D, Guy C, Borcsik M, Willaime C (1989) Dissolution kinetics of strained calcite. Geochim Cosmochim Acta 53:373–382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Senger R, Romero E, Ferrari A, Marschall P (2014) Characterisation of gas flow through low-permeability claystone: laboratory experiments and two-phase flow analyses. Geol Soc Lond Spec Publ 400(1):531–543CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Shen WQ, Shao JF (2016) A micromechanical model of inherently anisotropic rocks. Comput Geotech 65:73–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Shen WQ, Kondo D, Dormieux L, Shao JF (2013) A closed-form three scale model for ductile rocks with a plastically compressible porous matrix. Mech Mater 59:73–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Song J, Zhang D (2012) Comprehensive review of caprock-sealing mechanisms for geologic carbon sequestration. Environ Sci Technol 47(1):9–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Stefanou I, Sulem J (2014) Chemically induced compaction bands: triggering conditions and band thickness. J Geophys Res 119(2):880–899. doi: 10.1002/2013JB010342 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Sulem J (2010) Bifurcation theory and localization phenomena. Eur J Environ Civil Eng 14(8–9):989–1009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Tian H, Xu T, Wang F, Patil VV, Sun Y, Yue G (2014) A numerical study of mineral alteration and self-sealing efficiency of a caprock for CO2 geological storage. Acta Geotech 9(1):87–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Tournassat C, Gailhanou H, Crouzet C, Braibant G, Gautier A, Gaucher EC (2009) Cation exchange selectivity coefficient values on smectite and mixed-layer illite/smectite minerals. Soil Sci Soc Am J 73(3):928–942CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Tournassat C, Alt-Epping P, Gaucher EC, Gimmi T, Leupin OX, Wersin P (2011) Biogeochemical processes in a clay formation in situ experiment: part F—reactive transport modelling. Appl Geochem 26:1009–1022CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Tremosa J, Castillo C, Vong CQ, Kervévan C, Lassin A, Audigane P (2014) Long-term assessment of geochemical reactivity of CO2 storage in highly saline aquifers: application to Ketzin, In Salah and Snøhvit storage sites. Int J Greenhouse Gas Control 20:2–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) (1994) Determination of maximum injection pressure for class I wells, United States Environmental Protection Agency. http://www.epa.gov/r5water/uic/r5guid/r5_07.htm. Accessed 24 April 2015
  63. van Genuchten MT (1980) For predicting the hydraulic conductivity of unsaturated soils. Soil Sci Soc Am J 44:892–898CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Vilarrasa V, Parisio F, Laloui L (2016) Strength evolution of geomaterials in the octahedral plane under nonisothermal and unsaturated conditions. Int J Geomech 04016152Google Scholar
  65. Vinsot A, Appelo CAJ, Cailteau C, Wechner S, Pironon J, De Donato P, De Cannière P, Mettler S, Wersin P, Gäbler H-E (2008) CO2 data on gas and pore water sampled in situ in the Opalinus Clay at the Mont Terri rock laboratory. In: Proceedings of international meeting clay in natural and engineered barriers for radioactive waste confinement, Lille, physics and chemistry of the earth vol 33, pp S54–S60Google Scholar
  66. Wileveau Y (2005) THM behaviour of host rock (HE-D) experiment: progress report, part 1. Technical Report TR 2005-03. Mont Terri Project. http://www.mont-terri.ch/internet/mont-terri/fr/home/experiments/documentation/gratisberichte.parsys.50286.downloadList.75006.DownloadFile.tmp/tr200503part1.pdf. Accessed 24 April 2015
  67. Xu T, Spycher N, Sonnenthal E, Zheng L, Pruess K (2012) TOUGHREACT user’s guide: a simulation program for non-isothermal multiphase reactive transport in variably saturated geologic media, version 2.0. Earth Sciences Division, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, USA. https://publications.lbl.gov/islandora/object/ir%3A123402/datastream/PDF/view

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Austria 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. Rohmer
    • 1
  • J. Tremosa
    • 1
  • N. C. M. Marty
    • 1
  • P. Audigane
    • 1
  1. 1.BRGMOrléans Cedex 2France

Personalised recommendations