Dear Dr Parkhurst
We are currently working on a geochemical modelling project on CO2
sequestration. For that I am trying to model the impact of the injection of
dissolved CO2 gas on shales. Therefore I need to define a constant CO2
pressure. I assumed this could be done in two ways. The first whereby the
CO2 is modelled as an gas phase, the second whereby the pressure of CO2 is
included in an equilibrium phases block :
First approach :
SOLUTION 1 Caprock formation water (based on results CAPROCK1 model)
units mol/kgw
pH 7.67
pe -4.071
density 1.023
temp 37.0
Al 3.50E-08
Ba 1.247e-005
C 6.922e-005
Ca 1.771e-001
Cl 4.787e-001
Fe 2.475e-007
K 1.419e-004
Mg 1.111e-002
Na 1.060e-001
S 4.807e-004
Si 2.520e-004
Sr 9.664e-005
GAS_PHASE 1 #Assuming a fugacity of 0.52 at 100 bars of CO2 at
37C
-fixed_pressure
-pressure 52
-volume 1
-temperature 37
CO2(g) 52
EQUILIBRIUM_PHASES 1
Chalcedony 0 196.0
Illite 0 35.21
Kaolinite 0 K-feldspar 4.08
#K-feldspar 0 4.08
Calcite 0 5.61
Smectite-high-Fe-Mg 0 11.93
Albite 0 25.59
Clinochlore-7A 0 3.99
Pyrite 0 8.62
Gypsum 0 0.0
Siderite 0 0.0
Dawsonite 0 0.0
Dolomite 0 0.0
Barite 0 0.0
EnD
The second approach :
SOLUTION 1 Caprock formation water (based on results CAPROCK1 model)
units mol/kgw
pH 7.67
pe -4.071
density 1.023
temp 37.0
Al 3.50E-08
Ba 1.247e-005
C 6.922e-005
Ca 1.771e-001
Cl 4.787e-001
Fe 2.475e-007
K 1.419e-004
Mg 1.111e-002
Na 1.060e-001
S 4.807e-004
Si 2.520e-004
Sr 9.664e-005
EQUILIBRIUM_PHASES 1
Chalcedony 0 196.0
Illite 0 35.21
Kaolinite 0 K-feldspar 4.08
#K-feldspar 0 4.08
Calcite 0 5.61
Smectite-high-Fe-Mg 0 11.93
Albite 0 25.59
Clinochlore-7A 0 3.99
Pyrite 0 8.62
Gypsum 0 0.0
Siderite 0 0.0
Dawsonite 0 0.0
Dolomite 0 0.0
Barite 0 0.0
CO2(g) 1.71600334 10000
End
The resulting amount of dissolved CO2 in the solution seems to be hugely
different (5.06 10-5 mole/kg in the first, 7.14 moles/kg in the second
approach). Apparently I modelled two different things here. The first value
seems too low taking into account such a high CO2 pressure, while the second
value largely overestimates the experimentally estimated value of
approximately 1.1 moles/kg (although this value was measured in the solution
without interaction with the sediment).
I would be very grateful if you could give me a hint in where I am going
wrong here.
Many thanks
Dr Irina Gaus
Water modelling section
Bureau des Recherches Geologiques et Minieres (BRGM)
i.gaus@xxxxxxx
Please note that some U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) information accessed through this page may be preliminary in nature and presented prior to final review and approval by the Director of the USGS. This information is provided with the understanding that it is not guaranteed to be correct or complete and conclusions drawn from such information are the sole responsibility of the user.
Any use of trade, product, or firm names in this publication is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.
The URL of this page is:
https://wwwbrr.cr.usgs.gov/projects/GWC_coupled/phreeqc/mail/msg00035.html
Email:dlpark@usgs.gov
Last modified: $Date: 2005-09-13 21:04:21 -0600 (Tue, 13 Sep 2005) $
Visitor number [an error occurred while processing this directive] since Jan 22, 1998.