Let me try to explain the two models that you have generated. First, using
GAS_PHASES, you have taken a liter of gas with a pressure of 52 atmospheres
of CO2, a set of phases, and a liter of water and let them react to
equilibrium. I haven't run the calculation, but I assume most of the CO2 is
consumed dissolving the minerals. Note the initial gas phase has a fixed
amount of CO2 that you can calculate with the ideal gas law PV = nRT, I
think it about 2 moles. When the CO2 reacts, the volume of the gas phase is
reduced and I suspect actually disappears.
When you add the CO2 with EQUILIBRIUM_PHASES, you are allowing up to 10000
moles of CO2 to react to try to attain a PCO2 of 52 atmospheres. Thus, the
main difference in the two calculations is the amount of CO2 that reacts
with a liter of water and the corresponding minerals. If you allow an
unlimited supply of CO2 (EQUILIBRIUM_PHASES approach) you can dissolve more
minerals, but continue to have sufficient CO2 to raise the pCO2 to 52
atmospheres, thus you get a much larger amount of CO2 per kilogram of
water.
The key to the calculation is primarily the amount of CO2 you add per liter
of water and minerals and the extent that the minerals react with the CO2.
Equilibrium with all the minerals is probably not realistic, but is an
end-member case contrasted to completely unreactive minerals.
David
David Parkhurst (dlpark@xxxxxxxx)
U.S. Geological Survey
Box 25046, MS 413
Denver Federal Center
Denver, CO 80225
Project web page: https://wwwbrr.cr.usgs.gov/projects/GWC_coupled
Gaus Irina
<gaus@xxxxxxxxxx To: "'dlpark@xxxxxxxx'" <dlpark@xxxxxxxx>
rgm.fr> cc:
In-Reply-To: <D965434E9D6BD511AE3500306E01C8BE01ED9713@xxxxxxx>
Subject: PHREEQC: high CO2 pressure modelling
08/05/02 08:49
AM
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/msg00039.html
Email:dlpark@usgs.gov
Last modified: $Date: 2005-09-13 21:04:21 -0600 (Tue, 13 Sep 2005) $
Visitor number 6826 since Jan 22, 1998.