1887

Abstract

Summary

The global imperative to mitigate climate change has positioned CCS as a key strategy for reducing CO emissions from large industrial sources. Depleted oil and gas reservoirs are among the most promising storage sites due to their proven containment integrity and existing infrastructure. However, injection of dense-phase CO into such low-pressure reservoirs presents operational challenges, particularly near the injection well. The isenthalpic expansion of CO generates a Joule-Thomson cooling effect, which in the presence of brine can trigger hydrate formation. Hydrate nucleation and growth reduce reservoir permeability and may impair injectivity, posing risks to storage efficiency. While the thermodynamic conditions for hydrate formation are well established, its kinetic behavior in porous media remains poorly understood due to the stochastic nature of nucleation and variability in growth and dissociation rates. This study investigates hydrate kinetics through dynamic core-flood experiments under varying subcooling levels and thermal protocols (isothermal, step-cooling/heating, and ramp-cooling/heating). A medical CT scanner was employed in selected tests to monitor hydrate dynamics and quantify saturations. Statistical analyses of induction times and growth rates were performed as functions of subcooling and fugacity difference, respectively. Results yield a master curve that enhances predictive capability for hydrate kinetics under CCS conditions.

© EAGE Publications BV
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.202521269
2025-10-27
2026-01-14

  • From This Site

    /content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.202521269
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. S.Bachu and J.Shaw, “Evaluation of the CO2 Sequestration Capacity in Alberta’s Oil and Gas Reservoirs at Depletion and the Effect of Underlying Aquifers,” J. Can. Pet. Technol., vol. 42, no. 09, Sept. 2003, doi: 10.2118/03‑09‑02.
     https://doi.org/10.2118/03-09-02 [Google Scholar]
  2. A.Raza, R.Rezaee, R.Gholami, C. H.Bing, R.Nagarajan, and M. A.Hamid, “A screening criterion for selection of suitable CO2 storage sites,” J. Nat. Gas Sci. Eng., vol. 28, pp. 317–327, Jan. 2016, doi: 10.1016/j.jngse.2015.11.053.
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jngse.2015.11.053 [Google Scholar]
  3. M.Aghajanloo, L.Yan, S.Berg, D.Voskov, and R.Farajzadeh, “Impact of CO2 hydrates on injectivity during CO2 storage in depleted gas fields: A literature review,” Gas Sci. Eng., vol. 123, p. 205250, Mar. 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.jgsce.2024.205250.
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jgsce.2024.205250 [Google Scholar]
  4. C.Chesnokov, R.Farajzadeh, K. O. K.Prempeh, S.Kahrobaei, J.Snippe, and P.Bedrikovetsky, “Joule-Thomson cooling of CO2 injected into aquifer under heat exchange with adjacent formations by Newtons law- 1D exact solution,” Adv. Water Resour., vol. 190, p. 104758, Aug. 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.advwatres.2024.104758.
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advwatres.2024.104758 [Google Scholar]
  5. R. G.Heidarabad and K.Shin, “Carbon Capture and Storage in Depleted Oil and Gas Reservoirs: The Viewpoint of Wellbore Injectivity,” Energies, vol. 17, no. 5, Art. no. 5, Jan. 2024, doi:10.3390/en17051201.
     https://doi.org/10.3390/en17051201 [Google Scholar]
  6. D.Li, B. J.Graupner, and S.Bauer, “A method for calculating the liquid density for the CO2–H2O–NaCl system under CO2 storage condition,” Energy Procedia, vol. 4, pp. 3817–3824, Jan. 2011, doi: 10.1016/j.egypro.2011.02.317.
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2011.02.317 [Google Scholar]
  7. R.Sander, Z.Pan, and L. D.Connell, “Laboratory measurement of low permeability unconventional gas reservoir rocks: A review of experimental methods,” J. Nat. Gas Sci. Eng., vol. 37, pp. 248–279, Jan. 2017, doi: 10.1016/j.jngse.2016.11.041.
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jngse.2016.11.041 [Google Scholar]
  8. M.Aghajanloo, S.Jones, L.Yan, D.Voskov, and R.Farajzadeh, “Evaluation of CO2 Hydrate Saturation in Porous Core Experiments Using Medical CT Images,” Energy Fuels, vol. 38, no. 12, pp. 11037–11042, June 2024, doi: 10.1021/acs.energyfuels.4c01537.
     https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.energyfuels.4c01537 [Google Scholar]
  9. J.Katagiri, Y.Konno, J.Yoneda, and N.Tenma, “Pore-scale modeling of flow in particle packs containing grain-coating and pore-filling hydrates: Verification of a Kozeny–Carman-based permeability reduction model,” J. Nat. Gas Sci. Eng., vol. 45, pp. 537–551, Sept. 2017, doi:10.1016/j.jngse.2017.06.019.
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jngse.2017.06.019 [Google Scholar]
  10. X.-H.Wang et al., “Experimental study on the intrinsic dissociation rate of methane hydrate,” Chem. Eng. Sci., vol. 282, p. 119278, Dec. 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.ces.2023.119278.
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ces.2023.119278 [Google Scholar]
  11. H. C.Kim, P. R.Bishnoi, R. A.Heidemann, and S. S. H.Rizvi, “Kinetics of methane hydrate decomposition,” Chem. Eng. Sci., vol. 42, no. 7, pp. 1645–1653, Jan. 1987, doi: 10.1016/0009‑2509(87)80169‑0.
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0009-2509(87)80169-0 [Google Scholar]
/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.202521269
Loading
Investigation the Effect of Subcooling on the Kinetics of CO2 Hydrates Formation/Dissociation in Porous Media
Conference Proceedings 2025, 1 (2025); https://doi.org/10.3997/2214-4609.202521269
/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.202521269
/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.202521269
Loading

Data & Media loading...

Most Cited This Month Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error