Geophysical Monitoring for Geologic Carbon Storage. Группа авторов

Чтение книги онлайн.

Читать онлайн книгу Geophysical Monitoring for Geologic Carbon Storage - Группа авторов страница 48

Geophysical Monitoring for Geologic Carbon Storage - Группа авторов

Скачать книгу

5.2 Modeling parameters

Parameter Symbol Value
Undrained frame Young's modulus E U 20.5 GPa
Matrix frame shear modulus G 7.60 GPa
Matrix Biot‐Willis effective stress coefficient α 0.769
Matrix porosity φ 16.7%
Mineral bulk modulus K s 38 GPa
Mineral density ρ s 2,650 kg/m3
Water density rho Subscript upper H 2 upper O 989 kg/m3
scCO2 density rho Subscript s c upper C upper O 2 535 kg/m3
Water bulk modulus upper K Subscript upper H 2 upper O 2.46 GPa
scCO2 bulk modulus upper K Subscript s c upper C upper O 2 0.04 GPa
Sample length H 10.0 cm
Sample diameter a 3.81 cm
Fracture aperture (core parallel) h 0.54 mm
Fracture aperture (core perpendicular) h 0.26 mm

      Note: Unlisted poroelastic parameters such as α , B, K U , K D , E D , M are derived from these parameters using Gassmann relationships for isotropic poroelastic media. The fluid bulk modulus K f is given as a function of the scCO2 pore saturation upper S Subscript s c upper C upper O 2 via

1 slash upper K Subscript f Baseline equals upper S Subscript s c upper C upper O 2 Baseline slash upper K Subscript upper H 2 upper O Baseline plus left-parenthesis 1 minus upper S Subscript s c upper C upper O 2 Baseline right-parenthesis slash upper K Subscript s c upper C upper O 2 Baseline period

      The rock’s effective stress coefficient α is computed from undrained bulk modulus K U = E U G / 3(3GE U ), K f , and the porosity φ via

1 slash alpha equals 1 slash left-parenthesis 1 minus upper K Subscript upper U Baseline slash upper K Subscript s Baseline right-parenthesis plus 1 slash phi left-parenthesis 1 minus upper K Subscript s Baseline slash upper K Subscript f Baseline right-parenthesis period

      The abrupt changes in the attenuation can be explained by coexisting two attenuation mechanisms. The first mechanism is the effect of the heterogeneous and patchy scCO2 distribution in the rock matrix, as seen for the intact cores. As assumed by the patchy‐saturation model (e.g., Azuma et al., 2013), pressure in these patches does not equilibrate with the water in the surrounding rock if ultrasonic waves are used for the measurements (i.e., there is no fluid flow across the boundaries). However, with the current, sonic‐frequency measurements, seismic waves cause higher pressure within the stiff, water‐saturated part of the rock, which drives the water toward the softer, scCO2‐saturated part. With increasing volume of the rock where the two fluids coexist, the overall attenuation of the sample increases as scCO2 is injected into the sample.

      The second mechanism is the attenuation caused by the interaction between a high‐porosity, high‐compliance fracture and a lower‐porosity, low‐compliance rock matrix. At the initial, water‐saturated state, attenuation in the sample is large. This is because seismic waves induce enhanced pressure changes within the compliant fracture, which drives dynamic fluid exchange with the matrix and dissipates a large amount of energy. This attenuation becomes small once the compliance of the fluid in the fracture increases, and the fracture‐driven motions of the water in the rock matrix diminish.

Schematic illustration of Young's modulus E and its related attenuation aE compared with the scCO2 distribution in Frac IIa and Frac IIb cores.

Скачать книгу