Multiphase flow modelling of calcite dissolution patterns from core scale to reservoir scale - Jeroen Snippe, Shell, at UKCCSRC specialist meeting Flow and Transport for CO2 Storage, 29-30 October 2015

Copyright of Shell Global Solutions International B.V.
MULTIPHASE FLOW MODELLING OF
CALCITE DISSOLUTION PATTERNS FROM
CORE SCALE TO RESERVOIR SCALE
Jeroen Snippe, Holger Ott
Shell Global Solutions International B.V.
1October 2015
Presentation for UKCCSRC
Specialist Meeting on Flow and
Transport for CO2 Storage
Imperial College London,
30th October 2015

DEFINITIONS & CAUTIONARY NOTE
Reserves: Our use of the term “reserves” in this presentation means SEC proved oil and gas reserves.
Resources: Our use of the term “resources” in this presentation includes quantities of oil and gas not yet classified as SEC proved oil and gas reserves. Resources are consistent with
the Society of Petroleum Engineers 2P and 2C definitions.
Organic: Our use of the term Organic includes SEC proved oil and gas reserves excluding changes resulting from acquisitions, divestments and year-average pricing impact.
Resources plays: Our use of the term ‘resources plays’ refers to tight, shale and coal bed methane oil and gas acreage.
The companies in which Royal Dutch Shell plc directly and indirectly owns investments are separate entities. In this presentation “Shell”, “Shell group” and “Royal Dutch Shell” are
sometimes used for convenience where references are made to Royal Dutch Shell plc and its subsidiaries in general. Likewise, the words “we”, “us” and “our” are also used to refer to
subsidiaries in general or to those who work for them. These expressions are also used where no useful purpose is served by identifying the particular company or companies.
‘‘Subsidiaries’’, “Shell subsidiaries” and “Shell companies” as used in this presentation refer to companies in which Royal Dutch Shell either directly or indirectly has control.
Companies over which Shell has joint control are generally referred to as “joint ventures” and companies over which Shell has significant influence but neither control nor joint control
are referred to as “associates”. The term “Shell interest” is used for convenience to indicate the direct and/or indirect ownership interest held by Shell in a venture, partnership or
company, after exclusion of all third-party interest.
This presentation contains forward-looking statements concerning the financial condition, results of operations and businesses of Royal Dutch Shell. All statements other than statements
of historical fact are, or may be deemed to be, forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements are statements of future expectations that are based on management’s current
expectations and assumptions and involve known and unknown risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results, performance or events to differ materially from those expressed
or implied in these statements. Forward-looking statements include, among other things, statements concerning the potential exposure of Royal Dutch Shell to market risks and
statements expressing management’s expectations, beliefs, estimates, forecasts, projections and assumptions. These forward-looking statements are identified by their use of terms and
phrases such as ‘‘anticipate’’, ‘‘believe’’, ‘‘could’’, ‘‘estimate’’, ‘‘expect’’, ‘‘intend’’, ‘‘may’’, ‘‘plan’’, ‘‘objectives’’, ‘‘outlook’’, ‘‘probably’’, ‘‘project’’, ‘‘will’’, ‘‘seek’’, ‘‘target’’,
‘‘risks’’, ‘‘goals’’, ‘‘should’’ and similar terms and phrases. There are a number of factors that could affect the future operations of Royal Dutch Shell and could cause those results to
differ materially from those expressed in the forward-looking statements included in this presentation, including (without limitation): (a) price fluctuations in crude oil and natural gas;
(b) changes in demand for Shell’s products; (c) currency fluctuations; (d) drilling and production results; (e) reserves estimates; (f) loss of market share and industry competition; (g)
environmental and physical risks; (h) risks associated with the identification of suitable potential acquisition properties and targets, and successful negotiation and completion of such
transactions; (i) the risk of doing business in developing countries and countries subject to international sanctions; (j) legislative, fiscal and regulatory developments including potential
litigation and regulatory measures as a result of climate changes; (k) economic and financial market conditions in various countries and regions; (l) political risks, including the risks of
expropriation and renegotiation of the terms of contracts with governmental entities, delays or advancements in the approval of projects and delays in the reimbursement for shared
costs; and (m) changes in trading conditions. All forward-looking statements contained in this presentation are expressly qualified in their entirety by the cautionary statements
contained or referred to in this section. Readers should not place undue reliance on forward-looking statements. Additional factors that may affect future results are contained in Royal
Dutch Shell’s 20-F for the year ended 31 December, 2014 (available at www.shell.com/investor and www.sec.gov ). These factors also should be considered by the reader. Each
forward-looking statement speaks only as of the date of this presentation, 2 October, 2015. Neither Royal Dutch Shell nor any of its subsidiaries undertake any obligation to publicly
update or revise any forward-looking statement as a result of new information, future events or other information. In light of these risks, results could differ materially from those stated,
implied or inferred from the forward-looking statements contained in this presentation. There can be no assurance that dividend payments will match or exceed those set out in this
presentation in the future, or that they will be made at all.
We use certain terms in this presentation, such as discovery potential, that the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) guidelines strictly prohibit us from including in
filings with the SEC. U.S. Investors are urged to consider closely the disclosure in our Form 20-F, File No 1-32575, available on the SEC website www.sec.gov. You can also obtain
this form from the SEC by calling 1-800-SEC-0330.
October 2015

INTRO: CALCITE DISSOLUTION DURING CO2 INJECTION
 Context: CO2 storage/EOR
 CO2 injection → acidification →
carbonate dissolution
3October 2015
Fred and Fogler (1999), SPE 56995
 Experiments show ‘wormholing’
for CO2 -saturated brine injection
 Similar to patterns in extensive
acid stimulation literature
 Very limited experimental work
done with gas/SC CO2 injection
 Model investigation
 Impact of gas phase
 Upscaling to field scale

MODELLING APPROACH
Using in-house dynamic multiphase reservoir flow simulator (MoReS)
coupled to open-source geochemical package (PHREEQC v3)
4October 2015
Detailed model (core scale)
 Explicit representation of WH patterns
 Grid resolution << WH diameter
 Chemistry including kinetics (phreeqc.dat, Palandri & Kharaka)
 2-phase flow description including capillary effects and diffusion
 Permeability, capillary pressure, relperms modified during dissolution
 Continuum scale (Darcy) model → flow within WH approximate
Effective model (core scale to well/reservoir scale) [2nd part of presentation]
 Implicit representation of WH patterns
 Generalised to 2-phase case with CO2
 Parameters tuned to detailed model and experiments

DETAILED MODEL
5October 2015

 3D
SOME MODEL RESULTS (SINGLE PHASE)
6October 2015
WH competition 5mm…
 Most of fine-scale simulations done in 2D
Compact dissolution Conical dissolution Conical wormhole
Ramified wormholes Homogeneous dissol.Dominant wormhole
 2D
WH width 2 mm

MODEL VALIDATION (SINGLE PHASE)
7October 2015
Ramified wormholes
Uniform dissolution
Dominant wormhole
Conical
wormhole
Compact
dissolution
Dahmkohlernumber(reactionrate/convectionrate)
Peclet number (convection rate/diffusion rate)
MoReS results (colour) plotted on domain boundaries from
Golfier et al., J. Fluid Mech. (2002), vol. 457, pp. 213-254
with experimental patterns from Fred and Fogler (1999), SPE 56995

TWO-PHASE EXPERIMENT/MODEL RATIONALE
Experiment
 Two experiments were done at Shell with CO2 + brine co-injection
 This is ~representative for the conditions somewhat behind the CO2
plume front in CCS
 Pure CO2 injection WH experiment would be more challenging
 longer core to resolve profiles (gas saturation, calcite dissolution)
 high CT signal:noise to resolve subtle calcite dissolution patterns
Model:
 Model experiment with CO2 + brine co-injection and compare results
 Derive upscaled (effective) model description
 Apply effective model to pure CO2 injection (larger model dimensions)
8October 2015

2-PHASE RELPERM AND CAPILLARY PRESSURE
9October 2015
During dissolution
 Interpolation between curves (linear in porosity)
 Power law scaling of permeability with porosity
0.0
1.5
3.0
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00
Capillarypressure(Gas-Water)[bar]
Relativepermeability
Gas saturation
krw matrix
krg matrix
krw cavity
krg cavity
Pc matrix
Pc cavity

TWO-PHASE MODEL RESULTS (CO-INJECTION)
10October 2015
The gas phase slightly suppresses WH velocity
260 PV
single-phase two-phase co-injection (same rate)
720 PV
560 PV
760 PV
760 PV
2000 PV
260 PV
880 PV
760 PV
880 PV
760 PV
2000 PV

1
10
100
1000
10000
0.001 0.010 0.100 1.000 10.000 100.000
PoreVolumestoBreakthrough
Interstitial Water Velocity (cm/min)
Brine + gas
Observed
TWO-PHASE MODEL RESULTS (CO-INJECTION)
11October 2015
Most suppression around optimal flow rates (~dominant WH regime)

TWO-PHASE MODEL RESULTS: ANALYSIS/COMPARISON
12October 2015
2-phase, 1+1 ml/min co-inj.1-phase, 1ml/min
Porosity
Experiment
(Shell)
(Porosity)
Ott et al. (2013)
SCA2013-029
Gas
saturation
Water flux
(log scale)
760 PV 880 PV

Ott, H., and S. Oedai (2015)
Geophys. Res. Lett., 42, 2270–2276
doi:10.1002/2015GL063582
2ND SHELL EXPERIMENT: WH SUPPRESSION
 In this experiment gas co-injection seems to trigger transition from
dominant WH into conical WH/compact dissolution
 Slumping reproduced in model runs with gravity (only investigated on
small diameter core)
13October 2015

EFFECTIVE MODEL APPROACH
14October 2015

LEARNINGS FROM ACID STIMULATION LITERATURE
15August 2015
 Acid stimulation literature
(single phase): Universally
shaped curve #PVBT vs vi (or
vWH vs vi)
 Location of curve depends on
phi, perm, aspect ratio, HCl
strength, …
 ‘Global Wormholing Model’
(GWM), Talbot&Gdanski
(2008), SPE 113042, offers
~universal parameterisation
~predictive vWH vs vi for given
phi, perm, HCl strength, etc.
Buijse & Glasbergen
(2005), SPE 96892

GWM CHARACTERISTICS
16October 2015
Talbot&Gdanski (2008),
SPE 113042

1
10
100
1000
10000
0.001 0.010 0.100 1.000 10.000 100.000 1000.000
Interstitial Water Velocity (cm/min)
Brine + gas Observed
compact dissolution limit Model (fit)
Model (solubility-equivalent HCl) Model (pH-equivalent HCl)
GWM APPLICATION TO CO2-BRINE
17August 2015
Deviation in single
WH regime because
Poiseuille flow profile
in model poorly
resolved or grid
resolution too coarse
Model was run in 2D,
for which GWM
model is overshooting
in face dissolution
regime
 GWM model fitted by tuning HCl strength
 Resulting GWM model also fits available experimental data well (next slides)
 GWM model applied to dynamic flow simulations by locally accounting for
calcite saturation index through HCl strength parameter
 For 2-phase use same GWM parameters – use the water vi as input velocity

1
10
100
1000
10000
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000
Interstitial Fluid Velocity (cm/min)
Model Observed
FITTED MODEL COMPARISON TO EXPERIMENTS
OTT ET AL. (SHELL) 2013 – SCA 2013-029
18October 2015
 L=5.91”, d=2.95”
 q=1 mL/min
 Estaillades limestone
 φ=0.278, k=270 mD
 T=50 °C, p=100 bar

1
10
100
1000
10000
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000
Model Observed
CAROLL ET AL. (LLNL) 2013 - IJGHGC 16S (2013) S185–S193
19October 2015
 L=1.18”, d=0.59”
 q=0.05 mL/min
 Calculated HCl equivalent based on undersaturated CO2 molality
 Weyburn limestone (59% calcite)
 φ=0.15, k=0.032 mD
 T=60 °C, p=248 bar, p_CO2 = 30 bar

1
10
100
1000
10000
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000
Model Observed
VIALLE ET AL. 2014 - J. GEOPHYS. RES. SOLID EARTH, 119, 2828–2847
20October 2015
 L=0.13.8”, d=3.94”
 q=5 mL/min
 Salinity = 25000 ppm
 Estaillades limestone
 φ=0.286, k=120 mD
 T=20 °C, p_CO2 = 1 bar

1
10
100
1000
10000
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000
Model Observed
LUQUOT ET AL. 2011 - TRANSP POROUS MED (2014) 101:507–532
21October 2015
 L=0.71”, d=0.35”
 q=0.08 mL/min
 Alcobaa limestone
 φ=0.15, k=0.24 mD
 T=100 °C, p=120 bar, p_CO2 = 34 bar

1
10
100
1000
10000
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000
Model Observed
SVEC & GRIGG 2001 - SPE 71496
22October 2015
 L=20.3”, d=1.98”
 q=17 mL/min
 Indiana limestone
 φ=0.123, k=35.7 mD
 T=38 °C, p=138 bar
 Salinity=86950 ppm

1
10
100
1000
10000
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000
Model Observed
LUQUOT & GOUZE 2009 - CHEMICAL GEOLOGY 265 (2009) 148–159
23October 2015
 L=0.71”, d=0.35”
 q=1.14 mL/min
 Mondeville limestone
 φ=0.075, k=35.7 mD
 T=100 °C, p=120 bar, p_CO2 = 100 bar

1
10
100
1000
10000
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000
Model Observed
MENKE 2015 - IMPERIAL COLLEGE LONDON – PRIVATE COMM
24October 2015
 L=0.47”, d=0.16”
 q=0.5 mL/min
 Salinity = 60000 ppm
 Portland limestone
 φ=0.045, k=0.096 mD
 T=50 °C, p=100 bar

∆ Pressure
Reference case: no WH’s
EFFECTIVE MODEL RESULTS (LINEAR MODEL, 1METER)
 CO2-saturated brine injection: Potential for large injectivity increase
 Pure CO2 injection: Short/no wormholes. Negligible impact on injectivity
25October 2015
Pure CO2 injection (1cm/min)CO2-sat brine injection (1cm/min)
WH velocity
Gas saturation
WH length

EFFECTIVE MODEL RESULTS (RADIAL MODEL, R=50 METER)
26October 2015
Pure CO2 injection (0.5 MT/year)CO2-sat brine injection (0.5 MT/year)
Gas saturation
Injection pressure
Reference case: no WH’s
WH length
 Same conclusions as for linear model
 Note for pure CO2 injection: WH length decreases with distance (cf. linear: ~constant)

ANALYSIS OF RESULTS (RADIAL MODEL)
27October 2015
0.000001
0.000010
0.000100
0.001000
0.010000
0.100000
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
WHvelocity(cm/min),WHlength(cm),
porositychange(m3/m3),permmult-1
gassaturation(m3/m3)
Radial distance (cm)
SAT_GAS
Vwh
Lwh
DPHI
PERMX_MULT -1
0.000001
0.000010
0.000100
0.001000
0.010000
0.100000
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
300 320 340 360 380 400
WHvelocity(cm/min),WHlength(cm),
porositychange(m3/m3),permmult-1
gassaturation(m3/m3)
Radial distance (cm)
SAT_GAS
Vwh
Lwh
DPHI
PERMX_MULT -1
 Only thin region in which conditions are favourable for WH growth
 Far ahead of gas front gradual increase in acidity → always close to calcite
equillibrium → outside WH regime (too low Da#)
 Note: calcite solubility in CO2-saturated brine controls final porosity change

1
10
100
1000
10000
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000
Base case
Vi -> 0 (ideal compact dissol)
L/A=2
L/A = .67
T=-65
T=30
T=50
HCl=.002617
HCl=.05
HCl=.238
Estaillades exp (L/A = .34)
Model 2D (L/A=15)
best fit to 9.8 cm2/g MoReS
SENSITIVITY TO GWM PARAMETER UNCERTAINTY RANGE
28October 2015
 Parameter ranges based on (wide) envelope around
experimental and model results
 For radial application, base case L/A ≈1cm-1 based on acid
stimulation radial corefloods and field application experience

SENSITIVITY RESULTS: IMPACT ON WH LENGTH (1-PHASE)
29October 2015
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1,000
0 20 40 60 80 100
Wormholelength(cm)
Distance from sandface (cm)
ref case HCld238 HCld005 LdAd67
LdA2 Tm30 T50
 Strong sensitivity, especially to acid strength parameter
 In all cases strong wormhole growth initiating at sandface
 Hypothetical WH’s initiating ahead of sandface overtaken (shock front)
After several months of injection

 Weaker sensitivities than in 1-phase case
 Conclusions from reference case run appear robust, i.e.: short/no
wormholes (LWH < 0.05 cm)
 perm multiplier < 1.01 for LWH < 5cm (2D) or 2cm (3D) [next slides]
SENSITIVITY RESULTS: IMPACT ON WH LENGTH (2-PHASE)
30October 2015
0.000
0.010
0.020
0.030
0.040
0.050
0.060
0 100 200 300 400 500
Wormholelength(cm)
Distance from sandface (cm)
ref case HCld238 HCld005 LdAd67
LdA2 Tm30 T50

REMARK ON EFFECTIVE PERMEABILITY MULTIPLIER
In pure CO2 injection case WH’s would
initiate away from sandface
Q: how assign effective perm?
 Matrix background and high perm
WH channels
 Assume random WH initiation pattern
 Assume idealised dominant WH’s
 Straight channel WH  = 2mm
 From Poiseuille flow, kWH ≈ 105 D
 Control parameters ∆φ and LWH
 Considered both 2D and 3D
 Considered enhanced connectivity case
(~ WH angle distribution/bifurcations)
31October 2015

 Numerical upscaling
 Simple formula gives good fit, for all ∆φ , all LWH, all perm contrasts
𝑘 𝑒𝑓𝑓
𝑘 𝑚
− 1 =
𝑘 𝑔𝑒𝑜𝑚(∆φ)
𝑘 𝑚
− 1
𝐿 𝑊𝐻
𝑐1
𝑐2
(+bounded by harm and arithm)
REMARK ON EFFECTIVE PERMEABILITY MULTIPLIER
32October 2015
1.E-06
1.E-05
1.E-04
1.E-03
1.E-02
1.E-01
1.E+00
1.E+01
1.E+02
1.E+03
1.E+04
1.E+05
1.E+06
1.E-06 1.E-05 1.E-04 1.E-03 1.E-02 1.E-01 1.E+00
k_mult_harm - 1
k_mult_geom - 1
k_mult_arithm - 1
WH_kmult1Min1
WH_kmult2Min1
Fit
1.E-06
1.E-05
1.E-04
1.E-03
1.E-02
1.E-01
1.E+00
1.E+01
1.E+02
1.E+03
1.E+04
1.E+05
1.E+06
1.E-06 1.E-05 1.E-04 1.E-03 1.E-02 1.E-01 1.E+00
k_mult_harm - 1
k_mult_geom - 1
k_mult_arithm - 1
WH_kmult1Min1
WH_kmult2Min1
Fit
1.E-06
1.E-05
1.E-04
1.E-03
1.E-02
1.E-01
1.E+00
1.E+01
1.E+02
1.E+03
1.E+04
1.E+05
1.E+06
1.E-06 1.E-05 1.E-04 1.E-03 1.E-02 1.E-01 1.E+00
k_mult_harm - 1
k_mult_geom - 1
k_mult_arithm - 1
WH_kmult1Min1
WH_kmult2Min1
Series7
 Example - perm contrast
𝑘 𝑊𝐻
𝑘 𝑚
= 400, LWH =100mm
log(∆φ)
log
𝐤𝐖𝐇
𝐤𝐦
−𝟏
10-6 1
10-6
10+6
Note: for pure CO2 injection: ∆φ≈10-4

CONCLUSIONS
 At fixed brine rate, gas co-injection causes some suppression of calcite
dissolution patterns.
 Modelling indicates limited suppression for any flow rate
 Experiment: limited to strong suppression in dominant/conical WH regime
33October 2015
 Successfully applied effective GWM model (from acid stimulation literature)
to CO2-brine system (matches fine-scale model and experiments)
 Effective model predicts WH can be significant in carbonate reservoirs on
operational timescale (days-years) for CO2 & water co-injection
 Good for injectivity
 Potentially problematic for well/rock stability (depending on WH pattern)
 Effective model predicts negligible wormhole formation for pure CO2
injection (at any scale from core scale to reservoir scale)
WH formation irrelevant for pure CO2 injection projects (‘standard’ CCS)

Multiphase flow modelling of calcite dissolution patterns from core scale to reservoir scale - Jeroen Snippe, Shell, at UKCCSRC specialist meeting Flow and Transport for CO2 Storage, 29-30 October 2015

REMARK ON REACTION KINETICS VS GWM PARAMETERS
35August 2015

Multiphase flow modelling of calcite dissolution patterns from core scale to reservoir scale - Jeroen Snippe, Shell, at UKCCSRC specialist meeting Flow and Transport for CO2 Storage, 29-30 October 2015

More Related Content

What's hot (19)

Viewers also liked (20)

Similar to Multiphase flow modelling of calcite dissolution patterns from core scale to reservoir scale - Jeroen Snippe, Shell, at UKCCSRC specialist meeting Flow and Transport for CO2 Storage, 29-30 October 2015 (20)

More from UK Carbon Capture and Storage Research Centre (16)

Recently uploaded (20)

Multiphase flow modelling of calcite dissolution patterns from core scale to reservoir scale - Jeroen Snippe, Shell, at UKCCSRC specialist meeting Flow and Transport for CO2 Storage, 29-30 October 2015