Abstract

Monitoring the injected CO2 during geological CO2 storage (GCS) is essential to assure containment and identify CO2 leakage. In this work, a new approach is introduced to estimate the evolution of the downhole fluid velocity at a monitoring well and identify CO2 arrival time using in-well heat pulse/tracer test. The proposed technique involves using a downhole heater to generate a series of heat pulses and measuring their corresponding temperature response. The surface temperature of the downhole heater is controlled by the supplied electrical power and the heat loss by convection to the surroundings. Convective heat transfer is well described using Newton's law of cooling in which the temperature difference between the heater and the surrounding fluids drives the heat transfer, for which the convection heat transfer coefficient (h) controls the magnitude of heat loss. Among various factors that control h, it depends on the type of the flowing fluid and its velocity. Through analyzing the measured temperature at different heat pulses, the changes in h - due to mobilization of the in-situ brine or CO2 arrival - can be estimated. Consequently, the velocity of the flowing fluid across the heater can be obtained. Since heat transfer by convection is sensitive to the type of the surrounding fluid, intrusion of CO2 can be detected from the relatively higher surface temperature obtained at CO2 arrival. Churchill and Bernstein (1977)'s correlation is adopted to estimate the change of fluid velocity in terms of the change in h. To demonstrate the validity of the proposed technique, the results are applied and validated against those of COMSOL Multiphysics simulation tool for single-phase brine (before CO2 arrival) and single-phase CO2 (after CO2 arrival). The observed temperature heating is sensitive to the flowing fluid velocity and fluid type. The temperature signal observed at CO2 arrival is large and easily detectable using temperature monitoring tool which provides reliable indication for tracking CO2 arrival at monitoring wells compared with passive temperature monitoring. The results obtained using the proposed technique agree very well with the numerical results obtained from the simulation tool with a maximum estimation error of 7 percent.

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.