Uncertainty in geochemical modelling of CO2 and calcite dissolution in NaCl solutions due to different modelling codes and thermodynamic databases

Abstract

A prognosis of the geochemical effects of CO2 storage induced by the injection of CO2 into geologic reservoirs or by CO2 leakage into the overlaying formations can be performed by numerical modelling (non-invasive) and field experiments. Until now the research has been focused on the geochemical processes of the CO2 reacting with the minerals of the storage formation, which mostly consists of quartzitic sandstones. Regarding the safety assessment the reactions between the CO2 and the overlaying formations in the case of a CO2 leakage are of equal importance as the reactions in the storage formation. In particular, limestone formations can react very sensitively to CO2 intrusion. The thermodynamic parameters necessary to model these reactions are not determined explicitly through experiments at the total range of temperature and pressure conditions and are thus extrapolated by the simulation code. The differences in the calculated results lead to different calcite and CO2 solubilities and can influence the safety issues.This uncertainty study is performed by comparing the computed results, applying the geochemical modelling software codes TheGeochemist’s Workbench, EQ3/6, PHREEQC and FactSage/ChemApp and their thermodynamic databases. The input parameters (1) total concentration of the solution, (2) temperature and (3) fugacity are varied within typical values for CO2 reservoirs, overlaying formations and close-to-surface aquifers. The most sensitive input parameter in the system H2O–CO2–NaCl–CaCO3 for the calculated range of dissolved calcite and CO2 is the fugacity of CO2. Hence, the largest range of dissolved calcite is calculated at high fugacities and is 210mmol/kgw. The average deviation of the results using the databases phreeqc.dat and wateq4f.dat in combination with the code PHREEQC is lowest in comparison to the results of the specific model of Duan and Li, which represents the experimental values at best. Still, the solubility of CO2 is overestimated in the formation water using these two databases. Therefore, the model results calculate a larger retention capacity, defined as the quantity of CO2 dissolved in the formation water, than the Duan and Li model would do.