13–16 May 2024
Asia/Shanghai timezone

Experimental and Numerical Study of Carbon Dioxide Geological Storage in Coal – A Comparative Analysis with the application of Positron Emission Tomography Imaging.

14 May 2024, 11:25
15m
Oral Presentation (MS08) Mixing, dispersion and reaction processes across scales in heterogeneous and fractured media MS08

Speaker

Aaron Uthaia Kumaran (University of New South Wales)

Description

With the global energy mix predominantly fossil fuel based1, carbon dioxide (CO2) capture, utilisation and geological storage (CCUS) is a key tool in reducing anthropogenic CO2 emissions. One of the main challenges facing CCUS in coal seams is the loss of injectivity due to CO2 coal swelling2–7. This work aims to improve the understanding of CO2 transport mechanisms in coal by applying in-situ Positron Emission Tomography (PET) imaging to obtain direct images of CO2 flow in coal, allowing for better CO2 geosequestration techniques.

This work presents a comparative history matching analysis between a one-dimensional Advection Diffusion Equation (ADE) model and experimental data obtained from in-situ PET imaging during core flooding. Traditional core flooding methods usually rely on assumptions that flow within samples is piston like, possibly leading to inaccuracies during modelling8. The use of PET imaging provides an actual representation of gas flow behaviour and serves as a ground truth point of reference during history matching. This comparative analysis focuses on determining how the diffusion coefficient of CO2 in coal changes vis-à-vis coal properties such as initial adsorbate molecules, coal swelling and their effects on gas (particularly CO2) diffusion within coal samples.

[11C]CO2 was utilised as the PET radiotracer during core flooding experiments to directly image carbon dioxide (CO2) diffusion dynamics and mechanisms within coal samples. A 1-D ADE model in MATLAB was then history matched to experimental data for the purpose of obtaining the diffusion coefficient that best represented what was observed. Additionally, X-Ray μCT imaging technology was utilised to obtain high resolution (30μm) images of the core samples. Machine learning algorithms were then applied to these CT images as a method of digital image segmentation to obtain a good estimate of sample porosity, further improving the accuracy of the 1-D ADE model. In-situ PET scans allow for a dynamic observation of gas flow during the core flooding experiment as well as a source on which gas diffusion effects can be confirmed through the use of history matching with a 1-D ADE model in MATLAB and subsequently back calculating the diffusion coefficient of best fit from the ADE model that accounts for key core flooding parameters such as coal porosity, gas flow rate and type of injected gas.

The results show that stable diffusion coefficients arise when samples are dry and an inert gas (He) is used as the carrier gas. In the cases of competitive adsorption between methane (CH4) and CO2 in samples that were CH4 saturated show a decreasing diffusion coefficient. Diffusion coefficients in CO2 saturated samples were in the order of 100 times lower than in samples that were not exposed to CO2 prior to injection. This indicates that coal swelling has a significant impact on the ability of gas to effectively diffuse in the coal matrix. These findings further develop the body of knowledge surrounding CO2 geosequestration in unmineable coal seams and contributes to the optimisation of CCUS processes during the transition to low-carbon and renewable energy sources.

References 1. IEA. Global Energy Review: CO2 Emissions in 2021. (2021). 2. Botnen, L. S. et al. Field Test of CO2 Injection and Storage in Lignite Coal Seam in North Dakota. Energy Procedia 1, 2013–2019 (2009). 3. Fujioka, M., Yamaguchi, S. & Nako, M. CO2-ECBM field tests in the Ishikari Coal Basin of Japan. International Journal of Coal Geology 82, 287–298 (2010). 4. Mukherjee, M. & Misra, S. A review of experimental research on Enhanced Coal Bed Methane (ECBM) recovery via CO2 sequestration. Earth-Science Reviews 179, 392–410 (2018). 5. Scott Reeves & Anne Oudinot. The Tiffany Unit N2 - ECBM Pilot: A Reservoir Modeling Study. 923257 http://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/923257-bRXclR/ (2004) doi:10.2172/923257. 6. Talapatra, A. A study on the carbon dioxide injection into coal seam aiming at enhancing coal bed methane (ECBM) recovery. Journal of Petroleum Exploration and Production Technology 10, 1965–1981 (2020). 7. Day, S., Fry, R. & Sakurovs, R. Swelling of coal in carbon dioxide, methane and their mixtures. International Journal of Coal Geology 93, 40–48 (2012). 8. Sun, Y., Li, Q., Yang, D. & Liu, X. Laboratory core flooding experimental systems for CO2 geosequestration: An updated review over the past decade. Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 8, 113–126 (2016).
Country Australia
Conference Proceedings I am interested in having my paper published in the proceedings.
Student Awards I would like to submit this presentation into both awards
Acceptance of the Terms & Conditions Click here to agree

Primary author

Aaron Uthaia Kumaran (University of New South Wales)

Co-authors

Kunning Tang (UNSW) Peyman Mostaghimi Ryan Armstrong Dr Ying Da Wang (UNSW) YU JING

Presentation materials

There are no materials yet.