Outline *Types of Geological Sequestration (GS) of CO 2 *Carbon - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

*Types of Geological Sequestration (GS) of CO2 *Carbon Capture Initiatives at Shell *Shell’s Strategic Alliance with Imperial College London *Climate Change Mitigation Activities at Imperial *Earth Science and Engineering at Imperial *Pore Network Modeling at Imperial *Visiting Professor Duties and Current Research

Outline

Types of Geological Sequestration of CO2

*(Deep) Saline Aquifers *Depleted Oil and Gas Reservoirs *Unmineable Coal Seams *Enhanced Oil Recovery and Co-Sequestration of CO2 Drive Fluid *Enhanced Coalbed Methane – Displace Methane using Waste CO2

Issues – How is the CO2 sequestered? What happens over long timescales? How do we verify CO2 containment?

Carbon Capture Initiatives at Shell

Gorgon LNG – Sequester CO 2 Left after Natural Gas Liquefaction QUEST: Sequester CO2 Produced by Scotford Upgrader Weyburn: Long-Running Demonstration Project Shell Qatar/Qatar Foundation - Substantial Long-Term Funding for GS Research at Imperial College London

Carbon Capture Initiatives at Shell (Continued)

Weyburn-Midale Demonstration Project

*Largest full-scale CCS field

study ever recorded. *Partners – Shell, IEA, PTRC *Launched 2000, demonstration phase will conclude in 2011. *Weyburn – will yield 155 MM additional barrels and store 1 MM tons of CO2 per year over the next 30 years. *Midale – 60 MM additional barrels, 0.3 MM tons of CO2 per year over the next 30 years.

GORGON LNG

*Joint venture – main partners

Chevron (47%), Shell (25%) & Exxon (25%). *Development will take place

• n a Class A Nature Reserve

(Barrow island). *Project is designed to store 3.5 MM tons pa

• f CO2 beneath the island.

QUEST

*Will capture and store 1.2

million tons of CO2 annually from 2015.

*CAN$ 745 MM funding from

the government of Alberta (from CAN$ 2 B CCS fund).

Carbon Capture Initiatives at Shell (Continued)

*Can CSS Play a Role in a Low Carbon Future for Coal?

4th October 2010 – Shell engages CO2DeepStore, a subsidiary of Petrofac, to turn its Goldeneye oil and Gas field into a carbon repository for CO2 produced by a coal-fired plant at Longannet, Scotland. This would be the world’s first commercial CCS scheme to be fitted to a coal-fired plant*.

*The UK is committed to an 80% reduction of CO2 emissions

by 2050.

Carbon Capture Initiatives at Shell (Continued)

*The Importance of Coal

Very large reserves world-wide, especially in India and China. Readily transportable fuel. Let’s compare energy mixes for Texas and the US:

Carbon Capture Initiatives at Shell (Continued)

*The Importance of Coal (Continued)

*Types of Geological Sequestration (GS) of CO2 *Carbon Capture Initiatives at Shell *Shell’s Strategic Alliance with Imperial College London *Climate Change Mitigation Activities at Imperial *Earth Science and Engineering at Imperial *Pore Network Modeling at Imperial *Visiting Professor Duties and Current Research

Outline

What is It? Memorandum of Understanding signed May 2003 by John Darley, President of EP Technology

• Prof. John Perkins, Principal of Faculty of Engineering

It formalizes the mutual interests of the two parties in establishing closer relationships with respect to the following areas: *Research *Education *Application of scientific knowledge to energy and technology *Recruitment activities

Shell’s Strategic Alliance with Imperial College London

Shell’s Strategic Alliance with Imperial College London: Why Imperial (1)?

Founded 1907 13,013 fulltime students Student/staff ratio 10.9:1 9 campuses

According to the 2009 World University Ranking from the Times Higher Education Supplement Imperial is: 2nd () in Europe and 6th (9th) in the World for Engineering and IT 3rd (3rd )in Europe and 10th (9th ) in the World for Natural Science 3rd () in Europe and 17th () in the World for Life Sciences & Biomedicine =3rd (3rd) in Europe and =5th (9th) in the World Overall

Shell’s Strategic Alliance with Imperial College London Why Imperial (2)?

Research is being Performed and Students are Being Educated in Key Technologies for the E&P Industry This work is concentrated in the Engineering Faculty, especially In the Department of Earth Science and Engineering, but also to a lesser extent in Chemical and Civil Engineering

Shell’s Strategic Alliance with Imperial College London Overview of Activities

*Campus Ambassadors Program (Attraction & Recruitment) *Sponsorship by Shell of Professorial Chairs and MSc students at Imperial *Staff exchange, summer students from Imperial working at Shell *GameChanger workshops involving staff from Shell and Imperial - > a number of GameChanger projects *Participation in JIPs *Grand-challenge multidisciplinary project between the Engineering Faculty and Shell (answer to BP’s Urban Energy Systems project) *Shell/Qatar Petroleum initiative on geological CO2 capture and storage

Smart Wells GameChanger $350,000 per year IC Contact – Matt Jackson Shell Contact – Dan Joinson

Shell’s Strategic Alliance with Imperial College London Examples of Shell Sponsorship

Nigel Brandon Chair (now in Chemical Engineering) Fuel Cells Initiatives Shell-Imperial Grand Challenge on Clean Fossil Fuels: $5 million over 5 years IC Contact – Geoff Maitland (Chemical Engineering) Shell Contact – Claus Otto Shell/Qatar Initiative on CO2 Capture and Geological Storage: $3.5 million per year each by Shell Qatar and the Qatar government, over 10 years IC Contact – Geoff Maitland Shell Contact – Claus Otto

Shell’s Strategic Alliance with Imperial College London Examples of Shell Sponsorship –Climate Change Initiatives

Shell’s Strategic Alliance with Imperial College London Climate Change Initiatives (Continued) Example – Capillary Trapping in Sandstones (Main Investigators, Chris Pentland, Stefan Iglauer)

CO2 Trapping Mechanisms Stratigraphic Trapping Dissolution Chemical Trapping Capillary Trapping *Upshot of experimental study was that more trapping per unit pore volume

• ccurs in lower porosity consolidated media (large pore-to-throat size ratio).

*Hence capillary trapping per unit bulk volume goes through a maximum. *Modeling work and extension to carbonates is ongoing.

*Types of Geological Sequestration (GS) of CO2 *Carbon Capture Initiatives at Shell *Shell’s Strategic Alliance with Imperial College London *Climate Change Mitigation Activities at Imperial *Earth Science and Engineering at Imperial *Pore Network Modeling at Imperial *Visiting Professor Duties and Current Research

Outline

Shell’s Strategic Alliance with Imperial College London The Department of Earth Science and Engineering

*Maximum possible score for quality of teaching and research Key Names:

• Prof. Martin Blunt (Petroleum Engineering, Dept. Head)
• Prof. Nigel Brandon (Shell Chair in Sustainable Development

in Energy – Originally in ESE, now Chemical)

• Prof. Peter King (Petroleum Engineering)
• Prof. Chris Pain (Computational Physics and Fluid Mechanics)
• Prof. Sevket Ducuran (Mining and Environmental Engineering)
• Prof. Howard Johnson (Shell Chair in Geology)
• Prof. Robert Zimmerman (Rock Mechanics)

Shell’s Strategic Alliance with Imperial College London The Department of Earth Science and Engineering

Research is Carried out in Three Main Areas:

Petroleum Earth and Planets Energy, Environment, Modeling & Minerals Petroleum Engineering & Rock Mechanics Group Centre for Petroleum Studies Centre for Reservoir Geophysics Surface Processes/ Basins Group Life in the Cosmos Internal Structure & Dynamics Impacts, Asteroid Materials & Cosmo-chemistry Computational Physics and Applied Modeling Energy, Materials and Environmental Management Geo-hazards and Geo-engineering Outcrop Modeling Pore-Scale Modeling Hydrothermal Systems

Shell’s Strategic Alliance with Imperial College London The Department of Earth Science and Engineering

Petroleum Engineering and Rock Mechanics Group

Smart Wells Rock Mechanics Reservoir Modeling and Upscaling Reservoir Characterization Pore-Scale Modeling

*Types of Geological Sequestration (GS) of CO2 *Carbon Capture Initiatives at Shell *Shell’s Strategic Alliance with Imperial College London *Climate Change Mitigation Activities at Imperial *Earth Science and Engineering at Imperial *Pore Network Modeling at Imperial *Visiting Professor Duties and Current Research

Outline

*One of Two Consortia Comprising Work in the PERM (Petroleum Engineering and Rock Mechanics) Area

• Sponsors: BHP, BG Group, BP, ENI, JOCMEC,

Saudi Aramco, Schlumberger, Shell, Statoil, TotalFinaElf, UK DTI Each company contributes GBP 30,000 per year over a three-year project phase Phase 1: January 2001-December 2003 Phase 2: January 2004-December 2006 Phase 3: January 2007-December 2009

The IC Consortium on Pore-Network Modeling

Objective To develop pore-scale network models as practical and useful tools in the oil industry Effort is focused on developing and using pore network models representative of actual reservoir rock to derive petrophysical and engineering properties of the rock.

The IC Consortium on Pore-Network Modeling (Continued)

Applications *Non-Newtonian flow scale-up (polymer flooding) *Prediction of three-phase relative permeabilities from pore-space images (input into reservoir simulators) *Tracer dispersion *Flow and trapping of reactive species at the pore scale (subsurface CO2 sequestration) The IC Consortium on Pore-Network Modeling (Continued)

Input – Images of the Rock m-CT Scan

• (serial) thin

sections Pore-Space Reconstruction Realisation of pore/grain morphology as voxel map Multipoint statistics Process-based methods Step 1

The Imperial College Pore Network Model – Two Steps In Building the Model The IC Consortium on Pore-Network Modeling (Continued)

The Imperial College Pore Network Model

Pore Network Model Extend model to other rock types by adjusting pore- throat radii and pore body to pore throat aspect ratio to match cap. curves Pore-Space Reconstruction Realisation of pore/grain morphology as voxel map

Step 2

Prediction of single-phase flow, dispersion and formation factor Multiphase flow, polymer flow …

Identify pore volumes, throat sizes and shapes, pore connectivities from process-based reconstruction

The IC Consortium on Pore-Network Modeling (Continued)

Examples of Micro-CT Images and Pore Network Models

Beadpack Berea Sandstone Carbonate

*Types of Geological Sequestration (GS) of CO2 *Carbon Capture Initiatives at Shell *Shell’s Strategic Alliance with Imperial College London *Climate Change Mitigation Activities at Imperial *Earth Science and Engineering at Imperial *Pore Network Modeling at Imperial *Visiting Professor Duties and Current Research

Outline

Duties

*Total of one month (20 days) visit time at IC pa *Deliver four graduate seminars per year *Interact with and guide PERM PhD students

Activities

*Improved description of pore-level processes for input into pore-network simulators *Review of effective properties of composite media

• Generalized Shell SATORI Model
• Reinterpreted 1990’s Shell Formation Factor data
• n Idealized Systems

Visiting Professor Duties and Activities

(1) Hydraulic conductances for single and multiphase flow (2) Interface rearrangement Determinations of fluid fluxes using (1) sets rules for (2)

G2, μ2, φ2 θ G1, μ1, φ1

Single phase flow: duct shapes Multiphase: Shapes, hold-ups, pressure drop and viscosity ratios

Improving the Description of Pore-Level Processes

 

 

i

R i i R

u S d q u S d q . ; .

Fluid fluxes determine transport and pore level events Single phase: q = (G/μ)AR2F(shape) Two-phase: qi = (Gi/μi )AR2F(shape,G3-i/Gi,μ3-i/μi,φi,θ); i = 1, 2 q and qi are integral quantities: u , ui solutions of Stokes’ equation

Current approaches: Analytical – Numerical – Empirical: Hydraulic radius, lubrication approximation

Improving the Description of Pore-Level Processes

i i L ns i i i i i

F R A dz L q G

 

 



3 1 2 ) (

; } { m m m

• Current approach in Imperial pore network model:

Two-phase flow, straight ducts Phase i sees boundary with phase 3 – i as a no slip boundary if μi < μ3-i and as a free slip boundary if μi > μ3-i .Reduce to two cases: qi = (Gi/μi)AiR(i)

2Fns(shape region Ri); μi < μ3-i

qi = (Gi/μi)AiR(i)

2Ffs(shape region Ri); μi > μ3-i

G2, μ2, φ2 θ G1, μ1, φ1

Improving the Description of Pore-Level Processes

• Essence of the Variational Method

Express solution of Stokes equation in terms of the minimization of a functional I[f] (meaning just an integral of a function of f and its derivatives over the flow domain). For a fluid, viscosity μ, flowing in a straight duct under a pressure drop per unit length G, I is given by

 



   

R

Gf f f dxdy f I m / 2 . ) (

2 1

Here R denotes the throat cross section. Provided that f = 0 on the boundary of R, Γ , we have I[f] ≥ I[w] ; with equality if and only if f = w Since q = -2(μ/G)I[w], -2(μ/G)I[f] ≤ q

Improving the Description of Pore-Level Processes

Example 1 – Test function for flow through rectangular duct

y x (a,b)

*Suppose a  b without loss of generality We could use:

ftest = α{1 – x2/a2}{1 – y2/b2}

This is clearly a poor choice for a >> b Try the following instead:

ftest = α{1 – y2/b2}; |x| ≤ a - b = α{1 – y2/b2}[1 – {|x| - a + b}2]; a - b ≤ |x| ≤ a

Note – vanishes at boundaries, first derivatives continuous

gapprox= 20a3(3b – a)2/{9(15b + a)}

Improving the Description of Pore-Level Processes

Test function – comparison with analytical solution

Comparison of Exact Soution and Variational Approximation for Flow through a Rectangular Duct

0.5 1 1.5 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 b /a q /{a 3b (G/m)} Exact Solution Variational Approximation

Absolute Relative Error of Variational Approximation to Fluid Flux in a Rectangular Duct

0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 b/a Absolute Relative Error (%) Series1

gapprox= 20a3(3b – a)2/{9(15b + a)}; a ≥ b

Improving the Description of Pore-Level Processes

Example 2 – Test function for flow through isosceles triangular duct

y We try I[ftest] is first minimized with respect to A, then with respect to n x y = ax

) 1 )( (

2 2 2 n test

x y x A f    

 

2 2 3 6 5

6 10 4 11 5 /        

approx

g

and

2 2 5 3

2

  



 n

Note that result is exact for an equilateral triangle;

1 , 3 / 1   n 

x = 1

Improving the Description of Pore-Level Processes

Example 2 – Comparison with Numerical Results [Ref 1]

Need to multiply gapprox by

2 2)

1 /( 5 .  

for comparison with Ref 1 b (deg)  = tan(b) gNumerical  10-4 gVariational  10-4

• Rel. Error

(%) 10 0.17633 2.82959 2.82965 0.002035 15 0.26795 7.54238 7.54254 0.002204 30 0.57735 27.0524 27.0633 0.040253 36 0.72654 32.0495 32.0600 0.03272 45 1.00000 32.5928 32.5521

• 0.125

Numerical Error Ref 1. Patzek, T.W. & Kristensen, J.G., 2001, Shape factor corrections of Hydraulic conductance in non-circular capillaries. II Two-phase creeping

• Flow. J. Colloid & Interface Science 236 305-317.

Improving the Description of Pore-Level Processes

Example 2 Continued – Duct with Wide-Angle Apex

y x y = x x = 1 symmetry plane

We try

 

) /( } ) {(

1 

   

n n n test

n y x y x Ay f   

Note that

1

  

 x test

x f

We find

 

) ( ) ( ) ( ) (

2 2 2 1 1 24 1

n P n Q n Q n P gapprox



   

with

n n n n n n n n n n n 48 218 299 116 12 3024 7632 6480 2232 297 12 2 1

2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 2

           

Improving the Description of Pore-Level Processes

Example 2 Continued – Comparison of Results Of Wide-Angle Variational Formulation with Ref 1

b (deg)  = cot(b) gNumerical  10-4 gVariational  10-4

• Rel. Error

(%) 15 3.73205 7.54238 7.36058

• 2.410380

30 1.73205 27.0524 27.0633 0.040292 36 1.37638 32.0495 32.0257

• 0.074260

45 1.00000 32.5928 32.4466

• 0.448565

72 0.32492 5.38042 5.3682

• 0.227120

Improving the Description of Pore-Level Processes

Example 3 – Corner Flow (No- & Free-Slip)

a

Fluid-fluid interface, free- or no-slip Flow domain, area S

No slip: Free slip: 1 1

) )( 1 )( 1 (

2 2 2 test

y x b y x f      

    D a b C B a b A f I       ) ( ) ( ] [

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 test

) 2 /( ) ( 2

2 test ) ( m in approx

B D f I g

ns

  

) 2 /( ) 2 /( ) ( 2

2 2 test ) ( m in approx

A C B D f I g

fs

   

No-slip, b = a; free slip b2 = β with β a free parameter

Flow in Square Corner - Comparison of Variational and Numerical Approaches

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 Contact Angle (Degrees) Normalised Conductance x 100 No_Slip: Var Free_Slip: Var No_Slip: Num Free_Slip: Num

Comparison with numerical results from Ransahoff & Radke, 1987 (Norm. cond. g = q/S2)

Improving the Description of Pore-Level Processes

Example 4 – Two-Phase Flow in Annulus

Analytical solution is available for benchmarking

matrix Oil (phase 1) Water (phase 2)

) /( ) (

2 I

r b r b f    

) /( ) (

1

a r a r f

I 

  

One-parameter test function: Two-parameter test function:

a rI b

 

a r a r r r f

I I

     ) (

1 1

b 

 

I I

r b r b r r f      ) (

2 2

b 

1 1

/ m b  b    a rI

2 2

/ m b  b   

I

r b

Three Approximations for Inner Fluid Flux for Two-Phase Flow in an Annulus

0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 0.5 1 Viscosity Ratio m2/(m1 + m2) Ratio of Approximate to True Fluid Flux free slip/no slip 1-Parameter Variational 2-Parameter Variational

Absolute Relative Error in Variational Approximations for Inner Fluid Flux for Two-Phase Flow in an Annulus

0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 0.5 1 Viscosity Ratio m2/(m1 + m2) Absolute Relative Error (%) 1-Parameter Variational 2-Parameter Variational

Improving the Description of Pore-Level Processes

Sponsorship

*Grand challenge and Shell/Qatar funding is secure. *Smart Wells GameChanger funding committed up to end 2010. *Funding for chair in sustainable development in energy will cease at the end of 2009. *Shell Professorship of Petroleum Geology is funded until end 2011.

Pore-Scale Modeling Consortium

*New three-year phase proposed for Jan 2010 through Dec 2012. It aims to revert to fundamentals to produce the next generation

• f pore-scale modeling tools.

Visiting Professorships? Shell/Imperial College – Future Directions

The use of the technique in conjunction with algebraic manipulation software would be a key enabler Treatment of systems with non-symmetry-plane free-slip boundaries is a key challenge More benchmarking of coupled two-phase flow problems is of great interest Application to pore-level transport of CO2 started here at UTEP Variational Treatment of Hydraulic Conductance: Current Directions

*Motivation *Specific Liquid Bridge Geometries Treated *Issues with Non-Symmetry-Plane Free-Slip Boundaries *Bipolar Coordinates and the Variational Minimization Principle *Results for Bridges Between Parallel Walls *Conclusions and Future Work

Hydraulic Conductance of Liquid Bridges

*Liquid bridges arise in important gas/vapour dominated displacement processes and pore network representations of them – CO2 sequestration processes – Steam-assisted gravity drainage (SAGD) – Gas-oil gravity drainage (GOGD) *Empirical correlations for hydraulic conductance, derived from numerical solutions, are very poor

Motivation

Specific Liquid-Bridge Geometries Treated

D R1 R2 Liq. Gas Gas No-Slip Boundary Free-Slip Boundary to Liquid Symmetry Plane

Specific Liquid-Bridge Geometries Treated (Continued)

Special Case: R2 /R1 = 1

D R Liq. Gas No-Slip Boundary Free-Slip Boundary to Liquid R Gas Symmetry Plane Additional Symmetry Plane

Issues with Non-Symmetry-Plane FS Boundary Conditions *Variational minimization principle does not require free-slip boundary condition to be respected, but accuracy is poor if it is not (example – corner flow) *Respecting non-planar free-slip boundary conditions is in general not possible with manageable test functions (show counterexample)

) (

2 2

y x b By f    ) ){ sin( r b Br f   

b a

Solve no-slip geometry first with test function We get qest = 2b4/(9p), 5% less than exact result Note: is better , yielding qest = 3pb4/128, 0.5% less than exact result Counterexample – Semicircular Duct with Free-Slip Curved Boundary

) ){ sin( r b Br f   

2 /

  

b r

r f

Example 1 – Semicircular Duct (Continued)

But first form of f has the property that So, set a = b/2 and integrate f over the inner semicircle with FS curved boundary We get qest = 10a4/(9p), 2.2% less than exact result This result is a rigorous lower bound because we can start with the test function and minimize F with respect to B and b In this case, the minimization procedure yields b = 2a

Bipolar Coordinates and the Variational Minimization Principle

• 4
• 3
• 2
• 1

1 2 3 4

• 4
• 3
• 2
• 1

1 2 3 4

Bipolar Coordinates

) cos( ) cosh( ) sinh(      c x ) cos( ) cosh( ) sin(      c y

] , [ ]; , [       p p 

Red circles are curves of constant  Blue circles are curves of Constant 

Bipolar Coordinates and the Variational Minimization Principle (Continued)

Variational Minimization Principle in Bipolar Coordinates

 

m / 2 . ] [

2 1

Gf f f dA f I

R

     ) , ( ) , (   g y x f 

                                                      

2 2 2 2 2 2

)} cos( ) {cosh( .     g g c y f x f f f     d d c dxdy dA

2 2

)} cos( ) {cosh(   

so that

                                   g c G g g d d g I

2 2 2 2 2 1

)} cos( ) {cosh( ) / 2 ( ] [   m    

Special Case of Bridges between Parallel Walls

Quadrant of Flow Domain in  Space 1 0 2

Special Case of Bridges between Parallel Walls (Continued)

Observation – NS boundaries in  are close to circular for D/R not too large

Special Case of Bridges between Parallel Walls (Continued)

Deviation of Normalized Boundary from Quadrant of a Circle

Error (%) = (ycircle /R – 1) × 100

Liquid Bridge between Parallel Walls – Variational Method *Work in  space. *Use circular quadrant approximation to permit simple test function. *Round-off no-slip boundary to respect free-slip boundaries (planar in  space). Approach

Liquid Bridge between Parallel Walls – Variational Method No-Slip Boundary Round-off – Normalized Boundary in  Space

Liquid Bridge between Parallel Walls – Variational Method No-Slip Boundary Round-off – Normalized Boundary in x-y Space:D/R = 6

0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 etaC = 0.5 etaC = 0.7 etaC = 0.9 No-Slip Boundary

y/R x/R

Liquid Bridge between Parallel Walls – Variational Method No-Slip Boundary Round-off – Normalized Boundary in x-y Space:D/R = 4

0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 etaC = 0.5 etaC = 0.7 etaC = 0.9 No-Slip Boundary

y/R x/R

Liquid Bridge between Parallel Walls – Variational Method No-Slip Boundary Round-off – Normalized Boundary in x-y Space:D/R = 2.5

0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 0.5 1 1.5 etaC = 0.5 etaC = 0.7 etaC = 0.9 No-Slip Boundary

x/R y/R

Liquid Bridge between Parallel Walls – Variational Method Test function is given by and

C

   b  b ~ ~ ); ~ ( ) ~ (    1 ~ ~ ); ~ (

1

      b

C

where

) ~ 1 ( 1 ) ~ (

2

  b   

2 2 1

) ~ 1 ( ~ ~ ) ~ (    b    

C C

r

1 ~ / 1 ~ ; 1 ~ / 1 1 ~

2

    

C C C C

r   

 

2 2

) ~ ( ) , ( t h A g     

with

) 2 / tan(  t

 

)} ~ ( ) ( { tan ) ~ (

1 2 1 2 1

 b        h

Backup

Facts and Figures

Shell

*Production of 3.1 million BOE per day *2009 revenue $278.2 B, income $12.7 B, Cap. Inv. $31.7 B, R&D invest 1.2 B *2010 1st Q earnings $4.9 B versus $3.3 B for Q1 2009 *$2 B spent on CO2 & renewables in past 5 years *2009: GHG emissions 65% of 1990 level CO2 *2009 global emissions 31.3 B metric tons, 1.3% less than 2008 *Natural gas – emits 50-70% less CO2 than coal

Results obtained during Phase 1

*Working pore-network software constructed *Comprehensive analysis of two- and three-phase configurations in angular pore throats performed *Good prediction of two-phase relative permeability curves in “benchmark” sandstones *Study on power-law fluids (polymer solutions) shows sensitivity

• f effective viscosity to pore network structure, as previously
• bserved experimentally

*Start made on incorporating rate-dependent effects in multiphase flow processes *Preliminary work on prediction of three-phase relative permeability curves shows promising results *Analysis and reconstruction of reservoir rock images using multipoint statistics improves prediction of single-phase transport coefficients with respect to two-point statistics, but is not as good as process- based methods

The IC Consortium on Pore-Network Modeling (Continued)

Results obtained during Phase 1 – Example 1

*Good prediction of two-phase relative permeability curves in “benchmark” sandstones (from Valvatne, 2004) BEREA SANDPACK

The IC Consortium on Pore-Network Modeling (Continued)

Deliverables for Phase 2

(1) A validated methodology for predicting two-

and three-phase permeabilities in mixed-wet systems (2) A multipoint statistical method for generating three-dimensional images from two-dimensional thin sections that preserves the connectivity of the pore space and can be applied to carbonates (3) New results on rate-dependent modelling, three-phase flow and non-Newtonian flow in porous media (4) Coupling pore-scale and field-scale simulation in a multiple grid simulation method

The IC Consortium on Pore-Network Modeling (Continued)

Deliverables for Phase 3

(1) A workable, debugged three-phase network model with

thermodynamically consistent capillary pressures. (2) A physically-based model of three-phase relative permeability, validated against pore-scale modelling and experimental data, that contains predictions of oil, water and gas trapping for systems

• f arbitrary wettability for any displacement path.

(3) Results of benchmark measurements of capillary pressure,relative permeability, resistivity index and NMR response for sandpacks and sand- stones of different wettability with validated network model predictions. (4) Guidelines on how to relate a combination of measurements to assign pore-scale contact angle. (5) An unambiguous methodology and code for network extraction for granular packings

The IC Consortium on Pore-Network Modeling (Continued)