A model-oriented benchmark problem for CO2

storage
H. K. Dahle, G. T. Eigestad, J. M. Nordbotten, K. Pruess
August 13, 2009

Abstract
Simulation of CO2 storage in geological formations inherently involves
decisions concerning relevant physics, upscaling, and numerical modeling.
We propose a benchmark study designed to assess the impact of these
necessary choices, within the context of storage in a conceptually simple
geological formation. The benchmark asks for answers to relevant ques-
tions regarding the ultimate fate of the injected CO2 plume.

1 Purpose
Geological storage of CO2 remains one of the most promising options for miti-
gating anthropogenic release of greenhouse gases. Among the attractive features
of geological storage are: Technological experience from more than 150 years of
subsurface oil and gas production; vast storage capacity; and small impact on
natural and environmental resources [7].
While there is a large amount of experience in multiphase flow through
porous media from the petroleum community, few of the models developed there
can boast significant predictive capability. Conversely, where confidence has
been built in ensemble modeling in the nuclear waste disposal community (see
e.g. the evaluation of the Yucca Mountain project [1], few of those models
extend readily to multiphase flow, in particular at the length scales involved in
significant carbon storage sites.
As a result, the carbon modeling community is faced with a new challenge
in terms of model simplifications [9]. In particular, it is clear that traditional
computational science methods, where the governing equations are discretized
until a converged solution is obtained, will likely not be computationally feasible
for this problem [2]. This has been largely acknowledged, and several simplified
modeling approaches have been proposed [6, 9, 10].
The purpose of this benchmark is thus two-fold. Foremost, it aims at giving
an assessment of upscaling and modeling choices applicable for the CO2 stor-
age problem. Secondly, by providing a suite of modeling approaches, all with
clear support in the community, we hope to also give some indication of the
uncertainty which is introduced during the stage of model adaption. As such,

1
we have chosen a domain and fluid properties which are higly idealized, in the
hope that we may be able to isolate model uncertainty.
We invite all interested parties, and in particular participants of the work-
shop on numerical methods for CO2 storage to be held in Svalbard, August
2009, to present their solutions to this benchmark problem. Sections 2 and 3
of this document represent the original benchmark definition, while Section 4
represents the clarifications to the benchmark introduced after the workshop
was held.

2 Benchmark Definition
The benchmark properties are motivated by typical sedimentary formations.

2.1 Aquifer geometry

The aquifer is bounded by parallel impermeable confining formations above and
below. We consider an aquifer dip of 1%. The aquifer thickness is 50 meters, and
it extends 200 km in the dip direction, and 100 km in the direction perpendicular
to dip.

2.2 Initial conditions

The center of the aquifer is situated at a depth of 2.5 km below the water table,
under typical (pure) hydrostatic and geothermal conditions based on a surface
temperature of 10C and a geothermal gradient of 25C/km.

2.3 Boundary conditions

The flow boundary conditions in the horizontal directions are constant head. We
consider fixed temperature boundary conditions at the boundary of the domain.

2.4 Injection operation

A horizontal well, injecting at the bottom impermeable boundary of the forma-
tion, placed 50 km updip from the lowest point of the formation, and in the
center with respect to the horizontal direction perpendicular to dip. The well
length is 1 km, and the orientation is perpendicular to the dip of the formation.
Injection rate is 1 Mt/y for 20 years. Infinite post-injection time period.

2.5 Formation properties

Homogeneous aquifer permability of 10−13 m2 , porosity of 15%. Rock thermal
conductivity of 3 W/(m·K). The formation is incompressible, with no fractures.

2
2.6 Fluid properties
Based on typical PTV data. Pure brine, no salt concentration.

2.7 Parameters in two-phase extension of Darcy’s law

Primary drainage relative permeability for water and for CO2 by simple power
law expressions (Brooks and Corey, [3]), here given respectively by
4
kr,W = SW,n (1)
and
2
kr,CO2 = 0.4(1 − SW,n )(1 − SW,n )2 , (2)
where SW,n is the normalized water saturation where the irreducible water sat-
uration is set to Scr,W = 0.2. The primary drainage capillary pressure (units
bar) is given by
−1/2
PC,d = 0.2SW,n . (3)
Hysteresis may be included in both relative permeability and capillary pres-
sure description. Irreducible CO2 saturation for the bounding imbibition curve
(imbibition from irreducible water saturation) is assigned the value Scr,CO2 =
0.2. Intermediate capillary pressure and relative permeability scanning curves
may be obtained by various hysteresis models such as [4], [5] and [12]. The
irreducible CO2 saturations for the scanning curves can be found by Land’s
relation [8], where Land’s constant corresponding to the bounding irreducible
saturations is 3.8.

2.8 Mineralogy
If study of mineral reactions is desired by any participating group, we suggest
to use standard Berea sandstone, and initialize the brine in equilibrium with
the rock.

2.9 Rock mechanics

Participating groups interested in including geomechanical effects should use
overburden properties consistent with the initial conditions and geomechanical
properties of the aquifer consistent with Berea sandstone.

3 Benchmark Questions
These questions should be addressed by all modeling groups.

3.1 Extent
Maximum extent of plume updip at time of injection stop, 100 years later,
and at time when all carbon is immobilized (residual saturation, dissolved, or
minerally bound).

3
3.2 Time
Time of immobilization of carbon; in the sense of no free phase CO2 .

3.3 Phase distribution

Total distribution of carbon in free phase, residual phase, dissolved state, and
minerally bound at injection stop, 100 years later, and at the time when all
carbon is immobilized.

3.4 Modeling approach

It is unlikely that any participating group will be able to obtain an analytical
solution (or converged numerical solution) taking into account all physical and
chemical processes in the system. Certain approximations must therefore be in-
troduced, and these approximations will likely impact the answers to the bench-
mark questions. It is therefore paramount that each modeling group carefully
details the approximations they have introduced, be it in upscaling, discretiza-
tion, or treatment of physical processes.

4 Addendum, August 2009

The following modifications are introduced to the benchmark subsequent to the
Svalbard workshop.

4.1 Diffusivity
CO2 diffusivity in water is on the order of 1-2 10−9 m2 /s [13]. With the effect
of tortuosity, we prescribe a diffusion coefficient for the benchmark as simply
10−9 m2 /s.

4.2 Dispersion
Dispersion should be modeled using Berea sandstone as the formation sandstone.
If Fickian dispersion is considered appropriately accurate, we suggest the value
αL = 0.379 m for longitudinal dispersion coefficient[11], and the relation αT =
0.1αL for transverse dispersion coefficient.

4.3 Reporting times

Results should be reported at injection stop, and every 100 years after.

4.4 Additions to reported data

If numerical dispersion gives unphysical plume extents, a treshold of 1% mobile
saturation should be applied.

4
 In addition to the original reported data, we suggest to also report the center
of mass of mobile CO2, as well as the standard deviation around the center of
mass of free phase CO2. Using a 2D birds-eye view of the plume, the standard
deviation as obtained from a best-fit Gaussian should have a longitudinal and
transverse component.

4.5 Minimum/mandatory complexity

We ask that all participants submit a run with the following complexity, for
comparison purposes:
• 2-phase flow with no capillary pressure.
• No dissolution.
• 3D interpretation (actual computation may be in whatever dimension is
deemed appropriate).
• Solution up to at least 1000 years after injection.

References
[1] Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, Final Environmental Impact
Statement for a Geologic Repository for the Disposal of Spent Nuclear
Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste at Yucca Mountain, Nye County,
Nevada (2002), DOE.
[2] Class, H., A. Ebigbo, R. Helmig, H. Dahle, J. M. Nordbotten, M. A. Celia,
P. Audigane, M. Darcis, J. Ennis-King, Y. Fan, B. Flemisch, S. E. Gasda,
S. Krug, D. Labregere, J. Min, A. Sbai, S. G. Thomas and L. Trenty: A
benchmark study on problems related to CO2 storage in geologic forma-
tions (2009) submitted to special issue of Computational Geosciences on
numerical simulation of CO2 storage.
[3] Brooks, R.H. and A.T. Corey: Hydraulic Properties of Porous Media
(1964), Hydraulic Paper No. 3, Colorado State U.
[4] Doughty, C.: Modeling geologic storage of carbon dioxide: Comparison of
non-hysteretic and hysteretic characteristic curves (2007), Energy Conver-
sion and Management 48, pp. 1768-1781
[5] Killough, J.E.: Reservoir Simulation with History Dependent Saturation
Functions (1976), SPEJ 16, 37; Trans., AIME., 261.
[6] Hesse, M. A., F. M. Jr. Orr, H. A. Tchelepi: Gravity currents with residual
trapping (2008), J. Fluid Mech. 611, 35-60.
[7] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC): Special Report on
Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage (2005), Edited by B. Metz et al.,
Cambridge University Press.

5
 [8] Land, C.S.: Calculation of Imbibition Relative Permeability for Two- and
Three-Phase Flow from Rock Properties (2008), SPEJ 8 (149); Trans.,
AIME., 243
[9] Nordbotten J. M., D. Kavetski, M. A. Celia, S. Bachu,: A semi-analytical
model estimating leakage associated with CO2 storage in large-scale multi-
layered geological systems with multiple leaky wells (2009), Environmental
Science & Technology, doi:10.1021/es801135v.
[10] Person, M., A. Banerjee, J. Rupp, P. Lichtner, R. Pawar, and M. Celia:
Basin-scale Impacts of CO2 Sequestration within the Mt. Simojn Forma-
tion, Illinois Basin: Scaling Calculations using Sharp-Interface Theory
(2008), American Geophysical Union, Fall Meeting 2008, Abstract H12C-
01.
[11] E. J. Peters, R. Gharbi, N. Afazal, A look at dispersion in porous media
through computed tomography imaging (1996), Journal of Petroleum Science
and Engineering 15, 23-31.

[12] Skjaeveland, S.M., L.M. Siqveland, A. Kjosavik, W.L. Hammersvold, and

G. A. Virnovsky: Capillary Pressure Correlation for Mixed-Wet Reservoir
(1998), SPE 39497.
[13] Tewes, F. and F. Boury, Formation and Rheological Properties of the Su-
percritical CO2-Water Pure Interface (2005), J. Phys. Chem. B, 109(9),
892-898.