Effects of the errors between core heterogeneity and the simplified models on numerical modeling of CO2/water core flooding

Stochastic inverse modeling of transient laboratory-scale three-dimensional two-phase core flooding scenarios

“…Recently, Fannir et al (2020) [17] rely on three-dimensional (3D) imaging to assess oil saturation in core scale two-phase oil displacement and quantify some relevant aspects of the setting through a set of dimensionless quantities. Wang et al (2020) [18] employ 3D images of a CO2/water core flooding scenario to evaluate the effect of errors caused by simplified modeling of heterogeneous systems. In this context, even as 3D models might be associated with a higher level of operational complexity and computational requirements than their streamlined 1D counterparts, relying on such modeling approaches can provide major insights on the structure of two-phase flow fields that can exhibit complex patterns of displacement fronts due to flow instabilities and/or heterogeneities in the hydraulic properties of the host porous medium (e.g., [2,19,20]).…”

Migration of carbon dioxide in sandstone under various pressure/temperature conditions: From experiment to simulation

“…and Li and Yu 26 compared empirical numerical models and found the van Genuchten (VG) model to be the most suitable for accurate CO 2 injection simulations. However, Wang et al 27 . pointed out that for low‐porosity heterogeneous cores, there can be a significant error between simulated and actual CO 2 distribution.…”

“…Oostrom et al 25 and Li and Yu 26 compared empirical numerical models and found the van Genuchten (VG) model to be the most suitable for accurate CO 2 injection simulations. However, Wang et al 27 pointed out that for low-porosity heterogeneous cores, there can be a significant error between simulated and actual CO 2 distribution. Up to now, there are many commercial software or programs available for the multiphase-fluids simulation (e.g., TOUGH, COMSOL, CODE_BRIGHT, Eclipse).…”