Benchmarking CO₂ storage simulations
Results from the 11th Society of Petroleum Engineers Comparative Solution Project
Jan M. Nordbotten (University of Bergen, NORCE Norwegian Research Centre AS)
Martin A. Fernø (University of Bergen, NORCE Norwegian Research Centre AS)
Bernd Flemisch (University of Stuttgart)
Anthony R. Kovscek (Stanford University)
Knut Andreas Lie (SINTEF Digital)
Jakub W. Both (University of Bergen)
Olav Møyner (SINTEF Digital)
G. Hadjisotiriou (TU Delft - Civil Engineering & Geosciences)
Denis V. Voskov (TU Delft - Civil Engineering & Geosciences, Stanford University)
undefined More Authors
More Info
expand_more
Other than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download, forward or distribute the text or part of it, without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license such as Creative Commons.
Abstract
The 11th Society of Petroleum Engineers Comparative Solution Project (shortened SPE11 herein) benchmarked simulation tools for geological carbon dioxide (CO2) storage. A total of 45 groups from leading research institutions and industry across the globe signed up to participate, with 18 ultimately contributing valid results that were included in the comparative study reported here. This paper summarizes the SPE11 results. A comprehensive introduction and qualitative discussion of the submitted data are provided, together with an overview of online resources for accessing the full depth of data. A global metric for analyzing the relative distance between submissions is proposed and used to conduct a quantitative analysis of the submissions. This analysis attempts to statistically resolve the key aspects influencing the variability between submissions. The study shows that the major qualitative variation between the submitted results is related to thermal effects, dissolution-driven convective mixing, and resolution of facies discontinuities. Moreover, a strong dependence on grid resolution is observed across all three versions of the SPE11. However, our quantitative analysis suggests that the observed variations are predominantly influenced by factors not documented in the technical responses provided by the participants. We therefore identify that unreported variations due to human choices within the process of setting up, conducting, and reporting on the simulations underlying each SPE11 submission are at least as impactful as the computational choices reported.
help_outline