Research Article  Open Access
Jongwon Jung, Jong Wan Hu, "Impact of Pressure and Brine Salinity on Capillary PressureWater Saturation Relations in Geological CO_{2} Sequestration", Advances in Condensed Matter Physics, vol. 2016, Article ID 5603739, 11 pages, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1155/2016/5603739
Impact of Pressure and Brine Salinity on Capillary PressureWater Saturation Relations in Geological CO_{2} Sequestration
Abstract
Capillary pressurewater saturation relations are required to explore the CO_{2}/brine flows in deep saline aquifers including storage capacity, relative permeability of CO_{2}/brine, and change to stiffness and volume. The study on capillary pressurewater saturation curves has been conducted through experimentation and theoretical models. The results show that as the pressure increases up to 12 MPa, (1) capillary pressurewater saturation curves shift to lower values at given water saturation, (2) after the drainage process, residual water saturation decreases, and (3) after the imbibition process, capillary CO_{2} trapping increases. Capillary pressurewater saturation curves above 12 MPa appear to be similar because of relatively constant contact angle and interfacial tension. Also, as brine salinity increases from 1 M to 3 M NaCl, (1) capillary pressurewater saturation curves shift to lower capillary pressure, (2) residual water saturation decreases, and (3) capillary CO_{2} trapping increases. The results show that pressure and brine salinity have an influence on the capillary pressurewater saturation curves. Also, the scaled capillary CO_{2} entry pressure considering contact angle and interfacial tension is inconsistent with atmospheric conditions due to the lack of wettability information. Better exploration of wettability alteration is required to predict capillary pressurewater saturation curves at various conditions that are relevant to geological CO_{2} sequestration.
1. Introduction
The demands for carbonproducing fossil fuels that have served the dominant energy resources for decades have been on the rise [1, 2]. A growing discharge of carbon dioxide (CO_{2}) to atmosphere is anticipated. In order to reduce CO_{2} emission into the atmosphere, geological carbon sequestration (GCS) is required to store a large amount of CO_{2} in places such as depleted oil or gas reservoirs, coal seams, deep ocean sediments, and deep saline aquifers [3–5]. Among them, deep saline aquifers are the most promising area because of their large capacity reaching roughly 1,000 to 10,000 Gt of CO_{2}, which accounts for 99% of potential storage capacity in the world [6, 7].
CO_{2} flow and CO_{2}water displacement in deep saline aquifers depend on relation between capillary pressure () and water saturation () under reservoir conditions [8–11]. This relationship is usually termed as capillary pressurewater saturation curve or soilwater characteristic curve which has relationships with soil properties such as storage capacity [12], relative permeability of CO_{2}/brine [13–17], strength of soils [18–20], and changes to stiffness of soils [21–23].
Capillary pressure () has been expressed as a function of relative water saturation () using two most popular equations suggested by Brooks and Corey [24] (1) and van Genuchten [25] (2): where is the water saturation, is the residual water saturation, is the capillary pressure, is the capillary air (or gas) entry pressure, and and are fitting parameters. With  and values, both Brooks and Corey [24] and van Genuchten [25] models can be used to estimate the relative permeability of the fluids.
A capillary CO_{2} entry pressure () between two phases (CO_{2} and water) in porous media is important for both caprock system and reservoir, which are related to CO_{2} leakage from the underlying storage reservoir and CO_{2} injection to reservoir, respectively [26, 27]. A capillary CO_{2} entry pressure can be calculated using the following YoungLaplace equation:where is injected CO_{2} pressure, is the water pressure in reservoir, is interfacial tension between CO_{2} and water, is water contact angle on mineral surface in waterCO_{2}mineral system, and is pore radius in porous media. Capillary CO_{2} entry pressure is estimated using the contact angle and the interfacial tension at various pressuretemperature conditions relating to geological CO_{2} sequestration (GCS) [26, 28–37]. Interfacial tension only varies within a small range of about 20–35 mN/m at the GCS relevant conditions [29, 33, 35], which has an influence slightly on the capillary CO_{2} entry pressure. Contact angle shows relatively huge changes within the range of 7–10 MPa pressure [28–31, 38], which has been explained through influential factors such as the presence of the change of adsorbed water film thickness on mineral surface [39–41], specific density of the function groups (silanol and silicic acid groups) on the mineral surface that influences the water film thickness or the hydrophilicity [42], and CO_{2} reaction with hydroxyl groups on the mineral surface via hydrogen bonding [43]. For example, Jung and Wan [31] show that equilibrium contact angles on silica surface increase up to 17.6° ± 2.0° along with increased pressure by reactions with supercritical CO_{2} (scCO_{2}). Also, contact angles increase with brine salinity almost linearly with a net increase by 19.6° ± 2.1° from deionized water to 5.0 M NaCl [31]. However, most of published contact angle results have shown significant discrepancies [27, 30, 36, 38, 44–51]. Thus, the role of surface reactions with scCO_{2} and the extent of their impact on mineral wettability remain elusive, making it difficult to estimate the capillary CO_{2} entry pressure using (3). Instead of (3), capillary pressurewater saturation curves for GCS have been determined during drainage and imbibition processes through laboratory experimentation that consider reservoir pressure and temperature conditions [46, 52–57]. The results in published data show the discrepancies due to the difficulties in accomplishing a full CO_{2}water saturation, controls of slight change to capillary pressure under a highpressure system, and measurement of water saturation [46, 52–55, 57]. Recently, Tokunaga et al. [56] developed the experimental system to measure the capillary pressurewater saturation using hanging water column method at GCS relevant pressure and temperature conditions [56]. However, established capillary pressure curve is not able to cover a broad range of pressure, temperature, and chemical conditions including brine salinity effects which are relevant to GCS conditions. Thus, exploration of the capillary pressure curves at various pressuretemperature and brine salinity conditions relevant to geological CO_{2} sequestration (GCS) was conducted in this study.
2. Experimental Study
2.1. Materials
Uniformly round Ottawa sand 40/60 (number 40–60 mesh) as the representative of silica materials of which grain size was distributed between 250 μm and 355 μm was sieved. While Ottawa sand 40/60 used in this study has higher porosity than core samples in GCS sites, many contact angle data have been published for Ottawa sand 40/60 [31] that can be used to estimate the capillary CO_{2} entry pressure using (3) [please note that contact angle and interfacial tension effects on capillary pressurewater saturation curves were emphasized in this study; thus, contact angle and interfacial tension data are required]. The sand was wetpacked to a full saturation at in a chamber. Hydraulic conductivity with a separate sample of the sand (packed to the same porosity, , and pore volume = 80.7 cm^{3}) was m/s (2.1 darcies) based on the constant head test. 1.0 M and 3.0 M NaCl solutions were prepared for the aqueous phases to explore the brine salinity effects on capillary pressurewater saturation curves. Air and CO_{2} (Airgas, 99.99% purity) were used as nonaqueous phases.
2.2. Experimental Setup
Experimental system including a highpressure chamber (inner diameter, ID = 8.21 cm and height = 4 cm) was designed for capillary pressurewater saturation tests (Figure 1). A stainless steel porous plate with 1 μm pore size (3.0 mm thick and 79.7 mm diameter, Mott Corp.) was placed at the bottom in chamber and fully saturatedOttawa sand pack was placed on porous plate in chamber. Another porous plate with a 50 μm pore size (3.0 mm thick and 79.7 mm diameter, Mott Corp.) was placed on top of the sand pack. Fully saturatedsand was packed in chamber using wetting method. Onefifth of the chamber was filled with water and soils were dumped into the water, which was repeated five times to prepare for a fully saturatedsand pack.
Figure 1 shows the experimental setup for capillary pressure () water saturation () relation test. The hanging water column method was used [60, 61]. The chamber was connected to vertically oriented transparent capillary pressure regulator. When capillary pressure regulator was moved downward, the capillary pressure () was induced by head difference between the top and bottom of sand pack, which caused the water to flow out from the sand pack. Also, the transparent capillary pressure regulator served as a reservoir for measuring the outflow from the sand pack (volumes interpolated to 0.2 mL). The top of the chamber and the upper end of the capillary pressure regulator were connected using a highpressure tube, which maintained a closed system (Figure 1).
After saturating the sand pack, the water level in the capillary pressure regulator was equilibrated on surface of the sand pack in chamber that allows equilibration to zero capillary pressure (). Drainage curves were obtained by moving the waterCO_{2} interface in the capillary pressure regulator successively downward to lower depth, , which is the elevation head difference between the surface of the sand pack and waterCO_{2} interface in the capillary pressure regulator. The outflow volumes from sand pack were measured using the capillary pressure regulator [61]. After obtaining the drainage curves, rewetting (or imbibition) curves were obtained by moving waterCO_{2} interface in the capillary pressure regulator successively upward [61]. As the elevation head difference, , decreased during imbibition process, inflow water volume into the sand pack was measured using transparent capillary pressure regulator [note: the elevation head difference in this study can be controlled up to ~2 m, which implies that the capillary pressure can be up to ~15 kPa when temperature and pressure are 45°C and 8 MPa, resp.; thus, this method is adapted only to high permeable sand]. The capillary pressure induced by the regulator can be calculated using the following equation: , where is the density difference between CO_{2} and brine (Table 1), is the elevation head difference, and is the gravitational acceleration.

Experimental system was connected to the highpressure pump (Teledyne ISCO, 500HP) so as to control the constant pressure of the closing system (Figure 1). The chamber was instrumented with a pressure transducer (OMEGA PX309) and a thermocouple (Ttype, copperconstantan). Heating tapes surrounding the chamber with heat gun and heatinglight were used to maintain the chamber temperature (~45°C) with PID (proportionalintegralderivative) controller (Cole Parmer, EW8900010). The entire system was located in an insulating box. The variables tested in this study were pressure (0.1 to 15 MPa) and brine salinity (1 and 3 M NaCl), while constant temperature was maintained (~45°C) (Table 1).
3. Results and Analyses
Figure 2 shows the capillary pressurewater saturation curve in airbrine displacement at 0.1 MPa air pressure that shows the consistency with the published data [56]. It implies that our experimental system is valid to measure the capillary pressure () water saturation () curve. Figures 3 and 4 show all experimental results obtained from this study using 1 M and 3 M NaCl brine, respectively. CO_{2} pressure has the range of 5 MPa to 15 MPa.
(a)
(b)
(a)
(b)
(a)
(b)
3.1. Pressure Effect on Capillary PressureWater Saturation Curve
Figures 3 and 4 represent the relations between capillary pressure () and water saturation () for different pressure and brine salinity conditions. relations shown in Figures 3 and 4 directly reflect the experimental procedure involved in the control of the capillary pressure () using the capillary pressure regulator. Uncertainties in average capillary pressure () and water saturation () of the sample are ~10 Pa and ~0.015, respectively, considering the resolution of capillary pressure regulator. In both Figures 3 and 4, the results show that as CO_{2} pressure increases from 5 MPa to 12 MPa at 45°C temperature: generally capillary pressurewater saturation curves shift to lower capillary pressure () values associated with any given water saturation () values; capillary CO_{2} entry pressure () decreases; residual brine saturation () decreases after the drainage process; and residual CO_{2} saturation () increases after completing the imbibition process. However, capillary pressurewater saturation curves between 12 MPa and 15 MPa CO_{2} pressures relatively appeared similar.
Published data show that contact angle steeply increases in line with pressure from 7 MPa to 10 MPa and remains relatively constant until 25 MPa [31]. Also, contact angle increases with brine salinity up to 5 M NaCl [31]. However, interfacial tension decreases in line with increased CO_{2} pressure and varies only within a small range of 20–35 mN/m at GCS relevant pressure and temperature conditions [29, 33, 35]. Table 1 shows the published data of contact angle and interfacial tension at various pressure and temperature conditions used in this study. Thus, as CO_{2} pressure increases from 5 MPa to 12 MPa, contact angle increases and interfacial tension decreases, which causes the capillary CO_{2} entry pressure to decrease and capillary pressurewater saturation curves to shift to lower values at any given water saturation. Also, minor changes of contact angle and interfacial tension in the range of 12 MPa to 15 MPa have influence on relatively similar capillary pressurewater saturation curves in Figures 3 and 4. It implies that the different capillary pressurewater saturation curves in GCS conditions depend on the variation of contact angle and interfacial tension according to increased pressure. Also, published data show that contact angle and interfacial tension remain constant when pressure is more than 10 MPa [29, 31, 33, 35]. Thus, capillary pressurewater saturation curves at 10 MPa CO_{2} pressure conditions or higher are expected to be similar to the results at 12 MPa in this study.
3.2. Brine Salinity Effect on Capillary PressureWater Saturation Curve
Figure 4 shows that general trend of capillary pressurewater saturation curves at 3 M NaCl is similar to 1 M NaCl in Figure 3. Figure 5 shows the capillary CO_{2} entry pressure changes at 1 M and 3 M NaCl brine salinity resulting from increased pressure. The results show that all capillary CO_{2} entry pressures (i.e., 0.29 kPa to 1.18 kPa at 1 M NaCl) are much lower than capillary air entry pressure at 0.1 MPa atmospheric pressure (i.e., 2.82 kPa at 1 M NaCl), capillary CO_{2} entry pressure decreases while the pressure increased from 5 MPa to 12 MPa and remains constant until 15 MPa, and capillary CO_{2} entry pressure is lower at 3 M NaCl than 1 M NaCl. Generally, as the brine salinity increases, contact angle increases up to 5 M NaCl [31], while interfacial tension decreases [29, 33, 35]. Table 1 includes all contact angle and interfacial tension at the various pressure and temperature conditions used in this study. For example, at the pressure 5 MPa, as brine salinity increases from 1 M to 3 M NaCl and contact angle increases from 36° to 44°, while interfacial tension decreases from 51 mN/m to 47 mN/m (Table 1). Also, in the range of 8 MPa to 15 MPa, increased contact angle and decreased interfacial tension are observed with increased brine salinity from 1 M to 3 M NaCl, which causes the capillary CO_{2} entry pressure to decrease in Figure 5 [note that increased contact angle and decreased interfacial tension are not significant from 8 MPa to 15 MPa].
Jung and Wan [31] showed that the contact angle increased with brine salinity almost linearly, with a net increase of 19.6° ± 2.1° from 0 M to 5.0 M NaCl with CO_{2} pressure range of 0.1 MPa to 20 MPa at 45°C. It implies that more capillary CO_{2} entry pressure decrease is expected with the increased brine salinity unitl 5 M NaCl.
3.3. Residual Brine Saturation and Capillary CO_{2} Trapping in GCS
Figure 6(a) shows the residual water saturation () with increased pressure at 1 M and 3 M NaCl brine salinity. The results show that the residual water saturation () value in airwater measurement is ~0.16 at 1 M NaCl which is consistent with the range in published data (, Gittins et al. [62]; Schroth et al. [63]), which verifies our experimental system; residual water saturation values () after completing the drainage process generally decrease due to increased CO_{2} pressure from 5 MPa to 12 MPa and remain constant until 15 MPa. Contact angle increases steeply as pressure increases from 7 MPa to 10 MPa and remains relatively constant until 25 MPa [31]. Table 1 includes the contact angle used in this study. It implies that sand pack becomes more hydrophobic under the higher CO_{2} pressure within the range of 5 MPa to 12 MPa, which has an influence on less residual water saturation in sand pack with increased pressure up to 12 MPa in Figure 6(a). Also, similar contact angles in the range of 12 MPa to 15 MPa CO_{2} pressure (i.e., 56°57° at 1 M NaCl) cause the residual water saturation to remain relatively constant with the range of 12 MPa to 15 MPa, and residual water saturation values () decrease with brine salinity from 1 M to 3 M NaCl. Increased contact angle with brine salinity from 1 M to 3 M NaCl in Table 1 implies that sand pack also becomes more hydrophobic under higher brine salinity, which causes the residual water saturation to decrease with increased brine salinity from 1 M to 3 M NaCl in the range of 5 MPa to 12 MPa. However, small variation of contact angles at 12~15 MPa has an influence on relatively constant residual water saturation (i.e., 56°57° at 1 M NaCl and 57°58° at 3 M NaCl) which implies that residual water saturation at 12 MPa or higher is not affected by brine salinity due to similar contact angles. Tokunaga et al. [56], showed that silica surface became more hydrophobic according to increased CO_{2} exposure time. Also, Wan et al. [49] observed that contact angle on silica surface increases with exposure time to CO_{2}. Even though the results by Wan et al. [49] and Tokunaga et al. [56], were obtained from the shortterm laboratory tests, it is expected that residual water saturation can be increased with a longterm in situ CO_{2} injection into the field because the increased CO_{2} exposure time causes the mineral surface to be more hydrophobic.
(a)
(b)
Figure 6(b) shows the residual CO_{2} saturation in pores after imbibition process, which can be considered as capillary CO_{2} trapping capacity in geological CO_{2} storage. Capillary trapping is the result of hysteresis by drainage and imbibition process during/after CO_{2} injection in the porous medium. CO_{2} injection in geological CO_{2} storage generates the drainage process that displaces the resident brine with injected CO_{2} in pores. After CO_{2} injection is completed, the brine returns to the storage site, which generates an imbibition process and causes a certain amount of CO_{2} to be trapped by capillary pressure [64, 65]. For imbibition curves, while residual brine saturation in the airbrine displacement returns back to 95% at zero capillary pressure, residual CO_{2} saturation increases in the CO_{2}brine displacement with increased CO_{2} pressure, which is consistent with the previous results by Tokunaga et al. [56] [note that it is not consistent with the trends of residual oil saturation during the desaturation; residual oil saturation decreases when the wettability becomes less [66]]. For example, 5% residual CO_{2} saturation at 0.1 MPa airbrine system with 1 M NaCl increases up to 31% at 15 MPa CO_{2} pressure and 1 M NaCl, indicating that more capillary CO_{2} trapping can be expected in geological CO_{2} storage after the completion of imbibition process than the estimate from the airbrine displacement tests. General trends in Figure 6(b) show that capillary CO_{2} trapping increases with CO_{2} pressure and more capillary CO_{2} trapping is observed with 3 M NaCl than 1 M NaCl, which implies that higher capillary CO_{2} trapping in the longterm period field tests can be expected compared to the results from the laboratory test.
4. Discussion
4.1. Theoretical Models
Figure 7 presents the capillary pressurewater saturation curves using theoretical models such as both van Genuchten [25] and Brooks and Corey [24] models, which have a good consistency with experimental results. Capillary CO_{2} entry pressure obtained from theoretical models decreases with increased pressure the same as experimental results and the curve slope decreases slightly in CO_{2}brine displacement comparing to the airbrine displacement, which cause  and values to decrease with increased pressure up to 8 MPa (Table 2). value in the airbrine displacement is 0.96 in this study, which is consistent with published data ( for hygiene sandstone, van Genuchten [25]) [note that hygiene sandstone is one of the sandstone types in the northnorthwestern area in USA]. value reflects the sensitivity of capillarity increase over the change of water saturation , which decreases in a CO_{2}brine displacement with the increased pressure up to 8 MPa and remains relatively constant in the range of 8 MPa to 15 MPa. It implies that the capillarity increases slower as brine drainage progresses in sediments with higher pressures. For example, at 5 MPa CO_{2} pressure and 1.0 M NaCl, when capillary pressure is ~1.86 kPa that is only ~0.36 kPa higher than capillary CO_{2} entry pressure (i.e., ~1.5 kPa), brine less than 9% (i.e., < ~0.09) only remains in pores. As the CO_{2} pressure increases, the residual brine saturation decreases with the low increase of capillary pressure after CO_{2} injection (Figure 7).

(a)
(b)
Besides, the results show that values decrease with increased pressure (Table 2). It also implies that the capillary pressure increases less as brine drainage processes in sediments with higher pressures, which is consistent with values. value in the airbrine displacement is ~12.5, which is within the range of published data ( for hydrophilic sand with 0° contact angle and for hydrophobic sand with 88° contact angle, Shokri et al. [67]; Brooks and Corey [24]). Viewing the contact angle ~38° on silica sand in this study, value is considered reasonable.
4.2. CapillaryScaled Capillary PressureWater Saturation Curves
Capillary scaling factor, which is a dimensionless number, has been used to predict the capillary pressurewater saturation curves in porous media considering contact angle and interfacial tension [60, 68–70]. Capillary scaling factor based on YoungLaplace equation (3) is as follows [56] [note that pore radius is relatively similar in all sand packs due to same particles size distribution and porosity; thus, it was disregarded in capillary scaling factor]:Figure 8 shows the scaled capillary CO_{2} entry pressure that is estimated considering the capillary scaling factor and capillary entry pressure (Table 1) (i.e., scaled capillary CO_{2} entry pressure [1/mm] = ). While the scaled capillary CO_{2} entry pressure in a CO_{2}brine displacement shows relatively similar values, the scaled value in the airbrine displacement is much higher than CO_{2}brine displacement. This inconsistency can be considered as the uncertainty of wettability alteration in GCS. While it is clear that contact angle increases at pressuretemperature conditions relevant to GCS, the extents of wettability alteration have not been fully understood and show the inconsistency among the published data [28–31], which has an influence on the distinct scaled capillary CO_{2} entry pressure; the published data show a wide range of contact angle in pores compared to the constant contact angle on a flat surface [32]. Kim et al. [32] observed that contact angles in pores using twodimensional microfluidic model have a wide range of contact angle in GCS, which can hinder the scaled capillary CO_{2} entry pressure to become identical; and recedingcontact angles are considered for the scaled capillary CO_{2} entry pressure, which is usually less than equilibrium contact angle [71]. In case of airbrine displacement, all recedingcontact angles are constant. Thus, the impacts of contact angle on the scaled capillary CO_{2} entry pressure may be disregarded [60, 68–70]. However, a wide range of recedingcontact angles in GCS should be strictly considered in the scaled capillary CO_{2} entry pressure. Thus, the difference between equilibrium and recedingcontact angles has an influence on inconsistency of scaled capillary CO_{2} entry pressure in this study (Figure 8).
5. Conclusions
The capillary pressurewater saturation curves in a homogeneous silica sand pack are examined at various pressure and brine salinity conditions relevant to GCS, which are then compared with the values obtained from two theoretical models such as BrooksCorey and van Genuchten models. The capillary pressurewater saturation curves using the theoretical models such as BrooksCorey and van Genuchten models show a good consistency with experimental results, which provide the information on sensitivity of capillarity.
Generally, the results show that as the CO_{2} pressure in geological CO_{2} storage increases, capillary CO_{2} entry pressure decreases; capillary pressurewater saturation curves shift to lower values at the given water saturation ; after completing the drainage process, residual water saturation decreases; after imbibition process, capillary CO_{2} trapping (or residual CO_{2} saturation) increases; the sensitivity of capillarity increase over the change of water saturation decreases; and fitting parameters in theoretical models,  and values, are decreased slightly.
Also, as brine salinity increases from 1 M to 3 M NaCl, capillary pressurewater saturation shifts to lower values at given water saturation , and capillary CO_{2} entry pressure decreases due to increased contact angle and decreased interfacial tension and residual water saturation decreases, but capillary CO_{2} trapping increases because silica surface becomes more hydrophobic because of the reaction with injected CO_{2}.
The results show that CO_{2} pressure and brine salinity in GCS have an influence on the capillary pressurewater saturation curves due to varying contact angle and interfacial tension. Thus, capillary scaling factor is considered to predict the capillary pressurewater saturation curves. However, the results show that the scaled capillary CO_{2} entry pressure in geological CO_{2} sequestration is inconsistent with atmospheric conditions due to the lack of wettability information. Further exploration of wettability alteration in GCS is required to predict the capillary pressurewater saturation curves at various conditions which are relevant to geological CO_{2} sequestration.
Competing Interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Acknowledgments
This research was supported by Basic Science Research Program through the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) funded by the Ministry of Science, ICT, and Future Planning (Grant no. 2013R1A2A2A01068174). Also, this work was supported by FIER (the Fund for Innovative Engineering ResearchRound V) grant award.
References
 C. Tsouris, D. S. Aaron, and K. A. Williams, “Is carbon capture and storage really needed?” Environmental Science and Technology, vol. 44, no. 11, pp. 4042–4045, 2010. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 X. Xie and M. J. Economides, “The impact of carbon geological sequestration,” in Proceedings of the SPE Americas E&P Environmental & Safety Conference, San Antonio, Tex, USA, March 2009. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 S. M. Benson and T. Surles, “Carbon dioxide capture and storage: an overview with emphasis on capture and storage in deep geological formations,” Proceedings of the IEEE, vol. 94, no. 10, pp. 1795–1805, 2006. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 Q. Li, Z. S. Wu, and X. C. Li, “Prediction of CO_{2} leakage during sequestration into marine sedimentary strata,” Energy Conversion and Management, vol. 50, no. 3, pp. 503–509, 2009. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 C. M. White, D. H. Smith, K. L. Jones et al., “Sequestration of carbon dioxide in coal with enhanced coalbed methane recovery—a review,” Energy and Fuels, vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 659–724, 2005. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 IPCC, “IPCC special report on carbon dioxide capture and storage,” in Working Group III of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, B. Metz, O. Davidson, H. C. de Coninck, M. Loos, and L. A. Meyer, Eds., p. 442, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2005. View at: Google Scholar
 C. M. White, B. R. Strazisar, E. J. Granite, J. S. Hoffman, and H. W. Pennline, “Separation and capture of CO_{2} from large stationary sources and sequestration in geological formations—coalbeds and deep saline aquifers,” Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association, vol. 53, no. 6, pp. 645–715, 2003. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 M. Akbarabadi and M. Piri, “Relative permeability hysteresis and capillary trapping characteristics of supercritical CO_{2}/brine systems: An experimental study at reservoir conditions,” Advances in Water Resources, vol. 52, pp. 190–206, 2013. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 S. Bachu, D. Bonijoly, J. Bradshaw et al., “CO_{2} storage capacity estimation: methodology and gaps,” International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, vol. 1, no. 4, pp. 430–443, 2007. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 D. B. Bennion and S. Bachu, “Drainage and imbibition relative permeability relationships for supercritical CO_{2}/brine and H_{2}S/brine systems in intergranular sandstone, carbonate, shale, and anhydrite rocks,” SPE Reservoir Evaluation and Engineering, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 487–496, 2008. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 S. M. Benson and D. R. Cole, “CO_{2} sequestration in deep sedimentary formations,” Elements, vol. 4, no. 5, pp. 325–331, 2008. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 N. C. Brady and R. R. Weil, Elements of the Nature and Properties of Soils, Pearson Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, 2010.
 S. Assouline, “A model for soil relative hydraulic conductivity based on the water retention characteristic curve,” Water Resources Research, vol. 37, no. 2, pp. 265–271, 2001. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 G. S. Campbell, “A simple method for determining unsaturated conductivity from moisture retention data,” Soil Science, vol. 117, no. 6, pp. 311–314, 1974. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 U. Fischer and M. A. Celia, “Prediction of relative and absolute permeabilities for gas and water from soil water retention curves using a porescale network model,” Water Resources Research, vol. 35, no. 4, pp. 1089–1100, 1999. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 Y. Mualem, “Hydraulic conductivity of unsaturated soils: prediction and formulas,” Agronomy, vol. 9, pp. 799–823, 1986. View at: Google Scholar
 T. Vogel and M. Cislerova, “On the reliability of unsaturated hydraulic conductivity calculated from the moisture retention curve,” Transport in Porous Media, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 1–15, 1988. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 D. G. Fredlund, A. Xing, M. D. Fredlund, and S. L. Barbour, “The relationship of the unsaturated soil shear strength to the soilwater characteristic curve,” Canadian Geotechnical Journal, vol. 33, no. 3, pp. 440–448, 1996. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 A. L. Öberg and G. Sällfors, “Determination of shear strength parameters of unsaturated silts and sands based on the water retention curve,” Geotechnical Testing Journal, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 40–48, 1997. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 S. K. Vanapalli, D. G. Fredlund, D. E. Pufahl, and A. W. Clifton, “Model for the prediction of shear strength with respect to soil suction,” Canadian Geotechnical Journal, vol. 33, no. 3, pp. 379–392, 1996. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 P. Delage, M. D. Howat, and Y. J. Cui, “The relationship between suction and swelling properties in a heavily compacted unsaturated clay,” Engineering Geology, vol. 50, no. 12, pp. 31–48, 1998. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 A. Gens and E. E. Alonso, “A framework for the behaviour of unsaturated expansive clays,” Canadian Geotechnical Journal, vol. 29, no. 6, pp. 1013–1032, 1992. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 A. Pedarla, A. J. Puppala, L. R. Hoyos, S. K. Vanapalli, and C. Zapata, Unsaturated Soils: Research and Applications, vol. 1, Springer, Berlin, Germany, 2012.
 R. Brooks and A. Corey, Hydraulic Properties of Porous Media, vol. 3, Colorado State University Hydrology Papers, Fort Collins, Colo, USA, 1964.
 M. T. van Genuchten, “A closedform equation for predicting the hydraulic conductivity of unsaturated soils,” Soil Science Society of America Journal, vol. 44, pp. 892–898, 1980. View at: Google Scholar
 G. PijaudierCabot and J.M. Pereira, Geomechanics in CO Storage Facilities, John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY, USA, 2013. View at: Publisher Site
 D. Broseta, N. Tonnet, and V. Shah, “Are rocks still waterwet in the presence of dense CO_{2} or H_{2}S?” Geofluids, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 280–294, 2012. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 P. K. Bikkina, “Contact angle measurements of CO_{2}waterquartz/calcite systems in the perspective of carbon sequestration,” International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, vol. 5, no. 5, pp. 1259–1271, 2011. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 P. Chiquet, J.L. Daridon, D. Broseta, and S. Thibeau, “CO_{2}/water interfacial tensions under pressure and temperature conditions of CO_{2} geological storage,” Energy Conversion and Management, vol. 48, no. 3, pp. 736–744, 2007. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 J. L. Dickson, G. Gupta, T. S. Horozov, B. P. Binks, and K. P. Johnston, “Wetting phenomena at the CO_{2}/water/glass interface,” Langmuir, vol. 22, no. 5, pp. 2161–2170, 2006. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 J.W. Jung and J. Wan, “Supercritical CO_{2} and ionic strength effects on wettability of silica surfaces: equilibrium contact angle measurements,” Energy and Fuels, vol. 26, no. 9, pp. 6053–6059, 2012. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 Y. Kim, J. Wan, T. J. Kneafsey, and T. K. Tokunaga, “Dewetting of silica surfaces upon reactions with supercritical CO_{2} and brine: porescale studies in micromodels,” Environmental Science and Technology, vol. 46, no. 7, pp. 4228–4235, 2012. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 C. Chalbaud, M. Robin, J.M. Lombard, F. Martin, P. Egermann, and H. Bertin, “Interfacial tension measurements and wettability evaluation for geological CO_{2} storage,” Advances in Water Resources, vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 98–109, 2009. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 C. A. Aggelopoulos, M. Robin, E. Perfetti, and O. Vizika, “CO_{2}/CaCl_{2} Solution interfacial tensions under CO_{2} geological storage conditions: influence of cation valence on interfacial tension,” Water Resources Research, vol. 51, pp. 197–216, 2010. View at: Google Scholar
 S. Bachu and D. B. Bennion, “Interfacial tension between CO_{2}, freshwater, and brine in the range of pressure from (2 to 27) MPa, temperature from (20 to 125)°C, and water salinity from (0to334 000) mg∙L^{−1},” Journal of Chemical and Engineering Data, vol. 54, no. 3, pp. 765–775, 2009. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 V. Shah, D. Broseta, G. Mouronval, and F. Montel, “Water/acid gas interfacial tensions and their impact on acid gas geological storage,” International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 594–604, 2008. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 C. Duchateau and D. Broseta, “A simple method for determining brinegas interfacial tensions,” Advances in Water Resources, vol. 42, pp. 30–36, 2012. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 D. Chiquet and D. Broseta, “Capillary alteration of shaly caprocks by carbon dioxide,” in Proceedings of the SPE Europec/EAGE Annual Conference, SPE 94183, Madrid, Spain, June 2005. View at: Google Scholar
 J. S. Loring, C. J. Thompson, Z. Wang et al., “In situ infrared spectroscopic study of forsterite carbonation in wet supercritical CO_{2},” Environmental Science and Technology, vol. 45, no. 14, pp. 6204–6210, 2011. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 H. Shao, J. R. Ray, and Y.S. Jun, “Effects of salinity and the extent of water on supercritical CO_{2}induced phlogopite dissolution and secondary mineral formation,” Environmental Science and Technology, vol. 45, no. 4, pp. 1737–1743, 2011. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 T. K. Tokunaga, “DLVObased estimates of adsorbed water film thicknesses in geologic CO_{2} reservoirs,” Langmuir, vol. 28, no. 21, pp. 8001–8009, 2012. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 G. Vigil, Z. Xu, S. Steinberg, and J. Israelachvile, “Interactions of silica surfaces,” Journal of Colloid and Interface Science, vol. 165, no. 2, pp. 367–385, 1994. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 A. Vishnyakov, Y. Shen, and M. S. Tomassone, “Interactions of silica nanoparticles in supercritical carbon dioxide,” Journal of Chemical Physics, vol. 129, no. 17, Article ID 174704, 2008. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 D. Y. Yang, Y. G. Gu, and P. Tontiwachwuthikul, “Wettability determination of the reservoir brine−reservoir rock system with dissolution of CO_{2} at high pressures and elevated temperatures,” Energy and Fuels, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 504–509, 2008. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 S. Saraji, L. Goual, M. Piri, and H. Plancher, “Wettability of supercritical carbon dioxide/water/quartz systems: simultaneous measurement of contact angle and interfacial tension at reservoir conditions,” Langmuir, vol. 29, no. 23, pp. 6856–6866, 2013. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 S. Iglauer, A. Salamah, M. Sarmadivaleh, K. Liu, and C. Phan, “Contamination of silica surfaces: Impact on waterCO_{2}quartz and glass contact angle measurements,” International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, vol. 22, pp. 325–328, 2014. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 A. AlYaseri, M. Sarmadivaleh, A. Saeedi, M. Lebedev, A. Barifcani, and S. Iglauer, “N_{2}+CO_{2}+Nacl brine interfacial tensions and contact angles on quartz at CO_{2} storage site conditions in the Gippsland basin, Victoria/Australia,” Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, vol. 129, pp. 58–62, 2015. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 M. Sarmadivaleh, A. Z. AlYaseri, and S. Iglauer, “Influence of temperature and pressure on quartzwaterCO_{2} contact angle and CO_{2}water interfacial tension,” Journal of Colloid and Interface Science, vol. 441, pp. 59–64, 2015. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 J. Wan, Y. Kim, and T. K. Tokunaga, “Contact angle measurement ambiguity in supercritical CO_{2}watermineral systems: mica as an example,” International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, vol. 31, pp. 128–137, 2014. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 N. Shojai Kaveh, E. S. J. Rudolph, P. van Hemert, W. R. Rossen, and K.H. Wolf, “Wettability evaluation of a CO_{2}/water/bentheimer sandstone system: contact angle, dissolution, and bubble size,” Energy and Fuels, vol. 28, no. 6, pp. 4002–4020, 2014. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 D. R. Palamara, T. Neeman, A. N. Golab, and A. Sheppard, “A statistical analysis of the effects of pressure, temperature and salinity on contact angles in CO_{2}brinequartz systems,” International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, vol. 42, pp. 516–524, 2015. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 S. C. M. Krevor, R. Pini, B. Li, and S. M. Benson, “Capillary heterogeneity trapping of CO_{2} in a sandstone rock at reservoir conditions,” Geophysical Research Letters, vol. 38, no. 15, 2011. View at: Google Scholar
 C. H. Pentland, R. ElMaghraby, S. Iglauer, and M. J. Blunt, “Measurements of the capillary trapping of supercritical carbon dioxide in Berea sandstone,” Geophysical Research Letters, vol. 38, no. 6, Article ID L06401, 2011. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 R. Pini, S. C. M. Krevor, and S. M. Benson, “Capillary pressure and heterogeneity for the CO_{2}/water system in sandstone rocks at reservoir conditions,” Advances in Water Resources, vol. 38, pp. 48–59, 2012. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 W.J. Plug and J. Bruining, “Capillary pressure for the sandCO_{2}water system under various pressure conditions. Application to CO_{2} sequestration,” Advances in Water Resources, vol. 30, no. 11, pp. 2339–2353, 2007. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 T. K. Tokunaga, J. Wan, J.W. Jung, T. W. Kim, Y. Kim, and W. Dong, “Capillary pressure and saturation relations for supercritical CO_{2} and brine in sand: Highpressure Pc(Sw) controller/meter measurements and capillary scaling predictions,” Water Resources Research, vol. 49, no. 8, pp. 4566–4579, 2013. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 J.C. Perrin and S. Benson, “An experimental study on the influence of subcore scale heterogeneities on CO_{2} distribution in reservoir rocks,” Transport in Porous Media, vol. 82, no. 1, pp. 93–109, 2010. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 J. Kestin, H. E. Khalifa, and R. Correia, “Table of the dynamic and kinematic viscosity of aqueous NaCl solution in the temperature range 20–150°C and the pressure range 0.1–35 Mpa,” Journal of Physical and Chemical Reference Data, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 71–88, 1981. View at: Google Scholar
 A. Fenghour, W. A. Wakeham, and V. Vesovic, “The viscosity of carbon dioxide,” Journal of Physical and Chemical Reference Data, vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 31–44, 1998. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 W. B. Haines, “Studies in the physical properties of soil. V. The hysteresis effect in capillary properties, and the modes of moisture distribution associated therewith,” The Journal of Agricultural Science, vol. 20, pp. 97–116, 1930. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 T. K. Tokunaga, J. Wan, and K. R. Olson, “Saturationmatric potential relations in gravel,” Water Resources Research, vol. 38, no. 10, pp. 321–327, 2002. View at: Google Scholar
 P. Gittins, S. Iglauer, C. H. Pentland et al., “Nonwetting phase residual saturation in sand packs,” Journal of Porous Media, vol. 13, no. 7, pp. 591–599, 2010. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 M. H. Schroth, J. D. Istok, S. J. Ahearn, and J. S. Selker, “Characterization of millersimilar silica sands for laboratory hydrologic studies,” Soil Science Society of America Journal, vol. 60, no. 5, pp. 1331–1339, 1996. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 A. Kumar, R. Ozah, M. Noh et al., “Reservoir simulation of CO_{2} storage in deep saline aquifers,” SPE Journal, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 336–348, 2005. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 R. Juanes, E. J. Spiteri, F. M. Orr Jr., and M. J. Blunt, “Impact of relative permeability hysteresis on geological CO_{2} storage,” Water Resources Research, vol. 42, no. 12, Article ID W12418, 2006. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 K. J. Humphry, B. Suijkerbuijk, H. A. van der Linde, and S. Masalmeh, “Impact of wettability on residual oil saturation and capillary desaturation curves,” Petrophysics, vol. 55, no. 4, pp. 313–318, 2014, Proceedings of the International Symposium of the Society of Core Analysts. View at: Google Scholar
 N. Shokri, P. Lehmann, and D. Or, “Characteristics of evaporation from partially wettable porous media,” Water Resources Research, vol. 45, no. 2, Article ID W02415, 2009. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 M. C. Leverett, “Capillary behavior in porous solids,” Transactions of the American Institute of Mining and Metallurgical Engineers, vol. 142, no. 1, pp. 152–169, 1941. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 E. E. Miller and R. D. Miller, “Physical theory for capillary flow phenomena,” Journal of Applied Physics, vol. 27, no. 4, pp. 324–332, 1956. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 W. Rose and W. Bruce, “Evaluation of capillary character in petroleum reservoir rock,” Journal of Petroleum Technology, vol. 1, pp. 127–142, 1949. View at: Google Scholar
 N. R. Morrow, “Effects of surface roughness on contact angle with special reference to petroleum recovery,” Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology, vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 42–53, 1975. View at: Google Scholar
Copyright
Copyright © 2016 Jongwon Jung and Jong Wan Hu. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.