1
1. Introduction
One of the strategies being evaluated for reducing the atmospheric accumulation of
greenhouse gasses is to capture carbon dioxide (CO2) and inject it into geologic reservoirs for
permanent sequestration (e.g., IPCC, 2005, Gale et al. 2015). Assessment of this strategy includes
computational studies of how reservoir heterogeneity, over a range of scales, affects processes
governing the dynamics, distribution, trapping, dissolution, mineralization, and ultimate fate of
injected CO2. Injection of CO2 is also used for enhanced oil recovery (e.g., Ampomah et al. 2016;
Dai et al. 2016; Soltanian et al. 2016). Here the focus is on the dynamics, distribution, and capillary
trapping of CO2 in the permeable part of the reservoir.
As reviewed by Krevor et al. (2015), a significant body of evidence, including results from
laboratory studies, computational studies, and from field pilot injection tests, now indicates that
residual trapping in the permeable part of the reservoir will be a primary mechanism for physically
immobilizing CO2 until it dissolves and mineralizes. Capillary trapping processes can be expected
create residual CO2 saturations of 20 to 30 percent in the permeable part of the reservoir; residual
CO2 that will not reach structural seals (e.g., shale cap-rock). Reservoirs without structural seals
are now being considered in some inventories of U.S. storage capacity. Krevor et al. (2015)
reviewed the pore-scale process of snap-off trapping within this context, and how it is represented
in constitutive relationships through the hysteresis in capillary pressure and relative permeability
as a function of phase saturation. One of their conclusions was that the influence of natural rock
heterogeneity on residual trapping processes should be further investigated.
Here we consider natural rock heterogeneity associated with fluvial sedimentary
architecture, as found in a number of candidate CO2 reservoirs (Fig. 1). Recent work has shown
how this type of sedimentary architecture can influence the residual trapping process in the
permeable section of the reservoir (Gershenzon et al. 2014, 2015, 2016a, b, 2017; Trevisan et al.
2017a and b). Fig. 1 shows how fluvial bar deposits comprise sets of relatively finer- and coarser-
grained cross strata (FG and CG rock types hereafter). In fluvial reservoirs such as the Lower Mt.
Simon (Illinois, USA), these differences in grain size are the primary influence of variability in
intrinsic permeability (Ritzi et al., 2016) within the permeable section of the reservoir. Fig. 2 is a
model for these cross strata used in our previous work. As discussed in previous descriptions of
this model, at 24% the CG cross sets percolate in 3-D (i.e., connect along tortuous pathways across
any opposing boundaries of the domain) though this is not evident on the 2-D faces of the model.
Connectivity is mostly vertical across a single unit bar, and tortuous laterally branching
connections occur at the scale of assemblages of unit bars within a compound bar. Note also that
the cross strata dip downward in the direction of paleoflow. The nature of these connections is
important in the context of residual trapping. In addition to snap-off trapping, the sedimentary
architecture creates capillary pinning. Though the FG cross sets are permeable relative to cap-rock
seals and other larger-scale strata, their lower permeability relative to CG strata within the overall
bar deposits enhances residual trapping within the larger bar deposits.