CO2 hydrate formation in NaCl systems and undersaturated aqueous solutions

Rod Burgass; Antonin Chapoy; Kjell M. Askvik; Bengt Olav Neeraas; Xiaoyun Li

doi:10.2516/stet/2023005

Home

All issues

Volume 78 (2023)

Sci. Tech. Energ. Transition, 78 (2023) 8

Full HTML

Selected Papers from First European Conference on Gas Hydrates (ECGH), 2022

Open Access

Issue		Sci. Tech. Energ. Transition Volume 78, 2023 Selected Papers from First European Conference on Gas Hydrates (ECGH), 2022


Article Number		8
Number of page(s)		11
DOI		https://doi.org/10.2516/stet/2023005
Published online		04 April 2023

Science and Technology for Energy Transition 78, 8 (2023)

Regular Article

CO₂ hydrate formation in NaCl systems and undersaturated aqueous solutions

Rod Burgass¹, Antonin Chapoy¹^,2^*, Kjell M. Askvik³, Bengt Olav Neeraas³ and Xiaoyun Li³

¹ Hydrates, Flow Assurance & Phase Equilibria Research Group, Institute of GeoEnergy Engineering, Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh EH14 4AS, UK
² Mines ParisTech, PSL University, CTP – Centre of Thermodynamics of Processes, 35 Rue Saint, Honoré 77305, Fontainebleau Cdex France
³ Equinor ASA, Arkitekt Ebbells veg 10, 7053 Ranheim, Trondheim, Norway

^* Corresponding author: a.chapoy@hw.ac.uk

Received: 26 September 2022
Accepted: 2 March 2023

Abstract

A high-pressure experimental setup was used to obtain experimental data on the Hydrate Equilibrium (melting) Temperature (HET) of aqueous phases undersaturated with CO₂, at different CO₂ saturation levels and with different aqueous phase compositions (sodium chloride and sodium chloride/calcium chloride). This paper details the experimental equipment, methods, test fluids, and results. To study the phase equilibria of CO₂-brine systems and further validate the results, hydrate dissociation conditions of CO₂ in different concentrations of NaCl aqueous solutions were measured in the low-temperature region and over a wide range of pressure. Experimental results were compared against predictions of the simplified Cubic Plus Association Equation of State (sCPA-EoS) coupled with the van der Waals and Platteeuw solid solution theory.

Key words: Carbon dioxide / Gas solubility / Hydrates

© The Author(s), published by EDP Sciences, 2023

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

1 Introduction

CO₂ injection in geological formations is a key aspect of the Carbon capture and Storage (CCS) strategy. The captured CO₂ will be injected into depleted oil and gas reservoirs and/or saline aquifers. The injection and potential CO₂ expansion can be associated with a large Joule–Thomson effect and may in turn pose a risk of hydrate or ice formation in the formation due to the cooling effect [1]. In addition, CO₂ can be injected/stored through Carbonated Water Injection technology [2], where CO₂ from offshore power production is captured from flue gas and compressed/injected into the geological formation as dissolved gas in the injection water. Hydrate could be formed in the injection water with dissolved CO₂.

Although different thermodynamic models have been developed to predict the carbon dioxide hydrate stability in aqueous NaCl solutions, high-accuracy experimental data are always necessary to validate or improve these predictive tools. Experimental data for carbon dioxide hydrates in equilibrium with sodium chloride solutions have been measured and reported by various authors in different hydrate regions. Table 1 gives a list of these data, reporting the temperature range and source of the experimental data. Available experimental data in the literature for CO₂ in NaCl aqueous solutions have mostly been measured at low pressures below the saturation lines. As seen in the table, data for high salinity are also limited.

Table 1

Literature data for hydrate equilibria of CO₂ in presence of NaCl solutions (VL_wH: Vapour – Liquid (aqueous) – Hydrate / LL_wH: Liquid – Liquid (aqueous) – Hydrate).

In this study, experimental investigations were conducted to measure the hydrate stability zone of CO₂ in NaCl solutions over a wide range of conditions, in particular, to fill the gaps above the liquid locus and at high salinity. Moreover, experimental data on the hydrate equilibrium temperature of aqueous phases undersaturated in CO₂ with different CO₂ saturations and different aqueous phase compositions were carried out in order to validate and complement the available literature data (Tab. 2).

Table 2

Literature data of CO₂ solubility in water and brines at hydrate–liquid water (HL_w) equilibrium.

The Cubic-Plus-Association (CPA-EoS) Equation of State combined with the solid solution theory of van der Waals and Platteeuw [27] as developed by Parrish and Prausnitz [28] was employed to model the fluid and hydrate phase equilibria as previously described by Chapoy et al. [29–32]. The predictions of the thermodynamic model were compared with the newly experimentally measured properties.

2 Experimental section

2.1 Materials

The CO₂ used was supplied by Air Products and has a stated purity of 99.995%. The NaCl and CaCl₂ were both supplied by Sigma–Aldrich and have a stated purity of 99.5%. Distilled water was used in all tests. Details of the used fluids are given in Table 3.

Table 3

Composition of the chemical used in this work.

2.2 Experimental apparatus

The tests were conducted using a fixed-volume, temperature-controlled rocking cell as described below. The experimental set-up is comprised of an equilibrium cell (Fig. 1), cryostat, rocking/pivot mechanism, and temperature/pressure recording equipment controlled by a PC. The equilibrium cell is a 300 mL titanium cylindrical pressure vessel with a mixing ball, mounted on a horizontal pivot with an associated stand for pneumatically controlled rocking through 180°. The rocking of the cell, and the subsequent movement of the mixing ball within it, ensures adequate mixing of the cell fluids.

Fig. 1

Schematic of the setup used to measure the hydrate dissociation condition

The rig has a working temperature range of 203–323 K, with a maximum operating pressure of 69 MPa. Circulating coolant from a cryostat within a jacket surrounding the cell controls the cell temperature. The cryostat can maintain the cell temperature stability to within better than 0.05 K. To achieve good temperature stability, the jacket is insulated with polystyrene board while connecting pipe work is covered with plastic foam.

The temperature is measured and monitored using a PRT (Platinum Resistance Thermometer) located within the cooling jacket of the cell. The cell temperature is measured with an uncertainty of 0.1 K. A strain gauge pressure transducer with an uncertainty of 0.03 MPa is used to monitor pressure. Temperature and Pressure are monitored and recorded by a PC through a RS 232 serial port. The cryostat can be monitored and controlled via an interface connected to a serial port on the computer. The temperature probe and pressure transducer are regularly calibrated using NAMAS certified temperature probe and a Budenberg dead weight tester, respectively.

2.3 Experimental methods

Hydrate dissociation point measurements for saturated systems were conducted using a reliable isochoric step-heating method as described in our previous papers [33, 34].

For undersaturated systems mixtures of CO₂ and aqueous phase, composed of either distilled water or water with salts were made in a separate 600 mL piston vessel. In the first instance, a measured amount of CO₂ was injected into the clean evacuated vessel. The amount of CO₂ was measured using a balance with a precision of 0.01 g. The aqueous phase was then pumped into the vessel using a Quizix high-pressure pump. The volume of injected liquid was determined according to the density of the aqueous phase and the desired CO₂ concentration. The weight of the aqueous phase injected into the vessel was checked using the balance. This method gave an uncertainty of ±0.05 weight % for the mixtures used in this study. The pressure of the mixture was increased by injecting nitrogen into the vessel on the opposite side of the piston to the test fluid. The pressure was increased at least 14 MPa above the expected bubble point of the mixture and was mixed for at least 30 min to ensure it was a single phase. The equilibrated mixture was then transferred to the rocking cell. During the transfer, the pressure of the mixture in the 600 mL cell and the test fluid pressure was maintained at a pressure at least 14 MPa above the expected bubble point to ensure it was always a single phase.

Once the test fluids had been loaded into the test cell the pressure and temperature were adjusted in order to make a HET measurement. The pressure was adjusted by injecting or withdrawing equilibrated fluid into the vessel. The cell was then rocked to achieve equilibrium before lowering the temperature stepwise below the expected HET temperature. The presence of hydrates was indicated by a change in the P versus T trend as shown in Figure 2. The temperature was then increased stepwise allowing sufficient time for equilibrium to be achieved at each step. The equilibrium P/T data were then plotted to determine the point at which hydrates are no longer present as indicated by a change in the P versus T plot. An example is shown in Figure 2 below.

Fig. 2

Plot of equilibrium P/T data recorded during test x_CO2 = 2.11 × 10⁻² mole fraction in distilled water.

3 Thermodynamic modeling

A general phase equilibrium model based on the uniformity of component fugacities in all phases is used to predict phase equilibria, water activity, and the hydrate forming conditions. A description of the thermodynamic model and parameters can be found elsewhere [29–32]. The model has been validated against carbon dioxide hydrate dissociation data [35] and gas solubility in brines at temperatures above the carbon dioxide critical temperature [36]. The model can also predict the gas solubility at low temperatures (T < 283.15 K) with an excellent agreement as seen in Figure 3.

Fig. 3

Predicted and experimental CO₂ solubility in aqueous sodium chloride. Black lines: predictions using the CPA-EoS model. : 5.52 wt% NaCl [24]; : 14.92 wt% NaCl [24]; : 22.61 wt% NaCl [24]; : 10 wt% NaCl (Heriot–Watt unpublished data); : 20 wt% NaCl (Heriot–Watt unpublished data).

4 Results and discussions

The experimental hydrate dissociations for CO₂ in equilibrium with 5, 10, 15, 20, 23, and 25 wt% sodium chloride solutions are reported in Table 4 and plotted in Figures 4 and 5. In the vapor region (Fig. 4) the model is in excellent agreement with our new experimental data and most of the available literature data, with typical agreement better than 0.5 K. For the 25 wt% solutions, the problem is more complex as when the system is cooled down the system forms NaCl·2H₂O before clathrate hydrates and the concentration in salt will therefore decrease in the remaining aqueous phase until it reaches the eutectic concentration 23.2 wt%, nevertheless taking into account the salting-out effect the model can still predict the dissociation conditions. In the liquid region (Fig. 5), errors between models and experimental results are slightly higher, however not greater than 1 K.

Fig. 4

Predicted and experimental hydrate stability of the CO₂ system in presence of aqueous sodium chloride solution in the VL_wH region; Black lines: hydrate stability zone predicted using the CPA-EoS model using an aqueous mole fraction of 0.8; dotted blue lines: vapour–liquid locus of CO₂ (no water) using the CPA-EoS model.

Fig. 5

Predicted and experimental hydrate stability of the CO₂ system in presence of aqueous sodium chloride solution in VLH and LLH regions; black lines: hydrate stability zone predicted using the CPA-EoS model using an aqueous mole fraction of 0.8; dotted blue lines: vapour–liquid locus of CO₂ (no water) using the CPA-EoS model.

Table 4

Experimental CO₂ hydrate dissociation conditions in the presence of sodium chloride solutions (AqFr: Aqueous Fraction).

Table 5 gives a summary of the measurements made in this work for undersaturated systems. As can be seen, in all cases increasing the pressure leads to an increase in the HET for the saturated system. All of the data for distilled water are summarized in Figures 6–8 showing the effect of CO₂ saturation on HET for the tests with distilled water. The deviations between the measured HET and model predictions for distilled water are on average lower than 0.5 K and a maximum of 1 K for the lowest CO₂ concentration.

Fig. 6

Experimental and predicted hydrate equilibrium temperature at CO₂ isopleth (x_CO2 is in mol fraction) in distilled water (red lines: HL_w predictions; black lines: VHL_w/LHL_w predictions).

Fig. 7

Comparison of experimental and predicted solubility of CO₂ in water at H–L_w and V–L_w equilibria.

Fig. 8

Comparison of experimental and predicted solubility of CO₂ in water at H–L_w equilibria at 5, 6, 10, 20, 30, and 40 MPa (lines from left to right).

Table 5

Hydrate equilibrium temperatures at HL_w as function of CO₂ concentration (x_CO2) in distilled water and saline systems (CO₂ concentration is on free-salt basis and mole fraction).

For salt solutions, the results are plotted in Figure 9 where larger deviations between experimental data and model predictions are observed. For some CO₂ concentrations, the measured HET increases with increasing salinity, while the model predicts the opposite behavior. There is a need for further experimental measurements and model development for aqueous systems undersaturated with CO₂.

Fig. 9

Comparison of experimental and predicted solubility of CO₂ in NaCl aqueous solutions at H–L_w equilibria (grey dashed lines predictions for distilled water at 10 MPa; green lines: predictions for 3 wt% NaCl at 10 (dashed) and 20 MPa; blue lines: predictions for 5.52 wt% NaCl at 10 (dashed), and 20 MPa; red lines: predictions for 6 wt% NaCl at 10 (dashed) and 20 MPa).

5 Conclusion

In this work, new experimental data have been reported for hydrates formed from carbon dioxide in the presence of aqueous solutions of sodium chloride over a wide range of temperatures, pressure, and concentration. The predictions of the developed model are compared against independent experimental data and the data generated in this work over a wide range of temperature, pressure, and NaCl concentration. A good agreement between predictions and experimental data is observed, demonstrating the reliability of the developed model. The hydrate stability pressure–temperature zone of dissolved CO₂ in the presence of salt show that a decrease in the system pressure and/or an increase in salt concentration favors hydrate formation, as both factors reduce equilibrium gas solubility in the aqueous phase. This behavior is unlike that of the system including a gas phase, where a higher gas pressure corresponds to an increased gas solubility which favors hydrate formation.

To further validate the model, Hydrate Equilibrium (melting) Temperature (HET) of aqueous phases undersaturated with CO₂, at different CO₂ saturation levels and with different aqueous phase compositions were measured. The model is in relatively good agreement with the experimental results for distilled water, but larger deviations are observed for saline systems highlighting the need for further work to improve the model.

Acknowledgments

Some of this work was part of a Joint Industrial Project (JIP) conducted jointly at the Institute of GeoEnergy Engineering, Heriot-Watt University, and the CTP laboratory of MINES ParisTech between 2018 and 2021. The JIP was supported by Equinor, GALP Energia, Linde AG, Petrobras, Petronas, and TOTAL, which is gratefully acknowledged. HET measurements for undersaturated measurements were financed by Equinor.

References

Maloney D.R., Briceno M. (2009) Experimental investigation of cooling effects resulting from injecting high pressure liquid or supercritical CO₂ into a low pressure gas reservoir1, Petrophysics 50, 335–344. [Google Scholar]
Sohrabi M., Riazi M., Jamiolahmady M., Ireland S., Brown C. (2009) Enhanced oil recovery and CO₂ storage by carbonated water injection, in: Int. Pet. Technol. Conf., IPTC, December 7–9, Doha, 14070 p. https://doi.org/10.2523/IPTC-14070-ABSTRACT. [Google Scholar]
Saji A., Yoshida H., Sakai M., Tanii T., Kamata T., Kitamura H. (1992) Fixation of carbon dioxide by clathrate-hydrate, Energy Convers. Manag. 33, 643–649. https://doi.org/10.1016/0196-8904(92)90067-7. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Dholabhai P.D., Kalogerakis N., Bishnoi P.R. (1993) Equilibrium conditions for carbon dioxide hydrate formation in aqueous electrolyte solutions, J. Chem. Eng. Data. 38, 650–654. https://doi.org/10.1021/je00012a045. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Englezos P., Hall S. (1994) Phase equilibrium data on carbon dioxide hydrate in the presence of electrolytes, water soluble polymers and montmorillonite, Can. J. Chem. Eng. 72, 887–893. https://doi.org/10.1002/cjce.5450720516. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Vaessen R.J.C., Ham F., Witkamp G.J. (2000) Eutectic freeze crystallization using CO₂ clathrates, Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 912, 483–495. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632.2000.tb06803.x. [Google Scholar]
Sun D., Ripmeester J., Englezos P. (2016) Phase equilibria for the CO₂/CH₄/N₂/H₂O system in the hydrate region under conditions relevant to storage of CO₂ in depleted natural gas reservoirs, J. Chem. Eng. Data. 61, 4061–4067. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jced.6b00547. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Nakane R., Gima E., Ohmura R., Senaha I., Yasuda K. (2019) Phase equilibrium condition measurements in carbon dioxide hydrate forming system coexisting with sodium chloride aqueous solutions, J. Chem. Thermodyn. 130, 192–197. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jct.2018.10.008. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Tohidi B., Danesh A., Todd A.C., Burgass R.W. (1997) Hydrate-free zone for synthetic and real reservoir fluids in the presence of saline water, Chem. Eng. Sci. 52, 3257–3263. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0009-2509(97)00183-8. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Guembaroski A.Z., Marcelino Neto M.A., Bertoldi D., Morales R.E.M., Sum A.K. (2017) Phase behavior of carbon dioxide hydrates: A comparison of inhibition between sodium chloride and ethanol, J. Chem. Eng. Data. 62, 3445–3451. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jced.7b00463. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Croeser N., Babaee S., Naidoo P., Ramjugernath D. (2019) Investigation into the use of gas hydrate technology for the treatment of vinasse, Fluid Phase Equilib. 492, 67–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fluid.2019.02.020. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Mohammadi A.H., Afzal W., Richon D. (2008) Gas hydrates of methane, ethane, propane, and carbon dioxide in the presence of single NaCl, KCl, and CaCl₂ aqueous solutions: Experimental measurements and predictions of dissociation conditions, J. Chem. Thermodyn. 40, 1693–1697. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jct.2008.06.015. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Cordeiro J.C., Marcelino Neto M.A., Morales R.E.M., Sum A.K. (2020) Phase equilibrium of carbon dioxide hydrates inhibited with MEG and NaCl above the upper quadruple point, J. Chem. Eng. Data. 65, 280–286. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jced.9b01001. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Ruffine L., Trusler J.P.M. (2010) Phase behaviour of mixed-gas hydrate systems containing carbon dioxide, J. Chem. Thermodyn. 42, 605–611. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jct.2009.11.019. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Sabil K.M., Witkamp G.J., Peters C.J. (2009) Phase equilibria of mixed carbon dioxide and tetrahydrofuran hydrates in sodium chloride aqueous solutions, Fluid Phase Equilib. 284, 38–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fluid.2009.06.006. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Bozzo A.T., Hsiao-Sheng C., Kass J.R., Barduhn A.J. (1975) The properties of the hydrates of chlorine and carbon dioxide, Desalination 16, 303–320. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0011-9164(00)88004-2. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Aya I., Yamane K., Nariai H. (1997) Solubility of CO₂ and density of CO₂ hydrate at 30 MPa, Energy 22, 263–271. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0360-5442(96)00093-X. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Yang S.O., Yang I.M., Kim Y.S., Lee C.S. (2000) Measurement and prediction of phase equilibria for water + CO₂ in hydrate forming conditions, Fluid Phase Equilib. 175, 75–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-3812(00)00467-2. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Servio P., Englezos P. (2001) Effect of temperature and pressure on the solubility of carbon dioxide in water in the presence of gas hydrate, Fluid Phase Equilib. 190, 127–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-3812(01)00598-2. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Lee K.M., Lee H., Lee J., Kang J.M. (2002) CO₂ hydrate behavior in the deep ocean sediments; phase equilibrium, formation kinetics, and solubility, Geophys. Res. Lett. 29, 30-1–30–4. https://doi.org/10.1029/2002GL015069. [Google Scholar]
Someya S., Bando S., Chen B., Song Y., Nishio M. (2005) Measurement of CO₂ solubility in pure water and the pressure effect on it in the presence of clathrate hydrate, Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 48, 2503–2507. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijheatmasstransfer.2004.12.043. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Kim Y.S., Lim B.D., Lee J.E., Lee C.S. (2008) Solubilities of carbon dioxide, methane, and ethane in sodium chloride solution containing gas hydrate, J. Chem. Eng. Data. 53, 1351–1354. https://doi.org/10.1021/je800074z. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Zhang Y., Holder G.D., Warzinski R.P. (2008) Phase equilibrium in two-phase, water-rich-liquid, hydrate systems: Experiment and theory, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 47, 459–469. https://doi.org/10.1021/ie070846c. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Guo H., Chen Y., Hu Q., Lu W., Ou W., Geng L. (2014) Quantitative Raman spectroscopic investigation of geo-fluids high-pressure phase equilibria: Part I. Accurate calibration and determination of CO₂ solubility in water from 273.15 to 573.15 K and from 10 to 120 MPa, Fluid Phase Equilib. 382, 70–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fluid.2014.08.032. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Sun Q., Tian H., Li Z., Guo X., Liu A., Yang L. (2016) Solubility of CO₂ in water and NaCl solution in equilibrium with hydrate. Part I: Experimental measurement, Fluid Phase Equilib. 409, 131–135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fluid.2015.09.033. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Geng L., Qu K., Lu W., Jiang L., Chou I.M. (2017) In situ Raman spectroscopic study of the pressure effect on the concentration of CO₂ in water at hydrate-liquid water equilibrium up to 900 bar, Fluid Phase Equilib. 438, 37–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fluid.2017.02.005. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
van der Waals J.H., Platteeuw J.C. (2007) Clathrate solutions, in: Adv. Chem. Phys., Vol. 2, pp. 1–57. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470143483.ch1. [Google Scholar]
Parrish W.R., Prausnitz J.M. (1972) Dissociation pressures of gas hydrates formed by gas mixtures, Ind. Eng. Chem. Process Des. Dev. 11, 26–35. https://doi.org/10.1021/i260041a006. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Chapoy A., Haghighi H., Burgass R., Tohidi B. (2012) On the phase behaviour of the (carbon dioxide + water) systems at low temperatures: Experimental and modelling, J. Chem. Thermodyn. 47, 6–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jct.2011.10.026. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Burgass R., Chapoy A., Duchet-Suchaux P., Tohidi B. (2014) Experimental water content measurements of carbon dioxide in equilibrium with hydrates at (223.15 to 263.15) K and (1.0 to 10.0) MPa, J. Chem. Thermodyn. 69, 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jct.2013.09.033. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Chapoy A., Nazeri M., Kapateh M., Burgass R., Coquelet C., Tohidi B. (2013) Effect of impurities on thermophysical properties and phase behaviour of a CO₂-rich system in CCS, Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control. 19, 92–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2013.08.019. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Haghighi H., Chapoy A., Tohidi B. (2008) Freezing point depression of electrolyte solutions: Experimental measurements and modeling using the cubic-plus-association equation of state, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 47, 3983–3989. https://doi.org/10.1021/ie800017e. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Haghighi H., Chapoy A., Tohidi B. (2009) Methane and water phase equilibria in the presence of single and mixed electrolyte solutions using the cubic-plus-association equation of State, Oil Gas Sci. Technol. 64, 141–154. https://doi.org/10.2516/ogst:2008043. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Haghighi H., Chapoy A., Burgess R., Tohidi B. (2009) Experimental and thermodynamic modelling of systems containing water and ethylene glycol: Application to flow assurance and gas processing, Fluid Phase Equilib. 276, 24–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fluid.2008.10.006. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Chapoy A., Burgass R., Tohidi B., Alsiyabi I. (2015) Hydrate and phase behavior modeling in CO₂-rich pipelines, J. Chem. Eng. Data. 60, 447–453. https://doi.org/10.1021/je500834t. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Ahmadi P., Chapoy A. (2018) Fluid phase equilibria CO₂ solubility in formation water under sequestration conditions, Fluid Phase Equilib. 463, 80–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fluid.2018.02.002. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
JCGM (2008) Evaluation of measurement data – Guide to the expression of uncertainty in measurement, Int. Organ. Stand. Geneva ISBN 50, 134. [Google Scholar]
Stringari P., Valtz A., Chapoy A. (2014) Study of factors influencing equilibrium and uncertainty in isochoric hydrate dissociation measurements, in: 8th Int. Conf. Gas Hydrates (ICGH8-2014), 28 July–1 August, Beijing, China, Vol. 28. [Google Scholar]

Appendix

Temperature uncertainty

In this setup uncertainty of temperature measurement was calculated according to: $U_{c} (T) = \sqrt{{u_{thermometer}}^{2} + {u_{calibration}}^{2} + {u_{repeatability}}^{2}} .$ ${U}_c(T)=\sqrt{{{u}_{\mathrm{thermometer}}}^2+{{u}_{\mathrm{calibration}}}^2+{{u}_{\mathrm{repeatability}}}^2}.$ (A.1)

The system, repeatability, and calibration uncertainties were found to be 0.1, 0.05, and 0.05 K, respectively. As a result, U_c(T) was found to be 0.12 K for all points.

Pressure uncertainty:

Similar to the temperature uncertainty, the uncertainty of pressure measurements was calculated according to the following equations: $U_{c} (P) = \sqrt{{u_{system}}^{2} + {u_{calibration}}^{2} + {u_{repeatability}}^{2}} .$ ${U}_c(P)=\sqrt{{{u}_{\mathrm{system}}}^2+{{u}_{\mathrm{calibration}}}^2+{{u}_{\mathrm{repeatability}}}^2}.$ (A.2) U_c(P) was found to be 0.043 MPa with three digits accuracy for all the measurements.

HET for undersaturated systems

In this study, uncertainties of the measured hydrate equilibrium temperature were estimated based on the “Evaluation of Measurement Data – Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement (GUM)” [37]. For HET measurements, considering the impact of uncertainties associated with calibration parameters, measured temperature, pressure, and sample preparation, the combined standard uncertainty of the measured density is calculated by: ${u (T_{HET})}^{2} = {u (T)}_{calibration}^{2} + {u (T)}_{measurements}^{2} .$ ${u({T}_{\mathrm{HET}})}^2={u(T)}_{\mathrm{calibration}}^2+\enspace {u(T)}_{\mathrm{measurements}}^2.$ (A.3)

For the calibration uncertainties, the temperature probe was calibrated using a NAMAS-certified temperature probe. For the uncertainties of HET measurements, equation (A.4) was used to determine the standard uncertainties: $u^{2} {(T_{HET})}_{measurements} = {(\frac{\partial T_{HET}}{\partial p})}^{2} u^{2} (p) + {(\frac{\partial T_{HET}}{\partial T})}^{2} u^{2} (T) + {(\frac{\partial T}{\partial x})}^{2} u^{2} (x_{CO 2}) .$ ${u}^2{({T}_{\mathrm{HET}})}_{\mathrm{measurements}}={\left(\frac{\mathrm{\partial }{T}_{{HET}}}{\mathrm{\partial }p}\right)}^2{u}^2(p)+{\left(\frac{\mathrm{\partial }{T}_{\mathrm{HET}}}{\mathrm{\partial }T}\right)}^2{u}^2(T)+{\left(\frac{\mathrm{\partial }T}{\mathrm{\partial }x}\right)}^2{u}^2\left({x}_{\mathrm{CO}2}\right).$ (A.4)

$(\frac{\partial T}{\partial x})$ $\left(\frac{\mathrm{\partial }T}{\mathrm{\partial }x}\right)$ was calculated using the thermodynamic model. Considering the systematic uncertainties of measurement devices, the calibration procedures, and the reproducibility of the results, the standard uncertainties of the measured HET were found to be 0.74 K.

HET for saturated systems

For the uncertainties of HET measurements in presence of NaCl, the procedure described by Stringari et al. [38] was used, and the standard uncertainties of the measured HET were found to be 0.4 K.

All Tables

Table 1

Literature data for hydrate equilibria of CO₂ in presence of NaCl solutions (VL_wH: Vapour – Liquid (aqueous) – Hydrate / LL_wH: Liquid – Liquid (aqueous) – Hydrate).

In the text

Table 2

Literature data of CO₂ solubility in water and brines at hydrate–liquid water (HL_w) equilibrium.

In the text

Table 3

Composition of the chemical used in this work.

In the text

Table 4

Experimental CO₂ hydrate dissociation conditions in the presence of sodium chloride solutions (AqFr: Aqueous Fraction).

In the text

Table 5

Hydrate equilibrium temperatures at HL_w as function of CO₂ concentration (x_CO2) in distilled water and saline systems (CO₂ concentration is on free-salt basis and mole fraction).

In the text

All Figures

	Fig. 1 Schematic of the setup used to measure the hydrate dissociation condition
In the text

	Fig. 2 Plot of equilibrium P/T data recorded during test x_CO2 = 2.11 × 10⁻² mole fraction in distilled water.
In the text

	Fig. 3 Predicted and experimental CO₂ solubility in aqueous sodium chloride. Black lines: predictions using the CPA-EoS model. : 5.52 wt% NaCl [24]; : 14.92 wt% NaCl [24]; : 22.61 wt% NaCl [24]; : 10 wt% NaCl (Heriot–Watt unpublished data); : 20 wt% NaCl (Heriot–Watt unpublished data).
In the text

	Fig. 4 Predicted and experimental hydrate stability of the CO₂ system in presence of aqueous sodium chloride solution in the VL_wH region; Black lines: hydrate stability zone predicted using the CPA-EoS model using an aqueous mole fraction of 0.8; dotted blue lines: vapour–liquid locus of CO₂ (no water) using the CPA-EoS model.
In the text

	Fig. 5 Predicted and experimental hydrate stability of the CO₂ system in presence of aqueous sodium chloride solution in VLH and LLH regions; black lines: hydrate stability zone predicted using the CPA-EoS model using an aqueous mole fraction of 0.8; dotted blue lines: vapour–liquid locus of CO₂ (no water) using the CPA-EoS model.
In the text

	Fig. 6 Experimental and predicted hydrate equilibrium temperature at CO₂ isopleth (x_CO2 is in mol fraction) in distilled water (red lines: HL_w predictions; black lines: VHL_w/LHL_w predictions).
In the text

	Fig. 7 Comparison of experimental and predicted solubility of CO₂ in water at H–L_w and V–L_w equilibria.
In the text

	Fig. 8 Comparison of experimental and predicted solubility of CO₂ in water at H–L_w equilibria at 5, 6, 10, 20, 30, and 40 MPa (lines from left to right).
In the text

	Fig. 9 Comparison of experimental and predicted solubility of CO₂ in NaCl aqueous solutions at H–L_w equilibria (grey dashed lines predictions for distilled water at 10 MPa; green lines: predictions for 3 wt% NaCl at 10 (dashed) and 20 MPa; blue lines: predictions for 5.52 wt% NaCl at 10 (dashed), and 20 MPa; red lines: predictions for 6 wt% NaCl at 10 (dashed) and 20 MPa).
In the text

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.