Jump to content
RockWare Support Forum


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Mathew

  1. Hi Brian, Yes using the command line with vol% worked great. I look forward to GWB9! One last question: The formation I am modeling has some CH4, H2S and CO2 gas in it and as you saw in my script I have the H2S and the CO2 in the Initial tab as swapped gas species. Through trial and error I have put CH4(g) as a Reactant in at 0.1 mol/m3year which gives me reasonable gas fugacities in the output that are proportional to the mol% of gas sampled from the formation. Is there a better way to have CH4(g) at the initial state of the formation, perhaps using the command line? It does seem to slightly impact mineral equilibriums when I bring the CH4(g) up to observed proportions. Thanks, Mathew
  2. Hi Brian That makes sense. Is GWB9 available? We just bought the software. I will try the manual code option. Thanks Mathew
  3. Hi Brian, The model finished to completion but I still have the same discrepency where the Rock Mass = ~3000 wt% (30 wt fraction) under System Parameters in the output. In Minerals output I added up the total vol% of minerals which = 7.164 wt% max and the 'Mass H2O' (in System Parametrs) = ~93.2 wt% for background in the aquifer and down to ~90.4 wt% at the injection well. Some of the minerals I added to the Input tab are less than new minerals by an order of magnitude (eg. witherite (new min) = 0.6635 vol% versus quartz = 0.06702 vol% (I Input 4.8 wt%)). These result are nearly identical to previous model runs I have tried. Again the porosity, pH, species concentrations, temperature, etc all look reasonable. ...I tried to change the mineral wt% to 1000% to compensate but I get an error saying 'Mineral volume in node 0 is greater than node volume'. ...I calculated the volume of each mineral in cm3 per 10x10x10 meter node and got some reasonable mineral wt% for all the minerals. The Rock Mass still reports 3000% so not sure what is happening there. Everything else looks ok so far. Is there a vol% units option in the Initial tab as you suggested so that the porosity is directly tied to mineral volumes? Thanks for your help, Mathew Mathew 14Bnov11_Debolt_0.1m-yr_10k-m3-d_Flow-min.x2t
  4. Will do. I have to put them in as free wt% as there is no option to do vol%. I thought I tried this configuration because my initial understanding from teh GWB week short course a few years back was that the Reactants tab forces minerals to react hence the model crash. Good to confirm again. Thanks! Model running.... will let you know.
  5. 9CCnov11_Debolt_0.1m-yr_10k-m3-d_Flow-min.x2tHi Brian, Thanks for getting back to me. Attached is the version where I tried using vol% in the Reactants tab. For some reason this version is no as stable as the others and does not finish to completion. Best Regards, Mathew
  6. I am having trouble matching the rock volume% versus H2O volume% in X2t. I have tried various combos of putting minerals as 'Reactants' in vol% and as weights (kg) proportional to 1 kg H2O, or as swapped species in the 'Initial' tab. In the 'Initial' tab I tried to use 1.) mol/kg picked-up from 'React' 1D models and 2.) as kg proportional to kg H2O]. When I compare the final vol% H2O versus mineral vol% it is ~ 98:2 depending on how I input the minerals. I am trying to get 92% vol% rock + 8% porosity in the output. Also, the 'Rock Mass' in wt% around 3000% in all models but does decreaase around the injection well corresponding to mineral dissolution and ppt. I set the porosity 8% and that is responding realistically. Could the mineral vol% (or wt%) in the output be the amount of mineral precipitated or dissolved and not the total mineral vol% (or wt%)? Many Thanks, Mathew
  • Create New...