Jump to content
Geochemist's Workbench Support Forum

John Kaszuba

Members
  • Posts

    6
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

1,408 profile views

John Kaszuba's Achievements

Newbie

Newbie (1/14)

  • One Month Later Rare
  • One Year In Rare
  • Week One Done Rare

Recent Badges

0

Reputation

  1. Brian In my system, the rock + pore water was pre-equilibrated in a previous calculation and picked up for use in the basis pane of my current calculation; this rock is flushed with brine that was pre-saturated with CO2 and picked up for use in the react pane of my current calculation. I had looked at using a fixed activity buffer, but it's my understanding that this function fixes an activity that is specified in the basis pane whereas I'd like to fix the activity of the CO2 in brine that is flushing the rock (i.e., the brine in the react pane). I hope this explanation makes sense; the file I posted earlier this week (Kaszuba input-flush model) illustrates my problem. Thank you for your help John
  2. I'm working on a problem using an approach that is similar to the one described by Kyle. In my flush model, however, I wish to fix aqueous CO2 activity to simulate buffering by a separate supercritical CO2 phase. I'm running into a brick wall with this. My latest and greatest attempt was to revise the database by adding a fictive supercritical CO2 phase as a mineral, but this approach yields multiple mass imbalance errors for minerals, aqueous species, and gasses. I'd be curious to hear what folks think. I've attached two input files that I've developed, one to equilibrate a groundwater with CO2 and a second to flush this water through a rock. Thank you John Kaszuba input-equilibrate with CO2.rea Kaszuba input-flush model.rea
  3. Katelyn Yes, I did misstate my question. Your response is exactly what I had in mind. Thank you for the clarification. John
  4. Katelyn I have a follow-up question related to the alkali flooding example (30.2) in the book. in this example, the pore fluid in the system is replaced a total of 10 times over the course of 20 days. I interpret this to mean that the "average" residence time of the pore fluid in this calculation is 2 days. Is this an accurate interpretation? Thus, if I wanted to increase the residence time of the pore fluid, I could either increase the value of "reactants times" or decrease the total time span of the calculation, correct? Thank you John
  5. Brian i understand busy, no need to apologize. Allow me to ask a follow up question. The conceptual model is: equilibrate package of rock-porewater at 100 C; instantaneously displace the porewater with water from another source and allow to react kinetically for a specified residence time; displace and repeat. Is this a calculation I can do in GWB Standard?
  6. I use GWB Standard v 10, and my question relates to doing calculations with React. On using the “pick up” command, will React pick up kinetic minerals?
×
×
  • Create New...