**7. Recommendations for future work**

We believe that the potential reasons for the scatter in the CA data are due to the differences in: substrate types used (e.g., muscovite mica and phlogopite mica, quartz and silica), their preparation methods, and surface roughness values and patterns; fluid types (i.e. purities of droplet and external phase fluids and whether the fluids had been mutually saturated in the presence of substrate material); chemical compatibility of the materials used in the experimental facilities with the cleaning and process chemicals; types of CA data reported (e.g., static or dynamic CAs, sessile or captive, one droplet/bubble for a given pressure range or new droplet/bubble at each pressure). Repeatability in the data is necessary but not sufficient. Reproducibility is what is important. So, comparisons should only be made among the data collected using same system of solid and fluids, purities and preparation methods, measurement techniques, and especially type of CA data. We suggest microCT-based in-situ CA measurement with automated three-phase contact line detection for simultaneously obtaining several hundreds of thousands of CA values, as performed by AlRatrout et al. [81]. The method may also provide relative permeability and capillary pressure data for indirect estimation of wettability. One disadvantage of the suggested method is the requirement of doping the fluids. We also suggest in-situ surface chemical analysis as performed by Tripps and Combs [75] during the CA measurement in order to know any surface chemical alterations responsible for CA changes.

**Notes/Thanks/Other declarations**

the topics related to this chapter.

Prem Bikkina\* and Imran Shaik

[1] Bachu S. Sequestration of CO<sup>2</sup>

2001;**15**(2):293-298

2002;**41**(9):51-61

[5] Benson SM, Cole DR. CO<sup>2</sup>

2008;**4**(5):325-331

Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, USA

[4] Bachu S, Adams JJ. Sequestration of CO<sup>2</sup>

and Management. 2003;**44**(20):3151-3175

www/.iea.org/papers/2004/css.pdf

[8] Holtz MH. Optimizing Permanent CO<sup>2</sup>

\*Address all correspondence to: prem.bikkina@okstate.edu

[2] Oldenburg CM, Pruess K, Benson SM. Process modeling of CO<sup>2</sup>

change: Capacity of deep saline aquifers to sequester CO<sup>2</sup>

mitigation option. Energy. 2005;**30**(11-12):2318-2333

State of the science. AAPG Studies in Geology. 2009;**59**:429-437

**Author details**

**References**

The lead author, Dr. Prem Bikkina, would like to express his sincere appreciation for Drs. Jiamin Wan and Tetsu Tokunaga (Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, USA), Dr. Stefan Iglauer (Edith Cowan University, Australia), and Dr. Daniel Broseta (Université De Pau Et Des Pays De L'adour, France) for their participation in the scientific discussions with him on

in response to climate change. Energy Conversion and Management. 2000;**41**(9):953-970

gas reservoirs for carbon sequestration and enhanced gas recovery. Energy & Fuels.

flood EOR and carbon dioxide sequestration. Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology.

[3] Shaw J, Bachu S. Screening, evaluation, and ranking of oil reservoirs suitable for CO<sup>2</sup>

[6] Haefeli S, Bosi M, Philibert C. Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage Issues—Accounting and Baselines Under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Paris, France: International Energy Agency; 2004. Available from: http://

[7] Holloway S. Underground sequestration of carbon dioxide—A viable greenhouse gas

the Upper Frio, Gulf of Mexico. Carbon dioxide sequestration in geological media—

in geological media: Criteria and approach for site selection

Interfacial Tension and Contact Angle Data Relevant to Carbon Sequestration

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.79414

sequestration in deep sedimentary formations. Elements.

in geological media in response to climate

Sequestration in Brine Aquifers: Example from

in solution. Energy Conversion

injection into natural


181
