Results of analysis and model simulation of the bed profiles

Bedforms such as dunes and ripples are ubiquitous in rivers and coastal seas, and commonly described as triangular shapes from which height and length are calculated to estimate hydrodynamic and sediment dynamic parameters. Natural bedforms, however, present a far more complicated morphology; the difference between natural bedform shape and the often assumed triangular shape is usually neglected, and how this may affect the flow is unknown. This study investigates the shapes of natural bedforms and how they influence flow and shear stress, based on four datasets extracted from earlier studies on two rivers (the Rio Paraná in Argentina, and the Lower Rhine in The Netherlands). The most commonly occurring morphological elements are a sinusoidal stoss side made of one segment and a lee side made of two segments, a gently sloping upper lee side and a relatively steep (6 to 21°) slip face. A non-hydrostatic numerical model, set up using Delft3D, served to simulate the flow over fixed bedforms with various morphologies derived from the identified morphological elements. Both shear stress and turbulence increase with increasing slip face angle and are only marginally affected by the dimensions and positions of the upper and lower lee side. The average slip face angle determined from the bed profiles is 14°, over which there is no permanent flow separation. Shear stress and turbulence above natural bedforms are higher than above a flat bed but much lower than over the often assumed 30° lee side angle.

(Table 1) Gravity and pressure within the Sleipner area relative to ones at the reference station in 2002 and 2005

At Sleipner, CO2 is being separated from natural gas and injected into an underground saline aquifer for environmental purposes. Uncertainty in the aquifer temperature leads to uncertainty in the in situ density of CO2. In this study, gravity measurements were made over the injection site in 2002 and 2005 on top of 30 concrete benchmarks on the seafloor in order to constrain the in situ CO2 density. The gravity measurements have a repeatability of 4.3 µGal for 2003 and 3.5 µGal for 2005. The resulting time-lapse uncertainty is 5.3 µGal. Unexpected benchmark motions due to local sediment scouring contribute to the uncertainty. Forward gravity models are calculated based on both 3D seismic data and reservoir simulation models. The time-lapse gravity observations best fit a high temperature forward model based on the time-lapse 3D seismics, suggesting that the average in situ CO2 density is about to 530kg/m**3. Uncertainty in determining the average density is estimated to be ±65 kg/m**3 (95% confidence), however, this does not include uncertainties in the modeling. Additional seismic surveys and future gravity measurements will put better constraints on the CO2 density and continue to map out the CO2 flow.