Underground Hydrogen Storage (UHS) provides a large-scale and safe solution to balance the fluctuations in energy production from renewable sources and energy consumption but requires a proper and detailed characterization of the candidate reservoirs. The scope of this study was to estimate the hydrogen diffusion coefficient for real caprock samples from two natural gas storage reservoirs that are candidates for underground hydrogen storage. A significant number of adsorption/desorption tests were carried out using a Dynamic Gravimetric Vapor/Gas Sorption System. A total of 15 samples were tested at the reservoir temperature of 45 °C and using both hydrogen and methane. For each sample, two tests were performed with the same gas. Each test included four partial pressure steps of sorption alternated with desorption. After applying overshooting and buoyancy corrections, the data were then interpreted using the early time approximation of the solution to the diffusion equation. Each interpretable partial pressure step provided a value of the diffusion coefficient. In total, more than 90 estimations of the diffusion coefficient out of 120 partial pressure steps were available, allowing a thorough comparison between the diffusion of hydrogen and methane: hydrogen in the range of 1 × 10⁻¹⁰ m²/s to 6 × 10⁻⁸ m²/s and methane in the range of 9 × 10⁻¹⁰ m²/s to 2 × 10⁻⁸ m²/s. The diffusion coefficients measured on wet samples are 2 times lower compared to those measured on dry samples. Hysteresis in hydrogen adsorption/desorption was also observed.

The understanding of multiphase flow phenomena occurring in porous media at the pore scale is fundamental in a significant number of fields, from life science to geo and environmental engineering. However, because of the optical opacity and the geometrical complexity of natural porous media, detailed visual characterization is not possible or is limited and requires powerful and expensive imaging techniques. As a consequence, the understanding of micro-scale behavior is based on the interpretation of macro-scale parameters and indirect measurements. Microfluidic devices are transparent and synthetic tools that reproduce the porous network on a 2D plane, enabling the direct visualization of the fluid dynamics. Moreover, microfluidic patterns (also called micromodels) can be specifically designed according to research interests by tuning their geometrical features and surface properties. In this work we design, fabricate and test two different micromodels for the visualization and analysis of the gas-brine fluid flow, occurring during gas injection and withdrawal in underground storage systems. In particular, we compare two different designs: a regular grid and a real rock-like pattern reconstructed from a thin section of a sample of Hostun rock. We characterize the two media in terms of porosity, tortuosity and pore size distribution using the A* algorithm and CFD simulation. We fabricate PDMS-glass devices via soft lithography, and we perform preliminary air-water displacement tests at different capillary numbers to observe the impact of the design on the fluid dynamics. This preliminary work serves as a validation of design and fabrication procedures and opens the way to further investigations.

The research presented in this paper focuses on the analysis of land movements induced by underground gas storage operations in a depleted reservoir in Northern Italy with the aim of increasing the understanding of the deformation response of deep formations via a real case study. The a priori knowledge of the pseudo-elastic parameters showed a substantial discrepancy between static values from triaxial lab tests and dynamic values obtained via the interpretation of sonic data at wellbore scale. The discrepancy is not surprising for the formations under investigation: a thousand meters of a silty to shaly sequence intercalated with arenaceous banks above a reservoir formation, which is basically made up of sandstone intercalated with shale intervals and conglomerates. Information collected for over more than ten years of seasonal production/injection cycles (i.e., time and space evolution of the reservoir fluid pressure and of the induced land surface movements) was then combined in a 3D numerical geomechanical model to constrain and update the a priori knowledge on the pseudo elastic model parameters via a back analysis approach. The obtained calibrated model will then be used for reliable prediction of system safety analyses, for example in terms of induced ground movements.

Large-scale storage solutions play a critical role in the ongoing energy transition, with Underground Hydrogen Storage (UHS) emerging as a possible option. UHS can benefit from existing natural gas storage expertise; however, key differences in hydrogen’s behavior compared to CH₄ must be characterized at the pore scale to optimize the design and the management of these systems. This work investigates two-phase (gas–water) flow behavior using microfluidic devices mimicking reservoir rocks’ pore structure. Microfluidic tests provide a systematic side-by-side comparison of H₂–water and CH₄–water displacement under the same pore-network geometries, wettability, and flow conditions, focusing on the drainage phase. While all experiments fall within the transitional flow regime between capillary and viscous fingering, clear quantitative differences between H₂ and CH₄ emerge. Indeed, the results show that hydrogen’s lower viscosity enhances capillary fingering and snap-off events, while methane exhibits more stable viscous-dominated behavior. Both gases show rapid breakthrough; however, H₂’s flow instability—especially at low capillary numbers (Ca)—leads to spontaneous water imbibition, suggesting stronger capillary forces. Relative permeability endpoints are evaluated when steady state conditions are reached: they show dependence on Ca, not just saturation, aligning with recent scaling laws. Despite H₂ showing a different displacement regime, closer to capillary fingering, H₂ mobility remains comparable to CH₄. These findings highlight differences in flow behavior between H₂ and CH₄, emphasizing the need for tailored strategies for UHS to manage trapping and optimize recovery.