1887
Volume 66, Issue 8
  • E-ISSN: 1365-2478

Abstract

ABSTRACT

The injection of CO at the Ketzin pilot site commenced in June 2008 and was terminated in August 2013 after 67 kT had been injected into a saline formation at a depth of 630–650 m. As part of the site monitoring program, four 3D surface seismic surveys have been acquired to date, one baseline and three repeats, of which two were conducted during the injection period, and one during the post‐injection phase. The surveys have provided the most comprehensive images of the spreading CO plume within the reservoir layer. Both petrophysical experiments on core samples from the Ketzin reservoir and spectral decomposition of the 3D time‐lapse seismic data show that the reservoir pore pressure change due to CO injection has a rather minor impact on the seismic amplitudes. Therefore, the observed amplitude anomaly is interpreted to be mainly due to CO saturation. In this study, amplitude versus offset analysis has been applied to investigate the amplitude versus offset response from the top of the sandstone reservoir during the injection and post‐injection phases, and utilize it to obtain a more quantitative assessment of the CO gaseous saturation changes. Based on the amplitude versus offset modelling, a prominent decrease in the intercept values imaged at the top of the reservoir around the injection well is indeed associated solely with the CO saturation increase. Any change in the gradient values, which would, in case it was positive, be the only signature induced by the reservoir pressure variations, has not been observed. The amplitude versus offset intercept change is, therefore, entirely ascribed to CO saturation and used for its quantitative assessment. The estimated CO saturation values around the injection area in the range of 40%–60% are similar to those obtained earlier from pulsed neutron‐gamma logging. The highest values of 80% are found in the second seismic repeat in close vicinity to the injection and observation wells.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12666
2018-08-08
2020-04-05
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. ArtsR., ElsayedR., van der MeerL., EikenO., OstmoS., ChadwickA., et al. 2002. Estimation of the mass of injected CO2 at Sleipner using time‐lapse seismic data. 64th EAGE Annual International Conference and Exhibition, Florence, Italy, Extended Abstracts, H16.
  2. Asveth, P.2009. Exploration rock physics – The link between geological processes and geophysical observables. In: Petroleum Geology, (ed. Bjørlykke, K. ), pp. 403–426. Springer.
  3. AvsethP., MukerjiT. and MavkoG.2005. Quantitative Seismic Interpretation: Applying Rock Physics Tools to Reduce Interpretation Risk. Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. BaumannG., HenningesJ. and De LuciaM.2014. Monitoring of saturation changes and salt precipitation during CO2 injection using pulsed neutron‐gamma logging at the Ketzin site. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control28, 134–146.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. BatzleM. L. and WangZ.1992. Seismic properties of pore fluids. Geophysics57, 1396–1408.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. BergmannP. and ChadwickA.2015. Volumetric bounds on subsurface fluid substitution using 4D seismic time shifts with an application at Sleipner, North Sea. Geophysics80, B153–B165.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. BergmannP., DierschM., GötzJ., IvandicM., IvanovaA., JuhlinC., et al. 2016. Review on geophysical monitoring of CO2 injection at Ketzin, Germany. J. Pet. Sci. Eng.139, 112–136.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. BrownS., BussodG. and HaginP.2007. AVO monitoring of CO2 sequestration: a benchtop–modeling study. The Leading Edge26, 1576–1583.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. CastagnaJ.P. and BackusM. M.1993. Offset–Dependent Reflectivity–Theory and Practice of AVO Analysis. SEG.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. ChadwickA., ArtsR. and EikenO.2005. 4D seismic quantification of a growing CO2 plume at Sleipner, North Sea. In: Petroleum Geology: North West Europe and Global Perspectives – Proceedings of the 6th Petroleum Geology Conference, (eds. DoreA.G. and ViningB. ), pp. 1385–1399, London: Geological Society.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. ChopraS. and CastagnaJ. P.2014. AVO, Investigations in geophysics No. 16. Society of exploration geophysicists.
  12. DvorkinJ. and NurA.1998. Acoustic signatures of patchy saturation. International Journal of Solids and Structures35, 4803–4810.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. FörsterA., NordenB., Zinck‐JørgensenK., FrykmanP., KulenkampffJ., SpangenbergE., et al. 2006. Baseline characterization of the CO2SINK geological storage site at Ketzin, Germany. Environmental Geosciences13, 145–161.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. FörsterA., SchonerR., FörsterH. J., NordenB., BlaschkeA. W., LuckertJ., et al. 2010. Reservoir characterization of a CO2 storage aquifer: the Upper Triassic Stuttgart Formation in the Northeast German Basin. Marine Petroleum Geology27, 2156–2172.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. GrudeS., LandrøM. and OsdalB.2013. Time–lapse pressure–saturation discrimination for CO2 storage at the Snøhvit field. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control19, 369–378.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. HuangF., BergmannP., JuhlinC., IvandicM., LüthS., IvanovaA., et al. 2018. The first post‐injection seismic monitor survey at the Ketzin Pilot CO2 storage site: results from time‐lapse analysis. Geophysical Prospecting66, 62–84.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. HuangF., JuhlinC., HanL., KempkaT., LüthS and ZhangF.2016. Quantitative evaluation of thin–layer thickness and CO2 mass utilizing seismic complex decomposition at the Ketzin CO2 storage site, Germany. Geophysical Journal International207, 160–173.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. HuangF., JuhlinC., KempkaT., NordenB. and ZhangF.2015. Modeling 3D time–lapse seismic response induced by CO2 by integrating borehole and 3D seismic data – A case study at the Ketzin pilot site, Germany. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control36, 66–77.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. IvandicM., JuhlinC., LüthS., BergmannP., KashubinA., SopherD., et al. 2015. Geophysical monitoring at the Ketzin pilot site for CO2 storage: New insights into the plume evolution. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control32, 90–105.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. IvanovaA., BergmannP., KummerowJ., YangC., LüthS. and JuhlinC.2013. Seismic modeling of the AVO/AVA response to CO2 injection at the Ketzin site, Germany. Energy Procedia40, 490–498.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. IvanovaA., KashubinA., JuhojunttiN., KummerowJ., HenningesJ., JuhlinC., et al. 2012. Monitoring and volumetric estimation of injected CO2 using 4D seismic, petrophysical data, core measurements and well logging: a case study at Ketzin, Germany. Geophysical Prospecting, 60, 957–973.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. JuhlinC., GieseR., Zinck‐JørgensenK., CosmaC., KazemeiniH., JuhojunttiN., et al. 2007. 3D baseline seismics at Ketzin, Germany: the CO2SINK project. Geophysics72, B121–B132.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. JuhlinC. and YoungR.1993. Implication of thin layers for amplitude variation with offset (AVO) studies. Geophysics58, 1200–1204.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. KazemeiniS.H., JuhlinC. and FomelS.2010. Monitoring CO2 response on surface seismic data; a rock physics and seismic modeling feasibility study at the CO2 sequestration site, Ketzin, Germany. Journal of Applied Geophysics71, 109–124.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. KummerowJ. and SpangenbergE.2011. Experimental evaluation of the impact of the interactions of CO2–SO2, brine, and reservoir rock on petrophysical properties: a case study from the Ketzin test site: Germany. Geochemistry Geophysics Geosystems12, Q05010.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. LandrøM.2001. Discrimination between pressure and fluid saturation changes from time lapse seismic data. Geophysics66, 836–844.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. LandrøM.2002. Uncertainties in quantitative time–lapse seismic analysis. Geophysical Prospecting50, 1–12.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. LenglerM., De LuciaM. and KühnM.2010. The impact of heterogeneity on the distribution of CO2: numerical simulation of CO2 storage at Ketzin. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control4, 1016–1025.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. LinL. and PhairR.1993. AVO tuning. 63rd SEG Meeting, Washington, DC, Expanded Abstracts, 727–730.
  30. MaJ. and MorozovI.2010. AVO modeling of pressure–saturation effects in Weyburn CO2 sequestration. The Leading Edge29, 178–183.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. MartensS., ConzeR., De LuciaM., HenningesJ., KempkaT., LiebscherA., et al. 2015. Joint research project CO2MAN (CO2MAN Reservoir Management): Continuation of research and development work for CO2 storage at the Ketzin Pilot site. In: Geological Storage of CO2 – Long Term Security Aspects, (eds. A.Liebscher and U.Münch ), pp. 1–32, Cham: Springer International Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. MavkoG. and MukerjiT.1998. Bounds on low‐frequency seismic velocities in partially saturated rocks. Geophysics63, 918–924.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. MavkoG., MukerjiT. and Dvorkin, J.2003. The Rock Physics Handbook: Tools for Seismic Analysis of Porous Media. Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. MöllerF., LiebscherA. and Schmidt–HattenbergerC.2016. Report on the dataset of the brine injection at the CO2 storage pilot site Ketzin, Germany. In: Scientific Technical Report STR, 16/05, Potsdam: GFZ German Research Centre for Geosciences.
  35. NordenB., FörsterA., Vu‐HoangD., MarcelisF., SpringerN. and NirI. L.2010. Lithological and petrophysical core–log interpretation in CO2SINK, the European CO2 onshore research storage and verification project. SPE Reservoir Evaluation and Engineering13, 179–192.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. RussellB. H. and SmithT.2007. The relationship between dry rock bulk modulus and porosity – an empirical study. In: CREWES Research Report, University of Calgary, Calgary.
  37. SmithG. and GidlowP. M.1987. Weighted stacking for rock property estimation and detection of gas. Geophysical Prospecting35, 993–1014.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. TuraA. and LumleyD. E.1999. Estimating Pressure and Saturation Changes from Time–Lapse AVO Data. pp.1655–1658, Offshore Technology Conference.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. WhitcombeD. N., DyceM., McKenzieC. J. S. and HoeberH.2004. Stabilizing the AVO gradient. SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts23, 232–235.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. WidessM. B.1973. How thin is a thin bed? Geophysics38, 1176–1180.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Wiese, B., Böhner, J., Enachescu, C., Würdemann, H. and Zimmermann, G.2010Hydraulic characterization of the Stuttgart Formation at the pilot test site for CO2 storage, Ketzin, Germany. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control4, 960–971.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. ZemkeK., LiebscherA. and WandreyM.2010. Petrophysical analysis to investigate the effects of carbon dioxide storage in a subsurface saline aquifer at Ketzin, Germany (CO2SINK). International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control4, 990–999.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. ZoeppritzK.1919. On the reflection and propagation of seismic waves. Erdbebenwellen VIIB, Gottinger Nachrichten. I, 66–84.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12666
Loading
/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12666
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): 3D time lapse (4D) , AVO , CO2 saturation , CO2 sequestration and Seismic monitoring
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error