1887
Volume 3, Issue 1
  • E-ISSN:
PDF

Abstract

This study investigates the CO storage potential and 4D seismic monitoring capabilities of 64 depleted gas fields across the UK Continental Shelf (UKCS) and the Norwegian Continental Shelf (NCS), providing critical insights for optimizing carbon storage strategies. By analysing 4D seismic signal strength, time-shift measurements and theoretical storage capacities, the research identifies significant regional and field-specific variations. Overall, UKCS fields exhibit stronger amplitude responses, which can be attributed to distinct CO phase behaviour during injection where injected CO transitions from gaseous to supercritical phase. Time-shift analysis (0.2–3.1 ms in the UKCS; 0.1–2.6 ms in the NCS) consistently exceeds the minimum detectability threshold for towed streamer surveys (0.5 ms) and proves more reliable than amplitude changes, which rarely reach the required 17% normalized root mean square threshold. The non-linear relationship between seismic response and geological characteristics points to the need for tailored monitoring approaches. These findings highlight the critical role of reservoir properties, stratigraphic age and site-specific monitoring plans in guiding the design and deployment of effective carbon storage strategies in the North Sea.

© 2025 The Author(s). Published by The Geological Society of London for GSL and EAGE

[open-access]

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1144/geoenergy2025-003
2025-07-10
2026-04-21

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1144/geoenergy2025-003
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/geoenergy/3/1/geoenergy2025-003.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1144/geoenergy2025-003&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Archer, J. and Wall, C.G.1986. Petroleum Engineering: Principles and Practice. Springer, Dordrecht, doi: 10.1007/978-94-010-9601-010.1007/978‑94‑010‑9601‑0
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-9601-0 [Google Scholar]
  2. Bachu, S.2015. Review of CO2 storage efficiency in deep saline aquifers. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 40, 188–202, doi: 10.1016/j.ijggc.2015.01.00710.1016/j.ijggc.2015.01.007
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2015.01.007 [Google Scholar]
  3. Bachu, S., Bonijoly, D., Bradshaw, J., Burruss, R., Holloway, S., Christensen, N.P. and Mathiassen, O.M.2007. CO2 storage capacity estimation: Methodology and gaps. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 1, 430–443, doi: 10.1016/S1750-5836(07)00086-210.1016/S1750‑5836(07)00086‑2
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S1750-5836(07)00086-2 [Google Scholar]
  4. Bergmo, P. and Anthonsen, K.L.2014. Overview of Available Data on Candidate Oil Fields for CO2 EOR Organisation. Deliverable ReportD 6.2.1302. SINTEF Petroleum, Trondheim, Norway, https://www.sintef.no/globalassets/sintef-energi/nordiccs/d6.2.1302-overview-of-available-data-on-candidate-oil-fields-for-co2-eor.pdf
     [Google Scholar]
  5. BP2021. Hewett Conclusive Report: Key Knowledge Document. Key Knowledge DocumentNS051-SS-REP-000-00024. Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy, London.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Brain, J., Lassaigne, T., Darnet, M. and Van Loevezijn, P.2018. Unlocking 4D seismic technology to maximize recovery from the pre-salt Rotliegend gas fields of the Southern North Sea. Geological Society, London, Petroleum Geology Conference Series, 8, 465–471, doi: 10.1144/PGC8.3810.1144/PGC8.38
     https://doi.org/10.1144/PGC8.38 [Google Scholar]
  7. Brain, J.P. and Lassaigne, T.2017. 4D time shift interpretation and pressure calibration for the sub-salt Rotliegend reservoirs of the Southern North Sea. In: First EAGE Workshop on Practical Reservoir Monitoring, PRM 2017, March 2017. European Association of Geoscientists and Engineers (EAGE), Houten, The Netherlands, doi: 10.3997/2214-4609.20170000810.3997/2214‑4609.201700008
     https://doi.org/10.3997/2214-4609.201700008 [Google Scholar]
  8. Byerley, G., Roervik, K.O., Pedersen, J. and Ranaweera, K.2006. Reducing risk and monitoring water injection using time-lapse (4D) seismic at the Ekofisk Field. In: 68th EAGE Conference and Exhibition incorporating SPE EUROPEC 2006, June 2006. European Association of Geoscientists and Engineers (EAGE), Houten, The Netherlands, 3210–3214, doi: 10.3997/2214-4609.20140239010.3997/2214‑4609.201402390
     https://doi.org/10.3997/2214-4609.201402390 [Google Scholar]
  9. Carter, G.C.1987. Coherence and time delay estimation. Proceedings of the IEEE, 75, 236–255, doi: 10.1109/PROC.1987.1372310.1109/PROC.1987.13723
     https://doi.org/10.1109/PROC.1987.13723 [Google Scholar]
  10. Clarke, A.L., Imber, J., Davies, R.J., Van Hunen, J., Daniels, S.E. and Yielding, G.2017. Application of material balance methods to CO2 storage capacity estimation within selected depleted gas reservoirs. Petroleum Geoscience, 23, 339–352, doi: 10.1144/petgeo2016-05210.1144/petgeo2016‑052
     https://doi.org/10.1144/petgeo2016-052 [Google Scholar]
  11. Côrte, G.A.2020. Development of Techniques for Quantifying Pressure and Saturation Changes from 4D Seismic Data Applied to a North Sea Field. Doctoral thesis, Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh, UK.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Dehghan-Niri, R., Pedersen, S., Furre, A., Thompson, M., Westerdahl, H., David, S. and Hibben, T.2022. Monitoring CO2 plumes with mini streamers, is there potential?In: 83rd EAGE Annual Conference & Exhibition, June 2022. European Association of Geoscientists and Engineers (EAGE), Houten, The Netherlands, 1473–1477, doi: 10.3997/2214-4609.20221039810.3997/2214‑4609.202210398
     https://doi.org/10.3997/2214-4609.202210398 [Google Scholar]
  13. DESNZ2023. Carbon Capture, Usage and Storage: A Vision to Establish a Competitive Market. Department for Energy Security & Net Zero (DESNZ), London.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Fehmers, G., Hunt, K., Brain, J.P., Bergler, S., Kaestner, U., Schutjens, P.M. and Burrell, R.V.2007. Curlew D – pushing the boundaries of 4D depletion signal in a gas condensate field, UK Central North Sea. In: 69th EAGE Conference and Exhibition incorporating SPE EUROPEC 2007, June 2007. European Association of Geoscientists and Engineers (EAGE), Houten, The Netherlands, 3493–3498, doi: 10.3997/2214-4609.20140177910.3997/2214‑4609.201401779
     https://doi.org/10.3997/2214-4609.201401779 [Google Scholar]
  15. Furre, A., Bakke, R. and Ringrose, P.2018. Feasibility of permanent seismic monitoring of a CO2 storage site offshore Norway. In: 5th CO2 Geological Storage Workshop, November 2018. European Association of Geoscientists and Engineers (EAGE), Houten, The Netherlands, 21–25, doi: 10.3997/2214-4609.20180299310.3997/2214‑4609.201802993
     https://doi.org/10.3997/2214-4609.201802993 [Google Scholar]
  16. Furre, A., Pedersen, Å.S., Westerdahl, H., Thompson, M., Dehghan-Niri, R., Torset, S. and Biryaltseva, Y.2024a. Evaluating seismic mini-streamer suitability for time-lapse interpretation at Sleipner CO2 injection site. In: 85th EAGE Annual Conference & Exhibition, June 2024. European Association of Geoscientists and Engineers (EAGE), Houten, The Netherlands, doi: 10.3997/2214-4609.20241042110.3997/2214‑4609.202410421
     https://doi.org/10.3997/2214-4609.202410421 [Google Scholar]
  17. Furre, A.K., Warchoł, M.J., Alnes, H. and Pontén, A.S.M.2024b. Sleipner 26 years: how well-established subsurface monitoring work processes have contributed to successful offshore CO2 injection. Geoenergy, 2, doi: 10.1144/geoenergy2024-01510.1144/geoenergy2024‑015
     https://doi.org/10.1144/geoenergy2024-015 [Google Scholar]
  18. Gammer, D., Green, A., Holloway, S. and Smith, G.2011. The Energy Technologies Institute's UK CO2 Storage Appraisal Project (UKSAP). Paper SPE-148426-MS presented at theSPE Offshore Europe Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition, September 6–8, 2011, Aberdeen, UK, doi: 10.2118/148426-MS10.2118/148426‑MS
     https://doi.org/10.2118/148426-MS [Google Scholar]
  19. Halland, E.K., Leader, P. et al.2011. The Norwegian North Sea. Norwegian Petroleum Directorate, Stavanger, Norway.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Halland, E.K., Leader, P. et al.2012. The Norwegian Sea. Norwegian Petroleum Directorate, Stavanger, Norway.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Halland, E.K., Leader, P. et al.2013. The Barents Sea. Norwegian Petroleum Directorate, Stavanger, Norway.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Holliday, D.W., Jones, N.S. and McMillan, A.2005. Lithostratigraphical Subdivision of the Sherwood Sandstone Group (Triassic) of the Northeastern Part of the Carlisle Basin, Cumbria, and Adjacent Parts of Dumfries and Galloway, UK. BGS Internal ReportIR/05/148. British Geological Survey (BGS), Keyworth, Nottingham, UK, https://nora.nerc.ac.uk/11169/1/IR05148.pdf
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Holloway, S., Vincent, C.J. and Kirk, K.2006. Industrial Carbon Dioxide Emissions and Carbon Dioxide Storage Potential in the UK. BGS Commercial ReportCR/06/185N. British Geological Survey (BGS), Keyworth, Nottingham, UK, https://nora.nerc.ac.uk/id/eprint/4837
     [Google Scholar]
  24. IEAGHG2009. CO2 Storage in Depleted Gas Fields. Technical Study Report2009/01. IEA Greenhouse Gas R& D Programme (IEAGHG), Cheltenham, UK, https://publications.ieaghg.org/technicalreports/2009-01%20Storage%20in%20Depleted%20Gas%20Fields.pdf
     [Google Scholar]
  25. IPCC2005. IPCC Special Report on Carbon Dioxide Capture andStorage. Prepared by Working Group III of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (Metz, B., Davidson, O., de Coninck, H. C., Loos, M. and Meyer, L. A., eds). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, https://archive.ipcc.ch/pdf/special-reports/srccs/srccs_wholereport.pdf
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Kragh, E. and Christie, P.2002. Seismic repeatability, normalized rms, and predictability. The Leading Edge, 21, 640–647, doi: 10.1190/1.149731610.1190/1.1497316
     https://doi.org/10.1190/1.1497316 [Google Scholar]
  27. MacBeth, C.2004. A classification for the pressure-sensitivity properties of a sandstone rock frame. Geophysics, 69, 497–510, doi: 10.1190/1.170707010.1190/1.1707070
     https://doi.org/10.1190/1.1707070 [Google Scholar]
  28. MacBeth, C. and Izadian, S.2023. A review and analysis of errors in post-stack time-shift interpretation. Geophysical Prospecting, 71, 1497–1522, doi: 10.1111/1365-2478.1339110.1111/1365‑2478.13391
     https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2478.13391 [Google Scholar]
  29. MacBeth, C., Amini, H. and Izadian, S.2020. Review Paper: Methods of measurement for 4D seismic post-stack time shifts. Geophysical Prospecting, 68, 2637–2664, doi: 10.1111/1365-2478.1302210.1111/1365‑2478.13022
     https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2478.13022 [Google Scholar]
  30. MacBeth, C., Toh, S.Y., Kopydlowska, B. and Jafarizadeh, F.2024. Evaluation of signals from monitoring CO2 injection in the North Sea using 4D seismic. In: 85th EAGE Annual Conference & Exhibition, June 2024. European Association of Geoscientists and Engineers (EAGE), Houten, The Netherlands, doi: 10.3997/2214-4609.202410114310.3997/2214‑4609.2024101143
     https://doi.org/10.3997/2214-4609.2024101143 [Google Scholar]
  31. NOD2018. FORCE 4D: 30 Years of 4D Seismic on the Norwegian Continental Shelf, 28–29 November 2018, Stavanger, Norway. Norwegian Offshore Directorate (NOD), Stavanger, Norway, https://www.sodir.no/en/force/archive/2018/30-years-of-4D-seismic-on-the-NCS
  32. NSTA2023a. Huge Net-Zero Boost as 20 Carbon Storage Licences Offered for Award. North Sea Transition Authority (NSTA), Aberdeen, UK, https://www.nstauthority.co.uk/news-publications/news/2023/huge-net-zero-boost-as-20-carbon-storage-licences-offered-for-award/
     [Google Scholar]
  33. NSTA2023b. Net Zero Boost as Carbon Storage Licences Accepted. North Sea Transition Authority (NSTA), Aberdeen, UK, https://www.nstauthority.co.uk/news-publications/net-zero-boost-as-carbon-storage-licences-accepted/
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Shell2014. Peterhead CCS Project: Dynamic Reservoir Modelling Report. PCCS-05-PT-ZR-3323-00002. Shell UK Ltd, London, https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a758815ed915d6faf2b3b6d/11.122_-_Dynamic_Reservoir_Modelling_Report.pdf
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Toh, S.Y. and MacBeth, C.2024. Assessment of the 4D seismic signals from monitoring CO2 injection into North Sea gas fields. In: 85th EAGE Annual Conference & Exhibition, June 2024. European Association of Geoscientists and Engineers (EAGE), Houten, The Netherlands, doi: 10.3997/2214-4609.202410134910.3997/2214‑4609.2024101349
     https://doi.org/10.3997/2214-4609.2024101349
  36. Toh, S.Y., MacBeth, C. and Landa, J.L.2024. Evaluating the CO2 injection seismic modeling outcomes: a study of the Goldeneye, Hamilton, and Viking fields. In: Fifth EAGE Global Energy Transition Conference & Exhibition (GET 2024), November 2024. European Association of Geoscientists and Engineers (EAGE), Houten, The Netherlands, doi: 10.3997/2214-4609.20242106710.3997/2214‑4609.202421067
     https://doi.org/10.3997/2214-4609.202421067 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1144/geoenergy2025-003
Loading
Feasibility of monitoring CO2 injection in depleted UK Continental Shelf and Norwegian Continental Shelf gas fields using 4D seismic
Geoenergy 3, geoenergy2025-003 (2025); https://doi.org/10.1144/geoenergy2025-003
/content/journals/10.1144/geoenergy2025-003
/content/journals/10.1144/geoenergy2025-003
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article

Most Cited This Month Most Cited RSS feed

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