1887
Volume 40 Number 3
  • ISSN: 0263-5046
  • E-ISSN: 1365-2397

Abstract

Abstract

The main storage-related challenges for accelerated deployment of CCS are capacity, confidence and cost. These challenges are to be addressed by focusing on improving strategies for monitoring and management of the pore pressure distribution in the CO2 storage reservoir. Pressure-driven decision support protocols are to be developed for safe and cost-effective reservoir monitoring. These protocols will enable the operator to maximize CO2 storage capacity and quickly turn monitoring data indicating non-conformance into plans for corrective actions. A new extended method is developed for inverting and de-noising reservoir pressure and water saturation changes from time-lapse AVO differences and time-shifts for the purpose of CCS monitoring and conformance. Detailed reservoir pressure and saturation fronts are obtained for seismic timelapse data in the Norwegian offshore, honouring reservoir compartments and fault boundaries found in comparative studies. Applications on CCS and non-CCS fields offshore Norway were researched in synthetic and field data cases for purposes of benchmarking, pre-storage analysis, monitoring plans and conformance studies. Back-estimations of pressure and saturation changes were successful for both synthetic and field data and have made this method substantially more credible for field cases and seismic history matching.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.3997/1365-2397.fb2022023
2022-03-01
2024-04-28
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Barros, E.G.D., Leeuwenburgh, O. and Boullenger, B.
    [2020)]. Practical quantitative monitoring strategy assessment for conformance verification of CO2 storage projects. Paper presented at the EAGE 2020 Annual Conference Online, December 8–11. https://doi.org/10.3997/2214-4609.202011450.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Barros, E., Romdhane, A., Bergmo, P., Leeuwenburgh, O. and Grimstad, A.
    [2021]. Quantitative Decision Analysis for Co2 Storage Conformance Management: A Synthetic Case Study at Smeaheia, North Sea (March 29, 2021). Proceedings of the 15th Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies Conference15–18 March 2021, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3814679 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3814679.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Barros, E.G.D., Leeuwenburgh, O. and Szklarz, S.P.
    [2021]. Quantitative assessment of monitoring strategies for conformance verification of CO2 storage projects.IJGGC, 110, 103403. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2021.103403.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Buades, A., Coll, B. and Morel, J.M.
    [2005]. A review of image denoising algorithms with a new one.Multiscale Modeling and Simulation, 49(2), pp. 490–530.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Carpentier, S.F.A., Steeghs, T.P.H., Zhang, Y. and Leeuwenburgh, O.
    [2017]. Data Conditioning of 4D Seismic Timelapse Data for Improved Inversion of Reservoir Pressure and Saturation.IOR Norway 2017 – 19th European Symposium on Improved Oil Recovery24–27 April 2017, Stavanger, Norway. Paper WeP026.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Cheng, N. and Osdal, B.
    [2008]. Updating the Norne Reservoir Model Using 4D Seismic Data. IO Workshop, 12 February 2008, Trondheim.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Huang, Y., Alsos, T., Sørensen, H.M. and Tian, S.
    [2013]. Proving the value of 4D seismic data in the late-life field – Case study of the Norne main field.First Break, 31. 10.3997/1365‑2397.2013023.
    https://doi.org/10.3997/1365-2397.2013023 [Google Scholar]
  8. Landrø, M.
    [2001]. Discrimination between pressure and fluid saturation changes from time-lapse seismic data.Geophysics, 66, 836–844.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Lothe, A., Bergmo, P., Emmel, B.U. and Eliasson, P.
    [2018]. Effects of uncertainties in fault interpretations on pressure depletion and CO2 storage injection at Horda Platform, offshore Norway.Proceedings of GHGT-14, Melbourne, Australia.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Osdal, B., Husby, O., Aronsen, H.A., Chen, N. and Alsos, T.
    [2006]. Mapping the fluid front and pressure buildup using 4D data on Norne Field.The Leading Edge, 2006 25(9), 1134–1141.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Trani, M., Arts, R., Leeuwenburgh, O.and Brouwer, J.
    [2011]. Estimation of changes in saturation and pressure from 4D seismic AVO and time-shift analysis.Geophysics, 76, C1–C17.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Verlo, S.B. and Hetland, M.
    [2008]. Development of a field case with real production and 4D data from the Norne Field as a benchmark case for future reservoir simulation model testing. Master’s thesis, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Yan, H., Dupuy, B., Romdhane, A. and Arntsen, B.
    [2019]. CO2 saturation estimates at Sleipner (North Sea) from seismic tomography and rock physics inversion.Geophysical Prospecting, 67, 1055–1071. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2478.12693.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.3997/1365-2397.fb2022023
Loading
/content/journals/10.3997/1365-2397.fb2022023
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
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