1887
Volume 41, Issue 6
  • ISSN: 0263-5046
  • E-ISSN: 1365-2397
Preview this article:

There is no abstract available.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.3997/1365-2397.fb2023048
2023-06-01
2024-03-28
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Bachrach, R., Busanello, G. and Sayed, A. [2022]. Applications of surface distributed acoustic sensing for CO2 storage and windfarms: Results from large scale experiment. GET 2022 Conference and Exhibition, The Hague, November.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Bakulin, A., Silvestrov, I. and Pevzner, R. [2020]. Surface seismics with DAS: An emerging alternative to modern point-sensor acquisition.The Leading Edge, Distributed Acoustic Sensing Special Section, November.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Barlass, D. and Head, S. [2022]. Assessing the Role of Seismic in CO2 Storage Site Selection in the Southern North Sea. Seismic 2022, SPE, Aberdeen.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Barlass, D. and Barnett, H. [2022]. Play-Based Exploration for Assessing Carbon Storage Potential within the Central North Sea: from Seismic Trace to Site Ranking Leveraging CCS Focused Seismic Reimaging. SEG Role of Geophysics in Carbon Capture and Sequestration, Al Khobar.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Bettinelli, P. and Frignet, B. [2015]. Using Optical Fiber Seismic Acquisition for Well-to-Seismic Tie at the Ketzin Pilot Site (CO2Storage). (3207) SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Bourne, S., Crouch, S. and Smith, M. [2014]. A risk-based framework for measurement, monitoring and verification of the Quest CCS Project, Alberta.Canada International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control Volume 26, July, 109–126.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Bradshaw, J. and Dance, T. [2005] Mapping geological storage prospectivity of CO2 for the world’s sedimentary basins and regional source to sink matching.Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies, 7(1), Elsevier, 583–591.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Branston, M., Leone, C., Chapelle, M., Murineddu, A., Paydayesh, M., Campbell, R., Shadrina, M. and Butt, J. [2021]. Finding the sweet spot? Choosing the right seismic monitoring strategy for your field. PETEX 2021, London, Nov 23rd – 25th.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Branston, M., Le Calvez, J., Mizuno, T. and Bettinelli, P. [2022]. Designing a monitoring strategy for CCS projects. The Biennial Geophysical Seminar 2022, NPF, Kristriansand, Norway.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. De Gennaro, V., Giddins, M.A. and Branston, M. [2022]. From Early Feasibility to Permanent Monitoring in CCS: Example of Integration of Subsurface Modelling and Monitoring Technologies from Illinois IBDP Project (USA). CCS4G Workshop, London.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. European Communities [2011] Implementation of Directive 2009/31/EC on the Geological Storage of Carbon Dioxide. Guidance Document 2. Brussels.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Ferla, M., Miranda, F., Nutricato, G., Galli, G., Moriggi, S., Malossi, A., Guglielmo, C., Tesconi, M., Mangione, A., Stocchi, D., Naouar, A., Bettinelli, P., Manai, N., Slail, O. and Pagnin, A. [2018]. Efficiency and Innovation for Borehole Seismic Acquisition in a Well Completed with Permanent Fiber: DAS Technology for Saving Time and Minimizing Risk. (SPE-192616-MS) Abu Dhabi International Petroleum Exhibition & Conference.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Furrea, A.K., Eikenb, O., Alnesa, H., Vevatnea, J.N., Kiæra, A.F. [2016]. 20 years of monitoring CO2-injection at Sleipner.13th International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies, GHGT-13, 14–18, November, Lausanne, Switzerland.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Global CCS Institute.Report on the Global Status of CCS [2022]. https://www.globalccsinstitute.com/resources/global-status-of-ccs-2022/
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Hamilton, R., Barlass, D., Abu, C. and Head, S. [2022]. Regional screening for carbon storage opportunities in the UK Southern North Sea, EAGE GET 2022, Den Haag.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Harrington, S., Atkinson, A., Paydayesh, M. and Ouagueni, L. [2021]. Sim2Seis and 4D seismic data for fast-track production history matching; a North Sea case study. Conference Proceedings, EAGE GeoTech 2021 Third EAGE Workshop on Practical Reservoir Monitoring.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Harrington, S., Paydayesh, M., Danchenko, D., Fletcher, A., Ackers, M., Ward, C. and Pezzoli, M. [2023]. Quantifying the predicted seismic response of CO2 injection into a depleted gas reservoir, Energy Geoscience Conference, Aberdeen, May 16th.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Havelia, K., Manral, S., Borgos, H.G. and Freeman, S. [2022]. Integrated machine learning and physics-based workflows for rapid qualitative and quantitative insights on monitoring carbon capture and sequestration.First Break, 40(10), Oct 2022, 69–77.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Havelia, K., Manral, S. and Zimina, O. [2022]. Integrated Approach Leveraging Machine Learning and Bayesian Methods to Capture Subsurface Structure and Reservoir Property Uncertainty. 83rd EAGE Annual Conference & Exhibition, Jun 2022, Volume 2022, 1–5.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. IEA (2023), Credible pathways to 1.5°C, IEA, Parishttps://www.iea.org/reports/credible-pathways-to-150c, License: CC BY 4.0.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Le Calvez, J., Branston, M., Mizuno, T. and Bettinelli, P. [2021] Delivering an end-to-end monitoring strategy for CCUS projects. EAGE GET2021, Nov 23rd – 25th Nov 2021.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Le Calvez, J., Mizuno, T., Wilson, C., Bettinelli, P. and Fundytus, N. [2022]. Locating Microseismic Events and Determining Spatial Uncertainty Using 1C DAS Fiber Optic Strain Measurements or a Combination of 1C (DAS) and 3C (Geophones).SPWLA 63rd Annual Logging Symposium.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. NSTA [2022]. Measurement, Monitoring and Verification (MMV) of Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) Projects with Co-Location considerations, https://www.nstauthority.co.uk/news-publications/publications/2022/measurement-monitoring-and-verification-mmv-of-carbon-capture-and-storage-ccs-projects-with-co-location-considerations/.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. NSTA [2023]. Guidance on the application for a Carbon Dioxide Appraisal and Storage Licence. Rev. 1.1. https://www.nstauthority.co.uk/media/8146/cs-licence-guidance-final-29-april-2022.pdf.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Paydayesh, M. and Babaei, M. [2022]. Embedding thermodynamics within rock physics modelling for CO2 injection, EAGE Workshop on Quantitative Geoscience as a Catalyst in a Carbon Neutral World, June 2022, KL, Malaysia.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Phan, S., Hu, W. and Abubakar, A. [2022]. Delineate CO2 Plume Bodies by Mapping Subsurface Property Changes from Time-Lapse Seismic Gathers with Deep LearningGET 2022 Conference and Exhibition, The Hague, November.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Pedersen, Å.S., Westerdahl, H., Thompson, M., Sagary, C. and Brenne, J.K. [2022]. A North Sea Case Study: Does Das Have Potential for Permanent Reservoir Monitoring?83rd EAGE Annual Conference & Exhibition, Jun 2022, Volume 2022, 1–5.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Ramani, K., Tyagi, C., Salazar, M.U., Cooke, A., Lewis, O., Bailey, J., Ward, O. and Roy, T. [2021]. De-Risking Pre-Salt Exploration: A Regional Scale Re-Imaging Case Study from the Greater Cavendish Area. In 82nd EAGE Annual Conference & Exhibition (Vol. 2021, No. 1, 1–5). European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Ringrose, P. [2020]. How to Store CO2 Underground: Insights from early-mover CCS Projects. Spriner Briefs in Earth Sciences. ISBN 978-3-030-33112-2 and ISBN 978-3-030-33113-9 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-33113-9
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Ruiz, H., Lien, M., Vatshelle, M., Alnes, H., Haverl, M. and Sørensen, H. [2020]. Monitoring Snøhvit using seabed gravimetry and subsidence. SEG International Exposition and 90th Annual Meeting.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Sutherland, F., Lawrance, D., Legrand, P. and Wraith, E. [2022]. Seismic Monitoring for subsurface uncertainties at the Endurance CO2 store, The Leading Edge, North Sea Special Section, Volume 41, No. 4.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Zimina, O., Hellem Boe, T., Manral, S. and V.Aare [2022]. Machine Learning Assisted Seismic Horizon Interpretation Applied on the Groningen Gas Field, Netherlands. Second EAGE Digitalization Conference and Exhibition, Mar 2022, Volume 2022, 1–6.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Zimina, O., Manral, S., Nickel, M. and Smith, S. [2022]. Machine-learning assisted interpretation: Integrated fault prediction and extraction case study from the Groningen gas field, Netherlands.Interpretation (2022), 10(2), SC17–SC30.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.3997/1365-2397.fb2023048
Loading
/content/journals/10.3997/1365-2397.fb2023048
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