The injection of CO2 into the subsurface requires a detailed understanding of the petrophysical properties and rock physical frame of the formation under stress. We present the results of a rock physics driven workflow to analyse and steer a planned acquisition campaign at the field laboratory of Svelvik, Norway. The underlying assumptions made for the unconsolidated high porosity formation have a significant impact on the expected seismic response. For a shallow aquifer pressure and saturation dependent P- and S-wave velocities are computed. The rock physics model is based on a solid frame consisting of quartz and clay and saturated with water and gas. For increasing pressures and saturations the expected seismic response is used to discriminate pore fluid and pressure effects. Using a finite differencing scheme the wavefield is modelled and amplitude variations analysed for a geometrically growing CO2 plume over time. The results of the forward modelling will aid in the re-evaluation and subsequent integration of monitoring data for enhanced site conformance assessments, and allow to rapidly re-evaluate possible assumptions made as acquired time-lapsed data reveal mismatches. The integrated workflow coupled with dynamic simulations will provide a possibility to define and evaluate conformance measures during operation.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Alford, R. M., Kelly, K. R., and Boore, D. M.
    [1974] Accuracy of finite-difference modeling of the acoustic wave equation. Geophysics, 39(6), 834–842.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Barrio, M., Bakk, A., Grimstad, A. A., Querendez, E., Jones, D. G., Kuras, O., and Baudin, E.
    [2014] CO 2 Migration Monitoring Methodology in the Shallow Subsurface: Lessons Learned from the CO 2 FIELDLAB Project. Energy Procedia, 51, 65–74.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Calvert, M. A., Hoover, A. R., Vagg, L. D., Ooi, K. C., and Hirsch, K. K.
    [2016] Halfdan 4D workflow and results leading to increased recovery. The Leading Edge, 35(10), 840–848.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Domenico, S. N.
    [1977] Elastic properties of unconsolidated porous sand reservoirs. Geophysics, 42(7), 1339–1368.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Dvorkin, J., Gutierrez, M. A., and Grana, D.
    [2014] Seismic reflections of rock properties. Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Krief, M., Garat, J., Stellingwerf, J., & Ventre, J.
    [1990] A petrophysical interpretation using the velocities of P and S waves (full-waveform sonic). The Log Analyst, 31(06).
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Landrø, M., Solheim, O. A., Hilde, E., Ekren, B. O., and Strønen, L. K.
    [1999] The Gullfaks 4D seismic study. Petroleum Geoscience, 5(3), 213–226.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Landrø, M.
    [2001] Discrimination between pressure and fluid saturation changes from time-lapse seismic data. Geophysics, 66(3), 836–844.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Lüth, S., Ivanova, A., and Kempka, T.
    [2015] Conformity assessment of monitoring and simulation of CO2 storage: A case study from the Ketzin pilot site. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 42, 329–339.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Mavko, G., and Mukerji, T.
    [1998]. A rock physics strategy for quantifying uncertainty in common hydrocarbon indicators. Geophysics, 63(6), 1997–2008.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Raymer, L. L., Hunt, E. R., and Gardner, J. S.
    [1980] An improved sonic transit time-to-porosity transform. In SPWLA 21st annual logging symposium. Society of Petrophysicists and Well-Log Analysts.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Wandler, A. V., Davis, T. L., & Singh, P. K.
    [2012] An experimental and modeling study on the response to varying pore pressure and reservoir fluids in the Morrow A sandstone. International Journal of Geophysics, Vol. 2012, Article ID 726408.
    [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

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