1887
PDF

Abstract

Summary

We present an integrated methodology for quantitative CO2 monitoring using Bayesian formulation. A first step consists in full-waveform inversion and CSEM inversion solved with gradient-based inverse methods. Uncertainty assessment is then carried out using a posteriori covariance matrix analysis to derive velocity and resistivity maps with uncertainty. Then, rock physics inversion is done with semi-global optimisation methodology and uncertainty is propagated with Bayesian formulation to quantify the reliability of the final CO2 saturation estimates.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.201803005
2018-11-21
2024-03-29
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/2214-4609/2018/Fr_CO2_P05.html?itemId=/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.201803005&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Biot, M.
    [1956] Theory of propagation of elastic waves in a fluid-saturated porous solid - I. Low-frequency range, II. Higher frequency range. Journal of Acoustical Society of America, 28, 168–178.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Brie, A., Pampuri, F., Marsala, A. and Meazza, O.
    [1995] Shear sonic interpretation in gas-bearing sands. SPE Annual Technical Conf.30595, 701–710.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Dupuy, B., Garambois, S. and Virieux, J.
    [2016] Estimation of rock physics properties from seismic attributes - Part I: Strategy and sensitivity analysis. Geophysics, 81(3), 35–53.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Dupuy, B., Romdhane, A., Eliasson, P., Querendez, E., Yan, H., Torres, V. and Ghaderi, A.
    [2017] Quantitative seismic characterization of CO2 at the Sleipner storage site, North Sea. Interpretation, 5(4), SS23–SS42.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Eliasson, P. and Romdhane, A.
    [2017] Uncertainty evaluation in waveform-based imaging methods - A case study at Sleipner. In: 79th EAGE Conference and Exhibition2017.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Gassmann, F.
    [1951] Über die elastizität poröser medien. Vierteljahrsschrift der NaturforschendenGesellschaft in Zurich, 96, 1–23.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Ghosh, R., Sen, M.K. and Vedanti, N.
    [2015] Quantitative interpretation of CO2 plume from Sleipner (North Sea),using post-stack inversion and rock physics modeling. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 32, 147–158.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Romdhane, A. and Querendez, E.
    [2014] CO2 characterization at the Sleipner field with full waveform inversion: application to synthetic and real data. Energy Procedia, 63, 4358–4365.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Sambridge, M.S.
    [1999a] Geophysical inversion with a neighbourhood algorithm - I. Searching a parameter space. Geophysical Journal International, 138, 479–494.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. [1999b] Geophysical inversion with a neighbourhood algorithm - II. Appraising the ensemble. Geophysical Journal International, 138, 727–746.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Subagjo, I., Dupuy, B., Park, J., Romdhane, A. and Stovas, A.
    [2018] Joint rock physics inversion of seismic and EM data for CO2 monitoring at Sleipner. In: EAGE Near surface Geoscience.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Tarantola, A.
    [2005] Inverse Problem theory and methods for model parameter estimation. Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, Philadelphia.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.201803005
Loading
/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.201803005
Loading

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