1887

Abstract

Summary

Screening, identifying, and characterizing a CCS site is of paramount importance as the sector faces considerable challenges in delivering sufficient capture and storage capacity to meet stated targets. With the urgency to develop more sites, there is a need to effectively evaluate the storage capacity and confirm future monitorability. This paper will demonstrate recent results in the Southern Gas Basin in the UKCS. We will show how an interactive rock physics analysis has been developed over a selection of key wells in the area and demonstrate its application in the evaluation of seismic sensitivity to CO2 injection. In saline aquifer storage sites, CO2 is injected in dense phase as a supercritical fluid. As a CO2 is not gas at subsurface conditions, it will interact differently with the rock frame and specific attention is required in the way the rock physics model is built and calibrated. The presented tool is designed to enable geoscientist to interactively assess any reservoir property perturbations and their subsequent effect on the seismic response and an early assessment of potential monitoring feasibility. This workflow is relevant as part of a suite of approaches suitable for monitoring, measurement, and verification (MMV) approaches to be evaluated

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.202310577
2023-06-05
2026-02-09
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Batzle, M., and Z.Wang, 1992, Seismic properties of pore fluids: Geophysics, 57, 1396–1408, Crossref.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Bentham, M., Mallows, T., Lowndes, J. & Green, A.2014. CO2 STORage evaluation database (CO2 Stored). The UK’s online storage atlas. Energy Procedia, 63, 5103–5113, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2014.11.540
    [Google Scholar]
  3. BrookM S, HollowayS, ShawK L, Vincent (2003). GESTCO Case Study 2a-1. Storage Potential of the Bunter Sandstone Formation in the UK Sector of the Southern North Sea and the Adjacent area of Eastern England. C J. British Geological Survey Commissioned Report CR/03/154.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. ChadwickRA, HollowayS, BrookM, KirbyG. The case for underground CO2 sequestration in Northern Europe. London: Geological Society Special publications, 2004; 233: 17–23.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Greenberg, M. L., and Castagna, J. P., 1992, Shear-wave velocity estimation in porous rocks: Theoretical formulation, preliminary verification and applications: Geophysical Prospecting, 40, 195–209.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Krief, M., Garat, J., Stellingwerff, J., and Ventre, J., 1990, A petro-physical interpretation using the velocities of P and S waves (full-waveform sonic): The Log Analyst, 31, 355–369.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Mavko, G., T.Mukerji, and J.Dvorkin, 2009, The rocks physics handbook, tools for seismic analysis in porous media, 2nd ed.: Cambridge University Press. Crossref.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Ruiz, R., Roubickova, A., Reiser, C., and Banglawala, N., 2021, Data mining and machine learning for porosity, saturation, and shear velocity prediction: recent experience and results, First Break
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Xu, H.2006, Calculation of CO2 acoustic properties using Batzle-Wang equations. Geophysics, Vol. 71, No 2, (March–April 2006), 10.1190/1.2187734
    https://doi.org/10.1190/1.2187734 [Google Scholar]
/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.202310577
Loading
/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.202310577
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