1887

Abstract

Summary

The South Morecambe producing gas field is a candidate for carbon capture and storage (CCS), where CO2 is planned to be injected into a depleted CH4 sandstone reservoir. Various geophysical monitoring technologies are being investigated to determine the optimum solutions for conformance of the CO2 injection into the reservoir and future monitoring tools for containment. In this paper we discuss the results of rock physics and 1D forward modelling for varying pressure and gas composition scenarios to understand if 4D seismic and electromagnetic (EM) methods are a feasible technology.

Results show that 4D seismic responses of CO2 movement in the reservoir are likely to be below detection, but monitoring may be feasible if super-critical conditions exist and if monitor surface or borehole surveys are designed to capture sufficiently long offsets to invert for elastic property changes above the noise floor. 4D seismic monitoring and EM monitoring were shown to be feasible technologies for detecting the unlikely event of the plume migrating into the overburden. Both technologies can be considered as effective tools in part of a wider monitoring strategy as outlined by .

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.202321095
2023-11-14
2026-02-08
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Archie, G.E., [1942]. The electrical resistivity log as an aid in determining some reservoir characteristics.Trans. Am. Inst. Mech. Eng., 146, 54–62
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Gassmann, F. [1951]. Über die Elastizität poröser Medien.Vierteljahrsschrift der Naturforschenden Gesellschaft in Zurich, 96, 1–23.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Hill, D., Sonika, S., Lowden, D., Paydayesh, M., Barling, T., & Branston, M. [2017]. Full-Field 4D Image-Modelling to Determine a Reservoir Monitoring Strategy.First Break, 35(2), 77–88.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Le Calvez, J., Branston, M., Mizuno, T., & Bettinelli, P. [2021]. Delivering an end to end monitoring strategy for CCUS projects. In EAGE 2nd Geoscience and Engineering in Energy Transition Conference 2021.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Mavko, G., Mukerji, T., & Dvorkin, J. [2009]. The Rock Physics Handbook: Tools for Seismic Analysis of Porous Media.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511626753.
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511626753 [Google Scholar]
  6. Paydayesh, M., & Babaei, M. [2022]. Embedding thermodynamics within rock physics modeling for CO2 injection. In EAGE Workshop on Quantitative Geoscience as a Catalyst in a Carbon Neutral World, June 2022, KL, Malaysia.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Shuey, R. T. [1985]. A simplification of the Zoeppritz equations.Geophysics, 50(4), 609–614
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Simandoux, P. [1963]. Dielectric measurements on porous media: application to the measurement of water saturations: study of the behaviour of argillaceous formations.Rev. Inst. Français Petrole, 18(Supplementary Issue), 193–215.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Zoeppritz, K. [1919]. Erdbebenwellen VII. VIIb. Über Reflexion und Durchgang seismischer Wellen durch Unstetigkeitsflächen.Nachrichten von der Königlichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen, Mathematisch-physikalische Klasse, 66–84.
    [Google Scholar]
/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.202321095
Loading
/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.202321095
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