1887
PDF

Abstract

Summary

Carbon capture and storage (CCS) is essential for enabling decarbonisation but quantifying the risk of injection-related fault reactivation is a barrier to global upscaling. The Cooper and Eromanga Basins are becoming a focus for CCS and recent reprocessing of >44,000 km of 2D seismic and the generation of 2Dcubed ™ (pseudo-3D) volumes via structurally-conformable interpolation provides a unique dataset for rapid regional interpretation and screening of candidate CCS sites. Results feed into assessments of the geomechanical risks and operating limits for CCS. This study reviewed the validity of using the pseudo-3D volumes for this type of screening via separate interpretations of 2D, pseudo-3D and ‘genuine’ 3D seismic. Mapped faults were converted to depth and various geomechanical risking parameters assessed. In the study area, faults don’t penetrate above the regional topseal but downward pressure-transmission and reactivation of deep-seated faults is a risk. Poor imaging due to multiple coals means that fault interpretation can be ambiguous and we found notable downdip geometrical variability between faults picked on different volumes and by different interpreters. Interpreted fault strikes and lateral dimensions were more consistent. Assessment of fault reactivation likelihood highlights the sensitivity of outcomes to fault dip, with ramifications for CCS site appraisal.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.202522057
2025-09-01
2026-02-15
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/2214-4609/2025/wccus/57.html?itemId=/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.202522057&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Apak, SN, Stuart, WJ, Lemon, NM, Wood, G (1997) Structural Evolution of the Permian–Triassic Cooper Basin, Australia: Relation to Hydrocarbon Trap Styles. AAPG Bulletin81, 533–555.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Carbon Storage Taskforce (2009) National carbon mapping and infrastructure plan: Australia: full report. Department of Resources, Energy and Tourism, Canberra.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Hager, BH, Dieterich, J, Frohlich, C, Juanes, R, Mantica, S, Shaw, JH, Bottazzi, F, Caresani, F, Castineira, D, Cominelli, A, Meda, M, Osculati, L, Petroselli, S, Plesch, A (2021) A process-based approach to understanding and managing triggered seismicity. Nature595, 684–689.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Hilterman, F, Nicholson, F, Qi, C (2018) Seismic interpretation when short-period internal multiples are present. The Leading Edge37, 19–26.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Kulikowski, D, Amrouch, K, Pokalai, K, Mackie, SI, Gray, ME, Burgin, HB (2021) The Cooper–Eromanga petroleum province, Australia. Australian Journal of Earth Sciences69, 153–187.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Notiyal, S (2022) TGS Cooper Basin 2Dcubed project –an exciting new Cooper Basin seismic dataset. In ‘Round Table for Energy Resources. Adelaide’.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Santos (2021) Moomba Carbon Capture and Storage Project. In ‘2021 Round Table for Oil & Gas. Adelaide’, 9th December 2021.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Santos, 2025. Fourth Quarter Report for period ending 31 December 2024.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Streit, JE, Hillis, RR (2004) Estimating fault stability and sustainable fluid pressures for underground storage of CO2 in porous rock. Energy29, 1445–1456.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Wainman, CC, McCabe, PJ (2025) Anatomy of the late Pennsylvanian to early Triassic failed rift system of the Cooper Basin, eastern Australia. Gondwana Research138, 47–69.
    [Google Scholar]
/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.202522057
Loading
/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.202522057
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