1887

Abstract

Summary

Time-lapse 4D seismic imaging has become one of the most reliable technologies to monitor the areal extent and dynamic behavior of CO2 plumes during and after injection. When combined with pressure and temperature data from monitoring wells, 4D seismic surveys can provide high-resolution insight into CO2 distribution and migration patterns. However, applying 4D seismic monitoring to depleted hydrocarbon reservoirs which are often considered attractive CO2 storage candidates due to their well-characterized geology and existing infrastructure poses unique challenges.

The study concluded that CO2 exhibits complex acoustic behavior under pressure, with its velocity initially decreasing and then increasing beyond ∼2000 psi, affecting seismic detectability due to changes in acoustic impedance. Pressure depletion from historical gas production increases seismic velocities by compressing the rock matrix, while CO2 injection reduces effective stress and lowers velocities, enabling time-lapse seismic monitoring. Residual hydrocarbons mixed with CO2 form a denser, slower fluid phase, enhancing 4D seismic contrast. Aquifer support plays a critical role in conformance monitoring, with active aquifers amplifying acoustic changes and improving plume tracking. Synthetic seismic modeling confirms that CO2 injection causes significant amplitude variations, driven by pore pressure and saturation changes, aiding subsurface interpretation.

© EAGE Publications BV
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.202577153
2025-11-18
2026-01-18

  • From This Site

    /content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.202577153
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Arts, R, Eiken, O., Chadwick, A., Zweigel, P., van der Meer, B., & Kirby, G. (2008). Monitoring CO₂ storage at the Sleipner project using time-lapse seismic data. Energy, 33(2), 204–214.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Chadwick, R A., Arts, R, Eiken, O., & Zweigel, P. (2010). Quantitative analysis of time-lapse seismic monitoring data at the Sleipner CO2 storage operation. The Leading Edge, 29(2), 170–177.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Ivanova, A., Al-Salmi, H., & Landrø, M. (2012). Monitoring CO2 storage in depleted gas fields using 4D seismic: Challenges and lessons learned. First Break, 30(10), 91–100
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Jenkins, C, Chadwick, A., & Hovorka, S. D. (2015). The state of the art in monitoring and verification—Ten years on. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 40, 312–349.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Lumley, D. (2001). Time-lapse seismic reservoir monitoring. Geophysics, 66(1), 50–53.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Mavko, G, Mukerji, T., & Dvorkin, J. (2009). The rock physics handbook: Tools for seismic analysis in porous media (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Tiwari, P. K., Das, D. P., C Mat, M N. F., Leite, R J., and Chidambaram, P. “Assessment of Integrated MMV Plan for CCS Projects in Depleted Gas Reservoir and Saline Aquifer Offshore Malaysia: From 4D Time Lapse Seismic Perspective.” Paper presented at the ADIPEC, Abu Dhabi, UAE, October 2022.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Tiwari, P. K., Das, D. P., Patil, P. A., Chidambaram, P., Chandran, P. K., Tewari, R. D., and Abdul Hamid, M. K. “4D Seismic in Subsurface CO2 Plume Monitoring - Why It Matters?.” Paper presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dubai, UAE, September 2021.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Tura, A. et al., (2005). Rock physics and 4D seismic feasibility in deepwater reservoirs. The Leading Edge, 24(12), 1224–1231.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Wang, Z., & Nur, A. (1992). Seismic velocity and attenuation in porous rocks with partial gas saturation. SEG Annual Meeting.
     [Google Scholar]
/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.202577153
Loading
Impact of Reservoir Depletion on The Seismic Monitoring Plan of The CCS Projects
Conference Proceedings 2025, 1 (2025); https://doi.org/10.3997/2214-4609.202577153
/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.202577153
/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.202577153
Loading

Data & Media loading...

Most Cited This Month Most Cited RSS feed

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