1887

Abstract

Summary

For geologic carbon storage (GCS) to reach full commercial capabilities, reoccurring measurement monitoring, and verification (MMV) operations need to be optimized. Co-locating multiphysics MMV capabilities within a sparse network will lower the MMV footprint and reduce redundant infrastructure providing cost savings. Integrating permanent passive seismic arrays for microseismic monitoring and active seismic surveys advances these goals. The passive network of four SADAR compact volumetric phased arrays monitoring seismicity at the Newell County Field Research Station has recently been demonstrated for active-source imaging with the objective of integrating seismic monitoring capabilities. Routinely performed VSP surveys are suitable for generating optimum-offset images using the individual SADAR phased arrays. Coherent processing of the SADAR array data provides signal enhancements that benefit both passive seismic monitoring and active-source seismic reflection functions, improving results for both over networks of single-sensors. Integrating active-source seismic acquisition with the SADAR network passive monitoring infrastructure allows for frequent conformance and containment verification at GCS projects, thereby providing early warning of anomalies. The integrated seismic system will also provide a common foundation for including other technologies into multiphysics monitoring nodes

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.202585014
2025-10-21
2026-01-18
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Hunter, J.A., and Pullan, S.E. [1989]. The optimum offset shallow seismic reflection technique. Proceedings of the Symposium on the Application of Geophysics to Engineering and Environmental Problems, EEGS, 143–174.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Hutchenson, K.D., Jennings, J., Grant, E.B., Quigley, D., Yelton, J., and Nyffenegger, P.A. [2025]. Persistent microseismic monitoring using robust permanent SADAR arrays. SEG Global Meeting Abstracts, 198–203.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Kolkman-Quinn, B. Lawton, D., Bertram, M., and Macquet, M. [2024]. Sparse Seismic Monitoring of Geologic Carbon Storage. Proceedings of the 17th Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies Conference (GHGT-17)20–24 October 2024.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Kolkman-Quinn, B., Lawton, D., Cooper, J., and Macquet, M. [2025]. Onshore sparse seismic monitoring design scenario using permanent sources and receivers. 86th EAGE Annual Conference & Exhibition, June 2025.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Lawton, D.C., Dongas, J., Osadetz, K., Saeedfar, A., and Macquet, M. [2019]. Chapter 16: Development and analysis of a geostatic model for shallow CO2 injection at the Field Research Station, Southern Alberta, Canada. In: Davis, T., Landro, M., and Wilson, M. (Eds.) Geophysics and Geosequestration Cambridge University Press, 280–296.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Lawton, D.C., and Osadetz, K. [2023]. Measurement, monitoring, and verification (MMV) for large-scale geological carbon storage projects. Geoconvention 2023.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Macquet, M., Lawton, D., Osadetz, K., Maidment, G., Bertram, M., Hall, K., Kolkman-Quinn, B., Monsegny Parra, J., Race, F., Savard, G., and Wang, Y., [2022]. Overview of Carbon Management Canada’s pilot-scale CO2 injection site for developing and testing monitoring technologies for carbon capture and storage, and methane detection. Recorder Focus Article, 47(1), April 2022.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Nyffenegger, P.A., Grant, E.B., Zhang, J., Jennings, J. Quigley, D., Hutchenson, K.D., Tinker, M.A., Macquet, M., and Lawton, D.C. [2023a]. Estimates of performance model factors for passive microseismic SADAR phased arrays at the Newell County Facility. GeoConvention 2023.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Nyffenegger, P.A., Lawton, D.C., Macquet, M., Quigley, D., Kolkman-Quinn, B., and Hutchenson, K.D. [2025]. Advances in coupled passive and active seismic monitoring for large-scale geologic carbon storage projects. In: Wilson, M., Davis, T., and Landro, M. (Eds.) Geophysics and the Energy Transition, Elsevier Press, 333–354.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Nyffenegger, P.A., Zhang, J., Grant, E.B., Quigley, D., Hutchenson, K.D., Tinker, M.A., Lawton, D.C., and Macquet, M. [2023b]. Performance and outlook for the SADAR array network at the Newell County facility. First Break, 41(4), 56–62.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Quigley, D., Hutchenson, K.D., Nyffenegger, P.A., and Dahl, M. [2025a]. Active source imaging from Newell County geologic carbon storage facility using a sparse network of SADAR arrays. Geoconvention 2025.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Quigley, D., Nyffenegger, P.A., Hutchenson, K.D., and Yelton, J. [2025b]. Active source sparce imaging using permanent SADAR arrays. SEG Global Meeting Abstracts, 219–223.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Zhang, J., Hutchenson, K.D, Grant, E.B., Nyffenegger, P.A, and Tinker, M.A. [2023a]. Automated processing development at a CO2 site: phase detection, location, magnitude. SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts, 926–929.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Zhang, J., Hutchenson, K.D., Nyffenegger, P.A., Grant, E.B., Jennings, J., Tinker, M., Macquet, M., Lawton, D.C. [2023b]. Performance comparison of compact phased arrays and traditional seismic networks for microseismic monitoring at a CO2 sequestration test site. The Leading Edge, 42(5), 332–342.
    [Google Scholar]
/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.202585014
Loading
/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.202585014
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