1887

Abstract

Summary

Geological CO storage is a promising climate mitigation option, but its success relies on ensuring long-term containment. We present a proof-of-concept framework that couples synthetic seismic modeling with machine learning to assess the seismic detectability of CO₂ leakage. Based on well log data from the Sleipner field, we create 1000 random synthetic velocity and density models, incorporating realistic stratigraphy and CO-brine fluid substitution. Using finite difference modelling, we generate 2D acoustic gathers for each model, which serve as input for our machine learning (ML) framework. An unsupervised autoencoder learns latent features from 900 training gathers (validated on the remaining 100 gathers). A regression model (ML1) maps latent features to geologic/leakage parameters, generalizing to 100 new, unseen models. It recovers latent features closely as training loss drops from 9.67 to 0.029 and validation loss to 0.026. A binary classifier (ML2) detects leakage from ML1-predicted features, achieving 80% validation accuracy, but exhibits weak probability calibration, as the training loss decreases from 0.69 to 0.67, consistent with the limited dataset (90 training / 10 validation). Applied to Sleipner 2001 monitor baseline data (expected contained), ML2 returns a leakage probability of 51%, despite its weak performance and domain shift from synthetic to real data. This indicates that synthetic-trained models can distinguish between leaky and contained responses at the threshold level; however, robust deployment will require broader and more diverse training data. This framework provides a path to quantify sensitivity and define detection limits for monitoring CO leakage.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.202585018
2025-10-21
2026-01-17
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Arts, R., Eiken, O., Chadwick, A., Zweigel, P., van der Meer, B. and Zinszner, B. [2004] Monitoring of CO₂ injected at Sleipner using time-lapse seismic data. Energy, 29(9–10), 1383–1392.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Cartwright, J., Huuse, M. and Aplin, A. [2007] Seal bypass systems. AAPG Bulletin, 91(8), 1141–1166.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Cathles, L.M., Su, Z. and Chen, D. [2010] Corrigendum to “The physics of gas chimney and pockmark formation, with implications for assessment of seafloor hazards and gas sequestration”. Marine and Petroleum Geology, 27(4), 993–994.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Chadwick, A., Arts, R., Eiken, O., Kirby, G., Zweigel, P. and Lindeberg, E. [2010] Quantitative analysis of time-lapse seismic monitoring data at the Sleipner CO2 storage operation. The Leading Edge, 29(2), 170–177.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Ghaderi, A., Bercich, R. and Landrø, M. [2012] Sensitivity analysis of time-lapse seismic data for monitoring CO₂ storage. Geophysics, 77(2), M1–M14.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. IEA. [2022] Global Status of CCS 2022. International Energy Agency.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. IEAGHG [2024] Geological Storage of CO2: Seal Integrity Review. IEAGHG Technical Report, 2024-06, September 2024.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. IPCC. [2005] Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage. Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Molnar, P., Mclennan, J., Garcia, S., Vandeweijer, V. and Ringrose, P. [2021] Interpretable machine learning reveals geophysical controls on CO2 plume behaviour. Computers & Geosciences, 150, 104715.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Moseley, B., Markham, A. and Nissen-Meyer, T. [2020] Machine learning for fast domain adaptation in seismic wave simulation. Geophysics, 85(6), T315–T329.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Ringrose, P. [2020] How to Store CO2 Underground: Insights from Early-Mover CCS Projects. Springer.
    [Google Scholar]
/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.202585018
Loading
/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.202585018
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