1887

Abstract

Summary

Effective monitoring strategies are essential for demonstrating containment and conformance in carbon capture, utilization, and storage (CCUS) operations to meet regulatory requirements. A comprehensive approach necessitates a toolbox of monitoring solutions, among which passive seismic monitoring plays a critical role in assessing containment and stress changes associated with CO injection. This study evaluates the benefits of a hybrid seismic monitoring approach when setting up a MMV plan for CCUS applications. A hybrid system integrates surface-based instruments (seismometers and accelerometers) with downhole monitoring components, including fiber optic arrays, 15 Hz geophone arrays, and low-frequency geophones. The combined approach enhances the detection of microseismic events (−M) to larger-scale seismicity (M+), improves depth accuracy, and increases sensitivity to microseismic activity. Additionally, downhole geophone arrays, depending on their configuration, enable real-time monitoring of caprock and casing integrity. By capturing the full spectrum of seismicity, hybrid monitoring systems provide critical insights for containment assurance and risk mitigation. This paper presents real-world data from CCUS projects and other subsurface injection operations to illustrate the advantages of hybrid seismic monitoring. The findings highlight the effectiveness of hybrid systems in improving the resolution and reliability of seismic data, thereby supporting the safe and efficient deployment of CCUS technologies.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.202585023
2025-10-21
2026-01-22
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. BabaieMahani, A., and H.Kao (2019). Accurate Determination of Local Magnitude for Earthquakes in the Western Canada Sedimentary Basin, Seismological Research Letters, Vol. 90, No. 1, p. 203–211.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Bethmann, F., N.Deichmann, and P. M.Mai (2011). Scaling relations of local magnitude versus moment magnitude for sequences of similar earthquakes in Switzerland, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 101, 515–534.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Edwards, B., B.Allmann, D.Fah, and J.Clinton (2010). Automatic computation of moment magnitudes for small earthquakes and the scaling of local to moment magnitude, Geophys. J. Int. 183, 407–420.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Hanks, T. C., & Kanamori, H. (1979). A moment magnitude scale. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 84(B5), 2348–2350.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Kanamori, H. (1977). The energy release in great earthquakes. Journal of geophysical research, 82(20), 2981–2987.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Nicol, Andy & Seebeck, H. & McNamara, David & Field, B.. (2016). Fault Permeability.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Ross, Z. E., Y. Ben-Zion, M. C.White, and F. L.Vernon (2016). Analysis of earthquake body wave spectra for potency and magnitude values: Implications for magnitude scaling relations, Geophys. J. Int. 207, 1158–1164.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Silver, P. G., & Jordan, T. H. (1982). Optimal estimation of scalar seismic moment. Geophysical Journal International, 70(3), 755–787.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Yenier, Emrah. (2017). A Local Magnitude Relation for Earthquakes in the Western Canada Sedimentary Basin. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America. 107. 10.1785/0120160275.
    https://doi.org/10.1785/0120160275 [Google Scholar]
/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.202585023
Loading
/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.202585023
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