1887

Abstract

Summary

This work emphasizes fast, interactive fluid-migration simulation to evaluate trap capacity and containment under multiple geological assumptions. Using a top-reservoir surface as the structural framework, we couple a combined spill-point and seal analysis with an invasion–percolation algorithm to route buoyant phases and compute trap fill, spill destination, and leakage pathways in real time (after ). Users vary fault behaviour (sealing, passing, or leaking), capillary entry pressures, column height limits, fluid properties, and entry locations; each change instantaneously updates closures reached, maximum fill levels, gross rock volume and derived net pore volumes, and predicted escape routes along faults. Scenario ensembles quantify sensitivity to uncertain parameters and support probabilistic screening by comparing volumes and risks across best-, base-, and worst-case configurations, including the impact of fault-seal uncertainty on retained column height. Crucially, the workflow maintains a direct link to the underlying seismic data, so every scenario can be cross-checked directly against seismic observations, including DHI responses, AVO behaviour, amplitude conformance to structure and attribute anomalies. This tight loop enables iteration from seismic to simulation, refinement of fault and horizon geometries when mismatches arise, and systematic ranking of scenarios whose simulated accumulations are most consistent with independent seismic evidence.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.202639033
2026-03-09
2026-02-16
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Anthonsen, K.L., Aagaard, P., Bergmo, P.E.S, Gislason, S.R., Lothe, A.E., Mortensen, G.M., and Snæbjörnsdóttir, S.Ó. [2014]. Characterisation and selection of the most prospective CO₂ storage sites in the Nordic region. Energy Procedia, 63, 4884–4896.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Abrahamsen, P., Hauge, R., Heggland, K., and Mostad, P. [1998]. Uncertain cap rock geometry, spill point, and gross rock volume. SPE-49286-MS
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Chopra, S., and Marfurt, K. J. [2007]. Seismic attributes for prospect identification and reservoir characterization. SEG Geophysical Developments Series No. 11.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Lacaze, S., Pauget, F., Lopez, M., Gay, A., and Mangue, M. [2011]. Seismic stratigraphic interpretation from a geological model – A North Sea case study. SEG-2011
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Miocic, J. M., Johnson, G., and Bond, C. E. [2019]. Uncertainty in fault seal parameters: implications for CO₂ column height retention and storage capacity. Solid Earth, 10(3), 951–967.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Pauget, F., Lacaze, S., and Valding, T. [2009]. A global approach in seismic interpretation based on cost function minimization. In: SEG International Exposition and Annual Meeting.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Riis, F., Halland, E. K., Johansen, W. T., et al. [2019]. Site selection and characterization for large-scale CO₂ storage on the Norwegian Continental Shelf. Energy Procedia, 146, 29–36.
    [Google Scholar]
/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.202639033
Loading
/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.202639033
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