Engineering topics

Li, Yaoguo

Publications and source records attributed to Li, Yaoguo.

7 records

DOE OSTI2024

Electromagnetic inversion for a baseline conductivity model at the Kemper CarbonSAFE site

Geophysics is one component of a successful monitoring strategy for carbon storage sites. Seismic surveys are a common element of these strategies, with repeat surveys occurring about every 5 years. However, seismic is expensive, the sensitivity to CO2 saturation is limited, and it requires a large footprint on the surface (Yurikov et al., 2022). Electromagnetic (EM) methods offer repeat surveys at a significantly lower cost, the ability to utilize airborne methods to increase coverage, and potentially provide enough information to increase the time between seismic surveys. Specifically, we focus on semi-airborne EM, with a grounded dipole transmitter, and airborne magnetic field receivers as described and modeled in Kohnke et al. (2023).

Kohnke, Colton↗

DOE OSTI2024

3D modeling of deep borehole electromagnetic measurements with energized casing source for fracture mapping at the Utah Frontier Observatory for Research in Geothermal Energy

Here, we present a 3D numerical modelling analysis evaluating the deployment of a borehole electromagnetic measurement tool to detect and image a stimulated zone at the Utah Frontier Observatory for Research in Geothermal Energy geothermal site. As the depth to the geothermal reservoir is several kilometres and the size of the stimulated zone is limited to several 100 m, surface-based controlled-source electromagnetic measurements lack the sensitivity for detecting changes in electrical resistivity caused by the stimulation. To overcome the limitation, the study evaluates the feasibility of using a three-component borehole magnetic receiver system at the Frontier Observatory for Research in Geothermal Energy site. To provide sufficient currents inside and around the enhanced geothermal reservoir, we use an injection well as an energized casing source. To efficiently simulate energizing the injection well in a realistic 3D resistivity model, we introduce a novel modelling workflow that leverages the strengths of both 3D cylindrical-mesh-based electromagnetic modelling code and 3D tetrahedral-mesh-based electromagnetic modelling code. The former is particularly well-suited for modelling hollow cylindrical objects like casings, whereas the latter excels at representing more complex 3D geological structures. In this workflow, our initial step involves computing current densities along a vertical steel-cased well using a 3D cylindrical electromagnetic modelling code. Subsequently, we distribute a series of equivalent current sources along the well's trajectory within a complex 3D resistivity model. We then discretize this model using a tetrahedral mesh and simulate the borehole electromagnetic responses excited by the casing source using a 3D finite-element electromagnetic code. This multi-step approach enables us to simulate 3D casing source electromagnetic responses within a complex 3D resistivity model, without the need for explicit discretization of the well using an excessive number of fine cells. We discuss the applicability and limitations of this proposed workflow within an electromagnetic modelling scenario where an energized well is deviated, such as at the Frontier Observatory for Research in Geothermal Energy site. Using the workflow, we demonstrate that the combined use of the energized casing source and the borehole electromagnetic receiver system offer measurable magnetic field amplitudes and sensitivity to the deep localized stimulated zone. The measurements can also distinguish between parallel-fracture anisotropic reservoirs and isotropic cases, providing valuable insights into the fracture system of the stimulated zone. Besides the magnetic field measurements, vertical electric field measurements in the open well sections are also highly sensitive to the stimulated zone and can be used as additional data for detecting and imaging the target. We can also acquire additional multiple-source data by grounding the surface electrode at various locations and repeating borehole electromagnetic measurements. This approach can increase the number of monitoring data by several factors, providing a more comprehensive dataset for analysing the deep-localized stimulated zone. The numerical analysis indicates that it is feasible to use the combination of the energized casing and downhole electromagnetic measurements in monitoring localized stimulated zone at large depths.

58 GEOSCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2023

Feasibility of FDEM cross-dipole and TDEM loop sources for monitoring CO 2 at the Kemper CarbonSAFE site

Electromagnetics has been shown to be a viable tool to monitor CO 2 plumes embedded in saline reservoirs. However, the majority of studies focus on measuring the electric field, which requires cumbersome equipment in the field and it is difficult to install permanent measurement stations. Magnetic field receivers offer an opportunity to reduce the form factor of the survey and increase the mobility by utilizing upcoming technologies, such as drones. We explore the use of frequency-domain electric dipole sources, and timedomain loops with a focus on measuring the secondary magnetic field at the surface for a conceptual injection scenario based on the Kemper CarbonSAFE site. We find that electric dipole sources give a response above the sensitivity of current sensor technology and, therefore, be a viable tool for CO 2 monitoring. The time domain loop source does provide fields that are useful for determining the location of the CO 2 plume, however the field magnitude is below the sensitivity of the current generation of instruments. To explore the use of a potential borehole receiver we generate a map of the magnetic field at depth to explore potential borehole placement for monitoring efforts. Finally, we limit the spatial extent of the electric dipole survey to a single parcel of land to help understand how the fields change with survey geometry. We find that the shape of the secondary fields change slightly with the small transmitter, but are still measurable provided that the cultural noise at the site is low. Thus, we conclude that at the Kemper site a frequency-domain cross-dipole source with magnetometer receivers is suitable to monitor the expansion of the CO 2 plume in the saline reservoir, even with a limited transmitter footprint on the surface.

58 GEOSCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2023

The Kimberlina synthetic multiphysics dataset for CO 2 monitoring investigations

Abstract We present a synthetic multi‐scale, multi‐physics dataset constructed from the Kimberlina 1.2 CO 2 reservoir model based on a potential CO 2 storage site in the Southern San Joaquin Basin of California. Among 300 models, one selected reservoir‐simulation scenario produces hydrologic‐state models at the onset and after 20 years of CO 2 injection. Subsequently, these models were transformed into geophysical properties, including P‐ and S‐wave seismic velocities, saturated density where the saturating fluid can be a combination of brine and supercritical CO 2 , and electrical resistivity using established empirical petrophysical relationships. From these 3D distributions of geophysical properties, we have generated synthetic time‐lapse seismic, gravity and electromagnetic responses with acquisition geometries that mimic realistic monitoring surveys and are achievable in actual field situations. We have also created a series of synthetic well logs of CO 2 saturation, acoustic velocity, density and induction resistivity in the injection well and three monitoring wells. These were constructed by combining the low‐frequency trend of the geophysical models with the high‐frequency variations of actual well logs collected at the potential storage site. In addition, to better calibrate our datasets, measurements of permeability and pore connectivity have been made on cores of Vedder Sandstone, which forms the primary reservoir unit. These measurements provide the range of scales in the otherwise synthetic dataset to be as close to a real‐world situation as possible. This dataset consisting of the reservoir models, geophysical models, simulated time‐lapse geophysical responses and well logs forms a multi‐scale, multi‐physics testbed for designing and testing geophysical CO 2 monitoring systems as well as for imaging and characterization algorithms. The suite of numerical models and data have been made publicly available for downloading on the National Energy Technology Laboratory's (NETL) Energy Data Exchange (EDX) website.

58 GEOSCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2022

NETL Plastic Pipes Project - June 2022 Progress Report

Plastic or composite pipelines have been the bane of the utility locating industry because conduits are neither conductive nor magnetic, which are the properties traditionally used to locate buried utilities. Ground penetrating radar (GPR) is an effective geophysical tool for locating plastic/composite pipeline where the resistive cover allows for adequate penetration of radar energy. However, GPR cannot be used in areas where the soil cover is conductive due to significant clay and/or salt content. This study takes a comprehensive look at near-surface geophysical methods that potentially are useful for locating buried plastic/composite pipelines, either singly or in combination with other geophysical methods. Specifically, this modeling study uses computational numerical methods to forward model the response of GPR, resistivity, seismic, and gravity gradiometry methods to plastic/composite pipelines for various scenarios including: (1) pipe diameters ranging between 2 in. to 12 in.; (2) burial depths ranging between 3 ft to 4 ft; (3) various degrees in contrast in physical properties (i.e., permittivity, elasticity, electrical resistivity, density); and (4) various experimental acquisition choices (e.g., GPR radar frequencies, seismic source frequency, electrode spacing).

47 OTHER INSTRUMENTATION↗

DOE OSTI2022

Kimberlina 1.2 CCUS Geophysical Models and Synthetic Data Sets

This synthetic multi-scale and multi-physics data set was produced in collaboration with teams at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, National Energy Technology Laboratory, Los Alamos National Laboratory, and Colorado School of Mines through the Science-informed Machine Learning for Accelerating Real-Time Decisions in Subsurface Applications (SMART) Initiative. Data are associated with the following publication: Alumbaugh, D., Gasperikova, E., Crandall, D., Commer, M., Feng, S., Harbert, W., Li, Y., Lin, Y., and Samarasinghe, S., “The Kimberlina Synthetic Geophysical Model and Data Set for CO2 Monitoring Investigations”, The Geoscience Data Journal, 2023, DOI: 10.1002/gdj3.191. The dataset uses the Kimberlina 1.2 CO2 reservoir flow model simulations based on a hypothetical CO2 storage site in California (Birkholzer et al., 2011; Wainwright et al., 2013). Geophysical properties models (P- and S-wave seismic velocities, saturated density, and electrical resistivity) were produced with an approach similar to that of Yang et al. (2019) and Gasperikova et al. (2022) for 100 Kimberlina 1.2 reservoir models. Links to individual resources are provided below: [CO2 Saturation Models](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-co2-saturation-models); Resistivity Models – [part 1](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-resistivity-models-part-1), [part 2](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-resistivity-models-part-2), and [part 3](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-resistivity-models-part-3); [Vp Velocity Models](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-vp-velocity-models); [Vs Velocity Models](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-vs-velocity-models); [Density Models](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-density-models). The 3D distributions of geophysical properties for the 33 time stamps of the SIM001 model were used to generate synthetic seismic, gravity, and electromagnetic (EM) responses for 33 times between zero and 200 years. Synthetic surface seismic data were generated using 2D and 3D finite-difference codes that simulate the acoustic wave equation (Moczo et al., 2007). 2D data were simulated for six point-pressure sources along a 2D line with 10 m receiver spacing and a time spacing of 0.0005 s. 3D simulations were completed for 25 surface pressure sources using a source separation of 1 km in both the x and y directions and a time spacing of 0.001 s. Links to individual resources are provided below: [2D velocity models](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-2d-velocity-models) and [2D surface seismic data](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-2d-surface-seismic-data). [3D velocity models](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-velocity-models), and 3D seismic data [year0](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year0), [year1](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year1), [year2](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year2), [year5](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year5), [year10](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year10), [year15](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year15), [year20](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year20), [year25](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year25), [year30](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year30), [year35](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year35), [year40](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year40), [year45](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year45), [year49](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year49), [year50](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year50), [year51](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year51), [year52](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year52), [year55](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year55), [year60](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year60), [year65](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year65), [year70](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year70), [year75](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year75), [year80](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year80), [year85](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year85), [year90](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year90), [year95](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year95), [year100](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year100), [year110](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year110), [year120](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year120), [year130](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year130), [year140](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year140), [year150](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year150), [year175](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year175), [year200](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year200). The Python scripts to read these models and data are provided [here](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-python-scripts). EM simulations used a borehole-to-surface survey configuration, with the source located near the reservoir level and receivers on the surface using the code developed by Commer and Newman (2008). Pseudo-2D data for the source at [2500 m](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-pseudo-2d-csem-data-tz2500m) and [3025 m](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-pseudo-2d-csem-data-tz3025m), used a 2D inline receiver configuration to simulate a response over 3D resistivity models. The [3D data](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-csem-data) contain electric fields generated by borehole sources at monitoring well locations and measured over a surface receiver grid. Vector gravity data, both on the surface and in boreholes, were simulated using a modeling code developed by Rim and Li (2015). The simulation scenarios were parallel to those used for the EM: [pseudo-2D data](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-gravity-data) were calculated along the same lines and within the same boreholes, and [3D data](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-gravity-data) were simulated over 3D models on the surface and in three monitoring wells. A series of [synthetic well logs](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-well-logs) of CO2 saturation, acoustic velocity, density, and induction resistivity in the injection well and three monitoring wells are also provided at 0, 1, 2, 5, 10, 15, and 20 years after the initiation of injection. These were constructed by combining the low-frequency trend of the geophysical models with the high-frequency variations of actual well logs collected in the Kimberlina 1 well that was drilled at the proposed site. Measurements of permeability and pore connectivity were made on cores of Vedder Sandstone, which forms the primary reservoir unit: [CT micro scans](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-ct-micro-scans-of-vedder-formation) and [Industrial CT Images](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-industrial-ct-images-vedder-formation). These measurements provide the range of scales in the otherwise synthetic data set to be as close to a real-world situation as possible. References: Birkholzer, J.T., Zhou, Q., Cortis, A. and Finsterle, S., 2011. A sensitivity study on regional pressure buildup from large-scale CO2 storage projects. Energy Procedia, 4, 4371-4378. Commer, M., and Newman, G.A., 2008. New advances in three-dimensional controlled-source electromagnetic inversion, Geophysical Journal International, 172, 513-535. Gasperikova, E., Appriou, D., Bonneville, A., Feng, Z., Huang, L., Gao, K., Yang, X., Daley, T., 2022, Sensitivity of geophysical techniques for monitoring secondary CO2 storage plumes, Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control, Volume 114, 103585, ISSN 1750-5836, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2022.103585. Moczo, P., J.O. Robertsson and L. Eisner, 2007, The finite-difference time-domain method for modeling of seismic wave propagation: Advances in geophysics, 48, 421-516. Rim, H., and Y. Li, 2015, Advantages of borehole vector gravity in density imaging, Geophysics, 80, G1-G13. Wainwright, H. M.; Finsterle, S.; Zhou, Q.; Birkholzer, J. T., 2013. Modeling the Performance of Large-Scale CO2 Storage Systems: A Comparison of Different Sensitivity Analysis Methods. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 17, 189205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2013.05.007, DOI: 10.18141/1603331. Yang, X., Buscheck, T.A., Mansoor, K., Wang, Z., Gao, K., Huang, L., Appriou, D., and Carroll, S.A., 2019. Assessment of geophysical monitoring methods for detection of brine and CO2 leakage in drinking water aquifers, International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 90, 102803, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2019.102803.

CCUS↗

DOE OSTI2022

Deep learning multiphysics network for imaging CO 2 saturation and estimating uncertainty in geological carbon storage

Multiphysics inversion exploits different types of geophysical data that often complement each other and aims to improve overall imaging resolution and reduce uncertainties in geophysical interpretation. Despite the advantages, traditional multiphysics inversion is challenging because it requires a large amount of computational time and intensive human interactions for preprocessing data and finding trade-off parameters. These issues make it nearly impossible for traditional multiphysics inversion to be applied as a real-time monitoring tool for geological carbon storage. In this paper, we present a deep learning (DL) multiphysics network for imaging CO 2 saturation in real time. The multiphysics network consists of three encoders for analysing seismic, electromagnetic and gravity data and shares one decoder for combining imaging capabilities of the different geophysical data for better predicting CO 2 saturation. The network is trained on pairs of CO 2 label models and multiphysics data so that it can directly image CO 2 saturation. Here we use the bootstrap aggregating method to enhance the imaging accuracy and estimate uncertainties associated with CO 2 saturation images. Using realistic CO 2 label models and multiphysics data derived from the Kimberlina CO 2 storage model, we evaluate the performance of the deep learning multiphysics network and compare its imaging results to those from the deep learning single-physics networks. Our modelling experiments show that the deep learning multiphysics network for seismic, electromagnetic, and gravity data not only improves the imaging accuracy but also reduces uncertainties associated with CO 2 saturation images. Our results also suggest that the deep learning multiphysics network for the non-seismic data (i.e., electromagnetic and gravity) can be used as an effective low-cost monitoring tool in between regular seismic monitoring.

58 GEOSCIENCES↗