Hollow-core photonics crystal fiber for CO2 leakage monitoring
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Energy, Lasers, Environmental sciences↗
SEARCH · Engineering Papers
Results for “CO2 monitoring”
Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.
Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.
Distributed chemical sensing for CO2 leakage monitoring
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Engineering - Electronic and electrical engineerin↗
Monitoring well integrity at the Cranfield field phase III CO2 storage project
Not provided.
Energy & Fuels↗
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↗
Stem CO2 Efflux measurements from Manaus, Brazil, 2017
This data was collected in order to test the effects of temperatures on the autotrophic respiratory process in the tropics. This data package contains raw real-time stem CO2 efflux files during the night and day from 3 different species near the K34 in Manaus during the day and the night. Raw and derived data files are included in the format of .csv and .xlsx and information about the canopy trees and temperatures recorded can be found in the field event log using microsoft excel. The data was collected from three canopy dominant trees in the central Amazon near the K34 tower. Real-time stem CO2 efflux was determined using a Li7000 gas analyzer configured in differential mode and connected to a dynamic stem chamber secured to the stem at breast height using straps to generate a reasonable seal. Ambient air was continuously pumped into the stem chamber and CO2 concentrations of the air entering and exiting the chamber were continuously monitored. CO2 efflux was calculated based on the CO2 concentration difference between ambient and stem chambers, the flow rate of air through the chamber, and the area of the enclosed stem. Additional auxiliary data, including sap flow and crown temperature were also measured. No data processing or QA/QC was done on the raw data packages.
54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
Application of Electromagnetic Methods for Reservoir Monitoring with Emphasis on Carbon Capture, Utilization, and Storage
The Controlled-Source ElectroMagnetic (CSEM) method provides crucial information about reservoir fluids and their spatial distribution. Carbon dioxide (CO2) storage, enhanced oil recovery (EOR), geothermal exploration, and lithium exploration are ideal applications for the CSEM method. The versatility of CSEM permits its customization to specific reservoir objectives by selecting the appropriate components of a multi-component system. To effectively tailor the CSEM approach, it is essential to determine whether the primary target reservoir is resistive or conductive. This task is relatively straightforward in CO2 monitoring, where the injected fluid is resistive. However, for scenarios involving brine-saturated (water-wet) or oil-wet (carbon capture, utilization, and storage—CCUS) reservoirs, consideration must also be given to conductive reservoir components. The optimization of data acquisition before the survey involves analyzing target parameters and the sensitivity of multi-component CSEM. This optimization process typically includes on-site noise measurements and 3D anisotropic modeling. Based on our experience, subsequent surveys tend to proceed smoothly, yielding robust measurements that align with scientific objectives. Other critical aspects to be considered are using magnetotelluric (MT) measurements to define the overall background resistivities and integrating real-time quality assurance during data acquisition with 3D modeling. This integration allows the fine tuning of acquisition parameters such as acquisition time and necessary repeats. As a result, data can be examined in real-time to assess subsurface information content while the acquisition is ongoing. Consequently, high-quality data sets are usually obtained for subsequent processing and initial interpretation with minimal user intervention. The implementation of sensitivity analysis during the inversion process plays a pivotal role in ensuring that the acquired data accurately respond to the target reservoirs’ expected depth range. To elucidate these concepts, we present an illustrative example from a CO2 storage site in North Dakota, USA, wherein the long-offset transient electromagnetic method (LOTEM), a variation of the CSEM method, and the MT method were utilized. This example showcases how surface measurements attain appropriately upscaled log-scale sensitivity. Furthermore, the sensitivity of the CSEM and MT methods was examined in other case histories, where the target reservoirs exhibited conductive properties, such as those encountered in enhanced oil recovery (EOR), geothermal, and lithium exploration applications. The same equipment specifications were utilized for CSEM and MT surveys across all case studies.
Barajas-Olalde, César↗
Towards real-time monitoring: data assimilated time-lapse full waveform inversion for seismic velocity and uncertainty estimation
SUMMARY Rapid development of time-lapse seismic monitoring instrumentations has made it possible to collect dense time-lapse data for tomographically retrieving time-lapse (even continuous) images of subsurface changes. While traditional time-lapse full waveform inversion (TLFWI) algorithms are designed for sparse time-lapse surveys, they lack of effective temporal constraint on time-lapse data, and, more importantly, lack of the uncertainty estimation of the TLFWI results that is critical for further interpretation. Here, we propose a new data assimilation TLFWI method, using hierarchical matrix powered extended Kalman filter (HiEKF) to quantify the image uncertainty. Compared to existing Kalman filter algorithms, HiEKF allows to store and update a data-sparse representation of the cross-covariance matrices and propagate model errors without expensive operations involving covariance matrices. Hence, HiEKF is computationally efficient and applicable to 3-D TLFWI problems. Then, we reformulate TLFWI in the framework of HiEKF (termed hereafter as TLFWI-HiEKF) to predict time-lapse images of subsurface spatiotemporal velocity changes and simultaneously quantify the uncertainty of the inverted velocity changes over time. We demonstrate the validity and applicability of TLFWI–HiEKF with two realistic CO2 monitoring models derived from Frio-II and Cranfield CO2 injection sites, respectively. In both 2-D and 3-D examples, the inverted high-resolution time-lapse velocity results clearly reveal a continuous velocity reduction due to the injection of CO2. Moreover, the accuracy of the model is increasing over time by assimilating more time-lapse data while the standard deviation is decreasing over lapsed time. We expect TLFWI-HiEKF to be equipped with real-time seismic monitoring systems for continuously imaging the distribution of subsurface gas and fluids in the future large-scale CO2 sequestration experiments and reservoir management.
58 GEOSCIENCES↗
Assessing the Value of Seismic Amplitude Versus Offset (AVO) Attributes for CO2 Storage Project Using a Bayesian Network Model for Decision Support
Attributes versus offset (AVO) are a set of measurements to analyze how the characteristics of reflected seismic waves change as a function of the offset. It can be useful for monitoring CO2 storage sites because the presence of leaked CO2 into the overlying aquifer can change the properties of the rocks and pore fluids composition that can alter the way seismic waves reflect and their amplitudes. The time-lapse changes in AVO attributes derived from repeat seismic surveys can help identify anomalies or shifts in the subsurface that could potentially be used as an indicator for CO2 leak detection. Our study leverages multiple seismic attributes derived from synthetic seismic data and Bayesian network model to quantify the probability of leak detection in the overlying aquifer above the storage reservoir. It helps to quantify the value of individual seismic attributes at multiple monitoring periods based upon their sensitivities.
Kumar, Abhash↗
AmeriFlux US-Jo1 Jornada Experimental Range Bajada Site
This is the AmeriFlux version of the carbon flux data for the site US-Jo1 Jornada Experimental Range Bajada Site. Site Description - The Jornada Basin Experimental Range (JER) covers 783 km2 in the La Jornada del Muerto Plain of the northern Chihuahuan Desert and is located 20km of Las Cruces, NM. Extensive livestock grazing at the JER and througout the US Southwest was coincident with large-scale grassland deterioration and transition to shrubland begining in the 1800s. The JER was established n 1912 to investigate these rangeland changes and has since become a central location for understanding dryland ecology. This flux tower monitors CO2 and H2O dynamics in a representative shrubland on the piedmont slope (bajada) of the San Andreas mountains. The dominant shrubs are evergreen Larrea tridentata (Creosote) and winter-deciduous Prosopis glandulosa (Honey Mesquite). Other cover types include Flourensia cernua (tarbush) and patchy occurences of the grasses Muhlenbergia porteri (Bush Muhly) and Dasyochloa pulchella (Fluff Grass). The site is occasionally visited by stray domestic cattle, free-ranging introduced Oryx, and other native herbivores (Jack Rabbits, Desert Pronghorn). Soils at the site are Ustic Calciargids and parent material consists of limestone, other sedimentary rock, and some igneous rock. Virtual Site Visit: https://youtu.be/v1uJCKuicqs
Tweedie, Craig↗
AmeriFlux FLUXNET-1F US-Jo1 Jornada Experimental Range Bajada Site
This is the AmeriFlux Management Project (AMP) created FLUXNET-1F version of the carbon flux data for the site US-Jo1 Jornada Experimental Range Bajada Site. This is the FLUXNET version of the carbon flux data for the site US-Jo1 Jornada Experimental Range Bajada Site produced by applying the standard ONEFlux (1F) software. Site Description - The Jornada Basin Experimental Range (JER) covers 783 km2 in the La Jornada del Muerto Plain of the northern Chihuahuan Desert and is located 20km of Las Cruces, NM. Extensive livestock grazing at the JER and througout the US Southwest was coincident with large-scale grassland deterioration and transition to shrubland begining in the 1800s. The JER was established n 1912 to investigate these rangeland changes and has since become a central location for understanding dryland ecology. This flux tower monitors CO2 and H2O dynamics in a representative shrubland on the piedmont slope (bajada) of the San Andreas mountains. The dominant shrubs are evergreen Larrea tridentata (Creosote) and winter-deciduous Prosopis glandulosa (Honey Mesquite). Other cover types include Flourensia cernua (tarbush) and patchy occurences of the grasses Muhlenbergia porteri (Bush Muhly) and Dasyochloa pulchella (Fluff Grass). The site is occasionally visited by stray domestic cattle, free-ranging introduced Oryx, and other native herbivores (Jack Rabbits, Desert Pronghorn). Soils at the site are Ustic Calciargids and parent material consists of limestone, other sedimentary rock, and some igneous rock. Virtual Site Visit: https://youtu.be/v1uJCKuicqs
Tweedie, Craig↗
Farnsworth Unit CO2 Soil-Gas Flux Data
CO2 soil flux data collected from Farnsworth Unit field, Ochiltree County, Texas between 11/2013 and 06/2024.
CO2 monitoring↗
Seismic Monitoring at the Farnsworth CO2-EOR Field Using Time-Lapse Elastic-Waveform Inversion of 3D-3C VSP Data
During the Development Phase of the U.S. Southwest Regional Partnership on Carbon Sequestration, supercritical CO2 was continuously injected into the deep oil-bearing Morrow B formation of the Farnsworth Unit in Texas for Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR). The project injected approximately 94 kilotons of CO2 to study geologic carbon storage during CO2-EOR. A three-dimensional (3D) surface seismic dataset was acquired in 2013 to characterize the subsurface structures of the Farnsworth site. Following this data acquisition, the baseline and three time-lapse three-dimensional three-component (3D-3C) vertical seismic profiling (VSP) data were acquired at a narrower surface area surrounding the CO2 injection and oil/gas production wells between 2014 and 2017 for monitoring CO2 injection and migration. With these VSP datasets, we inverted for subsurface velocity models to quantitatively monitor the CO2 plume within the Morrow B formation. We first built 1D initial P-wave (Vp) and S-wave (Vs) velocity models by upscaling the sonic logs. We improved the deep region of the Vp and Vs models by incorporating the deep part of a migration velocity model derived from the 3D surface seismic data. We improved the shallow region of 3D Vp and Vs models using 3D traveltime tomography of first arrivals of VSP downgoing waves. We further improved the 3D baseline velocity models using elastic-waveform inversion (EWI) of the 3D baseline VSP upgoing data. Our advanced EWI method employs alternative tomographic and conventional gradients and total-variation-based regularization to ensure the high-fidelity updates of the 3D baseline Vp and Vs models. We then sequentially applied our 3D EWI method to the three time-lapse datasets to invert for spatiotemporal changes of Vp and Vs in the reservoir. Our inversion results reveal the volumetric changes of the time-lapse Vp and Vs models and show the evolution of the CO2 plume from the CO2 injection well to the oil/gas production wells.
42 ENGINEERING↗
Interpreting strain tensor data to characterize and monitor reservoirs for CO2 storage and other applications
Recent advances in instrumentation have made it feasible to measure the transient strain tensor caused by small changes in fluid volume or pressure in the subsurface and this has opened the door to new opportunities for characterization and monitoring. We have deployed strainmeters and then conducted injection well tests in an underlying reservoir at 530m depth. The resulting data indicated that the horizontal strain at shallow strainmeters (30 to 40m depth) was tensile and the vertical strain was compressive. The radial strain was less than the horizontal strain, and the strain rates decreased from 100 nanostrain/day to roughly 10 n/d over a few days. The signal at two strainmeters at shallow depth were consistent, although the magnitude of the horizontal strains were different reflecting the different radial directions from the well. The signal at a deep strainmeter deployed at reservoir depth was much different, with tensile vertical strains and compressive horizontal strains. These data can be interpreted by inverting poroelastic forward models developed using numerical and analytical methods. The average horizontal strain in the caprock resembles the transient pressure in the underlying reservoir and classic type-curve methods from transient well testing can be used for preliminary interpretations of strain data. We have developed closed-form analytical solutions to a pressurized poroelastic inclusion and inhomogeneity in a half-space. This model is fast and can be inverted to estimate reservoir stiffness and geometry. Numerical models developed using finite element methods allow more details of the subsurface to be included in the inversion, but they require much longer run times and this makes inversion cumbersome using standard methods. We have developed an inversion approach that uses a proxy model created using machine learning to do most of the forward calculations. The proxy model is periodically updated and refined using the finite element model to ensure accuracy. This approach significantly reduces the computational requirements and makes it feasible to use Bayesian inversion with large numerical models. We have shown that the strain tensor in the caprock is sensitive to pressure in the reservoir, boundaries in the reservoir, and pressure in the caprock caused by leaks. These results indicate that coupling strain tensor data with inversion has the potential to help evaluate reservoirs during initial characterization, and to monitor them during the CO2 injection and storage process.
Murdoch, Larry↗
CCUS 2024, Interpreting the strain tensor Larry Murdoch Interpreting strain tensor data to characterize and monitor reservoirs for CO2 storage and other applications
Recent advances in instrumentation have made it feasible to measure the transient strain tensor caused by small changes in fluid volume or pressure in the subsurface and this has opened the door to new opportunities for characterization and monitoring during CCUS. We have demonstrated this method by deploying strainmeters at shallow depths (30 to 40m) and then conducting injection well tests in an underlying reservoir at 530m depth. The resulting data indicated that the horizontal strain at shallow strainmeters was tensile and the vertical strain was compressive. The radial strain was less than the horizontal strain, and the strain rates decreased from 100 nanostrain/day to roughly 10 ne/d over a few days (1 nanostrain = 1 part per billion strain). We then used the strain data to estimate reservoir properties, geometry and pressure through inversion of poroelastic forward models using both numerical and novel analytical methods. The average horizontal strain in the caprock resembles the transient pressure in the underlying reservoir and classic type-curve methods from transient well testing can be used for preliminary interpretations of strain data. We have developed fast, closed-form analytical solutions to a pressurized poroelastic inclusion and inhomogeneity in a half-space. Numerical models developed using finite element methods allow more details of the subsurface to be included in the inversion, but they require much longer run times and this makes inversion cumbersome using standard methods. We have developed an inversion approach that uses a proxy model created using machine learning to do most of the forward calculations. This approach markedly reduces the computational requirements and makes it feasible to use Bayesian inversion with large numerical models. Bayesian inversion is important because it provides predictions with uncertainties, which makes the results useful for decision making. We have shown with field tests and simulations that the strain tensor in the caprock is sensitive to pressure in the reservoir, reservoir properties and boundaries, and pressure in the caprock caused by leaks. These results indicate that measuring and interpreting the shallow strain tensor could be a valuable tool for both initial reservoir characterization efforts and long-term monitoring during CCUS. Recent advances in instrumentation have made it feasible to measure the transient strain tensor caused by small changes in fluid volume or pressure in the subsurface and our objective was to evaluate opportunities for strain monitoring during characterization and monitoring for CCUS. Our approach was to deploy strainmeters at shallow depths (30 to 40m) and then conduct injection well tests in an underlying reservoir at 530m depth. The results indicate that the horizontal strain at shallow strainmeters was tensile and the vertical strain was compressive. The radial strain was less than the horizontal strain, and the strain rates decreased from 100 nanostrain/day to roughly 10 ne/d over a few days (1 nanostrain = 1 part per billion strain). We then used the strain data to estimate reservoir properties, geometry and pressure through inversion of poroelastic forward models using both numerical and novel analytical methods. The average horizontal strain in the caprock resembles the transient pressure in the underlying reservoir and classic type-curve methods from transient well testing can be used for preliminary interpretations of strain data. We have developed fast, closed-form analytical solutions to a pressurized poroelastic inclusion and inhomogeneity in a half-space. Numerical models developed using finite element methods allow more details of the subsurface to be included in the inversion, but they require much longer run times and this makes inversion cumbersome using standard methods. We have developed an inversion approach that uses a proxy model created using machine learning to do most of the forward calculations. This approach markedly reduces the computational requirements and makes it feasible to use Bayesian inversion with large numerical models. Bayesian inversion is important because it provides predictions with uncertainties, which makes the results useful for decision making. In conclusion, we have shown with field tests and simulations that the strain tensor in the caprock is sensitive to pressure in the reservoir, reservoir properties and boundaries, and pressure in the caprock caused by leaks. These results indicate that measuring and interpreting the shallow strain tensor could be a valuable tool for both initial reservoir characterization efforts and long-term monitoring during CCUS.
Murdoch, Larry↗
Sensors Development for pipeline and CO2 transport multi-modal monitoring and leak detection
Roadmap for CO2 Transport Fundamental Research Workshop, Columbus, OH, February 21-23, 2023
Devkota, Jagannath↗
Optimal design of microseismic monitoring network: Synthetic study for the Kimberlina CO2 storage demonstration site
Microseismic monitoring can play a crucial role to ensure safe long-term geological carbon storage. For reliable long-term monitoring for CO2-injection-induced microseismic events, a surface seismic array is desirable in addition to borehole geophone sensors. Optimal design of surface seismic network is of great interest to achieve cost-effective monitoring. We develop a methodology to determine the optimal number of surface seismic stations with a geometrically satisfactory distribution for given monitoring regions. We design an optimal microseismic monitoring network based on widely-accepted guiding principles, and the relationship between the location accuracy of microseismic events and the total number of seismic stations. We determine the optimal number of seismic stations based on the trade-off curve of the event location accuracy vs. the total number of seismic stations. We apply our optimal design method to the Kimberlina carbon storage site in California. We use a synthetic Kimberlina model to show that approximately 20 surface seismic stations with a geometrically satisfactory distribution are preferred for the best trade-off between the cost and the event location accuracy.
58 GEOSCIENCES↗
ML-based Data Assimilation and History Matching: Application to the IBDP CCS Project
It is crucial to monitor the CO2 plume effectively throughout the life cycle of a geologic CO2 sequestration project to ensure safety and storage efficiency. However, the computational cost of existing data assimilation methods can be prohibitively expensive due to the complex physics with multi-component non-isothermal simulation and high dimensionality of large-scale reservoir models. We address this challenge by proposing an accelerated deep learning-based workflow for model calibration and prediction of CO2 plume evolution in the reservoir.The power and efficacy of our workflow is demonstrated by application to the Illinois Basin-Decatur Project (IBDP), a large-scale CO2 storage test in saline aquifer. The data assimilation process is implemented rapidly by the proposed workflow with given field measurements including distributed pressure and temperature sensing (DTS) data at an injection and a monitoring well. CO2 plume evolution is predicted by running the simulations of the calibrated reservoir models.
Nagao, Masahiro↗
Kimberlina 1.2 Velocity Models and Seismic Data
Kimberlina 1.2 Velocity model and synthetic seismic data, produced in collaboration of teams at the National Energy Technology Laboratory, Los Alamos National Laboratory, and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory through the National Risk Assessment Partnership. Data is associated with the following publication: Zheng Zhou, Youzuo Lin, Zhongping Zhang, Yue Wu, Zan Wang, Robert Dilmore, and George Guthrie, "A Data-Driven CO2 Leakage Detection Using Seismic Data and Spatial-Temporal Densely Connected Convolutional Neural Networks," International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, Vol 90, 2019. The Kimberlina 1.2 Velocity models were produced by Zan Wang, Robert Dilmore, William Harbert, and Lianjie Huang at NETL. The following citations are directly related to the creation of the velocity models: Wang, Z. Harbert, W., Dilmore, R., Huang, L. Modeling of time-lapse seismic monitoring using CO2 leakage simulations for a model CO2 storage site with realistic geology: Application in assessment of early leak-detection capabilities. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control. V. 76, September 2018, Pages 39-52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2018.06.011 Wang, Z., Dilmore, R., Harbert, W. Inferring CO2 saturation from synthetic surface seismic and downhole monitoring data using machine learning for leakage detection at CO2 sequestration sites. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, V. 100, September 2020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2020.103115 The velocity models were built based on the Kimberlina 1.2 aquifer impact data which is associated with the following publications: Buscheck, T.A., Mansoor, K., Yang, X., Wainwright, H., and Carroll, S. (2019). Downhole pressure and chemical monitoring for CO2 and brine leak detection in aquifers above a CO2 storage reservoir. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control. 91. 102812. 10.1016/j.ijggc.2019.102812. Xianjin Yang, Thomas A. Buscheck, Kayyum Mansoor, Zan Wang, Kai Gao, Lianjie Huang, Delphine Appriou, Susan A. Carroll, Assessment of geophysical monitoring methods for detection of brine and CO2 leakage in drinking water aquifers, International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, Volume 90, 2019, 102803, ISSN 1750-5836, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2019.102803 The synthetic seismic data was produced by Youzuo Lin and team at LANL, and are associated with the following citations: Jordan, P. D., and J. L. Wagoner. Characterizing Construction of Existing Wells to a CO2 Storage Target: The Kimberlina Site, California. Zheng Zhou, Youzuo Lin, Zhongping Zhang, Yue Wu, Zan Wang, Robert Dilmore, and George Guthrie, "A Data-Driven CO2 Leakage Detection Using Seismic Data and Spatial-Temporal Densely Connected Convolutional Neural Networks," International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, Vol 90, 2019.
CO2 Leakage↗