Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “Kimberlina”

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.

18 records
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2021

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↗
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 OSTI2020

Kimberlina - Regional Static 3D Geologic Model of the Southern San Joaquin Basin

Regional static 3D geologic model of the southern San Joaquin Basin for the Westcarb Kimberlina demonstration project created in Earthvision (DGI, Inc.). Also contains a smaller-scale model from the larger basin domain for the geometry used in Birkholzer et al. (2011). Data sets derived from: Wagoner, J., 2009, 3D geologic modeling of the Southern San Joaquin Basin for the Westcarb Kimberlina demonstration project—A status report: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory LLNL-TR-410813, 27 p. 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, pp.4371-4378. LLNL contact and file inventory creator: Kayyum Mansoor (mansoor1@llnl.gov)

3D Geological Model↗
DOE OSTI2020

Revised Kimberlina Groundwater Simulations

Kimberlina Groundwater Qaulity Simulations (Version 3: 2015 October) by Lawrence Livermore National Labratory. Submitted to the EDX team at the National Energy Technology Laboratory for research use. This dataset contains 562 updated groundwater quality simulations based on the Kimberlina site. It is a six-layer model including the aquifers and aquitards inbetween the ground surface and the reservoir. The input files and associated leakage information for these simulations are included in the zip file "nrap_kim_well31_fluxes and inputs.tar.gz". These 562 simulations are the successful results out of 1000 monte carlo simulations, with time length greater than 5 years. Each simulation consists 6 output files, therefore, there are 3372 files (6*562) in total. One single example simulation of full time length (200 year) is also provided in the zip file "single_simulation_200yr_sim0012.tar.gz". These 6 groundwater quality parameters are: - pH (use absolute value) - TDS (mg/kg) - Pressure (Pa) - CO2 Liquid Saturation (fraction range 0.0-1.0) - CO2 Gas Concentration (mol/L) - CO2 Liquid Concentration (mol/kg) Their correponding file names, take the first simulation for example, are: ph0001.ntab (for pH) , tds0001.ntab (for TDS), usnt0001.p.ntab (for pressure), usnt0001.s_liquid.ntab (for liquid saturation), usnt0001.c_co2_gas.ntab (for CO2 gas concentration) and usnt0001.c_co2_liquid.ntab (for CO2 liquid concentration). Each output file contains at least 19 columns (variables). The total number of columns depends on the simulation time length. The column data include the information of numerical records, geologic location and sizes and the simulated parameter values over time. The first 13 variables are about numerical records and relative geologic information for a simulation grid: 1. index: simulation index 2. i: the ith grid of x-axis 3. j: the jth grid of y-axis 4. k: the kth grid of z-axis 5. element_ref: element type reference 6. nuft_ind: nuft index 7. x: grid location in the x axis direction 8. y: grid location in the y axis direction 9. z: grid location in the z axis direction 10. dx: grid length in the x axis direction 11. dy: grid length in the y axis direction 12. dz: grid length in the z axis direction 13. volume: volume of the simulation grid The rest (14, 15, 16...) variables are the simulated parameter values over time, take pH as an example, are: 14. ph000y: initial pH value. 15. ph001y: simulated pH value at the end of the 1st year. 16. ph002y: simulated pH value at the end of the 2nd year. ... (and so on)... The zip input files have the input fluxes of brine and CO2 (in kg/s) allocated to model layers 1,2,3 and 5 (layers 4 and 6 are assumed to be no-flow aquitards) through the following nodes: (src1 WELL 7 7 25 25 10 32) #Etchegoin (src2 WELL 7 7 25 25 33 72) #Macoma Chanac (src3 WELL 7 7 25 25 73 83) #Santa Margarita Mclure (src4 WELL 7 7 25 25 84 89) #Fruitvale Round Mountain (aquitard) (src5 WELL 7 7 25 25 90 96) #Olcese Sand (thief zone) (src6 WELL 7 7 25 25 97 99) #tremblor Freeman (aquitard) ex: brn1 is assigned to src 1 from i=(7,7), j=(25,25), k=(10,32) Edited by Ya-Mei Yang at National Energy Technology Laboratory

brine leakage↗
DOE OSTI2020

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↗
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 OSTI2020

LLNL Kimberlina 1.2 NUFT Simulations June 2018 (v2)

This dataset contains the output 6,000, 3-dimensional reactive multi-phase flow and transport aquifer simulations of brine and CO2 leakage into a protective aquiver in California’s San Joaquin Valley and input data files detailing the geologic mesh, aquifer physical properties and CO2 and brine injection rates. This data set was generated as an ongoing effort with the US DOE National Risk Assessment Partnership (NRAP) to evaluate the effectiveness of monitoring techniques to detect brine and CO2 leakage from legacy wells into underground sources of drinking water overlaying a CO2 storage reservoir. Each simulation contains a unique set of input parameters, generated stochastically. The outputs consist of these upper three geologic layers (from top): the Etchegoin, Macoma-Chanac, Santa Margarita-McLure formations. These simulations span the several distances (1, 3 and 6 km or wells W31-0.2, W31-0.5 and W31-1.0, respectively) from the CO2 injector, initiated from bottom hole pressure and saturation to calculate wellbore leakage from the storage reservoir, with low and high regional groundwater gradients and wellbore leakage into 5 leaky nodes. The dataset includes 1,000 unique simulations for each distance, which each contain a unique aquifer heterogeneity, aquifer and caprock permeability, and two model generations are included with a high permeability (prod07) and hybrid permeability (prod09). The range of permeability distributions is listed in Table 1. Each model generation consists of 3,000 simulations. Included in the dataset are the leakage rates determined from 2D wellbore models which utilize the pressure and CO2 saturation from LBL's reservoir simulations, NUFT mesh files with distributed lithology, NUFT rocktab files which describe the material properties for the geologic layers and the NUFT input files and post-processed output 'ntab' files. Each ntab file contains spatial (rows) and temporal (columns) model output tables for each model cell, the locations (x,y,z) and dimensions for each cells (dx, dy, dz). Table 1. Permeability distribution ranges for prod07 and prod09 model generations Geologic Layer: Permeability Range (log10 m^2) prod07 prod09 Etchegoin -12.92 to -10.92 -13.70 to -11.44 Macoma-Chanac -12.72 to -10.72 -13.50 to -11.24 Santa Margarita-McLure -12.70 to -10.70 -13.48 to -11.22 The input files used to generate the model include which are included in the dataset are: Time series of CO2 leakage input into the model (ex: Q_brn.W31-0.2.sim1000.layers123.tab) Time series of CO2 leakage input into the model (ex: Q_CO2.W31-0.2.sim1000.layers123.tab) Physical properties of the aquifer materials detailing the aquifer porosity, solid density, partitioning coefficients, permeabilities and van-Genuchten parameters detailed in a NUFT rocktab file: (ex: sim1000.usnt.rocktab) Numerical mesh and geologic data assigned to each model cell detailed in a NUFT genmsh format (ex: sim1000.mesh_k16.prod07.trans.genmsh) The primary output parameters are: pH (use absolute value) Change in TDS (mg/kg) Change in Pressure (Pa) Change CO2 gas saturation (fraction range 0.0-1.0) for example, the directory /p/lscratchh/mansoor1/nrap/kimberlina/prod09/mainfiles/sim1000/W31- 0.2 contains: sim1000.W31-0.2.trans.pH.red.ntab sim1000.W31-0.2.no_bg.trans.TDS.red.ntab sim1000.W31-0.2.usnt.P.deltabg.red.ntab sim1000.W31-0.2.usnt.CO2_sat.deltabg.red.ntab Each row in the NTAB files consist of model output per numerical grid cell. Each output file contains 33 columns (variables), including the information of numerical records, geologic location and sizes and the simulated parameter values over time. The first 13 variables are about numerical records and relative geologic information for a simulation grid: 1. index: simulation index 2. i: the ith grid of x-axis 3. j: the ith grid of y-axis 4. k: the ith grid of z-axis 5. element_ref: element reference 6. nuft_ind: nuft index 7. x: grid location in the x axis direction 8. y: grid location in the y axis direction 9. z: grid location in the z axis direction 10. dx: grid length in the x axis direction 11. dy: grid length in the y axis direction 12. dz: grid length in the z axis direction 13. volume: volume of the simulation grid The remainder (14, 15, 16...) variables are the simulated parameter values over time, take Pressure as an example, are: 14. 0.0y: initial pressure per cell. 15. 10.0y: simulated pressure at the end of the 10th year. 16. 20.0y: simulated pressure at the end of the 20th year. ... (repeated for every 10 years until 200 years)... The model extends 10,000 m, 5,000 m and 1,411 m in the x,y and z dimensions, respectively. The mesh consists of 164,832 cells with mesh dimensions of 101 x 51 x 32 (nx, ny, nz), with cell dimensions ranging from 100 m laterally (along x and y-axis) and model layers are as designated in the z-axis: Layer 1: atmosphere (1e-30 m thick) Layer 2: upper caprock (10 m thick) Layers 3-13: Etchegoin (536.23 m thck) Layers 14-27: Macoma-Chanac (679.04 m thick) Layers 28-32: Santa Margarita-McLure (185.94 m thick) The wellbore is placed along node i=51, j=26, and extends vertically along 5 nodes from the top to the bottom of the model. Special instructions when extracting files: Each Gzip archive (ex: prod07.sim1000-sim00099.tar.gz) contains 100 simulations. Gzip archives should be transferred into base directories (ie. In Linux: mkdir prod07; mv prod07.*.tar.gz prod07/.) before extracting, or files will be overwritten. Each sub-simulation tree should have the following file structure pattern (using the linux 'tree' command): |-- prod07 | |-- sim0001 | |-- W31-0.2 | | |-- Q_brn.W31-0.2.sim0001.layers123.tab | | |-- Q_co2.W31-0.2.sim0001.layers123.tab | | |-- sim0001.W31-0.2.no_bg.trans.TDS.red.ntab | | |-- sim0001.W31-0.2.trans.pH.red.ntab | | |-- sim0001.W31-0.2.usnt.CO2_sat.deltabg.red.ntab | | |-- sim0001.W31-0.2.usnt.P.deltabg.red.ntab | |-- W31-0.5 | | |-- Q_brn.W31-0.5.sim0001.layers123.tab | | |-- Q_co2.W31-0.5.sim0001.layers123.tab | | |-- sim0001.W31-0.5.no_bg.trans.TDS.red.ntab | | |-- sim0001.W31-0.5.trans.pH.red.ntab | | |-- sim0001.W31-0.5.usnt.CO2_sat.deltabg.red.ntab | | |-- sim0001.W31-0.5.usnt.P.deltabg.red.ntab | |-- W31-1.0 | | |-- Q_brn.W31-1.0.sim0001.layers123.tab | | |-- Q_co2.W31-1.0.sim0001.layers123.tab | | |-- sim0001.W31-1.0.no_bg.trans.TDS.red.ntab | | |-- sim0001.W31-1.0.trans.pH.red.ntab | | |-- sim0001.W31-1.0.usnt.CO2_sat.deltabg.red.ntab | | |-- sim0001.W31-1.0.usnt.P.deltabg.red.ntab | |-- sim0001.mesh_k16.prod07.trans.genmsh Disclaimer This document was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States government. Neither the United States government nor Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC, nor any of their employees makes any warranty, expressed or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States government or Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States government or Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC, and shall not be used for advertising or product endorsement purposes. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory is operated by Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC, for the U.S. Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration under Contract DE-AC52-07NA27344. This report was reviewed and released as LLNL-MI-753464.

aquifer↗
DOE OSTI2022

NRAP-Open-IAM: NRAP Open Source Integrated Assessment Model

Note: This is the last version (a2.6.1) of NRAP-Open-IAM released during NRAP Phase II in 2022. The latest version of NRAP-Open-IAM is available here: https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/phase-iii-nrap-open-iam NRAP-Open-IAM is an open-source software product that enables quantification of containment effectiveness and leakage risk at storage sites in the context of system uncertainties and variability. NRAP-Open-IAM represents the next-generation in a line of systems-based computational models developed for quantitative geological carbon storage (GCS) risk assessment. The model comprises a set of reduced-order and analytical models of various components of the GCS system, potential leakage pathways, receptors of concern including impact to groundwater resources and the atmosphere, a framework to support stochastic simulation, time stepping, uncertainty quantification, other analytical functionality for scenario and risk-performance evaluation, and a basic graphical user interface to support scenario development, data input simulation definition, and basic post-processing and results display. As the NRAP Open-IAM functionality continues to evolve, we continue to add to its capability to develop quantitative, probabilistic, and time-dependent profiles of the evolution of risk at a GCS site and evaluate the influence of uncertain parameters on uncertainty in predicted risk. It can be used to quantify the dynamics of reservoir saturation plume and pressure-affected area, for evaluation of the area of potential groundwater impact (i.e., Area of Review) and monitoring requirements to support cost and regulatory analysis, and for consideration of different post-injection site care and closure scenarios. This submission contains the current version of NRAP-Open-IAM available for evaluation and testing. To use the NRAP-Open-IAM, download the source code (https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/08f396c8-bc5f-44ad-a028-6e98a6ea6d70/resource/4c24a3da-3b40-4ffe-9892-c807ae9f8760) then open the NRAP-Open-IAM user's guide (https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/08f396c8-bc5f-44ad-a028-6e98a6ea6d70/resource/8b27335a-343c-4836-b8a3-3ad0bdc9e669) to read more about the tool. Installation instructions for Windows, Mac, and Linux can be found in the "installers" folder of the extracted NRAP-Open-IAM folder and describe setup of environment (e.g., Python libraries) needed for proper work of the tool. Test of installation can be done by running "python openiam_setup_tests.py" in the "setup" folder. The installation test also runs a test suite to see if the NRAP-Open-IAM has been installed correctly. To run the test suite separately, run "python iam_test.py" in the "test" folder. User's guide: https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/08f396c8-bc5f-44ad-a028-6e98a6ea6d70/resource/8b27335a-343c-4836-b8a3-3ad0bdc9e669 Developer's guide: https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/08f396c8-bc5f-44ad-a028-6e98a6ea6d70/resource/3bc6ee7d-609d-4eb6-80ba-fa6130ee0313 Reservoir simulation data used in some examples distributed with NRAP-Open-IAM: - Kimberlina: https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/08f396c8-bc5f-44ad-a028-6e98a6ea6d70/resource/eb62cece-61b2-4037-9b6d-32407dde2ab8 - Kimberlina (compartmentalized): https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/08f396c8-bc5f-44ad-a028-6e98a6ea6d70/resource/366f9530-3b32-4b84-affe-ab2df1d9a8b5 - FutureGen 2.0: https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/futuregen-2-0-1008-simulation-reservoir-lookup-table NRAP-Open-IAM GitLab repository: https://gitlab.com/NRAP/OpenIAM Related publications: - Bacon, D., Yonkofski, C., Brown, C., Demirkanli, D. and Whiting, J., 2019. Risk-based post injection site care and monitoring for commercial-scale carbon storage: Reevaluation of the FutureGen 2.0 site using NRAP-Open-IAM and DREAM. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 90: 102784. - Bacon, D. Demirkanli, D., and White, S., 2020. Probabilistic risk-based Area of Review (AoR) determination for a deep-saline carbon storage site. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 102: 103153. - Harp, D., Oldenburg, C., and Pawar, R., 2019. A metric for evaluating conformance robustness during geologic CO2 sequestration operations. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 85: 100-108. - Lackey, G., Vasylkivska, V., Huerta, N., King, S., and Dilmore, R., 2019. Managing well leakage risks at a geologic carbon storage site with many wells, International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 88 :182-194. - Vasylkivska, V., Dilmore, R., Lackey, G., Zhang, Y., King, S., Bacon, D., Chen, B., Mansoor, K., and Harp, D., 2021. NRAP-Open-IAM: A flexible open-source integrated assessment model for geologic carbon storage risk assessment and management, Environmental Modelling & Software, 143: 105114. Presentations: - Chen, B., Harp, D., and Pawar, R., A data assimilation approach (ES-MDA) coupling with NRAP-Open-IAM for quantifying uncertainty reduction in geological CO2 sequestration. AGUFM 2019: T44A-02. - Chen, B., and Harp, D., Improving risk analysis precision for geologic CO2 sequestration by quantifying the uncertainty reduction before and after acquiring monitoring data. 14th Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies Conference, Melbourne, Australia, 2018, pp. 21-26. - Harp, D., National Risk Assessment Partnership Task 2: Containment Assurance. No. LA-UR-19-28654, Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL), Los Alamos, NM (United States), 2019. - Vasylkivska, V., King, S., Bacon, D., Harp, D., Chen, B., Mansoor, K., Onishi, T., Yang, Y., Zhang, Y., and Keating, E., NRAP-Open-IAM: An open-source integrated assessment model, poster, Mastering the Subsurface Through Technology Innovation, Partnerships and Collaboration: Carbon Storage and Oil and Natural Gas Technologies Review Meeting, Pittsburgh, PA, August 13-16, 2018. - Vasylkivska, V., Lackey, G., King, S., Wentworth, A., Huerta, N., Creason, C., DiGiulio, J., Yang, Y., and Dilmore, R., Long-term risk analysis of a geologic CO2 storage project during the post-injection period, SIAM Conference on Computational Science and Engineering, Spokane, WA, February 25-March 1, 2019. - Vasylkivska, V., Overview of the NRAP-Open-IAM tool for carbon storage (beta release), 2019 Annual NRAP Tool Users Meeting, Pittsburgh, PA, August 27, 2019. - Vasylkivska, V., Bacon, D., Chen, B., Dilmore, R., Harp, D., King, S., Lackey, G., Lindner, E., Liu, G., Mansoor, K. and Zhang, Y., NRAP-Open-IAM: A new, open-source code for integrated assessment of geologic carbon storage containment effectiveness and leakage risk, poster, American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting 2020 (virtual meeting), December 2020. - Vasylkivska, V., NRAP open-source integrated assessment model and relevant application, oral presentation, NRAP workshop "NRAP Tools for Geologic Carbon Storage Risk-Based Decision Making" held in conjunction with Groundwater Protection Council (GWPC) 2021 Annual Forum (virtual meeting), Salt Lake City, UT, September 2021. - Vasylkivska, V., NRAP-Open-IAM: open-source integrated assessment model, digital poster/demonstration, software demonstration session, 2022 Carbon Management Project Review Meeting, August 16, 2022

AoR↗
DOE OSTI2020

Hydrogeologic Model Based on Reduced Complexity

This data set provides the basic hydrogeologic model used for development of the TOUGH2 reservoir modeling results for the Kimberlina site. The hydrogeologic model is based on the static geologic model provided as a separate data set but has some simplifications regarding the geologic layers. Some geologic layers have been merged for the hydrogeologic model because the hydrogeologic properties were very similar. The data set contains several files. The word file explains the structure of the data files. The pdf contains a table with the hydrogeologic properties. The data set also includes 15 thickness files for 15 geological layers (including 3 Vedder sand layers and 3 Vedder shale layers), three elevations files (with reference elevation at ground surface/model top at 9000 m), and one fault trace file for seven faults. Most users may only need 2-3 faults close to the injection well (also see the figure). The arrangement of these layer thickness and elevations files can be see from the three layer files (for Tecplot). To develop a grid structure, start with the Vedder top elevation (REFVedderTop.dat) and add/subtract the thicknesses of layers above/below.

3D Groundwater Model↗
DOE OSTI2020

Time-Lapse Gravity Monitoring of CO2 Migration Based on Numerical Modeling of a Faulted Storage Complex

In this study, the performance of both surface and borehole time-lapse gravity monitoring to detect CO2 leakage from a carbon storage site is evaluated. Several hypothetical scenarios of CO2 migration in a leaky fault, and thief zones at different depths at the Kimberlina site (California, USA) constitute the basis of the approach. The CO2 displacement is simulated using the TOUGH2 simulator applied to a detailed geological model of the site. The gravity responses to these CO2 plumes are simulated using forward modeling with sensors at ground surface and in vertical boreholes. Results of inversion on one scenario are also presented. The surface-based gravity responses obtained for the different leakage scenarios demonstrate that leakage can be detected at the surface in all the scenarios but the time to detection is highly variable (10 to 40 years) and dependent on the detection threshold considered. Borehole measurements of the vertical component of gravity provide excellent constrains in depth when they are located in proximity of the density anomaly associated with the presence of CO2, thus discriminating multiple leaks in different thief zones. Joint inversion of surface and borehole data can bring valuable information of the occurrence of leakages and their importance by providing a reasonable estimate of mass of displaced fluids. This study demonstrates the importance of combining multiphase flow simulations with gravity modeling in order to define if and when gravity monitoring would be applicable at a given storage site.

Time-lapse gravity monitoring, leak detection, CCS↗
DOE OSTI2026

Elastic-wave sensitivity-guided adaptive seismic survey design for cost-effective monitoring of geological carbon storage

Effective seismic monitoring is essential for verifying CO₂ containment, detecting potential leakage, and optimizing operational decisions in geologic carbon storage. Here, this study presents a time-adaptive, elastic-wave sensitivity-guided framework for designing cost-effective seismic monitoring layouts for tracking CO₂ plume migration. The method is based on elastic-wave sensitivity analysis, which quantifies how variations in subsurface properties impact seismic wavefields. Two complementary design strategies are developed: one based on selecting a fixed number of seismic sources (Method A), and the other based on selecting source–receiver pairs contributing to a fixed fraction of cumulative elastic-wave sensitivity energy (Method B). The optimization workflow to identify source–receiver configurations with the highest detection potential is demonstrated using a hypothetical GCS scenario at the Kimberlina site in California using simulations of elastic-wave sensitivity data at multiple post-injection timesteps. Results show that both strategies adapt to evolving plume geometries and wavefield sensitivities, with Method B offering broader spatial coverage and Method A ensuring simpler deployment. This framework enables site-specific, cost-effective, and risk-informed seismic survey designs, enhancing the ability to monitor CO₂ migration over time in evolving geological environments

58 GEOSCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2024

CO 2 rock physics modeling for reliable monitoring of geologic carbon storage

Monitoring, verification, and accounting (MVA) are crucial to ensure safe and long-term geologic carbon storage. Seismic monitoring is a key MVA technique that utilizes seismic data to infer elastic properties of CO 2 -saturated rocks. Reliable accounting of CO 2 in subsurface storage reservoirs and potential leakage zones requires an accurate rock physics model. However, the widely used CO 2 rock physics model based on the conventional Biot-Gassmann equation can substantially underestimate the influence of CO 2 saturation on seismic waves, leading to inaccurate accounting. We develop an accurate CO 2 rock physics model by accounting for both effects of the stress dependence of seismic velocities in porous rocks and CO 2 weakening on the rock framework. We validate our CO 2 rock physics model using the Kimberlina-1.2 model (a previously proposed geologic carbon storage site in California) and create time-lapse elastic property models with our new rock physics method. We compare the results with those obtained using the conventional Biot-Gassmann equation. Our innovative approach produces larger changes in elastic properties than the Biot-Gassmann results. Using our CO 2 rock physics model can replicate shear-wave speed reductions observed in the laboratory. Our rock physics model enhances the accuracy of time-lapse elastic-wave modeling and enables reliable CO 2 accounting using seismic monitoring.

58 GEOSCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2021

InversionNet3D: Efficient and Scalable Learning for 3-D Full-Waveform Inversion

Seismic full-waveform inversion (FWI) techniques aim to find a high-resolution subsurface geophysical model provided with waveform data. Some recent effort in data-driven FWI has shown some encouraging results in obtaining 2-D velocity maps. However, due to high computational complexity and large memory consumption, the reconstruction of 3-D high-resolution velocity maps via deep networks is still a great challenge. Here, in this article, we present InversionNet3D (InvNet3D), an efficient and scalable encoder–decoder network for 3-D FWI. The proposed method employs group convolution in the encoder to establish an effective hierarchy for learning information from multiple sources while cutting down unnecessary parameters and operations at the same time. The introduction of invertible layers further reduces the memory consumption of intermediate features during training and, thus, enables the development of deeper networks with more layers and higher capacity as required by different application scenarios. Experiments on the 3-D Kimberlina dataset demonstrate that InvNet3D achieves state-of-the-art reconstruction performance with lower computational cost and lower memory footprint compared to the baseline.

58 GEOSCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2022

Real-time deep-learning inversion of seismic full waveform data for CO 2 saturation and uncertainty in geological carbon storage monitoring

Deep-learning inversion has recently drawn attention in geological carbon storage research due to its potential of imaging and monitoring carbon storage in real time, significantly improving efficiency and safety of carbon storage operations. We present a deep-learning full waveform inversion method that after the neural network has been trained can image CO 2 saturation and its uncertainty in real time. Our deep-learning inversion method is based on the U-Net architecture with the neural network trained on pairs of synthetic seismic data and CO 2 saturation models. Accordingly, our training establishes a mapping relationship between seismic data and CO 2 saturation models and once fully trained directly estimates CO 2 saturation as a function of subsurface location. We further quantify uncertainties of CO 2 saturation estimates using the Monte Carlo dropout method and a bootstrap aggregating method. For this proof-of-concept study, the CO 2 training models and data are derived from the Kimberlina 1.2 model, a hypothetical 3D geological carbon storage model that is constructed based on various geological and hydrological data from the Southern San Joaquin Basin, California. We perform deep-learning inversion experiments using noise-free and noisy training and test data sets and compare the results. Our modelling experiments show that (1) the deep-learning inversion can estimate 2D distributions of CO 2 fairly well even in the presence of Gaussian random noise and (2) both CO 2 saturation imaging and uncertainty quantification can be done in real time. Our results suggest that the deep-learning inversion method can serve as a robust real-time monitoring tool for geological carbon storage and/or other time-varying reservoir/aquifer properties that result from injection, extraction, and/or other subsurface transport phenomena.

58 GEOSCIENCES↗
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↗
DOE OSTI2022

Joint physics-based and data-driven time-lapse seismic inversion: Mitigating data scarcity

In carbon capture and sequestration (CCS), developing rapid and effective imaging techniques is crucial for real-time monitoring of the spatial and temporal dynamics of CO 2 propagation during/after injection. With continuing improvements in computational power and data storage, data-driven techniques based on machine learning (ML) have been effectively applied to seismic inverse problems. In particular, ML helps alleviate the ill-posedness and high computational cost of full-waveform inversion (FWI). However, such data-driven inversion techniques require massive high-quality training data sets to ensure prediction accuracy, which hinders their application to time-lapse monitoring of CO 2 sequestration. We propose an efficient “hybrid” time-lapse workflow that combines physics-based FWI and data-driven ML inversion. The scarcity of the available training data is addressed by developing a new data-generation technique with physics constraints. The method is vali dated on a synthetic CO 2 -sequestration model based on the Kimberlina storage reservoir in California. The proposed approach is shown to synthesize a large volume of high-quality, physically realistic training data, which is critically important in accurately characterizing the CO 2 movement in the reservoir. In conclusion, the developed hybrid methodology can also simultaneously predict the variations in velocity and saturation and achieve high spatial resolution in the presence of realistic noise in the data.

58 GEOSCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2022

Sensitivity of geophysical techniques for monitoring secondary CO 2 storage plumes

For geologic carbon storage, the ability to detect secondary CO 2 plumes—defined as those CO 2 plumes accumulating outside the intended storage reservoir—is fundamental to preventing unexpected CO 2 migration into groundwater resources and for risk and liability management. Understanding the sensitivity of various geophysical methods to secondary plumes is crucial for designing cost-effective monitoring schemes. We use several modeling scenarios to demonstrate the process of assessing sensitivities and detection thresholds of three primary geophysical techniques—surface seismic, borehole-to-surface electromagnetic (EM), and surface and borehole gravity—for early detection of secondary CO 2 plumes in the post-injection phase. While seismic reflection methods are often considered in monitoring strategies to track the evolution of CO 2 plumes, they are also the most expensive. Due to cost considerations, especially for long-term post-injection monitoring, other techniques complement seismic monitoring when designing an adaptive monitoring network. Borehole-to-surface EM or surface gravity surveys are feasible for time-lapse monitoring of deep secondary CO 2 plumes. Furthermore, these surveys could be carried at intervals defined by site-specific conditions. If time-lapse EM and/or gravity surveys detect any signal responses beyond the expected change, it would trigger a need for the higher resolution seismic survey.

58 GEOSCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2020

Compartmentalized Storage Reservoir Model and Simulation Results

A hypothetical closed (or compartmentalized) reservoir was created based on the numerical mesh used for Wainwright et al. (2013). The reservoir extent is smaller than the original model and limited between the two faults. The caprock properties are assumed in the rest of the storage formation.

Carbon Storage↗