The rock physics basis for 4D seismic monitoring of CO2 fate: Are we there yet?

2010 ◽  
Vol 29 (2) ◽  
pp. 156-162 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tiziana Vanorio ◽  
Gary Mavko ◽  
Stephanie Vialle ◽  
Kyle Spratt
2008 ◽  
Vol 39 (2) ◽  
pp. 108-114 ◽  
Author(s):  
Angelika Wulff ◽  
Andre Gerhardt ◽  
Tom Ridsdill-Smith ◽  
Megan Smith

2007 ◽  
Author(s):  
William L. Soroka ◽  
Taha Al-Dayyani ◽  
Christian J. Strohmenger ◽  
Hafez H. Hafez ◽  
Mahfoud Salah Al-Jenaibi

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Godwin Oguguah Agunwoke ◽  
Ebenezer Obe ◽  
Eric Tuitjer ◽  
Oyie Ekeng ◽  
Innocent Okoro

Author(s):  
A. Ogbamikhumi ◽  
T. Tralagba ◽  
E. E. Osagiede

Field ‘K’ is a mature field in the coastal swamp onshore Niger delta, which has been producing since 1960. As a huge producing field with some potential for further sustainable production, field monitoring is therefore important in the identification of areas of unproduced hydrocarbon. This can be achieved by comparing production data with the corresponding changes in acoustic impedance observed in the maps generated from base survey (initial 3D seismic) and monitor seismic survey (4D seismic) across the field. This will enable the 4D seismic data set to be used for mapping reservoir details such as advancing water front and un-swept zones. The availability of good quality onshore time-lapse seismic data for Field ‘K’ acquired in 1987 and 2002 provided the opportunity to evaluate the effect of changes in reservoir fluid saturations on time-lapse amplitudes. Rock physics modelling and fluid substitution studies on well logs were carried out, and acoustic impedance change in the reservoir was estimated to be in the range of 0.25% to about 8%. Changes in reservoir fluid saturations were confirmed with time-lapse amplitudes within the crest area of the reservoir structure where reservoir porosity is 0.25%. In this paper, we demonstrated the use of repeat Seismic to delineate swept zones and areas hit with water override in a producing onshore reservoir.


2003 ◽  
Vol 43 (1) ◽  
pp. 567 ◽  
Author(s):  
J.J. McKenna ◽  
B. Gurevich ◽  
M. Urosevic ◽  
B.J. Evans

Sequestration of anthropogenic CO2 into underground brine-saturated reservoirs is an immediate option for Australia to reduce CO2 emissions into the atmosphere. Many sites for CO2 storage have been defined within many Australian sedimentary basins. It is anticipated that seismic technology will form the foundation for monitoring CO2 storage within the subsurface, although it is recognised that several other technologies will also be used in support of seismic or in situations where seismic recording is not suitable. The success of seismic monitoring will be determined by the magnitude of the change in the elastic properties of the reservoir during the lifecycle of CO2 storage. In the short-term, there will be a strong contrast in density and compressibility between free CO2 and brine. The contrast between these fluids is greater at shallower depth and higher temperature where CO2 resembles a vapour. The significant change in the elastic moduli of the reservoir will enable time-lapse seismic methods to readily monitor structural or hydrodynamic trapping of CO2 below an impermeable seal. Because the acoustic contrast between brine saturated with CO2 and brine containing no dissolved CO2 is very slight, however, dissolved CO2 is unlikely to be detected by any seismic technology, including high-resolution borehole seismic. The detection of increases in porosity, associated with dissolution of susceptible minerals within the reservoir may provide a means for qualitative monitoring of CO2 dissolution. Conversion of aqueous CO2 into carbonate minerals should cause a detectable rise in the elastic moduli of the rock frame, especially the shear moduli. The magnitude of this rise increases with depth and demonstrates the potential contribution that can be made from repeated shear-wave and multi-component seismic measurements. Forward modelling suggests that the optimal reservoir depth for seismic monitoring of CO2 storage within an unconsolidated reservoir is between 1,000 and 2,500 m. Higher reservoir temperature is also preferred so that free CO2 will resemble a vapour.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document