Advertisement

Seismic modelling of CO2 fluid substitution in a sandstone reservoir: A case study from Alberta, Canada

  • S P Maurya
  • Nagendra Pratap SinghEmail author
Article
  • 35 Downloads

The prime objective of this study is to find the suitable petrophysical parameters which depict the maximum change in seismic amplitude due to fluid substitution. Therefore, in the present study the petrophysical parameters are analysed to detect the most sensitive parameters due to fluid substitution. The analysis is performed in three steps: In the first step, the Gassmann fluid substitution is performed and a considerable change in velocity, density, impedance, lambda–mu–rho parameters and Shuey’s parameters is examined. The study shows that the most sensitive parameters are A (intercept), which shows the maximum drop of 22% with respect to CO2 injection, and B (gradient), which shows the maximum increase of 10% with CO2 injection in the formation. Thereafter, in the second step, the seismic forward modelling is performed to examine the changes in seismic amplitude by the fluid substitution in the formation. The analysis depicts that the seismic amplitude increases steadily with increasing CO2 saturation. The amplitude increases by 4% at 20% CO2 injection, by 8% at 50% CO2 injection and the seismic amplitude increases by 12% at 100% CO2 injection in the target zone. Finally, in the third step, the numerical modelling is performed to assess the ability of seismic methods to detect the CO2 plume accurately by injecting CO2 plume of cylindrical shape. The analysis shows that the CO2 plume can be detected more prominently by analysing the impedance volume rather than the seismic amplitude section. This study is helpful in deciding which parameters should be monitored carefully in fluid replacement modelling projects.

Keywords

Seismic reflection CO2 sequestration fluid replacement modelling model-based inversion seismic forward modelling 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors are indebted to the Science and Engineering Research Board, Department of Science and Technology, New Delhi for financial support and help in the form of a grant (No. PDF/2016/000888). The authors would also like to acknowledge the CGG Veritas and Norsar for providing the seismic, well log data and Hampson Russell software.

References

  1. Bachu S 2000 Sequestration of CO2 in geological media: Criteria and approach for site selection in response to climate change; Energy Convers. Manag. 41(9) 953–970.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Benson S M and Cole D R 2008 CO2 sequestration in deep sedimentary formations; Elements 4(5) 225–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bielinski A 2007 Numerical simulation of CO2 sequestration in geological formations; PhD Thesis, Institut für Wasserbau, Universität Stuttgart.Google Scholar
  4. Cao S C, Dai S and Jung J 2016 Supercritical CO2 and brine displacement in geological carbon sequestration: Micromodel and pore network simulation studies; Int. J. Greenhouse Gas Control 44 104–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Castagna J P, Batzle M L and Eastwood R L 1985 Relationships between compressional-wave and shear-wave velocities in clastic silicate rocks; Geophysics 50(4) 571–581.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chadwick A, Arts R, Eiken O, Williamson P and Williams G 2006 Geophysical monitoring of the CO2 plume at Sleipner, North Sea; In: Advances in geological storage of carbon dioxide (eds) Lombardi S, Altunina L and Beaubien S, Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, pp. 303–314. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chadwick A, Williams G, Delepine N, Clochard V, Labat K, Sturton S, Buddensiek M L, Dillen M, Nickel M, Lima A L and Arts R 2010 Quantitative analysis of time-lapse seismic monitoring data at the Sleipner CO2 storage operation; Leading Edge 29(2) 170–177,  https://doi.org/10.1190/1.3304820.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Charara M, Barnes C, Tsuchiya T and Yamada N 2017 Time lapse VSP viscoelastic full waveform inversion for CO2 monitoring; CAL 2 2.Google Scholar
  9. Cowton L R 2017 Monitoring sub-surface storage of carbon dioxide; PhD Thesis, University of Cambridge.Google Scholar
  10. Dufour J, Goodway B, Shook I and Edmunds A 1998 AVO analysis to extract rock parameters on the Blackfoot 3C–3D seismic data; In: SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts, Society of Exploration Geophysicists, pp. 174–177.Google Scholar
  11. Frailey S M 2009 Methods for estimating CO2 storage in saline reservoirs; Energy Procedia 1(1) 2769–2776.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ganguli S S, Vedanti N, Akervoll I and Bergmo P 2014 An estimation of CO2–EOR potential from a sector model in a mature oil field, Cambay Basin, India; In: Annual convention, IGU–Kurukshethra, India.Google Scholar
  13. Herzog H J 2001 What future for carbon capture and sequestration? Environ. Sci. Technol. 35 148A–153A.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Holloway S 2007 Carbon dioxide capture and geological storage; Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. A: Math. Phys. Eng. Sci. 365(1853) 1095–1107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Holloway S, Garg A, Kapshe M, Deshpande A, Pracha A S, Khan S R, Mahmood M A, Singh T N, Kirk K L and Gale J 2009 An assessment of the CO2 storage potential of the Indian subcontinent; Energy Procedia 1(1) 2607–2613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hosseini S A and Alfi M 2016 Time‐lapse application of pressure transient analysis for monitoring compressible fluid leakage; Greenhouse Gases 6(3) 352–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hu L, Bayer P, Alt-Epping P, Tatomir A, Sauter M and Brauchler R 2015 Time-lapse pressure tomography for characterizing CO2 plume evolution in a deep saline aquifer; Int. J. Greenhouse Gas Control 39 91–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ivandic M, Yang C, Lüth S, Cosma C and Juhlin C 2012 Time-lapse analysis of sparse 3D seismic data from the CO2 storage pilot site at Ketzin, Germany; J. Appl. Geophys. 84 14–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kazemeini S H, Juhlin C and Fomel S 2010 Monitoring CO2 response on surface seismic data; A rock physics and seismic modeling feasibility study at the CO2 sequestration site, Ketzin, Germany; J. Appl. Geophys. 71(4) 109–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kumar A and Mohan S 2004 Feasibility assessment of a time-lapse seismic survey for thermal EOR in Balol field, India, based on rock physics and seismic forward modeling; In: Proceedings of the 5th international conference and exposition on petroleum geophysics, Society of Petroleum Geophysicists, pp. 688–695.Google Scholar
  21. Lackner K S 2003 A guide to CO2 sequestration; Science 300(5626) 1677–1678.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lawton D, Stewart R, Cordsen A and Hrycak S 1996 Design review of the blackfoot 3C–3D seismic program; The CREWES Research Report 8(38) 1–23.Google Scholar
  23. Margrave G F, Lawton D C and Stewart R R 1998 Interpreting channel sands with 3C–3D seismic data; Leading Edge 17(4) 509–513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Maurya S P and Singh K H 2015 Reservoir characterization using model based inversion and probabilistic neural network; In: 1st International conference on recent trend in engineering and technology, Vishakhapatnam, India.Google Scholar
  25. Maurya S P, Singh K H and Singh N P 2018 Qualitative and quantitative comparison of geostatistical techniques of porosity prediction from the seismic and logging data: A case study from the Blackfoot Field, Alberta, Canada; Mar. Geophys. Res. 40(1) 51–71,  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11001-018-9355-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Michael K, Bachu S, Buschkuehle B, Haug K and Talman S 2006 Comprehensive characterization of a potential site for CO2 geological storage in Central Alberta, Canada; In: CO 2 SC symposium, Berkeley, CA.Google Scholar
  27. Miller S, Aydemir E and Margrave G F 1995 Preliminary interpretation of PP and PS seismic data from the Blackfoot broad-band survey; The CREWES Research Report 7(42) 1–18.Google Scholar
  28. Moradi S and Lawton D C 2013 Theoretical detectability of CO2 at a CCS project in Alberta; In: 83rd Annual international meeting, Society of Exploration Geophysicists, Expanded Abstract, pp. 3475–3479.Google Scholar
  29. Pevzner R, Shulakova V, Kepic A and Urosevic M 2011 Repeatability analysis of land time-lapse seismic data: CO2 CRC Otway pilot project case study; Geophys. Prospect. 59(1) 66–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Randolph J B and Saar M O 2011 Coupling carbon dioxide sequestration with geothermal energy capture in naturally permeable, porous geologic formations: Implications for CO2 sequestration; Energy Procedia 4 2206–2213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Ringrose P S, Mathieson A S, Wright I W, Selama F, Hansen O, Bissell R, Saoula N and Midgley J 2013 The In Salah CO2 storage project: Lessons learned and knowledge transfer; Energy Procedia 37 6226–6236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Roach L A, White D J, Roberts B and Angus D 2017 Initial 4D seismic results after CO2 injection start-up at the Aquistore storage site; Geophysics 82(3) B95–B107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Sparlin M, Meyer J, Bevc D, Cabrera R, Hibbitts T and Rogers J 2010 Seismic analysis and characterization of a brine reservoir for CO2 sequestration; In: 83rd Annual international meeting, Society of Exploration Geophysicists, pp. 2304–2308.Google Scholar
  34. Vera V C 2012 Seismic modelling of CO2 in a sandstone aquifer, Priddis, Alberta; MSc Thesis, University of Calgary.Google Scholar
  35. Wang Z 2001 Fundamentals of seismic rock physics; Geophysics 66(2) 398–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. White C M, Strazisar B R, Granite E J, Hoffman J S and Pennline H W 2003 Separation and capture of CO2 from large stationary sources and sequestration in geological formations – Coalbeds and deep saline aquifers; Air Waste Manage. Assoc. 53(6) 645–715.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Wood J M and Hopkins J C 1992 Traps associated with paleovalleys and interfluves in an unconformity bounded sequence: Lower cretaceous glauconitic member, southern Alberta, Canada; AAPG Bull. 76(6) 904–926.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Indian Academy of Sciences 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Geophysics, Institute of ScienceBanaras Hindu UniversityVaranasiIndia

Personalised recommendations