Geophysical methods for CO2 plume imaging: Comparison of performances

Abstract Geophysical methods are adequate for imaging the CO2 plume in order to follow its migration within the reservoir and possible leakages through the caprock formation. In particular, changes in density, seismic velocity or electrical resistivity are associated with changes in the gas saturation and make methods such as gravity, 4D seismic and electrical resistivity tomography (ERT) or CSEM powerful tools to follow up the fate of injected CO2. Respect to the minimum amount of CO2 stored that can be quantified for verification purpose, there is an order of magnitude between 4D seismic (few 100s of Kt) and the other two methods (few Mt). Respect to the detection of leakage at the reservoir level, only 4D seismic could be considered as useful. Using downhole measurements, such as crosshole electric or downhole gravity will increase the resolution of these methods and therefore its ability to detect leakage. In case of CO2 leakage upwards and accumulation within a secondary reservoir located at a few hundreds of meters depth, the resolution of the three methods is increased by several order of magnitude and small amounts of CO2 could be detected, depending whether it is in gaseous phase or dissolved. It is expected that controlled experiments of leaking CO2 at shallow depth will help to define more precisely the conditions of use of the three methods.

[1]  Gregory A. Newman,et al.  Transient electromagnetic responses of high-contrast prisms in a layered earth , 1988 .

[2]  M. Becquey,et al.  Feasibility of Seismic Monitoring at a Potential CO2 Injection Test Site in the Paris Basin , 2010 .

[3]  Jørg Aarnes,et al.  The CO2QUALSTORE guideline for selection, characterisation and qualification of sites and projects for geological storage of CO2 , 2011 .

[4]  Andy Chadwick,et al.  Quantitative analysis of time-lapse seismic monitoring data at the Sleipner CO2 storage operation , 2010 .

[5]  Kevin Dodds,et al.  Monitoring CO2 Injection with Cross-Hole Electrical Resistivity Tomography , 2006 .

[6]  J.-F. Girard The LEMAM array for CO2 injection monitoring: modelling results and baseline at Ketzin in August 2008 , 2009 .

[7]  Bernard Bourgeois,et al.  First Modelling Results of the EM Response of a CO2 Storage in the Paris Basin , 2010 .

[8]  L. André,et al.  Numerical modeling of fluid–rock chemical interactions at the supercritical CO2–liquid interface during CO2 injection into a carbonate reservoir, the Dogger aquifer (Paris Basin, France) , 2007 .

[9]  Cornelia Schmidt-Hattenberger,et al.  Geoelectrical methods for monitoring geological CO2 storage: First results from cross-hole and surface–downhole measurements from the CO2SINK test site at Ketzin (Germany) , 2010 .

[10]  Andy Chadwick,et al.  Geophysical monitoring of the CO2 plume at Sleipner, North Sea : an outline review , 2006 .

[11]  Sally M. Benson,et al.  Monitoring Carbon Dioxide Sequestration in Deep Geological Formations for Inventory Verification and Carbon Credits , 2006 .

[12]  Robin Newmark,et al.  Monitoring Carbon Dioxide Floods Using Electrical Resistance Tomography (ERT): Sensitivity Studies , 2003 .

[13]  G. M. Hoversten,et al.  Gravity monitoring of CO2 movement during sequestration: Model studies , 2008 .

[14]  Leonard J. Srnka,et al.  Special Section — Marine Controlled-Source Electromagnetic Methods An introduction to marine controlled-source electromagnetic methods for hydrocarbon exploration , 2007 .

[15]  Torkjell Stenvold,et al.  Monitoring gas production and CO2 injection at the Sleipner field using time-lapse gravimetry , 2008 .

[16]  Don C. Lawton,et al.  Pembina Cardium CO2 Monitoring Project, Alberta, Canada: Timelapse seismic analysis—Lessons learned , 2009 .

[17]  Toby Aiken,et al.  Geological storage of CO2 in saline aquifers—A review of the experience from existing storage operations , 2010 .

[18]  Don C. Lawton,et al.  Time-lapse Monitoring of CO2 EOR and Storage with Walkaway VSPs , 2006 .