Ambient noise correlation study at the CaMI Field Research Station CO₂injection pilot site, Newell County, Alberta, Canada

Monitoring CO2 Injection at the CaMI Field Research Station Using Microseismic Noise Sources

“…We divide the study area into cells of 50 m × 50 m around the CO 2 injection well and assume each cell to be a hypothetical noise source. We propagate surface waves with an average velocity close to 300 m/s to each station, roughly corresponding to the maximum energy in the correlation functions in Figures 3a and 3b, value similar to the results (∼325 m/s) from previous FRS studies (Macquet et al., 2020). Then, we compute the theoretical lag time of a surface wave between each pair of stations assuming straight ray paths.…”

“…Few investigations, however, have taken advantage of passive seismic sources to continuously monitor the reservoir response to CO 2 injection (Boullenger et al., 2015; Cheraghi et al., 2017; Xu et al., 2012). Recent advances in the geophone instrument have enabled continuous recordings of spatially dense passive seismic data for microseismic monitoring (Eaton et al., 2018; Li et al., 2019; Tan et al., 2020; J. Wang, Li, et al., 2020; R. Wang, Schmandt, et al., 2020), but its application in monitoring CO 2 injection remains in its infancy (Macquet et al., 2020; Savard et al., 2019; Stork, Allmark, et al., 2018). In the CO 2 sequestration setting, the injection pressure is lower than that of conventional hydraulic fracturing for oil and gas production.…”

“…Wang, Li, et al, 2020;R. Wang, Schmandt, et al, 2020), but its application in monitoring CO 2 injection remains in its infancy (Macquet et al, 2020;Savard et al, 2019;Stork, Allmark, et al, 2018). In the CO 2 sequestration setting, the injection pressure is lower than that of conventional hydraulic fracturing for oil and gas production.…”