Designing a seismic program for an industrial CCS site: Trials and tribulations

Statistical performance of CO2 leakage detection using seismic travel time measurements

“…[22][23][24] Diff erent seismic monitoring methods, including time-lapse 2D or 3D surface seismic surveys, borehole vertical seismic profi ling and cross-well seismic monitoring, have been employed at sequestration sites. [22][23][24][25] Th e seismic attributes that can be measured include seismic velocity, travel time, amplitude and impedance. 23 In our study, predicted changes in seismic velocity and travel time aft er CO 2 leakage events occur are considered.…”

“…It has also been implemented in several pilot CO 2 sequestration sites, such as the Frio Formation near Houston and the Penn West CO 2 ‐EOR site . Different seismic monitoring methods, including time‐lapse 2D or 3D surface seismic surveys, borehole vertical seismic profiling and cross‐well seismic monitoring, have been employed at sequestration sites . The seismic attributes that can be measured include seismic velocity, travel time, amplitude and impedance .…”

Development and implementation of a seismic characterization and CO2 monitoring program for the Illinois Basin – Decatur Project

“…At the outset of the IBDP, there was relatively little deep subsurface data available within a 20-mile (32-km) radius of the site to aid in the initial project site characterization. 5 Rough estimates the depth to and of the thickness of the Mt Simon Sandstone and the Eau Claire Shale were based on regional structure and isopach maps and two wells located 51 miles (82 km) to the south and 37 miles (60 km) to the north of the site, respectively. 5 Given the lack of deep well data in the area, one of the primary tools used for reservoir characterization at the site was a combination of 2D and 3D surface seismic data.…”

“…Envirovibes TM weigh approximately 15 000 lbs (6 804 kg) and are typically used for shallow targets, so their use for IBDP was not ideal given that the estimated depth to the top of the Mt Simon Sandstone was thought to be approximately 5420 ft +/-500 ft (1652 m +/-152 m) at the time. 5 Th e purpose of these lines was to provide some preliminary information about the geologic structures and stratigraphy at the site. No resolvable geological features were identifi ed over the course of the seismic interpretation that would prevent the project from moving forward on these two seismic lines.…”

“…The existing 2D seismic data was used to help determine the potential frequency bandwidth and resolution of the new 3D seismic dataset as part of this study. 5 Th e survey evaluation and design study showed that it was feasible to acquire a high fold 3D surface seismic survey over the site despite the access limitations ( Fig. 2 (a)).…”