Читать книгу Geophysical Monitoring for Geologic Carbon Storage - Группа авторов - Страница 18

In Chapter 19, Bauer et al. present a case study of microseismic monitoring at the Illinois Basin Decatur Project of the Midwest Geological Sequestration Consortium. The project site is located in east‐central Illinois in the north‐central area of the Illinois Basin in the midcontinent region of the United States. For over three years, the project safely injected nearly 1.1 million tons of supercritical carbon dioxide into the base of a 500‐m thick saline sandstone reservoir at a depth of 2.14 km. They collected a unique data set encompassing an extensive quantity of microseismic and concurrent operational monitoring data before, during, and after injection operations, and presented results of microseismic event location and focal mechanisms. They demonstrate the compatibility of technical and operational activities under evolving and challenging conditions.

In Chapter 20, Balch and McPherson present an overview of the Phase III of the Southwest Partnership on Carbon Sequestration (SWP) in Farnsworth, Texas, USA. The project has completed its injection period with the storage of over 700,000 tonnes of CO₂ at an active commercial‐scale CO₂‐EOR field. They summarize the interrelationship of monitoring activities, the status of postinjection monitoring, and the optimization required to maximize storage while providing the greatest oil production incentive to the field operator, among others.

In Chapter 21, Hovorka gives an experimental study of testing and assessing geophysical monitoring methods for tracking CO₂ migration during large volume injection at the Southeast Regional Sequestration Partnership project in Cranfield, Mississippi, USA. The project uses several geophysical tools to detect CO₂ in the injection zone, including time‐lapse 3D seismic, 3D VSP, time‐lapse cross‐well seismic, electrical resistance tomography, borehole gravity, time‐lapse wireline sonic, pulsed neutron logging, and fluid density logging. The experiment reveals the strengths and weaknesses of different monitoring methods. Interference among different monitoring tools is significant. The site operator should avoid deploying as many tools as possible, but rather select best tools for the job and deployment condition. Monitoring data play an important role in calibrating the reservoir model.

In Chapter 22, Romdhane et al. describe a case study on quantitative monitoring at Sleipner in Norway. They evaluate a methodology combining high‐resolution seismic‐waveform tomography and rock physics inversion for monitoring the CO₂ plume at Sleipner. They show that using multiparameter seismic inversion or multiphysics integration of data can lead to a better discrimination between the different effects of CO₂ injection/migration on rock physics properties and reduce inversion uncertainties.

Finally, in Chapter 23, Bergmann et al. present an overview of geophysical monitoring of CO₂ injection at Ketzin in Germany. They describe seismic measurements and electrical resistivity tomography performed during the period of site development and CO₂ injection. They find that a combination of several geophysical methods is preferred.