1887
PDF

Abstract

Summary

To manage risks in CO2 storage operations, monitoring systems need to be designed such that the data can inform the operator whether the storage site will continue to behave as expected or not. In order to compare the benefits of different monitoring strategies, we require a measure of ‘efficiency’ that is based on a balance between monitoring cost on the one hand and reliability of conformance determination on the other. In this work, we present a workflow to quantify, in terms of conformance verification metrics, the contribution of monitoring strategies with various time-lapse geophysical survey configurations (i.e., different survey acquisition times and coverage) in the presence of geological uncertainties. We illustrate the use of the methodology with a simple case study where conformance is associated with regulatory safety bounds for the development of the CO2 plume. The proposed approach can be used to assist operators in the design of monitoring strategies that can ensure compliance with regulation requirements at a reasonable cost.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.201802991
2018-11-21
2024-04-23
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/2214-4609/2018/Fr_CO2_03.html?itemId=/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.201802991&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. 1.Barros, E.G.D., Van den Hof, P.M.J. and Jansen, J.D. (2016). Value of information in closed-loop reservoir management. Computational Geosciences, 20 (3) 737–749.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. 2.Barros, E.G.D., Leeuwenburgh, O., Carpentier, S.F.A., Wilschut, F. and Neele, F.P. (2018). Quantifying the efficiency of surveillance strategies for subsurface CO2 storage applications. Paper to be presented at the GHGT-14 Conference, Melbourne, Australia, October 21–26.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. 3.Cameron, D.A. (2013). Optimization and monitoring of geological carbon storage operations. PhD thesis, Stanford University.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. 4.Emerick, A.A. and Reynolds, A.C. (2012). History Matching Time-Lapse Seismic Data Using the Ensemble Kalman Filter With Multiple Data Assimilations. Computational Geosciences, 16 (3), 639–659.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. 5.He, J., Sarma, P., Bhark, E., Tanaka, S>, Chen, B., Wen, X.H. and Kamath, J. (2017). Quantifying expected uncertainty reduction and value of information using ensemble-variance analysis. SPE Journal, 23 (2), 428–448.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. 6.Le, D.H. and Reynolds, A.C. (2014). Optimal choice of a surveillance operation using information theory. Computational Geosciences, 18 (3–4), 505–518.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. 7.Leeuwenburgh, O. and Arts, R. (2014). Distance parameterization for efficient seismic history matching with the Ensemble Kalman Filter. Computational Geosciences, 18 (3–4), 535–548.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. 8.Sato, K. (2011). Value of information analysis for adequate monitoring of carbon dioxide storage in geological reservoirs under uncertainty. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 5, 1294–1302.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. 9. The Open Porous Media Initiative, https://opm-project.org/.
  10. 10.Zhang, Y. and Leeuwenburgh, O. (2017). Image-oriented distance parameterization for ensemble-based seismic history matching. Computational Geosciences, 21 (4), 713–731.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.201802991
Loading
/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.201802991
Loading

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error