0
Research Papers: Energy Systems Analysis

Optimization of Geophone Array for Monitoring Geologic Carbon Sequestration Using Double-Difference Tomography

[+] Author and Article Information
Ben Fahrman

Graduate Research Assistant
Virginia Tech,
Blacksburg, VA 24061

Erik Westman, Mario Karfakis

Associate Professor
Virginia Tech,
Blacksburg, VA 24061

Kray Luxbacher

Assistant Professor
Virginia Tech,
Blacksburg, VA 24061

Contributed by the Advanced Energy Systems Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF ENERGY RESOURCES TECHNOLOGY. Manuscript received October 17, 2012; final manuscript received May 14, 2013; published online September 12, 2013. Assoc. Editor: Kau-Fui Wong.

J. Energy Resour. Technol 136(1), 012004 (Sep 12, 2013) (6 pages) Paper No: JERT-12-1241; doi: 10.1115/1.4024718 History: Received October 17, 2012; Revised May 14, 2013

Synthetic data were analyzed to determine the most cost-effective tomographic monitoring system for a geologic carbon sequestration injection site. Double-difference tomographic inversion was performed on 125 synthetic data sets: five stages of CO2 plume growth, five seismic event regions, and five geophone arrays. Each resulting velocity model was compared quantitatively to its respective synthetic velocity model to determine accuracy. The results were examined to determine a relationship between cost and accuracy in monitoring, verification, and accounting applications using double-difference-tomography. The geophone arrays with widely varying geophone locations, both laterally and vertically, performed best.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2014 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

IEA, 2011, CO2 Emissions from Fuel Combustion, IAE Statistics.
Siegenthaler, U., and Sarmiento, J. L., 1993, “Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and the Ocean,” Nature365, pp. 119–125. [CrossRef]
Cohen, S. M., Rochelle, G. T., and Webber, M. E., 2010, “Turning CO2 Capture On and Off in Response to Electric Grid Demand: A Baseline Analysis of Emissions and Economics,” ASME J. Energy Resour. Technol., 132(2), p. 021003. [CrossRef]
Fronk, B. M., Neal, R., and Garimella, S., 2010, “Evolution of the Transition to a World Driven by Renewable Energy,” ASME J. Energy Resour. Technol., 132(2), p. 021009. [CrossRef]
Daneshfar, J., Hughes, R. G., and Civan, F., 2009. “Feasibility Investigation and Modelling Analysis of CO2 Sequestration in Arbuckle Formation Utilizing Salt Water Disposal Wells,” ASME J. Energy Resour. Technol., 131, p. 023301 [CrossRef].
NETL, 2010, Carbon Sequestration Atlas of the United States and Canada, Department of Energy.
Cook, P. J., 1999, “Sustainability and Nonrenewable Resources,” Environ. Geosci., 6(4), pp. 185–190. [CrossRef]
Wyllie, M. R., Gregory, A. R., and Gardner, L., 1956, “Elastic Wave Velocities in Heterogeneous and Porous Media,” Geophysics21(1), pp. 41–70. [CrossRef]
Oldenburg, C. M., 2003, “Carbon Dioxide as Cushion Gas for Natural Gas Storage,” Energy Fuels17, pp. 240–246. [CrossRef]
Wang, Z., Cates, M. E., and Langa, R., 1996, “Seismic Monitoring of CO2 Flooding in a Carbonate Reservoir: Rock Physics Study,” SEG Annual Meeting, Denver, CO, Society of Exploration Geophysicists.
Wang, Z., and Nur, A. M., 1989, “Effects of CO2 Flooding on Wave Velocities in Rocks With Hydrocarbons,” SPE Reservoir Eng., 4(4), pp. 429–436. [CrossRef]
Nolet, G., eds., 1987, Seismic Tomography: With Applications in Global Seismology and Exploration Geophysics, Springer, New York.
Westman, E. C., Luxbacher, K. D., and Swanson, P., 2008, “Local Earthquake Tomography for Imaging Mining-Induced Changes Within the Overburden above a Longwall Mine,” 42nd U.S. Rock Mechanics Symposium, San Francisco, CA, The American Rock Mechanics Association.
Zhang, H., Sarkar, S., Toksz, M. N., Kuleli, H. S., and Al-Kindy, F., 2009, “Passive Seismic Tomography Using Induced Seismicity at a Petroleum Field in Oman,” Geophysics, 74, pp. 57–69. [CrossRef]
Zhang, H., and Thurber, C., 2003, “User's manual for tomoDD1.1 (double-difference tomography) for Determining Event Locations and Velocity Structure from Local Earthquakes and Explosions,” Department of Geology and Geophysics, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI.
Arts, R., Eiken, O., Chadwick, A., Zweigel, P., Van der Meer, L., and Zinszner, B., 2004, “Monitoring of CO2 Injected at Sleipner Using Time-Lapse Seismic Data,” 6th International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies, Vol. 29(9–10), pp. 1383–1392.
White, D., 2009, “Monitoring CO2 Storage During EOR at the Weyburn-Midale Field,” The Leading Edge28, pp. 838–842. [CrossRef]
Zhang, H., and Thurber, C. H., 2003, “Double-Difference Tomography: The Method and Its Application to the Hayward Fault, California,” Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am., 93(5), pp. 1875–1889. [CrossRef]
Nogueira, M., and Mamora, D. D., 2008, “Effect of Flue-Gas Impurities on the Process of Injection and Storage of CO2 in Depleted Gas Reservoirs,” ASME J. Energy Resour. Technol, 130, p. 013301. [CrossRef]
Uddin, M., Coombe, D., and Wright, F., 2008, “Modeling of CO2-Hydrate Formation in Geological Reservoirs by Injection of CO2 Gas,” ASME J. Energy Resour. Technol, 130, p. 032502. [CrossRef]
Raleigh, C. B., Healy, J. H., and Bredehoeft, J., 1976, “An Experiment in Earthquake Control at Rangely, Colorado,” Science191, pp. 1230–1237. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Yamashita, T., 1999, “Pore Creation Due to Fault Slip in a Fluid-Permeated Fault Zone and Its Effect on Seismicity: Generation Mechanism of Earthquake Swarm,” Pure Appl. Geophys., 155(2–4), pp. 625–647. [CrossRef]
Adams, N. J., 1985, Drilling Engineering: A Complete Well Planning Approach, Pennwell Books, Tulsa, OK.
Augustine, C., Tester, J. W., Anderson, B., Petty, S., and Livesay, B., 2006, “A Comparison of Geothermal With Oil and Gas Well Drilling Costs,” 31st Workshop on Geothermal Reservoir Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, CA.
Dijkstra, E. W., 1959, “A Note on Two Problems in Connexion With Graphs,” Numer. Math., 1, pp. 269–271. [CrossRef]
Luxbacher, K., Westman, E., and Swanson, P., 2007, “Time-Lapse Tomography of a Longwall Panel: A Comparison of Location Schemes,” 26th International Conference on Ground Control in Mining, Morgantown, WV.

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

CO2 plume cross-section contour with percent decreases in velocity from background

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Top (top) and side (bottom) view of the 750 m radius plume

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

CO2 plume cross-section with event regions

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Box plot of average percent difference between nodes in the input and output velocity models for each event region data set

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Box plot of average percent difference between nodes in the input and output velocity models for each plume radius, meters

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Box plot of average percent difference between nodes in the input and output velocity models for each geophone array data set

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Average percent difference versus cost

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In