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

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