Advertisement

A Method for Ranking CO2 Flow Models Using Seismic Modeling and Time-Lapse Data

  • Magne Lygren
  • Erik Lindeberg
  • Per Bergmo
  • Geir Vaaland Dahl
  • Kristine Årland Halvorsen
  • Trygve Randen
  • Lars Sønneland
Part of the Mathematics in Industry book series (MATHINDUSTRY, volume 7)

Summary

A method for discriminating between different reservoir flow models using forward modeling and time-lapse seismic is presented. A rock-physical model is used in order to generate synthetic time-lapse acoustic responses based on flow model predictions. From the acoustic properties a pull-down caused by modifications in acoustic velocity is calculated and compared to real measurements. Full synthetic seismograms are also generated. The method has been applied to the Sleipner CO2 sequestration project where time-lapse seismic is used to monitor the injected gas. Different vertical migration processes of the CO2 may explain the observed time-lapse response. In this chapter, this new methodology is used in order to discriminate between these processes.

Keywords

Bulk Modulus Flow Model Acoustic Velocity Seismic Modeling Shale Layer 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    R. Arts, A. Chadwick, O. Eiken, G.A. Kirby, E. Lindeberg, and P. Zweigel (2003) 4d seismic imaging of a CO2 bubble at the Sleipner field, central North Sea. 3D Seismic Data: Advances in the Understanding of Stratigraphic and Structural Architecture, R. Davies, J. Cartwright, S. Stewart, R. Underhill, and M. Lappin (eds.), Special Memoir of the Geological Society, London.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    R. Arts, R. Esayed, L. van der Meer, O. Eiken, S. Ostmo, A. Chadwick, G. Kirby, and B. Zinszner (2002) Estimation of the mass of injected CO2 at Sleipner using time-lapse seismic data. 64th EAGE Annual Conference & Exhibition, Florence, Italy, 2002.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    K. Fagervik, M. Lygren, T.S. Valen, A. Hetlelid, G. Berge, G.V. Dahl, L. Sønneland, H.E. Lie, and I. Magnus (2001) A method for performing history matching of reservoir flow models using 4d seismic. Society of Exploration Geophysicists 71th Annual Meeting, San Antonio, Texas, USA, 2001.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    E. Lindeberg, P. Zweigel, P. Bergmo, A. Ghaderi, and A. Lothe (2000) Prediction of CO2 dispersal pattern improved by geology and reservoir simulation and verified by time-lapse seismic. 5th International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies, Cairns, Australia, 2000.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    P. Zweigel, M. Hamborg, R. Arts, A. Lothe, and A. Tømmeras (2000) Prediction of migration of CO2 injected into an underground depository: reservoir geology and migration modelling in the Sleipner case (North Sea). 5th International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies, Cairns, Australia, 2000.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Magne Lygren
    • 1
  • Erik Lindeberg
    • 2
  • Per Bergmo
    • 2
  • Geir Vaaland Dahl
    • 1
  • Kristine Årland Halvorsen
    • 1
  • Trygve Randen
    • 1
  • Lars Sønneland
    • 1
  1. 1.Schlumberger Stavanger ResearchStavangerNorway
  2. 2.SINTEF Petroleum ResearchTrondheimNorway

Personalised recommendations