Monitoring Network and Modelling Network – Combined Meeting

Publication Overview

The objective of this project is to test near surface monitoring of CO₂ during a controlled release experiment. By monitoring released CO₂ the sensitivity of monitoring systems could be determined. Data could then be used to test and calibrate migration models under controlled conditions enabling results to be up-scaled to full-scale storage sites. The results can also be used to develop a monitoring protocol. Although this is a near-surface (<20m controlled release) deeper (100m – 300m) releases are planned.

Publication Summary

• Microseismic data from current projects making progress in identifying risks and reducing uncertainty.
• Monitoring to modelling iteration is proving effective but some uncertainty still remains.
• We are getting more out of pressure gauge data – Snøhvit is a good example
• Microseismics – has clear benefits, even if there are no results. The technique may give insights into induced seismic risks.
• Improved real time data analysis is needed to make reservoir management decisions from fall-off tests and/or multi-rate injection
• At In Salah, despite minimal microseismic deployment, integrated interpretation has provided useful information from the technology
• At Decatur microseismic deployment has been successful and there is a unique baseline. Although baseline can be useful it may not necessarily be essential.
• Commercial application of hydrofrac’ operation optimization is bringing new insights – high quality data and analytical tools can be applied for shale gas extraction.
• Need for characterization of seismic risk during site selection. Identification of event origin is important. Ambient seismicity can be very low at some sites. Some sites have very low (not measured) seismic response to injection, and investment in seismic monitoring has low value for the project.
• Modelling can be used to design effective monitoring programmes for example by targeting specific areas that are of interest for geomechanical stability.
• Cost effective planning needs further refinement especially the benefits of deploying different tools and the use of dedicated monitoring wells. Gaps:
• Need more tools to analyze continuous data
• Monitoring for commercial-scale deployment: what will be the right balance between cost and sensitivity to meet regulatory requirements? Includes costs of monitoring wells.
• Need (shallow) monitoring techniques which are continuous, real time, accurate, and cost effective. There are problems with the accuracy of available sensors and benchmarking of available sensors is required.
• Shallow monitoring techniques that are capable of wide area coverage and detection of small seepage features are required.
• Need to focus measurement on the reduction of stress uncertainty
• Need to reduce uncertainty in velocity models.
• Data to determine long term plume containment and temporal, technical and economic considerations.
• Characterisation of fault zones especially hydraulic and geomechanical properties. Experts in fault properties who have access to large data sets on fault properties should be invited to future meetings. Recommendations:
• Address gaps identified from this meeting.
• Development of new sensor technology that can produce continuous, reliable and accurate data from field deployment.
• On-going need for joint monitoring and modelling meetings.