Joint cross‐well and single‐well seismic studies of CO2 injection in an oil reservoir

Abstract

ABSTRACTA series of time‐lapse seismic cross‐well and single‐well experiments were conducted in a diatomite reservoir to monitor the injection of CO2 into a hydrofracture zone, based on P‐ and S‐wave data. A high‐frequency piezo‐electric P‐wave source and an orbital‐vibrator S‐wave source were used to generate waves that were recorded by hydrophones as well as 3‐component geophones. During the first phase the set of seismic experiments was conducted after the injection of water into the hydrofractured zone. The set of seismic experiments was repeated after a time period of seven months during which CO2 was injected into the hydrofractured zone. The questions to be answered ranged from the detectability of the geological structure in the diatomic reservoir to the detectability of CO2 within the hydrofracture. Furthermore, it was intended to determine which experiment (cross‐well or single‐well) is best suited to resolve these features.During the pre‐injection experiment, the P‐wave velocities exhibited relatively low values between 1700 and 1900 m/s, which decreased to 1600–1800 m/s during the post‐injection phase (−5%). The analysis of the pre‐injection S‐wave data revealed slow S‐wave velocities between 600 and 800 m/s, while the post‐injection data revealed velocities between 500 and 700 m/s (−6%). These velocity estimates produced high Poisson's ratios between 0.36 and 0.46 for this highly porous (∼50%) material. Differencing post‐ and pre‐injection data revealed an increase in Poisson's ratio of up to 5%. Both velocity and Poisson's ratio estimates indicate the dissolution of CO2 in the liquid phase of the reservoir accompanied by an increase in pore pressure.The single‐well data supported the findings of the cross‐well experiments. P‐ and S‐wave velocities as well as Poisson's ratios were comparable to the estimates of the cross‐well data.The cross‐well experiment did not detect the presence of the hydrofracture but appeared to be sensitive to overall changes in the reservoir and possibly the presence of a fault. In contrast, the single‐well reflection data revealed an arrival that could indicate the presence of the hydrofracture between the source and receiver wells, while it did not detect the presence of the fault, possibly due to out‐of‐plane reflections.