Rock Physics-Based Data Assimilation of Integrated Continuous Active-Source Seismic and Pressure Monitoring Data during Geological Carbon Storage

Abstract

Summary There has been substantial controversy concerning the role of geological carbon storage (GCS) in sequestering anthropogenic carbon emissions to mitigate climate change and global warming. Arguments center on the inability to monitor a geological storage site precisely and continuously, especially highlighting the associated costs and spatiotemporal trade-offs when using conventional subsurface monitoring techniques (well logs, core samples, chemical tracers, and 4D seismics). Active surveillance of GCS sites is essential for managing and mitigating potential leaks but is also required by regulation. With the goal of enhancing the monitoring capability at GCS sites, we present a rock physics-based joint data assimilation model to study a popular GCS site at Cranfield, Mississippi, USA. Synthetic continuous active-source seismic monitoring (CASSM) data (in the form of Vp and Qp measurements) and wellbore pressure monitoring data are assimilated with an ensemble of reservoir realizations to monitor gas saturation and reservoir pressure changes over a period of 100 years. Synthetic seismic attributes are generated using rock physics models (RPMs) and wellbore pressure monitoring data are extracted from the ground truth. Two assimilation methods, ensemble Kalman filter (EnKF) and ensemble Kalman smoother (EnKS), are tested in an observation system simulation experiment (OSSE) environment to assess the prediction accuracy of the individual and composite observation systems. The joint monitoring system achieves more accurate estimates of gas saturation and pressure, across the time span from start of injection to end of forecast, as compared to a single type of monitoring tool and irrespective of data assimilation algorithm choice. These results indicate that jointly assimilated data from two types of sensors (in this case, crosswell seismic and downhole pressure) may lead to a more risk-reducing monitoring design. One would expect that more data, vis-à-vis inclusion of a new sensor type, will improve the accuracy of any GCS monitoring system. However, from a practical standpoint, one important question is whether such a gain in accuracy is worth the additional cost associated with the new sensor. This paper focuses on quantifying the gain in accuracy, such that a practitioner can answer this question.