Download the document - Global CCS Institute

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Enquiries should be addressed toDavid AnnettsCSIRO Earth Science and Resource EngineeringAustralian Resources Research Centre26 Dick Perry Avenue, KENSINGTON 6151, AustraliaTelephone : +61 8 6436 8517Fax : +61 8 6436 8555email: David.Annetts@csiro.auRecommended citationAnnetts, D., Hauser, J., Gunning, J., Gurevich, B., Bona, A., Pevzner, R., Harris, B., Urosevic, M.,al Ajami, M., Cant, J. 2012, A deployment strategy for effective geophysical remote sensing of CO 2sequestration, CSIRO Report EP125197.AcknowledgementThe authors wish to acknowledge financial assistance provided through Australian National Low EmissionsCoal Research and Development (ANLEC R&D). ANLEC R&D is supported by Australian CoalAssociation Low Emissions Technology Limited and the Australian Government through the Clean EnergyInitiative.Copyright and disclaimer© 2012 CSIRO To the extent permitted by law, all rights are reserved and no part of this publicationcovered by copyright may be reproduced or copied in any form or by any means except with the writtenpermission of CSIRO.Important disclaimerCSIRO advises that the information contained in this publication comprises general statements based onscientific research. The reader is advised and needs to be aware that such information may be incompleteor unable to be used in any specific situation. No reliance or actions must therefore be made on thatinformation without seeking prior expert professional, scientific and technical advice. To the extentpermitted by law, CSIRO (including its employees and consultants) excludes all liability to any personfor any consequences, including but not limited to all losses, damages, costs, expenses and any othercompensation, arising directly or indirectly from using this publication (in part or in whole) and anyinformation or material contained in it.
Response to referee’s commentsThis is the final reviewed version of our manuscript. Referee’s suggestions to change the names, e.g. ofwells, geological formations etc. to reflect current nomenclature, were implemented as a matter of course.Typographical errors were also corrected as a matter of course.Some reviewers commented on the report’s apparent bias in favour of the reflection seismic method.Slightly over 50% of the technical material is concerned to some extent, with the reflection seismicmethod in various survey configurations. Much of the remainder of the technical content is concernedwith the electromagnetic (EM) prospecting method. This report was designed to investigate geophysicalremote sensing of CO 2 . Apart from the reflection seismic method, we are not aware of a technique thatachieves high resolution at the depths required for CO 2 sequestration which are typically deeper than800 m. Structure mapped using reflection seismics can be used to constrain the bounds of CO 2 distributionswhich are derived from methods such as EM (Section 4.2) and gravity (Section 4.3). The reason forthis lies in the physical principles which are exploited by these last two methods. Essentially, geophysicalprospecting methods such as EM and gravity have an inherent ambiguity. In the case of EM, we canresolve the product of resistivity and thickness, and in the case of gravity, a particular response can beproduced by different combinations of density, size and depth. In both cases, knowledge of the structure(provided by the reflection seismic method) significantly reduces the ambiguity of both methods, allowingderivation of resistivity from EM data and density from gravity data, both of which are related to CO 2sequestration. When the reflection seismic method is used in this way, it is important to understand limitson resolution. For this reason, significant effort was spent understanding the uncertainties in structureand CO 2 saturation that could be derived from seismic data (Section 4.1.3).Other reviewers commented on the use of horizontal wells as a survey geometry for monitoring thespatial extent of a CO 2 plume. To a certain extent, their effectiveness will be site-specific, though wemake some general comments. For the reflection seismic method, we expect similar improvements insignal/noise ratio to when ocean-bottom cable (OBC) seismometers are used in marine seismic surveys.Advantages of using OBC seismometers are seen in Section 4.1.4.3. For electromagnetic surveys studiedin Section 4.2, the use of horizontal wells is somewhat more complicated. Intuitively, we expect animprovement in signal/noise ratio because receivers are closer to the change that is being measured, andsimilar improvements to OBC seismic surveys are expected. However, this does not consider the EMsource. If this is placed in a well, then we expect reduced signal-noise ratios because of the generalreduction in source moment (the product of transmitter loop turns, loop area and current) when e.g. alarge loop in miniaturised so that it fits in a borehole. There may be value in using large-moment surfacetransmitters in combination with receivers in horizontal wells, but this is also site-dependent.Some reviewers focussed on what was required from a monitoring and verification program. At thetime of writing, different regulatory regimes applied to on-shore and off-shore sequestration projects.Off-shore projects are covered by Federal regulations while on-shore projects are covered by state regulations.In this report, we based M&V on Federal guidelines, which may differ from a particular State’srequirements. Not all states have yet developed legislation; CCS regulatory frameworks are being developedon a nationally-consistent basis under guiding principles endorsed in 2005 by all Australianjurisdictions. Key to M&V requirements for a particular project is the site plan which is required to iden-| i
Page 1: www.csiro.auA deployment strategy f
Page 6 and 7: This project identified the followi
Page 8: 4.2.3 Marine electromagnetics . . .
Page 12 and 13: This page intentionally left blank.
Page 18 and 19: and Hoversten, 2006, 2005; Wells et
Page 20: Fundamentally, CO 2 detectability i
Page 24 and 25: which rises. Eke et al. (2011) reco
Page 26 and 27: • Rock physics uncertainties are
Page 28 and 29: 2.1 South West Hub CCS ProjectThe S
Page 30 and 31: 2.1.2 Data reviewPublically-availab
Page 32 and 33: GSWA Record 2004/8Gravity and magne
Page 34 and 35: −32˚30'115˚30'116˚00'−32˚30
Page 36 and 37: 0cdp100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
Page 38 and 39: W
Page 40 and 41: Figure 2.12: The Seaspray depressio
Page 42 and 43: 2.2.2 Data reviewAs might be expect
Page 45 and 46: 0South-WestNorth-East2depth (km)46F
Page 47 and 48: 3 Rock physics relationshipsNo exta
Page 49 and 50: For the reservoir member a porosity
Page 51 and 52: 3.1.2 Clean sandstone modelThe foll
Page 53 and 54:
3.2 Electrical propertiesThe model
Page 55 and 56:
300Lesueur project GEMTIP Rock phys
Page 57 and 58:
4 Geophysical remote sensing techni
Page 59 and 60:
0500100021.81.61.4 T (ms) 150
Page 61 and 62:
108A S/A N64202000 2100 2200 2300 2
Page 63 and 64:
Figure 4.5: The seismic lines super
Page 65 and 66:
4.1.2 Data processingThe end goal o
Page 67 and 68:
4.1.3 1D Reflection seismicsSeismic
Page 69 and 70:
the detectability of CO 2 when only
Page 71 and 72:
4.1.4 2D Reflection seismicsModelli
Page 73 and 74:
(a) Baseline velocity model(b) Velo
Page 75 and 76:
(a) Baseline and 2.5% CO 2 saturati
Page 77 and 78:
• ρ = 2.497g/cm 3 .This gives th
Page 79 and 80:
!me$(ms)$Figure 4.17: Noise-free ba
Page 81 and 82:
CDP0400 time (ms)800120016002
Page 83 and 84:
5004504000.64kt1.59kt3.18kt6.37kt12
Page 85 and 86:
010020040060080014000.116001800N ra
Page 87 and 88:
Figure 4.27: Zoomed in synthetic ba
Page 89 and 90:
Figure 4.30: Zoomed view of the inj
Page 91 and 92:
4.1.6 Permanent receiver installati
Page 93 and 94:
Figure 4.33: Well 6, Zero-offset (1
Page 95 and 96:
4.1.6.2 Ocean bottom cablesFor mari
Page 97 and 98:
4.2 Electromagnetic surveying & int
Page 99 and 100:
• Clearly, the induction monitori
Page 101 and 102:
Key points to consider for applicat
Page 103 and 104:
4.2.2.1 Single-borehole electromagn
Page 105 and 106:
4.2.2.2 Separated-borehole electrom
Page 107 and 108:
The second and third examples of cr
Page 109 and 110:
0 A 100 m 50010001500 2000 250010
Page 111 and 112:
0Wonnerup, 1000 m target; Tx 1200m
Page 113 and 114:
Downloaded 23 Sep 2010 to 130.116.1
Page 115 and 116:
ceiver offset from the transmitter
Page 117 and 118:
Figure 4.50: Dependence of mCSEM re
Page 119 and 120:
The second variation of Figure 4.48
Page 121 and 122:
0 A EE Component0B E Z Component0 C
Page 123 and 124:
The third variation of Figure 4.48
Page 125 and 126:
0 A EE Component0B E Z Component0 C
Page 127 and 128:
4.2.4 Ground electromagneticsThe mC
Page 129 and 130:
Table 4.7: LOTEM Gate parameters. T
Page 131 and 132:
Response Background1.0101.0051.000
Page 133 and 134:
Response Background1.101.051.000.9
Page 135 and 136:
Primary Industries, 2011). However,
Page 137 and 138:
Effect of drill hole offset0DDH10DD
Page 139 and 140:
Microseismic monitoring ideally beg
Page 141 and 142:
ferromagnetic magnet which has a te
Page 143 and 144:
5 Monitoring & verification strateg
Page 145 and 146:
5.1 General recommendations & strat
Page 147 and 148:
Table 5.2: Suitability of geophysic
Page 149 and 150:
confused with seepage. In this case
Page 151 and 152:
6 ConclusionsThis report has discus
Page 153 and 154:
7 Recommendations for future resear
Page 155 and 156:
ReferencesAl-Ali, Z. A., M. H. Al-B
Page 157 and 158:
Du, J., D. L. Tilbrook, J. C. Macfa
Page 159 and 160:
JafarGandomi, A., and A. Curtis, 20
Page 161 and 162:
Schilling, F., G. Borm, H. Würdema
Page 163 and 164:
Yan, W., S. Huang, and E. H. Stenby
Page 165 and 166:
ACO 2 PropertiesThis Appendix gives
Page 167 and 168:
BSeismic preprocessing workflowThe
Page 169 and 170:
CSeismic data processing for quanti
Page 171 and 172:
Preprocessing prior to any stack wi
Page 173 and 174:
Recent developments, such as target
Page 175 and 176:
and should not be used for quantita
Page 177 and 178:
DGeophysical software used in the p
Page 179:
EProject detailsThis section lists
show all

Download the document - Global CCS Institute

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?