Abstract
The Sleipner field in the North Sea has been a cornerstone in the study of aquifer CO2 sequestration, with over 20 years of monitoring through time-lapse seismic analysis. This world-class project has provided critical insights into CO2 storage by detecting anomalous events in seismic imagery, confirming CO2 migration and stabilization within the subsurface. The study observed the growth of the CO2 plume within the storage aquifer layer by analyzing the seismic amplitude differences between baseline and subsequent monitoring data. The availability of precise seismic datasets in the Sleipner Project has not only facilitated monitoring validation but also spurred further research into CO2 quantification. This study focused on verifying the correlation between the amounts of stored CO2 and seismic attributes. Reflection data previously acquired revealed seismic anomalies attributed to the subsurface CO2 plume. The trace envelope attribute, which only registers positive values, was found to be particularly effective in delineating the primary boundary of the CO2-affected region. To advance quantitative monitoring, a new CO2 indicator attribute was developed, derived from the trace envelope and similarity variance. The application of this attribute resulted in an improvement in regression estimation accuracy, increasing from 0.9895 to 0.9906. The successful matching of CO2 storage data with seismic attributes demonstrates that fluid substitution can be quantitatively assessed using seismic data manipulation over time, underscoring the potential of seismic analysis for accurate CO2 monitoring in subsurface storage projects.
1 Introduction
Carbon capture and storage (CCS) is an essential technique that requires continuous research to be beneficial in mitigating the climate crisis. The completion of storing CO2 in a geological subsurface has been validated in an enhanced oil recovery field and an aquifer formation (; ). CCS involves a challenging process requiring critical technological procedures, such as capturing at source, transportation, subsurface storage, and confirming stabilization (). Comprehensive offshore and onshore CCS projects have demonstrated the feasibility of storing millions of tons of carbon annually (; ); however, monitoring this in the subsurface is crucial for public safety and social awareness (; ). Regulations require detailed monitoring to confirm the need for stabilization of the injected CO2. Therefore, high-quality monitoring data are necessary to succeed in CCS projects.
The Sleipner Project provides a high-resolution, time-lapse seismic dataset for monitoring subsurface CO2 (). This project is a large-scale demonstration of CCS on an aquifer formation that was monitored by time-lapse 2D and 3D seismic and historical matching analyses (; ; ). Because the data are high quality, various applications in seismic analysis have contributed to the geology and geophysics research in this area. Thin layers were modeled and analyzed using the amplitude of the seismic wiggles corresponding to each CO2 plume layer (; ). Amplitude variation with offset was used to invert the geophysical properties from basic impedance to compressibility and shear compressibility (; ). The characteristics of high-quality seismic data made it possible to derive velocity information, which is difficult to calculate inside the CO2 storage layer, in various ways (; ; ). The CO2 storage volume divided into layers is becoming so specific that 4D inversion and simulated annealing are being attempted to overcome the thin-bed tuning effect and to quantify plume amount (; ). Subsurface characterization also estimates physical properties such as saturation, migration, and trapping of CO2 at a fine scale in the Sleipner field (; ; ). To date, Sleipner data have been used in numerous geological and geophysical research projects.
The estimation of CO2 boundaries and the volumes of CO2 injected into the Sleipner reservoir are important for understanding Sleipner data. Compressibility and shear compliance have been proven to be more effective for describing CO2 plumes than conventional impedance because they are more closely related to saturation (). The boundary of the Sleipner CO2 plume must be continuously updated for the simulation, which can markedly affect the quantification results (). An effective quantification method is to monitor CO2 stored in the geologic storage using noble gases. For example, He/Ar isotopes have contributed significantly to the elucidation of the constraints of the crust and mantle (). Introducing these geochemical methods to CCS studies will facilitate the tracking of CO2 stabilization and migration (). An alternative method, if the tracer injection method cannot be applied, is to use the seismic data. Seismic attributes, a method for identifying plume boundaries, have been used to interpret a hydrocarbon reservoir by focusing on the amplitude of an anomaly event. The application of seismic attributes has evolved into a reservoir analysis technique (; ). Some researchers have used advanced seismic attribute analysis to track fluid front movement so that it can be used to characterize and monitor reservoirs (; ). The physical properties of rocks are major seismic attributes (; ), and although these attributes are easy to calculate and analyze, their utility should be handled with caution to avoid incorrect interpretation (; ). Regarding the advantages of seismic attributes, monitoring CO2 in the subsurface would be improved by using a Sleipner time-lapse dataset to obtain more detail.
Here, we present a validation of whether specific attributes, rather than the seismic amplitudes from vintage surveys, are more effective at recognizing the plume boundary of subsurface CO2. For this purpose, we display an amplitude envelope to define the CO2 plume boundaries using time-lapse data. Based on these boundaries, the area and volume of the CO2 plume were calculated and correlated with the injected volume of CO2. To achieve a higher correlation, we combined conventional attributes and derived a new optimized seismic attribute. The time-lapse volumes calculated by the new attribute have an increased correlation value with the injected volume of CO2. The crossplot between the CO2 plume volumes and the amount of injected CO2 quantified the validation of the seismic attribute application in CCS assessment. The availability of a high-quality dataset motivates the application of seismic attribute analysis to match CO2 amounts with time-lapse data.
2 Methodology
2.1 Sleipner Project and time-lapse seismic data
The Sleipner Project is a demonstration of successful CCS for aquifer formation since the first CO2 injection was implemented in October 1996. Located in the North Sea, the Sleipner field is associated with the Miocene–Pliocene Utsira Formation, with an estimated 51.6 billion cubic meters of gas reserves in the adjacent area (Figure 1). The Utsira Formation is a sand unit overlain by Pliocene shale. Internally, Utsira contains interlayered shale units (∼1 m thick) that show low permeability, which inhibits CO2 flow, in contrast with a thick upper shale layer that may assist flow (). The Sleipner reservoir is an open system with relatively well-known flow paths and active pressure dissipation mechanisms (e.g., lateral brine migration). In contrast, natural CO2 and He accumulations form over millions of years in closed or semi-closed systems, where fluid movement is far more constrained. These systems are heavily influenced by caprock integrity, fault sealing, burial history, and diagenetic processes, all of which can profoundly affect gas migration and trapping. Various studies show that natural analogs exhibit behavior shaped by long-term lithological evolution and tectonic regimes, which means gases can accumulate as a function of temperature-dependent diffusion and trapping efficiency (; ; ). Monitoring techniques, therefore, compensated for site-specific thermal, lithological, and structural conditions, and the Sleipner Project also conducted such studies (; ).
FIGURE 1
The Sleipner Project injected supercritical CO2 at a depth of 1,012 m into the saline aquifer of the Utsira Formation Sandstone (), which has a favorable porosity of 35%–40% to store CO2, adequate for applying seismic monitoring techniques (). Under favorable conditions, CO2 monitoring has been successful in the Sleipner Project (; ; ). Additional quantitative analyses of time-lapse seismic data are ongoing using a wide-scope approach. Time-lapse seismic data, also known as 4D seismic imaging, represents a sophisticated geophysical monitoring technique that captures sequential seismic surveys of the same geological formation over multiple time intervals. This method enables the detection and quantification of subtle changes in subsurface characteristics, particularly crucial in CCS and hydrocarbon reservoir monitoring. The depth interval of CCS storage on time-lapse seismic data that includes some heterogeneities with thin layers is of particular interest for developing research that would be valuable to the post-injection stages (; ).
Seven vintage seismic surveys were conducted, starting with a baseline survey in 1994 and continuing in 1999, 2001, 2004, 2006, 2008, and 2010 (). Time-lapse data were released in January 2020 (), consisting of migrated volumes and velocity maps that can be converted into depth-domain data. The seismic volume and acquisition parameters used here are listed in Table 1, which shows consistency with the vintage surveys.
TABLE 1
| Data name | Baseline | M99 | M01 | M04 | M06 | M08 | M10 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Acquisition year | 1994 | 1998 | 2001 | 2004 | 2006 | 2008 | 2010 |
| Shooting direction (degree) | 0.853 | 0.853 | 0.850 | 90.00 | 0.850 | 0.850 | 0.850 |
| Shot point interval (m) | 18.75 | 12.5 | 12.5 | 18.75 | 18.75 | 18.75 | 12.5 |
| Group interval (m) | 12.5 | 12.5 | 12.5 | 12.5 | 12.5 | 12.5 | 12.5 |
| Bin size acq. (m) | 6.25 × 25 | 6.25 × 25 | 6.25 × 25 | 6.25 × 18.75 | 6.25 × 25 | 6.25 × 25 | 6.25 × 18.75 |
| Sample interval (ms) | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
| Recording length (ms) | 5,500 | 4,500 | 4,500 | 6,000 | 6,000 | 6,000 | 4,608 |
Survey data list and acquisition parameters.
All time-lapse seismic datasets show sufficient resolution to enable imaging of the amplitude difference from 4D processing (). The bin size along the survey was 6.25 m and less than 25 m across, which enabled 4D seismic monitoring with a good resolution. The frequency range of seismic data is between 15 Hz and 55 Hz, centered at 35 Hz, with a tuning thickness of 14 ms in two-way travel time. This resolution enhances layer heterogeneity decomposition and derives confident velocity information (). To further validate the seismic data, additional information contained in the seismic attributes was utilized to obtain more amplitude-varying features.
2.2 Attribute analysis and volume calculation
There are various seismic attributes in the Sleipner dataset. To analyze these, the IHS Kingdom™ Suite software was used, which provides intrinsic attributes in four categories: wavelet, instantaneous, geometric, and stratigraphic. Among the available attributes, the trace envelope (TE) is preferred for identifying CO2 plumes. TE, also known as instantaneous amplitude, can be calculated using the absolute value of the function amplitude. It involves all positive values that may represent the individual interface contrast so that it can highlight anomalous regions.
When the original seismic trace is obtained, TE (Equation 1) can be written aswhere and are the real and imaginary parts of the Hilbert transform of the seismic trace, respectively (). Because TE has only a positive magnitude, a subtle polarity change in the spatial domain would be blurred or neglected. Instead, the amplitude differences near the CO2 plume injection region were highlighted. We intend to design additional new attributes that should minimize amplitude changes in the background region and further maximize the effect of discriminating amplitude anomalies.
The similarity variance (SV) value is an additional attribute consistent with a similar lithology. If the interval is saturated with CO2, a similar interval is expected. Therefore, similarity (Equation 2) was used as a secondary attribute, expressed as shown below:where fm(z) is the mth trace of the gather, N is the length of the computational window in both time and depth domains, and z represents either time or depth. This is also the calculation of semblance property, which represents a measure of the coherent power existing between several traces versus the total power of all traces. Next, the variance of similarity (Equation 3) was calculated:where S is the similarity, Smean is the mean value of S, and E is the expectation of S. Therefore, the SV calculated by the expected value of the squared deviation from the mean of similarity represents local anomalies with respect to the smoothed averaged background. By including the similarity variance in the exponential function so that a smaller SV represents a higher anomaly following high coherency events, the CO2 plume region was easier to distinguish.
To merge the relative attributes into a new one, the data trend was inspected. The new attribute CO2IDC—an indicator of carbon dioxide—Equation 4 was calculated as shown below:
Here, CO2IDC is a property of the corrected TE obtained by adding the damping effect of the SV weighting to minimize the local variance from the plume area. We expect that CO2IDC can distinguish the CO2 plume region from the TE. Using these attributes, we commenced matching by displaying the relevant vertical and horizontal sections with the vintage surveys. The plume area was then captured using a polygon boundary. The time-lapse plume area correlated with the amount of CO2 injected into the Sleipner field. This is the first correlation of quantitative matching that uses two-dimensional interpretation results in the workflow (Figure 2). The subsequent correlations are the matching amount of injected CO2 with the three-dimensional plume volume interpreted by the attributes of TE and CO2IDC. The most important factor in determining these attributes is the area of the plume region interpreted on the seismic time-slice map. We calculated the area of the plume region by changing the moving width size in TE and SV computations, and the Sleipner data had a sensitivity of about 3% (Table 2). This value means that consistent plume area calculations are possible, and therefore, the method using CO2IDC would have robustness.
FIGURE 2
TABLE 2
| Width of moving window on TE (ms) | 14 | 28 | 56 | 112 |
| Calculated area of the CO2 plume (km2) | 2.26 | 2.28 | 2.22 | 2.14 |
| Difference between area average and calculated value (%) | 1.57 | 2.47 | 0.22 | 3.82 |
| Selected result on the TE map |  |  |  |  |
| Width of moving window on SV (ms) | 14 | 28 | 56 | 112 |
| Calculated area of CO2 plume (km2) | 2.77 | 2.86 | 2.99 | 2.81 |
| Difference between area average and calculated value (%) | 3.06 | 0.09 | 4.63 | 1.66 |
| Selected result on the SV map |  |  |  |  |
Sensitivity analysis between the polygon selection and the moving window width.
The spatial volume of the CO2 plume was calculated from the two-dimensional interpretation results to input the quantitative matching. Previous studies using the Sleipner dataset have reported that the plume extends over nine layers (; ). For volume calculation, the average value was used after calculating the volume of the area occupied by the polygons of the grid top and bottom layers, without separately calculating all layers for efficiency (Figure 3). This method would be effective in excluding the influence of the thin-bed tuning effect that researchers are concerned about (). The plume area of top and bottom was computed by summation of polygons that can be assigned inner boundaries from plume top and bottom interpretation. To convert the time-domain seismic data into a spatial grid, the velocity map for each layer provided by the Sleipner Project was input (). A volume calculator in Kingdom™ was used to determine the volume of the polygon area occupied vertically by the top and bottom layers. In summary, the volume calculation method consists of calculating the area (top and bottom) boundary with a polygon, converting the time-domain seismic data into a space grid using a velocity map, and deriving the total plume’s volume value. These operations were applied to polygons using TE and CO2IDC, and plume volumes were calculated for all seismic datasets for each acquisition period (Baseline, M99, M01, M04, M06, M08, and M10).
FIGURE 3
3 Results and discussion
3.1 Matching CO2 amount with primary seismic amplitude
The amount of injected CO2 was matched against the plume area inferred from seismic data to validate the usage of primary seismic amplitude data. A seismic section is depicted at the inline, crossline vertical section, and time-slice on the horizontal map to compare the matching results. The area of CO2 was determined via a manual selection of the plume boundary on the time-slice map. Then, a crossplot between the area and injected CO2 volume was used to obtain a regression degree of fitting.
After loading seismic data, four horizons were interpreted: mean sea level, top sand wedge, and top and bottom Utsira Formation. The CO2 plume lies between orange and green, as indicated in Figure 4, where the interval between the top and bottom Utsira Formation is located. All seven vertical sections are depicted at inline 1830, close to the center of the survey area adjacent to the location of the injection point. In the baseline data, there was no anomaly between the orange and green horizons (Figure 4a). As the amount of injected CO2 increased, the anomalous event exhibited a CO2 plume growth (Figures 4b–g). Figure 4h shows the corresponding position in the map view.
FIGURE 4
The growth of the CO2 plume can be clearly seen when displayed on a time-slice map. Depicted maps at 0.95 ms two-way travel time (TWTT)―representing the depth of the top Utsira Formation―were displayed and used to select the plume region (Figure 5). The increase in the plume area with time-lapse on the map represents almost 1 million tons of CO2 injected annually. The anomaly aspect is displayed in red and black, indicating negative and positive amplitude changes, respectively. The boundary of the anomalous area was selected on the time-slice map, and the area of the CO2 plume was estimated.
FIGURE 5
According to the , the amount of injected CO2 is approximately one million tons per year. The cumulative amount of CO2 is listed in Table 3. The area of the CO2 plume boundary was calculated using the polygon tool in the time-slice map at 0.950 ms travel time depths and compared with the injected CO2 amount. As indicated in Figure 6, the crossplot shows a good correlation between CO2 amount and the calculated area of the plume determined at the time-slice, proving that the Sleipner time-lapse dataset records the CO2 plume growth quantitatively. As observed with seismic amplitude only, the CO2 plume growth correlates with a CO2 injection increase. The correlation is high (0.9895), as the amount of CO2 is quite large, and the area expands over a large range.
TABLE 3
| Survey | CO2 amount (kt) | Area of CO2 plume (m2) |
|---|---|---|
| Baseline | 0 | 0 |
| M99 | 2,303 | 502,848 |
| M01 | 4,210 | 846,232 |
| M04 | 6,909 | 1,319,700 |
| M06 | 8,414 | 1,558,700 |
| M08 | 10,383 | 2,227,300 |
| M10 | 12,080 | 2,560,400 |
Matching amount of CO2 with plume area from the time-slice map at a depth of TWTT 0.95 ms.
FIGURE 6
An injection volume proportional to the CO2 plume area can be justified if the thickness is constant and there is no change in the upper and lower areas. In actual field conditions, the area where CO2 spreads is different for each layer; therefore, more accurate matching is possible if this is considered. Because it is obvious that the volume of stored CO2 increases as the injection amount increases, the assessment of the correlation must be precisely quantified with the upper and lower plume boundaries to perform accurate monitoring. Therefore, the correlation between secondary seismic attributes and the amount of CO2 was quantified, particularly focusing on the discrimination of the lower CO2 boundary, which is not clearly revealed on seismic amplitude.
3.2 Quantification of CO2 by secondary seismic attributes
Although the primary seismic amplitude shows a clear image of the CO2 plume in the Utsira Formation, the lower part of the plume has a smaller area, making recognition harder than the upper part of the plume boundary. To determine the volume of the CO2 plume region, additional seismic attributes can help distinguish between anomalous regions with background storage formation.
The TE of the Sleipner seismic data represents all positive values at every time sample, especially the anomaly in yellow in Figure 7, which shows an anomalous stored CO2 region in the Utsira Formation. This facilitated the identification of the CO2 plume in the vertical dimension. The visually observed CO2 plume region was similar in the primary amplitude of the seismic data and in the secondary TE attribute data. To determine the plume volume in three dimensions, it was established that TE is advantageous for selecting the amplitude boundary on a time-slice map. To calculate the CO2 plume volume, the average of two cylinders from the top and bottom selected layer boundaries was used (Figure 8). The top of the Utsira Formation was selected at 0.950 ms TWTT on the TE map (Figures 8a–e), showing a similar boundary with seismic amplitude (Figures 5b–f). Interpretation of the bottom Utsira Formation shows less area as seen on amplitude selections from the CO2 saturation region on the TE time-slice (Figures 8f–j).
FIGURE 7
FIGURE 8
The result of the matching between the plume volume calculated by TE and the injected amount of CO2 is shown in Table 4. The regression value decreased from 0.9895 to 0.9690 as it was affected by the inaccurate selection of the bottom area (Figure 9). This regression value is not unique because it is determined by a manually selected result for the upper and lower area boundaries. Obtaining an accurate selection method is dependent on the seismic resolution. With the Sleipner data, the resolution of the seismic volume is fairly good; thus, it is easy to select an anomalous event. However, in the case of a degraded time-lapse seismic dataset, it is difficult to select a CO2 plume boundary that worsens the matching quality for monitoring CO2. The difficulties in determining the bottom Utsira Formation are consistent when the selection is made on the primary seismic amplitude. Thus, it is a major trigger for introducing additional attributes that represent the CO2 plume region.
TABLE 4
| Survey | CO2 amount (kt) | Volume by upper area of CO2 plume (m3) | Volume by lower area of CO2 plume (m3) | Volume average (U + L)/2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Baseline | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| M99 | 2,303 | 496.87 | 353.30 | 425.09 |
| M01 | 4,210 | 838.19 | 76.70 | 457.44 |
| M04 | 6,909 | 1,310.30 | 127.78 | 719.04 |
| M06 | 8,414 | 1,526.90 | 50.00 | 788.45 |
| M08 | 10,383 | 2,193.90 | 34.89 | 1,114.39 |
| M10 | 12,080 | 2,524.60 | 26.24 | 1,275.42 |
Matching CO2 amount with volume calculated by TE attributes at a depth between time-slice maps at 0.95 ms and 1.05 ms.
FIGURE 9
As introduced previously, CO2IDC was calculated and displayed using the Sleipner dataset (Figure 10). Because CO2IDC is calculated from the TE and weighted by the exponential value of SV, it is similar to the TE section. In the vertical section, CO2IDC can more easily differentiate the CO2 plume anomaly from the background area because the signal amplitude is manipulated by TE and SV to maximize coherence.
FIGURE 10
The CO2IDC on the time-slice map shows the difference in the CO2 plume region more clearly, making it easier to select the boundary. In particular, the lower boundary of the CO2 plume was recognized with the background Utsira Formation (Figure 11). This is an advantage of using the additional attribute of CO2IDC, which was specifically designed for the Sleipner dataset. The matching values between the injected CO2 and the plume volume calculated by CO2IDC are listed in Table 5. The values of the CO2 volumes, calculated by the lower layer cylinder, tend to be consistent, implying that the selection results of the boundary are robust along the time-lapse data. Figure 12 shows the crossplot of the matching result between the amount of CO2 and plume volume as calculated by the CO2IDC. The regression value increased to 0.9906, indicating the validity of the attribute manipulation.
FIGURE 11
TABLE 5
| Survey | CO2 amount (kt) | Upper limit (m3) | Lower limit (m3) | Average (m3) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Baseline | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| M99 | 2,303 | 451.53 | 314.00 | 382.76 |
| M01 | 4,210 | 891.37 | 276.67 | 584.02 |
| M04 | 6,909 | 1,401.17 | 324.08 | 862.63 |
| M06 | 8,414 | 1701.36 | 493.54 | 1,097.45 |
| M08 | 10,383 | 1981.02 | 437.43 | 1,209.22 |
| M10 | 12,080 | 2,285.54 | 625.94 | 1,455.75 |
Matching CO2 amount with volume calculated by CO2IDC.
FIGURE 12
3.3 Discussion
We selected a high-resolution seismic dataset released by the Sleipner Project that provides the best quality time-lapse seismic data. The data show an anomaly that is sufficiently large to detect CO2 qualitatively and has been proven by previous researchers (e.g., ; ). Previous work has confirmed the feasibility of quantifying injected CO2 with respect to seismic data, showing that anomalous amplitude is related to the amount of CO2, especially via layers on seismic images (; ). CO2 saturation is evaluated on a subsequent study utilizing seismic and rock physics inversion (). This quantification through inversion determined the CO2 saturation with high accuracy, and such efforts will be repeated using time-lapse data. The pre-stack inverted impedance also showed highly reliable results for CO2 saturation (). The method used here is merit worthy as it is less time-consuming than other methods, such as seismic inversion. More possibilities remain to be quantified, including monitoring issues dealing with history matching with CO2 amounts (; ). Conventional studies of history matching focus on well log data that are direct and accurate but make limited use of seismic data (; ).
From another viewpoint, we accept seismic attributes to determine the feasibility of historical matching with seismic data in the case of a limited availability of well logs. A seismic attribute is a standalone piece of information that can provide physical properties with high confidence and degree of freedom. However, the selection of an attribute is based on a data evaluation. In this case, the amount of CO2 is large; thus, the correlation of matching should be measured accurately. Building a new attribute is necessary to enhance time-lapse seismic data utilization, for example, to address pressure changes or to monitor porosity. Because the growth of the plume is not always consistent with the seismic interpretation, the detailed relationship between seismic signals and fluid substitution should be investigated.
In particular, stored CO2 is a fluid, so it can migrate over time, and especially in the case of faults, it must be monitored with fluid migration mechanisms. The flow of CO2 along complex strata and fracture zones is partially tracked in time-lapse seismic studies, and the CO2IDC presented in this study was introduced to confirm this more easily. However, it is desirable to utilize geochemical tracer studies as a method to directly and reliably track the flow of fluid (; ). These methods have the advantage of being able to identify detailed fluid flow when included in the design process of a CCS project. It is also a method that can be applied cost-effectively compared to repeated seismic surveys. In case of geophysical data only, our method verifies CO2 accommodation with attributes that were already confirmed with a slowly migrating plume without large-scale faults on the Sleipner data that were already published.
In time-slices corresponding to 1.05 ms of CO2IDC in the M04, M06, and M08 data, we identified a separated plume area boundary corresponding to a reported chimney event (; ). With only the seismic amplitude, the CO2 charged region was ambiguous because of positive and negative wiggling. This study proves that the specific interest in stored CO2 plumes can be investigated more easily by designing seismic attributes. However, there remains a validation limitation when challenging data are available. Because the present CO2IDC was designed by empirical determination, engaging other datasets would require a different damping value. In particular, when monitoring using seismic attributes is applied to heterogeneous, faulted, or fluid-rich geological domains, additional background information such as geochemical or geological interpretation should be utilized (; ). If experiences and case studies on various datasets accumulate, it will be possible to convert and standardize such information into quantifiable attributes. If active technologies such as machine learning, which have been in the spotlight recently, are utilized, the feasibility of the application will be secured more easily. Future studies may focus on the robust selection of attributes, regardless of data characteristics. If we achieve non-biased data analysis, the result of manipulating attributes for quantifying subsurfaces can be used across other disciplines, such as in monitoring aquifer pressure change, in addition to the CCS field.
4 Conclusion
Here, we analyzed a seismic attribute that can monitor CO2 amounts more effectively than the seismic amplitude itself. The trace envelope (TE) showed the CO2 plume region clearly with respect to time. The advantage of using a TE is that it has all positive values; therefore, it instinctively describes the plume boundary. The plume volume was estimated from the TE and was positively correlated with the amount of CO2 injected into the Utsira Formation. To improve the correlation between the injected CO2 amount and volume by seismic aspect, we designed a new CO2 indicator attribute based on the TE and similarity variance. The attribute of the CO2 indicator discriminated the CO2 saturated region qualitatively. The regression value increase in the correlation between the CO2 amount and volume calculated by CO2IDC proves that seismic attributes can be used to monitor CO2 for efficient CCS. Attributes analysis with a time-lapse scale can enhance the usage of Sleipner data and promote more intense research for CCS in general.
Statements
Data availability statement
Publicly available datasets were analyzed in this study. These data can be found here: https://co2datashare.org/dataset.
Author contributions
SC: Conceptualization, Data curation, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Writing – review and editing. SY: Formal analysis, Supervision, Writing – review and editing. VS: Conceptualization, Writing – review and editing.
Funding
The author(s) declare that financial support was received for the research and/or publication of this article. “Technology development for storage efficiency improvement and safety assessment of CO2 geological storage (24-3413)” and “Development of offshore CO2 monitoring technology and transboundary CCUS business models through participation in Australian project (24-4863)” at the Korea Institute of Geoscience and Mineral Resources (KIGAM).
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank reviewers for taking the time and effort necessary to review the manuscript.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
References
1
AhmadiniaM.ShariatipourS. M. (2020). Analysing the role of caprock morphology on history matching of Sleipner CO2 plume using an optimisation method. Greenh. Gases Sci. Technol.10, 1077–1097. 10.1002/ghg.2027
2
AhmadiniaM.ShariatipourS. M.AndersenO.NobakhtB. (2020). Quantitative evaluation of the joint effect of uncertain parameters in CO2 storage in the Sleipner project, using data-driven models. Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control103, 103180. 10.1016/j.ijggc.2020.103180
3
ArtsR.ChadwickA.EikenO.ThibeauS.NoonerS. (2008). Ten years’ experience of monitoring CO2 injection in the Utsira Sand at Sleipner, offshore Norway. First Break26, 65–72. 10.3997/1365-2397.26.1115.27807
4
ArtsR.EikenO.ChadwickA.ZweigelP.van der MeerL.ZinsznerB. (2003). “Monitoring of CO2 injected at Sleipner using time lapse seismic data,” in Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Control, Kyoto, Japan, October 1–4.
5
BachuS. (2015). Review of CO2 storage efficiency in deep saline aquifers. Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control40, 188–202. 10.1016/j.ijggc.2015.01.007
6
BehrensR. A.MacLeodM. K.TranT. T.AlimiA. O. (1998). Incorporating seismic attribute maps in 3D reservoir models. SPE Reserv. Eval. & Eng.1, 122–126. 10.2118/36499-pa
7
BensonS. M.BennaceurK.CookP.DavisonJ.de ConinckH.FarhatK.et al (2012). “Carbon capture and storage,” in Global Energy assessment- toward a sustainable future, 993. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
8
BoaitF. C.WhiteN. J.BickleM. J.ChadwickR. A.NeufeldJ. A.HuppertH. E. (2012). Spatial and temporal evolution of injected CO2 at the Sleipner field, North Sea. J. Geophys. Res.117, B03309. 10.1029/2011JB008603
9
ButtittaD.CapassoG.PaternosterM.BarberioM. D.GoriF.PetittaM.et al (2023). Regulation of deep carbon degassing by gas-rock-water interactions in a seismic region of Southern Italy. Sci. Total Environ.897, 165367. 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.165367
10
ButtittaD.CaracausiA.ChiaraluceL.FavaraR.Gasparo MorticelliM.SulliA. (2020). Continental degassing of helium in an active tectonic setting (northern Italy): the role of seismicity. Sci. Rep.10 (1), 162. 10.1038/s41598-019-55678-7
11
CaracausiA.ButtittaD.PicozziM.PaternosterM.StabileT. A. (2022). Earthquakes control the impulsive nature of crustal helium degassing to the atmosphere. Commun. Earth & Environ.3 (1), 224. 10.1038/s43247-022-00549-9
12
ChadwickR. A. (2013). “Offshore CO2 storage: Sleipner natural gas field beneath the North Sea,” in Geological storage of carbon dioxide. CO2 (Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier), 227–253e. 10.1533/9780857097279.3.227
13
ChadwickR. A.NoyD.ArtsR.EikenO. (2009). Latest time-lapse seismic datafrom Sleipner yield new insights into CO2 plume development. Energy Procedia1, 2103–2110. 10.1016/j.egypro.2009.01.274
14
ChadwickR. A.NoyD. J. (2010). History matching flow simulations and time-lapse seismic data from the Sleipner CO2 plume. Pet. Geol. Conf. Ser.7, 1171–1182. 10.1144/0071171
15
ChadwickR. A.NoyD. J. (2015). Underground CO2 storage: demonstrating regulatory conformance by convergence of history-matched modeled and observed CO2 plume behavior using Sleipner time-lapse seismics. Greenh. Gases Sci. Technol.5, 305–322. 10.1002/ghg.1488
16
ChadwickR. A.WilliamsG.DelepineN.ClochardV.LabatK.SturtonS.et al (2010). Quantitative analysis of time-lapse seismic monitoring data at the Sleipner CO2 storage operation. Lead. Edge29, 170–177. 10.1190/1.3304820
17
ChadwickR. A.WilliamsG. A.Falcon-SuarezI. (2019). Forensic mapping of seismic velocity heterogeneity in a CO2 layer at the Sleipner CO2 storage operation, North Sea, using time-lapse seismics. Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control90, 102793. 10.1016/j.ijggc.2019.102793
18
ChenQ.SidneyS. (1997). Seismic attribute technology for reservoir forecasting and monitoring. Lead. Edge16, 445–448. 10.1190/1.1437657
19
ChoY.JunH. (2021). Estimation and uncertainty analysis of the CO2 storage volume in the Sleipner field via 4D reversible-jump markov-chain Monte Carlo. J. Petroleum Sci. Eng.200, 108333. 10.1016/j.petrol.2020.108333
20
ChopraS.MarfurtK. J. (2005). Seismic attributes- A historical perspective. Geophysics70, 3SO–28SO. 10.1190/1.2098670
21
DupuyB.RomdhaneA.EliassonP.QuerendezE.YanH.TorresV. A.et al (2017a). Quantitative seismic characterization of CO2 at the Sleipner storage site, North Sea. Interpretation5, SS23–SS42. 10.1190/int-2017-0013.1
22
DupuyB.Torres CV. A.GhaderiA.QuerendezE.MezykM. (2017b). “Constrained AVO for CO2 storage monitoring at Sleipner,” in Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Control, Lausanne, Switzerland, November 14–18.
23
EikenO.RingroseP.HermanrudC.NazarianB.TorpT.HoierL. (2011). Lessons learned from 14 years of CCS operations: Sleipner, in Salah and Snohvit. Energy Procedia4, 5541–5548. 10.1016/j.egypro.2011.02.541
24
FurreA.EikenO.AlnesH.VevatneJ. N.KiaerA. F. (2017). 20 years of monitoring CO2-injection at Sleipner. Energy Procedia114, 3916–3926. 10.1016/j.egypro.2017.03.1523
25
GhoshR.SenM. K.VedantiN. (2015). Quantitative interpretation of CO2 plume from Sleipner (North Sea), using post-stack inversion and rock physics modeling. Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control32, 147–158. 10.1016/j.ijggc.2014.11.002
26
GoloshubinG.SilinD.VingalovV.TakkandG.LatfullinM. (2008). Reservoir permeability from seismic attribute analysis. Lead. Edge27 (3), 376–381. 10.1190/1.2896629
27
GoriF.PaternosterM.BarbieriM.ButtittaD.CaracausiA.ParenteF.et al (2023). Hydrogeochemical multi-component approach to assess fluids upwelling and mixing in shallow carbonate-evaporitic aquifers (Contursi area, southern Apennines, Italy). J. Hydrology618, 129258. 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2023.129258
28
GozalpourF.RenS. R.TohidiB. (2005). CO2 EOR and storage in oil reservoirs. Oil & Gas Sci. Technol.60, 537–546.
29
HaffingerP.DoulgerisP.GisolfA. (2017). “Quantitative seismic reservoir monitoring by using a wave-equation based AVO technology,” in 1st EAGE Workshop on Practical Reservoir Monitoring, Amsterdam, Netherlands, March 06–09.
30
HaffingerP.EyvaziF. J.SteeghsT. P. H.DoulgerisP.GisolfA. (2016). “Quantitative prediction of injected CO2 at Sleipner using wave-equation based AVO,” in Proceedings of 78th EAGE Conference and exhibition, Vienna, Austria, May 30–June 2.
31
HannisS.ChadwickA.PearceJ.JonesD.WhiteJ.WrightI.et al (2015). Review of offshore monitoring for CCS Projects. Cheltenham, UK: IEAGHG.
32
HartB. S. (2002). Validating seismic attribute studies: beyond statistics. Lead. Edge21, 1016–1021. 10.1190/1.1518439
33
HemaG.MauryaS. P.KantR.SinghA. P.VermaN.SingR.et al (2024). Enhancement of CO2 monitoring in the Sleipner field (north sea) using seismic inversion based on simulated annealing of time-lapse seismic data. Mar. Petroleum Geol.167, 106962. 10.1016/j.marpetgeo.2024.106962
34
IPCC (2005). Carbon dioxide capture and storage. in Special Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Editors MetzB.DavisonO.de COnickH. C.LoosM.MeyerL. A. (Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press), 442.
35
IzadianS. (2024). Tuning effect in time-lapse seismic inversion for CO2 plume monitoring at Sleipner field. Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control137, 104224. 10.1016/j.ijggc.2024.104224
36
KarstensJ.AhmedW.BerndtC.ClassH. (2017). Focused fluid flow and the sub-seabed storage of CO2: evaluating the leakage potential of seismic chimney structures for the Sleipner CO2 storage operation. Mar. Petroleum Geol.88, 81–93. 10.1016/j.marpetgeo.2017.08.003
37
MarfurtK. J.AlvesT. M. (2015). Pitfalls and limitations in seismic attribute interpretation of tectonic features. Interpretation3, SB5–SB15. 10.1190/int-2014-0122.1
38
MassarwehO.AbushaikhaA. S. (2024). CO2 sequestration in subsurface geological formations: a review of trapping mechanisms and monitoring techniques. Earth-Science Rev.253, 104793. 10.1016/j.earscirev.2024.104793
39
RaknesE. B.ArntsenB.WeibullW. (2015). Three-dimensional elastic full waveform inversion using seismic data from the Sleipner area. Geophys. J. Int.202, 1877–1894. 10.1093/gji/ggv258
40
RasolofosaonP. N. J.Dubos-SalleeN. (2010). “Data-driven quantitative analysis of the CO2 plume extension from 4D seismic monitoring in Sleipner,” in Proceedings of the 72nd EAGE Conference incorporating SPE EUROPEC, Barcelona, Spain, June 14–17.
41
RassoolD.ConsoliC.TownsendA.LiuH. (2020). Overview of organisations and policies supporting the deployment of large-scale CCS facilities. Washington, DC: Global CCS Institute.
42
RobertsJ. J.GilfillanS. M.StalkerL.NaylorM. (2017). Geochemical tracers for monitoring offshore CO2 stores. Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control65, 218–234. 10.1016/j.ijggc.2017.07.021
43
RomanakK.DixonT. (2022). CO2 storage guidelines and the science of monitoring: achieving project success under the California Low Carbon Fuel Standard CCS Protocol and other global regulations. Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control113, 103523. 10.1016/j.ijggc.2021.103523
44
RubinoJ. G.VelisD. R.SacchiM. D. (2011). Numerical analysis of wave-induced fluid flow effects on seismic data: application to monitoring of CO2 storage at the Sleipner field. J. Geophys. Res.116, B03306. 10.1029/2010jb007997
45
Sleipner 4D Seismic Database (2020). Sleipner 4D seismic dataset. Available online at: https://co2datashare.org/dataset/sleipner-4d-seismic-dataset/ (Accessed June 1st, 2023).
46
TanerM. T.KoehlerF.SheriffR. E. (1979). Complex seismic trace analysis. Geophysics44, 1041–1063. 10.1190/1.1440994
47
TanerM. T.SchuelkeJ. S.O’DohertyR.BaysalE. (1994). “Seismic attributes revisited,” in SEG technical program expanded abstracts 1994 (Society of Exploration Geophysicists), 1104–1106.
48
WhiteJ. C.WilliamsG.ChadwickA. (2018b). Seismic amplitude analysis provides new insights into CO2 plume morphology at the Snohvit CO2 injection operation. Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control79, 313–322. 10.1016/j.ijggc.2018.05.024
49
WhiteJ. C.WilliamsG.ChadwickA.FurreA. K.KiaerA. (2018a). Sleipner: the ongoing challenge to determine the thickness of a thin CO2 layer. Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control69, 81–95. 10.1016/j.ijggc.2017.10.006
50
WillamsG.ChadwickA. (2012). Quantitative seismic analysis of a thin layer of CO2 in the Sleipner injection plume. Geophysics77, R245–R256. 10.1190/geo2011-0449.1
51
WillamsG. A.ChadwickR. A. (2017). An improved history-match for layer spreading within the Sleipner plume including thermal propagation effects. Energy Procedia114, 2856–2870. 10.1016/j.egypro.2017.03.1406
52
YinZ.FengT.MacBethC. (2019). Fast assimilation of frequently acquired 4D seismic data for reservoir history matching. Comput. & Geosciences128, 30–40. 10.1016/j.cageo.2019.04.001
53
ZhuC.ZhangG.LuP.MengL.JiX. (2015). Benchmark modeling of the Sleipner CO2 plume: calibration to seismic data for the uppermost layer and model sensitivity analysis. Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control43, 233–246. 10.1016/j.ijggc.2014.12.016
54
ZummoF.AgostaF.Álvarez‐ValeroA. M.BilliA.ButtittaD.CaracausiA.et al (2024). Tracing a mantle component in both paleo and modern fluids along seismogenic faults of southern Italy. Geochem. Geophys. Geosystems25 (11), e2024GC011816. 10.1029/2024gc011816
55
ZweigelP.ArtsR.LotheA. E.LindebergE. B. G. (2004). Reservoir geology of the Utsira Formation at the first industrial-scale underground CO2 storage site (Sleipner area, North Sea). Geol. Soc.233, 165–180. 10.1144/gsl.sp.2004.233.01.11
Summary
Keywords
CO2 storage, quantitative monitoring, seismic attributes, Sleipner Project, CO2 indicator
Citation
Cheong S, Yelisetti S and Sanchez V (2025) Quantitative matching of CO2 amounts via seismic attributes in the Sleipner field. Front. Earth Sci. 13:1487480. doi: 10.3389/feart.2025.1487480
Received
28 August 2024
Accepted
27 June 2025
Published
05 August 2025
Volume
13 - 2025
Edited by
Zhenwei Guo, Central South University, China
Reviewed by
Nocito Francesco, University of Bari Aldo Moro, Italy
Muhammad Imran Rashid, University of Engineering and Technology, Lahore, Pakistan
Dario Buttitta, National Institute of Geophysics and Volcanology, Section of Palermo, Italy
Updates
Copyright
© 2025 Cheong, Yelisetti and Sanchez.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Snons Cheong, snons@kigam.re.kr
Disclaimer
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.