Engineering topics

Commer, Michael

Publications and source records attributed to Commer, Michael.

7 records

DOE OSTI2023

The Kimberlina synthetic multiphysics dataset for CO 2 monitoring investigations

Abstract We present a synthetic multi‐scale, multi‐physics dataset constructed from the Kimberlina 1.2 CO 2 reservoir model based on a potential CO 2 storage site in the Southern San Joaquin Basin of California. Among 300 models, one selected reservoir‐simulation scenario produces hydrologic‐state models at the onset and after 20 years of CO 2 injection. Subsequently, these models were transformed into geophysical properties, including P‐ and S‐wave seismic velocities, saturated density where the saturating fluid can be a combination of brine and supercritical CO 2 , and electrical resistivity using established empirical petrophysical relationships. From these 3D distributions of geophysical properties, we have generated synthetic time‐lapse seismic, gravity and electromagnetic responses with acquisition geometries that mimic realistic monitoring surveys and are achievable in actual field situations. We have also created a series of synthetic well logs of CO 2 saturation, acoustic velocity, density and induction resistivity in the injection well and three monitoring wells. These were constructed by combining the low‐frequency trend of the geophysical models with the high‐frequency variations of actual well logs collected at the potential storage site. In addition, to better calibrate our datasets, measurements of permeability and pore connectivity have been made on cores of Vedder Sandstone, which forms the primary reservoir unit. These measurements provide the range of scales in the otherwise synthetic dataset to be as close to a real‐world situation as possible. This dataset consisting of the reservoir models, geophysical models, simulated time‐lapse geophysical responses and well logs forms a multi‐scale, multi‐physics testbed for designing and testing geophysical CO 2 monitoring systems as well as for imaging and characterization algorithms. The suite of numerical models and data have been made publicly available for downloading on the National Energy Technology Laboratory's (NETL) Energy Data Exchange (EDX) website.

58 GEOSCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2022

Kimberlina 1.2 CCUS Geophysical Models and Synthetic Data Sets

This synthetic multi-scale and multi-physics data set was produced in collaboration with teams at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, National Energy Technology Laboratory, Los Alamos National Laboratory, and Colorado School of Mines through the Science-informed Machine Learning for Accelerating Real-Time Decisions in Subsurface Applications (SMART) Initiative. Data are associated with the following publication: Alumbaugh, D., Gasperikova, E., Crandall, D., Commer, M., Feng, S., Harbert, W., Li, Y., Lin, Y., and Samarasinghe, S., “The Kimberlina Synthetic Geophysical Model and Data Set for CO2 Monitoring Investigations”, The Geoscience Data Journal, 2023, DOI: 10.1002/gdj3.191. The dataset uses the Kimberlina 1.2 CO2 reservoir flow model simulations based on a hypothetical CO2 storage site in California (Birkholzer et al., 2011; Wainwright et al., 2013). Geophysical properties models (P- and S-wave seismic velocities, saturated density, and electrical resistivity) were produced with an approach similar to that of Yang et al. (2019) and Gasperikova et al. (2022) for 100 Kimberlina 1.2 reservoir models. Links to individual resources are provided below: [CO2 Saturation Models](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-co2-saturation-models); Resistivity Models – [part 1](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-resistivity-models-part-1), [part 2](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-resistivity-models-part-2), and [part 3](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-resistivity-models-part-3); [Vp Velocity Models](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-vp-velocity-models); [Vs Velocity Models](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-vs-velocity-models); [Density Models](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-density-models). The 3D distributions of geophysical properties for the 33 time stamps of the SIM001 model were used to generate synthetic seismic, gravity, and electromagnetic (EM) responses for 33 times between zero and 200 years. Synthetic surface seismic data were generated using 2D and 3D finite-difference codes that simulate the acoustic wave equation (Moczo et al., 2007). 2D data were simulated for six point-pressure sources along a 2D line with 10 m receiver spacing and a time spacing of 0.0005 s. 3D simulations were completed for 25 surface pressure sources using a source separation of 1 km in both the x and y directions and a time spacing of 0.001 s. Links to individual resources are provided below: [2D velocity models](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-2d-velocity-models) and [2D surface seismic data](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-2d-surface-seismic-data). [3D velocity models](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-velocity-models), and 3D seismic data [year0](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year0), [year1](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year1), [year2](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year2), [year5](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year5), [year10](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year10), [year15](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year15), [year20](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year20), [year25](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year25), [year30](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year30), [year35](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year35), [year40](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year40), [year45](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year45), [year49](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year49), [year50](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year50), [year51](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year51), [year52](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year52), [year55](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year55), [year60](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year60), [year65](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year65), [year70](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year70), [year75](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year75), [year80](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year80), [year85](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year85), [year90](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year90), [year95](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year95), [year100](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year100), [year110](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year110), [year120](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year120), [year130](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year130), [year140](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year140), [year150](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year150), [year175](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year175), [year200](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year200). The Python scripts to read these models and data are provided [here](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-python-scripts). EM simulations used a borehole-to-surface survey configuration, with the source located near the reservoir level and receivers on the surface using the code developed by Commer and Newman (2008). Pseudo-2D data for the source at [2500 m](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-pseudo-2d-csem-data-tz2500m) and [3025 m](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-pseudo-2d-csem-data-tz3025m), used a 2D inline receiver configuration to simulate a response over 3D resistivity models. The [3D data](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-csem-data) contain electric fields generated by borehole sources at monitoring well locations and measured over a surface receiver grid. Vector gravity data, both on the surface and in boreholes, were simulated using a modeling code developed by Rim and Li (2015). The simulation scenarios were parallel to those used for the EM: [pseudo-2D data](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-gravity-data) were calculated along the same lines and within the same boreholes, and [3D data](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-gravity-data) were simulated over 3D models on the surface and in three monitoring wells. A series of [synthetic well logs](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-well-logs) of CO2 saturation, acoustic velocity, density, and induction resistivity in the injection well and three monitoring wells are also provided at 0, 1, 2, 5, 10, 15, and 20 years after the initiation of injection. These were constructed by combining the low-frequency trend of the geophysical models with the high-frequency variations of actual well logs collected in the Kimberlina 1 well that was drilled at the proposed site. Measurements of permeability and pore connectivity were made on cores of Vedder Sandstone, which forms the primary reservoir unit: [CT micro scans](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-ct-micro-scans-of-vedder-formation) and [Industrial CT Images](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-industrial-ct-images-vedder-formation). These measurements provide the range of scales in the otherwise synthetic data set to be as close to a real-world situation as possible. References: Birkholzer, J.T., Zhou, Q., Cortis, A. and Finsterle, S., 2011. A sensitivity study on regional pressure buildup from large-scale CO2 storage projects. Energy Procedia, 4, 4371-4378. Commer, M., and Newman, G.A., 2008. New advances in three-dimensional controlled-source electromagnetic inversion, Geophysical Journal International, 172, 513-535. Gasperikova, E., Appriou, D., Bonneville, A., Feng, Z., Huang, L., Gao, K., Yang, X., Daley, T., 2022, Sensitivity of geophysical techniques for monitoring secondary CO2 storage plumes, Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control, Volume 114, 103585, ISSN 1750-5836, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2022.103585. Moczo, P., J.O. Robertsson and L. Eisner, 2007, The finite-difference time-domain method for modeling of seismic wave propagation: Advances in geophysics, 48, 421-516. Rim, H., and Y. Li, 2015, Advantages of borehole vector gravity in density imaging, Geophysics, 80, G1-G13. Wainwright, H. M.; Finsterle, S.; Zhou, Q.; Birkholzer, J. T., 2013. Modeling the Performance of Large-Scale CO2 Storage Systems: A Comparison of Different Sensitivity Analysis Methods. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 17, 189205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2013.05.007, DOI: 10.18141/1603331. Yang, X., Buscheck, T.A., Mansoor, K., Wang, Z., Gao, K., Huang, L., Appriou, D., and Carroll, S.A., 2019. Assessment of geophysical monitoring methods for detection of brine and CO2 leakage in drinking water aquifers, International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 90, 102803, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2019.102803.

CCUS↗

DOE OSTI2022

Improved geophysical monitoring of carbon sequestration through parameter linkage to reservoir modeling

Predictive reservoir modeling, even if present in the form of only basic hydrogeological model assumptions, is expected to accompany the majority of carbon capture and sequestration monitoring activities. It thus represents a source of prior information about the migration of injected fluids that can benefit geophysical survey planning and ensuing monitoring. Constraining the imaging of geophysical monitoring data with reservoir modeling is preferable over standalone geophysical imaging because of additional complementary hydrogeological information. However, fully coupled hydrogeophysical data inversion for flow-modeling parameters that control saturation predictions is an involved process. Within the context of three-dimensional electromagnetic (EM) inversion of data from borehole-to-surface layouts, we employ a "poor people's" alternative. The approach constrains geophysical inversion parameters through saturation predictions. The coupling is realized through spatially variable lower and upper parameter bounds that scale with gas saturation magnitudes, the latter provided by reservoir modeling. In this work, enhancement of three-dimensional time-lapse plume EM imaging is demonstrated for simulated sequestration into a depleted gas reservoir.

58 GEOSCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2022

Deep learning multiphysics network for imaging CO 2 saturation and estimating uncertainty in geological carbon storage

Multiphysics inversion exploits different types of geophysical data that often complement each other and aims to improve overall imaging resolution and reduce uncertainties in geophysical interpretation. Despite the advantages, traditional multiphysics inversion is challenging because it requires a large amount of computational time and intensive human interactions for preprocessing data and finding trade-off parameters. These issues make it nearly impossible for traditional multiphysics inversion to be applied as a real-time monitoring tool for geological carbon storage. In this paper, we present a deep learning (DL) multiphysics network for imaging CO 2 saturation in real time. The multiphysics network consists of three encoders for analysing seismic, electromagnetic and gravity data and shares one decoder for combining imaging capabilities of the different geophysical data for better predicting CO 2 saturation. The network is trained on pairs of CO 2 label models and multiphysics data so that it can directly image CO 2 saturation. Here we use the bootstrap aggregating method to enhance the imaging accuracy and estimate uncertainties associated with CO 2 saturation images. Using realistic CO 2 label models and multiphysics data derived from the Kimberlina CO 2 storage model, we evaluate the performance of the deep learning multiphysics network and compare its imaging results to those from the deep learning single-physics networks. Our modelling experiments show that the deep learning multiphysics network for seismic, electromagnetic, and gravity data not only improves the imaging accuracy but also reduces uncertainties associated with CO 2 saturation images. Our results also suggest that the deep learning multiphysics network for the non-seismic data (i.e., electromagnetic and gravity) can be used as an effective low-cost monitoring tool in between regular seismic monitoring.

58 GEOSCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2022

Enhanced Multi-Dimensional Inversion Through Target-Specific Inversion Parameter Bounds With an Application to Crosswell Electromagnetic for Sequestration Monitoring

In geophysical inversions, lower and upper model parameter bounds are a means of solution stabilization. Further, constraints that intend to let only geologically plausible inverse solutions pass are amenable to lower and upper bounds. Reliable prior information is paramount to construct such bound constraints. It is common practice to narrow and widen bound intervals for regions of, respectively, more and less certain prior information. Contrary to this practice, we experiment with widened bound intervals in zones that are poorly resolved by a given survey configuration but where prior information would suggest structural anomalies of interest. The purpose of enlarged parameter bounds that correlate spatially with predefined targets is to let the inversion explore a larger solution space, thus increasing the potential to resolve otherwise hidden anomalies. Application of the method is based on a carbon-sequestration baseline (pre-injection) crosswell electromagnetic (EM) field survey at the Containment and Monitoring Institute Field Research Station (Alberta, Canada), where impeded measurements led to generally reduced sensitivities for the interwell region. Synthetic-data proofs of concept use augmented bounds designed to boost the resolution of artificial plume targets, indicating an enhanced illumination compared to constant bounds. Comparative field data inversions with spatially variable bounds constructed from prior resistivity and velocity information highlight non-horizontal baseline structures.

3-D electrical resistivity imaging↗

DOE OSTI2021

System and method for optimizing hydrocarbon production from subsurface reservoirs

A method is described for subsurface hydrocarbon reservoir characterization including receiving a time-lapse electromagnetic (EM) dataset and a flow dataset; inverting the time-lapse EM dataset using a parametric inversion that models steel well casings to determine a volume of fluid-changed reservoir; inverting the time-lapse EM dataset and the flow dataset using a joint inversion that honors the volume of the fluid-changed reservoir to determine relative permeability and capillary pressure; and characterizing flow characteristics in the volume of the fluid-changed reservoir. The method may be executed by a computer system.

Hoversten, Gary Michael↗

DOE OSTI2021

Intelligent Monitoring Systems and Advanced Well Integrity and Mitigation

Long-term seismic monitoring of carbon capture and storage projects is needed to verify that the injected gas is safely stored in the subsurface until permanence can be assured. Conventional surface seismic monitoring techniques are usually expensive, require highly invasive surface operations, and need significant time investments on the part of personnel for both the field effort and processing the acquired data. For these reasons, permanent reservoir monitoring technologies are preferred, as they can offer a cost-effective solution for long-term monitoring. As part of the monitoring program of the Archer Daniels Midland’s large-scale injection of CO 2 in Decatur, Illinois, USA, a continuous seismic monitoring array was installed using a combination of surface orbital vibrator (SOV) sources and fiber-optic cables for distributed acoustic sensing (DAS) acquisition with the objective to build a continuous monitoring array. The aim of the presented project was to build a monitoring array and platform that integrates real-time seismic data with conventional data streams and provides continuous data analysis using dynamic computational models to deliver a comprehensive real-time assessment of subsurface conditions. It is in this context that the Intelligent Monitoring Systems and Advanced Well Integrity and Mitigation project was proposed with the objective to develop an integrated architecture that utilizes a permanent seismic monitoring network, combines the real-time geophysical and process data with reservoir flow and geomechanical models to create a comprehensive monitoring, visualization, and control system that delivers critical information for process surveillance and optimization.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗