IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/greenh/v6y2016i1p55-69.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Statistical performance of CO 2 leakage detection using seismic travel time measurements

Author

Listed:
  • Zan Wang
  • Mitchell J. Small

Abstract

Monitoring for possible CO 2 leakage is an important part of a safe and effective geological sequestration program. Seismic monitoring has been implemented in several pilot sequestration sites for site characterization and CO 2 leakage detection. This study evaluates the detection power of seismic wave travel time measurements and statistical tests at different CO 2 leakage rate levels. A simplified rock physics model is assumed for monitoring zones at sequestration sites and the effects of leakage‐induced changes in pressure and CO 2 saturation on P‐wave travel times are modeled. The empirical distributions of detection power using the P‐wave travel time for four regions in the permeability‐porosity input space at four leakage levels are obtained from the Monte Carlo uncertainty analysis with a stochastic response surface method. The detection power using the P‐wave travel time measurements and test alone is generally not high enough, unless the porosity and the permeability of the monitoring zone are high, and/or a long period of time has elapsed since the leakage occurred. For monitoring layers with lower permeability and porosity, measurements from other monitoring techniques will likely be needed to increase the probability that leakage events are detected and addressed in a timely manner. © 2015 Society of Chemical Industry and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd

Suggested Citation

  • Zan Wang & Mitchell J. Small, 2016. "Statistical performance of CO 2 leakage detection using seismic travel time measurements," Greenhouse Gases: Science and Technology, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 6(1), pages 55-69, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:greenh:v:6:y:2016:i:1:p:55-69
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1002/ghg.1533
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. S. S. Isukapalli & A. Roy & P. G. Georgopoulos, 1998. "Stochastic Response Surface Methods (SRSMs) for Uncertainty Propagation: Application to Environmental and Biological Systems," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(3), pages 351-363, June.
    2. Chuanhe Lu & Yunwei Sun & Thomas A. Buscheck & Yue Hao & Joshua A. White & Laura Chiaramonte, 2012. "Uncertainty quantification of CO 2 leakage through a fault with multiphase and nonisothermal effects," Greenhouse Gases: Science and Technology, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 2(6), pages 445-459, December.
    3. Ya‐Mei Yang & Mitchell J. Small & Egemen O. Ogretim & Donald D. Gray & Arthur W. Wells & Grant S. Bromhal & Brian R. Strazisar, 2012. "A Bayesian belief network (BBN) for combining evidence from multiple CO 2 leak detection technologies," Greenhouse Gases: Science and Technology, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 2(3), pages 185-199, June.
    4. Oladyshkin, S. & Nowak, W., 2012. "Data-driven uncertainty quantification using the arbitrary polynomial chaos expansion," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 179-190.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Oladyshkin, Sergey & Nowak, Wolfgang, 2018. "Incomplete statistical information limits the utility of high-order polynomial chaos expansions," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 169(C), pages 137-148.
    2. J. Yang & B. Faverjon & D. Dureisseix & P. Swider & S. Marburg & H. Peters & N. Kessissoglou, 2016. "Prediction of the intramembranous tissue formation during perisprosthetic healing with uncertainties. Part 2. Global clinical healing due to combination of random sources," Computer Methods in Biomechanics and Biomedical Engineering, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 19(13), pages 1387-1394, October.
    3. Sun, Alexander Y., 2020. "Optimal carbon storage reservoir management through deep reinforcement learning," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 278(C).
    4. James D. A. Millington & Hang Xiong & Steve Peterson & Jeremy Woods, 2017. "Integrating Modelling Approaches for Understanding Telecoupling: Global Food Trade and Local Land Use," Land, MDPI, vol. 6(3), pages 1-18, August.
    5. Shang, Xiaobing & Su, Li & Fang, Hai & Zeng, Bowen & Zhang, Zhi, 2023. "An efficient multi-fidelity Kriging surrogate model-based method for global sensitivity analysis," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 229(C).
    6. Zhai, Qingqing & Yang, Jun & Zhao, Yu, 2014. "Space-partition method for the variance-based sensitivity analysis: Optimal partition scheme and comparative study," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 66-82.
    7. de Cursi, Eduardo Souza, 2021. "Uncertainty quantification in game theory," Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Elsevier, vol. 143(C).
    8. Zheng, Xiaohu & Yao, Wen & Zhang, Yunyang & Zhang, Xiaoya, 2022. "Consistency regularization-based deep polynomial chaos neural network method for reliability analysis," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 227(C).
    9. Iftikhar Ahmad & Ahsan Ayub & Uzair Ibrahim & Mansoor Khan Khattak & Manabu Kano, 2018. "Data-Based Sensing and Stochastic Analysis of Biodiesel Production Process," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-13, December.
    10. Oladyshkin, S. & Nowak, W., 2012. "Data-driven uncertainty quantification using the arbitrary polynomial chaos expansion," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 179-190.
    11. Shengwen Yin & Keliang Jin & Yu Bai & Wei Zhou & Zhonggang Wang, 2023. "Solution-Space-Reduction-Based Evidence Theory Method for Stiffness Evaluation of Air Springs with Epistemic Uncertainty," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-19, March.
    12. Rehme, Michael F. & Franzelin, Fabian & Pflüger, Dirk, 2021. "B-splines on sparse grids for surrogates in uncertainty quantification," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 209(C).
    13. Bohan, A. & Shalloo, L. & Malcolm, B. & Ho, C.K.M. & Creighton, P. & Boland, T.M. & McHugh, N., 2016. "Description and validation of the Teagasc Lamb Production Model," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 148(C), pages 124-134.
    14. Zan Wang & Robert M. Dilmore & Diana H. Bacon & William Harbert, 2021. "Evaluating probability of containment effectiveness at a GCS site using integrated assessment modeling approach with Bayesian decision network," Greenhouse Gases: Science and Technology, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 11(2), pages 360-376, April.
    15. Luca Di Persio & Michele Bonollo & Gregorio Pellegrini, 2015. "A computational spectral approach to interest rate models," Papers 1508.06236, arXiv.org.
    16. Rituparna Chutia, 2013. "Environmental risk modelling under probability-normal interval-valued fuzzy number," Fuzzy Information and Engineering, Springer, vol. 5(3), pages 359-371, September.
    17. Panos G. Georgopoulos & Christopher J. Brinkerhoff & Sastry Isukapalli & Michael Dellarco & Philip J. Landrigan & Paul J. Lioy, 2014. "A Tiered Framework for Risk‐Relevant Characterization and Ranking of Chemical Exposures: Applications to the National Children's Study (NCS)," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(7), pages 1299-1316, July.
    18. Kröker, Ilja & Oladyshkin, Sergey, 2022. "Arbitrary multi-resolution multi-wavelet-based polynomial chaos expansion for data-driven uncertainty quantification," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 222(C).
    19. Abgrall, R. & Congedo, P.M. & Geraci, G., 2017. "Towards a unified multiresolution scheme for treating discontinuities in differential equations with uncertainties," Mathematics and Computers in Simulation (MATCOM), Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 1-22.
    20. Lim, HyeongUk & Manuel, Lance, 2021. "Distribution-free polynomial chaos expansion surrogate models for efficient structural reliability analysis," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 205(C).

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:greenh:v:6:y:2016:i:1:p:55-69. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1002/(ISSN)2152-3878 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.