AccScience Publishing / JSE / Online First / DOI: 10.36922/JSE026170075
Cite this article
31
Download
355
Views
Journal Browser
Volume | Year
Issue
Search
News and Announcements
View All
ARTICLE

Time-lapse seismic imaging for CO2 storage monitoring based on a GSLS-type viscoelastic wave equation with explicit Q

Yanjiao Dong1 Yi Shen1*
Show Less
1 Geosciences Department, School of Geosciences, China University of Petroleum (East China), Qingdao, Shandong, China
Received: 24 April 2026 | Revised: 28 July 2026 | Accepted: 30 July 2026 | Published online: 11 August 2026
© 2026 by the Author(s). This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ )
Abstract

Time-lapse seismic monitoring plays a critical role in tracking the evolution of carbon dioxide (CO2) plumes in geological storage. Most existing studies focus primarily on P-wave velocity and attenuation, while the contribution of S-wave responses is often neglected due to their relatively weak sensitivity to fluid saturation. However, seismic-wave propagation in viscoelastic media involves coupled compressional- and shear-wave responses, suggesting that S-wave–related effects may still influence time-lapse imaging and interpretation. In this study, we developed an integrated framework for CO2 time-lapse monitoring by combining rock-physics modeling, viscoelastic wavefield simulation, and multicomponent reverse time migration. The framework accounts for both velocity and attenuation effects and enables a systematic investigation of S-wave responses, including S-wave velocity and attenuation (QS). To accurately describe wave propagation in such media, we derived a generalized standard linear solid-based viscoelastic wave equation with an explicit representation of the quality factor (Q), and employed reverse time migration to generate time-lapse seismic images. Using synthetic models, we analyzed the sensitivity of seismic attributes to CO2 saturation and evaluated the impact of different QS modeling strategies on time-lapse imaging results. The results show that different QS assumptions lead to noticeable variations in amplitude and phase behavior, which can significantly affect the interpretation of CO2-induced changes. These findings demonstrate that S-wave responses, particularly S-wave attenuation, should not be neglected in viscoelastic time-lapse seismic analysis. The proposed framework provides a physically consistent approach to improving the reliability of CO2 monitoring.

Keywords
Carbon dioxide time-lapse seismic monitoring
Viscoelastic reverse time migration
Rock physics model
S-wave attenuation
Funding
This work was primarily supported by the National Science and Technology Major Project “Deep Earth Probe and Mineral Resources Exploration” (No. 2024ZD1004207). Additional support was provided by the Innovation Fund Project for Graduate Students of China University of Petroleum (East China) and the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (No. 26CX04011A), and the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 42474154).
Conflict of interest
The authors declare they have no competing interests.
References
  1. Davis TL, Landrø M, Wilson M, eds. Geophysics and Geosequestration. Cambridge University Press; 2019.
  2. Dong Y, Shen Y, Guo K, et al. Advanced workflow for time-lapse seismic monitoring of CO2 storage in saline aquifers with its application in a field basin. Sci Rep. 2025;15(1). doi: 10.1038/s41598-025-09476-z
  3. Wang Z, Li H, Liu S, Xu J, Liu J, Wang X. Risk evaluation of CO2 leakage through fracture zone in geological storage reservoir. Fuel. 2023;342:127896. doi: 10.1016/j.fuel.2023.127896
  4. Dupuy B, Garambois S, Virieux J. Estimation of rock physics properties from seismic attributes—Part 1: Strategy and sensitivity analysis. Geophysics. 2016;81(3):M35-53. doi: 10.1190/geo2015-0239.1
  5. Arts R, Eiken O, Chadwick A, Zweigel P, Van der Meer L, Zinszner B. Monitoring of CO2 injected at Sleipner using time-lapse seismic data. Energy. 2004;29(9-10):1383-1392. doi: 10.1016/j.energy.2004.03.072
  6. Chadwick RA, Arts R, Eiken O. 4D seismic quantification of a growing CO2 plume at Sleipner, North Sea. PGC. 2005;6(1):1385-1399. doi: 10.1144/0061385
  7. Romdhane A, Querendez E. CO2 characterization at the Sleipner field with full waveform inversion: Application to synthetic and real data. Energy Procedia. 2014;63:4358-4365. doi: 10.1016/j.egypro.2014.11.470
  8. Ghosh R, Sen MK, Vedanti N. Quantitative interpretation of CO2 plume from Sleipner (North Sea), using post-stack inversion and rock physics modeling. Int J Greenh Gas Control. 2015;32:147-158. doi: 10.1016/j.ijggc.2014.11.002
  9. Dupuy B, Romdhane A, Eliasson P, et al. Quantitative seismic characterization of CO2 at the Sleipner storage site, North Sea. Interpretation. 2017;5(4):SS23-SS42. doi: 10.1190/INT-2017-0013.1
  10. Dupuy B, Romdhane A, Eliasson P, Yan H. Combined geophysical and rock physics workflow for quantitative CO2 monitoring. Int J Greenh Gas Control. 2021;106:103217. doi: 10.1016/j.ijggc.2020.103217
  11. Mavko G, Mukerji T, Dvorkin J. The Rock Physics Handbook. Cambridge University Press; 2020.
  12. Carcione JM, Picotti S, Gei D, Rossi G. Physics and seismic modeling for monitoring CO2 storage. Pure Appl Geophys. 2006;163(1):175-207. doi: 10.1007/s00024-005-0002-1
  13. Lei X, Xue Z. Ultrasonic velocity and attenuation during CO2 injection into water-saturated porous sandstone: Measurements using difference seismic tomography. Phys Earth Planet Inter. 2009;176(3-4):224-234. doi: 10.1016/j.pepi.2009.06.001
  14. Nakagawa S, Kneafsey TJ, Daley TM, Freifeld BM, Rees EV. Laboratory seismic monitoring of supercritical CO2 flooding in sandstone cores using the Split Hopkinson Resonant Bar technique with concurrent Xray computed tomography imaging. Geophys Prospect. 2013;61(2):254-269. doi: 10.1111/1365-2478.12027
  15. Li H. Enhanced monitoring of geological CO₂ injection through seismic attenuation difference estimation. IEEE Trans Geosci Remote Sens. 2024;62:1-11. doi: 10.1109/tgrs.2024.3452000
  16. Zhu T, AjoFranklin JB, Daley TM. Spatiotemporal changes of seismic attenuation caused by injected CO2 at the FrioII pilot site, Dayton, TX, USA. JGR Solid Eart. 2017;122(9):7156-7171. doi: 10.1002/2017JB014164
  17. Huang C, Zhu T, Xing G. Data-assimilated time-lapse visco-acoustic full-waveform inversion: Theory and application for injected CO2 plume monitoring. Geophysics. 2022;88(1):R105-R120. doi: 10.1190/geo2021-0804.1
  18. Zheng Y, Huang C, Zhao L, Dong L, Liu Y. Rock Physics Model Constrained Viscoacoustic Full Waveform Inversion for Saturation and Porosity Estimation. IEEE Trans Geosci Remote Sens. 2025;63:1-15. doi: 10.1109/tgrs.2025.3597976
  19. Gassmann F. Elastic waves through a packing of spheres. Geophysics. 1951;16(4):673-685. doi: 10.1190/1.1437718
  20. Dvorkin J, Gutierrez MA, Grana D. Seismic Reflections of Rock Properties. Cambridge University Press; 2014.
  21. Biot MA. Theory of elastic waves in a fluid-saturated porous solid. 1. Low frequency range. J Acoust Soc Am. 1956;28(2):168-178. doi: 10.1121/1.1908239
  22. Biot MA. Theory of propagation of elastic waves in a fluidsaturated porous solid. II. Higher frequency range. J Acoust Soc Am. 1956;28(2):179-191. doi: 10.1121/1.1908241
  23. Carcione JM. Wave Fields in Real Media: Wave Propagation in Anisotropic, Anelastic, Porous and Electromagnetic Media. Elsevier; 2007.
  24. White JE. Computed seismic speeds and attenuation in rocks with partial gas saturation. Geophysics. 1975;40(2):224-232. doi: 10.1190/1.1440520
  25. Müller TM, Gurevich B, Lebedev M. Poroelasticity: Seismic wave attenuation and dispersion resulting from wave-induced flow in porous rocks—A review. Geophysics. 2010;75(5):75A147-75A164. doi: 10.1190/1.3463417
  26. Rubino JG, Holliger K. Seismic attenuation and velocity dispersion in heterogeneous partially saturated porous rocks. Geophys J Int. 2012;188(3):1088-1102. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-246X.2011.05291.x
  27. Guo J, Zhao L, Chen X, Yang Z, Li H, Liu C. Theoretical modelling of seismic dispersion, attenuation and frequency-dependent anisotropy in a fluid-saturated porous rock with intersecting fractures. Geophys J Int. 2022;230(1):580-606. doi: 10.1093/gji/ggac070
  28. Mavko G, Dvorkin J, Walls J. A theoretical estimate of S-wave attenuation in sediment. In: SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts 2005. Society of Exploration Geophysicists; 2005:1469-1472. doi: 10.1190/1.2147967
  29. Dvorkin JP, Mavko G. Modeling attenuation in reservoir and nonreservoir rock. Leading Edge. 2006;25(2):194-197. doi: 10.1190/1.2172312
  30. Azuma H, Xue Z, Matsuoka T. Utilization of seismic attenuation in the monitoring of CO2 geological storage project. Energy Procedia. 2014;63:4216-4223. doi: 10.1016/j.egypro.2014.11.457
  31. Fu X. Seismic amplitude inversion based on a new PP-wave reflection coefficient approximation equation for vertical transversely isotropic media. Geophysics. 2024;89(3):R217-R230. doi: 10.1190/geo2023-0132.1
  32. Feng Z, Huang L, Gao K, Gasperikova E. Capability of elastic-wave imaging for monitoring conformance and containment in geologic carbon storage. Int J Greenh Gas Control. 2022;120:103759. doi: 10.1016/j.ijggc.2022.103759
  33. Caspari E, Pevzner R, Gurevich B, et al. Feasibility of CO2 plume detection using 4D seismic: CO2CRC Otway Project case study—Part 1: Rock-physics modeling. Geophysics. 2015;80(4):B95-B104. doi: 10.1190/geo2014-0459.1
  34. Daley TM. Rock physics of CO2 storage monitoring in porous media. In: Geophysics and Geosequestration. Cambridge University Press; 2019:71-82. doi: 10.1017/9781316480724.005
  35. Dutta NC, Seriff AJ. On White’s model of attenuation in rocks with partial gas saturation. Geophysics. 1979;44(11):1806-1812. doi: 10.1190/1.1440940
  36. Carcione JM, Helle HB, Pham NH. White’s model for wave propagation in partially saturated rocks: Comparison with poroelastic numerical experiments. Geophysics. 2003;68(4):1389-1398. doi: 10.1190/1.1598132
  37. Creasy N, Huang L, Gasperikova E, Harbert W, Bratton T, Zhou Q. CO2 rock physics modeling for reliable monitoring of geologic carbon storage. Commun Earth Environ. 2024;5(1). doi: 10.1038/s43247-024-01493-6
  38. Mao Q, Huang J, Shen Y. Efficient Q-compensated reverse time migration using a new decoupled viscoacoustic wave equation based on the generalized standard linear solid. Geophysics. 2025;90(5):S145-S160. doi: 10.1190/geo2024-0767.1
  39. Robertsson JO, Blanch JO, Symes WW. Viscoelastic finite-difference modeling. Geophysics. 1994;59(9):1444-1456. doi: 10.1190/1.1443701
  40. Cerjan C, Kosloff D, Kosloff R, et al. A nonreflecting boundary condition for discrete acoustic and elastic wave equations. Geophysics. 1985;50(4):705-708.
  41. Zhu T, Carcione JM. Theory and modelling of constant-Q P-and S-waves using fractional spatial derivatives. Geophys J Int. 2014;196(3):1787-1795. doi: 10.1093/gji/ggt483
  42. Du Q, Zhao Q, Li Q, Fu L, Sun Q. A new decoupling and elastic propagator for efficient elastic reverse time migration. Geophysics. 2020;85(5):A31-A36. doi: 10.1190/geo2019-0830.1
  43. Mao Q, Huang J, Mu X, Zhang Y. Efficient pure qP-wave modeling and reverse time migration in tilted transversely isotropic media calculated by a finite-difference approach. Geophysics. 2024;89(6):C225-C241. doi: 10.1190/geo2023-0631.1
  44. Mao Q, Huang J. High-Efficiency Viscoacoustic Least-Squares Reverse Time Migration With Q-Compensated Gradient Using Nearly Constant Q Model. IEEE Trans Geosci Remote Sens. 2025;63:1-17. doi: 10.1109/tgrs.2025.3600301
  45. Al-Khdheeawi EA, Vialle S, Barifcani A, Sarmadivaleh M, Iglauer S. Influence of injection well configuration and rock wettability on CO2 plume behaviour and CO2 trapping capacity in heterogeneous reservoirs. J Nat Gas Sci Eng. 2017;43:190-206. doi: 10.1016/j.jngse.2017.03.016
  46. Dong YJ, Shen Y, Guo K, et al. Characterization of petrophysical and seismic properties for CO2 storage with sensitivity analysis. Pet Sci. 2025;22(1):193-209. doi: 10.1016/j.petsci.2024.07.011
  47. Kjartansson E. Constant Qwave propagation and attenuation. J Geophys Res. 1979;84(B9):4737-4748. doi: 10.1029/jb084ib09p04737
  48. Hao Q, Greenhalgh S. Nearly constant Q models of the generalized standard linear solid type and the corresponding wave equations. Geophysics. 2021;86(4):T239-T260. doi: 10.1190/geo2020-0548.1
  49. Shen Y, Biondi B, Clapp R. Q-model building using one-way wave-equation migration Q analysis—Part 1: Theory and synthetic test. Geophysics. 2018;83(2):S93-S109. doi: 10.1190/geo2016-0658.1
Share
Back to top
Journal of Seismic Exploration, Print ISSN: 0963-0651, Published by AccScience Publishing