This issue of CJEG features a three-part series titled ‘Theseus 24D Optimized Seismic CCS MMV Method,’ which shines a critical light on the monitoring, measurement, and verification (MMV) in carbon storage. The work identifies the unique characteristics of onshore CCS MMV, discards monitoring elements that are determined to be unnecessary, redefines imaging areas for monitoring, and challenges the problem from a whole multi-decade repeat seismic perspective. The second part delves into scalability of the method introduced in part one, exploring the implications of scenarios when repeat 3D seismic surveys can be minimized or completely omitted. Though the possibility of reasonably eliminating repeat 3D surveys in favor of repeat 2D surveys is material in terms of capital savings and environmental (surface) reclamation, it presents a challenge in baseline 3D design, a challenge that must be resolved for the 24D integrated 2D-3D repeat monitoring method to become a reality.

A humorous journey through controversies in CCS

Part two of our three part Theseus 24D presentation series discussing a new seismic MMV method for CCS that is more efficient. This part focuses on an integrated 2D-3D time laspes method called 24D.

All aspects of a CCS project are tied back to risk management; value in the geosciences, including seismic, are directly related to their role in reducing project risk.

In 2022, the Government of Alberta (GOA) entered into negotiations with 25 project teams to potentially approve storage hubs for the timely and safe permanent underground storage of carbon dioxide (CCS).

We come to conventions and Symposia to hear about success and bask in the glory of our awesome, successful colleagues. But mistakes may also lead to useful learning opportunities.