14th International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies, GHGT-14

21st -25th October 2018, Melbourne, Australia

Interpreting CO2 Saturation Changes from Pulsed Neutron Logs at

the Aquistore Site
Martin Kennedya, Tess Danceb*, Chris Hawkesc, Afton Leniukd, Erik Nickeld
a
MSK Scientific Pty Ltd., 85 Aristride Avenue, Kallaroo WA 6025, Australia
b
CSIRO, Energy, 26 Dick Perry Ave, Kensington, WA 6151, Australia
c
College of Engineering, University of Saskatchewan, 57 Campus Drive, Saskatoon, SK, S7N 5A9, Canada
d
Petroleum Technology Research Centre, 6 Research Drive, Regina, SK, S4S 7J7, Canada

Abstract

The use of repeated pulsed neutron (PN) logging has proved effective in numerous CO 2 storage monitoring
portfolios around the world. It is regarded as the go-to technique for interpreting saturation changes at the well-bore
and has been routinely used for monitoring saturation changes in hydrocarbon reservoirs since tools appeared in the
1960s. The output from this type of tool that is almost always used for saturation monitoring is the so-called ‘Sigma’
curve, which can be used to distinguish formation fluids on the basis of how fast thermal neutrons are captured.
Through the AQUISTORE Project in Saskatchewan, Canada, the Petroleum Technology Research Centre
(PTRC) is demonstrating time-lapse pulsed neutron logging is an appropriate method to monitor near well CO 2
saturation changes in a highly saline reservoir due to a large Sigma contrast between the saline formation waters and
the injected CO2. PTRC has conducted time‐lapsed PN logging at the injection well to observe the saturation in the
perforated interval and monitor any above zone migration. In addition, a total of 20 PN logging runs were also
undertaken to detect the arrival of CO2 at the project's observation well, which is located approximately 150 m from
the injection well.
Here we present an interpretation of a secondary measurement produced by the tools, which is a measure of the
hydrogen index obtained from the total count rates of secondary gamma-rays. We use the Ratio output to determine
the suitability of this curve for monitoring CO2 movement and to see any additional benefits compared to the
‘Sigma’ curve. We find that the Ratio shows slightly better repeatability than the Sigma curve and could certainly be
used in its place to monitor saturation changes. Furthermore, at the Aquistore site the wells were drilled with oil
based mud. The Ratio measurement is almost unaffected by the presence of oil, and responds strongly to carbon
dioxide thus is more reliable for interpreting saturation.

Keywords: Type your keywords here, separated by semicolons ;

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +0-000-000-0000 ; fax: +0-000-000-0000 .

E-mail address: [email protected]
2 GHGT-14 Kennedy et al.

Nomenclature

PN Pulsed Neutron
Sigma Used to distinguish formation fluids on the basis of how fast thermal neutrons are captured.
Ratio A measure of the hydrogen index obtained from the ratio of the “near to far” detector capture count rates.
Job refers to all the PN logs run on a particular day.
Pass refers to an individual log. For example the May 2016 Job comprises a Main Pass and three Repeat Passes
over the interval of interest.

1. Introduction

Tracking the migration of injected CO2 in the subsurface is important for effective management of CO2 storage
operations and to meet regulatory requirements. Migration can be tracked using both surface geophysical and well
based methods. A variety of wireline logging techniques are available for use in wells but methods that exploit
interactions between neutrons and the formation are normally the most accurate and simplest to apply. The most
commonly used tools are Pulsed Neutron Logs (PNL) that measure a property known as ‘Sigma’. This quantifies the
rate that thermal neutrons are captured and it is directly related to the thermal neutron capture cross-section. Sigma
measurements have been routinely used for monitoring saturation changes in hydrocarbon reservoirs since tools
capable of measuring it appeared in the 1960s. The use of Sigma for CO2 monitoring is a natural and straightforward
extension of that.

PN tools also produce a second measurement which is related to the hydrogen index (hydrogen atoms per unit
volume) obtained from the total count rates of secondary gamma-rays (as opposed to their decay rate). The output is
often called the “Ratio” as it is obtained by taking the Ratio of counts from two different detectors seeing both the
near and far regions of the well-bore. It is a calibrated measurement in as much as the tool response to a source of
gamma-rays with a known strength is measured prior to running the log. Nevertheless, the Ratio measurement is
strongly dependent on the precise environment of the tool and in particular it is strongly dependent on what fluids
are within the well. Because of this, it is most suited to application in dedicated monitoring wells cemented and
cased such that no CO2 surrounds the tool down-hole during logging. In these circumstances it may be the better
measurement for monitoring fluid saturation. For example, the Sigma measurement relies on high formation water
salinities to give an accurate estimate of water saturation (as this gives a strong contrast in the responses to water
and CO2). The minimum salinity needed to apply the measurement depends on porosity and the accuracy demanded
of the saturation estimate, but as a general rule formation waters fresher than a seawater composition (35,000 ppm
NaCl (w/w)) are unlikely to be suitable candidates. This obviously can be a major drawback to the use of the Sigma
curve in aquifers with relatively fresh water. The Ratio measurement on the other hand needs some chloride in the
formation water but can certainly give a satisfactory result at fairly low salinities.

1.1. This Case Study

At the site of the Aquistore Project in Saskatchewan, Canada, CO 2 is injected into brine‐saturated
Cambro‐Ordovician Winnipeg and Deadwood Formations overlying Precambrian basement rocks for the purpose of
CO2 storage [1]. Injection began in April, 2015, using a single vertical injection well which is perforated over
intervals ranging from 3170 m to 3370 m depth. Time‐lapsed PN logging was conducted at the injection well to
observe the saturation in the perforated interval and monitor any above zone migration. In addition, a total of 20 PN
logging runs were also undertaken to detect the arrival of CO2 at the project's observation well, which is located
approximately 150 m from the injection well. The observation well is cased and cemented over its entire depth, and
no intervals in this well have been perforated. Due to relatively high salinity of the formation water (320,000 ppm),
the Sigma output was used in the first instance for the saturation interpretation [2]. Statistically‐significant changes
in the Sigma log response have been observed, attributed to CO 2 arrival, from February, 2016 (at which time 45
 GHGT-14 Author name 3

kilotonnes of CO2 had been injected) onwards until the last logs were acquired in December 2016 (after 104
kilotonnes of CO2 had been injected) [2].

Here we extend the interpretation to also include the Ratio output to determine the suitability of this curve for
monitoring CO2 movement and to see any additional benefits compared to the ‘Sigma’ curve. One advantage of the
large number of runs means that the saturation state can be seen to change in stages which can be related to changes
in both Sigma and Ratio measurements, i.e. to determine the level of noise. We find that the Ratio shows slightly
better repeatability than the Sigma curve and responds strongly to carbon dioxide. Moreover, the Ratio measurement
is almost unaffected by the presence of oil, making it highly suitable for monitoring wells drilled with oil based
mud.

2. Pulsed Neutron logging technology

2.1. Tool Description and Physics of the Measurement

A typical, modern pulsed neutron logging tool comprises a neutron source and two gamma-ray detectors situated
approximately 1m from it and 15cm apart. These, together with power supplies and the down-hole instrumentation
are located in a slim housing with an outside diameter of the order of 50 mm. This is small enough to allow logging
of most production and injection wells without the need to pull the tubing. The neutron source generates intense
bursts of fast neutrons by exploiting the fusion of deuterium and tritium nuclei. The bursts last about 0.1 ms and
generate 50,000 to 100,000 fast neutrons. The fast neutrons are slowed to thermal velocities as a result of collisions
with nuclei in the borehole fluid, completion and formation. Once the neutrons have slowed to thermal energies they
can be captured by certain nuclei and in the process a secondary gamma-ray with a characteristic energy is
produced. Gamma-rays that are produced in the vicinity of the detectors, and that travel towards the tool, may be
detected. Many commonly occurring nuclei are capable of capturing thermal neutrons but normally the most
significant is Chlorine-35. This is both abundant and has a high thermal neutron capture cross-section –i.e. it has a
strong affinity for thermal neutrons. Other nuclei either tend to be abundant but have a low capture cross-section –ie
are less likely to capture neutrons; or have a high capture cross-section but low abundance. So for most intents and
purposes the tool responds exclusively to chlorine which is invariably present as chloride ion dissolved in the
formation water.

In the Sigma measurement the rate that the secondary gamma-activity decays after the neutron burst is measured.
The decay-rate is expressed on a PN log as the quantity Sigma, which is proportional to it and has units simply
named ‘Capture Units (CU)’. Logging tools are typically designed to be accurate in the range 0-75 CU which covers
the range of readings that are likely to be found in reservoir rocks. Each detector can produce a separate Sigma
measurement with slightly different depths of investigation (the further the detector is from the source the greater
the depth of investigation).

As already noted there is a second type of measurement that the tool can produce which is based on the total
number of secondary gamma-rays detected by the tool. For a two detector tool it is actually the Ratio of the two
count-rates that is used. Using the Ratio helps to avoid some of the variation caused by changes in environmental
factors such as hole size, bore-hole fluid and temperature and pressure. Because the Ratio is not based on the decay
rate, there is actually no need for a pulsed source it just happens to be what is needed for the Sigma measurement.
The total secondary gamma-ray count-rate is ultimately determined by the population of thermal neutrons in the
vicinity of the detectors (providing there is a reasonable concentration of thermal neutron absorbing nuclei). The
Ratio measurement is therefore more sensitive to how effective the tool’s environment is at slowing fast neutrons
than its ability to capture slow neutrons. The naturally occurring substance that is most effective at thermalizing fast
neutrons is water (due to its high hydrogen index).

In comparison, both the Sigma and the Ratio measurement respond to water but where Sigma is mainly
responding to dissolved chloride, the Ratio responds directly to the water molecules. There are advantages and
4 GHGT-14 Kennedy et al.

disadvantages to both measurements but an important virtue of the Ratio is that it does not need a high salinity to
give a good contrast between water saturated and gas bearing formations. This is particularly important in Australia
where formation waters are often fresh [3]. On the other hand, because Sigma is a transient measurement it is largely
immune to changes in the tool’s environment so, for example, changing the contents of a borehole from water to gas
should have little or no effect on the measurement and two different tools run in the same well should give the same
result. This has an unfortunate practical consequence that the Ratio measurement is considered in some sense
inferior and not worthy of the same care and attention devoted to the Sigma. In the case of the Aquistore project,
there is a dedicated observation well (named OBS here) which is permanently filled with brine so both
measurements are equally applicable. But the injection well (INJ) changed from being filled with brine prior to
injection, to being filled with CO2 once injection was underway.

2.2. Interpretation of the measurements

As noted above both outputs from the tool are indirectly related to water volume. The Sigma measurement is the
weighted average of the individual components making up the formation. This simple mixing law is another reason
why Sigma is a popular way of monitoring water saturation. If the sand being targeted for injection is modelled as a
three component mixture (matrix, water and CO2) then the measured Sigma is given by:

∑ = ∑ma(1-Ø) + ∑wØ.Sw + ∑gØ.(1-Sw) 1

Where Sw is the water saturation, Ø is the total porosity and suffixes ma, w and g correspond to matrix, water
and CO2. Porosity is known from open-hole log analysis so the equation can be re-arranged to find Sw (assuming
the Sw values for the components are known). In the case of the Aquistore wells the formation water is extremely
saline (200 k ppm(w/w) chloride) and the Sigma value has been estimated to be 145 CU. The ‘text-book’ Sigma
value for a sandstone matrix is 4-5 CU. The Aquistore sands have porosities on the order of 10% so that prior to
injection (Sw = 1.00) the expected formation Sigma is 18-19 CU. Carbon dioxide has a low Sigma value of about
1.5 CU, this reflects its relatively low density and the weak thermal neutron capturing ability of carbon and oxygen.
Even displacing 20% of the water with CO2 will have an easily detectable effect on the Sigma measurement
reducing it to approximately 16 CU. Note that for the fresher formation waters expected in Australia the equivalent
change is only about 0.5C U (from about 6.5 to 6 CU).

The Ratio measurement is more difficult to interpret mainly because a) there are no chart books to provide the
end point component values; and b) the well-bore contributes to the measurement. Nevertheless a knowledge of the
physics of the measurement can be used to predict how the Ratio depends on water saturation. Recall that the
measurement is responding to the effectiveness of the formation and well-bore at slowing the fast neutrons. The
well-bore does not change so its contribution should be constant, the same is true of the matrix. Carbon Dioxide has
almost no slowing power, because it has a hydrogen index of zero and has a low density, so the Ratio changes in
response to changes in formation water volume (or equivalently saturation). In this case a relationship between
water volume and Ratio was found by cross-plotting porosity, found from the open hole logs, against the baseline
pulsed neutron log (run before injection commenced). This provided a linear relationship between water volume
(Ø.Sw) and the Ratio.

Ø.Sw = A.(R – B) 2

Where A, B are constants obtained by a fitting process. The values of A, B are unique to the well (OBS) and the
specific type of tool used (Weatherford PND), if either of these changes a different relationship is required. The
alternative approach would be to model the Ratio using a Monte Carlo technique.
 GHGT-14 Author name 5

3. Aquistore Project

3.1. Geology

The Aquistore Project is located in the Williston Basin, a large intracratonic basin centred on North Dakota and
extending westward into Montana and northwards into Saskatchewan. The basin is approximately oval in shape
with the long axis orientated roughly NW to SE. It is underlain by Precambrian basement and is filled with a more
or less complete sequence of sediments ranging from Cambrian to Carboniferous and Jurassic to Tertiary. The
sediments include clastics, carbonates and evaporates [4]. The CO2 is being injected into sandstones of Ordovician
and Cambrian age. The seal is provided by an organic rich, black shale of Ordovician age. At its deepest point, in
western North Dakota, the basin is about 5000 m deep but in the Aquistore area basement is encountered at about
3500 m [5].

This study primarily deals with the sandstones which are being used for injection. These are divided between the
Cambrian Deadwood Formation and the Ordovician Black Island Formation. The former lies directly on basement
and is approximately 150 m thick in the Aquistore area. The latter lies immediately above the Deadwood and is
about 45 m thick. The Black Island is itself capped with the 30 m thick Icebox shale which is the primary seal for
the storage complex. Open hole logs have been run to the intermediate casing shoe(s) at about 620 m MDRT and
this includes all the sediments older than Tertiary. The pulsed neutron logs were not run above 2500 m, however,
and most are terminated at about 2900 m. This is still well above the injection sands and includes several intervals
of low porosity limestone and dolomite as well as evaporites that are useful for understanding the tool responses.

3.2. Wells

The two Aquistore wells are operated by the Petroleum Technology Research Centre (of Western Canada) and
have the full names PTRC-OBS-5-6-2-8 and PTRC-INJ-5-6-2-8. In this paper they will simply be referred to as
OBS and INJ. They are both vertical, drilled to a T.D. of approximately 3400 m and are located approximately 150
m apart. The nature of the geology in the area means that they penetrate almost identical sections and the tops and
thicknesses of the various units rarely differ by more than a few metres. Although the wells penetrate very similar
stratigraphy they have significantly different designs that reflect their different functions. The southerly well INJ is
used for injection. It was drilled through the zone of interest with a 251 mm bit (10 ¼”) and was subsequently cased
with 193mm (7.5” casing) and cemented. Four sets of perforations at depths between 3170 – 3370m expose the
permeable sands into which CO2 is injected. A Packer was set above these and a 114.3 mm tubing string is used for
injection. The second well is the observation well and was drilled with a smaller bit of approximately 216 mm. It
has been cased and cemented with 114.3 mm casing meaning that there is a relatively thick cement sheath
(compared to a typical hydrocarbon well).

3.3. Pulsed Neutron Logging

Pulsed Neutron logs have been acquired in both wells although this paper concentrates on the results from the
OBS well, which was acquired with the Weatherford PND tool. Both wells were drilled in 2012 and the open hole
logs were acquired then. A baseline pulsed neutron log was run after the wells had been cased. The tool used for
that was the Schlumberger RST. The wells were drilled with oil based mud and open hole log analysis showed they
were deeply invaded with oil from the mud. This was still present in all the sands in the OBS well when the
baseline RST log was run. The net effect of this was that the Sigma values measured in the sands were lower than
expected had they been saturated with formation water.

Injection of CO2 started with some short duration trials early in 2015 and begun in earnest in October 2015.
Twelve PND log surveys have been made between April 2015 and April 2018 (seven of these were made after
October 2015). A typical survey involved four individual passes over the Deadwood and Black Island sandstones
6 GHGT-14 Kennedy et al.

up to 3150 m (the target for injection). One pass was normally logged up to a depth of at least 2900 m,
approximately 250 m above the top of the zone of interest. This allowed the tool response and repeatability to be
checked in formations that were well above the influence of the CO2. Interpretation of the PND logs showed that
most CO2 was being injected into a 10 m thick sand package within the Deadwood Sandstone (between 3232.5 m
and 3242.5 mMDRT).

4. Results

4.1. Time-Lapse Results

Sigma and Ratio curves acquired on seven of the surveys are shown in figure 1a and b respectively (several of the
earlier surveys have been omitted for clarity). Both measurements show the arrival of the CO 2 plume between
December 2015 and March 2016. Sigma falls from approximately 15-16 cu before the arrival of the CO2 to 10-12 cu
after. In the case of the Ratio the equivalent values are 1.8-2.0 and 1-1.2 respectively. A careful examination shows
that the base of the sand is still water bearing but that the contact has moved down approximately 2 m between
March 2016 and April 2018, this is particularly clear from the Ratio curves.

Agreement between most of the surveys is reasonable until, of course, CO2 enters the sand. An obvious
exception is the Ratio curve acquired in December 2015 which is consistently higher than any of the other surveys
and normally exceeds 2.5 in the sand. The curve is in fact offset to higher values for the entire logged interval. The
contractor is unable to explain this anomalous response. The Ratio is supposed to be calibrated prior to logging by
placing a gamma-ray source of known strength at a fixed position relative to the detectors. Possibly there was an
error in this step or possibly the response of the detectors changed at well temperature. Whatever the reason, the log
is almost certainly erroneous which is unfortunate as the Sigma curves showed the CO2 plume passes the OBS well
between this survey and the next one.

Both measurements clearly show the arrival of the CO2 and subsequent downward movement of the contact. The
Ratio shows this most clearly partly because the curve is smoother and shows less small scale variation. But in fact
the percentage change before and after the arrival of the CO 2 is also greater. The reasons for the differences are
discussed below.
 GHGT-14 Author name 7

(a) (b)

Figure 1: Time-lapse logs over the Deadwood A1 sands in the Observation well (a) Sigma response; (b) Ratio response. Red Curves are post-
arrival of the CO2 plume.

4.2. Repeatability

Some idea of repeatability can be gained by comparing the different surveys before the arrival of the CO 2 plume
but it is also possible to compare individual passes made as part of the same survey. The latter is the best way to
determine the inherent accuracy of the tool and its detection limits. Figure 2a and b show an example from May
2016. It can be seen that the curves repeat very well. The average Sigma reading and its standard error reading for
the four runs is 13.62 (+/-0.02) CU and the equivalent for the Ratio is 1.33 (+/-0.01). These correspond to very
small changes in saturation.
8 GHGT-14 Kennedy et al.

(a) (b)

Figure 2: Comparison of repeatability of logging outputs pre-CO2 arrival (a) Sigma response; (b) Ratio response.

4.3. Oil based mud

As noted earlier the sands were invaded by oil filtrate during drilling and this was still present at the OBS well
when the baseline survey was run. In section 2.2 a simple calculation was made that predicted the Sigma reading for
the sand saturated with water should be 18 – 19 CU, inspection of figure 2a shows the actual readings varied
between 15 – 17 CU. The average Sigma reading for the baseline survey was 15.7 CU whereas the predicted value
was 10.1 CU. The reduction is caused by mud filtrate displacing formation water. The Sigma value for the oil is
not known but as it contains no chloride (or any other strong thermal neutron absorbers) it will be small. The
Schlumberger chart book quotes a value of 22 CU for a ‘generic’ oil which is far lower than the value for the
formation water (estimated at 145CU) [6]. Interestingly for the INJ well the average Sigma reading measured in the
baseline survey was very close to the prediction: 17.6 CU predicted vs 17.3 measured. The predicted Sigma at the
INJ well is lower because the porosity is lower at that location. In this well water samples were taken using a
formation tester and as part of the sampling process the oil had to be pumped out of the formation.

The oil saturation can be found from conventional log analysis and this gave values of 35-40% in the sand
considered here. This could be used to predict the Sigma value for the oil invaded sand by substituting into equation
 GHGT-14 Author name 9

1 but in fact the Sigma curve from the baseline log was used to provide an independent estimate of the oil saturation
and this agreed well with the conventional log analysis. The replacement of up to 40% of the water by oil explains
the reduced contrast between Sigma logs recorded before and after the arrival of the CO 2. In the case of the Ratio,
the effect of replacing formation water with oil is much smaller and potentially non-existent. This is because the
hydrogen index of the oil is similar to that of water and therefore a mixture of the two fluids has almost the same
ability to thermalize neutrons as water alone. In short, the Ratio measurement is almost insensitive to the presence
of oil, and the arrival of the CO2 produces a much larger change in Ratio than Sigma. As will be discussed below
the two measurements together provide strong evidence that the CO 2 has actually removed the oil from the sand.

5. Discussion

Both measurements can be converted to saturation. In the case of Sigma this is achieved by re-arranging
equation 1. The accuracy of the saturation depends on the accuracy of the Sigma measurement and properly
characterising the Sigma values of the components (the parameters in equation 1). Here the parameters have all
been taken from chart-books, but the good agreement between the saturation calculated from open hole log analysis
and from the baseline Sigma measurement shows these are reasonable. All of them could be measured in the
laboratory if one wanted to remove that element of uncertainty. Figure 3 shows the change in average water
saturation (Sw) calculated from Sigma in the sand through time. The presence of the oil in the early surveys can
clearly be seen as the Sw is consistently less than 1.

Figure 3: Change in average water saturation (Sw) versus time interpreted from Sigma and Ratio curves (April 2015 is day 0).

Figure 3 also shows the equivalent Sw trend calculated from the Ratio. In this case the calculated Sw for three
surveys in April 2015 is 100%. After the arrival of the plume the Sw values fall to similar values to those from the
Sigma curve. Unfortunately, the Ratio measured in the survey immediately before the arrival of the plume was the
erroneous one discussed above and so has been excluded. The survey before that (August 2015) is also missing
because the contractor neglected to provide the Ratio curve. As explained above the Sigma is actually correctly
suggesting Sw is less than 100% before the CO2 arrives, because it is also responding to the oil. The Ratio is almost
10 GHGT-14 Kennedy et al.

insensitive to the oil and so gives the ‘expected’ Sw of 100%. The good agreement between the Sw values
calculated using the two different measurements, after the arrival of the CO 2 actually demonstrates that the oil has
largely been removed by the CO2. This is another aspect of the insensitivity of the Ratio to oil. In effect the Ratio
measurement is responding entirely to CO2 whereas the Sigma responds to CO2 and oil. If the Sw values agree the
oil must have been largely removed. The result is hardly surprising as CO2 is widely used to mobilize oil in EOR
projects but it is interesting to see it in action.

The Sigma curve provides accurate estimates of Sw because of the high salinity and therefore Sigma of the
formation water. Analysis of water samples obtained from the INJ well showed it has a chloride ion concentration
of 200 kppm (w/w) (this is equivalent to a salinity of 330 kppm although the water contains a high concentration of
calcium as well as sodium). This was used to estimate the formation water Sigma value of 145 CU. Even replacing
a third of the water with oil still gives a good contrast with the CO 2 bearing formation. For fresher waters the
contrast would be less and invasion by oil could seriously compromise the accuracy obtainable. On the other hand,
providing there is some chloride ion in the formation water, the Ratio method would still provide good accuracy.

In the previous section it was noted that the Ratio curve has a smoother appearance and amongst other things this
makes the contact movement much clearer. The reason for the smoother appearance is due to two factors. Firstly,
the measurement combines the outputs from the two detectors and secondly at any point it is based on the sum total
of the counts rather than trying to fit a decay to counts accumulated in several short windows. The Sigma
measurement is based on the output of one detector –although the two detectors do provide separate measurements
which could conceivably be averaged. The disadvantage of the Ratio is that it has inherently lower vertical
resolution as it ultimately refers to the whole process from emitting the fast neutrons to detecting the capture
gamma-rays. For the Sigma measurement it is the capture process alone that produces the measurement and the
source of the neutrons is almost immaterial. Much of the smoother appearance of the Ratio curve is therefore a
result of its inherently lower vertical resolution. On the other hand inspection of figure 2a shows that at any depth
the Sigma curve can easily vary by 1-2 CU which is simply a reflection of its inherently lower accuracy. As is often
the case with logging tools higher vertical resolution comes at a cost of lower accuracy. Accuracy can be improved
by making multiple passes and averaging the measurements. By using four passes the signal to noise Ratio can be
doubled. An extra pass adds very little additional time to the logging job, particularly if it is limited to the interval
of interest.

6. Conclusions

This study confirms that Ratio based measurements provide a valid alternative method to Sigma for monitoring
CO2 plumes. In the case of the Aquistore wells, which are particularly well suited to Sigma monitoring, there is not
a great incentive to do this, but where formation water salinities are much lower, Sigma monitoring will at best
reveal the passage of the plume and may not even be able to do that. The Ratio measurement on the other hand
should be able to quantify CO2 saturations in even quite fresh water. Thus at deep aquifer sites where formation
waters are fresh, e.g. in Australia, the availability of an alternative to Sigma is a major benefit.

Repeated surveys with cased hole Pulsed Neutron Logs in a dedicated observation well have not only allowed the
progress of injected CO2 in this particular facility to be tracked but provide an excellent data set for objectively
assessing suitability, accuracy and precision of these tools for use in any geo-sequestration project.

Combining the two measurements brings some additional benefits. In this particular case it was possible to
deduce that the CO2 had succeeded in removing the oil filtrate left over from drilling. In a follow up study we are
using the two measurements together to identify and quantify salt precipitation.

Finally, the Ratio measurement should be treated as of equal importance to the Sigma and not simply a by-
product. In this particular project the Ratio measurement was clearly in error in a particularly important survey
 GHGT-14 Author name 11

despite the Sigma measurement being acceptable. Furthermore, for several other surveys it was simply not provided
in the initial deliverables.

Acknowledgements

The authors gratefully acknowledge the Petroleum Technology Research Centre and the supporting partners of
the Aquistore Project for funding and collaboration on this research. We would also like thank Kevin Dodds of
ANLEC R&D for his encouragement of this international collaboration.

References

[1] Worth K, White D, Chalaturnyk R, Sorensen J, Hawkes C, Rostron B, Johnson J, Young A,. Aquistore Project measurement, monitoring and
verification: from concept to CO2 injection, Energy Procedia, 2014. 63: 3202–3208, doi:10.1016/j.egypro.2014.11.345.
[2] Hawkes CD, Sohail GM, Leniuk A. Interpretation of CO2 Saturations in the Aquistore Observation Well using Pulsed Neutron Logs. Int. J.
Greenh. Gas. Control, 2017 (submitted).
[3] Dance T and Paterson L. Observations of carbon dioxide saturation distribution and residual trapping using core analysis and repeat pulsed‐
neutron logging at the CO2CRC Otway site. Int. J. Greenh. Gas. Control, 2014. 47: 210‐220, doi:10.1016/j.ijggc.2016.01.042
[4] Kent DM. and Christopher JE. Geological history of the Williston Basin and the Sweetgrass Arch. In: Mossop and I. Shetsen (eds.)
Geological Atlas of the Western Canada Sedimentary Basin, G. 1994. 421‐429. Canadian Society of Petroleum Geologists and Alberta
Research Council, Calgary and Edmonton.
[5] Rostron B, White D, Hawkes C. and Chalaturnyk R. Characterization of the Aquistore CO2 Project Storage Site, Saskatchewan, Canada.
Energy Proc., 2014. 63: 2977–2984, doi:10.1016/j.egypro.2014.11.320.
[6] Schlumberger chart book, 2013 Edition, Schlumberger Limited https://www.slb.com/resources/publications/books.aspx