CMTC-439492-MS

Microseismic Monitoring on CO2 Migration in a Tight Oil Reservoir during

CO2-EOR Process
Bo Ren*, Shaoran Ren, Liang Zhang, Haidong Huang**, China University of Petroleum, Guoli Chen, Hua Zhang,
PetroChina Jilin Oilfield Company
* Now with the University of Texas at Austin
** Now with the Schlumberger Limited (China)

Copyright 2015, Carbon Management Technology Conference

This paper was prepared for presentation at the Carbon Management Technology Conference held in Sugarland, Texas, USA, 17–19 November 2015.

This paper was selected for presentation by a CMTC program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents
of the paper have not been reviewed and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of the Carbon Management
Technology Conference, its officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written consent of the Carbon
Management Technology Conference is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more tha n 300 words; illustrations may not be
copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of CMTC copyright.

Abstract
Jilin Oilfield is conducting a large-scale demonstration project on CO2 EOR and storage in China.
CO2 separated from a nearby natural gas reservoir (15-30 mole% CO2) is injected into the northern part
of H-59 oil block with permeability and porosity of 3.5 mD and 12.7%, respectively. After about six
years of operation, nearly 0.26 million tons of CO2 (0.32 HCPV) has been injected into the thin oil
layers with well-developed natural fractures. In order to track the movement of CO2 in the oil reservoir,
a microseismic monitoring program has been implemented to map the CO2 flow anisotropy and
sweeping efficiency. Gas tracer testing has also been conducted to examine the inter-well connectivity.
The production data has been analyzed in a real-time mode to monitor the dynamic response of different
production wells, and meanwhile to verify the credibility of the results from microseismic and gas tracer
tests. It is demonstrated that the migration or movement of CO2 in the thin oil layers can be successfully
detected by the microseismic technique, and the sweeping profiles of CO2 obtained from the inversed
microseismic are in good agreement with the temporal change of the produced CO2 rate from producers
as well as the characterization of the reservoir’s petrophysical properties.

Introduction
The development of sustainable and safe technologies to mitigate emissions of greenhouse gases to
the atmosphere is one of the major challenges in this century. Carbon capture and storage (CCS) has
been widely accepted as the most promising and easily accessible way to reduce the carbon emission
and global warming (IPCC, 2005). The captured CO2 is injected into the subsurface reservoirs for the
long-term storage/sequestration. The potential geological sites suitable for CO2 storage include depleted
oil and gas reservoirs, deep saline aquifers, unminable coal bed methane, and gas hydrate and
geothermal reservoirs (Bachu, 2008). At present and for the near future, oil and gas reservoirs are the
most favorable choices because of their proven trapping safety and economic potential combined with
2 CMTC-439492-MS

CO2 enhanced oil or gas recovery (Zhang et al., 2015).

Although CO2-EOR has been widely employed in the oil and gas industry for more than 60 years,
many uncertainty and risks still exist in the face of the combined geological storage. One of the big
concerns is the CO2 migration in the oil reservoirs and the possible leakage from the geological bodies.
From the perspective of enhanced oil recovery, the CO2/oil miscibility, gas front migration, and
injector/producer response also need to be monitored to accurately evaluate the field performance.
Therefore, it is essential to deploy the monitoring, verification and accounting (MVA) techniques to
understand the behavior of CO2 in the geologic formations, track its migration/fate, and assess/prevent
CO2 leakage from the storage media (Brown et al., 2009; Ren et al., 2014). Meanwhile, through the
MVA practice, the advantages and limitations of monitoring tools can be assessed for the future
improvements (Litynski et al., 2008). Additionally, this will help the operator to update the reservoir
geological model and optimize the oilfield development program.
The CO2 EOR and storage project in Jilin oilfield is the first-large scale CCS demonstration project in
China. It aims at enhancing the understanding of CO2 EOR mechanisms and ensuring the storage safety
of CO2 in the reservoir. In order to achieve these purposes, a comprehensive monitoring program has
been designed and conducted during CO2 injection into the tight oil reservoirs. The primary purpose of
this study is to examine the feasibility of micro-seismic monitoring program employed in the field to
track the CO2 migration in the tight and thin oil reservoir. Detailed well fluid sampling analysis has been
conducted and compared with the micro-seismic results. Gas tracer results have also been used in
complimentary to the above analysis and additional insights are obtained with respect to the gas
channeling/breakthrough features in the tight and heterogeneous oil reservoir.

The Jilin Oilfield CCS-EOR

Jilin Oilfield is located in the Jilin province of the Songliao basin in North-east China (Fig. 1a). The
target oil reservoir of H59 block belongs to the DaQingZiJing region of the oilfield. The reservoir was
selected for CO2 EOR and storage based on its geological characterization and petrophysical properties
under the reservoir conditions. The overall CCS-EOR project design and surface processing (Fig. 1b)
has been described in several publications (e.g., Zhang et al., 2015). The CO2 is separated from the
Changshen natural gas reservoir and then pumped via an 8 km pipeline to the H59 block. The CO 2
content in the natural gas stream is around 15-30 mole%. After the initial pilot test at the H59 oil block
during the first phase, the following phases will include more than 200 patterns in other blocks nearby.
The target oil reservoir is composed of several producing zones from the Qingshankou formation
formed in the age of Cretaceous. It is deposited in a delta front environment and controlled by two
antithetic down faults (Fig. 2a). The oil-bearing formations are manifested with well-developed sand
bodies. The gross sand layers range from 11.2 m to 18.2 m in thickness, including main layers 7, 12, 14,
15 in the Qing-I formation of the Qingshankou Formation, which take 78% of OOIP (Fig. 2b). The high-
angle or vertical natural fractures are well developed in the direction of west-east in the oil reservoir, and
hydraulic fracturing treatments have been conducted in several producers to boost oil production. The
average porosity and permeability are 12.7% and 3.5 mD, respectively.
The CO2 pilot area consists of 31 wells with a spacing of 440 x 140 m; 25 production wells and 6 CO2
injectors. They are divided into 6 well groups as shown in Fig. 2a. The reservoir has been produced via
primary depletion, and then water flooding was started in well H-4-2 and 6-6 from 2004 to 2008. In
April 2008, CO2 was firstly injected into wells 6-6 and 12-6, and then CO2 injection was started with
other wells over the subsequent six months. The wellhead gas injection pressure is of 11-14 MPa, and at
-22 oC (liquid CO2). Since June 2009, water alternating gas (WAG) injection was initiated in well 12-6
and 6-6, and spread to other injectors in four months. The WAG injection cannot be maintained in a
mode of the strict cycle due to the poor water injectivity. Since 2011, the well pattern has been changed;
H59-14-6 with high produced CO2 content was converted to gas injector, followed by H59-10-4, H-8-8,
and H-4-1. Up to June 2014, approximately 0.32 Hydrocarbon Pore Volume (HCPV) of CO2 has been
CMTC-439492-MS 3

totally injected into the oil reservoir with the incremental oil recovery factor of 4.5%.

3. Field Implementation of Monitoring Techniques for Tracking CO2

3.1 Microseismic test
As shown in Fig. 3, an array of 24 three-component geophone receivers was placed around the
monitoring well at the near-surface with a spacing of 150 m. The geophones were clamped at the depth
of 10 to 30 meters below surface to avoid the surface noise and adsorption of the microseismic wave.
The total coverage area of the sensor network is about 600 x 600 m, with each side of about twice of the
injector-producer distance.
Before the microseismic test, the CO2 injectors were shut down for more than 15 hours in order to
make the existing fractures in the reservoir closed. When the wellhead pressure decreases quite low (< 2
MPa), CO2 injection is re-started with the normal injection rate, and the injection pressure might re-open
the previously-closed natural fractures and meanwhile with some micro-seismic events induced. The
dense degree of micro-seismic events induced from different layers/positions is used to monitor the
movement direction and sweeping profile of CO2 in the oil reservoir.
In the H59 oil block, micro-seismic mapping has been implemented in the four CO2 vertical injectors;
H59-4-2, H59-6-6, H59-1 and H59-14-6. The detailed monitoring time, interval and totally CO2 injected
during monitoring test has been shown in Table 1. The microseismic events have been interpreted and
located by the contractor (Sinopetro Longshuo Ltd). Here we discuss them in relation to the
injection/production response and compare them with the gas tracer results. As seen from Table 1, most
of the microseismic events were interpreted to be induced from the layer 7, which sucks most of the CO2
as confirmed by the injection profiling test. In the following result part, we will focus on layer 7 as an
example of analyzing and examining the effectiveness of microseismic monitoring.

3.2 Gas Tracer Test

The first gas tracer test in the north five well groups (Fig. 2a) has failed at the initial period of CO2
injection due to the incomplete sampling of an unexpected early breakthrough of CO2 tracer. Therefore,
a second gas tracer test was implemented into the two middle well groups (H59-8-4 and 6-6) in Jan
2012. After a careful screening test on different kinds of gas tracers, QT-1 and QT-5 (a kind of CO2-
soluble fluorocarbon) were chosen, and a slug of the corresponding tracer with the mass of 90 kg was
pumped into the Qing-I member of well H59-8-4 and 6-6, respectively. The injection rate is 10-30 L/min
with the injection pressure of 15-16 MPa. After the injection, samples of casing gas or dissolution gas
from produced oil were collected by the vacuum plastic bags once a day, and the collected gas volume is
about 500 ml each time. The concentration of the produced gas tracer was analyzed by the gas
chromatograph-electron capture detector (GC-ECD). The sampling operation lasts for 3-6 month in all
the production wells of the pilot area.

4. Results and Discussion

4.1 Well Groups of H59-6-6 and H59-1
The stacking CO2 microseismic events distributions for well H59-6-6 and H59-1 were shown in Fig.
4a and 4b. The induced microseismic events around the well by the CO2 injection increase gradually
from the inside area in pink to the outside area in red color. It can be seen that, the CO2 preferential flow
is mainly along the E-W direction for both wells, this observation is particular pronounced in well H59-
6-6. As stated before, the natural fractures are developed in the east-west direction. Therefore, this
would indicate the mapped microseismic events is mainly due to the natural fractures opening triggered
by the injection pressure. It should be noted that the pink or red areas are not CO2 sweeping area during
the monitoring period; they are just the indicator of the injection induced pressure fronts. The CO2
migration rate or displacement front is much less that the pressure propagation rate, and it is the former
that cause the microseismic events which are used to map the potential fluid movement trend or pattern.
4 CMTC-439492-MS

Since the real-time CO2 injection pressure during microseismic test is not recorded, the long-term
injection rate and pressure data was used to help to analyze subsurface CO2 migration behavior. This
analysis is reasonable and valid considering the fact that the microseismic monitoring are selectively
conducted on the wells with relatively-stable injection performance and the CO2 injection rate is kept the
same as before during microseismic test. CO2 injection pressure fluctuates along the CO2 injection rate
or WAG cycle. During the microseismic monitoring, the wellhead injection pressures of CO2 for both
wells are around 15 MPa with the measured bottomhole pressures of 38 MPa, respectively. It is
suspected that this pressure is enough to open the pre-existing natural fractures, detailed study on the
geomechanical properties of the reservoir and natural fractures is necessary to validate this point.
A comparison of predicted CO2 sweeping profile between the microseismic results and gas tracer test
has been conducted for well group H59-6-6. The gas tracer test result is shown in Fig. 5; the tracer was
injected via H59-6-6, and detected later in the surrounding production wells. As shown from the figure,
the injected CO2 moves along the W-E direction toward to the producers, this is very consistent with the
CO2 sweeping profile as indicated from the outer boundaries of microseismic events (Fig. 4a). The gas
tracer test shows fast CO2 average movement rate between H59-6-6 and 4-6, also produced gas tracer
concentration of the well is the highest among the detected six producers. This reveals very good
connectivity between the two wells and, therefore, the most of CO2 would move toward to H59-4-6.
However, microseismic monitoring demonstrates that the dense flow of CO2 is toward to the middle area
of H59-6-8 and 4-6 (see the areas with blue and green colors in Fig. 4a), which is almost parallel to the
natural fracture direction. This might indicate that the re-opened natural fractures by CO2 injection
dominate the flow of CO2.
Further, it can be seen from Fig. 4b that the CO2 sweeping profile for well group H59-1 is almost
uniform, therefore it can be expected that the injection response, i.e., CO2 breakthrough time and
produced CO2 rate, would be close to each other in the surrounded production wells. As revealed from
the well group configuration of Fig. 2a, the production response of wells in the lower parts of the H59-1
group (i.e., H59-1-3, 3-3 and 3-1 of Fig. 4b) might be only affected by the CO2 injection in well H59-1.
Therefore, the CO2 production rates along with time for these three wells are plotted and they are shown
in Fig. 6. It can be seen that the temporal change of the produced CO2 amounts from the above three
wells have a very similar trend. The CO2 breakthrough happens around almost the same time of period
during September to December of 2009. This supports the credibility of microseismic interpretation on
the CO2 flooding profile.
Another very interesting observation from the two figures is that the stacked microseismic events
occurrence area as well as event rates (number of microseismic events during monitoring) in well H59-
6-6 is much larger than that in well H59-1. However, the microseismic monitoring or CO2 injection
lasting periods is very close for the two wells, 210 vs 190 min. And the CO2 injection rates are 37 and
42 t/d, respectively. So the total injected CO2 would be comparable as well as the well head injection
pressures. Also, both microseismic results are interpreted from the 7 layer of Qing-I (Table 2), which
shows limited difference of permeability around the two wells. All of these would make us expect that,
at least, the detected microseismic coverage area would be almost similar. Further work might be
required to characterize the fracture density and length variations around the two wells to help
understand the reservoir deformation and induced micro-seismic events during CO2 injection. However,
it should be indicated that, especially from Fig. 4b, the CO2 sweeping profile interpreted from
microcosmic distribution is less anisotropic; this might imply that the developed E-W natural fractures
have a favorable effect in improving the CO2 sweeping efficiency in our specific case of study.

4.2 Well Groups of H-59-14-6 and H59-4-2

The distribution of the dense degree of micro-seismic events occurred around well H59-14-6 and
H59-4-2 was shown in Fig. 7a and 7b, respectively. It can be seen from Fig. 7a that the microseismic
events are distributed in a NW-SE strip, which is parallel to the connected line of H59-14-6 and H59-12-
4. For the monitoring well H59-6-6, the micro-seismic events cluster along the NE-SW direction and
CMTC-439492-MS 5

they become almost uniformly distributed as moving far from the injector.
As seen from Fig. 7a, the injected CO2 in well H59-14-6 mainly spreads towards well H-12-4, but
moves to other directions weakly, such as the directions to wells H-16-8, H-14-8 and H-12-8. For the
injector H59-4-2 (Fig. 7b), CO2 moves preferentially along the strip line connecting H-59-4-1, 4-2 and
4-4 together. It should be indicated that, before the microseismic monitoring, it is expected that CO2
plume behavior would be mainly controlled by the E-W natural fractures that are well developed in the
reservoir. However, from the microseismic distribution for both injectors, it can be seen that CO2
migration pattern interpreted from microseismic is mainly driven by the pressure gradient between
injectors and producers. This might indicate that the injection pressure is not enough to open the closed
natural fractures.
H-59-14-6 was converted to the CO2 injector in October of 2012 because of the serious CO2
breakthrough. During the microseismic monitoring, the wellhead injection pressure of CO2 for well
H59-14-6 is about 12.5 MPa, while it is 10 MPa for well H59-6-6. It is suspected that this pressure is not
enough to open the pre-existing natural fractures. In order to verify our speculation, a careful
comparison between CO2 flow pattern and permeability field is conducted for each layer of H59-14-6.
The basic idea for the comparison is the permeability distribution would be the dominant factor of CO2
migration if it is driven by the pressure gradient according to the Darcy flow. Injection profile tests show
that the injected CO2 through well H59-14-6 mostly moves into the layer 7 and 12, so we superimposed
the outer boundaries lines of microseismic event intensity for each layer onto the pressure field and they
are shown in Fig. 8a and 8b, respectively. It can be seen that, for layer 7 and 12, CO2 migrates toward
the areas with either high permeability or low pressure (producer). Therefore, the microseismic events
detected from the reservoir are very likely not caused via the stress gradients changes induced by
localized fractures. Rather, they are mainly controlled by the pressure gradients from the injection to
production sides.
Also, from the strip-like CO2 flow pattern around H59-14-6 as shown in Fig. 7a, it can be predicated
that, once CO2 breakthrough occurs, the produced CO2 from H59-14-8 (the upper blue dashed circle
well in Fig. 8a) would be much smaller than H59-12-4 (the lower blue dashed circle well in Fig. 7a).
However, for injector H-59-4-2, the CO2 sweeping profile is almost uniform with slightly preferential
flow toward well H59-4-4 and H-4-1, therefore, it can be expected that the produced CO2 amount from
these two wells would be marginally higher than that of wells in the perpendicular direction, e.g., H59-
6-2 and 2-2. Considering about this, we plot daily-averaged CO2 production rate for well H59-14-8 and
12-4 (in H59-14-6 group of Fig. 7a) as well as H-59-4-4 and H59-2-2 (blue dashed circle wells in H59-
4-2 group of Fig. 7b), and they are shown in Fig. 9a and 9b. As seen from the figures, the difference of
CO2 production rate between well H59-14-8 and 12-4 is 4-7 times higher than that between H59-4-4 and
2-2 (note the scale of Y axis in the two figures). This observation has very good consistency with the
microseismic results which shows that the CO2 sweeping profile of well H-59-4-2 is better than that of
well H59-14-6. It should be indicated that, for Fig. 9a and 9b, the produced CO2 from these wells are not
exactly from the corresponding central CO2 injector, and they might come from other CO2 injectors. In
this case, the results of interwell connectivity test - gas tracer – could be used to quantify how much CO2
is produced from the corresponding central CO2 injector. Gas tracer result is available for well H59-4-4
and 2-2 and it shows that the producer H59-4-4 is only impacted by gas injector 4-2, whereas well 59-2-
2 has almost equivalent connectivity with four CO2 injectors (i.e., H59-4-2, 8-4, 10-8, and 6-6). If
considering about this, it can be further derived that the CO2 production rate of H59-2-2 caused only
from injector 4-2 would be much less that of H59-4-4. Therefore, the approximation of produced CO2
measurement from the near-by CO2 injector analyzed in the above is reasonable in terms of comparison
with microseismic results. All the above analysis and comparison with different kinds of data confirms
the credibility of the microseismic test results and it can be used to support future optimization of the
reservoir performance, which would be of particular interest for the CO2-EOR project.

5. Summary and Conclusions

6 CMTC-439492-MS

Different methods have been employed to monitor the CO2 migration in thin and tight heterogeneous
oil reservoirs, combining the microseismic monitoring with the gas tracer testing and produced gas
analysis. Gas tracer testing is effective for detecting the orientation of gas channeling from CO2 injectors
to producers due to hydraulic or natural fractures while the microseismic technique can be effectively
used for monitoring CO2 migration and its sweeping profiles in the reservoirs.
In applying the microseismic technique, the open and closure of the pre-existing natural fractures
were well corresponding with the variation of CO2 injection pressure. Higher injection pressure can
induce the re-opening of the pre-existing natural fractures, and the CO2 flow pattern induced by the
fracture network become less anisotropic. And the microseismic events detected were consistent with
the orientation of the natural fractures and the stress distribution in the reservoir. However, for the lower
injection pressure, the inversed microseismic profiles clearly show the preferential CO2 flows and their
anisotropy in different well groups, which are mainly dominated by the pressure gradient and the
heterogeneity of reservoir permeability. The detected micro-seismicity is caused by stress gradients
induced by production and injection gradient, rather than the local natural fractures.
The results of microseismic tests are in good consistency with the produced CO2 measurements. The
mapped preferential flow direction and sweeping profile of CO2 in each injector well group can provide
a good prediction for the breakthrough of CO2 in different production wells, which is useful for
conformance control and injection optimization.

6. Acknowledgements
This research is supported by the National Major S&T Project (No. 2011ZX05016-005). Permission
to publish this paper by Jilin Oilfield Company, PetroChina, is gratefully acknowledged.

7. References
Bachu, S. 2008. CO2 storage in geological media: Role, means, status and barriers to deployment.
Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 34:254-273.
Brown, B., Carr, T.R., Vikara, D. 2009. Monitoring, verification, and accounting of CO2 stored in deep
geologic formations. U.S. Department of Energy: National Energy Technology Laboratory.
IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2005. IPCC special report on carbon dioxide
capture and storage. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp. 195-276.
Litynski, J.T., Plaskynski, S., Mcilvried, H.G., Mahoney, C., Srivastava, R.M. 2008. The United States
Department of Energy’s regional carbon sequestration partnerships program validation phase.
Environment International 34 (1):127-138.
Ren, S.R., Li, D.X., Zhang, L. 2014. Leakage pathways and risk analysis of carbon dioxide in geological
storage. Acta Petrolei Sinica 35(3):591-601.
Zhang, L., Ren, B., Huang, H.D., Li, Y.Z., Ren, S.R., Chen, G.L., Zhang, H. 2015. CO2 EOR and
storage in JiLin Oilfield China: monitoring program and preliminary results. Journal of Petroleum
Science and Engineering 125:1-12.

Table 1 Microseismic monitoring well information

Monitoring well H-14-6 H-4-2 H-59-1 H-6-6
Monitoring date 5/24/2013 5/25/2013 8/6/2012 8/7/2012 8/6/2012 8/7/2012 7/2/2013
2454- 2422- 2482- 2430- 2467- 2436- 2435-
Monitoring interval depth, m 2482 2425 2493 2466 2504 2444 2440
Qing-I: Qing-I: Qing-I: Qing-I:
Corresponding layer 12,14,15
Qing-I: 7
14,15,16 7,12 12,15,16
Qing-I: 7 Qing-I: 7
Monitoring period, min 10 9.8 6.9 7.6 8.3 7.8 4.4
CMTC-439492-MS 7

(a) Location of the Jilin oilfield (b) Project scheme of the Jilin CCS project
Fig. 1. CO2 EOR and storage project in Jilin oilfield northeast China (adapted from Zhang et al., 2015)

YaoJia Formation
N
Qing-III Ⅵ Unit -
Member Ⅶ Unit 38—42
ⅠUnit 1—5

QingShanKou Formation
Ⅱ Unit 6—11

Cretaceous Period
Qing-II
Ⅲ Unit 12—14
Member
IV Unit 16—21
Ⅴ Unit 22—24
ⅠUnit 1—3

Qing-I ⅡUnit 4—8

Member Ⅲ Unit 9—12
Ⅳ Unit 14—16

QuanT ou Formation

(a) (b)
Fig. 2. (a) is the surface layout of well location and pattern in H59 oil Block; Well H-59-1 was converted to a CO2 injector in September,
2009. (b) is a schematic stratigraphy map with the detailed reservoir layering system. The reservoir includes Qing-I, II and III member, and
the main oil production layers are # 7, 12, 14 and 15 of Qing-I member as shown in the table with the gray background color.
0
50.0

40.0
N
30.0

20.0

10.0

270  (W) 0 90

Monitoring well
-10.0

-20.0

-30.0

-40.0

-50.0
-40.0 -30.0 -20.0 -10.0 0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0

180

Fig. 3. Microseismic sensor network: twenty-four sensors have been employed with the 3 component geophones clamped near-surface with
the depth of 10-30 m. The distance between sensors is around 150 meter with the network coverage area of 600 m x 600 m centered on the
target monitoring CO2 injector. The distance along the axes are in meter with the monitoring well as the coordinate origin, a factor of 6
should be multiplied to get the field distance.
8 CMTC-439492-MS

(a) Monitoring well H-59-6-6 (b) Monitoring well H-59-1

Fig. 4. Micro-seismic events stacking at the reservoir intervals of 2435-2440 m (corresponding to layer 7, 4a) and 2436m-2444 m
(corresponding to layer 7, 4b) in the well H59-6-6 and H59-1, respectively. The observation time of CO2 injection lasts for 210 and 190
min, respectively. The CO2 injector is shown in the middle black circle with other producer surrounded shown in the black dots. The color
bar shows the number of microseismic events during the observation time period. The ink and blue colors represent areas of more micro-
seismic energy emissions while the red areas are with less microseismic events. The distance along the axes are in meter with the
monitoring well as the coordinate origin, a factor of 6 should be multiplied to get the field distance. The elongate anomalies in the
microseismic events distribution for both wells are in the W-E direction, which is parallel to the direction of maximum principal stress. The
corresponding well groups are shown in the left bottom corner.

2.7e+01

H59-8-8
H59-10-6
H59-8-6
1.9e+01
H59-10-4 H59-6-8

H59-8-4 H59-6-6

1.0e+01
H59-6-4 H59-4-6
H59-8-2

H59-4-4
H59-6-2
2.0e+00

Fig. 5. Gas tracer test in well H59-6-6, the gas tracer is injected via H59-6-6. The color bar shows the CO2 average movement rate between
wells with the unit of m/d. the relative width of leave-like shapes with two ends connecting injector and producers are the relative peak
concentration monitored during the sampling period. The wider of the leave, the higher the peak concentration of gas tracer produced. Note
most of injected tracer moves along the E-W direction toward to the oil producers.

40
Daidly average CO2 production, Sm3/d

30 H59-1-3
H59-3-3
H59-3-1
20

10

0
200801 200811 200909 201007 201105 201203 201301 201311
Month
Fig. 6. Daily CO2 production rate for well H59-1-3, 3-3 and 3-1 in the lower part of H59-1group (refer to the blue dashed circle of Fig. 4b).
CMTC-439492-MS 9

N N

(a) Monitoring well H-59-14-6 (b) Monitoring well H-59-4-2

Fig. 7. Micro-seismic events stacking at the reservoir depth intervals of 2454-2482 m (corresponding to layer 12, 14 and 15, 7a) and 2430-
2466 m (corresponding to layer 7 and 12, 7b) in the well H59-14-6 and H59-4-2, respectively. The microseismic observation time of CO2
injection lasts for 150 and 170 min, respectively. The CO2 injector is shown in the middle black circle with other producer surrounded
shown in the black dots. The color bar shows the number of the microseismic events during the observation time period. The ink and blue
colors represent areas of more micro-seismic emissions while the red areas are with less microseismic events. The distance along the axes
are in meter with the monitoring well as the coordinate origin, a factor of 6 should be multiplied to get field distance. The elongate anomaly
in the microseismic events distribution is in the SE-NW direction for the well H59-14-6, whereas NE-SW direction for the H59-4-2. The
corresponding well group or surrounded production wells are shown in the left bottom.

0( North)

270 90
(West) ( East)

0. 97
0. 88
0. 78
0. 68
0. 57
0. 47
0. 38
0. 28
0. 17
0. 07

180( South)

(a) Microseismic event intensity in layer 7 (left) and permeability field of layer 7 (right)
0( North )

270 90
( West) ( East)
0. 97
0. 88
0. 78
0. 68
0. 57
0. 47
0. 38
0. 28
0. 17
0. 07
180(South)

(b) Microseismic event intensity in layer 12 (left) and permeability field of layer 12 (right)
Fig. 8. Comparison between micro-seismic event intensity with the permeability field for layer 7 (a) and 12 (b) of Qing-I well H-59-14-6.
In each layer comparison, microseismic event intensity is shown in the left, while the permeability field on the right. The microseismic
profiles are the depth slices through a 190 min passive seismic events stack at the onset of CO2 injection and the corresponding depth for
layer 7 and 12 are 2424.7 m and 2455.9m, respectively. The blue dots are production wells and red spot in the center is the monitoring well.
The color bar is the micro-seismic frequency, and hotter colors indicate areas of great emission of microseismic. The outer boundary lines
of the micro-seismic profile are superimposed onto the right permeability field which is shown in the red color.
10 CMTC-439492-MS

1600

Daidly average CO2 production, Sm3/d

1200 H59-14-8
H59-12-4

800

400

0
200811 200909 201007 201105 201203 201301 201311
Month
(a)
250
Daily averageCO2 production, Sm3/d

200
H59-4-4
H59-2-2
150

100

50

0
200801 200811 200909 201007 201105 201203 201301
Month
(b)
Fig. 9. Daily CO2 production rate for: (a) well H59-14-8 and H59-12-4 (in H-15-14-6 group), H59-14-8 is along the direction of CO2
preferential flow determined from microseismic while H59-12-4 is in the perpendicular direction (refer to the blue dashed circle of Fig. 7a).
(b) for well H59-4-4 and H59-2-2 (in H-15-4-2 group), H59-4-4 is along the direction of CO2 preferential flow determined from
microseismic while H59-2-2 is in the perpendicular direction (refer to the blue dashed circle of Fig. 7b).