This submission includes synthetic seismic modeling data for the Push-Pull project at Brady Hot Springs, NV. The synthetic seismic is all generated by finite-difference method regarding different fracture and rock properties.
The submission contains a .xls files consisting of 10 excel sheets, which contain combined list of pressure, saturation, salinity, temperature profiles from the simulation of CO2 push-pull using Brady reservoir model and the corresponding effective compressional and shear velocity, bulk density, and fluid and time-lapse neutron capture cross section profiles of rock at times 0 day (baseline) through 14 days. First 9 sheets (each named after the corresponding CO2 push-pull simulation time) contains simulated pressure, saturation, temperature, salinity profiles and the corresponding effective elastic and neutron capture cross section profiles of rock matrix at the time of CO2 injection. Each sheet contains two sets of effective compressional velocity profiles of the rock, one based on Gassmann and the other based on Patchy saturation model. Effective neutron capture cross section calculations are done using a proprietary neutron cross-section simulator (SNUPAR) whereas for the thermodynamic properties of CO2 and bulk density of rock matrix filled with fluid, a standalone fluid substitution tool by Schlumberger is used. Last sheet in the file contains the bulk modulus of solid rock, which is inverted from the rock properties (porosity, sound speed etc) based on Gassmann model. Bulk modulus of solid rock in turn is used in the fluid substitution.
Input and output files used for fault characterization through numerical simulation using iTOUGH2. The synthetic data for the push period are generated by running a forward simulation (input parameters are provided in iTOUGH2 Brady GF6 Input Parameters.txt [InvExt6i.txt]). In general, the permeability of the fault gouge, damage zone, and matrix are assumed to be unknown. The input and output files are for the inversion scenario where only pressure transients are available at the monitoring well located 200 m above the injection well and only the fault gouge permeability is estimated. The input files are named InvExt6i, INPUT.tpl, FOFT.ins, CO2TAB, and the output files are InvExt6i.out, pest.fof, and pest.sav (names below are display names). The table graphic in the data files below summarizes the inversion results, and indicates the fault gouge permeability can be estimated even if imperfect guesses are used for matrix and damage zone permeabilities, and permeability anisotropy is not taken into account.