PAPER 2009-055

Model Uncertainties and Resolution

Studies with Application to Subsurface
Movement of a CO2 Injection Project
in the Krechba Field Using InSAR Data
J. DU, G. R. MCCOLPIN, E. J. DAVIS, S. MARSIC
Pinnacle

This paper is accepted for the Proceedings of the Canadian International Petroleum Conference (CIPC) 2009, Calgary,
Alberta, Canada, 16‐18 June 2009. This paper will be considered for publication in Petroleum Society journals.
Publication rights are reserved. This is a pre‐print and subject to correction.

Abstract
Surface deformation-based reservoir monitoring
technologies, such as Tilt, GPS and Interferometric Synthetic
Aperture Radar (InSAR), have been successfully applied to
monitor fluid flow or pressure changes in the reservoir and
fluid migration to shallow depths. To obtain the subsurface fluid
movement from the surface deformation requires performing a
geophysical inversion. To get meaningful results from the
inversion process requires diligent selection of the inversion
method and reservoir block sizes, as well as the application of
physically reasonable constraints. The focus of this paper is to
provide a workflow and guidelines for field application by
studying the inverse problem, the solution methods and
associated error estimates for the unknown model parameters,
and the resolving power for each parameter. As a field case
demonstration, the methodologies are applied to a CO2
monitoring project with InSAR data. Also, the subsurface
movement of CO2 will be presented.
Introduction
Technologies capable of measuring small-scale surface
deformation, such as Tilt, GPS and InSAR, have been
successfully applied to monitor fluid flow or pressure changes
within the reservoir[1,2,3,4], and fluid migration to shallow
depths. Surface-based monitoring techniques have an inherent
cost advantage over downhole based methods and can generally
monitor a much larger area.
The increasing number of Carbon Capture and
Sequestration (CCS) projects worldwide provides great
incentive to develop economical techniques to monitor
conditions that result from the long-term injection of CO2, such
as the extent of the CO2 plume, fracture development that can
affect cap rock integrity, and fluid movement out of a zone.
Surface deformation measured by these technologies can
provide important information on subsurface fluid flow,
pressure changes in the reservoir, and fluid migration to shallow
depths. The use of surface deformation to monitor fracture
growth during hydraulic fracture treatments, fluid migration
during steam or waterflood operations, and even monitoring
magma movement in volcanic areas is now common.

1
 Obtaining the subsurface movement of CO2 from surface receiving the measured surface deformation data, given that the
deformation requires performing a geophysical inversion. general information of the reservoir is known.
Application of the available inversion techniques is quite The geophysical problem shown in Eq. (2) is usually ill-
straightforward; however, model resolution and the associated posed. Solving it involves using different regularization
uncertainties of the inverted model parameters have not been approaches. The details of the regularization methods used in
discussed or addressed in previous papers[1,2,4]. But, model this paper are described in Appendix A. The solution is
parameter resolution estimates were discussed briefly in a 2008 represented as the following:
paper by Vasco, et al, that appeared in Geophysics[3]. However,
it failed to address the uncertainties in the estimated model
parameters. s est = G − g d ...................................................................................... (3)
Initially, this paper will describe the general inverse problem
involved with surface deformation monitoring of subsurface where G − g , the general inverse matrix, is a function of discrete
changes, and then demonstrate the model uncertainty through Green’s function, regularization factors, and other constraint
the covariance matrix and a newly defined variable. To information adopted in the solution system, such as the
conserve space, yet provide completeness, the model resolution smoothness constraint. It can have different formats depending
and data resolution matrices, and the inversion techniques are on the choice of regularization methods.
presented in Appendices A and B. Finally, two synthetic Of course, solving the inverse problem requires a good fit
examples will be presented for detailed illustration and between the measured and theoretical data predicted by the
discussion followed by InSAR monitoring results for a CO2 forward model using the inverted model parameters. It is also
sequestration project in the Krechba field, Algeria. of interest how well each parameter is resolved and whether the
data can be independently predicted. The model and data
resolution computations, whose definitions are included in
Problem Description Appendix B, can provide the needed information. After
obtaining the solution of the inverse problem with a certain
Reservoir fluid injection or production, CO2 sequestration, regularization factor, the corresponding model resolution and
and thermal processes such as steam flooding, Cyclic Steam data resolution matrix can be calculated.
Stimulation (CSS), and Steam-Assisted Gravity Drainage We should mention that the calculation of the model and
(SAGD) are all processes that have the potential to deform data resolution matrices can also serve as a tool in the
reservoirs. Deformation originating within the reservoir will simulation stage for designing the instrumentation needed to
propagate outward yielding surface deformation measurable achieve the objectives of the project. To aid evaluation in the
either in the form of tilt (the gradient of the displacement), or design stage and to avoid evaluating two full matrices, two
directly with GPS or InSAR. A forward model relates the simpler variables are defined in Appendix B: the average values
reservoir-level volumetric changes to surface deformation in the of the diagonal elements of the model resolution and the data
form of displacements[5] or tilt[1,2]. Surface deformation is resolution matrices which serve as a general indicator of the
expressed as an integration of volumetric changes over the model resolution and data resolution.
reservoir (Eq. 1),

( )(
d ( x1 , x 2 ) = ∫∫∫ F x1 , x2 ; x1' , x 2' , x3' s x1' , x 2' , x3' dV ) ......... (1) Uncertainties Estimation using
Covariance Matrix
V

For an inverse problem, when the general inverse matrix is

where F is an integration kernel which is a function of the known, the covariance matrix of the model parameters can be
poroelastic constants and Green’s function due to a center calculated as follows[6]:
dilation point source. Through integration, the forward model

( ) ( )
relates the model parameter S to the measured data, d (tilt or T
displacement). [cov s ] = G − g [cov d ] G − g .............................................. (4)
The objective is to image volumetric changes in the reservoir
using the surface deformation measurements. The reservoir is
divided into small blocks, each of which is assumed to undergo The covariance of the model parameters depends on the
constant volumetric change. Surface deformation caused by covariance of the data and the way the error is mapped from
changes in the reservoir is the summation of the deformation data to model parameters. The mapping only depends on the
caused by the volumetric change of each block. The linear data kernel and the general inverse matrix. If the data is
inverse problem can then be formulated using the forward assumed to be uncorrelated with equal variance of σ2d, the unit
model: covariance matrix is defined as[6]:

Gs = d ................................................................................................. (2) ( )
[cov u s ] = σ d− 2 G − g [cov d ] G − g ( ) = (G )(G )
T −g −g T
............. (5)

where G is the discrete Green’s function (n by m matrix) or data The unit covariance describes how the uncertainties in the
kernel, s is the model parameter (m by 1 vector), and d is the data would be mapped to model parameters without actually
data vector (Tilt, GPS, InSAR data, n by 1 vector). This discrete measuring the data. Thus, an opportunity is provided to study
Green’s function represents the relationship between the the inverse problem beforehand and then, to optimize the
reservoir volumetric deformation and surface deformation. It is measurement locations.
only a function of the field geometry, which includes the To find a simple representative variable to help evaluate the
location of observation points, reservoir depth, reservoir sufficiency of each solution, the average of the square root of
thickness, and the location of the deformation source. This the diagonal elements of the unit covariance matrix is calculated
provides an opportunity to study each project before actually in Eq. (6):

2
 1 m
σ su = ∑ [covu s]ii
m i =1
............................................................(6)
More simply, this is termed the model error. When the data
variance is known, the actual average of standard deviation for
the model parameters can be calculated using:
σ s = σ d σ su .......................................................................................(7)
From the above equation, the representative uncertainty of
the model parameters can be seen to consist of two parts: the
data uncertainty (data variance) and the uncertainty caused by
the inversion process (model error). The second part of the
uncertainty is not related to the real data measurements, so it
can be calculated and studied beforehand and incorporated into
a simulation study to help design a better data measurement
system to achieve the monitoring goals.
Case Studies
Two cases studies are performed to show different aspects of
the inverse problem. The first study varies reservoir block sizes
at a fixed reservoir depth and a fixed number of observation
points on the surface. The second study changes the reservoir
depth while holding constant the reservoir block size and the
number of surface observation points. These studies were done
using the vertical elevation changes. For Tilt or InSAR slant
range measurements, the results should be very similar.
Synthetic Case Study I
In this case study, 15 x 15 observation points are evenly
located over the surface of an area 1.2 x 1.2 km. The reservoir,
having a thickness of 20 m, covers an area 8,000 x 8,000 m,
located at depth of 2,000 m. Three different cases are performed
with varying reservoir block sizes. The dimensions in the lateral
direction varies from 10 to 25% of the reservoir depth. Model
and data resolution, the covariance matrix, the model error
( σ su ), and the model resolution value ( R ) are calculated for a
series of damping (α2) and smoothness factors (β2). This case
also provides an example of the model resolution matrix
followed by an uncertainty versus model resolution study.
The model resolution matrix, R, describes the mapping
relationship from the true model parameters to their estimated
values. Each row of R values represents the weighting of the
true model parameters on the estimated model parameter.
For example, to demonstrate how the estimated model
parameter relates to its neighbors, the plots in Fig. 1 show
reservoir blocks (1, 1), (1, 7) and (10, 10). In the figure, block
size equals 20% of the reservoir depth. From the area coverage
(area in which the weighting numbers are non-zero), how well
each model parameter is determined can be seen. If the area is
small, such as the top plot for the corner reservoir block (1, 1) in
Fig. 1, it means the estimated model is averaged over a small
number of model parameters and the model resolution is good.
On the other hand, if the area coverage is larger, such as the
bottom plot for the center reservoir block (10, 10) in Fig. 1, it
means the estimated model parameter is a weighted average
over a larger number of blocks and the model resolution is
worse than for the corner block. The graphic of the model
resolution matrix demonstrates how well the estimation of each
model parameter can be made for a given regularization factor.
3
Next, the results regarding the uncertainty and resolution study
for a series of regularization factors will be discussed.
This case study shows that increasing the reservoir block size
will increase the model resolution value (Fig. 2), which means
that the model parameters can be resolved better using larger
blocks. This is consistent with common sense. Let us examine
one case with a fixed block size. For each curve from left to
right in Fig. 2, the model error, represented by the ratio of the
average of the standard deviation of model parameters to the
data standard deviation, increases with the model resolution
value. The rate of increase is very slow for large regularization
factors and increases dramatically for small regularization
factors. This means there is a balance between the model error
and resolution. The best solution is the one that has acceptable
model error, yet still has reasonable model resolution.
In order to obtain better model parameter estimation, the
discussion above suggests using large reservoir blocks.
However, as the reservoir blocks increase in size, they lose their
ability to approximate the true deformation in the reservoir.
Therefore, the resulting data error will increase. This is actually
the discretization problem. In practice, it is better to discretize
the reservoir in smaller blocks and use additional constraints
and/or a regularization method to help resolve the inverse
problem. At the end of inversion, when the best solution is
chosen, the inversion results can be checked or compared to the
model resolution matrix plot. Any features shown by the
inversion results to have smaller wavelengths than the model
resolution plots may not be resolvable[7].
Synthetic Case Study II
In the second study, the base case reservoir geometry and the
surface observation points are the same as in the first study. The
reservoir block size is chosen as 20% of the reservoir depth.
The calculation is performed for different reservoir depths,
which are 90, 80, 60, and 50% of the reservoir depth of the base
case. Similar to the first case study, model resolution, data
resolution, the covariance matrix, the model error ( σ su ) and the
model resolution value ( R ) are calculated for a series of
damping (α2) and smoothness factors (β2). The results show that
the variation of model error with the model resolution value
(Fig. 3) has a similar trend as in Fig. 2. In addition, for the same
model resolution value, the model error decreases as the
reservoir becomes shallower. This means that for a fixed
reservoir block size, solution improves as reservoir depth
decreases. Another characteristic shown in Fig. 3 is that the
curves have very sharp turns as the regularization factor
decreases. This indicates that there may be an upper limit on the
model resolution value. When the regularization factors
decrease, the resulting model errors increase dramatically. It is
not difficult to choose the knee points on these curves, where
the model resolution value is large enough, yet the model error
is still small as the best solution.
From these two synthetic data studies, we can see that the
characteristics of the two regularization methods, Least Square
with Smoothness (LSQS) constraint and the Damped Least
Square (DLSQ) are very similar. LSQS uses physical
smoothness to better pose the inverse problem, while DLSQ
uses a damping factor to filter out high frequency, short
wavelength solutions. Larger damping factors result in
smoother solutions. DLSQ improves posing of the inverse
problem from the mathematical side instead of the physical
side. It can be concluded that these two methods have different
appearances and processes, but achieve similar results.
Field Application
The Krechba gas field in Algeria is a northwest trending
anticline, operated by the In Salah Gas Joint Venture (BP,
StatoilHydro, Sonatrach). Produced gas has a CO2
concentration of between 1 and 9%, and must be reduced to
below 0.3% for shipment[8]. The stripped CO2 is injected into
three adjacent injection wells, which place the gas as a
supercritical fluid at a depth of approximately 2000m, into the
aquifer leg of the main producing horizon[8]. CO2 injection in
horizontal well KB-502 began in April 2005 at approximately
200 MMscf per month, ramped up to a peak of 907 MMscf per
month in December 2005, and then halted in August 2007 when
CO2 breakthrough was identified in observation well KB-5,
approximately 1.5 km northwest of the KB-502 wellhead. At
this point, the total injection volume in KB-502 was
approximately 10,800 MMscf, with an estimated downhole
volume of 6.5e5 m3.
Krechba Deformation Measurements
InSAR data was recorded from the start of the project by the
European Space Agency’s (ESA) Envisat satellite. Synthetic
Aperture Radar (SAR) images from two satellite tracks cover
the region. Data from Envisat track 65 provides 32 acquisitions
from July 2003 through May 2008, while track 294 provides an
additional 20 acquisitions from December 2003 through April
2008.
The data was processed by MDA Geospatial Services Inc.
(MDA-GSI) using the Singular Value Decomposition (SVD)
Network Inversion PSI processing scheme which combined data
from all combinations of acquisitions into a total of 363
interferograms for track 65, and 133 interferograms for track
294. Linear combinations of these interferograms were then
used to obtain deformation measurements for the three desired
time periods.
The measured deformation, in the line of sight of the Envisat
satellite, is shown in Fig. 4. Each of the analysis periods uses
the same start date, therefore the deformation shown is the
cumulative deformation to the end date of each figure.
Inversion Results
A typical error versus roughness curve from the field case
inversion is shown in Fig. 5. The smoothness factor used for
the results is at the knee of this curve, the point of closest
approach of the curve to the origin.
The results of the inversion are shown in Fig. 6. The
downhole strain plots show preferential migration of the
injected fluid to the northwest and an evolving strain nucleus
some distance from the injection wellbore on the northwest
side.
For the field case study, the volumetric strain solution is
obtained using positive strain and smoothness constraints
except for the first period, which uses the Least Square with
Smoothness Constraint (LSQS) due to the small, but clear
subsidence in the northern region of the injection well.
Calculating the corresponding model resolution matrix for
positive constraint solution, as described in Appendix B, is
quite different from the two regularization methods discussed in
the synthetic data studies (LSQS and DLSQ) in previous
sections above, where the model resolution matrix comes
directly from the data kernel and smoothness operator (finite
difference approximation of Laplace operator). The order of the
reservoir blocks follows a natural order, counting from the first
4
block at the northwest corner, then going east, and then south.
The last is the southeast corner block. Once the block ordering
is known, each row of the model resolution matrix can be
transformed back to a map showing how each element is related
to its neighbors following the inversion, which is the model
resolution plot shown in Fig. 7 for reservoir block (2,5), (8,6)
and (12,12). The model resolution plots are very helpful in
determining to what scale features in the model can actually be
resolved. Also, they provide a graphical indication of the
resolving power for a specific reservoir block.
Conclusion and Discussion
The way we solve for volumetric information at the reservoir
level from measured surface deformation is actually solving a
continuous inverse problem using discrete inverse techniques.
The reservoir is discretized to a number of individual blocks
with constant volumetric changes. The discretization produces
better approximations using smaller reservoir blocks, but that
requires more blocks for the same size reservoir and, therefore,
makes the inverse problem more ill-conditioned. Therefore, a
trade-off exists between the discretization and ill-conditioning;
the resolution power of model parameters decreases as the
number of model parameters increases.
To look at this problem closely, we could apply SVD on the
discrete Green’s function (or data kernel). The resulting singular
values gradually decay toward zero and do not show any
obvious jump between nonzero and zero singular values[9]. This
property makes it harder to apply the SVD method to resolve
the inverse problem by truncating any base solution with very
small singular values.
From discussions in the previous sections, it can be seen that
two factors affect the model uncertainties for the inversion
problem:
1). Errors in the measured data (noise in the data) and the
errors from the inversion process. The propagation of this
uncertainty into the inversion solution can be estimated using
the covariance matrix for a specific inversion method.
2). Discretization errors, which are due to the division of
reservoir blocks. The division forces an estimation of the actual
deformation at the reservoir level. This part of the error is not
easy to estimate, especially for field applications. We can
improve the solution by dividing the reservoir into smaller
blocks and adding other information (smoothness, etc.) to better
solve the inverse problem.
In practice, the best solution for the inverse problem is
chosen from the following trade-off curves:
1). Error matching the measured data versus solution
roughness for different regularization factors. Larger
regularization factors produce smoother solutions, but at the
expense of increased fit error.
2). Model error (solution error) versus model resolution
value for different regularization factors. Larger regularization
factors produce smaller model errors and resolution values.
From the first curve, the best solution is the one that fits the
data well, but is still reasonably smooth. From the second
curve, the best solution is the one that has good model
resolution, as well as reasonable model error. Combining these
two curves, the best solution is obtained from the trade-off
between the errors fitting the data and the error in the inverted
model parameters. The preferred answer has neither a perfect
fit to the data at the expense of large model uncertainty, nor a
very small model uncertainty with a poor fit to the
measurements.
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank the In Salah CO2 joint industry
project for permission to publish project results and for
providing information such as reservoir and CO2 injection data.
MDA is thanked for providing us the InSAR data for analysis.
The authors would also like to thank Pinnacle for permission to
publish this work.
NOMENCLATURE
α 2
= damping factor, dimensionless
β2 = smoothness factor, dimensionless
σ su = model error
σs = standard deviation of model parameter
d = measured data vector
G = discrete Green’s function (data kernel)
G −g = general inverse matrix
H = finite difference approximation of Laplace
operator
m = number of model parameters
n = number of data parameters
N = data resolution value
R = model resolution value
S = model parameters
Sest = estimated model parameters
REFERENCES
1. VASCO, D.W., KARASAKI, K. and MYER, L.,
Monitoring of Fluid Injection and Soil Consolidation
Using Surface Tilt Measurements; Journal of
Geotech. And Geoenvironmental Eng., 124, 29-37,
January 1998.
2. DU, J., BRISSENDEN, S.J., MCGILLIVRAY, P.
BOURNE, S., HOFSTRA, P., DAVIS, E.J.,
ROADARMEL, W.H. et al., Mapping Reservoir
Volume Changes During Cyclic Steam Stimulation
Using Tiltmeter-Based Surface Deformation
Measurements; SPEREE 11 (1): 63–72. SPE-97848-
PA, 2008.
3. VASCO, D.W., FERRETTI, A. and NOVALI, F.,
Reservoir monitoring and characterization using
satellite geodetic data: Interferometric Synthetic
Aperture Radar observations from the Krechba field,
Algeria; Geophysics, Vol. 73, No. 6, P. WA113-
WA122, 2008.
4. NANAYAKKARA, A.S. and WONG, R.C.K., Using
surface deformation to estimate reservoir dilation:
strategies to improve accuracy; presented at the
Canadian International Petroleum Conference / SPE
Gas Technology Symposium 2008 Joint Conference,
Calgary, Alberta, Canada, 17-19, June 2008.
5. SEGALL, P., Stress and Subsidence Resulting from
Subsurface Fluid Withdrawal in the Epicentral
5
Region of the 1983 Coalinga Earthquake; J.
Geophys. Res., 90, 6801-6816, 1985.
6. MENKE, W., Geophysical Data Analysis: Discrete
Inverse Theory; Academic Press Inc., revised version
1989.
7. HARRIS, R. and SEGALL, P., Detection of a locked
zone at depth on the Parkfield, California, segment
of the San Andreas fault; J. Geophys. Res., Vol. 92,
No. B8, p7945 – 7962, July 10, 1987.
8. MATHIESON, A., WRIGHT, I., ROBERTS, D.
AND RINGROSE, P., Satellite imaging to monitor
CO2 movement at Krechba, Algeria; paper 307,
presented at the 9th International Conference on
Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies, 16 - 20,
November, Washington DC, 2008.
9. ASTER, R. C., BORCHERS, B. and THURBER, C.
H., Parameter Estimation and Inverse Problem;
Elsevier Inc. 2005
Appendix A: Solutions from Different
Regularization Methods
For Least Square with Smoothness (LSQS) constraint (β2 is
smoothness factor):
( )
−1
G −g = GT G + β 2 H T H GT .................................... (A-1)
For Damped Least Square (α2 is the damping factor):
(
G −g = GT G + α 2 I ) −1
GT ............................................... (A-2)
For inversion with smoothness constraint and positive
constraint, the system of equation is the following
G   d 
 2  s =   subject to Si >=0............................................ (A-3)
β H 
  0 
If the initial model of S0 needs to be included in the solution
in addition to the smoothness constraint and positive constraint,
the system of equation is the following:
G   d 
 2   2 
 α I  s =  α s0  subject to Si >=0 ................................... (A-4)
 2   
 β H  0

Appendix B: Model and Data Resolution
Matrix
The model resolution matrix R is defined as the following:
s est = Rs true ...................................................................................(B-1)
 The model resolution matrix relates the estimated values to
their true values. If R is the identity matrix, it means that all the
model parameters are uniquely determined. If it deviates from
the identity matrix, it means the estimated model parameters are
just the weighted average of the true parameters. The elements
in each row of the model resolution matrix represent the
weightings of each element on its estimation. The diagonal
element of the model resolution matrix represents the weight of
the inverted model parameter on its true value. One variable is
defined to describe the goodness of each solution in general as
the average of the diagonal elements of model resolution
matrix. For short, we call it the model resolution value:

1 m
R= ∑ Rii
m i =1
.............................................................................. (B-2)

The data resolution matrix N is defined as the following:

d pre = Nd obs ............................................................................... (B-3)

If N is the identity matrix, then the prediction error is zero.
Otherwise, it is not zero, and the predicted data is the weighted
average of neighboring data points. The average of the diagonal
elements of data resolution matrix is calculated as Eq. (B-4).
For short, we call it data resolution value:

1 n
N= ∑ N ii
n i =1
.............................................................................. (B-4)

Both the model resolution and data resolution matricies are a

function of the general inverse matrix and the discrete Green’s
function matrix.
For Least Square with Smoothness constraint:

(
R = GT G + β 2 H T H ) −1
GT G ...................................... (B-5)

For Damped Least Square:

(
R = GT G + α 2 I ) −1
GT G ................................................. (B-6)

For Positive Constraint (or Negative Constraint) with

Smoothness, the model resolution matrix is computed by
running a series of forward models with a unit volumetric
change at the specific elements to produce synthetic data and
then invert the synthetic data. This gives the column of model R
corresponding to the specific element. The matrix R is found by
calculating all columns of R for all elements.
Fig. 1–Sample model resolution plots for different reservoir
blocks using Least Square with Smoothness (LSQS) constraint.
Top plot is for reservoir block element (1, 1), Middle plot is for
reservoir block element (1, 7), and bottom plot is for reservoir
block element (10, 10).

6
 0.4 1.0
200 m Block (0.1 D) Base Case (Depth=D)
400 m Block (0.2 D) Depth=0.9 D
0.8 Depth=0.8 D
500 m Block (0.25 D)
0.3 Depth=0.6 D
Smoothness factors β2 decrease
Depth=0.5 D

0.6
Model Error

Model Error
0.2 Smoothness factors β2
decrease
0.4

0.1
0.2

0.0 0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Model Resolution Value Model Resolution Value

1.0
0.4
200 m Block (0.1 D) Base Case (Depth=D)
Depth=0.9 D
400 m Block (0.2 D)
0.8 Depth=0.8 D
500 m Block (0.25 D)
Depth=0.6 D
0.3
2
Damping factors α decrease Depth=0.5 D

0.6

Model Error
Model Error

0.2
2
Damping factors α decrease
0.4

0.1
0.2

0.0 0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Model Resolution Value Model Resolution Value

Fig. 2–The model error (ratio of average standard deviation Fig. 3–The model error (ratio of average standard deviation
of model parameters to data standard deviation) versus model of model parameters to data standard deviation) versus model
resolution value (average of diagonal elements of model resolution value (average of diagonal elements of model
resolution matrix) for different block sizes. The reservoir depth resolution matrix) for reservoir depth. The reservoir depth of the
is D. Top plot is for Least Square with Smoothness (LSQS) base case is D. Top plot is for Least Square with Smoothness
constraint, and bottom plot is for Damped Least Square (LSQS) constraint, and bottom plot is for Damped Least Square
(DLSQ). (DLSQ).

7
 Fig. 5–Trade-off curve for the field case study showing the
error matching the measured data versus the roughness of
inverted model parameters

Fig. 4--Measured surface deformation along the satellite line of

sight for three time periods during CO2 injection into well KB-
502. Note that the deformation scale is different for the first
(earliest) image.

8

Fig. 6--Inverted reservoir strain for the three analysis periods of
CO2 injection at the Krechba field.
Fig. 7--Model resolution plots for the Krechba field example
using positive strain and smoothness constraints. Top plot is for
reservoir block (2, 5). Middle plot is for reservoir block (8, 6).
Bottom plot is for reservoir plot (12, 12).