Alemu, B. L., Aker, E., Soldal, M., Johnsen, Ø., and Aagaard, P. (2013). Effect of sub‐core scale heterogeneities on acoustic and electrical properties of a reservoir rock: A CO₂ flooding experiment of brine saturated sandstone in a computed tomography scanner. Geophysical Prospecting, 61(1): 235–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Asveth, P. (2009). Exploration rock physics. In Bjørlykke, K. (ed.), Petroleum geoscience: From sedimentary environments to rock physics, Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar

Baumann, G., Henninges, J., and Lucia, M. D. (2014). Monitoring of saturation changes and salt precipitation during CO₂ injection using pulsed neutron-gamma logging at the Ketzin pilot site. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 28: 134–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bergmann, P., and Chadwick, A. (2015). Volumetric bounds on subsurface fluid substitution using 4D seismic time shifts with an application at Sleipner, North Sea. Geophysics, 80: B153–B165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bergmann, P., Schmidt-Hattenberger, C., Kiessling, D., et al. (2012). Surface-downhole electrical resistivity tomography applied to monitoring of CO₂ storage at Ketzin, Germany. Geophysics, 77: B253–B267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bergmann, P., Ivandic, M., Norden, B., et al. (2014a). Combination of seismic reflection and constrained resistivity inversion with an application to 4D imaging of the CO₂ storage site, Ketzin, Germany. Geophysics, 79(2): B37–B50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bergmann, P., Kashubin, A., Ivandic, M., Lüth, S., and Juhlin, C. (2014b). Time-lapse difference static correction using prestack crosscorrelations: 4D seismic image enhancement case from Ketzin. Geophysics, 79: B243–B252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bergmann, P., Diersch, M., Götz, J., et al. (2016). Review on geophysical monitoring of CO₂ injection at Ketzin, Germany. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 139: 112–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bergmann, P., Schmidt-Hattenberger, C., Labitzke, T., et al. (2017). Fluid injection monitoring using electrical resistivity tomography: Five years of CO₂ injection at Ketzin, Germany. Geophysical Prospecting, 65(3): 859–875.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Berryman, J., and Milton, G. (1991). Exact results for generalized Gassmann’s equations in composite porous media with two constituents. Geophysics, 56: 1950–1960.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Chadwick, R. A., and Noy, D. J. (2015). Underground CO2 storage: demonstrating regulatory conformance by convergence of history‐matched modeled and observed CO2 plume behavior using Sleipner time‐lapse seismics. Greenhouse Gas Science and Technology, 5: 305–322. DOI:10.1002/ghg.1488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Chadwick, R. A., Arts, R., and Eiken, O. (2005). 4D seismic quantification of a growing CO₂ plume at Sleipner, North Sea. Geological Society, London, Petroleum Geology Conference series, 6, 1385-1399. https://doi.org/10.1144/0061385CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dvorkin, J., and Nur, A. (1998). Acoustic signatures of patchy saturation. International Journal of Solids and Structures, 35(34): 4803–4810.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Eid, R., Ziolkowski, A., Naylor, M., and Pickup, G. (2015). Seismic monitoring of CO₂ plume growth, evolution and migration in a heterogeneous reservoir: Role, impact and importance of patchy saturation. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 43: 70–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ellis, R., and Oldenburg, D. (1994). Applied geophysical inversion. Geophysical Journal International, 116: 5–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Förster, A., Norden, B., Zinck-Jørgensen, K., et al. (2006). Baseline characterization of the CO₂ SINK geological storage site at Ketzin, Germany. Environmental Geosciences, 13: 145–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Förster, A., Schöner, R., Förster, H., et al. (2010). Reservoir characterization of a CO₂ storage aquifer: The upper triassic Stuttgart Formation in the Northeast German Basin. Marine and Petroleum Geology, 27(10): 2156–2172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gassmann, F. (1951). Über die Elastizitgät poröser Medien. Vierteljahresschrift der Naturforschenden Gesellschaft Zürich, 96: 1–24.Google Scholar

Günther, T., Rücker, C., and Spitzer, K. (2006). Three-dimensional modelling and inversion of DC resistivity data incorporating topography II: Inversion. Geophysical Journal International, 166: 506–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hill, R. (1963). Elastic properties of reinforced solids: Some theoretical principles. Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids, 11: 357–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Huang, F., Juhlin, C., Kempka, T., Norden, B., and Zhang, F. (2015). Modeling 3D time-lapse seismic response induced by CO₂ by integrating borehole and 3D seismic data: A case study at the Ketzin pilot site, Germany. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 36: 66–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Huang, F., Bergmann, P., Juhlin, C., et al. (2017). The first post-injection seismic monitor Survey at the Ketzin pilot CO₂ storage site: Results from time-lapse analysis. Geophysical Prospecting, 66(1): 62–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ivandic, M., Yang, C., Lüth, S., Cosma, C., and Juhlin, C. (2012). Time-lapse analysis of sparse 3D seismic data from the CO₂ storage pilot site at Ketzin, Germany. Journal of Applied Geophysics, 84: 14–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ivandic, M., Juhlin, C., Lüth, S., et al. (2015). Geophysical monitoring at the Ketzin pilot site for CO₂ storage: New insights into the plume evolution. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 32: 90–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ivanova, A., Kashubin, A., Juhojuntti, N., et al. (2012). Monitoring and volumetric estimation of injected CO₂ using 4D seismic, petrophysical data, core measurements and well logging: a case study at Ketzin, Germany. Geophysical Prospecting, 60(5): 957–973, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365–2478.2012.01045.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Juhlin, C., Giese, R., Zinck-Jørgensen, K., et al. (2007). 3D baseline seismics at Ketzin, Germany: The CO₂ SINK project. Geophysics, 72: B121–B132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kashubin, A., Juhlin, C., Malehmir, A., Lüth, S., Ivanova, A., and Juhojuntti, N. (2011). A footprint of rainfall on land seismic data repeatability at the CO₂ storage pilot site, Ketzin, Germany. In 81st Annual International Meeting, Expanded Abstracts, Society of Exploration Geophysicists.Google Scholar

Kazemeini, S. H., Juhlin, C., and Fomel, S. (2010). Monitoring CO₂ response on surface seismic data: A rock physics and seismic modeling feasibility study at the CO₂ sequestration site, Ketzin, Germany. Journal of Applied Geophysics, 71(4): 109–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kiessling, D., Schmidt-Hattenberger, C., Schütt, H., et al. and the CO2SINK Group. (2010). Geoelectrical methods for monitoring geological CO2 storage: First results from cross-hole and surface-downhole measurements from the CO2SINK test site at Ketzin (Germany). International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 4: 816–826. DOI:10.1016/j.ijggc.2012.05.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kossow, D., Krawczyk, C., McCann, T., Strecker, M., and Negendank, J. F. W. (2000). Style and evolution of salt pillows and related structures in the northern part of the Northeast German Basin. International Journal of Earth Science, 89: 652–664.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kummerow, J., and Spangenberg, E. (2011). Experimental evaluation of the impact of the interactions of CO₂–SO₂, brine, and reservoir rock on petrophysical properties: A case study from the Ketzin test site, Germany. Geochemistry Geophysics Geosystems, 12: Q05–Q010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Labitzke, T., Bergmann, P., Kiessling, D., and Schmidt-Hattenberger, C. (2012). 3D Surface-downhole electrical resistivity tomography data sets of the Ketzin CO₂ storage pilot from the CO₂ SINK project phase. GFZ Scientific Technical Report, 10(5) (available online).Google Scholar

Lange, W. (1966). Geologisch-lagerstättenphysikalische und förder-technische Fragen bei der Erkundung des Untergrundspeichers Ketzin. Zeitschrift für Angewandte Geologie, 12(1): 27–34.Google Scholar

Martens, S., Liebscher, A., Möller, F., Würdemann, H., Schilling, F., and Kühn, M. (2011). Progress report on the first European on-shore CO₂ storage site at Ketzin (Germany): Second year of injection. Energy Procedia, 4: 3246–3253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Martens, S., Möller, F., Streibel, M., Liebscher, A., and the Ketzin Group. (2014). Completion of five years of safe CO₂ injection and transition to the post-closure phase at the Ketzin pilot site. Energy Procedia, 59: 190–197. DOI:10.1016/j.egypro.2014.10.366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Martens, S., Kempka, T., Liebscher, A., et al. (2015). Field experiment on CO₂ back-production at the Ketzin pilot site. Energy Procedia, 76: 519–527. DOI:10.1016/j.egypro.2015.07.902.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Mavko, G., Mukerji, T., and Dvorkin, J. (2003). The rock physics handbook: Tools for seismic analysis of porous media. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Möller, F., Liebscher, A., Martens, S., Schmidt-Hattenberger, C., and Streibel, M. (2014). Injection of CO₂ at ambient temperature conditions: Pressure and temperature results of the “cold injection” experiment at the Ketzin pilot site. Energy Procedia, 63: 6289–6297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Möller, F., Liebscher, A., and Schmidt-Hattenberger, C. (2016). Report on the dataset of the Brine Injection at the CO₂ Storage Pilot Site Ketzin, Germany: Scientific Technical Report STR; 16/05, Potsdam: GFZ German Research Centre for Geosciences. DOI:10.2312/GFZ.b103-16059.Google Scholar

Nakagawa, S., Kneafsey, T. J., Daley, T. M., Freifeld, B. M., and Rees, E. V. (2013). Laboratory seismic monitoring of supercritical CO₂ flooding in sandstone cores using the Split Hopkinson Resonant Bar technique with concurrent x‐ray computed tomography imaging. Geophysical Prospecting, 61(2): 254–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Natatsuka, Y., Xue, Z., Garcia, H., and Matsuoka, T. (2010). Experimental study on CO₂ monitoring and quantification of stored CO₂ in saline formations using resistivity measurements. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 4(2): 209–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Norden, B., and Frykman, P. (2013). Geological modelling of the Triassic Stuttgart Formation at the Ketzin CO₂ storage site, Germany. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 19. DOI:10.1016/j.ijggc.2013.04.019.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Prevedel, B., Wohlgemuth, L., Henninges, J., Krüger, K., Norden, B., and Förster, A. (2008). The CO2SINK boreholes for geological storage testing. Scientific Drilling, 6: 32–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Rücker, C., Günther, T., and Spitzer, K. (2006). Three-dimensional modelling and inversion of DC resistivity data incorporating topography I: Modelling. Geophysical Journal International, 166(2): 495–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Schmidt-Hattenberger, C., Bergmann, P., Kießling, D., Krüger, K., Rücker, C., and Schütt, H. (2011). Application of a vertical electrical resistivity array (VERA) for monitoring CO₂ migration at the Ketzin site: First performance evaluation. Energy Procedia, 4: 3363–3370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Schmidt-Hattenberger, C., Bergmann, P., Labitzke, T., et al. (2012). A modular geoelectrical monitoring system as part of the surveillance concept in CO₂ storage projects. Energy Procedia, 23: 400–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Schmidt-Hattenberger, C., Bergmann, P., Labitzke, T., and Wagner, F. (2014). CO₂ migration monitoring by means of electrical resistivity tomography (ERT): Review on five years of operation of a permanent ERT system at the Ketzin pilot site. Energy Procedia, 63: 4366–4373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Schmidt-Hattenberger, C., Bergmann, P., Labitzke, T., Wagner, F., and Rippe, D. (2016). Permanent crosshole electrical resistivity tomography (ERT) as an established method for the long-term CO₂ monitoring at the Ketzin pilot site. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 52: 432–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Shi, J., Xue, Z., and Durucan, S. (2011). Supercritical CO₂ core flooding and imbibition in Tako sandstone: Influence of sub-core scale heterogeneity. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 5(1): 75–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Sopher, D., Juhlin, C., Huang, F., Ivandic, M., and Lüth, S. (2014). Quantitative assessment of seismic source performance: Feasibility of small and affordable seismic sources for long term monitoring at the Ketzin CO₂ storage site, Germany. Journal of Applied Geophysics, 107: 171–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Stackebrandt, W., and Lippstreu, L. (2002). Zur geologischen Entwicklung Brandenburgs. In Stackebrandt, W. and Manhenke, V. (eds.), Atlas zur Geologie von Brandenburg im Maßstab 1:1,000 000. Kleinmachnow, Germany: Landesamt für Geowissenschaften und Rohstoffe Brandenburg, 13–18.Google Scholar

Torp, T., and Gale, J. (2004). Demonstrating storage of CO₂ in geological reservoirs: The Sleipner and SACS projects. Energy, 29(9–10): 1361–1369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Whitman, W., and Towle, G. (1992). The influence of elastic and density properties on the behavior of the Gassmann relation. Log Analyst, 33(6): 500–506.Google Scholar

Wipki, M., Ivanova, A., Liebscher, A., et al. (2016). Monitoring Concept for CO2 storage at the Ketzin pilot site, Germany: Post-injection continuation towards transfer of liability. Energy Procedia, 97: 348–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Yang, C., Juhlin, C., Enescu, N., Cosma, C., and Lüth, S. (2010). Moving source pro-file data processing, modelling and comparison with 3D surface seismic data at the CO2SINK project site, Ketzin, Germany. Near Surface Geophysics, 8: 601–610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Zhang, F., Juhlin, C., Cosma, C., Tryggvason, A., and Pratt, R. G. (2012). Cross-well seismic waveform tomography for monitoring CO₂ injection: A case study from the Ketzin Site, Germany. Geophysical Journal International, 189: 629–646, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-246X.2012.05375.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Zimmer, M., Erzinger, J., and, Kujawa, C. (2011). The gas membrane sensor (GMS): A new method for gas measurements in deep boreholes applied at the CO₂ SINK site. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 5(4): 995–1001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar