the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Passive seismic imaging of the Lower Palaeozoic in the Sudret area of Gotland, Sweden
Abstract. Passive seismic data were acquired together with active seismic data along a 2.8 km long profile in the Sudret area of Gotland, Sweden, as part of a feasibility study for storage of CO2 below the Baltic Sea. Seismic interferometry using cross-correlation and cross-coherence was employed on the passive seismic data. Correlation was used to retrieve virtual shot gathers containing mainly surface waves, while cross-coherence was used to retrieve mainly seismic reflections. Inversion for shear wave velocity and CDP processing of the passive data result in velocity profiles and images that correlate well with borehole data, synthetic seismograms and the active seismic data. Both the passive surface wave and body wave results provide geological information which complement the active data, the surface waves providing S-wave velocity information and the body waves providing a lower frequency image. The passive data are consistent with the active data and there is no indication of any large-scale faults in the area. Furthermore, analysis of the frequency and direction of the ambient noise using power spectral density and beam forming shows that ocean waves and human activity around the island of Gotland makes the Sudret area an ideal location for passive imaging. Our results illustrate that passive seismic imaging can be an important complement to active seismic data for evaluating the subsurface with respect to CO2 storage and monitoring in the Gotland area, Sweden, and perhaps, elsewhere.
- Preprint
(2969 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 14 May 2025)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-1325', Anonymous Referee #1, 23 Apr 2025
reply
The manuscript used seismic interferometry to analyze 14 hours of passive seismic data in the Sudret area of Gotland, Sweden, to obtain a shear-wave velocity profile helpful in validating the storage of CO2. The purpose, procedures, results, discussion, and conclusions of this study are generally well written and can be published after checking a few minor points.Â
Minor comments:
Figure 1. Add labels for Figure 1(b) (e.g., x (m) and y(m)). If possible, a lighter background color will make the symbols more straightforward to distinguish from the background.
Line 90. Since the operating period is 14 hours, it is better to state the exact start time and end time of the data.
Line 122. Describe the strengths and weaknesses of two methodologies and why two approaches were conducted for the surface and body wave extraction, with appropriate references.
Line 208. The figure citation here may be Figure 7, not Figure 5. I wonder why the numbers 150, 280, and 360 ms here do not match 170, 280, and 360 ms in line 185 for the synthetic seismogram section.
Figures 7 and 8: To contrast the background seismic images, it would be good to use a color other than green for the fonts.
Line 236: It would be good to have references for the relevance of 1, 5, 12, and 16 Hz originating from ocean waves and human activities. Can we assign the four frequencies to either ocean waves or human activities?
Line 278: Why does the geometric location of sensors at the southern tip of an island allow noise from nearly all directions?
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1325-RC1
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
52 | 18 | 3 | 73 | 3 | 4 |
- HTML: 52
- PDF: 18
- XML: 3
- Total: 73
- BibTeX: 3
- EndNote: 4
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1