In this study, we conduct a comprehensive history matching study for the FluidFlower benchmark model. This benchmark was prepared and organized by the University of Bergen, the University of Stuttgart, and Massachusetts Institute of Technology, for promoting understanding of the complex physics of geological carbon storage (GCS) through in-house experiments and numerical simulations. This paper synthesizes the experiences of history matching the benchmark data encountered by the Delft-DARTS and CSIRO participants. History matching is first performed based on a low-dimensional-zonated structured model using a simple Poisson-like solver. The permeability of six facies and two faults is inferred in this stage to match the digitized concentration data. The history matching is then further enhanced to richer spatial and physical models to capture the spatial variation of permeability and buoyancy effects, using an unstructured grid. Efficient adjoint methods are used to evaluate the gradient used in the optimization of data misfits or equivalent Bayesian log-likelihoods. With efficient optimization methods available for both maximum a posteriori model inference and Randomized Maximum Likelihood methods for model uncertainty, we perform history matching using both binary and continuous concentration observations. The results show that the tracer plumes in the enriched model match the experimental plumes more accurately compared with the results from the parsimonious-zonated model. The history matching results based on the concentration observations provide more similar plume shapes compared with the case based on the binary observations. The permeability difference between the model before and after history matching reveals that the tracer plume zone and the high permeable zone are the regions of high sensitivity in terms of data misfit between the model response and observations. Surprisingly, CO ₂ concentration plume forecasts based on these history-matched models were not especially sensitive to the improvements observed in the enhanced model.

In the original published article, one of the affiliation details for corresponding author "Denis Voskov" were incorrectly given as "Department of Energy Resources Engineering, Stanford University, CA, USA" but should have been "Department of Energy Science and Engineering, Stanford University, CA, USA". It is updated in this correction. The original article has been corrected.