The only SaaS platform with native EPA Class VI (Art. 146.93), EU CCS Directive 2009/31/EC, and IPCC 2006 Guidelines compliance automation — turning months of manual reporting into hours of reproducible, audit-ready evidence.
Seismic Swift AI maps each monitoring obligation to the specific regulatory article — EPA, EU, and IPCC — and executes it automatically every time your data is processed.
| Requirement | EPA Class VI (UIC) | EU CCS Directive | IPCC 2006 | Platform Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Plume monitoring | Art. 146.93(c) | Article 13.1(a) | Ch. 5 | Automated |
| Pressure monitoring | Art. 146.93(d) | Article 13.1(b) | Ch. 5 | Automated |
| Mass balance | Art. 146.93(b) | Article 13.1(c) | Ch. 5 | Automated |
| Risk assessment | Art. 146.94 | Annex I | Ch. 6 | Automated |
| Corrective action | Art. 146.94 | Article 16 | Ch. 7 | Evidence |
| Geomechanical monitoring | Art. 146.93(e) | Article 13.1(d) | Ch. 5 | Automated |
| Well integrity | Art. 146.93(f) | Article 13.2 | Ch. 5 | Monitoring |
No black boxes. Every algorithm traces to a peer-reviewed source, every result carries a DOI citation, and every output is reproducible from the raw SEG-Y input.
Quantify CO₂ saturation from 4D amplitude changes using Gassmann fluid substitution. Wood ambiguity resolution via Vp/Vs ratio. Land (1968) hysteretic trapping model for imbibition cycles. Rayleigh dissolution rate estimation.
Reservoir pressure evolution from Theis radial flow equations. Poroelastic coupling of pore pressure to seismic velocity using Biot (1941) theory. Zoback (2007) fracture gradient prediction for caprock integrity.
Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion with three-axis principal stress gradients. Hertz-Mindlin contact mechanics for granular media compaction. Thermal stress from CO₂ temperature differential. Full caprock integrity assessment per Art. 146.93(e).
Residual, solubility, mineral, and structural trapping with quantitative mass partitioning. Ide (2012) residual trapping fraction. Rayleigh dissolution boundary layer. Multi-mechanism trapping efficiency for long-term permanence assessment.
Two-phase immiscible displacement with Brooks-Corey relative permeability. Buckley-Leverett frontal advance with Welge tangent construction. Godunov finite-volume numerical solver. Lake (2007) gravity-corrected fractional flow for dipping reservoirs.
Seismic-to-mass conversion via Gassmann saturation inversion. Multi-epoch mass balance tracker with conformance factor and 85% closure threshold. Gravity cross-validation (Nooner 2007). Well calibration integration for tighter uncertainty bounds.
ISO 31000 5×5 Likelihood × Consequence matrix with 7 CCS-specific risk categories. ALARP (HSE R2P2) with quantitative risk analysis via Monte Carlo. Bow-tie diagrams per IEAGHG methodology. FEP (QUINTESSA/NEA) barrier framework. Temporal risk phasing.
Monte Carlo propagation with P10/P50/P90 reporting at every step. MC Dropout Bayesian neural network uncertainty (Gal & Ghahramani 2016). Epoch differencing for cumulative uncertainty accumulation. Correlated input sampling with Cholesky decomposition.
Automated evidence collection and clause-referenced compliance reports for EPA Class VI (40 CFR Part 146), EU CCS Directive 2009/31/EC, and IPCC 2006 Guidelines. Jurisdiction-specific templates. SHA-256 provenance on every deliverable. OSDU R3 record publication.
NRMS (Normalised RMS) 4D repeatability quality control. Dynamic Time Warping (DTW) with Sakoe-Chiba band constraint for time shift estimation. Sinc interpolation for sub-sample accuracy. Amplitude difference maps with background noise correction.
Every algorithm is benchmarked against published results from the world's most-studied CCS projects. Every result is reproducible. Every deviation is documented and explained.
North Sea, Norway
Operator
Equinor ASA
Chadwick et al. (2005)
Norwegian Continental Shelf
Operator
Equinor / Shell / TotalEnergies
Furre et al. (2019)
Alberta, Canada
Operator
Shell Canada
Preston et al. (2016)
“Every algorithm is peer-reviewed. Every result is reproducible.”
Our science team publishes benchmark comparisons against the Sleipner, Northern Lights, and Quest datasets. All source code paths are traceable to the specific equation and paper from which they were derived. Regulators and operators can audit the full computation chain at any time.
From SEG-Y upload to regulatory report in a single workflow. Every monitoring epoch updates your compliance status automatically — no spreadsheets, no manual exports.
No separate CCS tool to maintain, license, or reconcile. The compliance engine is a first-class stage in the same pipeline that processes your seismic data — sharing the same provenance, same audit trail, same OSDU records.
SEG-Y upload with streaming SHA-256 verification. Handles 50GB+ volumes peak <100MB RAM.
U-Net denoising (Ronneberger 2015) removes acquisition noise before CCS analysis.
All 10 CCS science modules run in sequence. Mass balance, saturation maps, risk matrix, regulatory evidence package.
Geoscientist sign-off on automated results before report filing. Dual-control approval for critical corrections.
Clause-referenced regulatory reports in PDF, LAS, GeoTIFF, or SEG-Y. Published to OSDU R3.
Every CCS computation shares the same immutable SHA-256 audit chain as the rest of the pipeline. One record per job, forever.
Mass balance results, saturation maps, and risk assessments are published directly as OSDU SeismicTraceData and WorkProduct records.
Trigger CCS analysis programmatically via the REST API. Integrate with your existing data management and ERP systems.
Every VP Sustainability we speak to has the same problem: compliance evidence lives in spreadsheets built by individuals who have since left the company. Seismic Swift replaces that institutional risk with a reproducible, automated, auditable platform.
A typical EPA Class VI annual report requires 8–12 weeks of data assembly by a team of 3–5 geoscientists. Seismic Swift generates a draft-ready compliance package in under 3 hours from raw SEG-Y input.
Every report includes clause-referenced citations (e.g., "Per 40 CFR 146.93(c): plume boundary confirmed within AOR at epoch T+12m"). No manual annotation. No missed articles.
Projects spanning US and EU jurisdictions (e.g., offshore CCS under both EPA and EU CCS Directive) generate parallel reports in a single pipeline execution. No double-handling.
All results — saturation maps, risk matrices, mass balance logs — are stored as versioned OSDU R3 records with immutable provenance. Queryable via OSDU Search API for auditor access.
| Task | Without Seismic Swift | With Seismic Swift |
|---|---|---|
| Annual EPA Class VI report | 8–12 weeks, 3–5 staff | < 3 hours, automated |
| Mass balance calculation | Manual Excel, error-prone | Gassmann + MC, SHA-256 signed |
| Plume boundary delineation | Manual horizon picking | Conv-VAE + NRMS automated |
| Multi-epoch comparison | Copy-paste between projects | DTW warping, version-controlled |
| Regulatory article mapping | Legal team review, $400/hr | Clause-referenced, built-in |
| Auditor data room preparation | 2–4 weeks assembly | Instant OSDU record export |
Built to the highest industry standards
Schedule a 45-minute demo with our CCS science team. We will walk through your specific monitoring programme, show you the regulatory report it would generate, and give you a reproducibility verification of any published benchmark you choose.