1887

Abstract

Summary

Fluid injection into the subsurface is performed for a variety of reasons, such as hydraulic fracturing, and waste storage. It is well established that fluid injection can trigger seismic activity of sufficient magnitude to be felt by local populations. The industry wishes to avoid such events. We develop a statistical model to forecast the largest event that might be induced by a given injection operation. The model is continuously updated as microseismic data is processed in real time. We use this model in a prospective sense, updating our forecasts through the injection period. We apply our model to two case studies: a hydraulic fracture stimulation in a tight gas reservoir; and at the In Salah CCS project, Algeria. In both cases, our model is capable of forecasting the largest event prior to its occurrence, providing an early-warning for the operator.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.201413527
2015-06-01
2020-05-27
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. DECC
    , 2014. Fracking UK shale: understanding earthquake risk: Department of Energy and Climate Change, London, http://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/283837/Seismic_v3.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  2. HalloM., OprsalI., EisnerL., AliM.Y.
    , 2014. Prediction of magnitude of the largest potentially induced seismic event: Journal of Seismology18, 421–431.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. McGarrA.
    , 2014. Maximum magnitude earthquakes induced by fluid injection: Journal of Geophysical Research119, 1008–1019.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. RutledgeJ.T., PhillipsW.S., MayerhoferM.J.
    , 2004. Faulting induced by forced fluid injection and fluid flow forced by faulting: An interpretation of hydraulic fracture microseismicity, Carthage Cotton Valley Gas Field, Texas: Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America94, 1817–1830.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. ShapiroS.A., KrügerO.S., DinskeC., LangenbruchC.
    , 2011. Magnitudes of induced earthquakes and geometric scales of fluid-stimulated rock volumes: Geophysics76, WC55–WC63.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. SchorlemmerD. and GerstenbergerM.C.
    , 2007. RELM Testing Centre: Seismological Research Letters78, 30–36.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. StorkA.L., VerdonJ.P., KendallJ-M.
    2015., Assessing the microseismic response at the In Salah Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) site with a single three-component geophone: International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control32, 159–171.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. VerdonJ.P.
    , 2013. Fractal dimension of microseismic events via the two-point correlation dimension, and its correlation with b values: 4th EAGE Passive Seismic Workshop, Amsterdam.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. VerdonJ.P., StorkA.L., BissellR.C., BondC.E., WernerM.J.
    , 2015. Simulation of seismic events induced by CO2 injection at In Salah, Algeria: Earth and Planetary Sciences Letters, in review.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. ZöllerG. and HolschneiderM.
    , 2014. Induced seismicity: What is the size of the largest expected earthquake: Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America104, 3153–3158.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.201413527
Loading
/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.201413527
Loading

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error