Long lasting seismic swarm and pore pressure decrease

Similar documents
arxiv:physics/ v2 [physics.geo-ph] 18 Aug 2003

Extending the magnitude range of seismic reservoir monitoring by Utilizing Hybrid Surface Downhole Seismic Networks

What We Know (and don t know)

Earthquake. What is it? Can we predict it?

Limitations of Earthquake Triggering Models*

Afterslip, slow earthquakes and aftershocks: Modeling using the rate & state friction law

What allows seismic events to grow big?: Insights from fault roughness and b-value analysis in stick-slip experiments

Induced Seismicity: Can it Happen in Kentucky Too?

Interactions between earthquakes and volcano activity

Chapter 6. Conclusions. 6.1 Conclusions and perspectives

Role of in situ stress and fluid compressibility on Slow Slip Events (SSE) & instability triggering (EQ) Derived from a Poro-Plastic Fault Core Model

Developments on Microseismic Monitoring and Risk Assessment of Large-scale CO 2 Storage

Modeling Fault Reactivation, Induced Seismicity, and Leakage during Underground CO2 Injection

Kinematic inversion of pre-existing faults by wastewater injection-related induced seismicity: the Val d Agri oil field case study (Italy)

What is an Earthquake?

Gutenberg-Richter Relationship: Magnitude vs. frequency of occurrence

FAQs - Earthquakes Induced by Fluid Injection

3D Finite Element Modeling of fault-slip triggering caused by porepressure

Mechanics of Earthquakes and Faulting

Modeling pressure response into a fractured zone of Precambrian basement to understand deep induced-earthquake hypocenters from shallow injection

Earthquakes. Building Earth s Surface, Part 2. Science 330 Summer What is an earthquake?

Internal microseismic event pattern revealed by waveform cross-correlation analysis

Earthquakes. Earthquake Magnitudes 10/1/2013. Environmental Geology Chapter 8 Earthquakes and Related Phenomena

Results of the Lacq pilot s monitoring Focus on microseismicity. Joëlle HY-BILLIOT 10 may - Venice

Unraveling the Mysteries of Seismicity in Oklahoma. A Story Map

1 of 5 12/10/2018, 2:38 PM

swisstopo, Swiss Geological Survey, Wabern, Switzerland, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Earth & Environmental Sciences Area, Berkeley, USA

Using transient stresses to monitor poroelastic and stress conditions in CO 2 reservoirs

Tectonic Seismogenic Index of Geothermal Reservoirs

Assessment and Mitigation of Ground Motion Hazards from Induced Seismicity. Gail M. Atkinson

Lecture 2: Deformation in the crust and the mantle. Read KK&V chapter 2.10

Seismogenic properties of the crust inferred from recent studies of reservoir-induced seismicity Application to Koyna

Earthquakes and Earthquake Hazards Earth - Chapter 11 Stan Hatfield Southwestern Illinois College

Thermo-Hydro-Mechanical modeling of EGS using COMSOL Multiphysics

Earthquakes Chapter 19

Risk Treatment. Todd Shipman PhD, Alberta Geological Survey/Alberta Energy Regulator November 17 th,2017 Induced Seismicity Workshop, Yellowknife NWT

A PRESSURE VESSEL FOR TRUE-TRIAXIAL DEFORMATION & FLUID FLOW DURING FRICTIONAL SHEAR

An Investigation on the Effects of Different Stress Regimes on the Magnitude Distribution of Induced Seismic Events

Final Report Induced Seismicity DE-FGO3-90ER14152 Office Of Basic Energy Sciences U.S. Department Of Energy

arxiv:physics/ v1 6 Aug 2006

Section Forces Within Earth. 8 th Grade Earth & Space Science - Class Notes

The Mechanics of Earthquakes and Faulting

Accelerating energy release prior to large events in simulated earthquake cycles: implications for earthquake forecasting

Dynamic analysis. 1. Force and stress

Geomechanics for reservoir and beyond Examples of faults impact on fluid migration. Laurent Langhi Team Leader August 2014

Risk Evaluation. Todd Shipman PhD, Alberta Geological Survey/Alberta Energy Regulator November 17 th,2017 Induced Seismicity Workshop, Yellowknife NWT

Daniel O Connell and Robert Creed. Fugro Consultants, Inc Cole Blvd., Suite 230, Lakewood CO

Simulated and Observed Scaling in Earthquakes Kasey Schultz Physics 219B Final Project December 6, 2013

The largest aftershock: How strong, how far away, how delayed?

Theory of earthquake recurrence times

4-D seismology at volcanoes: Probing the inside of volcanoes. Florent Brenguier

Finite element modelling of fault stress triggering due to hydraulic fracturing

A GLOBAL MODEL FOR AFTERSHOCK BEHAVIOUR

A review of friction laws and their application for simulation of microseismicity prior to hydraulic fracturing

Jihoon Kim, George J. Moridis, John Edmiston, Evan S. Um, Ernest Majer. Earth Sciences Division, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory 24 Mar.

Seismic and aseismic processes in elastodynamic simulations of spontaneous fault slip

Parallels between Earthquakes, Financial crashes and epileptic seizures

Mathematical Modelling of a Fault Slip Induced by Water Injection

Earthquakes in Barcelonnette!

ES Ch 19 Earthquakes 1

Does Aftershock Duration Scale With Mainshock Size?

A comparison of seismicity rates and fluid injection operations in Oklahoma and California: Implications for crustal stresses

Observational analysis of correlations between aftershock productivities and regional conditions in the context of a damage rheology model

Tensor character of pore pressure/stress coupling in reservoir depletion and injection

ETH Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zürich

Enhanced remote earthquake triggering at fluid injection sites in the Midwestern US

Internal Layers of the Earth

1 Introduction. 1.1 Aims. 1.2 Rock fractures

Tectonics. Lecture 12 Earthquake Faulting GNH7/GG09/GEOL4002 EARTHQUAKE SEISMOLOGY AND EARTHQUAKE HAZARD

Mechanical origin of aftershocks: Supplementary Information

Earthquakes. Forces Within Eartth. Faults form when the forces acting on rock exceed the rock s strength.

Separating Tectonic, Magmatic, Hydrological, and Landslide Signals in GPS Measurements near Lake Tahoe, Nevada-California

Today: Basic regional framework. Western U.S. setting Eastern California Shear Zone (ECSZ) 1992 Landers EQ 1999 Hector Mine EQ Fault structure

The Frictional Regime

Induced Seismicity Around Masjed Soleyman Dam, South West of Iran

Geomechanics at Weyburn, Redwater and Zama

Coupling between deformation and fluid flow: impacts on ore genesis in fracture-controlled hydrothermal systems

Material is perfectly elastic until it undergoes brittle fracture when applied stress reaches σ f

How will induced seismicity in Oklahoma respond to decreased saltwater injection rates?

Oceanic Transform Fault Seismicity Earthquakes of a Different Kind

The Earthquake Cycle Chapter :: n/a

Earthquakes Earth, 9th edition, Chapter 11 Key Concepts What is an earthquake? Earthquake focus and epicenter What is an earthquake?

Finding an Earthquake Epicenter Pearson Education, Inc.

The Centenary of the Omori Formula for a Decay Law of Aftershock Activity

Earth s Interior. Theory of Tectonics. Tectonics & Landforms. Vocabulary

Seismic Characteristics and Energy Release of Aftershock Sequences of Two Giant Sumatran Earthquakes of 2004 and 2005

Seismic Stability of Tailings Dams, an Overview

Parallels between Earthquakes, Financial crashes and epileptic seizures

Flagship stimulation experiment in the deep underground laboratory, risk study SCCER Annual meeting , Sitten, Switzerland

Gravitational deformation after the April 6, 2009 L Aquila Earthquake detected by Cosmo-SkyMed

San Andreas Movie Can It Happen?

Strain rate and temperature dependence of Omori law scaling constants of AE data: Implications for earthquake foreshock-aftershock sequences

Earthquake and Volcano Deformation

Geomechanical Analysis of Hydraulic Fracturing Induced Seismicity at Duvernay Field in Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin

Theory - SBRC fundamentals

BRIEFING MEMO ON RESERVOIR TRIGGERED SEISMICITY (RTS)

UGRC 144 Science and Technology in Our Lives/Geohazards

Rock and fluid thermodynamics control the dynamics of induced earthquakes

Elizabeth H. Hearn modified from W. Behr

Modeling Injection-Induced Seismicity with the Physics-Based Earthquake Simulator RSQSim

Transcription:

Long lasting seismic swarm and pore pressure decrease (conventional gas production: Lacq, SW France (1969-2016) jr grasso 1 a karimov 1 m sylvander 2 1 isterre, grenoble 2 omp toulouse Gas pressure drop, production volume and cumulative seismicity EC-EPOS (2015-2019)-IP WP14 Anthropogenic seismicity

Long lasting seismic swarm and pore pressure decrease (conventional gas production: Lacq, SW France (1969-2016) Mechanics of Lacq seismic swarm: - seismicity onset? - seismicity end? - M max? Gas production rate and seismic energy release rate over time EC-EPOS (2015-2019)-IP WP14 Anthropogenic seismicity

Long lasting seismic swarm and pore pressure decrease (conventional gas production: Lacq, SW France (1969-2016) Lacq swarm Pyrenees seismicity from regional network 1997-2010 Chevrot et al 2011 schatzalp-17 Seismicity pattern from local seismic network e.g. Grasso and Wittlinger BSSA1990

Long lasting seismic swarm and pore pressure decrease (conventional gas production: Lacq, SW France (1969-2016) schatzalp-17 1976-1995 bardainne et al GJI2008

1st sci. report 2 rd sci. report Last sci. report Today report Long lasting seismic swarm and pore pressure decrease (conventional gas production: Lacq, SW France (1969-2016) Banned data Academic monitoring >15 sci. reports Open 76-96 Banned data producer monitoring Regional Academic monitoring (national/regional seismic network) SI-Hex data base (extended to 2016) http://www.franceseisme.fr Carra et al (2014) This study (1962_2016 data) - Merging and aggregating seismic records (t obs ) in order to optimize location and magnitude => «homogeneous» magnitude over time Local/regional monitoring academic/producer monitoring Close/open data set (seismicity, deformation, production) EC-EPOS (2015-2019)-IP WP14 Anthropogenic seismicity

Long lasting seismic swarm and pore pressure decrease (conventional gas production: Lacq, SW France (1969-2016) Data base : - completeness, robustness over time and space - null hypothesis to compare with Observation : - production, pore pressure change - Induced seismicity= f(nbs, Magnitude, time, space) - Regional Tectonic seismicity : endo- exo- genous interactions Mean field analysis: - <average> patterns - susceptibility to forcing (field operation and earthquake) Possible Models and open questions : - seismicity onset - seismicity history f(oil-gas field operation)? - seismicity size EC-EPOS (2015-2019)-IP WP14 Anthropogenic seismicity

Seismicity Data: completeness and robustness over time 1962_2016 Evolution of network sensitivity over time Null Hyptohesis, tectonic earthquake: => distance 10L Lacq seismicity pattern: => distance 1-3L (near field) (L: reservoir size)

Seismicity Data: normalized distances M : Fault length -4 : 10 cm -2 : 1 m 0 : 10 m 2 : 100 m 4 : 1 km 6 : 10 km Tectonic aftershocks 1-3 L from mainshock Null Hypotheses: the reservoir acts as a (slow) mainshock and the triggered seismicity as aftershocks Tectonic quakes: distance 10L Lacq pattern : distance 1-3L 1970-1980 : ISR << TSR => ISR = sub-tectonic rate 1985-1995 : ISR > TSR = > ISR = super-tectonic rate

Observation: pore pressure drop, seismicity rate Threshold response to stressing rate: max stress rate onset of seismicity? Peak value Dp/Dt 3.5 Mpa/yrs (Ds/Dt) max 0.01 Mpa/yrs (due to poroelastic stress tranfer) (Segall, 1989, Grasso, 1992, Segall et al 1994) Seismicity rates and stressing rate : (DN, Dp) /Dt (1985-1995) > (DN, Dp) /Dt (2000-2010) Dp/Dt (1985-1995) / Dp/Dt (2000-2010) = 5 <DN> (1985-1995) / <DN> (2000-2010) = 2

Observation: pore pressure drop, production, seismicity <=> seismicity rates = f( stressing rate) dn/dt = f(dp/dt) x 10 18 3 300 60 Depletion rate and production rate decrease seismicity rate decrease Cumulative Energy 1LM25 (Nm) 2 1 250 200 150 100 Cumulative production (Gm 3 ) <=> seismic energy = f(?) Lacq Seismicity(15km) and exploitation Seismicity Production Pressure 45 30 15 (Po P)Pressure drop(mpa) 50 0 0 1943 1957 1971 1984 1998 2012 2026 Time 0

Observation: pore pressure drop, seismicity Threshold response to poro-elastic stressing rate: (Dp/yrs) max onset of seismicity Seismicity non-deterministic cascading system??? Impossible to understand/predict M max =f(time)? Poro-elastic model -succeed to predict eqs location i.e. the volume where stress changes (Ds + max= 0.1 MPa) - failed to control time size patterns (M(t) and Mmax? Same context as tectonic earthquake: we know the driving force (plate tectonic) But we fail to predict time size location of earthquakes Lacq Poro-elasticity model (Segall, Grasso, Mossop 1994) 90% of triggered seismicity within volume (Ds + ) Area D s+ = control parameter for location similarly to mainshock- aftershock triggering

Complex interrelationships: production, pressure drop, injected volume / M max Grasso and Wittlinger BBSA90 Segall Grasso Mossop JGR94? Bardainne 2005 Injection was neglected/rejected as major driving the Lacq seismicity on the basis of too small pressure and volume changes and lack of comprehensive injection history. (e.g., Grasso and Wittlinger BBSA90, Maury et al. EG1992, Segall et al. 1994, Lahaie and Grasso 1999, Bardainne et al. 2008)

Complex interrelationships: production, pressure drop, injected volume / seismicity Waste water disposal history: Shallow injection 1957-1975 Water saturated reef peak value Injection 1967-1974: peak value for shallow injection 1969: onset of seismicity Dp max = 0.6 Mpa 1975 injection Ds max = 0.1 Mpa 1975 poro-elastic stressing

Complex interrelationships: production, pressure drop, injected volume / seismicity Waste water disposal history: deep injection 1975-2006 Water saturated reef Dry rocks deep injection onset 1975: onset of deep injection 1978: increase of seimicity rate

Complex interrelationships: production, pressure drop, injected volume / seismicity Waste water disposal history: deep + shallow injection peak value Injection 2007_2012 Water saturated reef Dry rocks 1988-94 Data from bardainne 2005 1994-97 2006-2012: deep + shallow injection 2013-2016: M max =4 (depth=7 km)

Complex interrelationships: production, pressure drop, injected volume / seismicity 2007_2012 Water saturated reef Dry rocks 1957-2012 volume = «Oklahoma- like» volumes Background data (Mcgarr2014)

Stress (reservoir pressure drop) MPa Injection peak value depletion rate peak Deep injection Trigger mechanics (conceptual) a) 1969: first earthquake as signature of departure from elastic response = Onset of (seismic) brittle damage - 1967 injection peak value - 1969: P reservoir = P (hydrostatic) at reservoir level -1969 = peak value of DP/Dt seismicity= 1-5% total deformation b) 1975: onset of deep waste water injection, and change in depletion rate => seismcity rate change c) 2007-2012: Deep + shallow injection 2013-2016 : Mmax=M4 Strain (subsidence/depth) schatzalp-17

space Tectonics and Anthropogenic seismic instabilities: M max Tectonic earthquake framework time stress change (bar) schatzalp-17 Anthropogenic earthquake framework

Production, pressure drop, injected volume / M max M max :? M5 + : As derived from injected volume

M max distribution from conventional oil-gas extraction (world wide picture) M max frequency distribution G-R slope Oil-gas extraction 1957-2011, N=53 Mmax slope 0.4 This is not a G-R distribution (Mmax on different site) G-R distribution: all earthquakes on given area M max distribution: sampling M max on different site (e.g. record distribution, Anderson et al. 2004, Krug 2007) (Power law) distribution of M max - Possible time independent M max size prediction (before production starts) - which control parameters for such a distribution (work in progress) schatzalp-17

Modified from Davies et al 2014 data base M max distribution and geo-resource production types Normalized frequency distributions Impacted Area (Ds + ) for reservoir: 100 km 2 Impacted Area (Ds + ) for mining (and injection) < 0.01-0.001 km 2 + fluid diffusion Area (Ds +) controls M max rather than Ds + value (similarly to tectonic earthquake) schatzalp-17 Grasso and Sornette JGR99

Long lasting seismic swarm and pore pressure decrease (conventional gas production: Lacq, SW France (1969-2016) Production start : 1959 Seismicity Onset : 1969 peak value of (- Dp/Dt) extraction peak value of (+ Dp/Dt) injection Production rate - depletion rate - seismicity : 1990-2010 N(t) decreases as production-pressure decreases (-Dp/Dt) <DN/Dt> Eqs location: predicted by poro-elastic Ds + M max : 2013-2016 M4,M4.(Injection driven) Aftershocks at the reservoir scale only: L reser. = L M6, i.e. reservoir depletion as a slow MS) Induced Rate / Tectonic rate => classification for IS - M max distribution bounded by perturbated volume size) Data available on EC-EPOS (2015-2019)-IP WP14 Anthropogenic seismicity

schatzalp-17

schatzalp-17

M max distribution and geo-resource production type M max frequency distributions This is not a regular GR distribution Oil-gas extraction 1957-2011 0.3 M max GR exponent: 1 of a local episode Mmax exponent: 0.3 on different site Mcgarr et al 2002 injectio miing-quarrying n Oil-gas extraction Log(size geo-prod ) - M max driven by the size of perturbated area (Ds), rather than Ds max value - The larger the area where the stress changes, => the larger the triggered earthquake rate => the largest the possible M max - Anthropogenic events as aftershocks of geo-resource production schatzalp-17 (in the same framework as tectonics eqs (e.g. N after = 10 bm, M max = M ms - cte))

Modified from Davies et al 2014 data base M max for induced seismicity: Worldwide pictures On each site : Mmax sorted by geo-resource exploitation types we define 4 categories : Mining, Injection (all types), Gas&Oil Extraction, Reservoir Dam schatzalp-17

séisme = rupture/glissement d une faille glissement sur la faille et magnitude (M) : M = -4 : glissement de 0,003 mm M = -2 : glissement de 0,03 mm M = 0 : glissement de 0,3 mm M = 2 : glissement de 3 mm M = 4 : glissement de 30 mm M = 6 : glissement de 300 mm Ressenti longueur de la faille et magnitude (M) : M = -4 : faille de 10 cm de long M = -2 : faille de 1 m de long M = 0 : faille de 10 m de long M = 2 : faille de 100 m de long M = 4 : faille de 1 km de long M = 6 : faille de 10 km de long Ressenti schatzalp-17

Reservoir Pressure Trigger mechanics (conceptual) M max 3.4 DP=25 MPa M max = 4.3 Poro-elasticity model (Segall, Grasso, Mossop 1994) DP 30 MPa M max 4.3 M max = 4.1 <Dp (reservoir) min> = 20-30 MPa <Ds (caprocks) min> = 0.01-0.5 MPa Dp/dt (reservoir) max = 5 MPa/yr (Lacq) Ds/dt (caprocks) max = 0.01 MPa/yr (Lacq) DP 24 MPa M max 3.4 M max = 3.5 Ds max = [(l-2n)/2p(1-n)] Dp F max (a/d), Ds max = -0.1 (T/D) Dp F max (a/d) a, T, D : radius, thickness, Depth of reservoir (segall 1989, grasso 1992) time schatzalp-17

Complexity of Anthropogenic seismic instabilities: susceptibility to forcing response to exogenous stressing rate M5 1980 (distance) Lacq = 10L to M5 Lack of dynamic triggering on Lacq field by regional M5 No evidence for exogenous M5 triggering pattern low susceptibility to high frequency (Lahaie-Grasso JGR99) M5 1980, distance= 1-3L Regular aftershock sequence M : Fault length -4 : 10 cm -2 : 1 m 0 : 10 m 2 : 100 m 4 : 1 km 6 : 10 km

Complexity of Anthropogenic seismic instabilities: susceptibility to forcing Stack on 23 M=3 aftershock sequences 23 M=3 mainshocks 23 M3 Lacq 1L(to M3) 23 M3 Pyr 3L(to M3) 10L(to M3) 23 M=3 mainshocks and others M2.2 + Deficit of Lacq aftershock productivity for M3 (1_3L) relatively to M3 Pyrenees counterpart. M : Fault length -4 : 10 cm -2 : 1 m 0 : 10 m 2 : 100 m 4 : 1 km 6 : 10 km

Complexity of Anthropogenic seismic instabilities: susceptibility to forcing Stack on 23 M3 mainshocks : susceptibility to endogenous triggering 23 M3 stack 1 L reservoir - a regular aftershock productivity at the reservoir scale (L reservoir = L M6 ) (i.e. reservoir depletion as a slow mainshock ) M : Fault length -4 : 10 cm -2 : 1 m 0 : 10 m 2 : 100 m 4 : 1 km 6 : 10 km

Complexity of Anthropogenic seismic instabilities: induced/tectonic eqs rate Induced seismicity rate: IR (1L box) Tectonic seismicity rate: TR (10L box) Seismicity rate : 1970-1980 : IR << TR 1985-1995 : IR > TR 2000-2010 : IR = TR 2015 - :? Seismicity rate : N (earthquake) = Background + interaction (aftershocks) (e.g. point process model (Kagan, 80; Helmstetter et al.03)) New classes for induced seismicity as IR/TR ratio? IR/TR < 1 => sub- tectonic rate IR/TR > 1 => super- tectonic rate close to volcano swarm setting (e.g. Touati et al. PRL2009; Traversa and Grasso, BSSA09, BSSA10) <=> (IR) Background to estimate (TR) Background

Complexity of seismic instabilities: induced/tectonic eqs rate Induced seismicity rate: IR Tectonic seismicity rate: TR Seismicity rate : 1L 10L 1970-1980 : IR << TR sub-tectonic rate 1985-1995 : IR > TR super-tectonic rate Seismicity rate : N (earthquake) = Background + interaction (aftershocks) with Interaction (lacq aftershock) << 0 Close to volcano swarm setting (e.g. Traversa and Grasso, BSSA09, BSSA10; Touati et al. PRL2009 ) - (IR) Background to estimate (TR) Background

2024 © sciencedocbox.com Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Feedback