Fault activation during hydraulic fracturing

Maxwell, Shawn; Jones, Mike I; Parker, Richard; Miong, S.; Leaney, Scott; Dorval, D.; D’Amico, David; Logel, John D.; Anderson, E.; Hammermaster, K.

doi:10.1190/1.3255145

Cited by 100 publications

(34 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Overall, we find b = 2.17 ± 0.09 for average P-and S-wave magnitudes with a magnitude of completeness of 0.1. This is a very high b-value but similar to the values reported by other studies of fluid injection sites, for example during hydraulic fracturing (Maxwell et al, 2009) and at Enhanced Geothermal System (EGS) injections (Bachmann et al, 2012). However, looking at the data in more detail reveals that the b-value is dependent on the station-source azimuth, rather than the injection rate.…”

Section: Event Magnitudessupporting

confidence: 80%

The microseismic response at the In Salah Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) site

Stork

Verdon

Kendall

2015

International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

a b s t r a c tIn 2004, injection of carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) to be stored at depth began at the In Salah Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) site and a pilot microseismic monitoring array was installed in 2009. The In Salah project presents an unusual dataset since it is the first major non-Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) CCS project to be monitored for microseismicity. This paper outlines an extensive seismological study using a range of techniques, relying mainly on data from a single three-component geophone. Important information is derived from the data, such as event locations, event magnitudes and fracture characteristics, that could be used in real-time to regulate the geomechanical response of a site to CO 2 injection. The event rate closely follows the CO 2 injection rate, with a total of 9506 seismic events detected. The locations for a carefully selected subset of events are estimated to occur at or below the injection interval, thereby ruling out fault or fracture activation caused by CO 2 migration at shallow depths. A very small number of events (11) with less well-constrained locations may have occurred above the injection interval. However, there is no microseismic evidence that these events are correlated with CO 2 injection and we suggest they are caused by stress transfer rather than CO 2 migration into the caprock. The observed maximum moment magnitude, M w = 1.7, is consistent with estimated fracture dimensions at the injection depth. Fracture orientation estimated using shear-wave splitting analysis is approximately NW-SE, in agreement with fracture orientations inferred from logging data. During periods of high injection rates the degree of anisotropy increases slightly and then falls back to original values when injection rates fall. This implies the CO 2 is opening pre-existing fractures which then close as pressure decreases.This an important proof-of-concept study that proves the value of microseismic monitoring of CCS projects, even with a limited array. We thus recommend that microseismic monitoring arrays are installed prior to CO 2 injection at future CCS sites to enhance our understanding by making baseline and comparative studies possible. This would also provide real-time monitoring of the geomechanical response to injection, allowing operators to modify injection parameters and to help ensure the safe operation of a project.

show abstract

Section: Event Magnitudessupporting

confidence: 80%

The microseismic response at the In Salah Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) site

Stork

Verdon

Kendall

2015

International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These have been reported to have been accompanied by a sharp reduction in b-value, calculated for a moving subset of events over the time that pumping took place (Maxwell et al, 2009 - Green et al, 2012). At the Preese Hall 1 well, 55 events were recorded.…”

Section: Earthquake Magnitudesmentioning

confidence: 98%

Induced seismicity and hydraulic fracturing for the recovery of hydrocarbons

Davies

Foulger

Bindley

et al. 2013

Marine and Petroleum Geology

297

174

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

(2013) 'Induced seismicity and hydraulic fracturing for the recovery of hydrocarbons.', Marine and petroleum geology., 45 . pp. 171-185. Further information on publisher's website:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpetgeo. 2013.03.016 Publisher's copyright statement: NOTICE: this is the author's version of a work that was accepted for publication in Marine and Petroleum Geology. Changes resulting from the publishing process, such as peer review, editing, corrections, structural formatting, and other quality control mechanisms may not be reected in this document. Changes may have been made to this work since it was submitted for publication. A denitive version was subsequently published in Marine and Petroleum Geology, 45, 2013, 10.1016/j.marpetgeo.2013 Additional information: Use policyThe full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-prot purposes provided that:• a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in DRO • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders.Please consult the full DRO policy for further details. Reactivation of faults and resultant seismicity occurs due to a reduction in effective stress on fault planes. Hydraulic fracturing operations can trigger seismicity because it can cause an increase in the fluid pressure in a fault zone. Based upon the research compiled here we propose that this could occur by three mechanisms. Firstly, fracturing fluid or displaced pore fluid could enter the fault. Secondly, there may be direct connection with the hydraulic fractures and a fluid pressure pulse could be transmitted to the fault. Lastly, due to poroelastic properties of rock, deformation or 'inflation' due to hydraulic fracturing could increase fluid pressure in the fault or in fractures connected to the fault. The following pathways for fluid or a fluid pressure pulse are proposed: (a) directly from the wellbore; (b) through new, stimulated hydraulic fractures; (c) through pre-existing fractures and minor faults; or (d) through the pore network of permeable beds or along bedding planes. The reactivated fault could be intersected by the wellbore or it could be 10s to 100s of metres from it.We propose these mechanisms have been responsible for the three known examples of felt seismicity that are probably induced by hydraulic fracturing. These are in the USA, Canada and the UK. The largest such earthquake was M 3.8 and was in the Horn River Basin, Canada. To date, hydraulic fracturing has been a relatively benign mechanism compared to other anthropogenic triggers, probably because of the low volumes of fluid and short pumping times used in hydraulic fracturing operations. These data and analysis should help provide useful context and inform the current debate surrounding hydraulic fracturing technology...

show abstract

“…Moreover, Maxwell et al (2009) and Downie et al (2010) showed that the events recorded during hydraulic treatment have b-values close to 2, while the events associated with fault deformation have b-values close to 1. Analysis by Kratz et al (2013) on the microseismic events associated with 13 horizontal wells in the Barnett shale in North Texas shows that the b-value of fracture-related events is close to 2 whereas the b-value of fault-related events is close to 1.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Discrete element modeling of fluid injection–induced seismicity and activation of nearby fault

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Enhanced geothermal systems, shale gas, and geological carbon sequestration all require underground fluid injection in high-pressure conditions. Fluid injection creates fractures, induces seismicity, and has the potential to reactivate nearby faults that can generate a large magnitude earthquake. Mechanisms of fluid injection-induced seismicity and fault reactivation should be better understood to be able to mitigate larger events triggered by fluid injection. This study investigates fluid injection, induced seismicity, and triggering of fault rupture using hydromechanical-coupled discrete element models. Results show that a small amount of fluid pressure perturbation can trigger fault ruptures that are critically oriented and stressed. Induced seismicity by rock failure shows in general higher b-values (slope of magnitude-frequency relation) compared to seismicity triggered by the fault fracture slip. Numerical results closely resemble observations from geothermal and shale-gas fields and demonstrate that discrete element modeling has the potential to be applied in the field as a tool for predicting induced seismicity prior to in situ injection.Key words: induced seismicity, fault reactivation, large-magnitude events, triggered seismicity, magnitude-frequency relation b-value.Résumé : Les systèmes géothermiques améliorés, l'extraction du gaz de schiste et la séquestration du carbone géologique nécessitent l'injection de fluides à haute pression dans le sous sol. Ce type d'injection génère des fractures, cause des secousses sismiques et peut réactiver des failles avoisinantes, lesquelles peuvent provoquer des tremblements de terre de forte magnitude. Il serait utile de mieux comprendre les mécanismes des séismes induits par l'injection de fluides et ceux de la réactivation de failles, et ce afin d'être en mesure de prévenir les événements graves causés par l'injection de fluide. Dans le présent article, on étudie l'injection de fluides, la sismicité induite et le déclenchement de ruptures de failles à l'aide de modèles couplés hydromécaniques basés sur la méthode des éléments discrets. Les résultats montrent qu'une légère perturbation de la pression du fluide injecté peut déclencher des ruptures d'orientation critique soumises à des contraintes. La sismicité induite par la rupture de roches est généralement caractérisée par des valeurs de b (pente de la fonction de relation entre la magnitude et la fréquence) par rapport à celles observées dans le cas de la sismicité déclenchée par le cisaillement de rupture des failles. Les résultats numériques se rapprochent beaucoup des observations faites sur les sites géothermiques ou d'extraction de gaz de schiste et montrent que la modélisation basée sur la méthode des éléments discrets pourrait être utilisée sur ces sites comme outil servant à prédire la sismicité induite avant l'injection de fluides in situ. [Traduit par la Rédaction] Mots-clés : sismicité induite, réactivation de failles, incidents de forte magnitude, sismicité déclenchée, valeur de b: pente ...

show abstract

Fault activation during hydraulic fracturing

Cited by 100 publications

References 1 publication

The microseismic response at the In Salah Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) site

The microseismic response at the In Salah Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) site

Induced seismicity and hydraulic fracturing for the recovery of hydrocarbons

Discrete element modeling of fluid injection–induced seismicity and activation of nearby fault

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About