Hoisting a Red Flag: An Early Warning System for Exceeding Subsidence Limits

Nepveu, M.; Kroon, I. C.; Fokker, P.A.

doi:10.1007/s11004-009-9252-2

Cited by 11 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The difference between measured and modeled subsidence is used to fit the resulting unknown parameters: τ for Time Decay and ). The differences between the modeled and measured subsidence are input in a Bayesian "Red Flag" procedure (Nepveu et al, 2010). The Red Flag procedure gives the highest probability and the lowest χ 2 value to the parameter combination that fits the measured subsidence best.…”

Section: Approachmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Compaction and subsidence of the Groningen gas field in the Netherlands

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. The Groningen gas field in the Netherlands is Europe's largest gas field. It has been produced since 1963 and production is expected to continue until 2080. The pressure decline in the field causes compaction in the reservoir which is observed as subsidence at the surface. Measured subsidence is characterized by a delay at the start of production. As linear compaction models cannot explain this behavior, alternative compaction models (e.g. Rate Type Compaction Model and Time Decay model) have been investigated that may explain the measured subsidence. Although the compaction models considered in this study give a good match to this delay, their forecasts are significantly different. Future measurements of subsidence in this area will indicate which type of compaction model is preferred. This will lead to better forecasts of subsidence in future. The pattern of over-and underestimation of the subsidence is similar for the compaction models investigated and tested. The pattern can be explained by differences in modeled porosity and aquifer activity illustrating the improvement of subsurface knowledge on the reservoir using subsidence measurements.

show abstract

Section: Approachmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Conventional linear elastic compaction models cannot explain this behaviour. Other compaction models, such as Rate Type Compaction models (de Waal, 1986) and Time Decay model (Mossop, 2012) can describe this behaviour. We have applied these compaction models to the Groningen reservoir in order to estimate and predict subsidence.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Compaction and subsidence of the Groningen gas field in the Netherlands

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Major potential contributors are uncertainties in subsurface models, unknown influx of bottom and lateral aquifers, core damage, non-linear rock compressibility, the difference in loading rate between laboratory and field, the very large change in loading rate at the start of production, the in-situ stress state, reservoir burial history, salt flow, the relation between subsidence and compaction etc. Rather than predicting a single number it is therefore much better to provide a range of possible outcomes, only reducing the range when certain scenarios become too unlikely given field measurements (Nepveu et al, 2010). And to keep the range of possible outcomes, as it narrows over time, in line with the range that the area can sustain e.g.…”

Section: Lessonsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Production induced subsidence and seismicity in the Groningen gas field – can it be managed?

Waal¹,

Muntendam-Bos²,

Roest³

2015

Proc. IAHS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Reliable prediction of the induced subsidence resulting from gas production is important for a near sea level country like the Netherlands. Without the protection of dunes, dikes and pumping, large parts of the country would be flooded. The predicted sea-level rise from global warming increases the challenge to design proper mitigation measures. Water management problems from gas production induced subsidence can be prevented if measures to counter its adverse effects are taken timely. This requires reliable subsidence predictions, which is a major challenge. Since the 1960's a number of large, multi-decade gas production projects were started in the Netherlands. Extensive, well-documented subsidence prediction and monitoring technologies were applied. Nevertheless predicted subsidence at the end of the Groningen field production period (for the centre of Until 1991, when the first event was registered, production induced seismicity was not observed nor expected for the Groningen field. Thereafter the number of observed events rose from 5 to 10 per year during the 1990's to well over a hundred in 2013. The anticipated maximum likely magnitude rose from an initial value of less than 3.0 to a value of 3.3 in 1993 and then to 3.9 in 2006. The strongest tremor to date occurred near the village of Huizinge in August 2012. It had a magnitude of 3.6, caused significant damage and triggered the regulator into an independent investigation. Late 2012 it became clear that significantly larger magnitudes cannot be excluded and that values up to magnitude 5.0 cannot be ruled out. As a consequence the regulator advised early 2013 to lower Groningen gas production by as much and as fast as realistically possible. Before taking such a decision, the Minister of Economic Affairs requested further studies. The results became available early 2014 and led to the government decision to lower gas production in the earthquake prone central area of the field by 80 % for the next three years. In addition further investigations and a program to strengthen houses and infrastructure were started.Important lessons have been learned from the studies carried out to date. It is now realised that uncertainties in predicted subsidence and seismicity are much larger than previously recognised. Compaction, subsidence and seismicity are strongly interlinked and relate in a non-linear way to production and pressure drop. The latest studies by the operator suggest that seismic hazard in Groningen is largely determined by tremors with magnitudes between 4.5 and 5.0 even at an annual probability of occurrence of less than 1 %. And that subsidence in 2080 in the centre of the bowl could be anywhere between 50 and 70 cm. Initial evaluations by the regulator indicate similar numbers and suggest that the present seismic risk is comparable to Dutch flooding risks.Different models and parameters can be used to describe the subsidence and seismicity observed so far. The choice of compaction and seismicity models and their parameters has a large impac...

show abstract

“…After that, a cheap and fast analysis of the forecast ensembles can be performed by the RF technique, as introduced in Nepveu et al (2010). It is a statistical approach that computes the probability of every Monte Carlo realization by combining prior information with the likelihood of the measurements, without solving the inverse problem.…”

Section: Methodological Approachmentioning

confidence: 99%

Blending measurements and numerical models: a novel methodological approach for land subsidence prediction with uncertainty quantification

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. The use of numerical models for land subsidence prediction above producing hydrocarbon reservoirs has become a common and well-established practice since the early '90s. Usually, uncertainties in the deep rock behavior, which can affect the forecast capability of the models, have been taken into account by running multiple simulations with different constitutive laws and mechanical properties. Then, the most uncertain parameters were calibrated to reproduce available subsidence measurements. The objective of this work is to propose a novel methodological approach for land subsidence prediction and uncertainty quantification by integrating the available monitoring information in numerical models using ad hoc Data Assimilation techniques. The proposed approach allows to: (i) train the model with the available data and improve its accuracy as new information comes in, (ii) quantify the prediction uncertainty by providing confidence intervals and probability measures instead of deterministic outcomes, and (iii) identify the most appropriate rock constitutive model and geomechanical parameters. The methodology is tested in synthetic models of production from hydrocarbon reservoirs. The numerical experiments show that the proposed approach is a promising way to improve the effectiveness and reliability of land subsidence models.

show abstract

Hoisting a Red Flag: An Early Warning System for Exceeding Subsidence Limits

Cited by 11 publications

References 10 publications

Compaction and subsidence of the Groningen gas field in the Netherlands

Compaction and subsidence of the Groningen gas field in the Netherlands

Production induced subsidence and seismicity in the Groningen gas field – can it be managed?

Blending measurements and numerical models: a novel methodological approach for land subsidence prediction with uncertainty quantification

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About