Isotach formulation of the rate type compaction model for sandstone

Pruiksma, J.P.; Breunese, J.N.; Thienen-Visser, K. van; Waal, J.A. de

doi:10.1016/j.ijrmms.2015.06.002

Cited by 24 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This way a number of limitations of the original rate type model have been resolved , be it at the cost of an additional material property representing the linear elastic component of the deformation. The fit between predictions based on the modified isotach model and the measured subsidence in Groningen is better than that obtained with the time-decay model or the bi-linear model (van Thienen-Visser and Breunese, 2015).…”

Section: Back To Non-linear Modelsmentioning

confidence: 57%

“…Time is required for the pressure signal resulting from the shut-in at the central clusters to spread through the reservoir. Given the Groningen reservoir properties it takes some three months for that signal to reach a distance of 3 km (van Thienen-Visser and Breunese, 2015). As (differential) compaction is the engine behind the induced seismicity, the time scale on which compaction responds to stress changes is a second major factor.…”

Section: Field Responsementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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

Section: Back To Non-linear Modelsmentioning

confidence: 57%

Section: Field Responsementioning

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

show abstract

“…This model is known as the a,b,c isotachen model (den Haan, 2003). Pruiksma et al (2015) described the application of this model to results of laboratory compaction experiments on Rotliegend sandstone core material. Improvements to the original work of De Waal led to the definition of the isotach (i) formulation of the rate-type compaction model (RTCiM) which was also implemented by NAM (Nederlandse Aardolie Maatschappij NV) (e.g.…”

Section: Rate-type Compaction Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

Field-wide reservoir compressibility estimation through inversion of subsidence data above the Groningen gas field

Eijs¹,

Wal²

2017

Netherlands Journal of Geosciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Not long after discovery of the Groningen field, gas-production-induced compaction and consequent land subsidence was recognised to be a potential threat to groundwater management in the province of Groningen, in addition to the fact that parts of the province lie below sea level. More recently, NAM's seismological model also pointed to a correlation between reservoir compaction and the observed induced seismicity above the field. In addition to the already existing requirement for accurate subsidence predictions, this demanded a more accurate description of the expected spatial and temporal development of compaction.Since the start of production in 1963, multiple levelling campaigns have gathered a unique set of deformation measurements used to calibrate geomechanical models. In this paper we present a methodology to model compaction and subsidence, combining results from rock mechanics experiments and surface deformation measurements. Besides the optical spirit-levelling data, InSAR data are also used for inversion to compaction and calibration of compaction models. Residual analysis, i.e. analysis of the difference between measurement and model output, provides confidence in the model results used for subsidence forecasting and as input to seismological models.

show abstract

“…Compaction in the reservoir can be calculated using different compaction models, e.g. a linear relation between depletion and compaction/strain, a time decay relation introducing a delay between depletion and compaction/strain (Mossop, 2012), or a rate type compaction model where compaction/strain depends both on depletion and depletion rate (De Waal, 1986;Pruiksma et al, 2015). For the Groningen gas field the rate type compaction model is found to best predict the temporal behavior of the observed subsidence (Fokker and van Thienen-Visser, 2016;NAM, 2016).…”

Section: Maximum Magnitudementioning

confidence: 99%

“…The Groningen field is the largest gas field in Western Europe, with originally close to 3000 billion cubic meters (bcm) gas in place (Van Thienen-Visser and Breunese, 2015). In 2013, an investigation by the Dutch State Supervision of Mines (SSM) showed that the occurrence probability of earthquakes with larger magnitudes in the Groningen gas field was higher than previously expected (Muntendam-Bos and de Waal, 2013).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Categorizing seismic risk for the onshore gas fields in the Netherlands

Thienen-Visser¹,

Roholl²,

Kempen³

et al. 2018

Engineering Geology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A B S T R A C TIn recent years public concern about earthquakes induced by gas production has increased in the Netherlands. This has mainly been caused by numerous seismic events related to gas depletion in the Groningen gas field, the largest gas field in Western Europe. Induced seismicity has also been observed in 31 smaller gas fields located on land (onshore) or in the area close to the Dutch coast. Earthquakes with magnitudes as high as M L = 3.5 have occurred in Roswinkel and Bergermeer causing damage to buildings.In 2016 State Supervision of Mines (SSM), with input from the geological survey of the Netherlands (TNO) and the onshore operators, proposed a guideline for a qualitative seismic risk analysis for depletion induced seismicity arising from gas production in the small fields in the Netherlands. The guideline follows international practices for risk assessment using a risk matrix approach. This paper elaborates the seismic risk guideline and reports on the application of the guideline to the gas fields in the Netherlands.Risk is a combination of hazard and consequences. The result of the seismic risk analysis is qualitative and gives a relative scoring of the producing gas fields in the Netherlands in terms of risk. In order to obtain more information on the quantitative assessment of the risk, more detailed studies are needed. The Groningen gas field clearly poses a much larger seismic risk than that obtained for the other, smaller gas fields, most of which fall into the lowest risk category. Because of the large difference in risk between the Groningen field and the other smaller gas fields, the guideline of SodM deems it sufficient to carry out a qualitative risk analysis for the other gas fields in the Netherlands, as performed in this paper. Based on the combination of the hazards and consequences, the risk can be further interpreted and, if necessary, appropriate measures can be implemented.

show abstract

Isotach formulation of the rate type compaction model for sandstone

Cited by 24 publications

References 9 publications

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

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

Field-wide reservoir compressibility estimation through inversion of subsidence data above the Groningen gas field

Categorizing seismic risk for the onshore gas fields in the Netherlands

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About