Linking microseismic event observations with geomechanical models to minimise the risks of storing CO2 in geological formations

Verdon, James P.; Kendall, J.‐M.; White, Don; Angus, D.A.

doi:10.1016/j.epsl.2011.02.048

Cited by 119 publications

(70 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In total, less than 100 events with magnitudes ranging from -1 to -3 have been recorded, documenting a low rate of seismicity. Many events were located in the overburden outside the injection zone and interpreted to be triggered by stress transfer from injection-induced expansion of the reservoir (Verdon et al 2011). At Aneth, a large number of microseismic events have been recorded since 2008 at magnitudes ranging from -1 to 0, episodically at rates up to approximately 10 events per day.…”

Section: Coupled Flow and Geomechanical Models For Gcsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…5 and therefore provides confidence in the numerically calculated distribution. Seismic monitoring and analysis associated with CO 2 injection have also been conducted at the Otway project, Australia (Myer and Daley 2011), at Weyburn, Canada (Verdon et al 2011) and at the Aneth oil field, Utah (Zhou et al 2010). At Otway, microseismic monitoring indicates a low level of seismicity (typically less than 5 events per day) with magnitudes of less than 0, and no clear correlation with injection pressure history (Myer and Daley 2011).…”

Section: Coupled Flow and Geomechanical Models For Gcsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…More recently, studies of actual CO 2 injection sites, such as the In Salah CO 2 storage project in Algeria, have shown that significant geomechanical changes may indeed occur, depending on the injection pressure and site specific geomechanical conditions (e.g. Rutqvist et al 2010;Bissell et al 2011;Verdon et al 2011;Zhou et al 2010). The importance of geomechanics has recently become more widely recognized as the possible magnitude and extent of pressure disturbance associated with large-scale CO 2 storage operations have become more apparent (Zoback 2010).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The Geomechanics of CO2 Storage in Deep Sedimentary Formations

2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper provides a review of the geomechanics and modeling of geomechanics associated with geologic carbon storage (GCS), focusing on storage in deep sedimentary formations, in particular saline aquifers. The paper first introduces the concept of storage in deep sedimentary formations, the geomechanical processes and issues related with such an operation, and the relevant geomechanical modeling tools. This is followed by a more detailed review of geomechanical aspects, including reservoir stressstrain and microseismicity, well integrity, caprock sealing performance, and the potential for fault reactivation and notable (felt) seismic events. Geomechanical observations at current GCS field deploy-

show abstract

Section: Coupled Flow and Geomechanical Models For Gcsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Coupled Flow and Geomechanical Models For Gcsmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Geomechanics of CO2 Storage in Deep Sedimentary Formations

2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…At present there is a push towards developing methods to image-induced geomechanical deformation (e.g., Verdon et al 2011;He et al 2016a;Angus et al 2015). Normal incidence travel-time shifts characterized by ''R-factors'' (e.g., Hatchell and Bourne 2005;He et al 2016b) have been the most common observation used to do so.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Recent studies focusing on linking numerical coupled fluid-flow and geomechanical simulation with seismic modelling have improved our understanding of the relationship between seismic attributes, fluid properties and mechanical deformation due to reservoir fluid extraction and injection (e.g., Rutqvist et al 2002;Dean et al 2003;Herwanger and Horne 2009;Alassi et al 2010;Herwanger et al 2010;Verdon et al 2011;He et al 2015;Angus et al 2015). Analytic and semi-analytic approaches using poroelastic formulations have previously been used to understand surface subsidence (e.g., Geertsma 1973) and seismic travel-time shifts (e.g., Fuck et al 2010) due to pore pressure changes.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reservoir stress path and induced seismic anisotropy: results from linking coupled fluid-flow/geomechanical simulation with seismic modelling

et al. 2016

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We present a workflow linking coupled fluid-flow and geomechanical simulation with seismic modelling to predict seismic anisotropy induced by non-hydrostatic stress changes. We generate seismic models from coupled simulations to examine the relationship between reservoir geometry, stress path and seismic anisotropy. The results indicate that geometry influences the evolution of stress, which leads to stress-induced seismic anisotropy. Although stress anisotropy is high for the small reservoir, the effect of stress arching and the ability of the side-burden to support the excess load limit the overall change in effective stress and hence seismic anisotropy. For the extensive reservoir, stress anisotropy and induced seismic anisotropy are high. The extensive and elongate reservoirs experience significant compaction, where the inefficiency of the developed stress arching in the side-burden cannot support the excess load. The elongate reservoir displays significant stress asymmetry, with seismic anisotropy developing predominantly along the long-edge of the reservoir. We show that the link between stress path parameters and seismic anisotropy is complex, where the anisotropic symmetry is controlled not only by model geometry but also the nonlinear rock physics model used. Nevertheless, a workflow has been developed to model seismic anisotropy induced by non-hydrostatic stress changes, allowing field observations of anisotropy to be linked with geomechanical models.

show abstract

Microscale modeling of fluid flow‐geomechanics‐seismicity: Relationship between permeability and seismic source response in deformed rock joints

2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Key Points:• Hydro-mechanical-seismic modeling is applied to model joints behavior • Nonshear displacement affects transport and seismic behavior of joints • Confining pressure affects transport and seismic behavior of joints Supporting Information:• Readme • Figure S1 • Figure S2 • Figure S3 • tkdensityCase6 Abstract Studying rock joint deformation including both slippage and opening mechanisms provides an opportunity to investigate the connection between the permeability and seismic source mechanisms. A microscale fluid flow-geomechanics-seismicity model was built to evaluate the transport response and failure mechanism of microcracks developed along a joint in Berea sandstone samples during deformation. The modeling method considers comprehensive grain-cement interactions. Fluid flow behavior is obtained through a realistic network model of the pore space in the compacted assembly. The geometric description of the complex pore structure is characterized to predict permeability of the rock sample as a function of rock deformation by using a dynamic pore network model. As a result of microcracks development, forces and displacements in grains involved in bond breakage are measured to determine seismic moment tensor. Shear and nonshear displacements are applied to the joint samples to investigate their effects on permeability evolution and failure mechanism of microcracks during joint deformation. In addition, the effect of joint roughness is analyzed by performing numerical compression tests. We also investigate how confining pressure affects volumetric deformation leading to opening or closure of developed microcracks and permeability changes of samples with joints.

show abstract

Linking microseismic event observations with geomechanical models to minimise the risks of storing CO2 in geological formations

Cited by 119 publications

References 30 publications

The Geomechanics of CO2 Storage in Deep Sedimentary Formations

The Geomechanics of CO2 Storage in Deep Sedimentary Formations

Reservoir stress path and induced seismic anisotropy: results from linking coupled fluid-flow/geomechanical simulation with seismic modelling

Microscale modeling of fluid flow‐geomechanics‐seismicity: Relationship between permeability and seismic source response in deformed rock joints

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About