Monitoring of induced seismicity during the first geothermal reservoir stimulation at Paralana, Australia

Albaric, Julie; Oye, Volker; Langet, Nadège; Hasting, M.; Lecomte, Isabelle; Iranpour, K.; Messeiller, M.; Reid, P.

doi:10.1016/j.geothermics.2013.10.013

Cited by 61 publications

(56 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As shown by Albaric et al (2014), the hypocentres of the first three of these events were located at the periphery of the extent of the seismic cloud at that time, whereas the fourth occurred closer to the well, in a zone which had experienced activity earlier during the stimulation process (Fig. 5).…”

Section: Paralana Australiamentioning

confidence: 87%

“…In Europe, locations include the Lower Rhine Graben site in Soultz-sous-Forêts, France (Evans et al, 2005), the Upper Rhine Graben site in Basel, Switzerland (Häring et al, 2008), Icelandic geothermal test sites , Latera (Italy) and Groß Schönebeck in the North German Basin (Kwiatek et al, 2010). Non-European sites investigated include Berlin, El Salvador (Bommer et al, 2006;Kwiatek et al, 2014), The Geysers in California, USA (Oppenheimer, 1986;Majer et al, 2007), Cooper Basin (Asanuma et al, 2005;Baisch et al, 2006) and Paralana (Hasting et al, 2011;Albaric et al, 2014), both in Australia and Bouillante in Guadeloupe (Sanjuan et al, 2010;Calcagno et al, 2012). Two reference sites were included, where seismicity was induced by other than geothermal causes.…”

Section: Seismic Response To Fluid Injection: Network Design Velocitmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Near-surface low-Q sedimentary layers (see Table 1, Groß Schönebeck), are particularly detrimental to the recorded signal quality, especially for -wave arrivals (Oye et al, 2010). Strong impedance contrasts between the surface and the injection level can add complexity in the wave-form data, such as -to-wave converted phases (e.g., observed in Basel by Deichmann et al (2014) and in Paralana by Albaric et al (2014)). Such interfaces complicate the waveforms and thereby automatic data processing (phase arrival picking and identification), focal mechanism determination and full moment tensor inversion (Zhao et al, 2014).…”

Section: Seismic Response To Fluid Injection: Network Design Velocitmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Shear-wave velocities are often extrapolated from simple -wave velocity models (Castagna et al, 1985), resulting in high uncertainties in the event locations. Albaric et al (2014) discussed the importance of obtaining a good understanding of the local structural geology before the main stimulation phase. In their paper about hydraulic stimulation at the Paralana EGS in Australia, the authors took advantage of several 2D seismic lines and additional information from borehole logs to construct 3D velocity models for -and -wave velocities, which were subsequently used to locate the seismic events.…”

Section: Seismic Response To Fluid Injection: Network Design Velocitmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Analysis of induced seismicity in geothermal reservoirs – An overview

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this overview we report results of analysing induced seismicity in geothermal reservoirs in various tectonic settings within the framework of the European Geothermal Engineering Integrating Mitigation of Induced Seismicity in Reservoirs (GEISER) project. In the reconnaissance phase of a field, the subsurface fault mapping, in situ stress and the seismic network are of primary interest in order to help assess the geothermal resource. The hypocentres of the observed seismic events (seismic cloud) are dependent on the design of the installed network, the used velocity model and the applied location technique. During the stimulation phase, the attention is turned to reservoir hydraulics (e.g., fluid pressure, injection volume) and its relation to larger magnitude seismic events, their source characteristics and occurrence in space and time. A change in isotropic components of the full waveform moment tensor is observed for events close to the injection well (tensile character) as compared to events further away from the injection well (shear character). Tensile events coincide with high Gutenberg-Richter -values and low Brune stress drop values. The stress regime in the reservoir controls the direction of the fracture growth at depth, as indicated by the extent of the seismic cloud detected. Stress magnitudes are important in multiple stimulation of wells, where little or no seismicity is observed until the previous maximum stress level is exceeded (Kaiser Effect). Prior to drilling, obtaining a 3D -wave ( ) and -wave velocity ( ) model down to reservoir depth is recommended. In the stimulation phase, we recommend to monitor and to locate seismicity with high precision (decametre) in real-time and to perform local 4D tomography for velocity ratio ( / ). During exploitation, one should use observed and model induced seismicity to forward estimate seismic hazard so that field operators are in a position to adjust well hydraulics (rate and volume of the fluid injected) when induced events start to occur far away from the boundary of the seismic cloud.

show abstract

Section: Paralana Australiamentioning

confidence: 87%

Section: Seismic Response To Fluid Injection: Network Design Velocitmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Seismic Response To Fluid Injection: Network Design Velocitmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Seismic Response To Fluid Injection: Network Design Velocitmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Analysis of induced seismicity in geothermal reservoirs – An overview

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Furthermore, using residual phase tensor analysis, (Peacock, et al 2013) demonstrated that the injected fluids propagated along pre-existing fault system oriented in a NNE direction. The micro-seismic survey conducted at Paralana EGS showed fractures opened in a NNE, NE, and ENE direction along pre-existing fault systems (Albaric, et al 2014, Hasting, et al 2011. These studies showed the complementarity of MT and micro-seismics in characterizing fluid injection into EGS reservoirs.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Magnetotelluric monitoring of hydraulic fracture stimulation at the Habanero Enhanced Geothermal System, Cooper Basin, South Australia

Didana

Thiel²,

Heinson

et al. 2016

ASEG Extended Abstracts

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SUMMARYMagnetotelluric (MT) data were collected across the Habanero Enhanced Geothermal System project in the Cooper Basin, South Australia. A baseline regional MT survey consisting of two profiles was collected to delineate the pre-injection resistivity structure. Two dimensional inversions of the MT data reveal three main resistivity structures to a depth of 5 km. The low resistivity surface layer (about 1.5 km thick) is interpreted as poorly consolidated sediments of Lake Eyre and Eromanga Basins. Below the conductive layer, a zone with relatively high resistivity with thickness of 2 km can be correlated to consolidated Cooper Basin sediments. A high resistivity zone below depths of 3.5 km is interpreted as the hot intrusive granodiorite (granite) of the Big Lake Suite with low porosity and permeability. This deep structure is also related to the Habanero EGS reservoir. The second MT survey was conducted during stimulation of Habanero-4 well by Geodynamics Ltd, where 36.5 ML of water with a resistivity of 13 Ωm (at 25°C) was injected at a relatively continuous rate of between 27-53 L/s over 14 days at a depth of almost 4 km. Analysis of pre-and post-injection residual phase tensors for periods greater than 10 s indicate conductive fractures oriented in a N/NNE direction. Apparent resistivity maps also revealed that injected fluids possibly propagated towards N/NNE direction. This result is in agreement with the micro-seismic events with an area of 4 km 2 observed during fluid injection, as well as orientation of pre-existing N-S striking sub-horizontal fractures susceptible to slip due to stimulation. The MT responses close to injection show on average 5% decrease in apparent resistivity at periods greater than 10 s. The main reasons for observing subtle changes in resistivity at Habanero EGS is the screening effect of the conductive thick sedimentary cover (about 3.6 km thick) and the presence of preexisting saline fluids with resistivity of 0.1 Ωm (equivalent to salinity of 16.1 g/L at 240°C) in the natural fractures. Overall, the MT monitoring at Habanero EGS highlights the need for favourable geological settings to measure significant changes in resistivity in EGS reservoirs.

show abstract

Maximum magnitude earthquakes induced by fluid injection

McGarr

2014

J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth

559

522

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Analysis of numerous case histories of earthquake sequences induced by fluid injection at depth reveals that the maximum magnitude appears to be limited according to the total volume of fluid injected. Similarly, the maximum seismic moment seems to have an upper bound proportional to the total volume of injected fluid. Activities involving fluid injection include (1) hydraulic fracturing of shale formations or coal seams to extract gas and oil, (2) disposal of wastewater from these gas and oil activities by injection into deep aquifers, and (3) the development of enhanced geothermal systems by injecting water into hot, low-permeability rock. Of these three operations, wastewater disposal is observed to be associated with the largest earthquakes, with maximum magnitudes sometimes exceeding 5. To estimate the maximum earthquake that could be induced by a given fluid injection project, the rock mass is assumed to be fully saturated, brittle, to respond to injection with a sequence of earthquakes localized to the region weakened by the pore pressure increase of the injection operation and to have a Gutenberg-Richter magnitude distribution with a b value of 1. If these assumptions correctly describe the circumstances of the largest earthquake, then the maximum seismic moment is limited to the volume of injected liquid times the modulus of rigidity. Observations from the available case histories of earthquakes induced by fluid injection are consistent with this bound on seismic moment. In view of the uncertainties in this analysis, however, this should not be regarded as an absolute physical limit.

show abstract

Monitoring of induced seismicity during the first geothermal reservoir stimulation at Paralana, Australia

Cited by 61 publications

References 36 publications

Analysis of induced seismicity in geothermal reservoirs – An overview

Analysis of induced seismicity in geothermal reservoirs – An overview

Magnetotelluric monitoring of hydraulic fracture stimulation at the Habanero Enhanced Geothermal System, Cooper Basin, South Australia

Maximum magnitude earthquakes induced by fluid injection

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About