Seismicity and faulting attributable to fluid extraction

Yerkes, R.F.; Castle, Robert O.

doi:10.1016/0013-7952(76)90017-x

Cited by 114 publications

(51 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The M 4.0 Mexia earthquake of 9 April 1932 occurred directly beneath the very productive Wortham field (Sellards, 1933;Yerkes and Castle, 1976). A sequence of earthquakes with magnitudes as great as 4.6 occurred near Snyder, Texas, and began only in 1974, after a massive waterflooding project began in the Cogdell field (Davis and Pennington, 1989).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Dallas-Fort Worth Earthquake Sequence: October 2008 through May 2009

Frohlich

Hayward

Stump

et al. 2011

Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America

160

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Dallas-Fort Worth Earthquake Sequence: October 2008 through May 2009

Frohlich

Hayward

Stump

et al. 2011

Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America

160

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Other events identified by Hough & Page (2016) likely associated with hydrocarbon production include several events near the Santa Fe Springs oil field (1923, M ∼ 3.5; 1929, M w 5 Whittier event), and felt shocks in the Long Beach and Richfield oil fields, as well as felt events and surface rupture reported in 1926 for the Goose Creek oil field in the USA (Pratt & Johnson, 1926). Throughout subsequent decades, numerous cases of hydrocarbon-depletion-induced seismic events were reported in the literature, up to M > 4. Notable instances include a series of M < 4 near the Wilmington oil field in California (Kovach, 1974;Yerkes & Castle, 1976), seismicity near a number of oil and gas fields in Texas (Pennington et al, 1986;Doser et al, 1991), a number of fields in Russia, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan (Kouznetsov et al, 1995), and the Lacq gas field (M > 4) in southern France (Grasso & Wittlinger, 1990). The first seismic event in the Netherlands was recorded by the Royal Netherlands Meteorologial Institute (KNMI) in 1986.…”

Section: Occurrences Of Depletion-induced Seismicitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Fault reactivation mechanisms and dynamic rupture modelling of depletion-induced seismic events in a Rotliegend gas reservoir

Buijze

Boogert

Wassing

et al. 2017

Netherlands Journal of Geosciences

105

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Understanding the mechanisms and key parameters controlling depletion-induced seismicity is key for seismic hazard analyses and the design of mitigation measures. In this paper a methodology is presented to model in 2D the static stress development on faults offsetting depleting reservoir compartments, reactivation of the fault, nucleation of seismic instability, and the subsequent fully dynamic rupture including seismic fault rupture and near-field wave propagation. Slip-dependent reduction of the fault's strength (cohesion and friction) was used to model the development of the instability and seismic rupture. The inclusion of the dynamic calculation allows for a closer comparison to field observables such as borehole seismic data compared to traditional static geomechanical models. We applied this model procedure to a fault and stratigraphy typical for the Groningen field, and compared the results for an offset fault to a fault without offset. A non-zero offset on the fault strongly influenced the stress distribution along the fault due to stress concentrations in the near-fault area close to the top of the hanging wall and the base of the footwall. The heterogeneous stress distribution not only controlled where nucleation occurred within the reservoir interval, but also influenced the subsequent propagation of seismic rupture with low stresses inhibiting the propagation of slip. In a reservoir without offset the stress distribution was relatively uniform throughout the reservoir depth interval. Reactivation occurred at a much larger pressure decrease, but the subsequent seismic event was much larger due to the more uniform state of stress within the reservoir. In both cases the models predicted a unidirectional downward-propagating rupture, with the largest wave amplitudes being radiated downwards into the hanging wall. This study showed how a realistic seismic event could be successfully modelled, including the depletion-induced stressing, nucleation, dynamic propagation, and wave propagation. The influence of fault offset on the depletion-induced stress is significant; the heterogeneous stress development along offset faults not only strongly controls the timing and location of a seismic slip, but also influences the subsequent rupture size of the dynamic event.

show abstract

“…If the injection-production ratio is less than 1, namely the production volume is more than the injection volume, the stratum will subside, such as in Goose Creek (Segall, 1989) and Wilmington Oil Field (Yerkes and Castle, 1976) in America, Renqiu Oil Field in China (LIU, 1984).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Analysis of injection-induced failure for DuPont test 1#, Dongying, Shandong Province

Guo

Guosheng

et al. 2007

Acta Seimol. Sin.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

From December 3, 2005 to May 18, 2006, a water injection-induced seismicity test was conducted on DuPont test well 1# for about six months by China Earthquake Administration. To the vertical injected well, 11 water injection processes were conducted on four depth intervals, including middle Shahejie3, the top of the upper Shahejie3, the bottom of the upper Shahejie3 and Shahejie2, with the vertical span from 1 464 m to 3 034 m. Monitoring stations has been run throughout the procedure. From the recorded data, there were 5 090 events being picked out manually, 274 events located. It indicates that the energy of seismic signal is very small, and the largest magnitude is no more than M L 0.5. And also, the major energy is centered on the vertical component, while amplitude of the other horizontal components is very small. From the start of water injection, the number of seismic events varied with time. And the event was most frequent in the period of upper Shahejie3 injection. The distribution of events extended from the injected well to the outside with time, and the direction of events distribution rotated in different injected interval. Of which, in the low permeability interval, events trend close to the direction of principal compressive stress direction; while in higher permeability interval, they trend close to the predominant seepage direction.

show abstract

Seismicity and faulting attributable to fluid extraction

Cited by 114 publications

References 6 publications

The Dallas-Fort Worth Earthquake Sequence: October 2008 through May 2009

The Dallas-Fort Worth Earthquake Sequence: October 2008 through May 2009

Fault reactivation mechanisms and dynamic rupture modelling of depletion-induced seismic events in a Rotliegend gas reservoir

Analysis of injection-induced failure for DuPont test 1#, Dongying, Shandong Province

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About