Towards a Real-Time Forecast of Induced Seismicity for Enhanced Geothermal Systems

Karvounis, Dimitrios; Gischig, Valentin; Wiemer, Stefan

doi:10.1061/9780784413654.026

Cited by 14 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The choice of 10 days injection is in agreement with the length of a single stimulation step and it has similar duration as observed at several sites (e.g., 6 days at Basel - Häring et al, 2008;12 days at Soultz -Evans et al, 2005; 15 days at Newberry -Cladouhos et al, 2015), although for some EGS the stimulation may occur over a longer period (e.g., 250 days at The Geysers We spatially distribute 35,000 seeds, with the majority of the seeds (25,000) uniformly distributed in a region 2×2×2 km around the injection well. This assumption does not necessarily represent a real case, in which we could assume different densities of seeds in different zones of the domain, according to the observed seismicity of the area.…”

Section: Model Setupmentioning

confidence: 66%

TOUGH2-seed: A coupled fluid flow and mechanical-stochastic approach to model injection-induced seismicity

Rinaldi¹,

Nespoli

2017

Computers & Geosciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Understanding the injection-induced triggering mechanism is a fundamental step towards controlling the seismicity generated by deep underground exploitation. Here we propose a modeling approach based on coupling the TOUGH2 simulator with a geomechanical-stochastic model. The hydromechanical-stochastic model provides a good representation of different mechanisms influencing each other during and after the injection phase. Each mechanism affects the induced seismicity in a different way and at different times during the reservoir stimulation, confirming that a complex interaction is in place, and that more sophisticated and physics-based approaches coupled with statistical model are required to explain such a complex interaction. In addition to previous statistical and hybrid models, our approach accounts for a full 3D formulation of both stresses and fluid flow, further including all the TOUGH2 capabilities. Furthermore, it includes interactions between triggered seismic events through calculation of static stress transfer. In this work, we present the main capabilities of TOUGH2-SEED and apply the model to the Basel EGS case, successfully reproducing the injection pressure as well as the evolution of the seismicity.

show abstract

Section: Model Setupmentioning

confidence: 66%

TOUGH2-seed: A coupled fluid flow and mechanical-stochastic approach to model injection-induced seismicity

Rinaldi¹,

Nespoli

2017

Computers & Geosciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Overview (Walters et al 2015, Warpinski 2014, Zoback, Kitasei, and Copithorne 2010 Quebec (Lavoie et al 2014) Germany (Feng et al 2015, Sauter et al 2012 Texas (Vermylen and Zoback 2011) Due diligence (Hall, Dahi Taleghani, and Dahi Taleghani 2015) Geothermal (Karvounis, Gischig, andWiemer 2014, McClure 2012) Interconnection (Reagan et al 2015) Further references to hydrogeological assessment related to unconventional resources Overview (Reagan et al 2015, Uwiera-Gartner 2013, O'Malley et al 2015, Jackson et al 2013) Transport pathways (Myers 2012, Cai andOfterdinger 2014) …”

Section: Further References To Geological Risks Related To Unconventimentioning

confidence: 99%

Is There Scientific Evidence to Support the Selection of Hydraulic Fracturing Rules?

Campin

2016

Day 3 Wed, April 13, 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The application of hydraulic fracturing to hydrocarbon-rich basins has evolved since the first tentative steps to stimulate conventional oil reservoirs in the United States Mid-West in the late 1940s, into a widely practiced technology, principally used today in gaining commercial flows of unconventional hydrocarbon reserves. The early application of the technology was directed toward draining methane from coal seams as a safety measure (Thakur 2014), evolving to assist commercial recovery of coalbed methane as the first systematic use in the unconventional resources. In conjunction with the application of horizontal drilling and completions technology, real time micro-seismic monitoring technology, and understanding of the nature of unconventional resources geology, the phenomena of modern shale gas and oil extraction transformed the US energy landscape. Following this break-through in the US, other jurisdictions commenced similar pursuits for their unconventional petroleum potential. The application of hydraulic fracturing was just one more aspect in a rapidly evolving complex business where regulations were in a state of permanent catch-up.Regulations to address specific environmental 1 risks 2 associated with on-shore hydraulic fracturing evolved as use of the technology spread to new jurisdictions. State oversight of hydraulic fracturing is the norm worldwide other than for single-level federal jurisdictions such as the UK. Elsewhere, federal regulation is generally restricted to the outer envelope of environmental impacts such as air quality standards and receiving water standards, except with the case of off-shore activities. State regulations tend to be directed to the exploration and development processes with local government exerting control using 1 Environment includesa. ecosystems and their constituent parts, including people and communities; and b. all natural and physical resources; and c. amenity values; and d. the social, economic, aesthetic, and cultural conditions which affect the matters stated in paragraphs (a) to (c) or which are affected by those matters 2 Risk means consequence times probabilityplanning rule 3 s such as noise and set-back. Off-shore regulation of hydraulic fracturing is dominated by federal authorities across the globe due to complexities of national waters and contiguous hydrocarbon basins extending across national economic zone boundaries (Nordtveit 2015, Gordon andPaterson 2015). This paper builds on earlier work where hydraulic fracturing regulations from fifty five jurisdictions were assessed (Campin 2013). Self-selected rule categories (fifty nine elements) were identified based on frequency of occurrence in the various regulatory frameworks examined. The rationale and justification for environmental protection parameters is examined and documentary evidence is assessed for selected rules. This paper draws from the peer reviewed, scientific literature or official reports from government agencies and is restricted to the on-shore sector.Regulation in the absence of a ...

show abstract

“…1); other activities of concern include underground CO 2 storage in carbon capture and storage (CCS) projects (Zoback and Gorelick, 2012;Hitzman, 2014;Verdon, 2014), deep drilled enhanced geothermal systems (EGS) (Majer et al, 2007;Giardini, 2009;Brodsky and Lajoie, 2013;Karvounis et al, 2014;Kuehn et al, 2014), and conventional oil and gas extraction (NAS, 2013). Like wastewater injection, injection of CO 2 or water can also cause felt (M3.0+) earthquakes (Lei et al, 2008).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Induced seismicity: the potential hazard from shale gas development and CO2 geologic storage

Lee

Weingarten

2015

Geosci J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We present an overview of the current status of unconventional energy development, particularly of shale gas, and underground CO 2 storage as a measure to mitigate greenhouse gas increase in the atmosphere. We review their potential to induce seismicity, which has caused debates among related energy enterprises, engineers, researchers, and environmental and public communities regarding their potential hazards. Studies show that fracking can be a problem in that it consumes abundant water, but the seismicity induced by fracking has not yet been observed to induce many felt earthquakes. However, massive wastewater injection, a part of the unconventional energy development process has caused M5.0+ earthquakes in the past as well as several recent and ongoing cases of induced seismicity. Large-scale CO 2 injection as a part of carbon sequestration efforts in the near future has a high risk of inducing large earthquakes. Therefore, injection operations related to both unconventional energy development and carbon sequestration should be optimized and managed to mitigate the likelihood of an induced seismic event.

show abstract

Towards a Real-Time Forecast of Induced Seismicity for Enhanced Geothermal Systems

Cited by 14 publications

References 14 publications

TOUGH2-seed: A coupled fluid flow and mechanical-stochastic approach to model injection-induced seismicity

TOUGH2-seed: A coupled fluid flow and mechanical-stochastic approach to model injection-induced seismicity

Is There Scientific Evidence to Support the Selection of Hydraulic Fracturing Rules?

Induced seismicity: the potential hazard from shale gas development and CO2 geologic storage

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About