scholarly journals Pore pressure studies initiated in area of reservoir-induced earthquakes in India

Eos ◽  
2000 ◽  
Vol 81 (14) ◽  
pp. 145 ◽  
Author(s):  
H. K. Gupta ◽  
I. Radhakrishna ◽  
R. K. Chadh ◽  
H.-J. Kümpel ◽  
G. Grecks
Keyword(s):  
Pore Pressure ◽  
Induced Earthquakes

Comprehensive Characterization and Mitigation of Hydraulic Fracturing-Induced Seismicity in Fox Creek, Alberta

SPE Journal ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 1-12
Author(s):  
Gang Hui ◽  
Shengnan Chen ◽  
Zhangxin Chen ◽  
Fei Gu ◽  
Mathab Ghoroori ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Spatial Distribution ◽  
Hydraulic Fracturing ◽  
Pore Pressure ◽  
Hydraulic Fracture ◽  
Induced Seismicity ◽  
Mitigation Strategy ◽  
Moment Magnitude ◽  
Induced Earthquakes ◽  
Data Set ◽  
Comprehensive Characterization

Summary The relationships among formation properties, fracturing operations, and induced earthquakes nucleated at distinctive moments and positions remain unclear. In this study, a complete data set on formations, seismicity, and fracturing treatments is collected in Fox Creek, Alberta, Canada. The data set is then used to characterize the induced seismicity and evaluate its susceptibility toward fracturing stimulations via integration of geology, geomechanics, and hydrology. Five mechanisms are identified to account for spatiotemporal activation of the nearby faults in Fox Creek, where all major events [with a moment magnitude (Mw) greater than 2.5] are caused by the increase in pore pressure and poroelastic stress during the fracturing operation. In addition, an integrated geological index (IGI) and a combined geomechanical index (CGI) are first proposed to indicate seismicity susceptibility, which is consistent with the spatial distribution of induced earthquakes. Finally, mitigation strategy results suggest that enlarging a hydraulic fracture-fault distance and decreasing a fracturing job size can reduce the risk of potential seismic activities.

scholarly journals Pore Pressure Analysis for Distinguishing Earthquakes Induced by CO2 Injection from Natural Earthquakes

2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (22) ◽  
pp. 9723
Author(s):  
Chanmaly Chhun ◽  
Takeshi Tsuji
Keyword(s):  
Pore Pressure ◽  
Co2 Storage ◽  
Carbon Capture And Storage ◽  
Co2 Injection ◽  
Storage Site ◽  
Seasonal Fluctuations ◽  
Induced Earthquakes ◽  
Seismogenic Fault ◽  
Seismogenic Faults ◽  
Natural Earthquakes

It is important to distinguish between natural earthquakes and those induced by CO2 injection at carbon capture and storage sites. For example, the 2004 Mw 6.8 Chuetsu earthquake occurred close to the Nagaoka CO2 storage site during gas injection, but we could not quantify whether the earthquake was due to CO2 injection or not. Here, changes in pore pressure during CO2 injection at the Nagaoka site were simulated and compared with estimated natural seasonal fluctuations in pore pressure due to rainfall and snowmelt, as well as estimated pore pressure increases related to remote earthquakes. Changes in pore pressure due to CO2 injection were clearly distinguished from those due to rainfall and snowmelt. The simulated local increase in pore pressure at the seismogenic fault area was much less than the seasonal fluctuations related to precipitation and increases caused by remote earthquakes, and the lateral extent of pore pressure increase was insufficient to influence seismogenic faults. We also demonstrated that pore pressure changes due to distant earthquakes are capable of triggering slip on seismogenic faults. The approach we developed could be used to distinguish natural from injection-induced earthquakes and will be useful for that purpose at other CO2 sequestration sites.

scholarly journals Pore-pressure diffusion, enhanced by poroelastic stresses, controls induced seismicity in Oklahoma

2019 ◽  
Vol 116 (33) ◽  
pp. 16228-16233 ◽  
Author(s):  
Guang Zhai ◽  
Manoochehr Shirzaei ◽  
Michael Manga ◽  
Xiaowei Chen
Keyword(s):  
Pore Pressure ◽  
Induced Seismicity ◽  
Energy Demand ◽  
Regional Scale ◽  
Exceedance Probability ◽  
Resource Exploitation ◽  
Induced Earthquakes ◽  
Seismicity Rate ◽  
Pressure Diffusion ◽  
Stress Changes

Induced seismicity linked to geothermal resource exploitation, hydraulic fracturing, and wastewater disposal is evolving into a global issue because of the increasing energy demand. Moderate to large induced earthquakes, causing widespread hazards, are often related to fluid injection into deep permeable formations that are hydraulically connected to the underlying crystalline basement. Using injection data combined with a physics-based linear poroelastic model and rate-and-state friction law, we compute the changes in crustal stress and seismicity rate in Oklahoma. This model can be used to assess earthquake potential on specific fault segments. The regional magnitude–time distribution of the observed magnitude (M) 3+ earthquakes during 2008–2017 is reproducible and is the same for the 2 optimal, conjugate fault orientations suggested for Oklahoma. At the regional scale, the timing of predicted seismicity rate, as opposed to its pattern and amplitude, is insensitive to hydrogeological and nucleation parameters in Oklahoma. Poroelastic stress changes alone have a small effect on the seismic hazard. However, their addition to pore-pressure changes can increase the seismicity rate by 6-fold and 2-fold for central and western Oklahoma, respectively. The injection-rate reduction in 2016 mitigates the exceedance probability of M5.0 by 22% in western Oklahoma, while that of central Oklahoma remains unchanged. A hypothetical injection shut-in in April 2017 causes the earthquake probability to approach its background level by ∼2025. We conclude that stress perturbation on prestressed faults due to pore-pressure diffusion, enhanced by poroelastic effects, is the primary driver of the induced earthquakes in Oklahoma.

scholarly journals Influence of pore-pressure on the event-size distribution of induced earthquakes

2012 ◽  
Vol 39 (9) ◽  
pp. n/a-n/a ◽  
Author(s):  
C. E. Bachmann ◽  
S. Wiemer ◽  
B. P. Goertz-Allmann ◽  
J. Woessner
Keyword(s):  
Size Distribution ◽  
Pore Pressure ◽  
Induced Earthquakes

Natural and artificial pore pressure variation for distinguishing earthquakes induced by CO2 injection from natural earthquakes

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chanmaly Chhun ◽  
Takeshi Tsuji
Keyword(s):  
Pore Pressure ◽  
Carbon Capture ◽  
Carbon Capture And Storage ◽  
Co2 Injection ◽  
Storage Site ◽  
Seasonal Fluctuations ◽  
Induced Earthquakes ◽  
Seismogenic Fault ◽  
Seismogenic Faults ◽  
Natural Earthquakes

<p>It is important to distinguish between natural earthquakes and those induced by CO<sub>2</sub> injection at carbon capture and storage sites. For example, the 2004 M<sub>w</sub> 6.8 Chuetsu earthquake occurred close to the Nagaoka CO<sub>2</sub> storage site during gas injection, but we could not quantify whether the earthquake was due to CO<sub>2</sub> injection or not. Here, changes in pore pressure during CO<sub>2</sub> injection at the Nagaoka site were simulated and compared with estimated natural seasonal fluctuations in pore pressure due to rainfall and snowmelt, as well as estimated pore pressure increases related to remote earthquakes. Changes in pore pressure due to CO<sub>2</sub> injection were clearly distinguished from those due to rainfall and snowmelt. The simulated local increase in pore pressure at the seismogenic fault area was much less than the seasonal fluctuations related to precipitation and increases caused by remote earthquakes, and the lateral extent of pore pressure increase was insufficient to influence seismogenic faults. We also demonstrated that pore pressure changes due to distant earthquakes are capable of triggering slip on seismogenic faults. The approach we developed could be used to distinguish natural from injection-induced earthquakes and will be useful for that purpose at other CO<sub>2</sub> sequestration sites.</p><p>This research was published in “Sustainability”, https://doi.org/10.3390/su12229723.</p><p>Keywords: pore pressure; CO2 injection; induced earthquakes; seasonal earthquakes; remote earthquakes; seismogenic faults.</p>

scholarly journals Towards a poroelastodynamics framework for induced earthquakes

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Saumik Dana
Keyword(s):  
Pore Pressure ◽  
Seismic Waves ◽  
Seismic Velocity ◽  
Earth Tides ◽  
Deformation Model ◽  
Induced Earthquakes ◽  
Wastewater Disposal ◽  
Seismogenic Faults ◽  
Future Work ◽  
Pressure Perturbations

Earthquakes can be triggered after pore pressure perturbations activate critically stressed seismogenic faults, where the perturbations can originate from natural causes like earth tides, rainfall, snowfall or anthropogenic causes like wastewater disposal, CO$_2$ injection, oil production, or groundwater extraction. As the faults slip under the action of the induced stress field, seismic waves are spawned from the hypocenter location. The waves propagate through the domain with a velocity that evolves with the evolving pressure and stress fields. The effect of these waves on the surrounding rock and the seismic velocity recorded on the seismograph can be modeled accurately only by incorporating elastodynamics in the deformation model coupled with flow-induced pressure perturbations. Hitherto, most of the literature in the realm has been limited to elastostatics coupled with flow within a prescribed/kinematic or quasi-dynamic fault slip framework. In this work, we provide a framework for coupling of wave propagation with pore pressure perturbations using one-way coupled poroelastodynamics in the presence of faults in which the pore pressure is specified apriori as a spatiotemporal function.We present results from analysis of displacement and velocity fields in the domain and tractions and slip evolution on the fault. The rendition of two-way coupled poroelastodynamics in which the flow problem is also solved is proposed as future work.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document