Induced seismicity in geologic carbon storage

Geologic carbon storage, as well as other geo-energy applications, such as geothermal energy, seasonal natural gas storage and subsurface energy storage imply fluid injection and/or extraction that causes changes in rock stress field and may induce (micro)seismicity. If felt, seismicity has a negative effect on public perception and may jeopardize wellbore stability and damage infrastructure. Thus, induced earthquakes should be minimized to successfully deploy geo-energies. However, numerous processes may trigger induced seismicity, which contribute to making it complex and translates into a limited forecast ability of current predictive models. We review the triggering mechanisms of induced seismicity. Specifically, we analyze (1) the impact of pore pressure evolution and the effect that properties of the injected fluid have on fracture and/or fault stability; (2) non-isothermal effects caused by the fact that the injected fluid usually reaches the injection formation at a lower temperature than that of the rock, inducing rock contraction, thermal stress reduction and stress redistribution around the cooled region; (3) local stress changes induced when low-permeability faults cross the injection formation, which may reduce their stability and eventually cause fault reactivation; (4) stress transfer caused by seismic or aseismic slip; and (5) geochemical effects, which may be especially relevant in carbonate-containing formations. We also review characterization techniques developed by the authors to reduce the uncertainty in rock properties and subsurface heterogeneity both for the screening of injection sites and for the operation of projects. Based on the review, we propose a methodology based on proper site characterization, monitoring and pressure management to minimize induced seismicity.

Induced seismicity in geologic carbon storage

Geologic carbon storage, as well as other geo-energy applications, such as geothermal energy, seasonal natural gas storage and subsurface energy storage, imply fluid injection/extraction that causes changes in the effective stress field and induces (micro)seismicity. If felt, seismicity has a negative effect on public perception and may jeopardize wellbore stability and damage infrastructure. Thus, induced earthquakes should be minimized to successfully deploy geo-energies. However, the processes that trigger induced seismicity are not fully understood, which translates into a limited forecast ability of current predictive models. We aim at understanding the triggering mechanisms of induced seismicity and to develop methodologies to minimize its occurrence through dimensional and numerical analysis. We find that the properties of the injected fluid, e.g., water or CO2, have a significant effect on pressure buildup evolution and thus, on fracture/fault stability. In addition to pressure changes, the injected fluid usually reaches the injection formation at a lower temperature than that of the rock, inducing rock contraction, thermal stress reduction and stress redistribution around the cooled region. If low-permeable faults cross the injection formation, local stress changes are induced around them which may reduce their stability and eventually cause fault reactivation. To minimize the risk of inducing felt seismicity, we have developed characterization techniques to reduce the uncertainty on rock properties and subsurface heterogeneity both for the screening of injection sites and for the operation of projects. Overall, we contend that felt induced seismicity can be minimized provided that a proper site characterization, monitoring and pressure management are performed.

Development of an Empirical Equation To Predict Hydraulic-Fracture Closure Pressure From the Instantaneous Shut-In Pressure Using Subsurface Solids-Injection Data

Summary During hydraulic-fracturing operations, conventional pressure-falloff analyses (G-function, square root of time, and other diagnostic plots) are the main methods for estimating fracture-closure pressure. However, there are situations when it is not practical to determine the fracture-closure pressure using these analyses. These conditions occur when closure time is long, such as in mini-fracture tests in very tight formations, or in slurry-waste-injection applications where the injected waste forms impermeable filter cake on the fracture faces that delays fracture closure because of slower liquid leakoff into the formation. In these situations, applying the conventional analyses could require several days of well shut-in to collect enough pressure-falloff data during which the fracture closure can be detected. The objective of the present study is to attempt to correlate the fracture-closure pressure to the early-time falloff data using the field-measured instantaneous shut-in pressure (ISIP) and the petrophysical/mechanical properties of the injection formation. A study of the injection-pressure history of many injection wells with multiple hydraulic fractures in a variety of rock lithologies shows a relationship between the fracture-closure pressure and the ISIP. An empirical equation is proposed in this study to calculate the fracture-closure pressure as a function of the ISIP and the injection-formation rock properties. Such rock properties include formation permeability, formation porosity, initial pore pressure, overburden stress, formation Poisson's ratio, and Young's modulus. The empirical equation was developed using data obtained from geomechanical models and the core analysis of a wide range of injection horizons with different lithology types of sandstone, carbonate, and tight sandstone. The empirical equation was validated using different case studies by comparing the measured fracture-closure-pressure values with those predicted by using the developed empirical equation. In all cases, the new method predicted the fracture-closure pressure with a relative error of less than 6%. The new empirical equation predicts the fracture-closure pressure using a single point of falloff-pressure data, the ISIP, without the need to conduct a conventional fracture-closure analysis. This allows the operator to avoid having to collect pressure data between shut-in and the time when the actual fracture closure occurs, which can take several days in highly damaged and/or very tight formations. Moreover, in operations with multiple-batch injection events into the same interval/perforations, as is often the case in cuttings/slurry-injection operations, the trends in closure-pressure evolution can be tracked even if the fracture is never allowed to close.