Deformation Analysis in Reservoir Space (DARS): A Simple Formalism for Prediction of Reservoir Deformation With Depletion

Chan, Alvin W.; Zoback, Mark D.

doi:10.2523/78174-ms

Cited by 13 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…During calibration, a stress path coefficient is preferred (Figure a) that is higher than the typically reported range (0.5–0.8 [ Chan and Zoback , ]). From a model perspective, this occurs because the steeply dipping reservoir faults (mean dip ∼78°) require quite large stress changes to reactivate in extension.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Physics‐based forecasting of induced seismicity at Groningen gas field, the Netherlands

Dempsey

Suckale

2017

Geophysical Research Letters

105

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Earthquakes induced by natural gas extraction from the Groningen reservoir, the Netherlands, put local communities at risk. Responsible operation of a reservoir whose gas reserves are of strategic importance to the country requires understanding of the link between extraction and earthquakes. We synthesize observations and a model for Groningen seismicity to produce forecasts for felt seismicity (M > 2.5) in the period February 2017 to 2024. Our model accounts for poroelastic earthquake triggering and rupture on the 325 largest reservoir faults, using an ensemble approach to model unknown heterogeneity and replicate earthquake statistics. We calculate probability distributions for key model parameters using a Bayesian method that incorporates the earthquake observations with a nonhomogeneous Poisson process. Our analysis indicates that the Groningen reservoir was not critically stressed prior to the start of production. Epistemic uncertainty and aleatoric uncertainty are incorporated into forecasts for three different future extraction scenarios. The largest expected earthquake was similar for all scenarios, with a 5% likelihood of exceeding M 4.0.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Physics‐based forecasting of induced seismicity at Groningen gas field, the Netherlands

Dempsey

Suckale

2017

Geophysical Research Letters

105

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…1996; Jones & Hillis 2003). Reservoir depletion can, in principle, induce stress paths capable of reactivating intra‐reservoir faults and hence potentially of causing breakdown of their sealing integrity (Chan & Zoback 2002), but examples are elusive.…”

Section: Membrane Seal Failurementioning

confidence: 99%

Faults and fault properties in hydrocarbon flow models

Manzocchi¹,

Childs²,

Walsh³

2010

Geofluids

127

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The petroleum industry uses subsurface flow models for two principal purposes: to model the flow of hydrocarbons into traps over geological time, and to simulate the production of hydrocarbon from reservoirs over periods of decades or less. Faults, which are three-dimensional volumes, are approximated in both modelling applications as planar membranes onto which predictions of the most important fault-related flow properties are mapped. Faults in porous clastic reservoirs are generally baffles or barriers to flow and the relevant flow properties are therefore very different to those which are important in conductive fracture flow systems. A critical review and discussion is offered on the work-flows used to predict and model capillary threshold pressure for exploration fault seal analysis and fault transmissibility multipliers for production simulation, and of the data from which the predictions derive. New flow simulation models confirm that failure of intra-reservoir sealing faults can occur during a reservoir depressurization via a water-drive mechanism, but contrary to anecdotal reports, published examples of production-induced seal failure are elusive. Ignoring the three-dimensional structure of fault zones can sometimes have a significant influence on production-related flow, and a series of models illustrating flow associated with relay zones are discussed.

show abstract

“…The poroelasticity model has also been used to show that the reverse faulting shocks, which occurred underneath the Coalinga oilfield in California, were probably not induced due to the relatively small stress changes fluid production was predicted to have induced near the earthquake hypocenters (Segall, ). Additionally, it has been shown that normal faulting can also be induced within the reservoir if the stress path (i.e., the ratio of the change in horizontal stress magnitudes to the change in pore pressure) is high enough (Chan & Zoback, ; Segall & Fitzgerald, ; Zoback & Zinke, ). Examples of this type of seismicity include the Valhall and Ekofisk oilfields (Zoback & Zinke, ), where normal faulting has been seen within the reservoir, and the normal faulting within the Groningen gas field (Dempsey & Suckale, ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reservoir Stimulation's Effect on Depletion‐Induced Seismicity

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Depletion‐induced seismicity can pose a problem in some fluid‐producing subsurface reservoirs, in some cases requiring production rate control in order to limit the seismicity. This study investigates the use of reservoir stimulation to reduce the depletion‐induced seismicity rate. Depletion‐induced stress and pore pressure changes are evaluated in a shale cap rock, sandstone reservoir, and shale underburden system, which contains a horizontal well, all modeled in plane strain conditions. The seismicity rate is then predicted based on an existing seismicity model and is found to be dependent on the direction the well is drilled in with respect to the principal stresses. The case where the reservoir has first been stimulated is compared to the case where stimulation has not been performed (using the same production rates) for normal, reverse, and strike‐slip faulting stress regimes. Seismicity is reduced in the case of reservoir stimulation for both reverse and strike‐slip faulting stress regimes. The seismicity rate is only slightly reduced for the normal faulting stress regime. Stimulation also increases the distance that changes in pore pressure dominate over poroelastic stress changes in the reservoir. Further, it is found that the optimal orientation of a horizontal well, in terms of induced seismicity, is parallel to the minimum principal stress in normal faulting stress regimes and parallel to the maximum principal stress in reverse faulting stress regimes. The orientation of a horizontal well determines where the seismicity is located in a strike‐slip faulting stress regime.

show abstract

Deformation Analysis in Reservoir Space (DARS): A Simple Formalism for Prediction of Reservoir Deformation With Depletion

Cited by 13 publications

References 0 publications

Physics‐based forecasting of induced seismicity at Groningen gas field, the Netherlands

Physics‐based forecasting of induced seismicity at Groningen gas field, the Netherlands

Faults and fault properties in hydrocarbon flow models

Reservoir Stimulation's Effect on Depletion‐Induced Seismicity

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About