Energy of injection-induced seismicity predicted from in-situ experiments

Barros, Louis De; Cappa, Frédéric; Guglielmi, Yves; Duboeuf, Laure; Grasso, Jean‐Robert

doi:10.1038/s41598-019-41306-x

Cited by 45 publications

(46 citation statements)

References 47 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The ratio of total M 0 AE to total M 0 def is about 7 × 10 −5 . This is comparable to the values reported from in situ fluid injection experiments (De Barros et al, 2019; Guglielmi et al, 2015) and laboratory hydraulic fracturing tests (Goodfellow et al, 2015). This result implies that the injection‐induced deformation is dominantly aseismic and thus slow aseismic processes mainly occur outside the bandwidth of the AE recordings and below 100 kHz.…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 87%

Injection‐Induced Seismic Moment Release and Laboratory Fault Slip: Implications for Fluid‐Induced Seismicity

Wang

Kwiatek

Rybacki

et al. 2020

Geophysical Research Letters

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Understanding the relation between injection-induced seismic moment release and operational parameters is crucial for early identification of possible seismic hazards associated with fluid-injection projects. We conducted laboratory fluid-injection experiments on permeable sandstone samples containing a critically stressed fault at different fluid pressurization rates. The observed fluid-induced fault deformation is dominantly aseismic. Fluid-induced stick-slip and fault creep reveal that total seismic moment release of acoustic emission (AE) events is related to total injected volume, independent of respective fault slip behavior. Seismic moment release rate of AE scales with measured fault slip velocity. For injection-induced fault slip in a homogeneous pressurized region, released moment shows a linear scaling with injected volume for stable slip (steady slip and fault creep), while we find a cubic relation for dynamic slip. Our results highlight that monitoring evolution of seismic moment release with injected volume in some cases may assist in discriminating between stable slip and unstable runaway ruptures. Plain Language Summary Anthropogenic earthquakes caused by fluid injection have been reported worldwide to occur in the frame of waste-water disposal, CO 2 sequestration, and stimulation of hydrocarbon or deep geothermal reservoirs. To study the dynamics of injection-induced seismic energy release in a controlled environment, we performed laboratory fluid injection experiments on critically stressed high-permeability sandstone samples with a prefabricated fault. We monitored acoustic emission occurring during injection-induced fault sliding. We find that the total seismic deformation (expressed as total seismic moment) is related to total injected volume, independent of fault slip modes (i.e., dynamic slip, steady slip, and fault creep). Seismic moment release rate roughly scales with fault slip velocity. In our experiments, the fluid pressure front migrates faster than the rupture front by about 5 orders of magnitude, resulting in fault slip within a zone of homogeneous fluid overpressure. We find that cumulative seismic moment scales linearly with the injected volume for stable slip (steady slip and fault creep), while it follows a cubic relation for dynamic slip. Our experimental results suggest that the deviation of cumulative moment release with injected volume from a linear trend in practice might be a sign for potential seismic risk. This may be considered in modifying current injection strategies.

show abstract

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 87%

Injection‐Induced Seismic Moment Release and Laboratory Fault Slip: Implications for Fluid‐Induced Seismicity

Wang

Kwiatek

Rybacki

et al. 2020

Geophysical Research Letters

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The seismic-to-aseismic ratio varied between 0.05% and 4% with increasing closeness to failure. Such values are consistent with field measurements acquired in decametric scale experiments (De Barros et al, 2019), in the laboratory (Goodfellow et al, 2015) and during reservoir stimulations (e.g., Calò et al, 2011;Schmittbuhl et al, 2014).…”

Section: Rupture Is Mainly Aseismic During Injectionsupporting

confidence: 88%

Stress Perturbation From Aseismic Slip Drives the Seismic Front During Fluid Injection in a Permeable Fault

et al. 2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Fluid pressure changes affect fault stability and can promote the initiation of earthquakes and aseismic slip. However, the relationship between seismic and aseismic fault slip during fluid injection remains poorly understood. Here, we investigate, through 3‐D hydromechanical modeling, the spatiotemporal evolution of seismicity and aseismic slip on a permeable, slip‐weakening fault subjected to a local injection of fluid, under different prestress conditions. The model results in an expanding aseismic slip region, which concentrates shear stress at its edge and triggers seismicity. The aseismic slip dominates the slip budget, whatever the initial fault stress. We find that the seismicity is collocated with the aseismic rupture front rather than with the fluid pressure diffusion front. On faults initially far from failure, the aseismic rupture front is located behind or at the pressure front. On faults initially closer to failure, the model predicts that both the rupture front and the seismicity outpace the pressurized zone, resulting in a sharp increase of the migration velocity and released moment of the seismicity. Insights gained from this modeling study exhibit various features that are observed in sequences of induced earthquakes in both field experiments and natural reservoir systems and can help guide the interpretation of past and future observations of induced seismicity.

show abstract

“…The low values of relative stress drop of earthquakes in the experiment also indicate that a very small fraction of the crustal shear strength has been released seismically. This is consistent with the previous finding that fluid injection induces substantial aseismic deformation (Guglielmi et al, ), as less than 1e−4% of the injection energy induces deformation, whose aseismic component is more than 99% (De Barros et al, ).…”

Section: Comparison Of the Relative Stress Drops Of Earthquakes In Thsupporting

confidence: 93%

Illuminating the Rupturing of Microseismic Sources in an Injection‐Induced Earthquake Experiment

Huang

Barros

Cappa

2019

Geophysical Research Letters

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We analyze source parameters of Mw −3.9 to −3.1 induced earthquakes during an in situ fluid injection experiment in France using the spectral ratio method based on empirical Green's function. We choose 10 event pairs with highly similar waveforms and resolve their spectral ratios using multiple S wave windows. We find that master events ruptured meter‐scale source patches with <1‐μm slip in a preexisting fracture network oriented differently from the injected plane. The temporal correlation between master earthquake occurrence and injection pressure peak and the relatively low ratio of stress drop to crustal strength suggest that both fluid pressure perturbation and aseismic deformation play important roles in inducing the earthquakes. The comparison between stress drops of induced earthquakes in the experiment and in the central United States indicates a dependency of stress drop on crustal shear strength.

show abstract

Energy of injection-induced seismicity predicted from in-situ experiments

Cited by 45 publications

References 47 publications

Injection‐Induced Seismic Moment Release and Laboratory Fault Slip: Implications for Fluid‐Induced Seismicity

Injection‐Induced Seismic Moment Release and Laboratory Fault Slip: Implications for Fluid‐Induced Seismicity

Stress Perturbation From Aseismic Slip Drives the Seismic Front During Fluid Injection in a Permeable Fault

Illuminating the Rupturing of Microseismic Sources in an Injection‐Induced Earthquake Experiment

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About