New approaches in experimental research on rock and fault behaviour in the Groningen gas field

Spiers, Christopher J.; Hangx, Suzanne; Niemeijer, A. R.

doi:10.1017/njg.2017.32

Cited by 33 publications

(42 citation statements)

References 82 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The seismicity is thought to be due to strain induced by the decrease of the bulk reservoir volume (Bourne et al, ; Dempsey & Suckale, ; Nederlandse Aardolie Maatschappij, NAM, ), but the details of the underlying mechanisms remain poorly understood (Spiers et al, ). Progressive fluid extraction from this reservoir has lead to a documented decrease in reservoir pore fluid pressure by 25 MPa as of 2017 (Bourne & Oates, ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reconciling the Long‐Term Relationship Between Reservoir Pore Pressure Depletion and Compaction in the Groningen Region

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Groningen gas reservoir, situated in the northeast of the Netherlands is western Europe's largest gas reservoir. Due to gas production measurable subsidence and seismicity has been detected across this region, attributed to the deformations induced by reservoir pore pressure depletion. We investigate the surface displacement history using a principal component analysis‐based inversion method to combine a diverse set of optical leveling, interferometric synthetic aperture radar, and Global Positioning System data to better constrain reservoir compaction and subsidence history. The generated compaction model is then used in combination with prior pressure depletion models to determine a reservoir uniaxial compressibility. The best fitting model of uniaxial compressibility is time independent but spatially variable. The absence of evidence for any significant time delay between changes in depletion and compaction rates supports an instantaneous poroelastic reservoir response. The absence of nonlinear yielding at the largest compaction strains suggests that anelastic deformations are a minor part of reservoir compaction.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reconciling the Long‐Term Relationship Between Reservoir Pore Pressure Depletion and Compaction in the Groningen Region

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This partitioning directly controls the evolution of compaction and hence surface subsidence during production (Mallman & Zoback, 2007;Schutjens et al, 1995), and the stresses (Buijze et al, 2017) and elastic energy available to drive induced seismicity and associated energy dissipating processes occurring upon fault rupture (Cooke & Madden, 2014;Mcgarr, 1999;Shipton et al, 2013). In recent years, the onset of significant induced seismicity in strongly depleted reservoirs, such as the large Groningen field in the NE Netherlands (Grotsch et al, 2011), has created an urgent need to understand these effects much better (e.g., de Waal et al, 2017;Spiers et al, 2017). This paper addresses this need.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Deformation Behavior of Sandstones From the Seismogenic Groningen Gas Field: Role of Inelastic Versus Elastic Mechanisms

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Reduction of pore fluid pressure in sandstone oil, gas, or geothermal reservoirs causes elastic and possibly inelastic compaction of the reservoir, which may lead to surface subsidence and induced seismicity. While elastic compaction is well described using poroelasticity, inelastic and especially time‐dependent compactions are poorly constrained, and the underlying microphysical mechanisms are insufficiently understood. To help bridge this gap, we performed conventional triaxial compression experiments on samples recovered from the Slochteren sandstone reservoir in the seismogenic Groningen gas field in the Netherlands. Successive stages of active loading and stress relaxation were employed to study the partitioning between elastic versus time‐independent and time‐dependent inelastic deformations upon simulated pore pressure depletion. The results showed that inelastic strain developed from the onset of compression in all samples tested, revealing a nonlinear strain hardening trend to total axial strains of 0.4 to 1.3%, of which 0.1 to 0.8% were inelastic. Inelastic strains increased with increasing initial porosity (12–25%) and decreasing strain rate (10−5 s−1 to 10−9 s−1). Our results imply a porosity and rate‐dependent yield envelope that expands with increasing inelastic strain from the onset of compression. Microstructural evidence indicates that inelastic compaction was controlled by a combination of intergranular cracking, intergranular slip, and intragranular/transgranular cracking with intragranular/transgranular cracking increasing in importance with increasing porosity. The results imply that during pore pressure reduction in the Groningen field, the assumption of a poroelastic reservoir response leads to underestimation of the change in the effective horizontal stress and overestimation of the energy available for seismicity.

show abstract

“…In the case of gas fields, induced seismicity and surface subsidence are the result of production‐induced pore pressure depletion, causing compaction at the reservoir level (Spiers et al, ). Upon production, the pore pressure ( P p ) in the reservoir decreases relative to the overburden stress ( σ v ), which increases the vertical effective stress ( σ v ,eff = σ v − P p ) acting on the load‐bearing structure of the reservoir rock.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This leads to recoverable poroelastic and, in some cases, permanent, inelastic compaction of the reservoir rock (Bernabé et al, ; Pijnenburg et al, ; Shalev et al, ), potentially with a time‐ (creep) or rate‐dependent component (Doornhof et al, ; Nagel, ). Permanent compaction occurs when the effective stress acting on the rock becomes large enough to activate inelastic grain‐scale deformation processes, such as grain rearrangement (Menéndez et al, ), grain and grain contact failure by equilibrium or subcritical crack growth (Brantut et al, ; Brzesowsky, Hangx, et al, ; Brzesowsky, Spiers, et al, ), intergranular clay film deformation (Spiers et al, ), pressure solution (Dewers & Hajash, ; Gratier et al, ; Schutjens, ; Spiers et al, ), and intergranular frictional slip (Spiers et al, ). While poroelastic deformation is recoverable and relatively easy predicted (Wang, ), permanent deformation and particularly creep are not making long‐term predictions of compaction uncertain (Mossop, ) and evaluation of associated seismic hazards difficult.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This leads to recoverable poroelastic and, in some cases, permanent, inelastic compaction of the reservoir rock (Bernabé et al, 1994;Pijnenburg et al, 2018;Shalev et al, 2014), potentially with a time-(creep) or rate-dependent component (Doornhof et al, 2006;Nagel, 2001). Permanent compaction occurs when the effective stress acting on the rock becomes large enough to activate inelastic grain-scale deformation processes, such as grain rearrangement (Menéndez et al, 1996), grain and grain contact failure by equilibrium or subcritical crack growth (Brantut et al, 2012;, intergranular clay film deformation (Spiers et al, 2017), pressure solution (Dewers & Hajash, 1995;Gratier et al, 2009;Schutjens, ©2019. The Authors.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Impact of Chemical Environment on Compaction Creep of Quartz Sand and Possible Geomechanical Applications

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Induced seismicity and surface subsidence are adverse effects of natural gas and geothermal energy production that may present barriers to their use as low‐carbon alternatives to coal and oil. The driving force for these unwanted effects is compaction of the reservoir, which can potentially be mitigated by injecting (pressurized) fluids that restore the pore pressure and chemically inhibit compaction. We conducted uniaxial compaction experiments on quartz sand aggregates to investigate the effect of pore fluid chemistry on time‐dependent compaction (creep). In addition to a low‐vacuum (dry) environment, supercritical fluids (N2, CO2, and wet CO2), simple aqueous solutions (three HCl solutions and a NaOH solution), and complex aqueous solutions with additives (AlCl3, AMP, and washing detergent) were employed. N2, CO2, and fluids containing scaling inhibitor (AMP), as well as wastewater (detergent solution) are generally considered for injection. Compaction creep was enhanced in fluid‐saturated environments compared to dry. Wet CO2 caused more creep with faster strain rates than the relatively dry CO2 and N2 environments. Experiments conducted with simple aqueous solutions exhibited a clear pH dependency. The complex aqueous solutions enhanced creep compared to their simple solution counterpart with similar pH. Based on acoustic emission data and microstructural analyses, we inferred that compaction creep was controlled by subcritical crack growth, aided by water, hydroxyl ions, and additives. If microcracking also controls compaction in reservoir sandstones, these results indicate that injection of supercritical fluids or acidic solutions may mitigate reservoir compaction.

show abstract

New approaches in experimental research on rock and fault behaviour in the Groningen gas field

Cited by 33 publications

References 82 publications

Reconciling the Long‐Term Relationship Between Reservoir Pore Pressure Depletion and Compaction in the Groningen Region

Reconciling the Long‐Term Relationship Between Reservoir Pore Pressure Depletion and Compaction in the Groningen Region

Deformation Behavior of Sandstones From the Seismogenic Groningen Gas Field: Role of Inelastic Versus Elastic Mechanisms

Impact of Chemical Environment on Compaction Creep of Quartz Sand and Possible Geomechanical Applications

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About