Potential fracture propagation into the caprock induced by cold<mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" altimg="si36.gif" display="inline" overflow="scroll"><mml:msub><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle mathvariant="normal"><mml:mi>CO</mml:mi></mml:mstyle></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mn>2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math>injection in normal faulting stress regimes

Vilarrasa, Víctor; Laloui, Lyesse

doi:10.1016/j.gete.2015.05.001

Cited by 26 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 45 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These models coupled multiphase fluid flow and geomechanical simulators while incorporating for the first time the fault rheology and slip velocity using TOUGH-FLAC 2D 49 . Other models included the effect of thermal stresses induced by cold CO2 injections on fracture propagation into the caprock using Code Bright 50 . CO2 injections would lead to a fluid pressure build-up inside the reservoir, which in turn, lead to poroelastic expansion of the reservoir visualized as surface uplift.…”

Section: J O U R N a L P R E -P R O O Fmentioning

confidence: 99%

Geomechanics for energy and the environment: Current developments

Houhou

Laloui

2022

Geomechanics for Energy and the Environment

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: J O U R N a L P R E -P R O O Fmentioning

confidence: 99%

Geomechanics for energy and the environment: Current developments

Houhou

Laloui

2022

Geomechanics for Energy and the Environment

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…This contrast in stability between the reservoir and the caprock is highlighted in Fig. 4d, which shows that plastic strain, i.e., strain that occurs because failure conditions have been reached, only takes place in the reservoir and not in the caprock (for details on the failure surface see Vilarrasa and Laloui, 2015).…”

Section: Non-isothermal Effectsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Different thermal expansion coefficients between the storage formation and the caprock lead to differential expansion of the rock, building up shear stress in the interface between the two layers. When the thermal expansion coefficient of the caprock is greater than that of the storage formation, deviatoric plastic strain may occur in the lower portion of the caprock as a result of cooling (Vilarrasa and Laloui, 2016). Nonetheless, regardless of the stress regime and the relative values of the thermal expansion coefficient between the storage formation and the caprock, the overall sealing capacity of the caprock is not compromised because only the lower portion of the caprock is affected by cooling and the subsequent stress changes.…”

Section: Non-isothermal Effectsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Induced seismicity in geologic carbon storage

et al. 2019

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. 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.

show abstract

“…Figure 6). This contrast in stability between the reservoir and the caprock is highlighted in Figure 5c, which shows that plastic strain, i.e., strain that occurs because failure conditions have been reached, only takes place in the reservoir and not in the caprock (for details on the failure surface, see Vilarrasa and Laloui, 2015). Thus, cold CO2 injection, i.e., in liquid state (Vilarrasa et al, 2013b), should not be feared because 10 the caprock sealing capacity is not compromised.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Induced seismicity in geologic carbon storage

Vilarrasa¹,

Carrera²,

Olivella³

et al. 2019

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. 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.

show abstract

Potential fracture propagation into the caprock induced by coldCO2injection in normal faulting stress regimes

Cited by 26 publications

References 45 publications

Geomechanics for energy and the environment: Current developments

Geomechanics for energy and the environment: Current developments

Induced seismicity in geologic carbon storage

Induced seismicity in geologic carbon storage

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About