Sie sind auf Seite 1von 27

Microearthquake Monitoring

and Applications

Gregg Nordquist
Chevron

WPRB /INAGA Bali Seminar: Microearthquake Monitoring and Applications


Presentation for Joint:
International Geothermal
Association and Indonesian
Geothermal Association
Workshop

Bali Indonesia April 2008

Microearthquake (MEQ) Monitoring and


Applications

Gregg Nordquist

Dr. R. Uhrhammer, UC Berkeley


© Chevron 2005 DOC ID

Applications of MEQ Monitoring


„ Introduction
„ Applications
z Oil and Gas

z Engineered Geothermal Systems (EGS)

z Other

„ Conventional Geothermal
z Salak Field, Java, Indonesia

z The Geysers, California, USA

„ The way forward – Topics of Research and Further Study


z Array optimization for locations and sensitivity

z Improvement of locations

z Velocity tomography

z S-Wave Splitting

z Seismic moment analysis


© Chevron 2005 DOC ID 2
Can Passive Microseismic Data Be Used
to Delineate a Permeable Fracture and in
Targeting?
Yes
Is this routinely being applied in the
“Energy Industry”?
Yes
Is this routinely being applied in the
“Conventional Geothermal Industry”?
Not yet (Belum)
© Chevron 2005 DOC ID 3

Why not yet in Conventional


Geothermal?
Reasons include:
„ Still on the learning curve

„ Down hole instruments temperature stability

„ Costs to implement

and

„ “Its just not that easy”


z Model resolution due to often sparse or poorly distributed data sets

z Interpretations not always straight forward. For example, not all


fractures are seismogenic, high permeable structures may not have
MEQs

„ But progress is being made

© Chevron 2005 DOC ID 4


Passive Seismic Applications

Oil and Gas

„ Water/steam flood
management

„ Hydrofrac monitoring

„ Primary production
monitoring

„ Disposal and storage

Mining

„ Rock bursts
EGS (Engineered Geothermal systems)

„ Identify fractured volume

Conventional Geothermal
© Chevron 2005 DOC ID 5

Oil and Gas - Monitoring


„ Direct imaging of production, water/steam flood, and
hydrofrac related micro-earthquakes (MEQ)
z Magnitudes: -4 to 0

z Fault size: meters

z Displacements: mm – cm

z Seismic frequencies: 10 – 1000 Hz

© Chevron 2005 DOC ID 6


Oil and Gas – Hydrofrac monitoring

Fracture

Microseisms

Microseisms are induced as the fracture propagates.


Typically measured using a down hole array of
instruments. Ideally the receivers are located above and
below the zone of interest.
© Chevron 2005 DOC ID 7

Oil and Gas – Hydrofrac monitoring


Signal X-section view Map view

After Maxwell, et al, 2001

Microseisms used in real time to image orientation, height, length,


and temporal growth of induces fractures
Detailed post analysis of locations as well as seismic source
parameter (magnitudes, stress release, etc.) may be used to infer
effectiveness of fracing program.
Becoming a “common practice” major contractors engaged
(Schlumberger, Halliburton, Pinnacle etc.)
© Chevron 2005 DOC ID 8
Oil and Gas – Reservoir monitoring – “Smart Oil
Field” Permanent Arrays
Permanent highly sensitive
monitoring arrays are now
being installed around the
world
Providing “real time”
monitoring for field
management including:
„ Well/casing failures

„ Fault mapping

„ Fluid movements/water flood


conformance

„ Compaction strains

„ Thermal fronts

„ Fluid injection
© Chevron 2005 DOC ID 9

Oil and Gas – Summary


„ Contractors and oil and gas companies are increasingly
applying passive micro-seismic monitoring:
z “Smart Oil Field” permanent arrays

z Hydrofrac monitoring

„ Still on the learning curve – but the levels of money and


technical effort are increasing

16 Number of Technical Papers Published


14 Society of Exploration Geophysics (SEG)
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

© Chevron 2005 DOC ID 10


EGS (Engineered Geothermal System)

Energy is produced by
extracting heat from deeply
buried hot rocks by circulating
water or other working fluid
through an engineered,
artificial reservoir or
underground heat exchanger.
Reservoir is stimulated to
improve permeability. Passive
seismic monitoring is used to
map the extent of stimulated
volume.

After Tester et al, 2006


© Chevron 2005 DOC ID 11

EGS (Engineered Geothermal System)

EE-3A (New well good connection)

EE-3 (poor connection)

After Tester et al, 2006

Experience from Fenton Hill, USA showed well targeted into


microseismic clusters encountered improved permeability.
© Chevron 2005 DOC ID 12
EGS (Engineered Geothermal System)
Seismic Array at Cooper Basin
Australia

Monitoring of the fracture


system during stimulation
requires high sensitivity.
Down hole sensors are
typically installed to
improve location resolution
and to lower the detection
limit.

Red is stimulation well, blue are location and


depths of sensors

After Asanuma et al, 2005


© Chevron 2005 DOC ID 13

EGS (Engineered Geothermal System)


Application of Precision Relative Event Location
Example from Cooper Basin Stimulation

Single Event Location Double Difference

After Kumano, et. al, 2006


Double difference tightens up clusters of events allowing for
definition of discrete areas which have been stimulated. This
allows operators to better target and optimize the location of
production wells.
© Chevron 2005 DOC ID 14
EGS (Engineered Geothermal System) -
Summary

„ High definition MEQ monitoring is a Best Practice


z Provides best available “picture” of the fractured
reservoir
z Production wells are targeted into MEQ clusters

„ Implementation of precision relative event location


algorithms such as “cluster analysis” and “double
difference” improves resolution
„ High stimulation injection pressures can result in felt
events
z Basel (magnitude 3.4) stopped project

z Soultz felt events have delayed project

© Chevron 2005 DOC ID 15

Other Applications – Microseismic


Monitoring

„ Monitoring of waste disposal


z Ensure waste fluid or cuttings injections are going into target
zones
„ Mining
z Used to determine if safe for miners to work underground

z Mature technology

and
Conventional Geothermal

© Chevron 2005 DOC ID 16


MEQ Monitoring and Conventional
Geothermal - Topics
„ Introduction and Basics

„ MEQ Monitoring Examples


z Salak Field, Java, Indonesia

z The Geysers, California, USA

„ The way forward – Topics of Research and Further Study


z Array optimization for locations and sensitivity

z Improvement of locations

z Velocity tomography

z S-Wave Splitting

z Seismic moment analysis

© Chevron 2005 DOC ID 17

Passive Seismic Monitoring Conventional


Geothermal
Injection
„ permeability pathways

„ injection management

Production

„ distribution of reservoir
permeability

„ resource boundaries

Hazard and Environmental

„ civic responsibility

© Chevron 2005 DOC ID 18


The Seismograph

Recent advances
• 24-bit digital recording
• Stand-alone recording
systems operate
unattended for months
without radio telemetry

Dr. R. Uhrhammer, UC Berkeley

© Chevron 2005 DOC ID 19

Passive Seismic Monitoring Systems

Telemetry or Hardwire
„ Plus
z Real time processing
z One part time person can process
z Costly
„ Negative
z Station deployment can be difficult
z Line of site issue
Digital stand alone
„ Plus
z Station deployment easy/flexible
z Easy to maintain
z Relatively low cost
„ Negative
z No real time processing
z Requires more manpower

© Chevron 2005 DOC ID 20


Induced Earthquakes Conventional
Geothermal
Induction Mechanisms
„ Compaction related to pressure draw down
„ Pressure and temperature changes
Located on pre-existing faults and fractures
„ Compaction induced MEQs occur at or near margins of the
reservoir
„ Production induced MEQs occur along fractures connected to
reservoir
„ Injection induced MEQs along fractures connected to injectate
pathway
„ Majority of MEQs are too small to be felt at the surface, but
there are “felt” events on occasion. The largest magnitude
earthquake reported has been a M4.6 recorded in The Geysers
in the mid 1980’s.

© Chevron 2005 DOC ID 21

Compaction and Seismicity Related to


Pressure Drawdown due to Production

Increased stress may induce earthquakes at the margins


of the compacting reservoir
After Segall and Fitzgerald, 1998
© Chevron 2005 DOC ID 22
Seismicity Induced by Injection Pressure
Increase

Explains earthquakes due to injection pressure increase which is below the


frac pressure at which the rock fails.

Fracture stressed but locked Increase in pore pressure Fracture surfaces slip until
by asperities drives fracture surfaces apart stopped by asperities

© Chevron 2005 DOC ID from Stark 2007 after Mossop and Segall 2004 23

Seismicity Induced by Cold Injection


Cooling High Temperature Rock

Explains earthquakes caused by rock shrinkage related rock shrinking due to


cold injection chilling hot geothermal reservoir rocks.

Fracture stressed but Increase in pore pressure Fracture surfaces slip until
locked by asperities drives fracture surfaces apart stopped by asperities

© Chevron 2005 DOC ID from Cumming 2008 after Stark 2007 24


Conventional Geothermal
Passive Seismic Monitoring Example

Salak Geothermal Field


Indonesia

© Chevron 2005 DOC ID 25

Salak Geothermal Field, West Java

© Chevron 2005 DOC ID 26


UTM (km)
MEQ Epicenters 9258
680 682 684 686 688

a)
Salak Corridor for plotting
N
9256

UTM (km)
Majority of MEQ
9254
A9

activity can be
A14

attributed to injection 9252

Beneath A9 the 2000


W A14 E
deeply extending 1500 A9 A11 A2 Injection
Injection
MEQs are located
1000

500
over an interpreted 0
Elevation (m asl)

up flow zone. An -500

area where locally -1000

enhanced vertical -1500

permeability is -2000

expected -2500

-3000

-3500

-4000
b)
-4500
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Distance (km)
In press Stimac et al. Geothermics
© Chevron 2005 DOC ID 27

Injection monitoring

Eastern Area

150
Cumulative
Cumulative MEQMEQ and Injection
and Cumulative Awi 14 Injection

Cum MEQ Cumulative #MEQ’s


Cum Injection
Cumulative Awi 14 Injection
125 3.01E+07
Cum Inj klbs (from 4/1/05)
Cumulative MEQ Count

100
Injection
rate changes 2.01E+07
75
Cumulative Injection
50
1.01E+07
MEQ rate
25
changes
0 8.00E+04
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
4/1/2005

5/1/2005

6/1/2005

7/1/2005

8/1/2005

9/1/2005

10/1/2005

11/1/2005

12/2/2005

1/1/2006

2/1/2006

3/4/2006

Month

Rate of MEQ activity increased about 2 months after injection increased


© Chevron 2005 DOC ID 28
Injection Monitoring – MEQ and Chloride

Eastern Area
150
Cumulative MEQ
Cumulative MEQ and
and Awi 1-7Chloride
and 1-8 Chloride
10500
Cum MEQ Cumulative #MEQ’s
Awi 1-7
Well 1 Chloride
Cumulative MEQ Count

125
Well1-8
Awi 2 Chloride
Inj Move 10000

Chloride (ppm)
100 MEQ rate increase

75 9500

50 Cl increase
9000
25

0 8500
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
4/1/2005

5/1/2005

6/1/2005

7/1/2005

8/1/2005

9/1/2005

10/1/2005

11/1/2005

12/2/2005

1/1/2006

2/1/2006

3/4/2006
Month

Chloride increases about 2 months later


© Chevron 2005 DOC ID
(4 months after injection moved) 29

Conventional Geothermal
Passive Seismic Monitoring Example

The Geysers Geothermal Field


California, USA

© Chevron 2005 DOC ID 30


The Geysers Field California

After Romero, et al, 1995

© Chevron 2005 DOC ID 31

The Geysers Field – MEQ Patterns as Field


is Developed

Loch Loch
Lomond Lomond

Hobergs Hobergs

Cobb Cobb
Forest Forest
Lakes Lakes
Whispering Whispering
Pines Pines

Anderson Anderson
Springs Springs

1978 1990

Reservoir Limit (red outer line), microearthquakes (brown dots)


and developed areas (multicolored lines)

After Eberhart-Phillips and Oppenheimer (1984)


© Chevron 2005 DOC ID 32
The Geysers Field – Reservoir Limit

B'

Injection Well
Microearthquake
Depth Range:
0 -- 2.7 km subsea
2.7 -- 5.2 km subsea
0 0.5 1.0 2.0
Scale (km)
A'
Reservoir Limit Outside of Production defined by Well Pressure and
MEQ Distribution (pers comm. M. Stark, Cal Pine, 2007)
© Chevron 2005 DOC ID Courtesy M. Stark, 2007 33
Pressure observation data confirm that pressure drawdown extends to areas of well located MEQs.

The Geysers Field – MEQs and Injection

Characteristically observe “plumes” of MEQs below and near injections


wells (injection wells outline with blue – production wells are not
shown).
Local clustering of micro-earthquakes around injection wells. Dense distribution of production
Courtesy M. Stark, 2007
© Chevron 2005 wells
DOC ID not shown. Base of reservoir estimated from similar plots. 34
Summary – Case Histories

„ Companies are getting “value” out of their MEQ


monitoring efforts. Patterns of MEQs are used to:
z Infer reservoir structure outside of drilled area

z Monitor injection movement

„ There is more that can be done to further add to the


value of passive microseismic monitoring
– next slide please!

© Chevron 2005 DOC ID 35

Conventional Geothermal - MEQ the


Way Forward and Research Topics

„ Array sensitivity and optimization


z Station location

z Down hole and surface seismometers

„ Improved location resolutions


z Uncertainty analysis

z Cluster analysis

z Precision relative event locations (eg double difference)

„ Velocity and Attenuation tomography


z Improved resolution of velocity structure

z Possible 4-D application (changes with time)

„ S-wave splitting
z Fracture trends and density

„ Seismic moment analysis


z Fracture and stress release characteristics
© Chevron 2005 DOC ID 36
Sensitivity and Array Design

„ 24 bit instruments
z Costs coming down, easy to operate and maintain

„ Commercially available software


z Robust event detection and processing software is
available. Companies have option to operate own arrays
(lowers costs)

„ Array optimization for location and sensitivity


z Array design for focused monitoring

f Locate instruments for best resolution

z Downhole sensors where practical and possible

© Chevron 2005 DOC ID 37

Focused Monitoring Improves Sensitivity


(example from Tiwi Field – Philippines)

Field Wide Array 10 Focused Array 12


stns monitoring entire stns focused around
field target area
Target Area

• Focused Array was ≈ 5 times more sensitive in target area


• MEQ locations more accurately determined
© Chevron 2005 DOC ID 38
Down hole sensors can lower noise and improve
array sensitivity

Surface Borehole (245 m)

1 min
Same small event M~1
Station located near a road. Down hole instrument not as impacted
by surface noise. Easier to identify and more accurately pick event
1 minute phases. Able to further amplify signal from the downhole instrument
to lower detection level. But going downhole adds expense.

© Chevron 2005 DOC ID ( Courtesy Uni of Auckland IESE) 39

Improved absolute locations


HYPO71 Locations (1-D)

Improved resolution of the


velocity structure results in
more accurate locations and
better clustering of events Using 3-D Velocity Model

© Chevron 2005 DOC ID 40


Precision relative locations
Single Event Location

Precision relative locations


determined with techniques
such as double difference and
cluster analysis can improve
resolution of structures. Double Difference

Asanuma et al 2007
© Chevron 2005 DOC ID 41

Tomographic Inversion – NW Geysers

Tomographic inversion provides a 3-D image of the velocity and


attenuation structure. Resolution depends on the lateral and depth
distribution of the MEQs. Typically this is not ideal and resolution
and the level of uncertainty can be high.
After Romero, et al, 1995
© Chevron 2005 DOC ID 42
Tomographic Inversion – NW Geysers

The Geysers is an excellent “laboratory” for testing and perfecting how tomographic
imaging can be applied in Geothermal. Researchers are working with field operators to
test if changes with time can reliably resolve and detect saturation changes related to
increased injection and help with field management decisions.
© Chevron 2005 DOC ID 43
After Romero, et al, 1995

Attenuation Structure – NW Geysers

Seismic tomography can be applied to study the attenuation structure. When


integrated with other data including the velocity structure (eg Vp/Vs) can highlight
areas of higher relative fracture densities and changes in saturation.
© Chevron 2005 DOC ID 44
After Romero, et al, 1996
S-wave splitting

Cracks or layering causes


S-wave polarization
aligned with cracks or
layers to travel faster than
S-wave across cracks or
layers. The difference in
time and direction of
polarization is recorded.
MEQ

From Cumming, 2008 after Rial et al. 2005


© Chevron 2005 DOC ID 45

S-wave splitting - Direction

NW Geysers
Rose Diagrams

The S-wave polarization


alignment can be plotted for
each station. For example,
at the NW Geysers the
polarization indicates micro-
cracks are aligned NE,
consistent to that observed
in cores.

After Elkibbi and Rial 2003

© Chevron 2005 DOC ID 46


S-wave splitting – Casa Diablo, California

Interpreted Crack Density


0.5 km 1.5 km

High S-wave splitting (red)


below area of Casa Diablo
geothermal wells (white oval).
The very permeable shallow
outflow that is being produced
2.5 km 3.5 km
by the wells is 1000 to 2000
m above this zone.

After Malin and Shalev 1999

© Chevron 2005 DOC ID 47

S-wave splitting – Example 2


Interpreted Crack Density
1.25 km

High S-wave splitting (red) in


depth range of 1.25 to 2.25 km.
Area shaded red is interpreted
as high fracture density. This
interpretation highlighted an area
for the fields operator to 1.75 km
investigate further and possibly
target a well.

2.25 km

Courtesy: IESE, Uni. Of Auckland


© Chevron 2005 DOC ID 48
Seismic Source Process Analysis
P

Focal Mechanism show


nature of shear failure. Used
to determine fault movement
and principle stress directions
T

Seismic moment analysis can


provide information on the
relative strengths of the 3
orthogonal force dipoles.
Can identify non shear failure
such of dilation and collapse

After Pramono et al, 2005


© Chevron 2005 DOC ID 49

Summary
„ Conventional geothermal companies are monitoring MEQ data to track injection and to
infer reservoir boundaries and structures.
„ MEQ monitoring in the Oil and Gas industry is increasing. The geothermal industry can
benefit from their lesson’s learned.
„ But must be realistic: Hot water is not as valuable as oil. Budgets for application and
testing are lower
z Need to be creative to get the data and stay in budget
f Stand alone recording systems for example
„ Data – The more the better
z Continuous or long term monitoring
z Improve the sensitivity with optimized deployment of instruments and sensors
f Balance of costs vs benefits (for example: number of stations and surface
vs borehole sensors)
f Temperature limitations of sensors
z A well constrained and well distributed data set of MEQ data improves the
chances of success of applying such techniques as time difference velocity
tomography and S-wave splitting
„ Interpretation - Integrate with other available data and “ground truth” results

© Chevron 2005 DOC ID 50


References
Asanuma H., Soma N., Kaieda H., Kumano Y., Izumi T., Tezuka K., Niitsuma H., Wyborn D., 2005, Microseismic Monitoring of Hydraulic
Stimulation at the Australian HDR Project in Cooper Basin, Proceedings of the World Geothermal Conference, 5 pgs.
Baria R., Baumgarter J., Gerard A., Jung R., Garnish J., 1999, European HDR research programme at Soultz-sous-Forets (France) 1987-
1996, Geothermics Vol 28, pp. 655-669
Eberhart-Phillips D., Oppenheimer D.H., 1984, Induced seismicity in The Geysers geothermal area, California, J. Geophys. Res., Vol 89,
pp 1191-1207
Elkibbi, M. Rial, J.A., 2003, Shear-wave splitting: an efficient tool to detect 3-D fracture patterns at The Geysers reservoir, California,
Proceedings 28th Workshop on Geothermal Reservoir Engineering, Stanford University, pp 143-149
Fehler M., Jupe A, Asanuma H., 2001, More than cloud: New techniques for characterizing reservoir structure using induced seismicity,
The Leading Edge, pp 324-328
Gunasekera R.C., Foulger G.R., Julian B.R., 2003, Reservoir depletion at The Geysers geothermal area, California shown by four-
dimensional seismic tomography, Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol 108, 11 pgs.
Kuman Y., Moriya H., Asanuma H., 2006, Spatial distribution of coherent microseismic events at Cooper Basin, Australia, SEG Abstracts,
pp 595-599
Malin P.E., Shalev E., 1999, Shear-wave splitting crack density maps for The Geysers and Mammoth, Proceedings 24th Workshop on
Geothermal Reservoir Engineering, Stanford University, 4 pgs.
Maxwell S.C. and Urbanic T.I., 2001, The role of passive microseismic monitoring in the instrumented oil field, The Leading Edge, pp 636-
639
Pramonon P., Colombo D., 2005, Microearthquake characteristics in Darajat geothermal field, Indonesia, Proceedings of the World
Geothermal Conference, 6 pgs
Rial J.A., Elkibbi M., Yang M., 2005, Shear-wave splitting as a tool for the characterization of geothermal fractured reservoirs: lessons
learned, Geothermics Vol 34, pp 365-385
Romero A.E., McEvilly T.V., Majer E.L., Vasco D., 1995, Characterization of the geothermal system beneath the Northwest Geysers steam
field, California from seismicity and velocity patterns, Geothermics Vol 24, pp 471-487
Romero A.E., McEvilly T.V., Majer E.L., 1997, 3-D microearthquake attenuation tomorgraphy at the Northwest Geysers geothermal
region, California, Geophysics Vol 62, pp 149-167
Segall P., Fitzgerald S.D., 1998, A note on induced stress changes in hydrocarbon and geothermal reservoirs, Tectonophysics Vol 289, pp
117-128
Tester, J.W. et al, “The Future of Geothermal Energy: Impact of Enhanced Geothermal Systems (EGS) on the United States in the 21st
Century”, Prepared under Idaho National Laboratory Subcontract No. 63 00019 for the U.S. Department of Energy, Assistant Secretary
for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Office of Geothermal Technologies, by Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2006, pp 1-
358.
Tosha T., Sugihara M, Nishi Y., 1998, Revised hypocenter solutions for microearthquakes in the Kakkonda geothermal field, Japan,
Geothermics, Vol 27, pp 553-571

© Chevron 2005 DOC ID 51