Energy balance and numerical simulation of microseismicity induced by hydraulic fracturing
description
Transcript of Energy balance and numerical simulation of microseismicity induced by hydraulic fracturing
1
AIM 2012
Energy balance and numerical simulation of microseismicity induced by hydraulic fracturing
David W. Eaton* and Neda Boroumand
Department of Geoscience University of Calgary
* Currently at University of Bristol
Acknowledgements:
Sponsors of the Microseismic Industry Consortium
Nexen Inc. for data
2
AIM 2012
1. Role of microseismic monitoring in hydraulic fracturing for unconventional oil resource development
2. Energy balance: radiated seismic energy versus frac energy inputs/outputs
3. Numerical simulation of frac-induced microseismicity, based on crack-tip stress and Coulomb Stress field
Outline
3
AIM 2012
What is hydraulic fracturing?
• High-pressure fluids are injected to create tensile fractures, in order to enhance permeability of hydrocarbon-bearing formations
• This is followed by injection of proppant (e.g. sand) to hold fractures open• Typically implemented in multiple stages within a horizontal wellbore, often
many drilled from a single pad
http://www.capp.ca
4
AIM 2012
Pettitt, 2010
Hydraulic Fracturing:Role of Microseismic Monitoring• Typically a string of
downhole geophones and/or surface array
• Real-time monitoring to fine-tune injection program, diagnose issues
• Post-frac analysis to assess stimulation program
5
AIM 2012
Input vs Output EnergyInjection Energy (EI)
Pressure
Time
Fracture Energy (EF)
Strain Energy (ES)http://www.engineeringarchives.com
Radiated Seismic Energy (ER)
Other (i.e. friction/thermal,
hydrostatic, leak-off, etc.)
Rate
6
AIM 2012
Pressure (P)
Time
Rate (Q)
Injection Energy
Where Q(t) = injection rate, P(t) = surface treatment pressure
t1 & t2 are start and end times of treatment
7
AIM 2012
Fracture Energy
where <Pd> is the average downhole pressure, <AF> is
the single-sided surface area and is the average fracture width (Walter and Brune, JGR, 1993)
8
AIM 2012
Radiated Seismic Energy
Kanamori, 1977
where M0 is moment magnitude, and ES is in Joules
… but note missing data in G-R plot
9
AIM 2012
Case Study
• 10 frac stages • Microseismic
event locations and magnitudes were provided (geometry was measured)
• Pumping data provided
10
AIM 2012
Energy per event
Energy per bin
Joul
esJo
ules
Total predicted energy: 4.63e+6JTotal observed energy: 1.81e+5J
Ratio = 25.6
Based on Hanks and Kanamori (1979)
• b = 1.57, small magnitude events contribute more to total seismic energy
• If b < 1.5 then more total energy in larger bins
• If b > 1.5, then more energy in successively smaller bins
b-value correction
11
AIM 2012
Injection Energy Fracture Energy Seismic EnergyWell/Formation Name Stage (KJoules) (KJoules) (KJoules) % Fracture Energy % Seismic Energy
Well #1 (Otter Park) Stage 18 192,647,400.00 29,168,562.50 9,996.79 15 0.03Stage 19 165,301,920.00 27,188,525.00 19,508.12 16 0.07Stage 20 154,350,000.00 22,137,500.00 4,641.58 14 0.02
Well # 2 (Otter Park) Stage 19 163,838,400.00 40,035,000.00 9,230.97 24 0.02Well # 3 (Muskwa) Stage 13 140,829,120.00 34,979,600.00 28,055.40 25 0.08
Stage 14 144,942,000.00 37,900,800.00 25,532.75 26 0.07Stage 15 162,035,040.00 66,409,750.00 32,141.91 41 0.05Stage 16 143,100,000.00 53,845,000.00 32,845.77 38 0.06
Well # 3 (Muskwa) Stage 17 156,017,100.00 22,160,000.00 14,640.01 14 0.07Well # 4 (Muskwa) Stage 17 223,941,510.00 26,217,100.00 18,346.79 12 0.07
Table 5. Summary and comparison of different energy values and their relationships
Energy Calculation Results
12
AIM 2012
Single tensile crack, growing at constant volumetric rate Stress field from analytic expressions for crack-tip stress Event occurrence probability based on associated Coulomb stress Event magnitudes follow Gutenberg-Richter distribution Distance-dependent detection threshold
Numerical Simulation of Microseismicity
13
AIM 2012
Analytic Formulas for Crack-tip stress
Change in stress due to a tensile (mode I) crack in a linear elastic solid
Lawn and Wilshaw, 1975
14
AIM 2012
Crack-tip stress field
Simple model of a tensile crack
Note that stress at the crack tip is greater than background tensile stress
15
AIM 2012
is the change in shear stress μ the coefficient of friction n is the normal stress P is the pore fluid pressure
Coulomb Stress Field
A measure of the state of stress on a planar surface.
16
AIM 2012
Coulomb stress changes calculated for the 23 April 1992 ML=6.1 Joshua Tree Earthquake. Aftershocks occur preferentially in areas of increased Coulomb stress
King et al., 1994
Coulomb Stress and Aftershocks
17
AIM 2012
Stochastic Model
20% probability of failure for CFS >= 80 MPa
Magnitude distribution satisfies Gutenberg-Richter relation with b = 1.5
Dynamic simulation created by assuming an expanding crack with c ~ t1/2
20
AIM 2012
In this case study, radiated seismic energy - even after correction for catalog incompleteness - represents only a few ppm of the injection energy
An idealized geodynamical simulation framework has been developed that matches some characteristics of field observations, including diffusion-like event migration and presumed receiver-side observational bias
Conclusions