1 / 29

M. Nafi Toksöz Earth Resources Laboratory, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

INDUCED SEISMICITY IN PETROLEUM FIELDS: RESERVOIR CHARACTERIZATION, SEISMIC RISK ASSESSMENT AND MANAGEMENT. M. Nafi Toksöz Earth Resources Laboratory, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge, MA 02139. ERL. February, 2006. INVESTIGATORS MIT: KUWAIT:

angie
Download Presentation

M. Nafi Toksöz Earth Resources Laboratory, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. INDUCED SEISMICITY IN PETROLEUM FIELDS: RESERVOIR CHARACTERIZATION, SEISMIC RISK ASSESSMENT AND MANAGEMENT M. Nafi Toksöz Earth Resources Laboratory, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge, MA 02139 ERL February, 2006

  2. INVESTIGATORS MIT: KUWAIT: Prof. M. Nafi Toksöz KISR- Dr. Dhari Al-Ajmi (seismologist, team leader)(Kuwait team leader) Prof. Bradford Hager(geomechanics)Kuwait Oil Company- Prof. Thomas Herring(GPS network, inSAR) Dr. Adel Al-Abbasi Prof. Frank Dale Morgan(geotechnical, gravity) Kuwait University-Investigators Prof. Kenneth Oye(policy, risk management)to be nominatedby the university Prof. Andrew Whittle(soil mechanics) and the Kuwait team

  3. InducedSeismicity • Often accompanies fluid injection and production in • Oil and gas fields; geothermal reservoirs; hydraulic fracturing. • Causes? • Pore pressure changes • Stresses due to volume changes.

  4. Why is it Important? • GIVES INFORMATION ABOUT RESERVOIR PROPERTIES AND FLUID PRESSURE CHANGES • POTENTIAL FOR DAMAGING EARTHQUAKES AND RISK TO: • Surface facilities • Wells and casings • Fault seals • Environment • Public acceptance

  5. Seismic Event Locations

  6. Bou-Rabee, F. and R., M.,Abdel-Fattah, 2004. Kuwait J., Sci., Eng v. 31.

  7. Al-Awadhi, J., V. Midzi, Seism. Res. Lett., V:72, N:4, 2001.

  8. PROPOSED TASKS • Analyze existing seismic and other data relevant to induced seismicity. • Densify the existing seismic network to provide a good coverage over the southern and northern oil fields. Include three deep seismic stations and three strong motion instruments at each region. • Install continuous GPS stations at each of the two regions to determine three-component surface deformations. • Initiate the inSAR analysis to determine subsidence or other deformations. • Initiate a reservoir characterization and dynamics (compaction, pore fluid characterization). • Do an initial probabilistic earthquake hazard assessment using the existing data. Calculate ground motions and site effects. • Develop a plan for the management of potential seismic hazard. • Update steps 7 and 8 with new data.

  9. USGS Fact Sheet 069-03, December 2003

  10. USGS Fact Sheet 069-03, December 2003

  11. THANK YOU

  12. SOULTZ Early Experimental Phase In The Upper Reservoir 1987 - 1997 Exploration of the Deep Reservoir 1988 - 2000 Downhole seismic network

  13. (a) Vertical view and (b) top view of the seismicity associated with the stimulation in 2003

  14. Hydraulic Experiment Soultz,1993 JHD Collapsing

  15. Example of multiplet 5 Time 4 3 2 4 1 5 P S 3 2 fracture 1

  16. Aligned waveformsof the master and the slave after adjusting the time delay P wave master slave

  17. Relocated Clusters - Vertical View Well GPK3 (Injection) Well GPK2 (Production)

  18. (a) Azimuth (b) Dip in degrees of the planes deduced by planarity analysis

  19. Distribution of the events around the GPK3 well (200m around the well). Two major microseismic zones are observed: one at app. 4650 m TVD and the other one at app. 4900m TVD. If we compare that with the major flow exits, we find a good correlation between the location of these events and the increases of flow.

  20. Rutledge J. and Phillips S., 2002 – Upper Cotton Valley, TX

More Related