1 / 24

Institute of Geophysics, Academy of Sciences Prague, Czech Republic

Shear-tensile/implosion (STI) model - a prospective alternative to moment tensor in seismic detection of fracture mode during hydrofracture treatment of oil/gas wells. Jan Šílený. Institute of Geophysics, Academy of Sciences Prague, Czech Republic. Outline:.

mabyn
Download Presentation

Institute of Geophysics, Academy of Sciences Prague, Czech Republic

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. Shear-tensile/implosion (STI) model - a prospective alternative to moment tensor in seismic detection of fracture mode during hydrofracture treatment of oil/gas wells Jan Šílený Institute of Geophysics, Academy of Sciences Prague,Czech Republic

  2. Outline: Motivation: hydrofracturing of oil/gas wells example of extreme data deficiency Inversion for MT: Cotton Valley MT summary: advantages, pitfalls MT alternative: STI (shear-tensile/implosion) reprocessing of Cotton Valley Conclusion

  3. Hydrofracturing of oil/gas wells monitoring well monitoring well treatment well

  4. Hydrofracturing of oil/gas wells Possibility to recover MT (6 components) far field: Vavryčuk (2007) 3 (or more) wells: OK from P, P+S rarely 2 wells: OK from P+S occasionally 1 well: Not enough ! standard • additional constraint needed Jechumtálová & Eisner(2008) • near-field needed Song& Toksoz(2011) • a simpler source model needed less parameters, e.g. shear +off-plane comp.

  5. Micro-earthquakes induced by hydrofracturing Cotton Valley gas field hydrofractureexperiment Rutledge et al. 2004

  6. Cotton Valley mechanisms Šílený, J., Eisner, L., Hill, D. & Cornet, F., 2009. Non-double-couple mechanisms of microearthquakes induced by hydraulic fracturing. J. Geophys. Res., 114, doi:10.1029/2008JB005987.

  7.  66% CLVD(T)  66% CLVD(P) + 33% ISO(impl) + 33% ISO(expl) Hydrofracturing of oil/gas wells Cotton Valley case study Far field P+S from 2 wells = even-determined inversion for MT No over-determination ! Viewpoint of fracture mechanics: MT is unnecessarily complex Question of particular interest: Was permeability of the reservoir increased? i.e, were tensile cracks created?  discriminate between shear and tensile modes of fracturing shear slip tensile crack crack closure  100% DC

  8. traditional intuitive explanation (opening crack with fluid influx) is incorrect ! tensile crack / cavity closure 66% CLVD(P) 66% CLVD(T) + 33% ISO(expl) + 33% ISO(impl) physical sources of interest are combinations of ISO and CLVD Prospects: MT … general dipole source advantage:linearity an alternative BUTtoo general to the MT  includes unphysical sources Traditional decomposition ISO+DC+CLVD motiv: • split isotropic and deviatoric part ISO DC+CLVD BUTthere is something • single out DC in addition, namely CLVD an unphysical source benefits:  shear – tensile / implosion source model • physical source Dufumier & Rivera 1997 Vavrycuk 2001,2011 • less parameters  advantage in inversion a + / disadvantage: • non-linearity slope (4 angles + magnitude) angle a shear slip + tensile crack / cavity closure

  9. Shear-tensile/implosion source model • DC angles dip, strike, rake Parameters: • slope angle a • magnitude (scalar moment) Retrieval of STI parameters: • via MT (DC,ISO,CLVD): through 6 parameters  vulnerability of ISO,CLVD • directly: 5 parameters  more robust  preferred in scarce configurations Inversion method: 2-step grid search • coarse grid global search • fine grid local refinement advantageous mapping of model space: possibility of other inversion options: at ‘each’ point (in terms of the sampling) information available on the goodness of fit: chi-square • different norm (L1) • adjustment of s possibility to construct a confidence region: subspace in the model space around estimated solution with a priori specified probability content

  10. Tensile/implosion part 0 Histogram of values of the slope angle a of the mechanisms with NRMS < NRMSthreshold Shear-tensile/implosion source model Plots of ‘confidence zones’ (optional) adjustment of s material property of fault zone Shear-slip part Source planes of the mechanism • fault plane Projection of T,P,N axes • plane normal to slip of the mechanisms • info on fault plane (ambiguous, but…) with NRMS < NRMSthreshold • estimate of uncertainty in the orientation of shear-slip part • estimate of uncertainty in the tensile/implosion part a positive  tensile fracturing negative  implosion

  11. slope angle tensile crack shear slip vertical strike-slip source lines 450 dip-slip source lines

  12. Synthetic testing of STI: two-well vs. single well monitoring Cotton Valley gas field hydrofractureexperiment Simulation of a single-well monitoring Source model: • vertical strike-slip • 450 dip-slip

  13. MT: noise, velocity mismodeling, mismodeling+mislocation T Inversion of data from two monitoring wells dip-slip + tensile (slope 50) strike-slip + tensile (slope 50) T model model P T P T T P P P P T T mismodeling mismodeling + mislocation mismodeling mismodeling + mislocation noise noise 10% 30% 10% 30% T T T T P P P P model model mismodeling mismodeling mismodeling + mislocation mismodeling + mislocation

  14. MT: velocity mismodeling+mislocation Inversion of data from two monitoring wells dip-slip + tensile (slope 50) strike-slip + tensile (slope 50) T P T model model P

  15. MT: velocity mismodeling+mislocation T Inversion of data from one monitoring well dip-slip + tensile (slope 50) strike-slip + tensile (slope 50) T P T model model P not existing STI: yes!

  16. T T P model P STI: lite velocity mismodeling dip-slip + tensile (slope 50) strike-slip + tensile (slope 50) model T T T T P P P P

  17. T model P STI: heavy velocity mismodeling + mislocation dip-slip + tensile (slope 50) strike-slip + tensile (slope 50) T P model P P P P T T T T

  18. STI: heavy velocity mismodeling + mislocation P P T T T P P P T T Poisson constant s l/m = 2s/(1-2s) fixed at s=0.25 free

  19. strike-slip + tensile (slope 50) T P STI: noise contamination

  20. dip-slip + tensile (slope 50) T P STI: noise contamination

  21. Re-processing of Cotton Valley: G1 STI two wells STI single well MT (two wells)

  22. Re-processing of Cotton Valley: G4 STI two wells STI single well MT (two wells)

  23. Re-processing of Cotton Valley: R1 STI two wells STI single well MT (two wells)

  24. Conclusions: MT: general description of a dipole source too general in case of a simple fracturing: but hydrofracturing in oil/geothermal industry: opening/closing of tensile cracks additionalconstraint helpful STI model less parametersthan MT (5 vs. 6) non-linear model  exploration  • advantage in estimate of modelspace of uncertainty of the solution • minimization in different norms • estimate of Poisson constant beneficial in deficient configurations in particular,single-well monitoring robust even with: • reasonable noise in data • realistic mislocation • slight velocity mismodeling

More Related