Microseismic Monitoring and Geomechanical Modelling of CO2 - bris
Microseismic Monitoring and Geomechanical Modelling of CO2 - bris
Microseismic Monitoring and Geomechanical Modelling of CO2 - bris
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
5.4. RESULTS<br />
1z:100x:100y 1z:100x:5y 1z:5x:5y<br />
10<br />
10<br />
10<br />
5<br />
5<br />
5<br />
S<strong>of</strong>t<br />
∆ f p<br />
0<br />
−5<br />
∆ f p<br />
0<br />
−5<br />
∆ f p<br />
0<br />
−5<br />
−10<br />
−10<br />
−10<br />
−15<br />
1 2 3 4 5 6<br />
Timestep<br />
−15<br />
1 2 3 4 5 6<br />
Timestep<br />
−15<br />
1 2 3 4 5 6<br />
Timestep<br />
10<br />
10<br />
10<br />
5<br />
5<br />
5<br />
Medium<br />
∆ f p<br />
0<br />
−5<br />
∆ f p<br />
0<br />
−5<br />
∆ f p<br />
0<br />
−5<br />
−10<br />
−10<br />
−10<br />
−15<br />
1 2 3 4 5 6<br />
Timestep<br />
−15<br />
1 2 3 4 5 6<br />
Timestep<br />
−15<br />
1 2 3 4 5 6<br />
Timestep<br />
10<br />
10<br />
10<br />
5<br />
5<br />
5<br />
Stiff<br />
∆ f p<br />
0<br />
−5<br />
∆ f p<br />
0<br />
−5<br />
∆ f p<br />
0<br />
−5<br />
−10<br />
−10<br />
−10<br />
−15<br />
1 2 3 4 5 6<br />
Timestep<br />
−15<br />
1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5<br />
Timestep<br />
−15<br />
1 2 3 4 5 6<br />
Timestep<br />
Figure 5.13: Percentage change in fracture potential during injection into the simple reservoirs.<br />
I plot the fracture potentials for all the cells examined - in the centre <strong>of</strong> the reservoir (black), at<br />
the edge <strong>of</strong> the reservoir (red), in the corner <strong>of</strong> the reservoir (blue), in the overburden (green) <strong>and</strong><br />
in the sideburden (magenta). Increases in fracture potential are seen for the smaller reservoirs<br />
(1z:100x:5y <strong>and</strong> 1z:5x:5y). The extensive reservoir (1z:100x:100y) models do not see increases in<br />
fracture potential either in the reservoir or the overburden.<br />
making the fracture potential<br />
f p =<br />
q<br />
2(χ cos ϕ f + p sin ϕ f ) . (5.22)<br />
In Figure 5.13 I plot the percentage change in fracture potential through time for all <strong>of</strong> the simple<br />
reservoirs.<br />
To compute the results I use generic values for χ <strong>and</strong> ϕ f , with χ=5MPa <strong>and</strong> ϕ f =40 ◦<br />
(m=0.84). Cases where f p increase represent cases where we might expect failure. I note that for<br />
the extensive reservoirs the values <strong>of</strong> f p do not change in the overburden, because the reservoirs are<br />
too extensive for the overburden to be supported, <strong>and</strong> so stress is not transferred. The values <strong>of</strong> f p<br />
in the reservoir decrease because, with a low value <strong>of</strong> K 0 , the Mohr circles will shrink, meaning that<br />
differential stresses are lower. Therefore I infer that the risk <strong>of</strong> shear failure for these cases is not only<br />
not increasing, but is in fact reducing.<br />
In contrast, the smaller reservoirs show f p values increasing during injection. For the s<strong>of</strong>ter<br />
reservoir it is in the overburden that the fracture potential is increasing, because stresses are transferred<br />
to the overburden, increasing the vertical stress while the horizontal stress is essentially unchanged,<br />
leading to a higher differential stress. For the stiffer reservoir it is inside the reservoir that f p increases<br />
99