15.01.2015 Views

Microseismic Monitoring and Geomechanical Modelling of CO2 - bris

Microseismic Monitoring and Geomechanical Modelling of CO2 - bris

Microseismic Monitoring and Geomechanical Modelling of CO2 - bris

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

8.3. RESULTS<br />

15<br />

10<br />

Injector<br />

Producer<br />

Above inj<br />

Above prod<br />

5<br />

∆ f p<br />

0<br />

−5<br />

−10<br />

2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16<br />

Timestep<br />

Figure 8.6: Percentage change in fracture potential in the Weyburn reservoir (solid lines) <strong>and</strong><br />

overburden (dotted lines). f p near the injection well is marked in red, near the producers in blue.<br />

Fracture potential does not increase anywhere after injection begins (timestep 11) except in the<br />

overburden near the injection wells (dotted red line). Therefore this region should be most prone<br />

to microseismic activity.<br />

8.3.2 Seismic Properties<br />

To compute the seismic properties based on the stress changes I use the method outlined in Chapter<br />

7. The shear-wave splitting patterns predicted by this model are plotted in Figure 8.9a for the<br />

reservoir <strong>and</strong> 8.9b for the overburden. No significant splitting patterns develop either in the reservoir<br />

or overburden. This does not match with the observations made in Chapter 3, where a strong HTI<br />

fabric was observed striking to the NW, perpendicular to the horizontal well trajectories.<br />

I conclude that this initial model, whose input parameters were based on core measurements from<br />

the field, does not provide a good match with my observations <strong>of</strong> microseismic activity <strong>and</strong> seismic<br />

anisotropy in the field. The question to ask, then, is why this should be One potential answer lies<br />

in the fact that measurements on cores represent the intact rock, whereas the reservoir is dominated<br />

by fractures, which provide key fluid-flow pathways in the reservoir, <strong>and</strong>, as the name <strong>of</strong> the lower<br />

formation suggests, vugs. Core scale measurements can only account for microscale properties -<br />

features that are much smaller than the core size. The effects <strong>of</strong> meso <strong>and</strong> macro scale features,<br />

such as vugs or fractures, that are a similar size as, or larger than, the cores will not be included in<br />

core analysis. The presence <strong>of</strong> fractures <strong>and</strong> vugs will significantly s<strong>of</strong>ten the elastic stiffness <strong>of</strong> the<br />

reservoir. Because the overburden has far fewer fractures, <strong>and</strong> no vugs, I will keep their properties<br />

the same while reducing the stiffness <strong>of</strong> the reservoir.<br />

155

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!