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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

CHAPTER 2.<br />

THE WEYBURN CO 2 INJECTION PROJECT<br />

3<br />

Oil Production rate (m )<br />

Date<br />

Figure 2.11: Comparison <strong>of</strong> production rates from well 192/09-06 with the rate <strong>of</strong> microseismicity<br />

in the nearby SE cluster. <strong>Microseismic</strong> activity occurs when production is temporarily stopped.<br />

Based on Weyburn <strong>Microseismic</strong> Progress Report, ESG, Canada, April 2004.<br />

The majority <strong>of</strong> events are located above the reservoir, although some events are located within the<br />

reservoir interval, <strong>and</strong> some are located below it.<br />

A histogram <strong>of</strong> event depths during Phase IB is plotted in Figure 2.13. Many events appear to be<br />

located above the reservoir. Although the large depth errors mean that some <strong>of</strong> these could actually<br />

be located within the reservoir interval, it is clear that at least some activity must be occurring in the<br />

overburden. This is an interesting observation, <strong>and</strong> without geomechanical modelling it is not clear<br />

whether this could represent fluid migration or merely stress transfer into the overburden.<br />

The event magnitudes are plotted in Figure 2.14 as a function <strong>of</strong> distance. Event magnitudes range<br />

between -3 to -1. Event magnitudes <strong>of</strong> -2 are still detectable even at a distance <strong>of</strong> over 400m. Small<br />

events are still detectable at large distances, which suggests that the small number <strong>of</strong> events recorded<br />

is not an artifact <strong>of</strong> high noise levels. Figure 2.14 suggests that surface arrays would have limited use<br />

for microseismic monitoring under these conditions. The largest events recorded have magnitudes less<br />

than -1.0, <strong>and</strong> many are smaller than -2.0. Dense surface arrays would be required to detect such<br />

events, <strong>and</strong> their detectability would be strongly influenced by surface noise <strong>and</strong> the nature <strong>of</strong> event<br />

focal mechanisms.<br />

2.4.2 Phase II<br />

Recording for Phase II runs from October 2005 to the present. Although there are data recorded on<br />

the geophones, the majority <strong>of</strong> these represent near surface noise or electrical spikes. Only 39 have<br />

been reliably identified as microseismic events, occurring in two temporal clusters, with 18 events at<br />

the end <strong>of</strong> October 2005 <strong>and</strong> 21 in mid-January 2006. The Phase II events were located by ESG<br />

20

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!