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.
3.6. SUMMARY<br />
3.6 Summary<br />
• I have developed a novel approach for inverting SWS measurements for fracture properties. I<br />
have also developed a method to generate synthetic SWS data in order to test the resolution <strong>of</strong><br />
inversion results.<br />
• Synthetic inversions show the sensitivity <strong>of</strong> the various parameters in the inversion to the range<br />
<strong>of</strong> shear wave arrival angles available. In particular, γ cannot be resolved for subvertical arrivals,<br />
while δ is poorly constrained for both subvertical <strong>and</strong> subhorizontal (but not oblique) arrivals.<br />
• I have made SWS measurements on the Weyburn microseismic events using a semi-automated<br />
algorithm. The data quality is poor <strong>and</strong> few successful results are found.<br />
• Using one fracture set to invert the SWS data, Phase IB images a fracture set striking at 138 ◦ .<br />
Though this does match with one <strong>of</strong> the fracture sets observed in core samples, it is not believed<br />
to be the principal set, which is NE-SW in core samples.<br />
• A synthetic model shows that the range <strong>of</strong> S-wave arrivals make it easier to image the NW-SE<br />
striking set, even if the NE-SW set is stronger. This may be why the NE-SW set is not picked<br />
up in the real data.<br />
• An alternative approach is to invert for two fracture sets. In this case, the Phase IB data image<br />
two fracture sets striking at 150 ◦ <strong>and</strong> 42 ◦ , closely matching the fractures observed in core sample<br />
work. However, the inversion finds the set at 150 ◦ is the strongest, which is not the principal<br />
set in core <strong>and</strong> borehole work. We may have to seek a geomechanical explanation for why this<br />
set has been opened.<br />
• Inversions for the Phase II data failed to find a stable result. It is possible that the quality <strong>of</strong><br />
the SWS measurements were not good enough, or that, as the arriving waves have sampled very<br />
different regions <strong>of</strong> the subsurface, that there is too much variation in anisotropic symmetry<br />
system type, strength <strong>and</strong> orientation.<br />
• Beyond this thesis, the inversion method I developed has now been successfully applied by several<br />
authors to a range <strong>of</strong> oil field, hydraulic fracture stimulation <strong>and</strong> block mining scenarios.<br />
53