Microseismic Monitoring and Geomechanical Modelling of CO2 - bris

1
2
CHAPTER 4. A COMPARISON OF MICROSEISMIC MONITORING OF FRACTURE STIMULATION DUE TO WATER
VERSUS CO 2 INJECTION
330°
0°
30°
Anisotropy [%]
300°
60°
4
3
270°
90°
2
240°
120°
1
210°
180°
150°
0
(a)
180
160
1
1.2
1.6
1.4
2
2.5
4
3.5
3
0.2
0.18
Fracture strike (α)
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
1.4
1.2
1.8
2
1.6
1.2
1
2.5
1.6
1.8
1.4
1.2
0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2
Fracture density (ξ)
1.4
1.8
1.8
2
2.5
2
3
3
3.5
4
1.6
4
3.5
2.5
1.8
2
3
3.5
2.5
4
γ
0.16
0.14
0.12
0.1
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
4
3.5
2.5
1.2
1.6
1.8
1.4
1
1.2
2
1.6
3
2
1.8
1
1.4
4
3.5
2.5
1.2
1.6
0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2
Fracture density (ξ)
1.8
1.4
1.6
3
2
1.8
3.5
2
4
2.5
3
(b)
γ
0.2
0.18
0.16
0.14
0.12
0.1
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
4
1.2
3.5
3
2.5
1.8
1.6
1.8
2
1.4
1.2
1.4
1
1
1.6
2
2.5
2.5
4
3
2.5
3.5
1.8
1.6
1.2
1.8
2
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Fracture strike (α)
(d)
1.4
1.2
1.4
2
1
1
1.6
2.5
4
3
2.5
1.2
1.8
3.5
1.6
1.8
2
1.4
1.2
1.4
1
1
1.6
2
(c)
Figure 4.25: SWS inversion results for during CO 2 injection, in the same format as Figure 4.21.
The best fit model is marked.
80