Measurements of Hydraulic-Fracture-Induced Seismicity in Gas Shales
- Norman R. Warpinski (Pinnacle) | Jing Du (Pinnacle) | Ulrich Zimmer (ConocoPhillips)
- Document ID
- Society of Petroleum Engineers
- SPE Production & Operations
- Publication Date
- August 2012
- Document Type
- Journal Paper
- 240 - 252
- 2012. Society of Petroleum Engineers
- 3.2.3 Hydraulic Fracturing Design, Implementation and Optimisation, 5.8.2 Shale Gas, 4.1.2 Separation and Treating, 4.1.5 Processing Equipment, 2.5.4 Multistage Fracturing, 5.8.1 Tight Gas, 3 Production and Well Operations
- 6 in the last 30 days
- 1,397 since 2007
- Show more detail
- View rights & permissions
|SPE Member Price:||USD 12.00|
|SPE Non-Member Price:||USD 35.00|
Hydraulic fracturing is an essential technology for hydrocarbon extraction from both conventional and unconventional reservoirs around the world. Recently, concern has developed regarding induced seismicity generated in association with multistage fracturing of horizontal wells in shale reservoirs. Microseismic monitoring of hydraulic fractures, which has been a routine service for over a decade, can provide information about the levels of seismic activity commonly found during fracturing. A review of thousands of fracture treatments that have been microseismically monitored shows that the induced seismicity associated with hydraulic fracturing is very small and not a problem under any normal circumstances. Results are presented for six major shale basins in North America in which hundreds to thousands of fracture treatments have been conducted in predominatly gas reservoirs. This paper reviews the methodology, the data, and the interpretation of the microseismicity.
In unconventional reservoirs, such as the ultralow-permeability shales that are now being regularly exploited, it is absolutely essential to hydraulically fracture a well to obtain economic levels of production (Sutton et al. 2010).
Contrary to media and general public perception, hydraulic fracturing is not a "new" technology, having been applied since the late 1940s (Montgomery and Smith 2010). There is also a perception that hydraulic fractures are much larger than ever, but the "massive hydraulic fractures" that were performed in the 1970s (Fast et al. 1977; Gidley et al. 1979; Strubhar et al. 1980) were of similar size to many of the fracture treatments that are conducted in horizontal wells today. In addition, these large treatments were performed in shales in the eastern United States (Jennings et al. 1977), with some of the work supported by the United States government (Overby 1978; Duda et al. 2002) to prove up the resources in the Devonian shales of Appalachia and the western tight-gas sandstones of the Rocky Mountains.
A previous paper (Fisher and Warpinski 2011) presented data from microseismic monitoring that showed fractures are not a threat to propagate into aquifers. Results from thousands of monitored fractured treatments demonstrate that fractures will not propagate thousands of feet vertically and intersect potable water sources. In all of the shale basins studied, fractures remain several thousand feet below the deepest water source. Hydraulic fracturing is a safe technology as applied in these shale basins.
Recently, however, there has been considerable attention focused on earthquakes associated with hydraulic fracturing. Here, as well, microseismic monitoring is a valuable technology for assessing the earthquake potential of fracturing operations. The objective of this paper is to present the very large suite of microseismic measurements available to the authors in the major shale basins of North America that show that earthquakes are not a threat in any normal situation involving hydraulic fracturing. Most of the results provided here are for reservoirs that are predominantly gas, but there are also some data for reservoirs with greater liquid content; no attempt was made to separate the two.
|File Size||14 MB||Number of Pages||13|
Ake, J., Mahrer, K., O'Connell, D., and Block, L. 2005. Deep-Injectionand Closely Monitored Induced Seismicity at Paradox Valley, Colorado. Bull.Seismol. Soc. Am. 95 (2): 664-683. http://dx.doi.org/10.1785/0120040072.
Aki, K. and Richards, P.G. 2009. Quantitative Seismology, secondedition (paperback). Sausalito, California: University Science Books.
Branagan, P.T., Warpinski, N.R., Engler, B., and Wilmer, R. 1996.Measuring the Hydraulic Fracture-Induced Deformation of Reservoirs and AdjacentRocks Employing a Deeply Buried Inclinometer Array: GRI/DOE Multi-Site Project.Paper SPE 36451 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference andExhibition, Denver, 6-9 October. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/36451-MS.
Britt, L.K. and Schoeffler, J. 2009. The Geomechanics of a Shale Play: WhatMakes a Shale Prospective! Paper SPE 125525 presented at the SPE EasternRegional Meeting, Charleston, West Virginia, USA, 23-25 May. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/125525-MS.
Brune, J.N. 1970. Tectonic Stress and the Spectra of Seismic ShearWaves from Earthquakes. J. Geophys. Res. 75 (26):4997-5009. http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/JB075i026p04997.
de Pater, C.J. and Baisch, S. 2011. Geomechanical Study of Bowland ShaleSeismicity. Synthesis Report, Cuadrilla Resources Ltd., Lancashire, UK (2November 2011), http://www.cuadrillaresources.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Geomechanical-Study-of-Bowland-Shale-Seismicity_02-11-11.pdf.
Duda, J.R., Boyer II, C.M., Delozier, D., Merriam, G.R., Frantz Jr., J.H.,and Zuber, M.D. 2002. Hydraulic Fracturing: The Forgotten Key to NaturalGas Supply. Paper SPE 75712 presented at the SPE Gas Technology Symposium,Calgary, 30 April-2 May. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/75712-MS.
Fast, C.R., Holman, G.B., and Covlin, R.J. 1977. The Application ofMassive Hydraulic Fracturing to the Tight Muddy "J" Formation, WattenbergField, Colorado. J Pet Technol 29 (1): 10-11. SPE-5624-PA.http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/5624-PA.
Fehler, M.C. 1989. Stress control of seismicity patterns observed duringhydraulic fracturing experiments at the Fenton Hill hot dry rock geothermalenergy site, New Mexico. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. & Geomech.Abstracts 26 (3-4): 211-219. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0148-9062(89)91971-2.
Fisher, K. 2010. Data Confirm Safety Of Well Fracturing. The American Oil& Gas Reporter (July 2010).
Fisher, M.K. and Warpinski, N.R. 2011. Hydraulic Fracture-Height Growth:Real Data. Paper SPE 145949 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conferenceand Exhibition, Denver, 30 October-2 November. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/145949-MS.
Gibowicz, S.J., Young, R.P., Talebi, S., and Rawlence, D.J. 1991.Source parameters of seismic events at the Underground Research Laboratory inManitoba, Canada: Scaling relations for events with moment magnitude smallerthan -2. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 81 (4): 1157-1182.
Gidley, J.L., Mutti, D.H., Nierode, D.E., Kehn, D.M., and Muecke, T.W.1979. Stimulation of Low-Permeability Gas Formations by Massive HydraulicFracturing A Study of Well Performance. J Pet Technol 31(4): 525-531. SPE-6867-PA. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/6867-PA.
Goodway, B., Perez, M., Varsek, J., and Abaco, C. 2010. Seismicpetrophysics and isotropic-anisotropic AVO methods for unconventional gasexploration. The Leading Edge 29 (12): 1500-1508. http://dx.doi.org/10.1190/1.3525367.
Jennings, A. Jr., Darden, W., Wenzel, R., Shrut, R., and Foster, J.1977. Massive Hydraulic Fracturing in the Eastern United States. Paper SPE 6866presented at the SPE Annual Fall Technical Conference and Exhibition, Denver,9-12 October. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/6866-MS.
Kanamori, H. 1977. The Energy Release in Great Earthquakes. J. Geophys.Res. 82 (20): 2981-2987. http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/JB082i020p02981.
King, G.E. 2012. Hydraulic Fracturing 101: What Every Representative,Environmentalist, Regulator, Reporter, Investor, University Researcher,Neighbor and Engineer Should Know About Estimating Frac Risk and Improving FracPerformance in Unconventional Gas and Oil Wells. Paper SPE 152596 presented atthe SPE Hydraulic Fracturing Technology Conference, The Woodlands, Texas, USA,6-8 February http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/152596-MS.
Madariaga, R. 1976. Dynamics of an expanding circular fault. Bull.Seismol. Soc. Am. 66 (3): 639-666.
Majer, E., Baria, R., and Fehler, M. 2005. Cooperative Research onInduced Seismicity Associated with Enhanced Geothermal Systems. Proc.,Geothermal Resources Council Annual Meeting 2005: Geothermal Energy - TheWorld's Buried Treasure, Reno, Nevada, USA, 25-28 September, Vol. 29.
Maxwell, S.C. 2011. What Microseismic Does and Does Not Indicate aboutHydraulic Fractures. Paper presented at the 73rd EAGE Conference and Exhibitionincorporating SPE EUROPEC 2011, Vienna, Austria, 23-26 May.
McGarr, A. 1984. Scaling of Ground Motion Parameters, State of Stress, andFocal Depth. J. Geophys. Res. 89 (B8): 6969-6979. http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/JB089iB08p06969.
Montgomery, C.T. and Smith, M.B. 2010. Hydraulic Fracturing: History of anEnduring Technology. J Pet Technol 62 (12): 26-32. http://www.jptonline.org/index.php?id=481.
Nicholson, C. and Wesson, R.L. 1990. Earthquake Hazard Associated with DeepWell Injection-A Report to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. U.S.Geological Survey Bulletin 1951, U.S. Geological Survey, Denver, Colorado, http://pubs.usgs.gov/bul/1951/report.pdf.
Nolen-Hoeksema, R.C. and Ruff, L.J. 2001. Moment tensor inversion ofmicroseisms from the B-sand propped hydrofracture, M-site, Colorado.Tectonophysics 336 (1-4): 163-181. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0040-1951(01)00100-7.
Overby, W.K. 1978. Present Status of the Eastern Gas Shales Project.Proc., Second Eastern Gas Shales Symposium, Morgantown, West Virginia,16-18 October, METC/SP-78/6, Vol. 2.
Segall, P. 1989. Earthquakes triggered by fluid extraction. Geology 17 (10): 942-946. http://dx.doi.org/10.1130/0091-7613(1989)017<0942:ETBFE>2.3.CO;2.
Smith, W., Beall, J., and Stark, M. 2000. Induced Seismicity in the SEGeysers Field, California, USA. Paper presented at the World GeothermalCongress 2000, Kyushu-Tohoku, Japan, 28 May-10 June.
Strubhar, M.K., Fitch, J.L., and Medlin, W.L. 1980. Demonstration ofMassive Hydraulic Fracturing, Piceance Basin, Colorado. Paper SPE 9336presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, 21-24September. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/9336-MS.
Sutton, R.P., Cox, S.A., and Barree, R.D. 2010. Shale Gas Plays: APerformance Perspective. Paper SPE 138447 presented at the Tight GasCompletions Conference, San Antonio, Texas, USA, 2-3 November. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/138447-MS.
Vavrycuk, V. 2007. On the retrieval of moment tensors from borehole data.Geophys. Prospect. 55 (3): 381-391. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2478.2007.00624.x.
Warpinski, N. 2009. Microseismic Monitoring: Inside and Out. J PetTechnol 61 (11): 80-85. SPE-118537-PA. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/118537-MS.
Warpinski, N.R. and Du, J. 2010. Source-Mechanism Studies on MicroseismicityInduced by Hydraulic Fracturing. Paper SPE 135254 presented at the SPE AnnualTechnical Conference and Exhibition, Florence, Italy, 19-22 September. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/135254-MS.
Warpinski, N.R., Branagan, P.T., Engler, B.P., Wilmer, R., and Wolhart, S.L. 1997. Evaluation of a downhole tiltmeter array for monitoringhydraulic fractures. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 34 (3-4):108.e1-108.e13. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s1365-1609(97)00088-9.
Warpinski, N.R., Wolhart, S.L., and Wright, C.A. 2004. Analysis andPrediction of Microseismicity Induced by Hydraulic Fracturin. SPE J.9 (1): 24-33. SPE-87673-PA. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/87673-PA.
Zoback, M.D. and Harjes, H.-P. 1997. Injection-induced earthquakes andcrustal stress at 9 km depth at the KTB deep drilling site, Germany. J.Geophys. Res. 102 (B8): 18477-18491. http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/96jb02814.