1
A review on fluid-injection induced seismicity with emphasis on
Hydraulic Fracturing
(DRAFT)
Konstantinos Leptokaropoulos, Monika Staszek, Szymon Cielesta
Contents
SECTION I: Mechanisms of Induced Seismicity in Injection Sites (Geothermal,
Wastewater Disposal, Hydro-Fracturing)
1.1 Introduction
1.2 Basics of Poroelasticity Theory
1.3 Mechanisms of Induced Seismicity in Injection Sites:
1.3.1 Pore Pressure
1.3.2 Thermal Effects
1.3.3 Volume Change
1.3.4 Chemical Effects
1.4 Combined Effects and Case Studies
SECTION II: Characteristics of Seismicity Related to Hydro-Fracturing: A Review and
Case Studies
2.1 Summary of Major Findings
2.2 Basic Concepts
2.2.1 Introduction on Hydro-Fracturing
2.2.2 Reported Cases and comparison to other Induced Seismicity Types
2.2.3 Fracking related seismicity mechanisms
2.3 Case Studies
2.3.1 Preese Hall, Lancashire (UK)
2
2.3.2 Horn River Basin, British Columbia (Canada)
2.3.3 Geothermal fields & associated induced seismicity: The Geysers (US)
2.4 Conclusions
SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL
GLOSSARY – and a Brief Review on Poroelasticity Terms and Approaches
APPENDIX A – Formulation of Poroelasticity (references)
APPENDIX B – Solved Problems of Poroelasticity and Applications
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
REFERENCES
3
SECTION I: Mechanisms of Induced Seismicity in Injection Sites
(Geothermal, Wastewater Disposal, Hydro-Fracturing)
1.1 Introduction
It is repeatedly acknowledged that long-term injection of wastewater into disposal
wells can induce small-to-moderate earthquakes, primarily because of weakening of
preexisting faults by increase of pore pressure (Ellsworth, 2013, and references therein).
Well-documented examples of seismic activity induced by fluid injection are dated back
in the 1960’s (see Nicholson and Wesson (1990) and Davies et al. (2013) for review) and
include earthquakes triggered by wastewater disposal, secondary oil recovery, solution
mining for salt, fluid stimulation to enhance geothermal energy extraction and during the
last decades, hydraulic fracturing for shale gas exploitation.
The increasing needs for ores and energy along with the recent requirement for
better usage and exploitation of the deep underground have resulted to enhancement of
the triggered and induced seismicity in urbanized and industrialized areas all over the
globe. Considerable seismic activity seems to appear and increase in areas, which were
up to day characterized by low or even no seismicity and negligible hazard levels. One of
the most discussed examples is the seismicity burst that have taken place in the central
and eastern continental United States after 2010, which has been a subject of several
researches (e.g. Ellsworth, 2013). The recent seismic episodes associated to hydro-
fracturing in Canada, USA and UK, have contributed to an increasing public reaction
against shale gas exploitation, appending seismic risk to the list of fracking-connected
environmental impacts. These raising concerns are verified by the large number of
published studies on induced seismicity, which are considerably increased during the last
years (e.g. a focus section on injection induced seismicity, published in Seismological
Research Letters, July/ August 2015).
4
The comprehensive understanding of these processes are of paramount
importance in order adjust technological activities properly, controlling seismicity
occurrence and mitigating seismic hazard. In addition to seismic risk, production issues
are also incorporated. For example, Enayatpour et al., 2013 showed that for the case of gas
production presented in their work, production enhancement due to thermal cracks
declines from 150% to 20% in the first 5 years of operation, remaining at 20% thereafter.
Fluid production from the low permeability formations depends on the connectivity of
natural and induced fractures. Majer and Peterson (2007), among others, suggest that if
geothermal sites are to provide a significant increase in energy in the United States (the
US Department of Energy goal is 40,000MW by 2040), injection must play a larger role in
the overall strategy.
One may therefore find numerous recent review studies and technical reports on
seismicity in geothermal fields and other fluid injection sites (see Majer et al., 2007; Evans
et al., 2012; Ghassemi, 2012; Majer et al., 2012; Ellsworth, 2013; Committee on Induced
Seismicity Potential in Energy Technologies, 2013; Zang et al., 2014; Gaucher et al., 2015).
In addition, several recent researches have been accomplished since the last 5 years: Some
of the mostly recent researches investigate seismicity induced by fluid driven processes
connected to fluid injection sites (Aochi et al., 2013; Elsworth, 2013; Kim, 2013; van der
Elst et al., 2013; Gan and Elsworth, 2014; McGarr, 2014; McClure and Horne, 2014; Verdon,
2014), production of geothermal energy (Barth et al., 2012; Catalli et al., 2013, 2016; Dinske
and Shapiro, 2012; Elsworth and Douglas, 2013; Häge et al., 2013; Plenkers et al., 2012;
Martínez-Garzón et al., 2013, 2014; Izadi and Elsworth, 2014, 2015; Terakawa, 2014;
Trugman et al., 2014; Albaric et al., 2014; Lenglinié et al., 2014) and gas field exploitation
(conventional/ unconventional) or storage and wastewater injection (Dost et al., 2012,
2013; Cesca et al. 2013; Kraaijpoel and Dost, 2013; Lei et al, 2013; Keranen et al., 2014;
Rutqvist et al., 2014; Friberg et al., 2014; Turcotte et al., 2014; Norris et al., 2014, 2015;
Skoumal et al., 2014, 2015; Priolo et al., 2015; Roche and van der Baan, 2015; Yeck et al.,
5
2015; Atkinson et al., 2015, 2016). There also several notable cases where the origin of
seismicity, in particular of magnitudes capable to induce considerable hazard, is not clear
and the potential involvement of human activities cannot be ignored (Dahm et al., 2013;
Keranen et al., 2013; LLenos and Michael, 2013; Oprsal and Eysner, 2014; Gasparini et al.,
submitted manuscript).
Concerning the methodologies and the scientific background accompanying
injection induced seismicity studies, there is a wide variety of models and techniques
applied and tested in order to obtain results of significant scientific, societal and economic
interest. In addition to seismic hazard assessment implementations (e.g. Convertito et al.,
2012; Atkinson et al., 2015b), induced seismicity catalogs constitute a very rich source of
high quality and accuracy data in order to verify the efficiency of both routine and
recently proposed methodologies and algorithms. Innovative methods have been recently
applied in spatial-temporal-energy scales which bridge the gap between laboratory
experiments and tectonic events. Some examples of the mostly recent scientific techniques
developed and tested concern, among others, calculation of absolute/relative focal
coordinates and relocalization of events focii, moment tensor inversion, source
parameters determination and analysis, stress field variations, time series analyses,
magnitude distribution and related issues, pore pressure and thermal variations effects,
combined thermal-hydarulic-mechanical-chemical effects on seismicity and on material
properties and various mechanical, numerical and stochastic models (see reference
below).
There are some specific features characterizing seismic events occurring in such
sites which discriminate those events from natural seismicity. First of all, it is important
to emphasize that most injection wells do not cause felt earthquakes. Rubistein and
Mahani (2015) state that among the approximately 35000 active wastewater disposal
wells, 80000 active enhanced oil-recovery wells, and tens of thousands of hydraulically
fractured wells every year in the United States, only a few dozen of these are known to be
6
associated with induced felt earthquakes. Especially concerning hydrofracking there is
only a handful of cases worldwide (mostly in British Columbia and Alberta, Canada)
where seismicity above M~2.0 has been recorded (Davies et al., 2013). A combination of
several factors is necessary for fluid injection to induce considerable seismic energy
release (e.g. existence and properties of faults, state of stresses, the presence of fluid
pathways from the injection point to faults etc). More injection wells may be inducing
earthquakes (mostly microseismicity), but current studies are limited to the largest
earthquakes and those with the best seismological and industrial data available. It is likely
that too small to detect induced earthquakes are occurring in other sites, yet monitoring
is insufficient. In some sense, all hydraulic fracturing induces earthquakes, although
typically well below detection level: When production engineers hydraulically fracture,
they are intentionally cracking the rock, causing microearthquakes that are typically
smaller than M=0.0 (Davies et al., 2013; Rubistein and Mahani, 2015).
The most important feature of seismicity (either induced or triggered) is its direct
correspondence with technological-production processes, (i.e. injection or production
volumes/ rates/ pressures). As a result, the deep understanding of the mechanisms
involved to the seismogenesis processes should be employed for adjusting injection/
production parameters in order to control seismic activity. In such way seismic hazard
may be mitigated and maintained below acceptable thresholds. Note also that the
magnitude of the events does not solely depend on the injection-induced stress changes,
but should additionally be more related to the tectonic load and the size of the faulting
area, meaning that larger events could only occur on features that exhibit sufficient
dimensions to accommodate such a large rupture area (Rutqvist et al., 2016). Therefore,
supplementary data such as geological, hydrological, geomechanical, tectonic, records
and reports of past and historical seismicity should be taking into consideration as well,
together with the seismicity data and production process, for a robust seismic hazard
evaluation.
7
Triggering is a generally delayed process since aftershocks and reservoir induced
earthquakes may occur with delay times from hours up to 10–20 yr (Parsons 2002),
depending on a variety of factors such as distance from the injection, rock properties, in
situ stresses etc. It is however, more often that seismicity onset takes place soon after the
initiation of fluid injection (at timescales up to a few weeks). Evans et al. (2012) review 41
European case histories related to fluid injection in geothermal fields, where in most cases
seismicity starts to be detected some hours after the initiation of operations. Nearly
immediate seismic response to the injection was also noticed in several stimulation wells
in The Geysers (e.g. Martinez-Garzon et al., 2014; Garcia et al., 2012; 2016). An analysis of
seismicity induced by wastewater injection in the great onshore Val d’Agri oil field, Italy,
in 2006, was performed by Improta et al. (2015). The researchers found that seismicity,
started 3 hours after the injection initiated, strictly correlates with injection operations and
temporal variations of elastic and anisotropic parameters. Over the following 7.5 years,
seismicity rate correlated with short-term increases in injection pressure. It was suggested
that seismicity was induced by rapid communication of pore pressure perturbations
along a high-permeability fault zone favorably oriented with respect to the local
extensional stress field. However, there are cases where induced earthquake occurrence
exhibit a time lag of ~20 years (e.g. at the Cogdell oil field in Texas - Davis and Pennington,
1989, or at the oilfields near Prague, the first event occurred 17 years after injection
commenced - Keranen et al., 2013).
A simple relation connecting the distance of the distance of the propagating front
to the time elapsed since the initiation of injection was proposed by Shapiro et al. (1997;
2003), taking into account the scalar hydraulic diffusivity in a homogeneous isotropic
medium. Their approach is connected to the notion of “triggering front” they introduced
in the same studies as well. Van der Elst et al. (2013) suggested that a long delay before
seismic activation implies that faults may be moving toward a critical state for years
8
before they eventually fail. How long the delay will be depends on the time required for
pressure to reach the critical threshold at the fault (Keranen et al., 2013; Walsh and Zoback,
2015). This time depends in turn of a plethora of additional parameters such as injection
rate, distance and stress state of the nearby faults, rock mass permeability and reservoir
volume. A similar mechanism is probably responsible for the delayed seismic response in
cases of surface reservoir impoundment (e.g. Simpson et al., 1988; Mekkawi et al., 2004).
Note that a proportion of the delayed seismic response is also due to thermal effects which
are generally much slower processes than fluid and pore pressure transmission, as will
be discussed later on. Seismicity may occur at distances more than 10km from the injection
point and at depths remarkably greater than the injection (Rubinstein and Mahani, 2015).
Recent reports have argued that seismicity may be induced at 20 km or more from the
injection point (Keranen et al., 2014). Mulargia Bizzarri (2014) state that the injection of
pressurized fluids in the subsoil may trigger destructive earthquakes on active faults at
distances over a few tens of kilometers and therefore, should be effected with great care
to avoid anthropogenic seismic Hazard. Seismicity may also insist for a period of time
following the termination of stimulation. Dieterich et al. (2015) showed that both the time
needed for excess pore pressure diffusion and rate-state properties of the faults (Richards-
Dinger and Dieterich, 2012) are responsible for the persistent of seismic activity after shut-
in. The authors conclude that once this delayed nucleation process resulting from rate-
state friction is underway, it is largely self-driven and relatively insensitive to the
subsequent stressing history.
An alternative mechanism that may lead to triggering relative to large destructive
earthquakes, deals with pore pressure waves propagation, proposed by Mulargia &
Bizzarri (2014). The authors found that small fluid overpressures trigger nearby tectonic
faults and pore pressure wave propagates with such a delay that no matter how fast one
reacts to the onset of minor precursory seismicity, it will be too late. In fact, the fluid
9
pressure pulse propagates independently of what is done at the source, even after the
whole process has been shut off. Fluid-Pressure waves appear therefore, to play a major
role in earthquake triggering, being capable to account for aftershock delay without any
further assumption (Mulargia and Bizzarri, 2015). Another alternative to the
poroelasticity theory, the Non-Critical Precursory Accelerating Seismicity Theory (N-C
PAST) was proposed and applied in both tectonic and induced seismicity regimes by
Mignan et al., (2007) and Migan, (2008; 2012; 2016). This theory, although needs further
testing, seems to be in satisfactory agreement with the two descriptive laws of induced
seismicity, i.e. the linear relationship between injected fluid volume and cumulative event
number and the parabolic induced seismicity spatial envelope radius.
The consideration of pure shear (double couple) component is usually proven
insufficient for describing focal mechanisms of events occur in fluid injection sites.
Earthquakes associated with geothermal areas typically involve significant volumetric
changes (e.g. Foulger and Long, 1984; Miller et al., 1998; Ross et al., 1996; 1999). The
industrial processes of hydraulic fracturing commonly involves both tensile and shear
failure (Ellsworth, 2013). Interpretation of well constrained micro-seismic events indicate
rock failure in shear, and shear slippage on newly formed or pre-existing fracture planes
(Pearson, 1981) as well as tensile fracture initiation (Julian et al. 2010). Both of these failure
modes can be related to injection induced pore pressure increases in a critically stressed
rock and/or fractures (Ghassemi and Tao, 2016), as will be discussed later on. Rocks fail
in tension when the pore pressure exceeds the sum of the least principal stress, and the
tensile strength of the rock, forming an opening-mode fracture that propagates in the
plane normal to the least principal stress.
Julian et al., 2010 studied an injection experiment that took place in 2005 at the Coso
geothermal field in eastern California. As very frequently evident in such areas, seismicity
exhibited a swarm-like activity with similar non‐double‐couple mechanisms involving
volumetric changes (increases). Implosive mechanisms were completely absent during
10
the injection phase, probably due to either increased fluid pressure or tensile stresses
caused by thermal contraction. Moreover, the fault plane was found far from the nodal
curve of the focal mechanism, bisecting the dilatational field. This fact may imply that
hydraulically drivel tensile crack dominates the failure process (Julian et al., 1998), the
existence of heterogeneous stress field and possibly, the induction of thermal stresses by
introduction of cold fluid. In addition Johnson (2014a,b), studied source mechanisms for
twenty seismic events in The Geysers enhanced geothermal field area around Prati-32
injection well. They found evidence indicating the existence of a significant opening mode
together with shear faulting and interpreted the seismic events using a source model of a
shearing fracture with wing-cracks, which could explain the substantial volumetric
component.
1.2 Basics of Poroelasticity Theory
The available literature suggests that in several cases the poroelastic effects are the
dominant mechanism related with induced and triggered seismic activity and for that
reason a more detailed description of poroelasticity is presented here. It is well established
by both experimental observations and theoretical studies that the mechanical behavior
of elastic solids strongly depend on whether they are saturated with water or they are
primarily dry. Poroelasticity theory was originally developed by Terzhaghi (1923, 1925)
for one dimensional cases and was further generalized by Biot (1941), still being
extensively studied and improved (see also at Glossary). Poroelasticity is capable to
explain a variety of cases of induced seismicity and related phenomena, over time periods
from hours to years, but yet, no satisfactory, generalized solutions have been proposed.
As stated in Ghassemi and Tao (2016) the fundamental mechanisms in reservoir seismicity
are still not adequately understood and several key questions remain unresolved in the
analysis of micro-seismicity, namely the variation of seismic activity with injection rate,
11
delayed microseismicity, the relation of the stimulated zone to the injected volume and
the injection rate, the connectivity of the fractures hosting micro-seismic events and the
resulting reservoir permeability. A possible reason for the limited understanding of these
processes is that other phenomena such as thermic effects, chemical reactions, visco-
elastic behavior of material etc, may play an important role on mechanical response of the
rock matrix and consequently, on the induced seismicity in deep reservoirs. These
complex phenomena have only recently been thoroughly modelled, studied and
combined with each other (e.g. The coupled model by Taron et al. (2009) incorporates
features unique to fractured reservoirs involving the undrained pressure response in a
dual-porosity medium and with chemo-mechanical effects on deformation and on
transport). For example, it is shown that injection-induced pressure changes (if pressure
is above a certain threshold) results in an immediate response of microseismic activity,
first along major permeable fractures connected to the well, and later in the fractured
rockmass between major fractures. Thermal effects involve mainly cooling contraction of
the reservoir rock, which results in stress changes that can strongly contribute to
stimulation and microseismic activity, especially in geothermal fields where high
temperature differences between the injected fluid and the reservoir environment are
evident.
Stimulation processes may result to changes in various reservoir properties, such
as Young modulus, fracture porosity, opening of cracks and flow transmissivity along
fractures, permeability etc (e.g. Rutqvist et al., 2016 and references therein). Martinez-
Garzon et al. (2014) found that stress tensor orientation changes may be related to
increased pore pressure and the corresponding changes in poroelastic stresses at reservoir
depth. These changes result in turn to seismically release of strain energy. Inversely, the
locations and temporal variation of the induced earthquakes are routinely used as
indicators to characterize patterns of permeability in reservoirs (Majer and Peterson,
2007). However, this is a rather complex issue, since under different circumstances
12
earthquakes can be more closely associated with either relatively low or relatively high
permeability.
Two mechanisms play a key role in the interaction between the interstitial fluid
and the porous rock, leading to apparent time-dependent rock properties (Detournay &
Cheng, 1993): An increase of pore pressure induces a dilation of the rock and compression
of the rock causes a rise of pore pressure (if the fluid is prevented from escaping the pore
network). Therefore, fluid extraction or injection induces stress changes in fluid saturated
rock formations and conversely, applied loads to an aquifer (by infrastructures,
atmospheric pressure, earth and ocean tides, tectonic activity, water reservoir level
changes, etc) produce water-level changes in wells. The theory of poroelasticity has been
proposed to investigate the time-dependent coupling between the deformation of the
elastic solid skeleton and fluid flow within the skeleton, i.e. the coupling between changes
in stress and variations of fluid pressure (Wang, 2000; Verruijt, 2013, see Glossary as well).
Poroelasticity may be recalled to interpret a variety of phenomena associated with
induced seismicity such as the initially unexpected connection between a causal event and
its subsequent effect and the time delay between water reservoir impoundment and
initiation of seismic activity. The time periods that poroelastic phenomena are evident
range from hours to several years. The principal assumptions in poroelasticity theory as
stated by Zoback (2007) are:
o There is an interconnected pore system uniformly saturated with fluid.
o The total volume of the pore system is small compared to the volume of
the rock as a whole.
o Pressure in pores, total stress acting on the rock externally and stresses
acting on individual grains are considered in terms of statistically
averaged uniform values.
Following this concept, an increase of fluid pressure causes the medium to expand
just as an increase of temperature causes a similar expansion. The magnitude of the solid-
13
to-fluid coupling (i.e. a change in applied stress produces a change in fluid pressure or
fluid mass) depends on the compressibility of the framework of the porous material, the
compressibility of the pores, solid grains and pore fluid, and the porosity of the medium
(Wang, 2000). It is to be expected that the compressibility of the porous medium is
considerably larger than the compressibilities of the two constituents (i.e. fluid and solid
particles), because the main mechanism of soil deformation is not so much the
compression of the fluid or the particles, but rather the deformation due to a
rearrangement of the particles, including sliding and rolling of these particles over each
other (Verruijt, 2013).
One manifestation of poroelasticity is that the stiffness of a fluid saturated rock will
depend on the rate at which external force is applied. When force is applied quickly, the
pore pressure in the rock’s pores increases because the pore fluid is carrying some of the
applied stress and the rock behaves in an undrained matter. In other words, if stress is
applied faster than fluid pressure can drain away (e.g. coseismic stresses are connected to
such undrained conditions, Cocco and Rice, 2002), the fluid carries some of the stress and
the rock is relatively stiff. However when an external force is applied slowly, any increase
in fluid pressure associated with compression of the pores has time to drain away such
that the rock’s stiffness is the same as if no fluid was present. Therefore there is a trade-
off among loading rate, permeability of the rock and viscosity of the pore fluid (Zoback,
2007).
Besides long-term changes in permeability associated with chemical reactions and
pore redistribution, the dynamical response of saturated porous media to rapid stress
transients (dynamic stresses) can also significantly affect the effective permeability of
saturated porous media because of poroelastic effects. Maurice Biot developed the first
theoretical model of the propagation of acoustic waves in saturated porous media in the
mid-1950s. Biot found two independent solutions to the propagation of acoustic waves in
porous media that he referred to as waves of the first and second kind (see Huber et al.
14
(2015) for an application concerning the dynamic response of fluid saturated media). As
mentioned earlier, Mullargia and Bizzari (2015) presented a mechanism of pressure wave
propagation which is capable to account for delayed aftershock activity without any
further assumption. However, in the quasi-static approach which is most commonly
applied in several cases, elastic wave propagation and pressure gradients are considered
to be second order phenomena and are usually neglected.
1.3 Mechanisms of Induced Seismicity in Injection Sites:
The most prominent mechanisms of Induced Seismicity on fluid injection sites and
their characteristics are presented here. The combined effect of those mechanisms is also
described and demonstrated by case studies.
1.3.1 Pore Pressure
An increase of pore fluid pressure can decrease static friction and thereby facilitate
seismic slip on favourably oriented planes, when deviatoric stress field is present. In such
cases, the seismicity is driven by the local stress field, but triggered on an existing fracture
by the pore-pressure increase. At higher pressures, tensile microseismicity can also be
induced by the increasing of pore pressure which enhances crack opening and new
fractures in the rock mass (Majer et al., 2007). Pore pressure in the rock matrix tends to
gradually increase in response to injection into the fracture, but the increase is not
monotonic and episodes of pore pressure rise and drop are observed as well. This is
because the pore pressure responds to three driving mechanisms: Fracture opening and
poroelastic deformation of the rock matrix, pressure diffusion, and cooling of the
fluid/matrix (Ghassemi & Tao, 2016), as will be discussed below.
1.3.2 Thermal Effects
15
Heat transport and conductive temperature changes have a significant effect on the
rockmass stress state and should be therefore considered as well. Temperature changes
are mainly driven by advection and conduction (radiation can be discarded in this case).
Advective heat flow is coupled to mass transfer of fluids and, thus, dominant in rock
fractures that serve as a heat exchanger. On the other hand, conductive heat flow
governed by Fourier's law is the ruling mechanism in an impermeable rock matrix
(Gaucher et al., 2015). Thermal shock occurs when a material’s temperature is changed
over a short period of time such that constituent parts of the material deform by different
amounts (Enayatpour et al., 2013).
Temperature is incorporated in thermoelasticity theory in analogous way in which
pore pressure is involved in poroelasticity. Similarly heat conduction corresponds to fluid
flow and entropy corresponds to fluid mass. Constant temperature (isothermal) and
insulated (adiabatic) boundary conditions correspond to constant pore pressure (drained)
and no-flow (undrained) boundary conditions, respectively, in the poroelastic case. Both
Isentropic and adiabatic conditions are equivalent to undrained conditions in
poroelasticity (Wang, 2000). Concerning the thermo-elastic coupling, temperature
changes produce considerable thermal stresses, but, inversely, stress changes do not
significantly alter the temperature field for most of known materials.
When cool water flows into hot rock voids, thermally induced fractures are opened
in the rock matrix, because of the high temperature difference, potentially accompanied
by water flashing to steam (Perkins and Gonzalez, 1985). For relatively small temperature
differences between the injection water and the rock matrix induced thermal stresses are
relatively small and develop very slowly, localized in the central region of the fracture
where most of the cooling occurs. In high temperature contrast, however, the cooling-
induced fracture opening is increased (Ghassemi & Tao, 2016). Fracture faces contract by
cooling and tend to lose their frictional resistance, becoming more prone to stress release
16
by seismic slip (Majer and Peterson, 2007). Cooling could also make the rock mass more
brittle, especially when injecting near the brittle-ductile rock transition, progressively
extending the stimulation zone downwards, to the originally ductile layers (Rutqvist et
al., 2016).
1.3.3 Volume Change
As fluid is produced from (or injected into) an underground resource, the reservoir
rock may compact or be stressed. These volume changes cause a perturbation in local
stress conditions, which are already close to the failure state (geothermal systems are
typically located within faulted regions under high states of stress). This situation can lead
to seismic slip within or around the reservoir. A similar phenomenon occurs where solid
material is removed underground, such as in mines, leading to “rockbursts,” as the
surrounding rock adjusts to the newly created void space (Majer et al., 2007).
1.3.4 Chemical Effects
Chemical effects and their coupling to thermal-hydraulic-mechanical processes are
a very complex issue. Fluids that are injected into a reservoir are typically far from
geochemical and thermal equilibrium with minerals in the host rock. As minerals
precipitate from the injected fluid and dissolve from the rock, changes are incurred in the
porosity and permeability of the fracture system (Taron and Elsworth, 2009). In addition,
geochemical alteration of fracture surfaces, may result to variation of friction coefficient,
leading to microseismicity. However, Pennington et al. (1986) made the hypothesis that if
seismic barriers evolve and asperities form (resulting in increased friction), larger events
may become more common. In general, small progress has been achieved so far in
modelling geochemical processes coupled to the thermo-hydro-mechanical processes in
fractured reservoirs (Jing et al., 2002; Bächler and Kohl 2005). This is probably due to the
17
small impact that these processes are believed to have to induced seismicity, at least on a
short time scale, but also to the complexity of the topic (Gaucher et al., 2015).
1.4 Combined Effects and Case Studies
There are several recent studies that attempt to combine the influence of the
aforementioned factors, since it has been accepted that a coupled effects provide a more
comprehensive approach. The coupled thermo-poroelastic effects have impact on
reservoir in situ stress state and fracture zone evolution, such that consideration of
injected volume alone is not adequate for understanding the spatio-temporal distribution
of injection related seismic activity. Abundant microseismicity is likely to be triggered in
association to thermal contraction in the vicinity of the well where cool water is injected.
When the rock matrix permeability is low (Delaney, 1982) and fluid flows mainly within
deformable fractures or a fault, coupling between temperature, pore pressure, and stress
may result in delayed rock matrix and/or natural fracture failure, potentially producing
delayed seismicity (Ghassemi & Tao, 2016). If the heat is transferred dominantly by
conduction, thermal fracturing induced seismic activity exhibits no preferential direction
or orientation. In contrast, if pore fluid advection phenomena also facilitate heat transport,
anisotropy on the microseismicity distribution around the well may occur caused by
preferential orientation of conductive fractures (Martinez-Garzon et al., 2014).
As injection rate increases, the pressure builds up in the fractures causing them to
open more rapidly (and ultimately to propagate) with potential for induced seismicity at
early times. Compressing the surrounding rock and increasing its pore pressure can cause
slippage on other favorably oriented fractures (e.g, Safari and Ghassemi, 2015). On the
other hand, a faster injection rate increases the cooling effect on the rock matrix stress and
pore pressure compared to a slower injection case. Due to the fact that the pressure
responses are immediate, whereas the thermal effects are generally much slower, the
18
microseismic activity (number of events and energy release) generally responds quickly
to pressure changes induced by changes in injection rate. In many rock types (e.g. granitic
rocks), fluid diffusivity is an order of magnitude higher than thermal diffusivity so that
thermal stress effects tend to develop later than pore pressure effects. This means that the
rate of microseismic activity around an injection well can be controlled by regulating the
injection rate (Rutqvist et al., 2016). Seismic events during peak injections tend to occur at
greater distances from the injection well, preferentially trending parallel to the maximum
horizontal stress direction. On the other hand, at lower injection rates the seismicity tends
to align in different directions suggesting the presence of a local fault. Furthermore,
increases in fluid injection rates also coincide with a decrease in b values (Martinez-
Garzon et al., 2014), which may subsequently increase after injection ceases (Goebel et al.,
2016). Martinez-Garzon et al. (2014) also suggested that regardless of the injection stage,
most of the induced seismicity results from thermal fracturing of the reservoir rock.
However, during peak injection intervals, the increase in pore pressure may likewise be
responsible for the induced seismicity.
The complete effect on seismicity is a result of combined Thermal-Hydrologic-
Mechanical-chemical (THMC) forces operate upon temporally dynamic and spatially
variable fluid transport properties, such as permeability, porosity, and fracture
interconnectivity (e.g. Taron and Elsworth, 2009; Taron et al., 2009). Fluid injection at
pressures intermediate between the minimum principal stress and the Coulomb stress
will induce shear failure within enhanced geothermal reservoirs (Hubbert and Rubey,
1959; Majer et al., 2007) and may trigger seismicity (Grasso and Wittlinger, 1990). Induced
seismicity results from fluid injection and is expected to migrate within the reservoir with
time as driven by the various interactions of thermal, hydraulic, mechanical and chemical
(THMC) processes, which also migrate through the reservoir on different length-scales
and time-scales (Walsh, 1965; Taron and Elsworth, 2009). Note that changes in pressure
19
and temperature induce displacements that consequently lead to a new change in
pressure distribution. The coupled effects control the development of permeability, heat-
transfer area, and thereby thermal output of the reservoir, together with the evolution of
induced seismicity (Izadi and Elsworth, 2013). Majer et al. (2007) reviewed the potential
mechanisms of induced seismicity in geothermal environments: Pore pressure increase
(effective stress reduction), temperature decrease (thermoelastic strain), change of fluid
volume due to fluid withdrawal/ injection, and chemical alteration of fracture surfaces.
The extent to which these subsurface phenomena are active within any specific situation
is influenced by a number of local and regional geologic conditions that can include the
orientation and magnitude of the deviatoric stress field in relation to fault geometry, the
extent of faults and fractures, the rock mechanical properties, hydrologic factors and
natural (background) seismic activity. Majer et al. (2007) suggest that since a variety of
factors are needed to come all together at the right time and place for producing a large
energy release, a significant earthquake occurrence should not be a common
phenomenon. This statement has been verified by the observed seismicity cases up to date
in geothermal systems and fluid injection sites worldwide (Elsworth, 2013; Davies et al.,
2013).
Izadi and Elsworth (2013) showed that the rate of propagation of the
hydrodynamic front is approximately twice as rapid as the thermal front. Therefore, the
very short-term response (days to months - figure 1.1 by Izadi and Elsworth, 2013) is
controlled by fluid pressure and effective stress effects relative to the initiation of
stimulation. At later time (month to years), thermal effects specifically, or chemical effects
possibly, may contribute to the seismicity when the seismicity front lags behind the
hydrodynamic front due to small changes in pressure. According to these mechanisms,
the authors associated the large early-time events with the fluid front and the lower
seismic magnitude later-time events with the transit of the thermal/chemical front. For
20
later time (over 1 year), thermal drawdown and potentially chemical influences
principally trigger the seismicity, but result in a reduction in both the number of events
and their magnitude, with respect to the size of the disturbance and the volume of the
area being affected (Majer and Peterson, 2007; Izadi and Elsworth, 2013). During the shut-
in period the rates of moment release typically drop, however, acceleration of moment
release rates may be observed as well at larger distances from the injection location (Grob
et al., 2016).
Figure 1.1. It is shown that the rate of propagation of the hydrodynamic front is
approximately twice as rapid as the thermal front. This illustrates that most of the seismic
activity is triggered by hydraulic effects at early times (days to month) relative to the
initiation of stimulation. At later time (month to years), thermal effects specifically, or
chemical effects possibly, may contribute to the seismicity when the seismicity front lags
behind the hydrodynamic front due to small changes in pressure. By following the
propagation of both fluid pressure and thermal fronts through the reservoir with time,
we associate large early-time events with the fluid front and the lower seismic magnitude
later-time events with the transit of the thermal/chemical front (Izadi and Elsworth, 2013).
21
Enayatpour et al. (2013) showed that injection of cold fracturing fluid into reservoir
rock, induces thermal fractures perpendicular to hydraulic fracture. Figure 1.2 shows the
thermal cracks of depth d perpendicular to hydraulic fracture in a horizontal wellbore in
a tight formation. Hydraulic fractures tend to grow normal to the minimum horizontal
stress, Shmin. As the cold fluid is injected into the fractures, the transient heat diffusion
causes the heat to be transferred into the hydraulic fracture as it is colder. This heat
transfer, cools down the zone neighboring the fracture and the rock shrinks parallel to
hydraulic fracture length. Since the reservoir rock is confined, thermal stresses are created
in rock, leading to thermal cracks. Here we are looking at the physics behind this
phenomenon and come up with a formulation of a model to obtain the depth d along x-
axis, distance b, and width t of thermal cracks.
Figure 1.2. Thermal fractures created perpendicular to the hydraulic fracture
direction (Enayatpour et al., 2013). It is demonstrated that the thermal cracks have to open
against the maximum in-situ horizontal stress SHmax, perpendicular to the hydraulic
fracture. As we see from numerical simulations, these thermal cracks do not extend far
from hydraulic fracture face, hence, we can assume these cracks as straight fractures. This
observation can justify that as the thermal cracks open, they do not interfere with heat
transfer in x-direction.
22
Izadi and Elsworth (2014) attempted to understand the mechanisms of seismic
triggering due to fluid and thermal effects for the proposed stimulation of the Newberry
enhanced geothermal site, Oregon, USA. In doing so, they applied the Taron et al., (2009)
THMC numerical simulation method that couples the multiphase, multi-component, non-
isothermal thermodynamics, reactive transport, and chemical precipitation/dissolution
phenomena with the stress/deformation analyses. They correlated the evolution of
seismicity with the transit of the hydrodynamic, thermal and chemical fronts within a
short-term (~21 days) stimulation, to determine associations of events with the various
causal mechanisms. They found that the largest event occurs at the location (outward
from injection) where the stress drop is highest and on the largest fracture, while the
number of seismic events decays with time and distance from the injection point at each
reservoir. They associated large early-time events with the fluid front and later lower
seismic magnitude events with the transit of the thermal (and chemical) front. Large
events at early-time (days to month) occur due to the fluid front. Over longer periods of
time (month to years) smaller seismic magnitude formed as a result of thermal (-chemical)
front within reservoir.
All deformations resulting from thermal, pore pressure, and flow are mechanical
deformations and result in fracture aperture variations. For relatively higher permeability
rocks and higher cooling rates, a zone of tensile stress develops for some time which can
produce tensile microseismicity. Ghassemi and Tao (2016) demonstrated by numerical
modeling that the lower the matrix permeability, the stronger the stress shadow and its
stress effects on pore pressure, and the stronger the thermal effect on stress. This
phenomenon is more conspicuous for the case of 80 K injection cooling (Figure 3). Note
that pore pressure tends to rise in the beginning in response to fracture (element) opening
at the injection well. But then, cooling dominates and causes a substantial reduction in
pore pressure before leak-off prevails and the pore pressure begins to increase (at about
23
24 days). The initial peak in pore pressure can be explained by matrix compression
associated with natural fracture opening in response to injection cooling. This peak is not
observed for the isothermal injection case (no cooling) as the fracture opening is minimal
in that case.
Figure 3. Induced pore pressure history in the rock matrix (Ghassemi and Tao, 2016). The
peak of pore pressure change propagates into the rock with time but its intensity is
reduced with distance. The lower the matrix permeability, the stronger the coupling
effects on pore pressure.
24
SECTION II: Characteristics of Seismicity Related to Hydro-Fracturing: A
Review and Case Studies
2.1 Summary of Major Findings
Horizontal hydraulic fracturing has been routinely used for shale gas exploitation
since the early 2000’s, especially in the United States and Canada. More than 1 million
wells have been created for Hydraulic Fracturing operations. Amongst them only 6 cases
have been currently connected with M>2.0 and even fewer reported for which events were
felt at the surface. In general, the energy release of fracking associated seismicity is much
less than the other kinds of Induced Seismicity (e.g. mining, reservoir impoundment).
Intensity at the surface is also likely to be smaller due to the greater depths (>2000m) at
which shale gas is extracted compared with other technologies.
Two classes of events related to hydro-fracturing operations can be identified.
Seismicity directly associated with fracking, generally implies large but highly localized
stresses, therefore fresh fractures occur on small volumes of the bulk rock and
consequently, the size of the events is also small. Literature distinguishes one more class
of events, the so called ‘fault reactivation events’. Those events are larger and they are
considered to be caused by fluid transmission and pore pressure changes which reduce
the effective normal stress leading to sheer failure. The energy released by those events is
several orders of magnitude greater than the induced microseismicity energy. Fault
25
reactivation events seem to have differences from fracking events in terms of spatio-
temporal-size distribution and source mechanism.
Studies performed up to days demonstrate variable and in some cases
contradictory results. However there are some characteristics for which most of the
researches agree, or provide similar findings. Note that this report considers only
hydraulic fracturing operation and no further injection of wastewater (which is not
permitted in EU).
1) Event Detection (Network)
Regional/ National networks can only detect the strongest events, since the closest
stations are essentially located tens or hundreds of kilometers from the fracking sites.
Local, surface networks may detect much more events. However, the majority of fracking
induced events have typically M<0.5 or even lower, which roughly corresponds to the
detection level of the network (signal to noise ratio). Therefore, recording and location
analysis of microseismicity requires specialized seismic sensing equipment and
processing algorithms. Microseismicity can only be sufficiently analyzed by either
downhole geophones (in one or more boreholes) or massive surface arrays (hundreds or
thousands of instruments), such that the signal to noise ratio is enhance by stacking
techniques (e.g. Grechka, 2010; Gei et al., 2011). In any case the evaluation of a network
performance is a very important for sufficiently recording of local seismic activity
(Mahani et al., 2016).
2) Locations
As discussed in (1) the detection of microseismicity by regional/ local networks is
problematic. The location of those events is even harder. Absolute locations are hard to
be obtained with acceptable vertical and horizontal errors. Relative locations and
distances from the monitoring well/ stations are constrained with better accuracy, also in
26
combination with waveform data elaboration. A routinely applied relative relocation
technique is the one by Waldhauser and Ellsworth (2000) which uses differential travel
times of P and S waves to refine the initial earthquake hypocentral location. On the
contrary, surface and downhole arrays provide very accurate locations, yet the data are
usually not available by the operators. Template event cross-correlation signal detection
techniques can also be applied to detect smaller magnitude events by local networks (e.g.
Holland, 2013; Friberg et al., 2014).
3) Waveforms
Signals of hydro-fracking events usually demonstrate remarkable similarity.
Waveforms can be easily compared with each other by superimposing the signals from
different events (recorded in certain stations and components) after normalizing them on
their maximum amplitude. Waveform similarity, especially among the largest events (for
which data is more robust) indicate they all sources are tightly localized and the seismic
energy was radiated through identical travel paths (e.g. Green et al., 2012; Friberg et al.,
2014). Waveforms are usually utilized for relative and absolute location, moment tensor
inversion and magnitude determination among clusters of events with similar recordings.
4) Source Mechanisms
Most of seismic activity comprises low magnitude Mode-1 (Tensile) failures. These
events usually demonstrate significant CLVD and ISO components. On the other hand,
triggered (fault reactivation) events are larger, caused by fluid transmission and pore
pressure changes. The energy they released is several orders of magnitude greater than
the induced microseismicity energy and their focal mechanisms are highly DC. Hybrid
events, with combined characteristics (both sheer and tensile mechanisms) are also
present.
5) Magnitudes
27
Hydraulic fracturing usually causes events with magnitudes much lower than the
detection ability of surface regional, even local networks (M<0.5 or even lower). This fact
may be connected with the water volumes used for fracking which are usually
significantly lower than those injected during waste water disposal or geothermal
applications. Fracking events are considered to be directly associated with crack opening
due to the high pressure water injection. However there may be stronger events (with
M>1.0 up to 4.6) which are believed to be connected with reactivation of optimally for
failure oriented fault segments. According to Warpinski et al. (2012), deeper sources
demonstrate higher magnitudes.
6) b-values
Fracking events usually demonstrate a b-value~2.0, whereas fault reactivation events
have a lower b-value~1.0 (e.g. Maxwell et al., 2009; Downie et al., 2010; Kratz et al., 2012).
The changes of the b-values in time and among specific clusters (detected by spatio-
temporal, size and focal mechanism criteria) are considered to be a useful tool for
discrimination between fracking and fault reactivation events. However, an accurate and
robust determination of b-value (and its uncertainties) requires relatively large datasets
and wide magnitude range, which are not always available in several cases of fracking
induced seismicity.
7) Geomechanical Features
Pore pressure perturbations due to fluid injection result to change of the normal
stress on faults causing failure. The magnitudes of the events depend on area of fault and
amount of slip. Potential mechanisms for the transmission of a pore fluid pressure pulse
or fluid into a fault to cause reactivation are the direct injection into the fault, fluid flow
through the stimulated or existing hydraulic fractures and/or through permeable strata
and along bedding planes. The hydraulic fractures typically propagate parallel to the
28
maximum stress direction in the reservoir. Contrarily, in areas of low stress differences,
the hydraulic fracture pattern can be quite complex, as there is no preferential direction
for the fracture to grow. Evidence also show that the fracture propagation is much more
oriented on the horizontal than the vertical direction across the well (Warpinski, 2013).
Unmapped faults are very often evident and microseismicity is routinely used to map the
progress of fractures and identify fault structures. In some cases subseismic faults may
exist and only become apparent when illuminated with microseismicity (e.g. Maxwell,
2013).
8) Seismicity Clustering (spatial – temporal – size – associated with fracking
processes)
Events epicenters are usually located close to the injection well-head and the depth
at which fracking has taken place. Both field observations and geomechanical simulations
(Rutqvist et al., 2013; 2015) confirm that the fault activation (shear failure) occurred
simultaneously with the hydraulic fracturing (tensile failure), starting near the well and
propagating away from the well in repeated microseismic events. The events are mostly
concentrated in the close vicinity of the injection stages, much closer than the 5km radius
boundary (usually some hundred meters) proposed by Davis and Frohlich (1993). The
maximum magnitude events occur from one to several hours after the initiation of
injection, whereas smaller size events occurs immediately. Even where faults are
intersected by the treatment wells, there is often a time lag of several hours between the
start of pumping and fault reactivation. The delay between pumping and the reactivation
of some faults may in part be because the fault into which fluid is injected has inherent
storage capacity and transmissibility characteristics, or due to the time period required
for the transmission of fluid pressure by pressure diffusion and due to poroelasticity (i.e.
coupling of stress in the solid skeleton of the rock to the in-situ fluids - stress changes can
29
affect the fluid pressure in a natural fracture without fluid flow, Lacazette and Geiser,
2013).
9) Risk Mitigation
Hydraulic fracturing is generally considered to be of lower risk than disposal wells
for inducing large earthquakes, because the injections are short-term and add smaller
amounts of fluid into the subsurface compared to most disposal wells (CRS report, Folger
and Tiemann, 2015). However, the larger events may cause damage to the well casing and
therefore slow down the production and potentially, cause undesirable environmental
impacts. Many researchers have proposed traffic light systems, adjusted to the conditions
and the potential (e.g. maximum magnitude estimates) of the fracking site. Generally, the
nucleation and magnitudes of the events are partially controlled by the fluid injection
volumes and rates. In addition, fluid flow back usually leads to the inverse effect,
reducing the pressure at the perforation depth and consequently lead to decrease of
seismic activity.
2.2 Basic Concepts
2.2.1 Introduction on Hydro-Fracturing
Shale is the rock equivalent of mud, just as sandstone is the rock equivalent of sand.
Shale formations are usually found at depths between 2-6 km and they may exhibit
horizontal extend over 1000km. Their permeability is characterized as low to very low
(grain size 4µm) and their porosity is typically 2-20%. The so called “Black Shales” are the
main hydrocarbon source which are formed under anoxic conditions (Turcotte et al.,
2014).
Hydro fracturing is a common technique applied for shale gas exploitation. The
EPA (Enviromental Protection Agency of Ireland) defines “fracking” as “the process of
directing pressurized fluids containing any combination of water, proppant, and any added
30
chemicals to penetrate tight formations, such as shale or coal formations, that subsequently
require high rate, extended flowback to expel fracture fluids and solids during completions”.
Fracking was pioneered in 1947. While this experiment failed to produce a significant
production increase, it did mark the beginning of hydraulic fracturing. Since that time,
this completion technique has been used in over 1.2 million wells. Modern day fracking
did not begin until the late 1990s when it became commercially viable. This originated
when George P. Mitchell created a new technique (“slickwater”, i.e. low viscosity fluid
with proppant injected at high pressure), which utilized hydraulic fracturing, and
combined it with horizontal drilling (Hefner, 2014).
The ability of fluids to flow through rock is controlled by a property called
permeability, itself a function of porosity. The pore space in rocks is made up of a diverse
range of voids in the solid rock matrix and includes cracks induced by stresses. The
aim of fracking is to massively improve permeability by creating (or reopening) a locally
dense network of open and connected – i.e. hydraulically conductive – fractures (Healy,
2012).
A recognized complicating factor in many shale gas formations is that of elastic
anisotropy. Many rocks, including common hydrocarbon reservoir sandstones can be
considered as elastically isotropic – i.e. their elastic properties, such as Young’s modulus
and Poisson’s ratio, do not vary with direction, as their constituent clay minerals are platy
in form and are then compacted into aligned parallel layers. This gives an important and
measurable directionality to their elastic and mechanical response. The precise physical
nature of the control exerted by lithology anisotropy on rock fracture is poorly
understood; although the effects are well known/documented. Many anisotropic rocks
such as shale fail much more easily/frequently along/parallel to their fabric than across it
and the orientation of any cross-cutting fractures is different to those orientations
predicted for an isotropic rock in the same stress field. These observations have
31
potentially important implications for the connectivity, and therefore permeability, of any
fracking induced fracture array in anisotropic shales. The exact details of the created
fracture network are critical to the effective extraction of shale gas, but also for the
ultimate fate of the injected fracking fluid (e.g. Harper, 2011). A better mechanical
understanding of rock fracture in anisotropic rocks will help improve the predictive
capabilities of geomechanical models, which also need to be tested under controlled
conditions (Healy, 2012).
The nucleation and propagation of hydraulic rock fractures are chiefly
controlled by the local in situ stress field, the strength of the rock (stress level needed to
induce failure), and the pore fluid pressure. Temperature, elastic properties, pore water
chemistry and the loading rate also have secondary influence. It is important to
recognize that the fracking process of pumping large volumes of water into a borehole
at a certain depth cannot control the type of fractures that are created or reactivated
(Healy, 2012). The array of fractures created and/or reactivated or reopened depends on
a complex interplay of the in situ stress, the physical properties of the local rock volume
and any pre-existing fractures, and the pore fluid pressure (Phillips, 1972). This
could have implications for the risk of ground water contamination by fracking
operations, as the fracture network generated by the fracking fluid could be complex and
difficult to predict in detail.
In brief, the technique involves pumping a water-rich fluid into a borehole until
the fluid pressure at depth causes the rock to fracture. The pumped fluid contains small
particles known as proppant (often quartz-rich sand) which serve to prop open the
fractures. After the fracking job, the pressure in the ell is dropped and the water
containing released natural gas flows back to the well head at the surface. The
boreholes themselves are often deviated away from the vertical, into subhorizontal
orientations, to ensure better and more efficient coverage of the targeted shale gas
32
reservoir. The fracking fluid also contains small amounts (typically < 2% in total by
volume, or even less) of chemical additives such as acid to help initiate fractures, corrosion
and scale inhibitors to protect the borehole lining and gelling agents to alter the fluid
viscosity (e.g. British Geological Survey).
Commonly, the “plug-and-perf” stimulation technique is employed in wells with
cemented liners. Plug-and-perf includes pumping down a bridge plug on wireline with
perforating guns to a given horizontal location near the toe of the well. The plug is set,
and the zone is perforated. The tools are then removed from the well, and the fracture
stimulation treatment is pumped in. The set plug or ball-activated plug then diverts
fracture fluids through the perforations into the formation. The stage is completed, the
next plug and perforations are initiated, and the process is repeated moving back to the
heel of the well (http://www.undeerc.org/).
The recent large-scale increase in unconventional oil and gas production may
result in considerable environmental. Injecting large volumes of fluid into the subsurface
is not without risk, and recent reports in the media and, to a much lesser extent, in the
scientific literature have highlighted the potential for the following (Healy, 2012; Turcotte
et al., 2014):
need of large volumes of water
contamination of ground water, and possibly even drinking water, with
natural gas and other chemicals
emissions of volatile components, such as CO2 or methane, into the
atmosphere
the leakage of contaminated drilling waste fluid from storage ponds
induced seismicity
2.2.2 Reported cases and comparison with other Induced Seismicity Types
33
There is a variation of the strongest events magnitude related to different kinds of
anthropogenic activities (updated from Davies et al., 2013): mining (5.6), oil and gas field
depletion (7.3), water injection for secondary oil recovery (5.1), reservoir impoundment
(7.9 – potentially), waste disposal (5.3), academic research boreholes investigating induced
seismicity and stress (3.1), solution mining (5.2), geothermal operations (4.6) and
hydraulic fracturing for recovery of gas and oil from low-permeability sedimentary rocks
(4.6, updated, 2015).
Though fluid disposal and hydraulic fracturing both have the potential to trigger
earthquakes, it has become clear that the potential for induced seismicity is higher for
fluid (usually saltwater) disposal than for hydraulic fracturing. For instance, saltwater
disposal involves very long injection times (years to decades) and very large injection
volumes (often thousands to tens of thousands of m3 per day). This leads to much more
extensive pressure perturbations than hydraulic fracturing operations, in which 1000 m3
might be injected over an ∼2 hr period (Walters et al., 2015).
The most important hydraulic fracturing cases, with the highest magnitudes (until
January of 2016) are the following (Cases in bold will be described in detail in Part III):
Horn River Basin, British Columbia (Etsho and Kiwigana, Canada), 2009-2011,
Mmax=3.8
Eola Field, Oklahoma (US) 2011, Mmax=2.8. In south-central Oklahoma, hydraulic
fracturing injections between January 16, 2011, and January 22, 2011, induced a
series of 116 earthquakes of M=0.6 to M=2.8 (Holland, 2011; 2013). 50 events
occurred within 24 hours of the first activity and were coincident with the location
of the fracking. 43 of them were large enough to be located (M=1.0–2.8), which from
the character of the seismic recordings indicate that they were shallow and
generated significant surface wave energy.
34
Preese Hall, Lancashire (UK), 2011, Mmax=2.3.
Harrison County, Ohio (US), 2013, Mmax=2.2. Approximately 480 events were
identified, with ten of them recorded by regional network having moment
magnitudes MW=1.7-2.2. There were no felt reports for any of these events (Friberg
et al., 2014).
Poland Township, Ohio (US), 2014, Mmax=3.0. Hydraulic fracturing operations
affected a previously unmapped fault in the Precambrian crystalline rocks lying
below the sedimentary rocks that were being hydraulically fractured. 77 events
with M>1.0 were identified. Various lines of evidence suggested that the fault
responsible for the small earthquake was triggered by hydraulic fracturing
operations (Skoumal et al., 2015).
Montney, British Columbia (Canada), 2013-2016, Mmax=4.6 (August 17th 2015)
Fox Creek, Alberta (Canada), 2015, Mmax=4.4
2.2.3 Fracking related seismicity mechanisms
Anthropogenic seismicity (or ‘Stimulated’ according to Mc Garr and Simpson,
1997), is divided into Triggered and Induced seismicity. Triggered Seismicity is caused by
transient phenomena, concerning the nucleation of a small region of the rupture area,
whereas the entire rupture is controlled by the background stress. It Regards large events
(M>5.5) on nearby active tectonic faults (critically pre-stressed faults, independently close
to instability), at a distance up to a few tens of kilometers. On the other hand, in induced
seismicity the nucleation process is entirely (e.g. in terms of rupture size, stress changes
and energy released) controlled by its causative origin and would not occur otherwise.
Unfavorable conditions for high amount slip are evident since there could be potentially
large stresses, yet highly localized. Most of the induced earthquakes demonstrate small
magnitudes (typically M<3.0) and they are located in the vicinity of the activities
35
themselves, whereas triggered seismicity is connected with activation of optimally
oriented for failure, pre-existing fault systems and may result to much higher energy
release.
The largest events associated with hydraulic fracturing are triggered events, which
occur on the faults located in the vicinity of injection well. The rock model used for
description of rock seismic response to hydraulic fracturing is the poroelastic model. The
model is based on three principal assumptions: (1) the rock consists of the skeleton and
interconnected pore system uniformly saturated with fluid, (2) total volume of the pore
system is small in comparison with the volume of the rock as a whole, (3) the forces
considered are: pore pressure, total stress acting on the rock externally and stresses acting
on individual grains. Basing on this model we can imagine that pumping fluid into the
well causes an increase of pore pressure and fluid migration through the permeable rock.
The migration range depends on injection pressure, injection time and fracture system in
the rock. Preexisting natural fracture system in the rock facilitates fluid diffusion and
increases its speed, range or both.
Physically, the role of pore pressure in fault reactivation was firstly described by
Terzaghi law (1923), and later generalized by Biot in three dimensions (e.g. 1941).
According to this concept the effective stress is a difference between total stress acting on
the rock externally and pore fluid pressure (equation 1).
𝜎𝑖𝑗 = 𝑆𝑖𝑗 − 𝛿𝑖𝑗𝑃𝑝 (1)
σij – effective stress
Sij – total stress acting on the rock externally
Pp – pore pressure
δij – Kronecker delta
36
An increase of pore pressure leads to the decrease of effective normal stress on the
fault. This decreases fault strength (shear stress > static friction) and shear failure occurs.
Kronecker delta in the equation (1) means that pore pressure influences only normal
components of stress tensor. Shear components remain unchanged.
The concept of pore pressure increase and shear failure can be visually presented
on the Mohr diagram (Fig. 1). The increase of pore pressure shifts the circle towards 0 and
closer to the failure envelope. If the circle crosses the envelope the shear failure occurs.
Therefore, the increase of pore pressure increases also the probability of failure
occurrence. This situation can be observed during hydraulic fracturing (pore pressure
increase due to fluid injection). On the other hand decrease of pore pressure is associated
with reservoir depletion (Mohr circle shifted towards high values on x axis, Figure by
Altmann, 2010). What is important is that even very small increase of pore pressure, such
as 0.1 MPa, can lead to fault reactivation (e.g. Mulargia & Bizzarri, 2014).
Fig. 1 (from Altmann, 2010). Mohr diagram, illustrating the effect of pore pressure change on the effective state of stress.
σmax and σmin are equally influenced by the pore pressure, therefore the diameter of the Mohr circle is does not
change. The dashed Mohr circle describes an initial state of stress, the red Mohr circle the effective state of stress after
fluid injection, the blue Mohr circle the effective state of stress after depletion. During injection of fluid the Mohr circle
37
shifts towards the failure envelope, thus failure becomes more likely. During fluid depletion, failure becomes more
unlikely, (Altmann, 2010).
There are some features characteristic for the seismicity caused by fault
reactivation mentioned in the literature:
Anomalously large magnitudes,
Clustering at specific distances from well.
increase in the magnitude of the microearthquakes with time,
sharp reduction in b-value (calculated for a moving subset of events over the time
that pumping took place),
significant increase in the normalized seismic energy emitted (Wessels et al., 2011),
Time lag between start of pumping and fault reactivation (several hours or days).
o ca 10h – Preese Hall,
o ca 80min – Western Canada,
o several hours – Horn River.
The delay between pumping and the reactivation of some faults may in part be
because the fault into which fluid is injected has inherent storage and transmissibility
characteristics, or due to the time required for the transmission of fluid pressure by
pressure diffusion and due to poroelasticity. Note that Pressurization takes place across a
limited volume of rock, (typically only a few hundred meters in any direction) and over
a limited timescale, (typically only a few hours). Moreover pressure dissipates into the
surrounding geology as more fractures are created, limiting the pressure that can build
up. Pressure in the well is supposed to be a key determinant of induced seismicity,
affected by the volume of injected fluid (Larger volumes generate higher pressures) and
the volume of flowback fluid. Approximately 25-75% (commonly close to 50%) of the
hydraulic fracturing fluid used flows back after stimulation. Larger flowback volumes
38
reduce the pressure. Properties of faults (dimensions, pre-stress status) and shale
(strength) also affect the characteristics of seismic activity.
Warpinski et al., (2012) derived some contradictory results concerning the
correlation to technological processes. Although there are sparse data and uncertainties
in the cases they investigated, they concluded that there is enough information to support
a lack of correlation between magnitude and either the rate or volume of injection. The
largest magnitudes occurred at relatively modest rates and volumes – more related to
location than to the treatment parameters. However, it is important to emphasize that
these results are obtained for specific US shale plays where the maximum magnitudes
were <0.9.
2.3 Case Studies
2.3.1 Preese Hall, Lancashire, UK
Fig. 2. The location of the Preese Hall Well
Lancashire is a low natural seismicity area (even for the UK standards). No seismic
events with M>0 were recorded for one year and three months before March 30, 2011
(Eisner et al., 2012). In the spring of 2011, the first UK multi-stage fracking of a shale rock
39
took place (by Cuadrilla) at Preese Hall, Lancashire (Fig. 2), in a 1000m section of the
Namurian Bowland Shale (Wilson et al., 2015). The treatment operations started on the 26th
of March, whereas the Stage 2 (main) fracture treatment was conducted on March 31th.
The sequence of events was as follows (see also Table 1):
• On 31st of March 11 events with ML<1.5 were recorded
• On 1st of April an ML=2.3 event occurred at 3.6km depth
• No further events of analogous size were detected – fracking recommenced on
April 8th. From the 5th of April to 26th of May (when Stage 3 treatments took place),
only three events with ML≤1.2 occurred.
• On 27th of May an ML=1.5 occurred and the operations were suspended
• A total of 52 events were detected between 31/3 and 02/08 2011 (According to
Eisner et al., 2011, the completeness magnitude, Mc, of the catalog is considered
equal to 0.4, and the b-value was found equal to 0.79±0.21, surprisingly lower than
expected for a fracking case)
• Only 2 weak events (ML<0) occurred after 27th of May (July 30th, and August 2nd)
• Waveforms of the recorded events were similar to those from the 2 strongest events
Although six fracturing stages were planned at Preese Hall, Cuadrilla only
completed five before ceasing its operations. Seismicity was only induced following
hydraulic fracturing stages where larger volumes of fluid were injected and/or where
there was little or no flowback of fluids (de Pater and Baisch 2011).
In two of the hydraulic fracture treatments, in zones 2 and 4, the largest
earthquakes occurred approximately ten hours after the start of injection, while the well
was shut-in under high pressure (Fig. 3). These events were preceded by smaller events,
which started immediately after injection. Reported events of April 1, 2011 and May 27,
40
2011 show great similarity on the regional stations that recorded them, limiting the
relative distance between the two events to less than 120 meters (Eisner et al., 2012).
Table 1. Connection between seismicity characteristics and fluid flow during and between stages.
Fig. 3. Overview of injection volume and seismicity of all treatment stages in well PH1. More small events were
recorded in May because the monitoring system was improved with local stations, Vinj- injection volume, Vfb- flowback
volume, de Pater and Baisch 2011
The causative fault has not actually been identified, and more generally that there
is only a limited understanding of the fault systems in the basin. The fault may be at a
distance of up to a few hundred meters from the well-bore, but that fluid was able to flow
into the fault through bedding planes in the reservoir that opened during stimulation as
a result of the high pressures (Green et al., 2012)
41
A summary of Findings from Baisch and Voros, 2011; Harper 2011; GMI, 2011; de
Pater and Pellicier, 2011; de Pater and Basch, 2011; Green and Styles, 2012 concludes that
the Bowland Shale consists of impermeable, hard rock where the stresses are anisotropic.
In-situ stress regime is strike-slip, implying a large SHmax-Shmin. This stress difference
obtained from minifrac pressure declines and image log break-outs is some 25-30MPa ≠
2-4 MPa in US shale plays. Based on the seismic observations an MLmax=3 is estimated as a
worst case scenario (de Pater and Baisch, 2011). An event of this size is not expected to
provoke significant hazard. These studies concluded that seismicity depends on three
factors concerning a fault which should be critically stressed, transmissible so that it
accepts large quantities of fluid and brittle enough to fail seismically. All factors are
considered very unlikely, classifying Preese Hall Stage 2 event, as a ‘worst case scenario’.
(a crude probability estimate by de Pater and Baisch, 2011 is ~0.01%)
Concerning the risk mitigation strategy, A Traffic Light System was proposed by
de Pater and Baisch, (2011):
o Magnitude smaller than ML=0: regular operation
o Magnitude between ML=0 and ML=1.7: continue monitoring after the treatment until
the seismicity rate falls below one event per day, for at least 2 days.
o Magnitude > ML=1.7: stop pumping and bleed off the well, while continuing
monitoring.
The maximum post-injection magnitude increase has been estimated to be 0.9
magnitude units (Q-con, 2011). ML=1.7 is selected as the threshold in order to prevent the
occurrence of an ML,max =2.6 (Other studies suggest ML,max =3.0). Green & Styles (2012)
propose different magnitude thresholds, considering MLmax=1.7 as undesirably high.
Based on this limit, no action would have been taken before the ML=2.3 event on 1 April
2011. A lower limit of MLmax=0.5 is recommended instead.
42
Summarizing the Lancashire Fracking Episode:
• Similar waveforms, location and mechanism indicate a highly repeatable source
(events originated from the same fault)
• Rapid decay of seismicity
• The events are located close to the point of injection and the timing clearly
corresponds to the treatment schedule (fluid flow)
• The injected volume and flow-back timing are an important controlling factor in
the level of seismicity
2.3.2 Horn River Basin, British Columbia, Canada
The Horn River Basin is an unconventional shale play targeting dry gas from mid-
Devonian aged, over-pressured shales of the Muskwa, Otter Park and Evie Formations.
Situated in the northeast corner of the province, the Horn River Basin is confined to the
west by the Bovie Lake Fault Zone and to the east and south by the time equivalent
Devonian Carbonate Barrier Complex (www.nrcan.gc.ca/). Currently, British Columbia
and Western Alberta are in the center of scientific concern concerning fracking-induced
seismicity due to the ongoing operations and the intense recent seismic activity, also
characterized by the highest magnitudes recorded for that type (Atkinson et al., 2015,
2016; Farahbod et al., 2015; Mahani et al., 2016; Schultz et al., 2015; Wang et al., 2015,
20167)
Between April 2009 and July 2011, 31 seismic events were recorded and located by
Natural Resources Canada (NRCan) in the Etsho area of the Horn River Basin in northeast
British Columbia (Fig. 4). Seven more events were recorded near the Tattoo area between
December 8 and 13, 2011 (BC Oil and Gas Commission, 2012).
43
Fig. 4. Location of Etsho, Tattoo and Kiwigana areas in the Horn River Basin. Red triangles show NRCan reported
epicentres, Bovie and Trout Lake Fault zones noted. Liard Basin to west of Bovie Fault. Blue star indicates location of
Kiwigana seismograph array (BC Oil and Gas Commission, 2012).
The observed events ranged in magnitude between ML=2.2-3.8 as recorded by
NRCan. Two NRCan seismograph stations, part of the Canadian National Seismograph
Network (CNSN), were at this time operational in northeast British Columbia. The Bull
Mountain station near Hudson’s Hope (from January 1998) and the Fort Nelson (from
1999). The CNSN is designed to monitor moderate to strong magnitude earthquakes that
pose a risk to public safety and not to detect low magnitude induced seismicity. Therefore
the uncertainty of epicentral locations was 5 to 10km, whereas the uncertainty in
earthquake focal depths was even larger.
Hydraulic fracturing operations in the Etsho area have been ongoing from
February 2007 to late July 2011. During this period, 14 different drilling pads were used
to drill over 90 wells with more than 1,600 hydraulic fracturing stage completion
operations.
44
Additionally, a 20-seismograph dense array was deployed by an operator in the
Etsho area; operated from June 16 to Aug. 15, 2011. A second one was deployed at
Kiwigana, 40 kilometres to the southwest of the Etsho area. This 151-station seismograph
array operated from Oct. 25, 2011 to Jan. 27, 2012.
Twenty-seven of the recorded Etsho events lie within a 10 km radius circle
(Fig. 5, Fig. 6). Within this same circle are seven multi-lateral drilling pads. Five of these
pads were conducting hydraulic fracturing operations when events occurred. At Tattoo
all seven of the recorded events can be encompassed within a 10 km radius circle that
encloses two multi-well shale gas drilling pads. One pad at Tattoo had ongoing hydraulic
fracturing operations when the seismicity occurred (BC Oil and Gas Commission - August
2012).
A number of events, ranging from magnitude ML=-0.8 to 3.0 were recorded by the
Etsho dense array during hydraulic fracturing. Of these, 216 are interpreted to be related
to fault movement (197 events, of ML=1.0 – 2.0 and 19 events of ML=2.0-3.0). Operator
provided b-value analysis indicated that magnitudes from ML=0.5 to 1.0 indicate the
transition from fracture driven seismicity to seismicity driven by fault movement. For the
dense array’s operational date range, June 23 to August 14, 2011, the two northeast B.C.
stations in the CNSN recorded four events (ML=2.5 to 3.1) (BC Oil and Gas Commission,
2012).
The horizontal and vertical locations of several events at Etsho detected by NRCan
were relocated by the Operator using data obtained from the dense array. The results of
this work placed event hypocentres within 200 m vertically and horizontally of hydraulic
fracturing stages. True vertical depths (TVD) of hydraulic fracturing completions at the
Etsho d-1-D pad range from approximately 2,650 to 2,889 meters. Of the 69 magnitude
ML=1.5 to 3.0 seismic events recorded by the dense array and linked to this pad, all fall
45
within the targeted, shale formations. 66 of these events occurred between 2,800 and 2,870
meters.
Fig. 5. Tattoo area NRCan event epicentres and Multi-
well Pads, shown within “20km buffer”, 10km radius
red circle (BC Oil and Gas Commission, 2012).
Fig. 6. shows the horizontal wellbores for the d-1-D
drilling pad, volumes injected at each hydraulic fracturing
stage and the magnitude >1.0ML events occurring from
June 23 to August 14, 2011(BC Oil and Gas Commission,
2012).
At Kiwigana, numerous micro-seismicity events, ranging from ML=-1.7 to 0.5, were
detected between October 25, 2011 and January 27, 2012 by the deployed operator dense
array. These micro-seismicity events resulted from tensile failure and shear movement
during the normal process of hydraulic fracturing to develop the reservoir. An additional
18 events ranging from ML=1.0 to 1.86 were detected and were interpreted to be the result
of triggering caused by injection and transmission of fluid along pre-existing fault
structures (BC Oil and Gas Commission, 2012).
46
Hydraulic fracturing operation timing was compared to seismicity occurrence
times. At Etsho and Tattoo, all 38 NRCan reported events occurred either during a
hydraulic fracturing stage or sometime after one stage ended and another began. No
events were recorded before hydraulic fracturing operations began or after the last
hydraulic fracturing operations ended.
Analysis of Time Lapse from start of hydraulic Fracking to associated seismic event
was performed. On average, stage start time to stop time was 5 ½ hours. Eight events
occurred during stage operations. Seventeen events occurred within 17 ½ hours and all
events occurred within 24 hours after stage start times. Fault mapping at Etsho shows
abundant faulting. Interpretations vary but it appears most of this faulting (including the
larger, regional faults in this grouping) is deep seated and concentrated in a north-south
trending fault fairway centered at Etsho.
NOTE: The investigation was completed by the Commission’s geological and engineering staff
within the Resource Development department, and they benefited from consultation with NRCan,
the University of British Columbia and the Alberta Geological Survey. Data was obtained from
numerous sources including open source information as well as proprietary data acquired by oil
and gas companies working near the area of the investigation. There is no direct information about
the creator of this analysis. For more detailed information the reader may refer to
https://www.bcogc.ca/. Available data is provided by BC Oil and Gas Commission and includes:
Summary catalog of 38 events recorded by NRCan,
Cross-section of Horn River Basin (Muskwa, Otter Park, Evie) formation shale gas targets,
Pad Hydraulic Fracturing Statistics for Etsho,
Correlations of Event Times to Horn River Pad Operations,
Time Lapse from Start of Hydraulic Fracturing to Associated Seismic Event,
Frac Fluid Placed versus Average Magnitude,
Pump Rate versus Average Magnitude,
47
Breakdown Pressure versus Average Magnitude for d-1-D pad,
Air Summary,
Quarterly Oil and Gas Water Use Summary,
Water Use for Oil and Gas Activity Annual Report,
Pipeline Performance Summary,
Horn River Shale Reservoir Parameters,
Structure Map of Top Muskwa Formation,
Isopach Map of Muskwa Otter Park Formations,
Temperature Map of Muskwa Otter Park Formations,
Public Safety Report
2.3.3 The Geysers Case Study
Introduction – History:
‘The Geysers’ case study concerns seismicity associated with geothermal fields in
California. This case is included in this report because the mechanism of inducing
seismicity in such areas is similar to that in hydraulic fracturing regions. Moreover, the
Geysers (the largest producing geothermal field in the world) is a very well monitored
and studied area since the last decades. MEQ monitoring has been applied as a general
indicator of fluid paths and general response to injection at The Geysers for almost 30
years (Majer & Peterson, 2007 and references therein), showing a strong spatial and
temporal correlation between MEQs activity and both water injection and steam
extraction. Stark (1992) showed that plumes of MEQs are clustered around many injection
wells, and the seismic activity around each injection well correlates with its injection rate.
Ross et al. (1999) suggested that the sources might be explained by combinations of tensile
cracks and shear movements accompanied by fluid flow. In any case, it is likely that
48
thermo-elastic responses, induced by rapid cooling, play a major role in inducing MEQs
at The Geysers.
The modeling and results by Rutqvist et al. (2015) also indicates that MEQ and
shear reactivation of pre-existing fractures are caused by the combined effects of injection-
induced cooling and pressure changes, with the cooling being more important for
triggering seismicity near the injection well and around the zone of cool liquid water. On
the other hand, injection-induced changes in steam pressure are the dominant cause of
seismicity farther away from the injection well. Note that these are very small changes in
steam pressure, and the model simulations of pressure evolution, corroborated with
pressure monitoring, indicate that reservoir pressure changes on the order of 1 MPa are
sufficient to trigger a significant number of small events. This supports the notion that
rock mass within The Geysers geothermal field is near critically stressed for shear failure,
and that small perturbations in the stress field could induce seismicity.
Garcia et al. (2016) published a recent study on two previously abandoned wells,
Prati State 31 (PS-31) and Prati 32(P-32), which have been reopened and deepened to be
used as an injection and production doublet to stimulate the High Temperature Reservoir.
They found that a seismicity cluster began to develop almost immediately after P-32 water
injection was initiated, and their data analysis indicated among others a deeper
permeability stimulation and an increased seismicity associated with an injection rate
increase, followed by a significant decrease in event frequency.
Rutqvist et al. (2016) modeling indicates that the microseismic events in The
Northwest Geysers EGS Demonstration Project system are related to shear reactivation of
pre-existing fractures, triggered by the combined effects of injection-induced cooling
around the injection well and rapid but small changes in steam pressure as far as a
kilometer from the injection well. It is also notable that larger events may occur at some
distance from the injection well and are associated with larger features such as minor
49
faults. Yet, the authors acknowledge that substantial uncertainties still remain regarding
the exact mechanisms of induced seismicity, in particular related to the role of thermal
effects.
(Check this part – not published work!!)
Mossop and Segall (2006) ???? performed a comprehensive correlation study based on
induced seismicity and operational data from 1976 to 1998 and they distinguished 3 types
of seismicity (Better set reference Majer et al., 2007):
a) shallow, production-induced seismicity that has a long time lag on the order of
1 year, (caused by poroelastic stresses, The observations are consistent with a
contracting reservoir, which as it shrinks, induces stresses and strains in the
surrounding crust). However these results suggest that shallow earthquakes are
production induced, in contrast with results of Rutledge et al., 2002.
b) deep, injection-induced seismicity with short time lag of less than 2 months. For
deep induced MEQs occurring after the 1980s, there seems to be a consensus that
these are correlated to local injection rates with some time lag (e.g. Parotidis et al.,
2004).
c) deep, production-induced, seismicity with short time lag of less than 2 months
that appears to diminish in the late 1980s.
Seismicity associated with geothermal fields
Generally, the local magnitude of events related to geothermal fields exploitation
does not exceed 2, however, there were quite several exceptional cases. The largest
magnitude event ( ML 4.6) was observed in 1982 at The Geysers geothermal field. Similarly
as in the case of hydraulic fracturing, gradual migration of seismicity is observed as the
fluid diffuses though the rock skeleton.
50
Fig. 7. Observed maximum magnitude of seismic events in geothermal operations (squares), wastewater disposal wells
(triangles), hydraulic fracturing (circles), and fluid injection in the KTB scientific well (stars) as functions of volume of
injected fluid (McGarr, 2014).
McGarr (2014) derived a relation which expresses the theoretical maximum
magnitude to be proportional to the total injected volume of the fluid (Fig. 7 from McGarr,
2014). On the plot we can see also that the largest magnitude events are observed during
wastewater injections. The magnitudes of events associated with hydraulic fracturing are
quite small in comparison with other injection-related activities.
It is important to mention that character of seismicity differs depending on the
distance from the injection well. Events which occur in the vicinity of the injection well,
where the pore pressure is high, have low stress drops and mainly tensile character. The
b-value in this region is relatively high. On the other hand, far from the injection well,
where pore pressure is low, events have high stress drops and mainly shear character.
Additionally, events with big magnitudes are more probable to occur far from the well
51
(lower b-value), on the peripheries of seismic cloud and during the post shut-in phase
(Zang et al., 2014).
The other thing that matters is the type of rock into which injection is carried on -
seismic cloud is narrower in weak (sedimentary) rocks compared to hard rocks
(crystalline), which are naturally fractured. What is more, in crystalline rocks the Kaiser
effect is observed, which means that seismicity is absent until the stress level of previous
stimulations is exceeded.
The Geysers geothermal field
The example of seismicity induced in geothermal field, which will be described
below, comes from The Geysers field in California. It is the biggest producing geothermal
field in the world with ca 300 producing wells and ca 60 injection wells. The production
takes place from 1960s and the maximum production was reached in 1987. From that time
the reservoir is permanently stimulated by water injections to enhance the production and
prevent reservoir depletion.
The reservoir is vapour-dominated and is located in metamorphic rocks. The
temperature of steam is 240°C at 2 km depth, but exceeds 350°C in the northwestern part
of The Geysers at depths below ca 2.75 km (so called high-temperature zone). What is
important is that at The Geysers there are no classical water injections with the use of high
pressures at the injection wells. Here, relatively cool surface water falls freely into the
injection well resulting in significant volume reduction as the reservoir steam condenses.
This causes negative gauge pressure at the wellhead, in contrast to active surface
pumping commonly performed for reservoir stimulation with injection at elevated
wellhead pressures (Martinez-Garzon et al., 2014). The injection has seasonal tendency
and peak injection rates are observed during winter months.
52
At The Geysers, the pore pressure at reservoir depth is subhydrostatic. The height
of the water column filled inside the well remains mostly within the reservoir limits, (<1
km from the bottom of the well). However, the increase in the injection rate closely
correlates with migration of IS suggesting that pore pressure changes may also influence
seismic activity. In addition, the spatial extent of the seismic cloud suggests that seismicity
is induced by pore pressure changes at larger distance to the well (Martinez-Garzon et al.,
2014).
Fig. 9. Analysis of seismicity cluster in NW Geysers (Majer & Peterson, 2007)
Seismic activity in this region is very intense: it is about 4000 events/year with
magnitudes 1.0-4.5. The largest event occurred in 1982 and its magnitude was 4.6. Figure
53
3 presents seismic activity at The Geysers throughout the years of production. We can see
that: (1) the number of events with magnitudes between 1.5 and 3.0 is in the order of
hundreds per year, but with the magnitudes 3.0-4.0 is less than 30/year. Events with
magnitudes > 4.0 are marked with green crosses, (2) maximum production was in 1980
and from that moment the amount of injected water is growing in order to stimulate the
reservoir (Fig. 8 from Majer & Peterson, 2007).
Analysis of seismicity cluster in NW Geysers (Martinez-Garzon et al., 2014)
Observations:
Clear correlation between monthly seismicity rates and injection rates in two
wells
During injection:
o Decrease of b-value,
o Increase in relative amount of strike-slip and thrust events,
o Increase in average distance from injection well (pulsation of seismic
cloud).
An important part of the analysis is identification of physical processes leading to
inducing of seismic events. . Martinez-Garzon et al. (2014) agreed that two effects are
responsible for it: thermoelastic and poroelastic effects. Thermoelastic effect dominates in
the proximity of the well regardless of the injection stage. The value of estimated
thermally induced stress magnitude is ca -26 MPa and it is a result of strong thermal
contraction at the wellbore wall. The effect attenuates rapidly with distance. On the other
hand the poroelastic effect, which is connected with pore pressure diffusion, dominates
at some distance from the well and during peak fluid injections. Estimated pore pressure
difference of about 1 MPa between peak injection and pre/post injection periods has been
observed (capable of inducing seismicity). Both these effects can induce seismicity,
54
because in both cases the failure envelope is more likely to be crossed (Mohr diagrams).
However, at hydraulic fracturing sites the thermoelastic effect is very unlikely to be
observed but poroelastic effect works in the same way.
To summarize, thermal stresses are responsible for the long-term seismic moment
release and seismic activity, whereas poroelastic stresses seem to affect the characteristics
of seismicity at greater depths, (i.e., higher pore fluid pressure), as well as at greater
distances from the well. The large discrepancy in seismic moment release and seismic
activity for Prati-9 and Prati-29 wells may be explained by differences in thermal stresses
resulting from different water and/or host rock temperatures at both wells as well as
increasing pore pressure and poroelastic effects that tend to dominate at greater depths.
The influence of poroelastic effects on seismic moment release is unclear, however, on
long term they do seem to affect the source characteristics of seismicity (Kwiatek et al.,
2015).
2.4 Conclusions
Seismicity connected with hydraulic fracturing has not yet been satisfactory
studied and large amount of the associated data are not available for elaboration. After
hundreds of thousands of fracturing operations, only few examples of felt seismicity have
been documented. It is generally accepted that the combination of favorable conditions to
exist at the same time for generating such events is highly unlikely. Therefore, the
likelihood of inducing damaging of even felt (at surface) seismicity by hydraulic
fracturing is extremely small but cannot be ruled out. Since fracking is extensively applied
for less than 10 years, more studies need to be carried out for investigating and
quantifying the potential hazard. Some additional findings of the researches
accomplished up to date are summarized below:
55
1. Microseismicity can be used to monitor fracture propagation during hydraulic
fracturing of shales.
2. Events triggered by hydraulic fracturing can be used to delineate preexisting
faults.
3. The strongest events associated with hydraulic fracturing are triggered events
occurring on preexisting faults. In the case of fluid injection in geothermal energy
production the biggest magnitude events occur on the peripheries of seismic cloud
and during post injection phase (results of modeling).
4. The largest magnitude recorded is M=4.6 (up to January 2016)
5. Sufficient geological reconnaissance should be carried out before commencing
hydraulic fracturing operations (e.g. identification of faults and their age) in order
to predict and prevent potential dangers connected with seismicity.
6. The probability of a damaging earthquake is very low, however it cannot be ruled
out. Even though the effects at the surface may be negligible, the well may suffer
significant damage with potential production and environments impacts.
56
SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL
GLOSSARY – and a Brief Review on Poroelasticity Terms and Approaches
Terminology (also https://cogcc.state.co.us/COGIS_Help/glossary.htm)
Leak-off:
The magnitude of pressure exerted on a formation that causes fluid to be forced
into the formation. The fluid may be flowing into the pore spaces of the rock or into cracks
opened and propagated into the formation by the fluid pressure. This term is normally
associated with a test to determine the strength of the rock, commonly called a pressure
integrity test (PIT) or a leak-off test (LOT). During the test, a real-time plot of injected fluid
versus fluid pressure is plotted. The initial stable portion of this plot for most wellbores
is a straight line, within the limits of the measurements. The leak-off is the point of
permanent deflection from that straight portion. The well designer must then either adjust
plans for the well to this leak-off pressure, or if the design is sufficiently conservative,
proceed as planned.
Shut-in pressure
Shut-in is the implementation of a production cap set lower than the available
output of a specific site. This may be part of an attempt to constrict the oil supply or a
necessary precaution when crews are evacuated ahead of a natural disaster.
The surface force per unit area exerted at the top of a wellbore when it is closed at
either the “Christmas tree” (figure below) or the blowout preventer stack. The pressure
may be from the formation or an external and intentional source. The SIP may be zero,
indicating that any open formations are effectively balanced by the hydrostatic column of
fluid in the well. If the pressure is zero, the well is considered to be dead, and can normally
be opened safely to the atmosphere.
57
Triggering Front (Shapiro et al., 1997, 2000, 2003)
The permeability-related features of the hydraulically-induced seismicity can be
identified in a very natural way from the notion of triggering fronts. To recall this notion
let us approximate a real configuration of a fluid injection in a borehole by a point source
of pore pressure perturbation in an infinite, heterogeneous, anisotropic, poroelastic, fluid
saturated medium. The time evolution of the pore pressure at the injection point is
assumed to be a step function. It is natural to assume that the probability of the triggering
of microseismic events is an increasing function of the power of the pore pressure
perturbation. Thus, at a given time to it is probable that events will occur at distances
which are smaller or equal to the size of the relaxation zone of the pore pressure. The
events are characterized by a significantly lower occurrence probability for larger
distances. The spatial surface which separates these two spatial domains is called the
'triggering front'. Because the size of the relaxation zone is to some extent a heuristic
parameter, we introduce a more formal quantity which is directly proportional to this
size. The triggering front at the time t0 is the front of the zero phase at the time to of a
harmonic diffusion wave of pore pressure relaxation radiated with zero phase at the time
0 at the injection source with the frequency 2π/t0.
58
Basic Poroelastic Parameters and Definitions)
o Total stress, σij (tensor): Total force in the xj direction per unit area whose
normal is in the xi direction (a positive normal stress implies tension).
o Pore pressure, p (scalar): In a material element, it is the pressure in a
hypothetical reservoir which is in equilibrium with this element, i.e. no fluid
exchange takes place between reservoir and the material element.
Alternatively, pore pressure at depth, is defined as a scalar hydraulic
potential acting within an interconnected pore space at depth – with
reference to earth’s surface (Zoback, 2007). Conceptually, the upper bound
for pore pressure is the overburden stress, Sv. Because of the negligibly small
tensile rock strength, pore pressure will always be less than the least
principal stress, S3.
The respective conjugate quantities for stress and pore pressure are strain
and variation of fluid content.
o Variation of Fluid Content, ζ: Variation of fluid volume per volume of the
porous medium. A positive ζ corresponds to a gain of fluid by the porous
solid whereas a negative ζ indicates fluid withdrawal from the solid
material.
Consolidation:
o The simultaneous deformation of the porous material and the flow of the
pore fluid is the subject of the theory of consolidation, often denoted as
poroelasticity.
o According to Karl von Terzaghi "consolidation is any process which involves
decrease in water content of a saturated soil without replacement of water by air."
o The progressive settlement of a soil under surface surcharge (Terzaghi,
1923; Biot, 1935, 1941).
59
o Alternatively, Consolidation is a volume change in saturated soils caused
by the expulsion of pore water from loading (Verruijt, 2013).
Effective Stress:
o Effective Stress: The difference between externally applied stresses acting
on a rock matrix and internal pore pressure.
o Concept of Effective normal stress: Difference between total normal stress
and pore pressure (Terzaghi, 1943). Because the pore pressure acts equally
on all three normal stresses, and not at all on the shear stresses, the
difference of maximum and minimum principal stress, known as
differential stress, is constant; only the mean effective stress, known as sum
of maximum and minimum principal stress divided by two, changes by the
amount of pore pressure. This behavior is illustrated by means of a Mohr
diagram (Mohr radius is the same, the circle’s center is shifted towards left
or right when pore pressure increases or decreases, respectively). This
stands in the uncoupled case (see Coupled and Uncoupled Approaches below).
Due to the coupling between P and σh, the effective minimum horizontal
stress increases less than the effective vertical stress. This leads to an
increase in differential stress and an enlargement of the Mohr circle.
(Altman, 2010)
Assumptions and Approaches (Consolidation problems):
o Coupled/ Uncoupled approach: The coupling between changes in stress and
changes in fluid pressure forms the subject of poroelasticity. Two basic
phenomena underlie poroelastic behavior: 1) Solid-to-fluid coupling occurs
when a change in applied stress produces a change in fluid pressure or fluid
mass. According to Roeloffs (1988) there are three types of poroelastic
approximations defined as:
60
Coupled: The elastic stresses influence pore pressure and vice versa.
Uncoupled: The elastic stresses and pore pressure are independent.
Decoupled: The elastic stresses influence pore pressure but not vice
versa.
2) In addition, Wang (2000) refers to Fluid-to-solid coupling, which occurs
when a change in fluid pressure or fluid mass produces a change in the volume
of the porous material. Applied stress changes in fluid-saturated porous
materials typically produce significant changes in pore pressure, and this
direction of coupling is significant (therefore a coupled approach should
usually be considered). Negligible solid-to-fluid coupling occurs for a highly
compressible fluid such as air. An example of solid-to-fluid coupling is the
response of water levels in a well to the passage of nearby trains (Wang, 2000).
Yet, there are some classes of cases which can be treated sufficiently (at least as
a first approximation) by an uncoupled analysis (Detournay & Cheng, 1993;
Verruijt, 2013). However, applied stress changes in fluid-saturated porous
materials typically produce significant changes in pore pressure, and this
direction of coupling is significant.
Some uncoupling conditions (Verruijt, 2013; Detournay and Cheng,
1993; Wang, 2000):
- Constant isotropic normal stress
- Horizontally confined deformations
- Highly compressive fluid
- Irrotational deformations
o Isotropic/ Anisotropic medium: A material is isotropic when no material
frame is preferred to formulate its constitutive equations. As a consequence
energy functions can depend only on the scalar invariants of the involved
tensors (Coussy, 2004). The origin of anisotropy may be twofold. In the first
61
place it may be due to the anisotropy of both the matrix and the porous
geometry. In the second place it may also be due to an anisotropic pre-loading,
as for instance gravity, which has induced a prestressed anisotropic reference
state with regard to the original stress-free state. Two main kinds of linear
anisotropy are presented by Coussy (2004), namely orthotropy and transverse
isotropy. Elastic anisotropy is generally not very important in geomechanics,
although, shear wave velocity anisotropy can be related to principal stress
directions or structural features. On the other hand, anisotropic rock strength,
due, for example, to the presence of weak bedding planes, has a major effect
on wellbore stability.
o Quasi-static Approach: Solid Consolidation problems (quasi-static) and Wave
propagation (dynamic). The couplings are assumed to occur instantaneously
in the quasi-static approximation in which elastic wave propagation is ignored.
According to the quasi-static governing equations, the response of the elastic
medium is instantaneous. In quasi static limit (low frequency) fluid pressure
may be taken as uniform throughout a porous rock sample. This means that
elastic wave propagation and pressure gradients that might be associated with
fluid flow are disregarded (Wang, 2000; Zoback, 2007). However, for the full
poroelastic governing equations, containing second order partial derivatives in
time, the response propagates with the elastic wave speed of the medium
(Pride 2005). Elastic anisotropy can have considerable effects on seismic wave
velocities, and is especially important with respect to shear wave propagation.
An isotropic material is defined fully by two constants, whereas a material with
cubic symmetry is fully described by three constants, and a material
characterized by transverse isotropy (such as a finely layered sandstone or
shale layer) is characterized by five constants, and so on (Zoback, 2007).
62
o Linear/ Non-linear elastic solids: A linearly elastic material is the one in which
stress and strain are linearly proportional and deformation is reversible. The
linear quasi-static theory of poroelasticity is established by the formulation of
Rice & Cleary (1976). The non-linear behavior is generally associated with the
closing/opening of crack-like pores, but in very porous and weak rocks, it is
caused by progressive pore collapse (Detournay & Cheng, 1993). Coussy (2004)
provides solutions for some non-linear problems. The assumption of linear
elastic behavior of the porous medium may be the weakest part of the theory.
The approximations introduced in the behavior of the fluid and the particles
usually are very accurate compared to the approximations made by assuming
linear elastic soil behavior. Real soils often exhibit non-linear behavior, for
instance by a difference in stiffness in loading and unloading, and plastic
deformations if the stresses exceed a certain level. (Verruijt, 2013)
o Drainage conditions: Three cases are often considered: fully drained, partially
drained, fully undrained. The drained (excess pore pressure is completely
dissipated – constant pore pressure) and undrained (no fluid flow – constant
fluid mass per unit volume, but pore pressure is altered) conditions are the
limiting cases of the slow and fast loading respectively. Relatively slow loading
leaves the pore pressure unchanged in the control volume because fluid flow
has adequate time to equilibrate with an external boundary. In contrast, little
fluid amount flows into or out of the control volume if the loading is rapid
(Singh et al., 2013).
Undrained conditions: Δu≠0, Δσ≠Δσ’; appropriate when
permeability is low and rate of loading is high/ short term behavior
has to be assessed.
63
Drained conditions: Δu=0, Δσ=Δσ’; appropriate when permeability is
high, rate of loading is low/ short term behavior is not of interest for
the problem considered.
o Compressible/ Incompressible Fluid and Particles: The compressibility refers
to the two constituents: fluid and solid particles, because the main mechanism
of soil deformation is not so much the compression of the fluid or the particles,
but rather the deformation due to a rearrangement of the particles, including
sliding and rolling of particles over each other. Rice & Cleary (1976) showed
that the governing equations are not significantly more complicated when
arbitrary compressibilities are assigned to the fluid and solid constituents. The
same formulation could have been used to obtain the more general dislocation
solution with such full compressibility.
o Geometry - Loading: Axisymmetric, Planar, Circular, Linear etc. E.g.
Concentrated line force, suddenly introduced edge dislocation, suddenly
pressurized cylindrical and spherical cavities, plane strain consolidation,
axially-symmetric consolidation etc (see case studies, examples below in ‘Problems
and Applications’ Section).
o Analytical/ Numerical Solutions & Methods, Poroelastic Medium modeling
as a Finite Layer/ Half-Space.
– (e.g. Detournay and Cheng, 1993; Philips, 2005; Verruijt, 2013 – see
Problems/ Application Section for details)
o Other phenomena and properties: Thermoporoelasticity, Poroplasticity,
Poroviscoelasticity (Coussy, 2004), etc. For example the Theory of linear
coupled thermoelasticity (e.g. Carlson, 1972).
64
APPENDIX A – Formulation of Poroelasticity (references)
Biot’s 1941 poroelastic theory for an isotropic fluid filled porous medium are
constrained in just two linear constitutive equations for an isotropic applied stress field,
σ. Biot’s equations of the linear poroelasticity theory are derived from:
Equations of linear elasticity for the solid matrix,
Navier–Stokes equations for the viscous fluid, and
Darcy's law for the flow of fluid through the porous matrix.
Rice and Cleary (1976) reformulated Biot’s linear poroelastic constitutive
equations, chosing constitutive parameters that emphasized the drained (constant pore
pressure) and undrained (no flow) limits of long- and short-time behavior, respectively.
Their formulation has been adopted widely for geophysical and seismological problems
(e.g. Cocco and Rice, 2002).
The solid-to-fluid and fluid-to-solid couplings are assumed to occur
instantaneously in the quasistatic approximation in which elastic wave propagation is
ignored. The simplest mathematical description of the two basic forms of coupling
between solid and fluid is a set of linear constitutive equations. The equations relate strain
and fluid-mass changes to stress and fluid-pressure changes. The poroelastic constitutive
equations (equations that describe the deformation of a rock in response to an applied
stress – or vice versa) are generalizations of linear elasticity whereby the fluid pressure
field is incorporated in a fashion entirely analogous to the manner in which the
temperature field is incorporated in thermoelasticity. (Wang, 2000)
In volumetric response of a linear isotropic poroelastic material, many constants
are introduced in this presentation, but only three of these parameters are actually
independent. These basic material constants selected to constitute the reference set are:
the drained bulk modulus K, the undrained bulk modulus Ku, and the Biot coefficient α.
α can be defined as the ratio of the fluid volume gained (or lost) in a material element to
65
the volume change of that element, when the pore pressure is allowed to return to its
initial state.
To construct a well-posed mathematical system for the description of the stress,
pore pressure, flux, and displacement in the medium, additional equations based on mass
and momentum conservation principles need to be introduced. Together with the
constitutive laws, these equations constitute the governing equations of the theory of
poroelasticity (Detournay & Cheng, 1993).
Constitutive Equations + Mass Conservation Principles + Momentum Conservation
Principles (a special case of which is the Darcy’s Law) Governing Equations (reduced
through variable elimination and substitutions to produced systems amenable for
mathematical treatment) Field equations (Equilibrium & Fluid diffusion equations). Initial
and Boundary Conditions should be also considered.
The complete system of the basic field equations comprises:
16 unknowns: 6 stresses, 6 strains, 3 displacements & pore pressure
16 equations: 3 equilibrium equations, 6 compatibility equations, 6
intependent stress-strain relations and the storage equation
An important basic equation of the theory of consolidation is the storage equation.
It admits a simple heuristic interpretation: the compression of the soil consists of the
compression of the pore fluid and the particles plus the amount of fluid expelled from an
element by flow. As the derivation shows, the equation actually expresses conservation
of mass of fluids and solids, together with some notions about the compressibilities.
The system of equations can be simplified considerably by eliminating the stresses
and the strains, finally expressing the equilibrium equations in the displacements. The
complete system of differential equations consists of the storage equation and the
66
equilibrium equations. These are four equations with four variables: p, ux, uy and uz.
(Verruijt, 2013)
Initial/ Boundary conditions:
The most common initial conditions are that the pore pressure p and the three
displacement components ux, uy and uz are given at a certain time, usually at time t = 0. It
is often most convenient to assume that at t = 0 all these quantities are zero. This means
that the pore pressure and the displacements at a later instant of time are all considered
with reference to the initial state.
Because the differential equations are 4 linear equations the boundary conditions
should specify 4 conditions. The most common system is that one boundary condition
refers to the pore pressure (e.g. either the pore pressure or the flow rate normal to the boundary
must be specified) and the other three to the solid material (e.g. either the 3 surface tractions
or the 3 displacement components must be prescribed - or some combination). (Verruijt, 2013)
References (formulation):
Kalpna, 1997: On the 2D plain strain for a harmonic stress applied to an impervious
elastic layer resting on a porous elastic half space. Matrix formulation of Singh and
Garg (1985) for the elastic layer and the procedure of Roeloffs (1988) for the formal
solutions for the porous elastic half space. Combination of the two solutions by
matching the displacements and stresses at the boundary between the layer and the
porous elastic half space and obtain the complete formal solution. (illustrated example
provided).
Pan, 1999: Complete Green’s functions in multi-layered isotropic and poroelastic half-
space.
67
Wang and Kumpel, 2003: Poroelasticity: Efficient modeling of strongly coupled, slow
deformation processes in multilayered half-space. Analytical Solutions for some
special cases i.e. Transient Green’s functions for the homogeneous whole space, Steady
state Green’s functions for the homogeneous half-space. Numerical Solutions for a
multilayered half-space i.e. Laplace-Hankel transform in poroelasticity, Fundamental
poroelastic solutions, The extended Haskell’s propagator algorithm. Application and
test to a field (Appendices with Poroelastic Layer Matrix, Haskell Propagator
Algorithm and Orthonormalized Propagator Algorithm)
Soltanzadeh et al., 2009: Poroelastic Modeling of Production and Injection-Induced
Stress Changes in a Pinnacle Reef. The work summarizes semi-analytical and closed-
form solutions that can be used to assess the poroelastic stress changes induced within
a porous formation (reservoir) during a pore pressure change. Further, solutions are
presented for the stress discontinuities at the interfaces between reservoirs and the
rocks that surround them.
Hesse and Stadler, 2014: Joint inversion in coupled quasi-static poroelasticity
68
APPENDIX B – Solved Problems of Poroelasticity & Applications (references)
References: Zoback, 20071; Coussy, 20042; Detournay & Chen, 19933; Verruijt, 20134; Singh et al.,
20135; Philips, 20056;Altmann, 20107; Rice & Cleary, 19768.
Measuring Stress Orientation and Magnitude - Stress concentration around a
cylindrical hole and wellbore failure 1
Wellbore Stability 1
Effects of Reservoir Depletion 1
Critically Stressed Faults and Fluid Flow 1
Injection of a Fluid 2
Consolidation of a Soil Layer 2
Drilling of a Borehole 2
Cylinder Problems 3
Borehole Problems 3
Early Time Evolution of Stress near a Permeable Boundary 3
Hydraulic Fracture 3
One dimensional problems 3, 4
- Terzaghi’s problem
- Terzaghi and mixture theory
- Periodic load
- Two-layered soil
- One-dimensional finite elements
Elementary problems 4, (2)
- Mandel’s Problem
- Cryer’s problem
- De Leeuw’s problem
- Spherical source or sink in infinite medium
69
- De Josselin de Jong’s problem
Flow to wells 4
Plain Strain Half Space Problems 4, 5
Plain Strain Layer 4
Plain Strain Finite Elements 4
Axially Symmetric half space problems (axially symmetric consolidation of a
poroelastic half space with a given normal load on the surface) 4
Axially Symmetric Finite Elements 4
Consolidation of a poroelastic half-space with anisotropic permeability 5
The cantilever bracket problem 6
Well placement and subsidence 6
Sudden pressure changes in Porous deformable media 6
Continuous point injection into homogeneous full space 7
Influence of tectonic regime on rock stability during fluid injection/ depletion 7
Borehole breakouts along inclined wellbores 7
Stresses near a pressurized cylindrical cavity 8
Spherical cavity in a porous solid 8
(see also the review study by Singh et al., 2013)
Solutions & Methods
Method of Potentials: Biot’s decomposition, Biot functions, Displacement functions 3
Finite Element Method 3
Boundary Element Method: Direct and Indirect methods 3
Method of Singularities: Modeling Consolidation and Subsidence, Modeling Fracture 3
Numerical inversion of the Laplace transforms pore pressure, isotropic total stress,
vertical total stress, vertical effective stress, horizontal total stress, horizontal effective
stress 4
70
Plain strain poroelasticity - The finite element method for two-dimensional problems
of poroelasticity (Galerkin’s method) 4
Axially Symmetric Finite Elements (Galerkin’s method) 4
Continuous and Discontinuous Galerkin for displacements – Theoretical & Numerical
results for Terzaghi, Mandel’s and Barry & Mercer problems 6
Adaptive Grid Refinement Strategy: Numerical Results for Terzaghi, Mandel’s and
Barry & Mercer problems 6
ADDITIONAL CASE STUDIES (references are not included in the list):
Modeling the medium as a HALF SPACE
This assumption is applicable only to consolidation problems where the thickness of the soil
stratum is much greater than the dimensions of the loaded area.
Paper PROBLEM
Terzaghi, 1923 One dimensional consolidation problem
Biot, 1941 Three dimensional consolidation problem
Biot 1955,
1956a,b
Consider also the effect of anisotropy and wave propagation
in fluid filled media
Rice & Cleary,
1976
Solved a number of problems, including suddenly introduced
edge dislocation, concentrated line force and suddenly
pressurized cylindrical and spherical cavities.
Also reformulated Biot’s linear poroelastic constitutive equations
using more familiar constants
McNamee &
Gibbson,
1960a, b
Solved plain strain & and axially-symmetric consolidation
problems of a semi-infinite clay stratum having incompressible
fluid and solid constituents with isotropic permeability.
71
2 problems of a semi-finite body to the surface of which a
uniform pressure is applied along an infinite strip or over a
circular area.
Schiffman and
Fungaroli,
1965
Extended the previous (displacement function formulation) to
non-axisymmetric problems: Consolidation of a semi-infinite
solid subjected to a uniform tangential load at a pervious and
an impervious surface.
Bell & Nur,
1978
Used two-dimensional half-space models with surface loading
to study the change produced by reservoir-induced pore
pressure and stresses for thrust, normal and strike-slip faults,
assuming that only stresses influence the pore pressure and not
vice-versa
Booker and
Randolph,
1984
Effect of circular and rectangular loading numerically
(consolidation of a poroelastic half-space with cross-anisotropic
deformation and flow properties.
Roeloffs, 1988
Evaluation of stress and pore pressure changes produced by a
steady periodic variation of water level on the surface of a
uniform porous elastic half-space
Yue &
Selvadurai,
1995
Axisymmetric interaction between a rigid, circular flat indenter
and a poroelastic half-space, considering 3 drainage conditions.
Kalpna, 1997
Stresses and pore pressure estimation for an impervious elastic
layer resting on a water-saturated porous elastic half-space
when the upper surface of the layer is acted upon by a normal
stress field varying harmonically in time.
72
Kalpna, 2000
Calculated stresses and pore pressure in a porous elastic half-
space for a time-varying finite reservoir surface load, using
Green’s function approach
Mei et al., 2004
Presented a finite layer procedure for Biot’s consolidation
analysis of layered soil using a cross-anisotropic elastic
constitutive model. Both fluid and solid constituents were
assumed to be incompressible.
Chen, 2005
Steady state response of a multilayered poroelastic half-space
to a point sink. Fluid/ Solid assumed incompressible,
permeability and poroelasticity assumed as transversely
isotropic.
Chen et al,
2005
Axisymmetric consolidation of a semi-finite, transversely
isotropic saturated soil subjected to a uniform circular loading
at ground surface
Singh and
Rani, 2006
Solved two-dimensional plane strain problem of the quasi-
static deformation of a multi-layered poroelastic half-space by
surface loads. Fluid/ Solid assumed compressible with
isotropic permeability
Conte, 2006
Analysis of coupled consolidation in unsaturated soil under
the condition of plane strain as well as axial symmetry due to
strip and circular loads.
Singh et al.,
2007
quasi-static plane strain deformation of a poroelastic half-space
with anisotropic permeability and compressible constituents
by two-dimensional surface loads (analytical solution). Normal
strip problem discussed in detail.
73
Singh et al.,
2009
Problem of consolidation of a poroelastic half-space with
anisotropic permeability by axisymetric surface loads,
assuming compressible fluid and solid constituents.
Ai et al., 2008
Solved Biot’s 3D consolidation problem for a saturated
poroelastic multi-layered soil due to loading at an arbitrary
interface. Incompressible medium and isotropic permeability.
Ai et al., 2010a
Solved the corresponding problem with the previous one for a
circular loading. Incompressible medium and isotropic
permeability.
Ai et al, 2010b
Axisymmetric and non-axisymmetric consolidation of a multi-
layered solid under arbitrary loading. Incompressible medium
and isotropic permeability.
Modeling the poroelastic medium as FINITE LAYER
Paper PROBLEM
Gibson et
al., 1970
Solution for consolidation of a uniform clay layer resting on a
smooth-rigid base subjected to circular or strip loading.
Booker,
1974
Problem of the consolidation of a uniform clay layer subjected to
general normal surface loading, assuming that the lower strip
surface adheres completely to a rigid base. Solutions for the case
of uniformly loaded strip, circle and square were evaluated for a
variety of Poisson’s ratio values. Incompressible medium and
isotropic permeability were assumed.
Booker and
Small, 1987
Consolidation of a layered soil subjected to strip, circular and
rectangular surface loading, or subjected to fluid withdrawal due
to pumping (numerical inversion)
74
Yue et al.,
2004
Analytical investigation of the quasi-static development of excess
pore pressure in a poroelastic seabed layer, of finite thickness,
saturated with a compressible pore fluid and resting on a rough-
rigid impermeable base.
Selvadurai
& Yue, 1994
The axisymmetric contact problem related to the indentation of a
fluid saturated poroelastic layer resting on a rigid impermeable
base due to circular foundation.
Conte, 1998
Consolidation problem involving anisotropic layered soils which
contain incompressible as well as compressible pore fluid caused
by surface loading (numerical procedure).
Chen et al.,
2005b
Axisymmetric consolidation of a transversely isotropic soil layer
resting on a rough impervious base and subjected to a uniform
circular pressure at the surface (semi-analytical solution).
Transversely isotropic medium in each elastic and hydraulic
properties. (However, in numerical computations, only the effect of the
elastic anisotropy was studied)
Chen et al.,
2007
Analytical solution for the consolidation of a soil layer subjected
to vertical point loading. Incompressible medium and isotropic
permeability.
Ai and
Wang, 2008 Axisymmetric consolidation problem of a finite soil
Ai and Wu,
2009
A solution for plane strain consolidation of a soil layer with
anisotropic permeability and incompressible fluid and solid
constituents due to surface loads.
Rani et al.,
2011
Obtained the corresponding axisymmetric solution when the
fluid and solid constituents are compressible.
75
Other solutions for Consolidation Problems
Paper PROBLEM - SOLUTION
Carter, 1986
Close-form solutions for the steady-state distribution of
displacement, pore pressure and stress around a point sink.
Solutions obtained for the long-term settlement caused by
withdrawal of fluid from a point sink at finite depth below the
surface of a homogeneous isotropic porous elastic half-space
with isotropic permeability.
Booker and
Carter, 1987
Solution for the transient effect of pumping fluid from a point
sink embedded in a saturated porous, elastic half space.
Homogeneous and isotropic medium elastic properties,
anisotropic pore fluid, incompressible fluid.
Booker and
Carter, 1987b
Corresponding problem of withdrawal of a compressible pore
fluid from a point sink in an isotropic elastic half-space with
anisotropic permeability.
Tarn and Lu,
1991
Analytical solutions of the long-term consolidation and excess
pore water pressure due to fluid withdrawal from saturated
porous elastic half-space. Both permeability and elastic
properties were considered to be cross-anisotropic
Chau, 1996
Fundamental solutions for the interior fluid point source
and point forces embedded in a poroelastic half-space with
incompressible constituents and isotropic permeability.
Ganbe and
Kurashige,
2000
Fundamental solutions for an elastically isotropic poroelastic
solid having transversely isotropic permeability due to
instantaneous fluid point source and instantaneous point force.
76
Taguchi and
Kurashige,
2002
Fundamental solutions for point forces acting on three
orthogonal directions and an instantaneous fluid point source
in a fluid saturated, porous and infinite solid of transversely
isotropic elasticity and permeability. (too lengthy solutions)
Wang and
Kuumpel, 2003
Numerical scheme to compute poroelastic solutions for excess
pore pressure and displacements in a multilayered half-space
(using mirror-image technique and an extension of Haskell’s
propagator method).
Chen, 2003 Analytical solutions for the steady-state response of a multi-
layered poroelastic half-space subjected to pumping
Chen and
Gallipoli, 2004
Analytical solution for the steady state infiltration from a
buried point source into a heterogeneous cross-anisotropic
unsaturated half-space.
Lu and
Hanyga, 2005
Fundamental solution for a layered porous half-space
subjected to a vertical point force or a point source.
Singh and Rani
(2007)
Formulated the two-dimensional plane strain problem of the
quasi-static deformation of a multi-layered poroelastic half-
space with compressible constituents by internal sources. The
integral expressions for the surface displacement and fluid flux
are obtained for a vertical line force, a horizontal line force and
a fluid injection line source.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS: This work was supported within SHEER: "Shale Gas Exploration and Exploitation Induced Risks" project funded from Horizon 2020 – R&I Framework Programme, call H2020-LCE-2014-1 and within statutory activities No3841/E-41/S/2016 of Ministry of Science and Higher Education of Poland.
77
List of References
1) Albaric, J., V. Oye, N. Langet, M. Hasting, I. Lecomte, K. Iranpour, M. Messeiller,
and P. Reid (2014), Geothermics, 52, 120-131.
2) Altman, J. B. (2010), Poroelastic effects in reservoir modelling, PhD thesis, Karlsruher
Instituts für Technologie, pp 133.
3) Altmann, J. B., B. I. R. Müller, T. M. Müller, O. Heidbach, M. R. P. Tingay, and A.
Weißhardt (2014), Pore pressure stress coupling in 3D consequences for reservoir
stress states and fault reactivation, Geothermics, 52, 195-205.
4) Aochi, H., B. Poisson, R. Toussaint, X. Rachez, and J. Schmittbuhl (2013), Self-
induced seismicity due to fluid circulation along faults, Geophys. J. Int., doi:
10.1093/gji/ggt356.
5) Atkinson, G. M., K. Assatourians, B. Cheadle, and W. Greig (2015), Ground motions
from the three recent earthquakes in Western Alberta and Northeastern British
Columbia and their implications for induced-seismicity hazard in Eastern regions,
Seismol. Res. Lett., 86, doi: 10.1785/0220140195.
6) Atkinson, G. M., H. Ghofrani, and K. Assatourians (2015b), Impact of induced
seismicity on the evaluation of seismic hazard, some preliminary considerations,
Seismol. Res. Lett., DOI: 10.1785/0220140204.
7) Atkinson, G. M., D. W. Eaton, H. Ghofrani, D. Walker, B. Cheadle, R. Schultz, R.
Shcherbakov, D., K. Tiampo, J. Gu, R. M. Harrington, Y. Liu, M. van der Baan, and
H. Kao (2016), Hydraulic Fracturing and Seismicity in the Western Canada
sedimentary basin, Seismol. Res. Lett., 87, doi: 10.1785/0220150263.
8) Bächler, D., and T. Kohl (2005), Coupled thermal-hydraulic-chemical modelling of
enhanced geothermal systems, Geophys. J. Int., 161, 533–548.
9) Baisch, S. and R. Voros (2011), Geomechanical Study of Blackpool Seismicity", Q-Con
report for Cuadrilla.
78
10) Barth, A., F. Wenzel, and C. Langenbruch (2013), Probability of earthquake
occurrence and magnitude estimation in the post shut-in phase of geothermal
projects, J. Seismol., 17, 5-11.
11) Beeler, N. M., R. W. Simpson, S. H. Hickman, and D. A. Lockner (2000), Pore fluid
pressure, apparent friction and coulomb failure, J. Geophys. Res., 105, 25,533-25,542.
12) Carlson D.E. (1972). Linear Thermoelasticity, Handbuch der Physik, vol. VI a/2 (ed. C.
Truesdell), 297-345. Berlin-Heidelberg-New York: Springer-Verlag.
13) Carcione, J. M., C. Morency, and J. E. Santos (2010), Computational poroelasticity,
Geophysics, 75, 229-243.
14) Catalli, F., M.-A. Meier, and S. Wiemer (2013), The role of Coulomb stress changes
for injection‐induced seismicity: The Basel enhanced geothermal system, Geophys. J.
Int., 40, 72-77.
15) Catalli, F., A. P. Rinaldi, V. Gischig, M. Nespoli and S. Wiemer (2016), The
importance of earthquake interactions for injection-induced seismicity:
Retrospective modeling of the Basel Enhanced Geothermal System, Geophys. Res.
Lett., 43, doi:10.1002/2016GL068932.
16) Chen, Y., L. Yan and F. Minfu (2013), Analysis of a discontinuous Galerkin method
for the Biot's consolidation problem, Appl. Math. Comput., 219, 9043-9056.
17) Convertito, V., N. Maercklin, N. Sharma, and A. Zollo (2012), From induced
seismicity to direct time-dependent seismic hazard, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am.12,102
2563-2573.
18) Cocco, M., and J. R. Rice (2002), Pore pressure and poroelasticity effects in Coulomb
stress analysis of earthquake interactions, J. Geophys. Res., 107, 10.1029/2000JB000138.
19) Coussy, O. (2004), Poromechanics, Wiley, Chichester, pp 298.
20) Committee on Induced Seismicity Potential in Energy Technologies: Hitzman M.W.
(Chair), D. D. Clarke, E. Detournay, J. H. Dieterich, D. K. Dillon, S. J. Green, R. M.
Habiger, R. K. McGuire, J. K. Mitchell, J. E. Shemeta, and J. L. Smith (2013), Induced
79
Seismicity Potential in Energy Technologies, National Academy of Sciences. The
National Academies Press Washington, D.C., pp. 248.
21) Dahm, T., D. Becker, M. Bischoff, S. Cesca, B. Dost, R. Fritschen, S. Hainzl, C. D.
Klose, D. Kühn, S. Lasocki, Th. Meier, M. Ohrnberger, E. Rivalta, U. Wegler, and S.
Husen (2013), Recommendation for the discrimination of human-related and natural
seismicity, J. Seismol., 17, 197-202.
22) Davies, R.J., G. Foulger, A. Bindley, and P. Styles (2013), Induced seismicity and
hydraulic fracturing for the recovery of hydrocarbons, Mar. Petroleum Geol., 45, 171-
185.
23) Davis, S.D., and C. Frohlich (1993), Did (or will) fluid injection cause earthquakes? -
criteria for a rational assessment, Seismol. Res. Lett., 64, 207-224.
24) Davis, S. D., and W. D. Pennington (1989) Induced seismic deformation in the
Cogdell oil field of west Texas, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am., 79, 1477–1495.
25) de Pater H. and M. Pellicer (2011), Geomechanical Study of Bowland Shale Seismicity –
Fracture Geometry and Injection Mechanism, StrataGen report for Cuadrilla.
26) de Pater, C.J., and S. Baisch (2011), Geomechanical Study of Bowland Shale
Seismicity. Cuadrilla Resources Ltd.
27) Delaney, P.T. (1982), Rapid intrusion of magma into wet rock: groundwater flow due
to pore pressure increases, J. Geophys. Res., 87, 7739-7756.
28) Detournay E., and A. H. –D. Cheng (1993), Fundamentals of poroelasticity, in
Comprehensive Rock Engineering: Principles, Practice and Projects, (Hudson, J.A. ed.)
Pergamon Press, Oxford 2, pp 113-171.
29) Dieterich, J. H., K. B. Richards-Dinger and K. A. Kroll (2015), Modeling injection
induced seismicity with the physics-based earthquake simulator RSQSim, Seismol.
Res. Lett., 86, 1102-1109.
30) Dinske, C., and S. A. Shapiro (2013), Seismotectonic state of reservoirs inferred from
magnitude distributions of fluid-induced seismicity, J. Seismol., 17, 13-25.
80
31) do Nascimento, A. F., R. J. Lunn, and P. A. Cowie (2005), Numerical modeling of
pore-pressure diffusion in a reservoir-induced seismicity site in northeast Brazil,
Geophys. J. Int., 160, 249-262.
32) Dost, B., F. Goutbeek, T. van Eck, and D. Kraaijpoel (2012), Monitoring induced
seismicity in the North of the Netherlands: Status report 2010, Royal Netherlands
Meteorological Institute, Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment.
33) Dost, B., M. Caccavale, T. van Eck, and D. Kraaijpoel (2013), Report on the expected
PGV and PGA values for induced earthquakes in the Groningen area,
KNMI.Downie, R.C., E. Kronenberger, and S.C. Maxwell (2010), Using Microseismic
Source Parameters to Evaluate the Influence of Faults on Fracture Treatments - a
Geophysical Approach to Interpretation, SPE, 134772.
34) Edwards, B., and J. Douglas (2013), Magnitude scaling of induced earthquakes,
Geothermics, doi.org/10.1016/j.geothermics. 2013.09. 012.
35) Eisner et al., 2011, Seismic analysis of the events in the vicinity of the Preese Hall
well - phase I
36) Eisner et al., 2012, Seismic analysis of the events in the vicinity of the Preese Hall
well - phase II.
37) Ellsworth, W. L. (2013), Injection induced earthquakes, Science, 341, DOI: 10.1126/
science.1225942
38) Enayatpour, S. and T. Patzek (2013), Thermal shock in reservoir rock enhances the
hydraulic fracturing of gas shales, Unconventional Resources Technology Conference
held in Denver, Colorado, USA, 12-14 August 2013.
39) Evans, K. F., A. Zappone, T. Kraft, N. Deichmann, and F. Moia (2012), A survey of
the induced seismicity responses to fluid injection in geothermal and CO2 reservoirs
in Europe, Geothermics, 41, 30-54.
40) Farahbod, A. M., H. Kao, J. Cassidy, and D. Walker (2015), How did hydraulic-
fracturing operations in the Horn River Basin change seismicity patterns in
81
northeastern British Columbia, Canada?, The Leading Edge, 34, 658-663, DOI:
10.1190/tle34060658.1.
41) Folger, P., and M. Tiemann (2015), Human-Induced Earthquakes from Deep-Well
Injection: A Brief Overview, Congressional Research Service Report, www.crs.gov.
42) Friberg, P. A., G. M. Besana-Ostman, and I. Dricker (2014), Characterization of an
earthquake sequence triggered by hydraulic fracturing in Harrison County, Ohio,
Seismol. Res. Lett., 85, doi: 10.1785/0220140127.
43) Foulger, G. R., and R. E. Long (1984), Anomalous focal mechanisms: Tensile crack
formation on an accreting plate boundary, Nature, 310, 43–45, doi:10.1038/310043a0.
44) Gan, Q., and D. Elsworth (2014), Analysis of fluid injection-induced fault
reactivation and seismic slip in geothermal reservoirs, J. Geophys. Res., doi:
10.1002/2013JB010679.
45) Garcia, J., M. Walters, C. Hartline, A. Pingol, S. Pistone, and M. Wright, (2012),
Overview of the North-west Geysers EGS demonstration project. In: Proceedings of
the Thirty-Seventh Workshop on Geothermal Reservoir Engineering, Stanford SGP-TR-
194.
46) Garcia, J. G. Hartline, M. Walters, M. Wright, J. Rutqvist, P. F. Dobson, and P. Jeanne
(2015), The Northwest Geysers EGS Demonstration Project, California Part 1:
Characterization and reservoir response to injection, Geothermics, xxx-xxx
47) Gaucher, E., M. Schoenball, O. Heidbach, A. Zang, P. A. Fokker, J.-D. van Wees, and
T. Kohl, Induced seismicity in geothermal reservoirs: a review of forecasting
approaches, Renew. Sustainable Energy Rev., 52, 1473-1490.
48) Ghassemi, A. (2012), A review of some rock mechanics issues in geothermal reservoir
development, Geotech. Geol. Eng., 30, 647–664, doi:10.1007/s10706-012-9508-3.
49) Ghassemi, A., and Q. Tao (2016), Thermo-poroelastic effects on reservoir seismicity,
PROCEEDINGS, 41st Workshop on Geothermal Reservoir Engineering Stanford
University, Stanford, California, February 22-24, 2016
82
50) Gei, D., L. Eisner, and P. Suhadolc (2011), Feasibility of estimating vertical transverse
isotropy from microseismic data recorded by surface monitoring arrays. Geophysics
76, 117-126.
51) GMI, (2011), “Wellbore Failure Analysis and Geomechanical Modelling in the
Bowland Shale Blackpool, UK Cuadrilla Resources”, Final Report Submitted to
Cuadrilla Resources, September …
52) Goebel, T. H. W., S. M. Hosseini, F. Cappa, E. Hauksson, J. P. Ampuero, F.
Aminzadeh and J. B. Saleeby (2016), Wastewater disposal and earthquake swarm
activity at the southern end of the Central Valley, California, Geophys. Res. Lett., doi:
10.1002/2015GL066948
53) Grasso, J. R. and G. Wittlinger (1990), 10 years of seismic monitoring over a gas field
area, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am., 80, 450–473.
54) Green, C. A., P. Styles, and B. J. Baptie (2012), Preese Hall shale gas fracturing: review
and recommendations for induced seismic mitigation, Department of Energy and
Climate Change: London. http://og.decc.gov.uk/assets/og/ep/onshore/5075- preese-
hall-shale-gas-fracturing-review.pdf.
55) Grechka, V. (2010), Data-acquisition design for microseismic monitoring, The Leading
Edge, 278-282.
56) Grob, M., F. Zhang, S. Maxwell, D. Chorney and M. Mack (2016), Geomechanical
modeling of induced seismicity associated with triggered fault slip during multi-
stage hydraulic fracturing, GeoConvention – Optimizing Resources, Cargary, Canada,
March 7-11, 2016.
57) Häge, M., P. Blascheck, and M. Joswig (2013), EGS hydraulic stimulation monitoring
by surface arrays-location accuracy and completeness magnitude: the Basel deep
heat mining project case study, J. Seismol., 17, 51-61.
58) Harper T. (2011), Geomechanical Analysis of the Worston Shale Microseismicity,
Geosphere report for Cuadrilla.
83
59) Healy, D. (2012), Hydraulic Fracturing or ‘Fracking’: A Short Summary of Current
Knowledge and Potential Environmental Impacts.
60) Hefner, R. (2014), “Earthquakes”: A Seismic Correlation Study
61) Hesse, M. A., and G. Stadleer (2014), Joint inversion in coupled quasi-static
poroelasticity, J. Geophys. Res.: Solid Earth, 119, 1425-1445.
62) Holland, A. (2011), Examination of possibly induced seismicity from hydraulic
fracturing in the Eola field, Garvin County, Oklahoma, Okla. Geol. Surv. Open-File
Rept. OF1-2011.
63) Holland, A. (2013), Earthquakes triggered by hydraulic fracturing in south-central
Oklahoma, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am., 103, 1784–1792, doi: 10.1785/0120120109.
64) Huber, C., and Y. Su (2015), A pore-scale investigation of the dynamic response of
saturated porous media to transient stresses, Geofluids, 15, 11-23.
65) Hubbert, M. K. and W. W. Rubey (1959), Role of fluid pressure in mechanics of
overthrust faulting 1. Mechanics of fluid-filled porous solids and its application to
overthrust faulting. Geol. Soc. Am. Bull., 70, 115–166.
66) Improta, L., L. Valoroso, D. Piccinini, and C. Chiarabba (2015), A detailed analysis of
wastewater-induced seismicity in the Val d’Agri oil field (Italy), Geophys. Res. Lett.,
42, doi:10.1002/2015GL063369.
67) Izadi, G., and D. Elsworth (2013) The effects of thermal stress and fluid pressure on
induced seismicity during stimulation to production within fractured reservoirs.
Terra Nova 25, 374–380, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ter.12046.
68) Izadi, G., and D. Elsworth (2014), Reservoir stimulation and induced seismicity: roles
of fluid pressure and thermal transients on reactivated fractured networks.
Geothermics, 51, 368–379.
69) Izadi, G., and D. Elsworth (2015), The influence of thermal-hydraulic-mechanical-
and chemical effects on the evolution of permeability, seismicity and heat production
in geothermal reservoirs, Geothermics, 53, 385-395.
84
70) Jing, Z. , K. Watanabe, J. Willis-Richards, and T. Hashida (2002), A 3-D water/rock
chemical interaction model for prediction of HDR/HWR geothermal reservoir
performance, Geothermics, 31, 1–28.
71) Johnson, L.R., (2014a), Source mechanisms of induced earthquakes at the Geysers
Geothermal Reservoir, Pure Appl. Geophys., 171, 1641–1668.
72) Johnson, L.R., (2014b), A source model for induced earthquakes at the Geysers
Geothermal Reservoir, Pure Appl. Geophys., 171, 1625–1640.
73) Julian, B. R., A. D. Miller, and G. R. Foulger (1998), Non‐double‐couple earthquakes:
1. Theory, Rev. Geophys., 36, 525–549, doi:10.1029/ 98RG00716.
74) Julian, B. R., G. R. Foulger, F. C. Monastero, and S. Bjornstad (2010), Geophys. Res.
Lett., 37, L07305, doi:10.1029/2009GL040933.
75) Kalpna R. C. (1997), On the 2D plane strain problem for a harmonic stress applied to
an impervious elastic layer resting on a porous elastic half space, Phys. Earth. Planet.
Int., 103,. 151-164.
76) Keranen, K. M., H. M. Savage, G. A. Abers, and E. S. Cochran (2013), Potentially
induced earthquakes in Oklahoma, USA: Links between wastewater injection and
the 2011 MW5.7 earthquake sequence, Geology, 41, 699-702.
77) Keranen, K. M., M. Weingarten, G. A. Abers, B. A. Bekins, and S. Ge (2014), Sharp
increase in central Oklahoma seismicity since 2008 induced by massive wastewater
injection, Science, 345, 448-451.
78) Kim, W.-Y. (2013), Induced seismicity associated with fluid injection into a deep well
in Youngstown, Ohio, J. Geophys. Res., 118, 3506-3518.
79) Kratz, M., A. Hill, and S. Wessels (2012), Identifying Fault Activation in
Unconventional Reservoirs in Real Time Using Microseismic Monitoring. SPE
153042.
80) Kwiatek, G., P. Marinez-Garzon, G. Dresen, M. Bohnhoff, H. Sone and C. Hartline
(2015), Effects of long-term fluid injection on induced seismicity parameters and
85
maximum magnitude in northwestern part of the Geysers geothermal field, J.
Geophys. Res. Solid Earth, 120, doi:10.1002/2015JB012362.
81) Lacazette, A. and P. Geiser (2013), Comment on Davies et al., 2012 - Hydraulic
fractures: how far can they go?, Mar. Petroleum Geol., 43, 516-518.
82) Lei X., S. Ma, W. Chen, C. Pang, J. Zeng, and B. Jang (2013), A detailed view of the
injection-induced seismicity in a natural gas reservoir in Zigong, Southwestern
Sichuan Basin, China, J. Geophys. Res., 118, 1-16.
83) Lenglinié, O., L. Lamourette, L. Vivin, N. Cuenot, and J. Schmittbuhl (2014), Fluid
induced earthquakes with variable stress drop, J. Geophys. Res., 119,
doi:10.1002/2014JB011282.
84) LLenos, A. L., and A. J. Michael (2013), Modeling earthquake rate changes in
Oklahoma and Arkansas possible signatures of induced seismicity, Bull. Seismol. Soc.
Am., 103, 2850-2861.Majer, E. L., R. Baria, M. Stark, S. Oates, J. Bommer, B. Smith,
and H. Asanuma (2007), induced seismicity associated with Enhanced Geothermal
Systems, Geothermics, 36, 185-222.
85) Mahani, A. B., H. Kao, D. Walker, J. Johnson, and C. Salas (2016), Seismograph
network in Northeast British Columbia, Canada, for monitoring of induced
seismicity, Seismol. Res. Lett., 87, doi: 10.1785/0220150241
86) Majer, E. L., and J. E. Peterson (2007), The Impact of Injection on Seismicity at The
Geysers, California Geothermal Field., Int. J. Rock Mech. Min., 44, 1079-1090.
87) Majer E. L., R. Baria, M. Stark, S. Oates, J. Bommer, B. Smith, and H. Asanuma (2007),
Induced seismicity associated with enhanced geothermal Systems, Geothermics, 36,
185-222.
88) Majer, E., J. Nelson, A. Robertson-Tait, J. Savy, and I. Wong (2012). Protocol for
Addressing Induced Seismicity Associated with Enhanced Geothermal Systems, U.S.
Department of Energy, Washington, D.C.
86
89) Martinez-Garzon, P., G. Kwiatek, H. Sone, M. Bohnhoff, G. Dresen, and C. Hartline
(2014), Spatiotemporal changes, faulting regimes, and source parameters of induced
seismicity: A case study from The Geysers geothermal field. J. Geophys. Res. Solid
Earth, 119, 8378-8396.
90) Maxwell, S.C., M. Jones, R. Parker, S. Miong, S. Leaney, D. Dorval, D. D’Amico, J.
Logel, E. Anderson, and K. Hammermaster (2009), Fault Activation During
Hydraulic Fracturing SEG Houston 2009 International Exposition and Annual
Meeting 1552-1556.
91) Maxwell, S.C. (2013), Unintentional Seismicity Induced by Hydraulic Fracturing,
GSEG Recorder, 40 – 49, October, 2013.
92) McClure, M. W., and R. N. Horne (2014), Correlations between formation properties
and induced seismicity during high pressure injection into granitic rock, Eng. Geol.,
175, 74-80.
93) McGarr, A., and D. Simpson (1997), Keynote lecture: a broad look at induced and
triggered seismicity, “Rockbursts and seismicity in mines”. In: Gibowicz SJ, Lasocki
S (eds) Proceeding of 4th international symposium on rockbursts and seismicity in
mines, Poland, 11–14 August 1997. A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp 385–396.
94) McGarr, A. (2014), Maximum magnitude earthquakes by induced fluid injection. J.
Geophys. Res. Solid Earth 119, 1008-1019.
95) Mekkawi, A., J.-R. Grasso, and P. –A. Schnegg (2004), A long-lasting relaxation of
seismicity at Aswan reservoir, Egypt, 1982-2001, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am., 94, 479-492.
96) Mignan, A. (2008), Non-Critical Precursory Accelerating Seismicity Theory (NC
PAST) and limits of the power-law fit methodology, Tectonophysics, 452, 42-50.
97) Mignan, A. (2012), Seismicity precursors to large earthquakes unified in a stress
accumulation framework, Geophys. Res. Lett., 39, L21308, doi:10.1029/2012GL053946.
98) Mignan, A. (2016), Static behaviour of induced seismicity, Nonlin. Processes Geophys.,
23, 107-113, doi:10.5194/npg-23-107-2016.
87
99) Mignan, A., G. C. P. King, and D. Bowman (2007), A mathematical formulation of
accelerating moment release based on the stress accumulation model, J. Geophys.
Res., 112, B07308, doi:10.1029/2006JB004671.Miller, A. D., B. R. Julian, and G. R.
Foulger (1998), Three‐dimensional seismic structure and moment tensors of non‐
double‐couple earthquakes at the Hengill‐Grensdalur volcanic complex, Iceland,
Geophys. J. Int., 133, 309–325, doi:10.1046/ j.1365-246X.1998.00492.x.
100) Mulargia, F., and A. Bizzarri (2014), Anthropogenic triggering of large earthquakes,
Sci. Rep., 4, doi:10.1038/srep06100.
101) Mulargia, F., and A. Bizzarri (2015), Fluid pressure waves trigger earthquakes,
Geophys. J. Int., 200, 1279-1283.
102) National Research Council (2012), Induced seismicity potential in energy
technologies: US National Academies of Science report.
103) Nicholson, Craig, and R. L. Wesson (1990), Earthquake hazard associated with deep well
injection; a report to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: U.S. Geological Survey
Bulletin.
104) Norris, J. Q., D. L. Turcotte, and J. B. Rundle (2014), Loopless nontrapping invasion-
percolation model for fracking, Phys. Rev. E, 89, doi:10.1103/PhysRevE.89.022119.
105) Oprsal, I., and L. Eisner (2014), Cross-correlation – an objective tool to indicate
induced seismicity, Geophys. J. Int., doi: 10.1093/ gji/ggt501.
106) Pan, E. (1999), Green’s functions in layered poroelastic half-spaces, Int. J. Numer.
Anal. Meth. Geomech., 23, 1631-1653.
107) Parotidis M, S. A. Shapiro, and E. Rothert (2004), Backfront of seismicity induced
after termination of borehole fluid injection, Geophys. Res. Lett., 31, LO2612 1-5.
108) Parsons, T. (2002), Global Omori law decay of triggered earthquakes: large
aftershocks outside the classical aftershock zone, J. Geophys. Res., 107, B02199,
doi:10.1029/2001JB000646.
88
109) Pearson, C. (1981), The relationship between micro-seismicity and high pore
pressure during hydraulic stimulation experiments in low permeability rocks. J.
Geophys. Res., 86, 7855- 7864.
110) Pennington, W.D., S. D. Davis, S. M. Carlson, J. DuPree, and T. E. Ewing (1986), The
evolution of seismic barriers and asperities caused by the depressuring of fault
planes in oil and gas fields of South Texas., Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am., 76, 939–948.
111) Perkins T. K., and J. A. Gonzales JA (1985), The effect of thermoelastic stress on
injection well fracturing, Soc.Petrol. Eng. J., 25, 78–88.
112) Phillips, W.J. (1972) Hydraulic fracturing and mineralization, J Geol. Soc. London, 128,
337-359.
113) Phillips, P. J. (2005), Finite element methods in linear poroelasticity: theoretical and
computational results, Ph.D. thesis, The University of Texas at Austin.
114) Phillips, P. J. and M. F. Wheeler (2008), A coupling of mixed and discontinuous
Galerkin, finite-element methods for poroelasticity, Computat. Geosci., 12(4):417-435,
2008.
115) Plenkers, K., J. R. R. Ritter, and M. Schindler (2013), Low signal-to-noise event
detection based on waveform stacking and cross-correlation: application to a
stimulation experiment, J. Seismol., 17, 17-27.
116) Piombo, A., G. Martinelli, and M. Dragoni (2005), Post-seismic fluid flow and
Coulomb stress changes in a poroelastic medium, Geophys. J. Int., 162, 507-515.
117) Pride, S. R. (2005), Relationships Between seismic and hydrological properties,in
Hydrogeophysics , pp. 253–291, Springer, New York.
118) Priolo, E., M. Romanelli, M. P. Plasencia Linares, M. Garbin, L. Peruzza, M. A.
Romano, P. Marotta, P. Bernardi, L. Moratto, D. Zuliani, and P. Fabris (2015), Seismic
monitoring of an underground natural gas storage facility: The Collalto seismic
network, Seismol. Res. Lett., 89, 109-123.
119) Q-con, (2011), “Geomechanical Study of Blackpool Seismicity”.
89
120) Rice, J. R., and M. P. Cleary (1976), Some basic stress diffusion solutions for fluid
saturated elastic porous media with compressible constituents, Rev. Geophys., 14,
227– 241.
121) Richards-Dinger, K. B. and J. H. Dieterich (2012), RSQSim earthquake simulator,
Seismol. Ress. Lett., 83, 983-990.
122) Roeloffs, E. A. (1988), Hydrologic precursors to earthquakes: A review, Pure Appl.
Geophys., 126, 177-209.
123) Roche, V., and M. van der Baan (2015), The role of lithological layering and pore
pressure on fluid-induced microseismicity, J. Geophys. Res., 120, doi:
10.1002/2014JB011606.
124) Ross, A., G. R. Foulger, and B. R. Julian (1996), Non‐double‐couple earthquake
mechanisms at the Geysers geothermal area, California, Geophys. Res. Lett., 23, 877–
880, doi:10.1029/96GL00590.
125) Ross, A., G. R. Foulger, and B. R. Julian (1999), Source processes of industrially‐
induced earthquakes at the Geysers geothermal area, California, Geophysics, 64,
1877–1889, doi:10.1190/1.1444694.
126) Rubinstein, J. L. and A. B. Mahani (2015), Myths and facts on wastewater injection,
hydraulic fracturing, enhanced oil recovery and induced seismicity, Seismol. Res.
Lett., 86, 1060-1067.
127) Rutqvist, J., P. F. Dobson, C. M. Oldenburg, J. Garcia, and M. Walters (2010), The
Northwest Geysers EGS demonstration project phase 1: pre-stimulation coupled
geomechanical modeling to guide stimulation and monitoring plans, GRC Trans., 34,
1243–1250.
128) Rutqvist, J., A.P. Rinaldi, F. Cappa, and G.J. Moridis (2013), Modeling of fault
reactivation and induced seismicity during hydraulic fracturing of shale-gas
reservoirs, J. Pet. Sci. Eng., 107, 31–44.
90
129) Rutqvist, J., F. Cappa, A. P. Rinaldi, and M. Godano (2014), Modeling of induced
seismicity and ground vibrations associated with geologic CO2 storage, and
assessing their effects on surface structures and human perception, Int. J. Greenh. Gas
Con., 24, 64-77.
130) Rutqvist, J., A.P. Rinaldi, F. Cappa, and G.J. Moridis (2015), Modeling of fault
activation and seismicity by injection directly into a fault zone associated with
hydraulic fracturing of shale-gas reservoirs, J. Pet. Sci. Eng., 127, 377–386.
131) Rutqvist, J., P. Jeanne, P. F. Dobson, J. Garcia, G. Hartline, L. Hutchings, A. Singh, D.
W. Vasco, and M. Walters (2016), The Northwest Geysers EGS Demonstration
Project, California Part 2: Modeling and interpretation, Geothermics, xxx-xxx.
132) Rutqvist, J., P. F. Dobson, J. Garcia, G. Hartline, P. Jeanne, C. M. Oldenburg, D. W.
Vasco, and M. Walters (2015), The Northwest Geysers EGS Demonstration Project,
California: Pre-stimulation modeling and interpretation of the stimulation, Math.
Geosci., 47, 3-29, DOI 10.1007/s11004-013-9493-y.
133) Safari, R., and A. Ghassemi (2015), Three-dimensional thermo-poroelastic analysis
of fracture network deformation and induced microseismicity in enhanced
geothermal systems. Geothermics, 58, 1-14.
134) Schultz, R., V. Stern, M. Novakovic, G. Atkinson, and Y. J. Gu (2015), Hydraulic
fracturing and the Crooked Lake sequences: Insights gleaned from regional seismic
networks, Geophys. Res. Lett., 42, doi:10.1002/2015GL063455.
135) Simpson, D. W., W. S. Leith and C. H. Scholz (1988), Two types of reservoir-induced
seismicity, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am., 78, 2025-2040.
136) Singh, S. J., and N. R. Garg (1985), On two-dimensional elastic dislocations in a
multilayered half-space, Phys. Earth. Plan. Int., 40, 135-145.
137) Singh, S. J., S. Rani, and R. Kumar (2013), Consolidation of a poroelastic half-space,
Mathematical Journal of Interdisciplinaty Sciences, 2, 1-18.
91
138) Shapiro, S. A., E. Huenges, and G. Borm (1997), Estimating the permeability from
fluid-injection-induced seismic emissions at the KTB site, Geophys. J. Int., 131, F15-
F18.
139) Shapiro, S. A., J. J. Royer, and P. Audigane (2000), Reply to Comment by F.H. Cornet
on "Largescale in situ Permeability Tensor of Rocks from Induced Microseismicity",
Geophys. J. Int., 140, 470-473.
140) Shapiro, S. A., P. Patzig, E. Rothert, and J. Rindschwentner (2003), Triggering of
seismicity by pore-pressure perturbations: permeability-related signatures of the
phenomenon, Pure Appl. Geophys., 160, 1051-1066.
141) Skoumal, R. J., M. R. Brudzinski, B. S. Currie, and J. Levy (2014), Optimizing multi-
station earthquake template matching through re-examination of the Youngstown,
Ohio, sequence, Earth Planet. Sci. Lett., 405, 274-280.
142) Skoumal, R. J., M. R. Brudzinski, and B. S. Currie (2015), Earthquakes induced by
hydraulic fracturing in Poland Township, Ohio, Bull Seismol. Soc. Am., 105, doi:
10.1785/0120140168.
143) Soltanzedeh, H., C. D. Hawkes, P. J. McLellan, and S. A. Smith (2009), Poroelastic
Modelling of production and Injection-Induced Stress Changes in a Pinnacle Reef,
Proceedings of the 3rd CANUS Rock Mechanics Symposium, Toronto, May 2009.
144) Stark M.A. (1992), Microearthquakes—a tool to track injected water in The Geysers
reservoir. In: Monograph on the Geyser Geothermal Field, Spec Rep No 17, Geothermal
Research Council; p. 111–117.
145) Taron J., D. Elsworth, and K. B. Min (2009), Numerical simulation of thermal–
hydrologic– mechanical–chemical processes in deformable, fractured porous media,
Int. J. Rock. Mech. Min. Sci., doi:10.1016/j.ijrmms.2009.01.008.
146) Taron, J., and D. Elsworth (2009), Thermal-hydrologic-mechanical-chemical
processes in the evolution of engineered geothermal reservoirs, Int. J. Rock. Mech.
Min. Sci., 46, 855-864.
92
147) Terakawa, T. (2014), Evolution of pore fluid pressures in a stimulated geothermal
reservoir inferred from earthquake focal mechanisms, Geophys. Res. Lett., 41, 7468–
7476.
148) Terzaghi, K. (1923), Die Berechnung der Durchlässigkeitsziffer des Tones aus dem
Verlauf der hydrodynamische Spannungserscheinungen, Sitzber. Akad. Wiss. Wien,
Abt., IIa, 132, 125-138.
149) Trugman, D. T., A. A. Borsa, and D. T. Sandwell (2014), Did stresses from the Cerro
Prieto eothermal Field influence the El Mayor-Cucapah rupture sequence?, Geophys.
Res. Lett., 41, doi:10.1002/ 2014GL061959.
150) Turcotte, D. L., E. M. Moores, and J. B. Rundle (2014), Super fracking, Phys. Today,
67, doi: 10.1063/PT.3.2480.
151) van der Elst, N. J. (2013), Enhanced remote earthquake triggering at fluid-induced
sites in the Midwestern United States, Science, 341, DOI: 10.1126/science.1238948.
152) Verdon, J. P. (2014), Significance for secure CO2 storage of earthquakes induced by
fluid injection, Environ. Res. Lett., 9, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/9/6/064022.
153) Verruijt, A. (2013), Theory and problems of poroelasticity, Delf University of Technology,
pp. 259.
154) Waldhauser, F., and W. L. Ellsworth (2000), A Double-Difference Earthquake
Location Algorithm: Method and Application to the Northern Hayward Fault,
California, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am., 90, 1353 - 1368, doi 10.1785/0120000006.
155) Walters, R. J., M. D. Zoback, J. W. Baker, and G. C. Beroza (2015), Characterizing
and responding to seismic risk associated with earthquakes potentially triggered by
fluid disposal and hydraulic fracturing, Seismol. Res. Lett. ,86, doi: 10.1785/
0220150048.
156) Wang, B., R. Harrington, Y. Liu, H. Yu, A. Carey, and N. van der Elst (2015), Isolated
cases of remote dynamic triggering in Canada detected using cataloged earthquakes
93
combined with a matched-filter approach, Geophys. Res. Lett., 42, doi:10.1002/
2015GL064377.
157) Wang, H. F. (2000), Theory of linear poroelasticity with applications to geomechanics and
hydrogeology. Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press., pp. 287.
158) Wang, R., and H.-J. Kümpel (2003), Poroelasticity: Efficient modeling of strongly
coupled, slow deformation processes in multilayered half-space, Geophysics, 68, 1-13.
159) Wang, R., Y. J. Gu, R. Schultz, A. Kim, and G. Atkinson (2016), Source analysis of a
potential hydraulic-fracturing-induced earthquake near Fox Creek, Alberta, Geophys.
Res. Lett., 43, 564–573, doi:10.1002/2015GL066917
160) Walsh, J. B. (1965), Effect of cracks on uniaxial elastic compression of rocks, J.
Geophys. Res., 70, 399–411.
161) Warpinski, N.R., J. Du, J., and U. Zimmer (2012), Measurements of Hydraulic-
fracture induced Sesimicity in Gas Shales. SPE, 151597.
162) Warpinski, N.R. (2013), Understanding Hydraulic Fracture Growth, Effectiveness,
and Safety Through Microseismic Monitoring, INTECH, open access article,
http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/55974
163) Wessels et al., 2011. Identifying Fault Activation During Hydraulic Stimulation in
the Barnett Shale: Source Mechanisms, b Values, and Energy Release Analyses of
Microseismicity. In: SEG San Antonio 2011 Annual Meeting, pp. 1643-1647.
164) Wilson, M., R. Davies, G. Foulger, B. Julian, P. Styles, J. Gluyas, and S. Almond
(2015), Anthropogenic earthquakes in the UK: A national baseline prior to shale
exploitation, Mar. Petrol. Geol., http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpetgeo.2015.08.023,
xxx, 1-17.
165) Yeck, W. L., L. V. Block, C. K. Wood, and V. M. King (2015), Maximum magnitude
estimations of induced earthquakes at Paradox Valley, Colorado, from cumulative
injection volume and geometry of seismicity clusters, Geophys. J. Int., 200, 322-326.
94
166) Zang et al., 2014. Analysis of induced seismicity in geothermal reservoirs – An
overview. Geothermics, 52, 6-21.
167) Zoback, M. (2007), Reservoir Geomechanics, Cambridge University Press, pp 449.
Web links
http://www.undeerc.org/
www.nrcan.gc.ca
https://www.bcogc.ca/
http://www.bgs.ac.uk/
https://cogcc.state.co.us/COGIS_Help/glossary.htm)
Historical References:
1. Biot, M. A. (1941), General theory of three-dimensional consolidation, Appl. Phys.,
12, 155-164.
2. Biot, M. A. (1955), Theory of elasticity and consolidation for a porous anisotropic
solid, J. Appl. Phys., 26 182-185.
3. Biot, M. A. (1956), General solutions of the equations of elasticity and consolidation
for a porous material, J. Appl. Mech., 78, 91-98.
4. Biot, M. A. (1956), Theory of propagation of elastic waves in a fluid-saturated
porous solid, J. Acoust. Soc. Amer., 28, 168-191
5. Biot, M. A., and D. G. Willis (1957), The elastic coefficients of the theory of
consolidation, J. Appl. Mech., 24, 594-601
6. Biot, M. A. (1962), Mechanics of deformation and acoustic propagations in porous
media, J. Appl. Phys., 33, 1482-1498.
7. Coulomb, C. A. (1773), Sur une application des regles de maximums et minimums
a quelques problemes de statistique relatifs a larchitesture, Acad. Roy. Sci. Mem.
Mech. Min Sci., 7, 343–382.
8. Darcy, H. (1856), Les Fontaines Publiques de la ville de Dijon , Dalmont, Paris.
95
9. Griffith, J. (1936). Thermal Expansion of Typical American Rocks. Iowa State College
of Agriculture and Mechanic Arts, Iowa Engineering Experiment, 35(19), 24.
10. Terzaghi, K. (1923), Die Berechnung der Durchlässigkeitsziffer des Tones aus dem
Verlauf der hydrodynamische Spannungserscheinungen, Sitzber. Akad. Wiss. Wien,
Abt. IIa, 132, 125-138.
11. Terzaghi, K. (1925), Erdbaumechanik auf bodenphysikalischer Grundlage, Deuticke,
Wien.
12. Terzaghi, K., and O.K. Fröhlich (1936), Theorie der Setzung von Tonschichten,
Deuticke, Leipzig.
13. Terzaghi, K. (1943), Theoretical Soil Mechanics, Wiley, New York.