Advertisement

Pure and Applied Geophysics

, Volume 175, Issue 8, pp 2821–2835 | Cite as

Temporal Relationship Between Injection Rates and Induced Seismicity

  • Josef Vlček
  • Leo Eisner
  • Tony Alfredo Stabile
  • Luciano Telesca
Article

Abstract

Normalized cross-correlation of effective functions was originally developed to differentiate induced and natural seismicity. We apply this methodology to data sets acquired during hydraulic stimulation of shale gas to study temporal relationship between seismicity and the injection. Delays of seismicity induced by hydraulic fracturing are compared with delays of seismicity related to changes of the water level in a dam. A new observation is made; we show that seismicity induced by hydraulic fracturing and measured by the normalized cross-correlation can have very positive to even short negative delay after the injection. We explain this observation by rapid decline of induced seismicity after decrease of injection. On the contrary, we show that the seismicity triggered by water impounding in a dam is characterized by longer delays due to much greater distance between lake and the induced seismicity. We show how it is possible to measure the delay by the cross-correlation methodology despite periodicity of the signals.

Keywords

Hydraulic stimulation microseismicity cross-correlation induced seismicity 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Authors are grateful to Conoco-Phillips and Newfield Exploration Mid-Continent Inc. for providing the data sets. The authors acknowledge the financial support from CNR-CAS 2016–2018 Common Project. The research benefited also of the financial support of the INSIEME project of the SIR-MIUR program (Grant RBSI14MN31). This work was carried out thanks to the support of the long-term conceptual development research organization grant RVO 67985891.

References

  1. Anikiev, D., Valenta, J., Staněk, F., & Eisner, L. (2014). Joint location and source mechanism inversion of microseismic events: Benchmarking on seismicity induced by hydraulic fracturing. Geophysical Journal International, 198, 249–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Clarke, H., Eisner, L., Styles, P., & Turner, P. (2014). Felt seismicity associated with shale gas hydraulic fracturing: The first documented example in Europe. Geophysical Research Letters, 41(23), 8308–8314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cornet, F. H. (2016). Seismic and aseismic motions generated by fluid injections. Geomechanics for Energy and the Environment, 5, 42–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Davis, S. D., & Frohlich, C. (1993). Did (or will) fluid injection cause earthquakes?—criteria for a rational assessment. Seismological Research Letters, 64(3–4), 207–224.Google Scholar
  5. Duncan, P. M., & Eisner, L. (2010). Reservoir characterization using surface microseismic monitoring. Geophysics, 75(5), A139–A146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Evans, D. M. (1966). The denver area earthquakes and the rocky mountain arsenal disposal well. Mountain Geologist, 3, 23–36.Google Scholar
  7. Little, M. A., McSharry, P. E., Moroz, I. M., & Roberts, S. J. (2006). Testing the assumptions of linear prediction analysis in normal vowels. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 119(1), 549–558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Maxwell, S. (2014). Microseismic imaging of hydraulic fracturing: Improved engineering of unconventional shale reservoirs (No. 17). SEG Books.Google Scholar
  9. Opršal, I., & Eisner, L. (2014). Cross-correlation—an objective tool to indicate induced seismicity. Geophysical Journal International, 196(3), 1536–1543.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Shapiro, S. A., Huenges, E., & Borm, G. (1997). Estimating the crust permeability from fluid-injection-induced seismic emission at the KTB site. Geophysical Journal International, 131(2), F15–F18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Stabile, T. A., Giocoli, A., Lapenna, V., Perrone, A., Piscitelli, S., & Telesca, L. (2014a). Evidence of low-magnitude continued reservoir-induced seismicity associated with the Pertusillo artificial lake (Southern Italy). Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 104(4), 1820–1828.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Stabile, T. A., Giocoli, A., Perrone, A., Piscitelli, S., & Lapenna, V. (2014b). Fluid injection induced seismicity reveals a NE dipping fault in the southeastern sector of the High Agri Valley (southern Italy). Geophysical Research Letters, 41(16), 5847–5854.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Stabile, T. A., Giocoli, A., Perrone, A., Piscitelli, S., Telesca, L., & Lapenna, V. (2015). Relationship between seismicity and water level of the Pertusillo reservoir (southern Italy). Bollettino di Geofisica Teorica ed Applicata, 56(4), 505–517.Google Scholar
  14. Telesca, L., do Nascimento, A. F., Bezerra, F. H., & Ferreira, J. M. (2015a). Analysis of the cross-correlation between water level and seismicity at Açu reservoir (Brazil). Tectonophysics, 658, 151–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Telesca, L., Giocoli, A., Lapenna, V., & Stabile, T. A. (2015b). Robust identification of periodic behavior in the time dynamics of short seismic series: the case of seismicity induced by Pertusillo Lake, southern Italy. Stochastic Environmental Research and Risk Assessment, 29(5), 1437–1446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Valoroso, L., Improta, L., Chiaraluce, L., Di Stefano, R., Ferranti, L., Govoni, A., et al. (2009). Active faults and induced seismicity in the Val d’Agri area (Southern Apennines, Italy). Geophysical Journal International, 178(1), 488–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Valoroso, L., Improta, L., De Gori, P., & Chiarabba, C. (2011). Upper crustal structure, seismicity and pore pressure variations in an extensional seismic belt through 3-D and 4-D VP and VP/VS models: The example of the Val d’Agri area (southern Italy). Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 116, B07303. doi: 10.1029/2010JB007661.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Rock Structure and Mechanics, Czech Academy of SciencesPragueCzech Republic
  2. 2.Faculty of ScienceCharles University in PraguePragueCzech Republic
  3. 3.CNR, Institute of Methodologies for Environmental AnalysisTitoItaly

Personalised recommendations