Skip to main content

A Comparison of Microseismic Monitoring of Fracture Stimulation Due to Water Versus \(\hbox{CO}_{2}\) Injection

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Microseismic Monitoring and Geomechanical Modelling of CO2 Storage in Subsurface Reservoirs

Part of the book series: Springer Theses ((Springer Theses))

Abstract

The water injection stage was initiated by perforation shots that penetrated the well at depths between 2,885 and 2,892 m. Water was then injected into the reservoir at high pressures. Immediately after injection, microseismic activity was recorded, which continued for the duration of the injection and a short while after. Figure 4.3 shows in detail the flow rates and injection pressures (at the surface) during injection, and the rate of microseismic activity. In total, 65 events were reliably identified and located.

Don’t force it, get a bigger hammer. Arthur Bloch

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Al-Anboori ASS (2006) Anisotropy, focal mechanisms, and state of stress in an oilfiled: passive seismic monitoring in Oman. PhD thesis, University of Leeds

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisner L, Duncan PM, Heigl WM, Keller WR (2009) Uncertainties in passive seismic monitoring. Leading Edge 28:648–655

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kendall J-M, Fisher QJ, Covey Crump S, Maddock J, Carter A, Hall SA, Wookey J, Valcke S, Casey M, Lloyd G, Ben Ismail W (2007) Seismic anisotropy as an indicator of reservoir quality of siliclastic rocks. In: Jolley S, Barr D, Walsh J, Knipe R (eds) Structurally complex reservoirs, vol. 292. Geological Society of London Special Publication, London, pp 123–136

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu E, Crampin S, Booth DC (1989) Shear-wave splitting in cross-hole surveys: modeling. Geophys 54(1):57–65

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maxwell SC, Shemeta J, Campbell E, Quirk D (2008) Microseismic deformation rate monitoring, SPE 116596. Presented at the SPE annual technical conference

    Google Scholar 

  • Sminchak J, Gupta N, Byrer C, Bergman P (2002) Issues related to seismic activity induced by the injection of \(\hbox{CO}_{2}\) in deep saline aquifers. J Eng Environ Res 2:32–46

    Google Scholar 

  • Teanby NA, Kendall J-M, van der Baan M (2004) Automation of shear-wave splitting measurements using cluster analysis. Bull Seismol Soc Am 94(2):453–463

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomsen L (1986) Weak elastic anisotropy. Geophys 51(10):1954–1966

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verdon JP, Kendall J-M, Wüstefeld A (2009) Imaging fractures and sedimentary fabrics using shear wave splitting measurements made on passive seismic data. Geophys J Int 179(2): 1245–1254

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wüstefeld A, Bokelmann G (2007) Null detection in shear-wave splitting measurements. Bull Seismol Soc Am 97(4):1204–1211

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wüstefeld A, Al-Harrasi O, Verdon JP, Wookey J, Kendall J-M (2010) A strategy for automated analysis of passive microseismic data to study seismic anisotropy and fracture characteristics. Geophys Prospect 58(5):755–773

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zimmer U, Maxwell S, Waltman C, Warpinski N (2007) Microseismic monitoring quality-control (QC) reports as an interpretative tool for nonspecialists, SPE 110517. Presented at the SPE annual technical conference

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to James P. Verdon .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2012 Springer Verlag-Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Verdon, J.P. (2012). A Comparison of Microseismic Monitoring of Fracture Stimulation Due to Water Versus \(\hbox{CO}_{2}\) Injection. In: Microseismic Monitoring and Geomechanical Modelling of CO2 Storage in Subsurface Reservoirs. Springer Theses. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-25388-1_4

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics