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

  • James P. Verdon
Part of the Springer Theses book series (Springer Theses)


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.


Velocity Model Injection Pressure Water Injection Injection Well Fracture Density 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Al-Anboori ASS (2006) Anisotropy, focal mechanisms, and state of stress in an oilfiled: passive seismic monitoring in Oman. PhD thesis, University of LeedsGoogle Scholar
  2. Eisner L, Duncan PM, Heigl WM, Keller WR (2009) Uncertainties in passive seismic monitoring. Leading Edge 28:648–655CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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 123–136Google Scholar
  4. Liu E, Crampin S, Booth DC (1989) Shear-wave splitting in cross-hole surveys: modeling. Geophys 54(1):57–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Maxwell SC, Shemeta J, Campbell E, Quirk D (2008) Microseismic deformation rate monitoring, SPE 116596. Presented at the SPE annual technical conferenceGoogle Scholar
  6. 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 2:32–46Google Scholar
  7. 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):453–463CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Thomsen L (1986) Weak elastic anisotropy. Geophys 51(10):1954–1966CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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): 1245–1254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Wüstefeld A, Bokelmann G (2007) Null detection in shear-wave splitting measurements. Bull Seismol Soc Am 97(4):1204–1211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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):755–773CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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 conferenceGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Verlag-Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Earth SciencesUniversity of BristolBristolUK

Personalised recommendations