The Potential Role of Passive Seismic Monitoring for Real-Time 4D Reservoir Characterization
- S.C. Maxwell (Engineering Seismology Group ESG) | T.I. Urbancic (Engineering Seismology Group ESG)
- Document ID
- Society of Petroleum Engineers
- SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering
- Publication Date
- February 2005
- Document Type
- Journal Paper
- 70 - 76
- 2005. Society of Petroleum Engineers
- 5.1.9 Four-Dimensional and Four-Component Seismic, 5.1.10 Reservoir Geomechanics, 2.5.1 Fracture design and containment, 3.2.3 Hydraulic Fracturing Design, Implementation and Optimisation, 3 Production and Well Operations, 1.14.1 Casing Design, 2 Well Completion, 5.3.4 Integration of geomechanics in models, 5.1.2 Faults and Fracture Characterisation, 1.2.2 Geomechanics, 1.2.3 Rock properties, 5.5 Reservoir Simulation, 5.1.8 Seismic Modelling, 3.3 Well & Reservoir Surveillance and Monitoring, 5.1 Reservoir Characterisation, 5.4.6 Thermal Methods, 5.4.2 Gas Injection Methods, 5.8.2 Shale Gas
- 1 in the last 30 days
- 725 since 2007
- Show more detail
- View rights & permissions
|SPE Member Price:||USD 12.00|
|SPE Non-Member Price:||USD 35.00|
This paper details the application of passive seismic monitoring to imagereservoir fracturing and deformation from the stage of an initial wellcompletion to final field production. Instrumented oil fields with seismicarrays either permanently installed or temporarily deployed on wireline offerthe possibility of imaging production activities in a real-time sense thatcomplements other seismic-reflection and engineering measurements. During thewell-completion stage of development, real-time microseismic imaging offers thepossibility of monitoring well stimulation. Fracture images may be used tooptimize the fracture design and the net present value (NPV) of wellproduction, as well as understand fracture complexity and the associatedwell-drainage pattern to target future well placement. During productionstages, time-lapse microseismic imaging may be used for image deformationassociated with fracturing or fracture reactivation from pressure or stresschanges, strains in the overburden in fields with casing-deformation problems,and image fronts associated with secondary recovery. In this paper, severalcase studies are used to illustrate various potential applications, along withdiscussion of the potential limitations. The reservoir conditions necessary forthe successful application of the technology are presented along with apotential method to quantify the technical feasibility at a particularsite.
With the current industry trend toward instrumented oil fields andsmart-well completions, the permanent deployment of geophones or other acousticsensors to complement standard engineering gauges is being promoted as a way tomap reservoir dynamics. The biggest push is from active time-lapse seismic,although the deployment of permanent seismic instrumentation is alsopotentially an ideal route to monitor passive seismicity. Passive monitoring ofacoustic emissions, or small-magnitude microearthquakes (microseismicity)associated with stress changes in and around the reservoir, can also be used toimage the reservoir dynamics. Passive monitoring has the benefit of more fullyusing the seismic sensors to monitor during periods between conventionalseismic surveys, directly imaging fracturing and deformation, and offerscomplementary information to both active time-lapse images and engineeringmeasurements.
Microseismic events, related to either induced movements on pre-existingstructures or the creation of new fractures, capture deformations as the rockmass reacts to stresses and strains associated with pressure changes in thereservoir. The microseismicity can be used to localize the fracturing or todeduce geomechanical details of the deformation. Since the Rangely experimentin the late 1960s,1 a number of passive seismic experiments have been pursuedin the petroleum industry with varying degrees of success.2-5 Recently, anumber of independent operators have successfully implemented passive seismicstudies to address specific issues. The majority of these studies are under theumbrella of hydraulic fracturing,2,3 where the microseismicity is used to mapthe fracture growth directly during well stimulations. However, a number ofother studies have been used to image deformations associated with primaryproduction,4 secondary recovery,4 or waste-injection operations.5 In the vastmajority of these cases, an array of seismic sensors is deployed by wireline tomonitor for a specific period. This requires finding a well "close to theaction" to facilitate detection of these small passive signals withoutimpacting production.
Permanent sensor deployment in an instrumented oil field circumvents thechronic problem of well availability. In numerous fields, microseismicity iscontinually occurring, and if the instrumentation were in place to record thedata properly, additional information on the reservoir performance could begained. As an aside, it is worth considering how much of the "noise" recordedin conventional seismics may be actually valuable microseismic data. The keywill be to design the seismic arrays properly to cover both conventional activeseismics (e.g., reflection and tomography) and specific issues associated withpassive recording. This paper will outline a viewpoint of the potentialapplications and technical issues associated with passive seismic monitoring.Because passive seismics is probably best viewed as being in its infancy in thepetroleum industry, it is worth standing back and considering applications inother industries in which the technology is more mature. In mining, real-timemicroseismic data are used by supervisors to decide if it is safe to sendminers underground.6 Microseismic data are also crucial in a number of otherrock-engineering applications, such as excavation stability in nuclear-wasterepositories,7 geotechnical stability,8 and performance of geothermalreservoirs.9 Permanent instrumentation in oil fields also should allow thematurity of the technology to help solve certain geomechanical problems in thepetroleum industry.
This article generally will focus on borehole deployments because passivemonitoring will most likely involve borehole arrays to keep the instrumentationclose to the action and maximize sensitivity. In some special cases, whereinduced seismic activity can be detected at surface, permanent surface arrayscould be used in a context similar to the picture painted in this paper.However, for the most part, the following discussion will focus on boreholearrays.
|File Size||1 MB||Number of Pages||7|
1. Raleigh, C.B., Healy, J.H., and Bredehoeft, J.D.: "Faulting and CrustalStress at Rangely, Colorado," Geophysical Monograph, AGU (1972) 16,275-284.
2. Walker, R.N. et al.: "Carthage Cotton Valley FractureImaging Project—Imaging Methodology and Implications," paper SPE 49194prepared for presentation at the 1998 SPE Annual Technical Conference andExhibition, New Orleans, 27-30 September.
3. Maxwell, S.C. et al.: "Real-Time Microseismic Mapping of HydraulicFractures in Carthage, Texas," expanded abstract RC2.9 presented at the at the2000 Annual Intl. Meeting of the Soc. of Exploration Geophysicists, Calgary,6-11 August.
4. Maxwell, S.C. et al.: "Microseismic Logging of the EkofiskReservoir," paper SPE 47276 presented at the 1998 SPE/ISRM Eurock,Trondheim, Norway, 8-10 July.
5. Keck, R.G. and Withers, R.J.: "A Field Demonstration of HydraulicFracturing for Solids Waste Injection with Real-Time Passive SeismicMonitoring," paper SPE 28495 presented at the 1994 SPE Annual TechnicalConference and Exhibition, New Orleans, 25-28 September.
6. Urbancic, T.I. and Trifu, C.: "Seismic Monitoring of Mine Environments,"Proc., Exploration 97: Fourth Decennial Intl. Conference on MineralExploration, Toronto (1997) 941.
7. Maxwell, S.C. et al.: "Mapping the Excavation Disturbed Zone Around theMine-By Tunnel Using Induced Seismicity and Velocity Imaging," Proc., Intl.Conference on Deep Geologic Disposal of Radioactive Waste, Winnipeg, Canada(1996) 67.
8. Gupta, H.K.: Reservoir-Induced Earthquakes, Elsevier, New York City(1992).
9. Phillips, W.S, House, L.S., and Fehler, M.C.: "Detailed Joint Structure in aGeothermal Reservoir from Studies of Induced Microearthquake Clusters," J.of Geophysical Research (1997) 102, No. B6, 11745.
10. Gibowicz, S.J. and Kijko, A.: An Introduction to Mining Seismology,Academic Press, San Diego, California (1994).
11. Maxwell, S.C. and Young, R.P.: "Seismic Imaging of Rock Mass Responsesto Excavation," Intl. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. & Geomech. Abstr.(1996) 33,No. 7, 713.
12. Urbancic, T.I. et al.: "Determining hydraulic fracture behavior usingmicroseismicity," presented at the 1999 Annual USRM Meeting, Rock Mechanics forIndustry, Vail, Colorado, 6-9 June.
13. Maxwell, S.C., Urbancic, T.I, and Zinno, R.: "Engineering Impact fromPassive Seismic Imaging of Hydraulic Fractures," EAGE expanded abstract H045presented at the 2002 EAGE Conference, Florence, Italy, 27-30 May.
14. Maxwell, S.C. et al.: "Microseismic Imaging of HydraulicFracture Complexity in the Barnett Shale," paper SPE 77440 presented at the2002 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas, 29September-2 October.
15. Wright, C.A. et al.: "Understanding Hydraulic FractureGrowth: Tricky but Not Hopeless," paper SPE 56724 presented atthe1999 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, 3-6October.
16. Maxwell, S.C.: "Comparison of Production Induced Microseismicity fromValhall and Ekofisk," paper presented at the 2000 EAGE Meeting Workshop,Passive Seismic Methods in E&P or Oil and Gas, Glasgow, Scotland, 28May.
17. Kristiansen, T.G., Barkved, O., and Pattillo, P.D.: "Use of Passive Seismic Monitoring inWell and Casing Design in the Compacting and Subsiding Valhall Field, NorthSea," paper SPE 65134 presented at the 2000 SPE European PetroleumConference, Paris, 24-25 October.
18. Barkved, O. et al.: "Analysis of Seismic Recordings During InjectionUsing In-Well Permanent Sensors," EAGE expanded abstract H002 presented at the2002 EAGE Conference, Florence, Italy, 27-30 May.
19. Rutledge, J., Phillips, W.S., and Schuessler, B.K.: "ReservoirCharacterization Using Oil-Production Induced Microseismicity,"Tectonophysics (1998) 289, Nos. 1-3, 129.
20. Rhett, D.W.: "EkofiskRevisited: A New Model of Ekofisk Reservoir Geomechanical Behavior," paperSPE 47273 presented at the 1998 SPE/ISRM Eurock, Trondheim, Norway, 8-10July.
21. Grasso, J.R.: "Mechanicsof Seismic Instabilities Induced by the Recovery of Hydrocarbons." Pure andApplied Geophysics (1992) 139, Nos. 3-4, 507.
22. Boone, T.J. et al.: "Microseismic Monitoring for Fracturing in theColorado Shales Above a Thermal Oil Recovery Operation," presented at the 1999Annual USRM Meeting, Rock Mechanics for Industry, Vail, Colorado, 6-9 June.
23. Maxwell, S.C. et al.: "Passive Imaging of SeismicDeformation Associated with Steam Injection in Western Canada," paper SPE84572 presented at the 2003 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,Denver, 5-8 October.
24. McGillivray, P.: "Microseismic and Time-Lapse Monitoring of a Heavy OilExtraction Process at Peace River," expanded abstract CPS1.7 presented at the2004 Annual Intl. Meeting of the Soc. of Exploration Geophysicists, Denver,10-15 October.
25. McGarr, A.: "Seismic Moment and Volume Change," J. Geophys. Res., (1976)81, 1487.
26. Deflandre, J.-P. et al.: "On-tubing Seismic Sensor in Flowing Wells:Contribution to Noise Analysis," EAGE expanded abstract P-238 presented at the2004 EAGE Conference, Paris, 7-10 June.
27. Maxwell, S.C., Urbancic, T.I., and McLellan, P.: "Assessing thefeasibility of reservoir monitoring using induced seismicity," EAGE expandedabstract D-42 presented at the 2003 EAGE Conference, Stavanger, 2-5 June.
28. Kaiser, P.K., Diederichs, M.S., and Martin, C.D.: "Brittle Rock MassFailure and Tunnelling at Depth," presented at the 2001 N.R. MorgensternSymposium, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, 26-27 April.
29. Lockner, D.A.: "The Role of Acoustic Emission in the Study of RockFailure," Intl. J. Rock Mech. Min Sci. & Geomech. Abstr. (1993) 30,883.