Influence of reservoir geology on seismic response during decameter scale hydraulic stimulations in crystalline rock

Abstract. We performed a series of 12 hydraulic stimulation experiments in a 20 × 20 × 20 m foliated, crystalline rock volume intersected by two distinct fault sets at the Grimsel Test Site, Switzerland. The goal of these experiments was to improve our understanding of stimulation processes associated with high-pressure fluid injection used for reservoir creation in enhanced or engineered geothermal systems. In the first six experiments, pre-existing fractures were stimulated to induce shear dilation and enhance permeability. Two types of shear zones were targeted for these hydroshearing experiments: i) ductile ones with intense foliation and ii) brittle-ductile ones associated with a fractured zone. The second series of six stimulations were performed in borehole intervals without natural fractures to initiate and propagate hydraulic fractures that connect the wellbore to the existing fracture network. The same injection protocol was used for all experiments within each stimulation series so that the differences observed will give insights into the effect of geology on the seismo-hydro-mechanical response rather than differences due to the injection protocols. Deformations and fluid pressure were monitored using a dense sensor network in boreholes surrounding the injection locations. Seismicity was recorded with sensitive in-situ acoustic emission sensors both in boreholes and at the tunnel walls. We observed high variability in the seismic response in terms of seismogenic indices, b-values, spatial and temporal evolution during both hydroshearing and hydrofracturing experiments, which we attribute to local geological heterogeneities. Seismicity was most pronounced for injections into the highly conductive brittle-ductile shear zones, while injectivity increase on these structures was only marginal. No significant differences between the seismic response of hydroshearing and hydrofracturing was identified, possibly because the hydrofractures interact with the same pre-existing fracture network that is reactivated during the hydroshearing experiments. Fault slip during the hydroshearing experiments was predominantly aseismic. The results of our hydraulic stimulations indicate that stimulation of short borehole intervals with limited fluid volumes (i.e., the concept of zonal insulation) may be an effective approach to limit induced seismic hazard if highly seismogenic structures can be avoided.

[1]  D. Giardini,et al.  Subsurface Fluid Pressure and Rock Deformation Monitoring Using Seismic Velocity Observations , 2018, Geophysical Research Letters.

[2]  E. Brodsky,et al.  The spatial footprint of injection wells in a global compilation of induced earthquake sequences , 2018, Science.

[3]  D. Giardini,et al.  Transmissivity Changes and Microseismicity Induced by Small‐Scale Hydraulic Fracturing Tests in Crystalline Rock , 2018 .

[4]  Bozidar Stojadinovic,et al.  Hierarchical Bayesian Modeling of Fluid‐Induced Seismicity , 2017, 1711.09161.

[5]  Jonny Rutqvist,et al.  Can Fault Leakage Occur Before or Without Reactivation? Results from an in Situ Fault Reactivation Experiment at Mont Terri , 2017 .

[6]  Kenneth Rehfeldt,et al.  Lessons learned from the pioneering hot dry rock project at Fenton Hill, USA , 2016 .

[7]  J. Douglas Zechar,et al.  Validating induced seismicity forecast models—Induced Seismicity Test Bench , 2016, 1609.02793.

[8]  Mirko van der Baan,et al.  Hydraulic Fracturing and Seismicity in the Western Canada Sedimentary Basin , 2016 .

[9]  Jean-Paul Ampuero,et al.  Wastewater disposal and earthquake swarm activity at the southern end of the Central Valley, California , 2016 .

[10]  Morgan T. Page,et al.  Induced earthquake magnitudes are as large as (statistically) expected , 2015 .

[11]  V. Gischig Rupture propagation behavior and the largest possible earthquake induced by fluid injection into deep reservoirs , 2015 .

[12]  Stefan Wiemer,et al.  Induced seismicity risk analysis of the 2006 Basel, Switzerland, Enhanced Geothermal System project: Influence of uncertainties on risk mitigation , 2015 .

[13]  Hiroshi Ogasawara,et al.  Frequency–Magnitude Distribution of −3.7 ≤ MW ≤ 1 Mining-Induced Earthquakes Around a Mining Front and b Value Invariance with Post-Blast Time , 2014, Pure and Applied Geophysics.

[14]  Serge A. Shapiro,et al.  Seismotectonic state of reservoirs inferred from magnitude distributions of fluid-induced seismicity , 2012, Journal of Seismology.

[15]  G. Dresen,et al.  Source Parameters of Picoseismicity Recorded at Mponeng Deep Gold Mine, South Africa: Implications for Scaling Relations , 2011 .

[16]  R. Horne,et al.  Investigation of injection-induced seismicity using a coupled fluid flow and rate/state friction model , 2011 .

[17]  N. Davatzes,et al.  Stress, Fracture, and Fluid-flow Analysis Using Acoustic and Electrical Image Logs in Hot Fractured Granites of the Coso Geothermal Field, California, U.S.A. , 2010 .

[18]  Hiroaki Niitsuma,et al.  Microseismicity and permeability enhancement of hydrogeologic structures during massive fluid injections into granite at 3 km depth at the Soultz HDR site , 2004 .

[19]  Mark D. Zoback,et al.  In-situ stress orientation and magnitude at the Fenton Geothermal Site, New Mexico, determined from , 1988 .

[20]  R. J. Pine,et al.  Downward migration of shearing in jointed rock during hydraulic injections , 1984 .