Kris J. Nygaard

Sr. Consultant

ExxonMobil Upstream Research Company

Houston, Texas

Transatlantic Knowledge Sharing Conference on Unconventional Hydrocarbons:

Resources, Risks, Impact and Research Needs

Session 1 – Induced Seismicity

Amsterdam

June 20, 2017

Leveraging Cross-Disciplinary Science for Induced Seismicity Risk Management

The Impact of Hydraulic Fracturing

~ Activism / debate over shale development opportunities and risks

~ Significant USA greenhouse gas reductions (fuel switching)

The Impact of Hydraulic Fracturing

~ 45% of USA domestic oil production

~ 65% of USA domestic natural gas production

Image source: United States Energy Information Agency, Annual Energy Outlook 2016, August 2016, Report No. DOE/EIA-0383(2016) available at

“http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/pdf/0383(2016).pdf

Keys To This Success

Managing Risks

• Responsible operations philosophy

• Effective risk management framework

Managing Uncertainties

• Accounting for subsurface complexity

• Calibrating models with appropriate data

• Evaluating results based on risk mitigation, and the probabilities &

consequences

Collaborating with Stakeholders & Regulators

• Working with local communities to manage impacts

• Transparency and reasonable regulations to enable safe and sound

development

• Supporting research to improve understanding and risk mitigation

Induced Seismicity Risks

Subject of Extensive Dialogue in N. America Since 2011

Blue – select examples of regulatory approaches developed based on local situation

Red – select examples of significant work to better inform the stakeholder community

British Columbia & Alberta

Ohio

Colorado

Arkansas

US Environmental Protection Agency

Colombia

Texas

Oklahoma

Kansas

Illinois

USA National

Academies

California

Stanford “SCITS”

Pennsylvania

Saltwater Disposal Operations

Hydraulic Fracturing Operations

StatesFirst Initiative

The Knowledge & Science Continues to Evolve

National Research Council of the National Academies

Induced Seismicity Potential in Energy Technologies”. 2013.

(ISBN 13: 978-0-309-25367-3)

available at https://www.nap.edu/catalog/13355/induced-

seismicity-potential-in-energy-technologies

Ground Water Protection Council and Interstate Oil and Gas

Compact Commission. Potential Injection-Induced Seismicity

Associated with Oil & Gas Development: A Primer on Technical and

Regulatory Considerations Informing Risk Management and

Mitigation. 2015. 141 pages.

Available at http://www.statesfirstinitiative.org/induced-seismicity-

work-group

USA National Academies Report (2013) StatesFirst Report (2015)

Effective Risk Management

Focus on Assessment & Mitigation

Reference:

King, G.E., (2012) “Hydraulic Fracturing 101: What Every Representative, Environmentalist,

Regulator, Reporter, Investor, University Researcher, Neighbor and Engineer Should Know

About Estimating Frac Risk and Improving Frac Performance in Unconventional Gas and Oil

Wells”, SPE Paper No. 152596

Risk is the combination of:

• Probabilities

• Consequences

Risk mitigation via:

• Design

• Equipment

• Procedures

Probability C

on

seq

uen

ce

Incre

asin

g

Decreasing

Mitigators

Risk Assessment

How Seismicity May Be Triggered by Fluid Injection

A fault may slip due to

injection when it is

sufficiently close to “critical”

stress conditions and the

subsurface stress or

pressure is sufficiently

altered

Integration of multiple

technical disciplines are

required to inform the

understanding

Subsurface Stresses Can Change Due to Many Causes

Dominant Cause

Natural tectonics

Unique or Rare

Circumstances

Aquifer level changes

Dam/reservoir impoundment

Mining

Carbon Capture & Storage

Wastewater disposal wells

O&G injection/extraction

Hydraulic fracturing

Risk is Associated Ground Motion …

and substantially depends on local conditions

Example simulation based on Groningen

subsurface characterization

Developed after information contained in Wald, D.J., Worden, B.C.,

Quitoriano, V., and Pankow, K.L., 2005, ShakeMap manual: technical

manual, user's guide, and software guide: U.S. Geological Survey, 132

p. Wald, D.J., Quitoriano, V., Heaton, T.H., and Kanamori, H., 1999,

Relationship between Peak Ground Acceleration, Peak Ground

Velocity, and Modified Mercalli Intensity in California: Earthquake

Spectra, v. 15, no. 3, p. 557-564.

Characterized by Modified Mercalli Intensity

“MMI”, Magnitude, PGA, & PGV Scales

Salt Water Disposal & Hydraulic Fracturing

Are Significantly Different

Hydraulic Fracturing

Saltwater Disposal

Long-term Injection (years)

Relatively Large Volumes

Injection into Relatively High

Permeability and Porosity

Zones

Short-term Injection (days)

Relatively Small Volumes

(compared to injection wells)

Post-fracturing, flowback relieves

pressure

Saltwater Disposal Operations

Image: Courtesy Stanford Professor M. D. Zoback

Example – Disposal Wells

Oklahoma, USA

Examples of Regulatory Approaches

• Revised permitting conditions

• Volume/rate restrictions

• Enhanced monitoring requirements

• Traffic light systems

Volume / Rate Restrictions (Oklahoma)

Under unique geologic conditions seismicity

can be triggered by subsurface pressure

changes associated with large volume / long

term injection

Hydraulic Fracturing Operations

Examples of Regulatory Approaches

• Enhanced monitoring requirements

• Traffic light systems

• Operational adjustments

< 2.5 (no action)

≥ 3.5M (suspend)

≥ 3.0M (pause, modify)

≥ 2.5M (mitigate)

Oklahoma, USA

< 1.5M (no action)

≥ 2.5M (temporary halt)

≥ 2.0M (modify)

≥ 1.5M (communicate)

≥ 3.0M (suspend) Ohio, USA

Alberta, Canada

> 4.0M (cease)

> 2.0M (inform, response)

< 2.0M (no action)

“Micro-seismicity” always occurs and is

normally expected with hydraulic fracturing

In rare circumstances, surface-felt seismicity

may be triggered by subsurface pressure /

stress changes from hydraulic fracturing

Illustration of distribution of micro-seismic measurements obtained during hydraulic fracturing operations in major N. America shale basins. Illustration after Warpinski, N. (2014). A Review of Hydraulic-Fracture Induced Microseismicity. 48th US Rock Mechanics / Geomechanics Symposium. ARMA-2014-7774, p. 12. Minneapolis: American Rock Mechanics Association.

Examples of Industry Response

• Developing and sharing

information on risk management

approaches

• Pursuing internal research

• Supporting and collaborating

with university research

• Sharing knowledge and

information with regulators

• Selecting well locations

available fault maps

historical seismicity

records

• Limiting volumes / shutting in

wells

• Installation of proprietary

monitoring arrays

Stanford University Fault Slip Potential Software

publicly available at https://scits.stanford.edu/software

Co

nseq

uen

ce

Probability Lower Higher

Lo

we

r H

igh

er

Research Opportunities

• Improving the knowledge of natural tectonics and subsurface stress /

pressure conditions and identification of significant faults systems

prone to slip

• Improving the understanding of ground shaking behavior and seismic

wave attenuation characteristics

• More broadly establishing integrated and interdisciplinary fit-for-purpose

technical approaches for risk management

• Developing effective capabilities and methods, based on integrated

physics, to differentiate naturally-occurring earthquakes from induced

earthquakes

• Approaches to assess and manage seismicity risk should be

encouraged and be based on the local geology, situation, and

conditions

State regulators in the USA have concluded “A one-size-fits-all

approach is infeasible, due to significant variability in local geology

and surface conditions, including such factors as population, building

conditions, infrastructure, critical facilities, and seismic monitoring

capabilities.”*

• Collaboration between industry, regulatory agencies, and the

research community will continue to advance the science and

knowledge surrounding induced seismicity

Summary

16

* Ground Water Protection Council and Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission. (2015). Potential Injection-Induced Seismicity Associated with Oil & Gas Development: A Primer on Technical and Regulatory Considerations Informing Risk Management and Mitigation. Oklahoma City: GWPC / IOGCC.

Select References For This Presentation

17

Publications

Ground Water Protection Council and Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission. (2015). Potential Injection-Induced Seismicity Associated with Oil & Gas Development: A Primer on Technical and Regulatory Considerations Informing Risk Management and Mitigation. Oklahoma City: GWPC / IOGCC.

King, G. (2012). Hydraulic Fracturing 101: What Every Representative, Environmentalist, Regulator, Reporter, Investor, University Researcher, Neighbor and Engineer Should Know About Estimating Frac Risk and Improving Frac Performance in Unconventional Gas and Oil Wells. SPE Hydraulic Fracturing Technology Conference (p. 80). The Woodlands: Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi:doi:10.2118/152596-MS

Rubinstein, J. L. (2015). Myths and Facts on Wastewater Injection, Hydraulic Fracturing, Enhanced Oil Recovery, and Induced Seismicity. Seismological Research Letters, 86.

The National Research Council. (2013). Induced Seismicity Potential in Energy Technologies. The National Academies Press. Retrieved from http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13355

USEPA. (2015). Minimizing and Managing Potential Impacts of Injection-Induced Seismicity from Class II Disposal Wells: Practical Approaches. Washington, DC. : Underground Injection Control National Technical Workgroup, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Warpinski, N. (2014). A Review of Hydraulic-Fracture Induced Microseismicity. 48th US Rock Mechanics / Geomechanics Symposium. ARMA-2014-7774, p. 12. Minneapolis: American Rock Mechanics Association.

Walters, R., Zoback, M., Baker, J., and Beroza, G. (2015) Characterizing & Responding to Seismic Risk Associated with Earthquakes Potentially Triggered by Fluid Disposal and Hydraulic Fracturing, doi:10.1785/0220150048 Seismological Research Letters Volume 86, Number 4 July/August 2015

McMahon, P.B., Barlow, J., Engle, M., Belitz, K., Ging, P., Hunt, A., Jurgens, B., Kharaka, Y., Tollett, R., and Kresse, T. (2017) Methane and Benzene in Drinking-Water Wells Overlying the Eagle Ford, Fayetteville, and Haynesville Shale Hydrocarbon Production Areas, DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.7b00746, Environmental Science & Technology Article ASAP, available at http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acs.est.7b00746

Workshop Proceedings

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; Division on Earth and Life Studies; Board on Earth Sciences and Resources; Water Science and Technology Board; Roundtable on Unconventional Hydrocarbon Development (2016) Workshop on Onshore Unconventional Hydrocarbon Development: Legacy issues, induced seismicity, and innovations in managing risk. “Panel 4: Induced Seismicity: Present Understanding and Future Approaches to Manage Risk”. video recording of presentations and discussion available at http://nas-sites.org/uhroundtable/past-events/onshore-workshop/onshore-workshop-panel-4/

Thank you