Long lasting seismic swarm and pore pressure decrease(conventional gas production: Lacq, SW France (1969-2016)
Gas pressure drop, production volume and cumulative seismicity
EC-EPOS (2015-2019)-IP WP14 Anthropogenic seismicity
jr grasso1
a karimov1
m sylvander2
1isterre, grenoble2omp toulouse
EC-EPOS (2015-2019)-IP
WP14 Anthropogenic seismicity
Gas production rate and seismic energy release rate over time
Long lasting seismic swarm and pore pressure decrease(conventional gas production: Lacq, SW France (1969-2016)
Mechanics of Lacq seismic swarm:- seismicity onset ?- seismicity end ?- Mmax ?
schatzalp-17
Pyrenees seismicity from regional network 1997-2010Chevrot et al 2011
Seismicity pattern from local seismic network e.g. Grasso and Wittlinger BSSA1990
Lacq swarm
Long lasting seismic swarm and pore pressure decrease(conventional gas production: Lacq, SW France (1969-2016)
schatzalp-17
Long lasting seismic swarm and pore pressure decrease(conventional gas production: Lacq, SW France (1969-2016)
1976-1995 bardainne et al GJI2008
EC-EPOS (2015-2019)-IP
WP14 Anthropogenic seismicity
Local/regional monitoring – academic/producer monitoring
Close/open data set (seismicity, deformation, production)
1stsci. r
eport
Open
76-96Banned data Banned data
‘producer’ monitoring ‘Academic’ monitoring
>15
sci.
reports2 r
dsci. r
eport
Last
sci. r
eport
To
day r
eport
Regional ‘Academic’ monitoring (national/regional seismic network)
This study (1962_2016 data)
Long lasting seismic swarm and pore pressure decrease(conventional gas production: Lacq, SW France (1969-2016)
SI-Hex data base (extended to 2016)http://www.franceseisme.frCarra et al (2014)
- Merging and aggregating seismic records (tobs) in order to optimize location and magnitude => « homogeneous » magnitude over time
EC-EPOS (2015-2019)-IP
WP14 Anthropogenic seismicity
Data base :
- completeness, robustness over time and space
- null hypothesis to compare with
Observation :
- production, pore pressure change
- Induced seismicity= f(Nbs, Magnitude, time, space)
- Regional Tectonic seismicity : endo- exo- genous
interactions
Mean field analysis:
- <average> patterns
- susceptibility to forcing (field operation and earthquake)
Possible Models and open questions :
- seismicity onset
- seismicity history f(oil-gas field operation) ?
- seismicity size
Long lasting seismic swarm and pore pressure decrease(conventional gas production: Lacq, SW France (1969-2016)
Evolution of network sensitivity over time
1962_2016
Seismicity Data: completeness and robustness over time
Null Hyptohesis, tectonic earthquake:
=> distance 10L
Lacq seismicity pattern:
=> distance 1-3L (near field)
(L: reservoir size)
Tectonic aftershocks 1-3 L from mainshock
Seismicity Data: normalized distances
M : Fault length-4 : 10 cm-2 : 1 m 0 : 10 m 2 : 100 m4 : 1 km6 : 10 km
Null Hypotheses: the reservoir acts as a (slow)
mainshock and the triggeredseismicity as aftershocks…
Tectonic quakes: distance 10L Lacq pattern : distance 1-3L
1970 - 1980 : ISR << TSR => ISR = sub-tectonic rate1985 - 1995 : ISR > TSR = > ISR = super-tectonic rate
Threshold response to stressing rate:
max stress rate onset of seismicity ?
Seismicity rates and stressing rate :
(DN, Dp) /Dt(1985-1995) > (DN, Dp) /Dt(2000-2010)
Peak value Dp/Dt 3.5 Mpa/yrs
(Ds/Dt)max 0.01 Mpa/yrs (due to poro-
elastic stress tranfer)(Segall, 1989, Grasso, 1992, Segall et al 1994)
Dp/Dt(1985-1995) / Dp/Dt(2000-2010) = 5
Observation: pore pressure drop, seismicity rate
<DN>(1985-1995) / <DN> (2000-2010) = 2
Depletion rate and production rate
decrease
seismicity rate decrease
seismicity rates = f( stressing rate)
dN/dt = f(Dp/Dt)
Observation: pore pressure drop, production, seismicity
<=>
1943 1957 1971 1984 1998 2012 2026
0
1
2
3
x 1018
Cum
ula
tive E
ne
rgy 1
LM
25
(N
m)
0
15
30
45
60
(Po−
P)P
ressu
re d
rop
(MP
a)
1943 1957 1971 1984 1998 2012 2026
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
Cu
mu
lative
pro
duction
(G
m3)
Time
Lacq Seismicity(15km) and exploitation
Seismicity
Production
Pressure
seismic energy = f(?)
<=>
Threshold response to poro-elastic stressing rate:
(Dp/yrs)max onset of seismicitySeismicity non-deterministic cascading system ?
Impossible to understand/predict Mmax=f(time) ?
Poro-elastic model-succeed to predict eqs location i.e. the volume where stress changes (Ds+
max= 0.1 MPa)- failed to control time–size patterns (M(t) andMmax ?
??
90% of triggered seismicity within volume (Ds+) AreaD s+ = control parameter for location similarly to mainshock- aftershock triggering
Lacq Poro-elasticity model(Segall, Grasso, Mossop 1994)
Same context as tectonic earthquake:we know the driving force (plate tectonic)…
But we fail to predict time size location of earthquakes
Observation: pore pressure drop, seismicity
Complex interrelationships:production, pressure drop, injected volume / Mmax
Injection was neglected/rejected as major driving the Lacq seismicity on the basis of too small pressure and volume changes and lack of comprehensive injection history.(e.g., Grasso and Wittlinger BBSA90, Maury et al. EG1992, Segallet al. 1994, Lahaie and Grasso 1999, Bardainne et al. 2008)
Gra
sso
an
d W
ittl
inge
rB
BSA
90
Sega
llG
rass
o M
oss
op
JGR
94
Bardainne 2005
?
Complex interrelationships:production, pressure drop, injected volume / seismicity
1957-1975 Water saturated reef
peak value Injection
1967-1974: peak value for shallow injection1969: onset of seismicity
Dp max = 0.6 Mpa 1975 injectionDsmax = 0.1 Mpa 1975 poro-elastic stressing
Waste water disposal history:Shallow injection
Complex interrelationships:production, pressure drop, injected volume / seismicity
deepinjectiononset
1975-2006 Water saturated reef
1975: onset of deep injection1978: increase of seimicity rate
Dry rocks
Waste water disposal history:deep injection
Complex interrelationships:production, pressure drop, injected volume / seismicity
peak value Injection
2007_2012 Water saturated reef
2006-2012: deep + shallow injection2013-2016: Mmax=4 (depth=7 km)
Dry rocks
Waste water disposal history:deep + shallow injection
Data from bardainne 2005
1988-941994-97
Complex interrelationships:production, pressure drop, injected volume / seismicity
2007_2012 Water saturated reef
1957-2012 volume =« Oklahoma- like » volumes
Dry rocks
Background data (Mcgarr2014)
Trigger mechanics (conceptual)
schatzalp-17
Str
ess
(re
se
rvo
irp
ressu
re d
rop
) M
Pa
Strain(subsidence/depth)
a) 1969: first earthquake as signature of departure from elastic response= Onset of (seismic) brittle damage- 1967 injection peak value- 1969: Preservoir= P(hydrostatic)
at reservoir level -1969 = peak value of DP/Dt
b) 1975: onset of deep waste water injection, and change in depletion rate => seismcity rate change
c) 2007-2012: Deep + shallow injection2013-2016 : Mmax=M4
Inje
ctio
n p
eak
val
ue
dep
leti
on
rat
e p
eak
Dee
p in
ject
ion
seismicity=1-5% total deformation
stress change (bar)
time
space
Tectonic earthquake framework
Anthropogenic earthquake framework
Tectonics and Anthropogenic seismic instabilities: Mmax
schatzalp-17
Production, pressure drop, injected volume / Mmax
Mmax: ?
M5+ : As derived from injected volume
schatzalp-17
This is not a G-R distribution(Mmax on different site)
G-R distribution:all earthquakes on given area
Mmax distribution:sampling Mmax on different site(e.g. record distribution, Anderson et al. 2004, Krug 2007)
Mmax frequency distribution
Oil-gas extraction
1957-2011, N=53
0.4
(Power law) distribution of Mmax
- Possible time independent Mmax size prediction (before production starts)
- which control parameters for such a distribution (work in progress)
Mmax distribution from conventional oil-gas extraction (world wide picture)
G-R slope
Mmax slope
schatzalp-17
Mmax distribution and geo-resource production types
Normalized frequency distributions Impacted Area (Ds+)
for reservoir: 100 km2
Impacted Area (Ds+)
for mining (and injection)
< 0.01-0.001 km2 + fluid diffusion
Area (Ds +) controls Mmax rather than Ds+ value
(similarly to tectonic earthquake) Grasso and SornetteJGR99
Mo
dif
ied
fro
m D
avie
s et
al 2
01
4 d
ata
bas
e
Long lasting seismic swarm and pore pressure decrease(conventional gas production: Lacq, SW France (1969-2016)
EC-EPOS (2015-2019)-IP
WP14 Anthropogenic seismicity
Production start : 1959
Seismicity Onset : 1969
peak value of (- Dp/Dt) extraction
peak value of (+ Dp/Dt) injection
Production rate - depletion rate - seismicity : 1990-2010
N(t) decreases as production-pressure decreases
(-Dp/Dt) <DN/Dt>
Eqs location: predicted by poro-elastic Ds+
Mmax: 2013-2016 M4,M4 ….(Injection driven)
Aftershocks at the reservoir scale only:
Lreser.= LM6, i.e. reservoir depletion as a slow MS)
Induced Rate / Tectonic rate => classification for IS
- Mmax distribution bounded by perturbated volume size)
Data available on
schatzalp-17
schatzalp-17
schatzalp-17
Mmax frequency distributions
Oil-gas extraction
1957-2011
0.3
- Mmax driven by the size of perturbated area (Ds) , rather than Dsmax value
- The larger the area where the stress changes,
=> the larger the triggered earthquake rate
=> the largest the possible Mmax
- Anthropogenic events as aftershocks of geo-resource production
(in the same framework as tectonics eqs (e.g. Nafter= 10 –bM , Mmax = Mms- cte))
This is not a regular
GR distribution
GR exponent: 1 of a local
episode
Mmax exponent: 0.3 on different
site
Oil-gas extraction
miing-quarryinginjectio
nMcgarr et al 2002
Log(sizegeo-prod )
Mm
ax
Mmax distribution and geo-resource production type
Mo
dif
ied
fro
m D
avie
s et
al 2
01
4 d
ata
bas
e
schatzalp-17
Mmax for induced seismicity: Worldwide pictures
On each site : Mmax sorted by geo-resource exploitation types
we define 4 categories :
Mining, Injection (all types), Gas&Oil Extraction, Reservoir Dam
séisme = rupture/glissement d’une faille
glissement sur la faille et magnitude (M) :
• M = -4 : glissement de 0,003 mm• M = -2 : glissement de 0,03 mm• M = 0 : glissement de 0,3 mm• M = 2 : glissement de 3 mm• M = 4 : glissement de 30 mm• M = 6 : glissement de 300 mm
longueur de la faille et magnitude (M) :
• M = -4 : faille de 10 cm de long• M = -2 : faille de 1 m de long• M = 0 : faille de 10 m de long• M = 2 : faille de 100 m de long• M = 4 : faille de 1 km de long• M = 6 : faille de 10 km de long
schatzalp-17
Ressenti
Ressenti
schatzalp-17
<Dp(reservoir) min> = 20-30 MPa
<Ds(caprocks) min> = 0.01-0.5 MPa
Dp/dt(reservoir) max = 5 MPa/yr (Lacq)
Ds/dt(caprocks) max = 0.01 MPa/yr (Lacq)
Poro-elasticity model(Segall, Grasso, Mossop 1994)
Mmax 4.3
Mmax 3.4
Mmax 3.4
Reserv
oir P
ressure
DP=25 MPa
DP 30 MPa
DP 24 MPa
time
Mmax= 4.3
Mmax= 4.1
Mmax= 3.5
Trigger mechanics (conceptual)
Dsmax = [(l-2n)/2p(1-n)] Dp Fmax(a/D),
Dsmax = -0.1 (T/D) Dp Fmax(a/D)
a, T, D : radius, thickness, Depth of reservoir(segall 1989, grasso 1992)
M5 1980(distance)Lacq= 10L to M5 Lack of dynamic triggering on
Lacq field by regional M5
M : Fault length-4 : 10 cm-2 : 1 m 0 : 10 m 2 : 100 m4 : 1 km6 : 10 km
No evidence for exogenous M5 triggering pattern low susceptibility to high
frequency (Lahaie-Grasso JGR99)
M5 1980, distance= 1-3L
Regular aftershock sequence
response to exogenous stressing rate
Complexity of Anthropogenic seismic instabilities: susceptibility to forcing
Deficit of Lacq aftershock productivity for M3 (1_3L)
relatively to M3 Pyrenees counterpart.
M : Fault length-4 : 10 cm-2 : 1 m 0 : 10 m 2 : 100 m4 : 1 km6 : 10 km
Stack on 23 M=3 aftershock sequences 23 M=3 mainshocks
23 M=3 mainshocks and others M2.2+
1L(to M3)
3L(to M3)
10L(to M3)
23 M3 Lacq 23 M3 Pyr
Complexity of Anthropogenic seismic instabilities: susceptibility to forcing
- a regular aftershock productivity at the reservoir scale
(Lreservoir = LM6)
(i.e. reservoir depletion as a slow mainshock )
M : Fault length-4 : 10 cm-2 : 1 m 0 : 10 m 2 : 100 m4 : 1 km6 : 10 km
Stack on 23 M3 mainshocks : susceptibility to endogenous triggering
23 M3 stack
1 Lreservoir
Complexity of Anthropogenic seismic instabilities: susceptibility to forcing
Complexity of Anthropogenic seismic instabilities: induced/tectonic eqs rate
Induced seismicity rate: IR (1L box)Tectonic seismicity rate: TR (10L box)
Seismicity rate :N(earthquake) = Background + interaction(aftershocks)
(e.g. point process model (Kagan, 80; Helmstetter et al.03))
New classes for induced seismicity as IR/TR ratio ?
IR/TR < 1 => sub- tectonic rateIR/TR > 1 => super- tectonic rateclose to volcano swarm setting (e.g. Touati et al. PRL2009; Traversa and Grasso, BSSA09, BSSA10)
<=> (IR) Background to estimate (TR) Background
Seismicity rate :
1970 - 1980 : IR << TR
1985 - 1995 : IR > TR
2000 - 2010 : IR = TR
2015 - : ?
Complexity of seismic instabilities: induced/tectonic eqs rate
Induced seismicity rate: IR
Tectonic seismicity rate: TR
Seismicity rate :N(earthquake) = Background + interaction(aftershocks)
with Interaction (lacq aftershock) << 0
Close to volcano swarm setting (e.g. Traversa and Grasso, BSSA09, BSSA10; Touati et al. PRL2009 )
- (IR) Background to estimate (TR) Background
Seismicity rate : 1L 10L
1970 - 1980 : IR << TR sub-tectonic rate1985 - 1995 : IR > TR super-tectonic rate
![u } ( ] } ] v ] } ] W u } ( Z , µ u v' µ } v v } Z u } Z P ] Z ] Z ] } o ......^ ] P v ] ( ] v ] o P } Á Z ] v Z i i µ v µ u v ] o µ u U u } o Ç ] v Z ] o Z } µ o o X U W](https://static.documents.pub/doc/80x56/5fe8f78cb53138045e647015/-u-v-w-u-z-u-v-v-v-z-u-z-p-z-z-o-.jpg)
![Asylum, relocation and return of migrants: Time to step up ... · ^ l ] o } Ç o U } u o ] v P } Z À v v v P o o u ] P v W P î / v v Z o o ( l v ] v P W µ v l ^ u u v ( v ] v P](https://static.documents.pub/doc/80x56/5f926edf874c123aca2c4281/asylum-relocation-and-return-of-migrants-time-to-step-up-l-o-o-u.jpg)
![Variant workshop part1 2017 - Cornell University...W r o ] P v u v o v r µ d ] u u } u ] W ( o Æ ] o ] u u ] v P } } o ( } / o o µ u ] v E'^ ~ } o P o X U Z W l l Á Á Á X µ](https://static.documents.pub/doc/80x56/5ff4a69810f9f96a8f527f37/variant-workshop-part1-2017-cornell-university-w-r-o-p-v-u-v-o-v-r-d.jpg)
![t r t r ã Æ µ ] À µ u u Ç · 2020. 7. 1. · K À Z o ï ì Ç U } v µ u ] } v } ( o o ( } } } µ U ] v o µ ] v P o U u U u ] o l v P P U](https://static.documents.pub/doc/80x56/6019d90f294c2621e977c8f5/t-r-t-r-u-u-2020-7-1-k-z-o-u-v-u-v.jpg)
![o < o À P o } P o P ] v µ v · 2019-12-18 · µ v P µ X h v P v l o µ u ] P u u v U u v ] P µ U Z À ] ( ( t v u µ v P](https://static.documents.pub/doc/80x56/5fb98d91d1680979b16ecea5/o-o-p-o-p-o-p-v-v-2019-12-18-v-p-x-h-v-p-v-l-o-u-p-u.jpg)
![& D } o o ] v P } Z ( } } ] o r ] P Ç u } Á u P v Ç } v o ...pab409/lifecyclefem/docs/... · D Z } } o } P Ç W } ] o ] ] ^ ] u ] u v D } o ~ ] } v ð X í Z v } u À ] o ~ ] }](https://static.documents.pub/doc/80x56/5f9fba94dcd6677f6943e702/-d-o-o-v-p-z-o-r-p-u-u-p-v-v-o-pab409lifecyclefemdocs.jpg)
![d Z ] u } v Z ] v v ] v P Æ u o } } o ] } v o Ç Z Z Ç ... · µ } o v ] Z u P } ( Z À ] } µ u v P U ] v h v o ( h v o ( o (](https://static.documents.pub/doc/80x56/5ec428e2121fe359165e2535/d-z-u-v-z-v-v-v-p-u-o-o-v-o-z-z-o-v-z-u-p-.jpg)
![Atlanta OpenForBusiness Social Media Playbook · •d P Atlanta magazine ~ Ç } µ v ( ] v } µ o ( } u P o } Á •& } } l W o v u P •/ v P u W o v u P Ì ] v •d Á ] W o v D](https://static.documents.pub/doc/80x56/60555e86a404be52234cee22/atlanta-openforbusiness-social-media-playbook-ad-p-atlanta-magazine-.jpg)
![v o o P v ^ d - d2mekbzx20fc11.cloudfront.net · D } Ì Ì o o W µ ] D ] o l U W µ ] ^ l ] u D ] o l U ^ o U ^ µ o µ U E } v v ] u o Z v v U v ] r l ] v P P v ~d ] } ^ Z U î](https://static.documents.pub/doc/80x56/5e03b17e25d2037f07263fca/v-o-o-p-v-d-d-oe-oe-o-o-w-d-o-l-u-w-l-u-d-o-l-u-o-u-.jpg)
![] P v u v o ] ] } v P u v ( } ^ o } ( ^ ] } v](https://static.documents.pub/doc/80x56/6157d4bace5a9d02d46f9287/-p-v-u-v-o-v-p-u-v-o-v.jpg)
![Coverletter Autosaved · E } W W o v /E X ( v ] v P /E U E u } ( } u u ] u u v P } Ç í } ( ] } Z o o ( ] o o µ } u ] o o Ç](https://static.documents.pub/doc/80x56/5f2c0e67a394ab1af8650012/coverletter-autosaved-e-w-w-o-v-e-x-v-v-p-e-u-e-u-u-u-u-u-v-p-.jpg)
![E'& ' µ ] v } µ u v ( } K^, t o l ] v P rt } l ] v P ^ µ ......D Æ ] u µ u ] v v o } u v Z } o o } ~ Á ] P Z v ( } } ( o o u o } Ç U µ ] u v U À Z ] o U](https://static.documents.pub/doc/80x56/5f0c14537e708231d433a40c/e-v-u-v-k-t-o-l-v-p-rt-l-v-p-d-u.jpg)
