Reducing Subsurface Uncertainty in Geo-energy Projects Using Microseismic and Geodetic Data

30/09/2024

Doctoral Candidate: Tian Guo

Supervisor: Víctor Vilarrasa

Host institution: IMEDEA UIB-CSIC

Output type: literature review and summary research topic

Research questions:

  • How fault can impact on fluid flows and how can this influence the safety of geological storage projects;
  • How fluid injection or extraction will change the subsurface environment;
  • How to characterize subsurface structures (such as fault system) effectively to reduce risks during fluid injection or extraction;
  • How do microseismic monitoring and geodetic methods improve fault detection and subsurface assessment in geo-energy projects?

Brief Summary of Research

In low-carbon geo-energy projects, such as carbon capture and storage (CCS) and enhanced geothermal systems (EGS), large-volume fluid commonly injected into subsurface rocks in depth. This process may active or reactive the faults through various mechanisms. Fault zones are widely present in the Earth’s crust, which can either act as conduits or barriers to fluid movement, directly influencing the safety and long-term stability of geological storage projects. An incomplete understanding of fault systems may lead to fluid leakage or induced seismicity, pose risks to project integrity.

Recent advances in microseismic monitoring and InSAR techniques have greatly improved fault zone detection and subsurface assessments. Microseismic monitoring allows for the detection of minor seismic events that may indicate subsurface changes, while geodetic methods (e.g. InSAR) provides accurate ground deformation data. The combination of these techniques enables more effective monitoring of fluid-induced subsurface changes, for example, at In Salah CCS project, the ground uplift patterns were monitoring by InSAR. Similarly, at the Decatur site, microseismic monitoring was employed to analyze the subsurface structure and monitor changes resulting from fluid injection. These approaches enhance the understanding of fault behavior and help mitigate risks during these large-scale geo-energy projects.

Schematic illustration of geo-energy applications linked with induced seismicity. Earthquakes have reportedly been induced by tight and shale gas fracturing, conventional oil and gas development activities, deep wastewater disposal, geologic storage of natural gas or CO2, and geothermal energy exploitation and research projects. (Kivi et al.,2023)

Figure: Schematic illustration of geo-energy applications linked with induced seismicity. Earthquakes have reportedly been induced by tight and shale gas fracturing, conventional oil and gas development activities, deep wastewater disposal, geologic storage of natural gas or CO2, and geothermal energy exploitation and research projects. (Kivi et al.,2023)

Kivi, I. R., Boyet, A., Wu, H., Walter, L., Hanson-Hedgecock, S., Parisio, F., & Vilarrasa, V. (2023). Global physics-based database of injection-induced seismicity. Earth System Science Data, 15(7), 3163–3182. https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-15-3163-2023

Key References:

Anderson, E. M. (1905). The dynamics of faulting. Transactions of the Edinburgh Geological Society, 8, 387–402. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:131149531

Aswathi, J., Binoj Kumar, R., Oommen, T., Bouali, E., & Sajinkumar, K.(2022). InSAR as a tool for monitoring hydropower projects: A review. Energy Geoscience, 3 (2), 160–171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engeos.2021.12.007

Biggs, J., & Wright, T. J. (2020). How satellite InSAR has grown from opportunistic science to routine monitoring over the last decade [Publisher: Nature Publishing Group]. Nature Communications, 11 (1),3863. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-17587-6

Caine, J. S., Evans, J. P., & Forster, C. B. (1996). Fault zone architecture and permeability structure. Geology, 24 (11), 1025–1028. https://doi.org/10.1130/0091- 13(1996)024⟨1025:FZAAPS⟩2.3.CO2

Cappa, F., & Rutqvist, J. (2011). Modeling of coupled deformation and permeability evolution during fault reactivation induced by deep underground injection of CO2. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 5 (2), 336–346. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2010.08.005

C´el´erier, B. (2008). Seeking anderson’s faulting in seismicity: A centennial celebration. Reviews of Geophysics, 46 (4). https://doi.org/10.1029/2007RG000240

Engelder, T. (1993). Stress regimes in the lithosphere. Princeton University Press.

Maxwell, S., Bennett, L., Jones, M., & Walsh, J. (2010). Anisotropic velocity modeling for microseismic processing: Part 1—impact of velocity model uncertainty. In Seg technical program expanded abstracts 2010 (pp. 2130–2134). Society of Exploration Geophysicists. https://doi.org/10.1190/1.3513267

Rutqvist, J., Vasco, D. W., & Myer, L. (2010). Coupled reservoir-geomechanical analysis of CO2 injection and ground deformations at In Salah, Algeria. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 4 (2), 225–230. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2009.10.017

Vasco, D. W., Rucci, A., Ferretti, A., Novali, F., Bissell, R. C., Ringrose, P. S., Mathieson, A. S., & Wright, I. W. (2010). Satellite-based measurements of surface deformation reveal fluid flow associated with the geological storage of carbon dioxide. Geophysical Research Letters, 37 (3). https://doi.org/10.1029/2009GL041544

Vilarrasa, V., and J. Carrera (2015), Geologic carbon storage is unlikely to trigger large earthquakes and reactivate faults through which CO2 could leak, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 112(19), 5938–5943. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1413284112

Vilarrasa, V., J. Carrera, S. Olivella, J. Rutqvist, and L. Laloui (2019). Induced seismicity in geologic carbon storage, Solid Earth 10, 871–892. https://doi.org/10.5194/se-10-871-2019