Premium
Modelling microseismicity of a producing reservoir from coupled fluid‐flow and geomechanical simulation
Author(s) -
Angus D.A.,
Kendall J.M.,
Fisher Q.J.,
Segura J.M.,
Skachkov S.,
Crook A.J.L.,
Dutko M.
Publication year - 2010
Publication title -
geophysical prospecting
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.735
H-Index - 79
eISSN - 1365-2478
pISSN - 0016-8025
DOI - 10.1111/j.1365-2478.2010.00913.x
Subject(s) - geology , shear (geology) , overburden , petrology , compaction , seismic moment , shearing (physics) , fault (geology) , geotechnical engineering , gemology , seismology , fluid dynamics , mechanics , engineering geology , volcanism , tectonics , physics
In this paper, we investigate production induced microseismicity based on modelling material failure from coupled fluid‐flow and geomechanical simulation. The model is a graben style reservoir characterized by two normal faults subdividing a sandstone reservoir into three compartments. The results are analysed in terms of spatial and temporal variations in distribution of material failure. We observe that material failure and hence potentially microseismicity is sensitive to not only fault movement but also fluid movement across faults. For sealing faults, failure is confined to the volume in and around the well compartment, with shear failure localized along the boundaries of the compartment and shear‐enhanced compaction failure widespread throughout the reservoir compartment. For non‐sealing faults, failure is observed within and surrounding all three reservoir compartments as well as a significant distribution located near the surface of the overburden. All shear‐enhanced compaction failures are localized within the reservoir compartments. Fault movement leads to an increase in shear‐enhanced compaction events within the reservoir as well as shear events located within the side‐burden adjacent to the fault. We also evaluate the associated moment tensor mechanisms to estimate the pseudo scalar seismic moment of failure based on the assumption that failure is not aseismic. The shear‐enhanced compaction events display a relatively normal and tight pseudo scalar seismic moment distribution centred about 10 6 Pa, whereas the shear events have pseudo scalar seismic moments that vary over three orders of magnitude. Overall, the results from the study indicate that it may be possible to identify compartment boundaries based on the results of microseismic monitoring.