Advertisement

Acta Geophysica

, Volume 67, Issue 1, pp 311–326 | Cite as

Small-aperture array as a tool to monitor fluid injection- and extraction-induced microseismicity: applications and recommendations

  • Nasim KaramzadehEmail author
  • Daniela Kühn
  • Marius Kriegerowski
  • José Ángel López-Comino
  • Simone Cesca
  • Torsten Dahm
Research Article - Special Issue
First Online:
  • 172 Downloads

Abstract

The monitoring of microseismicity during temporary human activities such as fluid injections for hydrofracturing, hydrothermal stimulations or wastewater disposal is a difficult task. The seismic stations often cannot be installed on hard rock, and at quiet places, noise is strongly increased during the operation itself and the installation of sensors in deep wells is costly and often not feasible. The combination of small-aperture seismic arrays with shallow borehole sensors offers a solution. We tested this monitoring approach at two different sites: (1) accompanying a fracking experiment in sedimentary shale at 4 km depth and (2) above a gas field under depletion. The small-aperture arrays were planned according to theoretical wavenumber studies combined with simulations considering the local noise conditions. We compared array recordings with recordings available from shallow borehole sensors and give examples of detection and location performance. Although the high-frequency noise on the 50-m-deep borehole sensors was smaller compared to the surface noise before the injection experiment, the signals were highly contaminated during injection by the pumping activities. Therefore, a set of three small-aperture arrays at different azimuths was more suited to detect small events, since noise recorded on these arrays is uncorrelated with each other. Further, we developed recommendations for the adaptation of the monitoring concept to other sites experiencing induced seismicity.

Keywords

Microseismic monitoring Induced seismicity Array seismology Shallow borehole sensors 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work is funded by the EU H2020 SHale gas Exploration and Exploitation induced Risks (SHEER) project (www.sheerproject.eugrant agreement no. 640896). We profoundly thank KNMI (Koninklijk Nederlands Meteorologisch Instituut) for support in installing the instruments of the Wittewierum array as well as KNMI and the Groningen field operator NAM (Nederlandse Aardolie Maatschappij) for identifying a suitable location and obtaining the permissions for installation.

References

  1. Bassin C (2000) The current limits of resolution for surface wave tomography in North America. EOS Trans AGU 81: Fall Meet Suppl, AbstractGoogle Scholar
  2. Brodsky E, Lajoie L (2013) Anthropogenic seismicity rates and operational parameters at the Salton sea geothermal field. Science 341(6145):543–546.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1239,213 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Castagna J, Batzle M, Eastwood R (1985) Relationships between compressional-wave and shear-wave velocities in clastic silicate rocks. Geophysics 50(4):571–581CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cesca S, Grigoli F, Heimann S, González A, Buforn E, Maghsoudi S, Blanch E, Dahm T (2014) The 2013 September–October seismic sequence offshore Spain: a case of seismicity triggered by gas injection? Geophys J Int 198(2):941–953CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cesca S, López-Comino J, Kühn D, Dahm T (2016) Array in Wittewierum, Netherlands. deutsches geoforschungszentrum gfz. other/seismic network.  https://doi.org/10.14470/6P7561560569
  6. Deichmann N, Giardini D (2009) Earthquakes induced by the stimulation of an enhanced geothermal system below Basel (Switzerland). Seismol Res Lett 80(5):784–798.  https://doi.org/10.1875/gssrl.80.5.784 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dost B, Ruigrok E, Spetzler J (2017) Development of seismicity and probabilistic hazard assessment for the Groningen gas field. Neth J Geosci 96(5):s235–s245Google Scholar
  8. Ellsworth W (2018) Injection-induced earthquakes. Science 341(6142):10.1126/science.1225,942Google Scholar
  9. Green C, Styles P, Baptie J (2012) Review and recommendations for induced seismicity mitigation. Preese Hall Shale Gas Fracturing—Induced Seismicity Report pp 1–22Google Scholar
  10. Grigoli F, Cesca S, Priolo E, Rinaldi AP, Clinton JF, Stabile TA, Dost B, Fernandez MG, Wiemer S, Dahm T (2017) Current challenges in monitoring, discrimination, and management of induced seismicity related to underground industrial activities: a European perspective. Rev Geophys 55(2):310–340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Grigoli F, Cesca S, Rinaldi A, Malconi A, López-Comino J, Westaway R, Cauzzi C, Dahm T, Wiemer S (2018) The november 2017 Mw 5.5 Pohang earthquake: a possible case of induced seismicity in South Korea. Science 260:1003–1006.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aat2010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Healy J, Rubey W, Griggs D, Raleigh C (1968) The Denver earthquakes. Science 161:1301–1310-351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hiemer S, Rössler D, Scherbaum F (2012) Monitoring the West Bohemian earthquake swarm in 2008/2009 by a temporary small-aperture seismic array. J Seismol 16:169–182.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10950-011-9256-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hincks T, Aspinall W, Cooke R, Gernon T (2018) Oklahomas induced seismicity strongly linked to wastewater injection depth. Science 161:10.1126/science.aap7911Google Scholar
  15. Hofman L, Ruigrok E, Dost B, Paulssen H (2017) A shallow seismic velocity model for the Groningen area in the Netherlands. J Geophys Res Solid Earth 122(10):8035–8050CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Horton (2012) Disposal of hydrofracking waste fluid by injection into subsurface aquifers triggers earthquake swarm in Central Arkansas with potential for damaging earthquake. Seismol Res Lett 83(2):doi.org/10.1785/gssrl.83.2.250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Karamzadeh N, Heimann S, Dahm T, Krüger F (2018) Application based seismological array design by seismicity scenario modelling. Geophys J Int.  https://doi.org/10.1093/gji/ggy523 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kim WY (2013) Induced seismicity associated with fluid injections into a deep well in Youngstown, Ohio. J Geophys Res 118(7):3506–3518CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kraft T (2016) A high-resolution and calibrated model of man-made seismic noise for Europe. In: 76th Annual meeting of the DGG (German Geophysical Society). Münster, Germany, p 14Google Scholar
  20. Kruiver P, van Dedem E, Romijn R, de Lange G, Korff M, Stafleu J, Gunnink J, Rodriguez-Marek A, Bommer J, van Elk J, Doornhof D (2017) An integrated shear-wave velocity model for the Groningen gas field. The Netherlands. Bull Earthq Eng 15(9):3555–3580CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. López-Comino J, Cesca S, Kriegerowski M, Heimann S, Dahm JT, Mirek Lasocki S (2017) Monitoring performance using synthetic data for induced microseismicity by hydrofracking at the Wysin site (Poland). Geophys J Int 210(1):42–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. López-Comino J, Cesca S, Jarosławski J, Montcoudiol N, Heimann H, Dahm T, Lasocki S, Gunning A, Capuano P, Ellsworth W (2018) Induced seismicity response of hydraulic fracturing: results of a multidisciplinary monitoring at the Wysin site, Poland. Sci Rep 20:251–267Google Scholar
  23. Matos C, Custódio S, Batló J, Zahradník J, Arroucau P, Silveira G, Heimann S (2018) An active seismic zone in intraplate West Iberia inferred from high-resolution geophysical data. J Geophys Res Solid Earth 123(4):2885–2907CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Mykkeltveit S, Bungum H (1984) Processing of regional seismic events using data from small-aperture arrays. Bull Seismol Soc Am 74(6):2313–2333Google Scholar
  25. Peterson J (1993) Observations and modeling of seismic background noise. US Geological Survey Albuquerque, New Mexico, Tech repGoogle Scholar
  26. Poggi V, Fäh D (2010) Estimating Rayleigh wave particle motion from three-component array analysis of ambient vibrations. Geophys J Int 180(1):251–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Ringdal F, Kværna T (1989) A multi-channel processing approach to real time network detection, phase association, and threshold monitoring. Bull Seismol Soc Am 79(6):1927–1940Google Scholar
  28. Rost S, Thomas C (2002) Array seismology: methods and applications. Rev Geophys 40(3):1008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Rubinstein J, Ellsworth W, McGarr A, Benz H (2014) The 2001-present induced earthquake sequence in the Raton Basin of Northern New Mexico and Southern Colorado. Bull Seismol Soc Am 104(5):10.1785/012,014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Sasaki S (1998) Characteristics of microseismic events induced during hydraulic fracturing experiments at the Hijori hot dry rock geothermal site. Tectonophysics 289:171–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Schweitzer J, Fyen J, Mykkeltveit S, Gibbons S, Pirli M, Kühn D, Kværna T (2012) New Manual of Seismological Observatory Practice (NMSOP-2). IASPEI, GFZ German Research Centre for Geosciences, chap 9, pp 1–80Google Scholar
  32. Sick B, Joswig M (2016) Combining network and array waveform coherence for automatic location: examples from induced seismicity monitoring. Geophys J Int 208(3):1373–1388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Spetzler J, Dost B (2017) Hypocentre estimation of induced earthquakes in Groningen. Geophys J Int 209(1):453–465Google Scholar
  34. Stipčević J, Kennett BL, Tkalčić H (2017) Simultaneous use of multiple seismic arrays. Geophys J Int 209(2):770–783Google Scholar
  35. Tadokoro K, Ando M, Nishigami K (2000) Induced earthquakes accompanying the water injection experiment at the Nojima fault zone, Japan: seismicity and its migration. J Geophys Res 105(B3):6089–6104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Wathelet M, Jongmans D, Ohrnberger M, Bonnefoy-Claudet S (2008) Array performances for ambient vibrations on a shallow structure and consequences over V\(_s\) inversion. J Seismol 12(1):1–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Willacy C, van Dedem E, Minisini S, Li J, Blokland J, Das I, Droujinine A (2018) Application of full-waveform event location and moment-tensor inversion for Groningen induced seismicity. Lead Edge 37(2):92–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Zywicki DJ (1999) Advanced signal processing methods applied to engineering analysis of seismic surface waves. Ph.D. thesis, Georgia Institute of TechnologyGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Institute of Geophysics, Polish Academy of Sciences & Polish Academy of Sciences 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.GFZ German Research Centre for GeosciencesPotsdamGermany
  2. 2.University of PotsdamPotsdamGermany
  3. 3.NORSARKjellerNorway
  4. 4.King Abdullah University of Science and TechnologyThuwalKingdom of Saudi Arabia

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options