Search NASA⌕ Search

Engineering topics

Schoenball, Martin

Publications and source records attributed to Schoenball, Martin.

15 records
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2024

The EGS Collab project: Outcomes and lessons learned from hydraulic fracture stimulations in crystalline rock at 1.25 and 1.5 km depth

With the goal of better understanding stimulation in crystalline rock for improving enhanced geothermal systems (EGS), the EGS Collab Project performed a series of stimulations and flow tests at 1.25 and 1.5 km depths. The tests were performed in two well-instrumented testbeds in the Sanford Underground Research Facility in Lead, South Dakota, United States. The testbed for Experiment 1 at 1.5 km depth contained two open wells for injection and production and six instrumented monitoring wells surrounding the targeted stimulation zone. Four multi-step stimulation tests targeting hydraulic fracturing and nearly year-long ambient temperature and chilled water flow tests were performed in Experiment 1. The testbed for Experiments 2 and 3 was at 1.25 km depth and contained five open wells in an outwardly fanning five-spot pattern and two fans of well-instrumented monitoring wells surrounding the targeted stimulation zone. Experiment 2 targeted shear stimulation, and Experiment 3 targeted low-flow, high-flow, and oscillating pressure stimulation strategies. Hydraulic fracturing was successful in Experiments 1 and 3 in generating a connected system wherein injected water could be collected. However, the resulting flow was distributed dynamically, and not entirely collected at the anticipated production well. Thermal breakthrough was not observed in the production well, but that could have been masked by the Joule-Thomson effect. Shear stimulation in Experiment 2 did not occur - despite attempting to pressurize the fractures most likely to shear - because of the inability to inject water into a mostly-healed fracture, and the low shear-to-normal stress ratio. The EGS Collab experiments are described to provide a background for lessons learned on topics including induced seismicity, the correlation between seismicity and permeability, distributed and dynamic flow systems, thermoelastic and pressure effects, shear stimulation, local geology, thermal breakthrough, monitoring stimulation, grouting boreholes, modeling, and system management.

15 - GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2024

Detecting fractures and monitoring hydraulic fracturing processes at the first EGS Collab testbed using borehole DAS ambient noise

Enhanced geothermal systems (EGS) require cost-effective monitoring of fracture networks. We validate the capability of using borehole distributed acoustic sensing (DAS) ambient noise for fracture monitoring using core photos and core logs. The EGS Collab project has conducted 10 m scale field experiments of hydraulic fracture stimulation using 50–60 m deep experimental wells at the Sanford Underground Research Facility (SURF) in Lead, South Dakota. The first EGS Collab testbed is located at 1616.67 m (4850 ft) depth at SURF and consists of one injection well, one production well, and six monitoring wells. All wells are drilled subhorizontally from an access tunnel called a drift. The project uses a single continuous fiber-optic cable installed sequentially in the six monitoring wells to record DAS data for monitoring hydraulic fracturing during stimulation. We analyze 60 s time records of the borehole DAS ambient noise data and compute the noise root-mean-square (rms) amplitude on each channel (points along the fiber cable) to obtain DAS ambient noise rms amplitude depth profiles along the monitoring wellbore. Our noise rms amplitude profiles indicate amplitude peaks at distinct depths. We compare the DAS noise rms amplitude profiles with borehole core photos and core logs and find that the DAS noise rms amplitude peaks correspond to the locations of fractures or lithologic changes indicated in the core photos or core logs. We then compute the hourly DAS noise rms amplitude profiles in two monitoring wells during three stimulation cycles in 72 h and find that the DAS noise rms amplitude profiles vary with time, indicating the fracture opening/growth or closing during the hydraulic stimulation. Our results demonstrate that borehole DAS passive ambient noise can be used to detect fractures and monitor fracturing processes in EGS reservoirs.

58 GEOSCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2023

The Global DAS Month of February 2023

During February 2023, a total of 32 individual distributed acoustic sensing (DAS) systems acted jointly as a global seismic monitoring network. The aim of this Global DAS Month campaign was to coordinate a diverse network of organizations, instruments, and file formats to gain knowledge and move toward the next generation of earthquake monitoring networks. During this campaign, 156 earthquakes of magnitude 5 or larger were reported by the U.S. Geological Survey and contributors shared data for 60 min after each event’s origin time. Participating systems represent a variety of manufacturers, a range of recording parameters, and varying cable emplacement settings (e.g., shallow burial, borehole, subaqueous, and dark fiber). Monitored cable lengths vary between 152 and 120,129 m, with channel spacing between 1 and 49 m. The data has a total size of 6.8 TB, and are available for free download. Finally, organizing and executing the Global DAS Month has produced a unique dataset for further exploration and highlighted areas of further development for the seismological community to address.

58 GEOSCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2022

A Project Lifetime Approach to the Management of Induced Seismicity Risk at Geologic Carbon Storage Sites

The geologic storage of carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) is one method that can help reduce atmospheric CO 2 by sequestering it into the subsurface. Large-scale deployment of geologic carbon storage, however, may be accompanied by induced seismicity. We present a project lifetime approach to address the induced seismicity risk at these geologic storage sites. This approach encompasses both technical and nontechnical stakeholder issues related to induced seismicity and spans the time period from the initial consideration phase to postclosure. These recommendations are envisioned to serve as general guidelines, setting expectations for operators, regulators, and the public. They contain a set of seven actionable focus areas, the purpose of which are to deal proactively with induced seismicity issues. Although each geologic carbon storage site will be unique and will require a custom approach, these general best practice recommendations can be used as a starting point to any site-specific plan for how to systematically evaluate, communicate about, and mitigate induced seismicity at a particular reservoir.

58 GEOSCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2022

Coupled Hydromechanical Modeling of Induced Seismicity From CO 2 Injection in the Illinois Basin

Injection of CO 2 for geologic carbon sequestration into deep sedimentary formations involves fluid pressure increases that engage hydromechanical processes that can cause seismicity by activation of existing faults. In this work, we use a coupled multiphase fluid flow and geomechanical simulator to model spatiotemporal fluid pressure and stress changes in order to study the poroelastic effect of CO 2 injection on faults in crystalline basement rock below the injection zone. The seismicity rate along features interpreted to be basement faults is modeled using Dieterich's rate-and-state earthquake nucleation model. The methodology is applied to microseismicity detected during CO 2 injection into the Mount Simon formation during the Illinois Basin—Decatur Project. The modeling accurately captures an observed reduction in seismicity rate when the injection in the second well was into a slightly shallower zone above the base of the Mount Simon formation. Moreover, the modeling shows that it is important to consider poroelastic stress changes, in addition to fluid pressure changes for accurately modeling of the observed seismicity rate.

58 GEOSCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2021

Recommended Practices for Managing Induced Seismicity Risk Associated with Geologic Carbon Storage

The geologic storage of carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) is one method to help reduce or eliminate atmospheric CO 2 emissions. The sequestered CO 2 is originally captured from the atmosphere or from a stationary industrial source and subsequently injected into a deep subsurface porous rock formation. To facilitate the successful deployment of field scale carbon storage projects, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is developing tools and protocols for defensible, science-based frameworks to quantify and mitigate risks associated with the long-term storage of CO 2 . This protocol specifically addresses the risk of induced seismicity due to injection in a geologic carbon storage (GCS) site. This integrated and risk-based protocol is a product of the U.S. DOE Fossil Energy’s National Risk Assessment Partnership (NRAP), a multi-year collaborative research effort of Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL), Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL), Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL), National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL), and Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL). These recommended practices describe a set of 7 steps to evaluate, manage, communicate, and mitigate the risk of induced seismicity at GCS sites. The base methodology of the recommended practices follows a framework similar to the $\textit{Protocol for Addressing Induced Seismicity Associated with Enhanced Geothermal Systems}$ (Majer et al., 2012), developed for the Geothermal Technology Office of the U.S. DOE. These recommended practices present a framework to systematically assess the induced seismicity risk and quantify the associated uncertainties. These recommendations are based on current research and are sufficiently general to allow for modification and application to a variety of different types of sites. The substance of the recommended practices contained herein includes both technical and non-technical issues, and covers all operational stages of the GCS project lifecycle. They start at the preliminary risk assessment phase, continue through site assessment and characterization, include best practice communication and seismic monitoring plan methodologies, discuss the evaluation and mitigation of seismic hazard and risk, and closes with an exploration of operational management plans, which conclude when the induced seismicity risk abates back to background level. The focus of these recommendations is on actively managing the risks associated with induced seismicity by developing an actionable risk management plan that starts at the project proposal stage and continues through site closure through an iterative assessment and improvement process. The audience of this document is expected to include all interested stakeholders (e.g., operators, project developers, regulators, and the general public) and is expressly written to be accessible to this broad range of partners. This document is intended to disseminate knowledge gained through recent advances in the science of induced seismicity hazard and risk assessments, to provide updates based on recent experience gained by similar corollary injection-induced seismicity cases, and most importantly to establish a uniform framework to carry out a successful induced seismicity risk management plan for carbon storage projects in the future. These recommendations do not directly address any domestic or international regulations or standards. A complementary NRAP report makes recommendations for the assessment and management of environmental subsurface risks associated with unwanted fluid migration at GCS sites (Thomas et al., 2021) and should be referred to in order to address those additional GCS site risks

58 GEOSCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2021

Recommended Practices for Managing Induced Seismicity Risk Associated with Geologic Carbon Storage

The geologic storage of carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) is one method to help reduce or eliminate atmospheric CO 2 emissions. The sequestered CO 2 is originally captured from the atmosphere or from a stationary industrial source and subsequently injected into a deep subsurface porous rock formation. To facilitate the successful deployment of field scale carbon storage projects, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is developing tools and protocols for defensible, science-based frameworks to quantify and mitigate risks associated with the long-term storage of CO 2 . This protocol specifically addresses the risk of induced seismicity due to injection in a geologic carbon storage (GCS) site. This integrated and risk-based protocol is a product of the U.S. DOE Fossil Energy’s National Risk Assessment Partnership (NRAP), a multi-year collaborative research effort of Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL), Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL), Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL), National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL), and Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL). These recommended practices describe a set of 7 steps to evaluate, manage, communicate, and mitigate the risk of induced seismicity at GCS sites. The base methodology of the recommended practices follows a framework similar to the Protocol for Addressing Induced Seismicity Associated with Enhanced Geothermal Systems (Majer et al., 2012), developed for the Geothermal Technology Office of the U.S. DOE. These recommended practices present a framework to systematically assess the induced seismicity risk and quantify the associated uncertainties. These recommendations are based on current research and are sufficiently general to allow for modification and application to a variety of different types of sites. The substance of the recommended practices contained herein includes both technical and non-technical issues, and covers all operational stages of the GCS project lifecycle. They start at the preliminary risk assessment phase, continue through site assessment and characterization, include best practice communication and seismic monitoring plan methodologies, discuss the evaluation and mitigation of seismic hazard and risk, and closes with an exploration of operational management plans, which conclude when the induced seismicity risk abates back to background level. The focus of these recommendations is on actively managing the risks associated with induced seismicity by developing an actionable risk management plan that starts at the project proposal stage and continues through site closure through an iterative assessment and improvement process. The audience of this document is expected to include all interested stakeholders (e.g., operators, project developers, regulators, and the general public) and is expressly written to be accessible to this broad range of partners. This document is intended to disseminate knowledge gained through recent advances in the science of induced seismicity hazard and risk assessments, to provide updates based on recent experience gained by similar corollary injection-induced seismicity cases, and most importantly to establish a uniform framework to carry out a successful induced seismicity risk management plan for carbon storage projects in the future. These recommendations do not directly address any domestic or international regulations or standards. A complementary NRAP report makes recommendations for the assessment and management of environmental subsurface risks associated with unwanted fluid migration at GCS sites (Thomas et al., 2021) and should be referred to in order to address those additional GCS site risks.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2021

Close Observation of Hydraulic Fracturing at EGS Collab Experiment 1: Fracture Trajectory, Microseismic Interpretations, and the Role of Natural Fractures

Abstract Despite the wide application of hydraulic fracturing in enhanced geothermal system (EGS) development and unconventional hydrocarbon production, our understanding of the many factors affecting the propagation of hydraulic fractures has relied on circumstantial evidence. This is partly due to the scarcity of direct observations in the subsurface. The EGS Collab project attempts to address these issues in the context of EGS research by performing intermediate‐scale (∼10 m) hydraulic stimulation experiments in a thoroughly characterized and heavily instrumented underground testbed. This paper analyzes the data collected from the first suite of hydraulic fracturing tests in this testbed, consisting of seven stimulation episodes. High‐quality microseismic data delineate five planar features very clearly. Combining fracture‐wellbore intersection observations from distributed temperature sensing (DTS) and visual observations from an open‐hole well, as well as prior in‐situ stress measurements, we conclude with high certainty that the four larger planes were hydraulic fractures. The growth of the hydraulic fractures was temporarily halted by a prominent, open natural fracture in the testbed but they eventually crossed and slightly reoriented under continued stimulation. Mineral‐filled (i.e., healed) natural fractures, though prevalent in the testbed, did not have perceivable effects on hydraulic fracture propagation. The high‐quality, mutually corroborating data sets allowed conclusions to be drawn with high confidence and attests to the advantage of intermediate‐scale experiments in subsurface research.

58 GEOSCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2021

In-situ observation of pre-, co- and post-seismic shear slip at 1.5 km depth

Understanding the initiation and arrest of earthquakes is one of the long-standing challenges of seismology. Here we report on direct observations of borehole displacement by a meter-sized shear rupture induced by pressurization of metamorphic rock at 1.5 km depth. We observed the acceleration of sliding, followed by fast co-seismic slip and transient afterslip. Total displacements were about 7, 5.5 and 9.5 micrometers, respectively for the observed pre-slip, co-seismic slip and afterslip. The observed pre-slip lasted about 0.4 seconds. Co-seismic slip was recorded by the 1 kHz displacement recording and a 12-component array of 3-C accelerometers sampled at 100 kHz. The observed afterslip is consistent with analytical models of arrest in a velocity-strengthening region and subsequent stress relaxation. < p >The observed slip vector agrees with the activation of a bedding plane within the phyllite, which is corroborated by relocated seismic events that were observed during the later stages of the injection experiment.

Schoenball, Martin↗
DOE OSTI2020

Creation of a Mixed-Mode Fracture Network at Mesoscale Through Hydraulic Fracturing and Shear Stimulation

Enhanced Geothermal Systems could provide a substantial contribution to the global energy demand if their implementation could overcome inherent challenges. Examples are insufficient created permeability, early thermal breakthrough, and unacceptable induced seismicity. In this study we report on the seismic response of a mesoscale hydraulic fracturing experiment performed at 1.5-km depth at the Sanford Underground Research Facility. We have measured the seismic activity by utilizing a 100-kHz, continuous seismic monitoring system deployed in six 60-m length monitoring boreholes surrounding the experimental domain in 3-D. The achieved location uncertainty was on the order of 1 m and limited by the signal-to-noise ratio of detected events. These uncertainties were corroborated by detections of fracture intersections at the monitoring boreholes. Three intervals of the dedicated injection borehole were hydraulically stimulated by water injection at pressures up to 33 MPa and flow rates up to 5 L/min. We located 1,933 seismic events during several injection periods. The recorded seismicity delineates a complex fracture network comprised of multistrand hydraulic fractures and shear-reactivated, preexisting planes of weakness that grew unilaterally from the point of initiation. We find that heterogeneity of stress dictates the seismic outcome of hydraulic stimulations, even when relying on theoretically well-behaved hydraulic fractures. Once hydraulic fractures intersected boreholes, the boreholes acted as a pressure relief and fracture propagation ceased. In order to create an efficient subsurface heat exchanger, production boreholes should not be drilled before the end of hydraulic stimulations.

58 GEOSCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2020

Slip Tendency Analysis of Fracture Networks to Determine Suitability of Candidate Testbeds for the EGS Collab Hydroshear Experiment

Experiment 2 of the EGS Collab project is aimed at testing stimulation by hydro-shearing of existing natural fractures, versus Experiment 1, which is focused on hydraulic fracturing a rock mass to enhance permeability. The main criterion for the testbed selection in Experiment 2 is the presence of an interconnected network of fractures, at least 10 meters in extent, and with orientations such that shear slip can be induced at injection pressures less than the minimum horizontal stress (Shmin). The feasibility analysis for this experiment requires a well-constrained stress state along with well-characterized fracture networks. The fracture systems at two candidate locations in the Sanford Underground Research Facility (SURF), the 4850 Level (number refers to depth below ground surface in feet) and the 4100 Level, have been characterized to different extents. The 4850 Level has a well-characterized Discrete Fracture Network (DFN) from borehole (drilled for an experimental test bed) and drift observations. In contrast, the 4100 level has a fracture network characterized only by observations from the drift wall, which provides little constraint on fracture extents. This paper will present assessments for the interpreted slip potential for the natural fractures at the two locations. Data uncertainties are addressed by performing a probabilistic analysis that takes into account the uncertainty in the stress state, uncertainty in the fracture properties, and preliminary borehole locations. There is strong evidence of shear stimulation of some natural fractures in Experiment 1 on the 4850 level. We use examples of natural fractures strongly linked to shear stimulation in Experiment 1 from multiple monitoring indicators to test the consistency of the stress model and guide the uncertainty interpretation. This analysis is intended to guide the site selection process for Experiment 2 by highlighting the fracture orientations that are likely to be shear-stimulated in a majority of modeled realizations.

40 EE - Geothermal Technologies Office (EE-4G)↗
DOE OSTI2020

The EGS Collab Project: Learnings from Experiment 1

The primary objective of the EGS Collab Project sponsored by DOE is to increase the understanding needed to efficiently implement enhanced geothermal systems (EGS). One goal of the EGS Collab project is to create a collaborative research environment in which to study stimulation of crystalline rock at the 10 meter scale. Key to this effort is the collection of high quality data to allow comparison to numerical coupled process models in an effort to build confidence in the codes and modeling techniques used. In response to this, the EGS Collab team has created an underground test bed at the Sanford Underground Research Facility (SURF) in Lead SD at a depth of approximately 1.5 km to examine hydraulic fracturing (Experiment 1). We are currently designing a second test bed aimed at investigating shear stimulation (Experiment 2). At the Experiment 1 location, we have characterized our host rock using laboratory testing and numerous field-based geophysical and geological techniques, and created a well-instrumented test bed to allow us to carefully monitor stimulation events and flow tests. In addition to the installed geophysical sensors, we have used tracer tests, differences in the ambient microbial communities at flow collection locations, and cold water injection to inform us about dynamic flow pathways. In Experiment 1, we have hydraulically stimulated the host rock in a number times at several locations in one well, creating new fractures that connect to existing fractures between the injection and production boreholes. We have performed long-term ambient and chilled water injection tests as an analog to EGS, and have monitored system changes resulting from these water injections through geophysical monitoring, flow and pressure measurements, tracer tests, and microbiology. Here, we summarize the tests performed, issues identified including poroelastic and thermoelastic effects, Joule-Thomson effects, restarting effects, indications of flow channeling, and the primary learnings from Experiment 1.

Enhanced Geothermal Systems, EGS Collab, stimulati↗
DOE OSTI2020

Automatic Seismic Phase Picking Using Deep Learning for the EGS Collab project

Microseismic monitoring plays an important role in many energy-related and environmental industries.The microseismic event catalog and seismic structure of the subsurface are two of the primary outputsof the microseismic monitoring system. Though rough locations of microseismic events can be estimated automatically, obtaining high-resolution microseismic event locations requires a significant amount of human laborespecially on seismic phase picking. Unlike traditional automatic pickers that are usually less precise than human analysts, a fewrecently proposed algorithms based on deepneural networks(DNN)were able to match or surpass human performance for earthquake signals. Due to differences in the spatial scale of the study area, sensor sampling rate, and geometry of the monitoring system, it is not clear whether these deepneural networkmodels can be used to speed up microseismic data processing. In this paper, we adapted the DNN based technique for automatic phase picking of microseismic signals. We usedmicroseismic data recorded at the experiment 1 site of the enhancedgeothermal system (EGS) Collab project anddesigneda workflowthat we call transfer-learning aided double-difference tomography (TADT),thatcombines transfer learning and seismic tomography. We re-train an existing DNN with our data to obtain a newmodel using around 3500 seismogramsand associated manual phase picks. Thistransfer learnedmodel is able to reach human performance but muchfaster than human analysts. The transfer-learning-derived phase pickswereused to improve microseismic event locations and imagethesubsurface. The results are similar to or slightly better than those obtained with manual phase picks.

Chai, Chengping↗