Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “induced seismicity”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 19 records
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2024

Introduction to special section: Induced seismicity

Induced seismicity refers to earthquakes related to anthropogenic activities such as wastewater disposal, hydraulic fracturing, and geothermal energy production. In Oklahoma, wastewater disposal is considered to have caused more than 100 earthquakes of magnitude 4 and above (M4+) since 2010. Similarly, over 50 such events have been recorded in the Permian Basin of Texas and New Mexico. Additionally, some of these earthquakes have magnitudes exceeding 5.0, including a magnitude 5.8 event in Pawnee, Oklahoma, in a magnitude 5.6 event in the Peace River Oil Sands Area in Alberta, and a magnitude 5.4 event in the Delaware Basin of Texas.

58 GEOSCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2023

ORION: Operational FoRecastIng Of INduced Seismicity

The Operational Forecasting of Induced Seismicity toolkit “ORION” (ORION) is an open-source, observation-based ensemble forecasting toolkit which is geared towards helping operators understand the seismic hazard (i.e., probabilistic assessment of the magnitude and frequency of induced seismic events) at a site. ORION analyzes how the seismic hazard evolves during injection and suggests possible mitigation strategies to employ if an earthquake that exceeds certain threshold is observed. Through its ensemble modeling approach, ORION leverages the benefits of statistical-, physics-, and machine learning-based forecasting methodologies, while reducing the impact of each model’s respective limitations. The ORION toolkit consists of an easy-to-use GUI interface that affords a user as much or as little interaction as desired. Advanced capabilities allow the user to upload local, high-precision earthquake catalogs, projected injection profiles and/or spatiotemporal estimates of pressure/stress, and to tune various model parameters. ORION will then provide a spatial and temporal ensemble forecast of seismicity defined as the probability of exceedance of a given earthquake magnitude over a forecast period. Additionally, ORION will provide probability distribution of the statistically derived maximum possible earthquake magnitude that may be expected. Finally, ORION will provide suggested operational management strategies (e.g. reduce injection volumes at specific wells) based on the level of hazard.

NRAP,NRAP Tools,ORION,Operational Forcasting of In↗
DOE OSTI2024

Forecasting fluid-injection induced seismicity to choose the best injection strategy for safety and efficiency

Induced seismicity poses a challenge to the development of Enhanced Geothermal Systems (EGS). Improving monitoring and forecasting techniques is essential to mitigate induced seismicity and thereby fostering a positive perception of EGS projects among local authorities and population. Induced seismicity is the result of complex and coupled thermo-hydro-mechanical-chemical mechanisms. Injection flux and pressure are crucial controlling parameters for both hydraulic stimulation and circulation protocols. We develop a methodology combining a hydro-mechanical model with a seismicity rate model to estimate the magnitude and frequency of mainshocks and aftershocks induced by fluid injection. We apply the methodology to the case of the Basel EGS (2006, Switzerland) to compare the effects of progressive, cyclic and constant injections on the mechanical response of discrete faults. Results from the coupled hydro-mechanical models show that the pore pressure diffusion and consequent enhancement of fault permeability are limited to the vicinity of the injection well during cyclic injection. Additionally, constant injection induces seismicity from the start of the injection but enhances the permeability of most of the faults within a shorter duration, inducing less post-injection seismicity. The methodology can be adapted to any numerical model and allows new projects to be developed by anticipating the safest injection protocol. This article is part of the theme issue ‘Induced seismicity in coupled subsurface systems’.

58 GEOSCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2022

Review: Induced Seismicity During Geoenergy Development—A Hydromechanical Perspective

The basic triggering mechanism underlying induced seismicity traces back to the mid-1960s that relied on the process of pore-fluid pressure diffusion. The last decade has experienced a renaissance of induced seismicity research and data proliferation. An unprecedent opportunity is presented to us to synthesize the robust growth in knowledge. The objective of this article is to provide a concise review of the triggering mechanisms of induced earthquakes with a focus on hydro-mechanical processes. Four mechanisms are reviewed: pore-fluid pressure diffusion, poroelastic stress, Coulomb static stress transfer, and aseismic slip. For each, an introduction of the concept is presented, followed by case studies. Diving into these mechanisms sheds light on several outstanding questions. For example, why did some earthquakes occur far from fluid injection or after injection stopped? Our review converges on the following conclusions: (a) Pore-fluid pressure diffusion remains a basic mechanism for initiating inducing seismicity in the near-field. (b) Poroelastic stresses and aseismic slip play an important role in inducing seismicity in regions beyond the influence of pore-fluid pressure diffusion. (c) Coulomb static stress transfer from earlier seismicity is shown to be a viable mechanism for increasing stresses on mainshock faults. (d) Multiple mechanisms have operated concurrently or consecutively at most induced seismicity sites. (e) Carbon dioxide injection is succeeding without inducing earthquakes and much can be learned from its success. Future research opportunities exist in deepening the understanding of physical and chemical processes in the nexus of geoenergy development and fluid motion in the Earth’s crust.

58 GEOSCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2022

Cubic-meter scale laboratory fault re-activation experiments to improve the understanding of induced seismicity risks

Abstract To understand fluid induced seismicity, we have designed a large-scale laboratory experiment consisting of a one-cubic-meter sandstone with an artificial fault cut and fluid-injection boreholes. The sandstone block is assembled in a true triaxial loading frame and equipped with 38 piezoelectric sensors to locate and characterise acoustic emission events. The differential stress on the artificial fault is increased in stages to bring it towards a critically stressed state. After each stage of differential stress increase, fluids are injected at low pressures through boreholes to test the potential of fault re-activation. In addition, a high-pressure injection was conducted that created a hydraulic fracture from the injection borehole towards the artificial fault. The newly generated fluid pathway resulted in an activation of the complete block through a stick–slip movement. We compare acoustic emission measurements from the laboratory experiment with seismicity observations from the field-scale CO 2 injection at Decatur, Illinois, U.S., and conclude that the existence of fluid pathways plays a decisive role for the potential of induced seismicity.

47 OTHER INSTRUMENTATION↗
DOE OSTI2022

Operational Forecasting of Induced Seismicity

Operational Forecasting of Induced Seismicity (ORION) is an open-source toolkit developed as part of the US Department of Energy SMART and NRAP programs. ORION is designed to help both expert and non-expert users understand the seismic hazard at a site. This tool analyzes how the seismic hazard evolves during injection of fluid, and can be used to identify potential mitigation strategies for observed or forecasted seismic activity. ORION is built using Python, and has an optional GUI where users can easily configure model parameters, evaluate temporal and spatial forecasts, and inspect key data (seismicity, fluid injection, pressure models, etc.).

Kroll, Kayla↗
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

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

Seismic Diffusivity and the Influence of Heterogeneity on Injection‐Induced Seismicity

Abstract The spatiotemporal patterns of injection‐induced seismicity (IIS) are commonly interpreted with the concept of a triggering front, which propagates in a diffusion‐like manner with an associated diffusivity parameter. Here, we refer to this diffusivity as the “seismic diffusivity.” Several previous studies implicitly assume that seismic diffusivity is equivalent to the effective hydraulic diffusivity of the subsurface, which describes the behavior of the mean pressure field in heterogeneous porous media. Seismicity‐based approaches for hydraulic characterization or simulations of IIS using domains of homogeneous equivalent porous media are implicitly based on this assumed equivalence. However, seismicity is expected to propagate with the threshold triggering pressure, and thus not be controlled by the evolution of the mean pressure field. We present numerical simulations of fluid injection to compare the seismic and effective hydraulic diffusivities in heterogeneous formations (including fractured rock). The numerical model combines uncoupled, linear pressure diffusion with the Mohr‐Coulomb failure criterion to simulate IIS. We demonstrate that connected pathways of relatively high hydraulic diffusivity in heterogeneous media (particularly in fractured rock domains) allow the threshold triggering pressure to propagate more rapidly than predicted by the effective hydraulic diffusivity. As a result, the seismic diffusivity is greater than the effective hydraulic diffusivity in heterogeneous porous media, possibly by an order of magnitude or more. Additionally, we present a case study of IIS near Soultz‐sous‐Forêts where seismic diffusivity is found to be at least one order of magnitude larger than the effective hydraulic diffusivity.

Haagenson, Ryan↗
DOE OSTI2021

Precambrian Crystalline Basement Properties From Pressure History Matching and Implications for Induced Seismicity in the US Midcontinent

Injection-induced seismicity across the US midcontinent has almost exclusively occurred in the crystalline basement that underlies the Arbuckle Group aquifer and its equivalents, the primary wastewater disposal zone in this region. However, the properties of the basement are not well known. Newly compiled data, from Class I wells in Kansas, provide a unique record of pressures in the Arbuckle and an opportunity to constrain the reservoir-scale properties of the basement such as permeability, diffusivity, and specific storage. Constraints on these parameters are critical for modeling fluid flow and pressures across the entire Arbuckle-basement system, and are necessary for accurate evaluation and prediction of injection-induced earthquakes. Here, we present a detailed, three-dimensional geological and pressure history-matched numerical model for the Arbuckle and basement, based on data from >400 wells covering a large region in south-central Kansas, where injection-induced seismicity has been concentrated since 2014. Simulations of dynamic data from 319 wells indicate that Arbuckle pressures have increased by 1.1 MPa in high injection rate areas and an overpressure of <0.1 MPa may be the cause of seismicity in the basement. Pressure-history matching also yields the likely range in porosity (0.3%–7%), permeability (0.1–0.7 mD), and diffusivity (0.004–0.07 m2 /s) for the basement. The resulting estimates suggest reservoir-scale properties of the basement are enhanced by faults and fractures. Importantly, the diffusivities determined in this study are lower than estimates derived from Kansas earthquake triggering fronts, and suggest that such seismicity-based techniques may have limitations, particularly where spacetime patterns between injection and seismicity are complex.

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 OSTI2025

Machine Learning Approaches to Predicting Induced Seismicity and Imaging Geothermal Reservoir Properties

This project developed machine learning (ML) methods, lab data sets, and field data to advance geothermal exploration and geothermal energy production. The work had three focus areas. One involved the development of ML methods to use microearthquakes (MEQs) for imaging geothermal reservoir properties and improving subsurface characterization – most importantly the evolution of permeability within the evolving reservoir. This part of the work included development of ML approaches for automated MEQ location, focal mechanism determination and identification of earthquake precursors. The second area focused on using MEQ signals generated by geothermal exploration and production to predict the relationship between fluid injection and seismicity. Here, we extended to reservoir scale our success in using ML to predict laboratory earthquakes and fault zone stress state. The third focus area was on lab experiments. Here, we developed new ML models for lab earthquake prediction and identification of precursors to failure to improve earthquake forecasting and early warning in geothermal settings. Major outcomes of our work include ML models that learn from MEQ signals during geothermal exploration and production to predict induced seismicity. MEQs occur naturally in connection with drilling and energy production. We developed ML methods to use the seismic waves from these events to characterize the elastic, hydraulic and poromechanical properties of reservoirs. Our work illuminated fracture geometry and the evolution of fracture permeability by incorporating seismic coda wave analysis and ML methods to relate fluid injection and seismicity. We significantly expanded laboratory earthquake prediction to include methods that use both passive measurements of microearthquakes within the lab fault zones and also active source acoustic measurements of fault zone elastic properties. These methods can now predict fault zone stress state, time to failure and the magnitude of lab earthquakes. Our work showed that repetitive stick- slip failure events during frictional sliding (the lab equivalent of earthquakes) are preceded by a cascade of micro-failure events that radiate energy in a manner that foretells unstable failure – manifest as laboratory MEQs. We documented a mapping between fracture properties and statistical attributes of elastic radiation. We extended existing works to geothermal reservoir scale and developed ML methods to determine reservoir permeability, fracture properties, and their evolution during geothermal energy production. An attractive feature of ML algorithms is their ability to handle big datasets and reveal patterns and correlations that may remain invisible to conventional analyses. Our work connected data from field, laboratory and intermediate scales to study permeability, stress, strength, fracture stiffness and geometry. At the field scale we used data from the Newberry Volcano field site, UtahFORGE, EGS Collab, and also the Bedretto underground research lab in Switzerland. These data sets are bridging the gap between the lab scale, theory, and reservoir scale. Our work produced plain language summaries to improve public understanding of DOE research. We also developed openly distributed ML and seismicity datasets for use by all researchers and we published connections between induced seismicity in geothermal areas and reservoir properties including permeability, fracture properties, and stress state. Our models are designed for the large data sets of induced seismicity typically associated with geothermal sites. We produced labeled event catalogs and used them on geothermal data to assess how ML can facilitate geothermal production and exploration. All datasets are available on the GDR Productivity: The project produced 32 publications in peer reviewed journals (two are in review). It supported the work of 6 PhD students, 40 conference presentations, 6 keynote talks at national meetings, and mentoring and professional development for 4 postdoctoral fellows.

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2022

Deep compressed seismic learning for fast location and moment tensor inferences with natural and induced seismicity

Fast detection and characterization of seismic sources is crucial for decision-making and warning systems that monitor natural and induced seismicity. However, besides the laying out of ever denser monitoring networks of seismic instruments, the incorporation of new sensor technologies such as Distributed Acoustic Sensing (DAS) further challenges our processing capabilities to deliver short turnaround answers from seismic monitoring. In response, this work describes a methodology for the learning of the seismological parameters: location and moment tensor from compressed seismic records. In this method, data dimensionality is reduced by applying a general encoding protocol derived from the principles of compressive sensing. The data in compressed form is then fed directly to a convolutional neural network that outputs fast predictions of the seismic source parameters. Thus, the proposed methodology can not only expedite data transmission from the field to the processing center, but also remove the decompression overhead that would be required for the application of traditional processing methods. An autoencoder is also explored as an equivalent alternative to perform the same job. We observe that the CS-based compression requires only a fraction of the computing power, time, data and expertise required to design and train an autoencoder to perform the same task. Implementation of the CS-method with a continuous flow of data together with generalization of the principles to other applications such as classification are also discussed.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2022

Induced seismicity red-light thresholds for enhanced geothermal prospects in the Netherlands

Prospects for geothermal energy in the Netherlands have renewed concerns around induced earthquakes. Risks from induced earthquakes are managed by traffic light protocols (TLPs), where the red-light is chosen as the stop-point before exceeding a tolerance to risk. Here, we simulate post-shut-in earthquake scenarios based on realistic information for the Netherlands. We focus on three risk metrics: aggregates like nuisance and damage impacts and also local personal risk (LPR) – a likelihood of building collapse fatality for an individual. Our results show that the severity of these risks varies spatially by orders of magnitude. Prior induced seismicity (e.g., the 2012 Huizinge event) provides a reference baseline to calibrate the Dutch earthquake risk tolerances. We find that these calibrated risk tolerances are similar to those observed in North America, suggesting an underlying sociological ‘license to operate.’ Furthermore, the use of calibrated risk tolerances results in nuisance concerns completely eclipsing the other two metrics. We compare our results to a hypothetical Groningen geothermal operation and find that our approach sets red-light thresholds approximately one magnitude unit below the ML 3.6 Huizinge event. Overall, our results provide a first-order recommendation for red-light thresholds and proactive management of Dutch enhanced geothermal induced seismicity.

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2023

Pore Pressure Diffusion and Onset of Induced Seismicity

The Raton Basin of Southern Colorado and Northern New Mexico experienced a significant increase in seismicity over the last several decades, including two M5+ earthquakes. The increase in seismicity started soon after an increase in wastewater disposal associated with coal-bed methane production. Twenty-nine wastewater injection wells have operated in the Basin, with several high-rate injectors located within a kilometer of the most seismically active regions. We developed a pore pressure model to investigate the relationship between pore pressure diffusion and onset of induced seismicity, with an emphasis on the Trinidad fault zones. Our model indicates that sufficient pore pressure increase had accumulated on the northern extent of the Trinidad fault zone to induce seismicity at the time of early-stage seismic activity. The hydrogeologic architecture of the Basin played a key role in controlling pore pressure perturbation. The basal sedimentary interval with moderately low diffusivity restricted vertical pore pressure diffusion, creating a substantial lag time between wells becoming active and the expression of perturbation in the fault zones. The spatiotemporal relationship between early-stage seismicity and wastewater injection in conjunction with modeled pore pressures suggests that the early-stage seismicity in the Raton Basin was likely triggered by pore pressure diffusion.

58 GEOSCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2025

Operational Forecasting of Induced Seismicity (CRADA Final Report)

This was a collaborative effort between Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC ("LLNS"), as manager and operator of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory ("LLNL"), The Regents of the University of California, as manager and operator of Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Collectively, Contractors) and Nanometrics, Inc. ("Participant"), to develop a toolkit called "Operational Forecasting of Induced Seismicity (ORION)" that includes a decision tree method for operational forecasting of induced seismicity rates related to fluid disposal operations.

58 GEOSCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2021

A workflow to assess the efficacy of brine extraction for managing injection-induced seismicity potential using data from a CO 2 injection site near Decatur, Illinois

Injection of CO 2 for storage in a geologic formation increases pore pressure and alters in situ stresses. Depending on the orientation of any existing fault and fracture planes, such as critically stressed planes, this stress alteration will modify normal stresses acting on planes and could result in frictional sliding and release stored energy in the form of seismicity. Brine extraction (BE) is a technique that can be applied prior to, or during, CO 2 injection to reduce pore pressure for increasing storage capacity and, potentially, for reducing the likelihood of frictional sliding. Here a workflow is described to assess the efficacy of BE for mitigating frictional sliding (i.e., seismicity) during injection and entails: site characterization, stress calculations and failure assessment, static and dynamic modeling, and BE operational planning. Site characterization describes the stress field used to calculate the Coulomb Failure Function (CFF) that constrains allowable pore pressure changes and injection rates in the numerical simulation of CO 2 injection scenarios. The inclusion of BE in the workflow allows for determination of the potential need for pressure reduction, and evaluation of the effectiveness of this operation. Example application of the workflow using an injection field dataset near Decatur, IL, provides insight on fracture planes and stresses at the site, formation properties and the impact of variable CO 2 injection-rate targets on whether BE plans are required. The study workflow indicates that BE could enhance CO 2 injection rate by 39% and correspondingly reduce the potential for injection-induced seismicity as indicated by a reduction in CFF.

58 GEOSCIENCES↗