The Potential for Earthquakes in the Quebec Utica Shale
•
2 likes•1,469 views
A presentation titled "The Stability of Fault Systems in the South Shore of the St. Lawrence Lowlands of Quebec - Implications for Shale Gas Development, presented members of the Society of Petroleum Engineers. This is a technical presentation that makes the case that while hydraulic fracturing does indeed cause small seismic events -- "earthquakes" -- those earthquakes are tiny and not detectable on the surface and cause no damage to underground or above ground structures.
Recommended
More Related Content
Similar to The Potential for Earthquakes in the Quebec Utica Shale
Similar to The Potential for Earthquakes in the Quebec Utica Shale (8)
More from Marcellus Drilling News
More from Marcellus Drilling News (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
The Potential for Earthquakes in the Quebec Utica Shale
- 1. The Stability Of Fault Systems In The South Shore Of The St. Lawrence Lowlands Of Québec Implications For Shale Gas Development John Brodylo, Jean-Yves Chatellier,Guillaume Matton & Michel Rheault Copyright 2011, Society of Petroleum Engineers 1
- 2. Outline • Majority of Québec Utica shale gas exploration in south shore area of St. Lawrence Lowlands • Natural and man-made earthquakes in south shore • Tectonic domains, in-situ stress and fault styles • Fracture stimulation containment within shale gas target • Hydrofracturing Utica very unlikely to damage surface structures or shallow aquifers 2
- 3. Study Area St. Lawrence Québec Graben Québec City Ottawa-Bonnechere St. Lawrence Graben Lowlands Study Area Montréal 3
- 4. Earthquake • A sudden release of energy in the earth's crust or upper mantle as a result of fault slip • Destructive at magnitudes of 5 and above • Minor earthquakes magnitude 2 to 5 • Micro-earthquake is a very low intensity earthquake generally magnitude 2 or less 4
- 5. Earthquake Magnitude Comparison Perspective Limit Micro-earthquakes Minor-earthquakes Light Moderate of measurement Imperceptible rarely felt felt shaking damage by man 2 X Hiroshima Atomic Bomb Utica Shale Gas Frac 30 tons TNT Microseismic Average Québec event Earthquake 1 kg TNT Impact of Stick of Brick Dynamite Falling from Small 1 meter Firecracker -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Earthquake (Nuttli) Magnitude 5
- 6. Southern Québec Earthquakes Southern Québec Earthquakes Major Charlevoix Basement Faults Impact Crator Most Active Earthquake Regions of Southern Québec Québec City South Shore Shale Gas Exploration Areas Montréal US Border 6
- 7. Comparison of 10 Induced Seismic Events 9 Dams 8 Various 7 Global Manic 3 6 Waste Dam, Qc. 5 Water inj., 1975 TX. 2010 Magnitude 4 3 Micro- Mine 2 seismic Collapse, event Geothermal 1 Barnett NY. 1994 US Army. Utica Various Shale Co. Fluid 0 Shale countries. Fracs. TX. Inj., 1962 Fracs. -1 Québec, -2 2008-2010 -3 -4 Event 7
- 8. Induced Seismic in Québec SM3 Reservoir Impoundment Induced - unspecified Blasting St. Lawrence Lowlands 8
- 9. Risk? The Earth Sciences Division of the U.S. Department of Energy’s Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory has studied induced seismicity relating to oil and gas activity and to date hydraulic fracturing has resulted in no known surface earthquakes felt by man Update: Blackpool U.K. 2.3 M earthquake attributed to fluid injection following hydraulic fracturing. Felt at surface because of shallow focal depth, very unusual circumstances, no damage to building or aquifers 9
- 10. Stratigraphy Queenston/Lorraine Sandstone, siltstone and shale Utica Shale Gas target Quartz/carbonate organic shale Potsdam Regional seismic reflector 10
- 11. 3 Major Tectonic Domains South Shore Utica Shale Gas Fairway Disturbed Domain Autochthonous Domain Grenville Basement Convergent margin Sediments Passive margin Sediments Granite & Metasediments U Ordovician Cambro-Ordovician Lorraine and Queenstown Shale gas target Image Modified from: TRIANGLE ZONES IN ACCRETIONARY WEDGES: EXAMPLES FROM THE QUÉBEC APPALACHIANS AND PHYSICAL MODELING Konstantinovskaya et al, AAPG Poster, 2010 11
- 12. Borehole Breakouts,Breakouts, Fractures Borehole Fractures and In-situ Stresses and In-situ Stresses • Bore hole break outs in the N direction of Shmin = 315 degrees sHMAX • Drilling induced fractures in Azimuth of Borehole direction of SHmax = 45 degrees breakouts Present day in-situ Stress Breakout SHmax borehole shmin Azimuth of principal Natural, Drilling Induced, stresses, s1 > s3 Drill Induced Shmin and Hydraulic Fracture Fractures 12
- 13. Autochthonous Domain Old Healed Fractures • Tensional passive margin Normal faulting From Rift Phase Strike Direction • Result of opening of the Iapetus Sea of Fractures • Hydraulic fractures propagate vertically • 488.3–443.7 million years old • Fractures in direction of SHmax = 38 degrees sv = s1 s1=sv s3 = shmin shmin sHMAX = s3 s2 = sHmax = s2 In Situ sV>sHmax>shmin Stresses 13
- 14. Disturbed Domain Open Fractures • Compressional thrusting From Compressional • Hydraulic fractures in Phase direction of SHmax = 325 In Situ s3=sv Stresses degrees s1 = shMAX Strike Direction s2 = shmin sv = s3 of Fractures sHmax>shmin>sV sHMAX = s1 shmin = s2 14
- 15. Wrenching Present day in-situ Stress • Bore hole break outs in Breakout SHmax direction of Shmin = 315 degrees • Drilling induced fractures in Drill Induced Shmin direction of SHmax = 53 Fracture degrees In Situ Stresses sv = s2 s2=sv s3 = shmin s1 = sHmax shmin sHMAX = s3 = s1 sHmax>sV>shmin 15
- 16. Fault Slip sn sn Coulomb Stress = tb + m(sn + P) tb = shear stress P = pore pressure m = coefficient of friction sn = normal stress 16
- 17. Stress Affects on Completions Wrench Regime Thrust Regime Hydraulic fracturing stress state Pre-completion stress state More vertical fracturing sHmax >>sV hmin > sv sHmax s > shmin More horizontal fracturing Utica Pore Pressure sv sHMAX shmin 20 40 60 80 100 MPa 17
- 18. Hydraulic Fracture Height Containment GR Hi Y Low • Contrasts in fracture toughness form barriers Lorraine • High Young’s modulus (Y)=Brittle=low toughness Schematic • Low Young’s modulus=Ductile=high Thrust toughness Ductile • Frac target a brittle zone with low toughness between ductile zones Utica Shale Brittle Gas Target Ductile • High toughness ductile zones are Brittle barriers Trenton • Thrust fault are barriers 18
- 19. Aquifer Micro-seismic Horizontal Shale Gas Well with Micro-seismic Events •Minimal vertical height growth •Formations above and below zone likely acting as barriers Microseismic events •No communication confined or propagation to to +/- 50 m of wellbore shallow aquifers. Utica 19
- 20. Surface Lineament Analysis South Shore Shale Gas Exploration Area (Study Area) There are a total of 14 minor > M2.5 earthquakes recorded in the South Shore Shale Gas exploration Area Matton and Rheault 2011 20
- 21. Inset Map Québec City Cap-Rouge Earthquake Neuville Fault Trace at Potsdam Level St. Lawrence Seismic Line 78-824 Lowlands Shale Gas Fairway 18 Focal Depth kilometers 3.6 Earthquake magnitude Earthquake < M2.5 21
- 22. Summary • South shore shale gas exploration region is in stress relaxed state and less prone to fault reactivation • No correspondance between natural and man-made earthquakes and shallow faults in study area • In- situ stress, rock toughness, and thrust faults all act as barriers to vertical propagation of fractures and faults • Fracture stimulations are contained within shale gas target • Hydrofracturing is very unlikely to cause damage to shallow aquifers or surface structures 22
- 23. Acknowledgements Michael Binnion Questerre Energy Corporation Marianne Molgat Talisman Energy Inc Geoff Rait, - IEX Structural Geologist, Talisman Energy Scott McLellan, - IEX Geophysicist, Talisman Energy Heather Davey Exploration Specialist Geology
- 24. Questions? 23