the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Constraints on Stress Tensor from Microseismicity at Decatur
Abstract. Induced microseismicity has been detected in the Decatur CO2 sequestration area, providing critical constraints on the stress state at the reservoir. We invert the full stress tensor with two subsets of source mechanisms from the induced microseismic events. To achieve this, we incorporate additional information on the vertical stress gradient and instantaneous shut-in pressure (ISIP) measured in the area. Additionally, our results demonstrate that constraining the intermediate stress tensor to a vertical orientation is essential to achieve a consistent stress inversion. The inverted stress is then used to estimate the minimum activation pressure required to trigger seismicity on fault planes identified by the source mechanisms. The comparison of the minimum activation pressure with injection pressure indicates one of three possibilities: the ISIP pressures are significantly lower than predicted (approximately 28–29 MPa), the maximum horizontal principal stress is extremely high (exceeding 120 MPa), or the coefficient of friction is significantly lower than 0.6 on a large number of activated faults. Our analysis also shows that poorly constrained source mechanisms do not lead to reasonable stress constraint estimates, even when considering alternative input parameters such as ISIP and vertical stress. We conclude that induced microseismicity can effectively be used to estimate the stress field when source mechanisms are also well constrained. For future CO2 sequestration projects, measuring and constraining ISIP pressure and maximum horizontal stress in the reservoir will ensure that more accurate estimates of stress state from moment tensor inversions can be obtained for improved prediction of the long-term reservoir response to injection.
- Preprint
(1363 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 14 Jun 2025)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-1384', Anonymous Referee #1, 12 May 2025
reply
The article presents a study on constraints on stress tensor on the monitored seismicity at the Illinois Basin Decatur Project (IBDP), a CO2 sequestration project effective between 2011 and 2014. The study was encouraged due to the large uncertainty on the stress tensor magnitudes in the Decatur reservoir. Its aim is to refine the stress field estimations by the full stress inversion method from focal mechanisms of microseismic events from two datasets and by considering borehole data: the values of the instantaneous shut-in pressure and the average of vertical stress. From the update of stress tensor, they compute an updated value of the minimum activation pressure at the project site, significantly smaller than the originally estimated threshold pressures for the regional faulting network. The manuscript addresses the importance of the estimation of the minimal activation pressure, one of the main parameters in the design of the injection protocol, and presents a methodology that refines the estimation of the stress tensor.
Overall, the research topic and the proposed methodology are significant. The manuscript is clear, and presents a literature review of the stress estimations of the study case. The methods and results are well explained. Yet, I would encourage the authors to revise the writing of the manuscript. Indeed, the manuscript could benefit from a little upgrade in its writing (there is a lot of repetitions of certain words along the sentences, and the transitions between paragraphs and sections can be quite abrupt).
Minor comments:
in 1. Introduction, there is only one subheading. The subheading might be deleted.
In Introduction: The introduction presents stress estimations from previous studies (section 1.1.), but an introduction of the study case (currently in 2.1.) would be expected to be done before.
Lines 90-93: “This is an important constrain on our pore pressure limitation – the pressure that activated induced seismicity cannot significantly exceed this value because we know the injection activated this seismicity and this is the pressure that caused the seismicity to occur (we can neglect possible thermal effects; selected induced events are far from the injection well).” The sentence is quite long and not very fluid.
Line 115: “We use the fact that this seismicity exists (i.e. the stress state or pore pressure in the reservoir was perturbed to induced seismicity)”. What do the authors mean by this?
Line 119: “small number”, how many?
Lines 127-… : the bullet points are a bit rough, it could be better to reformulate as paragraphs
Line 140: “parameters of some seismic events differ from a dataset to the other”, how much? Is it questioning the validity of the seismic interpretation of one dataset?
Lines 150-…: “To determine the pore pressure that caused induced seismicity, we need to know the shear and normal stress on the fault plane, the coefficient of friction and the cohesion on the faults of microseismic events. To determine shear and normal stress on a fault, we need to know the full stress tensor.” The two sentences have the same structures and read like a repetition.
Line 237: typo in “compute”
Line 240 “the pressure represents the minimum activation pressure, which is the minimum pressure needed to activate the fault”. the sentence feels repetitive.
In generally, the colorbars should be wider in the figures, the colors are difficulty distinguishable.
In Table 4, one Minimal Activation Pressure Range of All Events is negative. What does it mean for the methodology?
Line 354: what is “maximum horizontal press magnitude”?
In the manuscript, I would suggest to use the present tense when describing the analyses made by the authors in this study.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1384-RC1
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
90 | 18 | 7 | 115 | 4 | 5 |
- HTML: 90
- PDF: 18
- XML: 7
- Total: 115
- BibTeX: 4
- EndNote: 5
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1