Spatial Variations in Microseismic Focal Mechanisms, Yibal Field, Oman
description
Transcript of Spatial Variations in Microseismic Focal Mechanisms, Yibal Field, Oman
Spatial Variations in Microseismic Focal Mechanisms, Yibal Field,
Oman
A. AL-Anboori1, M. Kendall2, D. Raymer3, R. Jones3 and Q. Fisher1
1 University of Leeds2 Schlumberger Cambridge Research
3 University of Bristol
1. Introduction
2. Focal mechanisms (FOCMEC)
5. Conclusions
3. Stress inversion (FMSI)
4. Stress magnitudes
1. Introduction
N
shale
carbonate
Eastern Co-ordinates /m
Nor
ther
n C
o-or
dina
tes
/m
1km
P
P’
P’P
Station: Orientation available
Station: No Orientation info
1.1 Event statistics
22 days of data
1) Over 600 located events.
2) Frequency 10-400 Hz.
3) Magnitude (Ml ) -2 to 1
1.2 Aims
1) Determine fault regime using FOCMEC.2) Estimate directional stress field using FMSI.3) Compute full stress tensor (magnitudes) from a friction model
June,Aug,Sep,Oct02
1.3 Preliminary processing 1.3.2 Rotation to ray frame
Time [s]
Am
plitu
de
E
N
Z
East
Nor
th
horizontal
up
Horizontal Plane Vertical Plane
Before
Time [s]
Am
plitu
de
Sh
Sv
P
After
E
NZ
Sh
PSv
2. FOCMEC
FOCMEC (Snoke, 1984)
Uses: - (P,SV,SH) polarities and ratios - ray (azimuth, take off angle)
P
Sh
Sv
+C
B
L
Polarity Amplitude
+11.5
-68.4
- 40.3
Focal mechanism
Assumes: double-couple (pure shear) source
Method: Grid search
P
P’
P’P
Compaction?
3. Stress Inversion
Uses : -focal mechanisms (FOCMEC output )
FMSI (Gephart & Forsyth, 1984)
(σ1 σ2 σ3) R0 1
σ1 σ2 σ3
R
Assumes: - pure shear-slip earthquakes that occur on pre-existing faults
Directions only
Method : - Grid search
Fiqa
R=0.70 R=0.70 R=0.90 R=0.80
NatihA Nahr Umr Shuaiba
σ1
σ3
σ2
NatihA
σ1
σ3
σ2
R=0.70
(Baker Atlas GEOScience, 1999)
σ1
Fracture strike
Nat
ihA
Elsewhere
σ1
σ1
crac
ks
(Al-Anboori et al., 2005)
5. Stress Magnitudes
Stress magnitudesassumes: - slip failure along optimally oriented pre-existing faults - p =hydrostatic pressure
- σv =lithostatic pressure - σv = σ1 or σ2 or σ3 NatihA
Shuaiba
σ3
Nahr Umr
Fiqa
σvσ2
σ2
σ1
Model magnitudes(passive basin)
v: poisson ratioConstant v=0.31
real magnitudes
Robs
0 1
σ1 σ2 σ3
R
σ2σ1
σ3
p: pore pressureU=f(): friction angle
Model magnitudes(passive basin)
0 1
σ1 σ2 σ3
R
NatihA (chalk)
Fiqa (shale)strike
thrust
Shuaiba (chalk)
Nahr Umr (shale)strike
normal
shale chalk
thrustthrust
normalnormal
22
real magnitudes
=70º v=0.31 =39º v=0.37 NatihA
Compaction?
5. Conclusions
5. Conclusions
The deduced stress field is consistent with the fracture strike inferred from shear-wave splitting measurements. The deduced stress field in the Natih reservoir also agrees closely with the in-situ stress inferred from wellbore breakouts (Baker Atlas GEOScience, 1999).
NatihA (chalk)
Fiqa (shale)strike
thrust
Shuaiba (chalk)
Nahr Umr (shale)strike
normal
thrustthrust
normalnormal
12°39°
18°39°
.31v
.37
.31
.31
Acknowledgements
Petroleum Development Oman (PDO)