1. To Bleed‐Off or Not to Bleed‐Off?
- Author
-
Boyet, Auregan, De Simone, Silvia, and Vilarrasa, Víctor
- Abstract
Bleed‐off and shut‐in of injection have been implemented in different Enhanced Geothermal Systems (EGS) in an attempt to mitigate the induced seismicity at and after the injection stop. This article tackles the controversial discussion on the mitigation of the post‐injection induced seismicity through ending fluid injection by either a bleed‐off or a shut‐in. Both scenarios failed to mitigate the occurrence of large magnitude earthquake after stopping injection in numerous EGS. The two protocols are compared by using a seismological forecasting methodology coupled with a hydro‐mechanical model reproducing flow, poroelastic stress and fault failure in a domain including a discrete fault network based on Basel EGS (Switzerland, 2006). Unlike bleed‐off, shut‐in mitigates early post‐injection seismicity by smoothly reducing pressure, and consequently poroelastic stress changes in the modelled Basel EGS. Although post‐injection pore pressure diffusion eventually reaches distant faults and destabilizes them, seismicity is not initiated according to our simulation forecasting. Plain Language Summary: Fluid injection induces seismicity in Enhanced Geothermal Systems (EGS), which continues to occur when injection stops and days after. Different protocols have been proposed to mitigate the frequency and magnitude of the post‐injection seismic events, particularly well bleed‐off (opening of the well with consequent backflow and pressure drop to initial levels) and shut‐in (suddenly stopping injection). However, applying one or the other methods did not efficiently mitigate the occurrence of the largest magnitude earthquake after the stop of injection. This study compares the effects of the two protocols on the stability of a fault network through the forecasting of the seismicity based on a numerical model reproducing the main involved physical processes. Bleeding‐off the well induces abrupt pressure drops, which reactivates the faults in the vicinity of the well. Shut‐in, on the other hand, mitigates this process but does not control the pore pressure diffusion that continues to propagate in the reservoir after the stop of injection. Simulation results show that a progressive continuous decrease of the injection pressure followed by a shut‐in better mitigates the early reactivation of the faults without inducing late seismicity, thus lowering the risks of cancellation of EGS projects due to post‐injection induced seismicity. Key Points: The largest magnitude earthquake may be induced after injection ends by pore pressure diffusion and poroelastic relaxation on large faultsAlthough well bleed‐off mitigates reservoir pressurization in the vicinity of the well, the abrupt pressure changes induce seismicityA progressive decrease of injection pressure followed by a definitive shut‐in mitigates post‐injection seismicity in the model of Basel [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
- Published
- 2024
- Full Text
- View/download PDF