Induced Seismicity Consortium (ISC) Quarterly Review Meeting, Q Quantifying Seismic Hazard from Subsurface Fluid Injection and Production (SFIP) for Shale Gas and Oil Reservoirs RPSEA-RFP2012UN001 Los Angeles, CA, July 2, 2013 Fred Aminzadeh / Debotyam Maity,

Objectives IS related environmental safety concerns IS modeling/ prediction tools including advanced algorithms Impact prediction including stress & fault modeling Operational parameter selection methodology Sites in North America with documented IS caused by or likely related to energy developments (NRC Report, 2012). MEQ characterization and observation of possible fault activation with low b-values (Maxwell et al., 2011) Main Research Areas  Novel data acquisition program to utilize perf shots as controlled sources.  Utilize MEQ/ EM data through optimized “dual- array” survey design.  Characterize subsurface geomechanics for improved understanding of stress regimes, etc.  Model relationships between seismicity, derived attributes and UOG operational parameters  Hazard prediction (in relation to IS) tools and mitigation framework.

Task 1: Seismic while perforation (SWP ) Schematic representation of SWP system for potential deployment under actual field conditions.  Design of basic framework including in- depth analysis of design, deployment and processing/ analysis issues.  Preliminary processing & analysis based on defined framework to validate this novel technique. DELIVERABLES Applicability limited to completions involving perforations Research necessary to understand the limits of perfs as sources Characterize formations of interest for necessary elements within modeling framework

Task 2: Joint EM/ MEQ survey (a) MEQ tomography (Lees et al., 2000) and (b) MT tomography (Newman et al., 2008) for Coso Geothermal field. Optimization results for 4 wellbore arrays based on moment tensor inversion workflow. (Maity et al., 2013a)  Optimum survey design methodology for joint EM/ MEQ surveys (multi-array deployments).  Spatially & temporally cataloged geophysical data from test site for future reference. DELIVERABLES Synchronized time lapse EM/ MEQ data collection Real time injection & fluid front control to reduce IS hazards Joint optimization approach to minimize costs and maximize operational benefits

5 Microseismic Waves Created By Small-Scale Fracturing Surface Sources + Receivers Geologic Model Velocity Model Treatment Well Vertical + Lateral Observation Well Target Formation

Task 3: Characterizing reservoir properties (a) Bulk Modulus, (b) Hydrostatic stress, (c) Tangential weakness, (d) fracture attribute, (e) Extensional stress, (f) Normal weakness, (g) Fracture expandability and (h) fracture permeability mapped using MEQ data from a geothermal field (Maity et al., 2013b) (a)(b ) (c) (d ) (e ) (f)(g)(h )  Geomechanical and other reservoir property models including uncertainty estimates. DELIVERABLES Better understand in-situ geomechanics to improve injection Avoid areas of potential concern based on mapped attributes Maximize utilization of collected and interpreted data (Task 2).

Task 4: ANN for Modeling Induced Seismicity Predictive tool to better understand seismicity as it relates to observed attributes SFIP Operational Parameters  Use ANN to model induced seismicity, operational regime and geophysical attributes. DELIVERABLES

Task 5: Probabilistic models for Seismicity Hierarchical probabilistic model to predict failure  A hierarchical probabilistic model for the operational parameters which is calibrated based upon the collected seismic data  Hazards maps that reflect the interaction between uncertainties, models, and risks and that provide a visual aid for decision-making. DELIVERABLES Extensive uncertainty and risk analysis Understanding impact of uncertainty on final hazard estimates Model parameters to reflect subscale effects, based on MaxEnt.

Task 6: Hazard mitigation Traffic Light system (Bommer et al. 2006)  A “Safe SFIP Operation” system for different operational parameters and related conditions. Necessary documentation support for software modeling tool and expandability will be critical in the design approach selected. DELIVERABLES Typical evaluations needed for hazard and risk analysis (NRC Report, 2012) Real time data acquisition/ analysis Designed complexity to incorporate complex intra-property relationships

Schedule & milestones