The Bergermeer reservoir is one of the largest gas storages in Western-Europe, with excellent reservoir properties. However, during original depletion seismicity was observed with magnitude up to 3.5 at a pressure below 58 bar. Therefore, it was deemed prudent to monitor the gas storage reservoir with a permanent, downhole micro-seismic array. The monitoring is embedded in a so-called Traffic Light System for managing seismic activity. The array observed 400 micro-seismic events with a magnitude below 0.9 during refill of the reservoir. Most activity was induced by the Midfield fault that also induced depletion seismicity. This activity is far below the threshold for felt or damaging earthquakes. A calibrated geomechanical model was developed that matches the micro-seismicity observed during refill and storage cycles. The geometry was obtained from the seismic interpretations using an efficient method to convert the faults and horizons to parametric surfaces that can be used in a Finite Element Method (FEM) model. The model was populated with Leak-off Test (LOT), minifrac, core and log data. The model was calibrated on observed depletion and refill seismicity, stress measurements and the observed surface displacement from geodetic and GPS surveys. The continuous records of surface displacements showed a much stiffer reservoir during refill, compared with depletion. Also, the response was delayed by 0.25 year with respect to pressure, indicating time dependence in the rock deformation. Fault slip during depletion and stress hysteresis explains the refill micro-seismicity, since the peak shear stress is redistributed during slippage, giving higher shear stress at the edges of the slip area. The model predicts higher seismic activity for higher injection rate, but the maximum magnitude is limited in the worst case to 2.2, which is expected to cause no damage.
| Published in | Petroleum Science and Engineering (Volume 9, Issue 1) |
| DOI | 10.11648/j.pse.20250901.13 |
| Page(s) | 22-37 |
| Creative Commons |
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited. |
| Copyright |
Copyright © The Author(s), 2025. Published by Science Publishing Group |
Gas Storage, Seismicity, Calibrated Geomechanical Model, Passive Seismic Monitoring, Subsidence Monitoring
| [1] | Haak, H. W., B. Dost, F. H. Goutbeek (2001), “Seismische analyse van de aardbevingen bij Alkmaar op 9 en 10 september en Bergen aan Zee op 10 oktober 2001”, KNMI Technical report; TR-239. |
| [2] | Q-con (2019), |
| [3] | Wassing, B. B. T., Orlic, B., Leeuwenburgh, O., Geel, C. R., (2011), “3D Geomechanical Modelling of Fault Stability in the Bergermeer Field During Underground Gas Storage Operations”, TNO-060-UT-2011-01388/C, 31 August 2011. |
| [4] | Baker RDS, (2011), “Dynamic Geomechanical Modelling of the Bergermeer Underground Gas Storage, Netherlands”, Part 1 – Base Case Modelling, Part 2 – Scenario Modelling, version 2011 09 22. |
| [5] | Fenix, (2018), ‘3D Geomechanical Model for Gas Storage Bergermeer’. TAQA Energy BV, |
| [6] | Roest, J. P. A., Kuilman, W. (1994). Geomechanical analysis of small earthquakes at the Eleveld gas reservoir. In: ‘Eurock ’94; SPE/ISRM international conference, Delft, Netherlands’, pp. 573–580. |
| [7] | Muntendam-Bos, A. C.,, B. B. T. Wassing, K. van Thienen-Visser, (2009), Effects of differential pressures across the central Bergermeer fault”, TNO-034-UT-2009-00171/B 16 January 2009. |
| [8] | Orlic, B., Wassing, B. B. T. and Geel, C. R., (2013), “Field scale geomechanical modeling for prediction of fault stability during underground gas storage operations in a depleted gas field in the Netherlands”, Proc. 47th US Rock Mechanics / Geomechanics Symposium held in San Francisco, CA, USA, 23-26, June 2013. |
| [9] | Harris, R. A., (1998), “Introduction to special section: Stress triggers, stress shadows, and implications for seismic hazard”, Journal of Geophys Research, V 103, B10, P24, 347-24, 358. |
| [10] | Dempsey, David, Jenny Suckale, (2017), “Physics-based forecasting of induced seismicity at Groningen gas field, the Netherlands“, Geophys. Res. Lett., 44, |
| [11] | Baisch, S., and H.-P. Harjes, 2003. A model for fluid injection induced seismicity at the KTB. Geophys. Jour. Int., 152, 160-170. |
| [12] | Baisch, S., Carbon, D., Dannwolf, U., Delacou, B., Devaux, M., Dunand, F., Jung, R., Koller, M., Martin, C., Sartori, M., Secanell, R., and R. Vörös, 2009. Deep Heat Mining Basel - Seismic Risk Analysis. SERIANEX study prepared for the Departement für Wirtschaft, Soziales und Umwelt des Kantons Basel-Stadt, Amt für Umwelt und Energie, 553 pages. |
| [13] | Baisch, S., Vörös, R., Rothert, E., Stang, H., Jung, R., and R. Schellschmidt, (2010), “A numerical model for fluid injection induced seismicity at Soultz-sous-Forêts.”, International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 47, 405-413 |
| [14] | Westmann, R. A., (1965), “Asymmetric Mixed Boundary-Value Problems of the elastic half-space”, Journal of Appl Mech, June 1965. |
| [15] | Kassir, M. K., G. C. Sih, (1966), Three dimensional stress distribution around an elliptical crack under arbitrary loadings, Journal of Appl Mech, September 1966. |
| [16] | Muntendam-Bos, A. C., W. B. T. Wassink, C. K. Geel, M. Louh, K. van Thienen-Visser, (2008), “Bergermeer Seismicity Study, TNO report, 2008-UR-1071/B. |
APA Style
Berentsen, C., Pater, H. D. (2025). Calibrated 3D Geomechanical Model for Forecasting Gas Storage Seismicity. Petroleum Science and Engineering, 9(1), 22-37. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.pse.20250901.13
ACS Style
Berentsen, C.; Pater, H. D. Calibrated 3D Geomechanical Model for Forecasting Gas Storage Seismicity. Pet. Sci. Eng. 2025, 9(1), 22-37. doi: 10.11648/j.pse.20250901.13
Share This Article
Twitter
Linked In
Facebook
Copy
Download@article{10.11648/j.pse.20250901.13,
author = {Cas Berentsen and Hans De Pater},
title = {Calibrated 3D Geomechanical Model for Forecasting Gas Storage Seismicity
},
journal = {Petroleum Science and Engineering},
volume = {9},
number = {1},
pages = {22-37},
doi = {10.11648/j.pse.20250901.13},
url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.pse.20250901.13},
eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.pse.20250901.13},
abstract = {The Bergermeer reservoir is one of the largest gas storages in Western-Europe, with excellent reservoir properties. However, during original depletion seismicity was observed with magnitude up to 3.5 at a pressure below 58 bar. Therefore, it was deemed prudent to monitor the gas storage reservoir with a permanent, downhole micro-seismic array. The monitoring is embedded in a so-called Traffic Light System for managing seismic activity. The array observed 400 micro-seismic events with a magnitude below 0.9 during refill of the reservoir. Most activity was induced by the Midfield fault that also induced depletion seismicity. This activity is far below the threshold for felt or damaging earthquakes. A calibrated geomechanical model was developed that matches the micro-seismicity observed during refill and storage cycles. The geometry was obtained from the seismic interpretations using an efficient method to convert the faults and horizons to parametric surfaces that can be used in a Finite Element Method (FEM) model. The model was populated with Leak-off Test (LOT), minifrac, core and log data. The model was calibrated on observed depletion and refill seismicity, stress measurements and the observed surface displacement from geodetic and GPS surveys. The continuous records of surface displacements showed a much stiffer reservoir during refill, compared with depletion. Also, the response was delayed by 0.25 year with respect to pressure, indicating time dependence in the rock deformation. Fault slip during depletion and stress hysteresis explains the refill micro-seismicity, since the peak shear stress is redistributed during slippage, giving higher shear stress at the edges of the slip area. The model predicts higher seismic activity for higher injection rate, but the maximum magnitude is limited in the worst case to 2.2, which is expected to cause no damage.
},
year = {2025}
}
TY - JOUR T1 - Calibrated 3D Geomechanical Model for Forecasting Gas Storage Seismicity AU - Cas Berentsen AU - Hans De Pater Y1 - 2025/04/29 PY - 2025 N1 - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.pse.20250901.13 DO - 10.11648/j.pse.20250901.13 T2 - Petroleum Science and Engineering JF - Petroleum Science and Engineering JO - Petroleum Science and Engineering SP - 22 EP - 37 PB - Science Publishing Group SN - 2640-4516 UR - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.pse.20250901.13 AB - The Bergermeer reservoir is one of the largest gas storages in Western-Europe, with excellent reservoir properties. However, during original depletion seismicity was observed with magnitude up to 3.5 at a pressure below 58 bar. Therefore, it was deemed prudent to monitor the gas storage reservoir with a permanent, downhole micro-seismic array. The monitoring is embedded in a so-called Traffic Light System for managing seismic activity. The array observed 400 micro-seismic events with a magnitude below 0.9 during refill of the reservoir. Most activity was induced by the Midfield fault that also induced depletion seismicity. This activity is far below the threshold for felt or damaging earthquakes. A calibrated geomechanical model was developed that matches the micro-seismicity observed during refill and storage cycles. The geometry was obtained from the seismic interpretations using an efficient method to convert the faults and horizons to parametric surfaces that can be used in a Finite Element Method (FEM) model. The model was populated with Leak-off Test (LOT), minifrac, core and log data. The model was calibrated on observed depletion and refill seismicity, stress measurements and the observed surface displacement from geodetic and GPS surveys. The continuous records of surface displacements showed a much stiffer reservoir during refill, compared with depletion. Also, the response was delayed by 0.25 year with respect to pressure, indicating time dependence in the rock deformation. Fault slip during depletion and stress hysteresis explains the refill micro-seismicity, since the peak shear stress is redistributed during slippage, giving higher shear stress at the edges of the slip area. The model predicts higher seismic activity for higher injection rate, but the maximum magnitude is limited in the worst case to 2.2, which is expected to cause no damage. VL - 9 IS - 1 ER -
Fenix Consulting Delft BV, Delft, The Netherlands
Fenix Consulting Delft BV, Delft, The Netherlands
Information