1887
Volume 65, Issue 3
  • E-ISSN: 1365-2478
PDF

Abstract

ABSTRACT

To study the impact of modern coal mining on the overlying formation, a full‐life‐cycle four‐dimensional seismic monitoring study has been carried out. Four seismic data campaigns have been performed using flexi‐bin geometry with square bins, with total duration of 171 days. The four seismic datasets have been processed with the same processing workflow and parameters; major problems such as statics correction, signal‐to‐noise ratio, resolution, and consistency processing are addressed taking into account the geological features of the research area. This guarantees that remaining four‐dimensional differences between the time‐lapse datasets show mostly geological factors due to the coal mining and effects such as surface subsidence. Our four‐dimensional seismic monitoring of modern coal mining shows that mined and unmined areas have significant zoning characteristics; coal mining has a direct impact on the overlying formation. The mining leads to obvious event subsidence, which reflects that overlying formations undergo subsidence during the mining process. The overlying formation appears as two zones called caving zone and fractured zone. We determine the fault dip of the overlying formation at one end of the working face to be 56°or so by calculation and conversion. We also see that, during the coal mining process, over time, the overlying formation has a self‐recovery capability, which gradually strengthens from the roof siltstone upward to the Aeolian sandstone near the surface. The stability of 20‐m coal pillars between working faces displays a strengthening trend and remains safe during the mining process due to both coal seam supporting and formation compaction effects.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12444
2016-09-13
2024-04-24
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/gpr/65/3/gpr12444.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12444&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. AlvarezE. and MacBethC.2014. An insightful parametrization for the flatlander's interpretation of time‐lapsed seismic data. Geophysical Prospecting62, 75–96.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. BergmannP., KashubinA., IvandicM., LüthS. and JuhlinC.2014. Time‐lapse difference static correction using prestack crosscorrelations: 4D seismic image enhancement case from Ketzin. Geophysics79, B243–B252.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. DuW.F. and PengS.P.2014. 4D seismic data acquisition method during coal mining. Journal Geophysics and Engineering11, 035005.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. DuW.F., PengS.P., ZhuG.W. and YangF.2014. Time‐lapse geophysical technology‐based study on overburden strata changes induced by modern coal mining. International Journal of Coal Science & Technology1, 184–191.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. FalahatR., ShamsA. and MacBethC.2013. Adaptive scaling for an enhanced dynamic interpretation of 4D seismic data. Geophysical Prospecting61, 231–247.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. GarciaA. and MacBethC.2013. An estimation method for effective stress changes in a reservoir from 4D seismics data. Geophysical Prospecting61, 803–816.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. HuangY., MacBethC., BarkvedO. and van GestelJ.‐P.2011. Enhancing dynamic interpretation at the Valhall Field by correlating well activity to 4D seismic signatures. First Break29, 37–44.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. IvanovaA., KashubinA., JuhojunttiN., KummerowJ., HenningesJ., JuhlinC., LüthS.et al. 2012. Monitoring and volumetric estimation of injected CO2 using 4D seismic, petrophysical data, core measurements and well logging: a case study at Ketzin, Germany. Geophysical Prospecting60, 957–973.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. LiG.P.2003. 4D seismic monitoring of CO2 flood in a thin fractured carbonate reservoir. The Leading Edge22, 690–695.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. LumleyD.2010. 4D seismic monitoring of CO2 sequestration. The Leading Edge29, 150–155.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. LumleyD.E.2001. Time‐lapse seismic reservoir monitoring. Geophysics66, 50–53.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. StaplesR., HagueP., WeisenbornT., AshtonP. and MichalekB.2005. 4D seismic for oil‐rim monitoring. Geophysical Prospecting53, 243–251.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. TuraA., BarkerT., CattermoleP., CollinsC., DavisJ., HatchellP.et al. 2005. Monitoring primary depletion reservoirs using amplitudes and time shifts from high‐repeat seismic surveys. The Leading Edge24, 1214–1221.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12444
Loading
/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12444
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): 4D; Coal; Mining; Monitoring; Seismic; Time lapse

Most Cited This Month Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error