toolbox
====== Differences ====== This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
|
grant:main:data [2014/12/10 17:48] aivazian created |
grant:main:data [2014/12/10 17:50] (current) aivazian |
||
|---|---|---|---|
| Line 23: | Line 23: | ||
| We can pull out the monthly production of this well for the time period of this study and plot it with the total integrate displacement volume of each scene in Figure 8 to look for a possible correlation between the two data sets. This is shown below. | We can pull out the monthly production of this well for the time period of this study and plot it with the total integrate displacement volume of each scene in Figure 8 to look for a possible correlation between the two data sets. This is shown below. | ||
| |{{ grant:timeseries.jpg |Another caption for this image}}| | |{{ grant:timeseries.jpg |Another caption for this image}}| | ||
| - | | Figure 10: Plot of the total monthly productivity of well 0523954 (green) versus the total volume of surface displacement measured from the InSAR data. Left scale bar of displaced volume is improperly calibrated, but the same qualitative shape remains. | | + | | Figure 10: Plot of the total monthly productivity of well 0523954 (green) versus the total volume of surface displacement measured from the InSAR data (blue). Left scale bar of displaced volume is improperly calibrated, but the same qualitative shape remains. | |
| Remarkably, both data sets show a spike in their signals around March 1999. Our well has a sudden increase in productivity at the same time there was a major upheaval of the surface. Again we note that the quantitative displaced volume on the left axis is not calibrated correctly, but the qualitative shape is still accurate. It is also important to note that the negative phase signal here indicates a surface uplift, which one would think may be due to hydraulic fracturing. Indeed the sudden spike in both signals may also be a smoking gun to a fracturing event which is a quick, singular event in time. However, the well we are considering has never been fractured. We believe that a nearby well may have been fractured during this time which may have caused the uplift in the area, as well as opened up new extraction channels for the well we are considering causing its increase productivity for this period. Unfortunately, we have yet to find any such well in this area that was fractured in the early month of 1999. This is not to say it doesn't exist, but just that it is hard to locate in the database. | Remarkably, both data sets show a spike in their signals around March 1999. Our well has a sudden increase in productivity at the same time there was a major upheaval of the surface. Again we note that the quantitative displaced volume on the left axis is not calibrated correctly, but the qualitative shape is still accurate. It is also important to note that the negative phase signal here indicates a surface uplift, which one would think may be due to hydraulic fracturing. Indeed the sudden spike in both signals may also be a smoking gun to a fracturing event which is a quick, singular event in time. However, the well we are considering has never been fractured. We believe that a nearby well may have been fractured during this time which may have caused the uplift in the area, as well as opened up new extraction channels for the well we are considering causing its increase productivity for this period. Unfortunately, we have yet to find any such well in this area that was fractured in the early month of 1999. This is not to say it doesn't exist, but just that it is hard to locate in the database. | ||
