The EGS Collab project is performing well-monitored rock stimulation and flow tests at the 10-m scale in an underground research laboratory to inform challenges in implementing enhanced geothermal systems (EGS). This project, supported by the US Department of Energy, is gathering data and observations from the field tests and comparing these to simulation results to understand processes and to build confidence in numerical modeling of the processes. Experiment 1 (now complete) examined hydraulic fracturing in an underground test bed at the Sanford Underground Research Facility (SURF) in Lead, South Dakota, at a depth of approximately 1.5 km in a well-characterized phyllite. Geophysical monitoring instrumentation in six of eight sub-horizontal boreholes monitored stimulation events and flow tests. The other two boreholes were used to perform and carefully measure water injection and production. More than a dozen stimulations and nearly one year of flow tests in the testbed were performed. Detailed observations of processes occurring during stimulation and dynamic flow tests were collected and analyzed. Flow tests using ambient-temperature and chilled water were performed with intermittent tracer tests to examine system behavior. We achieved adaptive control of the tests using close monitoring of rapidly disseminated data and near-real-time simulation. Numerical simulation was critical in answering key experimental design questions, forecasting fracture behavior, and analyzing results. We were successful in performing many simulations in near-real-time in conjunction with the field experiments, with more detailed simulations performed later. The primary objective of Experiment 2 is to examine hydraulic shearing of natural fractures at a depth of 1.25 km in amphibolite at SURF. The stresses, rock type, and fracture conditions are different than in Experiment 1. The testbed consists of 9 boreholes, in addition to two earlier-drilled characterization boreholes. One borehole is used for injection, two fans of 2 monitoring wells have several geophysical measurement tools grouted in, and four open boreholes surrounding the injection hole are adaptively used for production and monitoring. We have encountered approximately five fracture set orientations in the testbed, and designed our testbed accordingly to maximize the potential for shear stimulation. Three stimulations have been performed to date from the injection borehole, each intersecting at least one production borehole. Different methods have been used for each stimulation, including a ramped flow, a high flow rate, and oscillating pressure.

Fracture injection/shut-in tests are commonly used to measure the state of stress in the subsurface. Injection creates a hydraulic fracture (or in some cases, opens a preexisting fracture), and then the pressure after shut-in is monitored to identify fracture closure. Different interpretation procedures have been proposed for estimating closure, and the procedures sometimes yield significantly different results. In this study, direct, in-situ strain measurements are used to observe fracture reopening and closure. The tests were performed as part of the EGS Collab project, a mesoscale project performed at 1.25 and 1.5 km depth at the Sanford Underground Research Facility. The tests were instrumented with the SIMFIP tool, a double-packer probe with a high-resolution three-dimensional borehole displacement sensor. The measurements provide a direct observation of the fracture closure signature, enabling a high-fidelity estimate of the fracture closure stress (ie, the normal stress on the fracture). In two of the four tests, injection created an opening mode fracture, and so the closure stress can be interpreted as the minimum principal stress. In the other two tests, injection probably opened preexisting natural fractures, and so the closure stress can be interpreted as the normal stress on the fractures. The strain measurements are compared against different proposed methods for estimating closure stress from pressure transients. The shut-in transients are analyzed with two techniques that are widely used in the field of petroleum engineering – the ‘tangent’ method and the ‘compliance’ method. In three of the four tests, the tangent method significantly underestimates the closure stress. The compliance method is reasonably accurate in all four tests. Closure stress is also interpreted using two other commonly-used methods – ‘first deviation from linearity’ and the method of (Hayashi and Haimson, 1991). In comparison with the SIMFIP data, these methods tend to overestimate the closure stress, evidently because they identify closure from early-time transient effects, such as near-wellbore tortuosity. In two of the tests, microseismic imaging provides an independent estimate of the size of the fracture created by injection. When combined with a simple mass balance calculation, the SIMFIP stress measurements yield predictions of fracture size that are reasonably consistent with the estimates from microseismic. The calculations imply an apparent fracture toughness 2-3x higher than typical laboratory-derived values.