1887
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Geophysical Prospecting
  4. Fast Track Articles
  5. Fast Track Article
image of Borehole receiver orientation using a 3D velocity model

Abstract

ABSTRACT

The orientation of three‐component borehole geophones used for recording during a microseismic monitoring experiment is estimated. The standard technology for deploying multi‐component geophones in a deep borehole is wireline‐based, in which the azimuthal rotation of the geophone string cannot be controlled. Each receiver can have a different rotation angle that is compensated by the particle motion analysis of the direct P‐wave arrivals, picked from a walk‐around VSP carried out in the proximity of the well. Knowing the orientation of borehole receivers is critical, as inaccuracies lead to systematic errors in determining the hypocentral coordinates of microseismic events. Additional errors arise from over‐simplifications of P‐ and S‐wave velocity Earth models.

In this paper, we propose a tomographic approach for improving the orientation estimates of borehole receivers based on hodogram analysis. The initial velocity model built from well logs and upholes is refined by 3D tomographic inversion of walk‐around VSP data and some string shots fired in a nearby borehole. Taking into account ray bending, the estimated errors due to local velocity anomalies can be reduced. This makes our estimates of fracture orientation and microseismic hypocentres more reliable when borehole receivers are used in passive seismic surveys.

© 2012 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1111/j.1365-2478.2012.01106.x
2012-10-18
2024-04-26

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1111/j.1365-2478.2012.01106.x
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Al‐DulaijanK., OwusuJ. and WeberD.2011. Azimuthal anisotropy analysis of a walk‐around VSP: a case study from Saudi Arabia. Expanded Abstracts, EAGE Workshop on Borehole Geophysics (Istanbul), BG25.
  2. Al‐MarzougA. M., NevesF., KimJ. J. and NebrijaE.2006. P‐wave anisotropy from azimuthal AVO and velocity estimates using 3D seismic data from Saudi Arabia. Geophysics 71, E7–E11.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. BardainneT. and GaucherE.2010. Constrained tomography of realistic velocity models in microseismic monitoring using calibration shots. Geophysical Prospecting 58, 739–753.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. BöhmG., CarcioneJ. and VesnaverA.1996. Reflection tomography versus stacking velocity analysis. Journal of Applied Geophysics 35, 1–13.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. BulantP., EisnerL., PsencikI. and Le CalvezJ.2007. Importance of borehole deviation surveys for monitoring of hydraulic fracturing treatments. Geophysical Prospecting 55, 891–899.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. BöhmG. and VesnaverA.1999. In quest of the grid. Geophysics 64, 1116–1125.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. CaersJ.2005. Petroleum geostatistics. SPE, 104 pp.
  8. DubruleO.2003. Geostatistics for seismic data integration in earth models. DISC Course, SEG, EAGE, 273 pp.
  9. DuncanP. and EisnerL.2010. Reservoir characterization using surface microseismic monitoring. Geophysics 75, 75A139–75A146.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. EisnerL., FischerT. and RutledgeJ.2008. Determination of S‐wave back‐azimuth from a linear array of borehole receivers. Geophysical Journal International 176, 31–39.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. EisnerL., HeiglW., DuncanP. and KellerW.2009. Uncertainties in passive seismic monitoring. The Leading Edge 28, 648–655.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. EisnerL., HulseyB. J., DuncanP., JurickD., HeiglW. and KellerW.2010. Comparison of surface and borehole locations of induced seismicity. Geophysical Prospecting 58, 809–820.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. FlinnE. A.1965. Signal analysis using rectilinearity and direction of particle motion. IEEE Proceedings 12, 1874–1876.
  14. GoldsteinH.1980, Classical Mechanics, 2nd ed., Addison‐Wesley, Reading.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. HardageB. A.1991. Vertical Seismic Profiling, Part A: Principles, Handbook of Geophysical Exploration, Seismic Exploration, Volume 14A, Pergamon Press, Oxford .
    [Google Scholar]
  16. HorneS., SlaterC., MalekS., HillA. and WijnandsF.2000. Walk‐around VSPs for fractured reservoir characterization. Expanded Abstracts, 70th SEG Annual International Meeting, 1401–1404.
  17. JervisM. and DasguptaS.2006. Field monitoring using a large passive seismic array in Saudi Arabia – Field pilot study. Expanded Abstracts, EAGE Workshop on Passive Seismic, Dubai, A32.
  18. JervisM. and DasguptaS.2009. Recent microseismic monitoring results from VSP and permanent sensor deployments in Saudi Arabia. Expanded Abstracts, EAGE Workshop on Passive Seismic, Limassol, A10.
  19. JournelA. G.1989. Fundamental of geostatistics in five lessons. AGU, 40 pp.
  20. JurkevicsA.1988. Polarization analysis of three‐component array data. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 78, 1725–1743.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. MacBethC.2002. Multi‐component VSP analysis for applied seismic anisotropy. Pergamon, 368 pp., ISBN 0080424392.
  22. NevesF., Al‐MarzougA., KimJ. J. and NebrijaE.2003. Fracture characterization of deep tight gas sands using azimuthal velocity and AVO seismic data in Saudi Arabia. The Leading Edge 22, 469–475.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. OwusuJ., MubarakS. and LiuQ.2009. High‐fidelity walk‐around VSP anisotropy analysis. The Leading Edge 28, 966–972.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. RossiG., CoruboloP., BöhmG., CeraggioliE., Dell’AversanaP., MorandiS., PolettoF. and VesnaverA.2001. Joint 3D inversion of SWD and surface seismic data. First Break 19, 453–459.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. RossiG. and VesnaverA.2001. Joint 3D traveltime inversion of P, S and converted waves. Journal of Computational Acoustics 9, 1407–1416.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. VesnaverA.1996. Ray tracing based on Fermat's principle in irregular grids. Geophysical Prospecting 44, 741–760.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. VesnaverA., BöhmG. and GaluppoP.1999. Staggered versus adapted grids for the joint 3D inversion of surface and well data. Expanded Abstracts, 69th SEG Annual Meeting, 1793–1796.
  28. VesnaverA. and BöhmG.2000. Staggered or adapted grids for seismic tomography The Leading Edge 19, 944–950.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. VesnaverA., LovisaL. and BöhmG.2008. Full 3D relocation of microseisms for reservoir monitoring. Expanded Abstracts, 78th SEG Annual Meeting, Las Vegas , PSC P1.6.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. VesnaverA., LovisaL. and BöhmG.2010. Joint 3D processing of active and passive seismic data. Geophysical Prospecting 58, 831–844.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. VesnaverA., MenannoG., KakaS. I. and JervisM.2011. 3D polarization analysis of surface and borehole microseismic data. 81st SEG Annual Meeting, San Antonio , PSC P2.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1111/j.1365-2478.2012.01106.x
Loading
Borehole receiver orientation using a 3D velocity model
European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers , 215; https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2478.2012.01106.x
/content/journals/10.1111/j.1365-2478.2012.01106.x
/content/journals/10.1111/j.1365-2478.2012.01106.x
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keywords: Borehole seismic ; Calibration ; Tomography ; Microseismic monitoring ; Hodograms
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