1887
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Geophysical Prospecting
  4. Volume 62, Issue 4
  5. Article
Volume 62 Number 4
  • E-ISSN: 1365-2478
PDF

Abstract

ABSTRACT

We present an assessment of how microseismic moment magnitude, , estimates vary with the method and parameters used to calculate seismic moment. This is an important topic for operators and regulators who require good magnitude estimates when monitoring induced seismicity. It is therefore imperative that these parties know and understand what errors exist in given magnitude values, something that is poorly reported. This study concentrates on spectral analysis techniques and compares computed in the time and frequency domains. Using recordings of events at Cotton Valley, east Texas, the maximum discrepancy between estimated using the different methods is 0.6 units, a significant variation. By adjusting parameters in the calculation we find that the radiation pattern correction term can have the most significant effect on , generally up to 0.8 units. Following this investigation we make a series of recommendations for estimating microseismic using spectral methods. Noise should be estimated and removed from recordings and an attenuation correction should be applied. The spectral level can be measured by spectral fitting or taken from the low frequency level. Significant factors in obtaining reliable microseismic estimates include using at least four receivers recording at ⩾1000 Hz and making radiation pattern corrections based on focal mechanism solutions, not average values.

Copyright © 2014 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers © 2014 The Authors. Geophysical Prospecting published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. on behalf of European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers.
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12134
2014-05-23
2024-04-24

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12134
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/gpr/62/4/gpr12134.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12134&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. AbercrombieR.E.1995. Earthquake source scaling relationships from ‐1 to 5 ML using seismograms recorded at 2.5 km depth. Journal Geophysical Research100, 24015–24036.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. AkiK. and RichardsP.G.2002. Quantitative Seismology, 2nd edn., University Science Books, Sausalito. ISBN 9781891389634.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. AndrewsD.J.1986. Objective determination of source parameters and similarity of earthquakes of different size. In Earthquake Source Mechanics, S.Das , J.Boatwright . and C. H.Scholz (Eds.), AGU Geophysical Monograph Series, 37, 259–267.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. BaigA. and UrbancicT.2010. Magnitude determination, event detectability, and assessing the effectiveness of microseismic monitoring programs in petroleum applications. CSEG Recorder, 35, 2, 22–26.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. BaigA.M., ViegasG., KarimiS. and UrbancicT.I.2013. Augmenting downhole seismic networks with surface sensors to monitor hydraulic fracture stimulations for accurate hazard assessment and full bandwidth assessment of scaling relationships for discrete fracture networks. 4th EAGE Passive Seismic Workshop, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, Extended Abstract, PSP14.
  6. BethmannF., DeichmannN. and MaiP.M.2011. Scaling relations of local magnitude versus moment magnitude for sequences of similar earthquakes in Switzerland. Bulletin Seismological Society America. 101, 515–534, doi: 10.1785/0120100179/gpr12134
     [Google Scholar]
  7. BoatwrightJ.1980. A spectral theory for circular seismic sources: simple estimates of source dimension, dynamic stress drop and radiated energy. Bulletin Seismological Society America. 70, 1–27.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. BooreD. and BoatwrightJ.1984. Average body‐wave correction coefficients. Bulletin Seismological Society America74, 1615–1621.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. BruneJ.N.1970. Tectonic stress and the spectra of seismic shear waves from earthquakes. Journal Geophysical Research75, 4997–5009.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. CampilloM., PlantetJ.L. and BouchonM.1985. Frequency‐dependent attenuation in the crust beneath central France from Lg waves: data analysis and numerical modeling. Bulletin Seismological Society America75, 1395–1411.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. ClintonJ.F., HaukssonE. and SolankiK.2006. An evaluation of the SCSN moment tensor solutions: robustness of the MW magnitude scale, style of faulting, and automation of the method. Bulletin Seismological Society America96, 1689–1705. doi: 10.1785/0120050241/gpr12134.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. DaveyE.2012. Written Ministerial Statement: exploration for shale gas, www.gov.uk/government/news/written‐ministerial‐statement‐by‐edward‐davey‐exploration‐for‐shale‐gas (last accessed June 2013).
  13. DinskeC. and ShapiroS.A.2013. Seismotectonic state of reservoirs inferred from magnitude distributions of fluid‐induced seismicity. Journal of Seismology17, 13–25.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. DostB., GoutbeekF., van EckT. and KraaijpoelD.2012. Monitoring induced seismicity in the north of the Netherlands: status report 2010, KNMI Scientific Report, WR 2012‐03.
  15. DziewonskiA.M., ChouT.‐A. and WoodhouseJ.H.1981. Determination of earthquake source parameters from waveform data for studies of global and regional seismicity. Journal Geophysical Research86, 2825–2852.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. EdwardsB., AllmannB., DonatF. and ClintonJ.2010. Automatic computation of moment magnitudes for small earthquakes and the scaling of local to moment magnitude. Geophysical Journal International183, 407–420.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. EkströmG., NettlesM. and DziewonskiA.M.2012. The global CMT project 2004‐2010: centroid‐moment tensors for 13,017 earthquakes. Physics of the Earth and Planetary Interiors. 200‐201, 1–9.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. FoulgerG.R. and JulianB.R.2011. Earthquakes and errors: Methods for industrial applications. Geophysics76, WC5–WC15.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. GreenC.A., StylesP. and BaptieB.J.2012. Preese Hall shale gas fracturing: review and recommendations for induced seismic mitigation. Independent report to DECC, UK Government, www.gov.uk/government/publications/preese‐hall‐shale‐gas‐fracturing‐review‐and‐recommendations‐for‐induced‐seismic‐mitigation (last accessed June 2013).
  20. HanksT.C. and KanamoriH.1979. A moment magnitude scale. Journal Geophysical Research84, 2348–2350.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. HardtM. and ScherbaumF.1994. The design of optimum networks for aftershock recordings. Geophysical Journal International117, 716–726.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. HoughS.E.1997. Empirical Green's function analysis: taking the next step. Journal Geophysical Research102, B3, 5369–5384.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. IdeS., BerozaG.C., PrejeanS.G. and EllsworthW.L.2003. Apparent break in earthquake scaling due to path and site effects on deep borehole recordings. Journal Geophysical Research108, 10.1029/2001JB001617.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. JostM.L., BüßelbergT., JostO. and HarjesH.‐P.1998. Source parameters of injection‐induced microearthquakes at 9 km depth at the KTB deep drilling site, Germany. Bulletin Seismological Society America88, 815–832.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. KwiatekG., PlenkersK., DresenG., and JAGUARS Research GroupSource2011. Parameters of picoseismicity recorded at Mponeng deep gold mine, South Africa: implications for scaling relations. Bulletin Seismological Society America101, 2592–2608.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. MaxwellS.C., WaltmanC.K., WarpinskiN.R., MayerhoferM.J. and BoroumandN.2006. Imaging seismic deformation induced by hydraulic fracture complexity. SPE paper 102801.
  27. MayerhoferM.J., WalkerR.N.Jr., UrbancicT. and RutledgeJ.T.2000. East Texas Hydraulic Fracture Imaging Project: measuring hydraulic fracture growth of conventional sandfracs and waterfracs. Proceedings of SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Paper 63034, Dallas, Texas, 1–4 October 2000.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. McGarrA.1984. Scaling of ground motion parameters, state of stress, and focal depth. Journal Geophysical Research89, B8, 6969–6979.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. O'TooleT.B., WoodhouseJ.H., VerdonJ.P., KendallJ.M.2013. Microseismic source mechanisms: what the waveform can tell us. 4th EAGE Passive Seismic Workshop, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, Extended Abstracts, PS15.
  30. OyeV., HilmarB. and RothM.2005. Source parameters and scaling relations for mining‐related seismicity within the Pyhasalmi ore mine, Finland. Bulletin Seismological Society America95, 1011–1026.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. PearsonC.1982. Parameter and a magnitude moment relationship from small earthquakes observed during hydraulic fracturing experiments in crystalline rocks. Geophysical Research Letters9, 404–407.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. PrejeanS.G. and EllsworthW.L.2001. Observations of earthquake source parameters at 2 km depth in the Long Valley Caldera, eastern California. Bulletin Seismological Society America91, 165–177.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. RichterC.F.1935. An instrumental earthquake magnitude scale. Bulletin Seismological Society America25, 1–32.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. RutledgeJ.T., PhillipsW.S. and MayerhoferM.J.2004. Faulting induced by forced fluid injection and fluid flow forced by faulting: An interpretation of hydraulic‐fracture microseismicity, Carthage Cotton Valley gas field, Texas. Bulletin Seismological Society America94, 1817–1830.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. SchorlemmerD., WiemerS. and WyssM.2005. Variations in earthquake size distribution across different stress regimes. Nature437, 539‐542.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. ShapiroS.A., KruegerO.S., Dinske and LangenbruchC.2011. Magnitudes of induced earthquakes and geometric scales of fluid‐stimulated rock volumes. Geophysics76, WC55–WC63.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. ShemetaJ. and AndersonP.2010. It's a matter of size: magnitude and moment estimates for microseismic data. The Leading Edge29, 296–302.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. SongF. and ToksözN.2011. Full‐waveform based complete moment tensor inversion and source parameter estimation from downhole microseismic data for hydrofracture monitoring. Geophysics76, WC101–WC114.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. SonleyE. and AbercrombieR.E.2006. Effects of methods of attenuation correction on source parameter determination, Radiated Energy and the Physics of Faulting, (eds. R.Abercrombie A.McGarr G.DiToro and H.Kanamori ), AGU Geophysical Monograph Series170, 91–97.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. StorkA.L. and ItoH.2004. Source parameter scaling for small earthquakes observed at the western Nagano 800‐m‐deep borehole, central Japan. Bulletin Seismological Society America94, 5, 1781–1794.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. UrbancicT.I., TrifuC.‐I., MercerR.A., FeustelA.J. and AlexanderJ.A.G.1996. Automatic time‐domain calculation of source parameters for the analysis of induced seismicity. Bulletin Seismological Society America86, 1627–1633.
     [Google Scholar]
  42. WalkerR.N.Jr.1997. Cotton Valley Hydraulic Fracture Imaging Project, in Proceedings of SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Paper 38577, San Antonio, Texas, 5–8 October 1997.
     [Google Scholar]
  43. WesselsS.A., De La PeňaA., KratzM., Williams‐StroudS. and JbeiliT.2011. Identifying faults and fractures in unconventional reservoirs through microseismic monitoring. First Break29, 99–104.
     [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12134
Loading
The robustness of seismic moment and magnitudes estimated using spectral analysis
Geophysical Prospecting 62, 862 (2014); https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2478.12134
/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12134
/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12134
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): Microseismic monitoring; moment magnitude; seismic moment; spectral methods

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