1887
Volume 62 Number 4
  • E-ISSN: 1365-2478

Abstract

ABSTRACT

In the hydraulic fracturing process, the velocity model for microseismic location is usually constructed by well logs, seismic data or calibration shots which ignore the influence of the fracturing process. In this work, we examine its influence by simulating microseismic events and pore pressure variation in the fracturing process. Besides the microseismicity produced by hydraulic fracture extension, we also simulate the microseismicity caused by fluid leakage by means of the critical pore pressure criterion. The Coates‐Schoenberg method and fracture compliances are then applied to calculate the real‐time velocity in the fracturing process, and 3D ray tracing method is applied to compare the microseismic propagation variation in the different stages of the fracturing process. The results of the simulation show that the deviation caused by the fracturing process varies considerably between different receiver locations, and the overall deviation increases with the fracturing process. Finally, a new method is constructed to evaluate the travel time deviation in real data.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12145
2014-06-13
2024-04-16
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. BurchD. N., DanielsJ., GilardM.et al. 2009. Live Hydraulic fracture monitoring and diversion. Oilfield Review, 18–31.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. CoatesR. T. and SchoenbergM.1995. Finite‐difference modeling of faults and fractures. Geophysics60, 1514–1526.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. DaleyT. M., SchoenbergM. A., RutqvistJ.et al. 2006. Fractured reservoirs: An analysis of coupled elastodynamic and permeability changes from pore‐pressure variation. Geophysics71, 33–41.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. DinskeC. and ShapiroS. A.2007. Seismic emission induced by hydraulic fracturing of gas reservoirs‐features of the Kaiser effect. 69th EAGE meeting, London, U. K., Expanded Abstracts, P213.
  5. DrewJ. D., LeslieD., ArmstrongP. and Michaud, G.2005. Automated microseismic event detection and location by continuous spatial mapping. SPE 95113.
  6. FischerT., HainzlS., EisnerL.et al. 2008. Microseismic signature of hydraulic fracture growth in tight‐sandstone‐shale formation: Observation and modelling. Journal of Geophysical Research113, B02307.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. HummelN. and ShapiroS. A.2012. Microseismic estimates of hydraulic diffusivity in case of non‐linear fluid‐rock interaction. Geophysical Journal International188, 1441–1453.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. MaxwellS. C., RutledgeJ., JonesR. and FehlerM.2010. Petroleum reservoir characterization using downhole microseismic monitoring. Geophysics75, A129–A137.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. MayrS. I., StanchitsS., LangenbruchC., DresenG. and ShapiroS. A.2011. Acoustic emission induced by pore pressure change in sandstone samples. Geophysics76, MA21–MA32.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. McClureM. W. and HorneR. N.2011. Investigation of injection‐induced seismicity using a coupled fluid flow and rate/state friction model. Geophysics76, WC181–WC198.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. PeiD. H., QuireinJ.A., CornishB.E., AyE., ZannoniS. and KesslerC.2008. Velocity calibration for microseismic monitoring: applying smooth layered models with and without perforation timing measurements. SPE 115722.
  12. RentschS., BuskeS., LuthS. and ShapiroA.2007. Fast location of seismicity: A migration‐type approach with application to hydraulic‐fracturing data. Geophysics72, S33–S40.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. RothertE. and ShapiroS. A.2003. Mircroseismic monitoring of borehole fluid injections: data modeling and inversion for hydraulic properties of rocks. Geophysics68, 685–689.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. ShapiroS. A.2007. Fluid‐induced Seismicity: Pressure Diffusion and Hydraulic Fracturing. EAGE/SEG Research workshop 2007, Perugia, Italy, A26.
  15. ShapiroS. A. and DinskeC.2009. Fluid‐induced seismicity: Pressure diffusion and hydraulic fracturing. Geophysical Prospecting57, 301–310.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. ShapiroS. A., RothertE., RathV.et al. 2002. Characterization of fluid transport properties of reservoirs using induced microseismicity. Geophysics67, 212–220.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. VlastosS., LiuE., MainI. G., SchoenbergM., NarteauC., LiX. Y. and MaillotB.2006. Dual simulations of fluid flow and seismic wave propagation in a fractured network: effects of pore pressure on seismic signature. Geophysical Journal International166, 825–838.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. WangenM.2011. Finite element modeling of hydraulic fracturing on a reservoir scale in 2D. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering77, 274–285.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. WarpinskiN. R., SullivanR.B., UhlJ.E., WaltmanC.K. and MachovoeS.R.2005. Improved microseismic fracture mapping using perforation timing measurements for velocity calibration. Society of Petroleum Engineers Journal, 14–23.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. ZhangG. M.2010. A numerical simulation study on hydraulic fracturing of horizontal wells. PhD thesis, University of Science and Technology of China.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. ZhangS., LiuQ. L., ZhaoQ. and JiangY. D.2002. Application of microseismic monitoring technology in development of oil field. Geophysical prospecting for petroleum41, 226–231.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. ZhangX. L., ZhangF., LiX. Y. and ChenS. Q.2013. A new microseismic location method accounting for the influence of the hydraulic fracturing process, Journal of Geophysics and Engineering10.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12145
Loading
/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12145
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): deviation evaluation; hydraulic fracturing; microseismicity; velocity model

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