1887
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Geophysical Prospecting
  4. Volume 62, Issue 6
  5. Article
Volume 62, Issue 6
  • E-ISSN: 1365-2478

Abstract

ABSTRACT

Microseismic monitoring has proven invaluable for optimizing hydraulic fracturing stimulations and monitoring reservoir changes. The signal to noise ratio of the recorded microseismic data varies enormously from one dataset to another, and it can often be very low, especially for surface monitoring scenarios. Moreover, the data are often contaminated by correlated noises such as borehole waves in the downhole monitoring case. These issues pose a significant challenge for microseismic event detection. In addition, for downhole monitoring, the location of microseismic events relies on the accurate polarization analysis of the often weak P‐wave to determine the event azimuth. Therefore, enhancing the microseismic signal, especially the low signal to noise ratio P‐wave data, has become an important task. In this study, a statistical approach based on the binary hypothesis test is developed to detect the weak events embedded in high noise. The method constructs a vector space, known as the signal subspace, from previously detected events to represent similar, yet significantly variable microseismic signals from specific source regions. Empirical procedures are presented for building the signal subspace from clusters of events. The distribution of the detection statistics is analysed to determine the parameters of the subspace detector including the signal subspace dimension and detection threshold. The effect of correlated noise is corrected in the statistical analysis. The subspace design and detection approach is illustrated on a dual‐array hydrofracture monitoring dataset. The comparison between the subspace approach, array correlation method, and array short‐time average/long‐time average detector is performed on the data from the far monitoring well. It is shown that, at the same expected false alarm rate, the subspace detector gives fewer false alarms than the array short‐time average/long‐time average detector and more event detections than the array correlation detector. The additionally detected events from the subspace detector are further validated using the data from the nearby monitoring well. The comparison demonstrates the potential benefit of using the subspace approach to improve the microseismic viewing distance. Following event detection, a novel method based on subspace projection is proposed to enhance weak microseismic signals. Examples on field data are presented, indicating the effectiveness of this subspace‐projection‐based signal enhancement procedure.

Copyright © 2014 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers © 2014 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12126
2014-07-30
2024-04-19

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12126
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. ArrowsmithS.J. and EisnerL.2006. A technique for identifying microseismic multiplets and application to the Valhall field, North Sea. Geophysics71(2), V31–V40.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. BoseS., ValeroH.P., LiuQ., ShenoyR.G. and OunadjelaA.2009. An Automatic Procedure to Detect Microseismic Events Embedded in High Noise. SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts28, 1537–1541.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. CieplickiR., EisnerL. and AbbottD.2012. Correlation Detection and Location for Microseismic Events Induced by Hydraulic Fracturing. 74th EAGE meeting, Copenhagen, Denmark, Expanded Abstracts, D018.
  4. De MeersmanK., van der BaanM. and KendallJ. M.2006. Signal Extraction and Automated Polarization Analysis of Multicomponent Array Data. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America96, 2415–2430.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. De MeersmanK., KendallJ. M. and van der BaanM.2009. The 1998 Valhall microseismic data set: An integrated study of relocated sources, seismic multiplets, and S‐wave splitting. Geophysics74(5), B183‐B195.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. EarleP.S. and ShearerP.M.1994. Characterization of global seismograms using an automatic‐picking algorithm. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America84, 366–376.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. EckartC. and YoungG.1936. The approximation of one matrix by another of lower rank. Psychometrika1, 211–218.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. EisnerL., HulseyB.J., DuncanP., JurickD., WernerH. and KellerW.2010. Comparison of surface and borehole locations of induced seismicity. Geophysical Prospecting58, 809–820.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. GibbonsS. J. and RingdalF.2006. The detection of low magnitude seismic events using array‐based waveform correlation. Geophysical Journal International165, 149–166.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. GibbonsS. J. and RingdalF.2012. Seismic monitoring of the North Korea nuclear test site using a multichannel correlation detector. IEEE transactions on geoscience and remote sensing50, 1897–1909.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. HarrisD.B.2006. Subspace Detectors: Theory. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Internal Report UCRL‐TR‐222758, 46 pp.
  12. HarrisD.B. and DodgeD.A.2011. An autonomous system for grouping events in a developing aftershock sequence. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America101, 763–774.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. IsraelssonH.1990. Correlation of waveforms from closely spaced regional events. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America80, 2177–2193.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. KendallM. and StuartA.1979. The Advanced Theory of Statistics, Vol. 2, Charles Griffin, London.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. MaceiraM., RoweC.A., BerozaG., and AndersonD.2010. Identification of low‐frequency earthquakes in non‐volcanic tremor using the subspace detector method. Geophysical Research Letters37, L06303.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. MaxwellS.C., UnderhillB., BennettL., WoerpelC. and MartinezA.2010. Key criteria for a successful microseismic project. SPE Paper 134695.
  17. MaxwellS.C., WaltmanC.K., WarpinskiN.R., MayerhoferM.J. and BoroumandN.2006. Imaging Seismic Deformation Induced by Hydraulic Fracture Complexity. SPE Paper 102801.
  18. MaxwellS.C., WhiteD.J., and FabriolH.2004. Passive seismic imaging of CO2 sequestration at Weyburn. SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts23, 568–571.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. PhillipsW.S., RutledgeJ.T., HouseL. and FehlerM.2002. Induced microearthquake patterns in hydrocarbon and geothermal reservoirs: six case studies. Pure and Applied Geophysics159, 345–369.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. RentschS., BuskeS., LüthS. and ShapiroS.A.2007. Fast location of seismicity: A migration‐type approach with application to hydraulic‐fracturing data. Geophysics72(1), S33–S40.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. RoweC.A., AsterR.C., BorchersB. and YoungC.J.2002. An automatic, adaptive algorithm for refining phase picks in large seismic data sets. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America92, 1660–1674.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. ScharfL.L. and FriedlanderB.1994. Matched subspace detectors. IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing42, 2146–2157.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. SongF., SadiH.K., ToksözM.N., AyE. and ZhangH.2010. An improved method for hydrofracture‐induced microseismic event detection and phase picking. Geophysics75, A47–A52.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. SongF. and ToksözM.N.2011. Full‐waveform based complete moment tensor inversion and source parameter estimation from downhole microseismic data for hydrofracture monitoring. Geophysics76, WC103–WC116.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Van TreesH.L.1968. Detection, Estimation and Modulation Theory, Vol. 1. John Wiley and Sons, New York.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. WarpinskiN.R.2009. Microseismic monitoring: inside and out. Journal of Petroleum Technology61, 80–85.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. WarpinskiN.R., KrammR.C., HeinzeJ.R. and WaltmanC.K.2005. Comparison of Single‐ and Dual‐Array Microseismic Mapping Techniques in the Barnett Shale. SPE paper 95568.
  28. Wiechecki‐VergaraS., GrayH.L. and WoodwardW.A.2001. Statistical development in support of CTBT monitoring. Tech. Rep. DTRA‐TR‐00–22, Southern Methodist University, Dallas, Texas.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. WeijersL., KamaY., ShemetaJ. and CumellaS.2009. Bigger is better — Hydraulic fracturing in the Williams Fork Formation in the Piceance basin. AAPG/Datapages, Search and Discovery 110092.
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12126
Loading
Full‐waveform based microseismic event detection and signal enhancement: An application of the subspace approach
Geophysical Prospecting 62, 1406 (2014); https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2478.12126
/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12126
/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12126
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): Full waveforms; Microseismicity; Monitoring; Signal processing

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