1887
Volume 65 Number 1
  • E-ISSN: 1365-2478

Abstract

ABSTRACT

Microseismic monitoring in the oil and gas industry commonly uses migration‐based methods to locate very weak microseismic events. The objective of this study is to compare the most popular migration‐based methods on a synthetic dataset that simulates a strike‐slip source mechanism event with a low signal‐to‐noise ratio recorded by surface receivers (vertical components). The results show the significance of accounting for the known source mechanism in the event detection and location procedures. For detection and location without such a correction, the ability to detect weak events is reduced. We show both numerically and theoretically that neglecting the source mechanism by using only absolute values of the amplitudes reduces noise suppression during stacking and, consequently, limits the possibility to retrieve weak microseismic events. On the other hand, even a simple correction to the data polarization used with otherwise ineffective methods can significantly improve detections and locations. A simple stacking of the data with a polarization correction provided clear event detection and location, but even better results were obtained for those data combined with methods that are based on semblance and cross‐correlation.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12366
2016-03-02
2024-04-19
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. AnikievD., GajewskiD., KashtanB., TessmerE. and VanelleC.2006. Source localization by diffraction stacking. In: Wave Inversion Technology Consortium Annual Report No. 10, pp. 129–137.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. AnikievD., ValentaJ., StanekF. and EisnerL.2014. Joint location and source mechanism inversion of microseismic events: benchmarking on seismicity induced by hydraulic fracturing. Geophysical Journal International198(1), 249–258.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. AugerE., Schisselé‐RebelE. and JiaJ.2013. Suppressing noise while preserving signal for surface microseismic monitoring: the case for the patch design. 83rd SEG meeting, Houston, USA, Expanded Abstracts, 2024–2028.
  4. BakerT., GrantR. and ClaytonR.W.2005. Real‐time location using Kirchhoff reconstruction. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America95, 699–707.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. BirkeloB., CieslikK., WittenB., MontgomeryS. and ArtimanB.2012. High‐quality surface microseismic data illuminates fracture treatments: a case study in the Montney. The Leading Edge31, 1318–1325.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. ChambersK., DandoB.D.E., JonesG.A., VelascoR. and WilsonS.A.2014. Moment tensor migration imaging. Geophysical Prospecting62(4), 879–896.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. ChambersK., KendallJ.M., Brandsberg‐DahlS. and RuedaJ.2010. Testing the ability of surface arrays to monitor microseismic activity. Geophysical Prospecting58(5), 821–830.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. DrewJ., LeslieD., ArmstrongP. and MichaudG.2005. Automated microseismic event detection and location by continuous spatial mapping. In: 2005 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, USA, SPE95513.
  9. DrewJ., ZhangJ. and Le CalvesJ.2014. The impact of channel count on microseismic event detection for a surface array. 84th SEG meeting, Denver, USA, Expanded Abstracts, 2183–2187.
  10. DrickerI., KushnirA., RozhkovM., VarypaevA., RojkovN., EpiphanskyA.et al. 2013. Optimization of statistically optimal (SO) algorithms for surface location of microseismic sources with complex focal mechanisms. 4th EAGE Passive Seismic Workshop, Amsterdam, Netherlands, Expanded Abstracts, PS11.
  11. DuncanP.M.2005. Is there a future for passive seismic? First Break23, 111–115.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. DuncanP.M. and EisnerL.2010. Reservoir characterization using surface microseismic monitoring. Geophysics75(5), 75A139–75A146.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. EinšpiegelD. and EisnerL.2014. The differences in the detectability of perforation shots and microseismic events in the surface monitoring: the attenuation effect. Acta Geodyn. Geomater11(2), 159–164.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. EisnerL., AbbotD., BarkerW.B., LakingsJ. and ThorntonM.P.2008. Noise suppression for detection and location of microseismic events using a matched filter. 78th SEG meeting, Las Vegas, USA, Expanded Abstracts, 1431–1435.
  15. EisnerL., GeiD., HalloM., OpršalI. and AliM.Y.2013. The peak frequency of direct waves for microseismic events. Geophysics78(6), A45–A49.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. EisnerL., Williams‐StroudS., HillA., DuncanP. and ThorntonM.2010. Beyond the dots in the box: Microseismicity‐constrained fracture models for reservoir simulation. The Leading Edge29, 326–333.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. GajewskiD., AnikievD., KashtanB., TessmerE. and VanelleC.2007. Localization of seismic events by diffraction stacking. 77th SEG meeting, San Antonio, USA, Expanded Abstracts, 1287–1291.
  18. GhartiH.N., OyeV., KühnD. and ZhaoP.2011. Simultaneous microearthquake location and moment‐tensor estimation using time‐reversal imaging. 81st SEG meeting, San Antonio, USA, 1632–1637.
  19. GhartiH.N., OyeV., RothM. and KühnD.2010. Automated microearthquake location using envelope stacking and robust global optimization. Geophysics75(4), MA27–MA46.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. GrandiS. and OatesS.J.2009. Microseismic event location by cross‐correlation migration of surface array data for permanent reservoir monitoring. 71st EAGE Conference and Exhibition, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, Expanded Abstracts, X012.
  21. KaoH. and ShanS.2004. The source‐scanning algorithm: mapping the distribution of seismic sources in time and space. Geophysical Journal International157, 589–594.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. LarsenS. and GriegerJ.1998. Elastic modeling initiative: Part 3—3‐D computational modelling. 68th SEG meeting, New Orleans, USA, Expanded Abstracts, 1803–1806.
  23. MichaudG. and LeaneyS.2008. Continuous microseismic mapping for real‐time event detection and location, 78th SEG meeting, Las Vegas, USA, Expanded Abstracts, 1357–1361.
  24. NeidellN.S. and TanerM.T.1971. Semblance and other coherency measures for multichannel data. Geophysics36(3), 482–297.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. RutledgeJ.T. and PhillipsW.S.2003. Hydraulic stimulation of natural fractures as revealed by induced microearthquakes, Carthage Cotton Valley gas field, East Texas. Geophysics68, 441–452.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. ThorntonM. and EisnerL.2011. Uncertainty in surface microseismic monitoring. 81st SEG meeting, San Antonio, USA, Expanded Abstracts, 1524–1528.
  27. StaněkF., AnikievD., ValentaJ. and EisnerL.2015. Semblance for microseismic event detection, Geophysical Journal International, 201, 1362–1369.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. VavrycukV.2007. On the retrieval of moment tensors from borehole data. Geophysical Prospecting55, 381–391.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. ZhebelO. and EisnerL.2012. Simultaneous microseismic event localization end source mechanism determination. 82nd SEG meeting, Expanded Abstracts, 1–5.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. ZhebelO., GajewskiD. and VanelleC.2011. Localization of seismic events in 3D media by diffraction stacking. 73rd EAGE Conference and Exhibition, Vienna, Austria, Expanded Abstracts, Th E108 12.
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12366
Loading
/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12366
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): Microseismic monitoring; Signal‐to‐noise ratio; Stacking

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