1887
  1. Home
  2. Conferences
  3. Conference Proceedings
  4. 81st EAGE Conference and Exhibition 2019
  5. Conference paper

Abstract

Summary

Velocity model calibration is an important part of microseismic processing. Microseismic data is important for monitoring the safety and effectiveness of hydraulic fracturing in hydrocarbon reservoirs. Here we use an automated calibration algorithm to update an isotropic sonic log velocity model based on the arrival time of calibration events affected by anisotropy. We increase the complexity of the model to consider VTI anisotropy from the shale formation. There are three parameterisations 1) isotropic 2) where the anisotropy is proportional to the inverse of the sonic log and 3) unconstrained anisotropy. The fully anisotropic model takes longer to run but reduces artefacts in the event depths. Model 2) performs better than model 1) and only has three extra parameters which have a limited effect on performance and so it can be applied in real-time operations. This work shows that taking anisotropy into account can remove event location artefacts. Our automated methodology allows for further developments in joint inversion of velocity and microseismic locations.

© EAGE Publications BV
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.201901240
2019-06-03
2024-04-18

  • From This Site

    /content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.201901240
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Baird, A. F., J. M.Kendall, Q. J.Fisher, and J.Budge
    , 2017, The Role of Texture, Cracks, and Fractures in Highly Anisotropic Shales: Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 122, 10,341–10,351.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Eisner, L., B. J.Hulsey, P.Duncan, D.Jurick, H.Werner, and W.Keller
    , 2010, Comparison of surface and borehole locations of induced seismicity: Geophysical Prospecting, 58, 809–820.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Krohling, R. A.
    , 2004, Gaussian swarm: a novel particle swarm optimization algorithm: IEEE Conference on Cybernetics and Intelligent Systems, 1, 372–376 vol.1.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Leaney, S., X.Yu, C.Chapman, L.Bennett, S.Maxwell, J.Rutledge, S.Microseismic, J.Duhault, and L.Resources
    , 2014, Anisotropic moment tensor inversion and visualization applied to a dual well monitoring survey: GeoConvention, 8.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Maxwell, S. C.
    , 2014, Microseismic Imaging of Hydraulic Fracturing : Improved Engineering of Unconventional Shale Reservoirs:
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Royal Academy of Engineering
    , 2012, Shale gas extraction in the UK: a review of hydraulic fracturing, The Royal Society and The Royal Academy of Engineering, London, UK: .
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Rutledge, J.
    , 1998, Analyses of the Cotton Valley microseismic data for asymmetric fracture growth: Cotton Valley Hydraulic Fracture Imaging and Waterfrac Projects, Data and Information Archive, Project Phases I, II, III and IV.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Smith, M. C., S. D.Goodfellow, J.Huang, S. C.Maxwell, J.Teff, B.Kennedy, and B.Bayliss
    , 2016, Microseismic Quality Control Using Synthetic Seismograms: Proceedings of the 4th Unconventional Resources Technology Conference.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Thomsen, L.
    , 1986, Weak elastic anisotropy: Geophysics, 51, 1954–1966.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Usher, P. J., D. A.Angus, and J. P.Verdon
    , 2013, Influence of a velocity model and source frequency on microseismic waveforms: some implications for microseismic locations: Geophysical Prospecting, 61, 334–345.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Vernik, L., and X.Liu
    , 1997, Velocity anisotropy in shales: A petrophysical study: Geophysics, 62, 521–532.
     [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.201901240
Loading
Automated Anisotropic Velocity Model Calibration Using Gaussian Particle Swarm Optimisation
Conference Proceedings 2019, 1 (2019); https://doi.org/10.3997/2214-4609.201901240
/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.201901240
/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.201901240
Loading

Data & Media loading...

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