1887

Abstract

Summary

We present case studies from microseismic monitoring including the Groningen gas field and the Decatur CCS site. We highlight often overlooked monitoring considerations including choice of location algorithm and waveform complexity, and demonstrate how modelling can avoid or mitigate the negative effects. Interpretation of microseismicity can lead to valuable insight into reservoir processes. However, to extract the most value, analyses must go beyond standard processing techniques. We show how combining waveform cross-correlation, full-waveform modelling, travel-time and ray-path analysis, and relative relocation methods can provide the necessary constraints to deliver improved interpretations from microseismic data sets.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.201902001
2019-06-03
2024-03-29
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Dando, B.D.E., Oye, V., Näsholm, S.P., Zühlsdorff, L., Kühn, D. and Wuestefeld, A.
    [2019] Complexity in microseismic phase identification: full waveform modelling, traveltime computations and implica-tions for event locations within the Groningen gas field. Geophysical Journal International, 217(1), 620–649.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Goertz-Allmann, B.P., Gibbons, S.J., Oye, V., Bauer, R. and Will, R.
    [2017] Characterization of induced seismicity patterns derived from internal structure in event clusters. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 122(5), 3875–3894.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Goertz-Allmann, B.P., Kühn, D., Oye, V., Bohloli, B. and Aker, E.
    [2014] Combining microseismic and geomechanical observations to interpret storage integrity at the In Salah CCS site. Geophysical Journal International, 198(1), 447–461.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Vinje, V., Iversen, E., Åstebøl, K. and Gjøystdal, H.
    [1996a] Estimation of multivalued arrivals in 3D models using wavefront construction - Part I. Geophysical Prospecting, 44(5), 819–842.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. [1996b] Part II: Tracing and interpolation. Geo-physical Prospecting, 44(5), 843–858.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Waldhauser, F. and Ellsworth, W.L.
    [2000] A Double-Difference Earthquake Location Algorithm: Method and Application to the Northern Hayward Fault, California. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 90(6), 1353–1368.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Wuestefeld, A., Greve, S.M., Näsholm, S.P. and Oye, V.
    [2018] Benchmarking earthquake location algorithms: A synthetic comparison. Geophysics, 1–39.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Zhou, H.w.
    [1994] Rapid three-dimensional hypocentral determination using a master station method. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 99(B8), 15439–15455.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.201902001
Loading
/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.201902001
Loading

Data & Media loading...

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