1887
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Geophysical Prospecting
  4. Volume 58, Issue 5
  5. Article
Volume 58, Issue 5
  • E-ISSN: 1365-2478

Abstract

ABSTRACT

Monitoring of induced microseismic events has become an important tool in hydraulic fracture diagnostics and understanding fractured reservoirs in general. We compare microseismic event and their uncertainties using data sets obtained with surface and downhole arrays of receivers. We first model the uncertainties to understand the effect of different acquisition geometries on location accuracy. For a vertical array of receivers in a single monitoring borehole, we find that the largest part of the final location uncertainty is related to estimation of the backazimuth. This is followed by uncertainty in the vertical position and radial distance from the receivers. For surface monitoring, the largest uncertainty lies in the vertical position due to the use of only a single phase (usually P‐wave) in the estimation of the event location. In surface monitoring results, lateral positions are estimated robustly and are not sensitive to the velocity model.

In this case study, we compare event location solutions from two catalogues of microseismic events; one from a downhole array and the second from a surface array of 1C geophone. Our results show that origin time can be reliably used to find matching events between the downhole and surface catalogues. The locations of the corresponding events display a systematic shift consistent with a poorly calibrated velocity model for downhole dataset. For this case study, locations derived from surface monitoring have less scatter in both vertical and horizontal directions.

© 2010 MicroSeismic Inc.
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1111/j.1365-2478.2010.00867.x
2010-04-06
2024-04-29

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1111/j.1365-2478.2010.00867.x
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. BulantP., EisnerL., PšenčíkI. and Le CalvezJ.2007. Importance of borehole deviation surveys for monitoring of hydraulic fracturing treatments. Geophysical Prospecting55, 891–899.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. ČervenýV.2001. Seismic Ray Theory . Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. EisnerL., AbbottD., 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 , Nevada , USA , Expanded Abstracts, 1431–1435.
  4. EisnerL., FischerT. and Le CalvezJ.2006. Detection of repeated hydraulic fracturing (out‐of‐zone growth) by microseismic monitoring. The Leading Edge25, 547–554.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. EisnerL., FischerT. and RutledgeJ.2008. Determination of S‐wave backazimuth from a linear array of borehole receivers. Geophysical Journal International176, 31–39. doi:10.1111/j.1365‐246X.2008.03939.x
     [Google Scholar]
  6. EisnerL., HeiglW., DuncanP. and KellerW.2009. Uncertainties in passive seismic monitoring. The Leading Edge28, 648–655.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. FischerT., HainzlS., EisnerL., ShapiroS.A. and LeCalvez J.2008. Microseismic signatures of hydraulic fracture growth in tight‐sandstone‐shale formation: Observation and modeling. Journal of Geophysical Research113, B02307.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. HulseyB.J., EisnerL., ThorntonM.P. and JurickD.2009. Application of relative location technique from surface arrays to microseismicity induced by shale fracturing. 79th SEG meeting, Houston , Texas , USA , Expanded Abstracts.
  9. KolínskýP., EisnerL., GrechkaV., JurickD. and DuncanP.2009. Observation of shear‐wave splitting from microseismicity induced by hydraulic fracturing – A non‐VTI story. 71st EAGE meeting, Amsterdam , the Netherlands , Expanded Abstracts.
  10. LakingsJ.D., DuncanP.M., NealeC. and TheinerT.2005. Surface based microseismic monitoring of a hydraulic fracture well stimulation in the Barnett shale. 75th SEG meeting, Houston , Texas , USA , Expanded Abstracts, 605–608.
  11. MaxwellS.2009. Microseismic location uncertainty. CSEG Recorder (April), 41–46.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. PearsonC.1981. The relationship between microseismicity and high pore pressures during hydraulic stimulations experiments in low permeability granitic rocks. Journal of Geophysical Research86, 7855–7864.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. PhillipsW.S., FairbanksT.D., RutledgeJ.T. and AndersonD.W.1989. Induced microearthquake patterns and oil‐producing fracture systems in the Austin chalk. Tectonophysics289, 153–169.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. 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]
  15. TarantolaA. and ValetteB.1982. Inverse problems = quest for information. Journal of Geophysics50, 159–170.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. ZimmerU., BlandH., JingD., WarpinskiN., SenV. and WolfeJ.2009. Accuracy of microseismic event locations recorded with single and distributed downhole sensor arrays. 79th SEG meeting, Houston , Texas , USA , Expanded Abstracts, 1519–1523.
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1111/j.1365-2478.2010.00867.x
Loading
Comparison of surface and borehole locations of induced seismicity
Geophysical Prospecting 58, 809 (2010); https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2478.2010.00867.x
/content/journals/10.1111/j.1365-2478.2010.00867.x
/content/journals/10.1111/j.1365-2478.2010.00867.x
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): Hydraulic fracturing; Locations; Microseismic monitoring; Uncertainty

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