1887
Volume 65, Issue 2
  • E-ISSN: 1365-2478

Abstract

ABSTRACT

The analysis of seismic ambient noise acquired during temporary or permanent microseismic monitoring campaigns (e.g., improved/enhanced oil recovery monitoring, surveillance of induced seismicity) is potentially well suited for time‐lapse studies based on seismic interferometry. No additional data acquisition required, ambient noise processing can be automatized to a high degree, and seismic interferometry is very sensitive to small medium changes. Thus there is an opportunity for detection and monitoring of velocity variations in a reservoir at negligible additional cost and effort.

Data and results are presented from an ambient noise interferometry study applied to two wells in a producing oil field in Romania. Borehole microseismic monitoring on three component geophones was performed for four weeks, concurrent with a water‐flooding phase for improved oil recovery from a reservoir in ca. 1 km depth. Both low‐frequency (2 Hz–50 Hz) P‐ and S‐waves propagating through the vertical borehole arrays were reconstructed from ambient noise by the virtual source method. The obtained interferograms clearly indicate an origin of the ambient seismic energy from above the arrays, thus suggesting surface activities as sources. It is shown that ambient noise from time periods as short as 30 seconds is sufficient to obtain robust interferograms. Sonic log data confirm that the vertical and horizontal components comprise first arrivals of P‐wave and S‐waves, respectively. The consistency and high quality of the interferograms throughout the entire observation period further indicate that the high‐frequency part (up to 100 Hz) represents the scattered wave field. The temporal variation of apparent velocities based on first‐arrival times partly correlates with the water injection rate and occurrence of microseismic events. It is concluded that borehole ambient noise interferometry in production settings is a potentially useful method for permanent reservoir monitoring due to its high sensitivity and robustness.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12424
2016-08-08
2024-03-29
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. AlbaricJ., HillersG., KuehnD., HarrisD., BrenguierF., OhrnbergerM.et al. 2014. Ambient seismic noise analysis from array and borehole networks in Svalbard, Norway. 5th EAGE Passive Seismic Workshop, Lisbon, Portugal, pp. 52–56.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. AkiK.1957. Space and time spectra of stationary stochastic waves, with special reference to micro‐tremors. Bulletin of the Earthquake Research Institute35, 415–457.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. BakulinA. and CalvertR.2006. The virtual source method: Theory and case study. Geophysics71, SI139–SI150.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. BehmM. and SniederR.2013. Love waves from local traffic noise interferometry. The Leading Edge32, 628–632.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. BehmM., LeahyG.M. and SniederR.2014a. Retrieval of local surface wave velocities from traffic noise ‐ an example from the La Barge basin (Wyoming). Geophysical Prospecting62, 223–243.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. BehmM., EgreteauA., AfifiM., OglianiF. and VoskampA.2014b. Temporal and spatial variability of microseismic events due to water flooding: A case study from the Tazlau Field (RO). 5th EAGE Passive Seismic Workshop, Lisbon, Portugal, pp. 39–43.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. BensenG.D., RitzwollerM.H., BarminM.P., LevshinA.L., LinF., MoschettiM.P.et al. 2007. Processing seismic ambient noise data to obtain reliable broad‐band surface wave dispersion measurements. Geophysical Journal International169, 1239–1260.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. BussatS. and KuglerS.2009. Recording noise ‐ Estimating shear‐wave velocities: Feasibility of offshore ambient‐noise surface‐wave tomography (ANSWT) on a reservoir scale. 79th SEG international meeting, Houston, USA, Expanded Abstracts, 1627–1631.
  9. de RidderS. and DellingerJ.2011. Ambient seismic noise eikonal tomography for near‐surface imaging at Valhall. The Leading Edge30, 506–512.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. DongS., HeR. and SchusterG.T.2006. Interferometric prediction and least squares subtraction of surface waves. 76th SEG international meeting, New Orleans, USA, Expanded Abstracts, 2783–2786.
  11. DraganovD., CampmanX., ThorbeckeJ., VerdelA. and WapenaarK.2009. Reflection images from ambient seismic noise. Geophysics74, A63–A67.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. DrewJ., LeslieH.D., ArmstrongP.N. and MichaudG.2005. Automated microseismic event detection and location by continuous spatial mapping. Society of Petroleum Engineers Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, USA, Paper 95513.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. ForghaniF. and SniederR.2010. Underestimation of body waves and feasibility of surface‐wave reconstruction by seismic interferometry. The Leading Edge29, 790–794.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. GalettiE. and CurtisA.2012. Generalised receiver functions and seismic interferometry. Tectonophysics532, 1–26.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. GibowiczS.J. and KijkoA.1994. An Introduction to Mining Seismology. Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. HallidayD.F., CurtisA., RobertssonJ.O.A. and van ManenD.‐J.2007. Interferometric surface‐wave isolation and removal. Geophysics72, A69–A73.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. HannemannK., PapazachosC., OhrnbergerM., SavvaidisA., AnthymidisM. and LontsiA.M.2014. Three‐dimensional shallow structure from high‐frequency ambient noise tomography: New results for the Mygdonia basin‐Euroseistest area, northern Greece. Journal of Geophysical Research119, 4979–4999.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. HillersG., CampilloM. and MaK.F.2014. Seismic velocity variations at TCDP are controlled by MJO driven precipitation pattern and high fluid discharge properties. Earth Planetary Science Letters391, 121–127.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. HillersG., RetailleauL., CampilloM., InbalA., AmpueroJ.‐P. and NishimuraT.2015a. In situ observations of velocity changes in response to tidal deformation from analysis of the high‐frequency ambient wavefield. Journal of Geophysical Research120, 210–225.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. HillersG., HusenS., ObermannA., PlanèsT., LaroseE. and CampilloM.2015b. Noise‐based monitoring and imaging of aseismic transient deformation induced by the 2006 Basel reservoir stimulation. Geophysics80, KS51–KS68.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. KwiatekG. and Ben‐ZionY.2013. Assessment of P and S wave energy radiated from very small shear‐tensile seismic events in a deep South African mine. Journal of Geophysical Research118, 3630–3641.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. LinF., MoschettiM.P. and RitzwollerM.H.2008. Surface wave tomography of the western United States from ambient seismic noise: Rayleigh and Love wave phase velocity maps. Geophysical Journal International173, 281–298.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. LobkisO.I. and WeaverR.L.2003. Coda‐wave interferometry in finite solids: Recovery of P‐to‐S conversion rates in an elastodynamic billiard. Physical Review Letters90, 245302.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. LumleyD.E.2001. Time‐lapse seismic reservoir monitoring. Geophysics66, 50–53.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. MiyazawaM., SniederR. and VenkataramanA.2008. Application of seismic interferometry to extract P‐ and S‐wave propagation and observation of shear‐wave splitting from noise data at Cold Lake, Alberta, Canada. Geophysics73, D35–D40.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. NakataN. and SniederR.2011. Near‐surface weakening in Japan after the 2011 Tohoku‐Oki earthquake. Geophysical Research Letters38, L17302.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. NakataN. and SniederR.2012. Time‐lapse change in anisotropy in Japan's near surface after the 2011 Tohoku‐Oki earthquake. Geophysical Research Letters39, L11313.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. O'ConnellD.R.H.2007. Concrete dams as seismic imaging sources. Geophysical Research Letters34, L20307.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. OlivierG., BrenguierF., CampilloM., LynchR. and RouxP.2015. Body‐wave reconstruction from ambient seismic noise correlations in an underground mine. Geophysics80, KS11–KS25.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. PalA., PhanV. and HarrisJ.M.1999. A model study for the effects of flow on seismic signatures. 69th SEG international meeting, Houston, USA, Expanded Abstracts, 1040–1043.
  31. PicozziM., ParolaiS., BindiD. and StrolloA.2009. Characterization of shallow geology by high‐frequency seismic noise tomography. Geophysical Journal International176, 164–174.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. PlanèsT., MooneyM.A., RittgersJ.B.R., ParekhM.L., BehmM. and SniederR.2015. Time‐lapse monitoring of internal erosion in earthen dams and levees using ambient seismic noise. Geotechnique, available online.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. PoupinetG., EllsworthW. and FrechetJ.1984. Monitoring velocity variations in the crust using earthquake doublets: An application to the Calaveras Fault, California. Journal of Geophysical Research89, 5719–5731.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. SchusterG.T.2010. Seismic Interferometry. Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Sens‐SchönfelderC. and WeglerU.2006. Passive image interferometry and seasonal variations of seismic velocities at Merapi Volcano, Indonesia. Geophysical Research Letters33, L21302.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. SmithS.S. and TsvankinI.2013. Sensitivity of compaction‐induced multicomponent seismic time shifts to variations in reservoir properties. Geophysics78, T151–T163.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. SniederR.2004. Extracting the Green's function from the correlation of coda waves: A derivation based on stationary phase. Physical Review E69, 046610.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. SniederR.2006. The theory of coda wave interferometry. Pure and Applied Geophysics163, 455–473.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. SniederR., GrêtA., DoumaH. and ScalesJ.2002. Coda wave interferometry for estimating nonlinear behavior in seismic velocity. Science295, 2253–2255.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. SniederR., WapenaarK. and LarnerK.2006. Spurious multiples in seismic interferometry of primaries. Geophysics71, SI111–SI124.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. van der SluisA. and van der VorstH.A.1987. Numerical solution of large, sparse linear algebraic systems arising from tomographic problems. In: Seismic Tomography (eds G.Nolet and D.Reidel ), pp. 49–83. Hingham.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. WangZ.1997. Feasibility of time‐lapse seismic reservoir monitoring: The physical basis. The Leading Edge16, 1327–1330.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. WapenaarK., DraganovD., SniederR., CampmanX. and VerdelA.2010a. Tutorial on seismic interferometry: Part 1—Basic principles and applications. Geophysics75, 75A195–75A209.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. WapenaarK., SlobE., SniederR. and CurtisA.2010b. Tutorial on seismic interferometry: Part 2—Underlying theory and advances. Geophysics75, 75A211–75A227.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12424
Loading
/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12424
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): Borehole; Reservoir monitoring; Seismic interferometry

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