1887
24th International Geophysical Conference and Exhibition – Geophysics and Geology Together for Discovery
  • ISSN: 2202-0586
  • E-ISSN:

Abstract

Seismic monitoring at injection sites (e.g., CO sequestration, hydraulic fracturing) has become an increasingly common tool amongst oil and gas producers. The information obtained from these data is often limited to seismic event properties (e.g., location, initiation time, moment tensor), the accuracy of which greatly depends on the assumed or estimated elastic velocity models. However, estimating accurate 3D velocity models from passive array data remains a challenging problem. Extended imaging conditions (eICs) for passive wave-equation imaging algorithms represent a key step towards generating - and verifying - elastic velocity models. By extending imaging conditions away from zero-lag in time and space we can better evaluate the focusing of a given event based on the principle that waves focus at zero lag only when the velocity models are “correct”. We demonstrate that given an elastic medium and multi-component recordings, we can propagate and correlate microseismic P- and S-wavefield modes to compute eICs for P- and S- velocity perturbations. We observe that the maximum correlation deviates from the zero-lag in time and space for a P/S cross-correlation imaging condition when using an incorrect P- and/or S-wave velocity, and thus there is sensitivity to velocity error not observable when using individual wavefield components.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1071/ASEG2015ab225
2015-12-01
2026-01-14
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Artman, B., Podladtchikov, I., and Witten, B., 2010, Source location using time-reverse imaging: Geophysical Prospecting, 58, no. 5, 861-873.
  2. Billings, S.D., Sambridge, M.S., and Kennett, B.L.N., 1994, Errors in hypocenter location: Picking, model, and magnitude dependence: Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 84, no. 6, 1978-1990.
  3. Claerbout, J.F., 1985, Imaging the Earth’s Interior: Blackwell Scientific.
  4. Dziewonski, A.M., Chou, T.-A. ,and Woodhouse, J.H., 1981, Determination of earthquake source parameters from waveform data for studies of global and regional seismicity: Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 86, no. B4, 2825-2852.
  5. Ellsworth, W.L., 2013, Injection-induced earthquakes: Science, 341, no. 6142.
  6. Healy, J.H., Rubey, W.W., Griggs, D.T., and Raleigh, C.B., 1968, The Denver Earthquakes: Science, 161, no. 3848, 13011310.
  7. Maxwell, S., 2010, Microseismic: Growth born from success: The Leading Edge, 29, no. 3, 338-343.
  8. Maxwell, S., 2014, Microseismic imaging of hydraulic fracturing: Improved engineering of unconventional reservoirs: Society of Exploration Geophysicists Distinguished Instructor Series.
  9. Sava, P., and Vasconcelos, I. 2011, Extended imaging conditions for wave-equation migration: Geophysical Prospecting, 59, no. 1, 35-55.
  10. Sminchak, J., and Gupta, N., 2003, Aspects of induced seismic activity and deep-well sequestration of carbon dioxide: Environmental Geosciences, 10, no. 2, 81-89.
/content/journals/10.1071/ASEG2015ab225
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): elastic; imaging; microseismic; passive seismic; velocity
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