1887
Volume 49, Issue 5
  • ISSN: 0812-3985
  • E-ISSN: 1834-7533

Abstract

[

Microseismic monitoring is used to optimise shale gas production or enhanced geothermal stimulation. The technical tools for microseismic monitoring, which is a passive seismic method, are similar to those used in earthquake detection, but differ in that the target area is much smaller than areas affected by earthquakes. Therefore, it is important to use an accurate velocity model. However, such models require conducting an additional survey, which can be both expensive and time-consuming. Many microseismic monitoring studies have used an approximated velocity model constructed from well logging data to reduce these additional costs. In this study, we used a simple approximated model in which velocity increases linearly with depth and creates an accurate velocity model, eliminating the need for an additional survey. We analytically derived formulas for seismic ray traveltime and inverted the velocity gradient using the Gauss–Newton method. Using a numerical example, we verified that the proposed algorithm accurately describes the long-wavelength trend of the true velocity model in a negligibly short time. We performed a Monte Carlo simulation to evaluate the effects of traveltime picking errors. The simulation results indicated that the proposed algorithm provides a reasonable solution under the probable uncertainty of traveltime picking. Finally, we verified that our algorithm was not sensitive to the initial velocity gradient through inversion tests using various initial values. Thus, the numerical example and analysis confirm that the proposed algorithm is efficient and robust.

,

In this study, we suggest a simple algorithm to estimate 1D velocity gradient for microseismic monitoring. The proposed algorithm is based on the analytically-derived ray formulas for a linearly increasing velocity model and the Gauss–Newton method. Numerical examples show that the proposed algorithm is robust to picking errors and initial guess.

]
© 2018 ASEG
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1071/EG17104
2018-10-01
2026-01-19

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1071/EG17104
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Akram, J., and Eaton, D., 2013, Impact of velocity model calibration on microseismic locations: SEG Technical Program, Expanded Abstracts, 1982–1986.
  2. Anikiev, D., Stanek, F., Valenta, J., and Eisner, L., 2013, Imaging microseismic events by diffraction stacking with moment tensor inversion: 83rd Annual International Meeting, SEG, Expanded Abstracts, 2013–2018.
  3. Artman B. Podladtchikov I. Witten B. 2010 Source location using time‐reverse imaging:Geophysical Prospecting58861873 10.1111/j.1365‑2478.2010.00911.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2478.2010.00911.x [Google Scholar]
  4. Castellanos F. van der Baan M. 2013 Microseismic event locations using the double-difference algorithm:CSEG Recorder382637
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Castellanos F. van der Baan M. 2015 Waveform similarity for quality control of event locations, time picking, and moment tensor solutions:Geophysics80WC99WC106 10.1190/geo2015‑0043.1
    https://doi.org/10.1190/geo2015-0043.1 [Google Scholar]
  6. Červený, V., Molotkov, I. A., and Pšenčík, I., 1977, Ray method in seismology: Univerzita Karlova.
  7. Erwemi, A., Walsh, J., Bennett, L., Woerpel, C., and Purcell, D., 2010, Anisotropic velocity modeling for microseismic processing: part 3 – borehole sonic calibration case study: SEG Technical Program, Expanded Abstracts, 508–512.
  8. Geiger L. 1912 Probability method for the determination of earthquake epicenters from the arrival time only:Bulletin of St Louis University85671
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Helbig K. 1990 Rays and wavefront charts in gradient media:Geophysical Prospecting38189220 10.1111/j.1365‑2478.1990.tb01842.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2478.1990.tb01842.x [Google Scholar]
  10. Jansky J. Plicka V. Eisner L. 2010 Feasibility of joint 1D velocity model and event location inversion by the neighbourhood algorithm:Geophysical Prospecting58229234 10.1111/j.1365‑2478.2009.00820.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2478.2009.00820.x [Google Scholar]
  11. Julian B. R. Gubbins D. 1977 Three-dimensional seismic ray tracing:Journal of Geophysics4395114
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Kocon K. van der Baan M. 2012 Quality assessment of microseismic event locations and traveltime picks using a multiplet analysis:The Leading Edge3113301337 10.1190/tle31111330.1
    https://doi.org/10.1190/tle31111330.1 [Google Scholar]
  13. Larmat C. Tromp J. Liu Q. Montagner J. P. 2008 Time reversal location of glacial earthquakes:Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth113B09314
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Li J. Li C. Morton S. A. Dohmen T. Katahara K Toksöz M. N. 2014 Microseismic joint location and anisotropic velocity inversion for hydraulic fracturing in a tight Bakken reservoir:Geophysics79C111C122 10.1190/geo2013‑0345.1
    https://doi.org/10.1190/geo2013-0345.1 [Google Scholar]
  15. Maxwell S. 2009 Microseismic location uncertainty:CSEG Recorder344146
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Maxwell S. C. Young R. P. 1993 A comparison between controlled source and passive source velocity images:Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America8318131834
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Nakata N. Beroza G. C. 2016 Reverse time migration for microseismic sources using the geometric mean as an imaging condition:Geophysics81KS51KS60 10.1190/geo2015‑0278.1
    https://doi.org/10.1190/geo2015-0278.1 [Google Scholar]
  18. Sethian J. A. Popovici A. M. 1999 3-D traveltime computation using the fast marching method:Geophysics64516523 10.1190/1.1444558
    https://doi.org/10.1190/1.1444558 [Google Scholar]
  19. Song F. Toksöz M. N. 2011 Full-waveform based complete moment tensor inversion and source parameter estimation from downhole microseismic data for hydrofracture monitoring:Geophysics76WC103WC116 10.1190/geo2011‑0027.1
    https://doi.org/10.1190/geo2011-0027.1 [Google Scholar]
  20. Usher P. J. Angus D. A. Verdon J. P. 2013 Influence of a velocity model and source frequency on microseismic waveforms: some implications for microseismic locations:Geophysical Prospecting61334345 10.1111/j.1365‑2478.2012.01120.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2478.2012.01120.x [Google Scholar]
  21. Waldhauser F. 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 America9013531368 10.1785/0120000006
    https://doi.org/10.1785/0120000006 [Google Scholar]
  22. Woerpel, C., 2010, Anisotropic velocity modeling for microseismic processing: part 2 – fast and accurate model calibration with a cross-well source: SEG Technical Program, Expanded Abstracts, 2135–2139.
  23. Zhebel, O., and Eisner, L., 2012, Simultaneous microseismic event localization and source mechanism determination: 82nd Annual International Meeting, SEG, Expanded Abstracts, 341, 1–5.
/content/journals/10.1071/EG17104
Loading
A simple inversion algorithm to estimate a linearly increasing velocity model for microseismic monitoring
Exploration Geophysics 49, 647 (2018); https://doi.org/10.1071/EG17104
/content/journals/10.1071/EG17104
/content/journals/10.1071/EG17104
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): Gauss–Newton method; linearly increasing velocity model; microseismic monitoring; Monte Carlo simulation; traveltime picking error

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