1887
Volume 62, Issue 3
  • E-ISSN: 1365-2478

Abstract

ABSTRACT

We study the stability of source mechanisms inverted from data acquired at surface and near‐surface monitoring arrays. The study is focused on P‐wave data acquired on vertical components, as this is the most common type of acquisition. We apply ray modelling on three models: a fully homogeneous isotropic model, a laterally homogeneous isotropic model and a laterally homogeneous anisotropic model to simulate three commonly used models in inversion. We use geometries of real arrays, one consisting in surface receivers and one consisting in ‘buried’ geophones at the near‐surface. Stability was tested for two of the frequently observed source mechanisms: strike‐slip and dip‐slip and was evaluated by comparing the parameters of correct and inverted mechanisms. We assume these double‐couple source mechanisms and use quantitatively the inversion allowing non‐double‐couple components to measure stability of the inversion. To test the robustness we inverted synthetic amplitudes computed for a laterally homogeneous isotropic model and contaminated with noise using a fully homogeneous model in the inversion. Analogously amplitudes computed in a laterally homogeneous anisotropic model were inverted in all three models. We show that a star‐like surface acquisition array provides very stable inversion up to a very high level of noise in data. Furthermore, we reveal that strike‐slip inversion is more stable than dip‐slip inversion for the receiver geometries considered here. We show that noise and an incorrect velocity model may result in narrow bands of source mechanisms in Hudson's plots.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12107
2014-02-14
2024-04-23
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. AkiK. and RichardsP.G.1980. Quantitative Seismology. Freeman and Co., New York.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. BaigA. and UrbancicT.2010. Microseismic moment tensors: A path to understanding frac growth. The Leading Edge29, 320–324.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. ČervenýV.2001. Seismic Ray Theory. Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. DuncanP.2005. Is there a future for passive seismic?First Break23, 111–115.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. DuncanP. and EisnerL.2010. Reservoir characterization using surface microseismic monitoring. Geophysics75, 75A139–75A146.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. DroujinineA.B., OatesS. and ItaJ.2011. Elastic Full Waveform Inversion for Locations and Moment Tensors of Microseismic Events. 73rd EAGE Conference & Exhibition, Extended Abstracts C004, Vienna.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. EatonD. and ForouhidehF.2011. Solid angles and the impact of receiver‐array geometry on microseismic moment‐tensor inversion. Geophysics76, WC77–WC85.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. EisnerL., JanskáE., OpršalI. and MatoušekP.2011. Seismic analysis of the events in the vicinity of the Preese Hall well. http://www.cuadrillaresources.com/news/news/
  9. EisnerL., Williams‐StroudS., HillA., DuncanP. and ThorntonM.2010. Beyond the dots in the box: Microseismicity‐constrained fracture models for reservoir simulation. The Leading Edge29, 326–333.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. GeiD., EisnerL. and SuhadolcP.2011. Feasibility of estimation of vertical transverse isotropy from microseismic data recorded by surface monitoring arrays. Geophysics76, WC117–WC126.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. HudsonJ., PearceR. and RogersR.1989. Source type plot for inversion of the moment tensor. Journal of Geophysical Research94, 765–774.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. LambaréG., LucioP.S. and HanygaA.1996. Two‐dimensional multivalued traveltime and amplitude maps by uniform sampling of a ray field. Geophysical Journal International125, 584–598.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. MoserT.J. and ČervenýV.2007. Paraxial ray methods in anisotropic inhomogeneous media. Geophysical Prospecting55, 21–37.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. RobeinE., CerdaF., DrapeauD., MaurelL., GaucherE. and AugerE.2009. Multi‐network Microseismic Monitoring of Fracturing Jobs – Neuquen TGR Application. 71st EAGE Conference & Exhibition, Extended Abstracts X009, Amsterdam.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. 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]
  16. ŠílenýJ.2009. Resolution of non‐double‐couple mechanisms: Simulation of hypocenter mislocation and velocity structure mismodelling. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America99, 2265–2272.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. SipkinS.A.1982. Estimation of earthquake source parameters by the inversion of waveform data: Synthetic waveforms. Physics of the Earth and Planetary Interiors30, 242–259.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. ThomsenL.2002. Understanding seismic anisotropy in exploration and exploitation. Distinguished Instructor Short Course, Distinguished Instructor Series, No. 5, SEG, EAGE.
  19. VavryčukV.2005. Focal mechanisms in anisotropic media. Geophysical Journal International161, 334–346.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. VavryčukV.2007. On the retrieval of moment tensors from borehole data. Geophysical Prospecting55, 381–391.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. VernikL.2008. Anisotropic correction of sonic logs in wells with large relative dip. Geophysics73, E1–E5.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. VinjeV., IversenE., ÅstebølK. and GjøystdalH.1996a. Estimation of multivalued arrivals in 3D models using wavefront construction – Part I. Geophysical Prospecting44, 819–842.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. VinjeV., IversenE., ÅstebølK. and GjøystdalH.1996b. Estimation of multivalued arrivals in 3D models using wavefront construction – Part II: Tracing and interpolation. Geophysical Prospecting44, 843–858.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Williams‐StroudS., KilpatrickJ. E., CornetteB., EisnerL. and HallM.2010. Moving outside of the borehole: Characterizing natural fractures through microseismic monitoring. First Break28, 89–94.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. ZhangY., EisnerL., BarkerW., MuellerM.C. and SmithK.L.2013. Consistent imaging of hydraulic fracture treatments from permanent arrays through a calibrated velocity model. Geophysical Prospecting. doi: 10.1111/1365–2478.12017.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. ZhebelO. and EisnerL.2012. Simultaneous microseismic event localization and source mechanism determination. 82nd SEG Annual Meeting, Expanded Abstracts, Las Vegas, Nevada, USA.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12107
Loading
/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12107
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): Anisotropy; Inversion; Microseismic monitoring; Ray modelling; Source Mechanism

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