1887
Volume 65, Issue S1
  • E-ISSN: 1365-2478

Abstract

ABSTRACT

We investigate fracture‐induced attenuation anisotropy in a cluster of events from a microseismic dataset acquired during hydraulic fracture stimulation. The dataset contains 888 events of magnitude −3.0 to 0.0. We use a log‐spectral‐amplitude‐ratio method to estimate change in over a half‐hour time period where fluid is being injected and an increase in fracturing from S‐wave splitting analysis has been previously inferred. A Pearson's correlation analysis is used to assess whether or not changes in attenuation with time are statistically significant. P‐waves show no systematic change in during this time. In contrast, S‐waves polarised perpendicular to the fractures show a clear and statistically significant increase with time, whereas S‐waves polarised parallel to the fractures show a weak negative trend. We also compare between the two S‐waves, finding an increase in with time. A poroelastic rock physics model of fracture‐induced attenuation anisotropy is used to interpret the results. This model suggests that the observed changes in t* are related to an increase in fracture density of up to 0.04. This is much higher than previous estimates of 0.025 ± 0.002 based on S‐wave velocity anisotropy, but there is considerably more scatter in the attenuation measurements. This could be due to the added sensitivity of attenuation measurement to non‐aligned fractures, fracture shape, and fluid properties. Nevertheless, this pilot study shows that attenuation measurements are sensitive to fracture properties such as fracture density and aspect ratio.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12551
2017-12-26
2024-03-28
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. AkiK. and RichardsP.G.2002. Quantitative Seismology. University Science Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Al‐HarrasiO.H.2010. Fractured reservoir characterisation using shear‐wave splitting in microseismic data: a case study from Oman. PhD thesis, University of Bristol, UK.
  3. Al‐HarrasiO.H., KendallJ.M. and ChapmanM.2011. Fracture characterization using frequency‐dependent shear wave anisotropy analysis of microseismic data. Geophysical Journal International185, 1059–1070.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. BairdA., KendallJ.‐M. and AngusD.A.2013a. Frequency‐dependent seismic anisotropy due to fractures: fluid flow versus scattering. Geophysics78, WA111–WA122.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. BairdA., KendallJ.‐M., VerdonJ.P., WuestefeldA., NobleT.E., LiY.et al. 2013b. Monitoring increases in fracture connectivity during hydraulic stimulations from temporal variations in shear wave splitting polarization. Geophysical Journal International195, 1120–1131.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. BåthM.1974. Spectral Analysis in Geophysics. Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. BatzleM.L. and WangZ.1992. Seismic properties of pore fluids. Geophysics57, 1396–1408.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. CarterA.J. and KendallJ.‐M.2006. Attenuation anisotropy and the relative frequency content of split shear waves. Geophysical Journal International165, 865–874.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. ChapmanM.2003. Frequency‐dependent anisotropy due to meso‐scale fractures in the presence of equant porosity. Geophysical Prospecting51, 369–379.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. ChapmanM., MaultzschS. and LiuE.2003. Some estimates of the squirt‐flow frequency. 2003 SEG annual meeting, 1–4.
  11. ChichininaT., SabininV. and Ronquillo‐JarilloG.2006. QVOA analysis: P‐wave attenuation anisotropy for fracture characterization. Geophysics71, C37.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. ClarkR.A., CarterA.J., NevillP.C. and BensonP.2001. Attenuation measurements from surface seismic data: azimuthal variation and time‐lapse case studies. 63rd EAGE meeting, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, Expanded Abstracts, Session L‐28.
  13. DasguptaR. and ClarkR.A.1998. Estimation of Q from surface seismic reflection data. Geophysics63, 2120–2128.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. EisnerL., GeiD., HalloM., OpršalI. and AliM.Y.2013. The peak frequency of direct waves for microseismic events. Geophysics78, A45–A49.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. JohnsonJ.H., SavageM.K. and TownendJ.2011. Distinguishing between stress‐induced and structural anisotropy at Mount Ruapehu Volcano, New Zealand. Journal of Geophysical Research116, B12303.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. KellyC.M., RietbrockA., FaulknerD.R. and NadeauR.M.2013. Temporal changes in attenuation associated with the 2004 M6.0 Parkfield earthquake. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth118, 630–645.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. MaultzschS., ChapmanM., LiuE. and LiX.‐Y.2007. Modelling and analysis of attenuation anisotropy in multiazimuth VSP data from the Clair field. Geophysical Prospecting55, 627–642.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. MaxwellS.2010. Microseismic: growth born from success. The Leading Edge29, 338–343.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. RutledgeJ.T., PhillipsW.S. and MayerhoferM.J.2004. Faulting induced by forced fluid injection and fluid flow forced by faulting: an interpretation of hydraulic‐fracture microseismicity, Carthage Cotton Valley Gas Field, Texas. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America94, 1817–1830.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. ShenF., SierraJ., BurnsD. and ToksözM.2002. Azimuthal offset‐dependent attributes applied to fracture detection in a carbonate reservoir. Geophysics67, 355–364.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. TeanbyN.A., KendallJ.M. and van der BaanM.2004. Automation of shear‐wave splitting measurements using cluster analysis. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America94, 453–463.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. TitzschkauT., SavageM. and HurstT.2010. Changes in attenuation related to eruptions of Mt. Ruapehu Volcano, New Zealand. Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research190, 168–178.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. ToksözM.N. and JohnstonD.H.1981. Seismic Wave Attenuation. Society of Exploration Geophysicists.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. ToksözM.N., JohnstonD.H. and TimurA.1979. Attenuation of seismic waves in dry and saturated rocks: I. Laboratory measurements. Geophysics44, 681–690.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. VerdonJ.P., KendallJ.M. and WuestefeldA.2009. Imaging fractures and sedimentary fabrics using shear wave splitting measurements made on passive seismic data. Geophysical Journal International179, 1245–1254.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. VerdonJ.P. and WuestefeldA.2013. Measurement of the normal/tangential fracture compliance ratio (ZN/ZT) during hydraulic fracture stimulation using S‐wave splitting data. Geophysical Prospecting61, 461–475.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. WalkerR.N.J.1997. Cotton Valley hydraulic fracture imaging project. SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition.
  28. WuestefeldA., VerdonJ.P., KendallJ.M., RutledgeJ., ClarkeH. and WookeyJ.2011. Inferring rock fracture evolution during reservoir stimulation from seismic anisotropy. Geophysics76, WC157.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12551
Loading
/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12551
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): Attenuation; Fractures; Microseismic monitoring

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