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

Abstract

ABSTRACT

Microseismic monitoring is an approach for mapping hydraulic fracturing. Detecting the accurate locations of microseismic events relies on an accurate velocity model. The one‐dimensional layered velocity model is generally obtained by model calibration from inverting perforation data. However, perforation shots may only illuminate the layers between the perforation shots and the recording receivers with limited raypath coverage in a downhole monitoring problem. Some of the microseismic events may occur outside of the depth range of these layers. To derive an accurate velocity model covering all of the microseismic events and locating events at the same time, we apply the cross double‐difference method for the simultaneous inversion of a velocity model and event locations using both perforation shots and microseismic data. The cross double‐difference method could provide accurate locations in both the relative and absolute sense, utilizing cross traveltime differences between P and S phases over different events. At the downhole monitoring scale, the number of cross traveltime differences is sufficiently large to constrain events locations and velocity model as well. In this study, we assume that the layer thickness is known, and velocities of P‐ and S‐wave are inverted. Different simultaneous inversion methods based on the Geiger's, double‐difference, and cross double‐difference algorithms have been compared with the same input data. Synthetic and field data experiments suggest that combining both perforation shots and microseismic data for the simultaneous cross double‐difference inversion of the velocity model and event locations is available for overcoming the trade‐offs in solutions and producing reliable results.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12556
2017-12-26
2024-03-28
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. AkiK. and RichardsP.G.1980. Quantitative Seismology—Theory and Methods. San Francisco: W.H. Freeman.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. BardainneT. and GaucherE.2010. Constrained tomography of realistic velocity models in microseismic monitoring using calibration shots. Geophysical Prospecting58(5), 739–753.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. BliasE. and GrechkaV.2013. Analytic solutions to the joint estimation of microseismic event locations and effective velocity model. Geophysics78(3), KS51–KS61.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. CastellanosF. and van der BaanM.2013. Microseismic event locations using the double‐difference algorithm. CSEG Recorder38(3), 26–37.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. CipollaC.L., MackM., MaxwellS. and DownieR.2011. A practical guide to interpreting microseismic measurements. Proceedings: Society of Petroleum Engineers North American unconventional gas conference and exhibition, Woodlands, Texas. SPE‐144067‐MS.
  6. EisnerL., HulseyB.J., DuncanP., JurickD., WernerH. and KellerW.2010. Comparison of surface and borehole locations of induced seismicity. Geophysical Prospecting58, 809–820.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. GeigerL.1912. Probability method for the determination of earthquake epicentres from the arrival time only. Bulletin of St. Louis University8(1), 56–71.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. GrechkaV.2010. Data‐acquisition design for microseismic monitoring. The Leading Edge29(3), 278–282.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. GrechkaV., SinghP. and DasI.2011. Estimation of effective anisotropy simultaneously with locations of microseismic events. Geophysics76(6), WC143–WC155.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. GrechkaV. and YaskevichS.2013. Azimuthal anisotropy in microseismic monitoring: a Bakken case study. Geophysics79(1), KS1–KS12.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. JanskyJ., PlickaV. and EisnerL.2010. Feasibility of joint 1D velocity model and event location inversion by the neighbourhood algorithm. Geophysical Prospecting58(2), 229–234.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. JiangH.Y., ChenZ.B., ZengX.X., LvH. and LiuX.2016. Velocity calibration for microseismic event location using surface data. Petroleum Science13(2), 225–236.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. JonesG.A., KendallJ.‐M., BastowI.D. and RaymerD.G.2014. Locating microseismic events using borehole data. Geophysical Prospecting62(1), 34–49.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. LiJ., ZhangH., RodiW.L. and ToksözM.N.2013. Joint microseismic location and anisotropic tomography using differential arrival times and differential backazimuths. Geophysical Journal International195(3), 1917–1931.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. LiJ., LiC., MortonS.A., DohmenT., KataharaK. and ToksözM.N.2014. Microseismic joint location and anisotropic velocity inversion for hydraulic fracturing in a tight Bakken reservoir. Geophysics79(5), C111–C122.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. MaxwellS.C.2009. Microseismic location uncertainty. CSEG Recorder34(4), 41–46.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. MenkeW. and SchaffD.2004. Absolute earthquake locations with differential data. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America94, 2254–2264.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. MoserT.J.1991. Shortest path calculation of seismic rays. Geophysics56, 59–67.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. MukhtarovT. and PinnacleA.2012. Uncertainty space for microseismic event locations using a double difference algorithm. Geoconvention 2012: Vision.
  20. RodiW.2006. Grid‐search event location with non‐Gaussian error models. Physics of the Earth and Planetary Interiors158(1), 55–66.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. 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]
  22. ThurberC.H.1992. Hypocenter‐velocity structure coupling in local earthquake tomography. Physics of the Earth and Planetary Interiors75, 55–62.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. TianX., ZhangW. and ZhangJ.2016. Cross double‐difference inversion for microseismic event location using data from a single monitoring well. Geophysics81(5), KS183–KS194.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. WaldhauserF. and EllsworthW.L.2000. A double‐difference earthquake location algorithm: method and application to the northern Hayward fault, California. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America90(6), 1353–1368.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. WarpinskiN.R., SullivanR.B., UhlJ., WaltmanC.K. and MachovoeS.R.2005. Improved microseismic fracture mapping using perforation timing measurements for velocity calibration. SPE Journal10(1), SPE‐84488‐PA.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. WarpinskiN.R.2009. Microseismic monitoring: inside and out. Journal of Petroleum Technology61(11), 80–85.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. YuC.P., ReshetnikovA. and ShapiroS.A.2013. Simultaneous inversion of anisotropic velocity model and microseismic event location—Synthetic and real data examples. 75th EAGE annual meeting, London, UK, Tu 06 16.
  28. ZhouW., WangL., GuanL., GuoQ., CuiS. and YuB.2015. Microseismic event location using an inverse method of joint P–S phase arrival difference and P‐wave arrival difference in a borehole system. Journal of Geophysics and Engineering12(2), 220–226.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. ZhouH., ZhangW. and ZhangJ.2016. Downhole microseismic monitoring for low signal‐to‐noise ratio events. Journal of Geophysics and Engineering13(5), 805–816.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. ZimmerU.2011. Microseismic design studies. Geophysics76(6), WC17–WC25.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12556
Loading
/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12556
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): Joint inversion; 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