1887
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Geophysical Prospecting
  4. Volume 68, Issue 2
  5. Article
Volume 68, Issue 2
  • E-ISSN: 1365-2478

Abstract

ABSTRACT

We address the problem of increasing the signal‐to‐noise ratio during surface microseismic monitoring data processing. Interference from different seismic waves causes misleading results of microseismic event locations. Ground‐roll suppression is particularly necessary. The standard noise suppression techniques assume regular and dense acquisition geometries. Many pre‐processing noise suppression algorithms are designed for special types of noise or interference. To overcome these problems, we propose a novel general‐purpose filtration method. The goal of this method is to amplify only the seismic waves that are excited in the selected target area and suppress all other signals. We construct a linear projector onto a frequency domain data subspace, which corresponds to the seismic emission of the target area. The novel filtration method can be considered an extension of the standard frequency–wavenumber flat wave filtration method for non‐flat waves and arbitrary irregular receiver‐position geometries. To reduce the effect of the uncertainty of the velocity model, we suggest using additional active shot data (typically the perforation shots), which provide static travel time corrections for the target area. The promising prospects of the proposed method are confirmed by synthetic and semi‐synthetic data processing.

© 2020 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers © 2019 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12847
2019-07-24
2024-04-25

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12847
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. AskariR., FergusonR.J., IsaacJ.H. and HejaziS.H.2015. Estimation of S‐wave static corrections using CMP cross‐correlation of surface waves. Journal of Applied Geophysics121, 42–53.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. BergmanB., TryggvasonA. and JuhlinC.2004. High‐resolution seismic traveltime tomography incorporating static corrections applied to a till‐covered bedrock environment. Geophysics69, 1082–1090.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. BirialtsevE.V., DemidovD.E. and MokshinE.V.2017. Determination of moment tensor and location of microseismic events under conditions of highly correlated noise based on the maximum likelihood method. Geophysical Prospecting65, 1510–1526.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. ChambersK., KendallJ.M., Brandsberg‐DahlS. and RuedaJ.2010. Testing the ability of surface arrays to monitor microseismic activity. Geophysical Prospecting58, 821–830.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. CoxM.1999. Static Corrections for Seismic Reflection Surveys. Society of Exploration Geophysicists.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. DiaoR., ShangX.M., XuH., SuiZ.Q. and LiuL.P.2015. The method of two‐step static correction in surface micro‐seismic. 77th EAGE Conference and Exhibition 2015.
  7. Duncan PeterM. and EisnerL.2010. Reservoir characterization using surface microseismic monitoring. Geophysics75, 139–146.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Forghani‐AraniF., BatzleM., BehuraJ., WillisM., HainesS.S. and DavidsonM.2012. Noise suppression in surface microseismic data. The Leading Edge31, 1496–1501.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Forghani‐AraniF., WillisM., SniederR., HainesS.S., BehuraJ., BatzleM.et al. 2014. Dispersion analysis of passive surface‐wave noise generated during hydraulic‐fracturing operations. Journal of Applied Geophysics111, 129–134.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. GajewskiD., AnikievD., KashtanB., TessmerE. and VanelleC.2007. Localization of seismic events by diffraction stacking. 77th SEG Annual International meeting, Expanded Abstracts 1287–1291.
  11. GaoH. and ZhangJ.2017. 3D seismic residual statics solutions derived from refraction interferometry. Geophysical Prospecting65, 1527–1540.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. GrayS.H.2013. Spatial sampling, migration aliasing, and migrated amplitudes. Geophysics78, 1MJ–Z75.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. HagedoornJ.G.1959. The plus‐minus method of interpreting seismic refraction sections. Geophysical Prospecting7, 158–182.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. KiselevitchV.L., NikolaevA.V., TroitskiyP.A. and ShubikB.M.1991. Emission tomography: main ideas, results, and prospects. SEG Technical Program, Expanded Abstracts 1991 1602–1602. Society of Exploration Geophysicists.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. KushnirA., VarypaevA., DrickerI., RozhkovM. and RozhkovN.2014. Passive surface microseismic monitoring as a statistical problem: location of weak microseismic signals in the presence of strongly correlated noise. Geophysical Prospecting62, 819–833.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. LiangC., ThorntonM.P., MortonP., HulseyB.J., HillA. and RawlinsP.2009. Improving signal‐to‐noise ratio of passive seismic data with an adaptive FK filter. SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts 2009 1703–1707. Society of Exploration Geophysicists.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. MariJ.L.1984. Estimation of static corrections for shear‐wave profiling using the dispersion properties of Love waves. Geophysics49, 1169–1179.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. McClellanJ.H., EisnerL., LiuE., IqbalN., Al‐ShuhailA.A. and KakaS.I.2018. Array processing in microseismic monitoring: detection, enhancement, and localization of induced seismicity. IEEE Signal Processing Magazine35, 99–111.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. McMechanG.A.1982. Determination of source parameters by wave field extrapolation. Geophysical Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society71, 613–628.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. NeidellN.S. and TanerM.T.1971. Semblance and other coherency measures for multichannel data. Geophysics36, 482–497.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. NikitinA.A., SerdyukovA.S. and DuchkovA.A.2018. Cache‐efficient parallel eikonal solver for multicore CPUs. Computational Geosciences22, 775–787.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. PalischT.T., DuenckelR.J., BazanL.W., HeidtJ.H. and TurkG.A.2007. Determining realistic fracture conductivity and understanding its impact on well performance‐theory and field examples. SPE Hydraulic Fracturing Technology Conference. Society of Petroleum Engineers.
  23. ParkC.B., MillerR.D. and XiaJ.1999. Multichannel analysis of surface waves. Geophysics64, 800–808.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. RouxP.F., KostadinovicJ., BardainneT., RebelE., ChmielM., Van ParysM.et al. 2014. Increasing the accuracy of microseismic monitoring using surface patch arrays and a novel processing approach. First Break32, 95–101.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. RutledgeJ.T., PhillipsW.S., HouseL.S. and ZinnoR.J.1998. Microseismic mapping of a Cotton Valley hydraulic fracture using decimated downhole arrays. SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts 1998 338–341. Society of Exploration Geophysicists.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. 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]
  27. SerdyukovA.S., YablokovA.V., DuchkovA.A., AzarovA.A. and BaranovV.D.2019. Slant f‐k transform of multichannel seismic surface wave data. Geophysics84, A19–A24.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. ShapiroS.A.2008. Microseismicity: A Tool for Reservoir Characterization. Houten, the Netherlands: EAGE Publications.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. VerdonJ.P., KendallJ.M., WhiteD.J., AngusD.A., FisherQ.J. and UrbancicT.2010. Passive seismic monitoring of carbon dioxide storage at Weyburn. The Leading Edge29, 200–206.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. VidaleJ.E.1990. Finite‐difference calculation of traveltimes in three dimensions. Geophysics55, 521–526.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. YilmazO. and ChambersR.1984. Migration velocity analysis by wave‐field extrapolation. Geophysics49, 1664–1674.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. ZhaoH.2005. A fast sweeping method for Eikonal equations. Mathematics of Computation74, 603–627.
     [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12847
Loading
Research Note: Frequency domain orthogonal projection filtration of surface microseismic monitoring data
Geophysical Prospecting 68, 382 (2020); https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2478.12847
/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12847
/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12847
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): Monitoring; Noise; Passive method; Seismics; Signal processing

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