1887
Volume 72, Issue 5
  • E-ISSN: 1365-2478
PDF

Abstract

Abstract

Reservoir monitoring is essential to guarantee safe operations for all activities involving the production and injection of fluids into the subsurface, such as hydrocarbon production, gas storage and the exploitation of geothermal reservoirs. For this purpose, microseismic monitoring networks are operated in real time in order to identify and locate any possible seismic events in the vicinity of the reservoir. The goal of this study is to investigate whether the large amount of ambient seismic noise recorded by seismic reservoir monitoring networks can be used to infer a one‐dimensional shear‐wave velocity profile representative of the area covered by the network. Shear‐wave velocities are generally difficult to characterize and constrain, yet they are key to precisely locate seismic events. The adopted workflow consists of three steps: first, the cross‐correlation functions between all station pairs are retrieved, using 1 year of continuous data; second, the average group‐ and phase velocity dispersion curves are extracted; third, a joint group and phase velocity inversion is done. For validation, the obtained average shear‐wave velocity profile is compared with a regional model of the area as well as with local shear‐wave velocity measurements from a sonic log.

© 2024 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers. © 2025 The Author(s). Geophysical Prospecting published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers.
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.13486
2024-05-21
2026-02-11

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.13486
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/gpr/72/5/gpr13486.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.13486&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Barone, I., Cassiani, G., Ourabah, A., Boaga, J., Pavoni, M. & Deiana, R. (2023). Integrating controlled‐source and ambient noise seismic measures for archaeological prospection: the Scrovegni Chapel case. Geophysical Journal International, 232, 1944–1956. https://doi.org/10.1093/gji/ggac432
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Bensen, G.D., Ritzwoller, M.H., Barmin, M.P., Levshin, A.L., Lin, F., Moschetti, M.P., Shapiro, N.M. & Yang, Y. (2007). Processing seismic ambient noise data to obtain reliable broad‐band surface wave dispersion measurements. Geophysical Journal International, 169, 1239–1260. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365‐246X.2007.03374.x
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Bussat, S. & Kugler, S. (2011). Offshore ambient‐noise surface‐wave tomography above 0.1 hz and its applications. The Leading Edge, 30(5), 481–600. https://doi.org/10.1190/1.3589107
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Cascone, V., Barone, I. & Boaga, J. (2022). Velocity gradients choice affecting seismic site response in deep alluvial basins: application to the Venetian Plain (Northern Italy). Journal of Geophysics and Engineering, 19, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1093/jge/gxab067
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Chen, Z., Bao, X. & Yang, W. (2021). Shallow shear‐wave velocity structure beneath the West Lake area in Hangzhou, China, from ambient‐noise tomography. Remote Sensing, 13(14), 2845. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs13142845
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Colombero, C., Papadopoulou, M., Kauti, T., Skyttä, P., Koivisto, E., Savolainen, M. & Socco, L.V. (2022). Surface‐wave tomography for mineral exploration: a successful combination of passive and active data (Siilinjärvi phosphorus mine, Finland). Solid Earth, 13, 417–429. https://doi.org/10.5194/se‐13‐417‐2022
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Curtis, A., Gerstoft, P., Sato, H., Snieder, R. & Wapenaar, K. (2006). Seismic interferometry – turning noise into signal. The Leading Edge, 25, 1082–1092. https://doi.org/10.1190/1.2349814
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Douglas, A. (1967). Joint epicentre determination. Nature, 215, 47–48. https://doi.org/10.1038/215047a0
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Fernández‐Ruiz, M.R., Martins, H.F., William, E.F., Becerril, C., Magalhães, R., Costa, L., Martin‐Lopez, S., Jia, Z., Zhongwen, Z. & González‐Herráez, M. (2022). Seismic monitoring with distributed acoustic sensing from the near‐surface to the deep oceans. Journal of Lightwave Technology, 40(5), 1453–1463. https://doi.org/10.1109/JLT.2021.3128138
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Fichtner, A., Stehly, L., Ermert, L. & Boehm, C. (2017). Generalized interferometry – I: theory for interstation correlations. Geophysical Journal International, 208(2), 603–608. https://doi.org/10.1093/gji/ggw420
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Foti, S., Hollender, F., Garofalo, F., Albarello, D., Asten, M., Bard, P.‐Y., Comina, C., Cornou, C., Cox, B., Giulio, G.D., Forbriger, T., Hayashi, K., Lunedei, E., Martin, A., Mercerat, D., Ohrnberger, M., Poggi, V., Renalier, F., Sicilia, D. & Socco, L.V. (2018). Guidelines for the good practice of surface wave analysis: a product of the InterPACIFIC project. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 16, 2367–2420. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518‐017‐0206‐7
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Foti, S., Lai, C.G., Rix, G.J. & Strobbia, C. (2015). Surface wave methods for near‐surface site characterization. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Froment, B., Campillo, M., Roux, P., Gouédard, P., Verdel, A. & Weaver, R.L. (2010). Estimation of the effect of nonisotropically distributed energy on the apparent arrival time in correlations. Geophysics, 75(5), SA85–SA93. https://doi.org/10.1190/1.3483102
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Geiger, L. (1912). Probability method for the determination of earthquake epicenters from the arrival time only. Bulletin of the St. Louis University, 8, 60–71.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Hunter, J.A., Crow, H.L., Stephenson, W.J., Pugin, A.J., Williams, R.A., Harris, J.B., Odum, J.K. & Woolery, E.W. (2022). Seismic site characterization with shear wave (sh$sh$) reflection and refraction methods. Journal of Seismology, 26, 631–652. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10950‐021‐10042‐z
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Kästle, E.D., El‐Sharkawy, A., Boschi, L., Meier, T., Rosenberg, C., Bellahsen, N., Cristiano, L. & Weidle, C. (2018). Surface wave tomography of the Alps using ambient‐noise and earthquake phase velocity measurements. Journal of Geophysical Research, Solid Earth, 123(2), 1770–1792. https://doi.org/10.1002/2017JB014698
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Kästle, E.D., Soomro, R., Weemstra, C., Boschi, L. & Meier, T. (2016). Two‐receiver measurements of phase velocity: cross‐validation of ambient‐noise and earthquake‐based observations. Geophysical Journal International, 207(3), 1493–1512. https://doi.org/10.1093/gji/ggw341
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Lee, W.H.K. & Lahr, J.C. (1972). HYPO71: a computer program for determining hypocenter, magnitude and first motion pattern for local earthquakes. Open‐File Report 72‐224. Boulder, CO: U.S. Geological Survey. https://doi.org/10.3133/ofr72224
  19. Lehujeur, M., Vergne, J., Schmittbuhl, J., Zgone, D., Chenadec, A.L. & Team, E. (2018). Reservoir imaging using ambient noise correlation from a dense seismic network. Journal of Geophysical Research, Solid Earth, 123, 6671–6686. https://doi.org/10.1029/2018JB015440
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Li, Y., Wu, Q., Pan, J. & Sun, L. (2012). S‐wave velocity structure of northeastern China from joint inversion of Rayleigh wave phase and group velocities. Geophysical Journal International, 190, 105–115. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365‐246X.2012.05503.x
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Lin, F.C., Li, D., Clayton, R.W. & Hollis, D. (2013). High‐resolution 3D shallow crustal structure in Long Beach, California: application of ambient noise tomography on a dense seismic array. Geophysics, 78(4), Q45–Q56. https://doi.org/10.1190/GEO2012‐0453.1
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Lin, F.C., Moschetti, M.P. & Ritzwoller, M.H. (2008). Surface wave tomography of the western United States from ambient seismic noise: Rayleigh and Love wave phase velocity maps. Geophysical Journal International, 173(1), 281–298. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365‐246X.2008.03720.x
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Lin, F.C., Ritzwoller, M.H. & Snieder, R. (2009). Eikonal tomography: surface wave tomography by phase front tracking across a regional broad‐band seismic array. Geophysical Journal International, 177(3), 1091–1110. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365‐246X.2009.04105.x
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Lin, G. & Shearer, P. (2006). The COMPLOC earthquake location package. Seismological Research Letters, 77(4), 440–444. https://doi.org/10.1785/gssrl.77.4.440
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Liu, Y., Zhang, H., Fang, H., Yao, H. & Gao, J. (2018). Ambient noise tomography of three‐dimensional near‐surface shear‐wave velocity structure around the hydraulic fracturing site using surface microseismic monitoring array. Journal of Applied Geophysics, 159, 209–217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jappgeo.2018.08.009
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Lomax, A., Michelini, A. & Curtis, A. (2011). Earthquake location, direct, global‐search methods. In R.Meyers (Ed.), Extreme environmental events: Complexity in forecasting and early warning. New York: Springer, pp. 230–254. https://doi.org/10.1007/978‐1‐4419‐7695‐6_16
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Luu, K. (2021). disba: Numba‐accelerated computation of surface wave dispersion. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3987395
  28. Lynch, R., Hollis, D., McBride, J., Arndt, N., Brenguier, F., Mordret, A., Boué, P., Beaupretre, S., Santaguida, F. & Chisolm, D. (2019). Passive seismic ambient noise surface wave tomography applied to two exploration targets in Ontario, Canada. ASEG Extended Abstracts, 2019(1), 1–3. https://doi.org/10.1080/22020586.2019.12073192
     [Google Scholar]
  29. McMechan, G.A. & Yedlin, M.J. (1981). Analysis of dispersive waves by wave field transformation. Geophysics, 46(6), 869–874. https://doi.org/10.1190/1.1441225
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Molinari, I., Argnani, A., Morelli, A. & Basini, P. (2015). Development and testing of a 3D seismic velocity model of the Po plain sedimentary basin, Italy. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 105(2A), 753–764. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120140204
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Mordret, A., Landès, M., Shapiro, N.M., Singh, S.C., Roux, P. & Barkved, O.I. (2013). Near‐surface study at the Valhall oil field from ambient noise surface wave tomography. Geophysical Journal International, 193(3), 1627–1643. https://doi.org/10.1093/gji/ggt061
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Mordret, A., Roux, P., Boué, P. & Ben‐Zion, Y. (2019). Shallow three‐dimensional structure of the San Jacinto fault zone revealed from ambient noise imaging with a dense seismic array. Geophysical Journal International, 216(2), 896–905. https://doi.org/10.1093/gji/ggy464
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Obermann, A. & Hillers, G. (2019). Chapter two – seismic time‐lapse interferometry across scales. In C.Schmelzbach (Ed.), Recent advances in seismology. Advances in Geophysics, vol. 60. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Elsevier, pp. 65–143. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.agph.2019.06.001
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Obermann, A., Kraft, T., Larose, E. & Wiemer, S. (2015). Potential of ambient seismic noise techniques to monitor the St. Gallen geothermal site (Switzerland). Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 120, 4301–4316. https://doi.org/10.1002/2014JB011817
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Pedersen, H.A. & Krüger, F. (2007). Influence of the seismic noise characteristics on noise correlations in the Baltic Shield. Geophysical Journal International, 168(1), 197–210. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365‐246X.2006.03177.x
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Picozzi, M., Parolai, S., Bindi, D. & Strollo, A. (2009). Characterization of shallow geology by high‐frequency seismic noise tomography. Geophysical Journal International, 176(1), 164–174. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365‐246X.2008.03966.x
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Pilz, M., Parolai, S., Picozzi, M. & Bindi, D. (2012). Three‐dimensional shear wave velocity imaging by ambient seismic noise tomography. Geophysical Journal International, 189(1), 501–512. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365‐246X.2011.05340.x
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Planès, T., Obermann, A., Antunes, V. & Lupi, M. (2019). Ambient‐noise tomography of the greater Geneva basin in a geothermal exploration context. Geophysical Journal International, 220(1), 370–383.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Poli, P., Boaga, J., Molinari, I., Cascone, V. & Boschi, L. (2020). The 2020 Coronavirus lockdown and seismic monitoring of anthropic activities in Northern Italy. Scientific Reports, 10, 9404. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598‐020‐66368‐0
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Re, S., Tango, G., Del Gaudio, S. & Brovelli, A. (2022). The role of fibre‐optic acoustic sensing for the energy transition. First Break, 40(4), 61–67. https://doi.org/10.3997/1365‐2397.fb2022032
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Rhie, J. & Romanowicz, B. (2004). Excitation of Earth's continuous free oscillations by atmosphere‐ocean‐seafloor coupling. Nature, 431, 552–556. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature02942
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Sambridge, M. (1999). Geophysical inversion with a neighbourhood algorithm: I. Searching a parameter space. Geophysical Journal International, 138(2), 479–494. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365‐246X.1999.00876.x
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Shapiro, N.M. & Campillo, M. (2004). Emergence of broadband Rayleigh waves from correlations of the ambient seismic noise. Geophysics Research Letters, 31, L07614. https://doi.org/10.1029/2004GL019491
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Shapiro, N.M., Campillo, M., Stehly, L. & Ritzwoller, M.H. (2005). High‐resolution surface‐wave tomography from ambient seismic noise. Science, 307, 1615–1618. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1108339
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Shapiro, N.M. & Ritzwoller, M.H. (2002). Monte‐Carlo inversion for a global shear‐velocity model of the crust and upper mantle. Geophysical Journal International, 151, 88–105. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365‐246X.2002.01742.x
     [Google Scholar]
  46. 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 America, 90(6), 1353–1368. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120000006
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Wang, H., Li, M. & Shang, X. (2016). Current developments on micro‐seismic data processing. Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering, 32, 521–537. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jngse.2016.02.058
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Wapenaar, K., Draganov, D., Snieder, R., Campman, X. & Verdel, A. (2010). Tutorial on seismic interferometry: Part 1 ‐ basic principles and applications. Geophysics, 75(5), 75A195–75A209. https://doi.org/10.1190/1.3457445
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Wapenaar, K. & Fokkema, J. (2006). Green's functions representations for seismic interferometry. Geophysics, 71(4), SI33–SI46. https://doi.org/10.1190/1.2213955
     [Google Scholar]
  50. Wathelet, M. (2008). An improved neighborhood algorithm: Parameter conditions and dynamic scaling. Geophysical Research Letters, 35(9), L09301. https://doi.org/10.1029/2008GL033256
     [Google Scholar]
  51. Weaver, R., Froment, B. & Campillo, M. (2009). On the correlation of non‐isotropically distributed ballistic scalar diffuse waves. Journal of the Acoustics Society of America, 126(4), 1817–1826. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.3203359
     [Google Scholar]
  52. Yang, Y. & Ritzwoller, M.H. (2008). Characteristics of ambient seismic noise as a source for surface wave tomography. Geochemistry, Geophysics, Geosystems, 9(2), Q02008. https://doi.org/10.1029/2007GC001814
     [Google Scholar]
  53. Yao, H. & Van der Hilst, R.D. (2009). Analysis of ambient noise energy distribution and phase velocity bias in ambient noise tomography, with application to SE Tibet. Geophysical Journal International, 179(2), 1113–1132. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365‐246X.2009.04329.x
     [Google Scholar]
  54. Yao, H., Van Der Hilst, R.D. & De Hoop, M.V. (2006). Surface‐wave array tomography in SE Tibet from ambient seismic noise and two‐station analysis ‐ I. Phase velocity maps. Geophysical Journal International, 166(2), 732–744.
     [Google Scholar]
  55. Young, M.K., Rawlinson, N., Arroucau, P., Reading, A.M. & Tkalčić, H. (2011). High‐frequency ambient noise tomography of southeast Australia: New constraints on Tasmania's tectonic past. Geophysical Research Letters, 38(13), L13313. https://doi.org/10.1029/2011GL047971
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.13486
Loading
Shear‐wave velocity structure derived from seismic ambient noise recorded by a small reservoir monitoring network
Geophysical Prospecting 72, 1789 (2024); https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2478.13486
/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.13486
/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.13486
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