Volume 37, Issue 12
  • ISSN: 0263-5046
  • E-ISSN: 1365-2397



Complexity in hydraulic fracturing programmes has motivated microseismic service providers to innovate and propose creative methods to monitor drilling, completion and field development. Although microseismic analysis and interpretation have moved beyond the ‘dots-in-a-box’ solution, velocity model (VM) calibration using inversion plays a critical role in the initial phase of accurate microseismic event (event) locations to ensure the accuracy of subsequent higher-order microseismic attributes given data quality and monitoring geometry. Knowing that business decisions are, at times, required in real time, it is imperative to provide confident event locations efficiently through the construction of well-constrained VMs based on quantitative and objective methodologies. The most time-consuming aspects of microseismic data processing are optimal VM construction and inversion. In this paper, we demonstrate improved efficiency in microseismic data processing by developing and implementing an automated approach to perforation shot (perf) detection and VM inversion using Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO). These primary tasks (perf detection and VM inversion) are critical in the event location workflow and can benefit significantly from increased efficiency. Although more advanced Greens functions can provide more accurate solutions to the source location problem (e.g., Angus et al., 2014), we focus on ray-based approaches due to their high computational efficiency, especially for anisotropic media and hydraulic fracture monitoring where large volumes of microseismic data (commonly in excess of 100,000 events) must be processed.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Angus, D., Aljaafari, A., Usher, P. and Verdon, J.
    [2014]. Seismic waveforms and velocity model heterogeneity: Towards full-waveform microseismic location algorithm.Journal of Applied Geophysics, 111, 228–233.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Angus, D.A., Viegas, G., Bosman, K. and Tremblay, F.
    [2019]. Evaluating stress and strain by integrating microseismicity with geomechanical modeling, ARMA, 19–130.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Arrowsmith, S. J., and Eisner, L.
    [2006]. A technique for identifying microseismic multiplets and application to the Valhall field, North Sea.Geophysics, 71 (2), V31–V40, doi: 10.1190/1.2187804.
    https://doi.org/10.1190/1.2187804 [Google Scholar]
  4. Baig, A., G.Viegas, T.Urbancic, E. vonLunen, and Hendrick, J.
    [2015]. To frac or not to frac: assessing potential damage as related to hydraulic fracture induced seismicity.First Break, 33, 67–71.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Baird, A.F., J.M.Kendall, J.P.Verdon, A.Wuestefeld, T.E.Noble, Y.Li, M.Dutko and Fisher, Q.J.
    [2013]. Monitoring increases in fracture connectivity during hydraulic stimulations from temporal variations in shear wave splitting polarization.Geophysical Journal International, 195(2), 1120–1131.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Castellanos, F., and Van der Baan, M.
    [2015]. Waveform similarity for quality control of event locations, time picking and moment tensor solutions.Geophysics, 80 (6), WC99–WC106.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. ClercM. and Kennedy, J.
    [2002]. The Particle Swarm-Explosion, Stability, and Convergence in a Multidimensional Complex Space.IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation, 6, 58–73.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Dewhurst, D.N. and Siggins, A.F.
    [2006]. Impact of fabric, microcracks and stress field on shale anisotropy.Geophysical Journal International, 165(1), 135–148.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Eaton, D.
    [2018]. Passive seismic monitoring of induced seismicity: Fundamental principles and application to energy technologies.Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Geller, R. and Mueller, C.
    [1980]. Four similar earthquakes in Central California.Geophysical Research Letters, 7, 821–824.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Kao, H. and Shan, S.J.
    [2004]. The source-scanning algorithm: mapping the distribution of seismic sources in time and space.Geophysical Journal International, 157, 589–595.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Montalbetti, J.M. and Kanasewich, E.R.
    , [1970]. Enhancement of teleseismic body phases with a polarization filter.Geophys. J. R. astr. Soc., 21, 119–129.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Moradi, P., Jeziorski, K. and Angus, D.
    [2019]. Increasing confidence in estimating stimulated reservoir volume by integrating RTA and microseismic analysis.First Break, 37, 65–73.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Price, D., D.A.Angus, A.Garcia and Fisher, Q.J.
    [2017]. Probabilistic analysis and comparison of stress-dependent rock physics models.Geophysical Journal International, 210(1), 196–209.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Sarout, J., C.David and Pimieta, L.
    [2019]. Seismic and microseismic signatures of fluids in rocks: Bridging the scale gap.Journal of Geophysical Research Solid Earth, 124(6), 5379–5386.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Urbancic, T. Zantout, S. and McGillivray, P.
    [2006]. Simultaneous inversion for velocity and passive microseismic event locations: a particle swarm optimization approach.First EAGE Passive Seismic Workshop - Exploration and Monitoring Applications, Extended Abstracts.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Yue, T. and Xiao-fei, C.
    [2005]. A rapid and accurate two-point ray tracing method in horizontally layered velocity model.Acta Seismologica Sinica, 18(2), 154–161.
    [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
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