1887

Abstract

Summary

Multiple wave front arrivals make it difficult, to identify reflections from hydraulic fractures within data recording microseismic events. The influence of anisotropy on the wave propagation can be huge and the shear wave splitting causes additional strong signals in the recorded wavefield. Interfaces within a heterogeneous velocity distribution can cause the occurrence of multiple wavefronts from reflections and conversions. However, in order to extract information from the recorded wavefield, it is crucial to understand it entirely.

We numerically investigate the multiple wavefront arrivals of microseismic events in anisotropic heterogeneous media to support the interpretation of recorded wavefields. We investigate the influence of anisotropy and velocity inhomogeneities using numerical modeling based on a finite difference algorithm. Besides a huge shear wave splitting due to anisotropy, we indeed see significant features within the recorded wavefield caused by the velocity distribution.

Different exemplary settings are given and discussed, such as a two-layer homogeneous anisotropic model and a complex model with properties extracted from the borehole log of a hydraulic fracturing treatment at Horn River Basin. Data of induced microseismic events within this anisotropic and heterogeneous environment are compared to the numerical results.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.20141191
2014-06-16
2020-04-02
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Oelke, A., Alexandrow, D., Abakumov, I., Glubovskikh, S., Shigapov, R., Krüger, O. S., Kashtan, B., Troyan, V. N., and Shapiro, S. A.
    (2013a). Seismic reflectivity of hydraulic fractures approximated by thin fluid layers. Geophysics, 78(4):T79–T87.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Reshetnikov, A., Buske, S., and Shapiro, S. A.
    (2010a). Seismic imaging using microseismic events: Results from the San Andreas Fault System at SAFOD. Journal of Geophysical Research, 115.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Reshetnikov, A., Kummerow, J., Buske, S., and Shapiro, S. A.
    (2010b). Microseismic imaging from a single geophone: KTB. SEG Expanded Abstracts29, 2070.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Saenger, E. H. and Bohlen, T.
    (2004). Anisotropic and viscoelastic finite-difference modeling using the rotated staggered grid. Geophysics, 69(2):583–591.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Saenger, E. H., Gold, N., and Shapiro, S. A.
    (2000). Modeling the propagation of elastic waves using a modified finite-difference grid. Wave Motion, 31(1):77–92.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.20141191
Loading
/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.20141191
Loading

Data & Media loading...

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