1887

Abstract

Summary

Microseismic monitoring is a conventional technique used for mapping hydraulic fracturing. Accurate locations of microseismic events are strongly dependent on an accurate velocity model. The velocity model is generally obtained by model calibration from inverting perforation data. In some cases, however, perforations may only illuminate layers between the perforations and receivers. While some of microseismic events may occur outside these layers. To derive the velocity structure covering all of the microseismic events, we add velocity inversion capability into recently developed Cross double-difference (CDD) method, which is a location approach that can provide both relative and absolute event locations by utilizing cross traveltime differences between P and S phases over different events. In order to reduce the trade-off between the event location and velocity model, both perforations and microseismic events are used in a joint inversion. Both synthetic and field data result show that the CDD joint inversion method can provide more reasonable result.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.201601482
2016-05-30
2024-04-26
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Cipolla, C. L., Maxwell, S., Mack, M. and Downie, R.
    [2011] A practical guide to interpreting microseismic measurements. Society of Petroleum Engineers North American Unconventional Gas Conference and Exhibition, Paper 144067.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Grechka, V., Singh, P. and Das, I.
    [2011] Estimation of effective anisotropy simultaneously with locations of microseismic events. Geophysics, 76(6), WC143–WC155, doi: 10.1190/geo2010‑0409.1.
    https://doi.org/10.1190/geo2010-0409.1 [Google Scholar]
  3. Jansky, J., Plicka, V. and Eisner, L.
    [2010] Feasibility of joint 1D velocity model and event location inversion by the neighbourhood algorithm. Geophysical Prospecting, 58(2), 229–234.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Li, J., Zhang, H., Rodi, W. and Toksöz, M. N.
    [2012] Microseismicity location and simultaneous anisotropic tomography with differential traveltimes and differential back azimuths. SEG Annual Meeting.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Rutledge, J. T. and Phillips, W. S.
    [2003] Hydraulic stimulation of natural fractures as revealed by induced microearthquakes. Carthage Cotton Valley gas field, east Texas. Geophysics, 68, 441–452.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Tian, X., Zhang, W. and Zhang, J.
    [2015] Cross double-difference inversion method for microseismic location. SEG Annual Meeting.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Waldhauser, F. and 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.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Warpinski, N. R., Sullivan, R. B., Uhl, J. E., Waltman, C. K. and Machovoe, S. R.
    [2003] Improved microseismic fracture mapping using perforation timing measurements for velocity calibration. Society of petroleum Engineer, Paper 84488, doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/84488-MS.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Warpinski, N.
    [2009] Microseismic monitoring: Inside and out. Journal of Petroleum Technology, 61(11), 80–85.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.201601482
Loading
/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.201601482
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