The Groningen gas field in the Netherlands is the world’s 7th largest onshore gas field and has been producing from 1963. Since 2013, the reservoir has been monitored by two geophone strings at reservoir level (3 km). For borehole SDM, 10 geophones with a natural frequency of 15-Hz are positioned from the top to bottom of the reservoir. We used seismic interferometry to determine, as accurately as possible, the inter-geophone P- and S-wave velocities from ambient noise. Cross-correlations were stacked for every 1 hour and 24(hours)*33(days) segments were obtained for each station pair. The cross-correlations show both diurnal and weekly variations reflecting fluctuations in cultural noise. The apparent P-wave travel time for each geophone pair is measured from the maximum of the vertical component cross-correlation for each of the hourly stacks. We used Kernel density estimations to obtain the maximum likelihood travel times of all the geophone pairs which were subsequently used to determine inter-geophone P-wave velocities. A good agreement was found between our estimated P velocity structure and well logging data. The S-velocity structure was obtained from the east-component cross-correlations. Because of the interference with P wave in east-component, the inferred S-velocity structure is less accurate.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Behm, M.
    [2016] Feasibility of borehole ambient noise interferometry for permanent reservoir monitoring. Geophysical Prospecting, doi: 10.1111/1365–2478.12424.
    https://doi.org/10.1111/1365–2478.12424 [Google Scholar]
  2. Botev, Z.I., Grotowski, J.F., Kroese, D.P. et al.
    [2010] Kernel density estimation via diffusion. The Annals of Statistics, 38(5), 2916–2957.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Durand, S., Montagner, J.P., Roux, P., Brenguier, F., Nadeau, R.M. and Ricard, Y.
    [2011] Passive monitoring of anisotropy change associated with the Parkfield 2004 earthquake. Geophysical Research Letters, 38(13), doi:10.1029/2011GL047875.L13303.
    https://doi.org/10.1029/2011GL047875. L13303 [Google Scholar]
  4. Grechka, V. and Zhao, Y.
    [2012] Microseismic interferometry. The Leading Edge, 31(12), 1478–1483.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Miyazawa, M., Snieder, R. and Venkataraman, A.
    [2008] Application of seismic interferometry to extract P-and S-wave propagation and observation of shear-wave splitting from noise data at Cold Lake, Alberta, Canada. Geophysics, 73(4), D35–D40.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Richter, T., Sens-Schönfelder, C., Kind, R. and Asch, G.
    [2014] Comprehensive observation and modeling of earthquake and temperature-related seismic velocity changes in northern Chile with passive image interferometry. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 119(6), 4747–1765.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Snieder, R.
    [2004] Extracting the Green’s function from the correlation of coda waves: A derivation based on stationary phase. Physical Review E, 69(4), 046610.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Vaezi, Y. and Van der Baan, M.
    [2015] Interferometric assessment of clamping quality of borehole geophones. Geophysics, 80(6), WC89–WC98.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Wapenaar, K., Draganov, D., Snieder, R., Campman, X. and Verdel, A.
    [2010] Tutorial on seismic interferometry: Part 1 - Basic principles and applications. Geophysics, 75(5), 75A195–75A209.
    [Google Scholar]

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