1887

Abstract

Summary

Localization of induced microseismic events is a vital element of passive seismic monitoring. Currently, a variety of techniques for localization of microseismic events are available in the literature. These techniques employ various information from the recorded wavefields and are based on different theoretical considerations. In this report, we compared the location results, obtained by three different techniques, namely traveltime inversion, diffraction stacking and cross-correlation stacking. We found out that for the majority of events the location results obtained with three different methods almost perfectly coincide. Furthermore, we observed that the mismatch of the location results can be used as a quality control tool to identify misinterpretation of phases, errors of arrival time picking, multiple events, etc.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.201800063
2018-03-26
2024-04-19
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Duncan, P., Eisner, L.
    [2010] Reservoir characterization using surface microseismic monitoring. Geophysics, 23(5), 75A139–75A146.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Gajewski, D., Anikiev, D., Kashtan, B., Tessmer, E. and Vanelle, C.
    [2007] Localization of seismic events by diffraction stacking. In: SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts 2007, Society of Exploration Geophysicists, 1287–1291.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Grandi, S. and Oates, S.
    [2009] Microseismic event location by cross-correlation migration of surface array data for permanent reservoir monitoring. In: 71st EAGE Conference and Exhibition incorporating SPE EUROPEC 2009..
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Li, L., Abakumov, I., Chen, H., Wang, X. and Gajewski, D.
    [2017] Comparison and generalization of correlation-based seismic-source imaging methods. In: SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts 2017, Society of Exploration Geophysicists, 2913–2917.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Lomax, A., Virieux, J., Volant, P. and Berge-Thierry, C.
    [2000] Probabilistic earthquake location in 3D and layered models. In: Advances in seismic event location, Springer, 101–134.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Motz, F., Kummerow, J. and Shapiro, S.
    [2016] Testing and Comparing Stacks of Different Seismic Attributes for Micro-Seismic Event Detection. In: 78th EAGE Conference and Exhibition 2016.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Rentsch, S., Buske, S., Lüth, S. and Shapiro, S.
    [2006] Fast location of seismicity: A migration-type approach with application to hydraulic-fracturing data. Geophysics, 72(1), S33–S40.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Schuster, G., Yu, J., Sheng, J. and Rickett, J.
    [2004] Interferometric/daylight seismic imaging. Geophysical Journal International, 152(2), 838–852.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Tarantola, A. and Valette, B.
    [1982] Inverse problems = quest for information. Journal of Geophysics, 50(3), 150–170.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. 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]
  11. Zhebel, O., Gajewski, D. and Vanelle, C.
    [2011] Localization of seismic events in 3D media by diffraction stacking. In: 73rd EAGE Conference and Exhibition incorporating SPE EUROPEC 2011.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.201800063
Loading
/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.201800063
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