Downhole microseismic monitoring for low signal-to-noise ratio events

Zhou, Hang; Zhang, Wei; Zhang, Jie

doi:10.1088/1742-2132/13/5/805

Cited by 11 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…First, the CDD requires both P and S waves of individual events, whereas the DD method can address single-phase problems. However, if only a single phase is used in microseismic monitoring, the location error will be too large (Zhou et al 2015;Zhou, Zhang and Zhang 2016). Second, the DD method is well known for the insensitivity to the velocity model in the earthquake location problem (Waldhauser and Ellsworth 2000).…”

Section: R O S S D O U B L E -D I F F E R E N C E L O C a T I O N Mmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cross double‐difference inversion for simultaneous velocity model update and microseismic event location

Tian

Zhang

2017

Geophysical Prospecting

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Microseismic monitoring is an approach for mapping hydraulic fracturing. Detecting the accurate locations of microseismic events relies on an accurate velocity model. The one‐dimensional layered velocity model is generally obtained by model calibration from inverting perforation data. However, perforation shots may only illuminate the layers between the perforation shots and the recording receivers with limited raypath coverage in a downhole monitoring problem. Some of the microseismic events may occur outside of the depth range of these layers. To derive an accurate velocity model covering all of the microseismic events and locating events at the same time, we apply the cross double‐difference method for the simultaneous inversion of a velocity model and event locations using both perforation shots and microseismic data. The cross double‐difference method could provide accurate locations in both the relative and absolute sense, utilizing cross traveltime differences between P and S phases over different events. At the downhole monitoring scale, the number of cross traveltime differences is sufficiently large to constrain events locations and velocity model as well. In this study, we assume that the layer thickness is known, and velocities of P‐ and S‐wave are inverted. Different simultaneous inversion methods based on the Geiger's, double‐difference, and cross double‐difference algorithms have been compared with the same input data. Synthetic and field data experiments suggest that combining both perforation shots and microseismic data for the simultaneous cross double‐difference inversion of the velocity model and event locations is available for overcoming the trade‐offs in solutions and producing reliable results.

show abstract

Section: R O S S D O U B L E -D I F F E R E N C E L O C a T I O N Mmentioning

confidence: 99%