Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Original Russian Text © S.V. Yaskevich, V.Yu. Grechka, A.A. Duchkov, 2014, published in Fiziko-Tekhnicheskie Problemy Razrabotki Poleznykh Iskopaemykh,
2014, No. 6, pp. 41–52.
Abstract—Using the model information and in situ data on hydrofracturing in an oil and gas reservoir of
the Bakken Formation (USA), potential of locating hypocenters of microseismic events concurrently with
determining parameters of velocity anisotropy of seismic waves in rock mass is analyzed. It is shown that
inclusion of anisotropy in the analysis improves accuracy of spatial location of microseismic event
hypocenters and increases validity of estimation of the fracturing direction.
Keywords: Microseismic monitoring, rock mass, velocity model, anisotropy.
DOI: 10.1134/S1062739115030084
INTRODUCTION
Microseismic monitoring is one of the most efficient modern techniques of observation of induced
geodynamic events due to underground mineral mining. This method requires installation of sensor
array at an object and recording of the object’s microseismic activity. Spatial distribution (cloud) of
hypocenter of microseismic events allows location of geodynamic processes and their energy and
kinematic characteristics. It is possible to use these data to assess efficiency of various operations (for
instance, hydraulic fracturing [1]) and to optimize the mining method in use.
One of the most important areas of microseismic monitoring application is hydrofracturing of
reservoirs (HFR). Data on shape, size and orientation of hydrofractures are of importance for
optimization of hydrocarbon recovery technologies, in particular, gas recovery from shale and coal.
The current microseismic monitoring uses borehole [2–4] and surface [5, 6] systems of observation.
The reliable location of dynamic event hypocenters in microseismic monitoring data processing needs
the velocity model of the medium. The significance of the accurate velocity model for microseismic
monitoring is commonly acknowledged [7–11], but the effect of the inaccuracy of the model on the
overall error of the event hypocenter location is scarcely studied [12]. The velocity modeling is
complicated by that many unconventional hydrocarbons are represented by shales which possess
heavily anisotropic properties [13, 14]. Moreover, natural anisotropy may combine with anisotropy of
jointing induced by hydrofractuirng [15], which should also be included in the velocity modeling.
Usually the velocity model for the microseismic monitoring data processing is based on the
interpretation of the acoustic logging data, which are then calibrated based on the data on perforation
shots the source locations of which are known exactly. The anisotropic velocity modeling in this case
is a difficult problem. In [16] the authors determined anisotropy parameters in a transversely isotropic
medium with a vertical axis of symmetry (VTI) by the data on the arrival of waves due to the
perforation shots. This approach to determination of compound anisotropy is complicated, and
anisotropy parameters are recovered partly, due to limited aperture of observation system [17–20].
In practical microseismic monitoring, it is only possible to enlarge the observation system aperture
by means of using the data on microseismic event in the velocity modeling [21, 22]. In this case, the
477
478 YASKEVICH et al.
medium anisotropy parameters can be found later on, simultaneously with location of hypocenter of
microseisimic events [23, 24].
This article analyzes the inclusion of the seismic anisotropy in the data of borehole microseismic
monitoring data processing, and presents the mathematical formulation and solution for an inverse
problem aimed at concurrent determination of hypocenters of microseismic events and anisotropic
velocity modeling. The authors perform a model experiment to simulate microseismic monitoring in
the anisotropic model. It is shown that inversion of such data under assumed isotropy of the model
may result in false image of a fracture, its location and azimuth.
The developed approach has applied to processing of actual data on microseismic monitoring of
hudrofracturing at Bakken deposit in USA. Polarization analysis of the data has shown stable splitting
of the transversal waves, which is a reliable indication of seismic anisotropy. As a result of the data
inversion, the location of the hypocenters of the events has been refined, and the stratified model
anisotropy parameters have been determined.
1. PROBLEM FORMULATION
Under consideration is the inverse kinematic problem on selection of the arrival times for
longitudinal (P) and two transversal (S1 and S2) waves for anisotropy models. The data vector is
compose of the observe arrival times of the direct waves {t Qobs
еr
} , where Q—type of a wave (P, S1 or
S2), arrived in an r-th sensor for an e-th microseismic event. The desired vector of the model
parameters (position of horizontal interfaces of the strata is assumed known and fixed) has a form of:
m ≡ [ cl , x е ,τ е ] , (1)
where cl —set of anisotropic parameters for an l-th stratum ( l = 1, ..., N l ), N l —number of strata;
( x е ,τ е )—hypocenter coordinates ad origination time, respectively, for the e-th microseismic event
( e = 1, ..., N е ), N е —number of the events.
The direct problem consists 9in calculating the wave arrival times {t Qsyn ( m )} for a preset model m
еr
(see Fig. 1), using the algorithm of ray tracing for stratified–homogenous anisotropic media [25].
The inverse problem on the vector of the model parameters, m, is formulated as minimization of
the deficiency functionals between wave arrival times in observations and calculations:
L ( m ) = Q , e , r (t Qobs
er
− t Qsyner ( m )) 2 → min . (2)
Minimization of the functional L(m) uses the gradient method. The proper gradient (Fréchet
derivatives of the model parameters) in the given formulation can be found analytically [26]:
∂t Qsynеr
F≡ . (3)
∂mk
Fig. 1. The model parametrization: — seismic sensors; —microseismic events; —perforations; the dashed
lines —interfaces of the strata.
Fig. 2. Resultant location of hypocenters of microseismic events under assumption of (a) anisotropic and (b)
isotropic model: —seismic sensors; —actual location of hypocenters; —calculated location of hypocenters from
the inverse problem solution.
Fig. 3. The velocities of P- (1) and S- (2) waves by the acoustic logging data; the dashed lines show the stratified
velocity model for Bakken deposit [24].
Fig. 4. Microseismic event seismogram, components: (a) X; (b) Y; (c) Z; “+” marks the actual arrival times of
the P- and S-waves; “×” marks the synthetic arrival times calculated for the isotropic model.
Fig. 5. Travel distance graphs for the P-wave—trajectories of the particle train in the wave window [24]: (a) hole 1;
(b) hole 2.
Fig. 6. Exposure of the five-layer model to the microseismic event rays. The points on the spheres—directions of rays of
all events in each layer for the Bakken Formation [24].
Fig. 7. Resultant location of hypocenters of synchronous seismic events: (a) plan view; (b) north size view and (c)
east side view.
Fig. 8. The observed arrival times of the waves (explanation is in the text).
The preliminary analysis of which type of anisotropy is to be recovered based on the available set f
data involved examination of the geometry of the medium exposure to rays of the microseismic
events. In the isotropic mode, the ray scheme is calculated for the events. Directions of the rays in
each layer are plotted as red color point on the unit spheres (Fig. 6). ). The bulk of events took places
in the top later (layer 1) and this layer is, therefore, best exposed from different angles. Exposure of
layers 2 and 3 is also good, and these layers can be assumed anisotropic (orthorhombic or triclinic
anisotropy). The two bottom show limited exposure along the azimuths, which makes it impossible to
determine the azimuthal anisotropy.
So, in the minimization of the time closure error functional (2) for determining parameters of m,
two lower layers are transversely isotropic with the vertical axis of symmetry (VTI) and three upper
layers have triclinic type anisotropy (TRI).
The inverse problem solution results are shown in Figs. 7 and 8. Figure 7 shows the locations of
microseismic event hypocenters. It is seen that as a result of using the anisotropy velocity model, the
cloud of microseismic event is narrower, i.e., it resembles a hydrofracture. Furthermore, the cloud is
re-located (approximately by 40 m towards the observation holes), which conforms with the data of
the synthetic tests.
The data processing, including anisotropy, yielded 6 times smaller mean square closure error
between the actual and calculated arrival times of the waves: 0.54 ms for the anisotropic model and
3.6 ms for the isotropic model. This reduction is an evidence of the higher quality of the data
processing. The selected wave arrival times for the anisotropy velocity model are exemplified in
Fig. 8, where the unshaded and shaded markers show the observed and calculated arrival times,
respectively.
The inversion using the anisotropic stratified medium recovered the following density normalized
stiffness tensors, km2/s2:
26.57 12.14 10.00 0.92 − 0.27 − 0.49
27.80 10.66 0.89 − 0.86 − 0,53
22.11 0.94 − 0.54 − 0.10
c[1] = ,
7.32 − 0.14 − 0.12
symmetrical 6.95 0.20
6.49
15.78 1.15 1.82 0.09 − 0.04 − 0.08
15.52 1.98 0.12 − 0.05 0.08
9.42 − 0.04 0.00 − 0.14
c[ 2] = ,
3.88 0.35 − 0.21
symmetrical 4.06 0.03
6.83
19.81 8.62 9.00 − 2.37 − 1.44 0
25.79 9.09 0.57 − 0.99 − 0.89
20.68 2.10 0.43 − 0.08
c[3] =
3.88 0.35 − 0.21
symmetrical 4.06 0.03
6.49
and the parameters of the two bottom layers with VTI anisotropy:
Even in case perforations are present, the data on microseismic events allow better seismic sounding
coverage, which improves reliability of a velocity model, especially in determining parameters of
azimuthally anisotropic media. It is shown in the article that with the better seismic sounding coverage,
elastic moduli of anisotropic layers can be recovered up to the triclinic symmetry. The authors have
found out the determination of the parameters of such media requires a network of the sufficiently long
observation holes to intersect depthwise the interval where seismic events originate.
The made examples illustrate better location of hypocenters of microseismic events in their
processing with account for anisotropy. This is connected with both the more accurate velocity model
and the use of new kinematic information of the arrival times of two shear waves. In particular, the
hypocenters have been located for microseismic events for which P-wave was unavailable but the
arrival times of two shear waves were well traced.
Owing to the anisotropy velocity model, the closure error between the observed and calculated
travel times of the waves had been greatly lessened as compared with the isotropic velocity model.
CONCLUSIONS
The authors have offered the microseismic monitoring data processing method for the concurrent
location of hypocenters of microseismic events and determination of parameters of the azimuthally
anisotropic velocity model of a rock mass.
The method enhances accuracy of location of microseismic event hypocenters in an anisotropic
medium owing to the use of arrival tomes of two shear waves. It has experimentally been shown that
neglect of anisotropy in monitoring of hydraulic fracturing results in shifted location of the fracture as
against its true position and in erroneous estimate of the fracture radius.
The authors confirm the proposed method efficiency in the data of hydrofracturing monitoring at
the Bakken Formation, USA. The estimates anisotropic parameters agree with the core data from the
lower lying productive stratum.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This work was supported by the RF Ministry of Education and Sciences, project
no. RFMEF160414X0047.
REFERENCES
1. Dobroskok, A.A. and Linkov, A.M., Modeling of Fluid Flow, Stress State and Seismicity Induced in Rock
by an Instant Pressure Drop in a Hydrofracture, J. Min. Sci., 2011, vol. 47, no. 1, pp. 10–19.
2. Rutledge, J. and Soma, N., Using Reflected Phases to Improve Depth Resolution of Microseismic Source
Locations from Single-Well Observations, Proc. Unconventional Resources Technology Conf., 2013.
3. Hayles, K., Horine, R.L., Checkles, S., and Blangy, J.P., Comparison of Microseismic Results from the
Bakken Formation Processed by Three Different Companies, SEG Technical Program Expanded
Abstracts, 2011.
4. Aleksandrov, S.I., Mishin, V.A. and Burov, D.I., Surface Microseismic Monitoring of Hydrofracturing:
Quality Control and Prospects, Ekspoz. Neft. Gaz., 2014, no. 2.
5. Chambers, K., Kendall, M., Brandsberg-Dahl, S., and Rueda, J., Testing the Ability of Surface Arrays to
Monitor Microseismic Activity, Geophysical Prospecting, 2010, vol. 58.
6. Shmakov, F.D., Procedure for Processing and Interpreting Data of Microseismic Activity Monitoring in
Hydrocarbon Reservoirs, Tekhnol. Seismorazv., 2012, no. 3.
7. Eisne, L., Duncan, P., Heig, W.M., and Keller, W.R., Uncertainties in Passive Seismic Monitoring, The
Leading Edge, 2009, vol. 28.
8. Zhang, H., Sarkar, S., Toksoz, M.N., Kuleli, H.S., and Al-Kindy, F., Passive Seismic Tomography Using
Induced Seismicity at a Petroleum Field in Oman, Geophysics, 2009, vol. 74, no. 6.
9. Zimmer, U., Bland, H., Du, J., Warpinski, N., Sen, V., and Wolfe, J., Accuracy of Microseismic Event
Locations Recorded with Single and Distributed Downhole Sensor Arrays, SEG Technical Program
Expanded Abstracts, 2009.
10. Jansky, J., Plicka, V., and Eisner, L., Feasibility of Joint 1D Velocity Model and Event Location Inversion by
the Neighborhood Algorithm, Geophysical Prospecting, 2010, vol. 58.
11. Abel, J. S., Coffin, S., Hur, Y., and Taylor, S., An Analytic Model for Microseismic Event Location
Estimate Accuracy, First Break, 2011, vol. 29.
12. Usher, P.J., Angus, D.A., and Verdon, J.P. Influence of a Velocity Model and Source Frequency on
Microseismic Waveforms, Some Bakken Microseismic Implications for Microseismic Locations,
Geophysical Prospecting, 2013, vol. 61.
13. Vernik, L. and Nur, A., Ultrasonic Velocity and Anisotropy of Hydrocarbon Source Rocks, Geophysics,
1992, vol. 57.
14. Vernik, L., and Liu, X., Velocity Anisotropy in Shales: A Petrophysical Study, Geophysics, 1997, vol. 62.
15. Tsvankin, I. and Grechka, V., Seismology of Azimuthally Anisotropic Media and Seismic Fracture
Characterization, SEG, Geophysical References, 2011, Series no. 17.
16. Maxwell, S., Shemeta, J., and House, N., Integrated Anisotropic Velocity Modeling Using Perforation
Shots, Passive Seismic and VSP Data, CSPG-CSEG-CWLS Convention, 2006.
17. Verdon, J. P., Kendall, J.–M., and Wustefeld, A., Imaging Fractures and Sedimentary Fabrics Using Shear
Wave Splitting Measurements Made on Passive Seismic Data, Geophysical J. Int., 2009, vol. 179.
18. Verdon, J.P. and Kendall, J.–M., Detection of Multiple Fracture Sets Using Observations of Shear-Wave
Splitting in Microseismic Data, Geophysical Prospecting, 2011, vol. 59.
19. Grechka, V. and Duchkov, A., Narrow-Angle Representations of the Phase and Group Velocities and
Their Applications in Anisotropic Velocity Model Building for Microseismic Monitoring, Geophysics, 2011,
vol. 76, no. 6.
20. Grechka, V., Singh, P., and Das, I., Estimation of Effective Anisotropy Simultaneously with Locations of
Microseismic Events, Geophysics, 2011, vol. 76, no. 6.
21. Li, J., Rodi, W., Toksoz, M.N., and Zhang, H., Microseismicity Location and Simultaneous Anisotropic
Tomography with Differential Traveltimes and Differential Back Azimuths, SEG Technical Program
Expanded Abstracts, 2012, pp. 1–5.
22. Li, J., Toksoz, N., Li, C., Morton, S., Dohmen, T., and Katahara, K., Locating Bakken Microseismic
Events with Simultaneous Anisotropic Tomography and Extended Double-Difference Method, SEG
Technical Program Expanded Abstracts, 2013.
23. Grechka, V. and Yaskevich, S., Inversion of Microseismic Data for Triclinic Velocity Models,
Geophysical Prospecting, 2013, vol. 61.
24. Grechka, V. and Yaskevich, S., Azimuthal Anisotropy in Microseismic Monitoring: A Bakken Case
Study, Geophysics, 2014, vol. 79, no. 1.
25. Obolentseva, I.R. and Grechka, V.Yu., Luchevoi metod v anizotropnoi srede (algoritmy,
programmy) (Ray-Path Method in an Anisotropic Medium (Algorithms, Programs), Novosibirsk: IGiG SO
AN SSSR, 1989.
26. Сerveny, V., Seismic Ray Theory: Cambridge University Press, 2001.
27. Meissner, F.F., Petroleum Geology of the Bakken Formation Williston Basin, North Dakota, and Montana,
Proc. Montana Geological Society 24th Annual Conference, 1991.
28. Hansen, P.C., Pereyra, V., and Scherer, G., Least Squares Data Fitting with Applications, Johns Hopkins
University Press, 2012.