Pages
Download article

Method selection of microseismic studies depending on the problem being solved

E.V. Biryaltsev, M.R. Kamilov

Original article

DOI https://doi.org/10.18599/grs.2018.3.217-221

217-221
rus.
eng.

open access

Under a Creative Commons license

The article compares two methods of microseismic studies of the maximum likelihood method and the Keipon method for detecting the position of microseismic event when observed from the surface in the conditions of the developed deposit or by monitoring the hydraulic fracturing. The results of computational experiments for determining the accuracy of localization of model microseism in space, as well as for various noise levels, for various types of microseismic events and for the allocation of recurring events are presented. Based on the results of the experiments, the conclusion is drawn that the problems of identifying non-recurring events are more confidently solved by maximum likelihood methods, while for the detection of zones of increased fracturing, the method of Keipon is best suited.

 

hydraulic fracturing monitoring, natural fracturing monitoring, microseismic events, maximum likelihood method, superresolution method, Keipon method, seismic moment tensor

 

  • Aki K., Richards P.G. (1980). Quantitative seismology: Freeman and Co.
  • Anikiev D., Valenta J., Stanek F. and Eisner L. (2014). Joint location and source mechanism inversion of microseismic events: benchmarking on seismicity induced by hydraulic fracturing. Geophys. J. Int., 198, pp. 249-258.
  • Birialtsev E.V., Demidov D.E., Mokshin E.V. (2017). Determination of moment tensor and location of microseismic events under conditions of highly correlated noise based on the maximum likelihood method. Geophysical prospecting, pp. 1-17. DOI: 10.1111/1365-2478.12485.
  • Gajewski D., Anikiev D., Kashtan B., Tessmer E. &Vanelle C. (2007). Localization of seismic events by diffraction stacking, SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts, 26(1), pp. 1287-1291.
  • Gajewski D. and Tessmer E. (2005). Reverse modelling for seismic event characterization. Geophys. J. Int., 163(1), pp. 276-284.
  • Gharti H., Oye V., Kühn D. and Zhao P. (2011). Simultaneous microearthquake location and moment tensor estimation using time reversal imaging. SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts, 319, pp. 1632-1637.
  • Kushnir A., Varypaev A., Dricker I., Rozhkov M. and Rozhkov N. (2014). Passive surface microseismic monitoring as a statistical problem: location of weak microseismic signals in the presence of strongly correlated noise. Geophys. J. Int., 198(2), pp. 1186-1198.
  • Maxwell S.C. (2014). Microseismic Imaging of Hydraulic Fracturing: Improved Engineering of Unconventional Shale Reservoirs. Distinguished Instructor Short Course No 17, Society of Exploration Geophysicists Tulsa Ok. https://doi.org/10.1190/1.9781560803164
  •  

Evgeny V. Biryaltsev
Gradient CJSC
N.Ershov st., 29, Kazan, 420045, Russian Federation

Marcel R. Kamilov
Gradient CJSC
N.Ershov st., 29, Kazan, 420045, Russian Federation

 

For citation:

Biryaltsev E.V., Kamilov M.R. (2018). Method selection of microseismic studies depending on the problem being solved. Georesursy = Georesources, 20(3), Part 2, pp. 217-221. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18599/grs.2018.3.217-221