A simple inversion algorithm to estimate a linearly increasing velocity model for microseismic monitoring
Woochang Choi 1 Wonsik Kim 2 Sukjoon Pyun 1 31 Department of Energy Resources Engineering, Inha University, 100, Inha-ro, Nam-gu Incheon, 22212, Korea.
2 Korea Institute of Geoscience and Mineral Resources, 905, Yeongilman-daero, Heunghae-eup, Buk-gu, Pohang, Gyeongsangbuk-do, 37559, Korea.
3 Corresponding author. Email: pyunsj@inha.ac.kr
Exploration Geophysics 49(5) 647-654 https://doi.org/10.1071/EG17104
Submitted: 16 August 2017 Accepted: 18 August 2017 Published: 18 September 2017
Abstract
Microseismic monitoring is used to optimise shale gas production or enhanced geothermal stimulation. The technical tools for microseismic monitoring, which is a passive seismic method, are similar to those used in earthquake detection, but differ in that the target area is much smaller than areas affected by earthquakes. Therefore, it is important to use an accurate velocity model. However, such models require conducting an additional survey, which can be both expensive and time-consuming. Many microseismic monitoring studies have used an approximated velocity model constructed from well logging data to reduce these additional costs. In this study, we used a simple approximated model in which velocity increases linearly with depth and creates an accurate velocity model, eliminating the need for an additional survey. We analytically derived formulas for seismic ray traveltime and inverted the velocity gradient using the Gauss–Newton method. Using a numerical example, we verified that the proposed algorithm accurately describes the long-wavelength trend of the true velocity model in a negligibly short time. We performed a Monte Carlo simulation to evaluate the effects of traveltime picking errors. The simulation results indicated that the proposed algorithm provides a reasonable solution under the probable uncertainty of traveltime picking. Finally, we verified that our algorithm was not sensitive to the initial velocity gradient through inversion tests using various initial values. Thus, the numerical example and analysis confirm that the proposed algorithm is efficient and robust.
Key words: Gauss–Newton method, linearly increasing velocity model, microseismic monitoring, Monte Carlo simulation, traveltime picking error.
References
Akram, J., and Eaton, D., 2013, Impact of velocity model calibration on microseismic locations: SEG Technical Program, Expanded Abstracts, 1982–1986.Anikiev, D., Stanek, F., Valenta, J., and Eisner, L., 2013, Imaging microseismic events by diffraction stacking with moment tensor inversion: 83rd Annual International Meeting, SEG, Expanded Abstracts, 2013–2018.
Artman, B., Podladtchikov, I., and Witten, B., 2010, Source location using time‐reverse imaging: Geophysical Prospecting, 58, 861–873
| Source location using time‐reverse imaging:Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Castellanos, F., and van der Baan, M., 2013, Microseismic event locations using the double-difference algorithm: CSEG Recorder, 38, 26–37
Castellanos, F., and van der Baan, M., 2015, Waveform similarity for quality control of event locations, time picking, and moment tensor solutions: Geophysics, 80, WC99–WC106
| Waveform similarity for quality control of event locations, time picking, and moment tensor solutions:Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Červený, V., Molotkov, I. A., and Pšenčík, I., 1977, Ray method in seismology: Univerzita Karlova.
Erwemi, A., Walsh, J., Bennett, L., Woerpel, C., and Purcell, D., 2010, Anisotropic velocity modeling for microseismic processing: part 3 – borehole sonic calibration case study: SEG Technical Program, Expanded Abstracts, 508–512.
Geiger, L., 1912, Probability method for the determination of earthquake epicenters from the arrival time only: Bulletin of St Louis University, 8, 56–71
Helbig, K., 1990, Rays and wavefront charts in gradient media: Geophysical Prospecting, 38, 189–220
| Rays and wavefront charts in gradient media:Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Jansky, J., Plicka, V., and Eisner, L., 2010, Feasibility of joint 1D velocity model and event location inversion by the neighbourhood algorithm: Geophysical Prospecting, 58, 229–234
| Feasibility of joint 1D velocity model and event location inversion by the neighbourhood algorithm:Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Julian, B. R., and Gubbins, D., 1977, Three-dimensional seismic ray tracing: Journal of Geophysics, 43, 95–114
Kocon, K., and van der Baan, M., 2012, Quality assessment of microseismic event locations and traveltime picks using a multiplet analysis: The Leading Edge, 31, 1330–1337
| Quality assessment of microseismic event locations and traveltime picks using a multiplet analysis:Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Larmat, C., Tromp, J., Liu, Q., and Montagner, J. P., 2008, Time reversal location of glacial earthquakes: Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 113, B09314
Li, J., Li, C., Morton, S. A., Dohmen, T., Katahara, K, and Toksöz, M. N., 2014, Microseismic joint location and anisotropic velocity inversion for hydraulic fracturing in a tight Bakken reservoir: Geophysics, 79, C111–C122
| Microseismic joint location and anisotropic velocity inversion for hydraulic fracturing in a tight Bakken reservoir:Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Maxwell, S., 2009, Microseismic location uncertainty: CSEG Recorder, 34, 41–46
Maxwell, S. C., and Young, R. P., 1993, A comparison between controlled source and passive source velocity images: Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 83, 1813–1834
Nakata, N., and Beroza, G. C., 2016, Reverse time migration for microseismic sources using the geometric mean as an imaging condition: Geophysics, 81, KS51–KS60
| Reverse time migration for microseismic sources using the geometric mean as an imaging condition:Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Sethian, J. A., and Popovici, A. M., 1999, 3-D traveltime computation using the fast marching method: Geophysics, 64, 516–523
| 3-D traveltime computation using the fast marching method:Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Song, F., and Toksöz, M. N., 2011, Full-waveform based complete moment tensor inversion and source parameter estimation from downhole microseismic data for hydrofracture monitoring: Geophysics, 76, WC103–WC116
| Full-waveform based complete moment tensor inversion and source parameter estimation from downhole microseismic data for hydrofracture monitoring:Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Usher, P. J., Angus, D. A., and Verdon, J. P., 2013, Influence of a velocity model and source frequency on microseismic waveforms: some implications for microseismic locations: Geophysical Prospecting, 61, 334–345
| Influence of a velocity model and source frequency on microseismic waveforms: some implications for microseismic locations:Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
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, 1353–1368
| A double-difference earthquake location algorithm: method and application to the northern Hayward fault, California:Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Woerpel, C., 2010, Anisotropic velocity modeling for microseismic processing: part 2 – fast and accurate model calibration with a cross-well source: SEG Technical Program, Expanded Abstracts, 2135–2139.
Zhebel, O., and Eisner, L., 2012, Simultaneous microseismic event localization and source mechanism determination: 82nd Annual International Meeting, SEG, Expanded Abstracts, 341, 1–5.