Author:
Krasnikova О., ,Vyzhva S.,
Abstract
The article is devoted to the analysis of the characteristics of the determining stages of data processing of microseismic monitoring of hydraulic fracturing. The importance of having an accurate velocity model and the stages of its creation are substantiated. A classification of velocity models and the input data required for their creation are provided. Groups of methods for determining the hypocenter of a microseismic event, their advantages, limitations and factors affecting the accuracy of calculations are considered. A detailed description of specific methods is given. Among the absolute methods are grid search methods, linearized inversion (Geiger) and methods based on the extension of wave fields into the medium. Among the relative methods are the master-event method and the double-difference method. Algorithms for the application of specific methods are given. An example of the comparative characteristics of various methods when choosing a method for determining the hypocenter of a microseismic event is provided.
Publisher
Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv
Reference13 articles.
1. Akram, J. (2020). Understanding Downhole Microseismic Data Analysis: With Applications in Hydraulic Fracture Monitoring, Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-34017-9
2. Castellanos, F., Baan, M. (2013). Microseismic event locations using the double-difference algorithm. CSEG Recorder, 38, 26-37.
3. Eaton, D. (2018). Passive Seismic Monitoring of Induced Seismicity: Fundamental Principles and Application to Energy Technologies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316535547
4. Geiger, L. (1912). Probability method for the determination of earthquake epicenters from the arrival time only, Bull. St. Louis Univ., 8, 60-71.
5. Grechka, V. I., Heigl, W.M. (2017). Microseismic monitoring, Tulsa, OK: Society of Exploration Geophysicists.