Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T12:19:04.219Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

8 - Microseismic Technology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 November 2021

By
Peter M. Duncan
Edited by
Hamish Wilson ,
Keith Nunn  and
Matt Luheshi
Hamish Wilson
Affiliation:
BluEnergy Ltd
Keith Nunn
Affiliation:
Nunngeo Consulting Ltd
Matt Luheshi
Affiliation:
Leptis E&P Ltd
Get access

Summary

Microseismic monitoring, an extension of classical earthquake seismology, has found many applications in the resource industry. In particular, it has become an essential tool for observing the results of hydraulic fracturing on unconventional reservoirs, without which the reservoirs are not economic. Such monitoring allows for direct observation of the effectiveness of the well treatment, for the selection of improved treatment parameters, and contributes to the overall field development plan. Data from microseismic monitoring contributes to the understanding of the stimulated reservoir model, the drainage volume of individual wells, estimated production, production interference and the stress in the reservoir. This chapter presents an introduction to how these data are acquired, analysed and integrated with other data to affect a successful well completion and field development program.

Keywords

development optimizationdiscrete fracture networkDistributed Acoustic Sensing (DAS)economicsfrac’inggeomechanicshydraulic fracturingmicroseismic monitoringreservoir modellingreservoir stressshale reservoirsunconventional reservoir developmentwell planning
Type
Chapter
Information
Integration of Geophysical Technologies in the Petroleum Industry , pp. 272 - 317
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2021

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Agharazi, A., 2016. Determination of maximum horizontal field stress from microseismic focal mechanisms: A deterministic approach. In 50th U.S. Rock Mechanics/Geomechanics Symposium, 26–29 June 2016, Houston, TX.Google Scholar
Aki, K. and Richards, P. G., 2002. Quantitative Seismology, 2nd ed. Herndon, VA: University Science Books.Google Scholar
Artman, B., 2006. Imaging passive seismic data. Geophysics 71(4), SI177–SI187. DOI: 10.1190/1.2209748.Google Scholar
Attia, A., Brady, J., Lawrence, M. and Porter, R., 2019. Validating refrac effectiveness with carbon rod conveyed distributed fiber optics in the Barnett Shale for Devon Energy. Society of Petroleum Engineers. SPE 194338. DOI: 10.2118/194338-MS.Google Scholar
Baig, A. and Urbancic, T., 2010. Magnitude determination, event detectability and assessing the effectiveness of microseismic monitoring programs in petroleum applications. CSEG Recorder, 22–26 February.Google Scholar
Baig, A, Urbancic, T. and Seibel, M., 2010. The effect of microseismic array configuration on the determination of hydraulic fracture parameters. CSEG Annual Meeting and Exhibition.Google Scholar
Barkved, O., Dyer, B. C., Jones, R. H. and Folstad, P. G., 1999. Microseismic monitoring of the Valhall Field. Extended Abstracts, EAGE 61st Conference, Helsinki.Google Scholar
Barkved, O. I., Heavey, P., Kyelstadli, R., Kleppen, T. and Kristiansen, T. G., 2003. Valhall Field: Still on plateau after 20 years of production. In Proceedings SPE European Conference, Paper 83957.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barkved, O., Kommedahl, J. H. and Thomsen, L., 2004. The role of multi-component seismic data in developing the Valhall field, Norway. Extended Abstracts E040, EAGE 61st Conference, Helsinki.Google Scholar
Brune, J., 1970. Tectonic stress and spectra of shear waves from earthquakes. Journal of Geophysical Research, 75, 4997–5009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bulant, P., Eisner, L., Psencik, I. and Le Calvez, J., 2007. Importance of borehole deviation surveys for monitoring of hydraulic fracture treatments. Geophysical Prospecting, 55, 891–9. DOI: 10.111/j.1365-2478.2007.00654.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cao, R., Li, R., Girardi, A., Chowdhury, N. and Chen, C., 2017. Well interference and optimum well spacing for Wolfcamp development at Permian Basin. Unconventional Technology Conference (URTeC). DOI: 10.15530/urtec-2017-2691962.Google Scholar
Carlson, T. C. and Sipes, L. D. Jr., 1965. Characteristics of a San Andres reservoir. SPE-1145-MS. DOI: 10.2118/1145-MS.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chambers, K., 2019. What is DAS and what is it measuring? https://motionsignaltechnologies.comGoogle Scholar
Chambers, K., Kendall, J-M. and Barkved, O., 2010. Investigation of induced seismicity at Valhall using the Life of Field seismic array. The Leading Edge, 29(3), 290–5.Google Scholar
Cieslewicz, D. and Lawton, D. C., 1996. Receiver notching in a linear V(z) near-surface medium. CREWES Research Report 10, chapter 3.Google Scholar
Crovetto, C., Moirano, J., Vernengo, L., et al., 2020. Imaging a two-lateral zipper frac with a surface microseismic array in Vaca Muerta, Argentina. In Unconventional Resources Technology Conference (URTeC). DOI: 10.15530/urtec-2020-1503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Curia, D, Duncan, P. M., Grealy, M., McKenna, J. and Hill, A., 2018. Microseismic monitoring of Vaca Muerta completions in the Neuquén Basin, Argentina. The Leading Edge, 37(4), 262–9. DOI: 10.1190/tle37040262.1.Google Scholar
Daley, T. M., Freifeld, B. M., Ajo-Franklin, J., et al., 2013. Field testing of fiber-optic distributed acoustic sensing (DAS) for subsurface seismic monitoring. The Leading Edge, 32(6). DOI: 10.1190/tle32060699.1.Google Scholar
Daneshy, A. and King, G., 2019. Frac-driven interaction (FDI) between horizontal wells: Causes, consequences and mitigation techniques. Hydraulic Fracturing Journal, 5 (4), 4–28.Google Scholar
de Ridder, S. and Dellinger, J., 2011. Ambient seismic noise eikonal tomography for near surface imaging at Valhall. The Leading Edge, 30(5), 506–12. DOI: 10.1190/1.3589108.Google Scholar
Duncan, P. and Eisner, L., 2010. Reservoir characterization using surface microseismic monitoring. Geophysics, 75, 75A139–75A146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duncan, P. M., Smith, P. G., Smith, K. W., Barker, B., Williams-Stroud, S. and Eisner, L., 2013. Microseismic monitoring in early Haynesville development. In Hammes, U. and Gale, J. (eds.), Geology of the Haynesville Gas Shale in East Texas and Louisiana, USA. AAPG Memoir 105, 217–34.Google Scholar
Dyer, B. C., Schanz, U., Ladner, F., Häring, M. O. and Spillman, T., 2008. Microseismic imaging of a geothermal reservoir stimulation. The Leading Edge, 27(7), 856–69. DOI: 10.1190/1.2954024.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eaton, D. W., 2018. Passive Seismic Monitoring of Induced Seismicity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eaton, D. W., and Forouhideh, F., 2011. Solid angles and the impact of receiver array geometry on microseismic moment-tensor inversion. Geophysics, 76(6), WC77–WC85.Google Scholar
Eisner, L., Heigl, W., Duncan, P. M. and Keller, W., 2009. Uncertainties in passive seismic monitoring. The Leading Edge, 28(6), 648–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eisner, L., Williams-Stroud, S., Hill, A., Duncan, P. and Thornton, M., 2010. Beyond the dots in the box: Microseismic-constrained fracture models for reservoir simulation. The Leading Edge, 29(3), 326–33. DOI: 10.1190/1.3353730.Google Scholar
Evans, D. M., 1966. The Denver area earthquakes and the Rocky Mountain Arsenal disposal well. The Mountain Geologist, 3(1), 23–36.Google Scholar
Gibowicz, S. J. and Kijko, A., 1994. An Introduction to Mining Seismology. San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Grechka, V. and Heigl, W. M., 2017. Microseismic Monitoring. Geophysical References Series No. 22. Tulsa, OK: Society of Exploration Geophysicists.Google Scholar
Haller, N., Flateboe, R., Twallin, C., et al., 2016. Valhall case study: Value of seismic technology for reducing risks in a reactive overburden. Extended Abstracts, 78th EAGE Conference and Exhibition, Vienna, Austria.Google Scholar
Harthog, A. H., 2018. An Introduction to Distributed Optical Fibre Sensors. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.Google Scholar
Jin, G. and Baishali, R., 2017. Hydraulic-fracture geometry characterization using low-frequency DAS signal, The Leading Edge, 36(12), 975–80. DOI: 10.1190/tle36120975.1.Google Scholar
Jost, M. L. and Herrmann, R. B., 1989. A student’s guide to and review of moment tensors. Seismological Research Letters, 60(2), 37–57.Google Scholar
Jupe, A., Jones, R., Wilson, S. and Cowles, J., 2000. The role of microearthquake monitoring in hydrocarbon reservoir management. In SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, 1–4 October 2000, Dallas, Texas. DOI: 10.2118/63131-MS.Google Scholar
Kashikar, S., Shojaei, H. and Lipp, C., 2015. Accurate modelling improves early production predictions. World Oil, November, 16–19.Google Scholar
Khodabakshnejad, A., Rahimi Zeynal, A. and Fontenot, A., 2019. The sensitivity of well performance to well spacing and configuration: A Marcellus case study. In Unconventional Resources Technology Conference (URTeC). DOI: 10.15530/urtec-2019-1076.Google Scholar
Kommedahl, J.H., Barkved, O. I. and Howe, D. J., 2004. Initial experience operating a permanent 4C seabed array for reservoir monitoring at Valhall. Extended Abstract, SEG 74th Annual Meeting, 23, 2239–42.Google Scholar
Kristiansen, T., Barkved, O. and Patillo, P., 2000. Use of passive seismic monitoring in well and casing design in the compacting and subsiding Valhall field. In Proceedings SPE European Conference, Paper 65134.Google Scholar
Lay, T. and Wallace, T. C., 1995. Modern Global Seismology, San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Liaw, A. L. and McEvilly, T. V., 1979. Microseisms in geothermal exploration: Studies in Grass Valley, Nevada. Geophysics, 44(6), 1097–115.Google Scholar
Maron, K. P., Bourne, S., Wit, K. and McGillivray, P., 2005. Integrated reservoir surveillance of a heavy oil field in Peace River, Canada. In EAGE 67th Conference and Exhibition, C034.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayerhofer, M. J., Lolon, E. P., Warpinski, N. R., Cipolla, C. L., Walser, D. and Rightmire, C. M., 2010. What is stimulated reservoir volume? SPE Production & Operation, 25(1), 89–98, 119890.Google Scholar
Maxwell, S., 2014. Microseismic imaging of hydraulic fracturing: Improved engineering of unconventional shale reservoirs. Distinguished Instructor Series, No. 17, Society of Exploration Geophysicists.Google Scholar
Maxwell, S. C., Du, J. and Shemeta, J., 2008. Passive seismic and surface monitoring of geomechanical deformation associated with steam injection. The Leading Edge, 27(9), 1176–184. DOI: 10.1190/1.2978980.Google Scholar
Maxwell, S. C., Rutledge, J., Jones, R. and Fehler, M., 2010. Petroleum reservoir characterization using downhole microseismic monitoring. Geophysics, 75, 75A129–75A137.Google Scholar
Maxwell, S. C. and Urbancic, T. I., 2001. The role of passive microseismic monitoring in the instrumented oil field. The Leading Edge, 20(6), 636–9.Google Scholar
Maxwell, S. C., Urbancic, T., Steinsberger, N. and Zinno, R., 2002. Microseismic imaging of fracture complexity in the Barnett Shale. In Proceedings of the 2002 Societyof Petroleum Engineers, Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, TX, paper 77440.Google Scholar
Maxwell, S. C., White, D. J. and Fabriol, H., 2004. Passive seismic imaging of CO2 sequestration at Weyburn. Expanded Abstracts, SEG Technical Program. DOI: 10.1190/1.1842409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maxwell, S. C., Young, R. P., Bossu, R., Jupe, A. and Dangerfield, J., 1996. Microseismic logging of the Ekofisk Reservoir. Paper presented at the SPE/ISRM Rock Mechanics in Petroleum Engineering, Trondheim, Norway, July 1998. DOI: 10.2118/47276-MS.Google Scholar
Neuhaus, C. W., McKenna, J., Rahimi Zeynal, A., Telker, C. and Ellison, M., 2014. Completions and reservoir engineering applications of microseismic data. Expanded Abstracts, SEG Technical Program, 4564–9. DOI: 10.1190/segam2014-1365.1.Google Scholar
Oda, M., 1985. Permeability tensor for discontinuous rock masses. Geotechnique, 35(4), 483–95.Google Scholar
Olofsson, B. and Martinez, A., 2017. Validation of DAS data integrity against standard geophones: DAS field test at Acquistore site. The Leading Edge, 36(12), 981–6. DOI: 10.1190/tle36120981.1.Google Scholar
Ouyang, L. and Belanger, D., 2004. Flow profiling via Distributed Temperature Sensor (DTS) system: Expectation and reality. In SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition.Google Scholar
Raleigh, C. B., Healy, J. H. and Bredhoeft, J. D., 1976. An experiment in earthquake control at Rangely, Colorado. Science, New Series, 191(4233), 1230–7.Google Scholar
Rutledge, J. T., Phillips, W. S., House, L. S. and Zinno, R. J., 1998. Microseismic mapping of a Cotton Valley hydraulic fracture using decimated downhole arrays. Expanded Abstracts, Society of Exploration Geophysicists 68th Annual International Meeting, 338–41.Google Scholar
Shapiro, S. A., Rothert, E., Rath, V. and Rindschwentner, J., 2002. Characterization of fluid transport properties of reservoirs using induced microseismicity. Geophysics, 67, 212–20.Google Scholar
Vavryčuk, V., 2007. On the retrieval of moment tensors from borehole data. Geophysical Prospecting, 55, 381–91.Google Scholar
Wessels, S. A., De La Peña, A., Kratz, M., Williams-Stroud, S. and Jbeili, T., 2011. Identifying faults and fractures in unconventional reservoirs through microseismic monitoring. First Break, 29(7). DOI: 10.3997/1365-2397.29.7.51919.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams-Stroud, S., 2008. Using microseismic events to constrain fracture network models and implications for generating fracture flow properties for reservoir simulation. Paper presented at the SPE Shale Gas Production Conference, November 2008, Fort Worth, TX. DOI: 10.2118/119895-MS.Google Scholar
Williams-Stroud, S. and Eisner, L.., 2009. Method for determining discrete fracture networks from passive seismic signals and its application to subsurface reservoir simulation. Patent no. US8902710B2.Google Scholar
Williams-Stroud, S., Kilpatrick, J. E., Cornette, B., Eisner, L. and Hall, M., 2010. Moving outside the borehole: Characterizing natural fractures through microseismic monitoring. First Break, 28(7), 89–94.Google Scholar
Willis, M. E., Barfoot, D., Elmauthaler, A., et al., 2016. Quantitative quality of distributed acoustic sensing vertical seismic profile data. The Leading Edge, 35(7). DOI: 10.1190/tle35070605.1.Google Scholar
Xiong, H., Ramanathan, R. and Nguyen, K., 2019. Maximizing asset value by full field development: Case studies in the Permian Basin. In Unconventional Technologies Conference (URTeC). DOI: 10.15530/urtec-2019-554.Google Scholar
Zoback, M. D., 2012. Managing the seismic risk posed by wastewater disposal. Earth Magazine, April, 38–43.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×