Testing the ability of surface arrays to monitor microseismic activity |
| |
| Authors: | Kit Chambers J‐Michael Kendall Sverre Brandsberg‐Dahl Jose Rueda |
| |
| Institution: | 1. Department of Earth Sciences, University of Bristol, Queen's Road, Bristol BS8 7NA, UK;2. BP America, 5501 Westlake Park Boulevard, Houston, TX 77079, USA |
| |
| Abstract: | Recently there has been much interest in the use of data from surface arrays in conjunction with migration‐based processing methods for passive seismic monitoring. In this study we use an example of this kind of data recorded whilst 18 perforation shots, with a variety of positions and propellant amounts, were detonated in the subsurface. As the perforation shots provide signals with known source positions and origin times, the analysis of these data is an invaluable opportunity to test the accuracy and ability of surface arrays to detect and locate seismic sources in the subsurface. In all but one case the signals from the perforation shots are not visible in the raw or preprocessed data. However, clear source images are produced for 12 of the perforation shots showing that arrays of surface sensors are capable of imaging microseismic events, even when the signals are not visible in individual traces. We find that point source locations are within typically 45 m (laterally) of the true shot location, however the depths are less well constrained (～150 m). We test the sensitivity of our imaging method to the signal‐to‐noise ratio in the data using signals embedded in realistic noise. We find that the position of the imaged shot location is quite insensitive to the level of added noise, the primary effect of increased noise being to defocus the source image. Given the migration approach, the array geometry and the nature of coherent noise during the experiment, signals embedded in noise with ratios ≥0.1 can be used to successfully image events. Furthermore, comparison of results from data and synthetic signals embedded in noise shows that, in this case, prestack corrections of traveltimes to account for near‐surface structure will not enhance event detectability. Although, the perforation shots have a largely isotropic radiation pattern the results presented here show the potential for the use of surface sensors in microseismic monitoring as a viable alternative to classical downhole methods. |
| |
| Keywords: | |
|
|
