This website uses cookies to improve your experience. If you continue without changing your settings, you consent to our use of cookies in accordance with our cookie policy. You can disable cookies at any time.


Estimating microseismic detectability of the surface-monitoring network using downhole-monitoring array


We have analyzed microseismic monitoring data sets obtained from the surface and downhole-monitoring arrays recorded during the first experiment of hydraulic fracturing in Poland. Using the downhole-monitoring network, we were able to record and locate 844 microseismic events, including 10 perforation shots from six stages of the stimulation. We detected 2 perforation shots and no microseismic events using the surface array, which was operational only during the first two stages of the stimulation. To explain the poor detectability of the surface array, we analyzed the spectral content of the events from the downhole-monitoring array. We found that the detectability of the perforation shots on the surface array was consistent with the low-frequency part of the signal on the downhole recordings. Our observation is in agreement with the fact that microseismic events with low-frequency signal weaker than the two detected perforation shots were not detected by the surface-monitoring array. Using the low-frequency part of the spectra of the events recorded by the downhole array, we predicted the surface-array detection threshold. We found that some events from the later stages could have been detected if only the surface array had been operational during that time.


  • Aki, K., and P. G. Richards, 2002, Quantitative seismology, 2nd ed.: University Science Books.Google Scholar
  • Anikiev, D., J. Valenta, F. Stanek, and L. Eisner, 2104, Joint location and source mechanism inversion of microseismic events: Benchmarking on seismicity induced by hydraulic fracturing: Geophysical Journal International, 198, 249–258, doi: 10.1093/gji/ggu126.CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar
  • Chambers, K., J.-M. Kendall, S. Brandsberg-Dahl, and J. Rueda, 2010, Testing the ability of surface arrays to monitor microseismic activity: Geophysical Prospecting, 58, 821–830, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2478.2010.00893.x.CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar
  • Czanik, C., and L. Eisner, 2013, Signal and noise on buried and surface geophones for microseismic monitoring: 75th Annual International Conference and Exhibition, EAGE, Extended Abstracts, doi: 10.3997/2214-4609.20130394.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Duncan, P., and L. Eisner, 2010, Reservoir characterization using surface microseismic monitoring: Geophysics, 75, no. 5, 75A139–75A146, doi: 10.1190/1.3467760.AbstractWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar
  • Einspigel, D., and L. Eisner, 2014, The differences in the detectability of perforation shots and microseismic events in the surface monitoring: The attenuation effect: Acta Geodynamica et Geomaterialia, 174, 159–164.Google Scholar
  • Gajek, W., J. Trojanowski, and M. Malinowski, 2016, Advantages of probabilistic approach to microseismic events location: A case study from Northern Poland: 78th Annual International Conference and Exhibition, EAGE, Extended Abstracts, doi: 10.3997/2214-4609.201600909.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Gajek, W., J. Trojanowski, M. Malinowski, M. Jarosiński, and M. Riedel, 2018, Results of the downhole microseismic monitoring at a pilot hydraulic fracturing site in Poland — Part 1: Events location and stimulation performance: Interpretation, 6, this issue, doi: 10.1190/int-2017-0205.1.AbstractGoogle Scholar
  • Gaucher, E., 2016, Earthquake detection probability within a seismically quiet area: Application to the Bruchsal geothermal field: Geophysical Prospecting, 64, 268–286, doi: 10.1111/1365-2478.12270.CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar
  • Kwiatek, G., and Y. Ben-Zion, 2016, Theoretical limits on detection and analysis of small earthquakes: Journal of Geophysical Research, 121, 5898–5916.Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar
  • Kwietniak, A., 2016, Spectral decomposition of a seismic signal: Thin bed thickness estimation and analysis of attenuating zones: Ph.D. thesis, University of Science and Technology in Cracow.Google Scholar
  • Malinowski, M., S. Operto, and A. Ribodetti, 2011, High-resolution seismic attenuation imaging from wide-aperture onshore data by visco-acoustic frequency-domain full-waveform inversion: Geophysical Journal International, 186, 1179–1204, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-246X.2011.05098.x.CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar
  • Maxwell, S., J. Rutledge, R. Jones, and M. Fehler, 2010, Petroleum reservoir characterization using downhole microseismic monitoring: Geophysics, 75, no. 5, 75A129–75A137, doi: 10.1190/1.3477966.AbstractWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar
  • Święch, E., P. Wandycz, L. Eisner, A. Pasternacki, and T. Maćkowski, 2017, Downhole microseismic monitoring of Polish gas deposits: Acta Geodynamica et Geomaterialia, 14, 297–304.Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar
  • Vaezi, Y., and M. Van der Baan, 2015, Comparison of the STA/LTA and power spectral density method for microseismic event detection: Geophysical Journal International, 203, 1896–1908, doi: 10.1093/gji/ggv419.CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar
  • Vavryčuk, V., 2007, On the retrieval of moment tensors from borehole data: Geophysical Prospecting, 55, 381–391, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2478.2007.00624.x.CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar
  • Wandycz, P., E. Święch, L. Eisner, T. Maćkowski, and A. Pasternacki, 2017, Estimation of the quality factor using peak frequency method in Polish shale gas deposits: 79th Annual International Conference and Exhibition, EAGE, Extended Abstracts, doi: 10.3997/2214-4609.201701487.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Wang, H., M. Li, and X. Shang, 2016, Current developments on micro-seismic data processing: Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering, 32, 521–537, doi: 10.1016/j.jngse.2016.02.058.CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar
  • Withers, M., R. Aster, Chr. Young, J. Beiriger, M. Harris, S. Moore, and J. Trujillo, 1998, A comparison of select trigger algorithms for automated global seismic phase and event detection: Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 88, 99–106.CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar