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.

×

A precise velocity model is necessary to obtain reliable locations of microseismic events, which provide information about the effectiveness of the hydraulic stimulation. Seismic anisotropy plays an important role in microseismic event location by imposing the dependency between wave velocities and its propagation direction. Building an anisotropic velocity model that accounts for that effect allows for more accurate location of microseismic events. We have used downhole microseismic records from a pilot hydraulic fracturing experiment in Lower-Paleozoic shale gas play in the Baltic Basin, Northern Poland, to obtain accurate microseismic events locations. We have developed a workflow for a vertical transverse isotropy velocity model construction when facing a challenging absence of horizontally polarized S-waves in perforation shot data, which carry information about Thomsen’s γ parameter and provide valuable constraints for locating microseismic events. We extract effective ε, δ and VP0, VS0 for each layer from the P- and SV-wave arrivals of perforation shots, whereas the unresolved γ is retrieved afterward from the SH-SV-wave delay time of selected microseismic events. An inverted velocity model provides more reliable location of microseismic events, which then becomes an essential input for evaluating the hydraulic stimulation job effectiveness in the geomechanical context. We evaluate the influence of the preexisting fracture sets and obliquity between the borehole trajectory and principal horizontal stress direction on the hydraulic treatment performance. The fracturing fluid migrates to previously fractured zones, while the growth of the microseismic volume in consecutive stages is caused by increased penetration of the above-lying lithologic formations.

References

  • Allen, R. V., 1978, Automatic earthquake recognition and timing from single traces: Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 68, 1521–1532.BSSAAP0037-1106CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar
  • Backus, G. E., 1962, Long-wave elastic anisotropy produced by horizontal layering: Journal of Geophysical Research, 67, 4427–4440, doi: 10.1029/JZ067i011p04427.JGREA20148-0227CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar
  • Bayuk, I., E. M. Chesnokov, and M. Ammerman, 2009, Why anisotropy is important for location of microearthquake events in shale?: 79th Annual International Meeting, SEG, Expanded Abstracts, 1632–1636.AbstractGoogle Scholar
  • Bentley, J. L., 1975, Multidimensional binary search trees used for associative searching: Communications of the ACM, 18, 509–517, doi: 10.1145/361002.361007.CACMA20001-0782CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar
  • Bobek, K., and M. Jarosiński, 2018, Parallel structural interpretation of drill cores and microresistivity scanner images from gas-bearing shale (Baltic Basin, Poland): Interpretation, 6, no. 3, SH25–SH38, doi: 10.1190/int-2017-0211.1.AbstractGoogle Scholar
  • Bobek, K., M. Jarosiński, and R. Pachytel, 2017, Tectonic structures in shale that you do not include in your reservoir model: American Rock Mechanics Association Publications, 17–79.Google Scholar
  • Cipolla, C., and J. Wallace, 2014, Stimulated reservoir volume: A misapplied concept?: Presented at the SPE Hydrulic Fracturing Technology Conference.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Cyz, M., and M. Malinowski, 2018, Seismic azimuthal anisotropy study of the lower paleozoic shale play in Northern Poland: Interpretation, 6, no. 3, SH1–SH12, doi: 10.1190/int-2017-0200.1.AbstractGoogle Scholar
  • Eaton, D. W., 2018, Passive seismic monitoring of induced seismicity: Cambridge University Press.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Eisner, L., P. Duncan, W. M. Heigl, and W. R. Keller, 2009, Uncertainties in passive seismic monitoring: The Leading Edge, 28, 648–655, doi: 10.1190/1.3148403.AbstractGoogle 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. P. Verdon, and M. Malinowski, 2018, Results of the downhole microseismic monitoring at a pilot hydraulic fracturing site in Poland — Part 2: Shear wave splitting analysis: Interpretation, 6, this issue, doi: 10.1190/int-2017-0207.1.AbstractGoogle Scholar
  • Gajek, W., J. P. Verdon, M. Malinowski, and J. Trojanowski, 2017, Imaging seismic anisotropy in a shale gas reservoir by combining microseismic and 3D surface reflection seismic data: 79th Annual International Conference and Exhibition, EAGE, Extended Abstracts, doi: 10.3997/2214-4609.201701689.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Grechka, V., 2015, On the feasibility of inversion of single-well microseismic data for full moment tensor: Geophysics, 80, no. 4, KS41–KS49, doi: 10.1190/geo2014-0471.1.GPYSA70016-8033AbstractWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar
  • Grechka, V., and S. Yaskevich, 2014, Azimuthal anisotropy in microseismic monitoring: A Bakken case study: Geophysics, 79, no. 1, KS1–KS12, doi: 10.1190/geo2013-0211.1.GPYSA70016-8033AbstractWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar
  • Hanks, T. C., and H. Kanamori, 1979, A moment magnitude scale: Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 84, 2348–2350.Google Scholar
  • Jarosiński, M., 2006, Recent tectonic stress field investigations in Poland: A state of the art: Geological Quarterly, 50, 303–321.Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar
  • Kowalski, H., P. Godlewski, W. Kobusinski, W. Makarewicz, M. Podolak, A. Nowicka, Z. Mikolajewski, D. Chase, R. Dafni, A. Canning, and Z. Koren, 2014, Imaging and characterization of a shale reservoir onshore Poland, using full-azimuth seismic depth: First Break, 32, 101–109.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Maxwell, S., 2014, Microseismic imaging of hydraulic fracturing: SEG.AbstractGoogle Scholar
  • Pasternacki, A., 2016, Appraisal of hydraulic fracturing effectiveness in the shale gas exploration based on microseismic monitoring: Ph.D. thesis, AGH University of Science and Technology.Google Scholar
  • Riedel, M., 2016, Efficient computation of seismic traveltimes in anisotropic media and the application in pre-stack depth migration: Ph.D. thesis, University of Freiberg.Google Scholar
  • Rudzki, M. P., 1911, Parametrische Darstellung der elastischen Wellen in anisotropischen Medien: Bulletin of the Academy of Sciences Cracov (A), 503–536.Google Scholar
  • Święch, E., P. Wandycz, L. Eisner, A. Pasternacki, and T. Maćkowski, 2017, Downhole microseismic monitoring of shale deposits: Case study from Northern Poland: Acta Geodynamica et Geomaterialia, 14, 297–304.Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar
  • Tarantola, A., 2005, Inverse problem theory and methods for model parameter estimation: SIAM.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Thomsen, L., 1986, Weak elastic anisotropy: Geophysics, 51, 1954–1966, doi: 10.1190/1.1442051.GPYSA70016-8033AbstractWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar
  • Thomsen, L., 2002, Understanding seismic anisotropy in exploration and exploitation: SEG.AbstractGoogle Scholar
  • Trojanowski, J., A. Górszczyk, and L. Eisner, 2016, A multichannel convolution filter for correlated noise: Microseismic data application: 86th Annual International Meeting, SEG, Expanded Abstracts, 2637–2641.AbstractGoogle Scholar
  • Verdon, J. P., and A. Wuestefeld, 2013, Measurement of the normal/tangential fracture compliance ratio (ZN/ZT) during hydraulic fracture stimulation using S-wave splitting data: Geophysical Prospecting, 61, 461–475, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2478.2012.01132.x.GPPRAR0016-8025CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar
  • Vernik, L., and J. Milovac, 2011, Rock physics of organic shales: The Leading Edge, 30, 318–323, doi: 10.1190/1.3567263.AbstractGoogle Scholar
  • Warpinski, N. R., and P. T. Branagan, 1989, Altered-stress fracturing: Journal of Petroleum Technology, 41, 990–997.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Winkler, K. W., 1986, Estimates of velocity dispersion between seismic and ultrasonic frequencies: Geophysics, 51, 183–189, doi: 10.1190/1.1442031.GPYSA70016-8033AbstractWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar
  • Yu, C., 2016, Microseismic inversion for anisotropic velocity model in unconventional reservoirs: Ph.D. thesis, Freien Universität Berlin.Google Scholar
  • Yu, C., and S. Shapiro, 2014, Seismic anisotropy of shale inversion of microseismic data: 84th Annual International Meeting, SEG, Expanded Abstracts, 2324–2329.Google Scholar
  • Zangeneh, N., E. Eberhardt, and R. M. Bustin, 2015, Investigation of the influence of stress shadows on horizontal hydraulic fractures from adjacent lateral wells: Journal of Unconventional Oil and Gas Resources, 9, 54–64, doi: 10.1016/j.juogr.2014.11.001.CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar
  • Zhang, Y., L. Eisner, W. Barker, and K. L. Smith, 2013, Effective anisotropic velocity model from surface monitoring of microseismic events: Geophysical Prospecting, 61, 919–930, doi: 10.1111/1365-2478.12017.GPPRAR0016-8025CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar
  • Zimmer, U., H. Bland, J. Du, N. Warpinski, V. Sen, and J. Wolfe, 2009, Accuracy of microseismic event locations recorded with single and distributed downhole sensor arrays: 79th Annual International Meeting, SEG, Expanded Abstracts, 1519–1522.AbstractGoogle Scholar