2010
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2478.2010.00867.x
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Comparison of surface and borehole locations of induced seismicity

Abstract: Small Microseismic Surface Acquisition System for oilfield monitoring is presented. Algorithms for data processing are based on the mathematical theory of inverse problems and the using of the supercomputer calculations. A distinctive feature of the suggested system is high mobility, compactness and universality. The technology based on the this acquisition system is intended not only for hydraulic fracturing monitoring but also for long-duration passive monitoring of fluid injection, for hydrocarbon drainage … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

2
74
0
4

Year Published

2011
2011
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
5
3
2

Relationship

1
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 177 publications
(80 citation statements)
references
References 15 publications
2
74
0
4
Order By: Relevance
“…Attempts were made to select common events detected during this period by both (deep and shallow) networks for a joint location analysis, however, due to clock synchronization problems and difference in sensor frequency bands between the two networks, the common events could not be identified, and hence the task could not be accomplished. Some research indicated that by carefully identifying the largest events in different networks, synchronization between networks sometimes can be achieved by shifting the origin times in one network with a constant time (Eisner et al, 2010). The similar strategy will be adopted in the future.…”
Section: Induced Microearthquake Datasetmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Attempts were made to select common events detected during this period by both (deep and shallow) networks for a joint location analysis, however, due to clock synchronization problems and difference in sensor frequency bands between the two networks, the common events could not be identified, and hence the task could not be accomplished. Some research indicated that by carefully identifying the largest events in different networks, synchronization between networks sometimes can be achieved by shifting the origin times in one network with a constant time (Eisner et al, 2010). The similar strategy will be adopted in the future.…”
Section: Induced Microearthquake Datasetmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The spatial search range and grid size are selected based on the location uncertainty. The location uncertainty in the downhole monitoring scenario is estimated from the standard deviations of P-and S-wave arrival times and P-wave polarization angles (Eisner et al, 2010). For the dual-array data set used in this study, we calculate standard deviations and obtain 4.6 m (15 ft) in the radial direction, 7.6 m (25 ft) in the vertical direction and 2°in P-wave derived event back-azimuths constrained by two geophone arrays.…”
Section: Devmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Traditionally, events are located individually, for example, from variants of Geiger's method by ray tracing them from receiver locations using their respective arrival time and polarization estimates. It has been shown (Richards et al, 2006;Hulsey et al, 2009;Eisner et al, 2010;Kummerow, 2010) that this approach ignores important information that couples data from different events and thus ties them together.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%