Comparison of migration-based microseismic location methods

L. Li,H. Chen,X. Wang,D. Gajewski

2017-01-01

Abstract:Migration-based methods play an important role in microseismic source location, especially for surface monitoring with a large number of receivers. We compare three migration-based microseismic source location methods, namely, diffraction stacking, semblance-weighted stacking and crosscorrelation stacking. The numerical results demonstrate the feasibility and robustness of migrationbased methods for locating low signal-to-noise ratio microseismic events. Diffraction stacking and semblance-weighted stacking share the same stacking operator. The semblance-weighted waveforms can suppress the noise better, thus they result in higher imaging resolution. Cross-correlation stacking utilizes the interferometric migration operator and exhibits more reliable results when considering velocity uncertainty. INTRODUCTION Microseismic monitoring technology has become a research hotspot in passive seismology and unconventional oil and gas industry (Maxwell, 2014). The basic idea of microseismic monitoring is to monitor the fracture geometry based on the positions of seismic sources/acoustic emissions, so source location plays an essential role in the technology. In most cases, microseismicity has rather weak energy and exhibits very low signal-to-noise ratio (S/N), while the number of microseismic events is typically large. All these characteristics make it difficult for traditional traveltime inversion methods to locate microseismic events accurately and efficiently (Bardainne et al., 2009). In order to locate a large number of low S/N microseismic events reliably, migration-based methods have been proposed (Duncan, 2005). Migration-based methods utilize both kinematic information (e.g., traveltime) and dynamic information (e.g., amplitude) in the imaging process, and they can also be called beamforming or coherence scanning (Maxwell, 2014). These methods image and locate the sources by focusing the energy with certain types of imaging conditions, which are constructed by relations between the traveltime and the amplitude or energy contained in microseismic waveforms. Compared with classical traveltime inversion, migration-based methods have following advantages: (1) they need no phase picking and can avoid potential errors resulting from it; (2) due to the stacking process in imaging, they can detect more weak events in low S/N data ; (3) they can be directly united with source mechanism inversion and other reservoir characterization methods (Duncan and Eisner, 2010; Anikiev et al., 2014). Due to the similarity of the characteristics of diffractors and seismic sources, most migration-based methods stack weak events along diffraction traveltime curves to enhance the location capabilities. For example, Kao and Shan (2004) stacked the absolute amplitudes to reconstruct the spatial and temporal distribution of the seismic sources. Gajewski et al. (2007) utilized the squared amplitudes to avoid polarization effects in surface arrays. Besides, the performances of some other waveform functions in diffraction stacking are also studied, such as short-term average to long-term average (STA/LTA) of the waveforms (Drew et al., 2005; Grigoli et al., 2013), semblance of the waveforms (Chambers et al., 2010), semblanceweighted waveforms (Eaton et al., 2011; Zhang and Zhang, 2013) and waveform envelopes (Gharti et al., Annual WIT report 2016 93 2010). Another idea is to image microseismic sources by stacking the cross-correlograms (Grandi and Oates, 2009; Li et al., 2015). Microseismic waveforms from different receivers are cross-correlated and then stacked according to corresponding traveltime differences. This method is originated from seismic interferometric imaging and can also be called cross-correlation stacking/migration (Schuster et al., 2004). Recently, Trojanowski and Eisner (2017) compared several commonly used migration-based methods for surface microseismic monitoring. Their basic conclusions include: (1) the polarization correction could greatly enhance the imaging result; (2) semblance and cross-correlation based methods provided better location results than simple diffraction stacking, but they are more sensitive to velocity uncertainty. In this work, we further study the location capability of three promising migration-based methods, namely, diffraction stacking, semblance-weighted stacking and cross-correlation stacking. Both Pand S-waves are considered in the imaging process, and no polarization correction is utilized for either of the methods. The basic principles of the three methods are introduced, followed by 2D and 3D numerical examples of surface monitoring. Absolute values, envelop values and squared values of waveforms can all handle the polarity issues at the expense of imaging resolution, but the latter can enhance the S/N and focus the source energy better by enlarging the differences between signals and noises. Numerical examples indicate that all the three migration-based methods can locate low S/N microseismic events accurately with a reliable velocity model. Moreover, compared with the diffraction stacking operator, the interferometric migration operator utilized in cross-correlation stacking is less sensitive to velocity uncertainty. METHOD In order to image subsurface sources, most migration-based location methods need to discretize the model into grids and calculate the traveltime table with the given velocity model. In this section, the basic principles of the three migration-based methods are introduced and analyzed. Although two or three particle velocity components are simulated in this study, the imaging process and the equations for all methods are conducted with the different components individually. Diffraction stacking Diffraction stacking is a commonly-used stacking method in exploration seismology, and it is the basis of classical Kirchhoff migration as well. A microseismic source can reasonably be treated as a diffraction point or point source. The basic imaging flow of diffraction stacking for microseismic source location includes two steps: calculation of the traveltime table and stacking the waveforms along the traveltime curves for all imaging points (see Figure 1a). For microseismic or passive seismic sources, the source excitation time is unknown and needs to be determined through repeating the stacking process for all possible excitation times (Gajewski et al., 2007; Zhebel et al., 2010). In order to eliminate the side effects of polarity changes, the squared values of original waveforms or cross-correlograms are utilized in this study. Compared with absolute values and envelop values, squared values can focus the source energy better and sacrifice less imaging resolution (The detailed comparison of different stacking methods with different waveform functions can be found in Appendix A). The diffraction stacking equation based on squared amplitudes reads as (Gajewski et al., 2007) MDS(x, t0) = N ∑ i=1 {[ ui(t P xi + t0) ]2 + [ ui(t S xi + t0) ]2} , (1) where MDS(x, t0) is the diffraction stacking value of position x at a specific assumed excitation time t0, N is the number of receivers, u is the waveform amplitude of the considered component, e.g. the velocity component, txi and t S xi denote traveltimes from x to the i th receiver of the Pand S-wave, respectively. The imaging valueMDS(x, t0) will reach its maximum when x coincides with the true source location and t0 coincides with the true excitation time, provided that the model is correct. Semblance-weighted stacking Semblance is a coefficient of multichannel coherency between the receiver arrays, which is calculated by the energy ratio of the stack and the component traces (Neidell and Taner, 1971). Semblance can be used to 94 Annual WIT report 2016 detect microseismic events (Tan et al., 2014), as well as image the source directly (Chambers et al., 2010). Instead of stacking the original waveforms or semblance values, semblance-weighted stacking utilizes the semblance-weighted waveforms, which can be obtained by (Zhang and Zhang, 2013) Sn(t) = Tw/2 ∑ w=−Tw/2 W ( N ∑ i=1 uin(τi + t+ w) )2 N Tw/2 ∑ w=−Tw/2 W N ∑ i=1 uin(τi + t+ w) , (2) and u i (t) = Sn(t) N ∑ i=1 ui(t), (3) where Sn is the semblance coefficient, n denotes a specific component, W is a certain type of window function, e.g., Gauss function, centered at the calculating time t, Tw is the time window, τi is the traveltime moveout of trace iwith respect to a reference trace, which can be obtained by the cross-correlation function of two traces, u is the value of semblance-weighted waveform, which can effectively suppress noise by stacking similar Por S-wave signals constructively and uncorrelated noise destructively. Similarly, squared values of semblance-weighted waveforms are used in the imaging process. The imaging equation is MSS(x, t0) = N ∑ i=1 {[ u i (t P xi + t0) ]2 + [ u i (t S xi + t0) ]2} , (4) where MSS(x, t0) is the semblance-weighted stacking value of position x at a specific assumed excitation time, t0. The remaining parameters are the same as in equation (1). Cross-correlation stacking Cross-correlation stacking differs from traditional stacking methods, since it migrates and images the crosscorrelograms instead of the original seismograms. Although diffraction stacking and semblance-weighted stacking utilize different waveform functions, they share the same diffraction stacking operator, while cross-correlation stacking uses the interferometric migration operator, which is based on the traveltime difference from the potential source to the receivers. The schematic diagram in Figure 1b shows the basic stacking process of cross-correlation stacking. The imaging equation is (Schuster et al., 2004; Li et al., 2015) MCROSS(x) = N ∑ i,j=1 [φ (i, j, τjx − τix)], (5) with τjx − τix = [(tiP − tjS), (tiP − tjP ), (tiS − tjS), (tiS − tjP )]|x = [∆tPS ,∆tPP ,∆tSS ,∆tSP ]|x, (6) where MCROSS(x) is the cross-correlation stacking value of position x, φ is the cross-c