Evaluating Monitoring Techniques: Downhole, Buried and Surface
 | |
| Date | 22–24 January 2013 |
|---|---|
| Location | Silverado Resort and Spa, Napa, California |
This forum compared the different monitoring techniques in order to better understand the interpretability of their results.
About
The recent increase in awareness of the potential of unconventional reservoirs has caused a tremendous growth in hydraulic fracture stimulation operations. Hydraulic fracturing causes changes in the state of stress in the vicinity of the stimulation resulting in the generation of microseismicity. Conventionally, the recording of microseismicity has been performed with borehole seismic tools deployed in deep nearby wells but "frac monitoring" is not restricted to such a setting. Elastic waves generated by these micro-earthquakes can also be recorded at the earth's surface and in shallow boreholes. The energy released by microseismic events as a result of hydraulic stimulation is small, and, due to the longer travel paths and higher noise levels, monitoring hydraulic fracture stimulations from surface potentially requires orders of magnitude more sensors than downhole monitoring. The two monitoring methods also differ in their sensitivity, accuracy, and precision, all of which contribute to differences in their final distribution of event locations.
Technical sessions
- Fact Finding (case studies)
- Feasibility Studies (sensor network design, sensitivity, velocity model)
- Processing (borehole, surface, combined)
- Uncertainty (standardized numbers)
- The Road Ahead (current trends, future needs)
Organizing Committee
Chairman
Werner Heigl (Apache Corporation)
Members
Julie Schmeta (MEQ Geo, Inc.)
Shawn Maxwell (Schlumberger)
Anca Rosca (Baker Hughes/Magnitude)
Ulrich Zimmer (ConocoPhillips)
Michael Thornton (MicroSeismic, Inc.)
Sponsors
MicroSeismic
Schlumberger
CGG Veritas
Apache
READ
Spectraseis
External links
| find literature about Evaluating Monitoring Techniques: Downhole, Buried and Surface |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|