Comparison of surface and borehole locations of induced seismicity

Monitoring of induced microseismic events has become an important tool in hydraulic fracture diagnostics and understanding fractured reservoirs in general. We compare microseismic event and their uncertainties using data sets obtained with surface and downhole arrays of receivers. We first model the uncertainties to understand the effect of different acquisition geometries on location accuracy. For a vertical array of receivers in a single monitoring borehole, we find that the largest part of the final location uncertainty is related to estimation of the backazimuth. This is followed by uncertainty in the vertical position and radial distance from the receivers. For surface monitoring, the largest uncertainty lies in the vertical position due to the use of only a single phase (usually P‐wave) in the estimation of the event location. In surface monitoring results, lateral positions are estimated robustly and are not sensitive to the velocity model. In this case study, we compare event location solutions from two catalogues of microseismic events; one from a downhole array and the second from a surface array of 1C geophone. Our results show that origin time can be reliably used to find matching events between the downhole and surface catalogues. The locations of the corresponding events display a systematic shift consistent with a poorly calibrated velocity model for downhole dataset. For this case study, locations derived from surface monitoring have less scatter in both vertical and horizontal directions.