As a part of one of the projects on downhole microseismic monitoring of hydraulic fracturing in a horizontal well, an assessment of the quality of monitoring was carried out. The main goal was to assess the information value of the results obtained and increase their reliability. Observations were made by an acquisition typical for monitoring projects in Russia - the nearest well was used, geophones were located in its vertical part, the primary task was to determine the geometry of the resulting hydraulic fracturing cracks. The quality assessment included an analysis of materials of various work stages. The authors highlight the problems of the quality of the initial data and the importance of selecting the correct well for the location of geophones - not only the geometric proximity is important, but also the quality of the cementing. The article marks the possibility of assessing the quality of the installation of geophones immediately before the start of work, in two ways - by the method of borehole seismic interferometry and by recordings of ground sources. The authors show the importance of monitoring the results of data processing - the final versions of event localization differed significantly from the initial ones, which required an analysis of internal data processing materials. Independent processing of the materials partially confirmed the reliability of the obtained result; the crack height is determined most reliably for the observed data quality, and the estimated crack lengths or half-lengths are strongly influenced by the quality of the observed materials.
References
1. Egorov A.A., Domestic flagship product "Rosneft" - "RN-GRID" simulator simulation of hydraulic facing (HF) (In Russ.), Avtomatizatsiya i IT v neftegazovoy oblasti, 2021, no. 2, pp. 12–27.
2. Aksakov A.V., Borshchuk O.S., Zheltova I.S. et al., Corporate fracturing simulator: from a mathematical model to the software development (In Russ.), Neftyanoe khozyaystvo = Oil Industry, 2016, no. 11, pp. 35–40.
3. Rutledge J.T., Phillips W.S., Hydraulic stimulation of natural fractures as revealed by induced microearthquakes, carthage cotton valley gas field, east texashydraulic stimulation of natural fractures, Geophysics, 2003, V. 68, pp. 441–452, DOI: http://doi.org/10.1190/1.1567214
4. Toropov K.V., Sergeychev A.V., Murtazin R.R. et al., Experience in microseismic monitoring of multi-stage fracturing by RN-Yuganskneftegas LLC (In Russ.), Neftyanoe khozyaystvo = Oil Industry, 2016, no. 11, pp. 23-26.
5. Cipolla C., Maxwell S., Mack M., Engineering guide to the application of microseismic interpretations, SPE-152165-MS, 2012, DOI: http://doi.org/10.2118/152165-MS
6. Konopelko A., Sukovatyy V., Mitin A., Rubtsova A., Microseismic monitoring of multistage hydraulic fracturing in complex reservoirs of the Volgo-Urals Region of Russia, SPE-176710-RU, 2015, DOI: http://doi.org/10.2118/176710-MS
7. Dohmen T., Zhang J.J., Blangy J.P., Stress shadowing effect key to optimizing spacing of multistage fracturing, The American Oil&Gas Reporter, 2015, pp. 72–78.
8. Maxwell S., Microseismic imaging of hydraulic fracturing: Improved engineering of unconventional shale reservoirs, Society of Exploration Geophysicists, 2014,
DOI: http://doi.org/10.1190/1.9781560803164
9. Yaskevich S.V. et al., Downhole microseismic data interpretation for media anisotropy evaluation with limited acquisition geometry in Western Siberia, Interpretation, 2022, V. 10, no. 3, DOI: http://doi.org/10.1190/int-2021-0098.1
10. Maxwell S., Reynolds F., Guidelines for standard deliverables from microseismic monitoring of hydraulic fracturing, Microseismic Subcommittee of the CSEG Chief Geophysicists Forum, 2012, V. 1, pp. 1–7.
11. Yaskevich S.V., Duchkov A.A., Myasnikov A.V., Microseismic monitoring - current state and data unificationproblems (In Russ.), Karotazhnik, 2018, no. 4, pp. 93–100.
12. Hardage B.A., An examination of tube wave noise in vertical seismic profiling data, Geophysics, 1981, V. 46, no. 6, pp. 892–903, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1190/1.1441228
13. Shekhtman G.A., Narskiy N.V., Reasons responsive for vertical seismic profiling data quality (In Russ.), Tekhnologii seysmorazvedki, 2011, no. 2, pp. 59–69.
14. Yaskevich S.A., Duchkov A., Myasnikov A., A case study on receiver-clamping quality assessment from the seismic-interferometry processing of downhole seismic noise recordings, Geophysics, 2019, V. 84, no. 3, pp. B195–B203, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1190/geo2018-0293.1
15. Yaskevich S.V. et al., On the receiver coupling diagnostics in the downhole microseismic monitoring scenarios (In Russ.), Tekhnologii seysmorazvedki, 2017, no. 3,
pp. 75–84.
16. Vaezi Y., Van der Baan M., Interferometric assessment of clamping quality of borehole geophones, Geophysics, 2015, V. 80, no. 6, pp. WC89–WC98,
