first break volume 26, June 2008

special topic

Leveraging Technology

Nanoseismic monitoring fills the gap between microseismic networks and passive seismic
Manfred Joswig* introduces the concept of nanoseismic monitoring as a third method (microseismic networks and passive seismic being the others) to record upper Crust or surface layer fracture signals, and to locate them in space and time. First results of low-SNR aftershock monitoring for nuclear arms control purposes demonstrate the method and its potential.

onitoring seismic aftershocks in a 1000 km2 search area is a key investigation method for the planned on-site-inspections (OSI) of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty Organization (CTBTO) when searching for potential, nuclear underground explosions (/link1/, Zucca et al., 1996). The inspections will take place weeks after any suspicious event, and aftershocks are expected to be rare and weak, if any. Thus the political demand is a completeness threshold ML 2.0 for seismic signal monitoring which translates to low-SNR seismograms under any surface site noise condition. Geophysics derives plentiful information from monitoring fracture processes, e.g., the global earthquake coverage unveils the borders of plate tectonics, regional and local studies quantify seismic hazard, and resolve Benioff zones of subducting plates. Near-source borehole stations map the fracture growth in hydraulic fracturing, and ultrasonic, piezo transducers resolve material failure in nondestructive testing. In common for all these applications, a sufficient SNR of the recorded seismograms allows for unemicroseismic networks typical application area, completeness magn. #stations (typical) select analysis segment noise forensics Signal-to-Noise Ratio status of onset phases process solution test/improve solution perm. local network 10000 km2 ML 1.0 30 single 3c STA/LTA & voting optional > +15 dB (5:1) clear pick all batch new run

quivocal onset phase determination, being followed by the non-linear, iterative Geiger approach for hypocentre calculation. Fig. 1 gives an example for hydrofrac monitoring, and exhibits sample seismograms of sufficient SNR. Table 1 summarizes the typical characteristics of microseismic networks, e.g., according to Lee and Stewart (1981), while details for the Geiger inversion may be found in many seismological textbooks, e.g., Lay and Wallace (1995). If source processes turn small, monitoring distances must shrink respectively. The recorded signal frequencies scale accordingly, to tens of kHz for acoustic emission, and hundreds of kHz for non-destructive testing. The need for borehole stations in hydrofrac monitoring is an obvious example of the limits of microseismic networks, which motivated the search for possible alternatives. Passive seismic is an emerging new technique that offers the chance to record hydrofracs from surface stations. This demands a large number of stations, usually available by the dual use of 4D seismic layout operations for the instrumented oil field. Fig. 2 gives an example from Kochnev et al. (2007), while nanoseismic monitoring temp. fault mapping 100 km2 ML -1.0 3 SNS arrays Sonograms & PR essential > 0 dB (1:1) questionable pick live update slide any parameter* hypo, t0, ML possible fully resolved in location domain by jack-knifing passive seismic

instrumented oil field 1 km2 ML -3.0 100+ array traces (continuous) none > -15 dB (1:5) not visible automated stack (not applicable) statistics (not applicable) (not available)

solution info hypo, t0, ML, M improve by master event possible identify effects of single indirect by time residuals to parameter* to joint solution LMS solution
* phase picks, forced depth, layer model

Table 1 Properties of microseismic networks, nanoseismic monitoring, and passive seismic.

*

Universitt Stuttgart, Germany, E-mail: joswig@geophys.uni-stuttgart.de

2008 EAGE www.firstbreak.org

117

special topic

first break volume 26, June 2008

Leveraging Technology
Table 1 summarizes the relevant properties. The most notable restriction is the limitation to just statistical descriptions of fracture energy release, i.e. no single-event bulletin will be available. of moment tensor M for resolution of fracture orientation and dominant force regimes. The needs for nanoseismic monitoring rose by the demands of OSI for CTBTO when ML 2.0 events must be discovered in a 1000 km2 search area, with the logistics of some 10 crew members working for a few weeks in the field. The work plan includes near real-time processing and potential direction of further inspections teams, e.g., radionuclide or visual inspection. Thus nanoseismic monitoring will be presented here along with examples performed during the directed exercise DE04 of CTBTO in 2004. However, nanoseismic monitoring, acting like a moderateeffort seismic microscope of previously unavailable sensitivity, offers many new chances to resolve ambient fracture processes. Wust-Bloch and Joswig (2006) derive a process identification of pending sinkhole collapses at the Dead Sea, Hge and Joswig (2008) report on improved resolution of seismicity during an inter-swarm period at Vogtland, Czech Republic, and Walter and Joswig (2008), in a forthcoming issue of First Break, describe the first-time discovery of cracks in a creeping, clayey landslide during heavy rainfall in Vorarlberg, Austria. DE04 of CTBTO was conducted on a military camp ground in Stupava, Slovakia (Fig. 3). Its purpose was to determine the distances at which weak aftershocks could be detected in the ambient seismic noise. The OSI source target of aftershocks from an underground, unclear explosion was mimicked by a series of small explosions with 75, 150, 200, 400, 475, and 600 g explosive, respectively. Lines of single, three-component (3C) geophones were laid out at 500 m spacing each. Three small arrays, so-called seismic navigating stations (SNS) were sited at 1.0, 1.5, and 2.5 km distances from the explosion site. Each SNS consists of an eight-channel data logger, a central, 3C geophone, and a tripartite array of vertical sensors centred around the 3C site as an equilateral triangle with some 100 m aperture; two

Nanoseismic monitoring
Another significant alternative is presented here - nanoseismic monitoring with its properties according to Table 1. Like passive seismic, it resolves events in much poorer SNR than microseismic networks; like the latter it produces individual event bulletins that just lack the determination

Figure 1 Microseismic network monitors hydrofrac signals at Ekofisk (compiled from Oye and Roth, 2001; 2003). Despite the unusual station layout in a VSP string, the application features the essential characteristics of microseismic networks which process station signals of sufficient SNR for individual onset phase determination and polarization analysis.

Figure 2 Passive seismic monitors hydrofrac at 2445 m from surface (from Kochnev, 2007). Note the colour code for scaled amplitude related to relative energy release of fractures per unit time interval of stacking. Individual event seismograms could not be observed at surface records.

Figure 3 The Stupava site of DE04. Explosions were detonated by army staff at red star. Layout of single 3C geophones was in to lines (1-8) and (A-G), SNS small arrays were installed at red triangles.

118

www.firstbreak.org 2008 EAGE

first break volume 26, June 2008

special topic

Leveraging Technology
Glossary
Macroseism: Intelligence investigation on earthquake damage which results in an earthquake intensity or Mercalli scale 1-12, similar to Beauford scale for wind speed. Microseism: Dominant peak of Earth noise in the range of 5-15 Hz caused by ocean waves and weather turbulences, known since the early days of seismology (Gutenberg, 1931). Microseismicity: Earthquakes below the level of human sensitivity, say ML 3.0, recorded locally (within 100 km) or at regional scale (up to 3000 km). Microseismic network: Distribution of geophones at local or regional scale to locate and identify seismicity; may also be applied for acoustic emission and non-destructive testing. Nanoearthquake: Suggested phrase for earthquakes below ML 0.0; however, not yet commonly accepted by the seismological community (Butler, 2003). Nanoseismic monitoring: Location and identification of low-SNR fracture processes, e.g., nanoearthquakes by jackknife analysis of tripartite array networks. Acoustic emission: Short distance recording of fracture signals at high frequencies, e.g., in mines. Magnitudes may well reach ML 3.0. Non-destructive testing: Laboratory-scale experiments for sample deformation, records fracture progress until the eventual probe failure. Passive seismics: Location of energy release from fracture processes by means of seismic exploration-like equipment and software tools, e.g., in the concept of instrumented oil fields. Forensic seismology: Location and identification of nonseismic sources by seismic networks, e.g., airplane crashes, submarine explosions (Zucca, 1998). mands speed up the interaction. Each observational parameter, like onset time or amplitude, may be set by mouse click, and continuously shifted by arrow keys. All derived constraints are displayed and updated in real-time. Likewise, all results of event processing, like epicentre, depth, origin time, magnitude, array back-azimuth, and slowness, may be set or shifted with an accompanying, real-time update of all simulated observations, e.g., theoretical phase onset times, or maximum amplitudes. The same fully interactive scheme applies for the intrinsic parameters of event location, like velocities and layer thickness of different underground models, or the magnitude-distance correction curve. The spirit of interactive event location may best be explored by downloading the software (/link2/), with the related data set of DE04. The purpose of interaction is to test and play the many different possibilities of phase identification which exist due to the poor SNR, to check potential solutions on their parameter plausibilities, and to explore

Figure 4 Explosions of 75 g were recorded at nearest 3C geophones (A, 1 of Fig. 3) in 500 m distance (compiled from Labak et al., 2005). Depended on different ambient noise conditions, the signal was either recognized (top), or masked completely (bottom).

auxiliary channels may record air pressure and wind speed (not available at DE004). Fig. 4 shows how the weakest explosion of 75 g yield is detected, or missed depending on the local weather conditions, by the single 3C geophone at shortest distance of 500 m. Fig. 5 summarizes the results in a distance-dependent detection threshold; in the case of a 500 m sensitivity per site, one would need some 1000 network stations to cover the 1000 km2 search area. In contrast, a single SNS performs well until 3 km yielding a total of 30 SNS to be distributed in the search area to reach the ML 2.0 monitoring threshold.

Principles of operation
How does nanoseismic monitoring perform so well? The results cannot be explained just by the utilized array approach: the gain in SNR is a mere 6 dB by stacking the four vertical traces, and the sparse spatial sampling does not allow for any kind of f-k analysis. The key contribution for success is via an innovative, highly interactive software approach focusing on a realtime updated display of hypocentre location constraints, plus sophisticated diagnosis tools for human event analysis including noise forensics, instead of automated detections by off-the-shelf, sub-optimal STA/LTA approaches. The software tools are implemented in the event analysis program HypoLine: Fig. 6 shows a representative screen dump from a single-SNS campaign. A fixed-frame layout eases orientation, and single keystroke com-

2008 EAGE www.firstbreak.org

119

special topic

first break volume 26, June 2008

Leveraging Technology

Figure 5 The curves for distance-dependent detection thresholds summarize the results of DE04. The single station approach by 3C geophones demands less than 500 m inter-station distance to ensure detection of ML 2.0 events. This translates to more that 1000 stations necessary to cover the 1000 km2 search area of OSI. Tripartite SNS arrays perform close to 3 km reducing the number of systems to some 30 units for full area coverage.

Figure 7 Seismogram, related power spectral densitiy (psd) matrix, and sonogram. The psd matrix is obtained by sliding FFT, and binned logarithmically for frequency and amplitude. The sonogram adds pre-whitening and noise muting, and clearly enhances the display of weak, short-term signal energy.

Figure 6 Screen layout of analysis software HypoLine showing a candidate event at the threshold of processing capabilities. The seismograms were acquired by the four SNS stations sketched in the zoom map; optimum filters to enhance SNR were already applied.

Figure 8 Processing results for the candidate event of Fig. 6. The sonograms guide the phase picking for the four weak onsets, the jackknifing gives four triple junctions (red dots in the zoom map). For the adjustment of the epicentre, additional information from the tS-tP circle (dotted green circle segment) and the two array beams for P and S onset (yellow fans) is considered. The event has ML 2.1 in 1.4 km (slant) distance.

the multitude of similar quality event solutions, e.g., close to different layer boundaries for the hypocentre depth determination. Within a few minutes, the analyst may test on hundreds of alternatives to locate and identify an event which is just marginally above the ambient noise level. Event detection and type diagnosis are supported by f-t signature analysis in sonograms (Fig. 7), where sonograms can be understood as self-adaptive, optimum filters of non-linear energy display based on spectral estimates of noise median and fractile variance for noise muting (Joswig, 1990, 1995). These signal representations may be used for automated pattern recognition in standard observatory work; however, the spirit of OSI is the search for the single, suspicious exception which prohibits the restriction of routine processing by simple scanning tools. Fig. 8

displays the time segments of Fig. 6 as sonograms which help to guide the phase picks, and gives the location results; the event has ML 2.1 in 1.4 km (slant) distance.

Jackknifing for robustness

A central role for processing weak signals is in the realization of outlyer-resistant statistics. For event location, we have selected the approach of jack-knifing (see box) that can identify the contribution of single, erroneous parameters to the joint, averaged solution. For this, all hypocentre-relevant information is broken down into graphical location constraints; for the ideal solution they all would meet in a single point. Lets first start with the simple case of surface stations, and a homogeneous half-space model for the underground. Then

120

www.firstbreak.org 2008 EAGE

first break volume 26, June 2008

special topic

Leveraging Technology
the time difference tS-tP at any single station yields a semi-sphere with constant radius that constrains the underground source location in 3D spatial coordinates (Fig. 9). From now on, we will take the estimate of hypocentre depth as an external parameter that is modified by the analyst, instead of being determined by data inversion. The rational for this decision is that variations in the estimate of epicentre (x,y) relate to time increments of opposite sign at any station layout of a comprehensive spread; thus a clear minimum of residual times for iterative or grid-search location procedures can be identified. Change of depth, on the other hand, will affect all surface stations by time increments of equal sign, and the same effect may also indicate a mere shift of origin time. Thus depth determination depends on second order residuals, which makes source depth poorly constrained in most seismic bulletins. For depth as an external parameter, each semi-sphere reduces to a circle, as the intersection of sphere and the plane of depth constraint. Likewise, any tP-tP difference between two distinct station onset times describes a semi-hyperboloid that reduces to a hyperbola by intersection with the depth-plane (Fig. 10). Permutating pair-wise all station onset times tP forms the jackknife ensemble of hyperbolae that will constrain the epicentre, and will guide the reasonable depth assumption by graphically minimizing the spread of curves. However, in the 3D solution space (x,y,t0) for source epicentre and origin time, the two station onset times tP for any single hyperbola form an underdetermined equation system; the derived solution gets scaled against a third, undetermined parameter. In our case of a hyperbola for source location, the free parameter is the source time t0 which runs symmetrically to earlier origin at both outer legs (Fig. 11). To get a mathematically exact solution for 3D parameter space, one needs three constraints which translate to three station onset times tP in our case. Thus the related, three hyperbolae will always match in one triple point regardless of any specific parameter selections; its existence is not a quality meas-

Jackknifing explained

Jackknifing performs outlyer-resistant statistics to solve over-determined equations, and helps to trace the influence of single (erroneous) parameters to the joint solution. The principle is explained here by the task of finding the linear trend of seven observations. In the left figure, the red dashed line is determined by standard LMS analysis; the result is significantly offset by the single blue outlyer. Jackknifing instead breaks the dimensionality of parameter space to the minimum requirements for the linear solution, i.e., from seven to two points which define a single straight line. Permutating the seven observations pairwise gives 21 solutions, or lines. Six of them are affected by the one outlyer while 15 remain undisturbed. Graphically one recognizes the great spread of all disturbed solutions, and may average the main trend to the green dashed line in the left figure. Compared to the red LMS solution, the green line obviously improves the estimate of a correct linear trend. ure for the picked phase onsets. For extreme cases, symmetry will cause two triple points, or too large time differences prohibit the existence of hyperbolae at all. In the spirit of a jackknife solution, the spread of triple points, instead of hyperbolae smear, will characterize the potential contradictions in the parameter space of an over-determined equation system, i.e. more than three tP station readings. For any number of stations N 3 with P onsets tP, the maximum number of hyper bolae H is by Eq. (1)

Figure 9 Example of three tS-tP spheres which constrain the hypocentre solution. For depth as an external parameter, the opaque-red depth plane intersects the spheres as circles. Their projection to surface visualizes location quality; perfect touch in one point demands altered depth estimate. The deviation from perfect spheres comes by refracted paths in a layered-Earth model.

Figure 10 The location constraint of onset times from two distinct stations is a hyperboloid with rotational symmetry around the stations connecting line. Intersection with the depth plane forms a hyperbola as long as symmetry axis and depth plane do not intersect. For subsurface stations, or inclined depth planes, one may get (deformed) ellipses instead.

2008 EAGE www.firstbreak.org

121

special topic

first break volume 26, June 2008

Leveraging Technology
Latest with N = 8, the multiplicity of hyperbolae can not be re solved in any area plot. One could escape to cell-hit counts, like for tomographic resolution analysis, and Fig. 12 gives the appropriate example. Alternatively, the hypolines (hyperbolae, circles, beams) could be smeared as probability densities, and added in fuzzy logic like manner (Liu and Saanford, 2001). One could interpret the situa tion of 8+ stations as the break even point of graphical jackknife location to the iterative Geiger inversion, i.e. the residual analysis of travel time differences for searching the best location solution in a least squares error sense. But even then, jackknife analysis could still be beneficial since the dense spread of triple point clouds is by far a more real istic measure of location accuracy than shaping the contour of a 99% error ellipse. At the other end of station numbers, already the records of one SNS are sufficient to locate weak events in space and time. For epicentres within some five times of SNS aperture, a reasonable depth estimate can be derived too since hyperbolae and circles shrink in opposite manner when the user-given depth plane is altered up or down (Fig. 13).

(1)

given that any time difference stays below the ratio station distance to velocity (else no hy perbola exists). Likewise, the upper limit for the number of triple points T is given by Eq. (2) (2)

These formulae govern a strong increase of permutations, as displayed in Table 2 for N = 3...12, where N = 4 describes the situation of one SNS.

Layer models and array processing

Once we abandon the simple half-space assumption, the semispheres degrade to sliced spheres due to the effect of refraction paths (Fig. 9), and hyperboloids must be constructed by intersection of these sliced spheres with respective discontinuities of the first derivative (Fig. 11). Changing to subsurface stations will introduce intersections of hyperboloids and the depth plane that are not parallel to the hyperboloid rotation axis, and thus may result in ellipses or even circles, instead of hyperbolae, as 2D intersection curves (Fig. 10). Our current limit for real-time

Figure 11 Any hyperboloid may be constructed by intersection of two spheres which grow due to the assumption of earlier origin time. When spheres degrade due to refracted paths (see Fig. 9), the resulting hyperboloid gets discontinuities in its first derivative (not shown here).

Figure 12 Event location by jackknifing for a local, six-station network. The large number of hypolines already degrades the visibility of maps. Instead, cellhit counts can be colour-coded and get displayed in the inlet. The red circles mark the automatedly determined maximum concentration of hypolines.

Figure 13 Estimation of optimum depth and half space vP by interactive sliding of parameters. Variation of depth causes opposite changes of hyperbolae and circles; circles finally vanish if wave fronts cant reach surface for the given travel times. Variation of vP will increase the spread of triple points if the optimum solution is altered.

N H T

3 3 1

4 6 4

5 10 10

6 15 20

7 21 35

8 28 56

9 36 84

10 45 120

11 55 165

12 66 220

Table 2 Stations N, hyperbolae H, and triple points T by jackknife analysis.

122

www.firstbreak.org 2008 EAGE

first break volume 26, June 2008

special topic

Leveraging Technology
modelling is the description of inclined layers that break hyperboloid symmetry, and demand 3D raytracing for determination of the fastest travel path (Fig. 14). The handling of array information in HypoLine stays straight forward under all the above mentioned conditions. Conforming to the idea of jack-knifing demands the perturbation of array station phase readings into triplets which each describe back-azimuth and slowness. For the tripartite SNS with centre 3C site, one gets four beams per SNS. The spread of beams is extremely sensitive to any variation in parameters, and its minimum yields a reliable estimate for accurate phase picking of related onsets even under poor SNR conditions. The details for magnitude determination, specifically the extension of the classical ML scale to distances below 10 km, are described in Wust-Bloch and Joswig (2006). The scheme for master event correlation and relative hypocentre determination by HypoLine is elaborated in Hge & Joswig (2008). A detailed tutorial about all aspects of nanoseismic monitoring can be found in the documentation part of /link2/. processing. The conducted explosions could not just be detected but located in most of the cases. The determined magnitude suggests a yield of 100 g explosive for the envisioned ML 2.0 threshold of OSI monitoring. Fig. 15 gives an example for the first, 75 g explosion of Table 3. The event with ML 2.1 is at the border of processing capabilities, phase onset times could only be derived by array analysis. Fig. 16 relates the determined magnitudes to the detonated yields where the extrapolation to established magnitude-yield curves of large, nuclear explosions (Khalturin et al., 1998) seems reasonable. The change in slope may indicate the degraded fraction of radiated seismic energy since large explosions will cause a high amount of evaporation. The concept of nanoseismic monitoring has proven successful in further field tests and training exercises of CTBTO, and will be tested full scale with 30 SNS during the large, integrated field 3-component stations Yield [g] 75 150 200 400 475 600 Tripartite mini-arrays Yield [g] 75 150 200 400 475 600 location capability [m] 1500 1500 2500 2500+ 2500+ 2500+ detection threshold [m] 340-500 340-500 1200 1900 2600 2600

DE04 results and conclusions

For the event processing of DE04, Table 3 summarizes the detection sensitivity while Table 4 lists the results of one day SNS

Figure 14 Example of graphical location for subsurface stations and an inclined layer model. The horizontal intersection curves are determined along an adaptively inclined depth layer (red line); the vertical cut displays the strong deformation of tS-tP circles.

Table 3 Sensitivity results of 3C single stations versus small arrays.

Turkish Hill 1.0 km OT 08:43:45 08:47:20 08:50:55 08:54:40 08:58:25 09:02:05 09:35:35 09:39:20 09:43:30 09:47:10 09:51:30 09:55:50 Load[g] 75 150 200 400 475 600 75 150 200 400 475 600 Ml -2.1 -1.7 -1.4 -1.3 -1.2 -1.2 -2.1 -1.8 -1.7 -1.4 -1.5 -1.3 comments + car

Opposite Hill 1.5 km Ml -2.0 -1.7 -1.5 -1.4 -1.3 -2.4 -1.9 -1.7 -1.6 -1.6 -1.4 comments detected

Hill near station E 2.5 km Ml -1.5 -1.4 -1.4 -1.3 -1.9 -1.9 -1.5 -1.5 -1.4 comments too weak detected

+ acoustic + acoustic

+ acoustic

detected

Results of Small Array Processing (SNS and HypoLine) of 7. Oct. 2004

Table 4 Single-event bulletin by small array processing.

2008 EAGE www.firstbreak.org

123

special topic

first break volume 26, June 2008

Leveraging Technology
inclined layer models and subsurface stations, and provided Figs. 9-11, 14.

References
Butler, R. [2003] The Hawaii-2 observatory: observation of nanoearthquakes, Seism. Res. Lett. 74, 290-297. Gutenberg, B. [1931] Microseisms in North America, Bull. Seism. Soc. Am. 21, 1-24. Hge, M. and Joswig, M. [2008] Spatiotemporal characterisation of interswarm period seismicity in the focal area of Nov Kostel (West Bohemia/Vogtland) by a short-term microseismic study, Geophys. J. Int. (submitted). Joswig, M. [1990] Pattern recognition for earthquake detection, Bull. Seism. Soc. Am. 80, 170-186. Joswig, M. [1995] Automated classification of local earthquake data in the
Figure 15 An extreme example of the DE04 data set showing the weakest explosion of 75 g recorded by three SNS (displayed are the vertical and one horizontal trace of the 3C centre geophones per SNS). Unbiased phase picking could be performed for the nearest SNS by means of array processing; the other phases could be adjusted by plausibility. Once stronger events of the same origin were available, they could be used as master events for correlation (not shown here).

BUG small array, Geo phys. J. Int. 120, 262-286. Khalturin, V.I., Rautian, T.G. and Richards, P.G [1998] The seismic signal strength of chemical explosions, Bull. Seism. Soc. Am. 88, 1511-1524. Kochnev, V.A., Goz, I.V., Polyakov, V.S., Murtayev, I.S., Savin, V.G., Zommer, B.K. and Bryksin, I.V. [2007] Imaging hydraulic fracture zones from surface passive microseismic data, First Break, 25(10), 77-80. Labk, P., Joswig, M., Fojtkov, L., Dewez, P. and Guendel, F. [2005] Detection capability of 3-component seismic stations and tripartite miniarrays: CTBT monitoring of artificial nanoevents with M<0. EGU meeting, Vienna. Lay, T. and Wallace, T.C. [1995] Modern global seismology. Academic Press, San Diego CA. Lee, W.H.K. and Stewart, S.W. [1981] Principles and applications of microearthquake net works. Aca demic Press, New York. Lin, K.-W. and Sanford, A.R. [2001] Improving regional earthquake locations using a modi fied G matrix and fuzzy logic. Bull. Seism. Soc. Am. 91, 82-93. /link1/ http://www.ctbto.org/. /link2/ http://www.nanoseismic.net/. Oye, V. and Roth, M. [2001] A new processing package for microseismic

Figure 16 Compilation of SNS results from Table 4. The observed magnitude yield relation of simulated aftershocks at DE04 extends well to the large, underground nuclear explosions with a million times more yield if less effective coupling, e.g., due to evaporation is considered.

monitoring of hydrocarbon reservoirs. 71st SEG Annual International Meeting, San Antonio, TX, Abstract. Oye, V. and Roth, M. [2003] Automated seismic event location for hydrocarbon reservoirs, Computers & Geosciences 29, 851-863. Walter, M. and Joswig, M. [2008] Seismic monitoring of fracture processes generated by a creeping landslide in the Vorarlberg Alps, First Break 26(6), xx-xx Wust-Bloch, G.H. and Joswig, M. [2006] Pre-Collapse Identification of Sinkholes in Unconsolidated Media at Dead Sea Area by Nanoseismic Monitoring (graphical jackknife-location of weak sources by few, low-SNR records). Geophys. J. Int. 167, 1220-1232. Zucca, J.J. [1998] Forensic seismology supports the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, Science & Technology Rev., LLNL, CA., Sept. 1998, 4-11. Zucca, J.J., Carrigan, C., Goldstein, P., Jarpe, S., Sweeney, J., Pickles, W.L. and Wright, B. [1996] Signatures of testing: on-site inspection technologies. In (Eds) Husebye, E.S. and Dainty, A.M. Monitoring a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, , NATO ASI, Series E, 303, 123-134, Kluwer, Dordrecht.

experiment IFE08 of OSI in the former Soviet nuclear test site at Semipalatinsk, Kasakhstan in autumn 2008.

Acknowledgements
Dr Gideon Leonard, Israel Atomic Energy Commission, encouraged and partly supported the first steps of software development. Dr Hillel Gilles Wust-Bloch, Tel Aviv University, joined the first field tests in Israel. The term nanoseismology arose sometime in our frequent discussions, and it was coined by Dr Leonard. The DE04 experiment was organized by Patrick Dewez, CTBTO, which supported our SNS field measurements, and provided the data. The 3C results of DE04 were supplied by Dr Peter Labak, Slovak Academy of Sciences. Andreas Eisermann, Universitt Stuttgart, investigated the effects of

124

www.firstbreak.org 2008 EAGE