1887
Volume 55, Issue 6
  • E-ISSN: 1365-2478

Abstract

ABSTRACT

Knowledge about saturation and pressure distributions in a reservoir can help in determining an optimal drainage pattern, and in deciding on optimal well designs to reduce risks of blow‐outs and damage to production equipment. By analyzing time‐lapse PP AVO or time‐lapse multicomponent seismic data, it is possible to separate the effects of production related saturation and pressure changes on seismic data. To be able to utilize information about saturation and pressure distributions in reservoir model building and simulation, information about uncertainty in the estimates is useful. In this paper we present a method to estimate changes in saturation and pressure from time‐lapse multicomponent seismic data using a Bayesian estimation technique. Results of the estimations will be probability density functions (pdfs), giving immediate information about both parameter values and uncertainties. Linearized rock physical models are linked to the changes in saturation and pressure in the prior probability distribution. The relationship between the elastic parameters and the measured seismic data is described in the likelihood model. By assuming Gaussian distributed prior uncertainties the posterior distribution of the saturation and pressure changes can be calculated analytically. Results from tests on synthetic seismic data show that this method produces more precise estimates of changes in effective pressure than a similar methodology based on only PP AVO time‐lapse seismic data. This indicates that additional information about S‐waves obtained from converted‐wave seismic data is useful for obtaining reliable information about the pressure change distribution.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1111/j.1365-2478.2007.00651.x
2007-08-29
2024-04-25
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. AkiK. and RichardsP.1980. Quantitative Seismology . W.H. Freeman & Co.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. BulandA. and El OuairY.2006. Bayesian time‐lapse inversion. Geophysics71, R43–R48.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. ColeS., LumleyD. and MeadowsM.2003. 4D pressure and saturation inversion of Schiehallion field by rock physics modeling. 65th EAGE meeting, Stavanger, Norway, A05.
  4. CastagnaJ.P., SwanH.W. and FosterD.J.1998. Framework for AVO gradient and intercept interpretation. Geophysics63, 948–956.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. EidsvikJ., AvsethP., OmreH., MukerjiT. and MavkoG.2002. Stochastic reservoir characterization using Bayesian integration of rock physics and Markov random fields: A North Sea example. The Leading Edge21, 290–294.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. GabrielsP.W., HorveiN.A., KosterJ.K., OnsteinA. and StaplesR.1999. Time‐lapse seismic monitoring of the Draugen field. 69th SEG meeting, Houston, Texas, USA, Expanded Abstracts, 20352037.
  7. GarottaR., GrangerP.‐Y. and DariuH.2002. Combined interpretation of PP and PS data provides direct access to elastic rock properties. The Leading Edge, 21, 532–535.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. GrechkaV., TsvankinI., BakulinA., HansenJ. O. and SignerC.2002. Joint inversion of PP and PS reflection data for VTI media: A North Sea case study. Geophysics67, 1382–1395.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. HatchellP.J. and BourneS.J.2005. Measuring reservoir compaction using time‐lapse timeshifts. 75th SEG meeting, Houstson, Texas, USA, 2500–2503.
  10. HoltR.M., BrignoliM. and KenterC.J.2000. Core quality: Quantification or coring‐induced rock alteration. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Science37, 889–907.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. KvamO. and LandrøM.2001. Pressure detection from rms velocities ‐ a sensitivity study based on a 4D dataset. 71st SEG meeting, San Antonio, Texas, USA, 1576–1579.
  12. LandrøM., SolheimO.A., HildeE., EkrenB.O. and StrønenL. K.1999. The Gullfaks 4D seismic study. Petroleum Geoscience5, 213–226.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. LandrøM.2001. Discrimination between pressure and fluid saturation changes from time‐lapse seismic data. Geophysics66, 836–844.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. LandrøM.2002. Uncertainties in quantitative time‐lapse seismic analysis. Geophysical Prospecting50, 527–538.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. LandrøM., VeireH.H., DuffautK. and NajjarN.2003. Discrimination between pressure and fluid saturation changes from marine multicomponent time‐lapse seismic data. Geophysics68, 1592–1599.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. LandrøM. and StammeijerJ.2004. Quantitative estimation of compaction and velocity changes using 4D impedance and traveltime changes. Geophysics69, 949–957.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. LumleyD., AdamsD., MeadowsM., ColeS. and ErgasR.2003a. 4D seismic pressure‐saturation inversion at Gullfaks field, Norway. First Break21, 49–58.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. LumleyD., MeadowsM. and ColeS.2003b. Estimation of reservoir pressure and saturation by crossplot inversion of 4D seismic attributes. 73rd SEG meeting, Dallas, Texas, USA, 1513–1516.
  19. LumleyD.2006. Nonlinear uncertainty analysis in reservoir seismic modeling and inverse problems. 76th SEG meeting, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA, Expanded Abstracts, 2037–2040.
  20. MalinvernoA. and LeaneyS.2000. A Monte Carlo Method to quantify uncertainty in the inversion of zero‐offset VSP data. 70th SEG meeting, Calgary, Canada, Expanded Abstracts, 2393–2396.
  21. MargraveG.F., StewartR.R. and LarsenJ.A.2001. Joint PP and PS seismic inversion. The Leading Edge20, 978–982.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. MavkoG., MukerjiT. and DvorkinJ.1998. The Rock Physics Handbook . Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. MosegaardK. and TarantolaA.1995. Monte Carlo sampling of solutions to inverse problems. Journal of Geophysical Research100, 12431–12447.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. SmithG. and GidlowP.M.1987. Weighted stacking for rock property estimation and detection of gas. Geophysical Prospecting35, 993–1014.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. StovasA., LandrøM. and ArntsenB.2003. Use of PP and PS time‐lapse stacks for fluid‐pressure discrimination. 65th EAGE meeting, Stavanger, Norway, A23.
  26. StovasA. and LandrøM.2004. Optimal use of PP and PS time‐lapse stacks for fluid‐pressure discrimination. Geophysical Prospecting52, 301–312.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. TuraA. and LumleyD.E.1999. Estimating pressure and saturation changes from time‐lapse AVO data. 69th SEG meeting, Houston, Texas, USA, Expanded Abstracts, 1655–1658.
  28. UlrychT.J., SacchiM.D. and WoodburyA.2001. A Bayes tour of inversion. Geophysics66, 55–69.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. VeireH.H., BorgosH.G. and LandrøM.2006. Stochastic inversion of pressure and saturation changes from time‐lapse AVO data. Geophysics71, C81–C92.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. VeireH.H., BorgosH.G. and LandrøM.2003. Stochastic inversion of pressure and saturation changes from time‐lapse seismic data. 73rd SEG meeting, Dallas, Texas, USA, Expanded Abstracts.
  31. VeireH.H. and LandrøM.2001. Joint inversion of PP‐ and PS‐seismic data. 71st SEG meeting, San Antonia, Texas, USA, Expanded Abstracts, 861–864.
  32. VeireH.H. and LandrøM.2006. Simultaneous inversion of PP and PS seismic data. Geophysics71, R1–R10.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. VidalS., HuguetF. and MechlerP.2002. Characterizing reservoir parameters by integrating seismic monitoring and geomechanics. The Leading Edge21, 295–301.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. WattsG.F.T., JizbaD., GawithD.E. and GutteridgeP.1996. Reservoir monitoring of the Magnus field through 4D time‐lapse seismic analysis. Petroleum Geoscience2, 361–372.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1111/j.1365-2478.2007.00651.x
Loading
/content/journals/10.1111/j.1365-2478.2007.00651.x
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article

Most Cited This Month Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error