1887
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Geophysical Prospecting
  4. Volume 62, Issue 5
  5. Article
Volume 62, Issue 5
  • E-ISSN: 1365-2478

Abstract

ABSTRACT

Updating of reservoir models by history matching of 4D seismic data along with production data gives us a better understanding of changes to the reservoir, reduces risk in forecasting and leads to better management decisions. This process of seismic history matching requires an accurate representation of predicted and observed data so that they can be compared quantitatively when using automated inversion. Observed seismic data is often obtained as a relative measure of the reservoir state or its change, however. The data, usually attribute maps, need to be calibrated to be compared to predictions. In this paper we describe an alternative approach where we normalize the data by scaling to the model data in regions where predictions are good. To remove measurements of high uncertainty and make normalization more effective, we use a measure of repeatability of the monitor surveys to filter the observed time‐lapse data.

We apply this approach to the Nelson field. We normalize the 4D signature based on deriving a least squares regression equation between the observed and synthetic data which consist of attributes representing measured acoustic impedances and predictions from the model. Two regression equations are derived as part of the analysis. For one, the whole 4D signature map of the reservoir is used while in the second, 4D seismic data is used from the vicinity of wells with a good production match. The repeatability of time‐lapse seismic data is assessed using the normalized root mean square of measurements outside of the reservoir. Where normalized root mean square is high, observations and predictions are ignored. Net: gross and permeability are modified to improve the match.

The best results are obtained by using the normalized root mean square filtered maps of the 4D signature which better constrain normalization. The misfit of the first six years of history data is reduced by 55 per cent while the forecast of the following three years is reduced by 29 per cent. The well based normalization uses fewer data when repeatability is used as a filter and the result is poorer. The value of seismic data is demonstrated from production matching only where the history and forecast misfit reductions are 45% and 20% respectively while the seismic misfit increases by 5%. In the best case using seismic data, it dropped by 6%. We conclude that normalization with repeatability based filtering is a useful approach in the absence of full calibration and improves the reliability of seismic data.

Copyright © 2014 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers © 2014 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12109
2014-03-04
2024-04-24

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12109
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. AanonsenS. I., AavatsmarkI., BarkveT., CominelliA., GonardR., Gosselinet al. 2003. Effect of scale dependent data correlation in an integrated history matching loop combining production data and 4D seismic data. SPE 79665, SPE Reservoir Simulation Symposium, Houston, Texas, USA, 2003.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. AanonsenS. I., NævdalG., OliverD. S., ReynoldsA. C. and VallèsB.2009. The Ensemble Kalman Filter in Reservoir Engineering—a Review. SPE 117274, SPE Journal14(3), 393–412.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. ArenasE. M., Van KruijsdijkC. and OldenzielT.2001. Semi‐Automatic History Matching Using the Pilot Point Method Including Time‐Lapse Seismic Data. SPE 71634, SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, USA, 2001.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. BackusG. E.1962. Long‐wave elascit anisotropy produced by horizontal layering. Journal of Geophysical Research, 67, 4427–4440.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Boyd‐GorstJ., FailP. and PontingE.2001. 4‐D time lapse reservoir monitoring of Nelson Field, Central North Sea: Successful use of an interated rock physics model to predict and track reservoir production. The Leading Edge1336–1350.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. CliffordP. J., TrythallR., ParrR. S., MouldsT. P., CookT., AllanP. M. and SutcliffeP.2003. Integration of 4D Seismic Data into the Management of Oil Reservoirs with Horizontal Wells Between Fluid Contacts. SPE 83956, Offshore Europe, Aberdeen, UK, 2003.
  7. CraftK., HaysD., DochertyP., PaffenholzJ. and SmitF.2009. An Ocean Bottom Seismic Node Repeatability Study. 71st EAGE Conference & Exhibition, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. De MarsilyG. H., LevendanG., BoucherM. and FasaninoG.1984. Interpretation of Interface Test in a well Field Using Geostatistical Techniques to Fit the Permeability Distributions in a Reservoir Model. In: G.Verly et al., Editors, Geostatistics for natural resources characterization. Part 2, D. Reidel Pub Co (1984), 831–849.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. DongY. and OliverD. S.2005. Quantitative Use of 4D Seismic for Reservoir Description. SPE Journal, 2005, 91–99.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. EmerickA. A., De MoraesR. J. and RodriguesJ. R. P.2007. History Matching 4D Seismic Data with Efficient Gradient Based Methods. SPE 107179, SPE Europec/EAGE Annual Conference and Exhibition, London, United Kingdom, 2007.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. GillC. E., MiottoA., FloricichM., RogersR., PotterR.D., HarwijantoJ. and TownsleyP.2012. The Nelson full field model: using iterative quantitative improvements from the initial framework to the final history match. First break30, 2012
     [Google Scholar]
  12. GosselinO., Van den BergS. and ComineliA.2001. Integrated history matching of production and seismic data. SPE 71599, SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, USA, 2001.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. GosselinO., AanonsenS. I., AavatsmarkI., CominelliA., GonardR., Kolasinskiet al. 2003. History matching using Time‐lapse seismic (HUTS). SPE 84464, SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Denver, USA, 2003.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. HatchellP., KellyS., MuerzM., JonesC., EngbersP., Van Der VeekenJ. and StaplesR.2002. Comparing Time‐Lapse Seismic and Reservoir Model Predictions in Producing Oil and Gas Fields. 64th EAGE Conference & Exhibition, Florence, Italy.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. HoffmanB.T. and CaersJ.2005. Regional probability perturbations for history matching. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering46 (1–2) 53–71.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. HuL.Y.2000. Gradual Deformation and Iterative Calibration of Gaussian‐Related Stochastic Models. Mathematical Geology32 (1) 87–108.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. HuangX. and LinY.2006. Production optimization using production history and time‐lapse seismic data. SEG Annual Meeting, New Orleans, USA, 2006.
  18. JinL., StoffaP. L. and SenM. K.2009. Stochastic Inversion for Reservoir Properties Using Parallel Learning‐Based VFSA and Pilot Point Parameterization. SPE 118818, SPE Reservoir Simulation Symposium, The Woodlands, Texas, USA.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. KazemiA. and StephenK. D.2009. Automatic Seismic and Production History Matching in Nelson Using Different Updating Schemes. 71st EAGE Conference and Exhibition, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. KazemiA. and StephenK.D.2010Optimal Parameter Updating in Assisted History Matching of the Nelson field Using Streamlines as a Guide. SPE‐131540 SPE72nd EAGE Conference and Exhibition incorporating SPE‐EUROPEC, Barcelona, Spain.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. KazemiA., StephenK. D. and ShamsA.2010. Seismic History Matching of Nelson using Time‐lapse Seismic Data: An Investigation of 4D Signature Normalization. SPE 131538, SPE EUROPEC/EAGE Annual Conference and Exhibition, Barcelona, Spain.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. KazemiA. and ModinD.2010. Optimization, Uncertainty Analysis and Upscaling of Rock‐Physics Models. SPE130303, SPE EUROPEC/EAGE Annual Conference and Exhibition, Barcelona, Spain, 2010.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. KazemiA.2011. Optimal Parameter Updating and Appropriate 4D seismic Normalization in Seismic History Matching of the Nelson Field. PhD Thesis, Heriot‐Watt University, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. KemperM.2010Rock physics driven inversion: the importance of workflow. First Break28, 2010 69–81.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. LancasterS. and WhitcombeD.2000. Fast Track Coloured Inversion. 70th Annual International Meeting of the Society of Exploration Geophysicists. 1572–1575
  26. LandrøM.2001Discrimination between pressure and fluid saturation changes from time‐lapse seismic data. Geophysics 2001 66. 836–844
     [Google Scholar]
  27. LygrenM., FagervikK., ValenT. S., HetlelidA., BergeG., DahlG. V., SønnelandL., LieH. E. and MagnusI.2003. A method for performing history matching of reservoir flow models using 4D seismic data. Petroleum Geoscience (9), 85–90.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. McInallyA.T., Redondo‐LópezT., GarnhamJ., KunkaJ., BrooksA. D., Stenstrup HansenL., BarclayF. and DaviesD.2003. Optimising 4D fluid imaging. Petroleum Geoscience9(1), 91‐101.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. MenezesC. and GosselinO.2006. From logs scale to reservoir scale:Upscaling of the petro‐elastic model. SPE 100233 68th EAGE Conference & Exhibition incorporating SPE Europec, Vienna, Austria.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. MezghaniM., FornelA., LanglaisV. and LucetN.2004. History matching and quantitative use of 4D seismic data for an improved reservoir characterization. SPE 90420, SPE Annual Technical conference and Exhibition, Houston, USA, 2004.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. PortellaR. C. M. and EmerickA. A.2005. Use of Quantitative 4D‐Seismic Data in Automatic History Match. SPE 94650, SPE Latin American and Caribbean Petroleum Engineering Conference, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 2005.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. SambridgeM.S.1999a. Geophysical inversion with a neighbourhood algorithm—I. Searching a parameter space. Geophysical Journal International138 (2) 479–494.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. SambridgeM.S.1999b. Geophysical inversion with a neighbourhood algorithm—II. Appraising the ensemble. Geophysical Journal International138 (3) 727–746.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. SkjervheimJ.‐A., EvensenG., AanonsenS.I. and JohansenT.A.2007. Incorporating 4D Seismic Data in Reservoir Simulation Model Using Ensemble Kalman Filter. SPE Journal12 (3) 282–292. SPE‐95789‐PA.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. SimmonsG. and WangH.1971. Single Elastic Constants and Calculated |Aggregate Properties: A Handbook (2nd Edition). MIT Press, 1971.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. StaplesR., CookA., BraisbyJ., MabillardA. and RowbothamP.2006Integration of 4D seismic data and the dynamic reservoir model – revealing newtargets in Gannet C. 68th EAGE Conference and Exhibition incorporating SPE Europec, Vienna, Austria.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. StephenK.D., SoldoJ., MacBethC. and ChristieM.2006. Multiple model seismic and production history matching: a case study. SPE Journal11 (4), 418–430.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. StephenK.D. and MacBethC.2008. Reducing Reservoir Prediction Uncertainty by Updating a Stochastic Model Using Seismic History Matching. SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering11 (6) 991–999.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. StephenK. D., ShamsA. and MacBethC.2009. Faster Seismic History Matching in a UKCS field. SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering12 (4), 586–594.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. TraniM., ArtsR., LeeuwenburghO. and BrouwerJ.2011. Estimation of changes in saturation and pressure from 4D seismic AVO and time‐shift analysis. Geophysics, 76(2) 1–17
     [Google Scholar]
  41. UK DTI
    UK DTI , 2009. www.og.decc.gov.uk/pprs/full_production.htm
  42. VascoD. W., Datta‐GuptaA., HeZ., BehrensR., RickettJ. and CondonP.2003. Reconciling time‐lapse seismic and production data using streamline models: the Bay Marchand field, Gulf of Mexico. SPE 84568, SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Denver, USA, 2003.
     [Google Scholar]
  43. WaggonerJ. R., CominelliA. and SeymourR. H.2002. Improved reservoir modelling with Time‐Lapse seismic in a Gulf of Mexico gas condensate reservoir. SPE 77514, SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, USA, 2002.
     [Google Scholar]
  44. WangS., ZhaoG., XuL., GuoD. and SunS.2005Optimization for automatic history matching. International journal of numerical analysis and modeling2, 131–137.
     [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12109
Loading
Improved normalization of time‐lapse seismic data using normalized root mean square repeatability data to improve automatic production and seismic history matching in the Nelson field
Geophysical Prospecting 62, 1009 (2014); https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2478.12109
/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12109
/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12109
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): Reservoir characterization; Reservoir geophysics; Time lapse

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