1887
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Geophysical Prospecting
  4. Volume 64, Issue 4
  5. Article
Volume 64 Number 4
  • E-ISSN: 1365-2478

Abstract

ABSTRACT

Quantitative interpretation of time‐lapse seismic signatures aims at assisting reservoir engineering and management operations. Time‐lapse signatures are thought to be primarily induced by saturation and pressure changes. Core‐flooding and reservoir flow simulations indicate that a change of the driving forces during dynamic fluid injection gives rise to a varying saturation scale. This saturation scale is yet another variable controlling the time‐lapse seismic signal. In this work, we investigate the saturation scale effect on time‐lapse seismic signatures by analysing simple modelling scenarios. We consider three characteristic saturation scales, ranging from few millimetres to metres, which may form during gas injection in an unconsolidated water‐saturated reservoir. Using the random patchy saturation model, we compare the corresponding acoustic signatures, i.e., attenuation, reflectivity, and seismic gather associated with each saturation scale. The results show that the millimetre saturation scale produces minimum attenuation and the same seismic signatures with those obtained from the elastic modelling. The centimetre saturation scale produces maximum attenuation, whereas the metre saturation scale causes highest velocity dispersion. The analyses of the time shift and amplitude change indicate that ignoring a time‐dependent saturation scale can result in biased estimation/discrimination of the saturation and the fluid pressure. In particular, the 4D signal can be strongly affected by the saturation‐scale change when the reservoir gas saturation is low and the effective pressure is high. In the presence of an increasing (decreasing) saturation scale during injection, interpreting an observed time shift and amplitude change using the Gassmann model will lead to underestimation (overestimation) of the change in gas saturation and fluid pressure. We show that including the effects of capillarity and residual saturation into the rock physics modelling can potentially reduce the interpretation uncertainty due to the saturation‐scale change.

© 2016 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers © 2016 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12408
2016-06-28
2024-04-18

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12408
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Al HosniM., CaspariE., PevznerR., DaleyT.M. and GurevichB.2015. Using time‐lapse VSP data to constrain velocity‐saturation relations. ASEG Extended Abstracts2015(1), 1–4.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. AlemuB.L., AkerE., SoldalM., JohnsenØ. and AagaardP.2013. Effect of sub‐core scale heterogeneities on acoustic and electrical properties of a reservoir rock: A CO2 flooding experiment of brine saturated sandstone in a computed tomography scanner. Geophysical Prospecting61(1), 235–250.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. BlanchardT.D. and DelommotP.2015. An example of the measurement and practical applications of time‐lapse seismic attenuation. Geophysics80(2), WA25–WA34.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. BrieA., PampuriF., MarsalaA. and MeazzaO.1995. Shear sonic interpretation in gas‐bearing sands. SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Society of Petroleum Engineers.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. CadoretT., MarionD. and ZinsznerB.1995. Influence of frequency and fluid distribution on elastic wave velocities in partially saturated limestones. Journal of Geophysical Research100(B6), 9789–9803.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. CaspariE., MüllerT. and GurevichB.2011Time‐lapse sonic logs reveal patchy CO 2 saturation in‐situ. Geophysical Research Letters, 38(13).
     [Google Scholar]
  7. CastagnaJ.P., SunS. and SiegfriedR.W.2003. Instantaneous spectral analysis: Detection of low‐frequency shadows associated with hydrocarbons. The Leading Edge22(2), 120–127.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. DuttaN. and OdeH.1983. Seismic reflections from a gas‐water contact. Geophysics48(2), 148–162.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Eberhart‐PhillipsD., HanD.H. and ZobackM.D.1989. Empirical relationships among seismic velocity, effective pressure, porosity, and clay content in sandstone. Geophysics54(1), 82–89.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. GrudeS., Landrø¸M., WhiteJ. and TorsæterO.2014. CO 2 saturation and thickness predictions in the Tubåen Fm., Snøhvit field, from analytical solution and time‐lapse seismic data. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control29, 248–255.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. JohnsonD.L.2001. Theory of frequency dependent acoustics in patchy‐saturated porous media. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America110(2), 682–694.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. JohnstonD.H.2013. Practical applications of time‐lapse seismic data. Distinguished Instructor Series, Society of Exploration Geophysicists.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. LandrøM.2001. Discrimination between pressure and fluid saturation changes from time‐lapse seismic data. Geophysics66(3), 836–844.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. LeeM. and CollettT.2009. Unique problems associated with seismic analysis of partially gas‐saturated unconsolidated sediments. Marine and Petroleum Geology26(6), 775–781.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. LiuJ., MüllerT.M., QiQ., LebedevM. and SunW.2015. Velocity‐saturation relation in partially saturated rocks: Modelling the effect of injection rate changes. submitted to Geophysical Prospecting, Special Issue: Advances on Rock Physics.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. LiuL., CaoS. and WangL.2011. Poroelastic analysis of frequency‐dependent amplitude‐versus‐offset variations. Geophysics76(3), C31–C40.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. LopesS., LebedevM., MüllerT.M., ClennellM.B. and GurevichB.2014. Forced imbibitions into a limestone: Measuring P‐wave velocity and water saturation dependence on injection rate. Geophysical Prospecting.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. MacBethC. and StephenK.2008. Seismic scale saturation relations in turbidite reservoirs undergoing waterflood. Geophysical Prospecting56(5), 693–714.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. MorganE.C., VannesteM., LecomteI., BaiseL.G., LongvaO. and McAdooB.2012. Estimation of free gas saturation from seismic reflection surveys by the genetic algorithm inversion of a P‐wave attenuation model. Geophysics77(4), R175–R187.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. MüllerT.M., GurevichB. and LebedevM.2010. Seismic wave attenuation and dispersion resulting from wave‐induced flow in porous rocks–A review. Geophysics75(5), 75A147–75A164.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. NakagawaS., KneafseyT.J., DaleyT.M., FreifeldB.M. and ReesE.V.2013. Laboratory seismic monitoring of supercritical CO2 flooding in sandstone cores using the split Hopkinson resonant bar technique with concurrent X‐ray computed tomography imaging. Geophysical Prospecting61(2), 254–269.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. QiQ., MüllerT.M., GurevichB., LopesS., LebedevM. and CaspariE.2014a. Quantifying the effect of capillarity on attenuation and dispersion in patchy‐saturated rocks. Geophysics79(5), WB35–WB50.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. QiQ., MüllerT.M. and RubinoJ.G.2014b. Seismic attenuation: Effects of interfacial impedance on wave‐induced pressure diffusion. Geophysical Journal International199(3), 1677–1681.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. RenH., GoloshubinG. and HiltermanF.J.2009. Poroelastic analysis of amplitude‐versus‐frequency variations. Geophysics74(6), N41–N48.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. RubinoJ., VelisD.R. and SacchiM.D.2011. Numerical analysis of wave‐induced fluid flow effects on seismic data: Application to monitoring of CO2 storage at the Sleipner field. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 116(B3).
     [Google Scholar]
  26. RutherfordS.R. and WilliamsR.H.1989. Amplitude‐versus‐offset variations in gas sands. Geophysics54(6), 680–688.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. SchmidtH.2004. Oases Version 3.1 User Guide and Reference Manual. Cambridge, MA: Department of Ocean Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
  28. SenguptaM. and MavkoG.2003. Impact of flow‐simulation parameters on saturation scales and seismic velocity. Geophysics68(4), 1267–1280.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. SenguptaM., MavkoG. and MukerjiT.2003. Quantifying subresolution saturation scales from time‐lapse seismic data: A reservoir monitoring case study. Geophysics68(3), 803–814.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. TomsJ., MüllerT.M. and GurevichB.2007. Seismic attenuation in porous rocks with random patchy saturation. Geophysical Prospecting55(5), 671–678.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. TraniM., ArtsR., LeeuwenburghO. and BrouwerJ.2011. Estimation of changes in saturation and pressure from 4D seismic AVO and time‐shift analysis. Geophysics76(2), C1–C17.
     [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12408
Loading
Saturation scale effect on time‐lapse seismic signatures
Geophysical Prospecting 64, 1001 (2016); https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2478.12408
/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12408
/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12408
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): Acoustics; Attenuation; Modelling; Rock physics; 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