1887
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Geophysical Prospecting
  4. Volume 67, Issue 2
  5. Article
Volume 67, Issue 2
  • E-ISSN: 1365-2478

Abstract

ABSTRACT

During the time taken for seismic data to be acquired, reservoir pressure may fluctuate as a consequence of field production and operational procedures and fluid fronts may move significantly. These variations prevent accurate quantitative measurement of the reservoir change using 4D seismic data. Modelling studies on the Norne field simulation model using acquisition data from ocean‐bottom seismometer and towed streamer systems indicate that the pre‐stack intra‐survey reservoir fluctuations are important and cannot be neglected. Similarly, the time‐lapse seismic image in the post‐stack domain does not represent a difference between two states of the reservoir at a unique base and monitor time, but is a mixed version of reality that depends on the sequence and timing of seismic shooting. The outcome is a lack of accuracy in the measurement of reservoir changes using the resulting processed and stacked 4D seismic data. Even for perfect spatial repeatability between surveys, a spatially variant noise floor is still anticipated to remain. For our particular North Sea acquisition data, we find that towed streamer data are more affected than the ocean‐bottom seismometer data. We think that this may be typical for towed streamers due to their restricted aperture compared to ocean‐bottom seismometer acquisitions, even for a favourable time sequence of shooting and spatial repeatability. Importantly, the pressure signals on the near and far offset stacks commonly used in quantitative 4D seismic inversion are found to be inconsistent due to the acquisition timestamp. Saturation changes at the boundaries of fluid fronts appear to show a similar inconsistency across sub‐stacks. We recommend that 4D data are shot in a consistent manner to optimize aerial time coverage, and that additionally, the timestamp of the acquisition should be used to optimize pre‐stack quantitative reservoir analysis.

© 2019 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers © 2018 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12718
2018-11-26
2024-04-18

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12718
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. AkiK. and RichardsP.G.1980. Quantitative Seismology, Theory and Methods. W.H. Freeman & Co.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. AlvarezE. and MacBethC.2014. An insightful parametrization for the flatlander's interpretation of time‐lapse seismic data. Geophysical Prospecting62, 75–96.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. AminiH.2014. A pragmatic approach to simulator to seismic modelling for 4D seismic interpretation . PhD thesis, Institute of Petroleum Engineering, Heriot‐Watt University, UK.
  4. AouadA., TaylorR. and MillarN.2012. Seismic on the edge – a 3D transition zone seismic survey from concept to final volume. 22nd ASEG Conference & Exhibition, Extended Abstracts, 1–5.
  5. BarkerT.B., ChenB.N., HagueP.F., MajainJ. and WongK.2008. Understanding the time‐lapse seismic response of a compacting carbonate field, Offshore Sarawak, Malaysia. International Petroleum Technology Conference, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, Extended Abstracts, IPTC‐12514‐MS.
  6. BarkvedO.I., KristiansenT. and FjærE.2005. The 4D seismic response of a compacting reservoir – examples from the Valhall Field, Norway. 75th SEG Annual International Meeting, Houston, TX, Expanded Abstracts, 2508–2511.
  7. BertrandA., FolstadP.G., LyngnesB., BuizardS., HoeberH., PhamN., et al. 2014. Ekofisk life of field seismic: operations and 4D processing. The Leading Edge33, 142–148.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. BertrandA., McQuaidS., BoboleckiR., LeiknesS. and RoH.E.2005. Gas‐oil contact monitoring at Troll using high resolution 4D analysis and neural networks. 67th EAGE Conference and Exhibition, Madrid, Spain, Expanded Abstracts, C040.
  9. BricenoA., MacBethC. and MangriotisM.D.2016. Towards an effective petroelastic model for simulator to seismic studies. 78th EAGE Conference and Exhibition, Vienna, Austria, Expanded Abstracts, Th LHR2 08.
  10. CampbellS., RickettsT.A., DaviesD.M., SlaterC.P., LilleyG.G., BrainJ., et al. 2005. Improved 4D Seismic Repeatability – a West of Shetlands towed streamer acquisition case history. 75th SEG Annual International Meeting, Houston, TX, Expanded Abstracts, 2394–2397.
  11. ChenJ. and SchusterG.T.1999. Resolution limits of migrated images. Geophysics64, 1046–1053.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. DakeL.P.1997. The Practice of Reservoir Engineering, revised edn, Vol. 36, pp. 5–535. Elsevier, Amsterdam.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. EikenO. and TøndelR.2005. Sensitivity of time‐lapse seismic data to pore pressure changes: is quantification possible? The Leading Edge24, 1250–1254.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. EriksrudM.2014. Seabed permanent reservoir monitoring (PRM) – a valid 4D seismic technology for fields in the North Sea. First Break32, 67–73.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. FalahatR., ObidegwuD., ShamsA. and MacBethC.2014. The interpretation of amplitude changes in 4D seismic data arising from gas exsolution and dissolution. Petroleum Geoscience20, 303–320.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. FarmerH.G., GalarragaM., WangK., StammeijerJ. and LydonM.2015. BC10 LoFS – first results and year one operations. Third EAGE Workshop on Permanent Reservoir Monitoring 2015, Oslo, Norway, Expanded Abstracts, We B03.
  17. HatchellP.J., WangK., LopezJ.L., StammeijerJ.G.F. and DavidsonM.2013. Instantaneous 4D seismic (i4D) for water injection monitoring. 75th EAGE Conference & Exhibition, London, UK, Expanded Abstracts, Tu 08 07.
  18. HornmanK. and ForguesE.2013. Permanent reservoir monitoring with onshore surface seismic. Second EAGE Workshop on Permanent Reservoir Monitoring – Current and Future Trends, Stavanger, Norway, Expanded Abstracts, We‐01‐04.
  19. JohnstonD.H.2013. Practical applications of time‐lapse seismic data. SEG Distinguished Instructor Short Course, Series No. 16.  Society of Exploration Geophysicists, Tulsa.
  20. KraghE.D. and ChristieP.2002. Seismic repeatability, normalized RMS, and predictability. The Leading Edge21, 640–647.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. LandrøM.2001. Discrimination between pressure and fluid saturation changes from time‐lapse seismic data. Geophysics66, 836–844.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. LuJ., CookP.J., HosseiniS.A., YangC., RomanakK.D., ZhangT., et al. 2012. Complex fluid flow revealed by monitoring CO2 injection in a fluvial formation. Journal of Geophysical Research117, B03208.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. LumleyD., AdamsD., MeadowsM., ColeS. and ErgasR.2003. 4D seismic pressure‐saturation inversion at Gullfaks field, Norway. First Break21, 3–9.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. MacBethC., FloricichM. and SoldoJ.2006. Going quantitative with 4D seismic analysis. Geophysical Prospecting54, 303–317.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. MacBethC., StephenK.D. and McInallyA.2005. The 4D seismic signature of oil–water contact movement due to natural production in a stacked turbidite reservoir. Geophysical Prospecting53, 183–203.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. McWhorterR., SchultzG., ClarkA., BranchT. and LansleyM.2012. 3D seismic operational optimization in the Lusitanian Basin, Portugal. First Break30, 103–108.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. MichouL., LafetY., ColéouT. and Przybysz‐JarnutJ.2013. 4D seismic inversion on continuous land seismic reservoir monitoring of thermal EOR. 75th EAGE Conference & Exhibition, London, Expanded Abstracts, Tu 08 04.
  28. OmofomaV. and MacBethC.2016. Quantification of reservoir pressure‐sensitivity using multiple monitor 4D seismic data. 78th EAGE Conference and Exhibition, Vienna, Austria, Expanded Abstracts, Th LHR2 04.
  29. OsdalB., HusbyO., AronsenH., ChenN. and AlsosT.2006. Mapping the fluid front and pressure buildup using 4D data on Norne Field. The Leading Edge25, 1134–1141.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. PevznerR., UrosevicM. and GurevichB.2015. Borehole seismic monitoring of a small‐scale CO2 injection – the CO2CRC Otway Project Feasibility Study. 77th EAGE Conference and Exhibition, Madrid, Spain, Expanded Abstracts, Tu N117 01.
  31. RossA., ViceerS., HildebrandS., MorrisonC. and JolleyE.2010. A towed streamer 3D seismic survey in the Arctic marginal ice zone. First Break28, 71–77.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. RøsteT., DybvikO.P. and SøreideO.K.2015. Overburden 4D time shifts induced by reservoir compaction at Snorre field. The Leading Edge34, 1366–1374.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. StammeijerJ.G.F., DavidsonM., HatchellP.J. and LopezJ.L.2013. Instantaneous 4D seismic (i4D) – an innovative concept to monitor offshore water injector wells. International Petroleum Technology Conference, Beijing, China, Expanded Abstracts, IPTC 16901.
  34. TjetlandG., KristiansenT.G. and BuerK.2007. Reservoir management aspects of early waterflood response after 25 years of depletion in Valhall Field. International Petroleum Technology Conference, Dubai, Expanded Abstracts, IPTC 11276.
  35. TøndelR., SchüttH., DümmongS., DucrocqA., GodfreyR., LaBrecqueD., et al. 2014. Reservoir monitoring of steam‐assisted gravity drainage using borehole measurements. Geophysical Prospecting62, 760–778.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. ToxopeusG., PetersenS.A. and WapenaarC.P.A.2003. Improved geological modelling and interpretation by simulated migrated seismics. 73rd SEG Annual International Meeting, Dallas, TX, Expanded Abstracts, 2445–2448.
  37. WattsG.F.T. and MarshM.2011. How often should you acquire 4D seismic surveys to optimise value? EAGE Workshop on Permanent Reservoir Monitoring (PRM) – Using Seismic Data, Trondheim, Norway, Expanded Abstracts, 10895.
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12718
Loading
Intra‐survey reservoir fluctuations – implications for quantitative 4D seismic analysis
Geophysical Prospecting 67, 282 (2019); https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2478.12718
/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12718
/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12718
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): Data processing; Monitoring, Acquisition; 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