1887
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Geophysical Prospecting
  4. Volume 59, Issue 2
  5. Article
Volume 59, Issue 2
  • E-ISSN: 1365-2478

Abstract

ABSTRACT

Of particular concern in the monitoring of gas injection for the purposes of storage, disposal or improved oil recovery is the exact spatial distribution of the gas volumes in the subsurface. In principle this requirement is addressed by the use of 4D seismic data, although it is recognized that the seismic response still largely provides a qualitative estimate of moved subsurface fluids. Exact quantitative evaluation of fluid distributions and associated saturations remains a challenge to be solved. Here, an attempt has been made to produce mapped quantitative estimates of the gas volume injected into a clastic reservoir. Despite good results using three accurately repeated seismic surveys, time‐delay and amplitude attributes reveal fine‐scale differences though large‐scale agreement in the estimated fluid movement. These differences indicate disparities in the nature of the two attributes themselves, which can be explained by several possible causes. Of most impact are the effects of processing and migration, wave interference effects and noise from non‐repeatability of the seismic surveys. This subject highlights the need for a more careful consideration in 4D acquisition, amplitude processing and use of true amplitude preserving attributes in quantitative interpretation.

© 2010 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1111/j.1365-2478.2010.00925.x
2010-09-27
2024-04-26

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1111/j.1365-2478.2010.00925.x
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. DomesF.2010. The influence of overburden on quantitative time‐lapse seismic interpretation . PhD thesis, Institute of Petroleum Engineering, Heriot‐Watt University .
  2. DumontM.H., FayemendyC., MariJ.L. and HuguetF.2001. Underground gas storage: Estimating gas column height and saturation with time lapse seismic. Petroleum Geoscience7, 155–162.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. FreemanP., KellyS., MacDonaldC., MilingtonJ. and TothillM.2008. The Schiehallion field: Lessons learned modelling a complex deepwater turbidite, the future of geological modelling in hydrocarbon development. In: The Future of Geological Modelling in Hydrocarbon Development (eds A.Robinson , P.Griffiths , S.Price , J.Hegre and A.Muggeridge ), pp. 205–219. The Geological Society of London.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. GhaderiA. and LandrøM.2009. Estimation of thickness and velocity changes of injected carbon dioxide layers from prestack seismic data. Geophysics74, 17–28.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. HuangX., WillR., KhanM. and StanleyL.2001. Integration of time‐lapse seismic and production data in a Gulf of Mexico gas field. The Leading Edge20, 278–289.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. KvalheimA.K., SandøI.A., SkoglandS.M., VinjeV. and CarpenterM.2007. Impact of time and depth imaging methods on quantitative 4D reservoir management. 69th EAGE meeting, London , UK , Expanded Abstracts, H017.
  7. LamersE. and CarmichaelS.M.M.1999. The Palaeocene deepwater sandstone play west of Shetland. In: Petroleum Geology of NW Europe: Proceedings of the 5th Conference (eds A.J.Fleet and S.A.R.Boldy ), pp. 645–659. The Geological Society of London.
  8. LanglaisV., MezghaniM. and LucetN.2005. 4D monitoring of an underground gas storage using an integrated history matching technique. SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, 9–12 October 2005, Dallas , Texas , USA , Expanded Abstracts, SPE 95838.
  9. MavkoG., MukerjiT. and DvorkinJ.2003. The Rock Physics Handbook: Tools for Seismic Analysis in Porous Media . Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. MeadowsM.2008. Time‐lapse seismic modelling and inversion of CO2 saturation for storage and enhanced oil recovery. The Leading Edge27, 506–516.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. MehdizadehH., SrivastavaR.P., VedantiN. and LandroM.2010. Seismic monitoring of in situ combustion process in a heavy oil field. Journal of Geophysics and Engineering7, 16–29.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. MorrowN.R. and MelroseJ.C.1991. Application of capillary pressure measurements to the determination of connate water saturation. In: Interfacial Phenomena in Petroleum Recovery (ed. N.R.Morrow ), pp. 257–287. Marcel Dekker Inc.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. NgH.T., BentleyL.R. and KrebesE.S.2005. Monitoring fluid injection in a carbonate pool using time‐lapse analysis: Rainbow Lake case study. The Leading Edge24, 530–534.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. SenguptaM. and MavkoG.2003. Impact of flow‐simulation parameters on saturation scales and seismic velocity. Geophysics68, 1267–1280.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. TimurA.1968. An investigation of permeability, porosity and residual water saturation relation for sandstone reservoirs. The Log Analyst9, 8–17.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1111/j.1365-2478.2010.00925.x
Loading
Towards quantitative evaluation of gas injection using time‐lapse seismic data
Geophysical Prospecting 59, 310 (2011); https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2478.2010.00925.x
/content/journals/10.1111/j.1365-2478.2010.00925.x
/content/journals/10.1111/j.1365-2478.2010.00925.x
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): Amplitude and time‐shift attributes; Gas injection; Quantitative interpretation; Time‐lapse seismics

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