1887
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Geophysical Prospecting
  4. Volume 68, Issue 5
  5. Article
Volume 68, Issue 5
  • E-ISSN: 1365-2478

Abstract

ABSTRACT

Two seismic modelling approaches, that is, two‐dimensional pre‐stack elastic finite‐difference and one‐dimensional convolution methods, are compared in a modelling exercise over the fluid‐flow simulation model of a producing deep‐water turbidite sandstone reservoir in the West of Shetland Basin. If the appropriate parameterization for one‐dimensional convolution is used, the differences in three‐dimensional and four‐dimensional seismic responses from the two methods are negligible. The key parameters to ensure an accurate seismic response are a representative wavelet, the distribution of common‐depth points and their associated angles of incidence. Conventional seismic images generated by the one‐dimensional convolutional model suffer from lack of continuity because it only accounts for vertical resolution. After application of a lateral resolution function, the convolutional and finite‐difference seismic images are very similar. Although transmission effects, internal multiples and P‐to‐S conversions are not included in our convolutional modelling, the subtle differences between images from the two methods indicates that such effects are of secondary nature in our study. A quantitative comparison of the (normalized root‐mean‐square) amplitude attributes and waveform kinematics indicates that the finite‐difference approach does not offer any tangible benefit in our target‐oriented seismic modelling case study, and the potential errors from one‐dimensional convolution modelling are comparatively much smaller than the production‐induced time‐lapse changes.

© 2020 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers © 2020 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12936
2020-03-04
2024-04-25

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12936
    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.1980. Quantitative Seismology: Theory and Methods. San Francisco, CA: Freeman and Company.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. AminiH.2018. Calibration of minerals’ and dry rock elastic moduli in sand‐shale mixtures. 80th EAGE Conference and Exhibition, Copenhagen, 1–5.
  3. ArtsR.J., ChadwickR.A., EikenO., TraniM. and DortlandS.2007. Synthetic versus real time‐lapse seismic data at the Sleipner CO2 injection site. SEG Technical Program, Expanded Abstracts, 2974–2978.
  4. BakkeK., GjelbergJ. and PetersenS.A., 2008. Compound seismic modelling of the Ainsa II turbidite system, Spain: application to deep‐water channel systems offshore Angola. Marine and Petroleum Geology25, 1058–1073.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. BakkeK., KaneI.A., MartinsenO.J., PetersenS.A., JohansenT.A., HustoftS.et al. 2013. Seismic modeling in the analysis of deep‐water sandstone termination styles. AAPG Bulletin97, 1395–1419.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. BakulinA., MateevaA., MehtaK., JorgensenP., FerrandisJ., HerholdI.S.et al. 2007. Virtual source applications to imaging and reservoir monitoring. The Leading Edge26, 732–740.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. BatzleM. and WangZ.1992. Seismic properties of pore fluids. Geophysics57, 1396–1408.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. BerengerJ.P.1994. A perfectly matched layer for the absorption of electromagnetic waves. Journal of Computational Physics114, 185–200.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. BurnsC.S., AggioA., GjøystdalH. and SantosR.2002. Facts from fiction: 4D seismic model‐based interpretation. SPE International Petroleum Conference and Exhibition, Villahermosa, Mexico, February 2002.
  10. ChenG., Chu, D., HelgerudM., ChangD., GoryshevaI., PalacharlaG.et al. 2014. Improving 4D seismic imaging by modifying baseline depth migration velocity model. 76th EAGE Conference and Exhibition, June 2014, 1–5.
  11. ChenJ. and SchusterG.T.1999. Resolution limits of migrated images. Geophysics64, 1046–1053.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. DomesF.2010. The influence of overburden on quantitative time‐lapse seismic interpretation. PhD thesis, Heriot‐Watt University, Edinburgh, UK.
  13. GassmannF., 1951. Über die elastizität poröser medien: Vier. der Natur. Gesellschaft Zürich 96, 1–23 [in German]; English translation by Berryman, J., Castagna, J. and Ecker, C. 2007. On elasticity of porous media. Classics of Elastic Wave Theory, SEG, 389–407.
  14. GjøystdalH., LecomteI., MjelvaA.E., MaaøF., HokstadK. and JohansenT.A.1998. Fast repeated seismic modelling of local complex targets. SEG Technical Program, Expanded Abstracts, 1452–1455.
  15. HillD., SonikaS., LowdenD., PaydayeshM., BarlingT. and BranstonM.2017. Full‐field 4D image modelling to determine a reservoir monitoring strategy. First Break35, 77–88.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. HillR.1963. Elastic properties of reinforced solids: some theoretical principles. Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids11, 357–372.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. HokstadK., LecomteI., MaaøF.A., TusethM., MjelvaA.E., GjøystdalH.et al. 1998. Hybrid modelling of elastic wavefield propagation. 60th EAGE Conference and Exhibition, Expanded Abstract.
  18. HolbergO.1987. Computational aspects of the choice of operator and sampling interval for numerical differentiation in large‐scale simulation of wave phenomena. Geophysical Prospecting35, 629–655.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. KirchnerA. and ShapiroS.A.2001. Fast repeat‐modelling of time‐lapse seismograms. Geophysical Prospecting49, 557–569.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. LecerfD.2019. New 4D imaging approaches with atypical sparse seismic acquisitions for reservoir monitoring. Second EAGE Workshop on Practical Reservoir Monitoring, Amsterdam, the Netherlands, April 2019. European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. LecomteI.1996. Hybrid modeling with ray tracing and finite difference. SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts, 699–702.
  22. LecomteI., LavaderaP.L., BotterC., AnellI., Buckley, S.J., EideC.H.et al. 2016. 2(3)D convolution modelling of complex geological targets – beyond 1D convolution. First Break34, 99–107.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. LecomteI.2008. Resolution and illumination analyses in PSDM: a ray‐based approach. The Leading Edge27, 650–663.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. LevanderA.R.1988. Fourth‐order finite‐difference P‐SV seismograms. Geophysics53, 1425–1436.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. MacBethC.2004. A classification for the pressure‐sensitivity properties of a sandstone rock frame. Geophysics69, 497–510.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. MarvilletC., Al‐MehairiY.S., ShuaibM., Al‐ShaikhA., DesegaulxP., HubansC.et al. 2007. Seismic monitoring feasibility on Bu‐Hasa field. International Petroleum Technology Conference, Dubai, UAE, December 2007.
  27. NurA., MavkoG., DvorkinJ. and GalD.1995. Critical porosity: The key to relating physical properties to porosity in rocks. SEG Technical Program, Expanded Abstracts, 881–885.
  28. RickettJ., DurantiL., HudsonT., RegelB. and HodgsonN.2007. 4D time strain and the seismic signature of geomechanical compaction at Genesis. The Leading Edge26, 644–647.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. RobertssonJ.O. and ChapmanC.H.2000. An efficient method for calculating finite‐difference seismograms after model alterations. Geophysics65, 907–918.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. RobertssonJ.O., LevanderA. and HolligerK.1996. A hybrid wave propagation simulation technique for ocean acoustic problems. Journal of Geophysical Research101, 11225–11241.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. ShahinA., StoffaP.L., TathamR.H. and SeifR.2011. Accuracy required in seismic modeling to detect production‐induced time‐lapse signatures. SEG Technical Program, Expanded Abstracts, 2860–2864.
  32. SvayJ., BousquiéN., MenschT. and SedovaA.2013. 4DRepeatability of reservoir illumination: quality control and support to re‐shoot decision. SEG Technical Program, Expanded Abstracts, 36–40.
  33. ThoreP.2006. Accuracy and limitations in seismic modeling of reservoir. SEG Technical Program, Expanded Abstracts, 1674–1677.
  34. ToxopeusG., PetersenS. and WapenaarK.2003. Improving geological modeling and interpretation by simulated migrated seismics. 65th EAGE Conference and Exhibition, June 2003.
  35. ToxopeusG., ThorbeckeJ., WapenaarK., PetersenS., SlobE. and FokkemaJ.2008. Simulating migrated and inverted seismic data by filtering a geologic model. Geophysics73, T1–T10.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. VirieuxJ.1986. P‐SV wave propagation in heterogeneous media: velocity‐stress finite‐difference method. Geophysics51, 889–901.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. WebbB., RizzettoC., PireraF., PaparozziE., Milluzzo, V., MastelloneD.et al. 2019. 4D seismic opportunity: from feasibility to reservoir characterization—a case study offshore West Africa. First Break37, 69–77.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. XieX.B., JinS. and WuR.S.2006. Wave‐equation‐based seismic illumination analysis. Geophysics71, S169–S177.
     [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12936
Loading
Seismic modelling for reservoir studies: a comparison between convolutional and full‐waveform methods for a deep‐water turbidite sandstone reservoir
Geophysical Prospecting 68, 1540 (2020); https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2478.12936
/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12936
/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12936
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): 1D convolution; Finite‐difference modelling; Simulator‐to‐seismic modelling; Time‐lapse monitoring

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