1887
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Geophysical Prospecting
  4. Volume 68, Issue 6
  5. Article
Volume 68, Issue 6
  • E-ISSN: 1365-2478

Abstract

ABSTRACT

Seismic wave propagation through a fluid‐saturated poroelastic layer might be strongly affected by media heterogeneities. Via incorporating controlled laboratory simulation experiments, we extend previous studies of time‐lapse seismic effects to evaluate the wave scattering influence of the heterogeneous nature of porous permeable media and the associated amplification effects on 4D seismic response characteristics of reservoir fluid substitution. A physical model consisted of stratified thin layers of shale and porous sandstone reservoir with rock heterogeneities was built based on the geological data of a real hydrocarbon‐saturated reservoir in Northeast China. Multi‐surveys data of good quality were acquired by filling poroelastic reservoir layers with gas, water and oil in sequence. Experimental observations show that reservoir heterogeneity effect causes significantly magnified abnormal responses to the fluid‐saturated media. Specifically, reflection signatures of the gas‐filled reservoir are dramatically deviated from those of the liquid fluid‐filled reservoir, compared with ones of the homogeneous media. By removing the influences unrelated to reservoir property alterations, 4D seismic estimates of travel‐time and frequency‐dependent characteristic are reasonably consistent with fluid variations. Nevertheless, strong 4D amplitude difference anomalies might not correspond to the regions where fluid variations occur. We also find that 4D seismic difference attributes are evident between oil‐ and water‐filled models, whereas significant between oil‐ and gas‐filled models. Meanwhile, rock physics modelling results reveal the predicted 4D seismic differences are obviously smaller than those calculated from seismic observations. The results in this paper, therefore, implicate that the effect of a reservoir's heterogeneous nature might be beneficial for hydrocarbons detection as well as monitoring small variations in pore fluids.

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

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12950
2020-05-12
2024-04-19

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12950
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Almutlaq, M.H. and Margrave, G.F. (2013) Surface‐consistent matching filters for time‐lapse seismic processing. Geophysics, 78, M29–M41.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Assis, C.A.M., Oliveira, S.A.M., Missagia, R.M. and de Ceia, M.A.R. (2017) Source wavelet and local wave propagation effects on the amplitude‐variation‐with‐offset response of thin‐layer models: a physical modeling study. Geophysics, 82, N27–N41.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Blanchard, T. and Delommot, P. (2015) An example of the measurement and practical applications of time‐lapse seismic attenuation. Geophysics, 80, WA25–WA34.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Chabyshova, E. and Goloshubin, G. (2017) Modeling of reservoir shadows at low seismic frequencies. 67th SEG meeting, Houston, TX, USA, Expanded Abstract, 3867–3871.
  5. Chapman, M., Liu, E. and Li, X.Y. (2006) The influence of fluid‐sensitive dispersion and attenuation on AVO analysis. Geophysical Journal International, 167, 89–105.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Cox, B. and Hatchell, P. (2008) Straightening out lateral shifts in time‐lapse seismic. First Break, 26, 93–98.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Garcia, A. and MacBeth, C. (2013) An estimation method for effective stress changes in a reservoir from 4D seismic data. Geophysical Prospecting, 61, 803–816.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Gassmann, F. (1951) Über die Elastizität poröser Medien. Vierteljahrsschrift der Naturforschenden Gesellschaft in Zürich, 96, 1–23.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Hall, S.A., MacBeth, C., Barkved, O.I. and Wild, P. (2005) Cross‐matching with interpreted warping of 3D streamer and 3D ocean‐bottom‐cable data at Valhall for time‐lapse assessment. Geophysical Prospecting, 53, 283–297.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Han, L., Han, L.G. and Li, Z. (2012) Inverse spectral decomposition with the SPGL1 algorithm. Journal of Geophysics and Engineering, 9, 423–427.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Hatchell, P.J. and Bourne, S.J. (2005) Rocks under strain: Strain‐induced time‐lapse time shifts are observed for depleting reservoirs. The Leading Edge, 24, 1222–1225.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Hawkins, K., Howe, S., Hollingworth, S., Conroy, G., Ben‐Brahim, L., Tindle, C., et al. (2007) Production‐induced stresses from time‐lapse time shifts: A geomechanics case study from Franklin and Elgin fields. The Leading Edge, 26, 655–662.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. He, Y.‐X., Angus, D.A., Blanchard, T.D., Wang, G.‐L., Yuan, S.‐Y. and Garcia, A. (2016a) Time‐lapse seismic waveform modelling and attribute analysis using hydromechanical models for a deep reservoir undergoing depletion. Geophysical Journal International, 205, 389–407.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. He, Y.‐X., Angus, D.A., Clark, R.A. and Hildyard, M.W. (2016b) Analysis of time‐lapse travel‐time and amplitude changes to assess reservoir compartmentalization. Geophysical Prospecting, 64, 54–67.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. He, Y.‐X., Angus, D.A., Yuan, S.‐Y. and Xu, Y.‐G. (2015) Feasibility of time‐lapse AVO and AVOA analysis to monitor compaction‐induced seismic anisotropy. Journal of Applied Geophysics, 122, 134–148.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. He, Y.‐X., Wu, X.Y., Fu, K., Zhou, D. and Wang, S.X. (2018) Modeling the effect of microscopic and mesoscopic heterogeneities on frequency‐dependent attenuation and seismic signatures. IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Letters, 15, 1174–1178.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. He, Y.‐X., Zhou, D., Chen, S., Ma, M. and Wang, S.‐X. (2017) 4D seismic responses of heterogeneous reservoirs using lab physical modelling to understand uncertainties in seismic attributes. 79th EAGE Annual Meeting, Paris, France, Expanded Abstract, Th P2 11.
  18. Helle, H.B., Pham, N.H. and Carcione, J.M. (2003) Velocity and attenuation in partially saturated rocks: poroelastic numerical experiments. Geophysical Prospecting, 51, 551–566.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Herwanger, J.V. and Koutsabeloulis, N. (2011) Seismic Geomechanics: How to Build and Calibrate Geomechanical Models Using 3D and 4D Seismic Data. EAGE Publications.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Holt, R.M. and Stenebraten, J.F. (2013) Controlled laboratory experiments to assess the geomechanical influence of subsurface injection and depletion processes on 4D seismic responses. Geophysical Prospecting, 61, 476–488.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Huang, F., Juhlin, C., Han, L., Kempka, T., Luth, S. and Zhang, F.J. (2016) Quantitative evaluation of thin‐layer thickness and CO2 mass utilizing seismic complex decomposition at the Ketzin CO2 storage site, Germany. Geophysical Journal International, 207, 160–173.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Landrø, M. (2001) Discrimination between pressure and fluid saturation changes from time‐lapse seismic data. Geophysics, 66, 836–844.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. LandrøM. and StammeijerJ. (2004) Quantitative estimation of compaction and velocity changes using 4D impedance and traveltime changes. Geophysics, 69, 949–957.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Liu, C.N., Wei, J.X., Di, B.R., Gong, F., Shuai, D. and Li, H. (2017) Experimental study of wave propagation in random media with different heterogeneity scales. Journal of Geophysics and Engineering, 14, 878–887.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Lumley, D.E. (2001) Time‐lapse seismic reservoir monitoring. Geophysics, 66, 50–53.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Luo, M., Takanashi, M., Nakayama, K. and Ezaka, T. (2007) Physical modeling of overburden effects. Geophysics, 72, T37–T45.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. MahmoudianF., MargraveG.F., WongJ. and HenleyD.C. (2015) Azimuthal amplitude variation with offset analysis of physical modeling data acquired over an azimuthally anisotropic medium. Geophysics, 80, C21–C35.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Marion, D., Mukerji, T. and Mavko, G. (1994) Scale effects on velocity dispersion: From ray to effective medium theories in stratified media. Geophysics, 59, 1613–1619.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Mukerji, T., Mavko, G., Mujica, D. and Lucet, N. (1995) Scale‐dependent seismic velocity in heterogeneous medium. Geophysics, 60, 1222–1233.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Pazetti, B., Donno, D., Davolio, A., Grana, D. and Schiozer, D. (2016. The impact of time‐shift estimation and correlation on two 4D attributes – amplitude difference and velocity change. 78th EAGE Annual Meeting, Vienna, Austria, Expanded Abstract, Th LHR2 07.
  31. Rickett, J.E. and Lumley, D.E. (2001) Cross‐equalization data processing for time‐lapse seismic reservoir monitoring: a case study from the Gulf of Mexico. Geophysics, 66, 1015–1025.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Røste, T., Stovas, A. and Landrø, M. (2006) Estimation of layer thickness and velocity changes using 4D prestack seismic data. Geophysics, 71, S219–S234.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Shragge, J. and Lumley, D. (2013) Time‐lapse wave‐equation migration velocity analysis. Geophysics, 78, S69–S79.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Smith, S.S. and Tsvankin, I. (2012) Modeling and analysis of compaction‐induced traveltime shifts for multicomponent seismic data. Geophysics, 77, T221–T237.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Tang, J., Li, J.J., Yao, Z.A., Shao, J. and Sun, C.Y. (2015) Reservoir time‐lapse variations and coda wave interferometry. Applied Geophysics, 12, 244–254.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Trani, M., ArtsR., Leeuwenburgh, O. and Brouwer, J. (2011) Estimation of changes in saturation and pressure from 4D seismic AVO and time‐shift analysis. Geophysics, 76, C1–C17.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Tsuneyama, F. and Mavko, G. (2007) Quantitative detection of fluid distribution using time‐lapse seismic. Geophysical Prospecting, 55, 169–184.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Wandler, A., Evans, B. and Link, C. (2007) AVO as a fluid indicator: a physical modeling study. Geophysics, 72, C9–C17.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Wang, S.X., Li, X.Y., Di, B.R. and Booth, D. (2010) Reservoir fluid substitution effects on seismic profile interpretation: a physical modeling experiment. Geophysical Research Letters, 37, L10306.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Wang, S.X., Li, X.Y., Qian, Z.P., Di, B.R. and Wei, J.X. (2007) Physical modelling studies of 3‐D P‐wave seismic for fracture detection. Geophysical Journal International, 168, 745–756.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Yuan, S.Y., Wang, S.X., Luo, C.M. and He, Y.X. (2015) Simultaneous multitrace impedance inversion with transform‐domain sparsity promotion. Geophysics, 80, R71–R80.
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Zhang, R., Song, X.L., Fomel, S., Sen, M.K. and Srinivasan, S. (2013) Time‐lapse seismic data registration and inversion for CO2 sequestration study at Cranfield. Geophysics, 78, B329–B338.
     [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12950
Loading
Analysis of reservoir heterogeneity‐induced amplification effect on time‐lapse seismic responses of fluid substitution: A physical modelling study
Geophysical Prospecting 68, 1906 (2020); https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2478.12950
/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12950
/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12950
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): Reservoir characterization; Reservoir monitoring; Scattering; Wave propagation

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