1887
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Geophysical Prospecting
  4. Volume 71, Issue 2
  5. Article
Volume 71, Issue 2
  • E-ISSN: 1365-2478

Abstract

Abstract

Hydrocarbon depletion causes fluid saturation and pressure changes, resulting in perturbations in reservoir elasticities and, hence, observable time‐lapse (or 4D) seismic responses. Using controlled physical modelling experiments, we aim to evaluate reservoir heterogeneities‐related scattering effects on seismic signatures and assess pore‐fluid substitution impacts on the 4D seismic attributes. Physical modelling experiments reveal that wave propagations in heterogeneous rocks produce substantially magnified 4D attribute differences related to fluid replacements, contrary to seismic features in homogeneous rocks. In particular, reflected waveforms from the gas‐filled scenario exhibit more apparent discontinuities and amplitude variations than water‐ and oil‐saturated scenarios in the heterogeneous regions. It is interesting to see that fluid substitution‐induced 4D seismic differences are observable within the weakly heterogeneous region but significantly strong within the highly heterogeneous region. Although it is expected that substituting oil with water produces weak perturbations in reservoir elasticities, the 4D difference observations between time‐varying records are apparent. This implies that in addition to reservoir heterogeneities‐induced amplifying effects, 4D seismic anomalies are also caused by pore‐fluid changes. Due to mesoscopic rock heterogeneities, seismic responses are complicated, and 4D difference estimates will be amplified strongly and, thus, unable to quantify variations in fluid saturation appropriately. This implies that obvious difference volumes in the underburden regions do not necessarily correspond to significant variations in pore‐fluid. Subsequently, two end‐member rock physics models were applied to predict the widest range of velocity variations and pore‐fluid behaviours. Although mesoscopic heterogeneities cause varying degrees of difficulties for hydrocarbon detection, the deformed waveform‐induced seismic attribute anomalies, which are often greatly amplified, may be beneficial for more accurately identifying reservoir fluids and monitoring their minor variations in practice.

© 2023 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers. © 2022 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers.
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.13298
2023-01-20
2024-04-25

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.13298
    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. & Margrave, G.F. (2013) Surface‐consistent matching filters for time‐lapse seismic processing. Geophysics, 78, M29–M41.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Alvarez, E. & MacBeth, C. (2014) An insightful parameterisation for the flat lander's interpretation of time‐lapse seismic data. Geophysical Prospecting, 62, 75–95.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Assis, C.A.M., Oliveira, S.A.M., Missagia, R.M. & 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]
  4. Blanchard, T. & Delommot, P. (2015) An example of the measurement and practical applications of time‐lapse seismic attenuation. Geophysics, 80, WA25‐WA34.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Carcione, J.M. (2001) AVO effects of a hydrocarbon source‐rock layer. Geophysics, 66, 419–427.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Carcione, J.M. & Picotti, S. (2006) P‐wave seismic attenuation by slow‐wave diffusion: effects of inhomogeneous rock properties. Geophysics, 71, O1–O8.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Eid, R., Ziolkowski, A., Naylor, M. & Pickup, G. (2015) Seismic monitoring of CO2 plume growth, evolution and migration in a heterogeneous reservoir: role, impact and importance of patchy saturation. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 43, 70–81.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Fuck, R.F., Tsvankin, I. & Bakulin, A. (2011) Influence of background heterogeneity on traveltime shifts for compacting reservoirs. Geophysical Prospecting, 59, 78–89.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Gassmann, F. (1951) Über die Elastizität poröser Medien. Vierteljahrs‐schrift der Naturforschenden Gesellschaft in Zürich, 96, 1–23.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Gurevich, B., Makarynska, D., de Paula, O.B. & Pervukhina, M. (2010) A simple model for squirt‐flow dispersion and attenuation in fluid‐saturated granular rocks. Geophysics, 75, N109–N120.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Hatchell, P.J. & Bourne, S.J. (2005) Measuring reservoir compaction using time‐lapse time shifts. 75th Annual International Meeting, SEG, Expanded Abstracts, 2500–2503.
  12. He, Y.X., Angus, D.A., Blanchard, T.D., Wang, G.L., Yuan, S.Y. & Garcia, A. (2016) Time‐lapse seismic waveform modelling and attribute analysis using hydromechanical models for a deep reservoir undergoing depletion. Geophysical Journal International, 205, 387–407.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. He, Y.X. & Wang, S.X. (2020) Analysis of reservoir heterogeneity‐induced amplification effect on time‐lapse seismic responses of fluid substitution: a physical modelling study. Geophysical Prospecting, 68, 1906–1926.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. He, Y.X., Wang, S.X. & Wu, X.Y. (2020) The effect of patch size change on the time‐lapse seismic reflections of highly attenuating reservoirs. Journal of Applied Geophysics, 172, 103878.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. He, Y.X., Wu, S.X., Sun, C., Tang, G.Y. & Zhu, W. (2021) Analysis of the frequency dependence characteristics of wave attenuation and velocity dispersion using a poroelastic model with mesoscopic and microscopic heterogeneities. Geophysical Prospecting, 69, 1260–1281.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. HelleH., Pham, N.H. & Carcione, J.M. (2003) Velocity and attenuation partially saturated rocks: poroelastic numerical experiments. Geophysical Prospecting, 51, 551–566.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Herwanger, J.V. & Koutsabeloulis, N. (2011) Seismic geomechanics: how to build and calibrate geomechanical models using 3D and 4D seismic data. EAGE Publications.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Kanu, C., Toomey, A., Hodgson, L., Gherasim, M., L'Heureux, E., Du, B. & Zhang, Q. (2016) Evaluation of time‐shift extraction methods on a synthetic model with 4D geomechanical changes. The Leading Edge, 35, 888–893.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Korneev, V.A., Goloshubin, G.M., Daley, T.M. & Silin, D.B. (2004) Seismic low‐frequency effects in monitoring fluid‐saturated reservoirs. Geophysics, 69(2), 522–532.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Landrø, M. (2001) Discrimination between pressure and fluid saturation change from time‐lapse seismic data. Geophysics, 66, 836–844.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Landrø, M. & Stammeijer, J. (2004) Quantitative estimation of compaction and velocity changes using 4D impedance and traveltime changes. Geophysics, 69, 949–957.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Lumley, D.E. (2001) Time‐lapse seismic reservoir monitoring. Geophysics, 66, 50–53.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. MacBeth, C., Floricich, M. & Soldo, J. (2006) Going quantitative with 4D seismic analysis. Geophysical Prospecting, 54, 303–317.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Mahmoudian, F., Margrave, G.F., Wong, J. & Henley, D.C. (2015) Azimuthal amplitude variation with offset analysis of physical modeling data acquired over an azimuthally anisotropic medium. Geophysics, 80, C21–C35.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Obermann, A., Planes, T., Hadziioannou, C. & Campillo, M. (2016) Lapse‐time‐dependent coda‐wave depth sensitivity to local velocity perturbations in 3‐D heterogeneous elastic media. Geophysical Journal International, 207, 59–66.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Quintal, B., Schmalholz, S.M. & Podladchikov, Y.Y. (2011) Impact of fluid saturation on the reflection coefficient of a poroelastic layer. Geophysics, 76(2), N1‐N12.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Ren, H.T., Goloshubin, G. & Hilterman, F. (2009) Poroelastic analysis of amplitude‐versus‐frequency variations. Geophysics, 74, N41‐N48.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Rickett, J.E. & 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]
  29. Røste, T., Stovas, A. & Landrø, M. (2006) Estimation of layer thickness and velocity changes using 4D prestack seismic data. Geophysics, 71, S219–S234.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Sato, H., Fehler, M. & Maeda, T. (2012) Seismic wave propagation and scattering in the heterogeneous earth, 2nd edition. Berlin: Springer.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Silva, J.P., Ceia, M.R., Missagia, R.M. & Silva, A.O. (2014) Influence of grain size on seismic signals: a physical modelling study. Brazilian Journal of Geophysics, 32, 681–693.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Tang, J., Li, J.J., Yao, Z.A., Shao, J. & Sun, C.Y. (2015) Reservoir time‐lapse variations and coda wave interferometry. Applied Geophysics, 12, 244–254.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Trani, M., Art, R., Leeuwenburgh, O. & Brouwer, J. (2011) Estimation of changes in saturation and pressure from 4D seismic AVO and time‐shift analysis. Geophysics, 76, C1‐C17.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Tsuneyama, F. & Mavko, G. (2007) Elastic‐impedance analysis constrained by rock‐physics bounds. Geophysical Prospecting, 55, 289–306.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Wandler, A., Evans, B. & Link, C. (2007) AVO as a fluid indicator: a physical modeling study. Geophysics, 72, C9‐C17.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Wang, S.X., Li, X.Y., Di, B.R. & Booth, D. (2010) Reservoir fluid substitution effects on seismic profile interpretation: a physical modeling experiment. Geophysical Research Letter, 37, L10306.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Wang, S.X., Li, X.Y., Qian, Z.P., Di, B.R. & Wei, J.X. (2007) Physical modelling studies of 3‐D P‐wave seismic for fracture detection. Geophysical Journal International, 168, 745–756.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Wong, M.Y. & MacBeth, C. (2016) R‐factor recovery via Geertsma's pressure inversion assisted by engineering concepts. 78th EAGE Conference and Exhibition 2016 Workshops.
  39. Wu, R.S. & Aki, K. (1985) Scattering characteristics of elastic waves by an elastic heterogeneity. Geophysics, 50, 582–595.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Xu, C., Di, B.R. & Wei, J.X. (2016) A physical modelling study of seismic features of karst cave reservoirs in the Tarim Basin, China. Geophysics, 81, B31‐B41.
     [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.13298
Loading
A physical modelling study of waveform amplification effects of reservoir heterogeneity on time‐lapse seismic attribute analysis
Geophysical Prospecting 71, 206 (2023); https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2478.13298
/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.13298
/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.13298
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): 4D seismic attributes; amplification effect; fluid substitution; mesoscopic heterogeneity; physical modelling experiment; rock physics

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