1887
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Geophysical Prospecting
  4. Volume 53, Issue 2
  5. Article
Volume 53, Issue 2
  • E-ISSN: 1365-2478

Abstract

ABSTRACT

With the increasing use of permanently installed seismic installations, many of the issues in time‐lapse seismic caused by the lack of repeatability can be reduced. However, a number of parameters still influence the degree of reliability of 4D seismic data. In this paper, the specific impact of seawater velocity variations on time‐lapse repeatability is investigated in a synthetic study. A zero‐lag time‐lapse seabed experiment with no change in the subsurface but with velocity changes in the water column is simulated. The velocity model in the water column is constant for the baseline survey while the model for the repeat survey is heterogeneous, designed from sea salinity and temperature measurements in the West of Shetlands. The difference section shows up to 80% of residual amplitude, which highlights the poor repeatability. A new dynamic correction which removes the effect of seawater velocity variations specifically for permanent installations is developed. When applied to the synthetic data, it reduces the difference residual amplitude to about 3%. This technique shows substantial improvement in repeatability beyond conventional time‐lapse cross‐equalization.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1111/j.1365-2478.2004.00465.x
2005-02-14
2024-04-19

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1111/j.1365-2478.2004.00465.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. BarleyB.1999. Deepwater problems around the world. The Leading Edge18, 488–494.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. BertrandA.2004. The impact of seawater velocity variations on time‐lapse seismic monitoring . PhD thesis, Heriot‐Watt University , in press.
  3. BertrandA. and MacBethC.2003. Seawater velocity variations and real‐time reservoir monitoring. The Leading Edge22, 351–355.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. BertrandA., RibeiroC. and MacBethC.2004. Uncertainties in the 4D seismic signature due to seawater velocity variations. 66th EAGE conference, Paris , France , Extended Abstracts, A041.
  5. CalvertR. and WillsP.2003. The case for 4D monitoring with sparse OBC. 65th EAGE conference, Stavanger , Norway , Extended Abstracts, A15.
  6. CurtisA., CombeeL., OlafsenW. and SmithP.2002. Acquisition of highly repeatable seismic data using active streamer steering. 72nd SEG meeting, Salt Lake City , USA , Expanded Abstracts, 81–84.
  7. Del GrossoV.A.1974. New equation for the speed of sound in natural waters (with comparisons to other equations). Journal of the Acoustical Society of America56, 1084–1091.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. EbromD., KrailP., RidyardD. and ScottL.1998. 4‐C/4‐D at Teal South. The Leading Edge17, 1450–1453.DOI: 10.1190/1.1437876
     [Google Scholar]
  9. EikenO., HaugenG.U., SchonewilleM. and DuijndamA.2003. A proven method for acquiring highly repeatable towed streamer seismic data. Geophysics68, 1303–1309.DOI: 10.1190/1.1598123
     [Google Scholar]
  10. FaustL.Y.1953. A velocity function including lithologic variation. Geophysics18, 271–288.DOI: 10.1190/1.1437869
     [Google Scholar]
  11. HallS.A., MacBethC., BarkvedO.I. and WildP.2005. Cross‐matching with interpreted warping of 3D streamer and 3D ocean‐bottom‐cable data at Valhall for time‐lapse assessment. Geophysical Prospecting53, 283–297.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. HansonR., CondonP., BehrensR., GrovesS. and MacLeodM.2003. Analysis of time‐lapse data from the Alba Field 4C/4D seismic survey. Petroleum Geoscience9, 103–111.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. KraghE. and ChristieP.2002. Seismic repeatability, normalized rms, and predictability. The Leading Edge21, 640–647.DOI: 10.1190/1.1497316
     [Google Scholar]
  14. KristiansenP., ChristieP., BouskaJ., O'DonovanA., WestwaterP. and ThorogoodE.2000. Foinaven 4‐D: Processing and analysis of two designer 4‐Ds. 70th SEG meeting, Calgary , Canada , Expanded Abstracts, 1456–1459.
  15. LawsR. and KraghE.2002. Rough seas and time‐lapse seismic. Geophysical Prospecting50, 195–208.DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2478.2002.00311.x
     [Google Scholar]
  16. LecerfD. and ColeouT.2002. Application of the automatic factorial co‐kriging method (AFACK) to optimize the 4D seismic signature. 64th EAGE conference, Florence , Italy , Extended Abstracts, A021.
  17. MacBethC.2004. A classification for the pressure sensitivity properties of a sandstone rock frame. Geophysics69, 497–510.DOI: 10.1190/1.1707070
     [Google Scholar]
  18. MacKayS., FriedJ. and CarvillC.2003. The impact of water‐velocity variations on deepwater seismic data. The Leading Edge22, 344–350.DOI: 10.1190/1.1572088
     [Google Scholar]
  19. MedwinH.1975. Speed of sound in water: a simple equation for realistic parameters. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America58, 1318–1319.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. ReidF.J.L., BertrandA., McInallyA.T. and MacBethC.2005. 4D signal enhancement using singular‐value decomposition: application to mapping oil–water contact movement across the Nelson Field. Geophysical Prospecting53, 253–263.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. RickettJ. and LumleyD.E.2001. Cross‐equalization data processing for time‐lapse seismic reservoir monitoring: a case study from the Gulf of Mexico. Geophysics66, 1015–1025.DOI: 10.1190/1.1487049
     [Google Scholar]
  22. RossC.P., CunninghamG.B. and WeberD.P.1996. Inside the cross‐equalization black box. The Leading Edge15, 1233–1240.DOI: 10.1190/1.1437231
     [Google Scholar]
  23. SmithP., BergJ., EidsvigS., MagnusI. and VerhelstF.2001. 4‐D seismic in a complex fluvial reservoir: The Snorre feasibility study. The Leading Edge20, 270–277.DOI: 10.1190/1.1487274
     [Google Scholar]
  24. StucchiE., MazzottiA. and CiuffiS.2005. Seismic preprocessing and amplitude cross‐calibration for a time‐lapse amplitude study on seismic data from the Oseberg reservoir. Geophysical Prospecting53, 265–282.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. SwanstonA.M., FlemingsP.B., ComiskyJ.T. and BestK.D.2003. Time‐lapse imaging at Bullwinkle field, Green Canyon 65, offshore Gulf of Mexico. Geophysics68, 1470–1484.DOI: 10.1190/1.1620620
     [Google Scholar]
  26. VesnaverA., AccainoF., BohmG., MadrussaniG., PajchelJ., RossiG. and Dal MoroG.2003. Time‐lapse tomography. Geophysics68, 815–823.DOI: 10.1190/1.1581034
     [Google Scholar]
  27. WombellR.1997. Water velocity variations and static corrections in 3D data processing. 59th EAGE conference, Geneva , Switzerland , Extended Abstracts, A029.
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1111/j.1365-2478.2004.00465.x
Loading
Repeatability enhancement in deep‐water permanent seismic installations: a dynamic correction for seawater velocity variations
Geophysical Prospecting 53, 229 (2005); https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2478.2004.00465.x
/content/journals/10.1111/j.1365-2478.2004.00465.x
/content/journals/10.1111/j.1365-2478.2004.00465.x
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article

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