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

The cross‐calibration of different vintage data is an important prerequisite in attempting to determine the time‐lapse seismic effects induced by hydrocarbon production in a reservoir. This paper reports the preprocessing and cross‐calibration procedures adopted to modify the data of four seismic vintages (1982, 1989, 1992 and 1999) from the Oseberg field in the North Sea, for optimal conditions for a time‐lapse seismic amplitude analysis. The final results, in terms of time‐lapse variations, of acoustic impedance and of amplitude‐versus‐offset, are illustrated for selected data sets. The application of preprocessing to each individual vintage data set reduces the effects of the different acquisition and noise conditions, and leads to consistency in the amplitude response of the four vintages. This consistency facilitates the final amplitude cross‐calibration that is carried out using, as reference, the Cretaceous horizon reflections above the Brent reservoir. Such cross‐calibration can be considered as vintage‐consistent residual amplitude correction.

Acoustic impedance sections, intercept and gradient amplitude‐versus‐offset attributes and coherent amplitude‐versus‐offset estimates are computed on the final cross‐calibrated data. The results, shown for three spatially coincident 2D lines selected from the 1982, 1989 and 1999 data sets, clearly indicate gas‐cap expansion resulting from oil production. Such expansion is manifested as a decrease in acoustic impedance and a modification of the amplitude‐versus‐offset trends in the apical part of the reservoir.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1111/j.1365-2478.2004.00471.x
2005-02-14
2024-04-25

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1111/j.1365-2478.2004.00471.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. BushI., JanexG., RowbothamP., MazzottiA., StucchiE. and CiuffiS.2000. AVO inversion of 4‐D seismic for reservoir monitoring: An example on the Oseberg Field. EAGE/SAID Petrophysics meets Geophysics, Paris , France , 68 November 2000, Session A4.
  2. De WaalJ.A., CalvertR.W., StaplesR.K., HartungM. and Shell Global 4D Team2001. Shell's drive for 4D seismic. 63rd EAGE conference, Amsterdam , The Netherlands , Extended Abstracts, Session F17.
  3. GreavesR. and FulpT.1987. Three dimensional seismic monitoring of an enhanced oil recovery process. Geophysics52, 1175–1187.DOI: 10.1190/1.1442381
     [Google Scholar]
  4. GrionS., MazzottiA. and SpagnoliniU.1998. Joint estimation of AVO and kinematic parameters. Geophysical Prospecting46, 405–422.DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2478.1998.970332.x
     [Google Scholar]
  5. HarrisP.E. and HenryB.1998. Time‐lapse processing: a North Sea case study. 68th SEG meeting, New Orleans , USA , Expanded Abstracts, Session 4D 1.1.
  6. HicksG.J. and WilliamsonP.2002. Quantitative time‐lapse AVO – Initial application to the Oseberg Field. 64th EAGE conference, Florence , Italy , Extended Abstracts, Session A019.
  7. JohnsenJ.R., RutledalH. and NilsenD.E.1995. Jurassic reservoirs; field examples from the Oseberg and Troll fields: Horda platform area. In: Petroleum Exploration and Exploitation in Norway (ed. S.Hanslien ), pp. 199–234. NPF Special Publication 4. Norwegian Petroleum Society .
    [Google Scholar]
  8. JohnstadS.E., SeymourR.H. and SmithP.J.1995. Seismic reservoir monitoring over the Oseberg field during the period 1989–1992. First Break13, 169–183.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. LevinS.A.1989. Surface‐consistent deconvolution. Geophysics54, 1123–1133.DOI: 10.1190/1.1442747
     [Google Scholar]
  10. LokshtanovD.2000. Suppression of water‐layer multiples – from deconvolution to wave‐equation approach. 70th SEG meeting, Calgary , Canada , Expanded Abstracts, 1981–1984.
  11. LumleyD.E.2001. Time‐lapse seismic reservoir monitoring. Geophysics66, 50–53.DOI: 10.1190/1.1444921
     [Google Scholar]
  12. LumleyD.E., BehrensR.A. and WangZ.1997. Assessing the technical risk of a 4‐D seismic project. The Leading Edge16, 1287–1291.DOI: 10.1190/1.1437784
     [Google Scholar]
  13. MazzottiA.1991. Amplitude, phase and frequency versus offset applications. Geophysical Prospecting39, 863–886.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. MazzottiA., StucchiE. and CiuffiS.2000. Time‐lapse seismic amplitude studies – Preliminary results from a North Sea dataset. 62nd EAGE conference, Glasgow , Scotland , Extended Abstracts, Session X56.
  15. MorleyL. and ClaerboutJ.1983. Predictive deconvolution in shot receiver space. Geophysics48, 515–531.DOI: 10.1190/1.1441483
     [Google Scholar]
  16. ParkerJ., BertelliL. and DromgooleP.2003. 4D seismic technology special issue. Petroleum Geoscience9(iv).
     [Google Scholar]
  17. RickettJ.E. 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]
  18. RowbothamP., WilliamsonP., MarionD., JanexG. and GosselinO.2001. Quantitative use of pre‐stack time‐lapse seismic for production history matching. 63rd EAGE conference, Amsterdam , The Netherlands , Extended Abstracts, Session N09.
  19. SpitzS.2000. Model‐based subtraction of multiple events in the frequency–space domain. 70th SEG meeting, Calgary , Canada , Expanded Abstracts, Session SP2.
  20. StucchiE., MazzottiA. and TerenghiP.2001. Time‐lapse amplitude variations on seismic data from the Oseberg field. 63rd EAGE conference, Amsterdam , The Netherlands , Extended Abstracts, Session P668.
  21. TanerM.T. and KoehlerF.1981. Surface consistent corrections. Geophysics46, 17–22.DOI: 10.1190/1.1441133
     [Google Scholar]
  22. TerenghiP. and MazzottiA.2002. Experiences in post‐stack and pre‐stack wavelet processing on time‐lapse data. Bollettino Geofisica Teorica ed Applicata43, 131–142.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. TuraA., HanitzschC. and CalandraH.1998. 3‐D AVO migration/inversion of field data. The Leading Edge17, 1578–1583.DOI: 10.1190/1.1437898
     [Google Scholar]
  24. VerschuurD.J. and BerkhoutA.J.1997. Estimation of multiple scattering by iterative inversion, Part 2: practical aspects and examples. Geophysics62, 1596–1611.DOI: 10.1190/1.1444262
     [Google Scholar]
  25. VesnaverA., AccainoF., BohmG., MadrussaniG., PajchelJ., RossiG. and Dal MoroG.2003. Time‐lapse tomography. Geophysics68, 815–823.DOI: 10.1190/1.1581034
     [Google Scholar]
  26. VesnaverA., JanexG., MadrussaniG., MazzottiA., PajchelJ., StucchiE. and WilliamsonP.2001. Target‐oriented time‐lapse analysis by AVO and tomographic inversion. 71st SEG meeting, San Antonio , Texas , USA , Expanded Abstracts, Session INV 2.
  27. WangZ.1997. Feasibility of time‐lapse seismic reservoir monitoring: The physical basis. The Leading Edge16, 1327–1329.DOI: 10.1190/1.1437796
     [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1111/j.1365-2478.2004.00471.x
Loading
Seismic preprocessing and amplitude cross‐calibration for a time‐lapse amplitude study on seismic data from the Oseberg reservoir
Geophysical Prospecting 53, 265 (2005); https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2478.2004.00471.x
/content/journals/10.1111/j.1365-2478.2004.00471.x
/content/journals/10.1111/j.1365-2478.2004.00471.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