1887
Volume 55, Issue 2
  • E-ISSN: 1365-2478

Abstract

ABSTRACT

Although previous seismic monitoring studies have revealed several relationships between seismic responses and changes in reservoir rock properties, the quantitative evaluation of time‐lapse seismic data remains a challenge. In most cases of time‐lapse seismic analysis, fluid and/or pressure changes are detected qualitatively by changes in amplitude strength, traveltime and/or Poisson's ratio.

We present the steps for time‐lapse seismic analysis, considering the pressure effect and the saturation scale of fluids. We then demonstrate a deterministic workflow for computing the fluid saturation in a reservoir in order to evaluate time‐lapse seismic data. In this approach, we derive the physical properties of the water‐saturated sandstone reservoir, based on the following inputs: , , ρ and the shale volume from seismic analysis, the average properties of sand grains, and formation‐water properties. Next, by comparing the fluid‐saturated properties with the 100% formation‐water‐saturated reservoir properties, we determine the bulk modulus and density of the fluid. Solving three simultaneous equations (relating the saturations of water, oil and gas in terms of the bulk modulus, density and the total saturation), we compute the saturation of each fluid. We use a real time‐lapse seismic data set from an oilfield in the North Sea for a case study.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1111/j.1365-2478.2007.00605.x
2007-02-12
2024-04-24
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Al‐NajjarN., DoyenP., BrevikI., KvammeL. and PsailaD.1999. Statfjord field – time‐lapse seismic interpretation using a 4D earth model. 69th SEG meeting, Houston , USA , Expanded Abstracts, 1620–1623.
  2. BatzleM. and WangZ.1992. Seismic properties of pore fluids. Geophysics57, 1396–1408.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. CastagnaJ., BatzleM. and KanT.1993. Rock physics – The link between rock properties and AVO response. In Offset Dependent Reflectivity – Theory and Practice of AVO Analysis (eds. J.P.Castagna and M.Backus ). pp. 135–71. Society of Exploration Geophysicists. ISBN 1‐56080‐059‐3.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. GabrielsP.W., HorveiN.A., KosterJ.K., OnsteinA., GeoA. and StaplesR.1999. Time lapse seismic monitoring of the Draugen Field. 69th SEG meeting, Houston , USA , Expanded Abstracts. 2035–2037.
  5. GassmannF.1951. Uber die elastizitat poroser medien. Verteljahrsschrift der Naturforschenden Gesellschaft in Zurich96, 1–23.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. GouveiaW.P., JohnstonD.H. and SolbergA.2004. Remarks on the estimation of time‐lapse elastic properties: the case study for the Jotun field, Norway. 74th SEG meeting, Denver , USA , Expanded Abstracts. 2212–2215.
  7. HanD.‐H.1986. Effects of porosity and clay content on acoustic properties of sandstones and unconsolidated sediments . PhD thesis. Stanford University .
  8. HillR.1952. The elastic behaviour of a crystalline aggregate. Proceedings of the Physical Society of London, Series A.65, 349–354.
  9. JohnstadS., SeymourR. and SmithP.1995. Seismic reservoir monitoring over the Oseberg field during the period 1989–1992. First Break13, 169–183.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. JohnstonD.H., GouveiaW.P., SolbergA. and LauritzenM.2003. Integration of time‐lapse seismic and production logging data: Jotun Field, Norway. 73rd SEG meeting, Dallas , USA , Expanded Abstracts, 1346–1349.
  11. LumleyD.2004. Business and technology challenges for 4D seismic reservoir monitoring. Leading Edge23, 1166–1168.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. LumleyD., MeadowsM., ColeS. and AdamsD.2003. Estimation of reservoir pressure and saturations by crossplot inversion of 4D seismic attributes. 73rd SEG meeting, Dallas , USA , Expanded Abstracts, 1513–1516.
  13. MavkoG., MukerjiT. and DvorkinJ.1998. The Rock Physics Handbook, Tools for Seismic Analysis in Porovs Media . Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. RutledalH., HelgesenJ. and BuranH.2003. 4D elastic inversion helps locate in‐fill wells at Oseberg field. First Break21, 39–43.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. SenguptaM., MavkoG. and MukerjiT.2003. Quantifying subresolution saturation scales from time‐lapse seismic data: a reservoir monitoring case study. Geophysics68, 803–814.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. SmithP., BergJ., EidsvigS., MagnusI. and VerhelstF.2001. 4‐D seismic in a complex fluvial reservoir: The Snorre feasibility study. The Leading Edge20, 270–277.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. SonnelandL., VeireH.H., RaymondB., SignerC., PedersenL., RyanS. and SayersC.1997. Seismic reservoir monitoring on Gullfaks. The Leading Edge16, 1247–1252.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. TsuneyamaF. and MavkoG.2005. Rock‐physics‐bounds‐constrained elastic‐impedance analysis for sand body detection. Stanford Rock Physics and Borehole Physics Annual Meeting. SRB report100, A8.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. VeireH.H., ReymondS.B., SignerC., TenneboP.O. and SonnelandL.1998. Estimation of reservoir fluid Volume through 4‐D seismic analysis on Gullfaks. 68th SEG meeting, New Orleans , USA , Expanded Abstracts. 27–30.
  20. WattsG., JizbaD., GawithD. and GutteridgeP.1996. Reservoir monitoring of the Magnus field through 4‐D time‐lapse seismic analysis. Petroleum Geoscience2, 361–372.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. WoodA.B.1941. A. Textbook of Sound . G. Bell and Sons.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1111/j.1365-2478.2007.00605.x
Loading
/content/journals/10.1111/j.1365-2478.2007.00605.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