1887
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Petroleum Geoscience
  4. Volume 27, Issue 3
  5. Article
Volume 27, Issue 3
  • ISSN: 1354-0793
  • E-ISSN:

Abstract

Recently, time-lapse seismic (4D seismic) has been steadily used to demonstrate the relation between field depletion and 4D seismic response, and, subsequently, to provide more efficient field management. A key component of reservoir monitoring is the knowledge of fluid movement and pressure variation. This information is vital in assisting infill drilling and as a reliable source of data to update reservoir models, and, consequently, in helping to improve model-based reservoir management and decision-making processes. However, in practice, varying levels of uncertainty are inherent in the 4D seismic interpretation of reservoirs that uses a multipart production regime. The complex nature of some 4D seismic signals emphasizes the role of the competing effects of geology, rock and fluid interactions. Hence, a reliable 4D interpretation requires an interdisciplinary approach that entails data analysis and insights from geophysics, engineering and geology. In this study, a stepwise workflow was introduced to reduce the uncertainties in the 4D seismic interpretation and to identify the improvements required in order to perform better reservoir surveillance. In parallel, the workflow demonstrates the use of engineering data analysis in conducting a consistent interpretation, and encompasses the 3D and 4D seismic attributes with engineering data analysis. This study was carried out in a Brazilian heavy-oil offshore field where production started in 2013. The field experienced intense production activity up to 2016, making the deep-water field an ideal candidate to explore the challenges in interpreting complex 4D signals. Beyond these challenges, a significant understanding of reservoir behaviour is obtained and improvements to the reservoir simulation model are suggested that could assist reservoir engineers with data assimilation applications.

© 2021 The Author(s). Published by The Geological Society of London for GSL and EAGE. All rights reserved
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1144/petgeo2020-087
2021-04-19
2024-04-20

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1144/petgeo2020-087
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Attia, I., Ewida, H. and Aly, S.A
    . 2020. Using seismic spectral blueing for enhancing seismic resolution: a case study from a mature field in a rift basin, southwestern Gulf of Suez, Egypt. First Break, 2020, 31–39, https://doi.org/10.3997/1365-2397.fb2020024
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Basir, H.M., Javaherian, A. and Yaraki, M.T
    . 2013. Multi-attribute ant-tracking and neural network for fault detection: A case study of an Iranian oilfield. Journal of Geophysics and Engineering, 10, 015009, https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-2132/10/1/015009
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Buksh, G., Farmer, H.G., Galarraga, M.A., Lydon, M.T., Mautz, W.A. and Norberg, D.
    2015. Life of field seismic in the deepwater BC-10 Phase 2 development, Brasil. Paper OTC-25803 presented at theOffshore Technology Conference, 4–7 May 2005, Houston, Texas, USA, https://doi.org/10.4043/25803-MS
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Bunt, R.J.W
    . 2015. The use of seismic attributes for fan and reservoir definition in the Sea Lion Field, North Falkland Basin. Petroleum Geoscience, 21, 137–149, https://doi.org/10.1144/petgeo2014-055
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Chen, Q. and Sidney, S
    . 1997. Seismic attribute technology for reservoir forecasting and monitoring. The Leading Edge, 16, 445–448.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Chen, Y., Farmer, H.G., Liu, Z., Lydon, M. and Wu, H.
    2015. LoFS processing for 4D attributes at the BC10 Field – offshore Brazil. Presented at theThird EAGE Workshop on Permanent Reservoir Monitoring, 16–19 March 2015, Oslo, Norway, https://doi.org/10.3997/2214-4609.201411967
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Dinh, H.N., van der Baan, M. and Landrø, M
    . 2017. Processing and quality-control strategies for consistent time-lapse seismic attributes: a case history on an internal blowout using vintage data. Geophysics, 82, B135–B146, https://doi.org/10.1190/geo2016-0448.1
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Ebaid, H., Wang, K., Seixas, M., Kumar, G., Brew, G. and Mashiotta, T.
    2017. Practical example of data integration in a PRM environment, BC-10, Brazil. Presented at theFirst EAGE Workshop on Practical Reservoir Monitoring, 6–9 March 2017, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, https://doi.org/10.3997/2214-4609.201700019
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Falahat, R., Obidegwu, D., Shams, A. and MacBeth, C
    . 2014. The interpretation of amplitude changes in 4D seismic data arising from gas exsolution and dissolution. Petroleum Geoscience, 20, 303–320, https://doi.org/10.1144/petgeo2014-008
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Farmer, H.G., Galarraga, M., Wang, K., Stammeijer, J. and Lydon, M.
    2015. BC10 LoFS – First results and year one operations. Presented at theThird EAGE Workshop on Permanent Reservoir Monitoring, 16–19 March 2015, Oslo, Norway, https://doi.org/10.3997/2214-4609.201411984
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Ferdinandi, F., Cozzi, M., Di Giorgio, D.C., Pirera, F., Rizzetto, C. and Onwubolu, G.
    2014. Mature field rejuvenation through 4D seismic application: experience from study to execution. Presented at theAbu Dhabi International Petroleum Exhibition and Conference, 10–13 November 2014, Abu Dhabi, UAE.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Galarraga, M., Wang, K. and Farmer, H
    . 2015. Results of 4D monitoring from the deepwater BC-10 life of field seismic (LoFS) in Brazil. SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts, 2015, 5348–5352, https://doi.org/10.1190/segam2015-5829706.1
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Gilani, S.F. and Gómez-Martínez, L
    . 2015. The application of data conditioning, frequency decomposition and RGB colour blending in the Gohta discovery (Barents Sea, Norway). First Break, 33, 39–45, https://doi.org/10.3997/1365-2397.2015007
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Gouveia, W.P., Johnston, D.H., Solberg, A. and Lauritzen, M
    . 2004. Jotun 4D: characterization of fluid contact movement from time-lapse seismic and production logging tool data. The Leading Edge, 23, 1187–1194, https://doi.org/10.1190/1.1825941
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Grochau, M. and Jilinski, P
    . 2016. 4D seismic spectral decomposition over a presalt carbonate reservoir: A feasibility study. SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts, 2016, 5547–5551, https://doi.org/10.1190/segam2016-13870124.1
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Johnston, D.H.
    2013. Practical Applications of Time-Lapse Seismic Data. Society of Exploration Geophysicists (SEG), Tulsa, OK, USA.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Johnston, D.H. and Laugier, B.P
    .2012. Resource assessment based on 4D seismic and inversion at Ringhorne Field, Norwegian North Sea. The Leading Edge, 31, 1042–1048, https://doi.org/10.1190/tle31091042.1
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Kiyashchenko, D., Norzalenna, H.P.S., Field, C., Skogly, O.P. and Suut, S.
    2015. 4D Seismic in stacked reservoirs – from puzzles to insights on production drive mechanisms. Presented at theInternational Petroleum Technology Conference, 6–9 December 2015, Doha, Qatar.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Landro, M
    . 2002. Uncertainties in quantitative time-lapse seismic analysis. Geophysical Prospecting, 50, 527–538, https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2478.2002.00330.x
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Landro, M., Solheim, O.A., Hilde, E., Ekren, B.O. and Stronen, L.K
    . 1999. The Gullfaks 4D seismic study. Petroleum Geoscience, 5, 213–226, https://doi.org/10.1144/petgeo.5.3.213
     [Google Scholar]
  21. MacBeth, C., Floricich, M. and Soldo, J
    . 2006. Going quantitative with 4D seismic analysis. Geophysical Prospecting, 54, 303–317, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2478.2006.00536.x
     [Google Scholar]
  22. MacBeth, C., Huang, Y. and Falahat, R.
    2013. 4D seismic interpretation with frequently acquired, multiple time-lapsed surveys. Presented at theSecond EAGE Workshop on Permanent Reservoir Monitoring, 2–5 July 2013, Stavanger, Norway, https://doi.org/10.3997/2214-4609.20131300
     [Google Scholar]
  23. MacBeth, C., Mangriotis, M.D. and Amini, H
    . 2019. Review Paper: Post-stack 4D seismic time-shifts: Interpretation and evaluation. Geophysical Prospecting, 67, 3–31, https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2478.12688
     [Google Scholar]
  24. MalekiM., DavolioA. and SchiozerD. J
    . 2017. Using simulation and production data to resolve ambiguity in interpreting 4D seismic inverted impedance in the Norne Field. Petroleum Geoscience, 24, 335–347, https://doi.org/10.1144/petgeo2017-032
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Maleki, M., Davolio, A. and Schiozer, D.J
    . 2018. Qualitative time-lapse seismic interpretation of Norne Field to assess challenges of 4D seismic attributes. The Leading Edge, 37, 754–762, https://doi.org/10.1190/tle37100754.1
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Maleki, M., Danaei, S., Davolio, A. and Schiozer, D.J.
    2019a. Fast-track qualitative interpretation of seismic data in a Permanent Reservoir Monitoring (PRM) setting for a Brazilian field. Presented at theSPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, 30 September–2 October 2019, Calgary, Canada, https://doi.org/10.2118/196185-MS
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Maleki, M., Davolio, A. and Schiozer, D.J
    . 2019b. Quantitative integration of 3D and 4D seismic impedance into reservoir simulation model updating in the Norne Field. Geophysical Prospecting, 67, 167–187, https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2478.12717
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Marfurt, K.J., Scheet, R.M., Sharp, J.A. and Harper, M.G
    . 1998. Suppression of the acquisition footprint for seismic sequence attribute mapping. Geophysics, 63, 1024–1035, https://doi.org/10.1190/1.1444380
     [Google Scholar]
  29. McArdle, N.J. and Ackers, M.A
    . 2012. Understanding seismic thin-bed responses using frequency decomposition and RGB blending. First Break, 30, 57–65, https://doi.org/10.3997/1365-2397.2012022
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Mikkelsen, P.L., Guderian, K. and du Plessis, G
    . 2008. Improved reservoir management through integration of 4D-seismic interpretation, Draugen Field, Norway. SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering, 11, 9–17, https://doi.org/10.2118/96400-PA
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Russell, B.H.
    1998. Introduction to Seismic Inversion Methods. Society of Exploration Geophysicists (SEG), Tulsa, OK, USA.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Santos, J.M.C., Schiozer, D.J. and Davolio, A.
    2020. Multi attribute approach for quantifying competing time lapse effects and implications for similarity indicators in data assimilation. Paper SPE-201426 presented at theSPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, 26–29 October 2020, virtual, https://doi.org/10.2118/201426-MS
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Schiozer, D.J., Santos, A.A.S., Santos, S.M.G. and Hohendorff Filho, J.C.V
    . 2019. Model-based decision analysis applied to petroleum field development and management. Oil & Gas Science and Technology – Revue d'IFP Energies Nouvelles, 74, 46, https://doi.org/10.2516/ogst/2019019
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Simm, R., Bacon, M. and Bacon, M.
    2014. Seismic Amplitude: an Interpreter's Handbook. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Stammeijer, J.G.F. and Hatchell, P.J
    . 2014. Standards in 4D feasibility and interpretation. The Leading Edge, 33, 134–140, https://doi.org/10.1190/tle33020134.1
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Suman, A. and Mukerji, T
    . 2013. Sensitivity study of rock-physics parameters for modeling time-lapse seismic response of Norne field. Geophysics, 78, D511–D523, https://doi.org/10.1190/geo2013-0045.1
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Tura, A., Dobbs, S., Davies, K., HermannO. and Zhang, J
    . 2009. Remaining oil thickness and well positioning using 4D at Alba Field, North Sea. SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts, 2009, 3944–3948, https://doi.org/10.1190/1.3255692
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Veeken, P.C.H. and Da Silva, M
    . 2004. Seismic inversion methods and some of their constraints. First Break, 22, 47–70, https://doi.org/10.3997/1365-2397.2004011
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Wang, K., Hatchell, P., Chalenski, D. and Lopez, J.
    2017. Advances in 4D seismic and geophysical monitoring of deepwater fields. Presented at theOffshore Technology Conference, 1–4 May 2017, Houston, Texas, USA.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. White, J.C., Williams, G.A., Grude, S. and Chadwick, R.A
    . 2015. Utilizing spectral decomposition to determine the distribution of injected CO2 at the Snøhvit Field. Geophysical Prospecting, 63, 1213–1223, https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2478.12217
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Xue, Y., Araujo, M., Lopez, J., Wang, K. and Kumar, G
    . 2019. Machine learning to reduce cycle time for time-lapse seismic data assimilation into reservoir management. Interpretation, 7, SE123–SE130, https://doi.org/10.1190/INT-2018-0206.1
     [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1144/petgeo2020-087
Loading
Stepwise uncertainty reduction in time-lapse seismic interpretation using multi-attribute analysis
Petroleum Geoscience 27, petgeo2020-087 (2021); https://doi.org/10.1144/petgeo2020-087
/content/journals/10.1144/petgeo2020-087
/content/journals/10.1144/petgeo2020-087
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