1887

Abstract

Summary

Compared to other geophysical methods for monitoring subsurface dynamic systems, time-lapse gravity has one important advantage in that the measurements are directly sensitive to the variations in density, which is solely related to the amount of mass changes per volume. In oil and gas reservoirs, such changes are primarily due to fluid movement and substitutions. Thus, while seismic method provides unparalleled structural resolution, time-lapse gravity method has the potential for characterizing the “content” that is the fluid saturation within “containers” delineated by seismic images. There have been significant advances in instrumentation, data acquisition, and quantitative interpretation in time-lapse gravity methods. As a result, we may be on the threshold of a new phase in the application of this method. This paper will focus on the quantitative interpretation techniques for time-lapse gravity data through different inversions and the associated applications in characterizing both the static and dynamic properties of the reservoirs. In particular, we will present and review inversion techniques for recovering time-lapse density distribution in reservoir and joint inversion methods of time-lapse gravity data with production data for imaging the permeability and saturation distribution in reservoirs.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.201601672
2016-05-31
2020-03-30
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Alnes, H., Eiken, O., and Stenvold, T.
    [2008] Monitoring gas production and CO2 injection at the Sleipner field using time-lapse gravimetry. Geophysics, 73, WA155–WA161.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Capriotti, J., and Li, Y.
    [2015] Inversion for permeability distribution from time-lapse gravity data. Geophysics, 80, WA69–WA83.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Davis, K., Li, Y. and Batzle, M.
    [2008] Time-lapse gravity monitoring: A systematic approach with application to aquifer storage and recovery. Geophysics, 73, WA61–WA69.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Glegola, M., P.Ditmar, R.Hanea, F.Vossepoel, R.Arts, and R.Klees
    [2012a] Gravimetric monitoring of water influx into a gas reservoir: A numerical study based on the ensemble kalman filter. SPE Journal, 17, 163–176.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Glegola, M., P.Ditmar, R.Hanea, O.Eiken, F.Vossepoel, R.Arts, and R.Klees
    [2012b] History matching time-lapse surface-gravity and well-pressure data with ensemble smoother for estimating gasfield aquifer support–a 3D numerical study. SPE Journal, 17, 966–980.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Hare, J.L., Ferguson, J.F., and Brady, J.L.
    [2008] The 4D microgravity method for waterflood surveillance: Part IV – Modeling and interpretation of early epoch 4D gravity surveys at Prudhoe Bay, Alaska. Geophysics, 73, 173–180.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Krahenbuhl, R.A. and Li, Y.
    [2006] Inversion of gravity data using a binary formulation. Geophys. J. Int., 167, 543–556.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Krahenbuhl, R.A., Martinez, C., Li, Y., and Flanagan, G.
    [2015] Time-lapse monitoring of CO2 sequestration: A site investigation through integration of reservoir properties, seismic imaging, and borehole and surface gravity data. Geophysics, 80, WA15–WA24.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.201601672
Loading
/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.201601672
Loading

Data & Media loading...

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