1887

Abstract

Summary

4D seismic is an established approach in monitoring hydrocarbon reservoir production carbon storage. To reliably detect and track changes in the subsurface, time-lapse seismic data should achieve a high level of repeatability during acquisition.

The repeatability is affected by many factors. The mispositioning – the distance between a source or receiver location of the baseline data and monitor surveys – is one of the key factors during acquisition and significant effort is usually applied to maintain it as low as possible. Repeatability might be drastically reduced by the mispositioning of just a few meters.

The borehole seismic with distributed acoustic sensing (DAS) with the permanently installed optical fibre in a well eliminates the mispositioning for the receivers. However, source points on the surface are still prone to misposition errors.

To study the effect of mispositioning, we designed a dedicated experiment and acquired a DAS VSP survey at the Curtin GeoLab facility using a vibroseis source. Pairwise comparison of 76 shot points spread from 0.1 to 25 m apart showed a significant repeatability decrease due to small positioning errors as well as a strong effect of rapid spatial near-surface variations on repeatability.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.202210614
2022-06-06
2024-03-29
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Al Jabri, Y. [2011] Land seismic repeatability prediction from near-surface investigations at Naylor Field, Otway. Faculty of Science and Engineering, Department of Exploration Geophysics. Curtin University.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Bakulin, A., Smith, R., Jervis, M. and Burnstad, R. [2014] Near surface changes and 4D seismic repeatability in desert environment: From days to years. SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts 2014, 4843–4847.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Bakulin, A., Smith, R., Jervis, M., Saragiotis, C., Al-Hemyari, E. and Alramadhan, A. [2016] Processing and repeatability of 4D buried receiver data in a desert environment. SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts 2016, 5405–5409.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Correa, J. C., Dean, T., Van Zaanen, L., Tertyshnikov, K. V., Pevzner, R. and Bona, A. [2017] A Comparison of DAS and Geophones for VSP Acquisition At a Dedicated Field Laboratory. 2017(1), 1–5.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Johnston, D. H. [2013] Practical Applications of Time-lapse Seismic Data. Society of Exploration Geophysicists.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Kragh, E. and Christie, P. [2002] Seismic repeatability, normalized rms, and predictability. The Leading Edge21(7), 640–647.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Landro, M. [1999] Repeatability issues of 3-D VSP data. Geophysics64(6), 1673–1679.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Lumley, D. E. [2001] Time-lapse seismic reservoir monitoring. Geophysics66(1), 50–53.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Pevzner, R., Shulakova, V., Kepic, A. and Urosevic, M. [2011] Repeatability analysis of land time-lapse seismic data: CO2CRC Otway pilot project case study. Geophysical Prospecting59(1), 66–77.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.202210614
Loading
/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.202210614
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