1887

Abstract

Summary

This study presents a joint 4D seismic amplitude and time-shift (JAT) inversion framework designed to enhance time-lapse seismic time-shift estimation for monitoring of CO storage in depleted gas reservoirs. Conventional inversion workflows suffer from error propagation due to inaccurate time-shift estimation, particularly in the presence of wavelet interference and strong impedance contrasts. The proposed JAT method addresses this by simultaneously inverting 4D seismic amplitude and time-shift data, constrained by a well-log calibrated petro-elastic model (PEM), to improve physical consistency and reduce artefacts. The inversion cost function couples amplitude and kinematic changes through the PEM coefficient, ensuring that velocity changes are geologically plausible and aligned with observed seismic responses.

Synthetic case studies demonstrate a substantial improvement in inversion accuracy: time-shift and velocity change NRMSEs are reduced to 7.7% and 7.5%, respectively, compared to 14.0% and 11.3% from traditional nonlinear inversion (NLI). The JAT method effectively suppresses spurious time-shifts and amplitude artefacts, especially near the top and base of the reservoir. Closed-loop validation confirms the internal consistency of the approach. These improvements translate into more reliable monitoring of plume migration and reservoir integrity. Preliminary results from a North Sea case study further validate the method’s practical applicability and uplift in interpretational reliability.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.202521110
2025-10-27
2026-01-23
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Duan, Y., Yuan, S., Hatchell, P., Vila, J., & Wang, K. [2020] Estimation of time-lapse time shifts using machine learning. SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts 2020 (pp. 3724–3728).
    [Google Scholar]
  2. MacBeth, C., Amini, H., & Izadian, S. [2020]. Methods of measurement for 4D seismic post‐stack time shifts. Geophysical Prospecting, 68(9), 2637–2664.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. MacBeth, C., Mangriotis, M., and Amini, H., [2019] Post‐stack 4D seismic time‐shifts: interpretation and evaluation. Geophysical Prospecting67.1: 3–31
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Toh, S.Y., MacBeth, C., and J. L.Landa. [2024] Evaluating the CO2 Injection Seismic Modeling Outcomes: a Study of the Goldeneye, Hamilton, and Viking Fields. Fifth EAGE Global Energy Transition Conference & Exhibition (GET 2024). Vol. 2024. No. 1. European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Williamson, P.R., Cherrett, A.J. and Sexton, P.A. [2007] A new approach to warping for quantitative time-lapse characterisation. 69th EAGE Annual Meeting, London, Expanded Abstracts, P056.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Zhan, X., Chu, D., Wheelock, B., Johnston, D., Bandyopadhyay, K., & McAdow, D. [2017] 4D time shift and amplitude versus offset joint (AVO) inversion. In SEG International Exposition and Annual Meeting.
    [Google Scholar]
/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.202521110
Loading
/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.202521110
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