Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Los Angeles, CA
July 22, 2015
1
Background
Work Experience:
Education:
Case studies:
Conclusions
3
Introduction
The potential benefits of time-lapse ( or 4D) seismic monitoring have been well recognized across
the industry worldwide.
4D at the Ekofisk field (North Sea)
Land 4D at the Alpine field (Alaska)
(Foster, 2008)
5
Case Study 1: 4D seismic and geomechanics
Motivation
Observed 4D seismic response due to pressure depletion
(2001-1989):
4D Amplitude Time Shift
Softening from
4D Time Shift
?
Hardening from
4D Amplitude
6
What might be causing the softening?
2001 - 1989
Gas
The decrease in gas saturation does
NOT lead to positive time shift.
2001 - 1989
Geomechanics ??
7
Geomechnics and Fluid simulation
Coupled geomechanical modeling
Simulation Model
Fluid Simulation model
Fluid Flow
Simulation
Eclipse
reservoir
-4400
-4400
-5200
-5200
Heather formation is responding
-4400
-4400
-4400
-4400
-4400
-4400
-4400
-4400
Increase in
effective stress
93000 94000 95000 96000
92000 93000 94000
Heather 95000 96000 zzeff (bar)
General
-4600
-4600
0 250 500 750 1000 1250m
∆P(bar)
-4600
-4600
-4600
-4600
-4600
-4600
-4600
-4600
General
formation Shale 0 1:32000 350
1:32000
Decrease in 300
Erskine -50 effective stress
-4800
-4800
-4800
-4800
-4800
-4800
-4800
-4800
-100 200
-4800
-4800 -150 150
-5000
-5000
-5000
-5000
Pentland
-5000
-5000
-5000
-5000
100
No pressure -200
50
changes in the -250 Effective stress
0
Erskine shale changes 2001-
-5000
-5000
-5200
-5200
-5200
-5200
-5200
-5200
-5200
-5200
-300 -50
Pressure changes 2001-1989 1989
-350
92000 93000 94000 95000 96000 92000 93000 94000 95000 96000
92000 93000 94000 95000 96000 92000 93000 94000 95000 96000
0 250 500 750 1000 1250m 0 250 500 750 1000 1250m
0 250 500 750 1000 1250m General 0 250 500 750 1000 1250m General
General
92000 93000 94000 95000 96000 General
1:32000 920000 93000 94000 95000 96000 1:32000 350 0
1:32000 0 1:32000
-5200
-5200
-50 300
-50 -50
250
-100
-4400
-4400
-4400
-4400
-100 -100
200
-150
-150 150 -150
Hardening
92000
-200
-200
93000 94000 95000 96000
100 -200
50
-250
Millistrain
-4600
-4600
-250 -250
-4600
0 250 500 750 1000 1250m
-4600
-300
General 0
-300 -50 -300
1:32000
-350
-350 0.5 -350
Softening
-4800
-4800
-4800
-4800
0
Softening
-0.5
-5000
-5000
-5000
-5000
-1
-5200
-1.5
-5200
Strain 2001-
-5200
-5200
-2
1989 Hardening
92000
92000 93000
93000
0
94000
94000
250 500 750 1000 1250m
95000
95000 96000
96000 9
0 250 500 750 1000 1250m General
General
1:32000
1:32000 0
4D Time shifts
2001 - 1989
Comparison of time shifts at Erskine on stacked field data (left) and calculated using
the combined effect of geomechanics and pressure diffusion simulation (right). Both
field data and prediction show up to +5 ms time shifts with similar shape. 10
Case Study 1: conclusions
shale is ambiguous
Possible Shear
Geohazards: failure
Possible well casing damage and stress changes
due to depletion at the Heather shale
Geohazards:
Erskine Shale is overpressured relative to the
surrounding formations
11
Case Study 2: Well2seis correlation for 4D interpretation
Motivation
Time Shift
S2- S1 Softening
Obscured
zone S3- S2
Obscured
S4 – S3
zone
Hardening
Obscured
zone S5 – S4
Obscured
zone S6 – S5
Obscured
zone
12
4D Well2Seis
Well2seis: Methodology correlation: Methodology
V
V: Cumulative
2006 (S4) 2008 (S5) Volume
2006 2008
Time
Seismic surveys Cumulative volume Well 1
S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 V1 V2 V3 V4 V5
A
1 4D 1 Production
Normalized
production
0.8 seismic 0.8 data changes
Normalize
B
Seismic
0.6 0.6
d 4D
0.4 0.4
0 influence 0
89 - 99 89 - 03 89 - 06 89 - 08 99 - 03 99 - 06 99 - 08 03 - 06 03 - 08 06 - 08 89 - 99 89 - 03 89 - 06 89 - 08 99 - 03 99 - 06 99 - 08 03 - 06 03 - 08 06 - 08
Production data
1 changes
0.8 4D seismic at A
Normalize 0.6
4D seismic at B
d data 0.4
0.2
0
89 - 99 89 - 03 89 - 06 89 - 08 99 - 03 99 - 06 99 - 08 03 - 06 03 - 08 06 - 08
4D Time 13
Interval
4D attribute analysis:
Time Shift ( Top reservoir -20 ms) Time Strain (Top –Base)
08 - 06 4D signal 08 - 06
Softening
(Slow down)
Hardening
(Speed up)
Volume
(X 100)
Water injection
Gas Oil
Oil
Water
Gas
Water
Production
Slow down (time Shift) shows good Speed up (time strain) shows good
correlation with the producers correlation with the Injectors
Time shift attribute will be used to Time strain attribute will be used to
investigate the area of influence for investigate the area of influence for
the producers the injectors 14
4D well2seis correlation
Seismic Attributes Area of Influence
Correlation
technique
Injector
Oil
Water
Gas Producer
Time shift Producers
Correlation
technique Area Swept by
water injection
Area of influence of
producers
16
Case Study 3: 4D seismic fracture detection
Motivation
RMS (Monitor – Base) (20ms window) over reservoir interval
Field
Data With
conventional
seismic
modeling we are
? unable to match
the large
amplitude
change near
Synthetic horizontal
Data injectors
Injector
Producer
17
4D Modeling with Fractures
fractured fluid saturated
Dry unstressed rock Dry Rock at Fluid saturated rock at
Rock at reservoir stress
reservoir stress reservoir stress
Convolve
with wavelet
1 2 3 4
Add
Apply stress Isotropic Gassmann Insert fluid filled
dependence Fluid substitution fracture noise
Dry initial pore
space Synthetic
Fluid filled pore seismic
space
18
Which Fracture Model is Applicable?
Range of Calculated stresses
Half-space Modeling
- KT model shows large change at zero offset and then decreasing
- EC HTI shows small change at zero offset then polarity reversal
- EC VTI not reasonable with Alpine stress field (not plotted)
20
One Example of Pressure Update to Match 4D Spatially
Field
Data
We are able to
match the 4D via
fracturing and
pressure updates
22
Learning from 4D:
Full-field model
prediction pressure,
saturation, Geomechanics
Reservoir
Simulation
4D
Reservoir
Log Analysis Data Quality
Monitoring
(Vp, Vs, Density) Rock Seismic S/N, Bandwidth
Properties Response
(O'Donovan, 2000)
23
Lessons learned and what we can do at USC
What we can do at USC: Develop rock physics models to assess the sensitivity
of the 4D seismic to reservoir changes.
24
Thank you
25