PS

Integration of Time Lapse Seismic and Dynamic Reservoir Model Facilitate EOR Immiscible Water Alternating
Gas (IWAG) Programme in Oil Field, Offshore Peninsular Malaysia *

Russikin Ismail1, Noreehan Shahud1, Yeshpal Singh1, and Ramli Ibrahim1

Search and Discovery Article #40886 (2012)

Posted February 28, 2012

1
Petronas Carigali Sdn Bhd, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia (russiki@petronas.com.my)

*Adapted from poster presentation at AAPG International Conference and Exhibition, Milan, Italy, October 23-26, 2011

Abstract

The integration of geoscientific and reservoir engineering data is critical for reservoir characterization and management in the mature oil field.
The flood front movement monitoring through Immiscible Water Alternating Gas (IWAG) injection is a major challenge due to sparse well
locations and reservoir heterogeneity. The selected field was discovered in 1981 and is on production since 1991 with cumulative production
around 20% of STOIIP. A pilot IWAG injection project was carried out in the sub-block of the main reservoirs for a period of four years
successfully as one of initiatives for enhanced oil recovery (EOR). As a result, full field injection plan has been formulated.

For effective reservoir management, it is very important to detect and monitor IWAG injection effect. In order to understand the potential
uncertainty and for effective planning prior to actual project implementation, a time-lapse seismic feasibility study was carried out. Rock physics
modeling played a critical role for establishing the relationship between elastic properties and pressure/saturation effects simulated in dynamic
reservoir modeling. It has been observed that two years IWAG injection cycles may lead to cumulative acoustic impedance changes of 6%-8%.
The present study identifies the factors contributing to the chances of success (COS) of the project. The time-lapse seismic feasibility outcome
ensured both technical and economics success and further prompted for monitoring of full field implementation IWAG injection.
 Noreehan Shahud, Yeshpal Singh & Ramli Ibrahim PETRONAS Carigali Sdn Bhd

Summary
The
Theintegration
integrationofofgeoscientific
geoscientificandandreservoir
reservoirengineering
engineeringdata
dataisiscritical
criticalfor
forreservoir
reservoircharacterization
characterizationand
andmanagement
managementininthe
themature
matureoil
oilfield.
field.The
Theflood
floodfront
frontmovement
movement
monitoring
monitoringthrough
throughImmiscible
ImmiscibleWater
WaterAlternating
AlternatingGas
Gas(IWAG)
(IWAG)injection
injectionisisaamajor
majorchallenge
challengedue
duetotosparse
sparsewell
welllocations
locationsand
andreservoir
reservoirheterogeneity.
heterogeneity. The Theselected
selectedfield
fieldwas
wasdiscovered
discoveredinin
1981
1981and
andisison
onproduction
productionsince
since1991
1991withwithcumulative
cumulativeproduction
productionaround
around20% 20%ofofSTOIIP.
STOIIP.AApilot
pilotIWAG
IWAGinjection
injectionproject
projectwas
wascarried
carriedout
outininthe
thesub-block
sub-blockofofthe
themain
mainreservoirs
reservoirsfor
foraaperiod
periodofof
four
four(4)
(4)years
yearssuccessfully
successfullyasasone
oneofofiniatitives
iniatitivesfor
forenhanced
enhancedoil
oilrecovery
recovery(EOR).
(EOR).AsAsaaresult,
result,full
fullfield
fieldinjection
injectionplan
planhas
hasbeen
beenformulated.
formulated.

For
Foreffective
effectivereservoir
reservoirmanagement,
management,ititisisvery
veryimportant
importanttotodetect
detectand
andmonitor
monitorIWAGIWAGinjection
injectioneffect.
effect.InInorder
ordertoto understand
understandthe thepotential
potentialuncertainty
uncertaintyand
andfor
foreffective
effectiveplanning
planning
prior
priortotoactual
actualproject
projectimplementation,
implementation,aatime-lapse
time-lapseseismic
seismic feasibility
feasibilitystudy
studywas
wascarried
carriedout.
out.Rock
Rockphysics
physicsmodeling
modelingplayed
playedaacritical
criticalrole
rolefor
forestablishing
establishingthe
therelationship
relationshipbetween
betweenelastic
elastic
properties
propertiesandandpressure/saturation
pressure/saturationeffects
effectssimulated
simulatedinindynamic
dynamicreservoir
reservoirmodeling.
modeling.ItIthas
hasbeen
beenobserved
observedthat
thattwo
twoyears
yearsIWAG
IWAGinjection
injectioncycles
cyclesmay
maylead
leadtotocumulative
cumulativeacoustic
acousticimpedance
impedance
changes
changesofof6%-8%.
6%-8%. The
Thepresent
presentstudy
studyidentifies
identifiesthe
thefactors
factorscontributing
contributingtotothe
thechances
chancesofofsuccess
success(COS)
(COS)ofofthe
theproject.
project.. .The
Thetime-lapse
time-lapseseismic
seismicfeasibility
feasibilityoutcome
outcomeensured
ensuredboth
bothtechnical
technicaland
and
economics
economicssuccess
successand
andfurther
furtherprompted
promptedforformonitoring
monitoringofoffull
fullfield
fieldimplementation
implementationIWAG
IWAGinjection.
injection.

1: Input Data 2 : Data QC & Rock Physics

GR/Cal/BIT VCL SW Total/Eff. Vp Vs Rho LLD/

/Coal Por /Vp ed /Rho ed LLS
Flag

Seismic Data

Reservoir Geological
Data Information Gulf of Mexico Sandstone trend

Gulf of Mexico Shale trend

Castagna Mudrock line

Petro-physical
Authigenic kaolinite
Data
Edited Logs : After Editing colored by GR
Raw Logs : Before Editing colored by GR
Lithic fragment

(a)

Ferroan dolomite

0.54mm
Authigenic kaolinite
0.
54
(b) m
m

The chosen oil field located in Malay basin , offshore Peninsular Malaysia. There were
20 wells out of 140 wells selected for this study based on certain criterias. Also few Edited Logs at Reservoir Interval (LD & E) colored by VCL Edited Logs at colored by Sat

seismic vintages acquired but only the latest vintage 2002 was suitable for this study.

An integrated team compromising acquisition, processing, interprettaions, formation Vp

evaluation, rock physics, reservoir modelling and reservoir engineering involved and
contributed in this study.

3A : Dry and Wet Velocity Measurements on Cores Vs

A C
(a) Porosity
Vp Gassmann (Km/s)

Vp(
m/s
)

Clay Volume

(b)
Porosity

Vp measured (Km/s) The rock physics analysis is the platform to relate rock properties,
Pressure (MPa)
geological depositional environment, core information and production
(A) and (B) Velocity versus effective related pressure-saturation changes with seismic amplitudes. There
stress response of core data of core were three following basic objectives for rock physics modeling:
BVs(Km/s)
plugs from two wells. Dots indicate Well log editing
core measurements for brine Shear log prediction
saturated plugs. Solid curves judge To establish rock physics transforms between elastic
against core and predicted response properties: P-velocity, S-velocity and density with
using Gassmann equation. (C) Vp Pressure/saturation varation.
Vs (Km/s)

predicted versus Vp measured cross

plot as validation QC for Gassmann Several rock physics models analysis indicated that “Unconsolidated
fluid substitution. Green curve is the Sand Model” (by Dvorkin and Nur, 1996) explains rock properties
line for perfect prediction. A red curve varation in the study area. The rock physics models results were also
is the linear regression indicating 88% validated with core analysis
Pressure (MPa)
correlation between measured and
predicted velocities.
3B : Time Step Analysis, Periodicity and IWAG Injection Response To Ip
Variation
A C Gas injection
Water injection

4 : Time Lapse Seismic Response From The Simulation Model

+0.3 +10%

-0.3 -10%
(a)

B
Bubble point ~13.5MPa +10%

Wate
r
Satur 0%
ation
(%) II

B
(b)

Effective Pressure (MPa) +30%

III

A : Varitaion of Ip, Is and Vp for injector and producer well calculated from the
difference between specific vintage and the reference base case (Year 2002)
(c)

B : Acoustic Impedance change with bubble point modelling

C : (I) Volume of fluid injection increases with time. (II) Saturation curves at various
stages of WAG injection. (III) Acoustic impedance changes observed due to each
WAG cycle. Red curve in right most panels indicates cumulative effect due to seven C
cycles and blue curve indicate 6 cycles cumulative responses.

5 : Seismic Noise Analysis

iI

To analyse the 4D signal few attributes volumes for selected vintages were
generated for reservoir intervals by using 2002 as a base reference.
A : Cross section view of Delta Sw and Delta Ip from 2002 to 2011
B : Pressure, Saturation and Impedance contrast based on dynamic
reservoir modelling input
C : Arbitrary line (inset map) Delta Ip cross section view (I) from base to
2009 (II) water replacement with oil

4D Data Acquisition - Implementation

Random noise analysis was analyzed at the reservoir level with dominant frequency A B
of 35hz. 0%, 2% ,5% and 10% random noise were modelled and synthetics produced.
With 5% random noise 4D anomalies are detectable.

Positive response from feasibility lead to actual

4D implementation
A: 4D acquisition (100%)
B: 4D PreSTM processing in on going (80%)
A : Seismic survey design challenges due to production facilities
B: Repeatability analysis of base survey (2002) and monitor survey (2010)
Conclusion
Time-lapse feasibility study through integration of G&G and reservoir engineering data indicated that more than 5% change in acoustic impedance is expected. The rock physic model is
quite sensitive to uncertainties in input data and field wide heterogeneities but this do not alter the fundamental finding that the 4D seismic response is significant. The calibration of rock
physics model prediction with laboratory measured Vp and Vs as a function of pressure and saturation boosted the confidence.
The time-lapse signal is driven by the saturation variation and due to fluid contact movement, however, the pressure impact is limited if it is above bubble point. It has been observed
that feasibility analysis results are highly sensitive to lateral variation in reservoir properties across complete study area as well as to uncertainties in measurements. The predictions are
sensitive to the presence of fizz gas in the oil column due to pressure drawn down bubble point that will require careful quantitative interpretation of the reasons of any observed time-lapse
signal. The drop in acoustic impedance remains higher than 3%. For IWAG monitoring, it is recommended to have 4D monitor survey every two years after the start of injection.
Acknowledgment
The authors wish to thank the management of PETRONAS and PETRONAS Carigali Sdn Bhd, Malaysia for their kind support and permission to publish this work.