The Use of 4D Seismic in Reservoir Management

Course Notes
By

J M Marsh
BP – Exploration and Production Technology – Aberdeen UK

This edition

November 2005

SPG, Kolkata 2006. Marcus Marsh, BP.

Introduction
What is 4D Seismic? “Any use of sequential seismic surveys which improves either the static or dynamic description of the subsurface, can be described as 4D, or time-lapse, seismic.” It is often thought that 4D, or time-lapse, seismic techniques give information of the dynamic behaviour of the reservoir, that is a change in seismic response due to change in reservoir pressure and/or fluid content. Although this is true, we have found in BP that sequential seismic surveys can provide information on the reservoir static condition as well. This can be due to improved seismic data quality, or simply building up the fold. 4D Fundamentals The propagation of sound energy in the subsurface depends on the physical properties of all the rocks through which it travels. These properties include mineralogy, fabric (lithology), porosity, fluid content, pressure etc. Some of these can change if production or injection occurs causing as a result a change in the seismic response. If we can measure the seismic response accurately enough to discern the difference, then we may interpret what changes have occurred to cause those differences. Normally we assume that lithology, porosity, rock physical properties etc are either constant, or can be accounted for in some way. In common with many other remote sensing techniques in oilfield technology, we cannot measure the properties we are most interested in directly, e.g. pressure and saturation. We have to infer them by measuring other properties which they affect, for example seismic velocity or amplitude. However, seismic is the best technology currently available for indicating changes away from well control. How Is 4D Useful? • Identifies Infill Drilling Options • Detects well intervention opportunities • Locates untapped reserves • Monitors field development (surveillance) tÜ~í=açÉë=fí=kÉÉÇ\= • High quality seismic , ( i.e. signal > noise ) • Repeatable image • Quick turnaround time • Good linkage with engineering (e.g. simulation) oÉãÉãÄÉê=>= • 3D imaging works better some places than others • Salt, gas “chimneys”, step dips, rugged surfaces are difficult • 4D works better with some reservoirs than others • Shallow, unconsolidated, clastics (“soft” rocks), high f, oil filled So what does 4D do? By detecting changes in the reservoir image, it allows interpretation of the changes in pressure or saturation that are taking place in the reservoir. This process usually requires data from other sources such as well logging, production and injection measurements, and reservoir simulation to arrive at the best overall interpretation. However, the increased certainty of how the reservoir is behaving dynamically can reveal opportunities for further drilling, or for well interventions. For example, the presence of bypassed oil may have been suspected, but 4D may indicate its location. For best results 4D needs high quality repeatable data. Good repeatability means that no change will be seen in areas where there has been no change. Poor quality, or noisy data will show change in areas where none has taken place; it may look random or systematic depending on the origin of the noise. More will be said about this later in the course. Quick turnaround time is an advantage as the required results will be available sooner. The reduction in turnaround time at all stages of the work is an important continuing aspect of the development of 4D.

SPG, Kolkata 2006. Marcus Marsh, BP.

The Business Challenge Of course the business driver is either to add production and reserves, or reduce costs, or both. Production and reserves can be increased by managing the field production strategy more efficiently, extending the life of wells by correctly identified workovers, drilling correctly located and designed infill wells and many other activities like this. This can also save costs by reducing uncertainty of the field’s performance, thereby avoiding unnecessary or uncertain activity. 4D “Gaps”: Language & Skills 4D requires a wide range of skills. Geophysicists, geologists, petrophysicists, reservoir and petroleum engineers are all needed to make the best use of the data. All speak a different technical language, therefore we have to be careful in communication. Also it must not be taken for granted that practitioners of a technical discipline are equally knowledgeable about all aspects of their subject. For example, processing geophysicists may not be fully conversant with the intricacies of analysis. They may not be fully aware of the effects of rock physics. Neither may all petrophysicists! Acquisition - Experimentation Although it is maturing, time lapse seismic is still a new technology, with commercial application growing over the last five years. BP along with other operators carried out some early experimentation in the 1990’s. There has been an appreciation of the potential for 4D since the start of the 1980’s and a small number of research projects have occurred since then. However it was not until the mid 1990’s that 4D started to be used for commercial purposes. Since then its use has increased significantly. The profile of BP’s use has reflected that of the industry as a whole. Acquisition – Systematic Application In 1999 the first truly ‘commercial’ time lapse data were acquired over the West of Shetland fields, Schiehallion, Foinaven and Loyal in order to understand better the dynamic performance of the reservoirs shortly after production start up. The success of the survey prompted the application of 4D in many of the North Sea fields and to date, more than twenty of BP’s North Sea Fields have at least one repeat survey. Acceptance of 4D The industries’ overall acceptance of 4D was evidenced by the publication of more than 50 papers whose title includes 4D or ‘time-lapse’ at last year’s conferences of the EAGE and SEG, and the breadth of 4D topics which they covered. They came from a variety of sources, including operating oil companies, service companies and universities. The period of acceptance has been short, over the past 5 years, a total of 35,000 km2 of 3D seismic has been acquired for time lapse analysis. The geographical distribution of 4D work during 2002 is shown on the slide. In BP’s case, the bulk of 4D work has been carried out in the N Sea, but ‘globalisation’ is taking place with 11 surveys for 4D analysis being acquired to date outside the N Sea by BP or its partners e.g. Pompano (GoM), Ram Powell (GoM), Amberjack (GoM), Troika (GoM), Girassol (Angola), Chirag (Azerbaijan), Yacheng (China), Prudhoe Bay (Alaska), Immortelle (Trinidad), Ha’py, (Egypt). In the Beginning…..Forties: Better Infill Wells In 1996, twenty years after the start of production, a second 3D was acquired over the Forties field primarily for improved resolution. Comparison with 3D data acquired in 1988 helped the identification of those areas which had not been swept by the waterflood. Forties field is located 170 km NE of Aberdeen, in blocks 21/10 and 22/6a. It is a Late Paleocene stacked turbidite sandstone sequence and has a relatively simple four way dip closure. Oil in place at discovery was 4.2 billion stock tank barrels. Since 1997, seismic has been used as the primary infill target selection tool. This has been achieved by the use of lithological imaging (sand/shale discrimination), fluid imaging (oil/ brine discrimination) and fluid change imaging (changes from oil to brine, Whitcombe, D. et al., 2002). A target is considered viable if these seismic attributes are consistent with local well surveillance data. This process has enabled the

SPG, Kolkata 2006. Marcus Marsh, BP.

L. This indicates that there is a composite effect of pressure and saturation. All new wells drilled since 1999 have been designed using the 4D results. Kolkata 2006. Costs and Benefits Depending on the local conditions. Connolly.. West of Shetland now has the greatest number of repeat surveys on which to interpret the subsurface dynamic performance. Qualitative Explanation of 4D Response (WoS) This simple example of a vertical injector supporting a horizontal producer resembles the case shown on the previous slide.. and by low pressure It is brightened by high pressure + low Sw. and a single entry to take a PLT log may cost twice as much as the entire 4D survey. So What Do You Get ? Images of an area of turbidite sand reservoir are used to illustrate the use of 4D in history matching.. However. A pre-development survey was carried out over Schiehallion and Loyal in 1996. P 63-67. It was this trial that gave the strong indications of 4D success that gave impetus to the acquisition of the first repeat survey in 1999 which was carried out purely for time-lapse purposes.. The 1999. Any form of well intervention is very expensive.3 million stb production. The West of Shetland 1999 survey cost just over $2million for 390km2 West of Shetland fields are developed by subsea wells in around 450m water depth. Seismic amplitude is dimmed by high pressure + high Sw.A. P. on platform wells.. T. Of course this may not always be the case. but Schiehallion had not. C.. The map of pressure change ( p) produced from the simulator shown on the right is compared to the seismic amplitude image obtained after two months. it will be noticed that brightening occurs in areas both of pressure increase (in the north). Marcus Marsh. depending on the comparison of costs. For instance. The observed areal distribution of amplitude brightening. and Redshaw. The surveys are all surface towed except for the FARM (Foinaven Active Reservoir Management) surveys. and is used to show the effect of pressure and saturation on seismic response in the West of Shetland reservoirs. These are shown on the slide. Geophysics. or 1. covering 2000 km2. SPG. as shown by the seismic. A new well may cost an order of magnitude more than the 4D. Extended elastic impedance for fluid and lithology prediction. Reagan. Foinaven had been discovered. Whitcombe. is in accordance with that expected from the p plot. . BP. The 1993 survey was an exploration survey of Quad 204. it may be very much cheaper to run production logs. either in whole or in part. this comparison boosts confidence that the model is ‘getting things right’ in terms of areal distribution of pressure and saturation change. However. and a sub-horizontal producer in the south. across the West of Shetland area. when it was expected to become uneconomic. 2002.decline in first year production from each year of infill drilling to be halted (Figure 1). Vol 67. 2000 and 2002 surveys. No 1. and by high Sg evolved from oil due to pressure reducing below bubble point. It also shows that the definition in the model is much coarser than in reality.. Bear in mind also that the seismic response is subject to a level of noise which creates some uncertainty as to the precise distribution of the areas of change. And Then……. West of Shetland 1999 There have now been seven 3D surveys. D. conducted in 1995 and 1998 which had both surface data and seabed hydrophone data taken over part of the Foinaven field. R. This has allowed infill drilling to be continued beyond 1997. This channel section has a water injector in the north. 4D can be relatively cheap compared to other forms of subsurface data. and pressure decrease (in the south). covered approximately the same area. Pressure (yellow line) and saturation profiles are shown in the middle figure.

which in turn has allowed the location of un-accessed reserves to be identified. useful time-lapse data have been obtained to detect pressure change. revitalising a w/o & drilling programme. where the over and underburden are have a greater impedance than the reservoir. leading to the creation of value through increased production rate &/or recovery. identification of compartments and tracking the movements of water has been the most used features. Forties was one of the first of BP’s ‘4D fields’. The ‘brightening’ and ‘dimming’ descriptions refer to the case. Marnock. Shell were generally more challenging for seismic in terms of both reservoir structure. Sources of Value: Technical Understanding Time lapse seismic data can help both static and dynamic understanding of the reservoir. This diagram ranks some BP fields in terms of reflection coefficient. . normally observed. The diagram also shows noise thresholds typical of the N Sea. Noise is reduced if both data sets are processed identically. drilling options have been identified. This has been a useful aid in about half the reservoirs studied. Harding central and south are high f(35%) and k (2-15 D) reservoirs at a depth of ~1650 mTVDss. but not identical manner. Using a 3D survey not acquired for 4D purposes and a pre-production 3D. Finally. Working in the S/N region of 1. BP. On the dynamic side.Currently we see the effects of pressure and saturation superimposed. and thereby indicates their 4D potential. Net 4D Changes This diagram summarises the 4D effects seen as a result of saturation and pressure changes. Early Success Use of 4D has led to the improvement of understanding of fluid movement in the reservoir. Its 72m saturated oil column is sandwiched between primary gas cap and aquifer. The challenge is to distinguish these independently via AVO. A combination of lithology and fluid imaging rescued the infill drilling programme by locating un-accessed oil and thereby reducing uncertainty in selecting infill options. This diagram indicates where value has been derived in the BP fields surveyed. Kolkata 2006. where 3D surveys are processed in a similar. Andrew was not ranked highly as a 4D candidate. yet it has yielded excellent results. On this basis. Moving down the list. and interpret their separation using simulation results and knowledge of the reservoir. A paper in the main conference will describe the work that has been done here. Additionally the 2001 programme allowed testing of improved acquisition technology through the Magnus survey. 4D has been used to monitor fluid contact movement and thereby position new wells into the thickest parts of the remaining oil column to avoid gas and water encroachment for as long as possible. Typical levels of this parallel processing are shown by the blue line. Valuable 4D results have been obtained across the range. A gas condensate field in the Central North Sea. Acquisition was not optimum for 4D as the surveys were not aligned. and rock and fluid properties. the availability of PLT logs in two horizontal producers gave the necessary confidence to 4D interpretation. 4D Acquisition in 2001 The nine target fields of four surveys operated by BP and two operated by BP’s partner. Marcus Marsh. The black line shows the threshold associated with similar processing. Sources of Value: Reservoir Management SPG. and then to calibrate the response to reservoir pressure and saturation. Changes in pressure and fluid saturation can highlight reservoir layering and faulting by building contrasts on either side.

Another is how to ensure that the correct amount of data is saved. Petrophysicists and Reservoir Engineers must work closely • Early value has been derived using reprocessing and fast-track results Progress • Dramatic improvements in turnaroundContinuous improvement in seismic processing • Fully optimised acquisition • Richer integration with production data • …. wells have not been drilled because of the 4D understanding. One is how to process and interpret the seismic data rapidly enough. In some cases. leading to optimisation of repeat frequency Continuous (or frequent) Monitoring With permanently installed subsea receivers (OBC) and instrumented wells. As more repeat surveys are acquired it is becoming easier to use the data to manage production and injection strategy. we will be able to obtain continuous well data and frequent repeat seismic surveys. and thereby more useful. The combination of these will provide a powerful means of reservoir observation on which to fine tune development and production strategy. • Geoscientists. .With the enhanced understanding of the reservoir structure and flow performance. Kolkata 2006. The are several challenges incipient in this arrangement. BP. 4D has aided the placement of new wells and reduced the risk associated with drilling them. Conclusions • 4-D is now an important tool in reservoir interpretation and management • Data quality is an essential part of imaging and interpretation • Emphasis has been on qualitative/semi-quantitative interpretation. ability to quantify is growing. Such management can be better achieved if surveys are acquired frequently. Marcus Marsh. This keeps the observations of field performance more closely up to date. Next……… SPG.

Matrix density is estimated from the mineralogy of the rock. Non-reservoir zones in particular may not have been edited during routine petrophysical interpretation. pressure and temperature conditions). Seismic amplitudes can be calculated for non-normal incidence angles. Sonic and density logs are both shallow reading tools. The density and velocity values are calculated for the new fluid fill. Kolkata 2006. The ray paths shown in the diagram are therefore misleading. reading only a few inches from the borehole into the formation. Fluid substitution (next slides) is required to correct the log measurements to values appropriate for true formation fluids Fluid Substitution Fluid substitution involves the replacement of the in-situ fluids (in this case brine) with a new fluid type (in this case hydrocarbons with irreducible brine). . Log data QC Warning: Logs should be carefully quality controlled before use in rock properties analysis. If the environment changes as a result of production the new environment can be modelled by utilising a number of rock property equations. GOR). Sw. Log measurements are often available only for a given environment (ie. Temp. The AI log may be compared directly with inverted seismic data or used to generate a synthetic seismogram for comparison with seismic reflectivity data. one set of pore fluid. Modelling the changes in pore fluid. Pore fluid density can be estimated from standard equations given fluid property information (Pressure. but it is more complex. pressure and temperature will be discussed in turn in the next sections of this course. Rock Properties In practise this means we combine sonic and density logs to create an AI log. As a result the sonic and density logs may measure the formation contaminated by drilling mud filtrate. Fluid Substitution – Velocity Change SPG. Fluid substitution of the bulk density log is a two step process. API. Firstly the porosity is calculated for the insitu fluid fill.Rock Properties for 4D Outline Introduction (No equations!) Fluid Changes Temperature Changes Pressure Changes Summary Appendix (some equations…) Connection between Seismic Event and Rock Properties If we know the average velocity and bulk density of a reservoir and caprock we can calculate the magnitude of the seismic amplitudes of the top reservoir seismic reflector. Fluid Substitution – Density Change Bulk density is the volumetric average of the pore fluid density and the matrix density. Salinity. BP. Secondly the bulk density is calculated for the new fluids. Rock Properties for 4D Rock properties provides the means of linking physical changes in a reservoir to changes on seismic data. Note: The equation shown is true for normal incidence only angles (vertical travel paths) only. Marcus Marsh.

BP. Salinity. Temperature Changes The effect of temperature changes on rock properties is usually small relative to changes in fluid type and/or pressure. However large temperature changes may effect the reservoir stress state and hence cause a velocity change. As a result a change in the pore fluids is likely to be detectable. -estimation of the fluid hardness from fluid property data (Pressure. especially if the temperature change results in fracturing. As a result a change in the pore fluids is unlikely to be detectable on seismic data. fluid properties. K = bulk modulus. mineralogy. The effects of large changes in pore fluid properties should be modelled as outlined in the fluid substitution section above.One of the primary controls on velocity is the hardness**(see below) of the rock. Kolkata 2006. U = shear modulus. The harder the rock the higher the velocity. Effective Pressure •Effective pressure is the difference between overburden pressure and pore fluid pressure and represents the actual stress or load experienced by the rock frame SPG. -estimating the new fluid hardness from fluid property data. Compressional velocity has a more complex response to changing saturations (resulting in part from the increased complexity of the Gassman equations and in part because of the dependence of velocity on both hardness (or incompressibility) and density). K & U are measures of how hard a rock is. -adding the new fluid hardness to the rock frame hardness to give the new overall/combined hardness -calculation of the new sonic log values from overall/combined hardness. In practise the pore fluid contribution to the overall hardness is more complex and we usually use the Gassmann equations. Fluid Substitution Density increases linearly with increasing the gas saturation (as density is simply the volumetric average of the fluid and matrix densities). GOR). Fluid Substitution Although the overall hardness is not a simple addition of the frame and pore fluid hardness we can generalise that: For hard rocks (large bulk hardness) a change in the pore fluid type results in a small percentage change to the overall/combined hardness. Exceptions are steam flooding of heavy oil reservoirs or a temp change that results in movement above below the bubble point. For soft rocks (small bulk hardness) a change in the pore fluid type results in a large percentage change to the overall/combined hardness. The first few percent gas saturation introduced into the pore space results in a relatively large decrease in velocity (a little bit of gas goes a long way). API. Sw. The rock hardness is made up of two components: the rock frame hardness and the pore fluid hardness (cf bulk density which is the combination of fluid and matrix density). . -subtracting the pore fluid hardness from the overall/combined hardness to give the rock frame hardness. Temp. As a result reservoirs that have moved below (or above) the bubble point are often among the best candidates for 4D seismic. Note: The effects of temperature on the rock frame are not well understood but are generally assumed to be small. Marcus Marsh. In these cases the temperature change results in a large change in pore fluid properties. Note: Solving the Gassmann equations requires a knowledge of both the compressional and shear velocity data. bulk density. Vp = K + 4U 3 ρb where Vp = compressional velocity. In general terms fluid substitution of the compressional velocity can be viewed as comprising: -calculation of overall/combined hardness from sonic logs.

The cabin pressure is dropped to keep the pressure differential to reasonable levels (otherwise the windows would pop out!). On the left of the plot reservoir pressures are lower (depleted reservoir) and effective pressures are higher resulting in increased compaction which results in harder rock with faster velocity.the increase in pore pressure results in an decrease in effective pressure and an decrease in the hardness of the rock frame. This counteracts the rock frame effect . Lab testing of core plugs are typically used to determine how the velocity of a rock varies with effective pressure. Marcus Marsh. In a depletion scenario the pore pressure is reduced which results in a decrease in the hardness of the pore fluid.the reduction in pore pressure results in an increase in effective pressure and an increase in the hardness of the rock frame. The velocity changes with effective pressure can be large and should by included in 4D modelling if pressure changes are moderate-large. Pressure Changes 3 We have discussed the effects of pore pressure changes on the ROCK FRAME. Hard rocks show less velocity variation than softer rocks for any given effective pressure change. Lab testing of core plugs to determine the porosity variations with effective pressure are often completed as part of the standard petrophysical analysis. Kolkata 2006. Pressure Changes 1 Reservoir pressure depletion = ============================================= = ============================================= = ============================================= compaction increase in density increased hardness increase in Vp A drop in reservoir pressure results in an increase in effective pressure. BP. SPG. There is also a pressure effect on the PORE FLUID. Again this counteracts the rock frame effect .Think of an aeroplane taking off. Similarly for a reservoir rock – it is not the absolute values of the weight of the overburden and the pore pressure that is important – it is the difference in pressure (or effective pressure) that controls how the rock compacts and how the rock properties change. Bulk density responds to changes in effective pressure in a similar manner to velocity – low porosity rocks show less bulk density variation than high porosity rocks for any given effective pressure change. A pressure differential is built up between the inside and outside of the plane. . Bulk density variations with pressure tend to be small and are sometimes ignored (esp in low porosity rock). In a injection scenario the pore pressure is raised which results in a increase in the hardness of the pore fluid. As the plane rises the pressure outside falls. The increase in effective pressure results in compaction of the reservoir rock frame and an increase in velocity and density. As far as the cabin windows are concerned – it is not the pressure inside or outside the plane that is important – but rather the pressure differential. Note that if the effective pressure is increased and then decreased back to the starting conditions the velocity and bulk density may not return to the starting values due to inelastic behaviour of the rock. Remember: Vp = Where K + 4U 3 ρb Hardness = K + 4 U 3 Pressure Changes 2 On the right of the plot reservoir pressures are high and effective pressures are low.

Poisson’s ratio. 2. 5. Estimation of the fluid hardness (and density) from fluid property data (Pressure.the combination of a large pressure increase and increased Sw results in a decrease in AI and a brightening of the seismic amplitudes. Kolkata 2006. Salinity. In addition to the changes in seismic amplitudes there may be a change in the position of the seismic events (as production produces changes in velocity). Vp. Where the reservoir pressure decreases the fluid and pressure effects both increase AI and the combined effect is a large increase in AI. Estimating the new fluid hardness (and density) from fluid property data. Vs • Log analysis • Log quality • Fluid substitution • Temperature effects • Pressure effects Fluid Substitution Summary Fluid substitution workflow: 1. A decrease in reservoir pressure results in an increase in AI – but an increase pressure results in a decrease in AI. API. lower porosity rock.the combined effect is a small increase in AI. stiffness. In this example there is a decrease in velocity over the reservoir interval – which results in a small push down of the base reservoir reflector. 4. The pore fluid effect is large if the bubble point is crossed. Calculation of overall/combined hardness from sonic and density logs. Decoupling of the pore fluid hardness from the overall/combined hardness to give the rock frame hardness.Typically the rock frame effect of a pressure change is larger than the pore fluid effect. Marcus Marsh. Combining Pressure and Fluid Effects The effects of changing pore fluid (brine replacing oil) and pressure are shown as a function of reservoir pressure. Sw. The fluid change (dark blue) results in an increase in AI in the reservoir of 7-10%. In this example an injector location is modelled . Results of 4D modelling The modelled density and velocity logs can be used to examine the changes in seismic amplitudes as a result of production. SPG. Similarly the effect on velocity of changes in fluid composition and pressure are large in soft rocks. The pressure effect (black) shows the AI change in the reservoir for a constant Sw. Adding the new fluid hardness to the rock frame hardness to give the new overall/combined hardness 6. Combining the fluid and pressure effects is a simple addition. BP. Footnote: The fluid effect is smaller at lower reservoir pressures (higher effective stress) as compaction has resulted in a harder. Calculation of the new sonic log values from overall/combined hardness. Where the reservoir pressure increases the fluid effect remains an increase in AI but the pressure effect becomes a decrease in AI . Summary • Definitions: elastic moduli. 3. . Summary of 4D changes The effect on bulk density of changes in fluid composition and pressure are large in high porosity rocks. The changes in pore fluid properties resulting from pressure changes are modelled as outlined in the fluid substitution section above. Temp. GOR).

BP. Marcus Marsh.Temperature effects are usually to be small. SPG. . Kolkata 2006.

the more quantitative the 4D data. It is differenced this way so that the swept zone has the properties of water invaded reservoir. Marcus Marsh. Below. It will involve a discussion about seismic noise. Difference sections 2 • Black colours indicate an increase of impedance In a real example shown here. On the left the reservoir is in an undisturbed state. the same differencing convention has been used (ie diff = post – pre). This is because the signal will be coherent and related to the reservoir structure or geology. This is done throughout the acquisition. Kolkata 2006. To the right of each of the columns described is a plot of the reflectivity coefficient. BP. This indicates that the shale has a greater impedance than the oil sand. whereas noise is likely to have a greater SPG. Processing & Analysis Outline • • • • • Seeing production effects on difference sections 4D signal and seismic noise Seismic acquisition Seismic processing Seismic analysis This section of the presentation discusses how we can look for production induced changes in seismic response on difference cross sections and maps.4D Seismic Acquisition. seismic data with a signal to noise ratio of 1 may be very informative. Here we have subtracted the left hand (or ‘pre’) column from the middle (or ‘post’) column. processing and analysis workflow. Difference sections 1 Here we see a reservoir section at two stages of production. At the interface between shale and oil sand there is a negative reflection coefficient (RC)*. The colours could represent the fluid types. In the middle there has been some production resulting in a rise in the OWC. This is perhaps the most logical way of differencing. The black colour indicates an increase in impedance due to the replacement of oil by water. At the fluid contact there is a kick to the right because water filled sand is harder than oil filled. If we subtract one column from the other. we will only see the differences. . and the better risk reduction it provides In reality. its effects and how to reduce them. Is the 4D signal > background noise ? • The magnitude of the 4D signal ‘S’ will depend on: o the rock and fluid properties o the size of the production effect (change in pressure and/or saturation) • The background noise level ‘N’ is set by: o the similarity and quality of the acquisition o the quality of the processing Our lever is thus to minimise the background noise via: o similar acquisition o high quality processing we have not reached the technical limit with seismic processing= • Is the 4D signal > background noise ? S/N ratio = 4D signal/ background noise S/NSection View ~ 1 Not observable ~ 2 Just observable ~ 4 Observable Map View May be observable Observable Clear > The higher the S/N. shale is harder than water filled sand. or they could represent acoustic impedance. as a reduction in impedance relative to initial conditions will appear as a reduction in the difference.

This can often be used to gain a first impression of how observable fluid changes in the reservoir may be. this is most of the field area. Kolkata 2006. BP. feather. Noise however will not always be random. West of Shetland Quality Example Improvements in geometric repeatability made between 2002 and 2004 are shown on this slide. whereas in 2002. The area in green represents locations where the sum of the source and receiver positioning error is less than 100 metres. Size of the 4D saturation signal :– predicted from rock properties There is a correlation between the magnitude of the reflection coefficient at the hydrocarbon water contact and some basic reservoir properties. reduction in multiple energy on input volumes will result in worse coherency leading to an erroneous assumption of a decrease in repeatability. .g. In 2004. Important steps have been to repeat survey azimuth.tendency to be random. Marcus Marsh. the technical requirements of seismic acquisition have become more demanding in order to improve repeatability. Measuring the Noise on difference sections: 3 different repeatability measures 1 • • • 2 • • • • 3 • • • • NRMS Compares the size of the difference data to the original Value range = 0 (perfect repeatability) to 1. If there is a systematic cause. RMSA − RMSB NRMS = RMS ( A + B) 2 Cross-coherency is influenced by the amount of coherent energy (‘geology’ & multiples) in the input volumes e. such as depth and porosity. the 4D signal just exceeded this noise level. This opens up the 4D possibility of using 4D data an many more fields. In Forties. Improving Acquisition With time. There are a number of ways of quantifying noise and three measures are noted above.005 A 4D effect will generally only be detectable if the strength of its signal exceeds that of the noise.41 (random noise) to 2 (anti-correlated) NRMS is sensitive to phase and time shifts Cross coherency Measures the correlation between the two vintage Values in the range 0 (no correlation) to 1 (perfect) Cross-coherency is not sensitive to phase and time shifts Cross-coherency is influenced by the amount of coherent energy (‘geology’ & multiples) in the input volumes Calibrated Difference in Reflectivity: CDR CDR is the RMS background noise level on a 4D difference volume in absolute terms The difference volume is calibrated to reflectivity Well data needed for calibration Best values to date ~ 0. then it will have a coherence related to acquisition. Noise thresholds 1 The green vertical band shows the size of background noise level obtained in the Forties Field by applying ‘similar processing’ to the seismic data. New fields can be ranked against those for which some knowledge is available by using a plot such as that shown on the right. most of the field had an error sum of greater than 200 metres. source postion. Seismic acquisition • Make the acquisition as similar as possible • Acquisition alignment is the key thing to get right SPG. Noise thresholds 2 The green vertical band now shows the size of background noise level obtained by ‘parallel processing’.

SPG. • Speed may be necessary to impact infill well decision • Fast-track approach may enable learning of processing issues prior to ‘full’ 4D processing. streamer. Always go for the ‘full’ 4D processing for best S/N. etc • navigation inaccuracies 4D Parallel Processing Processing of the new data to be done in parallel with baseline survey by same contractor Reduce acquisition related differences as early as possible. High Dip Case Study. spatially matched. Kolkata 2006.• • Surface tow vs. then patch in old data under platforms Seismic processing – Range of solutions • On board processing • Post-stack matching to old survey • ‘Similar’ pre-stack processing • ‘Parallel’ pre-stack processing • ‘Parallel’ pre-stack processing with spatial matching = 4D Similar Processing Same processing sequence applied to both vintages by same contractor but at different times No interaction between vintages High risk that non-production related differences will exist between the vintages because : Acquisition related differences are not minimised Processing sequence not fundamentally same for both vintages due to : • Personnel changes leading to loss of consistency • Possible variation in software release Some of the acquisition related differences which need to be addressed in processing are : • source. Marcus Marsh. BP. • Poor repeatability on flanks of structure. as well as any fast-track product • Will impact later wells • High quality is needed for AVO application= North Sea Difference Section Example 1 North Sea Difference Section Example 2 Spatial Matching: Improving the 4D Image In Difficult Areas. OBC in different direction is probably the worst combination Undershooting platforms: • Repeatability will be always be worse • Three options: o acquire undershoot o acquire OBC around platform but matching to conventional can prove difficult don’t acquire. whilst ensuring fundamentally identical processing sequence Interleaving of data for application of some processes More intense QC effort (visual & statistical) to ascertain that datasets are converging after each processing step Timing o currently 20-30% longer than conventional for initial pair of surveys o subsequent surveys : turnaround will be faster as processing sequence & velocity field will be defined Seismic processing – which solution ? Best technical solution will be obtained with parallel processed.coherent and random • statics – tidal. streamer & associated geometries • recording system • feathering • noise . • Will take ~ 6 months for first pair of surveys Lesser solution may be adequate depending on the size of the 4D signal. .

P A. T C. BP. and Whitcombe. Raegan. Whitcombe. R L. Acoustic Impedance increases SPG. The Common Processing Sequence . Lancaster. Marcus Marsh. Improved Lithology Identification Example of Inversion from a complex turbidite channel system in Angola. Geophysics. 67 No 1. o typically takes several weeks to carry out o skills generally not in Asset teams Coloured Inversion* was developed in BP as ‘80% solution’: o very quick – e. Calgary. o application of AVO technology in the Impedance domain through development of Elastic Impedance and AI/GI crossplotting.g. Required strong interpretive input. Note how the arrowed sand is easier to interpret on the inverted section compared to the seismic section. through Coloured Inversion.. The aim is to improve the cross coherence at all frequencies. . Connolly. Residual timing shifts and scaling errors vary both temporally and laterally. D N. S. and Redshaw.Benefits The Benefits of a Common Processing Sequence are : (a)Improved 4D integrity & repeatability within a project (b)Reduction in turnaround and cost due to : •Less unnecessary testing •Fewer mistakes •Reduced QC/QA effort for contractor & BP personnel (c)Consistency of quality of end products (d)Sequence improvements learned on one project which are applicable to other projects are formally captured & transferred Repeatability during lifetime of processing By monitoring the repeatibility throughout the processing sequence any mistakes can be spotted quickly. Seismic Analysis Data is best interpreted in the Inversion domain o more natural interpretation medium for non-geophysicists o more direct link to rock properties o background noise is suppressed BP has pioneered: o rapid application of Inversion technology. SEG Conference. Not possible to match the two vintages through a global operator. Using AVO Production: o As Sw increases. 63-67 Coloured Inversion Seismic inversion is regarded by the industry as a specialist activity. overnight o surprisingly accurate – appears to be more robust than alternatives o now available as add-on to Landmark software * Fast-track ‘coloured’ inversion.. Kolkata 2006.• • • • Minor acquisition differences between the two vintages exaggerated by steep dips (60degrees). August 2000. D N. Extended elastic impedance for fluid and lithology prediction. This example from the Dalia field shows seismic and inverted data together with Gamma logs. to locally match the volumes without destroying the 4D response. Improved Structural Imaging This example from Alaska shows the improvement in interpretability that was obtained from working in the inverted domain rather than the seismic domain.

Kolkata 2006. Marcus Marsh.o As Pressure decreases. BP. To separate these two effects we need to use a second seismic attribute: AVO Summary Go for similar acquisition o Similar alignment is key parameter Go for optimum seismic quality o with preliminary fast track products. Acoustic Impedance increases Acoustic Impedance of a difference section will see an interference of saturation and pressure effects. . if they will impact a well decision o follow the Common Processing Sequence Go for analysis in the impedance domain o fast & simple inversion approach o data readily tied to rock properties SPG.

and Christie. Expanded Abstracts SRC3. Therefore. useful conclusions about the dynamic behaviour of a reservoir may be drawn from examination of the seismic data alone. 69th SEG Annual Meeting. Thorogood. Gas Disposal Monitoring SPG. E. Does this mean that reservoir engineering is not needed? Of course not! What we see is historical data. M. The maps show the difference in fluid impedance. Marcus Marsh. Kolkata 2006. we compare two maps which show the change in reservoir fluids at different times. 1999. and used to improve the performance of the simulator – or the interpretation of the seismic! 3) 4D seismic synthetics: With a knowledge of the rock properties.4D Interpretation and Integration We can think of the interpretation and integration of time lapse seismic data as a continuum ranging from the qualitative to the quantitative. 1) Direct Inference from 4D Data: In many cases.700 psi due to ~7 Mmstb unsupported production from 4 producers. Imaging of fluid fill may indicate where the hydrocarbon saturation has changed.6. and where it has not. This is consistent with the interpretation presented before. This would give us numerical data in a 3D sense to use in calibrating the reservoir simulator. without the use of a simulator we have been able to identify which parts of the reservoir have been drained.. or indicate where there are problems. . The only original blue area corresponded to a small primary gas cap. We can therefore compare calculated values with real values and use any mismatch to inform our interpretation of the reservoir. P. Texas. with the knowledge of the behaviour of the producing wells. A second survey was acquired in 1998 after production in the field had started. Bouska. given that there is an adequate understanding of where production and injection has taken place. The FARM study is described in: Cooper. and so we can calculate impedance for each cell. It does not predict how the reservoir will behave in the future. J. O'Donovan. comparison of seismic conclusions with the predictions of a simulator may strengthen confidence in interpretation.. These indications showed that 4D was likely to work well in the West of Shetland reservoirs. On the left the map shows the change which has occurred between 1988 and 1996. The map on the right shows the changes that have occurred in the subsequent period from 1996 to 2000. 2) Visual Comparison with Simulation: Taking things a step further. but was acquired over a larger area. A solution can be sought. Houston. The differences are a result of pressure reduction of 500 . Direct Inference: Foinaven The Foinaven FARM (Foinaven Active Reservoir Monitoring) experiment paved the way for application of 4D to the whole West of Shetland area. Foinaven Active Reservoir Management: The Time Lapse Signal. The history matched simulator can provide values of pressure and saturation for each cell. Direct Inference: SE Forties In this example.. The study was designed to compare the results of the two systems of data recovery. In 1995. A. but minor changes have occurred around the drill centre on the left. P. giving a good idea of where remaining oil may occur. and something about the timing of that drainage. 4) Derivation of P and S from seismic: The ultimate aim is to quantify pressure and saturation directly from the seismic. In this diagram the continuum is discretised into four divisions. BP. Kristiansen. Very little has changed in the drainage area of the drill centre on the right. The increase in GOR suggested that gas was now present around the producers. a rectangular area of the southern part of the Foinaven Field was surveyed using both surface tow and sea bed detectors. we can calculate the changes in impedance resulting from changes in reservoir pressure and saturation. The survey had the same azimuth. ie that gas had evolved due to pressure reduction below bubble point. A primary gas cap is marked ‘G’ Direct Inference: Foinaven Blue areas have appeared around each producer after only 10 months of production. This is a good example of a direct inference being made from the seismic data.This and the next slide show differences between the pre and post production images. that is the elastic impedance projected at the angle which is most sensitive to fluids..

often in a simulator. This may strengthen confidence in interpretation. geological. Further to the south. The water wet sands are not distinguished from surrounding shales. in the middle. For time-lapse work. The latter is restricted to the cell size employed. and used to improve the performance of the simulator – or the interpretation of the seismic! The Interpretative Cycle: Geo + Engineers The ‘interpretative cycle’ uses a two branch approach. and some iteration may be needed to determine why the differences have arisen. Except. the products of the seismic branch are maps or volumes of data which are a function of the changes in pressure and/or saturation which have occurred in the reservoir. and is thus a significant tool for monitoring the extent and safety of injection Gas Zone De-pressurisation. injection had been in progress for some time. and maintain pressure. of the same producing horizon at the same time. Comparison of the two right hand images leads us to some useful conclusions. Some conclusions can be drawn as to the nature of the faults. On the right is a map at the same scale. or indicate where there are problems. but the effect reduces with distance from the injector until half way between the producer and injector there is no change in the amplitude. The first image was acquired before any injection had taken place. The detail on the amplitude maps is finer than that of the simulator. making the gas bearing sands ‘visible’.This is an example of imaging around a gas injection well. The post production amplitudes seem to have brightened everywhere. However this is not always the case. 4D can uniquely show the movement of the gas. the amplitude brightens again. It is slightly offset from the mapped position of the well. The 4D data was of direct use in determining whether this was the case. petrophysical. If the level of uncertainty about the reservoir is low. PVT and production data to perform calculations. the hydrocarbon zone is clearly visible as a bright. for a small area where the amplitude seem to have dimmed. Covisualisation with Simulation In this example. the gas is moving across the fault. BP. The presence of gas causes a marked increase in reflectivity. The reservoir engineer will use structural data derived from seismic and drilling. leading to a slight hardening. . A solution can be sought. In the north. New Well Placement SPG. 4D Interpretation and Integration 2 We can now take things one step further and make a visual comparison of the seismic with simulation results. In the south. and water is injected in a vertical well in the north to sweep the reservoir channel. There was a concern that the northern part of the gas cap may be isolated. then the geophysicist and the reservoir engineer will have comparable products. Kolkata 2006. This is likely to be due to the presence of the injected water. the gas volume had clearly increased and the gas was approaching the southern fault. whereas in the north. The simulator map of pressure change supports this interpretation. The pressurisation of the oil filled channel leads to amplitude brightening as we move to the south. Oil is produced from a semi horizontal well in the south of the field. a limited amount of production and injection has taken place. gas movement appears to be restricted. • • Northern end of the gas cap potentially isolated o Channel-like dim feature meanders across amplitude bright & is a potential barrier o 2nd well would be expensive due to long throw (shallow) What can 4D tell us about connectivity or compartmentalization in the gas cap? In this example. Marcus Marsh. On the left the image is shown prior to any production. to determine the pressure and saturation changes which occur as a result of production and injection. A year later. we see two amplitude maps of the reservoir. but this is due to evolution of gas around the producer. taken from the reservoir simulator. The oil-water contact is clearly identifiable. In 1998. there is brightening around the injector. The seismic also has an imprint of noise. that is.

The depletion was low. • • • 4D successful in helping the well stay away from water. as correct allocation depends on the frequent well testing. one in the north. The coherence of the reservoir sand appears to have improved. Prior to production the main sand appeared to be disconnected between the injector and the producer. SPG. and to change them if not. the effects of injection were visible. seismic coherence and a simulator grid. At the same time. however the difference in seismic response was due to the lack of change in the pressure. By the time the repeat survey was acquired. and told nothing about the reservoir quality. This shows that interpretation of null signals has to be made very carefully. The change in seismic response showed less change than expected from the reservoir model. If this indicates an increase in the transmissibility of the channel margin. the favoured interpretation was one of good and undepleted reservoir. then modelling this change should result in a better history match. reservoir pressure 1400 psi higher than existing wells. Comparison of the two seismic sections indicates a possible explanation for this. but… Much poorer reservoir presence & quality than expected Need to consider what a “lack of 4D signal” might represent: o Good quality reservoir that has not been drained? o Lower quality reservoir? o Low N/G reservoir? Integration with engineering: visualising production data In this map of the Forties Field. and where oil has been produced. Overlay Visualisation One of the major problems in analysing 4D is the capability of computer software to allow easy comparison of different data sets. or baffles (indicated by the seismic coherency) and the simulator grid on which cell to cell transmissibility is displayed. The bottom hole pressure and the GOR are shown as the blue crosses on the graphs on the left of the slide. the pre-production reflection amplitude indicated the location of hydrocarbon filled sands. The lack of change in a small segment to the north east showed a potential new target if the interpreted hydrocarbons were isolated from the rest by a barrier. BP. The history matched simulator can provide values of pressure and saturation for each cell. possible flow disruptions. 4D Interpretation and Integration 3 4D seismic synthetics: With a knowledge of the rock properties. the estimated GOR was much less than that predicted by the simulator. and the information was useful in locating the first two production wells. but broadly agreed with the changes in reservoir pressure which had been modelled in the simulator. We can therefore compare calculated values with real values and use any mismatch to inform our interpretation of the reservoir. Here the measured pressure exceeded that predicted by the simulator. In this way we can see together where water has replaced oil. the same phenomenon appears. Flow Barrier Breakdown In this example. dimming where the injection water is located. we are history matching the performance of a producing well. Values calculated by the simulator are shown as the purple lines. This was found to be the case. Bottom hole pressures are measured by downhole gauges. The combination allows us to co-visualise the effects of pressure and/or saturation change (derived from the amplitude). In the BHP plot at the top left. Results: Surprise! A well was drilled into the new target. Kolkata 2006. we are co-visualising fluid saturation change with production volume. and are therefore reliable.In this example. The lower part of the slide is an overlay combination of the three upper images which from left to right are: seismic amplitude. A reason for the mismatch in the right hand portion of the plot had to be found. we can calculate the changes in impedance resulting from changes in reservoir pressure and saturation. In this case. On coherency maps of this horizon. but the quality of the rock was much poorer than expected. . Marcus Marsh. Seeing these features together makes it easier to test if the model barriers are inserted correctly. the match between measured and calculated data appears to be good up to about half way across the figure. the other in the south. GOR is derived from allocated well production. and so we can calculate impedance for each cell. eg increased amplitude in the oil around the injector. and so is less reliable. then the match deteriorates. The channel boundary appears to have weakened.

and thereby our ability to predict reservoir performance. Sim2Seis: SE Forties These figures show the AI change based on simulator predictions of pressure and saturation for the same two periods as shown earlier. This would give us numerical data in a 3D sense to use in calibrating the reservoir simulator. this is designed to facilitate the transfer of seismic like data (i. STP uses 3rd party application toolkits to read and write to the respective databases. so that the end user is shielded from changes in format in the 3rd party systems.Typically we can use this process to test the likely effect on the seismic due to pressure and saturation change as part of the feasibility process. rather than an output and then input step. or to RMS for example). Written by ARC CLS. and bulk density. Kolkata 2006. SPG. carry out a mathematical operation (differencing for example) and then write the data (back into SeisWorks. SE Forties: Measured FI Difference A reasonable degree of agreement is achieved. From these we can calculate impedance and time shifts. 4D Interpretation and Integration 4 Ultimately. grids and resolution Data integration o Well and seismic data Local permeability.e. Quantitative Integration • • Simulation and Seismic linkage o time. STP currently supports Landmark. which is useful when interpreting 4D signals. This means that data from any of these systems (or formats) can be passed into any other. GeoQuest. and at discrete times in a field’s history. We can do the same as part of interpretation as well. the reservoir engineer’s would like to see the derivation of pressure and saturation from seismic. BP. Y. regular in X. RMS. . In hard copy you will only see one image. This can be facilitated by using a software program such as STP. STP obviates the need for intermediate SEGY-like files. There are many challenges in doing this: the scales and resolution of seismic and simulation grids are usually very different. Sim2Seis: Using the Model to Estimate Seismic Response If we use pressure and saturation values from a simulator we can calculate compressional and shear velocities. and also generic SEGY format files. Simulation models rarely use the same geometric grid pattern as the seismic. repeat seismic surveys are typically few in number. For example it can simultaneously read two data sets from SeisWorks (two different seismic vintages perhaps). STP additionally enables various data manipulations to be carried out as it transfers data. The slide here shows values of AI calculated from the pressure and saturation shown. but in the presentation the pictures will cycle through a number of timesteps. Co-visualisation In interpretation. The errors can be analysed and used to adjust the simulator to represent the changes more accurately. Resampling reservoir models onto the seismic grid enables the co-visualization of simulation data in the seismic environment. Marcus Marsh. it may be necessary to co-visualise simulation results with seismic data. The map of AI can be used to compare with AI inverted from measured seismic data. Z) between different vendor packages. porosity information o 4D seismic map comparison Fluid flow Barriers and channels Data indigestion • The main part of quantitative integration of 4D into reservoir management is to use it to improve our reservoir simulations. and means that the transfer is accomplished in one step.

pressure. To eliminate unlikely models. so there will be a remaining uncertainty as to how well the model represents the geological truth. stratigraphic pinch outs etc.5yrs of work per survey currently • Accurate production prediction yields value o Value of data acquisition. Yet good predictions yield value by enabling correct technical and commercial decisions to be made. We need to use production data. The value in acquiring the data to do this results in a reduction of risk. However much well data there is available. . This can be an important consideration if it is important to consider the geomechanical state of the surrounding rocks. fluid saturation which will have been obtained from logs and core samples. based on a knowledge of the rock properties and the prevailing conditions of fluid saturation and pressure.Ideally we want to use static data from wells. calculated from the reservoir geological model and re-sampled on to the seismic grid. Additional data gives additional opportunity to discriminate between these multiple models. This will also give evidence of preferential flow zones. Marcus Marsh. eg sand channels. GOR etc. SPG. well logs. Seismic data may also be used to predict reservoir properties in an areal and volumetric sense if AVO data of adequate quality is available and there are sufficient wells to which to calibrate its interpretation. Geological Model Building A geological model is based on all available static data. water cut. Synthetic impedances are shown only for the immediate region of the reservoir units. Section Comparison These two cross sections illustrate planes from a model where this process has been carried out. A complex reservoir model constructed in the ‘conventional’ way can take a year or more to produce. reduced risk So the goal of quantification is to make our models more representative of the subsurface ‘truth’. The structure is derived from the interpreted seismic data. flow tests etc. This can be done as previously described. ie drilling information. and thereby better at prediction. for example porosity. This is because the calculation is derived from the simulator which is only populated with reservoir units. From the seismic we will obtain indirectly information of fluid flow and pressure changes. leading to a certain amount of data indigestion! Quantification Goals • Encompass geological truth o For a data set there are multiple models that can satisfy history o Different data sets can eliminate some of the models • Concentrate on what is important • How to integrate data quickly o 1. Kolkata 2006. net to gross. BP. With more frequent seismic surveys we will be in danger of not being able to process and interpret the data fast enough. As the problem is a function of many variables. permeability. The overburden and under burden are not included. there are multiple models that can satisfy the performance history. rates. Below it is an equivalent section of synthetic impedance. it is only a very small sample of the reservoir. The good comparison gives comfort that the geological model is representative of the geology in this area. Reservoir properties may be populated by either deterministic or stochastic means but based on the available well data. The upper section is a coloured inversion of full stack data and therefore represents the acoustic impedance at this location. and be able to do it quickly. we need to concentrate on what is significant and important. It will also indicate barriers to flow such as faults. A means of checking the model is to use it to calculate the seismic properties of its components.

and generates new model runs based on higher quality fit parent cases.g. Modifications to the structure and geological model are difficult to do. The geological model has smaller cells of a different aspect ratio. e. The history match worktime can be reduced by an order of magnitude. This deals mainly with the upscaling of the permeability. this diagram illustrates the essence of the ensuing traditional subsurface workflow that leads to a history matched simulator. The objective is to minimise the mismatch. Section Comparison The result of this process for the model shown before is added to the cross section figure. but no more. each axis represents a possible uncertainty. Marcus Marsh. A FFM with detailed geological and displacement descriptions is still required for deep technical analysis. It is used as a basis for generating many different simulation runs. This can be checked in the same way as previously described. BP. such as porosity. 310 hours of effort with the fine scale model. but the overall match is satisfactory. production rates. In the case quoted. There is a wide literature on upscaling techniques which can be referred to. in the lower diagram. by calculating the seismic properties from the upscaled model. . Typically this process takes several months and in spite of upscaling leads to a high definition model which takes hours to run. but the reservoir is compartmentalised. but this is built later once the "best solution" has been supported by the TDRM results rather than on the basis of an initial set of assumptions. The genetic algorithm begins with a random population of SPG. In TDRM. Given the relatively small amount of data. FFM and detailed full physics model. This is required because the geological model will usually contain more cells than it is feasible to run in the reservoir simulator. The coarse granularity resulting from the coarser grid can be seen. TDRM focuses on downscaling rather than upscaling. and attempts at the quantification of uncertainty is limited to a sampling of the effect of the uncertainty range made by sensitivity studies where individual parameters are adjusted in turn. many runs can be made to explore uncertainty. watercut and a numeric match quality determined using an objective function. The uncertain properties are identified. To show the improvement in fit another way. uses a case management system to generate several hundred model runs (~10*number of variables) based on the uncertainties defined and quantified by the integrated subsurface team. or attempt to add detail. and there are few appraisal wells. The history match is optimised using a genetic algorithm which identifies the quality of fit using an objective function. Kolkata 2006. The simulation results are then compared to the matching data. when it may be unimportant to the decision? Modified History Matching Workflow BP’s Top Down Reservoir Modelling (TDRM) philosophy holds that the model complexity should not be more than absolutely necessary to enable the required decision to be made. and TDRM. coarse model. These ranges are used by the genetic algorithm (GA) optimiser to populate the simulation runs. an ‘industry standard’ fine scale model which ran in 10 hours was replaced by a simpler model which ran in 10 minutes and gave similar results. This is more likely to be correct if the static properties.Upscaling to the Simulation Model The next step in building a reservoir simulator is to upscale the geological model to make a simulator grid. seismic data are poor. this approach was justifiable. the fluids are complex.g. bottom hole pressures. If the business decision is to define a pipeline capacity. the simulation model generated from the geological model has the reuired complexity to solve the current problem. and large uncertainty. why attempt to model in detail. it is likely that several models will have the same match quality. Bear in mind that a detailed and slow model is not always appropriate. e. With short run times. In the workflow shown in the figure. and the original seismic data. was replicated and enhanced with less than 10 hours using TDRM. permeability. porosity and net to gross are correct. a scalable solution is developed that begins with basic analytical calculations and moves to material balance. In doing this. and each simulation result is represented by a dot. In a recent study. Traditional History Matching Workflow On the assumption that the model building and upscaling checks have been done as described. permeability. Dark areas are the locations of alternative solutions. in spite of being quite different in terms of properties. and comparing the result with both the geological model. transmissibility barriers and a range for each is determined.

not the complete history match. This is important for fast updates. amplitude and incident angle (offset). Changes in P and S will result in changes in seismic impedance. but it is only necessary to repeat the good match calculation. we see here the possible solution spaces for well data. • BP case studies indicate: o Seismic and well constraints uncorrelated o Small area of intersection Choice of Observation / Attribute The use of 4D seismic data in model matching assumes that there is a reasonable basis for comparison of seismic data with engineering data. If new data arrive after the study. the individual components of the MQ calculation can be weighted in respect of the confidence placed in them. The weighting factors used are likely to be a result of their measurement accuracy. We have one set of seismic data for each survey and with reasonable confidence we can calculate impedance. the good match space will reduce. Thus measured bottom hole pressures may be weighted higher than back-allocated GOR data. . this calculation carries uncertainty. Lower values of the match quality (MQ) indicate better matches. either acoustic. it finds the clusters. Introducing Time Lapse Seismic Using the same two-property diagram as has been shown earlier. With more uncertainty we can attempt to differentiate and possibly quantify changes in pressure and saturation. we have therefore delineated possible match spaces much better. Marcus Marsh. It should be noted that this does allow an opportunity for bias in the results. we can estimate seismic properties from simulator pressure and saturation. The selection of the best attribute to compare simulator and seismic depends on the reservoir case. BP. Rock properties link seismic and engineering properties. but there will be a computing overhead to be borne. Although not included in the representation of the equation in the figure. Geophysics and reservoir engineering observe and use different features of the reservoir. If we superimpose these we see that the match space supported by both data items is considerably reduced. Kolkata 2006. and we can calculate impedance from each. We may have many hundreds of simulator derived data sets.models. Well-Based Objective Function • A weighted RMS difference between observed and simulated well data: 1 MQwell = ∑ (Qobs − Qsim ) 2 N Qobs o RFT pressures o Oil rates (specified to model) o GORs o Water production Weight factors initially based on measurement accuracy but tuned based on “engineering experience” • The objective function is a weighted RMS difference between the observed and simulated data for as many wells and properties as required. and therefore in the measured properties of travel time and amplitude. and an interpretation of their importance based on experience. Likewise we can convert seismic data to impedance by an inversion. and over a number of generations. With knowledge of the rock properties. and separately for seismic data. As a result of using time lapse data. and is usually a compromise. SPG. Reservoir simulation models reservoir pressure and fluid saturations. As we usually have limited rock property data. or elastic if we have AVO data. Seismic acquisition measures two-way travel time.

The appropriate weightings are determined by trial and error. then these could be compared. If seismic data are used as well. two seismic attributes have been used as the seismic components to a history match. well data determined by trial and error Monte Carlo simulations should indicate that the two match qualities are uncorrelated Seismic data provide independent information not contained in the well data for further constraining the reservoir model If only well data components are included in the objective function. e. additional steps have been added to represent the addition of 4D seismic to the history matching process. In this example. and therefore the observed production history. Predictions A reservoir simulator is only of value if it can be used to predict future reservoir performance. The objective function now has to include well data components and seismic components resulting in a ‘combined’ objective function. “Best” TDRM History Matches In this example. In the right hand graph. they can be weighted to recognise their accuracy and importance to the history match. Kolkata 2006. Further discussion of this follows in a later slide. To be most useful. The result is compared with the comparable seismic attribute. Marcus Marsh. SPG. Each model solution is converted to a synthetic seismic volume via the petroelastic model. For example in fields that demonstrate measurable changes in fluid contacts. acoustic impedance. Next to the observed data is shown synthetic data based on a history match using only well data to match to. Ie the two data types should provide information about different features of the reservoir. . the match is much improved. The seismic components also have to be weighted in the same manner. seismic has also been used. Cases with identical MQ results were removed. The observed values of time shift and SNA are shown after upscaling from the seismic grid dimensions to those of the simulator. Other phenomena can be compared too. These are time shift (TS) and the sum of negative amplitudes (SNA*).g. the best 24 matches from the previous example were used to predict incremental recovery arising from two infill wells drilled in the study area. Use of seismic has reduced the uncertainty range of prediction. the match quality achieved using the well data should not correlate with that obtained using the 4D seismic. has been used to monitor longer term reservoir changes (> 1 year) and the SNA has been used to monitor short term changes (< 1 year). There is a reasonable match to the TS data.History Matching Workflow with 4D Here. in this case due to reservoir compaction. but a poor match to SNA. BP. * Changes in SNA correlate with the changes in acoustic impedance so can be used to represent the impedance changes. Good history matches may be expected to predict better than poor matches. Combined Objective Function • • • Weighted sum of well-based and seismic match qualities o Relative weighting of seismic vs. but both of these should be of relevance to the reservoir performance. In the left hand graph they are the best 24 where only well data have been used. The time shift which results from a change in the seismic velocity.

This reduces the 3D comparison to a 2D one which has the advantage of avoiding depth conversion issues where the seismic data is in the time domain. Compare with a centre point location. Seismic is incapable of differentiating changes occurring in reservoir layers below its resolution. but other attributes also Prediction range is reduced Be aware of differences of scale • SPG. In the final case. but the seismic data match is poor In the second. simulators now typically use a variable shaped grid to respect geological structure and faulting. It is also important when comparing seismic data with simulation data in the objective function. Kolkata 2006. In the first the well data (gas and water production rate) are matched satisfactorily. both data types are matched reasonably well. There are a number of ways of making the comparison between the seismic and the overlain simulator grid cell. Reservoir engineers use depth. whereas the simulator is typically ona grid scale of tens of metres. Non reservoir rock will usually be omitted from simulators. so we are compelled to make comparison at the simulator scale. whereas seismic data lateral resolution approaches the acquisition bin size. Finally. geophysicists commonly work using time as the vertical axis. or upscaled in order to compare with seismic response. whereas it is important acoustically. Seismic is collected on an orthogonal grid. BP. and must be accounted for in acoustic modelling. Summary • • • • • • • • Value achieved over entire qualitative – quantitative range Co-visualisation is a useful qualitative integration method Synthetic seismic allows QC of model building Quantitative comparison with field data 4D seismic provides independent model matching data AI commonly used for matching. One of the simplest ways to compare is to compare maps of both the seismic and synthetic attributes. Horizontal Scale The different scales of seismic and simulation data have also been discussed in the section concerned with model building.y scale of most models is 100m or more. today typically 12. whereas seismic to tens of metres. Vertically the simulator will probably resolve to a few metres. Vertical Scale Simulator layer thickness will often be only a few metres. the seismic is matched well. but the well data is not matched. . an average over the area covered by the grid cell etc. Marcus Marsh. Model data has to be averaged. There is no extra information to be gained by portraying the simulator at higher resolution. and is typically tens of metres. The lateral. or x. Several model layers may be used to represent the sands shown in the upper thick unit of this reservoir. and the simulator in depth. Seismic and Well Match Examples The following three figures illustrate cases of a well model history match.5m.Seismic in the Simulator Seismic data is typically on a lateral grid scale of metres. Seismic resolution is limited by physics.

At the time. Summary Andrew Background 4D Results. A platform was installed and a series of 12 horizontal wells were drilled into the oil column from 19961999 pressure supported from the rising water and gas cap expansion. In fact. Marcus Marsh. but its robustness across a range of simulation runs In particular. this is fairly unique. Within the industry. The oil column is approximately a seismic wavelength and there is considerable noise created by the multiple diffractions off the overburden. chosen not solely for the size of the pool. with the greatest throw being about 20m. speculative survey re-shoot was acquired in 2002. Andrew has a significant gas column (~100m) compared with its 59m oil column and is underlain by an active aquifer. Andrew Background: 2001 The Andrew field was discovered in the late 1970’s within a clear Palaeocene anticline.Andrew 4D Reservoir Surveillance: Imaging Infills and Interventions This is an example of the use of 4D seismic for both the identification of infill wells. and it has provided a powerful way of checking the 4D response and calibrating it. The map on the left shows the A15 location. the effects of faults is very marked in generating a target “A16” to the east of the field. The faults are at the limit of seismic resolution. . in a 85% net:gross sandy system. Full Field Reservoir Simulation This shows the prediction of the remaining hydrocarbon thickness from two reservoir model scenarios at the start of 2002. It was decided to acquire a 4D survey across Andrew and its satellite Cyrus repeating the area that had been covered by 3D baseline surveys in 1991 and 1992. 100 miles west of Aberdeen. and imaging intervention candidates… the 3’Is: Imaging Infills and Interventions.Match to PLT/ RST logs o A02 and A03 Wells o Structural Context 4D Calibration Imaging Infills and Interventions (3 I’s) o A08 Example Where we are now The presentation starts with some background information on the the Andrew field and why a 4D survey was needed. 4D Surveys This field was not the most obvious place to acquire 4D as the rocks are moderately hard and the reservoir is at a depth of 2500mtvdss. the 4D seismic can be semi-quantitatively matched to two PLT (Production Logging Tool) runs acquired at the same time as the 4D survey. Based on the success of the 2001 survey a low cost. Kolkata 2006. What makes this story different is that in the Andrew Field. BP. Predicted Size of the 4D saturation signal This diagram shows an estimate of the predicted reflection coefficient between the oil and brine fluids in each of a number of North Sea reservoirs SPG. faulting was not considered to be a major factor in reservoir dynamics. faulting and shale barriers emerged as major influences on fluid flow. and the key to identification of infill and intervention candidates. Then some results from the 4D and the match to the PLT are shown. Lastly it is shown that 4D can be used in a directly calibrated fashion to help identify both infill and intervention candidates. The data were fast track processed so that the 4D could be used to influence drilling and intervention decisions within 6 months of acquisition.

potential infill targets can be identified. which is typical for the North Sea. The section is in time. The stratigraphy is interpreted from the composite log which also shows the water saturation near to the wellbore. and the section is drawn along the line of one of the wells in which a PLT was acquired in 2001. So we can see that water has moved up to the producer and gas has moved down. Andrew 4D Method 2 This slide reiterates the message of the last one. and repeat data have helped to reinforce the interpretation. This is disturbed by faults of small throw. Knowledge of the structure of the field provides a context in which to interpret the observed saturation changes. ie hundreds of metres away. Data acquired in the horizontal wells can be extremely useful for the interpretation of the observed 4D effects. Marcus Marsh. BP. SPG. but little systematic change has occurred. and also to identify where no change has taken place. Some continuation of the water coning up a high permeability sand is indicated. In this way. The arrows signify the direction of movement which is influenced by the stratigraphy. In the top right hand corner the fluid contacts and the horizontal well are shown in relation to the reservoir structure. there seems to be some random changes. Andrew-Cyrus remained at the bottom of the list of tested fields to date. An increase in gas saturation causes the opposite effect. At the heel the advance is slightly less. Although BP has tested a large number of North Sea fields. in 2001 and 2002. The position of the perforations are also shown. and in fact over the well for most of its length. but which appear to influence fluid movement significantly. the baseline was acquired in 1991. and to determine the changes in saturation that have occurred. In Andrew we have production logs in two wells. It is always best to use the same acquisition alignment.This can be used as a measure of the predicted strength of the 4D response. A02: 4D Difference 2001-1991 The water has advanced to the well. Kolkata 2006. and the lower the noise threshold. and two repeats have been acquired. the distance between the original fluid contacts is about 60 metres. The dotted red lines show the noise thresholds that may be expected under different acquisition and processing conditions. Over Andrew. the seismic is detecting the changes from the surface. A02: 4D Difference 2001-1991 The base of this figure is the diffence in acoustic impedance between 1991 and 2001. but the gas seems to have moved down a bit more. Water movement results in acoustic hardening and consequent reduction in seismic amplitude. We will look at this in more detail later. This meant that careful processing was required to give the best chance of seeing a 4D signal Andrew 4D Method 1 The 4D workflow starts with the acquisition of the repeat 3D survey. but most of the changes are probably due to noise. In the bottom left hand corner. along with a gamma ray log. here shown by the blue colour. The OriginalOWC and GOC are shown. In this figure. . PLTs taken in three different years show how water has advanced along the length of the horizontal section. A02: 4D Difference 2002-2001 In the year following the first repeat survey. The 3D data has been used to define the structure of the reservoir. Note the difference in scale here – the logs measure saturation close to the well bore. and has been flattened to the OOWC. the noise thresholds assuming ‘similar’ and ‘parallel’ (ie identical) processing have been calculated for the Forties Field. These have been used to interpret where fluid flow is occurring. The vertical exaggeration of this section is 6:1. and results in the red colour. The 4D acoustic impedance difference cross section indicates where water and gas have moved in the reservoir. This corresponds well with that expected from the 4D observations. the same well is shown in relation to the stratigraphy. The more identical the processing. We are working close to a signal to noise ratio of 1. A02 Structural Cross Section Here. the better the repeatability. but with pictures.

The oil recovered to date has more than paid for the 4D work which created the option. the heel section would produce dry oil. water cut is low and this oil is being produced from them. which is within 10% of the volumetric figure of 315mmbl. The interpretation indicated that if perforated. interpreted change in the bulk volume of water is plotted againt the seismic difference quantified as the sum of positive amplitudes. between A06 and A04. The difference between this and the previous map results in a predicted volume change of 104 million barrels. Calibrated 1992 Hydrocarbon Height map: Field STOIIP 286mmbl. A03 Quantitative Cross plot: 4D vs Bulk water change The correlation between 4D and log response is shown again here. A03 4D Structural Cross Section Another well is shown in the same way in this diagram. although not perfect. There is a significant correlation. Where are we now? SPG. Kolkata 2006. . The image is unclear because of noise. and correlation with the PLTs which may indicate the presence of channels. It is still doing well with water cut limited to 30%.A02 4D Structural Cross Section If the colour shading of the stratigraphy is removed. however there is a degree of coherence of the image. Calibrated Sw Change Map Changes can also be seen in the XY plane. BP. These are two recent wells. the effects of the faulting become easier to see. across much of the field and thinning out to zero (the blues and purples) on the edges. and there seems to be potential for a new well in the SE and one to the West. The workover was carried out in August of 2002. The heel section of A08 formed the first intervention target. In the upper part of the diagram. Marcus Marsh. Metred production from the field is 103 million barrels! Most of the field looks well swept. Its effect can be seen in the plot of water cut and GOR. Actual 315mmbl It is possible to calibrate the pre-production seismic data to the hydrocarbon height seen in the appraisal wells. This resulting map shows the predicted oil distribution prior to any production with a 60m oil column in red. Well A16 came on at 7mbd. Water saturation and perforation intervals are plotted along the well path. This is in fact the deepest part of the well. Calibrated 2001 Hydrocarbon Height map The same procedure has been used to generate a map of remaining hydrocarbon distribution in May 2001. the producing horizontal section is slightly higher. this map can be used to find targets and assess their likely size. but some parts appear to have remaining oil which has potential for recovery by infill wells. The base map in this diagram is the change in acoustic impedance due to change in water saturation between 1991 and 2001. A08 4D Reperforation The opportunity to perforate the heel section of this well was seen on the 4D and confirmed by an RST log. and replace with the impedance difference colours. this gives a predicted STOIIP of 286mmbl. Again. The area around wells A12-A14 looks reasonably undrained.Thus. In the crossplot below. the well path is plotted against a 4D impedance change. When combined with porosity and net-to-gross. The highest water saturation corresponds reasonably well with the intensity of the colour. the red areas indicate where the thickest remaining oil targets are likely to be. The faulting has an important effect on the flow and the indications of fluid flow from both the PLT and the seismic are in reasonable agreement. Calibrated Sg Change Map The same quality of observation can be made on the gas saturation change map.

we continue to be pleasantly surprised at where 4D can work and the sort of information it can provide. the 4D interpretations would have been inconclusive. Kolkata 2006. but its role in finding intervention options is also useful and worthwhile. BP.To summarise. . but the combination of these two surveillance tools is very powerful The 4D was acquired with the objective of imaging infills. Without the PLT. Marcus Marsh. SPG.

Expl. Kolkata 2006. Geophys. & Rehling. M.6 Johnston. E. & Lauritzen. & Gouveia.E. and Davis.. Soc. Geophys. R. Stavanger. Stavanger. Mtg. Lancaster. Soc.. D. EAGE. Successful application of time-lapse seismic data in Shell Expro's Gannet Fields. 65th Conference & Exhibition. 836-844. K. Expanded abstract RCT1. pp. T. 2003. Kleemeyer.3 Furre. & Solheim. Expl.. 2001. 73rd Ann. pp. D. Lefeuvre.. F. A-K. Shyeh. P. Internat.R.S. Soc.... Soc. M. T. Litvak. J... P. Landrø...J. C. Dallas. M.. Johnson. The Use of Time-Lapse P-wave Impedance Inversion to Monitor CO2 Flood at Weyburn Field.. R. Canada. J. Time-lapse seismic analysis of pressure depletion in the Southern Gas Basin. Expanded abstract A16. 2003. Guderian. Kjelstadli. A. Cook.A. 2003.. J.. 25-34.. L’Houtellier. J. Draugen Field – Successful Reservoir Management Using 4d Seismic. & Ashton. van der Velde. K. Expanded abstract RCT6.J. Expanded abstract RCT2. 4d Seismic For Oil Rim Monitoring. R. C..2 Lumley. Dallas.. S. a West Africa textbook example.N.. Stavanger. Expanded abstract RCT1. K..P.. Allan. EAGE. Stammeijer. Soc. Geophys. Internat. Saskatchewan. M. Internat. Weisenborn. 2003. & Chajecki. & Stauber. L.. & Bertini.. S. D.. & MacBeth. T. 2000. 294-302 Johnston. Soc. 2000.B. Internat. Maron. Dallas.. & Sayers. Stammeijer. Parr. Dallas. EAGE. 65th Conference & Exhibition. 65th Conference & Exhibition. MacBeth. Improving Reservoir Understanding Using Time-Lapse Seismic At The Heidrun Field.. 4d Seismic Response Of Primary Production And Waste Injection At The Valhall Field.. Staples. 73rd Ann. M. J. L. A petroelastic-based feasibility study of monitoring pressure depletion in a UKCS gas reservoir. D. D. Tøndel. Vol 9 2003.L. Dubucq. Fast-track ‘coloured’ inversion. SPE 84370 Clifford. et al. & Dubucq... D.. Mtg.E. EAGE. J. T. 85-90. & Omerod. R. Expl. F. Kovacic. T. 7-13.. T.M. Solberg. Expl. Internat. Expl. Stavanger... Geophys. van Waarde. & Nordby. 65th Conference & Exhibition. D. 2003.P.. Expl.. Expanded abstract RCT1. Stavanger. Mtg. 43-52.A. Aanvik. 2003. 2003. SPG. S. C. Internat. 73rd Ann.. A. & Poggialiomi. Dallas.J. Kenter. Seismic Forward Modeling In A Chalk Reservoir With Permanent Monitoring. 65th Conference & Exhibition. Stavanger. R. Petroleum Geoscience. Medina. Meadows.. M.P. Mtg. UKCS. Khan.. Eastwood. Expanded abstract A20.. Marcus Marsh. Cole....1 Herawati. Calgary. P.F. Geophys. and Whitcombe. P. of Expl. Soc. Geophys. P. Mtg. Molenaar. pp1572-1575..J. Expanded abstract RCT4. Soc. C. R. Expl. Discrimination between pressure and fluid saturation changes from time lapse seismic data.H. J. D. D. BP's Increasing Systematic Use Of Time-Lapse Seismic Technology.E. Hague.. A.J.M. 2003. EAGE. P..Some Papers Alsos. 2003. T.R. Geophys. Deep offshore seismic monitoring: the Girassol field. 65th Conference & Exhibition. W. K.1 Marsh. 2003. 2003. and Nash.M. 2003. Soc. T.. Quantifying Rise In Gas Water Contact From TimeLapse Seismic On The Sleipner Øst Field. Rapid and Effective 4D: Girassol field. R. 73rd Ann. 73rd Ann. pp. Askim.. BP. 'Integration of 4D Seismic Data into the Management of Oil Reservoirs with Horizontal Wells between Fluid Contacts. Angola.4 Hatchell. M. Mtg. 73rd Ann. Munkvold.... M. Expanded abstract A22. EAGE. Vol 9 2003. Charrier. & Stanley.. C.A. S.. Raikes. D N. West Africa... Mtg. Expanded abstract RCT1. C. 2003. Hall. O. J. Geophys. Norway. Bogan.. L. Internat. A method for performing history matching of reservoir flow models using 4D seismic data. R.J. F. S. P.. Expl.G. S. I. .H. Dallas. Kelly. Central North Sea. Trythall. H. F. Using legacy data in an integrated time-lapse study: Lena Field. Parr.S. & Sutcliffe. Improved Reservoir Understanding through. 2003. O.. Whole earth 4D: reservoir monitoring geomechanics. Integration of Time-Lapse Seismic and Production Logging Data: Jotun Field. J. M. Gulf of Mexico. Whitcombe. Stammeijer. F. Moulds. K.a case study.. O. M. M.J. Expl. Hartung. Barkved. Dallas. Expanded abstracts. Buer. Geophys.S. Geophys. & Kristiansen. 73rd Ann.. Expanded abstract RCT1. Kjeldstad.. Mtg. SPE 83956.7 Lygren. Kleppan. The Leading Edge NV pp. & Ormerod. Halleland. Expanded abstract A08... & Adams. van den Beukel. Expanded abstract A03. Petroleum Geoscience. Vauthrin.. R. Pettersson.. Dallas. 2003.. Expanded abstract A01. Building Reservoir Models Based On 4D Seismic & Well Data In Gulf Of Mexico Oil Fields. SSI pp. Internat.5 Kloosterman. Vol 9 2003. J. 73rd Ann. Stammeijer. Geophysics. Lefeuvre.. Integrated time lapse reservoir monitoring and characterisation of the Cervia Field . pp. Estimation of reservoir pressure and saturations by crossplot inversion of 4D seismic attributes. Petroleum Geoscience. Soc.M. Vol 9 2003. Petroleum Geoscience.

2003. Petroleum Geoscience. UKCS. Vol 67. H. M. Expanded abstract D45. 4D Monitoring of Schiehallion Field. Internat.H... J. Whitcombe. A. R.H.. D. & Sonneland. L. 35-41. Marcus Marsh. Vol 9 2003.R. 73-84. Geophysics. T. C.. EAGE. 2002. Quantitative Estimation Of Compaction And Velocity Changes Using 4d Impedance And Travel Time Changes. R.. Expanded abstract A10. Zhang. EAGE. Volume 6. & Zhou. pp... P. December 2003. D. Schlaf. J. Vol 9. An Automatic History Matching Example. C. Meunier. F. T. 2003. 61-72. Wreford. 2000. McKenzie. & Marsh. J. & Reynolds. Parr. A. Vol 9 2003. The Evaluation of 4D Seismic over the Yacheng Gas Field. 2003. et al. Optimising 4D fluid imaging. J. D. D.from petrophysics to fluid flow simulation.. 361-372. Issue 6.S. P 63-67.S. G. 2002. J. L. Expanded abstract A17. Connolly. Stavanger. September... Stavanger. Trythall. J. Geophys. Time-lapse Seismic Within Reservoir Engineering.A. J. J. Riviere. Gutteridge. M.. World Oil. 65th Conference & Exhibition.Gawith. Seymour. Vol 9 2003. SPG. Watts. Petroleum Geoscience. J. Parr. 2003. EAGE. L. EAGE. & Landrø. Mtg.K. Time lapse seismic programme at Gullfaks: value and the road ahead. 4D Integrated technologies for deep water turbidite reservoirs . Dallas. Stronen. R. Stavanger. H. BP. R. Extended elastic impedance for fluid and lithology prediction.M. R. Reagan.A.. PhD Thesis. 91-101. pp. & Alsos. Cominelli. & Landrø. 73rd Ann. Jizba. Petroleum Geoscience. Marsh.. Expanded abstract RCT2.. C.. Vol 9 2003. Fletcher. & Stradiotti.. J. Stammeijer.5 Waggoner. Soc. and Redshaw. Nickel.A. J. pp. 2003. 1996: Reservoir Monitoring of the Magnus Field through 4D-seismic analysis. A. South-East Asia Petroleum Exploration Society Press. 65th Conference & Exhibition.. 2003.T.. Expl. Florence.M. Development of 4D Reservoir Management West of Shetland. . Santos. 65th Conference & Exhibition. & Herculin.. T. A. Borgos..McInally. South China Sea. MacGregor.. Slater. Delft University of Technology. Petroleum Geoscience. C. 64th Conference & Exhibition. M.F.. pp.C. N.P. & Smout. et al. 2003. Andrew Seismic Reservoir Surveillance. R.. Expanded abstract C05. P. J. A. Expanded abstract Z99. Improved reservoir modelling with time lapse seismic data in a Gulf od Mexico gas condensate reservoir. Kolkata 2006. . Najjar. Stochastic inversion of pressure and saturation changes from time-lapse seismic data.G. pp 57-63. Petroleum Geoscience. 2. Positioning Accuracy And 4d Seismic Sensitivity In Land Acquisition. New tools for 4D seismic analysis in compacting reservoirs. M. EAGE. Petroleum Geoscience. Stavanger. 53-59 Oldenziel. Veire. Walder.. 65th Conference & Exhibition. pp. Skjervheim. S. No 1.

SPG. . Kolkata 2006. Marcus Marsh. BP.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful

Master Your Semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Special offer for students: Only $4.99/month.

Master Your Semester with a Special Offer from Scribd & The New York Times

Cancel anytime.