Professional Documents
Culture Documents
th
EAGE Conference & Exhibition Rome, Italy, 9 - 12 June 2008
E028
3D Exporaton for Remanng O Usng Hstorca
Producton Data
Y. Lng* (BGP CNPC), X.R. Huang (Goden Eage Int', Inc.), D.S. Sun (BGP
CNPC), I. Gao (BGP CNPC) & I.X. Ln (BGP CNPC)
SUMMARY
3D and 4D (time-lapse) seismics are techniques commonly used Ior exploration and reservoir exploitation.
Increasingly, time-lapse seismic is becoming a more popular tool Ior reservoir development and
management. However, its application is constrained by reservoir conditions, production mechanisms and
seismic data repeatability. The technique oI 3D exploration Ior remaining oil with historical production
data uses high quality 3D seismic data, acquired aIter a certain period oI reservoir production, and
integrates it with historical production data to provide inIormation Ior reservoir dynamics, such as the
identiIication oI additional resources and the delineation oI remaining oil. In integrating the 3D seismic
with historical production data, the 3D seismic data are time-stamped and then related to the reservoir
dynamics. This enables 3D seismic data to represent reservoir dynamics in time. The method is applied to
an onshore Iield in Western China. The result shows that the 3D seismic with historical production data
(3.5D) can identiIy reservoir potentials and remaining oil.
70
th
EAGE Conference & Exhibition Rome, Italy, 9 - 12 June 2008
Introduction
Back in the late 30s, 3D wave propagation was investigated based on multiple 2D lines in
different directions and wave propagation geometries (Rock, 1938). After the 50s, 3D seismic
reflection and imaging were discussed based on physical 3D models. In the mid-70s, the first
3D seismic survey was acquired in the Gulf of Mexico (Dahm and Graebner, 1982).
It was observed in the lab that a large velocity change can occur in rocks with heavy oil if the
oil is replaced by steam (Nur et al., 1984). From the late 80s, the application of time-lapse
seismic was investigated (Robert and Terrance, 1987). With hundreds of field applications in
the last decade, time-lapse seismic has become an industry-wide tool for reservoir monitoring
(Lumley, 2001). However, offshore and onshore applications have not been evenly balanced.
Time-lapse seismic has been successfully implemented in offshore areas, especially in the
North Sea and the GOM. It has also been successful in some onshore areas where there are
shallow, heavy oil reservoirs, especially in
Canada. Non-repeatable noise in time-lapse
seismics at land fields is a key issue. 3D
legacy data always reflect differences in
geometries, acquisition directions,
source/receiver types and their locations,
surface equipment, and surface conditions. As
for processing, the differences can include the
processing flow, parameters, algorithms, and
the software system itself (Ross et al., 1996).
The non-repeatability from acquisition and
processing makes it difficult for 3D time-lapse
seismics to be applied to onshore fields,
especially to thin interbedded reservoirs. Based on research conducted at an onshore field, we
propose a 3.5D seismic method to obviate these problems.
Background of Geology and Seismic
Geology background: The field is on a monoclinal structure that forms a lithological trap
for the reservoir, with depths between 3230-3480 m and sand thicknesses ranging from 3 to 5
m. The field has been in production since 1991, with water cut around 60% at present.
Seismic acquisition and processing: The 3D survey conducted in the field is located in the
northwest margin of the Jungar basin. The surface is mainly covered with sand dunes of 3-20
m in height and some farmland on the eastern
side. The main parameters of the survey
geometry are as follows: Spread, 12 lines x 10
shots; Fold, 60; Bin size, 12.5 m x 12.5 m.
The processing workflow includes amplitude
preservation, source/receiver statistical
deconvolution, velocity picking, statics, and
NMO+DMO+poststack migration. Compared
with the processing workflow of the
conventional time-lapse seismic (Ross et al.,
1996), this workflow does not need to focus on
the elimination of non-repeatable noise from both acquisition and processing. This indicates
that a 3.5D seismic application could be more practical compared to time-lapse seismics,
possibly reducing the financial risk of the entire process.
Reservoir structure and depositional study
Figure 1a is a seismic section across the reservoir, which is flattened at the bottom of the
Jurassic. From this section we can see that the deposition before the Jurassic has an erosional
period of exposure, with volcanic activity in the deeper formation. The Jurassic formation
contacts its underlying formation as an angular unconformity. Above the unconformity, the
Jurassic formation starts to subside in the southern part.
70
th
EAGE Conference & Exhibition Rome, Italy, 9 - 12 June 2008
This leads to a paleotopography with a high in northwest, and a low in the southeast (see
Figure 1b). Sedimentary deposition starts in
the early Jurassic (J1b). This period has three
sub-cycles of deposition as marked in Figure
1b by the deep to light yellowish colors for the
three superimposed sedimentary units. The
sediment source is from the northwest. After
this period, the southeast continues to subside
and leads to the formation of the mid-Jurassic
deposition (J2x). J2x has two sub-cycles of
deposition that form two superimposed
sedimentary units, with the source in the
northwest. In the late Jurassic (J3q) there are
two sub-cycles of deposition (see Figure 1b
marked with deep or light color) that are thicker in the southeast than in the northwest. In the
seismic sections, a foreset reflection can be observed clearly in the northwest. This indicates
that the sediments are from the northwest.
Figure 1c shows the present
structure from the seismic data.
From Figure 1c and the above
structural evolution discussion,
we conclude, that with a good
cap rock, the reservoir mainly
has onlap and unconformity
lithological traps.
Based on the structural and
depositional evolution study,
the seismic waveform
clustering attribute is generated
as shown in Figure 2. The mid-
to-light blue colored region indicates a region of alluvial deposition. An uplift (the white line
in Figure 2) separates it from the adjacent depositional region. These two zones form two
major depositional regions. From the depositional analysis, the J3q formation mainly forms
onlap traps. On the other hand, the J1b and J2x formations mainly form unconformity traps.
Historical production data study
Obviously, the preceding structural and depositional discussion, which is based only on high
quality 3D seismic data, cannot characterize
reservoir dynamics. The key to 3.5D seismic is to
further characterize the reservoir using dynamic
data such as historical production data.
Figure 3 is the spatial evolution of cumulative oil
production. The well locations and cumulative oil
production map of the early stage (1990) show
that the field development starts in the south. It
then expands to the north with time, and
continues with the drilling of most of the
production wells until 1994. At that point, most
wells with high cumulative oil production are in
the south (the big red circles in Figure 3, 1994).
Starting in 1996, the cumulative oil production in
the north increases every year. At the same time,
the production in the south starts to decline. It
also shows that water production starts to
increase in the south. In 2006, the cumulative
70
th
EAGE Conference & Exhibition Rome, Italy, 9 - 12 June 2008
production in the south is still slightly higher than that in the north, and the cumulative
production in the west is higher than that in the east. Also, Figure 3 shows that the wells near
the field boundaries have relatively lower oil
production, which implies that they have
encountered the oil/water contact.
Figure 4 further shows the evolution of the
cumulative water production from each well.
From the maps before 1994, observe that the high
water production areas are mainly located in the
south and south-east of the field (the blue areas in
Figure 4). This implies that the water invasion is
from the south-eastern direction. The variations
from 1996 to present give further evidence. In
addition, a water invasion path in the north of the
field can also be identified. By 2006, the field had
been divided into three low water-cut oil
production regions (the red areas in Figure 4) and
three high water-cut regions (the blue areas in
Figure 4). Comparing the evolution of the
cumulative oil production (Figure 3) with the
water production (Figure 4), we see that there was
a higher cumulative oil production in the southeast
in the early stages of field development. At present, most regions have become high water-cut
areas except for the red areas shown in Figure 4.
Interpretation of 3D with historical production data
Based on the interpretation of 3D seismic data and of the dynamic data, Figure 5 shows the
combined result of overlaying the dynamic data with 3D seismic amplitudes. As shown in
Figure 5a, the low water producers are located in regions where the seismic amplitudes are
high, and the high water producers are located in low amplitude regions in 2006. This
indicates a high correlation between the water producers and seismic amplitudes. However,
as shown in Figure 5b (3D seismic amplitude with cumulative oil before 2006), wells with
high cumulative oil are not located at places of high 3D seismic amplitude. Wells with low
cumulative oil do not always overlie regions of low seismic amplitude either. This suggests
that the high-resolution 3D seismic data acquired in 2006 has been changed by fluid
70
th
EAGE Conference & Exhibition Rome, Italy, 9 - 12 June 2008
substitution. Thus, through this study, 3D seismic data have been characterized dynamically.
To differentiate from time-lapse seismic,
this can be called a 3.5D seismic
approach.
With the structural study of the 3D
seismic data and further integration of
historical production data, the aquifer
invasion is mapped and the remaining
potential areas are identified in Figure 6.
The water invaded from the southeast. In
the north, two aquifers invaded along two
paths in the J2x formation. The
unexplainable Well A, as mentioned
before, is located in a different
sedimentary region than the fields major
producing region. The area of the
remaining potential in the Well A region
is estimated to be 1.5 km
2
. The
questionable Well B is located in the
same facies as that of the major production region, but it produces from a different sand body.
The potential for this region has an area of 1.1 km
2
.
Conclusions
Based on a case study, a technique of 3D exploration for remaining oil using historical
production data (3.5D) has been proposed and demonstrated. Compared with the workflow of
time-lapse seismics, whose success depends on reservoir conditions, production mode and
seismic repeatability, the workflow of our method is more practical, especially for onshore
fields with thin interbedded reservoirs. The results show that reservoir dynamics can be well
characterized with the seismic data acquired in producing fields, by means of effective
amplitude preservation processing, structural and sedimentary studies, and integration of 3D
and historical production data. This addresses the repeatability requirement for 3D time-lapse
seismic and the requirement for good legacy 3D seismic data. In turn, it reduces the cost of
exploring for remaining oil. The multi-disciplinary integration of seismics, geology, and
reservoir engineering will greatly improve the 3.5D seismic technique and make it more
effective.
References
Dahm C.G. and Graebner R.J., 1982, Field development with three-dimensional seismic
methods in the Gulf of Thailand-A case history: Geophysics, Vol47, No2, p149-176.
Lumley .D.E, 2001, Time-lapse seismic reservoir monitoring, Geophysics, Vol 66, NO 1, 50-
53;
Nur,A,Tosaya, C., and Thanh,D.V., 1984, Seismic monitoring of thermal enhanced oil
recovery processes: 54th Ann. Internat. Mtg., Soc. Expl. Geophys., Expanded Abstracts,
session RS.6.
Robert J.G. and Terrance J.F., 1987, Three-dimensional seismic monitoring of an enhanced
oil recovery process: Geophysics, Vol52, No9, p1175-1187.
Rock, S.M, 1938, Three Dimensional Reflection Control, Nur,A,Tosaya: Geophysics, Vol 3,
No4, p340-348
Ross, C.P, Cunningham, G.B. and Weber, D.P., 1996, Inside the cross-equalization black box:
The Leading Edge, 15, 1233-1240.