4D SEISMIC ANALYSIS

Robertson Research International Ltd.

4D seismic analysis
Aim : to accurately map and predict the dynamic behaviour of the reservoir over time Two approaches:
Fixed water bottom cable (WBC) - eg. Foinaven, UKCS; Teal South, Gulf of Mexico. Repeated 3D surveys over the same area - eg. Magnus, Gannet C, UKCS; Gulfaks, Snorre, Draugen, NCS.

Parameters measured
Water saturation (eg. flood fronts) Temperature Pressure

Reasons for the growth of 4D seismic

Reduction in the cost of 3D surveys

Increase in the quality of 3D surveys

Maturing asset base in most international companies

Magnus Field case history

Located in the northern North Sea at a depth of 2.8km
Discovered by BP in 1974 Principle reservoir : Upper Jurassic submarine fan sands of the Magnus Sand Member (MSM) Original oil-in-place : 1.7 billion barrels

Structural evolution

The MSM is only partially preserved beneath the base Cretaceous unconformity in the crestal area of a large, tilted fault block

Production history
Producing since 1983
19 production wells 8 injector wells for water drive

Production problems
Heterogeneous strata Irregular flood fronts Pressure compartmentalisation Partial water breakthrough

3D seismic data

1983: 3D survey acquired with wide crossline spacing and poor positional control before production commenced.

1992: A more modern survey with good lateral continuity of reflectors. Shooting direction at 90 degrees to the 1983 survey

3D seismic data

1983 survey

1992 survey

Note the difference in data quality between the two surveys

4D seismic workflow
Petroacoustic study
Measurement of the sensitivity of Vp and Vs in representatitive core plugs to changes in dynamic properties

Petrophysical confirmation from well logs

Synthetic modelling

Comparison with real data

Petroacoustic results: Well M16

Measurements from a representative core sample show the relationship between AI and effective stress for different fluid types A change in the fluid phase from oil to water results in an AI increase of only 4% and partial saturation changes would have an even smaller effect A decrease in pressure from 6700psi to 3500psi results in a 12 % increase in AI.

Sensitivity of rock properties to changes in pressure and oil saturation

In this case the greatest response is due to changes in pressure. In contrast, only Poissons ratio shows a large change in response to changes in oil saturation.

Time-lapse modelling of RAI logs from Well M16

Fluid pressure decreases over time This results in a corresponding increase in relative acoustic impedence (RAI) over time

Petrophysical confirmation
The two linear trends on this density/velocity crossplot correspond to porous, clean reservoir sands. The cloud to the left is due to an increase in shale content. There is a clear trend towards an increase in velocity over time in the clean reservoir sands. The increase is of the order of 8%, which should be detectable on the seismic data.

Predictive AI models

Two shared earth models represent the reservoir properties at the time of the two seismic surveys Porosity and shale volume distributions were calculated from well logs Pressure and saturation distributions were calculated from test data and forward modelled to 1992.

Synthetic acoustic impedence cross-section

RAI values were calculated for both models and converted to time

3D synthetic seismograms were generated for both models and a difference synthetic was computed
This shows increasing RAI towards the crest of the structure due to the change in fluid pressure

Synthetic average RAI maps

Synthetic average RAI - 1983 data

Synthetic average RAI - 1992 data

Acoustic impedence Low Medium High Red Yellow Blue Maps of synthetic average RAI were generated for both models.

Real average RAI maps

Real average RAI - 1983 Data Real average RAI - 1992 Data
Decrease in impedence in the injector region

Acoustic impedance Low Medium High Red Yellow Blue

Increase in impedence Very small change between surveys in an area predicted by the model to show the greatest change

Real average RAI maps were generated after zero phasing using indepenent wavelets

Synthetic and real average RAI difference maps

Synthetic average RAI difference map

Real average RAI difference map

Greatest change predicted in crestal area

Comparison between real and synthetic RAI data - northern area

Interpretation of the real average RAI difference map reveals two barriers on the crestal area of the field

There is generally good agreement between the real and synthetic average RAI values in this area However, a line of section through this area illustrates a possible barrier between producing wells

Simulated pressure data and time dip map

The time dip map at top reservoir recognises both barriers

The average pressure drop from the full field flow simulator recognises barrier A but does not recognise barrier B.

Magnus Field - Summary

Useful information can be obtained from old 3D seismic data
Changes in reservoir pressure over time produce detectable changes in acoustic impedance Differences between the modelled and real acoustic impedances can be shown to result from compartmentalisation of the reservoir by faults, which should be incorporated into future simulations.

 Draugen field

 Draugen: 2 different vintages of seismic survey

 Draugen difference

4C Seismic
Paul Hague Robertson Research International

4 Component Seismic
Advantages of 4 component seismic:
Images through gas clouds Lithology, hydrocarbon and fracturing can be identified Buried receivers allow repeatable time-lapse surveys Highlights anomalies where S-wave changes but P-wave doesnt

P-wave reciprocity

The travel path for P-waves is reversible between shot and receiver

Causes of P-wave attenuation

Main attenuation cause is viscous losses during fluid squirt, more dramatic when gas is present.

S-wave less affected by fluid content as it travels preferentially through the matrix.

Conversion of Energy

P to S and S to P occurs when any non-normal incidence wave hits an elastic interface S-wave component is suppressed by normal P-wave processing

Conversion Point

Conversion point from P to S-wave is not midway between source and receiver

Depth variation of conversion point

For a single offset point the conversion point varies with reflector depth.

Converted Wave Travel Paths

Travel path through slow medium is not reciprocal for P-wave to Swave converted waves This causes problems in processing converted wave seismic

 Improvement of seismic resolution using P-S converted waves through the gas cloud of the Tommeliten Field

PP versus PS Seismic - Far East

S-wave far less attenuated by gas than P-wave Ocean bottom receivers record P and S waves Cables left on sea bed allow accurate 4C/4D acquisition

PP versus PS Seismic - Alba Field

Reservoir has no Vp contrast with overburden or at OWC Clear breaks at top oil and OWC on shear log show up on PS section