Continuous seismic reservoir monitoring at Peace River: Initial results and interpretation

Follett, Jon R. La; Wills, P.; López, Jorge L.; Przybysz-Jarnut, J. K.; Lokven, M. van

doi:10.1190/segam2015-5883275.1

Cited by 10 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In addition to these mechanisms a large 8 ms slowdown has been observed from gas breakout (Benguigui et al 2012). Smaller time-shifts of a few milliseconds have also been observed: such as slowdown due to pore pressure increase at the injectors and also water saturation effects in Peace River (La Follet et al 2015), or pressure increase pushing free hydrocarbon gas back into solution (Jenkins et al 1997). Temperature effects in the examples of Fig.…”

Section: Steam Injectionmentioning

confidence: 93%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Review Paper: Post‐stack 4D seismic time‐shifts: Interpretation and evaluation

MacBeth

Mangriotis

Amini

2018

Geophysical Prospecting

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A review and analysis of post‐stack time‐lapse time‐shifts has been carried out that covers published literature supplemented by in‐house datasets available to the authors. Time‐shift data are classified into those originating from geomechanical effects and those due to fluid saturation changes. From these data, conclusions are drawn regarding the effectiveness of post‐stack time‐shifts for overburden and reservoir monitoring purposes. A variety of field examples are shown that display the range and magnitude of variation for each class of application. The underlying physical mechanisms creating these time‐shifts are then described, and linked to a series of generic and field‐specific rock physics calculations that predict their magnitudes. These calculations serve as a guide for practitioners wishing to utilize this information on their own datasets. Conclusions are drawn regarding the reliability of this attribute for monitoring purposes, and the extent to which further development is required and how it should be reported by authors.

show abstract

Section: Steam Injectionmentioning

confidence: 93%

“…Smaller time‐shifts of a few milliseconds have also been observed: such as slowdown due to pore pressure increase at the injectors and also water saturation effects in Peace River (La Follet et al . ), or pressure increase pushing free hydrocarbon gas back into solution (Jenkins et al . ).…”

Section: The Magnitude Of 4d Seismic Time‐shiftsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Review Paper: Post‐stack 4D seismic time‐shifts: Interpretation and evaluation

MacBeth

Mangriotis

Amini

2018

Geophysical Prospecting

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Collectively, these findings suggest a lower noise floor of, at most, several fractions of a millisecond for towed streamer data, whereas it appears that permanent seafloor sensors may return values with an accuracy of slightly lower than 0.1 ms. In onshore data, La Follet et al (2015) reported slowdowns of 0.45 ms and speedups of 1.18 ms for monitoring steam injection into heavy oil using buried sources and receivers in Peace River with NRMS values of 9%. Burying the sensors in boreholes can yield 20% NRMS and detect time-shifts of 1 ms or lower from the injection of CO 2 into reservoirs in Saudi Arabia (Bakulin et al, 2018).…”

Section: Sampling and Signal-to-noise Ratiomentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In onshore data, La Follet et al. (2015) reported slowdowns of 0.45 ms and speedups of 1.18 ms for monitoring steam injection into heavy oil using buried sources and receivers in Peace River with NRMS values of 9%. Burying the sensors in boreholes can yield 20% NRMS and detect time‐shifts of 1 ms or lower from the injection of CO 2 into reservoirs in Saudi Arabia (Bakulin et al., 2018).…”

Section: Intrinsic Limits On Accuracymentioning

confidence: 99%

A review and analysis of errors in post‐stack time‐shift interpretation

MacBeth

Izadian

2023

Geophysical Prospecting

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study complements two earlier papers on the interpretation and estimation of post‐stack time‐shifts that detail the most popular measurement methods to date. In this current work, the focus is on describing the magnitude and identifying the origin of the uncertainty present in these time‐shift values. We also consider how the underlying assumptions behind conventional time‐shift estimation methods can contribute to the inadequate resolution of the subsurface time‐lapse changes. The various errors fall into three broad categories: (1) those related to intrinsic data limits that cannot be avoided; (2) those associated with seismic measurement methods that can be corrected with some effort; and finally (3) those that arise due to approximations to the wave physics made during the design or implementation of the methods. In the first category are limitations due to sampling rate and signal‐to‐noise ratio, and wavelet interferences resulting from the narrow band nature of the seismic data and the heterogeneous nature of the geology itself. The effects produce errors of typically a fraction of a millisecond, but exceptionally in 4D data with poor repeatability up to 1 ms. In the second category are acquisition and processing errors. These are usually of the order of a few milliseconds but can reach up to 10s of milliseconds and are, therefore, essential to correct. It is possible to correct the effects of tides and seawater variations in marine acquisition if these changes are monitored and measured. Navigation and timing are identified as issues to consider carefully. For land data, daily and seasonal near‐surface variations are still problematic, and source and sensors must be buried to deliver interpretable time‐shifts. The impact of choices made during processing can be significant but is specific to the workflow and dataset and thus cannot be generically assessed. However, the effects from residual multiples can be identified and treated. Of moderate importance is the third category of errors, which consists of four items. Of these, the effect of lateral image shifts and amplitude effects are judged to play a minor role. Deviation from the assumption of vertical ray‐paths during post‐stack analysis appears to be of concern only for reservoirs with noticeably dipping structures and strong contrasts. The effect of pre‐stack variations on the post‐stack measurements remains a topic to be more thoroughly examined, and the conclusion is unclear. Finally, it is apparent that uncertainties in all categories are strongly dependent on the field setting and geographical location.

show abstract

References

2016

3C Seismic and VSP: Converted Waves and Vector Wavefield Applications

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Continuous seismic reservoir monitoring at Peace River: Initial results and interpretation

Cited by 10 publications

References 3 publications

Review Paper: Post‐stack 4D seismic time‐shifts: Interpretation and evaluation

Review Paper: Post‐stack 4D seismic time‐shifts: Interpretation and evaluation

A review and analysis of errors in post‐stack time‐shift interpretation

References

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About