Integrating Continuous 4D Seismic Data Into Subsurface Workflows

Barkved, O. I.; Kommedal, Jan H.; Kristiansen, Tron Golder; Buer, Kjell; Kjelstadli, Roar; Haller, N.; Ackers, M.; Sund, G.; Bakke, Roger

doi:10.3997/2214-4609-pdb.1.c001

Cited by 4 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Curlew‐D and Skua fields) to the more dramatic 24 ms or more for compacting chalk reservoirs (Valhall field: Barkved et al . ; Hall et al . ; Ekofisk field: Guilbot and Smith ; Bertrand et al .…”

Section: The Magnitude Of 4d Seismic Time‐shiftsmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…6 (>3km) reservoirs over a short time period of several years (e.g. Curlew-D and Skua fields) to the more dramatic 24 ms or more for compacting chalk reservoirs (Valhall field: Barkved et al 2005;Hall et al 2005; Ekofisk field: Guilbot and Smith 2002;Bertrand et al 2014) over 5-10 years. Some of the most challenging fields are in the Southern Gas Basin, where imaging difficulties arise due to the overlying Zechstein carbonate sequence combined with a weak noisy signal.…”

Section: Strain-related Time-shifts Observationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

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: The Magnitude Of 4d Seismic Time‐shiftsmentioning

confidence: 98%

Section: Strain-related Time-shifts Observationsmentioning

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

6. The Road Ahead

Jack¹,

Keggin²,

Benson³

et al. 2010

Methods and Applications in Reservoir Geophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Seismic Surveillance in the Field of the Future

Watts¹,

Griffin

Barkved

et al. 2006

All Days

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Seismic 4D data has traditionally been acquired using repeat towed streamer surveys every 2–5 years. This is used to track fluid and pressure and has proved highly effective for influencing infill well locations and calibrating the reservoir simulator. Over the last 10 years the technology has evolved and is now relatively mature with several well documented case-studies demonstrating value of 3–5% reserves increase in post-plateau oil fields with a strong fluid response (1). However, the long elapsed time between surveys limits its value in Reservoir Management where we would like to use time-lapse seismic to monitor the pressure field and the fluid flood fronts and therefore make decisions which maximise the sweep conformance and achieve ‘technical limits’ rate and reserves. To do this, seismic data needs to be acquired at a frequency consistent with the timescale on which the decisions are made. Thus monitoring gas movement to minimise gas production in oil field may require seismic surveys every 3–6 months whilst providing data useful for optimising Base Well Management decisions on reperforations, restimulations, water shut-off and injection rates may benefit from seismic data every few months or even weeks. As a first stage towards active management using "seismic surveillance", and specifically to aid in waterflood management, BP has installed a permanent seismic array over 70% of the Valhall field. The array cost $45million but the results have been technically spectacular (2, 3, 4). Learnings from this experience are still evolving but already cover aspects of reservoir management, infill drilling, Base Well Management, flow performance prediction and surveillance including the use of "Seismic PLTs" (2). Following on from this success, BP is looking at the next wave of field applications as an integrated part of its FIELD OF THE FUTURE programme (5). Plans are now at an advanced stage to take forward two new projects in 2006 and several more are being discussed for application later this decade. 1. Seismic Surveillance in the FIELD OF THE FUTURE 1.1. Concepts of the FIELD OF THE FUTURE Rapid changes in digital technology are revolutionising the ways in which we acquire and process data and are improving the quality and efficiency of decision making. Through the application of these digital technologies, both new and existing, BP aspires to operate its assets at the technical limit of efficiency, recovery and cost. To make this aspiration a reality, BP has implemented a programme called FIELD OF THE FUTURE (1). The scope of this programme covers development and deployment of technology and business process solutions to most aspects of oil and gasfield operations - from reservoir to export, in both mature and new fields, onshore as well as offshore. 1.2. Remote Performance Management and Optimisation Remote Performance Management includes technologies for well/reservoir and facilities monitoring and is currently an area of focus in BP (6, 7). A large part of this activity is to do with developing and applying new tools for managing and post processing real time data. Optimisation needs to be carried out in a variety of different technical areas and at many different timescales. In the subsurface, it is about developing improved methods for maximising production and reserves. The elements required for an effective decision can be described by the OODA cycle. Here four components are identified: Observation, Orientation, Decision and Action.

show abstract

Integrating Continuous 4D Seismic Data Into Subsurface Workflows

Cited by 4 publications

References 0 publications

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

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

6. The Road Ahead

Seismic Surveillance in the Field of the Future

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About