2008
DOI: 10.1190/1.2789395
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Seismic imaging of reservoir flow properties: Resolving water influx and reservoir permeability

Abstract: Methods for geophysical-model assessment — in particular, the computation of model-parameter resolution — indicate the value and the limitations of time-lapse data in estimating reservoir flow properties. A trajectory-based method for computing sensitivities provides an effective means to compute model-parameter resolution. We examine the common situation in which water encroaches into a reservoir from below, as caused by the upward movement of an oil-water contact. Though the techniques described are not limi… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2009
2009
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 6 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 32 publications
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Smaller effects may be caused by changes in the near surface. A central question in EM monitoring is whether or not resistivity changes in the reservoir are detectable, and if so, if the value of that information is worth the effort compared to more established methods as time‐lapse seismic measurements (Landrø et al 2003; Vasco et al 2008) that provide far better resolution, but not necessarily of the same quantity. In the EM case, spatial resolution will always be poor due to the diffusive character of EM signals in the earth at the low frequencies required to reach sufficient depth (Ward & Hohmann 1987).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Smaller effects may be caused by changes in the near surface. A central question in EM monitoring is whether or not resistivity changes in the reservoir are detectable, and if so, if the value of that information is worth the effort compared to more established methods as time‐lapse seismic measurements (Landrø et al 2003; Vasco et al 2008) that provide far better resolution, but not necessarily of the same quantity. In the EM case, spatial resolution will always be poor due to the diffusive character of EM signals in the earth at the low frequencies required to reach sufficient depth (Ward & Hohmann 1987).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The objective of reservoir-depletion monitoring is to determine the efficacy of the extraction and enhanced oil recovery ͑EOR͒ processes. The current approach to geophysical monitoring of reservoir depletion is to use time-lapse 3D seismic technology ͑e.g., Landro et al, 2003;Vasco et al, 2008͒, an approach that is in the early stages of development. If the feasibility of applying CSEM to this application is demonstrated, we anticipate that CSEM will prove to be highly complementary to time-lapse seismic data, as is the case with exploration CSEM ͑e.g., Darnet et al, 2007͒.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Smaller effects may be caused by changes in the near surface. A central question in EM monitoring is whether or not resistivity changes in the reservoir are detectable, and if so, if the value of that information is worth the effort compared to more established methods as timelapse seismic measurements (Landrø et al, 2003;Vasco et al, 2008) that provide far better resolution, but not necessarily of the same quantity. In the EM case, spatial resolution will always be poor due to the diffusive character of EM signals in the earth at the low frequencies required to reach sufficient depth (Ward and Hohmann, 1987).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%