The Use of 4D Seismic in Reservoir Management
Search citation statements
Paper Sections
Citation Types
Year Published
Publication Types
Relationship
Authors
Journals
Cited by 3 publications
References 0 publications
This study examines the four-dimensional (4D) seismic signatures from multiple seismic surveys shot during gas exsolution and dissolution in a producing hydrocarbon reservoir, and focuses in particular on what reservoir information may be extracted from their analysis. To aid in this process, hydrocarbon gas properties and behaviour are studied, and their relationship to the fluid-flow physics is understood using numerical simulation. This knowledge is then applied to interpret the seismic response of a turbidite field in the UK Continental Shelf (UKCS). It is concluded that for a repeat seismic survey shot 6 months or more after a pressure change above or below bubble point (as in our field case), the gas-saturation distribution during either exsolution or dissolution exists in two fixed saturation conditions defined by the critical and the maximum possible gas saturation. Awareness of this condition facilitates an interpretation of the data from our field example, which has surveys repeated at intervals of 12–24 months, to obtain an estimate of the critical gas saturation of between 0.6 and 4.0%. These low values are consistent with a range of measurements from laboratory and numerical studies in the open literature. Our critical gas-saturation estimate is also in qualitative agreement with the solution gas–oil ratios estimated in a material balance exercise using our data. It is not found possible to quantify the maximum gas saturation using the 4D seismic data alone, despite the advantage of having multiple surveys, owing to the insensitivity of the seismic amplitudes to the magnitude of this gas saturation. Assessment of the residual gas saturation left behind after secondary gas-cap contraction during the dissolution phase suggests that small values of less than a few per cent may be appropriate. The results are masked to some extent by an underlying water flood. It is believed that the methodology and approach used in this study may be readily generalized to other moderate- to high-permeability oil reservoirs, and used as input in simulation model updating.
This study examines the four-dimensional (4D) seismic signatures from multiple seismic surveys shot during gas exsolution and dissolution in a producing hydrocarbon reservoir, and focuses in particular on what reservoir information may be extracted from their analysis. To aid in this process, hydrocarbon gas properties and behaviour are studied, and their relationship to the fluid-flow physics is understood using numerical simulation. This knowledge is then applied to interpret the seismic response of a turbidite field in the UK Continental Shelf (UKCS). It is concluded that for a repeat seismic survey shot 6 months or more after a pressure change above or below bubble point (as in our field case), the gas-saturation distribution during either exsolution or dissolution exists in two fixed saturation conditions defined by the critical and the maximum possible gas saturation. Awareness of this condition facilitates an interpretation of the data from our field example, which has surveys repeated at intervals of 12–24 months, to obtain an estimate of the critical gas saturation of between 0.6 and 4.0%. These low values are consistent with a range of measurements from laboratory and numerical studies in the open literature. Our critical gas-saturation estimate is also in qualitative agreement with the solution gas–oil ratios estimated in a material balance exercise using our data. It is not found possible to quantify the maximum gas saturation using the 4D seismic data alone, despite the advantage of having multiple surveys, owing to the insensitivity of the seismic amplitudes to the magnitude of this gas saturation. Assessment of the residual gas saturation left behind after secondary gas-cap contraction during the dissolution phase suggests that small values of less than a few per cent may be appropriate. The results are masked to some extent by an underlying water flood. It is believed that the methodology and approach used in this study may be readily generalized to other moderate- to high-permeability oil reservoirs, and used as input in simulation model updating.
Arco demonstrated time-lapse 3D seismic, or “4D,” in the 1980s. The technology is focused on drilling better wells and improving reservoir management, thus increasing the poor 30–35% average reservoir recovery factor. It is used to extend the peak-flow plateau of the reservoir, deliver low-cost reserves additions, and make better use of topsides facilities. 4D is one of the few technologies that can show what is happening between wells. Its take-up was accelerated by the tendency of reservoir flow rates to come off-peak quickly and unexpectedly, requiring urgent improvements in the understanding of the reservoir. 4D technology led to improved well success rates and produced net-present-value (NPV) figures that were easily eight to 10 times the cost of the 4D seismic itself. It became commonplace to re-record 4D surveys at intervals of between two and five years. The technology has improved markedly since its early use, with nonrepeatability metrics falling from 40% or more down to single figures. It is most effective if conducted early in the reservoir's life and, subsequently, prior to reservoir management changes such as commencement of injection. On large reservoirs, 4D is generally routine, although it is also used on small reservoirs with 30 million bbl remaining reserves or less. Emplaced systems with frequent reshoots have been implemented on some reservoirs. Challenges include 4D on land, hard rock reservoirs, pressure response detection, and incorporation of geomechanical models. The 2015–2017 market downturn has slowed the extension of emplaced systems and other “broadband” techniques for 4D, but new technologies will move into this market, at reduced cost, so the future is full of opportunities.
TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435. AbstractThis paper describes the results of a two-year ECsponsored project which uses new information provided by repeated seismic acquisitions (4D seismic data) jointly with production data in an extended, efficient and consistent history matching process. This process involves a simultaneous minimisation of the mismatch between all types of measured and simulated data. A gradient-based technique has been developed and tested both in a prototype and in commercial computer-aided history matching software. We show results on real cases, located in the North Sea and the Adriatic Sea, and discuss key issues of such seismic history matching. Most applications of time-lapse seismic to date have been qualitative or semi-quantitative. We propose a quantitative workflow. The seismic contribution in the objective function is defined in terms of elastic parameter variations within the reservoir and the data have been properly scaled using an estimate of seismic uncertainty (covariance matrix). The "observed" values are obtained by inversion of the seismic signal. For the "modelled" values, the flow simulator is coupled with a petro-elastic model to convert simulated fluid and static rock properties into simulated elastic properties. The techniques described in this paper allow us to reconcile production history matched models with 4D information, and to reduce the uncertainty in reservoir properties, which haven't a real impact on the well history, but which significantly drive future behaviour of the field. This is a further step towards the necessary integration of available data for better predictive simulations. Focusing on quantitative combined with qualitative use of data enhances the multidisciplinary approach. . ( m J m J m J seis prod
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
Contact Info
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Product
Resources
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.
