APPLICATION OF NEW SEISMIC ATTRIBUTES TO RESERVOIR MONITORING

by Tagir Galikeev

ABSTRACT

Time-lapse seismic technology plays a signicant role in dynamic reservoir characterization allowing the understanding of uid movement within the reservoir and optimization of production of the eld. Three main challenges are addressed in this thesis: how seismic attributes can help in imaging the time-lapse seismic anomalies, how the results of the conventional seismic inversion can be improved, especially for thin reservoirs and what is an optimal integrated workow. Studies from three time-lapse datasets from Weyburn eld demonstrated that the optimal workow consisted of the right mix of seismic attributes and to best conduct seismic inversion and adapt it to reservoir model building for volumetric computation and reservoir simulation. The author develops algorithms of the seismic attributes including frequency decomposition and volume frequency decomposition, 3D semblance and waveform classication, tests their response on the simulated 4D synthetic data and applies them to the eld time-lapse datasets. Seismic inversion is the most important technology for time-lapse studies and the author modied the inversion procedure to include a geostatistical simulation of the high frequency impedance component to better resolve thin reservoirs. Wavelet-based cross-equalization between time-lapse datasets produced more robust results in conjunction with the traditional shaping lter approach. An integrated velocity modeling workow described in the thesis aids in building reliable geostatistical relationships between the rock properties from wells and the seismic attributes and impedance model. Geostatistical structural and property modeling produced a better reservoir model for uid volumetric calculations. iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

iii vii xvi

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xvii INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chapter 1 1.1 1.2 GEOLOGICAL AND GEOPHYSICAL DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY AREA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 7 9 12 14 15 20 21 23 26 27 32 38 38 39 45 47 48 49 53

Reservoir geology and production history . . . . Data availability and seismic reservoir signature 1.2.1 Engineering data . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2.2 Well data and seismic reservoir signature

Chapter 2 2.1

SEISMIC ATTRIBUTES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CO2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . in. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2.2

2.3

2.4

2.5

The M model: synthetic time-lapse dataset with simulated jection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1.1 Adding noise to synthetic data . . . . . . . . . . . . . Frequency decomposition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.1 Theory and algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.2 Application to synthetic time-lapse data . . . . . . . Principal vector classication (PVC) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3.1 Algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3.2 Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3.3 Application to synthetic time-lapse data . . . . . . . 3-D semblance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4.1 Algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4.2 Application to synthetic data . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chapter conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

iv

Chapter 3 3.1

CROSS-EQUALIZATION OF TIME-LAPSE DATASETS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

55 56 56 58 59 64 68 76 77 78 88 90 91 93 94 95 97 97 100 106 108 112 115

3.2

Cross-equalization of Weyburn datasets . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1.1 Spectral and wavelet characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1.2 Dierential time analysis at key horizons . . . . . . . . 3.1.3 Analyzing trace dierence between time-lapse volumes 3.1.4 Seismic amplitude scaling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1.5 Shaping (matching) lter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chapter conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Chapter 4 4.1 4.2 4.3

APPLICATION OF ATTRIBUTES AT WEYBURN FIELD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4.4

Frequency decomposition . . . . . . . . . 4.1.1 Volume frequency decomposition 3-D semblance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Principal Vector Classication . . . . . . 4.3.1 PVC on seismic data . . . . . . . 4.3.2 PVC on impedance data . . . . . Chapter conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . .

Chapter 5 5.1 5.2 5.3

ACOUSTIC INVERSION OF THE TIME-LAPSE DATA . . . .

5.4

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conventional acoustic inversion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Acoustic inversion of the dierence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3.1 Comparison between conventional inversion and inversion of the dierence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3.2 Time-lapse impedance anomaly delineation . . . . . . . . . . . Chapter conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Chapter 6 6.1

RESERVOIR-SCALE VELOCITY MODELING . . . . . . . . . . 118 . . . . . . . . . . volume . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118 119 121 124 126

6.2

Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.1.1 Calculate average velocity for seismic horizons . . 6.1.2 Compute the average velocity from the impedance 6.1.3 Calculating the velocity-correction factor . . . . . Chapter conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Chapter 7 7.1 7.2

GEOSTATISTICAL INTEGRATION AND RESERVOIR MODEL BUILDING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127

Geostatistical methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129 Structural model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132 v

7.3

7.4 7.5

7.2.1 Top of the reservoir (Marly) . . . . . . . . . . . 7.2.2 Top Vuggy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.2.3 Bottom of the reservoir (Frobisher) . . . . . . . Property modeling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.3.1 Pseudo-geostatistical cascaded inversion (PGCI) 7.3.2 Reservoir porosity model . . . . . . . . . . . . . Injection pattern CO2 volumetrics . . . . . . . . . . . . Chapter conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

135 139 141 142 143 149 156 166

Chapter 8 8.1 8.2

CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORK . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168

Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169 Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169

APPENDIX A LIST OF SU PROGRAMS DEVELOPED BY THE AUTHOR DURING RESEARCH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175

vi

LIST OF FIGURES

1 1.1 1.2 1.3

Integrated reservoir modeling workow. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Location of the Weyburn eld. Modied from Brown (2002) and Churcher and Edmunds (1994). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Production history of the Weyburn Field (from EnCana). . . . . . . . RCP study area at the Weyburn eld. Modied from Brown (2002). Blue are horizontal injectors, red - horizontal producers, green - horizontal/vertical producers responded to CO2 , blue dots - water injectors and white dots are vertical producers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Stratigraphic column of the study area and representative logs (porosity and impedance) from two wells in the area. Modied from Brown (2002). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Blue horizontal lines represent injectors, red lines - horizontal producers (responded to CO2 are marked by the black crosses) purple dots are vertical wells. Two circled vertical wells also responded to CO2 treatment. Black rectangle shows seismic survey outline. W stands for Western injector pattern, 3.7 is the cumulative injected CO2 by 2002 in BCF, and 11 >13 represents wellhead pressure buildup from 2000 to 2002 in MPa. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2 7 8

1.4

10

1.5

13

1.6 1.7

Example of the response to CO2 treatment in one of the horizontal producing wells. Notice the drop in water rates and increase in oil rates. 14 Wells (black dots) with porosity and permeability logs available within RCP survey area denoted by red square. Blue squares mark well locations with density and sonic logs used for well-to-seismic ties. . . . . . P- and S-wave (fast, S11 component) data and spectra (S-waved dashed) comparison. S-wave section was vertically scaled for direct comparison with the P-wave section. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Impedance log from well 11071364 with seismic data overlay at the same point (inline 65, xline 79). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii

16

1.8

17 18

1.9

2.1 2.2

Synthetic time-lapse data simulating CO2 injection. Dashed line indicates a drop in impedance due to the CO2 eect. . . . . . . . . . . . Dierence between monitor and baseline surveys on noise contaminated data (S/N=2 prestack equivalent). Upper horizon is Mississippian and the lower is Frobisher. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Synthetic data with dierent level of random noise added. . . . . . . Frequency decomposition. From Galikeev (2001). . . . . . . . . . . . Seismic (amplitude) representation of the channel. Courtesy of Texaco. From Galikeev (2001). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The younger part of the channel has crisper boundaries and shows up at 30 Hz. Courtesy of Texaco. From Galikeev (2001). . . . . . . . . . Probably an older part of the channel, characterized by wider paleofans, which shows up at 46 Hz. Courtesy of Texaco. From Galikeev (2001). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Stratal-slicing performed between top and bottom allows one to remove the inuence of structure from the analysis window. Middle horizon is shown for reference and represents the location of the reservoir. . . . Frequency decomposition on synthetic data with various noise content. All slices shown are at 25 Hz. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

22

23 25 28 30 30

2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7

31

2.8

33 35 37 40 42 43 44

2.9

2.10 Threshold analysis of the 25 Hz spectral component. Vertical lines outline the regions. CO2 related anomaly is successfully delineated. . 2.11 Noiseless synthetic data (top) and PVC analysis results (bottom). From Galikeev (2001). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.12 Synthetic data contaminated by noise (top), S/N=5, and classication results (bottom). From Galikeev (2001). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.13 Synthetic data contaminated by noise (top), S/N=2, and classication results (bottom). From Galikeev (2001). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.14 Channel classication, using the inner product as a likeliness criterion, 13 classes. Data courtesy of Texaco. From Galikeev (2001). . . .

viii

2.15 PVC applied to synthetic data with equivalent prestack noise level of S/N=2. 100 ms window was centered around Frobisher pick. Five classes are shown by color and seismic representation. . . . . . . . . . 2.16 PVC applied to less noisy data: S/N=5 (left) and S/N=10 (right). Note, that the key feature is evident in both gures even though they are classied under dierent noise conditions and were assigned to different classes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.17 Trace patterns utilized in susemb3d program. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.18 Window length test of susemb3d algorithm. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.19 Pattern test of susemb3d algorithm. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.20 3-D semblance algorithm applied to noisy data: S/N=5 (left) and S/N=2 (right). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1 Average amplitude spectrum computed over the time window 900-1400 ms and trace gate ILN 10-113 and XLN 10-126: 2000 (solid black), 2001 (dotted red) and 2002 (dashed blue). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Wavelets extracted from all three surveys: 2000 (solid black), 2001 (dotted red) and 2002 (dashed blue). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Strong seismic events above the reservoir used for time-dierence analysis. Last unmarked horizon is the Frobisher - not used for analysis. . Time-dierence between time-lapse datasets at the same horizons. Rectangle outlines usable seismic data. Histogram shows distribution of the time dierence between -6 and +6 ms. Regions with samples where time dierence is over 2 ms in magnitude are shown in bold. . . . . . Time-dierence between time-lapse datasets at the same horizons. Rectangle outlines usable seismic data. Histogram shows distribution of the time dierence between -6 and +6 ms. Regions with samples where time dierence is over 2 ms in magnitude are shown in bold. . . . . . Similarity of time-lapse datasets using dierent criteria. Key horizons are shown for reference, from top to bottom LShaunavon, LGravelbrg, UWatrous, Miss, Frobisher. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

46

47 48 50 52 53

57 57 58

3.2 3.3 3.4

60

3.5

61

3.6

63

ix

3.7

Seismic amplitude distribution. Vertical gate spans from Lower Shaunavon to Mississippian, trace gate includes all traces in the survey. Histograms exclude hard zero from analysis. 2000 (solid black), 2001 (dotted red) and 2002 (dashed blue). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Distribution of 2002 amplitude data from Lower Shaunavon to Mississippian. Red line shows corresponding normal distribution. Upper and lower parts are pdf and cdf respectively. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Amplitude distribution before and after histogram-based scaling. . . .

64

3.8

66 67

3.9

3.10 Test of shaping lter length: 10 (solid black), 20 (dotted red), 30 (dashed blue) and 50 (dashed green). Filter was computed at inline 75 and xline 68. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.11 Shaping lters computed on original and tapered (otherwise identical) waveforms. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

69 70

3.12 Similarity of cross-equalized (baseline is the reference) time-lapse datasets using dierent criteria. Key horizons are shown for reference, from top to bottom LShaunavon, LGravelbrg, UWatrous, Miss, Frobisher. . . . 72 3.13 Wavelet shaping between the monitor and baseline surveys. . . . . . 73

3.14 Wavelets extracted from all three surveys: 2000 (solid black), 2001 (dotted red) and 2002 (dashed blue). Both monitor surveys had waveletbased cross-equalization applied. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.15 Similarity of wavelet-based cross-equalization (baseline is the reference) of time-lapse datasets using dierent criteria. Key horizons are shown for reference, from top to bottom LShaunavon, LGravelbrg, UWatrous, Miss, Frobisher. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1 Coherent seismic events in the vicinity of the reservoir on the dierenced sections. Key horizons are shown for reference, from top to bottom LShaunavon, LGravelbrg, UWatrous, Miss, Frobisher. . . . . Analysis windows on the dierenced dataset DIFF2000 2002 . Specications are shown in Table 4.1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2000 Window WI for DIFF2000 2001 (left) and DIFF2002 (right). 19 Hz slice. Red are the horizontal CO2 injectors and blue dots are the water injectors. Colorbar reects time-lapse spectral component dierence. . . . . . .

74

75

79 80

4.2 4.3

80

4.4

2000 Window WII for DIFF2000 2001 (left) and DIFF2002 (right). 19 Hz slice. Red are the CO2 horizontal injectors and blue squares are the vertical water injectors. Colorbar reects time-lapse spectral component dierence. . 2000 Window WIII for DIFF2000 2001 (left) and DIFF2002 (right). 19 Hz slice. Red are the CO2 horizontal injectors and blue squares are the vertical water injectors. Colorbar reects time-lapse spectral component dierence. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2000 Window WIV for DIFF2000 2001 (left) and DIFF2002 (right). 19 Hz slice. Red are the CO2 horizontal injectors and blue squares are the vertical water injectors. Colorbar reects time-lapse spectral component dierence. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2000 Analysis window WIV at 9Hz. DIFF2000 2001 (left) and DIFF2002 (right). Red are the CO2 horizontal injectors and blue squares are the vertical water injectors. Colorbar reects time-lapse spectral component dierence. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2000 Final frequency decomposition analysis. DIFF2000 2001 (left) and DIFF2002 (right). 19 Hz slice. 100ms window centered around Frobisher. Red are the CO2 horizontal injectors and blue squares are the vertical water injectors. Colorbar reects time-lapse spectral component dierence. .

81

4.5

82

4.6

83

4.7

85

4.8

86

4.9

Final frequency decomposition analysis of DIFF2001 2002 . 26 Hz slice. 100ms window centered around Frobisher. CO2 response wells are shown in green. Colorbar reects time-lapse spectral component dierence. . .

87

4.10 Lateral location of the geobodies relates to horizontal CO2 injectors. 2000 DIFF2000 2001 (left) DIFF2002 (right). Color shows vertical location of the anomalies. Black rectangle outlines seismic data area. Blue rectangle outlines usable seismic data. Black squares indicate location of vertical water injectors. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.11 20 Hz VFD anomalies in 3-D view. Upper row shows DIFF2000 2001 (left) and DIFF2000 (right) from above. Lower row shows the same anomalies 2002 from below. Blue vertical lines are the vertical water injectors. . . . . 4.12 3-D semblance time-lapse attribute for 2000-2001 (left) and 2000-2002 (right). Black rectangle outlines seismic data area. Blue horizontal wells are injectors. Green horizontal lines and squares show locations of CO2 -responded wells. Blue squares indicate location of vertical water injectors. Horizontal wells shown in red were unresponsive to CO2 . . . xi

89

90

92

4.13 3-D semblance time-lapse attribute for 2001-2002 (left) and all anomalies compounded (right). Legend is the same as in Figure 4.12. . . . . 4.14 Results of PVC applied to the dierenced seismic data (DIFF2000 2001 (left) 2000 and DIFF2002 (right)). Upper row is the result of classication and the lower row shows computed weight matrix and color class assignment. 4.15 Results of PVC applied to the inversion of the dierence (DIFF2000 2001 (left) and DIFF2000 (right)). Upper row is the result of classication 2002 and the lower row shows computed weight matrix and color class assignment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 Well porosity to impedance correlation at Weyburn. . . . . . . . . . . P-wave impedance response to uid substitution in the reservoir (L. Brown, 2002). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

92

94

95 98 99

Wavelets used for inversion: 2000 (solid black), 2001 (dotted red) and 2002 (dashed blue). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101 Well-to-seismic tie: quality of seismic to well correlations is very high. 102 Inversion QC: S/N and correlation between synthetics and seismic. . . 103 Inversion QC: residuals representing dierence between seismic and synthetics (top). ILN64 baseline (2000) survey (bottom). Shown on the same amplitude and trace scale. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104 Inversion QC: overlay of well AI with inverted AI. CC=0.78 for well 11071364 and CC=0.80 for well 21131863. Rectangle delineates reservoir range. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105 Time alignment of baseline and monitor surveys with and without wavelet-based cross-equalization applied. Trace (1) - baseline survey, (2) - monitor survey (original) and (3) - monitor survey (crossequalization applied). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107 Inversion comparison at ILN 94. Dierence of inversions is above and inversion of the dierence is below. Horizons shown for reference (from top to bottom): LShaunavon, LGravelbrg, UWatrous, Mississippian and Frobisher. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109

5.7

5.8

5.9

5.10 Histogram analysis for two inversion workows. Zoom of the histogram is shown in the lower plot. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111 xii

5.11 Inversion comparison at ILN 94. Sections are scaled using the m 2 criterion. Dierence of inversions is above and inversion of the dierence is below. Horizons shown for reference (from top to bottom): LShaunavon, LGravelbrg, UWatrous, Mississippian and Frobisher. . . 113 5.12 Time-lapse inversion change at injector patterns (ILN 94 - left pair and ILN 36 - right pair). Sections are scaled using m 2 criterion. Horizons shown for reference are: Mississippian (top) and Frobisher (bottom). Elliptical regions indicate time-lapse sags. . . . . . . . . 114 5.13 Position of time-lapse impedance anomalies (2001 - top and 2002 bottom) in depth relative to CO2 injectors (black) and vertical water injectors (blue). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 Velocity modeling workow. Integration of multidimensional data. . . 119 Well locations with available well top picks (left). Correlation coecient between seismic time picks and depth values (right). . . . . . . . 120 Final Marly horizon in depth overlaid with well top picks in depth. . 121 Comparison analysis for original (sonic log) and computed (derived Gardners coecients) Vint . Rectangle (top) denotes reservoir range. Bottom plots show correlation coecients computed for full data range (left) and reservoir only (right). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
TD AI Error between Vave and Vave for Midale evaporates horizon.

6.5 6.6 7.1

. . . . . 125

Depth impedance section at inline 62 shown with depth horizons: Mississippian, Midale Evaporites, Marly and Frobisher. . . . . . . . . . . 125 Correlation coecient between time (x axis) and depth (TVDSS, y axis) is -0.94 for top of Marly unit. Seismic pick is a Marly pick on a baseline (2000) volume. Correlation analysis performed within usable seismic area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133 Relative position of well top picks (Marly), model boundaries (larger, black rectangle) and usable seismic data area (smaller rectangle). . 134 Results of Marly seismic times kriging: simple kriging (left) and ordinary kriging (right). Note that ordinary kriging has better extrapolating ability at the edge of the survey. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136 Variogram analysis of Marly seismic times. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136 xiii

7.2 7.3

7.4

7.5 7.6

Crossplot of Marly well top depths and Marly seismic times. Linear regression equation: time = 0.665 T V DSS + 610.998 . . . . . . . 137 Shaded area within the red polygon represents the region without anomalous seismic times. This regions was used in cokriging of depth points with seismic times. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138 After rekriging: crossplot of Marly well top depths and Marly seismic times. Linear regression equation: time = 0.666 T V DSS + 610.81 139

7.7 7.8

Top Vuggy dierence between actual seismic times and computed from depth using linear regression equation before (left) and after (right) rekriging. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140 Top Vuggy dierence between actual seismic times and computed from depth using linear regression equation before (left) and after (right) rekriging. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141

7.9

7.10 Final structural model of the reservoir. Layers 1-36 is Vuggy unit and layers 37-48 is Marly formation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141 7.11 Wells with porosity logs within the reservoir model boundaries. . . . . 142 7.12 Porosity histogram (left) and inverted seismic impedance (right) within the reservoir. Inverted impedance model can not resolve Marly and Vuggy units. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143 7.13 Frequency components of the geostatistical inversion. . . . . . . . . . 144 7.14 Wells with impedance logs within survey boundaries. Well 11071364 (circled) was used for cross-validation purposes. . . . . . . . . . . . . 146 7.15 Well impedance values distribution within the whole reservoir (left), Marly (middle) and Vuggy unit (right). Smooth gray line represents normal distribution curve. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147 7.16 Well 11071364 (blind): overlay of original high frequency impedance component and the simulated one. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148 7.17 Seismically inverted impedance (left), simulated high frequency impedance component (middle) and nal PGCI impedance model (right). Shown with corresponding histogram distributions. Section corresponds to inline 48. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149 xiv

7.18 Modeled variogram for porosity and reservoir porosity model shown at inline 48. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150 7.19 Cross-validation correlation coecients. The size of the sphere is proportional to the correlation coecient. Black squares represent wells used in the PGCI process. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151 7.20 Porosity cross-validation: scattergrams (crossplots) of actual versus estimated porosity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154 7.21 Porosity cross-validation: histograms of the residual between actual and estimated porosity (from top to bottom: reservoir, Marly, Vuggy). Red line represents the corresponding normal distribution. . . . . . . 155 7.22 Picked maximum impedance anomaly and its smooth version. . . . . 157 7.23 Time window for extracted slab of time-lapse variation impedance data.157 7.24 CO2 saturation map computed from time-lapse (2000-2002 inversion of the dierence) impedance values. Shown are: responded to CO2 injection wells (white), horizontal injectors (black), unresponded to CO2 wells (blue) and vertical water injectors (yellow). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158 7.25 Typical shape of z -factor as a function of pressure at constant temperature. Reproduced from McCain (1990). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161 7.26 Substances critical temperature and pressure. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161 7.27 Generalized compressibility chart. Reproduced from (see footnote 1). z -factor for Weyburn is 0.44. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162 7.28 CO2 regions delineated by using seismic attribute maps and engineering data. Responded wells are shown in green, red are wells not responded to CO2 and blue are the injectors. Southern and Eastern injector patterns were merged into the same region and the Western injector was kept separate. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164

xv

LIST OF TABLES

1.1 1.2 2.1 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 4.1 5.1 5.2 5.3 6.1 7.1 7.2 7.3

Key reservoir parameters. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fluid and wellhead pressure data for horizontal injector wells through the course of the RCPs time-lapse experiment. . . . . . . . . . . . . Noise added to synthetic datasets. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Time dierence analysis at key horizons above the reservoir. Total number of points is within the usable seismic data region. . . . . . Amplitude statistics for Weyburn datasets. Vertical gate is from Lower Shaunavon to Mississippian. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Amplitude corrections computed from histogram scaling. . . . . . . . Trace description for wavelet shaping (Figure 3.13). . . . . . . . . . . Cross-correlation analysis of wavelets before and after cross-equalization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Temporal analysis windows. Also shown in Figure 4.2. . . . . . . . .

12 15 24 59 65 67 73 74 78

Conventional inversion parameters. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101 Inversion of the dierence parameters. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107 Statistical description of dierence value distribution for inversion workow comparison. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110 Calculated Gardners coecients for wells 11071364 and 21131863. . . 122 Well 11071364 (blind): crosscorrelation coecients between original high frequency impedance component and the simulated one. . . . . . 148 Porosity cross-validation: correlation coecients. . . . . . . . . . . . . 152 Engineering reservoir properties used for volumetrics computation. . . 159 xvi

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to thank Ken Larner, Rutt and Barbara Bridges for making it possible for me to come to Colorado School of Mines for the rst time in 1993. Tom Davis was instrumental in assisting me through the rigors of the MSc and PhD programs. I feel privileged to have worked and interacted with my committee members: Luis Tenorio, Tim Berge, Bob Benson and Terry Young. Kadri Dagdelen provided valuable advice in the area of geostatistics. This thesis will not be complete without thorough review and in-depth analysis, advice and support from Ilya Tsvankin. I appreciate the support from RCP researchers Rodrigo Fuck, Marty Terrell and.nal Pendrigh. Help from graduate students Chris Green (PE), Hiro Yamamoto (PE) and Ronny Hofmann (GP) in volumetrics computation is greatly valued. But most of all I would like to thank my advisor, Tom Davis, who funded and supported me and provided valuable guidance without limiting my freedom in research. I am grateful to the Reservoir Characterization Project and their sponsors for funding this work.

xvii

INTRODUCTION

Enhanced oil recovery through CO2 injection is a commercially proven technology that typically allows additional recovery of 10-15% of the OOIP. Time-lapse seismic data provide a valuable insight into the dynamics of a reservoir, which otherwise would not be possible by analyzing conventional, one-time seismic data. Analysis of seismic data acquired over the same area, but at dierent periods in time helps to monitor uid front movement, assists in detecting changes in rock properties caused by CO2 injection, allows optimization of the eld production, and, therefore, can improve the bottom line. Petroleum geophysics mostly deals with two distinctly dierent data types: seismic data in time (remote sensing method), characterized by high lateral resolution and low vertical resolution; and well log data (direct rock property measurements) having high vertical resolution due to local sampling but with very low spatial resolution. These two types of data, when closely examined, could have patterns of dependence relating one to another. The objective of geostatistics is to estimate the values of one property (for example, porosity ) within the cell-based structural model of the reservoir when the outcome of the second property is known (for example, seismic impedance). A streamlined workow of an integrated reservoir model developed in the thesis for mature elds is shown in Figure 1. The ow was successfully tested on data from the Weyburn eld. High quality P-wave time-lapse seismic data were available over the study area of the Weyburn eld. This enabled the use of seismic data in constructing the detailed

Seismic attributes
Frequency decomposition 3D semblance Waveform classification Seismic inversion

Wells
Logs Fm markers Cores

Reservoir model (geostatistics) Velocity model

Time Depth Structural modeling Property modeling , , lithology

Figure 1. Integrated reservoir modeling workow.

3D cell-based model and mapping the dynamic component of the reservoir using calculated seismic attributes and acoustic inversion on time-lapse volumes. Reliable acoustic impedance results and the correlation properties of impedance to porosity were used to create a porosity distribution within the structural 3D cell-based model. There are several issues associated with integrating seismic and well data: 1. Building a geologically accurate structural model of the reservoir honoring local stratigraphy; 2. constructing a reliable velocity eld, which helps to map seismic data to the depth with condence and, therefore, assists in nding dependable correlations between seismic data and physical rock properties from well data; 3. populating the structural model with rock properties;

4. reconciling resolution dierences between seismic and well data. One of the important issues in building an integrated reservoir model is the construction of a reliable detailed velocity model for the time-depth conversion. Seismic data, calculated attributes and impedance volumes reside in the time domain whereas rock property measurements are in the depth and at well locations. Most velocityrelated research described in the literature deals with pre-stack velocity analysis for migration purposes (Fomel, 2003; Sarkar & Tsvankin, 2003) and velocity-rock properties relationships obtained in the laboratory (Sengupta & Mavko, 2003; Prasad, 2003). In this work I introduce an innovative workow (expanded in chapter 6) for building the reservoir-scale velocity model through integration of well logs, and picked seismic horizons in time and corresponding well tops in depth with a calculated acoustic impedance volume (Galikeev & Meng, 2002). A reliable velocity eld also aids in determining correlational relationships between seismic attributes in time and rock properties in depth. An accurate time-to-depth dependence should be found before seismic attributes can be used as a guide for rock property distribution within the reservoir model. The reservoir model is then geostatistically populated with rock properties, once the relationship between seismic data and rock properties is established. Another outstanding issue with thin carbonate reservoirs (Weyburn included) is the limitation of the resolution of seismic P-wave data. Seismically, two-way time thickness of the reservoir at Weyburn is around 25 ms and represents only a half of the period of the P-wave seismic wavelet. Unfortunately, a conventional (not geostatistical) inversion technique does not increase the high end frequency content of the output impedance model and only adds the low frequency components missing

in the seismic data using the ltered well logs. A number of articles describe inversion of the conventional (within seismic resolution) reservoirs (Madiba & McMechan, 2003) and various stochastic inversion techniques (Torres-Verdin et al., 1999). In the case of a thin reservoir, the conventional inversion approach is able to estimate only average (eective) properties of the unit and fails to resolve smaller reservoir features, which are important if the impedance volume is to be used to geostatistically populate the model with rock properties. Stochastic inversion techniques have the benet of producing very high frequency impedance solutions, but they are hard to verify away from the well locations. I am proposing the use of the Pseudo-Geostatistical Cascaded Inversion, hereafter referred to as PGCI, to increase the resolution of the impedance volume. PGCI is a two step inversion algorithm. First, the conventional acoustic inversion is performed on the seismic data. The result is the P-impedance volume with the frequency content up to the frequencies present in the seismic data: low frequency impedance component comes from the ltered well logs and the medium frequency component is added by inverting the seismic data. To increase the resolution of the nal impedance volume, I incorporate the high frequency impedance component from the well logs. This is done by geostatistically distributing the high frequency residual, which is calculated between the seismically inverted result and impedance logs from the wells. This process is coupled with the blind well test analysis to ensure reliable results. PGCI algorithm benets from relying on conventional seismic inversion solution and only adds a high frequency component beyond seismic frequencies. Integration of seismic data with available well data, rock physics analysis and petroleum engineering data helps to reduce the risk and increase the reliability of the nal model of the reservoir (Brown et al., 2002; Parr et al., 2000; Huang et al., 2001).

Seismic attributes are often used in reservoir characterization studies and prove to be important qualitative and quantitative predictors of reservoir properties and geometries when correctly used (Chambers et al., 2002). Comparing the calculated seismic attributes on consistent time-lapse measurements can reveal dynamic changes in uid distribution. As a part of my research, I have developed, coded and applied reservoir-based seismic attributes (section 2) to time-lapse P-wave data. One of the developed attributes, volume frequency decomposition, is a variation of spectral decomposition (described in Partyka et al. (1999); Peyton et al. (1998)). Volume frequency decomposition helped to reveal that the Western injector has a massive two-level anomaly and oered an explanation for the lack of response in neighboring producers to CO2 operations at Weyburn. Reservoir-based seismic attributes can help delineate anomalous areas of the reservoir, where changes from time-lapse data are evident. Anomalous data areas, in a time-lapse sense, are indicative of reservoir condition changes due to the CO2 injection. The advantage of the reservoir-based seismic attributes over the instantaneous ones is that the computation of the attribute is performed over the short time window along the stratigraphy representing the reservoir and reects the cumulative changes within the reservoir. Instantaneous attributes are applied on a sample-by-sample basis. Seismic attributes computed on Weyburn Field P-wave time-lapse data showed a very good correlation to the engineering data and were geostatistically incorporated into the reservoir model (see section 7.3 for details). Several novel aspects of this dissertation include: the development of a coherent methodology of P-wave time-lapse seismic data analysis acquired over mature elds with a thin reservoir;

the development of a new volume frequency decomposition approach; the construction of an integrated reservoir-scale velocity model building for reliable geostatistical integration of seismic attributes calculated in time into the reservoir modeling workow performed in the depth domain; the development of a new method of Pseudo-Geostatistical Cascaded Inversion (PGCI), which combines conventional seismic inversion technique, highfrequency impedance log residuals from wells and stochastic methods to create impedance model matching logs in resolution.

Chapter 1

GEOLOGICAL AND GEOPHYSICAL DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY AREA

Weyburn Field is located in the northeastern rim of the Williston Basin, approximately 130 km southeast of Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada in townships 5 to 7 and ranges 12 to 14 W2M (Figure 1.1). The eld occupies approximately 180 km2 and had over 1.12 billion barrels of oil in place (Churcher & Edmunds, 1994).

Figure 1.1. Location of the Weyburn eld. Modied from Brown (2002) and Churcher and Edmunds (1994).

Weyburn Field is in its tertiary oil recovery stage. The eld was discovered in 1954 and was produced by primary depletion until the waterood was started in

1964. From 1985 to 1992 the eld went through an inll drilling stage, which helped to reduce decline in production rate. In 1993 PanCanadian started to implement horizontal well inll drilling. To prevent further decline in oil production EnCana started a CO2 ooding program in 2000. Figure 1.2 shows past and anticipated production of the eld.

Figure 1.2. Production history of the Weyburn Field (from EnCana).

About 650 production and water injection wells are operated by EnCana Resources (formerly PanCanadian Resources). During its lifetime, this oil eld has produced some 300 million barrels of oil from primary and waterood production. But, having produced in excess of 25% of its estimated recoverable reserves, in the last few years the eld began to decline. In 2000, with a $20.5 million cooperative agreement with the Canadian Federal Government and the Saskatchewan Provincial Government, EnCana began enhanced oil recovery (EOR) eorts using CO2 to extend the life of the Weyburn eld by more than 25 years, anticipating the extraction of 130 million or more barrels of oil from the depleted eld (Fitzpatrick, 2002)1 .
1

www.netl.doe.gov/coalpower/sequestration/pubs/mediarelease/mr-101102.pdf

The Reservoir Characterization Project performed the multicomponent time lapse study on a small part of the Weyburn eld subject to the commercial CO2 ood (Figure 1.3).

Figure 1.3. RCP study area at the Weyburn eld. Modied from Brown (2002). Blue are horizontal injectors, red - horizontal producers, green - horizontal/vertical producers responded to CO2 , blue dots - water injectors and white dots are vertical producers.

The study area covers four injection patterns along with multiple horizontal and vertical producers. 1.1 Reservoir geology and production history The reservoir is composed of carbonates (Churcher & Edmunds, 1994) and is producing medium gravity crude oil (with API gravity ranging from 22 to 35). Reservoir

10

rocks were deposited on a shallow carbonate shelf in the Williston Basin. The stratigraphic column of the reservoir and neighboring formations is shown in Figure 1.4.

Figure 1.4. Stratigraphic column of the study area and representative logs (porosity and impedance) from two wells in the area. Modied from Brown (2002).

The reservoir is divided into two parts: an upper Marly zone (higher porosity, lower impedance values) and the lower Vuggy zone (lower porosity and higher impedance) (Figure 1.4). A detailed description of the reservoir includes those of seals (top and bottom) and the collector itself: Top reservoir seal - Midale Evaporite The Midale Evaporite (Churcher & Edmunds, 1994) is composed of massive and bedded anhydrite. Thickness of this formation ranges from 4 to 7 meters and has no reservoir quality rock. The Midale Evaporite is laterally continuous throughout the Weyburn area and acts as a seal for the reservoir. Porosity and impedance logs show that the unit is characterized by low and high impedance values.

11

Upper reservoir - Midale Marly The Midale Marly is dolomite and is subdivided into two zones. The upper zone, 1.5 to 3 meters in thickness, is a non-reservoir zone, but occasional lightly oil stained dolomite beds are present. The lower zone, called the Marly porosity zone, varies in thickness from 1 to 11 meters and forms the main reservoir unit in the area. Lithologically, the Marly porosity zone consists primarily of dolostones. This zone is typically moderately to heavily oil stained. The degree depends on permeability and porosity of the reservoir rock. Figure 1.4 illustrates a typical response to the Marly unit by high porosity log values and relatively low impedance values. Marly total net porosity ranges from 16 to 38%, but averages 24% unit-wide. Average permeability is 11.5 md. Lower reservoir - Midale Vuggy The Midale Vuggy zone is composed almost entirely of limestone. Total thickness of the unit varies from 10 to 22 meters. The name of this reservoir unit is derived from the type of porosity, which is present in the unit. The vuggy porosity could be found in the coarser grained rock, but the dominant porosity type is intercrystalline. Within the unit, the porosity distribution was modied in some areas by the deposition of anhydrite cements. Vuggy net pay ranges from 0.1 to 18.6 meters, with an average of 6.0 meters. Both the Marly and the Vuggy zones are fractured, but the Marly zone may have lower fracture density than the Vuggy.

12

Porosity and permeability Marly dolostones and dolomitic total: 0.1-9.8 m range : 16 to 38% limestones average: 4.3 m ave : 24% Kair : 1 to over 100 md Kave : 11.5 md Vuggy limestone total: 0.1 to 18.6 m range : 8 to 20% average: 6.0 m ave : 11.2% Kair : 0.3 to over 500 md Kave : 14.4 md Table 1.1. Key reservoir parameters. Bottom reservoir seal - Frobisher Evaporite The Frobisher Evaporite is similar to the Midale Evaporite and is composed of massive and nodular and bedded anhydrite. It is not present everywhere in the area. A recent map of the Frobisher Evaporite from the operator, EnCana Corporation, shows that it is present only in the northern part of the RCP experiment area. Where the Frobisher Evaporite is not present the bottom seal still exists due to exposure of the surface before the Vuggy deposition cycle. This thin zone has been identied as a caliche or exposure surface. Table 1.1 summarizes key parameters of the reservoir.

Zone

Lithology

Net pay

1.2

Data availability and seismic reservoir signature Production at Weyburn Field started about 50 years ago and the RCP time-

lapse multicomponent experiment area has around 30 vertical wells with various logs within the reservoir. Besides that, three nine-component time-lapse volumes: baseline

13

pre-CO2 2000, monitor 2001 and 2002 are available. P-wave data has overall better quality and frequency content than the S-wave data, so this dissertation concentrates on time-lapse P-wave data analysis. EnCana regularly provided RCP with an updated OFM (Schlumbergers Oil Field Manager) database, which tracks engineering history for every well along with uid production rates. Figure 1.5 shows well data availability within the RCP experiment area.

Figure 1.5. Blue horizontal lines represent injectors, red lines - horizontal producers (responded to CO2 are marked by the black crosses) purple dots are vertical wells. Two circled vertical wells also responded to CO2 treatment. Black rectangle shows seismic survey outline. W stands for Western injector pattern, 3.7 is the cumulative injected CO2 by 2002 in BCF, and 11 >13 represents wellhead pressure buildup from 2000 to 2002 in MPa.

14

1.2.1

Engineering data

Schlumbergers OFM helps to track performance of the eld and has tools such as an active base-map, plots, reports and decline curve analysis. For example, Figure 1.6 illustrates response to the CO2 injection in one of the horizontal producing wells. By analyzing such graphs, responding wells were picked and marked on Figure 1.5.

Figure 1.6. Example of the response to CO2 treatment in one of the horizontal producing wells. Notice the drop in water rates and increase in oil rates.

Several engineering parameters and observations are quite interesting to draw attention to. Table 1.2 lists some of the cumulative characteristics for all four injection patterns. Notice that the Northern injector had a very high injection pressure and low injectivity rates from the very beginning and there is no response in the neighboring production wells (Figure 1.5). The same is true for the Western injector: no response in the neighboring production wells, relatively high initial pressure, but very good

15

Northern Western Wellhead Pressure (MPa) 2000 2002 Injected CO2 (Bcf) 2001 2002 13 13 0.5 0.9 11 13 1.8 3.7

Southern Eastern 6 13 2.4 4.2 6 13 1.4 3.2

Table 1.2. Fluid and wellhead pressure data for horizontal injector wells through the course of the RCPs time-lapse experiment.

injectivity rates, comparable to the Southern and Eastern injection patterns. As a matter of fact, Southern and Eastern injection patterns are the ones which behave according to the program scenario: gradual build up in injection pressure from 6 to 13 MPa, good injectivity rates and good response from the neighboring wells. Therefore, the most puzzling injector is the Western injector - high injectivity rates, yet no response from the production wells in the vicinity of the injector. Research described in this dissertation explores the anomalous behavior of the Western injector and attempts to explain the dierences between the injection pattern responses to the CO2 treatment. 1.2.2 Well data and seismic reservoir signature

Weyburn eld, as it was mentioned earlier, is a mature eld and even RCPs experiment patch of 6.5 km2 has a regular grid of logged wells (Figure 1.7). Most of the log measurements were taken within the reservoir. Only two wells had an extensive vertical coverage with sonic and density logs, making them usable in the process of seismic to well tie and wavelet extraction during the seismic inversion. RCP acquired three multicomponent surveys over the study area. The baseline

16

Figure 1.7. Wells (black dots) with porosity and permeability logs available within RCP survey area denoted by red square. Blue squares mark well locations with density and sonic logs used for well-to-seismic ties.

survey was shot in the fall of 2000, rst monitor in the fall of 2001 and second monitor survey in the fall of 2002. The P-wave data is characterized by higher frequency content compared to the S-wave data and has better quality overall (higher coherency and less noise), which translates into less data uncertainty - this is especially important in analyzing time-lapse data (Figure 1.8), where dierential anomalies should be attributed to the time-lapse related dynamic changes in the reservoir. The author performed analysis described in this dissertation using the time-lapse P-wave data volumes only. Median two-way time thickness of the reservoir throughout the study area is around 13 ms, which represents only a half of a wavelength. Figure 1.9 illustrates how thin, in a seismic sense, the reservoir is and shows the reservoir range and neighboring major horizons along with the well impedance log. Seismic data were rescaled to

17

5 Log10(amp.spectrum)

20

40 Hz

60

80

100

Figure 1.8. P- and S-wave (fast, S11 component) data and spectra (S-waved dashed) comparison. S-wave section was vertically scaled for direct comparison with the Pwave section.

18

t the impedance values, relative amplitudes are preserved. One can agree that nding relationships between seismically derived properties and correlating them to reservoir rock properties should be an interesting task. Using the static seismic data only in the case of thin reservoirs most likely will not help in resolving reservoir heterogeneities, but the time-lapse (4-D) approach eectively reduces unknowns in the anomaly detection process.

Figure 1.9. Impedance log from well 11071364 with seismic data overlay at the same point (inline 65, xline 79).

19

The main challenges and advantages of the Weyburn eld are: the reservoir is represented only by a half of the seismic wavelength; the reservoir is subdivided into two distinctively dierent parts (Marly and Vuggy), which is reected in its well log signature; the quality of the processed P-wave data is very good and analysis of the data indicates good repeatability between the surveys; the eld has been producing for half a century and the RCP patch has enough wells to calculate reliable geostatistical correlations between the seismic and well data.

20

Chapter 2

SEISMIC ATTRIBUTES

Seismic attributes have been used in the industry since the 1970s and have evolved from simple instantaneous attributes (Taner et al., 1979) performed on a sample-by-sample basis to a more sophisticated multidimensional attributes, for example, coherency and waveform classication (Marfurt et al., 1998). Some of the newly developed algorithms for attribute calculations use clever workows incorporating data rearrangements and innovative data visualization to illuminate a specic aspect of the data. That certainly does not diminish their value in the geophysical data analysis applications. I propose the use of three reservoir-based seismic attributes in order to delineate the time-lapse anomalies. Reservoir-based attributes are computed for a range of data specied by the user and usually present the result in a map view representing the cumulative changes within the analysis window, rather than on a sample-bysample basis, which is the case for instantaneous attributes. For example, widely used conventional amplitude dierencing along the horizon in time-lapse seismic represents an instantaneous attribute analysis. In this chapter I study the question of attribute application to a synthetic dataset with a simulated 4-D anomaly, including noise and window analysis and then apply the attributes to the actual Weyburn time-lapse data. Another question addressed in this chapter is how the time-lapse anomaly should be studied - as a dierence of attributes or an attribute of a dierence. The latter

21

approach gives obvious computational advantages, but puts additional requirements on cross-equalization of the data: computing attributes on a dierence of base and monitor volumes requires perfect event alignment and spectrally balanced time-lapse volumes. Ideally, the dierenced cross-equalized time-lapse dataset should only have coherent seismic signatures attributed to the time-lapse anomaly and incoherent random noise. Iterative inverse processes utilizing the principle of perturbing the initial model to t the known seismic data can benet greatly from studying the dierenced time-lapse volumes, rather than the dierence of the results. Seismic inversion, for example, has several parameters, which control the output impedance volume in order to minimize the non-uniqueness of the problem. Running the inversion algorithm on one dierenced volume, representing one time-lapse experiment, will eliminate the doubts of converging to the same impedance volume when calculating two separate inversions, due to the input data and wavelet dierences.

2.1

The M model: synthetic time-lapse dataset with simulated CO2 injection The synthetic dataset using a convolutional model was created to better un-

derstand the attribute and inversion response within a thin carbonate reservoir. A 3-D synthetic volume was generated using an actual impedance volume obtained by acoustic inversion of the Weyburn base survey. A region with a distinct shape, which resembles the letter M, was created within the volume, and impedance values were modied in the Marly and Vuggy reservoir units to reect the CO2 injection. Impedance values within the Marly unit were decreased by 8% and in the Vuggy by 4%, taking into account average porosity values within the units and previous modeling (Brown, 2002). Both of the impedance volumes, the unmodied represent-

22

ing the base survey and the modied simulating the change in impedance properties due to CO2 injection, were convolved with the wavelet extracted during inversion. Figure 2.1 shows the relative impedance change between the synthetic base and the monitor surveys and the shape of the time-lapse anomaly.

Figure 2.1. Synthetic time-lapse data simulating CO2 injection. Dashed line indicates a drop in impedance due to the CO2 eect.

The seismic signature of the anomaly with added noise equivalent to S/N=2

23

(the process is described in the consequent subsection) on prestack data is shown in Figure 2.2. One can observe that the anomaly modeled in the reservoir manifests itself at approximately the Frobisher level on the synthetic data by higher seismic amplitudes on the background of noise.

Figure 2.2. Dierence between monitor and baseline surveys on noise contaminated data (S/N=2 prestack equivalent). Upper horizon is Mississippian and the lower is Frobisher.

2.1.1

Adding noise to synthetic data

Three random noise-contaminated volumes were generated using suaddnoise routine. Added noise had a Gaussian distribution and was produced within seismic frequencies 8-14-64-76 Hz. Due to the nature of the CDP method, random noise after stacking is attenuated by the factor of N (Yilmaz, 1987), where N is the fold of the seismic data. Maximum fold of the P-wave data at Weyburn is 400. For modeling purposes I have considered that my stacked synthetic data had a fold of 300. Table 2.1 and Figure 2.3 show the level of noise on vertical sections of prestack and stacked data. Note that the actual noise level is higher, since the impedance volume

24

S/N ratio unstacked 10 5 2

S/N ratio Fold stacked 173 300 87 300 35 300

F old

17.3 17.3 17.3

Table 2.1. Noise added to synthetic datasets.

used for modeling comes from the inversion of real Weyburn data; thus inherent noise is embedded in the inversion result.

25

900 1000 TWT, ms 1100 1200 1300 1400

synthetics

22

Prestack S/N=10 44

66

noise

pre-stack

post-stack

900 1000 TWT, ms 1100 1200 1300 1400

synthetics

22

Pre-stack S/N=5 44

66

noise

pre-stack

post-stack

900 1000 TWT, ms 1100 1200 1300 1400

synthetics

22

Pre-stack S/N=2 44

66

noise

pre-stack

post-stack

Figure 2.3. Synthetic data with dierent level of random noise added.

26

2.2

Frequency decomposition Frequency decomposition has been successfully used to image stratigraphic fea-

tures such as incised valleys, channels and deltaic deposits when applied to static seismic data (Partyka et al., 1997; Peyton et al., 1998). This section is directly built from research by Galikeev (2001) and I quote it verbatim: In their paper, Partyka & Gridley (1997) explain the main idea of frequency decomposition. For deconvolution, the amplitude spectrum of a large temporal window of seismic data represents the amplitude spectrum of the seismic wavelet, since we assume a random distribution of geology. Random distribution of geology assumes the white frequency spectrum for the geological component and, therefore, the amplitude spectrum of the trace is attributed to the seismic wavelet. For frequency decomposition, on the other hand, we do the opposite by taking a small window of data in which geology is no longer random. Therefore, the amplitude (or phase) spectrum computed for this window carries an overprint of geology. Over such small windows the geology acts as a lter, attenuating the spectrum of the source wavelet, providing insight regarding the geological material sampled by the short temporal window (Partyka & Gridley, 1997). Methodological improvement has been made to this idea by the author and implemented in the program, written under SU. Selection of the analysis window plays a very important role in the algorithm and inuences interpretation and understanding of the output frequency slices. Usually, frequency decomposition is applied to the constant window of data along or relative to the horizon of choice, which can lead to a mix of events in the output from dierent stratigraphic units if the input seismic

27

data has more complexity than a sub-horizontal structure. In my approach to the frequency decomposition, the window is selected along the stratigraphic boundaries and then stratal-sliced to remove the structural component in the analysis window. Another innovative approach is to look at frequency decomposition results in 3-D by applying the volume frequency decomposition. Once the best response frequency to the phenomena under analysis is established, the program allows for the computation the component of that frequency over the whole volume. The following geobody ranking analysis (nding the largest interconnected bodies of the same spectral intensity) allows delineating anomalies in 3-D. Naturally, the volume decomposition approach shown here could be applied to any seismic data. 2.2.1 Theory and algorithm

This subsection, describing theory and algorithm of the frequency decomposition, is reproduced from the authors Master thesis (Galikeev, 2001): Frequency decomposition is an eective tool for delineating stratigraphic features. It can also be applied to time-lapse anomalies since local geology manifests itself through the constructive/destructive interference of spectral components. In this case, analyzing the intensity of a particular frequency component over the survey area may indicate where changes in petrophysical properties (reectivity) occurred. Figure 2.4 illustrates the idea of frequency decomposition. Input data to frequency decomposition have three main components: 1. Thin bed tuning (i.e. geology) 2. A seismic wavelet 3. Random noise

28

Figure 2.4. Frequency decomposition. From Galikeev (2001).

29

We are mainly interested in the thin bed tuning since it characterizes the geology. To remove the seismic wavelet component each frequency slice should be normalized (equivalent to spectral balancing). Since the frequency decomposition is a Fourier transform, it has two components: amplitude and phase. Both can be used for interpretational purposes. The amplitude indicates the thickness variability of a temporal bed and the phase shows its geologic lateral discontinuity. The frequency decomposition algorithm was coded in C and installed under SU. The output from the program consists of a series of amplitude slices at 0.25 Hz intervals. One of the easiest ways to view these slices is using any voxel-based fast visualization tool. A SEG-Y volume can also be created for loading into an interpretation package. Each 2-D amplitude slice represents a frequency component of the entire input zone-of-interest volume, i.e. it is a 2-D picture of a 3-D volume. Features that show up over multiple frequency slices, and those that change from high to low amplitude (as the frequency changes from a peak to a notch in the amplitude spectrum) have the most geological validity. Features that show up on only one or two slices are probably not caused by variations in geology. In general, stratigraphic features are imaged at relatively low frequencies (approximately 10-50 Hz). Figures 2.6 and 2.7 illustrate the frequency decomposition of the incised channel shown in Figure 2.5. Frequency decomposition can also be used to evaluate changes of rock properties in time-lapse 3-D, and is an eective seismic processing QC tool, especially when merging dierent datasets. Frequency decomposition parameters include window size, an input hori-

30

Figure 2.5. Seismic (amplitude) representation of the channel. Courtesy of Texaco. From Galikeev (2001).

Figure 2.6. The younger part of the channel has crisper boundaries and shows up at 30 Hz. Courtesy of Texaco. From Galikeev (2001).

31

Figure 2.7. Probably an older part of the channel, characterized by wider paleofans, which shows up at 46 Hz. Courtesy of Texaco. From Galikeev (2001).

zon and a frequency range. Window size depends on the frequency of the input data and the thickness of the zone of interest. Ideally at least one seismic wavelet should be included within the window, but with low frequency data this becomes a trade-o between the wavelet length and including data from outside of the zone of interest. A good starting point for typical (8-15-50-80 Hz) seismic data is 100 ms, although larger and smaller windows should certainly be tested. Frequency decomposition is calculated over a window of data relative to an input horizon. Since it is a time window based attribute, the horizon should approximately follow the zone of interest, but needs not follow it exactly. It may be benecial to smooth and interpolate the horizon to get the maximum possible areal coverage.

32

2.2.2

Application to synthetic time-lapse data

A synthetic dataset is a convenient way to test the response of calculated attributes in conditions reecting the real data environment. A synthetic time-lapse experiment allows for concentrating on the study of the anomaly itself, since a number of real-life uncertainties are absent: for example, near-surface static variation between the surveys due to the surface condition change from one survey to another. One also does not need to worry about cross-equalization of the surveys. In the frequency decomposition, selection of the analysis window is crucial to the adequate interpretation of results. The frequency decomposition attribute study included the noise test (described above), window length test and also methodology test, which addressed the issue of how to calculate the attribute in the time-lapse sense - as an attribute of the dierence or a dierence of attributes. The latter, obviously, brings computational advantages, but puts higher requirements on cross-equalization when applied to the real eld data. The analysis window was selected along the Frobisher horizon, on the level where the anomaly is most evident. The window itself could be selected by using two dierent approaches. The rst approach resembles the conventional approach and represents a constant window in time, picked relative to the analysis horizon. The second way of the analysis window selection, which I suggest here, gives the user much better control over the data selection and allows for separating the actual lithology change response from the structural component of the selected window. In the case of the rst, conventional approach, if geology is complicated, which manifests itself by the complex mixture of waveforms, the output may contain a superposition of features describing dierent geological events. This may lead to the wrong conclusions in interpretation. Geology of the Weyburn eld is not complex, but the small thickness

33

of the reservoir requires that the analysis window has to be selected only to include the CO2 related anomaly. The second method is based on the idea of stratal-slicing - resampling data along continuous geological boundaries of the known stratigraphic unit for further analysis. The algorithm was coded under SU and is illustrated in Figure 2.8. Input data for the program are the seismic volume and two horizons (top and bottom).

Figure 2.8. Stratal-slicing performed between top and bottom allows one to remove the inuence of structure from the analysis window. Middle horizon is shown for reference and represents the location of the reservoir.

The second approach to window selection described above is superior to the conventional one, but it was originally developed for better selection of data for static (one-time) seismic experiments. Time-lapse experiments have at least two surveys

34

and if the cross-equalization process was applied correctly and illuminated the time lapse anomaly, then one should not worry too much about the window length as long as it includes the time-lapse related anomaly (Figure 2.2). There are several obvious advantages of computing attributes on the dierence volume as opposed to looking at the dierence of attributes: the relative magnitude of the anomaly is much higher than the neighboring events; selecting the analysis window becomes simpler and easier; requires less CPU time; Attribute analysis described here is applied to the dierence of cross-equalized volumes. Noise test. Frequency decomposition was computed on the dierence volume between the base and monitor (simulated CO2 injection) survey. The window was selected as a 50 ms interval around the Frobisher horizon. Frequency decomposition was computed between 0 and 100 Hz, even though the scanning of frequency slices showed that the representative frequencies of the anomaly are between 20 and 30 Hz. Representative frequencies are the ones where the anomaly is most pronounced relative to the background noise. Frequency slices for noiseless and the three noise contaminated volumes are shown in Figure 2.9. The test shows that even in the case of a low signal-to-noise ratio the anomaly could be delineated successfully. Volume frequency decomposition. Next, the volume frequency decomposition was computed, which helps to place the anomaly in 3-D space. This is a

35

Figure 2.9. Frequency decomposition on synthetic data with various noise content. All slices shown are at 25 Hz.

36

methodological variation of the conventional frequency decomposition. Algorithmically, volume frequency decomposition is computed on the volume of data using small sliding temporal windows and only the requested frequency component is generated. In this case I have used the window of 50 ms and the 25 Hz frequency component was computed. The volume frequency decomposition approach, as opposed to the conventional frequency decomposition, does not require each frequency slice to be normalized. Instead, the output spectrum values are normalized to the global maximum. To separate the anomaly response from the background noise, a threshold analysis was performed. The idea behind the threshold analysis is that the high spectral intensity of 25 Hz is attributed to the anomaly caused by the simulated CO2 injection. Note that the analysis frequency for volume decomposition is selected after the conventional frequency decomposition investigation. Figure 2.10 shows the distribution of the 25 Hz spectral component throughout the whole data volume. Based on that histogram, several regions of the spectral intensity were created, namely over 0.4, 0.5, 0.6 and 0.8. These regions are also shown in Figure 2.10. A lower threshold shows a higher amount of 25 Hz spectral component bleeding from the background random noise. Volume frequency decomposition was calculated on the synthetic data with added noise in the equivalent of S/N=5 in the prestack domain.

37

Figure 2.10. Threshold analysis of the 25 Hz spectral component. Vertical lines outline the regions. CO2 related anomaly is successfully delineated.

38

2.3

Principal vector classication (PVC) The idea of the PVC algorithm was originally developed by Kohonen (1997) for

self-organizing feature maps (SOMs). The program was written in C and was added to the Seismic Unix processing package. Explanation of the PVC algorithm and data examples are given below. PVC, as it is implemented in my algorithm, provides an eective tool for fast data clustering based on the waveform classication. 2.3.1 Algorithm

The following is directly quoted from Galikeev (2001): The PVC program consists of two parts: suPVCtrain and suPVCapply. The rst trains weight matrix and the second applies it to the dataset for classication. Training is performed on a subset of the dataset to be classied in order to avoid memorizing of a dataset by weight matrix. Algorithmically, the training part includes four steps: 1. Find winning weight node k based on :
=1 wk x = maxj j =n

wj x

where n is the number of weight vectors. 2. Train the nodes according to:
(wi x), where i is index of weight vectors

wi =

falling into neighborhood; if weight vector is not in the neighborhood;

0,

39

3. Reduce the training rate . 4. Reduce the neighborhood size. The algorithm uses two criteria to nd a winning node - the distance and the inner (dot) product. Results vary slightly, depending on the mode, which is illustrated by examples below. 2.3.2 Examples

The rst (synthetic) example illustrates the intelligence of the algorithm described above in the presence of noise and varying class number and was included to build the interpreters condence. The second (real data) example shows the seismic amplitude signature of a geological feature (incised channel in this case) and its PVC representation. Both of these examples represent static seismic data and were quoted from Galikeev (2001). For more noise tests, please refer to the same source. 2-D synthetic data. A synthetic dataset was constructed using real eld well and seismic data from the RCPs Vacuum 3-D survey. Density and sonic well logs from three dierent wells (hereafter Well 1, 2 & 3) were used to compute three dierent reectivity series. Seismic data from the P-wave post-CO2 survey were used to model a wavelet that was used for convolution with the RC series. The wavelet was modeled as a zero-phase wavelet by averaging the amplitude spectrum over the whole survey in the 0-2000 ms time range. The synthetic dataset in Figure 2.11 has 450 traces: the rst 100 traces are identical and were derived from Well 1, the next three groups of 50 traces were derived from Well 2, and the last 200 traces were derived from

40

100 0

Trace 200 300

400

0.05 Time, s

0.10

0.15

Principal Vector Classification

11 9 Class 7 5 3 1 1 101 201 Trace 301 401

Figure 2.11. Noiseless synthetic data (top) and PVC analysis results (bottom). From Galikeev (2001).

41

Well 3. The rst group of 50 traces of Well 2 is identical to the third 50 traces of Well 2, the middle 50 traces of Well 2 group were generated using slightly modied RC series to reect CO2 injection. The results of the PVC analysis are shown in Figure 2.11. The PVC analysis separated the traces into dierent classes with the rst and third 50-trace groups of Well 2 falling into the same class. The program was asked to use 11 classes, although it found only four distinct classes. The weight matrix was trained on every fourth trace of an input dataset and was then applied to the whole dataset.

PVC in presence of noise. To test the stability of classication in the presence of noise, the original synthetic data were contaminated by Gaussian noise with dierent S/N ratio. Figures 2.12 and 2.13 show the input data and classication results. Once again, every fourth trace was used from input datale and 11 classication classes were requested; a learning rate of = 0.02 was used. One can conclude that PVC is fairly robust in the presence of noise.

Land 3-D data example. Data for this example were extracted from one of Texacos land 3-D surveys and has a uvial incised channel in it. The slab of data used for classication had 456 inlines, 527 xlines and 21 time samples. The seismic representation of the channel is shown in Fig 2.5. The weight matrix was trained by suPVCtrain on every 16th trace of the dataset, which is roughly every fourth inline and xline node. suPVCapply applies the trained weight matrix to the whole dataset and outputs the

42

100 0

Trace 200 300

400

0.05 Time, s

0.10

0.15

Principal Vector Classification

11 9 Class 7 5 3 1 1 101 201 Trace 301 401

Figure 2.12. Synthetic data contaminated by noise (top), S/N=5, and classication results (bottom). From Galikeev (2001).

43

100 0

Trace 200 300

400

0.05 Time, s

0.10

0.15

Principal Vector Classification

11 9 Class 7 5 3 1 1 101 201 Trace 301 401

Figure 2.13. Synthetic data contaminated by noise (top), S/N=2, and classication results (bottom). From Galikeev (2001).

44

classication results in GOCADs Vset format. Figure 2.14 illustrates classication results using inner (dot) product as a criterion. One can see that the algorithm is very robust and was able to delineate the channel even on a small regularly sampled subset of the dataset, roughly every fourth inline and xline. Frequency decomposition applied to the same dataset (Figures 2.6 and 2.7) showed the younger and older parts of the channel on dierent frequencies, whereas PVC was able to delineate the same parts in one pass, but with dierent classes.

Figure 2.14. Channel classication, using the inner product as a likeliness criterion, 13 classes. Data courtesy of Texaco. From Galikeev (2001).

It has to be noted that selection of the training parameters is an iterative approach and selected parameters depend on the data. For this particular 3-D land example, the optimum number of training traces was every 16th , which can change depending on the input data, for example, the number of traces in the dataset, analysis window and the feature of interest.

45

2.3.3

Application to synthetic time-lapse data

Principal vector classication was also applied to the synthetic data described above in section 2.1. PVC was calculated on the dierenced volume and results are shown in Figure 2.15. PVC is an iterative approach and by varying parameters such as the number of classes, learning rate and number of epochs, one can ne tune the results, although default program values give a very good starting point. Results shown in Figure 2.15 were computed on very noisy data, yet the anomaly was successfully identied. The number of traces used for training was limited to around 1700, which is only 10% of the whole dataset. The inuence of noise could be minimized and, thus, results of classication are improved by selecting a shorter window. Figure 2.16 illustrates the classication for less noisy data. Parameters used for weight matrix computation were the same as in the experiment shown in Figure 2.15. The classication results are cleaner.

46

Figure 2.15. PVC applied to synthetic data with equivalent prestack noise level of S/N=2. 100 ms window was centered around Frobisher pick. Five classes are shown by color and seismic representation.

47

Figure 2.16. PVC applied to less noisy data: S/N=5 (left) and S/N=10 (right). Note, that the key feature is evident in both gures even though they are classied under dierent noise conditions and were assigned to dierent classes.

2.4

3-D semblance One of the proven methods for identifying faults in seismic data is the so-called

coherency cube technology (Marfurt et al., 1998). Authors claim that the seismic coherency attribute responds to structure, stratigraphy, lithology, porosity and uid changes. Attributes developed and described in this dissertation could be generalized as measuring the likeliness of the traces in dierent domains. The region comprised of similar traces reects the same geological setting (stratigraphy, lithology etc.) within the resolution of the seismic data. 3-D semblance also measures the likeliness of the traces: high semblance values indicate high similarity and low semblance values indicate low similarity of the traces. Therefore, 3-D semblance is a valuable analysis tool when applied to time-lapse data. If the time-lapse volumes under analysis are

48

characterized by a good repeatability and were adequately cross-equalized, then the eect of structure is removed and the 3-D semblance applied in time-lapse manner indicate changes in uid and pressure regimes due to the CO2 injection. 2.4.1 Algorithm

The algorithm for 3-D semblance computation utilizes the well-known formula for semblance function (Yilmaz, 1987). The semblance value, which is normalized energy, is computed within a running time window over selected traces using the following formula: NE = 1 M
t 2 t st , M 2 i=1 fi,t(i)

(2.1)

where the numerator represents the energy of the stacked trace in the analysis window and denominator is the total energy of the analysis traces. The algorithm was written in C under Seismic Unix. The program allows the user to select dierent trace patterns and analysis window length (Figure 2.17). Patterns 4, 5, 6 are analogous to pattern 3 and have a full square of traces with 5, 7 and 9 traces respectively. Computed semblance of the analysis window is assigned to the center of the trace denoted by the black diamond in Figure 2.17.

Pattern 0

Pattern 1

Pattern 2

Pattern 3

Figure 2.17. Trace patterns utilized in susemb3d program.

Results of the program can be ne-tuned by using dierent patterns and window

49

sizes depending on the data and the objectives of the analysis. The micro-semblance (mu-semblance ) attribute is a methodological variation of the 3-D semblance. The only dierence is that the susemb3d program could be coupled with the sustrslc, which allows performing stratal-slicing on the data. With the mu-semblance approach the user can delineate seismically thin stratigraphic layers and accomplish a very localized analysis of the waveform. 2.4.2 Application to synthetic data

The 3-D semblance attribute was generated on the dierence volume of the synthetic baseline and monitor datasets. Several window lengths and patterns were tested. 3-D semblance maps were extracted along the Frobisher horizon (Figure 2.2) and presented in Figures 2.18 and 2.19. For window length and pattern tests, a clean dataset was used with a noise level of S/N=10 in prestack equivalent. Window length test. Window length was tested with pattern 2 (Figure 2.17). Windows selected for the test were 100, 50, 20 and 10 ms. Results are shown in Figure 2.18. An anomaly was delineated by the program in all four cases. Histograms show the bimodal distribution of semblance values: the lower semblance value cluster refers to analysis windows, which did not include the anomaly, and the small but noticeable cluster at 0.8-1.0 semblance scale includes values computed over the simulated CO2 anomaly. One can notice that the noise level increases with window size reduction. Trace pattern test. A pattern test was performed with the window length of 50 ms (the algorithm works faster with short windows). The results are shown in Figure 2.19. Patterns tested were 0, 1, 3 and 5. Patterns 0, 1 and 3 are shown

50

Figure 2.18. Window length test of susemb3d algorithm.

51

in Figure 2.17. And pattern 5 computes semblance values over the matrix of 7x7 traces. For pattern 2 results, please refer to Figure 2.18. Again, the histogram has a bimodal distribution with high semblance values computed over the anomaly. Note that with the increase in the trace number in the analysis pattern, separation between the histogram modes increases as expected: a larger number of traces in the analysis window consisting mainly of random noise has less possibility of having spurious coherent events. 3-D semblance applied to noisy synthetic data. A window of 50 ms and pattern 2 were selected for the noise test. The 3-D semblance program was applied to the dierence volume with prestack noise equivalents of S/N=2 and S/N=5. Results are shown in Figure 2.20. The algorithm proved to be robust in the presence of noise and was able to delineate the anomaly reliably.

52

Figure 2.19. Pattern test of susemb3d algorithm.

53

Figure 2.20. 3-D semblance algorithm applied to noisy data: S/N=5 (left) and S/N=2 (right).

2.5

Chapter conclusions Three reservoir-based attributes were described and applied to the synthetic

data simulating time-lapse CO2 anomaly. Various tests show good results even in the presence of high random noise (an equivalence of S/N=2 in the pre-stack domain). A CO2 related anomaly of a distinct shape and known geometry was delineated reliably in all cases. Modeling suggested that the CO2 anomaly simulated in the Marly (8% impedance change) and the Vuggy (4% impedance change) manifests itself at the Frobisher level, right below the reservoir. Computing attributes on the dierenced time-lapse volumes has considerable advantage over looking at the attribute dierence in terms of window selection. Even though the structural setting is simple at Weyburn, the fact that the eld is character-

54

ized by a thin reservoir, places strict requirements on the analysis window selection. Two approaches were studied: Selection of the analysis window using stratal-slicing, which allows precise delineation of the region representing the anomaly, without including static data into the analysis window, which could be contaminated by the processing artifacts; Computation of the attribute on the dierenced data. Synthetic datasets studied in this chapter were ideally cross-equalized, which made application of the attributes to the dierenced dataset simple.

55

Chapter 3

CROSS-EQUALIZATION OF TIME-LAPSE DATASETS

Some of the articles related to cross-equalization (the most prominent are by Ross & Altan (1997) and Rickett & Lumley (2001)) discuss the topic of global crossequalization in the case when time-lapse analysis is applied to recently acquired and existing legacy data. Seismic data under investigation in this dissertation do not raise most of the concerns described in the articles mentioned above, since the experiment was designed for monitoring uid movement within the reservoir due to the EOR technology applied at the eld. Weyburn time-lapse datasets acquired and processed by Veritas DGC and under RCP supervision were specically aimed at monitoring the uid movement within the reservoir. Therefore, the acquisition layout, source and receiver positions and acquisition parameters were designed for a specic 4-D experiment. Some of the fundamental cross-equalization issues like spectral balancing due to dierent spectral content of the baseline and monitor data, time-varying gain due to dierent processing ows, event positioning due to the dierence in imaging techniques are not applicable in the case of the Weyburn experiment. There is no universal processing ow in time-lapse data cross-equalization, and methodology can vary from one time-lapse project to another, although the toolbox of available processes remains the same. Any cross-equalization process should rst address the question of what is an EOR-related anomaly and what are the coherent anomalies caused by processing artifacts, such as varying near-surface conditions

56

or environmental changes from the time of the baseline survey and the time when consequent monitor surveys were acquired.

3.1

Cross-equalization of Weyburn datasets The Weyburn experiment (acquisition and processing) was specically designed

to monitor dynamic changes within the reservoir due to uid movement because of the CO2 EOR program applied at the eld. The baseline and monitor P-wave datasets are very consistent among themselves and only mild cross-equalization was applied. The shaping lter was computed at the level of the most stable and consistent geological unit present in the area including the Watrous and Gravelbourg formations. For cross-equalization purposes some of the existing programs in SU were modied to make them more applicable to multi-volume time-lapse processing. Three major criteria were used to estimate the dierence between the time-lapse datasets: average spectral characteristics of the datasets and their wavelets; absolute seismic amplitude values within the window selected for cross-equalization; time dierence at the key horizons between time-lapse datasets; collocated trace similarity between the time-lapse datasets computed on the windowed traces to quality control the cross-equalization process.

3.1.1

Spectral and wavelet characteristics

Figures 3.1 shows the amplitude characteristics of the seismic data within the specied trace and time window. Figure 3.2 shows seismic wavelets along with corresponding spectral characteristics extracted from all three surveys at the same well location. Similar frequency content in the data and consistency of seismic wavelets, both in time and spectral domains, indicate good repeatability of the surveys, which is

57

a combination of acquisition and processing. Details of the wavelet extraction process are described in section 5.

Average amplitude spectrum

log10(amplitude)

3 0 50 frequency, Hz 100 150

Figure 3.1. Average amplitude spectrum computed over the time window 900-1400 ms and trace gate ILN 10-113 and XLN 10-126: 2000 (solid black), 2001 (dotted red) and 2002 (dashed blue).

x10 4

Seismic inversion wavelets

1 amplitude

-50

0 time, ms

50

Figure 3.2. Wavelets extracted from all three surveys: 2000 (solid black), 2001 (dotted red) and 2002 (dashed blue).

Both Figures (3.1 and 3.2) indicate good spectral consistency among the baseline and two monitor surveys. Spectral content is better on the 2002 data (shown by the dashed blue line in Figure 3.1) on frequencies between 60 and 90 Hz due to better

58

source coupling conditions: the ground was frozen at the acquisition time of the second monitor survey. 3.1.2 Dierential time analysis at key horizons

Figure 3.3 shows horizons picked from the Weyburn baseline seismic dataset: Lower Shaunavon, Lower Gravelbourg, Upper Watrous and the Mississippian unconformity. Ideally, horizons above the reservoir subjected to the enhanced oil recovery (EOR) process should be aligned in time.

Figure 3.3. Strong seismic events above the reservoir used for time-dierence analysis. Last unmarked horizon is the Frobisher - not used for analysis.

The following workow was used to compute the time dierence between the same horizons at baseline and monitor surveys: 1. resample all three datasets to 0.25 ms; 2. use freshly written program supickhor to snap previously picked horizons to the closest peak at baseline and monitor surveys; 3. compute the time dierence between the same horizons on all time-lapse datasets;

59

Horizon name LShaunavon 2000 - 2001 LShaunavon 2000 - 2002 LGravelbrg 2000 - 2001 LGravelbrg 2000 - 2002 UWatrous 2000 - 2001 UWatrous 2000 - 2002 Mississippian 2000 - 2001 Mississippian 2000 - 2002

Total # of points 13482 13482 13482 13482 13482 13482 13482 13482

# of points Percentage with tdif f > |2ms| 646 4.79 615 4.56 194 1.44 135 1.00 118 0.88 103 0.76 488 3.62 371 2.75

Table 3.1. Time dierence analysis at key horizons above the reservoir. Total number of points is within the usable seismic data region.

4. create regions with a time dierence over 2 ms (original data sampling rate). Results of the above workow are shown in Figures 3.4 and 3.5. Most of the time dierence values are less than 2 ms, which is one sample on the original data (Table 3.1). Surprisingly, the Lower Shaunavon pick, which is the most remote to the reservoir among the analyzed horizons has the largest time dierence between the time-lapse datasets, which could be explained by the dierence (decon operator, for example) during processing. A cross-equalization operator will be computed below the Lower Shaunavon horizon pick and above the Mississippian unconformity, including the stable Watrous and Gravelbourg formations in order to avoid processing-related changes. 3.1.3 Analyzing trace dierence between time-lapse volumes

To quantify the dierences between the collocated traces from the time-lapse volumes, the author has written a new program under SU. suvolop2 performs operations on two volumes using a windowed trace. The window is a sliding window and the computation result is assigned to the middle of the window. Currently, the program is

60

Figure 3.4. Time-dierence between time-lapse datasets at the same horizons. Rectangle outlines usable seismic data. Histogram shows distribution of the time difference between -6 and +6 ms. Regions with samples where time dierence is over 2 ms in magnitude are shown in bold.

61

Figure 3.5. Time-dierence between time-lapse datasets at the same horizons. Rectangle outlines usable seismic data. Histogram shows distribution of the time difference between -6 and +6 ms. Regions with samples where time dierence is over 2 ms in magnitude are shown in bold.

62

capable of estimating the following three parameters on n-dimensional vectors (where n is the number of samples within the sliding analysis window): dot (aka scalar, inner) product, which is dened as X Y = |X ||Y | cos = i xi yi , where is the angle between X and Y . The formula implies that the higher the output value in magnitude, the higher the similarity between the analysis vectors;
2 Euclidean distance dened as DXY = i (xi yi ) . Low output values indicate that the two vectors are close in space, i.e. when applied to seismic traces means that X and Y have higher similarity;

Pearsons correlation coecient: rXY = ( X2 XY

( X )2 )( N X N Y 2 ( Y )2 ) N

(3.1)

where N is the dimension (total number of points in analysis window). As with any correlation coecient, high values indicate a tight distribution in crossplot space and a high similarity between the properties analyzed (X and Y ). The user can select to apply computations to L2-norm normalized vectors: xi =
xi , |x|

where |x| =

x2 i . In this case no prior normalization was applied, since

normalization is one of the aspects of cross-equalization . Figure 3.6 shows all three computations applied to a small (12 ms, comparable to reservoir time thickness) sliding window at inline 75. Inline 75 was selected due to the fact that the time-lapse CO2 related anomalies are most likely to be absent on this line. Overall, the data quality above the reservoir is very good. The range of data between the Lower Shaunavon pick and Mississippian unconformity is characterized by the high correlation coecient and high inner product values. Computation of the Euclidean distance attribute does not make too much sense on unnormalized data. But the distance computed on L2-normalized input data does show the same tendencies as the other two attributes, i.e. good data repeatability above the reservoir.

63

1.0

1.008

1.010

1.012

trace no 1.014

1.016

1.018

x10 4 1.020

1.0

1.008

1.010

1.012

trace no 1.014

1.016

1.018

x10 4 1.020

6000 1.1 time, s 4000 2000 0

6000 1.1 time, s 1.2 0 1.3 4000 2000 1.2

1.3

DIST: 2000-2001 norm=no

x10 4 1.020

DIST: 2000-2002 norm=no

x10 4 1.020

1.0

1.008

1.010

1.012

trace no 1.014

1.016

1.018

1.0

1.008

1.010

1.012

trace no 1.014

1.016

1.018

1.0 0.8 time, s 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 1.1

1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 1.2 0.2 0 time, s 1.2 1.3 1.1

1.3

DIST: 2000-2001 norm=yes

x10 4 1.020

DIST: 2000-2002 norm=yes

x10 4 1.020

1.0

1.008

1.010

1.012

trace no 1.014

1.016

1.018

1.0

1.008

1.010

1.012

trace no 1.014

1.016

1.018

1.0 1.1 0.5 time, s 0 -0.5 1.2 -1.0

1.0 1.1 0.5 0 -0.5 1.2 -1.0 time, s 1.3

1.3

CC: 2000-2001 norm=no

x10 4 1.020

CC: 2000-2002 norm=no

x10 4 1.020

1.0

1.008

1.010

1.012

trace no 1.014

1.016

1.018

1.0

1.008

1.010

1.012

trace no 1.014

1.016

1.018

5 4 time, s 3 2 1 0 x10 8 1.1

5 4 3 2 1.2 1 0 x10 8 time, s 1.2 1.3 1.1

1.3

DOT: 2000-2001 norm=no

DOT: 2000-2002 norm=no

Figure 3.6. Similarity of time-lapse datasets using dierent criteria. Key horizons are shown for reference, from top to bottom LShaunavon, LGravelbrg, UWatrous, Miss, Frobisher.

64

A low informative value of the distance attribute computed on the unnormalized data might be an indication of seismic amplitude variability between the time-lapse surveys. This issue is studied in depth in the next section. 3.1.4 Seismic amplitude scaling

Figure 3.7 shows a histogram of seismic amplitudes for all three surveys within the range from the Lower Shaunavon to Mississippian unconformity. Histograms were computed excluding zero, which, when included, results in an overwhelming spike on the histogram due to the presence of dead traces in the datasets. Table 3.2 lists absolute minima and maxima present in the data along with the median and mean values within the window of analysis.

Seismic amplitude histogram

1.0

% data 0.5 0 -8000

-6000

-4000

-2000 0 2000 seismic amplitude

4000

6000

8000

Figure 3.7. Seismic amplitude distribution. Vertical gate spans from Lower Shaunavon to Mississippian, trace gate includes all traces in the survey. Histograms exclude hard zero from analysis. 2000 (solid black), 2001 (dotted red) and 2002 (dashed blue).

Both monitor surveys (2001 and 2002) are matched to the baseline (2000).

65

Survey Minimum Maximum Median Mean (m) 2000 -7858.14 9775.48 -165.47 77.60 2001 -7147.96 9264.38 -111.17 87.55 2002 -8876.49 8707.84 -172.24 73.09 Survey z.25 z.75 m 2 m + 2 2000 -1443.91 1465.64 2063.20 -4048.80 4204.00 2001 -1403.64 1509.55 2060.39 -4033.23 4208.33 2002 -1491.07 1388.37 2123.86 -4174.63 4320.81 Table 3.2. Amplitude statistics for Weyburn datasets. Vertical gate is from Lower Shaunavon to Mississippian.

Most of the amplitude scaling is done using RMS amplitude scaling in various time windows (see Herawati (2002) for example). This implies that the time-variant amplitude scaling is applied. This is a good approach when working with completely dierent vintage data (modern survey and legacy data) with dierent processing applied. The Weyburn dataset, on the other hand, was shot specically for solving time-lapse objectives and all datasets were processed simultaneously using the same processing ow and preserving relative amplitudes. Previous spectral and similarity analyses shows that there is a good repeatability between the surveys already and only mild cross-equalization needs to be applied. Here I propose amplitude scaling based on histogram analysis within the data window spanning from the Lower Shaunavon to Mississippian pick. The scaling is done using the fact that m 2 preserves 95% of data following from the symmetry property of the normal model (Journel, 1989), where m is the mean value and is the standard deviation. This assumes that we are dealing with a Gaussian (normal) distribution (Figure 3.8). Cross-equalization is applied by calculating a global amplitude correction by

66

Figure 3.8. Distribution of 2002 amplitude data from Lower Shaunavon to Mississippian. Red line shows corresponding normal distribution. Upper and lower parts are pdf and cdf respectively.

67

Survey m 2 m + 2 length correction 2000 -4048.80 4204.00 8252.80 n/a 2001 -4033.23 4208.33 8241.56 1.0014 2002 -4174.63 4320.81 8495.44 0.9714 Table 3.3. Amplitude corrections computed from histogram scaling.

rescaling the histograms of 2001 and 2002 surveys to match that of the baseline survey. The scaling histogram range is calculated by using m 2 values from amplitude distributions within vertical time window from the Lower Shaunavon pick to the Mississippian unconformity. Table 3.3 summarizes amplitude corrections to be applied to 2001 and 2002 surveys and Figure 3.9 shows an overlay of the original histogram and the histogram after correction. Corrections are very mild as expected, since the acquisition and processing were designed exclusively for the 4-D seismic technique.

2001: before (black) and after (red) histogram scaling

1.2

2002: before (black) and after (red) histogram scaling

1.0 1.0 0.8 % data % data 0.5 0.4 -4000 -2000 0 2000 seismic amplitude 4000 6000 0 -6000

0.6

0.2

0 -6000

-4000

-2000

0 2000 seismic amplitude

4000

6000

Figure 3.9. Amplitude distribution before and after histogram-based scaling.

68

3.1.5

Shaping (matching) lter

The shaping lter (Robinson, 1984) is a least-squares lter which converts one waveform to another. Lets say we have trace from the monitor survey m and a collocated trace from the baseline survey b. We would like to design a lter f , which after convolution with m will produce a result r similar to b. Using Robinsons notation, the convolutional result r is:

rk =

f mk

(3.2)

So, the shaping lter f is selected to minimize the least-squares error I : [bk rk ]2 =
k k

I=

[bk

f mk ]2

(3.3)

Setting I/fi = 0, i [0, , n], one can obtain the set of normal equations given by
n =0

f mm (i ) = bm (i), i [0, , n]

(3.4)

The known quantities in Equation 3.4 are: mm (i ) =

k

mk mki , bm (i) =
k

bk m k i ,

(3.5)

which are the autocorrelation of m and the crosscorrelation of b and m respectively. Application of the calculated shaping lter to monitor surveys simultaneously corrects for static time shift, phase and spectral dierences between the surveys (Rickett & Lumley, 2001). The number of degrees of freedom is controlled by the lter length in the time domain (in other words, one can match apples to oranges if the computed lter is given enough degrees of freedom, i.e. long enough). Selecting the

69

right length of the matching lter provides the right amount of shaping: a spectral and phase match, while avoiding an over-match, possibly damaging the real anomalies caused by the EOR technique. It was demonstrated earlier, that the static time shifts within the cross-equalization interval are virtually non-existent and the amplitude spectra between the surveys are very similar. To compute a trace to trace shaping lter modied1 SU programs were used, namely, sushape to compute the match lters and suconv to apply computed lters to the datasets. Figure 3.10 shows the shaping lter length test. Overall, the computed shaping lter closely resembles the spike and will not noticeably change the 2001 and 2002 surveys.

Shaping filter length test

0.10

Shaping filter length test (ZOOM)

0.8

0.6 amplitude amplitude

0.05

0.4

0 0.2

0 10 20 sample # 30 40 50

-0.05 10 20 sample # 30 40 50

Figure 3.10. Test of shaping lter length: 10 (solid black), 20 (dotted red), 30 (dashed blue) and 50 (dashed green). Filter was computed at inline 75 and xline 68.

Another test performed on two traces from baseline and monitor surveys included computation of shaping lters on tapered and non-tapered data, since, as it was demonstrated earlier, the time dierence between the baseline and monitor surveys
1

changes to suconv and sushape were made by Rodrigo Fuck

70

at the Lower Gravelbourg and Upper Watrous are virtually non-existent. Figure 3.11 demonstrates the dierences in shaping lters on identical input data, except that the second pair of traces had a linear taper applied to them. The taper was 15 ms for the on-taper and 10 ms for the o-taper. The shaping lter computed for the tapered traces still closely resembles the spike, but the relative change from the shaping lter computed on original (non-tapered) traces is signicant. This could be explained (Larner, 2004) by the fact that we have exaggerated the relative trace dierences by applying the tapers. That also points out that the process of shaping lter computation is highly sensitive to the input data.

original (non-tapered) waveforms

tapered waveforms

2 trace no trace no 1

20

40 sample no

60

80

100

20

40 sample no

60

80

100

shaping filter (original data)

1.0 1.0

shaping filter (tapered data)

amplitude

amplitude 20 40 sample no 60 80 100

0.5

0.5

-0.5

-0.5

20

40 sample no

60

80

100

Figure 3.11. Shaping lters computed on original and tapered (otherwise identical) waveforms.

71

Trace-to-trace shaping lters were computed between the 2000 and 2001 surveys and between 2000 and 2002. The baseline survey was selected as a reference and the monitor surveys were matched to it. The vertical time window selected for shaping lter computations spanned from the Lower Shaunavon to Mississippian pick. Data were linearly tapered for approximately 15 ms from the top horizon (LShaunavon) and 10 ms on the bottom (Miss). Figure 3.12 illustrates the same similarity measures computed between the cross-equalized monitor surveys and the baseline survey. Computational and visualization parameters were left the same as in Figure 3.6. Close examination of these two gures indicates that there are very little changes between the baseline survey compared to the monitors before and after crossequalization (euclidean distance computed on unnormalized traces does not count). One can notice that after cross-equalization the data lost some continuity. Traceto-trace cross-equalization can be compared to the well known AGC (automatic gain control) in data processing. In the trace-to-trace cross-equalization between timelapse volumes the shaping lter is computed between the two collocated traces (baseline and monitor), without constraining spatial variability of the computed shaping lter. This fact, again, underlines how delicate the cross-equalization process is and it should be applied with care. Wavelet-based cross-equalization was also studied by experimenting on the time-lapse datasets from the Weyburn eld. Analysis performed indicates very good consistency between the datasets and the author has decided against the trace-totrace cross-equalization in order to eliminate possible changes to the original lateral coherency between the traces. Instead, I have applied a global shaping lter (one lter for 2001 and one lter for 2002) computed from the extracted wavelets. Figure 3.13 shows wavelets before and after applying the shaping lter. Table 3.4 describes what

72

1.0

1.008

1.010

1.012

trace no 1.014

1.016

1.018

x10 4 1.020

1.0

1.008

1.010

1.012

trace no 1.014

1.016

1.018

x10 4 1.020

6000 1.1 time, s 4000 2000 0

6000 1.1 time, s 1.2 0 1.3 4000 2000 1.2

1.3

DIST: 2000-2001(XEQ) norm=no

x10 4 1.020

DIST: 2000-2002(XEQ) norm=no

x10 4 1.020

1.0

1.008

1.010

1.012

trace no 1.014

1.016

1.018

1.0

1.008

1.010

1.012

trace no 1.014

1.016

1.018

1.0 0.8 time, s 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 1.1

1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 1.2 0.2 0 time, s 1.2 1.3 1.1

1.3

DIST: 2000-2001(XEQ) norm=yes

x10 4 1.020

DIST: 2000-2002(XEQ) norm=yes

x10 4 1.020

1.0

1.008

1.010

1.012

trace no 1.014

1.016

1.018

1.0

1.008

1.010

1.012

trace no 1.014

1.016

1.018

1.0 1.1 0.5 time, s 0 -0.5 1.2 -1.0

1.0 1.1 0.5 0 -0.5 1.2 -1.0 time, s 1.3

1.3

CC: 2000-2001(XEQ) norm=no

x10 4 1.020

CC: 2000-2002(XEQ) norm=no

x10 4 1.020

1.0

1.008

1.010

1.012

trace no 1.014

1.016

1.018

1.0

1.008

1.010

1.012

trace no 1.014

1.016

1.018

5 4 time, s 3 2 1 0 x10 8 1.1

5 4 3 2 1.2 1 0 x10 8 time, s 1.2 1.3 1.1

1.3

DOT: 2000-2001(XEQ) norm=no

DOT: 2000-2002(XEQ) norm=no

Figure 3.12. Similarity of cross-equalized (baseline is the reference) time-lapse datasets using dierent criteria. Key horizons are shown for reference, from top to bottom LShaunavon, LGravelbrg, UWatrous, Miss, Frobisher.

73

trace no description 1 wavelet from baseline (2000) survey 2 original wavelet from monitor (2001 or 2002) survey 3 sample-to-sample dierence between trace 1 and 2 4 shaped wavelet from monitor (2001 or 2002) survey 5 sample-to-sample dierence between trace 1 and 2 Table 3.4. Trace description for wavelet shaping (Figure 3.13).

every trace represents in Figure 3.13. Notice, that the shape of the computed lters closely resembles the spike due to the fact that the data have a very high degree of repeatability.
trace # 3 trace # 3

time, ms

0.10

time, ms
2001 to 2000 shaping filter

0.05

0.05

0.10

2002 to 2000 shaping filter

wavelet shaping filter: 2001 to 2000

1.5 1.0 amplitude 0.5 0 -0.5 10 20 30 sample no 40 50 60 amplitude 1.5 1.0 0.5 0 -0.5 10

wavelet shaping filter: 2002 to 2000

20

30 sample no

40

50

60

Figure 3.13. Wavelet shaping between the monitor and baseline surveys.

In the case of wavelet-based cross-equalization only one shaping lter is applied to the whole dataset to correct for wavelet dierences between the surveys, so the

74

correlation parameters CC value 2000 and 2001 0.9619 2000 and 2001(XEQ) 0.9744 2000 and 2002 0.9732 2000 and 2002(XEQ) 0.9805 Table 3.5. Cross-correlation analysis of wavelets before and after cross-equalization .

original lateral coherency of the data is preserved. Extracted wavelets at Weyburn are very similar in time and spectral domains. Nevertheless, wavelet-based crossequalization applied and Figure 3.15 illustrates similarity attributes computed on the cross-equalized monitor surveys. Figure 3.14 shows wavelets extracted from crossequalized monitor surveys during well-to-seismic ties in the inversion process. Visually, wavelets are even more similar after cross-equalization and their spectral characteristics have a tighter distribution (less dierence). Table 3.5 lists cross-correlation coecients between the baseline wavelet and the monitor wavelets before and after cross-equalization .
x10 4
Seismic inversion wavelets after XEQ

1 amplitude

-50

0 time, ms

50

Figure 3.14. Wavelets extracted from all three surveys: 2000 (solid black), 2001 (dotted red) and 2002 (dashed blue). Both monitor surveys had wavelet-based crossequalization applied.

Visual analysis of Figures 3.15 and 3.6 suggests, yet again, that originally processed data have extremely good repeatability and the cross-equalization of data is

75

1.0

1.008

1.010

1.012

trace no 1.014

1.016

1.018

x10 4 1.020

1.0

1.008

1.010

1.012

trace no 1.014

1.016

1.018

x10 4 1.020

6000 1.1 time, s 4000 2000 0

6000 1.1 time, s 1.2 0 1.3 4000 2000 1.2

1.3

DIST: 2000-2001 (WAVXEQ) norm=no

x10 4 1.020

DIST: 2000-2002 (WAVXEQ) norm=no

x10 4 1.020

1.0

1.008

1.010

1.012

trace no 1.014

1.016

1.018

1.0

1.008

1.010

1.012

trace no 1.014

1.016

1.018

1.0 0.8 time, s 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 1.1

1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 1.2 0.2 0 time, s 1.2 1.3 1.1

1.3

DIST: 2000-2001 (WAVXEQ) norm=yes

x10 4 1.020

DIST: 2000-2002 (WAVXEQ) norm=yes

x10 4 1.020

1.0

1.008

1.010

1.012

trace no 1.014

1.016

1.018

1.0

1.008

1.010

1.012

trace no 1.014

1.016

1.018

1.0 1.1 0.5 time, s 0 -0.5 1.2 -1.0

1.0 1.1 0.5 0 -0.5 1.2 -1.0 time, s 1.3

1.3

CC: 2000-2001 (WAVXEQ) norm=no

x10 4 1.020

CC: 2000-2002 (WAVXEQ) norm=no

x10 4 1.020

1.0

1.008

1.010

1.012

trace no 1.014

1.016

1.018

1.0

1.008

1.010

1.012

trace no 1.014

1.016

1.018

5 4 time, s 3 2 1 0 x10 8 1.1

5 4 3 2 1.2 1 0 x10 8 time, s 1.2 1.3 1.1

1.3

DOT: 2000-2001 (WAVXEQ) norm=no

DOT: 2000-2002 (WAVXEQ) norm=no

Figure 3.15. Similarity of wavelet-based cross-equalization (baseline is the reference) of time-lapse datasets using dierent criteria. Key horizons are shown for reference, from top to bottom LShaunavon, LGravelbrg, UWatrous, Miss, Frobisher.

76

not really necessary.

3.2

Chapter conclusions In-depth analysis of cross-equalization issues at Weyburn eld shows that the

original acquisition and data processing are of high quality and the time-lapse datasets are characterized by high repeatability. Therefore, the nal cross-equalization applied was very mild and did not result in any dramatic data changes. Shaping lters proved to be very sensitive to even very mild data alterations (tapered vs non-tapered), and they can damage lateral coherency of seismic events. Spatial variability between computed shaping lters should be taken into account and compensated for to prevent large trace-to-trace changes within the cross-equalized surveys.

77

Chapter 4

APPLICATION OF ATTRIBUTES AT WEYBURN FIELD

The attributes described in section 2 were applied to the Weyburn time-lapse data. Delineation of the CO2 related anomalies helped to map the extent of the CO2 front expansion and was used later in the volumetrics computation. Attributes were computed on the dierence of the cross-equalized volumes in all cases, except the semblance attribute. The section on frequency decomposition describes a test of dierent temporal windows and the nal window selection. Appropriate selection of the analysis window (i.e. the most informative part of the seismic section pertinent to the anomaly under investigation) is one of the most important steps in attribute computation. Litvinov (2002) briey addresses this issue in his article. He advocates forward modeling using well information to dene the most informative seismic lobes of the seismic record to nd correlations between the geologic section and seismic data. Here, I study dierent vertical time windows to determine if they carry an overprint of the CO2 inuence in the frequency domain. The geometrical positions of the CO2 injector wells are known and it is also known that the highest CO2 saturation will be achieved along the injector paths (with possible splits due to local heterogeneity). Thus, the criterion for analysis window selection is the presence of the CO2 related anomaly in the calculated attribute, with the lateral position collocated with the position of injector wells.

78

Window name Upper horizon Lower horizon WI Frobisher - 50 ms (F-50) Frobisher (F) WII Marly (M) Marly + 60 ms (M+60) WIII Frobisher - 150 ms (F-150) Frobisher - 50 ms (F-50) WIV Marly + 50 ms (M+50) Marly + 150 ms (M+150) Table 4.1. Temporal analysis windows. Also shown in Figure 4.2.

4.1

Frequency decomposition Vertical sections of the dierence between the baseline survey and monitor sur-

veys show two strong coherent anomalies in the vicinity of the reservoir (Figure 4.1). A test of dierent windows was performed in order to dene the nal window of analysis. The test addressed the question which of the analysis windows carries the overprint of the time-lapse anomaly. Table 4.1 and Figure 4.2 specify the location of the windows. Conventional frequency decomposition was computed from 0 to 80 Hz and every slice was normalized to its maximum. The same normalizing factor was used for both datasets (scalar was rst computed for every survey and then the largest between the two was selected). Frequency scanning showed that the CO2 related anomalies are most visible on the frequency slices from 3 to 30 Hz. Figures 4.3 through 4.6 show the 19 Hz slices for dierenced surveys 2000-2001 on the left and 2000-2002 on the right. Window WIII does not have any evidence of the CO2 related anomalies: a seismic wave never propagated through the reservoir at this two-way recorded seismic time. Window WIV does not have any anomalies showing at 19 Hz either, but does have the CO2 related anomalies on the lower frequencies of 5-14 Hz. Figure 4.7 illustrates this phenomena at 9 Hz for the time-lapse dierence volume between the baseline and the

79

Figure 4.1. Coherent seismic events in the vicinity of the reservoir on the dierenced sections. Key horizons are shown for reference, from top to bottom LShaunavon, LGravelbrg, UWatrous, Miss, Frobisher.

80

Figure 4.2. Analysis windows on the dierenced dataset DIFF2000 2002 . Specications are shown in Table 4.1.

2000 Figure 4.3. Window WI for DIFF2000 2001 (left) and DIFF2002 (right). 19 Hz slice. Red are the horizontal CO2 injectors and blue dots are the water injectors. Colorbar reects time-lapse spectral component dierence.

81

2000 Figure 4.4. Window WII for DIFF2000 2001 (left) and DIFF2002 (right). 19 Hz slice. Red are the CO2 horizontal injectors and blue squares are the vertical water injectors. Colorbar reects time-lapse spectral component dierence.

82

2000 Figure 4.5. Window WIII for DIFF2000 2001 (left) and DIFF2002 (right). 19 Hz slice. Red are the CO2 horizontal injectors and blue squares are the vertical water injectors. Colorbar reects time-lapse spectral component dierence.

83

2000 Figure 4.6. Window WIV for DIFF2000 2001 (left) and DIFF2002 (right). 19 Hz slice. Red are the CO2 horizontal injectors and blue squares are the vertical water injectors. Colorbar reects time-lapse spectral component dierence.

84

second monitor (2002). The anomaly is not evident on the dierence between 2000 and 2001. It also should be pointed out that the largest anomaly in window WIV is located at the anomalous Western injector pattern. The vertical section saturated with CO2 is thicker at the Western injector than at any other injector pattern, since the engineering data indicate that the volume of the CO2 injected is comparable to the Southern and Eastern injectors, but there is no response from the neighboring producers. Due to the low resolution, seismic data gives us an average response over the certain extent of the medium. At lower frequencies (longer wavelength) average seismic response comes from the larger volume of subsurface - that is why the largest anomaly was propagated into the analysis window WIV, which starts at about 40 ms below the reservoir. The nal analysis window was centered around the Frobisher horizon and was 100 ms long with a 15 ms taper applied at both ends. This window captures both coherent events around the reservoir, which carry an overprint of changing reservoir properties (i.e. CO2 eect). A nal conventional frequency decomposition analysis is shown in Figure 4.8. Figure 4.9 illustrates an incremental dierence between the 2001 and 2002 surveys. Wells in green are the wells which showed response to CO2 treatment. Overall, we see a large increase in anomaly magnitude along the Western injector, whereas anomalies along the Southern and Eastern injectors have wider lateral coverage and are smaller in magnitude. The magnitude and the lateral extension of the anomalies from frequency decomposition analysis suggests that the CO2 injected at the Western injector has a smaller lateral, but higher vertical extent and the Southern and Eastern injectors are characterized by a much more uniform CO2 expansion. Engineering data from surrounding producers indicate the same.

85

2000 Figure 4.7. Analysis window WIV at 9Hz. DIFF2000 2001 (left) and DIFF2002 (right). Red are the CO2 horizontal injectors and blue squares are the vertical water injectors. Colorbar reects time-lapse spectral component dierence.

86

2000 Figure 4.8. Final frequency decomposition analysis. DIFF2000 2001 (left) and DIFF2002 (right). 19 Hz slice. 100ms window centered around Frobisher. Red are the CO2 horizontal injectors and blue squares are the vertical water injectors. Colorbar reects time-lapse spectral component dierence.

87

Figure 4.9. Final frequency decomposition analysis of DIFF2001 2002 . 26 Hz slice. 100ms window centered around Frobisher. CO2 response wells are shown in green. Colorbar reects time-lapse spectral component dierence.

88

4.1.1

Volume frequency decomposition

Volume frequency decomposition, hereafter referred to as VFD, is a variation of the conventional frequency decomposition (CFD). Actually, conventional frequency decomposition should be applied before the VFD in order to dene the representative frequency for the anomaly under investigation. Previous CFD showed that an appropriate frequency to perform VFD on Weyburn data is around 20 Hz. As a recommendation it should be pointed out that the VFD should be performed on the higher frequencies in order to avoid false anomalies due to the larger volume averaging, which is the case for low frequencies. Recall, that the 9 Hz component in window WIV (below the reservoir) in CFD contained an anomaly collocated with the Western injector. On the other hand, 19-20 Hz frequency slices did not contain any injector-related anomalies. The workow for applying VFD at Weyburn included the following steps:
2000 compute VFD on the dierenced volumes: DIFF2000 2001 and DIFF2002 ;

compute a 20 Hz amplitude spectrum component in a sliding 50 ms window on a volume data extracted around the Frobisher horizon; select analysis data including 250 ms above and below the Frobisher horizon (e.g. data were attened at the Frobisher horizon); normalize each resulting volume to its maximum; perform threshold analysis on the data and delineate geobodies (largest interconnected objects) along the injection patterns;
2000 analyze vertical location of the geobodies DIFF2000 2001 and DIFF2002 relative to

each other for indications of the vertical CO2 migration between the time-lapse

89

surveys. Figure 4.10 shows picked geobodies along the injector patterns. Most of the changes from 2000 to 2001 occurred at the Southern and Eastern patterns, whereas the Western and Northern patterns show large changes taking place during the 2002 monitor survey.

Figure 4.10. Lateral location of the geobodies relates to horizontal CO2 injectors. 2000 DIFF2000 2001 (left) DIFF2002 (right). Color shows vertical location of the anomalies. Black rectangle outlines seismic data area. Blue rectangle outlines usable seismic data. Black squares indicate location of vertical water injectors.

Note on Figure 4.10 that anomalies have a higher vertical extent at the location of vertical water injectors (shown by black squares), which act as conduits for vertical
2000 CO2 migration. Figure 4.11 shows the DIFF2000 2001 and DIFF2002 anomalies in 3-D view

90

and relative to the Frobisher horizon.

Figure 4.11. 20 Hz VFD anomalies in 3-D view. Upper row shows DIFF2000 2001 (left) (right) from above. Lower row shows the same anomalies from below. and DIFF2000 2002 Blue vertical lines are the vertical water injectors.

4.2

3-D semblance The 3-D semblance attribute was computed separately on the baseline (2000)

survey, the rst (2001) and the second monitor survey (2002). Since semblance computation is the measure of the similarity of the traces within the analysis window;

91

thus, when applied to the dierenced surveys it will delineate areas, where the timelapse changes took place. In order to capture the possible pathways for the CO2 a dierent methodology was used: taking the dierence of the computed semblance attribute at the collocated locations between the corresponding surveys and then analyzing spatial locations of the high magnitude dierences. By taking the dierence we eectively separate static discontinuities in the data from the dynamic ones and concentrate on the analysis of the latter. Areas of high magnitude dierences indicate places aected by saturation/pressure due to the CO2 injection. The 3-D semblance analysis workow is outlined below: 3-D semblance computed on the volume of data from 1000 to 1300 ms on the 2000, 2001 and 2002 surveys; semblance computations were conducted in a sliding time window using pattern two; threshold analysis was performed and the highest time-lapse dierence values were delineated over the reservoir-related anomaly. Figures 4.12 and 4.13 show the computed attribute. Note that the extent of the anomalies correlate with eld engineering data very well (CO2 -responded wells are located within outlined anomalies). This attribute also maps an East-West path, which allowed CO2 reaching two vertical wells shown by the two green squares. 4.3 Principal Vector Classication Principal Vector Classication (PVC) represents an unsupervised neural-network classication technique and allows to assign similar traces to the same data clusters. This attribute was applied to the dierenced seismic data and inverted time-lapse

92

Figure 4.12. 3-D semblance time-lapse attribute for 2000-2001 (left) and 2000-2002 (right). Black rectangle outlines seismic data area. Blue horizontal wells are injectors. Green horizontal lines and squares show locations of CO2 -responded wells. Blue squares indicate location of vertical water injectors. Horizontal wells shown in red were unresponsive to CO2 .

Figure 4.13. 3-D semblance time-lapse attribute for 2001-2002 (left) and all anomalies compounded (right). Legend is the same as in Figure 4.12.

93

data at Weyburn. PVC is an eective data clustering tool and allows to perform quick analysis of the time-lapse anomalies. In all computations the built-in default parameters were used. The program consists of two parts: training and application. Training was performed on the regular trace grid (every second inline and xline) over the selected analysis window, which translates into about 20% of all live data. The program could be modied and used as a guided classication mechanism. For example, if there is a certain location, which is known to be aected by the CO2 , then an average trace at this location could be selected and implanted into the weight matrix obtained by the unsupervised approach. Next, during the application process the program will nd similar traces throughout the volume. This approach, however, was not tested at Weyburn. PVC was applied both to the seismic data and inversion of the dierence (section 5). The algorithm will not perform well on conventional inversion results unless the impedance traces are modied to be centered around zero (the DC component will mask the local trace-to-trace dierence). However, inversion of the dierence results was very suitable for the PVC attribute computation. 4.3.1 PVC on seismic data

The window selected for the PVC attribute computation on the dierenced seismic data was analogous to the one selected for the nal frequency decomposition analysis. The window was 100 ms and centered around the Frobisher horizon. PVC was applied to the dierenced volumes. Results of the application are given in Figure 4.14. In general, PVC was able to nd the correct trends in the data: up to 2001 most of the changes happened around the Southern and Eastern injectors and in 2002 the Western injector started to produce a large anomaly. Also, the 2001

94

anomaly around the Southern and Eastern injectors has a larger extension, which correlates with the engineering data.

Figure 4.14. Results of PVC applied to the dierenced seismic data (DIFF2000 2001 (left) 2000 and DIFF2002 (right)). Upper row is the result of classication and the lower row shows computed weight matrix and color class assignment.

4.3.2

PVC on impedance data

After closely examining inversion results, the window for PVC analysis on impedance data was selected to be 80 ms long and starting 20 ms above the Mississippian unconformity pick. Figure 4.15 shows the attribute. Results look sharper than on the

95

seismic data and show trends consistent with the attributes described earlier (frequency decomposition, 3-D semblance and PVC applied to dierenced seismic data).

Figure 4.15. Results of PVC applied to the inversion of the dierence (DIFF2000 2001 (left) 2000 and DIFF2002 (right)). Upper row is the result of classication and the lower row shows computed weight matrix and color class assignment.

4.4

Chapter conclusions Seismic attributes applied to the Weyburn time-lapse data proved to be a valu-

able tool and show good correlation with the eld engineering data, i.e. anomaly

96

regions delineated by the seismic attributes include wells that responded to the CO2 treatment. The attribute analysis along with the production data helps to map the areas aected by the CO2 injection. Attribute maps can be used as constraints during geostatistical reservoir model building to reduce the uncertainty away from the well locations. During this study a couple of important methodological points should be made in reference to the application of frequency decomposition: perform conventional frequency decomposition (CFD) at the reservoir level as well as above and below to dene an appropriate response frequency; compute volume frequency decomposition (VFD) at that frequency, which does not contain any coherent events on CFD slices related to the anomaly under the study in the analysis windows above and below the reservoir; Volume frequency decomposition shows that the time-lapse anomaly position shifts lower with time (2001 to 2002) indicating a possible movement of the CO2 into the Vuggy zone, which is the lower part of the reservoir. VFD indicates that the vertical water injector wells act as conduits for CO2 to enter the Vuggy zone. The time-lapse 3-D semblance attribute has a very good correlation to eld production data and realistically outlines the zone aected by the CO2 saturation and pressure change. Principal Vector Classication produces sharper results on the impedance data than on the dierenced seismic data, which could be explained by the fact that the lateral variability is better described by the inverted impedance model.

97

Chapter 5

ACOUSTIC INVERSION OF THE TIME-LAPSE DATA

Acoustic inversion at the Weyburn eld was calculated earlier (Herawati, 2002). At that time only the rst monitor (2001) survey was available. Between the rst attempt of acoustic inversion and until this work the second monitor survey became available and all the volumes were optimally reprocessed specically for 4-D. All three volumes were inverted again by using conventional method (one volume at a time) and by utilizing a new approach of inverting the dierence between the baseline and monitor surveys. Both approaches are described below.

5.1

Introduction The goal of the geophysical inversion is to make quantitative inferences about

the Earth from remote observations (Gouveia & Scales, 1998). Acoustic impedance varies with lithology, porosity, uid content, depth, pressure, temperature, etc. At Weyburn eld application of acoustic inversion can help with mapping the changes in uid content and pressure regimes. In addition, inversion improves vertical resolution and resolves the change in the vertical and lateral positions of the CO2 associated anomalies. The Weyburn eld P-wave time-lapse datasets are characterized by high quality, very low noise levels overall and at the reservoir range, high repeatability (described in section 3) and represent good candidates for acoustic impedance inversion. Impedance has a very high degree of correlation to porosity as indicated by well log analysis (Figure 5.1). An impedance model obtained as a result of the seismic

98

inversion can be used to control porosity distribution from wells when building the reservoir model.

Figure 5.1. Well porosity to impedance correlation at Weyburn.

Due to the limited vertical resolution of the seismic data, which is greater than the resolution of well log data, inverted results of seismic data will have an average eect over the much larger volume than the instantaneous well log measurements. Nevertheless, the dynamic nature of the time-lapse experiment can help us delineate anomalous areas, which were aected by the CO2 injection and use impedance results in volumetric computations. Previous rock physics modeling (Brown, 2002) at Weyburn showed that the CO2 sweep should give a good response on P-wave impedance (Figure 5.2). Acoustic impedance could change up to 6% in the Vuggy and to over 11% in the Marly unit. Horizontal wells at Weyburn were drilled in the Marly with the objective to ood the Marly formation with CO2 and increase oil recovery. In the section of this dissertation, describing synthetic modeling using simple convolutional

99

model (section 2.1), it was shown that we should expect to see the time-lapse change associated with the CO2 injection.

Figure 5.2. P-wave impedance response to uid substitution in the reservoir (L. Brown, 2002).

There are several inversion algorithms described in the industry-related literature (Russell (1990), Gouveia & Scales (1998), van Riel (2000), Torres-Verdin et al. (1999), etc.). Most of the algorithms compute reectivity, which, when convolved with a given wavelet ts original seismic data. Computed reectivity is then recalculated to impedance values. Generally, algorithms utilize a 1-D convolutional model of the Earth. It is known (Gouveia & Scales, 1998) that a large set of solutions can t the seismic data and inversion of seismic data is not unique. Geostatistical inversion techniques model multiple impedance solutions, which all t seismic data equally well. The advantage of using geostatistical inversion is that associated with the solution uncertainties which can be quantitatively assessed (Gouveia & Scales, 1998). Conventional algorithms, though, come up with one best solution, which might not always be reliable when applied to the static seismic data. However, the nature of the time-lapse experiment increases the reliability of the solution by focusing on the

100

dynamic component of the reservoir as long as the inversion is applied consistently to all time-lapse datasets. Acoustic inversion at Weyburn was computed using Jason package and utilizing the Jasons robust Constrained Sparse Spike Inversion (CSSI) algorithm. The algorithm is well documented (van Riel & Debeye, 1990) and will not be expanded here. 5.2 Conventional acoustic inversion Conventional acoustic inversion is a computation of an impedance model in a static sense - every time-lapse dataset is treated separately. Of course, there are some logical improvements in the workow, since the datasets are collocated and acquired over the same geological area. There are three major components, which inuence the outcome of the inversion result: 1. quality of the input seismic data: frequency content and noise levels; 2. initial (background) impedance model: should reect low frequency component of the local geology, which is not present in the seismic data. Inversion of seismic data gives unstable results at low frequencies, since they are not present in the data; 3. wavelet estimation: quality of well-to-seismic tie. Lateral and time-lapse consistency of derived wavelets are important. Table 5.1 summarizes conventional inversion methodology at Weyburn. Wavelets (Figure 5.3) extracted from well-to-seismic ties and used for inversion are very consistent with each other in the time and frequency domains, which indicates an excellent repeatability between the time-lapse surveys.

101

Survey Wavelet

Background Inversion time window

Baseline (2000) 1st monitor (2001) 2nd monitor (2002) own wavelet (2000) own wavelet (2001) own wavelet (2002) averaged from averaged from averaged from two wells two wells two wells constructed from results of baseline (2000) results of baseline (2000) well logs inversion inversion 900-1400 ms 900-1400 ms 900-1400 ms

Table 5.1. Conventional inversion parameters.

x10 4

Seismic inversion wavelets after XEQ

1 amplitude

-50

0 time, ms

50

Figure 5.3. Wavelets used for inversion: 2000 (solid black), 2001 (dotted red) and 2002 (dashed blue).

102

Well-to-seismic ties for the purpose of wavelet extraction were performed at two well locations (Figure 5.4), which have good vertical log coverage (around 150 ms in time domain).

Figure 5.4. Well-to-seismic tie: quality of seismic to well correlations is very high.

Post inversion QC was very thorough and included analysis of the residuals as well as synthetics to seismic correlation (Figures 5.6 and 5.5). Inversion results are characterized by the low S/N ratio, high seismic-to-synthetic correlations and small residuals. Results are shown for inversion of the 2000 survey, but they are very consistent in QC values with inversion results of the time-lapse volumes. Signal-tonoise is estimated from correlations between the synthetic and original seismic traces. Figure 5.7 shows an overlay of well log acoustic impedance with the inverted one at the well locations. Comparison at the well is done for the inverted baseline (2000) survey,

103

since the well log reects the static component of the eld; before the CO2 program began.

Figure 5.5. Inversion QC: S/N and correlation between synthetics and seismic.

Favorable post-inversion QC, which established high quality of conventional inversion results (the separate volume approach) as well as high quality of original seismic data and a high degree of repeatability convinced the author to try another approach to inversion of the time-lapse data - inversion of the dierence. The framework of this approach is given in the next section.

104

Figure 5.6. Inversion QC: residuals representing dierence between seismic and synthetics (top). ILN64 baseline (2000) survey (bottom). Shown on the same amplitude and trace scale.

105

Figure 5.7. Inversion QC: overlay of well AI with inverted AI. CC=0.78 for well 11071364 and CC=0.80 for well 21131863. Rectangle delineates reservoir range.

106

5.3

Acoustic inversion of the dierence Inversion of the dierenced data is an emerging technique in time-lapse projects

and has been briey discussed during the last SEG 2003 meeting (Sarkar et al., 2003). Authors make several conclusions, which underscore the advantage of using inversion of the dierence workow to conventional inversion (they refer to it as an uncoupled inversion) providing that the level of repeatability between the baseline and monitor datasets regarded as appropriate. This section describes application of inversion to the dierenced seismic data at Weyburn and compares results with the dierence of conventional inversions. A seismic data dierence was calculated on the wavelet-based cross-equalized datasets and using the same CSSI algorithm in Jason. Well-to-seismic ties were originally created using the baseline (2000) survey. After the wavelet-based cross-equalization was applied collocated traces from the monitor (2001 and 2002) surveys were examined for proper time-alignment. Analysis was performed at the well locations used in well-to-seismic ties. Analysis in section 3 showed that there is no time shift between the time-lapse surveys. Figure 5.8 shows that at wavelet extraction well locations, indeed, data are aligned perfectly, thus implying, that no well-to-seismic re-tie is necessary. Recall, that the wavelet-based cross-equalization has zero delay almost perfect spike function shaping lters. The methodology varies slightly from the conventional inversion workow and is, actually, much simpler. The software can not handle negative impedance values, so the background has to be set to a high constant value to prevent instability in impedance calculations. Table 5.2 describes the inversion of the dierence workow. Obviously, after the inversion the original constant background is subtracted

107

2001 waveform alignment: well 11071364

2001 waveform alignment: well 21131863

trace no

trace no 1.05 1.10 1.15 time, s 1.20 1.25 1.30

1.00

1.00

1.05

1.10

1.15 time, s

1.20

1.25

1.30

2002 waveform alignment: well 11071364

2002 waveform alignment: well 21131863

trace no

trace no 1.05 1.10 1.15 time, s 1.20 1.25 1.30

1.00

1.00

1.05

1.10

1.15 time, s

1.20

1.25

1.30

Figure 5.8. Time alignment of baseline and monitor surveys with and without waveletbased cross-equalization applied. Trace (1) - baseline survey, (2) - monitor survey (original) and (3) - monitor survey (cross-equalization applied).

Dataset Wavelet Background Inversion time window

DIFF2000 DIFF2000 2001 2002 baseline (2000) wavelet baseline (2000) wavelet constant at 2 107 constant at 2 107 900-1400 ms 900-1400 ms

Table 5.2. Inversion of the dierence parameters.

108

from the results to produce a time-lapse impedance variation, which has positive and negative values. Comparison between tables 5.1 and 5.2 underlines the fact that in the case of a high quality time-lapse experiment inversion of the dierence has a simpler approach and a few evident advantages should be noticed: a single wavelet calculated on the baseline (2000) survey is used to invert both dierenced seismic datasets; very simple background model; one computation per time-lapse experiment instead of two; economical advantage (see above two items): simple (less time consuming) background and computer calculations time savings. 5.3.1 Comparison between conventional inversion and inversion of the dierence Comparison between conventional inversion and inversion of the dierence was performed at inline 94, which is located in the vicinity of the Western and Northern injectors. Figure 5.9 shows inline 94 with the dierence of the conventional inversions and inversion of the dierence. Only the dierence between the 2000 and 2002 comparison is shown. Notice that all the sections are plotted on the same magnitude scale. At rst glance, inversion of the dierence seems to be noisier, but further investigation of amplitudes indicates that the scale of dierences varies depending on the workow (conventional vs inversion of the dierence). Figure 5.10 shows the distribution of the dierence values for both workows. Histograms were computed over all

109

xline no 0.9 20 40 60 80 100 120

1.0 2 1 0 -1 -2 x10 6 1.3 time, s 1.2 1.1

DOI2000_2002.iln94.su
xline no 0.9 20 40 60 80 100 120

1.0 2 1 0 -1 -2 x10 6 1.3 time, s 1.2 1.1

IOD2000_2002.iln94.su

Figure 5.9. Inversion comparison at ILN 94. Dierence of inversions is above and inversion of the dierence is below. Horizons shown for reference (from top to bottom): LShaunavon, LGravelbrg, UWatrous, Mississippian and Frobisher.

110

Dataset
2000 DIFFInversion Inversion2001 2000 DIFFInversion Inversion2002

mean m -0.01 8.85

475508 402212

m 2 -951016 -804415

m + 2 +951016 +804433

Inversion(DIFF2000 2001 ) -1947.94 753516 -1508980 +1505084 Inversion(DIFF2000 2002 ) -1947.96 653550 -1309048 +1305152 Table 5.3. Statistical description of dierence value distribution for inversion workow comparison.

inverted volume, which spans from 900 to 1400 ms. Histogram analysis indicates that results from two inversion approaches should be analyzed and compared according to their own dierence values distribution. Dierence values in both cases have normal distribution, so I have decided to determine the scale minimum and maximum for each of the four cases using the m 2 rule, which preserves around 95% of the data (Table 5.3 shows statistics for every dataset). Figure 5.11 shows the same sections as in Figure 5.9 but now at the scale using the m 2 criterion. Notice, that once the inversion results are shown on the same relative scale, inversion of the dierence has a better character to it. Inversion of the dierence has less strong coherent events besides the reservoir, than the dierence of the inversions. It also has a lower frequency content overall. Yet, the position of the anomaly within the reservoir is the same on both of them. Also the mean value has a much tighter distribution in inversion of the dierence than in the conventional case. This higher stability in the inversion of the dierence workow could be attributed to the fact that the single wavelet is used for both inversions. All further analysis involving time-lapse impedance anomalies will be performed

111

2002: conventional (black) and inv. of the diff. (dashed red)

10

% data 5 0

-4

-2

0 AI difference

x10 6

2002: conventional (black) and inv. of the diff. (dashed red) - ZOOM
5

3 % data 2 1 0 -2.0

-1.5

-1.0

-0.5

0 0.5 AI difference

1.0

1.5

2.0 x10 6

Figure 5.10. Histogram analysis for two inversion workows. Zoom of the histogram is shown in the lower plot.

112

on the inversion of the dierence results. 5.3.2 Time-lapse impedance anomaly delineation

Figure 5.12 shows the time-lapse impedance change within the reservoir. Selected sections are inline 94 and 36. Inline 94 goes along the Western and Northern injector patterns and inline 36 along the Eastern and Southern injectors. Sections are shown using their own magnitude scale as computed previously using m 2 criterion. Therefore, the geometry and the relative vertical location change of the anomalies is the subject of the analysis. The vertical position of the anomalies is shifting down from 2001 to 2002, which implies vertical migration of the CO2 . Another indication supporting vertical migration of the CO2 is the location of sags, which coincide with vertical water injectors. For example, on inline 94 one of the vertical water injectors is located in the vicinity of xline 96. Inline 36 has two sags at the vertical water injector locations - xline 37 and 94. These results support Volume Frequency Decomposition maps. It is fair to say that some of the vertical injectors act as pathways for the CO2 . Another interesting dynamic change is the increase of a negative time-lapse impedance anomaly above and below the reservoir itself. A time-lapse impedance model was computed on the seismic data dierence, where monitor surveys are subtracted from the baseline survey. With time as the CO2 saturation increases, both P-wave velocity and bulk density decrease, resulting in smaller impedance values. Thus, the change in time-lapse impedance due to increased CO2 saturation is positive. A possible explanation for the negative anomalies above and below the reservoir could be that there is a change in the stress regime due to the pumping of CO2 in the reservoir. Hatchell et al. (2003) showed that it is possible to observe stress and strain

113

xline no 0.9 20 40 60 80 100 120

1.0

5 0 -5 x10 5 time, s

1.1

1.2

1.3

DOI2000_2002.iln94.su
xline no 0.9 20 40 60 80 100 120

1.0 1 1.1 0 time, s 1.2 -1 x10 6 1.3

IOD2000_2002.iln94.su

Figure 5.11. Inversion comparison at ILN 94. Sections are scaled using the m 2 criterion. Dierence of inversions is above and inversion of the dierence is below. Horizons shown for reference (from top to bottom): LShaunavon, LGravelbrg, UWatrous, Mississippian and Frobisher.

114

xline no 20 40 60 80 100 120 20 40 60

xline no 80 100 120

1.14 1 1.16 time, s 0 -1 x10 6 1.20 0 1.18 -1 x10 6 time, s 1

1.14

1.16

1.18

1.20

1.22

1.22

IOD2000_2001.iln94.su

IOD2000_2001.iln36.su

Figure 5.12. Time-lapse inversion change at injector patterns (ILN 94 - left pair and ILN 36 - right pair). Sections are scaled using m 2 criterion. Horizons shown for reference are: Mississippian (top) and Frobisher (bottom). Elliptical regions indicate time-lapse sags.

115

eld changes resulting from reservoir compaction. However, anomalies illustrated in the article are low frequency anomalies, which is not the case at Weyburn. The difference can be explained by the geology of the reservoir and surrounding formations. The reservoir at Weyburn is surrounded by evaporites on the top and bottom, which provide a good seal mechanism and could localize the stress due to high stiness of the rock. In the article mentioned above, a phenomenon was described at the giant oshore eld with production coming from the chalk reservoir. Also notice that the negative anomalies are somewhat symmetrical on inline 36, which is located over the Southern and Eastern injectors, which are characterized by a good CO2 injectivity and production response from surrounding horizontal producers. Inline 94, on the other hand, has an asymmetrical negative anomaly mainly below the reservoir with no production response from neighboring wells. The Western injector, though, injected comparable to the Southern and Eastern injectors amount of CO2 . CO2 could be going mainly into the Vuggy unit of the reservoir at the Western injector. Using derived velocity for time-to-depth conversion (see section 6) impedance models were converted to depth and overlaid with CO2 injector wells. Figure 5.13 shows impedance anomalies delineated along injector paths using a threshold analysis. The mutual position of anomalies and injector wells indicate good time-to-depth conversion and correlation of the sags in time-lapse impedance anomalies to vertical water injector wells (especially evident at the Western injector).

5.4

Chapter conclusions Two time-lapse inversion approaches were analyzed. One of them is the conven-

tional (uncoupled) approach when the impedance model is calculated on each volume separately using their own extracted wavelets. The second approach is a new one,

116

Figure 5.13. Position of time-lapse impedance anomalies (2001 - top and 2002 bottom) in depth relative to CO2 injectors (black) and vertical water injectors (blue).

117

which computes an impedance model on the dierenced seismic surveys, providing that the time-lapse datasets are highly repeatable and appropriately cross-equalized, which is the case at Weyburn eld. The result of the latter workow is preferable to that of the conventional approach. The simpler workow, a single wavelet, visual examination of the inverted sections and basic statistical analysis indicate that inversion of the dierence has less uncertainty than the conventional workow. Results of the inversion of the dierence will be used in geostatistical reservoir construction and further analysis. Analysis of the time-lapse impedance change indicates that from rst monitor (2001) to the second monitor (2002) survey the vertical location of the anomaly moved down, demonstrating a movement of the CO2 into the Vuggy unit. On inlines 94 and 36, which cross injection patterns, the time-lapse impedance anomaly has pronounced sags in the vicinity of the vertical injector wells, manifesting the fairway for the CO2 . This result is consistent with the volume frequency decomposition attribute analysis. Negative anomalies above and below the reservoir could be explained by increased stress due to CO2 injection into the formation and the fact that the water injectors were active between the baseline and monitor surveys. Water injectors were shut o for the seismic acquisition time.

118

Chapter 6

RESERVOIR-SCALE VELOCITY MODELING

The cornerstone of successful reservoir characterization is a detailed reservoir model reecting the correct geological framework and intelligently populated with rock properties (Galikeev & Meng, 2002). Integration of seismic data into the reservoir characterization workow assists in creating a spatially detailed reservoir model from otherwise spatially sparse well data. There are two main issues which need to be addressed when incorporating seismic data into reservoir characterization: construction of an accurate velocity eld for time-to-depth conversions and nding geostatistical relationships between seismic attributes and rock properties. The latter is a separate topic and is covered in this work in section 7. This chapter describes a new methodology to generate a high-resolution 3-D velocity eld, that is consistent with the seismic inversion in time and the sequence stratigraphic framework in depth. This new modeling workow has been successfully applied at Weyburn eld.

6.1

Methodology The methodology of the velocity workow takes advantage of data availability

at mature producing elds by integrating seismically derived stratigraphic units, a seismic impedance model and well log interpretation. Some steps require application of geostatistical methods, since the velocity modeling process starts with point data, but the result is the 3-D velocity model. Figure 6.1 outlines the workow; the detailed description of every modeling step and its application to the Weyburn data follows

119

below.

point data
well tops picks

2D data
seismic horizon picks

3D data
seismic impedance model

1D data
well logs (DT and RHOB)

3D data
velocity correction factor

3D data
Final velocity model

Figure 6.1. Velocity modeling workow. Integration of multidimensional data.

6.1.1

Calculate average velocity for seismic horizons

Mature production elds usually have an extensive database of wells with picked formation tops (Figure 6.2). Seismic data, on the other hand, oers equivalent horizons in the time domain with a much denser mesh. The seismic horizon data coupled with well top picks could be used to create equivalent horizons in depth. Depth horizons are created using geostatistical methods with well top picks as hard data. Crosscorrelation analysis at Weyburn eld (Figure 6.2) reveals that picked well tops in depth have a high degree of correlation with the seismic horizon times picked on surface seismic data. This suggested the use of collocated cokriging, where well top picks were the primary variable and the seismic horizon times were the secondary variable. The secondary variable is used to calculate interpolation weights away from the primary (hard) data. Thus, at every point on the seismic horizon we have two properties: seismic time and depth (at well locations depth matches that of the well formation pick for

120

Figure 6.2. Well locations with available well top picks (left). Correlation coecient between seismic time picks and depth values (right).

a particular horizon). Therefore, the average velocity is computed at the horizons using the following equation:
TD Vave = (T V DSS + SRD)/Z

(6.1)

where T V DSS is the true vertical depth (subsea) value for well top picks, SRD is the seismic reference datum (600 m at Weyburn) and Z is the two-way time for a horizon pick. So, now the average velocity at the horizons and at the seismic lateral resolution is available. This velocity is considered to be the ground truth, since it maps picked seismic horizons exactly to the well top picks in depth at the well locations. Figure 6.3 shows the nal horizon in depth. The Marly, Vuggy and Frobisher horizons built in this manner were used to construct the structural reservoir model in depth.

121

Figure 6.3. Final Marly horizon in depth overlaid with well top picks in depth.

6.1.2

Compute the average velocity from the impedance volume

Previously computed conventional impedance volume of the baseline (2000) survey is also utilized in the velocity workow. Impedance values (Zp = V ) carry information about the interval velocity of the lithological units. Here, I am integrating acoustic impedance results in 3-D with density and sonic log information available from the wells to build a 3-D average velocity model from the seismic impedance values.
AI The interval velocity (Vint ) is backed out from impedance values using Gardners

equation (6.2) with empirically determined coecients (Gardner et al., 1974).

= cV d

(6.2)

Equation 6.2 can be linearized in the logarithmic domain and coecients c and d can be determined by plotting the well density log versus the well sonic log on a log log scale. Interval velocity is computed by using impedance and Gardners equations. Simple algebra yields

122

Region coecient c reservoir 236.254 outside reservoir 72.5237

coecient d 1.278573 1.427834

Table 6.1. Calculated Gardners coecients for wells 11071364 and 21131863.

1 1 1+d Zp = Vint = cVint Vint = ( Zp ) 1+d c

(6.3)

Sometimes it is advised to subdivide the vertical section into regions of close lithology and compute dierent sets of coecients for each of the dened lithological units. This ensures that the interval velocity computed from impedance values correlates well with the interval velocity calculated from the sonic log. For Weyburn eld I have computed two sets of Gardners coecients: one set for the reservoir range (Marly to Frobisher) and another for outside the reservoir. Table 6.1 lists the actual values for the coecients. For QC purposes Vint was recalculated from the well impedance curve using derived coecients c and d and overlaid with the original interval velocity computed from the sonic log. Figure 6.4 illustrates that the use of derived coecients yields curves close to the original and, therefore, they can be used to derive Vint from the impedance volume with condence. The next step is to recalculate Vint velocity derived from the impedance volume
AI AI (hereafter Vint ) using Gardners coecient to the average velocities (Vave ), since aver-

age velocities are used to convert time to depth. The 3-D stratigraphic grid (velocity model was built between the Lower Shaunavon and Frobisher + 100 ms horizons) is treated as a layered-cake model with every layer having its own known thickness t, which varies laterally, but is known at every trace location. So, at every cell of the

123

Figure 6.4. Comparison analysis for original (sonic log) and computed (derived Gardners coecients) Vint . Rectangle (top) denotes reservoir range. Bottom plots show correlation coecients computed for full data range (left) and reservoir only (right).

124

AI . Conversion is performed model we know its thickness t and interval velocity Vint

using equation 6.4.

AI ti Vint (i) i ti

AI Vave =

(6.4)

Note, that the denominator, location of the current cell. 6.1.3

ti is nothing but the vertical seismic time

Calculating the velocity-correction factor

At this point we have two sets of average velocities available at the seismic horiTD AI zons: Vave computed from time-depth pairs and Vave derived from the impedance

volume using Gardners coecients. The former is considered to be master velocities, since they map seismic horizons exactly to well top picks at well locations. The velocTD AI ity error is computed between Vave and Vave on seismic horizons and then propagated

through the velocity volume using interpolation techniques. Then this correction
AI factor is applied to Vave , which results in a nal average velocity 3-D model. TD Computed errors at Weyburn were on the order of 1% dierence between Vave AI and Vave , which is very small and indicates high quality inversion results and quality

Gardners coecients. Figure 6.5 shows the error distribution for the Midale evaporites. Another QC is to examine the position of the depth horizons relative to lithostratigraphic units of the impedance volume converted to depth. Figure 6.6 shows the position of the depth horizons relative to the impedance section, which was converted to depth using the derived velocity eld. The match is very good, which demonstrates appropriate time-to-depth conversion and, therefore, an adequate velocity model.

125

TD AI Figure 6.5. Error between Vave and Vave for Midale evaporates horizon.

Figure 6.6. Depth impedance section at inline 62 shown with depth horizons: Mississippian, Midale Evaporites, Marly and Frobisher.

126

6.2

Chapter conclusions Detailed and accurate velocity elds can be constructed as an integral part of the

reservoir characterization process. The described approach has obvious advantages when compared to seismic-only time-to-depth conversion methods by incorporating all related information into the workow. The velocity eld extracted from acoustic impedance values and calibrated against horizon velocities allows us to obtain a high resolution velocity eld which is desired for thin reservoir characterization. A high resolution and accurate velocity eld helps to correlate seismic attributes to rock properties more condently. Quality control of converted Weyburn time volumes to depth indicates an appropriate velocity eld.

127

Chapter 7

GEOSTATISTICAL INTEGRATION AND RESERVOIR MODEL BUILDING

Petroleum geophysics mostly deals with two distinctly dierent data types: seismic data in time (remote sensing method), characterized by high lateral and low vertical resolutions; and well data (direct rock measurements) having high vertical resolution due to local sampling but with very low spatial resolution. These two types of data, when closely examined, could have patterns of dependence relating one to another. The objective of geostatistics is to estimate the values of one property (for example, porosity ) within the cell-based structural model of the reservoir when the outcome of the second property is known (for example, seismic impedance) (Journel, 1989). Geostatistics is dened by Olea (1991) as The application of statistical methods... in the earth sciences, particularly in geology. Dierent branches of geoscience use dierent investigation scales: from grain (petrography) and pore sizes (core studies, rock physics) to seismic (reservoir characterization) and regional geology scales. The previous statement is especially true for mature elds with various types of data available: well cores, logs, geologic outcrop and analogue analysis, seismic data and engineering production data. The main purpose of applying geostatistics in reservoir modeling is the ability to integrate dierent data types available by utilizing statistical relationships between them. Advantage of using geostatistical methods as opposed to regression methods is that the latter assumes that the data are location independent, which often constitutes a simplied approach.

128

Geostatistical model building in the petroleum industry diers from the process in mining or geochemistry. Mining and geochemistry, for example, deal with point measurements, where one or multiple attributes can be measured. The petroleum industry, on the other hand, has sparse point measurements at well locations and very dense grid data from geophysical data, characterized by exhaustive coverage (Xu et al., 1992). Because of much denser sampling of the secondary variable some of the geostatistical solutions, for example, cokriging become unstable and have to be modied accordingly. Reservoir model building always consists of two major steps: structural modeling property modeling A structural model of the reservoir is a cell-based 3-D grid honoring local stratigraphy. Usually, the original reservoir model is built in depth and at the vertical resolution close to that of the well logs and lateral resolution of the seismic data. Later, depending on the task, the original reservoir model can be upscaled. Local stratigraphy is honored by conforming the 3-D structural grid to horizons in depth based on the type of the horizon. Cell-based layers could be parallel to the horizon (lithology change) or could be truncated against the horizon if it was picked at a known geological unconformity. The horizon building process integrating seismic picks and well tops as well as knowledge of the local geological model is the key to successful structural model reecting the true subsurface reservoir organization. Property modeling is the process of populating the 3-D structural grid with rock properties using bivariate statistical relationships. Geostatistical integration is a tool which helps to utilize patterns of dependence between rock properties measured in the borehole and attributes derived from the seismic data. Bivariate statistical

129

formulation allows populating a structural reservoir model with rock properties away from the wells with higher condence, i.e. reduce the uncertainty of the model (Doyen, 1988). The reservoir model at Weyburn was used to calculate volumetrics of the CO2 using porosity and the CO2 saturation map created from the time-lapse impedance response. 7.1 Geostatistical methods Two geostatistical techniques were employed in the process of reservoir model building: collocated cokriging and sequential Gaussian simulation (SGS) with collocated cokriging. Both of these techniques are described in full in related literature, for example, in Xu et al. (1992), Deutsch & Journel (1992) and Journel (1989). The collocated cokriging method was specically developed for the petroleum industry due to the particular features (explained later) of the secondary variable, which usually comes from the densely populated seismic data. For simplicity, lets denote z1 as primary (well data) and z2 secondary (seismic) data. Before proceeding to describing the geostatistical concepts lets establish some of the nomenclature: Zi (u) zi (u)
z1 (u)

- random variable at location u - data at location u - an estimate of value z1 (u)

Ci,j (h) - covariance between any two random variables i and j E {.} mi - expected value - stationary mean of variable i
The fundamental idea of linear regression is to estimate an unknown value z1 (u)

130

by a linear combination of n known values z1 (u ), = 1, . . . , N (Journel, 1989). The

term kriging is applied when the value z1 is estimated from N values of the same is estimated from the dierent attribute (z2 ), the attribute (z1 ). In the case, when z1

process is referred to as cokriging. Algorithmically, there is no dierence between kriging and cokriging, except for the variogram models used in the process. The kriging equation (7.1) is given below:
z1 (u0 ) = n1 =1

z1 (u )

(7.1)

In order to determine weights the error variance (estimation variance) should be minimized by setting partial derivatives of the error variance to zero (Journel, 1989). That minimization results in a set of normal equations (Deutsch & Journel, 1992):
n =1

(u)C1 (u u ) = C1 (u u ), = 1, . . . , n

(7.2)

In reality, the covariance (variogram) model is reduced to two-point statistics relating any two values z1 (u) and z1 (u + h). Cokriging (7.3) is just an extension of the kriging equation system, which allows to incorporate data of a dierent type z2 (Xu et al., 1992):
z1 (u0 ) = n1 =1

(1) z1 (u ) +

n2 =1

(2) z2 (u )

(7.3)

The cokriging method requires modeling of four covariance models instead of one in the kriging method: C11 = Cov {Z1 (u), Z1 (u + h)} C22 = Cov {Z2 (u), Z2 (u + h)} C12 = Cov {Z1 (u), Z2 (u + h)}

131

C21 = Cov {Z2 (u), Z1 (u + h)}, where C12 C21 . The cokriging method becomes unstable (cokriging matrices become almost singular) when using a densely populated secondary variable z2 , which is the case with seismic data. This can be explained by the fact that the secondary function has very high auto-correlation due to high continuity and close lateral spacing of the z2 variable. Auto-correlation of the primary (z1 ) sparsely populated function, on the other
hand, is poor. Also, the value of the secondary variable z2 (ue ) collocated with z1 (ue ),

where ue is the location where z1 is to be estimated, tends to screen the inuence of the distant secondary data. The solution to this problem (Xu et al., 1992) is to retain only one collocated value of the secondary variable (n2 = 1) at the location where the primary variable is to be estimated. This method is called collocated cokriging and the cokriging linear estimator and the system of equations can be rewritten as:
z1 (u)

m1 =

n1 =1

(2) (1) [z1 (u ) m1 ] + [z2 (u) m2 ]

(7.4)

n1 =1 n1 =1

C1 (u u ) + (2) C21 (u u ) = C1 (u u ), = 1, . . . , n1
(1) C12 (u

(1)

u) + C2 (0) = C12 (0),

(2)

(7.5)

where m1 = E {Z1 (u)}, m2 = E {Z2 (u)} are the two stationary means, C1 (h), C2 (h), C12 (h) = C21 (h) are the (cross) covariances. Xu et al. (1992) also show in their article how the system (7.5) can be simplied further using a Markov-type screening hypothesis, which considers that the primary datum z1 (u) screens the inuence of any other datum z1 (u + h) on the secondary collocated variable Z2 (u). In the same source the authors review stochastic simulation algorithms involv-

132

ing the use of secondary data, which complements sparsely spaced well data. This is the standard application of simulation algorithms in reservoir modeling. One of the methods is the sequential Gaussian simulation (SGS) with collocated cokriging. Gaussian-based simulations transform the input variable Z1 (u) to normal score. Multiple realizations of the random variable Z1 (u) are simulated as follows (Dubrule, 2003): 1. Dene a random path visiting all cells in the model to be simulated. 2. At each new location the value is cokriged from the previously sampled values and the well data. 3. A random value is sampled from the Gaussian pdf with a mean equal to the kriged value and a standard deviation equal to the kriging standard deviation. 4. Then the sampled value obtained in the previous step is merged with the rest of the dataset and the process is repeated for the new random location until all nodes have been simulated. 5. Back-transform all realizations into the original z1 -space. Simulated maps typically have a more geologically heterogeneous look to them (full-pass lters) as opposed to the kriged maps, which have a very smooth character (low-pass lter).

7.2

Structural model A structural model of the reservoir (Figure 7.10) honoring stratigraphic layering

was built using three horizons in depth: the top of the reservoir (Marly), the top Vuggy and the bottom of the reservoir, corresponding to the Frobisher. The main

133

goal is to build continuous horizons in depth reecting correct local structure relying on sparse well top picks (point data). High correlation between seismic structure and depth points (Figure 7.1) indicates that seismic times should be used during horizon creation in depth.

Figure 7.1. Correlation coecient between time (x axis) and depth (TVDSS, y axis) is -0.94 for top of Marly unit. Seismic pick is a Marly pick on a baseline (2000) volume. Correlation analysis performed within usable seismic area.

Figure 7.2 shows depth point picks overlaid with the model boundaries (larger rectangle) and a usable seismic data area (smaller rectangle). The usable seismic data area spans inline 9-115 and xline 6-131. The rest of the inlines and xlines were cut o because of the lower seismic data quality due to the low fold of the data. That gives us two sets of data - well top picks in depth, which exist within the model outline, and seismic times on a much more ne lateral scale, which exist within the red rectangle only. Collocated cokriging was selected as a geostatistical technique to create horizons in depth. Collocated cokriging requires the primary variable (hard data) and secondary (soft) variable. Naturally, in this case, the well

134

Figure 7.2. Relative position of well top picks (Marly), model boundaries (larger, black rectangle) and usable seismic data area (smaller rectangle).

135

tops will be the primary and the seismic times the secondary variable. The secondary variable should exist at each location within the model where the primary variable will be estimated. Regular kriging was used to extend seismic times (secondary variable) to every cell of the model. 7.2.1 Top of the reservoir (Marly)

Depth point data for the Marly horizon was created from M1 and M2 well top picks (some of the wells were missing the M1 unit in the section). The kriging algorithm was used to estimate seismic times beyond the red line - the boundary of usable seismic data. Figure 7.3 shows a comparison between two dierent kriging algorithms: simple kriging and ordinary kriging. Simple kriging implies that the mean of the data is known and away from the hard data locations (wells) estimation tends to the value of the mean. Ordinary kriging estimates the mean of the data at every location and away from the wells the estimate tends to the value of the mean computed for current locality based on the variogram analysis (Figure 7.4). The ordinary kriging result was picked, since it has better extrapolation qualities. Kriged seismic times for the Marly were then crossplotted with depths (TVDSS) of the corresponding Marly well top pick (Figure 7.5) and the outlier analysis was performed. The outlier analysis compares computed seismic times from depth well top picks to actual seismic times using the linear regression equation derived from the crossplot analysis for the Marly horizon. Points with a high dierence indicate areas of bad correlation between seismic times and well top picks in depth. Outlier analysis shows that the seismic times in the west corner of the survey do not correlate well with the depth of the Marly top picked at the wells. In fact, these two wells show the largest dierence between computed and actual times. To

136

Figure 7.3. Results of Marly seismic times kriging: simple kriging (left) and ordinary kriging (right). Note that ordinary kriging has better extrapolating ability at the edge of the survey.

Figure 7.4. Variogram analysis of Marly seismic times.

137

Figure 7.5. Crossplot of Marly well top depths and Marly seismic times. Linear regression equation: time = 0.665 T V DSS + 610.998 x the seismic times, which is also the secondary variable in our collocated cokriging approach some of the areas of picked seismic times should be discarded. The areal region was created on the seismic horizon picks (Figure 7.6), which excluded anomalous seismic times close to the boundary of the survey. Next, seismic times were rekriged using only newly created region of reliable seismic times and, again, the outlier analysis was performed. The crosscorrelation cloud became tighter (Figures 7.7), the coecient between depth and seismic times is higher (increased from -0.827 to -0.915), and the absolute values of the dierence became much smaller. After the satisfactory secondary variable was created collocated cokriging was used to create depth structure for the Marly top in depth. A collocated cokriging algorithm was supplied with a correlation coecient between seismic times and depths as 0.4 not to overinuence the hard data by the seismic times away from the wells

138

and to create a smooth looking surface. Calculated depth values were smoothed again using 20 iterations and the extracted surface was retted back to the Marly depth picks.

Figure 7.6. Shaded area within the red polygon represents the region without anomalous seismic times. This regions was used in cokriging of depth points with seismic times.

139

Figure 7.7. After rekriging: crossplot of Marly well top depths and Marly seismic times. Linear regression equation: time = 0.666 T V DSS + 610.81 7.2.2 Top Vuggy

Due to the inability to pick the top Vuggy on seismic data (thin reservoir, low seismic resolution) the top Vuggy time horizon was constructed using thickness proportions derived from the well data. Geological models of the reservoir imply that the top of the Vuggy could be an unconformity. Indeed, some of the wells do not have V1 top picked on them. In this case V2 corresponds to the top of the Vuggy unit. The V1 and V2 picks were combined to create a topVuggy pointset corresponding to the top of the Vuggy zone. The ratio of the median thickness of the Marly (Marly to topVuggy) to the median thickness of the Vuggy (topVuggy to Frobisher) is 1:3. So, the time horizon corresponding to top Vuggy was constructed using the formula: 3 1 M arlytime + F robishertime 4 4

topV uggytime =

140

This horizon was used as a secondary variable in a collocated cokriging algorithm when calculating the top Vuggy structure in depth. The correlation coecient between topV uggyT V DSS in depth to topV uggytime at the well locations and within the usable seismic area is -0.93. The top Vuggy horizon in depth was built using the same approach as was previously described for the Marly horizon: krige (ordinary kriging) the topVuggy times within the whole model; perform outlier analysis based on the dierence between actual seismic times and times derived using linear regression between seismic times and depth values at the well locations; adjust the region of points to be used in the kriging and rekrige the seismic times; compute the depth structure using the collocated cokriging algorithm with a correlation coecient of 0.4.

Figure 7.8. Top Vuggy dierence between actual seismic times and computed from depth using linear regression equation before (left) and after (right) rekriging.

141

7.2.3

Bottom of the reservoir (Frobisher)

Building the Frobisher depth horizon is similar to that of the Marly and Vuggy. The Frobisher seismic horizon was used as a secondary variable for the collocated cokriging.

Figure 7.9. Top Vuggy dierence between actual seismic times and computed from depth using linear regression equation before (left) and after (right) rekriging.

Figure 7.10. Final structural model of the reservoir. Layers 1-36 is Vuggy unit and layers 37-48 is Marly formation.

142

7.3

Property modeling Once the structural model of the reservoir is completed (Figure 7.10) it should

be populated by the rock properties using well logs available within the reservoir model boundaries. It was shown earlier (Figure 5.1) that there is a strong correlation between porosity and impedance logs computed from sonic and density. Acoustic impedance computed in the process of seismic inversion is available within every cell of the reservoir model, since it was converted to depth using a reservoir-scaled velocity model created in section 6. Availability and spatial coverage of porosity logs within the reservoir is shown in Figure 7.11.

Figure 7.11. Wells with porosity logs within the reservoir model boundaries.

A limitation of the seismic inversion is that it can not resolve the Marly and Vuggy units, but gives some average response to the total reservoir range. Figure 7.12 illustrates that the inverted impedance lacks a bimodal distribution signature in the

143

histogram, which is present at the well resolution in porosity and impedance logs and reects true reservoir composition. Each mode is attributed to the Marly (high porosity range) and Vuggy (low porosities) zones.

Figure 7.12. Porosity histogram (left) and inverted seismic impedance (right) within the reservoir. Inverted impedance model can not resolve Marly and Vuggy units.

7.3.1

Pseudo-geostatistical cascaded inversion (PGCI)

In order to increase vertical resolution of the impedance model and make it usable in a collocated cokriging routine to populate a reservoir model with porosity values from the wells, I propose a geostatistical approach, which I called pseudo-geostatistical cascaded inversion or PGCI. The main dierence with full bandwidth (up to well log resolution) geostatistical inversion is that the impedance model up to seismic frequency is obtained using a deterministic inversion algorithm. The geostatistical inversion algorithm (Dubrule, 2003) includes the following steps: 1. dene a random path through all nodes (x,y) to be simulated (typically a vertical stack of cells of the structural reservoir model corresponding to every seismic trace); 2. for each node (x,y) perform a local optimization

144

generate a large number of local realizations of acoustic impedance traces (all realizations honor the well data); convolution of all realizations with the seismic wavelet; comparison with the actual seismic trace at location (x,y); keep the best trace matching the original seismic which becomes conditioning data; 3. repeat the process for every node. In full bandwidth geostatistical inversion a high resolution impedance model is generated using geostatistical conditional simulation. Medium frequencies are controlled by the seismic data (comparing to original seismic trace) (Figure 7.13).

amplitude

wells

seismic

wells

frequency, Hz

Figure 7.13. Frequency components of the geostatistical inversion.

PGCI adds only the high frequency component into the nal model, which is generated using well logs. The PGCI algorithm is especially preferred in time-lapse seismic applications, since the good quality initial impedance model, which is a result of the seismic inversion of the baseline survey, is available for consequent deterministic inversions of the monitor surveys. The reason I called it cascaded is that the workow goes through a series of sequential steps:

145

a low frequency initial impedance model is derived from the well logs with frequencies up to 10-15 Hz, i.e. frequencies which are not present in the seismic data; reects low frequency geological trend; medium frequencies (up to seismic frequencies) are recovered through the process of deterministic seismic inversion; a high frequency component calculated from the impedance well logs. Algorithmically, PGCI uses the same geostatistical conditional simulation approach as in the full bandwidth geostatistical inversion, except that I create only a high frequency component of the impedance model. Figure 7.14 shows the distribution of available wells with impedance logs within reservoir model boundaries. At each of the wells a high frequency component of the impedance model is computed by subtracting the deterministic impedance model, obtained with a conventional seismic inversion process, from the high frequency well impedance log (Figure 7.14). The next step is to perform multiple realizations of Sequential Gaussian Simulation (SGS). 50 realizations in total were computed and then averaged. Dubrule (2003) shows that with the growing number of realizations their mean becomes closer and closer to kriging. Realizations honor well data and, therefore, they produce similar results at the well locations, but away from the wells similarity between realizations diminishes and become uncorrelated at distances greater than the range of variogram. The reservoir at Weyburn has a bimodal distribution of porosity and impedance log values due to the property dierences between the Marly and Vuggy units. SGS, on the other hand, assumes that data are normally distributed. The SGS algorithm transforms the data into the normal distribution, so the variograms used in the SGS

146

x10 7 impedance 1.5 1.0 0.5 -600

well 11071364: well AI (solid) and inverted AI (dotted)

-650

-700 -750 TVDSS, m

-800

-850

x10 7 1.0 imp. diff. 0.5 0 -600

well 11071364: high frequency impedance component

-650

-700 -750 TVDSS, m

-800

-850

Figure 7.14. Wells with impedance logs within survey boundaries. Well 11071364 (circled) was used for cross-validation purposes.

147

process should be created on the normal score data. SGS at Weyburn was run separately in the Marly and Vuggy (Figure 7.15).

Figure 7.15. Well impedance values distribution within the whole reservoir (left), Marly (middle) and Vuggy unit (right). Smooth gray line represents normal distribution curve.

In order to assess the quality of SGS results a blind well test (cross-validation) was performed. Well 11071364 was removed from the group of wells, which were used for generating SGS results. Results of SGS were averaged and projected to the blind well for validation purposes. Table 7.1 shows that average SGS result has high correlation coecient to the actual high frequency component computed at the well (Figure 7.16). The nal step in the PGCI process is to apply the simulated high-frequency impedance component to the seismically inverted impedance model (Figure 7.17). The obtained PGCI volume is used to populate the reservoir model with porosity values.

148

Realization CC, vuggy CC, marly CC, reservoir 1 0.318 0.501 0.851 2 -0.028 0.235 0.728 3 0.158 0.232 0.723 4 -0.075 0.264 0.806 5 0.191 0.254 0.771 average of 5 0.217 0.571 0.899 average of 50 0.402 0.406 0.877 Table 7.1. Well 11071364 (blind): crosscorrelation coecients between original high frequency impedance component and the simulated one.

x10 7 1.0 imp. diff. 0.5 0 -820

well 11071364: original AI_HF (black) and simulated (dotted)

-830

-840 TVDSS, m

-850

-860

Figure 7.16. Well 11071364 (blind): overlay of original high frequency impedance component and the simulated one.

149

Figure 7.17. Seismically inverted impedance (left), simulated high frequency impedance component (middle) and nal PGCI impedance model (right). Shown with corresponding histogram distributions. Section corresponds to inline 48.

7.3.2

Reservoir porosity model

A reservoir porosity model was created by using the collocated cokriging technique with the PGCI model as a secondary variable. Figure 7.18 shows the modeled porosity variogram computed from wells and the calculated reservoir porosity model at inline 48. To verify the quality of the constructed porosity model, a cross-validation (blind well test) technique was applied. The total number of 26 wells with porosity logs were used. One well at a time was taken out of the well group used for collocated cokriging and then the estimated porosity was compared to the actual one. Figure 7.19 shows correlation coecients at each well. Table 7.2 lists correlation coecients for each well within the whole reservoir and reservoir units. Figure 7.20 shows the scattergrams (crossplots) between actual porosity and the

150

Figure 7.18. Modeled variogram for porosity and reservoir porosity model shown at inline 48.

151

Figure 7.19. Cross-validation correlation coecients. The size of the sphere is proportional to the correlation coecient. Black squares represent wells used in the PGCI process.

152

# 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Well CC, reservoir 02-13 0.714 02-18 0.853 02-24 0.779 04-13 0.811 04-18 0.848 04-19 0.613 06-13 0.752 06-18 0.662 08-01 0.847 08-12 0.793 08-13 0.750 08-13D 0.967 08-14 0.633 08-24 0.628 10-12 0.736 10-13 0.740 10-18 0.510 12-07 0.839 12-13 0.844 12-18 0.751 14-07D 0.875 14-12 0.855 14-13 0.885 14-18 0.847 16-12 0.619 16-13 0.807 all 26 wells 0.752

CC, marly CC, vuggy -0.256 0.311 0.612 0.465 0.042 0.478 0.657 0.419 0.496 0.521 0.655 0.093 0.105 0.666 0.365 0.513 0.516 0.503 -0.268 0.335 -0.203 0.008 0.816 0.936 0.508 0.374 -0.473 0.441 0.260 0.162 -0.051 -0.039 -0.406 0.097 0.158 0.335 0.440 0.470 -0.030 0.435 0.443 0.413 0.015 0.375 0.359 0.548 0.232 0.415 0.212 -0.255 0.180 0.715 0.143 0.353

Table 7.2. Porosity cross-validation: correlation coecients.

153

estimated one. There are very few outliers in the crossplots. Another way to look at the quality of the generated porosity model is to look at the histograms of the residuals between actual porosity and the estimated porosity (Figure 7.21). The correlation coecient is larger when looking at the whole reservoir due to a strong bimodal distribution of porosity (low values are associated with the Vuggy unit and higher values are attributed to the Marly). Overall, the Vuggy unit produces higher correlation values between the actual and the estimated porosity. This can be explained by the fact that the Vuggy unit is three times thicker than the Marly, and, therefore, has a better statistical representation. Also, since seismically the reservoir is thin (half of the seismic wavelet) and the seismic attributes (inverted impedance in this case) are representing some average properties, therefore, the contribution from the Vuggy unit in the nal result is larger than that of the Marly. Figure 7.19 shows that generally high correlation coecients are located close to the wells used for the PGCI technique and, therefore, validate the technology.

154

Figure 7.20. Porosity cross-validation: scattergrams (crossplots) of actual versus estimated porosity.

155

Figure 7.21. Porosity cross-validation: histograms of the residual between actual and estimated porosity (from top to bottom: reservoir, Marly, Vuggy). Red line represents the corresponding normal distribution.

156

7.4

Injection pattern CO2 volumetrics The time-lapse seismic attribute analysis made it possible to map the dynamic

component of the reservoir attributed to the CO2 injection. Rock physics modeling performed by Brown (2002) links impedance changes to the CO2 saturation. Acoustic impedance changes within the reservoir have been recalculated into the CO2 saturation maps using the following assumptions: 1. dynamic changes in impedance are attributed to the CO2 saturation; 2. saturation maps are created for the whole vertical section of the reservoir, despite the fact that seismic attributes showed the vertical shift of the CO2 related anomalies from the 2001 and 2002 surveys. The saturation map was created using the inverted impedance volume computed on the dierenced volume of the baseline (2000) and second monitor (2002) surveys. The saturation map computed is not really an absolute CO2 saturation values but rather an estimation of part porosity occupied by CO2 after irreducible water and oil were taken into account. The CO2 saturation map was computed in the following manner: pick horizon (program supickhor) at the maximum of the inversion values within the reservoir and smoothed on a 100x100 meter grid (Figure 7.22); extract slab of data (program suslab) around smooth horizon; interval used was 35 ms with -15 ms shift (Figure 7.23); within the extracted slab of data create the region, which includes positive impedance values only;

157

at each (x,y) location compute the vertical sum of the impedance values within the positive region only; create a map of CO2 saturation values from the last slice of the slab and normalize it to its maximum, so that the saturation values are between 0 and 1 (Figure 7.24).

1.12

4780

4800

trace no 4820 4840

4860

4880

1.12

1.266

1.268

1.270

trace no 1.272

1.274

1.276

x10 4 1.278

2 1 time, s 0 -1 -2 x10 6

1.14

2 1

1.14

1.16

time, s

0 -1

1.16

1.18

-2 x10 6

1.18

1.20

1.20

ILN_36

ILN_94

Figure 7.22. Picked maximum impedance anomaly and its smooth version.

1.12

4780

4800

trace no 4820 4840

4860

4880

1.12

1.266

1.268

1.270

trace no 1.272

1.274

1.276

x10 4 1.278

2 1 time, s 0 -1 -2 x10 6

1.14

2 1

1.14

1.16

time, s

0 -1

1.16

1.18

-2 x10 6

1.18

1.20

1.20

ILN_36

ILN_94

Figure 7.23. Time window for extracted slab of time-lapse variation impedance data.

At this point all data are available to compute the volume of CO2 in the formation: reservoir porosity model;

158

Figure 7.24. CO2 saturation map computed from time-lapse (2000-2002 inversion of the dierence) impedance values. Shown are: responded to CO2 injection wells (white), horizontal injectors (black), unresponded to CO2 wells (blue) and vertical water injectors (yellow).

159

Property pressure at the surface, Ps (2002) temperature at the surface, Ts injected CO2 volume (2002)

pressure at the reservoir, Pr temperature at the reservoir, Tr irreducible water, Swi residual oil, Sor CO2 residual oil under CO2 ood conditions, Sor max porosity available to CO2 (full diusion)

Value 13 MPa at all injectors 20 C (293K) Ninj = 0.9 BCF Winj = 3.7 BCF Sinj = 4.2 BCF Einj = 3.2 BCF 19 MPa 63 C (336K) 0.36 0.39 0.3 0.64

Table 7.3. Engineering reservoir properties used for volumetrics computation.

CO2 saturation map; CO2 ood regions traced using seismic attribute maps;
CO2 engineering data including Swi , Sor and Sor , temperature and pressure for the

surface and the reservoir (see Table 7.3). A volumetrics computation is based on the ideal gas equation (7.8) (McCain, 1990) derived using Boyles (7.6) and Charles (7.7) experimental equations. 1 V , or pV = const p V = const T

(7.6)

V T, or

(7.7)

160

pV = nRT or pV =

RT m RT or pv = , M M

(7.8)

where p is pressure, V is volume, T is temperature, n - moles of ideal gas, m - mass of gas, M - molecular weight of gas, v - volume of the unit mass. However, for real gas equation 7.8 becomes equation 7.9, which is called the compressibility equation of state or real gas equation.

pV = znRT, where z is the compressibility factor or z -factor.

(7.9)

The z -factor is the ratio of the volume actually occupied by gas at a given pressure and temperature to the volume the gas would occupy at the same pressure and temperature if it behaved like an ideal gas: Vactual Videal

z=

(7.10)

The z -factor is determined experimentally, it depends on gas composition, temperature and pressure. Results of experimental determination usually take the form shown in Figure 7.25. It has been determined that for all gases, z is a function of reduced temperature and pressure z = z (TR , PR )1 . A reduced temperature (TR , equation 7.11) and pressure (PR , equation 7.11) is dened as a substances temperature and pressure normalized by the substances critical point temperature and pressure.
http://www.me.utexas.edu/thermonet/me326/web/chp 3/3 10 p2.html: last accessed May 2004
1

161

Figure 7.25. Typical shape of z -factor as a function of pressure at constant temperature. Reproduced from McCain (1990).

TR =

T P and PR = , TCR PCR

(7.11)

where TCR and PCR are known tabulated quantities and are given in Figure 7.26.

Figure 7.26. Substances critical temperature and pressure.

Once TR and PR are computed, the z -factor can be determined using the Generalized Compressibility Chart (Figure 7.27).

162

Figure 7.27. Generalized compressibility chart. Reproduced from (see footnote 1). z -factor for Weyburn is 0.44.

163

For Weyburn, TR and PR are computed by plugging in TCR and PCR for CO2 from table in Figure 7.26 and temperature and pressure at the reservoir: TR = PR =
336K 304.1K

= 1.105 = 2.575

19M P a 7.38M P a

Reading z -factor from Figure 7.27 gives us z =0.44 for Weyburn reservoir, meaning that the volume of CO2 computed at reservoir conditions using equation 7.12 should be reduced by a compressibility factor of 0.44. Using equations 7.6 and 7.7 it can be shown (McCain, 1990) that: p1 V1 p2 V2 = T1 T2 Thus, for a given mass of gas, pV /T is constant. Or for Weyburn: Vr = 0.44 ps Vs Tr , Ts pr

(7.12)

(7.13)

where subscripts r and s denote reservoir and surface conditions respectively. The volumetrics computation at Weyburn was carried out for the Western injector only, since this is the most interesting injection pattern (recall that 3.7 BCF of CO2 was injected but there was no response from the neighboring producing wells). Plus, volumetrics calculation at this well are easier to do, since we do not have to worry about replacing the voidage due to uid withdrawal, which could be correlated to the CO2 ood. Normally, gas injected and uids produced should be recalculated to reservoir properties and the produced uids should be replaced by the injected gas. At the Western injector there is no noticeable increase in production due to the CO2 injection. The Weyburn eld production database provided to RCP by EnCana indicates that there is an increased gas production rate between 2000 and 2002 on all

164

wells around the Western injector, but EnCana conrmed2 that there were problems with gas rate measurements and gas rates were also found to be unreliable by Hiro Yamamoto and Marty Terrell3 during their reservoir simulation exercises. The idea is to compute the volume of the CO2 within the reservoir and within the traced CO2 ood regions (Figure 7.28), which were picked based on seismic attribute maps and engineering data (locations of responded and non-responded to CO2 horizontal and vertical wells).

Figure 7.28. CO2 regions delineated by using seismic attribute maps and engineering data. Responded wells are shown in green, red are wells not responded to CO2 and blue are the injectors. Southern and Eastern injector patterns were merged into the same region and the Western injector was kept separate.
2 3

Condential Final Report of Laboratory Dynamic Fluid Testing provided to RCP by EnCana both are former RCP students

165

The sequence of steps to obtain a void volume available for CO2 to occupy within traced regions: 1. multiply the reservoir porosity model by 0.64 (maximum porosity available to CO2 after taking into account Sor and Swi and considering that we have oil and gas phases mixed, somewhat a maximum for possible CO2 storage case), lets call it 0.64 ; 2. multiply obtained porosity 0.64 by the saturation map and obtain porosity model CO2 ; 3. compute total porosity volume using porosity model CO2 ; 4. compare V (CO2 ) to Vr computed using equation 7.13. Reservoir volumes were computed using a stratigraphic modeling function in Gocad. The program was provided with a porosity property (CO2 ) and the region within which the computation was conducted. Results are given below: Volumes for grid reservoir_05m_XP_refitted_sg

Region Western Gross Volume: Net Volume: Porous Volume: 288.956 10^6 ft3 288.956 10^6 ft3 7.48191 10^6 ft3

Parameters Grid: reservoir_05m_XP_refitted_sg Variable phiCO2

Porosity

166

So, the possible CO2 volume computed using the reservoir model, V (CO2 ) =
3.7 336 s Vs r 7.5 106 f t3 . On the other hand, Vr = z pT T = 0.44 0.101 19 = 0.00992 Bcf = pr 293 s

9.92 106 f t3 (volumes reported in the OFM (Oil Field Manager) database are reported at standard conditions of 20 C and pressure 101 kPa). Thats 32% more than the reservoir porosity attributed to CO2 can accommodate. Of course, there is an uncertainty associated with the anomaly tracing, but I also considered a maximum possible CO2 storage. Obviously CO2 has to either have more storage space or go somewhere. Possible explanations to this phenomena: Figure 7.24 shows a reduced CO2 anomaly along the Northern side of the Western injector, where the horizontal producer is located: could be an indication of the CO2 drainage; reservoir pressure in this area could be higher than the reported 19 MPa; since the saturation map is calculated from the time-lapse acoustic impedance anomaly could it be that we see pressure rather than saturation eects? take into account produced gas from surrounding wells, when reliable gas rate data become available.

7.5

Chapter conclusions A geostatistical structural and property reservoir model was created using seismic

attributes for proper integration and uncertainty reduction. A CO2 saturation map was calculated based on the time-lapse inversion results (inversion of the dierence of the baseline (2000) and second monitor (2002)). Volumetrics computation for the Western injector indicate that a much larger CO2 volume was injected into the reservoir, than it can hold within the region outlined by using seismic attributes and

167

production data: CO2 could escape into neighboring compartments, so the tracer analysis is recommended.

168

Chapter 8

CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORK

Advances in time-lapse seismic data acquisition, processing and reservoir characterization suggest that future surveys will be acquired more frequently, which will require faster time-lapse cycle completions. A time-lapse cycle includes acquisition, processing and a reservoir model update. A majority of time-lapse studies are applied to elds with extensive production history and wide data availability (well logs, core analysis, seismic data etc.). Timely reservoir model updating and concurrent production optimization constitute the idea of dynamic reservoir characterization. An integrated workow promoting the link between seismic time-lapse response and reservoir management is described in this thesis. Application of the suggested workow to time-lapse projects will speed up the time-lapse cycle, thus making dynamic reservoir characterization possible and improving economic eciency of the time-lapse method through the time cycle reduction. Three main challenges are addressed in the thesis: how seismic attributes can help in imaging the time-lapse seismic anomalies and incorporation into reservoir management, how the results of the conventional seismic inversion can be improved for thin reservoirs, where the seismic resolution is an impeding factor and what is an optimal integrated ow, which could be applied to time-lapse projects in a timely manner and maximize the value of the data available. The problems outlined above and suggested solutions were successfully tested on a real time-lapse datasets from Weyburn eld.

169

8.1

Conclusions 4-D seismic attributes including conventional and volume frequency decomposition, waveform classication and 3-D semblance are critical for improved quantitative time-lapse interpretation. A new cross-equalization (XEQ) method for time-lapse datasets has been applied using wavelet-based parameters and histogram-based amplitude balancing. A new method of geostatistical inversion has been developed as an alternative to the full geostatistical inversion. It uses deterministic seismic inversion results and computes the geostatistical component of the high frequency impedance variation utilizing existing well log information. An integrated geostatistical velocity modeling method is introduced for the purpose of time-to-depth conversion of seismic attributes (2-D and 3-D) to depth. A proper velocity model is needed to calculate reliable geostatistical relationships between seismic (time) and well (depth) parameters. A new inversion of the dierence method is proposed as an alternative to the inversion-per-dataset approach. A new approach has been created for quick volumetric calculations using CO2 saturation maps computed from the 4-D inversion results, seismic attributes and reservoir parameters of the eld.

8.2

Recommendations The topic of the time-lapse technology for oil and gas exploration is new and

rapidly expanding. Recommendations to help reduce the uncertainty in time-lapse

170

data analysis include: Constant monitoring with permanent geophones is recommended for frequent monitor survey acquisition (lateral stacking), which will aid in suppressing the incoherent random noise unrelated to 4-D anomalies. To better understand dynamic anomalies on the seismic scale and calibrate them with higher condence against the rock properties, time-lapse well logging should be performed within the time frame of the seismic monitor survey acquisition. Injection and production prole logs, well tests and pressure and saturation monitoring are required within the area of 4-D seismic measurements. This will aid in better understanding of the seismic attribute response and will further improve correlation to rock and uid properties. The loop between geophysical and engineering time-lapse cycles should be completely closed through the seismic history match to achieve full integration of the 4-D seismic data into reservoir management. Engineering simulation of the reservoir model constrained by the 4-D seismic response and quantitative comparison to production data (e.g. volumetrics) and further calibration of the reservoir model is required. Further investigation of negative impedance anomalies; geomechanical forward modeling is necessary to better understand the phenomena. Simultaneous processing and interpretation of the seismic 4-D multicomponent data (pure or converted modes) will better constrain the reservoir model.

171

REFERENCES

Brown, L., Davis, T., & Batzle, M. 2002. Integration of rock physics, reservoir simulation, and time-lapse seismic data for reservoir characterization at Weyburn Field, Saskatchewan. Pages 17081711 of: 72nd Ann. Internat. Mtg. Soc. of Expl. Geophys. Brown, L.T. 2002. Integration of rock physics and reservoir simulation for the interpretation of time-lapse seismic data at Weyburn Field, Saskatchewan. In: MS thesis. CSM. Chambers, R.L., Yarus, J.M., Alexeev, V., & Sudhakar, V. 2002. Quantitative use of seismic attributes for reservoir characterization. Recorder, 27(6), 1425. Churcher, P. L., & Edmunds, A.C. 1994. Reservoir characterization and geological study of the Weyburn unit, Southeastern Saskatchewan: Report number 1. Proposed miscible ood, horizontal wells and waterood optimization areas. Tech. rept. PanCanadian. Deutsch, C.V., & Journel, A.G. 1992. GSLIB: Geostatistical Software Library and Users Guide. Oxford University Press. Doyen, P. M. 1988. Porosity from seismic data - A geostatistical approach. Geophysics, 53(10), 12631275. Dubrule, O. 2003. SEG+EAGE. Geostatistics for Seismic Data Integration in Earth Models.

Fitzpatrick, E. 2002. The Weyburn Project: A Model for International Collaboration. Tech. rept. DOE. Fomel, S. 2003. Time-migration velocity analysis by velocity continuation. Geophysics, 68(5), 16621672. Galikeev, T., & Meng, H. 2002. Reservoir-scale velocity modelling - an integrated part of reservoir characterization. Pages 17471749 of: 72nd Ann. Internat. Mtg. Soc. of Expl. Geophys. Galikeev, T.E. 2001. Pre-Stack Depth Migration and Attribute Analysis of 3-D TimeLapse P-wave Data Vacuum Field, New Mexico. In: MS thesis. CSM.

172

Gardner, G. H. F., Gardner, L. W., & Gregory, A. R. 1974. Formation velocity and density - The diagnostic basics for stratigraphic traps. Geophysics, 39(06), 770780. Gouveia, W. P., & Scales, J. A. 1998. Bayesian seismic waveform inversion: parameter estimation and uncertainty analysis. Journal of Geophysical Research, 103(B2), 27592779. Hatchell, P.J., van den Beukel, A., Molenaar, M.M., Maron, K.P., Kenter, C.J., Stammeijer, J.G.F., van der Velde, J.J., & Sayers, C.M. 2003. Whole Earth 4D: reservoir monitoring geomechanics. Pages 13301333 of: 73rd Ann. Internat. Mtg. Soc. of Expl. Geophys. Herawati, I. 2002. The use of time-lapse P-wave impedance inversion to monitor a CO2 ood at Weyburn eld, Saskatchewan. In: MS thesis. CSM. Huang, X., Will, B., Khan, M., & Stanley, L. 2001. Integration of time-lapse seismic and production data in a Gulf of Mexico gas eld. The Leading Edge, 20(03), 278289. Journel, A.G. 1989. Fundamentals of geostatistics in ve lessons. Short course in geology: Volume 8 edn. American Geophysical Union. Kohonen, T. 1997. Self-Organizing Maps. Second edn. Springer. Larner, K.L. 2004. Seismic data processing, shaping lter. Personal communication. Litvinov, A.Y. 2002. Reservoir characterization from seismic waveform using forward modeling and pattern recognition. The Leading Edge, 21(10), 10281031. Madiba, G. B., & McMechan, G. A. 2003. Processing, inversion, and interpretation of a 2D seismic data set from the North Viking Graben, North Sea. Geophysics, 68(3), 837848. Marfurt, K. J., Kirlin, R. L., Farmer, S. L., & Bahorich, M. S. 1998. 3-D seismic attributes using a semblance-based coherency algorithm. Geophysics, 63(04), 1150 1165. McCain, W.D. 1990. The properties of petroleum uids. Second edn. Penwell Books. Olea, R. 1991. Geostatistical glossary and multilingual dictionary. Oxford edn. Oxford University Press. Parr, R., Marsh, J., & Grin, T. 2000. Interpretation and integration of 4-D results into reservoir management, Schiehallion Field, UKCS. Pages 14641467 of: 70th Ann. Internat. Mtg. Soc. of Expl. Geophys.

173

Partyka, G., Gridley, J., & Lopez, J. 1999. Interpretational applications of spectral decomposition in reservoir characterization. The Leading Edge, 18(3), 353354,356 357, 360. Partyka, Greg A., & Gridley, James. 1997. Interpretational aspects of spectral decomposition. Pages 189190 of: Int.Geoph.Conf.&Exposition, Istanbul97, Abstracts. SEG. Partyka, Greg A., Lopez, John A., Haskell, Norm L., & Nissen, Susan E. 1997. Identication of deltaic facies with 3-D seismic coherency and the spectral decomposition cube. Page 191 of: Int.Geoph.Conf.&Exposition, Istanbul97, Abstracts. SEG. Peyton, L., Bottjer, R., & Partyka, G. 1998. Interpretation of incised valleys using new 3-D seismic techniques: A case history using spectral decomposition and coherency. The Leading Edge, 17(9), 12941298. Prasad, M. 2003. Velocity-permeability relations within hydraulic units. Geophysics, 68(1), 108117. Rickett, J., & Lumley, D. E. 2001. Cross-equalization data processing for time-lapse seismic reservoir monitoring: A case study from the Gulf of Mexico. Geophysics, 66(4), 10151025. Robinson, E.A. 1984. Seismic inversion and deconvolution. Volume 4a edn. Geophysical Press. Ross, C. P., & Altan, M. S. 1997. Time-lapse seismic monitoring: Some shortcomings in nonuniform processing. The Leading Edge, 16(06), 931937. Russell, B.H. 1990. Introduction to seismic inversion methods. Course notes, volume 42 edn. SEG. Sarkar, D., & Tsvankin, I. 2003. Migration velocity analysis in factorized VTI media. Pages 20722075 of: 73rd Ann. Internat. Mtg. Soc. of Expl. Geophys. Sarkar, S., Gouveia, W.P., & D.H., Johnston. 2003. On the inversion of time-lapse data. Pages 14891492 of: 73rd Ann. Internat. Mtg. Soc. of Expl. Geophys. Sengupta, M., & Mavko, G. 2003. Impact of ow-simulation parameters on saturation scales and seismic velocity. Geophysics, 68(4), 12671280. Taner, M. T., Koehler, F., & Sheri, R. E. 1979. Complex seismic trace analysis. Geophysics, 44(06), 10411063.

174

Torres-Verdin, C., Victoria, M., Merletti, G., & Pendrel, J. 1999. Trace-based and geostatistical inversion of 3-D seismic data for thin-sand delineation: An application in San Jorge Basin, Argentina. The Leading Edge, 18(9), 10701077. van Riel, P. 2000. The past, present, and future of quantitavie reservoir characterization. Leading Edge, 19, 878881. van Riel, P., & Debeye, H.W.J. 1990. Lp-norm deconvolution. Geophysical prospecting, 38, 381403. Xu, W., Tran, T.T., Srivastava, R.M., & Journel, A.G. 1992. Integrating seismic data in reservoir modeling: the collocated cokriging alternative. 67th Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, SPE paper(24742), 833842. Yilmaz, O. 1987. Seismic Data Processing. Soc. of Expl. Geophys. Page 526.

175

APPENDIX A

LIST OF SU PROGRAMS DEVELOPED BY THE AUTHOR DURING RESEARCH

Results shown in this work were mostly produced by the programs written by the author in C and under the Seismic Unix. Seismic Unix is a freely available software from the Colorado School of Mines1 . Program development under SU has several advantages: no need to worry about program input/output and most of the data processing routines are readily available since SU is an open-source software. Therefore, development cycle is short - programmer only concentrates on programming and testing of his/her own algorithmical ideas.

http://www.cwp.mines.edu/cwpcodes/index.html: last accessed June 2004

176

SUFRDEC

- frequency decomposition along the horizon

sufrdec <stdin >stdout file=NAME iln=NUMBER xln=NUMBER window=NUMBER fmin=NUMBER fmax=NUMBER [optional parameters] Required parameters: file=NAME =auto iln=NUMBER xln=NUMBER window=NUMBER -999 fmin=NUMBER fmax=NUMBER Optional parameters: mode=amp =phz =vol

file with horizon picks (iln xln time(ms)) sets horizon time to a constant defined by htime max inline number max crossline number length of the analysis window (ms) takes all the data minimum frequency of interest (Hz) maximum frequency of interest (Hz)

shift=0 htime=0 ttype=linear =sine =cosine tlen=NUMBER verbose=1 =0 il_offset=1 xl_offset=1 time_offset=0 tmin=NUMBER tmax=NUMBER

computes amplitude component computes phase component computes the whole volume at a particular frequency, fmax and fmin in this case should be set to the same value of frequency of interest beginning of window relative to horizon pick(ms) By default window start at a horizon pick if file=auto sets horizon to a specified constant time taper type

taper length in msec to apply on both sides dumps number of traces processed to the user first inline number in survey first xline number in survey data start time start time of spectral decomp relative to horizon with mode=vol end time of spectral decomp relative to horizon with mode=vol

NOTE: tmin and tmax are defined relative to horizon. For example, if you want to do volume processing of subvolume which spans from 500 ms above the horizon to 800 ms below the horizon, then tmin and tmax will be -500 and 800 respectively.

177

SUSEMB3D

- spatial data analysis based on semblance

susemb3d <stdin >stdout iln=NUMBER xln=NUMBER window=NUMBER pattern=2 [optional parameters] Required parameters: iln=NUMBER xln=NUMBER window=NUMBER pattern=0,1,2, 3,4,5,6 Optional parameters: tlen=NUMBER

total inline number in input file total crossline number in input file length of the analysis window (ms) trace selection for analysis (see notes below)

null=0.5

linear taper length in msec to apply on both sides by default uses 20% of window length on each side of the window NULL value for semblance output

NOTE: 1) Program assumes that the data are coming sequentially by inlines 2) Pattern description: pattern=0 2 traces, 3 point analysis * x x =1 2 traces, 4 point analysis x * x x x x * x x x x x x * x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x * x x x x x x x x x x x x

=2

3 traces, 5 point analysis

=3

3 traces, 9 point analysis (full square)

=4

5 traces, full square

=5

7 traces, full square analogous to 3 and 4 9 traces, full square analogous to 3 and 4

=6

178

SUPVCTRAIN

- Principal Vector Classification (Training)

suPVCtrain <stdin Required parameters: NONE Optional parameters: ilnkey=fldr xlnkey=cdp start_iln=1 start_xln=1 seed=2942 =-9999

decim=3 mode=dot =distance nclass=11 beta=NUMBER

SU trace header word containing inline number SU trace header word containing xline number start inline to extract traces for training start xline to extract traces for training seed used for random number generator if you want the program generate the seed based on computer timer (every run will get different results) decimation factor (take every 3rd inline and xline) likeliness criterium number of classes to use for classification learning rate (0.<beta<1.0). If not given then computed automatically (recommended) number of training iterations dumps number of traces processed to the user

iter=40 verbose=1 =0 tmpdir=PATH path to temporary file wfile=weight.su path to output weight file with trained vectors in SU format for quick visualization NOTE: Program also creates a file with weight distribution (how many times each weight was updated). It has the same name as wfile only with .hst extension, i.e. weight.hst

179

SUPVCAPPLY

- Principal Vector Classification (Application)

suPVCapply <stdin [optional parameters] Required parameters: NONE Optional parameters: xkey=sx SU trace header word containing X coord ykey=sy SU trace header word containing Y coord verbose=1 dumps number of traces processed to the user =0 wfile=weight.su path to input weight file with trained NN cfile=NNclass.vs path to output ASCII classification file in GOCADs Vset format NOTE: for SU trace header information type "sukeyword -o" on command line

180

SUPICKHOR

- picks the time of event closest to the specified input horizon within the given time window

supickhor <stdin >stdout file=NAME iln=NUMBER xln=NUMBER window=NUMBER [optional parameters] Required parameters: file=NAME iln=NUMBER xln=NUMBER window=NUMBER Optional parameters: htype=max =min =zero shift=0 ttype=linear =sine =cosine tlen=NUMBER verbose=1 =0 il_offset=1 xl_offset=1 time_offset=0 xkey=sx ykey=sy

file with horizon picks (iln xln time(ms)) NOTE: iln and xln numbers are INTEGERS!!! max inline number max crossline number length of the analysis window (ms)

type of event to pick

beginning of window relative to horizon pick(ms) By default window start at a horizon pick taper type

taper length in msec to apply on both sides dumps number of traces processed to the user first inline number in survey first xline number in survey data start time SU trace header word containing X coord SU trace header word containing Y coord

NOTE: for SU trace header information type "sukeyword -o" on command line

181

SUFLAT

- flattens input data on a given horizon

suflat <stdin >stdout file=NAME iln=NUMBER xln=NUMBER [optional parameters] Required parameters: file=NAME file with horizon picks (iln xln time(ms)) iln=NUMBER max inline number xln=NUMBER max crossline number Optional parameters: il_offset=1 xl_offset=1 time_offset=0 time=NUMBER dt=4

first inline number in survey first xline number in survey start time for input seismic data flatten horizon to this time (ms) data sample interval (ms), uses only if set to zero in trace header

182

SUSLAB

- extracts a slab of data relative to input horizon and plies taper to the data

ap-

suslab <stdin >stdout file=NAME iln=NUMBER xln=NUMBER window=NUMBER [optional parameters] Required parameters: file=NAME iln=NUMBER xln=NUMBER window=NUMBER Optional parameters: shift=0 ttype=linear =sine =cosine tlen=NUMBER verbose=1 =0 il_offset=1 xl_offset=1 time_offset=0

file with horizon picks (iln xln time(ms)) max inline number max crossline number length of the analysis window (ms)

beginning of window relative to horizon pick(ms) By default window start at a horizon pick taper type

taper length in msec to apply on both sides dumps number of traces processed to the user first inline number in survey first xline number in survey data start time

183

SUSTRSLC

- stratigraphic slice (between two horizons)

sustrslc <stdin >stdout upper=NAME lower=NAME iln=NUMBER xln=NUMBER nslice=NUMBER [optional parameters] Required parameters: upper=NAME lower=NAME iln=NUMBER xln=NUMBER nslice=NUMBER Optional parameters: verbose=1 =0 il_offset=1 xl_offset=1 time_offset=0

file with file with number of number of number of

upper horizon picks (iln xln time(ms)) lower horizon picks (iln xln time(ms)) inlines xlines slices to create

dumps number of traces processed to the user first inline number in survey first xline number in survey data start time

184

SUVOLOP2

- SU volume operations

suvolop2 data1 data2 op=ccoef >stdout Required parameters: none Optional parameter: norm=1 input traces are L2-norm normalized =0 no normalization applied window=100 analysis window length in ms (sliding window) tlen=10 linear taper length to apply to analysis window op=ccoef Pearsons correlation coefficient =dot inner product =dist geometrical distance NOTE: Output = data1 "op" data2 with the header of data1