scholarly journals Joint Inversion of Electrical and Seismic Data for Fracture Characterization and Imaging of Fluid Flow in Geothermal Systems

2012 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Batzle ◽  
Andre Revil
Keyword(s):  
Fluid Flow ◽  
Seismic Data ◽  
Joint Inversion ◽  
Geothermal Systems ◽  
Fracture Characterization

Lithological classification assisted by the joint inversion of electrical and seismic data at a control site in northeast Mexico

2010 ◽  
Vol 70 (2) ◽  
pp. 93-102 ◽  
Author(s):  
Victor Infante ◽  
Luis A. Gallardo ◽  
Juan C. Montalvo-Arrieta ◽  
Ignacio Navarro de León
Keyword(s):  
Seismic Data ◽  
Joint Inversion ◽  
Control Site

scholarly journals Joint Inversion of Time-Lapse Seismic Data

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cesar Barajas-Olalde ◽  
Donald Adams ◽  
Lu Jin ◽  
Jun He ◽  
Nicholas Kalenze ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Seismic Data ◽  
Joint Inversion ◽  
Time Lapse

scholarly journals Fault Interpretation Uncertainties using Seismic Data, and the Effects on Fault Seal Analysis: A Case Study from the Horda Platform, with Implications for CO<sub>2</sub> storage

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Emma A. H. Michie ◽  
Mark J. Mulrooney ◽  
Alvar Braathen
Keyword(s):  
Fluid Flow ◽  
Seismic Data ◽  
Growth Models ◽  
Fault Analysis ◽  
Surface Generation ◽  
Co2 Injection ◽  
Line Spacing ◽  
Fault Growth ◽  
Fault Interpretation

Abstract. Significant uncertainties occur through varying methodologies when interpreting faults using seismic data. These uncertainties are carried through to the interpretation of how faults may act as baffles/barriers or increase fluid flow. How fault segments are picked when interpreting structures, i.e. what seismic line spacing is specified, as well as what surface generation algorithm is used, will dictate how detailed the surface is, and hence will impact any further interpretation such as fault seal or fault growth models. We can observe that an optimum spacing for fault interpretation for this case study is set at approximately 100 m. It appears that any additional detail through interpretation with a line spacing of ≤ 50 m adds complexity associated with sensitivities by the individual interpreter. Further, the location of all fault segmentation identified on Throw-Distance plots using the finest line spacing are also observed when 100 m line spacing is used. Hence, interpreting at a finer scale may not necessarily improve the subsurface model and any related analysis, but in fact lead to the production of very rough surfaces, which impacts any further fault analysis. Interpreting on spacing greater than 100 m often leads to overly smoothed fault surfaces that miss details that could be crucial, both for fault seal as well as for fault growth models. Uncertainty in seismic interpretation methodology will follow through to fault seal analysis, specifically for analysis of whether in situ stresses combined with increased pressure through CO2 injection will act to reactivate the faults, leading to up-fault fluid flow/seep. We have shown that changing picking strategies alter the interpreted stability of the fault, where picking with an increased line spacing has shown to increase the overall fault stability. Picking strategy has shown to have minor, although potentially crucial, impact on the predicted Shale Gouge Ratio.

Gannet F field – Unexpected fluid flow between reservoirs identified from time-lapse seismic data

First Break ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 32 (2017) ◽  
Author(s):  
Gwilym Lynn ◽  
A. Christian Ellis ◽  
Jonathan Brain ◽  
Richard Parker ◽  
Gerd-jan Lörtzer ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Fluid Flow ◽  
Seismic Data ◽  
Time Lapse
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document