Summary
The propagation of elastic waves in rocks is determined by the bulk modulus, shear modulus, and bulk density of the rock. In porous rocks all these properties are affected by the distribution of pore space, the geometry and interconnectivity of the pores, and the nature of the fluid occupying the pore space. In addition, the bulk and shear moduli are also affected by the effective pressure, which is equivalent to the difference between the confining (or lithostatic) pressure and pore pressure.
During production of hydrocarbons from a reservoir, the movement of fluids and changes in pore pressure may contribute to a significant change in the elastic moduli and bulk density of the reservoir rocks. This phenomenon is the basis for reservoir monitoring by repeated seismic (or time-lapse) surveys whereby the difference in seismic response during the lifetime of the field can be directly related to changes in the pore fluids and/or pore pressure. Under suitable conditions, these changes in the reservoir during production can be quantitatively estimated by appropriate repeat three-dimensional (3D) seismic surveys which can contribute to understanding of the reservoir model away from the wells. The benefit to reservoir management is a better flow model which incorporates the information derived from the seismic data.
What are suitable conditions? There are two primary factors which determine whether the reservoir changes we wish to observe will be detectable in the seismic data:the magnitude of the change in the elastic moduli (and bulk density) of the reservoir rocks as a result of fluid displacement, pressure changes, etc.;the magnitude of the repeatability errors between time-lapse seismic surveys. This includes errors associated with seismic data collection, ambient noise and data processing.
The first is the signal component and the second the noise component. Previous reviews of seismic monitoring suggest that for 3D seismic surveys a signal-to-noise (S/N) ratio of 1.0 is sufficient for qualitative estimation of reservoir changes. Higher S/N ratios may allow quantitative estimates.
After a brief examination of the rock physics affecting the seismic signal, we examine the second factor, repeatability errors, and use a synthetic seismic model to illustrate some of the factors which contribute to repeatability error. We also use two land 3D surveys over a Middle East carbonate reservoir to illustrate seismic repeatability. The study finds that repeatability errors, while always larger than desired, are generally within limits which will allow production-induced changes in seismic reflectivity to be confidently detected.
Introduction
Seismic data have been used successfully for many decades in the petroleum industry and have contributed significantly to the discovery of new fields throughout the world. Initially, seismic surveys were primarily an exploration tool, assisting in the identification of potential hydrocarbon structural and stratigraphic traps for drilling targets. With the introduction of 3D seismic surveys in the 1970's, accurate geological structural mapping became possible while the use of new seismic attributes as hydrocarbon indicators improved the success rate of discovery wells.
More recently seismic data have also contributed to a better reservoir description away from the wells by making use of the correlation between suitable seismic attributes and petrophysical quantities such as porosity and net to gross, and by incorporating robust geostatistical methods for estimating the static reservoir model. Better seismic acquisition technology, improved seismic processing methods and an overall improvement in signal to noise have led to further 3D seismic surveys over producing fields primarily for better imaging of the reservoir and improved reservoir characterization.
The concept of using repeated seismic surveys (time-lapse seismic) for monitoring changes in the reservoir due to production was suggested in the 1980's,1-3 and early tests were done by Arco in the Holt Sand fireflood4 from 1981-83. Over the last few years, the number of publications relating to time-lapse seismic [often referred to as four-dimensional (4D) seismic] has increased dramatically. Prior to time-lapse seismic monitoring, seismic data have been the domain of geologists and geophysicists, but the possibility of monitoring fluid displacements and pressure changes in a producing reservoir, away from the wells, has direct relevance to reservoir engineers and reservoir management. More exciting possibilities have been introduced by the use of time-lapse seismic data in combination with production history matching5 for greater refinement in optimization of the reservoir model. It is important, however, that reliable criteria are used to assess the feasibility of seismic monitoring.6