Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 4
Introduction Quantitative analysis of 4D seismic data (i.e., seismic differences between a baseline and a
Introduction Quantitative analysis of 4D seismic data (i.e., seismic differences between a baseline and a

Introduction

Quantitative analysis of 4D seismic data (i.e., seismic differences between a baseline and a monitor 3D survey) has been used to discriminate between pressure and saturation changes effect (Landrø 2001; Buland and El Ouair 2006; Veire et al. 2006; Trani et al. 2011). In this analysis, which is referred to as 4D pressure-saturation inversion, changes in pressure and saturation are estimated from changes in seismic attributes (e.g., zero offset intercept and gradient, or P-wave and S-wave velocity, and density). Buland and El Ouair (2006) and Veire et al. (2006) estimate uncertainty in pressure- saturation inversion results due to uncertainty in 4D seismic attributes. Veire et al. (2006), Chu and Gist (2010) and Trani et al. (2011) indicate the importance and effect of uncertainty in reservoir parameters (i.e., porosity and clay content) on 4D pressure-saturation inversion results. In particular, Veire et al. (2006) indicate that if prior information about reservoir parameters and seismic data are in conflict, standard deviation of estimated changes in pressure and saturation from 4D seismic data will be high. In this paper, we present a method for quantitative analysis of uncertainty in 4D pressure- saturation inversion results due to uncertainty in reservoir parameters and show results of application of this method as a tool for feasibility study of pressure-saturation estimation from 4D seismic data in an offshore field in Africa.

Method

The workflow for ΔP and ΔS inversion using a petrophysical forward function The process of pressure-saturation inversion using time-lapse seismic data is summarized below. First, a reservoir model with values of the reservoir properties (e.g., porosity φ, clay content V cl , fluid saturation, and pore pressure P e ) at base is given. Second, the petrophysical forward function (PFF) is applied to transfer reservoir properties into elastic properties (i.e., P-wave velocity V p , S-wave velocity V s , and density ρ) at base. Note that the PFF is a pressure dependent function and is valid for both base and monitor. Third, the scale of the elastic properties is changed to seismic scale using the Backus averaging method. Fourth, in a separate process, relative changes in the elastic parameters (i.e., ΔV p /V p , ΔV s /V s , and Δρ/ρ, these parameters are called warping parameters hereafter) between base and monitor are obtained from seismic time-lapse data using the warping technique (Grandi et al., 2009). Fifth, in the pressure-saturation inversion step, the warping parameters are transformed into values of elastic parameters at monitor using the up-scaled elastic properties at base; then the elastic parameters at monitor are inverted for changes in pressure, ΔP, and saturation, ΔS, using the PFF. The estimated changes in pressure and saturation from seismic data can be compared with reservoir model predictions and possibly update it.

Uncertainty in different data involved in the above workflow can affect the estimated values of changes in pressure and saturation. Three separate and independent sources of uncertainty are: 1) uncertainty in the value of the reservoir parameters at base, 2) uncertainty in the warping parameters, which are estimated from 4D seismic data, and 3) uncertainty in the time-depth relationship and up- scaling process. In this paper we focus on the effect of uncertainty from the first and second sources above. Uncertainty in time-depth relation and up-scaling process are independent and can be addressed separately.

Pressure-saturation inverse problem In the pressure-saturation inversion, the model vector is m=(ΔP, ΔS w , ΔS g ), where Δ()=(•) moni - (•) base , represents the difference between the value of a parameter at base and monitor. The data vector is d=(ΔV p /V p , ΔV s /V s , Δρ/ρ), where Δ() is defined as above, and the parameters at denominator represent values at base. The forward function between model and data vector G depends on the PFF at base and monitor. The PFF, which is represented by f, depends on the petrophysical parameters at base and monitor. In 4D inversion, the petrophysical parameters can be classified into two groups: 1) the basic reservoir properties, which are porosity φ and clay content V cl , C=(φ, V cl ), and 2) time-lapse parameters, which are fluid saturation and pressure M=(S w , S g , P). In mathematical terms the forward function G is represented as a function of f, C, and M at base and monitor as follows:

(1)

(2) (3) In the above equation C represents uncertainty in the basic reservoir parameters between
(2) (3) In the above equation C represents uncertainty in the basic reservoir parameters between

(2)

(3)

In the above equation C represents uncertainty in the basic reservoir parameters between base and monitor surveys. This uncertainty can be induced due to production related changes in the reservoir, for example, changes in reservoir porosity and clay content due to compaction. Following the approach of Tarantola (2005) we represent the solution of the inverse problem as:

(4)

In the above equations, M , ρ M , and L respectively represent the a posteriori information, a priori information, and likelihood function of model parameters. The likelihood function gives a measure of how good a model is in explaining the data, and represented as:

(5)

In the above equation, ρ D represents the a priori information about measured data (i.e., here it is uncertainty in the warping parameters), and μ D represents homogeneous state of information (here it is a constant as the data space is a linear space in our problem). θ(d|m) represents the probability density of predictions of the forward function G. In our problem as equation 3 shows, θ(d|m) represents uncertainties in the predictions of the forward function, G, due to uncertainties in the reservoir parameters, C. In this paper, we analyze effect of data uncertainty (ρ D ) and theoretical uncertainty (θ(d|m)) on the a posteriori PDF of the model parameters.

Petrophysical forward function The forward petrophysical relations are a combination of Gassman’s law to account for fluid substitution, and a mixing law to account for mixed lithology of sand and shale (Avseth et al., 2005). The pressure effects on the bulk and shear moduli of rocks are described using empirical equations (Shapiro, 2003). The equations are fitted to static log data at base and to pressure and saturation data at both base and monitor.

Applications

Background information about the reservoir The field under study is an offshore field in West Africa. The time of base seismic acquisition was 1999. Four wells produced oil from the reservoir between 1999 and 2004. In order to support the pressure two injector wells inject water to the aquifer. Based on PVT data, it is predicted that dissolved gas has been released in some areas of the reservoir. Reservoir model and simulation shows that three different 4D scenarios for different areas of this reservoir are possible: 1) release of dissolved gas due to decrease in pressure, 2) increase in water saturation due to water injection and oil production, and 3) pressure increase due to water injection. A seismic data set was acquired in 2004. We want to integrate information in seismic data sets in 1999 and 2004, information about petrophysical parameters (i.e., porosity and clay content) in the reservoir model, and petrophysical forward function in order to estimate changes in pressure and saturation. In the first step, we want to assess the effect of uncertainty in seismic time-lapse information, and information about petrophysical parameters on the estimates of pressure and saturation change.

The time-lapse seismic data was inverted for the warping parameters (i.e., d = (ΔV p /V p , ΔV s /V s , Δρ/ρ)). The probability density function (PDF) of uncertainties in the inverted parameters were estimated to be Gaussian with zero mean and standard deviations equal to 10%, 30%, and 10% of the estimated values of ΔV p /V p , ΔV s /V s , and Δρ/ρ, respectively. These uncertainties can be approximated using a Bayesian inversion algorithm (Buland and El Ouair, 2006).

A priori information from reservoir model suggests that effective pressure changes between -65 and 65
A priori information from reservoir model suggests that effective pressure changes between -65 and 65

A priori information from reservoir model suggests that effective pressure changes between -65 and 65 bar, water saturation changes between -20% and 20%, and gas saturation changes between 0 and 20% in the reservoir. Based on the above information, we select uniform a priori distribution of changes in pressure, water saturation, and gas saturation over the above intervals.

Typical values of reservoir porosity and clay content are around 25% and 12%, respectively. In the current stage of the project we use these values of porosity and clay content and estimate effect of uncertainty in these two parameters on the final estimates of changes in pressure and saturation.

Effect of data uncertainty: uncertainty in the warping parameters The value of changes in pressure and saturation and relative elastic parameters for the above three scenarios are shown in table 1.

   

Base parameters

   

Change in the parameters

 

φ

V

cl

P

S

w

S

g

V

p

V

s

ρ

ΔP

ΔS w

ΔS g

ΔV p /V p

ΔV s /V s

Δρ/ρ

Scenario1

25%

12%

240

20%

0

2306

1145

2123

-10

0

4%

-1.91%

0.20%

-0.22%

Scenario2

25%

12%

240

20%

0

2306

1145

2123

+5

15%

0

0.66%

-0.31%

0.52%

Scenario3

25%

12%

240

20%

0

2306

1145

2123

+20

+1%

0

0.23%

-0.18%

0.01%

Table 1: Rock properties at base and changes in properties at monitor for 3 scenarios. Unit of pressure (P) is bar, of velocities is (m/s), and of density is (kg/m 3 ).

First, we assume that there is no uncertainty in the basic reservoir parameters, i.e. C = 0 in equation 2, and estimate ΔP, ΔS w , and ΔS g for three scenarios above. In this case the only source of uncertainty is the warping parameters’ uncertainty. Figure 1 shows the inversion results for three scenarios stated above. This figure shows that in the absence of uncertainty in the basic reservoir parameters, slightest changes in pressure and saturation can be detected from the warping parameters with their associated uncertainties. Note that, in all three scenarios uncertainties in the estimated change of gas saturation are much smaller than estimated changes of pressure and water saturation.

Scenario1:

Scenario2:

Scenario3:

and water saturation. Scenario1: Scenario2: Scenario3: ΔP ΔS w ΔS g Figure 1 : Data uncertainty
ΔP ΔS w ΔS g
ΔP
ΔS w
ΔS g

Figure 1: Data uncertainty effect. Estimated changes in pressure, water saturation, and gas saturation in the three scenarios above (blue). Actual values of changes are shown by black bars.

Effect of forward function uncertainty: uncertainty in the reservoir parameters In the second case, we study the effect of uncertainty in the basic reservoir parameters on the inversion results. In this case we assume production from the field induced 3% uncertainty to the reservoir porosity at monitor due to unknown effects such as compaction. It means that we assume the porosity at monitor has a Gaussain PDF with mean equal to 0.25 and standard deviation equal to 0.0075. Figure 2 shows the inversion results in this case. This figure shows that in scenarios 1 and 3 we cannot retrieve any information about changes in pressure from relative changes in elastic

parameters. In scenario 2 we can obtain an estimate for changes in pressure but this
parameters. In scenario 2 we can obtain an estimate for changes in pressure but this

parameters. In scenario 2 we can obtain an estimate for changes in pressure but this estimate is very uncertain. Error for estimated change of water saturation is very large in scenario 3; it is moderate in scenario 1, and relatively small in scenario 2. In all scenarios the error in the estimated change of gas saturation is relatively small and its uncertainty is also relatively low.

Scenario1:

Scenario2:

Scenario3:

is also relatively low. Scenario1: Scenario2: Scenario3: ΔP ΔS w ΔS g Figure 2 : Porosity
is also relatively low. Scenario1: Scenario2: Scenario3: ΔP ΔS w ΔS g Figure 2 : Porosity
ΔP ΔS w ΔS g
ΔP
ΔS w
ΔS g

Figure 2: Porosity uncertainty effect. Estimated changes in pressure, water saturation, and gas saturation in the three scenarios above (blue). Actual values of changes are shown by black bars.

Conclusions

Above results show that in the reservoir under study in the presence of uncertainty in porosity, in water flooded areas (scenario 2) we can retrieve information about changes in pressure and water saturation from 4D seismic attributes by applying the petrophysical forward function. In areas where the dominant 4D effect is due to changes in gas saturation (scenario 1), we can estimate this effect from 4D seismic attributes. However, in these areas we cannot obtain any information about possible changes in effective pressure. In areas where the dominant 4D effects are only due to pressure changes (scenario 3), no information about these changes can be obtained from 4D seismic attributes. The comparison between figure 1 and figure 2 shows that small uncertainties about the basic reservoir properties can increase uncertainty about the estimated value of changes in pressure and saturation significantly. Veire et al. (2006) also indicate the importance of consistency between the basic reservoir properties and AVO seismic data in 4D pressure-saturation inversion. It may be possible to reduce uncertainty about the basic reservoir properties by using petrophysical inversion of seismic data (Shahraeeni and Curtis, 2011). Inversion of 4D seismic attributes for changes in pressure and saturation requires accurate petrophysical forward function; any error in the petrophysical forward function can result in large uncertainties in the estimated changes of pressure and saturation. A study similar to the one presented here can be considered as a feasibility study for applying petrophysical forward function to estimate changes in pressure and saturation from 4D seismic attributes.

References

Avseth, P., Mukerji, T., and Mavko, G. [2005] Quantitative Seismic Interpretation. Cambridge University Press. Buland, A. and El Ouair, Y. [2006] Bayesian time-lapse inversion. Geophysics 71(3), R43. Chu, D. and Gist, G. [2010] Inversion of 4D Seismic Data. Patent. http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2010/0142323.html. Grandi, ., auquier, S., umming, ., eplant , C., and Hubans, C. [2009] Quantitative 4D time lapse characterisation: Three examples:

79th Annual International Meeting, SEG, Expanded Abstracts, 3815-3819. Landrø, M. [2001] Discrimination between pressure and fluid saturation changes from time-lapse seismic data. Geophysics 66, 836. Shahraeeni, M., and Curtis, A. [2011] Fast probabilistic nonlinear petrophysical inversion. Geophysics 76: E45. Shapiro, S. [2003] Elastic piezosensitivity of porous and fractured rocks, Geophysics 68(2), 482-486. Tarantola, A. [2005] Inverse Problem Theory and Methods for Model Parameter Estimation. SIAM. Trani, M., Arts, R., Leeuwenburgh, O., and Brouwer, J. [2011] Estimation of changes in saturation and pressure from 4D seismic AVO and time-shift analysis. Geophysics, 76, C1. Veire, H., Borgos, H., and Landrø, M. [2006] Stochastic inversion of pressure and saturation changes from time-lapse AVO data. Geophysics, 71, C81.