Seismic preprocessing and amplitude cross‐calibration for a time‐lapse amplitude study on seismic data from the Oseberg reservoir

The cross-calibration of different vintage data is an important prerequisite in attempting to determine the time-lapse seismic effects induced by hydrocarbon production in a reservoir. This paper reports the preprocessing and cross-calibration procedures adopted to modify the data of four seismic vintages (1982, 1989, 1992 and 1999) from the Oseberg field in the North Sea, for optimal conditions for a time-lapse seismic amplitude analysis. The final results, in terms of time-lapse variations, of acoustic impedance and of amplitude-versus-offset, are illustrated for selected data sets. The application of preprocessing to each individual vintage data set reduces the effects of the different acquisition and noise conditions, and leads to consistency in the amplitude response of the four vintages. This consistency facilitates the final amplitude cross-calibration that is carried out using, as reference, the Cretaceous horizon reflections above the Brent reservoir. Such cross-calibration can be considered as vintage-consistent residual amplitude correction. Acoustic impedance sections, intercept and gradient amplitude-versus-offset attributes and coherent amplitude-versus-offset estimates are computed on the final cross-calibrated data. The results, shown for three spatially coincident 2D lines selected from the 1982, 1989 and 1999 data sets, clearly indicate gas-cap expansion resulting from oil production. Such expansion is manifested as a decrease in acoustic impedance and a modification of the amplitude-versus-offset trends in the apical part of the reservoir.

[1]  R. J. Greaves,et al.  Three-dimensional seismic monitoring of enhanced oil recovery project , 1983 .

[2]  Simon Spitz Model-based Subtraction of Multiple Events In the Frequency-space Domain , 2000 .

[3]  J. R. Johnsen,et al.  Jurassic reservoirs; field examples from the Oseberg and Troll fields: Horda Platform area , 1995 .

[4]  M. Ali Ak,et al.  ‘European’ Association of Geoscientists & Engineers , 1997 .

[5]  Jon F. Claerbout,et al.  Predictive deconvolution in shot-receiver space , 1983 .

[6]  Experiences in pre stack and post stack wavelet processing on time lapse data , 2002 .

[7]  D. J. Verschuur,et al.  Estimation of multiple scattering by iterative inversion; Part II, Practical aspects and examples , 1997 .

[8]  Long Jin,et al.  Time-lapse seismic reservoir monitoring technology in China , 2006 .

[9]  David Lumley,et al.  Assessing the technical risk of a 4-D seismic project , 1997 .

[10]  Dmitri Lokshtanov Suppression of Water-layer Multiples - From Deconvolution to Wave-equation Approach , 2000 .

[11]  Paul L. Stoffa,et al.  Surface-consistent deconvolution in the log/Fourier domain , 1992 .

[12]  David Lumley,et al.  Cross‐equalization data processing for time‐lapse seismic reservoir monitoring: A case study from the Gulf of Mexico , 2001 .

[13]  M. Turhan Taner,et al.  Surface consistent corrections , 1981 .

[14]  Zhijing Wang Feasibility of time-lapse seismic reservoir monitoring; the physical basis , 1997 .

[15]  R. Uden,et al.  Seismic reservoir monitoring over the Oseberg field , 1993 .

[16]  L. Bertelli,et al.  4D Seismic Technology Special Issue , 2003, Petroleum Geoscience.

[17]  A. Mazzotti AMPLITUDE, PHASE AND FREQUENCY VERSUS OFFSET APPLICATIONS1 , 1991 .

[18]  Stewart A. Levin,et al.  Surface‐consistent deconvolution , 1989 .

[19]  Giancarlo Dal Moro,et al.  Time‐lapse tomography , 2003 .