Case Study 1

Reservoir Monitoring
Gary Mavko, Stanford Geophysical Department
David Lumley, Chevron
Clayton Deutsch, University of Alberta
Runar Gundeso, Norsk Hydro
Marco Thiele, Stanford Petroleum Engineering Department

Published in the Leading Edge, October 1998

SEG

Case 1 1
Reservoir Model, showing structure and faults
Production wells are in black, injection wells are in blue.

Case 1 2
Areal and cross-sectional view of the grid cells showing the location
of the faults and the gas-oil and oil-water contacts.

Case 1 3
Gas Saturation Water Saturation

Time = To (at the start of the simulation)

Gas and water saturation figures. Vertical slice at 2.27 Kms.

Case 1 4
Gas Saauration Water Saturation

Time = T3 (three years into the production history)

Gas and water saturation figures. Vertical slice at 2.27 Kms.

Case 1 5
Gas Saturation Water Saturation

Time = T3 (three years into the production history)

Gas and water saturation figures. Horizontal slice at 1.69

Case 1 6
Acoustic Impedance Model Seismic Image

Time = To (at the start of the simulation)

Vertical slice at 2.27 Kms.

Case 1 7
Acoustic Impedance Model Seismic Image

Time = T3 (three years into the production history)

Vertical slice at 2.27 Kms.

Case 1 8
Acoustic Impedance Model Seismic Image

Difference between T0 and T3

Vertical slice at 2.27 Kms.

Case 1 9
Acoustic Impedance Model Seismic Image

Time = To (at the start of the simulation)

Horizontal slice at 1.690 Kms.

Case 1 10
Acoustic Impedance Model Seismic Image

Time = T3 (three years into the production history)

Horizontal slice at 1.690 Kms.

Case 1 11
Acoustic Impedance Model Seismic Image

Difference between T0 and T3

Horizontal slice at 1.690 Kms.

Case 1 12
Near Trace Image Far Trace Image

Time = To (at the start of the simulation)

Vertical slice at 2.27 Kms.

Case 1 13
Near Trace Image Far Trace Image

Time = T3 (three years into the production history)

Vertical slice at 2.27 Kms.

Case 1 14
Near Trace Image Far Trace Image

Difference between T0 and T3

Vertical slice at 2.27 Kms.

Case 1 15
Case Study 2

Using Legacy Seismic Data in an Integrated

Time-Lapse Study: Lena Field MC 281
David Johnston, et al. ExxonMobil
Robert Vauthrin, et al. Western Geophysical

Published in the Leading Edge, March 2000

SEG

Case 2 1
Lena Field, David Johnston

- 1000 feet of water

- production from pliocene sands
- depth of about 10,500’ at about 3.0 seconds
- low stand fan system consisting of amalgamated and channelized
turbidites
- average porosity 27% thickness <100’
- Oil production in 1984
- depleted by water drive and gas cap expansion drive
- pressure in 1984 was 5000 psi and rapidly dropped to 3500 psi
which is slightly below the bubble point causing gas evolution
in the entire oil leg
- biggest difference is in the gas invaded areas
- the anomaly is restricted to the central portion of the reservoir
suggesting that there may be regions of bypassed oil, but this
could also be water invaded
- changes most prominent near A5 and A7 injectors
- fingers down to A25 and A17 - A25 abandoned due to gas
breakthrough. A17 has high GOR

Case 2 2
Seismic section showing the structural
position of the B80 reservoir

Case 2 3
Effective porosity for the B80 reservoir derived
from well control and seismic amplitudes

Case 2 4
Initial Distribution 1983 1995 Disttribution

Time = To (at the start of the simulation)

Reservoir flow simulation red = gas , green = oil , blue = water

Case 2 5
 1983 Model 1995 Model

Gas Gas
16329 16839
Gas Invaded
Oil 17162 Pressure decline
Oil
18421 18052 Largest change
Swept Oil 18375 Gas in the oil
Compensating effects
21080 21449 pressure and gas

Pressure decline

Water

Acoustic Impedance Models

Case 2 6
Modeled seismic data based on the reservoir flow simulator
red = gas , yellow = gas invaded, green = oil , light blue = oil invaded
dark blue = water
Case 2 7
 Model Difference Actual Difference

Maps of amplitude difference for the B80 horizon window

Case 2 8
Case Study 3

Production Characteristics of Sheet and

Channelized Turbidite Reservoirs
Garden Banks 191, Gulf of Mexico
David S. Fugitt et al. American E&P Company
Charles E. Stelting et al. Chevron

Published in the Leading Edge, April 2000

SEG

Case 3 1
GB 191 , David Fuggitt

- Pleistocene lowstand turbidite fans deposited in mini-basins

caused
by salt withdrawl
- gas reservoirs
- 4500 sand is a sheet and 8500 is a stacked sequence of turbidite
channels
- 4500 sand drilled by Shell in 77 but released as non-economic
- acquired by Chevron and Unocal in 83 main reservoir drilled in
90
- abrupt updip shaleout traps
- pure methane gas, no associated liquid
4500
- strong water drive because shale breaks disapear down dip
- all 4 sands have a common GW contact at -5523’
- laminated sands led to Shell underestimating reserves
8500
- fining upward sequence of channels
- good vertical connectivity but poor lateral connectivity
- “perched” water levels, weak water
Case 3 drive 2
Garden Banks 191 is part of GB 236 Field

Case 3 3
Depositional Model

Case 3 4
Depositional Model
Case 3 5
Seismic section in depth showing productive intervals

Case 3 6
Structure map on the 4500 ft. sand Amplitude extraction on the
4500 ft. sand event

Case 3 7
Type log for the 4500 ft. sand Seismic line and associated reservoir
showing four units. Shale model for the 4500’ sand package
breaks disapear down dip
Case 3 8
Structure map on the 8500 ft. sand Amplitude extraction on the
8500 ft. sand event

Case 3 9
Type log for the 8500 ft. sand Seismic line and associated reservoir
showing five units seperated model for the 8500’ sand package
by shale breaks
Case 3 10
Case Study 4

Porosity Prediction from Seismic Inversion

Lavrans Field
Halten Terrace, Norway
David Dolberg , Mobil Exploration Norway
Jan Helgesen, et al. Saga Petroleum

Published in the Leading Edge, April 2000

SEG

Case 4 1
Lavrans Field, Dave Dolberg

- gas and rich condensate

- unique because they are below 5 Kms = 16,000 feet which is usually
below the petroleum window for this area of the North Sea
- Shallow marine deposition, Jurassic
- porosity varies widely due to diagenesis
- key here is to relate porosity to acoustic impedance via cross-plots
- inversion with CGG’s TDROV package
- one point of this case history is the polarity issue

Case 4 2
Study area, the Lavrans Field
Field outlines are drawn on the base
of Cretaceous Unconformity

Case 4 3
Seismic line across the Lavrans structure

Case 4 4
Simulated acoustic impedance

Case 4 5
Porosity map for the lower portion of the Ile Formation

Case 4 6
Case Study 5

AVO Attribute Analysis on Marginal

3-D Land Data in the Sacremento Basin
Randy L. Nickerson, North Central Oil Corp.
Guillauame Cambois, CGG, Houston

Published in the Leading Edge, December 1998

SEG

Case 5 1
Sacramento Basin, Randy Nickerson

- Rio Vista gas field discovered in 1936, 3.6 TCF of gas

- 1996 50 square mile 3D survey, 50’ hole dynamite source
- zone of interest from 4000’ Eocene to 10000’ Cretaceous plays
- virtually all types of traps exist
- acquisition nightmare, shipping channel, highly agricultural
- AVO on prestack time migration data
- upper Eocene zones are class 3, lower Cretaceous are class 2
- several lithologies cause “bright” spots but have similar impedance
Shallow Example
- well on left produces 80’ of pay, well on right has no sand
- well on right drilled conglomerates which provides the lateral seal
Deeper Example
- Winters Formation class 2
- left hand well drilled 80’ of pay, right drilled 14’ of pay

- Subsequent drilling by Amerada Hess and Enron very sucessfull

Case 5 2
 Area of Study

Location of the Rio Vista and Surrounding Fields

Case 5 3
3D survey acquired just north of the Rio Vista gas field

Case 5 4
Stratrigraphic column for the Sacremento Basin

Case 5 5
Stratrigraphic column for the Sacremento Basin

Case 5 6
AVO crosspolot showing the fluid line
and the various AVO classes

Case 5 7
Log impedance / Poisson’s ratiocrossplot of the
Winters Formation interval

Case 5 8
Shallow Eocene Class 3 Anomaly

Case 5 9
Shallow Eocene Class 3 Anomaly

Case 5 10
Shallow Eocene Class 3 Anomaly

Case 5 11
Shallow Eocene Class 3 Anomaly

Case 5 11
Deeper Cretaceous (Winters) Class 2 Anomaly

Case 5 12
Deeper Cretaceous (Winters) Class 2 Anomaly

Case 5 13
Deeper Cretaceous (Winters) Class 2 Anomaly

Case 5 14
Deeper Cretaceous (Winters) Class 2 Anomaly

Case 5 15
Deeper Cretaceous (Winters) Class 2 Anomaly

Case 5 16
Deeper Cretaceous (Winters) Class 2 Anomaly

Case 5 17
Case Study 6

Fracture Detection in a Carbonate Reservoir

Using a Variety of Seismic Methods
Maporal Field, Venezuela
Maria Perez, PDVSA et al.

Published in Geophysics, Vol. 64, No. 4 July 1999

SEG

Case 6 1
- The Malporal Field is located in the north-central part of the Barinas-Apure
Basin in Venezuela
- the O member of the Escandalosa Formation is a 25m fractured limestone
- zone of interest is at 3000m or about 2.300 sec.
- fractures control production
- fractures filled with 28 API oil
- estimated stress field from borehole elipsisity
- FMS (formation micro-scanner) logs used to estimate fracture
orientation, density and components of stress
- 640 sq km 3D survey and 3 3 component 2D lines
- 80 m bin spacing,, 40 fold
- 240 m super bins for azmuthal avo
-

Case 6 2
Maximum horizontal stress (inward facing arrows) from break-out
orientation logs at wells 16,17,20, and 23. Fracture orientation logs from
FMS logs in the same wells
Case 6 3
Structure map on the top of the Escandalosa Formation, in two way time

Case 6 4
Fracture orientation from rotational alalysis of converted waves

Case 6 5
Fracture orientation from 3D azmuthal AVO analysis

Case 6 6
Case Study 8

An Interpreter’s Guide to Understanding and

Working With Seismic Derived Acoustic
Impedance
Rebecca Buxton Latimer, Rick Davidson, Paul Van Riel, Jason
Geosystems

Published in the Leading Edge, March 2000 SEG

Case 8 1
Case 8 2
 Wedge Model

Wedge Model With a

Ricker Wavelet

Color Amplitude

Inversion of the Model

Some of the advantages of acoustic impedance over seismic data

Case 8 3
Reflection Coefficient Reflectivity is defined as

R=
Z2 - Z1 R(t) = 1  AI(t)
2
Z2 + Z 1 AI(t)
Elastic Impedance is defined by the equation

R(t,) = 1  EI(t,)
2 EI(t,)
For any given offset angle 
2 2 2
(1+tan ) (-8Ksin ) (1-4Ksin )
EI = V V
S

P
2
Vs
Where K is
2
V
P
Case 8 4
 Synthetic
Wavelet Inversion Model
Seismic Data
Acoustic Impedance Inversion Model
Case 8 5
Conventional Seismic Section

Case 8 6
Acoustic Impedance Inversion

Case 8 7
 Conventional Seismic Section
The interpretation from the inversion has been superimposed

Case 8 8
Crossplot of AI and Gamma Ray

Case 8 9
A threshold is applied to the inverted
cube in the zone of interest

Case 8 10
 “Geobody” Display
Units are color coded by size and communication with one another

Case 8 11
 CASE 14

Developing an exploration tool

in a mature trend:
A 3-D AVO case study in South Texas

Mark E. Gregg, Charles T. Burkowski Jr.

Edge Petroleum Corp. Houston Tx
The Leading Edge, Nov. 2000

Case 14 1
Map of the study area showing oil and gas
fields and the Vicksburg Flexure
Case 14 2
NW SE

Wilcox Fault Zone Vicksburg Fault Zone Frio Fault Zone

Miocene

Upper Oligocene
Frio

Upper Oligocene
Frio

Lower Oligocene
Vicksburg

Paleocene

Upper
Cretaceous

Lower Creta
c e ou s a nd
Jurassic

ment
e
of Bas
Top

Case 14 3
 A 3-D AVO case study in South Texas

If at first you don’t succeed, try something unconventional

Study in the very densely drilled clastic Oligocene Viksburg Formation producing both gas and oil

Exploration has increased with prices especially for gas

Interest has changed from shallow targets to deeper overpressured reservoirs

Previous interpretations were based on structural and stratigraphic interpretation

Vicksburg trend is not typical AVO country

Original probabilities set at about .2

Initial two wells targeting the Vicksburg (5500 – 7500 ft) One a success and the other a failure

These became the test cases for AVO modeling and a reprocessing effort to give far offsets
with non-hyperbolic moveout

The AVO work on previous discoveries and dry holes lead to a probability of .65 for cases
where an AVO anomaly was expected and one was found

This had a dramatic effect on the risked economics.

Case 14 4
Two geologically similar prospects resulting in a gas discovery and a dry hole

Case 14 5
 Log suite for the gas discovery
Showing low impedance contrast but high contrast in Poisson’s ration

Case 14 6
 Modeled CDP gathers at the two test wells
Showing a Class 2 anomaly associated with the gas

Case 14 7
Comparing non-hyperbolic moveout a) with hyperbolic moveout b)

Case 14 9
 0 0 0 0
Near stack ( 0 – 16 ) and far stack ( 26 – 45 ) for the gas well

Case 14 10
 0 0 0 0
Near stack ( 0 – 16 ) and far stack ( 26 – 45 ) for the wet well

Case 14 11
a) Structure map b) Conventional stack c) Far angle stack
d) CDP gather from the first AVO supported wildcat
Note the stratigraphic trapping component

Case 14 12
 Untested anomaly on trend with the producers
as seen on a threshold adjusted version of the far stack
Case 14 13
Successful test of the anomaly from the previous figure
two levels of pay

Case 14 14
A very small prospect that became economically
viable with the high probability

Case 14 15
CDP gathers at the two successful wells

Case 14 16
Clean sand with low gas saturation

Case 14 17
 Conclusions

1) A search for a better risk assessment pointed to AVO

2) Non-hyperbolic moveout enabled this technology

3) Know your rocks so that modeling can be done

4) Low gas saturation remains a pitfall

5) Analogous fields were easily catalogued establishing risk rates

6) Prospects were identified quickly because they “pop out”

7) Stratigraphic traps were identified that would have gone unnoticed

8) Prospects were identified in areas of poor data quality

Case 14 18
 WELL TIES TO
SEISMIC DATA

UNDERSTANDING THE
SEISMIC SYSTEM

D.S. Macpherson
Geophysical Training International
February, 2004
Well Ties 1
Well Ties to Seismic Data - Outline

The interpreters point of view - understanding the

lithologic implications of seismic character
The utility of synthetic seismograms
Some of the issues
Data polarity and phase
Log editing
The elusive wavelet
The pitfall of wavelet extraction
Well ties to seismic data - work flow
Inversion tied to the log suite
Some examples

Well Ties 2
 A Little Background - Well Ties for Interpreters

Velocity (Ft/Sec.) Density (Gms./cc.)

5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000 1.8 1.9 2.0 2.1 2.2
0 0

2,000 2,000
Hard Hard
Shale Shale
Depth (Ft)

Depth (Ft)
4,000 4,000
Wet Wet
Sand Sand

Soft Soft
6,000 Shale 6,000 Shale

8,000 8,000 Gas

Gas Sand
Sand

10,000 10,000
Well Ties 3
 A Little Background - Well Ties for Interpreters

Velocity (Ft/Sec.) Density (Gms./cc.)

5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000 1.8 1.9 2.0 2.1 2.2
0 0

2,000 2,000
Hard Hard
Shale Shale
Depth (Ft)

Depth (Ft)
4,000 4,000
Wet Wet
Sand Sand

Soft Soft
6,000 Shale 6,000 Shale

8,000 8,000 Gas

Gas Sand
Sand

10,000 10,000
Well Ties 4
 A Little Background - Well Ties for Interpreters

Velocity (Ft/Sec.) Density (Gms./cc.)

5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000 1.8 1.9 2.0 2.1 2.2
0 0

2,000 2,000
Hard Hard
Shale Shale
Depth (Ft)

Depth (Ft)
4,000 4,000
Wet Wet
Sand Sand

Soft Soft
6,000 Shale 6,000 Shale

8,000 8,000 Gas

Gas Sand
Sand

10,000 10,000
Well Ties 5
 A Little Background - Well Ties for Interpreters

Velocity (Ft/Sec.) Density (Gms./cc.)

5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000 1.8 1.9 2.0 2.1 2.2
0 0

2,000 2,000
Hard Hard
Shale Shale
Depth (Ft)

Depth (Ft)
4,000 4,000
Wet Wet
Sand Sand

Soft Soft
6,000 Shale 6,000 Shale

8,000 8,000 Gas

Gas Sand
Sand

10,000 10,000
Well Ties 6
A Little Background - Well Ties for Interpreters

- +

Conceptual Model
Well Ties 7
A Little Background - Well Ties for Interpreters - Data Phase Issue

Zero Phase Indicators

Shallow Trapped Gas
Well Ties 8
A Little Background - Well Ties for Interpreters - Data Phase Issue

Zero Phase Indicators

Water Bottom ????
Well Ties 9
A Little Background - Well Ties for Interpreters - Data Phase Issue

DIANA FIELD - Deep Water GOM

Well Ties 10
A Little Background - Well Ties for Interpreters - Data Phase Issue

Quadrature
Display

4/8 - 28/38
Zero Phase

4/8 - 28/38
90 deg. Phase
Rotated

Well Ties 11
A Little Background - Well Ties for Interpreters - Data Phase Issue

Quadrature
Display

4/8 - 28/38
Zero Phase

4/8 - 28/38
90 deg. Phase
Rotated

Well Ties 12
Synthetic Seismograms - Issues of Polarity and Phase

Gamma Sonic Resistivity Seismic

SP Density Synthetic
Landmark Graphics
Well Ties 13
Synthetic Seismograms - Issues of Polarity and Phase

Gamma Sonic Resistivity Frequency Phase Seismic

SP Density Synthetic
Landmark Graphics
Well Ties 14
Synthetic Seismograms - Issues of Polarity and Phase

Landmark Graphics
Log Suite Seismic
Floating in Time Floating in Phase
Well Ties 15
 Synthetic Seismograms - Issues of Polarity and Phase

Rotate seismic data Time shift the

First wavelet extraction to zero phase log suite to give a
after log editing shape zero phase wavelet
(50 deg.) at To
(+.017 Sec.)

-.100

.000

.100
Final test is how well the zero phase
synthetics match the data cube

Well Ties 16
Well Ties to Seismic Data - Work Flow

General Approach

Log editing

Time based logs Checkshots VSP info.

Wavelet extraction

Convert seismic to:

Zero phase
Universal amplitude spectrum
Zero phase synthetics at the wells

Good
Match Yes Inversion

No

Well Ties 17
Well Ties to Seismic Data - Log Editing

Log Editing Check List

Log suite alignment

Washout correction

De-glitch

Possible zone replacement

Invasion correction

Generate a Poisson’s ratio curve

Depth to time conversion

Well Ties 18
 Well Ties to Seismic Data - Log Editing
3
2.8
2.6

Vp
2.4

Vs
2.2

Good logs
VPVS
2
1.8
1.6

Hydrocarbons
1.4
1.2
1

50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450

Vs Shear

6 Feb 2004 @ 12:21 Well Ties 19

 Well Ties to Seismic Data - Log Editing
3
2.8
2.6

Vp
2.4

Vs
2.2

Unusual log
VPVS
2

response, too
1.8

much dispersion
1.6
1.4
1.2
1

50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450

Vs Shear

6 Feb 2004 @ 12:21 Well Ties 20

Well Ties to Seismic Data - Log Editing
Volumetrics Poisson’s Ratio
Shale Sand Hydcrb 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 040

12,300

12,400

12,500

Invasion
12,600
Correction

12,700

12,800

Well Ties 21
Well Ties to Seismic Data - Log Editing

Landmark Graphics
Well Ties 22
Well Ties to Seismic Data - Log Editing

Acoustic Impedance Zero Offset Data

Sonic - Density product Near stack

Zero offset synthetic Intercept stack

Elastic Impedance Non-Zero Offset Data

Sonic - Density - Shear velocity Full stack
- Angle product
Far angle stack
AVO synthetic

Well Ties 23
Well Ties to Seismic Data - Examples

Synthetic
Seismogram GOM Data

Well Ties 24
Well Ties to Seismic Data - Examples

Alan Huffman, Conoco

Poststack Inversion TLE Feb. 2002

Well Ties 25
Well Ties to Seismic Data - Examples

North
ORIGINAL SEISMIC South

Disc_b Top

Disc_b Base

REPROCESSED SEISMIC Logs: Gamma & RT

Improvements: Gain Balance, Imaging, Resolution, Well Ties

Veritas Poststack Processing

Well Ties 26
 Well Ties to Seismic Data - Examples

Near angle
Inversion

Far angle
Inversion

Gas sand is
low
impedance
event under
the horizon.

Well Ties 27
 Case Study 27

Gravity Case History

Gravity signature of a buried detached megablock:

an example form the Mackenzie Delta area

Serguet A. Coussev, Robert A. Charters, and John W. Peirce

Geophysical Exploration & Development Corporation (GEDCO)

Case 27 1
Gravity signature of a buried detached megablock: an example form the Mackenzie Delta area

Serguet A. Coussev, Robert A. Charters, and John W. Peirce

Geophysical Exploration & Development Corporation (GEDCO)

Late Jurassic, early Cretaceous rifting, produced large regional scale structures including
the Eskimo Lakes Fault zone and the associated Kugmallit Trough.

Subsequent deltaic deposition and downslope sliding of large rock masses along listric
faults

Gravity study was both land and on-ice (offshore and lakes)

Stations every 200 m with 3 Km gaps between profiles

Bouguer corrected data for terrain, water depth, ice thickness, and elevation

1 Kn grid Bouguer map

Case 27 2
Case 27 3
Case 27 4
Case 27 5
Case 27 6
Case 27 7
Case 27 8
 Case Study 28

Magnetic Case History

High-resolution Aeromagnetic Interpretation over

Sierra and Yoyo Reefs,
Northeastern British Colombia

John Pierce, Erwin Ebner, and Natalie Marchand

Geophysical Exploration & Development Corporation (GEDCO)
Calgary, Alberta, Canada

Geologic Applications of Gravity and Magnetics: Case Histories

SEG Reference Series, No 8

Case 28 1
High-resolution Aeromagnetic Interpretation over Sierra and Yoyo Reefs, Northeastern British Colombia

John Pierce, Erwin Ebner, and Natalie Marchand

Geophysical Exploration & Development Corporation (GEDCO), Calgary, Alberta, Canada

High resolution aeromagnetic (HRAM) survey, flying in controlled drape mode over the terrain

400X1200 meter line spacing. Target horizon is about 2500m

Devonian reefs have been producing for many years. Prospects are pinnacle reefs. Gas
plays.
Porosity due to dolomitization. Survey to delineate bank edges and pinnacle reefs.

The survey shows fault related intra-sedimentary anomalies due to magnetization in the faults
and fractures. Iron bearing minerals, specifically pyrite has seeped into the fault system.

The final product is a magnetic “structural grain” map showing regional faulting over a large
area at low cost. Survey acquired in 1994.

High resolution due to:

1) GPS navigation
2) Drape flying 100 – 150 meters above ground level
3) Improved instrumentation, compensation for noise, more frequent sampling
4) Better map handling and visualization

Considerable effort in cultural editing, wells, pipelines, bridges, processing plants.

Maps were rotated to the poles with a two dimensional phase filter.

Case 28 2
Case 28 3
Case 28 4
Final Edited Total Magnetic Field

Case 28 5
Difference Grid = Original TF – Edited TF

Case 28 6
1.5 – 7 Km Bandpass

Case 28 7
Final Interpretation (Structural Grain ) on a 1.5 – 7 Km Bandpass

Case 28 8