19.12 Future Aspects
The most important issue for further improvement of
the 4D seismic method, is to improve the repeatability.
Advances in both seismic acquisition and 4D
processing will contribute to this process. As sketched
in Fig. 19.13, it is expected that this will be less
pronounced than in the past decade. However, it is
still a crucial issue, and even minor improvements
might mean a lot for the value of a 4D seismic study.
Further improvements in repeatability will probably
involve issues like source stability, source positioning,
shot time interval, better handling of various noise
sources. Maybe in the future we will see vessels
towing a superdense grid of sensors, in order to obtain
perfect repositioning of the receiver positions.
Another direction to improve 4D studies could be
to constrain the time-lapse seismic information by
other types of information, such as geomechanical
modelling, time-lapse EM, gravimetric data or innovative rock physics measurements.
Our understanding of the relation between changes
in the subsurface stress field and the seismic
parameters is still limited, and research within this
specific area will be crucial to advance the 4D. New
analysis methods like long offset 4D, might be used as
a complementary technique or as an alternative
method where conventional 4D analysis has limited
success. However, long offset 4D is limited to
reservoirs where the velocity increases from the cap
rock to the reservoir rock.
The link between reservoir simulation (fluid flow
simulation) and time-lapse seismic will continue to be
developed. As computer resources increase, the feasibility of a joint inversion exploiting both reservoir
simulation and time-lapse seismic data in the same
subsurface model will increase. Despite extra computing power, it is reasonable to expect that the nonuniqueness problem (several scenarios will fit the
same datasets) will require that the number of Earth
models is constrained by models predicting the distribution of rock physical properties based on sedimentology, diagenesis and structural geology.
Acknowledgments Statoil is acknowledged for permission to
use and present their data. The Research Council of Norway is
acknowledged for financial support to the ROSE (Rock Seismic)
project at NTNU. Lasse Amundsen, Lars Pedersen, Lars
Kristian Strønen, Per Digranes, Eilert Hilde, Odd Arve Solheim,
Ivar Brevik, Paul Hatchell, Peter Wills, Jan Stammeijer, Thomas
Røste, Rodney Calvert, Alexey Stovas, Lyubov Skopintseva,
Andreas Evensen, Amir Ghaderi, Dag O. Larsen, Kenneth
Duffaut, Jens Olav Paulsen, Jerome Guilbot, Olav Barkved,
Jan Kommedal, Per Gunnar Folstad, Helene Veire, Erling
Fjær, Pamela Tempone, Rune Martin Holt, Ola Eiken, Torkjell
Stenvold, Fredrik Hansteen and Alberto Marsala are all thanked
for co-operation and discussions.
Further Reading
Amundsen, L. and Landrø, M. December 2007. 4D seismic –
Status and future challenges, Part II. GeoExpro, 54–58.
Barkved, O. 2004. Continuous seismic monitoring. 74th Annual
International Meeting, The Society of Exploration
Geophysicists, 2537–2540.
Barkved, O., Buer, K., Halleland, K.B., Kjelstadli, R., Kleppan,
T. and Kristiansen, T. 2003. 4D seismic response of primary
production and waste injection at the Valhall field. 65th
Meeting. European Association of Geoscientists and
Engineers, Extended Abstracts, A22.
Barkved, O.I. and Kristiansen, T. 2005. Seismic time-lapse
effects and stress changes: Examples from a compacting
reservoir. The Leading Edge 24, 1244.
Bathija, A.P., Batzle, M.L. and Prasad, M. 2009. An experimental study of the dilation factor. Geophysics 74, E181–E191.
Calvert, R. 2005. Insights and methods for 4D reservoir monitoring and characterization, EAGE/SEG Distinguished
Instructor Short Course 8.
Christensen, N.I. and Wang, H.F. 1985. The influence of pore
pressure and confining pressure on dynamic elastic
properties of Berea sandstone. Geophysics 50, 207–213.
Davis, K., Li, Y., Batzle, M. and Reynolds, B. 2005. Time-lapse
gravity monitoring of an aquifer storage recovery project in
Leyden, Colorado. 75th Annual International Meeting. The
Society of Exploration Geophysicists, GM1.4.
Eiken, O., Zumberge, M., Stenvold, T., Sasagawa, G. and
Nooen, S. 2004. Gravimetric monitoring of gas production
from the Troll Field. 74th Annual International Meeting. The
Society of Exploration Geophysicists, 2243–2246.
Ellingsrud, S., Eidesmo, T., Johansen, S., Sinha, M.C.,
MacGregor, L.M. and Constable, S. 2002. Remote sensing
of hydrocarbon layers by seabed logging (SBL): Results
from a cruise offshore Angola. The Leading Edge 21(10),
972–982.
Fjær, E., Holt, R.M., Horsrud, P., Raaen, A.M. and Risnes, R.
2008. Petroleum Related Rock Mechanics, 2
nd edition. pp.
402-409. Elsevier, ISBN 978-0-444-50260-5.
Foldstad, P.G., Andorsen, K., Kjørsvik, I. and Landrø, M. 2005.
Simulation of 4D seismic signal with noise – Illustrated by
WAG injection on the Ula Field. 75th Annual International
Meeting. The Society of Exploration Geophysicists, TL2.7.
Furre, A-K., Munkvold, F.R. and Nordby, L.H. 2003. Improving
reservoir understanding using time-lapse seismic at the
Heidrun Field, 65th Meeting. European Association of
Geoscientists and Engineers, A20.
512
M. Landrø
The most important issue for further improvement of
the 4D seismic method, is to improve the repeatability.
Advances in both seismic acquisition and 4D
processing will contribute to this process. As sketched
in Fig. 19.13, it is expected that this will be less
pronounced than in the past decade. However, it is
still a crucial issue, and even minor improvements
might mean a lot for the value of a 4D seismic study.
Further improvements in repeatability will probably
involve issues like source stability, source positioning,
shot time interval, better handling of various noise
sources. Maybe in the future we will see vessels
towing a superdense grid of sensors, in order to obtain
perfect repositioning of the receiver positions.
Another direction to improve 4D studies could be
to constrain the time-lapse seismic information by
other types of information, such as geomechanical
modelling, time-lapse EM, gravimetric data or innovative rock physics measurements.
Our understanding of the relation between changes
in the subsurface stress field and the seismic
parameters is still limited, and research within this
specific area will be crucial to advance the 4D. New
analysis methods like long offset 4D, might be used as
a complementary technique or as an alternative
method where conventional 4D analysis has limited
success. However, long offset 4D is limited to
reservoirs where the velocity increases from the cap
rock to the reservoir rock.
The link between reservoir simulation (fluid flow
simulation) and time-lapse seismic will continue to be
developed. As computer resources increase, the feasibility of a joint inversion exploiting both reservoir
simulation and time-lapse seismic data in the same
subsurface model will increase. Despite extra computing power, it is reasonable to expect that the nonuniqueness problem (several scenarios will fit the
same datasets) will require that the number of Earth
models is constrained by models predicting the distribution of rock physical properties based on sedimentology, diagenesis and structural geology.
Acknowledgments Statoil is acknowledged for permission to
use and present their data. The Research Council of Norway is
acknowledged for financial support to the ROSE (Rock Seismic)
project at NTNU. Lasse Amundsen, Lars Pedersen, Lars
Kristian Strønen, Per Digranes, Eilert Hilde, Odd Arve Solheim,
Ivar Brevik, Paul Hatchell, Peter Wills, Jan Stammeijer, Thomas
Røste, Rodney Calvert, Alexey Stovas, Lyubov Skopintseva,
Andreas Evensen, Amir Ghaderi, Dag O. Larsen, Kenneth
Duffaut, Jens Olav Paulsen, Jerome Guilbot, Olav Barkved,
Jan Kommedal, Per Gunnar Folstad, Helene Veire, Erling
Fjær, Pamela Tempone, Rune Martin Holt, Ola Eiken, Torkjell
Stenvold, Fredrik Hansteen and Alberto Marsala are all thanked
for co-operation and discussions.
Further Reading
Amundsen, L. and Landrø, M. December 2007. 4D seismic –
Status and future challenges, Part II. GeoExpro, 54–58.
Barkved, O. 2004. Continuous seismic monitoring. 74th Annual
International Meeting, The Society of Exploration
Geophysicists, 2537–2540.
Barkved, O., Buer, K., Halleland, K.B., Kjelstadli, R., Kleppan,
T. and Kristiansen, T. 2003. 4D seismic response of primary
production and waste injection at the Valhall field. 65th
Meeting. European Association of Geoscientists and
Engineers, Extended Abstracts, A22.
Barkved, O.I. and Kristiansen, T. 2005. Seismic time-lapse
effects and stress changes: Examples from a compacting
reservoir. The Leading Edge 24, 1244.
Bathija, A.P., Batzle, M.L. and Prasad, M. 2009. An experimental study of the dilation factor. Geophysics 74, E181–E191.
Calvert, R. 2005. Insights and methods for 4D reservoir monitoring and characterization, EAGE/SEG Distinguished
Instructor Short Course 8.
Christensen, N.I. and Wang, H.F. 1985. The influence of pore
pressure and confining pressure on dynamic elastic
properties of Berea sandstone. Geophysics 50, 207–213.
Davis, K., Li, Y., Batzle, M. and Reynolds, B. 2005. Time-lapse
gravity monitoring of an aquifer storage recovery project in
Leyden, Colorado. 75th Annual International Meeting. The
Society of Exploration Geophysicists, GM1.4.
Eiken, O., Zumberge, M., Stenvold, T., Sasagawa, G. and
Nooen, S. 2004. Gravimetric monitoring of gas production
from the Troll Field. 74th Annual International Meeting. The
Society of Exploration Geophysicists, 2243–2246.
Ellingsrud, S., Eidesmo, T., Johansen, S., Sinha, M.C.,
MacGregor, L.M. and Constable, S. 2002. Remote sensing
of hydrocarbon layers by seabed logging (SBL): Results
from a cruise offshore Angola. The Leading Edge 21(10),
972–982.
Fjær, E., Holt, R.M., Horsrud, P., Raaen, A.M. and Risnes, R.
2008. Petroleum Related Rock Mechanics, 2
nd edition. pp.
402-409. Elsevier, ISBN 978-0-444-50260-5.
Foldstad, P.G., Andorsen, K., Kjørsvik, I. and Landrø, M. 2005.
Simulation of 4D seismic signal with noise – Illustrated by
WAG injection on the Ula Field. 75th Annual International
Meeting. The Society of Exploration Geophysicists, TL2.7.
Furre, A-K., Munkvold, F.R. and Nordby, L.H. 2003. Improving
reservoir understanding using time-lapse seismic at the
Heidrun Field, 65th Meeting. European Association of
Geoscientists and Engineers, A20.
512
M. Landrø