How acquisition geometry and parameters influence

suitability of seismic data to reservoir

characterization : a case study

Jean Luc Formento, Loic Michel, Laurene Michou

GeoConsulting
 CGG Integrated Flow focused on Reservoir Challenges

Seismic Reservoir
Survey design Characterization
Adapted survey design Direct update of
from reservoir and reservoir model
regional constrains from seismic

Fracture
Characterization
Acquisition
Processing
Sequence

AVO QC
Processing AVO friendly
How to quantify the impact of the acquisition
design?
0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

Reservoir characterization
improvements?
2.0

2.5
Objectives
 Compare acquisition geometry from a reservoir point of view
 Dense acquisition geometry improves geological structure lateral continuity, reservoir definition and oil reserve
estimation. Faults are better imaged and reservoir characterisation is more quantitative
 Wide frequency range improves resolution and reduce the dependency from external information
 WAZ enables azimuthal inversion, hence fracture characterisation
 For the study 4 acquisition geometries
are compared
– Conventional acquisition (CONV)
– Decimated 1 acquisition, V1 – XS
– Decimated 2 acquisition, V1 – ND

 – Dense acquisition
Regarding (V1 -data,
the available CP) the
analysis is qualitative, relative between
acquisitions.
 The denser acquisition (V1) is used as
the reference for several comparison
criterions.
Acquisition Comparison from a Reservoir Point of View

Acquisition notation from 1 to 4 (best)

Reservoir
Anisotropy / V1
Seismic quality: NRMS structural
fracture & CC
4
Full stack spectral
Azimuthal analysis
3 analysis

Elastic inv. 2
convergence: NRMS Horizon picking Conv
1
seismic-synth V1-XS
0 V1
V1-ND
Acoustic inv.
V1
AVO gradient stability convergence: NRMS
seismic-synth
Lithology / Fluid AVO
Prospect detection from
characterization Intercept*Gradient
acoustic inv.
crossplot
AVO angle stacks
quality

5
Structural Analysis

6
 CONV
V1 - XS
Imaging Analysis V1 - ND
V1

 The denser the seismic acquisition geometry, the sharper the structural image and the more
precise is the spatial geological definition, hence reserve estimation should be more reliable.

CONV Acq. V1 - XS Acq. V1 – ND Acq. V1 - CP Acq.

TAGI

ORDOVICIAN

2D section, Full Stack Inline 1990 – TD : trace density

 Map
NRMS & Correlation Coefficient and QC
area
 NRMS and Correlation Coefficient maps are computed over a 300ms layered interval
around 1600ms on full stacks. Reference is the denser acquisition.
 Decimated acq. 1 has the lowest NRMS and highest correlation coefficient with the dense
acquisition.
CONV Acq. V1 - XS Acq. V1 – ND Acq.

CONV
NRMS V1 - XS
V1 - ND

CC
83 26 31

Correlation Larger square =

Median value
Coefficient
NRMS

0.68 0.97 0.96

8
 Spectral Analysis: Energy & Dominant Map
Frequency and QC
area
 Energy and dominant frequency maps are computed over a 300ms layered interval around 1600ms on
full stack. Energy maps depends on the acq. Geometry. Without a calibration with external information
(well logs, geological contrast), quantitative impedance is not worth considering.
 Average CONV
correlation
Acq. coefficient with
V1 the
- XS denser
Acq. acquisition,
V1per
– NDmap
Acq. is indicated inV1
the box
- CP Acq.

Energy
+

0.90
- 0.99 0.99

Dominant
Frequency

9 0.73 0.88 0.86

 TAGI Horizon
CONV Acq. V1 - XS Acq. V1 – ND Acq. V1 - CP Acq.
Isochron

Shallow
Deeper Low

Seed Correlation
High

10
 ORDOVICIAN Horizon
CONV Acq. V1 - XS Acq. V1 – ND Acq. V1 - CP Acq.
Isochron

Shallow
Deeper Low

Seed Correlation
High

11
11
 Acquisition Comparison from a Reservoir Point
of View
Acquisition notation from 1 to 4 (best)
Seismic quality: NRMS
& CC Reservoir
Anisotropy / 4
Full stack spectral structural
Azimuthal analysis
fracture 3 analysis

2
Elastic inv.
convergence: NRMS Horizon picking
seismic-synth 1 V1
Conv
V1-XS
0 V1-XS
V1-ND
Acoustic inv. V1-ND
Conv
AVO gradient stability convergence: NRMS V1
seismic-synth

Lithology / Fluid AVO

Prospect detection
characterization Intercept*Gradient
from acoustic inv.
crossplot
AVO angle stacks
quality

12
Lithology / Fluid
characterization -
Acoustic Analysis
13
 CONV
V1 - XS
V1 - ND
Initial Model Layering V1
XLINE 1250
 Proportional layering between
horizons
 Average layer thickness: 10 ms
 Seismic full stack V1 acquisition
TAGI geometry

ORDOVICIAN

14
 CONV
V1 - XS
Acoustic Inversion V1 - ND
V1

 Comparison of P impedance acoustic inversion results. At 1100 ms, similar impedance contrasts
are observed. Deeper, P impedance results are different, especially with the conventional data set.
CONV Acq. V1 - XS Acq. V1 – ND Acq. V1 - CP Acq.

High

TAGI

ORDOVICIAN

Low

2D section, Inline 1990

 CONV
V1 - XS
Derived porosity maps from P impedance V1 - ND
V1

 Derived porosity on a layer around the TAGI and the ORDOVICIAN targets.

CONV Acq. V1 - XS Acq. V1 – ND Acq. V1 - CP Acq.

High

Porosity map ?
layer around
Tagi, 1500 ms

Porosity
Tagi reservoir

Low

Impedance
 CONV
DEC1
V1DEC2
- XS
Acoustic Inversion QC V1DG
- ND
V1V1

 NRMS maps between seismic data and synthetics from inversion results and average
value

0,16 0,15

0,15 0,14
 Acquisition Comparison from a Reservoir Point
of View
Acquisition notation from 1 to 4 (best)
Seismic quality: NRMS
& CC Reservoir
Anisotropy / 4
Full stack spectral structural
Azimuthal analysis
fracture 3 analysis

2
Elastic inv.
convergence: NRMS Horizon picking
seismic-synth 1 V1
Conv
V1-XS
0 V1-XS
V1-ND
Acoustic inv. V1-ND
Conv
AVO gradient stability convergence: NRMS V1
seismic-synth

Lithology / Fluid AVO

Prospect detection
characterization Intercept*Gradient
from acoustic inv.
crossplot
AVO angle stacks
quality

18
Lithology / Fluid
characterization -
Elastic Analysis
19
 CONV
V1 - XS
V1 - ND
Seismic Gathers: AVO around ORDOVICIAN V1
 CONV
V1 - XS
AVO: Intercept*Gradient V1 - ND
V1

 Amplitude Versus Offset analysis and Elastic Inversion can enable to differentiate fluid content and
oil from gas fields.
 Intercept-Gradient
CONV Acq. product analysis
V1 - XSseems
Acq. similar for the
V1 –decimated
ND Acq. and denser
V1 acquisitions
- CP Acq.
 CONV
V1 - XS
Seismic Mid Angle Stack V1 - ND
V1

 x

Conventional Acq. Decimated 1 Acq.

2D section, Inline 1990

 CONV
V1 - XS
AVO Gradient stability V1 - ND
V1

CONV

Conventional Acq.

V1 - XS

V1 - ND

V1
 CONV
V1 - XS
Elastic Inversion Lithology / Fluid classification V1 - ND
V1

 Elastic inversion can enable to classify lithology and fluid.

 P impedance 2D sections
CONV Acq. V1 - XS Acq. V1 – ND Acq. V1 - CP Acq.

2D section, Inline 1990

 CONV
V1 - XS
Elastic Inversion Lithology / Fluid classification V1 - ND
V1

 Elastic inversion can enable to classify lithology and fluid.

 VpVs impedance 2D sections
CONV Acq. V1 - XS Acq. V1 – ND Acq. V1 - CP Acq.

2D section, Inline 1990

 CONV
V1 - XS
Elastic Inversion QC V1 - ND
V1

 NRMS maps between seismic data and synthetics from inversion results and average
value for the mid angle stack.

0,7 0,5

0,5 0,5
 Acquisition Comparison from a Reservoir Point
of View
Acquisition notation from 1 to 4 (best)
Seismic quality: NRMS
& CC Reservoir
Anisotropy / 4
Full stack spectral structural
Azimuthal analysis
fracture 3 analysis

2
Elastic inv.
convergence: NRMS Horizon picking
seismic-synth 1 V1
Conv
V1-XS
0 V1-XS
V1-ND
Acoustic inv. V1-ND
Conv
AVO gradient stability convergence: NRMS V1
seismic-synth

Lithology / Fluid AVO

Prospect detection
characterization Intercept*Gradient
from acoustic inv.
crossplot
AVO angle stacks
quality

27
Anisotropy and fracture
analysis

28
 V1

Azimuthal and Offset distribution for 1 bin

N 0°

Az6
Az7
Az8 Az1
Az2

Az3
+
Az5 Az4
90°
Az4 Az5

Az3 Az6

Az2 Az7
Az1 Az8

180°

29
Near angle stack CONV
V1 - XS
Energy maps around 1100 ms horizon Azimuth
V1 - ND
V1
11° 34° 56° 78° 101° 123 146° 168

CONV

V1-XS

High

V1-ND

Low

V1
Far angle stack CONV
V1 - XS
Energy maps around 1100 ms horizon Azimuth
V1 - ND
V1
11° 34° 56° 78° 101° 123 146° 168

CONV

V1-XS

High

V1-ND

Low

V1
 Azimuthal Amplitude QC
 Energy around 1100 Horizon (20 ms above and 80 ms below) computed for all angle stacks
 Plot of the average energy for each azimuth for Near and Far angle stacks.
 Higher amplitude for AZ1, AZ2 and AZ3 only for the Far angle stack

Near angle stacks normalized 1.25

Far angle stacks normalized
Far angle stacks normalized
1.25 1.15
1.25
1.15 Sinus
V1 1.15
1.05
CONV V1V1
1.05
V1 - XS
DEC1 1.05
DEC1
0.95 V1 - ND 0.95 DEC1
DEC2 0.95
V1 DEC2
DEC2
0.85 0.85
0.85
DG DGDG
0.75 0.75
0.75
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 11 22 33 44 55 66 77 88
11 34 56 78 101 123 146 168 11 34 56 78 101 123 146 168

32
 Acquisition Comparison from a Reservoir Point
of View
Acquisition notation from 1 to 4 (best)
Seismic quality: NRMS
& CC Reservoir
Anisotropy / 4
Full stack spectral structural
Azimuthal analysis
fracture 3 analysis

2
Elastic inv.
convergence: NRMS Horizon picking
seismic-synth 1 V1
Conv
V1-XS
0 V1-XS
V1-ND
Acoustic inv. V1-ND
Conv
AVO gradient stability convergence: NRMS V1
seismic-synth

Lithology / Fluid AVO

Prospect detection
characterization Intercept*Gradient
from acoustic inv.
crossplot
AVO angle stacks
quality

33
 Theory & methodology 34

Representation:
1. Processing step N • Through statistics  Global

2. Migration + angle stack volumes

3. Perform 2-terms AVO fitting

Intercept and Gradient are • Through maps Global, spatial
NEAR MID FAR UFAR
computed with dip-consistent
macro-binning
4. AVO-based model derivation

5. Comparison of the model with • Through cross-plots  Global, 2-3D

NEAR MID FAR UFAR
seismic: attributes generation
• Repeatability attributes
T. Coleou (EAGE, 2013)

• Matching attributes
TS, φ, F
 Theory & methodology 35

2. Migration + angle stack volumes

3. Perform 2-terms AVO fitting

Intercept and Gradient are
computed with dip-consistent
macro-binning
4. AVO-based model derivation

5. Comparison of the model with

seismic: attributes generation

AVO analysis
Workflow
Theory & methodology Processing Sequence λ 36

Reading Tapes
Initial de-noising

Surface consistent processing

Additional de-noising

Multiple attenuation
Migration

Post-Processing

QCn
QC1
QC2
QC3
QC4
AVO
--AVO
AVO
analysis
analysis
analysis

Stack
Conclusion: Acquisition Ranking from a
Reservoir Point of View

 Depending the complexity of the reservoir (production challenge) and

the noise level, the acquisition designs need to be adapted.

 Quality control of the reservoir consistency (AVO behavior, Fold by

Azimuth,…) during the processing is mandatory for quantitative
reservoir characterization.

 V1-XS and V1-ND acquisition designs don’t affect the reservoir

characterization process up to anisotropy analysis.

 Pilot area with Sonatrach reservoir targeted objectives and challenges

can be defined to review this acquisition design impact.
Acquisition Comparison from a Reservoir Point
of View
Acquisition notation from 1 to 4 (best)

4
3
2
1
0 V1 Conv
V1-XS
V1-ND V1-ND
Conv
V1-XS
V1

Reservoir
structural

Lithology / Fluid Anisotropy /

38 characterization fracture