Geophysical Prospecting, 2005, 53, 183–203

The 4D seismic signature of oil–water contact movement

due to natural production in a stacked turbidite reservoir
C. MacBeth,1∗ K.D. Stephen1 and A. McInally2 †
1 Reservoir Geophysics Group, Institute of Petroleum Engineering, Heriot-Watt University, Riccarton, Edinburgh EH14 4AS,
and 2 Shell UK Exploration and Production, Aberdeen AB12 3FY, UK

Received December 2003, revision accepted July 2004

ABSTRACT
Combined time-lapse reservoir simulation and seismic modelling has been performed
on both 1D and 3D models of a channelized turbidite reservoir. The models have
been built using core, log, laboratory and seismic data from the Nelson Field (central
North Sea) as a template. Oil and water movement in the main channels, channel
margins and interchannel regions is investigated, with a particular focus being the
effect of poor net-to-gross. The analysis confirms that saturation effects dominate the
response whilst stress-sensitivity effects play a minor role. The trough–peak signature
in the seismic difference volumes formed by the sweep of the water can be continued
and mapped slightly further than the channel margins. This characteristic 4D signa-
ture remains roughly intact, despite the complicated depositional architecture, and
accurately delineates the area of moved fluid, but it needs additional calibration to
combat the detrimental influence of the low net-to-gross. Signal strength is largely
dependent on reservoir quality, but is also compromised by the net-to-gross, fluid
distribution and, more critically, by the exact timing of the seismic survey. For ex-
ample, a region of bypassed oil zone remains undetected as it forms early during the
production. This work demonstrates that to understand fully the 4D signature at a
quantitative level requires adequate knowledge of the fluid properties, but also, more
critically, the geology.

in the 4D sense by a strong signature from clean, relatively un-

INTRODUCTION
Stacked turbidite reservoirs are amongst the most commonly
cited 4D successes. Examples are the Palaeocene sands of
the West of Shetlands area of the North Sea (Parr, Marsh
and Griffin 2000), the Nelson Field, central North Sea (McI-
nally et al. 2003) and the Pliocene sands of the South Tim-
balier Field, Gulf of Mexico (Burkhart, Hoover and Flem-
ings 2000). 4D seismic potential for fields lying in deep water
has also been demonstrated for turbidite developments in the
Oligocene/Miocene of the Campos Basin, Brazil (Santos et al.
2003) and the Palaeocene of the Girassol Field in West Africa
(Beydoun et al. 2002). Most of these fields are characterized
∗ E-mail: colin.macbeth@pet.hw.ac.uk
†Now at: Kerr-McGee North Sea (UK) Ltd, Aberdeen AB12 3LG, UK.
consolidated sands with moderate-to-high porosity and an ex-
cellent contrast in acoustic properties between the displacing
and displaced reservoir fluids. However, turbidite reservoirs
are also known in the geological sense for the many challenges
and surprises offered to reservoir management (Dromgoole
et al. 2000), due to their complicated depositional architec-
ture, shale occurrence, stratigraphic variations in net-to-gross,
and the geometry and internal character of the deposits. In-
deed, heterogeneity exists on a variety of scales that will
strongly influence both vertical and lateral connectivity, and
hence fluid-flow behaviour during production or injection.
This heterogeneity could compromise our quantitative un-
derstanding of the 4D seismic signature. To investigate this
point further, the monitoring of water sweep during natural
(primary) production is taken as an example. In this situation,


C 2005 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers 183
184 C. MacBeth, K.D. Stephen and A. McInally
Table 1 Snapshot of 4D characteristics for the Nelson Field, central North Sea. This field is used in the current study as a data source and a
template to guide the modelling
Field
Discovered 1986
First production 1994
30 production wells
Natural drive, aquifer supported
Flank water injection from four wells
Rocks
23–28% porosity
50–1000 mD permeability
Stress sensitivity – see Appendix C
Rock compressibility 0.04 GPa−1
Caprock: Sele shale
Reservoir
Top Reservoir 7200 ft TVDSS
270 ft oil column
Swc = 0.20 (on average)
Sor = 0.15–0.25
Production
18 000 bpd in well of interest
1994/3343 psi (23 MPa) →
1997/2343 psi (16 MPa) over 3.5 years
Reservoir pressure stable at 1997 level
the expectation is for a well-defined oil–water contact (OWC)
movement due to sand-on-sand contact between beds. Gener-
ally, this is the case in the main channel sands; however, vertical
connectivity progressively diminishes towards the margins of
the depositional system as the shale volume and lateral conti-
nuity of the channel beds increases. In these poor net-to-gross
regions at the margins of the channel sands, oil is still present
but contact movements (or saturation changes) and bypassed
patches of oil are more difficult to detect due to the increased
complexity of the 4D signature.
The objective of this work is to develop a better under-
standing of the fluid-flow in stacked turbidite reservoirs un-
dergoing primary production, with a focus on the impact of
net-to-gross variations and their effect on the resultant 4D
signature. For the purposes of this current study we use data
from the Palaeocene sands of the Nelson Field in the central
North Sea as a general framework to guide the modelling and
analysis. Geological and reservoir details of this field are given
in Table 1. Figure 1(a) shows an example of the seismically es-
timated oil–water contact movement across the Nelson Field
compared with the simulator prediction (after Reid, MacBeth
and McInally 2003). Figure 1(b) illustrates, in vertical section,
the characteristic trough–peak signature in the 4D seismic as-
sociated with this movement.

C 2005 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers, Geophysical Prospecting, 53, 183–203
Geology
Channelized turbidite
Palaeocene, Upper Forties sands
Broad, low relief anticline with four-way dip closure
Three main sand fairways, running NW–SE
Fluid
38◦ API (light)
550 scf/stb initial GOR
Initial pressure 3343 psi (23 MPa)
Bubble pressure 1700 psi (12 MPa)
Brine salinity 100 000 ppm
Temperature 107◦ C
Seismic
30 Hz peak frequency
Surveys 1990, 1997, 2000
Offset range 0–8000 ft
280 ft water depth
4D changes
Oil-sand → water-sand,
P = 0:
IP = 11%,
IS = 43%
Water-sand (at 3343 psi) → water-sand (at 2343 psi):

IP = 1%,
IS = −4%
Oil-sand (at 3343 psi) → oil-sand (at 2343 psi):
IP = 1.5%,
IS = −5%
To define the underlying physics for oil–water contact move-
ment, this study firstly undertakes log-based 1D modelling,
and follows this with the construction of a 3D geological and
reservoir model containing similar depositional architecture to
Nelson. From this, the resultant near- and far-offset 4D seismic
responses are generated through petro-elastic transformation
of the simulation output followed by seismic modelling, and
the fidelity of the key indicators for water movement is stud-
ied. In the latter step, consideration is given to the role of
stress sensitivity of the sands and shales. For our purposes, it
is assumed that the reservoir is produced naturally through
a strong basal aquifer drive. Although applicable only to an
oil–water system, this analysis is equally appropriate for the
gas–water case such as that of Alsos et al. (2003). Further
issues relating to other reservoir connectivity scenarios and
stacking patterns in turbidite sands are discussed in a separate
study (Al-Maskeri and MacBeth 2003).
PREDICTED TIME-LAPSE EFFECTS FROM
1D MODELLING
The submarine turbidite sands of the Forties sandstone mem-
ber form three distinct axial fairways: the eastern chan-
nel, central channel and western channel complexes. These
 4D signature of oil–water contact movement 185

Figure 1 (a) Map showing picked oil–water contact (OWC) movement between the 1990 (pre-production) and 2000 (monitor) surveys on
Nelson, compared with the moved oil–water contact predicted from the reservoir simulation (after Reid et al. 2003). 4D seismic has proved to
be a valuable tool in monitoring the drainage patterns in Nelson, with predictions from the reservoir simulator being in good overall agreement
with the seismic estimates. The largest movements correlate with the production. (b) Section showing the trough (red) and peak (blue) signature
as defined by the 1990–2000 4D volume. The trough represents the moved oil–water contact (MOWC) and the peak represents the original
oil–water contact (OOWC).

sand-rich fairways run in a northwest–southeast direction

across the structure, and are well imaged on the 4D seis-
mic. For the purposes of this current study a comparison will
be made between the main channel sands and the more het-
erolithic channel-margin facies, which are less well resolved
by 4D seismic.
Main channel sands
On Nelson, the 4D seismic is known to be dominated by the
saturation changes, due principally to the contrast between
the bulk fluid properties of the oil and the formation wa-
ter, and in particular the upward movement of the oil–water


C 2005 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers, Geophysical Prospecting, 53, 183–203
186 C. MacBeth, K.D. Stephen and A. McInally
contact (Boyd-Gorst, Fail and Pointing 2001). In the main
sand-channel fairways, the direct signature of production is a
characteristic trough–peak doublet on the difference (base –
monitor) data (Fig. 2a), formed by the interference of reflected
events from the original and moved oil–water contacts, which
can thus be used to indicate and quantify oil–water contact
movement (Redondo-López et al. 2002). Before production,
there is complete water saturation in the water-sand and ir-
reducible, connate water saturation Swc in the oil-sand. Pro-
duction sweeps oil by an upward movement of the water leg
in response to the pressure depletion, but with the residual
(and any bypassed) oil remaining. Water sweep thus intro-

C 2005 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers, Geophysical Prospecting, 53, 183–203
Figure 2 Schematics illustrating the possible
effect of reduced net-to-gross on the differ-
ence (base – monitor) signature due to nat-
ural production and an oil–water contact
movement of 75 ft. (a) Main channel sand.
(b) Sands at the margins of the channel. Un-
desirable events from within the sand pack-
age are produced in this low net-to-gross
case. Internal multiples from layers inside
the swept zone interfere with other multi-
ples whose raypaths cross through the swept
zone. This process has the potential to gen-
erate a whole sequence of trough–peak dou-
blets that interfere with the main signal of
interest.
duces a second change in the saturation profile (and hence
elastic properties), due to the partially swept sand (as seen
in Fig. 3a). To describe this 4D signature in more detail, an
elastic model is calculated for idealized pre- (1990) and pro-
duced (1997) saturation distributions, and reservoir pressures
are included for completeness. Pressure-sensitive oil and brine
acoustic properties under the specific reservoir conditions be-
fore and during production (Table 1) are determined using
the appropriate equations of Batzle and Wang (1992) with
laboratory correlations established by Enterprise Oil replac-
ing relationships for the bulk moduli κ brine and κ oil . It is as-
sumed that production occurs sufficiently slowly for the fluid
 4D signature of oil–water contact movement 187

Figure 3 (a) Idealized changes in elastic

properties for water sweep due to natural
production. (b) Baseline (1990) and monitor
(1997) seismic, together with 4D signatures
corresponding to the upper model. Compu-
tations use a zero-phase source wavelet of
30 Hz. The characteristic trough–peak dou-
blet is apparent in all cases. Note that when
computing the elastic properties, the effect
of the pressure gradient within the reservoir
can be assumed to be negligible and it is
thus held at a fixed value for the reservoir
depth range. The oil–water capillary tran-
sition zone is approximately 3–15 ft, and
can thus be simulated at seismic frequencies
as an abrupt saturation discontinuity com-
pared with the seismic wavelength of 300
ft. For this clean-sand example, irreducible
water saturation (Swc ) and residual oil satu-
ration (Sor ) are set at 20% and 15%, respec-
tively.

constituents to be homogeneously distributed at the sub-
seismic (≤ λ/5) scale, so that the Reuss average (Wood’s equa-
tion) can be used to mix the fluid constituents. The exact va-
lidity of this assumption for natural production in turbidites
is examined elsewhere. The contribution of the bulk modulus
and fluid density to the overall rock properties is then obtained
through application of the conventional Gassmann’s equation
and the mass balance equation, respectively. In this particular
section only one common rock-frame and porosity pressure
response is used, this being the result of averaging a series
of in-house measurements on different specimens (MacBeth
2004). Sele shale properties are also taken from an average of
Enterprise Oil laboratory results.
Synthetic seismograms are calculated for pre-production
and produced models using the isotropic reflectivity method
of Kennett (1983). This method includes all internal multi-
ples and P-S, S-S and S-P conversions. Difference signatures
for the near-offset (0–4000 ft) and far-offset (4000–8000 ft)
stacks are obtained between production start-up in 1994 and a
post-production monitor survey in 1997 (3.5 years after pro-
duction) (see Fig. 3b). As expected, the Top Reservoir (ap-
proximately Top Forties) events mostly cancel out in the 4D
signature, which is made up of a peak corresponding to the
original oil–water contact (OOWC) event combined with a
trough associated with the moved oil–water contact (MOWC)
event. As the incident seismic wavelength is approximately
300 ft, for sweeps of up to 70 ft the trough and peak in
this composite interfere destructively in an identical way to
conventional tuning and thus the amplitude will scale in pro-
portion to the sweep length. Consequently, visual observation
could prove sufficient to monitor the sweep. Indeed, studies
using the seismic data have revealed that 15–20 ft movements
in the oil–water contact may be resolved in the presence of
1–3 ms misregistration noise in 30 Hz seismic. As both the
original oil–water contact and the moved oil–water contact
events brighten with offset due to the Poisson’s ratio contrast
(in contrast to the amplitude-variation-with-offset (AVO) be-
haviour of the Top Forties), the signature is more prominent on
the far-offset stack. This suggests enhanced fluid detection for
the far-offset data. The seismic response, calculated using logs
taken from a well in the main channel fairway, has a similar
character.


C 2005 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers, Geophysical Prospecting, 53, 183–203
188 C. MacBeth, K.D. Stephen and A. McInally

Channel margins Although the data set used to derive (2) is predominantly
(but not exclusively) sandstone, it also adequately represents
As expected, the major controls on the seismic property dis-
shale for the purposes of this current study. In the modelling,
tribution are the step-changes at the moved oil–water contact
reservoir heterogeneity is treated by assuming that each in-
and original oil–water contact due to the contrast between
dividual point in the wireline log represents a thin homoge-
the light oil and formation water (Fig. 3b). In the margins, oil
neous bed with its own particular Swc . Once water satura-
is bypassed by the shale interbeds which exhibit low vertical
tions have been updated in the swept leg, the 4D signature is
connectivity, leading to a non-uniform saturation and poorer
computed using full-wave modelling as before. The reflectivity
recovery than would be predicted by laboratory-measured
approach permits preservation of the large-scale resolution,
residual saturations (see Appendix A). This is due to capil-
and thus upscaling of the properties is not necessary. More
lary pressure and relative permeability effects combined with
accurate saturation (and pressure) updating in the presence
between-bed heterogeneity. An additional effect is that the
of 3D heterogeneity will be addressed later in the reservoir
shales slow down the rise of water, thus these low net-to-
simulation.
gross areas are not likely to show significant water movement
As in the previous case, there is no definable Top Forties
until much later in field life. This uneven, meso-scale non-
event on the calculated 4D seismic. However, due to the shale
uniformity of saturation means that it is difficult to define a
interbedding, distinct reflection events at the fluid contacts are
sharp oil–water contact. This situation contrasts with the pre-
not individually identified on the seismic. The seismic is now
vious section. Figure 2(b) illustrates what events might occur
responding more to small changes in the reflectivity of beds
to provide additional complexity. Separate calculations reveal
in the vicinity of the saturation change, rather than a (seis-
that the internal multiple contribution for Nelson sands and
mically) sharp change across a single discrete interface. It is
shales is low, and the main character of the signal appears to
observed that increased shale fraction lowers the average seis-
be preserved. The trough and peak are sufficiently close to
mic velocity and hence reduces the overall P-wave impedance
interfere destructively, and their separation is not related di-
contrast at the Top Forties, and also between the water- and
rectly to the sweep. To simulate this effect more completely,
oil-sands. (Lower impedance shale is not unusual for fields in
logs from a well in a known low net-to-gross region are used
this part of the North Sea. These generally exhibit a type I
to calculate the seismic response due to production. The elastic
or II AVO response and dim out with offsets. This response
properties for the model are given in Fig. 4(a) using the same
contrasts with the classical Gulf of Mexico bright spots that
recipe as in the previous section. Again, a 75-ft water move-
show the opposite behaviour.) Figure 4(c) indicates the typical
ment is induced in the saturation profile. To establish a precise
amount of amplitude reduction that may be expected. Despite
saturation updating, the swept oil leg needs correction for the
these effects, it is still possible to observe the trough–peak sig-
maximum attainable Sw at each depth as the sweep progresses.
nature, albeit at a much reduced amplitude. This means that
At the pore scale, residual oil saturation is approximately con-
a larger sweep is necessary to induce a similar magnitude of
stant with permeability and rock type (Hamon 2003). Thus,
seismic signature to the main channel sands. The geological
for the purposes of this modelling, residual oil saturation (Sor )
heterogeneity has degraded the characteristic trough–peak in-
has been set at 15%. However, the connate water satura-
dicator. Fluctuations in Poisson’s ratio also reduce the promi-
tion Swc varies strongly with permeability. A low-permeability
nence of the far-offset response, although the 4D signature
rock with narrow pore throats is more fully water-saturated
still appears fractionally stronger than at near-offsets (see re-
when compared with a higher-permeability rock. To deter-
mark above). Thus, in principle, sweep determination could
mine this value, a laboratory-based empirical relationship
be continued into the channel margins despite the drop-off in
is used to connect directly to permeability (Ringrose et al.
net-to-gross. The 4D signature will faithfully follow the fluid
1993):
movement into the more complicated geological setting. How-
Swc = 0.600 − 0.165 log10 (k) , (1) ever, to use this satisfactorily the values would require further
careful calibration to provide a truly quantitative measure.
where k is in millidarcies (mD). This equation has been applied
Otherwise, good sweep in poor-quality sand could be mis-
generally in the past to both sands and shales. Finally, to assign
taken for a small sweep in good net-to-gross. Repeatability
permeability, the following porosity transform from core data
noise in the field data would ultimately determine whether
is used:
this drop-off in 4D amplitude outside the main channel axis is
k (in mD) = 0.00632 × 100.1667(%) . (2) significant.


C 2005 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers, Geophysical Prospecting, 53, 183–203
 4D signature of oil–water contact movement 189

Figure 4 Saturation profiles with cor-

responding Poisson’s ratio and P-wave
impedance calculated from logs recorded in
a typical low net-to-gross marginal chan-
nel setting. Saturation updating for a 75-ft
sweep (as in Fig. 3) is achieved by calculating
Sor from an empirical Sor versus permeabil-
ity relationship (Pickup, pers. comm.). (a)
Pre-production: red lines; post-production:
black lines. (b) Synthesized near- and far-
offset stacks for baseline (1990) and moni-
tor (1997) surveys, together with their differ-
ence, indicate preservation of the basic 4D
signal of water sweep but lack the previous
correlation with sweep magnitude. (c) Near-
offset amplitude of the difference signature
as a function of net-to-gross for randomly
defined sand/shale realizations guided by log
statistics in the reservoir.

to retain realism whilst capturing the differing geologi-

S I M U L AT O R T O S E I S M I C 4 D M O D E L L I N G
To understand further the relationship between the seis-
mic response and fluid-flow for this channelized turbidite
system, 3D geological and reservoir modelling are per-
formed. This requires that known net-to-gross distribu-
tions be simulated using statistics derived from the Nelson
wireline logs, cores and outcrop analogue data. This helps
cal scales. Two types of facies are considered in this par-
ticular modelling: channel and interbed, both with dis-
tinct property variations at the sub-seismic scale. There are
also two types of net-to-gross to consider, cell-averaged
and the larger-scale expression of the depositional ar-
chitecture. A workflow is developed with the following
components.


C 2005 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers, Geophysical Prospecting, 53, 183–203
190 C. MacBeth, K.D. Stephen and A. McInally

Geological modelling
A Cartesian model of 40 × 50 × 30 cells is built with an
individual cell resolution of 25 × 25 × 2 m. Channels are
modelled as objects placed in a background of interchan-
nel facies with random offset positioning. The channel cross-
section is assumed to be semi-elliptical and is extended in the
transverse direction with some sinuosity (Fig. 5a). Successive
channels are created with later channels eroding into early
channels up through the sequence. Channel dimensions (as-
pect ratio and thickness) are based on the Ainsa II outcrop in
Spain. Porosity and permeability (kv and kh ) of the individ-
ual cells are obtained from cell-scale averaging and applied to
large-scale property trends (see Appendix B). The interchan-
nel facies consist of continuous alternating layers of shale and
medium-to-low-quality sand. Parallel layers of laterally con-
tinuous shales are sandwiched between medium-to-thin, low-
quality sub-seismic sands (less than 10 ft thick), permitting
mainly horizontal flow (low kv /kh ). This contrasts with the
channel facies which consists of alternating layers of thicker
sandstone beds separated by shale eroded by various degrees,
associated with the deposition of each sand bed. The charac-
ter of the erosional feature is emulated using the approach of
Stephen, Clark and Gardiner (2001), and constrained to data
from cores and logs taken from the Nelson Field (Appendix B).
In this approach, the sand quality is assumed to be highest at
the base and the centre of the channel and to decline upwards
and outwards (Fig. 5a). Hence, kv /kh varies, depending on the
position in the channel, with the lowest being in the channel
margins. One realization of this geological modelling is shown
in Fig. 5(b).
Simulator to seismic modelling
The flow simulation is chosen to have an identical scale to
the geological model to avoid upscaling. Relative permeabil-
ity curves are obtained from two-phase upscaling of small-
scale laboratory-based SCAL measurements. Models are then
run through the ECLIPSETM black-oil simulator to simulate
two-phase (oil and water) flow with aquifer support. Produc-
tion is induced by a single vertical well. After simulation, the
resultant pressure and saturations, together with the geolog-
ical and reservoir model properties, are used to calculate the
seismic response. The acoustic properties of the reservoir flu-
ids are determined by an identical scheme to that used in the
1D modelling. However, the rock-frame is now an average of
sand and shale stress-sensitivity parametrizations of MacBeth
(2004) weighted by V shale (Appendix C). For each cell, stress-
sensitive fluid moduli, porosity and the rock-frame moduli
at each particular pressure and saturation are inserted into
the conventional Gassmann’s equations. Synthetic seismic vol-
umes are calculated using the same method as previously. The
seismic are modelled with a 30-Hz zero-phase wavelet to sim-
ulate the observed peak frequency of the seismic data, and also
for 150 Hz to compare resolution issues (Fig. 6). The 150 Hz
static pre-production seismic sections for the front face and
back face of the model show that the seismic mirrors most
of the geological architecture and tracks the high-porosity
(net-to-gross) regions. Edges of the channel are well defined,
but there are no internal reflections in the channels themselves
as the eroded sand-on-sand contacts and the gradients in elas-
tic properties are not sufficiently contrasting. The total time
thickness of the reservoir is 45 ms (≈λ/2), and it is close to
tuning for the 30 Hz seismic.
R E S U LT S O F S I M U L AT O R T O
SEISMIC MODELLING
Heterogeneous channel model with trapping
Natural (primary) depletion with good aquifer support is sim-
ulated in a reservoir produced by a single vertical well (Fig. 7).
Production rates (18 000 bpd) and time scales are set to be
close to those seen on the Nelson Field. As expected, the oil
is swept by an upward movement of the water leg in response
to the pressure drop due to production (Fig. 7). Water sweeps
quickly through the relatively high-porosity zones, and the
initial and final shapes of the water saturation volume are
bounded by the geological architecture. Early in the produc-
tion sequence, oil also becomes bypassed in the less eroded
(lower porosity/net-to-gross) zones of the channel stack. The
flow approaches a steady state in terms of pressure at around
the time of the first 4D survey, and thus between the two
survey dates the main effect is the upward water movement
with no further bypassing. The water front moves unequally
in three dimensions due to the channel complexity between the
front and back of the model. There is also an upward welling
of the water front due to the strong pressure gradients at the
well and, after the well hits high water-cut (breakthrough), the
back portion of the water front starts to move more rapidly.
Therefore, between the surveys, a greater saturation change is
expected for the back of the model.
Figure 8 shows the resultant time-lapse fluid saturation,
pressure and seismic signatures for surveys carried out after
3.5 years of production. Results for the back and front of
the model display quite different character due to channel


C 2005 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers, Geophysical Prospecting, 53, 183–203
 4D signature of oil–water contact movement 191

Figure 5 (a) Internal structure of a single channel showing the variation in erosion and corresponding contours of amalgamation ratio used
in current modelling. (b) Results from one realization of the stacked channel architecture, which is used as a basis for building the reservoir
model. Horizontal (upper left) and vertical (upper right) permeability distributions are derived for direct input into the reservoir model from
the geological model. Porosity variation is similar to net-to-gross, with NTG = 0.0 giving 14% porosity and NTG = 1.0 giving 23% porosity.
There are six channels in this realization, diverging away from the front face due to their sinuosity.


C 2005 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers, Geophysical Prospecting, 53, 183–203
192 C. MacBeth, K.D. Stephen and A. McInally
(a)
(b)
2630
TWT (ms)
2675
(c)
2630
TWT (ms)
2675
Figure 6 Pre-production 2D seismic snapshots of a section taken
through the front end of the channelized turbidite model in Fig. 5.
Seismic are stacked responses for a range of near-offsets (0–2000 ft).
(a) Net-to-gross variation across the front of the model. (b) 150 Hz
seismic, revealing external and some internal detail. (c) 30 Hz seis-
mic corresponding to the peak frequency of the actual seismic data.
Blue denotes a positive event at the top of the channel due to the
low-velocity Sele shale and the Forties sands. Red denotes a negative
event at the base. The well position is superimposed for comparison
purposes. Both seismic plots have had the colour scale thresholded,
and as a consequence some small, low-amplitude events have been
excluded.
distribution, but provide similar conclusions. The 4D re-
sponses are mainly enclosed by the channel structure and do
not extend into the oil-bearing interbed regions. The Top For-
ties events cancel out when the base and repeat seismic surveys
are differenced; however, for the 150 Hz seismic, the single
trough–peak signature expected from the 1D modelling is re-
placed by a sequence of patchy and irregular trough–peak cou-

C 2005 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers, Geophysical Prospecting, 53, 183–203
plets at and below the main saturation changes, which appear
to track the areas of high net-to-gross. The patches of ‘no sig-
nal’ are zones where no discernible changes occur. These zones
of bypassed oil cannot be inferred, possibly as they are estab-
lished relatively early during the production. For the 30 Hz
seismic, there is a more continuous signature, although the
patchiness in amplitude still remains. The trough–peak sepa-
ration, and hence the oil–water contact movement, appears to
differ from that predicted by the 150 Hz seismic – a point that
will be returned to in a later section. The ideal trough–peak as
illustrated in the 1D modelling theory is observed on the crest
and the lower flanks of the channel pattern. There is some
evidence of these signatures extending into the interbeds, even
for the 30 Hz seismic. This is more obvious for the back of
the model where the channel structure is more dispersed and
the pressure gradient more horizontal. Although the interbed
signature is prominent in the reservoir modelling, the low net-
to-gross has reduced the seismic visibility. These seismic signa-
tures closely match the regions of maximum saturation change
(upper left of Fig. 8). There are no obvious anomalies that ap-
pear to be associated with pressure. The 4D signature in the
channels is clearly observed to be dominated by saturation
changes, thus supporting earlier work by Enterprise Oil. The
far-offset stacked response (not shown) produces very simi-
lar results. As larger offsets have a higher noise level in gen-
eral, this suggests that the far-offset seismic response may not
offer an immediate advantage in assessing the oil–water con-
tact movement.
The modelling above assumes identical rock-frame pres-
sure dependence for sands and the shales, which is unlikely
to be the case. This assumption leads to a cancellation of their
stress-sensitivity effects in the reflectivity coefficients, and thus
renders the response invariant to pressure. This point is also
brought out by the full-wave modelling. Another stress-related
issue is that in situ stress sensitivity may in fact be much lower
than that measured in the laboratory for sandstones (Fjaer and
Holt 1999) and also shales (Holt and Fjaer 2003). The impact
of this possibility is examined by considering models for (i)
no shale stress sensitivity, and (ii) no sand and shale stress
sensitivity. Again, little change is observed from the seismic
in Fig. 8. The main reason for these results is the magnitude
of the effective pressure, which leads to the reservoir pres-
sures sampling only the most stress-insensitive portion of the
stress curves (see Fig. 13). Indeed, visible changes in the 4D
signature appear possible only by adjusting Sκ and Sµ (see
Appendix C) to large values close to unity. The result of this
is to compensate partially for saturation effects, thus reduc-
ing the amplitude of the 4D signature. However, to create a
 4D signature of oil–water contact movement 193

Figure 7 Results of forward simulation for natural depletion. The bottom diagram shows water cut and oil production over the full time
scale of the simulation. The saturation profiles above are for four particular times: top left – start-up (hence pre-production); top right – after
5.5 years (the first arrow marks the point at which the first 4D survey is taken); bottom left – after a further 7 years (the second arrow marks
the point at which the second survey is taken); bottom right – after a further 1.5 years. The data have been thresholded to exclude regions with
So > 0.75 in order to reveal the shape of the underlying ‘water front’. The well end point is five cells below the top of the model, and it produces
18 000 bpd.

significant stress-sensitivity effect would take a considerable

departure from the laboratory-measured results and a signif-
icant enhancement of stress sensitivity. This scenario is con-
sidered unlikely in these turbidite sands, and thus saturation
effects remain a dominant influence.
Heterogeneous channel model with no trapping
By ignoring capillary trapping effects for vertical flow us-
ing the rock relative permeabilities, particularly that of wa-
ter through the oil–water mix, the sweep efficiency at the


C 2005 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers, Geophysical Prospecting, 53, 183–203
194 C. MacBeth, K.D. Stephen and A. McInally

Figure 8 Time-lapse seismic, together with corresponding saturation and pressure signatures for production monitored over a 3.5-year period
beginning 3 years after start-up. Seismic signatures are differences of 2D sections through the front and back of the model, and are displayed as
true relative amplitude, normalized according to the largest signal. Reference picks for the top and base reservoir are based on the 150 Hz result
in Fig. 6. The time interval for seismic is the same as in Fig. 6, i.e. 2630–2375 ms.


C 2005 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers, Geophysical Prospecting, 53, 183–203
 4D signature of oil–water contact movement 195

microscopic scale can be changed (Appendix A). This pro-
vides a second model for study in which the bypassed zones
are now absent, and the sweep is now more efficient (Fig. 9).
The oil–water contact movement is now slower as the amount
of residual oil is now smaller, water cut is initially lower
and later higher, and production is higher after breakthrough.
Figure 10 shows the resultant 4D seismic signatures, to-
gether with the saturation and pressure differences for the
same survey dates as in the previous example. At face value,
it is anticipated that the oil–water contact will be sharper,
with a cleaner transition in saturation and that the 4D sig-
nature should therefore be stronger in comparison to the
trapping case (Fig. 8). Generally, however, the 4D signature
appears slightly weaker in parts although it remains sim-
ilar to the previous case. The cause of the weaker signa-
ture is the time-lapse change in pressure due to the lower
total fluid mobility. A larger pressure is required to push
the water front through the oil, the pressure is thus higher
in the water and lower in the oil, and a large pressure
drop is induced in the water–oil transition. The red band in
Fig. 10 is an expression of this pressure differential. The
change in pressure softens the rock-frame, and hence coun-
teracts the effects of saturation. The effect is not dramatic
because of the range of effective pressures, which still ren-
ders the rock-frame fairly insensitive (the effective pressure is
17 MPa = 49 − 32 MPa as opposed to 42 MPa = 49 − 7 MPa
as in the case of no trapping). It must thus be concluded that
the differently connected ‘trapping’ versus ‘no trapping’ cases
cannot be easily distinguished using only 4D seismic.
Homogeneous channel models
For comparison purposes, another model is run in which the
shale distribution within the channels is absent, which means
that kv = kh within every channel (Fig. 11). This may be con-
sidered as an extreme end member in the general sequence

Figure 9 Thresholded saturation profiles (left-hand column) and oil production (right-hand column) for the previous case with bypassed oil
(bottom) and a model with adjusted relative permeabilities to provide no trapping of the oil and hence a low residual oil (top).


C 2005 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers, Geophysical Prospecting, 53, 183–203
196 C. MacBeth, K.D. Stephen and A. McInally

Figure 10 Top: Saturation and fluid pressure differences for the revised reservoir model that produces no trapping. Bottom: 2D seismic time-lapse
signatures corresponding to this model, plotted as in Fig. 8.


C 2005 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers, Geophysical Prospecting, 53, 183–203
 4D signature of oil–water contact movement 197

Figure 11 Saturation and pressure changes, together with corresponding 4D seismic signatures for the case of single porosity and permeability
in homogeneous sand channels, with no internal shale baffles. Plot format as in Fig. 8.


C 2005 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers, Geophysical Prospecting, 53, 183–203
198 C. MacBeth, K.D. Stephen and A. McInally

Reservoir simulator estimation
30 Hz seismic picks Figure 12 Estimates of the moved oil–water
contact from two different origins: satu-
ration changes output from the simulator;
and picking of the trough–peak signature di-
rectly from the 4D seismic. The 30 Hz seis-
mic time does not deliver the magnitude of
the sweep movement, but its amplitude does
detect the correct values. The 150 Hz seis-
mic delivers the opposite result. Left-hand
side: back of model; right-hand side: front of
model. Colour bars give the estimated oil–
water contact movement in metres. Dashed
lines indicate the approximate ‘field’ outline.

Reservoir simulator estimation 150 Hz seismic picks

30 Hz seismic amplitude 150 Hz seismic amplitude

of possible turbidite models. In this case, production now

gives rise to a strong pressure gradient around the well and
considerable water-front coning. The signature of the water
movement is much more evenly spread across the model, and
the previous patchiness is now absent. Thus relative channel
connectivity may be inferred by the continuity of the 4D signa-
ture. Unfortunately, despite the strong pressure and saturation
differences, the interchannel fluid effects still remain largely
undetected.
Mapping the oil–water contact movement
Adequate detection of oil and water movement in turbidite
reservoirs can help to refine and better constrain the reser-
voir model and determine the optimum locations for addi-
tional production wells or injectors. Maps of oil–water contact
movement form an important link in providing supplemen-
tary data on the reservoir model, in addition to production
logging tool data and time-domain transmissometry data. For


C 2005 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers, Geophysical Prospecting, 53, 183–203

Figure 13 A selection of the stress-
sensitivity measurements made in the Hoek
cell under isotropic loading conditions.
The initial effective (differential) stress in
the Nelson reservoir is shown for reference
(dashed line).
example, for any given value of stock tank oil initially in place
(STOIIP), a smaller oil–water contact movement is anticipated
for a reservoir with a more efficient sweep compared with one
in which there is a bypassing of oil by preferential pathways.
Alternatively, if the STOIIP or pore volume is higher than ini-
tially anticipated in the reservoir model, the oil–water contact
sweep will also be larger than that predicted. Quantitative 4D
seismic estimates could be used together with material balance
calculations using production data (if available) to assess these
conditions. Other possibilities for a greater than predicted oil–
water contact movement in the field compared with the model
could be that the aquifer connectivity is low and there is in-

C 2005 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers, Geophysical Prospecting, 53, 183–203
4D signature of oil–water contact movement 199
sufficient water to support flow. This condition could be fully
assessed by the well pressures and quantitative 4D seismic. It is
therefore desirable to use 4D seismic in a quantitative capacity,
to map the oil–water contact movement from seismic estima-
tion and help production data constrain the reservoir model.
Picks of the two-way interval time between the trough and
peak of the signature, visible across the seismic volume, are one
way of providing information on the oil–water contact move-
ment. This attribute is then converted into movement in me-
tres and mapped across the reservoir for both the 150 Hz and
30 Hz seismic (Fig. 12). As there is no such feature as a water
front per se, movement predicted from the simulator is based
200 C. MacBeth, K.D. Stephen and A. McInally
on evaluation of saturation changes. Thus, for the purposes of
this exercise, movement is calculated by evaluating the thick-
ness of the thresholded saturation-difference volume, where
only saturation changes above 0.4 are accepted (Fig. 12). It is
observed that the 30 Hz seismic provides a good continuous
areal resolution of the regions of change, but lacks quantita-
tive definition due principally to strong tuning effects. Thus,
whilst the seismic time picks between trough and peak for the
moved oil–water contact remain largely invariant across the
field, the amplitude of the signature demonstrates a good re-
lationship to oil–water contact movement. In comparison, the
150 Hz seismic accurately detects the movement, although it
also appears to extend the areal coverage, presumably related
to interferences or multiples. The magnitude of the picked
trough amplitude bears no relation to the sweep; indeed, it
predicts a minimum in the position of a maximum. If the thick-
ness of a reservoir interval is unknown, this analysis suggests
that an attribute formed as the product of time thickness and
amplitude, such as the pseudo-elastic impedance attribute of
McInally et al. (2003), might form a suitable low-risk indica-
tor of water movement.
CONCLUSIONS
The 4D signature of natural (primary) production is mod-
elled for a producing turbidite reservoir similar to the Nelson
Field, central North Sea. Particular focus is placed on eval-
uating the movement of the ‘oil–water contact’, and in de-
tecting the characteristic trough–peak seismic indicator from
the difference volume. The interaction between the 3D geo-
logical structure, smaller-scale internal heterogeneity, and the
flow and seismic properties is complex. Understandably, the
4D seismic method is found to work best for the main sand
fairways and can therefore be used to target potential upside
areas. Despite the reservoir complexity, water-front movement
can still be detected in variable net-to-gross regions. Indeed,
Redondo-López et al. (2002) found a correlation between net-
to-gross and the magnitude of sweep over the Nelson Field,
and the presence of mega-cones due to clean zones with high
net-to-gross. The 1D modelling here suggests, however, that in
low net-to-gross regions with complicated fine-scale interbed-
ding, the basic signal shape is preserved but the overall am-
plitude is degraded and additional calibration is required. 3D
modelling appears to suggest that amplitude is the prominent
indication of movement at seismic frequencies, whilst time
separation between the trough and peak may not be satis-
factory except at high frequencies. Tuning is the root cause
of this effect, and compromises the use of picked times for

C 2005 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers, Geophysical Prospecting, 53, 183–203
directly indicating movement. Exact assessment for individ-
ual reservoirs depends on the frequency of the seismic and the
thickness of the sand interval. Both 30 Hz and 150 Hz seis-
mic can adequately map the aerial drainage patterns, and thus
4D can be used for optimal positioning of the injectors and
producers for drainage. The trough–peak indicator also high-
lights areas that are not drained effectively by the producer
well, through lack of continuity in the signature. A more con-
tinuous trough–peak signature indicates higher permeabilities
within the individual channels. The 4D signal remains strong
in the lower flanks and could be used to refine the reservoir
model and determine the optimum locations for additional
production wells or injectors. However, it is not possible to
detect production changes in the interbed channel margins,
even when there is strong connectivity in the reservoir. For
‘Nelson’ types of reservoir, the rock-frame stress-sensitivity ef-
fects and also fluid-compressibility effects are small, and hence
saturation is the dominant cause of the 4D signal. Whilst this
does keep some aspects of interpretation simple, it also means
that it is difficult to distinguish the overall sweep efficiency
from seismic alone. There are, however, some indications that
continuity of the water front may provide a qualitative guide.
The monitoring of changes due to production is important
in the understanding of reservoir drainage and in evaluating
the ultimate reservoir recovery. Overall, this study has shown
that measurements of the seismically derived oil–water con-
tact movement can be used to constrain the reservoir model as
part of history-matching, provided the 4D signal is interpreted
with the reservoir architecture in mind.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This work was funded by the Edinburgh Time-Lapse Project
(Phase I) and is published with the approval of its sponsors: BP,
Concept Systems, Enterprise Oil, Fairfield Inc., Schlumberger,
Shell Exploration, Statoil, TotalFinaElf and Landmark. We
also thank the Nelson joint venture partners: Shell, Exxon-
Mobil, Total, Intrepid, Svenska & Summit, for permission to
use and show data from the Nelson Field. We thank MSc stu-
dent John Oyewole for help in preparing the core data. We are
grateful to Andy Gardiner and Patrick Corbett for their sup-
port and discussions on the geological aspects of this work.
REFERENCES
Al-Maskeri Y. and MacBeth C. 2003. Model controlled quantitative
interpretation of 4D signatures in turbidite sands. 6th SGBF con-
ference, Rio de Janeiro, Time-lapse session.

Alsos T., Tondel R., Aanvik F. and Solheim O.A. 2003. Quantifying
rise in gas–water contact from time-lapse seismic on the Sleipner
Ost field. 65th EAGE conference, Stavanger, Norway, Extended
Abstracts, A08.
Batzle M. and Wang Z. 1992. Seismic properties of pore fluids. Geo-
physics 57, 1396–1408.
Beydoun W., Kerdraon Y., Lefeuvre F., Bancelin J.P., Medina S. and
Bleines B. 2002. Benefits of a 3DHR survey for Girassol Field ap-
praisal and development, Angola. The Leading Edge 21, 1152–
1155.
Boyd-Gorst J., Fail P. and Pointing L. 2001. 4-D time lapse reservoir
monitoring of Nelson Field, central North Sea: Successful use of an
integrated rock physics model to predict and track reservoir pro-
duction. The Leading Edge 20, 1336–1350.
Burkhart T., Hoover A.R. and Flemings P.B. 2000. Time-lapse (4-D)
seismic monitoring of primary production of turbidite reservoirs at
South Timbalier Block 295, offshore Louisiana, Gulf of Mexico.
Geophysics 65, 351–367.
Dromgoole P., Bowman M., Leonard A., Weimer P. and Slatt R.M.
2000. Developing and managing turbidite reservoirs – case histories
and experiences: results of the 1998 EAGE/AAPG research confer-
ence. Petroleum Geoscience 6, 97–105.
Fjaer E. and Holt R.M. 1999. Stress and stress release effects on acous-
tic velocities from cores, logs and seismics. 40th SPWLA Annual
Logging Symposium, paper WW.
Hamon G. 2003. Two-phase rock-typing: another perspective. Pro-
ceedings of the Annual SPE Meeting, SPE No. 84035.
Holt R.M. and Fjaer E. 2003. Wave velocities in shales – a rock physics
model. 65th EAGE conference, Stavanger, Norway, Extended Ab-
stracts, C13.
Kennett B.L.N. 1983. Seismic Wave Propagation in Stratified Media.
Cambridge Monographs on Mechanics and Applied Mathematics.
Cambridge University Press.
MacBeth C. 2002. Multi-Component VSP Analysis for Applied Seis-
mic Anisotropy. Handbook of Geophysical Exploration. Pergamon
Press, Inc.
MacBeth C. 2004. A classification for the pressure sensitivity proper-
ties of a sandstone rockframe. Geophysics 69, 497–510.
McInally A.T., Redondo-López T., Garnham J., Kunka J., Brooks
A.D., Strenstrup-Hansen L., Barclay F. & Davies D. 2003. Opti-
mising 4D fluid imaging. Petroleum Geoscience 9, 91–101.
Parr R., Marsh J. and Griffin T. 2000. Interpretation and integration
of 4-D results into reservoir management, Schiehallion Field, UKCS.
70th SEG meeting, Calgary, Canada, Expanded Abstracts, 1464–
1467.
Pickup G.E. and Stephen K.D. 2000. An assessment of steady-state
scale-up for small-scale geological models. Petroleum Geoscience
6, 203–210.
Postma G.W. 1955. Wave propagation in a stratified medium. Geo-
physics 20, 780–806.
Redondo-López T., McInally A.T., Brooks A.D. and Kunka J. 2002.
Quantitative integration of 4D seismic for field development. 87th
AAPG Annual Meeting, Houston, USA, vol. 11, A146.
Reid F.J.L., MacBeth C. and McInally A.T. 2003. 4D signal enhance-
ment using singular value decomposition: OWC movement on the
Nelson field. 65th EAGE conference, Stavanger, Norway, Extended
Abstracts, A11.

C 2005 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers, Geophysical Prospecting, 53, 183–203
4D signature of oil–water contact movement 201
Ringrose P.S., Sorbie K.S., Corbett P.W.M. and Jensen J.L. 1993. Im-
miscible flow behaviour in laminated and cross-bedded sandstones.
Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 9, 103–124.
Santos R.A., Sobrinho A.A., Pinto A.C., Dillon L.D., Ritter G.L.S.,
Silva E.F.F. et al. 2003. 4D integrated technologies for deep-water
turbidite reservoirs: from petrophysics to fluid flow simulation.
Petroleum Geoscience 9, 73–84.
Stephen K.D., Clark J.D. and Gardiner A.R. 2001. Outcrop-based
stochastic modelling of turbidite amalgamation and its effects on
hydrocarbon recovery. Petroleum Geoscience 7, 163–172.
Stephen K.D., Clark J.D. and Pickup G.E. 2002. Modelling and flow
simulations of a North Sea turbidite reservoir: sensitivities and
upscaling. Proceedings of the 13th European Petroleum Confer-
ence, Aberdeen, UK, SPE No. 78292.
APPENDIX A
Upscaling relative permeability
Relative permeability and capillary pressure curves in multi-
phase flow simulations vary depending on pore-scale geom-
etry and wettability, on the interaction of lamina and bed-
scale heterogeneity and also on the degree of compensation
required for numerical dispersion. These properties, however,
will determine saturations and pressures during the produc-
tion process, and hence the sensitivity of time-lapse seismic
and whether they can be detected. The current work con-
siders two scenarios with shales in the channels. In the first
scenario (Fig. 8), we assume that capillary trapping effects
are strong. In this case, when the water front reaches a shale
layer, the capillary force rapidly draws water into the shale
and sweeps mobile oil faster than the remaining oil in the up-
stream sand layer can be fully swept. The shale then becomes
a barrier to any further movement of oil and any remaining oil
is bypassed. Here, this effect is treated by upscaling using the
capillary equilibrium method (e.g. Pickup and Stephen 2000),
which produces a pseudo-relative permeability and capillary
pressure curve with increased effective residual oil saturation.
Stephen, Clark and Pickup (2002) derived the curve we use
in this work for vertical flow as an end member for both of
our genetic units. In the second scenario (Fig. 10), the relative
permeability and capillary pressure curves are obtained from
the Nelson Field data for vertical flow, therefore ignoring trap-
ping. In both cases, the Nelson curves were used for horizontal
flow.
APPENDIX B
Conditioning of cell-scale kv /kh using the Nelson data
Porosity and permeability data in the 3D geological model
are distributed by a combination of simple averaging and
202 C. MacBeth, K.D. Stephen and A. McInally
Table 2 Permeability in millidarcies (mD) and porosity values obtain
from data core
kh (mD) kv (mD) Porosity
Sand 331.70 250.00 0.24
Shale 0.05 0.05 0.10
augmentation of the results of Stephen et al. (2001). There are
two genetic units in the model: interbeds and channel sands,
and each is treated separately.
The interbeds constitute the background genetic unit and
are modelled at the small scale as alternating laterally extensive
beds of medium-to-good-quality sand and virtually imperme-
able shale. From core data, an average net-to-gross thickness
ratio θ of 0.3 was obtained in addition to permeability values
for both facies and for each direction (Table 2). θ is assumed
to vary laterally and vertically about the mean in each cell ac-
cording to a normal distribution with a standard deviation of
0.01, and a value is then assigned to each cell stochastically.
The thickness-weighted (i.e. θ -dependent) arithmetic and har-
monic averages are used to determine the interbed kh and kv
values, respectively, for each cell using the average bed perme-
abilities (Table 2). The porosity is similarly upscaled using a
thickness-weighted arithmetic average of porosities. To allow
for variation in permeability between sand beds, both later-
ally and vertically, permeabilities are then modified stochasti-
cally, assuming a normal distribution for each direction with a
coefficient of variation of 0.01.
Channel sands are treated in a similar manner. Initially, the
channel features are distributed as objects within the interbed
background, with successive channels eroding those deposited
below. The deposition of sand and shale beds within the chan-
nels follows the model of Stephen et al. (2001), where suc-
cessive sand beds may erode previously deposited shale. Their
2D model is extended to three dimensions, and the effects of
varying bed thickness and permeability on upscaled kv and kh
are investigated. Similar to previous results, it is found that
the log of the upscaled kv depended linearly on the amalga-
mation ratio A, which quantifies the degree of shale erosion. A
stochastic component is also observed, reflecting the bed per-
meability and thickness variation. A similar linear relationship
exists for kh . The kv log-linear trend is constrained by kv at A =
0 (the harmonic average of vertical sand and shale vertical per-
meabilities) and kv at A = 1 (the vertical sand permeability);
similarly for kh as a linear trend with A, using the arithmetic
average.

C 2005 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers, Geophysical Prospecting, 53, 183–203
The above relationships are applied to the channel model
by first assuming a linear decrease in θ and A upwards and
outwards from the centre of the channel and a value is assigned
to each cell. These linear trends are constrained by the values
obtained from core for the interbeds (θ = 0.3, A = 0) as well
as a maximum value obtained for the channels (θ = 0.98,
A = 0.8). The amalgamation ratio is estimated by counting
the number of sand-on-sand contacts for the total number
of sand beds present in the channels. θ is also assumed to
vary stochastically according to a normal distribution with
the same standard deviation that is applied to the interbeds.
kv and kh are then obtained from the above log-linear and
linear relationships, respectively. To account for variability of
bed permeability and thickness variation, kv and kh are further
modified stochastically by application of a normal distribution
to the grid-cell values with coefficients of variation of 0.01 and
0.02, respectively. This follows results obtained numerically.
Interbed and channel sand beds are observed to have very
similar petrophysical properties.
APPENDIX C
Upscaling the stress sensitivity of the rock-frame
To guide the assignment of rock-frame stress sensitivity for
this work, ultrasonic velocity measurements are made whilst
isotropically loading the rock-frame in the laboratory. Here,
only sandstones are available to be tested in this way, and
consequently the contribution from the shales is unknown.
Figure 13 shows a selection of the rock-physics stress-
sensitivity results. These measurements are then transformed
into bulk and shear modulus variations and fitted by the sig-
moidal pressure relationship of MacBeth (2004):
κ∞
κ(P) = (C1)
1 + (Sκ /(1 − Sκ )) e−P/Pκ
and
µ∞
µ(P) = , (C2)
1 + (Sµ /(1 − Sµ ))e−P/Pµ
where κ ∞ and µ∞ are high-pressure asymptotes, Pκ and Pµ
are constants, and Sκ and Sµ define the maximum possible
change in the moduli. The average stress-sensitivity param-
eters are determined by fitting to the six available samples,
the results of which are shown in MacBeth (2004). Based on
these values, the maximum stress sensitivity (at zero effective
stress) for the Nelson sands is estimated to be approximately
9% per MPa; however, this sensitivity rapidly diminishes with
increasing effective pressure due to the non-linearity of the
velocity–stress curve. Nelson is a normally pressured reservoir,
 4D signature of oil–water contact movement 203

with initial pressure of 23 MPa, decreasing to 16 MPa after or

production. Given an overburden pressure of 50 MPa (assum-
 = Vshale shale + (1 − Vshale ) sand . (C4)
ing a lithostatic gradient of 1 psi/ft), the effective (differential)
stress changes from 27 MPa to 34 MPa. Laboratory measure-
Thus, using the factor V shale as a multiplier, for strictly vertical
ments therefore predict that the frame-stiffening component
raypaths, the average elastic moduli are
will fall to 3% per MPa and reduce to only 1% per MPa af-
−1
ter production. This should be compared with the impact of Vshale (1 − Vshale )
(λ + 2µ) = + , (C5)
the fluid component, evaluated to be 43% for a change from (λ + 2µ)shale (λ + 2µ)sand
an oil- to water-sand. Thus, under conditions of a negligible
−1
stress response, the fluid component dominates the velocity
Vshale (1 − Vshale )
µ= + (C6)
µshale µshale
and impedance variations. This prediction is in agreement with
the work of Boyd-Gorst et al. (2001) and is borne out in the and hence
modelling. Although the frame effect is likely to be small, it is 4
κ = (λ + 2µ) − µ̄, (C7)
still taken into account in this work for completeness as it is 3
not completely negligible. where λ and µ are the Lamé parameters. The elastic moduli can
The above conclusions are made from measurements on be the full pressure-dependent moduli of (C1) and (C2), and
core sample size (3.5 cm diameter by 6.5 cm length) elements combine to form the composite stress sensitivity of the sand
of a relatively intact homogeneous rock. To upscale these to plus shale in each cell of the geological model. This particular
the properties of a single grid cell (25 × 25 × 2 m), use is averaging is valid provided the raypaths through the reservoir
made of the same geological model that also underlies the zone are travelling subvertically. However, the fine structure of
permeability calculations in Appendix B. Here the turbidite turbidite deposits with sheet-like sands separated by discrete
system is modelled as a sequence of discontinuous but paral- shales will clearly give VTI anisotropy, and this average will
lel, horizontal layers of shale embedded in sand. As the cell not be correct for far-offset raypaths. A simple adjustment
thickness is sub-seismic (2 m thick versus 100 m wavelength), for this effect can be implemented so that isotropic two-term
vertical averaging of the sand and shale properties can be amplitude-variation-with-offset will closely resemble the VTI
achieved using the conventional long-wavelength equivalent- counterpart. This is achieved by incrementing the averaged
medium theory of Postma (1955), which is appropriate for shear modulus by Thomsen’s δ parameter, calculated for the
two cyclic constituents. For each cell, it is appropriate to use fine-layered system (see MacBeth 2002, p. 37). Thus
V shale (a thickness-weighted metric) to average the elastic prop-
δ
erties. In the modelling, given either a porosity or net-to-gross µ→µ+ (λ + 2µ). (C8)
4
(NTG) value, it is possible to back-calculate for V shale from
As δ is typically 0.01, and µ = 21 GPa and λ + 2µ = 19 GPa,
either
this transformation affects the modulus by only a few percent
Vshale = 1 − NTG (C3) at most in this particular example.


C 2005 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers, Geophysical Prospecting, 53, 183–203