Practical Issues of 4D Seismic Reservoir
Monitoring: What an Engineer
Needs to Know
D.E. Lumley, SPE, and R.A. Behrens, SPE, Chevron Petroleum Technology Co.
Summary
Time-lapse three-dimensional (3D) seismic, which geophysicists
often abbreviate to four-dimensional (4D) seismic, has the ability
to image fluid flow in the interwell volume by repeating a series of
3D seismic surveys over time. Four-dimensional seismic shows
great potential in reservoir monitoring and management for map-
ping bypassed oil, monitoring fluid contacts and injection fronts,
identifying pressure compartmentalization, and characterizing the
fluid-flow properties of faults. However, many practical issues can
complicate the simple underlying concept of a 4D project. We
address these practical issues from the perspective of a reservoir
engineer on an asset team by asking a series of practical questions
and discussing them with examples from several of Chevron’s
ongoing 4D projects.
We discuss feasibility tests, technical risks, and the cost of doing
4D seismic. A 4D project must pass three critical tests to be
successful in a particular reservoir: Is the reservoir rock highly
compressible and porous? Is there a large compressibility contrast
and sufficient saturation changes over time between the monitored
fluids? and Is it possible to obtain high-quality 3D seismic data in
the area with clear reservoir images and highly repeatable seismic
acquisition? The risks associated with a 4D seismic project include
false anomalies caused by artifacts of time-lapse seismic acquisi-
tion and processing and the ambiguity of seismic interpretation in
trying to relate time-lapse changes in seismic data to changes in
saturation, pressure, temperature, or rock properties. The cost of 4D
seismic can be viewed as a surcharge on anticipated well work and
expressed as a cost ratio (seismic/wells), which our analysis shows
ranges from 5 to 35% on land, 10 to 50% on marine shelf properties,
and 5 to 10% in deepwater fields. Four-dimensional seismic is an
emerging technology that holds great promise for reservoir man-
agement applications, but the significant practical issues involved
can make or break any 4D project and need to be carefully
considered.
Introduction
Four-dimensional seismic reservoir monitoring is the process of
repeating a series of 3D seismic surveys over a producing reservoir
in time-lapse mode. It has a potentially huge impact in reservoir
management because it is the first technique that may allow
engineers to image dynamic reservoir processes1 such as fluid
movement,2 pressure build-up,3 and heat flow4,5 in a reservoir in a
true volumetric sense. However, we demonstrate that practical
operational issues easily can complicate the simple underlying
concept. These issues include requiring the right mix of business
drivers, a favorable technical risk assessment and feasibility study,
a highly repeatable seismic acquisition survey design, careful
high-resolution amplitude-preserved seismic data processing, and
an ultimate reconciliation of 4D seismic images with independent
reservoir borehole data and history-matched flow simulations. The
practical issues associated with 4D seismic suggest that it is not a
panacea. Four-dimensional seismic is an exciting new emerging
technology that requires careful analysis and integration with
traditional engineering data and workflows to be successful.
Copyright 1998 Society of Petroleum Engineers
This paper (SPE 53004) was revised for publication from paper SPE 38696, first
presented at the 1997 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San
Antonio, Texas, 5–8 October. Original manuscript received for review 8 October
1997. Revised manuscript received 24 September 1998. Paper peer approved 28
September 1998.
528
Our objective in this paper is to provide an overview of the 4D
seismic method and illuminate the practical issues important to an
asset team reservoir engineer. For this reason, we do not present a
comprehensive case study of a single 4D project here, but instead
draw examples from several Chevron 4D projects to illustrate each
of our points. We have structured this paper as a series of questions
an engineer should ask before undertaking any 4D seismic project:
What is 4D seismic? What can 4D seismic do for me? Will 4D
seismic work in my reservoir? What are the risks with 4D seismic?
What does 4D seismic cost? We answer these questions, highlight
important issues, and offer lessons learned, rules of thumb, and
general words of advice.
What Is 4D Seismic?
To describe the basic concepts underlying 4D seismic, we briefly
review the seismic method in general6 and then consider the
advantages of the time-lapse aspect of 4D seismic. In a single 3D
seismic survey, seismic sources (dynamite, airguns, vibrators, etc.)
generate seismic waves at or near the earth’s surface. These source
waves reflect off subsurface seismic impedance contrasts that are
a function of rock and fluid compressibility, shear modulus, and
bulk density. Arrays of receivers (geophones or hydrophones)
record the reflected seismic waves as they arrive back at the earth’s
surface. Applying a wave-equation-imaging algorithm7 to the re-
corded wavefield creates a 3D seismic image of the reservoir rock
and fluid property contrasts that are responsible for the reflections.
Four-dimensional seismic analysis involves simply repeating the
3D seismic surveys, such that the fourth dimension is calendar
time,8 to construct and compare seismic images in time-lapse mode
to monitor time-varying processes in the subsurface during reser-
voir production. The term 4D seismic is usually reserved for
time-lapse 3D seismic, as opposed to other time-lapse seismic
techniques that do not have 3D volumetric coverage [e.g., two-
dimensional (2D) surface seismic, and the borehole seismic meth-
ods of vertical seismic profiling and crosswell seismic9,10].
Four-dimensional seismic has all the traditional reservoir char-
acterization benefits of 3D seismic,11 plus the major additional
benefit that fluid-flow features may be imaged directly. To first
order, seismic images are sensitive to spatial contrasts in two
distinct types of reservoir properties: time-invariant static geology
properties such as lithology, porosity, and shale content; and
time-varying dynamic fluid-flow properties such as fluid saturation,
pore pressure, and temperature. Fig. 1 shows how the seismic
impedance of rock samples with varying porosity changes as the
pore saturation changes from oil-full to water-swept conditions.
Given a single 3D seismic survey, representing a single snapshot
in time of the reservoir, the static geology and dynamic fluid-flow
contributions to the seismic image couple nonuniquely and are,
therefore, difficult to separate unambiguously. For example, it may
be impossible to distinguish a fluid contact from a lithologic
boundary in a single seismic image, as shown in Frames 1 and 2
of Fig. 2. Examining the difference between time-lapse 3D seismic
images (i.e., 4D seismic) allows the time-invariant geologic con-
tributions to cancel, resulting in a direct image of the time-varying
changes caused by reservoir fluid flow (Frame 3 of Fig. 2). In this
way, the 4D seismic technique has the potential to image reservoir-
scale changes in fluid saturation, pore pressure, and temperature
during production.
Four-dimensional seismic data complements but does not replace
traditional engineering data (Table 1). Four-dimensional (and 3D)
SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering, December 1998

Fig. 1—The change in P-wave impedance of core samples when
displacing oil in pore space with water. Note that the high
porosity sandstones show more impedance change than low
porosity rocks, indicating that 4D seismic monitoring of water-
floods is likely to work well in high porosity unconsolidated sand
reservoirs.
seismic data cover the entire reservoir volume between the wells,
whereas most engineering data are restricted to measurements at the
wells. Typical 4D (and 3D) seismic data have a spatial resolution
in all x, y, and z dimensions on the order of 50 ft. Compared to
engineering data, 4D seismic has high lateral spatial resolution,
because it is much finer than well spacings, but low vertical
resolution compared to well logs. In 4D seismic data, fluid pressure
and saturation effects can mix together to give a combined seismic
response, whereas, in traditional engineering data, pressure and
saturation effects are measured independently. For this reason,
traditional engineering data are required to decouple the mixed
contributions of pressure and saturation to time-varying seismic
impedance.
What Can 4D Seismic Do for Me?
Four-dimensional seismic data have the potential to image fluid
movement and pressure/temperature changes in the reservoir vol-
ume between the wells to improve reservoir management and
development drilling. The main applications are related to locating
bypassed oil: monitoring injected fluids such as water, steam, and
CO2; identifying pressure compartments; and mapping flow paths
and barriers. However, 4D seismic data are useful only if action can
be taken on their results. Typical field actions that can result from
4D seismic analysis include areal or vertical realignment of wells
to prevent forthcoming breakthrough, tailoring well patterns and
rates to suit heterogeneity in flow, and targeting significant by-
passed oil with well workovers, sidetracks, redrills, or new wells.
It is important to track injected fluids in enhanced oil recovery
because they control the efficiency of the flood and are, themselves,
a major cost component. The Duri steamflood in Indonesia illus-
trates both the capital and operating costs associated with the
injectant.12,13 Steam/oil ratios are carefully monitored to maximize
the remaining oil for sale. Approximately U.S. $1 million worth of
oil is burned per day for steam generation. Well rates are adjusted
to increase sweep efficiency from knowledge of the preferential
flow directions provided by 4D seismic images of steam flow.
Premature breakthrough in a steamflood can mean the loss of a
producer and diminished sweep efficiency. Four-dimensional seis-
mic monitoring may be the only practical method to anticipate
breakthrough and redirect steam to where it is beneficial before
breakthrough occurs.
Figs. 3 through 5 show 4D seismic results from the Duri
steamflood pilot1 in which we have successfully imaged steam
movement. Fig. 3 is a 4D seismic cross-sectional display showing
images before steam injection (left), after 5 months of steam
injection (center), and the subtracted difference (right). Steam
injection occurs in three separate sands within the reservoir zone.
The difference section clearly shows that the 4D seismic has not
changed above the reservoir zone, where we expect no change,
except for a thin vertical stripe (labeled B) caused by a shallow
steam leak behind casing at the central steam injection well. One
SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering, December 1998
can see clear steam injection effects (labeled S) in the 4D seismic
difference section in the form of amplitude changes within the
reservoir zone around the center injector. Amplitude changes below
the reservoir are the result of travel-time sag— caused by low-
velocity anomalies associated with steam—which distorts the im-
age in vertical-time pseudodepth (a seismic depth image would
show no changes below the reservoir, but this requires accurate
estimation of the steam velocity anomalies first). Fig. 4 shows the
same 4D seismic results in an areal view taken at the level of one
of the injected sands. After 5 months of steam injection, the steam
disk is clearly visible and centered on the injector. An annulus of
hot water condensed from steam is visible as a thin ring around the
steam disk. A temperature front of heated oil is visible as a bright
anomaly to the west (left) of the injector. Seismic velocity analysis,1
not shown here, has demonstrated that an initial pressure front
caused by the onset of steam injection has propagated out of the
pattern to the northwest. Fig. 5 reinforces this interpretation because
it shows that the steam anomaly has also propagated to the north-
west, following the pressure front, about 19 months after initial
steam injection. The Duri example demonstrates that 4D seismic,
properly interpreted with engineering knowledge of the flood, has
the ability to image and monitor injected fluids (steam), predict
likely forthcoming breakthrough directions (northwest producing
wells), and identify bypassed oil (southwest quadrant of the pattern
where steam has not swept).
Identification and management of fluid contacts are critical for
avoiding oil migration into gas caps and aquifers. Significant
amounts of oil (often one-third) that migrate out of the oil zone
become unrecoverable because of capillary effects even when swept.
When adjacent reservoirs are in pressure communication through a
common aquifer, each reservoir must be monitored carefully for
migration of fluid contacts caused by voidage imbalances in another.
Fig. 6 shows a mirror-image example from the North Sea in which the
1982 oil/water contact is barely visible seismically, but the increased
water saturation resulting from water injectors causes the seismic
oil/water contact to brighten in amplitude by 1991.14 Mapping of this
fluid contact between 1982 and 1991 can have obvious benefit to the
field management strategy in terms of locating injected water and
remaining bypassed oil. A second example is a 4D seismic study
currently under way for a Chevron West Africa oil field that unknow-
ingly was in communication with a nearby producing oil field. The 4D
study will help engineers to monitor the current fluid contacts to check
for possible oil losses, map the current location of injected water,
prevent any future oil losses, and optimize recovery of any previously
migrated oil.
Decline in mature fields may be arrested by correctly identifying
and recovering bypassed oil. Bypassed oil may be recovered by
infill drilling or sweep efficiency improvements from existing
wells. Although any data acquisition should be reviewed and
justified as an investment, there is considerable reluctance to spend
more in older fields that do not have the cash flow to cover it.
Four-dimensional seismic is the most direct method of identifying
significant bypassed oil so that targeted, surgical well investments
add value to old fields. We conducted a 4D seismic study in a
mature North Sea field with 3D seismic surveys shot in 1982 and
1995 to evaluate additional field potential.14 The petrophysical
environment at this field is generally unfavorable for the 4D seismic
method because the reservoir rocks are very incompressible. They
are highly consolidated, buried at a depth of over 10,000 ft, and,
therefore, do not show a strong seismic response as a function of
pore fluid saturation. Although this field is a high-risk candidate for
4D seismic, some encouraging information is apparent in the
time-lapse seismic images (Fig. 7). Increased seismic amplitude
over time indicates increased water saturation and leads to an
interpretation of swept regions near the well and platform locations.
These 4D seismic anomalies highlight a set of apparent swept vs.
unswept northwest-trending fault blocks that match regional fault
trends. The 4D study indicated that significant oil might remain in
the unswept fault blocks; however, Chevron sold the field before
we completed the 4D study.
Sometimes the justification for repeat seismic surveys is inde-
pendent of any 4D objectives. Geophysicists may justify repeat
529
Fig. 2—Four-dimensional seismic compares subtle differences of amplitude to reveal saturation changes. The top two images show
seismic amplitude along a reservoir horizon before and after water injection. The amplitude difference map shows that 4D seismic
can image the water injection front in this noise-free two-dimensional areal synthetic.

TABLE 1—4D SEISMIC DATA ARE COMPLEMENTARY TO ENGINEERING DATA

Surface Seismic Data Most Engineering Data

Measurement coverage Entire reservoir At wells only

Vertical resolution, ft 50 3
Areal resolution, ft 50 1,000 (well spacing)
Uniqueness of measurement for Combined response only Each variable
pressure, saturation and measured
temperature and others independently

surveys by the anticipated quality improvement compared to the
existing 3D images of structure, fault definition, and stratigraphy in
the reservoir zone. This reflects the general seismic technology
advancements made in the past decade or more. Although image
quality improvement is not strictly a business driver for 4D seismic
on its own, it can certainly help move many 4D project candidates
into more attractive economics when the data acquisition and
processing satisfy multiple exploration and development objectives.
Will 4D Seismic Work in My Reservoir?
Before undertaking a 4D seismic project, a feasibility and risk
assessment study should be performed to estimate the likelihood
that 4D seismic will be able to image the desired production effects
and to constrain a 4D project decision analysis. The feasibility and
risk assessment is a staged decision-point process with increasing
degrees of technical sophistication.
The first step is a quick spreadsheet evaluation of the first-order
seismic and reservoir variables critical to the success of any 4D
project.15 An engineer can expect the success of 4D seismic if a
specific reservoir passes three critical tests. Is the reservoir rock
highly compressible and porous? Is there a large compressibility
contrast and sufficient saturation changes over time between the
fluids to be monitored? Is it possible to obtain high-quality 3D
seismic data in the area? The spreadsheet expands upon these three
questions by focusing on the most important reservoir and seismic
parameters. The important reservoir parameters are dry rock com-
pressibility, fluid compressibility contrast, fluid saturation change
(sweep), porosity, and predicted seismic impedance change. The

530 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering, December 1998


Fig. 3—Four-dimensional seismic cross sections at the Duri
steamflood. The difference section reveals a shallow borehole
steam leak behind casing (B), a steam chest centered on the
injector at the reservoir level (S), and a seismic amplitude po-
larity reversal (P), indicating a thief zone to the east of the
injector.
Fig. 4 —A 4D seismic areal time slice of the Duri steamflood at
5 months. The bright amplitude disk centered on the injector is
the steam chest, surrounded by an annulus of hot water (con-
densed steam). A temperature front of heated oil is slowly
propagating to the east in this image.
important seismic parameters are seismic image quality, seismic
resolution, visibility of seismic fluid contacts, repeatability of
seismic acquisition, and consistency of time-lapse seismic process-
ing. We score each parameter on a scale from 0 through 5 and sum
all parameters to give an overall probability of success. This quick
screening tool gives a first-order estimate of the risk of a specific
4D project.
Assuming that the results of the risk spreadsheet are favorable,
the second feasibility step is to make core measurements to deter-
mine how specific reservoir rocks will behave under anticipated
production conditions in the reservoir.16 We measure rock prop-
erties as a function of lithology, fluid saturation, pressure, and
temperature. Fig. 1 shows the change in seismic impedance of
sandstone core samples when swept from oil-saturated to water-
saturated conditions. These data show that low-porosity sandstones
are more difficult to monitor seismically because their impedance
changes less than 5% during water sweep, whereas the impedance
of high-porosity rocks changes as much as 20% during production.
Fig. 8 shows schematically that compressible, high-porosity rocks
like unconsolidated sandstone or heavily fractured rock can be
optimal for 4D seismic monitoring, whereas highly consolidated or
SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering, December 1998
Fig. 5—Four-dimensional seismic areal time slice of Duri steam-
flood at 19 months. Steam has propagated to the northwest,
following the same direction as the pressure front a year and a
half earlier. Breakthrough is about to occur in the north and west
producers, and the southeast quadrant is heated but has not yet
been swept by steam.
Fig. 6 —North Sea reservoir mirrored seismic sections showing
time-lapse amplitude increase at the oil/water contact. This
image is useful to estimate the change in water saturation and
vertical oil/water contact movement in the reservoir interval
between 1982 and 1991.
cemented sandstones, or rigid carbonates, are difficult candidates
for 4D seismic monitoring. In general, we use a rule of thumb that
reservoir rocks must exhibit a minimum 4% impedance change during
production, including all pressure, temperature, and saturation effects,
to be considered reasonable candidates for monitoring.
The third feasibility step is modeling seismic traces from sonic
and density logs to calibrate seismic data at available well locations.
We use the core data and in-situ log measurements as input to model
what-if scenarios under a wide range of possible saturation and
pressure conditions. We find that it is important to model the
seismic traces from log data at the finest scale to avoid misleading
results from upscaled log data. Additionally, it is important to
model realistic seismic frequency content, full waveform effects,
and angle-dependent reflection amplitude effects.
Assuming that the core data and one-dimensional seismic mod-
eling from logs in Steps 2 and 3 are favorable, the fourth step of
feasibility and risk assessment is to compute time-lapse 3D syn-
thetic seismic images. We use a detailed reservoir model and flow
simulation to see what, if any, effects of production fluid flow can
be seismically imaged. These calculations are more expensive than
the first three steps, but they are the best way to test the response
of a 3D seismic survey to realistic 3D heterogeneity in rock
properties, fluid saturations, and the 3D averaging effect of seismic
waves, before acquiring 4D seismic data in the field. It is only in
this 3D seismic modeling step that we can evaluate the full
magnitude and resolution of seismic to image fluid movement and
pressure/temperature changes. One-dimensional seismic models
531

Fig. 7—North Sea areal seismic amplitude difference along the
reservoir horizon after 9 years of waterflood. Swept areas are
highlighted in red, potential bypassed oil in blue. Note that the
seismic differences are aligned along the northwest/southeast
direction, coincident with regional fault trends, indicating a
possible fault block control of production and waterflood flow
patterns.
Fig. 8 —Seismic amplitudes are a coupled contribution of rock
and fluid properties. Soft unconsolidated sands or heavily frac-
tured rocks are best for 4D seismic monitoring of fluids, whereas
hard cemented sandstones and carbonates are difficult moni-
toring candidates.
(Step 3) from logs and laboratory measurements on core samples
are a valuable prerequisite. However, these may not tell the com-
plete 3D story because they involve uniform (at the seismic scale)
saturation changes, possible contamination caused by drilling flu-
ids, formation damage, sampling bias, and represent ultrasonic
(high-frequency) responses at a very few localized sample points.
In the 3D seismic simulation calculations, we create 4D seismic
images from flow simulation in a heterogeneous reservoir model
with anticipated saturation distributions. Three-dimensional seis-
mic modeling requires core-scale rock physics (measuring com-
pressional and shear velocities on core at a range of saturations and
pressures); building the traditional detailed 3D geologic model
constrained by logs, core, seismic, and other data; scale-up for flow
simulation; flow simulation and history matching; calculation of a
3D elastic model by using rock properties, saturations, and pres-
sures from the geologic and flow simulation models; and simulation
and imaging of the seismic data. Fig. 9 shows results from a full
4D seismic simulation study of a CO2 injection pilot in a West
Texas carbonate in which 4D seismic adequately can resolve CO2
injection chimneys in this case. The fourth and most sophisticated
step of feasibility and risk analysis is a full 4D seismic simulation
with the following goals: determine if there are sufficient changes
in magnitude and resolution in time-lapse seismic to reasonably
image 3D changes in saturation or pressure, and better understand
the time-varying 3D connection between possible changes in seis-
mic and reservoir property changes of interest.
It is important to bear in mind that, although feasibility modeling
and risk analysis are very useful for decision-making on whether to
proceed with field acquisition of 4D seismic data, the feasibility
532
predictions have not yet been thoroughly calibrated with an exten-
sive set of field examples. Therefore, it may be necessary to acquire
some 4D data sets in project areas with marginal feasibility as-
sessments to benchmark feasibility analysis techniques. This is
especially true for projects with moderate-to-high technical risk and
high business impact (e.g., monitoring CO2 floods in carbonates).
What Are the Risks With 4D Seismic?
Once the feasibility associated with reservoir variables has been
analyzed, the major remaining risks are all seismic-related. Res-
ervoir properties, once appropriately sampled and measured, be-
come a known quantity, but the risks associated with seismic itself
are less easy to constrain. The major risks of 4D seismic are the
inability to repeat precisely successive seismic data acquisitions,
inconsistencies in processing successive time-lapse seismic data
sets, and 4D seismic interpretations that have not been reconciled
with geology and engineering production data.
Four-dimensional seismic data acquisition must be designed to
the correct level of signal-to-noise and resolution-to-image subtle
fluid effects. This requires extra care in optimizing field parameters,
choice of source energy, and accuracy in source and receiver
positioning. The acquisition design needs to be repeatable in terms
of grid orientation, bin spacing, offset and azimuth distribution, and
source and receiver arrays.
Duri is an example of a well-designed acquisition project in
which the acquisition method is highly repeatable such that the base
and repeat images should be ideally identical above the reservoir
zone. The seismic sources and receivers were placed in predrilled
shot and receiver holes. The shot and receiver holes were reoccu-
pied for each repeat survey. Small dynamite charges were used as
sources, in part to obtain repeatable source waveforms for each
survey (minimal shot hole damage). The shot and receiver holes
were drilled 5 to 7 m below surface to get below the weathered layer
and water table to maximize frequency content and to minimize
seismic data changes related to rainfall. Despite this nearly ideal
acquisition design, the 4D surveys showed significant seismic
differences above the reservoir zone at later survey times, as shown
in the progressively noisier difference panels in Fig. 10. Fortu-
nately, these nonrepeatable acquisition artifacts did not impact the
steamflood monitoring objectives of the Duri project because the
steam anomalies were of a much larger magnitude than the artifacts.
However, this example demonstrates that, even in the case of a
highly repeatable acquisition design, significant differences in the
seismic data can arise from survey nonrepeatability factors (e.g.,
noise), which could be a major obstacle to monitoring much subtler
effects than steam (e.g., waterflood or primary depletion). These
nonrepeatable differences would then have to be estimated and
removed, if possible, by a data-processing step called cross-equal-
ization, as discussed in the next section. In the Duri case, we believe
that the cause of the acquisition nonrepeatability may be related to
hot plate heating of the overlying rock and fluid, shot hole damage
causing nonrepeatable source waveforms, overburden subsidence
caused by the liquefaction of, and fluid withdrawal from, the
shallow viscous oil sands, and long-period groundwater fluctua-
tions. An engineer can readily assess the risk of seismic data
acquisition nonrepeatability by comparing the magnitude of the
difference data outside the reservoir zone compared to the 4D
seismic anomalies within the reservoir zone.
The Duri example shows that a semipermanent acquisition
installation is not a guarantee of achieving optimal repeatability and
signal-to-noise ratios. A permanent installation of receivers (and
perhaps source positions) is likely to cost at least 3 to 5 times a
conventional seismic survey, and we have doubts about the long-
term reliability of the deployed hardware. Therefore, we are hes-
itant to recommend an expensive seismic monitoring installation
without at least a few conventional time-lapse surveys over a given
site. These conventional surveys will determine whether the res-
ervoir is technically favorable for 4D monitoring in field operating
conditions, and whether one can, in fact, leverage the 4D seismic
results to create enough extra profit to pay for a permanent seismic
monitoring installation. Then, after these conventional seismic
SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering, December 1998
Fig. 9 —Cross sections from migrated synthetic seismic 3D data at 0, 6, and 36 months. The center and bottom rows are differences
from time 0 for seismic and CO2 saturations, respectively. In this example the ability of the seismic to detect and resolve the CO2
injection plumes can be quantified.
surveys, perhaps spaced at multiyear intervals, one needs to con-
sider carefully whether the remaining lifetime of the field offers a
valid time window and economic basis to follow up with a per-
manent seismic monitoring installation.
Practical issues related to 4D seismic data processing include
enhancing repeatability and maintaining processing consistency
among multiple seismic datasets, preserving true relative amplitude
information, reducing turnaround time for processing new vintages
of 4D seismic data, and post-stack cross-equalization of processed
3D seismic image cubes before interpretation. Image consistency is
enhanced by a post-migration image-processing technique called
cross-equalization, which is critical when seismic surveys are not
acquired or processed identically. We find that no matter how
carefully we acquire and process 4D seismic data, cross-equaliza-
tion is almost always needed to identify and enhance 4D seismic
anomalies. Fig. 11 shows that the difference image above the
reservoir zone in two West Africa time-lapse surveys is very noisy
before cross-equalization. Ideally, there should be no difference
except in the reservoir zone in the lower left of each panel. This
figure shows that any differences in the reservoir zone are likely to
be meaningless artifacts of nonrepeatable noise. After cross-equal-
ization, the difference section on the right in Fig. 12 shows much
more coherent differences associated with the reservoir zone and
low-energy incoherent noise above the reservoir. These reservoir
anomalies now correlate meaningfully with known pressure and
fluid movement caused by water injection on the left downdip
flank. Engineers should be wary of false anomalies in 4D seismic
images arising from acquisition nonrepeatability and time-lapse
processing inconsistencies. Also, engineers should be wary of the
fact that all seismic data cross-equalization algorithms may not
perform equally well, because cross-equalization is a relatively new
processing technique that is still rapidly evolving in the seismic
industry. The engineer can assess these processing risks by exam-
SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering, December 1998
ining how small the 4D seismic difference anomalies are outside the
reservoir zone compared to anomalies within the reservoir zone,
and by seeing how well anomalies within the reservoir zone
correlate with the geologic model and engineering production data.
The third major 4D seismic risk, after data acquisition and
processing, is seismic interpretation. Given that we have deter-
mined a 4D seismic anomaly to be real and not merely an artifact
of data acquisition and processing, these anomalies need to be
interpreted in terms of meaningful reservoir changes, such as oil
saturation, pressure, temperature, rock properties, or all the above.
To do this, the 4D seismic data must be reconciled with the
reservoir geology model and the engineering production data
through seismic simulation. This requires a revamping of the
traditional reservoir management workflow.
We show, in Fig. 13, a conventional reservoir management
process workflow, including reservoir geology and production data.
The main work in the flow focuses on building a reservoir model,
obtaining a production-history-matched flow simulation, making
reservoir management decisions based on the results, acquiring new
data, updating the model, and iterating the loop. Often, seismic is
used sparingly in this workflow only at the outset to define the
initial reservoir container shape, and perhaps as a soft constraint on
the population of the model with heterogeneous reservoir proper-
ties. Fig. 14 shows our proposed new model for reservoir man-
agement that includes the 4D seismic data as a reservoir model
constraint through seismic simulation. Now, seismic is an integral
part of the reservoir management process. A successful reservoir
model not only has to match the geology and engineering produc-
tion data at well locations, it also has to match the 4D seismic
information in the interwell volume regarding fluid contact move-
ment, bypassed oil, progress of injected fluids, pressure compart-
mentalization, and the hydraulic properties of faults and fracture
zones. We call this new workflow process seismic history match-
533

Fig. 10 —Seismic cross sections showing baseline seismic and
subsequent difference sections getting progressively noisier
with time. Careful acquisition techniques and semipermanent
arrays are not a guarantee that 4D seismic data will be repeat-
able over time periods of interest to reservoir monitoring.
ing. This new reservoir management model places an increased
importance on rock physics, seismic simulation, and 4D seismic
analysis to reconcile 4D seismic anomalies with geology and
engineering data.
An example from the Gulf of Mexico (Fig. 15) shows the
usefulness of working through the 4D seismic history-matching
loop (Fig. 14). We performed a 4D analysis on a Gulf of Mexico
sandstone reservoir to see if oil bypassed by the aquifer influx could
be monitored seismically and targeted for infill drilling. The res-
ervoir contains highly unconsolidated, porous sandstones. The dry
rock compressibility of the sandstone is 1.7 3 106 psi21 (com-
pressibility 5 1/bulk modulus), and the porosity range is 25 to 35%.
The brine and oil compressibilities show a strong contrast of 2.1 and
5.3 3 106 psi21, respectively. We built a 3D geologic model using
a hierarchical facies-based geostatistical technique from well data
Fig. 11—Seismic cross sections before cross-equalization pro-
cessing from West Africa at initial time, late time, and difference.
Difference anomalies in the reservoir block are not reliable
because there are false nonreservoir difference artifacts every-
where in the section.
534
Fig. 12—Seismic cross sections after cross-equalization pro-
cessing from West Africa at initial time, late time, and difference.
Difference anomalies within the reservoir block are now much
stronger than the incoherent noise in the nonreservoir areas.
This indicates that the reservoir anomalies are more likely to be
real than the false anomalies without cross-equalization in
Fig. 11.
and stratigraphic depositional subenvironment maps. We modeled
depositional facies, petrophysical lithotypes, porosity, and perme-
ability all on a fine scale. We upscaled the detailed geologic models
and history-matched them to the well production data through flow
simulation. We used the base-case flow simulations to obtain
pressure and saturation distributions through time. Next, we built
the elastic models for seismic simulation by combining the rock
physics, porosity distribution, and time-dependent pressure and
saturation distributions. We simulated 3D seismic responses at
preproduction, 1987, 1996, and beyond to compare with the seismic
field data. Unfortunately, the simulated seismic data did not match
the field seismic in two key regions that depart from the history-
matched drainage pattern. The mismatches in Fig. 15 are one region
Fig. 13—A conventional reservoir management process work-
flow. Note that seismic does not play an active role in constrain-
ing the reservoir model updating loop.
Fig. 14 —New workflow for reservoir management including
seismic history matching. Now, seismic data are an integral part
of the reservoir model updating loop, and time-lapse seismic
surveys can be a significant constraint on models that must fit
both the production data and 4D seismic images of fluid move-
ment through seismic simulation.
SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering, December 1998
 Fig. 15—Seismic amplitude map along a reservoir horizon from the Gulf of Mexico. The original oil/water contact
follows the structural contour, the new oil/water contact was interpreted to be the yellow amplitude contour that
separates the greens and blues (water) from the reds and pinks (oil and gas). Seismic history matching shows that
the dimmed area is a false anomaly—it is not a swept area as originally interpreted. The bright area was found to
be consistent with bypassed oil as originally interpreted, by finding a geostatistical reservoir model that matched
both the production and seismic data after simulation.

that appears to be swept (dimmed seismic amplitudes), and one that

appears to be oil full (bright seismic amplitudes).
We used iterative modeling to see whether the two regions of
seismic discrepancy were within the geostatistical reservoir model
uncertainty. Data uncertainties and the need to create multiple
realizations reflecting the range of equiprobable models complicate
the reservoir model updating process. Only one geologic model
realization had been used for the original history match and seismic
simulation. Perhaps a different but equiprobable model realization
could match the field seismic anomalies.
After doing an iterative modeling study, we could not find a
history-matched reservoir model that explained the interpreted
swept (dimmed) region in the field seismic. To confirm this, we ran
pulsed neutron logs at an unperforated cased well in the vicinity and
determined that this anomalous region was indeed oil full as the Fig. 16 —Fault block water cuts (symbols) for three history-
models predicted, not swept as the dimmed field seismic anomaly matched geostatistical reservoir model realizations with actual
had been interpreted. Working through the seismic history-match field production history (solid line). Reservoir flow simulation
loop (Fig. 14) proved to be a powerful technique to identify a false cannot discriminate which of the three different models is best
seismic anomaly, probably caused by seismic data processing because they all fit the production data equally well.
amplitude artifacts. No history-matched reservoir model could
reproduce the anomaly after seismic simulation.
Considering the second region of discrepancy, which we inter- and production data and also matches the field seismic after seismic
preted to be oil full in the bright field seismic anomaly, but showed simulation. This example shows that equiprobable geostatistical
as swept in the original history match, we again did an iterative realizations that produce similar history matches after flow simu-
modeling study. We ran multiple equiprobable model realizations lation can result in very different seismic responses. The 4D seismic
to test the possibility that this region of the model might be oil full data has additional information content useful for prioritizing
as the field seismic indicated. We history-matched each of the among several equiprobable geostatistical reservoir models, com-
model realizations to an equivalent degree of accuracy, as shown pared to the flow simulation models that fit the production data
in Fig. 16. Although Fig. 16 shows water cut for the entire fault equally well. In other words, adding 4D seismic images into the
block, the history match is nearly as good on a well-by-well basis, history-match loop provides more constraint on the reservoir model
because only one or two wells produced at the same time. Even than does flow simulation alone, especially in areas of low well
though the production history match indicated no difference among density. To summarize the seismic interpretation issues, working
the three equiprobable models, there are significant seismic dif- through the seismic history-match workflow outlined in Fig. 14 is
ferences (Fig. 17). The lowermost panel in Fig. 17 matches the vital to identifying false seismic anomalies that do not fit the
interpreted oil-full region of the field seismic fairly well, and shows geology and production data. This workflow is vital to constraining
that it is possible to find a reservoir model that matches the geology which reservoir models simultaneously fit the geology, production

SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering, December 1998 535

 Fig. 17—Oil saturations (left panels) and resulting synthetic seismic images (right panels) from three equiprobable
reservoir model realizations from a Gulf of Mexico field. Although reservoir flow simulation alone cannot
distinguish which model is best (Fig. 16), adding the extra constraint of seismic reduces the nonuniqueness
considerably. The lowermost model gives the best simultaneous match of both the production data and the bright
amplitude area in the field seismic data.

data, and seismic data, especially when a good production history
match alone may be ambiguous. The lesson is that 4D seismic
anomalies must be reconciled with some version of the seismic
history-matching workflow in Fig. 14. If they are not, 4D seismic
anomalies may be misinterpreted as production effects when, in
fact, they could be false anomalies related to seismic noise, acqui-
sition nonrepeatability and processing inconsistencies, unexpected
rock, fluid, and pressure influences on the seismic response, and
could represent gross inconsistencies with the reservoir model and
its constraining data.
What Does 4D Seismic Cost?
We now discuss cost issues related to 4D seismic monitoring.
Ideally, we should be discussing value. However, it will take the
industry some time and many case studies to gather reliable
statistics on the value of 4D seismic for many reservoir types and
production methods. Because cost is half of the value equation and
the first item to hit the budget, we focus on cost issues for now, with
the knowledge that each 4D project must pass some first-order
business driver and anticipated payout test before it is implemented.
We have performed a cost analysis that is summarized in Table
2. Our approach is as follows. We considered more than 15
Chevron-operated 4D projects around the globe, representing many
geographies, reservoir geology types, and production methods. We
categorized these as Indonesia, West Africa (Angola and Nigeria),
West Texas (with similar values for the San Joaquin basin in
California), North Sea, Gulf of Mexico (shelf), and Deepwater.
Next, we considered the typical costs of well work in each of those
six production environments, including recompletion, sidetrack or
redrill, and a new well. We considered mainly vertical or deviated
wells, because horizontal wells can have highly variable costs and
are not drilled in all environments. Then, we considered what the
fundamental unit of seismic acquisition is in each environment and
its cost. For example, on land, 1 sq mile (640 acres) of seismic data
is a typical minimum amount of seismic data to acquire. However,
offshore, 9 sq miles [one outer continental shelf (OCS) block] is the
typical minimum amount of seismic data to acquire. Then, we
calculated what the typical amount of well coverage is in each
environment for the seismic area covered. Finally, we decided
which type of well work was most likely to be performed in each

TABLE 2—RELATIVE COST (IN THOUSANDS OF U.S. DOLLARS) OF 4D SEISMIC TO WELL WORK (SEE APPENDIX FOR
DETAILS)

West Texas Gulf of

Indonesia West Africa San Jaoquin North Sea Mexico shelf Deep Water

Recompletion 50 1,500 40 600 500 —

Side Track (70) 2,500 200 4,000 500 2,500
New Well 140 4,000 250 8,000 3,000 20,000
Seismic 400 1,000 50 1,000 1,000 1,000
Seismic acres 640 640p9 640 640p9 640p9 640p9
Number of wells per 80 36 32 20 36 5
seismic area
Seismic cost/10% 35 10 5 15 55 5
well work, %

536 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering, December 1998

production environment, then assumed conservatively that only
10% of the wells in the seismic area will be worked between
surveys as a function of the previous 4D monitor survey results.
Finally, we calculated the cost ratio of seismic compared to well
work in each environment. The results summarized in Table 2 show
the cost ratio of buying a new 3D seismic survey for a 4D study as
a surcharge to anticipated well work, at any given point in the life
of a producing reservoir. These seismic costs typically include
processing and interpretation, which are small compared to the
seismic acquisition costs.
Our 4D seismic cost analysis (see Appendix) shows the follow-
ing. Typical 4D seismic costs per survey are on the order of U.S.
$50,000 to 400,000/sq mile on land, and about U.S. $1 million per
OCS block for marine streamer data. Typical well work costs on
land are U.S. $150,000 to 250,000/new well, U.S. $0.5 to 2.5
million/sidetrack on offshore shelf properties, and U.S. $10 to 30
million for a new well in a deepwater field. The relative cost of 4D
seismic can be expressed as a cost ratio of a new seismic survey
compared to anticipated well work and viewed as a surcharge to
planned or future well work between seismic surveys. In this case,
the cost ratio of 4D seismic to the anticipated well work is 5 to 35%
on land, 10 to 50% on marine shelf properties, and 5 to 10% in
deepwater fields. Additional well costs related to injectants, etc., are
not included in this analysis, but would make the seismic cost ratios
even more favorable (e.g., steam, water, or CO2 floods). This
analysis shows that the cost of 4D seismic may be a very small
percentage of the typical well work costs in land environments such
as west Texas and California, where seismic data are relatively
cheap, and in marine environments such as West Africa and the
North Sea where well costs are relatively expensive. In contrast, 4D
seismic may not be as economically attractive in the Gulf of Mexico
shelf properties where there is a high density of existing wells and
platforms to reach infill targets with relatively cheap side-track
wells. In deepwater environments, in which well costs can be
extremely high, 4D seismic may be an extremely economic tool for
reservoir monitoring and management.
Conclusions
Four-dimensional seismic data analysis offers a huge potential
impact in helping to monitor reservoir production processes in a
volumetric sense, which is crucial for optimal reservoir manage-
ment. However, although simple in concept, the 4D seismic method
can be complicated easily by many operational issues. The practical
difficulties we have discussed suggest that this new technology is
not a panacea, but rather that it is an exciting new emerging
technology that requires very careful analysis and integration with
traditional reservoir geology and engineering data to be useful.
To illuminate these operational issues, we have discussed fea-
sibility tests, technical risks, and the cost of doing 4D seismic. A
4D project must pass three critical tests to be successful in a
particular reservoir. The reservoir rock should be highly compress-
ible and porous. The fluid properties should exhibit a large com-
pressibility contrast and sufficient saturation changes over time
between the monitor surveys. It should be feasible to obtain
high-quality 3D seismic data in the area with clear reservoir images
and highly repeatable seismic acquisition. The risks associated with
a 4D seismic project include false anomalies caused by artifacts of
time-lapse seismic acquisition and processing, and the ambiguity of
seismic interpretation in trying to relate time-lapse changes in
seismic data to changes in saturation, pressure, temperature, or rock
properties. The cost of 4D seismic can be viewed as a surcharge on
anticipated well work and expressed as a cost ratio (seismic/wells).
Our analysis shows the cost ratio of 4D seismic per well ranges
from 5 to 35% on land, 10 to 50% on marine shelf properties, and
5 to 10% in deepwater fields.
Acknowledgments
We thank our many Chevron colleagues who contributed their
discussions, insights, and data points to this article, including Bob
Brown, Bill Abriel, Doug Jordan, Bill Haworth, Ken Eisenmenger,
Charlie Keefer, Kelly Edwards, Leon Roe, Louis Klonsky, Bill
SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering, December 1998
Kempner, Gerry Flaherty, John Connor, Ninos Benyamin, Greg
King, Mark MacLeod, Bob Slyker, Alan Nunns, Dave Kennedy,
Guy Delorme, Michel Bee, Steve Jenkins, Matt Mikulich, Steve
Doherty, Ken Nelson, Zhijing Wang, David Moore, Greg Surveyer,
Harry Martin, and Chevron partners for permission to present this
data. We thank Chevron Petroleum Technology management for
permission to publish this work.
References
1. Lumley, D.E.: “Seismic Time-Lapse Monitoring of Subsurface Fluid
Flow,” PhD dissertation, Stanford U., Stanford, California (1995).
2. Johnstad, S.E., Uden, R.C., and Dunlop, K.N.B.: “Seismic Reservoir
Monitoring Over the Oseberg Field,” First Break (1993) 11, No. 5, 177.
3. Watts, G.F.T. et al.: “Reservoir Monitoring of the Magnus Field
Through 4D Time-Lapse Seismic Analysis,” Petroleum Geoscience
(1996) 2, 361.
4. Greaves, R.J. and Fulp, T. J.: “3D Seismic Monitoring of an EOR
Process,” Geophysics (1987) 52, No. 9, 1175.
5. Eastwood, J. et al.: “Seismic Monitoring of Steam-Based Recovery of
Bitumen,” The Leading Edge (1994) 13, No. 4, 242.
6. Sheriff, R.E. and Geldart, L.P.: Exploration Seismology, Vol. 1 and 2,
Cambridge U. Press, Cambridge, U.K. (1982).
7. Claerbout, J.F.: Imaging the Earth’s Interior, Blackwell Scientific
Publications Inc., Palo Alto, California (1985).
8. Nur, A.: “Four-Dimensional Seismology and (True) Direct Detection of
Hydrocarbons: The Petrophysical Basis,” The Leading Edge (1989) 8,
No. 9, 30.
9. Lee, D.S. et al.: “Time-Lapse Crosswell Seismic Tomography To
Characterize Flow Structure in the Reservoir During the Thermal
Simulation,” Geophysics (1996) 60, No. 3, 660.
10. Lazaratos, S.K. and Marion, B.P.: “Crosswell Seismic Imaging of
Reservoir Changes Caused by CO2 Injection,” The Leading Edge (1997)
16, No. 9, 1300.
11. Interpretation of 3D Seismic Data, Brown, A. (ed.), AAPG Memoir 42,
third edition (1991).
12. Bee, M.F. et al.: “A Powerful New Technology for Monitoring Steam
Movements in Duri Field, Central Sumatra,” Proc., 1994 Annual
Convention of the Indonesian Petroleum Association, 4–6 October.
13. Waite, M.W. et al.: “Application of Seismic Monitoring To Manage an
Early-Stage Steamflood,” paper SPE 37564 presented at the 1997 SPE
International Thermal Operations and Heavy Oil Symposium, Bakers-
field, California, 10–12 February.
14. Moore, D.E.: “Using Multiple Time Lapse 3D Seismic Surveys for Fluid
Characterization in Consolidated Sandstone Reservoirs,” paper OTC
8292 presented at the 1997 Offshore Technology Conference, 5–8 May.
15. Lumley, D.E., Behrens, R.A., and Wang, Z.: “Assessing the Technical
Risk of a 4D Seismic Project,” The Leading Edge (1997) 16, No. 9,
1287.
16. Wang, Z.: “Feasibility of Time-Lapse Seismic Reservoir Monitoring:
The Physical Basis,” The Leading Edge (1997) 16, No. 9, 1327.
Appendix—Cost of 4D Seismic Relative to Well Work
Indonesia. In Indonesia, we consider only onshore sites. Average
well costs are U.S. $50,000/recompletion or workover, U.S.
$70,000/sidetrack or redrill, and U.S. $140,000/new well. Because
the cost of a new well is relatively cheap, sidetracks or redrills are
rarely done. The minimum area of seismic acquisition is 1 sq mile
(640 acres), at an average cost of about U.S. $400,000. The average
well density over the seismic area is about 80 wells/640 acres, and
we assume that 8 wells (10%) will be planned for work between
seismic surveys. For this environment, we assume that all well work
will consist of new wells, because the well density and the relatively
cheap cost of a new well favor that strategy. This results in a seismic
surcharge cost of 35% of the expected well work cost.
West Africa. In West Africa, we consider only offshore sites.
Average well costs are U.S. $1.5 million/recompletion or workover,
U.S. $2.5 million/sidetrack or redrill, and U.S. $4.0 million/new
well. The minimum area of offshore seismic acquisition is 9 sq
miles at an average cost of about U.S. $1 million. The average well
density over the seismic area is about 36 wells, and we assume that
537
4 wells (10%) will be planned for work between seismic surveys.
For this environment, we assume that all well work will consist of
sidetracks, because the well density is not high enough to get by
with recompletions, is high enough to allow us to reach new infill
targets with sidetracks, and because new wells are too expensive.
This results in a seismic surcharge cost of only 10% of the
anticipated well work cost, which is highly favorable.
West Texas. In West Texas and, similarly, in the San Joaquin
basin of California, average well costs are U.S. $40,000/recomple-
tion or workover, U.S. $200,000/sidetrack or redrill, and U.S.
$250,000/new well. The minimum area of land seismic acquisition
is 1 sq mile (640 acres) at an average cost of about U.S. $50,000.
The average well density over the seismic area is about 32 wells,
and we assume that 3 wells (10%) will be planned for work between
seismic surveys. For this environment, we assume that all well work
will consist of new wells, because the well density is not high
enough to get by with recompletions and new wells are not much
more expensive than side-tracks. This results in a seismic surcharge
cost of only 5% of the expected well work cost, which is extremely
favorable.
North Sea. In the North Sea, average well costs are U.S. $600,000/
recompletion or workover, U.S. $4.0 million/sidetrack or redrill,
and U.S. $8.0 million/new well, which includes some horizontal
well costs. The minimum area of offshore seismic acquisition is 9
sq miles at an average cost of about U.S. $1 million. The average
well density over the seismic area is about 20 wells, and we assume
that 2 wells (10%) will be planned for work between seismic
surveys. For this environment, we assume that all well work will
consist of side-tracks or redrills, because the well density is not high
enough to get by with recompletions, is high enough to allow us to
reach new infill targets with side-tracks, and because new wells are
much too expensive. This results in a seismic surcharge cost of 15%
of the expected well work cost, which is very favorable.
Gulf of Mexico. In the Gulf of Mexico (shelf), we consider only
offshore shelf sites for this category (deepwater is discussed next).
Average well costs are U.S. $500,000/recompletion or workover,
also U.S. $500,000/sidetrack or redrill, and U.S. $3.0 million/new
well. The minimum area of offshore seismic acquisition is 9 sq
miles at an average cost of about U.S. $1 million. The average well
density over the seismic area is about 36 wells, and we assume that
4 wells (10%) will be planned for work between seismic surveys.
For this environment, we assume that all well work will consist of
sidetracks, because they are cheap and allow us to reach new infill
538
targets easily. This results in a seismic surcharge cost of 55% of the
expected well work cost, which is not particularly attractive com-
pared to the other production environments.
Deepwater. Finally, in deepwater regions around the world, we
consider the 4D seismic cost analysis. Average well costs are U.S.
$2.5 million/sidetrack or redrill, and U.S. $10 to 30 million/new
well. Recompletions or workovers are not an issue. The minimum
area of offshore seismic acquisition is 9 sq miles at an average cost
of about U.S. $1 million. The average well density over the seismic
area is about 5 wells, and we assume that 1 well will be planned
for work between seismic surveys. For this environment, we
assume that the well work will consist of a new well, because the
sparse location of expensive wells is not likely to be dense enough
to allow us to reach new infill targets with side-tracks. This results
in a seismic surcharge cost of only 5 to 10% of the expected well
work cost, which is extremely favorable.
SI Metric Conversion Factors
acre 3 4.046 873 E103 5 m2
ft 3 3.048* E201 5 m
psi 3 6.894 757 E100 5 kPa
sq mile 3 2.589 988 E100 5 km2
*Conversion factor is exact. SPEREE
David E. Lumley is a senior staff research scientist and the
Technical Leader of the 4D Seismic Reservoir Monitoring Team
at Chevron Petroleum Technology Co. in La Habra, California,
and a consulting professor at Stanford U. His work experience
includes seismic crew leader on a marine seismic vessel with
Western Geophysical and geophysical research positions with
Mobil, Arco, and Chevron. His research interests are primarily in
the estimation of reservoir petrophysical properties and moni-
toring of fluid flow with seismic data. He holds BS and MS
degrees from the U. of British Columbia, and a PhD degree from
Stanford U., all in geophysics. He is a 1998 –1999 SPE Distin-
guished Lecturer on 4D seismic. Ronald A. Behrens is a senior
staff research scientist for the 4D Seismic Reservoir Monitoring
and Geostatistics Teams at Chevron Petroleum Technology Co.
His work experience includes production engineering, reservoir
engineering, and research with interests in flow simulation and
reservoir characterization through geostatistics and seismic
monitoring. He holds a BS degree from the U. of Minnesota and
a PhD degree from the U. of Delaware, both in chemical
engineering. He is a 1998 –1999 SPE Distinguished Lecturer on 4D
seismic.
SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering, December 1998