Assessment of data error for 4D quantitative interpretation

Mohamed Hatab; Colin MacBeth

doi:10.1190/segam2021-3579836.1

Assessment of data error for 4D quantitative interpretation

Mohamed Hatab^*
, Colin MacBeth

^*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journal › Conference article › peer-review

3 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Most descriptions of 4D seismic error do not capture the full uncertainties in the seismic data or do not make the correct assumptions when looking at this error. Furthermore we should also recognise that the error may not only be in 4D seismic but can also be in the simulation model. Thus, to match the 4D seismic (observed) to simulation model (predicted), assessment of both error sources is required. Here, we specifically address the data error components for the 4D seismic interpretation and 4D Seismic History Matching (SHM).

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	3439-3443
Number of pages	5
Journal	SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts
Volume	2021
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1190/segam2021-3579836.1
Publication status	Published - 1 Sept 2021
Event	1st International Meeting for Applied Geoscience and Energy 2021 - Denver, United States Duration: 26 Sept 2021 → 1 Oct 2021

ASJC Scopus subject areas

Geotechnical Engineering and Engineering Geology
Geophysics

Access to Document

10.1190/segam2021-3579836.1

Cite this

@article{7d5600afc0e84f4bbb044ee3ae030c5f,

title = "Assessment of data error for 4D quantitative interpretation",

abstract = "Most descriptions of 4D seismic error do not capture the full uncertainties in the seismic data or do not make the correct assumptions when looking at this error. Furthermore we should also recognise that the error may not only be in 4D seismic but can also be in the simulation model. Thus, to match the 4D seismic (observed) to simulation model (predicted), assessment of both error sources is required. Here, we specifically address the data error components for the 4D seismic interpretation and 4D Seismic History Matching (SHM).",

author = "Mohamed Hatab and Colin MacBeth",

note = "Funding Information: We thank the sponsors of the Edinburgh Time-Lapse Project, Phase VII (AkerBP, BP, CGG, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, ENI, Equinor, ExxonMobil, Halliburton, Nexen, Norsar, OMV, Petrobras, Shell, Taqa, and Woodside) for supporting this research. Schlumberger for providing Petrel software. Shearwater for providing the Reveal processing software. A special thanks to Gareth Williams, Henning Hoeber, Hamed Amini, and Chris Harris for their help at various stages of this work. Publisher Copyright: {\textcopyright} 2021 Society of Exploration Geophysicists First International Meeting for Applied Geoscience \& Energy; 1st International Meeting for Applied Geoscience and Energy 2021 ; Conference date: 26-09-2021 Through 01-10-2021",

year = "2021",

month = sep,

day = "1",

doi = "10.1190/segam2021-3579836.1",

language = "English",

volume = "2021",

pages = "3439--3443",

journal = "SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts",

issn = "1052-3812",

publisher = "Society of Exploration Geophysicists",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Assessment of data error for 4D quantitative interpretation

AU - Hatab, Mohamed

AU - MacBeth, Colin

N1 - Funding Information: We thank the sponsors of the Edinburgh Time-Lapse Project, Phase VII (AkerBP, BP, CGG, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, ENI, Equinor, ExxonMobil, Halliburton, Nexen, Norsar, OMV, Petrobras, Shell, Taqa, and Woodside) for supporting this research. Schlumberger for providing Petrel software. Shearwater for providing the Reveal processing software. A special thanks to Gareth Williams, Henning Hoeber, Hamed Amini, and Chris Harris for their help at various stages of this work. Publisher Copyright: © 2021 Society of Exploration Geophysicists First International Meeting for Applied Geoscience & Energy

PY - 2021/9/1

Y1 - 2021/9/1

N2 - Most descriptions of 4D seismic error do not capture the full uncertainties in the seismic data or do not make the correct assumptions when looking at this error. Furthermore we should also recognise that the error may not only be in 4D seismic but can also be in the simulation model. Thus, to match the 4D seismic (observed) to simulation model (predicted), assessment of both error sources is required. Here, we specifically address the data error components for the 4D seismic interpretation and 4D Seismic History Matching (SHM).

AB - Most descriptions of 4D seismic error do not capture the full uncertainties in the seismic data or do not make the correct assumptions when looking at this error. Furthermore we should also recognise that the error may not only be in 4D seismic but can also be in the simulation model. Thus, to match the 4D seismic (observed) to simulation model (predicted), assessment of both error sources is required. Here, we specifically address the data error components for the 4D seismic interpretation and 4D Seismic History Matching (SHM).

UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/85120980382

U2 - 10.1190/segam2021-3579836.1

DO - 10.1190/segam2021-3579836.1

M3 - Conference article

AN - SCOPUS:85120980382

SN - 1052-3812

VL - 2021

SP - 3439

EP - 3443

JO - SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts

JF - SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts

T2 - 1st International Meeting for Applied Geoscience and Energy 2021

Y2 - 26 September 2021 through 1 October 2021

ER -

Assessment of data error for 4D quantitative interpretation

Abstract

ASJC Scopus subject areas

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this