Assisted seismic history matching in different domains

what seismic data should we compare?

Ildar Rafikovich Sagitov, Karl Dunbar Stephen

    Research output: Contribution to conferencePaper

    Abstract

    Time-lapse (4D) seismic data can be integrated into history matching by comparing predicted and observed data in various domains. These include the time domain (time traces), seismic attributes, or petro-elastic properties such as acoustic impedance. Each domain requires different modelling methods and assumptions as well as data handling workflows. The aim of this work is to investigate the degree to which the choice of domain influences theoutcome of history matching on the choice of best model and associated uncertainties. Another aspect of history matching is that long simulations often pose an obstacle for an automatic approach. In this study we use appropriately upscaled models manageable in the automatic history matching loop.

    We apply manual and assisted seismic history matching to the Schiehallion field. In the assisted approach, the optimization loop is driven by a stochastic algorithm, while the manual workflow is based on a qualitative comparison of 4D seismic maps. By upscaling we obtained an order of magnitude gain in performance. Accurate upscaling was ensured by thorough volume and transmissibility calculation within regions. The parameterisation of the problem is based on a pattern of seismically derived geobodies with specified transmissibility multipliers between the regions. Seismic predictions are made through petro-elastic modelling, 1D convolution, coloured inversion and calculation of different attributes.

    We were able to achieve a reasonable match of production and 4D seismic data using coarse scale models in manual and assisted approaches. We observed that the misfit surfaces are different when working in the various seismic domains considered. Use of equivalent domains for observed and predicted data was found to give a more unique misfit response and better result.

    Accurate comparison of predicted and observed 4D seismic data in different domains is necessary for tackling non-uniqueness of the inverse problem and hence reducing the uncertainty of field development predictions.
    Original languageEnglish
    Pages1-12
    Number of pages12
    DOIs
    Publication statusPublished - Jun 2012
    EventSPE Europec/EAGE Annual Conference - Copenhagen, Denmark
    Duration: 4 Jun 20127 Jun 2012

    Conference

    ConferenceSPE Europec/EAGE Annual Conference
    CountryDenmark
    CityCopenhagen
    Period4/06/127/06/12

    Fingerprint

    seismic data
    history
    upscaling
    elastic property
    inverse problem
    prediction
    modeling
    parameterization
    acoustics
    simulation
    attribute
    calculation
    comparison

    Cite this

    Sagitov, I. R., & Stephen, K. D. (2012). Assisted seismic history matching in different domains: what seismic data should we compare?. 1-12. Paper presented at SPE Europec/EAGE Annual Conference, Copenhagen, Denmark. https://doi.org/10.2118/154503-MS
    Sagitov, Ildar Rafikovich ; Stephen, Karl Dunbar. / Assisted seismic history matching in different domains : what seismic data should we compare?. Paper presented at SPE Europec/EAGE Annual Conference, Copenhagen, Denmark.12 p.
    @conference{466aa13988e641a5bce7343bee963269,
    title = "Assisted seismic history matching in different domains: what seismic data should we compare?",
    abstract = "Time-lapse (4D) seismic data can be integrated into history matching by comparing predicted and observed data in various domains. These include the time domain (time traces), seismic attributes, or petro-elastic properties such as acoustic impedance. Each domain requires different modelling methods and assumptions as well as data handling workflows. The aim of this work is to investigate the degree to which the choice of domain influences theoutcome of history matching on the choice of best model and associated uncertainties. Another aspect of history matching is that long simulations often pose an obstacle for an automatic approach. In this study we use appropriately upscaled models manageable in the automatic history matching loop. We apply manual and assisted seismic history matching to the Schiehallion field. In the assisted approach, the optimization loop is driven by a stochastic algorithm, while the manual workflow is based on a qualitative comparison of 4D seismic maps. By upscaling we obtained an order of magnitude gain in performance. Accurate upscaling was ensured by thorough volume and transmissibility calculation within regions. The parameterisation of the problem is based on a pattern of seismically derived geobodies with specified transmissibility multipliers between the regions. Seismic predictions are made through petro-elastic modelling, 1D convolution, coloured inversion and calculation of different attributes. We were able to achieve a reasonable match of production and 4D seismic data using coarse scale models in manual and assisted approaches. We observed that the misfit surfaces are different when working in the various seismic domains considered. Use of equivalent domains for observed and predicted data was found to give a more unique misfit response and better result. Accurate comparison of predicted and observed 4D seismic data in different domains is necessary for tackling non-uniqueness of the inverse problem and hence reducing the uncertainty of field development predictions.",
    author = "Sagitov, {Ildar Rafikovich} and Stephen, {Karl Dunbar}",
    year = "2012",
    month = "6",
    doi = "10.2118/154503-MS",
    language = "English",
    pages = "1--12",
    note = "SPE Europec/EAGE Annual Conference ; Conference date: 04-06-2012 Through 07-06-2012",

    }

    Sagitov, IR & Stephen, KD 2012, 'Assisted seismic history matching in different domains: what seismic data should we compare?' Paper presented at SPE Europec/EAGE Annual Conference, Copenhagen, Denmark, 4/06/12 - 7/06/12, pp. 1-12. https://doi.org/10.2118/154503-MS

    Assisted seismic history matching in different domains : what seismic data should we compare? / Sagitov, Ildar Rafikovich; Stephen, Karl Dunbar.

    2012. 1-12 Paper presented at SPE Europec/EAGE Annual Conference, Copenhagen, Denmark.

    Research output: Contribution to conferencePaper

    TY - CONF

    T1 - Assisted seismic history matching in different domains

    T2 - what seismic data should we compare?

    AU - Sagitov, Ildar Rafikovich

    AU - Stephen, Karl Dunbar

    PY - 2012/6

    Y1 - 2012/6

    N2 - Time-lapse (4D) seismic data can be integrated into history matching by comparing predicted and observed data in various domains. These include the time domain (time traces), seismic attributes, or petro-elastic properties such as acoustic impedance. Each domain requires different modelling methods and assumptions as well as data handling workflows. The aim of this work is to investigate the degree to which the choice of domain influences theoutcome of history matching on the choice of best model and associated uncertainties. Another aspect of history matching is that long simulations often pose an obstacle for an automatic approach. In this study we use appropriately upscaled models manageable in the automatic history matching loop. We apply manual and assisted seismic history matching to the Schiehallion field. In the assisted approach, the optimization loop is driven by a stochastic algorithm, while the manual workflow is based on a qualitative comparison of 4D seismic maps. By upscaling we obtained an order of magnitude gain in performance. Accurate upscaling was ensured by thorough volume and transmissibility calculation within regions. The parameterisation of the problem is based on a pattern of seismically derived geobodies with specified transmissibility multipliers between the regions. Seismic predictions are made through petro-elastic modelling, 1D convolution, coloured inversion and calculation of different attributes. We were able to achieve a reasonable match of production and 4D seismic data using coarse scale models in manual and assisted approaches. We observed that the misfit surfaces are different when working in the various seismic domains considered. Use of equivalent domains for observed and predicted data was found to give a more unique misfit response and better result. Accurate comparison of predicted and observed 4D seismic data in different domains is necessary for tackling non-uniqueness of the inverse problem and hence reducing the uncertainty of field development predictions.

    AB - Time-lapse (4D) seismic data can be integrated into history matching by comparing predicted and observed data in various domains. These include the time domain (time traces), seismic attributes, or petro-elastic properties such as acoustic impedance. Each domain requires different modelling methods and assumptions as well as data handling workflows. The aim of this work is to investigate the degree to which the choice of domain influences theoutcome of history matching on the choice of best model and associated uncertainties. Another aspect of history matching is that long simulations often pose an obstacle for an automatic approach. In this study we use appropriately upscaled models manageable in the automatic history matching loop. We apply manual and assisted seismic history matching to the Schiehallion field. In the assisted approach, the optimization loop is driven by a stochastic algorithm, while the manual workflow is based on a qualitative comparison of 4D seismic maps. By upscaling we obtained an order of magnitude gain in performance. Accurate upscaling was ensured by thorough volume and transmissibility calculation within regions. The parameterisation of the problem is based on a pattern of seismically derived geobodies with specified transmissibility multipliers between the regions. Seismic predictions are made through petro-elastic modelling, 1D convolution, coloured inversion and calculation of different attributes. We were able to achieve a reasonable match of production and 4D seismic data using coarse scale models in manual and assisted approaches. We observed that the misfit surfaces are different when working in the various seismic domains considered. Use of equivalent domains for observed and predicted data was found to give a more unique misfit response and better result. Accurate comparison of predicted and observed 4D seismic data in different domains is necessary for tackling non-uniqueness of the inverse problem and hence reducing the uncertainty of field development predictions.

    U2 - 10.2118/154503-MS

    DO - 10.2118/154503-MS

    M3 - Paper

    SP - 1

    EP - 12

    ER -

    Sagitov IR, Stephen KD. Assisted seismic history matching in different domains: what seismic data should we compare?. 2012. Paper presented at SPE Europec/EAGE Annual Conference, Copenhagen, Denmark. https://doi.org/10.2118/154503-MS