The subject matter disclosed in this specification relates to a method for reservoir characterization and monitoring including defining a suite of deep reading measurements that are used for the purpose of building a reservoir model that is input to a reservoir simulator, the reservoir simulator building a predictive or forward model.
To date, most of the information for reservoir characterization is primarily derived from three main sources: well-logs/cores, surface seismic and well testing. Well logs and cores provide detailed high-resolution information but with a coverage that is limited to about a couple of meters around the well location in the reservoir. On the other hand, surface seismic provides large volume 3-D coverage but with a relatively low resolution (on the order of 20-50 feet resolution). In recent years, service companies have expanded their offerings to a wide range of measurements that have the potential to illuminate the reservoir with diversely varying coverage and resolution. Deep probing measurements, such as cross-well, long-offset single-well, surface and surface-to-borehole electromagnetic measurements, cross-well seismic, borehole seismic and VSP, gravimetry and production testing, are intended to close the gap between the high resolution shallow measurements from conventional logging tools and deep penetrating, low resolution techniques, such as surface seismic.
This specification discloses a suite of deep reading measurements that complement each other and, as a result, allows one to infer pertinent reservoir properties that would enable the prediction of a performance of a reservoir and allow for the making of appropriate field management decisions.
As a result, by integrating the suite of deep reading measurements, the predictive capacity of a forward reservoir model can be enhanced.
One aspect of the present invention involves a method for building a predictive or forward model adapted for predicting the future evolution of a reservoir, comprising: integrating together a plurality of measurements thereby generating an integrated set of deep reading measurements, the integrated set of deep reading measurements being sufficiently deep to be able to probe the reservoir and being self-sufficient in order to enable the building of a reservoir model and its associated parameters; generating a reservoir model and associated parameters in response to the integrated set of deep reading measurements; and receiving, by a reservoir simulator, the reservoir model and, responsive thereto, generating, by the reservoir simulator, the predictive or forward model.
Another aspect of the present invention involves a system adapted for building a predictive or forward model adapted for predicting the future evolution of a reservoir, an integrated set of deep reading measurements being sufficiently deep to be able to probe the reservoir and being self-sufficient in order to enable the building of a reservoir model and its associated parameters, comprising: an apparatus adapted for receiving the integrated set of deep reading measurements and building a reservoir model in response to the receipt of the integrated set of deep reading measurements, the apparatus including a reservoir simulator, the reservoir simulator receiving the reservoir model and, responsive thereto, generating a predictive or forward model, the predictive or forward model being adapted for accurately predicting a future evolution of said reservoir in response to the integrated set of deep reading measurements.
Another aspect of the present invention involves a computer program stored in a processor readable medium and adapted to be executed by the processor, the computer program, when executed by the processor, conducting a process for building a predictive or forward model adapted for predicting the future evolution of a reservoir, an integrated set of deep reading measurements being sufficiently deep to be able to probe the reservoir and being self-sufficient in order to enable the building of a reservoir model and its associated parameters, the process comprising: receiving, by the computer program, the integrated set of deep reading measurements and, responsive thereto, building a reservoir model, the computer program including a reservoir simulator; receiving, by the reservoir simulator, the reservoir model; and generating, by the reservoir simulator, the predictive or forward model adapted for predicting the future evolution of the reservoir in response to the integrated set of deep reading measurements.
Another aspect of the present invention involves a program storage device readable by a machine tangibly embodying a set of instructions executable by the machine to perform method steps for building a predictive or forward model adapted for predicting the future evolution of a reservoir, an integrated set of deep reading measurements being sufficiently deep to be able to probe the reservoir and being self-sufficient in order to enable the building of a reservoir model and its associated parameters, the method steps comprising: receiving, by the machine, the integrated set of deep reading measurements and, responsive thereto, building a reservoir model, the set of instructions including a reservoir simulator; receiving, by the reservoir simulator, the reservoir model; and generating, by the reservoir simulator, the predictive or forward model adapted for predicting the future evolution of the reservoir in response to the integrated set of deep reading measurements.
Further scope of applicability will become apparent from the detailed description presented hereinafter. It should be understood, however, that the detailed description and the specific examples set forth below are given by way of illustration only, since various changes and modifications within the spirit and scope of the “method for reservoir characterization and monitoring including deep reading quad combo measurements”, as described and claimed in this specification, will become obvious to one skilled in the art from a reading of the following detailed description.
A full understanding will be obtained from the detailed description presented hereinbelow, and the accompanying drawings which are given by way of illustration only and are not intended to be limitative to any extent, and wherein:
a-6b illustrate a true model of conductivity and velocity;
a-7b illustrate a reconstructed conductivity and velocity from the joint inversion of electromagnetic (EM) and seismic;
This specification discloses a set of deep reading measurements that are sufficiently deep to be able to probe the reservoir and that are self-sufficient to provide a means by which a reservoir model and its associated parameters can be built. Such a model will be the input to a reservoir simulator, which, in principle, will provide a mechanism for building a predictive or forward model.
Reservoir simulators receive, as input, a set of ‘input parameters’, which, if known exactly, would allow the reservoir simulations to deterministically predict the future evolution of the reservoir (with an associated uncertainty error). However, it is generally assumed that the ‘input parameters’ are poorly known. As a result, the poorly known ‘input parameters’ represent the ‘dominant uncertainty’ in the modeling process. Hence, a judicial selection of measurements, adapted for providing or defining the ‘input parameters’, will have a real impact on the accuracy of these input parameters.
A ‘suite of measurements’ are disclosed in this specification which are hereinafter referred to as a “deep-reading quad-combo suite of measurements”. The deep-reading quad-combo suite of measurements includes: seismic measurements, electromagnetic measurements, gravity measurements, and pressure measurements as well as all the possible combinations of these four measurements (i.e. two and three of these measurements at a time and also all four of these measurements) in a joint interpretation/inversion. Such a quad-combo suite of measurements represents the reservoir counterpart of the ‘triple-combo’ for well logging. This ‘deep quad-combo’ suite of measurements can have several manifestations, depending on the way they are deployed: from the surface, surface-to-borehole (or borehole-to-surface), cross-well, or even in a long-offset single-well deployment, or a combination of any or all of the above. Each of these four ‘deep reading’ measurements, on their own, will have problems in delivering useful or sufficiently comprehensive information about the reservoir because of the non-uniqueness and limited spatial resolution that are sometimes associated with their interpretation. However, when the above referenced four ‘deep reading’ measurements as well as all the possible combinations of these four measurements (i.e. two and three of these measurements at a time and also all four of these measurements) in a joint interpretation/inversion are “integrated” together, and perhaps, in addition, are integrated with other measurements [such as ‘near-wellbore’ Wireline (WL) and Logging While Drilling (LWD)], the above referenced ‘deep reading quad-combo suite of measurements’ will provide ‘considerable value’ and ‘significant differentiation’ to the set of ‘input parameters’ that are received by the reservoir simulators. As a result, a more accurate predictive or forward reservoir model will be generated.
Referring to
Referring to
Referring to
Referring to
Referring to
Referring to
Measurement synergies will be determined by a particular application and the associated workflow required in delivering the needed answer products for such an application. These synergies can be grouped by two possible scenarios for an integrated interpretation:
A partial list of applications for such a quad-combo 20 of
In the following sections of this specification, we highlight the benefits of the various synergies. The following ‘integrated combinations’ of the individual measurements (i.e., seismic, electromagnetic, gravity, and pressure) are set forth in the following sections of this specification: (1) Electromagnetic and Seismic measurements, (2) Electromagnetic and Pressure measurements, (3) Electromagnetic and Gravity measurements, and (4) Seismic and Gravity measurements.
Electromagnetic (EM) and Seismic Measurements 24 of
The combination of EM and seismic data could have a variety of benefits for improved reservoir characterization. Seismic provides structural information and EM identifies hydrocarbon versus brine. Additionally, each method is sensitive to the rock porosity; the combination will better define it. The fluid saturation distribution in 3-phase reservoir environment will also be greatly improved mainly by using the EM-based resistivity distribution to segregate insulating (gas and oil) fluid phases from conducting (water) phases. The combination will also allow for a better description of the field geology as EM is better able to define the distribution of low resistivity structures, an example being sub-salt or sub-basalt reservoir structure, where seismic exhibits rapid variation in velocity and attenuation causing imaging problems of the target beneath. There is also the potential for better image resolution; for example EM may be able to provide an updated seismic velocity model (through property correlations) that can lead to an improved depth migration. Finally, EM/seismic combination allows for the reduction of exploration risks, particularly in deep-water environments, prospect ranking and detecting stratigraphic traps.
The methods for this integration could be sequential: for example using the seismic as a template for the initial model, allowing the EM data to adjust this model to fit observations and using petrophysics obtained from logs and core to obtain reservoir parameter distributions from the data. An alternative approach could be alternating between the EM and seismic inversions (starting with seismic) where the inversion result of one is used to constraint the other. In such an approach, any artifacts that are introduced by one inversion will eventually be reduced as we alternate the inversion between EM and seismic since ultimately we will reconstruct a model that is consistent with both EM and seismic data. A third alternative approach is the full joint inversion (simultaneous inversion) of EM and seismic.
Refer now to
Refer also to
Electromagnetic and Production Data (Pressure and Flow Rates) 26 of
Electromagnetic (EM) measurements are most sensitive to the water content in the rock pores. Moreover, the formation's petrophysical parameters can have a strong imprint on the spatial distribution of fluid saturations and consequently on EM measurements.
EM measurements can also be quite effective in tracking waterfronts (because of the relatively high contrast in electrical conductivities) particularly if they are used in a time-lapse mode and/or when constrained using a priori information (e.g., knowledge of the amount of water injected). In such applications, cross-well, long-offset single-well, surface and surface-to-borehole EM measurements can benefit from constraining the inversion using a fluid flow model. This can be done by linking the EM simulator to a fluid flow simulator (e.g., GREAT/Intersect, Eclipse) and using the combined simulator as a driver for an iterative inversion.
On the other hand, integrating time-lapse EM measurements acquired in cross-well, single-well, surface or surface-to-borehole modes with flow-related measurements such as pressure and flow-rate measurements from MDT or well testing can significantly improve the robustness of mapping water saturation and tracking fluid fronts. The intrinsic value of each piece of data considerably improves when used in a cooperative, integrated fashion, and under a common petrophysical model.
Physics of multi-phase fluid-flow and EM induction/conduction phenomena in porous media can be coupled by means of an appropriate saturation equation. Thus, a dual-physics stencil for the quantitative joint interpretation of EM and flow-related measurements (pressure and flow rates) can be formulated to yield a rigorous estimation of the underlying petrophysical model. The inverse problem associated with dual-physics consists of the estimation of a petrophysical model described by spatial distribution of porosities and both vertical and horizontal absolute permeabilities.
Refer now to
In
Refer to
Refer to
Refer to
Refer to
Role of the Gravity Measurement: Electromagnetic and Gravity Measurements 28 of
Among the four measurements constituting the quad-combo 20, 22, 28, 30 of
Hence, the major application for a borehole gravity measurement is in monitoring gas/liquid contacts (gas/oil and gas/water contacts) and in detecting gas coning—particularly in a time-lapse mode. Secondary applications are monitoring oil/water contacts, imaging salt domes and reefs, measuring the average porosity of vuggy carbonates and in monitoring gas and water floods. As such, gravity measurements can be an excellent compliment to both EM and seismic measurements.
Moreover, the most basic formation evaluation suite of measurements for volumetric analysis relies on a good estimate of the formation density. A gravity measurement (either from the surface or downhole) can provide a reliable and deep probing estimate of the formation density.
Possible synergies between the four measurements of the quad-combo could be:
Referring to
In
A functional description of the operation of the ‘method for reservoir characterization and monitoring including deep reading quad combo measurements’ as described in this specification is set forth in the following paragraphs with reference to
In this specification, a set of deep reading measurements 10 of
The computer system of
The above description of the ‘method for reservoir characterization and monitoring including deep reading quad combo measurements’ being thus described, it will be obvious that the same may be varied in many ways. Such variations are not to be regarded as a departure from the spirit and scope of the claimed method, and all such modifications as would be obvious to one skilled in the art are intended to be included within the scope of the following claims.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
5672819 | Chin et al. | Sep 1997 | A |
5764515 | Guerillot et al. | Jun 1998 | A |
6061634 | Belani et al. | May 2000 | A |
6166994 | Jeffryes | Dec 2000 | A |
6182012 | Laurent et al. | Jan 2001 | B1 |
6236943 | Aminzadeh et al. | May 2001 | B1 |
6388947 | Washbourne et al. | May 2002 | B1 |
6393363 | Wilt et al. | May 2002 | B1 |
6427124 | Dubinsky et al. | Jul 2002 | B1 |
6662109 | Roggero et al. | Dec 2003 | B2 |
6670813 | Strack | Dec 2003 | B2 |
6712140 | Van Oers et al. | Mar 2004 | B2 |
6778918 | Delhomme et al. | Aug 2004 | B2 |
6899178 | Tubel | May 2005 | B2 |
6922373 | Armstrong | Jul 2005 | B2 |
6980940 | Gurpinar et al. | Dec 2005 | B1 |
7030617 | Conti | Apr 2006 | B2 |
7069148 | Thambynayagam et al. | Jun 2006 | B2 |
7187620 | Nutt et al. | Mar 2007 | B2 |
7191071 | Kfoury et al. | Mar 2007 | B2 |
RE39844 | Srnka | Sep 2007 | E |
7340348 | Strack et al. | Mar 2008 | B2 |
RE40321 | Srnka | May 2008 | E |
7502690 | Thomsen et al. | Mar 2009 | B2 |
7805250 | Colombo et al. | Sep 2010 | B2 |
20050116709 | Proett et al. | Jun 2005 | A1 |
20070294036 | Strack et al. | Dec 2007 | A1 |
20080162050 | Harris et al. | Jul 2008 | A1 |
20090164187 | Habashy et al. | Jun 2009 | A1 |
20090164188 | Habashy et al. | Jun 2009 | A1 |
20100027376 | Washbourne et al. | Feb 2010 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
069915 | Mar 2010 | AR |
2468045 | Aug 2010 | GB |
2474150 | Apr 2011 | GB |
2009082605 | Jul 2009 | WO |
2009140056 | Nov 2009 | WO |
Entry |
---|
Alpak et al. “Joint Inversion of Transient-PRessure and Time-Lapse Electromagnetic Logging Measurements”, May-Jun. 2004, Petrophysics, vol. 45, No. 3, pp. 251-267. |
Chen, J., et al., “A Bayesian model for gas saturation estimation using marine seismic AVA and CSEM data”, Geophysics, Mar.-Apr. 2007, pp. WA85-WA95, vol. 72, No. 2. |
Harris, P. and MacGregor, L., “Determination of reservoir properties from the integration of CSEM, seismic, and well-log data”, First Break, Nov. 2006, pp. 15-21, vol. 24. |
Haber, E., and D. Oldenburg, “Joint inversion: A structural approach”, Inverse Problems, 1997, pp. 63-77, vol. 13, No. 1, UK. |
Musil, M., H.R. Maurer, and Green, A., “Discrete tomography and joint inversion for loosely connected or unconnected physical properties: application to crosshole seismic and georadar data sets”, Geophysical Journal International, 2003, pp. 389-402,No. 2. |
Gallardo, L. A., and M. A. Meju, “Characterization of heterogeneous near-surface materials by joint 2D inversion of dc resistivity and seismic data”, Geophysical Research Letters, 2003, pp. 1-4, vol. 30, No. 13. |
Gallardo, L. A., and M. A. Meju, “Joint two-dimensional DC resistivity and seismic travel time inversion with cross gradient constraints”, Journal of Geophysical Research, 2004, pp. 1-11, vol. 109. |
Gallardo, L. A., and M. A. Meju, “Joint two-dimensional cross-gradient imaging of magnetotelluric and seismic traveltime data for structural and lithological classification”, Geophys. J. Int., 2007, pp. 1261-1272, vol. 169 Issue 3. |
Colombo, D and Destefano, M, “Geophysical modeling via simultaneous joint inversion of seismic, gravity, and electromagnetic data: Application to prestack depth imaging”, The Leading Edge, Mar. 2007, pp. 326-331. |
Colombo, D et. al., “Simultaneous joint inversion of seismic and gravity data for long offset prestack depth migration in Northern Oman”, CSPG CSEG Convention, 2007, pp. 191-195. |
Hu, W, Abubakar, A. and Habashy, T, “Joint Inversion Algorithm for Electromagnetic and Seismic Data”, Extended Abstract of the 2007 SEG Annual Meeting, Sep. 23-28, 2007,pp. 1745-1749, San Antonio, TX, USA. |
Smith, T., Hoversten, M., Gasperikova, E., and Morrison, F., “Sharp boundary inversion of 2D magnetotelluric data,” Geophysical Prospecting, 1999, pp. 469-486, vol. 47. |
Hoversten, M., Rosten, T., Hokstad, K., Alumbaugh, D., Horne, S., and Newman, G., “Integration of multiple electromagnetic imaging and inversion techniques for prospect evaluation,” 2006 SEG Annual Meeting, Oct. 1-6, 2006, pp. 1-4, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA. |
Hoversten, G. M., Constable, S.C. and Morrison H. F., “Marine magnetotellurics for base-of-salt mapping: Gulf of Mexico field test at the Gemini structure”, Geophysics, Sep.-Oct. 2000, pp. 1476-1488, vol. 65, No. 5. |
Zhang, Y., Abubakar, A., Habashy, T., Druskin, V. and Knizhnerman, L., “Parametric inversion algorithm for marine controlled source electromagnetic data”, Extended Abstract of 2007 SEG Annual Meeting, Sep. 23-28, 2007, pp. 569-573, San Antonio, TX, USA. |
Hoversten, M.G., Gritto, R., Washbourne, J. and Daley, T., “Pressure and fluid saturation prediction in a multicomponent reservoir using combined seismic and electromagnetic imaging”, Geophysics, Sep.-Oct. 2003, pp. 1580-1591, vol. 68, No. 5. |
Alpak, O.F., Torres-Verdin, C. and Habashy, T., “Joint inversion of pressure and DC resistivity measurements acquired with in-situ permanent sensors: a numerical study,” Geophysics, Sep.-Oct. 2004, pp. 1173-1191, vol. 69, No. 5. |
Alpak, O.F., Torres-Verdin, C., Habashy, T. and Dussan, E.V., “Joint Inversion of Transient-Pressure and Time-Lapse Electromagnetic Logging Measurements,” Petrophysics, May-Jun. 2004, pp. 251-267. vol. 45, No. 3. |
Alpak, O.F., Torres-Verdin, C. and Habashy, T., “Petrophysical inversion of borehole array-induction logs: Part I—Numerical examples,” Geophysics, Jul.-Aug. 2006, pp. F101-F119, vol. 71, No. 4. |
Torres-Verdin, C., Alpak, O.F. and Habashy, T., “Petrophysical inversion of borehole array-induction logs: Part II—Field data examples,” Geophysics, Jul.-Aug. 2006, pp. G261-G268, vol. 71, No. 4. |
Hoversten, G. M., et al., “Direct reservoir parameter estimation using joint inversion of marine seismic AVA and CSEM data”,Geophysics, May-Jun. 2006, pp. C1-C13, vol. 71, No. 3. |
Zhangshuan H., et al., “Reservoir-parameter identification using minimum relative entropy-based Bayesian inversion of seismic AVA and marine CSEM data”, Geophysics, Nov.-Dec. 2006, pp. O77-O88, vol. 71, No. 6. |
“Topic Paper #19—Conventional Oil and Gas (Including Arctic and Enhanced Oil Recovery)”, National Petroleum Council, Jul. 18, 2007, pp. 1-29. |
Bachrach, et al., “Combining Rock Physics Analysis, Full Waveform Prestack Inversion and High-Resolution Seismic Interpretation to Map Lithology Units in Deep Water: A Gulf of Mexico Case Study”, The Leading Edge, Apr. 2004, pp. 378-383. |
Berge, et al., “Seismic inversion successfully predicts reservoir, porosity, and gas content in lbhubesi Field, Orange Basin, South Africa”, The Leading Edge, 2002, pp. 338, 340, 342, 344, 346, 348. |
Christie, M.A., “Upscaling for reservoir simulation”, Journal of Petroleum Technology, vol. 48 (11),1996, pp. 1004-1010. |
Contreras, et al., “Joint stochastic inversion of 3D pre-stack seismic data and well logs for high-resolution reservoir characterization and petrophysical modeling: application to deepwater hydrocarbon reservoirs in the central Gulf of Mexico”, SPWLA Society of Petrophysicists and Well Log Analysts 46th Annual Logging Symposium, 2005, 4 pages. |
Jarvis, Kevin, “Integrating well and seismic data for reservoir characterization: risks and rewards”, Association of Energy Service Companies (AESC), 2006, pp. 1-4. |
Lindsay, et al., “Sequential Backus Averaging: Upscaling well logs to seismic wavelengths”, The Leading Edge, 2001, pp. 188-191. |
Liu, et al., “An Iterative Inversion of Seismic Data Constrained by Wells Using Artificial Neural Networks”, Offshore Technology Conference, 1998, pp. 341-348. |
Partyka, et al., “Upscaling petrophysical properties to the seismic scale”, downloaded from the Wayback Machine, http://www.freeusp.org/RaceCarWebsite/TechTransfer/OnlineTraining/BackusUpscaling/BackusUpscaling—Index.html, Mar. 2005, 4 pages. |
Pendrel, “Seismic Inversion—The Best Tool for Reservoir Characterization”, CSEG Canadian Society of Exploration Geophysics Recorder, vol. 26, No. 1, 2001, 7 unnumbered pages. |
Pendrel, John, “Seismic Inversion—A Critical Tool in reservoir Characterization”, Scandinavian Oil-Gas Magazine, No. 5/6, 2006, pp. 19-22. |
Reymond, et al., “Mapping reservoir saturation with seismic resolution to improve reservoir model”, Society of Petroleum Engineers, SPE 57259, 1999, 4 pages. |
Sengupta, et al., “Uncertainty in seismic-based pay vol. estimation: analysis using rock physics and Bayesian statistics”, The Leading Edge, Feb. 2007, pp. 184-189. |
Wu, et al., “Combined Seismic Inversion Methods in Reservoir Model Development”, Paper SPE 109626, Society of Petroleum Engineers Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Nov. 11, 2007, pp. 1-8. |
Young, “Model-Based Inversion of Multiple Offset Data for Elastic Parameter Estimation”, Exploration Geophysics Symposium, 2006, 28 pages. |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20090164187 A1 | Jun 2009 | US |