4d time-lapse seismic reservoir monitoring of african ... development/hl/detomo... · 4d time...

4D Time‐Lapse Seismic Reservoir Monitoring of African Reservoirs

Presented by:

Dr. Rocco (Rocky) Detomo Shell Nigeria Exploration & Production, Inc. Lagos, Nigeria

Society of Exploration GeophysicistsThe international society of applied geophysics

The Society of Exploration Geophysicist organizes 6 Regional Honorary Lecturers each year

The Program is Globally Sponsored by:Shell Exploration & Production, Inc.

and locally hosted by SEG Chapters, Universities & Industry Companies

Be sure to sign the “sign‐up” sheet

Welcome!


PhD in Nuclear Physics from Ohio State University

31 years as Geophysicist with Shell Oil Company

1981‐1991 – Houston: Lead for Onshore USA Seismic Data Acquisition & Processing; Onshore Seismic Interpreter

1991‐2005 – New Orleans: Deepwater Gulf of Mexico Development Interpreter & Manager, Global Advisor, Technology Deployment Lead

2005‐2008 – Houston: Gulf of Mexico Exploration Seismic Manager

2008‐2012 – Lagos, Nigeria: Head Reservoir Geophysics for Shell SubSahara Africa

28 years SEG Active Member, Past President Southeastern Geophysical Society, 2006 Technical Chairman SEG Annual Meeting, Head SEG Travel Grant Committee, Trustee Associate SEG Foundation

Who am I?


Outline

• What is Time Lapse 4D Monitoring & Why do we do it• Why and Where does it work in the subsurface (Physics)• How is it acquired, and what are important factors• Examples: Deepwater West Africa Clastics; Onshore Africa

Clastics; Middle East Carbonites• The Future: Acquisition, Processing, Interpretation,

“License to Operate”• How to learn/find out more• Acknowledgements

4D‐Time Lapse


4D‐Time Lapse: “Looking for Image Changes over Time”

Example: 2 images

Are they the same?

What are the differences between them?

What other subtle changes do you observe or can you explain?

Are the observations related?

4D‐Time Lapse: Examining the Differences inthe Images

Subtracting the two images (in gray-scale) immediately highlights the differences.

However, note that the “source-receiver” (object-camera) positions are not “accurately” recreated making subtraction of the two datasets valuable, but less accurate or “crisp”.

1

2

1 - 2

What sort of Time‐Lapse Changes might we expect in the Oil & Gas Industry?

Effects due to Fluid Saturation Changes in Reservoirs –Density, Velocity, Temperature, Pressure

Acoustic Changes at Reservoir Top and Base are different for different Fluids, and the Fluid Contact itself has a contrast, as well.


Effects due to Fluid Saturation Changes in Reservoirs –Density, Velocity, Temperature, Pressure

Fluid Saturation Changes in Reservoirs changes the Reflection Coefficient at the Top and Base of the Reservoir and at the Fluid Contact! This results in changes in the Seismic Amplitudes and Time Thickness!

Water replaces HCs =>density

velocity


Effects due to Reservoir Thickness Changes –Compaction, Subsidence, Density, Velocity

The Time-Thickness of the Reservoir is determined by the Reservoir Thickness and its Velocity. How well it can be measured is determined by the Seismic Bandwidth


Effects due to Reservoir Thickness Changes –Compaction, Subsidence, Density, Velocity

Reduce the Pressure of the Reservoir =>density

velocity

Pressure Changes in Reservoirs changes the Reflection Coefficient at the Top and Base of the Reservoir and changes the velocity of the reservoir! This results in changes in the Time Thickness & Seismic Amplitudes!


Other types of Changes to the Reservoir, e.g.

• Steam Injection (Temperature, Pressure and Fluid Changes), or

• CO2 Injection (Pressure and Fluid Changes), or

• Physical surface or subsurface deformations

may also cause Changes to the Properties of the Reservoir (density, velocity, conductivity) and may be able to be Monitored!

What kind of Time‐Lapse Measurements can we Make??

Direct Well Measurements – Repeat Well Logs & Downhole Measurements

Production Measurements – Fluid and Production Characteristics

Environmental Measurements – Surface Deformation, Electromagnetic, Satellite Imagery, Water & Air Monitoring

Seismic Measurements – Repeat Surface Seismic or Borehole/VSP Seismic

Seismic Monitoring – a “4D Primer”Physical changes in a depleting reservoir

• Compaction/”size” change (uniaxial)

• Changes in pore-fill properties

• Stress-induced velocity changes

• Over/under – burden/subsidence ΔP

⇒ Seismic Amplitude Changes - Gassmann f(Pvel, Density)

⇒ Seismic Time Thickness Changes – Biot f(Pvel)

=> Changes in density, velocity, time

Seismic MonitoringUnderstanding the Seismic Response –

For a reservoir whose Acoustic Impedance (density * velocity) is lower than what it is encased in:

Depth

Time

Seismic

Impedance

4D Seismic Amplitude and Time-shift Response for a Soft Sand Oil Reservoir

Top Reservoir – a Negative Reflection Coefficient

When “Water” replaces “Oil” =>Velocity and Density increase =>acoustic hardening – A reduction in seismic amplitude– An upward time-shift

When “Gas” replaces “Oil” =>Velocity and Density decrease =>acoustic softening– An increase in seismic amplitude– An downward time-shift

Oil Water Gas

“Softer”

Seismic MonitoringUnderstanding the Seismic

4D Seismic Amplitude and Time-shift Response for a Soft Sand Depleting Gas Reservoir

Top Reservoir – a Negative Reflection Coefficient

Depth

Time

Seismic

Impedance

Gas P=Pi Gas P<Pi

“Softer”

Velocity versus Effective Stress

Water Injection- Pressure Increase, Velocity Decrease (Softening), Timeshift Down.

Initial

Depletion- Pressure decrease, Velocity Increase (Hardening), Timeshift Up

Effective Stress (PSI)

P-Ve

loci

ty (f

t/sec

)

When one depletes a reservoir: Pressure decreases => Velocity increasesA reduction in seismic amplitude and an upward time-shift

Seismic Monitoring

A Simple Strain Model for Time-lapse Time-shiftsThe “R” factor

Time-shifts are important when fluid density changes are small, & can be less sensitive to overburden absorption effects (gas caps) that

may distort underlying amplitude measurements

Hatchell, P.J., et. al., 2005, Integrating 4D seismic, geomechanic and reservoir simulation in the Valhall Oil field: 67th Conference & Exhibition. EAGE, C012.

For a Single Layer:Δt/t = Δz/z – Δv/v ( Δz/z = Vertical Strain, Ezz )

Hypothesis: “Relative change in velocity proportional to vertical strain”

Δv/v = -R * Ezz

Δt/t = (1 + R) Ezz

R = ratio of (velocity-induced)/(stretch-induced) timeshifts

(Experience suggests that we use: R+ for expansion & R- for compaction)

Where is 4D Seismic Monitoring likely to Work?

Places where large density changes are expected:• “harder” water replacing “softer” oil – e.g. water drive & water floods• “softer” gas replacing “harder” oil – e.g. gas out‐of‐solution & gas floods

Places where there are large velocity changes expected:• large pressure depletion or injection

Areas where seismic data access is easy and/or inexpensive and signal quality is good (marine, desert)


Where is 4D Seismic Monitoring likely to Important?

Where Wells are expensive and Development is staged

Where reservoirs are complex and there are questions of connectivity and performance

Where HSE issues (subsidence, Out-of-Zone injection) will have significant consequences.


Example #1Al-Mandhary , et. al., 2009, Initial interpretation results from the Bonga 4D time-lapse Seismic: 79th Annual International Meeting, SEG, Expanded Abstracts

Bonga Field Deepwater Nigeria• 120km Offshore Nigeria, Water Depths of about 800 – 1500m.• Giant oil field discovered in 1993• First Oil in November 2005.• Production using pressure maintenance via water injection.• Production levels ~ 200k stb/day

Warri

Port Harcourt

Lagos

BONGA

Example #1Bonga Field Geological Setting

Stacked turbidite reservoirs, Miocene in age, mid - lower slope settingAmalgamated channel systems, Extensional Faults

Main Risks & UncertaintiesReservoir thickness and quality.

=> Oil in Place and Reserves.Reservoir Continuity – baffles and barriers.

=> Sweep efficiency between Injector and Producer wells.

Example #12000 Baseline Streamer

Pre-Production Reservoir Amplitudes Corresponding to Acoustically Soft Oil Reservoirs

Injector

Producer

Example #12008 Monitor Streamer

3 years of Oil Production with Water Injection Pressure Maintenance Note areas of difference where Water has Replaced Oil

Injector

Producer

Example #1Difference Map

Extracted RMS Amplitudes from Baseline minus Monitor Seismic Volumes Amplitudes are where the reservoir has changed

Injector

Producer

Example #12000 Baseline Streamer

Pre-Production Reservoir Amplitudes Corresponding to Acoustically Soft Oil Reservoirs

Example #12008 Monitor Streamer

3 years of Oil Production with Water Injection Pressure MaintanceNote areas of difference where Water has Replaced Oil

Example #1Difference Seismic Volume

The level of “Background” 4D Noise is readily apparent Amplitudes are where the reservoir has changed

Example #2Chu , et. al., 2011, Using Time Strain Volume for improved 4D Interpretation: Methods and Case Studies: 81st Annual International Meeting, SEG, Expanded Abstracts

Deepwater Offshore West African Field• 2006 4D Monitor Survey• Monitor Water Movement• Map Injected Gas at Reservoir Level

+.08

-.08

Cross Section – Traverse of Seismic Difference Volume (amplitude)

Impedance decrease in reservoirs is due to increased gas

Cross Section – Traverse of Seismic Strain Volume (time shift) from a single lag volume. Red indicates velocity decrease,

blue indicates velocity increase

What makes up our “Seismic Signal?”Seismic Data is composed of Signal & Noise

But…

“Signal” is those data samples which are properly assembled and reflects the Earth’s Impedance and

Velocities!

That means…

“Noise” is composed of:1. those data samples from scattered places within the

Earth which are not properly assembled, and2. those data samples which are not from within the

Earth which are randomly distributed

Improve S/N Quiet environment,

High Multiplicity

How do me Measure 4D Noise?The “Geometry Dependent” Noises (Multiples, Back-

and Side-Scattering, etc.) can be tackled with Seismic Processing

or…They can be accurately repeated by recreating the geometry (source-receiver positions). This will then

represent a repeated signal that will subtract out when the datasets are differenced!

and…The Random Noise can be reduced by insuring a

“quiet” environment and by increasing the multiplicity count, ( S/N ~ SQRT(Multiplicity) )

R. Calvert, et. al., 2005, 4D Technology: Where are we, and where are we going?: Geophysical Prospecting, vol. 53, 161-171

How do we Measure 4D Noise?

Define: ‘RMS Repeatability Ratio’ = RRR or

‘Normalised RMS’ = NRMS

RRR = NRMS =

(as defined by - Christie et.al.)

(Identical) 0 < NRMS < 2 (Out-of-Phase)

Typical 4D Values: 10-25% Offshore; 20-50% Onshore

RMS difference cube RMS single survey

How do we Measure 4D Noise?‘RMS Repeatability Ratio’ (RRR) or ‘Normalised RMS’ (NRMS)

typically calculated as RMS difference between two traces in a given window, divided by their average RMS, expressed as a percentage

Measure RMS seismic values of the “Difference Cube” over a data gate away from area of any true 4D changes

0 20 50 130 200

Perfect Processing Random Noise Anti-correlated

“Difference” Seismic VolumeThe level of “Background” 4D Noise is readily apparent

Amplitudes are where the reservoir has changed

4D NRMS ~ 8%

4D NRMS ~ 14%4D Effects

How do we Measure 4D Noise?

How do we Measure 4D Noise?Repeatability Measurements: Predictability

Predictability is the sum of squared cross correlations within a time window divided by the summed product of their autocorrelations,

expressed as a percentage. Predictability values lie in the range 0-100%

Cross-correlation methods are not very sensitive to subtle 4D effects.

good

0 65 85 100

Bad

PerfectDissimilar acquisition

medium

Predictability NRMS

Sensitive to the length of the correlationtime window and noise

Sensitive to overall static, phase, or amplitudedifferences. It is extremely sensitive to the smallest ofchanges in the data

Base Monitor

In a bin compare base and monitor traces with the same offset

Delta receiver, Drec (m)

Delta source, Dsrc (m)

Standard Positioning Repeatability Measure = Dsrc + Drec (m)

“Repeatability” – Duplication of Shot & Receiver

What makes the most Significant Impact on 4D Noise?

1. Accuracy of Duplication of Source & Receiver Positions

2. Changes in Shallow Layers or Overburden (water temperature & salinity, tides, ground conditions, etc.)

3. Random Noise (cultural, mechanical, instrument)

Delta Source & Receiver =>

NR

MS

=>

How does one reduce 4D Noise?

1. Accurately Repeat Source & Receiver Positions2. Acquire at times that best recreate weather and

environmental conditions (seasonal, currents, temperatures, etc.)

3. Acquire at “quiet” cultural times (traffic, operations)4. Increase Fold to reduce Random Noises5. Design Seismic Processing to improve repeatability

Map <NRSM>=0.26

Without 3DSRME & Statics

Map <NRSM>=0.15

With 3DSRME, Without Statics

Map <NRSM>=0.12

With 3DSRME & Statics

Duplicating Source & Receiver Positions Requires Planning!

Surface Obstructions leads to Acquisition “Gaps”Obstruction

Offset image “Gap”

Duplicating Source & Receiver Positions Requires Planning!

For obstructions that are already there, an “Undershoot” can be designed that can be

accurately repeated in the future.

If one knows there will be inaccessible areas in the future, then the baseline seismic data can be

acquired “as if” the obstruction is already there, which will allow it to be repeated after the

obstructions are in place – a “Phantom Undershoot”

M. Buia, et. al., 2010, Multi-azimuth 3D Survey in the Barents Sea: EAGE First Break, Volume 28, pg. 65

Satellite images showing great increase in urban development over Agbada Oil Field in Onshore, Nigeria

1988

Onshore urbanization and accessibility can make modern seismic repeats of legacy areas challenging for use as 4D’s

2008

4 km

Example #3Dike , et. al., 2009, Feasibility of Urban Land Time-Lapse Seismic Surveys in the Niger Delta - Challenges: 71st Conference & Exhibition, EAGE, Expanded Abstracts

Onshore Nigerian Oil & Gas Field• 1993 Original 3D Seismic Survey• 2010 3D Modern Seismic Re-shoot• Field Producing since 1965

Example #3When 4D noise is high, it can be difficult to interpret differences in two seismic snapshots• 1988 Original 3D Seismic Survey• 2001 3D Modern Seismic Re-shoot• Field Producing since 1977

Reservoir A -1988 RMS Amplitudes Reservoir A - 2001 RMS Amplitudes

B

A

B

A

When Seismic cannot be “differenced”, interpreting “differences” in amplitude maps may be fruitful. Here, potential “by-passed” reserves in partially depleted Areas “A” and “B” was noted

The Impact of “Static Time Shifts”Small time shifts (~2ms) due to shallow overburden

changes can seriously degrade NRMS!

a b

BEFORE STATICS CORRECTION AFTER STATICS CORRECTION

dc

BEFORE & AFTER STATICS CORRECTION BEFORE & AFTER STATICS CORRECTION

Tim

e Sh

ifts

(ms)

Shots

Tim

e Sh

ifts

(ms)

NRMS (%)

The Impact of “Static Time Shifts”Changes in tides, water temperature, ground saturation/conditions give rise to time shifts

Base Mon

NRMS11%

Base Mon

NRMS100%

NRM

S (%

)

SHOTS

BEFORE

AFTER

Before Statics Shifts Applied After Statics Shifts Applied

Time shifts on traces cause misalignment between

base/monitor trace pairs resulting in high NRMS of up to 100%. Base/monitor trace pairs

with static shifts applied give lower NRMS of ~30% on

average. Time shifts significantly affect repeatability.

Example #4A. El-Emam, et. al., 2012, Examples of 4D Studies from Kuwait: International Petroleum Technology Conference, IPTC #15352, Bangkok, Thailand

Four examples of land 4D trials that were not completely successful!

Sabriyah Example (top-base, middle-monitor, bottom-difference)

Minagish Example (top-base, middle-monitor, bottom-difference)

• Challenging Rock Physics (small 4D effects)• High 4D Noise Levels (repeatability, noises)• Buried/permanent receivers & repeatable sources• Higher density acquisition => better noise elimination,

statics, etc.

Why?

What to do?

Example #5W. Soroka, et. al., 2005, Successful Pilot Onshore Abu Dhabi shows that 4D can monitor fluid changes in a giant Middle East Carbonate field: SEG Expanded Abstracts 24, pg. 2430

1998 Base – 2003 Monitor: 4D responses for the Main Reservoir, showing 4D responses of water flood replacing oil in the crest of the

field and no 4D changes in the water leg.

Example #5 (continued)G. Chen, et. al., 2008, 4D Seismic in Carbonates: From Rock Physics to Field Examples: International Petroleum Technology Conference, IPTC #12065, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

1998 Base – 2003 Monitor: left – Modeled Pressure Changes right – Modeled Saturation Changes

Example #5 (continued)G. Chen, et. al., 2008, 4D Seismic in Carbonates: From Rock Physics to Field Examples: International Petroleum Technology Conference, IPTC #12065, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Left – Amplitude of “reference” horizonMiddle – Amplitude of 4D-difference at “reference” horizon (x5)Right – Amplitude of 4D-difference at reservoir (x5)

showing clear 4D effects

Where are we at:

By 2007, BP had 4D experience with 110 surveys over 61 fields!

D. Foster, 2007, The BP 4-D Story: Experience Over the Last 10 Years and Current Trends: International Petroleum Technology Conference, IPTC #11757, Dubai, U.A.E.

Fields surveyed by Fluid Type

Fields surveyed by Reservoir Lithology

Most 4D surveys have focused on Oil Fields with Clastic Reservoirs, and especially

fields with Injection

4D Surveys by Depletion Mechanism

Where are we at:

Dave Foster’s “4D Value through Field Life”

D. Foster, 2007, The BP 4-D Story: Experience Over the Last 10 Years and Current Trends: International Petroleum Technology Conference, IPTC #11757, Dubai, U.A.E.

The Present & The FutureHow are these issues being tackled?

• Our Data Acquisition Systems (Marine Ocean Bottom Nodes and Cables, Areal and Downhole Optical Systems, Permanent Monitoring System & Life of Field Systems)

• Improving the Imaging (Joint Imaging, 4D Inversion, Removing Acquisition Overprints, Noise Sampling & Removal, Multiple Elimination

• Results & Value (Qualitative Interpretation, 4D Close‐the‐Loop, Assisted History Matching

• License to Operate: “Prove what you Model” (Track Production, By‐passed Reserves, Out‐of‐Zone Injection, Reservoir and Earth Deformation, Fault Reactivation)

Improved Acquisition Improved Bandwidth

Marine “Ghosts” from Sea‐Air Reflector limit Seismic Bandwidth

Spectral notch that varies with depth of receiver and/or source

SourceReceiver

With Ghost NotchesWithout Ghost Notches

Improved Acquisition Improved Bandwidth

“Ghost‐free” Acquisitions

Broadseis(CGGVeritas)

R. Soubaras, et. al., 2011, Variable-depth streamer – A Broadband Marine Solution, First Break, 2010.

Solution: by varying the depths

to disperse the notch location

Solution: by separating upgoing & downgoing

waves

G. Parkes, et. al., 2011, Banish the Ghosts from Marine Seismic Data: PGS, Hart’s E&P Journal, www.epmag.com, #90466 October, 2011.

Geostreamer(PGS)

http://www.epmag.com/

Ocean Bottom Nodes Ocean Bottom Cables

High RepeatabilityRegular Geometry4‐component, well coupledAutonomous/Passive RecordingSparse ReceiversLimited Areal CoverageExpensive

High RepeatabilityChallenged near Infrastructure4‐component, reasonably coupledContinuous/Passive RecordingDense Receivers in‐lineLimited Areal CoverageExpensive

Improved Acquisition Ocean Bottom Systems

Improved Acquisition Permanent Reservoir Monitoring ‐ PRM

M. A. Bett, 2011, Alternative Business Models to Overcome Barriers to PRM: EAGE Workshop on Permanent Reservoir Monitoring (PRM) – Using Seismic Data, Trondheim, Norway

PRM systems installed annually since 2002. Note the switch to Fibre-optic based systems from 2008.

Improved Acquisition Deepwater Nigerian Fields & 4D Surveys

R. Detomo, 2011, Life-Cycle Seismic for Turbidite Fields in Deepwater Nigeria: 81st Annual International Meeting, SEG, Expanded Abstracts

In addition, both Total (Girassol, Dahlia-[OBN]) & ExxonMobil (Dikanza) have collected 4D Seismic data in Offshore Angola

- 4D Fields- OBN

Improved Seismic Processing Removal of Multiples

With Multiples Multiples Subtracted

With Multiples Subtracted

With Multiples Subtracted

Multiples are more sensitive to small changes in ray-paths and

are not as accurately reproduced in 4D monitors.

Acquisition design can help, but noise removal may still be

necessary!

Improved Seismic Processing OBS Processing – Mirror Migration

Mirror Migration of Downgoing Wavefield (1st Water-bottom Multiple)

Prestack Depth Migration in the common receiver domain, with the receivers placed at a different datum, provides a convenient way of imaging both the primary reflection and

first multiple. Primary reflections can be imaged by treating the receiver as being on the seafloor (“upgoing wavefield”). The first multiple (“downgoing wavefield”) can be imaged (“mirror migration”) by treating the receiver as being above the water surface,

at the virtual position of the actual location if “mirrored” by the water’s surface.

Improved 4D Interpretation 4D Inversion

S. Tian, et. al., 2012, An Engineering-consistent Inversion of Time-lapse Seismic Data: 74th

Annual Conference & Exhibition, EAGE, Expanded Abstracts, Copenhagen, Denmark

4D impedance prediction from the original model (left) and the updated model (right). After updating, gas is able to flow into the circled area, and the model is more consistent with the observed 4D seismic as well as the inverted impedance.

Improved 4D Interpretation 4D Assisted History Matching

P. Berthet, et. al., 2008, History Matching of Production Data and 4D Seismic Data on GirassolField: 70th Conference & Exhibition, EAGE, Expanded Abstracts, Rome, Italy

Gas Oil Ratio profiles for the producer for 3 years of production. The well measured GOR, cross blue, the initial model GOR solid red line and the updated model GOR, solid green line. The updated model GOR with the second method is significantly closer to the actual well GOR when compared to the initial model.

Left - Real variation of impedances; Right - Simulated variation of impedances calculated with the petroelastic model and the pressure and saturation coming from the flow simulation.

Left - First 4D variation of impedances ; Right - 4D regions from 4D impedances (red is reservoir and yellow non reservoir)

The FutureLicense to Operate

License to Operate: “Prove what you Model” (Track Production, By‐passed Reserves, Out‐of‐Zone Injection, Reservoir and Earth Deformation, Fault Reactivation)

Water injection: Do you know where your water is going? 5 1/2 Months of Water Injection at Tordis, North Sea, 2007-08

The FutureLicense to Operate

Crater of 40 meter x 20 meter x 7 meter deep.

Note steep edges

What happened?• Significant Seafloor Infrastructure• Poor Reservoir in Injector => Increase in rates & pressures• Follow “the plan”

Result:• Injection “Out of Zone”• Injected water breakthrough at Seafloor• Seafloor “Crater”

Norwegian Petroleum Directorate, Faulty Geology halts Project, www.npd.no , 2009.

http://www.npd.no/

Other ReferencesI. Ian Jack, 1997, Time-Lapse Seismic in Reservoir Management: SEG Distinguished

Lecture Short Course Series, No.1II. Rodney Calvert, 2005, Insights and Methods for 4D Reservoir Monitoring and

Characterization, SEG & EAGE Distinguished Instructor Short Course Series, No. 8III. Initial interpretation results from the Bonga 4D time-lapse seismic, I. Al-Mandhary, R.

Detomo, Jr., W. Gouveia, P. Hatchell, E. Legius, R. Mcclenaghan, and S. Weaver, SEG Expanded Abstracts 28, Denver, 3929 (2009)

IV. The Bonga 4D – Shell Nigeria's First Deepwater Time Lapse Monitor , A. Onuwaje, A. Adejonwo, I. Al-Mandhary, R. Detomo Jr, O. Effiom, W. Gouveia, N. Kremers, E. Legius, A. MacLellan, R. Mcclenaghan, E. Quadt, S. Weaver, 71st EAGE Conference & Exhibition, Amsterdam, (2009)

V. Introduction to this special section: Africa, Samuel Olotu, Rocco Detomo, and Alan Jackson, The Leading Edge 30, 614 (2011)

VI. Life-cycle seismic for turbidite fields in deepwater Nigeria, Rocco Detomo, Jr. and Edwin Quadt, SEG Expanded Abstracts 30, San Antonio, 97 (2011)

VII. 4D Seismic History Matching Using Flood Front Information, L. Jin, D. Castineira, S. Fu, P. Van den Hoek, C. Pirmez, T. Fehintola, F. Tendo, E. Olaniyan, 73rd EAGE Conference & Exhibition, Vienna, (2011)

VIII.Workflows for Quantitative 4D Seismic Data Integration: A Case Study, L. Jin, G. Tiller, D. Weber, S. Fu, J. Ferrandis, P. van den Hoek, C. Pirmez, T. Fehintola, F. Tendo, E. Olaniyan, IPTC #14458, Bangkok, Thailand (2012)

AcknowledgementsIan Jack – who blazed the early trail in 4D Geophysical awarenessRodney Calvert – who served as key, early technical promoterBP – who was the first company to ask “Justify Why Not 4D”, instead of “Justify 4D”Shell – who supported 4D through research and operations for over 15 yearsShell Companies in Nigeria Management – who allowed me the opportunity to work in

one of the most exciting areas of the world, and made the time available for me to deliver these lectures, (S. Olotu, N. Osayande, B. Ojulari)

Corporate and Government supporters in Nigeria, including: Total, ExxonMobil, Chevron, Agip and NAPIMS who have supported and pursued 4D solutions in West Africa and allowed them to be shared

My Technical Staff, Teammates & Peers – who have challenged the status quo and tested novel solutions

The large, technical, global geoscience community that eagerly shares learnings on 4DThe SEG – especially the lectures’ staff (Judy Wall), who is responsible for the logistics

of this tour

And…

You – for taking the time to be here!

4d time-lapse seismic reservoir monitoring of african ... development/hl/detomo... · 4d time...

Documents